Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:11 PM To: Duncan, Roger Cc: Ott, Marc Subject: RE: Letter of Appreciation for Weatherization Training
This is great to hear. Thanks, Cloteal (and Roger)!
Chris
From: [mailto Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 5:04 PM To: Duncan, Roger Cc: Ott, Marc; Lefflngwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; bill.spelman@austin.tx. us; Sheryl .cole.©ci.austin.tx.us; Lawson, Jan; Subject: Letter of Appreciation for Weatherization Training
Roger,
This is Cloteal Haynes. Recently, a number of City-certified minority contractors participated in an initiative of Austin Energy for Weatherization Training. We all agree that the training was great and have expressed our appreciation to you and the City in the attached letter.
Many thanks on behalf of all the participants!
Cloteal Davis Haynes Managing Partner Haynes-Eaglin-Waters
4/4/2011 Page 1 of5
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 11:26 PM To: Shade, Randi Cc: Parkerson, Matt Subject: Re: SAFER Grant Highlights
I’ll be glad to have you there, Randi. See you then.
Chris
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: “Shade, Randi”
Hi Chris
I assume you wouldn’t mind if I join your meeting with Bob Nicks tomorrow morning at 9:30. Let me know if it’s a problem, but otherwise I’ll plan to join you at your office at 9:30.
Thanks!
Randi
From: To: Shade, Randi Sent: Sun Jan 10 22:26:14 2010 Subject: Re: SAFER Grant Highlights
I am preparing an email response to you now, will send out soon. I would be happy to talk by phone at 8:30 but meeting together with Chris Riley at 9:30 may work out great (if he is OK with it). Also, I think I have a scheduled meeting with you tomorrow at 11:30. Really, tell me what works best for you and I will be there. Thnics again for your willingness to meet and discuss
Bob
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: “Shade. Randi”
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 5
I cant call now. My 15 month old daughter is having a rough time with a stomach bug; she’s quiet at the moment but I have no idea what the next few hours will bring:-). I am happy to call you in the morning as early as 8:30 but could also talk later in the morning. Or better yet -- how about if I either join you with Chris at 9:30 or you and I can visit on our own at 9 at City Hall? You tell me what works best for you.
Thanks, Randi
From: Bob Nicks To: Shade, Randi Sent: Sun Jan 10 22:12:30 2010 Subject: RE: SAFER Grant Highlights
Can you call me now or would you rather discuss at 8:30 tomorrow. I am meeting with Chris Riley at 9:30am but I will be at City Hall at 8:30 if you want to meet early. Whatever works best for you.
Bob
From: Shade, Randi [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2010 10:08 PM To: Cc: Ott, Marc; McDonald, Michael [APD]; Martinez, Rose Marie; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Leffingwell, Lee; Nathan, Mark; Bier, Marti; Garza, Bobby Subject: Re: SAFER Grant Highlights
Bob -- thanks for your note below. Sorry to just now be getting back to you.
I understand the time constraints and would like to speak with you in the morning. I will be available by phone at 8:30 and will give you a call just as I can get my kids taken care of.
I hadn’t heard anything new about this until your email today and didn’t realize we would be facing the same situation tomorrow as we faced the week of the Dec 17 council meeting. I feel like I need more info especially given the need for “emergency passage.”
What has changed since the December proposal discussion besides the SAFER deadline? Why are we in this time crunch again?
Last I heard we had to go for 25 new firefighters or none -- nothing in between. Is that still the case? Would the 25 new firefighters from SAFER grant get us all the way to the 4-person staffing goal set for 2019, 2011 or some other date? Have we ever added 25 new folks outside of typical recruitment schedule and budget process? What is the fiscal impact? In December some raised concerns about training dollars and other costs associated with this grant in the current fiscal year -- are those still concerns? In year 3, I see on the AFA Talking Points document that the City can reduce “authorized strength for any reason” as long as the reduction in forces doesn’t include any of the folks funded by SAFER grant in years 1 and 2. Do we have a way to make that happen should economic conditions demand such a reduction? If so, how? What is current rate of retirement, and is AFA membership aware of this potential need for reduction in force that would favor SAFER grant hires over others should the current economic conditions not improve by year 3 of this grant?
Given the tight time line for tomorrow’s posting requirement and Friday’s grant deadline, how would you feel about adding a requirement in this week’s council resolution that says “in the time between application and award of the SAFER Grant, the City Manager is directed to conduct a fiscal analysis of potential impact to the City of Austin should a grant be awarded and present to Council for action prior to formal acceptance of a potential award.”
Lots of questions -- sorry about that and sorry we haven’t connected sooner. I want to help us move towards 4- person staffing goal, but I want to be sure we don’t “win the battle and lose the war” by doing this without knowing
4/4/2011 Page 3 of 5
more about the potential consequences.
-Randi
From: Bob Nicks < To: Shade, Randi Cc: Ott, Marc; McDonald, Michael [APDJ; Martinez, Rose Marie Sent: Sun Jan 10 09:27:20 2010 Subject: FW: SAFER Grant Highlights Councilmember Shade,
Thank you for agreeing to meet with me on such short notice tomorrow, I am emailing you now for tomorrow after 10:00am it will be too late to take action. In the email below to Mr. Ott I am respectfully proposing unprecedented assurances (see below) to the Council/City Manager from the Austin Firefighters Association addressing most Mr. Ott’s concerns. I hope this will be enough so we do not lose the chance at this great opportunity before us.
We must get this item on the agenda Monday morning by 10:00am (I think) to proceed. Please read the proposal below. My hope is that this method of cooperation could be a model for future AFA/Council/City Manager interactions.
I will be forwarding a similar message to all Council members today. Thank you again for your consideration on the timely issue.
Bob
Please feel free to call me today or anytime to discuss — cell
From: Bob Nicks [mailt Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 12:55 PM To: ‘Ott, Marc’ Cc: ‘Michael McDonald’; ‘RoseMarie Martinez’ Subject: RE: SAFER Grant Highlights
I’4r. Ott,
I understand your concerns; the inability to adjust staffing during the performance period of this grant (years l&2) and the politics of using staffing reductions year 3 to offset, if economics demand, the City’s financial obligation under the grant are both understandable concerns.
However, this is too good of an oroortunity to pass up. Future City economics may be good or bad but if Council does nor approve this grant application on Thirsday this potentially great opportunity is lost.
May Z propose:
o The City Council, City Managers Office, and the Austin Firefighters Association enter into the grant as partners. o As partners, AFA will agree “ground rules” designed to satisfy your concerns enough where a “yes” on the grant application is possible. o If we are allowed to apply for the SAFER grant these agreements would be: o If the grant is awarded to the City later this year and the decision by Council/ City Manager is to NOT accept the grant, AFA will publicly support this decision.
, Advantage: Apply now; decide later when more economic info is available. o As year 3 of the grant approaches, if the economy requires Council/City Manager to reduce authorized strength by the amount of personnel obtained by the grant, AFA will publicly support this decision. Advantage: As partners, together we made a good faith effort to reach 4-person
4/4/2011 Page 4 of 5
staffing in the least expensive way possible. Agreed upon 3rd year adjustments to staffing could eliminate the City’s financial obligation under the grant o In publicly supporting this decision, ABA will work with the City PlO to ensure the message is consistent with the objectives of City Management. > The importance for the City Manager and Council to control the media message on this is acknowledged and agreed to in advance.
Later today I hope to email all Council Members this same offer. I will delay this if you wish to communicate together on this issue first. Mr. Ott, I truly biope that ABA and your Office can work togettier very differently than in the past. I look forward to meeting with you soon and further discussing these philosophies.
Bob Ni. cks President, ABA Local 975 Cell
Original Message From: Ott, Marc [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, January 09, 2010 8:39 AM To: Bob Nicks Cc: Michael McDonald; RoseMarie Martinez Subject: Re: SAFER Grant Highligiits
Hello Bob,
Thank you for Sharing your talking points regarding the Safer Grant. Mr. McDonald an I are aware of your discussions with Council members and in fact have received related phone calls from at least a couple of members.
While the program timeline has been extended with some modification in requirements, the grant program still has requirements that concern me considerably.
We would be happy to meet but I want you to understand in advance that our concerns remain, and we believe are justified in light of certain financial considerations.
Meeting with you Monday morning may not be possible but I will discuss it with Mr. McDonald. Our office will follow up. with you as soon as we can on Monday.
Marc
Rose, please print.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 8, 2010, at 4:32 PM, “Bob Nicks”
> Attached is the SAFER Grant talking points document I have been > sharing with > Council. I would love the opportunity to discus this with either (or > both) > of you before 9:00am Monday morning, if not I understand but I did > want to
4/4/2011 Page 5 of 5
> make the attached document available to both of you. Thank you in > advance > for your consideration. > > > > Bob Nicks > > ABA President—Elect > > Cell > > > >
4/4/2011 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Monday, January 11,20106:30 PM To: Allen, Doug Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Bui, Tina; Moore, Andrew Subject: funds owed to COA
Hey Doug --
I sat down with News 8 this evening for an interview about Cap Metro. A few questions came up about the amounts Cap Metro owes to the City of Austin. I think you covered these at the orientation, but I couldn’t find the answers in my notes. Specifically:
--How much does Cap Metro now owe to the City? --How much has Cap Metro paid to the City (roughly) since 2001? --Does Cap Metro also owe money to other jurisdictions, or just Austin?
Could you help me with short answers to these? I know we’ll be covering this subject in more detail in the future, but I’d just like to have ball-park figures ready when someone asks. I think Mike may get similar questions when News 8 interviews him on Tuesday, so he might be able to use this info too.
Thanks in advance --
Chris
4/4/2011 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:30 PM To: ‘Gregory A Copp’ Cc: Ott, Marc; Goode, Robert; Beaudet, Annick Subject: RE: Nueces Bicycle Blvd
Mr. Copp:
Thanks for the note. I’d encourage you to come discuss your concerns at the public meeting set for tomorrow night at Pease Elementary from 6 to 8 pm. Details are available at www.ci.austin.tx.us/publicworks/bicycle-public input.htm
There are many different design possibilities for this facility, including the possibility of locating it on Rio Grande rather than Nueces. Under all versions under consideration, there would still be automobile access to all locations along the street.
Bicycle boulevards have been implemented in a number of other cities, and I’m not aware of any instance in which implementation caused a decline in property values. I realize every situation is different, and I’m hopeful that the process we’re going through now will provide an opportunity to make sure there are no negative impacts here.
Regards,
Chris Riley
From: Gregory A Copp [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:13 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; [email protected]; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Spelman, William; Morrison, Laura; Ott, Marc; Goode, Robert Subject: Nueces Bicycle Blvd
Gregory A. Copp P.C. Certified Public Accountant 1202 Nueces Street, Austin, TX 78701 FAX
January 12, 2010
Re: Trans-Nueces Bike Corridor
Dear Council Member:
By now I know you have heard from various Nueces property and business owners regarding the many reasons that moving forward with this Nueces bicycle scheme is a bad idea. I am not sure others have made it clear, though I am sure they share my feelings, but I want to be certain you understand how incensed and insulted I was to receive your letter to me as a “Stakeholder” informing me that while a
4/4/71)11 Page 2 of2 decision had already been made to make Nueces hostile to vehicle traffic, I was invited to come discuss just what the switch you were going to whip me with would look like.
How exactly in these days of hyper-communication a matter this important could be snuck through the City processes completely under the radar without any knowledge or participation from those most negatively affected is unnerving. Of course the bicycle community is for it and why not. You are taking something from me and giving it to them. Lance Armstrong’s bike shop certainly supports this scheme as your FAQ’s on your web site point out. I just wonder what he knew that I didn’t when he put it there.
My office is a valuable personal asset and even more importantly the heart of my livelihood. I am a CPA & I am surrounded by lawyers and other professionals. My wife has a business at 24th St and I traverse Nueces constantly. It is insulting to hear the bicycle community’s assessment that this will be good for my business. Some types of retail might benefit, but there is very little retail on Nueces. My clients don’t walk or ride their bike to see me. Nor do my neighbors clients. They drive. The UPS, trash, couriers, shredders, and general support traffic not to mention fire trucks, busses, and constant police vehicles use this street every day. This proposal is hostile to the businesses on this street and no amount of “bike rider” rationalization and fabricated facts changes that. You are taking something from me and you never asked to discuss it. I resent it.
I employ 7 and my wife abOut 5. I know that doesn’t count for much in Austin power circles, but we work hard and we strive and have managed to be “stakeholders”. Your Trans-Nueces Bike Corridor is an obstacle brought to me by you. I will resist it with personal time and financially any way I can.
Greg Copp
4/4/2011 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 1:30 AM To: ‘Trey Bueche’ Cc: Ott, Marc; Beaudet, Annick; Lazarus, Howard; ‘[email protected]. us’ Subject: RE: Bike Lanes are the Real Solution
Yes, Trey, I believe a bicycle bourlevard would make either Nueces or Rio Grande significantly more user friendly and safer for cyclists than bike lanes. With the grid in this area, a cyclist would need to leave the bike lane and merge with regular traffic midblock before every intersection. If we’re successful at drawing out more beginning cyclists, which is part of the intent, many of those cyclists would not handle those intersections in the safest manner..
I am a longtime, firm believer in downtown density, and I believe a bicycle boulevard is absolutely consistent with that goal. Virtually everyone I know who has moved downtown has significantly reduced their automobile usage.
Many Austinites, especially in the central city -- where the percentage of bike commuters is at least three times greater than 0.96 -- would like to bike more, but feel that our streets are unsafe for bikes. A bike boulevard on either Nueces or Rio Grande would go a long way toward addressing that concern.
I appreciate your input, and hope you’ll continue to give serious thought to this.
Regards,
Chris Riley
From: Trey Bueche [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 9:31 AM To: Leffingwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Cole, Sheryl; Riley, Chris; Ott, Marc; Morrison, Laura; Shade, Randi; Spelman, William; Beaudet, Annick; Lazarus, Howard; [email protected] Subject: Bike Lanes are the Real Solution
Dear City Leaders,
As we prepare for the bicycle boulevard meeting tonight, which I hope you will be attending, I want to ask a question for consideration: How does a bicycle boulevard help achieve the city’s goals versus alternative options?
As defined in the City’s 2009 Bicycle Master Plan, the goals are to significantly increase bicycle use across the city of Austin over the next decade and to increase bicycle safety across the city.
Sure a bicycle boulevard will make Nueces or Rio Grande slightly more user friendly and safer for cyclists on that designated street. However it should be worth noting these are not considered the problematic roads for travel by most bicyclists. But will it do so any more than say designated bicycle lanes? Will designating one street a bike boulevard have a significant impact in the quantity of overall ridership? Don’t confuse the spike of riders on designated street as a drastic spike in overall riders.
The concern I have as a small business and property owner on Nueces is that a bicycle boulevard is designed to deter automobile traffic. I will lose valuable exposure and client convenience while also risking devaluation of my property values. In addition my area is heavily zoned to allow for future redevelopment and density, which will become more difficult with strained automobile traffic capabilities. Is it not one of the City’s goals to
4/4L?fl1 1 Page 2 of 2
increase downtown development?
Would it not make more sense for the City to consider an alternate option like additional bike lanes in such zones that are heavily commercial and potential redevelopment areas? Bike lanes would not put additional strain on our automobile traffic problems, promote bicycle usage and safety, protect established small businesses like mine and still allow redevelopment once the economy recovers. The only hindrance to bicyclists is they have to stop at stop signs like the rest of vehicles. Is this really a legitimate complaint?
The existing dynamic of downtown Austin is just not conducive with a bicycle boulevard. Had property owners been included from the beginning with this discussion, I seriously doubt a bicycle boulevard would be in the master bicycle plan. Instead the agenda is being dictated by a small minority (only 0.96% of the Austin workforce commuted to work by bicycle in 2006).
The solution is simple. Let’s add bike lanes around downtown in place of bike boulevards that have detriments to small businesses like mine struggling to survive already in a gloomy economy.
Regards, Trey Bueché Bat City Awards & Apparel phone: (512) 302-1212 www.batcityawards.com
Bat City Awards & Apparel has moved to Downtown Austin! Our new expanded location is at: 1707 Nueces St. Austin, IX 78701 (one block south of MLK)
4/4/2011 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:01 PM To: Shade, Randi Subject: RE: Re. Nueces Bicycle Blvd.
Interesting take on the meeting. I didn’t count, but the comments seemed pretty evenly divided, and the opposition seemed to get a lot more muted as the night went on.
Original Message From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:43 PM To: Riley, Chris Subject: FW: Re. Nueces Bicycle Blvd.
Fyi...
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974—2255 (phone) (512) 974—1888 (fax) http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/shade.htm
Original Message From: Scott Sayers [mailto:s Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 2:38 PM To: Martinez, Mike [ Council Member] ; Leffingwell, Lee; Shade, Randi; Cole, Sheryl; susan harris Subject: Re. Nueces Bicycle Blvd.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
First of all, thank you for taking the time to meet with Susan Harris and me regarding the Nueces Bicycle Boulevard issue. We are in the process of setting up meetings with Laura Morrison and Bill Spelman, and have a meeting scheduled with Marc Ott next week. We also had a chance to visit with Chris Riley briefly yesterday.
I’m heartened to say that at the public meeting last night there were more than 50 Nueces area property owners in attendance, and that staff had a first—hand chance to see that there is significant opposition to the plan. In my opinion, those property owners and stakeholders voicing concerns easily matched and in fact outnumbered those, principally from the biking community, that supported the plan. There were also representatives in attendance from downtown business organizations that had not previously been involved in the process.
