CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Regular Meeting June 06, 1963 10:00 Α.Μ. Council Chamber, City Hall The meeting was called to order with Mayor Palmer presiding. Roll call: Present: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Absent: None Present also: Reuben Rountree, Jr., Acting City Manager; Doren R. Eskew, City Attorney; Robert A. Miles, Chief of Police Mr. W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager, was absent as he was on Army Reserve duty. MR. ELBERT HOOPER presented a petition asking the Council to establish a 20 mile per hour vehicular traffic speed on Margranita Crescent, Tower Drive, and Winsted Lane in the vicinity of Tarrytown Playground and to post necessary and customary traffic signs to notify drivers of the reduced speed limit and warn them that they are approaching a playground. Councilman Long inquired if the petitioners would be satisfied to have the same type of speed zone that is around the schools "20 miles per hour when pedestrians are present." Mr. Hooper pointed out the difference between the school and park activities in that school had special hours when the children were out. He asked that it be sent to the Traffic Engineer, and he described one street as being curved which made it difficult for the drivers to see pedestrians. He stated the group preferred to have the speed limit reduced to 20 miles per hour. MR. HARRIS WINFREE was present in interest of the request. The Mayor stated this would be referred to the Traffic Department for study, and the Council would give it serious consideration. The Traffic Engineer would report at the earliest possible time. Council- man Long moved that this petition be referred to the City Manager to send to the Traffic and Transportation Department for an early report back to the Council. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Council had before it the consideration of the lease of City property on the Reservoir site on Ridge Oak Drive requested by SOUTHWEST REPUBLIC CORPORATION. MR. THOMAS BLACK, Attorney for Southwest Republic Corporation, said he had presented the City Council with a proposed lease agreement for certain property on the Reservoir tract, and he was not aware what the opposition was to =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 the proposal. The area will be landscaped, and an attractive building will be constructed to house part of the tower. This development would not detract from the looks of the property as it now stands. He stated the property was vacant, unused land which is not kept as a park, and it looks more like a dumping ground. The development would make it an attractive place. The project would not lower property values, would not bring in a commercial enterprise, nor add to the traffic. What they were offering was a substantial revenue to the City$3,000 ($250.00 a month) for 25 years. The City Attorney reviewed their pro- posal and termination provisions. The Director of Public Works stated there were five towers on the tract now and a request from the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company for permission to place a 70' pole on the property. MR. WAYLLAND RIVERS, JR., Attorney and a resident within 200-300' of this location (4603 Ridge Oak Drive), stated the petition he filed represented 55% of the owners of the property who are opposed to this T.V. tower. The owners are not objecting to the company's coming into Austin, but are in opposition to their locating any more facilities on this site as it would cause extreme devaluation of their properties; it would be an encroachment of commercial activities into the area that even now there is another request for a 70' tower, and it would be a real hazard for aviation use as there is a tremendous amount that operated in and out of the Camp Mabry location. MR. HOWARD BARR, 4602 Ridge Oak Drive, stated he lived 100' from this site, and he certainly did not want a 200' tower peering down on him. He pointed out the differences in this 200' tower and the five that are already located on the site. MRS. JERRY WILLIAMS stated it was amazing to her that this request had gotten as far along as it had and that there would even be a question of locating a 200' structure that would dominate the whole area of fine homes. Discussion was held that this would have to be handled as a special permit if the City leased the property. MR. RIVERS wanted to go on record, also, as opposing the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company's request for a 70' tower there. Mayor Palmer said he would like to go and look at the site. Councilman Long stated as far as she was concerned she was not going to vote for it as she did not believe in letting City property go for commercial uses particularly in areas where people had built nice homes. site inspection of the proposed location. Councilman Shanks wanted to make an on Councilman White stated he could see why the people were opposed to this; for, if he were up in Highland Park West a few feet from this T.V. tower, he would object to it too. Councilman LaRue stated he had already looked at the site. A representative of Southwest Republic Corporation asked if they were able to get privately owned property in that area, would the Council feel more kindly toward this proposition. He stated he had talked to many people about the possibility of this new station, and they welcomed them in stating the new station was a fine thing; but when he approached them for a lease of their property or purchase, they would suggest he locate three or four miles elsewhere. He said this was the most suitable site they had found and that Mr. Deason was coming in later for a request for a tower which would be 150' higher than the one his company proposed, and it will be at the other end of Highland Park West. MR. NORRIS WILLARD, Engineer for Channel 9 at the University of Texas, stated the tower would not be an ugly tower nor too big. He distributed photographs of the Sheriff's tower now in place. MR. CHARLES GRANGER, Architect, stated Austin had lived with tower lights and had come to love them. He compared this T.V. tower to the tower lights and said the last 50' of the T.V. tower would be an antenna and not a tower. There were other towers in Austin, and they had become a part of community service. MR. WILLETT described this particular tower as to its height and the height of the antenna. He stated there would be no noise greater than that of the usual air-conditioning unit, CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 there would be no interference with radio or T.V. receiving sets outside of 50-75' distance from the tower, and that the normal tower load is about 30-40 pounds wind load and would sustain a wind velocity in excess of over 100 miles and gusts of 150 miles. MR. BLACK submitted a petition with signatures of 85 people in the area who were residents of Highland Park West and who asked that this lease be made and their petition be granted. The representative of the Southwest Republic Corporation stated he had talked to the owner of the property adjoining Mr. Barr between the City property and that of Mr. Barr, and Dr. F. M. Pearce, Jr., was willing to sell or lease this property to them for their use. They would be some 250' closer to Mr. Barr on this property than they would be on the City owned property. After discussion, the Mayor stated the Council would go by and look at all the properties. MR. MURRAY JOYCE, Engineer for the R. H. FOLMAR COMPANY, presented Councilman long and Councilman LaRue name plates to match those of the other Council members. Mayor Palmer, on behalf of the Council members thanked Mr. Joyce and Mr. Fölmar for presenting each member of the Council a name plate. Councilman LaRue moved that the Minutes of the Meeting of May 23rd, 1963, The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the followbe approved. ing vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor stated the Council had before it the consideration of changing the water rate for June, July, and August and asked the Assistant City Manager, Mr. Wilson, to give the full content of the report. Mr. Wilson read the City Manager's report, since the City Manager was on duty with the Army Reserve, as follows: "May 29, 1963 "MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council "SUBJECT: Summer water rates "In response to the Council's request the following report is submitted: "In Austin,as in most cities, the water department and the sewer department are operated as a combined system. Out rate structure is based on the assumption that customers have both water and sewer service, because more than 90% of our water customers also have sewer service. We have always tried to make this combined system self-supporting, but for the fiscal year 1961-62 we experienced a net deficit of $377,542 in the operation of the combined system. The reason for our deficit operation is that we have not raised our rates to keep up with rising costs of materials, labor, and supplies. "Exhibit 1 attached to this report, shows that Austin has the lowest minimum charge, and the lowest rates for water consumed _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS: June 6, 1963 in any of the 15 cities shown on the exhibit. "The same information is shown graphically on Exhibit 2. The rates shown are for the combined sewer and water service in each of the cities listed. Austin has the lowest rates of any city listed, regardless of volume consumed. We direct you attention to the substantial differences between charges in Austin and in the other cities. Particularly, we think it is noteworthy that in some instances the highest rates listed are four times the Austin rates. "Ours are certainly bargain rates. With a 30 million dollar investment in a system to provide water to the customers, even in the highest rate bracket in our schedule, the customer gets 200 gallons of treated water delivered to his home for the price of a coke. Not only is the Austin rate schedule lower than the other rates shown, but our 'step rate' schedule has a 'built in' summer rate. It results from the fact that the unit prices for large quantities of water are lower than the unit prices for small quantities. In other words, as consumption increases, the unit price decreases. Our records show that the average price paid per thousand gallons of water used during the winter months is 304, but that during the summer months the average price paid per thousand gallons is 244. Hence, our rate structure allows our customers a 20% discount for water in the summer. "The average water bill of all customers (including large commercial and industrial and Federal and State institutions, as well as private residences) during the summer, is $6.63 per month. We have no records which indicate the average for residential customers only, but because this average includes all commercial, in- dustrial and institutional customers the average residential bill in the summer is much less than $6.63. Hence, a ten percent discount on present rates for all institutional, residential and other customers during the summer would result in an average saving per customer of only 66.34 per month or 2.2 cents per day. "Many customers never even use the amount of water which Unless can be bought for the minimum charge in the summer months. the minimum charge were reduced the smallest consumers would receive no saving, and if the minimum charge were likewise reduced 10% their saving would be only 12 1/2 cents per month. Approximately 60% of our customers summer bills are $5.55 per month or less. Their saving with a 10% discount would be 55 1/2$ per month or less. About 24% of our customers have summer bills ranging from $5.55 to $9.05. The 10% reduction would result in a saving of 90 per month for the largest bills in this group. About 10% of our customers have summer bills of $9.05 to $14.05. Savings for the customers with the largest bills in this group would be $1.40 per month. Of course, there are a few customers whose water bills run $100.00 per month during the summer who would save $10.00 per month. "Looking at the water and sewer system operation on the -CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 other hand, a 10% reduction in rates across the board to all customers during June, July and August would increase the deficit more than $100,000 per year. "We do not have data showing what part of the water and sewer revenue comes from residential customers and what part comes from commercial and industrial. However, we estimate that the residential customer service is about one half of the total. If this be true, 10% reduction in rates for residential customers only would result in an increase of more than $50,000 in the annual deficit. "It may be argued that the loss would be offset by additional sales of water. However, since there is a cost of treating mà pumping any additional water, it would take an increase of more than 15% in water usage to offset the 10% reduc- tion in rates and the additional cost of changing the accounting and billing system. "A ten percent reduction in rates was provided in some of the past summers. The last such summers were 1954, 1955, and 1956, which were the dryest summers we have ever experienced. The average summer usage per customer during these years was 91,226 gallons. During the next three summers, 1957, 1958, and 1959, the average per customer was 83,922 gallons, which might lead some to speculate that water usage would increase 8 1/2 percent when rates are reduced 10%. However, our experience has demonstrated that frequency of rainfall, even in very small amounts, and not water rates, is what determines summer water con- sumption. This fact is clearly illustrated on Exhibit 3 containing two schedules. The first is a statistical