>> Mayor Leffingwell: Good
morning.

I'm austin mayor lee
leffingwell.

A quorum is present so I'll
call this work session of
the austin city council to
order on tuesday,
SEPTEMBER 25th, 2012, AT
9:10 A.m.

We have no extra items on
the agenda so this will be a
true discussion, true work
session discussing the items
that appear on the agenda.

There are none called out in
advance, but the floor is
open now for any
councilmember that would
like to bring up particular
items for discussion.

I would say -- I'm going to
have a brief discussion on
items 87 and 88.

They are technically not
related.

Items from council, but i
was contacted quite a few
times yesterday by people
from outside of austin in
the region, and the concern
is that both -- both of
these, quote, take away all
the progress that was made
towards regional.

First of all, I'll address
item 87.

In talking to the executive
director of campo, actually
as late as this morning,
what this is is an item to
withdraw and later resubmit
the city's amendment request
to the 2035 plan, which
is -- we all recall was a
request to remove it from
the 2035 plan.

That was done, incidentally,
by friendly amendment as we
approved the comprehensive
plan.

So staff submitted that
request in accordance with
the council direction and it
was scheduled and campo then
proceeded to go through a
long period of public
hearing on this item and
others.

So there were at least three
general public hearings
held, one north, one in the
central austin area, one in
buda in the southwestern
part of the region.

In addition to that, an
extensive public hearing was
held at campo at the
september meeting.

Potentially all that would
have to be redone.

There may be some legal
issues about whether it
would legally have to be
redone, but it's a practical
consideration.

The feeling, at least the
feeling on the part of the
chair, the policy board
chair, is that we would
absolutely have to duplicate
all of that work again.

That would be done at about
the same time, in february
of next year, campo will
take up the 2040 plan.

And so basically both of
those things would be going
on at the same time and the
feeling is they would be
very confusing and they
could be totally
independent.

For example, one action to
take it out of the 2035
plan, another action putting
it into the 2040 plan.

The 2040 plan will take time
to complete, up to two
years, but it has to be done
before 2015.

So the feeling around the
area that campo represents
is fairly strongly that this
is -- this is an austin
thing, that austin is trying
to impose its will on the
rest of the region, and
there's, frankly, a lot of
resentment over it.

And I think the desire on
the part of the chairman at
least is to go ahead and
vote on this issue.

I just wanted to bring those
to everybody's attention so
that they could be
discussed, but it has
created quite a stir.

So councilmember riley.

>> Riley:.

>> Thanks for your comments,
mayor.

I would like to provide a
little more context.

What we're talking about is
 amendments
that are being considered by
campo.

Campo does that a couple of
times a year.

They have been going through
the process with respect to
a number of amendments to
the transportation
improvement plan.

They expect to go through
another round of amendments
early next year.

For each of these rounds,
they are required to hold a
series of public hearings
and that's exactly what
they've been doing.

They would have been having
these hearings regardless if
we had come up with
anything -- sh 45 out of the
plan.

They will be having public
hearings early next year in
connection with that set of
amendments regardless of
what we do then.

So -- so into that context
of regular public hearings
[inaudible] there is a -- a
study, a modeling study that
has come up that campo has
been working very hard -- at
the request of both travis
county and hays county,
campo has been working on a

[09:12:00]

modeling study that would
show various scenarios for
road improvements and
especially in the southern
travis county, northern
travis -- northern hays
county area.

Now, that -- we expected
that modeling data to be
ready in september and that
would have been very useful
to have because it would
have given us new
information for purposes of
discussing sh 45.

As it turned out, shortly
before the september
meeting, campo identified a
flaw in their data which
meant that the whole
modeling effort that had
been underway for some time
was essentially useless.

It was not available for
consideration, and in fact
it still won't be available
in time for the october
campo meeting at which campo
will be considering that
round of t.i.f. amendments.

So the question is where
does that leave us in terms
of what to do about sh 45.

We've talked about sh 45 a
number of times this the
past.

I personally don't see a
whole lot of value in having
yet another vote on sh 45
absent some new information
such as that we would
receive from the modeling
study that has been
underway.

And so at the september
meeting I made a point of
saying that -- that i
thought it would make sense
for us to hold off on voting
on sh 45 until such time as
we had corrected data
available, which will likely
be at the next round of
 amendments in early
next year.

I know that message didn't
really get through.

A lot of people still felt
unsure as to whether there
was going to be a vote on sh
45, especially the
opponents -- rather the
supporters of sh 45 kept
coming out to those public
hearings in spite of the
suggestion we pull back.

The campo chair was the one
member attending at least
one of those meetings and he

[09:14:00]

was saying he was gooding to
insist we go ahead and
consider this in october
even in the absence of
corrected modeling data.

I think even if we did have
a vote in october on sh 45,
we would likely still want
to brave the issue in the
early part of next year
because then we would have
fresh new data to consider,
and I think a lot of people
in the committee would want
us to take a careful look at
that date the and weigh the
question of 45 in light of
that new information.

Based on all that, I asked
whether we could delay the
concerns about our
considering this in october,
I asked staff if they could
just notify campo that we
were holding back on that
amendment request until we
had the corrected data, and
staff said, well, we cell really
can't do that because
council -- and this is an
appropriate part of staff
that did what council asked
them to do, submit the
request to pull it out --
pull sh 45 out of the campo
plan.

But I thought it would make
sense for council to provide
some additional direction
saying we think we ought to
hold off on this until we
have that corrected data.

And that's all this
resolution does.

It pulls back on that
amendment request until such
time as we have that
corrected data.

I don't see it requiring a
whole new round of hearings
that would not otherwise be
happening anyway because we
will be having those
hearings in early next year
regardless of what we do.

Now, chair connally has
asked that we consider just
focusing the discussion on
the 2040 plan as opposed to
trying to have this in the
context of this amendment.

My sense is that we are
going to -- once campo gets
the new data and considers
it, we're going to be --

[09:16:00]

we're going to either want
to have sh 45 in our plans
or not and we might as well
go ahead and consider that
at the first opportunity,
which would be in connection
to the amendment.

But if folks still tired of
having hearings in context
 amendments, I'm
open to focusing just on the
2040 plan if that's the will
of council.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Well, a couple things.

There are legalities of it
and there are practical
aspects of it.

Without -- we can argue
about the legal aspects of
it, and there very well
might be other t.i.f.

Amendment cases going on
early next year.

But if there weren't, we
don't know that there will
be, there could be, they
would still be going on at
the same time and it would
be quite an additional
workload on the campo staff
and confusing to the public
to do this at the same time.

The other thing is that
there is no -- there's no
legal relationship between
the study, the study is not
directly a requirement of
making a decision on the
 amendments, as you
pointed out.

That was coming up anyway
regardless of the status of
the study.

I think the overall comment
that I've received is that
the -- the chairman, policy
board chairman, would very
strongly, he's frankly not
happy about this at all,
would very strongly prefer
to hear this discussion, as
you stated, as part of the
2040 plan which will begin
in february.

I think the practical effect
of it, as I said and I'll
say this one more time, it
is a giant step backwards to
our recent efforts to
promoting regionalism
because it is seen as an
effort on the part of austin
to interfere in regional

[09:18:02]

roads and transportation
facilities that are outside
of austin.

Councimember spelman.

>> Spelman: As you
mentioned, it is only
legally required that campo
consider through public
hearings whether sh 45 is
politically popular and
there is no legal
requirement that campo
consider through
transportation modeling or
any other transportation
process whether it will
actually do any good to
improve traffic conditions.

On the other hand, I think
at least to some extent
campo ought to consider
traffic conditions and the
effectiveness of the road,
not merely the political pap
later of it, and --
popularity of it, and if we
were able to delay until the
dynamic traffic modeling
study is available -- is it
january, chris, it's going
to be available?

They are not sure when.

If we could at least delay
having a vote until that
point I will feel a lot more
comfortable, I think all of
us with campo would feel
more comfortable rather than
how many people are for it
or against it in hearings.

I understand how
commissioner connally is in
a bind because he's
representing hays county and
this road is going to be
mostly in hays county and
will be primarily serving
hays county, but the
dilatorious effect on
traffic conditions if there
are any, traffic modeling
study suggests there are
some, are almost entirely in
travis county and the city
of austin in the form of
additional congestion on
mopac.

So the gain is in
commissioner connally's
area, the pain is going to
be primarily to us and our
constituents and that's what
regional cooperation is all
about is sorting out who
gets the benefits, who bears
the cost and what on balance
is going to be best for the
entire region.

It seems to me this is
exactly what campo was
designed to do and we ought
to make that decision on the
merits to the extent

[09:20:01]

possible.

With that in mind, mayor, do
you think commissioner
connally would be willing to
entertain a motion of
postponement we have of the
request we have on the table
now until after that traffic
modeling study is complete?

That would almost certainly
remove the legal requirement
to hold a new round of
hearings, we've already held
the hearings, we just won't
be taking a vote until a
little bit later, we
wouldn't have to start all
over again, but those of us
concerned about the merits
of the case and the value
this road would or would not
have to traffic conditions
would be able to get the
benefit of that study.

Would you be willing to
convey that back to
commissioner connally and
see if he would do that?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
haven't asked him that
question, but certainly a
postponement sounds a little
better from the perspective
of having to go back and
hold additional hearings
than a withdrawal and
resubmittal.

You know, but obviously the
preferred course of action
would be just to call for
withdrawal and submit it
again at a later date if
that's the desire that -- my
feeling without having
delved into it too much or
not at all until you brought
it up is that a postponement
would be better than a
withdrawal, but I don't know
all the factors.

And you know, you mentioned
correctly there may be
questions about whether
legally or not you have to
hold these public hearings,
but as a practical matter,
it's not a matter of judging
the popularity from the
public hearing, it's a
matter of public process,
and I don't believe the
chair, at least he so stated
to me, was [inaudible]
without additional public
hearings after a long lapse
of time like this.

That means of course that
all the interested party are
going to haul back down
because they see the process
starting over again.

[09:22:00]

It's going to be very
confusing for everyone
concerned.

>> Spelman: I don't think
anybody wants the campo
staff, commissioner
connally, who has i
understand gone to all the
public hearings, I applaud
him, I have not, none of us
want to put additional
burdens on anybody else.

And if a postponement would
eliminate the need to burden
anybody else but accomplish
the same objective, I'm all
for it.

The concern I've got is that
just asking for postponement
will not necessarily get us
postponement, we would
actually take a record vote
on this which I do not have
any information from last
time, I can't see why that
record vote would be any
different than last time
with the absence of new
information.

But if commissioner connally
recognizes we have the
authority to withdraw and
resubmit which may be a pain
in the neck for everybody,
let's avoid the pain in the
neck and do it the easy way.

Would you be willing to
convey that to commissioner
connally?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes,
if the desire is to postpone
it, then the board would
have an opportunity to vote.

The way this is stated, my
understanding the policy
board would not vote on it
because it's withdrawn by
the party who submitted the
question.

>> Spelman: The only other
thing I would add, mayor, i
believe commissioner
connally's willingness to
vote in favor of
postponement would be
helpful to you will a of us.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
don't know if I can get that
for you.

>> Spelman: I understand,
but if you could ask, i
would sure appreciate it.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
will look into that.

>> Spelman: Thank you,
sir.

Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Cole: I have a question
for councilmember riley.

I'm trying to understand
your reasoning between
making this resolution in
connection with the t.i.f.

Amendment as opposed to the

[09:24:00]

2040 plan and how that
reconciles with what
commissioner connally is
asking us to do.

>> Riley: I'm not sure
exactly what the timing is
on the hearings regarding
the 2040 plan as they relate
to the hearings on the
 amendment, and I'm
happy to look into that and
if the council would really
rather have a discussion in
the context of the 2040
plan, I'm open to that.

I think there is a potential
for confusion if we -- if we
have processes going on at
the same time where we're
taking -- where we're
saying, okay, we'll keep sh
45 in the t.i.f.

Amendment -- or rather in
, but then we're
going to take it out of the
2040 plan.

I think if a majority of
campo believes that sh 45 --
well, regardless of how a
majority of campo feels
about sh 45, that decision
should be reflected in both
 and the 2040
plan.