At the meeting we were told that a new traffic impact study is underway in the area (thank you!), and we would also suggest that an economic impact study be undertaken. Given the drastic measures that have been suggested by staff to put the street on a “road diet” and reduce automobile mobility by 70% (from 1.3 million trips annually to below 400,000), this will have a disastrous effect on access for those of us with businesses on Nueces and adjoining streets, as well as for clients visiting us. All for the benefit of the 1.5% of the population that ride bicycles. If you had a chance to listen to KLBJ this morning you might have heard the public outrage and concern over the plan.
All of this is to say that we remain concerned about the limited mobility that this creates for a major artery through the downtown business district. We certainly support cycling as a part of the Austin traffic fabric, but do not believe 1 that downtown Bicycle Boulevards at the expense of those driving automobiles makes for good public policy. If I hear that Austin needs to be more like Portland or Copenhagen again, I may gag. We’re different than those places and better in every way!
Thank you again for your concern and for taking the time to visit with us.
Regards, Scott Sayers
2 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:37 PM To: Williams, Nancy; Leffingwell, Lee Subject: FW: transportation hearing and testinmony
Lee & Nancy -- This is that email mentioned this morning. But I just checked with Sandy, and she says Mayor Narvaiz from San Marcos is going to cover it. Sandy says she’s a big supporter of local option funding.
In other words, we don’t need to worry about this. c.
From: Sandy Hentges [mailto:Sandy.Hentges©senate.state.bcus] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 12:05 PM To: Janice Cartwright; Mike Rollins; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Eddie Rodriguez; Diana Maldonado; [email protected]; [email protected] us; [email protected]. us; [email protected]; Leffingwell, Lee; Riley, Chris; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl; [email protected]; joeclifford©round-rock.bcus; [email protected]; Mayor_Council_Info©ci.san-marcos.tx.us; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; clopez©dot.state.bcus; clara.beckett©cobastrop.tx. us; marie.cavanagh©cocaldwell.tx. us Cc: Kirk Watson; Trent Townsend; Beth Ann Ray; Nancy McDonald; Cantalupo, Joe; McCoy, Maureen; Amy Bruno; [email protected]; Ballas, Marisa; cheryl.brown©co.travis.bcus; bneedha©dot.statetx.us; [email protected]; Sarah Chanslor; [email protected]; Derr, Gordon; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; garry.brown©co.travistx.us; Gerbracht, Heidi; Jgoodman©round-rock.tx.us; KGrimes©wilcoorg; Jackson, Janet; jhamilton©georgetownbcorg; Jon N iven; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]. us; [email protected]; Long, Tara; [email protected]; Curtis, Mall; McDonald, Stephanie; [email protected]; gracenino@cityofkylecom; [email protected]. us; Sandy Hentges; [email protected]; [email protected]. us; Spillar, Rob; melissavelasquez©co.travis.tx.us; Nate Walker; [email protected]; Williams, Nancy; Wilson, Beverly (Council Place 6); [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: transportation hearing and testinmony
Hi Folks,
You are probably already aware that the next meeting of the Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee will be a joint one with House Transportation at 8am on February 1 in the Capitol Auditorium. You can access the tentative agenda at http://www. legis. state.tx. us/tlodocs/81 R/schedules/html/C64020 10020108001. HTM. The Transportation Impacts Panel is to provide the local perspective on the transportation crisis and support for potential solutions. Presuming the Chairman takes the panels in the order on the agenda (which he generally does but not always when elected officials are involved) this panel would probably be up at 9am.
The folks out of DFW are taking the lead in providing speakers for the Transportation Impacts Panel where their elected officials and business leaders will share their perspective on why more transportation funding is needed from each perspective (local governments being forced to carry what used to be a state burden of expanding the state highway system resulting in less money to address other community needs; business costs increasing beyond reason due to time lost in congestion awaiting arrival of employees, services, materials, etc). Their message will include support for increased taxes (through local option and/or increased and indexed statewide gas tax) in addition to ending diversions. Houston and San Antonio business leadership have also staked out
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 2
spots on this panel (soon to be two panels, one electeds and one businesses) for them and their local elected leadership on this topic.
Senator Watson would very much like Central Texas to be represented on this panel to provide their perspective. Ideally, the Austin area coalition in support of local option transportation funding would self select business and local elected spokespersons for Feb 1st. We have spoken with Committee staff to ensure a space will be available for our region on these panels for one elected and one business person. Others interested in testifying are encouraged to do so during the public comment period following invited testimony or provide written testimony or a letter of position to the committee. If the coalition is not in a position to identify and secure one business speaker and one local elected speaker, please let me or the Senator know as soon as possible so he can relinquish the space on the panels.
Thanks, Sandy
Sandy Hentges Legislative Analyst Senator Kirk Watson Texas District 14 512-463-0114
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
zI/zt/’)fll 1 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 6:36 PM To:
Williamson, Laura; Ballas, Marisa; Parkerson, Matt; mayorci.leander.tx.us; Martinez, Mike [Council Member}; Subject: RE: BD- Retreat for 1/22/10 Attachments: retreat agenda.DOC
Thanks, Gina. I’ve suggested a few edits on this attachment.
Chris
From: Estrada, Gina [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 3:02 PM To: Moore, Andrew; Riley, Chris; Williamson, Laura; Ballas, Marisa; Parkerson, Matt; [email protected]; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Subject: BD- Retreat for 1/22/10
Hello Board Members, attached is a DRAFT of the agenda for your review please send me your comments/edits and I will incorporate in the final agenda by Wednesday. Jan. 20 by 12:00 noon, thank you and have a safe weekend. gina
4/4/2011 DRAFT Retreat Agenda
1. Welcome and Overview Doug 2. Ethics Training Kern 3. Board Process Gina • Travel 4. Priorities for Capital Metro 5 Board Committee Structure 6. Meeting Format • Time/Days/Location • Work Sessions • Public Comment • Recording and televising meetings 67. Monthly financial & operations information presented to Board 8. Questions and Discussion 9. Possible Tour of Facility Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2010 12:58 PM To: ‘Katherine Gregor’; Cole, Sheryl; Morrison, Laura Subject: RE: COA Comprehensive Plan for Affordable Housing, 1950
Wow, that is fascinating. This part might not go over so well today: the City Council will conscientiously, and as effectively as possible, eliminate “by demolition, condemnation, effective closing, or compulsory repair or improvement of unsafe or insanitary dwelling units situated in the locality or metropolitan area of the City substantially equal in number to the number of newly constructed dwelling units provided” by construction of the proposed low-rent housing projects.
From: Katherine Gregor [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 1:23 PM To: Cole, Sheryl; Morrison, Laura; Riley, Chris Subject: COA Comprehensive Plan for Affordable Housing, 1950
The more things change pretty fascinating! http://www.cityofaustin.org/edirns/docurnent.cfrn2id84554
Katherine Gregor
Staff Writer Austin Chronicle 512.707.1440 www.austinchronicle.com
4/4/2011 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 4:34 PM To: Shade, Randi: Cole, Sheryl Subject: RE: Submitted from CM Shade’s Website - Living Wage Ordinance
Thanks for taking the time & effort to lay this out for Al, Randi. Well said.
I do agree about meeting with Margaret; I’d definitely be up for that.
Original Message From: Shade, Randi Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 11:12 AM To: Riley, Chris; Cole, Sheryl
Subject: Fw: Submitted from CM Shade’s Website - Living Wage Ordinance
Wanted to share with y’all, too, since I know you’ve each been frustrated with these folks, too.
I enjoyed our meeting yesterday and look forward to next steps. I think it would make a lot of sense for the three of us to meet with Margaret Shaw ASAP to get her insights especially in light of all the input she’s gathered re: GO Bond goals. Do you agree? If so, I am happy to set up the meeting.
Original Message From: Shade, Randi To: ‘Paul Skeith’ > Cc: Maria Emerson [email protected]
Subject: RE: Submitted from CM Shade’s Website - Living Wage Ordinance
Paul and Minerva
I want to reiterate the points I was trying to make yesterday. They are the same points I have tried to make in the several meetings I have had in recent months with you and other leaders from Austin Interfaith. I am speaking for myself, but believe many of my colleagues here at City Hall would echo my sentiments below. I sincerely believe in the values of Austin Interfaith, but as much as you may have felt “attacked” yesterday, I (and others on Council) have felt equally attacked by Austin Interfaith in recent months. It isn’t as much about philosophical disagreement as it is about tactics used throughout the discussion of a living wage -- how a living wage should be defined and how it should be supported.
Narrowly defining a living wage as $18 per hour regardless of the position or industry, regardless of whether that wage is for a single earner of a family of four, and regardless of any other benefits the community may gain as a result of the position’s existence is neither strategi.c nor does such a proposal seem to be supported by any local groups besides Austin Interfaith. Where is the broad-based support Austin Interfaith is known for creating? What aze other community groups dedicated to creating, recruiting and sustaining jobs for local families saying about your proposal to have such a narrow and seemingly unworkable litmus test to be in place? I left my last meeting with Austin Interfaith leaders thinking you’d be seeking a more nuanced approach that achieved buy-in from other community groups, if not from the chambers of commerce, then at least from the Universal Living Wage fol]cs, Worksource, etc. That hasn’t seemed to happen. Again, I h.ave not yet had the chance to vote on an economic development agreement, but I will be in the coming weeks. I feel as committed as ever to only supporting deals that offer good wages, good training opportunities and a career path, as well as health benefits and positive community linkages. While I don’t believe Hanger is everything I want in a deal, it certainly comes close enough for me to support it. I realize many of your leaders feel the 1 same way. That’s the point, though. To get good deals like this one, we have to have more flexibility in our approach than what you seem to be calling for. Frankly, that’s why I believe you are having trouble getting more broad based support for your stance.
The City of Austin strives to influence economic development to enhance livability and economic viability in a manner that preserves the character of Austin and its environment. In the rare cases when economic incentives are used to support a particular project, each project is evaluated using a standard set of criteria adopted by the Austin City Council after a lengthy public process that included stakeholders from the business, social services, government and education sectors of our community, working together on the Mayor’s 2003 Task Force on the Economy. One organization without broad—based support can’t reasonably expect us to change the current program in a way that ignores the extensive efforts of countless groups working together in the past and present.
Before any economic development agreement is adopted by Council, a project is evaluated on fiscal impact, linkages to the Austin. economy, impact on city services, character and number of jobs, quality of life, environmental initiatives, project investment and other related items. It is a lengthy process that results in very few proposals ever even making it to Council for consideration. The implementation of the current economic development policy has resulted in six firm-based economic development agreements over the last decade in Austin versus 43 in San Antonio and 63 in Dallas.
Thanks to broad-based support and public input, that included having leadership from Austin Interfaith at the table as well as all the local chambers of commerce and representatives from the University, CAPCOG, Liveable City, and other groups, the City
Council made recent changes to the economic incentives policy -- policy changes that I along with Council Member Morrison and Mayor Leffingwell co—sponsored, including a more extensive cost—benefit analysis process, a longer period for public comment prior to Council voting on any economic development agreements, and a prohibition of project-based incentives.
In your organization’s November 24th Press Release you cited a news report whexe, “the Mayor is negotiating public tax subsidies for three solar panel companies to move to Austin.” Not only did City Staff members explicitly tell ustin Interfaith leaders in a meeting the Monday before the press statement was issued that this was false, but this was also a clear mis—Interpretation of an article citing something the Mayor does on a regular basis as an ambassador of our City. Mayor Leffingwell, just as his predecessors did, frequently meets with business people who are scouting Austin. There is a huge difference between the Mayor meeting someone to introduce them to the City and the negotiation of an economic incentive agreement. Austi.n. Interfaith leadership knows how many steps there are before an economic incentive agreement reaches the stage of negotiation that we arrived at this week with Hanger. If Austin Interfaith leaders don’ t know it, then they should, since the process is on the City’ s website and was thoroughly discussed during the meetings Austin Interfaith leaders have attended in recent months. Where’ s the accountability on the part of Austin Interfaith?
The same press release was misleading in another significant way. It offered the same line I referenced yesterday which is the same line you used in your recent op-ed pieces, and it is the same line other Austin Interfaith leaders have frequently repeated as well: “Between 2000 and 2007 the City of Austin has given $64 million in public tax subsidies to 6 companies to relocate. This created a total of 1,400 jobs at a cost to taxpayers of nearly $46,000 per job.”
Our website has a detailed breakdown of the actual dollars paid—to—date for economic development agreements, which is $5,245,237 to date: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/redevelopment/edagreements.htm
Aside from being factually inaccurate, however, I am more bothered by the fact that you could and would use that kind of “math.” It completely ignores the point of the cost- benefit analysis you claim you want us to do in consideration of any contract we execute. Using a simple division equation to quantify the costs and benefits of years of economic incentive agreements is insulting and misleading. Your members as well as the community— at—large deserve better from Austin Interfaith leadership. Where is the accountability? It would be just as misleading if I were to say that the $1,086,098 (plus $78,000 in childcare funding) that the City of Austin invested in Capital IDEA to support 22 people to receive job training in 2009 should be translated to say that the City of Austin is spending $53,000 per trainee. Assuming we continued to do the same thing for 10 years, I 2 could challenge tax payers to compare the Hanger contract with the Captial IDEA contract: $500,000 for 191 Hanger jobs versus $11.6 million for 220 Capital IDEA trainees.
The Hanger deal involves no tax abatements or fee waivers, but with the six agreements you so frequently reference, how can you ignore the investments of nearly $5B made by these few companies with which we have economic development agreements? Even if you don’t subscribe to the cost benefit analysis the City used to drive its past decisions, a cost— benefit analysis chat indicates that the City will receive net revenue of $74.7M after the $64.4M in incentives over the term of those 6 agreements, you still can’t simply ignore the importance of doing some sort of analysis besides simple division. What about what comes from sales tax, as well as property tax calculations? What about the fact that at the end of the agreements, the City will keep 100% of the revenue going forward in the years post-agreement. Again, where is the accountability?
As I have told your members — my interest in public service was inspired in major ways by the work of Ernie Cortes on education reform in the 1980s. I have followed his career, attended lectures he has presented, read much of his work, and have known a number of folks who have been involved with Austin Interfaith in the past. I must admit that these days I am a bit disillusioned by what I am seeing. I sincerely hope to be able to work more effectively in the future with Austin Interfaith. Please take my comments with that in mind.
Yours truly, Randi
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974—2255 chone) (512) 974—1888 (fax) http://www.ci.austin.txus/council/shade.htm
Original Message From: Paul Skeith [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 04, 2009 9:43 AM To: Shade, Randi Cc: Maria Emerson; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Submitted from CM Shade’s Website — Living Wage Ordinance
Randi,
I understand from Maria that you are trying to contact me. I called and left a message with your office this morning, but you can always reach me on my direct work line, 391—8233.
Regards,
Paul Skeith Managing Partner Richards Rodriguez & Skeith LLP 81:6 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200 Austin, Texas 78701 Phone: (512) 476—0005 Fax: (512) 476—1513 Web: www. rrs firm. com http: //www. linkedin. com/in/paulskeith
Original Message From: Shade, Fandi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:02 PM To: Paul Skeith
Subject: RE: Submitted from CM Shade’s Website - Living Wage Ordinance
3 Thanks, Paul. I haven’t seen language on this yet, but look forward to hearing more about it. What is on the agenda this week is an item related to increasing public input and cost benefit analysis prior to any votes to be taken on an economic incentive item.
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974—2255 (phone) (512) 974—1888 (fax) http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/shade.htm
Original Message Prom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 3:25 PM To: Shade, Randi
Subject: Submitted from CM Shade’s Website - Living Wage Ordinance
Date/Time Submitted: Tuesday, 9/29/09, 1524 hours Prom: Paul Skeith E—mail address: [email protected] Subject: Living Wage Ordinance Category: economic_development Comments: Randi,
I would like to thank you on behalf of Austin Interfaith for committing to living wage requirements for city tax incentives at our accountability sessions. I am writing to request your sup-ort this Thursday on the ordinance that puts those requirements into effect.
Rope you are doing well.
Best regards,
Paul Skeith
This message is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed and may contain privileged, confidential, and/or insider information. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or taking of any action concerning the contents of this message and any attachment(s) by anyone other than the named recipient(s) is strictly prohibited.
REQUIRED NOTICE PURSUANT TO IRS CIRCULAR 230: Any U.S. Federal tax advice included in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending any tax-related matters addressed herein to another party.
4 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:17 PM To: McDonald, Michael [APDJ Cc: Ott, Marc; Leff, Lewis Subject: FW: Community Court and Trials Attachments: DACC Advisory Committee Recommendation to Cease Trials.doc
Michael:
The Downtown Austin Community Court Advisory Committee is recommending that the DACC should stop holding trials. I’m inclined to agree with the points in the attached memo to the effect that the DACC wasn’t originally intended to hold trials, and that moving trials back to municipal court would help the DACC focus on its original mission.
I’d like to see if you’re Ok with this. Also, if this change should be made, I’d like to hear your thoughts on how that could be done - e.g., whether this should go to the Council’s Judicial Subcommittee, or whether a Council resolution would help.
Thanks in advance for taking a look at this --
Chris
From: Jones, Marshall [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 2:46 PM To: Left, Lewis Cc: Riley, Chris Subject: Community Court and Trials
Chris,
The DACC Advisory committee voted last week to make a statement as to why the Community Court should cease holding trials and to begin to work towards a solution where they are no longer doing so.
Attached is a statement outlining some factual reasons why we feel this is the case. We are prepared to present this on Friday should you wish.
