Council Work Session - 10/9/2012 to call this meeting to order. Mayor leffingwell will not [09:08:00] be here today, he is traveling on business, and councilmember mike martinez will not be here either. And I understand councimember spelman may have to leave to testify at the legislature for a subcommittee and so if it's okay with everyone -- and councilmember tovo has to leave early so it's going to be a short session. What time do you have to leave? [Inaudible] >> Cole: 11:15. First I'm going to ask councimember spelman if he has anything immediately he wants to pull. We have not been submitted any items but it's been our custom to consider items recognizing we will have limited staff available to answer questions. The middle button turns the mic on. >> Spelman: There you go. You just have to push it harder. I have a question for councilmember riley, if i might. And I'm not sure which agenda item, if any, this pertains to, although i heard her tell that it pertains to the city cab item which I cannot come up with right now. Okay. Pardon me while I lean over in the most uncomfortable possible way to make this new technology work for me. I have a question on item 69. [Inaudible] probably wrong the last few weeks. Anybody from the [09:10:01] transportation department? Transportation issue. We can hold on it until somebody is around to answer the question. >> Cole: We'll see if we can get anyone from the transportation department to answer a question about item 69. Is there any other item? Councimember spelman. >> Spelman: I actually have a question on number 67. And it is at least fairly conceivable that a member of the cap metro board who is with city council can answer the question and if not I'll hold off until later. The question, chris, is of the $4 million that will be spent on urban rail planning, how will that be broken down -- how will that money be spent? I understand as we leave the campo meeting, two big pieces, one is service development planning, which comes at the end. One of them is [inaudible] which comes at the beginning. I wonder how this $4 million is likely to be broken down between preferred alternative and -- >> Riley: I think we better get [inaudible]. I'm not sure. >> Spelman: Okay. I'll pass, mayor pro tem MAYOR PRO TEM.>> Cole: Do you have questions about item 14 first? >> Tovo: Yes, I do. If my microphone is on. >> It's on. >> Tovo: Yeah, I want to [09:12:00] be clear on, first of all, what we're being asked to do here. >> We forwarded a memo to council last week. Due to the fact [inaudible] state comptroller one week prior to council action at the council meeting, we need to make that payment and i think [inaudible] memo stating that there was an indication about not making that payment. So in essence we forwarded payment last week [inaudible]. What you are doing is ratifying the payment. The $81,000 request be paid -- paid into the state [inaudible] fund which in this case the state matches [inaudible] of that amount for the total amount in which the city actually gets full payment of the amount they put in. But we did not make that payment last week. [Inaudible] >> Tovo: Thanks. I'll have to refer to that memo because it must have come in and I must have overlooked it. But I have I guess a couple other questions. For one thing, it looks as if the agreement was actually entered into last may, and I wondered if you could give me some sense of how often -- I mean, when we were considering this for formula one, it was the subject of a council decision. So I'm wondering what the -- what the precedent is for the city entering into an agreement regarding requesting the state set up an events trust fund without [09:14:01] council authorization. >> Well, I have a couple of my colleagues here [inaudible] you have a major events fund and the major event trust fund is designated mainly for super bowl, those type of events. >> Tovo: I understand it a smaller fund, but it still is a contract the city entered into last may and i guess I'm wondering -- well, let's start with maybe some background. Has the city entered into this kind of contract in the past without council authorization? >> Yes, but none as relates to [inaudible]. The other day how many total, we have about 25 agreements since the inception of the 2008. Of that amount none has exceeded -- I think two have exceeded the council authority [inaudible]. I think one of the challenges is when the initial estimate by the economic impact analysis is completed by the state, that number is 60 to 80 thousand dollars. That is just an estimate. After the conclusion of the event, you have about 30 or 60 days to evaluate whether the assumptions were realized. And I think the timetable that we're talking about in july, I think it was a portion of the month after that event they go through a process to make sure all the criteria is met, whether or not the functions were realized, and if they were not, there's potential that the amount could go below the original assumption. [Inaudible] talk about the history, but typically the numbers have not exceeded [09:16:00] the [inaudible]. >> Tovo: I guess I can get some more data on that through the q and a process, but in the other case where they had exceeded the manager's authority, were those brought to council for approval before the request was sent to the state? >> I can check that. >> Tovo: Okay. Thanks. >> My understanding [inaudible] >> Tovo: So back in may when the assistant city manager was requesting that the state set up this major events trust fund, wasn't there -- isn't it necessary to kick off that process by getting an estimate as far as working with the state to get an estimate? I've forgotten the exact process, but it seems to me there would have been good evidence or some basis for assuming that it would -- had the potential to exceed the $50,000 manager level. >> Well, I think in the memo we provided council, we provided details that shared that the process actually started in december of 2011. In january there was correspondence with the state [inaudible]. At that time there's an indication that the assumption of potential revenue would be about $81,000. There is an agreement between the city, the state, as well as the event organizer I believe in may, the actual event occurred in july. But as I stated previously, there is a post-event process that goes to try to make sure that all the criteria is met and whether or not the assumptions originally were realized. And in this case it could result because we never in this case really have ever exceeded the manager's authority, it could have gone below that amount, but in essence that was the process that we followed traditionally. >> Tovo: I guess, I mean [09:18:00] if I'm following the details of what you've said, it sounds like last fall or by january you had an estimate of 81,000. Aen so I take your point and I understand the process is that after the event you look at the receipts and whatnot and determine the accuracy of that original amount. But I guess when it looked like -- when you had an estimate that looked like it was going to exceed the manager -- the manager's estimate, why wasn't this brought to council last spring? >> Well, at this point i wasn't [inaudible] of that area, ma'am, and the acm at that time is no longer a city employee. As I stated earlier, I know there are a number of processes that working with acvb, it could have been, one of the things that we're doing going forth looking at this process [inaudible] we're looking at including in the joiner agreement more specificity as it relates to the amount, which hasn't been the case the previous times and my hope is by doing that we have due dill diligence in ensuring these type of situations don't occur. >> Tovo: And I understand the amount is a whole lot less than the formula one. There's still clearly a lot of public interest in this and I think it is not advisable for it to be an administrative decision. I think it needs to come to council for action. >> The fact that -- >> Cole: The city manager. >> [Inaudible] should have come, I don't know why it was -- the acm authorized it. Only more recently found out about those occasions. In both instances it should have come to council. >> Tovo: Thanks. [09:20:00] >> Cole: I have a simple question related to the same thing. I don't think we've ever used the major events trust fund, but has there ever been something that was passed through at that level that did not come to council? >> The only time we used the major events fund was f 1 and that came to council. And in essence no payment was disbursed from city funds related to that, but [inaudible]. >>> Julie hart with austin convention and visitors bureau. We have not used the major events trust fund [inaudible]. State statute is very specific about what events are included in the major event trust fund and [inaudible] super bowl, ncaa final four and so obviously before f1 none of those were held in austin. From our perspective we have used the events trust fund very successfully to bring about 25 events to austin that would not have been here otherwise. The criteria it has to be an event that could go outside the state of texas in a competitive bidding process. In this specific incidence, this has been learning experience with the amount of this. Most of our trust funds have been much smaller amounts so it's opened our eyes to the need for a new process and we're very eager to work with the city to make sure it's a process that works with everybody. It has been a very good fund for all of us. The city is always