City Council Work Session Transcript - 12/4/2012

>> Mayor Leffingwell: Good

morning.



I'm austin mayor lee

leffingwell.



A quorum is present so I'll

call this work session to

order on tuesday,

DECEMBER 4th, 2012.



The time is 9:05 a.m.



We're meeting in the board

and commissions room, austin

city hall.



301 West second street,

austin, texas.



Council, since we have a lot

of folks here for one

particular item, we'll go

ahead and take that item

first.



It is item d-1, a briefing

by the city auditor

regarding the redistricting

process.



Then we'll go back to start

from the top.



>> Good morning.



I'm tim laurie, the city

auditor.



Today my office will be

providing on 10-1.



Chief of investigation will

be providing today's

presentation.



This presentation will

provide an overview of the

process we are following, a

proposed time line that we

believe will allow for

large, more diverse

applicant pools, and that

the process will be widely

publicized and transparent.



We will also cover our

outreach plan and budget

requirements.



Further, we'll be presenting

proposal revisions to the

strategic audit plan to meet

estimated requirements of

the 10-1 initiative.



I would like to let jason go

ahead and make that

presentation.



>> Good morning, mayor,

mayor pro tem,

councilmembers.



As you all know, austin

voters passed proposition 3

last month amending the

charter to include a 10 one

single member plan and

requiring the city auditor

to assist in this process.



As seen on this slide, it

involves the creation of a

citizens redistricting

commission which will

ultimately draw the inlook

and applicant review panel

which will select the most

qualified applicants.



The requirements to serve

are different.



The commissioner

requirements include austin

residency as well as voter

registration and

participation requirements

and the panel requires

MEMBERS TO BE ACTIVE CPAs

With at least five years

audit experience.



Subject to the same conflict

of interests prohibitions

outlined in the charter

provision.



Citizens can visit our

austin,

gov/10 one to obtain

more detailed information on

requirements and conflict of

interest prohibitions.



This slide is a high level

overview of the process in

general.



It begins with our office

facilitating an application

process for both the panel

and commission.



During and immediately

following the application

period, our office will

identify qualified

applicants without conflicts

of interest as defined by

the charter.



We will then conduct a

random drawing to try to

recommend three panel

members which will be done

so in public.



We will provide panel

members with remaining

qualifications to the

commission.



The panel is then

responsible for narrowing

that pool to the 60 most

qualified applicants on the

basis of relevant analytical

skills and ability to be

impartial, residency in the

various parts of austin, and

appreciation for austin's

diverse demographics and

geography.



Once the pool is narrowed to

the 60 most qualified, the

names will be provided to

city council where each of

you will have the ability to

strike up to one applicant

in writing.



The remaining pool will be

provided to our office for

another random drawing in

public to identify the first

eight commissioners.



Those eight are then

responsible for selecting

the remaining six to ensure

the commission reflects the

diversity of the city of

austin including but not

limited to racial, ethnic

and gender diversity.



Applicants shall also be

chosen based on relevant

analytical skills and

ability to be impartial and

at least one commissioner

must be a student duly

enrolled in a college or

university in austin.



Sorry, did not get that last

one.



This table is a comparison

of the dates set forth in

the charter amendment to our

proposed time line, section

3 b states if the date of

the city election is moved

the dates in the article

shall be adjusted to ensure

the commission has

sufficient time to draw

lines prior to the election

day.



As you can see our proposed

time line pushes back some

of those dates but includes

a number of advantages over

the original date.



First, it would allow the

commission an additional two

months to draw the lines

compared to the original

time frame as well as

additional two months

between adoption of the

final plan and the next

election.



Our proposed time line would

also allow for public input

into the application process

and sufficient time for our

office to ensure the process

is widely publicized,

transparent and effective.



This would be accomplished

through a rules adoption

process which is the second

set of dates on the chart.



Finally, the proposed time

line would shift the

responsibilities of the

applicant review panel past

the tax and audit end of

year busy season.



Specifically asking

volunteers to give time

after april 15th increases

ability of them serving on

the panel.



With the limited number of

CPAs IN AUSTIN,

Approximately 3,000 active,

many of which have conflicts

of interest, ensuring the

maximum number of applicant

is effective.



Increased dates of

publication helping to

ensure an optimum number of

citizens are made aware of

the requirements and other

related information.



This slide highlights some

of the key pieces of our

outreach plan.



Later this evening we'll be

holding a public forum on

the best way to reach out to

all of austin's citizens and

what those requirements mean

to them.



That is, how do they

interpret relevant

analytical skills and

ability to be impartial.



As seen on the last slide,

we've incorporated at the

city attorney's office

formally adopting the rules

and increase the likelihood

this entire process is

successful.



We also plan to host q and a

sessions to address citizen

inquiries and concerns and

with assistance of the

public information office

we've developed a website

dedicated to 10 one and have

developed a facebook and

twitter page to help

publicize the process.



We're also working closely

with the pio to ensure wide

publicity across austin.



This slide presents our

estimated budgetary needs.



It does not factor in

expenses incurred related to

the oca or other city

offices payroll expenses.



That is, it does not include

currently staffed time.



That concludes my portion of

plan.



>> Thank you, jason.



We had a brief discussion

about the proposed plan

revisions at the last a.f.c.



Meeting and we're presenting

now a little bit more firmed

up plan.



The proposal additions to

the single-member district

project we're asking for an

additional 1500 hours and

there's also a request by

 to add parkland

dedication audit to the

current plan.



In order to achieve this, we

are proposing deferrals of

 recruiting and

 social

media audit and material

purchases controls audit.



 recruiting and

hiring audit we think should

be deferred in any case

because of the civil

service.



It would make sense not to

do that audit until that

civil service actually goes

into place.



 social

immediate why and material

purchase controls we think

are while they are important

to put in the plan, we think

they can be deferred because

their risk level is probably

less than some of the other

ones we're working on right

now.



So we're proposing to off

seat these 2500 hours, we're

proposing to defer the three

projects shown in this

slide.



We're open for any questions

you may have at this point.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Questions?



Councilmember martinez.



>> Martinez: Yeah, so i

have one question.



When I look at the time line

that you guys provided to

us, going down to the last

two lines, it says that the

commissionhall adopt the

final plan on april 1, 2014.



So I presume at that point

it has to go through d.o.j.



Preclearance.



And if that is the case,

then it would only allow for

about 30 days, maybe 35 days

to get back before the

180-day campaign could start

for a november election.



Is that correct?



>> We actually factored in

pre-clearance submission

earlier in our process but i

would like to bring john

steiner up from the law

department who could talk

more accurately about that.



>> Martinez: Just trying

to get a sense of where

preclearance is within this

time line and why isn't it

on the time line?



>> Well, the presentation

today, of course, is about

the auditor's piece of this

process, but the anticipated

date of the implementation

in november 2014 would have

time for us to achieve the

necessary preclearance, and

I think that we would not

anticipate that there's any

retrogression in any of the

proposals here so everything

should go in a more or less

expected and good way and i

think that a campaign could

proceed without any further

effect.



But we can get into this in

more detail in the executive

session if you want to ask





[09:14:01]





preclearance counsel when

they are available there.



So I don't think that's

going to present -- I don't

think there's anything in

the auditor's plan that will

adversely effect our

pre-clearance and I don't

think there is anything in

our expected preclearance

issues that are adversely

going to affect the

auditor's plan.



Nothing in the city's

proposal is -- well, nothing

in the 10 one plan is

reive, which is the

standard under preclearance

under section 5.



And so we hope, believe and

expect that everything will

go in a very routine way

along those lines.



>> Martinez: Sounds like

based on your response that

your anticipation is that

campaigns will begin as

preclearance is taking

place.



>> That may be the case

depending on the timing,

yeah.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councimember spelman.



>> Spelman: A followup,

who is going to be staffing

that commission?



Your job or the city clerk

or who is going to handle

that?



>> At this point our charge

is to get the pools, the

large diverse pools and go

through that point in time.



We have no charge to go

beyond that particular point

in time and I guess from my

perspective when we look at

it, there's going to be

probably more legal issues

that may be coming up and

more staffing issues so we

don't have an answer for

that.



>> Spelman: Seems to me

they are going to need

access to a demographer to

work on the map issue and

we'll do consequences of

different kinds of maps and

probably legal assistance

which they may want to get

from legal counsel or our

city attorney.



But the charter amendment is

silent as to whether it's

going to be staffed by you

or somebody else.



And you are not volunteering

to take on that role, i





[09:16:00]





presume.



>> I don't think we're

probably the right people to

be doing that so I think,

you know, a lot of -- we

would just be I guess in the

middle of trying to get

individuals to get the job

done, but when I look at it,

it looks like they are going

to need a different kind of

assistance rather than

auditor's assistance.



>> Spelman: That seems

reasonable to me.



At which point -- and i

notice that you are having

the eight select six

remaining members which

would be the end of your end

of the process really is

when the entire commission

gets selected and your

support is then -- becomes

voluntarily, it's no longer

mandated by the charter

commission on the 30th of

august, which is two months

after the original seduced

forward.



Set forward.



You are just penciling in

the first of april because

you are not going to be

staffing those guys and who

mandates the commission is

going to be the commission

and their staff.



That's really not your job.



>> That's our understanding,

yes.



>> Spelman: They are going

to have basically as much

time, considerably more time

under this schedule than

they did under the original

schedule regardless of

whether it's the first of

april or first of march or

whatever time frame we have.



So there's plenty of time to

get the thing done if it

turns out we anticipate more

than 35 days is going to be

required for pre-clearance.



>> Yes.



This time line has more time

in it for all different

processes.



>> Spelman: Right, right,

okay.



And presumably if we're

going to have a preclearance

problem with the map, we're

going to know about that in

advance and we can build it

and move more time to send

that map along.



Would that be a fair

statement, john?



>> Yes.



SPECIAL SMELL THE FAIRER>> Spelman: The fairer

statement is 10 one is more

representative than what we

have right now.



>> Yes.



We have no expectation that

anything will be found to be





[09:18:09]





retrogressive.



>> Spelman: And it's

not -- john, could you shed

light as to what it is would

be providing staff for the

commission itself?



>> The amendment is silent

on that point.



Obviously they will need the

sort of nuts and bolts

things like a room to meet

in and, you know, maybe a

coffee urn or something

along those lines.



>> Spelman: Maybe several

of those.



>> So I think that the city

can easily work that out.



We're used to staffing

boards and commissions and

we can find a way to make

that happen.



>> Spelman: But that's

something we're going to

have to talk about.



>> Sure.



This is the first time that

any of this has ever been

implemented, obviously, and

so we'll be learning as we

go this time and hopefully

we'll set a good model for

when this happens again in

eight years and then in 18

years.



>> Spelman: But no more

frequently than that, i

hope.



Thanks.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem.



>> Cole: I know that we

have a tight schedule and

that makes it easier to

[inaudible], but john, i

want to ask you --



>> mayor pro tem, your mic.



>> Cole: I want to

appreciate you've built in

more time to get this done

in the time line for the

auditor, but that a

significant amount of it

actually does not cover what

you will be doing.



So I want to ask you, john,

is there anything in the

time line that we've been

presented that would

prohibit us from any type of

expedited review by the

justice department?



>> No, we could ask for

that.



>> Cole: And how would

that impact the time line?



It would just give us more

time to hear back from

justice?



>> If -- well, if they were

able to respond to us more

quickly than their 60-day

deadline, that would, of

course, give us more

certainty early on in the

process.



>> Cole: Okay.





[09:20:00]





Thank you, mayor.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember riley.



>> Riley: I appreciate

your efforts to establish

and publicize the

application process for

the -- both the panel and

the commission because i

know a lot of citizens are

interested in serving on

this.



I do want to raise one

question that has been

brought to my attention

since this began and that

relates to eligibility for

those two things, especially

eligibility for commission.



I heard from a friend of

mine in anderson mill, a

long-time resident of

anderson mill who is

interested in applying for

the commission.



Anderson mill was annexed

four years ago and under

section 3d of the -- of the

new provisions, it looks

like each commissioner must

have been a voter who has

been continuously registered

in the city of austin for

five or more years

immediately preceding the

date of his or her

appointment.



According to the city

demographer, since january 1

of 2008, five years ago, the

city has annexed 25,708

individuals.



So I just want to make sure

for purposes of clarity that

we're all agreed that those

folks who are long-time

residents of areas that were

annexed, those 26 -- roughly

26,000 folks annexed over

the last four years, those

folks are not eligible even

though they have been living

in those areas a long time,

they haven't actually been

registered in the city of

austin for five or more

years.



Is that your understanding

that those folks would not

be eligible?



>> That's my understanding,

but maybe I ought to let the

city attorney's office speak

to that.



>> As we're going through

this provision, we have come

across a number of

interpretted issues and

going to have to come





[09:22:02]





to shore in those

situations.



One of the reasons for the

rule adoption process is put

our proposed interpretations

out for public comment.



There are a number of things

in the tradition that you

could read in a number of

different ways and so we

want to stay as close as we

can to the text and not be

just making stuff up.



And on the other hand there

are some things that we're

going to have to decide how

they should be read because

they could be reasonably

read in a number of ways.



And by going through a

process by which we

publicize how we mean to

interpret that, we have a

chance to get some public

input and to be completely

transparent about what we

need to do.



I think our intention is

that the auditors' task of

removing the people who

either have a conflict of

interest or don't meet the

qualifications should be as

objective as possible and to

take as much as we can any

ability to apply discretion

after the fact out of it.



So that when people fill out

the application, they have a

reasonable knowledge of

whether or not yes they meet

the qualification.



