to call

this meeting to order.

 

Mayor leffingwell will not

 

 

[09:08:00]

 

 

be here today, he is

traveling on business, and

councilmember mike martinez

will not be here either.

 

And I understand

councimember spelman may

have to leave to testify at

the legislature for a

subcommittee and so if it's

okay with everyone -- and

councilmember tovo has to

leave early so it's going to

be a short session.

 

What time do you have to

leave?

 

[Inaudible]

 

>> Cole: 11:15.

 

First I'm going to ask

councimember spelman if he

has anything immediately he

wants to pull.

 

We have not been submitted

any items but it's been our

custom to consider items

recognizing we will have

limited staff available to

answer questions.

 

The middle button turns the

mic on.

 

>> Spelman: There you go.

 

You just have to push it

harder.

 

I have a question for

councilmember riley, if i

might.

 

And I'm not sure which

agenda item, if any, this

pertains to, although i

heard her tell that it

pertains to the city cab

item which I cannot come up

with right now.

 

Okay.

 

Pardon me while I lean over

in the most uncomfortable

possible way to make this

new technology work for me.

 

I have a question on item

69.

 

[Inaudible] probably wrong

the last few weeks.

 

Anybody from the

 

 

[09:10:01]

 

 

transportation department?

 

Transportation issue.

 

We can hold on it until

somebody is around to answer

the question.

 

>> Cole: We'll see if we

can get anyone from the

transportation department to

answer a question about item

69.

 

Is there any other item?

 

Councimember spelman.

 

>> Spelman: I actually

have a question on number

67.

 

And it is at least fairly

conceivable that a member of

the cap metro board who is

with city council can answer

the question and if not I'll

hold off until later.

 

The question, chris, is of

the $4 million that will be

spent on urban rail

planning, how will that be

broken down -- how will that

money be spent?

 

I understand as we leave the

campo meeting, two big

pieces, one is service

development planning, which

comes at the end.

 

One of them is [inaudible]

which comes at the

beginning.

 

I wonder how this $4 million

is likely to be broken down

between preferred

alternative and --

 

>> Riley: I think we

better get [inaudible].

 

I'm not sure.

 

>> Spelman: Okay.

 

I'll pass, mayor pro tem

MAYOR PRO TEM.>> Cole: Do you have

questions about item 14

first?

 

>> Tovo: Yes, I do.

 

If my microphone is on.

 

>> It's on.

 

>> Tovo: Yeah, I want to

 

 

[09:12:00]

 

 

be clear on, first of all,

what we're being asked to do

here.

 

>> We forwarded a memo to

council last week.

 

Due to the fact [inaudible]

state comptroller one week

prior to council action at

the council meeting, we need

to make that payment and i

think [inaudible] memo

stating that there was an

indication about not making

that payment.

 

So in essence we forwarded

payment last week

[inaudible].

 

What you are doing is

ratifying the payment.

 

The $81,000 request be

paid -- paid into the state

[inaudible] fund which in

this case the state matches

[inaudible] of that amount

for the total amount in

which the city actually gets

full payment of the amount

they put in.

 

But we did not make that

payment last week.

 

[Inaudible]

 

>> Tovo: Thanks.

 

I'll have to refer to that

memo because it must have

come in and I must have

overlooked it.

 

But I have I guess a couple

other questions.

 

For one thing, it looks as

if the agreement was

actually entered into last

may, and I wondered if you

could give me some sense of

how often -- I mean, when we

were considering this for

formula one, it was the

subject of a council

decision.

 

So I'm wondering what the --

what the precedent is for

the city entering into an

agreement regarding

requesting the state set up

an events trust fund without

 

 

[09:14:01]

 

 

council authorization.

 

>> Well, I have a couple of

my colleagues here

[inaudible] you have a major

events fund and the major

event trust fund is

designated mainly for super

bowl, those type of events.

 

>> Tovo: I understand it a

smaller fund, but it still

is a contract the city

entered into last may and i

guess I'm wondering -- well,

let's start with maybe some

background.

 

Has the city entered into

this kind of contract in the

past without council

authorization?

 

>> Yes, but none as relates

to [inaudible].

 

The other day how many

total, we have about 25

agreements since the

inception of the 2008.

 

Of that amount none has

exceeded -- I think two have

exceeded the council

authority [inaudible].

 

I think one of the

challenges is when the

initial estimate by the

economic impact analysis is

completed by the state, that

number is 60 to 80 thousand

dollars.

 

That is just an estimate.

 

After the conclusion of the

event, you have about 30 or

60 days to evaluate whether

the assumptions were

realized.

 

And I think the timetable

that we're talking about in

july, I think it was a

portion of the month after

that event they go through a

process to make sure all the

criteria is met, whether or

not the functions were

realized, and if they were

not, there's potential that

the amount could go below

the original assumption.

 

[Inaudible] talk about the

history, but typically the

numbers have not exceeded

 

 

[09:16:00]

 

 

the [inaudible].

 

>> Tovo: I guess I can get

some more data on that

through the q and a process,

but in the other case where

they had exceeded the

manager's authority, were

those brought to council for

approval before the request

was sent to the state?

 

>> I can check that.

 

>> Tovo: Okay.

 

Thanks.

 

>> My understanding

[inaudible]

 

>> Tovo: So back in may

when the assistant city

manager was requesting that

the state set up this major

events trust fund, wasn't

there -- isn't it necessary

to kick off that process by

getting an estimate as far

as working with the state to

get an estimate?

 

I've forgotten the exact

process, but it seems to me

there would have been good

evidence or some basis for

assuming that it would --

had the potential to exceed

the $50,000 manager level.

 

>> Well, I think in the memo

we provided council, we

provided details that shared

that the process actually

started in december of 2011.

 

In january there was

correspondence with the

state [inaudible].

 

At that time there's an

indication that the

assumption of potential

revenue would be about

$81,000.

 

There is an agreement

between the city, the state,

as well as the event

organizer I believe in may,

the actual event occurred in

july.

 

But as I stated previously,

there is a post-event

process that goes to try to

make sure that all the

criteria is met and whether

or not the assumptions

originally were realized.

 

And in this case it could

result because we never in

this case really have ever

exceeded the manager's

authority, it could have

gone below that amount, but

in essence that was the

process that we followed

traditionally.

 

>> Tovo: I guess, I mean

 

 

[09:18:00]

 

 

if I'm following the details

of what you've said, it

sounds like last fall or by

january you had an estimate

of 81,000.

 

Aen so I take your point and

I understand the process is

that after the event you

look at the receipts and

whatnot and determine the

accuracy of that original

amount.

 

But I guess when it looked

like -- when you had an

estimate that looked like it

was going to exceed the

manager -- the manager's

estimate, why wasn't this

brought to council last

spring?

 

>> Well, at this point i

wasn't [inaudible] of that

area, ma'am, and the acm at

that time is no longer a

city employee.

 

As I stated earlier, I know

there are a number of

processes that working with

acvb, it could have been,

one of the things that we're

doing going forth looking at

this process [inaudible]

we're looking at including

in the joiner agreement more

specificity as it relates to

the amount, which hasn't

been the case the previous

times and my hope is by

doing that we have due dill

diligence in ensuring these

type of situations don't

occur.

 

>> Tovo: And I understand

the amount is a whole lot

less than the formula one.

 

There's still clearly a lot

of public interest in this

and I think it is not

advisable for it to be an

administrative decision.

 

I think it needs to come to

council for action.

 

>> The fact that --

 

>> Cole: The city manager.

 

>> [Inaudible] should have

come, I don't know why it

was -- the acm authorized

it.

 

Only more recently found out

about those occasions.

 

In both instances it should

have come to council.

 

>> Tovo: Thanks.

 

 

[09:20:00]

 

 

>> Cole: I have a simple

question related to the same

thing.

 

I don't think we've ever

used the major events trust

fund, but has there ever

been something that was

passed through at that level

that did not come to

council?

 

>> The only time we used the

major events fund was f 1

and that came to council.

 

And in essence no payment

was disbursed from city

funds related to that, but

[inaudible].

 

>>> Julie hart with austin

convention and visitors

bureau.

 

We have not used the major

events trust fund

[inaudible].

 

State statute is very

specific about what events

are included in the major

event trust fund and

[inaudible] super bowl, ncaa

final four and so obviously

before f1 none of those were

held in austin.

 

From our perspective we have

used the events trust fund

very successfully to bring

about 25 events to austin

that would not have been

here otherwise.

 

The criteria it has to be an

event that could go outside

the state of texas in a

competitive bidding process.

