>> Mayor Leffingwell: Good
morning.
I'm austin mayor lee
leffingwell.
A quorum is present so I'll
call this work session to
order on tuesday,
DECEMBER 4th, 2012.
The time is 9:05 a.m.
We're meeting in the board
and commissions room, austin
city hall.
301 West second street,
austin, texas.
Council, since we have a lot
of folks here for one
particular item, we'll go
ahead and take that item
first.
It is item d-1, a briefing
by the city auditor
regarding the redistricting
process.
Then we'll go back to start
from the top.
>> Good morning.
I'm tim laurie, the city
auditor.
Today my office will be
providing on 10-1.
Chief of investigation will
be providing today's
presentation.
This presentation will
provide an overview of the
process we are following, a
proposed time line that we
believe will allow for
large, more diverse
applicant pools, and that
the process will be widely
publicized and transparent.
We will also cover our
outreach plan and budget
requirements.
Further, we'll be presenting
proposal revisions to the
strategic audit plan to meet
estimated requirements of
the 10-1 initiative.
I would like to let jason go
ahead and make that
presentation.
>> Good morning, mayor,
mayor pro tem,
councilmembers.
As you all know, austin
voters passed proposition 3
last month amending the
charter to include a 10 one
single member plan and
requiring the city auditor
to assist in this process.
As seen on this slide, it
involves the creation of a
citizens redistricting
commission which will
ultimately draw the inlook
and applicant review panel
which will select the most
qualified applicants.
The requirements to serve
are different.
The commissioner
requirements include austin
residency as well as voter
registration and
participation requirements
and the panel requires
MEMBERS TO BE ACTIVE CPAs
With at least five years
audit experience.
Subject to the same conflict
of interests prohibitions
outlined in the charter
provision.
Citizens can visit our
austin,
gov/10 one to obtain
more detailed information on
requirements and conflict of
interest prohibitions.
This slide is a high level
overview of the process in
general.
It begins with our office
facilitating an application
process for both the panel
and commission.
During and immediately
following the application
period, our office will
identify qualified
applicants without conflicts
of interest as defined by
the charter.
We will then conduct a
random drawing to try to
recommend three panel
members which will be done
so in public.
We will provide panel
members with remaining
qualifications to the
commission.
The panel is then
responsible for narrowing
that pool to the 60 most
qualified applicants on the
basis of relevant analytical
skills and ability to be
impartial, residency in the
various parts of austin, and
appreciation for austin's
diverse demographics and
geography.
Once the pool is narrowed to
the 60 most qualified, the
names will be provided to
city council where each of
you will have the ability to
strike up to one applicant
in writing.
The remaining pool will be
provided to our office for
another random drawing in
public to identify the first
eight commissioners.
Those eight are then
responsible for selecting
the remaining six to ensure
the commission reflects the
diversity of the city of
austin including but not
limited to racial, ethnic
and gender diversity.
Applicants shall also be
chosen based on relevant
analytical skills and
ability to be impartial and
at least one commissioner
must be a student duly
enrolled in a college or
university in austin.
Sorry, did not get that last
one.
This table is a comparison
of the dates set forth in
the charter amendment to our
proposed time line, section
3 b states if the date of
the city election is moved
the dates in the article
shall be adjusted to ensure
the commission has
sufficient time to draw
lines prior to the election
day.
As you can see our proposed
time line pushes back some
of those dates but includes
a number of advantages over
the original date.
First, it would allow the
commission an additional two
months to draw the lines
compared to the original
time frame as well as
additional two months
between adoption of the
final plan and the next
election.
Our proposed time line would
also allow for public input
into the application process
and sufficient time for our
office to ensure the process
is widely publicized,
transparent and effective.
This would be accomplished
through a rules adoption
process which is the second
set of dates on the chart.
Finally, the proposed time
line would shift the
responsibilities of the
applicant review panel past
the tax and audit end of
year busy season.
Specifically asking
volunteers to give time
after april 15th increases
ability of them serving on
the panel.
With the limited number of
CPAs IN AUSTIN,
Approximately 3,000 active,
many of which have conflicts
of interest, ensuring the
maximum number of applicant
is effective.
Increased dates of
publication helping to
ensure an optimum number of
citizens are made aware of
the requirements and other
related information.
This slide highlights some
of the key pieces of our
outreach plan.
Later this evening we'll be
holding a public forum on
the best way to reach out to
all of austin's citizens and
what those requirements mean
to them.
That is, how do they
interpret relevant
analytical skills and
ability to be impartial.
As seen on the last slide,
we've incorporated at the
city attorney's office
formally adopting the rules
and increase the likelihood
this entire process is
successful.
We also plan to host q and a
sessions to address citizen
inquiries and concerns and
with assistance of the
public information office
we've developed a website
dedicated to 10 one and have
developed a facebook and
twitter page to help
publicize the process.
We're also working closely
with the pio to ensure wide
publicity across austin.
This slide presents our
estimated budgetary needs.
It does not factor in
expenses incurred related to
the oca or other city
offices payroll expenses.
That is, it does not include
currently staffed time.
That concludes my portion of
plan.
>> Thank you, jason.
We had a brief discussion
about the proposed plan
revisions at the last a.f.c.
Meeting and we're presenting
now a little bit more firmed
up plan.
The proposal additions to
the single-member district
project we're asking for an
additional 1500 hours and
there's also a request by
to add parkland
dedication audit to the
current plan.
In order to achieve this, we
are proposing deferrals of
recruiting and
social
media audit and material
purchases controls audit.
recruiting and
hiring audit we think should
be deferred in any case
because of the civil
service.
It would make sense not to
do that audit until that
civil service actually goes
into place.
social
immediate why and material
purchase controls we think
are while they are important
to put in the plan, we think
they can be deferred because
their risk level is probably
less than some of the other
ones we're working on right
now.
So we're proposing to off
seat these 2500 hours, we're
proposing to defer the three
projects shown in this
slide.
We're open for any questions
you may have at this point.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Questions?
Councilmember martinez.
>> Martinez: Yeah, so i
have one question.
When I look at the time line
that you guys provided to
us, going down to the last
two lines, it says that the
commissionhall adopt the
final plan on april 1, 2014.
So I presume at that point
it has to go through d.o.j.
Preclearance.
And if that is the case,
then it would only allow for
about 30 days, maybe 35 days
to get back before the
180-day campaign could start
for a november election.
Is that correct?
>> We actually factored in
pre-clearance submission
earlier in our process but i
would like to bring john
steiner up from the law
department who could talk
more accurately about that.
>> Martinez: Just trying
to get a sense of where
preclearance is within this
time line and why isn't it
on the time line?
>> Well, the presentation
today, of course, is about
the auditor's piece of this
process, but the anticipated
date of the implementation
in november 2014 would have
time for us to achieve the
necessary preclearance, and
I think that we would not
anticipate that there's any
retrogression in any of the
proposals here so everything
should go in a more or less
expected and good way and i
think that a campaign could
proceed without any further
effect.
But we can get into this in
more detail in the executive
session if you want to ask
[09:14:01]
preclearance counsel when
they are available there.
So I don't think that's
going to present -- I don't
think there's anything in
the auditor's plan that will
adversely effect our
pre-clearance and I don't
think there is anything in
our expected preclearance
issues that are adversely
going to affect the
auditor's plan.
Nothing in the city's
proposal is -- well, nothing
in the 10 one plan is
reive, which is the
standard under preclearance
under section 5.
And so we hope, believe and
expect that everything will
go in a very routine way
along those lines.
>> Martinez: Sounds like
based on your response that
your anticipation is that
campaigns will begin as
preclearance is taking
place.
>> That may be the case
depending on the timing,
yeah.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councimember spelman.
>> Spelman: A followup,
who is going to be staffing
that commission?
Your job or the city clerk
or who is going to handle
that?
>> At this point our charge
is to get the pools, the
large diverse pools and go
through that point in time.
We have no charge to go
beyond that particular point
in time and I guess from my
perspective when we look at
it, there's going to be
probably more legal issues
that may be coming up and
more staffing issues so we
don't have an answer for
that.
>> Spelman: Seems to me
they are going to need
access to a demographer to
work on the map issue and
we'll do consequences of
different kinds of maps and
probably legal assistance
which they may want to get
from legal counsel or our
city attorney.
But the charter amendment is
silent as to whether it's
going to be staffed by you
or somebody else.
And you are not volunteering
to take on that role, i
[09:16:00]
presume.
>> I don't think we're
probably the right people to
be doing that so I think,
you know, a lot of -- we
would just be I guess in the
middle of trying to get
individuals to get the job
done, but when I look at it,
it looks like they are going
to need a different kind of
assistance rather than
auditor's assistance.
>> Spelman: That seems
reasonable to me.
At which point -- and i
notice that you are having
the eight select six
remaining members which
would be the end of your end
of the process really is
when the entire commission
gets selected and your
support is then -- becomes
voluntarily, it's no longer
mandated by the charter
commission on the 30th of
august, which is two months
after the original seduced
forward.
Set forward.
You are just penciling in
the first of april because
you are not going to be
staffing those guys and who
mandates the commission is
going to be the commission
and their staff.
That's really not your job.
>> That's our understanding,
yes.
>> Spelman: They are going
to have basically as much
time, considerably more time
under this schedule than
they did under the original
schedule regardless of
whether it's the first of
april or first of march or
whatever time frame we have.
So there's plenty of time to
get the thing done if it
turns out we anticipate more
than 35 days is going to be
required for pre-clearance.
>> Yes.
This time line has more time
in it for all different
processes.
>> Spelman: Right, right,
okay.
And presumably if we're
going to have a preclearance
problem with the map, we're
going to know about that in
advance and we can build it
and move more time to send
that map along.
Would that be a fair
statement, john?
>> Yes.
SPECIAL SMELL THE FAIRER>> Spelman: The fairer
statement is 10 one is more
representative than what we
have right now.
>> Yes.
We have no expectation that
anything will be found to be
[09:18:09]
retrogressive.
>> Spelman: And it's
not -- john, could you shed
light as to what it is would
be providing staff for the
commission itself?
>> The amendment is silent
on that point.
Obviously they will need the
sort of nuts and bolts
things like a room to meet
in and, you know, maybe a
coffee urn or something
along those lines.
>> Spelman: Maybe several
of those.
>> So I think that the city
can easily work that out.
We're used to staffing
boards and commissions and
we can find a way to make
that happen.
>> Spelman: But that's
something we're going to
have to talk about.
>> Sure.
This is the first time that
any of this has ever been
implemented, obviously, and
so we'll be learning as we
go this time and hopefully
we'll set a good model for
when this happens again in
eight years and then in 18
years.
>> Spelman: But no more
frequently than that, i
hope.
Thanks.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem.
>> Cole: I know that we
have a tight schedule and
that makes it easier to
[inaudible], but john, i
want to ask you --
>> mayor pro tem, your mic.
>> Cole: I want to
appreciate you've built in
more time to get this done
in the time line for the
auditor, but that a
significant amount of it
actually does not cover what
you will be doing.
So I want to ask you, john,
is there anything in the
time line that we've been
presented that would
prohibit us from any type of
expedited review by the
justice department?
>> No, we could ask for
that.
>> Cole: And how would
that impact the time line?
It would just give us more
time to hear back from
justice?
>> If -- well, if they were
able to respond to us more
quickly than their 60-day
deadline, that would, of
course, give us more
certainty early on in the
process.
>> Cole: Okay.
[09:20:00]
Thank you, mayor.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember riley.
>> Riley: I appreciate
your efforts to establish
and publicize the
application process for
the -- both the panel and
the commission because i
know a lot of citizens are
interested in serving on
this.
I do want to raise one
question that has been
brought to my attention
since this began and that
relates to eligibility for
those two things, especially
eligibility for commission.
I heard from a friend of
mine in anderson mill, a
long-time resident of
anderson mill who is
interested in applying for
the commission.
Anderson mill was annexed
four years ago and under
section 3d of the -- of the
new provisions, it looks
like each commissioner must
have been a voter who has
been continuously registered
in the city of austin for
five or more years
immediately preceding the
date of his or her
appointment.
According to the city
demographer, since january 1
of 2008, five years ago, the
city has annexed 25,708
individuals.
So I just want to make sure
for purposes of clarity that
we're all agreed that those
folks who are long-time
residents of areas that were
annexed, those 26 -- roughly
26,000 folks annexed over
the last four years, those
folks are not eligible even
though they have been living
in those areas a long time,
they haven't actually been
registered in the city of
austin for five or more
years.
Is that your understanding
that those folks would not
be eligible?
>> That's my understanding,
but maybe I ought to let the
city attorney's office speak
to that.
>> As we're going through
this provision, we have come
across a number of
interpretted issues and
going to have to come
[09:22:02]
to shore in those
situations.
One of the reasons for the
rule adoption process is put
our proposed interpretations
out for public comment.
There are a number of things
in the tradition that you
could read in a number of
different ways and so we
want to stay as close as we
can to the text and not be
just making stuff up.
And on the other hand there
are some things that we're
going to have to decide how
they should be read because
they could be reasonably
read in a number of ways.
And by going through a
process by which we
publicize how we mean to
interpret that, we have a
chance to get some public
input and to be completely
transparent about what we
need to do.
I think our intention is
that the auditors' task of
removing the people who
either have a conflict of
interest or don't meet the
qualifications should be as
objective as possible and to
take as much as we can any
ability to apply discretion
after the fact out of it.
So that when people fill out
the application, they have a
reasonable knowledge of
whether or not yes they meet
the qualification.
