>> Good morning, I am mayor

mayor and we will call the

austin work session to order on

tuesday, august 14, 2012 at

9:07 a.m.

 

We are meeting in the board and

commission room, austin city

hall 301 west second street,

austin, texas, and we will begin

today with our executive

session.

Hopefully short.

So the council will go into

closed session to take up one

071

of the government code, the city

council will consult with legal

counsel on the following item.

 

That is a1, discuss legal issues

relating to the november 6, 2012

election.

 

Is there any objection to going

into closed session?

Hearing none, the council will

now go into executive session.

 

[09:22:16]

 

>> We are out of closed session

and closed session we took up

and discussed legal items

related to item a1.

We will now go through our b

section and b1 through b4,

public comment is allowed but

without objection, I am going to

propose we limit public comment

to a total of 15 minutes on each

side.

>> Mayor.

>> Council member morrison.

>> Morrison: I guess I am

curious how much time we have

signed up on issues.

I know we have a lot of things

to get through today, but I just

want to --

right now

we have -- we have 7 people

signed up on b4, on one side and

one person on the other.

So we could allocate that time

by their mutual agreement to add

up to 15 minutes.

>> Morrison: Otherwise, we are

talking about 21, 24 minutes?

 

I guess I would just suggest

that that's not that much

different and that it might be

good to allow those folks that

have signed up by now to speak,

with a request that they speak

in less than three minutes if --

you are

requesting that we allow 21

minutes instead of 15 on item

b4.

 

>> Morrison: Twenty-four, i

believe.

well, 21

on one side and one on the

other?

>> Morrison: Yes.

all

right.

 

Council, if there is no

objection, we can do that.

So we will go in order.

Let's go to item b1 first.

Do we have staff on b1?

>> Mayor and council romero,

city legal, b1 is an item we

want at the end of election

section and it is to add items

to the call of election, so if

there is b1, b2, or even b4, b1

would be necessary.

you are

saying you want to take that

last?

>> Yes, sir.

all

right.

 

We will go to item number b2,

which is a charter amendment to

authorize accounts to create

independent board to oversee

city utilities.

 

There are no citizens signed up

to speak.

Council.

Mayor pro tem cole.

>> Cole: Mayor, I have some

brief questions of legal and

also, I believe the utility

commissioner is here.

 

I will ask you to come up,

steve.

We -- thank you, steve.

We passed a resolution and i

would simply like for you to

give a brief update on where you

are when we are talking about

the issue of governance for

austin utility.

 

>> [Indiscernible]

are we live.

>> You are on.

>> Thank you.

On, I think it was the seventh

of june y'all made a resolution

that the electric utility

commission should provide you

with a report analyzing

governance options for the

utility.

It is a topic we have been

addressing annually in terms of

sending resolutions for you with

recommendations for quite a few

years and so we have a

background on it.

 

The report that we are supposed

to produce for you is due the

31st of october, which won't be

particularly helpful in making

decisions about charter election

ballots, but we will do what we

can before that.

 

We are supposed to receive a

report from the city manager

outlining the results of their

analysis, I believe they

retained a consultant to do that

work.

We are supposed to get that data

in on the 31st of august.

 

The group of electric utility

commission elected tree members,

ones who out of the country

today, linda shaw and myself.

>> Who is the appointees are

those commissioners?

 

riley and

ms. morrison.

>> Okay, thank you.

>> And yourself.

because

we do have a very crowded agenda

this morning, can we restrict it

rather history of previous

actions to direct actions of

mayor pro tem.

 

>> Cole: One of my direct

questions is that the -- are you

familiar with the statute

authorizing the general

authorization of city council to

place a ballot on the --

>> yes, we have seen two

different legal routes that can

work here.

One is a local government act

and the other is a texas

government code and the latter

is essentially validating the

san antonio model and the former

seems to provide a lot of

flexibility in how you proceed.

>> Cole: So it is your

understand we have the

flexibility to move forward in a

limited basis.

 

>> On a wording basis and I am

not an attorney, that one

could -- a municipality can go

by charter or by an ordinance to

make a modification in

governance.

>> Cole: Okay.

Thank you, mayor.

council

member riley.

 

>> Riley: It seems that the

electric utility commission has

a position on whether we should

place an item on the ballot

authorizing city council to

change the governance structure

of austin energy?

 

>> No, we don't have a position

on whether it should be on the

ballot.

 

We have it on whether

modifications of governance

should be done.

 

>> Riley: That is you support

it?

>> Absolutely.

>> Right now you are agnostic on

what should be on the ballot.

 

>> Whatever is legally binding.

 

>> Riley: Okay.

 

Thanks.

 

any more

questions?

We need to take some action on

this item.

 

We also have a city attorney

here who can answer questions

 

[10:24:01]

 

and obviously there are some

questions you couldn't answer,

but I guess one question I would

ask you is if -- and tell me

if -- if it requires a legal

answer.

 

If this item is not put up and

approved by the voters in the

november election, could the

city establish an independent

board?

 

>> Andy with the city

department.

Around first I think it would

depend on the definition of what

independent is and what exactly

the council would want that

board to be.

And as we discussed, there

are -- the statute is very

explicit about what powers can

be delegated to the board from

the council standpoint.

It is silent on what powers can

be delegated from the

administrative standpoint so

there is an argument that could

be made that without a charter,

a board could be set up that

could exercise under 552,

perhaps rate making authority or

dead issuance or eminent domain.

The problem is when you get into

the details of the charter,

there are any number of places

where our city charter would

conflict with that statute and

the statute is not at all clear

as to what -- what powers that

world could have vis-a-vis city

utility as what is already set

forth in our city charter about

management.

so i

think it's fair to say we could

go either way but what you are

saying is we could go either way

but without a charter amendment,

we would be very limited in --

in administratively how we would

set up this independent board?

 

>> That --

we would

still have restrictions, but

with a charter amendment, you

would have flexibility as to

what powers or authority you

would give the independent

board?

>> That's correct.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

 

[10:26:07]

 

>> Cole: Mayor.

mayor pro

tem.

 

>> Cole: At this time, based on

advice of legal counsel and

hearing from our electric

utility commissioner and knowing

that we have lots of items on

the ballot and that we do want

the flexibility of being able to

have the information that's

going to be provided by us, i

don't think that we should take

action right now, but we should

simply withdraw the item.

So I would just motion that we

would withdraw the item.

 

is there

any objection to withdrawing the

item?

 

Let me just say that I don't

necessarily have objection but

we would not consider an charter

amendment on this for over two

years if we don't have it on the

ballot this november, so we are

in the position of establishing

limited and at this time unknown

powers or waiting for two and a

half years, most likely, to be

able to change that.

 

>> Cole: And I think we should,

in good faith, be able to

establish some type of board and

work with the information that

we receive and be able to lay

that out to the voters because

it is ultimately a local

decision and work with the

outside ratepayers so they have

input on that board because,

again, I believe that they

should.

so --

your statement is that without

the charter amendment, we could

set up some kind of board with

some kind of independent

authority, although we don't

know what those limitations

would be?

 

>> Cole: Exactly.

 

all

right.

Is there any -- any other

objection to withdrawing the

motion?

Motion -- the item?

The item is withdrawn.

 

[10:28:01]

 

So that takes us to b3,

charter -- discussing a charter

amendment to provide conditions

under which the city council may

sell or lease any substantial

part of the facilities of a

municipal utility and we don't

have any citizens signed up to

speak, previous action by the

council, correct me if I am

wrong, it has been approved on

first and second reading and we

might want to reiterate what the

exact language of that item was

before we begin our discussion,

if we could get staff to do

that.

My recollection basically was

in -- in my words what we passed

was to authorize the utility to

have the charter authorize the

sale or lease, substantial parts

of the utility, provided there

is a 2/3 vote of approval by the

council and approval by the

voters in an election for that

purpose.

 

And the vote on that was 6-1,

with me being the no vote.

>> That's correct.

We are still looking for the

exact language, but the

provision did read that the --

that the -- to keep in place the

prohibition of the council,

selling all or any substantial

part of the utility provided

that provision would not provide

to any part of the utility that

was both found by the council on

a 2/3 vote to be unnecessary for

the continued provision of

affected utility service and

that that sale or lease was

approved by the voters.

I am not

going to reiterate everything i

said at the council meeting

where it was approved on first,

second reading but to say the

reason I voted no because i

believed it was too restrictive

 

[10:30:00]

 

and doesn't give us the

flexibility we need to deal with

changes and conditions that

would materially affect the

utility.

I would support my -- if -- if

modified on third reading to

say, it could begin with the 2/3

vote of the city council.

 

[One moment, please, for change

in captioners]

.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: If

the utility found that it

were -- made good business

sense, for example, to

divest itself of a

particular plant, let's just

say, for example -- it's

only an example -- a coal

plant because we could do it

more efficiently and more

effectively with better

environmental results in

another way, if we could

generate that power in

another way under all those

conditions, then we would

have the ability to do it.

 

And of course, we've

discussed this in close

session many times, the

legal reasons why it would

be better to be able to have

flexibility to act quickly.

If we have -- the way the

item was passed on first and

 

[10:32:00]

 

second reading, this would

be done over an extended

period of time, months,

perhaps a year, once the

decision was made to do it

and actually follow through

on the transaction, which

would affect the utility in

a number of ways, which i

don't think we can go into

right now.

 

>> Morrison: I've been

struggling with this quite a

bit talking to folks and

thinking about the position

that we're in.

 

And you know, one of the

concerns I have is about the

issue of, quote, selling a

coal plant because that's

certainly fraught with all

sorts of complications and

just selling it isn't going

to solve any air quality or

negative effects if it

continues.

I've also been thinking

about the fact that we have

the ability to adjust what

our utilities own.

 

Certainly we have sold off

pieces of our utility, so

for instance, once it's

decommissioned and all.

So our hands aren't

completelily tied.

 

So I was starting to move

away -- I certainly

appreciate the work in terms

of getting the strengths of

the conditions of a

two-thirds vote of the

council, then sending it to

the voters, but because of

all the questions that have

been raised and the fact

that we do have such a large

number of items going on the

ballot, I think I'm going to

go ahead and switch my vote

to vote nay on this item.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We

don't have a motion on the

table right now.

 

>> Morrison: If there is

one.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember riley.

 

>> Riley: I appreciate

councilmember morrison's

comments.

 

I've been giving this a lot

of thought too and talking

with folks in the community.

 

On first reading I indicated

 

[10:34:00]

 

that I would support this,

but expected to have further

conversations with folks in

the community about whether

there was an appetite for

moving forward as the mayor

suggests without requiring

an election on the sale of

facilities.

 

And in fact, what I found

was that there was -- there

was even anxiety about what

we passed.

That even with the

requirement of both a

two-thirds vote and the

election that there were

still great reservations

about modifying the charter

to allow for this.

And so given all those

concerns and given the

mayor's comments about the

fact that we would still --

utility would still have

significant constraints on

its ability to manage its

assets, I have reached the

conclusion that the item as

currently framed is not

worth asking the voters to

consider this.

 

I share your concerns about

overloading the ballot, and

given all the concerns I've

heard in the community about

this item, I've also decided

that this is not the timing

to forward with this

amendment as currently

framed.

 

So I also expect to vote

against this item.

>> Cole: And during the

time that we're

contemplating changing our

entire governor enunanimous

structure at the same time

making major changes in how

we run the utility there is

something to be said about

continuity of process.

I think the way we have it

now will allow us the

maximum flexibility and

experience with what we know

to continue.

So I also will support

withdrawing the motion.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We

don't have a motion on the

table at this time.

 

[Laughter].

 

Someone has to make a

motion.

>> Cole: I will make a

motion that we withdraw item

b-3 to provide for the city

 

[10:36:01]

 

council to sell at least a

substantial part of the

facilities of the municipal

utility.

 

>> Morrison: Second.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Motion to withdraw the item

with a second.

 

Let me just say I would have

objected to a unanimous

approval of that.

 

I still think it's very

important that the utility

has the fleck to make

these -- flexibility to make

these decisions and make

these changes in an

environment that has the

potential to be changing

very rapidly.

 

In the near time frame,

within a few years.

I think to not have this

flexibility puts the utility

at very significant risk,

and therefore I can't

support the motion to

withdraw.

 

I think we ought to address

it.

I think we ought to simplify

it so that it can be done

better.

And I say all of these

things for one reason only

because I think it's

necessary to ensure that the

city of austin continue to

own and operate a municipal

utility.

So any further comments?

>> Cole: Mayor, I simply

have a question for you.

 

Can you tell us more about

why you think this item will

be a make or break deal for

the operation of the

utility?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, because as I said, in

the environment that we're

in right now with the

potential for changing

legislation about how

utilities are treated within

the state of texas, and, as

I understand, the situation

with changing costs of

different kinds of

generation, I think the

utility has to be able to

conduct its business in a

way, in a businesslike way,

in a competitive way, so

that even though we're not

legally in a competitive

environment yet, we

certainly potentially could

 

[10:38:00]

 

be.

And without this

flexibility, the flexibility

that iou's have, mou's need

to be on the same playing

field.

All in favor of the motion

to withdraw say aye?

 

Opposed say no.

 

That motion passes on a vote

of five-one with myself

voting no and councilmember

spelman off the dais.