To answer your question,

there is nothing in the

provision that suggests that

a provision -- that there's

any kind of grandfathering

or saving provision for

recently annexed areas.



Presumably they would be

eligible the next time but

possibly not this.



>> It's our intent even

though we have to follow the

requirements, it is our

intent to be as inclusive as

we can be so that's the mode

that we operate in.





[09:24:00]





If we can't be, then we

can't be.



>> Sure, sure.



No, I appreciate that and i

just want to be completely

transparent about the

requirements and I think if

we need -- we need to be

clear on this one that folks

that have been annexed in

the last five years under

our current interpretation

would not be eligible to

serve.



But would be eligible the

next time.



>> I think there's other

issues we need to address

like someone who maybe moved

from austin into the area

and I think those things

would have to be flushed out

as john is discussing

because there may be some

exceptions.



>> Riley: And there may be

folks in those annexed areas

who, say, they moved from

some other part of office to

that annexed area, they

would still be he will jill.



But if you've been living in

anderson mill the last ten

years and it was only

annexed four years you are

not eligible at this time.



>> Keep in mind too it's not

just a person has to have

been continuously registered

for five years, but they

have have voted in three of

the last five city general

elections.



>> Riley: Right.



>> Which also extends back

quite a number of years as

well.



>> Riley: Okay.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councimember spelman.



>> Spelman: I didn't

expect to have another

question but this raises --

this bothers me.



If the -- there is a legally

responsible interpretation

of the amendment which would

allow the person that

councilmember riley was

talking about that's been a

resident of anderson mill

for seven years, say, hasn't

moved, been in the same

place, but only a resident

of the city of austin for

three years, four years,

just basically mixed the cut

by a few months, seems if

there is a responsible

interpretation of the law

that would allow that person

to be a member of this

commission, presumably they

are going to be a member, we

don't disannex areas, seems

to me we ought to adopt that





[09:26:02]





reading.



If we can't do it, we can't

do it, I understand it, but

you talk about

interpretation issues, i

understand you would be

close to the text.



In this case I think there

is a bigger principle which

is be as inclusive as

possible.



The text may not have been

written as carefully as it

should.



I don't want you to make a

snap judgment on this, john,

but seems there's a couple

of principles going on and

seems to me at least the

principle of inclusion is a

lot more important of the

principle of remaining as

close to the text as

possible so long as we could

be defensible in that

interpretation.



>> I agree on the point of

not making a snap judgment.



>> Spelman: We agree on

that.



Maybe very should stop

talking now.



>> Mayor Leffingwell: Can

I make a comment on that

because respectfully i

disagree with that.



I think the selection

process should be err on the

side of being overly

restrictive for the simple

reason it seems to me if you

have a situation where the

commission itself is

vulnerable to legal

challenge, then that could

throw the whole pot -- throw

the whole process awry.



It seems to me to make sure

that the literal word of the

qualifications of

commissioners come right out

of the charter language to

make sure that the

commission itself stays

intact throughout the

process.



That's just my opinion.



Councilmember morrison.



>> Morrison: I was going

to move on to a little bit

of a different topic so if

you wanted to -- I would be

happy to have him --



>> the closing point I want

to make on this issue is

whatever our legal opinions

are as they've started

today, we need to get those

out to the public so we can

start public comment this

evening.



Because for every statement

that's made, there seems to

be a conflicting opinion by





[09:28:01]





somebody else regarding this

process.



I realize that if we get the

maps drawn by august as the

time line states, you know,

it could be plenty of time

to have it done in three

months and then start the

pre-clearance process, but

does this interpretation of

the commission shall adopt a

final plan on april 1st

mandate that we wait until

APRIL 1st?



It says shall and it says on

that day.



Again, my point is let's get

these legal opinions out

there, let's get the citizen

input that we need and get

the legal advice we need to

make sure, one, that we're

conducting the process as

appropriately as we can, but

to go back to your point, we

did have one area deannex.



The city didn't but the

citizens triggered that and

that was in harris branch.



There are unique cases but

it's not the norm.



We've got to figure out who

qualifies, get this

commission up and running so

we can have these districts

running and folks can run

and do the election without

having to worry about

pre-clearance hanging over

their head and any other

issues for that matter.



>> Mayor, I have a question.



I think this is some what

related.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Councilmember morrison.



>> Morrison: If I could

just throw this on the

table.



I would be interested to

know, you mention there are

several interpretive issues

we're going to run into.



Would it be possible to run

through what those are right

here because I'm very

interested to know and i

think it might help the

conversation later this

evening if we could know

exactly what the thought is

on where interpretation is

going to come into play.



>> Yes.



If I could just address the

public input on the

interpretation first and

then I'll get to this

question.



Just pointing out the time

line, the second line on

there the rules adoption, i

know the dates are vague, we

just say december 2012

through january 2013, but

what we envision is

hopefully by the end of next

week having our draft rules





[09:30:01]





and those applications

finalized, putting them out

for public comment and there

will be a 30-day period

where citizens can review

those, ask questions,

comment on things they find

ambiguous or unclear or

disagrees and we'll be able

to incorporate that feedback

in mid-january 2013 so there

will be a month process

where they can address those

interpretive issues.



Getting back to some of the

specific items, just going

off the top of my head,

there's a number of them.



We've looked at, for

example, qualified

independent auditor.



That's a term that was in

there, in the charter

provision.



That's not a term really

used in the audit industry

and so that was something

we've had to interpret, and

again, we're trying to

interpret as broadly as

possible, focusing on the

requirement for licensure by

the texas board of public

accountancy.



We're looking at active cpa

in austin who has had five

years independent audit

experience.



So trying to include as many

people as possible.



In the conflict of interest

requirements, there's a

prohibition against

individuals who have had a

professional contract with

the city, with the city

council or with city

councilmembers.



And so we're working on

developing an interpretation

of someone who may have had

a professional contract with

anyone on city council.



And trying to shore up what

that means.



How far does that extend.



Those are a couple that come

up to me.



>> And councilmember, just

going back to the rules

process, that is the process

we put in place to lay all

those out, get them out for

public comment over a 30-day

period to try to get

feedback on from individuals

about these ambiguous items

that it's not clearly

defined in the actual text

of the charter.



So that is the process we're

trying to follow at this

point.



>> Morrison: Right, and





[09:32:00]





you've already mentioned

tonight, for instance,

looking for input on

relevant analytic skills and

how we might interpret that

and is there something also

about objectist?



>> Impartiality.



>> Morrison: How that

could be demonstrated i

guess would be --



>> the process tonight is

really focused on

identifying a large pool for

both of the panel and the

commission of people that

are qualified but

particularly the commission

at this point.



And so there's some terms

that were included in the

language of the charter so

we want input with regard to

that, but it's not really to

discuss all this stuff we're

talking about here, it's

just to get help in doing

that.



And then if you look at the

schedule, some of this stuff

will then be used to address

the applications, the

interpretation of the rules,

what are some of the things

we need to interpret in the

rules.



So we're looking for a the

look of citizen input with

regard to that.



>> Morrison: Okay, and i

think it's really important

and laudible that you are

interested in laying out a

draft of those rules once it

all comes together so

there's ample opportunity

for participation and

comment on that.



And then also laudible i

think is the -- the

advertising and community

outreach that you are

looking at and I do want to

draw our attention to the

fact that in terms of the

resources that are going to

be needed, the budgetary

needs, we know that you've

managed -- you are proposing

to manage the additional

staff hours by adjusting the

service plan, but I believe

that that still leaves the

whole of $72,500 for the --

for the advertising and

supplies.



Is that correct?



>> That is correct.



>> Morrison: And so i

guess my question is how do

we move forward to make

those funds available.



>> I think we would have to

go through a budget

amendment process in order

to accommodate that need.



>> Morrison: And is that

something that will be

coming -- I guess we would

probably need to have that

approved very soon because





[09:34:00]





the advertising needs to

start very soon.



>> Right.



>> Morrison: And so is

that something that you all

will be able to help us with

city manager?



>> It is, and I've made

available our financial

services area to assist ken

and -- and putting together

a budget and identifying a

funding source to assist

him.



So he already knows all that

so we're doing all we can to

help him with the financial

support that he needs and

any other support that he

needs.



>> Morrison: Is he going

to do magic where there is

no money and all of a sudden

there is?



>> Call it magic dust.



>> Morrison: Okay.



Thank you.



>> Mayor Leffingwell: No

doubt there will be several

budget amendments as we go

through this process for

legal expenses and others

that might be unforeseen,

renovation, et cetera.



>> Cole: I had a question.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Mayor pro tem cole cole i

wanted to go back because it

seems like we're dealing

with two different issues

when we talk about our

discretion for

interpretation.



I think there was one issue

when the charter amendment

is actually silent and you

are trying to interpret what

it means to be a qualifying

independent auditor.



And then there's another

issue when the statute

actually speaks to like the

item that councilmember

riley and spelman spoke to

residency.



So is it silent on what

constitutes a qualified

independent auditor?



>> The -- the language

defines qualified

independent auditor -- the

issue that we took with it,

that was in the term that

isn't really used in our

industry and there was

some -- some room for

interpretation.



I've got the definition

here.



It says qualified

independent auditor means an

auditor currently licensed

by the texas board of public

accountancy and has been a





[09:36:01]





practicing auditor for at

least five years prior to

appointment to the applicant

review panel.



That term practicing

independent auditor is

something not commonly used

so we had to work on

defining that and how are we

going to interpret that.



>> Cole: So it sounds to

me like you actually looked

at the actual language of

the charter and you made a

strict interpretation of

that language based on what

was common in the field.



Now I want to compare that

to what john is talking

about in terms of any

independent interpretations

that are supposed to be made

outside that realm.



Is there anything that you

are contemplating right now

such as the item that we

talked about before

residency where -- I guess i

don't want to see us getting

into nebulous land of

wriggle room or encouraging

the public to make comments

about something when there

really is no -- there is no

wiggle room.



So --



>> yes, councilmember.



I think we should stay as

close to the text as we

possibly can.



But there are some areas in

which we're going to have to

decide what terms mean.



Jason said, for example,

professional contract with a

councilmember.



We're going to have to

decide what is a

professional contract.



>> Cole: Okay.



>> So that when a person is

asked the question on the

application have you ever

had one, they would have a

fighting chance of knowing

how to answer yes or no.



And the -- so some of the

things lend themselves to

coming up with further

definition.



Some of the areas where

the -- the charter is silent

and suggests by itself a

resolution, I think that's

probably often going to be

the best resolution is just

to let the charter speak for





[09:38:00]





itself when it can.



But as I say, this is our

first run-through and we

think transparency and

letting everybody know how

the auditor intends to read

it is probably a very good

idea and maybe some people

out there have some ideas

that we haven't thought

about.



>> Councilmember, there was

an indication that we're

interpreting qualified

independent auditors

strictly.



Actually the way we're

approaching it is it has to

be a cpa because it has to

be licensed.



When we look at the audit

experience, it could be at

any time they've been a cpa

and we're probably going to

define an active one or one

that's based on what it says

on their license they are

active, whether they are

actually auditing at that

point we're not necessarily

going to look at that but

whether they are active in

the state board of

accountancy with regard to

that.



We're also looking at

auditing, some people may

strictly would say you have

to be a cpa practicing in

public.



We're interpreting they

could be doing independent

awed it's.



For example, the state audit

does independent audits with

regard to agencies.



We're going to interpret it

in the broader sense

primarily because we think

it's going to be -- we've

been worried about having

sufficient candidates for

that three-person panel

given the limited number of

cpa degrees and the fact a

lot of them don't live in

the city, maybe trying to

finish the annual audit and

continuing to work on taxes.



That's where we extended the

time.



So we think that's within a

reasonable interpretation of

what is meant by this.



But we'll be getting input

as you said in the rules

process as we go forward

from looking at that.



>> Cole: Okay.



And I just want to commend

you on making actual

suggestions for how we could

revise our audits so that we

stayed within the scope of

the hours that are actually





[09:40:00]





existing so -- and we didn't

have to abandon major audits

for that.



And I wanted to note that

the amount that is requested

for the budgetary needs is

slightly in excess of the

city manager's authority and

I'm assuming that we may

need a budget amendment or

because these costs will

actually come over time we

may not be looking to see

that immediately or how are

you planning to do that?



>> Well, I think as the

mayor indicated, we're

probably going to be talking

about over time more than

one budget amendment.



And in regard to the matter

the dollars that are in this

power point, I would assume

unless he identifies more

costs beyond that, we would

simply bring a budget

amendment forward to

council.



Much better than some

piecemeal approach, we're

going to try to as much as

possible accomplish it in

the aggregate.



>> Cole: Thank you, mayor.



>> If I may, I just want to

emphasize this budgetary

money is just for our

portion of it.



It does not -- it's no

budget for the panel and/or

commission.



We don't know what their

costs will be.



>> Mayor Leffingwell: One

final question from me and

it doesn't have to be

answered today, maybe it's

something to think about,

but the council's only

participation in this

process is striking members

from the qualified pool from

however many that is.



Have you thought any about a

process for doing that?



Because I think -- I'm

thinking you may want to

have a public process for

that wherewithal the

councilmembers in one room

so that we don't have seven

people striking the same

person, that kind of thing?



[Laughter]

so it's just something to

think about.



It's not as simple as it

sounds.



Any other questions?



All right.



Thank you very much.





[09:42:00]





Good luck.



Councilmember tovo.



>> Tovo: One quick

question.



Almost made it but then i

had one.



I assume you are probably

going to talk about the

calendar as well.