To answer your question,
there is nothing in the
provision that suggests that
a provision -- that there's
any kind of grandfathering
or saving provision for
recently annexed areas.
Presumably they would be
eligible the next time but
possibly not this.
>> It's our intent even
though we have to follow the
requirements, it is our
intent to be as inclusive as
we can be so that's the mode
that we operate in.
[09:24:00]
If we can't be, then we
can't be.
>> Sure, sure.
No, I appreciate that and i
just want to be completely
transparent about the
requirements and I think if
we need -- we need to be
clear on this one that folks
that have been annexed in
the last five years under
our current interpretation
would not be eligible to
serve.
But would be eligible the
next time.
>> I think there's other
issues we need to address
like someone who maybe moved
from austin into the area
and I think those things
would have to be flushed out
as john is discussing
because there may be some
exceptions.
>> Riley: And there may be
folks in those annexed areas
who, say, they moved from
some other part of office to
that annexed area, they
would still be he will jill.
But if you've been living in
anderson mill the last ten
years and it was only
annexed four years you are
not eligible at this time.
>> Keep in mind too it's not
just a person has to have
been continuously registered
for five years, but they
have have voted in three of
the last five city general
elections.
>> Riley: Right.
>> Which also extends back
quite a number of years as
well.
>> Riley: Okay.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councimember spelman.
>> Spelman: I didn't
expect to have another
question but this raises --
this bothers me.
If the -- there is a legally
responsible interpretation
of the amendment which would
allow the person that
councilmember riley was
talking about that's been a
resident of anderson mill
for seven years, say, hasn't
moved, been in the same
place, but only a resident
of the city of austin for
three years, four years,
just basically mixed the cut
by a few months, seems if
there is a responsible
interpretation of the law
that would allow that person
to be a member of this
commission, presumably they
are going to be a member, we
don't disannex areas, seems
to me we ought to adopt that
[09:26:02]
reading.
If we can't do it, we can't
do it, I understand it, but
you talk about
interpretation issues, i
understand you would be
close to the text.
In this case I think there
is a bigger principle which
is be as inclusive as
possible.
The text may not have been
written as carefully as it
should.
I don't want you to make a
snap judgment on this, john,
but seems there's a couple
of principles going on and
seems to me at least the
principle of inclusion is a
lot more important of the
principle of remaining as
close to the text as
possible so long as we could
be defensible in that
interpretation.
>> I agree on the point of
not making a snap judgment.
>> Spelman: We agree on
that.
Maybe very should stop
talking now.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Can
I make a comment on that
because respectfully i
disagree with that.
I think the selection
process should be err on the
side of being overly
restrictive for the simple
reason it seems to me if you
have a situation where the
commission itself is
vulnerable to legal
challenge, then that could
throw the whole pot -- throw
the whole process awry.
It seems to me to make sure
that the literal word of the
qualifications of
commissioners come right out
of the charter language to
make sure that the
commission itself stays
intact throughout the
process.
That's just my opinion.
Councilmember morrison.
>> Morrison: I was going
to move on to a little bit
of a different topic so if
you wanted to -- I would be
happy to have him --
>> the closing point I want
to make on this issue is
whatever our legal opinions
are as they've started
today, we need to get those
out to the public so we can
start public comment this
evening.
Because for every statement
that's made, there seems to
be a conflicting opinion by
[09:28:01]
somebody else regarding this
process.
I realize that if we get the
maps drawn by august as the
time line states, you know,
it could be plenty of time
to have it done in three
months and then start the
pre-clearance process, but
does this interpretation of
the commission shall adopt a
final plan on april 1st
mandate that we wait until
APRIL 1st?
It says shall and it says on
that day.
Again, my point is let's get
these legal opinions out
there, let's get the citizen
input that we need and get
the legal advice we need to
make sure, one, that we're
conducting the process as
appropriately as we can, but
to go back to your point, we
did have one area deannex.
The city didn't but the
citizens triggered that and
that was in harris branch.
There are unique cases but
it's not the norm.
We've got to figure out who
qualifies, get this
commission up and running so
we can have these districts
running and folks can run
and do the election without
having to worry about
pre-clearance hanging over
their head and any other
issues for that matter.
>> Mayor, I have a question.
I think this is some what
related.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.
>> Morrison: If I could
just throw this on the
table.
I would be interested to
know, you mention there are
several interpretive issues
we're going to run into.
Would it be possible to run
through what those are right
here because I'm very
interested to know and i
think it might help the
conversation later this
evening if we could know
exactly what the thought is
on where interpretation is
going to come into play.
>> Yes.
If I could just address the
public input on the
interpretation first and
then I'll get to this
question.
Just pointing out the time
line, the second line on
there the rules adoption, i
know the dates are vague, we
just say december 2012
through january 2013, but
what we envision is
hopefully by the end of next
week having our draft rules
[09:30:01]
and those applications
finalized, putting them out
for public comment and there
will be a 30-day period
where citizens can review
those, ask questions,
comment on things they find
ambiguous or unclear or
disagrees and we'll be able
to incorporate that feedback
in mid-january 2013 so there
will be a month process
where they can address those
interpretive issues.
Getting back to some of the
specific items, just going
off the top of my head,
there's a number of them.
We've looked at, for
example, qualified
independent auditor.
That's a term that was in
there, in the charter
provision.
That's not a term really
used in the audit industry
and so that was something
we've had to interpret, and
again, we're trying to
interpret as broadly as
possible, focusing on the
requirement for licensure by
the texas board of public
accountancy.
We're looking at active cpa
in austin who has had five
years independent audit
experience.
So trying to include as many
people as possible.
In the conflict of interest
requirements, there's a
prohibition against
individuals who have had a
professional contract with
the city, with the city
council or with city
councilmembers.
And so we're working on
developing an interpretation
of someone who may have had
a professional contract with
anyone on city council.
And trying to shore up what
that means.
How far does that extend.
Those are a couple that come
up to me.
>> And councilmember, just
going back to the rules
process, that is the process
we put in place to lay all
those out, get them out for
public comment over a 30-day
period to try to get
feedback on from individuals
about these ambiguous items
that it's not clearly
defined in the actual text
of the charter.
So that is the process we're
trying to follow at this
point.
>> Morrison: Right, and
[09:32:00]
you've already mentioned
tonight, for instance,
looking for input on
relevant analytic skills and
how we might interpret that
and is there something also
about objectist?
>> Impartiality.
>> Morrison: How that
could be demonstrated i
guess would be --
>> the process tonight is
really focused on
identifying a large pool for
both of the panel and the
commission of people that
are qualified but
particularly the commission
at this point.
And so there's some terms
that were included in the
language of the charter so
we want input with regard to
that, but it's not really to
discuss all this stuff we're
talking about here, it's
just to get help in doing
that.
And then if you look at the
schedule, some of this stuff
will then be used to address
the applications, the
interpretation of the rules,
what are some of the things
we need to interpret in the
rules.
So we're looking for a the
look of citizen input with
regard to that.
>> Morrison: Okay, and i
think it's really important
and laudible that you are
interested in laying out a
draft of those rules once it
all comes together so
there's ample opportunity
for participation and
comment on that.
And then also laudible i
think is the -- the
advertising and community
outreach that you are
looking at and I do want to
draw our attention to the
fact that in terms of the
resources that are going to
be needed, the budgetary
needs, we know that you've
managed -- you are proposing
to manage the additional
staff hours by adjusting the
service plan, but I believe
that that still leaves the
whole of $72,500 for the --
for the advertising and
supplies.
Is that correct?
>> That is correct.
>> Morrison: And so i
guess my question is how do
we move forward to make
those funds available.
>> I think we would have to
go through a budget
amendment process in order
to accommodate that need.
>> Morrison: And is that
something that will be
coming -- I guess we would
probably need to have that
approved very soon because
[09:34:00]
the advertising needs to
start very soon.
>> Right.
>> Morrison: And so is
that something that you all
will be able to help us with
city manager?
>> It is, and I've made
available our financial
services area to assist ken
and -- and putting together
a budget and identifying a
funding source to assist
him.
So he already knows all that
so we're doing all we can to
help him with the financial
support that he needs and
any other support that he
needs.
>> Morrison: Is he going
to do magic where there is
no money and all of a sudden
there is?
>> Call it magic dust.
>> Morrison: Okay.
Thank you.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: No
doubt there will be several
budget amendments as we go
through this process for
legal expenses and others
that might be unforeseen,
renovation, et cetera.
>> Cole: I had a question.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem cole cole i
wanted to go back because it
seems like we're dealing
with two different issues
when we talk about our
discretion for
interpretation.
I think there was one issue
when the charter amendment
is actually silent and you
are trying to interpret what
it means to be a qualifying
independent auditor.
And then there's another
issue when the statute
actually speaks to like the
item that councilmember
riley and spelman spoke to
residency.
So is it silent on what
constitutes a qualified
independent auditor?
>> The -- the language
defines qualified
independent auditor -- the
issue that we took with it,
that was in the term that
isn't really used in our
industry and there was
some -- some room for
interpretation.
I've got the definition
here.
It says qualified
independent auditor means an
auditor currently licensed
by the texas board of public
accountancy and has been a
[09:36:01]
practicing auditor for at
least five years prior to
appointment to the applicant
review panel.
That term practicing
independent auditor is
something not commonly used
so we had to work on
defining that and how are we
going to interpret that.
>> Cole: So it sounds to
me like you actually looked
at the actual language of
the charter and you made a
strict interpretation of
that language based on what
was common in the field.
Now I want to compare that
to what john is talking
about in terms of any
independent interpretations
that are supposed to be made
outside that realm.
Is there anything that you
are contemplating right now
such as the item that we
talked about before
residency where -- I guess i
don't want to see us getting
into nebulous land of
wriggle room or encouraging
the public to make comments
about something when there
really is no -- there is no
wiggle room.
So --
>> yes, councilmember.
I think we should stay as
close to the text as we
possibly can.
But there are some areas in
which we're going to have to
decide what terms mean.
Jason said, for example,
professional contract with a
councilmember.
We're going to have to
decide what is a
professional contract.
>> Cole: Okay.
>> So that when a person is
asked the question on the
application have you ever
had one, they would have a
fighting chance of knowing
how to answer yes or no.
And the -- so some of the
things lend themselves to
coming up with further
definition.
Some of the areas where
the -- the charter is silent
and suggests by itself a
resolution, I think that's
probably often going to be
the best resolution is just
to let the charter speak for
[09:38:00]
itself when it can.
But as I say, this is our
first run-through and we
think transparency and
letting everybody know how
the auditor intends to read
it is probably a very good
idea and maybe some people
out there have some ideas
that we haven't thought
about.
>> Councilmember, there was
an indication that we're
interpreting qualified
independent auditors
strictly.
Actually the way we're
approaching it is it has to
be a cpa because it has to
be licensed.
When we look at the audit
experience, it could be at
any time they've been a cpa
and we're probably going to
define an active one or one
that's based on what it says
on their license they are
active, whether they are
actually auditing at that
point we're not necessarily
going to look at that but
whether they are active in
the state board of
accountancy with regard to
that.
We're also looking at
auditing, some people may
strictly would say you have
to be a cpa practicing in
public.
We're interpreting they
could be doing independent
awed it's.
For example, the state audit
does independent audits with
regard to agencies.
We're going to interpret it
in the broader sense
primarily because we think
it's going to be -- we've
been worried about having
sufficient candidates for
that three-person panel
given the limited number of
cpa degrees and the fact a
lot of them don't live in
the city, maybe trying to
finish the annual audit and
continuing to work on taxes.
That's where we extended the
time.
So we think that's within a
reasonable interpretation of
what is meant by this.
But we'll be getting input
as you said in the rules
process as we go forward
from looking at that.
>> Cole: Okay.
And I just want to commend
you on making actual
suggestions for how we could
revise our audits so that we
stayed within the scope of
the hours that are actually
[09:40:00]
existing so -- and we didn't
have to abandon major audits
for that.
And I wanted to note that
the amount that is requested
for the budgetary needs is
slightly in excess of the
city manager's authority and
I'm assuming that we may
need a budget amendment or
because these costs will
actually come over time we
may not be looking to see
that immediately or how are
you planning to do that?
>> Well, I think as the
mayor indicated, we're
probably going to be talking
about over time more than
one budget amendment.
And in regard to the matter
the dollars that are in this
power point, I would assume
unless he identifies more
costs beyond that, we would
simply bring a budget
amendment forward to
council.
Much better than some
piecemeal approach, we're
going to try to as much as
possible accomplish it in
the aggregate.
>> Cole: Thank you, mayor.
>> If I may, I just want to
emphasize this budgetary
money is just for our
portion of it.
It does not -- it's no
budget for the panel and/or
commission.
We don't know what their
costs will be.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: One
final question from me and
it doesn't have to be
answered today, maybe it's
something to think about,
but the council's only
participation in this
process is striking members
from the qualified pool from
however many that is.
Have you thought any about a
process for doing that?
Because I think -- I'm
thinking you may want to
have a public process for
that wherewithal the
councilmembers in one room
so that we don't have seven
people striking the same
person, that kind of thing?
[Laughter]
so it's just something to
think about.
It's not as simple as it
sounds.
Any other questions?
All right.
Thank you very much.
[09:42:00]
Good luck.
Councilmember tovo.
>> Tovo: One quick
question.
Almost made it but then i
had one.
I assume you are probably
going to talk about the
calendar as well.
And if not, I guess I would
suggest that would be very
helpful to get some public
feedback if not through that
forum through another means
of how the community feels
about the proposed shift in
dates because, you know,
that's something we want to
get right.