That takes us to -- do we

need item b-1 before item

b-4 on or can we take up b-4

now?

 

>> You can take b-4 now?

 

>> Okay.

 

So we have several speakers

signed up.

>> Martinez: Mayor?

I just want to make a

request.

 

I think we have multiple

proposals that are going to

come forward, and we also

have multiple speakers on

those potential proposals.

 

It's not tradition, but

without objection, I would

like to start by making a

motion and hopefully -- many

of us will have to leave by

12:30.

If all of the speakers

speak, we may not even get

to take action on this item.

I would really like to give

a sense of direction to the

speakers of where this

council might be headed with

a potential bond package.

So I'm going to make a

motion to adopt a

385-million-dollar bond

package with some

amendments.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Motion by char to adopt a

385-million-dollar package

with amendments.

 

>> Cole: Mayor, I have

hopefully a friendly

amendment to that.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

need a second first.

Are you seconding?

>> Cole: No, I better not

second that.

 

[10:40:00]

 

>> Riley: I'll second.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Seconded by councilmember

riley.

 

>> Martinez: Thank you,

mayor.

I wanted to lay out the

changes and shirley I also

have extra copies and staff,

I have extra copies if you

need it.

>> Morrison: Could you

pass one down?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think it would be

appropriate to hear from our

speakers before we get into

the discussion.

 

So with that, I'll go ahead

and call the first speaker,

sylvia roscoe.

 

>> [Inaudible - no mic].

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

Next speaker -- we'll go

ahead and take lulu flores

and you have two people

donating time to you.

 

So you have up to nine

minutes.

>> I'm not going to -- i

have to leave for an

appointment, which is why

sylvia is not giving me her

time.

She just asked that I be

allowed to speak first, and

I appreciate that

consideration.

 

I would just like to

publicly state my support

for the proposed addition to

five million dollars for the

mexicarte musician project.

 

I believe this is a vital

program that will help

enhance not only the fifth

street corridor, but the

whole downtown community.

 

We have a stunning new

building that is being

proposed.

 

We have the -- the time is

now.

We have some private funds

that have been lined up as

well as some potential

federal funds.

 

And I believe the timing is

now and I've been working on

this proposal -- on this

program myself for quite

some time and I believe it's

time it comes to fruition.

I think it will be a

 

[10:42:01]

 

wonderful edition to the

city of austin.

 

It will have a great

economic impact.

The proposed building will

just be, as I said, a

stunning addition to the

already vibrant downtown

community.

So I would just urge the

council to fund this program

at the proposed five million

dollars.

 

And thank you for your

consideration.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

 

Ruth glendenning.

 

>> Hi.

 

I'm ruth glendenning, I'm

here on behalf of core

health foundations

accessible fishing pier.

I've got a few words to say

about it.

 

My late husband was in a

wheelchair and when somebody

goes from abled to disabled,

their sense of community

completely shifts.

 

What's exciting about this

fishing pier is it's a way

for cross-generational

families and all kinds of

family people to come

together to stay engaged in

the austin community.

 

The core health foundation

specifically works with

brain injury patients.

 

And what they need is a

quiet space, so this is

different than the

boardwalk.

They need someplace where

they can actually engage and

feel like they're a full

part of everything.

 

One of the largest growing

groups in austin is the

aging population and

returning vets and this

would also be a great

opportunity for them to

continue to participate in

community and be part of the

lady bird lake opportunity.

 

So finally, this is the

brainchild of eric mecowsky

and did he this while on the

mayor's committee for people

with disabilities.

 

This was approved by the

city council in november of

2010 and we've already

raised 247,000 of the

400,000-dollar total, so

we're looking for 150,000.

And we're excited about the

bond package and anything we

can do to help community be

available to everybody in

austin.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

 

Next speaker is fiona

 

[10:44:05]

 

mazavonko.

 

>> My name is fiona.

 

I am the community and

neighborhood initiatives

director at austin habitat

for humanity.

I wanted to remind you all

of the enormous need for

affordable housing and home

repair in austin and stress

the support for at least

$75 million of the bond

package going toward

affordable housing in

austin.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We're getting down on that

21 minutes here.

Regina rogoffe.

>> I'm regina, ceo of

people's community clinic.

 

I'm in support of adding a

two-million-dollar provision

for support of people's

community clinic in east

austin.

 

I'm providing you with a

short memo, a legal brief to

respond to some of the

questions that have been

raised about our project and

why I think it is something

that is legally authorized

by the city council to

pursue.

 

We are not a hospital.

 

Our purposes are not

hospital related.

We are providing services

that exceed those of

medical.

We include a variety of

services that are in

alignment with the city's

health and human services

department, including

immunizations by way of

contract with the city, hiv

and std testing, nutrition

and lactation counseling,

teen pregnancy prevention

services, child obesity

reduction strategies,

including prescription for

fruits and vegetables

 

[10:46:01]

 

programs, and cooking

classes, as well as reach

out and read.

 

We're also part of the

city's tobacco reduction

program.

 

We believe that we clearly

will come within the

authority of the city

council and I think that the

memo speaks for itself.

 

I won't go through the legal

arguments that I've made

there.

 

If you have any questions,

please feel free.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

questions?

 

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor, we did

have an opportunity to

discuss this to some degree,

and I wish -- I wonder if we

could ask our legal staff if

they can talk a little bit

about additional information

that I gathered about

interaction with the

attorney general about a

related issue.

 

In terms of the process of

getting the approvals after

the voters approve a bond.

 

It's my understanding that

we've actually done some --

some early discussion to get

a sense for whether or not

they would approve a bond

issuance.

And can you talk a little

bit about whether you

gathered any information in

those discussions about

whether or not something

like this would be

appropriate?

>> Councilmember, that's

correct.

 

Lela fireside with the city

legal.

And then I have with me

jerry kyle with andrews and

kurth and who is our outside

bond counsel.

 

We do as propositions are

being developed make

inquiries of the public

finance division, which is a

division of the attorney

general's office that

lawfully approves bonds to

find out whether our

propositions are worded in a

way that if they passed that

the public finance division

would approve the bonds.

And they have raised some

kyle has

been the person who has been

having those communications.

 

So he can speak directly to

the issue of health clinics.

>> Jerry kyle,

andrews-kurth.

 

[10:48:02]

 

And in terms of vetting the

propositions with the

attorney general's office,

we did visit with them about

the health and human

services purposes, which

includes public health

related measures.

And as part of those

conversations the ag did

identify the constitutional

concern with the creation of

the health care district

being kind of -- taking over

responsibility for medical

care and hospital care.

 

So that's on their radar.

 

>> And that was actually in

regard to a different

specific item, is that

correct?

>> Yes, ma'am.

It was in connection with a

different purpose, yes.

 

>> Morrison: Can you

identify what purpose that

was?

 

>> Sure.

 

It was related to the

immunization programs that

the city maintains and some

of the other public health

type programs that are

administered by the city.

>> Morrison: And it's my

understanding that we were

actually talking about a

specific item that would

have bond funds go toward a

joint -- a joint facility

with pard and our health and

human services to actually

provide health services.

Is that correct?

>> Yes.

>> Morrison: So was there

any discussion there about

the public health realm

versus central health's

primary carrell am?

>> Other than the attorney

general kind of looking at

the general type of services

that are provided or

proposed to be provided in

connection with the purpose

that we've precleared,

beyond those purposes, no,

we did not.

>> Morrison: Okay.

And one other thing -- one

of the things we could

 

[10:50:03]

 

consider is that providing

bonds for people may or may

not be approved.

 

Can you talk a little bit

about what would happen if

we went with an approach

that said let's include

enough money in a health and

human services bond that

could cover a participation

with people should it be

okayed by the voters.

 

And then we would go to the

attorney general once we

wanted to issue those bonds

and they would say yay or

nay.

 

Can you tell us what the

consequences of them saying

nay might be in your

opinio

>> yes.

I mean, to the extent that

that purpose is out there as

a contemplated use of bond

proceeds, there's the

potential for establishing

or giving rise to a contract

with the voters, which might

induce voters to vote for

the proposition for that

purpe.

 

To the extent that there are

kind of fundamental concerns

about -- questions about

whether or not those are

permitted purposes, it could

affect the validity of the

proposition in my view.

 

>> Morrison: Of the whole

proposition itself.

So if it were bundled with

something else, those other

things -- the bonds for them

might also be voided and we

wouldn't be able to issue

bonds for them?

 

>> Yes, I think that's a

possibility.

>> Morrison: Is there a

possibility of actually

having an independent

proposition on this and then

we wouldn't run into that

problem?

 

[Laughter].

 

>> I'm struggling a little

bit because it's pretty

clear that --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Feel

like you need another

executive session to discuss

that topic?

>> Well --

>> Morrison: Or if you

 

[10:52:00]

 

would like to take a minute

we could hear from some

other folks and get back to

this question.

 

>> I guess I could say that

I think that would be

problematic to present a

proposition where there are

questions about whether or

not it's a permitted

purpose.

 

I mean, real fundamental

legal questions.

>> Morrison: All right.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: With the

understanding that if you do

need to take this into

executive session or get

back to us later, I'll just

ask what would be the worst

case scenario if it is -- if

it is its own proposition

and it passes, but we're

told it wouldn't be within

our capacity to issue those

bonds.

Then we don't issue them.

Are there other risks that

I'm not aware of?

 

>> Not that come to mind.

 

That's the threshold issues

is not being able to issue

the bonds after having

gotten approval from the

voters.

 

>> Tovo: But it wouldn't

call into question any of

these bonds that were

approved via the other

propositions?

 

>> The other measures on the

ballot, no, I don't think it

would, no.

 

>> Tovo: Okay.

 

Thank you.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any concern about

putting an item -- a stand

alone appropriation on the

ballot that -- alone

proposition on the ballot

that per best advice is not

a valid proposition?

Are there any concerns about

that?

 

I think a moment ago you

said it was problematic.

And if you think it falls in

the realm of legal advice we

can discuss it in another

executive session.

 

We'll have other

 

[10:54:00]

 

opportunities perhaps

tomorrow.

>> I think, yeah.

>> I think that would be a

good idea.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.

>> Tovo: Thank you,

councilmembers.

 

Mayor.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.

Tom spencer?

>> Mayor, councilmembers,

thank you for the

opportunity.

I served on the bond

election advisory taskforce.

 

I am the ceo of interfaith

action of central texas.

The experience of serving on

the taskforce is very

similar to the situation you

find yourselves in right

now.

For those of us who served

on the taskforce it was a

rather painful experience of

deferment.

 

We were presented with over

5 billion in need and

were asked to whittle it

down to a 385-million-dollar

package, which as you are

well aware we did not do.

We presented four

hundred-million-dollar

package and one north of

that as well.

 

Because we found it too

difficult to say no to too

many vital projects.

 

Well, I do understand the

situation you find

yourselves in.

 

I am here to speak as an

advocate for affordable

housing and I am painfully

aware as a homeowner as well

that property taxes are an

affordable housing issue

too.

 

However I'm here to speak

very much in favor of --

that you fund affordable

housing at the highest

dollar figure possible.

 

The last time we asked for

affordable housing bonds was

2006.

 

That was six long years ago.

 

The money was spent and it

was well spent, making a

critical investment in this

community that ensured that

austin remains a welcoming

place for thousands who

cannot afford to live in our

community, which is becoming

increasingly more of an

issue for this community.

In 2010 we had

transportation bonds.

 

And likely we will have

transportation bonds again

in the near future.

 

I am not speaking for the

 

[10:56:00]

 

taskforce when I say this,

but I ask that you perhaps

look at deferring some of

the money in transportation

and keep the window for

affordable housing open.

It's highly unlikely that

we'll be coming back to the

city of austin for this

great need in the community

in the near future for

affordable housing and this

is the critical pot of money

the federal

government is not doing

affordable housing, the

state is not doing

affordable housing.

 

This is the vital piece for

funding these programs that

ensure that we ensure a

welcoming community for all

austinites and I ask that

you fund affordable housing

at the highest dollar figure

possible.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Tom,

I have a question for you.

 

And I'm just kind of

floating this out there.

I want to get your opinion

on it.

 

How would you feel if this

proposition were broken into

two propositions.

 

There would be one part of

it would be for permanent

supportive housing and the

other part would be for

affordable as yet

unidentified projects.

>> Initially my response is

I don't understand the need

to break those out right

now.

 

I do know that there's

tremendous need for

permanent supportive housing

in this community and

there's great support from

the business community and

other sources of very

important centers of power

in this community that

support that initiative.

I don't know how that would

play out in terms of the

voters.

I think keeping them united

really would send to more

voter support for the

proposal.

 

So keeping them together

makes the most sense just

off the top of my head.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Yeah.

The whole idea, as you may

recall, the 2006 affordable

 

[10:58:00]

 

housing bond proposition had

$55 million in it, but as

the years went by, we saw

this more and more critical

need for permanent

supportive housing, and by

council direction at that

point it was decided that

the remaining money -- and i

believe mayor pro tem cole

actually started that

effort, would be directed

towards permanent supportive

housing.

Because we felt that's where

the greatest need was, where

the most critical need was.

>> The critical need is all

over community.

 

And I understand again phs

being high on the list of

priorities.

