a quorum is present, I'll

call this council work

session to order on

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 15th,

12, Meeting in the boards

and commissions room austin

city hall, 301 west second

street.

 

Just to get -- to give

 

[09:06:01]

 

everyone an idea of the

order that we're going to go

in today, first we're going

to go into executive

session, and when we come

out, we'll first take up

items number 1 and 6, those

are items that have to be

completed today.

 

Then when we get out we'll

have a discussion on the

bond items and if we get to

it, we'll start our briefing

from the individual

departments on budget.

On budget items.

Before we go into executive

session, I want to announce

that -- that item 58, on the

agenda for tomorrow, will be

withdrawn.

Just so folks will know.

It's the auditorium shores

item.

 

>> Item no. 58?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: 58.

 

>> Tovo: Is it the formula

1 issue?

>> Yes.

To the council will go into

closed session to take up

071

the council will discuss

8, discuss legal

issues related to the

november 2012 election.

Is there any objection?

Hearing none, the council

will now go into executive

session.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We're out of closed session,

in closed session we took up

and discussed legal issues

related to item no. 8.

So now we'll take up item

1, we have a resolution

to adopt the maximum

proposed property tax rate

that the council will

consider.

 

For fiscal year 2012-2013

and set the property tax

rate.

 

Under state law, the vote on

the motion to adopt a

maximum proposed tax rate

that the council will

consider requires a roll

call vote.

So I will entertain a motion

to adopt a proposed tax

property tax rate, the

motion conducted would be

 

[09:36:00]

 

that move to -- that the

proposed maximum property

tax rate that the council

will consider for the fiscal

year 2012-2013 is 50

cents -- 50 and one-half

cents -- which would be --

505-dollars

per 100-dollar valuation.

 

Is there a motion for that?

 

Mayor pro tem so moves.

 

Seconded by councilmember

martinez.

We have a motion and a

second to adopt a maximum

5 cents

per 100-dollar valuation for

council to consider adopting

during the fiscal year

2012-2013 budget and tax

rate approval meetings in

september.

The clerk will call the

roll.

 

>> Mayor leffingwell.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Aye.

 

>> Mayor cole.

 

>> Aye.

 

>> Councilmember martinez?

 

[Indiscernible]

 

>> councilmember morrison.

 

>> [Indiscernible]

 

>> councilmember tovo.

 

>> Aye.

 

>> Councilmember riley?

 

>> [Indiscernible]

 

>> and councilmember spelman

is absent.

>> So that passes on a vote

of 6 to 0 with councilmember

spelman off the dais.

We will now set the date for

the council to adopt the

property tax rate.

For item 1, set the date

that the council will adopt

the fiscal year 2012-2013

property tax rate, proposed

time and date is september

10th, 2012, BEGINNING AT

in the austin city

council chambers at austin

city hall, 301 west second

street, austin, texas,

78701.

I will entertain a motion to

set the time and date as

proposed to adopt the fiscal

year 2012-2013 property tax

rate.

>> So move.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem so moves.

 

Is there a second?

 

Councilmember martinez

seconds.

 

[09:38:01]

 

That motion -- all in favor

say aye.

 

>> Aye.

 

>> Appear possessed say no.

 

Passes on a vote 6-0 with

councilmember spelman off

the dais.

 

Without objection, we'll now

go to item no. 6.

By state law we adopted the

proposed maximum tax rate

that is above what state law

calls the effective rate.

 

We must set two public

hearings on the proposed tax

rate for your fiscal year

2012-2013.

Staff recommends setting the

hearings on thursday, august

23rd, 2012 AT 4:00 P.M.

And on thursday, august

30th, 2012 AT 10:00 A.M.

 

Here in city council

chambers, 301 west second

street, austin, texas.

 

I will entertain a motion on

item 6 to set those dates

for the public hearings on

the proposed tax rate for

fiscal year 2012-2013.

 

Is there a motion?

 

Councilmember martinez so

moves.

Is there a second?

Councilmember riley seconds.

All in favor of that motion

say aye.

 

>> Aye.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Opposed say no.

That motion passes on a vote

of 6-0 with councilmember

spelman off the dais.

So without objection, we

will go to -- to item no. 5.

 

[09:40:03]

 

To approve an ordinance

amending the order calling

THE NOVEMBER 4th --

NOVEMBER 6th, 2012 SPECIAL

Election to provide for

general obligation bond

propositions and declaring

an emergency.

Public comment is allowed.

Do we have anyone signed up

to speak?

 

Thank you.

 

No one is signed up to

speak.

So as you know, we had some

discussion yesterday on this

item.

And -- and we will continue

to have more discussion and

perhaps action today.

I would -- if there's no

objection, council, I would

like to -- I would like to

establish the procedure for

today's discussion.

That when amendments are

made, proposed to a motion,

instead of having them

described as friendly and

incorporated only if the

maker and the second concur

with the friendly amendment,

that we -- if any

councilmember objects to the

friendly amendment, we will

have a vote on that

amendment.

 

So without objection, that's

the way we'll proceed today.

So the floor is open.

>> Mayor.

>> Discussion?

>> Mayor.

>> Mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: Thank you, mayor.

I realize that we have been

in the process of

discussions and that the

citizens have went through a

very lengthy effort to give

us a package that -- that we

can work with and they gave

us a recommendation with 385

and they also gave us a

recommendation with 400

million and that we can

considerable discussions

yesterday about which item

to use as a starting point,

especially with respect to

the city manager's proposal,

the city manager has also

went through a considerable

effort twice to get us to a

potential starting point.

 

So because the issue has --

 

[09:42:01]

 

has risen about the tax

force recommendation and

city manager recommendation,

I have passed around a sheet

that includes listing both

the task force

recommendation and the city

manager recommendation and

then the next column

represents what I will be

proposing as a motion as you

have said, are amendments to

that motion for us to

consider and then also

changes from the task force

and changes from the city

manager.

 

And the idea is for everyone

to be able to closely follow

what we are changing from.

 

So with that said, mayor, i

will make my first motion,

which is for the women --

I'm making a motion to

include the following items

in the bond proposal.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: What

is the base of your

motion --

>> Cole: Some of the

base -- most of the items

are coming from the city

manager's proposal, but some

of the items will be coming

from the task force proposal

and some of the items will

actually be items that were

not included in either the

task force proposal or the

city manager's proposal.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

understand that.

 

But you are going to suggest

amendments to the city

manager's proposal?

 

>> Cole: Well, I'm open

for amendments.

But with -- right now, I am

only planning on starting

with the city manager

proposal.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's what I was asking.

>> Cole: And making an

amendment to it, especially

with respect to affordable

housing.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

>> Cole: So that the end

result will be the task

force recommendation.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

So --

 

>> Cole: I thought that

you were asking me specifics

on what I'm contemplating

might happen with --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'm

asking you are you making

the motion to approve the

 

[09:44:01]

 

city manager's

recommendation, realizing

that there will be changes

proposed.

 

Is that your motion?

 

>> Cole: I will make a

motion to approve the city

manager's recommendation as

OF AUGUST 6th.

That was not -- that was not

the day before yesterday.

 

That was the original city

manager's recommendation.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

And that is the total of

$385 million.

>> Cole: That has a total

of 385, I will let staff get

that up, the original city

manager proposal.

 

The first item --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, before you start going

through, maybe we should get

a second to that motion.

Second by councilmember

riley.

 

And remember, as you go

through, and propose these

amendments, if there's any

objection, there will be a

vote on that amendment.

 

>> Cole: I'll go

through -- yes, mayor, are i

will do that.

 

I will wait for staff and

mike tremble tell me when

you are ready.

 

>> I do want to pass out --

we have a little handout

that has the baseline, 385

recommendation, city

manager's recommendation in

the task force 400, you can

use that as a reference

point for kind of where

we're starting, then with

any changes.

So -- so we'll be ready in

just a second.

 

>> Cole: Okay.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I guess I'm

confused, the motion on the

table is to approve the city

manager's recommendation and

now you're going to propose

amendments to that?

 

>> Cole: Yes.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

That's correct.

>> Morrison: Okay.

I guess that I would like to

propose -- make a substitute

motion?

And that would be --

actually, you know, I think

that obviously we have a

really challenging situation

here.

And yesterday I went back

and sort of contemplated

what my real priorities are

and what could be a path

forward when we have such a

complex thing.

 

I actually talked to dave

 

[09:46:00]

 

sullivan because I remember

the standard process that

the mayor has now talked

about that we're going to

follow of trying to build

consensus --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Their standard process, not

ours.

>> Morrison: Their

standard process, although

we have used it on the

budget, we have used it on

the comp plan where you lay

out a main motion and

hopefully you can massage

that main motion enough in

the end with amendments

enough that -- well, nobody

is going to necessarily

agree with everything, that

you can get to a point where

you can get a unanimous

vote, because I think that's

all of our intent.

 

For me the priority really

is the task force.

And what I wanted to lay out

was that -- in a main motion

that first with -- that

pairs the main motion itself

pares down the task force

recommendation to below 385

and then walk through

reductions, possible

reductions and additions

based on council priorities.

 

So that's -- I'm passing out

the motion then and so my --

so my motion is to move to

adopt the bond advisory task

force recommendation for a

$400 million package with

the following adjustments,

so the adjustments

themselves are part of it.

 

Of the main motion and that

is to reduce --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Substitute motion.

 

>> Morrison: Sorry, yes,

my substitute motion.

So to reduce the a.p.d.

Northwest substation by

9 million, which will

bring it to 5.8 million.

Reduce the emmitt shelton

bridge by two million,

bringing it to 3 million.

Reduce the austin to manor

trail phase 2 by one million

to zero.

Reduce the i-35 improvements

3 million to

18.7 million.

Reduce the bike urban trail

and grant match program by 2

million to 3 million and

reduce the city-wide

bikeways program by

5 million to zero, which

would bring us to a total

bond package on the table of

3 and the reason -- the

 

[09:48:01]

 

reason these were selected

as -- as places to pare down

is because there seemed to

be at least potentially a

majority support for those

parings.

 

So that is my motion which i

hope puts us on a path to

success.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there a second for that

motion?

 

>> Tovo: Yeah, I would

like to second that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo seconds.

 

>> Tovo: I just want to

add a few comments.

We spent a lot of time --

there were two motions

obviously yesterday.

We spent a lot of time

looking at the one motion

that I didn't vote for to

see what elements were in

common, that was the

substance of councilmember

morrison said that was the

substance for these items,

the northwest substation,

austin to manor trail was in

that the -- the main motion

that councilmember martinez

made yesterday, i-35

improvements, these were all

part of -- with the

exception of -- well,

anyway.

They appeared to have

consensus based on the

analysis that we did of who

voted for which motions

yesterday.

And I just wants to say a

few words about the task

force.

I know we talked about this

yesterday but, you know, we

have a lot of very talented

folks in this city who spend

a lot of time working on our

volunteer boards and

commissions and we are

really fortunate to have had

such a high caliber group

working on our bond advisory

task force.

I think that is just a

credit to them and I think

we all did a great job in

selecting them, but they

really did a fabulous amount

of work.

 

There is one very

substantial difference,

mayor pro tem cole has

already identified it,

that's the affordable

housing, the difference in

terms of the affordable

housing fund.

I appreciate that the main

motion includes a commitment

to try to bump that up to

where the task force is.

 

I think that's the right

direction to be moving in.

But I would propose and just

 

[09:50:01]

 

really urge you, my

colleagues, to think about

what message we want to send

to the community about the

work that our community

citizens task force did

throughout this last --

these last several months.

 

As I said, housing is the

most substantial difference,

but as you look down here, i

really appreciate this mr.