tabulation of total water consumed each summer from 1954 to date, the number of customers each year, the average water usage per customer, the number of summer rains and the total inches of summer rainfall. The second schedule shows the usage per customer for each summer arranged in the order of the number of rains per summer. It is obvious that it is frequency of rain which controls the quantities of water used, regardless of the rates being applied. It is the view of all who have worked on this study that the rates being applied have had little or no influence on water usage. "Since it is axiomatic that the government can give nothing to the people which it has not first taken from them, it follows that if special less-than-cost water rates are allowed for some, the cost must be made up somewhere else. In view of the certainty of the effect which even light showers will have on total operating revenue, we do not feel that the very small savings which some customers might be able to make would justify further increasing the deficit now being experienced in our operation, at the expense of the other customers. "Respectfully submitted, W. T. Williams, Jr. City Manager" ) CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 COUNCILMAN LARUE said he was glad the Council was given an additional week to study this report, as he found it difficult and complicated, and was not aware that this service was being sold below cost. He noted the report pointed out that this was being done at a deficit of some $377,000 for last year's operation. He said that violates a principal in the operation of any business. In private business such as he operates one could not operate under those conditions and continue to stay in business. He said after investigating this situation in a municipality operation he found the City could stay in business as the report points out by making up the deficit in some other department or by raising taxes which would be objectionable to all of the people. Councilman LaRue stated he would like to change the use of one of the words to explain his meaning a little bit more and this is to consider the people as "customers" rather than taxpayers or citizens. Considering them as customers, they are also owners of the store, and the Council members are only the managers of the store. The rest of the people were owners. When he tried to figure out a formula where he could save money for the customer who was also an owner, he said he ran into more difficulty, and gave an example of selling below cost, then having to go back to the owner later to get the difference. He pointed out other problems that come into existence; for instance, the suggestion of increasing the sale of water 15%, the same amount of revenue might have been realized. That certainly would be on the conservative side, and Councilman LaRue stated it would be his guess that it would be closer to 20 or 22%. The City Manager used a flat rate in calculating this figure. If the second 5,000 gallons of water were sold to the customer at the same price as the first was, perhaps this might be true; but he said if the fact were recognized that all of the water, if there was going to be an additional amount of water sold, would come off the top of that, the lowest rates possible under the schedule before the Council. He said it would be his guess that between 20 and 22% additional water would have to be sold to arrive at the same amount of revenue and at the same loss that the City has now. Taking some top day last year, which was some 140,000,000; and adding to that some 20 or 22% additional amount of sales for that one day would give a peak figure of some 168,000,000 gallons of water. He had inquired if this amount of water could even be produced or sold. He found out that it could be done, but the system itself would be taxed and unquestionably in some areas the pressure would drop. He suggested for these reasons, that this should be considered with the thought in mind that if this principal would be violated, in that the City would get into this untentable position, there would continue to be more and more losses which would have to be made up from some other source. Councilman LaRue stated since he was very much concerned about taxpayers' dollars, if any time arose to save the taxpayers' money, he would be the first to put forth every effort to see that the tax dollar is saved; but when the "customer" himself owns the store there is a different situation. He said he could find in the period of time he had, only two or three examples where a service might be performed for the customer and give him a true savings and that would be from a better and more efficient operation of the store. If that could be done, money could actually be saved to the storekeeper, by reducing the interest rate that is paid on the bonded indebtedness, there would be a true saving, or to reduce the cost of services and supplies that are sold to the store, which is being done. Those things surely would be a true savings to the customer, and that saving could be passed on to him. For instance, a $100,000 park could be built without any cost to the owner of the store or the taxpayer. Councilman LaRue stated with that thought in mind, he certainly would be looking for any chance or any opportunity to save a true saving to the customer; but since he owns the store, at this moment, that is the only way he could see where he could perform a service at a true savings. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963. Councilman Long stated figures could do a lot of things. The $377,000 that the City is supposed to be losing, she questioned. She said she went back to the Budget, Page 114, and found the Estimated net water resources to be $3,056,000 which is the total income of the gross. The operating expenses$1,447,000 leaving a profit of $1,609,000. The capital investment for this year is set up to be $3,296,000 of which $3,046,000 $3,046,000 comes from revenue bonds. $250,000 out of the current year's actual profit is put into this capital investment. There is money left over that is net profit and not a loss. She wanted to say here and now that this City is not losing money on its water income; in fact it !! is making money and it has made money for many years. On the business with other cities and how much their rate is, and how low the Austin Rate is, Austin is very fortunate. It has its water built-in, and it has not cost a penny, as it is right here, and all that has to be done is to reach out and get it, get the filter plants, and pipe it to the citizens. There is no great expense. She stated she wanted to point out a few things about these figures which can be verified. In Houston they are spending 75 million dollars on the Trinity Project, and 15 million dollars on Lake Houston to bring more water to themselves. They have had quite an expense of getting water into Houston system, and that is how much they have to spend. Fort Worth is spending 55 million dollars on a reservoir and 35 million dollars more to build a pipe line to bring water from this reservoir. These are cities that have higher rates than Austin and that is the reason that they are higher because they have to go way out and spend a lot of money to get their water to them. In San Antonio over $1,000,000 is now being spent to try to find some water and bring it in there, and they are about to spend 60 million dollars over in Cuero to bring that water into San Antonio. Waco is paying a big share of the cost of engineering construction of Lake Waco which is over $5,000,000; Corpus spent 18 million dollars five years ago on a new lake, and now they are in a law suit--they spent a million more, as there are some Austin residents trying to condemn some land to put this reservoir on. Amarillo, Lubbock and nine other cities are spending 90 million dollars to build a dam and a million more for pipe lines for that area to get its water. These people have to spend all this money to get their water, while Austin has its water right here all built in. She said that was the reason those people have higher rates, where they have to go out further and spend more money to get their water. She said it was wonderful that Austin had these rates, and the people should be allowed to use all the water they want and have this summer water rate; and that she frankly thought that the argument here is defective, as the whole economy of this country is built on the idea of selling. Every radio, television, and paper that one picks up is selling people on bargains. People are buying bargains every day. They will spend a great deal more for water if they are given a 10% decrease because they need it to water their yards; and they will do it, the City will break even; and it has been! proven in the past. Councilman Long said this report goes on and on to prove that people use more water when it is dry and everyone knew that, she said it was just a fundamental principle, and no body had to go out and bring in a bunch of figures and try to prove that to her, that she knew that, but the people will still use more water if they get a 10% decrease during the summer months when it is hot. This $100,000 that the City claims it will lose, will be picked up and it will have $100,000 instead of losing $100,000. It has been done in the past. The Mayor stated $50,000 if it was done just on residential. Councilman Long stated she would accept the residential. She said she had looked on the monthly water rates, and she would say it would be all right to just put it on the residential group or groups up to 12,500 gallons per day--not on a residential or commercial rate, but on a certain number of gallons used. She said if this were broken off there, _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 it would be very fair, because for those people--it drops from 324 per thousand gallons to 25 per thousand gallons; and if it dropped off there, and 10% decrease is given on the water, the people would be paying 30 per thousand gallons, and the next drop would be 234. She said in her motion, she would be willing to drop to this 12,500 gallons per day, and it would be an incentive to make Austin a beautiful city, and the people all over the State would appreciate the City morepeople come here by truck loads. Bus loads of children come in and families come in to see the beautiful city, and this would be a great incentive that out to be given the people. If the Council would try it this time that they would be so !! pleased that they did it that they would never again, during the months of June, "July, and August, fail to give a 10% summer water rate. She stated she believed if the Council would just go along with her, this one summer, that it would find that they would be proud of themselves, the people would be happy about it, and the Council would not over extend themselves, as they had been doing a pretty good job on distribution; an awful lot of money was spent, and she did not believe they would over extend themselves on the use of water. Should the City get to that point, she said she knew the people of Austin would cooperate, and the minute the City gave this warning and ask them to either water on one side of the street one day and on the other side of the street the next day, or some system that is used in these areas where they don't have much water, that the people of Austin being the finest people in the world would certainly do that. She said the Government is here to give things to the people; the government was here to serve the people. This would be a fine service to the people of Austin, and it would not do anything but enhance the city, as it would bring in more revenue and the system would not be taxed, and the city is not now losing money, and it would make more money in the future. She said the $377,000 that the City is supposed to be losing is certainly not a realistic picture. It is a long time business on capitol investments, interest and sinking fund that should be spread out over a period of years and it is unfair to bring it in and try to tie this one year down to all that money and say the City is losing. She said if Mr. LaRue thinks the City is losing money, maybe he would offer some way to make that money up rather than to lose it. The City has its water and light system and electric system, which in 18 years has brought into the City profits of $33,000,000, which the people of Austin have paid, and they have paid it gladly, but she said she did not think they liked to be milked all the time without giving them any incentive during the summer time. She asked that the Council go along with her, and she would make her motion when the rest of the Council had completed their statements, as that would be proper, because now the Council was in a period of discussion, and she may have one or two other things to say later. She said the City had a good system, and Mr. Williams and Mayor Palmer went up to New York last week and told those people what a fine city this was and what a fine distribution system and electricity and water, and all the other fine things Austin had, and the bond salesmen up there agreed with them, and the City held its own this year in its rating. They gave them a very bright picture and they did not tell them the City was losing money on its water system either. She said she made this observation--The City has water districts surrounding Austin in all areas. Expensive engineers went out and studied these water districts and made areas where these lines could be laid, and worked with the City on this, and water was extended in all directions; and not in any instance were the bonds refused by the bondsmen on these water districts. Bond people were not going to buy a pig-in-a-poke. If water does not pay for itself they will not buy. In some) instances