And if not, I guess I would

suggest that would be very

helpful to get some public

feedback if not through that

forum through another means

of how the community feels

about the proposed shift in

dates because, you know,

that's something we want to

get right.



>> We anticipate working and

to the extent possible as

many of the time line

deadlines into our adoption

process so we would have

those in our rules as much

as we can feasibly

accomplish that.



>> Tovo: Does that mean

that won't be a subject at

tonight's forum necessarily

but it will be part of the

public comment during the

rules adoption?



>> We think with the agenda

we have it's going to take

all the time available

tonight and we think for

right now the most important

thing we need to do is get

feedback about how to get

the word out.



So we try to set up the

schedules as we approach

these issues to the public

in a methodical, well

thought out way so we get

the information on a timely

basis and are able to

incorporate in the approach

we have.



Actually the feedback

tonight as they give us

feedback on how to get out

there and get it widely

publicized may impact the

schedule.



We don't anticipate it will.



We think we've done a good

job of anticipating what's

going to occur, but it's

possible some unintended

consequences, some unknown

factor we need to consider

during these meetings and

obviously we want to

discover that up front

rather than later on in the

process.



>> Tovo: Okay.



But it does sound as if the

public will have an





[09:44:00]





opportunity to comment on

the proposed time line

during the rules adoption

process.



>> Actually also we have the

website where they can

comment.



We have a lot they can just

write in for people that

don't have access to the

pc's.



At any point during this

process if someone has a

comment, we will make sure

it's addressed in what we're

doing or considered in what

we're doing.



Not sure we can incorporate

everything everybody says.



>> Tovo: Thank you.



Thanks for all your work on

this.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

Thank you.



Okay, now, we'll go back to

our pre-selected agenda

items and begin with item

number 42.



Which was marked for

discussion by councilmember

tovo.



>> Tovo: Thanks.



And mayor, I know --



>> Mayor Leffingwell: Take

just a minute to clear the

room and maybe sure we have

the appropriate people.



>> Tovo: I have at least

one other issue to talk

about that was not

pre-selected so I hope we

have time to get to that one

too.



>> Mayor Leffingwell:

We'll go in order and you

will be the first, yours

will be the first item

that's not pre-selected.



>> Tovo: And that's 87,

just for reference.



>> Mayor Leffingwell: All

right.



I'll write it down now.



Go ahead.



>> Tovo: Good morning.



Thanks for being here.



Excuse me.



I have a few questions about

this grant and the

authorization that we are

contemplating on thursday.



So the -- the grant was a

total of a million dollars.



And 300,000 of which is

proposed to be used for





[09:46:00]





research and evaluation and

go directly through an

interlocal agreement with a

u.t. professor and staff.



And I wondered, you know, i

have read through this

morning detailed discussion

of the city -- of the

criminal justice innovation

grant, but I wondered if you

could talk through what some

of the other eligible

expenses are.



Is there a requirement as

part of this -- as part of

the grant that the city

contract, you know, almost a

third of the grant for

evaluation purposes.



>> There was a requirement

in the grant that the city

has a research partner and

so yes, we were required to

contract with a university

or research entity.



I can't say for certain

there is a required amount,

but when we looked at the

proposal and put that

together to get the

university of texas to do

what we believed was in the

best interest of this grant,

that was the terms that we

came to.



And we actually were able to

reduce that cost by

 kirk

to office at a city facility

while he was working on

this.



So through doing that the

university of texas actually

lowered their rate for

indirect costs down to 15%.



I believe their standard is

either 45 or 55%.



>> Tovo: I have a variety

of questions about that, but

I guess my first one is why

couldn't the professor

office at the university of

texas.



My guess would be that he

has won.



>> Yes, and he could have,

but then when we contract

with the university of

texas, they have set

policies and procedures for

how they contract their

services.



We were able to reduce the

cost by giving him space

that we had available at the

department so therefore they

charged us 15% for the

indirect cost instead of

their standard which i

believe is either 45 or 50%.



>> Tovo: So what are some

other ways that this grant

could be used.



I guess I'll get right to

the point.





[09:48:00]





It seems like I understand

with almost every grant

you've got a responsibility

to conduct research and

measure, you know, set

performance measures and do

an evaluation, but to fund

almost a third of the grant

on that just -- you know, i

guess I just wanted to know

what are some other -- could

you also use it for

programming?



Could you use the grant for

implementing some innovative

programming in that same

targeted area and are we

spending more on evaluation

than needs to be spent.



And I guess I'm less

interested in what the price

 than I am

what the police department

envisioned as appropriate

for the scale of what you

are trying to accomplish.



>> Sure.



And I believe maybe the best

way to approach this would

be the purpose of this grant

from the government.



This was a very competitive

grant.



We were one of I believe 11

projects funded through this

grant and it was because of

the parameters that we put

on our submission.



This grant is geared towards

effecting long-term change

instead of just enforcement

grant.



Routinely we get enforcement

grants just to go in and

conduct additional overtime,

additional enforcement

efforts.



This grant, the purpose was

to attain long-term change

in the neighborhood and so

we -- we are going the rely

very heavily on the

university of texas and

 kirk to go in there and

give us ideas and strategies

for affecting that long term

change outside the realm of

law enforcement.



It may be dealing with

economic growth, with

reentry with at-risk youth.



And so that's the real

backbone, I believe, of this

project and it's what makes

it very different than

things we've done before is

that we're going to have a

research partner that this

is their field of expertise

that's going to give us a

lot of insight into how we

can then leverage the

dollars we put aside for

enforcement.



I do think that there will





[09:50:00]





be project recommendations

that will come out of this.



It would be premature to

speculate what they may be,

 kirk's area

of expertise and I expect we

will walk away from this

three-year project with some

really good ideas of how we

can keep long-term change in

that area.



And if you've seen the

documents, I'm sure you

realize that we've got i

believe it's 5% of the

city's population, 2% of the

city's square mileage, but

11% of the crime is

occurring in that area.



>> Tovo: Right, and i

should have maybe started by

saying I think it's a very

exciting opportunity to

really focus concerted

efforts on an area of our

city that really needs it

and, you know, I certainly

like the general philosophy

of it.



Can you help me understand,

though, whether the

program -- you talked about

and this document I've got

talks about program

recommendations.



I'll read the objective:

Identify, build upon new

planning efforts to

revitalize the neighborhood

and address issues that

relate to the crime issues

identified.



Will you be using the grant

to implement any of those

program recommendations?



>> The grant will be used --

some of the program

implementation will involve

enforcement strategies and

there are dollars in the

grant for the enforcement

piece.



As far as for other

entities, there is $200,000

built into this grant that

we will be bringing to

council at some point when

we contract with other

social service agencies.



So there is another

component of this million

dollar grant that is going

to go through social service

providers and those will be

 kirk

does his work and we can get

a better feel for what work

needs to be done in this

region.



>> Tovo: And so in looking

through the budget, I see --

you know, I see some

breakdown of costs, a

consultant, the university

of texas, the social service





[09:52:01]





contracts you mentioned,

enforcement operations.



There was a discussion in

here about the collaboration

will focus on social

disorder, language barriers,

at-risk youth, nuisance

abatement, but I don't see

any funds allocated in the

budget to do any particular

programs with at-risk youth,

for example.



That's really the balance i

was hoping to have a

dialogue about either today

or thursday or in the

interim.



Are there opportunities to

bring programs and resources

to that community during the

period of grant rather than

just, you know, focus so

much on evaluating?



You know it a high crime

area and I know the police

department has done a lot of

thinking and creative work

in introducing programs that

make a difference.



Is this program going to

fund any of that?



>> The social agencies

written into the grant for

the $200,000, I believe

we'll be able to see some

dollars from that portion of

the grant go towards project

implementation.



I don't know what that will

look like yet because we

haven't done the research to

determine what social

service agencies we will

even bring in under this

program.



But I do envision there will

be some dollars available

out of the $200,000 for

those social service

agencies that can go to that

direction.



The $300,000 is tightly

governed as far as the fees

 research staff

to conduct the research

associated with the grant.



>> Tovo: And that's

basically because that's the

price they gave you for

performing that.



>> And once we submit that

to the federal government

we're going to be tightly

regulated to conform to the

grant application that we

submitted.



>> Tovo: In the grant

application you submitted,

you identified 300,000 would

go toward that evaluation?



>> We actually gave them a

budget piece that specified

how we would spend the

spends.



They required that in the

grant.





[09:54:00]





>> Tovo: I see that the

document, the longer

document talks about the

budget proposed is the

city's best estimate, of

course, costs and will

likely require significant

revisions once the

implementation plan is

complete and the justice

department gives final

approval.



So it sounds to me like

there are opportunities for

a vision, and in fact the

justice department may

require some.



>> As with any grant, i

think we can go back and try

to make an amendment to it.



It would require the

approval of the federal

government and you always

run the risk obviously of

them denying the request

or -- or holding you to the

proposal as originally

given.



>> Tovo: Sure, but they

are unlikely to -- I don't

know of a situation where

they turned around and said

we're denying the revision

and taking the money back.



They will just say we don't

agree with that change.



>> I would agree with that.



>> Tovo: I'm going to do

some more thinking about it

and talking about it, but

this is an area of our city

that I think could benefit

from some more programs and

in fact I believe I attended

a discussion that the

greater crime commission

talked about about this area

and does this overlap with

the area that was discussed

at the greater crime

commission where they were

talking about some of the

concerted efforts like

potentially a community

garden and some other

things?



>> I'm not sure of the

alignment of this with that.



The unwith comment I would

add is one of the key

components of this grant was

the research component.



And so I do understand that

you are wanting to see if

there are opportunities and

if we look into the portion

that's dedicated to the

research portion, we're kind

of going at the heart of

what was laid out in the

grant proposal when they

gave us the documents when

we submitted this.



>> Tovo: What I think I'm

hearing is that less than

200,000 of a million dollar

grant is actually going to

go into program -- you know,

programs that might make an

impact in that neighborhood

and that --





[09:56:00]





>> we will have over 400,000

that will go towards

enforcement programs in the

neighborhood to effect

greater change, and then on

top of that 400,000 another

200,000 will go towards

social service agencies

going into effect change.



I think what we've got is

two-thirds going towards

programs whether they be

enforcement based or social

service based, and then the

third towards the research

component.



>> Tovo: We have an item

on our agenda also for this

week and it is to -- of the

parks department, it's a

budget line in the parks

department and that is a

midnight basketball program

aimed at at-risk youth.



Would that be a eligible

expense under the terms of

this grant, under the terms

of the criminal justice

innovation program, that

kind of program that's

targeting at-risk group

within a particular

geographic area of focus?



>> That is not written into

the grant right now and i

would have to get with our

grant writer to see if

that's something that could

full under -- I won't make

any projections.



If it's not a social service

agency, I don't know whether

the federal government would

police chief that falls

under the $200,000 we

allocated in that direction.



>> Tovo: I guess would it

have -- is it just a matter

of how you crafted the grant

or is it -- is the scope of

the grant pretty much

limited to social service

outreach or could the grant

have funded more

programmatic approaches like

youth for its programs?



>> The grant solicitation

itself was very tightly

defined and I would have to

look at whether a program

like that, especially a

program that already exists

because we get into the area

of potentially supplanting

if you have a program that

already exists and so that's

something we would have to

look at both with our grant

writer as well as with our

legal adviser.



>> Tovo: Right, whether or

not this is for new efforts

versus others.





[09:58:00]





And I guess my basic reasons

for asking is that I had a

conversation with the chief

and I know he talked about

the police athletic league

and there's a high interest

in, say, boxing, he may have

mentioned, there were

hundreds on the waiting list

and that's a program that

doesn't have funding.



I remember when we were

looking at the parks and

recreation programs at gus

garcia recreation center

which is quite close to the

neighborhood of focus here,

there was a youth program

for teens that was being cut

and -- but I wonder if

there's not an opportunity

to really think about how we

might -- how this grant

could provide an opportunity

to focus on some of the

programs that it would seem

to me the parks department

and the police department

has a record -- of doing

successfully and a

connection between the

programs and crime

prevention.



>> Councilmember, michael

McDONALD, DEPUTY CITY

Manage he.



The reason I came up, i

think it's one thing

important to understand in

these types of grants and

the way the assistant chief

has talked about how tightly

defined they are, let's just

say, for example, we don't

need quite as much in the

research area.



It doesn't necessarily mean

those additional dollars are

going to stay here in this

community.



A lot of times what they

will do is they will monitor

you on these grants and if

certain amounts of dollars

aren't used in other areas

and they have a void in

another area they've awarded

the grant, they will

sometimes take those dollars

and use it in that area.



So I just want to make sure

as we talk about this we

understand that the

flexibility to just move

those dollars around, you

know, generally the federal

government doesn't give us

that level of flexibility.



[One moment, please, for

change in captioners]

budget to the federal government

and they've approved it and we

have the difficult choice of

revising a grant or asking for a

revision and the possibility

those grant funds may be shifted

to another awardee.



>> Seeing the document you have

in front of you, I seem to

remember talking about the short

time line to apply for this

grant.



We were notified of it very late

so there was a shorter

preparation time than we

normally have, and, again, we

consider ourselves fortunate to

have received that.



But, the short answer to your

question is we do routinely

coordinate with our partner,

city agencies.



Going forward, our first meeting

is december 18 where we will

meet with the neighborhood

stakeholders, as well as other

city departments, to start the

planning process for how we're

going to roll out this

three-year program.



>> It sounds like that

coordination didn't necessarily

happen on this one.



>> I would have to get with our

grant writetory see to what

extent the other agencies were

involved in the situation.



>> Thanks.



>> Assistant city manager.