Tremble, this list, there

are some other differences

in terms of funding for

things like neighborhood

parks, small community level

projects.

 

And I think those are

important.

They are important to a lot

of people in our communities

and, you know, we haven't

been through a multi--month

process of studying the

details as carefully as did

our citizens task force.

One of the things they

really did was to evaluate

all of the many, many

requests they were

receiving, all of the

emails, all of the people

who showed up to talk, the

focus groups they did out in

the community, larger

community meetings, to come

up with, in their best

estimation, what was a good,

well-balanced bond proposal.

I know it wasn't easy.

We have heard from some of

the members of how

challenging that -- that

prospect was.

 

So I would ask that we

really take that as our

starting point and work

together to figure out what

are the elements from the

city managers that are just

critical to discuss and to

vote on today.

So that is my pitch for

starting at -- starting with

the community task force

recommendations and, you

know, the -- and this

version, which gets us down

to where we need to be to

start looking at other -- at

other [indiscernible]

so the main motion gets us

to 384.

I'm going to hand out some

additional reductions for

which -- for which it wasn't

clear that we had consensus.

 

But I think should still be

up for discussion today.

And then also a page called

suggested additions.

 

And what we tried to do is

capture all of the suggested

additions that arose

 

[09:52:01]

 

yesterday, either in

councilmember martinez's

proposal or in the course of

our conversation, so that

we've got one place where we

can see the extent of what

those additions might be.

 

In looking at it I felt

pretty good about it.

If we can start with the

base of 384 today and then

talk about additional

potential reductions, we

might be able to make a lot

of these suggested additions

work.

So I think that we are -- i

think we are moving toward a

really strong bond proposal.

But I do think that it's for

are to start in the right

place and that's with the

community task force

recommendation.

So I second the motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem?

 

>> Cole: I certainly

appreciate what

councilmember morrison and

councilmember tovo have to

say and fully respect the

work of the bond committee.

But first I want to point

out that in the substitute

motion, that has been made,

also will propose in the

motion sheet that I have,

the exact same amount to the

northwest substation, to the

emmitt shelton bridge and to

the austin-manor trail.

And the other items, the --

the last three items, which

are i-35 improvements,

bicycle urban trails, the

next two items, the i-35

improvements and bake urban

trails are at the bottom of

my motion sheet.

 

What I did was list all of

the items that were

different between the city

manager and task force

recommendation for us to

possibly discuss and I think

that between the proposals

that have within laid out

by -- have been laid out by

councilmember morrison and

tovo, that we will get to

all of the items for

discussion.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

I will say that I'm going to

vote against the substitute

 

[09:54:00]

 

motion so that we can have

our opportunity to work our

way through amendments to

that recommendation.

And have the opportunity to

vote on those amendments as

we go through them one by

one.

 

We didn't have that

opportunity on the

substitute motions since the

major amendments were laid

out as a part of that

motion.

>> Mayor --

>> councilmember riley.

>> Riley: I'm also going

to vote against the

substitute motion and I feel

a need to speak up about a

couple of items that are

included in the motion

because we didn't get to

talk about them yesterday, i

think some people may have

concluded there was a

consensus on those.

I want to dispel any motions

that this is a complete

consensus on those items,

first of all, I have no

problem with starting with

the task force

recommendations of 400

million, that concept seems

fine to me.

That seems less critical to

me than the number where we

land on.

The you -- the important

thing is where we land.

 

But the two items that i

wanted to call attention to

are the last two bullet

points here.

The bicycle urban trail and

grant match program reducing

that by two million,

reducing the city-wide

5, zeroing out

the city-wide bikeways

program.

We have -- the -- cities all

over the countries are

dramatically expanding their

efforts on bicycle issues.

 

Austin has been a leader

traditionally on these

programs.

 

We were recently selected as

one of six cities in the

country to be demonstration

sites for -- for a city-wide

greenways project which

really is squarely within

the intent of the city-wide

bikeways program.

Instead of being able to

continue our leadership

position on this, this -- we

can zero out that program.

 

The other suggestion

about -- about cutting

the -- the -- the bicycle

urban trail and grant match

program is especially

unfortunate because that

 

[09:56:00]

 

program has been very

effective in allowing us to

leverage transportation

dollars.

 

It is a way that we are able

to apply for federal

enhancement funding and

other things that are

getting more and more

important right now.

There is a -- through campo,

we know that there are

significant stpmm

transportation funds that

could be available, but

those are only available to

the extent that a local

entity is willing to step up

and provide a local match.

We have been able to do that

in the past and have been

very effective in leveraging

local transportation dollars

to -- to a greater degree

than we've been able to with

any other transportation

dollars, we're able to

achieve very -- very

effective transportation

investments based on

long-term bicycle planning

that has involved the whole

community.

 

These two items would

essentially put a stop to

all of our progress on all

of that planning and

progress on infrastructure.

 

These would be, these

suggestions came up at the

very last minute.

 

I can assure you they would

be very, very strongly

opposed by the bike

community.

We have already started to

hear from the bike community

about them.

There is very strong

resistance to both of these

items.

I just wants to dispel any

discussion that these are

easy consensus things that

anybody can live with.

 

Because I think that these

are very unfortunate

recommendations and would do

real damage to our progress

on bicycle issues.

 

>> Martinez: Mayor pro

tem?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember martinez.

 

>> Martinez: I want to

share the same concerns that

councilmember riley raised.

 

While some of these may be

similar in nature in terms

of proposed cuts, it was in

the context of what would be

added back.

 

We haven't had that

discussion.

So in my mind there is not

consensus on any of these

because -- because we

haven't gone through and

deliberately talked about

the individual items, as i

suggested yesterday in my

motion, so that you could

see where we end up in the

end.

 

The other point that I want

to make is it keeps being

stated that we are sending a

 

[09:58:02]

 

wrong message to our

community that we are not

honoring the task force.

 

I find that a bit hollow

because -- because we had a

task force make a

recommendation to this body

to put single member

districts on the ballot,

only single member

districts, we had 30,000

signatures from citizens to

tell us to do that and the

maker and the seconder of

this motion voted against

that.

 

So what message was sent

then?

I bring that point up not to

get into it.

 

But to say that this is a

difficult job.

And so you can't on one --

on one item say we must

honor the people we

appointed, when on another

item you absolutely did not

do that.

 

And that's why I find that

hollow.

>> Morrison: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: I appreciate

the comments from both of my

colleagues.

 

I think that with regard to

the value that you speak to,

councilmember riley, i

certainly agree with them

and the intent was certainly

to look toward moving --

having opened up some of

that funding and moving

toward amendments that would

add back some of the

specifics that we had heard

in the recommendation from

the city manager and it was

certainly not intended to

suggest that I had any

expectation that on each one

of these individual items

that we were going to have a

6-0 vote or a 7-0 vote.

 

I realize that, you know,

all of us are going to have

to be -- be open, if we can

get to make it so that we

can get somewhere.

 

And with respect to honoring

task forces or not, I mean,

I have given this a lot of

thought and we are in a very

complicated situation right

now with the dynamics of our

council and trying to get to

a productive -- a productive

path and that's why for me

it was a matter of really

trying to give some serious

thought to where my

priorities lie in this and

where do I feel like I need

to put my energy in working

towards, I think that the

spread sheets that mayor pro

tem passed out, really

speaks to the -- to the two

facets of the differences

between the two approaches

and one is the -- of course

the housing differences, and

then the second is the

much -- the much -- the

numerous small differences

and I feel like that is

where -- where the task

force painted the picture of

the community needs and

that's why the -- and that

might be a lot harder to get

to.

 

So that's why I prefer to

start with the task force

and its a priority for me.

 

[One moment please for

change in captioners]

>> Tovo: I do want to

address the comment that

councilmember riley

mentioned, and that was

about the bike program.

And I want to be very clear

that we were not proposing

zeroing out the bikeways

program.

 

We were responding to the

city manager's memo stating

that other funds had been

identified.

Through the city's

transportation fund.

 

And so the thought is if

other funds can and have

been identified, that we

ought to use those instead

of bond funds.

 

There seemed to be consensus

around that, but I would

just like to offer that

councilmember riley, I think

I heard you say that you

were fine with starting

with -- I don't want to

overstate it, but I think

you expressed a willingness

to start with the taskforce

recommendation, and I do

think that would be an

easier way at getting at

some of the smaller changes.

So perhaps one way to go

about this is to take the

substitute motion and

identify what the issues are

beyond -- I heard from you

bicycle, urban trail grant

matches as an issue.

Why don't we amend our

motion if the maker is

comfortable with that and

we'll start with a higher

figure than 384.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Those would be to be

amendments that are voted on

if any councilmember

objects.

>> Tovo: So the other

thing I do want to be very

clear about is that there

was every intent to vote on

additional reductions and

additional amendments.

 

That was absolutely the plan

we were just trying to start

with something that got us

to -- one that began with

the taskforce recommendation

and two, got us to 384 and

then addressed the

additional reductions.

But I think I understand

from what you're saying is

you have some concerns about

a few of the elements in

this base plan and I would

just suggest that we -- I'm

certainly welcome --

certainly would welcome your

feedback about which ones

you would like to be

removed.

So that we would be at a

base that we can hopefully

build consensus around.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember martinez.

 

>> Martinez: I'm not going

to be supporting any

amendment because I'm not

going to support the overall

motion.

 

I'm going to state my

objections now and call to

question the motion.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember martinez calls

the question on the

substitute motion.

Is there any objection to

that?

 

If there's no objection,

then we'll call the vote on

the substitute motion?

 

All in favor say aye?

 

Opposed say no.

 

That fails on a vote of

four-two with councilmember

riley, martinez, myself and

mayor pro tem cole voting

no.

 

So that brings us to the

main motion.

Mayor pro tem.

>> Cole: And let me just

start by saying I'm sure we

are all acting in good faith

trying to get to a 385

number and we'll try to make

sure we do that.

 

The first item that I'd like

to add is the women and

children's shelter.

 

For two million dollars.

 

This is the exact same

number that the taskforce

put forward, and that is a

change from the -- I mean,

that is not a number that

either the taskforce or the

city manager put forward,

but is a council-added item.

I would like to move that we

add the barton springs

bathhouse for two million

dollars.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Let's go one at a time.

>> Cole: Go ahead.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: The

women's and children's

shelter, is there any

objection to that being a

friendly amendment?

Hearing none, that's

incorporated.

 

>> Cole: Okay.

 

Thank you, mayor.

 

The next item is the barton

springs bathhouse for two

million dollars.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any objection to that

item, two million dollars

added?

>> Morrison: Yes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: An

objection is heard.

 

>> Morrison: I would like

to speak to that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, let's get a motion by

mayor pro tem to include

$2 million for barton

springs bathhouse, and i

will second that.

 

And recognize councilmember

morrison.

>> Morrison: Well, i

certainly see a great future

for the bathhouse with some

renovations, and I even see

in my own future being able

to use that renovated

bathhouse with great

enthusiasm.

 

I do -- did note the city

manager's comment on that,

and that was that there are

several higher priority

items at zilker park beyond

the bathhouse, and in fact,

I don't know that I can --

let me see if I can find

that very quickly.

 

The proposed improvements to

the building are considered

a continuation of the

current barton springs

grounds improvement, in the

second phase of the overall

project, which I'd like to

note that we actually

approved I think in 2009 or

2 million

in certificates of

obligation, which were

non-voter approved bonds to

do some significant work on

the short-term.

 

It says that the parks

department accepted the

removal of the project from

the overall recommended bond

package for the following

under the current

pard cip program

improvements have been made

to the roof, showers and

mechanical systems of the

building, while other

improvements focus on the

pool and grounds.