And so my sense is we might
as well have the discussion
in both contexts.

If the goal is to avoid
inconsistent outcomes, then
you would want to be sure
that we have an opportunity
to consider it in both
contexts.

>> Cole: I agree with that
and I think that should be
part of the resolution and
that is causing some
confusion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And
the more I think about it, i
do think the policy board
should at least have the
opportunity to make that
decision.

Made the request of them
now, they've gone through
tall the effort, they should
be able to make the decision
if they want to postpone it
or not.

>> Riley: I would just
say, if I may, mayor, my
sense is once we get the
corrected modeling data,
whenever that happens, i
think a lot of people in the
community will want us to
consider that and will
likely want to comment at
public hearings.

So regardless of what
happens now, if we act on it
now, there will be a lot of
interest in having campo

[09:26:03]

 amendments
based on the new modeling
data.

And that's all that would be
accomplished by this
resolution.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Well, I guess I've made my
point, I don't need to say
anymore except that the
bottom line is I think this
is a huge setback for
efforts to promote
regionalism.

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: Thank you,
mayor.

I wanted to add a little
context because I'm very
concerned about the
prospective that austin is
getting in the way of
regionalism.

I think that it's important
that we understand that
sometimes there's going to
be disagreements between the
different jurisdictions.

And just to remind
everybody, the reason we're
here today is because when
we did imagine austin,e
planning commission's
version that we were
considering, that the
council was considering for
final approval, did not
include sh 45 in it.

When that came before us,
just to note, nobody on the
council made a motion to
actually add it back in,
which could have obviously
happened.

So in terms of the approval
that we made.

And I was the one that made
this, the following motion,
that was discussed at great
length in the community
through the imagine austin
process.

It was sort of in and out
and in and out and it was
voted out I don't know how
many times by the task
force.

Once it was clear it was
going to remain out in our
comprehensive plan, I did
make that position to move
forward with this request of
campo because it was a
matter of making our
constituents, our overall
2030 plans consistent with
the other arenas that we're

[09:28:01]

involved in and I thought
that was an important thing.

And I hate for folks in the
area to think that because
we are promoting what is our
vision, that that means it's
a giant step back for
regionalism and I can
understand if we'll are
going to disagree with that,
but I think we all need to
be able to understand there
are different perspectives
and we need to have the
ability to discuss those
different perspectives at
the regional level.

And secondly, I want to
concur with councilmember
riley that I think that it
really does make sense in
terms of reasonable public
dialogue to have the
modeling information in
front of us which, you know,
was not really part of the
conversation or well known
when I made that motion in
the first place.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And
I would just note that that
modeling information was not
made when the friendly
amendment to exclude sh 45
from the comprehensive plan
was made.

>> Morrison: That's
correct.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That
information was not
available then, but now all
of a sudden it's very
important.

>> Morrison: Well, and
just to be exactly accurate,
the -- nobody made a motion
from the council to exclude
sh 45 from the comprehensive
plan.

It came to us, the
comprehensive plan came to
us without sh 45.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And
I believe the statement was
right, but the direction to
ask campo to remove it was a
friendly amendment, and
that's the genesis for this
original action, the letter
from our staff to campo to
put that on as an agenda
item to make that change.

>> Morrison: That's
correct.

>> Riley: And just to
be -- if I may, mayor, just
to be clear about our
regionalism and whether this
item would advance or
detract from it, to the
extent there is any kind of

[09:30:02]

tension in our regionalism,
it is not because we want
better data in the context
of the discussion about sh
45, it's because we have
asked that sh 45 be taken
out and that was clearly the
will of the council and i
think in the judgment of
many of us that was -- that
was the sentiment we were
hearing from a large part of
the community, that there
was an interest in taking it
out.

It's not so much about this
professional situation we're
in now, -- procedural
situation, it's whether sh
45 should be part of our
long-range plan.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any
other comment on this item?

The other one that I wanted
to bring up for a little bit
of discussion is item number
88, which -- and I've read
the exact language of the
resolution and it crosses
its words very carefully and
technically does not
recommend the jollyville
salamander be list 9, but
the perception is out
there -- I started getting
telephone calls yesterday
that the city council is
recommending it for listing.

And I saw in my email this
morning a letter from the
 alliance which i
guess was to all
councilmembers, I don't
know, expressing great
support for the resolution
which calls for the listing
of the jollyville and austin
blind salamanders.

Again, there's perception
and there's sometimes a
little bit different from
reality, but the perception
is out there, again, that
the city of austin is trying
to make a decision on this
and influence something that
has, in their minds at
least, very significant
consequences in williamson
county.

[09:32:01]

This I think again is not
only regionalism we're
talking about, there are
other efforts that are
taking place on the state
and federal level that i
think has the potential to
do a great deal of damage to
the city of austin and a
particular group of people
in the city of austin.

So, you know, and again,
here's the statement, again,
a carefully parsed statement
but definitely a
recommendation for listing,
that is the perception that
we're making a
recommendation for listing,
and we have no authority, no
relevance in that process.

That is a decision that is
going to be a scientific
based, scientifically based
decision that's made by the
 fish & wildlife
service, solely by them
based on all kinds of input
and data that they will
receive.

And it's really -- I don't
think it's appropriate for a
nonscientific based body to
make a recommendation in
that context.

Councilman spelman.

>> Spelman: Mayor, I agree
with you completely that the
basis for the decision on
fish and wildlife service's
part ought to be a
scientific basis, and that
accepting largely
politically motivated
content would be dilatorious
to their making a science
based decision.

The reason for this
ordinance, this resolution,
is to further fish and
wildlife's capacity to make
a scientific decision
because we've had some
scientists from the city of
austin and watershed
protection who have been
working exactly on the
science of this issue for
years.

They know a lot about these
two salamanders [inaudible]
do not know any about the
two salamanders up for
listing that are outside the
city limits and this
resolution specifically
excludes those two
salamanders about which we

[09:34:00]

have nothing scientific to
say.

We've got scientists who
have been working on these
salamanders, data collected
where they live, how many
there are, what the effects
may be of different
development patterns, and it
seems to me it is only
assisting in regional
cooperation and assisting
the federal government's
capacity to make a good
scientific decision for us
to provide the information
we have collected over many
years to fish and wildlife
for their use in making this
scientific decision.

And that is all this is
asking for.

And the city manager is
directed to submit comments
prepared by knowledgeable
technical staff, that's
scientific folks, and
watershed protection, the
 fish & wildlife service
providing relevant data
research, professional
opinions of those staff
regarding scientific factual
basis for the proposed
listing.

To protect two particular
salamanders I species
act.

Nothing political.

This is about providing
information they may not
have they could use in
making a good sound,
scientific decision.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Well, I just think,
especially the folks in
williamson county see this
not as it is actually parsed
and written, but basically
as a thumb in the eye to
them and they take very
serious exception to it.

That's really all I have to
say about that.

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I want to
mention a couple of things.

One, appreciate councimember
spelman pointing out what
this is and if there is some
need for us to do some
better communication whether
it's public communication or
one on one communication to
make clear what this
resolution is, I'm certainly
happy to participate in
that.

But again, I think that in
terms of the perspective of
regionalism, this is
particularly paradoxical
because there have been
other bodies that have
actually made statements
that they did not want the
certain salamanders listed
so other bodies have
actually gone well beyond
what we're doing here.

And then lastly, I did want

[09:36:00]

to mention that
councilmember tovo, who is
the lead sponsor on this and
I understand she has
personal issues keeping her
away right now, and I had a
conversation with our
government liaison, we were
cognizant of the issue could
this affect other state and
federal issues that are
going on, and in response to
that conversation adjusted
some of the language that
was in there so that i
believe that our government
relations folks got
comfortable with the
language that we have here.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And
I certainly appreciate you
making adjustments and
accommodations.

And first of all, I'm not
supporting other political
jurisdictions that made
their judgments, not at all,
and I think that's improper
too.

I don't think that excuses
us from going along down the
same path.

But I think there is still
considerable, very
significant concerns that it
will -- even the language as
it appears here, will affect
our ability to do what we're
trying to do right now
especially at the federal
level.

Any other comments?

Other items?

>> Spelman: I have
questions about two items
and a third item for
comparison purposes.

First question is about item
24.

Is there somebody here that
could speak on the technical
items of item 24, that would
be lovely, but if not i
would just like to say
something about it.

Nobody seems to be coming
forward so let me just talk
for a minute.

[09:38:00]

Item 24 is a grant to
skillpoint alliance for
$288,000 to provide computer
skills for folks in three
high schools located in the
austin area.

And the backup reports that
because of over the time
this contract has been
issued, they have obtained
leveraged services of about
$3.25 million.

Now, I can argue this round
or flat.

The round version is boy,
it's great that our $300,000
has been leveraged to
$3 million, the flat version
is wait a minute, is it
appropriate for us to
3 million worth
of aisd services just
because of our measley 10%
of that.

I'm sure it's much more
complicated and the real
point I want to get at is
that the argument in favor
of this item as presented in
the backup is primarily a
financial one.

We got $300,000, we're
leveraging $3 million out of
aisd in terms of services
provided.

That's great.

We've got nice leverage.

What I don't see from the
backup and apparently
because nobody is measuring
it, whew is the value of
this $300,000?

What are we getting for the
money in the sense of people
better prepared for jobs,
people more likely to get
jobs, people who are going
to get better jobs, people
who are more likely to
graduate in high school or
what.

And I'm not sure it is
necessary to measure that
value in the context of this
individual contract.

There may be other ways of
measuring the value of
services like those provided
by skillpoint alliance to
people like those that are
going to be providing the
service to.

But I would like to know in
advance of making decisions
of this kind what are we
going to get for $300,000?

What's the best guess for
this kind of services this

[09:40:00]

kind of clientele can
provide, this kind of
effects on job prospects, on
income downstream and so on.

If there is a way of getting
that kind of here's the
benefit we're going to get
for this cost conclusion, i
would like to be able to
make the decision based on
that basis.

I have another case that's a
sim case.

Item 39, a contract to big
austin to provide training
to certified any crow
enterprises.

Is that a good deal or not?

It depends what it is those
micro enterprises can do
with that training and
technical assistance.

And again, if we had a way
of measuring the effects of
this particular contract
with this particular
contractor and the training
and technical assistance
 has been
providing in the past to my
tomicro enterprises, that
would be best but might be
expensive and painful.

It might be as good if we
could rely on national
studies done or studies done
of other contractors
providing similar services
to similar micro
enterprises.

To verify our -- some other
number downstream as a
result of information and
things they can do with it.

So again, counting the
number of micro enterprises
firms we're going to provide
assistance to is a good
start, but I would like to
go the the next step and say
as a result of that here's
what we're going to get
downstream.

And the contrast is with
item number 31, I believe it
is.

Pardon me, it's -- hang on.

[09:42:06]

I lost it.

Where is it?

Item 26.

Where we're approving
negotiation and execution of
an agreement with foundation
communities for $200,000 a
year.

26.

To provide case management,
mental health and supportive
services to homeless
individuals.

This is unwith of those
contracts which could be the
same way, just count the
number of individuals we're
going to be providing stuff
to and there's a lot of
accounts here.

But the difference between
26 and the other two, 24 and
39, we've got an outcome
measure.

We're measuring the number
of unduplicated adult
residents who will be
provided a service, that's
similar, measuring the
amount of activity, but we
also have a sense from
previous experience that of
those 72, 90% of them are
going to stay in housing
over that two-year period
because of the services
provided.

Now, the only thing missing
here is what percentage
would stay in housing if we
didn't provide services and
I assume it would be a lot
less than 90%.

That's something I suspect
[inaudible].

That may be true for all of
this stuff.

But at least here I've got a
sense for the outcome.

90% Of these people are
going to stay in housing, i
bet a lot fewer would stay
in we didn't spend the
$200,000 to keep them that
way.

The other two cases, I'm not
sure what I'm getting from
money.

I'd like to know.

Thank you.

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Cole: I see burt
lumbreras here.

I notice that we have a
number of items on the
agenda related to the
homelessness community and
we've had a lot of
discussions and issues this
week with the homeless
community and the question
of whether and what we are
doing to address those
needs, so I wanted to ask

[09:44:00]

you about a couple of these
items just for
clarification.