reimbursed fully and has allowed us to get really high profile events. Matthew can give you more details on that. >> Spelman: The amount of this looks like $82,000, and the threshold it has to come to council, is that 50,000? [09:22:02] >> [Inaudible] >> Spelman: Five. Okay. Presumably at the time when the agreement was entered into, the expectation was our -- the amount we would have to pay out was less than $55,000. Is that accurate? >> Correct. >> Spelman: You said a moment ago sometimes it's higher, sometimes it's lower, you have to prove out the assumptions. >> Right. >> Spelman: How much up and down does it eventually prove out to be on average? >> Matthew has the history on this since he's been in charge of that process. He might be able to [inaudible]. >> Good morning, matthew payne, austin sports commission. I think there's been a lot of jump really from what the previous estimate was. I think when we had a number of a certain amount, we felt like we might be able to contribute to that fund on top of this as the city amount and that was something that we just were kind of assuming. And I think that window of time after the event where you are trying to evaluate a little bit, trying to figure out if the client, the event organizers has their ducks in a row, the time kind of slips a little bit. But as far as history goes, that estimate is pretty on target. I believe only two or three times where it's underperformed and you maybe need to go back and do a revision. Something we've been proactive on going back to the state saying this didn't perform the way we thought. >> Spelman: Slipping through evening the changes operating procedures. If our new procedure states if our estimate is amount the city is going to be out is over $55,000 and comes back to council, I suspect that's a logical operating procedure. Seems what was followed in this case, the difference it turned out to be spectacularly good event, a [09:24:00] lot more people showed up and therefore our chair of [inaudible] considerably higher. If that happens, even if it doesn't happen very often, it's going to happen in the future and I suggest that maybe it would be good for you all to cover yourselves even if your expectation is less than 55,000, if the expectation is over 40,000, for example, but there is a good chance that this might be [inaudible] a lot more people showing up and it might get over 55, seems like the threshold, it might make sense to lower the threshold to cover yourselves to prevent this from happening again. >> That's a good point, councilmember. I think it's important to know that in this instance the amount that is established through the state after the economic impact statement cannot be exceeded even if the event proves to be more successful than anticipated, that number is capped. But you can go below the number based on that. So it protects on the top end, in this case 81,000. If everyone from the surrounding states decided they wanted to come to this event and the economic impact of 150,000, we wouldn't be obligated to pay above the 81. However [inaudible] if it was not realized then we could lower it. >> Spelman: Is the cap the same for all events? Does it depend on the event? >> It depends on each event. The process that happens [inaudible] the process that happens is we bid on the event. A year before that we're allowed to make application to the state for the event trust fund. Within 120 days of the event after we've gathered the event history, got as much history as we can, we have an independent entity that does an economic impact that goes to the state and they evaluate to see if it's reasonable or not. Then they come back with a number that says this is what we think the [09:26:00] incremental tax gain will be to the stacks because of this specific event. That is the cap for that event. >> Spelman: That incremental [inaudible] is the cap? >> Yes, sir. >> Spelman: What was the cap on this? >> 81,000. >> The city's contribution was 81,000. The total was I believe about 500 -- >> 593. >> That's incremental [inaudible]. The local match is derived from percentage of that. >> Spelman: Okay. So there is a maximum amount that the state is going to be out which is based on what? >> 6.2. We pay one-sixth and for every dollar we pay the 25 and all that money is deposited to the trust fund and then the event organizer has the ability to request reimbursement for eligible expenses up to that cap [inaudible] >> Spelman: Let me be sure I understand it. We look at the event, bid on the event, hire somebody to estimate what they think is going to be the [inaudible] of the event. In this case let's say $300,000. That means that our share of that would be 1/6 or $50,000, which is lower than your threshold having council. Then it develops that the event [inaudible] it's extremely successful and the amount is something like 600 not 300,000, which means our share would be about 100, not 50,000. Did this not happen? >> No. >> Spelman: Why not? >> After the state did their initial evaluation, that is is the marks that is allowed. We go back post-event and they will adjust down, they will not adjust over. >> Spelman: Seems to me a sensible process either we believe our best guess is 55,000 or more or else the [09:28:01] cap would result in 1/6 payment being our share of being over 55,000. The state cap is over 55,000, maybe we ought to take a look at it. >> One of the things so you know the part of this process that we've undergone over the course of the last several weeks with the legal team, this team as well as my staff, we want to incorporate language that talks about administrative [inaudible] manager. In this case that those payments be made above that amount without going to city council. That will be actually right now it's not -- >> Spelman: It's in the ordinance, I think. >> We want to ensure that any signed agreement whether it's the city representative or the state or whoever, they understand that the amount is 55 or 56,000. I know there's been some discussion about partnering with acvb to cover the delta, but in the end i think the management clearly supported that any amount over his administrative authority needs to be escalated to [inaudible] ultimate approval. So we'll be coming back as we modify and approve the current process, we'll possibly be coming back to council and share with you some of the options [inaudible] >> Spelman: Well, don't possibly come back to city council, just come back to city council, let us know what it is that you are planning. Thanks. >> Cole: Any other questions? Okay. Councilmember tovo, if it's okay with you, I see someone from the transportation staff here so perhaps we will get them to answer some of our -- some of councimember spelman's questions. >> Spelman: Thank you, mayor pro tem. I appreciate it. [09:30:09] >> Councilmember, sorry, i was delayed getting here. >> Spelman: No problem. Thank you for coming. Two quick questions. Two questions which I think can be quick. First on 67, where you are asking us to authorize negotiation and execution of an interlocal agreement for an urban rail study program in the amount of $4 million, I wonder if you could describe how that $4 million will be broken down between -- in terms of the major parts of what it is we would be buying with that. >> Right. Let me try to answer that simplisticly. It will be going to restarting the alternative analysis. As you know, councilmember, we came before you this past spring and talked about a recommended or likely first investment scenario going approximately from the downtown commuter rail that's operating today out to mueller and looking at that as primary corridor route. That is consistent with the statement of first in need that we publish this part of the environmental process that we started about a year and a half ago. And which talked abou economic investment [inaudible] >> Spelman: Sounds like this is all stuff which we need to do. >> Yes, sir. >> Spelman: Does not preclude -- we haven't decided which street we're going to go on, the general idea making the [inaudible] [09:34:01] to mueller is going to be vetted. >> Yes. Certainly we believe we understand what are the potential streets to get us between those four key locations and we have an idea as to which the best route is, but certainly further discussion [inaudible] >> Spelman: If you could get me more information by thursday, that would be great. >> We have it broken out by year but I would like to summarize to it make it easier to explain. >> Spelman: With your permission, mayor pro tem, i would like to shift gears. >> Cole: Absolutely. Let me ask one question. One clear followup. This is a federal grant so there's no city of austin fund at issue. >> Well, it is a federal grant with the funds that come through capital metro administered by the fta. There's about a million dollars of tip funds that we've identified through the budge yet process to match so it makes a total of $5 million. >> Cole: Councilmember riley. >> Riley: Some concerns about ensuring maintain focus of [inaudible] in addition to figuring out how we're going to move people from points within the center. I appreciate you mentioning project -- but for purposes of this $4 million, will this -- will this study look at the connections from further -- from points further out or is it really just focused inside between the points [inaudible]? >> Councilmember, the purpose of project connect was to look at the entire system and so one of the key needs that were identified by project connect and the recommendation is they need