>> We anticipate working and
to the extent possible as
many of the time line
deadlines into our adoption
process so we would have
those in our rules as much
as we can feasibly
accomplish that.
>> Tovo: Does that mean
that won't be a subject at
tonight's forum necessarily
but it will be part of the
public comment during the
rules adoption?
>> We think with the agenda
we have it's going to take
all the time available
tonight and we think for
right now the most important
thing we need to do is get
feedback about how to get
the word out.
So we try to set up the
schedules as we approach
these issues to the public
in a methodical, well
thought out way so we get
the information on a timely
basis and are able to
incorporate in the approach
we have.
Actually the feedback
tonight as they give us
feedback on how to get out
there and get it widely
publicized may impact the
schedule.
We don't anticipate it will.
We think we've done a good
job of anticipating what's
going to occur, but it's
possible some unintended
consequences, some unknown
factor we need to consider
during these meetings and
obviously we want to
discover that up front
rather than later on in the
process.
>> Tovo: Okay.
But it does sound as if the
public will have an
[09:44:00]
opportunity to comment on
the proposed time line
during the rules adoption
process.
>> Actually also we have the
website where they can
comment.
We have a lot they can just
write in for people that
don't have access to the
pc's.
At any point during this
process if someone has a
comment, we will make sure
it's addressed in what we're
doing or considered in what
we're doing.
Not sure we can incorporate
everything everybody says.
>> Tovo: Thank you.
Thanks for all your work on
this.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Thank you.
Okay, now, we'll go back to
our pre-selected agenda
items and begin with item
number 42.
Which was marked for
discussion by councilmember
tovo.
>> Tovo: Thanks.
And mayor, I know --
>> Mayor Leffingwell: Take
just a minute to clear the
room and maybe sure we have
the appropriate people.
>> Tovo: I have at least
one other issue to talk
about that was not
pre-selected so I hope we
have time to get to that one
too.
>> Mayor Leffingwell:
We'll go in order and you
will be the first, yours
will be the first item
that's not pre-selected.
>> Tovo: And that's 87,
just for reference.
>> Mayor Leffingwell: All
right.
I'll write it down now.
Go ahead.
>> Tovo: Good morning.
Thanks for being here.
Excuse me.
I have a few questions about
this grant and the
authorization that we are
contemplating on thursday.
So the -- the grant was a
total of a million dollars.
And 300,000 of which is
proposed to be used for
[09:46:00]
research and evaluation and
go directly through an
interlocal agreement with a
u.t. professor and staff.
And I wondered, you know, i
have read through this
morning detailed discussion
of the city -- of the
criminal justice innovation
grant, but I wondered if you
could talk through what some
of the other eligible
expenses are.
Is there a requirement as
part of this -- as part of
the grant that the city
contract, you know, almost a
third of the grant for
evaluation purposes.
>> There was a requirement
in the grant that the city
has a research partner and
so yes, we were required to
contract with a university
or research entity.
I can't say for certain
there is a required amount,
but when we looked at the
proposal and put that
together to get the
university of texas to do
what we believed was in the
best interest of this grant,
that was the terms that we
came to.
And we actually were able to
reduce that cost by
kirk
to office at a city facility
while he was working on
this.
So through doing that the
university of texas actually
lowered their rate for
indirect costs down to 15%.
I believe their standard is
either 45 or 55%.
>> Tovo: I have a variety
of questions about that, but
I guess my first one is why
couldn't the professor
office at the university of
texas.
My guess would be that he
has won.
>> Yes, and he could have,
but then when we contract
with the university of
texas, they have set
policies and procedures for
how they contract their
services.
We were able to reduce the
cost by giving him space
that we had available at the
department so therefore they
charged us 15% for the
indirect cost instead of
their standard which i
believe is either 45 or 50%.
>> Tovo: So what are some
other ways that this grant
could be used.
I guess I'll get right to
the point.
[09:48:00]
It seems like I understand
with almost every grant
you've got a responsibility
to conduct research and
measure, you know, set
performance measures and do
an evaluation, but to fund
almost a third of the grant
on that just -- you know, i
guess I just wanted to know
what are some other -- could
you also use it for
programming?
Could you use the grant for
implementing some innovative
programming in that same
targeted area and are we
spending more on evaluation
than needs to be spent.
And I guess I'm less
interested in what the price
than I am
what the police department
envisioned as appropriate
for the scale of what you
are trying to accomplish.
>> Sure.
And I believe maybe the best
way to approach this would
be the purpose of this grant
from the government.
This was a very competitive
grant.
We were one of I believe 11
projects funded through this
grant and it was because of
the parameters that we put
on our submission.
This grant is geared towards
effecting long-term change
instead of just enforcement
grant.
Routinely we get enforcement
grants just to go in and
conduct additional overtime,
additional enforcement
efforts.
This grant, the purpose was
to attain long-term change
in the neighborhood and so
we -- we are going the rely
very heavily on the
university of texas and
kirk to go in there and
give us ideas and strategies
for affecting that long term
change outside the realm of
law enforcement.
It may be dealing with
economic growth, with
reentry with at-risk youth.
And so that's the real
backbone, I believe, of this
project and it's what makes
it very different than
things we've done before is
that we're going to have a
research partner that this
is their field of expertise
that's going to give us a
lot of insight into how we
can then leverage the
dollars we put aside for
enforcement.
I do think that there will
[09:50:00]
be project recommendations
that will come out of this.
It would be premature to
speculate what they may be,
kirk's area
of expertise and I expect we
will walk away from this
three-year project with some
really good ideas of how we
can keep long-term change in
that area.
And if you've seen the
documents, I'm sure you
realize that we've got i
believe it's 5% of the
city's population, 2% of the
city's square mileage, but
11% of the crime is
occurring in that area.
>> Tovo: Right, and i
should have maybe started by
saying I think it's a very
exciting opportunity to
really focus concerted
efforts on an area of our
city that really needs it
and, you know, I certainly
like the general philosophy
of it.
Can you help me understand,
though, whether the
program -- you talked about
and this document I've got
talks about program
recommendations.
I'll read the objective:
Identify, build upon new
planning efforts to
revitalize the neighborhood
and address issues that
relate to the crime issues
identified.
Will you be using the grant
to implement any of those
program recommendations?
>> The grant will be used --
some of the program
implementation will involve
enforcement strategies and
there are dollars in the
grant for the enforcement
piece.
As far as for other
entities, there is $200,000
built into this grant that
we will be bringing to
council at some point when
we contract with other
social service agencies.
So there is another
component of this million
dollar grant that is going
to go through social service
providers and those will be
kirk
does his work and we can get
a better feel for what work
needs to be done in this
region.
>> Tovo: And so in looking
through the budget, I see --
you know, I see some
breakdown of costs, a
consultant, the university
of texas, the social service
[09:52:01]
contracts you mentioned,
enforcement operations.
There was a discussion in
here about the collaboration
will focus on social
disorder, language barriers,
at-risk youth, nuisance
abatement, but I don't see
any funds allocated in the
budget to do any particular
programs with at-risk youth,
for example.
That's really the balance i
was hoping to have a
dialogue about either today
or thursday or in the
interim.
Are there opportunities to
bring programs and resources
to that community during the
period of grant rather than
just, you know, focus so
much on evaluating?
You know it a high crime
area and I know the police
department has done a lot of
thinking and creative work
in introducing programs that
make a difference.
Is this program going to
fund any of that?
>> The social agencies
written into the grant for
the $200,000, I believe
we'll be able to see some
dollars from that portion of
the grant go towards project
implementation.
I don't know what that will
look like yet because we
haven't done the research to
determine what social
service agencies we will
even bring in under this
program.
But I do envision there will
be some dollars available
out of the $200,000 for
those social service
agencies that can go to that
direction.
The $300,000 is tightly
governed as far as the fees
research staff
to conduct the research
associated with the grant.
>> Tovo: And that's
basically because that's the
price they gave you for
performing that.
>> And once we submit that
to the federal government
we're going to be tightly
regulated to conform to the
grant application that we
submitted.
>> Tovo: In the grant
application you submitted,
you identified 300,000 would
go toward that evaluation?
>> We actually gave them a
budget piece that specified
how we would spend the
spends.
They required that in the
grant.
[09:54:00]
>> Tovo: I see that the
document, the longer
document talks about the
budget proposed is the
city's best estimate, of
course, costs and will
likely require significant
revisions once the
implementation plan is
complete and the justice
department gives final
approval.
So it sounds to me like
there are opportunities for
a vision, and in fact the
justice department may
require some.
>> As with any grant, i
think we can go back and try
to make an amendment to it.
It would require the
approval of the federal
government and you always
run the risk obviously of
them denying the request
or -- or holding you to the
proposal as originally
given.
>> Tovo: Sure, but they
are unlikely to -- I don't
know of a situation where
they turned around and said
we're denying the revision
and taking the money back.
They will just say we don't
agree with that change.
>> I would agree with that.
>> Tovo: I'm going to do
some more thinking about it
and talking about it, but
this is an area of our city
that I think could benefit
from some more programs and
in fact I believe I attended
a discussion that the
greater crime commission
talked about about this area
and does this overlap with
the area that was discussed
at the greater crime
commission where they were
talking about some of the
concerted efforts like
potentially a community
garden and some other
things?
>> I'm not sure of the
alignment of this with that.
The unwith comment I would
add is one of the key
components of this grant was
the research component.
And so I do understand that
you are wanting to see if
there are opportunities and
if we look into the portion
that's dedicated to the
research portion, we're kind
of going at the heart of
what was laid out in the
grant proposal when they
gave us the documents when
we submitted this.
>> Tovo: What I think I'm
hearing is that less than
200,000 of a million dollar
grant is actually going to
go into program -- you know,
programs that might make an
impact in that neighborhood
and that --
[09:56:00]
>> we will have over 400,000
that will go towards
enforcement programs in the
neighborhood to effect
greater change, and then on
top of that 400,000 another
200,000 will go towards
social service agencies
going into effect change.
I think what we've got is
two-thirds going towards
programs whether they be
enforcement based or social
service based, and then the
third towards the research
component.
>> Tovo: We have an item
on our agenda also for this
week and it is to -- of the
parks department, it's a
budget line in the parks
department and that is a
midnight basketball program
aimed at at-risk youth.
Would that be a eligible
expense under the terms of
this grant, under the terms
of the criminal justice
innovation program, that
kind of program that's
targeting at-risk group
within a particular
geographic area of focus?
>> That is not written into
the grant right now and i
would have to get with our
grant writer to see if
that's something that could
full under -- I won't make
any projections.
If it's not a social service
agency, I don't know whether
the federal government would
police chief that falls
under the $200,000 we
allocated in that direction.
>> Tovo: I guess would it
have -- is it just a matter
of how you crafted the grant
or is it -- is the scope of
the grant pretty much
limited to social service
outreach or could the grant
have funded more
programmatic approaches like
youth for its programs?
>> The grant solicitation
itself was very tightly
defined and I would have to
look at whether a program
like that, especially a
program that already exists
because we get into the area
of potentially supplanting
if you have a program that
already exists and so that's
something we would have to
look at both with our grant
writer as well as with our
legal adviser.
>> Tovo: Right, whether or
not this is for new efforts
versus others.
[09:58:00]
And I guess my basic reasons
for asking is that I had a
conversation with the chief
and I know he talked about
the police athletic league
and there's a high interest
in, say, boxing, he may have
mentioned, there were
hundreds on the waiting list
and that's a program that
doesn't have funding.
I remember when we were
looking at the parks and
recreation programs at gus
garcia recreation center
which is quite close to the
neighborhood of focus here,
there was a youth program
for teens that was being cut
and -- but I wonder if
there's not an opportunity
to really think about how we
might -- how this grant
could provide an opportunity
to focus on some of the
programs that it would seem
to me the parks department
and the police department
has a record -- of doing
successfully and a
connection between the
programs and crime
prevention.
>> Councilmember, michael
McDONALD, DEPUTY CITY
Manage he.
The reason I came up, i
think it's one thing
important to understand in
these types of grants and
the way the assistant chief
has talked about how tightly
defined they are, let's just
say, for example, we don't
need quite as much in the
research area.
It doesn't necessarily mean
those additional dollars are
going to stay here in this
community.
A lot of times what they
will do is they will monitor
you on these grants and if
certain amounts of dollars
aren't used in other areas
and they have a void in
another area they've awarded
the grant, they will
sometimes take those dollars
and use it in that area.
So I just want to make sure
as we talk about this we
understand that the
flexibility to just move
those dollars around, you
know, generally the federal
government doesn't give us
that level of flexibility.
[One moment, please, for
change in captioners]
budget to the federal government
and they've approved it and we
have the difficult choice of
revising a grant or asking for a
revision and the possibility
those grant funds may be shifted
to another awardee.
>> Seeing the document you have
in front of you, I seem to
remember talking about the short
time line to apply for this
grant.
We were notified of it very late
so there was a shorter
preparation time than we
normally have, and, again, we
consider ourselves fortunate to
have received that.
But, the short answer to your
question is we do routinely
coordinate with our partner,
city agencies.
Going forward, our first meeting
is december 18 where we will
meet with the neighborhood
stakeholders, as well as other
city departments, to start the
planning process for how we're
going to roll out this
three-year program.
>> It sounds like that
coordination didn't necessarily
happen on this one.
>> I would have to get with our
grant writetory see to what
extent the other agencies were
involved in the situation.
>> Thanks.
>> Assistant city manager.
