= CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS: MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS Regular Meeting November 21, 1974 1:00 P.M. Council Chambers 301. West Second Street The meeting was called to order with Mayor Butler presiding. Roll Call: Present: Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love Absent: Councilman Handcox 1.344 The Invocation was delivered by REVEREND JACK D. HEACOCK, First United Methodist Church. CAREER EXPLORATION DAYS Mayor Butler read and then presented a proclamation to a group of students, among which included: Edji Lippe Judy Pesche Joe Rodela Wayne Warren and proclaimed November 25-27, 1974, as "Career Exploration Days" and encouraged all residents to join the Council in supporting the Austin Independent School District in its program to increase awareness of career opportunities and the value of preparing for a life's work through continuing education. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council approve the Special Meeting Minutes of November 14, 1974 (10:30 a.m.) and the Regular Meeting Minutes of November 14, 1974 (1:00p.m.). The motion, seconded by Councilman Friedman, carried by the following vote: 37 CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS= November 21, 1974 1345 Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman, Lebermann Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM Mayor Butler announced that the Council had been in an Executive Session earlier that day to discuss real estate acquisition; however, he noted that no decision was reached so that no vote would be taken at this time. ΤΑΧ APPEALS Mayor Butler opened the consideration of tax appeals scheduled for 1:00 p.m.: F. W. Woolworth Company by R. J. Timbo It was noted that the Council had received written communication from the appellant. Because the Council had not had sufficient time in which to review this information, the Council postponed consideration of this until December 5, 1974. Daylin Inc. Gulf Mart Division by R. J. Timbo It was noted that the on this as the previous one. until December 5, 1974. Council had received the same type of communication The Council postponed consideration of the appeal. William R. Bright and James R. Irion, III by James R. Irion In view of the fact that the appellant had sent written communication because of his inability to appear before the Council, this case was postponed until December 5, 1974, pending review of the information that had been submitted. Austin Investments Ltd. by William Turman Mr. Turman presented the Council with information that had been supplied the Board of Equalization last summer along with additional information that had been requested by the Tax Department and a synopsis and compilation of their problem. He felt that his clients' was a unique situation in that on about May 1, 1974, they were apprised of the fact that the developer of the property, who sold it to them and who was operating the property under a lease agreement, was in significant default in several areas of the property's operation. The occupancy on the property was 70%, and there was major discontentment among November 21, 1974 _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 1346 current residents who were moving out at an alarming rate. He added that there was about $60,000 in liens to be filed on the property. He pointed out that they took over management and operations and contributed $109,000 to satisfy the mortgage holder, pay back taxes, begin structural improvements, and set up a cash reserve for operating losses. He requested that the Council give them some relief based on the facts and figures that had been supplied. He asked that they be taxed for 1974 as they were in 1973. He suggested that this would save them a substantial amount of money. Mr. Jack Klitgaard, Tax Assessor-Collector, reviewed this by stating that it was an appeal of the decision of the Board of Equalization on an apartment complex located at 1007 East Rundberg Lane and containing 112 apartment units. He noted that the Board did sustain the values placed on the property by the Tax Department. In connection with Mr. Turman's request that the same value be placed on the property for this year as last year, Mr. Klitgaard pointed out that the complex was approximately 50% complete on January 1, 1973; therefore, it had only a partial value on it for that year, He submitted that this property was appraised using the same unit values used on other apartment complexes. He was aware of the difficulties they were having making this show a cash flow. He noted that the Board nor the Tax Department were presented any information relative to the cost or the significance of the mortgage payments. He believed that they should assess the property at 75% of the fair market value, and he commented that the Board nor himself were permitted to give any relief or roll the values back to where they were last year unless they were sure this was all the property was worth or all it would sell for. He felt that the problems could be worked out and that it has a market value not significantly different from the same value that would be placed on comparable property throughout the district. Mr. Turman pointed out that the County valuation on this property, which was assessed at the same time, was raised only from $360,000 to $379,000. He added that he had made a computation of the City and school tax as opposed to gross revenue, and he suggested that generally the City/school tax is 8 to 8-1/2% of the gross revenue; but in this case, it was about 10-1/2% and suggested that it might be a little heavier than on other projects as far as market value. Mayor Butler commented that economic success or cash flow was not necessarily the proper basis to set fair market value but felt that it did have some impact and asked if this had been taken into consideration. In response to this, Mr. Klitgaard stated that they had not had this information available at the time the Department had made the assessment. He added that it was too early in the project's life to know if this situation was going to prevail for the life of the property. Mr. Richard Wollack, Austin Investment, asked the Council's consideration on this in that they had invested $109,000 in the last 6 months and have an additional contribution to the property to maintain tenancy. Councilman Dryden sympathized with Mr. Wollack but stated that he did not believe the Council could legally pick out their firm and let their taxes remain the same that they were in 1973. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1342 Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council uphold the decision of the Board of Equalization as follows: Description Assessed Value Fixed by Board Council Action 1007 East Rundberg Lane Total. $866,570 Total $866,570 Tract B, 1st Resubdivision of Greenway Plaza Southwest Parcel #2-3920-0901 The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman, Noes: Lebermann, Mayor Butler None Absent: Councilman llandcox AMENDMENT TO HISTORIC ZONING ORDINANCE Mayor Butler opened the public hearing scheduled for 1:00 p.m, to consider an amendment to the historic designation section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Dick Lillie, Planning Department Director, reviewed this by stating that it was an amendment to the Ilistoric Zoning Ordinance (1) providing for the procedure for obtaining building permits, removal permits, demolition permits and for altering the exterior of a building or structure during pendency of consideration of such building or structure as a historic landmark or as a part of a historic landmark; and (2) providing for proper notice to property owners. MR, DON GOLDSTON, member of the Historic Landmark Commission, added that the first part of the amendment would create a temporary holding pattern on a particular structure being considered for a landmark. He noted that the Commission was to act within 60 days thereafter, and if the structure is recommended that it be designated as a historical landmark, it would go to the Planning Commission for consideration and then to the Council for ultimate decision. MR. TOM TIEMANN, counsel for Lamar Savings, stated that they were in favor of the amendment but asked that the Council consider two minor revisions in the ordinance in Section 45-51.1(a) as follows: ...and no permit allowing the demolition of any part or all of any such building or structure may be issued by any official of the city, nor if no such permit is required, may any person or entity remove or demolish any part or all of any such building or structure, nor if no such permit is required, may any person or entity construct, reconstruct, alter, change, restore, remove or demolish any exterior... He He felt that this would clarify the situation in terms of the demolition or the reconstruction of a building that did not require the issuance of a permit. noted that he had conferred with Mr. Goldston, who concurred in this. In response to that, Mr. Goldston stated that he did not think the language would have the effect Mr. Tiemann was fearful of, but he had no objection to the inclusion of the clarifying language. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1348 MS. DIANA TILLY, representing the League of Women Voters, stated that their organization recognized this as an important tool in achieving the goal of protecting distinguished landmarks. She suggested that recent events, such as the demolition of the Shot Tower, had revealed weaknesses in the ordinance. They felt that the proposed amendment would provide for procedures and mechanisms for better implementation of the ordinance and that it would benefit both the owners of historic buildings and the general public as well. She noted that they were particularly concerned about the revitalization of downtown Austin and felt that it was essential that the City provide policies that would encourage development of new office and living space in this area without sacrificing Austin's heritage. She urged that the Council adopt this amendment and asked that there be a continuing effort to seek ways of maintaining the man-made and natural features of Austin. MR. JACK TISDALE, representing the Travis County Historical Survey Committee, felt that this amendment was very much needed and would like to see it passed. Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 45 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN OF 1967, BY PROVIDING FOR THE PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING BUILDING PERMITS, REMOVAL PERMITS, DEMOLITION PERMITS AND FOR ALTERING THE EXTERIOR OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE DURING PENDENCY OF CONSIDERATION OF SUCII BUILDING OR STRUCTURE AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK OR AS A PART OF A HISTORIC LANDMARK; PROVIDING FOR PROPER NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Councilman Lebermann moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed, HEARING ON PROPOSED ORDINANCE CONCERNING CODE OF ETHICS AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE Mayor Butler opened the public hearing scheduled for 1:00p.m. on a proposed ordinance concerning Code of Ethics and Financial Disclosure, Councilman Friedman reviewed this by stating that it was a codification of all practices and procedures that have been followed to date in the City concerning conflict of interest and the ethical behavior of all City employees and an attempt to put into one section an area where any citizen or City employee or City official can look to see what would be considered proper or improper conduct. He added that there was also a section on financial disclosure that was not an attempt to pry into anyone's personal finances nor an attempt to unduly burden any citizen (elected, employed or appointed to any City capacity). _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1349 He stated that this would effect all elected officials, department heads, and members of those boards and commissions that would exert a sovereign power of the community. He noted that 384 of 478 total members of boards and commissions would not be effected, or approximately 19.7% would be effected. MR. ALAN HURST appeared before the Council to review this proposed ordinance section by section. It was noted that Houston had passed a similar ordinance. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Love's question, Mr. Hurst stated that Houston had made this into two separate ordinances. He suggested that the reason this should be only one ordinance was that it was pointless to require people to uphold certain standards of conduct if it was difficult to determine if in fact they had. He pointed out that the wording of this ordinance had come from either the State Statute or the Houston ordinance. Under Section 4 of the Ordinance (Financial Disclosure by Principal City Officials), he interjected that this would only pertain to 145 or less out of 6,900 employees or members of boards and commissions. Under Section 4 (c) (1), it was determined that the clause: "...provided such information is not privileged by law," could be omitted from the ordinance, Under Section 7 (Ethics Review Committee), Mr. Hurst stated that Subsections (i) and (j) should be deleted from the ordinance. Mr. Hurst felt that this ordinance was fair and that people would not use it in a malicious fashion. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Love's question, Mr. Hurst stated that Dallas and San Antonio would attempt a similar ordinance in the next four to five months. There were questions from the Council concerning particular sections and subsections. Under Section 4(c) (2) it was determined that attorneys had to divulge the source of their fee for unspecified services. Mayor Butler suggested that this was a privilege of the client and not the lawyer. Mr. Hurst indicated that he had oral communication from the State Bar that this was in compliance. Mayor Butler felt that this should be in writing. Councilman Friedman stated that he had talked with one of the assistant counsels at the State Bar; and they had determined that if the release of the name of the client would go to the essence of a case, there would be a privilege, Mayor Pro Tem Love did not think there would be any serious quarrel concerning the Code of Ethics, but he felt the Financial Disclosure was another matter. He suggested that these be treated separate and apart. Mr. Hurst stated that it could be done in this manner, but he felt it would be very difficult to check to see if public trust had been upheld if there was no basis to do so. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Love's question, Mr, Hurst indicated that Houston had passed both ordinances but had postponed the effective date of the financial disclosure for 30 days in that they did not think an advisory member of a board should be subject to the same disclosure and were, therefore, attempting to limit the number of boards and commissions covered by their ordinance. Councilman Friedman took this opportunity to list the boards or commissions that would be covered by financial disclosure: CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 Board of Equalization Zoning Board of Adjustment Brackenridge Hospital Advisory Board Airport Zoning Board Planning Commission Building Code Board of Appeals Building Standards Commission Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration Appeal Board Navigation Board Electric Board Plumbing Board of Appeals Solicitation Board Historic Landmark Commission Civil Service Commission The following appeared in opposition to the proposed Ordinance; 1550 MR. JAMES MIDDLETON, Chairman of the Plumbing Board of Appeals, stated that he had canvassed the Board; and speaking from a personal standpoint, he did not believe the City would have a Plumbing Board if this were to go into effect. He concluded that his resignation would be in the Council's hands if this were passed. MR. DOUG NICHOLS, member of the Municipal-Citizens Traffic Safety Commission, felt that he could comply to this on his own and did not believe the City would do this. those MR. FRANCIS AMSLER, member of the Soliciation Board, felt that it would be an unnecessary burden on the members to file this statement of financial He suggested that there were two types in opposition; disclosure. groups who had so much money they did not want people to know and those groups who had so little they would be ashamed to tell it. MR. JOE PERRONE, Chairman of the Building Standards Commission, resented the requirement of citizens filing a financial disclosure. As he understood it, his duties had been at the request of the City; and he did not seek the position but had tried to do the best he could. He suggested that a lot of people would be "run off" if this was passed. He urged that the Council give this a lot of consideration before passing it. He did feel that the Code of Ethics portion of the ordinance was satisfactory. He concluded that he would not be in favor of making whatever he has got a matter of public record just so he could work for free. MR. JAY JOHNSON, member of the Ad lloc Committee for Study of Codes for He Historical Structures, did not think there were any "thieves" of the City. suggested that the proposed ordinance would allow the Council to make all the decisions because there would not be any citizen input because the people would not volunteer. He felt that this would penalize the people, and the Council would not gain the respect of the public in this manner. He submitted that if the Council wanted to make all the decisions and have a totalitarian state, then this should be passed. The following appeared in support of the proposed Ordinance: MRS. AMY McDANIEL, member of the Community Development Commission, addressed herself to the issue concerning the person's spouse and dependent children being effected by the financial disclosure. She noted that her husband was an attorney, and she would have to get her husband's approval to do so. was not opposed to disclosure by the person serving on the commission. She CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1351 MS. JEAN BIZZELL, representing the League of Women Voters, had made a study on this with elected officials in mind, She stated that the League supported standards to lessen conflict of interest and suggested that the lack of knowledge bred distrust and rumor. They believed that the goals of any ethics legislation should be: 1. To insure the public's right to know. 2. To combat corruption and undue influence. 3. To uphold public trust in government. She stated that these goals should be achieved through a workable Code of Ethics which would clearly define and disclose conflicts of interest, She added that any ordinance was ineffectual unless it had a mechanism for reviewing possible conflict of interest. She noted that they were particularly pleased with Section 7 (Ethics Review Committee) in that it involved a membership that was not connected with City government. They felt that the procedural guidelines that were outlined appeared fair and workable. She commented that positive action in this general area by the Council would be viewed by the League as an effective means of reassuring the people of Austin that our government is and will remain honest. MS. BEVERLY MONTGOMERY, Vice President of the North Austin Civic Association, stated that their Association was interested in an ethics ordinance like the one being discussed and felt that it was needed in Austin. She expressed their support and asked that the Council pass an ordinance of ethics. They felt that in some areas the ordinance could be a little stronger but felt that it was a step in the right direction. She asked that the Council do its part to restore the dignity and integrity of public office. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Love's question as to whether or not she or her group supported only the Code of Ethics portion, she stated that she was opposed to such a wide range of figures in each category in the financial disclosure. She stated that she would endorse the Financial Disclosure concept with certain modifications. MR. BILL PARRISH, member of the Historic Landmark Commission, stated that he was in favor of this and that he was thankful for the opportunity to serve the City. He understood the fact that people were worried about the paperwork; but he suggested that if everyone was honest and practical about this, the benefit would far outweigh the problem of paperwork necessary to comply with the ordinance. He felt that it was in the best interest of the City to pass this as one ordinance and urged the Council to pass it today. MR. DAVID BLOCK, representing the Austin-Travis County Chapter of Common Cause of Texas, endorsed this ordinance and suggested that what was really needed was increased public confidence in government. He felt it was important to include the members of major policy-making boards and commissions. MR. RAYMOND DONLEY was in favor of this and felt it was a matter of public trust. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 13位 MR. ROBERT YOUNG, member of the Bicentennial Committee, did not object to filing because he felt that in this time the people had a right to know. He also felt that if someone was willing to serve on a board or commission, they should also be willing to disclose their financial situation. He urged that the Council pass this in full. MS. RUTH EPSTEIN, representing the Travis County Democratic Women, urged the Council to adopt this ordinance. She suggested that people were aware of many specific areas where the expertise of people making decisions often created a conflict of interest for them. She believed that this ordinance would raise the general level of public acceptance, Discussion Councilman Lebermann took this opportunity to announce that yesterday he had sent out a copy of the proposed ordinance, inviting comment not only from those members of boards and commissions that would be effected but all across the City. He thought it would be interesting to have the public comment, and he stated that at the latest there had been 84 calls, 8 of which were in favor of the ordinance as it now stands or some variation on that theme. He noted that the rest have objected to the extent that resignation has been suggested. As an elected representative, he stated that he would feel comfortable making adequate declaration of his conflict of interest so that he could step aside when an issue came up before the Council. He felt that he needed some additional time to see if he could develop a counter proposal to get to the same goal. He also felt that there should be substantial differentiation between those things elected officials are asked to disclose as opposed to those who are appointed and serving without remuneration. Mayor Pro Tem Love stated that after today's spontaneous reaction, he would support the Code of Ethics portion of the ordinance; but he had difficulty with certain aspects of the Financial. Disclosure aspect. He felt that there should be a period of time to leave the hearing open and set two more dates for hearing: one for the Code of Ethics and one for the Financial Disclosure. Motion Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A CODE OF ETHICS FOR THE CITY OF AUSTIN; PROVIDING STANDARDS OF CONDUCT REQUIRING THE FILING OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITY STATEMENTS; PROVIDING PENALTIES; AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. Councilman Friedman moved that the hearing be closed and the ordinance be passed through its first reading only, which would include the portion on Financial Disclosure relating only to City employees and elected officials and excluding members of any board and commission. Councilman Binder seconded the motion. Councilman Lebermann felt that there could be some variations that would arrive at a substitute method. Councilman Friedman suggested that this was at least the first step. Councilman Binder felt this was reasonable in that the Council would be establishing a principle, of which they were in favor, CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1353 Councilman Dryden did not think it was reasonable. He stated that he was in favor of any kind of Code of Ethics, but he did not believe he could comply with some of the ordinance in connection with Financial Disclosure. Substitute Motion Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the hearing be continued and set December 19, 1974, for the express purpose of discussing the portion on the Code of Ethics and January 9, 1975, for the purpose of discussing the Financial Disclosure. Councilman Lebermann seconded the substitute motion. Councilman Friedman did not think it was necessary to separate the days to have the hearing and suggested that the discussions be on the same day. Amended Substitute Motion Mayor Pro Tem Love amended the substitute motion to continue the hearing and schedule for December 19, 1974, to discuss both portions. The motion, seconded by Councilman Lebermann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Councilman Friedman prefaced his vote by stating that he would vote affirmatively based on the assumption that final action would be taken. Councilman Binder prefaced his vote by stating that he would prefer to accept the ordinance today. City Manager Davidson felt that the delay would be helpful and announced that at the request of Councilman Lebermann he had conducted a survey of City department heads and administrators to get their comments about the proposed ordinance. He distributed copies of the various replies, which were anonymous. He submitted that these represented several hundred years of experience in municipal. government. He urged the Council to study this material and stated that he would be happy to provide any additional information. He emphasized the following: 1. The point made about the City's ability to get qualified citizens to serve on boards and commissions was a real concern. 2. He felt that if an inappropriate ordinance that had not been properly laid out were to be passed, it would effect the kind of employees the City would be able to retain and the type that could be expected to be employed in the future. He suggested that nothing be passed without careful consideration and study of the points raised by the department heads and stated that he would appreciate the privilege of addressing specific points in the ordinance at the next hearing. Councilman Lebermann felt that all the informational input from the staff was important and would be greatly reviewed by all members of the Council, November 21, 1974 1354 =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS ΑΝΝΕΧΑΤΙON HEARING SET Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution setting a public hearing at 1:00 p.m. on December 12, 1974, to consider annexing the following: 381.90 total acres of land: 363.35 acres of land out of the Henry P. Hill League, unplatted and a portion of proposed MoPac Boulevard, (Tract 131.9.53 acres requested by Scudder & Wadsworth, Architects, representing Jagger Associates, Inc., owner; Tract 2 43.82 acres initiated by the City.) 18.55 acres of unplatted land. (Requested by Scudder & Wadsworth, Architects, representing Jagger Associates, Inc., owner.) The motion, seconded by Councilman Friedman, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Dryden LICENSE AGREEMENT Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution granting the following license agreement: JAGGER ASSOCIATES, INC. Permitting encroachment by balconies of a proposed office building over a portion of the Drainage Easement thirty (30.00) feet in width which traverses the interior of Tract B of the BROOK, a subdivision, said Tract B being at the southwest corner of the intersection of Woodland Avenue with I. II. 35, and said portion of encroachment being five (5.00) feet in width by 114.62 feet in length out of the southwest side of said easement. (Requested by Taniguchi, Shefelman, Vacker & Minter, Architects, representing Jagger Associates, Inc., owner.) The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Noes: Friedman None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1355 CONTRACTS AWARDED Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contracts: Bid Award: Color Processing Laboratory, Police Department DEK/ELECTRO IDENTIFICATION Item 1 $1,205.00 SYSTEMS 173 Freedom Avenue Anaheim, California PAKO CORPORATION 6300 Olson Memorial Ilighway Minneapolis, Minnesota TREK PHOTOGRAPHIC, INC. 1607 West Mockingbird Lane Dallas, Texas UNIVERSITY CO-OP 2246 Guadalupe Street Austin, Texas Items 2-8 $6,392.00 Items 9-13, 16-25, 34, 49, 53, 62 $8,829,60 Items 14, 15, 26-32, 35, 37-48, 50-52, and 61 $2,789,15 The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Noes: Friedman None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract: MOTOROLA C & E, INC. 3320 Belt Line Road Dallas, Texas Radio Communication Equipment, Vehicle & Equipment Services Dept. Item 1 47 ea. @ $1,460.00 Total $68,620,00 The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1356 Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 6901 North Lamar Boulevard Austin, Texas Radio Communication Equipment, Vehicle & Equipment Services Department Item 1-3 $1.9,1.37.00 The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contracts: Bid Award: Police and Administrative Sedans, Vehicle & Equipment Services Department AUSTIN AMC/JEEP, INC. Item 1 32 ea, @ $3,343.22 5505 North Lamar Boulevard 4 22 ea, @ $3,852.13 Austin, Texas 5 6 Total 2 ea. @ $3,767,63 4 ea, @ $3,152,39 $235,277,26 PLYMOUTH JAY SMITH CHRYSLER 841 West 6th Street Item 3 Total 81. ea, @ $4,340.45 $351,576.45 Austin, Texas The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract: BESCO, INC. 1616 West 5th Street Austin, Texas Street Light Poles for Electric Department. Item 1 200 ea. - $47,000.00 The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Friedman Noes; None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann November 21, 1.974 1352 ☑ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS= Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract: WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. 