 

In this specific incidence,

this has been learning

experience with the amount

of this.

 

Most of our trust funds have

been much smaller amounts so

it's opened our eyes to the

need for a new process and

we're very eager to work

with the city to make sure

it's a process that works

with everybody.

 

It has been a very good fund

for all of us.

 

The city is always

reimbursed fully and has

allowed us to get really

high profile events.

 

Matthew can give you

more details on that.

 

>> Spelman: The amount of

this looks like $82,000, and

the threshold it has to come

to council, is that 50,000?

 

 

[09:22:02]

 

 

>> [Inaudible]

 

>> Spelman: Five.

 

Okay.

 

Presumably at the time when

the agreement was entered

into, the expectation was

our -- the amount we would

have to pay out was less

than $55,000.

 

Is that accurate?

 

>> Correct.

 

>> Spelman: You said a

moment ago sometimes it's

higher, sometimes it's

lower, you have to prove out

the assumptions.

 

>> Right.

 

>> Spelman: How much up

and down does it eventually

prove out to be on average?

 

>> Matthew has the history

on this since he's been in

charge of that process.

 

He might be able to

[inaudible].

 

>> Good morning, matthew

payne, austin sports

commission.

 

I think there's been a lot

of jump really from what the

previous estimate was.

 

I think when we had a number

of a certain amount, we felt

like we might be able to

contribute to that fund on

top of this as the city

amount and that was

something that we just were

kind of assuming.

 

And I think that window of

time after the event where

you are trying to evaluate a

little bit, trying to figure

out if the client, the event

organizers has their ducks

in a row, the time kind of

slips a little bit.

 

But as far as history goes,

that estimate is pretty on

target.

 

I believe only two or three

times where it's

underperformed and you maybe

need to go back and do a

revision.

 

Something we've been

proactive on going back to

the state saying this didn't

perform the way we thought.

 

>> Spelman: Slipping

through evening the changes

operating procedures.

 

If our new procedure states

if our estimate is amount

the city is going to be out

is over $55,000 and comes

back to council, I suspect

that's a logical operating

procedure.

 

Seems what was followed in

this case, the difference it

turned out to be

spectacularly good event, a

 

 

[09:24:00]

 

 

lot more people showed up

and therefore our chair of

[inaudible] considerably

higher.

 

If that happens, even if it

doesn't happen very often,

it's going to happen in the

future and I suggest that

maybe it would be good for

you all to cover yourselves

even if your expectation is

less than 55,000, if the

expectation is over 40,000,

for example, but there is a

good chance that this might

be [inaudible] a lot more

people showing up and it

might get over 55, seems

like the threshold, it might

make sense to lower the

threshold to cover

yourselves to prevent this

from happening again.

 

>> That's a good point,

councilmember.

 

I think it's important to

know that in this instance

the amount that is

established through the

state after the economic

impact statement cannot be

exceeded even if the event

proves to be more successful

than anticipated, that

number is capped.

 

But you can go below the

number based on that.

 

So it protects on the top

end, in this case 81,000.

 

If everyone from the

surrounding states decided

they wanted to come to this

event and the economic

impact of 150,000, we

wouldn't be obligated to pay

above the 81.

 

However [inaudible] if it

was not realized then we

could lower it.

 

>> Spelman: Is the cap the

same for all events?

 

Does it depend on the event?

 

>> It depends on each event.

 

The process that happens

[inaudible] the process that

happens is we bid on the

event.

 

A year before that we're

allowed to make application

to the state for the event

trust fund.

 

Within 120 days of the event

after we've gathered the

event history, got as much

history as we can, we have

an independent entity that

does an economic impact that

goes to the state and they

evaluate to see if it's

reasonable or not.

 

Then they come back with a

number that says this is

what we think the

 

 

[09:26:00]

 

 

incremental tax gain will be

to the stacks because of

this specific event.

 

That is the cap for that

event.

 

>> Spelman: That

incremental [inaudible] is

the cap?

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

>> Spelman: What was the

cap on this?

 

>> 81,000.

 

>> The city's contribution

was 81,000.

 

The total was I believe

about 500 --

 

>> 593.

 

>> That's incremental

[inaudible].

 

The local match is derived

from percentage of that.

 

>> Spelman: Okay.

 

So there is a maximum amount

that the state is going to

be out which is based on

what?

 

>> 6.2.

 

We pay one-sixth and for

every dollar we pay the

25 and all that

money is deposited to the

trust fund and then the

event organizer has the

ability to request

reimbursement for eligible

expenses up to that cap

[inaudible]

 

>> Spelman: Let me be sure

I understand it.

 

We look at the event, bid on

the event, hire somebody to

estimate what they think is

going to be the [inaudible]

of the event.

 

In this case let's say

$300,000.

 

That means that our share of

that would be 1/6 or

$50,000, which is lower than

your threshold having

council.

 

Then it develops that the

event [inaudible] it's

extremely successful and the

amount is something like 600

not 300,000, which means our

share would be about 100,

not 50,000.

 

Did this not happen?

 

>> No.

 

>> Spelman: Why not?

 

>> After the state did their

initial evaluation, that is

is the marks that is

allowed.

 

We go back post-event and

they will adjust down, they

will not adjust over.

 

>> Spelman: Seems to me a

sensible process either we

believe our best guess is

55,000 or more or else the

 

 

[09:28:01]

 

 

cap would result in 1/6

payment being our share of

being over 55,000.

 

The state cap is over

55,000, maybe we ought to

take a look at it.

 

>> One of the things so you

know the part of this

process that we've undergone

over the course of the last

several weeks with the legal

team, this team as well as

my staff, we want to

incorporate language that

talks about administrative

[inaudible] manager.

 

In this case that those

payments be made above that

amount without going to city

council.

 

That will be actually right

now it's not --

 

>> Spelman: It's in the

ordinance, I think.

 

>> We want to ensure that

any signed agreement whether

it's the city representative

or the state or whoever,

they understand that the

amount is 55 or 56,000.

 

I know there's been some

discussion about partnering

with acvb to cover the

delta, but in the end i

think the management clearly

supported that any amount

over his administrative

authority needs to be

escalated to [inaudible]

ultimate approval.

 

So we'll be coming back as

we modify and approve the

current process, we'll

possibly be coming back to

council and share with you

some of the options

[inaudible]

 

>> Spelman: Well, don't

possibly come back to city

council, just come back to

city council, let us know

what it is that you are

planning.

 

Thanks.

 

>> Cole: Any other

questions?

 

Okay.

 

Councilmember tovo, if it's

okay with you, I see someone

from the transportation

staff here so perhaps we

will get them to answer some

of our -- some of

councimember spelman's

questions.

 

>> Spelman: Thank you,

mayor pro tem.

 

I appreciate it.

 

 

[09:30:09]

 

 

>> Councilmember, sorry, i

was delayed getting here.

 

>> Spelman: No problem.

 

Thank you for coming.

 

Two quick questions.

 

Two questions which I think

can be quick.

 

First on 67, where you are

asking us to authorize

negotiation and execution of

an interlocal agreement for

an urban rail study program

in the amount of $4 million,

I wonder if you could

describe how that $4 million

will be broken down

between -- in terms of the

major parts of what it is we

would be buying with that.

 

>> Right.

 

Let me try to answer that

simplisticly.

 

It will be going to

restarting the alternative

analysis.

 

As you know, councilmember,

we came before you this past

spring and talked about a

recommended or likely first

investment scenario going

approximately from the

downtown commuter rail

that's operating today out

to mueller and looking at

that as primary corridor

route.

 

That is consistent with the

statement of first in need

that we publish this part of

the environmental process

that we started about a year

and a half ago.

 

And which talked abou

economic investment

[inaudible]

 

>> Spelman: Sounds like

this is all stuff which we

need to do.

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

>> Spelman: Does not

preclude -- we haven't

decided which street we're

going to go on, the general

idea making the [inaudible]

 

 

[09:34:01]

 

 

to mueller is going to be

vetted.

 

>> Yes.

 

Certainly we believe we

understand what are the

potential streets to get us

between those four key

locations and we have an

idea as to which the best

route is, but certainly

further discussion

[inaudible]

 

>> Spelman: If you could

get me more information by

thursday, that would be

great.

 

>> We have it broken out by

year but I would like to

summarize to it make it

easier to explain.

 

>> Spelman: With your

permission, mayor pro tem, i

would like to shift gears.

 

>> Cole: Absolutely.

 

Let me ask one question.

 

One clear followup.

 

This is a federal grant so

there's no city of austin

fund at issue.

 

>> Well, it is a federal

grant with the funds that

come through capital metro

administered by the fta.

