City Council Meeting Transcript - 8/16/2012

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Morning.

I'm austin mayor lee

leffingwell.

The invocation today will be

gordon s jones,

pastor, alpha seventh day

adventist.

Please rise.

>> Oh father in heaven, we

pause this moment to

acknowledge your sovereign

authority over all.

And also, lord, we stop to

rec your bountiful

[10:06:04]

blessings that you have

bestowed on us.

We thank you for city

officials that you've

honored with wisdom,

governing authority so that

they can provide community

with peace, justice and

order.

We pray for our mayor this

morning, we pray for the

city officials at every

level, especially for this

council assembled today.

Father today address the

agenda items before them,

would you grant them wisdom

that they would govern with

a sense of community

stewardship, a sincere

desire for inclusion and a

passion for personal

responsibility.

When they have finished your

tasks, father, we pray that

each would be granted a

personal sense of peace

recognizing that they've

done well according to your

will, and your service has

been be fittingly beneficial

to all in our community, we

pray in jesus name, amen.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you, pastor.

Please be seated.

Before we begin the meeting

today, I'd like to take a

minute of personal privilege

to talk about a new, but

temporary feature of our

city council meeting.

If I could -- there's -- are

the slides ready?

We fully expect

councilmember bill spelman

to rejoin us soon, but i

think it's important that he

know how things are going at

city hall in his absence.

So I've asked my staff to do

every statistical analysis

of how the business of the

[10:08:00]

city is going in your

absence, bill.

I hope you're watching and i

hope this is helpful.

First slide.

[Laughter].

Tie votes.

Tie votes have risen

significantly, as you can

see from this chart.

Before we had none.

And now we have some.

I think this tells you

something about the impact

that you have on the dais

here that we really never

noticed before.

The number of special called

meetings you can see is way

up.

[Laughter].

I guess you can always

assume we get things done

without you, but it's a

compliment to you that we're

going to need further

analysis on this one.

Next slide.

This slide is very

interesting.

As you can see we seem to be

more appreciative of your

opinions why you're sitting

at home versus when you're

actually sitting here on the

dias.

[Laughter].

And I'm sure -- not exactly

sure what this means either,

but I'm sure it's

complimentary.

We'll do some more analysis

on this also.

Next slide.

[Laughter].

This slide is the most

interesting to me.

It represents a huge shift

in the way we've done

business.

It's my first powerpoint at

a city council meeting.

You've inspired me.

And hopefully there will be

sponsored jointly with

councilmember morrison and

chris --

>> I sponsored that mayor

pro tem cole and you were a

co-sponsor.

>> Right i, along with

councilmember martinez.

>> A lot of people are

trying to help you out on up

here.

>> You know, we usually come

here to -- to ask and demand

and request and once in a

while one has an opportunity

to come and say thank you.

Just keep with us.

We are finding the

solutions.

There's no solution that

doesn't have budget attached

to it.

And I don't know how many

will take the time.

I happen to be the last to

speak usually.

last

time.

Now it's -- now it's --

there goes the morning.

We are working our hearts

off on this.

We find partners in you.

I have done political work

for a million years as you

can tell and it's rare that

we find that kind of -- kind

of working on it together

thank you very much.

>> Thank you, we are.

>> Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I want to thank

you not just for the

tremendous work that you do

every day but also for

raising this issue to me and

also to my colleagues

because -- because, you

know, really very glad that

we were able to get a

resolution.

Passed this morning.

That will begin those

dialogues with travis county

about -- about whether

there's a feasibility for

expanding that shelter and

that's an idea that came

directly from you and the

other service providers who

work on this critical issue

every day.

I'm very hopeful that we

will continue to be

supportive of the two

million.

I certainly will be.

I think it's -- I think it's

a very, very critical need

for our communities.

Thank you very much.

>> We are changing the city,

we are changing the -- we

are changing the -- really

difficult plight of the

poorest of the poor of the

women in the city.

>> Thank you.

>> Pat smith.

>> Very necessary, tha

you.

Sometime the president of

the southwest contact

planning team, I'm very

proud of the community in

southeast austin and their

engagement and the process

with the bond issue.

And -- I am here to speak --

I am here to speak on behalf

community, the contact team,

what has compelled in he to

action is the high

population of young children

in dove springs and my deep

and sincere concern for

their future if -- if the

safety of the community is

not addressed and of course

the -- the educational

success of those young

children.

We do have several --

several different schools

that have opened up recently

that offer broader

opportunities for -- for

education.

But the -- but the safety

continues to be a grave

concern.

The community did have

what's called a police store

front which is a very small

sort of office in the

community, that model was

years ago.

We understand that a

substation is a massive

facility.

That the budget would not

allow.

We definitely need a store

front and we also very much

would like to be awarded the

5 million in our 2002

neighborhood plan to expand

the recreation center and

our ultimate goal is to --

for the recreation center to

evolve into a multi-purpose

center.

So we could house the health

office,

offer health and recreation

and also a police store

front.

So I won't take up any more

of your time, but I -- i

would appreciate very much

your attention to our

community.

Thank you.

>> Thank you.

Stewart hersch?

>> Thank you, mayor, members

of the council, like most in

austin, I am solely

responsible for the content

of this message.

I support affordable housing

funding so that my brothers

and sisters who cannot

afford housing in the

marketplace have greater

access to housing that is

safe, located in mixed

income neighborhoods,

accessible to people with

disabilities, reasonably

priced and transit oriented.

Safe mixed income,

accessible, reasonably

priced and transit oriented,

what we call smart housing,

not just the opposite of

dumb housing.

I support mexic-arte

museum's request for $5

million so that my sisters

and brothers, young and old

who have been served and

will be served by the museum

can enjoy this experience in in

a new icon nick museum in

the fewer.

Today you couldn't find

funding for mexic-arte,

today I suggest that you

reduce the affordable

housing amount that you

approved yesterday by $5

million to fund mexic-arte

while actually increasing

your proposed investment in

affordable housing over the

next six years.

In 2000, the council created

the housing trust fund with

a million dollars funding

approved a 40% set aside of

certain property tax revenue

and the urban core from

sites that weren't on the

tax rolls in '97.

This funding was supposed to

.. your

investment in general

obligations with voter

approval and the housing

trust funds would be at

least one million dollars

greater than what was

adopted yesterday and what

is currently proposed in the

city manager's budget.

This is only true if you

require housing trust fund

dollars for affordable

housing not for $557,000 in

staffing costs that are

currently proposed.

Next year's million dollars

could go for home repair,

which could free up $400,000

in community block grant

funds for permanent

supportive housing in very

high and high opportunity

neighborhoods, thus

promoting the geographic

dispersion and housing

preservation we are all

seeking.

This is a win for affordable

housing, a win for

mexic-arte museum, a

$557,000 staff funding

challenge, 600,000 for

housing planning and

initiatives and other

housing needs identified but

not proposed for funding

currently can also be

addressed if there are

answers to the open records

request that I filed on

march the 2nd this year,

of potential budget

windfalls, I have attached a

copy for your review.

I received zero response to

date and your first public

hearing on that is next

week.

So I ask you to get us the

information we need to help

build a win for the museum.

A win for affordable housing

and do well for these two

public benefits.

Thank you so much for your

consideration.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you, stewart.

[ Applause ] I want to

compliment you on your

community spirit and

willingness to work toward

solving problems, not just

for yourself but for others,

thank you very much.

With that, council, I would

like to lay this item on the

table.

It's time for citizens

communication, we are not

finished, we have a lot of

spares to go.

A lot of speakers to go.

We will go to our citizens

communications.

First speaker is pat

valls-trelles.

Topic is animal issues.

>> Mayor, mayor pro tem and

councilmembers.

My name is pat

valls-trelles.

And I am a former member of

the austin animal advisory

commission.

I'm a current member and

co-founder of travis county

animal advocates.

I fully support the city's

no-kill goal and thank you

for passing that.

Our group, travis county

animal advocates came to you

on may 24th with issues

regarding the city contract

with austin pets alive for

the town lake animal center

facility.

You heard our concern,

concerns, you incorporated

those issues into -- in

creating that contract.

Thank you.

Today, we bring your request

that's related to the

ongoing concerns we raised

ON MAY 24th.

We have a request to city

council to strengthen the

monitoring enforcement of

the city contract with

austin pets alive for the

operation of the town lake

animal center facility.

We believe that there are a

few issues that you should

address.

One, are some public safety

issues have come up.

And we have another member

of travis county animal

advocates, tara stermer who

will be speaking to these

momentarily.

We have a concern about

compliance with spay-neuter

requirements in state law

and the health and safety of

the sheltered pets.

For this we ask you to

consider adding three

positions to the austin

animal center budget to

address these.

On public safety, as i

mentioned, tara stermer will

be addressing the fact that

we have seep some aggressive

dogs being adopted out and

we would like you to

strengthen the screening

processes for potential

adopters and for the dogs

that rescue partners are

adopting out.

We believe that is a very

important thing that needs

to be addressed immediately.

Secondly, spay-neuter

compliance, we would like

the is it he to assure that

all pets adopted or

transferred to rescue

partners are spayed or

neutered in a timely manner.

We completely concur with

the rush to save animals

lives and to move them out

of the shelter as quickly as

possible.

However, if we forego

spay-neuter, we will only be

pushing the problem down the

road and we will be having

to kill animals later if we

don't address the need to

spay and neuter them right

now.

We think that you need to

have someone who is

completely and fully in

support of spay neuter

monitoring that all rescue

partners are spaying and

neutering their animals

.. third, we have a

concern about the health and

safety of the sheltered

pets.

That facility in town lake i

understand currently houses

490 pets and we know that

that's not a safe number at

that facility?

We would like you to either

appoint a veterinarian to

the animal advisory

commission or contract with

an independent veterinarian

to do spot checks and walk

throughs and ensure that not

only spay-neuter compliance,

but also the health and

safety of the animals at

that facility as being

monitored.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

>> May I pass this out.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You

may, pass it to mayor pro

tem and she'll pass it down.

Next speaker is will mcleod,

his topic is london calling.

>> Good afterring noon,

mayor and, will mcleod, i

have got a video today, i

think we should play the

video first and then let's

talk about london calling.

London has called.

They are asking you.

>> Somebody along the line.

You need some help.

>> Great teacher somewhere

in your life.

Somebody help to create this

>> what we have heard is

just alarming.

By the time my three kids

are my age, I'm 40, they are

five, six, eight years old,

they say that the path we

are on before passing this

bill, the tax rate on that

generation by the time they

are 40 years old will be the

10% bracket goes up to 25%,

middle income taxpayers pay

an income tax rate of 63%,

the top rate of the small

businesses pay will be 88%.

This is the legacy we're

leaving the next generation.

Mr. speaker?

>> We can do better.

It doesn't have to be this

way.

This is not democracy.

This is not -- this

not --

>> this is not good

government.

>> By the way, london

called, they want our tax

dollars back that we spent

on formula one.

It may not seem like a lot

of money, but $6,000 can do

a whole lot of things in the

city of austin.

I don't think that the city

of austin should be spending

money anywhere else outside

of austin city limits.

Furthermore is residency

requirements should not be

waived.

That's why we have them.

I'm sick of hearing well

we're going to waive

residency requirements.

If we're going to waive

registry -- residency

requirements, we shouldn't

have them in the first

place.

Thank you.

>> Next speaker is tara

stermer.

Tara stermer's topic is

animal shelter.

>> Mayor, mayor pro tem,

councilmembers, my name is

tara stermer, I'm a day nine

aggression and behavior

specialist, member of travis

county animal advocates.

We are here today on behalf

of them.

We would like to recommend

that council direct the city

shelter director abigale

smith to strengthen the

oversight and enforcement of

the contract between apa and

the city in order to be

certain that the guidelines

are being followed.

One major concern we have is

regarding the out of area

pets being housed as the old

facility.

A related concern is about

the health and safety of the

pets already in the

facility.

We recommend that the city

add three staff members to

the budget to help with the

monitoring.

And we also would like to

see council through the

animal advisory commission

assign a work group of

professionals to help with

that monitoring of the

contract to make sure that

the guidelines are being

followed.

According to june -- june's

report, apa took in over 700

pets, only adopted out 173.

This is directly from the

apa's reports.

With the amount of cases

being returned to apa, 93 in

june only, we would like to

avoid this circling back to

hurt the city's no kill

numbers, by filling up cage,

foster homes, adopters that

our city pets could have.

With over a thousand dogs in

their inventory, only 173

adoptions in june, we are

extremely concerned about

the months ahead.

According to their june

report, they are housing 490

pets in the old facility

deemed unsafe to house this

many.

It is imperative that we

monitor the health and the

conditions of the pets in

that facility.

To avoid potential outbreaks

of sickness in our

population, and that the

pets in that facility are

safe.

In the last month in my own

private business I have seen

an increase of confident

aggressive dogs being placed

in unknowing households by

apa with no guidance or

warning about the aggression

issues.

The public has a right to

know if there's any past or

potential aggression in a

pet that they are

considering adopting.

Being an advocate for -- for

no kill and my behavior

challenged dogs, I do

believe that these dogs can

be helped and rehomed.

If -- if it's done in a

proper manner.

Full disclosure, proper

screening of a potential

adopter, guidance of a

behavior program they can

follow if a dog leaves any

rescue partners group.

We are required that ata is

required to take these

cases, if they do they have

the same outcome that they

would in the city facility

if they are dangerous they

should not be adopted out.

We feel they must give full

disclosure to the potential

adopter regarding any past

or potential aggression

issues and follow state

regulation if a bite occurs,

a 10 day quarantine at the

city shelter where a staff

from the city shelter can

monitor the dog's behavior.

72 Of the 93 pets returned

were dogs.

We ask that the city

recommend an explanation of

why.

>> Thank you, ma'am.

Gavino fernandez, jr.

The topic is austin city

council accelerates the

genocide of mexico american

african-american people from

east austin through their

increase of property taxes

and change in zoning land

use policy.

Don't mess with 10-1

district plan.

>> I'm speaking to you as

coordinator of el concilio,

the coalition of

mexican-american

associations.

I just want to educate you

and inform you that I have

began the process of writing

to the special -- let me get

his title.

Office of the special

advisor on the prevention of

again no sides with the u.n.

Because of the -- because of

the ongoing changes of

zoning, the ongoing

increases of taxes, what

this government has done,

unintentionally is you

people say that it's -- it's

gentrification.

It's not gentrification.

It's genocide.

I challenge your staff

members, if not you, to go

to the un website you will

see all of the ingredients

that equal genocide and

talks about displacement of

people through government

policies, increase in

zoning, no access, being

disenfranchised politically,

which we are currently

today.

I'm going to bring up a

prime example.

Rainy streets, neighborhood

plan business, all of this a

catalyst to our people.

More recently another

attack, 1111 montopolis,

dolores catholic church,

traditional holds a festival

for over 50 years on their

grounds.

Code enforcement based on

the complaint, went and

cited and informed the

catholic church they could

no longer hold festivals

because it's in a zone sf 3

and that if they continue to

do that, they will be cited.

So I called greg guernsey, i

tried to get ahold of karlst

smart because code

enforcement is the one that

did this.

I have not contacted carlos

rivera.

But I have contacted karl

smart and after two weeks,

not a return call nor email.

Not a return call.

I'm a taxpayer.

This issue is going to

affect all churches that are

zoned sf 3 throughout the

city, all schools that are

zoned sf 3 throughout the

city that holds their

festivals on their grounds,

so if anything, for any

reason, if you don't -- if

you don't care about our

protection, it's coming to

your neighborhoods.

It's coming to your folks.

Because from what i

understand, from what code

enforcement told me, is

that -- that the health

department has been --

health department has been

informed anyone who pulls a

food permit for any festival

zoned in sf 3, they will not

be issued a food permit.

So -- so we have plenty --

we have many festivals that

are coming just around the

corner.

And I would ask this

government to please meet

with us, discuss with us,

because it's -- it's going

to become an issue in the

future and then we need to

take care of it because

right now the right hand

within the city does not

know what the left hand is

doing.

I call to -- to do the

rezoning that greg suggested

when staff told me you don't

have to, gavino.

So there's a lot of

misunderstanding.

So I hope that you will

understands this issue

and -- that you will address

this issue and bring some

resolution to you.

>> Thank you, alan roddy.

Alan roddy's topic is the

deferred comp 457 plan.

>> Good afternoon, I'm here

to talk about ing's

management deferred comp

plan for deferred employees.

3 Minutes isn't enough time,

but in my opinion ing put

their own interests above

the interests of the planned

participants.

Since this problem solves

city employees I hope the

city council will look into

this issue.

The plan's board of

directors have been trying

to get ing to correct but

they refuse to do what's

right.

Normally I'm not in favor of

the city council sticking

its nose into other

independent board, but this

is one occasion that I think

city council members should

work with the 457 board.

Currently there are three

investment options in the

457 plan.

We invest in mutual funds,

austin fixed fund, the velo

city credit union.

For years one of the major

selling points of the 457

plan has been that members

can manage their own funds

and transfer our funds when

we want to.

Unfortunately this is not

true for people invest

understand the austin fix

fund.

Ing does not allow direct

transfers from the fixed

fund to the credit union

because they claim that the

credit union competes with

the fixed fund.

Ing requires a 90 day wash

period that requires funds

to be transferred to a

mutual fund before they go

into the credit union.

Ing says this is an industry

standard to prevent

participants from shopping

around from higher interest

rates.

Two problems with the

reasonings.

First of all the credit

union pays a lower credit

rate, number two why don't

they want us to have a

higher rate of return on you

are on investments?

Isn't this where the free

enterprise system is all

about.

Will ing controls and makes

money from the fixed fund,

they would rather put pars

pants at a disadvantage than

allow us to control our own

funds.

Why is their standard more

important than doing right

by the investors?

I ng generates additional

fees by requiring us to buy

mutual funds for 90 days.

I have been playing the wall

street rollercoaster for the

past 35 years, I no longer

trust wall streets industry

standards.

Wall street industry

standards include ken lay,

enron, bernie maydoff, 36

people convicted of insider

trading is their standard

... is there standards

the -- the interest rate

fraud is their standards,

illegal trading with

terrorist nations like cuban

and iran.