The first one, which
councimember spelman has
already brought up, is
number 26 for foundation
communities.

Can you basically tell us
what this organization does?

>> Burt lumbreras, assistant
city manager over community
services.

Foundation communities is an
excellent partner in terms
of homeless services.

They actually have a proven
track record of being able
to house and support with
wrap-around services
homeless individuals, and as
councimember spelman noted,
they -- they actually have a
pretty good performance
measures that we have
tracked in the past and we
certainly believe can
accomplish that because of
their good history.

Everything from promoting
and fostering
self-sufficiency, developing
healthy behaviors and
lifestyles among the
targeted populations, which
is very key and very
integral to our homeless
service providers in terms
of what they do.

Because it's not just a
matter of recycling the
individuals through the
system, but being able to
get them to a point where
they can be self-sustaining
and get into situations like
permanent supportive housing
which is council has been
very supportive.

This goes directly in line
with our targeted 350 units
of permanent affordable
housing that we are
aggressively moving towards
and trying to achieve.

Foundation communities is an
excellent partner.

>> Cole: One other
question.

I know that they actually
work -- I thought we had
some specific data on the
number of beds that -- maybe
that was [inaudible].

But when it talks about
providing case management, i
know that the council has

[09:46:00]

made it a commitment to try
to move people to
self-sufficiency and not
just move them around
geographically.

When we talk about providing
case management, what does
that mean?

>> Case management is really
the piece of the wrap-around
services that are needed for
individuals.

Not just the unit itself,
placing them in safe, stable
housing, but also case
management to be able to
identify what their
priorities and issues are
whether it's health related,
mental, whether it's, you
know, just counseling,
whatever the case may be is
just being able to provide
the support that they need
and specifically target the
issues that we need to work
with them on and being able
to have them live a
productive life.

The number that you were
probably looking for is that
the new program would
provide support services to
clients in 16 new units
through these projects.

That's what the
foundation --

>> Cole: Was there 100
overnight shelters?

I thought I saw that
somewhere.

That's okay.

We'll find it.

Let me move on to, I think
it was item 29, when we talk
about providing certain
public health services to
travis county in exchange
services in $2 million.

>> Travis county has been a
key partner in health and
human services.

Actually in two areas,
health and human services
and also in the area of
animal services.

So you have two items here
before you, one of those is
on the public health, health
and human services site and
the other one on the animal
services.

But the actual work that
city staff will be providing
in terms of public health
would be everything from
 outreach and
prevention, immunizations,
disease surveillance, vital
records, chronic disease

[09:48:01]

prevention, tuberculosis
elimination and
environmental health
services.

Then we also do all of the
work in terms of the
inspections through our
environmental inspectors or
restaurant and food places.

And in the animal services
side, we actually provide
animal services, animal
control responses to calls
as per the county, and so
those are two long-standing
agreements we've had.

This is the first time we've
separated the agreements.

In the past it'sbeen one
major interlocal, but we
have an accident partnership
with the c.

>> Cole: I think it's
important to note to address
this problem with the
homeless population.

The last one I want to ask
you about is the facility we
operate, item 31, for the
a for a total contract
not to exceed $2,200,000.

I think there is discussion
about what happens at the
arch and a lot of reaction
is to the people who are
outside waiting for services
of the arch.

Can you briefly give an
overview of that?

>> Sure.

In respect to the services
that we provide, obviously
it's more of an emergency
shelter where folks come in
through a lottery system and
we pick up to about 210
individuals on a nightly
basis.

And, you know, part of them
being able to stay there is
we focus on their individual
needs with flexible case
management, try to steer
them towards safe housing
needs that they have.

Obviously it's an
overwhelming number of
individuals and it's a big
problem.

The other piece in terms of
the folks that you see
outside, that facility also

[09:50:00]

serves as to what we refer
to as a day resource center.

So an individual that may
not be necessarily housed
there that evening gets an
opportunity to go in, wash
their clothes, use a
telephone, use a computer,
and in effect just use that
facility for that purpose
and then they are back out
on the street.

It's certainly incumbent on
the city and I think there's
a lot of focus from the
council and I know the city
manager is very, very
supportive of looking at
what changes we can do to
refocus going towards what
we all have agreed is a good
model and that is the miami
model of looking at how we
can change the course of how
we provide our services.

And instead of having
individuals just check in
one night and out on the
street, how we can gear our
facility and our services
more towards the permanent
supportive housing and keep
them in safe, stable housing
with the case management.

In effect this contract is
really just continuing to do
what we're doing as we're
working through the model
and I believe great progress
has been made from that
respect.

>> If I could just add to
that a little bit, during
the day the facilities, and
they are open to men, women
and kid so you have all of
those individuals in
throughout the day and it's
in the latter part of the
day that they conduct the
lottery for purposes of
having a place to sleep, you
know, to sleep through the
night.

And in addition to the
things burt said, some of
them get their mail services
taken care of at the arch as
well.

Those things aside, and, of
course, it's a place where
folks just hang out.

So while you see people
hanging out on the front
part of the building, the
street side of the building,
they also hang out on the
back side.

There's a covered parking
structure back there that is
not entirely used for
parking, just a small bit of
it is.

The rest of the space is
just an area where, you
know, folks are able to hang
out and spend their time in

[09:52:01]

the course of the day.

Typically there are tables
and chairs that are back
there so it's idle time and
they hang out back there.

>> Cole: I want to say
that the council for a
number of years, ever since
I've been on it including a
lot of work by councilmember
martinez and councilmember
riley and -- well, just
every single councilmember
practically has done work to
address -- councilmember
morrison to address this
issue.

It's certainly not a
situation this council is
not aware of and not trying
to address, and a number of
us have been to san antonio
and phoenix and now miami to
try to determine best
practices.

And I know that was done in
the past and some of the
decisions were made about
where to locate social
service providers and that
now the conversation is
coming up again and it is a
good conversation to be
having and the question is
first and foremost, in my
opinion, what can we do to
reduce the homeless
population.

And that's the one that we
are tackling and we are
actually having experts from
miami come to town in
october to talk to us at a
town hall meeting, and that
is actually going to happen
at the lbj school and we're
going to do that in
conjunction with the lbj
school, and the effort is to
try to broaden the
discussion to have more of a
public policy discussion and
to recognize that it is not
just a downtown problem but
a citywide problem and also
a public policy issue that
is bigger than just the city
of austin.

For burt, help me with the
dates of that.

>> Mayor pro tem, I don't
have the dates in front of
me.

I would be happy to get that
for you.

>> I think that it is
00 to
00 at the lbj school, but
there will be -- that is
exactly right.

[09:54:00]

It's october 22nd from
00 at the lbj
school and we will post that
so all the councilmembers
are welcome to attend.

And we will have a moderator
from lieder ship austin to
actually conduct that town
hall meeting and it will be
highly publicized and I hope
that is recognized that is
one of the many steps the
city is going to to try to
address this issue.

And also today we are going
on an austin tour,
councilmember tovo and
councilmember riley and i
and that was councilmember
riley's idea and I'll let
him explain because that was
not my idea but it was very
going.

>> Riley: If I may, mayor.

We've talked about visiting
other cities to identify
best practices and we've
done some of that and had a
lot of very healthy
discussion about where we
should be going in terms of
the model for addressing the
needs of the homeless.

But what we haven't done is
really done a comprehensive
tour of facilities in austin
and we have a fairly robust
array of services serving
the needs of homeless folks
and formerly homeless folks
and folks who are at risk of
homelessness.

And so I think it would be
very helpful for us all to
get refreshed and educated
about -- about exactly what
services we're providing
now.

There's a lot of excitement
around the country about
changing the model for
addressing the needs of the
homeless.

And in order to do that, we
really have to have a firm
grasp of what our existing
model is, how are we doing,
what are we doing and how
could we adjust that model
in keeping with trends, best
practices around the country
so that we can really
advance the ball on meeting
the homeless.

We cannot just continue with
the same old business of

[09:56:01]

trying to keep up with the
homeless issue that we've
been doing for many years
now.

We have got to seek new
answers to try new practices
that are being demonstrated
very well around the
country.

And in order -- and I think
it would be very helpful to
see what's out there now in
order take talk about
exactly what ways the model
could shift.

And really at the center of
all this is permanent
supportive housing.

And that is a fairly
complicated -- I mean its
root is very simple.

Get people in housing and
meet their needs.

But in practice it can be
very challenging because of
providing a whole array of
services to a population
with all kinds of different
needs on an ongoing basis
can be very difficult.

We're talking about
combining different funding
streams and having a whole
bunch of different folks
work together cooperatively
on an ongoing basis over
multiple years and I know
that's challenging for
staff, it's challenging for
all of us to do that and
really requires a
coordinated effort on the
part of service providers,
nonprofits involved in
housing and all sorts of
folks out in the community
who are interested in this.

I really applaud the mayor
pro tem for helping lead the
discussion to bring all
those folks together to keep
the conversation going
because other folks in the
community have been doing
the same thing.

A number of us attended a
forum this weekend, we
actually called a city
council meeting because we
had a quorum of council at a
conference on homelessness
right here this weekend.

We've got a very positive
discussion going and I think
this tour is going to be a
great way of keeping the
conversation going and
helping us understand

[09:58:00]

exactly what needs to change
in order for us to make
significant progress on
homelessness.

>> Cole: Mayor, I also
wanted to recognize
councimember spelman, who
helped with former mayor of
atlanta shirley franklin,
who has been recruited or
actively recruited to come
to lbj school, I think
that's final now, to work
extensively on this issue.

And that's one of the
reasons we're going to be
able to have the event at
the lbj school.

I wanted to ask you
councilmember tovo or
councilmember morrison who
talk about -- I don't care,
either one.

Councilmember tovo, you have
worked with the womens and
children's shelter.

>> Tovo: Sure, I'll say a
few things.

I want to apologize for
being late.

I had an unavoidable medical
appointment.

If anyone has questions
about the resolution, i
think my co-sponsors did a
fine job responding to the
mayor's concerns.

On the topic you have asked
about --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm
not too sure about that.

>> Tovo: I'm happy to
continue the discussion if
need be.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Go
ahead.

[One moment, please, for
change in captioners]
.. really have been
trying to address the
increasing number of women,
women and children in our
emergency shelters downtown
and elsewhere and it is a
situation that really needs
immediate attention, some
churches, some members of
the faith community have
gotten together and have a
safe sleep for women program
going on.

The short-term solution, but
there needs to be a longer
term one, too.

So I think that's -- you
know, we -- I think it was
great that we were alto
respond to that request.

But adding some additional
money into the bond
proposal.

Councilmember morrison,
maybe you want to add.

>> Morrison: I would just
like to note the -- we need
to be addressing the whole
spectrum of housing needs,
we are working with triage
with the homeless folks, the
immediate triage of making
sure they have a place to
sleep that night.

Making sure that they can
get into housing.

But again the next level is
making sure that people can
stay in housing, for
instance with our home
repair program that's so
effective.

And so for me I think that
it's just important that we
keep in mind the -- that we
need to address the whole --
the problem holistically and
I think that we have the
opportunity to do that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any
other items to be addressed?

Councilmember riley?

>> Riley: A couple of
items.

Actually, again, I would
like to -- like my
colleagues, I did not pull
these out in advance, but i
would like to ask some
questions about the airport
parking item, number 14.

If there's any way we can
get some information on
that.

And I know our aviation
staff -- if it's not -- if
we don't have all of that
information I can just ask
staff later, if that would
be staff's preference.

I could submit written
questions.

This item would -- would
authorize execution of a
construction contract in the
amount -- contract amount
not to exceed about
7 million, for a new
employee parking lot at --
at the austin-bergstrom
airport.

So I just wanted to get
some -- one question would
be this calls for 1,750 new
paid parking spaces.

And I'm just -- trying to
figure out what's driving
that.

Are we about to get a huge
influx of new employees?

Where are those employees
parking now, what's
prompting this need?

>> Sue edwards, assistant
city manager.

Councilmember, I can answer
part of that.

I can get you the rest of it
later.

Parking out at -- at the
airport is -- is full --
most of the time now.