in Austin and the outlying area there is a rather thinly populated area, _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 and they did ask that the property be put in to help pay for these--but not in all instances. That was done just recently out in some of the skinny areas where they have not been doing so good and don't expect to. The City of Austin, and there again, if the Council wants to save money for the taxpayers of the City of Austin, and if these water districts are not making ends meet, the City should call a halt in taking them in, because it had been taking them in right along for the last 10 years--taking them over as they reached a certain point and the City reaches a certain point of development. The bonds people do not buy these bonds if they do not pay off. The Water System of this City is not in a bad way, and she said she thought the citizens of Austin could have a 10% decrease, and she was going to make that June, July, and August starting the 15th. Councilman Shanks stated in talking about the water, it was easy to get up and say what some people want to hear said. He said he could make a long rampage of words about what would be good to say; but if you are going to reduce it to plain common sense, you just have to look at the figures. He stated the City Manager had not given any figures that are lies or anything. The City had a $377,000 loss--it is just as simple as that. To turn around and give an additional 10%, there would be more loss. There would be any number of ways of fluctuating the losses, as to who was going to stand it, etc., but it all amounted to in reality is, that this is a devious proposition whereby the big people would be helped, and the little bitty person would not be getting anything out of it at all. The man that pays the minimum water bill would have less than half a cent a day savings, and he said he could not go along just in support of the big people all the time, and that he was going to stick with the little folks on this, and he wanted to say that the City Manager's report, as far as he was concerned was honest, intelligent and presented the facts the way they are; and when the Council was ready to vote on this question, he was going to take into consideration that the City Manager had made a good honest report. Councilman White stated he was not going to make a long-winded speech, but he did remember when that rate was given before, the people were very happy. They enjoyed that very much, and the best he remembered, when that rate is given the people, (everybody knows the town is dry, and the City needs water from somewhere) they will make it up by using more water, and there will be the same a- mount of money coming in, maybe a plus what the City is getting now. People all over this city would be tickled to death if they could get a 10% decrease. Councilman LaRue said two or three things came to his notice, and taking the years this rate was in effect--1954, 1955, and 1956, there had been indications that given the rate, the people would use considerably more water--enough to off-set the 10% reduction. The chart shows with 40,000 customers in 1954 3,820,000 gallons were sold. The next year, during the same 10% discount period, 3,382,000 gallons were sold, and there were 42,000 customers, and that shows a reduction of about 500,000 gallons of water with 2,000 more customers during the same period of time with the same 10% of reduction. Using that on a per capita basis, which perhaps would be more explainable, in 1954 the per capita consumption was 94,000 gallons; the following year, the per capita consumption was 76,000. Both of these years were covered during this same time when there was a 10% reduction, so the 10% reduction did not cause an increase in consumption of water. It was governed by the amount of rainfall, and one of the charts graphically displays this when it shows with an inch of rain the water consumption drops and moves backwards and forwards in unison completely. He stated another problem CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 that perhaps had not been considered was the fact there are some 53,000 or 54,000 customers; and in the Willing system, to change some 50,000 customers over a different billing system for three months; and at the end of that three months to change the same 50,000 customers back would be very expensive. To a business in free enterprise system, this would be almost prohibitive. Councilman LaRue stated another point that came to his attention was that more than 10% of the people would not be affected by this because they use less than the minimum amount. Taking out the commercial and industrial users and the 10% below that figure, it would boil down to where only a small number of people would be getting the benefit from it. Councilman Long stated with regard to this business of billing, there is a big expense with all those IBM machines, and all that has to be done is to press a little button and figure out these certain bills and put 10% on it--and if you don't get ten million or $100,000 more or something like that like some people sometimes do--and that billing is nominal. It doesn't cost anything. That has been told time and again if you get IBM you can get any kind of report you want or any kind of a card punched out of there in a very short time and it doesn't cost much more money. Just punch it out! As far as the little man getting the least bit out of this, she could not say what Mr. Shanks knew about some of these people without very much money, but two or three pennies may mean a lot to some of those people, and the people in areas that are in the low income bracket would certainly appreciate having this 10% decrease so that they could water their yards a little and not have them all burnt up. Councilman Long stated she had modified this since Mr. Williams suggested that the larger people already had a built in 20% increase, and they got more out of it than anybody else; that she had modified this to only include up through 12,500 gallons which would probably take in about 60 per cent of the customers. The City Attorney stated he doubted if an estimate could be made on the basis of quantity as to which is commercial and residential. The Mayor asked that calculations be made on what a 12,500 gallon bill would be. Councilman Long stated she wanted to pin point the City Manager's No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, she did not know which one, the figures they have given on estimates are very conservative, which is fine, but the City is running ahead on actual collections this year according to the six months estimate. She stated she would like to answer Mr. Shanks, that these figures that she read out where the City was making a profit are straight out of the budget. Councilman Long stated it was a conservative guide, and the City was running ahead of it, as she had checked. The Mayor stated the figures Mrs. Long had quoted are correct from purely operations. As far as the transfer to General Government if that were related as a proportionate charge and relate the interest costs and depreciation cost and all that, is which makes this loss. Councilman Shanks stated Mr. Norman Barker could substantiate the figures; that he did not think the City Manager would give misleading figures on this. Councilman Long stated his idea of what was income and profit for this particular purpose is presented one way; and when he goes to New York he presents it another, and the citizens of Austin are entitled to have these figures presented just like they are. Councilman Shanks stated that was the reason he was for the report, as he thought the City Manager had given them just as fair and square and honest as the man is himself. Councilman Long stated she did not think he was dishonest. The Mayor stated the Auditors, Wade, Barton and Marsh give the figures themselves and certify to them. MRS. LEON DONN stated she had found some fallacies in the report in that the figures which arrive at an average bill of $6.00 included instituional rates, and she did not believe the average bill was $5.00 or $6.00 a month. The Mayor CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 explained the total revenue of $3,185,000 divided by the number of customers would give an average annual bill of about $60.00 a year, or $5.00 a month. Another fallacy she said was if a 10% reduction were given there would be a greater use of water, and in order to provide this water, it would cost the city 15% more thereby increasing the deficit. The Assistant City Manager stated in order to take care of the 10% reduction, it would take at least 15% in volume to make up the 10%. Mrs. Donn discussed the built-in-discount. The Assistant City Manager explained the rate structure, for water only: for 5,000 gallons there is a 34 per hundred gallons; in the 20,000 bracket it drops in 24 per hundred gallons; and in the 50,000 gallons the rate drops to le per hundred gallons. Mrs. Donn inquired if the same principle would apply to the community at large. It was stated this was community wide. The Assistant City Manager displayed a chart showing water consumed and the amount of rainfall. Mrs. Donn stated that she thought the whole report was based on fallacy as all of the profits should be included. MAYOR PALMER stated the idea of this summer water rate is pretty much a political impulse with no real logic to it at all. Right at the present time Austin has the lowest minimum and the lowest water rate; and if the Council goes by the report which it has had presented to it; and if it is to be considered on the basis as originally suggested, 60% of the summer bills would be $5.50 and less; 24% would be $5.55 to $9.00; 10% would be from $9.05 to $14.00; and over 6% would go above the $14.00 a month on the water rate. He stated in his judgment if anything were to be done for the greater number of the people of the City, that the Council would not be benefiting the majority of people, as it would be only, as Mr. Shanks said, the swimming pool boys, and those who use a terrific amount of water. This whole application has no real logic to it. The Mayor stated the other thing he thought was since this rate had not been in effect since 1956, in his judgment it was pure fantasy that homes were not as pretty today as they were seven years ago. He said he'd hate to go to some and tell them they had not kept their house and yards up as well as they did seven years ago when they had a summer water rate. The Mayor said the whole thing was basically unsound to give this reduction; and as MRS. DONN pointed out, it is true that this deficit has to be picked up by the Electric System, and the Electric system does pick it up. He pointed out that from all of the interviews he had had, the people were amazed at the efficient operation of the Utility system in Austin, as compared to an investor-owned, or privately owned system. He said Austin could be proud, as Mrs. Long pointed out, of the real, real fine performance the City has had in the overall operation. There is one thing that must be borne in mind in speaking of the bond people, those people are asking more and more that the City try to finance part of the additions and expansions out of current revenue, and not always out of borrowed money. One can't borrow oneself out of debt. The bond people want the City to build up its equity in the system. They realize the tremendous expansions and when Austin picked up 70,000 people from 1950 to 1960, it could not possibly have provided those services in that short a time without doing some borrowing. This represents more people than are in Bastrop, Taylor, Smithville and all these surrounding towns. It does cost a lot of money to keep these basic services, and water, light and sewer are not luxury items; these are necessity items. Any city ought to perform this service. Now when services that cities should perform for the people are mentioned and when discussing public funds, people's money is concerned. It's the same 200,000; and if the City does for some and not for others, it would be like putting a blood _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXASJune 6, 1963 transfusion from your right arm to your left arm. If the City can continue a good conservative operation within our system, Austin will always enjoy a fine credit rating on its bonds, and this should be strived for, and it should plow back as much into the expansion as it can out of earnings and not out of borrowed money. He said the City was in good financial condition where $50,000 certainly would not bankrupt the City, but it would be this one little thing plus another little thing; and that could get into an awful lot of money, and all were certainly concerned in trying to run the City as economically as possible, to keep the tax rates and everything else down. The City can always render whatever service that the people are willing to pay for; but he stated that somebody pays, and no one got any of this for nothing. In his judgment he stated he was ready to vote. Councilman Long stated she believed her arguments were valid, and that the people of Austin were entitled to a 10% summer water rate; that they can have it and that the City would make $50,000 instead of losing $50,000. She stated she did not charge that Austin was not as pretty today as it was some other day, and she thought it should be kept pretty and she wanted to continue to beautify it; and with the greater expansion of Austin, she would just have to keep working on that. Councilman Long moved that the City Council change the water rate for the first four categories: the minimum charge, the first 1,500 gallons, the next 2,000 gallons, and the next 12,000 gallons, through the 12,000 gallons to give a 10% summer water rate for those categories for the month of June, July and August, starting on the 15th of June through August 15th. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, lost by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Long, White Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Councilman Shanks made the following statement concerning his vote: "On behalf of the little people and all of the people of Austin, I vote 'no'." Mayor Palmer made the following statement concerning his vote: "I want to say here, within this bracket this will mean about a $4.40 a month water bill. This would mean less than 404 savings to each customer per month for three months or $1.20; and for this reason I vote 'no'." MR. S. B. PEARCE appeared before the Council stating he owned Lot 1 in Highland Park West. He said in the hearing this morning on the proposition of the TV tower being allowed on Ridge Oak Drive, he understood it was mentioned that he had agreed to sell this land to the TV Company. He said those people had approached him on the possibility of buying the land; but even prior to that time he had signed a petition opposing the TV tower being there. He said he still opposed another TV station's being there, and the lot is not for sale to this particular company. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 The Council had before it the pending appeal of JOSEPH F. CHESLEY from the decision of the Planning Commission in not approving a short form subdivision of Three Oaks Subdivision. The Assistant Director of Planning stated that the Department of Planning is now recommending that there be an alternate route of the County road, and this subdivision will be dealt with as a matter of administrative approval; and since there will be no need for this right of way for the thoroughfare, Mr. Chesley would not be asked for any dedication of land. Davey, Assistant Planning Director, stated the lots would be large enough for septic tanks, and the three lots can be worked out on the short form subdivision. Councilman White moved that this hearing be closed, and that the matter be handled administratively. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Council recessed at 12:00 noon until 2:00 P.Μ. Mr. RECESSED MEETING The Council resumed its business at 2:00 P.M. 2:00 Ρ.Μ. MRS. BESSIE WALKER submitted a petition of about 120 names, asking for bus service in the St. Johns area. The Mayor asked if these people were enthusiastic for getting the bus service, and if they would use the service twice a day, and also what would be the most convenient time for service to most of the people. Mrs. Walker said the people had to get to work between 7:00 and 8:00 A.Μ. Councilman Shanks stated he had discussed this with the Attorneys for the Bus Company, and that Mr. Donald Thomas had asked that the petition be sent to him. Councilman Long moved that the City Manager be instructed to send this petition to Mr. Thomas and that he let the Council have an answer. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None MR. VIC MATHIAS, Chamber of Commerce, stated Mr. Neils Thompson, Director of the Balcones Research Center, had been working for the University of Texas for the utilization of land at Camp Swift, and this had seemed to be working out until an order came out that this land was to be sold at public auction. He said the Chambers of Commerce at Bastrop, Smithville, and Elgin had passed a resolution endorsing the utilization of this land for this research. The County Commissioners Court had followed this closely, and the Austin Chamber of Commerce had adopted a resolution endorsing the program of the University, and urging the General Services Administration to exclude from the sale of land tracts proposed as a field research facility by the University. The Mayor stated this concerned about 3,300 acres, and there are 43,000 acres left. Councilman Long moved that similar to the resolution of the Chamber of Commerce, the Council endorse the program proposed by the University of Texas and urge the General Service Administration to exclude from the sale the land tracts proposed as a field research facility by the University of Texas. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None = CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 The Council had before it for consideration the matter of changing fees for refuse hauling and dumping. The Assistant City Manager read a report submitted by the City Manager, as follows: "Jiine 4, 1963 "MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council "SUBJECT: Brush pick up service "Several years ago the city set aside part time use of one truck and two men in the parks maintenance division to pick up large limbs trimmed from trees and shrubs on private property. At the time the service was established there were not many requests for the service, even though it was free. Through the years, the number of requests per year increased until 1961, when it became necessary to take the full time of fourteen men and seven trucks from the parks maintenance work for which they were employed, and to call back twenty-four men and twelve trucks in the sanitation division on their days off and at overtime rates, to try to comply with the requests. "The volume increased to that extent because people began to use the service for purposes other than those for which it was established. Most of the requests were to pick up small amounts of small trimmings not difficult to dispose of in other ways, and the service included a special trip, usually several miles in length to pick up each small pile. Because the service was provided to all without discrimination; subdividers, builders, and others, began to make use of the service to dispose of trees and brush cleared from heavily wooded lots within the city. Sometimes several truck loads were hauled from the same lot. Quite a few people called for the service several times a year, while about 75% of the homeowners never used it at all. "Even with the employement of all of the men and equipment described, the requests received in 1961 caused the service to run behind the requests to the extent that as many as 1100 piles of unsightly brush were scattered through the city waiting for pick up. These piles of brush sometimes remained in the property owner's front yard for weeks, and sometimes for more than a month, before our crews could get to them. We simply had no other manpower which could be diverted to the service. "As a result of diverting so much of our parks maintenance manpower to this service, our public grounds throughout the city were neglected, and many of them became unsightly. We did not have the manpower to cut the high grass and weeds which created traffic hazards at a number of intersections. "In 1962, we set about to correct these conditions and problems. We encouraged the picking up of brush along with the garbage, by simply requiring that the limbs be cut to a size which can be handled by the regular sanitation trucks: a charge =CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS June 6, 1963 was then placed on special trips to pick up brush, even though the revenue produced from the charge is only one-half of the cost of the service. "Most people began to use the plan of cutting the limbs so The we could remove them on our next regular sanitation truck run. volume of special runs has dropped to the extent that they may be handled by one truck. The result has been that we no longer have piles of brush remaining in front yards for any extended period of time, and the recovery of manpower and equipment for parks maintenance has given us an opportunity during the last year to begin improving the appearance of the public grounds and to reduce traffic hazards caused by shrubbery at street intersections. "Our drivers and foremen, who are about the city every day, and who are able to observe conditions today as compared to previous conditions, report that there is far less brush and debris about town than there was when we had free special pick up service. "Studies made by the Public Works Department indicate that during the past year we hauled about as much brush as ever, but most of it was picked up on our regular collection runs. "Now that we have a charge for special brush pick up, the loads we pick up at each stop are much larger than before. The cost to the city per ton is therefore lower than before, becauseless mileage is required for the same tonnage. Further, our calculations reveal that the city's cost for special pick ups is more than $14.00 per ton, while the cost of pick up on the regular sanitation runs is less than $3.00 per ton. It is clear that the use of special pick up service is uneconomical whether the cost is paid only by the minority of 25% who require it, or whether 75% of the taxpayers who do not require it are taxed to pay for it. Such a service should not be used in cases where a more economical service will do the same job. "For all the reasons stated, it is my recommendation that the charges for a special brush pick up be continued. "In reviewing our experience under the new program, we find that many homeowners frequently begin general clean-up work the latter part of the week and would prefer to haul their own debris away, rather than leaving it on their lawns over the week-end. In order not to discourage such private initiative; in order to make more economical use of our sanitary fill, especially on Saturday, and to further beautify our already beau- tiful city, I recommend that no dumping fee be charged for vehicle loads of 3/4 tons or less. "Respectfully submitted: (Sgd) W. T. Williams, Jr. City Manager" CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963. The Council also had before it data on brush pick up service prepared by the Director of Public Works, as follows: "May 30, 1963 "To: Mr. W. T. Williams, Jr. City Manager Subject: Parks Division - Brush Pickup Service "Prior to the institution of the service charge for hauling brush on June 1, 1962, the City Parks Division was using an average of seven trucks a day throughout the year on brush pickup. In addition, on most Wednesdays and occasionally on Saturdays, Sanitation trucks which were not being used on regular routes were put into service hauting brush. Parks Division records indicate that an average of twelve Sanitation trucks were used 36 days a year. Sanitation drivers called back to operate the trucks were working on their usual day off and were paid time and a half. Laborers on the Sanitation trucks were from the Parks Division and were working on their regular day. "Following is an estimated cost, based on the year 1959-60, for hauling brush prior to the service charge: Parks Division 7 trucks @ $0.75/hour = $ 5.25 7 drivers @ $1.55/hour = 10.85 7 laborers @ $1.05/hour = 12 trucks Hourly cost 7.35 $23.45 2,088 hours x $23.45 $48,963.60 Sanitation Division @$0.75/hour = $ 9.00 12 drivers @ $2.10/hour = 25.20 12 laborers @ $1.05/hour = 12.60 Clerk Hourly cost - $46.80 288 hours x $46.80 = $13,478.40 1,044 1,044 hours x $ 1.20 = 1,252.80 Supervision 1,044 hours x $ 1.85 Yearly cost F 1,931.40 $65,626.20 For the first six months of the current fiscal year, $5,220 has been spent on brush hauling. This can be doubled to $10,440 for an estimated projection of the cost for a full year. Revenue from brush hauling for the first six months of this year is $2,702 and projected for the full year is $5,404. Deducting the $5,404 estimated revenue from the estimated $10,440 cost gives a yearly estimated net cost for brush pickup of $5,036 as compared to the former estimated cost without the brush hauling charge of $65,626. =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 Requests for the brush hauling service had grown tremendously in the past 6f years as indicated in the table below: TABLE A BRUSH PICKUPS COMPLETED Month 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 January 686 751 944 761 959 776 42 February 929 766 1,174 1,300 1,573 1,154 80 March 1,019 1,289 1,860 1,395 2,364 1,833 1.21 April 1,043 1,724 2,454 1,913 1,960 2,301 127 May 1,349 1,804 1,718 1,551 3,038 1,450 June 1,212 1,708 1,961 2,150 1,830 431 July 2,118 2,589 1,716 1,438 1,197 46 August 1,174 1,499 1,666 1,512 2,327 65 September 928 1,358 1,911 1,554 1,075 66 October 1,246 1,587 1,349 1,151 3,081 69 November 631 894 1,397 1,085 1,428 60 December 707 865 1,206 1,225 636 50 TOTAL 13,042 16,834 19,356 17,035 213468 8,301 370 Consideran le variation in number in the same months and also in years can be attributed to weather conditions, i.e., storms, etc. The large number of pickups in October of 1961 was due to Hurricane Carla. You will notice in 1961, the last full calendar year in which free brush pickup was in effect, that 21,468 brush pickups were made by the Parks Division with help from Sanitation Division trucks not operating on regularly scheduled routes. Mr. Olle, the General Foreman, and other foremen in the Parks Division estimate that the requests for brush pickup in the years prior to the charge were predominently from West Austin and North Central Austin and would very closely approximate, by ratio, the calls presently being received from the various sections of Austin with the charge in force. A City map is attached on which the locations of the brush pickup requests for the first eleven months since the charge are indicated by a red dot. At peak periods in 1961, the crews were occasionally 1,100 tickets behind on pickups requests and considerable public concern was expressed for having to wait two weeks or longer to have the brush removed. This year, piles of brush stacked near the curb have been noticeably few. Parks and Sanitation drivers and foremen have said there is far less brush about the City than in past years. From Table A, the number of pickups for the eleven month period from June, 1962 through April, 1963 is 1,157. At least 370 of the pickups made in June, 1962 were made from requests for this service prior to June 1, 1962 and for which no charge was made. This, deducted from the total of 1,157, would give 787 paid pickups for the eleven months and projected for an additional month or a full year's total of 865. Most of the collections 1 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Junc 6, 1963 have been made on the same day the request for service was made. During the past week several Sanitation routes were checked to determine the percentage of garbage to brush being picked up on regular routes. The routes chosen were ones on which similar information had been obtained on the same route day in the immediate months prior to June, 1962, and, therefore, would as nearly as possible approximate the same conditions under which the present checks were to be conducted. In making the check, brush found in bundles was tabèlated by equivalent volume in cans. Results of these checks follow: West Austin Route Monday, February 5, 1962 Monday, May 27, 1963 Cans garbage collected = 806 (98.5%) Cans brush collected = 12 (1.5%) 818 Total Cans garbage collected = 773 (83.7%) Cans brush collected = 150 (16.3%) 923 Total Delwood. 