Like most americans I have

lost faith in wall street

and the companies that put

their own interests above

the interests of their

clients and our country,

city employees work hard for

their money, ing is supposed

to work for us, we don't

work for ing.

I request that our city

council members take the

time to call the 457 board

president and get the

details of this issue, work

to protect our city's

employees, I suggest that

all plans participants

contract the board and ing

about this bogus 90 day wash

period.

In order to protect my money

from the unreasonable 90 day

wash period I have withdrawn

my funds from the 457 plan,

how is that good for the 457

plan.

>> Thank you.

>> John koohyum kim.

Your topic is austin

[indiscernible] homeland

security of protection

citizens.

>> Great day to all of you.

Do I look like an american?

Do I sound like america?

I'm here to appreciate and

praise american government,

texas state government,

travis county county and

austin city government.

Today the topic is american

citizens home and security

here in austin.

But my topic is austin as

the best city ever, thanks

to mayor lee leffingwell.

And the councilmembers.

Austin city [indiscernible]

america, texas, austin city,

are better than heaven,

greater than kingdom of god.

I was there, but there was

no ladies, only two boys,

god and the jesus christ.

It's boring to stay there,

so I came down to america to

teach american government,

american government is

better than heaven, greater

than kingdom of god.

[Indiscernible] officials of

your city remember me.

For today, austin city

council, create all of the

[indiscernible] resolution

or recommendation for austin

community college president,

telephone

512-223-7596 today to

protect the austin city

residents that the john

koohyum kim homeland

security to continue college

teaching of american

democracy and american

government at a.c.c.

Kim's student evaluated

their professor john kim as

a very good professor at

a.c.c.

president in 2006

violated democracy, a.c.c.

Undemocratically terminated

his college teaching

appointment there in 2006.

It was there, too,

[indiscernible] reason such

as classroom observations by

government department

[indiscernible] alone and

must not have used

the classroom of the --

classroom observations as a

termination reason of any

college and teaching

appointment there according

to a.c.c. board policy.

used four lawyers

from two law firms, they

lied to me, to the

government, until today.

>> Thank you, professor.

Next speaker is jose

quintero.

Topic is agenda 21,

gentrification and a.p.d.

Profiling minority groups.

>> Good afternoon, I'm jose

quintero with the greater

east austin neighborhood

association.

A long-time residents of

east austin, I've seen the

gentrification taking place.

It's official, but this has

been addressed since mayor

kirk watson came into office

and this was the plan of the

city government.

Mayor, I challenge you, it's

up to you.

To look up this -- this

gentrification agenda 21.

The united nations, that

it's though longer an

america, but a government

that -- that has become a

bunch of zombies to obey a

world system that is

affecting a bunch of our

residents, especially east

austin.

So I challenge you, mayor.

And I challenge the city

attorney, marc ott.

This is an issue regarding

that you set up these

comprehensive plans and i

ask you to address this

issue to the neighborhood

plans and ask them to study

agenda 21.

These people were willing to

give up their property

rights.

These people do for the

speak for me -- do not speak

for me or a lot that

residents that don't attend

the meetings.

Therefore you, you initially

funded these people.

So they can do your agenda.

So I am challenging you for

that reason and I challenge

all of the people from the

comprehensive plan contact

teams to look into this.

The other issue that we're

facing is gentrification and

police profiling in our

neighborhood.

I try to contact chief

acevedo twice, I met him

here one day, I said you are

profiling our neighborhood

and the minorities.

The minorities are not

supposed to be participant

in agenda 21.

I call sergeant carter,

assistant chief carter, he

did not respond to my call.

If you are moving into east

austin and you've never been

in east austin, you're going

to have a bypass by the

police department.

It is the approximate 'em

that are addressing it's us,

the code enforcement, it's

all based on what you cannot

do.

Because your tongues are

tied.

You are not leaders.

You're just users.

Of those that want to lead

you.

So this is an issue that

I'm -- we're facing.

Councilmember riley, in the

past two months, I almost

ran over two bicyclists.

Because why?

They're not going to get

tickets.

They're exempt.

We latinos, we have a bike.

We're going to get a ticket.

If we drink a beer out

there, people want to drink

a beer, they're going to get

a ticket.

If people that moved in,

drinking out in the public

park, they're not going to

get tickets.

This is where you got your

revenue, but you're not

going to do that.

That's why margaret frasier

studied this issue.

And you know about it.

And just puts pressure on

our people to pay fines,

because the rest of the

people that moved in there,

they're exempt.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

>> Rae nadler-olenick.

Speaking on water

fluorideization.

>> Good afternoon, a year

AGO ON AUGUST 2nd, MAYOR

Leffingwell asked why i

stood at this body up, why

fluoride free austin doesn't

simply follow the formal

citizens referendum process

to bring our issue to the

ballot for a public vote.

My response at the time was

that any such attempt would

instantly unleash a torrent

of slick, expensive, pro

fluoride pr funded by the

powerful special interests

with deep pockets that keep

water fluoridation in place.

We would be grossly outspent

where money talks loudest.

But just last week, you the

council gave us still

another reason.

You took advantage of an

under the radar work session

to vote on to next

november's ballot an 8 to 1

redistricting plan which

directly competes with the

10-one plan austinites for

geographical representation

via petition drive had

successfully labored to

place on that same ballot.

You let agr invest end for

miscellaneous time, energy,

resources and then stepped

in to undermine it.

This hurtful action flies in

the face of your own charter

revision committee's

decision.

To change the subject,

fluoride free houston

founded in june have already

found an ally on the houston

city council.

Jack christie, a

chiropractic physician who

just might know something

about health.

A chiropractor's rigorous

educational program,

particularly emphasized the

musculoskeletal system,

including bone and bone as

we know is outstandingly

vulnerable to damage by

fluoride, which accumulates

over time causing

brittleness and

arthritis-like joint pain.

On august 7, six fluoride

free houston wyatts appeared

before council including one

a whole foods employee to

the effect that great

numbers of savvy houston

nights have already

abandoned tap water for

better options.

If people aren't drinking

the fluoride, anyway, why

continue to pay for it.

A refreshing approach that

would apply in houston.

Here it would seem you don't

care whether people drink or

dodge it, as long as the

city continues to implement

it.

The houston city council

listened with an

attentiveness and respect

rarely seen here and

fluoride free houston

members vowed to return and

speak regularly for as long

as it takes.

I have posted a video on the

fluoride free houston

com website front

page.

Please take a few minutes to

see what a medically trained

member of the houston city

council has to say.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

[ Applause ]

>> joseph iley?

Yellow cab permits and their

failure to comply with city

code after five months.

And you have three minutes.

>> I will make that part

brief.

First off, thank you for

finally taking action after

waiting five months.

Actually, I have something

more important that I would

prefer to take up a matter

on.

The purpose of this visit

now is for me is to request

that the city define what an

owner-operator is.

Twice in the ground

transportation city

ordinance, other thanner

operator is referred to, yet

if I go and look into the

definitions of ground

transportation there is no

beginnings for

owner-operator, so I don't

know how you have

owner-operator in the city

ordinance.

Secondly as an independent

contract driver, the city

ordinance denies other cab

drivers like me from being

true owner-operators because

it constantly leases all of

the permits to companies

rather than drivers.

The companies pay $450 a

year for those permits and a

driver turns around and pays

anywhere from $12,220 to

$15,600 per year to use that

permit just for his terminal

fees.

If this city really is being

fair to the drivers who wish

to be true owner-operators,

no I don't think so.

The driver who owns cabs

incur all of the costs, they

pay for the car, they pay

for the maintenance, they

pay for the gas, but at any

time a franchise can take

that permit away, in which

case in that driver went out

and spent anywhere from five

to $30,000 on a car, that

car is useless as a cab

because without a permanent,

that cab is not a cab.

It just a car with -- full

of holes.

It has a hole in the roof, a

hole in the trunk maybe

because yellow cab puts a

sign back on it.

And it has holes in the

dash.

As -- if this business is

supposed to be competitive

in the market, then the

drivers should control the

permits and contract with

the cab companies,

dispatching service.

That's true competition.

And I sent you all an email,

I think that I addressed it

a little funny because i

addressed it to the mayor

and city council, about a

lawsuit taking place in the

city of kansas city,

missouri.

That lawsuit is the same

thing that's happening in

this city.

You guys have created a mop

monopoly within a monopoly

is what you have done.

You gave all of the permits

to the companies and we

incur the cost and we

shouldn't have to incur the

costs at the risk factors

that you are making.

riley makes

the thing about drivers

wanting to --

>> thank you, thank you,

thank you, mr. iley.

>> Do you think as a

driver -- [.

>> Cole: Thank you, your

time is up, your time is up,

thank you.

>> Tovo: Mayor pro tem

cole?

I do have a question mr. mr.

Iley's topic as it was

written on our agenda, [one

moment please for change in

captioners]

>> I got a complaint from an

ex-cab driver who told me

during south by southwest

when he went down to the

market on guadalupe drag

that he had rode in three

yellow cabs.

He didn't tell me which cab

numbers.

I didn't think that was

necessarily important,

because the fact of the

matter is the company by not

setting the meter properly

they allowed that to happen.

no e

and I both with the tdia

filed a complaint not once,

but twice, and then a third

time and then I finally

filed it on the fourth time

with the city transportation

office to find out if they

were actually going to take

action.

Now, my problem is that

you've honored yellow cab by

giving them six wheelchair

permits.

Before they even complied.

And I find that to be kind

of fishy.

>> Tovo: I agree and i

didn't support that.

And I am concerned about

their noncompliance with

this issue.

Thanks for raising it.

>> Because they are finally,

my understanding, is they're

being fined now and they are

getting their act in gear.

>> Tovo: Well, we have

transportation staff here

spillar,

if you might come up and

address this issue.

I know my office has reached

out to your staff and you

provided us with information

in the past, but can you

tell us where yellow cab is

in terms of their compliance

on this issue?

And it's my understanding

based on the information

that we gathered this week

that there have been about

64 citations issued since

AUGUST 2nd?

>> Yes, ma'am.

Councilmember tovo, robert

spillar with the

transportation department.

If you will remember, we

sent a memo back in may to

you all indicating that we

had been informed by yellow

cab that there was a holdup

in terms of converting their

meters because apparently

several other cities were

also looking for the same

kind of equipment.

So they were having trouble

getting the equipment.

At that time we had agreed

to go ahead and allow them

to start charging the

surcharge between nine and

in the morning,

at night and four

a.m. in the morning.

I think that's the times.

With the understanding that

by august that they would be

compliant.

On august 1st we met with

them and reminded them of

this commitment, and on

august 2nd we began with

our normal routine

evaluations of cabs, spot

checks of cabs and began

ticketing for these owe

vents.

As of yesterday we have

issued 66 tickets to yellow

cab.

We're issuing those to the

company, not to the driver,

since the company is

responsible for the

machines.

I will also say we've also

found that austin cab has a

problem with at least

several of their cabs.

We've issued three tickets

to them.

And lone star cab has

received two tickets since

we started enforcing it.

Again, our intent in

providing that lean gent si

at the beginning is

because -- lenient si at the

beginning is because we

understand that there was a

problem getting the actual

machines available to do

that.

So as of today we are fully

ticketing.

>> Tovo: And just to

emphasize something that you

said, you are ticketing the

cab companies, not the

drivers.

>> That's what we are doing

is providing the tickets to

the cab companies.

Those tickets are exactly

$168 per violation.

>> Tovo: It seems like --

>> sorry, excuse me.

133.

There was one other issue

about the additional

handicapped taxi permits

that was asked.

We do not intend to issue

those until we have

compliance.

So yes, council has

authorized those.

Of course the department

typically takes the route

that when a change occurs

once the cab company is

fully ready to go, then

we'll issue those permits.

Again, with the surcharges

we tried to be a little bit

lenient to benefit the

drivers, but that period of

leniency I think has passed

and we're now enforcing

that, but we will hold the

six permits until they're

compliant.

>> Tovo: Thank you for

clarifying on the additional

permits that those won't be

released.

That is an important

clarification.

Just to get back -- I don't

want to belabor this because

I know we need to move on.

What will happen in the

interim?

Are the drivers -- as you

know, we received concerns

and complaints from drivers

about this.

Are the drivers -- are they

still able to collect that

surcharge?

>> If their meters have the

appropriate converted

button, the extra button, if

you will, it's a mechanical

piece, they are able to

charge those.

The way the current

ordinance is is that they're

not allowed to charge it if

the meter is not able to

lock out that surcharge

during the off times.

And again, if a vehicle

charges, we have no other

option but to issue a

ticket.

And as I said, it's to the

company.

And I do believe this is

incentivized all the

companies to push on getting

the manufacturer to send

them the equipment and bring

their full fleets up to

speed on it.

>> Tovo: But it is in

essence putting the drivers

in the difficult choice of

they either have to forego

what this council has said

is a good incentive for

getting drivers out on the

street.

They either have to forego

that extra money or they run

the risk of getting their

company a ticket.

>> Yes, ma'am.

The only way I can explain

it, yes.

>> Tovo: So I want you to

refresh my memory.

I think you mentioned this

in your memo.

You did meet with the cab or

your staff met with cab

companies before this

surcharge, before the

surcharge resolution was

passed by the council.

And they did feel that they

could get the equipment,

they did equipment to

getting the equipment that

would enable the surcharge

to happen.

>> Yes, ma'am.

Before this piece of the

ordinance change, there was

communication back from the

cab companies that they

thought that they wou be

able to acquire the

necessary equipment.

I will tell you that austin

cab and lone star have by

far acquired the appropriate

equipment.

We believe that austin cab

is having trouble on just

three cabs getting that

actual equipment in and

they're caught in the same

backlog of equipment, we

believe.

And we believe that lone

star only has one cab that

is still being modified for

the appropriate thing.

When yellow cab indicated to

us that they were having

trouble getting the

equipment, they actually

suggested the august 1

deadline.

So we feel we were

negotiating in good faith

with them.

>> Tovo: I'll go back to

that memo for the dates, but

as I recall there was

appropriate notification

before the surcharge was --

passed and whatnot.

And I just want to say that

I think it's -- I think this

is a distressing situation

to me that we're putting --

the cab companies are

putting drivers in that

situation of it not being

easy for them to collect a

surcharge that I think is

appropriate for driving

during that period.

So thank you for the

information.

>> Thank you.

>> Cole: The next speaker

is paul robbins.

>> Ready?

When does the timer start?

>> Cole: As soon as you

start talking.

>> Council, if I have any

message or question to

leave -- to leave you with,

it would be why does austin

water utility get a walk?

Council, you dealt with

austin energy's electric

rate case for over six

months.

You held at least 15 work

sessions and at least three

public hearings.

But consider the contrast.

Austin energy's rate

increase was the first one

in 18 years and rates went

up only seven percent

overall.

Austin water has increased

rates almost every year

since 2000 and rates have

doubled since then.

There's another increase

coming this year.

Yet there's not been one

work session to find out

why.

Is the half billion dollar

budget they have not worth

the scrutiny?

Austin energy is not

anywhere close to being the

highest utility in texas.

Austin water utility has the

highest water cost of the

top 10 cities in texas.

Again, there's not then a

major effort to discover

why, let alone what can be

done about it.

Austin's water conservation

program has had major

problems in management and

effectiveness since the

middle of 2008, and yet

three and a half years later

the problem still persists

despite a greater budget and

more staff.

Regarding the greater

budget, staff seems to be

having trouble spending its

allocated funding, which

given the poor way some

funds are spent, might be a

blessing in disguise.

The council has made one of

the most irresponsible

decisions in years when it

lifted drought restrictions

when the lakes were still

half full and headed lower.

This typifies an attitude of

negligence of public safety

of the water supply and yet

the decision goes without

comment.

Are we proud of having the

highest water rates?

Of the

top 10 texas cities?

Are we proud of having an

underaachieving conservation

program?

Why are we ignoring the

drought when the lakes are

47% full?

Why does austin water

utility get a walk?

[Applause]

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Those are all the speakers

that we have.

So the city council will go

into closed session now to

take up five items.

Pursuant to section 55 one,

.71 of the texas government

code the council will

discuss the following items.

Item 66, issues related to

open government matters.

Item 67, legal issues

related to chapter 245 of

the local government code

and related providings of

city code chapter 251

article 12.

Item 68, legal issues

related to the november 6,

2012 election.

Item 69, legal issues

related to the soah docket

application of jeremiah

ventures lp for a new tlap

permit.

And pursuant to section

074 of the government

code the council will

discuss the following item:

Item 70 to evaluate the

performance of and consider

compensation and benefits

for the city manager.

Is there any objection to

going into executive

session?

For these items?

Hearing none the council

will now go into executive

session.

For your information, if

you're out there waiting

for -- anticipating the time

that we'll come back, it

will be, I will say at least

two hours.

Of course no guarantees.

>>> is that.

>>>

>> test test test this is a

test, abcdefg,

>>>

we are out of closed

session, in closed session

we discussed legal items

related to 66, 67, 68, 69,

personnel matters related to

item 70.

So I believe the first thing

we need to do, we have an

item that was to be -- to be

postponed?

Or -- or set for a time

certain?

86, is there a

motion to withdraw this

item?

Motion by councilmember

morrison.

Seconded by the mayor pro

tem.

>> Mayor, I have a comment.

>> Mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: Yes, I also

wanted to make a comment

70,

the compensation and

benefits for the --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Can

we get through this item

first.

>> Cole: You're going to

do that, okay.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

if in favor of withdrawing

item 86 say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Opposed say no?

Passes on a vote of 6-0 with

councilmember spelman off

the dais.

Also, now we can postpone

88 until september

27th.

So -- so motion by the mayor

pro tem to postpone.

And I will second.

All in favor say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Opposed say no.

Passes on a vote of 6-0 with

councilmember spelman off

the dais.

So now we will go to our --

excuse me, I will recognize

the mayor pro tem for a

brief comment.

>> Cole: Yes, mayor.