 

An improved entrance to the

building is needed, however

this is viewed as an

enhancement to the facility

rather than a structural

issue.

And thirdly, zilker park has

multiple improvement

priorities, several of which

ranked higher with respect

to the bathhouse renovation.

So while I certainly

appreciate the community's

enthusiasm and work that's

gone into this, I know that

as you go down this list,

there are going to be some

really difficult decisions

to be made, so for me this

doesn't rank high enough to

support it.

 

>> Cole: Mayor?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: Yeah, I concur

and I'm basing my objection

in part on the city

manager's recommendations,

but just fundamentally the

biggest gap between the city

manager's recommendations

and the taskforce's is in

the area of affordable

housing.

 

And I would just request

that we go ahead and add

back in all the monies that

are in the -- in the

taskforce recommendation

because for me that is the

highest priority that we

get --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We're voting on this item up

or down.

>> Tovo: I understand

that, thanks.

 

That is the highest

priority, and I'm not sure

at the end of the day how

much money we'll have

available for that until

that -- until that point i

can't support adding barton

springs.

If we've got money

available, then yes, I think

it's a great project.

I think it's going to be a

community asset and I would

like to see some money in

the bond proposal for it,

but it's not my highest

priority and I don't want it

to come at the expense of

things like affordable

housing.

So I'm not going to vote to

support this.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I'll

just say I am going to

support this and I want to

confirm that the actual

proposal will include a

requirement for friends of

barton springs to raise

$250,000 and confirm that

that's in there.

 

If it's not I would like to

have that added to the

discussion.

 

>> Cole: Mayor, I will

certainly support that

direction.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

say that we did the same

thing a few years ago for

the deep eddy bathhouse.

It was an historically

accurate, well done, well

planned, well executed

renovation.

 

We're all proud of that.

 

And a lot of folks think

that barton springs

bathhouse renovation should

have been done a long time

ago.

 

I do too.

 

I think it's really a worthy

project.

The cost is not very high

and I intend to support it.

 

So any other comments on

that item?

So we'll take a vote on that

proposed amendment.

 

All in favor say aye?

 

Opposed say no.

 

It passes on a vote of four

to two with councilmembers

tovo and morrison voting no.

 

So that's incorporated in

the main motion.

>> Thank you, mayor, and i

do want to ask staff that we

keep record of the items

that are going 6-0 versus

split votes so that we're

able to know that at the

end.

So that's the only second

item that went 4-2.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You

can rest assured the city

clerk is --

 

>> Cole: Okay.

 

Well, mike trimble can add

better.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: He

can do that too.

 

>> Cole: The next item is

the dougherty arts center

that I'm proposing at

$4 million.

The taskforce asked for

2 million, the city manager

asked for 2 million.

I have a council proposal

for four million, given that

the dougherty arts center is

in such bad condition, and

we had testimony about that.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Before we go I want to

clarify that your motion was

for first reading only?

 

>> Cole: Yes, first

reading only, mayor.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

comments on this item?

 

Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor pro

tem, I wonder if you could

speak a little bit -- and

maybe this was clarified

yesterday and I just missed

it -- about what it's going

to bring to us if we have

four million versus two

million for the dougherty

arts center?

>> Cole: Well, I can speak

to that.

 

Tara hensley talked about

that a little bit.

It needs roof repairs, it

needs remediation.

 

It has -- I don't like to

say rats, but it is rats.

And we have also extent

notices to parents when we

enroll kids about the

conditions asking them to

understand that, but --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

hensley is here to

answer that question.

>> Morrison: I guess the

real question is what do we

get for four million?

What does that get us.

>> Sare are hensley, parks

and recreation.

 

The mayor pro tem is

absolutely correct.

One is to replace this

billion, we're talking up to

10 to 12 million.

So first and foremost if we

had to replace it.

 

Second of all, it is an

aging infrastructure

building that was never

intended to be a cultural

arts facility in the first

place.

We took it over and it was a

navy site.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Navy

reserves.

>> And it has served its

purpose well.

 

We are putting duct tape on

it on a regular basis, so

the two million will help

us-- the existing site to

help some issues, however

what we're trying to do is

take whatever we don't have

to put into this existing

facility as we look down the

road to try to find partners

so we're not building a

brand new facility, but

we're partnering together.

 

So two purposes.

 

One is continue to try to

keep the building together

and use it in its current

state with patching roof,

patching holes.

 

She is absolutely correct,

we have some issues with

some critters.

 

And then the other problem

is then being able to take

what's left over and

hopefully use it as a match

for infrastructure

improvements or work with

another existing facility or

partnering with another arts

group so that we are able to

not build a new facility,

but partner and get more

efficiencies and

effectiveness out of

operations there.

>> Morrison: So would you

say that the two million

basically allows us to

stabilize the current

situation, but if we go to

four million it allows us

really to move forward?

>> It will allow us to have

an opportunity to move

forward more quickly.

>> Morrison: All right.

Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let

me just say I'm not going to

support this proposal

because we don't have a full

plan for spending the four

million dollars.

 

We do have two million

dollars that's initially

recommended to repair the

facility.

Keep it going.

When and if we get to the

point where we can talk

about additional work, which

is as yet unidentified, we

can talk about ways to fund

that and perhaps with

another partnership

agreement.

 

I would support a lesser

amount, but I'm not going to

support the four million.

 

Any other comments?

 

Councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: A comment and

then a question.

I am going to support this

because I think it's

important and I think we've

had some discussion and

we'll likely have others

today about the amount of

money we want to consider in

our bond proposal for

outside arts organizations.

I think it's really critical

that we recognize our public

facilities that are in need

of repair, and we hear lots

of comments, all of us do i

know, from the community

about the state of some of

our parks facilities, and

this is an opportunity to

begin to do something about

it that would be good for

the community.

 

I think the dougherty arts

center is a real value for

children who take classes

there as well as adults and

I think it should be

something -- it should

really speak to kind of

community we are and the

value we place on our

cultural arts.

So I am going to support

this.

 

We're talking about support

for outside organizations,

which do critical work in

our community too, but we

node to support our public

arts facilities.

Mayor pro tem cole, I wonder

if you can give us a sense

of where we're going?

Some of these relatively

small dollars add up and

might prevent us from doing

larger things.

 

So are you taking us down

this sheet?

>> Cole: Yes, I am taking

you down the sheet that you

have in front of you that

has a list in motion

taskforce recommendation,

city manager, august 6

proposal, council proposal

change from the taskforce

and change from the city

manager.

 

And what I tried to do was

consider the items first

that there was pretty firm

agreement on from the

comments that had been made

so that we would make some

progress.

 

And those were the top

number one three items in

that box.

 

And second I tried to put in

a cut that it looked like we

all agreed on so that when

we were going down we didn't

have to guess like we were

yesterday, are we balanced,

are we not?

 

Staff tell us where we are,

so we knew where we were as

we went down the process.

 

Of course, anybody can

request a totaling at that

time so you can see that

assuming we pass the

dougherty arts center and

pass the next item, then we

are pretty close to being we

are pretty close to being

balanced.

 

>> I would like to add one

comment.

I certainly support the arts

and I would support having a

nicer dougherty arts center,

but this whole exercise is

about making difficult

choices and I find it a

little difficult to put two

million dollars extra into

the dougherty arts center

that we don't know yet how

we're going to spend and at

the same time reducing i-35,

which is our -- i-35

planning projects by

7 million at the same

time.

 

I would much rather see that

money spent on it.

That's a higher priority for

me and it's needed now,

especially in view of the

fact that we're trying as

hard as we can to get i-35

projects.

 

And I guess there will be

several different ones

shovel ready, so that we

have opportunities like we

recently had to make

improvements to mopac.

That was only possible

because a lot of preliminary

work had been done.

And the opportunity is going

to, I think, exist in the

future to have funding to

execute these projects, and

so I think that's a higher

priority for me.

 

It's the most serious

traffic problem we have in

this entire city, and i

think we should be doing

everything we can to try to

remediate that.

Not cure it, but try our

best to remediate.

 

Councilmember riley.

 

>> Riley: Mayor, I share

your priorities on that.

I-35 is absolutely a very

high priority.

 

The issue for me is that we

may have an opportunity

sooner rather than later to

work on a long-term solution

for the dougherty, and this

investment of potentially

two million dollars in that

solution could actually wind

up saving us money and

putting us in a better

position to be able to

minimize that cost, which we

heard could be in the range

of 10 to $15 million to

actually replace the

facility.

That is a very significant

expense that we know is

looming on the horizon and

this rather small, modest

investment, could enable us

to mitigate that expense.

 

And in the meantime my hope

is that we would be going

out for an interim

transportation bond item

before the completion of

this entire bond cycle as we

have done a couple of times

in recent years.

We know that there are

transportation issues on the

horizon and I suspect we

will have an opportunity to

bring those to the voters

much sooner than we would

have the opportunity to go

to the voters with something

like the dougherty.

So it's simply a matter of

timing.

 

I think that a very modest

investment in moving forward

with the dougherty could

make sense now.

And we will have an

opportunity to step up our

efforts on i-35 and other

transportation issues in the

near future sooner than

we'll have another

opportunity to work on the

dougherty.

 

So I will be supporting this

item.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

other comments?

 

So then we'll vote on this

amendment.

All in favor say aye?

Opposed say no.

It passes on a vote of 5-1.

I'm voting no on this and

councilmember spelman is off

so that becomes a

part of the main motion.

 

Four million dollars for

dougherty.

>> Cole: The next item is

the northwest a.p.d.

 

Substation.

 

I am proposing that it be

entered for the amount of

$5,833,000.

 

And this is a reduction from

the city manager proposal

and the taskforce proposal,

but as discussed yesterday,

we will begin the

preliminary work and design

on this facility.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes.

 

And just to reiterate, this

is for acquisition and

planning.

 

This won't cover

construction of the

substation, but at least we

can get started on it.

I will be supporting this

item.

 

Is there any objection?

 

So that's incorporated as

part of the main motion.

>> Cole: Next is the urban

rail project.

 

It was not included in the

august 6 proposal because we

did not use it at that time

so it is simply a reduction.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: From

the august 6, yes.

 

Is there any objection to

that?

And I would just -- I've

said this many times, but i

just want to make sure it's

clear to everyone that this

reduction does not affect

our plans, materially affect

our planning on the urban

rail, connect austin plan.

 

We will continue with our

work on environmental

studies, alternatives

analysis and so forth and we

have adequate funds to do

this for the next three or

so years.

 

Before we get to the point

where we take the next step.

So I will be supporting that

too.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor, I have

a question.

I just want to make sure

I've got the proper

information in front of me,

and we're talking about the

city manager's august 6th

proposal.

 

I'm still looking at my

notebook.

I take it that's outdated.

And I would like to know how

because it actually mentions

city manager, I believe,

has --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: The

city manager made a number

of recommendations to his

original recommendation by

way of a memo that we all

got.

>> Morrison: So I really

apologize, but I need to be

reminded of that memo and

what those recommendations

are because I didn't get it

noted in my notebook.

 

Is it in the --

 

>> we talked about an

august 6, so the basis we're

using is the city manager's

385 recommendation.

The one thing that we did

mention is the urban rail,

two million dollars item.

But that's already been

noted.

 

The other proposal you got

from the city manager you

voted on monday.

 

We're not talking about

august six, we're talking

about the city manager.

 

>> Morrison: So that said

remove the recommendation

for two million for urban

rail.

Where did that move in?

>>

>> Morrison: How did my

notebook change?

 

>> We just said that two

million didn't free up.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

There was actually more than

two million in that memo

freed up, wasn't there?

 

>> In the memo, yes, but the

memo I just wanted to be

clear the memo came out on

monday.

So we're talking about

AUGUST 6th.

