Austin City Council Meeting Transcript - 9/10/2012 (meeting continued 9/11/2012)

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Good

morning.

I'm mayor lee leffingwell.

I call the meeting of the austin

city council to order on monday,

september 10, 2012.

The time is 9:06 a.m.

We're meeting in council

chamber, austin city hall, 301

west second street, austin,

texas.

 

Without objection, council will

begin with our executive session

items, items 11 and 12.

 

So -- yeah.

 

071 of

the government code, the council

will consult with legal council

regarding the following items.

Item 1 and 3 to discuss legal

issues related to the adoption

of city budget fees.

Item 11, discuss legal issues

related to open government

matters.

Item 12 to discuss legal issues

relating to prevailing wage

matters on city construction

contracts.

 

Any objection of going to

executive session on these

items?

 

Hearing none, we're now in

executive session.

 

[09:26:15]

 

[Rumbling]

Announcer: What if a disaster strikes without

warning?

What if life as you know it

has completely turned on its head?

 

What if everything familiar becomes anything

but?

Before a disaster turns your family's world

upside down,

it's up to you to be ready.

Get a kit. make a plan. be informed today.

 

[10:54:03]

 

,

directly directly cell cell

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We're out of closed section.

In closed session we took up

and addressed items 1, 3, 11

 

[10:56:01]

 

and 12.

 

So now we'll take up agenda

items about the budget for

fiscal year 2012-2013.

 

We'll begin -- we'll begin

with the presentation from

the staff in just a moment

and then after we get a

motion on the table, as soon

as we adopt the proposed

budget with amendments from

staff will be an opportunity

for amendments from

councilmembers.

[Inaudible] I think we'll

continue with the same

process used during the

deliberations on the bond

items that no amendments

would be automatically

considered friendly.

If any members objects to an

amendment, that item goes to

a vote and either pass or

fail or be incorporated.

 

Also note there will be no

amendments to the

amendments.

 

If there is objection to the

amendment, the process would

be to vote against the

amendment and then propose

another one [inaudible].

 

Before we begin again, on

august 23 and august 30,

council will take public

comment about the city's

proposed budget and the

proposed maximum tax rate.

The public comment part of

the hearing to adopt the

budget and the tax rate will

close on august 30 by a vote

of council and the council

will now conclude the

hearing by discussing and

voting to adopt the city's

budget.

And the actual tax rate for

 

[10:58:03]

 

2012-2013.

Since the public hearing is

formally a part of the

budget process, we need to

formally close the public

hearing and I'm entertain a

motion to that effect.

 

Mayor pro tem moves to close

the public hearing.

Is there a second?

Seconded by councilmember

martinez.

 

Discussion?

 

All in favor say aye.

 

Opposed say no.

 

That passes on a vote of 6-0

with councilman spelman off

the dais.

 

The public hearing is

closed.

So I believe at this time

we're ready to take up staff

presentation on the budget

and their recommended

amendments and staff will

ask council to adopt the

operating budget.

>> Good morning, mayor,

mayor pro tem and members of

the council.

Before I begin,

congratulations to

councilmember martinez on

his new baby.

 

Congratulations.

 

Staff has a number of

amendments to present to

city council.

 

As always the time we

deliver the budget on

august 1 to the time we come

back to get approval of the

budget, a variety of

circumstances come up and

staff has a handful of

recommendations to the

operating budget.

 

These are the same as what

we presented to you on

AUGUST 29th.

 

The first one is in regards

to austin fire department.

In the general fund staff is

proposing to amend to add

THREE FTEs.

Create a wildfire mitigation

division.

 

There is no cost associated

with this.

The department is going to

be [inaudible].

 

Essentially taking money

away from the warehouse

relocation.

 

[Inaudible]

[one moment please.

]

does not apply to the

extended hours and extended

geographic areas.

 

This amendment doesn't sync

up with that change in the

ordinance the council

approved.

The next three amendments

are all related to the

rosewood environmental

remediation project.

 

When the bids on that

project came back they were

about $861,000 higher than

what staff estimated.

That project is being funded

by three departments who are

going to equally share is

increase and cost of that

project.

So we have a $287,000

increase in the budget of

the austin resource recovery

department to transfer funds

into the environmental

remediation fund.

 

Another $287,000 going from

the drainage fund on the

environmental remediation

fund.

And them one more, another

$287,000 coming from the

water utility to the fund.

So in total three different

departments contributing

$861,000 to fund that

rosewood environmental

remediation project which

will be a total of $261,000.

 

You are going to see this

again when we get to the

capital improvement program

and actually on the next

slide [inaudible] for that

project.

Number 9 on this list is

amending the water utility's

budget to decrease revenues

by $900,000.

 

This is related to a fee

proposal that's going to be

coming forward on item 3

which would be to offer a

lower fee to those customers

that are in the customer

assistance program, so

essentially a larger subsidy

for those programs which

result in reduced revenue to

the department.

 

There is that $861,000 that

the previous three

amendments transferring

money into the environmental

remediation fund.

 

This is the environmental

remediation fund

transferring money out and

you will see it again under

that c.i.p. item.

 

Amendment number 11 is to

amend the proposed budget of

the code compliance

department by increasing

revenues in thement a of

$352,392.

And increasing expenditures

in the same amount as well

AS ADDING THREE NEW FTEs

For the short-term rental

program.

There will also be amendment

under item 3 on your agenda,

the fee item, in order to

enact the fees associated

with this increased revenue.

Moving on to a couple grant

amendments, the first one

has to do with the safer

grant that we were very

happy to hear we were going

to be awarded.

 

It's 5,010,000 and adds 36

full-time equivalents to the

fund.

 

Number 13 the the health and

human services special

revenue fund, increasing

appropriations in the amount

of $186,000 for an emergency

solutions grant from the

department of housing and

urban development.

The health and human

services department is

receiving the grant, but the

grant is actually going to

fund two positions in our

downtown community court and

that's what item 14 does is

amend the proposed budget of

the municipal court special

revenue fund to add those

two full-time grant funded

positions.

 

These will be case managers

that will work out of our

[inaudible].

 

I believe that concludes

staff's recommended

amendments to the operating

budget, both the general

fund and nongeneral fund.

 

And with that I would be

happy to answer any

questions.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Questions for staff?

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: This gets a

little bit into the fee

items.

I assume we're going to take

up later.

 

But with regard to code

compliance adding three

FTEs AND THE REVENUE FROM

The short-term rental fee to

cover the short-term rental

program, I did have a couple

of questions.

 

One, I wanted to understand

if we thought that there was

going to be support from any

other department for the

short-term rental program

besides code compliance.

Because I think that the way

the fee has been figured out

has been specifically based

on the assumption that the

fee -- the fee times the

number of expected

short-term rental

registrations would cover

THREE FTEs.

>> Good morning.

Mayor, councilmembers.

There will be support from

other departments in

implementing the short-term

rental program.

 

We've been meeting already

with planning and

development review.

 

They would have a role in

the registration of the

program.

 

They would actually identify

the cap for each ofthe

census districts.

 

Census tracts.

 

And they would also help us

to identify and make

available, make accessible

certificates of occupancy

for short-term rentals.

 

We would also have to work

closely with the

controller's office making

sure that the hotel

occupancy taxes are paid and

that we've got some proof

that -- proof of payment or

proof of registration by the

short-term rental.

 

And so -- and we'll also be

, our

police department

documenting any kind of

complaint, problems that

occur with short-term

rentals.

 

So the staffing that you see

there, the three staffing,

although they are going to

the code compliance

department, those would be

two code inspectors and one

administrative person to

help with registration, they

are really just the basics.

 

We will keep track of what

it takes to completing run

the program throughout the

year.

I think part of the

ordinance requires a review,

and by bringing a review --

review by staff and bringing

that back to council next

year, around june I think

we're looking at june of 13

coming back.

 

At that time we may be able

to document and show the

need for additional

resources or we may be able

to show that it was

incorporated into existing

resources in those other

departments.

>> Morrison: Well, I guess

one question I would have,

first off, is -- and I don't

know if this is okay for me

to talk about what the fee

is right now.

 

We're not talking about that

quite yet, about out the fee

is -- that's been proposed

is $235.

And the assumption is that

that fee will fund those

three code compliance.

But it sounds to me like

we're going to have

additional costs, maybe not

, but there are

resources from other

departments that will be

needed to run this program.

Our fee that we're charging

does not sound like it's

going to be supporting any

of those other resources,

and I thought this was

supposed to be a completely

self-funded program.

So how do we -- you know, if

it takes throughout the year

a quarter of a person's time

in pdr, where are we getting

the funds to cover that

person's time?

 

And is it appropriate for

that to come directly out of

our general fund as opposed

to having revenue from --

from [inaudible].

 

And I guess I'm not sure who

that question is for, but i

think that's something we

need to be asking.

>> I think director guernsey

would need to reply with

regard to the additional

staff.

 

The additional burden this

will put on his staff, but

in regards to the

appropriateness of using the

general fund to support that

cost, it's certainly

appropriate, but those are

costs associate with the

short-term rental it would

be appropriate to include

them in the fee as well.

 

>> Morrison: Okay.

 

And voila, there is

mr. guernsey.

>> Greg guernsey, planning

and development review

department.

The amount of time it would

take to do the estimate of

the cap that was mentioned

really doesn't take that

much time.

My department can easily

[inaudible].

 

I think the notice

requirement is one where it

would take some time and

there's already a fee

associated with notification

whenever we do any type of

application.

 

So that should cover the

cost for doing [inaudible]

>> Morrison: And who is

doing the website?

 

>> Actually the website is

being coordinated through

many different departments.

 

department is

taking the lead as far as

establishing a website.

 

Compliance department,

controller's office, my

department and eventually

probably avd will be

involved as well.

 

We'll all be contributing to

that.

And it's actually being

built right now.

 

>> Morrison: And so in the

coming six months or

whatever, is there a

mechanism that we have at

the city to actually track

when somebody is expending

hours on a short-term

rental?

For instance, we can count

up how many hours.

 

>> I certainly -- in my

department we could have a

number that we could put on

our time sheets to log the

time.

 

And we can get with your

office and work among the

different departments and

our staff to come up with

that so we could track that.

 

>> Morrison: I would

appreciate that because i

understand legally

appropriate use of general

funds, but on the other hand

it would be an interest of

mine to make sure that the

fees that people are paying

cover the cost as opposed to

draining our general fund.

And then I wanted to raise

one other issue when we do

get to the fees.

It's a flat fee regardless

of a type 1 or a type 1 so

that if somebody is renting

for, say, a week out of the

year and they are

registering to be able to do

that versus somebody who

will be renting their

short-term rental as a type

2 for 50 weeks out of the

year, they are being charged

in this proposal the same

amount, and in a way that

feels a little theological

to me, and I wonder if we

could maybe have staff

comment on that, on why we

need to start there.

 

>> I think, councilmember,

that's certainly something

we can take a look at.

 

We computed the fee, we

looked at the -- we use the

number of 1500 ftr's, which

is documented by the

auditor's office, estimated

by the auditor's office, and

we used that to determine

that fee.

Across the board.

And you are right, it's a

across the board number for

ALL FTEs, BUT WE COULD

Take another look and see if

we could -- if we could

break that number out so

that if you are one or two

time type event would it be

a less number.

Now, the key is going to be

how much -- how much of

staff time it would take to

handle the one-time ftr

versus a full year.

It may not be a lot of

difference in that, but we

could take a look at that

for sure and then get back

to the budget director on

that.

 

>> Morrison: Right.

 

I would appreciate that.

 

I think that, you know, if

you are tracking so that we

can make sure as we just

discussed that there could

be a number that you all

could put together so we

could track, so we could

refine that for the folks

working on individual ones,

whether it's a 1 or a 2, we

would be able to figure out

if it takes more time for

you all to deal with one

that's funded all year

versus one week.

 

I understand they have the

same registration

requirement and they have to

pay hotel taxes so there are

things that are common.

 

Aen the auditor did break

down that 1500.

They thought that between

type 1 and type 2.

 

If you guys -- if you all

can give some additional

thought to that and look at

that, I don't want to hold

anything up today, you want

to get moving because I know

it's a program on fire ready

TO GO BY OCTOBER 1st.

But I think it would pay to

really think about that.

 

>> We will do that.

 

>> Morrison: Thank you.

 

>> Thank you.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilman spelman, welcome

back.

 

>> Spelman: We looked

at -- do you have an idea

what kind of workload would

be required of your staff to

deal with those complaints

in short-term rental

properties and figure you

are going to need three

full-time equivalent staff

people to go through those

complaints.

 

Is that about right?

 

>> That's correct.

 

Two field persons.

 

Two field officers and one

administrative officers.

>> Spelman: Okay.

And that ratio of two field,

one addmin pretty much the

way you work your operation?

>> Well, short-term rentals

is a little different animal

and we're looking at

approximately 1500 and

guesstimating maybe the

number of complaints that we

might get on those 1500 and

looking at the number of

inspections.

We know that one officer can

handle around 500

inspections like that per

year and so we're thinking

two people will work.

We'll track that very

closely, document it through

the year and to make sure

that that too is a good

number.

Right now it's our best

guesstimate.

 

>> Spelman: So something

like not every short-term

rental is going to have --

some are going to have a lot

of inspections required,

some are going to have none,

but our average a little

less than one required for

short-term rental and about

1,000 inspections per year

but obviously we haven't

focused on short-term

rentals [inaudible]

understand very recently so

there's no way to know for

sure.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Spelman: How do we

usually pay for inspections?

 

Do we usually have some sort

of fee basis that pays for

your operation?

 

>> Currently we do not have

a fee that takes care of

individual inspections.

 

As noted before, we have

become a enterprise fund or

are becoming an enterprise

fund through this budget and

the cost of our inspections

and doing our code

compliance program would be

borne by the community fee.

In the short-term rentals,

the fee as we talked about

is designed to cover the

cost of the program.

 

That fee should, if you

multiply it by the 1500, it

will cover the cost of the

program.

Now, will 1500 register or

will more register?

 

We'll have to see how that

goes during the year.

>> Spelman: If -- I'll

have more to say about that

in a second.

Let me get to that in a

moment.

 

If we have -- you've got

1,000 sections being done.

You find some percentage of

those inspections somebody

made a mistake, somebody is

not up to code.

 

Then we maybe red tag them,

write them up somehow and

they've got to come up to

code and they may have to

pay a fine.

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

>> Spelman: What happens

to that fine number?

Does it come back to you?

Does it stay in municipal

court?

 

>> If it goes through

municipal court, it stays in

municipal court.

 

If it goes through the

bidding and standards

commission as a civil

penalty, we have a source

of -- we can recover those

funds into the department.

But municipal court stays

there.

 

>> Spelman: About what

percentage of your total

enterprise budget comes from

the building standards --

>> building and standards

commission.

 

A very small -- maybe one,

two percent, very small

percentage.

 

>> Spelman: So the vast

majority of what you are

doing are funded by fees

like this or the general

fund.

 

>> Not the general fund

anymore.

As of this year, all

enterprise funds.

 

>> Spelman: It's all

enterprise funds through the

clean community fee.

 

>> And that's assessed as

part of my formerly known as

solid waste bill; is that

right?

>> Yes.

Anti-litter fee was the

official name, but on the

utility bill sometime it

appeared as solid waste fee.

 

>> Spelman: That's your

fee.

>> We will share it with

austin resource recovery.

 

About a 60/40 split, we're

getting 40.

>> Spelman: And they are

getting 60 for cleaning the

streets, for example.

>> That's correct.

>> Spelman: Gotcha.

All right.

Here are the core of my

concerns.

 

I understand that we think

THREE FTEs IS ABOUT RIGHT.

[Inaudible] sounds about

right.

 

You are not going to get

very much off the building

standards commission fines

because you don't get very

much out of that right now.

 

So basically if we're going

the pay for this thing, it's

going to be self-contained

as councilmember morrison

suggested, this fee

[inaudible].

I'm concerned about the

following.

 

If you've got somebody who

is what we're calling a type

1 short-term rental owner,

somebody owned a house, they

just want to rent it for a

week.

The people who own the list

aren't asking questions.

 

Then we might miss the

opportunity for a fee and

also might miss the

opportunity for a fee to

collect taxes associated

with whatever rentals are

going on.

 

I'm concerned that the

fee -- if the fee were high,

1,000 bucks, there's a whole

bunch of people that are

going to say I think I'll

cheat and see what I can get

away withen a plead

ignorance and see if I can

get away with it and not pay

taxes and see what happens.

If the fee were 20 bucks, a

lot of people would say 20

bucks, some day I might want

to rent my house, it will

make it easy for me to do

it, I'll pay my 20 bucks.

 

And somewhere in the middle

there y going to --

versus people who may pay a

fee and not rent their house

out at all.

 

And I'm wondering if we're

giving much thought to what

point in that continuum

between zero and 1,000 if it

can get us the largest

revenue.

Have you given that much

thought?

 

>> We have, and we think

that 235 is a good number,

that we were looking for a

number, you are right, that

would be reasonable.

 

Where it wouldn't be a

deterrent to comply and it

wouldn't encourage folks to

just get it -- the license

without really having the

intent on the short-term

rental so we think the 235

is a good place.

We'll keep an eye on that

during the year and we come

back to council next year

we'll have some information

on how well we think that

fee will work.

 

But we're hoping that's a

really good number right

there.

 

The other point, you

mentioned about craigslist

and websites and those kinds

of things and the ordinance

does include a section that

says if you are advertising

as a short-term rental, then

that can be used as prima

facie evidence you are a

short-term rental, we can

use that to deal with the

case.

So that would help us a lot.

Obviously we will need to

monitor and so we will.

 

>> Spelman: On the other

hand, monitoring, for

example, a b&b or home away

to see which properties are

being offered is not always

going to be dispositive

because you could argue

there's been a breach, there

hasn't been a breach, I'm

not sure how you would end

up with that, but more on

point, you might find

somebody has offered a

property but it's hard to

identify exactly which

property because the address

is rarely published on line.

 

And --

 

>> we'll have so see how --

we'll do the best we can in

researching that and see if

we can identify the

property.

 

Then be able to go out to

the property and try to

determine based on the site

visit if it's being used as

a short-term rental, then

follow up.

>> Spelman: I could easily

imagine saying oh, what the

heck, let's -- formula one

is coming up, let's put my

property out and see if i

get any nibbles and I won't

register with this program

because if I don't get any

nibbles I'm not gooding to

spend 235 bucks and you get

one and you think wow, this

is great.

 

I can imagine some people

thinking, well, maybe i

don't need to do this just

this once.

This is probably going to be

especially true for people

type 1 rentals and not doing

this for a living and not

expecting to make a whole

lot of money off short-term

activity.

And I suspect the commercial

short-term rental, the type

2s, ARE GOING TO BE DOING

This enough 235 bucks is a

little more perhaps than

they expected but a cost of

doing business and not

particularly a big deal and

will probably get a large

percentage of them

registering, but we might

get a much smaller

percentage of the homeowners

doing this on a very, very

small-time basis,

registering, that might be

something we'll have to

rethink downstream.

 

>> Well, yeah, we'll take a

look at that.

We'll think about that.

As councilmember morrison

was saying, maybe there

should be a difference

between type 1 and type 2

and we really didn't see it

that way, but we'll go back

and rethink that a little

bit.

 

You could conceivably reduce

the type 1 registration fee

and increase the type 2 in

order to still have a

balance where it covers the

cost of the program, but

we'll take a look at that

and see if we have a

recommendation to bring back

to council.

>> Spelman: Again, the

last point which is where i

started with this, is the

real money we're getting out

of the short-term rental

program, it's the hotel

taxes.

And the higher the fee,

there is at least an

argument that we're going to

be getting less in taxes and

if the fee is high.

And establishing a low fee

and perhaps eating some of

the cost of our inspections

through the community fund.

 

Councilmember morrison is

not happy with that though i

just heard her clear her

throat though not into the

microphone -- completely

unrelated throat clearing --

that might end up as a way

we're better off by setting

the fee quite low, getting

everybody and his kid

brother to register so we

know where they are and we

can ensure they are paying.

 

>> Something to consider.

 

>> Spelman: I appreciate

your consideration.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo and

remind everyone we're

talking about the general

fund.

>> Tovo: I just will add

to the record I agree the

cost of administering the

program so I would not

support lowering the fee

with the -- out of intention

that some people may not

want to pay the fees and

then we wouldn't capture the

hotel-motel tax.

 

People should follow the

rules and if they are going

to rent there residents on a

short-term basis, then they

need to pay the fee,

whatever it is, and I don't

think we should be in the

practice of subsidizing

through taxpayer dollars

people's private enterprise.

So absolutely I think the

fees that we set whether

they are lower for type 1

and higher for type 2, but

those fees at the end of the

day, in my opinion, ought to

cover the cost of

implementing this program.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

other questions?

Okay, so what we have before

us is the staff proposal

with the amendments that we

went through today and i

would reiterate that keeps

the property tax rate at

50.29 cents.

No change in that.

Is that correct?

>> That is absolutely

correct.

 

And I just want to clarify

that the amendments we gave

you were for both the

general fund and --

[inaudible]

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Right.

Obviously this item pertains

only to the general fund and

I would entertain a motion

to adopt the city's

2012-2013 operating budget

with the staff recommended

amendments.

Councilmember morrison so

moves.

 

Mayor pro tem cole seconds.

 

And now we're at the point

where it's possible, if

there are any, council

amendments to this budget.

For a start, I just want to

say that we -- the city, the

nation, the world, has just

gone through a very

difficult period.

We're in the process of

recovery.

 

I feel very good about where

the city of austin is, but

we are in recovery, a

gradual recovery not only

here but around the nation

and I don't think it's a

time for a huge tax

increase.

What we have before us is a

tax increase, a significant

tax increase, the effective

32

cents per hundred.

That's a little bit of above

11, but the effective

rate, the actual tax is

48.32.

 

What the council has

approved as a maximum,

which, of course, is the

5

cents per hundred.

 

What is before us with this

motion is 50.29 cents.

That is over a 2-cent

increase above the effective

rate.

A very significant amount,

in my opinion and one that

I'm not going to, frankly,

be able to support.

 

So I want to try to reduce

that amount, I've said this

all along publicly and i

want to try to reduce the

amount of property tax

increase and still provide

necessary services.

 

And so I'm going to make

that proposal here in just a

second.

 

I realize this budget

prepared by staff is a good

budget, a lot of thought

went into it.

It reflects the influence of

the community and re-- input

of the community and

councilmembers, but I'm

going to make a proposal

that will reduce that and

I'm going to make it in the

form of amendment in

accordance with the process

we just went through.

 

It is very difficult to go

through the budget and look

at line by line for cuts and

trying to identify cuts.

When, frankly, this is a

large operation.

 

Almost 12,000 city

employees, multi-billion

dollar operation.

 

A lot of expertise down at

the levels where these cuts

might be applied.

 

With the, of course,

supervision of the city

manager.

 

So what I'm going to propose

these cuts be made in the

form of a generalized across

the board cut.

And what I'm going to

propose is going to reduce

the property tax by

approximately .57 cents.

 

These numbers, of course,

are I'm saying approximately

because they will be

verified with the actual

numbers by the staff, but

approximately -- that would

bring the proposed tax rate

down to about 49.7.

4 cents

above the effective rate.

 

The rate at which anything

is considered to be a tax

increase.

 

But it's somewhere close to

the middle, a little above

the middle, because the

5, that

would be a two dollar --

2.18% increase, about.

So a 2% across the board,

we're talking only about the

general fund here, not about

the enterprise fund.

 

My motion would read as

to amend the

general fund budget by

reducing appropriations

4,468,224 in the following

manner.

And I want to interject here

that by charter I have to

enumerate the department,

but that does not preclude

further budget amendments

after the entire budget is

approved.

But by department that 2%

works out, these are the

numbers that I obtained from

staff, municipal court a

decrease of $285,201.

Planning and development

review reduction of

$500,216.

Health and human services,

$436,286.

 

Animal services reduced

$163,409.

Social services reduced

$349,863.

 

Parks and recreation reduced

$1,022,892.

Library reduced $604,910.

Transfers out to support

services, 736, $1,180,

transfers out $369,268.

That is all departments that

you'll note that I've

excluded all public safety

departments.

 

They are not subject to this

2% across the board.

The second part of the

motion is to amend the

general fund budget by

reducings property tax

revenues $4,468,224.

That's exactly the amount of

the appropriation reduction.

 

So, again, I realize this is

very difficult and the

process of identifying

specific cuts is going to be

a difficult job, I know, but

we do have a number of

proposed new hires on the

table.

I would suggest provide

direction that that be

looked at first, additional

hires within these various

departments, and noting

again that there would be

opportunity at a later date

to come back and adjust

these numbers between

departments, but that would

have to be done by an

amendment to the budget and

would have to be approved by

city council.

 

So that is my proposal as an

amendment.

Is there objection?

Councilman spelman.

>> Spelman: I just have a

couple questions.

 

Would a question to you be

in order?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think so.

 

I'll sell you after I ask.

 

>> Spelman: Fair enough.

 

You listed the departments

and I wrote down what you

were saying.

 

Is this in writing anyplace?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes,

right here.

>> Spelman: Okay, I'll

look for the details of

that.

I noticed you read off a the

look of departments and I'm

thinking a million dollars

in parks, [inaudible]

library.

I didn't hear you mention

anything from two of the

biggest general fund

departments which are the

police department and fire

department.

 

Would you be exempting them?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

did mention that public

safety departments were

excluded including police,

, and c-tac and

wireless, having to do with

public safety.

 

>> Spelman: And this is

not a specious and

rhetorical question.

 

Why exclude public safety?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

guess the short answer is

that it's public safety and

I think that's our paramount

duty as a city is to

maintain public safety.

I just expand just a little

bit, I believe that we're

right on the edge right now,

we don't want to go any

lower.

We're looking at men new

hires in the police

department, for example.

I know there's going to be

discussion about the fire

department's expanded role

in combating this new

situation we have, hazard

with regard to wildfires,

et cetera.

, I know everybody's

[inaudible] is the same the

extent overt has caused

costs to increase so these

are definitely areas that i

don't think we can afford to

cut beyond what's being

proposed.

 

That's just my opinion.

 

That's why I'm proposing it

the way I did.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I have a few

questions that I will direct

to you and hopefully then

you can -- if they are

acceptable, you can answer.

I wonder, this is a pretty

big -- obviously this is a

big -- this would be a big

amendment and I don't have a

clear sense how this would

impact the department nor

was I able to copy down the

numbers as you read them so

I guess my first question

would be could you please go

through those proposed

reductions again department

by department, and my second

question is whether we have

think sense from staff of

those individual departments

what the impact would be,

for example, of a $1 million

decrease in the pard budget.

Would it require staff

layoffs, what kind of

programs would we be looking

at cutting.

 

I would add to that it might

be appropriate since we have

self days of budget hearings

scheduled, I know we

probably had all intended to

get through it today, but i

think with the contemplated

impact such as the one

you've suggested, I would

argue that we would want to

come back and have some

sense of a direct impact on

those affected departments.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, I'll just say the

nature of across the board

cut is to give the people

who manage these departments

the flexibility to make the

cuts in the best and most

effective ways they see.

Frankly, I feel like they

are better qualified to make

those individual judgments

than I am or any of us are.

 

So that's just the nature of

a across the board cut.

I don't anticipate that this

2% of each one of these

departmental budgets, i

don't anticipate it would

cause any layoffs and i

would be surprised if that

were the case.

Total I think there's 157

new hires planned, something

in that range.

Not all of those are covered

by these departments we

talked about, but i

suggested in my opening

remarks that would be the

place to look first.

 

Maybe we need to not hire

some of these new folks.

And I think the judgment of

strategically deciding where

to hire and where not to

hire is best made by people

who work most closely with

those departments.

 

>> Tovo: Mayor, I'll ask

my first again again, would

you mind reviewing the

numbers --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes,

and I'm sorry I don't have

this.

I think we can try to get

the numbers out to everyone.

 

You've got the numbers.

 

Do you want to pass them

out?

It's a lot of numbers.

Do you want me to read them

again?

 

>> Tovo: If he is handing

them out, I'll take his

version and I would like to

hear responses from some of

the impacted departments.

 

And I appreciate your

comment that they would be

in the best position to

determine where that 2% is,

but I want to get some sense

since we've been looking at

a very different budget the

last several months, I want

to hear what impact that

would have on their

operations and they could

avoid staff layoffs.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm

assuming at this point we've

heard objection which will

lead to a discussion, and

discussion and vote

eventually.

 

Now we're in the discussion

phase and I think any

questions -- you have the

floor.

Are there any questions you

might want to ask of staff

or others?

>> Tovo: Thank you, mayor.

I appreciate that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Before we go on,

councilmember, the procedure

that we're operating under

is that there won't be

friendly amendments.

 

That amendments that would

be proposed would be

incorporated if there were

no objections by any

councilmember, not just the

maker or the second.

So we're just proposing

amendments.

 

If there's no objection,

they are adopted.

If there is objection,

there's a vote.

 

>> Cole: Have we had a

second?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We

don't need a second.

 

We have not been using a

second.

That's the procedure that we

unanimously agreed to adopt.

 

Councilmember, go ahead.

 

>> Tovo: I'm sorry, mayor,

do I still have the floor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes

.>> Tovo: DO WE HAVE THE

Director of health and human

services who could speak to

what a $436,000 cut might

have on that budget?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: The

city manager might want to

address that first.

 

>> I guess I want to say at

the outset in light of staff

being called to come and

speak to these proposed

reductions, we have not

analyzed them so I have a

little bit of concern about

any staff member coming and

trying to react to what the

impact would be of the

proposed reductions as the

mayor has outlined.

If we have people that come

up to do that are really

just shooting from the hip

and I don't think that's

wise.

It would really require us

get together and discuss

what's been proposed here.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

let me just answer that a

little bit.

That's exactly right.

This placing a cap on these

budgets and asking the

management, city manager,

employees of the city to

look at it and see how these

can best be accomplished.

 

It could be that throughout

the course of the year if we

happen to have a rosy

scenario, it would not

result in these reductions,

we could experience

increased revenue from

another source.

If the worst case scenario

comes through, we probably

need to be making these cuts

anyway.

 

What I'm talking about, the

other major source of

revenue is sales tax.

 

And in this budget very

conservatively and correctly

assumes that the increase of

sales tax will be 3.5%.

The last now months it's

been a great deal more than

that.

So if that trend continues,

these cuts may not be quite

as deep as 2%.

So it would require analysis

and coming back with

potentially budget

amendments after that

analysis takes place.

Councilman spelman.

>> Spelman: First, I'm

not -- I guess I am

objecting, but only to the

format of incorporating this

in the discussion item that

we actually adopt today.

 

I like the idea of saving

$4.5 million.

I like the idea of spreading

it around so that it is

roughly, well, at least

roughly even-handed among

all departments, although i

would extend that even hand

to at least some extent to

our public safety

departments.

Not every dollar we spend on

public safety is equally

valuable.

Not every dollar christian

county to public safety to

the same extent.

But I would like to know, i

think it's important before

we make any decisions on

this to have at least a

better sense of what we have

now as to what is going to

happen if we lose $285,000

in municipal court.

 

HOW MANY FTEs ARE WE GOING

To be losing that we were

expecting to have available.

 

What services will we not be

delivering or not delivering

as well.

 

And I guess the question i

have for the city manager,

budget director, anybody who

could answer it, if we want

to get at least a rough-cut

sense for what the

ramifications would be of

these reductions, how long

would it take for you to

come up with those

consequences?

 

>> Councilmember, all that i

can say is that it would be

difficult, we would do our

best to do it within the

context of the three days

you have allotted for budget

adoption.

 

>> Spelman: Well, all

right, that helps, but is it

realistic that you would be

able to get us to a point of

saying, for example, in

animal services, these

services would be reduced.

 

We would not have these

FTEs THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT

Us to have in these

particular program areas.

This is fairly specifically

what we're going to get or

everything is going to be

about 3% less than you

expected it to be?

>> Again, it's just hard to

say.

 

To do this requires us to go

through much of the same

exercise we went through to

provide our budget

recommendation this the

first place.

>> Spelman: Right.

>> And in doing so, in

providing our

recommendations, you know,

and when you take into

account the past three or

four years, we're at a point

where none of the decisions

are easy to make.

 

I say that to try to put in

context that going through

this process will likely

require us to make some

pretty tough, thoughtful

decisions in regard to

making recommendations in

the context of three days, i

said we would do our best,

but it would just be

difficult.

 

>> Spelman: From a

[inaudible] point of view,

when do we have to adopt the

budget?

>> Your last day

wednesday.

 

Is that correct?

 

>> We're posted till

wednesday, but under state

law we have until

SEPTEMBER 30th.

29th.

I'M SORRY, 29th.

>> Spelman: So the charter

is binding on us, this is

more restrictive than state

law, so we would have to

come up with a budget by the

27th and we could post

another budget meeting so

long as we had 72 hours

advance notice.

I'm asking hypothetical

questions because I'm flying

in the dark here and I'm

only eligible for vfr

flying.

If we were to give you

another week rather than

another three days, would

that significantly improve

the resolution that you

could give us as to the

consequences of losses in

each of these departments of

these amounts?

>> Yes.

>> Spelman: Thank you,

mr. manager.

 

Mayor, let me ask you a

question, if I could.

Much as I would like to deal

with this budget in the next

three days, which is what

we've posted for, what i

think everybody in the

community and staff has

expected us to do, if we're

talking about this kind of a

change, I'd like to have a

lot more information

available and I would be

happier making this decision

a week from now knowing what

the consequences on each of

these operating departments

would be than making the

decision now without those

consequences.

 

And I wonder how you feel

about that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, I will tell you it was

not my intention to go

through an indepth analysis.

 

That's the reason I proposed

it the way I did, a across

the board cut and let the

manager and the folks who

work for him work out the

details within that

constraint.

 

If I had thought, for

example, it was going to

cause some huge degree of

hardship, disrupt city

operations, I would not have

done it.

That's why I limited it to

2%.

 

It's really not as much as

we would like to see.

I would like to see right at

32,

but I realize when you start

talking about cuts, and that

would be something like 3,

perhaps 4% in the way that

I've proposed it here.

I feel comfortable myself

with this proposal.

 

Again, that it won't disrupt

city operations or cause

hardship or even cause

layoffs, but if someone is

uncomfortable that might be

the case, might just not

want to support this

amendment.

If it's the will of council

to stop everything dead in

its tracks for this, i

personally would not like to

see that.

I'd like to see us go ahead

and either vote this up or

down and go ahead with the

rest of our business, but if

it's the will of council, so

be it.

 

>> Cole: Mayor, I have a

couple of questions.

First I would like to

explain I'm wearing shades

today because I have an eye

infection.

 

Second, and the mayor has

just shocked my eyes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It

looks really cool coal cole

I do want to be cool, but i

do have an eye infection.

 

I want to back up a little

bit and talk about the

budget process in the

context of what we're

considering right now.

 

The mayor mentioned that

this particular proposal

would take us back to the

effective tax rate.

Will you please --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: No,

that's incorrect.

 

The effective rate is 48.32.

 

This only takes us back to

about -- relying on the

confirmation of the numbers,

49.72.

Still almost a penny and a

half above the effective

rate.

>> Cole: Right.

So close to the effective

tax rate.

 

And it's my understanding

that the effective tax rate

is thement a of revenues

that we would have -- the

amount of revenues we would

have received last year.

Is that correct?

Please lay out that

definition.

 

>> The effective tax rate

gives us the same amount of

revenue in the current year

as we had in the previous

year for operations and

maintenance from properties

that are taxed in bows

years.

So it excludes new

valuations, new properties.

 

>> Cole: So this proposal

does not make much of an

adjustment or tell me if you

know how much of an

adjustment for the

additional growth that we've

had or increase in tci.

 

>> Well, I think the -- I'm

not sure exactly how to

answer that other than the

proposal would reduce our

5 million

roughly and would lower the

tax rate by a little more

than half a penny, 0.57%.

>> Cole: And we do not

know the impact on each of

the individual departments.

I think we've established

that and you guys have not

had an opportunity to do

that.

 

When do you start the budget

process?

How long does that last?

>> Well, you know, we really

get started with it as early

as november where we're

working with our departments

on their business plans and

their strategic objectives

for the next fiscal year and

then that turns into a

fiscal forecast and unmet

needs and budget reductions

ab meetings with board and

commissions.

 

It's a lengthy process

leading up to budget

adoption today.

 

>> Cole: And I think you

do that with prudence and

it's not the situation

council leaves rubber stamps

at, but because you go

through such a lengthy

process, we tend to look

very carefully at what you

do at the same time

respecting what is it season

input that you have had.

 

Citizen input.

 

If we were today to take

these numbers without any of

that input or any of that

process, I believe that we

would be acting very

prematurely.

So as much as I would like

to see us cut our tax rate

and save money, I wouldn't

want us to do it in a manner

that was not prudent and had

not been through that

process or even ask the city

manager or his staff to do

that even in a week's time.

So I will not be supporting

this motion.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

mayor pro tem, with all due

respect, I do think this is

a prudent proposal.

[Inaudible]

>> Cole: I just mean

evaluating --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

I just wanted to get that

on --

 

>> Cole: I don't mean to

say a across the board

increase or decrease of 2%

by all the departments

slugged public safety is

necessarily not prudent,

it's just not the way we

have done the budget process

in the past since I've been

on council so just to even

make a change in process

like that would be a

significant deviation from

what we've done.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It's

innovative, mayor pro tem.

 

>> Cole: I can say that

with my cool shades.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

have to say I've been seeing

for many months now that i

wanted our -- I didn't want

to see a large increase in

taxes, I didn't want to see

it be any more than we

absolutely had to have to

maintain city services,

basic services and I believe

this proposal -- may not be

in conventional way, but

after a lot of

investigation, this is the

way that I felt was the best

way to do it.

 

In my opinion.

 

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: Thank you,

and I appreciate some

outside the box thinking,

although I also have

concerns about whether this

is the right way to do it

because I think everybody

wants to keep the tax rate

down.

 

One question I have about

this kind of approach, I'm

not sure who can help me

with this, but our budget is

for the general fund is

pretty packed and has a lot

of detail in it.

 

And so if we were to -- i

guess I'm questioning the

formality of now at this

point saying, well, we mean

this budget but let's just

take a million out here and

200,000 out there so we

don't really know what's

left in our budget in terms

of some of the break downs

below the departmental

level.

Is that actually -- what

exactly are we adopting here

as a budget if we adopt the

budget today?

 

Are we -- I'm wondering how

we can do this in a general

manner like this at a

department level.

Could you help me understand

it?

 

>> I mean, I think it has to

occur at the department

level because one of the

things council is adopting

is an appropriation for each

department, so that's what

we need specific

recommendations from council

that this budget, this

department's budget would be

lowered by this dollar

amount.

That's one thing that

council is adopting is the

appropriations for each

department.

 

Another thing you are

count

for each department, how

MANY FTEs ARE WE

Authorized to hire by

department.

Council is approving that as

well.

 

Now, the manager, city

manager does have discretion

in terms of administering

that budget.

If the dollar amounts are

less than what we need in

ORDER TO FUND THE FTEs

That you are authorizing us

to fill, we would have to do

a higher increase or some

decisions would have to be

made.

 

The charter requires us to

keep the general fund budget

in balance and if the

revenue we have to keep it

in balance is lower by

5 million and the

department appropriations

5 million,

we would have to come up

with a plan to manage that

budget prudently.

 

>> Morrison: Okay, so

that's helpful information,

even though there's a lot of

detail in here.

What our formal action is

the [inaudible] for

departments and the number

OF FTEs AND WE HAVE

Situations where we've seen

the city manager and staff

rearrange some of the things

within a particular

department.