to connect those systems [09:36:00] that come from more distant locations like leander and east austin to the major employment centers in central austin. Remember central austin was when we talk about downtown, capitol complex is a pretty big area. People would be challenged to walk in business suits [inaudible]. And then also I need to connect to mueller because of the economic opportunities that that proposes. And so this really focuses in on the central part of the corridor but is part of a system. One of the key things we heard in the environmental process that we kicked off a year and a half ago and why we [inaudible] public more is we heard clearly from agencies in the public you need to show us how this connected with the larger system so that's what we've been [inaudible]. >> Riley: Okay. So we can be sure that we are looking at people across the region from those points they could access the urban rail system that would be examined [inaudible]. >> Yes, sir. In fact, through project connect, the two highest priority corridors identified were the northeast, north central northeast corridor and the central corridor. You can imagine a box around central austin, sort of a central corridor, how you would get around this that central corridor similar to cities like san francisco and new york, that central activity area is too big for one to normally walk because it is an important element [inaudible] how it connects to those regional systems that we've already invested in or planned investment in is very important. >> Riley: Great. Thanks. >> Cole: Councilmember morrison. >> Morrison: Thank you. Just to follow up, I guess you've confirmed this is funding coming from the feds and we're talking about -- >> it is stme funds which were federal funds returned to the state for formula and [09:38:00] this is being capped from the state through the [inaudible] >> Morrison: A nice straight path. >> I wish I could say it was straight. >> Morrison: And I'm interested in the time line for these studies and it sounds like your answer to those questions might involve a time line. Will that come to us? >> Well, I can actually give you better understanding. My understanding is that cap metro intends to take a similar issue to their board for a november discussion. Once they have the authority to negotiate to get these funds agreed upon, we have a contractor that has previously -- is previously involved and remains involved ready to rekick off the environmental as well as the need for process. We would expect to get them started in november assuming both bodies approve the timing. In that way we would be back at an initial retouch with the public in january. The alternative analysis we would hope to finish by the end of this coming summer which would then allow us to continue the environmental process perhaps on a -- you know, on the first investment as opposed to the prior route and that is direct feedback from the [inaudible] going to be able to do all of this at once and no we really need to contemplate a first investment as part of that. That is the intent, councilmember, to reengage the public probably in the january time frame given [inaudible]. >> Morrison: And you mentioned earlier that we need to redo some things because some of the information is dated. Can you talk a little about that? >> Well, you know, we had a long and ongoing conversation about urban [09:40:00] [inaudible] specifically in this corridor. We start this process about six years ago. One of the things we need to do is reacquaint the public with the discussion and six years ago with capital metro and auspices of capital metro, the city picked it up four years ago. For good measure we need to remind the public of those conversations, check back in with them. Remind the public why it's important to connect three major activity centers along mueller. It's not just about a maintenance facility at mueller, it's also about mueller being an important community within the city. There's some economic opportunity for the city as we increase the density there to better meet imagine austin. Imagine austin clearly [inaudible] activity so we want to remind the public of that. But then also initiate more focus discussions about the characteristics of the system. We heard much from the business community that they want this to be very fast and dedicated lane. That certainly [inaudible] environmental and neighborhood repercussions that placement of stations [inaudible] those are the items we want to have a discussion with. >> Morrison: And you -- you mentioned we've been at this for six years. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Morrison: I mean the community has. And several times during those six years there was a discussion out about potentially going to the voters and that never -- that hasn't come together yet. And I think there are a lot of pieces that go into deciding when and if we go to the voters, would you have a guess as to what kind of time line this could put us on for consideration? >> I'm not sure I want to guess a date. I would tell you that i think the council as well as the region would have the information necessary within 12 to 14 months to make a decision as to when they want to go to a vote. The environmental will not be complete at that point, but, again, local funding is [09:42:01] a separate issue than the environmental issue. I can hazard a guess to believe there will be few environmental issues of concern within the corridors because we're within the existing transportation corridor more or less. Certainly there will be-neighborhood concerns, but I think we can alay those pretty effectively as we get further into the discussion process. I would hope that we would be in a position under the new federal funding law called map 21 to have a conversation with the federal transit administration about getting [inaudible] for federal funds. That may play a role in helping council decide when to discuss that with the electorate. >> Morrison: One final issue. You were talking with councimember spelman about where this money is going to go. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Morrison: Did i understand properly some of it may be managed and overseen by cap metro and some by the city? >> Yes, ma'am. They are the fiscal agent so they have the right to take administrative costs out of that. >> Morrison: That's in the backup and I had seen that. >> There will be an administrative role. >> Morrison: But that's the extent of what we foresee the rest of it is going to be. >> The majority of it goes directly to the project. It will roughly be divided into three basic areas. One would be the completion or the restart of the alternative analysis. The bulk of it will go for environmental, and a little bit of it will go for engineering support. We call it preliminary engineering. The federal government attaches very specific definition of preliminary engineering, but there is some engineering support that's needed for the environmental. Those are the three primary categories. I can show you break down of year of expenditure and so [09:44:01] forth, but I kind of want to create a handout that rolls it out and present you the details. >> Morrison: Thanks. I appreciate that clarification. I had heard something different. >> Cole: Let me ask you a couple of questions. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Cole: First I recall -- tell me I'm correct in recalling the federal government wants to see the city or local dollars put in before they will commit to federal dollars. Is that -- and that was part of our discussions about the 250 million. >> Right. >> Cole: Is that correct? >> Well, when we go for the proposal to ask the federal government to participate in a funding scenario for the construction and deployment of the system, they want -- they will only fund 50% of the investment. And so they need to know that there is a local commitment for the other 50%. Whether you actually have to go for a vote or commit it and have a vote scheduled given the mechanism that we have previously scud for funding, it all goes into how strategic your proposal is to the federal government. I would tell you that we've been advised that if you passed a local funding vote and have money committed in a sense by the voters, that's a much stronger position to be in when you go to the federal government to ask for match as opposed to city council committing to do a vote at a certain date, still needing voter approval. >> Cole: Okay. So -- but regardless of if the voters have approved the dollars, it still [inaudible]. >> Absolutely, yes, ma'am. >> Cole: So is there any information from the studies that we are performing with this item that will help us determine the likelihood of the [inaudible]? [09:46:00] >> As I said previously to councilmember morrison, i believe in 12 to 14 months we will be in a position for council to have the information necessary to make that decision and yes, I believe that we will have an idea about how competitive our proposal will be. We won't have any feedback. We'll be able to give you information. >> Cole: When you say that decision, you mean putting it on the ballot for voters? >> Yes, ma'am. Whether you actually decide to put it on the ballot at that point or say, okay, we're going to do it, you will have enough information to decide how competitive or estimate how competitive our probably [inaudible] >> Cole: Councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: I appreciate this discussion. Thanks. You know, you've covered this to some extent