 

I think the city staff did

an excellent last job last

time prioritizing the

objects to be funded and

finding partners who are

able to move and I trust

they will be able to do so

again without having to

decide in advance which pots

of money will be going

where.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

I agree with flexibility is

a good thing to have, but

there's also the practical

aspect of will voters

approve this or not.

I think the increasing

tendency is that voters are

more likely to approve

things when they know with a

high degree of specificity

what it will be spent on.

 

>> And I think there's some

wisdom in that.

Thank you.

>> Cole: Mayor, I would

like to add to your comment.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Wait

a minute.

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: spencer, i

want to thank you for your

service on what must have

been a very daunting task.

 

I know our piece of it has

been really a struggle with

no easy answers.

 

So thank you to the

taskforce for all the many

hours you've spent on it.

 

I wondered since we're

talking about housing and

some of the other components

that might be contained

within that affordable

housing money, I know your

organization has a-- does a

lot of service in this

community with regard to

home repairs.

And I just wanted to verify

with you that home repairs

will also be a component

that could be funded through

affordable housing bond

money.

 

>> It was funded as a result

of the 2006 bond package,

yes, and we anticipate that

it will continue to do so in

the future.

 

>> Tovo: Do you

anticipate -- I'm asking an

easy question here.

 

Could you give us a sentence

or two about the real

importance of home repairs

as you see it in your work

everyday through iac?

 

>> The people that we serve

are largely people living in

deep poverty in east austin.

 

Our program specifically

targets senior citizens

living on about $10,000 a

year.

Most of our clients are

widows who have lived out

their lives and have worked

their entire lives in our

community.

They are living in homes

that many of us would find

absolutely deplorable.

I have referenced at the

last council meeting we

recently encountered a woman

who lives on a gentrifying

street in east austin,

didn't know where to turn

for help, living in a home

without any kind of heating

source and without running

water.

 

She was actually having to

slip out at night and fill

buckets with water from

her -- from the garden hose

of her neighbor because she

had no water and she was

ashamed to ask for help and

ashamed that her neighbors

would turn her in and have

her home demolished because

it was in such poor

condition.

She's never lived in any

other home other than this.

 

For 60 years in the city of

austin.

When people think about the

conditions of foreign

nations or appalachia or the

border or the cologne in as,

they exist here in austin.

We don't see it.

It's real and the bond

monies in 2006 helped

hundreds of individuals like

her and we want to continue

to do that.

>> Tovo: Thank you.

>> Cole: Councilmember

morrison.

 

>> Morrison: spencer,

can you remind me of when we

started funding home repair

with our bonds?

>> Late in the game.

Incidence the first money

was posted in 2010,

councilmember.

>> Morrison: And I ask you

that just to make point that

there were four years of

discussion about whether or

not we could use our bonds

for that, our housing bonds

for that purpose.

So we're having this other

discussion about people and

just wanted to point out

sometimes they can be very

complicated issues that take

awhile to sort out.

 

>> Cole: Thank you.

 

Our next speaker is mary

arnold.

Didn't I see mary?

>> Good morning, members of

the city council.

 

My name is mary arnold.

 

I'm here to speak against

the inclusion of an item on

your bond package.

 

I'm here to hand you five

million dollars that you can

use for something else and i

hope you will.

I'm here to speak against

the inclusion of five

million dollars for the

design of emmitt shelton

bridge on red bud trail.

I have allonges history of

this project as it evolved.

 

And I still think that it is

nftpt, not ready for prime

time.

 

Nrfpt, not ready for prime

time.

[Laughter]

the fellow from street and

bridge made a representation

at the west austin

neighborhood group meeting

in june after I had been to

one of the bond workshops

out at anderson high school

and discovered to my horror

that they were proposing

$18 million to build a whole

new bridge where we now have

an emmitt shelton bridge

which honors the, quote,

father of westlake hills.

And a bridge which carries

traffic that goes to

westlake hills at night and

comes into austin from

westlake hills in the

morning.

 

But this bridge built in

1948 is now called obsolete.

A traffic count of 12,000

per day was used in his

presentation, but I have no

idea if that is when that

traffic count was done.

He talked about the trucks

going over that bridge to

the ulrich water treatment

plant.

 

That's what I dealt with

back in 1989 when I was a

member of the water and

wastewater commission and we

had just finished the

brackenridge tract

agreement.

 

And one of the things in

that agreement had to do

with the protection of the

cliffs on the southside of

town lake in that area, lady

bird lake now.

And the fact that they are a

very important and seem to

be historic natural area.

And they were mentioned in

our brackenridge development

agreement as a very

important thing that should

be protected.

And the university of texas

was not allowed in that

brackenridge development

agreement to develop close

to the edge of those cliffs

and they promised to protect

them.

[ Buzzer sounds ]

so I'm asking that you take

it out not.

There's already an item in

there for five million

dollars for design of new

projects.

 

Let's work on this one some

more with the waste and

wastewater development, the

urban transportation

commission --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you, mayor.

>> That has not been done.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.

 

Gotcha.

 

Those are all the speakers

that we have.

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: Mary?

Could I -- I just wanted to

ask you about this item

because all we've heard from

the staff is that this is

the one bridge in our area

that is in -- not in good

shape.

I may be getting the

terminology wrong, but all

our other bridges are in

good or excellent condition

and this one is not.

So for maintaining our

infrastructure, the argument

is that we ought to set a

process in motion to be able

to replace it.

Surely there will come a

time when we need to do

something with this bridge,

either replace it, upgrade

it, do something to make

sure that it -- that we're

appropriately safeguarding

the safety of those who

would use the bridge.

Why wouldn't now be an

appropriate time to start

moving in that direction?

>> Because what's being

proposed and what shows in

your backup is a plan that

cuts in to the cliffs.

 

It takes away that beautiful

natural curve.

It leaves access to red bud

aisle, which is a -- red bud

isle, a public city of

austin park, only from the

westlake hills side as far

as cars are concerned.

 

This is proposing to take

out the bridge from red bud

isle across to lake austin

boulevard.

And it doesn't tell how the

pedestrian access is going

to be handled.

>> Riley: Sorry to

interrupt.

 

You would say that we ought

to be doing more planning as

a community before we devote

this level of funding.

>> Absolutely.

And that it can be done

through that other project

of five million for design

of new projects.

 

>> Riley: Thanks.

 

>> Thank you.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I have a question

for staff about this item,

please.

And also, councilmember

morrison and I have also put

a proposal in front of our

colleagues.

 

And one of the items that we

did propose reducing is the

emmitt shelton bridge.

 

And I wondered if you might

just be specific about how

much you think design would

be or some initial planning.

What we've proposed is

reducing it to two million

dollars.

From a five-million-dollars

to allow for some beginning

planning and design, but not

execution.

 

>> I think that the need for

the replacement of bridges,

as I stated last time, and

councilmember riley

reiterated some of those

points, that the bridge is

in a condition that's not

good and we do need to start

the process to replace it.

 

In addition to providing a

vital transportation

connection, this is the only

way we have to service the

ulrich water treatment

plant.

So those are the facts that

deal with the current

condition of the bridge.

So if I can stipulate here

that we all agree that there

is a need to get started,

the amount of money needed

for the design entails not

just the actual engineers

working on the design, but

there will be some fairly

significant outreach efforts

that will be required as

well as some environmental

investigations and

coordination.

So we want to make sure that

we have sufficient funds to

move the project forward so

that we don't get into a

position where it's

replacement is delayed which

can lead to closures, limits

on traffic and all sorts of

things that are not

beneficial.

 

As I stated last time that

the amount of money, the

five million dollars, was an

estimate base pond what we

thought -- base pond what we

thought the replacement

value would be, which would

be somewhere in the 15 to

16-million-dollar range.

 

So we put about a third of

that aside for the design of

it.

 

Certainly we need to get

started.

I think there was some

discussion about reducing it

last time to about three,

three and a half million

dollars.

I think that's enough to get

us started on the process.

 

>> Tovo: And my thought in

advocating for a

two-million-dollar figure

instead of five is to get

the process started.

 

It allows you to begin

starting having some of

those meetings because we

probably all get a lot of

email about this.

 

I know there will be a lot

of community outreach

necessary, but it also

allows staff to go forward

and talk with some of our

neighbors about the

possibility of making this a

joint project.

And so explore in additional

funding options.

 

Maybe my colleague would

like to elaborate on that.

>> Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: As i

mentioned earlier, and

arnold brought the issue

up, and that is it seems to

me that if we have an

element -- something that

we're responsible for, but

that is most heavily used by

other communities that we

should at least explore

openings for some joint

work.

I do have one question that

your comments brought up for

me.

Have we looked at the option

of replacement versus -- of

renovation versus

replacement.

 

And do we actually know for

a fact that it is not

salvageable?

 

arnold

said, was built in the late

1940's for a much lower

capacity.

Not only in terms of number

of vehicles, but the weight

of the vehicles.

So for the current purpose

that it serves, it's

inadequate.

She's also right in that the

design that has been put

forward as a concept is

significantly different than

what's there right now.

Part of the design process

is to go through and see

what the future projections

are going to be and what we

can accommodate.

In terms of what type of

replacement has to be put in

place.

>> But I guess I didn't

really hear an answer to the

question.

Do we know -- you said it's

not adequate, but how do we

know that we can't -- in

terms of weight, for

instance, how do we know

that we can't just go in and

beef it up as opposed to

replace it?

 

Clearly that might not

change the capacity, but are

you saying we need to

replace it because we need

to increase capacity?

 

>> I think the answer is yes

to both.

One is that there were

repairs made to the bridge

in the late 1980's, early

'90's, to expand its life

cycle.

There's only so many times

you can patch that bridge.

 

So in terms of the

structural part of it, at

this point it's better to

replace it because it's a

better long-term solution.

 

And that when you replace

the bridge for the load it

depends on the size of the

members and how big you want

to make it.

 

The capacity issue is one of

how many cars can go across

it during the course of a

day.

There are some safety issues

with the curve once you get

across the bridge as well.

There have been numerous

accidents there.

 

I don't have those

statistics with me, but it

is strictly when the

pavement gets wet it is a

pretty dangerous place as

well, so there's a public

safety impact in terms of

replacing it with a

different concept.

 

All that, though, as i

understand, is part of going

through a design process to

figure out what the best fit

is for it.

 

Many times you'll put a

proposal out initially and

build something entirely

different when you're done.

So I don't know that I would

get too concerned that what

we have put in the back or

what we're proposing now is

the final solution, but i

wouldn't rule it out either.

 

I just think we need to get

started on the design to

figure out where that is.

 

And as we go through the

design and we do some

investigation, there may be

the need to do some

temporary bracing and that

would be considered I think

part of the design process

as well, which is why we put

a larger number into the

design estimate.

>> Morrison: Okay.

I guess my comment on this

is I'm glad that it looks

like we might be able to do

some studies and look

forward to -- move forward

with a smaller amount than

five million.

But if we do include any

funds, I want to make it

clear that for me it's

really important that we're

going into it with no

assumptions and that we have

the community discussion

about what are the options

for renovation.

I think we need to look at

the historic significance of

it.

We need to look at options

for other folks

participating in it and get

real clear on what values

will drive this replacement

or this work.

 

Whether or not it's a

replacement.

>> Mayor, I have a quick

question.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: I want to know

what funding you need for

the preliminary design work.

>> To get through

preliminary evaluation, i

think we can go through, as

I said before, about three,

three and a half million

dollars, that will give us

sufficient dollars to go

through the engagement,

engage an engineer and get

the design where we know

what the concept is that

we'll invest in detailed

design.

>> Cole: Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

have a question.

 

Once you get a design, then

presumably you need to build

it or repair it or whatever

the option is.

So where is that money going

to come from?

 

>> We'll have to come back

and get bond monies to fund

the replacement of the

bridge.

>> New bond money?

>> New bond money.

>> So normally that happens

about every six or seven

years.

Is that time frame -- does

that time framework for what

you think is the need to

have that -- this entire job

completed?

>> Most likely not.

I think depending on when

the next bond election is

there may be a need to fund

it through another mechanism

such as certificate of

obligation or some other

means.

Certainly councilmember

morrison pointed out that

there maybe an opportunity

to find other sources of

fund as well business but we

need to know what it's going

to cost and where we can go

for some of the other

sources of funds.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

what's a ballpark for the

total cost of it?

>> About $15 million for

replacement.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That

is for replacement.

>> Replacement.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

what about repair?

 

I guess you don't have

really much of a feel for

that at this point?

 

>> I do not.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

15-million-dollar co is

pretty hefty.

 

Councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: I just need to

make a correction to what i

said earlier.

 

We are proposing reducing it

by two million to three.

I said it backwards.

So just to clarify that

would bring it around to

where last week you said it

would need to be to get the

process started, three to

three million.

 

And our proposal would have

it at about three million,

again to get the process

begun and moving.

I had questions on a

different subject if my

colleagues are ready to turn

to something else.

 

>> Martinez: Mayor, I had

a motion laid out and i

wasn't able to lay it out

due to objection by the

mayor.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: No,

I just wanted to let the

people speak.

 

>> Tovo: I did have a

question for a member of the

public.

 

>> Martinez: No problem.

 

I didn't have a problem with

that.

I said without objection and

you objected, so we went on.

 

[Laughter].