1.455 West Loop South Houston, Texas Supervisory engineering service, spare parts, and equipment rental for disassemble, inspection and preventive maintenance work, Steam Turbine Unit %33 at Holly Street Power Plant, Electric Utility Department $51.,000.00 The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution awarding the following contract: DALMARK, INC. Rt. 1. Box 86 Buda, Texas For construction of Electric Ductlines and Concrete Foundations at McNeil Substation $20,322.00 The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called; Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann EXECUTION OF ILLUMINATION AGREEMENT Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of a revised Illumination Agreement on I. H. 35 from the north to the south City limits. The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Friedman, Mayor Butler Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1358 EXECUTION OF OPERATING AGREEMENT Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the Operating Agreement for the South Texas Interconnected System Security Center. The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Binder, Friedman, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann FEDERAL GRANT FOR EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COUNSELOR TRAINING PROJECT Councilman Binder moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing acceptance of a Federal Grant for $15,000 through the Texas Department of Community Affairs for an Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor Training Project from October 1, 1974, thorugh September 31, 1975. Total cost will be $33,928; Federal funds will be $15,000; In-kind will be $18,928. The motion, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Love, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Friedman, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Noes: Councilman Binder None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called; Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann ITEM IN CONNECTION WITH BRACKENRIDGE WITHDRAWN Approval of the disposition of Parcel 12-A in the Brackenridge Project Area, Tex A-11-1, and approval of a modification of the Parking Requirements of the Brackenridge Urban Renewal Plan as applied to Disposition Parcel 1.2-A was withdrawn. CHANGE IN PARKING METER ZONES Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the following parking meter zones: Street Brazos Street Deleting Zone 30-60-90-120 Block Side 600 East and West Street Brazos Street West 5th Street =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- November 21, 1974 1359 Adding Zone 30 Block Side 600 East and West Zone 60 500 North and South The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Councilman Friedman, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden None Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Lebermann ACCEPTANCE OF GRANT AWARD FOR POLICE RESEARCH AND PLANNING UNIT Councilman Friedman moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to accept a grant award from the Texas Criminal Justice Division for the "Police Research and Planning Unit." Project period will be from January 1, 1975, through December 31, 1975. Cost will be $38,745,00 from Criminal Justice support with no local cash match. The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Lebermann ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR MOPAC BOULEVARD Councilman Friedman moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing eminent domain proceedings for acquisition of right of way for MoPac Boulevard: 1/10th interest in a 0.66-acre tract of land out of the James Mitchell Survey (Charles D. Nash) The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Lebermann =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1360 ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR DEEP EDDY PARK Councilman Friedman moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing acquisition of certain land for the expansion of Deep Eddy Park: 404 Deep Eddy 403 Hearne Street (Hermie Ruth Bettis) The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Lebermann ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR RUNDBERG LANE PROJECT Councilman Friedman moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing acquisition of certain land for the Rundberg Lane Project from North Lamar Boulevard to I.H. 35: 6,746 square feet of land out of the John Applegait Survey (Lemmon-Lee Rundberg, Ltd.) The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Lebermann APPLICATION FOR GRANT IN CONNECTION WITH TELEPHONE REASSURANCE SERVICE Councilman Binder moved that the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to apply to the Area Agency on Aging for a $9,563 grant to provide funding for the Telephone Reassurance Service from January 1, 1975, through December 31, 1975. Total cost will be $13,051; Grant will be $9,563; In-kind will be $3,488. The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Noes: Dryden, Friedman None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Lebermann CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS- November 21, 1974 1361 REQUEST TO APPEAR WITHDRAWN It was noted that Ms. Annabelle Valle, Project Director of SER, withdrew her request to appear before the Council for a brief presentation, ITEM CONCERNING TAX APPEALING Mr. Thomas J. Harwell appeared before the Council concerning tax appealing. He suggested that many citizens in the City had a tax problem and stated that he would offer a partial solution at the conclusion of his remarks and opinions. He asked how many times a citizen and taxpayer had to appear before the Council for the Council to realize that the silent majority was beginning to make its move. lle stated that he had discussed this solution with knowledgeable people and had done some research in the library. He submitted that many cities in Texas operated without the office of the City Manager. He suggested that a study be conducted concerning the elimination of the office of the City Manager. Councilman Binder felt that if Mr. Harwell was talking about Mr. Davidson, his remarks were unmerited and uncalled for however, if he was talking about the Manager in general, he appreciated Mr. Harwell's comment. In response to this, Mr. Harwell stated that he had the highest regard for Mr. Davidson and felt that he was well qualified; however, he did not believe the job of the City Manager was worth $45,000 a year. Mayor Butler pointed out that it would take a Charter revision to change Austin's form of government. REQUEST TO APPEAR CONCERNING TEXAS HOUSE BILL 185 WITHDRAWN It was noted that Mr. David S. Kirkland, Secretary of the Joint Liaison Committee of the AFD & APD, withdrew his request to appear before the Council concerning Texas House Bill 185. APPEARANCE CONCERNING SPECIAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS TASK FORCE Mr. Paul Hernandez, representing the Austin Committee for Justice, appeared before the Council to submit a proposal. He requested that the Special Community Relations Task Force be enlarged so that there would be two additional Chicanos, one University student, and one woman. He submitted that the Task Force was made up of mainly Anglo upper-class citizens who knew very little about the problem and only wanted to learn rather than do something about the problem. Ile suggested that the Task Force needed that segment of the community who were being brutalized. DISCUSSION OF IMPROVEMENTS TO JOHNSON CREEK Mr. Edward L. Ramsey, spokesman for the Johnson Creek Neighborhood Group, appeared before the Council to discuss improvements to Johnson Creek. He stated that on October 31, 1974, the Council had approved a tentative improvement plan for the Creek in an Executive Session, He noted that the _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1362 residents of the area learned of this from an article appearing in the Austin American Statesman on November 1. He submitted that this manner of approval combined with the manner in which they learned of the plan had caused a great deal of concern about this. He noted that they had met as a group which consisted of owners of property adjacent to the Creek and along the Creek and had discussed this plan. He requested that after the survey was completed and after the Engineering Department had completed preliminary plans that no further action be taken until after a public hearing, at which time the group would be able to make suggestions or provide the Council with additional information that may be helpful. He stated that many of them felt that if this plan got past the preliminary stage, they would have a difficult time getting their ideas into this plan. He also requested that the plan with supporting statistics be made available to them a minimum of 30 days prior to the public hearing. The City Manager stated that for many years a number of citizens living in the area adjacent to the Creek had expressed the feeling that something should be done to correct the drainage problem that had plagued their respective properties. He added that Mr. Charles Graves, Director of Engineering, had related to him that a number of citizens had communicated to him their opposition to the plans that had been generally discussed. He noted that as a result of these communications, the City intended to communicate with interested citizens to review the plans at one of the group's meetings or with individual property owners prior to their coming back to the Council for action of any kind. Mr. Davidson suggested that if the Council desired to conduct a public hearing on this subject, that they instruct the staff to set it up on the agenda after the plans have been completed and the neighborhood informed of it. In response to Mr. Ramsey's request to have supporting data, statistics, analyses, etc., at least 30 days prior to the hearing, Mr. Davidson stated that this could be done. DISCUSSION OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING Ms. Joyce Klein, President of We Care Austin, appeared before the Council to discuss outdoor advertising along MoPac and Loop 360. She stated that recently her organization had hosted an "Environmental Ideas Exchange" for representatives of interested groups, and one of the immediate concerns had been that the new MoPac and Loop 360 be kept free of outdoor advertising and other distracting signs and felt it was important that policies be set prior to road completion. They requested that the Council direct an ordinance be drafted as soon as possible which would prohibit outdoor advertising as well as place appropriate