I guess my concern is

there's been -- for me i

have looked in such detail

some areas obviously where i

have more of an interest,

more of a concern, and to,

you know, turn things over

to a process where council

is no longer involved in

that would -- would raise a

lot of concern for me.

And I guess I also want to

say that if we're talking

5 million, that is

about 2% of those nonpublic

safety departments, i

gather.

 

And my question would be if

we wanted to spread

5 million completely

across the general fund in

an even way, including all

the departments, including

public safety, my guess is

that we would end up with

something like rather than a

5 -- is that the

right order of magnitude or

.05% cut?

>> It would be right about

0.75%.

 

That would still exclude

some of the items in our

fund level budget, things

such as our economic

incentive payments, our

workers' compensation,

liability reserves, things

that we have to fund, we

would exclude putting the

cuts -- it would be about a

75% reduction across the

board if we were to apply to

all departments.

 

>> Morrison: I appreciate

that because that sort of

lays out for me if we're

looking at a half a million

dollars for health and human

services, that's a big

impact and that means

programs can go away.

75% would limit it,

but we're not taking

substitute motions, I'm not

making a substitute motion,

but for me there's just a

lot of different ways to go

about this.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Yeah, and let me say nothing

in this motion, were it to

pass, would preclude another

amendment within departments

that set certain amounts for

certain line items.

As long as it stayed within

the [inaudible].

 

So that could still be done.

 

That doesn't preclude that.

 

Councilmember martinez.

 

Martinez thanks, mayor.

 

First of all, I want to

thank you for understanding

that, you know, you are

trying to do everything you

can to minimize the tax

burden to the citizens, as

we all are.

 

Not one person's attempt,

it's seven councilmembers

trying to do the best that

we can.

But I just think across the

board cuts, one, is not

based in policy, and two,

could be even irresponsible

because we just don't know

the impact.

 

And I can't imagine being a

department director sitting

out there right now hearing

that after all of this work

and all the public hearings

we've been through and all

of the comment that now, you

know, they could face a

potential severe cut of this

magnitude, which I don't

think they are going to

face, but at a minimum, you

know, we've been given a

laundry list of items by

different departments that

if you included the public

safety departments and

internal services, including

ctm which I think was exempt

in your motion, we're almost

at $4 million.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Ctm

was not in the motion.

Ctec.

>> Martinez: Based on what

staff has brought to us

there's almost $4 million

here and we haven't even

started with these potential

items.

 

And I goodes to respond to

councilman spelman, this is

probably what you would get

back this three days saying

this is how we reached that

goal.

I'm all for making tough

decisions and cutting the

budget where we believe it's

important and where a

majority of this council

believes it's appropriate,

but an across the board cut

is something I cannot

support, one, but it short

circuits the entire process

we've just been through

since april, since our first

budget briefing and budget

forecast.

 

And so I'm looking forward

to the next couple of days

if it's necessary of going

through each item, but I do

want to point out something

that you did bring up,

mayor, that I think is

really important and it's

something that we don't have

which I believe puts us in

this situation.

 

We don't have line item

based budgeting.

And that's a big problem.

We should be able to go

through line item by line

item.

We should be able to as a

council to see that and make

tough decisions and

prioritize the finite

resources that we have.

So I'd be all in favor of

this body taking action to

move forward to create a

line item based budgeting

process as opposed to what

we go through now because i

do believe it's difficult

for everyone to engage and

understand the totality of

the context of our budget.

 

So I won't be supporting

motion but I will be making

proposals that would cut

funding and reallocate it in

other areas as I believe

[inaudible].

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, thank you,

councilmember.

And certainly I respect your

opinion, but I would just

raise a couple of points.

First of all, I don't think

it's irresponsible and i

don't think that the work

that's gone into the budget

process to this point has

been a waste of time.

 

They've come up, we need --

with a needs assessment and

this is what we need to run

our departments and you'll

I've done is come back and

say, okay, you good aetna

minus 2%.

 

So it's based on their work.

 

It's not a shot in the dark,

so to speak.

With that I think I've kind

of said my piece on it.

 

Again, I don't think it's

imprudent or irresponsible

and I certainly respect the

opinions of my colleagues.

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: I certainly

appreciate the mayor's

suggestion about ways that

we can tighten our belts a

little further and minimize

the impact on the packs

pairs.

Like my colleagues, I have

some concerns about doing

that blindly without fully

understanding the impact it

would have on the effective

departments.

 

So I would -- if there is

interest on the part of

council, I would support

something along the lines of

councilman spelman

suggested, if there are

places we can make 2% or

more -- my concern is based

on the information we have

today that there may well be

unanticipated consequences

in the form of very severe

impacts [inaudible].

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Having discussion.

Going down the way about how

to save more money in the

future and throughout this

fiscal year and we can do

that.

There can be proposed budget

amendments throughout the

year but what we can't do

after this week is reset the

property tax rate.

Once it's set, it's set for

the entire year.

 

Even though we were to

reduce the expenditures, we

couldn't change that.

 

That's why I'm taking this

approach.

Is there any further

discussion?

 

Councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: And I agree with

all of the comments made

earlier and I want to thank

the mayor, we you will want

to see the least amount of

impact on the residents of

austin and if there are

appropriate ways to reduce

the budget, then certainly

that's the path we should

take.

 

I wanted to ask the city

manager if you could just

remind us all of the kind of

belt tighten that has gone

on.

 

And you've elaborated on it

in previous budget sessions,

but I don't want anybody in

the public there hasn't been

ongoing intent of the

management of this city to

reduce the budget and to

eliminate extraneous

expenses.

 

>> It has been actually from

the time of my arrival, and

my arrival here as city

manager coincided to the

decline of the economy.

 

So we were from the very

beginning in a mode of

watching the expense or the

cost side of our budget just

from an historical

standpoint, I would note

that prior to my arrival in

terms of a tax rate, it was

based upon the rollback

calculation for a good

number of years prior to my

approval.

This may be the third or

fourth budget cycle, I think

the fourth, but in the

course of preparing those

budgets and in the midst of,

you know, significant

decline in the economy, we

have offered this council

budgets that were based on a

rate that was less than the

rollback calculation.

As I said before, that

hasn't happened in a good

number of years prior to my

arrival.

 

It is in an overarching

sense an indication of our

effort to drive costs down

at a time arguably when it

was probably the most

difficult set of

circumstances to do that.

 

Having said that, of course,

we, you know, our approach

was to not in terms of

looking at our budget and

being mindful of expensive

cost, not to go into the

toolbox that cities have and

use the typical tools to try

to get through a time, a

period like we've been

through by doing things that

were essentially one time.

You know, sort of band-aid

kind of fixes that result in

only having to contend with

the same kind of challenges

in subsequent years.

So we indicated to council

early on when we first

started that our approach

was going to be, you know,

was going to be strategic

and structural.

 

Structural in the context

that we wanted to try to

apply methods that -- on the

cost side, reducing our

costs that would have a

recurring impact.

And you've heard some of

those things alluded to

along the way.

For example, the elimination

of positions.

 

You know well over 100

during that period of time

have been eliminated from

the budget.

You know that staff in one

of those years have gone

without a pay adjustment.

May recall that.

He did I believe some

consolidation with respect

to some of our functions,

our departments, and a

number of other things.

Staff could probably provide

additional details in terms

of some of the cost

measures, you know, that we

took.

And we just worked very hard

to live within our means.

 

Our physical posture

throughout this period has

been one of being

conservative.

And I think that that has

paid off in terms of where

we find ourselves today

coming out of -- to the

extent that we have the

impact of the economic

decline.

We've had, you know, our

public safety department

that the mayor -- to step up

and assist us in terms of

foregoing the 3% pay

adjustments and putting them

on the tail end of their

contracts.

 

We've done a variety of

things to, you know, to

focus on the cost side and

that's true also in terms of

the very budget

recommendation that is

before you today.

 

Ed, would you have some

things to offer that I may

have missed in terms of

steps we took along the way

to keep down our costs?

 

>> I think you've hit on all

the ones that are related to

our employees and our

employees are a huge part of

this in terms of we've

deferred market studies.

We've had our sworn

personnel step forward and

renegotiated contracts to go

without a pay raise in 2010.

 

None of our employees got a

pay raise in 2010.

We capped pay for

performance in 2009.

 

Our employees have done a

tremendous amount in terms

of trying to restructure our

budget in a way that saves

costs.

 

We've also looked as

services and there's been

difficult decisions made by

this council and previous

councils in regard to the

trail of lights and reducing

library hours and

after-school programs.

There's definitely been some

challenges over the last

three years and belt

tightening that has gone on

and continues to go on even

though we didn't have things

of that magnitude in this

budget, I think the manager

mentioned earlier to the

extent you consider any of

those things you mention low

hanging fruit it's been

picked and you start looking

at how to cut the knowledge budget

further the fruit higher up

the tree and more difficult.

 

>> Tovo: I appreciate that

description.

Thank you for reminding us

about some of the measures

you've taken to reduce the

budget and also keep it from

increasing and also reduce

the impact on taxpayers.

 

I concur with the comment

that was made earlier that

if there is an interest in

prolonging this discussion

and having the staff go back

and look at whether 2%

decrease would look like, i

would be open to continuing

that dialogue.

 

But at this point, not fully

understanding what the --

what this cut would mean for

particular critical

programs, I will not be

supporting the motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilman spelman.

 

>> Spelman: One last word,

I wouldn't have made it

unless one counts yourself

and councilmember tovo and

riley and you add me to the

list of considering a 2%

cuts so long as we knew the

consequences, that would be

the majority of the council

who would be willing to

consider that.

 

But I believe I'm just

reiterating what I heard

from the two councilmembers

who mentioned this

previously, we would expect

the city manager to need

more than a couple of days

to do that justice and we

would probably have to come

back next week.

So you would have a majority

of people who 8 consider

your proposal but only next

week, I suspect, sir.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you, and I guess any

kind of action would have to

take the form of a motion

until a date certain.

 

We'll see how that goes.

 

Let me say I think I can

read the tea leaves on what

I've put out there so far

here today, but at the same

time I can only see that

we've started a discussion.

We've started a serious

discussion about how we're

going to reduce expenditures

of taxpayer money in this

city and I think that's a

regardless of

how it turns out, we'll go

ahead and have this

discussion.

If the tax rate, and again

is set today or wednesday,

that can't be changed.

But we can still work on

that process of trying to

address not only the

needs -- nobody has more

respect or more admiration

for the employees of the

city than I do.

They are a great bunch.

I've worked with them for,

let's see, a long time, ten

years, aen my respect every

year and admiration every

year only grows, but we also

have a responsibility to our

taxpayers and rate payers.

Here we are in this fiscal

year, we're not just talking

about increase, respectable

increase in property tax,

but also in a little while

we're going to be talking

about some very significant

increases in electric rates,

water utility rates,

wastewater rate across the

board, even down to clean

community rate.

 

So taken in content, I think

this is something I had to

put on the table.

 

And itself just going to

call for a vote and

councilmember morrison wants

to speak.

>> Morrison: We've been

getting a lot of memos and

all in the past few weeks,

but the one that our deputy

chief financial officer sent

on august 29 included a

listing of potential budget

reductions per department

and so I do think that that

does offer us a way, and it

may be in the interest of

each of us -- I mean for us

to talk about each one of

those today, because it does

offer us a way to discuss

cuts that have been already

evalua prioritized by

the departments should cuts

be made so I'll just direct

to you that august 29 memo

for a listing of all -- and

it does in the general fund

come to 2 million or

something like that.

 

If, so I'll look forward to

discussing some of those as

we move forward.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think we can do better, and

as I said, I think we've

begun this discussion and

after this vote I look

forward very much to hearing

the cuts that other

councilmembers might propose

in giving those very

favorable consideration as

we go through this amendment

process.

So with that, all in favor

say aye.

 

Aye.

 

Opposed say no.

 

I think that fails on a vote

of 6-1 with councilmembers

riley, martinez, tovo,

spelman, morrison and cole

voting no.

 

Now the floor is open for

additional -- mayor pro tem.

[One moment please]

>> Cole: The additions on

the bottom and the

reductions in savings are on

the top.

 

First, we have austin free

met who we received

testimony from who does

worker training programming

with computers and they've

been very successful and

this would cover their gaps.

 

It is funded through our

general fund and also

through a grant.

 

They have facilities

primarily in east austin but

also at hancock center and

they've been a very

productive program and i

think it gets at the issue

that we oftentimes face with

not wanting to create two

austins meaning a very

prosperous austin and also a

very challenged economic

austin.

And so this provides a

mechanism for people to help

themselves.

The second item that I have

on my list is actually the

auditor's budget for an

additional city -- assistant

city auditor and continuing

education for the auditor.

 

You may remember that we

have used the auditor on

special projects this year

especially water treatment

plant 4 and he helped out an

incredible amount with

austin energy.

 

And we had an unusual

situation this year where

the auditor brought forth a

proposed budget that didn't

entirelyly match the city

manager's budget and this

will satisfy his request for

additional funding and as we

anticipate using him into

the future, I think that we

should close that gap and i

believe that everyone in the

audit and finance committee

was support I have of that

and we discussed it

extensively in work session,

so that additional amount is

$195,000.

I also have proposed an

amount for the parks and

recreation department for

urban forestry.

 

We've had drought conditions

and we need to prepare for

fuel mitigation and this is

unwith of the departments

that also deal with that

that is in the parks

department that is very

sensitive to environmental

issues facing our urban

forestry and contained

within the city of austin

and this would add, i

BELIEVE, TWO FTEs TO THAT

Department.

And finally, I have

recommended a landscape

architect also for the parks

department.

 

It is mentioned in the same

memo of august 9th they've

had cuts over the last two

careers.

So those are the proposed

additions in my motion in

total.

[One moment, please, for

change in captioners]

 

>> Spelman: I realize that

would require some changes

from the procedures that

were laid out by the mayor

earlier in the day.

 

Here comes the mayor,

perhaps I could address the

question to him.

 

>> Cole: Please do.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Could you repeat the

question.

 

>> Spelman: Certainly.

 

Mayor pro tem cole has -- i

had to think about that, i

wanted to say mayor pro tem

cheryl, my apologies.

She has sent around a list

of proposed cuts and

additions to the budget

before us.

 

They look interesting.

 

I would like to discuss them

further but I would also

like to discuss them if

possible in the context of

other proposals that may be

forthcoming from other

councilmembers, I wonder if

that is at variance from the

procedure that you outlined

today or whether there's a

way of making those

consistent.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, I think that we are

considering amendments one

at a time.

 

If you want -- if the

purpose of discussing them

with other possibilities

would be to amend hers, that

would be the procedure that

we are operating under.

The procedure is supposed to

work very quickly and

efficiently.

We vote up or down on these

amendments.

 

The reason for doing it this

way is sort of the

substitute for the old

friendly amendment style,

the thing that's wrong with

that, of course, is the only

people that can object are

the maker and the second.

This is in the nature of a

friendly amendment with just

a -- just requiring approval

of the whole council instead

of the maker and the second.

>> Spelman: I have two

reasons for asking for a

counter proposal.

First reason is because by

our understanding of state

law, no majority of us were

able to talk about -- about

mayor pro tem cole's

amendment or any of the

other amendments that may be

forthcoming in advance.

 

So at a maximum, mayor pro

tem cole, has had a chance

to discuss with this other

two other members of the

council and doesn't know

what the other four of us

think.

 

And I think that's just

generally true unless

somebody is not playing by

the rules, I think we are

all playing by the rules.

 

So none of us knows what all

of the possible amendments

are going to look like yet

by design.

We can't know that in

advance.

 

The second one is personal,

I have not been here for the

last month, I have not been

participating in the

discussions with any of the

rest of us.

I don't know what anybody

wants to propose.

 

At least I am in the

position this is alienator

me today.

 

I personally would be better

off if there was a -- let me

suggest as these amendments

come up, we could table them

just so we could see what

they look like first, put

them on the table and then

systematically take

them off the table.

 

Once we understand what the

whole list looks like.

That would accomplish your

need for speed at the same

time it would accomplish my

concern about wanting to

getting the context proper.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Yeah, that sounds very

reasonable to me.

I think that we could

proceed in that manner.

 

Lay them out first and then

go back the way we had

intended to go with the

approval of any amendment.

We have a running tally.

What does this do, how does

this get to the bottom line,

how does that affect the

property tax rate.

 

But certainly if there's no

objection from the rest of

the council we can proceed

in that manner.

When someone proposals an

amendment, if there's

objection, a suggestion to

table, we will just table it

and go back and address it

later.

 

But that -- we could vote on

it, it's just the option is

to -- I'm not sure about

this one.

Let's table it and we'll go

back.

 

Is everybody clear on that?

 

And if there's no objection

to amending our rules to

proceed in that manner.

 

It has been suggested --

 

>> mayor?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That

we table this motion, this

suggested amend, all in

favor say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Opposed say no.

Passes 7-0 as laid on the

table.

 

>> Spelman: Mayor?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Mr.

 

Vanito, your responsibility

is to keep up with all of

these things.

 

Councilmember martinez?

 

>> Martinez: Going just --

just want to go through the

process out loud again.

 

So if I wanted to add

additional items to the

table, so to speak, i

just -- do I make a motion

and then we make a motion to

table it again.

>> That would be my

proposal.

 

Then once we've got all of

the proposals for additions

and subtractions on the

table.

They can take them up

systematically one by one.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's what we've already

adopted as our modified

procedure.

>> Martinez: Right, I was

just clarifying.

 

So I need to make a motion

to make some amendments to

the budget as proposed.

 

As follows -- I will say

that I'm supportive of mayor

pro tem's items that are on

the table because they

address some of the things

that I wanted to address.

So I will be supporting

them.

 

But in addition to that,

there are a couple of things

that we've been talking

about through the process,

this wild land management

division within the fire

department.

 

We've talked about the --

about the extreme cost in

ramping up, we need some

lead time.

Staff has come forward with

a thoughtful proposal that i

think ramps them up.

No the a full departmental

proposal but does give them

what they need to get

started.

 

Once they have that rampup

time we are going to be

sitting waiting for the next

year's budget cycle.

To actually do mitigation

and get the department up

and running.

I think that it's prudent

that we start doing as much

as we can within this budget

cycle.

 

So in the fire department's

summary of potential budget

reductions, they identified

some areas, one specifically

being that we would hire

from certified applicants,

precertified firefighters we

now have a -- have a process

that allows us to hire

certified firefighters as a

preferred candidate for the

academy, which would create

$243,423 in savings.

 

I would -- I am proposing

that we accept that budget,

recommended budget

reduction, apply the

$243,423, to -- to a -- to

a -- wild land management

division within the fire

department.

That consists of a battalion

chief, a captain, a

lieutenant and a burn boss

and this would be for half

year funding.

The total for the captain,

for the chief, the captain

and the lieutenant burn boss

is 248,356, we would apply

the 243,423, leaving a

balance of 4,933 and that

would propose eliminating

4,933 from the overhead door

preventive maintenance

bringing that total down to

90,067, which is another --

which is another potential

budget reduction suggested

by staff.

 

So the total amount would be

a reduction of 248,356 and

then applied to the wild

land management division

with that same amount of.

 

>>

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

councilmember just to

reiterate your proposal also

is revenue neutral and

expenditure neutral.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let

me see if there's any

objection to adopting -- you

want to lay it on the table?

 

>> Morrison: I want to

make a comment.

That is that was something

that caught my eye, hiring

only from certified

firefighters.

 

I asked staff a question

and -- in our q and a, it

was question number 93.

 

I wonder if we could have

staff come speak to that

specific issue and where

things stood on that.

Because there were a couple

of issues that were raised.

 

And I believe it was sort of

a lay question and the

answer came in somewhat

late, also.

Because of that.

So it might not have been

seen by a lot of people.

 

>> Mayor and council, rhoda

mae kerr, fire chief.

That staff or that budget

reduction was made in

previous years when we --

when we were able to and we

had a list from which we

could hire certified

candidates and the reduction

that -- the reduction was

based upon less time spent

in training or in our cadet

academy.

We have graduated one class

that did come from that

certified list.

And have -- there's a couple

of realizes that have come

into everything.

Number one, we don't have a

list in which to -- in which

to hire from any longer, so

we would have to go back and

do the whole employment

process over in order to

realize a savings from a

lateral or a certi

class.

Second the training time we

have -- 12 weeks, was

adequate, we have actually

added two weeks to our

normal basic academy, we

would have to have two weeks

plus an additional four

weeks to make sure that the

transition of -- of our

certified candidates was

adequate into the workforce.

That [indiscernible] realize

that $243,000 savings based

upon that.

I think the other part was

that lateral class, we

actually took that into

everything, hoping that

would improve our diversity

when in fact it doesn't have

that great of an impact upon

our diversity.

 

>> Morrison: Okay.

 

I guess my question is this

still a practical budget

savings that we can -- that

we can work with?

>> No it's not.

>> Morrison: Okay, thank

you.

 

>> I would love to be able

to see it in -- if my

colleague has -- I would

love to hear your comments

on ways to maybe expand and

really take advantage of it.

>> The list by staff further

potential reductions and

cost savings.

If it's not feasible why was

it in the memo as a

potential option for the

council to undertake.

 

>> That list included in

that memo was originally

published to council I think

back in may.

As chief kerr was mentioning

the list was originally

developed as part of 2012.

A lot of things were cut

from that list.

 

That is what was remaining

from things that weren't cut

as part of the 2012 process.

 

We published that list

initially back in may.

I think what's occurred is

the recruitment process got

ahead of the budget process

we have not put ours in a

position where we have

recruited for laterals

because we didn't know at

the time that this action

was going to be happening.

Back in may I think it was

still viable.

 

Right now it wouldn't be.

 

Not that it couldn't be

viable in 2014, given where

we are right now in the

budget process and

recruitment process.

 

We are at a point where we

have recruited for

non-laterals and it would

delay the academy if we had

to do something different.

 

>> Martinez: Until we run

another process that

potential savings can't be

realized.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Martinez: That also

depends on the size of the

class and the number of

hires.

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

>> Martinez: Then I will

withdraw that proposal,

mayor and simply make a

motion that we allocate

$248,356 from our -- remind

me, ed?

I can't pull up the memo in

front of me.

 

>> Budget stabilization.

 

>> Budget stibbleization

reserve.

248,356 From budget

stabilization researches,

which we have already taken

from budget stabilization

reserve from the wild land

management division, but

this would specifically go

to that proposal that i

fireside of the

four positions, battalion

chief, captain, lieutenant,

burn boss for half year

funding for this fiscal

year.

 

In addition to that, I will

also proposal that we reduce

overtime budget

by $200,000.

And allocate that $200,000

to the services provided via

our health and human

services department.

 

But it's something that's

directly related, in my

opinion --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Excuse me, councilmember,

are you going on to a

different proposal now?

>> Martinez: I'm making

all one motion but yes a

different proposal.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Let's take them one at a

time.

Your first proposal is to

allocate 248,000 odd out of

the budget stabilization

fund.

 

>> Martinez: Yes.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any objection to that?

Councilmember tovo objects.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I don't

necessarily object.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We

have to have an objection --

>> Spelman: If objection

is the term that you are

looking for, I will object.

Although I reserve the right

to vote for it later on.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

Yeah.

>> Tovo: Thank you,

councilmember.

 

>> Martinez: I thought we

were putting them all on the

table anyway.

 

Why do we have to object if

we're going to make a motion

to put them all on the

table?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo?

 

>> Tovo: It's my

understanding that the

budget stabilization reserve

fund is available for

one-time expenditures.

 

I know that that is being

used for the $87,000 there

or with some change for the

wild lands for the capital

expenditures for the

wildlands.

Would this meet the

requirements of being a

one-time expenditure because

we are relying on savings in

subsequent years?

Can you help me understand

whether or not this would

meet the policy of the

budget stabilization reserve

fund and if not with do we

have an option of veering

from that policy here today?

>> My understanding of the

motion it that it would not

be consistent with the

council approved policy for

the use of budget

stabilization reserves which

essentially says we can't

draw them down by more than

one third in any given year.

We are okay there.

But also dictates that it

needs to go to one-time type

of expenses that we can't

use that reserve fund to

fund ongoing obligations

that the four positions

would presumably be ongoing

obligations not just

something that we would add

only for fiscal year '13.

 

>> Tovo: Has it ever been

the case that ongoing staff

salaries have been funded

through the budget

stabilization fund with the

understanding that there

would be other funding

available in subsequent

years so it would be a

one-time funding of those

ongoing expenditures because

other funds would be

available later on?

 

>> Since I've been budget

officer that's not occurred.

>> Tovo: Okay.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember riley.

 

>> Riley: The presentation

that you gave this morning

spoke to the transfer out of

the general fund, from the

budget stabilization reserve

fund in the amount of 87,000

[indiscernible] equipment

for the fire department to

create the division.

 

I understand that was for--

that's for one-time

property, one time equipment

purchases?

>> 50,000 Of it was for the

development of the cwpp, the

plan, 30,000 for a vehicle

and equipment.

 

>> Riley: There have been

suggestions about the need

for additional funds for

fuel mitigation.

Did you all look at the

possibility that there could

be -- additional one-time

purchases that would be

appropriate to -- to secure

through the budget

stabilization reserve fund

for the purpose of fuel

mitigation?

>> I think the motion or

direction from council was

to pull from those reserves

a certain amount of money

for a contract to do fuel

mitigation type services.

 

It was clear that that

was -- we are going to take

500,000 for fuel mitigation

in 2013 it was just a

one-time allocation that

would be consistent with

things that we have done in

the past out of that fund

and consistent with the

policy.

>> Riley: Okay.

Then how would that work if

we don't -- the staffing

positions that are

contemplated and --

apartment the motion on the

table.

 

If -- in the motion on the

table, if we just had the

actual fuel mitigation

purposes, would our staff be

able to manage those

purchases with the -- would

the existing staff --

actually not the existing

staff but the staff being

proposed as part of the

budget package that's on the

table?

I guess that's a question

for the fire chief.

 

Basically the question is

can we look to the budget

stabilization reserve fund

to increase the fuel

mitigation up to say

$500,000 and keep the

staffing levels as currently

proposed, but just increase

the -- the fuel mitigation

funding?

Would you all be able to

manage those additional

one-time purchases for fuel

mitigation that we could get

from the -- through the

budget stabilization reserve

fund?

So can I just clarify the

question.

 

I'm not sure that i

understand entirely.

Are we including the staff

that was proposed by

councilmember martinez as

well as that which I have

incorporated into our

budget?

 

>> Riley: No.

 

If we back off of looking to

the budget stabilization

reserve fund to support

staffing positions in light

of our financial policy and

instead just increase the

amount of fuel mitigation

funding, through the use of

that fund and then look to

the current budget proposals

in materials of staffing to

manage those additional

amounts for fuel mitigation.

 

>> Okay.

 

So the answer to your

question then would be we

es

and then you are asking me

then, I just want to be

certain that I answer

correctly, whether if we

were awarded additional

dollars for fuel mitigation,

would we be able to utilize

those funds with the current

staffing?

And the answer to that is

yes we would be able to do

fuel mitigation with the

approximate 'em that I have

proposed -- with the people

that I have proposed and we

would use some seasonal

workers and there are ways

that we can manage fuel

mitigation within certain

limits, of course.

The most important thing

becomes the development of a

plan, a cwpp, which is a

community wildfire

protection plan.

But we can take allocated

funds and use them in our

high-risk areas as well as

those that are fire-wise

communities and be able to

do further fuel mitigation

and still be sensitive to

our endangered species act

and our environmentally

sensitive lands.

 

>> The development of a plan

like that could well make

sense as a one-time purchase

because we don't have a plan

in place now.

 

It would be an appropriate

one-time expense for the use

of the budget stabilization

reserve fund.

>> That's correct.

>> Riley: Thanks.

>> Tovo: I just want to

clarify that in is the

staff's amendment that

$50,000 for the community

wildfire protection plan is

part of that 87 so they have

already suggested that we

treat that as a one-time

expense and fund it through

the budget stabilization

reserve fund.

>> Councilmember, your

statement is correct.

 

There is a $50,000 ask and

it is in the one-time

request.

 

For the cwpp or the

community wildfire

protection plan.

 

And so -- I just want to

clarify a point that my

colleague made.

 

It sounds like the answer

yes we could contemplate a

motion to fund fuel

mitigation for fiscal year

'13 in the amount of 250 or

something like that as a

one-time expenditure and

chief occur you did say with

the staffing that you have

proposed you feel that's an

acceptable level of

management.

>> The answer to your

question is yes.

 

I believe that we could

manage fuel mitigation with

the staffing that I have

proposed.

>> Thank you.

>> Spelman: Mayor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Interesting discussion, but

what is on the table right

now is $248,000 for staffing

requirements by

councilmember martinez.

 

Without objection that is

laid on the table.

Councilmember martinez has

additional amendments,

proposals.

>> Martinez: I appreciate

all of the comments.

 

But before I make any

further proposals off of

this document that was given

TO US ON AUGUST THE 30th,

What else is not acceptable

in this document that we

can't use for potential

budget savings?

You said this was brought to

us in may, but you sent this

to us on august the 30th

as a potential reduction in

budget considerations from

staff and now you are

saying, at least in this

instance, that -- i

understand the explanation.

But why didn't w update

this list before we sent it

BACK OUT ON AUGUST 30th,

Saying here you go council,

here are staff's

recommendations for

potential further budget

reductions?

 

Anything else in here that's

no longer applicable to a

budget reduction?

 

>> Tom change that's been

brought to my attention is

the change in regards to the

recruitment process for the

fire department and that we

would not be in a position

right now to do a lateral

class in 2013.

That's the only change from

what we initially sent out

that I've been made aware

of.

 

>> Martinez: I would just

say city manager, that's

pretty significant.

 

240 Something thousands, why

7 wouldn't we have updated

this before we sent it to

our city council and aides

less than 12 days ago saying

here's a list of menu

options.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: City

manager.

>> I don't have an

explanation beyond what mr.

 

Ravino has said to you.

 

>> Martinez: Mayor, I'm

going to make another

proposal that we reduce or

yes that we further reduce

the police overtime by

$200,000.

And reallocate that to our

council and at-risk youth.

 

>> All right.

 

I'll object to that just so

we can have discussion.

Is there someone here from

who will give us a

little bit of information.

About how this reduction of

$200,000 in over time would

affect the department?

>> Good morning, mayor,

council, city manager.

 

The 200,000 would be

difficult for us,

challenging for a variety of

reasons.

Number one our overtime

budget has been cut by about

5 million over the last

few years on an annual

basis.

This year we're looking at

going over our overtime

budget.

Those are the dollars that

we're using to target some

of the spikes in crimes and

some of the issues that pop

up around the city.

So that will really impact

in terms of our ability

to -- to respond in a tiely

manner to some of these

emerging threats.

The other issue going on,

that was a rollover from the

previous year that was --

that was remained in our

budget that we have other

issues that we're going to

cover with that this year.

Including our human

trafficking coordinator

position and the overtime

that was used for human

trafficking, which is a

significant challenge here

in central texas and

throughout texas.

 

As it relates to that

specific issue.

We also are using that to

cover the $43,850 related to

the communications operation

that we have lost grant

funding for some of our

communications operators.

 

As you know, that has been

an issue that the public

safety commission has been

looking at for the last

several years.

 

So it will have an impact.

 

You know I never scream that

the sky is falling, you all

make the decisions, we will

do our very best.

It will limit our ability to

address some of these issues

and will limit -- further

reduce our ability to

respond to emerging issues

around the neighborhoods as

they pop up.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

it extreme to say that it

will have a negative impact

on your mission?

 

>> It will.

 

Our overtime budget was

close to 10 million about

five years ago when I first

got here.

What's happened reduced by

2.5 million a year.

 

On top of that, those

dollars that remain don't go

as far because the pay in

benefits that the officers

received due to the

contractual obligations, so

we have fewer dollars and on

top of the fewer dollars

they don't go as far because

of those additional cost

drivers and the other piece

is the reduction in the

grant funding that we are

receiving from -- on a

national level.

 

Again, I never say that the

sky will fall, but it will

have a negative impact.

 

It will further limit our

ability to balance our

budget.

 

Again, this year, we're

going over, looking at going

over our overtime budget by

about $1.1 million.

So it will be tough to

handle.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you, councilmember

morrison.

 

>> Morrison: Thanks,

chief.

You mentioned in your

response that you are going

to be using that funding to

cover the loss of the grant

and the human trafficking

program administrator, did i

hear you correctly?

>> The overtime piece of

that, yes, ma'am.

 

>> The overtime piece.

 

So we're still losing the

in the human

trafficking program?

 

>> That was actually a

temporary f.t.e.

Which will happen is one of

the sworn officers in that

unit will have to pick up

some of that responsibility

and what we're hoping to use

is that piece of the funding

that actually covered the

overtime for the actual

investigations.

Human trafficking

investigations are very time

extensive.

They are 24/7 type of

investigations that go on

day and night.

So that's what we're going

to be using it for.

 

Use the sworn staff to

use -- to complete the

duties of the actual

coordinator that we had in a

temporary position.

 

>> Morrison: So if we

could actually find at least

the stopgap money for the

program administrator in

human trafficking, would it

be fair to say that we would

then have to rely on less

overtime?

>> No, because that

administrator, those

administrative functions are

separate from the actual

that goes to the over time

for the officers working the

investigations out in the

field.

 

>> Morrison: What I heard

you say was okay we're

losing the administrator

because it was grant funded.

I thought that I heard you

say that the detectives that

are working in that in

organized crime and on human

trafficking are going to

have to absorb the

administrator's work.

>> Correct.

>> Morrison: Which will

add to their overtime.

 

If we had a less expensive

civilian program

administrator, there -- they

would use less overtime?

>> Well, that's -- that

piece of us absorbing it,

that's already happened

because that position is

already gone.

But I don't understand the

second piece of that

question.

>> Morrison: I'm just

saying if our detectives are

doing some administrative

work, if we can offload that

administrative work to a

civilian, they're going to

be able to do their job more

efficiently and not going to

need as much overtime

because they are doing some

non-police work.

IS THAT michael McDonald,

deputy city manager.

 

I think what the chief is

explaining is that that

administrative function

being done in the program

has already been absorbed by

's within

that unit.

 

The additional cost out in

the field, that portion of

it was done by overtime,

that's the portion that they

are handling with overtime

and what they plan to handle

with the additional overtime

that they have in place

here.

 

So that administrative

function, the old f.t.e.

That was in place, that's

already been absorbed.

 

>> Morrison: Absorbed by

sworn officers or --

>> yes.

>> Basically what the

coordinator was doing is

actually working on an

education piece during the

day.

Most of our education

functions for that is, you

know, monday through friday,

it's through different

organizations throughout the

city.

 

Where most of the overtime

factors are at night.

That's when we would be

expending those dollars:

 

>> Morrison: Okay.

 

My take away from this is we

have sworn officers doing

work that was previously

done by an administrator

that is a lower paid

position.

>> Yes.

>> Mayor?

>> Councilmember martinez.

>> Martinez: I just want

to put a little context to

this.

Because it's $200,000, in

the grand scheme of the

1 billion budget and the

police department's budget

it is small.

About you in the grand --

but in the grand scheme of

what carey provides it's

pretty significant in that

they actually are a public

safety if you think.

 

They provide these kids

with -- public safety

function.

 

They provide these kids with

counseling services that

keeps them, prevents them in

many cases from dropping

out of school, from

attending school so that

aisd can get their full

funding and hopefully

keeping them out of the

juvenile justice system.

I sat here a few months ago

and I voted and I stood in

the face of criticism to

's request for

an almost 4 million-dollar

helicopter fund.

 

We did that under the

conversations of it will

create efficiencies, we will

be better off.

We're asking for $200,000,

as opposed to 3.1.

 

I supported that.

 

I'm trying

to strike a very difficult

balance.

 

I think $200,000 is nothing

but it means

everything to the council

and at-risk youth and to

those 600 middle school

students that they provide

services to each and every

year here in austin.

I just want you to keep that

in mind and that you all

consider that in totality of

what this council has done

in support of public safety,

you know, throughout time.

 

This is not a slight on

or what they need to

do.

 

This is just simply trying

to find a way to fill some

gaps that I think are sorely

needed to be filled.

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let

me say my concern is what

happens when we run out of

overtime money.

 

That means that we don't

have the correct machining

of the officers on the

street that need to be

there.

 

That's -- we're not going to

vote on this right now.

We'll vote on it later.

But that's going to be my

concern.

 

Mayor pro tem.

 

>> Cole: I simply wanted

to express my support of

councilmember martinez's

statements.

This is an organization that

we have both supported since

we have been on council and

they do tremendous work and

I think that some preventive

maintenance increase dollars

would help.

I certainly understand the

connection to the police

department that I will be

supporting this.

 

>> Councilmember tovo and

just for strategic planning

purposes, I think we're

going to need to take a

recess, short recess for

lunch.

I think it's important that

we all be on the dais for

these discussions and kind

of impractical to go one at

a time.

So with that said, about

five minutes.

 

Councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: Chief, since you

are up here, we're talking

about your budget.

 

I wanted to say that I think

councilmember martinez i

appreciate this suggestion

and the -- the interesting

conversation about overtime.

 

I do notice something on

your highlights as an

increase and that is

$123,000 for the lease space

for the special events

center and I did ask a

budget question about it.

 

I got back some information

saying that, you know, since

we -- since the city owns

it, it's -- anyway the

answer was not entirely

clear about why your

department has expressed

that as an increase and

other departments have not.

 

But I would also just say

with regard to that line

item, and also the answer

that I was provided about

fee, I do notice that you

have some collections that

need to happen within the

special event fees that the

department has expended, has

some expenses outstanding,

so I will be either today or

at some subsequent point

making a recommendation to

this council that we look

carefully at the special

event fees that we are

charging, what does it cost

our city to -- to experience

these events.

 

What are the direct costs to

because there are

some very direct costs and

frankly we haven't recovered

those costs at this point in

the budget.

So that is also money that

should be available for

overtime or for victim

services counseling, which

has suffered a hit.

I see in this budget.

Or for human trafficking.

I mean we want those moneys

to be spent where they are

most important and most

critical and in my mind, you

know, we shouldn't be -- we

shouldn't have -- we should

have nose funds going to

the -- those funds going to

the direct critical services

that are necessary and not

to subsidizing private

events that are responsible

for paying their costs, so i

hope we can all look at that

together and very carefully.

But I do want to ask one

more question about formula

one.

I see in the response back

that you are not

anticipating any out of

the -- extra ordinary

overtime costs related to

formula one.

 

I just want to be assured

that the 200,000 that we're

talking about is not

contemplated to be spent on

that.

 

Just sort of a general.

 

>> No, ma'am.

 

I don't think we are.

 

Some of the events that will

be impacting city they will

be required to hire offduty

police officers like they

always do.

 

You might have seen in the

paper where there are going

to be quite a few closures

downtown potentially for the

different venues and we are

working to make sure that

the costs associated with

maintaining those closures,

crowd control, and the entry

points, depending on the

venue to make sure that the

organizers are paying for

that.

 

I just wanted to add to

councilmember martinez and

to the council.

 

I'm actually on the board of

cary, we are very supportive

of that.

 

I just want to make sure as

you make those decisions try

to stretch those budget

dollars I want to be as

transparent as to -- has to

come from somewhere in our

budget some of the things

that we're looking at.

>> Tovo: Great, thanks, i

hope we can have a

conversation as a council

about how to make sure that

the events that are taking

place are paying their own

way, paying the city's costs

so again you have the money

you need to serve these

other critical needs.

 

If no objection,

councilmember martinez's

proposal to cut police

overtime by 200,000,

reallocate that money to

youth services is laid on

the table and without

objection, we will go into

recess now for lunch and

other activities and be back

in about 40 minutes.