Yes, I think ideally, what we

would do, while we continue our

focus on youth services, as you

recall one of our goals is to

get to a point, from a policy

direction, we get pretty

establish values from the

council perspective how we want

to deliver quality youth

programs throughout the whole

community, and so our goal is,

when we get to that point, then

we would align all of these

issues, whether it is a grant in

the police department or whether

it is a neighborhood housing or

wherever the case may be, align

them to those values and in

effect, assure them that

everything points to those

values and that we're connecting

all of those specific dots.



That's our ultimate goal.



I can't say we're totally 100%

there yet but that is where we

want to get to and I think we're

doing a lot of great work in

that area.



>> I look forward to the

continued discussions and i

really congratulate you on the

grant.



I think it will have a

measurable impact.



I think when we have resources,

we're using them as creatively

as possible, and programs seem

to be one way to do that.



I think I've asked what I needed

to ask here today.



>> Thank you.



chief McDonald, I know the

midnight basketball issue has

been around and a while and

successful.



You did want to speak to that

while you're here?



>> Council member, I would ask

if it is related to the item

we're discussing, which is item

42.



>> I tonight bring it up because

council member tovo talked about

the grant possibly being used

for that item and I believe you

said -- I'm trying to remember

what you said.



>> Part of what I was speaking

to was just the flexibility or

the lack there of, in some

cases, on some of these grants

when they're awards to the areas

like they keep you pretty strict

on it.



If you end up not being able

to -- or don't need as much of

the funding in a certain area,

sometimes if there is another

area that slacking, that's the

adjustment they will make.



But, specifically, for midnight

basketball, it is a very

involved program.



In fact, the police chief was

very involved in conversations

this past year during the budget

process with midnight basketball

and how the police department

can coordinate with the parks

department, so it is a valued

program.



>> Okay.



Thank you.



Thank you for your comments.



Council member spelman.



>> I haven't responded to a

solicitation to this particular

class of grant, but I respond to

a lot of solicitations by the

department of justice, and i

think I have an idea what

they're looking for in this

particular grant.



I want to see whether or not i

pretty much got if right.



The way we usually try and solve

crime problems in a

neighborhood, the way it is

usually done is we draw a red

stripe around some part of town

and we say, what can we do in

this part of town?



We can do midnight basketball.



We can do social services, we

throw it all up against the wall

and figure out what sticks.



My reading of what you're doing

here is more complicated.



We still have a large repratoire

of activities.



First we have to go into the

neighborhood and figure out what

it needs.



What is the problem?



What are the problems we're

trying to address?



And using that research

information to drive the program

itself so we're tailoring the

mix of activities to fit the

needs of the neighborhood is

that accurate?



>> I believe that is a fair

assessment.



That's why, when you look at the

budget piece, there is very

little allocated for enforcement

elements because we want it to

be analysis.



In year two and three when we

put dollars into it, we have new

strategies and new items, not

things in the past.



Although they are effective, we

want a new strategy and approach

that will give us a better

opportunity for long-term

improvement.



>> It is entirely possible that

midnight basketball might spin

out as one of the things that is

effective and appropriate.



>> Absolutely.



>> It could be that any number

of social services are

appropriate, any number of

enforcement activities are

appropriate.



You can't identify what it is

yet in advance of what the

neighborhood needs.



>> We're looking for the

research piece to steer news

maybe a familiar direction.



>> Ask you about that.



The primary work is done by the

university of texas research

team headed by dr. kirk.



I presume he will be involving

you in this along the way.



We will be in a large part

supplying a lot of the data he

will need because this will be

based on particular pattern,

crime trends and things like

that.



So we will heavily provide him

with the data.



He will involve us with the

interntation of the data, as

well.



We're in a better possession to

national the crime statistics

and patterns.



>> You live there in a way that

the university of texas folks

probably don't.



 kirk was talking about

doing wind shield surveys,

driving up and down and idea identify

what you can see.



Police officers do that all day

long.



If the $300,000 were allocated

to the university of texas, i

think it would be fair to say a

lot of that is the up front

research fees to tailor the

program for the research fees.



Evaluation is really a separate

issue.



And, the university of texas

happens to be doing both of

those two parts of that is that

accurate?



>> Actually, the lion's share of

the money for ut will come in at

the lion's share of 50,000.



It will conduct the initial

survey and get as you baseline.



Year two, allocated at 150,000,

and that will be to continue the

surveying and to analyze the

programs as they're implemented.



Year two is the implementation

year, to a large part, and so we

want to be evaluating the

programs as they're implemented

and have opportunity to

fine-tune them, not wait until

year three analysis and

assessment.



I want to give you a fair

assessment not the lion's share

of the dollars will go in on

year one, but year one will set

the baseline from which we will

operate.



>> And the evaluation piece will

have two parts of it.



One is to verify the program or

the set of things that you line

up in order to solve this

problem actually get implemented

and verify how they're being

implemented, and the outcome

evaluation, now that we've done

that, we can verify all that

stuff got done what actually

happened and why it happened the

way it did.



Why did crime go down why did

disorder get better.



What parts of the things we did

are responsible for solving the

program.



>> That's the goal, if we can

link a program or project to a

positive outcome, that is the

goal of this.



Hopefully, that will be a new

program or project and not

something we knew already

worked.



>> This is intended to solve the

problems in a way, but it is

also intended to solve problems

in other parts of town as well.



We can pick that up and use it

elsewhere in the city, and

presumably elsewhere in the

country.



>> I can assume you forecast we

find a successful strategy for

the runberg area, we will use

that program for the same

challenges.



>> There is really is in

spending some time, maybe not a

year and $75,000, but working

through a neighborhood first and

figuring out what it needs and

deciding that up-front time is

time well spent in determining

what is the best set of social

services, enforcement approaches

and so on to be able to solve a

problem in the neighborhood that

technology actually works in

runburg, it makes sense to use

that technology, maybe watered

down on sped up around town.



>> Absolutely.



>> Sounds like a really good

idea.



I understand how $300,000 may be

a lot of money to swallow, but i

think as a demonstration

project, what we can set up for

a lot less money downstream,

particularly because the grant

requires it, it seems like this

is a good expenditure of our

time and investment of our

money.



>> Thank you.



>> We are going to just correct

something.



Mayor pro tem, it does relate to

midnight basketball so if you

want to ask more specific

questions, that would be the

item to discuss it.



>> Thank you.



I'm done.



>> Before we go to the next

item, which is 63, for

discussion by council member

morrison, just fyi, items is115

through 120 will be postponed by

staff, I believe is until

january 13.



Item 63, council member

morrison.



>> Thank you, mayor.



This is the item on the

potential for us to sign an

interlocal agreement with the

texas facilities commission.



We addressed it last on november

8, I believe, there was a vote

to approve staff negotiations of

the ioa, and it is a continuing

saga.



There have been plenty of

discussions about it and

including a lot of input from

the public and we also have this

on our agenda at the

comprehensive plan and

transportation committee

yesterday.



Although that was a very quick

discussion we had, I think it

was helpful because it helped me

to sort of crystallize the

varying perspectives that we

have at the table here.



On the one hand -- well, first

let me say I think there is

definitely common ground that

everybody is interested in when

the city is going -- when the

state is going forward to plan

the use of their lands in the

area that we all want to have

austin be sitting at table.



And, I think where we're -- the

perspectives are differing, one

perspective is we need go

forward and sign up with the tfc

and get our contract all

delineated at this point.



Whereas the other perspective is

that it is an evolving situation

in terms of roles and

responsibilities and it would be

better to let that shake out

before we solidify all of that.



And, so what I want to do today

is propose an option that we

consider that hopefully could

take into account the benefits

and the concerns on both sides

of the discussion.



On the one hand, as was

mentioned yesterday, it was

suggested that the texas

facilities commission already

has been statutorily charges

with planning these lands, and

they already have the authority

and the legislature already.



It was suggested at the meeting,

already gave the tfc a go to

plan these lands.



On the other hand, with the

sunset report that came out, it

is clear that there's still some

open questions and may well be

some changes in all of that this

time around at the legislature.



One, explicitly, the report says

even with the capital complex

that the institute doesn't

explicitly define the role, they

do have a role of evaluating,

they have the authority of

evaluating the state land and

there are conflicting goals

between the glo and tfc.



The other part of what I heard

yesterday about them already

having the go to plan these

plans, mentioned in the report

even were it to go forward, this

needs to be a state discussion,

a leadership discussion, and

then just as a recap in terms of

the evolution of this

discussion, there was a -- you

know, we heard it on the 8th

of november, and the council

voted to move forward with

negotiation.



On the 12th of november, the

state released a request for

proposal to hire a -- to find a

consultant for the planning that

was delineated with the rfp

mirrored quite closely the draft

ioa we had on the table, so it

was clearly going out to hire a

consultant.



Then, on the 16th of november,

you would have the sunset

release, it is my understanding

on the 11th of december there

is a committee on economic

development on p-3, that is

another issue.



Not just the tfc and glo sorting

out roles, it is also a matter

of evolving the p-3 at this

point.



They're taking another look at

that.



Let's see in mid december, there

will be the house state affairs

committee that gets charges,

releasing a report on p-3.



There will be a hearing on the

sunset report on december 18 and

19, and then on, I believe, the

9th of january, the sunset

commission will be making its

recommendations taken from the

report.



And, the bottom line is that

they may well -- in the

recommendations, what's on the

table, is to, number one, to be

looking at changing the

statutory authority for how p-3

is implemented and lots of

discussion about the process,

who the stakeholder has to be.



And it's not just public we're

talking about, it is defining

the roles for agencies and glo

and all of that, as well as

public process.



So, what my proposal is, that

the resolution that we have here

in front of us has a be it

resolved that, and this might be

a mistake that we ask the staff

to come back to us on december

6, which is thursday, so I think

there must be a mistake there.



But, anyways, my proposal is

that we ask the staff to go

forward and negotiate an ioa and

to bring it back to us the first

meeting in august.



Because -- august.



Because that way -- I should

say, the sunset report

recommends no formal action on

P-3s UNTIL DECEMBER 1 BECAUSE

They're waiting -- they want the

tfc to be able to move forward

you believed the new guidelines.



That's my understanding.



So, if we were to put off

signing the ila until the first

meeting or finalizing an ila

until the first meeting in

august, I think that, number one

it would allay the concerns that

we could make sure that whatever

is going to shake out, whatever

decisions are going to be made

this year and this session, we

can see how that all shakes out

and make sure that our ila

comports with that.



But, at the same time, it would

be a strong statement that we

definitely intend to do this,

and that we intend that we're

definitely interested in being

at the table and part of this

discussion.



However, it turns out a

discussion is going to look.



And there is another issue that

has come up in the discussions

that I think this would help us

deal with and there is a

question about how much money

are we going to be in for.



There is a previous discussion

that the council said, yes, we

want to invest 200,000 in the

planning of the capital complex

with the tfc, and at this point,

we don't really know what the

whole scope, the whole cost of

all this planning for all five

areas of the city are, of the

state lands.



I believe that once this goes

through and the consultant is

hired to do this work, we will

at least have an idea of the

overall cost of it, and that

way, we can go into this with at

least some kind of concept of

what our share is going to be,

and not knowing exactly money

wise how much we're even

thinking about jumping into,

makes me very uncomfortable.



So, in summery, I think that if

we were to, you know, strongly

support this with the delayed

signing and execution until

august, we would be able to

balance those concerns.



One that we want to indicate

we're at the table.



We already have the resolution

that says we want to work on the

capital complex with them, we

already have the money set aside

to do that, and it would allow

us to let the legislature do

their work and be respectable of

whatever comes out of that work

and aour work with the way it is

starting this session.



That's what I would love to have

on the table for discussion

today and probably what I will

be proposing.



>> Mayor.



>> Mayor pro tem.



>> First of all, I'm glad you

agree it is part of this

process, --



>> I've always said that.



>> Yes, but that you agree that

we need to authorize, execute,

move forward.



And I think what you have

clearly establishthat it is an

evolve process, and where we

might be varying in opinions is

simply that I believe that the

sooner we become involved in

this process, the better it will

be and the better we will do

with it.



Ila is different than what is

being contemplated by the state

agencies in the sunset

commission, but I want to go

ahead -- the ila is for us to

participate with the tfc in a

study, and that study involves

property that is in addition to

the capital complex.



It involves property at the

austin state hospital, it

involveds property at the state

parking garage.



And the only reason the dollar

sum is not in the resolution at

this time is we were really

researching that, but the amount

that is contemplated as being

capped by us, although the

property that is going to be

studied that expand$200,000.



And forecast that amount needs

to increase for us to be part of

the study, they would have to

come back to council to receive

that.



I will never suggest that we

didn't take upon an endeavor

like this without some idea to

council what those costs would

be.



But, I did want to address calm

things you suggested about the

sunset report just out of a

response but not because that is

an agency we have any control

over.



I fully understand people may

have concerns about that but the

people who are responsible for

the sunset report and this

agency are the members of the

legislature, and the members of

those particular departments.



That being said, I will point

out that the sunset report says

on page 5, issue 6, that the

state has a continuing need for

the texas facilities commission

for the grounds and property.



That hasn't changed in the

sunset report and they are

actually repped that.



Also on page -- recommended

that.



Also, on page 16, they require

the texas facilities commission

to formally adopt a master plan

to guide decision about the

capital complex future

development.



They asked, or charged -- the

sunset commission has not

charged any other agency to do

that.



They have also recognized the

need for the glo in the sunset

6,

page 18, have actually required

the general land off to conform

to recommendations as property

within the capital complex to

the capital complex master plan.



So, I think the important part

to recognize is that this is a

significant amount of land that

is critical to our tax base.