 

>> So the only difference to

this beautiful color of

blue, yellow and green chart

you gave me is that the

urban rail corridor projects

would be zeroed out.

>> Correct.

>> Morrison: So there's a

freed two million there.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any objection to

that -- before we do that,

councilmember tovo?

>> Tovo: That's okay.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any objection to that.

 

That's incorporated as a

part of the main motion.

>> Tovo: We're working our

way down this sheet and i

guess I'm still trying to --

your running total at the

end and gets us to 392.

>>

>> Cole: The running total

will get to 385 at the very

end of the sheet.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We're counting on that.

 

>> Cole: And mike will

mike

trimble.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem, go ahead with

your next.

 

>> Cole: The next item is

austin cities which I am

proposing for 5.4 million,.

 

We've had considerable

public discussion from that

as well as council

discussion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any objection to

4 for

austin film studios

renovation?

Hearing none, that's

incorporated in the main

motion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: The

next item is east 51st

vision plan, which also has

received a lot of

discussion.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

objection to this item?

 

Three and a half million

dollars for the east 51st

street project.

 

I'll just call it project,

not vision plan.

If you don't mind.

All right.

That's incorporated.

>> Cole: The next item is

violet crown trail.

 

I will ask that the final

numbers be two million

dollars.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

objection to incorporate two

million dollars for the

violet crown trail?

Hearing none, that's part of

the main motion.

 

Cole coat the next item is

the wheelchair accessible

fishing pier for $150,000.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

objection to this item?

Hearing none, that's

incorporated $150,000 for

the fishing pier.

>> Cole: The next item is

the neighborhood partnering

program, 1.2 million.

And this is a very popular

program and I will add that

I co-sponsored that item,

but lead on that item was

councilmember spelman.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Any

discussion or objection?

 

Is there any objection to

this item?

Hearing none, that's

incorporated.

 

>> Cole: The next item is

a reduction to park patrol

facility so that the final

number is $2 million.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Proposed two million dollars

hensley

here?

 

Could you tell us a little

bit more about this project?

>> Sarah hensley, parks and

recreation director.

 

I think our friends in the

police department are also

here.

 

This is another opportunity

for co-location of park

rangers and the police

patrol, park police patrol.

Primarily what we're going

to look for is the ability

to co-locate around the hike

and bike trail area, lake

area where we have now with

the boardwalk coming on a

lot -- see a lot more

increased participation.

 

So I don't know if the chief

wants to add, but it is

co-locating of a facility so

that we can --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: What

I'd like to ask you is this

is a reduction of

$2.7 million.

 

How does that affect you?

 

>> Oooh.

 

Chief, do you want to answer

that 2.7 reduction?

If they reduce that, it's

going to limit the size of

the building.

I don't think they're going

to be able to do a lot of

their location of

facilities -- their

equipment and supplies and

things which they were going

to add.

>> Shaun maddox, assistant

chief at the pd.

 

Yeah, the reduction would be

prohibitive of building out

the facility as envisioned.

 

To be a station for the -- a

,

park and specialized patrol

as well as the rangers

program.

 

The facility is projected to

be able to store police

vehicles, atv's, be able to

deploy a police boat from

the facility and those kinds

of things.

So it would -- it would

alter dramatically what that

facility was envisioned to

be.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Would the facility be

functional at two million

instead of 4.7?

I would say that if we find

ourselves in a position like

we are with the northeast

right now with an

underfunded project.

>> Have to go to a thatched

roof.

 

[Laughter].

 

City manager?

 

>> I want to remind everyone

we've talked about this

issue before and we've had

the problem in the previous

bond program of inadequately

funding a facility project.

And that's what this stands

to be.

 

At this funding level it

will not meet the original

expectations that the staff

has determined are

necessary.

 

So my suggestion would be

that we provide enough

funding to allow them to do

design work.

If you're going to reduce

this and look at actually

construction, either by

other means or in the next

bond program, but we don't

want to be strapped with

trying to meet that set of

expectations when we know

out of the gate we simply

don't have enough funding to

do it?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So i

would like to follow one a

question like this.

So two million dollars is

what the proposal is instead

of 4.7.

Would that be just an amount

of money that's going to sit

there and do nothing?

>> Well, I don't know that

we need necessarily --

howard, you will have to

help with this -- two

million dollars to do design

work for this facility.

 

That may be more than we

need.

But it's clearly not enough

to carry out the scope

that's intended, as this is

being proposed in our plan.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Before you answer, howard,

he just want to say I want

to emphasize that that's one

of the things we talked

about at the very beginning

of this process is that when

we identified specific

projects, the funding should

be adequate and not trimmed

down.

 

We saw this with the

combination of new municipal

court building with the

northeast substation

that was approved.

 

That was pared down to the

point where we couldn't do

that, so that money has just

really not been used.

We saw in the library where

that money was pareded down

from what we really needed

to do and now we are going

ahead with the labor, but

it's not the kind of

facility that we had planned

to built.

 

We had to make dramatic

changes, reducing that by

about 25 percent.

 

So go ahead and give your

answer.

>> Howard lazarus, director

of public works department.

 

The challenge with the

facility project is that

until you get into actually

developing the program and

knowing what you're going to

use it for and going through

some estimates based upon

pair metric planning figures

like per square foot cost

it's hard to really know

what it's going to cost.

 

And is there a process you

go through.

But you can estimate how

much you need for design and

all the coordination that we

have to do based upon an

early estimate which I think

is where we're at.

 

So putting aside two million

dollars for design of this

facility and other parks

facilities enables that

department to put forth a

detailed design on this

effort so that when there's

another subsequent funding

opportunity, whether it's a

grant opportunity where we

need to know what the amount

is, or a subsequent bond, we

have a much more certainty

as to what we're going to

need.

 

And that leads towards

better allocation of capital

dollars.

 

So by putting two million

dollars aside now it will

certainly get this facility

to the point where we can

get documents that we can

bid and get -- and know what

the price is.

 

And I don't think it will

lead to an overcommitment of

funds.

 

A lot depends on the

language that's attached to

it.

 

I think that's an

appropriate number.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

you think it's a valid

expenditure even though you

won't be able to build the

facility.

You will be able to plan for

it, have it -- I'm beginning

to hate this term -- shovel

ready.

 

>> We can have a facility

when we talk about something

being ready for

construction, that has a

complete set offed by

documents and we're readying

to get permits.

 

We've done it where we bid

it (indiscernible).

But having a set of drawings

that are readying to gives

us the advantage of knowing

what the cost is so we can

make better use of bond

funds in the future or if

there's an opportunity for

grant funds we know what to

ask for.

>> So we can do the

paperwork, but couldn't

build it.

>> Not for two million

dollars.

 

7 million

was in the taskforce

recommendation and the staff

recommendation.

>> And I think what was

and

pard is that that will give

them a compromise facility

for what their needs are.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That

will give them a facility.

 

>> But it won't give them

the needs that they

specified.

 

You can build something, but

it won't meet their needs.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You

can build something for a

lot less than that.

City manager?

>> I guess the point is, and

to summarize what howard is

saying, two million dollars

is sufficient for planning

and design, not for

facility.

 

That's the point that's

being -- that's being made

here.

 

And should that be the

decision -- and this

language here says park

patrol facility.

I guess I'd want to make

sure that there's some

clarification in that

language so there's no

misunderstanding of having

an expectation that there

will be a facility at the

end of the day because there

won't be.

We're going to plan for it.

>> Morrison: Mayor?

I'm going to support this

motion.

 

One thing that I think is

important and I wonder if

we've really explored is the

possibility of doing -- so

the idea is to put this near

the hike and bike trail.

The possibility of doing

perhaps a small substation

near the hike and bike trail

for a joint facility,

because clearly we know that

there are a lot of people

that use the parks there,

but we have parks all over

the city and we have some

parks that have very high

needs for public safety

presence.

 

And so I wonder if we could

explore the possibility

under this project and that

would be to do a joint

facility, like a major joint

facility in another area of

town and a substation near

the hike and bike trail.

I'm thinking particularly

of, you know, dove springs.

 

And I know that we have

the -- with high needs,

their park in many ways is

not used because of concern

about public safety.

 

I also know that we own some

land out there and we're --

we have in the bond package

both the proposals a project

for the mounted patrol

headquarters to be built out

at southeast.

 

And so if this goes forward,

I would like to add

direction to actually

explore, if it's acceptable

to my colleagues -- before

going forward with this

concept of the major

headquarters for parks and

parks rangers at the hike

and bike trail, explore the

idea of a smaller station

near the hike and bike trail

and something in a high

needs public safety area of

town for the major location.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think that would be a

totally different item to be

proposed as another

additional amendment to

change that.

Chief mcdonald?

>> Michael mcdonald, deputy

city manager.

 

Let me just add a couple of

comments because I think

what we're actually

proposing would satisfy what

you're looking for anyway.

 

Several years ago when we

consolidated into the police

department, the park

officers became a.p.d.

Officers, so really what

we're proposing to do here

is to take those police

officers that are assigned

to the parks along with the

park rangers and co-locate

them.

And them being co-located in

that way would in essence

create that type of presence

that you're talking about on

the hike and bike trail.

In that park system on the

hike and bike trails.

 

In many ways it would

function because you would

have an ongoing presence.

 

Part of what chief talked

about when you're trying to

achieve that is the place

for all of them to show up

and operate out of that

facility.

So you would in many

instance that substation

presence that you're looking

for, you would get that once

we have a design and

implement it.

 

>> Morrison: Yeah, i

appreciate that.

I guess what I was trying to

promote was to have that

major presence in another

area of town.

 

Where we know we've got

crime issues and they're

really trying to lift up the

area.

So rather than having it all

on the hike and bike trail.

 

I wondered if there was a

way to do sort of a small

presence on the hike and

bike trail, but really to

have their major presence in

another area of town that

they operate out of.

 

That was my suggestion.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

again, I think if that's

what you want to do, you

ought to propose that as a

separate and additional

amendment because this is

specifically for this, this

one facility.

>> I have another question

for the chief.

 

>> Councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: Chief mcdonald or

others, so the point came up

yesterday and again today,

have there been any

discussions, has the bond

committee and staff explored

the idea of locating the

park patrol facility with

the mounted patrol facility

and combining those two for

cost efficiencies.

 

And I understand before you

say it that it's not

centrally located, but again

we've got parks everywhere

and if there's an intent to

have a substation here and a

main facility, it seems to

me there are other

alternatives that could be

explored and joint use is

one in a time of scarce

dollars should in my opinion

always be the first

consideration.

>> I'll let chief maddox

comment on some of the

operational, but again

having an facility where

they can meet and deploy,

the old traditional show up

works, but there are other

needs associated with

mounted patrol where you

have to -- the amount of

space you need to keep the

horses and maintain them and

all of that.

So trying to design it in

such a way within the city

to do those sorts of things

to support the horses that

the upkeep that needs to

take place with them would

be a challenge at a location

like this.

 

>> Morrison: Of course, it

is -- right now it is within

the city limits.

 

I understand that's part of

the interest in moving it

out of the central city, but

currently our equestrian

facility is within the city

limits.

>> Yes, councilmember.

The equestrian facility

is -- the land has been

purchased, 88 acres over on

McANGUS ROAD NEAR WHERE

The circuit of the americas

is going to be.

 

It is a far out facility as

far as deployment citywide

goes because you're going

from one extreme corner of

the city to citywide.

 

Some of the issues that do

go with that as well as in

the central city-park

corridor we do a tremendous

amount of bicycle patrols.

 

We use atv's and those kind

of things.

We're looking at a

trailering issue of having

to trailer equipment in on a

daily basis.

 

And trailer equipment out on

a daily basis to meet those

needs of the city as well.