 

Thank you.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We

are out of recess and i

believe we left off

councilmember martinez had

the floor and was in the

process -- do you have any

more amendments?

 

>> Martinez: Not at this

time, mayor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: Thank you,

mayor.

I have a few that I want to

put out there on the table

and [inaudible] of

amendments.

 

The first one is a

proposal -- you know, we

certainly have many unmet

needs and some of them are

critical one-time needs and

some of them are critical

needs.

 

Our critical one-time needs

can be funded by our --

well, that fund is funded by

our budget stabilization and

we had a good discussion at

audit and finance about our

reserve and how much we can

draw it down in terms of

one-time funds.

 

And the bottom line was that

what we really like to be

able to do is have 12% --

can you help me with these

numbers -- as our reserve

represents 12% of our

general fund.

 

Is that correct?

 

Of the general fund

operating budget.

And we're actually -- the

way the proposed budget sits

right now, our ending

8 million is

going to be swept over into

the reserves and that's

actually going to take us

above 12% by a little bit.

 

And actually it's going to

take us to 12.08%.

So what I wanted to do was

propose that we capture what

would amount to $580,000,

08% is $580,000, and

move that into our critical

one-time fund to actually

spend, and I have at least

one important thing I wanted

to propose to spend it on.

And I think it's not an

unreasonable -- I don't

believe it's a risky thing

to do because that 12% is a

really good number to be at.

We've been below 12% before.

8% Is an absolute minimum

that we don't want to be

anywhere near in terms of

conservative fiscal

policies, but 12% is good

and the other thing this is

all based on a projection of

the rest of the year in

terms of sales tax.

And our sales tax is

looking -- has looked good

and is looking good so what

I'd like to do then is

propose an amendment

basically to losen up some

more funds for one-time

expenditures.

 

And that would be to amend

the proposed budget of the

budget stabilization reserve

fund to increase transfers

out of the -- do I have this

right -- out of the critical

one-time fund?

 

And I'm sorry, I need to

transfer it out of the

budget stabilization reserve

to the critical one-time

fund.

 

Is that correct?

 

>> [Inaudible]

 

>> Morrison: In the amount

of $580,000.

Which would then allow for

580,000 more in expenditures

in the coming year either

now at this budget time or

later in one-time

expenditures.

 

Did I get that right?

 

>> You do and if I could

clarify.

Councilmember martinez's was

to take $148,000 to help

fund fuel mitigation in the

wildfire division.

 

If your goal is keep that at

no less than 12% and that

motion were to pass, 248,000

would already be [inaudible]

>> Morrison: So what i

might do then is make it 580

minus 248.

Whatever that turns out to

be.

 

I mean 580 minus 240.

 

So that's my motion and if

there are any questions i

would be glad to discuss it

now or we could put it on

the table.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, I'll object to putting

it on the table and I'll

just say that at the end of

the day when we get around

to voting on this, which is

likely not to be a while,

I'm not going to support it,

I'm not going to support any

motion that increases

expenditures without off

set.

I don't think that taking

money out of reserve is an

off set.

Mayor pro tem cole cole yes,

I had a question first of

councilmember morrison.

Can you clarify, it's my

understanding that what you

are doing is tapping our

budget stabilization reserve

at 12%, and then you are

putting the excess at --

excluding the amount

councilmember martinez has

identified for -- for

wildfire mitigation.

 

In another fund that would

be used for the same purpose

as budget stabilization fund

during the year.

Is that correct?

>> Morrison: Will with,

it's my understanding that

the funding from budget

stabilization that we make

accessible for one-time

critical needs goes into a

budget called the one-time

critical fund.

 

I'm merely moving those over

so we know what we have to

work with.

 

>> Cole: For that

particular purchase.

Really it's an accounting

sort of transfer.

 

It's not any money that's

been allocated for a

specific purpose.

 

>> Morrison: That's

correct.

>> That is correct.

In terms of we're putting

things on the table so we

can certainly add to our

list that's on the table is

to move $580,000 from the

stabi reserves to

the critical one-time fund

and take [inaudible] to help

fund fuel mitigation for

wildfire division and then

the other thing brought

forward by council to do

with the remainder

[inaudible]

 

>> Cole: Thank you.

 

>> Morrison: And just to

clarify, it's not that I'm

suggesting we have a cap.

 

I'm just suggesting that we

hit 12% this year.

And likely it will go up.

You know, our [inaudible]

may come in this last

quarter and that means it

would go up above.

 

And my intent was for it to

get on the table how much

there is to actually work

from.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

the motion is to take

$580,000, there about, from

stabilization fund and

transfer it to critical

one-time need fund.

 

And I hadn't realized

before, but councilmember

martinez's motion was also

dependent on this -- you

said that would also come

out of the critical

one-time --

 

>> it's my understanding.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Which would also require --

for councilmember martinez's

motion to be funded, this

motion would have to pass,

transfer 580 out, otherwise

that 284 would not be

available.

Is that correct?

>> Yeah, short of a motion

saying just to transfer 284,

that's right, some money

needs to be transferred out

of stabilization reserves to

one-time fund.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Right now if this were to

pass 580, out of that would

be potentially 284 and other

things.

 

One-time.

 

Did I say 284?

 

[Inaudible] so if there's no

objection, we'll put that

one on the table.

 

Did you want to say

something, councilmember?

Put that one on the table

and go to the next.

 

>> Morrison: So the next

one is aclly a use of

$250,000 from the critical

one-time fund.

And that is to support the

expansion of the healthy

families program.

And I don't know if we have

our health and human

services staff here.

The healthy family program,

healthy families program,

they can speak to it a

little bit.

 

It's a very important

program that we already

participate in in terms of

helping new families sort of

get off the ground and works

with all sorts of folks that

are at risk, it works on

child abuse issues and

things like that.

 

And before they describe it,

what I would like to mention

is that this is for an

expansion of it specifically

targeting african-american

families that are where we

have a demand that's not

being met, additional

outreach needs to be done,

but also importantly this is

one of our 1115 waiver

programs, which means that

for this expansion, we will

be able to to apply to

the -- I don't know if it's

the state -- I guess it's

managed at the state level,

the state government for

each one of the dollars that

we spend for this expansion,

and it does need to be an

expansion, we will get an

extra $1.43 in return.

 

The idea is we use this as a

one-time seed money to get

this started and then we

will actually be generating

those 1115 waiver funds to

help us support it as an

ongoing program.

 

And we have staff here to

talk about how all that

storks.

 

Works.

 

>> Human services.

 

You are absolutely correct,

it is an 1115 waiver project

which we presented to city

council before so you should

be familiar with it.

 

Right now there are two

units that provides services

to our at-risk families out

of the county.

And the programs are

provided out of the county.

 

We would like to expand it.

 

Currently 87% of the clients

are hispanics.

There's an amount of

african-american youth that

could benefit so the 250,000

would go towards a program

dedicated to that particular

ethnic group,

african-americans.

>> Morrison: And I think

the critical health

indicator reports that you

put together a I will whew

ago identified some pretty

poignant health disparities

in our minority communities,

but specifically in the

african-american community

and I wonder if you could

list some of those office.

>> What we're trying to

accomplish is to prevent

children from being taken

out of their families.

 

So we're doing some

prevention work, making the

family stronger, doing some

pre-natal care with them

before they are born and

then working with the

families up until the age of

2 to 3 years old.

So it would be a savings to

the economy and also it

would have these children go

through less trauma and the

families go through less

hardship, you know, by

strengthening their skill

sets.

 

>> Morrison: And thanks, i

wonder if you could talk

about how this could be seed

money and just summarize

what I was trying to say

also.

>> So we submitted this as

one of our projects.

 

In fact, it's one of our top

three projects, we only have

one project funded

currently.

So this 250,000 could be

sent up and it would come

46 worth of

match.

 

I didn't do the math on that

so it's like 300 and

something thousand dollars

that could potentially come

back to the city because of

$250,000 investment.

We would have to meet

performance measures which

we're quite confident we

could meet because this is

an established program the

county has been running for

a number of years so they

have the expertise to

executive.

Once we hit those

performance measures, we

would get the money being

about.

 

We are allowed to submit our

performance measures for

reimbursement twice a year.

 

>> Morrison: I think

that -- I mean -- do you

want to say something?

 

I saw you scrunching your

eyebrows and that makes me

worried when you do that.

 

>> Me too.

 

>> Morrison: But I think

this really points out for

us, you know, we did -- we

do have a list of programs

that we've submitted that

are expansions and we don't

necessarily -- that are

really supposed to be

transformative health

initiatives had this

community and we don't

really have necessarily

funding for all of those,

but there is -- it's money

that will be leveraged by

the state.

So I think we really need to

be thinking in terms as

broadly as we can about how

to get these programs funded

so we can take advantage of

the opportunities that are

out there in terms of

[inaudible].

 

>> You should also keep in

mind that once we are

reimbursed or the money is

matched, there is really few

strings attached so we could

use it in in I way the

department felt fit, which

would be to continue the

program.

 

>> Morrison: Right.

 

And in fact we get more

money back than we send up.

I think it would be really

helpful if we could get

staff to sit down and think

comprehensively about how we

might be able to use some of

those funds to help start on

the road to funding other

programs and all.

 

So, okay, but the bottom

line is this is a very

worthy program in and of

itself.

The reason it makes sense to

do it with -- with one-time

funds it is sort of a

situation where it can be

seed money to start an

additional cash flow flowing

that can support it in the

long run.

 

So that's 250 from critical

one-time funds.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

have a question for you.

 

Obviously this sounds like a

very good deal, taking

advantage of the 1115

benefit, almost 150%

matching.

 

In fact, it's so important

I'm surprised you haven't

already allocated this money

in your budget from other

sources.

 

So if this item were not

approved, would you go back

and readjust your internal

budget and make sure that

you apply for these funds or

would you just let them go?

>> Well, my budget is such

where we have no

discretionary funding

really.

 

So I'm really not in a

position to take any money

and make it available for

this project.

And that's the way the

project was always spelled

out, the way it was

introduced is that it has to

be new funding, and again,

the department is not in a

position -- we would have to

take it from somewhere else

and those funds are already

allocated.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

there's absolutely no way

that you could find that

amount of money.

You would pass that out to

fund something else.

 

>> I have no discretionary

funds.

Again, that's the way we

operate.

 

We fund our current

operating program, we're

very grateful to be able to

provide the services that we

do, but we don't have a the

look of wiggle.

What we would end up doing,

there's a certain amount of

money set aside for health

departments in our region

and there are only two

health departments, ourself

and hays.

So we would leave that money

on the table if we didn't

come up with money to use

for a new program.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: A good point,

mayor.

 

I think that we need to have

some real brain power sit

down and help us figure out

where to get additional

funds because leaving this

money on the table in times

of need, it's really just

not acceptable.

So this is one opportunity

to get things started and i

think if we can get our

financial wizards sitting

down with our experts in the

field, we could figure

something out.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Yeah, and I guess that --

you stated there's no way

you could find the money,

but maybe there's a way that

somebody else in the city of

austin could find that

money.

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

so in that case I think i

could definitely support

something like this.

Councimember spelman, did

you have a comment?

 

>> Spelman: Only if the

department director has no

discretionary money we need

to ratchet it up a level and

find somewhere else.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Without objection, that is

laid on the table.

 

>> Morrison: I do have

some more.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes,

go ahead.

 

>> Morrison: We did have

some discussion about the

human trafficking position

that has been grant funded

for the past several years.

 

The grant is now half.

 

What I took away from that

discussion is that our

foreign officers are now

doing administrative work

which they are having to

absorb that which is

obviously more expensive

than it needs to be and it

drives more overtime.

 

Now, that was a grant funded

program which means that it

wasn't in as a sustainable

f.t.e.

I would like to propose that

we actually fund that

position of the program

administrator to the tune of

$84,057, from the critical

one-time needs fund with the

understanding that it only

extends it for a year.

 

We normally don't do

personnel with one-time

funds, but the bottom line

is that it's been grant

funded, which this is

essentially just like

treating it like it's

getting one more year of

grant funding.

 

And I would ask at the same

time that staff look for a

way to carve out this f.t.e.

 

And I would like to

highlight that there have

been some -- there was a

huge arrest that was done

back in august and I think

that's where three people

were arrested and broke up a

couple of human trafficking

rings, and, you know, for me

it's one of those things

that it's hard to imagine

that goes on in the city of

austin, but the comment was

that -- from the police was

it's a hidden thing,

obviously, but it's

prevalent.

 

And I just don't think it

makes any sense to be

transferring our

administrative jobs over to

our sworn officers.

 

So that is to take that as a

one-time cost of $84,057.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Anything else?

 

Councimember spelman, I was

just going to say ditto.

Councimember spelman.

>> Spelman: Ditto is fine

with me.

 

>> Morrison: Okay.

 

And then --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Let's lay this one on the

table far mallly and go to

the next one.

>> Morrison: We've had

discussion the river city

youth program which is a

fine program and

organization in dove

springs.

 

And the city has funded for

several years dove springs

to the tune of $146,000.

 

And because of the -- one of

the unexpected impacts, i

think, of our social service

funding was that it was left

off the list of those

organizations that we funded

because of the way the

priorities had been

structured.

 

But I think I certainly

believe and I think there's

a shared sense that that

organization brings a really

critical affect to the

table.

And in fact there is $73,000

in unallocated social

service funding within the

health and human services

department.

So I would like -- my motion

is to actually it's not a

change in the budget, but

it's just to direct staff to

reallocate $73,000 of the

unallocated special service

funding within the health

and human services

department 2013 budget to

fund river city youth

foundation.

And then also to ask staff

to continue their efforts to

identify an additional

$73,000 so that we might be

able to fully fund for last

year as well.

 

So that's -- I don't know if

that needs to be laid on the

table.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: See

if there's any discussion on

it.

 

Councilmember martinez.

 

>> Martinez: I think

before today's meeting that

was staff's intention with

that item.

I don't see bart in here --

there he is.

 

If,.

 

>> That's all right.

 

[Inaudible]

 

>> Morrison: All right.

 

Thank you.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

without objection that's

laid on the table.

 

>> Morrison: That's

correct.

Let's see.

I have a few more.

One is regarding the

innovation office that we

have had some discussion

about recently.

 

We've had some discussion

with the city manager and

then open austin came down

and has been talking with

staff about this concept of

having an innovation office.

There's been I think open

austin's perspective was a

little bit more of how do we

use innovation and leverage

technology to improve our

ability to engage the public

and to have an innovative

interface with the public.

 

We've also had discussions

about trying to promote

innovations from within in

terms of our internal

processes as opposed to just

our external processes.

And what -- we heard from

the city manager that he was

certainly interested in

continuing to explore that

possibility and seems

what -- there were folks in

discussion.

We've certainly talked about

it I think and planned to

talk about it at emerging

technology committee, but

the scope had not completely

been defined.

 

We don't have a real

specific detailed amount of

exactly who and what and

when.

I would like to be able to

put a stake in the ground

that says we are going to

move forward and fund

something in that realm.

And in order to fund that,

what I wanted to do was

think about funding

something only a half a year

or three-quarters of a year

because we know we have more

work to do before we know

exactly what it needs to be.

 

In order to find funds for

that, I went to -- c.t.m.

Has a line item of a million

dollars to fund a consultant

to come inen help develop a

strategic plan and do

assessments of our i.t.

Environment here.

And what I would like to do

is to -- I think that we

likely can get a very

professional report and

strategic plan for less than

a million dollars, and I'm

very concerned that if we

even have a million dollars

on the budget, everybody

that bids on the statement

might

actually bid a million

dollars.

So I think that it would be

very safe for us to crimp

our $250,000 of that line

item to cover some portion

OF A YEAR AND TWO FTEs FOR

An innovation office.

 

That's my motion and that is

that we amend the proposed

to add

TO -- TO ADD TWO FTEs TO

Form an innovation office

and direct the city manager

to reallocate 250,000 within

for the citywide

strategy assessment from

1 million to 706.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

discussion?

 

I guess -- can anyone speak

for ctm?

I guess my question is this

something new your office

has been doing with regard

to open government or

whatever the term of art is?

Is that something that your

office or some other office

in the city does currently

or are we doing something

entirely new?

It seems to me I've bean a

the look of innovation this

this particular area in thes thes

last couple years.

 

>> We've actually been doing

some innovative things.

I think we've been doing

quite a bit with the

website, with mobile apps.

With open data so we've been

doing quite a bit to engage

the citizens so I'm not

really clear --

 

>> let me see if I can help

you.

He's correct, from a

technology standpoint the

city has done some very

innovative things over the

year.

I think the gentleman who

was here awoke or so ago,

rosenthal and he think

he pass out information.

 

The other piece of this

is -- was a staff initialed

effort to create what we

initially characterized as

r&d, that ultimately we

changed the vernacular.

That notion is browder than

a would encompass what

rosenthal presented a

few weeks ago.

 

And if you'll recall my

remarks, I embraced with

what he had to say and I see

a logical connection and you

the broader notion in terms

of where the constitution

began with staff, actually

with me.

And so councilmember

morrison is correct, we were

still in the defining

refining process, but this

money that she's proposing

would help us get a lug up

in getting that started in

2013.

 

The broader notion that I'm

talking about, r&b, and i

think we've had some

conversation with

councimember spelman, just

let him now we were working

along those lines.

 

It's really open to the

entire organization to bring

innovation ideas fort.

 

So the two quite naturally

come together so I think

this makes a whole lot of

sense.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

this new employees or are

you just redesignating

employees?

 

Two new hire employees we're

talking about or just going

to move two people -- yeah.

 

>> This would be two new

people, and I do want to say

the question is it a c.t.m.

 

Function or sort of a

different level that we're

trying to talk about in

terms of innovation broadly

and it's not just

technology.

And while my motion

SUGGESTED TO CREATE FTEs

And it may be appropriate to

come back and look at a

budget amendment to move

THOSE FTEs TO A DIFFERENT

Place in the budget.

We know it's going to be

related to technology, but

in the end the idea I think

was it may well lead to

something a little

different, but it's

definitely two new

employees.

 

And there's been some talk

about best practices in

other cities.

 

I know you all have been

looking at in terse of

boston and I believe chicago

and maybe philadelphia have

some of these.

 

So it's also wanting to rely

on what other cities have

learned in doing this.

 

If,.

 

Q.further comment?

 

Without objection it's laid

on the table.

>> Morrison: I have two

more to talk about.

 

And one is I wanted to talk

about our transportation

fund and some of the special

projects for the

transportation system that

we might think about using

that for in terms of, you

know, we have certainly in

imagine austin and over the

past 10 years with our

different funds how to focus

on sustainability, on

equity, on the

sustainability of the

three-prong things as

defined equity, the

environment and the economy.

 

And what I want to talk

about or propose here is

that we like with other

funds take 1% of our

transportation fund, which i

understand would amount to

about $570,000.

 

And not transfer it out of

the transportation fund, but

dedicate it to -- to

transportation system

improvements that are --

that are addressing more

equitable transportation

systems with a special focus

on imagine austin actions

and outcomes that would fit

within that.

 

Hello, howard.

 

Q.good afternoon.

 

>> Morrison: I'm not

talking about moving this

funding out, out of the

transportation fund, I'm

talking about putting a

special bucket in there, and

it's not clear to me we even

know exactly what those

programs would be right now.

 

It's also I just want to say

I understand that the ending

balance of the

transportation fund is

$1.1 million this career.

 

So this would -- if we put a

special line item in the

transportation fund of this

$570,000, it would reduce

the ending balance, but

doesn't require any other

jostling of any other

planned activities that you

have.

 

>> Howard lazarus, public

works director.

There are many things that

we do each year that I think

would qualify for types of

activities that you just

mentioned.

I think maybe what we could

do a better job of is

highlighting what those

things are.

 

Some of the things we had

talked about for the coming

year included relooking at

our transportation criteria

manual and make it more

inclusive, less descriptive

and more adaptful,

particularly at relates in

working in areas of

established infrastructure.

We also are doing things

there that relate to

increasing bicycle

acceptability and I think

there are a lot of things we

could designate to meet the

requirements of what you

just mentioned and provide

you with some feedback on

that without changing the

ending balance.

The reason for the concern

in maintaining the ending

balance is two-fold.

One as we presented during

the financial forecast, we

need to keep a balance in

coming years so the fund

doesn't go negative.

We are still this year

spending more than we need

in revenues and we need to

reverse it.

 

The he could is is make sure

we maintain enough of a

balance to address

contingencies.

A couple years ago when we

had fun spin on hurricane

spans.

I would offer that maybe

what we could do instead of

designating an additional

$570,000 in expenditures,

identify those things that

need the criteria what you

just mentioned.

>> Morrison: I procedure

that input.

 

The reason I would like to

go ahead with a motion is

you mean can of fold.

 

One, you are talking about

improving the things that

we're already doing.

 

I'm talking about going

above and beyond things.

We've had transfers in the

past and talked about having

a whole list of discussions

about transfer and if we --

this for me is a way they

are sort of able to maintain

a similarity to what we were

doing, make sure that we're

focusing on the

transportation system and

keeps us from having a

piecemeal change in our

transfer policies and allows

us to have that discussion

over you're overall.

I think we have our budget

set and I think we're going

to see as we have every year

that there are council

priorities that come up

through our interaction with

folks in the community that

I think especially if we try

to ensure a tie between

this, equity and

transportation system, as

seen through the imagine

austin plan, then I think

it's a really good exercise

for us to keep in mind that

imagine austin, we're

supposed to be using it as a

guide for how we move

forward.

A couple of things that i

would -- I would envision.

 

This could be use for it

just to give you a flavor

what I'm thinking about.

 

I'm not going to suggest we

allocate this money by any

means at this point and i

would think we could leave

it open and work with staff

to help gather ideas.

One, I was originally

thinking about cruising it

for continuation of the safe

routes to school program.

 

Because that was grand

funded and the grant funding

as ending.

 

And safe route to school is

an amazing program that, you

know, I think the numbers

show increasing active

travis county to schools in

some neighbors by some just

a little bit, by some 10,

and I think I saw 10 and

15%.

 

That's amazing changes.

 

It turns out that public

works has picked up those

positions and is going to

continue the safe routes to

school program for a program

like it.

It no longer fund 9.

Is that correct?

>> That's correct.

I said with burliss and he

explained the grant position

they had for the public

health trainers was not

going to be remood.

We talked about how to

THEREFORE THOSE FTEs INTO

Child safety zone.

And we were able to

accommodate that and I think

both of us are extremely,

combining the training and

education with the

infrastructure and physical

part of it.

The best and most recent

examples are the green lines

by zilker elementary school

which is one case those

things come together really

well and willing to create

healthier choices when it

comes to getting things from

school.

We're excited about that.

The staff are great people.

I think the [inaudible] is

phenominal.

 

We will continue the

relationship to make sure we

continue the progress they

made.

>> Morrison: That's great.

That means we don't need to

think about it or we could

expand it.

With regard to safe routes

to school, I want to mention

I hope that especially now

that if we have more

layover, I did see the

criteria for selecting a

school and I don't see a

measure of, like, childhood

obesity and different health

indicators in the criteria

and I really think that we

should be addressing hot

spots there and I hope that

we can talk about doing that

in dove springs.

[One moment, please, for

change in captioners]

 

>> so we are excited about the

process of expensing --

expending the value of the

dollars that are specifically

set aside for traffic calming

that is an enforcement of the

future of what we are doing.

 

I will let rob address it.

 

>> Before rob starts it, I want

to say I congratulate you on

that.

 

I know under your leadership,

public works has really

increased the efficiency of the

work that we do by coordinating

different efforts and not going

back over and over again.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Will you tell me where that

comes fro.

 

>> To support more equitable

transportation system tied to

imagine austin.

 

where

does it come from?

>> Morrison: It comes from the

ending balance of the

transportation fund.

so that's

a revenue neutral?

 

>> It's -- I don't know if it's

accurate to say it's revenue

neutral.

 

The department or the fund

1 million

ending balance projected for

fiscal year '13 with this

proposal that would put it

538,769.

So they weren't proposing to

increase the rate.

 

It just draws down the ending

balance.

all

right.

 

>> Robert phillips

transportation department.

I don't know if you were

requesting a response with

regard to the traffic calming.

I wasn't quite sure.

But you are absolutely right.

There has always been a backlog.

In fact, that's why we moved

from the previous neighborhood

calm to go the new latm, more

than just acronym.

 

It is really designed to try to

resolve that backlog.

There is certainly some

different procedure that is we

think will accelerate that and

we have gotten a huge response

to that change and clearly

that's a set of product that is

the communities want.

We are working with public works

and I know there was discussion

about staffing the issues.

We are going to be working with

public works to see if we can

use some of the existing

staffing that howard has to get

over the hump of restarting or

reenergizing the whole program.

 

>> Morrison: I guess my point

is, for me, this is an example

of where it might make sense to

try to go above and beyond what

we have already budgeted,

because speeding traffic through

neighborhoods is a product of

densefi cation and the growth we

have and one of the goals of

imagine austin is to protect the

integrity of the neighborhood

and this program is specifically

to cut down on a safety issue

and something that impacts

quality of life and

neighborhoods and so if we only

have 3/4 of a person assigned to

it right now, it really could

help rise it up a little bit.

 

>> So this money is for actual

traffic calming infrastructure,

or is this purely --

 

>> actually, mayor, we fund the

infrastructure through bond

funds.

 

We have bond funds.

 

Who are getting ready to hire a

rapid response.

what

would you do with this money if

it weren't spent for planning.

>> We would use the front side

of that to run the process to

get community buy-in when an

issue is brought to our

attention and then, also, on the

management of that contract.

 

Yes.

 

>> Mayor, I do want to be clear,

though, that if we are doing --

if we are going and doing

routine pavement maintenance in

the neighborhood and there are

areas where traffic calming

devices are going to go in, we

will pay for that out of our

operating budget, which is the

transportation fund.

So while there are dedicated

capital dollars for traffic

calming, if it's done instant to

other work, we will pay for it

out of the fund.

so it

might or might not be spent for

infrastructure?

>> Yes, sir.

That's correct.

>> Morrison: And, mayor, what i

was intending to do with this

motion is to move some funds

into the specific line item for

priorities that come up like

this, within the -- to improve

the transportation system but

working under these kind of

assumptions, yes.

That's my motion on that.

Now I have my last motion.

we will

put that one on the table.

 

>> Morrison: Okay.

 

Thank you.

 

The last one is an a austin

energy item.

We have had some folks come talk

to us about the amount of

funding that's budgeted for the

solar rebate programs --

does this

have to do with the general fund

budget?

>> Morrison: No, but it's the

operating fund budget.

 

Ed, is this something I should

be talking about under number 1?

>> Item number 1 approves the

operating budget for all

department general fund and

nongen fund.

 

Your amendments need to come

now.

>> Morrison: Okay.

>> Morrison: Amount of money

allocated to the solar program

was $4 million.

We heard a lot of folks

suggesting that it should be

higher.

It should be $10 million, and to

show our strengths and our

commitment, we have heard from

weis that there is a

commitment to meet the demand

for the rebate program, even if

it exceeds $4 million, and I do

want to note that we have a lot

of good work going on in the

local solar advisory committee

and they will be coming to us

for a recommendation for future

years, not this year.

I guess the timing doesn't work.

For future years of

recommendations on how much

should be allocated to the solar

program, you know, on a longer

horizon.

So what I would like to do is

try to find some middle ground

here because we did have a

10 million-dollar recommendation

from the local solar advisory

committee.

 

Their budget working group

actually, I believe, came up

with 7 and a half million

dollars and showed a methodical

outlay of how that would work,

so I would like to make a motion

that we -- that we amend the

proposed budget of austin energy

to increase appropriations in

5 million, to

5 for the solar

program.

And I understand it's similar to

the situation -- the situation

is similar to what we talked

about was the transportation

fund.

There is an ending balance there

so it would just be -- it would

just be adjusted to account for

this extra 3 and a -- 3 and a

half million dollars.

any other

questions?

 

>> Morrison: If we can put that

on the taint I do have a

question about the austin energy

operating fund beyond that.

okay,

without objection, that's on the

table.

Go ahead, council member.

>> Morrison: Great.

We also heard quite a bit about

funding for clean air force and

there is some suggesting that we

have been funding the

membership -- our membership

there at 90,000-dollar level for

20 something years or something

like that.

 

There was some suggestion that

we might change that this year,

and I understand that that

change is off the table.

>> Let me, if I may ask our

chief of sustainability officer

to respond to that.

Essentially, yes, there is and

she is going to outline an

alternate proposal for this year

but talk about going forward

after that.

>> Yes, we are planning to

continue the funding for the

clean air force as a it has been

previously, so that's the plan

for the next -- this next budget

year.

 

WEñooRa

Responding to a resolution from

council that you will recall

that asked to have to do with an

assessment of how we can be

working towards improving air

quality in our region and so

those -- that report and some

recommendations that are coming

out of quite a bit of

stakeholder process that we have

been undertaking will be

forthcoming to you and I think

that will help inform for the

next budget cycle what we would

want to do with our resources,

but for the next budget year, we

are planning to can't the

support of the clean air force.

 

>> So we will have plenty of

time to talk about it.

>> Yes.

>> Morrison: And figure out

what's -- because I was hearing

let's shift some money to

marketing, and to me, we need

time to talk about that, because

collaboration -- regional

collaboration is not necessarily

the same as marketing and we

didn't really have a chance to

have that discussion so i

appreciate you being able to

change that.

 

>> Absolutely.

 

You will have plenty of time to

review the report.

I think you will be pleased the

report.

 

It is thorough and 300 comment

there is stakeholders that have

been taken into account with the

recommendations that will come

forward to you for your

consideration.

>> Great.

so this

does not require.

 

That's already done.

 

It's not a required amendment?

 

And I would like to reinforce

council member morrison's

comment about this being a

marketing effort.

Whatever needs to be done to

reinforce the idea that this is

a regional collaboration effort,

an auction-oriented effort and a

not a marketing effort, I would

suggest that we pass that on to

the clean air force and make our

plans accordingly, because we've

got to get this right next year.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor leffingwell: thanks.

Council member riley.

>> Riley: Thanks, mayor.

I want to first say I am very

glad to see a number of the

amendment that is have come

forward.

 

We have covered a lot of ground

that I expected to cover, so i

am very pleased with where we

are.

I also have to say there was a

lot of good stuff in the budget

already and I want to thank the

staff for all they did to

include a lot of very important

items within the proposed

budget.

There are a couple of

outstanding concerns that i

have, one of which I want to

address first.

 

That relates to early childhood

services.

This is an issue that has been

troubling to a lot of folks in

the community and --

I was

talking about the spider that

was on the dyas here.

 

Sorry.

 

[Laughter]

 

>> Riley: That's another

concern.

[Laughter]

but -- but with respect to early

childhood services, as y'all

know, we went through a very

difficult process over the past

year or two to go through the

reworking of the way we fund our

social services programs and one

outcome of that was that there

was significant cuts to funding

for early childhood programs.

We heard from a lot of folks in

the community that really want

some further attention because

we all know what critical needs

there are with respect to early

childhood programs.

 

There is a wildly held sense

that we are not doing nearly

enough to address that critical

need, and so we have struggled

to figure out ways that it could

be better addressed within the

context of the current budget

and I would like -- I wish i

could say we had come up with a

solution but at this point i

can't say that.

 

This is not in the nature of a

one time need that we can look

to the budget revenue -- the

budget stabilization reserve

fund for.

 

This is -- these are -- these

are long-standing, ongoing

needs, and the question is, can

we figure out sustainable

funding sources to support those

important efforts on an ongoing

basis?

 

That is not -- we are not going

to be able to solve that today,

but we can give it continued

attention in the public health

and human services committee and

a I just wanted to make a note

of the importance that we

continue those discussions,

unless my colleagues have other

suggestion that is we haven't

heard yet about ways to address

that, I would just note that we

have talked within that -- that

subcommittee about a it.

Our expectation that we will be

continuing the conversation

about that important problem.

When he even talked about -- we

even talked about having a youth

submit this fall to get more

stakeholders to the table and

figure out more planstor goings for going

forward and I want to emphasize

we take it very seriously and i

wish I had a better solution to

offer that today, but I will say

that my hope is that we will,

through the course of efforts in

the -- if that subcommittee,

that I hope -- in that

subcommittee, I hope we will be

able to come up with funding --

I would hope we would be able a

to consider a midyear budget

amendment this fiscal year to

the extent we can identify

funding to be able provide

support for the important

service that is have suffered

some cuts over the past couple

of

years.

With that said, I want to shift

to one other item that's much --

that I hope will be a much

simpler item and that relates to

to -- to the fee structure of

one of our parks.

 

And saltillo, I asked a

question, budget question number

21 about the fees.

 

The city currently leases prezza

saltillo from capital metro and

has strived to maintain that

park and we would like to see it

made available to community park

that is could bring life

to that park that

critically located on the

transit line in central east

austin.

We have talked to community

groups and other stakeholders of

ways to revive the park an one

thing that is clear is we can do

a better job of structuring our

fees, to make it easier for

groups to rent the park and

for -- for events that -- some

events that may be even less

than a day.

 

So I have -- based on all of

those discussions with

stakeholders and staff, I have a

proposed amendment that would

revise the fee structure for

plaza saltillo, adding 150 per

day maintenance fee of rental of

$150 for four hours.

Reduce electricity fee of $150

per day to $50 per day and

delete the $200 per day minimum

fee.

 

It would also amend the proposed

budget of the general fund, the

increased revenues from parks

fees by $21,731 based upon these

amended fees for plaza saltillo

and amend the proposed budget

for parks department and

increased appropriations for the

same amount and had half time

for

maintenance of plaza saltillo so

revising the fee structure,

adding a half time -- .5 f.t.e.

 

For maintenance, and then

adjusting the budget numbers

based on their expectations of

the additional revenues that

that fee structure would bring

in once we are able to make the

park available on a more

frequent basis.

So that's the amendment that i

looked over.

 

That's all I have.

 

>> Mayor.

 

go ahead,

ed.

>> I want to -- in regards to

that motion, we have the fee

amendment down.

I think the motion for item

number 1, though, would simply

be the revenue increase and the

and

them we will bring back to

council on item 3 the ac

amendment to the fee.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

So is this revenue neutral with

the general fund?

 

>> This is revenue neutral to

the general fund.

21,000

increase revenues from fees, and

21,700 in increased

appropriations.

 

>> Correct.

 

anything

else, council member?

Council member tovo.

>> Tovo: I have some amendments

to propose but I would like to

ask some questions about this

item, if I may, probably ask it

of the parks department.

First of all, I think it sounds

like a great idea and i

appreciate the creativity,

council member riley in bringing

this forward.

I just wonder if we've got any

other examples to point total

tax suggest that the fee -- that

having that half time position

will indeed bring in that amount

of revenue, because, you know,

at the last -- certainly none of

us want to move forward in a

direction that, if it doesn't

pan out, you know, represents

$21,000 more you need to find in

your budget.

 

But do you have a pretty good

sense that reducing the fees in

this way will indeed bring in

the expected amount of revenue?

>> Council member, sarah hensley

director of parks and

recreation.

In this particular case, we do.

This is a site where we have not

been able to utilize in a rental

capacity like we would like to,

and we believe -- we were given

some opportunity to really do

some analysis and actually

this -- we believe will come to

fruition and be able to cover

5 position and maybe even

more, to be able to open it up

and have rentals there and have

it available to the public.

 

>> Tovo: Great.

 

I am glad to hear that.

 

So some of the logistical issues

that you have raised here, it

sounds like there are good

solutions to them with regard to

electricity access and things of

that nature.

Do you feel those aren't going

to be impediments?

 

>> No, the other thing, this is

a site where we have had some

requests for use already,

whether it be receptions or

small activities, and we weren't

able to accommodate because of

the lack of being able to pay

attention to it from a

maintenance perspective, and

truthfully, we didn't want to

open it up and allow for use and

not be able to take care of it

prop her i.

 

This is sort of a win win, to be

able to open it up, allow for a

rental, reduce and kind of

restructure the fees, still be

able to generate the revenue and

cover the costs.

Not saying there aren't other

opportunities out there to do

the same.

This is the one we have been

able to tackle and staff did a

good job of analyzing how it

could come out but we believe

this will generate to cover

enough money not only the

position but also generate a

little more that will help it.

 

>> Tovo: Great.

 

I think that's great if it

serves as a good model for other

sites.

 

>> Absolutely.

 

>> Tovo: I appreciate your work

and for council member riley for

the idea.

 

>> Thank you.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: go ahead.

 

>> Tovo: I have several

amendments to suggest.

I will start with the one we

haven't talked about yesterday

today and I did hand out three

yellow sheets on the dyas.

 

The first one is to keep austin

water utilities contribution to

the sustainability fund at 1%,

consistent with previous years,

and then to increase the

transfer to neighborhood housing

and community development to

support administrative staff

salaries, so as background, you

know, we have heard from housing

advocates, as well as from the

cities community develop

commission that they have

serious concerns about what

would precedent setting

change in how we use the housing

trust fund money to approve the

budget as it is currently

proposed.

 

In this year's budget, four

administrative positions

totaling $557,000 would be

shifted to the housing trust

fund and that would, in effect,

make less money available for

the direct assistance that is

the primary purpose of the

housing trust fund and so i

share those concerns.

I think it's really critical we

have that money available for

purposes to which the housing

trust fund was set up which are

home buyer education, counseling

for owners who are in danger of

losing their home.

Financial education, tenant

assistance for the homeless,

downpayment assistance for

individuals with disabilities.

 

There are many, many critical

programs that operate right now

with the support of the housing

trust fund that would be

impacted by this shift and I do

think we have a good solution

available to us.

 

In the past the austin water

utility has transferred 1% of

its revenue to the

sustainability fund.

This year, it's proposed to

transfer slightly less.

 

If we keep their contribution to

the -- their transfer to the

sustainability fund at a

constant level of 1%, that

yields $659,203, and that would

fund for neighborhood housing

and community housing positions

which total $557,518, and,

indeed, result in about $101,000

difference and I have, as you

will see, another motion that

speaks to the use of those fun.

So that is the first amendment i

would like to propose and a i

believe we -- and I believe we

have staff here to talk about --

can you

give perspective me the numbers

again?

>> Tovo: Yes, and, actually,

mayor, it's on the -- I have

another set.

I believe so.

Those numbers, to amend, it

would be to amend the proposed

budget of the water utility to

increase sustainability fund in

the amount of $359,203 and to

increase transfers in from water

utility business in $659,203 and

amend the proposed budget of

sustainability fund increased

transfers out to neighborhood

howing in the amount of 557,518,

and then amend neighborhood

housing to increase transfers

in, 557,518, and then to amend

the proposed budget of the

housing trust fund to reduce

appropriations in the amount of

$557,518.

 

vandeho for

working the ins and outs and

whatnot.

 

That should be pretty close to

the language that he had

proposed.

 

And as I was saying, I believe

we have staff from neighborhood

housing and community

development here as any of my

colleagues have questions about

the housing trust fund, how it's

typically used.

 

I did is several budget

questions that are relevant to

this issue and hopefully my

colleagues are had an

opportunity to read them but in

the past the only staff that has

been used to fund the housing

trust fund is a position

directly related to -- directly

related to rental assistance

counseling, I believe, or

housing counseling and I believe

I am correct in saying that when

we did have a situation this --

very recently when where the

tenants in one of our

multi-family housing that needed

assistants, I believe it was the

trust fund support that was went

to bare on that situation so i

think it's critical that we make

this budget amendment.

I will

object.

 

Get it on the table.

 

Do you have a comment, council

member morrison.