And, as you know, we have

millions of dollars of unmet

needs, especially in

transportation and affordable

housing, and we need to be at

the table with the state as

early as possible in expanding

our potential tax base in

accordance with our imagine

austin plans and city plans so

we can ensure that we are able

to meet our citizen's needs into

the future.



So, that would be the reason why

I would not be supporting an

extension, and also to the point

you raise about the rfq actually

being issued based on previously

we have not been adopted.



It wasn't based on that I'm sure

it was in conformity with that

language and it is a sign they

will move forward without us and

they will move forward in a way

we may not be at the table to

have any influence over.



>> I would just say, mayor pro

tem, I agree with that last

statement that you made, and i

think we all have to realize at

the end of the day, the land

belongs to the state of texas

and in the end of the day,

they're going to do what they

want to with it.



But, this interlocal agreement,

it seems to me, perhaps

oversimplifying what it does is

get us a seat at table and get

an opportunity to have early

input in the process and not

wait until everything is already

baked before we even begin to

look at it.



Because, you know, essentially,

even though we do have a process

that would go through here at

the city, it is not necessarily

going to be a process that is

mandatory in the state of texas.



We need to be at the table

early.



>> Mayor, I will add to your

comment and council member more

son's comment -- morrison's

comment, we could compromise now

where we go forward and get the

staff an update and any

amendments or recommendations.



We can give that direction and

I'll take that amendment from

you, we do not have to consider

this a static document, it can

be a breathing document as we go

through this process.



>> If I may, the question about

the --



>> council member morrison.



>> If we're going to sign the

contract, it can only be

breathing if --



>> I'm saying that would simply

be direction from you or the

council might anticipate future

agreements, it may anticipate

amendments after this

legislative session.



>> I think that goes without

saying we can always amend any

contract if the other party is

willing to amend it.



I just want to respond to a

couple of things, because i

think it is -- well, this is the

challenge from one perspective,

you can read it that things are

all clear and there's no

question, but there are other

statements in the sunset report

that says specifically that the

stat does not explicitly define

the role in planning the capital

complex, that the capital

complex planning key partners

are not only the tfc and glo but

also the state preservation

board and, quote, none is

clearly charged with leading

that effort.



And, I fully expect -- it is

clear that the tfc is charged

with managing our existing

facilities.



In fact, they go quite a bit

into that about improvements in

need in managing the existing

facilities, which is I think

what you were quoting from, but

that doesn't mean the clear role

in the redevelopment of land has

been established as such.



I guess I think the

recommendations or to change the

stats to require p-3 process

definition.



That is one of the things we

heard most about, how there is

no public process right now and

the draft of the ila we had last

time around didn't have any

public process.



There are going to be changes

about that so our ila really

needs to be incorporating that

as much as possible.



I think another thing that is

important to note is that sunset

report's concern about the tfc

going forward prematurely

looking at -- and considering

redevelopment of state land.



Because, one of the big sections

in there, they're recommending

they step back and do some

studies called "value for money"



to take a look a whether or not

we even need to be redeveloping

the state land, and then, you

know, turn those discussions

with information out of those

evaluations over to the state's

leadership, which is really

where those decisions need to

be.



They also are going to be --

they also have a recommendation

there, they mentioned that not

all the expertise for evaluating

these kinds of proposals are

available to the tfc and they

recommend that they be required

to use specific types of

expertise in p-3 project

evaluations and things like

that.



One last comment on here.



Your comments, that is we do

have the 200,000 that has

already been laid out there, and

we don't have an order of

magnitude estimate yet what have

this is going to be, and I feel

like it is important that we

get -- I don't think that

probably anybody has that

estimate at this point and i

think that is the responsibility

thing to do, know what we're

jumping into before we specify

exactly what our part in it is

going to be, otherwise we're

sort of on the hook for who

knows how much.



Anyways, I fully agree and have

always agrees that we should be

at the table.



It is a matter, at this point,

of do we let the legislature do

their work and then work within

the construct and framework they

define or do we jump prematurely

into that.



>> So I have one question for

you, mayor pro tem, on that list

of prospective redeveloped

properties.



Camp mabry, can you give me a

little more information about

that?



>> It is a 2-b designated

portion.



>> A portion?



>> Not the entire camp.



>> That's not the totally per

view of state.



Camp mabry has a large federal

presence.



>> Mayor, I do have one more.



>> Commissioner morrison.



>> When I looked on sunday there

was no back up for what the ila

was, and also the date was in

the resolution to bring it back

by december 6 soy wonder what

the intention is.



>> The process that we have

followed since the last council

meeting we discussed this, and

under council member

martinez 'direction and what has

to happen.



To discuss any concerns,

changes, whatever they want to

make regarding the ila, and then

we had notified neighbors within

a 200-feet radius of any of the

properties on the list and held

a -- the staff conducted a

meeting with them.



So, what we're doing is we're

taking comments and we're

submitting those to our

attorneys, and then we're

submitting those to their

attorneys and we will post the

document, hopefully tomorrow,

that will be a final proposed

document for execution that will

simply have those changes in

there.



And that will also include the

$200,000 I talked .



So it was getting input to the

community, we don't have the

final document posted and we're

based on execution from the last

council meeting.



>> Are there indications or

drafts out to the public to know

what is going to be considered

on thursday, or just considered

tomorrow.



>> The planning department.



Excuse me.



We are, as mayor pro tem

mentioned, we held a public

meeting on november 29 to gather

input.



We've been working on compiling

that.



We met with tfc staff yesterday

to start working on revised

language.



Since that time, we've been

bouncing back and forth on

language on various sections.



We have not released a draft to

the public because we don't feel

like we have a draft that is

ready for that, at this point.



We hope to do that.



We're focusing a lot of

resources on trying to get that

out.



Mayor pro tem, you mentioned

meeting with the offices.



Do any of them have any

discussions or comments?



I know yesterday you said none

of them had said not to do this.



None of our delegation.



I haven't heard any of them say

to do this and I have heard

concern privately.



>> The concerns that I have

heard is with respect to what

you have brought up the sunset

commission.



All of them want us to move

forward in being part of the

process because they believe we

will make it better and it is

good for us to be at the table.



>> So move forward now?



All of them say move forward

now?



Is that what you're saying.



>> Yes.



>> They have no concerns with us

moving forward now, but they

have concerned with the sunset

commission, but that is their

duty to deal with the agency and

all of that.



>> Right, right.



>> I've not heard that.



>> I did hear concerns about it

from our legislators, from some,

about moving forward now so

that's something we can

follow-up on.



>> I heard concerns about that

before we met with them, but not

after meeting with them.



>> Council member martinez.



>> I have a question for the

city attorney.



Simply because we have posting

language in the resolution can

we take action, did anyone draft

it?



>> As long as you get the item

before you consider it, you are

allowed to take action on it.



It just says that items have to

be before the council before

they vote on it, so to get it

tomorrow, sometimes we will get

back up on the day of, but i

believe you can do that.



>> I appreciate that.



While it may be legal, I'm going

to express some concerns.



We don't even have a draft, and

it is a contractual obligation

with a financial commitment, we

have all these rules about

posting and transparency, we try

to comply with them as best we

can and it gives the public more

than the legally amount of time

and here we are 48 hours from a

council member and we don't

even -- a council meeting and we

don't even have a draft from the

state of texas from that

perspective, I have a great deal

of concern no one is going to

have time to review it and ask

follow-up questions, if

necessary, and get those answers

back.



So, I would hope we take that

into consideration.



>> I think that would be a big

change in a normal operating

procedures, because we routinely

make revisions on the last day,

and I think to single out one

item would be, perhaps,

inappropriate.



If we want to adopt that

standard for everything on the

agenda it has to be finalized x

days before this and that and

the other thing.



>> Mayor, I think that is a

revision.



We don't even have a draft in

front of us that we know is

being revised.



That's a big difference, between

changing a few sentences and

words opposed to actually having

the document being contemplated

right now.



George just said we were

multiple versions going back and

forth that we've been waiting

on.



>> There has been one posted and

this would be revisions to that

document, which is what we're

working from, and this would be

consistent with the policies

that we have had in place thus

far, and we received huge

documents, comprehensive plan,

east corridor plan, on the dais,

on the day that we're actually

to vote on them.



So, if we're going to make a

revision to that policy, this

would be a revision to that

policy because we do have a

draft.



>> Okay.



Council member tovo.



>> Yeah, I just want to echo

some concerns I've seen.



Heard, rather.



I read the draft at our last --

before our last council meeting

and heard the community's

concern about it.



My understanding there was a

revised draft on the diane.



But I don't know how many

revisions have happened since

then, not only is it important

for the public to review this

but I feel I need to review it

carefully.



We had the public meetings last

week but neither I nor my staff

could attend pause of the

posting requirements, so we

weren't able to be there to hear

the community concerns, I have

no idea what kind of revisions

are being made.



This is a complicated issue, it

involves a contractual

obligation with the state.



We've hear very valid concerns

with the community and I want to

be sure if this council moves

forward with an interlocal

agreement, then we've all had a

chance to review it.



I really appreciate the effort.



I absolutely agree we should be

part of the process.



I'm not on board at this point

with what I know of the

interlocal agreement.



I think stating our intend to be

involved and the plan to do so

is one thing, but I think it

raises concerns we've heard from

both of community and my

colleagues about the sunset

advisory and they've been tasked

now with needing to come up with

a more explicit, careful public

process and allowing them to put

that in place first, it seems to

me, would make good sense before

we enter into a contract with

them.



I'm willing to continue the

discussion but I think it would

be inappropriate for us to act

on an interlocal agreement.



>> George, a couple of

questions.



One, with respect to the

original $200,000 alluded to,

I'm trying to recollect when

those dollars were allocated by

council.



Was that allocated with the

understanding we would negotiate

and execution and there are

would not have ban draft or

local agreement.



That is one question.



That recollection is correct.



And number two, that draft that

was being worked on per that

$200,000, it has served as the

basis for the work that you're

doing currently.



>> That's correct, on both of

those.



We anticipate that the revised

draft will use much of the draft

format and language that was

part of the council back up on

november 8.



Obviously, there will be changes

to that and wear trying to speak

as much as we can to the

comments we heard both at the

public hearing and the public

meeting on november 29, but the,

you know, the basis for those

revisions will be the document

we were working off of.



>> So, mayor, I have a couple of

things to say.



I wanted to outline what I'm

anticipating will be the major

issues that will be changed in

the interlocal agreement.



First and foremost, point out

that we have item number 64,

which outlines the public

process with the p-3 legislation

we did not have that the he is

is able to participate in.



There is a 60-day comment period

and they will have a public

hearing where the commission is

able to participate in that.



I've received nothing but

positive feedback and grad we

greased that.



That is part of our process that

we do have control over.



The comments regarding what the

sunset commission says and what

tfc has to do.



We have no ability to control

that.



But we have implemented a public

process that is a resolution

number 64, and I expect, as

stated before for the new ila to

have the $200,000 cap, I peck

the resolution to make clear

which was the concern of the

public that we are not actually

engaging in a plan, but simply a

study, much like our imagine

austin study, is very early in

the process.



And, we are not addressing any

site-specific review or any

details that we go through in

our land development process.



And I would just simply ask

george and lila if that was a

fair assessment and if there is

anything major that has come up

that my colleagues need to know

that would impact this

agreement.



>> Mayor pro tem, the only thing

I had add to that is we're

working very diligently to add a

public input process to the

major milestones of the study,

and that would be something that

city staff would take on, we

would organize, we would conduct

and we would take that input

back to the process and the tfc

staff and consultant team.



>> Okay.



Mayor.



>> Council member morrison.



>> I will look forward to seeing

that because changing it from

participating to a study, you

know that sounds like a

significant change.



As I recall, the draft of the

ila talked about coming up with

preferred scenarios for

development of the land.



>> The study, yes --



>> not a plan.



>> That was simply a

recommendation that the

neighborhood wanted.



They wanted to call it a study

and not call it a plan because

they wanted to be clear that it

wasn't a final process and that

it was evolving.



They stopped that particular

wording.



>> With all do respect, a study

is a study, a plan is a plan.



A plan is a plan, whether you

call it a study or a plan, so i

think that we need to be careful

and clear about that.



I also heard you say, it is a

study like imagine austin is a

study, imagine austin is a plan,

not a study, so I think that it

would be helpful over the next

few days, especially as staff is

working on this forecast there

can be some clarification about

the difference between it being

a study or a plan.



I'll look forward to seeing it.



>> As long as we have a plan for

the study.



>> It's a deal.



Study the plan.



>> Anything else on this topic?



Okay.



We will go to 66 for discussion

by council member spelman and i

think we have staff here

available to questions.



This relates to the overall

process that we're beginning to

engage in, revision of the land

development code, particularly

the cwo is what this relates to.



And this resolution does nothing

more than direct the city

manager to bring forward for our

considering some proposed

changes that were adopted by

this counsel sail few years ago,

and has as its purpose to

improve water quality in the

barton springs zone.



For a number of reasons, the

redevelopment ordinance, let's

just say, has not been

overutilized at this point there

have been a few intanses where

properties were redeveloped

under this ordinance, but not

many, and we want to take a look

at ways perhaps, we don't know

what the suggestions are, but

staff has actually suggested we

go through this process of

seeing if there are ways that we

can perhaps expand the scope to

deal with the redeveloped areas

that, frankly, comprise the

majority of the barton springs

zone in the city's jurisdiction,

well over half, and these

properties have little or no

water quality protection now on

them.



This ordinance gives the city

the opportunity to change that,

to both have on site water

quality treatment and to acquire

open space within the barton

springs zone.