Marshall
T. Marshall Jones
Associate Vice President - Investments Wells Fargo Advisors
100 Congress Aye, Suite 1650 Austin, TX 78701 512-457-5857 (office)
800-321-5869 (office) 512-477-1873 (fax)
4/4/fl1 1 Page 2 of 2
marshaN.jones@weIIsfargoadvisorscom
ATTENTION: THIS E-MAIL MAY BE AN ADVERTISEMENT OR SOLICITATION FOR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
If you are a current Wells Fargo Advisor client and wish to unsubscribe from marketing e-mails from your financial advisor, reply to one of his/her e-mails and type ‘Unsubscribe” in the subject line. This action will not affect delivery of important service messages regarding your accounts that we may need to send you or preferences you may have previously set for other e-mail services.
If you are not a client, please go to https://www.wachovia.com/email/unsubscribe
For additional information regarding our electronic communication policies please go to http://wellsfargoadvisors.com/disclosures/email—disclosure.html
Investments in securities and insurance products are: NOT FDIC-INSURED/NOT BANK-GUARANTEED/MAY LOSE VALUE
Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC is a nonbank affiliate of Wells Fargo & Company, Member FINRA/SIPC 1 North Jefferson, St. Louis, MO 63103.
4/4/2011 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 9:09 PM To: Lumbreras, Bert; Ott, Marc Cc: Leffingwell, Lee; Ballas, Marisa Subject: RE:
Thanks for taking a look at this, Bert. This assessment seems reasonable to me.
I’ve discussed this briefly with Girard Kinney, and he understood too, though he does want to give it a little more thought and discuss it with some others in his group. Ill let you know if I hear anything further from him on this.
Chris
From: Lumbreras, Bert Sent: Monday, January 25, 2010 5:50 PM To: Riley, Chris; Ott, Marc Cc: Leffingwell, Lee; Ballas, Marisa Subject: FW:
CM Riley,
I had staff review this Scenic City application and this is a summary of their findings.
It appears the application process is not extensive at all and can be handled by some of our experienced staff. We assessed the benefits of the certification which did include the recognition and publicity behind the award. In addition, we could benefit from the synergies with other certified Scenic cities as well. However, we could find very limited long-term positive outcomes considering the amount of staff time we would need to dedicate to the effort. It appears to be more of an interest to cities wanting to tackle big policy issues like billboard proliferation, create scenic roads or districts and perservation or conservation efforts. In discussing with staff, we have access to this information already and would not need this certification to do that.
I can certainly discuss this further and see if missed something. Let me know if questions. Thanks.
Bert
From: Garza, Jason Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:50 PM To: Lumbreras, Bert Subject:
4/4/2011 Page 1 of4
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 2:29 PM To: ‘Frank Fernandez’ Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Ballas, Marisa
Subject: RE: Transatlantic Cities Forum - Details and Nominations
Marisa knows Dean Almy from UT, so I’ll get her help in connecting with him.
Chris
From: Frank Fernandez [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:32 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]
Subject: RE: Transatlantic Cities Forum - Details and Nominations
Thanks, Chris, for following up. Would you be up for approaching either of them to see if they would be interested? Or introducing me via email to them?
Mike, if you can think of anyone as welL..
Thanks,
Frank
From: Riley, Chris [mailto:[email protected] .tx.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 1:02 PM To: Frank Fernandez Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]
Subject: RE: Transatlantic Cities Forum - Details and Nominations
Our Waterfront Planning Advisory Board includes at least a couple people who could be good candidates for this: Dean Almy (who’s vice-chair) and Roy Mann. I think both have done this sort of stuff internationally. Here’s how the Chronicle described them: http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/lssue/story?oid=oid%3A931612
[Dean] Almy (Randi Shade) is an architect/planner; he serves as director of the graduate programs in urban design and landscape architecture at the University of Texas and is a principal at Atelier Hines Almy..... Roy Mann (Chris Riley) is a principal of the Rivers Studio and a nationally known waterfront planning and protection expert, and he authored the seminal book Rivers in the City in 1973.
From: Frank Fernandez [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:46 AM To: Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]
Subject: FW: Transatlantic Cities Forum - Details and Nominations
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 4
Hey guys,
Per our conversation, I have attached the summary of the waterfront development conference in Genoa, Italy.
Let me know if you have any folks you think would be good to nominate to go to the conference (including yourselves). I need to get back to them by February 12th
Thanks!
Fran 1K
From: Elizabeth Woods [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 4:06 PM To: Frank Fernandez
Subject: RE: Transatlantic Cities Forum - Details and Nominations
Hi Frank,
Attached is a very brief description of TCF which you can share with interested contacts. We will be developing the program based on the interests and backgrounds of the nominated participants, and so a more detailed program isn’t yet available. Once we receive your nominations, we will formally invite the participants, and include many more details in that invitation. We’re hoping that by approaching the event in this way, we will allow for a flexible, interactive, personal forum instead of the typical boring conference.
Let me know if you or any of your potential nominees has any questions!
Have a good weekend, Lizzie
From: Frank Fernandez [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 11:38 AM To: Elizabeth Woods
Subject: RE: Transatlantic Cities Forum - Details and Nominations
Hey Lizzie,
Do you have a one-page summary that I could forward to folks I think would be interested and a good fit?
Let me know.
Thanks,
Frank
PS Hope 2010 is treating you well... ©
From: Elizabeth Woods [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 2:50 PM To: ‘Federica Alcozer’; ‘Johan Basiliades’; ‘Gregg Behr’; ‘Aleksandar Bobic’; ‘Kelly Brough’; ‘David Carter’; ‘Brian Collier’; ‘Veronica Docherty’; Frank Fernandez; ‘Margaret Garry’; ‘Elinor Haider’; ‘Caren Heidemann’; ‘Katharina Hitschfeld’; ‘Doug Johnson’; ‘Hubert Julien-Laferrière’; ‘Michael Lake’; ‘Randell McShepard’; ‘Carlos Men’; ‘Elisa
4/4/2011 Page 3 of4
Rosso’; ‘Nico Tulle’; ‘Anders Christian Ulrich’; Howard Ways’; ‘Margo Weisz’; ‘Holly Welch Stubbing’; ‘Michael Wetter’ Cc: Ellen Pope; Brent Riddle; Julianne Stern; Ursula Soyez; Jidith Trinchero
Subject: Transatlantic Cities Forum - Details and Nominations
Dear all,
I hope you all have had a chance to begin thinking a bit more about the Transatlantic Cities Forum which Julie introduced formally in an email last month. As she stated, the first TCF will be held in Genoa May 20-23 and will focus on urban water issues, particular waterfront development. This email is meant to provide a bit more detail on the event and instructions on nominating participants from your cities.
Transatlantic Cities Forum 2010 The purpose of TCF is to bring together experts and practitioners from our TCN cities to discuss a discrete issue of importance to them. While each of you will continue to be the primary liaison for your city, the yearly Transatlantic Cities Fora will provide a way for to expand the network within your cities. As we discussed in Denver, the topic for TCF will change each year, and that for any given year the topic might not be equally relevant to each city in the network. It is important to us that the topic be narrow enough to allow for real, focused discussion and movement on the issue once the conference ends. While we understand that “waterfront development” doesn’t apply equally to each of your cities, we encourage those of you from cities lacking a major waterfront to think creatively of how water issues play a role in the region and which individuals could become leaders on the issue. Among the topics we intend to cover are: • Renaturing Urban Waterways • Integrating Working Ports and Recreational Waterfronts • Private Development and Public Space • Neighborhood/Community Participation in Development Efforts We are imagining a very interactive forum, one where participants will not only listen to key-note speakers and tour Genoa’s relevant sites, but one where the participants will be responsible through short presentations and small group discussions for presenting their own cities’ as case studies.
Nominations I know many of you have already begun thinking about who in your city would be the best person to take advantage of this opportunity, and in some cases may have two or three names in mind. We have funding to cover the complete expenses of one person from each city (25 individuals); we welcome the nominations of additional people from your city but please bear in mind that they (or their institution or a local funder) will have to cover their airfare and hotel costs (we will cover their food and local transportation). In order to make the process as simple as possible, please send me the names and contact information for two individuals from your city whom you would like to see participate in TCF along with a brief (2-3 sentence) description of why you think they would benefit from/contribute to the experience. Ideally they should be ranked so that we can form an “A list” (those whose participation will be completely paid for) and a “B list” (those who will be asked to contribute some part of the cost). Depending on how many cities choose to nominate individuals, we may have some left over funds to help those on the B list with their costs. Please submit your nominations to me no later than Friday, February 12.
If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to be in touch. We’re really looking forward to this inaugural event, and intend for it to be the beginning of a very fruitful exchange of information among your cities.
Best regards, Lizzie
P.S. There is a small chance that the dates of the conference may change, pending final confirmation from our
4/4/2011 Page 4 of 4
hotel in Genoa. If that happens, the conference would be moved to late June and I will notify you immediately. Please bear this in mind as you talk to people about the opportunity.
Lizzie Woods Program Assistant, Comparative Domestic Policy Program The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1744 R Street NW Washington, DC 20009 T: 202-683-2620 F: 202-265-1662 E: [email protected]
4/4/2011 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 8:23 PM To: Cc: Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William Subject: RE: yes, I can see, trust & rely on the commitment to transparency
Ok, the resolution itself isn’t exactly a model of transparency -- but Exhibit A is available on the website, and it’s pretty detailed. http://www.ci.austin.tx. us/council_meetings/item_attachments.cfm?meetingid=204&itemid=12153&item=8
From: J [mailto: Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 1:40 AM To: Riley, Chris; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William Subject: Re: yes, I can see, trust & rely on the commitment to transparency
(LOL) Jackie Goodman
In a message dated 2/5/2010 10:52:30 PM. Central Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I http://www.ci .austin tx. us/council_meetings/wams_item_attach.cfm?record I D=2 1317
4/4/2011 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, February 11,201012:46 PM To: Shade, Randi
Subject: FW: Connect - Ordinance amending City Code Section 14-8-32
Original Message From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, F. ebruary 11, 2010 12:16 PM To: Riley, Chris; Parkerson, Matt
Subject: Connect — Ordinance amending City Code Section 14-8—32
Date/Time Submitted: Thursday, 2/11/10, 1215 hours
From: Jeff Anderson — President Travis County Sheriff’s Office Law Enforcement Association (TCSLEA) E-mail address: [email protected] Subject: Ordinance amending City Code Section 14—8—32 Category: Comments: Dear Sir,
On behalf of the Travis County Sheriff’s Law Enforcement Association (TCSLEA), I am emailing you in support of Sheriff Greg Hamilton s displeasure with the upcoming session regarding Austin City Ordinance to amend City Code Section 14-8-32 which relates to temporary closures for a right-of—way event to create certain requirements for peace officer particination.
Matt Curtis advi.sed the intent is to allow the local agencies to continue to work in the Austin-T.ravis County, but the Police Chief will be the one that approves it.
We too want it known that this is unacceptable. The intent may be good, but the reality is different.
We ask that the City Council Dostpone any action until they have met with all affected Law Enforcement officials in Travis County to gather opinions and to gain more insight on this matter.
1 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 5:04 PM To: ‘Allen, Doug Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: FW: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Transportation Attachments: dart panel votes oct28 2009.PDF; dart rfsi.PDF; benefits. PDF
Hey Doug —
Today I met with Jerry Harris and Andy Ramirez, who are representing Clean Energy Fuels. They’re suggesting that Cap Metro’s fleet of buses etc. should include vehicles that run on Compressed Natural Gas.
Evidently DART decided in 2009 to move to CNG vehicles; a Dallas Morning News article to that effect is attached. Fort Worth and San Antonio have apparently been moving in the same direction.
I understand Cap Metro will be holding a pre-bid conference next week on some bus purchases. Jerry and Andy are suggesting that Cap Metro put out an addendum to the RFP to ask those responding to bid a CNG option. They provided a 2/15/08 letter from DART (also attached) as an example of how Cap Metro could make this request.
Moving toward CNG-powered vehicles could offer some environmental benefits. as well as some cost savings; a handout listing benefits is also attached.
I know we’ll be visiting tomorrow after the Board meeting, so I hope we have time to discuss this briefly. I’m cc’ing Mike; he has met with Jerry too.
See you tomorrow —
Chris
From: [email protected] [mailto :[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 2:47 PM To: Riley, Chris Subject: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Transportation
Councilmember Riley,
Attached to this e-mail please find copies of the following:
1. Dallas Morning News article on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 regarding Dallas Area Rapid Transportation Authority Board decision of Tuesday, October 27, 2009 to go with nearly 600 new natural gas powered buses.
2. A list of “Benefits of Natural Gas for Transportation’.
3. A copy of an earlier DART notice regarding adding CNG powered vehicles to requests for bus bids.
Thank you for meeting with Andy and me this afternoon. Please let me know if I can provide you with any additional information. Thanks.
Jerry
4/4/7011 Page 2 of 2
BrowrJMCCarroIl L L P.
Jerry 1. Harris, Partner 111 Congress, Suite 1400 Austin, TX 78701 Direct Phone: (512) 479-9710 Fax: (512) 479-1101 Cell Phone: ( jharris@mailbmccom
4/4/2011 DART panel votes to add nearly 600 natural-gas buses News for Dallas, Texas Dallas .. Page 1 of 2
doi1asnews -f Comments ii Recommend Wii 0 DART panel votes to add nearly 600 natural-gas buses
12:00 AM CDT on Wednesday, October 28, 2009
By MICHAEL A. LINDENBERGER / The Dallas Morning News mIindenbergrdUasnews.com
The DART board voted Tuesday to solicit bids from firms able to supply nearly 600 new natural gas- powered buses, ending a nearly yearlong debate over whether the transit agency’s next-generation fleet should be fueled by natural gas or diesel.
The vote came two weeks after staff members reversed course from last December, and recommended buying the natural gas buses, They cited falling natural gas prices as the reason they no longer think diesel buses are the best buy, despite more than $100 million in construction funds that will have to be borrowed upfront to pay for the conversion to a natural-gas fleet.
Those costs, including interest, will be more than offset by fuel savings the agency expects to achieve by choosing natural gas, top staff members have promised the Dallas Area Rapid Transit board.
Citing the lower fuel costs, the DART operations committee overwhelmingly approved the switch to natural gas at its meeting two weeks ago.
Now that the board has voted, the staff will begin seeking bids from bus manufacturers and firms to build the stations, spokesman Morgan Lyons said. It will also seek to “hedge” the cost of natural gas for 10 years.
The savings expected from purchasing the natural-gas buses were calculated against rough estimates for diesel buses that were submitted as part of the side-by-side comparisons late last year. No up-to-date pricing for diesel fuel, or for the buses themselves, was calculated this time.
The switch is a significant win for Dallas Mayor Torn Leppert, who lobbied the DART board strenuously last year to reject the staffs proposal to go with diesel buses. He said then that choosing natural gas over diesel would help brand Dallas as an environmentally friendly, forward-looking city.
He also argued that DART would be acting in the country’s best interest if it helped move the country off a fuel source that is heavily imported, such as diesel, and instead used more of a fuel that is mostly purchased from domestic sources.
One of Dallas’ leading businessmen and a financial contributor to Leppert, T. Boone Pickens, is leading a national campaign to increase the country’s use of natural gas, and to lower its dependence on oil, He is founder of Clean Energy Fuels, a California-based firm that submitted last fall’s bid to supply the fuel, buses and stations should DART choose natural gas.
Staff later determined that it would be cheaper to buy the fuel itself, probably tlu’ough a state
http ://www.dallasnews. comlsharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/transportation/stories/DN-... 2/15/2010 DART panel votes to add nearly 600 natural-gas buses News for Dallas, Texas I Dallas ... Page 2 of 2
government purchasing plan, and to contract with a separate party to build the stations.
Tuesday’s vote merely instructs the staff to seek new bids for natural-gas buses, and no bid from diesel manufacturers will be solicited.
http://www.dallasnews. com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/transportation/stories/DN-... 2/15/2010 Dallas Area Rapid Transit P.O. Box 660163 Dallas, Texas 75266-7235 2141749-3465
February 15, 2008
SUBJECT: Request for Statements of Interest (RFSI No. 1014184), 30 & 40 Foot Heavy-Duty Transit Buses
TO: All RFSI Respondents
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) was pleased to receive your statement of interest and supplier information in response to the subject RFSI. After careful review of all information received, the Authority has determined that in addition to a full specification for a diesel-powered bus meeting the Federal EPA 2010 emission standards, the forthcoming Request for Proposals (RFP) will also allow for alternate proposals for diesel-hybrid and CNG-powered vehicles. The RFP will be for 3D and 40-foot heavy-duty transit buses only, and will exclude fuels and fueling infrastructures.
Alternate proposals must include sufficient pricing detail to allow the Authority to consider the diesel- hybrid and CNG technologies, which will be evaluated on the cost effectiveness to DART over the useful life of the vehicles. The pricing detail required will be clearly defined and specified in the RFP. Proposals that depart from the stated requirements of the RFP shall clearly identify any deviations from the Authority’s current specifications, terms and conditions and must explicitly define the comparative advantage(s) to the Authority.
Thank you for your response and your continued interest in doing business with DART. As we conclude our market analysis, please know that the information you provided has been instrumental in helping DART assess the feasibility and alternatives for our upcoming bus procurement. For a consolidated list of those suppliers responding to the RFSI, please contact Rob Marshall, Contracts Specialist, at email marshall(ädart.org or the number above. We will retain your information in our database for the upcoming RFP and other future procurement opportunities. Please address any further questions to Mr. Marshall or myself.
Sincerely,
Brenda Mowen Assistant VP, Procurement Contracting Officer bmowen(dart.orq (214) 749-2542 BeneJIts ofNatural Gasfor Transportation.