Yes, I think ideally, what we
would do, while we continue our
focus on youth services, as you
recall one of our goals is to
get to a point, from a policy
direction, we get pretty
establish values from the
council perspective how we want
to deliver quality youth
programs throughout the whole
community, and so our goal is,
when we get to that point, then
we would align all of these
issues, whether it is a grant in
the police department or whether
it is a neighborhood housing or
wherever the case may be, align
them to those values and in
effect, assure them that
everything points to those
values and that we're connecting
all of those specific dots.
That's our ultimate goal.
I can't say we're totally 100%
there yet but that is where we
want to get to and I think we're
doing a lot of great work in
that area.
>> I look forward to the
continued discussions and i
really congratulate you on the
grant.
I think it will have a
measurable impact.
I think when we have resources,
we're using them as creatively
as possible, and programs seem
to be one way to do that.
I think I've asked what I needed
to ask here today.
>> Thank you.
chief McDonald, I know the
midnight basketball issue has
been around and a while and
successful.
You did want to speak to that
while you're here?
>> Council member, I would ask
if it is related to the item
we're discussing, which is item
42.
>> I tonight bring it up because
council member tovo talked about
the grant possibly being used
for that item and I believe you
said -- I'm trying to remember
what you said.
>> Part of what I was speaking
to was just the flexibility or
the lack there of, in some
cases, on some of these grants
when they're awards to the areas
like they keep you pretty strict
on it.
If you end up not being able
to -- or don't need as much of
the funding in a certain area,
sometimes if there is another
area that slacking, that's the
adjustment they will make.
But, specifically, for midnight
basketball, it is a very
involved program.
In fact, the police chief was
very involved in conversations
this past year during the budget
process with midnight basketball
and how the police department
can coordinate with the parks
department, so it is a valued
program.
>> Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comments.
Council member spelman.
>> I haven't responded to a
solicitation to this particular
class of grant, but I respond to
a lot of solicitations by the
department of justice, and i
think I have an idea what
they're looking for in this
particular grant.
I want to see whether or not i
pretty much got if right.
The way we usually try and solve
crime problems in a
neighborhood, the way it is
usually done is we draw a red
stripe around some part of town
and we say, what can we do in
this part of town?
We can do midnight basketball.
We can do social services, we
throw it all up against the wall
and figure out what sticks.
My reading of what you're doing
here is more complicated.
We still have a large repratoire
of activities.
First we have to go into the
neighborhood and figure out what
it needs.
What is the problem?
What are the problems we're
trying to address?
And using that research
information to drive the program
itself so we're tailoring the
mix of activities to fit the
needs of the neighborhood is
that accurate?
>> I believe that is a fair
assessment.
That's why, when you look at the
budget piece, there is very
little allocated for enforcement
elements because we want it to
be analysis.
In year two and three when we
put dollars into it, we have new
strategies and new items, not
things in the past.
Although they are effective, we
want a new strategy and approach
that will give us a better
opportunity for long-term
improvement.
>> It is entirely possible that
midnight basketball might spin
out as one of the things that is
effective and appropriate.
>> Absolutely.
>> It could be that any number
of social services are
appropriate, any number of
enforcement activities are
appropriate.
You can't identify what it is
yet in advance of what the
neighborhood needs.
>> We're looking for the
research piece to steer news
maybe a familiar direction.
>> Ask you about that.
The primary work is done by the
university of texas research
team headed by dr. kirk.
I presume he will be involving
you in this along the way.
We will be in a large part
supplying a lot of the data he
will need because this will be
based on particular pattern,
crime trends and things like
that.
So we will heavily provide him
with the data.
He will involve us with the
interntation of the data, as
well.
We're in a better possession to
national the crime statistics
and patterns.
>> You live there in a way that
the university of texas folks
probably don't.
kirk was talking about
doing wind shield surveys,
driving up and down and idea identify
what you can see.
Police officers do that all day
long.
If the $300,000 were allocated
to the university of texas, i
think it would be fair to say a
lot of that is the up front
research fees to tailor the
program for the research fees.
Evaluation is really a separate
issue.
And, the university of texas
happens to be doing both of
those two parts of that is that
accurate?
>> Actually, the lion's share of
the money for ut will come in at
the lion's share of 50,000.
It will conduct the initial
survey and get as you baseline.
Year two, allocated at 150,000,
and that will be to continue the
surveying and to analyze the
programs as they're implemented.
Year two is the implementation
year, to a large part, and so we
want to be evaluating the
programs as they're implemented
and have opportunity to
fine-tune them, not wait until
year three analysis and
assessment.
I want to give you a fair
assessment not the lion's share
of the dollars will go in on
year one, but year one will set
the baseline from which we will
operate.
>> And the evaluation piece will
have two parts of it.
One is to verify the program or
the set of things that you line
up in order to solve this
problem actually get implemented
and verify how they're being
implemented, and the outcome
evaluation, now that we've done
that, we can verify all that
stuff got done what actually
happened and why it happened the
way it did.
Why did crime go down why did
disorder get better.
What parts of the things we did
are responsible for solving the
program.
>> That's the goal, if we can
link a program or project to a
positive outcome, that is the
goal of this.
Hopefully, that will be a new
program or project and not
something we knew already
worked.
>> This is intended to solve the
problems in a way, but it is
also intended to solve problems
in other parts of town as well.
We can pick that up and use it
elsewhere in the city, and
presumably elsewhere in the
country.
>> I can assume you forecast we
find a successful strategy for
the runberg area, we will use
that program for the same
challenges.
>> There is really is in
spending some time, maybe not a
year and $75,000, but working
through a neighborhood first and
figuring out what it needs and
deciding that up-front time is
time well spent in determining
what is the best set of social
services, enforcement approaches
and so on to be able to solve a
problem in the neighborhood that
technology actually works in
runburg, it makes sense to use
that technology, maybe watered
down on sped up around town.
>> Absolutely.
>> Sounds like a really good
idea.
I understand how $300,000 may be
a lot of money to swallow, but i
think as a demonstration
project, what we can set up for
a lot less money downstream,
particularly because the grant
requires it, it seems like this
is a good expenditure of our
time and investment of our
money.
>> Thank you.
>> We are going to just correct
something.
Mayor pro tem, it does relate to
midnight basketball so if you
want to ask more specific
questions, that would be the
item to discuss it.
>> Thank you.
I'm done.
>> Before we go to the next
item, which is 63, for
discussion by council member
morrison, just fyi, items is115
through 120 will be postponed by
staff, I believe is until
january 13.
Item 63, council member
morrison.
>> Thank you, mayor.
This is the item on the
potential for us to sign an
interlocal agreement with the
texas facilities commission.
We addressed it last on november
8, I believe, there was a vote
to approve staff negotiations of
the ioa, and it is a continuing
saga.
There have been plenty of
discussions about it and
including a lot of input from
the public and we also have this
on our agenda at the
comprehensive plan and
transportation committee
yesterday.
Although that was a very quick
discussion we had, I think it
was helpful because it helped me
to sort of crystallize the
varying perspectives that we
have at the table here.
On the one hand -- well, first
let me say I think there is
definitely common ground that
everybody is interested in when
the city is going -- when the
state is going forward to plan
the use of their lands in the
area that we all want to have
austin be sitting at table.
And, I think where we're -- the
perspectives are differing, one
perspective is we need go
forward and sign up with the tfc
and get our contract all
delineated at this point.
Whereas the other perspective is
that it is an evolving situation
in terms of roles and
responsibilities and it would be
better to let that shake out
before we solidify all of that.
And, so what I want to do today
is propose an option that we
consider that hopefully could
take into account the benefits
and the concerns on both sides
of the discussion.
On the one hand, as was
mentioned yesterday, it was
suggested that the texas
facilities commission already
has been statutorily charges
with planning these lands, and
they already have the authority
and the legislature already.
It was suggested at the meeting,
already gave the tfc a go to
plan these lands.
On the other hand, with the
sunset report that came out, it
is clear that there's still some
open questions and may well be
some changes in all of that this
time around at the legislature.
One, explicitly, the report says
even with the capital complex
that the institute doesn't
explicitly define the role, they
do have a role of evaluating,
they have the authority of
evaluating the state land and
there are conflicting goals
between the glo and tfc.
The other part of what I heard
yesterday about them already
having the go to plan these
plans, mentioned in the report
even were it to go forward, this
needs to be a state discussion,
a leadership discussion, and
then just as a recap in terms of
the evolution of this
discussion, there was a -- you
know, we heard it on the 8th
of november, and the council
voted to move forward with
negotiation.
On the 12th of november, the
state released a request for
proposal to hire a -- to find a
consultant for the planning that
was delineated with the rfp
mirrored quite closely the draft
ioa we had on the table, so it
was clearly going out to hire a
consultant.
Then, on the 16th of november,
you would have the sunset
release, it is my understanding
on the 11th of december there
is a committee on economic
development on p-3, that is
another issue.
Not just the tfc and glo sorting
out roles, it is also a matter
of evolving the p-3 at this
point.
They're taking another look at
that.
Let's see in mid december, there
will be the house state affairs
committee that gets charges,
releasing a report on p-3.
There will be a hearing on the
sunset report on december 18 and
19, and then on, I believe, the
9th of january, the sunset
commission will be making its
recommendations taken from the
report.
And, the bottom line is that
they may well -- in the
recommendations, what's on the
table, is to, number one, to be
looking at changing the
statutory authority for how p-3
is implemented and lots of
discussion about the process,
who the stakeholder has to be.
And it's not just public we're
talking about, it is defining
the roles for agencies and glo
and all of that, as well as
public process.
So, what my proposal is, that
the resolution that we have here
in front of us has a be it
resolved that, and this might be
a mistake that we ask the staff
to come back to us on december
6, which is thursday, so I think
there must be a mistake there.
But, anyways, my proposal is
that we ask the staff to go
forward and negotiate an ioa and
to bring it back to us the first
meeting in august.
Because -- august.
Because that way -- I should
say, the sunset report
recommends no formal action on
P-3s UNTIL DECEMBER 1 BECAUSE
They're waiting -- they want the
tfc to be able to move forward
you believed the new guidelines.
That's my understanding.
So, if we were to put off
signing the ila until the first
meeting or finalizing an ila
until the first meeting in
august, I think that, number one
it would allay the concerns that
we could make sure that whatever
is going to shake out, whatever
decisions are going to be made
this year and this session, we
can see how that all shakes out
and make sure that our ila
comports with that.
But, at the same time, it would
be a strong statement that we
definitely intend to do this,
and that we intend that we're
definitely interested in being
at the table and part of this
discussion.
However, it turns out a
discussion is going to look.
And there is another issue that
has come up in the discussions
that I think this would help us
deal with and there is a
question about how much money
are we going to be in for.
There is a previous discussion
that the council said, yes, we
want to invest 200,000 in the
planning of the capital complex
with the tfc, and at this point,
we don't really know what the
whole scope, the whole cost of
all this planning for all five
areas of the city are, of the
state lands.
I believe that once this goes
through and the consultant is
hired to do this work, we will
at least have an idea of the
overall cost of it, and that
way, we can go into this with at
least some kind of concept of
what our share is going to be,
and not knowing exactly money
wise how much we're even
thinking about jumping into,
makes me very uncomfortable.
So, in summery, I think that if
we were to, you know, strongly
support this with the delayed
signing and execution until
august, we would be able to
balance those concerns.
One that we want to indicate
we're at the table.
We already have the resolution
that says we want to work on the
capital complex with them, we
already have the money set aside
to do that, and it would allow
us to let the legislature do
their work and be respectable of
whatever comes out of that work
and aour work with the way it is
starting this session.
That's what I would love to have
on the table for discussion
today and probably what I will
be proposing.
>> Mayor.
>> Mayor pro tem.
>> First of all, I'm glad you
agree it is part of this
process, --
>> I've always said that.
>> Yes, but that you agree that
we need to authorize, execute,
move forward.
And I think what you have
clearly establishthat it is an
evolve process, and where we
might be varying in opinions is
simply that I believe that the
sooner we become involved in
this process, the better it will
be and the better we will do
with it.
Ila is different than what is
being contemplated by the state
agencies in the sunset
commission, but I want to go
ahead -- the ila is for us to
participate with the tfc in a
study, and that study involves
property that is in addition to
the capital complex.
It involves property at the
austin state hospital, it
involveds property at the state
parking garage.
And the only reason the dollar
sum is not in the resolution at
this time is we were really
researching that, but the amount
that is contemplated as being
capped by us, although the
property that is going to be
studied that expand$200,000.
And forecast that amount needs
to increase for us to be part of
the study, they would have to
come back to council to receive
that.
I will never suggest that we
didn't take upon an endeavor
like this without some idea to
council what those costs would
be.
But, I did want to address calm
things you suggested about the
sunset report just out of a
response but not because that is
an agency we have any control
over.
I fully understand people may
have concerns about that but the
people who are responsible for
the sunset report and this
agency are the members of the
legislature, and the members of
those particular departments.
That being said, I will point
out that the sunset report says
on page 5, issue 6, that the
state has a continuing need for
the texas facilities commission
for the grounds and property.
That hasn't changed in the
sunset report and they are
actually repped that.
Also on page -- recommended
that.
Also, on page 16, they require
the texas facilities commission
to formally adopt a master plan
to guide decision about the
capital complex future
development.
They asked, or charged -- the
sunset commission has not
charged any other agency to do
that.
They have also recognized the
need for the glo in the sunset
6,
page 18, have actually required
the general land off to conform
to recommendations as property
within the capital complex to
the capital complex master plan.
So, I think the important part
to recognize is that this is a
significant amount of land that
is critical to our tax base.