In fact, if you go out
there, sometimes if you're
in the -- either in the
morning or late in the
afternoon, you're walking to
the very last parking space
at the very -- very back
of the parking.

Number one, parking is
extremely short at this
point because of the influx
of -- of passengers that
we've had.

Which is a good thing on the
one hand.

So in order for us to
provide that parking for the
passengers, we need to build
another parking space for
the employees.

And this is not all city
employees, I think we only
have about 300 some odd city
employees at the airport.

But this also is parking
spaces for those individuals
that have the restaurants
 staff
and some other staff that
are there.

>> And I've asked about
employees because the agenda
item says that this is a
construction contract for
the abia new employee
parking lot project.

>> That's correct.

That's -- what we're doing
is we're taking the
employees who are parking
now where passengers park
and moving them to an
employee parking lot so we
can provide additional
parking for the passengers.

Ful.

>> Riley: That new parking
lot will have 1,758 parking
spaces.

And I guess I'm just not
following if we only have --
well, will those 1750 be
used by employees?

>> They are for employees --
in addition to the employees
that are city employees, you
have individuals who are
working on contract out
there, you have individuals
who are running the
restaurants out there, you
are having -- there are
 individuals, there
are all sorts of individuals
that work at the airport and
that's over a thousand
individuals who actually
every day work at the
airport.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Don't forget all.

Pilots and -- all of the
pilots and flight attendants
who live in austin and
commute to other cities.

A subject I'm well familiar
with.

>> That's what that is for,
so we can really free up
about a thousand spaces for
the public.

>> Riley: Okay.

With respect to the employee
parking, have we given the
fact that we're often full
at the airport, the
parking -- although i
noticed the photo in the
backup that we received
shows about, the satellite
photo showing about half the
parking full.

But there's at least
sometimes when it's not
full.

I don't know when that was
taken.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Kind
of like those capital metro
trains, councilmember.

>> Riley: Right, they are
only full sometimes, that's
true.

So -- have we undertaken any
kind of parking cash out
programs or other efforts to
encourage employees to
consider alternative
transportation to the
airport?

>> That's a question that i
did ask jim smith but i
haven't gotten a response
yet.

I will find out.

>> Seems like it woulde a
good opportunity.

Any time -- if the parking
for the employees is close
to the parking for the
others, it's all part --
when we look at the map, it
looks like a great big
surface parking lot.

Conceptually, if an employee
chooses to take some
alternative means to get to
work one day, one more space
could be made available to
the public, that has a
value, that is a value to
the airport and the employee
could share in that value.

So the point is for a lower
cost than building a huge
expensive new parking
facility, we could be
encouraging alternative
transportation and making
existing spaces available to
the traveling public.

So that's -- I just want to
make sure that we've -- that
we've fully explored those
opportunities there at the
airport.

Then I also have to ask one
other question, I remember a
couple of years ago, when we
had an item related to
paving of this parking lot.

I think at least part of the
parking lots out there were
getting a new surface.

We talked about the fact,
seems like at the time we
talked about this being the
largest parking lot in the
city and possibly in central
texas.

At the time, the -- i
thought that I remembered
the airport talking about a
vision of moving towards
structured parking in the
future.

I just wanted to see if that
is accurate and if that is
still part of the vision for
long-term future at the
airport.

>> It is still part of the
vision.

>> Riley: Here we're now
moving outside the -- the
oval where all of the
surface parking is, where
the acres of surface parking
is.

Instead of going up there,
we're moving outside of that
and putting in a new surface
parking lot adjacent to it.

There are plenty of other
surfaces nearby where we
could keep doing that, keep
expanding.

But if the vision is to move
move toward structured
parking, when would that
happen?

>> I would have to get back
with you on that one.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
would just like to make two
comments on the parking.

Number one, all of that
money comes from revenue
generated by the airport and
can't be spent anyplace
else.

It has to be spent on the
airport.

Number two, in terms of
parking, it's a major
revenue generator from the
airport.

They use that revenue along
with landing fees, gate
fees, franchise fees, to
provide the service for the
airlines that of course is a
big revenue generator for
the entire community.

So it's not -- again, that
revenue comes from the
people who use the airport.

Not from the taxpayers.

Councilmember morrison?

Before I -- mayor pro tem
I'm going to turn it over to
you.

I have a delegation upstairs
that I have to talk to.

>> Cole: Not from hays
county.

[Laughter]
just kidding.

I.

>> Morrison: I just wanted
to mention that we recently
approved a master plan for
the airport.

So I think it would be
interesting to go back to
that master plan and see,
frankly I can't remember
exactly what it said about
parking and when we're going
to be turning over to more
structured parking, but i
think that's a good
question, a good piece of
information to get on the
table.

I would like to mention that
most of those people that
are paying those parking
fees are actually austin
taxpayers.

Many of them anyways,
because they live in the
city of austin.

>> Cole: Any other
comments?

>> Morrison: I have a
couple of other topics.

I just wanted to mention two
topics that I wanted to talk
about.

I don't know which staff are
here at this point.

I wanted to have a
discussion about -- about
item no. 140, hid global.

And then 46 and 47, which is
about the tract and proposed
amendments to an agreement
we have.

I will let you choose --

>> the fact is they are not
here.

They are not here because
they weren't pulled in
advance.

>> Cole: Councilmember
martinez.

>> Martinez: I have
another item.

I saw rob spiller earlier.

He's not here.

I have a transportation item
that I want to ask a couple
of brief questions about.

I apologize, I did not pull
this one either, I was
trying to get to it while
rob was in the room, he
slipped out.

>> What number was that?

>> Item 74, the low-speed
vehicle ordinance.

>> Mayor pro tem, if you are
waiting for an item we can
take up right now, I've got
one.

>> Coming in the door.

>> Never mind.

>> Hey, rob.

Appreciate you coming back
in.

Just wanted to get -- just
kind of a brief explanation
on -- on item 74, which is
the proposed ordinance that
comes in subsequent to the
pilot program that we've had
running.

So where are we headed now
with the low-speed vehicles
and how did all of the --
all of the issues of safety
and manufacturing safety
components of vehicles, how
did all of that work out and
are we now fully moving
forward to a franchise
agreement or is it just an
ordinance that would allow
an operator to use
electrical low-speed
vehicles in a certain area
of downtown?

>> A little bit short on
breath, I apologize, robert
spiller, department of
transportation.

The recommendation is based
on the pilot, the pilot i
will tell you was somewhat
inconclusive, but give us
information enough I guess
institutional courage to
recommend that we make it
permanent.

That we move forward with a
plan that is consistent with
the pilot to have fixed
route service on a basically
a franchise, not a franchise
but a licensing approach
that would allow operators
to come in and contract for
specific or get licensed for
specific routes to move
forward.

Utc heard the overview of
this item and had suggested
that there was a -- there
was requests from the
current operator to allow
deviations from that route.

The fixed route, utc was --
was comfortable with that,
but staff remains concerned
that we don't have enough
experience yet with fixed
route to contemplate
deviation from fixed route
at this point.

We really need a little bit
more experience in terms of
enforcement and management.

Of those fixed route
services before we would be
comfortable trying to manage
a route that might deviate
by several blocks from the
fixed route.

Verification is a big issue
for us, it is making sure
that we have staff to be
able to verify that the
operator is performing
according to the agreement.

So this -- this proposal
would be to -- to move from
a pilot environment to a
permanent allowing electric
low low-speed vehicles which
means council that I think
we have satisfied given the
limited service that the
safety of the vehicles is
reasonable.

>> Martinez: So when we
talk about the license
agreement, has staff made a
determination to limit the
number of license agreements
or can anyone approach the
city to be a part of that
fixed route service?

>> You know, councilmember,
I would rather come back to
you with an answer to that,
off the top of my head, i
would risk giving you wrong
information one way or the
other.

But I believe there is
contemplation, you know,
that you would license by
route, so that we would try
to -- to have some
reasonable number of
opportunities to be
associated with an operator.

I know that we've had
interest expressed bring
several of the taxi
franchises to add this to
their concepts, similar from
the other organizations that
run, whether they be peddy
cab or other -- pedicab or
other similar services.

>> The reason that I'm
asking, rob, is would you
have specifically been
working with one company in
particular who has had a
substantial interest in this
service.

And we've asked this company
to comply with all kinds of
different requirements as it
relates to safety, as it
relates to routing, as it
relates to hours of
operation.

You know, how you operate.

And I want to make sure that
what we're doing is not now
just opening the door for
anyone and everyone to come
in with a golf cart and
start driving around on
these routes and picking
folks up when we've made
this one company go through
several years of figuring
out what works best for
austin and now we're moving
forward with this ordinance
that appears to have relaxed
a lot of the safety
regulations that were once
being required of the pilot
program participants.

>> That is not my
understanding of the way the
ordinance -- we would expect
anyone operating to meet the
safety requirements as
identified for vehicles and
so forth unless there's a
safety item that we found is
no longer sort of useful.

But my understanding is
that, no, we would require
the same level of safety
issues from anyone that
would provide that service.

>> Martinez: Okay.

If you could just follow up
before thursday on if staff
has determined a fixed
number of franchise
agreements, not franchise,
license agreements, or
whether or not it's open to
other potential requesters
for license agreements.

>> Yes, sir.

Of course, one of the this i
think so that we would also
be looking for as operators
perform is how they've
performed in the previous,
you know, experience to make
sure that they are
performing according to the
requirements just like we do
with taxicabs or pedicab.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Tovo: I have a few
follow-up questions.

I apologize, I missed the
first half of your question,
but the ordinance does limit
it to three franchises.

>> Thank you.

>> Tovo: Sure.

I did have some questions, i
had heard there was some
concerns from the operator
about some of the safety
features, that they're
having some difficulty with
them.

I think one had to do with
the hinged doors that are
specified in g 2.

Another was I believe the 3
point harnesses.

I assume that you've heard
and think we need these
proper advices, I wonder if
today or thursday you could
talk about why -- just
acknowledge that you have
heard --

>> certainly we've heard
those concerns from the very
beginning, we believe those
are safety issues that are
very important.

We know that there have been
incidents prior to the pilot
where people were not
secured in the vehicles and
have not stayed in the
vehicles, hinged doors
prevent people from just
jumping on on the street or
at least dissuade people
from stepping on when the
vehicle is moving and also
keeps people in the vehicles
when they go around the
corners.

Same thing with the
three-point constraints.

Our research tells us there
are technologies or
manufacturers that supply
those compatible devices.

In fact we defined these --
we do find these vehicles to
be consistent with what's
available on the market.

We've heard concerns about
before market or after
market devices and we've
tried to be pragmatic about
making sure that even if
it's an after market device,
that, you know, we can and
he bide by that, as long
as -- abide by that as long
as it meets the safety
requirements.

>> Tovo: Great.

I assume you are still in
contact with the particular
company that has the
franchise now, I guess they
were having issues with
their doors falling off?

Do I have that right, chris?

>> I understanding is that
we continue to be in
communication and we observe
the operations to be sure
whether or not they are
abiding by the ordinance.

Yeah, we are happy to work
with operators to meet the
requirements, but as I said,
it's my understanding that
devices that meet those
requirements are available
on the market.

>> Tovo: Thank you.

>> Cole: Councilmember
thomas.

>> Morrison: Thank you,
rob, could you elaborate a
little bit.

You mentioned the issue
about whether or not the
operator would be allowed to
deviate from the route.

You said utc was supportive
of that, but you felt that
it wasn't -- it was too
early to allow that or if
you could just elaborate?

>> Thank you.

One of the concepts of the
pilot came from a -- the
monday report on that type
of service.

Or on taxi services and the
suggestion was, you know,
given this is new for the
city, what the
recommendation was is to try
fixed out sort of excuse me
low speed electric vehicle
services, gain some
experience with that, and
then move to -- to a
separate pilot to do maybe
some deviated routes up to a
couple of blocks.

You know, given that it's a
new service, councilmember,
I think there was learning
on both the operating's side
as well as the enforcement
crews as to what was part of
the pilot or what was not
part of the pilot.

It's our belief that we're
comfortable as a staff
carrying out council's
wishes with regards to fixed
route service and are
interested in doing a future
pilot.