Cost Effectiveness — Over the last decade, natural gas on an energy-equivalent basis has been 25% to 40% cheaper than diesel fuel, providing a clear cost savings to the user
o Abundant Domestic Resource — 98% of natural gas used in the U.S comes from North America (the North Texas Barnet Shale contributes 8% of the total supply). Importing less crude oil increases our energy independence
° Clean Burning Fuel — Today, only natural gas engines meet the EPA’s stringent 2010 emissions standards (0.2 grams NOx per brake horsepower*hour). To meet 2010 EPA emission standards, diesel engines require diesel particulate filters (DPF) and urea injection to the exhaust stream. The urea additive is ofien referred to selective catalytic reduction (SCR). The addition of both DPF and SCR increase diesel engine cost, on-going maintenance, and decrease fuel economy
o Reduces Greenhouse Gases — On a “wells to wheels” comparison, natural gas powered buses reduce CO2 emissions by more than 20% compared to diesel engines
o Sustainability — Texas transit agencies, including the Fort Worth T (100% CNG), DART and Sun Metro have been operating natural gas fleets as part of a comprehensive plan to reduce their regions’ U.S. EPA non-attainment status
o Fuel and Vehicle Funding Opportunities — There are alternative vehicle grant programs facilitated by the State’s TCEQ and General Land Office (GLO) that can be applied to Metro’s financial match. Federal fuel refunds (VTEC) of.$0.55/DGE may be extended through 2020 TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update Page 1 of 3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:15 PM To: Browder, Leslie Cc: Leff, Lewis; Everhart, Amy; Ballas, Marisa; Calk, Gerry; Knodel, Jeff; Ott, Marc Subject: RE: TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update
That’s good to hear, Leslie. I appreciate the effort that you, Gerry, and everyone else are putting into this. I hope a grant pans out!
Thanks,
Chris
From: Browder, Leslie Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 4:54 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Leff, Lewis; Everhart, Amy; Ballas, Marisa; Calk, Gerry; Knodel, Jeff; Ott, Marc Subject: RE: TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update
CM Riley, I wanted to let you know that I asked the Fleet Services Division to analyze the grant parameters along with the City fleet to determine if there was a potential for the City to benefit from this particular grant opportunity. That initial analysis indicates that there may be approximately twenty vehicles of various types that could be potential re-power candidates under the terms of the grant.
The terms of the grant require that re-powered equipment remain in the fleet for seven years after the re power is completed. Therefore, Gerry Calk, our Fleet Officer has indicated that additional research will be necessary to verify that the individual vehicles identified are good candidates for the re-power process. This includes inspecting and verifying chassis condition, determining engine compatibilities, contacting end users to identify usage parameters, etc. Fleet Services has already contacted various local dealers to begin research on the possible engine match-ups, and to determine the additional peripheral equipment replacements required on the various makes and models.
Reducing the carbon footprint of the City’s fleet is a major goal of the Fleet Services Division. If the analysis determines that there is a potential benefit to the City from this grant, an application can be submitted after we run it through our customary internal processes (coordination with Austin Energy’s climate protection staff and reviewing the specifics with the City Manager as part of the due diligence associated with any grant application). Gerry will keep me and Jeff informed and they are aware of the timelines. Hope this info helps.
Leslie
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 5:21 PM To: Browder, Leslie Cc: Left, Lewis; Everhart, Amy; Ballas, Marisa Subject: FW: TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update
4/4/201 1 TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update Page 2 of 3
Hey Leslie -- hope this is something we can take advantage of.
Chris
From: Gill, Bill [mailto:bgill©capcog.org] Sent: Monday, February 08, 2010 5:07 PM To: [email protected]; Riley, Chris; Russell, Matthew; Adele Noel; mayormcgraw©round-rock.tx.us; Everhart, Amy; Andrews, Pharr; [email protected]; [email protected]; Stephens, Cathy; Clampifer, Rachel; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; jbertram©lockhart-tx.org; Jeff Coffee; [email protected]; John Dean; [email protected]. us; Leffingwell, Lee; [email protected]; Narvaiz, Susan; Norton, Shana; [email protected]; Pina, William; [email protected]. us; [email protected]; [email protected]; sam. [email protected]. us; [email protected]. us; [email protected]; vrodgers©lockhart-bcorg; Wright, H.T. Subject: FW: TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update
Note: TERP Rebate Grants are especially attractive to local governments as the requirements for equipment usage are not as rigorous as the Emission Reduction Incentive Grants (ERlG) All five counties in the Austin-Round Rock MSA are eligible.
TCEQ ANNOUNCES OPENING OF NEW TERP ARRA REBATE GRANT PROGRAM
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is pleased to announce the opening of the new Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) ARRA Rebate Grants Program. This special application period uses federal funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (AARA).
A Notice of Rebate Grants (NRG) and final application form are available from the TERP Web site at: www.terpgrants.org
This special program differs from the regular TERP rebate grants in that the replacement on- road vehicles and engines may be powered by diesel, natural gas or propane. Non-road projects may only replace a diesel engine with a diesel engine.
Application forms will be received until April 30, 2010 or until all funds have been distributed. Applications are reviewed, processed, and awarded in the order received.
PLEASE NOTE: The ARRA rebate grant application form and rebate tables have been updated from the previously posted draft documents. You must use the final application form and refer to the final rebate tables to determine eligible funding amounts.
Thank you for your continued interest in the TERP program. Please feel free to contact us toll free at 800-919-TERP (8377) or by email atterptceq.state.tx.us with any questions.
www.terpgrants.org
If you have any questions related to this email, please contact us toll-free at 1-800-919-TERP (8377) or by email at:
AlA /fl1 1 TERP (Texas Emissions Reduction Plan) Update Page 3 of 3
terptceqstate.tx.uS.
4/417fl1 1 Page 1 of3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:11 PM To: Hemingson, Todd Cc: ‘Charlie McCabe’; ‘McGill Michael’; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: FW: transit stop at Wooldridge Attachments: MetroRapid at Wooldridge. pdf
Hey Todd:
Attached is a calculation of the height limitations imposed by a Capitol View Corridor at Wooldridge Park. As described in the note below from Michael Knox. the height limit along the western edge of the park is just over 6 feet.
Seems like this would be problematic for the type of transit stop envisioned along the BRT line.
Chris
From: Edwards, Sue Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 5:07 PM To: Riley, Chris Subject: FW: transit stop at Wooldridge
Chris,
As requested. This is a quick look.
Sue
ASsgcrT C. Mar.ager AJt 5 294 8?C) 512 e712833 [email protected]
From: Knox, Michael Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 2:03 PM To: Edwards, Sue Cc: Evins, Fred Subject: RE: transit stop at Wooldridge
Sue:
Attached is a Capitol View Corridor calculation for a Point 1 at the southeast corner of Woold ridge Square (back of sidewalk), and a Point 2 approximately 100’ north along Guadalupe. I assume the MetroRapid stop would be in this general location, It looks to me like any point further north along the block would have very similar height limits.
Based on the elevations of the official viewpoints 3a and 3b, I’ve estimated the elevations of inferred viewpoints (VP1 and VP2) along lines from the Capitol to and through Points 1 and 2. Based on my measurements and
A/A/’)fll 1 Page 2 of 3
calculations, Capitol View Corridor #3 is just over 6 feet above grade along this edge of Wooldridge Square.
Michael Knox City of Austin Economic Growth & Redevelopment Services Office 512-974-6415
From: Edwards, Sue Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:27 PM To: Knox, Michael Subject: RE: transit stop at Wooldridge
Just an estimate at this time.
Thanks, S
Sue Edwards Asswtcrt CSy Mar Cdy of A;ustm Phore; 512-974--7820 Fax; 5:P—97L-2833 [email protected] n.tx.us
From: Knox, Michael Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:25 PM To: Edwards, Sue Cc: Johns, Kevin; Gonzales, Rodney; Evins, Fred Subject: RE: transit stop at Wooldridge
I can do an unofficial calculation in a couple hours (or less, since I have one for the block across Guadaluipe already). Lynda Courtney in PDR does the official ones.
Michael Knox City of Austin Economic Growth & Redevelopment Services Office 512-974-6415
From: Edwards, Sue Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:20 PM To: Knox, Michael Cc: Johns, Kevin; Gonzales, Rodney; Evins, Fred Subject: FW: transit stop at Wooldridge
Michael,
How quickly can you get this done?
Sue
Ass;srort Morager
4/4/2011 Page 3 of 3
Cty of Austin Phone: 512974782O Fax: 512974-2833 [email protected]
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:52 AM To: Edwards, Sue Cc: Ballas, Marisa Subject: transit stop at Wooldridge
Hey Sue --
At the Cap Metro board meeting yesterday, staff presented plans for the MetroRapid BRT on Guadalupe. The map showed a transit stop at Wooldridge Park (between 9th & 10th, on the west side). I asked staff (Todd Hem ingson) whether any assessment had been done on the Capitol View Corridor at that location, and he said no.
Could you help set a process in motion to figure out the height limit on any structure that would be built in that location? I’m not sure who to direct this question to, but I’m hoping you can help figure that out.
The height limit will be set by the Wooldridge Park Capitol View Corridor, which originates near the corner of 9th & San Antonio.
Chris
/tI/I/)fl1 1 S) •\“‘\ \ \OC \\ ‘5/ \\ \\
(51 I) I ( j
‘N ‘N
a /// U 0 4-, / V
—‘S / / Ii ///S\ ji 57 ‘S / S/ / __/_ WooIre*uafZ_--/- ‘i \ / 4-&i T / ‘,3ai t515’5 516—----
S.
/(533) VP2 (522.’) •‘ \ Austin 1-listor Cente5t ‘N VPI V CVC3 (5265) I WOOLDRIDGE PARK
-S /7
-- FauIk’tntraI Library
Sj
¶5/!
-
S--S •/S
-/ /
‘S
MetroRapid Stop at Wooldridge Square Feet
0 25 50 75 100
Prepared by City of Austin Economic Growth & Redevelopment Services Office CVC Calculations_MetroRapid.xls
Viewpoint Site Maximum h (Maximum Viewpoint Line Site tan X b a Elevation Elevation Elevation Height)
Capitol View Corridor Elev. VP - Site times b’
3 - 1 526.5 533.0 126.5 2,062.000 0.06135 207 12.70
3 - 2 522.5 534.0 130.5 2,056.000 0.06347 278 17.65 540.15 6.15
- defined value measured value calculated value
b
Max. Ht.
3 The Wooldridge Park corridor includes the area below the plane formed by connecting the following two lines: (a) the first line at an elevation of 515 feet above sea level at Texas Plane Coordinate X-2816727.54,Y- 229659.96, and extends along a bearing of N 60° 558.0” E for a distance of 2,055.569 feet to a point 100 feet from the center of the Capitol dome and located at Texas Plane Coordinate X-2818509.50, Y 230684.66 (b) the second line begins at an elevation of 536 feet above sea level at Texas Plane Coordinate X 2816925.57, Y-229291 .91, and extends along a bearing of N 54° 4’ 50.4” E for a distance of 2,089.263 feet to a point 100 feet from the center of the Capitol dome and located at Texas Plane Coordinate X 2818617.55, ‘(-230517.5 Page 1 of4
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 8:17 PM To: Spelman, William Subject: FW: Follow up on housing bonds
From: Cole, Sheryl Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:21 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Shade, Randi Subject: FW: Follow up on housing bonds
An answer.
From: Snipes, Anthony Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 5:09 PM To: Cole, Sheryl Subject: Re: Follow up on housing bonds
According to David Potter of Housing, the amount is $11.2 million for 221 units
From: Cole, Sheryl To: Snipes, Anthony Sent: Thu Feb 25 14:47:54 2010 Subject: RE: Follow up on housing bonds What is the answer? How much of the GO bonds has gone to those under 30% of MFI?
From: Snipes, Anthony Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 1:34 PM To: Cole, Sheryl Subject: FW: Follow up on housing bonds
Just in case you were not aware of this.
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:40 AM To: Shaw, Margaret Subject: FW: Follow up on housing bonds
Hey Margaret -- Heads up - One thing I’d like to ask about at the hearing on Thursday, if it’s not in the main presentation, is how much of the GO housing bond money we’ve spent so far has gone to those at < 30% MFI. I’m hoping you can provide an estimate on that. (You may have mentioned it already, but if so I’ve forgotten or missed it.)
AI,1/’)ñl 1 Page 2 of 4
Chris
From: Heather Way [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:33 AM To: Riley, Chris Subject: Re: Follow up on housing bonds can you ask the hsg director to provide that info re actual income levels of families served by bonds and what % is below 30%? (vs the income caps set forth in the restrictive covenants), she should be able to gather this from the hsg providers. another issue that needs to be discussed is where the $$ will come from to provide the supportive services needed to make the supportive housing successful. bonds cannot be used for this, or so we have been told by city. we need to strat developing a strategy to raise $ for the services as well.
Sent from my iPod
On Feb 23, 2010, at 11:14 AM, Riley, Chris’
I did see this info, and yes, it is helpful. One thing that’s still unclear to me is how much of the bond money we’ve spent so far has gone to those at < 30% MFI.
I agree (and so does Randi, apparently) that this discussion should include consideration of when we’re going to move forward with a new housing bond election.
Chris
From: Heather Way [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:48 AM To: Riley, Chris Subject: Follow up on housing bonds
Hi Chris. Here is info I hope you saw about the expected split of housing bond resources prior to the election. Does this answer the questions you had from last night about the long-standing policy we have had, preceding the bond election, of a 40/60% h.o/rental split?
I also found out from Mark Rogers at Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation that GNDC, Habitat, and People Trust (our 3 nonprofits orgs providing homeownership opps for low income families), have use for approximately $9 million for ownership projects either already in the pipeline or for land that is available right now. GNDC’s 90-unit homeownership project will be cut off at the knees without an additional $2.4 million; throwing into question the rationale for the to-date investment of $1.6 million (GO Bond). If the long-standing policy of a split of 40/60% is applied to the remaining $15 million, then $6 million would be targeted for ownership. This targeting should have a specific time period after which any left over funds for ownership and rental can be ifted to wherever the need is.
This whole dispute is creating a very unhealthy bond process. To date, we have set up a fair apolitical process in which the best projects get funded under very high levels of scrutiny and standards. At any time, a developer could come forward with a project and apply for bond funds-- whether supportive housing for the homeless or ownership condos at 80% MFI. Projects which
A IA I’(1 Page 3 of4
serve lower incomes get higher points. This debate about the bonds has undermined many of the goals established to ensure a fair process for allocating GO Bond funds (especially if this turns into a push for a specific project such as a homeless campus). This has lead others to begin lobbying council for their own projects or their type of projects. That is not healthy.
I hope we can turn this fighting over the remaining bonds into a discussion on when we are going to move forward with a new housing bond to fund all of these critical housing needs. If we allocate everything to homelessness now (even though there are no projects in the pipeline for this year), that leaves nothing for homeownership projects that are in the pipeline for this year such as the GNDC subdivision and Habitat projects + leaves nothing for council to meet the TOD housing goals or to capture any critical preservation opportunities that arise. For example, we won’t be able to turn the Crestview Austin Energy tract into a model TOD affordable housing development, and we wouldn’t be able to preserve any affordable apartments that are at risk of converting to market rate units.
Basically, we will have 0 money left for these other important needs. We need to be having a discussion now about how we are going to fund these other critical needs along with providing more funding on homelessness, which we all agree is very important goal. But while addressing homelessness is an important goal, we do not believe it should be the only goal for our remaining city housing bond dollars.
Best, Heather
Forwarded Message From: Frances Ferguson
Hi Laura, Randi, Chris, Bobby and Marti, here is the information (both attached and links) that show the expected split of housing bond resources. The ppt dcc attached shows 2007 Bond Oversight committee. The link takes you to the presentation to council that framed the bonds as they went to the voters, prior to the election. Thank you to Kelly Weiss for finding these docs.
May 4 2006 GO Bond Presentation to Council reflects 60/40 rental/homeownership split.: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/budget/beac/downioads/bond2006presZQQ6Q5Q4.pclf
HousingWorks will have an official position on this for the Thursday hearing. It is our strong understanding that a vote is not being taken on Thursday. I hope that is true, but we keep hearing that this is being rushed all of a sudden.
I can tell you that we remain concerned that homeownership not be shut out. There are projects in the development pipeline of GNDC, Habitat and PeopleTrust that are consistent w/ the
understanding of the bonds. In addition — there seems to be a lot of false information about how much has been invested in homeownership to date.
I think I’d already attached this summary report to some of you — but am attaching again. It shows the breakdown of awards by homeownership, supportive and rental. And the average bond cost per
4/4/2011 Page 4 of 4
unit of each type to date. So far homeownership units have cost only $27,200/unit and rental have cost $24,500/unit. Pretty close. Supportive housing has cost over $52,000/unit.
$7.3mm has been awarded to homeownership so far, ncudng the $2mm in emergency home
repairs, and emergency home repairs primarily target very low income households! And — the chart understates the fact that some of the homeownership units WILL reach folks under 60 and even 50% AMI (because of the nature of contractual ceilings). This is vastly under the $22mm which represents 40% of the bonds. This does not mean that all the bonds should be reserved for
homeownership — but it does mean that homeownership should not be shut out of the last year or two of bond funding, until the next bond issue is voted upon.
INSTEAD — all this points to the obvious — that we should be focused on how to get the next housing bond issue scheduled. So that there IS enough to do the range of things we need to do. We never thought this should be a one- time bond. By making the last 25% be such a mad rush, we are acting on a scarcity mentality instead of committing to creating funding in 2010 or 2012 for housing.
Thank you , Francie Ferguson 466 0574
(As a note on the 3061 total units number— this is because the BOND funded units are often inside a larger affordable property. EG I have highlighted Foundation Communities’ Shady Oaks project as a good example of how the bonds are making great projects more deeply affordable: Here $3mm in bonds is helping to make a 230 unit project possible. But the BOND funds are only going toward the units under 50% AMI and
30% AMI. So for low wage families — they get to live in a great property with very strong services, without being relegated to a property that concentrates poverty by being 100% under 30% AMI.