I just wanted to say that we

did in executive session

70, with

respect to the compensation

and benefits of the city

manager and we look forward

to his continued service.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes.

And I said that when i

brought us out that we did

discuss item 70.

>> Cole: I just wanted

to --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

now we'll call up our zoning

cases.

>>> Thank you, mayor and

00 zoning and

plan amendments, public

hearings, that are open and

possible action.

and 72 because that's a

discussion postponement.

NPA-2012-0013.02 - 900 South

1St street - conduct a

public hearing and approve

an ordinance amending

Ordinance No. 020523-32, the

Bouldin Creek Combined

Neighborhood Plan, an

element of the Imagine

Austin Comprehensive Plan,

to change the land use

designation on the future

land use map (FLUM) on

property locally known as

900, 904 and 908 South 2nd

Street, and 1000 and 1002

South 2nd Street, 705

Christopher Street a

>>>

unaddressed Christopher

Street (Lots 4-7, Block 2,

ordinance amending Chapter

25-2 of the Austin City Code

by rezoning property locally

known as 900-908 South 2nd

Street and unaddressed

Christopher Street (Lots

4-7, Block 2, Oak Cliff

Addition, 0.553 acres) (East

-- Staff is requesting a

postponement of these items

to your september 27th

meeting.

75,

C14-2012-0033 - 900 S. 1st

(Part 2) - Conduct a public

hearing and approve an

ordinance amending Chapter

25-2 of the Austin City Code

by rezoning property locally

known as 1000-1002 South 2nd

Street and 705 Christopher

Street, staff is requesting

a postponement to your

september 27th agenda.

76.

NPA-2012-0019.04 - Austin

Vintage Guitars - Conduct a

public hearing and approve

an ordinance amending

Ordinance No. 20040826-056,

the Central Austin Combined

Neighborhood Plan, an

element of the Imagine

Austin Comprehensive Plan,

to change the land use

designation on the future

land use map (FLUM) on

property locally known as

4306 Red River Street

(Waller Creek Watershed)

from Mixed Use/Office land

use to Neighborhood Mixed

Use land use.

To designate the property to

Neighborhood Mixed Use land

use. Planning Commission

Recommendation: To grant

Neighborhood Mixed Use land

Use.

Ready for consent approval

on all three readings.

77.

C14-2012-0065 - Austin

Vintage Guitars - Conduct a

public hearing and approve

an ordinance amending

Chapter 25-2 of the Austin

City Code by rezoning

property locally known as

4306 Red River Street

(Waller Creek Watershed)

from limited office-mixed

use-neighborhood plan

(LO-MU-NP) combining

district zoning to

neighborhood

commercial-mixed

use-neighborhood plan

(LR-MU-NP) combining

district zoning. Staff

Recommendation: To grant

neighborhood

commercial-mixed

use-conditional

overlay-neighborhood plan

(LR-MU-CO-NP) combining

district zoning. Planning

Commission Recommendation:

To grant neighborhood

commercial-mixed

use-conditional

overlay-neighborhood plan

(LR-MU-CO-NP) combining

District zoning.

This is ready for consent

approval on all th

readings.

78.

C14-2012-0062 - the marchesa

hall & theater - conduct a

public hearing and approve

an ordinance amending

chapter 25-2 of the austin

city code by rezoning

property locally known as

6404 north ih-35 service

road southbound, suite 3100

-- to zone the property to

commercial liquor sales

sales-neighborhood plan

(cs-1-np) combining district

staff

to grant

commercial liquor

sales-conditional

overlay-neighborhood plan

(cs-1-co-np) combining

district zoning.

This is ready for consent

approval on all three

readings.

79.

C14-2012-0028 - 3rd &

colorado - conduct a public

hearing and approve an

ordinance amending chapter

25-2 of the austin city code

by rezoning property locally

known as 301 and 311

colorado street and 114 west

3rd street (town lake

watershed) from central

business district-central

urban redevelopment district

(cbd-cure) combining

district zoning to central

business district-central

urban redevelopment district

(cbd-cure) combining

district zoning, to change a

staff

to grant

-- staff offer for consent

approval.

The applicants asked for two

additional -- modifications

under cure.

One to reduce the number of

off street loading spaces

from three to two.

And to allow a curb cut for

the garbage access to be a

width of 36 feet instead of

30 feet.

Originally they proposed two

30-foot driveways.

The planning commission

recommendation was to grant

the cbd cure zoning as a

condition of zoning, but

they did not consider the

two items that I just read

into the record.

But we would offer this for

consent approval only on

first reading.

At this time.

And I offer that as a

consent item.

Item no.

80.

Is a related restrictive

covenant for this property.

C14-2008-0159(rca) - 3rd &

colorado - conduct a public

hearing and approve an

ordinance amending chapter

25-2 of the austin city code

by rezoning property locally

known as 301 and 311

colorado street, and 114

west 3rd street (town lake

watershed) to amend a

portion of the restrictive

covenant as it relates to

certain uses and development

his standards.

Staff is requesting a

postponement of this item to

your october 11th agenda

and at that time we would

bring back the related

zoning cases.

Red into the record for

second and third reading.

81.

C14-2012-0074 - zilk's -

conduct a public hearing and

approve an ordinance

amending chapter 25-2 of the

austin city code by rezoning

property locally known as

1807 west slaughter lane

(slaughter creek watershed)

from community commercial

(gr) district zoning to

limited industrial service

staff

to grant

limited industrial

service-conditional overlay

(li-co) combining district

zoning and platting

commission recommendation:

To approve limited

industrial

services-conditional overlay

combining (li-co) district

-- zoning, ready for consent

approval on all three

readings.

82.

ben

white zoning change -

conduct a public hearing and

approve an ordinance

amending chapter 25-2 of the

austin city code by rezoning

property locally known as

2104 west ben white

boulevard westbou

the applicant requested a

postponement of this item to

your november 8th meeting.

83 skies

sh(rca) -

shire's court - conduct a

public hearing to amend a

restrictive covenant for the

property locally known as

1910 ½½ wickshire lane

(country club east creek

staff

requesting a postponement of

this item to your september

27th agenda.

C14-2012-005- lot 2, block

y circle c phase b section

nineteen - conduct a public

hearing and approve an

ordinance amending chapter

25-2 of the austin city code

by rezoning property locally

known as 10407-½½ dahlgreen

avenue.

This is to zone the property

to community

commercial-mixed

use-conditional overlay

(gr-mu-co) combining

district zoning to community

commercial-mixed

-- to change the condition

of zoning.

The zoning and platting

recommendation was to grant

community commercial-mixed

use-conditional overlay

(gr-mu-co) combining

district zoning, to change a

condition of zoning, ready

for consent approval on all

three readings.

I will note on your dais you

have a revised map to

clarify the tract number and

it's yellow, it's in yellow.

So with that I can offer it

for consent approval on all

three readings.

85.

C14-2012-0063 - christian

life austin - conduct a

public hearing and approve

an ordinance amending

chapter 25-2 of the austin

city code by rezoning

property locally known as

4700 west gate boulevard and

4701 sunset trail

this is a christian life

austin zoning case.

One of the applicants that

would be coming down to

present had a medical

emergency and was not able

to be here tonight, so

they've respectfully asked

for postponement of this

item.

To your september 27th

agenda.

And so that concludes the

item that I can offer for

consent approval or

postponement of -- this

evening.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

So the consent agenda is to

postpone items 73, 74, 75,

UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27th.

To [indiscernible] public

hearing and approve on all

three readings, item 76, 77,

78, close the public hearing

and approve on first reading

only, items 79 and 80.

Close the public hearing

approve on all three

read, --

>> mayor, on item 80 there's

a postponement request to

OCTOBER 11th.

>> 80.

Number 80.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay, correction.

80 Postpone until october

11th.

And to -- to close the

public hearing and approve

on all three readings item

81, postpone item 82

UNTIL NOVEMBER 8th.

Postpone item 83 until

SEPTEMBER 27th.

To close the public hearing

and approve on all three

readings -- readings item

84, and to postpone item 85

UNTIL SEPTEMBER 27th.

So that's -- that's the

consent agenda.

Entertain a motion.

Ment councilmember morrison

moves approval.

Seconded by the mayor pro

tem.

>> Discussion?

>> Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: Mayor, I need to

recuse myself from items 73,

74 and 75.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: 73,

74, 75.

Okay.

All in favor of the motion

say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

opposed say no?

Passes on a vote of 6-0,

councilmember spelman off

the dais and councilmember

tovo recused on 73, 74, 75.

So that brings us to -- is

this a quick discussion on

77, 78?

Not --

>> 71, 72.

71.

01 - 603 west

johanna street - conduct a

public hearing and approve

an ordinance amending

020523-32, the

bouldin creek neighborhood

plan, an element of the

imagine austin comprehensive

plan.

The zoning -- item 72,

72.

C14-2012-0021 - polvo's

parking offsite - conduct a

public hearing and approve

an ordinance amending

chapter 25-2 of the austin

city code by rezoning

property locally known as

603 west johanna street

(east bouldin creek

watershed) from family

residence-neighborhood plan

(sf-3-np) combining district

zoning to neighborhood

office-mixed

use-neighborhood plan

(no-mu-np) combining

district zoning.

The applicant has requested

a postponement to the

september 27th meeting for

both items 71 and 72.

They are list -- their

listed reason was that

they -- it was at the advice

of their legal counsel to

postpone those items.

Previously, this item came

before you, the applicant i

believe requested a

postponement to your august

2nd agenda.

The neighborhood came back

and then asked that the case

be postponed to the august

16th agenda.

The agent at the time agreed

to the postponement today.

But is seeking a

postponement today to the

27th.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Was

there any opposition to the

request?

>> I believe that you have

neighbors that are here that

would like to speak to

having the case heard today.

Their representative, mr.

Moncatta that was here

earlier to speak on the

applicant's behalf has left.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

So can we have three minutes

for neighborhood

representative to -- to --

or the agent to talk about

why you oppose?

>> Hi, mayor, council, david

hartman, submit robertson

law firm representing the

adjacent landowner most

affected by this applicant's

request.

There are leadership members

of the bouldin creek

neighborhood association

here to speak as well should

you so desire.

This case was filed february

of this year.

Planning commission

unanimously recommended

against the applicant's

request on may 22nd and as

indicated the -- the

postponement at the june

28th council the applicant

made a request that we feel

like the applicant had that

request [indiscernible] my

client requested a

postponement to a day that

my client was out of the

country.

He travels internationally

for a major employer out of

round rock.

He will be out of the

country for the next several

weeks as well.

We are all here ready to

speak and the applicant

didn't come in until about

45 minutes ago.

Nobody was present for the

applicant's representative

or present until about 45

minutes ago.

I just feel like it's the

applicant manipulating the

process to not get to the

merits of the case.

[Indiscernible] I would be

happy to answer any

questions.

>> For clarification, do you

have a question of -- I was

just goingo ask so there's

been one request for

postponement by the

applicant and one by the

opposition.

>> I think the last time

that this was before you,

there was a request by the

applicant to postpone this

UNTIL AUGUST 2nd.

The neighborhood, it may

have been also this adjacent

property owner, said that

they would like it postponed

UNTIL THE 16th.

Council granted the request

to postponement this to the

16th.

And so it brings us to where

we are today.

The -- the agent, mr.

Moncotta indicated to me and

rusthoven that he

would like an additional

postponement to september

27th.

At the advice of legal

counsel and then he left.

>> Has the applicant been

granted a postponement?

>> I think at the last

meeting the applicant asked

for a postponement to the

2nd.

The neighborhood asked for

the 16th and there was a

postponement granted.

The applicant did agree to

the postponement to today.

That was made to the -- to

the -- that was requested by

the neighborhood.

So, yes, the applicant

received a postponement.

The neighborhood received a

postponement.

But what council agreed to

was a postponement date that

the neighborhood

requested --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Two

different postponements?

>> There was a postponement

made by the applicant.

The neighborhood asked for

IT TO BE THE 16th, BECAUSE

They wouldn't be here on the

2nd so the council granted

TO TODAY, THE 16th.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: One

postponement, has been

granted to the applicant?

Gotcha.

All right.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: In fact, if i

understood your chronology,

it gave him more time than

he originally asked for

because he had requested a

postponement to the 2nd

and here we are on the

16th.

So we had a -- he had a

couple more weeks, in

essence.

>> Two more weeks, yes.

>> Tovo: And he was here

today.

>> He was here earlier and

left.

>> Tovo: And the only

reason he was requesting it

was -- it wasn't a matter of

not being able to attend

because he had attended.

So there wasn't a scheduling

conflict.

>> To be more specific on

june 18th we received a

letter from the applicant to

postpone the hearing on june

28th to august 2nd.

On june 28th we received a

request from the barton

creek neighborhood

association to postpone the

case that was on that day to

AUGUST 16th.

Bouldin creek.

>> Bouldin creek, I'm sorry.

>> ON JUNE 28th, THE CITY

Council decided to postpone

TO AUGUST 16th, IN OTHER

Words they sided with the

neighborhood for the longer

request.

But basically they both

requested a postponement on

JUNE 28th, THERE WAS A

Difference in the dates.

In the end the applicant

said he was okay with the

neighborhood's date of the

16th which is why we're

here today.

That's where we are.

>>> Okay.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Where we are now council,

entertain a motion on the

postponement, if the

postponement is denied,

we'll hear the case tonight,

probably be much later

tonight because we're going

to have to recess here in a

couple of minutes for live

music and proclamations.

So is there a motion?

Councilmember martinez?

>> Martinez: Since we

don't have anybody here

representing the applicant,

I mean, I would hate to hear

a case with them not here.

I realize they understood it

was on this agenda.

>> The applicant has left.

>> The applicant is

here.

So are you making a motion

to grant the postponement,

councilmember?

>> They -- jerry, did they

say what date they would

like it to be postponed?

>> YES, TO SEPTEMBER 27th.

>> Oh, good -- I will move

to postpone it until next

week.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember martinez moves

to postpone it until august

23rd.

Is there a second for that

motion?

Seconded by councilmember

riley.

And I'll just say that I'm

going to support that.

This time only.

If the applicant is not here

ON THE 23rd, I AM GOING TO

Support going ahead and

hearing the case without the

applicant.

Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: I don't know if

we have other people signed

in to speak to the

postponement request.

Are there other people

here --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We

traditional allow only one.

>> Tovo: Only hear one.

May I ask a question of

somebody in the audience.

cathcart if you are

will, are you expressing

that you have a conflict in

being here next week?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Please up come to the

microphone to answer.

We need to get you on record

with your answer.

>> Thank you, I'm sorry.

Mayor pro tem, courage, my

name is mark cathcart, i

live at 605 west jo hannah

street.

I am the senior technical

integration executive for a

4 billion acquisition

being made.

I am not here next week.

I will be in canada.

I have australia, china,

russia, israel, germany and

a whole bunch of others to

do.

We have been sent here

today, we were here on time.

The applicant didn't show up

until after 4:00.

If you would have been on

time, which I understand

that you couldn't be, they

would have missed the

hearing anyway.

So I cannot be here next

4 billion --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: When

could you be here?

>> I can't say, sir.

I honestly can't say.

I will be here the week of

labor day, both the week

before and the week after on

THE 7th.

I know that you will be in

beyond that, i

really don't know.

It's -- you know, this has

been a major thorn in my

side for the last five

years.

So I -- you know, I would

ask you to hear this today.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: The

next council meeting would

BE THE 27th.

After -- that's after august

23rd would be the 27th

is that correct?

>> That's correct, mayor.

>> You know, again, I would

just point out, you know,

last time we were here we

30 for the

planning and zoning.

I am paying for attorney's

fees for this.

You know, I'm not the

applicant.

I have paid for my

attorney's fees again for

another five hours, david is

as good as he is, but, you

know, they wouldn't have

been here if you had been

able to start on schedule.

I don't see why you can't go

ahead anyway.

They hadn't requested a

00 when

this was due to be heard, i

don't understand.

I couldn't run my business

like this.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, we were in closed

session until about 12:30.

>> I do understand that.

I'm not blaming you for

this.

>> I wouldn't -- trying to

find a time when you both

would be here.

>> Tovo: Let me ask

another, if I may, ask

another question.

Not necessarily of mr.

Cathcart.

I see some representatives

from the neighborhood

association here today.

Are you also opposed to the

postponement request?

>> Thank you, brad patterson

from the bouldin creek

neighborhood association.

Yeah, we are opposed to the

request.

As volunteers we've been

sitting here today, and two

and a half hours after the

hearing is scheduled we're

asked for a postponement,

you know, as volunteers

that's a difficult thing to

do.

I took off from work to be

here today.

At the same time, we had

originally set this date so

that the affected neighbor

would come back from out of

the country in order to be

here.

On a date that would work.

So -- so, you know, whenever

it gets postponed I'll have

to come back.

I mean if you hear it later

tonight, I won't be here

because I have other

engagements tonight, too.

None of that is your fault.

So, yeah, we're opposed to

it.

This has been going on, the

neighborhood planning

hearings, planning

commission, as far as I can

tell, there's no changes,

there's nothing new, they

just want more time.

So, yeah, we are opposed.

>> Tovo: Thanks.

guernsey, I want to

clarify one point that you

brought up.

Or one point that was raised

by the -- by the folks who

came down here today.

So the -- so the item is

scheduled for 2:00 today.

>> That's correct.

>> And what time did you

receive the request for

postponement?

>> I spoke to him

verbally --

>> about an hour ago.

>> Tovo:00

time frame.

>> Probably about maybe 30

minutes before that, I spoke

to the applicant on the

phone and he indicated that

he wanted a postponement.

>> Tovo: Yeah, I would say

that -- I mean, there are --

the request was made back in

june, they've known for a

good almost month and a half

now that the hearing was

happening today.

We have got citizens who

came down took off work to

be here, it was scheduled

for a date when one of the

most affected property

owners could be here.

To me it's -- we haven't

heard a good reason or any

kind of pressing conflict

that would enable -- that

would prevent the

representative for the

applicant to be here.

And frankly I -- I don't

hear -- I haven't heard any

good re postponing

it.