But my staff from the street
tell me that they really
need more experience of
managing this type of
service, which is different
than taxi service, different
than -- than pedicab service
for a bit longer before we
would be comfortable moving
forward with the pilot.

So it could be our
recommendation, staff
recommendation to enact
fixed route and consider
implementing a pile within
the next year.

>> Morrison: For
deviation.

>> Yeah.

>> Morrison: So the idea
is that adding the element
of deviate from the fixed
out is significantly more
complicated --

>> it increases the area
coverage that our
enforcement officers need to
monitor the service.

It increases the complexity
of -- of where that
deviation is occurring and
is that an appropriate
deviation from the service,
it also increases the
potential, potential
conflict between low speed
electric vehicle service and
regular taxi service as well
as pedicab service.

So again we believe that --
that given the dynamics, it
would be better to stay with
fixed route as part of the
underlying and then do a
pilot with deviations.

>> Okay.

Do you have a sense for when
we might -- how that pilot
might come about?

Will you be -- will staff be
coming back to us or working
through utc in a little
while --

>> yes, I would offer that
as the route to do that.

Recommendation so to speak.

Sorry.

And we would -- you know, i
think that the focus of the
first part of the year would
be to bring the system into
full-time operation and get
the additional operators on
board.

Then after -- you know,
demands seem to level, then
we would look to do a pilot
for deviations.

>> Morrison: Great, thank
you.

>> Cole: My other
questions, thank you, mr.

Spiller.

City manager, is your staff
here ready to talk about
councilmember morrison's
item 140?

Councilmember morrison are
you ready?

>> We have staff here.

>> Morrison: Does the city
attorney have --

>> Cole: Hid global
corporation.

>> Morrison: Thank you for
being here.

This is item no. 140.

It's an economic development
380 agreement with hid
global.

When we had our discussion,
I guess two weeks ago or a
week and a half ago, there
were a few items that were
suggested both by myself and
mayor pro tem cole.

And I know that the
applicant was going to be
going back and talking with
their folks about those
issues and I wonder if you
have a report, can give us
an update on where things
might be on that --

>> certainly, certainly.

Brian [indiscernible],
economic development
manager.

We shared those amendments
with the company.

They are reviewing them with
legal.

They have one question
related osha requirements
and whether there's a
difference in city osha
requirements versus federal
osha requirements, so we're
working with them on that.

They do have some proposed
language, but we are really
ironing out the details of
that in order to bring that
back.

As you know, when we have
one of these agreements they
go to council as presented.

So the company can accept or
reject the amendments and
move forward that way.

But what they are looking at
are the details of a couple
of those amendments so that
they are comfortable with
the language, then we would
bring those back with any
modifications or move
forward as presented
depending on what the
company wants to do going
forward.

>> Morrison: And since
we're poised to take action
on this I guess on thursday,
my question is do you have a
sense for how the company --
what their sense of whether
they are going to be
comfortable with what was
suggested.

>> They are looking at all
of them at this point in
time.

They haven't given us a go
ahead with all of them as
presented.

We're going to work through
that with them.

Actually one of their
representatives got in town
yesterday afternoon.

It's my hope to sit down
with him and really iron out
those details and present
whatever response they have
to council in advance of
thursday's meeting.

>> Morrison: That would be
today or tomorrow?

>> Correct.

>> Morrison: Good.

Because I think if we can
get some time to think about
what their response is
before we have to take the
time to -- to actually take
the stuff to vote on it,
that would be very
important.

>> Yes, that's our intent.

>> Morrison: And one other
issue that's certainly been
highlighted and I think if
anyone read the newspaper
today and got to the
editorial page you would
have seen an editorial about
the county's consideration
of requirements, because
they are also looking at --
at an economic development
agreement with hid global
and the discussion there is
about whether there will be
a requirement to higher a
certain percentage of travis
county residents.

I'm curious about, we have a
lot of discussion going on
about standards for economic
development agreements and
our special committee, we
still have work to do on
that, that's certainly a
topic that we'll be talking
about because I think it's
very worthy of discussion.

Do you have any sense for
where -- where hid global is
in terms of looking at
requirements for hiring
locally, whatever that means
and --

>> are you referring to
where they are in
discussions with the county?

>> Morrison: Yeah.

>> I know that they are
planning to meet with them
and the goal is to iron out
out a term sheet, if you
will.

That agreement would
incorporate whatever those
terms are that they all
agreed to.

I do not know where they are
in terms of being agreeable
to hiring requirements or
what those hiring
requirements may look like
based on where the county is
in their discussion.

So I don't have that
detailed information.

>>> Can you reminds me where
they are going to be
located, pretty near nor the
northern border of the city
of austin?

>> The tech ridge
development which is
northeast area.

>> Morrison: Okay.

Right, because when I think
about where that draw will
be, as a draw for an
employee population, it
looks like the idea that
some folks would be coming
from out of austin and
probably going to be a
reality, if they are coming
from the north.

But I'm very much on board
with ensuring that we have
some assurance that there
will be folks from at least
travis county that are a
certain percentage that are
going to be employed by
them.

>> We ask that question in
the business information
form.

They look at the
demographics when they start
looking at where they will
be hiring from.

Their anticipation is 89%
would be hired locally.

You know, the main thing
that we look at as well,
whenever we do our financial
modeling, we base our -- our
commuting patterns based on
what our city demographer
indicated is the general
percentage, so whenever we
model, for example, the
number of jobs that will be
created locally and the
financial impact of that, we
discount that by 40% to
reflect actual commuting
patterns.

So we do take into account
that there may be
individuals from other areas
from outside the city, if
you will, hired.

But in this case, you know,
they are looking at that
area, they are looking at
the availability of public
transit for their location.

So they don't have an actual
definition in terms of
percentage that they will
hire but they do have an
anticipated percentage of
89%.

>> 9% Locally in a -- 9%
locally what -- 89%, what
does that mean, central
texas.

>> The austin region, if you
will.

That being said as i
mentioned we do look at what
traditionally the number of
employees living within the
city of austin limits would
be.

>> Morrison: Thank you.

>> Cole: Questions
councilmember morrison or.

>> Martinez:.

>> Martinez: I know we get
confused every week
[laughter]

>> Cole: At least I didn't
say tovo.

>> Martinez: I think what
councilmember morrison is
saying is what we talk about
in our subcommittee and it
certainly has value.

One of the reasons that i
brought this to the
subcommittee as a subject is
because of what we're going
through right now.

It is I'll just say at worst
frustrating, at best just --
just laborious to sit here
and go until the 11th hour
to determine what exactly
this agreement is going to
look like.

That's what my goal in the
subcommittee is to try to
avoid that.

So -- so we call these
economic incentives.

I really want us to create a
policy out of the
subcommittee that is truly
an incentive to achieving
the goals.

Whatever those goals are and
values are.

So if -- if 80% local hires
is a value, then -- then hid
or whoever comes in seeking
that tax abatement is
incentivized to achieve that
number.

If they don't, it doesn't
mean that the entire tax
abatement goes away.

It just means that
commensurate to our values
as a council, they may not
get 100% abatement.

That to me is incentive
based.

This is not -- you know, my
goal is not to have a cut
and dry answer because each
company, each business is
different.

And I believe you have to
have that flexibility to
allow those businesses to be
successful and operate
successfully.

But I do think we can impart
some values as a council
that become codified in the
policy that say we believe
in -- in prevailing wage for
construction jobs, with he
believe in a living wage for
permit jobs, we believe in
local hires to a certain
value of that tax abatement.

So the company knows I can
get 100% taxes abated if i
need all of these values
over the life of this, but
have to continue to meet
these values each and every
year.

Not a forgone conclusion day
one that for the next 10
years we're going to forgo
taxes.

But as you meet those
incentives, you continue to
earn that investment from
the city of austin.

That is what I'm trying to
avoid with this economic
subcommittee that we run
into each and every time we
get a proposal before us
because I think it's
frustraing, and for this
council to -- to sit here 48
hours before this agreement
is going to go before the
public, we still don't have
these answers.

And I just -- I want to say
that -- that's again, that
is exactly why I've put the
work forward in asking my
colleagues to join me on
this economic subcommittee.

I'm all for economic
development.

I'm all for 380 agreements.

I just don't like being held
hostage at the 11th hour
for questions that we should
be able to answer before
it's even posted on our
agenda.

>> Councilmember, sue
edwards, assistant city
manager.

We appreciate that very
much.

It is as frustrating for us
as it is for you as a
council.

I think over time as we have
recognized that the values
in the community have
changed and the policy
itself has not changed and
so it would be -- it would
behoove us, we would be most
appreciative, when -- when
that discussion occurs and
we finally come up with a
policy, because it is -- as
brian indicated a company
will wait until the last
minute looking at things,
talking it over.

Whereas if they knew those
were the specific
requirements that we were
asked in the first place, it
would come to you as a
package and we appreciate
your putting together that
committee.

Thank you.

>> Councilmember martinez, i
wanted to ask you a question
about that committee because
when we talk about --
about -- when you talked
about values, our values
being -- being reflected in
the ultimate document that
comes before that committee,
I would like your thoughts
on the best way to --
putting aside this
particular agreement where
we want the disadvantaged
worker being considered to
bring an item before the
committee, we don't all sit
of the committee, we
certainly want that input
and focused attention on
that issue.

>> Anything that -- any
other councilmember who is
not on the committee that
would like for us to
discuss, feel free to shoot
that to one of our offices
and we'll put it on the
agenda.

We do have one meeting
coming up that I think the
agenda is already set, but
there's definitely time for
more discussions if other
issues aren't addressed that
the council would like to
have addressed before we
make a recommendation to the
full body.

>> Cole: My other
questions.

>> Mayor pro tem?

>> Councilmember riley?

>> I just wanted to ask --
do we have time certain?

>> Cole: I'm sure that we
could get one, I don't
believe that one has been
set.

>> I believe it's part of
00 public hearings,
but on thursday you can set
something other than that,
you can give the public
notice that you are going to
consider that today.

But it's just part of the
00 public hearings right
now.

>> And if I could just add
one reason that I asked
is -- is -- is talking with
some folks who are
interest -- the taxicab
issue which is item 72.

They would like a time
certain on that one.

And -- and their preference
would be -- that those two
items be considered sometime
around the same time.

Because they both -- they
both involve wages for low
income workers and there's a
lot of folks interested in
both items.

So -- so -- so time certain
is always -- their
schedules -- their schedules
[indiscernible] it would be
useful for them.

>> Cole: I see no reason
we cannot set this item 72
00
time certain, but I will
definitely pass that on to
the mayor.

>> Councilmember morrison.

>> I just wanted to ask
councilmember riley, do you
have a sense for what would
be an optimal time certain
to set.

>> Actually, I'm not -- i
could check on that.

It's either four or six
would work.

Should we say the 4:00.

Would you all prefer that.

I don't think that --

>> Cole: Councilmember
spelman had a comment.

>> I haven't heard a strong
preference between those
two.

>> Spelman: If we set it
00 he probably would
not be able to take it up
00 because
of proclamations.

If you want to take it up
before proclamations.

Perhaps we could take up the
30, that
would give us sufficient
time to take care of that
before all of our public
hearings would start.

This will the first public
hearing --

>> that sounds good to me.

30 For the taxicabs and
00 for the -- for the
other public hearings
starting with the
incentives.

>> Spelman: Either that or
realistically we would have
00, i
suspect people would
probably prefer the earlier
time.

>> Cole: Well, hold on.

Councilmember tovo had a
comment on this.

>> Tovo: I think we've
resolved it.

I had a similar conversation
we talked about a 6:00 time.

There may be some advantage
to people who have daytime
jobs, but I take your point
that we never really start
at 6:00 anyway.

I think that solution is a
pretty good one to have the
cab driver, taxicab permit
issue at 3:30.

>> Morrison: The only
thing that I wanted to add,
I'm not sure how heavy our
zoning agenda is.

And so I'm not sure if we'll
30, I just
would want people to know
that.

And, sue, do you know where
we are --

>> it's not that heavy.

I think you have three
discussion items is what it
is.

