[09:02:38]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm
austin mayor lee
leffingwell.

A quorum is present so I'll
call this work session of
the austin city council to
order on tuesday,
NOVEMBER 6th, 2012, AT
9:04 A.m.

We're meeting in the boards
and commissions room, austin
city haul, 301 west second
street, austin, texas.

The first item in order on
our agenda is item c-1,
which is a discussion on the
citizens quorum which was
requested by councilmember
tovo.

>> Tovo: Thanks.

Well, I thought it would be
a good opportunity just to
talk through for a few
minutes about what when we
do this again, when we do
the citizens forum again
what we would want to be
differently.

I have a couple of ideas and
I know councimember spelman
had suggested something to
me but I don't remember what
it is.

I hope he will come and be
able to offer his ideas.

I also wanted to say i
understand the staff had
kind of an after -- after
meeting reflection too so
perhaps one of our staff
members could give us some
of their thoughts that came
out of that meeting.

But a few of the things that
occurred to me, one thing we
did talk a lot about the
date in advance, but I think
we didn't necessarily set it
with the events office and
so, you know, it was a
little unfortunate that it
happened to correspond --

[09:04:01]

the day of our meeting
happened to correspond with
a day we had the festival
but also street closures
around city hall so I think
that wasn't ideal and we
might want to make sure an
events office is consulted
next time as we're looking
at a date.

I wanted to raise the point
that maybe in the future, i
thought the balance of the
sign-up versus the walk-in
registration worked out well
but I wonder if in the
future to allow people to
sign up if they haven't
spoken in citizens
communications for a while,
say a month or two, so we
have those pre-registered
thoughts available for
people who aren't -- you
know, aren't very familiar
with -- aren't as familiar
with the citizens
communication process.

But I'd be interested to
hear feedback on that.

If anybody has any.

The format the sign-up
versus walk-in.

>> Spelman: I'm inclined
to wonder what is it sense
communication would be like
without clay dafoe and
ronnie reeferseed.

I'm so used to them at this
point I would miss them if i
weren't there.

>> Tovo: Certainly if we
kept a three-hour block,
hope there would be time for
everybody to participate.

My office got calls early on
saying hey, the 20 spots are
filled up, does that mean we
can't talk.

So there was some concern
about that and I wonder if,
you know, trying to -- the
people who understand the
citizens communication
system I think, you know,
will also understand that
they can show up and just
walk in and speak on that
day, but we could keep those
20 spots for people less
familiar and might need like
they need to sign up so we
have an opportunity.

[09:06:01]

It's just an idea.

But I think the goal is
absolutely to make sure that
everybody including those
who come down regularly for
citizens communication have
an opportunity to speak too.

And then the other thing
that occurred to me, I don't
think it was an issue, but
at some point during the day
when it was clear we were
going to wrap up early, i
started to be concerned that
00
and expect for us to still
be there so we might just
post on the next time
around, you know, that we're
00 to
00 or when the last
speaker has concluded so if
we do wrap up as we did this
30, nobody will
30 and expect
us to still be there having
a meeting.

I was surprised that we
didn't have more members of
the public coming down and i
don't know if they were, you
know, if the street closures
around city hall were
discouraging some people or
because it was a new event
we just didn't -- you know,
people weren't as familiar,
but anyway, I really
appreciated the staff and
all the work they did in
setting that up.

I think it's a good event
and I think we should do it
good.

>> We did have some
observations that we noticed
from the saturday citizens
forum.

One of the things I think we
noticed was the interactions
of councilmembers with
citizens.

I think we noticed that the
presiding officer wanted to
maybe know and I think asked
questions as to at what
level they could engage with
councilmembers with the
public.

And I think what we want to
do is work with the law
department to come up with
some sort of a fact sheet
that talks about the process
of general citizens
communication and the
limitations placed on
council by the texas open
meetings act.

We'll certainly do that at
the next citizens forum to
provide that fact sheet.

I think you also made
reference to the fact that
there were some people had
an expectation during
general citizens
communication they might be
able to engage with council
even though they did not
identify a topic.

[09:08:00]

I think for the next one
we'll probably I guess as we
publicize the event and for
the people signing up, that
if they do sign up for a
topic, that if they do not
identify a topic they are
not going to be able to
engage with council on that
topic or engage with council
at all.

We're going to publicize
that and do a better job and
try to get them to identify
a topic for discussion.

The other thing with the
attendance, we did
experience a low attendance
for the forum.

We did send out media
releases.

I believe we sent out two or
three.

We also placed announcements
on facebook and twitter
pages as well as asking the
mayor to make announcements
in advance of council work
sessions as well as council
meetings.

What I think we probably
also ought to do is work
with our neighborhood
associations to see how we
might get the word out for
them.

So we're going to endeavor
to do that as well.

Arriving that morning, we
did have I believe the
american heart association
heart walk was out here.

We were concerned, in fact,
I had building services to
work with the police
officers and building
services so they could get
into city hall.

What we need to do next time
is work with our special
events office to see that if
we're going to schedule a
citizens forum on a certain
day to find out from them
whether or not they know
whether any events will be
taking place around city
hall that might have an
impact on attendance at one
of our forums.

Those are kind of some of
the observations and
recommendations I that i
that from staff's point of
view we'll work off next
time.

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem cole cole i
would just like to ask the
city attorney because I know
this is a standard rule,
when an item is not posted
for a specific discussion on
citizens communication, what
does the open meetings
require?

>> The open meetings act

[09:10:02]

says, first of all, you
can't have a deliberations.

A governmental body cannot
deliberate about it.

What you can is you can ask
that somebody recite an
official policy that's in
place in answer to an
inquiry that's not posted,
or you can direct that the
item be placed on another
agenda.

And under that specific part
where you can ask that an
item be placed on the
agenda, you can have a
discussion about which
agenda you want to have it
placed on.

>> Cole: For a later
agenda; is that what you
mean?

>> For a later agenda,
correct.

>> Cole: So would you say
we should not engage in
dialogue with the
participant, the citizen
that has brought up an item
that is not posted, but
we -- I guess that fine line
we were trying to straddle
on the meeting day and I'm
not sure what the -- if
there is a hard and fast
rule, and I understand that
y'all are going to post a
fact sheet.

>> I think it's difficult
because depending on what
they ask, if they are saying
does the city have a policy
on how they pave streets,
you could say yes, this is
the city's policy on doing
this.

But I think you need to be
careful in the dialogue
because you don't want the
governmental body to then
get into a discussion about
that.

If you then want to have a
deliberations among you guys
about that policy or
whatever, I think then
that's something you would
then direct for another
agenda.

So it's going to be pretty
fact intensive when they are
asking you questions about
items that aren't posted on
the agenda, but I think you
can have some limited
response if there is kind of
a -- if we have specific
policies on things.

>> Cole: Is it --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let
me just say, let me just say
I don't get into those gray
areas.

I don't see any point in it.

So what I will enforce is
that there won't be any
discussion of unposted

[09:12:00]

items.

If you want to ask a simple
question or as the city
attorney said I want to put
this on future agenda for
discussion, that's fine, but
as far as saying anything
substantive about it, I'm
not going to get into the
weeds on that and try to
figure out on the spot where
that line is.

>> Morrison: Mayor?

Mayor?

>> Tovo: Did you say
unposted of posted or
posted?

Did you say unposted?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
don't think I said unposted
but you would have to give
me a context.

>> Tovo: Just now you said
you weren't going to -- that
for you there was no gray
area with regard to --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
said I'm not going to get
into that gray area.

I said you can suggest that
let's post this for a future
agenda for discussion, but
we're not going to discuss
it.

That's going to be my ruling
because it's just too
difficult to try to get into
the details of, well, this
might be okay and this might
not be.

I'm going to take the safe
harbor approach.

>> Morrison: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I appreciate
you coming here and I think
that this issue -- my
observations was that we
would have been well served
to have one of our attorneys
present because while i
understand it's easy to take
a safe harbor and the safest
thing to take a safe harbor
approach, but when we had
folks come down there on
saturday morning and we're
not even, you know, not even
able to answer very basic
questions, I think that we
could just make it a lot
more productive and I would
have felt a lot more
comfortable if we had had
one of our attorneys there
to guide us in being able to
answer those questions.

So that would be my request,
that we have an attorney
there.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We
had specific direction that
no staff would be asked to
attend.

>> Morrison: Right, and
I'm responding to my
observations of how it could
be more productive next time

[09:14:01]

if we could have an attorney
there.

And then secondly, just one
detail.

In terms of the parking
situation, there was a no
parking sign out there, but
we had one of our building
folks there letting people
in if they were coming for
the forum.

And I know they were looking
for a sign that said that
because some people might
just drive by and presumably
that's not going to be an
issue next time because
we're going to avoid
scheduling with --
overlapping with events, but
I don't know if we moved on
finding a sign that says no
parking except for city hall
business, but just in the
future we might have --

>> certainly look into it,
absolutely.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And
we could probably avoid a
lot of potential conflicts
by scheduling meetings for
00 on sunday mornings,
unlikely there would be any
conflicts at that time.

Okay.

Can we go on to the next
item?

Which is do you all have
this handout, discussion of
our proposed 2013 meeting
schedule.

And I don't see the actual
backup material in here.

>> You should have a copy of
the meeting schedule.

Everyone should have a copy.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
don't have one.

Let me just say --

>> it can be handed out in
just a second.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: One
of the nice features of this
proposal is that it doesn't
have any scheduled meetings,
there's no week on here that
has three council meetings
scheduled, which we had a
lot of last year and i
realize we had something --
so I think it's been gone
through very thoroughly and
here it is for your perusal.

>> Just for the record, city

[09:16:02]

manager's office, mayor and
council what we have before
you today is the proposed
2013 council meeting
schedule.

Just as a way of background,
city code chapter 2-5-24
states council shall meet
each thursday.

But in proposing this
schedule which we will be
placing on the
december 6th council
agenda for your adoption,
staff is recommending that
you first waive the
requirements of 2-5-24 which
requires you as a governing
body to meet every thursday.

But also with this schedule
to set your regular meetings
dates, to set the dates
council will not meet, to
set your work session dates,
to set your budget reading
dates as well as to set the
date of the budget retreat.

Now, in putting this
calendar together, staff
took into account the
following considerations.

This draft schedule is
modeled after this year's
schedule.

We pretty much have
approximately the same
number of council meetings.

The schedule takes into
account all 2013 holidays
and observances including
city observed holidays and
the budget meetings and
hearings that you see listed
here on this schedule have
been recommended by the
budget office.

Some other considerations
which is in our practice
since I've been here, no
council meetings have been
scheduled during or for the
month of july.

And then the budget forecast
and budget work sessions
have been cut back from
three days to two days each
for next year, and it's
staff's understanding
discussion in question and
answer format with no
department presentations
worked very, very well this
year and we want to do that
for this following year as
well.

So here's what we need from
council.

We would like for you to
review the tentative dates
for possible scheduling
conflicts and then to
discuss any scheduling
conflicts at your
december 4th council work
session, and then approve
the final draft of the
schedule at your
december 6th council

[09:18:01]

meeting.

And with that, mayor and
council, that concludes my
presentation and I'm willing
to take any questions that
any of you may have.

I also have staff from the
agenda office as well as
city clerk's office and the
budget office to answer some
of those questions.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.

Thank you.

I would just note for
information, there are 27
scheduled council meetings,
24 scheduled work sessions,
5 special meetings, for a
total of 76 meetings here in
2013.

>> Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember martinez.

>> Martinez: Well, I do
want to start out, first of
all, before I upset anyone,
by saying the agenda
management, in my opinion,
has improved over the time
that I've been on the
council.

I mean, we regularly went
past midnight and one day we
went till almost 4:00 a.m.

So that has drastically
improved.

But there is -- we still run
11:00 at night.

Was there any conversation
between you all and the city
manager and agenda staff, it
looks like we're meeting on
average twice a month in
terms of full council
meetings, discarding the
special meetings, to adding
that third week a month if,
say, we could manage the
agenda and be done by 7:00?

Instead of staying.

Because we still have
meetings that run pretty
late.

And everybody has different
considerations and, you
know, I just want to know if
there was any conversation
in that regard.

Is it possible to manage the
agenda where we can
guesstimate that we could be
done by a decent hour?

>> We could certainly add a
third meeting for some
months especially as we get
closer.

For example, one of the
things we were dealing with
as we put this schedule
together is there is times
when we get into june, the
last meeting of june, do we
need to schedule maybe an
additional meeting to try to
take up for the fact that
we're not going to have any
meetings in july.

What do we do especially

[09:20:00]

when we try to make up for
the work as we come back in
august and then as we do the
budget in september.

Those discussions were had,
but one of the things it
seemed like the schedule we
had for this current year
worked and you are correct,
councilmember, we have had
very late meetings and we
try to avoid those so we try
to sequence working through
our department directors but
also our directors team, we
try to sequence all the
items coming before you as
part of the agenda so we try
to avoid those kind of
late-night meetings.