 

So all of those were taken

into account when we started

looking at where would we

put a park facility.

To service the parks

throughout the city we know

we could put officers in

cars to get them to those

facilities throughout, but

to use the specialized

equipment, the atv's and the

bicycles, where we use them

right now it makes sense for

the facility to be there.

 

>> Morrison: Okay, thanks.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

think what I would like to

propose is that we increase

that to four million dollars

using two million dollars

from the dougherty arts

center.

 

And bringing that item back

down to two.

Is there any objection to

that?

 

>> Cole: Yeah, a little

bit.

Just a tad.

[Laughter].

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

noting that there are five

objections --

[laughter].

 

-- I'll withdraw that

suggestion.

I'll just vote no on the

item.

 

So there was objection and

so we have to have a vote.

All in favor of including

that item say aye?

 

Opposed say no.

 

It passes on a vote of

five-one with councilmember

spelman off the dais.

 

I was voting no.

 

>> Morrison: Mayor?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: Before I know

you are intending to move

on, and before we do go on

to the next one, I wanted to

propose an amendment that we

consider the item for the

design of the park patrol

facility that an initial

step in that design would be

to consider alternate

locations, joint use

possibilities and

configurations, for example,

a small substation centrally

located, and then

potentially a larger

facility not centrally

located.

 

>> Cole: Mayor?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Could we consider that

direction to the staff.

 

You don't have a dollar

amount attached to it.

>> Morrison: It would be

to amend the actual

description of the project.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Instead of park patrol

facility --

>> Morrison: It would be a

park patrol facility with an

initial step of looking at

those options.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

I object to that.

>> Cole: Councilmember

morrison, I guess maybe we

lazarus up

here, mayor.

 

I'm not sure if you're

suggesting that our

department consider other

locations, then I think we

can give that general

direction without disturbing

this particular facility

that is planned.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Yeah.

 

And we do need to vote on

your proposed amendment of

two million dollars for the

park patrol facility first.

>> Morrison: We did.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.

 

I've got it checked off.

 

>> Morrison: And I heard

the mayor, and maybe

misheard, object to going

that direction and heard

that we needed to vote on it

separately.

>> Cole: Merit can correct

me, but I think you can make

separate directions to

consider park patrol

facilities throughout the

area and especially in east

austin or other areas that

they're needed.

 

I think you can do that.

 

But not to disturb this

item.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: A

dollar amount will not

attach to it.

>> Cole: And not

disturbing this item.

 

>> Morrison: I think we

need to acknowledge that

that step would need to be

done initially before

spending money on designing

a specific location.

If we're looking at options

and different

configurations, before we

spend money on designing one

specific plan, we should

look at what the options

are.

goode could --

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Let's see.

 

You want to go back and

change this item that we've

already adopted as part of

the main motion.

>> Morrison: Yes.

I want to amend the main

motion, which is what we --

which is to adopt the

description of this item.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: You

would have to move to

reconsider the item that we

just voted on.

>> Morrison: I'm making a

different motion, not to

change the -- not to change

the dollar amount.

 

I'm talking about massaging

what the actual --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: But

your motion changes the

title and purpose of the

project, so we would have to

reconsider -- that's my

ruling on that.

 

City attorney, do you have a

comment?

>> I'm not going to overall

your motion --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Well, you can't overall my

motion.

 

We appreciate your advice

anyway.

[Laughter].

>> I'll just make a

suggestion that I think

councilmember morrison, that

might be more appropriate as

kind of direction to staff

within the overall context

of the discussion that the

council will maybe want to

give to staff to consider

that before moving forward

on this particular item that

those types of discussions

and evaluations occur.

That would just be my

suggestion as that how to

handle that particular item

instead of doing it through

a motion.

>> Morrison: Thank you,

city attorney.

 

What she said.

 

[Laughter].

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

lazarus -- and i

disagree with that, city

attorney.

>> Mayor and council, i

think the issue here is what

is the intent of the project

that is listed because we'll

go through a process that

addresses requirements,

community input as part of a

detailed scoping effort.

 

We're not talking now about

size of the facility, we're

talking about kind of the

general scope and the

intent.

 

As we go down through design

we have to comply with what

the intent of the ordinance

is.

That doesn't really

prescribe what this is going

to look like when we're

done.

 

It just means -- it just

puts out what the intent is

towards achieving this

facility.

So it really addresses the

specific language in the

bond proposal what the

intent was I think.

 

We're basically -- we're

really talking about --

[inaudible].

 

>> I think to add a little

bit to the conversation, i

don't think our bond

covenants preclude us from

the facility.

 

If we pass the bond item

that says build a fire

station in onion creek and

we pass another bond item

that says improve parks

facilities and we find that

we can improve a park

facility and build a fire

station at the same spot,

the bond covenants don't

preclude us from doing that,

which fulfills the contract

with the citizens.

 

So passing this item to say

design of a park patrol

facility, I don't think

would preclude staff from

looking at potentially

co-mingling with another

department.

 

>> Morrison: Thank you for

that.

If that's the case, that's

great, but we have been very

specific.

We have heard very specific

language already from our

staff about build a park

patrol facility on lady bird

lake.

So as long as we can clarify

that -- that we will be

looking at other options as

part of the -- as part of

the effort, then that's

great.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

we haven't discussed this as

building a park facility on

we need to

reconsider the previous --

is that what you want to do?

You want to reconsider the

previous item?

 

>> Morrison: I guess I'd

like to hear from our

attorney that's coming to

the podium?

>> Lela fireside with the

city fire department.

 

And what I understand what

you all are doing right now

is coming up with your ideas

for what you hope the way

the bond funds will be

spent.

The propositions that we've

drafted and the ordinance

that we're asking you to

approve today either on

first reading, where you

seem to be going today, but

ultimately prior to the date

to call the election, speaks

in more general terms.

And you know, we hope to be

able to use the funds in the

manner that you're

identifying for the

propositions in the dollar

amounts that you're

identifying.

But we're wording it

generally so that if there

are opportunities that come

up for projects that the

funds can be used for, the

description is general

enough to allow that

progress to be made.

 

So -- but if you --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

You're saying after this

item has already been voted

for, a park patrol facility

on lady bird lake, that we

can go back then and add

direction to say look at

other places to build it.

>> What I'm saying is that

right now what I understand

you to be voting on are the

types of projects that you

want in the bond package,

but the ordinance itself is

not listing out the

particular projects.

 

Unless you're directing that

the ordinance be amended to

list out the particular

projects.

>> City manager?

>> So you're saying that

what's in play now is broad

enough to allow not only

what we've expressed is our

intent with this two million

dollars, but it's broadened

us so that we can consider a

variety of solutions, if you

will.

Including the kind of

facility that councilmember

morrison is talking about.

>> Yes, that's my

understanding.

 

>> Okay.

 

But we have been pretty

specific about what our

intentions are with respect

to the two million dollars.

We've been specific about

that.

 

So in the absence of some

additional direction from

council, again, we've been

clear about what our intent

would be.

 

>> Mayor, if I may.

 

I wanted to point out that

in the backup in the

wonderful notebook that

staff provided to us, this

item description is the park

patrol unit currently

operates from a lone

trailer.

The project details the

design and construction.

 

Of course we would with the

two million change that to

design, of a secured law

enforcement facility that

will support park patrol

operations.

And when it comes to the map

it specifically says site to

be determined.

So for me that suggests that

our written language shows

that we have not identified

lady bird lake.

 

There's clearly some

contemplation of lady bird

lake.

 

has

wreath that in developing

the requirements options

could be looked at.

And that gives me a level of

comfort and I wonder if the

city attorney would suggest

that that's a reasonable

level of comfort.

[Laughter].

>> Well, I feel that it is

with the propositions as

they are currently drafted.

But with the direction from

the majority of council is

to call it out in a way that

we create a contract with

the voters to put this thing

in a particular place, then

we obviously will honor that

direction and include it in

the ordinance.

But what I understood you

all to be doing right now is

on first reading discussing

the project to try to get to

a total dollar and then also

to categorize the dollars

where they're going to go.

And there may be items that

come up where you are

talking about that and we'll

need to address that with

you.

And then hopefully to have

some flexibility going

forward.

If it turns out that a

particular site is not the

perfect location, that

there's enough flexibility

unless you really intend as

a majority of you for that

to be in the ordinance and

part of the contract with

the voters.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We'll go ahead with it as it

is with clarification to --

more clarification on second

and third readings.

>> Thank you.

>> Morrison: And just

to -- a last month.

 

We don't have it written --

we have it specifically

written in our --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: But

we have discussed it.

We have discussed it.

>> Morrison: We have, so

maybe there needs to be a

vote to change the written

materials to get that

aligned.

>> Riley: Mayor?

I concur with councilmember

morrison and I don't see it

written down that it would

be related on lady bird

lake.

To the extent that it is

written or described

anywhere, I would suggest

that we instead of saying it

will be on lady bird lake,

if we want to mention lady

bird lake, we could just say

lady bird lake or other

suitable location that can

convey that our principal

intent is lady bird lake,

but if that doesn't work,

then we would identify some

other suitable location.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: We

can get it all figured out

before second reading.

 

>> Riley: I do have one

question about it.

Councilmember morrison is

right, the backup does say

site to be determined, but i

also notice that right below

that it indicates the cip

planning areas that there's

an x in the box for central

east, which seems to convoy

the expectation that the

location would be in the

central east area.

And I wanted to make sure

we're all aware of that and

that's our understanding

that even if it doesn't wind

up lady bird lake, that we

would still remain in the

central east area.

I just wanted to raise that

as a question.

 

>> Morrison: Maybe we

could have the attorney look

into that.

 

And perhaps that could be

part of our follow-on

conversation.

 

>> Cole: Mayor, I just

want to add that of course i

support this direction,

especially recognizing the

high needs in central east

austin, but we are not

asking the attorneys to make

any type of contract with

the voters.

 

The next item for the

potential reduction is the

montopolis parking lot is we

need to fund our parking

lots for a city facility

through existing funds and

not have them as part of a

bond item.

>> Morrison: I.

>> Tovo: I object.

I would like to talk.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Objection by councilmember

tovo.

>> Tovo: I guess I have

questions for staff about

the montopolis recreation

center parking.

 

I know that is a joint

facility and I would like to

talk a little bit about the

value of the parking lot,

the state of the current

parking lot, what that does

for this community

recreation center before

they --

 

>> they're coming over to

answer.

>> Tovo: Super, thanks.

I know this has been a

priority certainly of that

community and also of our

city management to make sure

that the montopolis

recreation center gets the

attention it needs in terms

of renovations and dollars

and resources.

So it gives me -- I'm very

concerned with the proposal

to eliminate the parking

lot, which would seem to me

to be an important

component.

 

Sorry, I'm trying to buy

time for you here by talking

and talking.

 

Glad you're up.

 

>> Thank you.

 

Carlos rivera, director of

health and human services.

The montopolis facility is

very small and it was small

from the beginning.

You know, there's barely

enough parking this for

staff.

So this is different from

the joint recreation hhsd

facility that has been

proposed in the bond

package.

We're doing a lot more

business through our w.i.c.

 

Program, which is what's

housed in montopolis.

So we need to expand the lot

to accommodate not only the

staff, but the increase in

client flow.

 

>> Tovo: Thanks.

 

So currently you have not

enough parking for staff.

Where do the staff park?

>> Well, they're very

creative.

 

They park in the surrounding

area.

We try to fit as many cars

as we can into the parking

lot, but again the parking

lot is very small to begin

with.

And with the increase in

clients it makes it very

challenging.

We try to give the clients

preference over our parking

needs, of course.