Many of those households who aren’t under 30% AMI may be only a few dollars OVER --- so hardly a different income tranche, yet by contract they don’t count as 30% AMI if they are 1$ over.
So — the bonds make possible 230 units total of affordable — but are being entirely dedicated to
deepening the affordability so that more 30% and 50% units can be included on the property -- 15
under 30% and 128 under 50%. So in the “average / rental unit for GO Bond units” — only those 30 and 50% AMI units are in the denominator.)
A IA I’)I\1 1 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:50 PM To: Cole, Sheryl Subject: RE: nope. Here’s the exchange we had:
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:49 AM To: Shaw, Margaret Subject: RE: Follow up on housing bonds
Great, thanks. I hope we can state it in terms of a % of the $ spent so far too. c.
From: Shaw, Margaret Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:47 AM To: Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Follow up on housing bonds
Appreciate the headsup! This information will be in my presentation Thursday; we had not completed the fact check when we briefed Council. By contract requirements, 175 out of 1,793 total affordable units created must serve those at/below 30% MFI --10% of total. all best!
MRS
Margaret R. Shaw COA-NHCD 512 974.3184 phone 512.974.1063 fax Assistant. Cindy Loft 512.9 74 1049
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 11:40 AM To: Shaw, Margaret Subject: FW: Follow up on housing bonds
Hey Margaret -- Heads up -- One thing I’d like to ask about at the hearing on Thursday, if it’s not in the main presentation, is how much of the GO housing bond money we’ve spent so far has gone to those at < 30% MFI. I’m hoping you can provide an estimate on that. (You may have mentioned it already. but if so I’ve forgotten or missed it.)
Chris
From: Cole, Sheryl Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 4:35 PM To: Riley, Chris Subject:
Did Margret ever tell you how much we have spent on 0-30%?
4/4/2011 Page 1 of3
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 9:12 AM To: ‘John Langmore’ Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; ‘Frank Fernandez’
Subject: FW: Rail Safety Outreach Request for Help - crisis in public safety Attachments: 2010 Rail Safety Reminder.pdf
This is the first in a string of emails I’ll forward on this subject
From: M Ward [ Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 9:44 AM To: All Hood; HoodDiscussion; NLPT Chat-line Cc: David Kobierowski; Kenneth Thompson; Will Smith; Mark WindsorPark; Scooter Cheatam; Mike Manor; Mark Gardner; Sam MosaicContemplation; Don MosaicLead; Sid Hall; Albert Black; candice towe; Karen Green; Alissa Schram; Spillar, Rob; Powers, Gilda; Jeffrey Hitt; Damon Howze; Ballas, Marisa; Riley, Chris; Farrah Rocha; Jauquin Gloria; Bo McCarver; Dinita Caldwell; Dave Harmon
Subject: Fw: Rail Safety Outreach Request for Help - crisis in public safety
The trains start rolling this next week. despite the continuing lack of improvements or the saftey markings still needed for at each of the 5 crossings in Ridgetop/Northfield neighborhoods along Airport
Blvd- - Share this heads up as broadly as you are willing.
Also, let the City of Austin Transportation Dept Director Roh.spillar’ci.austin.tx.us - know your are concerned about his department’s failure to address this public safety crisis. Spillar toured Ridgetop and the rail crossing safety issues were pointed out specifically over a year ago.
CapMetro and the CoATransportation have a duty to address these transportation safety concerns. CapMetro hiring its own police to give tickets to drivers underlines the failure of the City and CapMetro dinita.caldwell1’,capmetro.org to act responsibly on behalf of its citizens. Martha Ward a Ridgetop neighbor
On Thu, 2/25/10, Schram, Alissa
From: Schram, Alissa
Heflo Austin Rail Safety Advocates:
NEED YOUR HELP!
If you didn’t already know, Capital Metro will begin service of its fast-moving, quiet, MetroRail trains
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 3
soon. We’re in themiddle of our Rail Safety outreach Blitz and we need your help.
Attached and below is a rail safety letter. !‘-n asking each one of you to PLEASE share it with all your contact lists. Send it to your e-mail distribution lists, your community groups, your newsletter
contacts, your neighbors, your friends, your co-workers — AND, ask them to pass it on. Print it and post it in common areas in your office buildings and local cafés. Do everything you can to help Central Texans ,stay safe near the tracks.
After you do, if you could take a moment and let me know who you’ve shared it with, it will help me track what areas still need additional outreach.
If you’d like to know what we’re doing to spread the word, here’s a quick list of what we’ve done over the last four weeks:
• Door to door distribution of No Trespassing posters along the rail line • Door to door distribution and mailing the rail safety reminder letters • Rail Safety PSA distribution to the media: http://capmetroblog.corn/2010/02/23/rail-safety-push/ • All Rail Safety PSAs on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com!iridecapmetro#p/a!f/O/ataLdnoDCZM • E-mails to many of your contacts and e-mail lists already (but we need more!) • Presentations to Neighborhood Associations near the tracks • Continued Operation Lifesaver presentations to bus drivers, drivers ed classes, schools, and community groups • Rail Safety messages on your websites, facebook pages, and in your newsletters • Camp to camp distribution of a Rail Safety message to Austin ‘s homeless population with the assistance of ECHO • Development of a “Don’t Stop on the Tracks” poster, which I’ll be distributing to many of you soon • Boy Scouts Rail Safety Activity Badge push
Over the last three years, many of you have been huge supporters of this effort, but now need your help more than ever. Please share this important safety information.
Thanks to each one of you for your assistance!
Alissa
aeiooa ScfvLam
Community Involvement Coordinator
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Tel: 512.369.7759
www.staoffthetracks.corn
Capital Metro will begin service of its fast-moving, quiet, MetroRail trains soon. This is an
d/dI’)fll 1 Page 3 of3
exciting time for us, and we look forward to beginning full passenger service. However, we recognize that there are some very important safety reminders that we need to emphasize.
Please visit our rail safety website at: w,stayQfthtrackscom to view a Rail Safety PSA for adults and a Rail Safety Cartoon for kids.
Please remember to use caution when crossing the train tracks.
The new Capital MetroRail trains will be traveling as fast as a car and are almost as quiet.
Your safety is in your hands. Here are some tips to help you stay safe.
Stay alert and pay attention around train tracks; any time is train time.
• Trains can’t swerve; they must follow the tracks, so cars and people must stay off the tracks to avoid being hit by a train. NEVER STOP YOUR CAR ON THE TRACKS!
• It can take up to one mile to stop a freight train and up to 600ft. (two football fields) to stop a commuter train like the MetroRail. NEVER WALK ON THE TRACKS!
• Always expect a train at any time, in either direction, on any track, and always watch for a second train.
• Look, Listen and Live! Loud music and headphones can keep you from hearing a train.
MetroRail trains are quiet and can come up on you before you know they are there. When crossing the tracks in a car at an unprotected crossing, please stop and always look both ways. As an extra safety precaution, roll down your windows and turn down the radio to listen for the horn. If you see a train coming, wait. The MetroRail trains will travel up to 65 miles per hour in some areas, and the freight trains will continue to run during non-MetroRail hours.
In order to ensure that our communities understand this important safety message, Capital Metro is working with community leaders on a Rail Safety Outreach Initiative. The outreach began in March 2007 and has continued for the last 3 years. If you would like a MetroRail or rail safety presentation for your neighborhood, community group, or business, please call 369- 7759 or e-mail Alissaschram©capmetro.org.
Thank you,
,1I/l/’,fll 1 CAPITAL METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 2910 East Fifth Street, Austin, Texas 78702 TET.51 2.389.7400 FAX 512.369.6596 wwapmetro.org
A im
CAP I TAL METRO Capital Metro will begin service of its fast-moving, quiet, MetroRail trains soon. This is an exciting time for us, and we look forward to beginning full passenger service. However, we recognize that there are some very important safety reminders that we need to emphasize. Please visit our rail safety website at: .staoffthetracks.com to view a Rail Safety PSA for adults and a Rail Safety Cartoon for kids.
P’ease remember to use caution when crossing the train tracks. The new Capital MetroRail trains will be traveling as fast as a car and are almost as quiet.
Your safety is in your hands. Here are some tips to help you stay safe. o Stay alert and pay attention around train tracks; any time is train time. • Trains can’t swerve; they must follow the tracks, so cars and people must stay off the tracks to avoid being hit by a train. NEVER STOP YOUR CAR ON THE TRACKS! • It can take up to one mile to stop a freight train and up to 600ft. (two football fields) to stop a commuter train like the MetroRail. NEVER WALK ON THE TRACKS! Always expect a train at any time, in either direction, on any track, and always watch for a second train. Look, Listen and Live! Loud music and headphones can keep you from hearing a train.
MetroRail trains are quiet and can come up on you before you know they are there. When crossing the tracks in a car at an unprotected crossing, please stop and always look both ways. As an extra safety precaution, roll down your windows and turn down the radio to listen for the horn. If you see a train coming, wait. The MetroRail trains will travel up to 65 miles per hour in some areas, and the freight trains will continue to run during non-MetroRail hours.
In order to ensure that our communities understand this important safety message, Capital Metro is working with community leaders on a Rail Safety Outreach Initiative. The outreach began in March 2007 and has continued for the last 3 years. If you would like a MetroRail or rail safety presentation for your neighborhood, community group, or business, please let us know.
Thank you,
Alissa Schram TRAINS ARE MOVING Community Involvement Coordinator FASTER AND QUIETER: Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority STAY OFF THE TRACKS! LOS TRENES SE MUEVEN 512 369 7759 C_ EO sa.schrcametro.oLg www.stayoffthetracks.com PLEASE CALL 38501 90 WITH QUESTIONS. Page 1 of3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 4:42 PM To: Shaw, Margaret; Lumbreras, Bert; Edwards, Sue; Shade, Randi; Cole, Sheryl; Ott, Marc; McDonald, Michael [APD] Subject: RE: Phoenix Itinerary
I’m game; I haven’t made other plans. Thanks, Margaret --
Chris
From: Shaw, Margaret Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 2:14 PM To: Lumbreras, Bert; Edwards, Sue; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Cole, Sheryl; Ott, Marc; McDonald, Michael [APD] Cc: Long, Tara; Leff, Lewis; Williamson, Laura; Diaz, Elaine; Bier, Marti; Martinez, Rose Marie; Ochiltree, Alta; Bergeron, Veronica; Garza, Jason; Eskew, Dana; Sandoval, Marie; Polio, Laura; Lott, Cindy; Alexander, Jason Subject: RE: Phoenix Itinerary
I’m following up to let y’all know that since we do not have formal dinner plans in Phoenix tomorrow. I’ve taken the liberty to reserve a table for 5 at a dear friend’s restuarant, Tarbell’s (much like Jeffrey’s) for 6:30pm. Let me know if you’re game tomorrow so I can give them an accurate headcount. Their menu etc. is at: http://www.tarbells.com/
No worries if you’ve made other plans...
MRS aka Julie Cruise Director
Margaret R. Shaw COANHCD 512.974.3184 phone 512.974.1063 fax Assistant: Cindy Loft 512.974.1049
From: Shaw, Margaret Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 3:56 PM To: Alexander, Jason; Lurie, David Cc: Long, Tara; Leff, Lewis; Williamson, Laura; Diaz, Elaine; Bier, Marti; Martinez, Rose Marie; Ochiltree, AIta; Bergeron, Veronica; Garza, Jason; Eskew, Dana; Sandoval, Marie; Polio, Laura; Lott, Cindy Subject: RE: Phoenix Itinerary
I don’t know what the protocol is so I may be stepping on toes. I’ve never travelled with such dignitariesl! One of my dearest friends, Mark Tarbell (brother of my college roommate so he’s know me for 28 years!), owns a swanky restuarant in Phoenix (http://www.tarbells.com/). He was on IronChef 2 years ago and beat Cat Cora!!
If there aren’t other plans for dinner being organized, I’m planning on going to dinner there and would welcome anyone who wants to come along. Tables are ONLY available however at 6:30pm (or past my bedtime). I’d love to have company. just need a loose headcount. No problems if folks are sick of me!!
,1 /4 I’ñ1 1 Page 2 of 3
aM best! MRS
Margaret R. Shaw COA-NHCD 512.974.3184 phone 512.974.1063 fax Assistant: Cindy Loft 512.974.1049
From: Alexander, Jason Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 2:05 PM To: Cole, Sheryl; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Ott, Marc; McDonald, Michael [APD]; Lumbreras, Bert; Edwards, Sue; Lurie, David; Shaw, Margaret Cc: Long, Tara; Leff, Lewis; Williamson, Laura; Diaz, Elaine; Bier, Marti; Martinez, Rose Marie; Ochiltree, Alta; Bergeron, Veronica; Garza, Jason; Eskew, Dana; Sandoval, Marie; Polio, Laura; Lott, Cindy Subject: Phoenix Itinerary Importance: High
Good afternoon all,
Please see below the tentative itinerary for the upcoming visit to the Lodestar Day Resource Center and Human
Services Campus in Phoenix, AZ. Please be advised all times listed are approximate — I will keep you updated of any changes should they occur.
Thu rsiay,I a r.4th 9:35am: Arrive in Phoenix
9:35am — 11:45am: Depart airport and hotel check-in (Downtown Holiday Inn Express)
11:45am — 12:00pm: Take taxi to Lodestar Campus
12:00pm — 1:00pm: Lunch meeting w/ Lodestar team
1:00pm — 6:00pm: Tour of Campus and visitation with staff members 6:00pm: Depart for hotel
Filday.Mar. 5th 8:00am: Breakfast at Hotel
8:45am — 9:00am: Take taxi to Lodestar Campus
9:00am — 12:00pm: Meet w/ Lodestar team for debrief and closing discussions 12:00pm: Depart for airport (departure time — 3:15pm) 6:25pm: Arrive in Austin
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact myself or Rose Marie Martinez (974-2428) directly.
Sincerely,
Jason A’exander, MPA Executive Assistant Assistant City Manager, Michael McDonald City of Austin, City Manager’s Office P: (512) 974-2194 F: (512) 974-2833 E: [email protected] ?age I ot I
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 5:12 PM To: ‘Jessica Wilson’ Cc: Parkerson, Matt; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: RE: Cap Metro Committee Restructuring
I’d like to get together to talk about this, Jessica. I’m cc’ing Matt in my office so he can help with getting something scheduled. Thanks for reaching out --
Chris
From: Jessica Wilson [mailto Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 11:17 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris Subject: Cap Metro Committee Restructuring
Thank both of you for your questions and interest in getting feedback from the two committees on possible restructuring or combination. I’d be happy to meet with any of the boarddmembers who’d like more insight into the CSAC committee. I have served on the committee for two years and have been the acting chair for a year or so. If email or phone conversations are a better fit for you then feel free to get in contact with any questions. You can reach me at this email address or at
Best wishes, Jessica
Jessica Wilson
Acting Chair - CSAC
4/4/2011 Page 1 of 1
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 12:02 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: ; Parkerson, Matt Subject: RE: One Peace at a Time weekend in Austin
Hey Turk --
I’d be glad to help out with a proclamation on this. I’m cc’ing Matt in my office so he can help. Well work with the other offices too.
Thanks for all you’re doing, and for filling us in about itl We’ll be in touch --
Regards,
Chris
From: [mailto Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 3:28 PM To: Riley, Chris; bill.spellman©ci.austin.bcus; [email protected] Cc: Subject: One Peace at a Time weekend in Austin
Chris, Bill and Randi,
Pardon the group email, but time is a little short so I’m reaching out to all of you at once. The Nobelity Project’s film One Peace at a Time is releasing on DVD as part of a big week of Nobleity Project events in Austin from April
5 - 11. Christy and I are wondering if the City would recognize the week with an official proclamation. Here are three three main events:
Sunday, April 11 - The Nobleity Project Artists & Filmmakers Dinner honoring Willie Nelson. Event is at the Four Seasons with 40 Texas celebs each hosting a table. Show by Joe Ely, Ray Benson, Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett. Table hosts include Matthew McConaughey and Camila Alves, Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, Steve Weinberg, Shawn Colvin, and lots more.
Friday, April 9 - free DVD release party at Waterloo records with instore concert by Kat Edmonson.
At Waterloo - and at various schools that week - the launch of “1000 Books for Hope” to fill the shelves of the library at Mahiga Hope High School, which we are currently building in Kenya. Donors are asked - not for stacks of old books they don’t want - but for ONE book - their favorite book or a book that has meant a great deal to them. Donors write their name and city inside the cover, along with a personal note about the book.
Austin has played a huge part in this film. We shot a good deal of it here, edited at 501 Post, produced soundtrack here, financed primarily by donations from Austinites and Austin companies, and the film features the work of many Austin groups including A Glimmer of Hope, The Miracle Foundation and The Nobelity Project.
Please let me know how this sounds; and how we might proceed. turk pipkin the nobelity project nobelity org
A IA /‘lñl 1 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 7:25 PM To: ‘Jeff Thompson Cc: Cole, Sheryl; McDonald, Stephanie; Leff, Lewis Subject: RE:
Thanks for the input, Jeff, and for your willingness to stay involved with this! Great ideas.
Regards,
Chris
From: Jeff Thompson [mailto: Sent: Friday, March 12, 2010 5:03 PM To: Cole, Sheryl; McDonald, Stephanie; Riley, Chris; Leff, Lewis Subject:
Hello. Thanks for taking the time and meeting with the community today and thanks so much for driving this forward. As vice-chair of the East Cesar Chavez Neighborhood planning team. we have been discussing how to get an ciclovIa started in our neighborhood for some time. I didn’t have a chance to complete the questionnaire at the meeting, but would like to provide you some of my thoughts.