In some cases we can do it,
in some cases it's just
unavoidable for the kind of
[inaudible] that needs to
get done for the city.

So like in this week's
example, just what I notice
is 12 annexation cases on
one agenda.

Annexations can prove to be
contentious and volatile and
so what's the contemplation
behind putting all 12 of
them on one agenda meeting,
which if it turns out to be,
you know, some resistance
from those being annexed,
those 12 items could last a
long, long time.

>> Right, and typically what
we do as we put the agenda
together, we're working with
our department director
whether it's greg guernsey
in this case, sue edwards in
trying to [inaudible] and in
some cases some of these
items also have been
postponed from previous
council meetings.

So we're still trying --
especially as we're trying
to get to the end of the
year to realize we're going
to be backed up for the last
two meetings on the 6th
AND THE 13th, BUT VERY
Mindful we're trying to
manage the flow of business
coming before the council.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let
me say, councilmember, i
think you raise a really
good point and there are a
lot of factors that go into
meeting length.

It's not only the number of
items scheduled on the
agenda, but it's the type,
as you point out, the type
of items.

And I think we can do a
better job.

I've had a lot of
discussions with the city
manager's office on this
same subject.

[09:22:01]

And keeping in mind is i
think we need to look a
little -- look ahead a
little bit more and see when
things are going to be
piling up on us.

And I'm -- you know, I'm all
in favor of if we get in a
situation where there are
time constraints and a
whole -- a great number of
items that we have to cover,
I'm in favor of calling
another meeting, set another
special meeting.

But I think this as it sits
is a good round number of
meetings keeping in mind
that we can always add to it
if we need to.

Mayor pro tem cole cole i
just want to follow up.

I agree with councilmember
martinez's suggestions and
the affect that we had much
longer meetings and they are
being managed better but
there's still room for
improvement.

I would like to ask city
manager if it would make any
 gary are
if we scheduled all our
meetings on tuesday if that
would help with the
management of the late-night
meetings.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
think that might help with
that, but then we don't have
any time for the real
purpose of the work
sessions.

>> Because that's, you know,
with respect to the work
sessions, that was one of
the concerns or complaints
expressed by councilmembers
that all of the time was
being eaten up so I didn't
have time to address the
rca's that were on the
agenda.

So, you know, it had that
consequence.

>> Cole: Well, I fully
support the idea of a
special called meeting as
opposed to meetings that go
00
in the morning because i
just don't think we are in
a -- we're deliberating as
we should.

And so even to the extent
that I know the mayor sets
the agenda, that you see
that coming with certain
public hearings that we
could do that in advance
like with 12 annexation

[09:24:01]

hearings, we're going to do
half of them one week and
then we can make a decision
that we're going to take the
time on another day, even
work session day to finish
those out.

>> Just a question and i
don't know the answer to
this, has it always been the
case that council's business
agenda has always been
designed such that it's time
specific?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You
meantime certain items?

>> Time certain items.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: In
my entire time that's been
the case.

>> I've not -- just in my
range of experience I've not
encountered that before
anypce ese.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Well, we are kind of unique
here.

>> Cole: Mayor, I would
like to add to that comment.

I remember once where we had
the debate between having
public hearings that started
00 and the idea was
that people could come down
after they were off work,
and then the other idea was
starting those public
00 or at a
time -- or allowing people
to start those at a time
certain because people are
even more upset now having
00 to
actually be heard than they
are about the option if they
take off work and having
child care and those type of
things in the evening.

I think that merits some
conversation in terms of
time certain items, that
there is a balance when
we're keeping people too
late in the evening that
they are not always pleased
with that and they would
rather if they work to take
off work or not, all of them
do work or at least have the
option to hear the case
earlier.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Well, that's what we went
through several years ago
00 time
certain for zoning cases to
00 and we moved the
00 public hearings
to 4:00.

Just so that we could avoid
later meetings and address
these items earlier in the
day when it was possible.

Now, when we have a day when
there are -- when it's

[09:26:00]

obvious that we're going to
30
break anyway, we can always
selectively move items to a
later time certain, and
we've done that.

Councilmember morrison.

Councilmember morrison i
want to make a couple of
comments.

One, I think it was
councilmember martinez i
heard you comment some time
ago about the possibility if
it looks like we're going to
be going really late to
actually continue the
meeting the next day on
friday morning.

00,
decide that we're going to
00 in the
morning on friday and hear
certain cases, which I think
if we could manage the
practicality of that, that
could be a good idea.

We don't want somebody
00 to
00 and then say oh, by the
way, we're going to hear you
00 in the morning, but
I think that's one
possibility to throw into
the mix.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And
we can do that now.

We can recess until --

>> Morrison: Right, and we
generally don't or actually
I've never seen us do that.

And so I think that the idea
of maybe trying to make that
happen and working with it
and get some guidelines
ahead of time about if we
can project, which I think
sometimes we can, that
there's going to be a
hearing that's going to be
really long, for instance,
we know there's going to be
a lot of people there, they
are going to be waiting
00 to be
heard, if we can figure that
00, and make
the decision we are going to
recess and take that item up
00 the next morning,
that that's something to
consider that could help all
around.

>> Cole: Mayor,
councilmember morrison --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
We're a little beyond the
meeting topic.

>> Cole: I was just going
to ask since we're talking
about agenda items that we
could maybe in the future
we'll ask for rules that are

[09:28:01]

consistent with what you
have suggested of how we
would do that.

We could ask that, to do
that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm
always open to suggestion on
how to run the meeting.

Councilmember martinez.

>> Martinez: And i
appreciate the discussion.

I think what I'm taking from
this is flexibility is
ultimately what we need to
maintain because it's just
as inconvenient as you
mentioned for someone to sit
at council all day and then
, okay,
we're going to crank back up
at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

Although that is a tool that
can be used depending on the
case, depending on the
circumstances.

But when I suggested a
potential third meeting, I'm
glad you made the point, i
was actually suggesting what
you said, I didn't say it,
and that was that we do it
as a special called meeting.

Because if we just go and
plug in the third meeting
we're going to fill it and
be here until 2:00 a.m.

Three days as opposed to two
so I appreciate you clearing
that up, mayor because
that's what I meant to say
and what you said, mayor
pro tem, knowing what the
rules are, what capabilities
we have as a body,
maintaining flexibility, i
think we can manage this.

The last point I'm make,
mayor, is one that you
sometimes take into
consideration and that is on
agenda items that aren't
necessarily public hearings,
that we ask each side to
limit their comments to 15,
20, 30 minutes we are side.

I think that's been very
effective.

And the message gets across.

They get to speak to us,
but, you know, not all 50
people who signed up in
favor necessarily have to
speak.

And so I just -- i
appreciate, you know,
hearing that we use all
those tools.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And
I think we should do that
too, although we try to
allow as much public comment
as we possibly can.

On most of the agenda, the
items that are just --
everything on the consent

[09:30:02]

agenda, for example, we are
not required to take any
public comment whatsoever.

We do that by tradition and
we do that out of a sense of
increasing openness in the
meeting.

But we're not required.

We c we're not taking
any public comment, but i
think it is appropriate on
consent items, agenda items
to -- and especially in
selective cases like the one
we did last meeting, to
limit the debate for each
side, limit the comments for
each side.

Of course, it always helps
to get that word out in
advance, but -- so that
people can plan their
speakers and so forth, and
we did that in this case.

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I had one
more topic I wanted to raise
and that is our schedule for
our budget meetings, a
couple of things.

Number 1, the idea that
we're not going to have
presentations and it will
just be questions and
answers.

That's sort of okay for me,
but it would be helpful to
get -- to make sure that
we're getting information
ahead of time that tells us
the highlights of the adds
and subtracts.

And I think that with the
presentation material that
probably the idea --

>> councilmember morrison,
one of the reasons we're
going to go from three days
to two days was to make sure
if we did that, we would get
you the appropriate
information well in advance
of the -- sort of that
question and answer format.

And it's here.

You may want to add a little
bit to that as well.

>> Just to reiterate, that
would absolutely be our
intent.

We would still do the
overview presentation.

That's usually myself and
elaine hart and john
hockenyos at the time of the
forecast and the budget,
we'll give you the overview
presentation of tax rates
and utility rates and all

[09:32:00]

that information.

We anticipate about a week
after that we would give you
that summary information,
probably in power point
format, but you would get
that power point
presentation probably a week
after our overview
presentation, but a week
before the all-day question
and answer period.

That way we feel you are
getting the information we
need, but we can have most
of the time be to -- have
council be able to have that
discussion and ask questions
of staff.

That was our thinking is
we're going to keep it to
two days as opposed to three
days.

That's probably the format
that would work the best.

>> Morrison: I think that
will be helpful.

The other thing I wanted to
bring up is three days of
budget readings.

There was a lot of
arithmetic going on and i
just -- and I thought it was
good discussion and it was a
good process that we went
through.

I just wonder if our staff
has any suggestions about
how to improve that process
thinking specifically about,
you know, the adds and
subtracts and the spread
sheets we're going to have
to keep track of.

>> I'm going to speak more
ed does and the answer is we
probably will, but I'd
rather not respond to that
off the cuff today, but it
is part of our brief
conversation after the
budget -- debrief
conversation after the
budget process is over and
we'll advise council in
advance.

>> Morrison: The only --
the thing that I could have
helped me during that
process, I think, would have
been to have had an
opportunity to hear sort of
all the things that were
going to be on the table
from different
councilmembers.

To get the whole bucket list
of them and to give some
thought to them.

We essentially, I guess, did
that on the first day.

I don't know if it would
make sense to have some
process for that.

I know we have to do that in

[09:34:00]

an open meeting but so that
I could see the big picture
and really have some time to
think about the big picture
tradeoff that we might be
considering.

>> In light of how
communication circumstances
have changed for us as a
council and the staff that
is a little bit difficult to
do, and I suspect even if we
were able to do it, that
once you all were engaged in
discourse about it, it's
kind of organic anyway and
probably will not be exactly
as we presented it but we'll
take a look.

>> Morrison: My assumption
would be it could only be in
that open meeting, but those
are my observations on the
budget.

In a lot of ways it worked
pretty well.

>> Spelman: Mayor, a quick
followup.

Ed, I really like the idea
about getting a presentation
and then more information
before we have a discussion.

I've always felt the
discussion we've had is off
the cuff because we're
responding immediately to
the material rather than
having a chance to look at
it.

How will the initial
proposals from the
departments look?

Similar to that or are we
just going to get
information first and then
have a chance to discuss it
a week later?

How is that going to work?

>> The initial budget
proposal from the
department, well, that will
be laid out in the budget
documents.

Essentially the summary
information we would be
bringing back and
potentially we could do it
the same day that we release
the budget documents.

It's a matter of how do we
manage all this information,
the workload that has to
occur.

But it would largely, you
know, mirror the same
information as in the budget
document in regards to
budget highlights,
significant changes, any
cuts or adds that are being
proposed, we would try to
summarize that information
for you.

Sometimes soon after we do
the overview presentation.

And then give council
probably at least a week to
chew on that before we came
back for the question and
answer format.

>> Spelman: And which
dates are we talking about

[09:36:00]

for that?

>> Well, we're really
talking about so you look at
in the april dates,
april 18th would be our
overview work session with
myself and elaine and john
hockenyos laying out the
information like we normally
do, and then we would be
targeting april 25, a week
after that we would like to
have all this departmental
information, the summarized
information from the
departments to the extent
they are looking at unmet
needs or horizon issues or
performance issues, we would
be getting that information
TO COUNCIL BY APRIL 25th.

Then we would come back on
may 2nd to see what
questions or comments you
had about that.

And then similar process
down there in those august
DATES, AUGUST 1st,
Overview presentation, no
later than august 8th
getting a department summary
to you all.

Coming back a week after
with council comments and
questions and discussions.

>> Spelman: I like the
idea of that.

I think it will probably use
all of our time better, so
long extend to friday
morning or another council
date and time [inaudible].

>> In all of this we'll have
the written question and
answer process as well so
certainly you can ask your
questions in writing and we
can get those responses out
to you prior to the
in-person discussion which
may facilitate things as
well.

>> Spelman: Asking the
questions, the opportunity
to talk with one another
about the answers.

Thanks.

>> Tovo: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I just wanted to
make a couple of quick
comments about the schedule.

The months that seemed
particularly bad last year
were may and june.

I've only been on council a
year and a half so I'm not
sure that's typical, but i
wonder if the staff had an
opportunity to look at the
last few years at those two
months in particular as it
leads into summer.

You know, it was almost
every meeting we were past
00 and sometimes

[09:38:01]

00 so i
wonder whether june 13 ought
to be a condition sold
meeting or just rescheduled
and I would look at may as
well to see what the pattern
has been.