So, this, again, does nothing

more than start the process.



What are the suggestions, what

could we do, to address this,

frankly mark jorrity of the

barton springs zone.



I remember a lot of the numbers

very well.



I don't think they've changed

very much, but we spent so much

time focusing on the sos

ordinance, when in fact, only

16% of the land in the city's

jurisdiction in barton springs

zone is actually subject to the

sos ordinance because the other

properties are either have

already been done or

approximately 31% is already

permanently dedicated open

space.



If you add all those up, i

believe that number is still

about the same about 16%.



The big 50-odd percent is what

this particular ordinance

addresses.



And, I do want to point out that

several people remember that

back when the sos ordinance was

adopted, back in the early

1990s, PEOPLE KNEW THAT WE

Were leaving a lot on the table

that we were not addressing what

was the biggest problem with the

water quality in the barton

springs zone and that was this

property that had already been

developed but it was chosen, the

decision was made not to include

retro, required retrofitted in

the sos ordinance because of the

enormous cost.



At that time, estimates ranged

above $500 follow actually do

those retrofits, so that was

kind of left out to be addressed

at a different date so

redevelopment ordinance made one

step in the direction of doing

retrofits at private expense,

not public expense.



This is entirely done by the

private sector, so with that,

I'll turn it over to you,

council member spelman, if

you've got specific questions.



We have people here to answer.



>> In fact, you've done a very

good job of answering my first

set of questions, which is what

are you trying to accomplish

here.



Let me summarize it forecast i

could you're talking about

extending the redevelopment

ordinance to the north edwards

aquifer, at least discussing

that.



>> Potentially.



>> And also discussing the

potential, including residential

properties, which were not

included in the redevelopment

ordinance, and basically

anything else that looks like

what may be coming up.



>> Originally, the restricted

area, as you pointed out,

applied to commercial

properties.



Basically.



>> Thank you, may why you guys

have been working with potential

applicants for use of that

ordinance.



Can you describe why is in your

opinion, so far, at least, we

haven't had very many takers.



Watershed protection.



We did an evaluation a couple

years after the ordinance was

passed to look at the status,

and we did, it was off course

right when the economy started

sort of flattening and there was

also a lot of uncertainty in the

oak hill area, we identified as

one of the ideas.



We were obviously speculate on

what was going on.



As the mayor mentioned, this was

limited to a small number of

properties, we kept mentioning

199 or 200 properties at the

time and that was the scope of

this ordinance, so it is a very

limited set.



The planning commission and

council at the time were very

clear that they, as this went

forward and they got stakeholder

input and you wanted to limit

it.



That's what it is.



At this point, my sense is

because we're looking at --

since we haven't had this there

were some concerns there would

be land rush or a great number

of these things coming through,

we've had two of these.



I don't think the -- I don't

think there is that issue.



So the idea would be -- and as

the mayor said, the original

ordinance, try to address some

of these things it had sort of a

mandate in there, what did we do

to retrofit but it didn't pay

for it and so forth, so this was

the tool we thought was -- that

was -- could be used for that.



>> Our usual justification for a

pilot project is we will learn

something from the pie late that

is used to extend the program

more generally, in a wider case

of properties.



What have we learned over the

last few years?



>> It keeps pointing to you.



>> Sure.



>> Environmental officer.



I think there is a couple

things.



The one sort of part of your

first question is why haven't we

gotten more participation.



What I've heard from several

developerses is cost,s

mitigation land and that -- and

I think I've already heard from

other folks that, as you know,

as matt mentioned, we

implemented this simultaneously

with the economy going downhill

somewhat, and so, then, when you

tie that with the mitigation

land requirement, while the

economy did flatten out

significantly, land cost did not

drop their rate of increase

slowed but land out in that area

is really expensive, the land

we've been trying to purchase

over the years, the water

quality protection lands.



I've also heard from the

community, as the plan picks up

and it becomes economically

advisable to invest there may be

more takers.



The timing on this was, maybe

not the best, but we also think

this is something we

anticipated.



I don't think we anticipated

that there were going to be lots

of properties do this, and i

think based on our staff

analysis that the time is really

ripe as the economy is starting

to pick up to take a look at

this, have some discussions with

the development community with

the property owner community,s

environmental community and see

if, should we let it ride?



What we've got sitting on the

table right now and see what

happens over the next few years.



But based on the limited

involvement, we look at making

some changes to get people to

take us up on this offer because

we would like to see these

properties get improved from an

environmental standpoint and get

some economic development

stimulated in that area, too.



>> Let me try and summarize

that, then.



We passed the ordinance, I was a

little bit concerned there would

be a chaos, a land rush of

people trying to take advantage

it turns out two takers out of

the prompt.



We didn't get a land rush and

could be because it is just

plain inexpensive to do we need

to look at the requirement of

the ordinances, alternatively,

could be the timing is really

bad.



Prices didn't go down, timing

became unavailable.



It sounds to me like it is going

to be impossible for us to

decide whether it is a or b is

the primary cause of what

happened here.



Is that material here?



>> Yes, that is accurate where

you just said.



I think one of the -- in the

weeds a little bit, but one of

the original ordinance, it is

structured so that a property,

we basically need to take

advantage of this opportunities

for the whole property.



And we could structure it so you

can have a subset of a larger

property do this and, therefore,

it would be much more flexible

and much more feasible, we

think.



So that would be one of the

things we would look at.



I think we would continue to be

cognizant of the concerns that

we don't want to create,

basically, a land rush.



We always want to balance the

environmental benefit we're

looking for the economic benefit

we're looking for and get some

of these older prompts that have

little or no quality control,

and to be honest, under

developed and under used in an

economic standpoint to meet some

of those goals but not in a way

we sacrifice environmental

protection.



>> And you're not generally --

although you're invited to, on

this resolution, it is your

understanding you're not talking

about generally opening up the

requirements, the redevelopment

ordinance and remaking them but

you are talk about extensions to

other parts of town, perhaps

allowing land owners to use a

parcel, a piece of their

property, rather than having to

redevelop the whole sneak we

think there is value in looking

at other parts of the city,

particularly the area north,

similar situations, similarly

sensitive environment.



And, we do have a redevelopment

exception that applies to the

entire city that very few people

are taking advantage of, and so,

we haven't done the analysis yet

for that area of the city, so we

really don't know whether or not

we ought to extend it there, but

do we need to do the analysis.



It is a fairly significant staff

commitment to do that work and

we wanted to get some guidance

from council and see if there

was interest in going that

direction before we devoted any

significant staff time to that.



>> Okay.



At this point, there is really

no way to tell whether or not

the extend to which the land

rush was due to the lack of a

land rush -- was due to the lack

of credit and the stable high

prices, or whether it was

because the ordinance is

extremely restrictive.



We really couldn't tell at this

point.



>> We need to do some analysis,

have some discussions with more

people in the development

community and be frank with them

and say, why haven't you taken

advantage of this.



Now, we have heard from property

owners, people that own

residential developments and

people have expressed interest

in this so we will look at that

and make we can get some older

residential developments rest

trofitted, as well.



>> -- Retrofitted, as well.



>> We will look forward to

hearing what people have to say.



>> I looked at this process a

year and a half or so, and we

did have all sides at the table.



>> The return on investment was

just barely what would be

needed.



And, as long as there are other

opportunities, people have a

better opportunity for an

improved roi, they're going to

take it, so this is kind of

something that has to be, it is

very specifically directed.



One of the big targets, we

talked about constantly that is

still out there, is the wide oak

hill, a large piece of property

that is well over 80% impervious

cover and one of the

requirements is you can't

increase the impervious cover.



You can redevelop and keep the

existing impervious cover.



If that could be subdivided, it

could be feasible.



Another requirement, you have to

mitigate down to sos levels but

purchasing open space or

contributing to a fund to

purchase open space to make up

for that deficit.



[One moment please for change in

captioners]



>> but we are not seeing

people try to take advantage

of the redevelopment

ordinance.



They are going and

developing green fields in

that same ring, in that same

area, so that tells me that

this redevelopment ordinance

is not as economically out

of balance and we need to

take a look at that.



>> Riley: Mayor.



>> Mayor leffingwell:

Council member riley.



>> Riley: Just a

housekeeping item.



This have been some

questions about the language

of this resolution.



In fact, I thought we agreed

to a new draft.



 there

is a new draft out.



>> Riley: But the version

that is online is still the

original version, which is

not what I agreed to

cosponsor, so could we get

an updated version online.



>> I think it's being posted

today.



>> Riley: It should be

posted today.



>> It should be.



>> We will work on that.



 any

more questions?



All right.



Thanks.



Seventy-three, marked for

discussion from council

member morrison.



>> Morrison: Thank you,

mayor this is an item from

council member riley and

spelman.



I have a couple of questions

about it.



The idea, I gather, is to

develop a pilot program to

allowed for reduced parking

requirements in the case

there are trip reduction

strategies adopted by a

business, which sounds like

it -- it sounds like a great

idea and it makes a lot of

sense.



Two questions about it.



One, in part 2 of the

ordinance, it talks about

this to authorize reductions

in the minimum number of

parking spaces required for

commercial businesses so the

implementation of parking

reduction strategies and one

thing I am not here on, is

this something that would

come into play at site plan

approval, so it's actually

going to be a built

environment that has less

parking, or is it -- or you

contemplating that it comes

into play when maybe there

is a change of use and there

is a reference going in and

need going to be needing

more parking spaces based on

the number of seats?



So it is more of a shift in

use, or both?



>> Riley: I would say it

could be both.



As you know, there are

instances when a new

business -- when a new

business comes into an

existing building but it has

a different use with

different parking

requirements and there is

some review of that.



And in some cases businesses

are required to secure off

site parking and this would

be -- would allow discussion

of that, just similar to how

it works now.



This would -- we would have

discussion of how business

could -- what the applicable

one would be for each

business depending on the

same building, depending on

the use that occupies that

billg.



>> So let's say I come in

with a site plan and I am

going to put a restauran

in -- walk me through it

because I didn't quite

understand what you just

said.



>> I guess what I am saying.



It could be either

situation.



It could be new development.



It could be existing

development.



>> Morrison: All right.



>> Riley: So if you come in

with a site plan for -- you

want the put up a new

restaurant.



Then right now the code says

your parking requirements

are x, and what this would

allow is that if -- if a --

the restaurant operator

says, well, wait a minute,

we are right on a transit

line.



We are going to orient our

business especially toward

people who use alternative

forms of transit and we are

going to put all of these

measures in place in order

to encourage those sorts of

travel, then in that case,

the staff would have

discretion to work out an

agreement with that

restaurant operator that

would effectively reduce the

requirements for that site,

and that agreement, once in

place, would be reviewed in

much the same way as an off

oocyte parking

requirement -- off site

parking agreement as

currently reviewed.



>> Morrison: Let me stop you

there, because that's where

the question is.



You said the agreement --

let's say they are building

a restaurant -- and this is

just a mechanical thing.



I don't have a problem with

it.



I just want to make sure we

pull this out.



You are building a

restaurant and you, then,

enter into an agreement with

the restaurant operator, but

isn't there something that

needs to be tied to the land

if the actual built -- what

actually got built is going

to be allowing -- well, i

guess for restaurants, it is

a matter of seats, right,

and so let's say one

restaurant owner comes in

and says, yes, I am going to

do these strategies.



They build the restaurant

and then that restaurant

operator leaves.



The next restaurant operator

is not going to be

encouraging that, so that

operator will just be

allowed fewer seats, because

they would -- is that how it

would work?



I see -- I just want to make

sure that we -- I delineate

between what is tied to the

land and what is tied to an

actual business.



>> Riley: Sure.



>> Morrison: And that we

don't go down a path without

knowing where we are going.



>> Riley: Sure and maybe

brent can help us with that.



>> Brent, assistant city

attorney.



Brent lloyd assistant city

attorney and briefly by way

of clarification, the

ordinance that is before you

would initiate the pilot

program which would then

come back to you in march

with a full ordinance

establishing the

requirements, and a lot of

the details that are being

thatare being discussed here now

are ones to have to be

discussed with the staff

ordinance and this one

initiating that does not

provide guidance regarding

the issues you are

addressing.



However, there are obviously

issues that would have to be

addressed in the staff

recommendation -- and the

staff recommendation would

include provisions

addressing everything that

you all have touched on.



>> Morrison: Okay.



Great.



And then the second question

I have is down in part 5, i

am a little confused because

it says that the city

manager should come back to

the council with a proposal,

no later than march 1, 2013.



After providing a staff

briefing to the planning

commission, but then it goes

and waives the requirement

for review and

recommendations by the

planning.



So it looks like we are

lining it up to brief them

and not get a recommendation

from them.



I am curious to why that

delineation -- I would be

very interested, frankly, in

a recommendation and

thoughts from the planning

commission.



I think they have a lot to

add, and so if the staff is

already there briefing them.



I am just wondering if there

is -- what the concern was

to not take -- not get a

recommendation from them

while you were at it.



>> Riley: I think the idea

is simply that we are going

to ahead and put the pilot

program in place and then as

the ordinance is crafted, as

brent described, then those

recommendations would be

subject to review by the

planning commission.



That would come back.



If you look at the wording.



It says that the -- we waive

the requirement of pc review

prior to consideration

adoption of the proposed

pilot.



But certainly any permanent

measures would be subject to

review by planning

commission.



>> Morrison: But I think as

we just sort of demonstrated

there is a lot of open

questions here and I -- and

it looks like we are already

going to -- the staff is

already going to be at the

planning commission and so

personally I would love to

hear their recommendation.