>> Morrison: I have a question.

spencer could

talk a little bit about, if we

do this and it loosens up some

hundreds of thousands of

dollars, I take it, in the

housing trust fund, so what

would be the process of figuring

out what to use that money on?

 

>> Typically we use the funds in

our rental housing development

program or our and acquisition

and development.

And supports ownership and rhd

supports rental housing.

 

We typically include that in

the application process, on or

october 1st when folks apply for

go bonds, from the housing trust

fund and when we apply, we score

everybody and allocate funds,

the trust funds typically go out

through that process.

>> Morrison: So this would, in

effect, really allow for

additional funding to go

directly to housing?

 

Right?

 

I have a

question for somebody from the

water utility.

 

From your perspective, this is

about $659,000 a transfer out to

the sustainability fund, most of

which should be spent on cdc?

Tell me how this relates to the

delivery of treated water to our

customers and the recovery of

wastewater.

 

>> Greg lazarus with austin

water utility.

It doesn't directly relate to

that.

 

They will have historically

transferred 1% of our revenues

in support of the sustainability

programs and community health

programs, so to the degree those

kind of investments support the

overall health of the

community --

well, i

just asked you what the

relationship was.

 

Not what the past justification

is.

>> It's not directly related to

the provision of water and

wastewater services.

so

that -- this is kind of the

discussion we have had over the

last six months, about austin

energy.

Austin energy paying for things

that weren't directly related to

their primary mission, and there

was a long discussion about how

we are going to try to set about

correcting that.

 

But we haven't yet had that

discussion, about what -- the

austin water utility also funds

a lot of services and projects

and programs and aren't -- don't

have anything to do with the

delivery of water to our

customers or the recovery of

wastewater and so I thinks this

the place to begin that

discussion.

 

We need to take a hard look at

any item that would cause a

utility to spend money on thing

that is are unrelated to their

primary mission.

 

This is the old thing we have

been doing for years and years

and years, and that is using our

utilities basically as cash cows

to fund other services.

 

Thanks.

 

>> Mayor.

 

council

member spelman.

>> Spelman: Would you prefer to

have council member tovo

continue or can we still ask

questions about this item?

 

well, i

think we can go back to council

member tovo after -- do you have

something in response or --

>> [indiscernible]

>> mayor leffingwell: go ahead.

We are going to -- we aren't

going to fight over it.

 

Go ahead, anybody.

 

>> Spelman: A quick question on

the use of the -- the current

recent uses of the housing trust

fund money.

I understand the idea that this

s with

one fairly minor exception which

is closely related to what the

housing trust fund has usually

been used for, but I am looking

at response to council member

tovo's request number 31, how

the housing trust fund might

actually have been used, and i

will keep the -- I don't know if

you have a copy of it in front

of you, that's great.

Terrific.

Okay.

In every year -- fiscal year

'10, '11, '12, we have actual

revenues which are probably --

full of numbers, budget

requirements which I presume are

the program requirements which

were passed by the city council

in '09 and '10 and '11 prior to

the fiscal year, and the actual

program requirements, which are

roughly one-third of the actual

budget program requirements.

 

I wonder -- it is an interesting

pattern, budget $2 million and

spend $600,000 and we do that

for every year three years

running.

 

So why is it the budget

requirements are so much higher

than the actual uses?

 

>> My understanding of the

requirements is they are

actually -- it is the carry

forward funds.

It's money that has been in

there.

 

Again, you are absolutely right.

 

The third column is what was

actually spent and so this

current year -- the year that we

are in now, there are several

project that is we have just

actually -- are this close to

starting construction on, to

which we have dedicated the

funds, so that we would expect

the -- the challenge has been

that some of the project that is

we have dedicated the funds for

in the past either didn't make

or we ended up using other funds

for, so this current year, we

have got three different

projects that we expect to spend

the majority of the funds on and

several of them are within weeks

to be able to get started.

Historically I can't speak real

directly why they weren't spent

before.

But I do know the last two years

we had them dedicated to

programs that either we were

able to use other funds for, or

to the projects that I have got

right now, have been on the

books for a very long time.

>> Spelman: Kind of like the

presumption we have made is we

will take the fund balance down

to zero every year and for

whatever reason, we have found

other ways of funding things we

needed in the fund or they

haven't worked out.

 

We haven't been able to do that.

 

The reason I bring this up is

there is a presumption in this

year's budget is that we will

bring the fund balance down to

zero again and my guess is we

probably won't bring it down to

zero this year any more than the

previous three fiscal years and

the end of this fiscal year,

there is probably going to be a

fund balance from the trust

fund.

>> There may or may not, with

all of the programs and real

estate and the difficulty part

with our application process or

funding projects is the ability

to cobble together all of the

funds, get the permits, get all

of the stuff together for the

project to begin.

Sometimes they can take six,

twelve months for an a project

to actually start.

From the moment we dedicate

funds to when it actually will

occur, affordable housing being

one of the activities more

complicated than straight up

real estate or a for profit kind

of activity, sometimes it just

takes longer for these projects

to get started, so it would --

we may or may not have a balance

at the end of the next fiscal

year, but we tend to, in our

budgeting process, allocate the

funds, we just don't always have

the opportunity to spend the

funds.

 

>> It looks like the last three

years we haven't had the

opportunity to spend 2/3 of the

funds by and large but there is

reason for believing because

there are some project that is

are on the verge of being able

to make, that this year we might

actually be in a position to

spend all of the money that is

budgeted in the previous fiscal

years?

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay.

>> Is there a way you could put

a possibility?

 

Is there a way -- a

possibility -- a possibility is

just a possibility, we are in a

weird of position of setting up

a budget where maybe this will

work, maybe it won't.

My best guess, based on past

experience ought to be about a

third of what it is that we have

allocated we will actually spend

and, therefore, my best guess is

even if we spend $557,000 on

personnel, which, of course,

would be an anomaly, something

we have ever done before.

If we did that and set a ide

2 million for everything else,

chances are we will only spend

2 and stillave

800,000 left in the trust fund

at thend o the year.

 

Is there a number you can give

me which is your most probable

guess or something else other

than the possibility of having

it left at the end of this to

give me a sense of how much we

will be giving up from the uses

for which the housing trust fund

was originally envisioned by

setting aside 557,000 for

s from the housing trust

fund money.

>> Let me see ifs this a

different way to answer that.

 

>> Okay.

 

>> Of the million 7 that we have

budgeted for '12-'13, several

hundred thousand is for what we

call the anderson 24 unit

project which has been a

commitment that we have had for

quite a while.

 

We are currently in the

purchasing process on that, i

hope the and expect to start

construction in the fall.

The other one is juniper olive

phase three which we are pending

permits for.

Once we get the permits, that

work will begin.

 

Then the third project is the

life works project.

Probably of all of the tree

projects I listed, the third one

is probably the one that will

take the longest.

 

The other two projects are both

very real and I expect to spend

funds this fall.

 

>> How much money is in the

anderson and in the juniper

lines?

 

>> Roughly $400,000 each.

 

>> About 8 hun thousand dollars,

we can say we are real likely to

be spending, and the amount in

the lifeworks line is a little

less likely?

 

>> About 200.

 

>> About 200 for that?

 

>> Uh-huh.

 

>> So your best guess is about a

8

roughly?

 

>> Uh-huh, yes, sir.

 

5 and still

2 left -- we will still have a

little money left over.

 

We will still be able to meet

the needs you identified right

now?

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

>> Spelman: Okay.

 

That's what I needed to know.

 

Thank you.

 

>> Uh-huh.

 

council

member tovo.

>> Tovo: Thanks for walking

through that.

 

I would like to talk a little

bit more about some of the items

in the community development

commission letter.

We have gotten also some

feedback from the housing repair

coalition requesting, again,

they were concerned about this

and their point was that they

could certainly absorb more

housing -- there is a great

demand for housing repair that

they could satisfy if their

budget was increased through the

housing trust fund.

Would you concur, that's the

case that, we have needy

families in our communities that

could benefit from the housing

repair funds, if that's a

decision.

 

>> I believe we have people that

benefit all of our programs to

include the home repair program.

 

>> The community development

commission's letter talks about

the consequences of allowing

such a decline in the funding

for housing programs.

 

They talk about the city's

action plan and some of the

decrees are that are in the

2012-2013 action plan, that it

projects 47 fewer families will

be assisted in transitioning out

of homelessness, while only 13

units of rental housing will be

produced in the coming fiscal

year.

Do you agree those are accurate?

>> Yes.

>> Tovo: So to get back to

council member spelman's

question, what we might do with

those funds if they aren't going

to fund salaries, are those ways

in which the housing trust fund

moneys could be deployed, to try

to get the numbers back to where

they were the year before?

>> They are certainly eligible

expenses.

 

>> Tovo: One of the other

discussions that we have been

having has to do with

multi-family housing and the

extent to which that will be an

increased priority of code

compliance.

 

It would seem to me that that

would also create some new

service demands on neighborhood

housing and community

development and I did is a

question about that in the

budget process and I think the

answer was, you know, it niece

at possible at this point to

certain whatever additional

service demands there might be

but would you say that is one

consequence if we had code

enforcement -- code

compliance -- I knew they had a

new name but I couldn't come

up -- but new code compliance

inspectors looking at family

housing and responding more

rapidly about concerns of

multi-housing families that may

need significant repairs, is

that more of a for tenant

counseling, rental assistance,

thing that is are through the

program -- having trust fund

money?

 

>> Yes, when the question came

to us, because we didn't have a

lot of time, we didn't really

have the opportunity to put

thorough research on what the

impact of that could be but i

can certainly tell you from the

wood ridge experience, if we

continue to have more

opportunities like that, then we

will be resource strapped as a

department as well as the

tenants rights council.

 

>> So that would be another

eligible expense as I understand

it for the housing trust fund

money?

>> Uh-huh.

Yes, ma'am.

>> Tovo: So I guess the last

question I had about housing

trust fund is I understand that,

of course we don't want our

money sitting in a fund rather

than being out, providing direct

assistance, but it would seem to

me that sometimes you might may

have to let the funds accumulate

so that you can undertake some

of the project that is are

costlier.

 

Is that part of the rationale of

not spending that down to zero

every year.

 

>> I would say one of the

biggest impacts is the go bonds,

in addition to being a

significant amount of money

sometimes for the applications.

 

But we have been very fortunate

with if go bonds to be able to

provide towards probables.

 

For us -- I don't like to use

this term generally but the

perfect storm has occurred the

last few years with the federal

funds, go bonds being spent,

everything is suddenly coming to

light.

 

There -- I would not say

concerted effort to not spend

the housing trust fund dollars,

we just had an ability through

other opportunities to utilize

those funds first.

>> But go bonds would not be

able to be used for all of the

things we just talked about?

>> They would not be used for

support services, but any

capital improvements, they would

be.

 

>> Tovo: Right.

 

The letter that we all received

from housing works -- I think we

all received it, maybe I just

received it from housing works

this morning, talked about

certain programs that make use

of the housing trust fund moneys

that are not eligible -- they

are not eligible for go bonds

fund support.

Can you give us a couple of

examples of what some of those

might be?

Programs that are not eligible?

>> I apologize off the top of my

head.

 

>> Tovo: Okay.

 

Sorry to put you on the spot.

 

I have the letter somewhere.

 

>> Miles per hour, it would be

more along tenants counseling

support or social services type

acuity.

Anything that is capital should

be eligible under go bond.

 

>> Tovo: Downpayment assistance,

financial education.

>> Correct.

>> Tovo: Those are the kinds of

programs currently being funded

through the housing trust fund

and would on the to be eligible

expenses but would not be

eligible for go bond money.

 

>> Yes, ma'am.

 

>> Tovo: Is that about right.

 

And then the last thing about

the sustainability fund, the

questions about the relationship

between the programs that the

sustainability fund has in the

past funded and the water

utility, the sustainability

fund, I had an opportunity to go

along with the staff of kind of

siphoning the past history of

the sustainability fund and when

it was created in 2000 and 2001,

it was -- its purpose was set

forward to provide resources for

projects to help the city of

austin build a economic,

environmental and good

infrastructure and we have

learned that it helped fund

things like workforce

development, childcare

initiative and community

technology and then affordable

housing came into play.

At some point since its creation

but they have always been

eligible programs in support of

sustainability -- the general

goals of the sustainability

fund.

 

And austin water utility as i

understand it has always

contributed at 1% level.

 

Is that right?

 

>> That is all correct.

 

>> Tovo: Sos this the first year

where the 1% would have dipped

down that we know of?

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

Yes.

 

The first year.

 

>> Tovo: Thank you.

 

So -- and.

 

and i

feel like I have to respond,

yes, yes, we have been doing

these things for many years.

The energy company has been

doing the same thing for many

years, but the end result of it

is our -- in the case of austin

energy, those customers have to

pay for that.

 

Some of them adopt live in the

city of austin.

The case of the water utility,

those rate payers have to pay

for that.

That's the reason -- I am not

saying absolutely all of these

are not legitimate expenses.

I am saying as we have begun

that discussion with regard to

austin energy, so should we

begin it with regard to the

water utility.

Council member tovo, morrison.

>> Morrison: I just wanted to

chime in on that.

 

We've had -- we have been

focusing in on this budget for

the past several months and when

it came up in the earlier

months, talking about

dismantling the process and the

sustainability support, you

know, I think everybody

recognizes we need to have that

discussion, but I am not

comfortable doing is dismantling

it in a piecemeal way.

If we are going to be changing

and shift weigh I from those

kinds of transfers and those

kinds of support, then I want to

make sure that we talk about a

what are the impacts of that.

 

What are we developing.

 

How does that -- what are we

dropping.

It impacts the property tax rate

if the general fund doesn't pick

it up.

Otherwise, we are just not going

to be supporting some of these

programs that are -- you know,

have been -- many of them

critical to helping to lift

folks up and it was make

austin -- bring austin to the

prosperity that it has, that, in

the end, supports the -- these

different utilities, so while i

agree we need to have the

discussion, I will not -- I just

can't support dismantling this

policy in the piecemeal way.

 

and

nobody suggested dismantling it

in a piecemeal way.

 

Council member tovo.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor if I can just

respond.

>> Mayor leffingwell: yes.

>> Morrison: My point is, if we

are undoing some of the two or

three funds transfers this year,

it looks like we are dismantling

it in a piecemeal way so i

disagree with that.

 

and we

can agree todays gree.

-- We can agree to disagree.

Anything else council member?

Do you have another item.

>> Tovo: I do.

with no

objection, this one is on the

take.

Go ahead with the next one.

>> Tovo: I agree with both of

you.

 

I think we should have a policy

discussion about a it.

In the meantime, we should not

make decisions that have the

impact of dismantling the fund

or the program without having

that full policy discussion.

I know that we had an

opportunity to talk about a

similar issue during the austin

energy rate case, but I -- we

have not, at this point, had a

full policy discussion about the

sustainability fund.

There are some changes this year

in terms of which -- which

departments are making those

transfers, but, again, I would

strenuously argue that we have

this policy discussion as a full

comprehensive discussion, and at

this point we keep the austin

water utilities transfer at the

rate it has been, since we have

not had a policy discussion to

the contrary.

 

So my next item relates to that.

 

I think I will skip to that one.

 

As I mentioned, bumping up

the -- or keeping the austin

water utilities transfer rate to

a consistent 1% does have the

net result of providing an

opportunity to fund those

administrative staffing

positions and there would be a

balance of $101,685,000, so you

will see -- 101, $685 and you

will see a motion to allocate

support for senior programs in

neighborhoods that are high

crime and high poverty and my

shorthand here, I just want to

explain, we have obviously a lot

of neighborhoods that are --

where we have economic

challenges.

 

These funds are not great,

$101,000 is a relatively small

amount of money for this budget

line, and that's why I have

suggested that we is hard to use

strategically to look for

those areas experiencing high

levels of poverty as well as

high levels of crime.

 

We have more information on the

rovers leader q and a program.

I think it will be a dynamic

program for this funding.

 

It's listed as one of the unmet

needs within par for a very high

dollar cost but I think there

has been a lot of back and forth

in council member morrison on

ways to scale this down.

This is an opportunity we had an

opportunity to talk about at our

youth -- our counselor retreat.

We had an opportunity to talk

about the roving leaders and the

significant impact that that

program had on reducing crime

among young people in our city

and I think it's a very, very

solid investment of our dollars,

so I would suggest if this

motion passes that we is hard to

perhaps return to us on how to

spend what is really a small

dollar amount again in that and

the other opportunity that i

think is really a critical one,

if you notice another question

council member morrison had

asked member -- 68, talks about

the fees, this is something i

heard about constituents and

other colleagues may have as

well.

The fees for our program -- for

programs not our facilities have

increased.

In some cases they have

increased from a fee of 0 to

$175.

And this is -- this is going to

pose -- I am sorry, $125.

 

This is going to pose a real

challenge for many of the

families in those neighborhoods.

 

In the past, as I understand it,

recreation center staff have

been able to make some

adjustments to those fees and

propose fees that they thought

the families in that community

could handle.

 

In this case, what we would be

doing, as part of this budget,

is standardizing those fees, so

no matter where you live in the

city, you would be responsible

for the same level of fee,

though the families in that

community may be able to less

able to bare it.

 

I know some of the questions

present in the q and a it is

present of pard to provide fee

waivers or scholarships or other

financial as assistance but as

far as this budget goes, there

are no plans tods and I think --

to do so and I think the 101,000

provides some opportunities to

provide some very, very limited

assistance in

that way.

I will leave it there and let

people chime in.

 

so we

have 659,000 from the water

utility.

 

>> Tovo: From the sustainability

fund.

and

proposing to use 557 for one

purpose and 101 or 102 for the

other?

 

>> Tovo: Correct.

 

102 for

pard and these are two separate?

>> Tovo: Right and the 101

depends on the first one

passing.

We would need to agree to

increase the sustainability fund

transfer from the water utility

to have those moneys available

for neighborhood housing and

then as a separate -- a separate

matter --

this page

is incooperative here?

>> Tovo: I haven't gotten to

that one yet.

 

oh, you

haven't gotten to that.

It's another one.

>> Tovo: I will move to that

quickly.

 

It is a downtown different fund.

 

-- it is

a different fund.

with no

objection, we will lay that on

the table and go to the next

one.

 

Council member morrison.

 

>> Morrison: I did have a

question about the 101 from the

sustainability.

 

Can we consider that ongoing

funding or does that have to be

thought of as a one-time thing?

 

>> That could be on source of

revenue, the water utility

increase transfer back to 1%

where it has been, that would be

ongoing source of revenue.

 

>> Morrison: Okay.

 

What I would like to suggest we

think about, in terms of roving

leaders, the answer we got from

staff is we need about -- we

could actually implement it in

phases and although it had

800,000-dollar price tag, we

could actually implement phase

one with a quarter of one of

four teams that would be one

that I believe is about

100,000, and then about 100,000

plus a little bit more in one

time capital fund.

So I just wanted to put that

into the mix because that's --

that would be a possibility to

actually get that going this

time.

that is

just discussion item, council

member?

>> Morrison: It's just a

discussion.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

 

>> Morrison: I would also like

to chime in on the fees.

My question -- I would urge all

of my colleagues to look at the

answer to question number 68,

because it is -- I understand

staff wanting to standardize

things, and what they have done

is what's the cost of the

program, how many kids are

there, and then they included a

subsidy based on the type of

program, so what seems like a

good approach, and as i

understand, the subsidy is for

youth development, subsidized to

50% and for recreational athlete

tick, it subsidized at 30%, but

I really think that we need to

look at subsidizing -- either

doing it on needs base or

subsidizing based on

geographic -- income levels in

the geographic area that it

serves and I don't know which

way would be the best way to do

it but I hope we can have some

continuing discussions about

that.

council

member.

 

>> Tovo: Yes.

 

I want to say that I would

absolutely support a motion, and

if one isn't forthcoming, I will

make one, to provide for some

one time funding for the capital

expenses for roving leaders.

So at last, we had an

opportunity today to look at the

drainage utility fund in

executive session and I would

like to ask staff from

watershed, if they would be

willing to come talk about a few

matters.

 

>> For the drainage utility

fund, as I understand by purpose

set up by state law is to impact

areas like erosion control,

storm water detention.

 

I wonder if you will briefly

describe what the purpose of the

drainage utility fund is and how

it can be used.

>> I am for the watershed

protection and barbara lee, for

this fund, the mission is to do

for water quality control,

erosion control.

>> And those --

>> Tovo: And those controls as i

understand the state statute can

be both artificial as well as

natural?

 

>> Absolutely.

 

>> Tovo: So one of the things

that I have asked some questions

about through the budget process

has to do with one -- the extent

to which we turn our pard

department, the forestry

department and other programs

around the city engage in tree

maintenance and watering, and

whether those might be eligible

expenses for the drainage

utility fund, and I wonder if

you could address, in situations

where they are -- can be -- can

be illustrated to show that --

or can be illustrated to show --

can -- in areas where trees and

vegetation and the watering and

preventative maintenance of such

have storm water benefits, would

those be eligible expenses for

the drainage utility fund?

>> We definitely recognize the

benefit of trees and vegetation,

the benefits to storm water

management.

 

It helps, with storm water

absorption and also water

quality control.

 

However, our understanding of

the benefit has been broad and

general.

 

And we have not had a chance to

quantify the type of benefit,

and if you know that -- as you

know, the drainage utility fund

is limited but our needs is

tremendous.

We have -- our master plans need

this cost estimate as about

2 million, so we are --

2 billion so we are trying to

budget for the next 40 years,

plus all of these other council

initiatives, like the tod

development and all of these

drainage, the utilities that we

need to accommodate and support

different types of initiatives.

The total cost is tremendous,

3 billion, 4 billion, depending

on what you need to include.

So with all of that in mind, our

management strategy has been

using strategic partnership and

also database decisions to

produce the biggest bang for the

buck so that we can maximize our

utility fund and so we have

prioritizing and we do

appreciate this opportunity to

look at the trees and

vegetation's benefits in trying

to do more studies and quantify

that so that we can include that

in our document.

 

>> In looking at some of the

past work done, it looks like in

2008, there was a study done

that actually did quantify the

storm water benefits of the

trees here in austin and

estimated that benefit at being

somewhere in the neighborhood of

$3 million.

 

Is that -- is that accurate?

 

>> Yes.

 

I believe that study was

conducted maybe by the parks

department.

 

We would like to have an

opportunity to review that and

verify the benefit and do a

study so that we can continue to

produce bigger bang for the

buck.

>> Tovo: Could you describe for

me or a member of your staff

what the storm water benefit --

how the trees assist us in terms

of storm water benefit?

If you can sum it up.

>> Basically the trees absorb

lot of water, when you have

quick run off, the trees absorb

the running water and at the

same time, because the storm

water goes through vegetation,

goes through trees, then it

produces water quality type of

control.

And at the same time, chief

vegetation grabs the soil and

helps with erosion and so

erosion would not happen if

there are trees and vegetation

there that help with the water

quality in our creek.

>> Tovo: Thanks.

So we have talked -- you know,

we have certainly heard from

constituents about their

interest in seeing more money

for maintenance of our parks,

especially more -- more funds

available for tree maintenance

and preservation and we know the

trees in our city have direct

storm water benefits and direct

benefits to the purposes that

would be in alignment with the

purposes of the drainage utility

fund so I am proposing -- i

understand from going back and

forth with staff that there is

no way today to quantify what

that dollar amount is, so when

we look at, for example, the

770,000-dollarish, that pard has

in their budget for watering our

public parks, that is a cost

entirely absorbed by the parks

department right now but

certainly some portion of those

would be eligible for funding

through the drainage utility

fund because they meet the

benefits of that fund.

There is no way for us today to

quantify what that number is or

figure out from the forestry

budget to what extent within

8 million program, how

much of that might be directly

benefiting storm water, erosion

control and some of the other

purposes of the drainage utility

fund, but I think those are very

important questions to get to

the bottom of because we do have

a need to increase our resources

in that area and increase the

funds that we have available for

tree maintenance and

preservation.

I believe recently we had a

discussion at the auditing and

finance committee about our

schedule -- the amount of

time -- the amount a of dollars

we have to spend on landscaping

and tree preservation and

maintenance and then 91 years it

would take for the existing

staff to attend to all of the

300,000 -- the 300,000 trees

within our city's inventory.

 

So I think this is an important

question to get to the bottom

of.

 

We won't get to the bottom of it

today so I have, with the help

of staff, I am proposing an

amendment -- an amendment that

we would prioritize up to 1% of

the drainage utility fund for

the maintenance and watering of

vegetation and trees, where

doing so furthers the mission of

the drainage utility as provided

in state law.

 

This will direct the city

manager to conduct the study

regarding the relationship

between drainage utility

functions prescribed by state

law and the maintenance and

watering of trees on public land

and the necessary fiscal

requirements and to report back

to us within 90 days.

[One moment, please, for change

in captioners]

thanks very much for being

here all day.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I've

got a question for you.

Don't leave.

The question is what do you

understand, prioritize for

maintenance and water?

Do you have to set that

money aside?

 

Yes, as I explained, our

need is tremendous.

We are -- we are using our

fund in a way the highest

priority.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

this is before the study and

analysis takes place.

You are already being

directed by this motion to

set aside 1% of the drainage

fund is the way I understand

it.

>> Up to 1%.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's your intent,

councilmember?

>> Tovo: You know, we had

gone back and forth a little

about the language and I'm

certainly open to

suggestions about altering

it and I would just remind

you up to 1% means it can't

exceed 1%.

 

It can certainly go a lot

lower.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's why I asked the

question what do you

understand by that.

 

1 or

1.0?

>> I hope to be able to do

an analysis to show the

priority and the cost

beneficial analysis and then

reprioritize the dollar

amount.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

[Inaudible].

>> Financial manager diane

gonzalez.

 

What I understood it to be

was 1% of our revenue and

that we would have the

option with the budget

amendment language of

deciding whether or not we

would want to absorb that,

try to absorb that money or

take it out of our ending

balance which would mean a

budget amendment.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

actually when it says up to

1%, you take that to mean

1%?

>> Yes.

>> Tovo: And I'll point

out that one of the reasons

that I've landed on 1% or up

to 1% is because that is the

amount that traditionally

has been transferred from

the drainage stability fund

to the sustainability fund

and I believe that I am

proposing here fits solidly

within, again, the goals of

the sustainability fund and

how we broadly think about

sustainability.

 

I am not proposing this

transfer into the

sustainability fund.

 

I'm just suggesting this is

a way to support our city's

commitment to sustainability

clearly within the drainage

fund.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm

not going to be able to

support this for a couple of

reasons because first, as

you just described, there's

such a long-term need, a

40-year-plus, billion dollar

plus need for the kind of

work this fund was designed

to do.

And now we are talking about

diverting it for some other

funds or having it -- some

other purposes that have not

been fully exposed,

examined.

 

So I'm not going to be able

to support this effort to --

once again, to take money

from a fund that was

established and dedicated

for another purpose and use

it for another before that

purpos sub stand i

eight.

 

>> The amount of that 1%.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's why I asked the

question.

 

>> Tovo: That's fine, and

I appreciate your comments,

mayor, and if you would feel

more comfortable seeing the

study first, but the intent

here is that if we believe

there are -- I mean, i

believe based on my

discussions and also based

on the literature I've read,

that there are indeed --

there is a very close

alignment between the work

that our parks department is

already doing to preserve

and maintain our tree canopy

and that we can -- that we

are not really proposing a

diversion of funds, we

wouldn't -- I certainly

wouldn't support a diversion

of those funds.

I'm suggesting that we look

at the state statute and its

emphasis -- not its

emphasis, but it's notation

of natural -- natural ways

to work toward erosion

control and other things and

consider those within the

mix, broaden, if you would,

our thinking about how we

undertake addressing these

issues.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

understand, but --

>> Tovo: To green

infrastructure as well as

kind of the built.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

vanino pointed out his

understanding and mine at

this point is this is also a

budget amendment to take 1%

of the drainage fund and

dedicate to maintenance and

watering vegetation of these

[inaudible].

Is that still part of your

motion?

 

>> Tovo: It is, but I'll

give a look at it and

consider whether -- before

it comes up again.

Yeah, that is my intent.

I mean that was my intent

and if it fails, I may make

another attempt.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

you understand 1%, you got

to figure out what that is

and then the other part, the

legal he's is redirecting

that to another purpose.

 

And as we discussed --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councimember spelman.

>> Spelman: Ed is bursting

with information.

 

He would love to tell us

what that 1% is and I'd love

to hear it.

 

>> It would probably be

about $650,000.

>> Spelman: And could

anyone give us a sense for

what we could expect to

accomplish with $650,000 now

that we actually have a

number?

 

How much watering can we do

for $650,000?

>> Tovo: Well, we know in

this year's budget, one of

my budget questions asked

how much we are currently

spending and I think it was

in the neighborhood of

$750,000.

Again, it's not clear how

much of that would be

specifically related to

watering of trees and

vegetation that have storm

water benefits.

 

So it's likely a smaller

number than 770,000, but

there is also work within

the forestry program that i

think fits really within

this mission as well, but it

would not exceed that

drainage number and I've got

that somewhere in my notes

as well.

648,000, I believe.

>> Sara hencery, director of

parks and recreation.

 

There's two things, one is

the earth with aing of trees

which we're doing now.

 

Not a lot of our parks are

irrigated or sprinkled so

many trees we plant to

continue our urban forest

program are knew so we have

to hand water those.

It takes a lot of extra care

to do that and we have to

have the water trucks which

we have and take go out on a

regular basis to make sure

they stay alive.

 

Second of all, of course, as

the number you quoted,

councilmember tovo, we're

able to get toen a maintain

our trees in if inventory we

have which is over 300,000

when you include the

cemeteries, one every 90

years.

 

That means we can get around

to trees in our inventory

every 90 years.

 

Any kind of infusion into

the department for forestry

purposes would make an

impact on being able to help

maintain those trees.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

So that is the proposed

amendment.

 

We'll lay that on the table.

 

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: I would like

to make a comment I think

this is a really interesting

and positive step, this

motion, because it's helping

us to broaden our

understanding of really

attacking and addressing our

drainage issues and

obviously we're overwhelmed

in terms of the needs, but

it's important to be

integrating and thinking

about every way to address

it so that we can find out

the way to be most effective

and how to get the biggest

bang for your buck.

So I think this is the good

stuff and to put a stake in

the ground to say, yeah, we

are going to start

integrating this approach to

drainage issues with jugs a

small amount I think is a

really conservative but

productive step to take.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

understand, and I would just

add to my earlier comment i

think it throws into serious

question where we don't need

to have a question regarding

the legitimacy of the

drainage fund and that's

another reason I'll not be

supporting it.

 

So I have one more

amendment.

Others may have more, but

this is all I have.

 

And the motion would be to

amend the proposed budget of

austin resource recovery by

decreasing the appropriation

for public education

campaign by $1 million.

And I would note that the

current budget for public

education campaigns is

75 million so this would

still leave $750,000 in arr

for public education

campaigns which to me even

after the $1 million cut is

a staggering number.

But just basically for t.v.

Ads and the like.

In the second part of it is

to amend the proposed budget

by decreasing revenue by

$1 million to reflect the

reduction in the clean

community, that is what's

paying for this public

relation campaign, and to

use that $1 million,

reallocate that $1 million

to purposes that I believe

originally intended for,

street cleanup, graffiti

reduction and cleanup and

code enforcement, which is

very important.

 

I think everyone agrees that

we can use that additional

money in code enforcement.

 

So it's revenue neutral as

it sits right now.

It's just reallocation of

$1 million from one purpose

to another.

And that's -- that will be

my proposal.

 

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: I wonder if

we could have

[inaudible] come and

speak to the fund that's

being decreased here, the

public education fund.

I remember talking about

that when we were talking

about the whole plan that we

were looking at and it was a

big number and we had a

little discussion.

 

Can you remind us about how

you see public education

fitting in as being able to

achieve our goal?

>> Yeah, a couple of quick

comments, but I also would

want jessica king to answer

more precisely.

 

75 million that the

mayor mentioned is spread

over two years.

 

It's a two-year spread of

expenditures.

And I just wanted to clarify

that.

 

I also want to note that the

education and outreach

that's intended by that fund

is not only for 800,000

residents in our city but

also 20,000 businesses that

are affect.

 

We have a responsibility to

educate our businesses that

are directly affect, and a

good majority of them have

not been engaged in the

process of this discussion.

And so -- and I also would

note that our visitors to

our city are impacted so

there's some ongoing

education.

But I would like jessica to

note the 1 million that's

being referred to here.

>> Good afternoon, council,

jessica king.

 

The 1 million that has been

referenced in the budget

specifically relates to

education and outreach to a

variety of issues, primarily

the [inaudible] and

education and outreach

primarily again to

businesses that will be

directly impacted by that

ordinance.

 

So the 1 million if that is

pulled back would impact the

outreach to educate

businesses and in particular

to the city of austin's

customer bases 185,000

customers.

 

So when you look at that

million and you look at

changing and creating an

impact among businesses and

about 800,000 residences as

well as visitors coming into

our city, the impact is

pretty tremendous.

And so we do have to reach

out.

 

It's a very specific,

coordinated, focused effort

in terms of the message and

the campaign so that's why

we looked at million

initially and 750 k for the

next fiscal year for that

campaign.

So I can answer any more

detailed questions if you

like.

>> Morrison: If I could

follow up a little bit, how

did you figure out that to

be successful with our

conversion to reusable bags

that it would cost

1.75 million over two years?

Can you give a feel for

that?

 

>> Sure, absolutely.

 

We looked at other cities

that started off with our

own campaigns as well.

 

So programs in los angeles,

portland, seattle, other

cities that adopted --

brownsville also, cities in

texas.

 

In addition to that we look

at campaigns that really

focused on behavior change,

that really required people

to really rethink how they

handle things and how they

approach their lives and

look at a behavior change

because it does take a

little rethinking before you

go to the grocery store or

retail centers to bring your

own bags.

 

Looking at that campaign, we

looked at one in the city we

do right now which is the

smoking cessation campaign

and that smoking cessation

complain looked at how they

reached out to the

community, the social media

efforts that they embarked

on, a lot of the outreach

not just to citizens through

partnerships with cdc online

as well as television media,

print and a lot of social

media when you are looking

at that direct citizen to

citizen contact, that was

really critical to us.

When you look at campaigns

like that, they averaged in

the million range.

>> Morrison: And as we go

to this I guess march is our

date where we're going to be

converting to reusable bags,

I don't know how if you have

a sense for how do you

measure whether we make the

transition successfully or

not, but my question is what

impact, if you can even

define that, what impact

will cutting this million

dollars have on being

successful in that

transition.

>> I actually saw on channel

6 today an interesting fact

which was 250 tons of trash

pulled from the lady bird

lake on an annual basis.

And a lot of that definitely

I'm sure is water logged.

 

We have been working with

keep austin beautiful too to

start documenting the amount

of plastic bags during their

event to see if we can see

an impact from year to year

in the reduction amount of

bagged litter that you see

in any type of litter

because litter in and of

itself is critical.

 

But for plastic bag use, but

reusable bags are critical

to zero waste, reusable

anything, so we're looking

long term at knowledge and

knowledge about reusable

products and seeing that

emerge as a whole.

It will be a difficult and

basically the point to your

question is performance

measure will be difficult to

track.

>> Morrison: But I think

an even more diff but one to

track but one I'm concerned

about do we have a smooth

transition or is it chaos

and the whole community is

up in arms because they

don't know what's going on

and things are, you know, a

big surprise and as opposed

to having smoothed the way

for the next six months, and

I know you've been working

on that.

 

>> That's exactly why

working with a group to

really focus on that

education and outreach to

citizens is critical because

the transition -- what we

don't want them to do is go

to the store on march 1st

and not know what their

options are.

And for businesses even more

so to not know what they can

provide to their customers.

Our biggest concern really

is the businesses because

then they have to reach out

to staff, educate, and in

terms of planning for the

purchases they make long

term, inventory of bags,

they need to know what their

options are.

This campaign will allow us

to do that.

 

>> Morrison: You mention

visitors and I imagine it's

also important to work

directly with hotels and

motels and, oh, hay,

commercial short-term rental

owners, and to make sure

they are doing outreach to

the folks that are coming to

stay so people aren't

getting, you know, in

trouble for bringing their

plastic bags and expecting

them.

>> That's correct.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, let me just say about

five years ago I visited san

francisco and I went to

joe's market grocery store

and they gave me a paper

reusable bag because i

didn't know they had an

ordinance for reusable bags,

but I was a tourist, I just

looked at it and we want on

out with it.

 

It was no big thing.

 

With regard to tourists.

 

The second thing I'm not

sure comparisons with what

other cities have spent are

valid.

I don't know.

I just would question that.

But I think one big

difference is, and I know

this because I really was

instrumental in the effort

originally with regard to

reusable bags or

specifically plastic bags,

that's what it started off

at and probably still should

be at is plastic bags, we've

had over four years of

intense education, hundreds

of public meetings.

We've met many times with

people in the retail

industry, the texas retail

association and six major

bag users here.

So I would suggest that

we've had a long process

already of good base to

build on.

 

And the last point I want to

make is that, you know,

seems like this is very

appropriate for psa.

Channel 6 was mentioned.

I don't think we paid too

much to put information out

on channel 6, but even on

the commercial stations we

could internally work out

PSAs AND HOPEFULLY

Commercial television

stations would run them for

no charge.

It just seems like a lot of

money.

 

>> Mayor, just some quick

responses.

THE PSAs ON COMMERCIAL

Stations do cost money.

 

They are a reduced fee but

they do cost money and it's

the production as well as

the placement of those ads.

But I would also add that

we've done a lot of press

releases.

We issued a press release

last monday and there was a

four-hour radio show that

displayed a tremendous

amount of misinformation

about the ordinance.

 

Simply because the talk show

host disagreed with the

ordinance.

 

So we have --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's never happened

before.

 

>> And so we have a

reeducation on a regular

basis of what the ordinance

is about and what it doesn't

do and what it does do.

 

So we are challenged

economically to constantly

reeducate the public.

 

And I want to just

reemphasis jessica's

statement that we do need to

work the retail businesses

to get them to know what

their responsibilities are

on the ordinance as well.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

Any other proposed

amendments?

 

Councimember spelman.

 

>> Spelman: Let me ask a

question first and then i

have a proposal for

procedural proposal.

Is there somebody here from

austin police department?

 

They all left.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: They

were here five minutes ago.

>> Spelman: I'll ask my

question at some future date

which is something to do

with a procedure issue.

 

I'll be honest with you,

mayor, I'm tired and a

little bit confused, we've

spent almost five hours

proposing things we would

like to take out, things we

would like to add.

 

I'm not sure all of that is

completely cooked.

There's been some people

said, well, they would like

to revisit this, I'd like to

reconsider that and I'm not

sure all of us -- I'm

certainly sure about me so i

won't try and point this to

anybody else, I would

benefit from having some

time this evening and

tomorrow morning to take a

look at this again and get a

sense for how this all sorts

out in my own head.

 

So rather than continuing to

push forward and try and

make these decisions right

now, I would appreciate an

opportunity to recess the

meeting and take them up

00 tomorrow

morning.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, what our original plan

was to at this point this

time to take a 30 to

45-minute break while staff

went out and quantified all

these amendments and give

[inaudible] on the effect of

it so that was the plan, to

come back here.

 

I'm certainly willing to

consider that, but in my

mind that's going to require

us today to post another

meeting for friday.

 

We have to potentially have

three meetings, do we not,

city attorney, to ensure

that we -- in case something

takes three readings, some

part of this takes three

readings so we'll be able to

do that.

>> I would think we would be

able to do that.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Who

is speaking?

>> I think that would be

correct because if you

haven't taken a vote and if

we want to have the

possibility of rereading

[inaudible].

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm

sure we would have to do

that.