You know, it's a lot easier,
it seems to me it would be a
lot easier to have a meeting
with an asterisk next to it
that says will be canceled
if no need than it would be
to try to schedule a special
called meeting a couple
weeks in advance.

Once we already have stuff
on our schedule for that
thursday.

While I like the idea of
holding over a meeting until
friday, I'm not sure that
would work very well for
members of our public who,
you know, have jobs that
they need to be at in the
morning and for whom it's
not very convenient,
especially if they've taken
off work on a thursday to
have to come back in the
morning.

It's nice -- it might be an
option that works for some
people, but it seems to me
it would be logistically
complicated for a the look
of people.

>> Cole: Councilmember,
let me ask you a question.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem cole cole it's
more of a question for
legal.

Couldn't we post that that
is a probability on this
particular case, that we
will hear it at a time
00, but the
council will recess at
00 and individuals still
needing to testimony can do
00 the following
morning?

How do you think that would
work?

Like the mayor's comments
also.

>> You could do that.

I would advise, however,
that you currently have
rules that say your meetings
stop at 10:00.

That's why you always --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We
can always vote no.

>> Do that vote.

And the open meetings act
allows you to recess a
meeting and reconvene the
next day.

I think -- if you are
looking for flexibility, you
could always give some kind
of notice maybe through our
website, email list, you
know, blast emails to
people, but to have it where

[09:40:02]

it's already posted and
maybe you don't need it to
me may cause more confusion.

So I think the greatest
flexibility you have is what
the law allows and what your
rules currently say, in my
opinion.

But you could do it.

You could do it exactly the
way you suggested, but i
think you have a lot of
flexibility right now to do
that without posting another
one, putting it on the
agenda and those kinds of
mechanisms.

>> Tovo: I guess I would
just say I think the advance
notice is helpful but for
00 to
00 jobs, that's one reason
some of those cases are set
00 is to try
to avoid the workdays of a
lot of people and certainly
 wouldn't do that
on a friday for a lot of --
for a lot of people who want
to come down and talk.

Maybe we can keep thinking
about it, but I like the
option -- I mean I like the
ideal of trying to get
meetings to end at -- end
earlier and try to keep the
ones where we think we'll
have public hearings out of
 and early time
frame so we can be as -- we
can make it as easy as
possible for people to come
down and provide their
feedback.

And then the other comment i
wanted to make, it seems
like some -- including --
did you want to hop in
there?

>> Cole: I would just
say --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Mayor pro tem cole cole --
how many people are really
conflicted by work schedules
because I see people come
see us all day long or would
prefer not to have to wait
until 2:00 in the morning.

That's the bottom line and i
don't know how we gather
that information, but i
would love to know if people
would prefer for our
meetings to re estancia.

 escarpment at
00 and they know that,
but it -- to recess at
10:00.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
think we're getting the
message the mayor pro tem
doesn't want to stay for
late meetings.

>> Cole: That's true.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It's
like anything else.

[09:42:00]

You got two choices to make
and neither one of them are
very good.

We'll have to play that by
ear.

>> Tovo: And I think it's
clear as you pointed out or
maybe council martinez, we
do better thinking when it's
not 2:00 in the morning.

I think the idea of trying
to end earlier makes good
sense for us if we want to
make the best decisions we
can.

The only other point i
wanted to make is that --
no, I have two other points
I wanted to make.

I think as it gets closer to
the time, we ought to
consider having a work
session in the week before
the budget readings.

It seemed this time through
we really needed a work
session closer to the date
of the budget hearings.

We were sort of hashing
things out on that first day
of the budget reading that
maybe would have been more
productive in a work session
the previous week.

Especially on months where
the tradition has been to go
pretty late because it's
moving toward a vacation, i
would suggest we not have
two briefings scheduled in a
meeting.

I think two briefings, it
seems like especially in may
and june, some of those two
briefings were -- one of
them was getting jettisoned
at the last minute and
actually that has happened
in one of our recent
meetings where we had to
jettison one of the two
briefings.

Scheduling two briefings if
it can be avoided seems like
the better option.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: A
lot of discussions on that
too.

We'll take action on this in
december what?

>> DECEMBER 6th, MAYOR.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
DECEMBER THE 6th.

So with that, let's go to
our items that have been
selected for discussion by
councilmembers, and first is
item 7 by councilmember
tovo.

Councilmember tovo.

Item 7.

>> Tovo: This will be
short because I had an
opportunity to talk with
staff and I think they've
answered my question.

So this was an item that we
talked about as a council at
one of our meetings and i
think the request was made
of staff to do more research

[09:44:01]

into the street name but
also to do some outreach
with some of the
neighborhood residents,
especially those who
expressed concern about the
name change.

And I wanted to get an
update on that process and
sound like that meeting
hasn't taken place so -- but
would you jump in and --

>> steven, city of austin.

You are correct, the meeting
with the neighborhood
stakeholders happens today
around 4:00 p.m.

So from the time this agenda
item was first presented,
there is no new information.

Our plan is to have the
neighborhood meeting with
staff as well as the pio
staff and then put together
a memo, send it to all the
councilmembers sometime
tomorrow.

If there's followup
questions, we'll respond to
those as well.

>> Tovo: So I guess do you
know anything more about why
the street was named what it
was named originally?

>> No, we have not found any
new information on that at
all.

>> Tovo: Okay.

So do you really think we'll
get there by thursday in
terms of having the
information from the
stakeholders that we need to
have?

>> Well, we'll have the
information from the
stakeholders and be able to
know more about what their
concerns are.

I don't know if we'll have
information based on the
history, but we'll know what
the concerns are and we'll
respond either way with a
memo stating what their
concerns are because at this
point we don't know what the
concerns are.

>> Tovo: And we'll have
the option on thursday of
hearing it or deciding to
postpone again.

And can you remind me when
the street -- how long the
street has been named arena
drive?

>> I think the street name
started in 1963.

1963 Is the original name.

>> Tovo: Okay, thanks.

I'll look forward tore the
memo.

Thanks for being here today.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I just wanted
to comment before you go
that one of the neighbors
spent a sunday afternoon at
the austin history center
and found that october 1959

[09:46:00]

key map which reflects
corrections to the 1935 map
does not -- it does reflect
arena, so it goes back at
least to '59.

So it's older than that.

And then the other thing i
think that's really a
critical part of this
discussion is our code tells
us when a street can be
renamed and the criteria
that staff is recommending
that this be renamed under
is that it enhances the
neighborhood.

And so for me that's going
to be important input from
the -- from the neighbors to
see if it really is in their
view an enhancement to the
neighborhood.

It's an enhancement to a
commercial endeavor because
we would be renaming it
after the development.

But I think that's the real
consideration.

>> Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember martinez.

>> Martinez: I appreciate
those concerns, but if you
go back and look at older
neighborhoods, travis
heights boulevard exists
right in the middle of
travis heights boulevard.

And if you look at the
streets that cross south
congress, they are named
after women, annie, mary,
those were the daughters of
the developer of travis
heights.

I don't think it's unheard
of to try and market and tie
in the name of a major
thoroughfare to what the
actual neighborhood is
called.

You know, if you don't
support the development,
don't support it, but i
don't think trying to stop
changing a name on a street,
arena drive to shore
boulevard, you know, I don't
think we're doing this
simply to enhance the
marketability.

It's just creating a better
experience and a better
environment.

It's the term that has come
out of the potential
development and I don't see
any degradation to the
neighborhood by taking arena
drive off the map.

>> Morrison: If I could
just reply because I did ask
for some examples that staff

[09:48:00]

got us of whether we've done
this before and I think one
thing that several of the
examples were subdivisions
names.

I think it's important that
we realize there's a
difference in -- between,
you know, naming during a
subdivision process a street
and creating sort of a
neighborhood versus actually
changing the name of the
street to reflect a
commercial development.

So for me it becomes a --
you know, sort of free
advertising and it's a
matter of giving it away and
losing the identity that the
neighborhood had with the
area.

So we're going to probably
disagree on this one.

Wouldn't be the first time.

And the only one example
that I did get that seemed
to be somewhat similar was
that a part of -- let's see.

A portion of harris ridge
boulevard was renamed tech
ridge.

But I -- it's not a -- it's
not a path that I think that
is a good path to go down in
terms of giving away our
public right-of-way naming
for commercial enhancements.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: Glad to hear
that [inaudible] history
center to look up the
history of the name.

I was hoping someone -- and
I wonder if he was looking
at the maps and found arena
listed as of 1959, is there
any suggestion at that time
or any time there was
actually an arena in the
area?

>> Morrison: She actually
has --

>> Riley: That would have
shown up on a sanborn map.

>> Morrison: I don't know
that she looked at that.

In terms of was there an
arena in the area.

>> Riley: It's not a long
street so without the street
it would be hard to miss an

[09:50:00]

arena.

>> Morrison: It was
actually tennenford which is
one of the places they were
able to cross cattle over.

>> Riley: I can understand
that, but arena, if there
wasn't physically an arena
there, I wonder if it was
just something that the
developer at the time might
have put on there.

For all we know it could
have served purely
commercial purposes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Could be somebody's last
name.

>> Riley: Could have been
the daughter of the
developer.

There's no reason there and
we don't know -- hard to say
it has that much connection
to the history of the
neighborhood.

It strikes me, one thing i
have to note is that for
years we have talked about
encouraging more of an
orientation to the
waterfront in the areas
subject to the waterfront
overlay and one of the
things we talked about at
the time considering this
development is that it would
provide a street grid,
provide more access to the
waterfront, would provide
more opportunities for
connections to the
waterfront.

And so to me actually
putting a connection -- a
name on the street that
actually associates with the
shore actually could well be
considered [inaudible] and
as far as it serves that
long-term goal of orienting
the area to the waterfront.

Now, that doesn't meannessly
it means to be shore, shore
district, but in general I'm
not offended by the content
of renaming it some way that
speaks to the relation of
the area to the waterfront.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.

Excuse me.

we can go to item 10 by

[09:52:02]

councimember spelman.

>> Spelman: Anybody around
to talk 10?

>> Good morning.

Rosie, on item 10 we've got
a description of this is the
seymour contract and request
for additional funding of
$700,000 to total of
62 million in changing.

A very small percentage of
the total contract amount.

There's no description in
the backup as to why you
need another $700,000 on a
seymour contract.

I wonder if you would
describe why.

>> There are, you know,
construction manager at risk
contracts, there's still the
possibility for change
orders for unforeseen
conditions and change
conditions from what was in
the bidding documents.

For the specifics about what
we might be using this money
for I'll ask austin energy
to speak to the posteriorly
scopes that might be
included in this.

>> Spelman: Okay.

>> Because I don't have a
complete listing, but some
of the things you find in a
remodeling project,
remember, this is a
remodeling project for
unforeseen conditions and
even some misses, but for
example some of the recent
things we discovered is
there was springs underneath
the building requiring us to
do some soil controls in
those areas and we found out
as we discovered those that
was not unusual for the
area.

All of the buildings have
sumps.

We replaced the roof.

Originally we were going to
keep the roof.

Upon further evaluation
during construction it was
decided that it would be
best to replace the roof at
this time.

So those are some of the
change orders, some rather
large ones we had
experienced during the
course of the project.

>> Spelman: Maybe then the
issue for me is just one of
terminology.

You know, similar context to
deal with the water utility
in talking about the
distinction between

[09:54:00]

contingencies and
allowances.

It was my understanding
allowances were the name we
gave to change orders.

We had to replace the roof,
the bid came in without the
expectation of a replaced
roof and we have to do that,
that's change work.

That goes to the category of
allowances.

Am I right about that is
this.

>> That would go into the
category of change orders
for this particular project.

If it's not something we
anticipated officially that
we were going to do, but
it's something that we found
through the course of
construction like the need
to have the sumps, to
replace the roof when
originally we weren't
planning on that scope,
that's outside the scope of
the what we executed for the
guaranteed maximum price and
that's why we have the
change order provisions in
the contract.

>> Spelman: What's the
role of the owner
contingency?

What does that mean?

>> What we would typically
use to process change
orders.

If you would liken this so a
typical construction
contract, we would come
forward we're going to
repave a road, request a 5%
contingencies to expedite
change orders.

We have that tag of owner
line because if you were
looking at the details of
the guaranteed maximum price
contracts, at their proposal
they are coming forward
with, they have their own
contingency on their side to
cover -- that's kind of good
thing about the open book we
have with construction
manager at risk contracting.

We can see how they've
restructured their bids and
they have contingency for
things they know are in the
scope of work that they may
not have covered in their
bidding process.

Owner contingency though is
intended to be used for
those things that aren't
this the contract and are
those -- the things we
encounter during the course
of construction that we
didn't anticipate.

>> Spelman: Okay, so
what's happening in case,
$700,000 is to have the
money available to process
change orders that you
expect we're going to have
to go through which are over

[09:56:01]

and above the speck of work
and the price originally
proposed.