controls on building identification signs along MoPac and Loop 360, wherever the City had jurisdiction. She listed the following organizations who endorsed We Care Austin's request for such an ordinance: Austin Heritage Society Church Women United Junior League of Austin North Austin Civic Association University United Methodist Church Environmental Task Force Now or Never Austin League of Women Voters Balcones Civic Association Sierra Club American Association of University Women Austin's Women Federation _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1.974 1363 She offered her organization's assistance in this and stated that the Quality of Life Committee of the Chamber of Commerce was also interested in the proposal and had offered their assistance and resources in the study and drafting of the ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Love thought that those who represented the outdoor advertising industry were entitled to a hearing on this. Councilman Binder announced that he had been working on an ordinance which was not limited to MoPac. In response to his question, City Attorney Don Butler stated that the only thing that presently protected MoPac was the existing zoning. Councilman Binder stated that the Council should proceed on this on the entire problem and include MoPac, In response to Councilman Friedman's request, the City Attorney thought he could draft an appropriate ordinance within the next three weeks. Councilman Friedman moved that the Council. instruct the City Attorney and City Manager to prepare an amendment to the sign ordinance with significant distribution to the outdoor advertising people and any of the afore-mentioned organizations and also set a public hearing for 1:00 pm. on December 12, 1974. The motion, seconded by Councilman Lebermann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox INTRODUCTION At this point, Mayor Butler introduced Councilman Lebermann's wife, Louise, and his father-in-law, Mr. Tom O'Connor. SPECIAL REQUEST Councilman Binder announced that the 23rd Street Vendors Association was present with a request. The City Attorney stated that the Council could vote to hear someone if they were not on the agenda if it was an emergency. He noted that the problem with taking any action was that the ordinance setting up the public market area required that a public hearing be held and that an ordinance be passed; therefore, the Council could not take action today. MR. MARK MAYFIELD, member of the 23rd Street Vendors Association, stated that due to crowded conditions they felt it was appropriate that 23rd Street be blocked off for the remainder of the Christmas selling season and requested that this be done. He suggested that 23rd be barricaded on Saturdays between now and Christmas from Guadalupe to San Antonio except for the alleyway. REV. JOHN TOWERY, pastor of Congregational Church of Austin, noted that the congregation had a meeting on Sunday; and the Church voted unanimously to close the street temporarily not only on Saturdays but during the week as well. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1364 MR. JOHN SHUDDE, manager of Hemphill's Book Store, noted that in late July he had made a suggestion that 23rd be closed on Saturday during the fall to see what effect it would have on the traffic and recommended to the Council at this time that it be closed on Saturday on an experimental basis until Christmas. It was noted that a letter had been submitted from the manager of the University Co-Op in favor of the proposal. Councilman Binder moved that the Council set a public hearing for 1:00 p.m. on December 5, 1974, to consider the request of the 23rd Street Vendors Association to barricade West 23rd Street between Guadalupe and San Antonio Street. The motion, seconded by Councilman Friedman, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox AMENDMENTS TO PLUMBING CODE Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 42 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967; REPEALING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 42; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS, Councilman Friedman moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective November 30, 1974. The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilman Binder Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Dryden The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. AMENDMENTS TO HOUSING CODE Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 40 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967; REPEALING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 403 PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE: DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS. : = CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS: November 21, 1974 Councilman Friedman moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective November 30, 1974. The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilman Binder Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council. Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Dryden The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. AMENDMENTS TO MECHANICAL CODE Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 39 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967; REPEALING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 39; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS, Councilman Friedman moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective November 30, 1974. The motion, seconded by Councilman Binder, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilman Binder Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox Not in Council. Chamber when roll was called: Councilman Dryden The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH PARKING CONTROL ADJACENT TO ANNEX Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance; AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21, SECTION 21-31, SUBSECTION (C), OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967, PROVIDING FOR THE CONTROL OF VEHICULAR PARKING BY POSTED SIGN ON CERTAIN LOTS CONTROLLED BY THE CITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; WAIVING THE RULE REQUIRING THAT ORDINANCES BE READ ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Municipal Annex) Councilman Friedman moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilman Lebermann, carried by the following vote: ھارا CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS November 21, 1974 1364 Ayes: Councilmen Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. ORDINANCE DECLARING NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance; AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERING THE PAVING AND IMPROVEMENT OF PORTIONS OF CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUCH WORK, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS, DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF ESTIMATES, INVOKING THE ALTERNATE PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 5 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND CHAPTER 106 OF THE ACTS OF THE FIRST CALLED SESSION OF THE 40TH LEGISLATURE OF TEXAS, DETERMINING THAT THE COST OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PAID BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN, PROVIDING A METHOD OF REIMBURSING THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR A PORTION OF SUCH COSTS BY ASSESSMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH COSTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY ABUTTING SUCH STREETS OR PORTIONS THEREOF TO BE IMPROVED, AND FOR THE FIXING OF A LIEN TO SECURE PAYMENT OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS, STATING THE TIME AND MANNER PROPOSED FOR PAYMENT OF ALL SUCH COSTS, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A NOTICE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE TO BE FILED IN THE MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST RECORDS OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Springdale Road and Webberville Road) Councilman Friedman moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilman Lebermann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Noes: Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman None Absent: Councilman Handcox The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE NECESSITY FOR AND ORDERING THE PAVING AND IMPROVEMENT OF PORTIONS OF CERTAIN STREETS IN THE CITY OF AUSTIN, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUCH WORK, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS, DIRECTING THE PREPARATION OF ESTIMATES, INVOKING THE ALTERNATE PROCEDURE PROVIDED BY ARTICLE I, SECTION 5 OF THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF AUSTIN AND CHAPTER 106 OF THE ACTS OF THE FIRST CALLED SESSION OF THE 40TH LEGISLATURE OF TEXAS, DETERMINING THAT THE COST OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PAID BY THE CITY OF AUSTIN, PROVIDING A METHOD OF REIMBURSING THE CITY OF AUSTIN FOR A PORTION OF SUCH COSTS BY ASSESSMENT OF A PORTION OF SUCH COSTS AGAINST THE PROPERTY ABUTTING SUCH STREETS OR PORTIONS THEREOF TO BE IMPROVED, AND FOR THE FIXING OF A LIEN TO SECURE PAYMENT OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS, STATING THE TIME AND MANNER November 21, 1974 1367 - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS PROPOSED FOR PAYMENT OF ALL SUCH COSTS, DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO CAUSE A NOTICE OF THE ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE TO BE FILED IN THE MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST RECORDS OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Rundberg Lane) Councilman Friedman moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilman Lebermann, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. ZONING ORDINANCES Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE ORDERING A CHANGE IN USE AND HEIGHT AND AREA AND CHANGING THE USE AND HEIGHT AND AREA MAPS ACCOMPANYING CHAPTER 45 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967 AS FOLLOWS: (1) LOTS 25 AND 26, BLOCK 35, OUTLOT "D," HORST SUBDIVISION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 413 WEST 23RD STREET AND ALSO