>> Tovo: So can you tell

us a little bit about the

number of clients -- i

apologize if I'm putting you

on the spot about this.

Perhaps some is in our

backup.

 

I would assume some are

families that will then have

to walk a distance to get

into the building?

>> I don't know the numbers

offhand, but yes, there are

families who live in the

general community and some

of them do walk and a good

amount of them drive into

the area.

>> Tovo: And I guess I was

saying, as a parent myself,

it's not the easessiest

thing to try to shepherd

children along into

buildings.

 

So probably a lot of our

families who use that center

do drive because they have

young children.

>> Kimberly maddox, chief

administrative officer.

 

Just to answer rho your

question, there are

approximately 1800 w.i.c.

 

Clients a month going

through that facility at

this time.

 

To give you an idea of the

volume.

And of course most of them

have children with them

because of the nature --

>> Tovo: I was going to

say because that program

serves parents with

children.

 

And can you tell us a little

bit@bit about the rationale

for having this included as

a possibility within the

bond proposal?

 

What do you see as the need?

 

What are some of the

considerations that we

should be -- have in mind as

we vote on this item?

>> We're hopeful that over

time the montopolis -- our

current montopolis site will

be replaced by a joint

facility with pard, which

would alleviate some of the

concerns because that

area -- because that

building would have

sufficient park fog all the

clients.

But we don't need a

decreased need over time, so

we need to be able to

accommodate the needs of the

clients.

Is certainly goes -- we're

looking at the parking lot

specifically, but we also

might eventually have some

facility needs given that

the program is growing.

 

>> Tovo: So I guess I just

want to get back to this

idea of how many -- we've

got 1800 clients.

How many would you say --

how does that work out on a

regular day?

How many clients do you have

who then might be forced to

try to find parking and kind

of shepherd their young

families along the streets?

>> I would need time to get

that information to you.

 

>> Cole: Let me ask you a

question, mayor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem.

 

>> Cole: When you talk

about the planned joint use

facility, I'm trying to

understand or it was

generally my understanding

that that would reduce the

need for the parking lot.

 

>> Yes.

 

With pard, yes.

 

>> Cole: Okay.

 

But when is that planned?

 

>> It's in the current bond

package.

>> Cole: The current bond

package.

 

[One moment, please, for

change in captioners]

>> you may know more than

that.

 

>> Yeah, you know, we want

to use the montopolis

facility to accommodate our

administrative staff for

wic, I think we can do it

with the existing facility,

also a neighborhood in that

facility.

Those programs are

accumulated with the

montopolis site, if they

are, we should be okay with

the parking lot, given its

current size.

 

>> May I ask a follow-up

question?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes.

>> Tovo: Can you tell me

when would the new facility

be completed?

>> Again, we're probably at

once

the bond is passed -- i

would have to look, howard

would help us with this in

public works, but by the

time we do public

involvement, preliminary

designs, go through that

whole process, at least two

to three years.

So get a brand new facility

going, you're talking two to

three years.

>> Tovo: For those three

years you would have to ask

those 1800 families to try

to scramble and the staff to

scramble for parking on a

daily basis sounds like if

you don't have enough

parking to accommodate the

staff on a regular basis.

>> [Indiscernible] three to

four years for that.

 

>> Oka.

 

>> You know the staff have

been able to deal with the

parking constraints to date.

 

But again our concern is

if -- as a facility gains

more and more use, that

parking is an issue now and

it will become a greater

issue in the future.

Certainly we'll try to be as

flexible as possible.

 

But any assistance will be

appreciated.

>> Do you have a sense of

how far some of your clients

need to park?

>> That's something --

>> Tovo: You can get back.

I will just say, you know,

one I said that I wasn't

going to support it and i

won't.

 

But I regret spending a

million dollars on a parking

lot when we have so many

other pressing needs.

I understand the interest in

at least interrogating it

and seeing if there are

other ways to work around.

 

Seems to me this is a need

we need to continue to keep

in the bond proposal.

 

>> If I could just respond

real quickly the $900,000

price tag is actually for

two parking lots.

One far south facility,

also.

 

>> Thanks for that

clarification, would you

remind us what that is -- is

that the far south is off of

william cannon in south

austin, home to one of our

immunization clinics as well

clinic

facility.

 

Again you have families,

same issues, not sufficient

parking for staff and the

client flow.

It is on a very busy street.

A very busy thoroughfare.

So you have families with

young children that would --

it's an issue of not having

sufficient parking.

 

>> Yeah.

 

I was going to say that is a

very busy area where that

clinic is located.

 

>> It's a far busier clinic.

 

>> Than montopolis, yes.

 

It is a busier clinic than

montopolis.

>> Being on.

Montopolis.

>>> Okay.

Thanks.

>> Councilmember martinez.

>> Martinez: I want to say

I appreciate the attempts to

try to get to a final

proposal here but I can't

support this item because of

the needs in southeast

austin.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

I just want to say I will

support this amendment

because it is needed.

 

There's no question about

it.

But this is all about

prioritization, as I said

earlier today.

Which is needed the most 1

and this -- this I think is

something that we can scrape

by on for a few years until

this other facility is

built.

 

But -- but again, needed but

I'm going to support the

amendment.

 

>> Mayor?

 

>> Morrison: Question.

 

I have one more question for

staff.

The far south clinic, is

there any -- is there a plan

to shut that down in a few

years, too?

 

>> No, no.

 

>> Morrison: That's a very

busy clinic.

>> It is a much-needed

facility, no.

 

>> Morrison: I guess that

I want to say that I won't

support the motion, either.

 

Just to share one of the

observations that we made at

our committee, public health

and human services

committee, that is when you

look at the breakdown of

where the bond dollars are

going, of course, the lions

share is going to

transportation, one percent

of the bond dollars are

going to health and human

services facilities.

 

And I just think that to try

to scale back even more

is -- is not where I want to

see the city go.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

I would just point out if

this amendment is not

approved, that means we're

going to have to find this

$906,000 somewhere else on

this list.

>> Cole: Yes, mayor.

I was not -- it's my

fault -- aware of the

southeast austin clinic and

its needs.

 

So I will withdraw --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Withdrawing?

>> Cole: Yes.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

that means we're now

$906,000 over the cap.

>> Cole: Exactly.

You've got that michael,

right?

 

All right.

 

The next item is the emmitt

shelton bridge.

That I am proposing for $3

million.

 

Which we heard testimony

would get us through the

design phase yesterday.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any objection to this

item?

 

Hearing none, that's

incorporated into the

motion.

 

>> Cole: I'm proposing the

herald court facility at

11,077,000.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

Any objection to this item?

I guess that I would like to

ask, that's a reduction of

about $5 million?

I know that we discussed it

yesterday, but I just want

to reiterate what do we get

for 11 million as opposed to

16 million?

>> Cole: I will again ask

the city manager howard to

answer that question.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

was asking him.

 

>> Mayor, we can, part of

the discussion in how much

to allocate to the facility

included a conversation

about how much of that cost

we could bear through other

means.

 

We had determined that we

could build a facility to

meet the requirement with 11

million plus in bond dollars

and the remainder would come

from some other sources.

So we would get the facility

that we desire for that

amount of money.

With the understanding that

we're going to have to

allocate some funding from

transportation fund over a

period of time to

[indiscernible] some debt.

 

..

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

With the understanding that

you are going to have to

take money out of

transportation to build it.

 

>> Right.

 

It would be essentially $5

million financed over 20

years, so that comes out

to -- to $275,000 a year or

so that we would have to put

towards it.

We do pay for facilities out

of the transportation fund

and we have managed our

capital debt out of that to

where there will be a

decrease in some of the

moneys that we have budgeted

for capital costs.

 

So I don't think the impact

on -- there will be an

impact in terms of a number

of lane miles that we can't

do.

 

But given the tradeoff, i

think the facility over the

long term will make us more

efficient.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.

 

Is there any objection to

this item?

Hearing none, that's

incorporated as part of the

main motion.

>> Cole: Okay.

The next item is affordable

housing.

 

And I am proposing that we

put the item in at the task

force recommendation of

76,800,000.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any objection from

councilmembers on this item?

Hearing none, that's

incorporated into the main

motion.

The main item is interstate

35 and I fully understand

that this is our most

congested freeway, but

looking at the backup

materials, I saw that most

of it is used, would be used

for signage and way-finding

and not for another

additional lane.

 

I appreciate the importance

of having -- of having items

shovel ready, but this

amount is being reduced

simply, it's being suggested

that it be reduced by a

small amount to -- to give

us funding to be able to do

some of the other items that

we have identified.

So the bottom line number

that I am suggesting for

i-35 is $15 million.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Is

there any objection to this?

 

Let me just say that -- that

I'm going to support this,

I'm not going to object, but

it is -- it is very

disappointing that we can't

make any more progress than

this on our number one

transportation problem in

this city for the number one

problem in this city, which

is transportation.

 

But I guess $15 million is

better than nothing.

So that's incorporated.

>> Cole: The next item is

design of new projects and

in keeping with the idea

that we don't want, we want

to have items designed to

make them shovel ready, we

also want to fund items that

we can't actually -- can't

actually start to work

construction on.

 

So I propose this item at $4

million, which is a million

dollar cut from the city

manager's proposal of 5

million.

 

And an increase of 2 million

over the task force

recommendation.

 

>> Tovo: Mayor, I would

like to talk about this one.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: I actually wanted

to raise this today for

consideration as a possible

cut.

So I appreciate coming down

from 5 million, but I would

like to talk about coming

down a little bit more and

part of my objective here is

to free up some room to get

back to the task force

recommendations on some

other critical needs.

If you look at the sheet,

comparing the city manager

and the task force proposal,

we do have what I would

regard as significant

reductions in metropolitan

parks, needs assessment said

33 million, there's a one

million dollars between the

task force and city manager,

neighborhood parks,

improvements, renovations, a

$45 million needs

assessment, a one million

..

Neighborhood parks,

improvements, open space, we

have a one million dollar

gap and of course an overall

gap of 3 million.

So again, you know, as the

mayor said multiple times

today, it is -- well, now

I'm summarizing and I can't

remember your actual words,

but there are tough choices

and these are difficult

decisions.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Close enough.

>> Tovo: That was the

sentiment was the same.

 

I agree completely.

 

But I do think that what is

for me a priority in this

line item is the south lamar

work and I believe that was

estimated at about a half a

million dollars, so I would

like to see us reduce this

down to 500,000 and keep

some of that additional --

what does that give us?

5 Million to add back

into the neighborhood level

parks, the metropolitan

park, the neighborhood parks

and the neighborhood park --

neighborhood plan parks

improvements because those

are the kinds of projects

that happen in people's

neighborhoods all across the

city and really matter

significantly in terms of

quality of life.

Not that the congress avenue

and others aren't important,

too, but I think we need

to -- we need to get out

across the city and the

neighborhood parks money

allows us to do that.

So again I would like to see

this number reduced down to

a half million.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

Let's see if it passes.

 

>> Cole: Mayor, I would

like to make one comment.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem?

 

>> Cole: Actually, we

received $130 million

unexpectedly from the

federal government and we

could not use that because

we didn't have any projects

within the central city of

austin that was ready for

construction and we actually

had to partner with ctrma to

do work on mopac and so the

need to actually solve our

transportation problems I'm

trying to balance that

between understanding it's

not just construction, but

it's also designed but not

spending too much money on

design.

 

I'm concerned that if we

take all of the design money

except for one area, that we

will find ourselves in a

similar situation.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: And

I agree with that, mayor pro

tem.

 

So there's objection.

 

So we have a vote on this

line item.

All in favor say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Opposed say no?

Passes on a vote of 5 to 1,

councilmember tovo voting no

councilmember spelman

off the dais.