>> And over and above the
original contingency we
requested on this.

We had a -- we included when
we came forward with this
originally for the not to
exceed amount, we included a
small amount of owner
contingency, but we probably
should have included more
for a project of this
nature.

You know, where we only
included originally about
2.5% contingency.

And typically with a remodel
project you are looking 5 to
10% or 5 to 10% is city
average and 10% is more the
industry av -- the
agreed --

>> Spelman: We are holding
them to guaranteed maximum
price.

The only reason they are
going over is because we're
changing the rules of the
game.

>> Yes.

>> Spelman: Thank you very
much.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Next
is item 37 by councilmember
morrison.

>> Morrison: Thank you,
mayor.

I wonder if we have some
staff that can answer some
of our questions.

Okay.

Just this is an item I can
read it off for folks that
don't have an agenda in
front of them to authorize
negotiation and execution of
an interlocal agreement
between the city of austin,
the city of el paso, the
city of houston, the city of
san antonio, and colin
county, texas, for the
sharing by the parties
respective law enforcement
and criminal justice
departments of law
enforcement information via
the cuff link connectivity.

Can you give us a brief
explanation?

>> Absolutely.

FIRST OF ALL, chris McI
will vein with the austin
police department.

I oversee the strategic
intelligent division which
includes our austin animal
intelligence center and the
realtime crime center.

[09:58:00]

Quickly what cop link is is
a centralized rms many is,
the simplified verse how to
explain it where we can take
rms systems from different
police agencies and make
them talk and recognize the
data so that they can be
accessed by other law
enforcement agencies.

>> [Inaudible].

>> I'm other, rms records
management system.

We have a vendor we use to
purchase our records
management system.

Different agencies have
different vendors so they
speak different languages.

What cop link does it
translate to one recognized
language so these systems
can speak to each other.

, what we
are trying to accomplish is
having the different
entities that large cities
in texas being able to share
that information.

And with cop link, that
allows us to really more
efficiently do what we're
already doing.

One law enforcement agency
will call another for
information.

What cop link does is it
just simplifies that
process.

>> Morrison: Great.

I appreciate that.

There are two issues that
arise for me.

This is going to be sharing
our information that's from
the [inaudible] as i
understand it.

Is that correct?

For the data that they are
collecting in our fusion
center will be accessible
via cop link.

>> The information that will
be in cop link is the austin
police department records
management.

It's not information that's
being collected by eric,
it's information that is
being collected by the
austin police department.

What aric is doing we are
the focal point and the ones
driving that technology so
that information can be
shared more easily with
other law enforcement
agencies.

[One moment, please, for
change in captioners]
but it's not -- it's
not -- strictly accessed by
aric.

It's all of our crime
records that have been
translated and put into one
system that coplink, all
coplink does is allow a
centralized area where other
law enforcement agencies can
come in and get access to
that information.

>> Morrison: I'll tell you
why I'm concerned about
that.

Because when we went forward
with the aric, you will
remember there was a lot of
discussion about how the
data was going to be handled
we have a privacy policy
specifically to aric.

I'm wondering how that jives
with data that we're going
to be sharing via coplink.

>> Let me speak to that for
judge u.s. a moment.

Cian mannix, assistant chief
of police.

First of all I think that
it's important that we
understand the difference
between what's contained in
the records management
system of the austin police
department versus the volume
of information that goes
through the intelligence
center that has access to
homeland security security
databases and other things,
this is one of many
databases that aric as an
entity has access to.

This is crime reports.

This is the criminal
activity where a police
department has actually
written a report on a crime
that has occurred, you know,
and that kind of a thing.

So it's aggregating that
information.

That's stuff that forever
we've had access to but
we've had to call other
agencies, send emails, make
inquiries to get that
information.

Now there will be an
automated process to bring
all of that information
together in one usable
product.

As far as the privacy policy
issue goes, a as all of
the recognized fusion
centers in -- that are
,
have all developed their
privacy policies, you know,
under the guidelines of the
code of federal regulations,
you know, chapter 28, part
23.

Aric's policy has actually
been, first one developed,
it was actually a model
policy for the others.

All of the fusion centers
are subject to the -- to the
texas fusion policy council
in which our own chief of
staff, david carter, is
the -- the chair of that
group.

So -- so this particular
issue, because it's dealing
with crime reports, we've
always had access to.

Isn't -- the privacy is not
an issue with this.

It's law enforcement
information that law
enforcement agencies already
have access to.

It's just making it simpler
for us to bring it together.

>> Morrison: Okay.

I saw in the -- in the ila
draft it mentions that --
that each entity will treat
the data according to their
own privacy policy.

So do our privacy policies
for this data include the
aric privacy policy?

See, I'm a little confused
about aric data versus this
data.

>> Basically what that means
is nothing that -- we will
not violate our own privacy
policy.

So none of these other nodes
will get information from
the austin police department
that would be considered,
you know, privacy or
outside, you know.

Everything that is in the
system is within our privacy
policy.

So anything that we push out
is going to be guided by
that privacy policy.

Is it.

>> Morrison: So within the
system means within the aric
system, is that --

>> all this is coplink again
is one of many databases,
this is only our crime
reports.

So when you talk about
that -- this is stuff that
every one of those agencies
already has access and
always has had access to.

All they've had to do is
pick up the open for and ask
us for -- pick up the phone
and ask us for it.

Now they'll have the same
automated process that we'll
have to collect that
information together.

>> Morrison: All right.

So I was a little confused
when I was looking, this is
a different subject, about
this item.

It's a bunch of cities plus
collin county.

And when I looked at the
interlocal agreement it says
interlocal between and then
at the top it says collin
county, texas and then it
says and then it lists off
all of these cities.

Is there something special
about the standing of collin
county?

Or just formatted --

>> no, councilmember.

Really any one of these
nodes could be the top name
on this interlocal
agreement.

Collin county kind of got
the ball rolling and my
understanding the ones that
drafted the document.

>> Morrison: That was my
guess, because they're all
in caps and all of the
cities are in --

>> but every -- [laughter]
any one of those agencies
could have been the top name
on there and the -- all of
those nodes would still
share the same information.

>> Morrison: Collin
county, as I understand it,
also has a fusion center, is
that the north texas fusion
center?

Am I right about that?

Because they came up during
our discussion about the
aric because there had been
some amount of controversy.

In their use of data.

>> I will say any
controversy I'm not familiar
with what the specifics may
have been that came up in
your discussion.

But the information sharing
piece that we're talking
about here again is going to
be the crime reports from
the agencies that are
participating with -- with
that fusion center as well
as the others.

So we're not talking about,
you know, sensitive,
otherwise protected
information.

>> Morrison: Okay.

Thank you.

>> Spelman: Mayor, a quick
follow-up.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember spelman?

>> Spelman: I am
encouraged by the fact that
we have a privacy policy
that collin county, el paso,
houston are all going to
have to follow our privacy
policy with regard to our
data, is that accurate?

>> Each fusion center has
their own privacy policy.

Each one of those is a
recognized fusion center.

Which means they do have to
have a privacy policy that
is at least at comprehensive
as deemed by dhs and
[indiscernible] 1338.

So although I've only laid
eyes on el paso's, theirs
almost mirrors are.

As the chief stated ours is
the first and has been used
many times as a model.

>> Spelman: That's what i
was getting at.

As the chief says if we are
pushing data out to houston
and those data -- with it
comes our privacy policy,
here's what you can and
can't do with our data in
public, the same thing is
going to be true for them
with us.

We're going to be taking
data from houston, we're
going to have to be abiding
by their policy when we are
dealing with their data.

If all of us -- well, all
right.

Councilmember morrison --
maybe she and I --
understand this differently.

>> Morrison: We do
understand it differently.

We have to treat their data
according to our privacy
policy.

>> Yes, we have to treat all
data according to our
privacy policies.

But again our privacy policy
is guiding the intelligence
center as a whole.

With all of the databases
that they have access to and
all of the information that
flows through the center,
you know, again I want to go
back to we're talking about
crime reports and
information that -- that has
been a -- you know, always
has been and always will be
available to us by other --
picking up the open for,
accepting an -- up the
phone, sending an email all
of that kind of thing.

>> Cole: We're not talking
about confidential informant
information, that's out of
the all of this stuff.

>> Yes.

>> I am interested in
knowing how we will be a
account to manage traffic
here if everything we're
using, whether collecting it
ourselves or aric or taking
it from the fusion center is
all going to be guided by
our privacy policy.

Then what I thought I heard
you say a few minutes ago,
the stuff we are pushing out
to some other regional
information center is not
going to be guided by our
privacy policy, going to be
guided by theirs.

>> First of all, anything we
push will already be
adherent to ours, without
having laid eyes to it we
have confident based on what
the standards are to become
a recognized fusion center
that their privacy policies
more than adequate.

>> Spelman: All -- among
all of the fusion centers in
texas, we are dealing with
[indiscernible] collin
county, which seems to be
the controversial one.

Are those, in your opinion,
up to standard and is there
any danger that one of those
fusion centers is going to
leak stuff which is
sensitive information or
might be damning information
on an individual that we
would not ourselves be
releasing even our privacy
policy?

Are they much at variance
from ours?

>> No.

Again, I've seen el paso's
firsthand.

Theirs is almost identical
to ours and without having
read the others firsthand,
our confidence is that we
know that in order for them
to have been deemed -- we
have many fusion centers in
the country that are not
recognized and there's a --
there's a hefty set of
standards to be deemed
recognized in the privacy
policies at the top of that
list.

So we are -- we feel
confident that those
partners that are recognized
and we want to enter into
the agreement with have
privacy policies that are
adequate and -- and up to
our standards and what our
privacy policy states.

If they were to leak
something out, you know,
that's going to be a
violation of their privacy
policy and that's something
that they're going to have
to deal with, but we
don't -- we have no reason
to believe that that would
be an issue.

>> Spelman: Is think one
of the reasons that the
fusion centers have largely
the undeserved
representation that they
have is because a few of
them did some false starts,
did some things which were
not sanctioned by policy in
the department of justice.

In the last three or four
years the department of
justice tightened the screws
a little bit to ensure that
they do have [indiscernible]
that decisions are made in a
rational way.

I think these things are
less likely to happen than
happened five or 10 years
ago when fusion centers were
just getting started.

But if there's somebody in
your team who could -- would
be willing to take a look at
those privacy policies and
verify to us that they are
sufficiently similar and
that in your opinion they
are up to the standards set
by the department of justice
and at least close to the
standards set by ourselves,
I think that would go a long
ways to our feeling better
about the data we're
sharing.

>> Absolutely.

I know that the committee
that chief carter chairs,
does have copies of those
privacy policies.

I know that they have been
reviewed and that the texas
fusion center policy council
is comfortable with their
language.

Now, my director, mark
spanger has requested copies
as well so we can look at
those as well.

We have seen el paso's
again, I just haven't seen
the other.

>> Spelman: My office will
probably send in a question
asking as a reminder that we
want to get a ruling or
advice on that subject.

If you could take a look at
those sometimes in the next
few weeks and get back with
us, I would sure appreciate
it.

>> Absolutely.

>> Thank you, sir.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember martinez?

>> Martinez: I just wanted
to ask, chief mannix, from
time to time there are items
that request council to
approve negotiation and
execution and in most cases
when we agree it's because
of time constraints or, you
know, needing to get the
item adopted.

Because this is an
interlocal agreement between
the governmental entities,
for me I would feel
comfortable if we could see
that agreement before we
give approval.

Is there an issue, if we
were to authorize
negotiations that that
execution would have to come
back so we can see the
negotiated document?

>> I believe we already have
a copy of that document,
don't we?

>> That document already
exists.

Yes.

>> Martinez: Is it in the
backup?

All right, thanks, I'll take
a look at it before
thursday.

>> That's one of the things
that I'm going to bring up
on another item, an ifc,
negotiating and executing an
interlocal agreement with
the texas facilities
commission.

I don't have that document
in front of me, either.

>> Backup?

>> Martinez: I don't know
that it's in the backup.

Because I think this item
charges the city manager
with negotiation and
execution and I would simply
be able to -- prefer to see
that agreement before it's
executed.

>> I will get that to you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: The
next two items you can do
them both at the same time.

Councilmember spelman
related items, 45 and 46.

>> Whole new class of items.

Spelman-related items.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Spelman, colon, related
items.

>> Spelman: I see, okay,
that's fine.

>> Good morning.

If any of you could describe
for us why it is that we --
explain to us why we have to
do items 45 and 46.

>> Okay.

I'll take the lead.

I have lots of folks to help
here.

I've got -- [indiscernible]
languagehart, art
[indiscernible] treasurer,
dennis [indiscernible]
financial advisor, anne
little the cfo of austin
energy for their commercial
paper program.

The city enters some
variable rate bond
transactions or has in the
past.

And also has a commercial
paper program in both
instances these types of
transactions require a
credit enhancement or a
letter of credit.