And, as you know, we have
millions of dollars of unmet
needs, especially in
transportation and affordable
housing, and we need to be at
the table with the state as
early as possible in expanding
our potential tax base in
accordance with our imagine
austin plans and city plans so
we can ensure that we are able
to meet our citizen's needs into
the future.
So, that would be the reason why
I would not be supporting an
extension, and also to the point
you raise about the rfq actually
being issued based on previously
we have not been adopted.
It wasn't based on that I'm sure
it was in conformity with that
language and it is a sign they
will move forward without us and
they will move forward in a way
we may not be at the table to
have any influence over.
>> I would just say, mayor pro
tem, I agree with that last
statement that you made, and i
think we all have to realize at
the end of the day, the land
belongs to the state of texas
and in the end of the day,
they're going to do what they
want to with it.
But, this interlocal agreement,
it seems to me, perhaps
oversimplifying what it does is
get us a seat at table and get
an opportunity to have early
input in the process and not
wait until everything is already
baked before we even begin to
look at it.
Because, you know, essentially,
even though we do have a process
that would go through here at
the city, it is not necessarily
going to be a process that is
mandatory in the state of texas.
We need to be at the table
early.
>> Mayor, I will add to your
comment and council member more
son's comment -- morrison's
comment, we could compromise now
where we go forward and get the
staff an update and any
amendments or recommendations.
We can give that direction and
I'll take that amendment from
you, we do not have to consider
this a static document, it can
be a breathing document as we go
through this process.
>> If I may, the question about
the --
>> council member morrison.
>> If we're going to sign the
contract, it can only be
breathing if --
>> I'm saying that would simply
be direction from you or the
council might anticipate future
agreements, it may anticipate
amendments after this
legislative session.
>> I think that goes without
saying we can always amend any
contract if the other party is
willing to amend it.
I just want to respond to a
couple of things, because i
think it is -- well, this is the
challenge from one perspective,
you can read it that things are
all clear and there's no
question, but there are other
statements in the sunset report
that says specifically that the
stat does not explicitly define
the role in planning the capital
complex, that the capital
complex planning key partners
are not only the tfc and glo but
also the state preservation
board and, quote, none is
clearly charged with leading
that effort.
And, I fully expect -- it is
clear that the tfc is charged
with managing our existing
facilities.
In fact, they go quite a bit
into that about improvements in
need in managing the existing
facilities, which is I think
what you were quoting from, but
that doesn't mean the clear role
in the redevelopment of land has
been established as such.
I guess I think the
recommendations or to change the
stats to require p-3 process
definition.
That is one of the things we
heard most about, how there is
no public process right now and
the draft of the ila we had last
time around didn't have any
public process.
There are going to be changes
about that so our ila really
needs to be incorporating that
as much as possible.
I think another thing that is
important to note is that sunset
report's concern about the tfc
going forward prematurely
looking at -- and considering
redevelopment of state land.
Because, one of the big sections
in there, they're recommending
they step back and do some
studies called "value for money"
to take a look a whether or not
we even need to be redeveloping
the state land, and then, you
know, turn those discussions
with information out of those
evaluations over to the state's
leadership, which is really
where those decisions need to
be.
They also are going to be --
they also have a recommendation
there, they mentioned that not
all the expertise for evaluating
these kinds of proposals are
available to the tfc and they
recommend that they be required
to use specific types of
expertise in p-3 project
evaluations and things like
that.
One last comment on here.
Your comments, that is we do
have the 200,000 that has
already been laid out there, and
we don't have an order of
magnitude estimate yet what have
this is going to be, and I feel
like it is important that we
get -- I don't think that
probably anybody has that
estimate at this point and i
think that is the responsibility
thing to do, know what we're
jumping into before we specify
exactly what our part in it is
going to be, otherwise we're
sort of on the hook for who
knows how much.
Anyways, I fully agree and have
always agrees that we should be
at the table.
It is a matter, at this point,
of do we let the legislature do
their work and then work within
the construct and framework they
define or do we jump prematurely
into that.
>> So I have one question for
you, mayor pro tem, on that list
of prospective redeveloped
properties.
Camp mabry, can you give me a
little more information about
that?
>> It is a 2-b designated
portion.
>> A portion?
>> Not the entire camp.
>> That's not the totally per
view of state.
Camp mabry has a large federal
presence.
>> Mayor, I do have one more.
>> Commissioner morrison.
>> When I looked on sunday there
was no back up for what the ila
was, and also the date was in
the resolution to bring it back
by december 6 soy wonder what
the intention is.
>> The process that we have
followed since the last council
meeting we discussed this, and
under council member
martinez 'direction and what has
to happen.
To discuss any concerns,
changes, whatever they want to
make regarding the ila, and then
we had notified neighbors within
a 200-feet radius of any of the
properties on the list and held
a -- the staff conducted a
meeting with them.
So, what we're doing is we're
taking comments and we're
submitting those to our
attorneys, and then we're
submitting those to their
attorneys and we will post the
document, hopefully tomorrow,
that will be a final proposed
document for execution that will
simply have those changes in
there.
And that will also include the
$200,000 I talked .
So it was getting input to the
community, we don't have the
final document posted and we're
based on execution from the last
council meeting.
>> Are there indications or
drafts out to the public to know
what is going to be considered
on thursday, or just considered
tomorrow.
>> The planning department.
Excuse me.
We are, as mayor pro tem
mentioned, we held a public
meeting on november 29 to gather
input.
We've been working on compiling
that.
We met with tfc staff yesterday
to start working on revised
language.
Since that time, we've been
bouncing back and forth on
language on various sections.
We have not released a draft to
the public because we don't feel
like we have a draft that is
ready for that, at this point.
We hope to do that.
We're focusing a lot of
resources on trying to get that
out.
Mayor pro tem, you mentioned
meeting with the offices.
Do any of them have any
discussions or comments?
I know yesterday you said none
of them had said not to do this.
None of our delegation.
I haven't heard any of them say
to do this and I have heard
concern privately.
>> The concerns that I have
heard is with respect to what
you have brought up the sunset
commission.
All of them want us to move
forward in being part of the
process because they believe we
will make it better and it is
good for us to be at the table.
>> So move forward now?
All of them say move forward
now?
Is that what you're saying.
>> Yes.
>> They have no concerns with us
moving forward now, but they
have concerned with the sunset
commission, but that is their
duty to deal with the agency and
all of that.
>> Right, right.
>> I've not heard that.
>> I did hear concerns about it
from our legislators, from some,
about moving forward now so
that's something we can
follow-up on.
>> I heard concerns about that
before we met with them, but not
after meeting with them.
>> Council member martinez.
>> I have a question for the
city attorney.
Simply because we have posting
language in the resolution can
we take action, did anyone draft
it?
>> As long as you get the item
before you consider it, you are
allowed to take action on it.
It just says that items have to
be before the council before
they vote on it, so to get it
tomorrow, sometimes we will get
back up on the day of, but i
believe you can do that.
>> I appreciate that.
While it may be legal, I'm going
to express some concerns.
We don't even have a draft, and
it is a contractual obligation
with a financial commitment, we
have all these rules about
posting and transparency, we try
to comply with them as best we
can and it gives the public more
than the legally amount of time
and here we are 48 hours from a
council member and we don't
even -- a council meeting and we
don't even have a draft from the
state of texas from that
perspective, I have a great deal
of concern no one is going to
have time to review it and ask
follow-up questions, if
necessary, and get those answers
back.
So, I would hope we take that
into consideration.
>> I think that would be a big
change in a normal operating
procedures, because we routinely
make revisions on the last day,
and I think to single out one
item would be, perhaps,
inappropriate.
If we want to adopt that
standard for everything on the
agenda it has to be finalized x
days before this and that and
the other thing.
>> Mayor, I think that is a
revision.
We don't even have a draft in
front of us that we know is
being revised.
That's a big difference, between
changing a few sentences and
words opposed to actually having
the document being contemplated
right now.
George just said we were
multiple versions going back and
forth that we've been waiting
on.
>> There has been one posted and
this would be revisions to that
document, which is what we're
working from, and this would be
consistent with the policies
that we have had in place thus
far, and we received huge
documents, comprehensive plan,
east corridor plan, on the dais,
on the day that we're actually
to vote on them.
So, if we're going to make a
revision to that policy, this
would be a revision to that
policy because we do have a
draft.
>> Okay.
Council member tovo.
>> Yeah, I just want to echo
some concerns I've seen.
Heard, rather.
I read the draft at our last --
before our last council meeting
and heard the community's
concern about it.
My understanding there was a
revised draft on the diane.
But I don't know how many
revisions have happened since
then, not only is it important
for the public to review this
but I feel I need to review it
carefully.
We had the public meetings last
week but neither I nor my staff
could attend pause of the
posting requirements, so we
weren't able to be there to hear
the community concerns, I have
no idea what kind of revisions
are being made.
This is a complicated issue, it
involves a contractual
obligation with the state.
We've hear very valid concerns
with the community and I want to
be sure if this council moves
forward with an interlocal
agreement, then we've all had a
chance to review it.
I really appreciate the effort.
I absolutely agree we should be
part of the process.
I'm not on board at this point
with what I know of the
interlocal agreement.
I think stating our intend to be
involved and the plan to do so
is one thing, but I think it
raises concerns we've heard from
both of community and my
colleagues about the sunset
advisory and they've been tasked
now with needing to come up with
a more explicit, careful public
process and allowing them to put
that in place first, it seems to
me, would make good sense before
we enter into a contract with
them.
I'm willing to continue the
discussion but I think it would
be inappropriate for us to act
on an interlocal agreement.
>> George, a couple of
questions.
One, with respect to the
original $200,000 alluded to,
I'm trying to recollect when
those dollars were allocated by
council.
Was that allocated with the
understanding we would negotiate
and execution and there are
would not have ban draft or
local agreement.
That is one question.
That recollection is correct.
And number two, that draft that
was being worked on per that
$200,000, it has served as the
basis for the work that you're
doing currently.
>> That's correct, on both of
those.
We anticipate that the revised
draft will use much of the draft
format and language that was
part of the council back up on
november 8.
Obviously, there will be changes
to that and wear trying to speak
as much as we can to the
comments we heard both at the
public hearing and the public
meeting on november 29, but the,
you know, the basis for those
revisions will be the document
we were working off of.
>> So, mayor, I have a couple of
things to say.
I wanted to outline what I'm
anticipating will be the major
issues that will be changed in
the interlocal agreement.
First and foremost, point out
that we have item number 64,
which outlines the public
process with the p-3 legislation
we did not have that the he is
is able to participate in.
There is a 60-day comment period
and they will have a public
hearing where the commission is
able to participate in that.
I've received nothing but
positive feedback and grad we
greased that.
That is part of our process that
we do have control over.
The comments regarding what the
sunset commission says and what
tfc has to do.
We have no ability to control
that.
But we have implemented a public
process that is a resolution
number 64, and I expect, as
stated before for the new ila to
have the $200,000 cap, I peck
the resolution to make clear
which was the concern of the
public that we are not actually
engaging in a plan, but simply a
study, much like our imagine
austin study, is very early in
the process.
And, we are not addressing any
site-specific review or any
details that we go through in
our land development process.
And I would just simply ask
george and lila if that was a
fair assessment and if there is
anything major that has come up
that my colleagues need to know
that would impact this
agreement.
>> Mayor pro tem, the only thing
I had add to that is we're
working very diligently to add a
public input process to the
major milestones of the study,
and that would be something that
city staff would take on, we
would organize, we would conduct
and we would take that input
back to the process and the tfc
staff and consultant team.
>> Okay.
Mayor.
>> Council member morrison.
>> I will look forward to seeing
that because changing it from
participating to a study, you
know that sounds like a
significant change.
As I recall, the draft of the
ila talked about coming up with
preferred scenarios for
development of the land.
>> The study, yes --
>> not a plan.
>> That was simply a
recommendation that the
neighborhood wanted.
They wanted to call it a study
and not call it a plan because
they wanted to be clear that it
wasn't a final process and that
it was evolving.
They stopped that particular
wording.
>> With all do respect, a study
is a study, a plan is a plan.
A plan is a plan, whether you
call it a study or a plan, so i
think that we need to be careful
and clear about that.
I also heard you say, it is a
study like imagine austin is a
study, imagine austin is a plan,
not a study, so I think that it
would be helpful over the next
few days, especially as staff is
working on this forecast there
can be some clarification about
the difference between it being
a study or a plan.
I'll look forward to seeing it.
>> As long as we have a plan for
the study.
>> It's a deal.
Study the plan.
>> Anything else on this topic?
Okay.
We will go to 66 for discussion
by council member spelman and i
think we have staff here
available to questions.
This relates to the overall
process that we're beginning to
engage in, revision of the land
development code, particularly
the cwo is what this relates to.
And this resolution does nothing
more than direct the city
manager to bring forward for our
considering some proposed
changes that were adopted by
this counsel sail few years ago,
and has as its purpose to
improve water quality in the
barton springs zone.
For a number of reasons, the
redevelopment ordinance, let's
just say, has not been
overutilized at this point there
have been a few intanses where
properties were redeveloped
under this ordinance, but not
many, and we want to take a look
at ways perhaps, we don't know
what the suggestions are, but
staff has actually suggested we
go through this process of
seeing if there are ways that we
can perhaps expand the scope to
deal with the redeveloped areas
that, frankly, comprise the
majority of the barton springs
zone in the city's jurisdiction,
well over half, and these
properties have little or no
water quality protection now on
them.