 

>> Cole: And I will have a

motion to substitute.

>> Martinez: I suspect

there will be lots of

movement here.

We'll just have to keep up

with the bouncing ball.

 

So my motion that I made was

for 385-million-dollar bond

proposal.

 

And it's largely what staff

has recommended with the

following exceptions.

 

In order to create either

reductions and/or savings,

however you want to term,

northwest

substation would be

8 million for

acquisition and design,

which is in line with the

city manager's memo that we

received yesterday evening.

The harold court facility is

a general project of

remediation and

improvements, and I'm

proposing a reduction in

that size of the request to

the taskforce recommendation

of 11 million, which creates

five million dollars of

available bond space.

 

Similarly the pard

recreation facilities is a

general request for a

recommended $10 million for

facilities improvements.

 

No identified specific

projects.

I'm recommending eight

million to alleviate another

two or to create another two

in bond capacity.

 

The next two on the sheet,

the pard palm park and

waterloo I am not -- I am

removing those from the

proposal, keeping them at

the 1.5 million.

That I'm eliminating.

And that's on the sheet.

Again, this is a work in

progress.

 

The i-35 improvements as was

discussed the other day,

clearly we are not close to

the needs assessment for

i-35 improvements.

 

It is simply a somebody that

staff will back into,

whatever the citizens

approve.

So I am proposing a

15-million-dollar bond

package for i-35

improvements, therefore

7 million in

additional capacity, which

681 in my

estimation.

 

I'm not calculating in front

of me.

681 i

propose the following in

terms of additions to the

481 to

austin studios for their

expansion.

 

5 Million to mexicarte

museum.

One million to the violet

crown trail.

 

Two million to the barton

springs bathhouse.

700,000 To the neighborhood

partnering program.

 

5 Million to the east

51st street vision plan.

85 Million to the homeless

women and children's

shelter.

And $150,000 to the a.d.a.

Accessible fishing pier,

which should total 20.681.

 

In addition to that, mayor,

based on the city manager's

memo and additional areas of

funding and shifting, if you

will, within his proposal, i

would recommend that the

5 million identified in

the city manager's first two

bullet points, reallocation

of two million included in

the bicycle urban trails and

grant match program, and

then inclusion of

5 million from city bike

rails and urban corridor

5 million be

allocated as an additional

million to the violet crown

trail as identified in his

memo, and then the remaining

5 to a city facility bond

project for acquisition and

design of a fair -- fire

station on 360.

And lastly, mayor, we were

working with city legal this

morning on this item --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Excuse me, that's land

acquisition and design of

the fire station?

 

>> Correct, at 4.5 million.

 

And I'm going to fumble

through this amendment

because we're working with

staff and I'm hoping that

city legal can help with

this.

In proposition 14, which is

our open space and watershed

protection, we are looking

to add language that speaks

to farmlands as a part of

this package as well.

 

So that if there are some

black lands in the eastern

portion of travis county

that we could consider as

purchasing for protection

and open space that this

bond proposal be allowed to

do that.

So the amendment in the

language would simply add

two words, farm lands.

Right after in the fourth

line natural areas, comma,

farm lands, and the region's

water quality.

 

And I have these in writing

and I'm more than happy to

provide to the city clerk.

 

And that is my amended

motion.

Mary mayor okay.

Are there --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

Are there any legal issues

with regard to adding

farm land?

 

That you can talk about

here?

[Laughter].

Councilmember martinez, are

you going to farm this land

yourself?

[Laughter].

>> Martinez: I think you

will have something to do

after 2014.

I might invite you to help

me.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

won't be farming.

>> And jerry kyle -- I think

the issue has come to us

very late and I don't know

kyle has had an

opportunity to confer with

the attorney general's

office about whether or not

they would have a concern.

 

Counties do have this type

of language in some of their

bond propositions, but they

also have specific

authorities relating to

farmland.

And so I don't know that we

can give you a firm legal

answer today on that

addition, whether or not the

attorney general's office

would approve that use.

 

>> Martinez: And my

motion, mayor, is on first

reading and I stand fully

prepared to remove that if

there is a legal impediment

on second and third reading.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

will you have the

opportunity to have that

discussion before third

reading of this?

>> We can certainly reach

out to the ag to visit.

 

I'm not sure that we'll have

a conclusion back from them,

though.

 

It's a question of first

impression in my view, my

experience, and I suspect it

will be for them as well.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

Councilmember riley.

 

>> Riley: I have a

question about two public

safety items that have been

the subject of some

discussion in councilmember

martinez's proposal and in

the manager's most recent

proposal.

And they both were late to

the -- both relate to the

proposed facilities in the

northwest area.

 

There was originally an item

in the package to do the

northwest police substation

in the amount of 15 million,

and we're now proposing to

scale that back to five

million.

 

Councilmember martinez is

also suggesting that we

include roughly five million

for land acquisition and

design of a fire station in

the northwest.

And in discussions with

folks about these two items,

one question has come up and

I wanted to go ahead

guidance from staff.

The question is if we're

going to be working on land

acquisition and design for

both a fire station and

police station in the

northwest area, then to

what -- should we be looking

at the possibility of

combining those facilities?

And would these items allow

for that?

 

And if so, would there be

any impact on the cost

necessary for acquisition

and design of the

facilities?

 

>>

 

>> councilmember, we have

folks here from the fire

who

can speak, but I think based

on the projects proposed, i

think the answer is we would

have to evaluate that and

determine what kind of

potential opportunities

there could be to combine

those joint uses and do any

cost estimate for what that

is.

 

But for right now I think

we're prepared to stick with

the information that we've

provided because we would

need additional analysis on

that.

>> Martinez: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember martinez.

 

>> Martinez: I think I can

provide a little bit more

information because we did

consider that.

That is something we should

consider when we evaluate

facilities.

My understanding based on

conversations with staff is

that the northwest

substation really is to

serve farther northwest

along the 183 north of 360

corridor because we're using

the parmer lane facility now

that is heavily overcrowded.

And our growth areas are

going to be along 183 --

between 183 and parmer lane.

The 360 fire station is

sorely needed in annex areas

currently south of the river

on 360 and more western and

southwestern such as lost

creek.

 

So really it would prove to

be problematic to try to

consolidate those facilities

with the areas that we're

trying to service with those

two different services.

>> Councilmember riley?

>> Riley: So the bottom

line is to the extent we

want to move forward on both

facilities, we really do

need still roughly five

million for each facility.

 

Is that a fair assessment?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So a

quick question.

I thought I heard one plus

one on the violet crown

trail.

I wanted to make sure i

heard a total.

 

Councilmember tovo?

 

>> Tovo: I have a few

questions.

I'll ask one of staff first.

Can you tell me how far this

proposed fire station would

be from its closest other

fire station?

 

The material I got suggested

it was within a couple of

miles, but there was some

question about whether the

scale was correct.

 

I haven't heard back about

that issue.

So if you could give me a

sense of what the -- what

the proximity is between

this fire station, proposed

fire station area and any

others?

 

>> Mayor, council, matt

arta, assistant chief of the

fire department.

 

The desired location for the

proposed 360 location would

be south of the pennybacker

bridge.

From that point the closest

station is probably

going to be fire station 31,

which is off of 2222 and 360

next door to the county line

barbecue place.

 

And then after that would be

the station about a mile

away from barton creek

square mall.

>> Tovo: What's the

mileage if you've got it or

maybe you can cycle back

around with us and give us

the mileage on those.

>> That would probably be

better.

 

>> Tovo: Thanks.

 

The map that I've seen from

nix suggests that it was

close, but there was some

question about whether the

scale was off.

 

This is a question really

for mr. trimble.

Is this an item that our

bond taskforce considered

and if so, what was their --

they didn't recommend

inclusion, but did they have

a rationale for including

it?

>> It did and it came down

to funding constraints and

priorities and so when we

got down to what are some of

the higher priority

services, call for service,

turnaround times, being

properly allocated, I think

just what they got to.

>> Tovo: Thanks.

And for my colleague, I have

some specific questions.

 

I want to be sure that i

understand the proposal that

you've presented here.

 

And I want to just also

preface it by saying that we

are -- I think there's a lot

of agreement between some of

the items you've brought

forward and some of those

that councilmember morrison

and I have brought forward.

There is one fundamental

difference I want to get to,

but first I want to better

understand some of these

line items.

So in terms of -- you've

handed us out a document and

I think you've made a few

edits to it in your comments

and I want to be sure i

captured them.

 

So on here on the sheet

you've distributed you've

proposed reducing palm park

and waterloo park and i

think I understood you said

you would like to leave them

unchanged.

 

>> Correct.

 

>> So not reduce those

amounts from the 1.5.

>> Correct.

>> Tovo: Okay.

When we get down to

additions, violet crown, you

would propose adding one

million, not the two that's

on here, is that right?

>> I have proposed two

million, one from the

savings of the above

reductions and one from the

city manager's identified

areas in his memo to us

yesterday for a total of two

million.

 

>>

 

>> Tovo: And it was more

allotted to the accessible

fishing pier.

 

>> Correct.

 

>> Tovo: And then the

other items, once we move

beyond the sheet, I lost you

there for a minute, but i

think I believe the

5 million that you're

proposing for land

acquisition come out of the

already identified proposal

funds for land acquisition

and open space.

 

Is that correct?

 

>> Incorrect.

 

It comes from the remaining

identified bond capacity in

the city manager's memo

issued to us yesterday in

the first two bullet points.

 

Tow and violet crown and

east 51st and identifying

that they would be part of

the larger body of funds

rather than called out

separately.

Okay.

All right.

Thanks.

The one thing I would --

>> Cole: Go ahead.

You still have the floor.

>> Tovo: That's okay.

Mayor pro tem, if you want

to get to it, but I would

like to talk --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo has the

floor.

>> Tovo: All right.

In that case, so the one

thing I do want to talk a

little bit about, because

councilmember morrison

brought this up the other

day and I think it's a

really fundamental point.

And that is which

recommendations we begin

with.

And I would like to propose

that we begin with the

taskforce recommendations.

And there are at this point

I think by the time we

finish talking about them

there aren't going to be a

huge number of

discrepancies, but there are

some.

And that was one value that

we brought to putting

together our proposal to

begin with the work of our

taskforce because they have

spent months upon months

meeting with stakeholders,

talking with staff,

reviewing the information,

and I really believe that we

should prioritize the work

and the recommendations

they've done because they've

put a tremendous amount of

thought into it and a

tremendous amount of time

balancing the pressing

concerns of our city with

the feedback they heard from

the community.

 

So councilmember martinez, i

agree with a lot of these

and you'll see them on our

list too, but I would

suggest that we begin with

the taskforce

recommendations.

 

And I think mayor pro tem

has already said they wants

to make a substitute motion,

but --

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Tovo: But I would like

to contemplate doing the

same here in a minute.

>> Cole: I would make a

motion that we do begin with

councilmember tovo's

suggestion, which would be

the taskforce's

recommendations, but several

of us have went public with

what we wanted to do on the

bond, especially during the

last session.

 

And then publicly in the

media.

And we do have some

proposals that are being

passed out.

I have a proposal that

impassing out or have passed

out if you don't have one

that actually has what i

believe is everybody's

recommendation on it,

including the taskforce and

including the staff, and

including what each of us

have said publicly that we

want to do.

So I'm hoping to actually

lay out the proposals in --

hopefully it will be a more

efficient manner and

actually start with the

items that have received the

most support from the

council and let us vote on

them that way and vote on

those and have the

reductions that receive most

of the support.

 

For example, councilmember

martinez has already laid

out a motion and a second

that we reduce the northwest

substation.

 

And I believe that there are

several councilmembers,

including myself that

support that.

So I would like to make a

motion that we begin with

the taskforce

recommendations and we go

through and --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

that a 400-million-dollar --

 

>> Cole: Yes, it is the

$400 million, but of course

we can make the subsidy

reductions to that as we

want.

 

And I guess the first motion

I would like to make is we

begin with the taskforce

recommendation and that we

start looking at the bond

package worksheets that i

have passed around and i

would ask councilmember

morrison, because she has

not laid out her proposal on

tv, morrison and tovo, the

proposal that she has --

will publicly make and that

we go through it in

alphabetical order based on

that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

you're making a substitute

motion that we approve the

taskforce recommendation.

 

>> Cole: Not that we

approve, but begin with the

taskforce recommendations.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, I think it's kind of

the same thing.

 

You're going to make a

substitute motion and if it

pass -- well, let's see.

 

You've got to make the

amendments as you go along.

So you will lay out the

substitute motion for the

taskforce recommendation and

begin the process of

amending it before we vote

on it.

 

Is that correct?

 

>> Cole: Yes, but there

will have to be a vote, a

second and approval -- you

know that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

You're going to attempt to

amend by vote the substitute

motion before we vote on the

substitute motion.

>> Cole: Yes.

But -- point of order,

mayor.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember martinez

raises a point of order.

 

>> Martinez: I think if a

substitute motion is made

the body needs to take

action on the substitute

motion.

 

I have a motion that's been

made and I'm open to

amendments to that motion.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

for parliamentary reasons i

would like for the city

attorney to weigh in and the

question would be with the

main motion on the table

with a second, can a

substitute motion be laid on

the table and then be

amended by vote and then be

voted on before the main

motion?