And that is an agreement
with a bank or a series of
very large banks that they
will step in and provide the
liquidity, if the -- if the
bonds are not able to
marketed in the --
remarketed in the bond
market.

They will also step in with
that letter of credit,
provide liquidity if the
city, in any event that the
city is not able to make the
debt service payment on
these transactions.

We have variable rate
transactions for the airport
that were entered into in
2-08.

The letters of credit
typically are put in place
at the time that the
transaction is actually
closed.

So we have them for the
airport, the hotels, also a
small series of water and
wastewater and those are all
variable rate.

With respect to item 46, we
are trying to change the
banks on -- on the hotel
transaction, variable rate.

And then the two utilities
have a combined commercial
paper program that's $350
million and they have three
large banks that provide a
letter of credit.

In addition to the letter of
credit that you are asking
to approve, there's also
reimbursement agreement so
that in the event that the
bank is asked to provide the
liquidity, there is an
agreement that the city will
repay them for providing
that -- that money.

>> Spelman: What we're
actually the cost to us is
one percent?

>> It's a little bit less
than one percent.

It's a fee for the amount of
letter of credit that is
provided and then we also
pay them a commitment fee
for the unused amount and
it's a slightly smaller fee.

The fee is 90 basis points
for the commercial paper
program.

It's a little bit higher for
the variable rate hotel
transaction.

>> Spelman: Okay.

Basically the fee, the price
of getting a letter of
credit is 90 basis points or
a little bit more.

>> Sure.

>> That's what we're talking
about authorizing here.

>> That's correct.

>> Spelman: Thank you,
that's all that I needed to
know.

>> All right, thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: The
next two are mine, items 51
and 52 I brought up
together.

I don't have a copy of the
ordinance before me.

But I do have some notes on
it.

I just got a couple of
questions that I want to
ask.

First of all, this may
require some input from the
law department, also.

As well as the airport
director.

My understanding of item 51
is an amendment to the
existing ordinance which
does several things.

First it redefines what
temporary helistop is, for
some reason it's based on
the number of sortees, the
number of operations that
occur, it basically says
anything more than 18
operations takeoffs and
landing is not a temporary
helistop, which would make
it fall into the only other
category is a permanent
helistop, which would
require a conditional use
process to approve.

Is that correct so far?

>> [Indiscernible] [no
microphone]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: In
effect it makes any
operation, several under
consideration right now,
that has more than nine
takeoffs and landings
combined, a permanent use.

And the second thing that i
noted as a change, it calls
for a study of noise
sensitive areas within 4,000
feet of the helistop.

And seems like kind of a --
kind of a large distance,
could you give us some --
some feel for why 4,000
feet?

I mean, which is almost a
mile, you could say, and --
and if you had, for example,
a helistop on -- on mopac,
near zilker park, that
would, my guess is, include
all of downtown austin,
wouldn't it?

>> Well, the wording in this
is the location of all noise
sensitive areas within a
radius of 4,000 feet.

That is not necessarily a
noise study as much as just
identifying the location of
noise sensitive areas, but
to generally defined as
residential.

So it's just a matter of
providing the information,
but doesn't require a full
noise study where you have
to -- you have to put in
noise monitors for a period
of time, do a formal study.

>> So you would just note
the noise sensitive areas?

>> Yes.

>> And that would be sort of
subjectively taken into
consideration as you the
airport director make your
decision?

>> It's one of the items
that would be required.

Now, that same phrase is in
the permanent helistop
facility.

So that's the same type of
requirement we would -- we
have gotten in the past for
a permanent facility.

It's just being moved over
to a temporary facility.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: How
far away can you hear a
helicopter?

>> Depends on how low it is.

The noise drops off
relatively quickly.

 model,
which is what the airport
does use, when you load the
data into it, by the time
you are 500 feet away, you
have significantly dropped
the decibel rating, in a
thousand feet it drops off
further.

But it does depend on
altitude.

But also noise is a very
varying thing relative to
weather, humidity, cloud
cover, variety of things,
all affect --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm
thinking the 4,000 feet is
sort of a catch-all thing
for aircraft noise, all
types.

And helicopters as we know
are a lot quieter than, say,
FOR EXAMPLE, 727s.

Something like that.

That's kind of what I'm
getting at here.

But anyway I guess that's
not a huge concern.

But the last thing that i
wanted to note is it
declares an emergency.

Which says that -- that this
ordinance would go into
effect immediately upon
passage of the ordinance.

And I have been informed and
the city attorney can
confirm this, not any
application that has already
been made, whether or not
it's been approved, would
not be subject to this
ordinance.

>> That's correct, mayor.

Applications currently on
file would not be exacted if
this item were to pass on
thursday.

I will also note that as you
will recall, under the
charter, for emergency
items, you have to have five
votes pursuant to our
charter.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.

So that being the case, then
item 52, is a resolution
which basically asks the
city manager to convene a
stakeholder group to go back
and look at this entire
situation of temporary
helistops and see if we need
to change our existing
ordinance at all.

Which this already does.

Item 51 already changes it.

So I'm wondering if the
ordinance changes would not
apply to any applications,
basically we're talking
about formula 1 operations
here.

And these operations are
going to take place in a
little over a week.

A week and a couple of days.

What is the hurry to make
these changes?

Why not just go ahead with
the resolution that creates
the study group to figure
out how we're going to
change the ordinance?

I mean, what is the magic
about 18?

Maybe there's some other
number that's more
appropriate.

And there could be other
things that we would want to
change in the ordinance
defining a temporary
helistop.

It seems to me like we're
rushing this ordinance
through and I don't
unders the reason, we're
rushing amendments to the
ordinance through.

I'm open to any comments on
what the reason for that
might not be as opposed to
going ahead and going
through the normal process.

Councilmember morrison?

>> Morrison: Thank you,
mayor.

I appreciate your question.

Let me start by talking
about that number 18.

I have for you provided by
our director of aviation and
that is a listing of the
temporary permits that have
been applied for since 2010.

And you'll see on there that
the number of landings the
biggest number of landings
for any of those
applications is listed as
less than 10, that would be
nine or fewer landings which
means 18 landings and
takeoffs.

So we're looking at the --
at the serious issues that
have been raised by nearby
residents, property owners,
tenants of the proposed
landing site, the temporary
landing sites for 250
landings as well as the
mayor of rollingwood.

The ordinance, changing it,
to -- limiting it to 18, was
a way to move forward in the
near term, under the
scenarios that have not
caused any trouble at all.

I have never heard, I don't
think that there's ever been
concerns raised by the
public for any of these
temporary helipads.

It was let's put this in
place now and make sure that
we don't have additional --
additional applications that
are way outside the bounds
of anything and have really
raised serious concerns and
then to convene a discussion
group to look at the
ordinance, excuse me, to
loo our code.

Which could take some time
and we don't know what other
kinds of events are going to
be held.

Likely there's going to be
an event held a year from
now.

So you never know how long
these kind of discussions
take.

Of so that is the reason
to -- in my view to move
forward with let's put the
constraints in place so that
we are -- sort of have a
status quo, which has not
been a problem.

And then figure out how to
fix the ordinance.

The reason that we wanted to
put it in as an emergency is
fully understanding that the
applications that have
already been applied for are
not going to be affected by
this, there was a concern
there might be some last
minute attempts to -- to --
to do other very large
operations under the
temporary heli-facility for
f 1.

So the idea was to put this
in place right away just to
cut it off and make sure we
don't have any other issues
arise that are so outside
the bounds of what we had
before.

So that explains the
ordinance and then limiting
it to 18.

As we looked at where we
stand with our code right
now, the aviation code, and
the related zoning codes
that goes along with it,
there were many, many items
that were raised, both just
by my own reading and my
co-sponsor, councilmember
tovo, but also by several
attorneys that we've heard
from, in the community
raising questions about how
this is being interpreted,
and so just for a few
examples of the things that
really need to be examined
more broadly with a little
more time.

One, the purposes and a
better definition of the
purposes for which a
temporary hel ifacility
could be used.

The question -- the
interpretation by staff is
that this use falls under a
community service purpose.

And people have questioned
why this would be a
community service and maybe
we can look at getting more
detail on what really would
fall under community
service.

Looking at the limits.

One of the more serious
issues I think that's been
raised is that in our zoning
code, the use of a
heli-facility at a
particular location requires
a conditional use permit.

But then you go over to our
aviation code and our
aviation code waves that
requirement in the case of a
temporary heli-facility.

And the question has arisen
as to how is it that our
aviation code can wave our
zoning code.

So that's something that we
really need to look at.

There have been questions
about where we really should
have designated authority
for approving these.

Whether it makes sense to
have a formal process for
public input for temporary
heli-facility because
clearly people have been
ry frustrated trying to
even j get information.

They weren'ten notified
that the property owners,
the co-property owners
weren't even notified for
this location.

And then there's some
technical issues about the
code, on one reading it
looks like you can't even
renew or deny an
application.

Depending on how you
interpret certain things.

So there's just a whole lot
to be hashed out.

There's a whole lot to -- to
get clarified.

So that was the intent of
the resolution.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Okay.

As I said, I understand the
need to go back and look at
the ordinance that governs
temporary helistops.

What I don't want to do is
while we're going through
that process, I don't want
to send the signal to people
that in the meantime unless
things change basically
you're not going to be able
to hold an f 1 next year.

You can hold it this year,
but if you do it next year,
you're going to have to have
your helipads, semi prairie
helistops somewhere in the
country outside of the city
of austin.

I think it's a mistake to
send a signal as to the
direction that we're going
in when we don't know what
direction we're going in at
this point.

And I think it's a -- I also
have problems with where do
we -- why is the number of
missions that are flown, how
does that figure into the
terminology temporary?

I would think a temporary
being in terms of time.

In the case that we're
talking about here, it's a
three-day event.

There will be three days of
these operations.

Now, I would think temporary
would be in terms did of is
three days -- is three days
temporary, a week temporary,
as opposed to the number of
missions.

I would -- I am -- I will
just say right now, I'm not
supporting this -- I won't
be supporting this ordinance
as it's written.

I will support the
resolution, directing us to
go through a process.

To take a look at how -- how
it needs to be changed.

>> Morrison: Mayor, if i
could just --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison?

>> Morrison: If I could
just respond to a couple of
things.

I guess I really wonder and
question the idea that if
we're not going to allow 250
sortees in the middle of our
city, then we can't have f
1.

I think f 1 is going to go
on anyways.

I mean there are obviously
other places that could --
where these locations
wouldn't be as intrusive.

And in fact there is a time
that -- there is a time
limit, but the fact of the
matter is the 250 takes it
way outside the bounds of
anything that we have ever
done and is going to have a
significant impact on the
property owners, the
tenants, the nearby
residents, nearby
municipalities and so to put
some bounds on it so that
we're still working within
what has worked for the past
three years, I believe is a
very reasonable thing to do.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
would question that
statement, too.

That 250 operations is going
to have a significant effect
on the surroundings.

We don't know that.

It's going to happen.

We're going to have these
operations and after the
fact we'll have the
knowledge that's gained from
that.

Whether there's significant
disruption or too much
noise, all of those things
we'll know rather than
supposing.

Supposing.

>> Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: City
manager?

>> Just a question for mr.

Smith.

250 Operations.

You are responsible for
reviewing and making the
decision with respect to the
application.

Do you actually expect
that -- that this applicant
would be undertaking 250
operations?

I believe you have some
prerogative ultimately in
terms of what the number of
operations are if I'm not
mistaken.

Can you address both aspects
of my comments?

>> Well, the numbers that
have been proposed, first of
all, over three days with
smallest number occurring on
friday, ramping up a little
on saturday, the bulk of
them occurring on sunday.

In terms of what actually
will fly, we're still trying
to collect that information
in terms of these
applicants, in terms of
their sales.

They put a high number on
their application to allow
them to go up to that
amount.

But what they've actually
had in sales, we're still
gathering that information.

So the bottom line is i
don't know right now
specifically how many
flights are proposed for
friday, saturday or sunday.

I'm meeting again this
afternoon with a number of
people trying to get all of
the last pieces of
information tied together so
we can make a decision.

>> Let's say that that
were -- are you -- would you
ever actually be inclined to
approve that kind of a
number in terms of
operations?

>> Absent regulations and
councilmember morrison is
correct in the sense that --
that we do not have
experience dealing with this
type of application based on
a temporary helistop based
on the last three or four
years of applications, they
have been much fewer in
number.

So the rules and regulations
that we have in the aviation
code, in relationship to
land use code, probably need
some changes to recognize a
larger number of trips in
this type of situation.

But absent regulations, we
can't make them up on the
spot.

So what we try and do in
aviation is work with the
regulations that we do have
and those deal with safety,
can this be done in a safe
manner in one that the
 would approve since
 has to approve
this operation as well.

In addition to safety, we
would look at noise.