4 Route Monday, May 29, 1963 Monday, April 9, 1962 Cans garbage collected: 945 (98.4%) 15 (1.6%) Cans brush collected = Total 960 Cans garbage collected = 1,026 (90.4%) Cans brush collected: 109 (9.6%) 1,135 Total Cameron Road, South of Wheeles Lane, Route Tuesday, March 20, 1962 Tuesday, May 29, 1963 Cans garbage collected: 965 (99.5%) Cans brush collected = 5(0.5%) 970 Total Cans garbage collected: 848 (93.4%) 60 (6.6%) 908 Cans brush collected = Total "By averaging the percentage volumes of brush handled over these three routes, the following deductions can be made. Formerly, before the brush charge, only an average of 1.2% of the total volume handled on regular Sanitation routes was brush. At the present, however, an average of 10.8% of the volume is brush, and indicates that many more people are cutting their brush to proper length so that Sanitation crews can collect it on regular routes at no extra charge. The difference in the above percentages is 9.6%. Therefore, 9.6% of the present volume collected by Sanitation crews represents additional brush. "Average brush in containers or tied in bundles has been found to weigh approximately 1/3 that of average garbage. This ratio was found by checking net load weights of similar trucks loaded with brush and with garbage. Net load weights for out flat bed garbage trucks average about 6,000 pounds, while brush on the same trucks will average 2,000 pounds. Therefore, the 9.6% of the present CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS June 6, 1963 volume, representing brush weighing 1/3 that of average garbage, can be determined by mathematics to be 3.4% of the total load or tonnage hauled. "In the four month period, January through April, 1963, a total of 32,529 tons or a monthly average of 8,132 tons of combined garbage was hauled to the fills. 3.4% of this average monthly tonnage is 276 tons, which indicates an estimate of the additional amount of brush hauled each month by regular Sanitation crews over the previous year. A monthly average of 8,132 tons multiplied by twelve months and divided into the budget figure of $699,170 gives $7.16, the cost per ton for collecting combined garbage and brush. "In the same four months of 1962, before the brush pickup charge was started, the Parks Division completed 6,064 separate brush collections for a monthly average of 1,516 collections. No records are available to indicate the ratio of collections to loads of brush hauled prior to June 1, 1962. However, recent checks indicate that each collection made since that date will average 1/2 of a truck load or two collections for each load. Mr. Olle and his foremen note that the average collection now and have estimated, to the best of their knowledge, an average of four collections was required for each truck load before the charge. Using the 1,516 average monthly collections above divided by four collections per load gives 379 loads and at 2,000 pounds per load gives 379 tons, the average monthly tonnage previously collected by special pickup. A monthly average of 379 tons multiplied by twelve months and divided into $65,626, the estimated yearly cost for hauling brush before the charge, gives $14.43 per ton. "As shown previously, the regular Sanitation routes are collecting approximately 276 tons more brush per month for this period than was collected last year. In the first four months of this year, the Parks Division made 370 brush collections, an average of 92 per month. Those collections, as mentioned previously, average two per truck load, and at 2000 pounds per load, will result in an average monthly tonnage of 46 tons. "Since this has been a dry year to date, it can be assumed that the same average monthly amount of 379 tons of brush is being disposed of this year as was collected by the Parks Division last year. We can deduct from this amount the additional monthly tonnage of brush being collected by the Sanitation crews on regular routes and also the tonnage collected by Parks crews for a service charge. The total of these two, 276 tons plus 46 tons equals 322 tons and deducted from 379 tons equals 57 tons, which should represent brush now being hauled each month by commercial haulers or private vehicles. "From the above figures, it is apparent that Sanitation crews on regular routes are now collecting over 70% of the brush formerly hauled by Parks and Sanitation crews on special requests. The extra brush load has been absorbed by the Sanitation Division with very little difficulty. "Parks Division personnel and equipment formerly assigned to CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS= June 6, 1963. brush collection have been used on clean-up work in parks, parkways, creeks and assisting Traffic and Transportation Department in clearing blind corners to the extent that this year we entered the spring growing season with these areas cleaner than ever before. Much favorable public comment has been received in our office because of this appearance. "From: S. Reuben Rountree, Jr. Director of Public Works Signed S. Reuben Rountree, Jr." COUNCILMAN LARUE stated two things came to his attention while Mr. Wilson was reading. Apparently the efficiency had been increased many times over though he would not know what the percent would be, but the number of trucks and personnel involved had been reduced from 11 trucks down to about one, which is car- rying out part of the theory discussed this morning, and that was the "Customers". the owners of this business, could be saved money in one way, and that was by increased efficiency. He stated another thought that occurred to him was that he would be reluctant to offer a service free of charge, whatever it was and under any circumstances, without giving it a lot of thought. He said there would be a lot of abuses in here, and there is some indication at that time when this was offered as a free service that there were abuses such as the developers of subdivisions, etc., were using this service to pick up and take care of some of the responsibilities they had themselves. With those thoughts in mind, he stated he would be most reluctant, since some improvement had been shown here, and the operation now is very efficient and the majority is now being handled on the basis of $8.00 per ton rather than $14.00 per ton, with few personnel and that personnel is being used elsewhere. He said again staying away from the offer of free service, because of its pitfalls, he would be reluctant to do anything other than accept the recommendations of the City Manager. Councilman Shanks asked if he would go along with the three quarter truck waiver. Councilman LaRue stated there probably would be no problem with that. Again it would be a free service; but if those individuals could be encouraged to haul this under these circumstances and by retaining someone at the fill, in addition to the regular service, it would save a considerable amount of money and clean up the city at the same time. He stated he would go along with the recommendation as it is drawn. COUNCILMAN LONG stated she found no fault with knocking off that 50 fee for three quarter tons or less, but she could not go along with the City Manager's full report. She said she had some observations to make, and she would make a motion later to do away with the brush fee; but as it is pointed out here, for a number of years this City did give this service, which she did not think was free as the taxpayers are paying plenty of money to get their trash taken care of already, and now on top of everything else they are paying $1.25 to get the trash hauled off. There is nothing new about the Trash and Garbage picking up small bundles of trimmings as they had always done that. People were required to cut them up in small bundles and put them in the trash and they were carried off. This business of only 25% of the people benefit from this, and therefore they ought to pay the costs of that, she said she disagreed with that. Austin had 1.0% of the people that are using the golf courses, and the City just got through spending $250,000 to build a new course, and 10% of the people are using it, and the taxpayers are paying for that. She did not object to golf, as most cities support it; but if the City supports golf for a part of the people, she did not see why the City could not support this 25% hauling of brush, particularly when these people are already paying $1.25 a piece per month to get their trash hauled CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS. June 6, 1963 off. She said she disagreed, and maybe the figures were being juggled--but she said she looked in the Budget, and in 1957-58 the Sanitation Division, there were 47 drivers and 87 helpers. Then, in 1961-62 there were 44 drivers and 1ll helpers--three drivers more and an additional number of helpers. Then in 1962-63 after the tax went on, there were 59 drivers and 100 helpers which indicated there was a great number more trucks working and carrying off garbage and debris. She pointed out 14 truck drivers were added to the Sanitary Division despite the fact it took 18 trucks to handle the brush, and it just seemed, that even though Austin is growing, and the routes had probably been increased, that if the Sanitation Department makes its study and has a routing of these pick ups on the brush that they would not have to run way out and pick up a little bittie old dab at one time and empty it and then go back some place and get another. They could route this brush pick up, and they could do it free and it would not cost any more than this business of going out and estimating how much a person has and go back and wait until this person decides if he wants them to do it, and then he has to go down and sign a slip, and then come back out and haul it off. Councilman Long said it was rather an involved situation, and she was sure it was cost- ing a lot of bookkeeping, time and trouble for the city, and that she just frankly thought that this brush fee is a detriment to the beauty of the city; and it could not possibly cost the City very much. She had some figures where the City had estimated it cost $5,000 for the year. There was a $1,500 estimate for the year for the revenue. Despite the fact there is only one truck running around, more money than was expected was brought in. It brought in the first six months $2,702; and on the dump charge, $3,163 was received. It was estimated $5,000 a year, and that amount was for the first six months. The City is running a little bit ahead of schedule on money. It is just a small amount of money and such a fine kind of thing for the City to do for the people, and she said she did not see why this brush fee could not be thrown out and use this $1.25, which the people are already paying to get their garbage hauled off, and which she said she thought was a bad kind of tax they have to pay. She urged the Council to go along with her on this, as the people want it; it is good and it does not cost very much, and it is a service rendered to all the people of Austin. She said she would just plead with the Council to go along with her on this. If the Council did not accept her motion, which would be to do away with the brush fee, and also the 50 up to three fourths ton or less; and if they did not go along with that which she was hoping they would, to allow her to make another motion on the latter part which the City Manager recommended. She beseeched the Council to go along with her and do away with the brush tax--it is a very little bit of money, and the people would really appreciate it. COUNCILMAN SHANKS stated he concurred with Mrs. Long in one respectthat the brush pick up should be compared to the golf course to a certain extent. At the Golf Course, there is a dollar charge for 18 holes during the week, and $1.50 on the weekends, and the Golf Course does not lose any money; it breaks even, and it makes money. In other words, the people who are using the facility are sustaining those facilities by paying for. There is not anything free in this Society, and everyone has to pay by some hook or crook for what is used. He said the City Manager had given a very apt report on this, and he did not doubt any of the figures in there; nor he did not think the City Manager had juggled anything. He said the procedure adopted certainly showed that the situation had improved. As far as the beauty of the town, there are not 1,100 piles of brush sitting around anymore as there were. He said again it seemed Mrs. Long was adopting the rich folks on these things all the time. Twenty-five percent of the people are