This ordinance gives the city
the opportunity to change that,
to both have on site water
quality treatment and to acquire
open space within the barton
springs zone.
So, this, again, does nothing
more than start the process.
What are the suggestions, what
could we do, to address this,
frankly mark jorrity of the
barton springs zone.
I remember a lot of the numbers
very well.
I don't think they've changed
very much, but we spent so much
time focusing on the sos
ordinance, when in fact, only
16% of the land in the city's
jurisdiction in barton springs
zone is actually subject to the
sos ordinance because the other
properties are either have
already been done or
approximately 31% is already
permanently dedicated open
space.
If you add all those up, i
believe that number is still
about the same about 16%.
The big 50-odd percent is what
this particular ordinance
addresses.
And, I do want to point out that
several people remember that
back when the sos ordinance was
adopted, back in the early
1990s, PEOPLE KNEW THAT WE
Were leaving a lot on the table
that we were not addressing what
was the biggest problem with the
water quality in the barton
springs zone and that was this
property that had already been
developed but it was chosen, the
decision was made not to include
retro, required retrofitted in
the sos ordinance because of the
enormous cost.
At that time, estimates ranged
above $500 follow actually do
those retrofits, so that was
kind of left out to be addressed
at a different date so
redevelopment ordinance made one
step in the direction of doing
retrofits at private expense,
not public expense.
This is entirely done by the
private sector, so with that,
I'll turn it over to you,
council member spelman, if
you've got specific questions.
We have people here to answer.
>> In fact, you've done a very
good job of answering my first
set of questions, which is what
are you trying to accomplish
here.
Let me summarize it forecast i
could you're talking about
extending the redevelopment
ordinance to the north edwards
aquifer, at least discussing
that.
>> Potentially.
>> And also discussing the
potential, including residential
properties, which were not
included in the redevelopment
ordinance, and basically
anything else that looks like
what may be coming up.
>> Originally, the restricted
area, as you pointed out,
applied to commercial
properties.
Basically.
>> Thank you, may why you guys
have been working with potential
applicants for use of that
ordinance.
Can you describe why is in your
opinion, so far, at least, we
haven't had very many takers.
Watershed protection.
We did an evaluation a couple
years after the ordinance was
passed to look at the status,
and we did, it was off course
right when the economy started
sort of flattening and there was
also a lot of uncertainty in the
oak hill area, we identified as
one of the ideas.
We were obviously speculate on
what was going on.
As the mayor mentioned, this was
limited to a small number of
properties, we kept mentioning
199 or 200 properties at the
time and that was the scope of
this ordinance, so it is a very
limited set.
The planning commission and
council at the time were very
clear that they, as this went
forward and they got stakeholder
input and you wanted to limit
it.
That's what it is.
At this point, my sense is
because we're looking at --
since we haven't had this there
were some concerns there would
be land rush or a great number
of these things coming through,
we've had two of these.
I don't think the -- I don't
think there is that issue.
So the idea would be -- and as
the mayor said, the original
ordinance, try to address some
of these things it had sort of a
mandate in there, what did we do
to retrofit but it didn't pay
for it and so forth, so this was
the tool we thought was -- that
was -- could be used for that.
>> Our usual justification for a
pilot project is we will learn
something from the pie late that
is used to extend the program
more generally, in a wider case
of properties.
What have we learned over the
last few years?
>> It keeps pointing to you.
>> Sure.
>> Environmental officer.
I think there is a couple
things.
The one sort of part of your
first question is why haven't we
gotten more participation.
What I've heard from several
developerses is cost,s
mitigation land and that -- and
I think I've already heard from
other folks that, as you know,
as matt mentioned, we
implemented this simultaneously
with the economy going downhill
somewhat, and so, then, when you
tie that with the mitigation
land requirement, while the
economy did flatten out
significantly, land cost did not
drop their rate of increase
slowed but land out in that area
is really expensive, the land
we've been trying to purchase
over the years, the water
quality protection lands.
I've also heard from the
community, as the plan picks up
and it becomes economically
advisable to invest there may be
more takers.
The timing on this was, maybe
not the best, but we also think
this is something we
anticipated.
I don't think we anticipated
that there were going to be lots
of properties do this, and i
think based on our staff
analysis that the time is really
ripe as the economy is starting
to pick up to take a look at
this, have some discussions with
the development community with
the property owner community,s
environmental community and see
if, should we let it ride?
What we've got sitting on the
table right now and see what
happens over the next few years.
But based on the limited
involvement, we look at making
some changes to get people to
take us up on this offer because
we would like to see these
properties get improved from an
environmental standpoint and get
some economic development
stimulated in that area, too.
>> Let me try and summarize
that, then.
We passed the ordinance, I was a
little bit concerned there would
be a chaos, a land rush of
people trying to take advantage
it turns out two takers out of
the prompt.
We didn't get a land rush and
could be because it is just
plain inexpensive to do we need
to look at the requirement of
the ordinances, alternatively,
could be the timing is really
bad.
Prices didn't go down, timing
became unavailable.
It sounds to me like it is going
to be impossible for us to
decide whether it is a or b is
the primary cause of what
happened here.
Is that material here?
>> Yes, that is accurate where
you just said.
I think one of the -- in the
weeds a little bit, but one of
the original ordinance, it is
structured so that a property,
we basically need to take
advantage of this opportunities
for the whole property.
And we could structure it so you
can have a subset of a larger
property do this and, therefore,
it would be much more flexible
and much more feasible, we
think.
So that would be one of the
things we would look at.
I think we would continue to be
cognizant of the concerns that
we don't want to create,
basically, a land rush.
We always want to balance the
environmental benefit we're
looking for the economic benefit
we're looking for and get some
of these older prompts that have
little or no quality control,
and to be honest, under
developed and under used in an
economic standpoint to meet some
of those goals but not in a way
we sacrifice environmental
protection.
>> And you're not generally --
although you're invited to, on
this resolution, it is your
understanding you're not talking
about generally opening up the
requirements, the redevelopment
ordinance and remaking them but
you are talk about extensions to
other parts of town, perhaps
allowing land owners to use a
parcel, a piece of their
property, rather than having to
redevelop the whole sneak we
think there is value in looking
at other parts of the city,
particularly the area north,
similar situations, similarly
sensitive environment.
And, we do have a redevelopment
exception that applies to the
entire city that very few people
are taking advantage of, and so,
we haven't done the analysis yet
for that area of the city, so we
really don't know whether or not
we ought to extend it there, but
do we need to do the analysis.
It is a fairly significant staff
commitment to do that work and
we wanted to get some guidance
from council and see if there
was interest in going that
direction before we devoted any
significant staff time to that.
>> Okay.
At this point, there is really
no way to tell whether or not
the extend to which the land
rush was due to the lack of a
land rush -- was due to the lack
of credit and the stable high
prices, or whether it was
because the ordinance is
extremely restrictive.
We really couldn't tell at this
point.
>> We need to do some analysis,
have some discussions with more
people in the development
community and be frank with them
and say, why haven't you taken
advantage of this.
Now, we have heard from property
owners, people that own
residential developments and
people have expressed interest
in this so we will look at that
and make we can get some older
residential developments rest
trofitted, as well.
>> -- Retrofitted, as well.
>> We will look forward to
hearing what people have to say.
>> I looked at this process a
year and a half or so, and we
did have all sides at the table.
>> The return on investment was
just barely what would be
needed.
And, as long as there are other
opportunities, people have a
better opportunity for an
improved roi, they're going to
take it, so this is kind of
something that has to be, it is
very specifically directed.
One of the big targets, we
talked about constantly that is
still out there, is the wide oak
hill, a large piece of property
that is well over 80% impervious
cover and one of the
requirements is you can't
increase the impervious cover.
You can redevelop and keep the
existing impervious cover.
If that could be subdivided, it
could be feasible.
Another requirement, you have to
mitigate down to sos levels but
purchasing open space or
contributing to a fund to
purchase open space to make up
for that deficit.
[One moment please for change in
captioners]
>> but we are not seeing
people try to take advantage
of the redevelopment
ordinance.
They are going and
developing green fields in
that same ring, in that same
area, so that tells me that
this redevelopment ordinance
is not as economically out
of balance and we need to
take a look at that.
>> Riley: Mayor.
>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member riley.
>> Riley: Just a
housekeeping item.
This have been some
questions about the language
of this resolution.
In fact, I thought we agreed
to a new draft.
there
is a new draft out.
>> Riley: But the version
that is online is still the
original version, which is
not what I agreed to
cosponsor, so could we get
an updated version online.
>> I think it's being posted
today.
>> Riley: It should be
posted today.
>> It should be.
>> We will work on that.
any
more questions?
All right.
Thanks.
Seventy-three, marked for
discussion from council
member morrison.
>> Morrison: Thank you,
mayor this is an item from
council member riley and
spelman.
I have a couple of questions
about it.
The idea, I gather, is to
develop a pilot program to
allowed for reduced parking
requirements in the case
there are trip reduction
strategies adopted by a
business, which sounds like
it -- it sounds like a great
idea and it makes a lot of
sense.
Two questions about it.
One, in part 2 of the
ordinance, it talks about
this to authorize reductions
in the minimum number of
parking spaces required for
commercial businesses so the
implementation of parking
reduction strategies and one
thing I am not here on, is
this something that would
come into play at site plan
approval, so it's actually
going to be a built
environment that has less
parking, or is it -- or you
contemplating that it comes
into play when maybe there
is a change of use and there
is a reference going in and
need going to be needing
more parking spaces based on
the number of seats?
So it is more of a shift in
use, or both?
>> Riley: I would say it
could be both.
As you know, there are
instances when a new
business -- when a new
business comes into an
existing building but it has
a different use with
different parking
requirements and there is
some review of that.
And in some cases businesses
are required to secure off
site parking and this would
be -- would allow discussion
of that, just similar to how
it works now.
This would -- we would have
discussion of how business
could -- what the applicable
one would be for each
business depending on the
same building, depending on
the use that occupies that
billg.
>> So let's say I come in
with a site plan and I am
going to put a restauran
in -- walk me through it
because I didn't quite
understand what you just
said.
>> I guess what I am saying.
It could be either
situation.
It could be new development.
It could be existing
development.
>> Morrison: All right.
>> Riley: So if you come in
with a site plan for -- you
want the put up a new
restaurant.
Then right now the code says
your parking requirements
are x, and what this would
allow is that if -- if a --
the restaurant operator
says, well, wait a minute,
we are right on a transit
line.
We are going to orient our
business especially toward
people who use alternative
forms of transit and we are
going to put all of these
measures in place in order
to encourage those sorts of
travel, then in that case,
the staff would have
discretion to work out an
agreement with that
restaurant operator that
would effectively reduce the
requirements for that site,
and that agreement, once in
place, would be reviewed in
much the same way as an off
oocyte parking
requirement -- off site
parking agreement as
currently reviewed.
>> Morrison: Let me stop you
there, because that's where
the question is.
You said the agreement --
let's say they are building
a restaurant -- and this is
just a mechanical thing.
I don't have a problem with
it.
I just want to make sure we
pull this out.
You are building a
restaurant and you, then,
enter into an agreement with
the restaurant operator, but
isn't there something that
needs to be tied to the land
if the actual built -- what
actually got built is going
to be allowing -- well, i
guess for restaurants, it is
a matter of seats, right,
and so let's say one
restaurant owner comes in
and says, yes, I am going to
do these strategies.
They build the restaurant
and then that restaurant
operator leaves.
The next restaurant operator
is not going to be
encouraging that, so that
operator will just be
allowed fewer seats, because
they would -- is that how it
would work?
I see -- I just want to make
sure that we -- I delineate
between what is tied to the
land and what is tied to an
actual business.
>> Riley: Sure.
>> Morrison: And that we
don't go down a path without
knowing where we are going.
>> Riley: Sure and maybe
brent can help us with that.
>> Brent, assistant city
attorney.
Brent lloyd assistant city
attorney and briefly by way
of clarification, the
ordinance that is before you
would initiate the pilot
program which would then
come back to you in march
with a full ordinance
establishing the
requirements, and a lot of
the details that are being
thatare being discussed here now
are ones to have to be
discussed with the staff
ordinance and this one
initiating that does not
provide guidance regarding
the issues you are
addressing.
However, there are obviously
issues that would have to be
addressed in the staff
recommendation -- and the
staff recommendation would
include provisions
addressing everything that
you all have touched on.
>> Morrison: Okay.
Great.
And then the second question
I have is down in part 5, i
am a little confused because
it says that the city
manager should come back to
the council with a proposal,
no later than march 1, 2013.
After providing a staff
briefing to the planning
commission, but then it goes
and waives the requirement
for review and
recommendations by the
planning.
So it looks like we are
lining it up to brief them
and not get a recommendation
from them.
I am curious to why that
delineation -- I would be
very interested, frankly, in
a recommendation and
thoughts from the planning
commission.
I think they have a lot to
add, and so if the staff is
already there briefing them.
I am just wondering if there
is -- what the concern was
to not take -- not get a
recommendation from them
while you were at it.
>> Riley: I think the idea
is simply that we are going
to ahead and put the pilot
program in place and then as
the ordinance is crafted, as
brent described, then those
recommendations would be
subject to review by the
planning commission.
That would come back.
If you look at the wording.
It says that the -- we waive
the requirement of pc review
prior to consideration
adoption of the proposed
pilot.
But certainly any permanent
measures would be subject to
review by planning
commission.
>> Morrison: But I think as
we just sort of demonstrated
there is a lot of open
questions here and I -- and
it looks like we are already
going to -- the staff is
already going to be at the
planning commission and so
personally I would love to
hear their recommendation.