 

I mean, just as we

originally posted three

meetings, three meetings for

this session, monday,

tuesday and wednesday,

although we've never taken

all three, we have to post

it to make sure that we have

adequate meetings to pass a

budget.

>> Mayor --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: City

attorney.

 

>> We haven't done this, but

the open meetings act does

allow that we could recess

this meeting, today's

meeting, reconvene it

tomorrow so it would still

be this meeting where we

could have one reading, and

then we could then adjourn

it at some time tomorrow and

call the meeting that's been

posted for tuesday and that

would be a second meeting.

 

And then we still have the

meeting schedule for

wednesday.

 

So there is a way to do it.

 

You know, we've never used

those provisions of the open

meetings act, but they are

allowable.

If, of course, the safest

thing to do would be just

post another meeting, but

there's a way to do it

legally under the act

without posting another

meeting.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay, so noting.

 

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: I wonder if

there's another option and

who knows depending on how

this council would want to

act, what if I were to make

a motion that we adopt the

proposed budget on first

reading only today before we

leave.

 

That means that we would

only need two other meetings

as most and I don't know if

people would be comfortable

doing that or not, but

that's something we could

consider.

 

If,.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, I'm not sure if people

would know exactly what

we're voting on or what the

amount of the -- what the

amount -- what the

expenditures in the budget

would be and what is revenue

would be.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor, what i

said we adopt a proposed

budget, the one that the

city manager proposed.

And then tomorrow we get one

reading under our belt and

then pass through tomorrow

and if need be wednesday two

other readings.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Does

that work?

 

City attorney.

 

>> I just want to mention

that in adopting the budget,

you also know you have to

then levy your taxes in

accordance with that budget.

 

So we would recommend that

you go and at least have

first reading on the other

items that are directly

related to the budget as

well.

We've only taken up really

item number 1, so in order

to make it sure that we're

on track to get three

readings of the other

items --

 

>> Morrison: We would have

to do all.

>> We recommend you have to

do the others specifically

related to the budget as

well.

 

The other nine, ten items.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: I have one-third

option which is to do both,

which is to go ahead and

recess the meeting,

reconvene tomorrow and also

post for friday as a safety

measure.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think certainly that is what

we should do if we're going

to recess this meeting until

tomorrow morning, we should

go ahead in abundance of

caution and post for friday.

So is there any objection to

recessing this meeting now

with austin city council and

30 tomorrow

morning?

>> Cole: Mayor, I do have

one other comment.

 

The information that staff

is supposed to compile

that's going to take between

30 and 45 minutes, I would

like to be able to have that

for myself and I'm sure

everyone before we leave

today.

I don't know the plans for

that, but I would like to

work that out.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

mayor pro tem is suggesting

that we recess the meeting

and come back in 45 minutes

to get the input.

Is that what you are

suggesting?

 

>> Cole: I guess we can

just agree that's going to

be emailed out to us.

 

I just want us to be clear

about what we're going to do

with that information

because councimember

spelman, I agree with that.

 

I just wanted to make sure,

ed, you can do it that way.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: I mentioned this

when I was talking about the

sustainability fund fund and

2,100,000 and talking about

the -- I would make one

myself and I want to say I'm

going to work out the

numbers and propose a motion

or I will amend my $101,000

motion to include funding

from the one-time

expenditure for the roving

leaders.

 

I just wanted to put that

out before we recess the

meeting.

 

I think it's a critical

program and we have an

opportunity to fund the

capital expenses through the

one-time expenditure budget

stabilization fund and the

difference.

 

Then I think we should do

that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's an additional motion.

 

>> Tovo: It is an

additional motion.

I don't have the numbers.

I'll have to talk with

director hensley.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We'll put that on the table

and without objection we're

30

tomorrow morning.

 

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Good

ing.

Austin

leffingwell.

A quorum is present.

I'll call back to order this

meeting of the austin city

council where we left off

with the briefing from staff

regarding these proposed

budget changes.

It's a very complicated

thing and I think we need a

little guidance.

>> Good morning, mayor,

mayor pro tem and members of

council.

I would like a moment to

walk you through the

materials we distributed via

email last night.

[09:12:01]

Essentially before you we

have eight pages of

amendments to different

funds that council discussed

and put -- I think the

language we discussed was

put them on the table.

That's are things from

council so far in the

process, they are on the

table.

Page 1 is showing you

amendments that would need

to occur to our general fund

revenuen a you will see

right off the ballot there's

some color coding.

A lot of times amendments

require a budget change.

Our critical one-time fund,

maybe revenues and

expenditures so to

facilitate the discussion we

have color coded them.

On the right-hand column you

will see a running column

for the general fund.

We are required by law to

have the general fund be

balanced, revenues need to

be balanced with spend

yourself.

The top line says fiscal

year 13 proposed budget.

That's the budget that staff

delivered to you all.

It had a zero balance.

Revenues were in balance

with expenditures.

And then you can see the

running tally with positives

being to the good.

As we start making

amendments, you can see the

revenue we have to work on.

If you go to page 2, these

are the amendments that

council put on the table in

regards to general fund

spend if you are changes,

and again you can see the

color coding for the

different amendments that

are interrelated and how the

gap changes.

The gap numbers start to

come down now as some of

these proposals get put on

to the table.

Going on to page 3 then, you

can see the conclusion that

all the expense changes

[09:14:00]

balance currently with the

revenue changes.

The general fund budget

would still be in balance

with -- but with an

ADDITIONAL 9.5 FTEs AND

$449,000 Of expenditures in

revenues.

There would be no change to

the tax rate.

That would stay exactly the

same as what's currently in

the proposed budget.

Going on to page 4, this is

that pot of money that gives

us funds that we can draw

down by up to one-third per

year and we can draw that

fund down to fund one-time

purchases.

Typically it's allocated to

capital purchases but it

doesn't have to.

It needs to be constrained

to things of a one-time

nature.

With the staff's budget

amendments, one of our

amendments was to spend some

of that money on the cwpt

and vehicles and equipment

FOR THE THREE FTEs IN THE

Fire department for phase 1

of the wildfire division.

We were spending or

proposing to spend $87,000

out of the fund and so the

fund balance number there is

43.1 million.

That's 12.1%.

We had some discussion about

what is our budget

stabilization reserve and

how will the changes council

is talking about making to

it change that percentage.

You can again see the -- the

one-time type of expenses

that are coming out of that

fund.

Flipping over to page 5, you

can see the bottom line that

there was $706,713 of

proposed appropriations to

come out of the budget

stabilization reserve fund.

That would drop the total

1% to

12% which is still a nice

healthy level for us to be

at.

There's a bit of a kind of

[09:16:01]

an accounting flow of funds

here, but typically what we

do is have dollars flow from

our budget stabilization

reserve to a fund we call

our critical one-time fund.

The reserve fund, the pot of

money where we keep our

reserve dollars in and then

the extent that we want to

appropriate some of those

moneys to capital purchases

and one-time purchases we

first move them into a

critical one-time fund and

from that fund we expend

them.

So you can see a couple of

amendments where we're

moving those moneys from the

stabilization reserve to the

critical one-time fund and

you can just see the amount

of money we're planning on

spending on critical

one-time.

7 million out

of that fund.

That's for technology,

equipment, vehicle

replacement and all the

types of capital we need to

maintain on a regular basis.

You can see the additional

changes that came from

council.

There are things on the

budget stabilization reserve

that are not going to the

critical one-time fund and

maybe I need to explain

those a little bit.

If you went back to page 4

and kind of followed the

color coding scheme I gave

you, two of those amendments

have to do with staff, which

is atypical, unusual for us

to be funding staff members

out of our one-time fund

because staff members are

typically recurring ongoing

commitments.

So for those two items

instead of the budget

stabilization reserves,

transferring the money to

our critical one-time fund,

transfers are going to the

general fund so we could

fund the staff they would be

supporting.

That's why you'll see the

off setting expenditures

related to the blue item and

the green item.

Those are over in that

general fund budget.

The gray item and the orange

or peach colored item, you

see those on page 6.

That's balancing out the

critical one-time fund.

[09:18:00]

The last two pages have to

do with all of our other

operating funds.

That's austin energy, the

water utility, the drainage

fund, sustainability funds,

all those funds are captured

on the last two pages and a

lot of them are

interrelated.

If I looked at councilmember

tovo's proposals related to

taking the austin water

utility transfer to

sustainability back up to

1%, we could then allocate

some of that additional

sustainability fund money,

the proposal was to allocate

some of that to the

neighborhood housing

department.

But they then to rely on the

housing trust fund to fund

THESE FIVE FTEs, THAT'S

All interrelated.

We can't do those other

items if we can't do the

transfer from water to

sustainability.

If we're going to adopt one

of those, we probably need

to adopt all of them

otherwise it doesn't all fit

together.

I did have one change.

Page 7, the documents in

front of you are correct,

but I want to make clear in

regards to the documents we

sent out last night, item 2

on page 7, there was three

words at the end that said

AND 3.5 FTEs.

That was a correction and

we've removed that language.

The language before you

where it ends at 212,371,

period, that's the correct

language.

If anybody has a version

THAT SAYS 3.5 FTEs, CROSS

That out.

Page 7, number 2.

Should end 312,371, period.

If that's what reads, that

should be correct.

-- 212,371.

With that, could we bring up

the presentation from

yesterday?

[09:20:01]

Slide 20.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: A

question before we go on.

It seems to me like we would

have to take these as one

motion per color code.

Since they are interrelated,

say, for example, all of

them are [inaudible]

proposals in light blue as

one motion and then go on

all the way through,

including the general fund,

stabilization reserve fund,

critical one-time fund and

the other operating fund.

>> That would be my

recommendation.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Without objection that's how

we'll proceed.

>> [Inaudible]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: The

color code -- number 3 on

page 2.

Number 1 on page 4.

And that's it.

All of those would go

together.

And in a similar fashion,

take up all the purple, all

the green, all the pink.

Seven I guess.

Salmon I guess it's called.

Brown, et cetera.

That's all.

>> And I did have one more

staff amendment.

It's not an amendment to our

DOLLARS OR FTEs, BUT EACH

Year it's part of crafting

the budget staff looks at

its financial policies.

We presented a financial

policy to the audit finance

committee in regards to the

one you see on our screen

here and the audit finance

committee had a recommended

[09:22:01]

change to the language and

so I wanted to read that

language to you because in

adopting number 1 you would

also be approving the

financial policies

pertaining to the operating

budget.

To improve financial

planning, nonemergency

amendments to the budget, in

one meeting except in cases

off set by new revenue

resulting from the

[inaudible] and there is no

discretion how the revenue

is spent.

For the most part this is

the existing policy and a

good policy.

Everything up to that comma

is really existing polity.

Shall be accomplished in one

midyear council meeting.

What it's saying we don't

want to be coming back to

council every council

meeting, we want to spend

more money out of our

general fund, we want to

spend more money out of our

general fund.

We want those discussions to

have happen cohesively and

recognizing that we may need

to come back during the year

to make amendments and

wanting that to happen at

one time.

The current policy allows an

exception if it's grant

funded.

So if it's something where

we got a grant that's going

to pay for the program,

there's really no reason in

waiting, in fact, it may not

be practical to come back

once per year.

We're just trying to provide

council and staff with

flexibility here.

There's been some situations

where maybe we enter into an

interlocal and need to add a

funded by the third

party agency.

Under the current policy we

couldn't do that except for

once per year.

If it's an amendment off set

by the revenues,

expenditures are off set by

revenues and there's really

no discretion how we use

those revenues, we can come

back at any time.

Essentially if it's an

[09:24:01]

amendment that is looking at

sales taxes or property

taxes, discretionary

revenues, we would try to

bring all of those back at

one time so if there's

competing initiatives we

could have a collective

discussion about the

priority.

That's the change and the

recommendation from the

audit finance committee was

to add the last part about

no discretion [inaudible].

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

it would be item 20 on page

8 pencilled in.

Is that correct?

This is -- this is

already -- yes, that would

be item number 20.

[One moment please]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

that related to any of the

other amendments?

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: Regarding the

policies, I thought that we

in audit and finance had

actually looked at several

policies, but I think maybe

what you are saying is that

we only made an amendment to

the staff recommendations in

that one policy.

[09:26:01]

>> That's correct.

There's six policy changes

that are outlined and

included in your budget

document back in the

supporting document section

of volume 2 where we lay out

our financial policies.

There's six policy changes.

All of them were looked at

by audit and finance.

This one policy they had a

requested change this the

language which is what we're

bringing forward, an

amendment to the document, a

language change that audit

and finance requested.

>> Morrison: Okay, but i

think there was one policy

change that we did not make

a recommendation on one way

or another.

>> That's correct.

>> Morrison: So I think --

I wonder if you could put

that policy up.

And I think there was a

presentation about whether

we felt that was the right

way to go or not.

>> We don't have a slide,

but I have a handout that we

could pass out so people

could see the -- it was the

one with the austin water

utility, I believe,

[inaudible] pass these

around and if we have

[inaudible].

>> Morrison: That would be

great because I think it

would make sense since we

don't come to any

recommendations at audit and

finance, but I'll highlight

that one.

I wonder if you could come

[09:28:00]

and explain what the

recommendation is and maybe

those of us that were in

audit and finance

[inaudible].

.>> One of our proposed

changes goes back to old

long standing policy

statement for austin water

where we would have revenue

bond [inaudible] specially

for projects in the drinking

water protection zone.

There's been several

[inaudible] over the years

it's not authorized to --

other policies have been

updated to reflect this.

There was an audit review of

this about a year ago and

based on all those

recommendations we had

proposed to revise this

policy to remove this

particular policy where we

would not have revenue bond

elections in our plans and

policies in conflict with

the legal opinions and

instead would fund all of

our projects through our

commercial paper and regular

revenue bond [inaudible] for

finance.

I would mention there's one

other part of the finding

that was continuing to work

to achieve the council's

desire to [inaudible]

drinking water protection

zone project.

We have public input on

that.

Obviously we take all of our

projects to council.

We had been working to

update some of our titles of

our capital projects, clear

which ones were in the

drinking water protection

zone so there would be

additional transparency on

those projects.

But those are rare.

>> Morrison: But you are

talking about an audit, is

that an audit that was done

by our city auditor or was

that internal is this.

>> Our city auditor.

>> Morrison: I wonder if i

[09:30:01]

could ask [inaudible] to

come down to speak to that.

And I don't know if I'm

putting you on the spot, if

you are familiar with that.

Because it has been a topic

of some conversation at

least in the community and

certainly on the dais and in

executive session.

Session.

>> Good morning,

councilmembers.

Ken, city auditor.

>> Morrison: Can you talk

about that audit

recommendation?

>> Greg is correct, we did

recommend that we reconcile

the differences so that part

of it -- we're also in

concurrence with the

transparency issue.

We recommended -- it's been

a while so I'm sort of

paraphrasing.

If you look at it from the

perspective of transparency

[inaudible]

>> Morrison: Okay.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

this a discussion or is this

related to what we are about

to consider?

>> At this point I believe

it's just a discussion.

The policy change you'll see

there on page 1 of what i

handed out that starts with

voter approved revenue

bonds, then it says deleted.

That change is this the

proposed document before

council.

Audit and finance took no

action on it and I think

councilmember morrison is

making it clear that is in

the proposed document.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It's

in here.

Delete this entire section.

>> Yes, sir.

And approving the operating

budget, that's a change in

financial policy.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

the net effect of deleting

this policy statement would

be what in very simple

terms?

>> Zero.

Dollars.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: In

terms of dollars, but what

about in terms of policy?

>> In terms of policy, you

could argue that in terms of

policy it doesn't change

anything.

State law says we can't be

doing this so we're not

[09:32:00]

doing this currently.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: This

alliance our policy with

state law?

>> Yes, sir.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: meszaros, can

I ask another question.

One of the reasons we didn't

take action on it in audit

and finance we didn't have

an opportunity within that

setting and meeting to

discuss this in any depth

and I'm not sure we're going

to have that time today

either.

What is -- is there a

time -- is there a reason

why we would need to approve

this today or is it

something we could approve

after today?

I don't know if that's a

question for you or city

legal.

>> I would probably defer

that.

From our perspective, you it

would have to be approved

today.

I don't know if there's a

budget --

>> the council really just

needs to make a decision of

either they want to make a

decision on this today,

which in adopting item 1

currently this policy would

be deleted.

If you do not want to take

that action today, then we

would offer up a number 21

amendment that would

maintain this policy which

we could craft that way

[inaudible] I think staff's

preference would be to get

it resolved today because

there's an issue of it not

being in alignment with

state law and we like to

have our fiscal policies for

13 be in alignment with

auditor's recommendations

and state law.

And I don't think --

[inaudible].

>> Tovo: [Inaudible] for

quite some time.

meszaros, I know you

said that you talked about

transparency.

There has been a lot of

interest in this particular

issue of revenue, voter

approved revenue bonds, and

I appreciate that you are

interested in moving -- in

making sure that it will

still be a transparent

public process especially

when we're talking about

projects in the drinking

development zone.

Have you -- have you done --

excuse me, drinking water

[09:34:00]

protection zone.

Have you done any -- have

you laid out what that

process would look like or

can you provide us with any

information?

I'm thinking if we're

substituting this I would

rather have some sense what

your aims are for a public

process and be able to

present that to the public

as an alternative.

>> One, all -- all

investments in the drinking

water protection zone that

occur through private

development or service

extension requests, there's

already council language

that requires all those to

come before council so we

think that's already taken

care of.

In terms of our own capital

improvement projects, we had

a couple of thoughts.

One were to put in the title

of any capital improvement

project if it's in the

drinking water protection

zone so it's clear from the

title of the project that

you know it's in the

drinking water protection

zone.

The final piece of it that

we were considering to offer

up would be at the budget

time council could hold a

separate public hearing on

only capital improvement

projects in the drinking

water protection zone.

We always have a public

hearing on rates, you would

have a second hearing on

drinking water protection

projects and any projects in

the drinking water

protection zone and folks

could come to council and

discuss that prior to the

budget approval.

>> Tovo: I like those

ideas very much and would

suggest it would be useful

to get some of those written

up.

If we are moved to eliminate

this policy to replace it

with something else.

So I would suggest that we

do consider this on a

separate day.

But that's a motion, that we

remove this from

consideration today and get

meszaros' points

in some kind of fashion so

sothat we can take action on

it.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem objects, so

[09:36:03]

mayor pro tem, just for the

purpose of discussion.

>> Cole: Yes.

I do degree we did not

explore this completely in

audit and finance and there

is interest in the

community.

And so I would simply like

to request that we hear this

particular policy change in

its entirety with your

recommendation at the next

audit and finance meeting

and then we'll bring that to

council [inaudible] take a

lot of time [inaudible].

Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councimember spelman.

>> Spelman: As i

understand it, the only

change in financial policy

brought before the council

by staff is the first one on

this list.

But the only one which

councilmember tovo is

concerned we need further

discussion on is the second

to last on the list with

respect to revenue bonds.

Am I right?

Could we not consider 2, 3,

4 and 6 today?

>> Tovo: I'm sorry for not

being clear.

That was exactly my intent,

that we just pull the one

that needs more discussion.

>> Spelman: Okay.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, I assume you are

talking about sequentially

because I don't see any

numbers on mine.

So you are talking about

just count out the

paragraphs?

2, 3, 4 And 6?

>> Spelman: At what point

would a motion be in order?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think councilmember tovo

just made one.

>> Spelman: I'll second

it.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

that your motion,

councilmember tovo, to have

an item numbered 21 that

addresses incorporating only

items 2, 3, 4 and 6 and not

item number 5?

>> Tovo: Yes, mayor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

[09:38:01]

Okay.

So we will put that one on

the table and take action on

it in order.

>> Tovo: Mayor, I will say

there's one on the back.

I don't know if it's part of

the same 21 or not.

On page 2 of the financial

policies there are some

recommendations from the

austin water utility and i

don't intend to delay those.

But the establishment of the

water revenue stability

reserve fund, so that can

remain on there too.

The only one I'm suggesting

postponed, all the rest

could go forward.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'll

just say I'm not sure what

the concern is on item

number 5.

From what we just heard,

it's an effort to align

written policy with state

law and we're going to

continue to operate in

accordance with state law

irregardless what our policy

says.

I'm not sure what the

purpose is, but we can

continue to disregard our

policy and follow state law

indefinitely, I guess.

So I guess no -- it does no

harm.

So with that, adding item

number 21 to the amendment

list, I think we're ready to

start making our way through

the entire list.

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: Having had --

I think this process has

been very helpful and now

that once we got this last

night and once I understood

it, it helped me realize

that I -- looking at the

priorities and things we're

having to trade off, i

wanted to withdraw one of my

amendments and add some

[09:40:00]

additional ones.

The amendment that I want to

withdraw is the one that

first shows up on page 1 as

number 3, morrison.

It's the one about filling

in the grant funded human

trafficking program and i

want to thank [inaudible]

for following up with

discussion yesterday on i

now understand in terms of

the lack of this position is

not taxing overtime as I was

under the impression because

actually the overtime is

from evening calls because

there is no coverage from

these experts in this unit

evening calls.

And reinstating that

position to be as productive

as it was, maybe somewhat

difficult, but I also heard

councilmember riley's

comments and reminded me

about the need for early

childhood education

involvement and investment

in this community.

So what I want to do is

withdraw that one motion and

put in -- put something on

the table that takes those

funds that I had mentioned,

the 84,057 that are one-time

funds and invest them in a

one-time early childhood

investment.

And I hope you can manage

that without too much

trouble.

So basically big picture

point of view, withdrawing

that motion about a one-time

year extension on that

position and just add a

one-time investment in early

childhood.

>> I think the only thing we

would need clarification on

is department.

>> Morrison: That would be

health and human services.

That's one thing that was

really helpful that we

had -- excuse me.

[09:42:01]

For me that helps align

priorities a little bit

better.

The other issue on the table

for me is I think that an

investment in the roving

leaders program is --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Before you go into this one,

so as I understand it then,

number 3 on page 1 would

just substitute hhs

department early childhood

programs for the language

referring to police human

trafficking program.

Is that right?

>> No.

If I could -- number 3 on

page 1 will go away.

It will be eliminated.

If,.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

>> Number 9 on page 3 would

also be eliminated.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

what about 5 on page 4?

>> Number 5 on page 4 will

stay the same except instead

of transferring the money to

the general fund we'll

transferring the money to

our critical one-time fund.

>> Morrison: And then do

we need an addition on page

6?

>> Yes, eventually the

language that I deleted on

page 3, number 9, that

language is going to get

added at item number 3 on

page 6.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

language here would be

what?

>> Well, it would actually

be to amend the language on

number 3 on page 6 would be

to amend the proposed budget

of the critical one-time

[09:44:00]

fund to appropriate $84,057

to 2 health and human

services department for

early childhood program.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

So number 3 on page 6,

morrison green coded would

be to amend the critical

one-time fund to appropriate

$84,057 to hhs early

childhood program.

Is that about it?

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: First I want to

thank councilmember morrison

for thinking [inaudible] i

strongly support trying to

find the funding for early

childhood services and i

would certainly support this

amendment as proposed.

The only question I have is

about the amount.

How did we land on 84,000

for the amount on that.

I understand that was the

amount we were discussing

with respect to the human

trafficking program.

I'm wondering if that number

still makes sense if we're

shifting to early childhood

services.

And just by point of

reference, I heard from one

provider in particular about

funding for head start

program that they

requested-he have requested

334,850.

I just wanted to raise a

question about whether --

whether 84,000 is the right

amount or whether we could

possibly do more.

>> Morrison: Mayor, if i

may.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I would

certainly support doing more

if we can do that in such a

way that I think I'm sort of

working toward the goal of

making sure that we keep our

[09:46:00]

reserve at a comfortable

level.

And so I guess if some

additional fund open up by

some of these other motions

not passing or perhaps

there's really -- I think

that the number that ed gave

us take us to 12%, if it

really takes us to 12% or

001% and

there's additional funds --

I'm getting [inaudible].

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think that's right,

councilmember.

If we're going to talk about

a different number here, i

think we've got to go

through the entire process

and maybe take a break and

have you realign these

numbers.

>> I think that's going to

be necessary.

What we just did was

probably one of the simplest

ones we're going to hear and

it's going to be difficult

to do it live.

We're going to have to come

back with a cleaned-up

version of this would be my

suggestion.

>> Morrison: What I would

suggest, councilmember

riley, we take a look at

where that number is after

we get our final numbers in

from sales tax and

everything for the fiscal

year and see if we still

have some room because i

wouldn't be surprised if we

have some room if our sales

taxes come in in a healthy

way.

But I think as long as we

remember that remains

priority for us, there might

be an opportunity later.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

There's always the

opportunity any time in the

year to amend the budget.

Councimember spelman.

>> Spelman: A followup on

the same issue.

How would the 84,057 be

spent?

>> What I would like to do

is leave that open at this

point and maybe we could

[inaudible] speak to that

because I'm not sure exactly

what might be the most --

I'm not sure they know or

have a recommendation what

might be most effective use

of a one-time $84,000

[09:48:00]

investment.

So this would give them some

time, and in fact we could

ask them to come back, have

health and human services to

talk about it and get

priorities from the early

childhood council, or maybe

they've got one [inaudible].

>> Spelman: My strong

suspicious is adding to an

existing grant would be a

lot more efficient than

requiring a new proposal

[inaudible] but I would like

[inaudible] that money could

be spent appropriately

before we [inaudible].

>> Morrison: And if we

have -- mr. city manager.

>> Good morning, mayor and

city council, bert

lumbreras.

What we have proposed to do

I think alliance closely to

the council resolution on

the youth services summit.

This falls very much in line

with looking at the whole

continuum of services as it

relates to all sorts of

programs that not only the

city invest in but also

what's out in the community

with all of our great

service providers in looking

at everything from zero to

21 years of age.

And the whole idea with the

youth services summit that

we're already planning for

for sometime here in the

fall would be to look at

what programs are out in the

community, align with the

city and then work that

through the public health

and human services

subcommittee and eventually

come back with city council

to determine what the values

are for youth services and

what the priorities were,

the gaps were, the need, and

then come back with what i

consider a robust set of

recommendations on what

would be a good investment.

What we clearly know is

early childhood is a need

based on previous year's

funding that has not been --

that has been decreased and

also we know that based on

where we see a significant

growth in our population in

[09:50:00]

our communities, the zero to

five years of age is a

tremendous need.

So those two things along

with the work that will be

happening with the youth

summit, youth services

summit I think will give us

a better idea.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: lumbreras,

can you tell us if any of

those needs that have been

identified by your

department or the early

childhood council or the

health and human services

department involves capital

expenditures of one-time

need as opposed to operating

needs?

>> I would respectfully say

that I would need to get

with staff because what I do

know, prior to investments

in early childhood where

there was a decrease in

funding had to do a lot

with, like, for example,

service provider training,

teacher education.

You know, I don't recall

right off the bat.

I would need to go back with

staff and look to see

whether there were any

capital areas or not.

I'll be happy to get that

answer for you as soon as

possible.

I just don't have that right

off the top of my head.

>> Cole: Okay.

I certainly support early

childhood development and

recognize that as a critical

need this our community and

support additional funding

for it, but I have a concern

about our budget [inaudible]

being directed for one-time

expenditures that are of an

operating nature and either

we fund a capital need

within that department that

we can actually improve the

program or we do what i

is

suggesting and put it on the

table and look for our

potential funding mechanisms

in our operating budget.

But I would still support

this.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember martinez.

>> Martinez: I think

councimember spelman makes a

good point and so does mayor

pro tem cole, but the way i

[09:52:01]

view this, if it's a grant

and if we can extend the

grant, it's not an ongoing

operating expense, it's just

a finite extension of fund

with an existing agreement.

I didn't really hear the

answer to councimember

spelman's question that i

believe was do we have

existing grants that we can

apply funding if we identify

funding through this process

without having to go through

process for

$84,000.

Maybe there's something

already on the ground that

we can just add that to.

>> Director of health and

human services.

We definitely have a variety

of projects that are

available for that.

Child safety issues such as

bike helmets and child --

proper placement of child

seats.

We also have the opportunity

to provide scholarships to

providers of early learning

services.

We could do some work around

making sure that providers,

the actual physical sites

are ready for accreditation.

There are any number of

things we could do with that

funding.

>> Martinez: So there are

opportunities.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Martinez: But it does

not preclude health and

human services or this

council from issuing an

if there is enough

funding and unmet need

identified that would have

to go through that.

I'm not opposed to that, i

just want to make sure all

those options are available.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I did want to

mention a couple of other

things.

Looking at the kind of

decisions we're going to

have to make and i

mentioned -- I was just

mentioning I think that

investing in things like the

roving leader program is

very important to me and

whether or not the motions

that require that are going

to pass is still to be seen.

It had me looking at some of

the other positions that

we're talking about and i

want to thank mayor pro tem

for the work that she did in

terms of opening things up

[09:54:03]

so we could check some of

the priorities.

And one -- which many of

them I agree with and will

be supporting, there's one

that jumped out and that was

the landscape architect

position for supporting

community initiatives.

And I started thinking about

that in terms of other

priorities that we might

have, especially since we

added two positions last

year in the parks department

to work with community

initiative.

What I want to do is offer

two additional amendments

that I know will -- if we --

if we approved both of them,

it would put us over our

general fund balance and

that's not my intention.

My intention is to offer

alternatives to the

landscape architect

position.

And one I would like to

propose as amendment that

would only need to be

considered if in fact the

other funding for the roving

leader position does not

have, would be to make an

amendment to add the roving

leaders, the one roving

leader position to the parks

department.

And it would have to be at

the amount that the

landscape architect is in

there for because I don't

intend to do anything else

about it.

The second amendment I'd

like to have on the table

and apologize if this is

getting complicated, but if

in fact the roving leader

position can be funded

through another mechanism

that we have on the table

already, I would like to

consider, frankly for myself

instead of the landscape

architect position, meeting

[09:56:02]

one of the health and human

services unmet needs which

is the public health nurse.

It had been grant funded.

The grant has ended.

5 public

health nurses that we have

serve our neighborhood

centers.

This public health nurse

specifically was assigned to

south austin center working

on diabetes, outreach and

screening and hypertension

outreach and screening so i

wanted to get that on the

health and

human services that we may

have as an opportunity to

consider alternatively if

there's a way that we can

work that out.

>> Mayor pro tem?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let

me make sure I understand

this.

Number 22 would be to add

to

the parks department if the

roving leader proposition

does not pass?

Is that essentially it?

>> Morrison: Yes.

>> Yes, the roving leader is

currently on the table,

funding for a roving leader

program that would be

interrelated with austin

water utility in its

transfer and sustainability

fund.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: If

that fails, then that f.t.e.

Would go with the same

dollar amount to parks

department.

>> It would be a slightly

smaller dollar amount.

I think about $20,000 less.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We're going to need to --

after we get all these

things on the table, are we

going to need to go back out

and have you redo this?

>> Yes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

>> Morrison: Well, my

intention would be to keep

the dollar amounts the same

so that -- if that means

8

roving leader, same with the

public health nurse.

I think that it's a higher

expenditure.

[09:58:00]

It may only be for 76,000

might only .75.

So the intention is to

create whatever portion of a

, that amount would be

equivalent because I don't

want you to have to

recalculate.

>> That's understood.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Theoretically it could be

or

something like that.

How would you do that?

How would that ever be

administered?

>> We're going to do it in

quarter chunks, so half time

or three quarter time.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

number 23 would be to change

landscape architect f.t.e.

In park and make that a

nurse in health and human

services.

If the roving leader item

passes.

>> Morrison: Well, and i

think the assumption is on

page 2, if you look on page

2, number 1, that's the --

mayor pro tem's proposed

amendment to actually create

the landscape architect

assistant.

So I don't know if we want

to somehow bunch those all

together and I would look to

staff for how to handle

this.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Maybe we should take a

recess, but I'd like to get

to the end of this process

before we do that so that we

don't have to come back out

and redo this all over

again.

[One moment, please, for

change in captioners]

>> one position trying to go

to eight sites and run this.

The whole idea is with temp

seasonal, part-time staff,

we are doing this program

between the ages of nine and

19, that would be -- while

we would always really be

thankful for anything that

we receive, I want to make

sure that you understand.

I want to be honest and

clear about what that would

do and it would be almost

impossible to do that and do

it effectively with quality.

>> Morrison: Well, I guess

we got some confusion around

the answer to number 97.

>> Okay.

>> Morrison: Because that

suggested that the full

program, four quadrants,

required four specialists.

>> Okay.

The specialists are the

full-time positions that

helped to lead the program,

but then there's another

line item that looks -- that

actually looks at hiring

part-time seasonal staff to

help us actually implement

that program.

>> Morrison: That's also

one per quadrant in the

answer.

>> One group.

Kimberly if you want to -- i

CAN ASK kimberly McNeilly

to come up and answer it

more extensively.

But the whole idea was to

have different quadrants,

start with the most highly

needed area of need, those

quadrants would have eight

sites in them.

Meaning eight different

sections based on need.

Then there would be a series

of staff at those sites

running programs that would

work with staff to run

programs, there would be a

mobile unit that would go

through, have a variety of

technology, games that we

would pull out and then so

one person could not just do

that by themselves.

>> Morrison: I think that

we have then some

misunderstanding in reading

the answer.

>> We could take two

individuals, one temporary,

kim McNeilly assistant

director of parks and

recreation.

We could take one full-time

person and one temporary

staff and be able to visit

those eight different sites

and provide a program.

I think in our mind's eye,

the full-time person with

multiple temporary

individuals provides a more

quality program and provides

a more -- provides us an

opportunity to serve more

individuals.

As she said, whatever you

are gracious enough to give

us, we can create a program

that will be of quality, but

the number of individuals

that we serve will be based

upon the budget that we

receive.

I apologize for the

misunderstanding.

I think in our minds we were

thinking temporary staff

four and one full-time

person.

But whatever amount we are

given will create a program

that will be of quality and

will meet the objective of

the roving leader concept.

>> Morrison: To be clear,

we already have in our list

of amendments a one-time

amount for the vehicle and

the one-time thing.

What we also have, maybe

where the confusion was,

we're looking at 382,000 for

the full program, we were

dividing that by four, and

that includes one full-time

and one temporary and maybe

it needs to be allocated

separately.

And so

commodities.

So we divided that by four,

thinking that 95 would get

you almost a full quadrant.

What I am hearing from you

kim is saying if that were

actually 76 instead of 95,

you might have to scale

back, but you could still

get a phase of the program

going.

>> Yes.

And of course I would be

concentrated in the highest

area -- we haven't been able

to fund it for a while.

>> Cole: Mayor.

>> Cole: I guess when i

received all of the

amendments last night, I had

one overarching issue and

that is that I did not want

this council to take a vote

that was in any way

contradictory to our

financial policy.

And because of that, one of

the amendments that i

planned on offering was to

eliminate the landscape

architect position and to

also eliminate the two urban

forestry positions and for

those funds to be used

for -- for councilmember

martinez's motion on the

table for ftes for the fire

department.

I know this is starting to

get us in never-never land.

But the reason to do that

was to -- and then also to

take the funds from budget

stabilization reserve from

parks for equipment.

So let me back up.

>> Morrison: Okay.

[Laughter]

>> Cole: So -- so

councilmember martinez has a

motion on the table for four

's in the fire

department.

That is roughly $248,000.

I currently have a motion on

the table for the landscape

architect for $76,000 and

two urban forestry positions

for $154,000.

I would take both of those

motions together with those

amounts and direct that they

's in the

fire department.

And then I would direct that

the budget stabilization

reserve be used for those

amounts for equipment,

one-time equipment purposes

in the parks department.

And I talked to sarah

briefly about that this

morning and so -- so because

we're trying to lay this out

altogether, sarah, will you

come up and talk about that

a second.

Before you talk, let me

actually give ed an

opportunity to comment on

the extent to which we would

then be using budget

stabilization reserve

dollars for park equipment

and that would be one time

park equipment and that

would be within our existing

policy.

Is that correct, ed?

>> That would be correct.

>> Cole: And then the

money that I have on the

table allocated with my

motion for the landscape

architect and urban forestry

could be used for the

's for the fire

department for wildfire

prevention.

>> Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm

definitely going to

recommend that we go into

recess while all of this is

reformatted at this point.

But councilmember riley, go

ahead?

>> Riley: Just a -- to

respond briefly to the mayor

pro tem.

I had intended to offer an

amendment to -- to what's on

the table now, with -- on --

on item 1.

Instead of looking to the

budget stabilization reserve

's i

was going to suggest we --

we use the budget

stabilization fund to

support fuel mitigation in

the amount of $250,000,

which is roughly the same

amount.

And we heard from the fire

chief yesterday that with

the additional wildfire

staff that are currently in

the budget, that they would

be able to manage that --

that money, so that would --

that would allow us to meet

that need without foregoing

those positions in the parks

department, including the

forestry division, which

could actually help serve

some of the same purposes.

>> Cole: Thank you,

councilmember riley.

Then I will not be putting

that motion on the table.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

Councilmember riley, is that

your motion that we fund

1 with -- instead

's in

the fire department, that

that be used for fuel

mitigation?

>> Riley: In the amount of

$250,000.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

248,356.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

All right.

Councilmember spelman?

>> Spelman: I have -- i

have plain forgotten our

procedures whether friendly

amendments are allowed or

not.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: No.

>> Spelman: Okay.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Just

offer a new amendment.

>> Spelman: Okay.

Let me offer a new amendment

in hopes that perhaps this

very marginal change in

councilmember riley's

original amendment may be

improved, just slightly

better.

As I understand it, the

staff's proposal on wildfire

management is first to come

up with a plan and second to

implement the plan.

The money to come up with

's to

come up with the plan are

funded, that's in the

budget, that was one of the

recommendations which --

which ed made to us

yesterday.

And what I understand

councilmember riley

suggesting is that we put in

some money for fuel

mitigation, which is one of

several things that need to

be done to implement the

plan.

But there are other

expenditures which could be

useful for implementing the

plan in addition to fuel

mitigation money.

There is substantial public

education amount which is

likely to be useful for

implementing the plan, in

particular a lot of the work

of reducing the risks in

wildfire neighborhoods or

residential neighborhoods

that are close to wildfires

needs to be done by the

people who own the property.

And is not public land but

is private land.

And as I understand it, a

lot of what happens in -- in

comprehensive wildfire

protection plans is to work

with the individual

residential owners to -- to

have green space between the

public land, which may be a

source of wildfire and their

house, to -- to work on the

physical aspects of their

house so that they are less

likely to catch sparks,

things like that.

This is one of many things

which could be a part of

that plan, fuel mitigation

of course is another one.

My only concern here is if

we earmark money strictly

for fuel mitigation, it

can't be used for any of the

other several purposes that

might be helpful in

implementing the

comprehensive plan.

So the amendment I guess

would be -- the substitute i

suppose would be that it be

used for implementation of

the comprehensive plan once

that is ism thed and the

fuel mitigation could be the

entire use of that money but

there could be other uses as

well.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

councilmember spelman's new

amendment is that the

250,000 approximate dollars

be used in a general fund

including mitigation,

education, other purposes.

Is that right?

>> Spelman: For purposes

of implementing the

comprehensive plan once it's

completed.

Comprehensive wildfire

protection plan.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Not

the other comprehensive

plan.

>> Spelman: Right.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

as of now, those are both on

the table unless

councilmember riley would

like to withdraw his.

>> Riley: Mayor, I would

like to hear from the chief

just to make sure that we're

all on the same page.

In particular, I want to

make sure that the plan that

councilmember spelman is

referring to is funded

within the proposed -- the

budget that is proposed by

staff.

The plan for -- for wildfire

prevention.

And that -- and that you

only need additional funds

for implementation.