with councimember spelman in answering his questions, but I just want to be clear about something. We've gotten some concerns and councimember spelman referred to a few of them. The ones I've heard have dealt primarily with the route, and I thought I heard you answer that there is -- that that is not a set -- there is not a set plan at this point. But then a few minutes ago you talked about the selected route. So for those members of our community who have concerns about -- who would like to see more exploration on that front and, you know, one of them, for example, cited the recent campo transit working group talking about the group of expert that's going to be brought in to do an expert review of the current rail [inaudible] and why would we settle on a route [inaudible] why wouldn't we use some of the money that's being contemplated to look at alternatives. My question in a nutshell to [09:48:03] what extent is the discussion of route [inaudible]? >> Well, councilmember, as i said, for the entire six years that we've been talking about this, we talked about our purpose and need or a need for a system that links the city's investment in mueller with the three areas of the core. We have previously looked at three routes between downtown and the core. Namely being mlk, manor road and red river. We actually went to look at red river after the initial feedback from the environmental scoping network. Capital metro one of our partners, indicated now they are up and running with the red line they were concerned about trying to connect [inaudible] station at manor road and looked at all the different con straights. Red river provided the third corridor. There has been a wider discussion though, and let me acknowledge that, about well, the twig has listed a number of different corridors to look at. Those corridors are different corridors from the one that connects us to mueller. And I think those are very good corridors. You know, two of those corridors I think are worth talking about, the lamar north central corridor, which is now being served or will be served by project that capital metro is deploying which is to be our key that receive federal funding. When they receive federal funding, they made a commitment by providing the cost estimate and the price proposal in a sense to run that service for the next probably 20 years is probably what the commitment was for. And so we think that corridor is being well served with the new investment and we're trying to spread the service of the [09:50:01] central corridor as widely as possible, then it would serve the community better than the second corridor that we looked at. The other corridor which i would mention is the riverside corridor, which is probably the second highest ridership corridor behind lamar, but the reason we're not looking to serve the riverside corridor with the next investment is because of the need to cross the river, plus whether tributaries flow major structures in that corridor. We think that discussion will be longer to have and better after we have some initial first investment and hence the recommendation previous to you. So I would say that those other corridors other than the riverside corridor don't meet the stated purpose and need. The corridor we've been looking at is a good one in terms of ridership and opportunity. When we look at criteria for making an investment, it more than just ridership, it's economic development. Clearly there's an economic opportunity in mueller for the city because it -- it's better for the city, it is in keeping with imagine austin and it is also the shortest route, I believe, between downtown and the red line. So we also have the north connection with the red line is important [inaudible] between the north and the university area. So those are the -- that's my answer. We've been focused on that corridor and plan to stay focused on that corridor because it meets our purpose and need. >> Tovo: I guess if we have citizens who have questions about the extent to which public feedback can help shape the corridor discussion, it sounds like it's a federal issue. >> Yes, ma'am. I feel like we've moved -- i would argue that we've moved [09:52:01] beyond that point in the study atwe really have focused in on a corridor within here and mueller. I think to look at a different corridor would dramatically change the time line. Over a period I think it would affect the federal partnership, the lamar corridor, engaged in right now, and I don't think it would meet, you know, the intent of deploying a transit system to spread transit over the largest set of population possible. I don't know how else to stay it. >> Tovo: I appreciate your candor. Thank you. >> Riley: You mentioned a mueller route that's the shortest connection to the red line. I'm not sure exactly where you -- >> from the north end of the university because the red line is [inaudible] southeast. From the north end of the university -- >> Riley: You are talking about going up roughly guadalupe and lamar? >> First is from the north end of the university up red river, yes. >> Riley: Right. Crestview would be the terminus -- >> crestview would be -- yes. >> Riley: That's the connection you are referring to? >> The shortest route would be from approximately dean keaton and san jacinto to red river and the red line. >> Riley: So a new stop at the hancock center. >> That's actually a little bit shorter I think than the manor road route that originally we were looking at. >> Riley: Okay. And secondly, mentioned the importance of considering economic development out near the -- along the proposed line and I just want to be sure that this project would allow for that. And in particular for consideration of things like the possibility of some sort [09:54:01] of new research hospital or medical school or something like that within -- in the -- in the northeast part of downtown. Would that be within the scope of this project? >> Yes, sir. You know, one of the corridor connections we've looked at is coming across the capitol complex on 17th street. Actually the early feedback we got from the capitol complex development group is that's very exciting for them because that's a street they had not brought up as an active street so it allows them to activate that. That touches san jacinto, and, of course, san jacinto -- another way to get to the university is have a cuplet, one track on trinity and one on san jacinto. They both get on the same point, the entrance of u.t. Of course, the intersection of trinity and 17th is adjacent to at least one of the primary locations that's in discussion. It's about as close as we can get to the remainder of the development that's proposed there, but certainly within easy walk of that element. I think the other exciting thing is the corridor off red river connects you david's, and david's that they want to be part of medical research and serve as an outlet, one of the hospitals where graduate medical students might get training. And then also that route going on to mueller that you see dell children's, which, of course, is the other major destination [inaudible] >> Riley: There's also been discussion about potential redevelopment of other property within the capitol complex area. >> Absolutely. >> Riley: And that would also be within the scope. This project would allow for consideration of that sort of development? >> Yes. In fact, the university of texas has also talked about a major redevelopment of their engineering school which would happen to be out [09:56:01] dean keaton and san jacinto, which would be very important naturally to discuss facilitating a more direct connection that could be there with a pedestrian bridge over the -- >> Riley: There's all kind of stuff going on in the northeast quadrant and we could consider opportunity to connect that to this development. >> Absolutely. I think another thing is the depth of that development is potentially pretty [inaudible]. Again I'll go back up supporting a [inaudible] and st. david site. That whole area between red river and the freeway really is a commercial environment until you get north of about 38 1/2. Right. The depth there is quite deep in terms of economic redevelopment as well as -- at least as you are close to on the west side as opposed to other corridors where it's only [inaudible]. It's a good stretch. >> Riley: Meantime, in the opposite corner of downtown, in the southwest corner, there's also a lot of stuff going on including -- and putting green, seaholm and the county's development of the new courthouse facility. Would this project also be looking at opportunities to support development in that area? >> Yes. Councilmember, in our first presentation to you last spring on a first investment, we do not have a connection to seaholm. Remember I said that's only because, you know, we want to time that connection with lone star. I think between last spring and now a number of encouraging things have occurred with lone star such that that connection might be added back in as part of the discussion and then that would give you a connection [09:58:02] from the southwest corner, the innercity commuter rail type service with direct line with the red line north of [inaudible]. So we will build on the [inaudible] >> Riley: Okay. Great. Thanks for all your work. >> Cole: Thank you, rob. I appreciate that overview on this one item. >> You like that? >> Cole: Yes, we like that very much. Any other questions on this item? Okay. Thank you, rob. >> Thank you. There was one other question that -- >> Cole: Councimember spelman had to leave. He