We have the people here

today who would need to be

part of that discussion as

affected neighbors and

affected neighborhood

association.

Since we have to break for

live music anyway, that

would give the staff a

moncata

and say please come down and

speak to it.

So I will not be supporting

the motion.

I think we should hear it

tonight.

>> Cole: Mayor, I have a

question.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison

first.

>> Morrison: Thank you,

mayor.

With this very tortious

process that -- torturous

process that we put people

through, I won't support the

motion, either.

But if we can go forward and

hear the neighbor, we have

the option of ruling,

postponing the item to the

next meeting date.

We have the option of

closing the public hearing

or not.

And then asking folks if --

if it comes up on another

date.

So I think the in deference

and respect to the folks

here, I'm really, really

concerned about -- about

what I perceive to be an

applicant just presupposing

that automatically they're

going to get a postponement

in a situation like this.

So I would prefer that we

move so because I won't be

able to support your motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think that I said that was

concerning to me, also, I'm

just not going to make that

judgment on my own, although

I did say if it happens

again.

>> Morrison: Well, that's

why I'm looking for a way to

be able to respect the time

of the take, that are here

today and -- the time of the

folks that are here today

and the gentleman who won't

be here next time.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

understand, there's a motion

on the table, if that

motion -- if the motion

fails, then we will hear the

case.

Mayor pro tem?

>> Cole: I would like

to -- how many neighbors are

here?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Just

raise your hands.

>> [Indiscernible]

>> Cole: Because I really

think that we need to

recognize our responsibility

and we're not on time and

that creates problems for

the neighbors and the

applicant.

And I know y'all didn't make

that, but we just wants to

make that absolutely clear

and that's why it's

difficult for me to make

this decision because part

of is if someone is really

expecting us to be here at

00, that they should know

we run longer, but still.

I wanted to ask mr.

Guernsey, is it possible for

us to hear the testimony of

the people that are here

and --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let

me answer that.

I can answer that myself.

The answer is we have a

motion on the table, we have

to act on that motion.

If that motion fails, then

we can hear from the public.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: If I might just

add as councilmember

morrison was saying, we

could hear the testimony and

decide at that point to

postpone and wait for the

applicant's representative

to come next week.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: If

the motion -- if the motion

to postpone fails we will

hear the case and then we

could, you are right, decide

to postpone after that.

And so before we vote on the

motion, councilmember

martinez, I think that you

just heard from the

applicant that he could not

BE HERE ON AUGUST 23rd.

The next available date is

SEPTEMBER 27th.

I just wanted to bring that

to your attention.

>> Martinez: No.

That -- I don't think that

was the applicant.

That was the neighbor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

meant the neighbor, sorry.

>> Martinez: You know, we

can hear it tonight, we're

not going to hear it for

several more hours.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Right.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: But

there is a motion on the

table.

So all in favor of the

motion to postpone until

AUGUST 23rd, SAY AYE.

>> Aye.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Opposed say no.

>> No.

>> Motion fails.

On a vote of 2 to 4 with

councilmember riley, tovo,

morrison and mayor pro tem

all voting no.

So we will hear the case

later tonight and -- and

right now without objection

we are going into recess for

proclamations.

Signal so welcome to live

music at the austin city

council meeting.

It's our great privilege to

have a good group here

tonight led by mayor gus

garcia.

[ Applause ]

mayor garcia, served on the

council for nine years, and

he served as mayor from 2001

to 2003.

He was the first hispanic

elected to the austin school

board.

And was chosen by the

greater austin hispanic

chamber of commerce as their

first ever lifetime

achievement award recipient.

He has a lot of things named

for him.

Garcia middle school, is

named in his honor and

gustavo gus l garcia park

was named in his honor by

the stay with us, we're very

proud of that.

He is embracing his inner

sinatra by performing

[laughter] with the music

outreach volunteer

entertainers or move.

Move is a part of central

texas association accordion

association and has a

mission to promote accordion

music performances in and

around austin.

Organized in 2001, the

members play once or twice a

week, in a variety of

places, and friends,

relatives and club members

join in to create a happy

mixture of popular songs and

mayor garcia adds a strong

singing voice, stage

presence and sense of humor

to the ensemble.

Please help me welcome gus

garcia and the band!

[ Applause ]

>> thank you, mayor.

The song we're going to sing

is -- was written in the

early part of the 20th

century by one of the most

famous mexican composer and

song writerrers.

Lorenzo [indiscernible] we

will be singing the two of

us, [indiscernible] is also

a vocalist and I guess that

you would call that for lack

of a better term.

So we're very happy to be

here and we'll sing el

rancho grande.

[ ♪♪ Music playing ♪♪♪♪ ]

>> put the cd, we're going

to be recording one in the

middle part of september and

we'll get you one for the

city records.

City files.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Excellent.

It will be ready september?

>> Ready by mid september.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

So -- so we probably need

about seven copies of that.

>> Yes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

And for anybody out there

who would like to buy one,

I'm sure that you'll be

happy to make one for them.

>> $15 Plus sales tax.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: $15

and shipping an handling.

[Laughter]

well, I know a lot of you

probably thought that mayor

garcia was only up here

singing because he's a

famous man in austin and has

a big nape.

But now we saw that he also

has a great voice, right?

Let's give him one more big

hand.

[ Applause ]

and I know you've seen these

before, this is a

proclamation.

But this time it's in your

honor, says be it known that

whereas the city of austin

is blessed with many

creative musicians, whose

talent extends to virtually

every musical genre and

whereas our music scene

thrives because austin

audiences support good

music, produced by legends,

local favorites and

newcomers alike and whereas

we are pleased to showcase

and support our local

artists, now there ever i

lee leffingwell, mayor of

the city of austin, texas,

the live music capital of

the world, do hereby

PROCLAIM AUGUST 16th,

2012, Is gus garcia day in

austin, texas.

Congratulations, mayor!

[ Applause ]

>> thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We're out of recess.

And we will take back off

the table the item number

20.

We've begun to take public

comment on this item.

We'll continue with that.

And I'll call the speakers

out in order, in the order

that they signed up.

The next speaker is edward

craig.

Is edward craig here?

Laura presley.

Donating time is jose conter

row.

You have up to six minutes.

>> First I want to say thank

you for supporting the

women's shelter.

24 Years ago I was a

resident after women's

shelter in houston with my

two-year-old daughter, and

it warms my heart that

you're going to support

that.

So thank you.

The next compliments are not

going to be so -- the next

comments are not going to be

so complimentary, so bear

with me on this one.

Regarding the bond proposals

on deck for our

november 2012 elections, i

want to bring up a few

issues related to how we

have historically managed

and allocated our bond

money.

We as voters approved bond

funds in 1998, 2006, 2010.

And right now there remains

over $350 million in unspent

funds.

This was brought up by

councilmember spelman a few

months ago, and I really

appreciate the openness that

you guys have dealt with on

this.

But if you look back from

1998 and 2000, there's about

$62 million that's over 12

years old that we have not

spent.

And out of that 350 million

that we have not spent, if

you look at -- there's

parks, open space,

sidewalks, pools and street

improvements that are

included in that.

Since these issues have been

discussed in work sessions

and also in bond committees,

there is a rush to issue

over $130 million in bonds

next week that's on the

agenda.

As a voter, this is not

acceptable to have approved

critical funds and then to

have city staff and council

not held themselves

accountable for implementing

what we approved.

And I would give a bye to

councilmember tovo for this

one for being on the dais

for a year, I would hope

that the others, rest of

you, are a little more

accountable for this.

You know, inflation is 24%

if look back over the last

10 years.

And with that kind of -- the

consequence of us holding

$62 million that's 12 years

old, we've lost at least 24

to 25% of that bond value.

That's a big deal.

What I want to ask you guys

is that you know, you were

probably caught off guard by

this and I want to give you

a little leeway on it, but

350 million has gone

unspent.

My question is what systems

and policies are you guys

putting into place for

yourselves and for the staff

to be accountable so that we

use and apply these bond

funds and we as voters have

approved.

I spent 17 years in private

industry, and if this had

happened in the business

groups that I've worked in,

we would realize that

something different needs to

happen.

There needs to be a system

in place to review this

stuff on a periodic basis.

And we need your leadership

on this.

We need your policy setting

on this.

And I'd like to pose the

question of what's going to

be done going forward

because I think we need some

help.

Thank you.

Next speaker is susana

almanza.

>> Good afternoon mayor and

city councilmembers.

I'm susana almanza with

poder and also with the

montopolis neighborhood

association.

And I'm here today to

support putting the bond

initiative on the

november 6, 2012 election.

I also want to let you know

that we're supporting the

bond funding for the new

montopolis recreation

center, which supports the

funding for dove springs and

also for the affordable

housing.

The other issue I would like

to address is the whole

social equity issue.

We also believe that

(indiscernible) also should

be funded.

It's only four of the

museums in the whole united

states that addresses the

mexican-american arts and

culture and the history.

It has a very rich value in

our communities, bringing

art and education and the

cultural experience.

And so when we look at the

whole issue of the bond

issues dating back to its

inception, we all know that

people of color in east

austin have not received its

fair share of bond funding

money.

Traditionally that's been

set aside for other things

because traditionally we're

supposed to get all the

federal funds.

And I ask you to look

back -- I see that there are

two studies totaling almost

seven million that can

probably be postponed, and

some of that funding used.

I know that the universities

are very capable in their

different programs that they

have to do a lot of studies

that we should explore those

alternatives.

A lot of times the studies

are done and then the actual

implementation is not done

until many years later.

So I am offering a

suggestion that you fund

mexicarte museum and that

you look at possibly

transforming those fundings

from those studies to make

that happen.

Thank you so much for your

time.

>> Tovo: Mayor?

Just a quick one.

Thanks, ms. almanza.

Which were the line items

that you were talking about?

>> I saw one with the bridge

study and I think that was

three million.

And then there was another

study for design for four

million.

>> Tovo: And do you happen

to remember which project

that was?

>> It was a group design

project and it was --

>> Tovo: I think it was

new design.

I know which category you're

talking about now, new

design, something like that.

Thank you for those

suggestions.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Next

speaker is lucky lamoe.

>> Good evening, mayor,

mayor pro tem and

councilmembers.

Yes, my name really is lucky

lamoe.

I'm her in two capacities,

one as friends of the

dougherty arts center as

well as a mother of a

six-year-old boy whose life

was transformed by the

dougherty in the preschool

arts program.

So passionate about both.

I'm here today to ask for

the councils continued

commitment to support the

four million dollars

allocated in the upcoming

bond election to support the

rebuilding of the dougherty

arts center.

You know, it's not really a

question of value or love.

I think the city is well

aware that the dougherty

arts center has been a

mainstay of this community

and the arts community for

over 40 years.

It's unique because it is

community-based and it does

provide affordable and

accessible arts programs and

services to all austinites,

children and adults.

It serves over 200,000

customers a year.

So the value isn't the

question.

And the need isn't really a

question.

The building is over 65

years old and I'm not

minuting words when I say

it's decrepit.

Pipes are actually falling

into the landfill, it's

built over a former

landfill.

There are rats and you can

smell the rat feces and

urine when the air

conditioning system goes

out, which is frequently.

Holes to the outside of the

building.

And there was an assessment

done in 2010 which documents

this.

So I can't understate how

bad the building is in

disrepair.

It's not a question of value

or need, but it is a

question of funding.

And I will say that I asked

the council to continue

their commitment for the

four million dollars in the

bond election package of the

nine million it's going to

take.

The friends of the dougherty

arts center does have the

capacity.

We are a group of citizens

gaining strength everyday

who are committed to gaining

funds and opportunities for

funding to make this a

reality.

And just in closing I need

to say that I've been here

all day and I've let

somebody else take care of

my six-year-old son.

If I wasn't passionate about

this and see what a

difference it has made in my

son's life.

My son was four and he

didn't care about art,

markers, scissors, took him

to the preschool program

because I could afford it

and he was there and he

transformed overnight.

And the light bulb went off.

He lives art and drama.

He draws all the time, burns

up markers.

We go through so much paper

and tape in my house, you

can't believe the and I'm

standing here today because

I really believe in the

dougherty arts center and

I'm not the only one in love

that loves this beloved

institution.

I really do ask council and

appreciate your

consideration for the four

million dollars, the funding

to rebuild the center

because it canned take any

more band-aids.

It needs help.

I thank you very much for

your support and I'll

entertain any questions.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

(Indiscernible) cavasas.

>> Good evening, mayor and

councilmembers.

My name is perla cavasas.

And I want to first thank

you for your service and for

doing this hard work.

There's so many just great

projects and I know it's a

really tough decision to

make to decide which of the

items will be put on the

ballot in november.

I'm here specifically to

speak about -- in support of

a few, I want to ask for

your support.

First is the housing bond.

Just think so much for

adding that to the package

and for adding it at a level

that's higher than the last

bond elections.

I also wanted to briefly

state that I support also

the project at dove springs

and montopolis.

I want to also add that I'm

asking for your support for

the mexicarte museum.

I know that it was not

included in the vote

yesterday, but I just really

want to ask that you give it

careful consideration.

It's not just a museum to

me.

It's something that I'm

very -- I take great pride

in.

As a member of the latino

community, mexicarte has

been around for nearly 30

years, and it's been just a

fantastic vessel for

sociocultural advancements

of the latino community.

It's played such a large

role over the years in

creating just a better

appreciation and

understanding for the

contributions of latinos to

our communities.

And honestly, it's also

played a large role in

improving our quality of

life.

And decreasing prejudice

against latinos.

As an example, I think about

the della des mortes and how

fantastic that's been with

people coming from all over

to celebrate this cultural

tradition.

And it's bridging east

austin to downtown.

You may be aware people

gather up and they walk

across about a mile from

plaza saltillo to downtown

and thousands of people come

and enjoy and celebrate

that.

Soy really do think that it

has more than just the value

of an everyday museum.

And in this day when latino

communities are associated

with high teen pregnancy and

juvenile delinquency, and

unfortunately I can't stand

to hear all that stuff, but

mexicarte is a positive for

our community.

And it's something that we

can be proud of and I just

ask for your support for

mexicarte and putting it on

the bond for november.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

Octavio hinojosa.

>> Good evening, mayor, good

evening, mayor pro tem, city

councilmembers.

I'm honored, delighted to

have this opportunity to

speak on behalf of mexicarte

museum.

Let me first start off by

saying a few words of thanks

and appreciation for your

service and dedication to

austin.

City councilmembers, I am a

new austinite.

I recently moved here to

austin from san antonio, but

I would like to say that i

came from washington, d.c.

I was attracted to austin

for a number of reasons.

The quality of life,

economic opportunities, its

diverse culture, and I'm

here to give a few words of

support and appreciation for

this important institution

which I have benefitted and

so have not only members of

my family, but a key group

of citizens in our

community.

And I'm speaking of

students, the future labor

force of austin.

I'm honored to head up an

organization called the

hispanic scholarship

consortium, a nonprofit

organization which provides

scholarship, mentorship

support to students who are

of hispanic heritage here in

austin and travis county.

I'm delighted to share with

you that over80% of our

students go on to graduate

from college.

The reason why I bring this

up is because recently our

organization held a

reception in honor of our

students who have received

their scholarships and it

was held at mexicarte

museum.

And I was aston initialed to

learn that for the majority

of them who are here

locally, it was the first

time visiting this museum.

It says a lot when a

community is proud to share

its diversity, its heritage.

And when we have students

who are not seeing

themselves reflected in our

institutes of art, culture

and education, I consider

that as a red flag.

I would like to ask for your

consideration in supporting

mexicarte and this bond for

think of the

positive economic impact

this will have on the local

community.

If you each have had the

opportunity to visit in

spain, the guggenheim there,

you would learn and come to

appreciate that this museum

was built at a moment when

this particular city was in

distress.

There was great leaders,

great visionary and they put

together this amazing museum

which immediately led to a

positive economic impact to

the city.

The museum cost 87 million

euros to build and within

its first year it generated

directly 100 million euros

in tax revenues.

Austin needs a guggenheim

effect to take place here.

We see folks coming in from

all parts of the state, all

parts of the country, and

internationally to come

visit austin.

As I said, I am a new

austinite.

And I'm delighted to share

with my family and friends

who come visit me the

downtown experience.

And particularly those

prepareds and family who

visit me from abroad.

It is a pleasure to be able

to walk down the street of

congress and not only show

them the capitol, the

historic district, but point

out here is a museum that

reflect the cultural

heritage of 35%.

One out of three austinites.

Again, I encourage your

support and appreciate this

opportunity.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Elizabeth baskin.

Ken howard.

[One moment, please, for

change in captioners]

.. to plug in his

nebulizer.

He said, you know, our car

didn't have an electricity

plug.

We need affordable housing.

We need permanent supportive

housing.

And we're here and we'll be

here until your work is

done.

So if you have any

questions, there's folks in

the room that will help you

answer them.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Paul

scott?

Following paul will be frank

fernandez.

123450 Good evening, mayor,

mayor pro tem, and city

council members, my name is

paul scott.

I'm executive director of

aids services of austin, but

aim here primarily as vice

chair of one voice central

texas, which is our

community's organization of

health and human services

organizations representing

over 63 organizations.

Ranging from workforce

development to basic needs

to health literacy to

specialized care in our

community.

And I wanted to -- to state

that we met in our

membership meeting today and

unanimously approved our

support of the affordable

housing component of the

bond initiative.

And we know how important

affordable housing is.

In serving the community and

making sure that the people

that we serve have access to

public transportation, which

is centered into -- the

center part of our city.

And we know how critical it

is, affordable housing is to

maintaining people in health

care, maintaining them in

their employment and

maintaining a really vibrant

city.

You should have a copy of

the letter approved by the

membership.

I would like to read it to

you now.

Dear mayor leffingwell and

city council members, and

you you finalize the bond

package, one voice central

texas and its members, we

understand that you have a

difficult decision to make.

But we strongly urge you to

8 for

affordable housing.

We view this am as the

minimum -- amount as the

minimum acceptable amendment

for safe and stable housing

for the elderly, disabled,

other populations needing

support.