And since there is no track
record for noise, as the
mayor pointed out, we
haven't had experience with
this one yet and then we
have to estimate what that
noise is.

We do that by estimating the
noise contour around the
location and we deal with
the 65-decibel level, which
 uses to
determine whether or not it
has significant impact on
the adjacent sensitive
properties.

Again primarily being
residential.

The third thing that we
evaluate is we have to
provide reasonable access to
air space, that's our job in
, we
can't have overly cumbersome
regulations that prevent
somebody from accessing the
 has
approved to be flown in.

Absent a lot of the other
types of regulations that
councilmember morrison, i
think wants to see us look
at, in a new ordinance, i
have to work with what's on
the books today.

>> And what's on the books
today is what you have used
in the past relative to this
sheet, temporary helistops
from 2010, to 2012.

You've used what's been on
the books to make these
decisions in the past?

>> Yes, safety, noise,
access.

>> Tovo: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: smith, what's
on the books now is an
application that asks for
the number of anticipated
daily operations and hours
of operation.

Is that correct.

>> Yes.

>> To me that very clearly
means that it's within the
discretion of the aviation
director to provide some
limits in terms of the
anticipated daily operations
and what's acceptable and so
I would say -- I would say
that it really is -- does
qualify as an emergency to
clarify if there's any doubt
on what number is acceptable
within close proximity to a
residential area, that it is
an emergency that we put
some limits to it.

That is one of the reasons
why I'm co-sponsoring these
ordinance changes because i
think we need to be very
explicit about what the
expectations are for -- for
limits within close
proximity.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let
me clarify that one.

When you are declaring an
emergency saying it goes
into effect immediately,
whatever the criteria the
director uses to make his
final decision, it wouldn't
make any difference in this
instance.

>> I understand that.

I have spent time with mr.

Smith, with our city legal.

I understand that the
ordinance changes won't make
any difference.

I don't think we need the
ordinance changes for mr.

Smith to exercise the
discretion that already
exists to apply some limits
to the number of trips.

I think it's very clear if
you are requesting that
information from applicants,
that you have the
information to make that
information based on good
decisions and providing
limitations on the
applicant.

Councilmember spelman may
disagree given the frowning.

>> Spelman: I would like
to ask a question, if i
could.

Given that the ordinance
change even if it passes, on
an emergency basis, will not
 smith's -- the
 smith is
going to be applying to the
south mopac case, what's the
emergency?

Why do we have to do this
right now?

>> Tovo: I think it's wise
to make it explicit in our
code so that there's no any
unclear expectations going
forward.

>> This is also anticipating
a stakeholder process which
hasn't happened yet.

It's basically saying we
think the result of the
stakeholder process is going
to be thus and such.

But the stakeholder process
might reduce -- result in a
different number like 12 or
24 or some other number or
no number of trips being a
trigger between temporary
and permanent.

>> Tovo: I think at that
point there might be a
discussion as changing that
number yet again.

As councilmember morrison
said there are a variety of
things that I think the
stakeholder group really
needs to look at with regard
to this section of code.

And it's going to need a
fair amount of discussion
and a good deal of work
based on my review and the
discussions that I've had
over the last week.

I don't think that's going
to be, excuse me, a fast
process.

So I would say let's set a
limit, let's do, I think
we're talking about two
different things.

One is we're referring to
 smith --
the applicants that mr.

Smith is looking at.

I'm simply making the point
that the existing code asks
them to collect the
information about the
duration of stops.

I think there's already the
latitude that he needs to
say this is far out of scale
with -- with what has been
approved under temporary
helistops, I just wanted to
make that point.

But I do think that our
stakeholder process is going
to take a long time, would
have to cover a lot of
ground.

So it makes sense in my mind
to clarify what is an
acceptable limit for
temporary helistops just
based on what has been
approved in the past.

You've got the chart in
front of you.

You know, one landing, four
landings, five landings,
under 10, there hasn't been
one, as councilmember
morrison said there hasn't
been one that exceeded 10 so
far.

>> Spelman: Sure.

>> Tovo: So let's just put
in the code what has
typically been approved so
there are realistic
expectations going forward
on the part of applicants.

They know, you know, about
what is, what qualifies as a
temporary helistop so that
there's not -- they don't go
down the wrong path as far
as that goes, let's allow
the stakeholder process to
take place and cover the
wider range of issues
they'll have and come up
with a different number if
they feel like it's
warranted based on the other
considerations they have.

>> Cole: Rather than argue
the --

>> Spelman: Rather argue
the merits of 18 oregon some
other number, jim is going
to do what jim is going to
do based on the rules
available to him right now.

If we want to change the
rules that's fine, but it
has no effect on what jim is
going to do with south in
mopac.

Seems to me what we want to
do as a council we think
that the number of takeoffs
and landings ought to be
material, taken into account
rather than pre-empt the
stakeholder process and say
we're going to establish 18
as being that threshold.

We can send a direction to
the stakeholder process or
task force or direction to
the aviation department if
they're going to put it
together or whoever is
responsible for managing the
process, saying we think
this is an issue that ought
to be considered.

We think 18 seems like a
sensible number, but let's
hold a process and see what
you guys come up with.

There might be a less
intrusive means of sending
that message than to pass a
preemptive ordinance in
advance of a process which
hasn't taken place.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I
just say it looks like what
we are doing right here,
what has been said here is
that we know that's a
complicated thing, it's
going to take a long time to
come up with new rules for
temporary helistops, but in
meantime we're going to put
into place a very draconian
set of restrictions, doesn't
make much sense to me of the
will councilmember martinez?

>> Tovo: Well, if I could
just make a quick point.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Yeah.

>> Tovo: I'm not sure
what's draconian about it
when every applicant except
for the one that's
pending -- has fallen under
that limit.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Draconian that these types
of operations would not be
possible in the future
unless they are changed by
a -- I mean the type of
operations that would serve
the f 1 event would not be
possible under these
restrictions.

>> Tovo: Well, I have a
response to that.

I will yield to
councilmember martinez, but
when I get the floor back
again I would like to
respond to that point.

>> Martinez: Well, first
of all, this is not about f
1.

This is a policy about
allowing operation to exist
within our community and we
don't have a year.

To make these decisions.

I fully agree that we need
to come up with a policy
that works for this city.

But we've got motogp spring
of next year, then v 8 super
cars coming, no telling what
other events come.

So we've got to come up with
a policy in a much shorter
time frame than a year from
now.

So I'm fully supportive of
that.

By I look at it in a
different perspective.

I do see why they want to
make it, why the sponsors
want it to be enacted in an
emergency fashion, that is
so that no other temporary
permits can be sought
between now and november
17th.

What that does for me it
 smith
and think he's almost going
to be forced to approve the
two that are existing
because sales have happened,
agreements have been
reached, and if he denies
them, which he still has the
ability to do, they won't be
able to operate at all this
year.

So -- so do you see that
as -- as an influence in
that you've got two pending
and if council makes this
decision to enact an
emergency ordinance this
thursday, creating
conditional use permit, do
you feel pressured in a
situation where you --
you've at least got to
approve these two so that
some operation of -- of
helicopter transports can
take place during the next
two weeks?

>> -- The frequency
of tripses really only
enters into our calculation
in the sense of what does it
do to the noise contour
around the site.

That's how the airport,
given our existing
regulations looks at
frequency.

It isn't frequency per se,
it is what does that number
do when we plug it into the
model to try to define or
estimate what the noise
contours would be.

From that respect, to us,
right now, what the
regulations we have on the
books, the number of
operations is relative
immaterial other than to
give us the noise contours.

Do we feel any pressure
to -- to -- no, this isn't
approved yet.

They know that.

They have decided to go
ahead and make the sales
anyway.

We're still gathering
information.

Still making requests of the
applicants to provide us
additional information.

If we get all of that
information and approve this
effectively, we will approve
the permit.

If we don't get it.

We will deny the permit.

So that's why we haven't
made a decision yet, we know
that we are getting close
because we haven't gotten
all of the information that
we have requested.

>> Martinez: Because of
all of the public
conversation and reporting
that has gone on, do you
know if the two requesters
are actively seeking a -- a
more suitable alternative
location.

>> It's too late.

Because both of these exceed
the limit that requires
 evaluation of their
flight paths.

It's way beyond the point
where somebody can come in
now and get a new site
that's going to make more
than 10 trips.

>> Martinez: So even if we
enacted an ordinance on
thursday in an emergency
fashion, nobody could come
in and apply for a temporary
helistop anyway and get
approval --

>> for the for f 1.

>> What is the time frame
we're talking about if we
don't enact this ordinance?

 requires in their
application 90 days to make
an evaluation if you are
going to do more than 10
trips for them to evaluate
the flight path.

>> Martinez: That would
be, in my mind, about the
time frame we need to come
back to this council with
strong ideas as to what this
ordinance is going to look
like moving forward so that
they can apply for, if
necessary, a -- other
temporary spots.

When you look on the
schedule that was handed
out, it's, you know, it's
trouble maker studios, doing
filming, acl fest, could be
south-by-southwest, we could
be precluding others by not
getting an ordinance back to
this council, you know,
within 90 days.

For me, I get the -- i
understand the request for
wanting to enact an
ordinance in an emergency
time frame, but I don't know
that the -- that the
intended effect is really
being realized because it
takes 90 days to get
approved from f.a.a. anyway.

>> Morrison: Mayor, can i
ask -- I want to follow-up
on that because the concern
that I have, what I'm
hearing is that nobody could
even apply for the next 90
days, but my concern is that
there's nothing that
precludes them from
applying, but with an
incomplete application, ie
not having the f.a.a.

Approval, and in fact when i
was sort of -- we were
harshing through whether
to -- hashing through
whether to even include this
as an emergency or not, we
decided to go forward with
it with the understanding
that there could be some
 requires 90
days, but that doesn't
preclude them from getting
back to you in fewer than 09
days.

So the -- 90 days.

So the idea I guess what i
want to make sure is that we
have some reasonable limits
in place.

We have a discussion which
might raise those limits,
but in that time period,
maybe we don't need
emergency or not.

But for the short term, we
want to make sure that we
are not encountering
something that some people
feel is way out of bounds.

And so -- so it could be
that the -- that with the
discussion, the number goes
higher than 18.

And in which case people
could reapply.

Let's say they apply for 18
now.

They could reapply for more
if we come up with
something.

This is a safe approach, i
think, to protect us from --
from like what I consider
something way beyond.

Because I appreciate -- i
appreciate you mentioning
that there are a lot of
event coming up and it's
envisioned there's going to
be a lot of use of that.

So I think that -- that
depending on how things go,
the helicopter market might
get very popular and we're
going to have to sort this
out and find a convenient
way to do it.

I do want to just mention
one thing in terms of
getting the details on what
this particular operator is
planning.

I know that there was a --
there was a meeting
yesterday between some staff
and some of the concerns.

Maybe just residents, I'm
not sure if the property
owners were there, also,
that are concerned about the
issue.

And the information they
came away with, I'm not sure
if this is just estimated
and you're still trying to
finalize it.

But what they were made
aware of was that the plans
 friday, between
,
there will be 56 trips.

Which I presume means 112
takeoffs and landings.

 to
 there will be 76
trips total, which twice
that takeoff and landing and
then sunday from 7:00 a.m.

, it would be
106 trips, which is of
course the busiest day and
the way I calculate it,
that's 212 trips, in 14
hours.

Which gives us 15 trips per
hour.

One takeoff or landing every
four minutes.

Which is a lot.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Nothing compared to atlanta
hartsfield.

>> Well, the people that
live in rollingwood and that
work there are not working
at an airport.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That
was meant to be humor,
councilmember.

>> Tovo: Thanks to doing
that calculation, that was
where I was going with one
of my questions a little
earlier.

 smith, the comment has
been made if the
applications that are
pending are not approved
there would be no helicopter
operations.

But it was my understanding
that they could also move to
the airport.

Is that not the case?

>> There are planned
helicopter operations from
all over the region.

Lakeway, bastrop, austin
executive, we only are aware
of or have direct knowledge
of the ones that are inside
the city or the e.t.j.

But there are numerous other
locations that are going to
have helicopter operations.

The bulk of the people
however, at least in the
conversations we've had with
the helicopter operators,
are going to be staying in
the downtown vicinity.

So -- so they have a
preference for -- for
finding a location somewhere
in the vicinity of downtown.

That's why -- why we ended
up with the two applications
that we do, one for embassy
suites, one for the south
mopac site.

There were a number of other
locations that earlier in
the process started out.

They fell out for a variety
of reasons.

People have raised issues
verbally, they were
dismissed at the time.

These are the only two that
have taken it as far as they
have of working with the
, working with the
city, to try to get this
far.

If the applications are --
are [indiscernible], would
they have the opportunity to
move to the airport as their
location?

>> They could.

We have limits out there,
too.