That's the question.

>> Mayor, I believe under

robert's rules of order when

you have a main motion you

can always have a substitute

motion which then could be

amended and then voted on

before you -- to determine

whether or not you then go

back to the main motion.

So you have a main motion,

you could have a substitute.

 

That substitute could be

amended and then you would

vote up or down.

 

If it passed, that would be

what passed.

If it failed then you would

go back to the main motion.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We

go back to -- of course with

the -- while the main motion

and substitute motion are

both on the table,

discussion on either or both

is in order.

 

>> Yes.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

So you're laying the motion

on the table for a

400-million-dollar taskforce

recommendation.

 

Is there a second for that

motion?

>> Morrison: Mayor,

I'll -- I'll second it with

the suggestion that we amend

it right off that we have a

goal of getting the total to

385.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.

Seconded by councilmember

morrison and councilmember

morrison offers a friendly

amendment that you accept

the cole that it will be

amended further.

 

>> Cole: And with a goal

of 385.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's the best way I can

think of to say it.

You accept that.

Okay.

So now we have a substitute

motion on the table for the

taskforce recommendation.

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem.

 

>> Cole: I would like to

include in my motion

approval of the 51st

street plan improvements.

I believe that that has

received considerable

support from council and

also the women's and

children's shelter --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Hold

on.

 

Are you going to give us an

amend for that?

>> Cole: Oh.

The amount is to increase by

one million to two million.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Two

million?

Is one million in the

taskforce recommendation?

 

>> Morrison: Yes, it is.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

>> Cole: And mayor, i

believe -- I don't know if

you have a comment on that

because that was an item

that --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Not

at this time.

 

>> Cole: Okay.

 

I also want to include in

the motion the women and

children's housing expansion

to two million.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: From

what to two million.

 

>> Cole: Two million.

 

It wasn't included.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

you're adding two million

for women and children's.

 

>> Cole: And also before i

include this item, I have a

question about the barton

springs pool master plan.

I believe, mayor, is this

the item that you are

supporting or is that the

batshouse?

 

-- Bathhouse?

 

>> At the last meeting i

supported the bathhouse

matching funds?

 

>> Tovo: Mayor, can I --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, you yield to

councilmember tovo?

 

>> Cole: Absolutely.

 

>> Tovo: Testify if you

saw our list the master plan

was the bathhouse.

 

It includes the bathhouse in

the master plan, but it

would allow for that.

 

But we were trying to pick

up the mayor's interest in

that.

 

>> Cole: If that is the

case I am including the

barton springs pool master

plan and bathhouse with an

additional -- it's zero

right now.

With an additional one

million.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: To

one million total.

>> Cole: One million

total.

 

Okay.

 

I'm going to move to the

proposed reductions that i

believe have been supported

by the majority of the

councilmembers in public.

 

First, councilmember

martinez, the northwest

substation, to reduce by

five million and $48,000

that item with the

understanding that some

preliminary work will be

done by staff on that.

>> So are you talking about

station

that's in the original

recommendation?

 

>> Yes.

 

>> And you're going to

reduce that from what to

what?

 

>> It is currently the

taskforce is 11,000,000.77.

The city manager's

recommendation was

16,125,000.

It is actually councilmember

martinez's suggestion that

that go to 11 million and

77,000, which is the

reduction of five million

and 48,000.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

don't think that's correct.

Councilmember martinez's

modification was in accord

with the city manager's

latest modification, which i

believe was a reduction of

9.9 million.

 

>> Also be aware if you're

starting with the taskforce

400, the northwest

substation was funded at

7 million, not as

(indiscernible) in the city

manager's 385.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

we are starting with the

taskforce recommendation.

 

So you should start with the

modifications.

So just to make sure

everybody understands what

you're doing.

What the taskforce

modification was and what

your change to it is, what

your change to the taskforce

recommendation is.

>> The taskforce

recommendation for the

northwest substation was

$12,733,000.

 

I am requesting that we

reduce it by $6,900,000 to

$5,833,000 to provide for

land acquisition and design.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

ended up with the same

amount of dollars as a the

city manager's and

councilmember martinez's

recommendation.

 

Okay.

 

The next proposed reduction

is to the park patrol

facility, reduce by

$1,700,000 to 3 million.

And it is in accordance with

I believe the direction from

councilmember morrison and

with a direction to explore

a possibility for a mounted

patrol facility.

 

And then I'll move to the

emmitt shelton bridge on red

bud isle -- red bud trail,

which the staff

recommendation was five

million, according to

lazarus, to reduce two

million to three million

with the understanding as

was discussed that the

preliminary design work will

begin and we will look for

other funding options and

consider other -- for

another bond package.

 

Hopefully we will not the

way that long.

But to do the design work.

Now I am going to move to

some items that definitely

may need some further

discussion.

 

Austin studios, I am making

a recommends of five million

dollars, in accordance with

the city manager's plan.

It is about $500,000 less

than what I originally

proposed.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Cole: Let me walk

through it again.

The taskforce recommends was

three million dollars --

taskforce recommendation was

three million dollars.

 

The city manager's plan is

five million dollars.

>> Morrison: The current?

>> Cole: The current city

manager's plan is five

million dollars.

And I have expressed public

support for the five

million, basically $487,000,

that they made in open

session.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: How

much did the taskforce have

in there, three?

So you're raising it to

five.

 

And councilmember martinez's

motion has it at 5.481.

>> Cole: Exactly.

Okay.

And we did barton springs.

The next item for potential

reduction is -- I hope that

councilmember morrison may

have some comments about is

this street reconstruction

project.

 

>> Morrison: Thank you.

 

This is an idea that frank

fernandez put out to us at

our last meeting on the

bonds.

And his suggestion was in

terms of looking for opening

up some funding that we look

at some of the programs that

are going to be sort of an

ongoing program and in

transportation, such as

street reconstruction, and

think about funding a few

years of it now and then

including subsequent amounts

for the remainder of the six

years in what we presume

will be another

transportation bond we put

to the voters hopefully to

be asking them for approval

for rail.

 

And the idea is that we

think now about rounding

that out a little bit so

that we can get sort after

broader interest in people

coming to the polls.

So this would be an

opportunity -- we know we

need ongoing funds.

This would be an opportunity

to basically just defer

asking the voters for some

of the funds.

 

It's currently 40 million

across the board, I believe,

and all the recommendations,

so this would take it down

to 30 million.

 

And then -- and we do that

with the intent that we

cover 10 million or if we

see the need as more in a

couple of years in a

subsequent bond.

>> Cole: I have a question

for --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

have just a comment on that.

I'm not going to support

that proposal for a couple

of reasons.

Number one, street renewal,

we were in a bad mess a few

years ago and we

aggressively adopted a

program to better maintain

our streets.

 

I don't want to reverse that

by underfunding it, number

one.

 

And number 2, if and when

there is a rail election on

the ballot, I think it's

best that that be a stand

alone item.

 

Just so we don't get accused

of funneling too many

unrelated things together.

 

And we know that with regard

to including some funds for

rail and the current

transportation bonds that

was judged to be not

appropriate.

So I don't think it would be

in a subsequent bond package

either.

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I appreciate

your points on that.

 

One is I carefully chose my

words.

I wasn't intending to

suggest that it would have

to be in the same

proposition, but in fact we

could be looking at

another -- a different

proposition for additional

transportation items, and

that's why I said it could

help bring interest in

bringing people to the

polls.

 

So I think that we would

certainly have that

possibility.

 

And then the second is that

the intent here and the

supposition is that we're

not going to reverse our

progress by any means.

 

We're going to be continuing

to do the work that we're

doing and in fact we're

ahead of schedule.

We do have an aggressive

schedule and we're five

years ahead of schedule, so

I thought that in terms of

the amazing demands that we

have across the board that

this as suggested by frank

fernandez, was a possibility

in terms of opening up some

funding.

 

goode looking at

me with furrowed brow.

>> I was going to say

jaundiced eye.

 

[Laughter].

 

>> Just a couple of points.

 

As long as there's funding

in the future, and that's

always an if, we do have a

capacity to spend projects,

but I will make my comment.

 

The goal we set was still

only 80%, which means 20% of

our roadways are in poor or

failing condition.

We set the bar fairly low is

what my point is.

 

So we are being aggressive

and we are on track,

actually ahead of the goal.

 

We've been in different

jurisdictions where the goal

was 10%, so again we set the

bar fairly low.

Anything you're talking

about today we can use as

much funds as we can for

your construction because we

have an aging infrastructure

and it's important to keep

up.

>> Morrison: And I think

did -- did we approve any

money for street

reconstruction in 2010?

 

>> Yes, we did.

 

>> Morrison: Okay.

 

So we had our funding in

2006, so the 2010 i

imagine -- in 2006 we did

not have in mind to do the

2010, so the 2010 money

actually proposal came a

little bit early relative to

what we had planned in 2006.

>> I think it was an

assessment on what the need

was at that time.

And I know there were some

specific items that may be

out of the assessment that

was done to get to whatever

the recommendation was for

2010.

 

>> Morrison: Right.

 

Okay.

 

So for me it just a very --

considering the varied

demands we have, it's a way

that we can I think safely

open up some funding.

 

>> Cole: Mayor?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem, do you want

to go ahead and finish

laying your motion out?

>> Cole: I don't believe

we laid out any particular

funds for the street

reconstruction program.

 

I do believe that it's an

important program and

recognize that we made the

commitment of 80% and we're

trying to maintain that.

 

So in my motion I do not

think at this time I'm going

to include that item because

I think it should be reduced

and I want us to get through

the items that we agree on.

So I'm not going to include

the street reconstruction at

this time.

The next item is an addition

for the dougherty arts

center to add two million

dollars to a total of four

million dollars.

And the staff assessment was

four million.

 

The taskforce recommendation

was two million.

The city manager's proposal

was two million.

 

And I believe what I asked

for before was two million

and I had some support for

that.

An additional two million.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

you want to go from two

million to four million.

>> Cole: Four million.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

>> Cole: Okay, mayor.

 

I think that is the

conclusion of my motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: When

you get to the bottom line,

I assume you've done the

math on this, what is the

total?

>> Cole: Oooh.

Well, you know, I think that

I will have to go and make

that for you because I took

some items from a few other

people and I will -- give me

a second here to do that.

 

Because you want to know the

bottom line that's left.

I know it's under --

>> mayor, can I also add

that what the council is

doing right now is

reallocating dollars to

specific projects.

The actual additional action

that you will have to take

on the ordinance will be

you're going to have to say

specifically the dollar

amount for each proposal,

each proposition.

>> Cole: Total dollar

amount.

 

>> So there will be two

dollar amounts that you need

to be thinking about.

 

I just wanted to add that.

 

>> Cole: The first dollar

amount is that?

>> I'm not sure.

But what I'm saying is

you're doing now the dollar

amounts for each different

item that will go into the

different propositions.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

councilmember martinez's

motion did the same thing.

So he will have to go back

and --

 

>> correct, but you will

have to then go back and

take an action to

specifically itemize a

dollar amount for each

proposition.

I just wanted to add that to

your discussion.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

does that have to be the

motion as passed has to be

modifications to the actual

propositions or today we can

pass a motion that just

includes these changes and

to be rearranged later in

subsequent passing of it?

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

My understanding was that

everything was going to be

on first reading today.

 

And I think it may require

some staff looking at the

numbers to make sure they

all match.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It

may require some looking,

yes.

>> So I wanted to remind

council that you're going to

be dealing with two specific

dollar amounts, rearranging

among the specific projects

and then a final dollar

amount for each proposition.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay, but for our purposes

right now, assuming that all

of these proposed changes to

the substitute motion are

accepted by the second --

 

>> Morrison: With the

understanding we have more

work to do to get to 385.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: But

right now your official

number is 400, 400 million.

 

>> Morrison: Our official

number is 400 with the

amends which I believe --

with the amendments which i

believe takes it down to

398.4.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.

 

So we have --

 

>> Cole: Because we have

not made adjustments to

certain other items like

affordability -- homeless --

I mean, affordable housing.

 

>> Morrison: Yes.

 

With the understanding

there's more work to do and

it wouldn't be the final.

 

>> A couple of things I'll

point out.

One is our staff is here

working on the numbers and

so we should hopefully be

able to get to a number

pretty quickly.

We're here to keep track of

all the discussion.

 

So we're working furiously

on that.

The other one I did want to

mention that going back to

the 400-million-dollar

recommendation and what

we're using to assume is

that we're calculating all

this is that we're going

back to things like the

affordable housing number of

76.8 versus the 63.5.

 

That's in the city manager's

385 million recommendation.

And I already mentioned the

northwest substation going

back to their reduction from

that project and then also

the same for harold court.

So we're assuming that we're

starting there and then

everything that's been

discussed has been kind of

modifications to that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That

is correct.

 

>> Cole: What number are

we at, 390?

6 in

reductions.

 

And then -- again, starting

from the 400.

20.6 In reductions.

7.48 In adds.

And so that's a net of a

reduction of 13.1.

 

So we're looking at we need

8 million in

reductions to get to the

385.

>> Morrison: All right.

Can you list off the

reductions again?

 

>> Tovo: If I could ask

for one clarification for

councilmember cole regarding

the film society.

What is the total number

that you're looking for?