Our letter to you of april

9th advocated for 110

million, then our letter to

you of july 16th urged

support for 100 million.

8 must be

preserved for affordable

housing.

With looming federal and

state cuts, this bond offers

a unique opportunity for our

community to provide

affordable housing and home

repair.

Affordable housing is at the

core of providing disability

to the vulnerable nature of

the clients we serve and to

leveraging the success of

the many resources our

agencies commit to this

population.

We urge you to maintain at

8 million for

affordable housing, signed

john mcnabb, chairne

voice of central texas.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Frank fernandez.

>> I'm sarah andre, frank is

on his way, may we switch

places in the queue.

>> Are you mandy?

>> No.

>> Sarah.

>> Yes, sir.

>> My name is sarah andre, i

am a long-term advocate and

practitioner in housing,

since 1994.

I have worked to increase

affordable housing here in

austin.

For those of you who don't

know me, I specialize in

housing finance.

In the past eight years i

have worked on about 650

million in projects.

I remember when being an

affordable housing housing

advocate in austin was

something like being a

communist in the mccarthy

era, there were lots of

secret meetings in basements

and you whispered and you

were very unpopular.

But today the majority of

our voters polled say that

they support, they are

concerned about affordable

housing and that same

majority says that they

support bonds for affordable

housing.

I know you have many

competing interests.

And there are many ways to

spend our tax dollars, all

of which are important, but

today I you to think

about the following things.

I encourage you to vote for

parks and open space.

And without affordable

housing people will need to

camp there.

I encourage you to vote for

a hospital and without

decent safe housing, more

people will need to go there

for their primary care.

I encourage you to vote for

roads and when our workforce

moves to buda, kyle,

dripping springs and san

marcos, we will need more

roads.

I left out our neighbors to

the north because they are

all working on moratoriums

against multi-family housing

which is the primary source

of affordable housing.

8 Is a small price to pay

to inoculate austin against

the plagues that an

unaffordable city will bring

on itself.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Isabel headrick.

Following isabel will be bob

nix.

>> Mayor leffingwell and

councilmembers, good

evening.

My name is isabel headrick,

I'm speaking to you as a

member of the choda round

table and a private citizen.

I'm no longer with black

land community development

corporation, but much of

what I have to say with you

tonight is formed by my

experience with the homeless

and very low income folks

who benefited from the

services of black land

community development

corporation.

I am asking you tonight to

maintain your support for

8 million in affordable

housing bonds.

Affordable housing as we

know needs more -- much more

than that.

It needs $2 billion just to

take care of the needs of

people who are earning --

households earning under

$20,000 a year.

If we took into account

everybody else, we would be

talking more like

$5.6 billion.

So the needs are vast.

They are huge.

And in the context of these

deep federal cuts, we really

need all of the dollars that

we can to work on this

problem.

The affordable housing bonds

address housing needs across

the spectrum.

Home ownership, rental,

permanent supportive housing

and home repair.

Housing trust fund dollars

are not a substitute for

affordable housing go bonds.

They serve very important

purposes, but they do not

substitute from one another.

Housing trust funds provides

flexible funding for

attend-based rental

assistance and down payment

assistant.

Go bonds do not do this.

Go bonds are used for

acquisition and development.

And serve purposes that htf

also doesn't do.

Also, housing trust fund has

historically not been

reliably funded at the

levels we need it to be

funded at.

So that is why I ask you to

maintain your support.

The 2006 go bonds have been

an incredible success.

There's less than a million

dollar remaining.

We constructed nearly 3400

developed units and really

stuck with our core values

that we had established at

the beginning.

So I'm asking you to

continue the support for

building on that success.

Finally, I want to say thank

you guys very much.

I know this has been a

grueling process for all of

you and I really appreciate

all of the work you're

putting into it.

Thanks a lot, have a good

evening.

>> Following bob nix will be

ed McHorse on the other

side.

Welcome.

>> Mayor, mayor pro tem,

councilmembers, thank you

for your time, inreallifully

requesting that the council

continue to work towards

finding a way to put the 360

area fire station back in

the bond package.

The 360 area fire station

will be located just south

of the colorado river.

This is a high wildland risk

area on all of the windland

risk maps that we have seen.

A recent one came out about

a month ago from texas

forest service in travis

county.

In fact I consider it the

epicenter of whilefire land

risk in austin.

Simply drive through the

area and see for yourself,

all along 360 you will see

beautiful trees and rolling

landscapes, I see fuel and

access issues, an area where

all of the conditions exist

for a massive wildfire.

Sounds like fear mongering,

I guess it is to an extent,

but it's a real risk and

we've been talking about it

for years and we need to

deal with it in some real

way.

Given high fuel load, high

density of homes, hilly

topography, long emergency

response times this is the

perfect setting for a future

massive fire.

This area is currently

underserved with regards to

initial response and also

the time it takes to

assemble an effective

firefighting force.

These studies have been done

by internal firefighter

staffers, not by myself,

some of them have been

provided to you, most of the

councilmembers that I have

spoken to agree that the

risk is great, but the

question quickly becomes

where does the money come

from?

The current bond package

stands right now at $380

million the way I understand

it.

The 360 area fire station

funding would be

7 million, the funding

level for the 360 area fire

2% of the

$3.8 million package.

Earlier this week, I thought

we were able to identify

funding for that stay.

There was an attempt -- for

that station.

There was an attempt to

lower the funding on the

police substation, the

thought was, at least i

thought, that some of that

money would go to fund this

fire station.

That money was quickly

reallocated to other areas.

I'm very respectful and

appreciative of the work

that council does and the

duty you have to balance the

city's many competing needs.

However the 360 fire station

2% of the

back and the need is great

and everybody seems to agree

to that.

Please, let's roll up our

sleeves and find a way to

place the station back on

the ballot.

Begin, councilmembers, thank

you -- again, councilmembers

thank you for your time, any

questions.

>> Martinez: Bob, just a

point of reference, we are

actually at 385, just under

385 million.

If we were at 380 I think we

could find the votes to get

the fire station put back in

pretty easy.

So it's subtle but it's a

major difference.

>> 385.

>> We are at -- just under

385.

384.89 Something like that.

>> That would lower the

percentage then, closer to

one percent.

>> Martinez: But we will

work on this here shortly

once we get to the end of

the public discussion.

>> I appreciate your

consideration, thank you.

>> Morrison: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison?

>> Morrison: I do have a

question.

Could you walk through the

numbers with me that you're

talking about in terms of

how much is needed and what

that's actually going to

cover?

>> I'm sorry, can you repeat

that?

>> Morrison: The numbers

that we're looking at, how

much is needed and what's

that actually going to cover

in terms of acquisition,

design, all of that?

>> The numbers needed in

terms of dollars on the bond

package?

>> Morrison: Uh-huh.

>> That's a lowered amount

for the land acquisition

design.

The total buildout of the

station.

What we're asking now in an

attempt to compromise and

bring the panel down is

7 million which would be

for land acquisition and

design.

>> Morrison: How does that

break down.

>> Pardon me?

>> How does that break down.

>> I will get that number

for you, but I don't have

that available here.

>> Morrison: Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo?

>> Air and council,

assistant cheer of the

austin fire department.

I actually have the

breakdown here with me.

The cost that we have

through the public works

spreadsheet comes down to

5 million, that's --

that's land and design.

Doesn't include

infrastructure.

That's just to get us

started.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: How

much of that is land and do

you have a specific piece of

land identified?

>> Land would be about 2.3.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Do

you have a specific site

located?

>> We have a general area.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

you are just estimating that

cost.

>> That is correct.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

>> Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: Thanks for that

information, I appreciate it

and I wonder if you could

tell me how far this station

would be from the closest?

I know we spoke about it the

other day and I had that

nix,

too, perhaps between the two

of you --

>> looking at our desired

location of where we would

put a loop 360 fire station,

the distance, approximate

distance from station 32,

which is addressed off of

mount bellless o road, about

a mile away from barton

9 miles, 6 miles

away.

Mount bonnell road.

Station 31 addressed off of

2222 near the county line,

we're looking at 5.5 miles.

>> Tovo: Okay, thanks.

>> You're welcome.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

[Indiscernible] following

spence surduran on the other

side.

>> Good evening, mayor pro

tem, councilmembers, my name

IS ed McHorse, I'm here on

behalf of board chair for

echo and also as the chair

of your permanent supportive

housing leadership finance

committee.

We may need to rename that

by the way because I have

trouble with that.

You all know where we are on

this.

You know that from

supportive housing is the

key element of the

affordable housing package,

we have talked about numbers

before, why this is

important.

8 number is a number

that allows it all to come

together.

Thank you for getting to

that number and I'm hopeful

that you will stay at that

number in two more votes and

we can then be talking about

how we in the affordable

housing community can make

that a reality, both in

terms of passage and of the

construction.

But I wanted to remind you

of that, but also just make

sure that if there were any

questions about how

permanent supportive housing

fits into this, I am

available and would be

available to answer those.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: A

question for you maybe here,

councilmember riley.

>> Riley: I do have one

question on that last point

that you mentioned about how

[indiscernible] meet our

permanent supportive housing

number.

Would that allow us to stay

on track of the 350

permanent supportive housing

units.

>> Yeah, we believe it

would.

We've had conversations

within the housing community

about where that breakout

is.

I'm very comfortable that

8 numbers allow for

affordable housing --

permanent supportive housing

to be built within that

range, to meet that goal,

2014 will also allow it to

continue to be a part of the

process and building to

continue.

>> Thanks for all of your

efforts.

>> Martinez: I wanted to

know if you knew within that

70 plus million allocation,

I was given the anecdotal

information that 350 units

would consume probably 50 to

55 million to build those

units.

I just want to know if you

guys talked about that and

knowing that if we did all

350 units in this bond

package, there would be very

little, maybe a third of

that remaining for other

affordable housing.

>> Right.

>> That's a good question.

The best source that I can

give you on that, if you go

back to your report from the

phs leadership council, it

talks about the funding to

get to the remainder of the

350.

Whereas about 228 right now,

and if you look at the

chart, we do not expect that

the city bond would fund

100% of any units.

So the numbers are probably

correct in terms that you

have been hearing in terms

of 55 million that would be

necessary to build 350.

The go bonds are a small

part of that.

[Indiscernible]

private financing, the

package comes together,

that's the way those two

numbers come together.

>> Thank you.

>> Cole: I have a

question.

MR. McHORSE WE TALKED

About the fact that the 350

units are just until 2014.

What are -- has there been

any estimates about past

that date?

>> There have.

When the city council

requested analysis of the p

[indiscernible] need back in

late 2009 or early 2010, the

need is just slightly under

2,000.

Since that time, we as a

community have got 248 that

are in the pipeline in

process, so the need like

for most of these projects

is huge.

The idea is that -- that we

would get to 2014 and we

would have some

infrastructure in place,

some proven track records in

place to be able to continue

to fund and continue the

success that psh does

provide.

>> Cole: I know that we

are only talking right now

about the capital side.

One of the things that we

want to make sure happens

when we approve bonding for

permanent supportive housing

is that we are also able to

secure the support services.

Can you talk a little bit

about some of the plans for

that.

>> Sure.

There's two components to

that.

One is the rental support

and a lot of the rental

support comes from vouchers

or housing authority

under the plan that we have

adopted or recommended,

rather.

So that's the -- that's

the -- the case management,

the mental health, substance

abuse is a mix.

Right now we are -- we are

very dependent upon some

1115 waiver money.

That process is still kind

of in -- in -- being defined

on the federal level, but

we're working with central

health and with the hospital

and with -- with integral

care to help design some

programs to try to pull down

some of that match money

that can then be used to

address some of these needs.

The total amount for the 350

units, the total amount on

an annual basis for the --

for the services is -- is 4

million.

So it's a manageable number

that between about 2 million

on the -- on the medicaid

waiver side and then the

other sources we have it's

very manageable.

>> So our approval of these

bonds would coordinate with

what central health is

trying to do with this bond

election as far as the

permanent supportive housing

is concerned?

>> I think they play well

together because health care

is such an important part of

resolving the homeless

issues, especially the

chronic homelessness.

I'm not sure that I can say

that medical --

[indiscernible] but it is

really important because it

says that we understand the

importance of health care to

the community and to the

civility of the system and i

do think that, this is just

me personally, I do think

that you will see an

increase in the ability to

provide those services if

you've got something like

the medical school here

driving the medical

community.

>> Cole: Thank you, mr.

McHORSE.

>> Thank you all.

>> Cole: Our next speaker

is spencer durant.

>> Thank you.

I want to thank you all for

your continued work on

making sure that any

affordable housing package

that moves forward does

reserve a place for low

income people in our city.

You know, as you guys take

the crucial next steps for

this, please keep in mind

that -- as we do grow and

prosper, we are actually

pricing people out of their

homes.

I get many, many phone calls

every day of people that are

not only looking for

affordable housing, but also

housing that is physically

accessible.

Something that you just

don't find in the regular

housing market.

Affordable housing and

accessible housing is kind

of the specialty of the

non-profit affordable

housing community.

And the context of this bond

package is really important

as well.

Nhcd is looking at having

40% of their home funds

slashed.

And the current city budget

as presented doesn't come in

and make nhcd whole.

So we are having to shift

money around on the local

level all the while low

income people with disables

continue to languish on long

waiting list and all that we

basically too is refuse

around to one -- do is refer

around to one another, have

you called them, have you

called them?

People are just completely

at a loss of what this he

do.

At the community development

corporation meeting, the

austin tenant's council

mentioned that a recent

survey of theirs found that

95% of all for-profit rental

housing providers don't even

accept section 8 vouchers.

It's time for the

non-profit affordable

housing development

community and also

for-profit folks that could

put down affordable units to

step in and to bridge that

gap and actually put down

some units that people can

afford.

And as a local industry,

we're ready.

We have the capacity, it's

been demonstrated in our

membership.

The need is there.

We need funding.

These funds perform in a way

that -- that not a lot of

other funding streams can.

These go bonds can be used

for sticks and bricks and

things that could actually,

you know, build and develop

housing and they can also be

used for home repair and a

lot of other things.

It's the most flexible

funding source we have.

It's been crucial.

In 2006 it was instrumental

in bringing in $4 of outside

investment for every one

dollar in go bond.

So this is something that's

not as, you know, not just

the right thing to do, for

some of our neighbors, but

it's an economic development

activity.

And I just hope all of you

all keep that in mind as we

move forward in the next

couple of days in making a

final decision.

>> Cole: Thank you.

Edwin jordan and after that

will be will mcleod.

Edwin jordan.

>> Good evening, mayor, who

is missing and honorable

my name is

ed jordan, I'm a native

austinite.

I grew up here, fourth

generation texan, et cetera,

et cetera.

I am an artist.

I am speaking for mexic-arte

museum.

I have been volunteering

down there for oh, 10, 15

years.

Doing everything from

fundraising to emptying

trash sacks and what have

you.

It is a building that needs

to be worked on.

It is just -- we can't use

the upper floors.

There's nothing historic

about it.

I understand there is a wall

somewhere in it that

somebody

historical.

But nobody knows where it

is.

The new building designed by

the architect is, if it to

comes to fruition, is going

to be an incredible iconic

destination place for

austin.

It's the f 1 of art museums

if you want to say.

I made that up.

Gets to go be wonderful, you

all have seen pictures of

it.

What else do I have to say?

I can't read my notes.

I have bad handwriting even

though I'm an artist.

It should be economically

very sound eventually for

austin because we're going

to get more tourists here.

I've had enough with

residents, we near more

tourists, people who come

and go.

I don't mean that

Take it as you will.

.. austin is a

fantastic place, I've lived

here all of my life.

I love it and I'm in the

same house that I grew up

in.

I have the same telephone

number my daddy got in 1913

when he came here from

fredericksburg.

So I'm not a fly by night.

I'm not going to be leaving

tomorrow without help.

So please help us support

mexic-arte.

It would be a good

investment dollar for you, i

think, in the long run.

And it's needed in austin,

that museum really needs us.

Needs money and needs more

people, you all need to come

down there more often, too.

We have wonderful shows,

wonderful programs, the

outreach to the schools is

absolutely amazing.

We didn't have anything like

that when I was at pease or

allan or austin high.

But the stream of school

children coming in through

the museum, seeing the

various exhibits is just

really, really wonderful.

We need more of that in

austin.

And I can't think of

anything else, okay.

Thank you all very much for

your time.

>> Cole: Thank you, mr.

Jordan.

>> Tovo: Can I ask one

quick economy, please.

I have a quick question for

you.

It's not related to your

testimony.

I appreciate your being here

and thank you for your

testimony about the museum.

Did I hear you say that your

telephone number is 100 --

almost 100 years old?

>> Next year.

>> That is amazing, very

interesting.

Someone should write a story

about that.

>> The jordans go to

somewhere and stay there.

They went to fredericksburg

and stayed a long, long

time, from 1846 until dad

came here in 1913, I'm here,

I have lots of family here.

>> Tovo: Very neat, thanks

again for your testimony

about the museum.

>> Thank you.

>> Cole: Thank you, mr.

Will mcleod.

Is that well, for the

record, I've had any phone

number since 1997 and v

forwarded it through

numerous carriers.

Still a san antonio area

code.

Let's see, where was I going

to say, about the pond

panel, we have $350 million

in the previous bond

package.

It's not being spent.

How is that money going to

be spent?

Actually, I take that back,

89 million or

something like that.

We need an answer.

I urge voters not to vote

for this proposal unless all

of the previous money is

spent, preferably on

sidewalks and accessibility.

Parks are a want.

Mobility is a need.

Oh, and by the way, john

eastman of public works told

me that there is not any

resources to finish

sidewalks.

Maybe it's time he be shown

the door.

We are 350 plus million in

bond money you do have the

resources.

Some of these projects on

the bond package need -- to

not be spent as we have

private and non-profit

entities that can help out.

Like for example mexic-arte.

Several museums rely on

donations, such as the witty

museum in san antonio.

Knowing that I oppose such

public taxpayer support.

We need our streets repaired

and more sidewalks.

Any date on exactly when are

we going to make sidewalks

on all arterial streets?

We need a deadline.