If they are already going to

be there, why not get their

recommendation to bring to

the council?



Is there some concern that

that's going to somehow

delay it?



I think that's an important

piece of being able to

consider what are somewhat

complicated issues.



>> Riley: Right.



I think it was just a matter

of getting a pilot in place

quickly, knowing that we

will need to have a lot of

discussion or review before

anything permanent is put in

place.



>> Morrison: Well, I think

sometimes we discuss pilots.



I wouldn't want this to take

a year and a half like the

pilot of the redevelopment

but I would like us to

consider for us to consider

removing that one waiver.



It seems like, you know, we

could certainly put

direction in that it's

somehow be expedited, that

the planning commission

doesn't get stuck there, but

we are already there.



I guess I would say why even

brief them on it if you are

not going to ask for their

opinion.



I would like to suggest that

we go ahead and get the

recommendation while they

are there.



>> Riley: I would be happy

to get some further

indication from staff as to

how much time would require

to be to go through a whole

planning commission process

just to get a pilot in

place, but in general, it

seems to me if there is a

policy decision at issue

here, if the council

believes, that we ought not

to have a pilot in place,

then that's -- that's up to

the council to decide and

then when it actually comes

to crafting the terms of --

of the program for inclusion

of the land development

code, then that will go

through the whole planning

commission process but the

planning commission has a

lot on their plate.



We are continually adding to

that plate and so it's just

a matter of not getting too

bogged down before we even

get a pilot up and running.



>> Mayor.



>> Mayor leffingwell:

Council member spelman.



>> Spelman: The there some

middle view of blowing off

the planning commission and

going through the whole nine

yards, which might go on for

a couple of months, is there

something involving, for

example, a briefing and

then, I don't know what you

call it, a straw poll or

assembling comments from the

planning commission or

something like that.



The basic idea to get

whatever wisdom we can goat

from a bunch of people like

you guys have spent a lot of

time looking at this stuff,

before we start the pilot

program, without having to

delay the program for a

couple of months to go

through something which is

really not a -- we don't

need to go through the whole

formal exercise.



>> Morrison: I would

certainly be open to that

and I guess I would ask

legal.



I think what we are waiving

hear.



>> Mayor leffingwell:

Council member morrison.



>> Morrison: Might waive the

requirement that it actually

go to codes and ordinances

and so if we could somehow

recraft this so that we is

that staff do the briefing

and collect comments or

something from planning

commission, I certainly

would be comfortable about

that.



>> Spelman: That seems like

a reasonable thing to do.



>> Riley: Could I is if law

has any recommendations

along those lines?



>> We will take into account

the comments and try to

determine what we think

would be workable in advance

of thursday's meeting.



Definitely it's -- it's very

clear-cut to either waiver

the planning commission

requirement and allow a

staff briefing, require a

staff briefing, but getting

into actually directing the

planning commission how to

go about its business, the

codes and ordinances process

and all of that, raises some

concerns but I think

potentially there is a way

to require that there be

comments collected or

something like that while

maintaining the waiver of

the full-on process.



So we will look at that and

be prepared to advise you on

thursday.



>> Morrison: Thank you.



>> Spelman: Mayor.



>> Mayor leffingwell:

Council member spelman.



>> Spelman: It might be as

simple as not asking for a

vote from the planning

commission but asking for

comments from a planning

commission, but making sure

that somebody writes them

all down.



Thanks.



 i

agree.



I would support that

approach.



I don't think it -- I think

the process begins after the

pilot.



The pilot information we

gain from doing the pilot

program will be useful in

constructing the final

ordinance, and that's, i

think, the way we usually do

pilots but I do have -- i

intend to support this but i

just have a couple of

questions.



Trip reduction strategies.



Are they defined in the

ordinance?



Or are there specific ones?



>> Riley: Yes, mayor, the

ordinance lists 6 examples

of trip reduction

strategies.



 is

valley parking one of them?



>> Riley: It is.



 it

is?



>> Riley: Yes.



And valley -- it says

provision of valley or

delivery service.



If the business operates

primarily on delivery basis,

that could reduce their

parking requirements.



>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.



I think it's good to be as

comprehensive as you can

about that and obviously the

elephant in the room is what

is this going to do with

overflow parking off site,

on-street parking which is a

problem we have to address

on a somewhat regular basis

around here and I hope

that's fully studied.



>> Riley: Yes.



>> Mayor leffingwell: okay.



Item 74, marked for

discussion by council member

morrison.



Morrison, which is

comprehensive plan.



We have some staff here to

address that.



>> Morrison: I didn't really

have questions for staff,

mayor.



I have a comment --

 we

are supposed to have them

here in case anybody does.



>> Morrison: Okay.



Great.



 that

is the reason we mark it for

discussion, is so that we

can have staff here, so we

can at least let them set up

at the table.



Come on.



[Laughter]



>> Morrison: I am sorry,

george, I didn't mean to

make you go back.



 you

don't have to say a word,

george.



>> Morrison: Always good to

have you here.



So this is the item that

we've heard from staff on

their proposal for the

process for developing the

new land development code,

and one of the elements of

that was to create a

steering committee of, i

think 11 people, and so this

creates -- this is the

process for creating that

and I appreciate the mayor

pro tem and council member

riley for bringing this

forward.



They invited me to be on it

but the reason I have

concerns about the way it

was crafted -- I don't have

an issue -- we have had a

lot of good discussion about

what the process is going to

be.



Staff has taken some input

on that and made some

adjustments to that.



One of the most important

things for me in terms of

what we are looking at now

is that, you know, we want

to have a core team of -- of

the steering committee.



There will be lots of

working groups and lots of

opportunity for

participation, but one of

the things that did change

in the process is once the

consultant and the community

works together to identify

the problems we need to

solve, what's working and

what's not working, we

were -- originally the

process then asked the

consultant to go off and

come up with a new draft

code for us.



Now what we've got is the

consultant is going to come

back to the steering

committee and lay out the

different alternatives for

addressing the issuing that

were raised and get input

from the steering committee

on which of those, I think,

would be most useful in the

city.



So the concern -- so the

steering committee is going

to play a very key role in

terms of helping us move

forward this process.



The concern that I have is

that under the be it

resolved, the first be it

resolved, number 4 says, the

advisory group, the steering

committee is not subject to

the requirements of city

code chapter 21 city boards

and it's my understanding

that under that section that

the -- that requires open

meetings, that the boards

comply with open meetings,

so the way I read -- our

steering committee would not

be subject to the open

meetings act, which means

they could be meeting with

no notice to the public.



They can be meeting in a

quorum, you know, outside of

public view, and all of

that, and so this is my

concern and the effort to

undertake.



There is intense concern

from all community of where

we are going with the new

land development code and so

I think that's it's

imperative this committee

meet in public, the public

be able to follow the

discussions and know what

are the alternatives we are

looking for and know what is

the direction and

recommendation that's going

and have an opportunity to

weigh in on all of that, to

cut the public out.



It's just a recipe for

disaster.



So it would be my suggestion

that we remove that -- that

we change that to say that

the advisory group would be

subject to -- to that

section and I guess I want

to ask staff just to confirm

that I am correct in that

assumption, that if we waive

2-1, it means are not

subject to open meetings?



>> I just want to clarify --

you are correct our board of

commissions codes make open

meetings requirements

applicable to advisory

bodies that under state law

would not be required to

comply.



However, this advi

group, even without the

statement in number 4, would

not under our code be

subject to open meetings.



The provisions in chapter

2-1 define basically state

that if a group -- if a city

creates advisory body that

is temporary and uncodified,

it would not be subject to

those requirements.



So this is not a waiver.



If it were, it would have to

be done by ordinance.



It is just a statement of

clarification because, i

think, these issues do have

the potential to create

confusion and people want to

know kind of what the rules

are going to be, so --



>> Morrison: So if we want

to make them subject to the

open meetings act, we would

have to say that explicitly

in here?



>> Exactly.



Simply removing this

sentence would not have the

effect of making them

subject to the open meetings

requirement.



>> Morrison: All right.



>> Council member, if i

might add, it was never the

goal or the intent to -- to

not comply with the-meetings

act.



We have -- with the open

meetings act.



We are always intended to

post meetings agendas and

hold meetings that are open

to the public.



Really the goal was to make

it clear that we weren't

subject to the same -- the

same types of attendance

requirements because that

has been problematic with

similar advisory groups.



It's my understanding with

the comprehensive plan

advisory group, that was a

challenge.



Of course it was a much

larger number of

participants and so it --

there were a lot more moving

parts.



>> Morrison: Right.



>> I just wanted to --



>> Morrison: So it is your

intent as staff -- would you

have any problem if we have

a line in here that the

advisory board will be

subject to open meetings

act?



>> Not at all.



>> Morrison: Then I guess

that I would hope that this

sponsors might be all right

with that, also.



>> Mayor leffingwell: yes.



>> I am curious, george, but

if I heard you correctly,

the concern, though, was the

attendance requirements

that's associated with how

the committee worked with

the -- on the austin plan

and so being subject to open

meetings, I don't think you

mean when you say, yes, you

are open with that.



You still want to avoid the

attendance issue.



Correct?



>> That's correct, yes.



>> Morrison: Well, and i

guess I wonder if there is

some clarification needed,

because one of the things it

says is remaining numbers --

if there is -- if someone

resigns or fails to serve

then the remaining members

will fill the vacancy

subject to approval by the

council.



What does that mean, fails

to serve, if we don't have a

well-defined attendance

requirement?



>> It is my understanding

that with the airport

advisory group, which is

kind of the model for this,

that they have kind of

self-enforced that.



If there has been a pattern

of nonattendance, or if --

obviously if someone

resigns, that's clearly.



>> Morrison: Okay.



I guess there might be --

I -- my thought is it might

be helpful if we actually

got some definition of fails

to serve, because I would

hate for there to be -- it

doesn't necessarily have to

be what is in boards and

commissions, but I would

hate for there to be

controversy over this, where

the rest of the committee

says, hey, you failed to

serve and the person might

have felt like they had been

reasonable and all of that.



I wonder if there would be a

way to define that?



>> We will work with staff

and have language to address

that issue on thursday.



Additionally, just so that

we are clear, so that we can

prepare for thursday, what i

am hearing is that there

is -- there is a shared

desire to require the

posting requirements of the

open meetings act but not

require compliance with the

provisions of our own code

that require regular

scheduled meetings and other

things along those lines to

allow more flexibility for

meeting at different times.



Is that correct?



>> Cole: I want to interject

here a second, if I may.



It was my understanding,

based on many of the

comprehensive task force

members and also based on

comments from the airport

advisory group, that the

problem, as you said, was

with the attendance and

actually having a quorum.



Of course we have drafted

this largely based on what

the stakeholders wanted and

your recommendations, and

that was done with trying to

solve that difficulty, but

of course we want it to be

transparent and we want to

comply with open meetings

but we have two different

things we are trying to

balance in terms of the

citizens commitment.



So we have terms in which

the advisory group is not

automatically subject to

open meetings and we were

clarifying more to make it

easiest for people to serve,

so I would like us to have a

discussion with that in

mind, that we are going to

have difficulty actually

obtaining a quorum and we

have actually been told that

by citizens that have been

involved with the process

and we have started to add

this language in some of our

advisory groups.



This is not the first time

it has been done.



>> Morrison: I guess my

thought on that is that the

task force did -- the task

force was huge compared

to -- compared to this.



This is going to be 11

people.



Is that correct?



So I would -- I think that

if we can't find six people

that can come to a meeting

to make recommendations and

take formal action on our

land development code, we

have got a bigger problem

than just trying to fill

seats.



I think that it would be

imperative that we have

them -- I would just be

surprised if that really got

to be an issue.



If we can't get six people

to come, we need to be

looking at reassigning those

positions.



>> Cole: And so I agree that

we should try to get all 11

to come and this was simply

a balancing of interests.



Do you think that you can

draft some language and get

that to us?



>> Yes.



Mayor pro tem, we will be

ready for thursday.



>> Cole: Okay.



>> Tovo: Mayor pro tem.



>> Cole: Yes.



>> Tovo: I want to jump in

here, as somebody who has

served on task forces where

we've lost half of our

members, it places undue

burden on the people who are

 I agree if we

have people who can't make a

commitment to come, they

ought to be replaced and we

have plenty of people in

this city willing to serve

on committees of this sort

and I think we need to be

willing to do that and it is

really the only fair thing

for people who are

committing their time to

serve on a board.



>> Cole: I understand.



I completely understand.



Again, a balancing of two

legitimate interests.



>> Morrison: And I think

definition, if we can get a

definition of failing to

serve and make it fairly

stringent.



>> We will be able to fill

positions.



>> Cole: I agree, we need a

definition of that, to be

clearly defined.



Is there any other items

that -- council member tovo,

did you have another item?



>> Tovo: I did.



I wanted to talk for a

minute about 87.



This is the rezoning of

forest and san jacinto and

we talked about it at a

recent meeting -- did I say

87 -- fifth and san jacinto.



We talked about it at a

recent feet meeting and as i

mentioned -- at a recent

meeting and as I mentioned

then, we intent a lot of

time about a year ago -- we

spent a lot of time about a

year ago talking about

downtown plan and what is

the vision for properties

that are seeking increased

density and prior to the

adoption of the downtown

plan, we had many

discussions about cure

zoning and the fact that we

had a lot of development

projects coming to council

seeking cure zoning and in

doing so getting increased

in entitlements and in doing

so not participating in our

downtown density program.



When I mentioned to

community members recently

that we had a cure case

before us that was not --

that was seeking increased

entitlements and we still

don't have a downt

plan, -- we have a downtown

plan that was not

participating in community

benefits.