We already are anticipating
the fbo areas, fixed base
operators for the general
aviation, their sites are
going to be completely
booked in terms of parking
plans, our maintenance ramp
has to be maintained for
emergencies.

So we are going to allow
helicopter operations at the
airport, but there will be
limited space and limited
numbers.

Right now we have about 30
or 40 trips scheduled from
the airport itself.

Austin executive airport has
a number of trips.

San marcos airport has a
number of trips being
scheduled.

So it will be spread out.

>> Tovo: Okay.

But because the point was
made if this application,
 smith may
be under pressure now to
approve this application
because the applicant
doesn't have any other
options, the applicant has
other options.

They have the option of
moving to the airport and
there may be, as you said,
there are limits, but, you
know, it's not -- that's --
that's an option that's
available.

To this applicant.

And I would say, you know,
mayor, before you raised a
question about sending
signals, I think it's
appropriate to send a signal
to helicopter operators out
there that we don't want
them selecting locations
that are in close proximity
to residential areas where
residents for three days are
going to have to be exposed
to helicopters overhead
every four minutes.

It's just -- that's more --
that asks more of our
residents than should be
asked of them.

They have a right to go to
work and work in peace and
we've heard from -- from
some -- from one of the
offices in that complex that
they have workers who need
to go to work on friday and
need sometimes on the
weekends as well and they
need the opportunity to do
their work in a
non-disrupted way.

And we have residents who
want to be able to enjoy the
weekend in their back yards
and houses without having
helicopter traffic overhead.

I don't think that's an
unreasonable expectation.

.. yes, I think we
should send a signal.

That we would like to locate
helicopter operations in
areas that are less
disruptive to our
residential neighborhood.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Well, I would just like to
make the point that they are
not overflying
neighborhoods.

There won't be helicopters
over neighborhoods.

They will be flying down
mopac and out 290.

>> They are in very close
proximity.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Not
overhead.

>> Tovo: I think it's a
reasonable expectation that
the residents in those areas
will be disrupted by the
noise and the frequency.

And let me just add to the
list of people that I've
heard from, I've also heard
from at least one parent of
a child, at child's day in
very employees proximity if
not at the same address of
this proposed helistop and
they were not pleased about
the application.

I don't know if the rest of
you all have heard from all
of the people that we're
hearing from.

We've gotten calls, we've
gotten e-mails as has been
stated, we've heard from
attorneys, we've heard from
lots of people concerned
about this.

So, you know, I think there
is a -- a need for the
council to address this
going forward and as quickly
as possible.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Again, nothing in this item
51 ordinance amendment would
affect the operations a
little over a week from now.

>> Cole: Mayor, I just --

>> Tovo: Yes, but our
staff he --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
There may be other factors,
but not the ordinance
amendments itself.

Mayor pro tem?

>> Cole: I agree there's a
need for a policy going
forward and I do think that
we have -- I'm glad that
we've made a commitment of
how we're going to handle
this for right now.

I would think, jim, let me
ask you this, that the
information that you are
going to gain from the
applicants in queue help
with that policy.

Going forward.

I heard you say that your
primary goal was to reduce
the noise level.

>> For the existing
applications we're close to
having all of the
information.

What we are really just
trying to do is measure what
the 65-decibel noise contour
is from an f.a.a.

Definition, not a person
definition, but an f.a.a.

Definition, that's the
threshold for when you are
impacting a surrounding area
or a sensitive area,
residences, churches,
with -- with significant
noise impacts.

So -- so we're trying to
gather all of the
appropriate information we
can to basically come to
that determination as best
we can.

Now, if we go ahead and
approve the application,
it's our plan to put in
portable noise monitors in
the surrounding area so we
can collect real data so
that going forward in this
process that we're
articulating here with the
resolution, we can bring
data to the table in terms
of what the impact at
various distances from the
noise source, you know, hit
the neighborhood or hit
different areas.

>> Cole: That would be
beneficial to the
stakeholders.

>> Because noise is
extremely subjective when
you are trying to estimate
it in advance and on a
practical basis you only get
a handle on it if you can
measure it in practicalcal
operation after the fact.

Even then when you have the
hard numbers it's still a
perception issue.

Two people standing in the
same place are going to hear
that noise a little bit
differently.

>> Cole: Okay.

We would have that
information to be able to
use as we develop a policy
in short order say within
the 90 days has that been
discussed here.

That would help the
stakeholders, I think.

>> Spelman: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:
Councilmember spelman?

>> Spelman: Follow up to
that just a second.

What exactly jim is the
standard that irgoing to be
using, you mentioned 65
decibels impacted area.

What's the standard exactly?

 has a noise
modeling system that we try
and use to the degree we
can't use because it can't
be turned we try to do our
best estimate of that.

That's all that we're
dealing with is estimates at
this stage of the game.

The same thing that we have
with the airport itself we
have spent a lot of time and
effort developing noise
contours around each of the
runways.

We know exactly where those
are.

Short term trying to get
helicopter is
difficult.

But we can do reasonable
estimates of that.

Doing the portable noise
equipment after that we can
do a better job next time.

>> Spelman: I understand
it's based on estimates and
we're not exactly sure where
the contours are going to
lie.

But let me be sure that i
understand what the standard
is.

If that 65-decibel contour
extends into somebody's back
yard, therefore it's our
estimate that somebody is
going to have more than
65-decibels on some takeoff
and landing in their back
yard, that would be
sufficient for you to say
no, is that accurate?

>> No.

It doesn't work as simply as
that.

The 65-decibel says that
there is a potential for an
impact to that particular
residence.

Now, there's alternative
ways of mitigating that.

But it doesn't mean that --
that you absolutely have to
deny it just because of
that.

You try to do estimates of
the total community impact
and things like that.

You also compare it to the
ambient noise level in the
surrounding area.

Before you develop the noise
contours, one of the things
that you do is you measure
the urban noise that exists
just on a normal day.

What is the truck noise --
what does the truck noise
make it when goes by and a
variety of other things.

Then the system that f.a.a.

Uses is sophisticated in a
sense so that doing
measurements and
calculations between ambient
noise and noise levels from
the noise source, aviation
noise source and trying to
develop the contours.

>> Spelman: I used to live
on hartford road where my
back yard backed up directly
on mopac.

Can you give me a sense of
what level of noise that i
was talking about in my back
yard just because I was
backed up on mopac, would
that be over 70 decibels?

>> Yes.

Typical garbage truck going
down your street or if you
are in employees proximity
to a lawn mower, you are
exceeding 85 decibels with
that.

So, you know, it's -- the
issues with single source
noises and then continuous
noise and those are
perceived, you know,
differently and measured
differently in the
calculation.

So mopac would be a -- would
be a high impact noise
contour, type of thing, from
 would
look at it.

But it's continuous.

>> Spelman: Okay.

There's no way to escape it.

You go in the back yard and
that's what you notice.

Last question, I notice that
there is a type of
helicopter associated with
each of these sites.

Does that mean that only one
type of helicopter is going
to be allowed to come up and
down in these of these
heliports?

>> The applicants give us
the helicopter model, that
helps with the noise
monitoring because every one
of these has been tested.

We know what noise level
they produce at which
heights they gets plugged
into the noise contour
model.

It also gives us an
indication just like jets,
modern helicopters are
significantly quieter than
old helicopters.

 has required has
old planes as well as old
helicopters be retired
because of the noise impact
that they create if they
can't meet modern standards.

[One moment please for
change in captioners]
helistop helifacility
 we're
going to have to start a
discussion about loud music
too.

A hear more complaints about
loud music than helicopter
noise.

>> Mayor?

>>Mayor leffingwell: yes.

Only the condominium authority
has the authority to make such
a decision.

Can you clarify the status on
that.

>> We're not pursuing a legal
determination of that.

He has the authority,
authorize the helicopter
applicant to file their
application with us and that's
what we have been advised to
ask for, in terms of
documentation to accept the
application.

>> So merely a statement that
says we have the authority to
allow him to do this
is enough for the city,
even though that has been
challenged in some detail?

>> That's what the airport's
working with now.

You can ask the law
department for an opinion.

When we consulted with our
attorney, we were advised
that we needed to accept the
application.

 so that was the
advice from our legal
department, at this point?

>> Yes, and we have that
letter.

We got it yesterday.

 could you
provide a copy of that
letter?

>> Yeah.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

I've got one more item.

And it's just basically
housekeeping questions that
I have here.

It was an addendum.

Item number 59.

I don't know anything about
the specifics of it, except
that -- it kind of -- we
have an ongoing problem with
following our own rules that
we established, as far as
following items lead.

And the motivation for doing
this, we went to provide
more time.

We asked the staff to post
items on the agenda earlier.

And we, as a council agreed
to do the same thing.

We have no mechanism for
enforcing it,
self-enforcing, only.

But one of the things that
we suggested be done when an
item is filed late,
basically, a "emergency
filing" is that a form be
submitted along with it.

I haven't had anybody tell
me they have seen the form
submitted with item 59.

>>Morrison: mayor?

>>Mayor leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.

 I sponsored this
with councilmember riley.

Did you fill out a form?

I would be happy to fill out
the form.

 this
is -- excuse me.

>>Morrison: I'm sorry.

 that is
a different number.

The last item on the agenda.

 that is mine
with councilmember riley.

 since I was the
cosponsor.

It wasn't on time --

>>mayor leffingwell: 98.

[Inaudible, multiple people
speaking]

>>morrison: ok.

I don't know if there is a
time line for filling out
the form, I would be glad to
still fill it out.

As I understand it, I can
get that from the mayor's
office; is that correct?

 we will
sure find you one.

>>Morrison: great.

I want to explain that I'm
respectful of the timing we
all try to work toward.

This was an extraordinary
circumstance.

It is the arc of the capital
area, that is dealing with
location and relocation
issues.

I happened to meet with them
on friday, councilmember
riley had met with them a
couple days earlier.

It turned out it would
really be very critical to
get work from our staff in
terms of exploring options
by our early december
meeting.

So it didn't allow us, we
wouldn't be able to achieve
that by putting it off until
december.

So I will certainly come to
your office and get that
form quickly.

 thank
you.

That is all I have on the
list here.

 mayor, may I ask a
quick question?

>>Mayor leffingwell:
Councilmember tovo.

 I think she had
tracked.

There may be posting
challenges, maps challenges
or something like that,
because the application has
been revised.

I just -- I wanted to know
if you had any information
at this point -- about -- at
this point about whether it
would be going forward on
thursday or whether it would
be postponed?

>> Right now, greg murphy
out of the planning
department.

Right now, we're posting 74,
75, 76.

Which is the texas state
troopers.

>>Tovo: thanks.

>>Morrison: mayor?

>>Mayor leffingwell:
Councilmember morrison.

 I would like to
discuss item number 54, the
resolution about the
interlocal with the texas
facilities commission.

And this relates to an item
we had on our comprehensive
plan meeting yesterday
because we were talking
about the state land at 45th
and bull creek and the
process that that is
presumably going to go
through for development.

And a lot of questions came
up for me that we asked
staff to help answer in
terms of what are the
different mechanisms and
processes for states
determining how they're
going to develop their land.

And I think, we did -- i
asked staff for some
background information.

>> Did you get it?

 I think it just
came in today.

I expect to maybe have more
conversation about this on
thursday.

I want to learn about that.

And as a general rule, i
wanted to mention that i
know that the -- the
resolution itself has the
reason for doing this
interlocal so that the city
of austin's participation
and assistance shall focus
on ensuring various land
development scenarios are
consistent with the city's
land development code and
imagine austin plan.

And I'm very respectful of
that goal, but when I read
the interlocal, I don't see
that goal actually
implemented in the
interlocal.

All I see, for instance,
with regard to the
comprehensive plan is that
one of the assessments will
do is whether it complies
with it.

It says information
regarding the consistency
with the imagine austin
plan.

I don't see how we're
actually going to be able to
work to ensure it complies
with that.

The other question that i
have, if we are going to
take this track of having an
interlocal is to understand
the structure because it
looks like the city would be
providing a lot of resources
with the -- to help make it
a better development.

We would assume.

So a lot of resources, a lot
of data, a lot of time.

But also it contemplates
potentially us putting cash
on the table.

And what I -- I -- I would
want to understand why that
makes sense within this
structure.

And I don't know if you're
ready to talk about that.

>> Sure.

We can talk about all of
that specifically.

First of all, this
interlocal agreement does
not only apply to the bull
creek residents, but it is
very early in had the
process of working with the
state facility commission.

Very, very early.

And because the state owns
so much land and you will
notice all the land that is
listed, that they're
considering redeveloping,
not only the capitol
complex, the north austin
complex, the south complex,
which includes the hospital.

The bull creek, and complex
and states parking garages.

I was very concerned that
they would participate in
the whole process of
redeveloping this.

They have that option.

The goal of the interlocal
agreement and this
resolution is to make sure
we do this together, so we
don't end up in some of the
conflicts that we have ended
up in the past with proposed
state development and us not
being intune with that or
having participated in the
process.