had an appointment at the capitol. Do you have a question? >> Morrison: I have councimember spelman's question. >> Cole: Oh, okay. That sound great. >> Morrison: He was interested on item 69 on the pedi cab and just wanted to be clear is this doing anything beyond extending -- >> I'd like to let the assistant director talk about that. [One moment, please, for change in captioners] likely be a discussion that we would have probably first quarter of -- of next year. >> Morrison: Great, we will see other things in the future. >> Right. >> Thank you. As we continue to discuss and move towards a con sense, we can bring back to you a -- consensus, we can bring back to you a -- >> as long as we're on this topic, can you briefly summarize where we are on the treatment of trailer pedicabs versus the [indiscernible] >> at this point, the ordinance would say if a trailer was damaged, we would not -- we would not replace that with another trailer. The discussions about phasing out trailer again is a big item of discussion, which probably needs more discussion, safety has been brought up as an issue. I think there's further discussion there. So -- so I think the big thing is that there's been a recent request to have a five-year phase out. We looked previously to the monday reports suggesting shorter phase out, so i think those are some things that we just need to negotiate and continue discussion. >> Riley: Okay, we will be continuing discussions on that. >> Yes. >> Riley: Great, thanks. >> Councilmember tovo has a question. Just a quick question with regard to the valet services on our agenda that's been postponed. >> Correct, till november 18th. >> Cole: What item is that, councilmember tovo? >> Tovo: I -- >> I think at one point it was on the november 11th proposed agenda. And it's -- it's been -- >> Morrison: Actually, it was on the draft agenda for this week. >> Right. >> Morrison: Then it disappeared when we got the final. >> We postponed it. We've heard that -- that we have a fee issue -- >> Cole: Let's give everybody a chance to know what number it is. [Multiple voices] >> it is not on here. >> Cole: Not on the agenda. >> Tovo: That was mistake. >> Tovo: For sure it's postponed? >> Yes, councilmember. There is another item regarding fees with regards to that, two items that we're going to bring them all at the same time. >> Cole: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you, mr. spiller. Okay. Councilmember tovo, your last item is item 27. >> Tovo: It's actually -- yes, that's right. 27. >> Cole: Renaming the park facilities. >> Tovo:. >> I guess I want to start off about getting background about why the staff brought this forward, why you felt it was necessary to revise the process. >> Kim mcneely, assistant director of parks and recreation department. The parks and recreation department has experienced individuals that will come representing companies or for example one of those examples is the block foundation who came with a proposal to the parks and recreation department for a naming rights sort of a -- opportunity where they had a proposal saying that they wanted to provide us certain amount of money and in return we would name a park or name a portion of the park after that particular entity. We've also experienced individuals who come forward to request that certain parts of our park be renamed or named after a particular individual. And in one particular instance, we had up to 21 nominations for the same piece of property. Individuals wanting to name it after 21 different individuals. And we were trying to be proactive. Those things coming forward, we don't have any processes in place at this particular time that would allow us to fairly evaluate. We would be evaluating on a case-by-case basis. So we thought it was important to put together maybe some sort of criteria where people would know well, what is the criteria for naming something? We believe that parkland and the naming of something is a significant decision. It's a forever decision. And we don't want to take that -- that decision lightly. But we also want to be able to give individuals some guidelines as to what would it take because we understand the importance for community members to want to -- to preserve something in someone's name because of their historical significance or because of their contributions to the community and we also know that there's this idea of public/private partnerships out there, but we don't want to allow that to overshadow the opportunity for the community and so based on some things that had happened in the past in the department, perhaps not being as prepared as it could because we didn't have criteria, we thought it was appropriate for us to -- to set some criteria and also give the opportunity for council to always have the final or the -- maybe not the final, but -- well, you always have the final, but always to have the opportunity to take into consideration proposals that are not included here in the ordinance. And so that's the background of it. >> Tovo: Okay. Well, that's helpful. >> You know, I was looking at the old procedure for naming a facility. I guess I agree there may not be a specific criteria as may be useful, but there are guidelines in terms of asking if it's an individual that there be a biographical sketch, a description of the individual's involvement in the community, the individual's connection, if any, to the facility or the activity for which the facility is used, so there's I guess implicit criteria that our structures and parks should be named for people who have significant roles, who have played significant roles in the community and have had significant connections, either to the particular facilities or to the activities that take place within those facilities. So -- I just wants to put that out there, that i think -- you know, I think we have been making value-based decisions, while it hasn't necessarily been articulated in as clear of a fashion as it might be. And I know there was an article that ran in today's paper with some additional information about it. But I guess -- I guess what concerns me is that the current ordinance, you know, the changes that have been contemplated really seem to put the priority instead on those who can come forward with a financial contribution and it seems to me there's a fundamental difference between a non-profit or another organization that is looking for naming opportunities and sets a value of, you know, $50,000 to name this room or 25,000 to name this room and our public facilities, which are really -- really should be named for people who have had historically, culturally significant roles in the community and that does not seem, in my reading of the changes, that does not seem to be the priority of -- and the -- and the -- for one thing, it's -- the process has become quite arduous for somebody who would be proposing that a facility be named after a community member, the signature -- >> I'm sorry? >> The intention is for parks. The intention of this ordinance is for entire parks. Metropolitan parks, district parks. Amenities within that park, rooms within those particular facilities, is always at the discretion of the parks board or the director to be able to allow a particular amenity to be named, a particular amenity within that park. So this is -- we're talking the development of a park, somewhere between, you know, 8 to $9 million, so we're talking about a significant amount of money that somebody would put forward. About you that means their name goes on the entire park. The amenities in the park can certainly be named after certain -- anybody who had significant source of -- source of contributions to the city or has historical significance and that would be a -- that would be at the discretion of the director and also at the discretion of the council. So we're talking about park development and parks, so -- so there's also the opportunity that if you don't have that source of money, you could put together the entire opportunity to have a park named after you, if you had the appropriate number of signatures. So it's -- we thought that it was a good compromise. It's both. It's developers who are going to come in and want to have naming rights and we have criteria. It's significant opportunity for individuals to nominate community members or historical figures to name a park, but then amenities are also its own category. So there's the parks and then amenities within the parks. >> Tovo: I have a few questions about that. Because that wasn't -- what you are saying was not immediately clear to me in looking at the ordinance, the defines facility as building, park, pool, other playground directly used by the public, requirements for naming or renaming the parks facility. All of those kinds of facilities are contained within this ordinance unless I'm mistaken. I think in terms of interior buildings, it didn't seem to me that that had council discretion at all. That was described as being -- being left up to the -- an administrative function of the director, which is another concern that I have, because sometimes the rooms within a facility may be critical or in the case of -- of butler park, there were some individual areas which, you know, with those -- would those fall into components of a larger facility? So those then become not a public process or a -- up to council discretion, those are an administrative function as well. So I think that this is -- mcneely in thinking that this naming ordinance is really capturing our facilities as well as the big metropolitan