>> Cole: Mayor and

council, rhoda mae kerr,

fire chief, first of all.

And there's several answers

I think that are required by

your question and by your

statement.

The one thing that I just

wanted to clarify to start

with, it's not a

comprehensive plan.

I want to make sure that

we're saying the right

thing.

It's a community wildfire

protection plan.

To answer your question,

councilmember riley, there

is money in the one-time

expenditures in that $87,000

to develop a plan.

A cwpp as we call it.

You know, another acronym

for something that we need

to remember.

And if we were to use the --

the $250,000, it would be --

could be very appropriately

designated for fuel

mitigation and then as

councilmember spelman

stated, there are many

components to creating a

fire safe community or what

we're now being called fire

adaptive communities and

part of that is education,

part of that is assisting

homeowners with their

private lands and part of it

is also actual technical

fuel mitigation.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

So you are saying that's

already really in there,

that if councilmember

riley's amendment were to

pass, that money that's

earmarked for mitigation

could be used for -- besides

just cutting down trees and

brush, it could also be used

for education with regard to

mitigation, et cetera.

>> Well, that would be part

of the cwpp.

And I think councilmember

spelman was trying to make

sure that we didn't just

designate that whole 250

just for fuel mitigation,

that we could actually use

it for some of the

educational portion of the

preventive end of wildfire

mitigation.

Not just fuel mitigation.

>> Spelman: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember spelman.

>> Spelman: Chief, I was

talking with deputy chief

evans yesterday and he

actually had a list of items

which show up on community

wildfire protection plans.

My apologies we have so many

comprehensive plans, i

filled in a different c for

that cwpp.

>> That's quite all right.

I just wanted to make sure

that we were making the

right statement in a public

document.

>> Spelman: Now that

you've properly stated what

the acronym means.

Of the I'll just use the

acronym now.

There's a list of things

that go into implementing a

cwpp, my only concern is all

of those things be eligible

expenses so that you have

the opportunity to use

whatever money is available

as efficiently as possible

to best accomplish our

objectives.

>> You are correct.

That would be the best way

to take the money and not

only say fuel mitigation,

but all of those items that

include public education and

a number of items that i

couldn't list them off for

you without looking at the

document.

But I think to answer

councilmember riley's

question, there is money for

the cwpp if we were to

designate a money, it could

be used for education, fuel

mitigation, all of them

contributing to wildfire

mitigation efforts.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: So we're talking

about fuel mitigation and

other measures related to

implementation of the cwpp.

>> That's correct.

>> Riley: If I could just

ask ed to make sure that we

get the terminology right.

In order to remain

consistent with our

financial policies we

probably would need to be a

little more specific than

that because for instance

's might be

questionable, but -- with

these funds but there are

other expenses that could be

associated with

implementation of the plan

that would be inappropriate

use of the budget

stabilization reserve.

What would you suggest would

be the right terminology?

If we want to say -- would

they be one-time expenses,

capital expenses, what is

the appropriate term that

would keep us consistent

with our financial policy?

>> I think that I would

offer you to amend the

budget stabilization

reserves to transfer money

into the critical one-time

funds and then one the

[indiscernible] to

appropriate $248,000 to --

to one-time implementation

costs of the cwpp, including

education and fuel

mitigation efforts.

>> Riley: Sounds good to

me.

So moved.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

moved, that's councilmember

riley's proposal.

Without objection it will be

laid on the table.

Who was that?

Councilmember martinez?

>> Martinez: Yeah.

Totally appreciate the --

the attempts here to

allocate this in an

appropriate manner.

And certainly appreciate

staff putting this --

putting this sheet to work

from -- but if we just

wanted to stay consistent

with budget policies, all

that we would have to say in

my amendment is that we only

fund it for six months.

Just as we did in

councilmember morrison's

original proposal of the

human trafficking program.

but simply

because the language said

for only one year, it's

consistent with budget

policies.

So my proposal is not

inconsistent with budget

policies.

I just didn't add the

language that says only for

six months.

I want to be very clear

about that, because I'm not

proposing that we violate

policies.

We're trying to fund a bunch

of unmet needs in the best

possible manner and I just

wanted to point that out.

There's a subtlety in two or

three words that all of a

sudden gets you tagged with

not being in line with

financial policies.

I think we can make it

clearly within those

policies if we just added

that language.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

Well, let me just say my

purpose in any questions

that I might have is just to

make sure that it's clear.

That what we're voting on is

clear because I personally

intend to vote against any

items that are funded out of

either other enterprise

funds or out of reserve

funds.

My only interest, as I said,

is to try to keep them

straight.

Do we have others?

>> I have a point of

clarification, mayor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes.

>> But I believe

councilmember cole removed

her --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes,

she did.

And councilmember spelman,

did you remove yours?

I think we kind of --

>> Spelman: I believe

councilmember riley restated

what I suggested.

I'm happy with his

restatement.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Good, councilmember

morrison?

>> Morrison: I need to ask

staff, I'm -- I may have had

some dated information about

the public health nurse

position.

And I wonder if staff can

come speak to us.

It was on page 7 as one of

our unmet needs, but there

might be some more current

information about whether

that need for a public

health nurse was unmet or

met.

>> Yeah, I can just respond

briefly that the health and

human services departments

number one unmet need was

requesting funding for a

public health nurse in the

amount of $86,892.

That is in the city

manager's proposed budget

before council.

>> Morrison: Okay.

I apologize for that.

I didn't realize it was

actually in the city

manager's budget.

But I would like to ask mr.

Lumbreras if -- what

would -- is there a second

priority that is in front

of -- of health and human

services now that that need

was met?

I apologize for misreading

that if I did.

>> Councilmember, one that

comes to mind that I think

that really would benefit

the city that falls in line

with the discussion that was

occurring yesterday with the

1115 waiver, there were

three projects that were

identified as the priority

projects for -- for the

waiver, one of those is

permanent supportive

housing.

As you recall, in the city

manager's proposed budget,

there is $100,000 and the

city council has really been

very supportive of -- of

permanent supportive housing

which we have found across

the country as a -- as a

strategy that is very

effective to addressing the

needs of our homeless

individuals and the folks

that have a lot of needs.

So what we have in the

budget is 100,000, which

46

return in dollars, so i

would say that that

certainly is a one that's

worthy of consideration

because of the added benefit

of the return of dollars

that we could use for

investment.

Those dollars, in effect,

are part of that overall

plan to reach the 350

350 unitsthat we wanted to chief in

the four years, we're about

halfway towards that goal at

this point.

We have huge capital and

operating needs both in

terms of buildings, but also

wrap around services.

So I think any funds towards

that purpose would certainly

be worthy of consideration

and with the added benefit

of the run of additional

dollars.

Return of additional

dollars.

>> Morrison: That 100,000,

if we were able to add more

's,

did those get converted into

's to help to manage

the services or did we

contract out for services?

>> It would primarily be

wrap around services that we

could potentially contract

out with service providers.

Everything from case

managers to folks that would

ensure that those folks are

stable within their --

within their housing units.

So for the most part, it's

going to be operating

dollars for contracts.

>> Morrison: Okay.

Thank you for that

clarification.

So -- so that motion that i

had -- with regard to the

public health nurse, I would

like to withdraw.

And replace it with a motion

that would actually not

but just

allocate those additional

$76,000 in funds in -- to

services to add to the

permanent supportive housing

services for consideration.

>> Cole: Mayor, I would

like to respond or object to

that, just for the purpose

of discussion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem?

>> Cole: I would like to

offer the landscape

architect position as a

basis for funding that

position for permanent

supportive housing.

>> Morrison: Does that

mean that you are

withdrawing your landscape

architect.

>> Cole: I would withdraw

it and your motion would be

to approve it as a funding

source for ed, ed, did you

get that?

>> Morrison: Mayor pro

tem, I appreciate that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Anything further?

In the way of amendments?

Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: Mayor, I just

want to point out you had

talked about maybe

reassessing and coming back,

I just want to ask that we

do after we work through

this and I want to say that

there are a few things

where -- if a tweak needs to

be made, I may make a motion

that tweaks something.

So I'm not going to lay it

out now, but we've already

talked about, you know, some

plan b strategies if the

motions here don't succeed,

I just want to indicate

there may be others.

If we could take a recess

later rather than right now

if that was your intent to

take one right now --

[multiple voices]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: My

intent it to take it right

now rather than start

through this process without

knowing what the big picture

looks like.

Because without -- without

an end in sight, you know,

we're going to have to go

back to -- we might as well

have started as we

originally planned to do

with just going through one

by one and keeping a running

tally.

If our objective in

accordance with

councilmember spelman's

suggestion, which was a good

one, that we lay everything

out there, so that we could

look at all at once and vote

on each item in context, in

total context, if we still

support that, I think we

need to go into recess

and -- and realign

everything.

Reprint.

>> Tovo: Mayor, if I may

then, I'm reluctant to

continue to engage in a

discussion about what

happens if my motion fails.

But I will continue along

that path I guess since my

colleague has raised it as a

possibility and say that,

you know, we've been talking

about the roving leader.

I think it's critical that

we fund that program in --

we are talking about scaling

it back from what the staff

has envisioned to one-fourth

of it.

And so I do not want to

scale it back to the 76-5

that we were talking about

before.

I would like to get that

back up to what the staff

have said they need to fund

it in one quadrant.

I think that number was

95,000 something.

I would suggest that if we

get to the point where we

are talking about finding

other moneys for it and we

need to use councilmember

morrison's motion rather

than mine, then I would

suggest we take mayor pro

tem cole's suggestions of

reducing the commodities

number and bump that up to

get us to the same level.

So I will -- I will throw

that out there as a -- an

option.

This was on your sheet,

management services, partial

reductions, contractuals, it

was a potential budget

reduction identified by

management services.

It's attachment c, page 11.

You have proposed reducing

it by $17,444 and I would

propose reducing it by

whatever amount gets us

from -- from 76,000 and

change up to 95,000 and

change so that we can fully

fund the roving leaders

program in one quadrant.

But I'll just use this

opportunity to say that i

think that we've got a -- a

great option out there of --

of using our sustainability

fund to fund that and I'm

going to argue strenuously

again that we do that

because it is a need.

If we have another $100,000

to be realized, through the

potential budget reductions,

then heck let's do it in two

quadrants instead of one.

But again since we're

talking about plan b, that

would be my suggestion

for --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That

a new motion?

>> Tovo: Yes, that's a new

motion.

I'm sorry I don't have the

figures in front of me.

Ed, did that give you enough

to work with?

>> We can work with it.

>> Tovo: Thanks.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Council, without objection,

we will go into recess for

come back about

11:00.

we're out

of recess.

I think we are ready to go into

the voting on the individual

amendments.

There may be cases where we need

to deviate somewhat.

When we run across that

eventuality, we will deal with

it at the time.

I thine need to start moving.

I think the first item to be

considered were together item 1

on page 1.

Item 3 on page 2.

Item 1 on page 4.

And I believe that's all.

>> Councilmember martinez?

this item was

amended by councilmember

spellman and riley and now it is

back before us from the same

form.

I did not take that to be a

replacement motion but -- not to

be a substitute motion but a

motion in addition to this one.

so we have to vote

it down.

or you

withdraw it.

>>Martinez: I will withdraw.

that is

withdrawn by councilmember

martinez, the maker of the

motion.

Second one to consider is item

1, page 2, this has to do with

the general fund for increased

revenue associated with plussa

saltillo b changes.

The second on page 2 related is

item 8.

I believe that is all.

Item 2 on page 1 and item 8 on

page 2.

These are an item that is

totally funded with revenue,

changes in revenues.

From the parks department, i

believe, to support this

increased expenditure of

$21,000.

>> Mayor?

councilman

spelman.

this would be for

changes in fees for them is that

something voted on differently

or administratively.

>> If it passes, we'll have an

amendment to the schedule which

is item 3 on the addendum.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

All in favor of that aye.

Opposed, no.

That passes on vote of 7-0.

Item 3 is withdrawn.

Item 4 on page 1 is transfers in

from the sustainability fund for

a part rover program.

And that is associated with item

10 on page 3.

Item 4 on page 4.

Item 2 on page 6.

Items 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 on

pages 7 and 8.

Councilmember tovo.

I want to speak to this

again for one minute.

I want to remind my colleagues

the sustainability fund was set

up for exactly this kind of

purpose.

To help the city of austin build

a sustainability environmentam

and economic infrastructure.

The program funded through that

program have consistently been

child care, economic growth --

I'm sorry workforce development

and also technology and

affordable housing.

This is squarely within the

mission of the sustainability

fund.

All that we're doing is keeping

the transfer from austin water

utility consistent at 1%.

I hear the mayor that he wants

to have a policy discussion

about the sustainability fund,

we can do that.

For this budget cycle we should

keep it consistent for previous

years and for purposes that the

city council set up the

sustainability fund for.

further

discussion?

Councilmember spellman.

in the 412, 12, 16 --

there may be something else

going on here tied to the 1%, in

the water sustainability, or is

that the only issue?

>> This is a complicated one

that involves a lot of different

items.

In general getting the water

sustainability back to the 1%

where it has been historically

been increases revenues by

$659,203.

$557,000 Of that amount go to

the housing department for fte

and reduces reliance on the

housing trust fund for fte

leaving it out of the trust

fund.

That left 102 of the mone

unallocated.

We would transfer that to the

parks department to fund one

team of the roving leader

program.

this is the entire

package of getting the roving

program and the housing trust

fund and non-fte only?

>> It is the entire package.

is it possible to

separate the two pieces?

>> It is.

I suggest if you are trying to

separate, decide whether the

water utility will increase by

1%.

We can take extra pieces from

there.

the reason I raise

the issue, although we have not

had the conversation that i

think we very much need to have,

specifically on the extent to

which the utility needs to put

in the 1% it has always put in,

sensitive to the mayor's concern

that we need -- we need to with

some of the funds, we need to

reduce the reliance on the funds

of transfers from the enterprise

funds, to keep the enterprise

funds primarily the use of the

enterprise.

I understand that.

This is a small piece of that,

the general policy statement and

obviously this particular issue.

At the same time, I understand

wanting to keep enough money in

the housing trust fund to make

sure that we have enough there

to fund.

On the commission in previous

years and have to spend more

money out of the housing trust

fund on an annual basis.

At the same time, I don't feel

the same need to keep the -- i

don't feel the need to keep the

housing trust fund pure.

That seems to be a secondary

issue, so long as there is

sufficient money in the housing

trust fund with the support.

.. it seems to me that there

is a way of backing off slightly

on the 1% for the sustainability

fund from water utility, we can

further that general policy

initiative of trying to weed

some of the funds off of the

reliance of the enterprise fund

and make sure there is enough in

the housing trust fund as long

as it gives up on the general

statement.

That seems to be a secondary

concern.

Where we are backing off on 1%,

keeping the trust fund money

sufficient to meet its demands

and the expense of keeping an

fte or twoutof the hou --

two out of the housing trust

fund.

I'm apologies to making this

more difficult.

Wanting to get what we are

looking for, and not necessarily

all of some things, none of

another.

>> I think it would be helpful,

I think if you look at numbers

14, 15, 16, collectively, which

I will talk about the housing

trust fund and council can give

us some direction about this

$557,000 that we would like

to -- currently $557,000 of the

housing trust fund is going to

fund staff.

We would like to create less, if

we can get an amount, we can

revise this to reflect that

direction.

557 is for five staff

members, is it?

>> For five.

is there a way we can

get -- pardon my use of the evil

"

it seems like it would be an

appropriate use.

If we have the 557, take it or

leave it.

WE COULD PARCEL OUT TWO FTEs.

Keep two in the housing trust

fund.

Take out three for what we use

the housing trust fund for and

back off on the total amount to

take out of the water utility

and move forward on that

initiatesive.

I am 5 fte, 557.

>> We have a budget question

that we are trying to find the

number to where we talked about

THE SPECIFIC 5 FTEs BEING FUNDED

Out of the housing trust fund

with dollar amounts for each.

>> Mayor?

it might be

useful to go ahead and table

this item or this set of items

and address it after you had a

chance to work on the numbers a

little bit.

I don't want to go back into

recess again.

>> No.

that will

be an endless process.

We can do the others and take

this later.

>> Mayor?

>>Mayor leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo.

the budget question is

number 32, I believe.

It is also an option to consider

it as it is and consider an

alternate.

if you want

to consider it as it is, that is

your privilege, if you would

like to offer a vote on that.

>>Tovo: I would.

I will make another point about

the sustainability fund.

Until this year, the

sustainability fund has received

transfers on the user fee and

drainage utility fund.

We are making changes to the

sustainability fund this year.

Just put that out there, that --

>>mayor leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo has suggested

this set of items doesn't pass,

you can offer yours.

although I will vote

no on this entire package, i

think it is possible for us to

square this circle by circle out

OF THE FTEs OUT OF THE HOUSING

Trust fund and keeping some in.

I'm generally -- I generally

agree with what councilmember

tovo is trying to accomplish.

all in

favor of this set of items, aye.

Opposed, no.

I believe that fails on a vote

of 4-3.

Councilmember riley, martinez,

myself, spelman.

>> I voted no.

that is

what I meant.

You voted aye.

Councilmember martinez voted no,

I voted no.

Councilmember spelman voted no.

That passes 4-3.

>>Tovo: it still fails.

[Inaudible, multiple people

speaking]

>> show of hands.

May I suggest we call the roll

since we're doing budget votes.

To prevent confusion.

>>Mayor leffingwell: all right.

You have embarrassed me into

doing that.

Councilmember riley --

>> councilmember riley?

Councilmember martinez?

Councilmember tovo.

>>Tovo: aye.

>> Councilmember morrison.

Councilmember spelman.

>>Spelman: no.

that fails

on a vote of 3-4.

Myself, spelman pro tem,

martinez voting no.

So we go to the next item, which

would be -- councilmember tovo.

before we move on, why

don't we consider an alternative

along the line of councilmember

spelman.

Did you have an opportunity to

pull up item 32?

>>Spelman: I have not.

why don't

we go in order.

We will bring it back.

>>Spelman: ok.

so on page

2, we have items 2 and 6.

11 On page 3, correct?

That is by a different maker.

But it is the same color.

I believe it is because

I decided to use number four

instead of 11.

>> That is correct,

councilmember cole removed

item --

so we are

voting on items 2 and 6 on page

2 and item 11 on page 3.

>> And.

and items

one, two, three, four, five,

six, seven, eight on page 7.

>> That's correct.

>>Mayor leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

I have a question

here.

This is ultra complicated.

As I laid out earlier, for me, i

wanted to look at plan b, ensure

that we got the funding for

roving leaders.

I guess I want to ask if you

would be inclined to share with

me, my colleague councilmember

spelman, part of what you may be

revising and bringing forward,

part of what was there was some

funding for roving leader

person.

I wonder if you intended -- if

you would share with me.

>>Spelman: happily.

do you intend to

keep that?

I want to back out

TWO FTEs, TO KEEP THE 1% FROM

Coming out of the water utility

rate.

that gives me room

to support.

My plan b won't be needed

hopefully.

as far as I'm

concerned, you will have four

votes.

depending on what

the others think.

It is sounding hopeful.

>>Spelman: good.

contingency

votes are not allowed.

>>Tovo: I will support this.

If we are not successful in

funding a roving leader position

in the reconfigured austin water

utility sustainability budget, i

will make a subsequent motion to

REDUCE THE TWO FTEs DOWN TO 1 TO

Fund the roving leader.

I'm voting for this right now,

but fair warning I may amend it

later.

mayor pro

tem.

I think this is the only

thing on the table.

We talked earlier about the need

to increase funding to early

childhood development through

the health and human services

department.

For page 2, item number 2 and we

talked about needing equipment

in the parks department to

actually help with urban

forestry.

So what I want to do on that

item is to actually take that

amount.

The $154,159 and fund that for

equipment in the parks

department through the budget

stabilization fund and use that

funding to go to health and

human services for early

childhood development.

Let me repeat that.

We talked earlier about the need

for additional funding in health

and human services for early

childhood development.

Item number two, on page 2 is

actually funding for the parks

department for urban forestry.

But we also talked earlier about

the urban forestry division also

needing equipment in place of

FTEs IN ORDER TO OPERATE THE

Program.

So I'm requesting that the funds

for $154,159 be taken from

budget stabilization reserves

and that money actually be

transferred to health and human

services for early childhood

development.

that is

kind of like an entire new item.

>>Cole: that is an amendment.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

So one option is to vote on

these and if it is voted down,

you can --

>>cole: I can withdraw it.

you want to

withdraw this set of items?

2, 6, 11.

>>Cole: I tell you what.

Let's just leave it as is.

Then when we finish, I can

amend.

>>Mayor leffingwell: all right.

We're voting on that set of

items.

Councilmember tovo.

I would like to better

understand what your alternative

is.

Right now, we would be voting to

ADD TWO FTEs FOR URBAN FORESTRY?

what we are

voting on now is what you see

written on the page.

I have a lot written on

the page.

printed on

the page.

voting on 2 and 6 on

page 2, 11 on page 3, which I as

SEE IT WE VOTE TO ADD TWO FTEs

In urban forestry and allocating

$76,000 for permanent support

housing?

>>Cole: yes.

The confusing part is itemly

item 4 an 11 go together and 2

and 6 --

4 is --

let's try

to speak in order, here.

>>Cole: I'm sorry, cathy.

this is

confusing enough.

Councilmember spelman.

do you want two fte

in urban forestry?

to go to early childhood

development.

she said

she wanted to vote on the item

as is.

I'm asking about the

amendment forthcoming.

>>Tovo: I am as well.

I'm still not clear on what's to

come.

I would like to be clear on

what's to come.

We're photovote for the taxing

ON ADDING TWO FTEs IN URBAN

Forestry and allocating $76,000

for permanent housing.

Mayor pro tem, I think I heard

you say you are going to make a

subsequent motion or maybe you

are withdrawing this one now,

I'm not clear.

You are no longer advocating for

two fte for urban forestry,

instead you are going to

advocate for adding equipment

for parks through the one-time

FUND, NO URBAN FORESTRY FTEs AND

Instead allocating $154,159 to

early childhood.

yes, but I have to do it

later.

if we vote up or down on

this, will you propose your next

motion as an alternative or in

addition to?

If we vote on this and then we

would rather have the monies

available for that.

the

original plan, councilmember,

was to vote on all amendments.

Vote them up or down.

And not amend the amendments.

But apparently, there is not a

clear understanding of what the

process is.

If you would like to suggest

another course of action, please

be my guest.

not suggesting another

course of action.

I'm trying to understand what my

colleague is proposing.

[One moment please for change in

captioners]

>> okay.

Thank you, mayor, that's the

course of action, and so mayor

pro tem withdraws item 2 and the

rest remains the same.

So, curt, call the role.

>> Pro tem leffingwell.

>> Mayor leffingwell: no.

>> Council member cole.

>> Cole: Aye.

>> Council member riley, council

member martinez.

>> Council member tovo, council

member spelman.

>> Aye.

>> That passes on a vote of 6-1

with myself voting no.

So that brings us to item number

3 on page 2, I will see if

that's associated -- that's

associated with items 1 on page

4.

>> That was withdrawn by council

member martinez.

>> Mayor leffingwell: oh.

Three on page 2 is withdrawn.

>> Yes.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

We will go to item 4, and 4 and

5 associated on page 2?

>> Only those page 2.

We were running out of colors

here.

running

out of colors.

>> We have light yellow and dark

yellow.

and

that's reduce over $290,000

and use it for at risk youth.

Call the role.

Mayor leffingwell.

>> Mayor leffingwell: no.

>> Cole.

>> Aye.

>> Council member riley, council

member martinez, council member

tovo.

>> Tovo: My.

>> Council member spelman.

>> Aye.

passes on

a vote of 6-1 with myself voting

no.

Okay.

That brings us to item 7.

Texas standalone on page 2,

standalone.

>> Yes.

All right.

$73,000 For refer city youth

foundation in the existing

contracts and directing the city

manager to identify funding

options for additional 73,000.

Discussion?

Clerk call the role.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>> Mayor leffingwell: no.

>> Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Cole: Aye.

>> Council member riley?

Council member martinez?

Council member tovo?

Council member morrison?

Council member spelman.

>> Spelman: Aye.

passes on

a vote of 6-1 and I voted no.

This page is already done.

Have we done 10 on page 3?

No?

>> We will have to do that one

again.

>> We deferred that, or that

failed 3-4.

the rover

program.

Are you ready address that one,

council member spelman?

>> Spelman: If the raw material

I needed is available, I will

happily address it now or we can

address it later.

all

right.

We will go ahead and go to the

next item, then.

Item 11, has that been

addressed?

Eleven on page 3?

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> Spelman: We did that one, and

12.

>> Mayor leffingwell: and 12.

>> Spelman: Yes.

Right.

>> Morrison: Mayor, if we

perhaps could skip 12.

council

member morrison.

>> Morrison: I think we can skip

12 until we have an opportunity

to loo revised amendment

that council member spelman is

preparing.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

--

>> Tovo: Mayor.

Mayor?

council

member tovo.

>> Tovo: I have a question about

the -- so after saying it was

32, I see you have distributed q

and a, 32 to us but it doesn't

have dollar figures attach todd

the staff positions.

I am happy to make another

motion regarding the items i

have proposed.

Maybe council member spelman,

you can give me a sense of what

we are talking -- would you like

to see that reduced by 150,000,

100,000, whether -- what sort of

scale are you talking about?

Terms of the reduction from the

austin water utility?

>> Spelman: I was thinking in

terms of approximately half, so

instead of 557,000, something

like 275,000, which of course

would be probably splitting an

and that's why I wanted

to know where the sweet spot

s or three

s, to continue to be

supported by the housing trust

fund and we would reduce the

transfer from the water utility

to the sustainability fund

accordingly because that would

not be necessary to support the

rest of the amendment.

>> Tovo: Mayor, I would like to

ask if I may.

council

member tovo.

>> Tovo: Could we ask the

housing staff what the impact

would have on the other programs

that are traditionally funded

through this housing trust fund?

Can you quantify that through

the number of tenants that would

not get tenant counseling, the

number of renters that might

have other why gotten rental

assistance, the residents of a

place like wood ridge that need

emergency assistance, how will

that kind of reduction impact

their --

>> betsy spencer director of

neighborhood housing.

Our services range from roughly

$700 per individual to $100,000

per unit and so it is a wide

range that we can have.

So like the go repair program,

the average investment is

between 5 and 10,000, all the

way up to a rental housing

development unit which could be

as much as $100,000 per unit.

So our general average

investment per unit and/or

person is about 122-25,000,

because it's -- 22-25,000,

because it is a wide range.

That's how I do the math.

I would have to look at the

individual service programs.

Services tend to be a much

smaller per unit investment,

versus actual capital

expenditure, which could be as

much as $100,000 per unit so

it's hard to give you --

>> Tovo: I appreciate that.

So if we are talking about

rental assistance or other kinds

of emergency assistance that

get, say, a homeless family into

stable, safe housing, $250,000,

we could be talking about, what

is that, 2500 people?

>> So, on -- emergency

situation, if we were doing

tenant based rental assistance,

that will probably be $750 a

month per person.

That program tends to help them

from 12-18 months.

>> So it's not one month

commitment, a year to year.

>> You are right.

It's usually 12 months for

someone to get stabilize before

they can move on to more

permanent settings, in that

particular service.

>> Tovo: Right, and of course if

we are doing, as you said, some

of the costlier things, we are

talking about a fewer number of

individuals but $250,000, it

wouldn't be -- we may be talking

about 100 -- 100 people, 100

individuals impacted by that?

>> If it were a service like the

tenants rights council where

they actually do counseling,

yes, it could be a much larger

number.

>> Tovo: Okay.

Thanks.

Having -- given that the prior

motion failed, I appreciate the

creativity in figuring out a way

we can agree to move forward

with this plan.

I would just suggest that if we

could get to a point where it's

a little lower, that would be

ideal.

>> Spelman: One of the reasons

why I suggested it in the first

place is because of the historic

use of this program, which has

been on the order of a half --

between 500 and $700,000 a year,

and I might -- my understanding

of our conversation from

yesterday was that the demands

on this program are going to be

higher this year than they

usually are.

Think they they estimated

800,000 in those three big

chunks and I don't believe I am

going to be able to read my

handwriting well enough.

Life works, juniper and anderson

will be the three big chunks you

are talking about and that's

about $800,000, and there are

also smaller chunks that would

also be -- other demands would

be put upon the program which

you may be able to fund if the

money is available add to go

around $1 million, but if we

s

out of the current housing trust

fund and put some money into it

from the sustainability fund, we

would still leave you with

$1 million or more to be able to

cover those three big chunks,

plus smaller pieces, consistent

with our previous usage but also

consist went the demands on the

program will be higher than

previous years.

It was my understanding, right,

betsy, or did I misunderstand?

>> That's a correct statement.

>> Spelman: Okay.

If we, instead of funded five

s out of that program, we

only funded three, would you

still have sufficient money to

be able to do all of the thing

that is you want to do in that

fund?

>> We would meet our current

obligations as we -- as the --

the three that you just listed

are previous commitments.

>> Spelman: Right.

>> It doesn't allow for

additional commitments.

We basically committed with the

s in the programs you

listed, the bulk of the

1.7 million.

>> Spelman: Right.

>> So if we were -- if there

s

funded out of the trust fund --

or three out of --

>> Spelman: Yeah.

>> Any additional funds that the

trust fund had, we could then

put into an additional eligible

expense, so we would put it

wherever -- I mean, if it was

tenants rights counseling, if it

was acquisition and development,

rental housing, tbra, any one of

those we could put it in.

>> Spelman: Okay.

So I am thinking in terms of

300,000, rather than 557,000,

which would free up some money,

which would free up sufficient

money that should be able to hit

the 1 million-dollar mark that

you were talking about yet

yesterday?

>> We would still have the

1 million-dollar mark but just

add add $300,000, is that

correct?

We have not changed the

million -- no, the original

three projects would remain by

offsetting some sustainability

funds for staff.

That increases for other

projects, so, yes, you have not

taken anything away from what we

talked about.

Is that the question.

>> Spelman: Yes.

That was my issue.

Okay.

Does that make any sense to you

at all?

>> Well, we are prepared to --

we passed out the positions --

the five positions that are

being talked about and we are

now printing out the costs of

the five positions so council

solvency

some direction with regards --

council could give us some

decision with regards to --

if you

aren't ready to vote on this, go

on to something else.

>> Tovo: I can also is

another -- mayor.

council

member tovo.

>> Tovo: spencer, sorry, i

didn't get the mic before you

left it.

I want to be clear on the

numbers you are talking about.

The numbers -- the figures that

you discussed are, as you said,

previous commitments.

>> Yes.

>> So that's not allowing you

to -- I mean, you are going to

have a fairly limited budget to

respond to any kind of new

situation, like another wood

bridge or -- not that I think

the city should be

responsible -- like another wood

ridge -- when we have a private

landlord that is available but

in situations where we have

people in our community that

need emergency assistance, how

much money -- how much money

will you have available to

responding to those kinds of

situations?

>> We would -- as the way it is

right now, if we used all of the

s and

the three projects we have

discussed about, about $150,000.

>> Tovo: You would have 150,000

left for an entire year left of

worth of community

development -- I forget the

components --

>> yes, downpayment assistance

and other things, yes, ma'am.

>> Tovo: And that's with the

five positions housed through

the house trust fund?

>> Yes, ma'am.

>> Tovo: that is

can be transferred to the

sustainability fund is

additional money that is opened

up for getting people out of

homelessness into stable, secure

housing or providing assistance

to renters or things like that?

>> That's correct.

>> Tovo: Council member spelman,

can I be clear on, were you

spencer three

positions or two to be funded

out of the housing trust fund?

>> Spelman: My rough cut idea

was somewhere between 2 and 3.

Obviously it ought to be a whole

number.

It is cleaner that way.

But with the effect of taking

that 557 and cutting italy in

half.

>> Tovo: Okay.

>> Spelman: Which would leave

about 275,000 more than you had

before.

>> I -- if it's okay, if you can

give me a number, we can offer

back a suggestion, or a

recommendation to that.

>> Spelman: Okay, well, I can't

give you a number until I know

s

is, unfortunately.

couldn't

you just say this is what we are

allowing for the cost of the

s and --

>> Spelman: I think it's cleaner

, mayor

and it requires us to know what

s are going to

cost.

>> They are printing up the

salaries.

I apologize I didn't bring the

salaries with me this morning.

They are printing that now.

>> Tovo: Mayor.

council

member tovo.

>> Tovo: May I just -- I have

one in front of me.

I am assuming we all got them.

May I propose that we fund the

contract compliance specialist

senior and the research analyst

senior out of the housing trust

fund for a total of about 175?

can you

tell us what you are talking

about?

>> Tovo: I will be glad to.

I am proposing that we shift the

contract -- well, that we fund

the contract compliance

specialist senior and the

research analyst senior out of

the housing trust fund moneys

and transfer the other three to

the sustainability fund, not

quite half, but it is two even

numbers.

s

still within the housing trust

s shift to go

the sustainability fund.

Total of 92,584 plus 82,239.

does

everyone have that information?

>> Spelman: Mayor, if I could

amend that.

>> Mayor leffingwell:

Mr. spelman.

>> Spelman: I think it is almost

exactly consistent with my

original approach, would be to

incorporate council member

tovo's suggestion, but to also

add the financial consultant,

the contract compliance

specialist senior of 92,

research analyst senior of 82

8

add up to almost exactly the

same amount as a manager for

housing policy and planning and

assistance director, they are a

little bit smaller, so that

would transfer approximately

300 -- see, 287 -- 288 to the

sustainability fund and keep the

other three positions, which are

a littleless than 288, I haven't

been able to add them all up,

but the first three add up to a

little less than that, about

half of the total.

Half of the total would stay in

the housing trust fund, the

other half total would go in the

sustainability fund freeing up

$280,000 for the housing trust

fund to use on all of their

projects.

So basically split the baby in

half 50/50 and that would be my

proposal.

>> Tovo: If that's the best we

can do, yes, I prefer to see it

under 200,000, but --

>> Spelman: Try to get that last

94815 but I prefer that to go

back to the water utility.

okay, so

I am just going to ask staff to

lay this out for us when they

are ready.

>> Tovo: And all other --

>> Spelman: And all of the

roving leader stuff stays intact

without any changes at all, if i

could reiterate.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

>> Spelman: Sausage.

[ Silence]

[ silence]

[ silence]

.

[ Silence]

[ silence]

are you

ready to lay it out for us?

>> I am going to do my best.

Starting with number 12 on page

7, I think we would like to

change the language for the

transfer -- the transfer in

amount from the austin water

utility $485,150, it would be.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

>> Number 13, the transfers in

from the water utility to the

sustainability fund that, number

likewise changes to 45,$150,

which in essence, what that is

doing is reducing transfer from

the water utility to the

sustainability fund, the

difference had been 659203, it

is now 485150.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

>> Number, 14, 15, 16, all of

..

The new amount is.

>> Spelman: numbers

don't exactly run into what I am

doing.

Is that what it is?

>> We are working on council

member spelman's numbers.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let's do

that.

Let's work on council member

spelman's numbers until we get

some numbers and then we will

talk about whether they need to

be changed or not.

>> Spelman: All right.

Mayor, I suggest, then, we pay

for the last two.

>> The housing policy and

planning director out of the

sustainability fund and my

account is that that adds up to

288019, so that 557518 would

change to 288019.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

Do you agree with that --

>> that's where the manager and

the assistance director

positions?

>> Spelman: That's my idea.

Yes.

Those fy don't add up to 518 but

they are close.

>> We are getting close, we are

getting 587290.30.

>> It has to be 288.

>> Council member, go ahead.

>> Tovo: Thank you.

If I may, I don't know if this

clarifies confusion, the

original 1% transfer after you

subtracted out 557,000, there

was about 101,000 left and the

roving leader position is

95,000, so if there are some

discrepancy in numbers, that may

be why.

The roving leader didn't equate

to exactly 101 but we only had

funding in there of the actual

cost of the one team of the

roving leader so that may be the

number situation.

>> Well, my suggestion would be,

I think staff understands the

direction but we are getting

different sets of numbers so i

think we could crunch these

numbers and come back to this

item and there is still plenty

of items for council to take

action on as we carefully go

through the numbers and make

sheverything reconciles.

all

right.

We will put that one on the

table.

And I think go to page 4 item 2

that related to anything -- that

related -- is that related to

item 1 on page 6?

Yes?

>> Yes.

and i

think that's it.

So council member morrison.

>> Morrison: Thank you.

I just want to comment that i

think it's really greet that we

have the conversation about a

the 1115 waiver program like

this one is that yesterday, and

I look forward to working on

sort of an overall program,

financial program corporate

wide.

I know that parks is even

working with health and human

services because I think we have

a lot of great opportunities

here and I look forward to this

one kicking off.

is there

any question about the

legitimacy of taking this money

out of the critical one-time

fund for this purpose?

>> I don't believe so.

This would be one-time funding

for a contract.

It's something we have done in

the past.

For example, atcic comes to mind

where council wanted to extend

the funding to that agency.

It was a contract.

They wanted to extend the

funding for an additional 6

months so it was a one-time

commitment and this as well

would be a one-time commitment

to provide additional $250,000

for fiscal year '13 only and

after that the contractual

amount will go back to what it

had previously been.

I believe this to be consistent

with council's policy for the

use of these funds.

s this the

item yesterday we had the

discussion on, where we talked

about it would be a good thing

to fund if we could find the

money for it.

There is no money within the

department to do this, and so

the suggestion was we find it

from where else.

We couldn't find it -- there is

no place else to be found, so

it's coming out basically the

reserve fund.

Is that correct?

>> Morrison: That's my

understanding and the additional

element here is that it can

basically act as this money so

we can get a return for the 1115

waiver program that can then

fund it in the future.

>> Mayor leffingwell:

Ultimately it's coming out not

budget stabilization fund.

>> Morrison: Correct.

>> Cole: Mayor.

mayor pro

tem.

>> Cole: I would like to speak

up in support of this program.

I know the county has it and it

has been very successful and

because it's is part of the 1115

money, we will, I think, more

than double our return on it by

making it, and it is also

serving many people in the

minority community.

>> Mayor leffingwell: I agree.

I think it's a good program and

I would like to be able to

support it but it's coming out

of the stabilization fund and i

won't be.

Is there any further discussion?

Clerk can call the role.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>> Mayor leffingwell: no.

>> Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Yes.

>> Council member riley?

Council member martinez?

Council member tovo?

Council member morrison?

Council member spelman?

that

passes on 6-1 and I voted no.

And item -- on page 4, item

number 3, again -- precinct

transfers into the critical one

time fund of 84057 for early

childhood services that related

to item 3 on page 6.

>> Correct.

>> Morrison: Mayor.

council

member morrison.

>> Morrison: If I could just

take a moment to remind folks,

because we earlier had talked

about critical one time funding

for the different program and

the police department that

turned out to be not quite so

pragmatic and I withdrew that

motion and suggested instead

that the funding, it be critical

one-time funding from budget

stabilization.

And dedicate that to early

childhood.

The idea being that this still

allows us to stay at 12% of our

reserves, a good healthy

reserve, but to address the

unfortunate situation that we

found ourselves in, in

significant defunding of early

childhood to our last social

service contract.

So it's not -- it's not a

solution that's a permanent

solution but it is bog to help

some folks -- it's going to help

some folks out in some grants

that we already have going.

any

further discussion?

Again, I am going to continue

with what I have said before.

It's a good program.

I would like to see it funded

but not out of the reserve fund.

Clerk call the role.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>> No.

>> Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Cole: Yes.

>> Council member riley?

Council member martinez?

Council member tovo?

Council member morrison?

Council member spelman?

passes on

6-1 with I voted no.