 

There's about a million

dollars of tip funds that

we've identified through the

budge yet process to match

so it makes a total of

$5 million.

 

>> Cole: Councilmember

riley.

 

>> Riley: Some concerns

about ensuring maintain

focus of [inaudible] in

addition to figuring out how

we're going to move people

from points within the

center.

 

I appreciate you mentioning

project -- but for purposes

of this $4 million, will

this -- will this study look

at the connections from

further -- from points

further out or is it really

just focused inside between

the points [inaudible]?

 

>> Councilmember, the

purpose of project connect

was to look at the entire

system and so one of the key

needs that were identified

by project connect and the

recommendation is they need

to connect those systems

 

 

[09:36:00]

 

 

that come from more distant

locations like leander and

east austin to the major

employment centers in

central austin.

 

Remember central austin was

when we talk about downtown,

capitol complex is a pretty

big area.

 

People would be challenged

to walk in business suits

[inaudible].

 

And then also I need to

connect to mueller because

of the economic

opportunities that that

proposes.

 

And so this really focuses

in on the central part of

the corridor but is part of

a system.

 

One of the key things we

heard in the environmental

process that we kicked off a

year and a half ago and why

we [inaudible] public more

is we heard clearly from

agencies in the public you

need to show us how this

connected with the larger

system so that's what we've

been [inaudible].

 

>> Riley: Okay.

 

So we can be sure that we

are looking at people across

the region from those points

they could access the urban

rail system that would be

examined [inaudible].

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

In fact, through project

connect, the two highest

priority corridors

identified were the

northeast, north central

northeast corridor and the

central corridor.

 

You can imagine a box around

central austin, sort of a

central corridor, how you

would get around this that

central corridor similar to

cities like san francisco

and new york, that central

activity area is too big for

one to normally walk because

it is an important element

[inaudible] how it connects

to those regional systems

that we've already invested

in or planned investment in

is very important.

 

>> Riley: Great.

 

Thanks.

 

>> Cole: Councilmember

morrison.

 

>> Morrison: Thank you.

 

Just to follow up, I guess

you've confirmed this is

funding coming from the feds

and we're talking about --

 

>> it is stme funds which

were federal funds returned

to the state for formula and

 

 

[09:38:00]

 

 

this is being capped from

the state through the

[inaudible]

 

>> Morrison: A nice

straight path.

 

>> I wish I could say it was

straight.

 

>> Morrison: And I'm

interested in the time line

for these studies and it

sounds like your answer to

those questions might

involve a time line.

 

Will that come to us?

 

>> Well, I can actually give

you better understanding.

 

My understanding is that cap

metro intends to take a

similar issue to their board

for a november discussion.

 

Once they have the authority

to negotiate to get these

funds agreed upon, we have a

contractor that has

previously -- is previously

involved and remains

involved ready to rekick off

the environmental as well as

the need for process.

 

We would expect to get them

started in november assuming

both bodies approve the

timing.

 

In that way we would be back

at an initial retouch with

the public in january.

 

The alternative analysis we

would hope to finish by the

end of this coming summer

which would then allow us to

continue the environmental

process perhaps on a -- you

know, on the first

investment as opposed to the

prior route and that is

direct feedback from the

[inaudible] going to be able

to do all of this at once

and no we really need to

contemplate a first

investment as part of that.

 

That is the intent,

councilmember, to reengage

the public probably in the

january time frame given

[inaudible].

 

>> Morrison: And you

mentioned earlier that we

need to redo some things

because some of the

information is dated.

 

Can you talk a little about

that?

 

>> Well, you know, we had a

long and ongoing

conversation about urban

 

 

[09:40:00]

 

 

[inaudible] specifically in

this corridor.

 

We start this process about

six years ago.

 

One of the things we need to

do is reacquaint the public

with the discussion and six

years ago with capital metro

and auspices of capital

metro, the city picked it up

four years ago.

 

For good measure we need to

remind the public of those

conversations, check back in

with them.

 

Remind the public why it's

important to connect three

major activity centers along

mueller.

 

It's not just about a

maintenance facility at

mueller, it's also about

mueller being an important

community within the city.

 

There's some economic

opportunity for the city as

we increase the density

there to better meet imagine

austin.

 

Imagine austin clearly

[inaudible] activity so we

want to remind the public of

that.

 

But then also initiate more

focus discussions about the

characteristics of the

system.

 

We heard much from the

business community that they

want this to be very fast

and dedicated lane.

 

That certainly [inaudible]

environmental and

neighborhood repercussions

that placement of stations

[inaudible] those are the

items we want to have a

discussion with.

 

>> Morrison: And you --

you mentioned we've been at

this for six years.

 

>> Yes, ma'am.

 

>> Morrison: I mean the

community has.

 

And several times during

those six years there was a

discussion out about

potentially going to the

voters and that never --

that hasn't come together

yet.

 

And I think there are a lot

of pieces that go into

deciding when and if we go

to the voters, would you

have a guess as to what kind

of time line this could put

us on for consideration?

 

>> I'm not sure I want to

guess a date.

 

I would tell you that i

think the council as well as

the region would have the

information necessary within

12 to 14 months to make a

decision as to when they

want to go to a vote.

 

The environmental will not

be complete at that point,

but, again, local funding is

 

 

[09:42:01]

 

 

a separate issue than the

environmental issue.

 

I can hazard a guess to

believe there will be few

environmental issues of

concern within the corridors

because we're within the

existing transportation

corridor more or less.

 

Certainly there will

be-neighborhood concerns,

but I think we can alay

those pretty effectively as

we get further into the

discussion process.

 

I would hope that we would

be in a position under the

new federal funding law

called map 21 to have a

conversation with the

federal transit

administration about getting

[inaudible] for federal

funds.

 

That may play a role in

helping council decide when

to discuss that with the

electorate.

 

>> Morrison: One final

issue.

 

You were talking with

councimember spelman about

where this money is going to

go.

 

>> Yes, ma'am.

 

>> Morrison: Did i

understand properly some of

it may be managed and

overseen by cap metro and

some by the city?

 

>> Yes, ma'am.

 

They are the fiscal agent so

they have the right to take

administrative costs out of

that.

 

>> Morrison: That's in the

backup and I had seen that.

 

>> There will be an

administrative role.

 

>> Morrison: But that's

the extent of what we

foresee the rest of it is

going to be.

 

>> The majority of it goes

directly to the project.

 

It will roughly be divided

into three basic areas.

 

One would be the completion

or the restart of the

alternative analysis.

 

The bulk of it will go for

environmental, and a little

bit of it will go for

engineering support.

 

We call it preliminary

engineering.

 

The federal government

attaches very specific

definition of preliminary

engineering, but there is

some engineering support

that's needed for the

environmental.

 

Those are the three primary

categories.

 

I can show you break down of

year of expenditure and so

 

 

[09:44:01]

 

 

forth, but I kind of want to

create a handout that rolls

it out and present you the

details.

 

>> Morrison: Thanks.

 

I appreciate that

clarification.

 

I had heard something

different.

 

>> Cole: Let me ask you a

couple of questions.

 

>> Yes, ma'am.

 

>> Cole: First I recall --

tell me I'm correct in

recalling the federal

government wants to see the

city or local dollars put in

before they will commit to

federal dollars.

 

Is that -- and that was part

of our discussions about the

250 million.

 

>> Right.

 

>> Cole: Is that correct?

 

>> Well, when we go for the

proposal to ask the federal

government to participate in

a funding scenario for the

construction and deployment

of the system, they want --

they will only fund 50% of

the investment.

 

And so they need to know

that there is a local

commitment for the other

50%.

 

Whether you actually have to

go for a vote or commit it

and have a vote scheduled

given the mechanism that we

have previously scud for

funding, it all goes into

how strategic your proposal

is to the federal

government.

 

I would tell you that we've

been advised that if you

passed a local funding vote

and have money committed in

a sense by the voters,

that's a much stronger

position to be in when you

go to the federal government

to ask for match as opposed

to city council committing

to do a vote at a certain

date, still needing voter

approval.

 

>> Cole: Okay.

 

So -- but regardless of if

the voters have approved the

dollars, it still

[inaudible].

 

>> Absolutely, yes, ma'am.

 

>> Cole: So is there any

information from the studies

that we are performing with

this item that will help us

determine the likelihood of

the [inaudible]?

 

 

[09:46:00]

 

 

>> As I said previously to

councilmember morrison, i

believe in 12 to 14 months

we will be in a position for

council to have the

information necessary to

make that decision and yes,

I believe that we will have

an idea about how

competitive our proposal

will be.