If they are already going to
be there, why not get their
recommendation to bring to
the council?
Is there some concern that
that's going to somehow
delay it?
I think that's an important
piece of being able to
consider what are somewhat
complicated issues.
>> Riley: Right.
I think it was just a matter
of getting a pilot in place
quickly, knowing that we
will need to have a lot of
discussion or review before
anything permanent is put in
place.
>> Morrison: Well, I think
sometimes we discuss pilots.
I wouldn't want this to take
a year and a half like the
pilot of the redevelopment
but I would like us to
consider for us to consider
removing that one waiver.
It seems like, you know, we
could certainly put
direction in that it's
somehow be expedited, that
the planning commission
doesn't get stuck there, but
we are already there.
I guess I would say why even
brief them on it if you are
not going to ask for their
opinion.
I would like to suggest that
we go ahead and get the
recommendation while they
are there.
>> Riley: I would be happy
to get some further
indication from staff as to
how much time would require
to be to go through a whole
planning commission process
just to get a pilot in
place, but in general, it
seems to me if there is a
policy decision at issue
here, if the council
believes, that we ought not
to have a pilot in place,
then that's -- that's up to
the council to decide and
then when it actually comes
to crafting the terms of --
of the program for inclusion
of the land development
code, then that will go
through the whole planning
commission process but the
planning commission has a
lot on their plate.
We are continually adding to
that plate and so it's just
a matter of not getting too
bogged down before we even
get a pilot up and running.
>> Mayor.
>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member spelman.
>> Spelman: The there some
middle view of blowing off
the planning commission and
going through the whole nine
yards, which might go on for
a couple of months, is there
something involving, for
example, a briefing and
then, I don't know what you
call it, a straw poll or
assembling comments from the
planning commission or
something like that.
The basic idea to get
whatever wisdom we can goat
from a bunch of people like
you guys have spent a lot of
time looking at this stuff,
before we start the pilot
program, without having to
delay the program for a
couple of months to go
through something which is
really not a -- we don't
need to go through the whole
formal exercise.
>> Morrison: I would
certainly be open to that
and I guess I would ask
legal.
I think what we are waiving
hear.
>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member morrison.
>> Morrison: Might waive the
requirement that it actually
go to codes and ordinances
and so if we could somehow
recraft this so that we is
that staff do the briefing
and collect comments or
something from planning
commission, I certainly
would be comfortable about
that.
>> Spelman: That seems like
a reasonable thing to do.
>> Riley: Could I is if law
has any recommendations
along those lines?
>> We will take into account
the comments and try to
determine what we think
would be workable in advance
of thursday's meeting.
Definitely it's -- it's very
clear-cut to either waiver
the planning commission
requirement and allow a
staff briefing, require a
staff briefing, but getting
into actually directing the
planning commission how to
go about its business, the
codes and ordinances process
and all of that, raises some
concerns but I think
potentially there is a way
to require that there be
comments collected or
something like that while
maintaining the waiver of
the full-on process.
So we will look at that and
be prepared to advise you on
thursday.
>> Morrison: Thank you.
>> Spelman: Mayor.
>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member spelman.
>> Spelman: It might be as
simple as not asking for a
vote from the planning
commission but asking for
comments from a planning
commission, but making sure
that somebody writes them
all down.
Thanks.
i
agree.
I would support that
approach.
I don't think it -- I think
the process begins after the
pilot.
The pilot information we
gain from doing the pilot
program will be useful in
constructing the final
ordinance, and that's, i
think, the way we usually do
pilots but I do have -- i
intend to support this but i
just have a couple of
questions.
Trip reduction strategies.
Are they defined in the
ordinance?
Or are there specific ones?
>> Riley: Yes, mayor, the
ordinance lists 6 examples
of trip reduction
strategies.
is
valley parking one of them?
>> Riley: It is.
it
is?
>> Riley: Yes.
And valley -- it says
provision of valley or
delivery service.
If the business operates
primarily on delivery basis,
that could reduce their
parking requirements.
>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.
I think it's good to be as
comprehensive as you can
about that and obviously the
elephant in the room is what
is this going to do with
overflow parking off site,
on-street parking which is a
problem we have to address
on a somewhat regular basis
around here and I hope
that's fully studied.
>> Riley: Yes.
>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.
Item 74, marked for
discussion by council member
morrison.
Morrison, which is
comprehensive plan.
We have some staff here to
address that.
>> Morrison: I didn't really
have questions for staff,
mayor.
I have a comment --
we
are supposed to have them
here in case anybody does.
>> Morrison: Okay.
Great.
that
is the reason we mark it for
discussion, is so that we
can have staff here, so we
can at least let them set up
at the table.
Come on.
[Laughter]
>> Morrison: I am sorry,
george, I didn't mean to
make you go back.
you
don't have to say a word,
george.
>> Morrison: Always good to
have you here.
So this is the item that
we've heard from staff on
their proposal for the
process for developing the
new land development code,
and one of the elements of
that was to create a
steering committee of, i
think 11 people, and so this
creates -- this is the
process for creating that
and I appreciate the mayor
pro tem and council member
riley for bringing this
forward.
They invited me to be on it
but the reason I have
concerns about the way it
was crafted -- I don't have
an issue -- we have had a
lot of good discussion about
what the process is going to
be.
Staff has taken some input
on that and made some
adjustments to that.
One of the most important
things for me in terms of
what we are looking at now
is that, you know, we want
to have a core team of -- of
the steering committee.
There will be lots of
working groups and lots of
opportunity for
participation, but one of
the things that did change
in the process is once the
consultant and the community
works together to identify
the problems we need to
solve, what's working and
what's not working, we
were -- originally the
process then asked the
consultant to go off and
come up with a new draft
code for us.
Now what we've got is the
consultant is going to come
back to the steering
committee and lay out the
different alternatives for
addressing the issuing that
were raised and get input
from the steering committee
on which of those, I think,
would be most useful in the
city.
So the concern -- so the
steering committee is going
to play a very key role in
terms of helping us move
forward this process.
The concern that I have is
that under the be it
resolved, the first be it
resolved, number 4 says, the
advisory group, the steering
committee is not subject to
the requirements of city
code chapter 21 city boards
and it's my understanding
that under that section that
the -- that requires open
meetings, that the boards
comply with open meetings,
so the way I read -- our
steering committee would not
be subject to the open
meetings act, which means
they could be meeting with
no notice to the public.
They can be meeting in a
quorum, you know, outside of
public view, and all of
that, and so this is my
concern and the effort to
undertake.
There is intense concern
from all community of where
we are going with the new
land development code and so
I think that's it's
imperative this committee
meet in public, the public
be able to follow the
discussions and know what
are the alternatives we are
looking for and know what is
the direction and
recommendation that's going
and have an opportunity to
weigh in on all of that, to
cut the public out.
It's just a recipe for
disaster.
So it would be my suggestion
that we remove that -- that
we change that to say that
the advisory group would be
subject to -- to that
section and I guess I want
to ask staff just to confirm
that I am correct in that
assumption, that if we waive
2-1, it means are not
subject to open meetings?
>> I just want to clarify --
you are correct our board of
commissions codes make open
meetings requirements
applicable to advisory
bodies that under state law
would not be required to
comply.
However, this advi
group, even without the
statement in number 4, would
not under our code be
subject to open meetings.
The provisions in chapter
2-1 define basically state
that if a group -- if a city
creates advisory body that
is temporary and uncodified,
it would not be subject to
those requirements.
So this is not a waiver.
If it were, it would have to
be done by ordinance.
It is just a statement of
clarification because, i
think, these issues do have
the potential to create
confusion and people want to
know kind of what the rules
are going to be, so --
>> Morrison: So if we want
to make them subject to the
open meetings act, we would
have to say that explicitly
in here?
>> Exactly.
Simply removing this
sentence would not have the
effect of making them
subject to the open meetings
requirement.
>> Morrison: All right.
>> Council member, if i
might add, it was never the
goal or the intent to -- to
not comply with the-meetings
act.
We have -- with the open
meetings act.
We are always intended to
post meetings agendas and
hold meetings that are open
to the public.
Really the goal was to make
it clear that we weren't
subject to the same -- the
same types of attendance
requirements because that
has been problematic with
similar advisory groups.
It's my understanding with
the comprehensive plan
advisory group, that was a
challenge.
Of course it was a much
larger number of
participants and so it --
there were a lot more moving
parts.
>> Morrison: Right.
>> I just wanted to --
>> Morrison: So it is your
intent as staff -- would you
have any problem if we have
a line in here that the
advisory board will be
subject to open meetings
act?
>> Not at all.
>> Morrison: Then I guess
that I would hope that this
sponsors might be all right
with that, also.
>> Mayor leffingwell: yes.
>> I am curious, george, but
if I heard you correctly,
the concern, though, was the
attendance requirements
that's associated with how
the committee worked with
the -- on the austin plan
and so being subject to open
meetings, I don't think you
mean when you say, yes, you
are open with that.
You still want to avoid the
attendance issue.
Correct?
>> That's correct, yes.
>> Morrison: Well, and i
guess I wonder if there is
some clarification needed,
because one of the things it
says is remaining numbers --
if there is -- if someone
resigns or fails to serve
then the remaining members
will fill the vacancy
subject to approval by the
council.
What does that mean, fails
to serve, if we don't have a
well-defined attendance
requirement?
>> It is my understanding
that with the airport
advisory group, which is
kind of the model for this,
that they have kind of
self-enforced that.
If there has been a pattern
of nonattendance, or if --
obviously if someone
resigns, that's clearly.
>> Morrison: Okay.
I guess there might be --
I -- my thought is it might
be helpful if we actually
got some definition of fails
to serve, because I would
hate for there to be -- it
doesn't necessarily have to
be what is in boards and
commissions, but I would
hate for there to be
controversy over this, where
the rest of the committee
says, hey, you failed to
serve and the person might
have felt like they had been
reasonable and all of that.
I wonder if there would be a
way to define that?
>> We will work with staff
and have language to address
that issue on thursday.
Additionally, just so that
we are clear, so that we can
prepare for thursday, what i
am hearing is that there
is -- there is a shared
desire to require the
posting requirements of the
open meetings act but not
require compliance with the
provisions of our own code
that require regular
scheduled meetings and other
things along those lines to
allow more flexibility for
meeting at different times.
Is that correct?
>> Cole: I want to interject
here a second, if I may.
It was my understanding,
based on many of the
comprehensive task force
members and also based on
comments from the airport
advisory group, that the
problem, as you said, was
with the attendance and
actually having a quorum.
Of course we have drafted
this largely based on what
the stakeholders wanted and
your recommendations, and
that was done with trying to
solve that difficulty, but
of course we want it to be
transparent and we want to
comply with open meetings
but we have two different
things we are trying to
balance in terms of the
citizens commitment.
So we have terms in which
the advisory group is not
automatically subject to
open meetings and we were
clarifying more to make it
easiest for people to serve,
so I would like us to have a
discussion with that in
mind, that we are going to
have difficulty actually
obtaining a quorum and we
have actually been told that
by citizens that have been
involved with the process
and we have started to add
this language in some of our
advisory groups.
This is not the first time
it has been done.
>> Morrison: I guess my
thought on that is that the
task force did -- the task
force was huge compared
to -- compared to this.
This is going to be 11
people.
Is that correct?
So I would -- I think that
if we can't find six people
that can come to a meeting
to make recommendations and
take formal action on our
land development code, we
have got a bigger problem
than just trying to fill
seats.
I think that it would be
imperative that we have
them -- I would just be
surprised if that really got
to be an issue.
If we can't get six people
to come, we need to be
looking at reassigning those
positions.
>> Cole: And so I agree that
we should try to get all 11
to come and this was simply
a balancing of interests.
Do you think that you can
draft some language and get
that to us?
>> Yes.
Mayor pro tem, we will be
ready for thursday.
>> Cole: Okay.
>> Tovo: Mayor pro tem.
>> Cole: Yes.
>> Tovo: I want to jump in
here, as somebody who has
served on task forces where
we've lost half of our
members, it places undue
burden on the people who are
I agree if we
have people who can't make a
commitment to come, they
ought to be replaced and we
have plenty of people in
this city willing to serve
on committees of this sort
and I think we need to be
willing to do that and it is
really the only fair thing
for people who are
committing their time to
serve on a board.
>> Cole: I understand.
I completely understand.
Again, a balancing of two
legitimate interests.
>> Morrison: And I think
definition, if we can get a
definition of failing to
serve and make it fairly
stringent.
>> We will be able to fill
positions.
>> Cole: I agree, we need a
definition of that, to be
clearly defined.
Is there any other items
that -- council member tovo,
did you have another item?
>> Tovo: I did.
I wanted to talk for a
minute about 87.
This is the rezoning of
forest and san jacinto and
we talked about it at a
recent meeting -- did I say
87 -- fifth and san jacinto.
We talked about it at a
recent feet meeting and as i
mentioned -- at a recent
meeting and as I mentioned
then, we intent a lot of
time about a year ago -- we
spent a lot of time about a
year ago talking about
downtown plan and what is
the vision for properties
that are seeking increased
density and prior to the
adoption of the downtown
plan, we had many
discussions about cure
zoning and the fact that we
had a lot of development
projects coming to council
seeking cure zoning and in
doing so getting increased
in entitlements and in doing
so not participating in our
downtown density program.
When I mentioned to
community members recently
that we had a cure case
before us that was not --
that was seeking increased
entitlements and we still
don't have a downt
plan, -- we have a downtown
plan that was not
participating in community
benefits.