So the amount of tax base
that this redevelopment will
add to our rolls is
virtually inconceivable.

The aim -- amount of
property they have -- i
don't have that, but I can
get it to you.

I was interesting and
thought it was well worth
our time and our energy and
our resources to be at the
table to make sure that that
happens and that we had a
say in the designers,
consultants, imagine austin,
and all of that from the
very, very beginning.

And so I don't believe that
we can do that without
putting some resources on
the table and we won't get
the results we desire if we
simply say, well, we won't
be at the table,
essentially, that is the
choice we have, we won't be
at the table in the
development of all of this
property.

 yeah, i
appreciate that.

Obviously, a huge potential
here.

It can have a really
positive impact on austin
and finding new uses for
state land.

Um, I guess, one question
that really sort of came
out -- and I haven't been
able to get an answer,
hopefully we can understand
that with staff's input.

We talked a little bit about
other ways where -- where
people have been -- the
people of austin and the
city of austin have been
involved in coming up with
designs for state land.

For instance, at the
triangle.

It was explained the
triangle was under the
, the
general land office as
opposed to the texas
facilities commission and by
statute, the intersection
that the facilities
commission has is much more
top-down, as opposed to the
 to
interact with the community
in a way that's different.

So that it's more -- let me
say, it's more challenging
as a community, as I gather,
to work with the facilities
commission because of the
structure versus the g.l.o.

The question came up as to
whether or not it had been
finalized that the bull
creek property was going to
be under the facilities
commission or not.

And what folks said that
came down to speak with us,
they said, well, you know,
that land belongs to the
cemetery commission and
txdot and the transportation
folks had not even decided
whether or not they were
going to turn it over to the
facilities commission or not
to -- for the redevelopment.

So it seems to me that there
is much more leeway in our
participation if it is under
 as opposed to the
facilities commission.

Personally, I want to make
sure we're not jumping the
gun.

If it's possible it might be
, then i
want to hold off on making
decisions and, you know,
cementing relationships with
the facilities commission,
if it might not actually be
how that particular
property's going to happen.

Then that raises the
question for me, for, what
is the process?

What is the mechanism?

What is the status of all
the other properties and
whether they're going to
be -- what mechanism they're
going to be under.

And I don't know if all of
those questions are out
there.

 let me back up and
try to answer what I know
about each one of those.

>>Morrison: ok.

 the land office is
designed to cover land, not
develop.

The triangle there was open
space.

So there is a lot more --
there is a lot less involved
in terms of that
redevelopment when that
happens.

But the texas facilities
commission, their ownership,
the state's ownership and
management of land is
divided between those two
offices.

And all the properties that
are listed here are within
their purview and control.

You brought up the issue of
if an existing facility
owned by the state, like the
health and human resource
commission or texas
workforce commission is
located there, what role do
they have in terms of
dealing with the property?

And I believe that they are
supposed to work together,
but the facility commission
has to work with them.

And this has been -- a
two-year process that has
been going on.

And their board has
completely authorized them
going forward with this idea
of basically following our
policy in terms of mixed
use, pedestrian-friendly,
imagine austin type things
that we put forth, which
they're trying to do in
austin as a demonstration
for potential other projects
throughout the state.

So they are in full
agreement for us being at
the table to help with that
process.

But there has not been, to
my knowledge, any other
agencies that have said, we
do not want the texas
facilities commission to
consider this, go forward
with this, approach the
legislature or not do any of
the items that are
contemplated in this
interlocal agreement.

So I don't think that's a
concern.

Then you ask about the
status.

This is so early in the
process.

And the idea is to begin to
develop what we call
development scenarios.

And for our staff to help
them develop that and for
both of us to share in some
of the cost in that process.

It's not like we have a
design for a particular
location or distance to get
us at the early stages at
the table before we get too
far along and that everybody
understands what our plans
contemplates will happen.

 I'm really glad
to hear you say the
facilities commission has
authorized following our
policies, like connect
austin.

And those interlocal goals.

I don't know that I see
that.

>>Cole: that is part of.

 that is the --
 I have amendments
that need to be made to the
interlocal agreement.

I thought there may be some
today.

But one that is definitely
going to be there is the
exact same language that is
in the resolution which is
consistent with the imagine
austin plan.

And I also removed the
language with the city of
planned development codes
because we are in the
process of revising our land
development code.

And I didn't want to be
stuck with the existing land
development code.

I wanted all of these
properties, because it will
take undoubtedly several
years to be marching along
consistent with how we make
changes through the imagine
austin plan with our land
development code.

 although, i
understand that there may be
some disagreement on the
parties' part as to whether
they're subject to our land
development code, would you
say that is accurate?

 I know our zoning
applies to commercial
properties that are
developed that are
state-owned land.

You and I both know there is
disagreement about the
extent to which the state is
subject to our land
development code.

This is designed to get
around that early on and get
as much compliance as we can
and to avoid that problem,
not increase it.

 I guess -- i
appreciate that.

But that's a complex -- very
textured matter.

Skoal coal it is early for
that.

 but with regard
to the land development
code, I think that it is
certainly in the city's
interest that they strive to
comply with the land
development.

 and the imagine
austin complex.

You made sure of that.

 but the other
part is I hesitate to take
out reference to the land
development code just
because it is changing
because we can make it clear
that we understand the land
development code is evolving
and we work with that.

We still require anybody
else around town to sign up
to comply with land
development code.

I would still like to see
that.

Just my last point, and that
 I'm still interested in
making sure I understand the
difference in the different
mechanisms.

I understand you say that,
you know, none of the --
like the transportation
agencies have not said we
don't want the facilities
commission to control our
redevelopment of our
property.

That may well be true, but i
don't know the complexity
of -- but they haven't said
they do want them to.

It was told to us yesterday
that they had some control
in the matter.

So there is a lot of details
for me still to be filled
out in terms of what the
constraints are that we're
working under.

If the constraints are we're
working under the facilities
commission, no questions
about that, great.

Let's get this amended and
make it -- you know, get it
in line with what's really
going to serve both parties.

 so you're saying you
would like language -- well,
I just -- as I told you
before, I do not know of any
state agency that is
existing on this property
that has concerns.

 but have they
been -- have they actually
addressed the issue one way
or another?

And what about all the other
properties?

I just need to understand
how muchly -- much leeway
is there are we committing
to one path and there might
still be options still?

That is what I want to
understand.

 let me
say I appreciate you
bringing the item forward.

I think it is important that
we have the discussions.

Because it is probably too
much to see that we're in
the room on this, but
probably pretty close.

Anything out of this
memorandum, understanding, i
think it is something that
we don't necessarily have
now.

I think we're good.

Any other items to bring up?

Councilmember spelman?

>>Morrison: I do.

 go
ahead.

 just to let
folks know I had questions
on the question about the
valet -- the valet ordinance
that we're looking at,
specifically, there is a lot
of reference to the valet
employees.

This is just a technicality,
but I wanted to raise the
issue that they might have
folks that are contract
workers, not necessarily
employees, and we want to
make sure that they were
under that also.

And the other two things
that I was concerned about
were, number one, this
ordinance allows -- where
you have the valet reserving
certain spots.

It allows the valet company
to use the adjacent spots
also.

For no more than 45 minutes.

To me, that sounds like they
will be using two more spots
than they're paying for.

I sort of question and
figure out what the benefit
to the city is as opposed to
them just paying for the
spots?

Because we also had a
presentation at cpt on this.

And with the funding -- with
the fees that are in place
right now, being suggested
and ratcheting them up over
three years, we're going to
have a lot of years of not
paying our cost of service
to them, which is our major
concern.

Giving away the two extra
spots was a concern.

And then lastly, I was
concerned because a valet
company does have to show
that they have an agreement
to park their cars somewhere
else, besides the street.

And I wanted to make sure
that we had something in
place to ensure that they
have leased enough space to
accommodate all the cars
that they're gonna get.

Otherwise, we're gonna get
them spilling over -- the
same problem we have today,
spilling over into the
streets and all.

While I understand that
staff is expecting to be
able to manage that in the
45-minute usage with intense
monitoring, I understand.

That's very expensive.

I'd rather solve the problem
as much as possible within
the construct of the valet
ordinance.

I know gordon and rob are
not here, so it might not be
fair to just throw this out.

I just want to let you know
the concerns that I had.

 I'm
glad you brought that up.

I wanted to make a comment
on that, too.

Noting that I think there is
a three-year phase-in period
on this.

This is something the
council asked you to do a
long time ago.

I had no idea that the
different -- the difference
in cost would be as much.

$250 A year, up to $4,000 a
year.

So it is a significant
change.

It is something that I think
we need to do.

I think the people who use
the spots agree to that,
too.

But I want to explore the
idea of a little bit longer
phase-in period, say, five
years, instead of three.

Anything else?

 yeah, I think that
will be an interesting
discussion on thursday.

I appreciate the concerns
raised so we have time to
ponder them over ourselves.

I hope the staff will also
be prepared with numbers on
how much the spaces would
otherwise generate, if they
were metered because I think
that is a very real
consideration.

I remember having those
discussions back when we
were talking about
increasing the parking meter
fees downtown and extending
the parking meter charges
that there is a real lost
revenue stream to the city
when we lease those spaces
out as valet spaces rather
than metered spaces.

To me, that is part of the
cost recovery that we need
to be looking toward as we
think about these fees and
the phasing, because it is a
big increase, but they've
also been getting a heck of
a deal at $250 per space,
you know, I mean, if you
were a downtown worker
paying for meters, you were
pay more for that.

In the course you would be
better off getting a valet
license and buying a spot.

Those are all the financial
considerations we need to
think through as we think
about thursday.

I will say, I have submitted
some questions on number
two, austin energy.

I don't want to talk about
it now, because we don't
have the answers.

But I have asked staff to
provide us with information
about how -- what the
expected -- what those units
rent for now and whether
there is any kind of
commitment with the property
owner to keep that rent
stable.

This is the conversation we
had in the past with the
energy efficiency rebates.

You know, the challenge
is -- of course, we want to
incentivize the people to
have the upgrades, but once
they have the benefit of the
program that they're not
increasing the rent so the
people living there find the
place suddenly unaffordable.

Hopefully we will get good
information from staff about
how they addressed that
challenge.

 I want
to say, going back to the
valet parking thing, I think
that cost is based on the
estimated revenue that those
spots would already be
getting.

We're going to assume an
occupancy rate, I don't know
that rate -- 60% or
something like that.

That number is readily
available for you.

Councilmember riley.

 on the valet thing,
I agree with your comments.

We need to note to keep in
mind that the valet
operations are performing a
tremendously valuable
service in getting a huge
number of cars off of -- out
of the on-street spaces and
are often parked in places
that are not even accessible
to the public in garage
spaces that would not even
be pate continue is
increasing the amount of
spaces available to the
public.

Taking all of those off the
streets, those cars off the
streets, putting them in
garages, making better use
of the garage space we
already have.

It is a tremendously
valuable service that they
are providing.

An agree with the mayor's
comments that there is cause
for concern about the --
getting these increases into
effect over the next three
years.

There has been a process.

A very positive process that
we have gone through with
the stakeholders and my
understanding is they are
now at the point of being
ready to agree in the very
significant increases in the
cost, if we can stretch them
over a five-year period
rather than a three-year
period.

I think that is a very
reasonable request and one i
would support.

I agree with the mayor on
that.

 if
there is --
 there is one other
item to talk about on and
put it on the radar screen.

One other is item 31.

Not the hill country case.

That is one that is a
subject of a lot of
discussion.

A lot of folks in the
community are concerned that
moving forward with
full-purpose annexation
would eliminate the
opportunity to promote a
superior development in the
area through the use of the
bid currently in the works.

I understand there is
uncertainty on the part of
staff as to whether we would
get development that is
significantly superior,
whether there is enough of a
difference between what we
would be getting in the pid
and what we get under
regular development if we
had full-purpose annexation.

I have been looking at that
and trying to assess the
best way forward.

I want to put out there as
an option to give us more
time to figure it out, to
approve the full-purpose
annexation on the first
reading only and then
continue the discussions in
the coming weeks about
whether we would really be
achieving superiority, there
are strict timetables in the
annexation process.

It is my understanding that
would keep us on the
timetable.

We could come back on second
or third reading to
determine through pid if we
get enough to back off with
the sanitation.

That is one option going
forward that seems appealing
right now in terms of giving
more times in superiority
offered by the pid.

>>Mayor leffingwell: ok.

Anything else?

 comment to
councilmember riley.

I appreciate you bringing
that up.

I have been struggling with
this quite a bit.

It is important -- I had a
chance to meet with the
developer as well as the
staff.

I don't know that we've had
the opportunity to really
get the staff's perspective,
publicly, as a council.

And I think that to have
more time to converse will
be important.

 all
right.

Without objection, we are
adjourned at 11:33.