 

We won't have any feedback.

 

We'll be able to give you

information.

 

>> Cole: When you say that

decision, you mean putting

it on the ballot for voters?

 

>> Yes, ma'am.

 

Whether you actually decide

to put it on the ballot at

that point or say, okay,

we're going to do it, you

will have enough information

to decide how competitive or

estimate how competitive our

probably [inaudible]

 

>> Cole: Councilmember

tovo.

 

>> Tovo: I appreciate this

discussion.

 

Thanks.

 

You know, you've covered

this to some extent with

councimember spelman in

answering his questions, but

I just want to be clear

about something.

 

We've gotten some concerns

and councimember spelman

referred to a few of them.

 

The ones I've heard have

dealt primarily with the

route, and I thought I heard

you answer that there is --

that that is not a set --

there is not a set plan at

this point.

 

But then a few minutes ago

you talked about the

selected route.

 

So for those members of our

community who have concerns

about -- who would like to

see more exploration on that

front and, you know, one of

them, for example, cited the

recent campo transit working

group talking about the

group of expert that's going

to be brought in to do an

expert review of the current

rail [inaudible] and why

would we settle on a route

[inaudible] why wouldn't we

use some of the money that's

being contemplated to look

at alternatives.

 

My question in a nutshell to

 

 

[09:48:03]

 

 

what extent is the

discussion of route

[inaudible]?

 

>> Well, councilmember, as i

said, for the entire six

years that we've been

talking about this, we

talked about our purpose and

need or a need for a system

that links the city's

investment in mueller with

the three areas of the core.

 

We have previously looked at

three routes between

downtown and the core.

 

Namely being mlk, manor road

and red river.

 

We actually went to look at

red river after the initial

feedback from the

environmental scoping

network.

 

Capital metro one of our

partners, indicated now they

are up and running with the

red line they were concerned

about trying to connect

[inaudible] station at manor

road and looked at all the

different con straights.

 

Red river provided the third

corridor.

 

There has been a wider

discussion though, and let

me acknowledge that, about

well, the twig has listed a

number of different

corridors to look at.

 

Those corridors are

different corridors from the

one that connects us to

mueller.

 

And I think those are very

good corridors.

 

You know, two of those

corridors I think are worth

talking about, the lamar

north central corridor,

which is now being served or

will be served by project

that capital metro is

deploying which is to be our

key that receive federal

funding.

 

When they receive federal

funding, they made a

commitment by providing the

cost estimate and the price

proposal in a sense to run

that service for the next

probably 20 years is

probably what the commitment

was for.

 

And so we think that

corridor is being well

served with the new

investment and we're trying

to spread the service of the

 

 

[09:50:01]

 

 

central corridor as widely

as possible, then it would

serve the community better

than the second corridor

that we looked at.

 

The other corridor which i

would mention is the

riverside corridor, which is

probably the second highest

ridership corridor behind

lamar, but the reason we're

not looking to serve the

riverside corridor with the

next investment is because

of the need to cross the

river, plus whether

tributaries flow major

structures in that corridor.

 

We think that discussion

will be longer to have and

better after we have some

initial first investment and

hence the recommendation

previous to you.

 

So I would say that those

other corridors other than

the riverside corridor don't

meet the stated purpose and

need.

 

The corridor we've been

looking at is a good one in

terms of ridership and

opportunity.

 

When we look at criteria for

making an investment, it

more than just ridership,

it's economic development.

 

Clearly there's an economic

opportunity in mueller for

the city because it -- it's

better for the city, it is

in keeping with imagine

austin and it is also the

shortest route, I believe,

between downtown and the red

line.

 

So we also have the north

connection with the red line

is important [inaudible]

between the north and the

university area.

 

So those are the -- that's

my answer.

 

We've been focused on that

corridor and plan to stay

focused on that corridor

because it meets our purpose

and need.

 

>> Tovo: I guess if we

have citizens who have

questions about the extent

to which public feedback can

help shape the corridor

discussion, it sounds like

it's a federal issue.

 

>> Yes, ma'am.

 

I feel like we've moved -- i

would argue that we've moved

 

 

[09:52:01]

 

 

beyond that point in the

study atwe really have

focused in on a corridor

within here and mueller.

 

I think to look at a

different corridor would

dramatically change the time

line.

 

Over a period I think it

would affect the federal

partnership, the lamar

corridor, engaged in right

now, and I don't think it

would meet, you know, the

intent of deploying a

transit system to spread

transit over the largest set

of population possible.

 

I don't know how else to

stay it.

 

>> Tovo: I appreciate your

candor.

 

Thank you.

 

>> Riley: You mentioned a

mueller route that's the

shortest connection to the

red line.

 

I'm not sure exactly where

you --

 

>> from the north end of the

university because the red

line is [inaudible]

southeast.

 

From the north end of the

university --

 

>> Riley: You are talking

about going up roughly

guadalupe and lamar?

 

>> First is from the north

end of the university up red

river, yes.

 

>> Riley: Right.

 

Crestview would be the

terminus --

 

>> crestview would be --

yes.

 

>> Riley: That's the

connection you are referring

to?

 

>> The shortest route would

be from approximately dean

keaton and san jacinto to

red river and the red line.

 

>> Riley: So a new stop at

the hancock center.

 

>> That's actually a little

bit shorter I think than the

manor road route that

originally we were looking

at.

 

>> Riley: Okay.

 

And secondly, mentioned the

importance of considering

economic development out

near the -- along the

proposed line and I just

want to be sure that this

project would allow for

that.

 

And in particular for

consideration of things like

the possibility of some sort

 

 

[09:54:01]

 

 

of new research hospital or

medical school or something

like that within -- in

the -- in the northeast part

of downtown.

 

Would that be within the

scope of this project?

 

>> Yes, sir.

 

You know, one of the

corridor connections we've

looked at is coming across

the capitol complex on

17th street.

 

Actually the early feedback

we got from the capitol

complex development group is

that's very exciting for

them because that's a street

they had not brought up as

an active street so it

allows them to activate

that.

 

That touches san jacinto,

and, of course,

san jacinto -- another way

to get to the university is

have a cuplet, one track on

trinity and one on

san jacinto.

 

They both get on the same

point, the entrance of u.t.

 

Of course, the intersection

of trinity and 17th is

adjacent to at least one of

the primary locations that's

in discussion.

 

It's about as close as we

can get to the remainder of

the development that's

proposed there, but

certainly within easy walk

of that element.

 

I think the other exciting

thing is the corridor off

red river connects you

david's, and

david's

that they want to be part of

medical research and serve

as an outlet, one of the

hospitals where graduate

medical students might get

training.

 

And then also that route

going on to mueller that you

see dell children's, which,

of course, is the other

major destination

[inaudible]

 

>> Riley: There's also

been discussion about

potential redevelopment of

other property within the

capitol complex area.

 

>> Absolutely.

 

>> Riley: And that would

also be within the scope.

 

This project would allow for

consideration of that sort

of development?

 

>> Yes.

 

In fact, the university of

texas has also talked about

a major redevelopment of

their engineering school

which would happen to be out

 

 

[09:56:01]

 

 

dean keaton and san jacinto,

which would be very

important naturally to

discuss facilitating a more

direct connection that could

be there with a pedestrian

bridge over the --

 

>> Riley: There's all kind

of stuff going on in the

northeast quadrant and we

could consider opportunity

to connect that to this

development.

 

>> Absolutely.

 

I think another thing is the

depth of that development is

potentially pretty

[inaudible].

 

Again I'll go back up

supporting a [inaudible] and

st. david site.

 

That whole area between red

river and the freeway really

is a commercial environment

until you get north of about

38 1/2.

 

Right.

 

The depth there is quite

deep in terms of economic

redevelopment as well as --

at least as you are close to

on the west side as

opposed to other corridors

where it's only [inaudible].

 

It's a good stretch.

 

>> Riley: Meantime, in the

opposite corner of downtown,

in the southwest corner,

there's also a lot of stuff

going on including -- and

putting green, seaholm and

the county's development of

the new courthouse facility.

 

Would this project also be

looking at opportunities to

support development in that

area?

 

>> Yes.

 

Councilmember, in our first

presentation to you last

spring on a first

investment, we do not have a

connection to seaholm.

 

Remember I said that's only

because, you know, we want

to time that connection with

lone star.

 

I think between last spring

and now a number of

encouraging things have

occurred with lone star such

that that connection might

be added back in as part of

the discussion and then that

would give you a connection

 

 

[09:58:02]

 

 

from the southwest corner,

the innercity commuter rail

type service with direct

line with the red line north

of [inaudible].