BEING BOUNDED BY SAN ANTONIO STREET, FROM SIXTH HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT TO SECOND HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT AND, (2) A ONE ACRE TRACT OF LAND, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 4025-4027 SOUTH LAMAR BOULEVARD, FROM "C" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO "C-2" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND, (3) A 33.56 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 2416 KRAMER LAND AND ALSO BEING BOUNDED BY THE MISSOURI-PACIFIC RAILROAD, FROM INTERIM "A" RESIDENCE, INTERIM FIRST HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT TO "D" INDUSTRIAL, FIRST HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT; AND, (4) AN 11.694 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 8834-8898 RESEARCH BOULEVARD (U.S. IIIGHWAY 183), FROM INTERIM "A" RESIDENCE, INTERIM FIRST HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT TO "C" COMMERCIAL, FIRST HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT; AND, (5) ΑΝ 18,000 SQUARE FOOT TRACT OF LAND, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 200 LEE BARTON DRIVE, FROM "C" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO "C-H" COMMERCIAL-HISTORIC DISTRICT; AND, (6) LOTS 2 AND 3, FAIRVIEW PARK ADDITION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 21.0 ACADEMY DRIVE, FROM "B" RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO "B-H" RESIDENCE-HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND, (7) LOT 27, BLOCK 1, PLEASANT HILL ADDITION, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 136 1/2-200 STASSNEY LANE, FROM "A" RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO "O" OFFICE DISTRICT, AND, (8) Λ 2.366 ACRE TRACT OF LAND, SAVE AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 150 FEET WHICH IS TO REMAIN ZONED "C-2" COMMERCIAL, SECOND HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 703-727 BARTON SPRINGS ROAD, FROM "A" RESIDENCE, FIRST HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT TO "C" COMMERCIAL, SECOND HEIGHT AND AREA DISTRICT; AND, (9) A 2,207 SQUARE FOOT TRACT OF LAND, LOCALLY KNOWN AS 2510-2512 SAN ANTONIO STREET, FROM "C" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO "C-2" COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; ALL OF SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (University Presbyterian Church, C14-74-136; Barton-West Associates, Ltd., C14-74-143; City of Austin, C14-74-1473; Estate of Argus M. Fox, Cl4-74-1.50; Paggi House, C14h-74-0063; Red-Purcell House, C14h-74-009; Kathryn L. Mandrell, C14-74-142; The Roy Estate, C14-74-148; Gordan M. Griffin, Jr., C14-74-149) - CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1368 Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. Mayor Butler introduced the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE ORDERING A CHANGE IN USE AND CHANGING THE USE MAPS ACCOMPANYING CHAPTER 45 OF THE AUSTIN CITY CODE OF 1967 AS FOLLOWS: LOTS 10 AND 11, BLOCK 4-B, NEWNING AND WARNERS SUBDIVISION (SWISHER ADDITION), LOCALLY KNOWN AS 312-400 WEST MARY STREET, FROM "A" RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO "BB" RESIDENCE DISTRICT, SAID PROPERTY BEING LOCATED IN AUSTIN, TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS; SUSPENDING THE RULE REQUIRING THE READING OF ORDINANCES ON THREE SEPARATE DAYS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. (Pete G. Sosa, C14-74-134) Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council waive the requirement for three readings, declare an emergency and finally pass the ordinance effective immediately. The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilman Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. APPROACH MAIN CONTRACT Mayor Butler brought up the following ordinance for its third reading: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CERTAIN REFUND CONTRACT WITH H. R. BENTLEY. (Glencliff Subdivision) The ordinance was read the third time, and Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann Noes: Councilmen Binder, Friedman Absent: Councilman Handcox The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. November 21, 1974 1369 CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS REFUND CONTRACTS THIRD READING Mayor Butler brought up the following ordinance for its third reading: AN ORDINANCE AUTIIORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CERTAIN REFUND CONTRACTS WITH M. H. FLOURNOY AND H. R. BENTLEY. (Flournoy's Sweetbriar, Section 11, Subdivision; Glencliff Subdivision) The ordinance was read the third time, and Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the ordinance be finally passed. The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Dryden, Lebermann Noes: Councilmen Binder, Friedman Absent: Councilman Handcox The Mayor announced that the ordinance had been finally passed. REFUND CONTRACTS SECOND READING Mayor Butler brought up the following ordinance for its second reading: AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO CERTAIN REFUND CONTRACTS WITH FARM AND HOME SAVINGS ASSOCIATION AND WALTER CARRINGTON, BUILDER, INCORPORATED. (Peppertree Park, Section 33 The Park at Quail Creek, Section 2) The ordinance was read the second time, and Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that it be passed to its third reading. The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Dryden, Noes: Absent: Lebermann Councilmen Binder, Friedman Councilman Handcox FEDERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT PROGRAM City Manager Davidson distributed copies of a report concerning the Federal Housing and Community Development Act Program and suggested that in view of the time he would delay their presentation and postpone until the Council might be able to spend more time and ask questions after having reviewed the material. ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNCIL ON YOUTH AFFAIRS It was noted that the Council had before it for consideration a proposal by Councilman Lebermann for the establishment of a City Council-Council on Youth Affairs. Councilman Lebermann noted that he had a series of meetings with the student leaders of the high schools to test the idea and to determine if they had the enthusiasm and felt that such a commission would be valuable, and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1320 he stated that there had been a great deal of enthusiasm. Ile felt that since the 18-year old could vote, it would seem appropriate that senior high schools would have some vehicle through which they could express themselves in a formal way to the Council and the Manager's office and the relevant departments. Mr. Tommy Graves, assistant to Councilman Lebermann, reviewed the structure of the Council: 1. Each high school in the Austin Independent School District 2. would select two representatives. total of 18 students. This would involve a One of the representatives would be elected by the Executive Committee of the Council to serve in the fall of the school. year with the other serving in the spring. 3. One of the representatives would be an upper classman with the other being a Sophomore or Junior. 4. The representatives would serve one year. 5. The selected representative would receive confirmation from the majority of the voting members of his or her student council. 6. The meetings would be monitored by each participating school on a rotating basis. 7. The Manager's office would provide coordination and a liaison between the Council and the Youth Council and the staff, At this point, some of the students introduced themselves. Councilman Lebermann moved that the Council approve the concept creating the Council on Youth Affairs and approving the structure of it as described and authorize the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate resolution. The motion, seconded by Councilman Dryden, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden, Friedman, Noes: Absent: Lebermann, Mayor Butler None Councilman Handcox PROPOSED REVISION TO ELECTRIC SERVICE REGULATIONS It was noted that the Council had before it for consideration a proposal by Councilman Friedman and Legal Aid involving revision to the City of Austin Electric Service Regulations. Mr. Bill Allison, representing Legal Aid, noted that utility terminations had always been a problem; and beginning last spring there had been an increasing number of people come in who could not pay their bill. He briefly outlined the proposal, noting there were two basic components: 1. Ilearing provision He indicated that the reasons for termination would remain the same: non-payment, allegation that customer was diverting electricity, and an emergency situation. a. Notice of hearing November 21, 1974 1321 = CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS 2. (1) Notice should be bilingual (2) Would have 20 days to take advantage of hearing (3) Would have right to bring someone with him (4) Would have right to see evidence presented against him and right to present own evidence (5) Would have right to argue the case and right to cross-examine b. Special consideration given to specific groups Specific groups would include: a. Illness b. c. When a physician certifies that a customer has a specific medical problem and termination would pose a serious health threat, the City would not terminate during whatever period of time there would be a threat. Age If a customer is 65 or older or there is a member of the household under 2, there would be one year in which to work out payment of delinquent balance while remaining current on bills. Climate City would not terminate utilities when temperature is predicted to go below 32 degrees. Mayor Butler felt that the rates should probably be left alone and a revolving fund be established. City Manager Davidson commented that he would like to look at this with more detail and felt that three factors should be examined: 1. Study concerning the adjustment of some of the timing factors as to how long the City allows an account to be delinquent before taking appropriate action. 2. Need to look at the aspect of extending the payments in certain situations such as with the Credit Division of the Water and Light Office. 