 

>> Five million.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

councilmember tovo, you a

have comment while they're

adding over there and

subtracting?

 

>>

 

>> Tovo: I do.

 

I'll say by my

calculations -- I won't try

to do that, but we're still

pretty close to this.

We didn't have an

opportunity to lay it out

but I'll make a few comments

about it because I'm about

to make a few suggested

amendments to the motion on

the table.

[One moment, please, for

change in captioners]

 

>> one is the one that you've

just included, the dougherty

arts center, boosting that, so

we can really move forward in

getting something done, but

2 million to housing

affordability and I am sorry

mchorse laughed and I was

glad to see him here and wanted

him to come up and speak and

echo and many of the groups

represented by those of you in

this room can speak very

powerfully, I think, to the

enormous need for affordable

housing in our community and i

think we need to get that number

up to 80 and I think we can do

it if we look carefully at some

of the other proposed reductions

in here.

 

One that I think jives with

council member martinez's

proposed reduction is ih-35

improvement, so I would like to

propose a substitute

amendment -- or just an

amendment, sorry, so reduce that

figure by 6 million, it takes us

to 15 million and if you look at

council member martinez proposal

that he has laid out, all of the

recommendations get us to --

well, anyway, he has proposed

reducing from the city manager's

7 million

down to 15 million, which would

7, the task

force recommended 21 million so

it gives us a 6 million-dollar

reduction from the task force so

I would like to propose we bring

ih-35 improvements down to

$15 million, which will net a

$6 million in the task force

proposal.

 

>> Cole: I do not consider that

a friendly amendment, and I did

not lay ih-35 on the table

because I thought that would

generate significant discussion

and it merits that and also

testimony from staff, so it's

not that I am not -- I have not

decided what I would support,

but I know that I would not

support the numbers that have

currently been laid on the

table, and that's the reason,

but we can of course vote on the

amendment.

 

>> Tovo: Sure.

 

And that was, again, something

that frank fernandez mentioned

as a possible reduction and,

again, it is not a --

are you

making a motion for an

amendment?

 

>> Tovo: Yes, I am.

 

is there

a second for that?

Motion dies for lack of a

second.

 

>> Tovo: Okay.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: move on.

 

>> Tovo: And I have another one,

and that is the addition of the

ada accessible fishing pier in

the amount of $150,000, and i

will go ahead and make that as a

formal motion and say I think it

is another critical need.

 

It's not a lot of money.

 

that is

in council member martinez

motion, also.

 

>> Tovo: And that's right and it

adds important values in our

community.

 

and

council member tovo to add in

$150,000 for the ada accessible

fishing pier.

Is there a second for that.

>> Morrison: Yes.

second by

council member morrison.

 

>> Cole: I will accept that,

mayor.

it's

already a motion, all right.

 

>> Cole: I didn't get it --

all those

"

 

aye.

 

Opposed.

 

Say no, 6-0, with council member

spelman off the dyas.

So it is part of your motion

now, whether you like it or not.

 

>> Cole: I forget to say

friendly.

Okay.

>> Tovo: So a couple of more.

I would like to make the

friendly amendment that we,

though, I am going to need some

help on reduction since we

rejected the couple on here that

would net us the savings

possible to do this but I would

like to make the friendly

amendment that we had in a

million dollars for thard south

district maintenance facility.

Currently there is $1 million in

the task force recommendation,

city manager, you might have to

remind me where you came in on

this.

I don't have that document, but

in any case, in the memo we just

received from the city manager,

there was a suggestion that

really to get this project down,

we need 2 millionish, and i

think it is a critical need and

I see director hensley here that

can probably speak to it but i

propose we add that in as a

friendly amendment, $1 million

taking it to.

 

that is

an additional million.

>> Tovo: That's right.

Now it is in for 0 in the task

force and I suggest we had in a

million dollars for the respect

of due scoping the project, so

it is equipment shelter, so we

are protecting our investment in

the shelter.

>> Cole: I do consider that

friendly.

 

friendly

amendment is adopted as part of

the motion in noting that has no

offset so that's added to the

total.

 

>> Tovo: Well, I will put one

offset in.

I will suggest one offset.

I would like to propose as a

friendly amendment, reluctantly

eliminating oster to minor trail

two $1 million for the

suggestion it be included in

future transportation bond or

another possibility would be to

identify funds within our other

pockets that are included in

this bond proposal for this

trail.

>> Cole: I will accept that as

friendly, also.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

 

Part of the motion -- substitute

motion.

>> Tovo: One last addition, but

an important one, I would -- i

propose we add and I would like

to suggest this as a friendly

amendment, that we add

2 millions to the task force

recommendation for housing

affordability funds in the

affordable housing category.

That would bring total to 80.

As you know the task force

looked at this issue again and

again and recommended higher

levels of funding.

 

We've got huge, huge needs in

our community and I think it's

critical that we have enough

funding in that budget to be

able to do permanent supportive

housing, to really make a strong

effort in that to do the kind of

emergency work and emergency

shelter that we -- I had the

privilege of going with you,

mayor pro tem cole, to florida

to see in action at the chapman

partnership to be able to really

fund at a higher level our home

repair program which is so

critical to the seniors in our

community.

 

I think at a minimum we need

$80 million in that program and

I wish it were 100.

 

the

2 million for

affordable housing.

 

Is that acceptable as a friendly

amendment?

>> Cole: It is acceptable, with

the understanding that ed mccord

testified that they needed at a

7 million now and an

additional, I don't remember,

into the future to complete our

goals in the csh study, so i

want us to set that as a goal as

we add money to this pot.

>> Tovo: I understand and i

appreciate your --

is it

accepted and second?

 

>> Cole: Yes.

 

>> Tovo: And appreciate you

accepting that and I think this

brings us pretty close to our

proposal.

By my calculation, I think we

need to find -- we need to find

$18 million and there are some

ideas for that in council member

martinez's proposal.

I mean that's my on the spot

calculation but these numbers

worked out.

could i

ask the staff what is your

number -- what is this --

number our total

number is 399,750,000, with a

difference of 14,750,000 to get

to a 385 package.

>> Tovo: Great.

Thank you.

That's pretty close for a

liberal arts major, by my

calculations.

And I would say council member

martinez in your proposal you

suggested deductions, one is the

harold court facility.

 

I know we heard testimony last

week about employees who are,

you know, really in substandard

working conditions but I also

lasurus say there is a

potential of offsetting the cost

of some of that work through the

transportation funds.

Anyway, I am going to yield the

floor, but, say, boy it would be

great if one of my colleagues

could suggest a reduction.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

 

75 million

substitute motion on the table,

which is.

 

We will vote on the substitute

motion first.

Council member riley.

>> Riley: I want to ask about

one item, that is the dougherty

arts center.

The task force recommended

2 million, the city manager has

agreed with the 2 million-dollar

figure.

 

The number we got yesterday, the

reasoning on that, which is that

the project -- obviously you

aren't going to be able to

rebuild a facility for 2 million

or even 4 million, for that

matter.

 

The idea is this would be

architectural services and we

would find a way to work with a

partnering, entitying agency to

work with that but that is still

in development.

Any potential site still needs

to be identified, so the

2 million-dollar recommendation

was -- was based on the idea of

just keeping the project moving

forward and continuing to

identify potential partners and

funding strategies, so with that

in mind, I just wanted to ask

why we would be boosting that up

to -- to 4 million in the

absence of a clear partnering

strategy or a side on that?

What would be getting for

that --

 

>> Cole: I think --

 

>> Riley: May I finish?

 

What would we be getting for

additional 2 million that we

wouldn't left for the $2 million

that the manager and the task

force have recommended?

 

>> Cole: Well, I believe that --

sarah hensley is coming up and i

believe they are working very,

very hard and having some

success with partners and the

dougherty arts center actually

has a board and others that are

working, because they know it's

a priority item for us.

 

..

 

>> Sarah hensley, director of

parks and recreation.

I think to answer your question,

council member riley, I think

what was in there certainly will

work for us to try to look at a

partnership.

Any additional dollars will help

us as far as however far we are

able to expand with a

partnership.

 

We have to bring dollars to the

table.

You are absolutely correct in

that we haven't currently

identified a set partnership but

mayor pro tem is also correct in

the fact that we are very close

in identifying a partner,

hopefully and even possibly a

site, but with that means if any

site we bring means major

renovations to the tune of

possibly structural internal

changes, whether it is utility

like that sos whether it is

2 million or 4 million, we need

every bit of that to bring it

together for a partnership in an

existing facility.

>> So with that, I have just --

have some appointments set and

more talking to -- the problem

that we have at dougherty is

just gray and I think we are

getting on the verge of

beginning to work some things

out with private partners and

other governmental entities and

things like that so I think we

need extra funding at this time

to be able to settle that.

 

>> Martinez: Mayor.

 

council

member martinez.

>> Martinez: I was going to

state that I won't be able to

support the substitute motion.

It, obviously without further --

without further $19 million

worth of reductions, it does

cause a tax increase, which the

motion maker committed to

actually not making next week

when discussion, but more

importantly than that, while it

is, as all of our attempts, it

is a valiant attempt at

addressing many concerns and

projects that have been brought

to us.

It leaves most of them short.

It leaves 51st street vision

plan short.

 

It leaves the women's shelter

short on their request.

It leaves the bathhouse short.

It leaves the austin studios

short by almost a half million

dollars.

And then I believe there was --

mexiscart is left out and i

believe a parks facility is out

and left short but for that

reason and others and more

specifically we are still at

about $400 million in this

proposal, I can't support it,

but if we get back to the main

motion, obviously I am more than

happy to entertain amendments to

that main motion that could

create further capacity, such as

the shelton bridge and other

things that have been identified

and be allocated elsewhere.

 

and

likewise, I am not going to

support the substitute motion

because I think it starts off

off in the wrong place and that

esa at $400 million and I think

the priorities that I have

talked about are included in the

main motion, which I will

support, and are not included in

the substitute motion.

 

>> Tovo: Mayor.

 

so with

that -- council member tovo.

>> Tovo: It's critical to me to

try to get down to 385 and if we

are going to try to do this here

today, I would just say, you

know, it was a goal of the

motion makers, too, so I think

we've got a day or two to keep

thinking about it but in the

interest of trying to get down

to 385, I am going to suggest

another amendment, and that is,

to remove harold court from --

from the bond proposal, and that

would be a reduction of

$11 million.

I think that gets us down to

388.

 

I agree that it's a necessary

project and I would hope that it

can be offset, that they can

continue to make progress on

that through the transportation

fund as we discussed last week.

I would rather do a less harsh

reduction but this is the best i

can do here on the spot.

That gets us to 388, and I would

add -- so I will make that

suggestion as a friendly

amendment and then I have got

another for consideration.

>> Cole: I will definitely

accept that because it is

definitely my goal for us to get

to the 385 where it's as close

as possible and I guess we need

a second on that amendment.

 

>> Morrison: I accept that.

 

if you

accept it as friendly, and

council member morrison accepts

it as friendly, then it's part

of the motion.

 

>> Cole: Okay.

 

city

manager.

>> Ott: Thank you, mayor, i

guess I do want to speak to

harold court.

You heard howard the other day,

that facility is in pretty

severe conditions.

I know that from working with

howard and the staff and I know

from working out of that

facility with the crews in the

street.

It is in deplorable condition.

Howard did make some comments

the last time about some options

but nothing that will come close

to providing anything close to

an adequate remedy, so I -- with

your permission, mayor, I would

like howard to come back up here

and talk about that once again

in terms of the need and to

provide some additional

explanation as to what you meant

about -- about having some

options.

I would simply be remiss on

behalf of the employees if i

didn't address this issue.

>> If I can go back a little bit

in recent history.

 

We started out with a facility

request when we went to the bond

election advisory task force of

about $22 million to address our

facilities.

 

Through discussions and

creativity, we were able to get

that down to about $16 million.

 

In discussions after that,

the -- we looked at what we

could reasonably carry as a

payment over 20 years through

transportation fund and not have

a terribly significant impact on

our street maintenance program

and that's where that last

$4 million came from.

 

The unfortunate part and to be

really blunt about this is we

were put in a position of either

taking a cut from that project

or not being in the program at

all, so getting down to the

11 million plus that's in there

now is really the bottom line,

that the fund can afford.

 

In support of what the city

manager said, I do have some

photographs here of what the

site looks like, and the service

center is home to the majority

of our field operations, as we

said last week.

 

And I won't go through -- repeat

what I said last week but it

does address both public works

and transportation.

It's totally inadequate

facility.

 

It has none of the employees'

support needs that other

facilities have in other

departments, and I will show you

some of the photos because these

facilities are not economically

repairable.

 

This is our overlay section

facility.

What that amounts to is a shack

built on top of an asphalt

pavement.

There is no adequate means for

us us to charter message boards.

 

There are no locker facilities

and it is not heat or cooled

properly and inadequate

you see the crews in

the bottom left hand corner

pulled together for themselves.

The utility structure are a

bunch of old trailers that were

salvages an not repairable any

longer and even though the crews

have done things to try to

improve those.

 

As you see on the picture on the

left, we don't have a place to

store the materials.

 

I mentioned that portland cement

is subject to being ruined if

left out in the weather.

 

Sand is subject to variations in

moisture content which impacts

concrete mix design.