 

>> The next item is street

reconstruction which i

have -- which I am proposing

a final number of

$36,228,000.

 

The task force

recommendation and the city

manager recommendation was

40 million-dollars, this

is -- this is a very

important item, but it is

done throughout the city and

I believe that we can

appropriately stagger this

and fund some of it in other

ways.

 

So that's my proposal.

 

>> And could I ask mr.

 

Lather, what does this do to

our program of -- our 80%

program?

 

Or other programs.

 

>> If I could ask the

question, mayor, before i

start, what was the

reduction in the --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It's

a reduction from $40 million

to 36,228,000, pretty exact

number there.

 

>> Cole: That was

3,772,000.

>> Street reconstruction is

the principal and primary

means that we have to

address the failed streets

in the city, those that are

rated f and d which are

marginal.

The street reconstruction

program includes not only

the actual pavement and

subgrade, but it also

includes a 30% allowance for

drainage projects.

 

So we also address localized

flooding through street

reconstruction.

 

We also coordinate with the

water utility on water main

replacement.

 

So these projects all go

together.

We also address through this

line item intersection

improvements and the

capacity of many of our

streets are more determined

by conflicts with the

intersection than the roads

themselves.

 

To answer your question more

directly, we spend on all of

those things about 15 to $20

million a year.

And since we started the

accelerate austin program,

that's about the level that

we've been at.

 

So if we take $3 million

off, do the math for the

reduction, probably about

half a year of our total

progress, $3 million for a

typical street is probably

one project that will be cut

out from a neighborhood or

from a collector street.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

will you be able to meet

your goals?

 

>> We'll be able to maintain

the payments at 80% or

better.

 

I think the assistant city

manager good said yesterday

that's sort of a target for

us, we would like to do

better.

 

But it's not going to keep

us from maintaining 80% of

the streets as fair or

better.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

Councilmember riley?

 

>> Can I ask in the past,

when we have gone out with

interim transportation bond

elections and I'm thinking

in particular of -- in -- in

2000 and 2010, I believe,

the last two interim

elections, were there any

funds included in those

interim elections for street

reconstruction?

 

>> There were.

 

2000 Bond program had a lot

of named projects in it.

Many of those were to be

done in collaboration with

the -- with travis county.

So those projects after

going through some

challenges with real estate

acquisition and -- and, you

know, synching those up with

county dollars are going

forward [indiscernible] our

challenge and commitment

was -- I'm talking about

public works and austin

transportation was to have

that funding obligate or

committed by the end of this

calendar year.

 

At the end of september

we'll have 75 percent those

funds committed.

 

The main area we don't,

partnership programs,

[indiscernible]

preservation, non-street

reconstruction.

 

Those projects will be

street reconstruction from

the 06 bond and the 2010

bond.

Those moneys will be fully,

almost fully committed by

the end of the year.

>> Okay.

>> Riley: Mayor, perhaps

one way of looking at this

is that in the events that

we are able to go out and

within the next few years on

interim transportation

election then we would be

able to consider including

some funding in that

election for street

reconstruction and that

would be consistent with

past practice.

That would ensure that we

would remain on the pace

that we have strived to set

with respect to maintaining

our streets.

>> We have plotted out

the -- the draw down curves,

going out of business curves

for lack of a better word

for all of the bond programs

since 1998.

 

The program will start to

gear down if we don't

continue to -- to fund it

during fiscal year '14.

Because -- because again the

rate of expenditures that

we've experienced to deliver

a product is at about $20

million a year.

That also does include, i

might add, that includes

sidewalks on the streets

that we reconstruct as well

as part of the bike plan

putting in the bike

facilities so we accomplish

a lot within that program.

 

I take it from that answer

if a subsequent bond

election were to be held

after 2014, you would be

below, below your goals.

 

>> We wouldn't be able to

address the failing streets,

which we wouldn't be able to

make any improvement.

I think that's the best way

to put it.

 

>> Well, again, same comment

here.

Most serious problem with

the city or transportation

problem we went through

this, a few years ago, and

we wound up with -- with so

many potholes in our street

that it actually got a lot

of people's attention.

 

We have been on track for

the last few years to try to

remedy that situation and

make it a -- made a lot of

good progress, this

basically sets it back, in

my opinion.

 

>> I think one of the things

to consider also, as i

mentioned before, is the

coordination with the

utilities, particularly

drainage and the water

utility.

 

As the water utility works

on its remediation program,

leak remediation program, we

have partnered with them to

reconstruction those

streets, one of the outfalls

of a greatly reduced program

would be streets that are

left in worst condition

because they still have to

do their subsurface work.

 

So -- so funding level that

we proposed at about the $20

million a year, it's

necessary to keep that

progress and sustain it as

we go.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Right.

 

So when we have a street

reconstruction program, we

partner with the water

utility who has lines

underground, obviously water

lines and wastewater lines,

we partner with watershed

protection when they have

something to do with

improvements on the street,

could include sidewalks,

lakelines, all of these --

bike lanes, all of these

things, if the public works

component is missing, we

either could not go forward

with the entire project,

which involves several

different city departments

or it would be a substandard

project and we would have to

go back and redo it I guess

sometime in the future.

 

>> I would add we also

partner with external

agencies which is texas gas

and the telecommunications

providers took in

[indiscernible]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: That

also.

 

So it has far-ranging

effects.

>> Certainly.

>> Councilmember morrison.

>> Morrison: I want to

congratulate you because i

think the -- I think, you

know, the coordination of

all of those different

partners and all has really

shown up and made a

difference, not only in the

money and the efficiency and

all, but also for the people

that live nearby or have to

move through areas where the

street is being

reconstructed.

 

It makes a huge difference

because I remember sixth

street being torn up time

after time after time and we

don't do that anymore.

 

And I think a lot of that is

due to the work that you've

done and can you help me, i

know that I asked you this

before, but I'm trying to

get my arms around

specifically numbers-wise

what it means.

We're talking about our goal

of 80% of the streets are

above a certain grade.

Above fair.

Which is below target.

>> Fair or better.

>> Which is our target and

it's -- have we met that

now?

Because before we hadn't,

before we were way below

that.

When we started the program

in fiscal year 2009, we were

at just under 73% of the

streets were fair or better,

28, 27% of the streets were

either in poor or failing

condition.

Over the last several years,

through the street

reconstruction, we've been

able to address those d or f

streets.

Through the transportation

fund, which are operating

dollars, we are able to

preserve those that are

rated as a or b and some of

those that are marginal we

are able to improve through

increased overlay effort.

 

Those are all operating

dollars.

>> Morrison: Is c a fair?

>> C is fair, d is

marginalnal.

 

We have been able to do some

work on the d's to get them

back up to b or c.

 

Because of the climate an

the use, they are constantly

deteriorating we need to

constantly pay attention to

it.

 

A lot of the work that we

have done have been maybe in

some of the easier areas,

some of the projects that we

need to address now, I can

talk about harris branch

parkway is a good example.

 

>> Morrison: We've heard

about that.

>> Stassney from terry to

burleson is a street that's

fail.

Those are going to take a

lot more effort to improve,

those are only done through

capital dollars.

 

But also cite that in the

last citizen report card

that we got, 66% of our

citizens were satisfied with

the condition of their

neighborhood streets.

Which was more than 20

points higher than the

national average.

Most of the money that we're

going to spend in the -- in

the next several months and

years are neighborhood

streets, neighborhood

collectors.

 

To include a lot of work

in -- in northeast austin

and central east austin, as

well as the inner core of

the city which is where the

oldest infrastructure is.

>> Morrison: When we say

we are five years ahead of

schedule, what does that

mean exactly.

 

>> We had programmed

achieving 10% by the end of

fiscal year 18.

 

At this year about 82%.

 

So 12 -- so we're sort of

there.

>> Morrison: Okay.

So we're -- sounds to me

like we should -- are

shifting into a different

mode of either we change our

goal and try to fund a plan

to increase that standard or

we get into a maintenance

mode of keeping things,

keeping 80% of them above

fair.

 

Fair or above.

 

>> I think if we don't

address the capital issues

we will never be able to

address those parts of the

city where the need to

reconstruct is there.

In the areas where there's

newer infrastructure, we

have implemented the

effective preventive

maintenance program, we can

maintain those streets for a

very long period of time

without significant capital

reconstruction.

But there are areas, and i

have the map here, if you

look at central east,

central west, the older part

of the city, that's where we

need to address the issues

and some of those areas

construction gets expensive

because of -- because of

awful the -- you know, all

of those --

>> thank you, I appreciate

that.

 

To me it's important to --

if we -- we understand that

it's a low bar.

 

If we want to change the

bar, let's change the bar

and plan for it and make

sure that we fund it.

But I guess there's, you

know, there is a never --

there's an endless bucket of

money that we could fill for

transportation.

And for me it's important

that we -- that we work

methodically to our goals.

>> One of the things that

we'll do for next year is

budget, because we're going

to look at comparison of

peer cities to see what

their expectations and

standards are.

As well as what is a best

managed and best management

practice to -- to

understand.

 

Because there is a point

[indiscernible] marginal

returns as well because we

are constantly

[indiscernible] laws of

thermo dynamics --

>> you are not going to win

those fights with the laws

of thermo dynamics.

>> We can get to a draw with

it.

 

I think we need to readdress

as robert said yesterday, it

was a good goal to get us

started but maybe the bar

needs to be ratcheted up a

little bit more.

>> Morrison: All right.

I do have one question for

our city attorney.

 

One scenario is that this is

approved on first reading

and we come back and discuss

it again on second reading.

Will it be -- allowable

to -- to actually come back

and change this dollar

figure again?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes.

 

>> Yes.

 

[Laughter]

 

>> so it won't be a matter

of reconsideration at that

point because we're on

second reading.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: It

can be amended on second and

third readings further.

>> Morrison: Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

With -- so before we -- this

is the last amendment that

you are going to offer, i

would note that we're over

the $385 million cap.

 

>> Based on our

calculations, you basically

need about $900,000 over,

our raw total is 385854, but

because we want to round

when we do the propositions

we are saying for all intent

and purposes 900,000 over

where you want to be.

 

>> Cole: Is that -- I'm

sorry, is that a result of

the removing the montopolis

parking lot?

>> That's correct.

>> May I also just reiterate

from yesterday, you have

allocated the dollars to the

specific projects or talked

about that.

What you actually need to do

is if you want to go ahead

and take a vote on that, you

actually need to take a vote

on that ordinance and then

allocate the direct total

amounts to each proposition

and that would be the first

reading of the ordinance.

And I think staff has done

that.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Laid

out here in that way.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Yeah, so we can go back

and --

>> ones --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Do

that after this.

 

But let me just say

symbolically at least, if

this last line item is

adopted, I'm not going to be

able to support the main

motion.

Because it does exceed the

385 million-dollar cap that

we discussed.

Realizing that it will

probably be symbolic and

hopefully that situation can

be corrected.

 

But just for the record I'm

going to vote no.

>> Martinez: Well, there

could be other amendments,

mayor.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Yes,

assuming that it stays that

way.

So I guess we have to deal

with this last street

reconstruction amendment

first, which is a reduction

of $3.8 million.

To both the task force and

city manager -- city

manager's proposals.

Is there any objection to

that?

 

>> Martinez: I just have a

comment, I don't have an

objection.

 

I would like to ask the

mayor pro tem if she would

consider making the total

amount 35,322,000, therefore

finding the 906,000 so that

we could stay at 385 and

hopefully get four votes on

first reading, knowing that

it may be amended --

 

>> Cole: That is very

friendly.

[Laughter]

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Does

anybody have any objection

to that?

I'll just object so that we

can get a vote on it.

 

All in favor of that

reduction say aye.