>> Mayor pro tem let me
correct this particular
agenda doesn't seem to list
the normal times, but that's
been the council's practice
is to take up public
hearings at 4:00.

So I think on thursday you
can set them for any time.

I don't see a time on there.

I think we're about to reach
consensus on item 72 for
3:30 and item 140 to 4:00.

We will pass that on to the
mayor's office.

Okay.

Any other questions?

>> Spelman: Different
subject?

>> Cole: Yes, a different
subject, thank you.

>> Spelman: A very quick
question not for city staff,
but my colleagues on item
91.

That would appeal an
ordinance we passed on april
26th of this year.

Regarding the electronic
filing of campaign finance
and lobbying.

Why are we repealing that
ordinance?

>> Well, I would like to
note that we have also item
 8, this is related to
 89, which is we
have an error on the agenda,
that's actually sponsored by
myself and councilmember
riley.

And not councilmember tovo.

Who likes to stay as far
away as she came from things
technical.

>> I think staff just made
an assumption [laughter]

>> Morrison: So here's the
deal.

When we passed that
ordinance awhile back, it
was to take action and in
response to the charter
review committees
recommendation that we have
an electronic campaign
database.

We got -- that ordinance
said to the staff, go
forward and make this
happen.

Subsequent to that our city
clerk did quite a bit of
work with ctm and folks
around the state actually
and came up with -- with
some cost estimates.

It looked like perhaps we
might be looking at perhaps
800,000, to implement this.

We've had some good
discussions with folks in
the community and other
folks that were on the
review committee looking at
what the real priorities
were.

We actually have our working
group on open government
through our commission and
there was some robust
discussion about there might
be some other ways,
actually, to do this so that
we don't have to spend
$800,000, so what we are
doing with these two items,
first of all, we would
repeal that first ordinance
 89 says
let's go about it a little
bit differently.

Let's investigate all of
these different
opportunities that we have
before we make a final
decision.

And one of the opportunities
is in fact there is probably
all of us on the council are
familiar with the state
campaign finance system that
allows you to enter data, it
actually creates quite a few
of the pages of the report
that we have to submit.

So there was an item
considered at the lege that
would have made that system
available to all
municipalities that would
have meant that we could
take that -- part of what we
are doing in 89 is endorsing
that idea and asking that we
make that part of our
legislative session.

The bottom line we have to
look at different
opportunities for
implementing this
recommendation from the
charter review committee and
we want to hold options open
a little bit until we see
what happens at the
legislative session.

One exciting thing, okay
exciting to me is that the
code for america responded a
hack athon on the 8th of
sent.

One of the groups at the
hackathon was looking at
creating a system for
developing this.

So that's -- this campaign
finance database and so we
already have a start from a
sort of civically developed
one.

That's one of the paths that
we want to continue to
follow.

>> Spelman: So this is not
a change in the overall
 to
give us time and breathing
room to come up with a
cheaper and easier means of
accomplishing the same
thing.

>> That is a much shorter
way of saying what I have
just said.

You have accomplished the
same thing.

>> Spelman: That was
probably the first -- thank
you very much, mayor pro
tem.

[Multiple voices] I was
about to make fun of myself,
but now I don't need to
because you have already
done it for me.

>> Cole: This is true.

I have a quick question for
councilmember tovo on item
no. 85.

Ful I noticed that you
and -- I noticed that you
and councilmember morrison
and riley are asking for a
coast and feasibility of our
online resources that have
to do with our bond.

I know there's no staff here
but I'm wondering if you
could tell us brief what is
online now and what you are
trying to improve so that
the public knows that since
we are currently considering
or having a bond election.

>> Tovo: Sure, thanks for
asking that question.

This is a recommendation
that came from our bond
election advisory task
force, they made a list of
policy recommendations and
this was it is first one
that we make available to
the public.

A very user friendly
database that would show how
the moneys are being spent,
where they are being spent,
what the projects associated
with our bond proposals are
as we go forward.

So this is actually an item
that when we contacted
staff, they have already
begun working on.

Just such a database.

So this is -- this is a
resolution to affirm the
importance of that and say,
you know, we fully support
moving forward and getting
some estimates on how much
it would cost to create that
database.

And I would need the staff
to really fill in what's
available on line.

Certainly we do have
information of what's on
line about past bond
proposals and the kinds of
projects that have benefit
generated from them.

But I think the task force's
interest was in really
creating again a very user
friendly database that the
public could at any point
see this much of the project
was completed, these funds
have been allocated to it.

It has been in my part of
town or in the northern
parts of town, really get a
geographic that we can all
be aware of.

Not just -- just how widely
dispersed the bonds program
has been and in real-time.

>> Cole: I certainly
appreciate this item.

I do want to make sure that
our current bond proposal is
online and that brochure is
accessible.

>> Tovo: Actually, I see
 trimble, maybe I'll
invite him up to talk a
little bit about that.

But yes this would sort of
be for the future.

 trimble, did you hear
the questions?

>> No, I didn't.

I was running over here.

>> I will turn it over to
the mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: 85
that is asking for a
feasible and online
resources that provide
information about our
general obligation bonds.

What I wanted to be clear
about is what is actually
online about our bonds now.

Especially the ones that are
up for -- for consideration
by the voters on november
6th.

>> Right.

So we do have a lot of
information that's online
right now.

We have our bond brochure
that's up, so we have all of
that information available
and you can click on the
propositions and learn more
about those and the projects
that are included in those,
but we also have all of the
information that was used to
get to that point.

So we have all of our
information when council was
looking at this, when the
task force was looking at
this, we have the task force
final report, we have some
of the other resources that
were available through the
process.

So people can actually go
back and look at, you know,
resources, kind of where we
started with the needs
assessment, kind of work all
the way through.

So all of that information
is available still online.

>> Cole: Thank you.

Any other comments,
questions?

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: Just a quick
point on item 75, that's the
item about the --
establishing a parking
benefit district in the
university neighborhood
overlay district.

I'm excited about that item.

It is the first parking
benefit district that we --
that we will have here in
this city and that follows
on a lot of work by
community stakeholders,
developing the suggested
terms for a parking benefit
district.

There are a couple of points
on which the university area
partners would -- would have
liked to see something.

A little bit different from
what's on the table now.

And I think there's good
reasons for -- for sticking
with what's on the table
now.

But I suggested that we
revisit the issues and -- in
a year just to see how the
district is working out.

And -- and consider whether
we ought to make any change
with respect to those
points.

I wanted to give you a heads
up.

The two points related to
the division of revenue,
whether we go with a 70/30
split of gross revenue or
some other split.

We are going with the
recommendation that the --
the split net revenue based
on the recommendations of
the stakeholder working
group that worked for about
a year developing a proposed
revenue split.

Then the other issue relates
to the allegation of
meters -- allocation of
meters between the city and
the district.

There's already 35 meters
covered by the parking
benefit district, the
question is whether those
should be considered part of
the parking benefit
district.

The staff feels for now that
would create problems if we
did put it in, but they are
open to revisiting the issue
after the district has been
in place for a year.

Anyway, I wanted to point
that on everyone's radar
screen and that we approve
this with the direction to
staff asking that they take
a look at the district after
a year to just check in and
see how it's going and to
consider whether any
adjustments need to be made
with respect to the two
issues that I have
mentioned.

>> Cole: Okay.

Councilmember morrison?

Are we ready to go on --

>> Cole: You have the
floor.

>> Morrison: I have seen
 guernsey has made
his way over the bridge
through the woods or
whatever.

I wanted to talk about items
46 and 47, the friesenhahn
 guernsey
if you can talk about what
this is about.

In the year 2,000 there was
a tract of land owned by the
friesenhahn family located
south of barton creek mall,
southwest corner of loop 360
and mopac.

It was a tract of land that
was the only tract that was
left that the city was
trying to acquire between
loop 360 and a point further
up along 360 and kind of
would stick out as a sore
thumb if the property was
developed with the already
approved site plan for a
multi-story office and
parking garage.

It was approximately 60
acres in size.

And at the time we had a
great desire, overwhelming
desire, to purchase this
tract to basically make that
land complete as far as the
undeveloped tract.

 bill walters
basically an option to
purchase the land at the
time.

The city had a standards,
 standards that costs
about $6 million.

There's an estimate by the
 walters, i
think it's about $10 million
and at the end, when
everything was said and
done, council approved
spending over $6 million --
on the purchase of the
tract, in addition -- in
addition allowing --
allowing a tract of lands, i
think it was called
technology park, to have a
certain allotment of
impervious cover, I think it
was 150,000 square feet of
impervious cover would be
allocated so it would allow
this tract that was over the
recharge zone, in the barton
springs zone to be developed
and then to bank about
185,000 square feet of
impervious cover that could
be used anywhere in the
desired development zone, by
 walters for a period of
up to about 2015.

He could use it -- they
could use it themselves,
they could convey it to
another party.

There was an agreement that
was signed and the agreement
basically spoke of just what
I said.

It was not specific with
regard to the type of
impervious cover.

Because in austin we had two
types of impervious cover,
we had watershed impervious
cover, water quality and
drainage issues and then we
have zoning impervious
cover, which is probably
looking more of open space,
light and air, provided to
tracts.

There was an ordinance that
was passed about that same
time as the agreement was
finalized.

Perhaps shortly before that
agreement was signed, that
spoke specifically of
limiting the impervious
cover to -- to watershed
impervious cover.

Time passes.

 walters does sell off
about 25,000 square feet of
impervious cover.

For the construction of a
multi-family project in
northwest austin.

He makes an attempt in 2005
or 2006 to utilize some of
it for a development along
lake austin boulevard that
the city ultimately rejects
because it was -- had to do
with zoning impervious
cover.

It's been up to about 2009.

The one stop shop, mr.

Walters approached me, asked
again about zoning
impervious cover for -- for
a single family developer on
the southside of town in the
desired development zone and
see if we could get I think
an 8% increase on some lots.

After much discussion of --
over that, also discussion
about the conveyance, we
came to the same conclusion
I think that was concluded
by my predecessors in
'05-'06 that it can't really
be transferred through
zoning.

It's not an easy way to do
that.

>> Morrison: Can i
interrupt you one second for
explain the difference
watershed and zoning and
impervious cover because
sometimes one is less than
the other.

And --

>> yes, very much so.

Watershed impervious cover,
as I said before, is really
dealing with water quality
and drainage type of issues.

In many parts of the city,
particularly in the western
parts of the city, it's
usually more restrictive
that be zoning.

If someone wants to develop
a tract of land and the
watershed impervious cover
is 80%, suburban watershed,
predominantly, in the city,
in the eastern side of town,
I'm developing a tract
that's zoned gr, which is a
very common retail type of
zone in the city, that's 90%
impervious cover.

If I'm building a retail
project, I would only be
able to develop at 80%.

The lesser of the two.

The total reverse occurs
when you are over the barton
springs zone.

I might have gr zoning
located a the y in oak hill,
I could do 90% but watershed
whopping 15%, so I could
maybe only develop maybe 15%
under current code under
watershed regulations, for
the particular agreement
that was made between the
 walters, again
that would only apply to the
desired development zone.

Although the urban core of
the city is in the desired
development zone, the urban
core does not regulate
impervious cover.

We only rely on zoning
impervious cover for -- so
for the vast majority of the
city's core, from maybe ben
white going up to about 183,
maybe mopac going over
towards east austin towards
183 ed bluestein, a vast
amount of that area is not
subject to watershed
impervious cover.

So there would be no ability
for mr. walters to use that.

For the parcels that are in
this city, that have higher
zoning impervious cover, he
could exercise the transfer
of watershed impervious
cover to those tracts.

That may be zoned gr at 90%
or cs or cs 1 which are 95%
impervious cover.

And transfer impervious
cover to those tracts.

Of there's -- there's many
of those tracts are railroad
developed, though,
because -- are already
developed, though, because
they are closer in.

 is an area
that stretches from 620-183
fanning out clockwise all
the way down to maybe --
almost to manchaca road, all
within the desired
development zone.

 he could seek
to increase from 65% to 80%
in the suburban, for
instance, he could utilize
it there.

 walters approached
me, I think he was concerned
that he wouldn't be able to
exercise the use of all of
these impervious covers
because there's a time
limit.