Some of the bond money could

also be used to help

[indiscernible] capital

metro bus routes operational

without a service cut.

Two of you councilmembers

serve on capital metro

board.

Please don't sell us out.

Councilmember morrison, you

saw the video, my lacking

compliance street

known as murdo circle, how

are we going to fix this

mobility problem, are we

going to fix this mobility

problem and if so when?

I would like some form of

answer tonight?

Any takers on that one?

And also someone mentioned

about housing needs.

I support a housing voucher

program.

For ssi and ssdi recipients

as well as tanf as well.

$100 Million can give a lot

of supplemental money to

cover the high cost of rent

versus only build 300 low

income housing where who

knows where they would be,

what bus line they would be

on if they would be on the

bus line, thank you very

much.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Frank fernandez.

>> Good evening, thank you

for letting me switch

places.

I want to say thank you for

all of the work that you

guys have been doing.

Having been part of the task

force I know the task that

you have before you.

First I want to express my

support for the package that

you all came up with

yesterday in terms of trying

to balance the different

competing needs because i

think that I mentioned

before you try to find some

final agreement, you are not

all going to be happy but

trying to get all of these

competing needs.

Second I want to also

express the support for the

housing, affordable housing

bonds that you are

proposing.

I think again it's trying to

strike that right balance.

I think what we need in the

community is as I've tried

to express before, I think

some of the other speakers

expressed to you, one of the

biggest challenges is the

income inequality and asset

inequality we are seeing

that is growing, affordable

housing is one of the main

main mechanisms that

we have as a city to try to

address that.

It dictates where you live.

That really dictates what

kinds of opportunities that

you have access to.

I can't understate the

importance of the affordable

housing bonds in addressing

that particular issue.

Then the last thing that i

w encourage you all to

do, as part of this process

you guys can be

contemplating different

community based projects,

there are a lot of great

community based projects.

One of the things that we

tried to do as a task force

is really make it as apples

to apples as we could

relative to the other

projects that we were

considering, which meant

trying to run it through the

same due diligence process.

We had staff do that for us

as we were considering the

various projects that were

before us.

As you consider those

projects, I would encourage

you to get staff feedback on

that because we did get a

lot of good information that

I think would be helpful in

the decision making process

that you guys are going

through, thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's all of the speakers

that we have, councilmember

martinez?

>> Martinez: Thanks,

mayor.

I assume that we're going

to -- some folks are going

to try to make some

amendments tonight.

I'm going to go ahead and

move approval on second

reading what was adopted

yesterday on first reading

but I do have two amendments

that I'm going to pitch as

well.

>> Cole: I'll second that

motion for discussion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Motion by councilmember

martinez.

Seconded by mayor pro tem

cole.

And councilmember do you

want to offer your

suggestions.

>> Martinez: I will say

that we'll just follow the

same procedure that we did

during work session, just

for those in the audience,

when an amendment is

offered, I will ask if

there's any objection to

that.

If there is, we will vote on

the amendment.

If there's no objection, it

will just be incorporated.

>> Martinez: I want to be

real brief because I know

everybody has been here a

long time today.

But as frank just said as

many have said, there's a

lot of competing interests.

Not everything is going to

make it in.

But there are some that --

some of us feel like we just

need to try so we're going

to try on second and we're

going to try on third and

we're going to eventually

get to a package that we're

all going to get behind and

pass in november because

there are many good things

in here.

The ones that happen to get

left out this round we will

go right back to work in

trying to figure out a way

to support those projects

either in a subsequent bond

package down the line or

even through our general

fund if possible.

So my first amendment is

to -- by the way, these

amendments will maintain the

exact 385, I will not be

making motions to take us

above that.

So it will be to reduce the

recreation facilities line

item by 3 million, and

reduce the parks land

acquisition line item --

before I make this motion, i

need to check my figures.

By two million.

Creating a debt capacity of

5 million that I move would

be directed towards

mexic-arte museum.

>> A neutral amendment to

reduce recreational facility

by 3 million, park

acquisition by 2 million,

add 5 million for mexic-arte

museum.

Is there objection?

>> Mayor, I will not -- i

will not do a friendly

amendment -- I guess that i

will say I will not be

supporting the reduction to

the parkland acquisition.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.

So we will have a vote on

that item.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I would like to

ask question.

I will not be supporting

this motion.

I do want to get some

information from staff.

About the recreational

facilities.

That could be included

withing that bond item.

If I'm looking at the right

line item for recreational

facilities we do have $10

million, that takes us down

almost about a third, wonder

if you could give us some

sense of the recreational

facilities that have been

discussed by the task force,

also if you have the number

ready, if not I'll find it

in my list what the needs

assessment for this area

was.

Actually, I just found the

needs assessment.

I think the needs assessment

was somewhere in the

neighborhood of $15 million,

I will point out to my

colleagues this was an item

that was supported at $10

million -- $10 million

recommendation by the task

force and a $10 million

recommendation by the city

manager, there was no --

there was no difference in

terms of the

recommendations, they were

both consistent and -- in

their recommendation that we

needed at least 10 million

in that budget or line item.

>> Mayor council, good

evening, marty stump, parks

and recreation department,

office of cip, the line item

is intended to be a program

fund budget for aquatics

facilities, renovation

playscape, play area,

children play renovation as

well as sports field and

sports courts, so this is

the program budget that

would be applied

department-wide to address

the needs that we have

throughout the department.

>> Can you give us some

sense of the geographic

scope.

These are as I understand

the backup information

and -- both the parks

acquisition as well as the

recreational facilities.

These would go city-wide in

terms of filling needs.

>> That's correct, these two

program budgets apply

city-wide, whereas the other

program under metropolitan

parks, district park, have

named projects very

specifically located.

But these particular items,

recreation facilities and

land acquisition do apply

city-wide.

>> Tovo: And land

acquisition, this is the

parks acquisition line.

>> That is correct for

parkland.

>> Can you remind me where

we started in terms of a

recommendation on that?

>> The original needs

assessment started at 7

million.

Through the work of the

committee reduced to 4

million.

There's been a lot of

discussion on the land

acquisition fund certainly

that would apply city wide

and particularly to infill

land acquisition to -- to --

in response to the work of

the urban park work group,

infill park development

needed particularly in the

urban core.

>> Tovo: So this is $4

million of measure on the

table would cut that by 50%

down to two million?

Okay, all right, thanks,

these are -- you know, i

hate to -- I hate to

consider these issues

together.

I think -- I would like to

find some opportunities and

I know that I've got at

least one suggestion, but i

will like to find some

opportunities to find some

funding for mexic-arte

museum, but I think these

are two very important

categories of funding.

They will aid people

city-wide.

There are areas of our city

that have lots of, you know,

enormous growth in the

number of children and

families with children, some

of our older apartment

complex, these are

neighborhoods that are

exploding and they don't

have a safe park within

certainly within walking

distance, sometimes not even

any kind of close proximity,

I think these are really

important bodies of money to

preserve.

And I hope we can work

collectively to try to

identify some other funds

that might be available for

mexic-arte.

>> Cole: I also want to

support for

mexic-arte museum.

I know that it is a

wonderful board, a lot of

wonderful people pushing

this project and supporting,

I support the museum, also,

I know that you received

bond funding in 2006 and are

having some challenges with

the city and actually

getting that taken care of.

I plan on bringing a

resolution next week to help

that process.

But I am also like

councilmember tovo just torn

with not wanting to make the

cuts to the other recreation

department or to parkland

acquisition.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember martinez.

>> Morrison: I just wants

to briefly --

>> Martinez: I want to

briefly state why I have

chosen these line items

because that's critical at

well.

The $10 million is really

for what I believe is

ongoing o and m, so we

should be fundness it out of

our budget not out of bonds

because it is repair and

upgrades, maintenance, would

he do this in bond package,

I'm not being critical, we

have to take care of our

facilities as well.

But we continue down this

habit of funding o and m

costs through bonds and i

believe and I think many

folks would agree that's

really not what bonds are

intended for.

The other, parks acquisition

space, again, no specific

identified acquisition is

denied by reducing this fund

and it doesn't mean we can't

make up other acquisitions

through cos, which is

something we normally do on

a regular basis when an

opportunity comes up.

That's the only reason that

I identified these two as

areas where we could create

a little bit of debt

capacity.

Signal just let me say

assuming that's true, that

this is $10 million for o

and m, I agree with

councilmember martinez, i

don't think that's the

purpose of bonds.

I realize there's a great

need there, number one.

And number two, if there are

not identified tracks to be

bought, as something

presents itself, to do that

in the future, I would just

add -- probably it would

have to be a great

opportunity for me to

support acquisition of

additional parkland given

the fact that we're not

doing a good job of taking

care of what we have right

now.

I think that should be the

first priority in the

budget.

Taking care of the property

that we have right now.

Councilmember morrison?

>> Morrison: Yeah, I just

want to chime in briefly.

I think that it's important

to keep in mind that we as a

council have adopted a -- a

park resolution, a parkland

resolution that said that we

want everyone within the

central area to be within a

quarter of a mile and

everyone within -- anywhere

in austin to be within a

half mile of a park.

So I think that that sort of

act sent waits the need --

accentuates the need because

it is working towards a

policy.

I also would like to, I'm a

little concerned about

having this suggestion we're

using bond funds for o and

I wonder maybe mr. trimble.

I know that maybe sometimes

there's difficult lines to

draw, I wonder if you could

just comment on that, mr.

Trimble.

>> Mike trimble, capital

planning officer.

So my understanding, as a

matter of fact I was just

talking to marty about this,

is that improvement that are

contemplated under the

recreational facilities

program are a little more

extensive than the typical

repairs that you could do

under your operating budget.

These are more extensive

renov to the pools,

play scapes, some of the

other items than what marty

was mentioning, I think

that's important to note.

Yeah, we would definitely be

using capital dollars to

work for capital needs.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

I just have to respond to

the previous comment about

the council resolution.

I'm certainly aware of that,

I supported it at the time.

I still support I however

there's no time table

affixed to that, I think we

have to slow that process

down a bit until we are able

to take care of what we

have, which we are not able

to do right now.

Any other comments before we

vote.

>> Martinez: I just wants

to affirm that it is o and m

expenditures, they may be

extensive.

You can add the word

extensive to the end of it,

but it's still repair and

upgrades of existing

facilities.

That's my whole point of

this.

With making this statement.

I realize that we have

needs.

I get it, marty.

I know that you need way

more than 10 million bucks.

But again, we're trying to

squeeze everything we

possibly can into this

envelope and I'm just trying

to get creative.

>> Understood.

To echo what mike said, in

terms of playscape, you

know, this is wholesale

replacement of existing

facilities.

We have equipment that is

aging, non-compliant, not

in keeping with new and

innovative philosophy and

design in play scapes, this

isn't a coat of paint, isn't

replacements of nuts and

bolts, wholesale

replacements of entire play

environment, I did want to

reiterate that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

all in favor of

incorporating the amendment

say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Opposed say no.

>> [Indiscernible]

>> motion fails on a vote of

3-3 with -- with

councilmember tovo,

councilmember morrison and

mayor pro tem cole votin

no.

>> Martinez: All right.

The second one is to take

the exact same two lines,

since we wouldn't allocate

them to mexic-arte and we

7 instead of 5

million, I guess, keep the

land acquisition at 2.3.

7 and apply

it to the acquisition and

design of the fire station

on 360, which I believe is

also sorely needed.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Could you give me your

downs, your minuses.

>> 3 Million on rec

facility, 2 point, what

7 on land

acquisition.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: For

the fire station?

>> Martinez: Correct.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: 360

area.

Anyone object to that?

>> Tovo: Yeah.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison

objects.

So councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I want to see us

fund the fire station or the

land acquisition and design,

I want us to get some money

pegged for mexic-arte as a

priority program.

I'm trying to use the

language that we've

discussed.

I would like us to do it

outside of these two line

items, which are really

critical.

You know, we're talking

about I mean these may sound

like extras, but when we've

got facilities throughout

our city, our parks

facilities, and we receive,

you know, regular feedback

from our citizens that they

are in disrepair, they need

substantial work, we are

also being asked, I'm always

being asked by the public

why are we not maintaining

and keeping up with some of

our city facilities within

the parks department.

We often bemoan the lack of

money available in our parks

budget, we have the

opportunity here to give

them a little boost.

I think that it's critical.

We are also, you know, again

taking a third of one budget

and a substantial portion of

another one.

I'm going to make an

amendment a little bit later

that I'll just mention now

that we take some funding

out of the design of new

projects line item to

partially fund some of the

fire station land

acquisition and design and

also some money that would

leave over some money for

mexic-arte and also that we

move some money from the

barton springs bath house to

fund the remainder of the

fire station.

I'll give you my rationale

later.

But I'm going to vote

against this motion that is

because I believe we can

find funding for the fire

station land acquisition and

design and some funding for

mexic-arte from different

line items, I think that we

need to preserve these

programs.

Again the money in these

line items they serve people

throughout our city, many of

whom really need the kind of

programs and opportunities

they get through our

neighborhood parks.

Through our parks

recreational facilities.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

In favor?

Chris riley.

>> Riley: I will say I'm

not going to be supporting

this item.

As we discussed the other

day I'm very aware of the

fire risk that we face,

we've had extensive

discussions about the

creation of a while land

division through our regular

budget process.

I'm committed to pursuing

that goal and getting a wild

land division in place as

part of a budget process.

But I think that's -- that

should be a first priority

before establishing that --

that the fire station on

360, so I will -- I'll be, i

won't be supporting this

item.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: In

favor, say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Opposed say no.

>> No.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Fails on a vote of 2-4, with

councilmember riley, tovo,

morrison, mayor pro tem cole

voting no.

Anything else?

Councilmember morrison?

>> Morrison: Thank you,

mayor, I am also very

interested in finding

funding for both the fire

station and mexic-arte

museum but as I mentioned

before, I'm also looking to

bring a little bit more

balance back in from the

task force and I try -- from

the task force

recommendations and at 400

million and how it

differents.

And I tried to really narrow

down the ones that -- that a

couple of million dollars in

adjustments that I would

like to focus on.

And the first one is the --

is the item for neighborhood

parks.

Ment because neighborhood

parks was -- is at only as

it stands right now 20% of

its needs assessment.

It's at $3 million.

And it was -- its needs

assessment was 15 million to

start.

So I'll get to where it's

coming from in a minute.

I would like to add a

million dollars there.

The second one that I would

like to add a million

dollars to is the

neighborhood plan parks

projects.

We heard a little bit about

that this afternoon or

earlier today when we were

talking about the dove

springs rec center because

that's one of the items that

will be contemplated was

within that buck of money.

Bucket of money.

One of the reasons that this

line item I feel is so

important and at this point

it's only funded at a -- at

a one third of its needs

assessment is because these

are items that came out of

the neighborhood plan.

This is the first time we

have the opportunity to fund

in our bond package ideas

that came out of the

neighborhood plans because

that wasn't done in 2006.

And it was sort of -- but in

fact neighborhood plans were

created in part to help

inform that.

So I would like to add

another million dollars to

the neighborhood plans parks

to make it $8 million.

So where can the money come

from?

Well, we all know

arnold, mary arnold who

has been talking to us about

the bridge, the bridge at

red bud, she sent me

additional information which

I started studying which got

me very concerned about

moving forward even thinking

about design at this point.

Because she -- she dug

through, you know, she's an

amazing researcher.

She dug through and i

believe that we have really

not done due diligence to

even be thinking about

replacing a bridge yet.

She mentions the 2025 austin

metropolitan area

transportation plan, that

replacing the bridge would

likely be inconsistent with.

It's listed as an existing

minor two lane arterial with

a high vital sensitivity

rating and there are no

changes shown between now

and 2025.

It's -- there's also a

recommendation about

ensuring compliance with

u.s. fish and wildlife.

There are no changes for the

bridge shown in the 2035

campo plan.

It appears, you know, she's

very familiar with the

brackenridge development

agreement, it appears that

this would require

negotiation with the

university of texas.

Which I don't think that was

done yet.

Interestingly, the -- let me

see if I can find it.

Interestingly, the

waterfront overlay district

and subdistrict development

regulations actually also

address regulations for

public rights of way that

come into play here, which

is interesting.

It says in fact that they

need to be any public rights

of way adjustments need to

be done, they must be

compatible with the

development of adjacent

parkland and consistent with

the town lake park plan.

So -- so to me, we don't

have it in any of our plans,

it's been foreseen that it

would be existing and stay

there.

It appears that it needs to

be compatible with several

things and we would need to

negotiate with folks.

So my sense is that we have

got the cart way ahead of

the horse as they say, i

arnold for

the historic knowledge that

she has.

What I would like to

suggest, it also mentions in

the town lake plan, I should

mention, that -- that --

that we need to get

recommendations from the

parks and rec board and all

sorts of other boards.

What I would like to suggest

is that we really scale back

the funding right here and

really --, allocate half a

million with the

understanding that it's a

very, very early step where

we're just going to have to

begin to figure out what

we're even doing, because

this is way beyond anything

foreseen in any of the plans

that we have.

My motion is to -- to reduce

the shelton bridge from 3

million to .5 million.

To add one million to the

neighborhood plan.

To add one million to the

neighborhood parks

improvements project.

That's two million and then

to add a half a million to

start some allocations

towards mexic-arte.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

What's the reduction on the

bridge project.

5, Them the addition,

leaves the half a million to

do just initial outreach and

investigation.

It's adding a million to

neighborhood parks, adding a

million to neighborhood

planned parks and then

mexic-arte.

For half a million.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

First of all, I will object

to that.

It's my understanding during

the briefing that we got the

other day that one of the

reasons for upgrading this

bridge was increased

traffic, number one, and

also increased heavy truck

traffic going from the water

plant back towards city area

and that to me that might

present a safety issue.

So I -- so I -- again, i

think that it's a high

priority project.

We've already reduced it

once.

By quite a bit.

And to -- down to the

minimum or start the design

process.

So I won't be supporting it.

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: Mayor, I would

lake to ask a question or

tw lazarus.

I know that we talked about

this at the work session.