parks. >> Councilmember, I believe that, you know, the -- the component, the major components, like pool or something, rec center that could be -- in a metropolitan park, for instance, then that's a significant facility that could have a name as well as the metropolitan park or the district park. So I think those are two opportunities that -- that could -- that could happen. So the administrative component that is in the current ordinance that gives the director the -- the authority of naming a room or a gym or something like that within the interior of a facility and that's currently in the ordinance itself. I wanted to just make one comment about -- about a lot of what's in the ordinance today is kind of loose and vague where -- where we mcneely indicated, that we've had applications, 20, 21, 22 applications come in, with really not demonstrating a lot of the community support for that naming or renaming. So -- so we felt like the signature component would -- would give us some, you know, sense of -- of indication that there is quite a bit of -- of support for that naming or renaming. -- what was the instance where we had 21 different suggestions or -- in that range? >> It was butler park. >> It was butler park. But as I recall, I wasn't on council at the time, it seems to me that there was a robust public discussion and people did come and talk about the different nominees and probably brought signatures as well. Did anybody bring petitions that you recall to show support or they came and voiced, came down with their bodies to record -- >> I recall different individuals or groups of individuals visiting in my office about it. >> Also, isn't -- if I could just add real quick, don't we have -- I recall with -- I think it was [indiscernible] oaks park, which I was on the council for, in that case there were several suggestions and there was an opportunity for people to vote and register their ideas even before and so we could look at the different numbers and take the parks board recommendation. So you got a sense, but that's a very different situation than not even being able to get a name into the mix unless you have a certain number of signatures. Which then that concerns me, also, because I think throwing out the ideas and then having the discussion is good [multiple voices] >> Tovo: I agree that shift in the process is really important because it does allow you to have a discussion about who is maybe the best representative of a name for that facility. How would you have done it with the instance that you referenced -- I mean this relies largely on households within a certain geographic distance, with regard to the hoffman oaks. >> Morrison: That's one of the questions that i submitted to staff, there would be zero required because within a quarter mile there may have been zero residents, so that's a glitch. >> I do want to point out that e in the ordinance, on the very last page, page 3 of 3, the council may by resolution establish different criteria and procedures for the naming of park facilities, you know, et cetera, et cetera. So again we try to craft this in such a way that there was criteria set. We had a specific way in which we would evaluate, but council always has the opportunity to say in this particular instance, it's a special case, we're not sure that we -- that we feel as though it's appropriate to move in that direction and so that's why we put letter e in there to allow the opportunity for -- for council to always be able to weigh in if there was significant disagreement about anything in particular. >> Tovo: I guess I just want to say in terms of looking at the ordinance, i know, I read you some of the language that was in the -- that is in our existing process about biographical sketch, the individual's involvement, you know, in looking at this ordinance, I'm not sure, you know, we have one a person or group that deeds the land to a person that contributes the anticipated cost, three, a person that provides an endowment or four, a person of significance. I mean, just in the hierarchy of how these are listed it's very clear that, you know, if you bring money to the table at the parks department, that's your best opportunity for getting a facility named after you and I just -- I don't think -- i think our public parks and our municipal facilities ought to be -- ought to set forward names of people who are historically, culturally significant who will be role models for the next generation of people and that may not be the person that he -- who brings forward money to provide to the parks department. I'm -- I'm very supportive of the intent of trying to increase private support for our parks. And our facilities. Lord knows we need more public support. More financial support for our parks and our facilities. But this -- this is -- this ordinance right now is -- is just of grave concern to me, as it stands I'm not going to be able to support it. >> Cole: Councilmember morrison, I will weigh in here in a second, too. >> Morrison: I just want to -- based on what you said, kathy, I think one of the things that we have to realize is that we could get into a situation where somebody brings the big money to the table and we're considering that name, but at that point I would like to know what the alternatives are. And once somebody has ponied up the cash, then how do we know what other alternatives really might be loved by the community and found appropriate by the community, so it's a little bit backwards as opposed to saying we're going to be naming this park, what are ideas about how -- about what would be appropriate for the community and at that point somebody might say, well, you know, we would love to endow it and by the way, we would like it named this. But it's sort of skews the process so you don't -- there's sort of a fundamental paradox and logical problem here so that you don't have the opportunity for a robust discussion about what is a proper name. You don't have all of the alternatives on the table at that point because if somebody ponies up the money and somebody else is going to have to go out and find a thousand signatures, you know, how do you really make sure that you are making the right decision? So I think that in terms of -- of the criteria that we have now in the guidelines that we have now are all important because i don't want to be supporting naming a metropolitan park after someone that does not have -- does not have community significance or historical significance. So to me, we've got the tail wagging the dog here with the shift in the ordinance and I wonder if there might be some mechanism or alternative approach where maybe we clean up and -- and put a little more teeth into what we already have and then have some guidelines about, you know, it would be -- it would be significant, if there was an endowment offered. It would also be significant if there were a thousand signatures. So sort of the -- to shift the process order. >> Cole: Let me ask a question. What parks have been endowed? Because that -- seems like we are assuming a problem that doesn't necessarily exist. >> I can't think of one that we have. A situation. Yeah. >> Cole: So I mean -- i strongly feel that we need more money for our parks. And that we don't want to be enemy of the good for the best or the best for the good. The perfect enemy of the good. You know what I mean. The concepts of not adequately giving someone who or even sending a message that we're not interested. We want -- is -- especially when we have none and throughout the country, the only way that the parks in a metropolitan city have risen to the level of any type of excellence has been with private support. So I think we could think of some mechanisms maybe we say only our urban parks, 20% of them, or 30% of them, will be -- will be endowed and then the 70% are -- or i mean that's -- that's i think maybe one way to do it. So we -- so we actually carve out, I mean, given that we have none, that percentage could be really -- really almost anything. But we don't want to send that signal that when it's not even happening and we so desperately need the funding. >> Tovo: I completely agree that we don't want to send a message that we're not open to endowments. I guess the approach, councilmember morrison or i guess we're in a work session, laura that you mentioned, about, you know, providing direction that that is boy if you bring forward an endowment, that's significant something that the council considers if you have a large number of signatures, that's something that the council would consider, seems to me maybe the way to do it. To find other ways to encourage endowments and provide guidance about -- about what sort of endowments would be most useful would be very helpful, would send a helpful message, but I'm thinking about some of the facilities that we have, zilker park, roy guerrero park, you know, these are -- these are people who have played a significant role in our community and I think that it means something to -- with or without endowments, I think those names are meaningful -- [multiple voices] >> it's not our intention to change what would be existing via the endowment process. Maybe that's something that's fundamentally wrong with the way that we presented this is that this is for future development. So this is for the future, the metropolitan parks that have yet to be developed. Or the -- or the district parks that have yet to be developed. So that might be a fundamental problem with the way we presented this is that it would be awful, a tragedy if we accept something