 

So we will build on the

[inaudible]

 

>> Riley: Okay.

 

Great.

 

Thanks for all your work.

 

>> Cole: Thank you, rob.

 

I appreciate that overview

on this one item.

 

>> You like that?

 

>> Cole: Yes, we like that

very much.

 

Any other questions on this

item?

 

Okay.

 

Thank you, rob.

 

>> Thank you.

 

There was one other question

that --

 

>> Cole: Councimember

spelman had to leave.

 

He had an appointment at the

capitol.

 

Do you have a question?

 

>> Morrison: I have

councimember spelman's

question.

 

>> Cole: Oh, okay.

 

That sound great.

 

>> Morrison: He was

interested on item 69 on the

pedi cab and just wanted to

be clear is this doing

anything beyond extending --

 

>> I'd like to let the

assistant director talk

about that.

 

[One moment, please, for

change in captioners]

likely be a discussion that

we would have probably first

quarter of -- of next year.

 

>> Morrison: Great, we

will see other things in the

future.

 

>> Right.

 

>> Thank you.

 

As we continue to discuss

and move towards a con

sense, we can bring back to

you a -- consensus, we can

bring back to you a --

 

>> as long as we're on this

topic, can you briefly

summarize where we are on

the treatment of trailer

pedicabs versus the

[indiscernible]

 

>> at this point, the

ordinance would say if a

trailer was damaged, we

would not -- we would not

replace that with another

trailer.

 

The discussions about

phasing out trailer again is

a big item of discussion,

which probably needs more

discussion, safety has been

brought up as an issue.

 

I think there's further

discussion there.

 

So -- so I think the big

thing is that there's been a

recent request to have a

five-year phase out.

 

We looked previously to the

monday reports suggesting

shorter phase out, so i

think those are some things

that we just need to

negotiate and continue

discussion.

 

>> Riley: Okay, we will be

continuing discussions on

that.

 

>> Yes.

 

>> Riley: Great, thanks.

 

>> Councilmember tovo has a

question.

 

Just a quick question with

regard to the valet services

on our agenda that's been

postponed.

 

>> Correct, till november

18th.

 

>> Cole: What item is

that, councilmember tovo?

 

>> Tovo: I --

 

>> I think at one point it

was on the november 11th

proposed agenda.

 

And it's -- it's been --

 

>> Morrison: Actually, it

was on the draft agenda for

this week.

 

>> Right.

 

>> Morrison: Then it

disappeared when we got the

final.

 

>> We postponed it.

 

We've heard that -- that we

have a fee issue --

 

>> Cole: Let's give

everybody a chance to know

what number it is.

 

[Multiple voices]

 

>> it is not on here.

 

>> Cole: Not on the

agenda.

 

>> Tovo: That was

mistake.

 

>> Tovo: For sure it's

postponed?

 

>> Yes, councilmember.

 

There is another item

regarding fees with regards

to that, two items that

we're going to bring them

all at the same time.

 

>> Cole: Okay.

 

Any other questions?

 

Thank you, mr. spiller.

 

Okay.

 

Councilmember tovo, your

last item is item 27.

 

>> Tovo: It's actually --

yes, that's right.

 

27.

 

>> Cole: Renaming the park

facilities.

 

>> Tovo:.

 

>> I guess I want to start

off about getting background

about why the staff brought

this forward, why you felt

it was necessary to revise

the process.

 

>> Kim mcneely, assistant

director of parks and

recreation department.

 

The parks and recreation

department has experienced

individuals that will come

representing companies or

for example one of those

examples is the block

foundation who came with a

proposal to the parks and

recreation department for a

naming rights sort of a --

opportunity where they had a

proposal saying that they

wanted to provide us certain

amount of money and in

return we would name a park

or name a portion of the

park after that particular

entity.

 

We've also experienced

individuals who come forward

to request that certain

parts of our park be renamed

or named after a particular

individual.

 

And in one particular

instance, we had up to 21

nominations for the same

piece of property.

 

Individuals wanting to name

it after 21 different

individuals.

 

And we were trying to be

proactive.

 

Those things coming forward,

we don't have any processes

in place at this particular

time that would allow us to

fairly evaluate.

 

We would be evaluating on a

case-by-case basis.

 

So we thought it was

important to put together

maybe some sort of criteria

where people would know

well, what is the criteria

for naming something?

 

We believe that parkland and

the naming of something is a

significant decision.

 

It's a forever decision.

 

And we don't want to take

that -- that decision

lightly.

 

But we also want to be able

to give individuals some

guidelines as to what would

it take because we

understand the importance

for community members to

want to -- to preserve

something in someone's name

because of their historical

significance or because of

their contributions to the

community and we also know

that there's this idea of

public/private partnerships

out there, but we don't want

to allow that to overshadow

the opportunity for the

community and so based on

some things that had

happened in the past in the

department, perhaps not

being as prepared as it

could because we didn't have

criteria, we thought it was

appropriate for us to -- to

set some criteria and also

give the opportunity for

council to always have the

final or the -- maybe not

the final, but -- well, you

always have the final, but

always to have the

opportunity to take into

consideration proposals that

are not included here in the

ordinance.

 

And so that's the background

of it.

 

>> Tovo: Okay.

 

Well, that's helpful.

 

>> You know, I was looking

at the old procedure for

naming a facility.

 

I guess I agree there may

not be a specific criteria

as may be useful, but there

are guidelines in terms of

asking if it's an individual

that there be a biographical

sketch, a description of the

individual's involvement in

the community, the

individual's connection, if

any, to the facility or the

activity for which the

facility is used, so there's

I guess implicit criteria

that our structures and

parks should be named for

people who have significant

roles, who have played

significant roles in the

community and have had

significant connections,

either to the particular

facilities or to the

activities that take place

within those facilities.

 

So -- I just wants to put

that out there, that i

think -- you know, I think

we have been making

value-based decisions, while

it hasn't necessarily been

articulated in as clear of a

fashion as it might be.

 

And I know there was an

article that ran in today's

paper with some additional

information about it.

 

But I guess -- I guess what

concerns me is that the

current ordinance, you know,

the changes that have been

contemplated really seem to

put the priority instead on

those who can come forward

with a financial

contribution and it seems to

me there's a fundamental

difference between a

non-profit or another

organization that is looking

for naming opportunities and

sets a value of, you know,

$50,000 to name this room or

25,000 to name this room and

our public facilities, which

are really -- really should

be named for people who have

had historically, culturally

significant roles in the

community and that does not

seem, in my reading of the

changes, that does not seem

to be the priority of -- and

the -- and the -- for one

thing, it's -- the process

has become quite arduous for

somebody who would be

proposing that a facility be

named after a community

member, the signature --

 

>> I'm sorry?

 

>> The intention is for

parks.

 

The intention of this

ordinance is for entire

parks.

 

Metropolitan parks, district

parks.

 

Amenities within that park,

rooms within those

particular facilities, is

always at the discretion of

the parks board or the

director to be able to allow

a particular amenity to be

named, a particular amenity

within that park.

 

So this is -- we're talking

the development of a park,

somewhere between, you know,

8 to $9 million, so we're

talking about a significant

amount of money that

somebody would put forward.

 

About you that means their

name goes on the entire

park.

 

The amenities in the park

can certainly be named after

certain -- anybody who had

significant source of --

source of contributions to

the city or has historical

significance and that would

be a -- that would be at the

discretion of the director

and also at the discretion

of the council.

 

So we're talking about park

development and parks, so --

so there's also the

opportunity that if you

don't have that source of

money, you could put

together the entire

opportunity to have a park

named after you, if you had

the appropriate number of

signatures.

 

So it's -- we thought that

it was a good compromise.

 

It's both.

 

It's developers who are

going to come in and want to

have naming rights and we

have criteria.

 

It's significant opportunity

for individuals to nominate

community members or

historical figures to name a

park, but then amenities are

also its own category.

 

So there's the parks and

then amenities within the

parks.

 

>> Tovo: I have a few

questions about that.

 

Because that wasn't -- what

you are saying was not

immediately clear to me in

looking at the ordinance,

the defines facility as

building, park, pool, other

playground directly used by

the public, requirements for

naming or renaming the parks

facility.

 

All of those kinds of

facilities are contained

within this ordinance unless

I'm mistaken.

 

I think in terms of interior

buildings, it didn't seem to

me that that had council

discretion at all.

 

That was described as

being -- being left up to

the -- an administrative

function of the director,

which is another concern

that I have, because

sometimes the rooms within a

facility may be critical or

in the case of -- of butler

park, there were some

individual areas which, you

know, with those -- would

those fall into components

of a larger facility?