So -- so -- oh, yes, item number

5, which is, again, going to

budget stabilization reserve

fund, transferring that $248,000

to the critical fund for

one-time mitigation efforts with

the community wild fire

protection plan.

That's associated with item 4 on

page 6.

Discussion?

Council member spelman.

>> Spelman: Any chance we can

get you to vote for this one,

mayor?

actually,

I am going to vote for this one

because it is a public safety

emergency associated with the

critical need and mitigation for

wild fires, I am going to

vote on this.

This meets the criteria for

going into the budget

stabilization fund.

And a you would have found that

out in just a second.

So there is no further

discussion?

Clerk call the role.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>> Aye.

>> Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Aye.

>> Council member specialist,

council member riley, council

member morrison, council member

spelman?

, Council member leffingwell.

passes

7-0.

It takes us to, I believe, item

number 9 which is to amend the

s,

reallocate 250,000 within

communications and technology by

reducing the budget for the

city-wide it strategy assessment

from $1 million to $750,000.

This is simply a reallocation of

funding.

Is there any discussion of this

item?

"

aye.

Opposed say no?

Passes on a vote of 7-0.

Item number 10, transportation

fund, amend the transportation

fund budget to increase

appropriations by 571,000 for

more equitable programs related

to the transportation that

supports the imagine austin

plan.

And I would just like to ask a

question once again, I know we

have discussed this once.

About what are we losing by

transferring this money?

Are we losing fixing x number of

potholes or -- or preventive

maintenance on x number of

streets or what is the cost of?

>> Given, howard lazarus public

works.

This balance brings down the

year end balance, it is money

that we would have used to

address future year requirements

that to make sure the funds stay

positive as well as trying to

build a reserve in the funds to

handle any emergency that may

have occurred.

so there

is no project that is you have

planned that would go wanting

because of of this reallocation?

>> Not in the current fiscal

year.

not in

the current fiscal year.

>> In the -- not in next fiscal

year.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

Anything further?

>> Morrison: Mayor.

council

member morrison.

>> Morrison: I would like to

note that allocating these funds

to this -- to this special

bucket of money is what I am

thinking.

Give us the opportunity to go

after programs as they arise and

it doesn't actually dictate that

we spend this money although it

may roll-over.

Although if there is programs

that need to exceed money or

special priorities that arise,

especially as they relate to --

as we work through implementing

imagine austin, I think it gives

us the flexibility.

all in

favor of that amendment say aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no.

Passes on a vote of 7-0.

And item number 11, amending the

austin energy budget to increase

appropriations in the amount of

3 and a half dollars for the

solar program.

Austin energy -- anybody from

austin energy here?

I don't see anybody from austin

energy here.

The question is, is this also

coming from -- from the

remaining balance or --

>> it would be the '13 budgets

that projects a surplus of

revenues over expenses in the

current fiscal year of

$15 million, so this would lower

that amount by 3 and a half

million dollars, wouldn't change

their programs or their fee

structure.

is does

that have an effect on the --

does that have an effect on the

required observes?

Observes -- on the

require reserves?

>> Ann little, cfo for austin

energy.

Could you repeat the question,

please?

I just

wanted to ask what the effect of

increasing appropriations for

the solar program by 3 and a

half million dollars would be.

>> Well have in excess of

$15 million, including the

transfer from the strategic

reserve fund, so that would be

adequate to cover that.

so it

doesn't require any transfers

from any reserve funds?

It's already transferred?

>> We already have a transfer of

11 million, and it is included

in that 15 million-dollar

excess.

included

in the excess.

>> Yes.

and this

is money that's available for

solar rebates, rebate programs?

>> Yes.

and if

it's not spent, it will remain

in the fund.

Is that correct?

>> That's correct.

if

rebates aren't issued?

>> That's correct.

any

discussion?

>> Spelman: Mayor.

council

member spelman.

>> Spelman: We haven't had an

opportunity to have a

substantive discussion about

this question.

And you may not be the right

person to answer this question,

but if you can answer it partly,

it will be helpful to me,

ms. little.

How much is currently in the

solar rebate program?

Is it 4 million?

>> Yes, there is 4 million

currently in there.

>> So this would be more or less

doubling the size of the

program?

>> That's correct.

>> Spelman: I am concerned about

two things.

One of them is that when we

double the size of the program,

it may be simply difficult for

the -- given the current staff

we have of the program we have

for us to spend that much money,

spend twice as much money.

I am also concerned about

distortions in the market, in

that if we double the amount as

a rebate, would this have the

effect of doubling the number of

up stalllations, or will it have

the affect of doubling the cost

per installation, because the

installer community will take

advantage of the increase in the

rebate amount and double their

prices, or somewhere in between?

And if it's -- I do not believe

that the installer committee

will be doubling their prices

but I suspect that there may be

some effect on the price for

installation and that we will

not necessarily get a doubling

of the total number of solar

installations as a result of

almost doubling the total

amount, and I wonder if there is

somebody from the solar program

who could speak to the extent to

which there may be market

distortion in the program and

the capacity of the current

staff to be able to handle

almost twice as many requests.

S are.

>> I don't think there is anyone

else available, but we have had

a few meetings on that and we

would have to increase the staff

level, probably.

The cost of solar is actually

going down, so the number of

installations could increase,

regardless of the increase in

the solar rebates.

But you are correct, in we would

have to develop some programs in

order to -- to utilize that

money efficiently.

>> Spelman: All a of that makes

good sense to me.

It doesn't quite answer my

question, unfortunately, and i

can't blame you for not being

able to completely answer my

question because it was a very

technical question and probably

could only be answered by

somebody who actually operated

this program.

We would -- there would be more

s but it would be included

5 million available,

5 is not only for rebates,

it is for accommodation of

rebates plus operate or only

rebates?

>> No, it's only just for

rebates.

>> Spelman: Okay.

Do we have a sense for how

much -- how much our

administrative costs would

increase in order to spend twice

as much rebate money?

>> No.

I think we are looking at adding

maybe two employees, but I don't

know the dollar amount exactly.

>> Spelman: So something like a

couple of hundred thousand

dollars?

>> Correct.

>> Spelman: Which is not

included in this item but it is

another cost you would have to

bear.

Is there somebody that could

persuade me there will not be a

significant market distortion by

doubling the amount of rebate

money available?

>> I am sorry, I can't really

answer that.

>> I didn't figure you could.

Is there somebody who would be

available on call who would be

able to speak to that issue,

ann?

>> I can bring someone over

later today.

I could -- I could probably make

a call and get back with you in

a few minutes.

>> Spelman: I would like it if

you could do that.

It would make me feel a lot

better.

>> Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

before

you leave, I would like to -- if

we are asking for more

information, I would like to

know exactly what end of this

number, of 3 and a half million

dollars, when did we come up

with 3 and a half million as

opposed to 2 and a half or 4 and

a half?

It has to be based on some

measure of demand out there, of

historic, unmet demand.

Is it just a number?

>> I don't have the answer to

that.

to maybe

when you bring back -- council

member riley has the answer.

[One moment, please, for change

in captioners]

>> it would be upwardly

significant.

2009 Has been generally to

discuss, the lower threshold of

where we need to start from, as

we think about the future of

this program.

So this would be a modest but

significant step insofar as it

would be moving upward from the

2009 level, and would position

our program for further growth

as we continue to work with the

local solar advisory committee

on their recommendations, and

that is consistent with our

often-stated intent that will

often maintain and build upon a

historic position as a leader in

the solar industry.

I think it is a worthy amendment

and I strongly support it.

I guess

similar to councilmember spelman

I would like to be assured it

will not adversely impact our

goals.

That council adopted the goals

for 2%.

Bottom 50%.

>> I will get back to you with

an answer.

is the idea

we want to put this on the table

until we get answers, or are you

ready to vote?

Ok.

All right.

We'll put that on the table for

now.

And go to more.

Number 18, drainage utility

fund.

Increasing appropriations in the

amount of $648,000 for drainage

and erosion control purposes.

I believe we had considerable

discussion on this.

This was to allocate that money.

Is that correct councilmember

tovo?

yeah, I would be happy

to recap.

With the sustainability fund.

What this motion would do is

allocate up to 1%, which the

total is there.

Up to $648,293 for tree

irrigation and tree preventive

maintenance, as it benefits

storm water benefits.

So the other piece of this is

that it will direct the city

manager to direct staff to come

back to council with a report

indicating to the extent to

which you are applicable for the

storm water benefit.

The extent to which the existing

activities have storm water

benefits and have the impact of

reducing flooding and reducing

erosion control or increasing

erosion control.

I see mr. kelly here.

I wonder if I might prevail on

him to just come speak for a

minute about this.

I'm the director for the event.

I want to speak about our

infrastructure program.

City of austin has been viewed

as a leader for the nation with

the green infrastructure, epa,

selected with the city for the

green infrastructure and also

picked the water park with the

national green initiative

structure.

We're proud of our program.

We established a cross

functional green infrastructure

team within the department to

further integrate this

technology into the storm water

management of the water quality

and erosion control.

And we have the team here that

can address that more.

I appreciate you both

being here both days all day.

green, if you could discuss

the infrastructure and how this

will enhance the great work you

are doing in terms of using

green infrastructure for storm

water benefits for reducing

flooding.

>> Mayor, councilmembers, mark

kelly with the water department.

Traditionally watershed

protection, looking at green

infrastructure looking at

engineered approaches where we

consciously divert water off of

streets and rooftops and detain

that and put it into the ground.

We use certain quantitative

methods to give out how much

benefit that gives us for

reducing flooding and erosion.

I believe the proposal deals

more with the existing natural

green infrastructure with the

parks, green belts, things like

that, which we realize have a

function.

What we have been unable to do

is quantify those, at this

point, unincidental benefits of

the natural green

infrastructure.

So I think what the study that

is proposed would do is allow us

to use the current tools we use

in terms of numbers of gallons

diverted from the storm water

system, which reduces flooding.

It allows a one-to-one

comparison, with the loss of x

amount of trees you lose x

amount of benefit to the storm

water system.

That gives us the ability to do

a one-to-one accounting of what

it is worth to maintain.

I think that would be

helpful.

And thank you for nicely

articulating kind of what the

study would do in terms of

assessing what the existing

green infrastructure is and how

to care for it and what the real

economic benefits are and what

the real storm water benefits

are of caring for it in a way

that is appropriate.

So it sounds like this proposal,

in many ways, ties in nicely

with some of the work you're

already doing within watershed?

>> It does.

Would you like me to expand.

sure, if you have more

to say, absolutely.

>> We're working with staff to

locate some of the green

structures, because it is open

public land that benefit the

creeks that flow through the

parks.

We're able to locate these and

capture the runoff that was up

until that point going through

storm drains or pipes and use it

on the landscape, we clean the

water before it gets to the

creeks but also use it on-site

for irrigation.

So, that is one of the

initiatives we're working on is

instead of using potable water

or hand trucks, we're looking to

capture that runoff off the

street systems into parks by

curb cuts or diverting pipes to

actually use that athe

irrigation system for trees.

We are confident we can achieve

great gains in that 91-year

sickle of irrigating trees by

harvesting water off the street

and putting it on to the land

directly.

And not necessarily just taking

over potable water supplies.

So that is currently underway

with staff.

We believe that any report we

make would be able to further

quantify of where it is

available.

>>Tovo: that is great.

We would like to see that number

come down a bit.

Thanks for all the work you are

doing already.

With that, I think that is my

last question on that.

I've just

got a concern about, you know,

reallocating a dedicated

enterprise fund for another

purpose.

Without going through this

exercise that you just described

before we do that, especially.

Right now, we're making the

allocation first.

We will do the study later.

And being as how this particular

fund is one that is literally a

million dollars behind schedule.

A million dollars of projects

that are waiting if for funds.

It is something I can't support

at this time.

I could maybe in the future, if

we come back with, you know,

more information on how and

where this will work, for that

purpose, for the intended

purpose, maybe I can.

But I can't right now.

>>Tovo: mayor?

>>Mayor leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo.

storm water benefits,

are clearly within the state

statute that enabled this fund.

It is by no means are we going

to be able to allocate that

money to a purpose that is not

squarely -- that doesn't fit

squarely within the purposes and

missions laid out by the

drainage utility fund in the

city ordinance and in the state

statute.

So the staff will come back to

us with a report.

All we're doing, as I understand

it, reserving up to 1% for any

project that might be

eligibility within -- and we'll

know better what those are and

what that amount is when the

staff come back to us in 90

days.

We can make a determination

then.

>>Mayor leffingwell: yeah.

I hear what you're saying.

It could be a good program.

I'm not ready to do that right

now, until we have done a

thorough evaluation.

Diverting needed funds for

something not -- mayor pro tem.

>>Tovo: go ahead.

>> We will use all the funds we

collect from the drainage fee,

and we will prioritize all the

fees to our project.

We will include the green

infrastructure tied with the

project in our priority list.

We appreciate this opportunity

to highlight the need of all the

existing trees and vegetation

and the needs that are

mentioned.

We will use our formal process

to prioritize the fund, up to

1%.

If we see the priority is a cost

benefit ratio is high enough, we

will allocate more funds in the

infrastructure program.

Basically, we're following our

normal process to prioritize.

mayor pro

tem.

this is a quick question

for councilmember tovo.

I noticed that the amendment

uses the specific language that

it is for drainage and erosion

control.

I think that is consistent with

what professional staff has

said.

You earlier used a term "tree

mitigation" and I was not sure

if I heard you right or what you

meant by that.

>> I think I might have said

tree irrigation.

>>Cole: oh, irrigation.

>>Tovo: I meant tree irrigation.

>>Cole: ok.

Thank you.

in the

original discussion, there was

talk about making the money that

originally used for the

irrigation purposes reimbursing

them for the money they use so

they can use the money for some

other purpose, relieving them of

an expense.

Is that still the intent of

this?

Is that still the net effect of

this?

>> We hope that we will be able

to use this fund we will

allocate, so we can produce

bigger bang for the buck.

I heard

that.

I'm concerned about the cost

shifting, enterprise,

essentially shifting those costs

into a general fund.

And that was what we had

discussed the recall day.

I want to see if that is still

the case?

I think the assistant city

manager is right behind you and

wants to add a comment?

No?

That is not how I would

interpret the language.

That is what you have to ask the

council member about intent.

>> Mayor, you are correct.

When we talked about this

yesterday, there is -- we will

have to talk about how to handle

this.

I was suggesting that in

addition to enhancing the amount

of money we spend maintaining

and preserving our trees here in

austin, that that might be a

very appropriate -- there is

work that they're doing that

fits squarely within the

drainage utility fund purpose,

yes, it would offset some of the

money hart is spending on the

activities and there may be some

costs that are more

appropriately handled through

the drainage utility fund.

do we have

a later opportunity to address

that at a later date?

>>Tovo: as I understand it, yes.

What I understood, if savings

exist, council shall direct as

needed to allocate the funds to

use in senior programs and

senior forestry programs.

It is to enhance the money spent

on tree maintenance, prevention,

and address other needs.

But again, it is my

understanding of that is have to

happen through a budget

amendment, at which point, we

can talk about whether that

money needs to remain in

watershed or can properly offset

some of the pard money, right

now pard is bearing the full

responsibility for caring for

irrigating our public parks and

public spaces.

To the extent that there are

storm water benefits, those

might be better handled in part

by the drainage utility fund.

with the

assurance that there is nothing

in the current amendment that

shifts enterprise money out of

the drainage fee and interest

the general fund department,

parks department, that will only

be done through a later budget

amendment, not being done here.

Is that the case?

>> That is the case.

with some

degree of trepidation, I can

support it.

I am concerned that staff down

the path will be prepared to

deal with that later.

All in favor signify by saying

aye.

Opposed, no.

That passes 7-0.

That brings us to item 19.

This is to reappropriate the

originally budgeted amount, take

one million out of that, divert

that to funds.

The purpose of the fund out of

which it is funded.

Fund treat cleaning code

compliance, and I'll just repeat

what I said the other day.

I think $750,000 over two years

is adequate for public

education, given the fact that

we have engaged over five years

of public education.

Any further discussion?

Councilmember morrison.

I wanted to provide

comment after hearing from the

director yesterday,

understanding more, and

understanding this number was

not picked out of the air by our

staff.

They did talk with other cities,

and all of that.

I think we have a real

commitment to making this

successful work that we have in

front of us.

That is why I am going to be

voting against this.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

Clerk, call the roll.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>>Mayor leffingwell: aye.

>> Cole, tovo, morrison,

spelman.

that fails

on vote of 4-3.

Councilmember riley, tovo,

morrison, spelman, voting no.

I believe the last item we have,

you have a sheet that has been

passed out.

Items 12, 13, 14, 15, 17.

Which has to do with water

utility sustainability

transfers.

All one motion.

>> It includes the other

peach-colored items earlier in

the document.

Item 4 on page 1, item 10, page

3.

4, 10, page

3.

>> 4 On 4.

>>Mayor leffingwell: 4 on 4.

These items.

Thanks for the correction.

>> I would say, if you look at

what we handed out, there is no

longer a 16.

So by our understanding, item 16

would not need to be on here any

longer.

After we make all of the changes

to see the appropriations of the

housing trust fund.

It firms up $297,000 in the

trust fund, that would stay in

the fund to do projects with.

We don't need item 16 any long

per.

12-17 Are replaced with what you

see on the black and white

handout, with there is no item

16 any longer.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

Any questions about this item?

Councilmember tovo?

>>Tovo: a quick one.

I think you said 4 on page 4 and

10 on page 3.

So basically, this will

accomplish -- this motion would

accomplish the transfer from the

water utility to the

sustainability fund, from the

sustainability fund out to

neighborhood housing.

It would assure the critical

one- -- the purchase of the

capital expenditure leaders

through the roving fund and

create the fte necessary through

the sustainability funding.

>> Yes, it also funds $20,000

for the temps in the roving

leader program and the supplies

and equipment.

>>Tovo: thank you.

any further

discussion?

We'll take a vote on all of the

items together.

Call the roll.

>> Mayor leffingwell?

>>Mayor leffingwell: no.

>> Mayor pro tem cole.

>>Cole: aye.

>> Councilman martinez,

morrison, spelman.

>>Spelman: aye.

>>Mayor leffingwell: passes 6-1.

I voted no.

>> There are two items which are

the financial policy which need

to be approved.

>>Mayor leffingwell: correct.

mayor, I have one other

amendment that we talked about

to put on the table.

If you want to take the

financial policies.

financial

policy item 1 is an amendment to

the general fund financial

policy.

Number 3.

You can all read it there.

Any discussion on this item?

All in favor signify by saying

aye.

Opposed, no.

Passes 7-0.

Item 2.

To amend the proposed budget by

adding back the existing

language in the water utility,

related to voter approval of

revenue debt.

Any discussion on that?

All in favor signify by saying

aye.

Opposed no.

No.

That passes 6-1.

I voted no.

Councilmember -- mayor pro tem

cole has the floor.

>>Cole: yes, I have the floor.

I would like to make an

additional amendment that we

discussed earlier, which would

basically amend the budget

stabilization reserve fund for

$154,159 for the parks

department for equipment.

AND WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY TWO FTEs

For the urban forestry, a sum of

$154,159 would go to the health

and human service department for

early childhood department.

That would be a revenue-neutral

motion.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

Transfer $154,159 from early

childhood to parks department

equipment.

>>Cole: right?

What was the question, mayor?

say it

again, please.

we had an item

withdrawn, which is page 2, item

2.

Which amended the proposed

BUDGET FOR FTEs FOR URBAN

Forestry.

I AM DELETING THE TWO FTEs FOR

Urban forestry and making a

request that the parks

department have $154,159 from

the budget stabilization reserve

fund.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

then I'm also asking

that health and human services

receive $154,159 to go to health

and human services for early

childhood development.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

Everyone understand that?

>> Ed, are you clear?

>>Mayor leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison and

councilmember spelman.

>>Morrison: I'm confused.

It feels like we had a surplus.

It sounds like we're spending it

twice, with that motion.

>> The budget, after all the

changes would have the surplus

of $154,159 in the general fund

operating budget.

The motion is to amend one more

amendment to appropriate that

$154,159 to the operating budget

of the health and human services

for early child services.

General fund is now in balance

with no change to the tax rate.

The second part is go to the

stabilization reserve, second

pot of money, appropriate

$154,159 out of the budget

stabilization reserves to fund

capital equipment in the parks

and recreation department.

>> For urban forestry.

>> To round that out, we need a

third amendment -- that

amendment to transfer money to

the critical one-time fund.

That is a third amendment to

appropriate the money out of the

critical one-time fund for the

equipment needed for the urban

forestry.

>> So moved.

one follow-up

question.

Why does that take us in terms

of reserve?

It sounds like it is an

additional 154 from budget

stabilization.

>> Um, it is.

Currently, with all the

amendments, council has

appropriated about $970,000 --

actually about $955,000 out of

our budget stabilization

reserves.

This would be an additional 154

thousand.

We have to calculate the change.

>> With the 955?

That is essentially where we

started this morning, I think?

>> I'm sorry.

Because we took -- if you go

back to the budget stabilization

reserve list, it starts on page

4.

Number one was withdrawn.

Number 6, no action taken on it.

I think that has been -- just go

away.

>> I plan to withdraw that.

>> The new numbers would be the

total reserve changes $860,891.

That percentage changes to

11.95.

Little higher than where we

started a couple hours ago.

Because of the fact that we're

removing item 1.

Which was for 248.

>> Last night it was right at

12.

>> Last night, it was right at

12.

what did we do today

that took it below 12?

>>Mayor leffingwell:

Councilmember, can I make a

suggestion?

It is 1:15.

We have a lot more to do today.

Perhaps we can figure this out

what the projections are for the

remaining budget stabilization

fund and percentage, take a

30-minute break.

>>Morrison: fine with me.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

>> How many decimals did you go

to?

>> We're out of recess.

We will pick up where we left

off.

The question that had been asked

was about with the proposal on

the table, what would be the

amount of the budget

stabilization fund, in terms of

percentages.

>> Now, as we speak, but I can

read the numbers to you that um,

including, which in conversation

with councilmember cole after

the fact will be an amendment

from her, which would be to

appropriate an additional

$100,000 from budget

stabilization reserves for a

one-time fund for equipment for

parks and urban forestry.

in essence, I would

reduce it from 154 down to 100.

.

Where we were talking before we

left at 154.

What I will hand out, when they

get down here, one for $1,000.

The total changes from what

staff recommended from budget

stabilization reserves.

$86,742 More money coming out.

That would put the reserve

percentages exactly 12%.

You can see that on page 5.

so you have

the number, the actual -- i

think we have all the amendments

on the table.

How much in extraexpenditures

that resulted over and above the

original proposal with staff

amendments?

If you don't that's ok.

>> I'm taking it through the new

handout we just gave you.

First of all, I should say, if

you see on page 3 number 13, we

put a black square around it.

Not been council action on that

yet.

>>Mayor leffingwell: right.

>> It is on the table.

The sum total at $117,266 in the

general fund.

Some are coming down, some are

going up.

The whole list is there.

The net increase in expenditures

is $117,266 which is offset by

the additional transfer from the

sustainability fund and the

additional fee for the plaza

saltillo.

So the general fund remains

balanced with no change in the

tax rate.

Flipping over to page 5, you can

see the additional $806,742

coming out of the stabilization

reserve fund.

We have somebody working on

tallying what the sum total of

the other changes to the other

operating funds would be.

But looking on page 7, one of

the largest changes to the

operating funds would be the

5 million related to austin

energy.

I think after council takes

action on that, we can give you

what that sum total of all the

other operating changes are.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

Let me know when you're ready.

We'll go ahead and address the

item that's on the table from

mayor pro tem cole.

>> We just got that.

The other operating funds is

6 million of

additional expenses.

5 Million change from austin

energy approved it will go up

additional expenses for the

other operating funds.

mayor pro

tem.

I wanted to ask you a

question on item 13, I intend

for that to go into early

childhood development and you

have youth services, if that is

properly characterized to

include that?

>> I would change the language

to your specific language

instead of youth services, if

that is your desire.

early childhood

development.

>> Early childhood services.

you just

passed out an additional piece

of paper.

Could I have that?

I have so many different copies

of this, I have to make sure I'm

on the right one.

Where are we now?

We need to vote on the proposed

amendment from mayor pro tem

cole.

>> Number 13 on the bottom of

page 3, we need to take action

on.

this says

$154,159.

>> Correct.

any

discussion on this item?

Call the roll.

>> Excuse me.

Mayor leffingwell.

>>Mayor leffingwell: no.

>> Mayor pro tem cole.

>>Cole: yes.

>> Councilmember riley,

martinez, tovo.

>>Tovo: aye.

>> Councilmember morrison, and

councilmember spelman.

>>Mayor leffingwell: passes 6-1.

I voted no.

I think that takes us to the

solar item from austin energy.

>> Actually, there is still two

operating changes.

There is number 7 on page 5.

And that is connected with

number 6 on page 7.

So you can take action on those

together.

5 And 7.

Ok.

Any questions on that item?

Again, $100,000 out of the

budget stabilization reserve

fund.

Councilmember riley.

we were talking about

the amount before, 136.

It didn't have much meaning in

this context because it was the

COST OF TWO FTEs, WHICH WE WERE

No longer funding.

In the discussions with the

parks department about what

capital we have, that should be

funded out of the budget

stabilization reserve, being

mindful of the need to keep our

drawings -- our drawing from

that fund to a minimum.

We did identify a need within

the forestry division for some

handheld devices that will

actually make that division much

more efficient.

Right now, some of the workers

are having to go back to the

office repeatedly to do

paperwork when with the devices

they could actually stay out in

the field and be much more

efficient.

So this is -- this $100,000

would be enough to support the

capital investment as a one-time

necessary expense.

It seems like a very appropriate

use of the budget stabilization

reserve and will have the effect

of making the forestry staff

more efficient.

I strongly support it.

>>Cole: mayor?

mayor pro

tem.

ed or elaine, can you

briefly comment on the budget

stabilization reserve amount?

I mean, I think it is important

to all of us that we stay fairly

within a certain range.

Can you give us an indication of

what it has been the past few

years?

>> In terms of percentages,

hovering around 12% for the last

several years.

>>Cole: ok.

Thank you.

the motion

is on item 7 on page 5 and item

6 on page 7, together.

Further discussion?

Call the roll.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>>Mayor leffingwell: no.

>> Mayor pro tem.

>>Cole: aye.

it passes

6-1, I voted no.

Now, I believe it takes us to

the solar rebate item, item

number 11 on page 7.

Had a couple of outstanding

questions.

Are you ready to answer those?

>> Yes, chief operating officer,

austin energy.

ok

councilmember spelman, you want

to restate your question?

>>Spelman: two questions.

First, what, if any, additional

administrative expenses will be

required to support an increase

in the rebate amount for four

million to 7.5 million?

Second, what, if anything, need

to be done by the people

operating the program to prevent

market distortions from

inhibiting something like

doubling the actual amount of

megawatts installed.

>> I think on the first one, the

program to grow will certainly

require additional

administration.

We have vacant positions that

would be rededicated to making

sure the program dollars can be

processed.

So that is not an additional

cost to the austin energy

budget, which is to

reallocation.

I think that with regard to the

program expenses, I certainly

think austin energy does keep on

top of how our costs compare to

others in the country.

We're competitive.

We believe our program is the

lowest cost in the country.

$3.78 Per watt install period.

Compared to national average of

$5.48 a watt.

We don't have a way to control

that, per se, we do monitor that

regularly.

We will watch that throughout

this program.

Again, the additional funds

won't go toward increasing

incentives but will extend and

make available additional funds

to accomplish more solar.

>> The best guess is moving from

5 we should get something

like twice as many watts

installed?

>> If we are doubling the

program dollars.

That would strictly in our

expectation be that we double

the installed solar in the

community.

>> Ok.

Will this help -- never mind.

Stop talking once the sale is

made.

I'm done.

[Laughter]

my question

what is going to be the

effect on our portability goals?

That is the bottom line customer

bills, by taking this action?

>> Certainly this in itself will

not prevent austin energy from

meeting the affordability

targets and goals.

We'll be monitoring everything,

of course.

Based on the current financial

forecast, this will not impact

our affordability.

it will

stay in the limits.

What is the impact on the bill

that goes to the customer's

bill.

>> I will ask ann to step up in

helping answer that question.

It is not a direct hit to the

current bill, but it will

eventually get to the customer

bill.

>> Ann little with austin

energy.

I can't tell you the exact

dollar amount, but it would

probably not impact the

customers until next year, when

we reconcile and we'll see if we

need to increase the rates at

that time.

would it be

less than 1%?

>> Yes.

well, i

trust we're keeping a running

total of all these incremental

increases.

We may need to touch base after

the budget has passed and after

we have time to assimilate the

information you have gotten over

the new billing procedure, which

is whatever they may need to get

an update on that.

Ok?

Any further questions?

All in favor of the motion aye,

opposed, no.

Passes 7-0.

MR. McADAY, HAVE WE PROCESSED

All the amendments at this

point?

Mr. van eno.

I have always been hung up on

McANO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

>> As long as it has "no" in the

name.

[Chuckling]

>> yes, we have processed all of

the amendments council has

brought forward.

>> Mayor?

>>Mayor leffingwell: yes.

>> Just for the record, I want

to state that I'm withdrawing

the plan b emotions -- emotions?

Plan b motions, since we talked

about not having contingent

motions or contingent votes.

I'm withdrawing on page 3,

motion 12.

On page 5, motion 6.

On page 6, motion 5.

You had already crossed those

out.

I saw it, I wanted to get it on

the record that I was

withdrawing those because we

were able to take care of the

roving leader program a

different way.

so it is on

the record.

Those are all the proposed

amendments have been processed?

>> Yes.

we're ready

to proceed on the motion to

approve the general fund budget

as amended?

>> Yes.

and before

we proceed to that, are there

any comments anyone would like

to make about the general fund

budget that haven't been made in

the last day and a half?

The motion is already on.

I object because I want to say

something.

Calling the question.

Is there a second to calling the

question?

>> I would halfway second to

call the question.

Since you want to say something

anyway, just say it.

I will be

brief.

I am disappointed in the way

this turned out.

We set out originally, as I said

yesterday, with a hope that we

could reduce the property tax

29 to

a little bit less than that.

5% increase over this

year's rate, approximately.

What I had proposed was about

half that.

Still an increase, but less.

And I think that is the way

we've always got to approach

dealing with budget matter, not

only at this level, but at every

level.

It has to be a combination of

spending cuts, spending

restraint and taxes.

I didn't go into this with the

idea of no new taxes.

That was not my goal.

My goal was to restrain the

increase.

I put a suggestion on the table.

Early yesterday.

It didn't pass.

I understand that.

I understand a lot of my

colleagues had some trepidation

about the unknowns involved in

the process.

I totally understand.

At that time, I say I look

forward, during the next day and

a half to seeing what other

suggestions are offered to cut

expenditures.

So far, I haven't seen any.

What I have seen is, I think,

van eno, an

increase in expenditures of

about a million dollars.

Somewhere in there.

Is that about correct?

>> About a million dollars from

the general fund resources and

about $5 million from the other

operating funds.

so -- in

large part, funded from various

sources but in large part from

our reserve fund.

And that is not what I wanted to

see.

The bottom line is, I have no

illusion about what is about to

happen here.

We're going to pass the budget.

We have to pass the budget.

But my intention is to vote no

as a symbol, an acknowledgment,

hopefully, that we could have

done better.

I'm not going to let this be a

unanimous vote of the entire

council approve this budget with

a large spending increase.

So with that, the clerk can call

the roll.

Councilmember martinez.

in light of the

comments, I certainly appreciate

your offering a suggestion

yesterday, but I can't let it go

without saying.

If your offer was meaningful,

you should have taken up at

offer from many of us on this

council to continue the

conversation to get to the

budget proposal you proposed in

making the $4 million in cuts.

You specifically said yesterday,

I don't want to prolong this,

I'm just making this across the

board cut.

And let's let staff engage in

that and come back and tell us

what they cut.

What we said is we're not

necessarily opposed to it.

What councilmember spelman said,

I would like another week or so,

which we have the time until the

end of the month, we would be

willing to have the

conversations.

I don't appreciate the portrayal

that the rest of us on this body

just out and out rejected your

proposal.

We were -- I think we're still,

at this point, I'm willing to

extend this conversation, if you

would like to do that.

If you would like to engage with

us about where these cuts come

from and how they impact each

and every department.

well, the

vote has not been taken.

So a substitute motion would

still be in order, if you wish

to make one.

Well, I'm not going to get into

an argument on the dais.

But it is not my proposal.

Clerk call the roll.

Councilmember spelman.

I won't make a

substitute, but I will make an

observation.

We have only be talking about

want detailed changes weave e

been talking about over the last

24 hours or so.

I think what happens is budget

gets made over a long period of

time by many hundreds, maybe

thousands of people throughout

the entire city, including us,

and by the time it gets to the

last two or three days when we

were actually going to take a

vote, there is not a whole lot

of room left for fooling around.

7 million in changes

in $3.2 million total budget.

I think the decisions being made

in the last couple of days are

quite good.

I think we are moving the ball

in small ways but forward in all

directions.

But we think it needs to go.

I'm happy with all the decisions

we made.

But by the time we've got a

budget, which is printed in two

volumes, of this size, with this

level of detail, it will not be

possible for us to completely

rethink that budget and come up

with reductions of 2%, 3%, 5%.

Too much water has passed under

the bridge.

We're too far gone for that.

If we want a reduction the size

the city is making, we have to

get started earlier.

We had an opportunity to do

that, didn't take advantage.

Have an opportunity for the next

fiscal year if we want to, to do

this differently.

We get information on the utman

deeds -- when is the report?

In april?

>> April.

economic out outlook

in march or april.

>> April as well.

and an early look at

what some of the general fund

agencies and enterprise funds

are expecting to have in their

budget, what new programs they

believe they're going to need,

what the bottom line needs to

look like starting in april and

may, before the book is printed.

I think what we're really

interested in is having a budget

which is different from this

year's budget that is either

small in some respect or totally

different since it is spending

more money on early childhood,

spending money on roving leaders

and something else that is in

this budget.

What we need to do is take

advantage of the fact that we

have an opportunity to weigh and

not listen to the reports only

from city staff but respond to

those, give a better sense of

what we are looking for early

on, so when this is printed and

most of the budget is largely

set in stone, it is the right

budget.

I have one more thing to say

about that.

It is my best guess this is a

much better budget because we

did get these reports in april.

We did get the economic outlook,

we engaged with the city staff

in april and may in the

early-morning system and

continue is hard to describe how

this budget is different because

we were engaged in that process

as early as april than we would

have been.

The fact that we are engaging

earlier than we did when I was

IN THE COUNCIL IN LATE 1990s,

This is a much better budget

than otherwise would be and that

we had fewer things to do over

the last couple of days than we

otherwise have had.

Our budget process is working

better than it has.

If we want a substantively

different budget, we have the

tools to make it different than

we have made.

We can do it better next year,

if we want to.

We have to start it earlier,

like in april, not earlier than

we want to pass it and make a

change.

Thank you.

>>Cole: mayor.

mayor pro

tem.

I would like to respond

to your comment.

I have heard you give speeches

ever since I have been on this

dais about us having a great

city and it has become an even

greater city on your watch, with

many initiatives that you have

championed, some that we have

brought to conclusion, some that

we haven't.

Undoubtedly one day will, such

as urban rail, plastic bags,

clean water.

And we have broad constituencies

that have come behind us as a

council and you in support of

those.

And those constituencies

recognize that those things

making us a great city is on

every -- I think you say

every -- if there is a list,

we're number one on it in a

ranking of a city, costs money.

We can't have it both ways in

providing the services, these

needs, these major initiatives

and at the same time cut taxes.

So it is always a careful

balancing act.

I feel like this time, and every

time that we have sat here and

sat here together, we have tried

to do that.

In good faith.

And I don't think today is any

different.

I'm not going to make a motion

to substitute, but I certainly

appreciate your desire at this

time for us to take a more

careful look at that process.

And I respect the fact that you

have brought us this far with

balancing that, sometimes voting

for a tax increase or no tax

increase or a slighter one.

But that always is carefully

done and has been done many

times that exceeds our current

list on this dais.

I believe all of us are

struggling this time to do that

again.

Thank you.

thank you

mayor pro tem.

I appreciate those comments.

If there were a list of cities

that appeared on the list, we

would be on that list.

[Chuckling]

mr. van eno.

>> To clarify the motion, maybe

when you ask the motion you ask

for it regarding the general

fund to be clear, item 1

aprovens -- approves all funds.

item 1 on

all three readings.

Call the roll.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>>Mayor leffingwell: no.

>> Mayor pro tem cole.

>>Cole: aye.

>> Councilmember morrison,

spelman, tovo, martinez.

>>Mayor leffingwell: passes 6-1.

I voted no.

Now we go to agenda item number

two.

Ordinance adopting the city's

capital budget for the next

fiscal year.

Staff presentation.

>> All right mayor, just

bringing up a presentation.

You should have the presentation

in front of you from what we

handed out yesterday.

Staff has just three amendments

to offer to the capital budget,

the first one is an amendment in

the transfers in to the austin

research recovery capital

program in the amount of

$861,000.

And increase appropriations by

the same amount for the rosewood

cip project.

I think you will recall me

talking about this.

Early yesterday, we had

amendments on the operating

a -- sides as well.

This gets it into the capital

fund.

The next amendment, number 16 on

our list, would be to amend the

proposed budget by increasing

appropriations for the parks and

recreation barnas springs pool

in the amount of $671,089.

We're just appropriating funds

here.

This is from austin foundation.

Item 18 is related to the great

streets cip and reducing

appropriatings by $783,019 to

sync that program funding up

with the program ordinance where

you decided to have the green

streets program only apply to

the kind of previous hours for

parking meters, to not apply to

the extended hours or extended

geographic area.

Those are the three amendments

to the capital budget.

so with

that, I guess we entertain a

motion to approve the capital

budget as approved by staff.

Councilmember morrison moves

approval.

This is all three readings.

Councilmember riley seconds.

Are there any additional

amendments to be proposed by

council members?

No additional amendments?

No additional discussion?

Let's just say clerk, call the

roll.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>>Mayor leffingwell: aye.

>> Mayor pro tem.

>>Cole: aye.

passes on

vote 7-0.

Item number 3.

>> Mayor, item 3 on the agenda

is to approve the city's fees,

fines other charges.

Staff has a small number of

changes to offer there.

The first one being in the

austin water utility, which we

would amend the proposed fee

schedule to approve a separate

fee section to provide for a

water volumetric fee discount

for the discount on the

presentation in front of you.

This offers lower volumetric

rates to the customer program.

The second amendment is code

compliance related to the

short-term rental program, which

is offering a fee of $235 per

year for homes that register for

that program.

The next amendment is in the

austin energy department.

I believe austin energy, the

representative will come down

and help us with those

amendments.

is this

beginning with item 1, thermal

energy?

>> Item 1.

under

these.

Go ahead with your presentation.

I will try to figure out where

we are after you get started.

>> Ann little for austin

energies.

Since june 7, 2012, council

approval of austin energy rates,

we have detected minor changes

and corrections.

And these are all included in

the handouts.

I think they're in exhibit b, it

is called the proposed rates

from austin energy.

These are all included.

Would you like me to go through

each of these and explain them?

>>Mayor leffingwell: yes.

>> You would?

Ok.

The first one, secondary voltage

less than 10-k w changed from

demand rate to nondemand time of

use.

This is a change to the time of

use rate schedule.

You may remember from the rate

work sessions that each customer

has an option of time of use

within the class.

And the small -- the very

smallest commercial class is

secondary voltage under 10-k w.

And that class is a nondemand

class.