that would have community significance, i could absolutely see people coming out in droves to protest that. Certainly the parks department would not want to put themselves in that position. So the intention of this is for the future. >> Councilmember morrison. >> Morrison: I got that. I realized that it's not retroactive. I think that the point is that if we were back naming roy guerrero park, what would it have taken to name it roy guerrero park, sheffield northwest park. All of these great folks and I think that was the point of would it have really shifted our ability, the community's ability to recognize folks who are so important to our parks. I think that's the concern to try to get it back, find a way to get it on to a more even keel, to encourage endowments but not lay it out in such a way that there's a sense that you can go by a park name. Go buy a park name. >> I certainly understand what you say, we can go back to the drawing board if that's the wish of the council. But I do want to tell you, just so that we know. We did try to do our due diligence, we researched this and took this from best practices from other cities like portland and also -- also -- also -- also we did have the opportunity to -- where if somebody wanted to bring money forward but because we weren't necessarily in a position to be able to evaluate it, we didn't have the right criteria. >> Cole: Do we still have that opportunity? >> No. It was in 2009. We weren't able to -- >> we did actually -- I can think of -- I can think of in 2008 which I was first on the council -- when I was first on the council, there were -- I think that it's just -- there were -- when we named the theater, zach scott, and I don't think that it was necessarily written down, you know, this is -- we're naming this theater because of the donation. But it was taken into account and that donation was clearly made and important and it all worked. >> Cole: So it has worked under the existing ordinance. >> Morrison: It has, yeah. >> Cole: So you think that would further -- do you guys feel like you have a sense of direction to kind of tighten it up? >> We certainly do. I just wanted to clarify one thing. The -- the existing ordinance that -- the backup for significance, the individual that is significant to the park, is still in place. The 90-day period would still be in place in the sense in that if we had an x company or corporation come in with a name, for instance, we would -- we would let the community know and there would be a 90 day period saying that, you know, this is a proposal that we've received. Just like if it was an individual. But the -- but the application would still require, you know, some -- some information about the individual about the -- about the proposal. To be submitted. With the application. During that 90 day period, we would let the community know that we have received this. And -- and just to -- just to allow for -- for other names or other processes that -- that folks would want to enter like going out and getting signatures and that type of a thing. So -- so yeah I just wanted to clarify that. That that component would not be lost from the ordinance. >> We are looking at section 14-1-31, 32 and 36, you are saying there's other parts to the ordinance that aren't -- >> existing -- exactly, exactly. >> Morrison: That's where it says for instance the council -- >> the 90 day period would still be in place, exactly. So we would still let. Whether it's an individual application coming in, and that's how we -- that's how we get other interests because -- because they were aware of -- of -- a proposal was submitted to name guerrero park and -- >> Morrison: Can you remind me, so there were a couple of namings since I've been on the council that i saw the process. One was little zilker, one was hoffman. In both cases it was my impression that the city went and said we're looking for a name, please give us your ideas. Is that correct? I remember some robust discussion about all of them and there was not unanimity in the -- in the community about what those names should be and the council -- the parks board worked on it and the council had a discussion and came -- so that seems a little different than having the naming prompted than someone coming to the city and saying I want to name this park this. >> I think in both instances, like you've stated, we've had solicitations for an opportunity for naming. And then -- but the majority of the -- of the requests that we get are -- are -- we're going to -- the parks department is going to finish up a skate park for instance or a rec center and we're interested in -- in naming. So what's the process? So, you know, that -- so we get a lot of names through that. When they know that there's an amenity that's just about to be completed. >> An example of that most recently is that formerly called the chestnut house, which is on the corner of -- it's in the rosewood park, it was a building and it's named after four individuals, durst, howard and forgive me for not remembering the other two, but there are two. That was brought forward as a suggestion to us because individuals in that community wanted to honor those four people. That's just an example of a time when we didn't solicit, but it was brought to us as a desire. >> I do see the parks board at times when we submit all of the names that we received, where it becomes a daunting task for the board to kind of see well how do we judge one from the other. All of these are -- are outstanding citizens, it's -- it's difficult for them to -- to -- to work with at times. >> Right. I -- we had that challenge on the council, too. That doesn't necessarily go away unless some focus sort of solidifies their -- there. But -- but end -- and if someone is offering an endowment, we would certainly want to take that into consideration, but if it's more appropriate to name it after somebody else, you know, I want to make it clear that we should do that. It's all a discretionary -- >> okay. >> Councilmember tovo? >> Yeah, I just want to be clear on what. So the definition looking at the existing code and the proposed code, the definitions have been reworked and they are -- the changes are indicated on our version. The naming policy that's in our existing code would be replaced by what is here. Is that correct? So the -- so the don't see a provision that a facility named for an individual may not be renamed. >> I'm trying to follow you there. >> I'm sorry, I had trouble following it, too. >> I believe on page 2 e, on the proposed ordinance, 136 will continue. >> Tovo: I'm sorry, i missed the last thing that you said. Part 2 e. >> Page 2 e, it talked about in the proposed ordinance, in addition to the other requirements of this article naming or renaming of the park facility must also comply with the requirements of section 14.136. >> Okay. I don't have that section in front of me. >> When I had was the old 132 part c, which says an individual named for a -- a facility named for an individual may not be renamed, which I don't see in the proposed. >> Okay. >> I see, okay. Thank you, ms. thomas. >> Are you suggesting that 133 would continue, that would remain in place? >> That's correct. >> The substantial changes are the modification of 131, the -- the addition of 14.136? >> Correct. >> And so -- neither here nor there, I'm just trying to figure it out. I think the main concerns that I have raised are with 14.136. >> I appreciate parks staff bringing this forward. I think this is a -- this is a good first effort at -- at addressing an issue that has been lingering out there. Also I want to also note that -- that we're not breaking new ground by suggesting that parks could be named after individuals who have made them possible through their contributions. There is a fairly long history of that sort of a thing here in austin. One of our most prominent parks, zilker park is named after andrew jackson zilker who made the park possible by donating the land for it in 1917. So it's not exactly a new thing to suggest that a park might be named after the person who gives the land for it. I do think that we could -- we could make some refinements in the language that's been proposed. It's -- in -- in just by way of example, in paragraph b, 136, we're -- we're saying that suggestions made on the basis of community significance shall be accompanied by the following. There's a bunch of signature requirements and so on. Well, in any public process, we're going to get additional suggestions that aren't accompanied by signatures and people are free to make those suggestions. And -- and so we might just have some language suggesting that -- that priority -- priorities shall be given to -- to see -- to suggestions that are accompanied by signatures and so on. Just to make clear that we're not going to close our eyes to suggestions, if they are not -- if they are not accompanied by the indicated number of signatures. But I think -- I think, you know, as -- as the mayor pro tem has pointed out, there is a -- there is a very valuable role to be played by -- by private contributions of the type that are contemplated by this ordinance. I -- and I really appreciate staff's effort in that, in encouraging discussions towards -- towards the end of -- of maximizing our opportunity to -- to -- to make use of those -- of those sorts of possibilities when they arise. So I'll -- I think -- i think this is a good start and I think we can get there with some adjustments to the ordinance. Adjustments to language that's been proposed. >> Councilmember