3. Consider the social aspect that he did not believe a public utility could handle. He commented that there were a number of agencies in Austin that were assisting people to buy food, to pay delinquent utility bills, to pay rent, etc. He felt that in this particular county and state it was not the responsibility of Austin. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1372 He requested that he be given an opportunity to look at this and come back with an evaluation as to portions that fit in with the proposal. Councilman Friedman felt that the Council did have a social responsibility and stated that he was not asking someone to come and pay these bills. He wanted a more uniform and more practical application of the extension of credit. Mayor Butler felt that the City was too "lax" on the people who could pay their bills and would not. Councilman Friedman commented that the City's responsibility was to those who had become less and less able to pay their bills on a monthly basis. City Manager Davidson suggested that before the Council change the current policy, some figures and statistics should be submitted as to the number being handled by other agencies to help take care of this problem. He felt that the staff could come back to the Council with some kind of re-cap and hopefully a recommendation by December 12, 1974. A representative of Caritas presented the Council with a prepared statement giving their position on Councilman Friedman's proposal. He condensed it by stating that they would appreciate it if the City would seek input from agencies who were paying these bills and from some of the people themselves. announced that they stood ready to be of any service, lie REPORT ON UNIFORM CONSTRUCTION BARRICADING STANDARDS It was noted that the Council had before it a report from the Traffic Safety Commission on Uniform Construction Barricading Standards, Mr. Bill Nolen, Chairman of the Commission, reviewed this by stating that about a year ago the Traffic Control Committee was requested to review existing practices pertaining to barricading and construction within the public streets. He stated that after meetings with several City departments, they recommended that appropriate ordinances and standards be prepared that would provide for the following: 1. Coordination and centralization of all street barricade and detour activities, 2. Uniform standards relating to traffic direction and control during construction and maintenance operations. 3. General street use controls during construction and maintenance operations (including such factors as location, duration of street occupancy, time of day, and availability of street space), 4. An equitable permit fee structure for street use to be applied uniformly throughout the City. He added that since June 17, 1974, the Commission had conducted several work sessions and public hearings; and as a result, revisions to the initial proposals were completed, and on August 27, the Commission approved the submission of the Manual on Uniform Construction and Barricading Standards and a proposed ordinance. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1373 He pointed out that the Commission did not consider the fee structure as proposed, but they believed that it should reflect both direct expenses to the City and indirect expenses and delays to the public. In conclusion, he thanked various departments for their assistance as well as representatives from Southwestern Bell Telephone, Southern Union Gas Company, contractors, and many interested citizens. The City Manager felt that the Commission had done a great job on reviewing this proposal and felt that it would be one of the most significant moves in Austin. In response to Councilman Binder's question, Mr. Nolen stated that they had felt it was not their prerogative to set the fee structure. Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council accept the Manual and instruct the Manager to come back with an appropriate ordinance. The motion, seconded by Councilman Friedman, carried by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen Dryden, Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilman Binder Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox City Manager Davidson noted that at the time he presented the ordinance he would have recommendations in connection with the fee. EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE COMMITTEE REPORT It was noted that the Council had before it the Emergency Medical Service Committee report. MR. CURTIS WEEKS, Chairman, stated that on November 12, 1974, the Committee met and voted on two motions; 1. The City of Austin should use the same private contractor to go into the upgraded EMS system. He noted that the vote was 2 to 6 against the motion, and he did not vote. 2. The Committee recommend to the City administration that a permanent supervisory committee be established comprised of persons committed only to the responsibility of an EMS system. The composition of the committee should include members designated by the Travis County Medical Society, City administration, Fire Department, and laypersons. The responsibility of the committee would be to directly supervise with authority the EMS system and to coordinate these activities with the administration. He noted that the vote was 7 to 1 in favor of the motion, and he did not vote. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 13.74 Mr. Weeks stated that he was bitterly disappointed that a majority of the Committee did not see fit to make a recommendation to the Council that would indicate that they had some convictions about what group should operate the emergency medical service and under what conditions, He saw nothing to be gained by forming another committee. He reviewed the most logical ways to place the service into action: 1. Privately owned and supported by the City. He noted that they had been told that the medical community would be reluctant to donate their time and effort to train employees of a privately-owned profit making enterprise. He added that they had also been told that private enterprise systems had little or no fringe benefits, credit union membership, or a schedule of regular advancement predicated on increased utility knowledge and longevity. He 2. Publicly owned and operated by the City Fire Department. They learned that no person could be in the EMS before they had 2 years of service in the Fire Department. added that placing it under the Department would also place it under Civil Service law, which would restrict the flexibility of movement of personnel.. 3. Publicly owned and operated by a separate department. He felt this was the best possible choice for the following reasons: a. You could design a career program devoted 100% to EMS. b. The Fire Department should be used to augment the health service of the City. c. Would add to the sense of pride of the organization and create a desire in the personnel to excell in their chosen field. Therefore, he suggested that the Council create a spearate EMS department to operate the service and ambulance system to be run by a department head under the City Manager. He noted that he would be happy to pass on notes, information, and ideas to the group that would run the system and urged that any decision should be made soon. He suggested that interim measures could be used but with the idea in mind that it would be a permanent organization. Councilman Dryden commented that he felt the medical community would respond in any way and donate their time to train employees. MR. DAN FELTS, representing Austin Ambulance Service, felt that the report that had been submitted was of no value whatsoever in that it gave no guidelines or suggestions. He commented that it recommended two things: =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21., 1974 1375 1. Austin Ambulance Service not handle the upgraded EMS. 2. The Council appoint another committee. He pointed out that Austin Ambulance Service was the only franchise ambulance operator for the City and held a contract with the City that would expire at the end of next year but with a two-year option. He submitted that they could implement the type of service the medical community has said they would like to have, and they could do it immediately without necessity of having to set up a new bureaucracy within the City. He noted that there were four new Modulances that they could purchase and put into service within the next two weeks but did not want to make that purchase if they were going to be "put out of business in 12 months." He suggested the following: 1. Austin Ambulance Service be authorized to commence as soon as possible an upgraded EMS system. 2. Austin Ambulance Service will purchase the new Modulances and radio equipment providing the City will agree to purchase the equipment and facilities upon termination of the present contract, if not extended beyond December 31, 1975, for the additional 2-year period. 3. Since Brackenridge Hospital had no radio equipment enabling direct communication from the Hospital to the ambulances, Austin Ambulance Service will furnish and install at their cost the necessary radio equipment in the emergency room area of the Hospital. He asked that the City purchase this if the contract expired. 