 

Storage, just to reemphasize,

you can see we have really

inadequate places to store

materials and equipment and do

make ready, so what we came down

with was a cost just for harold

court replacement, $16 million

and you can see what sections it

houses.

 

The $5 million, that got taken

off of that, essentially amounts

to over 20 years to a tradeoff

between some lane miles we could

do versus funding in the new

facility.

But if we don't provide the new

facility over the long-term, our

ability to provide maintenance

activities on our right-of-way

is going to be severely

diminished.

 

I also add that as we look at

council direction, some ways as

to whether it's more economical

to keep some services in house

versus contracting.

 

We don't really have anyplace to

put anymore staff.

So that's something to consider

as well, as we look at the

economic tradeoffs.

So in support of what the

manager said, that $11 million

that's in there is the lowest

amount of money that we can have

and that project remains

feasible and it will have some

impact on -- on funding as we

look at it in the future in the

transportation fund, but just

to, again, reemphasize, we

cannot absorb 11,

12 million-dollar hit to the

fund for this project.

It will have an unacceptable

impact on our ability to deliver

preventative maintenance

services throughout the city, as

will not providing the facility

have an unacceptable impact on

our ability to provide

maintenance services throughout

the city.

so that

is a pretty significant fact

there, that without this

$11 million for this facility,

other parts of the

transportation bond package and

other facility projects will be

significantly affected?

 

>> Mayor, what this will do, is

funding for maintenance comes

out of the transportation fund,

so with out this facility,

that's what will be impacted.

 

With the capital work we talked

about, the bond is done

primarily through contract,

except for sidewalk work which

we do a lot of it in house.

 

The difference in the funding is

just that the transportation

dollars that come out of the

fund necessarily to support the

project will take away from the

maintenance.

i

understand.

 

But it significantly impairs

your ability to do the necessary

work, wherever those source of

funds is on our roads throughout

the city?

 

>> That's correct.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor.

 

Sorry.

 

and i

just want to -- you might have a

very quick comment on this.

 

As long as you were on this

item, but i-35, I think

transportation is probably our

most critical need in this city,

transportation improvements.

 

And among all of the

transportation projects, the

most significant project is

i-35.

That's where our biggest problem

is.

 

We've talked about all of the

statistics that are, you know,

the fourth most congested road

segment in the entire nation, et

cetera, et cetera, and so to

start off with -- I know the

initial assessment on i-35 is

hutch much higher than it

already is now.

 

It's already -- I can't support

additional reductions in that.

I haven't flushed all of this

out, but I do know the course we

are on, the capital area mpo has

allocated, actually loaned money

for construction of managed

lanes on mopac because that

project is shovel ready right

now.

 

We had the ability to do that

because it was shovel ready.

A lot of advantages that I am

not going to go into now, but

the thinking on the mpo is that

if we have design projects ready

to go on i-35, if the

engineering is done and design

is complete, when that money is

paid back from the mopac project

in just a few years,

potentially, that could be used

to actually fund the building of

these i-35 improvements which,

as I said, we need more than

anything else, so, again, I am

not going to be able to support

that part of the substitute

motion, either.

>> Cole: That's not in the

substitute.

 

>> Morrison: It's not in right

now.

I know,

but I am -- the part we are

talking about.

>> Cole: The harold court.

Okay.

I are have a question because

kathie last time you suggested

reduction of only 5 million but

howard, I hear you saying you

can't do it with 5 million,

either, or can you do any design

work?

>> Additional estimate for

harold court facility was

$16 million.

I think what you started with

which is task force

recommendation has put

$5 million out so it is down to

$11 million in change that i

just showed on the -- on the

slide.

>> Cole: Okay.

Well, I will not accept that as

friendly, but I will make a

suggestion that we reuse the

urban rail planning money, the

$2 million as a potential

reduction.

 

>> I am sorry, mayor pro tem,

you don't have that many to use

because if you go back to 400

recommendation from the task

force, that was not included in

the line item, it was only

offered up as modification to

the 385 recommendation.

>> Morrison: Mayor, if I may.

council

member morrison.

 

>> Morrison: But on the other --

thank you for that, so we don't

have that to use as a reduction.

 

However, we do have, from the --

from city manager's memo, as

council member martinez

mentioned, there are -- there

are some items that were

suggested for rearrangement by

the city manager that are sort

of available for adjustment in

the task force that we are

working from right now and if i

am correct, I think that is the

$2 million -- well, the bicycle

urban trail and grant match is

actually at 5 million and the

task force recommendation as

opposed to 6, but we can still

think about including the violet

crown -- we could still reduce

that by 2 million, I guess is

the point.

So we could offer that as a

reduction and the other that's

still is viable with our

starting point is the idea of

the city wide bike ways program,

which I think is a60 or a59, to

think about e 51st street being

covered somewhat by that.

 

>> Cole: So what -- how much are

you wanting to include or reduce

by?

 

>> Morrison: So that actually is

5 million in reduction,

combined from those two line

items, so the -- the amendment i

am proposing here is to reduce

bicycle urban trail and grant

match by 2 million, and to

reduce city wide bike ways by

5, with the understanding that

we are actually doing trails and

bike-ways with these specified

projects.

do you

accept that, mayor pro tem?

 

>> Cole: Yes, I do.

 

>> Morrison: So that is another

3.5 in reduction -- reduction.

>> Cole: And we also have an

item for minor bridge culverts

construction that was at the

task force recommendation of

2,100,000, and I would suggest

that we not do that item.

 

It was minor bridge culverts and

structures.

I am sorry, mayor.

1

out of the transportation.

 

>> Cole: 1.7.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: 1.7.

 

council

member morrison do you accept

that?

 

Would you like to hear from.

 

>> Morrison: I would like to

hear from staff.

>> Mayor leffingwell:

martinez would you like to

hear from staff or would you

like to make a comment.

 

>> Martinez: I would like to

make a comment.

It seems like we are going down

the list and trying to find

reductions and while i

appreciate trying to get to the

385, my preference would be that

we continue to work on this, on

second and third reading as

opposed to just going down and

willy-nilly selecting items that

look like that can get us to

385, and with all due respect

with robert rules of order,

everybody has had an opportunity

to speak for or against this

item and it would be within

order to call the question on

this motion, but I appreciate

and respect the work that you

all are trying to do.

I understand it.

But I just feel like we are

piecemealing now.

 

There is no cohesiveness to the

proposal.

It is simply trying to get down

to 385 so we can take a vote and

I won't be supporting that.

I won't call the question for

now but it seems to keep going

on.

I do

think we need to get some

resolution because we need to

get a motion on the table on

first reading today so that we

can meet our critical time level

before the 20th, when we have to

have all of this done.

 

There will be opportunity to

make these change

recommendations on subsequent

readings, which ever motion

passes, and so I would urge you

to go ahead and lay your motion

on the table for a vote.

 

If you have got specific

recommendations --

>> Cole: Mayor, I will do that.

and not

go down the list looking for

things.

>> Cole: Mayor, I would say the

recommendations I have made

since the question of going over

the tax rate, I will not in the

end support a motion that

exceeds the 385 and results in a

tax increase, and the items

since then that I have suggested

have not been willy-nilly.

They have just been on my list

of potential items.

 

I would like to ask for a final

number, if we have it, and then

I am ready for us to vote.

 

Yes, shelby.

 

>> If you wouldn't mind, if i

can get clarification in the

reduction in minor bridges,

culverts and structures, is it

the full amount of 2.1.

 

that has

not yet been accepted.

>> Cole: Yes.

It has not yet been accepted.

it has not yet

been accept and you don't accept

it.

Okay.

>> The core reduction -- the

core was it was accepted as

friend lid and has been removed

in your motion.

 

Mayor pro tem, we just want to

clarify.

>> Morrison: Is harold court in

or out.

 

>> Cole: For first reading only.

 

Yes.

 

For first reading only.

 

I think we need to do work with

staff and actually visit the

facility.

 

>> Morrison: It is included

or --

the

reduction --

[multiple voices]

 

>> mayor leffingwell: okay.

 

Everyone, please.

 

The reduction is included -- was

accepted and is part of the

motion at this point.

 

>> Point of order, mayor.

 

council

member martinez raises a point

of order.

 

>> Martinez: There was a

friendly amendment to remove

harold court completely from the

mayor pro tem's proposal.

She entertained that after the

presentation.

 

She made a comment that she did

not accept it as friendly.

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

That was the question I is and

the answer I got was contrary to

that.

Council member -- mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: Let me be clear.

>> Mayor leffingwell: be clear.

>> Cole: At this point, I will

entertain that motion on first

reading.

I do believe we have additional

work to do with staff based on

staff testimony.

does that

mean do you accept it?

 

>> Cole: I do accept it.

 

you

accept it, so it's removed.

It's removed from the substitute

motion.

 

Council member morrison.

 

>> Morrison: Thank you, mayor.

 

I want to step back a minute and

say of course I am going to

support this motion.

 

I do hope that some of the task

force members are watching us or

will go back and watch this

because they get to now

experience us going through the

excruciating deliberations that

they did week after week after

week, and I think that we get to

experience that now.

 

For me, it is absolutely

paramount that we give them the

respect for the work that they

did and I think we obviously

have to adjust and I think -- i

hear everybody saying they want

to stick -- to get to 385, but

for me, it is paramount that we

start with theirs, with their

recommendation and adjust it to

get down to 385.

 

They are the ones that brought

the -- that wove together the

staff recommendations, the

perspective from inside the

city, and the community -- the

community's perspective from

outside the city.

 

If we were to begin, with all

due respect to the city manager

and I appreciate the work that

he did in attempting to put

together something that

addresses some of the issues

that we brought up -- that were

brought up, if we were to

basically throw out the task

force work and start with the

city manager's recommendations,

I don't know how we can ever go

and ask our citizens to come and

sit and volunteer their

expertise and their passion for

the community for hours on end

if we are not going to at least

start from there -- from their

work and give their work a nod,

so I just want to sort of lay

that out there, that I am --

there is a lot of things that i

think are important, a lot of

priorities that aren't in here.

My main priority is starting

from the task force.

 

any other

comments?

Counci tovo.

>> Tovo: Just a quick one, that

I think the funding reduces

ih-35 down to 15 million, is

what I thought but maybe we can

get clarity on that if we go

back to the main motion but i

want to say one of the things i

think the task force did with

community projects and I think

that is where we have -- we

don't yet have the consensus on

the community project money but

it seems like they heard them,

they considered a wider range.

 

They arrived on some really

significant community projects

that deserve funding and i

regret that we are in the

substitute motion, we are not

proposing as much funding as

those groups have requested.

 

I wish there were more funding

available to do so because they

are very worthy organizations

and I flow they will use it

wisely for the benefit of our

community, but it is a balancing

act and I believe we also need

to fund our city facilities.

I want to say on that note, i

hope we can do some more

thinking about harold court

because it does sound like it

needs to be back in there but we

are going to have to look hard

at some of the other reductions

lasarus said

about not being able to defer

that work with much funding with

the transportation fund, based

on our conversation the other

day, it sounded likes the more

possible than it did today but i

want to continue talking to

staff about that.

 

But to me, it is balance.

 

It's not going to get all of the

community projects in particular

completed but I guess I do -- i

say that in specific items

response before that the

proposal is allowing a little

bit of funding but not actually

allowing them to be complete but

I think the seed money will

allow the groups to go out and

get additional funding and i

know it was a challenge and goal

of the task force to provide

some money to allow them to

leverage other funds and I think

that respects that intent.

>> Cole: Mayor, I want to be

clear.

 

mayor pro

tem.

>> Cole: I want to be clear this

motion does not include the i-35

reduction.

Okay.

>> Mayor, if it makes sense,

would it be okay if my staff

goes through where we are at

right now based on the

discussions as far as adds and

discussions?

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: sure.

 

Sure.

 

>> Okay.

 

I am going to go through

additions first and then

reductions, if that's okay.

 

I have an addition of 2 million

for austin film studios, an

addition of 2 million for women

and children's shelter.

An addition of 2 million --

2 million for dougherty arts

center, an addition of

2 million for affordable

housing, an addition of 150,000

for ada wheelchair accessible

fishing pier, an addition of

1 million for barton springs

pool master plan, an addition of

1 million for south district

maintenance facility.

Now, reductions, I have a

reduction -- excuse me --

 

>> Cole: What happened to east

51st street.

>> I don't have east 51st street

in there.

 

>> Was it 2 million or

1 million?

>> It is an additional of

1 million from the task force on

that package.

Okay.

Now.

Reductions, I have a reduction

of 2 million for the bicycle

urban frames and grant match.

5 million for

city wide bike-ways.

 

9 million for

northwest substation, a

077 for harold

court, a reduction of 1 million

for austin and manor trails and

reduction of 2 million for amor

shelton bridge and reduction of

2 million for park patrol

facility and that's all of the

reductions I have.

let me

just say before we vote that i

certainly respect the work of

the task force and appreciate

the sacrifice they have made and

the hours they have put in and

their recommendations certainly

have been taken into account and

there are a lot of similarities

between the two recommendations.

 

It's just a matter of where --

where do you start from and i

think it's easier to start from

the point where you are going to

end up which is the

$385 million, but certainly all

of the modifications that you go

through, the task force

recommendation has been and will

continue to be taken into

account when those decisions are

made.