Also, I didn’t get a chance to add my name to any sign up list. Please add me to the list of interested parties.
Goals (Especially for an event located in East Austin)
Promote exercise. Provide safe, comfortable area for families to be active together. Build community within the neighborhood. Build links between the neighborhood and the rest of the community. Introduce people to alternative methods of transportation. Encourage pedestrian commercial traffic beyond the event times. Stimulate local businesses. Highlight cultural heritage of East Austin (Tejano Walking Trail, etc)
Characteristics
Local - Centered on local unique qualities (music. restaurants and businesses)
Latin — These events started in Colombia and quickly spread to other countries in Latin America. I think emphasizing this heritage will encourage participation of East Austin.
Lazy — Although the idea is to get people active, it should be relaxed and festive. It is not a competition. People should feel comfortable participating even if they are not athletes. Page 2 of 2
Loud — Live bands. street performers, screaming kids.
Location, Date, Time
In my opinion the best place for a Ciclovia is East Austin. East Austin is generally flatter (flat is good for beginning bikers and walkers) and hosting the ciclovIa on the East side would help to emphasize its latin roots.
To me, the ideal street would be East Sixth Street. It is a pedestrian centered street, but because it dead ends into the HEB near Pleasant Valley, and it turns one way under 1-35, not one used as an East/West Corridor. It is flat, and easy to ride/walklroller-skate. The train track just to the south limits the number of North South crossings that would need to be left open for traffic flow.
In addition, East Sixth is connected to the city via multiple transportation routes. Most importantly is the Lance Armstrong Bikeway on East 4th/5th Street. This would allow participants to arrive via bike and could be used to connect to other CiclovIa hubs. It is a block away from the Plaza Saltillo metro station at Comal and East 5th and close to several bus routes.
I think closing the street from San Marcos to Pedemales would be a nice long stretch that would provide enough distance for walkers to get good exercise, but not distort traffic too much on a Saturday/Sunday morning.
There are several nearby bike-related businesses or organizations including Bike Texas, Eastside Pedal Pushers, Rouge Running and the Lance Armstrong Center. There are plenty of restaurants and coffee shops along the way for people to stop by and have a snack or cool drink.
Thanks again for leading this effort.
Jeff Thompson
A IA /A1 1 News Clips: Monday, March 15, 2010 N DEX:
• Travis Commissioners OK new CAMPO policy board design — In Fact Daily
• Universities student bodies approving environmental fees — Austin American-Statesman
• Rail effect on traffic likely negligible, at least at first — Austin American-Statesman
• Print Headline: Steel rail ties a kink in line — Austin American-Statesman
• Waitgate — Austin Chronicle
• South By Street Closures — Austin Chronicle
• Luz verde al Metro Rail en Austin — El Mundo
• Harris: ‘Bicycle boulevard’ will lead to wasteful spending and hinder mobility — Austin American-Statesman
• D’Amico: ‘Bicycle boulevard’ will clear a path for safe, convenient travel downtown — Austin American-Statesman
• Tolling 290 to create jobs, CTRMA exec says — KLBJ AM
• Austin gas prices jump 17 cents in 2 weeks — Austin Business Journal
• Transit-oriented development: a failed promise? — Dallas Morning News
• Is texting while driving now an employer’s issue? — Dallas Business Journal
• Some question funding for 2 Metro rail lines — Houston Chronicle
• PRINCETON: Bus Rapid Transit plain roils Dinky supporters — CentralJersey.com
• Metro aims to use travel training to help disabled passengers and save money — Washington Post o County Planners Devise Comprehensive Plan To Attract Younger Population Back To
The Region — North Fork Vue
Capital Metro
03/15/10 In Fact Daily Travis Commissioners OK new CAM P0 policy board design By Mike Kanin
The expansion of CAMPO’s policy board has cleared an initial hurdle last week, as an ambivalent Travis County Commissioners Court voted to approve the addition of Bastrop and Caldwell counties to that body. Precinct 3 Commissioner Karen Huber voted against the measure and Precinct 1 Commissioner Ron Davis abstained. Despite their affirmative votes, both Precinct 2 Commissioner Sarah Eckhardt and County Judge Sam Biscoe expressed some reservations about the expansion.
The proposal now must get the approval of the five other CAM P0 executive bodies. These are Hays and Williamson counties, the City of Austin, the Texas Department of Transportation, and Capital Metro.
“We only have one vote of the six, but I think that we should take the lead and try to get (this) done,’ said Biscoe. “I don’t know that I would feel the same way if I were not chair of CAMPO, but I am the chair. And I think that (our approval) will help promote regionalism more than anything else at this point.”
Huber, Eckhardt, and Biscoe serve as Travis County’s CAMPO representatives.
As part of the CAMPO reconfiguration, the organization has proposed to strike the portion of the Joint Powers Agreement that reserves seats for three elected officials from small cities in its jurisdiction. The court’s consternation centered on this pending loss of small city representation.
4/4/2011 Biscoe told the court that he and Huber had put together an option that would have preserved, and potentially increased, formal CAMPO membership for small cities. He said that it had been defeated by an effort lead by the city of Austin.” He noted that Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell was the chair of the composition committee.
Huber wasn’t inclined to pass the measure for the sake of regional togetherness. “I don’t consider being opposed to this being a sore loser,” she said. “We put a lot of thought into the option... and there was a lot of last minute discussion and I’m not sure there was as much good analysis in the process that took place between the committee recommendations and the ultimate CAMPO vote.”
She then read a letter from Lakeway Mayor Dave DeOme into the record. In it, DeOme called the pending CAMPO refit a “significant disappointment” to his city, and noted that he felt it “does not foster regionalism in any way.” Huber added that the Hays County Commissioners Court had received “numerous” letters from small cities expressing similar sentiments.
Huber told In Fact Daily that she felt as though the “the effort to evaluate the composition of the CAMPO board” was “perhaps somewhat flawed.” She added, “it did not include (an) accurate evaluation of what composition was appropriate as (the area) move(s) forward.”
She noted that she was “disappointed” and “surprised” that her court hadn’t voted down the measure. At the hearing, she told her colleagues that she thinks, “it wouldn’t hurt CAMPO to reconsider this composition because indeed we are moving toward a centers approach that needs the input from these small regional centers.”
For her part, Eckhardt echoed the sentiments of her colleagues. “I do think that it is definitely a con.. .that the small cities’ representatives are removed,” she said. She also suggested that it might be a good idea for the Travis County Commissioners to wait for their Hays County peers to vote on the CAMPO retooling. As part of the proposal, Hays stands to lose a seat on the board.
Instead, Biscoe decided that, as CAMPO chair, he should move for his commission to take a positive step. He told In Fact Daily that in voting for the measure, he was “deferring to democracy.” “Part of my job is accepting the will of the majority,” he said. He added that he hopes that Travis County will be able to use the seat that it will gain in the CAMPO reconfiguration to appoint a representative from a small city.
03/15/10 Austin American-Statesman Universities’ student bodies approving environmental fees This month, UT and Texas A&M vote to pay each semester for ‘green’ campus projects. By Asher Price
Seeking to build chests of money dedicated to environmental issues, students at the state’s flagship public universities have voted recently to charge themselves several dollars a term to pay into a dedicated green fund.
This month, students at the University of Texas and Texas A&M passed referendums to establish the funds. At the University of Texas at El Paso, the University of North Texas, and the University of Texas at San Antonio, students will take similar votes next month.
Regents of the universities have to approve the fees — $5 a semester at UT and $3 a semester at A&M — before they go into effect. They have passed similar student-approved fees in the past. The fees could be added to tuition bills beginning in 2011.
4/4/2011 The money raised by the fees, expected to be several hundred thousands of dollars each year at each campus, could then be used for a range of environmentally minded measures, from subsidizing internships at green-related jobs to paying for a community garden.
Students at UT passed the measure with 71 percent in favor and 29 percent opposed, with 8,917 total votes cast. One out of five dollars in the UT proposal would go toward financial aid.
“The biggest message was about affordability,” said Jacob Bintliff, an undergraduate who organized the campaign at UT. “Even at a green-minded campus, where we’ve had tuition increases and awful budget cuts, it would be an uphill battle.”
“As for the question, ‘Why now?’ we flipped the question on its head: There’s a flat budget, if anything, and we can’t expect the university to continue investments for sustainability. Students are going to have to step up and do it now.”
The vote at Texas A&M was closer: 58 percent in favor and 42 percent against as a spirited debate worked its way around the campus, with Facebook pages called Aggies for the Green Fund and Aggies Against the Green Fee.
“This group is for people who believe they are paying enough fees already; for people who don’t want to send their hard-earned dollars into a slush fund that can be drawn from with almost no accountability,” according to the latter’s page.
At both UT and A&M, a committee composed mostly of students will decide how to dole out the money, according to supporters of the campaigns.
“It was a very candid campaign,” said Faby Molina, one of the coordinators of Aggies for the Green Fund.
The votes come after the passage of a 2009 state law, authored by state Rep. Elliott Naishtat, D Austin, and state Rep. Fred Brown, R-Bryan, allowing public colleges and universities in Texas to establish such fees if they are supported by the student body.
Students at Texas State University-San Marcos had already established an environmental fee in 2004, after the Legislature cleared the way for a campus-specific fee there. The fee of $1 per student has paid for TV and computer recycling, trash removal and seeding for vegetation in the San Marcos River, and the blending of compost, among other projects.
Starting this semester, students at Austin Community College are paying a $1 sustainability fee per credit hour. Most students take roughly eight credit hours of classes a semester, according to Alexis Patterson, a spokeswoman for ACC.
The money will be used to subsidize Capital Metro passes for students, faculty and staff, among other initiatives, Patterson said.
“The program is intended to help students get to class, ease parking congestion, and reduce ACC’s carbon footprint, while gathering important ridership data,” she said.
03/15/10 Austin American-Statesman Rail effect on traffic likely negligible, at least at first Ben Wear
4/4/2011 A week from today, a few minutes before even roosters have reported for duty, a MetroRail train loaded with the curious, the excited and the media will pull out of Capital Metro’s Leander station, and Austin’s second rail era will have begun.
“Things will never be the same,” Capital Metro board member John Langmore said last week. Yes, a Central Texas that adds trains to the transportation mix of cars, buses and bikes will in fact be different.
How different, though?
Capital Metro, before the 2004 referendum authorizing the Red Line from Leander to downtown Austin, said ridership initially would be 2,000 boardings a day. Bear in mind this is a commuter train traveling long distances, not a streetcar puttering around downtown. Anyone who gets on in Leander, or, really, at most of the stops will need to take a round trip.
So 2,000 boardings equates to about 1,000 people, or one out of every 1,650 Central Texans. A good chunk of those will board the train in the morning at the three most northwesterly stops, areas that feed traffic onto U.S. 183 and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1). So that means 1,000 fewer cars on U.S. 183 and MoPac in the morning, right?
Well, no, for several reasons.
First of all, when Capital Metro made that estimate six years ago, it said it was, in effect, harvesting people who rode express buses from Leander and the Lakeline stop, which is near where U.S. 183 and the Texas 45 North tollway intersect. Changing a bus rider to a train rider doesn’t reduce congestion on the road.
And some of those 2,000 boardings will be closer to downtown, thus having no effect on MoPac or 183.
Others will be reverse commuters, leaving from downtown in the morning. Most reverse
commuters in Austin — northbound MoPac north of the river in the morning being an exception — don’t encounter much congestion.
Nonetheless, at least some riders will be new transit customers and will remove cars from the roads. But even 1,000 cars, spread over the three hours the trains will run each morning, wouldn’t make much difference. A freeway traffic lane, fully loaded, moves about 2,000 cars an hour. So the three southbound lanes of U.S. 183 or MoPac can handle about 6,000 cars an hour.
The train, with a seated-and-standing capacity of 200, running about every half hour, at most will eliminate 400 of those cars, or about 6 percent.
That’s not the point, rail advocates say. In time, and with much more money, Capital Metro will buy more trains and carry many more people. Passengers won’t be delayed by car wrecks, and they can read or work on laptops during the commute. Attitudes will change, and Central Texas and Central Texans will never be the same, they say.
We’ll see.
03/14/10 Austin American-Statesman Print Headline: Steel rail ties a kink in line Online Headline: Cap Metro’s steel rail ties cause problems They can confuse electrically charged track control systems. By Ben Wear
4/4/2011 4 Steel railroad ties are generally unpopular with U.S. railroad operators and transit agencies because, among other problems, they contribute to signal failures. And they’re significantly more expensive than standard wooden ties.
That didn’t deter Capital Metro from buying 65,000 steel ties for $4.5 million and installing 46,000 of them in recent years. Though that process started before the agency decided to build a passenger rail system that would rely on electronic signal equipment, installation of steel ties continued even afterward.
The agency has removed some of the steel ties along its Llano-to-Giddings freight line, 32 miles of which will be shared by passenger rail, and sold others at a loss. The steel ties have been susceptible to theft: scrap metal scavengers have made off with about 600 of them, agency officials said.
Among the litany of problems that Capital Metro faced in testing its long-delayed commuter rail line: conductivity problems on a 2,000-foot section of track where steel ties had been installed. They were replaced with wooden ties at a cost of about $90,000.
Capital Metro railroad manager Bill Le Jeune said steel ties were not a major factor in the two- year delay in starting MetroRail service, now set to begin March 22. Still, he said of the purchases, “I wish I’d never done it.”
In August, the agency sold almost 11,000 steel ties at a loss of $400,000 . The agency was approached by a buyer, Le Jeune said, and put them out for bidding. Capital Metro said further removal of steel ties probably will be necessary, especially if the agency someday expands commuter rail east to Manor and Elgin.
Le Jeune said the steel ties caused problems on the agency’s track when they were installed without neoprene insulation, had the wrong clips attaching the rail to a tie or, in one section, had electrical shorts caused by mud splashing on the rails and ties.
But steel ties offer some advantages: They last longer than wood ties, and, Le Jeune said, they do a better job of holding rail firmly in place. He also noted that the 16,000 feet of new siding track installed in the Leander-to-downtown Austin commuter rail corridor over the past two years has only steel ties and that the track controls are working fine on those sidings.
Capital Metro bought enough steel ties in recent years to undergird almost 20 percent of the 104 miles of track it uses for freight and is about to use for commuter rail. That mix would put the agency well outside the mainstream.
Nationwide, wood ties make up about 93 percent of the market, according to rail industry statistics. Concrete ties, which, like steel, are sturdier than wood and can support heavier loads, have 6.5 percent of the market. Steel ties, along with so-called composite ties (made of plastic and other synthetic materials) share the other 0.5 percent.
Steel ties elsewhere in the U.S. are typically used at yards, where train cars sit idle or go for maintenance, not on the main run of the track. If rail companies put them in main tracks, they tend to be in rural areas where there are no electronic signal systems and few crossing gates.
Not so in Central Texas. Capital Metro has installed the ties throughout its system.
Although prices fluctuate, steel ties generally are at least 50 percent more expensive than wood ties and can be difficult to install correctly, industry experts say.
4/4/2011 5 And because they are stiffer than wood, said Jim Gauntt of the Railway Tie Association, which advocates wood ties, steel ties can cause greater wear on rails and the trains that run on them.
“I have not heard of steel ties being used in transit type of operations,” Gauntt said.
Al Reinschmidt, vice president of commercial programs for the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Cob., said the main reason steel ties are used so little in the United States is their often adverse effect on track control systems.
“It’s basically related to signaling and track circuits,” Reinschmidt said. “Steel has had a very checkered experience in North America.”
Tracks in America typically have a 12-volt current moving through them at all times (with such low amperage that touching the rail carries no shock).
When a train passes a given point in the track, the metal in the wheels and undercarriage completes the circuit between rails. That circuit closing indicates to track control systems the location of a train and is used to trigger crossing gates at road intersections within a pre-set distance ahead of the train.
Steel ties have the potential to close that circuit continuously. Thin pieces of neoprene insulation separating the metal in the rails from the metal in the tie prevent that from happening, along with the clips that fasten them together. Problems arise when a tie is installed without insulation or, more commonly, when the insulation is damaged over time by the downward force and vibrations of passing trains.
Given that there are typically 3,200 ties per mile, each with two connections to the rails, Reinschmidt said that pinpointing the source of a signal or gate problem can become incredibly tedious. The track becomes like a string of Christmas tree lights thousands of feet long that suddenly stops working.
“Which (tie) is broken?” he said. “It’s just kind of a huge pain in the (butt). That is the single leading thing that has caused people to shy away.”
Though Capital Metro might not be having signal problems now in track sections with insulated steel ties, Reinschmidt said, that could change as time and stress work on the insulation in those tens of thousands of ties.
“There might be failures two years from now,” he said.
Sean Keightley, president of the North American Railway Steel Tie Corp., or NARSTCO, which sold most of the steel ties to Capital Metro, noted that steel ties are more popular on other continents because wood is not as available and cheap as it is in North America.
Even so, Keightley said, if his company had known Capital Metro planned to have a signal system on a large part of its track, he would have recommended the agency buy for that section only steel ties that do not conduct electricity.
Le Jeune said he was well aware of wood’s dominance in the market, and the potential problem with steel ties, before the agency began buying them in mass in 2003 as part of a $35 million upgrade of an aging and poorly maintained track. But at that time, the few freight trains running on the line were controlled not by electronic track signals but by a radio system in which train engineers simply told dispatchers and each other where they were.
4/4/2011 6 And the agency did not decide until mid-2006 , a year and a half after the election authorizing commuter rail and after most of the steel ties had been purchased, to install a computerized “centralized track control” system that depends on electric current in the rails.