We did not change the time of

use complementary rate to

nondemand, so the proposal or

the change is to change it from

demand to nondemand.

So it complements the existing

nondemand rate.

These are very small retail

customers.

And they're accustomed to the

nondemand rate.

The second one, secondary

voltage rate clarified for

public school and housing.

This is to change the wording

5% cap that was

applied to the houses of worship

and school discount.

And we wanted this to be clear.

As we were developing the rates,

some of the wording was not as

clear as we wanted it to be.

We wanted to make sure that the

discount and the cap applied to

all of the rate components

within the schedule.

The next two are power factor

examples corrected and primary

voltage under or greater than 20

megawatt rates schedules.

They were modified to correct

the rate.

Both of those were just error

corrections that we found after

the ordinance was approved.

The next one is the green choice

rate schedule.

Option language modified to

ensure consistency.

Here, we wanted to clarify this

that a green choice option is

available to all customers.

So all customer classes have the

option of applying for the green

choice rate.

The next ones on that particular

slide are applied to the closed

rates.

You may remember that we have

some large contract customers

and those rates are closed now.

But we wanted to clarify those

rates to apply only to the

contract customer.

So we made minor wording changes

on those.

On the next -- one more slide.

Ok.

The customer owned nonmeter

lighting, estimated use for each

fixture was added to the

schedule.

The schedule now shows the bill

type for each fixture.

The writer time of use on

thermal energy storage was

closed rates for the contract

customers.

This was eliminated prematurely.

We found out that we still

needed to give this option to

the large contract customers to

continue allowing them to

benefit from thermal energy

storage.

Power supply adjust

clarification, this we just

wanted to clarify this wording

to make sure that it was clear

that green choice revenue would

be offset in the power supply

adjustment.

Because the expense is in there,

we wanted to offset it so we

clarified the wording.

The last one is the regulatory

charge.

And we found out that there may

be some credits that would apply

if this would be additional

revenue.

It would reduce the regulatory

charge.

We changed the wording to

include credit.

Are there any questions?

questions

of staff?

Councilmember riley?

Thank you.

ther--

>> there is one more, mayor, i

passed out for you the fee

changes proposed by

councilmember riley as part of

adopting the operating budget.

This is what they would look

like.

That would be part of the motion

before you.

any

questions about that?

I would like to hear from the

austin water utility.

There is a schedule change here

and I would like for you to go

over that with us.

In particular, we have it before

us, but I would like you to

point out how it is different

from the past.

>> Yes, the proposed change as

it showed up on the screen, is

only for customer assistance

program customers.

Historically our customer

assistance programs, those that

meet the low-next eligibility

had their fixed fees waived, but

a part of the restructuring of

the water rates with the joint

financial subcommittee

recommendations this year, we

significantly changed the block

intervals for water.

And there is a group of

customers, clustered in kind of

the middle blocks, say 7,000 to

10,000 that were experiencing a

fairly significant increase as a

result of that interval

restructuring.

And for cap customers, we were

sensitive to that.

And wanted to provide a broader

range for rate relief for cap

customers.

Low-next customers that are not

irrigating, have a little larger

family, use a little more water.

The fixed fee relief alone

wasn't providing them enough

relief in terms of the

vulnerable class of customers.

So we proposed this new rate

schedule that would apply to the

volumetric component of water

for cap customers.

It is the first time we are

extending cap customer subsidies

to the volumetrics.

That is what this particular

recommendation is to the

council.

so this fee

schedule you have before us on

the slide there, that is just

reflective of the volumetric

change in the stability fee and

the fixed fee?

>> This one is just for cap

customers, though.

Just for cap.

What you see here is a reduction

just for cap customers.

customer

assistance program?

>> Yes, I'm sorry.

Customer assistance program.

do you have

many that use over 20,000?

>> Approximately 5,500

customers, we're expecting that

in our budget to increase

throughout fiscal year 2013 as

we go to automatic enrollment

and extending cap benefits to

customers that don't have a

meter in multifamily

residentials, working with ae on

extending it into that.

The regular rate schedule,

mayor, that would apply to

everyday customers, all other

customers is a different rate

schedule than what this one is.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

So we'll go away from that for a

moment.

We hear all the time that the

average use is about 7,700

gallons average for customers.

>> That is about right.

under the

new fees what is the charge for

a customer that used 7700

gallons?

>> You mean noncap, a regular

customer?

>>Mayor leffingwell: right.

A regular customer.

>> Hang on just a second.

what I'm

getting at, we hear all the time

down here that austin water

utility has the highest water

rates in the world.

I want to dig into that a little

bit here today.

Councilmember morrison.

while we're waiting,

I wanted to make a comment to

greg and his staff.

What we have in the proposed

budget is recommendation for the

change in our water rated based

on the change from the joint

subcommittee from the resource

management, wastewater and

impact advisory.

All of you came together to find

a bit of a different approach to

things to try to balance, if I'm

correct, conservation,

affordability, volatility.

So that is what we're looking at

here.

Somewhat different than what we

had before.

I just wanted to mention that

that -- that we do have the

product of your work there and

your recommendations and i

appreciate that, because I think

it really takes us a step

forward trying to balance all of

those, what can be conflicting

goals.

>> Ok.

For an average customer.

Average is not usually typical.

We did analysis.

About 52% of the customers are

going to see no increase or

decrease this year, particularly

if you are lower use.

We have a lot of low-water

users.

High water users and very high

water users.

The average customer from the

highs and lows average out to

about 7,727 gallons of water

used per month.

In terms of the water component

of the bill.

The current customer that uses

that much water would spend

$28.82 -- excuse me.

This is just water.

These two here.

That is just for water.

Ok.

Mayor, did you want just water

or combined water and

wastewater?

we'll start

off with just water.

Currently 7,727 water user, the

monthly bill is $32.82.

After our revisions in the fy

.. $36.74.

I think i

said highest in the world.

Is this the highest in the state

of texas.

The highest water rate?

>> No.

It depends on, again, you know,

some of your definitions.

First, we provide very high

value to customers.

We have been conserving water.

Particularly the water advance

falling through the conservation

program.

That is putting rate pressure on

us.

We prepurchased our water.

Invested in things like austin

clean water program.

Many value-added steps we have

taken.

We track higher comparatively to

other large texas utilities,

when you compare our rate

structure to more central texas

communities.

We're right in the competitive,

even to the lower end.

Your water bill, and our rate

structure depends on how much

water you use.

Unlike almost any other utility

in the state of texas --

that is

what I was going to get at.

Maybe I should be more direct.

To say, if you are an average

water user, your water bill is

maybe not average, maybe above

average, but not the highest in

the state.

I think that is what I heard you

say.

But if you are very low water

user, especially if you are a

low water user and a cap

customer, I think prior to this

year, they were the lowest in

the state.

The water rates were the

absolute lowest in the state.

On the other hand, if you are in

a higher use category.

Say up around 25,000 gallons or

so, then it's maybe a little bit

different picture.

Where would we be at 25,000 in

relation to other water

utilities around the state, with

the usage of 25,000 and you're

not in the customer assistance

program?

>> We do the high cost.

Our rate -- block rates, by

design for pricing for

conservation.

We the aggressive block rate as

surge any large utility in the

nation.

in fact, a

thousand percent higher?

>> The lowest over $1.

It is 12 to 11 times the amount

from the --

that is

1,100% higher in the first year

if you're in the fifth tier,

which is substantial.

I assume it was designed that

way as -- I was going to say a

carrot toward conserving water.

It may be a little bit of a

carrot in that we have a

thousand percent more, but that

was the idea, right?

>> It was.

the idea

was to put a premium on higher

water usage.

Agree or disagree that that was

the idea.

So I think we have the picture

here, if you are a low water

user, your bill is low.

Perhaps the lowest.

Average water user, it is

somewhere near the middle, not

the highest, not the lowest, if

you are a high volume user, it

is extremely high.

Maybe higher than everyone else.

We have the most aggressive tier

structure in the state of texas.

And the other component of the

bill is wastewater.

So wastewater, as we know,

depends on use during the

cold-weather months.

Which reflects outdoor

irrigation.

How do those rates compare with

other rates around the state?

>> We are in the upper middle of

the wastewater rates.

upper

middle.

I'm assuming -- you can confirm

this if I'm wrong.

I'm assuming in large part it is

due to the extensive program we

had over the last two years,

that is now in debt.

The reason we did that was we

administrative

order, facing stiff, daily fines

if we cannot comply.

Nobody is complaining about

that.

This is correcting sewer

overflows in the streams of

austin, texas.

That is what this is about.

So I'm thinking that a large

part of this wastewater bill has

to do with that debt service.

>> That is a good assumption.

that is a

good assumption?

If you are an average customer,

7,727 gallons, water and

wastewater combined, how does

your water and wastewater bill

compare to other utilities

around the state?

>> I would characterize upper

middle.

Central texas, smaller water

utilities, middle utilities

competitive.

how about

major cities.

>> We are a higher cost provider

relative to them with the

average uses.

are we the

highest?

>> We could be the highest.

Again, it depends on some of

your analysis of that.

you know,

if you could at some point, i

would like to have an analysis

of all of the things that we

discussed, maybe in memo form.

You don't have to especially do

a briefing on it.

Since there has been so much

discussion on a daily, weekly

basis around this place, it

would be good to lay out the

facts and see what the facts

are.

>> When you consider those

things you need to look at the

programs we provide for the

community, that is a part of the

whole value equation.

Not just what you pay but what

you get for what you pay.

that is

another part.

I mentioned it earlier in the

budget deliberations, one of the

things I want to do on an

ongoing basis is take a look at

the services and functions of

where the water utility

performs.

Maybe we should follow the same

pattern like we did with austin

energy, take a look, see if

austin water utility paying too

much on a pro rata basis?

Whatever that may be.

Just take for one example, wild

lands division, which arguably

has absolutely nothing to do

with water.

At least not with the water

service that your department

performs.

That includes water quality

protection lands, which are

basically aquifer protection

lands in the balcones preserve.

I'm all in favor of the

programs, always in favor, in

fact, I share the balcones

canyon land, conservation

coordinating committee.

I think maybe other city

departments might have a stake

in this also.

So, this is just to say that

going forward, I want to look at

the programs that the water

utility funds with the same

lands that we looked at the

programs of austin energy to see

if those benefits are pro rata,

if we need to spread those out.

That is just going forward.

Now, finally, I know you have

got a big new briefing coming up

in a couple months, what is it

next month, resource management

commission briefing?

>> Yes, we have been planning

update the council on work we

have been doing with resource

management commission on the

conservation-related programs.

yeah, I --

if you are already planning to

bring it to council, great.

I think the soaper the better.

If we can do that in october,

that would be better.

But I would like for council to

see -- and the rest of the city

to see what a great job we have

actually done around the state

and in fact around the nation.

Conservation programs and have

been for a very long time.

I look forward to that

presentation.

Thank you.

[One moment please for change in

captioners]

>> any other questions?

All right.

>> Mayor, I have a question.

>> All right.

Council member spelman.

>> It was actually of

mr. mac inu.

How do we pronounce your

name?

>> I've got you!

[Laughter]

macinu.

>> Ed, I have a hypothetical

question of you.

And I understand

hypothetical questions often

get hypothetical answers.

But that's okay.

It's better than what I've

got right now.

I'm mindful of the fact that

we have just passed a budget

which calls for three new

FTEs IN THE CODE

Compliance department to

cover additional

expenditures to support the

short-term rental program.

And that would be paid for

out of what's before us now,

which is approving a

licensing fee for a

short-term rental properties

of $235 a year.

I'm not going to propose any

alternatives or substitutes

to this, but I do want to

know what was going to

happen if the following.

$235 A year, would apply to

both commercial short-term

rentals, who can expect to

make a lot more than $235 in

the course of the year if

they are actually renting

their property for many days

or weeks or months over the

course of a year.

But also to what we have

been calling type 1, our

residential short-term

rentals only renting for a

couple of weeks probably.

If the take-up rate is not

100%, if we do not have all

1,500 people who engage in

short-term rental of their

property either on a

part-time or full-time basis

on only if 1500 pay the

license and the fee, what

effect will have that on the

code compliance department

and the ability to hire

those three people?

>> Well, my belief is the

code compliance department

is going to hire those three

people out of the gate in

order to run the program.

And I mean that's certainly

always a risk we take in any

fee that we set.

We are in the land of

hypotheticalness when we say

we think there will be 1500

registrants in that they

will cover the staff at that

1500 becomes 3,000.

We'd obviously have more

funds than we need.

And, you know, we need to

keep our fees in line with a

nexus between what we're

charging for the service and

how much revenue it brings

in.

So I don't know enough about

the program.

For example, if it were

3,000 registrants we

actually got and if it

didn't require more staff to

administer the program, then

we would be required to

lower the fee.

And we would do that as part

of our next budget.

So I think the answer to

your question is after we

get some experience with

this program, we may need to

come back and revise the

fee.

Now, in terms of immediately

in regards to fiscal year

13, if we just don't have

the registrations, and the

revenues aren't coming in to

support this program, you

know, the department would

have to make some decisions

about how to manage its

overall resources to stay

within the appropriation

levels that council have

authorized.

>> Sure.

In addition to the supply

side of a licensing fees

coming in, we have also got

the demand side of

complaints coming in and

work for those inspectors or

code compliance officers to

be doing.

And what we know from or so

far as we can tell based on

the historical record is

that there is no important

difference between

residential single family

properties which engage in

short-term rental activity

and those that don't in

terms of 311 and 911 calls.

But that commercial

short-term rental properties

have significantly fewer 311

calls and significantly

fewer 911 calls than other

single family properties.

So based on the historical

record that we have been

collecting over the last

year or two, we can be

pretty sure there will be

fewer there will probably be

fewer code compliance cases

in the commercial short-term

rentals than there will be

in other single family

houses and in the

residential short-term

rentals.

The value in this program is

not that there will be more

work for the code compliance

officers to be doing

particularly in the

short-term rental

properties.

There will be less work.

But that work is so

politically charged, it's

vital it be done immediately

and well.

And the great value in this

program from point of view

of the public is that people

who are concerned about the

party house down the street

will have less reason to be

concerned.

The code compliance will

take care of the property

and make sure that somebody

out of compliance will get

back into compliance much

more quickly than otherwise

they would.

I felt the need to say that

because I'm not sure that

came out in our discussion

yesterday.

So far as we can tell, there

will be fewer cases for your

people to take care of in

the short-term rental world

than in the rest of the

single-family world but

those cases will be a lot

more important from a

political point of view or

social point of view that

they be taken care of

properly and quickly.

I'm concerned that we may

not be able to pay for that

increase in efficiency and

speed, purely from licensing

fees.

smart, I urge you if

you could keep track of what

the take-up rate is among

short-term rental owners,

operators and keep us

apprized of the percentage

of those 1500 who are

actually participating in

the licensing fee, who are

actually paying the

licensing fee, I think that

might help us make a

mid-course correction if any

were necessary to alters the

fee and adjusting the type 1

users and people only

renting their property for a

small, couple or three weeks

out of the year, presumably,

who would be making fewer

demands of your people than

the commercial short-term

rental folks would.

And also, to ensure that as

many short-term rental

operators got into this

program and, therefore, we

could be fairly sure we're

paying hotel taxes as

possible.

And my primary concern here

is that if the take-up rate

is not close to 100%, then

the hotel tax rate is going

to be a lot less than 100%.

And that's where the real

money is from the point of

view of the entire city's --

the point of view of the

entire city.

So if you could keep track

of that, sir, and keep us

apprized of how we're doing

on that and if there's a

mid-course correction that

needs to be taken, I'd very

much appreciate it.

>> Carl smart, director of

the code compliance

department.

spelman to

answer your many questions

there, we will be closely

monitoring and tracking the

activities associated with

the short-term rentals.

Right now, we don't really

have a track record because

it's a new program.

So it and see if

there is any difference in

activity between type 1 and

type 2, commercial versus

single-family residential.

Also looking at the

differences in registration

of short-term rental versus

the hotel occupancy taxes,

those kinds of things.

So be glad to come back to

council at the appropriate

time and keep you informed

of how that program is

going.

And see if we need any

adjustments.

>> Thank you, sir.

I'd very much appreciate

that.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

And I would just like to

concur with that discussion

that we need to come back

and reevaluate the fees.

I think it was council

member morrison's original

idea that maybe we need to

talk about a difference for

type 1 and type 2.

I'm not so much worried

about the cost of

administering the fee.

Maybe I should be concerned.

Maybe that's a legal

concern.

But to the extent that we

could, I think that there

might be a type 1 customer

that would only want to rent

their house once a year for

two or three days.

And $235 enrollment fee

might be a deterrent.

And I think one thing we

want to do in every legal

way possible, encourage

participation and make it

easy for people to go ahead

and sign up.

Okay.

Council member morrison.

>> If the folks are through

commenting on this topic, i

wanted to bring up another

topic in our fees in our

parks department I had a

question about.

And we touched on this

briefly.

Essentially, if you don't

mind, what we have in the

staff recommendation is a

new approach.

We shifted to a standardized

approach to after-school

fees.

If anyone is looking at the

question, we got an answer

from staff to question

number 68 to ask about how

they were changing.

And I understand, you know,

you put together an approach

to, first of all, get a

standard for how much it

cost to run the program,

divided by the number of

kids and all that.

But also to basically be

subsidizing because that is

a community value.

Those that are serving

athletics and youth and

those that are developmental

programs as opposed to I'm

not sure just nice to have,

less core programs.

My concern about that is in

the attachment and the

answer that you all

provided -- and I appreciate

the answer because I think

it was nice and clear.

Made a lot of sense to me.

The upshot of it is that we

are going to have some

substantial increases in

some places where we used to

have a much lower fee and

some of the different areas

and lower income areas of

town.

But, for instance, at

givens, a couple of

examples, at givens and park

sargossa, we will see fees

from $100 to $125.

I'm concerned about the

bears that's going to create

to folks being able to

participate in the programs.

So I just wanted to get your

thoughts on the matter and

how we might address that.

I appreciate there was

feedback that things needed

to be standardized.

Now we're going to have this

other consequence and I'm

really concerned about that.

>> Sarah hencely, director

of parks and recommendation.

Council member morrison,

that's exactly correct.

The issue that we've been

facing for some time now

that we have basically torn

down all of the programs

that we offer and started

looking at equity, quality

and, of course, fee.

I gave the example

previously in a discussion

that where we were having an

area of maybe a gymnastics

class on one side of town

and we would hire somebody

for $10 an hour to teach it

and the person wasn't really

qualified and wasn't a

really quality program.

On another side of town, we

would hire an instructor at

$25 an hour who had a degree

and had the background in

teaching gymnastics but it

was because that area could

afford that program and the

quality of that instructor.

We began to look at basic

level of services.

What does it cost or should

it even cost anything for a

young person or an adult to

come into a recreation

center and use some

basic-level services?

The game room, play games in

the gym when it's open for

gym hours.

And the answer is not to

charge.

That's a free fee.

Then to have programs more

enhancement beyond the basic

level of programs, where

there would be a fee, but it

would be a smaller fee.

And then, of course, a fee

which was more a

self-fulfillment, more of

adult programs, which would

be a cost recovery.

This is the first year we

have begun to look at this.

And it is a true testament

of how out of whack, quite

frankly, our fees were.

What it does mean, though,

and what you're pointing out

is that when we look across

the board and try to offer

the quality services that

the citizens as a whole

deserve in the city, it

meant an enhancement of

those fees because we did

not have honestly the

general fund dollars to

waive it.

I can't waive fees but dint

have the -- didn't have the

general fund dollars to say

we'll offer this program at

no cost.

The good news about this, if

there is a good news, is

that with the efforts led by

council in the youth summit

and looking at priorities,

then we have the opportunity

to take from a holistic

point of view, looking at

priorities of council and

citizens from a youth

perspective and then take

those dollars that we have

and put them where they need

to be according to the

highest level of need and

the highest number of youth

to be served.

Have we done that yet?

No.

Because we haven't done the

summit.

But this is a leveling out

and it is a higher fee.

But by looking and going and

doing the youth summit, we

should be able to hopefully

put more allocation of

existing funds in areas

where there's a highest

level of need, but it will

still mean we'll be charging

fees in some areas where it

is affordable.

>> Yeah, I guess you're

really touching on some very

difficult policy issues.

Because when you talk about

equity, we want to make sure

equity in terms of quality

programs and all, but also

equity means for me and

includes the consideration

of accessibility.

And if it's a financial

barrier and it's not

accessible, then how do you

balance all of that out?

So it's really a difficult

issue.

It's such a huge shift all

at once for some programs.

Did you think about phasing

these in at all for some

areas of town?

>> In some areas, we have

actually done a little

phased in where we slowly

went from a smaller fee of

$25 up to the $50 fee or

higher.

The problem is when we do

that, the ones being charged

the rate already, why are

they getting a phased in

approach.

So we are looking at ways to

set up and we are looking at

partners to set up what we

call the scholarship funds

and looking at ways to

provide services for those

who cannot afford this fee

at a different amount.

But that again, too, is a

policy decision and

something that we need to

bring back to council.

And the other thing is we

don't want to -- we want to

be able to fulfill our

revenue obligations.

That's the other part of it.

We are held to a revenue

obligation when we offer

certain programs.

And we have to strike a

balance here of where we can

charge a reasonable fee that

we believe can be made,

where a scholarship is

applicable.

And then how we balance that

with other classes where

we're charging the full fee

and we're generating the

revenue to cover the cost.

>> We need to keep in mind

the parks department is not

an enterprise fund.

You don't need to be revenue

neutral.

People think they pay their

taxes to have some parks and

some programs like this.

In terms of the big changes

that are going to be

happening, have you taken a

look at any estimates on

expected impacts on

enrollments?

Because if you used to be --

if it used to be free and

now it's $125, I wouldn't be

surprised to see a shift and

decrease in the number of

people signing up.

>> There's two reasons.

Yes, that is true.

And we do see sometimes that

happen.

The other thing we're also

trying to do is offer other

programs at no cost.

So, for instance, where we

may have a day camp program

at a site for $125 for a

session, we will offer a

playground program that if

that proximity as a complete

free program.

As you recall, one of the

things we wanted to work on

from this last budget was

improving the quality of our

playground programs.

Which we needed to make sure

those were quality and not

just a drop-in baby-sitting

service.

We have done that.

And actually, it's a more

organized and more of a

program, but it's outdoors.

So there are some options.

It is not always right there

on site, to be quite honest.

I don't want to mislead.

But there are options where

we can have a playground

program that can be accessed

by families and used at a

site where it's free.

And then there's a choice

for a day camp program that

is -- has a cost associated.

>> What about in terms of

after-school?

Here's what I'm thinking.

When we start getting

hundreds of calls from

parents this fall that say i

can't possibly afford this

program, am I going to have

some alternatives to suggest

to them?

>> Yes, we are.

I'll let patrick answer

that.

>> Good afternoon, mayor and

council.

I'm the acting assistant

director.

Community recreation centers

is my primary hat I wear for

the department.

To answer your question,

yes, there are alternative

services available to the

community that's an

alternative to the paid

after-school program.

We have what we called this

past summer a structured

drop-in program to give

children the opportunity to

come into the recreation

center and participate in

activities we have in the

paid program.

The difference being is that

the kids want to show up,

they stay for an hour or two

and leave.

If not, they are there for

the entire time.

The paid program, they are

there from the moment we

pick up until the parents

sign them out of the

program.

So yes, we do have

opportunities there.

>> Okay.

So I guess it would be

helpful if you all can make

that available to my office.

I'm sure other folks might

because I'm expecting to

hear.

And I wonder, also, if you

can maybe give us, as you

gather -- I exposure in fall

signups now or maybe since

school already started.

>> That's correct.

We are interested in the

information to see how these

new fees are impacting

registration.

So I have started a process

of collecting the data so i

compare this year's figures

to last year's.

>> Great.

I do agree that hopefully we

can get some better

conversation and priorities

set with the youth summit

that will hopefully be at

the end of this fall.

But let me just say I don't

know what to suggest.

I'm saying I'm very

concerned about what impact

this is going to have on

some folks.

>> Mayor.

The other thing I might just

mention is that we are

looking at some other

opportunities, including we

have this program he's

talking about, but we are

looking at two other

options.

One is setting up a

scholarship program

through -- it's worked and

been very successful in

other cities where people

add actually money on to

their registration fee to

pay for someone who may not

be able to participate at

the fee.

The second thing is we are

looking at some community

partnerships to support

youth in other programs.

By them paying for that.

And I have a pretty good

lead on that as well.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor pro tem.

>> Thank you.

Thank you.

And I appreciate all the

information that you have

provided thus far about the

park fees because that's

something that I too am

very, very interested in and

concerned about.

Council member tovo and i

brought forward a resolution

in early march implementing

by policy some of the

recommendations of the urban

parks working group.

And we have not seen any of

those in this budget.

Can you tell me the status

or how you're considering

those, especially with

respect to fees in lieu -- i

mean maintenance in lieu

fees and graduated fees?

>> I'll have to -- mayor pro

tem, I'll have to get back

with you.

I know we're doing a lot of

things in regard to the

urban stakeholder direction.

And actually, staff, I asked

them to put a work plan

together and start ticking

off the different items we

were responsible of doing.

Most of those we have been

working on diligently have

been partnership with aisd

and we making sure we don't

recommend purchase of

property when we have an

amenity that can be used for

parkland or playground

purposes.

We have 10 sites we are

redeveloping playgrounds to

be more of a natural

self-developed playground

through public engagement

where they are more of a

natural environment.

And a new trend when it

comes to playgrounds.

When it comes to

maintenance, the maintenance

fe the other thing we're

doing is working with the

parks and recreation board

to come forward with a

recommendation to you as a

council and body about how

parkland dedication fees are

spent towards sort of an

area that may not be

adequate or may not cover

and may not be enough needs,

looking at maybe a first

priority as a

recommendation, a

acquisition of property

where needed as spending

those dollars and widening

that scope.

Instead of a mile radius, it

may need to be larger.

That's going through the

parks and recreation board.

There's a long laundry list

of things we're ticking

through.

The one you mentioned, off

the top of my head, I can't

grasp it.

>> Let's do it this way.

I don't think that right

here now, as we're

considering the budget, is

the place to and niez all

the park fees and the

graduated nature of them and

the maintenance fees.

I have heard a lot from

turner roberts and I'm

concerned about the cost of

givens and the whole cost

allocation method.

Let me ask you to do this,

not in any opposition from

my colleagues.

I know council member

morrison and tovo have been

interested in this.

We both sit on the audit and

finance committee, otherwise

I would send it to

comprehensive planning and

transportation.

If you would, I'm going to

put you on the agenda to

give us an update and we can

monitor that progress so

we're not looking seven

months later for a

resolution and it's not in

the budget and we haven't

made progress and we haven't

given direction.

Because we know it's a

difficult process.

>> I'll be happy to do that.

>> Okay.

>> Mayor.

>> Council member tovo.

>> Thanks.

I appreciate this

discussion.

Many amendments ago

yesterday morning, one of my

motions would have offered

some opportunity to perhaps

defray some of the fees and

in the end, we needed that

money for the roving leaders

program.

So I just want to also

express that this is a grave

concern for me.

And I hope that we can --

thank you, mayor pro tem,

for suggesting it come back

to audit and finance.

I hope we can do whatever we

need to do as a council to

encourage you to blast on

forward with setting up the

scholarship program or doing

something.

Let's continue to think

creatively about how the fee

situation might be resolved.

I appreciate the community

engagement process.

Yet I'm not sure if we

really --

I mean did we really hear

from people that they want

to pay the same fees that

other people are paying?

Or were they really talking

about a quality of

programming that they wanted

and the opportunities they

wanted at their recreation

centers?

I understand you need to

spread the cost, but from

the public's perspective,

they wanted quality

programs.

>> Quality programs was the

number one.

The quality program was

number one.

Obviously, the ability to

pay is important.

And we can't -- the idea is

we're not going to turn

people away because they

cannot do it.

We have to figure out a way

to make it work.

This is one level of a

process that we're trying to

go through to make sure that

we know who we're serving,

what their needs are, what

their ability to pay, how we

structure it so that they

can enjoy it and it's a

quality program and not just

something based on quantity

or trying to offer the same

thing at one area that we

have in another.

We're trying to look at the

pulse of the community in

all the different areas.

And then base the programs

on their needs and then

structure what we believe to

be a tiered approach.

Basic level of service,

people being able to be

served.

Then if it's something

that's beyond what we

believe to be that growth

program for youth or for our

underserved population, then

looking at the fee that may

be associated.

We're just not completely

there yet, but we have

started with the different

tiered program where you

don't have to get turned

away, period.

You do have options.

>> I guess, you know, I saw

a much earlier draft of

this, I think, earlier this

spring.

And it talked about -- i

thought it had a line in

there about offering some

scholarships.

So I guess I wish that had

made progress at the same

rate that the fee schedule

had because it really does

seem a shame.

One of the immediate impacts

is that people who had an

option for their children

after school no longer have

an optionf it's gone from

zero dollars to $125 and in

one case I think one went

from zero to $225.

Where are those kids going

after school right now?

And I appreciate what you

did with the playground

program in making a drop-in

program available at

different places.

But I just want clarity on

the answer you provided to

council member morrison.

At the centers where there

is now a paid program in

place of what had been a

free one, is there any kind

of drop-in free program

available to those families?

How are you publicizing it?

>> There are several

options.

If we're looking

specifically to the turner

roberts recreation center

community, we not only have

a paid program that's housed

out of barbara jordan

elementary, but we have

drop-in programs available

there on-site at overton

elementary offering -- we

just received 24 spaces to

provide a free drop-in

program after school to

complement the 150 spaces

that the boys and girls

clubs offer.

For the middle school and

high schoolers, we are

providing programs at the

middle school as well as

providing transportation to

brown recreation

center and dotty jordan,

wherever we can get a

foothold until such time as

the multi-purpose building

oppose.

Givens recreation center has

other programs that are

there available on a drop-in

basis.

We have the luxury of having

a gymnasium there and staff

working with kids in the

program.

Staff does have good

relationships with the

children dropping in where

they notice they may need

some additional homework

assistance.

Staff are making attempts to

provide some resources and

opportunities for the youth

there, not just the paid

programs.

>> Would you say that's

consistent at rosewood and

the other centers where it

has gone from a zero charge

to some level of charge?

All of those have some kind

of free --

>> very much, ma'am.

>> Great.

I look forward to continuing

this conversation.

I am really looking forward

as the sponsor of the youth

summit, along with my

colleagues.

I'm really looking forward

to that.

Some of these decisions

really can't wait on that,

so I look forward to having

a more immediate

conversation, especially

about fees through the audit

and finance.

>> And just one point,

council member, so you know.

The extra programs they are

offering at no cost are of

the highest quality as well.

And that is why it's taken

us a little longer.

This is not just a typical

you drop in and it's a

baby-sitting service.

These are programs that are

quality and they are based

on the pulse of that

community and the needs that

have been expressed by the

citizens and the kids that

are there.

>> That's great.

I think that's a very really

valuable resource you're

providing.

>> We'll provide all of that

in the update.

>> Super, thank you.

>> I was going to say

something about the

entrepreneurial activities

of the parks and recreation

department.

But last time I did that, i

got accused incorrectly of

wanting to charge admission

to mount monel, so I'm going

to forego that discussion.

[Laughter]

>> we're still going to try,

mayor.

Not charging.

[Laughter]

>> I will entertain a motion

to approve on all three

readings item number 3,

adoption of an ordinance for

fees, fines and other

charges.

>> So moved.

>> Mayor pro tem cole so

moves.

>> Second.

>> Second by council member

spelman.

And that would be with the

proposed staff amendments.

And are there any other

amendments to the proposed

ordinance?

All in faith of the motion

say aye.

[Chorus of ayes]

opposed say no.

Passes on vote of 7-0.

So if there is no objection,

we can take agenda items 4

and 5 together on consent.

And unless some council

member wants to pull those

off of consent, I'll

entertain a motion to

approve that consent agenda,

items 4 and 5.

Council member tovo so

moves.

Second by council member

martinez.

Those are on all three

readings, of course.

All in favor say aye.

[Chorus of ayes]

opposed say no.

Passes on a vote of 7-0.

Likewise, items 6, 7 and 8

may be taken on consent.

If nobody wants to pull them

off consent, I'll entertain

a motion to approve that

consent agenda of items 6, 7

and 8.

Council member martinez

moves approval on all three

readings.

Second by the mayor pro tem.

Is there any discussion?

All in favor say aye.

[Chorus of ayes]

opposed say no.

That passes on a vote of

7-0.

Next is agenda item 9, which

is a vote to ratify the tax

increase in the budget.

The vote is in addition to

and separate from the vote

to adopt the budget.

And this vote sets the tax

rate.

Motion must be made in the

form shown below in the

texas code.

It's an action to ratify the

property tax increase

reflected in the budget.

It's required by state law.

And we have to make this

vote separately to make

clear that we know it will

take more property taxes

than the city raised last

year to pay for the budget

that was approved and we

approved for this year.

Note, this is not a vote on

the tax rate.

Separate vote on that will

take place later.

Again, it's just a vote to

reflect that we know that

this tax increase is

required.

So I'll entertain a motion

to ratify the property tax

increase reflected in the fy

2012-2013 budget that was

adopted by council earlier

today.

And the motion would be i

move to ratify the property

tax increase reflected in

the fy 2012-2013 budget.

>> Mayor.

>> Mayor pro tem.

>> I move to ratify the

property tax increase

reflected in the fiscal year

2012-2013 budget.

>> Second.

>> Second by council member

spelman.

Is there any discussion?

We have a motion by council

member cole, a second by

council member spelman.

All in favor say aye.

[Chorus of ayes]

opposed say no.

That passes on a vote of

7-0.

Now, we'll take up a vote to

adopt the property tax rate.

A motion has to be made

exactly as it's shown below.

And staff is going to

provide some numbers.

We'll now take up item

number 10 to approve the

ordinance adopting and

levying a property or

ad valorem tax rate for the

city of austin for fy

2012-2013.

Motion must be made using

words required by the

property tax code and it's

also required that this be

on a roll call vote.

>> And, mayor, lela fireside

on behalf of the law

department, I just wanted to

let you know before you take

this vote, that the

ordinance that you're

approving is a little bit

different than in prior

years.

This year we have in

accordance with prior

council actions, added a

finding and a new

attachment.

And the finding sets out

that the historic properties

that are receiving the

exemption this year meet the

requirements of texas tax

24 and that is that

they are either

appropriately designated

historic landmarks or that

they are in need of the tax

relief to encourage their

preservation.

The attachment is to exhibit

b is also the listing of

those properties.

So I just wanted to let you

know that's a little bit

different than in your prior

years.

And it's consistent with the

actions that you have taken

to date.

>> So with that extra

information, the motion

would still be I move that

the property tax rate be

increased by the adoption of

29 cents

per $100 valuation which is

1% increase

in the tax rate.

>> Yes, sir.

>> And that is based on the

effective rate, not the

current tax rate.

>> Correct.

>> So is there any council

member that would like to so

move?

>> Would you like us -- do

we need to repeat it?

>> I don't think it's

necessary.

I have just read it.

>> So moved.

>> So moved by council

member spelman.

Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> Second by mayor pro tem

cole.

We have a motion and a

second that the property tax

rate be increased by the

29

cents per $100 valuation.

And the clerk will now call

the roll.

>> Mayor leffingwell.

>> No.

>> Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Yes.

>> Council member martinez.

>> Yes.

>> Council member riley.

>> Yes.

>> Council member morrison.

>> Yes.

>> Council member spelman.

>> Yes.

>> Council member tovo.

>> Passes on a vote 6-1.

I voted no.

We do have two board

meetings to convene.

So without objection, we'll

recess this meeting of the

austin city council and call

to order a meeting of the

austin housing finance

corporation.

And I guess we will get a

presentation from staff.

>> Good afternoon, board of

directors, betsy spencer,

treasury of the austin

housing finance corporation.

I offer one item for you

today on consent.

This is the budget for the

finance corporation.

This does not include the

roughly $287,000 increase of

sustainability funds to the

finance corporation.

I will bring that back in

the form of an amendment on

SEPTEMBER 27th.

And I'm available for

questions.

>> Questions for staff?

Is there a motion to approve

the agenda items for the

austin housing finance

corporation?

Council member morrison so

moves.

Second by council member

spelman.

Discussion?

All in favor say aye.

[Chorus of ayes]

opposed say no.

Passes on a vote of 7-0.

Without objection, we'll

adjourn this meeting of the

austin housing and finance

corporation and call to

order a meeting of the

mueller local government

corporation.

>> Good afternoon, chair.

Greg canally of the mueller

local government

corporation.

Today we put forward three

items on consent for your

approval.

One are the minutes from our

august 23rd board meeting.

Two other items, one for the

capital and the operating

budget for the upcoming

fiscal year all related to

the debt service on the

bonds that we have

previously issued.

>> Any questions from staff

on these items?

If not, I'll entertain a

motion to approve the agenda

items for the mueller local

government corporation.

Council member spelman so

moves.

Second by mayor pro tem

cole.

Discussion?

All in favor say aye.

[Chorus of ayes]

opposed say no.

Passes on a vote of 7-0.

Without objection, we'll

adjourn this meeting of the

mueller local government

corporation and call back to

order the meeting of the

austin city council.

And I believe we have no

more items on our agenda.

>> Mayor, before you wrap

up, I just --

>> city manager.

>> Thank you.

I'll take this opportunity

first on behalf of myself

and the staff to thank the

council for all of your hard

work throughout this budget

season that you just wrapped

up today.

Obviously, the past year

have entailed a whole bunch

of big issues and this was

just one of them.

I wanted to take a moment to

acknowledge all of your hard

work and leadership you

provided us in terms of

putting together a new

budget for 2013.

Of course, I want to

acknowledge my financial

team that is sitting right

in front of you, whom you

know so well.

And I have forgotten the

nickname you have gotten

today.

I'm not sure I got that.

>> I think that's maccadoo.

We want to thank lee and the

team that supports them.

Obviously, my executive team

and all the department heads

and their staffs that are

involved over a long period

of time as you heard earlier

today in putting together

our recommendation for your

consideration.

And then, of course, there

are just lots of other

people.

Boards and commissions and

just austinites from all

over the city who engage and

participate.

So we want to thank

everybody that was involved

in bringing us to a point

that we were able to provide

and you adopted I think a

very responsible fiscal plan

for 2013.

So thank you for that.

Mayor, I think that you had

one final matter that you

wanted to --

>> before we adjourn, yes.

I almost forgot.

Thanks for reminding me.

This is a non-agenda item,

but a personal privilege.

I believe we have a slide to

show on the screen.

>> Ahhh.

[Applause]

>> who is that?

I think we all offer our

congratulations to council

member martinez and his wife

in the new arrival.

He likes pretty happy to me.

>> Thanks, mayor.

We're all happy.

>> Mayor.

>> And before we adjourn,

I'll call on you in just a

second, I just wanted to

second the city manager's

comments with regard to the

hard and very professional

work done by our staff.

As I think everybody who has

watched these proceedings

today, it's not easy to

follow, much less actually

do.

So my congratulations and

express my great

appreciation for what you do

for our city and your

professional work.

It's of the absolute highest

caliber and I appreciate it.

Mayor pro tem.

>> This is my 7th year on

the dais and my 7th

budget.

And I have not ever seen a

professional staff who had

to work so hard.

So my congratulations go to

the city manager and his

professional staff.

And with that, just like we

did for council member

martinez's addition, I would

like to ask the council to

extend a round of applause

to our financial staff.

[Applause]

>> with that, regrettably,

there are no more items on

our agenda.

[Laughter]

without objection, we stand

adjourned at 3:44 p.m.