To the year 2015 in order
for him to utilize these
credits.

He had only used 25,000.

And he still had I think
approximately about 150 left
to use.

He explained to me that
there was a concern that he
had that -- that when he
signed the agreement he was
looking at impervious cover
more generally than maybe
what the ordinance was
approved for originally.

Which limited only watershed
impervious cover rather than
zoning impervious cover.

There might be -- he was
looking for a solution to
remedy that that might be
acceptable to the city and
to himself.

With regards to that.

After a long discussion with
him, there's not many
options available, this was
an item brought to city
council, any item would have
to come back before you if
there was any modification
to the agreement.

The only suggestion would be
to look at the value of what
that impervious cover is.

I spoke with real estate
services, discussed the
matter with them, we came
back to looking at probably
a combination of fee waivers
and also -- also a cash
value of the impervious
cover.

There was -- there was
certainly a disagreement
between bill and ourselves
with regards to what that
value is.

But we came to an agreement
primarily what you have seen
before you which is what the
staff is bringing forward as
a recommendation.

There's a hint that
certainly if we do not come
to an agreement, there may
be -- may be other legal
 walters
will resue.

With that I will -- pursue.

I know we discussed this in
executive session, if you
would like to go into more
detail we can go back in the
real estate matter into
executive session.

>> Morrison: Thank you for
that.

I know that it's not
necessarily a simple item.

In terms of the proposed
agreement that we're looking
at, it's [indiscernible]
cash that would come out of
our stabilization reserve
fund, then also $500,000 in
credits.

887,000 And then 500,000 in
fee credits.

Could you clarify that's
credits for development fees
and it's my understanding
that that's for development
anywhere, including over the
aquifer, is that correct?

>> That's my understanding
as well.

However it is not including
parkland dedication fees.

These are only development
fees that would not include
capital recovery fees is
your only development fees
that relate back to
basically the -- the
development process.

So it would be site plan
fees, building permit,
electrical, plumbing and
mechanical related fees.

Associated review fees and
 it also
increases the amount of time
to 2017 for two additional
years.

So that would be basically
about five years to recoup
that over time.

>> Morrison: Okay.

Just for folks that are
interested, the backup or
the new ordinance could be a
little bit complicated to
read because it's just
amending specifically amends
very specific words and so
it's important just for
folks that might be
interesting to go back to
the original ordinance and
read it within that.

So -- so I have some
concerns about this.

I'm trying to understand,
you know, what real benefit
it would be to the city to
renegotiate this deal.

I understand it would be a
benefit to mr. walters.

Do you have any comment on
that?

>> I think that I would
discuss it in executive
session if you would like to
discuss it matter.

>> Morrison: All right.

I do want to mention, one of
the flags for me is that
we're talking about $887,000
in cash out of our budget
stabilization reserve and
having just been through the
budget process and the two
days that the council spent
discussing what really is a
very small proportion of our
multi billion dollar budget,
a lot of it was about budget
stabilization reserve and
what was appropriate for use
of budget stabilization and
where we were going to be
ending up with all of that.

I just want to note to my
colleagues I feel a special
sensitivity to funding that
may or may not be available
through that particular
budget fund, having just
struggled through the great
needs that we have in this
city and -- for support with
cash.

So -- so I would, if anyone
is interested in sharing
their thoughts on the
matter, I'm struggling over
this one and I think that
it's -- it's one that we
need to pay some attention
to.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
So -- so this is -- what is
proposed on this agenda is a
result of a mediation
process; is that correct?

>> There was -- there was a
suggestion by the city
manager to -- to consult an
outside attorney regarding
this matter.

We have done so.

The only thing that maybe
has been modified, the staff
recommendation is that there
was a release clause that
has been placed into the
ordinance, releasing the
 walters
from future claims regarding
this matter and --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is
that a yes or a no,
mediation process?

[Multiple voices]

>> mayor, there wasn't a
formal mediation.

The lawyer talked to mr.

Walters separately I believe
from the city so it was not
a formal mediation, no.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: But
an agreement?

An agreement with counsel
for the city?

>> I think I would
characterize it more with a
consultation with the
outside attorney.

Both parties were present
when we were discussing.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is
the agreement recommended by
the staff?

>> It's a recommended by
staff, yes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.

[One moment please for
change in captioners]
.

 in terms of the
watershed -- I mean the urban
core has always -- well --

>> the urban core is not changed
as far as the impervious cover.

There may have been times since
2000 they modified the
impervious coverage situation.

We will consult with watershed
about what the particular
changes are since 2000.

But generally, no, there has not
been substantial changes, i
believe to the watershed
regulations.

 so the map -- in other
words, the map where those
impervious cover credits where
 walters could use the
impervious cover credits has not
changed since the time he
executed that agreement with the
city?

>> The map that's on the viewer
right now, the area in green is
the drinking water protection
zone.

That would not be available for
transfer.

The area that is in gray is the
urban core, which cannot be used
for transfer, because there is
not an impervious cover of the
water.

That is the dark gray in the
center.

The area that is kind of a light
peach color, you see reds and
some oranges and some purples,
those are tracts of land that
are within the city limits where
there is a possibility of
impervious cover being
transferred, specifically the
ones in reds and purples and
oranges, those are tracts worth
zoning.

It is higher impervious level
cover and impervious cover and
would not need a change for
that.

And the lighter is the e t.j.

, where he could use
those for himself.

>> The entire right size is
eligible for use.

That is a fairly good swath of
land.

>> That land, which is closer to
the city, the availability of
utilities, roadway,
infrastructure, those things are
part of the development process.

It may be a little more
difficult for him to try to
market in the gray areas than
closer to the city where the
utilities and roadway structures
are existing.

 I didn't understand that
from the map we looked at in
executive session that all of
the light gray is a possibility.

In terms of the map that we are
looking at this, it is hard to
see on this --

>> I'm sorry.

 that would be great, it
would be useful to have it added
to the backup.

The areas where he could use his
credits are the light gray area,
the red and the purple?

Am I understanding that
properly?

>> Right.

And the light peach area, but he
may need a zoning change to
increase the impervious cover
and utilize that.

Because in that case, the
impervious cover may be higher
than the watershed.

 back to my question, how
much of this map existed during
the time where he executed the
agreement with the city?

>> When the agreement was
probably executed the city
limits were probably slightly
smaller.

In 2000, beyond that, there
hasn't been probably a
substantial change, except for
those fluctuation zoning where
you may have zoned things
 since
2000.

The structure, usually when
somebody does a zoning change,
they don't usually sit on a
tract of land that long, they
usually pursue development of
those.

Within the city, probably not
much change.

 only the areas
annexed since 2000.

>> The area where to use the
impervious cover credits, hasn't
gotten smaller it has actually
gotten larger because he annexed
in the e.t.j.

He has more opportunity to use
the credits than at the time of
the agreement being executed.

>> As far as land area, that's
correct.

 so you have addressed
this question before, but i
don't fully understand the
answer yet.

When the -- well -- mayor, did
you want --
 no, as you
know, we had an extensive
executive session on this, a lot
of these things could be better
discussed and responded to in
executive session.

Because this is -- the entire
thing is a legal issue.

Not that we're deciding to give
mr. walter something.

The question is a possible legal
action.

 as I said, I'm happy --
I think perhaps we do need to
discuss this further in
executive session today or
thursday.

The point I'm making, that in
terms of the value of the
impervious credit he has more
land to use than he did in the
time of the execution of the
agreement.

It is my understandhe had
legal representation with him at
the time?

>> He did have legal question.

 I have more legal
questions.

In answer to your question
councilmember morrison, I have
questions about reexecuting an
agreement that has been
negotiated.

>>Mayor leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.

 I understand we had
extensive conversation about
this in executive session.

I want to make sure as much
information as is possible is
available for the public to
understand what we're
considering.

>>Mayor leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo.

 I asked for other
documents to have as backup.

Because -- I think I made that
request -- it is difficult to
follow the amended language that
is in the backup, if you are a
member of the public.

>> I will double-check.

If not there, I will put in a
couple of the original ordinance
and the agreement.

 thanks, greg, i
 grenther,
rather.

 so are you
requesting an executive session
at the meeting on thursday?

I think if you want to pursue
these kinds of questions that
can only be answered in the
context of local advice, we need
to preface for that.

 I'm happy to add it, but
ultimately as a policy issue, i
hope we will have members of the
public that are deeply familiar
with the case, come down, tell
us their opinion, too.

It is a policy matter, as far as
I'm concerned to renegotiate an
agreement that was struck by
this city and to use taxpayer
dollars to buy out something
that I believe he has a fair
market value.

He entered into an agreement.

 not quite
that simple.

There is a disagreement.

 I understand that,
mayor.

 that's what
we can't discuss here.

 I'm not sure that we
can't because he's alluded to it
already.

If you would like to discuss it
further in executive session, we
can.

Ultimately, it is a policy
matter to use taxpayer dollars
and waived fees to provide these
two a developer.

 I'm afraid
without the total context, the
questioning can be misleading,
if the questions can't be
answered in a legal context and
they're just hanging out there
as legitimate questions that you
just can't respond to.

>>Tovo: ok.

At this point, we don't have any
questions hanging out there, but
it probably would be useful to
have a discussion.

 well,
questions that are raised by the
discussion.

>> We will prepare executive
session.

I'm not sure the attorney who
conducted it is here today.

So we will prepare for thursday.

 any other
items for discussion?

 I have a couple of quick
ones, mayor.

Just a quick comment about
.. i.f.c.

83.

This was an item that I brought
forward with councilmember
martinez and councilmember.

.

-- Councilmember spelman.

I wanted to say, you will see
the fiscal note is in the range
of I believe, $3,000.

I want to make the point that
about 80 of that are actual hard
costs that need to be expended
for that one day sherret.

That is supplies and fd.

The rest is the cost of
employees.

I've gone back and forth with
that -- I'm certain -- I want
the exact amount.

I want my colleagues to be aware
that it wouldn't cost the city
$3,000 than we wouldn't have
otherwise spent, it will be
about $80.

The $3,000 plus reflected there
are the cost represented by
salaried employees that will
receive their salary whether or
not we do the one-day charret.

>> We were looking at this
before, when we look into having
channel 6 -- I forget what it
was.

On a saturday, channel 6.

When we got the fiscal note, the
vast majority of it was cost for
salaried employees to be there.

I think it would be helpful in
the future -- I mean, i
certainly think that it is
appropriate to recognize that it
will be hours that our salaried
employees will have to commit.

I think it is appropriate to
separate those twho different
categories of cost -- two
different categories of cost
when it comes to the fiscal note
because it affects our budget in
a different way.

When we have salaried employees
work on saturday, just like when
councilmembers work on saturday,
that doesn't change how much
take-home or gross pay we get
that week.

It stays the same.

That does not hit our budget
actually.

That would be a request of staff
to look at the possibility of
dividing those two lines out in
the future.

>>Mayor leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison?

 and actually three
items from the office of real
estate services about the rainy
street, the rainy street
property that there is a
proposal to sell.

The city's property and there
was some discussion before.

It is interesting we now have
three different options on the
table, and there was discussion
about whether some of the sales
to the new owner would involve
parking spaces or not.

And now it looks like we have
three options, one where it is
pure cash.

One where there is the original
number of parking spaces in the
deal, 30.

And one where there are 20.

I don't think we necessarily
have somebody from real estate,
but I do see -- I wanted to ask
staff to sort of layout those
different options, how the
figures were calculated that
in-between figure of $400,000 or
20 spaces and then I have a
question, I see the director of
parks is here, too.

She might be able to help us get
some context.

>> City manager, I believe
councilmember, that those
figures were derived from the
1 million that was
the cost of the property itself.

So there was a tradeoff in terms
of the cost of the parking space
at $30,000 a space.

>> Ok.

I see.

That was arithmetic, as we say?

Ok.

Great.

I oncer if mr. lumbers.

This had to do with providing
spaces for parks and rec
facilities in the area and i
wonder if you could give us a
brief overview of your thoughts
on that but what are your
thoughts if we move forward on
the long range plan.

>> Director of parks and
recreation.