4. The Council appoint today a supervisory committee that would have the authority from time to time to request additional upgrading of service offered by Austin Ambulance. He felt that the committee should include the City Manager, the Urban Transportation Director, and the Hospital Administrator, along with some representatives of the Travis County medical community. In response to Councilman Friedman's question, Mr. Felts stated that the rate structure was based upon an operating ratio and would still be under the same contract. In response to Mayor Butler's question, Mr. Felts indicated that there would be other facilities that would be necessary that they would acquire in order to upgrade this system; but he added that if the City went into this in a municipal operation and created another section within the City, there would be much more expense involved to the taxpayers. Mayor Pro Tem Love suggested that the City Manager select from his staff people and come back with their recommendations as to how the City was going to implement this type program as soon as possible, After discussion, City Manager Davidson stated that he could have a report to the Council in 30 days. _ CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21., 1974 1376 Mayor Butler requested that the City Manager come back to the Council within a week or so as to how the City could properly handle this by setting up some reasonable depreciation tables where the City would buy the equipment in the event the Austin Ambulance was not successful and keep the system going without any lost time. In response to Councilman Binder's question, Mr. Weeks felt that anything the Council could do to implement this system as rapidly as possible and arrive at a decision of a permanent system that would be satisfactory to all concerned would be the best thing the Council could do. Motion After discussion of the equipment, Mayor Pro Tem Love moved that the Council instruct the City Manager along with his staff to come back within 30 days with a recommendation as to how the Council should proceed, keeping in mind the observations made by Mr. Felts, keeping in mind the report, and leaning heavily on Mr. Weeks to get the system in force as soon as possible. Councilman Friedman seconded the motion. Mr. Felts mentioned that the acquisition of these units was going to have to be made in the next 10 days in that they may not be available 30 days from now. In response to Mayor Butler's question, City Manager Davidson stated that he could come up with a plan of repurchase by December 5, 1974. Mr. Felts felt that this would be sufficient time in which to purchase the equipment. The City Manager re-capped the motion by noting that on December 5 the staff would have a report to Council indicating how the Council could get Austin Ambulance into the business of EMS almost immediately if the Council should desire to do it under the amortization program suggested. The full report would not be back to the Council until the first meeting in January, laying out the alternatives, the advantages, the cost differentials, and their recommendation as to how the EMS system should be operated by the City. 1975. There was discussion of getting the system into effect by January 1, Councilman Dryden commented that the City should not be rushing these new type ambulances on the streets but should be after trained personnel to operate them. He felt that this system could not be upgraded to the extent that had been mentioned by January 1, but he was in favor of having this studied by the City Manager. DR. WILEY JORDAN, member of the Travis County Medical Society and Central Texas Medical Foundation, made the following comments: 1. He felt that the Ad Hoc Committee that had studied this had recommended that the service not be provided by the private sector but that a permanent committee or board of managers be appointed to select one of three operators. 2. He felt that this was not an upgrading of ambulance service, He suggested it was a catering of medical service out to the customer, not an improved limousine to bring the customer into the restaurant, which should be run by medically trained and medical people. CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1322 3. He felt that what Austin needed was a good emergency medical system with telemetry back into the Hospital, and he believed this would take at least a year. He suggested that the City start now while Austin Ambulance continues to operate its service and to upgrade it. Vote on Motion Councilmen Friedman, Lebermann, Mayor Butler, Mayor Pro Tem Love, Councilmen Binder, Dryden Ayes: Noes: None Absent: Councilman Handcox SPECIAL COMMUNITY RELATIONS TASK FORCE REPORT It was noted that the Special Community Relations Task Force had submitted a report in which they had prepared a budget in the amount of $43,278 for four months. In response to Councilman Friedman's question as to whether or not anything could be provided by the City such as equipment, supplies, or a secretary, MR. II. C. CARTER, chairperson of the Budget Committee of the Task Force, stated that there were certain things that would be satisfactory if they could be provided by the City. As far as the three investigators and secretary that had been requested, Mr. Carter commented that some of the people that would be interviewed had had a bad experience and a predetermined tendency to be hostile toward City employees. He noted that they would need someone who would have the public's total trust to be able to air their grievances. He added that the hiring would be done by the Task Force under the recommendation of the members. In response to the City Attorney's remark, Mr, Carter stated that they would be employees of the City but would be in the Task Force's budget and would, therefore, not have a background of having been with the City. The City Attorney commented that the City Charter required that any City employee be under the City Manager with certain exceptions. Mayor Pro Tem Love felt that the Council had done the Task Force a disservice in that they did not lay out any kind of guidelines and added that some resources might be available to them from the Manager or perhaps from the Police Department. The City Manager noted that he had not had an opportunity to meet with the entire Task Force. He stated that the Council had made a commitment to them to see that they have the resources necessary; however, he believed there were some things the City needed to tell them that had not been told as to what was available. He commented that the Council had appointed some pretty sensitive committees in the past and had been able to provide people who were not biased and were neutral. He suggested that after the briefing, he would come back and report to the Council. Mr. Carter stated that their greatest need right now was for interviewers in that they had been in force for three weeks and no one had heard a grievance by someone who had been abused. _ CITY OF AUSTIN. TEXAS November 21, 1974 1378 Mayor Butler felt that out of 6,000 employees there would be three or four who would be acceptable, Councilman Friedman suggested that the Council approve the interviewers and secretary and let the Task Force select and make a recommendation to the Council. The City Manager pointed out that to employ new people would require a period of about 4 or 5 weeks. Mayor Butler suggested that the Task Force bring some of the people to their meeting with the Manager that they might consider for the positions. MR. JOHN WARFIELD, Vice Chairman of the Budget Committee, felt that they needed people who were objective. The City Manager commented that the Task Force could not take the average citizen and hire him and within a week make him an investigator. He submitted that this required training and experience. He added that if the Task Force did not believe present City employees would be acceptable, those selected from the outside should be already trained and ready to go to work and possibly hired on a contract basis. MR. LARRY JACKSON, member of the Task Force, did not believe anyone on the Task Force was willing to hire anyone who was unqualified, Ile submitted that the requested $43,278 would not be a "waste of money." City Manager Davidson noted that he would make his time available any time next week to meet with the Task Force, Councilman Friedman commented that if necessary the Council could hold an emergency meeting prior to its next regular meeting on December 5, 1974, ZONINGS SET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The City Manager reported that the following zoning applications had been referred to the Planning Commission for recommendation and had been set for public hearing on January 2, 1975: L. C. HOBBS By Malcolm Robinson C14-74-165 9507 Upper Georgetown Road, also bounded by Saunders Lane From Interim "A" Residence 1st Height and Area To "C" Commercial 3rd Height and Area BURT E. DALLAS and LYDIA W. DALLAS C14-74-166 620 Dittmar Road 7813-7815 South First Street From Interim "A" Residence 1st Height and Area To "LR" Local Retail 1st Height and Area RAYMOND C. PILLACK C14-74-167 RONALD N. GOLDSTEIN C14-74-168 6501 Shirley Drive also bounded by the end of Irma Drive From "B" Residence To "C" Commercial 1403-1405 West 39-1/2 Street From "A" Residence To "B" Residence GARY CUTSINGER and HENRY S. MILLER CO., TRUSTEE By William Putney III C14-74-169 ST. EDWARDS UNIVERSITY By Martin Boozer, Jr. C14-74-170 GARY JOHNSON, TRUSTEE C14-74-1.71 WEST 34TH STREET CORPORATION By Ralph Daugherty C14-74-172 WEST 34TH STREET CORPORATION By Ralph Daugherty C14-74-173 JOE THOMPSON, CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 661.7 and 6701 Decker Lane, also bounded by Decker Lake Road Rear of 312-316 Woodward Street 6504 Decker Lake Road, also bounded by Johnny Morris Road 3205-3207 Grandview Street 3206 West Avenue From Interim "A" Residence 1st Height and Area To "GR" General Retail 1st Height and Area From "A" Residence Το "C-2" Commercial From Interim "A" Residence 1st Height and Area To "LR" Local Retail 1579 1st Height and Area (Tract 1) and "BB" Residence 1st Height and Area (Tract 2) From "BB" Residence To "O" Office From "BB" Residence To "0" Office TRUSTFE C14-74-174 EDMUND J. FLEMING, JR. C14-74-1.75 JAGGER ASSOCIATES, INC. By James H. Coleman C1.4-74-178 6107-6505 Decker Lake Road 6400-6614 Johnny Morris Lane Entire block bounded by Airport Boulevard, East 18th Street, East 19th Street and Tillery Street 2803-3309 West Ben White Boulevard (Loop 360) al.so bounded by French Colony Drive and the proposed MoPac Boulevard From Interim "A" Residence To 1st Height and Area "LR" Local. Retail 1st Height and Area (Tract 1) and "O" Office 1st Height and Area (Tract 2) From "LR" Local Retail To "GR" General Retai.l From Interim "A" Residence 1st Height and Area To "GR" General Retail 1st Height and Area (Tracts 1, 2 and 5), "O" Office 1st Height and Area (Tracts 3 and 7) and "BB" Residence 1st Height and Area (Tracts 4 and 6) =CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS November 21, 1974 1380 2. ADJOURNMENT The Council adjourned at 6:15 p.m. ATTEST: Grau Monise City Clerk APPROVED Mayor