 

So those then become not a

public process or a -- up to

council discretion, those

are an administrative

function as well.

 

So I think that this is --

mcneely in

thinking that this naming

ordinance is really

capturing our facilities as

well as the big metropolitan

parks.

 

>> Councilmember, I believe

that, you know, the -- the

component, the major

components, like pool or

something, rec center that

could be -- in a

metropolitan park, for

instance, then that's a

significant facility that

could have a name as well as

the metropolitan park or the

district park.

 

So I think those are two

opportunities that -- that

could -- that could happen.

 

So the administrative

component that is in the

current ordinance that gives

the director the -- the

authority of naming a room

or a gym or something like

that within the interior of

a facility and that's

currently in the ordinance

itself.

 

I wanted to just make one

comment about -- about a lot

of what's in the ordinance

today is kind of loose and

vague where -- where we

mcneely

indicated, that we've had

applications, 20, 21, 22

applications come in, with

really not demonstrating a

lot of the community support

for that naming or renaming.

 

So -- so we felt like the

signature component would --

would give us some, you

know, sense of -- of

indication that there is

quite a bit of -- of support

for that naming or renaming.

 

-- what was the

instance where we had 21

different suggestions or --

in that range?

 

>> It was butler park.

 

>> It was butler park.

 

But as I recall, I wasn't on

council at the time, it

seems to me that there was a

robust public discussion and

people did come and talk

about the different nominees

and probably brought

signatures as well.

 

Did anybody bring petitions

that you recall to show

support or they came and

voiced, came down with their

bodies to record --

 

>> I recall different

individuals or groups of

individuals visiting in my

office about it.

 

>> Also, isn't -- if I could

just add real quick, don't

we have -- I recall with --

I think it was

[indiscernible] oaks park,

which I was on the council

for, in that case there were

several suggestions and

there was an opportunity for

people to vote and register

their ideas even before and

so we could look at the

different numbers and take

the parks board

recommendation.

 

So you got a sense, but

that's a very different

situation than not even

being able to get a name

into the mix unless you have

a certain number of

signatures.

 

Which then that concerns me,

also, because I think

throwing out the ideas and

then having the discussion

is good [multiple voices]

 

>> Tovo: I agree that

shift in the process is

really important because it

does allow you to have a

discussion about who is

maybe the best

representative of a name for

that facility.

 

How would you have done it

with the instance that you

referenced -- I mean this

relies largely on households

within a certain geographic

distance, with regard to the

hoffman oaks.

 

>> Morrison: That's one of

the questions that i

submitted to staff, there

would be zero required

because within a quarter

mile there may have been

zero residents, so that's a

glitch.

 

>> I do want to point out

that e in the ordinance, on

the very last page, page 3

of 3, the council may by

resolution establish

different criteria and

procedures for the naming of

park facilities, you know,

et cetera, et cetera.

 

So again we try to craft

this in such a way that

there was criteria set.

 

We had a specific way in

which we would evaluate, but

council always has the

opportunity to say in this

particular instance, it's a

special case, we're not sure

that we -- that we feel as

though it's appropriate to

move in that direction and

so that's why we put letter

e in there to allow the

opportunity for -- for

council to always be able to

weigh in if there was

significant disagreement

about anything in

particular.

 

>> Tovo: I guess I just

want to say in terms of

looking at the ordinance, i

know, I read you some of the

language that was in the --

that is in our existing

process about biographical

sketch, the individual's

involvement, you know, in

looking at this ordinance,

I'm not sure, you know, we

have one a person or group

that deeds the land to a

person that contributes the

anticipated cost, three, a

person that provides an

endowment or four, a person

of significance.

 

I mean, just in the

hierarchy of how these are

listed it's very clear that,

you know, if you bring money

to the table at the parks

department, that's your best

opportunity for getting a

facility named after you and

I just -- I don't think -- i

think our public parks and

our municipal facilities

ought to be -- ought to set

forward names of people who

are historically, culturally

significant who will be role

models for the next

generation of people and

that may not be the person

that he -- who brings

forward money to provide to

the parks department.

 

I'm -- I'm very supportive

of the intent of trying to

increase private support for

our parks.

 

And our facilities.

 

Lord knows we need more

public support.

 

More financial support for

our parks and our

facilities.

 

But this -- this is -- this

ordinance right now is -- is

just of grave concern to me,

as it stands I'm not going

to be able to support it.

 

>> Cole: Councilmember

morrison, I will weigh in

here in a second, too.

 

>> Morrison: I just want

to -- based on what you

said, kathy, I think one of

the things that we have to

realize is that we could get

into a situation where

somebody brings the big

money to the table and we're

considering that name, but

at that point I would like

to know what the

alternatives are.

 

And once somebody has ponied

up the cash, then how do we

know what other alternatives

really might be loved by the

community and found

appropriate by the

community, so it's a little

bit backwards as opposed to

saying we're going to be

naming this park, what are

ideas about how -- about

what would be appropriate

for the community and at

that point somebody might

say, well, you know, we

would love to endow it and

by the way, we would like it

named this.

 

But it's sort of skews the

process so you don't --

there's sort of a

fundamental paradox and

logical problem here so that

you don't have the

opportunity for a robust

discussion about what is a

proper name.

 

You don't have all of the

alternatives on the table at

that point because if

somebody ponies up the money

and somebody else is going

to have to go out and find a

thousand signatures, you

know, how do you really make

sure that you are making the

right decision?

 

So I think that in terms

of -- of the criteria that

we have now in the

guidelines that we have now

are all important because i

don't want to be supporting

naming a metropolitan park

after someone that does not

have -- does not have

community significance or

historical significance.

 

So to me, we've got the tail

wagging the dog here with

the shift in the ordinance

and I wonder if there might

be some mechanism or

alternative approach where

maybe we clean up and -- and

put a little more teeth into

what we already have and

then have some guidelines

about, you know, it would

be -- it would be

significant, if there was an

endowment offered.

 

It would also be significant

if there were a thousand

signatures.

 

So sort of the -- to shift

the process order.

 

>> Cole: Let me ask a

question.

 

What parks have been

endowed?

 

Because that -- seems like

we are assuming a problem

that doesn't necessarily

exist.

 

>> I can't think of one that

we have.

 

A situation.

 

Yeah.

 

>> Cole: So I mean -- i

strongly feel that we need

more money for our parks.

 

And that we don't want to be

enemy of the good for the

best or the best for the

good.

 

The perfect enemy of the

good.

 

You know what I mean.

 

The concepts of not

adequately giving someone

who or even sending a

message that we're not

interested.

 

We want -- is -- especially

when we have none and

throughout the country, the

only way that the parks in a

metropolitan city have risen

to the level of any type of

excellence has been with

private support.

 

So I think we could think of

some mechanisms maybe we say

only our urban parks, 20% of

them, or 30% of them, will

be -- will be endowed and

then the 70% are -- or i

mean that's -- that's i

think maybe one way to do

it.

 

So we -- so we actually

carve out, I mean, given

that we have none, that

percentage could be

really -- really almost

anything.

 

But we don't want to send

that signal that when it's

not even happening and we so

desperately need the

funding.

 

>> Tovo: I completely

agree that we don't want to

send a message that we're

not open to endowments.

 

I guess the approach,

councilmember morrison or i

guess we're in a work

session, laura that you

mentioned, about, you know,

providing direction that

that is boy if you bring

forward an endowment, that's

significant something that

the council considers if you

have a large number of

signatures, that's something

that the council would

consider, seems to me maybe

the way to do it.

 

To find other ways to

encourage endowments and

provide guidance about --

about what sort of

endowments would be most

useful would be very

helpful, would send a

helpful message, but I'm

thinking about some of the

facilities that we have,

zilker park, roy guerrero

park, you know, these are --

these are people who have

played a significant role in

our community and I think

that it means something

to -- with or without

endowments, I think those

names are meaningful --

[multiple voices]

 

>> it's not our intention to

change what would be

existing via the endowment

process.

 

Maybe that's something

that's fundamentally wrong

with the way that we

presented this is that this

is for future development.

 

So this is for the future,

the metropolitan parks that

have yet to be developed.

 

Or the -- or the district

parks that have yet to be

developed.

 

So that might be a

fundamental problem with the

way we presented this is

that it would be awful, a

tragedy if we accept

something that would have

community significance, i

could absolutely see people

coming out in droves to

protest that.

 

Certainly the parks

department would not want to

put themselves in that

position.