“Wood was sky-high at the time,” Le Jeune said, narrowing the price gap between the two types of ties. And the subcontractor running the freight operation at the time for Capital Metro loved steel ties and preferred to replace old wood ties with steel, he said.
“I couldn’t give them enough,” he said. “That was all they wanted.”
Agency records indicate that Capital Metro bought 32,500 noninsulated steel ties between 2003 and 2006, and 32,560 insulated ties between 2005 and 2008. The agency in August sold about 11,000 noninsulated ties, which they had bought for $59.80 a tie, to NARSTCO and to Acclaim Metals, a Pennsylvania company, for $38 to $41 apiece.
Asked about that sale late last year, Le Jeune said initially that the agency had sold the ties for the same price it paid originally. Capital Metro instead took a $400,000 loss on those ties, according to records. About 46,000 have been installed along the Capital Metro line, equivalent to more than 14 miles.
Aside from the stolen ties, another 7,800 remain in storage (behind locked gates, Capital Metro says) at a Cedar Park yard. Almost 5,000 of those are insulated, and Le Jeune said the agency will continue to install them in the track as needed.
Aside from the 16,000 feet (or about 9,700 ties) laid continuously in the four sidings along the 32 miles of the commuter rail route, Le Jeune said, there are also several sidings outside those 32 miles that have only steel ties.
As for the rest, they were installed more or less randomly all along the line where they replaced weathered wood ties. Between 51st and 53rd streets on the main line in Austin, for instance, about 100 of the 500 or so ties are steel, just under 20 percent.
Le Jeune said that inside the commuter rail corridor, the agency installed only insulated ties. Outside that central section, northwest toward Marble Falls and east toward Elgin, Le Jeune said that there are many noninsulated ties.
But Keightley, the executive at NARSTCO, which bought back about 3,000 of the steel ties it had sold Capital Metro, said that some noninsulated ties were installed in the commuter corridor and had to be removed.
Keightley said his inspections of the line and another by an independent inspector revealed many places where insulated ties were improperly installed or had lost their insulated clips later. His company produced a meticulous report on the problems about nine months ago and gave it to Capital Metro, he said, but had been unsuccessful in getting the agency to meet with the company about it.
“It’s their responsibility, not ours,” Keightley said. “And we could not get them to the table. We’re just pulling our hair out with the lack of acknowledgment of the situation we feel they’re in, with
poorly installing our product. ... It’s a frustrating experience.”
The agency still uses a radio-based track control system for the freight-only sections of its line and needs to use insulated steel ties only in sections where crossing arms are added at intersecting roads.
03/12/10
4/4/2011 7 Austin Chronicle Waitgate Lee Nichols
Could Capital Metro’s MetroRail Red Line, the new Leander-to-Austin commuter rail that begins passenger service Monday, actually make traffic congestion worse? In my personal experience, it already has — at least for one intersection near the train’s route.
I’ve been talking lately with Jim Skaggs, the former Tracor CEO and anti-rail activist who helped kill Cap Metro’s light rail proposal at the ballot box in 2000. In one e-mail exchange, he made an assertion that “the commuter [train] will probably increase congestion. It carries very few people but at each of the dozens of road intersections, it will stop and delay more people than ride the train.”
We’ll see if that argument holds up over the long term, but right now he can certainly find good ammo on Justin Lane, near the problematic crossing gate at North Lamar and Airport Boulevard — which, despite timing refinements, is still problematic. (The train is currently doing test runs.)
The waits on North Lamar aren’t quite as bad as in the past, when southbound trains caused the barriers to come down too early (although they still stay down for no reason while trains pick up passengers over at the Crestview Station, several hundred feet away and safely off the road). But there remains the problem of northbound trains triggering the gates to momentarily (and unnecessarily) come down, because the monitoring devices don’t realize the train will stop at nearby Highland Station.
But the real problem is for drivers on eastbound Justin seeking to turn north onto Lamar (it’s a major exit point for residents of the Crestview and Brentwood neighborhoods trying to access both Lamar and Airport). Because of the need to clear backed-up traffic off Lamar after the train
passes, the Justin traffic light skips a green — turning a wait that’s normally just under two minutes into an average of more than five, sometimes longer.
I experienced this last week, attempting to get from my neighborhood to, ironically enough, a Capital Metro meeting. The wait made me late. I decided to monitor the intersection a couple of days later: During the busiest parts of morning and evening rush hours, I timed the Justin light during 12 train passages, and the average wait for the lead car in the queue was five minutes and 23 seconds. Evenings were worse than mornings, with an average wait of 5 minutes and 59 seconds, including one mind-numbing wait of almost nine minutes!
This wait often causes drivers waiting at the back of the line to miss yet another green and endure yet more waiting, especially when there is already a long queue when the crossing arms first drop. The worst I witnessed was at 7:52am, when 20 cars were backed up, and the last 12 in line didn’t make it through. And this doesn’t count the many, many drivers who get frustrated, give up, and turn south on Lamar instead, probably seeking an alternate route to Airport Boulevard.
In the grand scheme of things, perhaps five (or even nine) minutes doesn’t seem like that big a
deal. But when you’re sitting there in your car, idling your engine and doing nothing — well, you can feel the road rage coming on.
03/12/10 Austin Chronicle South By Street Closures Wells Dunbar
4/4/2011 8 If you’re anywhere in vicinity of the South by Southwest events popping off, you’re altogether aware that Downtown is an unqualified mess. The city has released a list of street closures for those of y’all heading into the belly of the beast, posted below.
As the fine folks at the City of Austin note, “anyone heading to Downtown Austin should share rides; bike; or use public transit if at all possible.” Outta towners, steer your iPhone browser to www.capmetro.org.
From the COA:
City lists SXSW traffic information for downtown area
Street closures center on Sixth Street area March 17-21
The South by Southwest music events that begin Wednesday, March 17, will be accompanied by road closures in the downtown area, centered around the Sixth Street entertainment district.
The City of Austin has worked with SXSW officials throughout the year to achieve a balance between traffic lane closures for events with mobility and access to downtown destinations.
Map of SXSW street closures:
www.ci.austin .tx. us/specialevents/downloads/sxsw_map_031 210. pdf
Complete list of SXSW street closures:
www.ci.austin.tx. us/specialevents/downloads/sxsw_closures_03 1210. pdf
In addition to the street closures, a number of private parties and events in the downtown core and just east of 1-35 may create additional traffic delays.
Creating the balance between traffic mobility and event success is important to the City of Austin. Austin enjoyed an economic boost of approximately $100 million from the 175,000 SXSW participants in 2009, according to the Austin Convention and Visitors Bureau.
With the large festival turnout and fewer streets on which to park, anyone heading to Downtown Austin should share rides; bike; or use public transit if at all possible. Capital Metro will run six Night Owl routes that travel until 3 a.m. For more information about the Night Owl and other downtown routes visit www.capmetro.org.
Street closures:
East Sixth Street will be closed 10a.m. March17 until 3a.m. March 21, but will be open for drivers during peak morning commuting hours (6 to 10 am.) on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of the music festival. Commercial deliveries can be made on Sixth Street and Red River Street from 10 am. to 4 p.m. daily.
Drivers on Fifth and Seventh streets will have slightly reduced access due to a single lane of closure on those streets. Eighth, Ninth, 10th and Brazos streets stay open continuously during the SXSW event.
East of 1-35, East Fifth Street between Wailer and San Marcos streets will be reduced to westbound traffic only from noon to 9 p.m. Wednesday and Thursday, and noon -11 p.m. Friday and Saturday.
4/4/2011 9 These closed lanes can be used by businesses and bands to load and unload. Any bagged meters in the downtown area can be used for loading and unloading, but unattended vehicles will be towed.
SXSW is also sponsoring free live concerts at Auditorium Shores March 18, 19 and 20. Drivers in the area can expect traffic delays.
Major street closures March 17 - 21 include:
o East Sixth Street, 200 -700 blocks
**Closed 10a.m. March 17 until 3a.m. March 21, except for weekday morning rush hour.
o North—south routes that cross Sixth Street: 500-600 blocks of San Jacinto Boulevard and Trinity, Neches, Red River and Sabine Streets.
**Closed 5a.m. March 17 until 4a.m. March 21.
o Red River Street, between intersections, from 500 through 1000 blocks
**Closed 5 am. March 17 until 4 a.m. March 21
o WaIler Street, from East Fourth Street to East Fifth Street.
**Closed 5 am. March 17 until 4 am. March 21
o For the concerts at Auditorium Shores on March 18, 19 and 20, the westbound right hand traffic lane of 600 through 800 blocks of West Riverside Drive.
**Closed 6 p.m. until midnight March 18 and 19; 6 p.m. until midnight March 20.
For more information, visit the SXSW Web site at: www.sxsw.com.
03/15/10 El Mundo Luz verde al Metro Rail en Austin José G. BruzOn
Como parte del compromiso que Capital Metro tiene con el Centro de Texas, el prOximo 22 de marzo finalmente correré por las lineas ferroviarias de Austin el MetroRail, hecho que fue ratificado el pasado 8 de marzo por medio de un tour brindado a los medios de comunicaciOn locales. Asi, con un recorrido de 32 millas que van desde el centro de Austin —estaciOn ‘Downtown’, ubicada en el 4th. St y Trinity St.— hasta Leander, el nuevo medio de transporte permitirá a los citadinos reducir tiempo en su movilizaciOn y evitar los embotellamientos vehiculares que cada vez son més populares en Ia ciudad.
lJReionaI
03/15/10 Austin American-Statesman Harris: ‘Bicycle boulevard’ will lead to wasteful spending and hinder mobility Susan Harris, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR
4/4/2011 10 cycle for exercise, to enjoy Austin trails and to socialize with like-minded friends. I’m no Lance Armstrong, but I do have some “cycling cred.” I respect cyclists at all level of experience and support the promotion of bicycle safety and commuting in Austin.
The Austin City Council feels the same way, as evidenced by its adoption of the Austin 2009 Bicycle Plan Update in June 2009. The 540-page plan became an ordinance that’s being implemented by city staff; it details proposed actions to transform Austin into a world-class bicycling city. Full implementation of the plan over the next 10 years is estimated to cost $254 million.
Embedded in the plan is the proposed conversion of Nueces Street, from Third Street to MLK Boulevard, into a “bicycle boulevard.” The concept of a bicycle boulevard is to severely limit vehicular traffic capacity to create a calm streetscape where cyclists have priority on and unrestricted use of the road. That type of conversion project is termed a road diet. In the case of Nueces, city staff members have proposed a 70 percent to 90 percent reduction in vehicular traffic capacity.
As a city taxpayer, property owner and business owner, I oppose the proposed conversion because:
• As Austin’s motoring public is demanding relief to traffic congestion, it’s bad public policy to reduce any road’s vehicular carrying capacities.
• Bicycle boulevards are appropriate in primarily residential neighborhoods. To justify the Nueces conversion, the city erroneously characterizes the western sector of downtown as residential in nature, ignoring the fact that 100 percent of the parcels on Nueces, and neighboring streets, have been zoned for commercial use and occupied by commercial businesses for 40 years.
• That area is the next most likely sector of downtown to be transformed to meet Austin ite’s desire for a dense mixed-use urban core; reducing vehicular capacity would be is counterproductive and could have a chilling effect on business growth, future redevelopment densities, property values and tax revenues.
• The city did not conduct an economic impact study to determine the effect that a reduction in vehicle capacity would have on the budget or the financial viability of the roughly 130 small businesses located along Nueces.
• The traffic flow works fine, judging by the number of cyclists who successfully share Nueces with vehicles with an exemplary safety record. Why spend tax dollars to fix something that is not broken?
It should not surprise you that a cyclist advocacy group is actively promoting the implementation of the bicycle boulevard. It maintains that the project is about creating a safe place for new and inexperienced riders, families with children, and everyday commuters.
Nueces is a commercial collector street lined with businesses, the county jail and criminal justice complex, and is only accessible by way of downtown’s busiest thoroughfares — Cesar Chavez, West 15th and Guadalupe streets. And no evidence has been presented that new or young riders abound here or desire to cycle downtown.
Advocates of a bicycle boulevard claim it would have symbolic significance, provide a solid foundation for future projects and encourage people to commute by bike. Yet, according to the plan, cyclists comprise less than 1 percent of all citywide commuters. And the city has presented no data that citywide bike commuting has significantly increased after spending roughly $40 million on bicycle infrastructure since 1998.
4/4/2011 11 I am joined in my opposition by thousands of others who believe the city has lost sight of its budgeting priorities, shown complete disrespect for area business and property owners, and disregarded the important role that Nueces plays in downtown mobility. We have united as Austinites for Downtown Mobility and launched www.keepaustinmoving.org to voice our concerns about the ill-conceived project.
Our opposition to and public exposure of this boondoggle has had the absurd effect of causing city staff to seriously consider Rio Grande as an alternative for the bicycle boulevard, as if putting an adjacent street on a road diet and reducing vehicular traffic capacity one block over is somehow the solution.
Mayor Lee Leffingwell and the Austin City Council must realize that reducing vehicular capacity on any commercial collector street in downtown Austin is a bad move. They should back up, reconsider the plan, amend it to remove the bicycle boulevard component on commercial streets and find an alternative solution for cyclists to share the road.
Harris is president of Site Solutions Inc., a commercial real estate brokerage company at West 18th Street and Nueces.
03/15/10 Austin American-Statesman D’Amico: ‘Bicycle boulevard’ will clear a path for safe, convenient travel downtown Rob D’Amico, LOCAL CONTRIBUTOR
Austin is taking steps to offer more transportation choices, and one particularly encouraging effort can be found in the city’s Nueces Bike Boulevard project.
A bike boulevard is a street where auto traffic is calmed and often reduced to create a more attractive and accessible bicycling environment. The boulevard is promoted with signage, road stenciling and public art. In short, a bike boulevard is a street intended to attract inexperienced or new riders who otherwise wouldn’t be comfortable bicycling in fast-paced auto traffic or even within bike lanes next to that traffic.
Bike boulevards are nothing new, and you’ll find them across the country in cities like Albuquerque, N.M., Portland, Ore., and Palo Alto, Calif., with at least a dozen others being planned. The success of those projects led to Nueces Street being listed as a potential bike boulevard in the Downtown Plan process, Austin’s Bicycle Plan and the Street Smarts Task Force Report.
The Nueces plan includes a bike boulevard from Third Street to MLK Boulevard, with a later phase going through West Campus. It would provide a key corridor for bicycling from the University of Texas to Austin Community College, downtown, the Lance Armstrong Bikeway and the future Seaholm redevelopment.
The Nueces project is not without controversy. Though many property owners on Nueces see the benefits, some have objected, partially out of fear of something new and partially because of misinformation campaigns launched by opponents. One glaring inaccuracy propagated is that the bike boulevard will “shut the street down to autos.” This is simply untrue. The League of Bicycling Voters has proposed some diverters to limit northbound access to Nueces at some points, while the city’s “tool box” of traffic calming devices does not include diverters at all. If diverters are used, autos could access Nueces at all points on east/west streets, and all southbound through traffic would be preserved to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles from the fire station on MLK.
4/4/2011 12 Traffic calming devices that are part of league’s plan and the city’s options include traffic circles, speed cushions and pinch points, which only allow one car to pass each way. Many of these devices already are used in residential areas across Austin.
Another concern is that the bike boulevard will reduce auto capacity, endanger future dense commercial and residential redevelopment on Nueces and affect property values. That argument is counter to the vision of Austin’s elected leadership and all recent planning efforts, which have consistently stated that increased bicycle and pedestrian use actually bolsters the ability to redevelop and profit from more livable destinations. Numerous surveys and research report that bike and pedestrian facilities are economic generators, not detractors.
Some have asked, “Why not just use bike lanes on Nueces?” Since Nueces isn’t wide enough, bike lanes would mean the removal of half the street’s parking. Others have suggested Rio Grande Street, where Austin Community College and Pease Elementary are located. But the hillier Rio Grande would deter new bicyclists, and existing riders prefer the unusually flat Nueces. City traffic studies also confirm an enormous amount of existing bicycle ridership, so the street is ideal for building on that foundation.
We envision a Nueces where, yes, bicycles are given some preference over autos, where motorists can use the street as needed but with the expectation that bicycles will affect traffic flow. It is disturbing that naysayers ridicule efforts to create a street where families with children could bicycle downtown to museums, events and Lady Bird Lake. Naysayers claim that bicyclists are a small minority and that it’s too dangerous to have kids riding on a street like Nueces. That’s the point of the project. National surveys show that more than 40 percent of American’s would consider commuting by bike if it were safer. Let’s provide that opportunity for safe and convenient travel for all Austinites and their families, while also creating a vibrant street that promotes small business and future redevelopment.
The Nueces bike boulevard would have minimal access effects on business, a low cost covered by existing bond money and benefits for our city’s environmental, health and mobility goals. Do we take a step back and keep shoving bicyclists to the side, or do we work to welcome them into the mix and provide the safe and convenient travel corridors that so many Austin ites wish were a reality today?
D’Amico is president of League of Bicycling Voters (www.lobv.org), an Austin nonprofit that promotes better transportation policies and more resources to encourage bicycling.
03/15/10 KLBJ AM Tolling 290 to create jobs, CTRMA exec says
More jobs are expected in the area as the massive project to upgrade U.S. 290 east to toll lanes and free frontage roads gets underway. The Chairman of the executive board of the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority says the project, eventually expanding the highway between U.S. 183 and Parmer Lane, will create a lot of jobs for a lot of people and good impact on Manor and Travis County.
“By the time the 6.2-mile complete project is done, it should employe somewhere around 2,200 people before we’re through,” Wilkerson said.
Wilkerson says it is a job stimulator, also, besides just something that connects transportation, meaning 1-35 and the 130-toll road.
