Austin City Council Work Session - 8/14/2012 >> Good morning, I am mayor mayor and we will call the austin work session to order on tuesday, august 14, 2012 at 9:07 a.m. We are meeting in the board and commission room, austin city hall 301 west second street, austin, texas, and we will begin today with our executive session. Hopefully short. So the council will go into closed session to take up one 071 of the government code, the city council will consult with legal counsel on the following item. That is a1, discuss legal issues relating to the november 6, 2012 election. Is there any objection to going into closed session? Hearing none, the council will now go into executive session. [09:22:16] >> We are out of closed session and closed session we took up and discussed legal items related to item a1. We will now go through our b section and b1 through b4, public comment is allowed but without objection, I am going to propose we limit public comment to a total of 15 minutes on each side. >> Mayor. >> Council member morrison. >> Morrison: I guess I am curious how much time we have signed up on issues. I know we have a lot of things to get through today, but I just want to -- right now we have -- we have 7 people signed up on b4, on one side and one person on the other. So we could allocate that time by their mutual agreement to add up to 15 minutes. >> Morrison: Otherwise, we are talking about 21, 24 minutes? I guess I would just suggest that that's not that much different and that it might be good to allow those folks that have signed up by now to speak, with a request that they speak in less than three minutes if -- you are requesting that we allow 21 minutes instead of 15 on item b4. >> Morrison: Twenty-four, i believe. well, 21 on one side and one on the other? >> Morrison: Yes. all right. Council, if there is no objection, we can do that. So we will go in order. Let's go to item b1 first. Do we have staff on b1? >> Mayor and council romero, city legal, b1 is an item we want at the end of election section and it is to add items to the call of election, so if there is b1, b2, or even b4, b1 would be necessary. you are saying you want to take that last? >> Yes, sir. all right. We will go to item number b2, which is a charter amendment to authorize accounts to create independent board to oversee city utilities. There are no citizens signed up to speak. Council. Mayor pro tem cole. >> Cole: Mayor, I have some brief questions of legal and also, I believe the utility commissioner is here. I will ask you to come up, steve. We -- thank you, steve. We passed a resolution and i would simply like for you to give a brief update on where you are when we are talking about the issue of governance for austin utility. >> [Indiscernible] are we live. >> You are on. >> Thank you. On, I think it was the seventh of june y'all made a resolution that the electric utility commission should provide you with a report analyzing governance options for the utility. It is a topic we have been addressing annually in terms of sending resolutions for you with recommendations for quite a few years and so we have a background on it. The report that we are supposed to produce for you is due the 31st of october, which won't be particularly helpful in making decisions about charter election ballots, but we will do what we can before that. We are supposed to receive a report from the city manager outlining the results of their analysis, I believe they retained a consultant to do that work. We are supposed to get that data in on the 31st of august. The group of electric utility commission elected tree members, ones who out of the country today, linda shaw and myself. >> Who is the appointees are those commissioners? riley and ms. morrison. >> Okay, thank you. >> And yourself. because we do have a very crowded agenda this morning, can we restrict it rather history of previous actions to direct actions of mayor pro tem. >> Cole: One of my direct questions is that the -- are you familiar with the statute authorizing the general authorization of city council to place a ballot on the -- >> yes, we have seen two different legal routes that can work here. One is a local government act and the other is a texas government code and the latter is essentially validating the san antonio model and the former seems to provide a lot of flexibility in how you proceed. >> Cole: So it is your understand we have the flexibility to move forward in a limited basis. >> On a wording basis and I am not an attorney, that one could -- a municipality can go by charter or by an ordinance to make a modification in governance. >> Cole: Okay. Thank you, mayor. council member riley. >> Riley: It seems that the electric utility commission has a position on whether we should place an item on the ballot authorizing city council to change the governance structure of austin energy? >> No, we don't have a position on whether it should be on the ballot. We have it on whether modifications of governance should be done. >> Riley: That is you support it? >> Absolutely. >> Right now you are agnostic on what should be on the ballot. >> Whatever is legally binding. >> Riley: Okay. Thanks. any more questions? We need to take some action on this item. We also have a city attorney here who can answer questions [10:24:01] and obviously there are some questions you couldn't answer, but I guess one question I would ask you is if -- and tell me if -- if it requires a legal answer. If this item is not put up and approved by the voters in the november election, could the city establish an independent board? >> Andy with the city department. Around first I think it would depend on the definition of what independent is and what exactly the council would want that board to be. And as we discussed, there are -- the statute is very explicit about what powers can be delegated to the board from the council standpoint. It is silent on what powers can be delegated from the administrative standpoint so there is an argument that could be made that without a charter, a board could be set up that could exercise under 552, perhaps rate making authority or dead issuance or eminent domain. The problem is when you get into the details of the charter, there are any number of places where our city charter would conflict with that statute and the statute is not at all clear as to what -- what powers that world could have vis-a-vis city utility as what is already set forth in our city charter about management. so i think it's fair to say we could go either way but what you are saying is we could go either way but without a charter amendment, we would be very limited in -- in administratively how we would set up this independent board? >> That -- we would still have restrictions, but with a charter amendment, you would have flexibility as to what powers or authority you would give the independent board? >> That's correct. >> Mayor leffingwell: okay. [10:26:07] >> Cole: Mayor. mayor pro tem. >> Cole: At this time, based on advice of legal counsel and hearing from our electric utility commissioner and knowing that we have lots of items on the ballot and that we do want the flexibility of being able to have the information that's going to be provided by us, i don't think that we should take action right now, but we should simply withdraw the item. So I would just motion that we would withdraw the item. is there any objection to withdrawing the item? Let me just say that I don't necessarily have objection but we would not consider an charter amendment on this for over two years if we don't have it on the ballot this november, so we are in the position of establishing limited and at this time unknown powers or waiting for two and a half years, most likely, to be able to change that. >> Cole: And I think we should, in good faith, be able to establish some type of board and work with the information that we receive and be able to lay that out to the voters because it is ultimately a local decision and work with the outside ratepayers so they have input on that board because, again, I believe that they should. so -- your statement is that without the charter amendment, we could set up some kind of board with some kind of independent authority, although we don't know what those limitations would be? >> Cole: Exactly. all right. Is there any -- any other objection to withdrawing the motion? Motion -- the item? The item is withdrawn. [10:28:01] So that takes us to b3, charter -- discussing a charter amendment to provide conditions under which the city council may sell or lease any substantial part of the facilities of a municipal utility and we don't have any citizens signed up to speak, previous action by the council, correct me if I am wrong, it has been approved on first and second reading and we might want to reiterate what the exact language of that item was before we begin our discussion, if we could get staff to do that. My recollection basically was in -- in my words what we passed was to authorize the utility to have the charter authorize the sale or lease, substantial parts of the utility, provided there is a 2/3 vote of approval by the council and approval by the voters in an election for that purpose. And the vote on that was 6-1, with me being the no vote. >> That's correct. We are still looking for the exact language, but the provision did read that the -- that the -- to keep in place the prohibition of the council, selling all or any substantial part of the utility provided that provision would not provide to any part of the utility that was both found by the council on a 2/3 vote to be unnecessary for the continued provision of affected utility service and that that sale or lease was approved by the voters. I am not going to reiterate everything i said at the council meeting where it was approved on first, second reading but to say the reason I voted no because i believed it was too restrictive [10:30:00] and doesn't give us the flexibility we need to deal with changes and conditions that would materially affect the utility. I would support my -- if -- if modified on third reading to say, it could begin with the 2/3 vote of the city council. [One moment, please, for change in captioners] . >> Mayor Leffingwell: If the utility found that it were -- made good business sense, for example, to divest itself of a particular plant, let's just say, for example -- it's only an example -- a coal plant because we could do it more efficiently and more effectively with better environmental results in another way, if we could generate that power in another way under all those conditions, then we would have the ability to do it. And of course, we've discussed this in close session many times, the legal reasons why it would be better to be able to have flexibility to act quickly. If we have -- the way the item was passed on first and [10:32:00] second reading, this would be done over an extended period of time, months, perhaps a year, once the decision was made to do it and actually follow through on the transaction, which would affect the utility in a number of ways, which i don't think we can go into right now. >> Morrison: I've been struggling with this quite a bit talking to folks and thinking about the position that we're in. And you know, one of the concerns I have is about the issue of, quote, selling a coal plant because that's certainly fraught with all sorts of complications and just selling it isn't going to solve any air quality or negative effects if it continues. I've also been thinking about the fact that we have the ability to adjust what our utilities own. Certainly we have sold off pieces of our utility, so for instance, once it's decommissioned and all. So our hands aren't completelily tied. So I was starting to move away -- I certainly appreciate the work in terms of getting the strengths of the conditions of a two-thirds vote of the council, then sending it to the voters, but because of all the questions that have been raised and the fact that we do have such a large number of items going on the ballot, I think I'm going to go ahead and switch my vote to vote nay on this item. >> Mayor Leffingwell: We don't have a motion on the table right now. >> Morrison: If there is one. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Councilmember riley. >> Riley: I appreciate councilmember morrison's comments. I've been giving this a lot of thought too and talking with folks in the community. On first reading I indicated [10:34:00] that I would support this, but expected to have further conversations with folks in the community about whether there was an appetite for moving forward as the mayor suggests without requiring an election on the sale of facilities. And in fact, what I found was that there was -- there was even anxiety about what we passed. That even with the requirement of both a two-thirds vote and the election that there were still great reservations about modifying the charter to allow for this. And so given all those concerns and given the mayor's comments about the fact that we would still -- utility would still have significant constraints on its ability to manage its assets, I have reached the conclusion that the item as currently framed is not worth asking the voters to consider this. I share your concerns about overloading the ballot, and given all the concerns I've heard in the community about this item, I've also decided that this is not the timing to forward with this amendment as currently framed. So I also expect to vote against this item. >> Cole: And during the time that we're contemplating changing our entire governor enunanimous structure at the same time making major changes in how we run the utility there is something to be said about continuity of process. I think the way we have it now will allow us the maximum flexibility and experience with what we know to continue. So I also will support withdrawing the motion. >> Mayor Leffingwell: We don't have a motion on the table at this time. [Laughter]. Someone has to make a motion. >> Cole: I will make a motion that we withdraw item b-3 to provide for the city [10:36:01] council to sell at least a substantial part of the facilities of the municipal utility. >> Morrison: Second. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Motion to withdraw the item with a second. Let me just say I would have objected to a unanimous approval of that. I still think it's very important that the utility has the fleck to make these -- flexibility to make these decisions and make these changes in an environment that has the potential to be changing very rapidly. In the near time frame, within a few years. I think to not have this flexibility puts the utility at very significant risk, and therefore I can't support the motion to withdraw. I think we ought to address it. I think we ought to simplify it so that it can be done better. And I say all of these things for one reason only because I think it's necessary to ensure that the city of austin continue to own and operate a municipal utility. So any further comments? >> Cole: Mayor, I simply have a question for you. Can you tell us more about why you think this item will be a make or break deal for the operation of the utility? >> Mayor Leffingwell: Well, because as I said, in the environment that we're in right now with the potential for changing legislation about how utilities are treated within the state of texas, and, as I understand, the situation with changing costs of different kinds of generation, I think the utility has to be able to conduct its business in a way, in a businesslike way, in a competitive way, so that even though we're not legally in a competitive environment yet, we certainly potentially could [10:38:00] be. And without this flexibility, the flexibility that iou's have, mou's need to be on the same playing field. All in favor of the motion to withdraw say aye? Opposed say no. That motion passes on a vote of five-one with myself voting no and councilmember spelman off the dais. That takes us to -- do we need item b-1 before item b-4 on or can we take up b-4 now? >> You can take b-4 now? >> Okay. So we have several speakers signed up. >> Martinez: Mayor? I just want to make a request. I think we have multiple proposals that are going to come forward, and we also have multiple speakers on those potential proposals. It's not tradition, but without objection, I would like to start by making a motion and hopefully -- many of us will have to leave by 12:30. If all of the speakers speak, we may not even get to take action on this item. I would really like to give a sense of direction to the speakers of where this council might be headed with a potential bond package. So I'm going to make a motion to adopt a 385-million-dollar bond package with some amendments. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Motion by char to adopt a 385-million-dollar package with amendments. >> Cole: Mayor, I have hopefully a friendly amendment to that. >> Mayor Leffingwell: I need a second first. Are you seconding? >> Cole: No, I better not second that. [10:40:00] >> Riley: I'll second. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Seconded by councilmember riley. >> Martinez: Thank you, mayor. I wanted to lay out the changes and shirley I also have extra copies and staff, I have extra copies if you need it. >> Morrison: Could you pass one down? >> Mayor Leffingwell: I think it would be appropriate to hear from our speakers before we get into the discussion. So with that, I'll go ahead and call the first speaker, sylvia roscoe. >> [Inaudible - no mic]. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay. Next speaker -- we'll go ahead and take lulu flores and you have two people donating time to you. So you have up to nine minutes. >> I'm not going to -- i have to leave for an appointment, which is why sylvia is not giving me her time. She just asked that I be allowed to speak first, and I appreciate that consideration. I would just like to publicly state my support for the proposed addition to five million dollars for the mexicarte musician project. I believe this is a vital program that will help enhance not only the fifth street corridor, but the whole downtown community. We have a stunning new building that is being proposed. We have the -- the time is now. We have some private funds that have been lined up as well as some potential federal funds. And I believe the timing is now and I've been working on this proposal -- on this program myself for quite some time and I believe it's time it comes to fruition. I think it will be a [10:42:01] wonderful edition to the city of austin. It will have a great economic impact. The proposed building will just be, as I said, a stunning addition to the already vibrant downtown community. So I would just urge the council to fund this program at the proposed five million dollars. And thank you for your consideration. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Thank you. Ruth glendenning. >> Hi. I'm ruth glendenning, I'm here on behalf of core health foundations accessible fishing pier. I've got a few words to say about it. My late husband was in a wheelchair and when somebody goes from abled to disabled, their sense of community completely shifts. What's exciting about this fishing pier is it's a way for cross-generational families and all kinds of family people to come together to stay engaged in the austin community. The core health foundation specifically works with brain injury patients. And what they need is a quiet space, so this is different than the boardwalk. They need someplace where they can actually engage and feel like they're a full part of everything. One of the largest growing groups in austin is the aging population and returning vets and this would also be a great opportunity for them to continue to participate in community and be part of the lady bird lake opportunity. So finally, this is the brainchild of eric mecowsky and did he this while on the mayor's committee for people with disabilities. This was approved by the city council in november of 2010 and we've already raised 247,000 of the 400,000-dollar total, so we're looking for 150,000. And we're excited about the bond package and anything we can do to help community be available to everybody in austin. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Thank you. Next speaker is fiona [10:44:05] mazavonko. >> My name is fiona. I am the community and neighborhood initiatives director at austin habitat for humanity. I wanted to remind you all of the enormous need for affordable housing and home repair in austin and stress the support for at least $75 million of the bond package going toward affordable housing in austin. Thank you. >> Mayor Leffingwell: We're getting down on that 21 minutes here. Regina rogoffe. >> I'm regina, ceo of people's community clinic. I'm in support of adding a two-million-dollar provision for support of people's community clinic in east austin. I'm providing you with a short memo, a legal brief to respond to some of the questions that have been raised about our project and why I think it is something that is legally authorized by the city council to pursue. We are not a hospital. Our purposes are not hospital related. We are providing services that exceed those of medical. We include a variety of services that are in alignment with the city's health and human services department, including immunizations by way of contract with the city, hiv and std testing, nutrition and lactation counseling, teen pregnancy prevention services, child obesity reduction strategies, including prescription for fruits and vegetables [10:46:01] programs, and cooking classes, as well as reach out and read. We're also part of the city's tobacco reduction program. We believe that we clearly will come within the authority of the city council and I think that the memo speaks for itself. I won't go through the legal arguments that I've made there. If you have any questions, please feel free. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Any questions? Councilmember morrison. >> Morrison: Mayor, we did have an opportunity to discuss this to some degree, and I wish -- I wonder if we could ask our legal staff if they can talk a little bit about additional information that I gathered about interaction with the attorney general about a related issue. In terms of the process of getting the approvals after the voters approve a bond. It's my understanding that we've actually done some -- some early discussion to get a sense for whether or not they would approve a bond issuance. And can you talk a little bit about whether you gathered any information in those discussions about whether or not something like this would be appropriate? >> Councilmember, that's correct. Lela fireside with the city legal. And then I have with me jerry kyle with andrews and kurth and who is our outside bond counsel. We do as propositions are being developed make inquiries of the public finance division, which is a division of the attorney general's office that lawfully approves bonds to find out whether our propositions are worded in a way that if they passed that the public finance division would approve the bonds. And they have raised some kyle has been the person who has been having those communications. So he can speak directly to the issue of health clinics. >> Jerry kyle, andrews-kurth. [10:48:02] And in terms of vetting the propositions with the attorney general's office, we did visit with them about the health and human services purposes, which includes public health related measures. And as part of those conversations the ag did identify the constitutional concern with the creation of the health care district being kind of -- taking over responsibility for medical care and hospital care. So that's on their radar. >> And that was actually in regard to a different specific item, is that correct? >> Yes, ma'am. It was in connection with a different purpose, yes. >> Morrison: Can you identify what purpose that was? >> Sure. It was related to the immunization programs that the city maintains and some of the other public health type programs that are administered by the city. >> Morrison: And it's my understanding that we were actually talking about a specific item that would have bond funds go toward a joint -- a joint facility with pard and our health and human services to actually provide health services. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Morrison: So was there any discussion there about the public health realm versus central health's primary carrell am? >> Other than the attorney general kind of looking at the general type of services that are provided or proposed to be provided in connection with the purpose that we've precleared, beyond those purposes, no, we did not. >> Morrison: Okay. And one other thing -- one of the things we could [10:50:03] consider is that providing bonds for people may or may not be approved. Can you talk a little bit about what would happen if we went with an approach that said let's include enough money in a health and human services bond that could cover a participation with people should it be okayed by the voters. And then we would go to the attorney general once we wanted to issue those bonds and they would say yay or nay. Can you tell us what the consequences of them saying nay might be in your opinio >> yes. I mean, to the extent that that purpose is out there as a contemplated use of bond proceeds, there's the potential for establishing or giving rise to a contract with the voters, which might induce voters to vote for the proposition for that purpe. To the extent that there are kind of fundamental concerns about -- questions about whether or not those are permitted purposes, it could affect the validity of the proposition in my view. >> Morrison: Of the whole proposition itself. So if it were bundled with something else, those other things -- the bonds for them might also be voided and we wouldn't be able to issue bonds for them? >> Yes, I think that's a possibility. >> Morrison: Is there a possibility of actually having an independent proposition on this and then we wouldn't run into that problem? [Laughter]. >> I'm struggling a little bit because it's pretty clear that -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Feel like you need another executive session to discuss that topic? >> Well -- >> Morrison: Or if you [10:52:00] would like to take a minute we could hear from some other folks and get back to this question. >> I guess I could say that I think that would be problematic to present a proposition where there are questions about whether or not it's a permitted purpose. I mean, real fundamental legal questions. >> Morrison: All right. Thank you. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: With the understanding that if you do need to take this into executive session or get back to us later, I'll just ask what would be the worst case scenario if it is -- if it is its own proposition and it passes, but we're told it wouldn't be within our capacity to issue those bonds. Then we don't issue them. Are there other risks that I'm not aware of? >> Not that come to mind. That's the threshold issues is not being able to issue the bonds after having gotten approval from the voters. >> Tovo: But it wouldn't call into question any of these bonds that were approved via the other propositions? >> The other measures on the ballot, no, I don't think it would, no. >> Tovo: Okay. Thank you. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Is there any concern about putting an item -- a stand alone appropriation on the ballot that -- alone proposition on the ballot that per best advice is not a valid proposition? Are there any concerns about that? I think a moment ago you said it was problematic. And if you think it falls in the realm of legal advice we can discuss it in another executive session. We'll have other [10:54:00] opportunities perhaps tomorrow. >> I think, yeah. >> I think that would be a good idea. >> Mayor Leffingwell: All right. >> Tovo: Thank you, councilmembers. Mayor. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Thank you. Tom spencer? >> Mayor, councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity. I served on the bond election advisory taskforce. I am the ceo of interfaith action of central texas. The experience of serving on the taskforce is very similar to the situation you find yourselves in right now. For those of us who served on the taskforce it was a rather painful experience of deferment. We were presented with over 5 billion in need and were asked to whittle it down to a 385-million-dollar package, which as you are well aware we did not do. We presented four hundred-million-dollar package and one north of that as well. Because we found it too difficult to say no to too many vital projects. Well, I do understand the situation you find yourselves in. I am here to speak as an advocate for affordable housing and I am painfully aware as a homeowner as well that property taxes are an affordable housing issue too. However I'm here to speak very much in favor of -- that you fund affordable housing at the highest dollar figure possible. The last time we asked for affordable housing bonds was 2006. That was six long years ago. The money was spent and it was well spent, making a critical investment in this community that ensured that austin remains a welcoming place for thousands who cannot afford to live in our community, which is becoming increasingly more of an issue for this community. In 2010 we had transportation bonds. And likely we will have transportation bonds again in the near future. I am not speaking for the [10:56:00] taskforce when I say this, but I ask that you perhaps look at deferring some of the money in transportation and keep the window for affordable housing open. It's highly unlikely that we'll be coming back to the city of austin for this great need in the community in the near future for affordable housing and this is the critical pot of money the federal government is not doing affordable housing, the state is not doing affordable housing. This is the vital piece for funding these programs that ensure that we ensure a welcoming community for all austinites and I ask that you fund affordable housing at the highest dollar figure possible. Thank you. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Tom, I have a question for you. And I'm just kind of floating this out there. I want to get your opinion on it. How would you feel if this proposition were broken into two propositions. There would be one part of it would be for permanent supportive housing and the other part would be for affordable as yet unidentified projects. >> Initially my response is I don't understand the need to break those out right now. I do know that there's tremendous need for permanent supportive housing in this community and there's great support from the business community and other sources of very important centers of power in this community that support that initiative. I don't know how that would play out in terms of the voters. I think keeping them united really would send to more voter support for the proposal. So keeping them together makes the most sense just off the top of my head. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Yeah. The whole idea, as you may recall, the 2006 affordable [10:58:00] housing bond proposition had $55 million in it, but as the years went by, we saw this more and more critical need for permanent supportive housing, and by council direction at that point it was decided that the remaining money -- and i believe mayor pro tem cole actually started that effort, would be directed towards permanent supportive housing. Because we felt that's where the greatest need was, where the most critical need was. >> The critical need is all over community. And I understand again phs being high on the list of priorities. I think the city staff did an excellent last job last time prioritizing the objects to be funded and finding partners who are able to move and I trust they will be able to do so again without having to decide in advance which pots of money will be going where. >> Mayor Leffingwell: And I agree with flexibility is a good thing to have, but there's also the practical aspect of will voters approve this or not. I think the increasing tendency is that voters are more likely to approve things when they know with a high degree of specificity what it will be spent on. >> And I think there's some wisdom in that. Thank you. >> Cole: Mayor, I would like to add to your comment. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Wait a minute. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: spencer, i want to thank you for your service on what must have been a very daunting task. I know our piece of it has been really a struggle with no easy answers. So thank you to the taskforce for all the many hours you've spent on it. I wondered since we're talking about housing and some of the other components that might be contained within that affordable housing money, I know your organization has a-- does a lot of service in this community with regard to home repairs. And I just wanted to verify with you that home repairs will also be a component that could be funded through affordable housing bond money. >> It was funded as a result of the 2006 bond package, yes, and we anticipate that it will continue to do so in the future. >> Tovo: Do you anticipate -- I'm asking an easy question here. Could you give us a sentence or two about the real importance of home repairs as you see it in your work everyday through iac? >> The people that we serve are largely people living in deep poverty in east austin. Our program specifically targets senior citizens living on about $10,000 a year. Most of our clients are widows who have lived out their lives and have worked their entire lives in our community. They are living in homes that many of us would find absolutely deplorable. I have referenced at the last council meeting we recently encountered a woman who lives on a gentrifying street in east austin, didn't know where to turn for help, living in a home without any kind of heating source and without running water. She was actually having to slip out at night and fill buckets with water from her -- from the garden hose of her neighbor because she had no water and she was ashamed to ask for help and ashamed that her neighbors would turn her in and have her home demolished because it was in such poor condition. She's never lived in any other home other than this. For 60 years in the city of austin. When people think about the conditions of foreign nations or appalachia or the border or the cologne in as, they exist here in austin. We don't see it. It's real and the bond monies in 2006 helped hundreds of individuals like her and we want to continue to do that. >> Tovo: Thank you. >> Cole: Councilmember morrison. >> Morrison: spencer, can you remind me of when we started funding home repair with our bonds? >> Late in the game. Incidence the first money was posted in 2010, councilmember. >> Morrison: And I ask you that just to make point that there were four years of discussion about whether or not we could use our bonds for that, our housing bonds for that purpose. So we're having this other discussion about people and just wanted to point out sometimes they can be very complicated issues that take awhile to sort out. >> Cole: Thank you. Our next speaker is mary arnold. Didn't I see mary? >> Good morning, members of the city council. My name is mary arnold. I'm here to speak against the inclusion of an item on your bond package. I'm here to hand you five million dollars that you can use for something else and i hope you will. I'm here to speak against the inclusion of five million dollars for the design of emmitt shelton bridge on red bud trail. I have allonges history of this project as it evolved. And I still think that it is nftpt, not ready for prime time. Nrfpt, not ready for prime time. [Laughter] the fellow from street and bridge made a representation at the west austin neighborhood group meeting in june after I had been to one of the bond workshops out at anderson high school and discovered to my horror that they were proposing $18 million to build a whole new bridge where we now have an emmitt shelton bridge which honors the, quote, father of westlake hills. And a bridge which carries traffic that goes to westlake hills at night and comes into austin from westlake hills in the morning. But this bridge built in 1948 is now called obsolete. A traffic count of 12,000 per day was used in his presentation, but I have no idea if that is when that traffic count was done. He talked about the trucks going over that bridge to the ulrich water treatment plant. That's what I dealt with back in 1989 when I was a member of the water and wastewater commission and we had just finished the brackenridge tract agreement. And one of the things in that agreement had to do with the protection of the cliffs on the southside of town lake in that area, lady bird lake now. And the fact that they are a very important and seem to be historic natural area. And they were mentioned in our brackenridge development agreement as a very important thing that should be protected. And the university of texas was not allowed in that brackenridge development agreement to develop close to the edge of those cliffs and they promised to protect them. [ Buzzer sounds ] so I'm asking that you take it out not. There's already an item in there for five million dollars for design of new projects. Let's work on this one some more with the waste and wastewater development, the urban transportation commission -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Thank you, mayor. >> That has not been done. >> Mayor Leffingwell: All right. Gotcha. Those are all the speakers that we have. Councilmember riley. >> Riley: Mary? Could I -- I just wanted to ask you about this item because all we've heard from the staff is that this is the one bridge in our area that is in -- not in good shape. I may be getting the terminology wrong, but all our other bridges are in good or excellent condition and this one is not. So for maintaining our infrastructure, the argument is that we ought to set a process in motion to be able to replace it. Surely there will come a time when we need to do something with this bridge, either replace it, upgrade it, do something to make sure that it -- that we're appropriately safeguarding the safety of those who would use the bridge. Why wouldn't now be an appropriate time to start moving in that direction? >> Because what's being proposed and what shows in your backup is a plan that cuts in to the cliffs. It takes away that beautiful natural curve. It leaves access to red bud aisle, which is a -- red bud isle, a public city of austin park, only from the westlake hills side as far as cars are concerned. This is proposing to take out the bridge from red bud isle across to lake austin boulevard. And it doesn't tell how the pedestrian access is going to be handled. >> Riley: Sorry to interrupt. You would say that we ought to be doing more planning as a community before we devote this level of funding. >> Absolutely. And that it can be done through that other project of five million for design of new projects. >> Riley: Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I have a question for staff about this item, please. And also, councilmember morrison and I have also put a proposal in front of our colleagues. And one of the items that we did propose reducing is the emmitt shelton bridge. And I wondered if you might just be specific about how much you think design would be or some initial planning. What we've proposed is reducing it to two million dollars. From a five-million-dollars to allow for some beginning planning and design, but not execution. >> I think that the need for the replacement of bridges, as I stated last time, and councilmember riley reiterated some of those points, that the bridge is in a condition that's not good and we do need to start the process to replace it. In addition to providing a vital transportation connection, this is the only way we have to service the ulrich water treatment plant. So those are the facts that deal with the current condition of the bridge. So if I can stipulate here that we all agree that there is a need to get started, the amount of money needed for the design entails not just the actual engineers working on the design, but there will be some fairly significant outreach efforts that will be required as well as some environmental investigations and coordination. So we want to make sure that we have sufficient funds to move the project forward so that we don't get into a position where it's replacement is delayed which can lead to closures, limits on traffic and all sorts of things that are not beneficial. As I stated last time that the amount of money, the five million dollars, was an estimate base pond what we thought -- base pond what we thought the replacement value would be, which would be somewhere in the 15 to 16-million-dollar range. So we put about a third of that aside for the design of it. Certainly we need to get started. I think there was some discussion about reducing it last time to about three, three and a half million dollars. I think that's enough to get us started on the process. >> Tovo: And my thought in advocating for a two-million-dollar figure instead of five is to get the process started. It allows you to begin starting having some of those meetings because we probably all get a lot of email about this. I know there will be a lot of community outreach necessary, but it also allows staff to go forward and talk with some of our neighbors about the possibility of making this a joint project. And so explore in additional funding options. Maybe my colleague would like to elaborate on that. >> Mayor? >> Mayor Leffingwell: Councilmember morrison. >> Morrison: As i mentioned earlier, and arnold brought the issue up, and that is it seems to me that if we have an element -- something that we're responsible for, but that is most heavily used by other communities that we should at least explore openings for some joint work. I do have one question that your comments brought up for me. Have we looked at the option of replacement versus -- of renovation versus replacement. And do we actually know for a fact that it is not salvageable? arnold said, was built in the late 1940's for a much lower capacity. Not only in terms of number of vehicles, but the weight of the vehicles. So for the current purpose that it serves, it's inadequate. She's also right in that the design that has been put forward as a concept is significantly different than what's there right now. Part of the design process is to go through and see what the future projections are going to be and what we can accommodate. In terms of what type of replacement has to be put in place. >> But I guess I didn't really hear an answer to the question. Do we know -- you said it's not adequate, but how do we know that we can't -- in terms of weight, for instance, how do we know that we can't just go in and beef it up as opposed to replace it? Clearly that might not change the capacity, but are you saying we need to replace it because we need to increase capacity? >> I think the answer is yes to both. One is that there were repairs made to the bridge in the late 1980's, early '90's, to expand its life cycle. There's only so many times you can patch that bridge. So in terms of the structural part of it, at this point it's better to replace it because it's a better long-term solution. And that when you replace the bridge for the load it depends on the size of the members and how big you want to make it. The capacity issue is one of how many cars can go across it during the course of a day. There are some safety issues with the curve once you get across the bridge as well. There have been numerous accidents there. I don't have those statistics with me, but it is strictly when the pavement gets wet it is a pretty dangerous place as well, so there's a public safety impact in terms of replacing it with a different concept. All that, though, as i understand, is part of going through a design process to figure out what the best fit is for it. Many times you'll put a proposal out initially and build something entirely different when you're done. So I don't know that I would get too concerned that what we have put in the back or what we're proposing now is the final solution, but i wouldn't rule it out either. I just think we need to get started on the design to figure out where that is. And as we go through the design and we do some investigation, there may be the need to do some temporary bracing and that would be considered I think part of the design process as well, which is why we put a larger number into the design estimate. >> Morrison: Okay. I guess my comment on this is I'm glad that it looks like we might be able to do some studies and look forward to -- move forward with a smaller amount than five million. But if we do include any funds, I want to make it clear that for me it's really important that we're going into it with no assumptions and that we have the community discussion about what are the options for renovation. I think we need to look at the historic significance of it. We need to look at options for other folks participating in it and get real clear on what values will drive this replacement or this work. Whether or not it's a replacement. >> Mayor, I have a quick question. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Mayor pro tem. >> Cole: I want to know what funding you need for the preliminary design work. >> To get through preliminary evaluation, i think we can go through, as I said before, about three, three and a half million dollars, that will give us sufficient dollars to go through the engagement, engage an engineer and get the design where we know what the concept is that we'll invest in detailed design. >> Cole: Thank you. >> Mayor Leffingwell: I have a question. Once you get a design, then presumably you need to build it or repair it or whatever the option is. So where is that money going to come from? >> We'll have to come back and get bond monies to fund the replacement of the bridge. >> New bond money? >> New bond money. >> So normally that happens about every six or seven years. Is that time frame -- does that time framework for what you think is the need to have that -- this entire job completed? >> Most likely not. I think depending on when the next bond election is there may be a need to fund it through another mechanism such as certificate of obligation or some other means. Certainly councilmember morrison pointed out that there maybe an opportunity to find other sources of fund as well business but we need to know what it's going to cost and where we can go for some of the other sources of funds. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So what's a ballpark for the total cost of it? >> About $15 million for replacement. >> Mayor Leffingwell: That is for replacement. >> Replacement. >> Mayor Leffingwell: And what about repair? I guess you don't have really much of a feel for that at this point? >> I do not. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So 15-million-dollar co is pretty hefty. Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I just need to make a correction to what i said earlier. We are proposing reducing it by two million to three. I said it backwards. So just to clarify that would bring it around to where last week you said it would need to be to get the process started, three to three million. And our proposal would have it at about three million, again to get the process begun and moving. I had questions on a different subject if my colleagues are ready to turn to something else. >> Martinez: Mayor, I had a motion laid out and i wasn't able to lay it out due to objection by the mayor. >> Mayor Leffingwell: No, I just wanted to let the people speak. >> Tovo: I did have a question for a member of the public. >> Martinez: No problem. I didn't have a problem with that. I said without objection and you objected, so we went on. [Laughter]. >> Cole: And I will have a motion to substitute. >> Martinez: I suspect there will be lots of movement here. We'll just have to keep up with the bouncing ball. So my motion that I made was for 385-million-dollar bond proposal. And it's largely what staff has recommended with the following exceptions. In order to create either reductions and/or savings, however you want to term, northwest substation would be 8 million for acquisition and design, which is in line with the city manager's memo that we received yesterday evening. The harold court facility is a general project of remediation and improvements, and I'm proposing a reduction in that size of the request to the taskforce recommendation of 11 million, which creates five million dollars of available bond space. Similarly the pard recreation facilities is a general request for a recommended $10 million for facilities improvements. No identified specific projects. I'm recommending eight million to alleviate another two or to create another two in bond capacity. The next two on the sheet, the pard palm park and waterloo I am not -- I am removing those from the proposal, keeping them at the 1.5 million. That I'm eliminating. And that's on the sheet. Again, this is a work in progress. The i-35 improvements as was discussed the other day, clearly we are not close to the needs assessment for i-35 improvements. It is simply a somebody that staff will back into, whatever the citizens approve. So I am proposing a 15-million-dollar bond package for i-35 improvements, therefore 7 million in additional capacity, which 681 in my estimation. I'm not calculating in front of me. 681 i propose the following in terms of additions to the 481 to austin studios for their expansion. 5 Million to mexicarte museum. One million to the violet crown trail. Two million to the barton springs bathhouse. 700,000 To the neighborhood partnering program. 5 Million to the east 51st street vision plan. 85 Million to the homeless women and children's shelter. And $150,000 to the a.d.a. Accessible fishing pier, which should total 20.681. In addition to that, mayor, based on the city manager's memo and additional areas of funding and shifting, if you will, within his proposal, i would recommend that the 5 million identified in the city manager's first two bullet points, reallocation of two million included in the bicycle urban trails and grant match program, and then inclusion of 5 million from city bike rails and urban corridor 5 million be allocated as an additional million to the violet crown trail as identified in his memo, and then the remaining 5 to a city facility bond project for acquisition and design of a fair -- fire station on 360. And lastly, mayor, we were working with city legal this morning on this item -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Excuse me, that's land acquisition and design of the fire station? >> Correct, at 4.5 million. And I'm going to fumble through this amendment because we're working with staff and I'm hoping that city legal can help with this. In proposition 14, which is our open space and watershed protection, we are looking to add language that speaks to farmlands as a part of this package as well. So that if there are some black lands in the eastern portion of travis county that we could consider as purchasing for protection and open space that this bond proposal be allowed to do that. So the amendment in the language would simply add two words, farm lands. Right after in the fourth line natural areas, comma, farm lands, and the region's water quality. And I have these in writing and I'm more than happy to provide to the city clerk. And that is my amended motion. Mary mayor okay. Are there -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay. Are there any legal issues with regard to adding farm land? That you can talk about here? [Laughter]. Councilmember martinez, are you going to farm this land yourself? [Laughter]. >> Martinez: I think you will have something to do after 2014. I might invite you to help me. >> Mayor Leffingwell: I won't be farming. >> And jerry kyle -- I think the issue has come to us very late and I don't know kyle has had an opportunity to confer with the attorney general's office about whether or not they would have a concern. Counties do have this type of language in some of their bond propositions, but they also have specific authorities relating to farmland. And so I don't know that we can give you a firm legal answer today on that addition, whether or not the attorney general's office would approve that use. >> Martinez: And my motion, mayor, is on first reading and I stand fully prepared to remove that if there is a legal impediment on second and third reading. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So will you have the opportunity to have that discussion before third reading of this? >> We can certainly reach out to the ag to visit. I'm not sure that we'll have a conclusion back from them, though. It's a question of first impression in my view, my experience, and I suspect it will be for them as well. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay. Councilmember riley. >> Riley: I have a question about two public safety items that have been the subject of some discussion in councilmember martinez's proposal and in the manager's most recent proposal. And they both were late to the -- both relate to the proposed facilities in the northwest area. There was originally an item in the package to do the northwest police substation in the amount of 15 million, and we're now proposing to scale that back to five million. Councilmember martinez is also suggesting that we include roughly five million for land acquisition and design of a fire station in the northwest. And in discussions with folks about these two items, one question has come up and I wanted to go ahead guidance from staff. The question is if we're going to be working on land acquisition and design for both a fire station and police station in the northwest area, then to what -- should we be looking at the possibility of combining those facilities? And would these items allow for that? And if so, would there be any impact on the cost necessary for acquisition and design of the facilities? >> >> councilmember, we have folks here from the fire who can speak, but I think based on the projects proposed, i think the answer is we would have to evaluate that and determine what kind of potential opportunities there could be to combine those joint uses and do any cost estimate for what that is. But for right now I think we're prepared to stick with the information that we've provided because we would need additional analysis on that. >> Martinez: Mayor? >> Mayor Leffingwell: Councilmember martinez. >> Martinez: I think I can provide a little bit more information because we did consider that. That is something we should consider when we evaluate facilities. My understanding based on conversations with staff is that the northwest substation really is to serve farther northwest along the 183 north of 360 corridor because we're using the parmer lane facility now that is heavily overcrowded. And our growth areas are going to be along 183 -- between 183 and parmer lane. The 360 fire station is sorely needed in annex areas currently south of the river on 360 and more western and southwestern such as lost creek. So really it would prove to be problematic to try to consolidate those facilities with the areas that we're trying to service with those two different services. >> Councilmember riley? >> Riley: So the bottom line is to the extent we want to move forward on both facilities, we really do need still roughly five million for each facility. Is that a fair assessment? >> Mayor Leffingwell: So a quick question. I thought I heard one plus one on the violet crown trail. I wanted to make sure i heard a total. Councilmember tovo? >> Tovo: I have a few questions. I'll ask one of staff first. Can you tell me how far this proposed fire station would be from its closest other fire station? The material I got suggested it was within a couple of miles, but there was some question about whether the scale was correct. I haven't heard back about that issue. So if you could give me a sense of what the -- what the proximity is between this fire station, proposed fire station area and any others? >> Mayor, council, matt arta, assistant chief of the fire department. The desired location for the proposed 360 location would be south of the pennybacker bridge. From that point the closest station is probably going to be fire station 31, which is off of 2222 and 360 next door to the county line barbecue place. And then after that would be the station about a mile away from barton creek square mall. >> Tovo: What's the mileage if you've got it or maybe you can cycle back around with us and give us the mileage on those. >> That would probably be better. >> Tovo: Thanks. The map that I've seen from nix suggests that it was close, but there was some question about whether the scale was off. This is a question really for mr. trimble. Is this an item that our bond taskforce considered and if so, what was their -- they didn't recommend inclusion, but did they have a rationale for including it? >> It did and it came down to funding constraints and priorities and so when we got down to what are some of the higher priority services, call for service, turnaround times, being properly allocated, I think just what they got to. >> Tovo: Thanks. And for my colleague, I have some specific questions. I want to be sure that i understand the proposal that you've presented here. And I want to just also preface it by saying that we are -- I think there's a lot of agreement between some of the items you've brought forward and some of those that councilmember morrison and I have brought forward. There is one fundamental difference I want to get to, but first I want to better understand some of these line items. So in terms of -- you've handed us out a document and I think you've made a few edits to it in your comments and I want to be sure i captured them. So on here on the sheet you've distributed you've proposed reducing palm park and waterloo park and i think I understood you said you would like to leave them unchanged. >> Correct. >> So not reduce those amounts from the 1.5. >> Correct. >> Tovo: Okay. When we get down to additions, violet crown, you would propose adding one million, not the two that's on here, is that right? >> I have proposed two million, one from the savings of the above reductions and one from the city manager's identified areas in his memo to us yesterday for a total of two million. >> >> Tovo: And it was more allotted to the accessible fishing pier. >> Correct. >> Tovo: And then the other items, once we move beyond the sheet, I lost you there for a minute, but i think I believe the 5 million that you're proposing for land acquisition come out of the already identified proposal funds for land acquisition and open space. Is that correct? >> Incorrect. It comes from the remaining identified bond capacity in the city manager's memo issued to us yesterday in the first two bullet points. Tow and violet crown and east 51st and identifying that they would be part of the larger body of funds rather than called out separately. Okay. All right. Thanks. The one thing I would -- >> Cole: Go ahead. You still have the floor. >> Tovo: That's okay. Mayor pro tem, if you want to get to it, but I would like to talk -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Councilmember tovo has the floor. >> Tovo: All right. In that case, so the one thing I do want to talk a little bit about, because councilmember morrison brought this up the other day and I think it's a really fundamental point. And that is which recommendations we begin with. And I would like to propose that we begin with the taskforce recommendations. And there are at this point I think by the time we finish talking about them there aren't going to be a huge number of discrepancies, but there are some. And that was one value that we brought to putting together our proposal to begin with the work of our taskforce because they have spent months upon months meeting with stakeholders, talking with staff, reviewing the information, and I really believe that we should prioritize the work and the recommendations they've done because they've put a tremendous amount of thought into it and a tremendous amount of time balancing the pressing concerns of our city with the feedback they heard from the community. So councilmember martinez, i agree with a lot of these and you'll see them on our list too, but I would suggest that we begin with the taskforce recommendations. And I think mayor pro tem has already said they wants to make a substitute motion, but -- >> Cole: Mayor? >> Tovo: But I would like to contemplate doing the same here in a minute. >> Cole: I would make a motion that we do begin with councilmember tovo's suggestion, which would be the taskforce's recommendations, but several of us have went public with what we wanted to do on the bond, especially during the last session. And then publicly in the media. And we do have some proposals that are being passed out. I have a proposal that impassing out or have passed out if you don't have one that actually has what i believe is everybody's recommendation on it, including the taskforce and including the staff, and including what each of us have said publicly that we want to do. So I'm hoping to actually lay out the proposals in -- hopefully it will be a more efficient manner and actually start with the items that have received the most support from the council and let us vote on them that way and vote on those and have the reductions that receive most of the support. For example, councilmember martinez has already laid out a motion and a second that we reduce the northwest substation. And I believe that there are several councilmembers, including myself that support that. So I would like to make a motion that we begin with the taskforce recommendations and we go through and -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Is that a 400-million-dollar -- >> Cole: Yes, it is the $400 million, but of course we can make the subsidy reductions to that as we want. And I guess the first motion I would like to make is we begin with the taskforce recommendation and that we start looking at the bond package worksheets that i have passed around and i would ask councilmember morrison, because she has not laid out her proposal on tv, morrison and tovo, the proposal that she has -- will publicly make and that we go through it in alphabetical order based on that. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So you're making a substitute motion that we approve the taskforce recommendation. >> Cole: Not that we approve, but begin with the taskforce recommendations. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Well, I think it's kind of the same thing. You're going to make a substitute motion and if it pass -- well, let's see. You've got to make the amendments as you go along. So you will lay out the substitute motion for the taskforce recommendation and begin the process of amending it before we vote on it. Is that correct? >> Cole: Yes, but there will have to be a vote, a second and approval -- you know that. >> Mayor Leffingwell: You're going to attempt to amend by vote the substitute motion before we vote on the substitute motion. >> Cole: Yes. But -- point of order, mayor. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Councilmember martinez raises a point of order. >> Martinez: I think if a substitute motion is made the body needs to take action on the substitute motion. I have a motion that's been made and I'm open to amendments to that motion. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So for parliamentary reasons i would like for the city attorney to weigh in and the question would be with the main motion on the table with a second, can a substitute motion be laid on the table and then be amended by vote and then be voted on before the main motion? That's the question. >> Mayor, I believe under robert's rules of order when you have a main motion you can always have a substitute motion which then could be amended and then voted on before you -- to determine whether or not you then go back to the main motion. So you have a main motion, you could have a substitute. That substitute could be amended and then you would vote up or down. If it passed, that would be what passed. If it failed then you would go back to the main motion. >> Mayor Leffingwell: We go back to -- of course with the -- while the main motion and substitute motion are both on the table, discussion on either or both is in order. >> Yes. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay. So you're laying the motion on the table for a 400-million-dollar taskforce recommendation. Is there a second for that motion? >> Morrison: Mayor, I'll -- I'll second it with the suggestion that we amend it right off that we have a goal of getting the total to 385. >> Mayor Leffingwell: All right. Seconded by councilmember morrison and councilmember morrison offers a friendly amendment that you accept the cole that it will be amended further. >> Cole: And with a goal of 385. >> Mayor Leffingwell: That's the best way I can think of to say it. You accept that. Okay. So now we have a substitute motion on the table for the taskforce recommendation. >> Cole: Mayor? >> Mayor Leffingwell: Mayor pro tem. >> Cole: I would like to include in my motion approval of the 51st street plan improvements. I believe that that has received considerable support from council and also the women's and children's shelter -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Hold on. Are you going to give us an amend for that? >> Cole: Oh. The amount is to increase by one million to two million. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Two million? Is one million in the taskforce recommendation? >> Morrison: Yes, it is. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay. >> Cole: And mayor, i believe -- I don't know if you have a comment on that because that was an item that -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Not at this time. >> Cole: Okay. I also want to include in the motion the women and children's housing expansion to two million. >> Mayor Leffingwell: From what to two million. >> Cole: Two million. It wasn't included. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So you're adding two million for women and children's. >> Cole: And also before i include this item, I have a question about the barton springs pool master plan. I believe, mayor, is this the item that you are supporting or is that the batshouse? -- Bathhouse? >> At the last meeting i supported the bathhouse matching funds? >> Tovo: Mayor, can I -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: Well, you yield to councilmember tovo? >> Cole: Absolutely. >> Tovo: Testify if you saw our list the master plan was the bathhouse. It includes the bathhouse in the master plan, but it would allow for that. But we were trying to pick up the mayor's interest in that. >> Cole: If that is the case I am including the barton springs pool master plan and bathhouse with an additional -- it's zero right now. With an additional one million. >> Mayor Leffingwell: To one million total. >> Cole: One million total. Okay. I'm going to move to the proposed reductions that i believe have been supported by the majority of the councilmembers in public. First, councilmember martinez, the northwest substation, to reduce by five million and $48,000 that item with the understanding that some preliminary work will be done by staff on that. >> So are you talking about station that's in the original recommendation? >> Yes. >> And you're going to reduce that from what to what? >> It is currently the taskforce is 11,000,000.77. The city manager's recommendation was 16,125,000. It is actually councilmember martinez's suggestion that that go to 11 million and 77,000, which is the reduction of five million and 48,000. >> Mayor Leffingwell: I don't think that's correct. Councilmember martinez's modification was in accord with the city manager's latest modification, which i believe was a reduction of 9.9 million. >> Also be aware if you're starting with the taskforce 400, the northwest substation was funded at 7 million, not as (indiscernible) in the city manager's 385. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So we are starting with the taskforce recommendation. So you should start with the modifications. So just to make sure everybody understands what you're doing. What the taskforce modification was and what your change to it is, what your change to the taskforce recommendation is. >> The taskforce recommendation for the northwest substation was $12,733,000. I am requesting that we reduce it by $6,900,000 to $5,833,000 to provide for land acquisition and design. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So ended up with the same amount of dollars as a the city manager's and councilmember martinez's recommendation. Okay. The next proposed reduction is to the park patrol facility, reduce by $1,700,000 to 3 million. And it is in accordance with I believe the direction from councilmember morrison and with a direction to explore a possibility for a mounted patrol facility. And then I'll move to the emmitt shelton bridge on red bud isle -- red bud trail, which the staff recommendation was five million, according to lazarus, to reduce two million to three million with the understanding as was discussed that the preliminary design work will begin and we will look for other funding options and consider other -- for another bond package. Hopefully we will not the way that long. But to do the design work. Now I am going to move to some items that definitely may need some further discussion. Austin studios, I am making a recommends of five million dollars, in accordance with the city manager's plan. It is about $500,000 less than what I originally proposed. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Councilmember morrison. >> Cole: Let me walk through it again. The taskforce recommends was three million dollars -- taskforce recommendation was three million dollars. The city manager's plan is five million dollars. >> Morrison: The current? >> Cole: The current city manager's plan is five million dollars. And I have expressed public support for the five million, basically $487,000, that they made in open session. >> Mayor Leffingwell: How much did the taskforce have in there, three? So you're raising it to five. And councilmember martinez's motion has it at 5.481. >> Cole: Exactly. Okay. And we did barton springs. The next item for potential reduction is -- I hope that councilmember morrison may have some comments about is this street reconstruction project. >> Morrison: Thank you. This is an idea that frank fernandez put out to us at our last meeting on the bonds. And his suggestion was in terms of looking for opening up some funding that we look at some of the programs that are going to be sort of an ongoing program and in transportation, such as street reconstruction, and think about funding a few years of it now and then including subsequent amounts for the remainder of the six years in what we presume will be another transportation bond we put to the voters hopefully to be asking them for approval for rail. And the idea is that we think now about rounding that out a little bit so that we can get sort after broader interest in people coming to the polls. So this would be an opportunity -- we know we need ongoing funds. This would be an opportunity to basically just defer asking the voters for some of the funds. It's currently 40 million across the board, I believe, and all the recommendations, so this would take it down to 30 million. And then -- and we do that with the intent that we cover 10 million or if we see the need as more in a couple of years in a subsequent bond. >> Cole: I have a question for -- >> Mayor Leffingwell: I have just a comment on that. I'm not going to support that proposal for a couple of reasons. Number one, street renewal, we were in a bad mess a few years ago and we aggressively adopted a program to better maintain our streets. I don't want to reverse that by underfunding it, number one. And number 2, if and when there is a rail election on the ballot, I think it's best that that be a stand alone item. Just so we don't get accused of funneling too many unrelated things together. And we know that with regard to including some funds for rail and the current transportation bonds that was judged to be not appropriate. So I don't think it would be in a subsequent bond package either. Councilmember morrison. >> Morrison: I appreciate your points on that. One is I carefully chose my words. I wasn't intending to suggest that it would have to be in the same proposition, but in fact we could be looking at another -- a different proposition for additional transportation items, and that's why I said it could help bring interest in bringing people to the polls. So I think that we would certainly have that possibility. And then the second is that the intent here and the supposition is that we're not going to reverse our progress by any means. We're going to be continuing to do the work that we're doing and in fact we're ahead of schedule. We do have an aggressive schedule and we're five years ahead of schedule, so I thought that in terms of the amazing demands that we have across the board that this as suggested by frank fernandez, was a possibility in terms of opening up some funding. goode looking at me with furrowed brow. >> I was going to say jaundiced eye. [Laughter]. >> Just a couple of points. As long as there's funding in the future, and that's always an if, we do have a capacity to spend projects, but I will make my comment. The goal we set was still only 80%, which means 20% of our roadways are in poor or failing condition. We set the bar fairly low is what my point is. So we are being aggressive and we are on track, actually ahead of the goal. We've been in different jurisdictions where the goal was 10%, so again we set the bar fairly low. Anything you're talking about today we can use as much funds as we can for your construction because we have an aging infrastructure and it's important to keep up. >> Morrison: And I think did -- did we approve any money for street reconstruction in 2010? >> Yes, we did. >> Morrison: Okay. So we had our funding in 2006, so the 2010 i imagine -- in 2006 we did not have in mind to do the 2010, so the 2010 money actually proposal came a little bit early relative to what we had planned in 2006. >> I think it was an assessment on what the need was at that time. And I know there were some specific items that may be out of the assessment that was done to get to whatever the recommendation was for 2010. >> Morrison: Right. Okay. So for me it just a very -- considering the varied demands we have, it's a way that we can I think safely open up some funding. >> Cole: Mayor? >> Mayor Leffingwell: Mayor pro tem, do you want to go ahead and finish laying your motion out? >> Cole: I don't believe we laid out any particular funds for the street reconstruction program. I do believe that it's an important program and recognize that we made the commitment of 80% and we're trying to maintain that. So in my motion I do not think at this time I'm going to include that item because I think it should be reduced and I want us to get through the items that we agree on. So I'm not going to include the street reconstruction at this time. The next item is an addition for the dougherty arts center to add two million dollars to a total of four million dollars. And the staff assessment was four million. The taskforce recommendation was two million. The city manager's proposal was two million. And I believe what I asked for before was two million and I had some support for that. An additional two million. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So you want to go from two million to four million. >> Cole: Four million. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay. >> Cole: Okay, mayor. I think that is the conclusion of my motion. >> Mayor Leffingwell: When you get to the bottom line, I assume you've done the math on this, what is the total? >> Cole: Oooh. Well, you know, I think that I will have to go and make that for you because I took some items from a few other people and I will -- give me a second here to do that. Because you want to know the bottom line that's left. I know it's under -- >> mayor, can I also add that what the council is doing right now is reallocating dollars to specific projects. The actual additional action that you will have to take on the ordinance will be you're going to have to say specifically the dollar amount for each proposal, each proposition. >> Cole: Total dollar amount. >> So there will be two dollar amounts that you need to be thinking about. I just wanted to add that. >> Cole: The first dollar amount is that? >> I'm not sure. But what I'm saying is you're doing now the dollar amounts for each different item that will go into the different propositions. >> Mayor Leffingwell: And councilmember martinez's motion did the same thing. So he will have to go back and -- >> correct, but you will have to then go back and take an action to specifically itemize a dollar amount for each proposition. I just wanted to add that to your discussion. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So does that have to be the motion as passed has to be modifications to the actual propositions or today we can pass a motion that just includes these changes and to be rearranged later in subsequent passing of it? >> Yes, sir. My understanding was that everything was going to be on first reading today. And I think it may require some staff looking at the numbers to make sure they all match. >> Mayor Leffingwell: It may require some looking, yes. >> So I wanted to remind council that you're going to be dealing with two specific dollar amounts, rearranging among the specific projects and then a final dollar amount for each proposition. >> Mayor Leffingwell: Okay, but for our purposes right now, assuming that all of these proposed changes to the substitute motion are accepted by the second -- >> Morrison: With the understanding we have more work to do to get to 385. >> Mayor Leffingwell: But right now your official number is 400, 400 million. >> Morrison: Our official number is 400 with the amends which I believe -- with the amendments which i believe takes it down to 398.4. >> Mayor Leffingwell: All right. So we have -- >> Cole: Because we have not made adjustments to certain other items like affordability -- homeless -- I mean, affordable housing. >> Morrison: Yes. With the understanding there's more work to do and it wouldn't be the final. >> A couple of things I'll point out. One is our staff is here working on the numbers and so we should hopefully be able to get to a number pretty quickly. We're here to keep track of all the discussion. So we're working furiously on that. The other one I did want to mention that going back to the 400-million-dollar recommendation and what we're using to assume is that we're calculating all this is that we're going back to things like the affordable housing number of 76.8 versus the 63.5. That's in the city manager's 385 million recommendation. And I already mentioned the northwest substation going back to their reduction from that project and then also the same for harold court. So we're assuming that we're starting there and then everything that's been discussed has been kind of modifications to that. >> Mayor Leffingwell: That is correct. >> Cole: What number are we at, 390? 