using this service, and most of them, as he understood it, are from the west and northwest. Councilman Shanks stated he would have to go along with CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS= June 6, 1963. the little folks on this thing again, as he did not want those big folks hanging all this charge on the little folks, and he was going along and sustain the City Manager in his report. Councilman Long inquired if he meant to say he did not think that everybody had brush and debris to be hauled off, that it is just the people out in West Austin. She said that was not in the report. Also on the golf course business, Councilman Long stated the fee they pay does not have anything to do with the golf course paying its way. It took $250,000 to build it, and the fee would not even pay for the water put on the course. Councilman Shanks stated the City was charging for that water; and when the Council got into this new budget, she would see that it had been changed since she was up here. Councilman Long stated it was charged off and put on the $337,000. Councilman Shanks suggested she wait until they got on the new budget. The Council had studied all that out on a systematic business-like basis. He said he was going to go with the little people, and she could not talk him out of it. Councilman Long reported she had a telephone call from a woman who was new in Austin and who was hoping to make it her home, and she reported that there was something that had worried her very much, and that was she had been riding around in Travis Heights and there were 14 places in Travis Heights where she had been unable to see the street signs for the tree limbs. The woman could not see what street she was on as the trees had not been trimmed back. The Acting City Manager stated the men that would be normally used before the brush charge, are now being used for other city work--for cleaning out the creeks and other city owned property and clean it up, and the City entered the spring season in much better condition than it had ever been able to in the past, due to the relieving of these additional men in Parks Division that had normally been hauling the brush. Councilman Shanks asked if some of the revenue derived from this charge went into raising salaries of the city employees. COUNCILMAN WHITE stated it was not supposed to. The garbage charge was for that. Councilman White stated it had been said a while back that he was going to vote against his own proposition, and he wanted it cleared up that it was not his proposition. His proposition was the garbage fee of $1.25 to raise the city employees. As far as this brush business is concerned, that was not his proposition. He said he thought it was all right, but he did believe if one had a load of brush, it would be all right if a charge is to be made, to charge $4.00. He said he did not believe if one had a half load of brush, that one would have to pay $4.00. The Acting City Manager stated there would still be a $4.00 charge. Councilman White said that was what he did not like. The Acting City Manager, Mr. Rountree, stated Mr. Olle from the Parks Division was here and could answer that question. He said the house brush on which they were getting the calls, as had already been mentioned, was being hauled on the regular sanitation route. The Sanitation men were paid to pick up the garbage, and they are picking up this brush as they collect the garbage. The people are cutting up this brush into lengths that can be handled. Councilman Long inquired about Christmas trees. The Fire Marshal stated for the past 10 years, his department had four locations where the Christmas trees were dumped and burned, and they had burned about 40,000 a year. He said they were burned every other day during the season. COUNCILMAN WHITE inquired how would one know when they had 3/4 of a ton. The Acting City Manager stated most of it was weighed; but the men could pretty well tell. The City Attorney stated, Mr. Williams in discussing that point, had in mind a 3/4 ton pick up truck as a normal thing or an equivalent to a trailer load, but it would not be difficult to estimate a 3/4 ton load. Councilman White stated if that goes that way, he was going to second the motion but he said he knew it was going to be voted down, but he was not going to say "you all please go along. " _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 Councilman Long stated if there were abuses with the subdividers and contractors, in asking the city to haul off their extra debris, that should have been corrected. She said when this service was instituted and when she was on the Council, this service was rendered, and was a good service, and the people appreciated it, and the abuses were not allowed. Maybe they just crept in and got worse and worse, but it was not the purpose to haul off anything that had to do with commercial establishments or business. She said if this was gotten into, it would have increased the loads and burden, and she certainly would have frowned on that. If this Council should pass on this, she said she would not want to go out and haul off these things for the subdividers and builders. The Director of Public Works explained they would go buy a lot in an area developed, and the City had been hauling brush from the other developed lots; they would put their brush up on the curb and call the City. The City would go out and tell them they should haul it, but perhaps the developed lots would have more brush to be hauled than what the developer had, and the developers would of course note that. That situation has been eliminated with the brush charge and the Sanitation Department's picking up the brush on the regular runs. Councilman White inquired if the dump were to be opened all day Saturday. The Acting City Manager reported the Sanitary Fill at Bergstrom Field has been open from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. on Saturdays, every day of the week except Sunday. Councilman White asked if the dump would be open on Sunday, and the Acting City Manager stated it would not be. He asked if someone would be there on Satur days and if there would be no charge on 3/4 tons or less. The City Attorney stated it might be something to consider later to keep the fill open on Sunday. The gate is locked on Sunday. It would require the employment of two or three more men to keep the fill open on Sunday. The Assistant City Manager, MR. JIM WILSON, stated Mrs. Long had mentioned that in the current budget there were 44 truck drivers last year, and shown in the budget for this year, 59. That would be an increase of 15. On the next line, "truck helpers"--last year there were lll listed in the budget and only 100 this year. He reported a peculiar thing to happen in that about the time the garbage charge was instituted, the Personnel Department evaluated the jobs in the Sanitation Department and it was found that eleven men driving trucks who had been driving from a few months to almost a year were still rated as Truck Helpers. This switch indicates there was merely a change of title; and not the addition of 15 new drivers. There were four new drivers added to take care of the areas that had been annexed throughout the year and also to maintain the new parks such as Bartholomew Park, and the added load of Givens Park. In respect, the Assistant City Manager stated this was a little bit misleading where it is listed where the Department goes from 44 truck drivers to 59, and then drop from 1ll helpers to 100. It is merely a change of title. Councilman Long stated they had actually started paying those men for the work which they had been doing all the while. The Assistant City Manager stated not necessarily, as the usual procedure was that the men would be tried out as a driver on a truck for some time, and these were more or less apprentice truck drivers. Councilman Long inquired about the number of apprentices there were now. The Acting City Manager stated the biggest turnover now was in the helper classification. the drivers had their titles cleared, that had been a big help. Since COUNCILMAN SHANKS stated the efficiency this thing had brought about was so outstanding it was almost unbelievable. MAYOR PALMER wanted to ask two questions, one from Fire Marshal HEATON CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 and one from MR. HARGIS, Sanitation Engineer, as they were out and around in the town. He asked if they found any unusual number of brush piles around the city right now, or more than there had been before the charge was put in. The Fire Marshal stated the conditions are generally better. He said he had two or three other points he wanted to mention. He said this long waiting list they had for so many years was eliminated. Councilman Long asked if he thought the brush had been eliminated, or if the people asking for service had been eliminated and why, if they were not calling. She would not think the City was hauling it off if they had 14 trucks at one time and now there is only one. They could not possibly be hauling the same amount with just one truck. The Fire Marshal stated he thought the brush was being hauled off by the regular collection because the people were cutting it into smaller pieces. When the people find it is going to cost them to get it moved, there is more cooperation. The list, for a number of years--it took a long time to get service. That had improved. Councilman Long stated she agreed that it took a long time to get someone to come out and move trash, and people complained about it all the time, even though there were 14 trucks doing it. The Fire Marshal stated he was very much impressed with the improvement made in the creek beds and parks, and they had been doing a fine job on that; and in his department, they had tried to cooperate in this matter of burning permits. The number of burning permits for the first five months of 1963 as compared with 1962, had increased 35.1%. The Council did a fine thing when they adopted this ordinance. Councilman White inquired if a permit to burn brush 100 yards outside the city was required. The Fire Marshal said there was no control outside the City. He described the receptacle for burning the brush and leaves, and stated there were more complaints on the smoke than on the fire. The greatest peak period in the year was from May through October. Comparing the first five months of last year with this year, he found that complaints had dropped 30.5%. The complaints were from brush, open burning, vacant delapidated houses, and neighborhood complaints. There are about 90 complaints a month on fire hazards--vacant lots, etc. The complaints have dropped off the first five months 30.5%. He said his Department was trying to help educate the public about this ordinance; they had it on their Radio report a number of times, each morning at 8:30 over KVET five days a week, and he believed the educational program in this area was worthwhile. He stated he was delighted to learn from the Director of Public Works that they planned to use this same manpower on projects of clearing City property, especially vacant lots, as his Department was criticized on that when they require people to clear their lots. Councilman Long stated she was happy to hear that also. The Mayor asked MR. HARGIS, Sanitation Engineer, Health Department, since there had been a statement the other day that rats had increased and a few other things as a cause of the discontinuing of the brush pick up, if he had any comment. MR. HARGIS said they had received a few calls on rats, but there were not any more than they normally had. He had received a few calls on snakes because they have been coming out, about this time. When this was proposed several weeks ago, he said he asked his boys who travelled the town pretty thoroughly, what they thought about the situation. It was a unanimous opinion that the City had a pretty good pick up system for this, or the people have been getting someone to pick it up, or if they are not paying for it they are getting somebody to pick it up, or they are cutting it up for garbage collection. He stated he was real proud of it. He said Mr. Heaton mentioned the vacant lots. He said they had some publicity from the television and radio on getting names of people who do this type of work. There are around 20. He said when they send a notice out, they send a list for the people's convenience with notation that the city guarantees no one on the list, nor endorses anyone, etc. He stated he thought the situation was pretty well controlled. Councilman Shanks asked if CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 il ! Mr. Hargis thought that most of this desired efficiency had been brought about by the people cutting the brush up in the three foot lengths and it's being picked up in the regular garbage collections, and the fact they are not called in to pick up small piles of leaves, etc.; that if they do have a load they wait to accumulate a full load. The Acting City Manager stated quite often the neighbors got together and had a full load. The Assistant City Manager stated they had some statistics on that particular point on volume and weight before the charge went on and how it operates now, and Mr. Beckham conducted that survey. MR. BOB BECKHAM, Assistant Director of Public Works, stated there had been some previous surveys made sometime ago, where they followed the trucks on a particular route and determined how many cans of garbage were picked up and how much brush. That had been done again just recently. On the same route it was found on a test they made on this past week--they ran five routes--that they were picking up 10% more brush; in other words, 10% more of their load was brush. There was an average of about 2% of the load being brush, and not they are running 10, 11, and 