I am going to vote against the

substitute motion and for the

main motion, if we get to that

point, if the substitute motion

doesn't pass.

With that, you know, that

doesn't mean I support

absolutely everything in the

main motion.

 

I anticipate trying to make some

changes to it.

Not today but on subsequent

readings so there is still a

work in progress.

And, finally, I i don't want to

filibuster here, but we keep in

mind that this is a -- it has

been a difficult process,

because the needs are so great

and there are so many.

 

I would say that I haven't seen

a single proposal that doesn't

have merit and that money

available, I would like to

see -- I would like to see

included in a bond package, but

given the constraints that we

are operating with, we have to

make those difficult choices,

and that's what we are about to

do on a preliminary basis right

here today.

So all those in favor, say

"aye." of the substitute motion.

 

Oppose say no?

 

No.

 

The motion fails on vote of 3-3,

with council member riley,

council member martinez and

myself voting no.

That brings us to the main

motion, and do you want to go

through that same exercise of

the main motion?

 

It might be helpful if you say

adding and that brings the total

..

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

I have an addition of 2 million

for violet crown trail, an

5 million for east

51st street, an addition of

5,481,000 for austin film

studio.

An addition of 5 million for

mexico museum.

 

An addition of 2 million for bar

torn springs bathhouse.

An addition of 7 million for the

neighborhood partnering program.

 

An addition of 2,850,000 for

homeless women and children's

shelter.

 

An addition of 150,000 for ada

wheelchair accessible fishing

5 million

for the fire station on loop

360.

 

And that's all the additions i

have.

Reductions, I have reduction of

2 million for bicycle trail

urban trails grant match.

again,

what does that leave us with,

after you made the reduction?

Do you have that?

>> It is a little more

complicated.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: go ahead.

 

We will just have to figure out

that part out later.

>> Okay.

>> Okay.

We have a discrepancy, is the

reduction of 2 million part of

the bicycle --

>> Martinez: That was not part

of my proposal.

 

reduction

of 2 million for the --

>> reduction of 2 million for

the urban corridor project?

 

>> No.

 

Do you want me to read them

again.

>> No.

I think what the problem is now.

Let me try one more time.

Okay.

A reduction of 9,933,000 for

northwest substation.

 

A reduction of 5,048,000 for

a reduction of

2 million for thard recreation

facility.

A -- the pard recreation

facility.

 

3.7 For i-35, reduction.

 

>> Martinez: Right.

 

You are right.

 

You were going off the memo in

the --

>> and I didn't catch the change

with this one.

 

>> Martinez: The additional 5.5.

 

>> But we do have a note that

urban rail is included so urban

rail is in there.

 

>> So we will put the urban rail

down.

>> Martinez: Sorry, you were

correct the first two proposals

came from the city manager's

proposal.

 

They weren't from mine but i

adopted from the city manager

and they were the urban rail and

the urban rail and grant match

program.

 

>> And it also holds true for

the city wide bike-ways,

1.5 million?

 

>> Martinez: Yes, it does.

 

>> Let me add those back in real

quick.

>> Martinez: Sorry.

>> That gives us total bond

package of 384,948,000.

 

Yes.

 

>> Martinez: You can keep the

change, mayor.

[Laughter]

actually,

I have big plans for that

remaining amount here, so we

will talk about them tomorrow.

>> Cole: Mayor, can i.

>> Mayor, can i, and on what i

said earlier about what the

actual two items that you need

to do, what you have done is you

have gone through and you

considered taking action on the

specific projects which would

then make up each proposition

but my bond lawyers tell me

specifically what you also need

to don't first reading today is

on the propositions say what the

total amount will be.

That's the ordinance that's

actually before you, and just

like you can go in and change

individual items tomorrow,

thursday, or if we have a

special call meeting, you can

also then go in and change those

amounts but will we actually

need a first reading on, and i

assume staff has that

proposition 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,

18, 19, those total amounts for

each of the different bundled

propositions.

 

So that would be included in any

motion that would be made.

do you

have those totals available?

 

>> We can, once you make a

motion, and a motion passes, we

can --

we will

go back.

 

>> Yes, we will take a few

minutes to calculate those.

I guess one question I have is

could there be -- and this is

for the city manager, could

there be a -- for the city

attorney, could there be for

passing the overall bond package

and we bring them back by

proposition tomorrow to review

those amounts.

she just

said no.

 

>> No, no, I was just talking

[indiscernible]

>> Cole: Mayor, can I ask a

question.

 

yes, go

ahead.

>> Cole: I am not clear on what

the final number was on the

motion that I made.

>> The motion you made, the

final number was 386,173,000.

 

so the

..

At any rate, I think the best

way to proceed would be to vote

on this main motion and then i

guess the posting is adequate

for us to vote on an alignment

within the various propositions

after that.

>> Yes, I think that's correct.

If you are voting on the

proposition and you've got the

total dollars and then you can

vote that on first reading and

then presumably staff can do the

calculation to make sure that

the dollars are in the right

places, which you would need to

vote on, but that would have to

have then -- because those

amounts will not have an

opportunity for three readings,

and your schedule is currently

envisioned, you would need at

least five votes.

can we do

that today?

 

>> If you do it tomorrow or

thursday, you need to have at

least five votes on those

amounts.

it is

pretty risky.

 

[Laughter]

 

>> and let me -- I am thinking

on my feet here, trying to help.

There is a provision in the open

meetings act that allows the

council to recess the meeting

without reposting that agenda if

you do it to the next meeting

and I see my lawyers back there

getting nervous, so if maybe we

could recess this meeting with

something tentatively a number,

we still might have three

readings.

>> We can calculate it by

proposition base but we will

need five minutes to tally it

up.

 

let's do

it that way, rather

wonder -- rather than wandering

in unchartered area here.

Council member martinez.

>> Martinez: Do we need to adopt

a motion with the specific

reallocations so they can

know --

after we,

assuming that the main motion

does pass, then they are going

to take five minutes and put all

of those modifications in the

right slots and come back with a

suggested, to do it, proposition

by proposition and a we can take

it all at the same time, i

suppose.

 

Okay.

 

So now we have the main motion

before us.

The motion is to approve this on

first reading.

 

"

 

yay.

 

Opposed say no.

 

So that motion fails on a vote

of 3-3.

, With council members tovo,

morrison and mayor pro tem

voting no, and I am afraid that

puts us into special call

meeting territory possibly this

weekend.

 

>> Yes, sir, that's what we were

going to -- either -- of course

we have friday, saturday, sunday

or monday.

Monday is the last official day

to call the election and so it

does now put us into special

call meeting because we are

going to have to have three

readings on the ordinance.

 

>> Yes.

 

so the

plan is tomorrow, second

reading, that's right?

 

>> We don't have a first

reading.

first

reading tomorrow?

 

>> Well, maybe.

 

I am just trying to think -- we

are posted for tomorrow and

thursday and so I was looking at

the days and say we don't do

anything tomorrow, then we -- we

what we are running out of time

is posting notice for the

special call meeting for all the

other days we have available.

 

We need 72 hours so if we were

going to call a meeting on

friday, we need to post -- well,

sometime today, and that would

be late friday.

 

If we are going to have a

meeting saturday, we are okay,

or sunday, or monday, we are

okay.

But we --

why don't

we just work this out after the

meeting and see what -- what the

best course of action is.

>> Well, under the charter, the

mayor can call a special call

meeting or any two council

members, the way our practice

has been, it is generally been

the mayor, but if you want to

have a discussion about that, i

think we -- we can always have a

discussion without it being

posted about a future meeting

and putting items on a future

meeting.

 

So if you want to have a

discussion about that, you can,

and give directions then.

 

council

member morrison.

>> Morrison: I would just like

to suggest that we think about

posting for a friday afternoon

meeting, where that keeps our

options open to whatever happens

tomorrow as we are getting down

the line.

Certainly --

we

certainly will think about that.

There is another meeting that is

scheduled from 1 to 3 on friday,

but of course that can be

postponed or canceled, but any

other suggestions?

Friday afternoon is one

suggestion.

 

>> Cole: Friday morning.

 

>> Mayor pro tem we are outside

the 72 deadline for friday

morning deadline right now.

 

we can't

start before 1:00 p.m.

>> Yes, and that would mean we

would have to get it -- john is

coming up here quickly.

council

member tovo.

 

>> Tovo: Mayor I think it would

be great to get special called

meetings on the calendar so we

have that option if we need

them, even if it means setting

'em up for friday, saturday,

sunday, monday and so we make

sure we can get them done in

time.

 

that's

what we are doing right now.

>> There is another legal issue

which is on the agenda today

which is to set the ballot

order, maybe if we can do that

without the bonds, we could have

that issue on the first reading

taking care of, because -- taken

care of -- sorry, on second

reading taken care of.

>> All three.

>> All three.

Okay.

As you will recall, we have

already passed other charter

amendments and we had never set

the ballot, so if we can somehow

get that taken care of today,

that would be helpful and then

we can just focus on the bond

issues and then we amend that

valid order once that is

determined.

 

>> Let me flow when you are

read -- let me know when you are

ready for b1.

 

we are

readily.

>> Agenda item b1 is an

amendment to the call of the

ordinance that calls the

election.

 

We have in yellow copy today

that will be handed out in just

a moment an ordinance that lists

out the 11 propositions that

council has placed on the

ballot, and it shows the

language and the order and this

will be an amendment to the

order calling the election and

that will be handed out in a

moment.

 

We apologize.

 

Staff was careful to create

yellow copy but it didn't copy

both sides so we need to that

come in and we will have a copy.

That is the only changes we are

proposing for b1.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor.

 

>> Can you read the order until

we get the copies?

>> Morrison: Okay, may I ask

something.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: yes.

 

>> Morrison: One of the things i

wanted to ask our staff is the

issue of getting assessments of

fiscal impacts of charter

amendments we are putting on the

ballot, whether or not they

would have the fiscal impact and

what the fiscal impact would be,

and I understand that actually

that's part of the usual

routine, so I wanted to hear

what we might expect in that

regard.

 

>> Sure, the state law requires

that all charter amendments

include their fiscal impact in

the newspaper notice that we

publish in the month before the

election.

So if staff has done an

assessment of the items we

anticipate will have a fiscal

impact.

 

Two items you have seen the

fiscal note for.

You have seen the fiscal note

for 10-1, and the fiscal note

for 8-2-1.

The item that is the personnel

civil service, the fiscal note

for that is being done now.

As you know, there were several

amendments made last council

meeting during the course of the

day to the ordinance and that

had a significant effect on the

fiscal impact document so that

is being worked on.

And then the two made to

november -- the two may to

november items are assessed to

have a savings to the city due

to reduced election costings of

$255,000 per election cycle, so

those are assessments that if

any news team has made.

 

Would you like to add anything

to that?

>> No.

>> Morrison: So I understand, it

will be part of our call for the

election and the notice of our

election.

 

I don't

think your mic is on?

>> Morrison: So there will be a

formal rollout of these?

 

Is there a way that information

will be made available?

Because I know there has been

some public discussion and so

you say that, for instance, that

the 8-2 and the 10-1 fiscal note

were part of q and a but that's

not publically available?

 

>> It is publically available.

 

That backup was done yellow copy

on the day they passed.

So those are online now.

>> Morrison: Great.

Do you know what the day would

be?

 

I am just trying to figure out

how to tell people how to find

it?

 

>> Sure.

 

The 10-1, those were both 83 and

84 on june 28th.

>> Riley: Twenty-eighth.

Okay.

>> The city manager gave us that

date, june 28.

 

>> Morrison: And we can expect

the one on civil service, which

as you mentioned, there was

significant changes, so there

had been a memo.

 

There is going to be significant

changes probably to the -- to

the fiscal impacts.

 

Do you have an idea of when we

might be able to expect that to

be available?

 

>> Ott: It's difficult to say.

 

I can tell you that staff is

working on that.

We had a conversation just

yesterday and I know that they

have already started to pull the

team back together to do that

fiscal analysis.

So probably within the next few

days.

 

I see mr. washington out there.

 

Am I accurate in that, the next

few days, we should have a

revised impact analysis?

 

>> Yes, we are trying to get

something for the city manager

to review this week.

 

>> Morrison: Thank you.

 

I appreciate that.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.

 

So we have the proposal before

us and this is for second

reading?

 

>> Three.

 

>> This can be all three.

 

first,

second, and third.

Okay.

We just discussed it before.

We never passed it.

I entertain a motion for the

ballot order item.

 

>> Cole: So moved.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell: move.

 

To approve this ballot order.

 

Motion by mayor pro tem to

approve on all three readings,

the ballot order in this yellow

sheet.

Is there a second to that?

>> Oh, one small comment, this

ordinance you have in backup

will exclude the reference to

today's bond item.

 

That was simply a place holder

in case decisions were made

today.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell:

Understood.

Is there a second by council

member riley?

 

"

 

aye.

 

Opposed say no.

 

Passes, vote of 7-0 -- 6-0, with

council member spelman off the

dyas.

 

>> The final item is b5 and

staff has no presentation unless

there are questions from

council.

It is a general discussion of

election issues.

 

all

right.

Without objection, we are

adjourned at 1:00 p.m.