6 in reductions. And then -- again, starting from the 400. 20.6 In reductions. 7.48 In adds. And so that's a net of a reduction of 13.1. So we're looking at we need 8 million in reductions to get to the 385. >> Morrison: All right. Can you list off the reductions again? >> Tovo: If I could ask for one clarification for councilmember cole regarding the film society. What is the total number that you're looking for? >> Five million. >> Mayor Leffingwell: So councilmember tovo, you a have comment while they're adding over there and subtracting? >> >> Tovo: I do. I'll say by my calculations -- I won't try to do that, but we're still pretty close to this. We didn't have an opportunity to lay it out but I'll make a few comments about it because I'm about to make a few suggested amendments to the motion on the table. [One moment, please, for change in captioners] >> one is the one that you've just included, the dougherty arts center, boosting that, so we can really move forward in getting something done, but 2 million to housing affordability and I am sorry mchorse laughed and I was glad to see him here and wanted him to come up and speak and echo and many of the groups represented by those of you in this room can speak very powerfully, I think, to the enormous need for affordable housing in our community and i think we need to get that number up to 80 and I think we can do it if we look carefully at some of the other proposed reductions in here. One that I think jives with council member martinez's proposed reduction is ih-35 improvement, so I would like to propose a substitute amendment -- or just an amendment, sorry, so reduce that figure by 6 million, it takes us to 15 million and if you look at council member martinez proposal that he has laid out, all of the recommendations get us to -- well, anyway, he has proposed reducing from the city manager's 7 million down to 15 million, which would 7, the task force recommended 21 million so it gives us a 6 million-dollar reduction from the task force so I would like to propose we bring ih-35 improvements down to $15 million, which will net a $6 million in the task force proposal. >> Cole: I do not consider that a friendly amendment, and I did not lay ih-35 on the table because I thought that would generate significant discussion and it merits that and also testimony from staff, so it's not that I am not -- I have not decided what I would support, but I know that I would not support the numbers that have currently been laid on the table, and that's the reason, but we can of course vote on the amendment. >> Tovo: Sure. And that was, again, something that frank fernandez mentioned as a possible reduction and, again, it is not a -- are you making a motion for an amendment? >> Tovo: Yes, I am. is there a second for that? Motion dies for lack of a second. >> Tovo: Okay. >> Mayor leffingwell: move on. >> Tovo: And I have another one, and that is the addition of the ada accessible fishing pier in the amount of $150,000, and i will go ahead and make that as a formal motion and say I think it is another critical need. It's not a lot of money. that is in council member martinez motion, also. >> Tovo: And that's right and it adds important values in our community. and council member tovo to add in $150,000 for the ada accessible fishing pier. Is there a second for that. >> Morrison: Yes. second by council member morrison. >> Cole: I will accept that, mayor. it's already a motion, all right. >> Cole: I didn't get it -- all those " aye. Opposed. Say no, 6-0, with council member spelman off the dyas. So it is part of your motion now, whether you like it or not. >> Cole: I forget to say friendly. Okay. >> Tovo: So a couple of more. I would like to make the friendly amendment that we, though, I am going to need some help on reduction since we rejected the couple on here that would net us the savings possible to do this but I would like to make the friendly amendment that we had in a million dollars for thard south district maintenance facility. Currently there is $1 million in the task force recommendation, city manager, you might have to remind me where you came in on this. I don't have that document, but in any case, in the memo we just received from the city manager, there was a suggestion that really to get this project down, we need 2 millionish, and i think it is a critical need and I see director hensley here that can probably speak to it but i propose we add that in as a friendly amendment, $1 million taking it to. that is an additional million. >> Tovo: That's right. Now it is in for 0 in the task force and I suggest we had in a million dollars for the respect of due scoping the project, so it is equipment shelter, so we are protecting our investment in the shelter. >> Cole: I do consider that friendly. friendly amendment is adopted as part of the motion in noting that has no offset so that's added to the total. >> Tovo: Well, I will put one offset in. I will suggest one offset. I would like to propose as a friendly amendment, reluctantly eliminating oster to minor trail two $1 million for the suggestion it be included in future transportation bond or another possibility would be to identify funds within our other pockets that are included in this bond proposal for this trail. >> Cole: I will accept that as friendly, also. >> Mayor leffingwell: okay. Part of the motion -- substitute motion. >> Tovo: One last addition, but an important one, I would -- i propose we add and I would like to suggest this as a friendly amendment, that we add 2 millions to the task force recommendation for housing affordability funds in the affordable housing category. That would bring total to 80. As you know the task force looked at this issue again and again and recommended higher levels of funding. We've got huge, huge needs in our community and I think it's critical that we have enough funding in that budget to be able to do permanent supportive housing, to really make a strong effort in that to do the kind of emergency work and emergency shelter that we -- I had the privilege of going with you, mayor pro tem cole, to florida to see in action at the chapman partnership to be able to really fund at a higher level our home repair program which is so critical to the seniors in our community. I think at a minimum we need $80 million in that program and I wish it were 100. the 2 million for affordable housing. Is that acceptable as a friendly amendment? >> Cole: It is acceptable, with the understanding that ed mccord testified that they needed at a 7 million now and an additional, I don't remember, into the future to complete our goals in the csh study, so i want us to set that as a goal as we add money to this pot. >> Tovo: I understand and i appreciate your -- is it accepted and second? >> Cole: Yes. >> Tovo: And appreciate you accepting that and I think this brings us pretty close to our proposal. By my calculation, I think we need to find -- we need to find $18 million and there are some ideas for that in council member martinez's proposal. I mean that's my on the spot calculation but these numbers worked out. could i ask the staff what is your number -- what is this -- number our total number is 399,750,000, with a difference of 14,750,000 to get to a 385 package. >> Tovo: Great. Thank you. That's pretty close for a liberal arts major, by my calculations. And I would say council member martinez in your proposal you suggested deductions, one is the harold court facility. I know we heard testimony last week about employees who are, you know, really in substandard working conditions but I also lasurus say there is a potential of offsetting the cost of some of that work through the transportation funds. Anyway, I am going to yield the floor, but, say, boy it would be great if one of my colleagues could suggest a reduction. >> Mayor leffingwell: okay. 75 million substitute motion on the table, which is. We will vote on the substitute motion first. Council member riley. >> Riley: I want to ask about one item, that is the dougherty arts center. The task force recommended 2 million, the city manager has agreed with the 2 million-dollar figure. The number we got yesterday, the reasoning on that, which is that the project -- obviously you aren't going to be able to rebuild a facility for 2 million or even 4 million, for that matter. The idea is this would be architectural services and we would find a way to work with a partnering, entitying agency to work with that but that is still in development. Any potential site still needs to be identified, so the 2 million-dollar recommendation was -- was based on the idea of just keeping the project moving forward and continuing to identify potential partners and funding strategies, so with that in mind, I just wanted to ask why we would be boosting that up to -- to 4 million in the absence of a clear partnering strategy or a side on that? What would be getting for that -- >> Cole: I think -- >> Riley: May I finish? What would we be getting for additional 2 million that we wouldn't left for the $2 million that the manager and the task force have recommended? >> Cole: Well, I believe that -- sarah hensley is coming up and i believe they are working very, very hard and having some success with partners and the dougherty arts center actually has a board and others that are working, because they know it's a priority item for us. .. >> Sarah hensley, director of parks and recreation. I think to answer your question, council member riley, I think what was in there certainly will work for us to try to look at a partnership. Any additional dollars will help us as far as however far we are able to expand with a partnership. We have to bring dollars to the table. You are absolutely correct in that we haven't currently identified a set partnership but mayor pro tem is also correct in the fact that we are very close in identifying a partner, hopefully and even possibly a site, but with that means if any site we bring means major renovations to the tune of possibly structural internal changes, whether it is utility like that sos whether it is 2 million or 4 million, we need every bit of that to bring it together for a partnership in an existing facility. >> So with that, I have just -- have some appointments set and more talking to -- the problem that we have at dougherty is just gray and I think we are getting on the verge of beginning to work some things out with private partners and other governmental entities and things like that so I think we need extra funding at this time to be able to settle that. >> Martinez: Mayor. council member martinez. >> Martinez: I was going to state that I won't be able to support the substitute motion. It, obviously without further -- without further $19 million worth of reductions, it does cause a tax increase, which the motion maker committed to actually not making next week when discussion, but more importantly than that, while it is, as all of our attempts, it is a valiant attempt at addressing many concerns and projects that have been brought to us. It leaves most of them short. It leaves 51st street vision plan short. It leaves the women's shelter short on their request. It leaves the bathhouse short. It leaves the austin studios short by almost a half million dollars. And then I believe there was -- mexiscart is left out and i believe a parks facility is out and left short but for that reason and others and more specifically we are still at about $400 million in this proposal, I can't support it, but if we get back to the main motion, obviously I am more than happy to entertain amendments to that main motion that could create further capacity, such as the shelton bridge and other things that have been identified and be allocated elsewhere. and likewise, I am not going to support the substitute motion because I think it starts off off in the wrong place and that esa at $400 million and I think the priorities that I have talked about are included in the main motion, which I will support, and are not included in the substitute motion. >> Tovo: Mayor. so with that -- council member tovo. >> Tovo: It's critical to me to try to get down to 385 and if we are going to try to do this here today, I would just say, you know, it was a goal of the motion makers, too, so I think we've got a day or two to keep thinking about it but in the interest of trying to get down to 385, I am going to suggest another amendment, and that is, to remove harold court from -- from the bond proposal, and that would be a reduction of $11 million. I think that gets us down to 388. I agree that it's a necessary project and I would hope that it can be offset, that they can continue to make progress on that through the transportation fund as we discussed last week. I would rather do a less harsh reduction but this is the best i can do here on the spot. That gets us to 388, and I would add -- so I will make that suggestion as a friendly amendment and then I have got another for consideration. >> Cole: I will definitely accept that because it is definitely my goal for us to get to the 385 where it's as close as possible and I guess we need a second on that amendment. >> Morrison: I accept that. if you accept it as friendly, and council member morrison accepts it as friendly, then it's part of the motion. >> Cole: Okay. city manager. >> Ott: Thank you, mayor, i guess I do want to speak to harold court. You heard howard the other day, that facility is in pretty severe conditions. I know that from working with howard and the staff and I know from working out of that facility with the crews in the street. It is in deplorable condition. Howard did make some comments the last time about some options but nothing that will come close to providing anything close to an adequate remedy, so I -- with your permission, mayor, I would like howard to come back up here and talk about that once again in terms of the need and to provide some additional explanation as to what you meant about -- about having some options. I would simply be remiss on behalf of the employees if i didn't address this issue. >> If I can go back a little bit in recent history. We started out with a facility request when we went to the bond election advisory task force of about $22 million to address our facilities. Through discussions and creativity, we were able to get that down to about $16 million. In discussions after that, the -- we looked at what we could reasonably carry as a payment over 20 years through transportation fund and not have a terribly significant impact on our street maintenance program and that's where that last $4 million came from. The unfortunate part and to be really blunt about this is we were put in a position of either taking a cut from that project or not being in the program at all, so getting down to the 11 million plus that's in there now is really the bottom line, that the fund can afford. In support of what the city manager said, I do have some