It was their surprise

because they thought the

adoption of the downtown

plan, we had, closed the

cure loophole.



I thought that, too.



We haven't codified the

downtown plan but we have as

a council adopted the vision

of a downtown plan saying

projects that are eligible

that are seeking increased

densities will participate

in our community benefit --

will meet the gatekeeper

requirements and participate

in community benefits and so

I would just like to

mention -- you know, have a

discussion, if we've got

time and the will to do so

here today what the options

are for the applicants of

fifth and san jacinto.



One option, would be for

them to wait until we've

codified the downtown plan.



An option before this

council would be to ask them

to come back, to postpone

and to come back when we've

got it codified.



We have the discretion, of

course, to turn down the

zoning request.



And they have the option of

participating in the interim

downtown density bonus

program.



You know, in going back, I i

think we had a discussion

 rustoven

or the -- rusthoven, or the

appropriate staff members to

answer this and we had a

discussion at the meeting

and I think the content was

the interim density downtown

program wasn't open to

commercial properties but in

looking at 22586, affordable

housing incentives in a

central business district or

downtown mixed use district,

section 8 says it applies to

commercial or mixed use

development.



 rusthoven, could you

clarify, would this

applicant be eligible for

density bonuses under the

downtown density bonus

program.



>> Yes, jerry rusthoven of

the planning and development

review.



Today they have two options

with the additional far in

the cbd, would be would be

to p a pate in the interim

density bonus program or the

alternative which something

to show which is to seek a

cure of zoning case.



>> Tovo: So those are the

options that have been to

the developer.



They can participate if they

want increased entitlements,

which they can apply to and

they can participate in the

downtown density bonus

program.



That would yield a community

benefit, by my calculations

and I will submit a formal

question and ask staff to

verify this, actually, joe

hardin calculations but i

think -- I think they are

right on -- of $896,900, at

least half of way 50% of

which will go to affordable

housing, another 50% would

be community benefit.



So that's under the interim

density bonus program with

no gatekeeper requirements.



Under the density bonus

program downtown we proposed

last fall, council member

spelman had provisions -- we

had a consultant who made

very strong recommendations,

many community members made

very strong recommendations

about the need to, again,

close the cure loophole.



We came to a compromise with

the help of council member

spelman's proposal as far as

this council, that,

according to these

calculations would yield, if

the -- would -- with grate

keeper requirements and an

estimated $179,380 in

affordable housing -- and

that could be a combination

of 50% of affordable housing

and some other community

benefit, so, yeah, I want to

be sure that we all

understand the options.



We spend a lot of time

talking about the critical

need for affordable housing

in this community.



We have all expressed

disappointment about the

failure of the affordable

housing bonds and so I guess

I would just ask you to

think about what we are

doing when we are not

requiring developers to

participate in the goals and

the plans that we have on

the books.



And again, we have got to.



We have got the downtown

plan as adopted by this

council last fall, which

gives some very clear

guidance as to what the

community benefit would look

like if they participated in

that.



If they choose not to

participate, to voluntarily

participate in that, as

envisioned in the downtown

plan, they can participate

in the interim density bonus

program.



>> Morrison: Mayor.



>> Mayor leffingwell:

Council member morrison.



>> Morrison: I would like to

say I agree completely and i

think that it's my

understanding, my hope, my

understanding -- there were

several of us that expressed

those concerns at our last

meeting when this was heard

and it's my understanding

that the applicants heard

those certains and they will

be bringing forward -- heard

those concerns and they will

be bringing forward

additional proposals at the

next meeting.



>> Tovo: I hope that's true.



I have cycled back.



We don't have anything

different before us, and we

are scheduled to vote on nit

two days, so my hope is that

we will see something on

thursday but, again, i

wanted to talk with you, my

colleagues about how

critically important it is

that we see a different

proposal here on thursday,

in my opinion.



>> Mayor leffingwell:

Council member tovo, do you

want to talk about --

council member cole, do you

want to talk about 53?



Is that the one you

mentioned?



>> Cole: No, mayor.



I am fine.



I wanted to ask you about

c1, council member meeting

policy discussions.



Did we inadvertently skip

over that?



 we

didn't skip it.



We are still on a -- we are

still on the first agenda on

the agenda -- the first item

on if agenda.



>> Cole: Okay.



We had the briefing, i

thought, okay.



 are

there any other item that is

council members wanted to

discuss on the agenda?



So unfortunately, mayor pro

tem, I have to leave so you

will be finishing out.



>> Cole: Furnishing up the

policy discussions.



That is a very generic

posting.



[Laughter]



>> Cole: Council member

spelman.



>> Spelman: I believe I am

inadvertently responsible

for this generic item.



The item I wanted to discuss

is not as broad as policy

discussion or I think

 paul would refer to it

as city issues.



I don't know why it had to

be written down this way by

our legal staff.



Let me see exactly what i

had in mind.



Let me be very specific.



We have in any given meeting

a minimum of five

opportunities for time

certain.



On thursdays.



30 we do briefings and

generally do briefings just

about 10:30.



00 o'clock, sometimes

we have the briefings extend

beyond that point.



But we usually stop what we

are doing somewhere around

30 and start the

briefings.



00 o'clock, we almost

always start citizens

communication and we almost

always start just about on

30, we

almost always have live

music and proclamations and

we almost always start that

on time.



What we don't start on time

are zoning cases at

00 o'clock and public

00 o'clock and

we often have a lot of

people signed up for zoning

cases and signed up for

00 and

00 and they are sitting

around and they wait

sometimes for hours and

hours and we sometimes don't

take those cases up until 1

00 o'clock in the

morning.



It seems to me that if we

are serious as -- about

citizen communication at

00 o'clock and we are

serious about music and

30, we

ought to equally be serious

that sometimes hundreds of

people are sitting around

waiting for.



One way to be more likely to

hit our marks on the

00 o'clock and the

00 o'clock is to change

our understandings of what

we are going to be doing in

executive session.



Currently our executive

session starts as soon as

the citizens communication

is over.



We talk at large, handle

personnel items, whatever it

is and we continue doing

whatever it is we are going

to do in executive session

until we are done and often

that goes well beyond

00 o'clock hand we start

talking about zoning cases

only when we are done

talking to our lawyers.



It seems to me we ought to

take -- we ought to at least

consider taking zoning cases

as seriously as taking our

lawyers and that at

00 o'clock we could say,

okay, we have had as much

executive session as we --

as is appropriate for us to

have.



It's time for us to go out

and deal with ezoning cases

and we will come back after

the zoning cases or public

hearing and continue talking

to our lawyers whatever we

need to talk to our lawyers

about.



I can understand there are

going to be certain cases

where we are going to need

to continue discussing a

case until we have come to a

logical stopping point.



We don't want to cut off our

discussion in the mid of a

particular item.



We need to come to logical

stopping place.



But generally speaking we

don't need to be in

executive session until we

are done being in executive

30 or

00, start dealing with

00 o'clock time concern

items.



I want to know if this

general understanding is

something we could adopt as

a general rule for going

forward.



>> Cole: Council member

spelman, I know I certainly

agree with your analysis.



I also think it tends to end

up with us into very late

night meetings that we all

have agreed that we do not

adhere to.



I would even go so far as to

say that we should have

executive session items on

today.



To be able to cut down on

the number of executive

sessions that we are having

to have on council meeting

days, I would go as far as

to say that we would have

briefings today and we

should also have executive

sessions today in order to

move up and be on time with

our zoning items.



I was looking at the city

manager -- did you have a

comment?



Did you want to --



>> Ott: No.



>> Cole: You have been

around and around with this?



>> Ott: No.



I think it is a good idea as

well.



Also perhaps -- I was

smiling because this reminds

me of fort worth in that

they had what they call

precouncil, not work

sessions but w

covered -- we had briefings

from staff and we also dealt

with executive session in

the morning and so that

stuff didn't get tied on --

didn't get incorporated with

the council meeting and

didn't extend the evening as

if the case -- as is the

case here often.



So that's why I was smiling.



>> Cole: Council member

morrison.



>> Morrison: I guess I would

like to lend my support to

the idea of moving back to

zoning as quickly as

possible near 2:00 o'clock.



I think that's a good idea.



A couple of things.



I guess it would be -- we do

need to be cognizant of when

we invite outside council

because we don't -- outside

counsel because we don't

want them sitting around and

we need to increased

entitlements executive

sessions with that so we are

put to the effective use and

the clock isn't spinning

wildly without any help

being given.



Are you cob templating we --

contemplating we would go

00 o'clock and

finish up executive session

after the rest of the

meeting?



>> Spelman: Yes.



If we had time between

00 o'clock and

00 o'clock times, for

example, we could fit in

some of that there.



If we had time between

30

live music and

proclamations, we could fit

it in there.



It might be in bits or

pieces over the afternoon.



>> Morrison: Right, or if we

didn't get to any of that

and critical ones and we are

finished up with the

, then

we could go into executive

session then.



>> Spelman: That would be my

understanding, yes.



>> Morrison: That might be

challenging, but I do have

one comment on the idea of

moving things to our work

session day.



I would support that but i

would support that only as

if there is time left after

discussing items on the

agenda, getting questions

answered and talking with

our colleagues, because to

me, that -- that is -- that

is an absolutely critical

priority for me, to be able

to work through some of

those things.



I wonder -- I could envision

maybe being prepared for

some executive session items

that might not require

outside council and if there

is time left before

00 o'clock, we could

hear -- we could discuss

those in executive session

or something, but I hate to

give up the discussion among

us as a priority item for

work session.



If you will recall earlier

on, we started moving into

briefings and executive

sessions and work session

got to take over the ability

to discuss with our

colleagues and that's what

is absolutely critical.



>> I would suggest that you

set your order of meetings,

both your council meetings

and the work sessions and if

that's the new direction,

that maybe amend those

ordinances to make sure that

going forward the process.



Because, yes, we pull back

on executive sessions

because it's clearly not

within the process that

you've, established as far

as what you want on your

tuesday agenda, so --



>> Morrison: So we could

sad, add item e that says

executive session and if we

don't get to it, that's

fine.



>> Yes, and that would be

part of your rules that you

adopted earlier this year

for work session or amended

them this year.



>> Council member tovo.



>> Tovo: I want to say i

think it is a great idea to

try and why don't we give it

a shot before we amend

anything, but I like -- i

like the idea of trying to

keep the public -- the

public's involvement on

schedule because I think

it's a burden on them.



I would say let's give more

thought about when we want

to pick up the bulk of the

executive session, because

if we are starting that at

 or midnight, that

means a lot of our staff,

legal and otherwise, need to

hang around all day for

that, and that's not

probably a great use of

their time, so I don't know

how we manage that exactly.



>> Morrison: Well, they are

going to be here -- excuse

me.



They are going to be here

any ways, if we are -- if we

are in executive session --

I don't know.



>> Tovo: I don't know how

that shakings out but it

seems to me we might have

some -- several of our legal

staff surely but if we have

very specific issues, there

might be staff who need to

stay until midnight with the

hope we might get to it and

my guess is if all we have

left is executive session,

we might end up tabling

those for another meeting.



>> And that's something we

need to signal, about it

looks like this will go like

and let the lawyers go home

or something.



>> Tovo: I like this

suggestion.



It is great.



>> Spelman: What I was

trying to put forward is not

something doctrine ated

where exactly at

00 o'clock we stop what we

are doing and go out and

just to keep in mind, it is

00 o'clock, it is time for

us to go out and presume to

put the lawyers on hold.



>> Tovo: If I can put up a

related point.



>> Cole: Council member

tovo.



>> Tovo: Sorry and apologies

if you hashed this out

before I got there, but it

seems like two briefings in

the morning sometimes

contributes to throwing us

off in terms of our timing

for the rest of the day and

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

if there has been any kind

of discussion about trying

to minimize the number of

briefings on a council

session to at most.



>> Cole: City manager.



>> Ott: These things are

hard, two is -- there are

times we did more than two,

and so two is really pulling

back.



You know, I guess if council

were inclined, we could do

less than that and limit it

to one, but I think, you

know, there are situations

where that could affect, you

know, business because, i

mean, the briefings serve a

purpose in terms of

informing council oftentimes

a preclude to an important

decision that you are going

to have to make, so it could

affect business in that way.



>> Spelman: Mayor.



>> Cole: Council member

spelman.



>> Spelman: We are often

confused.



>> Cole: I understand.



It's the hair.



>> Spelman: Exactly.



If we -- if we -- we have an

hour and a half window for

briefings and I understand

some briefings are much

longer than others and some

briefings are done not by

your staff.



Therefore, you have limited

control over how much time

they use, but there are a

way of scheduling the

briefings in such a way that

the two of them together

would not add up to more

than an hour and a half, as

best as anyone can tell, i

this think that would go a

long way of solving our

problems.



I think what happens is

sometimes two very long

briefings back to back, like

the briefing is long and a

lot of questions as a result

of it and if there is a way

to see that advance and a

long briefing and a short

briefing or something like

that.



>> Ott: We will work on

that, at our cmo meeting we

have these dry runs of

briefings and some of them

come in and they are much

longer than anything you all

see and we change it quite a

bit and sometimes you go

through and it is longer

than anticipated and your

point is taken and perhaps

much than that, an hour and

30, that takes up

your time for citizens

communication, not including

questions or comments you

have.



>> Spelman: What you are

doing is banking to our

consenting on the consent

agenda which is usually not

a big bet.



>> Ott: That's right.



That's right.



So we will work on it.



>> Cole: There is no further

questions, then this meeting

at the austin city council

is adjourned.