>> Aye.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Opposed say no?

 

No.

 

So that passes on a vote of

5-1.

I'm voting no and

councilmember spelman is off

the dais.

That puts us below the 385

million-dollar cap.

 

Any further amendments?

 

Are there any further

amendments that anyone would

like to propose?

 

>> Mayor.

 

>> Mayor.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:.

 

>> Martinez: Thank you,

mayor.

I don't have any further

amendments.

 

What I wanted to do was make

some comments and say that i

will be supporting this on

first reading, knowing that

we still have a lot of work

to do to get second and

third reading passed.

 

The proposal that I made

yesterday and that others

made were not dissimilar to

what we're doing today.

Six of the seven items that

I proposed yesterday are

included, that's why I'll be

supporting it on first

reading, but I do want to

speak about some of the

items that aren't included

that I fully support.

 

One is mexic-arte museum

which they have requested

five million for a new

museum.

I believe that they have put

together a fair proposal to

us.

That would require them to

raise substantial capital.

 

If we were able to allocate

five million in bond funding

for the museum.

 

I'm going to remain

supportive of that.

I'm going to try to work to

get it back in on second and

third reading.

The other item is the 360

fire station.

 

At a main yesterday I was

hoping that we would commit

to at least acquisition and

design because I do think

that it's needed.

 

If it doesn't make it into

the bond package, though, i

want to just lay out that i

will begin working

immediately towards budget

to include a wild land

management division within

the fire department.

Again, we -- every month the

public safety commission has

talked about the priority

for dealing with our urban

wild land interface and we

have yet to really take any

steps in that regard and

here we are coming up on the

one year anniversary of the

bastrop fires and we still

haven't done anything.

Now, our firefighters are

doing a great job, but we as

a council haven't made any

commitments.

 

If we can't at least put a

fire station design and

acquisition in this bond

package I would hope that

you all would join in

supporting the fire

department with a wild land

management division so that

they can help us determine

where best to place this

fire station, not only to

protect citizens, but to

protect the millions of

dollars that we have already

spent in open space, and the

$30 million that we're going

to ask the citizens to spend

again in open space that we

need to protect as well.

 

So I will be supporting this

for first reading.

>> Morrison: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Let

me say, councilmember, I'm

going to support that.

I agree with you on that,

that we ought to at least

make some progress.

But just to -- just for the

record, I think we have done

a lot since the bastrop

fires.

 

Particularly the fire

department has done a lot of

outreach, walking door to

door and -- and talking to

folks about how they can

help themselves and we've

established this -- this

region-wide group to address

these issues, too, so we

have made incremental

progress, but I agree with

you and will support that

effort to incorporate a wild

lands division, at least

make some progress during

this budget cycle.

And -- and I guess after we

approve this motion, we're

going to have to go through

each one of these items and

take another vote to approve

or disapprove each

proposition.

I just want to pose a

question, no answer right

now, but I would like to get

some information before

second reading about the

feasibility, just exploring

it right now, of dividing

the transportation bond

proposal into two parts.

The first part being road

projects and the second part

being bike and ped projects.

Just to see -- just to kind

of see how that looks.

 

Not saying that I'm

supportive of that at this

point.

 

I just want to get some kind

of analysis of it.

Councilmember morrison?

>> Morrison: Thank you,

mayor, I want to thank

councilmember martinez for

his comments because there

are certainly some pending

issues.

 

And I think that, you know,

previously in terms of

talking about the priority

personally that I felt for

the task force there were

two sides to that.

One was the -- the amount of

the housing bonds and this

gets us there.

The other were the -- this

was just sort of the flavor

with the different

priorities on the smaller

projects and I see that they

are listed out here.

 

And so because it doesn't

integrate that, those other

projects, I'm not going to

be able to support this on

first reading, but I am

going to -- I am going to

give some thought to how

this might be massaged and i

would like to just list out

what my priorities are of

those items that are

different because there are

more than a handful but for

me it comes down to -- to

the difference in

metropolitan parks

improvements and renovations

as well as neighborhood

parks improvements and

renovations.

The open space acquisition.

And then the fourth

difference is the

transportation item north

lamar and burnet corridor

improvements is another one

million dollars.

 

So that's -- that adds up to

5 million and I would also

like to mention the a.d.a.

 

Fishing pier, which I think

is a fabulous project and

with a small amount of

money, 150,000 --

>> it's in, you voted for

it.

 

>> Morrison: It's in

there?

>> You voted for it twice.

>> Morrison: We only have

four I apologize for that.

 

Those are my four

priorities.

And I do hope that -- that

we can get some -- some bay

to address the needs at

mexic-arte, also.

 

So hopefully we can give

some thought to all of those

and come up with some ideas.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember riley.

>> Riley: Yeah.

I want to -- I share some

sentiments expressed by my

colleagues, I do expect to

vote for this on first

reading.

But in my mind this remains

a work in progress.

 

We still have opportunities

on second and third reading

to try to define this.

 

I believe strongly in the

mexic-arte project.

A lot of work has gone into

the vision for that project,

I think it's a very bold and

exciting plan that has

generated a lot of community

support and so I'm remaining

remainingcommitted to looking for

ways to continue to work

that in.

Also agree with comments

made by councilmember

martinez with respect to the

importance of fire

protection in the northwest

area.

 

And in particular I -- i

expect to join him in

supporting the creation of a

wild land division in the

course of the budget

process.

My hope would be through the

development of a wild land

division that we would

obtain additional expertise

in -- that would be helpful

in identify and securing the

optimal site for a future

stations.

 

It may well be that the

timing could work out well.

If we get a wild land

division in place, we

continue to look at the

needs for the new station

that we will be in a better

position to pursue that fire

station in the future.

And there's of course the

other bond projects, foster

project that we've heard

about I think is a worthy

project in some way.

And to the extent that we

can continue discussions on

those, then I'm -- I'm very

open to saying what else --

to seeing what else we can

do to try to reconcile

everything we need.

This is a very difficult

process as we all have found

that there are -- it is not

fun having to cut anything.

 

So I remain hopeful that

we'll find ways to mitigate

that pain as we get into

second and third reading.

>> Cole: Mayor?

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem.

 

>> Cole: I want you to

know that I don't love this

package.

 

As a matter of fact I don't

even like it.

Because we could not do all

of the projects that i

wanted to support, which

includes every one of those

that y'all named.

But I tried to make a good

faith effort to put in what

you had shared with publicly

or in hearings those items

and still stay below the tax

rate.

 

And I welcome your

amendments along with the

chosen cuts that you making

to make to balance them out.

I am especially concerned

about the transportation

items that the mayor has

already discussed.

 

And I am concerned about the

park items and the lamar and

burnet improvements.

 

That being said, I think

that I'm very pleased that

most of you have indicated

that most of you are going

to vote for this on first

reading and that we are

making progress.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Yeah.

I would just say that i

would associate myself with

your remarks and also

councilmember riley's very

strongly remembering that we

began this process with a

needs assessment of almost

$1.5 million.

 

Those were all good

projects.

Billion.

No, I didn't say million.

One and a half billion

dollars, with a b.

 

That has been pared down to

le half a billion at

this point, 385 million to

be exact.

This was not an easy things.

A lot of people worked very

hard on the staff, on the

task force, people who made

their individual comments

submitted their individual

comments ands especially

members of the council have

worked very hard to make

some many cases, heart

rending decisions about

these priorities.

I especially want to

associate myself with mayor

pro tem cole's comment that

I don't like this composite

package all that much.

I wish it could be better.

It's hard to see many

changes but certainly i

think all of us ought to be

open and receptive to any

ideas that anybody has for

second and third readings.

 

>> Mayor?

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember tovo.

>> Tovo: I want to start

by thanking mayor pro tem

cole and my colleagues, i

regard housing as one of our

very top challenges in this

city, I think that it's

absolutely critical that we

adopt a bond proposal that

includes a substantial

amount so I appreciate very

much your commitment to

raising it back up to the

task force level.

I had personally hoped that

we would get closer to 80 as

we did in our motion

8 is a

very good start in this.

So what I would -- for me, i

would like to do some more

thinking about some of the

projects that I named

earlier, parks, naked parks,

and councilmember thomas

just mentioned them as --

councilmember morrison just

mentioned them as well.

Also I would like to ask

staff that we get clarity on

a few differences between

the task force and the city

manager's recommended

proposal and how that might

affect those projec.

One is colony park utility

infrastructure, another is

building renovations also

within the parks.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember, can we take

this vote --

 

>> Tovo: I'm just airing

as everyone else has what

their priority concerns are

for wrapping up for moving

forward for second and third

reading.

And these are mine.

So to reiterate, the parks,

the neighborhood parks

items, and again I would

like some clarity from the

parks department of how

those reductions, what I see

as reductions from the task

force to the city manager's

budget might impact those

projects.

 

So again thank you for the

work of my colleagues in

getting us to this point, i

hope we can get across the

finish line on second and

third.

So I'm for the going to

support it today but I did

want to acknowledge the

significant effort of

getting affordable housing

back up from the city

manager's recommendation.

>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

in favor of the motion as

amended for exactly $385

million or rounded off to

385 million.

>> Mayor, if you want we go

through --

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We're going to do that next.

>> Propositions based --

>> Mayor Leffingwell: I

thought that we would go

ahead and vote on this first

and then go through the

propositions.

All in favor say aye.

>> Opposed say no.

Passes on a vote of 4-2 with

councilmember morrison and

tovo voting no.

Now let's go through the

propositions, I'm sure that

you are going to give us the

right, the corrected number.

 

>> We are going to actually

put that up on the screen

for you as well.

 

I think, yes.

 

So just to kind of go

through the numbers, right

now your total package as

passed is 384,948,000.

Transportation and mobility

proposition totals

143,299,000.

[Reading graphic]

1 one footnote I do want to

put on that, we include the

women and children's shelter

as proposed as a change this

morning.

 

In the health and human

services proposition,

assuming that it's the same

purpose and intent as the --

as the other women and

children's shelter repairs

that we have.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: So

we can take all of these

items at once it turns out.

 

If I could have a motion to

approve on propositions for

want of a better term at

this point, 1 through 7 on

first reading.

 

Councilmember martinez?

 

So moves.

 

Seconded by mayor pro tem

cole.

All in favor say aye.

>> Aye.

>> 7 On possessed say no.

Passes on a vote of 4-2 with

councilmembers morrison and

tovo voting no.

Okay.

So we have one more item

remaining on our agenda.

 

Councilmembers, I would

suggest that we might want

to postpone that item.

 

That being the case can we

postpone it -- okay, we can

postpone it until friday.

 

>> Mayor.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Just

double checking.

Councilmember martinez.

>>

>> Martinez: Just as a

point of information, friday

afternoon we are scheduled,

the economic development

subcommittee scheduled to

meet at 1:00.

 

We are posted for a special

called council meeting at

2:00.

 

I really don't think that

we're going to get through

any of the agenda with less

than 50 minutes of a

meeting, so I'm going to

just announce that we will

reschedule that meeting as

necessary.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Okay.

 

>> Martinez: But I also

want to let everyone know

that two weeks from today i

will start at apparent

leave, so I will be --

paternity leave so I will be

out for at least five weeks.

 

So the committee if they

meet in that time more than

likely will not have me

around unless we're having a

good day at home.

 

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Well

deserved, congratulations.

City attorney?

>> Item 7 is not currently

posted on friday's agenda,

but we could amend it to

include it on either the

postings for saturday or

monday.

 

>> Okay.

 

Let me suggest monday.

 

>> Okay.

 

>> We will amend that agenda

to post it on the monday.

>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Without objection, item 7 is

postponed until next monday.

So now without objection we

are adjourned at 11:50.