 

So the intention of this is

for the future.

 

>> Councilmember morrison.

 

>> Morrison: I got that.

 

I realized that it's not

retroactive.

 

I think that the point is

that if we were back naming

roy guerrero park, what

would it have taken to name

it roy guerrero park,

sheffield northwest park.

 

All of these great folks and

I think that was the point

of would it have really

shifted our ability, the

community's ability to

recognize folks who are so

important to our parks.

 

I think that's the concern

to try to get it back, find

a way to get it on to a more

even keel, to encourage

endowments but not lay it

out in such a way that

there's a sense that you can

go by a park name.

 

Go buy a park name.

 

>> I certainly understand

what you say, we can go back

to the drawing board if

that's the wish of the

council.

 

But I do want to tell you,

just so that we know.

 

We did try to do our due

diligence, we researched

this and took this from best

practices from other cities

like portland and also --

also -- also -- also we did

have the opportunity to --

where if somebody wanted to

bring money forward but

because we weren't

necessarily in a position to

be able to evaluate it, we

didn't have the right

criteria.

 

>> Cole: Do we still have

that opportunity?

 

>> No.

 

It was in 2009.

 

We weren't able to --

 

>> we did actually -- I can

think of -- I can think of

in 2008 which I was first on

the council -- when I was

first on the council, there

were -- I think that it's

just -- there were -- when

we named the theater, zach

scott, and I don't think

that it was necessarily

written down, you know, this

is -- we're naming this

theater because of the

donation.

 

But it was taken into

account and that donation

was clearly made and

important and it all worked.

 

>> Cole: So it has worked

under the existing

ordinance.

 

>> Morrison: It has, yeah.

 

>> Cole: So you think that

would further -- do you guys

feel like you have a sense

of direction to kind of

tighten it up?

 

>> We certainly do.

 

I just wanted to clarify one

thing.

 

The -- the existing

ordinance that -- the backup

for significance, the

individual that is

significant to the park, is

still in place.

 

The 90-day period would

still be in place in the

sense in that if we had an x

company or corporation come

in with a name, for

instance, we would -- we

would let the community know

and there would be a 90 day

period saying that, you

know, this is a proposal

that we've received.

 

Just like if it was an

individual.

 

But the -- but the

application would still

require, you know, some --

some information about the

individual about the --

about the proposal.

 

To be submitted.

 

With the application.

 

During that 90 day period,

we would let the community

know that we have received

this.

 

And -- and just to -- just

to allow for -- for other

names or other processes

that -- that folks would

want to enter like going out

and getting signatures and

that type of a thing.

 

So -- so yeah I just wanted

to clarify that.

 

That that component would

not be lost from the

ordinance.

 

>> We are looking at section

14-1-31, 32 and 36, you are

saying there's other parts

to the ordinance that

aren't --

 

>> existing -- exactly,

exactly.

 

>> Morrison: That's where

it says for instance the

council --

 

>> the 90 day period would

still be in place, exactly.

 

So we would still let.

 

Whether it's an individual

application coming in, and

that's how we -- that's how

we get other interests

because -- because they were

aware of -- of -- a proposal

was submitted to name

guerrero park and --

 

>> Morrison: Can you

remind me, so there were a

couple of namings since I've

been on the council that i

saw the process.

 

One was little zilker, one

was hoffman.

 

In both cases it was my

impression that the city

went and said we're looking

for a name, please give us

your ideas.

 

Is that correct?

 

I remember some robust

discussion about all of them

and there was not unanimity

in the -- in the community

about what those names

should be and the council --

the parks board worked on it

and the council had a

discussion and came -- so

that seems a little

different than having the

naming prompted than someone

coming to the city and

saying I want to name this

park this.

 

>> I think in both

instances, like you've

stated, we've had

solicitations for an

opportunity for naming.

 

And then -- but the majority

of the -- of the requests

that we get are -- are --

we're going to -- the parks

department is going to

finish up a skate park for

instance or a rec center and

we're interested in -- in

naming.

 

So what's the process?

 

So, you know, that -- so we

get a lot of names through

that.

 

When they know that there's

an amenity that's just about

to be completed.

 

>> An example of that most

recently is that formerly

called the chestnut house,

which is on the corner of --

it's in the rosewood park,

it was a building and it's

named after four

individuals, durst, howard

and forgive me for not

remembering the other two,

but there are two.

 

That was brought forward as

a suggestion to us because

individuals in that

community wanted to honor

those four people.

 

That's just an example of a

time when we didn't solicit,

but it was brought to us as

a desire.

 

>> I do see the parks board

at times when we submit all

of the names that we

received, where it becomes a

daunting task for the board

to kind of see well how do

we judge one from the other.

 

All of these are -- are

outstanding citizens,

it's -- it's difficult for

them to -- to -- to work

with at times.

 

>> Right.

 

I -- we had that challenge

on the council, too.

 

That doesn't necessarily go

away unless some focus sort

of solidifies their --

there.

 

But -- but end -- and if

someone is offering an

endowment, we would

certainly want to take that

into consideration, but if

it's more appropriate to

name it after somebody else,

you know, I want to make it

clear that we should do

that.

 

It's all a discretionary --

 

>> okay.

 

>> Councilmember tovo?

 

>> Yeah, I just want to be

clear on what.

 

So the definition looking at

the existing code and the

proposed code, the

definitions have been

reworked and they are -- the

changes are indicated on our

version.

 

The naming policy that's in

our existing code would be

replaced by what is here.

 

Is that correct?

 

So the -- so the don't see a

provision that a facility

named for an individual may

not be renamed.

 

>> I'm trying to follow you

there.

 

>> I'm sorry, I had trouble

following it, too.

 

>> I believe on page 2 e, on

the proposed ordinance,

136 will

continue.

 

>> Tovo: I'm sorry, i

missed the last thing that

you said.

 

Part 2 e.

 

>> Page 2 e, it talked about

in the proposed ordinance,

in addition to the other

requirements of this article

naming or renaming of the

park facility must also

comply with the requirements

of section 14.136.

 

>> Okay.

 

I don't have that section in

front of me.

 

>> When I had was the old

132 part c, which says an

individual named for a -- a

facility named for an

individual may not be

renamed, which I don't see

in the proposed.

 

>> Okay.

 

>> I see, okay.

 

Thank you, ms. thomas.

 

>> Are you suggesting that

133 would continue, that

would remain in place?

 

>> That's correct.

 

>> The substantial changes

are the modification of

131, the -- the addition

of 14.136?

 

>> Correct.

 

>> And so -- neither here

nor there, I'm just trying

to figure it out.

 

I think the main concerns

that I have raised are with

14.136.

 

>> I appreciate parks staff

bringing this forward.

 

I think this is a -- this is

a good first effort at -- at

addressing an issue that has

been lingering out there.

 

Also I want to also note

that -- that we're not

breaking new ground by

suggesting that parks could

be named after individuals

who have made them possible

through their contributions.

 

There is a fairly long

history of that sort of a

thing here in austin.

 

One of our most prominent

parks, zilker park is named

after andrew jackson zilker

who made the park possible

by donating the land for it

in 1917.

 

So it's not exactly a new

thing to suggest that a park

might be named after the

person who gives the land

for it.

 

I do think that we could --

we could make some

refinements in the language

that's been proposed.

 

It's -- in -- in just by way

of example, in paragraph b,

136, we're --

we're saying that

suggestions made on the

basis of community

significance shall be

accompanied by the

following.

 

There's a bunch of signature

requirements and so on.

 

Well, in any public process,

we're going to get

additional suggestions that

aren't accompanied by

signatures and people are

free to make those

suggestions.

 

And -- and so we might just

have some language

suggesting that -- that

priority -- priorities shall

be given to -- to see -- to

suggestions that are

accompanied by signatures

and so on.

 

Just to make clear that

we're not going to close our

eyes to suggestions, if they

are not -- if they are not

accompanied by the indicated

number of signatures.

 

But I think -- I think, you

know, as -- as the mayor pro

tem has pointed out, there

is a -- there is a very

valuable role to be played

by -- by private

contributions of the type

that are contemplated by

this ordinance.

 

I -- and I really appreciate

staff's effort in that, in

encouraging discussions

towards -- towards the end

of -- of maximizing our

opportunity to -- to -- to

make use of those -- of

those sorts of possibilities

when they arise.

 

So I'll -- I think -- i

think this is a good start

and I think we can get there

with some adjustments to the

ordinance.

 

Adjustments to language

that's been proposed.

 

>> Councilmember morrison?

 

>> Morrison: I think those

are really good points,

chris, I appreciate that.