Can you remind us about the

condition of this bridge

compared with other bridges

in the austin area?

>> Howard lazarus public

works department.

There are 425 brings rated

within the city data that

are the they's

responsibility.

426 Are rated as good or

better.

The one that is rated as

fair is the shelton bridge.

The bridge is beyond its

useful design life.

In 2008 I'm sorry 1998 there

was a prong to upgrade it --

project to upgrade it with

the intent of getting about

10 more years out of it.

That was four years ago.

The bridge was built in

1940s, it wasn't built to

the design standards

necessary for the current

traffic.

The current loading.

So --

>> Riley: If I could.

>> The bring as it stands

now is funct

obsolete.

Doesn't serve its purpose.

In addition to ongoing

structural concerns there

are issues with safety, not

only with vehicles but also

with pedestrians and

bicyclists who use the

bridge.

>> Howard, we know we don't

have a fully developed plan

at this point.

We haven't worked with all

of the partners that

councilmember morrison

mentioned, we haven't

integrated any improvements

into the campo 2035 plan.

We know that we are some

distance from actually being

ready to move forward with

construction of a new

bridge.

So what would be wrong with

just setting aside half a

million to do preliminary

planning with the

expectation that that would

keep the process moving

forward and we would be able

to do additional planning

and design in the future,

why -- why -- what would we

be getting with 3 million

that we couldn't get for

just half a million?

>> We're at the stage where

there's a preliminary design

that was done and that is

the design that raises the

bridge out of the level of

the floodplain.

It does require a new

order to proceed now to a

bring that would be both

functional and acceptable to

the community, we are going

to have to engage with

outside consultants and pay

for internal staff time.

Because you know the public

works department gets no

general fund dollars.

So the only way we can move

forward with this project is

to have a way to staff to

manage and be involved with

the design.

It's our estimate at this

point that providing $3

million to proceed will give

us enough of a -- of --

money to get through any

environmental work that we

have to do, any outreach

work that we have to do and

as well as engaging any

outside resources to start

along the design path.

I think that will cost more

than half a million.

The 3 million was an

estimate of about 20% of the

total project costs so that

we could get through the

process to where we could

move through and be able to

proceed in a reasonably

timely manner, given that we

know that it's going to take

a long time to get through

those stages, so that's our

best guess right now as to

what it will take us to get

through all of the up front

work and design work that we

need to do.

>> Riley: Okay, thanks,

howard.

[One moment please for

change in captioners]

>> it's a city-owned bridge,

so we're responsible for it.

It's hard to say right now

when we have projects in the

works.

There are probably some

residual funds and some

other bond programs, but i

can't guarantee what those

are, or state what they are.

As projects come in and they

finish, there's always --

you could call it the change

that falls between the

cushions of the couch kind

of, but I don't know how

much that is and can't

really project.

I think what I do want to

state is that it's better to

proceed with the plans to

design and replace the

bridge before it becomes an

emergency and that we can do

it in a more structured,

rational approach, and not

have to prematurely close or

restrict traffic on the

bridge.

>> Tovo: I think certainly

I would agree that we don't

want it to get to an

emergency situation, but it

does sound like there's a

fair amount of planning and

design that would need to

take place.

And I would just say that

500,000 would at least allow

that to begin.

And it seems to me this

would certainly be a project

eligible for funding in a

future transportation bond.

Would you say that's true,

that this project could be

rolled into a future

transportation bond?

>> I think it's eligible as

a capital expense for any

bond program.

>> Tovo: Okay.

Thank you.

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

don't want to put words in

your mouth, but did you just

say this is the worst bridge

in the city?

>> It's the only bridge in

the city that's not rated as

good or better.

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

And -- okay.

Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Cole: I just had a

has

wreath because I know when i

use this bridge mainly the

reason I'm using it is

because I'm trying to head

to the lake.

So I want you to give us

some feel for the amount of

austinites that might work

downtown and actually -- or

in east austin and actually

live in west austin or

westlake and would be

crossing this bridge.

>> All I can tell you is

we've done traffic counts

and there are 12,000

crossings a day.

There are people who

access -- who live in austin

in the west part of the city

who use the bridge for

access, but there's really

no way for me to give you a

factual number of how many

of those crossings are by

people who live within the

city.

>> Cole: Well, let's talk

about the estimate that you

did.

You said you did a traffic

count of 12,000.

Can you tell me how that

works?

Is that per day, twice a

day?

>> That's per day.

>> Cole: 12,000 Per day.

And that's ingress and

e-cigarettes over the bridge

or is that just one way.

>> That's crossing, so both

ways.

>> Cole: Crossing both

ways.

Okay.

Thank you, mayor.

I will just say that I don't

know if I highly respect

mary arnold and I know a lot

about her research and

ability, but I'm very

concerned that we don't

create a safety hazard.

And for citizens who live

outside of austin and, of

course, citizens who live

inside of austin -- and i

know I cross that bridge

frequently when my kids were

young to go to westlake

beach.

So I will not be supporting

this motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

other comments?

All those in favor of the

proposed amendment say aye?

Opposed say no.

It fails on a vote of

two-four with councilmember

riley, martinez, myself,

mayor pro tem cole voting

no.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I wanted to

propose an amendment to move

funding -- I might need

staff to verify that I'm

using the last batch of

numbers.

trimble, can you confirm

that we currently have in

the proposed bond package

$5 million allocated under

the category of design for

new projects?

Is that still the figure

we're working with?

>> You actually are working

with the figure of four

million.

>> Tovo: Okay.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Four

million for what?

>> For design of new

projects.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Transportation projects?

>> Tovo: No, that's under

public works.

>> It's in the

transportation.

It's in the transportation.

>> Tovo: I'd like to

propose that we move

5 million of that for --

into one million for

5 allocated

for the fire -- for land

acquisition -- toward land

acquisition and design for

the fire station.

I know that doesn't get us

7, but I will get

closer on a subsequent

amendment if this one is

successful.

So that is doesn't for new

projects and it is a total

of four million dollars.

I'm proposing reducing that

to 3.5 million.

That still allows some of

the south lamar improvements

to happen, and I think that

is a high priority.

I would suggest that one

million be allocated to

5 to

the fire station land

acquisition and design.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

that's reducing

transportation projects for

design by three and a half

million, adding one million

to mexicarte, two and a half

million to the 360 fire

station.

To testify yes.

And I think we've heard from

colleagues about both of

those projects, so I won't

really add to that at this

point.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

I'll object to that.

We discussed transportation

and in my opinion it's the

most important problem that

we have, the most dire

problem we have in the city.

I'm not going to support

reducing transportation by

three and a half million.

It's very important that we

continue to make progress

and have projects ready to

go that are designed and

engineered when funds become

available.

And I don't think one

million is going to help

mexicarte or fix that

situation.

And although I'd like to

find some funding for the

fire station near 360, i

think that can wait a little

while since no land is yet

identified, but I do again

join councilmember martinez

in supporting establishment

of wild lands fire division

in the budget.

So I'll object to that.

Any other comments?

>> Martinez: Mayor, the

only comment I'll make is

what I think I heard

councilmember tovo say is

this is a motion, but it's

somewhat coupled to a

subsequent motion because

she said she's going to try

a second motion to allocate

each more money.

And I really can't support

this not knowing what that

subsequent motion is.

>> Tovo: I'll be glad to

talk about that next one if

you'd like.

And I would just say with

regard to the amount for

mexicarte, the taskforce

recommended one million, so

I fully understand that's

not what we're hearing from

community members they would

like to see in this bond

proposal, it's closer to

five million, but taskforce

recommendation is one, and

we may find some other

funding along the way that

we could couple that with.

But one million is a good

start when you're starting

at zero, which is what we

have right now discussed in

the bond proposal.

And again I understand that

7, which is

what would be required for a

fire station, but two may

allow part of that to

happen.

In fact, I believe we talked

earlier that land

acquisition might be about

half of that, is that

correct?

I mean, two million would

get us somewhere down the

road on that.

>> Councilmember tovo,

robert orr, assistant chief.

The land acquisition itself

would be about 2.2.

>> Tovo: So we're not

fully there, but it's a

help.

The second amendment I'm

going to propose is that we

move the two million dollars

we discussed yesterday, and

that was voted on yesterday

for the barton springs

bathhouse, to the fire

station land acquisition and

design.

And these are really tough

discussions.

And I just want to say I am

a fan of barton springs.

I think it's going to be

terrific to have some

improvements out there.

But we did get a

recommendation from the

staff suggesting that -- and

we know that it wasn't --

that the taskforce worked

through that recommendation.

It wasn't one of their

highest priorities.

All of these are good

projects.

All of these needs are

important.

But some rise higher than

others, and I do think while

transportation is a pressing

issue and it is among those

that are critical to quality

of life here in austin, i

also hear from lots of

citizens that they are

concerned about fire and

especially in either that

mr. nix talked about.

So I think there is -- if we

can manage it in this bond

proposal, I think allocating

some funds for land

acquisition and design make

sense, and for me that does

rise to a higher level of

importance than the springs

bathhouse right now.

I wish it were different,

that we had money enough for

all of these projects, but

that's what I'm going to

propose, that we move money

5 for

the design of new projects

into fire station land

acquisition and design, and

also to mexicarte, and then

the second motion I'm going

to make is to move the money

from the barton springs

bathhouse into land

acquisition and design.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You

just made a motion to reduce

transportation design

projects by three and a half

million, zero out the barton

springs bathhouse, reduce

that to zero, reducing two

million.

And adding one million to

mexicarte and four and a

half million to the fire

station.

Total, four and a half.

>> Cole: Mayor, can you do

that one more time?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Reducing transportation

design projects by three and

a half million.

Reducing the barton springs

bathhouse by two million for

a total reduction of five

and a half million.

Increasing mexicarte to one

million.

And increasing the fire

station by four and a half

million for a total of five

and a half million.

And I object to that.

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: Mayor, as i

mentioned before, it's a

item on design of new

projects is particularly

important currently, in the

current environment we face.

And we've seen again and

again in campo funds --

federal funds have become

available through the state

that have a short time frail

and they are only available

for projects that are

designed and ready to go.

And if we don't have the

projects that are designed

and ready to go for that

federal funding, we are

going to miss out on the --

on very scarce federal

funding.

And we all know that we have

very serious transportation

needs in austin.

And I fear that cutting back

on this design new projects

item would really undermine

our ability to respond to

the transportation needs

that we have.

So I'm not going to be able

to support the item.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember, I'm glad you

mentioned that because we

have a concrete example.

Just a couple of months ago

we found out that we will

have with this area about

two hundred million dollars

stp, the funds for a shovel

ready project.

There was only one -- there

was only one, and we were

able to take advantage of

that.

If it hadn't been shovel

ready, that two hundred

million dollars would have

gone to the dallas area.

>> Cole: Thank you, mayor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: I sit on campo

with you and you actually

appointed me to the

committee that negotiated

that stmpp project with the

rma.

So -- did I say that right,

chris?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Stpmm.

>> Cole: It's late.

Yeah.

And at any rate, so I will

not be supporting this

motion to take the funding

from the design for new

projects, but I would like

to offer a subsitute motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's not the word -- we're

doing amendments right now.

You will have an opportunity

later.

We've got to vote on this

one first.

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: Thank you.

I just want to comment that

I am going to support this.

I think clearly as much as

money as we can have to

leverage as much as we can,

that's an important thing,

but to put together

something that would work to

actually get us -- get us on

the road to a fire station,

that is a significant step

that I think really

outweighs then the

opportunity -- obviously

we'll be keeping our eyes

open to all sorts of

opportunity, but to be able

to take that concrete step i

think is really significant.

And as councilmember tovo

mentioned, to be able to at

least show some support for

mexicarte is also important.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

in favor of that say aye?

Opposed say no.

That fails on a vote of

two-four.

Councilmember riley,

martinez, myself and mayor

pro tem cole voting no.

Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Cole: I would like to

make an amendment that we

take one million dollars

from the barton springs

bathhouse and allocate that

one million to mexicarte in

accordance with the

taskforce recommendation to

mexicarte, and given that we

gave the bathhouse two

million additional.

So minus one million on the

barton springs bathhouse --

I'm going to object to that

because then you probably

can't do either one of those

projects, so I'll just vote

no.

Any other comments?

Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: I'm going to

support it.

It's clear for one million

dollars-- I don't think

anybody is contemplating

that one million dollars is

going to get a fully funded,

brand new-- I think I'll

stop there.

One million dollars is seed

money for these

organizations and I respect

the taskforce's proposal.

And I think that this is a

good balancing of their

recommendation with some of

the needs we've heard from

the community.

So I will be supporting that

shift in funding.

>> Any other comments?

All in favor say aye?

Opposed say no.

That fails on a vote of

three-three, with

councilmember riley,

martinez and myself voting

no.

Councilmember morrison.

There's endless possibility

of combinations.

>> Morrison: There are

many permutations on this.

I don't know if this will

shift anybody's thinking one

way or the other, but this

would be the concern that

one million wouldn't get us

anywhere for the bath house

and concerns about what it

would mean for mexicarte.

My amendment that I'm just

going to throw out here is

to move the two million from

barton springs bath house to

land acquisition for fire

and fire house.

And we know that's not quite

enough, but hopefully it's

something that we would be

able to fill in.

So that's my motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

zeroing out the bath house,

minus two million on the

bath house and plus two

million on the 360 fusion.

I object.

360 Fire station.

I object.

Any other comments?

I just think that the bath

house is a high priority for

me and for a lot of other

people.

All in favor of that

proposal say aye.

Opposed say no.

It fails on a vote of

four-two with councilmember

riley, myself, martinez,

mayor pro tem cole voting

no.

Councilmember martinez.

>> Martinez: All right.

One last stab.

[Laughter].

So let me line out the

rationale for 30 seconds.

So we all agree that we need

to do something about

protecting our citizens in

the western part of the

city, and the dangers that

we face.

But we also have 30 million

additional dollars in open

space acquisition coupled

with the millions and

millions we've already spent

on open space, many of which

is in the western part of

our town.

So the rationale is we have

to protect that as well.

If we create a wild land

management division within

the department that's that

much more protection, but

you will need a station and

firefighters out there.

So I'm going to propose that

we reduce the 30 million

open space fund by

7 million, and apply it

to a fire station that's

going to protect that open

space and those firefighters

that will protect that open

space.

I believe there's some

rationale for that.

Why do we keep spending tens

and hundreds of millions on

open space, but not

investing in the people and

equipment that we need to

maintain and protect it?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: I just have a

question about that.

I'm not familiar with the

service area for fire

stations as my colleague, so

I just wanted to get -- see

if he can provide any

insights about that.

My impression is that the

open space lands that we

would be likely to acquire

with that $30 million are

not exactly that close to

the location that we've

talked about for the 360

fire station.

And in fact, I would imagine

that there may well be other

fire stations that are

located much closer that

would be serving those open

space areas.

So could I ask you to

address that?

>> Martinez: Yeah.

I think my rationale is that

we already have open space

and protected lands in that

area of 360, 2222, bcp

lands, other lands that we

protect, and we have

partnering agreements with

other fire departments.

But as we continue to annex

and as the city continues to

grow we will have to provide

that service as opposed to

mutual aid agreements.

And so if we're going to

continue investing in open

space acquisitions, I think

we should at least take a

portion of that and invest

in protection of that open

space.

>> Riley: Mayor, if I may

respond.

I absolute agree that we

need to be very conscious

about the need to protect

the open spaces that we

already have and that we may

be acquiring.

And I think that's the

reason why we need to get

serious about establishing a

wild land division within

the fire department.

And that is -- I think that

would be a more effective

way to provide protection

over a wide area of open

space.

And to provide a great

degree of protection from

wildfires.

So I think that's where our

first priority ought to be

in terms of dealing with the

wildfire threat as opposed

to taking steps to establish

one fire station on 360.

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

haven't heard objections.

Is that an objection?

That's an objection.

Okay.

Mayor pro tem?

>> Cole: I certainly

appreciate the need to

protect our citizens in west

austin, but I also recognize

that we just issued co's for

a helicopter to help with

wildfires.

And I know this is not

enough and it doesn't answer

all the needs that could be

provided by a fire station,

but I think with this

package we are taking

balanced, incremental steps

to keep the city on track.

So I will not be supporting

this motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, I feel really bad

because now I'm going to be

forced four times to vote

against the 360 fire

station.

>> Martinez: I don't think

you will have to vote.

I didn't get a second.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You

don't need a second.

This is a special procedure

that we're using.

>> Martinez: Then let's

just pass it without voting?

[Laughter].

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember!

I just want to give my

reasons for this.

Open space acquisition has

long been a priority in bond

packages.

It has just a long a

history, longer history than

affordable housing.

And I just want to give you

a couple of comparisons.

In 2006 the last bond

package affordable housing

housing was 55 million.

You can do the percentages

for yourself.

It sounds like that's about

eight percent, though.

Something like that.

That was out of 567 million.

In 2006 open space was

$50 million out of that same

567.

This year in 2012 we're now

at $77 million for

affordable housing out of

385 million, which is about

20%.

Open space on the other hand

is 30.

So it has not kept pace

proportionately.

And to take it one step

further, where we normally

have -- where we have been

acquiring open space is in

the barton springs zone,

which is a long ways from

the 360 fire station.

I do know -- not identifying

anything, but I do know

there are very attractive

opportunities that are going

to be available to us that

have already -- those

opportunities have been

diminished by reducing from

44 down to 30, reducing it

another five million dollars

almost is going to make them

further and further out of

reach since they're really

great opportunities.

So I will not be supporting

this either.

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: Yeah, I agree

with you completely.

And I appreciate your run

down of the history and the

importance of it and I think

it's actually growing in

importance as we move into

the future because there's

less open space to acquire.

So now's not the time to cut

back on it, but I do want to

tip my hat to councilmember

martinez for coming up with

a creative connection and

suggestion.

[Laughter].

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.

So no more comments, we'll

vote on this proposal.

In favor say aye.

>> Aye!

[Laughter].

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Opposed say no.

And that fails on a vote of

two-four with councilmember

tovo, myself, councilmember

morrison, mayor pro tem

voting no.