photographs here of what the site looks like, and the service center is home to the majority of our field operations, as we said last week. And I won't go through -- repeat what I said last week but it does address both public works and transportation. It's totally inadequate facility. It has none of the employees' support needs that other facilities have in other departments, and I will show you some of the photos because these facilities are not economically repairable. This is our overlay section facility. What that amounts to is a shack built on top of an asphalt pavement. There is no adequate means for us us to charter message boards. There are no locker facilities and it is not heat or cooled properly and inadequate you see the crews in the bottom left hand corner pulled together for themselves. The utility structure are a bunch of old trailers that were salvages an not repairable any longer and even though the crews have done things to try to improve those. As you see on the picture on the left, we don't have a place to store the materials. I mentioned that portland cement is subject to being ruined if left out in the weather. Sand is subject to variations in moisture content which impacts concrete mix design. Storage, just to reemphasize, you can see we have really inadequate places to store materials and equipment and do make ready, so what we came down with was a cost just for harold court replacement, $16 million and you can see what sections it houses. The $5 million, that got taken off of that, essentially amounts to over 20 years to a tradeoff between some lane miles we could do versus funding in the new facility. But if we don't provide the new facility over the long-term, our ability to provide maintenance activities on our right-of-way is going to be severely diminished. I also add that as we look at council direction, some ways as to whether it's more economical to keep some services in house versus contracting. We don't really have anyplace to put anymore staff. So that's something to consider as well, as we look at the economic tradeoffs. So in support of what the manager said, that $11 million that's in there is the lowest amount of money that we can have and that project remains feasible and it will have some impact on -- on funding as we look at it in the future in the transportation fund, but just to, again, reemphasize, we cannot absorb 11, 12 million-dollar hit to the fund for this project. It will have an unacceptable impact on our ability to deliver preventative maintenance services throughout the city, as will not providing the facility have an unacceptable impact on our ability to provide maintenance services throughout the city. so that is a pretty significant fact there, that without this $11 million for this facility, other parts of the transportation bond package and other facility projects will be significantly affected? >> Mayor, what this will do, is funding for maintenance comes out of the transportation fund, so with out this facility, that's what will be impacted. With the capital work we talked about, the bond is done primarily through contract, except for sidewalk work which we do a lot of it in house. The difference in the funding is just that the transportation dollars that come out of the fund necessarily to support the project will take away from the maintenance. i understand. But it significantly impairs your ability to do the necessary work, wherever those source of funds is on our roads throughout the city? >> That's correct. >> Morrison: Mayor. Sorry. and i just want to -- you might have a very quick comment on this. As long as you were on this item, but i-35, I think transportation is probably our most critical need in this city, transportation improvements. And among all of the transportation projects, the most significant project is i-35. That's where our biggest problem is. We've talked about all of the statistics that are, you know, the fourth most congested road segment in the entire nation, et cetera, et cetera, and so to start off with -- I know the initial assessment on i-35 is hutch much higher than it already is now. It's already -- I can't support additional reductions in that. I haven't flushed all of this out, but I do know the course we are on, the capital area mpo has allocated, actually loaned money for construction of managed lanes on mopac because that project is shovel ready right now. We had the ability to do that because it was shovel ready. A lot of advantages that I am not going to go into now, but the thinking on the mpo is that if we have design projects ready to go on i-35, if the engineering is done and design is complete, when that money is paid back from the mopac project in just a few years, potentially, that could be used to actually fund the building of these i-35 improvements which, as I said, we need more than anything else, so, again, I am not going to be able to support that part of the substitute motion, either. >> Cole: That's not in the substitute. >> Morrison: It's not in right now. I know, but I am -- the part we are talking about. >> Cole: The harold court. Okay. I are have a question because kathie last time you suggested reduction of only 5 million but howard, I hear you saying you can't do it with 5 million, either, or can you do any design work? >> Additional estimate for harold court facility was $16 million. I think what you started with which is task force recommendation has put $5 million out so it is down to $11 million in change that i just showed on the -- on the slide. >> Cole: Okay. Well, I will not accept that as friendly, but I will make a suggestion that we reuse the urban rail planning money, the $2 million as a potential reduction. >> I am sorry, mayor pro tem, you don't have that many to use because if you go back to 400 recommendation from the task force, that was not included in the line item, it was only offered up as modification to the 385 recommendation. >> Morrison: Mayor, if I may. council member morrison. >> Morrison: But on the other -- thank you for that, so we don't have that to use as a reduction. However, we do have, from the -- from city manager's memo, as council member martinez mentioned, there are -- there are some items that were suggested for rearrangement by the city manager that are sort of available for adjustment in the task force that we are working from right now and if i am correct, I think that is the $2 million -- well, the bicycle urban trail and grant match is actually at 5 million and the task force recommendation as opposed to 6, but we can still think about including the violet crown -- we could still reduce that by 2 million, I guess is the point. So we could offer that as a reduction and the other that's still is viable with our starting point is the idea of the city wide bike ways program, which I think is a60 or a59, to think about e 51st street being covered somewhat by that. >> Cole: So what -- how much are you wanting to include or reduce by? >> Morrison: So that actually is 5 million in reduction, combined from those two line items, so the -- the amendment i am proposing here is to reduce bicycle urban trail and grant match by 2 million, and to reduce city wide bike ways by 5, with the understanding that we are actually doing trails and bike-ways with these specified projects. do you accept that, mayor pro tem? >> Cole: Yes, I do. >> Morrison: So that is another 3.5 in reduction -- reduction. >> Cole: And we also have an item for minor bridge culverts construction that was at the task force recommendation of 2,100,000, and I would suggest that we not do that item. It was minor bridge culverts and structures. I am sorry, mayor. 1 out of the transportation. >> Cole: 1.7. >> Mayor leffingwell: 1.7. council member morrison do you accept that? Would you like to hear from. >> Morrison: I would like to hear from staff. >> Mayor leffingwell: martinez would you like to hear from staff or would you like to make a comment. >> Martinez: I would like to make a comment. It seems like we are going down the list and trying to find reductions and while i appreciate trying to get to the 385, my preference would be that we continue to work on this, on second and third reading as opposed to just going down and willy-nilly selecting items that look like that can get us to 385, and with all due respect with robert rules of order, everybody has had an opportunity to speak for or against this item and it would be within order to call the question on this motion, but I appreciate and respect the work that you all are trying to do. I understand it. But I just feel like we are piecemealing now. There is no cohesiveness to the proposal. It is simply trying to get down to 385 so we can take a vote and I won't be supporting that. I won't call the question for now but it seems to keep going on. I do think we need to get some resolution because we need to get a motion on the table on first reading today so that we can meet our critical time level before the 20th, when we have to have all of this done. There will be opportunity to make these change recommendations on subsequent readings, which ever motion passes, and so I would urge you to go ahead and lay your motion on the table for a vote. If you have got specific recommendations -- >> Cole: Mayor, I will do that. and not go down the list looking for things. >> Cole: Mayor, I would say the recommendations I have made since the question of going over the tax rate, I will not in the end support a motion that exceeds the 385 and results in a tax increase, and the items since then that I have suggested have not been willy-nilly. They have just been on my list of potential items. I would like to ask for a final number, if we have it, and then I am ready for us to vote. Yes, shelby. >> If you wouldn't mind, if i can get clarification in the reduction in minor bridges, culverts and structures, is it the full amount of 2.1. that has not yet been accepted. >> Cole: Yes. It has not yet been accepted. it has not yet been accept and you don't accept it. Okay. >> The core reduction -- the core was it was accepted as friend lid and has been removed in your motion. Mayor pro tem, we just want to clarify. >> Morrison: Is harold court in or out. >> Cole: For first reading only. Yes. For first reading only. I think we need to do work with staff and actually visit the facility. >> Morrison: It is included or -- the reduction -- [multiple voices] >> mayor leffingwell: okay. Everyone, please. The reduction is included -- was accepted and is part of the motion at this point. >> Point of order, mayor. council member martinez raises a point of order. >> Martinez: There was a friendly amendment to remove harold court completely from the mayor pro tem's proposal. She entertained that after the presentation. She made a comment that she did not accept it as friendly. >> Mayor leffingwell: okay. That was the question I is and the answer I got was contrary to that. Council member -- mayor pro tem. >> Cole: Let me be clear. >> Mayor leffingwell: be clear. >> Cole: At this point, I will entertain that motion on first reading. I do believe we have additional work to do with staff based on staff testimony. does that mean do you accept it? >> Cole: I do accept it. you accept it, so it's removed. It's removed from the substitute motion. Council member morrison. >> Morrison: Thank you, mayor. I want to step back a minute and say of course I am going to support this motion. I do hope that some of the task force members are watching us or will go back and watch this because they get to now experience us going through the excruciating deliberations that they did week after week after week, and I think that we get to experience that now. For me, it is absolutely paramount that we give them the respect for the work that they did and I think we obviously have to adjust and I think -- i hear everybody saying they want to stick -- to get to 385, but for me, it is paramount that we start with theirs, with their recommendation and adjust it to get down to 385. They are the ones that brought the -- that wove together the staff recommendations, the perspective from inside the city, and the community -- the community's perspective from outside the city. If we were to begin, with all due respect to the city manager and I appreciate the work that he did in attempting to put together something that addresses some of the issues that we brought up -- that were brought up, if we were to basically throw out the task force work and start with the city manager's recommendations, I don't know how we can ever go and ask our citizens to come and sit and volunteer their expertise and their passion for the community for hours on end if we are not going to at least start from there -- from their work and give their work a nod, so I just want to sort of lay that out there, that I am -- there is a lot of things that i think are important, a lot of priorities that aren't in here. My main priority is starting from the task force. any other comments? Counci tovo. >> Tovo: Just a quick one, that I think the funding reduces ih-35 down to 15 million, is what I thought but maybe we can get clarity on that if we go back to the main motion but i want to say one of the things i think the task force did with community projects and I think that is where we have -- we don't yet have the consensus on the community project money but it seems like they heard them, they considered a wider range. They arrived on some really significant community projects that deserve funding and i regret that we are in the substitute motion, we are not proposing as much funding as those groups have requested. I wish there were more funding available to do so because they are very worthy organizations and I flow they will use it wisely for the benefit of our community, but it is a balancing act and I believe we also need to fund our city facilities. I want to say on that note, i hope we can do some more thinking about harold court because it does sound like it needs to be back in there but we are going to have to look hard at some of the other reductions lasarus said about not being able to defer that work with much funding with the transportation fund, based on our conversation the other day, it sounded likes the more possible than it did today but i want to continue talking to staff about that. But to me, it is balance. It's not going to get all of the community projects in particular completed but I guess I do -- i say that in specific items response before that the proposal is allowing a little bit of funding but not actually allowing them to be complete but I think the seed money will allow the groups to go out and get additional funding and i know it was a challenge and goal of the task force to provide some money to allow them to leverage other funds and I think that respects that intent. >> Cole: Mayor, I want to be clear. mayor pro tem. >> Cole: I want to be clear this motion does not include the i-35 reduction. Okay. >> Mayor, if it makes sense, would it be okay if my staff goes through where we are at right now based on the discussions as far as adds and discussions? >> Mayor leffingwell: sure. Sure. >> Okay. I am going to go through additions first and then reductions, if that's okay. I have an addition of 2 million for austin film studios, an addition of 2 million for women and children's shelter. An addition of 2 million -- 2 million for dougherty arts center, an addition of 2 million for affordable housing, an addition of 150,000 for ada wheelchair accessible fishing pier, an addition of 1 million for barton springs pool master plan, an addition of 1 million for south district maintenance facility. Now, reductions, I have a reduction -- excuse me -- >> Cole: What happened to east 51st street. >> I don't have east 51st street in there. >> Was it 2 million or 1 million? >> It is an additional of 1 million from the task force on that package. Okay. Now. Reductions, I have a reduction of 2 million for the bicycle urban frames and grant match. 