 

The -- the -- I guess one

question is what else are

we -- so this is sort of a

way to encourage or

recognize endowments, I get

that.

 

We want to encourage

endowments and

public/private partnerships

in ways, whatever ways that

we can.

 

I can think of a lot of

examples that we are doing

that with waller creek, for

instance, one of the more

robust ones going on right

now.

 

To put this in context, can

you in a nutshell say what

other programs, what other

priorities, what other

things do we do?

 

I know we work in

partnership with the trail

foundation, the parks

foundation, do we have any

other specifics in terms of

here's what we're doing to

encourage endowments?

 

Maybe just want to think

about that, come back.

 

Come back to -- to me on it

because I think --

 

>> I would appreciate the

opportunity to put some

thought into that and look

through our entire --

actually, I have with me an

entire list of all of our

agreements.

 

>> Right.

 

>> So I could give you a

better answer given that

opportunity.

 

>> I'm thinking that if we

could have that discussion,

that could help raise it up

a little bit in terms of how

how can we as the council

work on other policies that

will really promote

partnerships and endowment

if there's a framework to

put that in.

 

So we are not thinking in

terms of -- I know we are

not, we do a lot more, but

just in terms of naming

rights.

 

>> Cole: So I'm trying to

figure out if we are giving

staff direction or

suggesting direction that

this item is good go to be

postponed or will it be --

will it be ready for

tomorrow for us to vote on

it?

 

I hate to put staff under

that kind of -- that kind of

pressure.

 

>> If I could suggest, i

would suggest that we

postpone it, give us an

opportunity to go back and

take all of your suggestions

and reconfigure this so that

it can come back in a way

that can be supported by the

majority.

 

>> Okay.

 

>> Morrison: If you can do

give it thought, come back

to us on that bigger

picture, if we want to put

it on for discussion at a

work session or if you think

it could be captured,

discussion started in a memo

first, I think that would be

interesting.

 

>> Okay.

 

>> Cole: Thank you,

councilmember tovo.

 

>> Tovo: Thanks, I just

want to thank laura, I think

that's an interesting

suggestion.

 

I know for example the issue

has come up about

scholarships for some of the

parks programs, that seems

to me a potential endowment

opportunity and I don't know

if that's something that you

are considering.

 

But I hope we'll be able to

have that discussion soon

because I think it's an

interesting one of all of

the ways we can encourage

the community to support our

parks programs and our parks

facilities as well.

 

But sometimes that's easier

for people to take advantage

of if they've got specific

ideas about how to be

helpful.

 

Or, you know, where their

money would go.

 

So thank you for -- for

taking another look at this.

 

I think -- I think that will

be real valuable.

 

>> Cole: Thank you, any

other items?

 

Wait, we have a briefing?

 

Yeah.

 

Okay.

 

Rather ready for the

citizens forum meeting

recommendation briefing.

 

>> Okay.

 

Mayor pro tem and council,

ray [indiscernible] with

city manager's office,

assisting me with this

presentation will be deborah

thomas of the law department

and shirley gentry, our city

clerk.

 

What we would like to do

this morning is to outline

staff's recommended -- thank

you -- is to outline staff's

recommended format for the

citizens forum that will be

held on saturday, october

THE 27th.

 

If you will remember,

earlier in the year, council

adopted a resolution

directing the city manager

to work with the city

attorney and the city clerk

to conduct a three-hour

citizens forum on a saturday

in 2012.

 

The resolution also directed

staff to report back to

council on the actual costs

of holding the forum and

later in the presentation

I'll have an itemized cost

of holding that forum.

 

At your work session on

AUGUST THE 21st, IF YOU

Will remember, council had a

discussion about the forum

and gave staff the following

you wanted a

forum that would allow for

posted and open

communications from

citizens, you wanted a forum

that would arow for

discussion with citizens

during the forum, you wanted

to ensure that there was

adequate public promotion of

the events, you wanted the

forum to be recorded, you

said that you wanted the

cost impact to be limited

and it was agreed that the

forum should be held on

saturday, october

27th, FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 12

Noon in the council chamber.

 

On this next slide is the

proposed agenda format

starting with -- with

introductory remarks by the

mayor and council are those

members that will be in

attendance.

 

We're going to have two

citizens communication

segments.

 

We're going to have a

general citizens

communication segment and an

open citizens communication

segment and on the next

slide, I'll go into greater

detail.

 

And then we'll adjourn at or

before 12 noon.

 

Under the general citizens

communication, this is

pretty much going to be

identical to what occurs

during a regular council

meeting.

 

However, during a regular

council meeting we allow for

a maximum of 10 speakers.

 

For the citizens forum,

however, we're going to

allow for a maximum of 20

individuals who can sign up

to speak.

 

You will have to reg -- they

will have to register in

advance and the sign-up

period will last for

approximately a week from

october the 13th to

OCTOBER THE 20th.

 

Speakers will be able to

speak or testify before

council for up to three

minutes and there will be no

donation of time.

 

One of the things that i

just wants to remind council

is that council can engage

in a discussion on topics

that citizens sign up to

speak on, since they were

posted in advance.

 

On the following citizens

communication segment, we

will allow a -- the number

of speakers will be limited

by the length of the

meeting.

 

Speakers will not have to

register in advance.

 

They will be able to sign up

on the day of the forum, up

to 30 minutes to speak and

there will be no donation of

time.

 

The way we intend to get the

word out about the forum is

residents will be notified

through announcements on the

city's website at

gov, certainly

the city's facebook and

twitter accounts, on channel

6 and staff is going to

recommend having the mayor

mention the forum at

upcoming work sessions and

council meetings.

 

On this slide, this is a

updated cost estimate to

hold the forum.

 

I think initially we had

provided the council with an

initial cost of $630, you

will see a much different

figure here.

 

You will itemized

listing that includes media

support, channel 6

production staffing,

utilities, services, closed

captioning for a grant total

of 1,658.

 

So the time line from today,

assuming council approval of

the format that I have

outlined in this

presentation is beginning

tomorrow, we would like to

have the first release of

media announcements.

 

AND THEN ON OCTOBER 13th,

That will begin our speaker

signup.

 

Which will last for a week.

 

All the way through october

20 to end of speaker signup

and then conducting the

FORUM ON OCTOBER THE 27th.

 

And as I mentioned

previously, the mayor, we're

going to encourage him to

mention forum at

upcoming meetings and work

sessions.

 

That being cans my

presentation, staff is

available to answer any

questions that you might

have?

 

Questions, colleagues?

 

Councilmember tovo?

 

>> Tovo: One quick

question.

 

Mostly I just wanted to say

thank you.

 

I think this really balances

the -- what we were -- the

feedback that we were giving

you about having an

opportunity for people to

sign up in advance so that

there might be an

opportunity to ask questions

from the dais.

 

But also to allow people who

just come down that day

to -- to participate and i

think that you have done a

great job of laying out

really describing the forum.

 

And thinking through those

concerns.

 

So I think that it's going

to be a really interesting

meeting and I'm excited

about it.

 

So thank you for working

through the logistics.

 

I wonder if you could just

quickly tell us how to --

how the costs increased,

where are the costs

increases.

 

>> Initially what we

included in the cost

estimate, which was $630, we

had communicated to council

originally, included or did

not include security

staffing and did not include

utilities and did not

include building services

staffing.

 

We worked with the various

departments and appropriate

staff to get that, that

increased the amount to

roughly from 630 maybe

about -- about I guess a

little over a thousand

dollars.

 

>> Tovo: So typically,

are -- we do have some

security staffing here over

the weekend, but the needs

are greater for this

saturday?

 

Event?

 

>> Well, correct.

 

I think what we're trying to

sort of guesstimate as to

how many people will be

attending this forum.

 

In the chamber.

 

So just to make sure because

we certainly don't want to

be in a position where we're

having to call people at the

last moment because we get

more people than we

anticipated so we included

a -- a security officer who

is on contract, a security

officer who is already on

staff, but also a security

supervisor as well.

 

>> Tovo: I see.

 

Okay.

 

And then I guess the same

would be true of the

utilities.

 

I know when I come by on the

weekends usually the lights

are off.

 

So --

 

>> that's correct.

 

>> Tovo: We will have an

increased utility cost for

sure on a saturday.

 

>> That's correct.

 

>> Tovo: Well, thanks very

much.

 

Again, I'm really looking

forward to it, I appreciate

all of the work that you

have done on it.

 

>> Cole: Any other

questions?

 

Okay.

 

Then without objection, we

will adjourn this special

called meeting of the austin

city council.

 

Work session.