Oh, you voted no also?

Okay.

So it fails on a vote of

1-5.

And add councilmember riley

to the list of no's.

So seeing that there are no

more amendments to be

offered and so we have a

motion on the table to pass

essentially the version that

we passed yesterday on

second and third readings.

All in favor say aye.

>> Cole: Mayor, I have a

comment.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Opposed say no?

So it passes on second

reading only --

>> Cole: Wait a minute.

Oh, man, I was going to make

a motion to do it on all

three.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, we've already done

one.

This is on second and third,

but since we didn't get five

votes we can't do that.

We got four votes with

councilmember tovo and

morrison voting no.

So we have third reading to

go.

That means we'll have our

special -- another special

meeting tomorrow at two p.m.

>> Riley: For those of you

who are interested, will

public input be allowed at

the meeting tomorrow?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm

going to say it is not a

public hearing.

It is kind of ironic that

when we don't have a public

hearing we had more public

input than we do at a public

hearing, but -- because

there's no public hearing to

close.

So I'm going to suggest that

we limit comment to 30

minutes tomorrow and if we

can do that.

Hopefully we can address it

in a fairly quick manner.

Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Cole: I would like to

make a motion to reconsider

to simply discuss whether we

can go on second and third.

I know we have voted

already, but I would just

like to make a plea that we

consider that and in light

of the amendments that we

made tonight or if we want

to take a recess and come

back to make -- to have more

discussion about amendments

as opposed to having to come

back tomorrow.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, you did vote on the

prevailing side, so

technically it's legal for

you to make a motion to

reconsider.

Is there a second to the

motion to reconsider?

Is there a second to the

motion to reconsider?

That motion dies for lack of

a second.

So we will see you tomorrow.

That brings us to our zoning

cases.

Mr. guernsey.

We'll hear items 71 and 72

together.

>> Let me introduce them.

Item 71 is case

npa-2012-0013.01.

This is a property located

at 603 west johanna street

located in the bouldin creek

neighborhood planning area.

This is an amendment to

their future land use map to

go to a mixed use land use

designation.

The planning commission's

recommendation was to deny

the mixed land use

designation.

The related zoning case is

item number 72, case

c-14-2012-0021, again for

the same property at 603

west johanna street.

This is a rezoning request

to neighborhood office mixed

use neighborhood plan or

no-mu-np combining district

zoning.

The planning commission's

recommendation was to deny

the rezoning request to

no-mu-np.

The property itself is only

about 723 square feet and it

is the rear portion of an

existing single-family lot.

There's an existing home on

front.

There's an existing

restaurant which is polvo's

to the east.

Another restaurant to the

north and commercial zoning.

And to the south is another

gr -- lr zoned piece of land

where the parking lot is

proposed.

That would actually connect

to the restaurant.

Properties to the west are

zoned residential and

developed with single-family

homes.

Staff did not recommend the

neighborhood plan amendment,

nor the zoning change.

It's not supported by the

neighborhood planning

contact team.

The request is only for a

very small portion.

As you can see on the aerial

photo, that would just link

the tract to the south,

which is the parking lot to

the existing restaurant.

I did speak to the attorney

represent the owner this

evening.

He indicated to me that he

would not be here, nor would

phil moncada, the agent for

the owner.

If you have any questions

for staff, I'll be happy to

answer them, I believe.

You have at least three

people from the neighborhood

that are here this evening

to speak in opposition to

the request.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: guernsey,

did I hear you say earlier

that there was a reason

given that he said he was

leaving?

>> Earlier this evening

moncada indicated to me

that it was because of legal

counsel he was advised not

to.

>> Morrison: And do you

have any contact --

>> actually, not to stay,

but to postpone the request.

>> Morrison: And there's

no contacts beyond that.

It was just those words.

You don't know what kind of

legal?

>> No.

aaron

terrier this evening who is

representing the owner, he

indicated to me that both he

phil moncada would

not be present this evening.

>> Morrison: Okay.

Thank you.

>> I would rather just stop

at that point.

>> Morrison: Right.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

There's no one to speak, no

one here to speak for

applicant.

There are no speakers signed

up in favor.

So we'll go to -- we'll go

to those signed up against.

The first speaker is cindy

collins.

Cindy collins.

Mark casscart.

Not here --

>> he's here.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Gary

hyatt.

>> Tovo: Mayor, I think

there's been some

discussion --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm

just calling names.

It's a public hearing.

I have to call the names.

>> Tovo: Got it.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Bradford patterson.

So there's no one here to

speak against.

>> I'm here, sir,.

I spoke earlier.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

When we spoke earlier, we

were talking only about the

merits of the postponement.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Now

you can talk about the

merits of the case if you

would like.

And you have three minutes.

>> Okay.

I have -- if you can put it

up.

>> Where's gary hyatt.

>> He donated time.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

you have six minutes.

>> Okay.

Not to address the legal

issues.

I thought I would give you a

visual representation of why

this is not about the

parking on the street.

So if you could go to the

second slide, it's about the

systematic parking

extension.

Restaurant.

It's about them being fair,

legal and a good neighbor,

none of which they are.

And it's about the city's

inability to take any

meaningful action to correct

it.

Next slide.

So I have a series of

pictures.

What you can see from this

is taken from google street

view today.

You can actually walk down

this online.

What you can see on the

left-hand side of this

picture is a load of empty

spaces in the polvo's

parking lot.

What you can see down the

600 and 700 block of west

johanne ha in a is all the

public parking taken.

The restaurant do need this

parking, but it won't affect

the 6 and 700 blocks of west

johanna.

We have la mexicana bakery,

bouldin creek bakery shop.

We have a pizzeria operating

out of a trailer.

This is the restaurant

trying to get more

preferential parking for

their customers.

It's not about the street

parking.

I didn't move in next to a

restaurant with an empty

lot.

I moved in to a double

fenced, tree-lined house

that was between mine and

the restaurant.

Next slide.

What you can see here, this

was taken in 2006.

What you can see here is the

backyard of 063 west

johanna, which is full of

trees.

There were two buildings

behind that.

It was all double fenced

off.

Next slide, please.

This is what it looks like

today.

They've done this without

any approval, any

application.

It's been like this for two

years.

It's a complete strip mall.

It exceeds impervious cover.

They use it for commercial

parking.

Next slide.

Whatever they put on the

planning application, this

is what they will do.

This is taken from my

bedroom window.

Whatever they put on the

application they will put

more tables and seats in.

Next slide, please.

You can see that at the

moment they put chairs in

for people to climb over the

fence.

You can see people there.

The ones that won't climb

over the fence walk through

a residential driveway that

isn't fenced off from my

driveway.

I've sat on my front porch

and I have to put up with

that.

Next slide, please.

You can see here taken in

march the parking, the roof

on the right-hand side is my

master bedroom.

This is what happens device

twice a week before 7:30.

They reverse a laundry truck

down through that whole lot

with the beeping noise into

an sf-3 property.

They unload laundry.

They do deliveries in a

residential sf-3 lot.

This is simply not about the

parking.

If you were to approve this,

all this behavior will

continue and get worse.

And you are letting them

drive cars within 30 feet of

my master bedroom and living

room.

Next slide.

These are the things that

I've given up complaining

about.

Right?

In this picture you can see

they're washing grills in

the backyard of the

restaurant -- from the

restaurant in the backward

of an sf-3 house.

It drains down the driveway,

into the street and goes

straight into town lake.

I've given up complaining

about this.

I've tried to be tolerant of

their behavior.

I've given them some

latitude.

Next slide.

This is it going down the

gutters into town lake.

Next slide.

So my request to you is both

reject this, please, and

find a way to get staff to

get that residential lot

fenced off, separated, not

used for commercial storage,

not used for commercial

access, not used to pollute

town lake and so on.

So I really -- I really find

myself, you know, I've

submitted endless 311 calls

about this.

I'm at a loss to decide what

to do next.

I spent more than $12,000 on

attorney's fees to try to

get a reasonable circum

vince of this behavior of

this applicant.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: One

more speaker, david hartman.

And again, this is the

public hearing for item 71

and 72 together.

>> Thanks, mayor and

councilmembers.

David hartman, I represent

mark cath deep cart, the

most immediate adjacent

landowner from the

applicant's request.

My presentation, basically

the brief history is that

the applicant came before

the neighborhood planning

SUBCOMMITTEE MAY 18th 2003

Recommending an -- that that

body initiated an out of

cycle deed applications.

That committee minutes

recommended that they

basically talked with the

neighbors and come up with a

workable solution.

The that applicant never --

can you flip my powerpoint.

Second page.

You can see the applicant

never discussed the matter

with the neighbors and filed

these applications in the

cycle on february 2012.

Next slide.

Basically this application

to zone 723 square foot,

12-foot strip no mystifies

me.

It violates the land

development code

requirements for no zoning.

And the last bullet, it

doesn't meet the no district

definition for access

collector street.

The bouldin creek

neighborhood plan, I'll

direct your attention to

basically that second, third

bullet under no properties

located within the interior

of the neighborhood that are

zoned single-family shall

remain single-family.

That last bullet basically

confirms that the recurring

theme of that plan is to

control problems with

commercial parking,

especially at this exact

intersection.

And again, kind of the

second bullet point says

with regards to the -- this

team is seeking to prevent

encroachment of commercial

use into the residential

parts of the neighborhood.

And that very last slide,

the maximum enforcement of

current regulations at the

intersection of south first

and johanna, which is this

intersection.

Parking variance request

within this area should be

given maximum scrutiny.

So in summary, I would just

kind of reiterate the bullet

points and the last slide,

kind of reiterate what we've

discussed.

Zoning staff recommendation

said that the proposed

zoning would constitute a

grant of special privilege

without consideration for

the intent of the proposed

zoning district or the

existing single-family

residential to the west.

I direct your attention to

page 7 of the agenda item 71

on the neighborhood plan

amendment where stewart

hampton, chair of the

bouldin creek neighborhood

plan contact team on behalf

of the executive committee

recommends disapproval.

I'm happy to answer any

questions.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Questions?

Is there anyone else that

would like to speak in this

public hearing?

On item 71 or 72.

Normally this would be time

for rebuttal by the

applicant, but there's no

one here to represent the

applicant.

Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: Mayor, I'd like

to move denial of this

request.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

>> Tovo: Do we want to

take them one at a time?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let

me just -- just to be on the

safe side, let's make that a

motion to close the public

hearing and deny item number

71, which is amending the

flum.

Seconded by the mayor pro

tem.

Is there any discussion?

Councilmember morrison?

We're just taking them

separate.

>> Morrison: I just want

to say that it's really

unfortunate that the

applicant chose not to be

here, bonder this is such an

egregious encroachment that

is in violation and contra

tracts everything that we

know about, all the

documents and all, that i

think it's safe to go

forward today.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

All in favor of the motion

to deny say aye?

Opposed say no --

[laughter].

Say no.

All right.

That it passes on a vote of

six to zero with

councilmember spelman off

the dais.

And councilmember tovo moves

to close the public hearing

and deny the zoning change

request as well.

Seconded by the mayor pro

tem.

Discussion?

All in favor say aye?

Opposed say no?

It passes on a vote of six

to zero with councilmember

spelman off the dais.

And that brings us to what i

believe to be the last item

on our agenda, which is item

87.

>> Thank you, mayor,

council.

The last item on the agenda

today is a floodplain

variance request for 200

heartwood drive in the

williamson creek watershed.

Heartwood drive runs to the

top of the screen there.

You can see the 100 year

floodplain on williamson

creek in color and the 25

year floodplain in the dark

blue color.

The house has been in its

existing location since

1977.

And currently the house --

finished floor elevation of

the house is approximately

three feet below the 100

year floodplain elevation.

There are two pictures of

the existing house.

As you can see it's a

two-story house, garage on

the back side.

The garage itself fronts on

to heartwood drive.

The owner of the house has

submit add residential

building application to

partially convert a portion

of the garage to condition

space for the house, so

existing conditions such as

a two car garage they're

proposal is to essentially

cut that space in half and

the back half of the garage

would be converted into an

extra bedroom, an existing

three-bedroom house.

It will be a four bedroom

house and then some area for

the kitchen as well.

It will be a little bit of

conditioned area of the

first floor of the house.

Because of the development

application, we compare

what's being proposed to the

floodplain regulations and

these are the four variances

that are being requested

tonight.

The first one being that

it's a violation of the

floodplain regulations to

alter a structure to

increase its nonconformity

and staff considers when you

add conditioned space to a

house that is nonconforming,

in so much as it's three

feet below the 100 year

floodplain and it does not

have access out of the

floodplain, it's increasing

the nonconformity of that

structure.

In addition, either that

they are converting is three

feet below the 100 year

floodplain elevation.

And there's no safe access

in other words from the

house itself to a location

that's out of the

floodplain.

There's no safe access out

of the house.

The last variance request is

the variance to the drainage

easement requirement

inasmuch as just excluding

the house footprint from the

drainage easement itself.

Just real quickly to touch

on the nonconforming use and

the safe access criteria,

again, the nonconforming use

criteria, basically if we

have a structure that is

nonconforming, our goal is

to not increase its conform

five-zero -- because in

doing so we could be doing

several things.

We could be -- it could

increase flood hazards if

there's a flood at the

house.

In addition increasing the

nonconformity inasmuch as

the safe access rule.

We have additional occupancy

inside the house that

doesn't have safe access.

This proposed development as

I said increases the

conditioned area in the

house.

Without the safe access and

it's below the floodplain

elevation.

As far as the safe access

criteria again I talked

about that.

That rule basically says you

need to walk from a house

that's above the floodplain

to a point that's out of the

floodplain.

We don't want people

essentially building on an

island.

We want people to be able to

walk out of the floodplain,

and that's obviously a

benefit for the owners or

the occupants of that

structure in addition to

their first responders.

Since the house itself sits

three feet below the 100

year floodplain elevation,

obviously safe access

doesn't exist in this case.

Just a quick summary of the

findings.

So again, the proposed

development internal remodel

so there's no effect

on the floodplain he will

vagues of woman creek at

all.

It's all internal to the

existing house.

The finished floor elevation

of the house is about three

feet below the 100 year

floodplain.

They are increasing

occupancy within the

floodplain with the

additional space of the

conditioned area.

No safe access for the house

exists.

And as far as the hardship

condition, there are

findings that there's no

hardship condition for this

property.

There's an existing house on

the lot.

It's a usable house and it's

being used today.

In addition, it is a

two-story house and

there's -- if they -- they

could maybe consider putting

some of this area on the

second floor of the house.

We did discuss that with the

applicant and their comment

to us was that this

additional bedroom is to be

used for I believe they said

for an he would -- their

elderly mother who couldn't

walk up the steps.

So that's why they needed

the room on the first floor

of the house itself.

There is a draft ordinance

in the back of your packets.

I wanted to bring it to your

attention the two conditions

that we did put on that

ordinance if council will

find to approve the

variance.

One of those conditions is

for the drainage easement

document.

And we would require the

drainage easement with the

exception of excluding the

footprint of the house

itself prior to certificate

of occupancy.

And the second condition is

for the elevation

certificate.

We actually have an

elevation certificate that

they supplied to us.

There are just two numbers

that need to be fixed on

there.

No additional survey

required.

It's just a minor change

that the surveyor would need

to make, so that should be a

pretty easy fix for

themselves.

That's all I have.

If you have any questions, i

would be happy to answer.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

have a question.

Williamson creek, just

refresh me on that.

It seems like it has been a

major flood hazard creek in

the city of austin, one of

the two most -- one of the

handfuls, most problematic,

and we have been working on

a number of ways to mitigate

that for a lot of years,

including buyouts, including

engineering solutions.

Is all that correct?

>> That's correct.

Williamson creek is -- has a

significant number of flood

hazards, a lot of flooded

structures, especially in

this fairview neighborhood.

The corps of engineers study

that we did several years

ago did look at some

engineering options to cut

the channel.

And they also looked at some

buy out options.

All those options were not

feasible and so the corps of

engineers essentially closed

the study.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

in other floodplain areas

we've already begun this

process.

We've been dealing with this

for years and trying to get

matching money, matching

funds from the federal

government doing buyouts on

onion creek in particular.

And I think that's the way

it goes is that when you buy

these properties out, it has

to be somewhat related to

the size and value of the

house.

So it's just hard for me to

look at this and see that

we're adding to the living

space of a house that we

might have to turn around

and buy at some point.

This meets none of the

criteria.

Finished floor area is three

feet below.

Did you say the 25?

>> Three feet below the 100

year.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Below the 100 year

floodplain.

The access is also half a

foot to three feet below,

which is much more than

our -- criteria we like to

have, which I believe is a

foot and a half for fire

vehicles, fire fighting

vehicles.

Which imposes potential

hazards on our personnel,

which might have to go in

there for a rescue, whether

it be e.m.s. or fire.

And there's no hardship.

That has been identified at

least at this point.

I won't be able to support

this set of variances.

Support this ordinance.

Councilmember martinez.

>> Martinez: Yeah.

I'm not going to support the

request either, but just by

way of reference, this is

the neighborhood where we

approved multiple floodplain

variances, but they were

approved after the fact,

after the structure had

already been --

>> grandfathered.

>> Martinez: Yeah.

So we already have multiple

variances and structures,

nonconforming structures in

a floodplain that we've

granted variances on.

So it only exacerbates the

problem in my mind to

continue to do this.

If there's no identified

hardship, I think adding to

what exists there is not

appropriate.

I make a motion to deny the

variance request.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Motion by councilmember

martinez to deny.

Seconded by councilmember

morrison.

Is there any further

discussion?

All in favor say aye?

Oppose said no?

-- Opposed say no?

We closed the public hearing

and denied.

Of course that's hard to see

how we would have a public

hearing when an item doesn't

exist anymore, but

nevertheless, we've set it.

So that passes on a vote of

six to zero with

councilmember spelman off

the dais.

Thank you very much.

And those are all the items

that we have on our agenda.

Somebody have another item

they wanted to bring up?

So without objection, we

stand adjourned at 8:53 p.m.

See you tomorrow at 2:00.