5 million for city wide bike-ways. 9 million for northwest substation, a 077 for harold court, a reduction of 1 million for austin and manor trails and reduction of 2 million for amor shelton bridge and reduction of 2 million for park patrol facility and that's all of the reductions I have. let me just say before we vote that i certainly respect the work of the task force and appreciate the sacrifice they have made and the hours they have put in and their recommendations certainly have been taken into account and there are a lot of similarities between the two recommendations. It's just a matter of where -- where do you start from and i think it's easier to start from the point where you are going to end up which is the $385 million, but certainly all of the modifications that you go through, the task force recommendation has been and will continue to be taken into account when those decisions are made. I am going to vote against the substitute motion and for the main motion, if we get to that point, if the substitute motion doesn't pass. With that, you know, that doesn't mean I support absolutely everything in the main motion. I anticipate trying to make some changes to it. Not today but on subsequent readings so there is still a work in progress. And, finally, I i don't want to filibuster here, but we keep in mind that this is a -- it has been a difficult process, because the needs are so great and there are so many. I would say that I haven't seen a single proposal that doesn't have merit and that money available, I would like to see -- I would like to see included in a bond package, but given the constraints that we are operating with, we have to make those difficult choices, and that's what we are about to do on a preliminary basis right here today. So all those in favor, say "aye." of the substitute motion. Oppose say no? No. The motion fails on vote of 3-3, with council member riley, council member martinez and myself voting no. That brings us to the main motion, and do you want to go through that same exercise of the main motion? It might be helpful if you say adding and that brings the total .. >> Yes, sir. I have an addition of 2 million for violet crown trail, an 5 million for east 51st street, an addition of 5,481,000 for austin film studio. An addition of 5 million for mexico museum. An addition of 2 million for bar torn springs bathhouse. An addition of 7 million for the neighborhood partnering program. An addition of 2,850,000 for homeless women and children's shelter. An addition of 150,000 for ada wheelchair accessible fishing 5 million for the fire station on loop 360. And that's all the additions i have. Reductions, I have reduction of 2 million for bicycle trail urban trails grant match. again, what does that leave us with, after you made the reduction? Do you have that? >> It is a little more complicated. >> Mayor leffingwell: go ahead. We will just have to figure out that part out later. >> Okay. >> Okay. We have a discrepancy, is the reduction of 2 million part of the bicycle -- >> Martinez: That was not part of my proposal. reduction of 2 million for the -- >> reduction of 2 million for the urban corridor project? >> No. Do you want me to read them again. >> No. I think what the problem is now. Let me try one more time. Okay. A reduction of 9,933,000 for northwest substation. A reduction of 5,048,000 for a reduction of 2 million for thard recreation facility. A -- the pard recreation facility. 3.7 For i-35, reduction. >> Martinez: Right. You are right. You were going off the memo in the -- >> and I didn't catch the change with this one. >> Martinez: The additional 5.5. >> But we do have a note that urban rail is included so urban rail is in there. >> So we will put the urban rail down. >> Martinez: Sorry, you were correct the first two proposals came from the city manager's proposal. They weren't from mine but i adopted from the city manager and they were the urban rail and the urban rail and grant match program. >> And it also holds true for the city wide bike-ways, 1.5 million? >> Martinez: Yes, it does. >> Let me add those back in real quick. >> Martinez: Sorry. >> That gives us total bond package of 384,948,000. Yes. >> Martinez: You can keep the change, mayor. [Laughter] actually, I have big plans for that remaining amount here, so we will talk about them tomorrow. >> Cole: Mayor, can i. >> Mayor, can i, and on what i said earlier about what the actual two items that you need to do, what you have done is you have gone through and you considered taking action on the specific projects which would then make up each proposition but my bond lawyers tell me specifically what you also need to don't first reading today is on the propositions say what the total amount will be. That's the ordinance that's actually before you, and just like you can go in and change individual items tomorrow, thursday, or if we have a special call meeting, you can also then go in and change those amounts but will we actually need a first reading on, and i assume staff has that proposition 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, those total amounts for each of the different bundled propositions. So that would be included in any motion that would be made. do you have those totals available? >> We can, once you make a motion, and a motion passes, we can -- we will go back. >> Yes, we will take a few minutes to calculate those. I guess one question I have is could there be -- and this is for the city manager, could there be a -- for the city attorney, could there be for passing the overall bond package and we bring them back by proposition tomorrow to review those amounts. she just said no. >> No, no, I was just talking [indiscernible] >> Cole: Mayor, can I ask a question. yes, go ahead. >> Cole: I am not clear on what the final number was on the motion that I made. >> The motion you made, the final number was 386,173,000. so the .. At any rate, I think the best way to proceed would be to vote on this main motion and then i guess the posting is adequate for us to vote on an alignment within the various propositions after that. >> Yes, I think that's correct. If you are voting on the proposition and you've got the total dollars and then you can vote that on first reading and then presumably staff can do the calculation to make sure that the dollars are in the right places, which you would need to vote on, but that would have to have then -- because those amounts will not have an opportunity for three readings, and your schedule is currently envisioned, you would need at least five votes. can we do that today? >> If you do it tomorrow or thursday, you need to have at least five votes on those amounts. it is pretty risky. [Laughter] >> and let me -- I am thinking on my feet here, trying to help. There is a provision in the open meetings act that allows the council to recess the meeting without reposting that agenda if you do it to the next meeting and I see my lawyers back there getting nervous, so if maybe we could recess this meeting with something tentatively a number, we still might have three readings. >> We can calculate it by proposition base but we will need five minutes to tally it up. let's do it that way, rather wonder -- rather than wandering in unchartered area here. Council member martinez. >> Martinez: Do we need to adopt a motion with the specific reallocations so they can know -- after we, assuming that the main motion does pass, then they are going to take five minutes and put all of those modifications in the right slots and come back with a suggested, to do it, proposition by proposition and a we can take it all at the same time, i suppose. Okay. So now we have the main motion before us. The motion is to approve this on first reading. " yay. Opposed say no. So that motion fails on a vote of 3-3. , With council members tovo, morrison and mayor pro tem voting no, and I am afraid that puts us into special call meeting territory possibly this weekend. >> Yes, sir, that's what we were going to -- either -- of course we have friday, saturday, sunday or monday. Monday is the last official day to call the election and so it does now put us into special call meeting because we are going to have to have three readings on the ordinance. >> Yes. so the plan is tomorrow, second reading, that's right? >> We don't have a first reading. first reading tomorrow? >> Well, maybe. I am just trying to think -- we are posted for tomorrow and thursday and so I was looking at the days and say we don't do anything tomorrow, then we -- we what we are running out of time is posting notice for the special call meeting for all the other days we have available. We need 72 hours so if we were going to call a meeting on friday, we need to post -- well, sometime today, and that would be late friday. If we are going to have a meeting saturday, we are okay, or sunday, or monday, we are okay. But we -- why don't we just work this out after the meeting and see what -- what the best course of action is. >> Well, under the charter, the mayor can call a special call meeting or any two council members, the way our practice has been, it is generally been the mayor, but if you want to have a discussion about that, i think we -- we can always have a discussion without it being posted about a future meeting and putting items on a future meeting. So if you want to have a discussion about that, you can, and give directions then. council member morrison. >> Morrison: I would just like to suggest that we think about posting for a friday afternoon meeting, where that keeps our options open to whatever happens tomorrow as we are getting down the line. Certainly -- we certainly will think about that. There is another meeting that is scheduled from 1 to 3 on friday, but of course that can be postponed or canceled, but any other suggestions? Friday afternoon is one suggestion. >> Cole: Friday morning. >> Mayor pro tem we are outside the 72 deadline for friday morning deadline right now. we can't start before 1:00 p.m. >> Yes, and that would mean we would have to get it -- john is coming up here quickly. council member tovo. >> Tovo: Mayor I think it would be great to get special called meetings on the calendar so we have that option if we need them, even if it means setting 'em up for friday, saturday, sunday, monday and so we make sure we can get them done in time. that's what we are doing right now. >> There is another legal issue which is on the agenda today which is to set the ballot order, maybe if we can do that without the bonds, we could have that issue on the first reading taking care of, because -- taken care of -- sorry, on second reading taken care of. >> All three. >> All three. Okay. As you will recall, we have already passed other charter amendments and we had never set the ballot, so if we can somehow get that taken care of today, that would be helpful and then we can just focus on the bond issues and then we amend that valid order once that is determined. >> Let me flow when you are read -- let me know when you are ready for b1. we are readily. >> Agenda item b1 is an amendment to the call of the ordinance that calls the election. We have in yellow copy today that will be handed out in just a moment an ordinance that lists out the 11 propositions that council has placed on the ballot, and it shows the language and the order and this will be an amendment to the order calling the election and that will be handed out in a moment. We apologize. Staff was careful to create yellow copy but it didn't copy both sides so we need to that come in and we will have a copy. That is the only changes we are proposing for b1. >> Morrison: Mayor. >> Can you read the order until we get the copies? >> Morrison: Okay, may I ask something. >> Mayor leffingwell: yes. >> Morrison: One of the things i wanted to ask our staff is the issue of getting assessments of fiscal impacts of charter amendments we are putting on the ballot, whether or not they would have the fiscal impact and what the fiscal impact would be, and I understand that actually that's part of the usual routine, so I wanted to hear what we might expect in that regard. >> Sure, the state law requires that all charter amendments include their fiscal impact in the newspaper notice that we publish in the month before the election. So if staff has done an assessment of the items we anticipate will have a fiscal impact. Two items you have seen the fiscal note for. You have seen the fiscal note for 10-1, and the fiscal note for 8-2-1. The item that is the personnel civil service, the fiscal note for that is being done now. As you know, there were several amendments made last council meeting during the course of the day to the ordinance and that had a significant effect on the fiscal impact document so that is being worked on. And then the two made to november -- the two may to november items are assessed to have a savings to the city due to reduced election costings of $255,000 per election cycle, so those are assessments that if any news team has made. Would you like to add anything to that? >> No. >> Morrison: So I understand, it will be part of our call for the election and the notice of our election. I don't think your mic is on? >> Morrison: So there will be a formal rollout of these? Is there a way that information will be made available? Because I know there has been some public discussion and so you say that, for instance, that the 8-2 and the 10-1 fiscal note were part of q and a but that's not publically available? >> It is publically available. That backup was done yellow copy on the day they passed. So those are online now. >> Morrison: Great. Do you know what the day would be? I am just trying to figure out how to tell people how to find it? >> Sure. The 10-1, those were both 83 and 84 on june 28th. >> Riley: Twenty-eighth. Okay. >> The city manager gave us that date, june 28. >> Morrison: And we can expect the one on civil service, which as you mentioned, there was significant changes, so there had been a memo. There is going to be significant changes probably to the -- to the fiscal impacts. Do you have an idea of when we might be able to expect that to be available? >> Ott: It's difficult to say. I can tell you that staff is working on that. We had a conversation just yesterday and I know that they have already started to pull the team back together to do that fiscal analysis. So probably within the next few days. I see mr. washington out there. Am I accurate in that, the next few days, we should have a revised impact analysis? >> Yes, we are trying to get something for the city manager to review this week. >> Morrison: Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Mayor leffingwell: okay. So we have the proposal before us and this is for second reading? >> Three. >> This can be all three. first, second, and third. Okay. We just discussed it before. We never passed it. I entertain a motion for the ballot order item. >> Cole: So moved. >> Mayor leffingwell: move. To approve this ballot order. Motion by mayor pro tem to approve on all three readings, the ballot order in this yellow sheet. Is there a second to that? >> Oh, one small comment, this ordinance you have in backup will exclude the reference to today's bond item. That was simply a place holder in case decisions were made today. >> Mayor leffingwell: Understood. Is there a second by council member riley? " aye. Opposed say no. Passes, vote of 7-0 -- 6-0, with council member spelman off the dyas. >> The final item is b5 and staff has no presentation unless there are questions from council. It is a general discussion of election issues. all right. Without objection, we are adjourned at 1:00 p.m.