12% of the load. The City Attorney stated if the Council agreed with the conclusion of the dumping fee, it would be necessary to amend the ordinance. Councilman Long moved that the City Manager request the City Attorney to bring in an ordinance amending the Brush pick up service, so that the fee will be done away with, and to incorporate in this motion, that the 50 fee on the dumping be done away with on 3/4 tons load or less. The motion, seconded by Councilman White, lost by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Long, White Noes: Councilmen LaRue, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Councilman Shanks moved that the ordinance be amended whereby the City Manager's recommendation be accepted that no dumping fee be charged for vehicle loads less than 3/4 tons, effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Mayor Palmer listed two invitations to the Council: (1) an invitation from the Austin Association of Home Builders for Dinner Monday, June 10th, at 6:30 P.M. The Council indicated the number who could attend; (2) an invitation from the Parks and Recreation Board for luncheon. The Council decided on Thursday, June 13th. No action was taken on the request of SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY to use City property on Reservoir site on Ridge Oak Drive for 70' mobile telephone tower. Mayor Palmer introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE PERPETUALLY VACATING AND CLOSING TO PUBLIC TRAVEL A PORTION OF HOPKINS STREET; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF AN ORDINANCE ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- June 6, 1963 The ordinance was read the first time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its second reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman Long moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, the City of Austin is the owner of an electrical easement granted by instrument dated June 1, 1930, in, upon and across a part of that certain tract of land out of and a part of the Isaac Decker League, in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, which was conveyed to Gilbreth, Reaves, Milburn Development, Incorporated, by warranty deed of record in Volume 2303 at page 92 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas; and, WHEREAS, the owner of the hereinafter described premises has dedicated new easements and has requested the City Council of the City of Austin to release the hereinafter described easement for electrical purposes; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the hereinafter described easement is not now needed and will not be required in the future; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager of the City of Austin be and he is hereby authorized to execute a release of the following described electrical Easement, to-wit: All of that certain portion of an electrical easement out of and a part of that certain tract of land out of and a part of the Isaac Decker League in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, which was conveyed to Gilbreth, Reaves, Milburn Development, Incorporated, by warranty deed of record in Volume 2303 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- June 6, 1963 at page 92 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas, which certain portion of the aforesaid electrical easement is to be released from the easement provided in an instrument dated June 1, 1930 of record in Volume 455 at page 167 of the deed records of Travis County, Texas, and which easement to be released extends from the north line of the said Gilbreth, Reaves, Milburn Development, Incorporated tract of land, same being the south line of South Park Section 2, a subdivision of record in Book 8 at page 3 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, to the west line of Brackenridge Heights, said Brackenridge Heights being a subdivision of record in Book 3 at page 133 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, by instrument dated September 13, 1918, of record in Volume 305 at Page 92 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas, an easement for sanitary sewer purposes was granted to the City of Austin, in, upon, and across Brackenridge Heights, a subdivision of a portion of the Isaac Decker League in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, according to a map or plat of said Brackenridge Heights of record in Book 3 at Page 133 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas; and, WHEREAS, the owner of above described property has requested the City Council of the City of Austin to release the hereinafter described senitary sewer casement; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the hereinafter described portion of that easement granted by said instrument dated September 13, 1918, is not now needed and will not be required in the future; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That W. T. Williams, Jr., City Manager, be and he is hereby authorized to execute a release of the following described sanitary sewer easement, to-wit: All that certain portion of a sanitary sewer easement which lies between the south line of Brinwood Section 2 and the north line of Woodward Street, said Woodward Street being shown on a map or plat of Brackenridge Heights, a subdivision of a portion of the Isaac Decker League in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, according to a map or plat of said Brackenridge Heights of record in Book 3 at Page 133 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, a map or plat of said Brinwood Section 2 being of record in Book 14 at page 33 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, which certain portion of the aforesaid sanitary _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 sewer easement is to be released from the sanitary sewer easement provided in an instrument dated September 13, 1918, of record in Volume 305 at Page 92 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, on maps or plats of North Lamar Park, Section Two, a subdivision of a portion of the James P. Wallace Survey No. 57 and the John Applegait Survey, in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, a certain street, extending from the east line of Slayton Drive in a southeasterly direction 120.00 feet to the east boundary line of said North Lamar Park, Section Two, is designated as Crestwood Lane; and, WHEREAS, the map or plat of North Lamar Park, Section Two, is of record in Book 17 at Page 63 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas; and, WHEREAS, the present owner of the property abutting the following descrebed portion of said street has requested that the name of Crestwood Lane be changed to Fawnridge Drive; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the name of the following described street, designated as Crestwood Lane, as the same appears on the map or plat of North Lamar Park, Section Two, of record in Book 17 at Page 63 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, be and the same is hereby changed to Fawnridge Drive, said street so changed being described as follows: All that certain portion of a street in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, known as Crestwood Lane, as shown on a map or plat of North Lamar Park, Section Two, a subdivision of a portion of the James P. Wallace Survey No. 57 and the John Applegait Survey, in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, according to a map or plat of said North Lamar Park, Section Two, of record in Book 17 at Page 63 of the Plat Records of Travis County, Texas, which certain portion of Crestwood Lane extends from the east line of Slayton Drive in a southeasterly direction 120.00 feet to the east boundary line of said North Lamar Park, Section Two. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None = CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS June 6, 1963. Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has presented to the City Council tentative maps or plans showing the proposed construction of its underground telephone conduits in the streets in the City of Austin hereafter named and said maps or plans have been considered by the Director of Public Works therefore BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: THAT the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company be and the same is hereby permitted to construct its underground telephone conduits in the following streets: (1) An underground telephone conduit in GUADALUPE STREET, from an existing man hole in W. 24th Street, northerly 4.51.33 feet to an existing man hole at W. 25th Street, the center line of which underground telephone conduit shall be 24.9' feet west of and parallel to the centerline of said GUADALUPE STREET. (2) An underground telephone conduit in GUADALUPE STREET, from an existing man hole at W. 25th Street, northerly 351.92 feet to an existing man hole at W. 26th Street (E.), the centerline of which underground telephone conduit shall be 26.0 feet west of and parallel to the centerline of said GUADALUPE STREET. (3) An underground telephone conduit in GUADALUPE STREET, from an existing man hole at W. 26th Street (E.) northerly 201.84 feet to an existing man hole at W. 26th Street (W.), the centerline of which underground telephone conduit shall be 23.3' feet west of and parallel to the centerline of said GUADALUPE STREET. (4) An underground telephone conduit in GUADALUPE STREET from an existing man hole at W. 26th Street (W.) northerly 552.59 feet to an existing man hole at W. 27th Street, the centerline of which underground telephone conduit shall be 30.5' feet west of and parallel to the centerline of said GUADALUPE STREET. (5) An underground telephone conduit in W. 9TH STREET, from an existing man hole at Lavaca Street to the west property line of Colorado Street, the centerline of which underground telephone conduit shall be 31.0 feet south of and parallel to the north property line of said W. 9TH STREET. (6) An underground telephone conduit in W. 9TH STREET, from a point in the southerly prolongation of the west property line of Colorado Street, 31.0 feet =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963. south of the north property line of said W. 9TH STREET, easterly to a point in the southerly prolongation of the east property line of Colorado Street, 29.0 feet south of the north property line of said W. 9TH STREET. (7) An underground telephone conduit in W. 9TH STREET, from the east property line of Colorado Street easterly 84.0 feet to an existing man hole, the centerline of which underground telephone conduit shall be 29.0 feet south of and parallel to the north property line of said W. 9TH STREET. THAT the work and construction of said underground telephone conduits, including the excavation of the streets and the restoration and maintenance of said streets after said underground telephone conduits have been constructed, shall be under the supervision and direction of the City Manager and in accordance with the ordinances and regulations of the City of Austin governing such construction. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Mayor Palmer brought up the following ordinance for its third reading: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND THE ΑΝΝΕΧΑTION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL TERRITORY CONSISTING OF 87.68 ACRES OF LAND, SAME BEING OUT OF AND A PART OF THE SANTIAGO DEL VALLE GRANT, IN TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; WHICH SAID ADDITIONAL TERRITORY LIES ADJACENT TO AND ADJOINS THE PRESENT BOUNDARY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN, IN PARTICULARS STATED IN THE ORDINANCE. (Santa Monica Park) The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman Long moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Councilman long moved that a hearing on an appeal of ZIDELL ENTERPRISES, by Gene Palmer, appealing the decision of the Planning Commission with reference to the resubdivision of Block 20, Ridgetop Annex, be set for 10:30 A.M., June 13th. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS= June 6, 1963 The Assistant City Manager discussed in detail a proposed contract with Dr. A. Q. Da Silva, as Pathologist at Brackenridge Hospital, pointing out the major difference in the contract as being the compensation section, and he reviewed and compared the contract with the former Pathologist, and pointed out the advantages of this contract over the other. Councilman Shanks offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized and directed to enter into a contract, on behalf of the City of Austin, with Atys Quadros Da Silva, M.D. whereby the said Dr. Da Silva will act as Pathologist for Brackenridge Hospital for a basic term of one year beginning June 7, 1963 and ending June 6, 1964, in accordance with the terms and provisions of a certain contract exhibited to the City Council; and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of said contract in the permanent records of her office without recordation in the Minutes of the City Council. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Councilman Long inquired about the crossover on Vasquez Road, stating the crossover should go into Vasquez Road, as there are nine residences, and it is a recognized street; but where it is designated to cross there is no street on the other side. The Mayor asked the Acting City Manager to check with the Highway Engineers. The Acting City Manager stated this had been checked; that Vasquez was not a dedicated street, and was very narrow, and the Highway Department did not provide a crossover at that location. He stated MR. PEARSON had been talking with him, and this had been discussed with the Bureau of Public Roads which had gone along with the Highway Department Plans. The Council discussed the highway lighting plan of the Highway Department. The City Attorney explained the arrangements as worked out by the City Manager with the Highway Department, especially on the hazardous interchanges or intersections. (Between the intersections of Airport Boulevard and 7th Street and Bergstrom intersection they will have "safety lighting" in betweennot a continuous lighting.) Councilman LaRue offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) WHEREAS, the Texas Highway Department, acting through Highway Commission Minute Order No. 52611, has offered to defray the cost of the construction of an illumination system at the Montopolis Interchange north of the Colorado River in the City of Austin and the installation of safety lighting from the Montopolis CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 Interchange to the Bergstrom Interchange if the City of Austin will bear all cost of maintenance and all cost of electrical energy; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Austin deems it to the public interest to accept such conditions contained in said Minute Order No. 52611; Now, Therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the conditions of Minute Order No. 52611 of the Highway Commission be and the same are hereby accepted by the City of Austin. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor stated the City Manager received a letter from Mr. Vic Ehlers, Community Council, requesting an informal discussion between the City Council and a Committee of the Community Council in order that an evaluation of the present situation concerning the proposed health and hospital study might be made together, and stating the Community Council had a responsibility to those firms who had expressed interest in the survey as well as the members of the Executive Committee of the Community Council. The Mayor stated the Council had recommendations from the Hospital, recommendations from the Staff of St. Davids Hospital, and he stated before the Council proceeded further to have an expression from the Travis County Medical Society, giving the Doctors as a group give an expression as to what their opinion on this survey would be. Councilman Shanks moved that the City Manager be requested to arrange a meeting between the Community Council and Travis County Medical Society, the Hospital Administrators and Hospital Boards, to study this and come up with a recommendation, and to notify the Council when they are meeting, so it could attend. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Present but not voting: Councilman White Councilman Long read a letter from MR. L. V. TODD, Associated Press, requesting passes to the Municipal Golf Courses for the Associated Press. The Mayor stated the Council would ckeck into this. The Mayor stated on matters addressed to the Council, the City Clerk should file them and see that copies are passed to the appropriate places. The Council informally approved this. The Acting City Manager, Mr. Rountree, said plans and specifications for the Tillery Street Bridge at Boggy Creek, and plans for the Tillery Street storm sewer were in the Mayor's office for the Council to review. Bids would be opened on June 18th. _CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 The Acting City Manager announced that Sunday, June 9, from 5:00 A.M. until noon, Congress Avenue would be closed from 5th Street to 9th Street so that a seal coat could be laid. The work should be finished by noon. announced that parking meters would be changed to provide wider space. Mayor Palmer introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 13.10 OF CHAPTER 13 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1954 TO ELIMINATE THE CHARGE FOR DUMPING IN THE CITY'S SANITARY FILLS FOR VEHICLE LOADS OF 3/4 ΤΟΝ AND LESS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. He The ordinance was read the first time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its second reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the second time and Councilman Long moved that the rule be suspended and the ordinance passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The ordinance was read the third time and Councilman Long moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman LaRue, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. The City Attorney stated that last week the Council authorized the City Manager to execute a deed for the purchase of land from Mr. Mark C. Noble on Woodland Avenue. In the meantime, it was necessary to get field notes revised so as to split these two parcels (Mark C. Noble and Woodland Hills Development Company, Inc., Mr. Duffy). Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That S. Reuben Rountree, Jr., City Manager of the City of Austin, be and he is hereby authorized to execute a deed on behalf of the City of Austin, conveying to Mark C. Noble and wife, Mary B. Noble, the following described property to-wit: Being 0.235 of one acre of land, and being a part of those two (2) certain tracts of land in the Santiago Del Valle Grant i! =CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS June 6, 1963 in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, which were conveyed to the City of Austin by the following two (2) Warranty Deeds: (1) Dated March 16, 1928 of record in Volume 414 at page 556 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas; (2) Dated August 6, 1954 of record in Volume 1485 at page 531 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas; Which 0.235 of one acre of land is more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the north line of the said City of Austin tract of land described in Volume 414 at page 556 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas, with the curving north line of Woodland Avenue, from which point of beginning the intersection of the north line of Woodland Avenue with the east line of Chelsea Lane bears S 60° 10' E 149.90 feet; THENCE, with said north line of City of Austin tract of land described in Volume 414 at page 556 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas, S 60° 10 E 267.53 feet to an iron pipe, same being the northeast corner of the herein described tract of land; THENCE, S 30° 16' W 69.66 feet to a point in the curving north line of said Woodland Avenue, said curve having an intersection angle of 21° 00', a tangent distance of 92.59 feet and a radius of 499.55 feet; THENCE, following said curving north line of said Woodland Avenue to the right an arc distance of 32.26 feet, the subchord of which arc bears N 53° 28' W 32.25 feet; THENCE, continuing with said curving north line of Woodland Avenue to the right an arc distance of 105.35 feet, the subchord of which arc bears N 45° 55' W 105.13 feet to an iron pipe; THENCE, continuing with said curving north line of Woodland Avenue to the right an arc distance of 5.51 feet, the subchord of which arc bears N 39° 33' W 5.51 feet to an iron pipe at the point of tangency of said curve; THENCE, N 39° 14' W 9.75 feet to the point of curvature of a curve having an intersection angle of 20° 51', a tangent distance of 138.71 feet and a radius of 753.91 feet; THENCE, following said curving line to the left an arc distance of 123.91 feet, the subchord of which arc bears N 43° 56' W 123.75 feet to the point of beginning. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 Councilman Long offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That S. Reuben Rountree, Jr., City Manager of the City of Austin, be and he is hereby authorized to execute a deed on behalf of the City of Austin, conveying to Woodland Hills Development Co., Inc. the following described property, to-wit: Being 0.020 of one acre of land, and a part of that certain tract of land in the Santiago Del Valle Grant in the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas, which was conveyed to the City of Austin, by warranty deed dated March 16, 1928 of record in Volume 414 at page 558 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas, and which 0.020 of one acre of land is more particularly described by metes and bounds as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pipe at the most northerly corner of the said City of Austin tract of land described in said deed of record in Volume 414 at Page 558 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas, same being the southeast corner of a tract of land conveyed to David O. Johnson, et ux, by Warranty Deed of Record in Volume 876 at Page 304 of the Deed Records of Travis County, Texas; THENCE, with the most northerly east line of that certain tract described in Volume 414 at Page 558, S 10° 14' W 75.32 feet to an iron pipe on the north line of Woodland Avenue, said north line of Woodland Avenue being a curve whose angle of intersection is 21° 00', whose tangent distance is 92.59 feet and whose radius is 499.55 feet; THENCE, following said curving line to the right an arc distance of 25.67 feet, the subchord of which are bears N 57° 08′ W 25.66 feet to a point; THENCE, N 30° 16' E 69.66 feet to the point of beginning. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None Mayor Palmer inquired if the appraisals had been made on the Friendly Tavern. The City Attorney stated he would check on that. The Chief of Police stated on April 4 the Council authorized the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Highway Department for use of the parking space under the Interregional Bridge on 7th and 8th Streets. Approval is still pending in the U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. He reported that jurors are being subpoenaed now for the Corporation Court, and this parking space was needed, and he asked if there could be some official request made to the Highway Commission concerning the status of this approval. The City Attorney made a report on this matter. The Mayor suggested that the City Manager go ahead and do some more on this, as he had been in touch with the Highway Department. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 The Chief of Police stated that police and firemen had been excluded from Social Security since 1955. Honorable Henry B. Gonzales of San Antonio introduced House Bill 4641, which would make it possible for municipal policemen to be covered by Social Security. He said Senator Yarbrough agreed to in- troduce the same bill in the Senate, and the policemen would appreciate it if the Council felt it could do so, would adopt a resolution urging the Senators and Congressmen to support this legislation. Councilman Long moved that the Council send a resolution to Congressman Thornberry, Congressman Gonzales from San Antonio who introduced the bill, Senator Ralph Yarbrough who is handling the bill in the U. S. Senate, and Senator John Tower, urging them to support this bill, and thanking the two who are handling the bill for doing so. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The City Attorney reviewed the discussion with reference to land transaction with the Covenant Presbyterian Church on Balcones Drive, stating the church and City had agreed to get Mr. Harold Legge to appraise both properties although neither party would be bound, but there might be an agreement as to price. It was necessary to limit the use for which the City's property could be put. The City Attorney listed the appraisals made by Mr. Legge on both properties on a aquare foot basis. He said the Covenant Presbyterian Church wanted to buy three acres of land from the City with an option to buy two additional acres adjoining at the same price, the option to be for five years. The City Attorney stated they would be conveyed a tract of land to go to the East right of way of the Missouri Pacific, and they would not have any ingress or egress to the Missouri Pacific Boulevard. Their ingress and egress would be on Northland Drive. Councilman Long said she wanted to see the properties on the ground. The Council postponed action until the following Thursday. The City Attorney showed on a map some land adjacent to the Missouri Pacific Railroad right of way and touching Barton Springs Road. MR. JIMMY FARRELL requested leasing this property on ground rental basis. The City Attorney stated the Tax Department appraised the property at $10,000, and there is no access to Barton Springs Road due to the Railroad underpass. Mr. Farrell wants to construct an Electric Shop there, a building that could be removed, and he would be willing to vacate it in 60 days. After discussion, Councilman LaRue moved that the City Manager be authorized to lease the property for $100 per month on a year to year basis with an option for terminating the lease on 60 days notice. The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: Councilman Long Councilman Long voting against the motion with the following statement: "I am opposed to the leasing of city property for commercial purposes as a rule." CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS June 6, 1963 Councilman LaRue offered the following resolution and moved its adoption: (RESOLUTION) BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN: That the City of Austin hereby exercises its option to renew the lease of the premises at 5923 Burnet Road, for the operation of a City Branch Library, in accordance with that certain lease agreement therefor dated January 31, 1962. (Northwest Shopping Center at $100.00 per month) The motion, seconded by Councilman Shanks, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None There being no further business, Councilman LaRue moved that the Council adjourn. The motion, seconded by Councilman Long, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen LaRue, Long, Shanks, White, Mayor Palmer Noes: None The Council adjourned at 5:00 P.M., subject to the call of the Mayor. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED Mayor