morrison? >> Morrison: I think those are really good points, chris, I appreciate that. The -- the -- I guess one question is what else are we -- so this is sort of a way to encourage or recognize endowments, I get that. We want to encourage endowments and public/private partnerships in ways, whatever ways that we can. I can think of a lot of examples that we are doing that with waller creek, for instance, one of the more robust ones going on right now. To put this in context, can you in a nutshell say what other programs, what other priorities, what other things do we do? I know we work in partnership with the trail foundation, the parks foundation, do we have any other specifics in terms of here's what we're doing to encourage endowments? Maybe just want to think about that, come back. Come back to -- to me on it because I think -- >> I would appreciate the opportunity to put some thought into that and look through our entire -- actually, I have with me an entire list of all of our agreements. >> Right. >> So I could give you a better answer given that opportunity. >> I'm thinking that if we could have that discussion, that could help raise it up a little bit in terms of how how can we as the council work on other policies that will really promote partnerships and endowment if there's a framework to put that in. So we are not thinking in terms of -- I know we are not, we do a lot more, but just in terms of naming rights. >> Cole: So I'm trying to figure out if we are giving staff direction or suggesting direction that this item is good go to be postponed or will it be -- will it be ready for tomorrow for us to vote on it? I hate to put staff under that kind of -- that kind of pressure. >> If I could suggest, i would suggest that we postpone it, give us an opportunity to go back and take all of your suggestions and reconfigure this so that it can come back in a way that can be supported by the majority. >> Okay. >> Morrison: If you can do give it thought, come back to us on that bigger picture, if we want to put it on for discussion at a work session or if you think it could be captured, discussion started in a memo first, I think that would be interesting. >> Okay. >> Cole: Thank you, councilmember tovo. >> Tovo: Thanks, I just want to thank laura, I think that's an interesting suggestion. I know for example the issue has come up about scholarships for some of the parks programs, that seems to me a potential endowment opportunity and I don't know if that's something that you are considering. But I hope we'll be able to have that discussion soon because I think it's an interesting one of all of the ways we can encourage the community to support our parks programs and our parks facilities as well. But sometimes that's easier for people to take advantage of if they've got specific ideas about how to be helpful. Or, you know, where their money would go. So thank you for -- for taking another look at this. I think -- I think that will be real valuable. >> Cole: Thank you, any other items? Wait, we have a briefing? Yeah. Okay. Rather ready for the citizens forum meeting recommendation briefing. >> Okay. Mayor pro tem and council, ray [indiscernible] with city manager's office, assisting me with this presentation will be deborah thomas of the law department and shirley gentry, our city clerk. What we would like to do this morning is to outline staff's recommended -- thank you -- is to outline staff's recommended format for the citizens forum that will be held on saturday, october THE 27th. If you will remember, earlier in the year, council adopted a resolution directing the city manager to work with the city attorney and the city clerk to conduct a three-hour citizens forum on a saturday in 2012. The resolution also directed staff to report back to council on the actual costs of holding the forum and later in the presentation I'll have an itemized cost of holding that forum. At your work session on AUGUST THE 21st, IF YOU Will remember, council had a discussion about the forum and gave staff the following you wanted a forum that would allow for posted and open communications from citizens, you wanted a forum that would arow for discussion with citizens during the forum, you wanted to ensure that there was adequate public promotion of the events, you wanted the forum to be recorded, you said that you wanted the cost impact to be limited and it was agreed that the forum should be held on saturday, october 27th, FROM 9:00 A.M. TO 12 Noon in the council chamber. On this next slide is the proposed agenda format starting with -- with introductory remarks by the mayor and council are those members that will be in attendance. We're going to have two citizens communication segments. We're going to have a general citizens communication segment and an open citizens communication segment and on the next slide, I'll go into greater detail. And then we'll adjourn at or before 12 noon. Under the general citizens communication, this is pretty much going to be identical to what occurs during a regular council meeting. However, during a regular council meeting we allow for a maximum of 10 speakers. For the citizens forum, however, we're going to allow for a maximum of 20 individuals who can sign up to speak. You will have to reg -- they will have to register in advance and the sign-up period will last for approximately a week from october the 13th to OCTOBER THE 20th. Speakers will be able to speak or testify before council for up to three minutes and there will be no donation of time. One of the things that i just wants to remind council is that council can engage in a discussion on topics that citizens sign up to speak on, since they were posted in advance. On the following citizens communication segment, we will allow a -- the number of speakers will be limited by the length of the meeting. Speakers will not have to register in advance. They will be able to sign up on the day of the forum, up to 30 minutes to speak and there will be no donation of time. The way we intend to get the word out about the forum is residents will be notified through announcements on the city's website at gov, certainly the city's facebook and twitter accounts, on channel 6 and staff is going to recommend having the mayor mention the forum at upcoming work sessions and council meetings. On this slide, this is a updated cost estimate to hold the forum. I think initially we had provided the council with an initial cost of $630, you will see a much different figure here. You will itemized listing that includes media support, channel 6 production staffing, utilities, services, closed captioning for a grant total of 1,658. So the time line from today, assuming council approval of the format that I have outlined in this presentation is beginning tomorrow, we would like to have the first release of media announcements. AND THEN ON OCTOBER 13th, That will begin our speaker signup. Which will last for a week. All the way through october 20 to end of speaker signup and then conducting the FORUM ON OCTOBER THE 27th. And as I mentioned previously, the mayor, we're going to encourage him to mention forum at upcoming meetings and work sessions. That being cans my presentation, staff is available to answer any questions that you might have? Questions, colleagues? Councilmember tovo? >> Tovo: One quick question. Mostly I just wanted to say thank you. I think this really balances the -- what we were -- the feedback that we were giving you about having an opportunity for people to sign up in advance so that there might be an opportunity to ask questions from the dais. But also to allow people who just come down that day to -- to participate and i think that you have done a great job of laying out really describing the forum. And thinking through those concerns. So I think that it's going to be a really interesting meeting and I'm excited about it. So thank you for working through the logistics. I wonder if you could just quickly tell us how to -- how the costs increased, where are the costs increases. >> Initially what we included in the cost estimate, which was $630, we had communicated to council originally, included or did not include security staffing and did not include utilities and did not include building services staffing. We worked with the various departments and appropriate staff to get that, that increased the amount to roughly from 630 maybe about -- about I guess a little over a thousand dollars. >> Tovo: So typically, are -- we do have some security staffing here over the weekend, but the needs are greater for this saturday? Event? >> Well, correct. I think what we're trying to sort of guesstimate as to how many people will be attending this forum. In the chamber. So just to make sure because we certainly don't want to be in a position where we're having to call people at the last moment because we get more people than we anticipated so we included a -- a security officer who is on contract, a security officer who is already on staff, but also a security supervisor as well. >> Tovo: I see. Okay. And then I guess the same would be true of the utilities. I know when I come by on the weekends usually the lights are off. So -- >> that's correct. >> Tovo: We will have an increased utility cost for sure on a saturday. >> That's correct. >> Tovo: Well, thanks very much. Again, I'm really looking forward to it, I appreciate all of the work that you have done on it. >> Cole: Any other questions? Okay. Then without objection, we will adjourn this special called meeting of the austin city council. Work session.