It was their surprise
because they thought the
adoption of the downtown
plan, we had, closed the
cure loophole.
I thought that, too.
We haven't codified the
downtown plan but we have as
a council adopted the vision
of a downtown plan saying
projects that are eligible
that are seeking increased
densities will participate
in our community benefit --
will meet the gatekeeper
requirements and participate
in community benefits and so
I would just like to
mention -- you know, have a
discussion, if we've got
time and the will to do so
here today what the options
are for the applicants of
fifth and san jacinto.
One option, would be for
them to wait until we've
codified the downtown plan.
An option before this
council would be to ask them
to come back, to postpone
and to come back when we've
got it codified.
We have the discretion, of
course, to turn down the
zoning request.
And they have the option of
participating in the interim
downtown density bonus
program.
You know, in going back, I i
think we had a discussion
rustoven
or the -- rusthoven, or the
appropriate staff members to
answer this and we had a
discussion at the meeting
and I think the content was
the interim density downtown
program wasn't open to
commercial properties but in
looking at 22586, affordable
housing incentives in a
central business district or
downtown mixed use district,
section 8 says it applies to
commercial or mixed use
development.
rusthoven, could you
clarify, would this
applicant be eligible for
density bonuses under the
downtown density bonus
program.
>> Yes, jerry rusthoven of
the planning and development
review.
Today they have two options
with the additional far in
the cbd, would be would be
to p a pate in the interim
density bonus program or the
alternative which something
to show which is to seek a
cure of zoning case.
>> Tovo: So those are the
options that have been to
the developer.
They can participate if they
want increased entitlements,
which they can apply to and
they can participate in the
downtown density bonus
program.
That would yield a community
benefit, by my calculations
and I will submit a formal
question and ask staff to
verify this, actually, joe
hardin calculations but i
think -- I think they are
right on -- of $896,900, at
least half of way 50% of
which will go to affordable
housing, another 50% would
be community benefit.
So that's under the interim
density bonus program with
no gatekeeper requirements.
Under the density bonus
program downtown we proposed
last fall, council member
spelman had provisions -- we
had a consultant who made
very strong recommendations,
many community members made
very strong recommendations
about the need to, again,
close the cure loophole.
We came to a compromise with
the help of council member
spelman's proposal as far as
this council, that,
according to these
calculations would yield, if
the -- would -- with grate
keeper requirements and an
estimated $179,380 in
affordable housing -- and
that could be a combination
of 50% of affordable housing
and some other community
benefit, so, yeah, I want to
be sure that we all
understand the options.
We spend a lot of time
talking about the critical
need for affordable housing
in this community.
We have all expressed
disappointment about the
failure of the affordable
housing bonds and so I guess
I would just ask you to
think about what we are
doing when we are not
requiring developers to
participate in the goals and
the plans that we have on
the books.
And again, we have got to.
We have got the downtown
plan as adopted by this
council last fall, which
gives some very clear
guidance as to what the
community benefit would look
like if they participated in
that.
If they choose not to
participate, to voluntarily
participate in that, as
envisioned in the downtown
plan, they can participate
in the interim density bonus
program.
>> Morrison: Mayor.
>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member morrison.
>> Morrison: I would like to
say I agree completely and i
think that it's my
understanding, my hope, my
understanding -- there were
several of us that expressed
those concerns at our last
meeting when this was heard
and it's my understanding
that the applicants heard
those certains and they will
be bringing forward -- heard
those concerns and they will
be bringing forward
additional proposals at the
next meeting.
>> Tovo: I hope that's true.
I have cycled back.
We don't have anything
different before us, and we
are scheduled to vote on nit
two days, so my hope is that
we will see something on
thursday but, again, i
wanted to talk with you, my
colleagues about how
critically important it is
that we see a different
proposal here on thursday,
in my opinion.
>> Mayor leffingwell:
Council member tovo, do you
want to talk about --
council member cole, do you
want to talk about 53?
Is that the one you
mentioned?
>> Cole: No, mayor.
I am fine.
I wanted to ask you about
c1, council member meeting
policy discussions.
Did we inadvertently skip
over that?
we
didn't skip it.
We are still on a -- we are
still on the first agenda on
the agenda -- the first item
on if agenda.
>> Cole: Okay.
We had the briefing, i
thought, okay.
are
there any other item that is
council members wanted to
discuss on the agenda?
So unfortunately, mayor pro
tem, I have to leave so you
will be finishing out.
>> Cole: Furnishing up the
policy discussions.
That is a very generic
posting.
[Laughter]
>> Cole: Council member
spelman.
>> Spelman: I believe I am
inadvertently responsible
for this generic item.
The item I wanted to discuss
is not as broad as policy
discussion or I think
paul would refer to it
as city issues.
I don't know why it had to
be written down this way by
our legal staff.
Let me see exactly what i
had in mind.
Let me be very specific.
We have in any given meeting
a minimum of five
opportunities for time
certain.
On thursdays.
30 we do briefings and
generally do briefings just
about 10:30.
00 o'clock, sometimes
we have the briefings extend
beyond that point.
But we usually stop what we
are doing somewhere around
30 and start the
briefings.
00 o'clock, we almost
always start citizens
communication and we almost
always start just about on
30, we
almost always have live
music and proclamations and
we almost always start that
on time.
What we don't start on time
are zoning cases at
00 o'clock and public
00 o'clock and
we often have a lot of
people signed up for zoning
cases and signed up for
00 and
00 and they are sitting
around and they wait
sometimes for hours and
hours and we sometimes don't
take those cases up until 1
00 o'clock in the
morning.
It seems to me that if we
are serious as -- about
citizen communication at
00 o'clock and we are
serious about music and
30, we
ought to equally be serious
that sometimes hundreds of
people are sitting around
waiting for.
One way to be more likely to
hit our marks on the
00 o'clock and the
00 o'clock is to change
our understandings of what
we are going to be doing in
executive session.
Currently our executive
session starts as soon as
the citizens communication
is over.
We talk at large, handle
personnel items, whatever it
is and we continue doing
whatever it is we are going
to do in executive session
until we are done and often
that goes well beyond
00 o'clock hand we start
talking about zoning cases
only when we are done
talking to our lawyers.
It seems to me we ought to
take -- we ought to at least
consider taking zoning cases
as seriously as taking our
lawyers and that at
00 o'clock we could say,
okay, we have had as much
executive session as we --
as is appropriate for us to
have.
It's time for us to go out
and deal with ezoning cases
and we will come back after
the zoning cases or public
hearing and continue talking
to our lawyers whatever we
need to talk to our lawyers
about.
I can understand there are
going to be certain cases
where we are going to need
to continue discussing a
case until we have come to a
logical stopping point.
We don't want to cut off our
discussion in the mid of a
particular item.
We need to come to logical
stopping place.
But generally speaking we
don't need to be in
executive session until we
are done being in executive
30 or
00, start dealing with
00 o'clock time concern
items.
I want to know if this
general understanding is
something we could adopt as
a general rule for going
forward.
>> Cole: Council member
spelman, I know I certainly
agree with your analysis.
I also think it tends to end
up with us into very late
night meetings that we all
have agreed that we do not
adhere to.
I would even go so far as to
say that we should have
executive session items on
today.
To be able to cut down on
the number of executive
sessions that we are having
to have on council meeting
days, I would go as far as
to say that we would have
briefings today and we
should also have executive
sessions today in order to
move up and be on time with
our zoning items.
I was looking at the city
manager -- did you have a
comment?
Did you want to --
>> Ott: No.
>> Cole: You have been
around and around with this?
>> Ott: No.
I think it is a good idea as
well.
Also perhaps -- I was
smiling because this reminds
me of fort worth in that
they had what they call
precouncil, not work
sessions but w
covered -- we had briefings
from staff and we also dealt
with executive session in
the morning and so that
stuff didn't get tied on --
didn't get incorporated with
the council meeting and
didn't extend the evening as
if the case -- as is the
case here often.
So that's why I was smiling.
>> Cole: Council member
morrison.
>> Morrison: I guess I would
like to lend my support to
the idea of moving back to
zoning as quickly as
possible near 2:00 o'clock.
I think that's a good idea.
A couple of things.
I guess it would be -- we do
need to be cognizant of when
we invite outside council
because we don't -- outside
counsel because we don't
want them sitting around and
we need to increased
entitlements executive
sessions with that so we are
put to the effective use and
the clock isn't spinning
wildly without any help
being given.
Are you cob templating we --
contemplating we would go
00 o'clock and
finish up executive session
after the rest of the
meeting?
>> Spelman: Yes.
If we had time between
00 o'clock and
00 o'clock times, for
example, we could fit in
some of that there.
If we had time between
30
live music and
proclamations, we could fit
it in there.
It might be in bits or
pieces over the afternoon.
>> Morrison: Right, or if we
didn't get to any of that
and critical ones and we are
finished up with the
, then
we could go into executive
session then.
>> Spelman: That would be my
understanding, yes.
>> Morrison: That might be
challenging, but I do have
one comment on the idea of
moving things to our work
session day.
I would support that but i
would support that only as
if there is time left after
discussing items on the
agenda, getting questions
answered and talking with
our colleagues, because to
me, that -- that is -- that
is an absolutely critical
priority for me, to be able
to work through some of
those things.
I wonder -- I could envision
maybe being prepared for
some executive session items
that might not require
outside council and if there
is time left before
00 o'clock, we could
hear -- we could discuss
those in executive session
or something, but I hate to
give up the discussion among
us as a priority item for
work session.
If you will recall earlier
on, we started moving into
briefings and executive
sessions and work session
got to take over the ability
to discuss with our
colleagues and that's what
is absolutely critical.
>> I would suggest that you
set your order of meetings,
both your council meetings
and the work sessions and if
that's the new direction,
that maybe amend those
ordinances to make sure that
going forward the process.
Because, yes, we pull back
on executive sessions
because it's clearly not
within the process that
you've, established as far
as what you want on your
tuesday agenda, so --
>> Morrison: So we could
sad, add item e that says
executive session and if we
don't get to it, that's
fine.
>> Yes, and that would be
part of your rules that you
adopted earlier this year
for work session or amended
them this year.
>> Council member tovo.
>> Tovo: I want to say i
think it is a great idea to
try and why don't we give it
a shot before we amend
anything, but I like -- i
like the idea of trying to
keep the public -- the
public's involvement on
schedule because I think
it's a burden on them.
I would say let's give more
thought about when we want
to pick up the bulk of the
executive session, because
if we are starting that at
or midnight, that
means a lot of our staff,
legal and otherwise, need to
hang around all day for
that, and that's not
probably a great use of
their time, so I don't know
how we manage that exactly.
>> Morrison: Well, they are
going to be here -- excuse
me.
They are going to be here
any ways, if we are -- if we
are in executive session --
I don't know.
>> Tovo: I don't know how
that shakings out but it
seems to me we might have
some -- several of our legal
staff surely but if we have
very specific issues, there
might be staff who need to
stay until midnight with the
hope we might get to it and
my guess is if all we have
left is executive session,
we might end up tabling
those for another meeting.
>> And that's something we
need to signal, about it
looks like this will go like
and let the lawyers go home
or something.
>> Tovo: I like this
suggestion.
It is great.
>> Spelman: What I was
trying to put forward is not
something doctrine ated
where exactly at
00 o'clock we stop what we
are doing and go out and
just to keep in mind, it is
00 o'clock, it is time for
us to go out and presume to
put the lawyers on hold.
>> Tovo: If I can put up a
related point.
>> Cole: Council member
tovo.
>> Tovo: Sorry and apologies
if you hashed this out
before I got there, but it
seems like two briefings in
the morning sometimes
contributes to throwing us
off in terms of our timing
for the rest of the day and
so I don't know if it's --
if there has been any kind
of discussion about trying
to minimize the number of
briefings on a council
session to at most.
>> Cole: City manager.
>> Ott: These things are
hard, two is -- there are
times we did more than two,
and so two is really pulling
back.
You know, I guess if council
were inclined, we could do
less than that and limit it
to one, but I think, you
know, there are situations
where that could affect, you
know, business because, i
mean, the briefings serve a
purpose in terms of
informing council oftentimes
a preclude to an important
decision that you are going
to have to make, so it could
affect business in that way.
>> Spelman: Mayor.
>> Cole: Council member
spelman.
>> Spelman: We are often
confused.
>> Cole: I understand.
It's the hair.
>> Spelman: Exactly.
If we -- if we -- we have an
hour and a half window for
briefings and I understand
some briefings are much
longer than others and some
briefings are done not by
your staff.
Therefore, you have limited
control over how much time
they use, but there are a
way of scheduling the
briefings in such a way that
the two of them together
would not add up to more
than an hour and a half, as
best as anyone can tell, i
this think that would go a
long way of solving our
problems.
I think what happens is
sometimes two very long
briefings back to back, like
the briefing is long and a
lot of questions as a result
of it and if there is a way
to see that advance and a
long briefing and a short
briefing or something like
that.
>> Ott: We will work on
that, at our cmo meeting we
have these dry runs of
briefings and some of them
come in and they are much
longer than anything you all
see and we change it quite a
bit and sometimes you go
through and it is longer
than anticipated and your
point is taken and perhaps
much than that, an hour and
30, that takes up
your time for citizens
communication, not including
questions or comments you
have.
>> Spelman: What you are
doing is banking to our
consenting on the consent
agenda which is usually not
a big bet.
>> Ott: That's right.
That's right.
So we will work on it.
>> Cole: There is no further
questions, then this meeting
at the austin city council
is adjourned.