Two things we did, as we
renegotiated, it was clear and
expressed to council in the
final meeting of the renegotiate
of moving forward about the lack
of parking for them and the fact
that they had discussions with
the -- the mexican american
cultural center.

I was at that meeting about
trying to share parking.

At that time, the chair of the
board and the board decided they
did not want to enter into the
agreement with the austin rowing
club for parking.

I was asked by the mexican
american cultural board would i
look into buying the property,
which is the little piece there
which is where the trailer sits,
to put parking on.

Which I then followed to do some
due diligence in looking at
would it be a viable option to
purchase?

What would be the cost?

What kind of parking could I put
on that?

Would it work for
transportation.

And I met with others to talk
about the feasibility of the
city purchasing that through
pacreation or would
there be another option, which
is before you today.

I was doing my work based on the
mexican american cultural
centerboard that center board
that asked me to buy the land --

>> when you say buy, you mean
buy it from --

>> from public works.

>> I would end up buying it from
one city department to the next.

>> Right.

>> It didn't make sense feasibly
to do that that is when the idea
came that I thought was
creative, to look at a
partnership as the rfp to look
for parking there.

To look at the long-term plan or
study as council asked us to
look at when negotiating with
austin rowing club, can you look
at alternative parking ways to
address the issue for parking at
the boat club -- rowing club.

One was work for one-year
negotiation agreement for
convention center parking for
staff.

That is one year only and will
end unless we renegotiate that.

It has not been as big of a plus
as they anticipated because it
is a little further away.

In the meantime, we looked at
the memo of the logistics of the
existing lot there, further up
on the entrance, not right there
by the boat house, it is four
spaces if you change the
direction of parking, you can do
10 instead of four.

No new asphalt, just changing
the direction of the parking.

As related to the study, the
study says pointed out by
councilmember riley, they don't
believe there is an enormous
amount of parking for at least
five years.

However, at the end of the five
years, there will be a need per
parking based on what they're
anticipating.

They did mention, in the study,
which is critical, that there
were times when there were
events and other activities
going on that were in conflict
where the lot was overflowing
and there was no parking
available.

That is where I started looking
at sort of a mid range effort,
that is when I said, wait a
minute, let's look at the lot
that may go out and be
purchased.

That was really it.

Looking at alternative ways.

Since then, we have been able to
be successful in restructuring
the small area.

Of course, this was another
option, of course.

The other option as I think you
received a resolution from the
mexican american cultural center
board asking that we move
forward in metering the lot and
they would like to have, after
paying off the meters and the
cost associated with running the
meters, that money would go back
to the book, the actual center
for the payment of some staffing
issues related to monitoring the
area, picking up the parking
area as well.

The other thing we're looking at
is putting in a gate, which we
are working on now, that we
would close at night, after the
event or after the evening
hours, so that we don't have
that problem of people coming
in, who live in the area,
parking there and staying
overnight and they're still
there in the morning when we are
trying to conduct business.

When and if meters do go in, the
discussion is centered around
that it would be open to people
who would pay for parking and
then short of those who were
attending the center would be
authorized, stamped for not
having to pay.

But that is where we are.

At this point, the resolution
has come forward, I believe to
council, but there has been no
action on that.

>> Um, do you know if staff's
going to have a recommendation
about the metering of the mac?

>> Our recommendation is that we
meter that lot, absolutely.

>> And that would solve the
problem for the boathouse then?

>> If we meter that lot, it will
help with parking, but -- what
it will be is open to anyone,
allow for anyone to park there.

Which means anyone attending the
businesses on rainy street, the
growing businesses that are
handing there along rainy street
will be able to use that lot and
pay for parking.

The good news is there is
parking.

The bad news is it will be open
for anyone to use and it won't
be just for what we had to do
was put staff out there with we
knew we were having major events
and close it.

Do we have any assessment of the
parking needs for the boathouse
on an hourly basis?

Certainly, it is my
understanding there are a lot of
early-risers that get out and
row and using it in the morning,
that wouldn't be a conflict.

Perhaps, I can certainly see,
especially on the weekend when
folks are coming down, because
we are broadening the use of the
boathouse, although a lot of
people arrive by foot.

There is a lot to work together
there to see whether the meters
would be available to serve the
boathouse.

>> This is true.

The numbers do show that the
 is a very popular
time.

Later on in the morning is a
popular time.

Afternoon and evenings are
popular.

Weekends are packed.

I had a visit last week to the
boathouse and the expectation
that we had hoped is true.

They're becoming overwhelmed
with use.

They have a lot of people that
are foot traffic and bicycles,
which I requested after my visit
for my bike racks to be placed
to accommodate that so we are
encouraging people not to drive.

Obviously we want them to walk.

There will be a trail there once
the tunnel is completed maybe
they can park somewhere else and
walk.

This was an effort to try to
bridge short term, medium and
hopefully long-time, we will
have to address at the concern
of the mexican american cultural
center board, I will say, there
is a growing program base there.

The problems are good.

People want to come.

We're encouraging now, with the
good grace of the budget with
the programming staff, this
means more programs and more
people.

That is our concerns, we will
have more cars and people
attending in this area than we
will have spaces, while we want
to encourage them to walk and
ride bikes and car pool, I'm
worried we'll be right back to
where we were in several
meetings I had to attend, which
is trying to basically say we
have to block that lot off and
not let anyone else park there,
which is really hard when it is
a public facility.

>> Right, if we have meters,
will we be able to block it off
at certain times to users of the
facility?

>> For events such as some of
the major special events we
have.

We will have to do that and
monitor it.

There is just no other way.

But for every day-to-day type of
service for programming and any
other activity, we will have to
really watch it and see as the
events go on, during spring
break, the regattas that go on
with the other businesses,
entities, colleges, universities
that are coming down.

I mean, I'm working right now
just to provide spaces for
storage of the shelves because
there is not enough room there
at the site.

So we're seeing a huge increase
of use, but not -- yet, we're
going to have to wait and see, i
think.

>> Um, ok.

One question, you were talking
about the parks department
really didn't have the funds to
buy the piece of property.

Because -- so we're looking at
one of the options is we know
that the value, the appraised
1 million and one of
the options is to have the buyer
pay $100,000 and offer the
spaces.

In that case, does the parks
department have to cost off the
extra million dollars?

>> No, not that I know of.

>> There is a million dollars
that is not there anymore.

>> I haven't been told that.

I hope not.

>> I don't know why that would
be any different than buying it
outright for 1.1 million.

I think maybe my colleague
councilmember riley has
something to add.

 just a
quick comment on the hearing
aspect.

I'm assuming it is to be -- it
will be meters for everybody,
but if you have business at the
, you can get your parking
charge stamped, you wouldn't
have to pay for it.

I'm assuming that also means if
you are parking there and using
the rowing center, you would
have to pay.

>> That's correct.

>> Yeah, just to provide a
little more context to this.

There are times when parking is
in short supply around the
m.a.c.

Even if we went full-bore on
this site and went 30-space
option.

That would not solve the parking
issue on rainy street.

Last year, according to the
rainy street study completed in
july, there were megaevents
generating a need for 500 spaces
or more that occurred on nine
days over the past year.

So -- the report goes into the
various ways of addressing that,
which typically involves things
like shuttle -- satellite lots,
shuttle services providing
access into it and out.

We will still need to do that
sort of thing, even if we go
with the 30 spaces.

The real question is, what do we
do for the more routine
vacation, and there is a general
routine usage of facility, both
on rainy street, the boathouse
and at the m.a.c.

For that purpose, I believe
making useless of the surface
parking that is currently
 offers a
reasonable way to move forward,
that works out well for
everybody.

 board has passed a
resolution as mentioned,
supporting a parking benefit
 which
would involve installing meters
 and having some
portion of the revenue support
activities at the m.a.c.

Long-term there are other
options for structured parking
, on those sites
where you currently see the
surface parking.

That has always been a part of
the long-term vision for the
m.a.c.

The rainy street parking study i
mentioned went over some of the
options.

If you look at the numbers
within that report, it is
interesting to see because they
have a number of options for --
well, five, typically, as to how
you could expand the parking
capacity there at the m.a.c.

The two highest end options are
two structured parking garages,
either above ground or below
ground.

Above ground is $30,500 per
space.

Below ground -- having an
underground parking facility at
 site was costed at
$35,000 a space.

The cadillac option is over
$35,000 a space.

Looking at the options before us
on thursday's agenda, if we just
do nothing about parking, we get
2 million into the general
fund.

1.2 Into the general fund.

That is item 42.

Item 41, would go for 30 spaces,
that would reduce the sales
price down to $100,000.

1 million
in general fund revenue in order
to support the creation of 30
parking spaces.

That comes out to $36,667 a
space, which is more expensive
than the cadillac version.

It would be cheaper on a per
space basis to do an underground
parking facility at the m.a.c.

Site which is part of the vision
 than to go with
that option.

Item 43, which is dropped it
down to 20 spaces, that turns
out to be more expensive.

That means we're foregoing
$800,000 of general fund
revenue, to get 20 spaces and
that is $40,000 per space.

That is the most parking option
considered for the m.a.c. site.

This is a very expensive way of
addressing parking needs.

It does it by putting parking on
rainy street, where we have all
kinds of goals about bringing
life and vitality to the street.

Generally putting a big parking
garage on rainy street is not
the way to bring vitality.

Nobody will come down to a site
just to park there.

There has to be something there.

, if we
did something on the m.a.c.

Site, even if it is short term
use of the surface parking, it
is more convenient for the users
of boathouse because it is
closer.

It is consistent with the short
and long-term plans and it helps
create revenue.

I think it makes more sense to
make use of the current parking
 and look to
weather we can address
additional parking needs through
long-term plans for structured
parking at the m.a.c. center.

>> Mayor?

 mayor, I wanted to add
that this site is within the
wallow creek tip.

So the redevelopment that a
developer is considering will
help the finances, but the sale
of this property, because we
actually own it, is public land,
and that money will actually go
to the general fund.

So this is a time where we're
looking at the drawings for the
wallow creek and considering a
lot of wallow creek items, but
this is an item for wally creek
that is land to respect
redevelop the tif but go to the
general fund in the tune of
$1.2 million on item 42.

>> Mayor pro tem, one thing i
did want to correct.

If I understand you
councilmember correctly, you
were calculating the cost of the
parking based on the
$1.2 million?

2 million was offered
simply because they would not
have to do parking.

So they would not pay that
$1.2 million on item 4 or 43.

So you calculate it on
$1 million.

So what I'm saying is the
original offer and the offer
that is for 43, which is the 20
parking spaces is based on a
million dollars and not 1.2.

They would not give us
$1.2 million.

I wanted to make that --

>>riley: if I may.

If we wanted for item 42, we get
$1.2 million.

>> Yes, sir.

 if we go instead with
item 41, we get $100,000.

Which is approximately
1 million less than
$1.2 million.

>> I understand what you are
saying.

 that means we are
1 million in
revenue, in order to secure 30
parking spaces.

So if we really want to
calculate the cost of the spaces
1 number
because that is the amount that
we are actually foregoing in
order to secure the spaces.

Same thing on item 43.

We forego $800,000.

In order to secure 20 spaces,
which to me working out to
$40,000 a space.

>> I don't disagree with you on
your calculation.

I wanted to make sure the
parking spaces were $30,000
apiece.

I was not saying -- I wasn't
calculating that as a -- let me
back up.

You're correct in that, that
2 million without parking is
1.2 million.

I was saying that parking spaces
only cost $30,000.

I wasn't translating them into
money.

>> Right, and we're paying a
far-greater cost than that if we
go for either of the two
options.

 ok, thank you
councilmember riley.

Councilmember spelman.

 I thought it was cost
somewhat less of $30,000 a
space.

The numbers up until recently
was $15,000 or $20,000 a space
has the price gone up?

>> It has happened in the last
24 months, in working with green
and sea home.

The parking spaces have become
very expensive.

 the cost of concrete
or rebar gone up.

>> That is not my area of
expertise.

The professionals say it could
be up to $40,000 a parking
space.

Is astronomical.

 it is more than twice
my expectation.

So I'm a little behind the
times, I look forward to finding
out why later on on thank you.

 any other questions,
comments?

Without okz, this meeting of the
austin city council is adjourned
without objection.