The first phase should be completed in about two years.
4/4/2011 13 03/12/10 Austin Business Journal Austin gas prices jump 17 cents in 2 weeks
Austin-Round Rock area gas prices have increased 17 cents since prices started climbing two weeks ago, hitting an average $2.64 per gallon this week, according to the AAA Texas Weekend Gas Watch Report.
Following four consecutive weeks of declines in Central Texas, fuel prices began increasing the week of Feb. 25, rising 6 cents that week, 2 cents the next, and 9 cents this week. Locally, drivers are paying about 82 cents more than what they paid this week last year when the average was about $1.82 per gallon.
Austin tied for the largest one-week gain, with San Antonio, Galveston and Beaumont also rising 9 cents. El Paso reported the most expensive fuel in the state at an average $2.72 per gallon, though it had the smallest one-week price increase, moving up 4 cents.
Houston had the cheapest gas at about $2.60 a gallon. Dallas’ average was about $2.65. Statewide the price rose an average 8 cents to about $2.65, compared to a national 7 cents increase to about $2.78.
03/14/10 Dallas Morning News Transit-oriented development: a failed promise? Rodger Jones
Advocates of DART’s aggressive rail expansion, which it calls the most ambitious in North America, argue the theory that development will cluster along rail lines because people want to live nearby, park their cars and commute by train. A core objective is to improve the air. Plus, supporters say, rail boosts property values and thereby helps economic vitality.
My observation, from my daily commutes on the Red Line, is that TOD has been slow to develop near DART stations. And doubt anyone has data indicating whether nearby residents are indeed DART users.
Now comes an article in San Francisco’s Fog City Journal, and referenced on the online site New Geography, that takes aim at TOD theory. It maintains development along San Francisco rail lines may have helped developers but hasn’t changed commuting habits in ways that help the environment. Quoting now:
Under a cursory examination of the concrete realities on the ground, in San Francisco, Transit Oriented Development is a Green bait and switch designed to promote developer profits [1.5] while exacerbating the very conditions which lead to increased emissions, climate change, congestion and slower, less reliable surface transit.
Simply because desirable aspects of a policy appear to work on paper does not mean that they work that way in reality, or that other aspects of the policy don’t actually work against preferred aspects. Compact urban development can lead to denser more walkable communities, but only with sufficient investment in regional infrastructure to discourage auto ownership by making transit more attractive.
4/4/2011 14 In the absence of that level of investment, the economic characteristics of this type of development in San Francisco will most likely diminish transit reliability by increasing auto trips- the precise opposite of TOD’s stated goals.
To a degree, this reflects my frustrating experience as a DART user. I moved near two DART stations in Richardson so I could walk to either, but there is no direct pedestrian link. I have to either walk through woods or take a bus. There is little associated residential.
Further, because DART rail moves along former railroad right of way, it goes largely through warehouse, commercial and light industrial corridors where attractive development won’t happen. There probably was no other affordable way to lay tracks, probably.
A quick checklist of the DART Red Line stations going north from downtown barely supports the TOD theory:
Cityplace: Nada. Goes underneath a pre-existing office building.
Mockingbird Station: Prime example cited by TOD advocates. OK, but do we know whether nearby residents commute by rail or car or shop within walking distance? If not, it may only be that developers have benefited. And if there’s big money to be made, why hasn’t DART been able to lease building rights atop its huge parking lot there?
Lovers: Nada. Pre-existing office buildings. No nearby residential. Nearby development predicted, but it might be more an outgrowth of the Bush presidential library across Central.
Park Lane: One of my favorite subjects. The massive nearby retail/office/apartment complex is touted as TOD, but it defies pedestrians to enter. You can’t take a sidewalk from North Park, without walking through a parking garage, and there are no sidewalks from nearby bus stops along Greenville. You can walk from the rail station, but it’s not an obvious gateway. The complex is touted as an “urban center.” It’s actually an auto-oriented enclave. How the city allowed this to
happen -- in light of the ForwardDallas imperative of dense, walkable development -- is a disgrace.
Walnut Hill: Nada. Hard against a hospital, with associated private medical offices spreading out nearby. Not a high-density environment. Bus users walk in the street.
Forrest Lane: Nada. Huge parking lot, nearby gas station and Home Depot. Closest residential is Hamilton Park. Owners of these humble houses are probably sitting on considerable value, if they can live long enough for TOD to get there.
LBJ: Nada. Huge parking lot. For some stupid reason, it’s impossible to walk to the massive TI complex, despite the fact it would take you a mere 5 minutes.
brickrow3.jpg
Spring Valley: I can’t wait to see whether the soon-to-open Brick Row amounts to truly successful TOD. It’s a 2-minute walk, I bet. Plus, there is a David Weekly neighborhood under construction. I’m a fan of this area. I hope some kind of food market springs up.
Arapaho: Nada. Immense parking lot. Car storage lot. Light industry. Absolutely no development interest is apparent. Nearby Collins Blvd was once bustling with telecom businesses, but the strip now looks mostly for lease.
Galatyn Park: A hotel and the Eisenmann Center opened early. Blue Cross/Blue Shield buildings are now coming on line, and apartments have cropped up. But you can’t walk to a residential area on the other side of Central. The city of Richardson has built a vehicles-only bridge over Central,
4/4/2011 15 but has failed to build a pedestrian bridge, unlike what Dallas did to help DART users to get across LBJ to the Skillman Station. Rail boardings appear very light here. This area is not directly accessible for drivers getting off Central, so the TOD may be linked to self-contained office/residential development. That would make it hard for the few businesses there.
Bush Turnpike: Nada. Huge parking below freeway bridges, huge fields and wooded lots adjacent to station. You would think the location is a gold mine, and maybe it will be. Its at the nexus of two freeways, however, so I’d think it’s fortunes are more closely tied to car traffic.
Downtown PIano: Apartments, businesses, walkability arguably linked to rail. Lots going on. Residential appears to have petered out.
Parker Road: Nada. Warehouses, automotive, pawnshops. Ugly.
Down the Red Line south or either of the Blue Lines, you won’t see many bustling new businesses, especially in struggling Blue Line neighborhoods. The Cedars area is one exception directly south of downtown, perhaps owing in part to the new police HQ.
Boosters also point to downtown Garland, where an apartment development has cropped up. There is only a little room to spread out, though, until you hit ugly freight rail siding, warehouses, automotive and single-family residential. And old-time Garland residents who patronize businesses on the square are NOT walkers.
New Green Line service is a natural for Parkland and Baylor hospitals, and there’s little doubt that these employment centers will get transit traffic. This is good. And maybe Carrollton and Farmers Branch can replicate downtown PIano. Other areas of the Green north and south are big TOD question marks.
Big picture: DART doesn’t deposit as many people downtown for their daytime jobs as you might think. The downtown transit mall has about 8,500 riders who get off during the morning rush hour. My observations of the McKinney Avenue trolley don’t indicate that many Uptown commuters take it to their office jobs. I think they favor Acuras.
In recent years, DART daily rail ridership has wavered mostly between the 60k and 70k levels -- going higher when the price of gasoline goes higher. That would translate into 30k+ riders, assuming most take round trips. In short, riders haven’t been flocking to rail in greater numbers.
DART estimates its daily ridership will double after the Green Line is fully running later this year.
Bigger picture: I hope DART makes a huge, long-term impact on our community. This critique is probably impatient with the pace of development. The first DART trains began running in 1996 and reached Richardson in 2002. Plus, the economy has been crummy and money tight for developers.
Still, urban planners have to make sure train stations have the proper links to the surrounding communities. Too often that has not been the case. In most places, the car still rules -- even within sight of DART stations.
03/12/10 Dallas Business Journal Is texting while driving now an employer’s issue? Employer phone liabilities By John T. Palter Contributing Writer
4/4/2011 16 Sure, we all know texting and driving is a lethal combination. Despite widespread recognition of this danger, however, more than 20% of experienced adult drivers — everyone from executives to soccer moms to bus drivers to consultants — admit to texting while driving. It’s no surprise, then, that the U.S. Department of Transportation has officially banned texting by commercial drivers.
In this totally “connected” age, BlackBerrys and iPhones exert a siren call on far too many of us. What’s more, statistics show just talking on a cell phone is the cause of as many as 25% of all car accidents. Within the past year, a study conducted by the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute revealed that a truck driver texting while driving is 23.2 times more likely to get into an accident.
All of this, combined with research that drivers sending or receiving text messages or e-mails take their eyes off the road for an average of 4.6 seconds out of every 6 seconds, adds up to the equivalent of a driver traveling the length of a football field, blindfolded, at 55 miles per hour. It doesn’t take much imagination to realize the potential for a deadly outcome.
Outcomes, for example, like the San Antonio public transportation bus driver who made national headlines, captured on video barreling into the back of a stopped SUV as he texted. Or the Boston trolley driver who admitted to texting his girlfriend as he crashed a trolley, injuring dozens. Or, worse yet, the California freight-train collision that occurred while the commuter engineer was texting, killing 25. Although the workers responsible for these crashes were subsequently fired, their employers now face liability relating to the dangerous — and, these days, increasingly illegal
— activities of their employees.
03/15/10 Houston Chronicle Some question funding for 2 Metro rail lines As tax revenue falls, ability to repay University, Uptown bonds doubted By MIKE SNYDER
More than six years after voters approved a light-rail system serving much of central Houston, roughly half of that system has been thrown into doubt by falling sales tax revenues, distrust of Metro’s leadership and other factors.
Mayor Annise Parker said last week that she wasn’t convinced the Metropolitan Transit Authority would have the money to build its planned Uptown and University rail lines.
Parker said she hopes Metro can build the two lines, which together would constitute about 15 of the 30 miles of rail included in the second phase of the “Metro Solutions” mobility program.
But Parker, who was scheduled to be briefed this weekend by transition teams that she said have “drilled down” into Metro’s finances, said Metro officials have misled the public by talking as if funding for those two lines were assured. Three other lines are under construction.
“It’s tenuous,” Parker said Thursday after a speech to the Greater East End Chamber of Commerce that included an enthusiastic endorsement of rail transit in Houston.
Some of the doubts expressed by Parker and others who have studied the issue focus on how Metro would repay the $2.6 billion in bonds it intends to issue through 2014 to help finance the rail system. Metro chief executive Frank Wilson said the bonds would be backed by a combination of sales tax revenues, fare revenues and federal grants.
4/4/2011 17 Parker noted that revenues from Metros 1 percent local sales tax are declining. Figures presented to the Metro board in February show sales tax receipts for the 10 months ending in January plummeted by $34 million from the same period a year earlier.
“Were in a very different sales tax climate,” Parker said. “Some analysts say the sales taxes are going to continue to decline. There are a lot of moving parts.”
Metro officials offered assurances last week that their plans are sound.
John Sedlak, executive vice president, noted that Metro had agreed to pay an extra $100 million to Parsons Transportation Group, its lead rail contractor, in exchange for a guaranteed price of $1.56 billion for four lines.
“We’ve eliminated almost the entire risk,” Sedlak said.
And David Wolff, Metro’s outgoing board chairman, said federal funding for the University line will be easier to obtain because the agency already has federal commitments for $900 million for the North and Southeast lines.
“Once they have confidence in your ability to build it out, future appropriations are far easier to get,” Wolff said. Preliminary approval
Metro’s audited financial statements satisfied the requirements for the Federal Transit Administration in December to authorize the agency to begin preliminary engineering on the University line.
This 11 .3-mile rail line, the longest in Metro’s plans, would run east-west from near the University of Houston to the Hillcroft Transit Center. Metro hopes to obtain federal funding for about half the cost of this line.
The FTA administrator, Peter Rogoff, said in a Dec. 24 letter to U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R Houston, that the federal agency assessed the “reasonableness” of Metro’s revenue forecasts before approving preliminary engineering. But the test at this stage, Rogoff noted, is less rigorous than later evaluations on the path to federal funding.
“At the point of entry into (preliminary engineering), only a reasonable plan for funding the project is necessary,” Rogoff wrote. “No firm funding commitments are needed at this stage.”
Before issuing bonds, Metro has to satisfy the Texas Attorney General’s Office that its plans to repay them meet all legal requirements.
Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Attorney General Greg Abbott, said the office’s public finance division is in discussions with Metro’s bond lawyers about the planned bond issue, but a formal review has not begun.
Metro recently started construction on the three lines Parker said she is confident it can pay for: the North, East End and Southeast lines. The agency has done considerable design work on the Uptown line, which it plans to build with local funds, but hasn’t begun construction.
The mayor’s concerns about Metro have been echoed by others who had studied the agency’s plans. ‘Precariously balanced’
4/4/2011 18 “I am concerned that the plan presented in the materials is precariously balanced,” Bill King, a rail skeptic and one-time mayoral aspirant, wrote in an e-mail after receiving a high-level briefing from Metro officials in April 2008.
King, a former advisory member of the regional Transportation Policy Council, said in his 2008 e mail that if Metro encounters problems in repaying the bonds, it will have to reduce bus service or its general mobility payments to Houston and other cities to meet its rail debt commitments.
Parker intends to appoint a new chairperson and four other members to Metro’s nine-member board this week, and she said Wilson also should be replaced.
Once a new board and new management are in charge, the mayor said, “we can have an honest analysis of the landscape. I think that it’s just too early to make the call.”
National
03/12/10 CentralJersey.com PRINCETON: Bus Rapid Transit plain roils Dinky supporters By Lauren Otis, Staff Writer
Angry proponents of the Dinky train made their views bluntly clear at Tuesday evening’s Princeton Borough Council meeting following a presentation by former borough Mayor Marvin Reed proposing a future Bus Rapid Transit system for Princeton that would do away with the 145- year-old train.
Mr. Reed and Councilman Kevin Wilkes described the idea of a BRT system running along the Dinky tracks as a cost-effective and elegant solution that made largely irrelevant a previous difference of opinion over where to site the Dinky station in Princeton. Princeton University, as part of its proposed arts and transit neighborhood south of McCarter Theatre, has said it wants to move the Dinky station 460 feet farther south, away from Nassau Street, but Princeton residents consistently state they wish the Dinky terminus was closer to Nassau Street, said Mr. Wilkes.
As part of a larger BRT system that could be created, one rapid bus line along the Dinky tracks could be terminated right at Nassau Street, said Mr. Reed.
“It gets us out of the debate (over moving the Dinky terminus), which is stalemated,” he said.
Mr. Reed said he had showed the BRT plan to Princeton University Vice President and Secretary Robert Durkee, “and he stroked his chin and said ‘this is very interesting.” Mr. Reed said NJ Transit was supportive of the BRT plan, but no formal sign-offs on it from the university and the owners of the Princeton Shopping Center, whose parking lot was proposed to be used as a park-and-ride lot for BRT commuters, had yet been sought or received. Mr. Reed also gave his presentation on a Princeton-area BRT system before Princeton Township Committee’s meeting on Monday evening. At each meeting he said a future goal was for the governing bodies to pass a resolution in support of the BRT plan.
“What is especially compelling about this proposal is bringing the bus express service all the way to Nassau Street,” said Mr. Wilkes.
But several in the audience disagreed with the idea of supplanting the Dinky.
4/4/2011 19 “The Dinky link is an enormously valuable asset, it’s a unique asset,” said Princeton Township resident Alain Kornhauser. “I would ask you all to take a deep breath.
“If we abandon the rail line here for Bus Rapid Transit it will be the first time a rail line has been abandoned for Bus Rapid Transit anywhere,” Mr. Kornhauser said. “Listening to the discussion, it seems this is a backroom cook job,” with the borough, township, Princeton University and NJ Transit choosing to do away with the Dinky without public input, he said.
“What about this asset? How could we make it better?” Mr. Kornhauser said. “Why hasn’t anybody talked about automating the Dinky?”
“I’m very skeptical and I feel not enough planning has gone into this,” said a man who identified himself as “B. Lauf” and said he was not presently a full-time resident of the borough. He termed the proposal outlined by Mr. Reed “an ill-advised decision that appears to have already been made to abandon the rail line.”
“I feel it is very premature to throw in the towel and make back-room deals, which is what it sounds like to me as well,” Mr. Lauf said. Princeton would be “giving up a rail line when so many countries and cities are seeking to reinvigorate rail transportation.”
“It sounds like it is a done deal,” Mr. Lauf said. “This is unfortunately a sad demise to a long history of one-and-a-half centuries of rail service,” he said.
After his comments, Mr. Lauf declined to give his full name or his place of residence to a reporter. “My name doesn’t matter,” he said.
Council President Andrew Koontz joined the speakers from the audience in questioning the wisdom of doing away with the Dinky.
“It is a very significant step to talk about doing away with that. I have a lot of concerns when we start talking about that,” Mr. Koontz said.
Mr. Wilkes said the BRT proposal would help Princeton find a solution to the traffic congestion that is routine at present, and broaden the pool of those who could use the public transit system beyond the Dinky’s core constituency of commuters.
“Yes, we do trade off something precious, something proven, something historically well credentialed,” he said.
“You’re right Andrew, we don’t love buses like we love trains, but we can’t get a train to turn right at Nassau. A rubber-wheeled vehicle is the best chance we’ve got,” Mr. Wilkes said. The Dinky is the shortest scheduled rail line in the U.S., said Councilman David Goldfarb. Given past interest in suspending the service and proposed current cuts at NJ Transit, “the handwriting is on the wall with respect to the Dinky,” said Mr. Goldfarb, who said he endorsed the BRT concept.
Over the years it has taken a lot of political will and muscle to keep the Dinky, Mr. Goldfarb said.
“I’m not so sure frankly whether we can do it indefinitely,” he said.
Mr. Reed said the possibility of a BRT system for the Princeton region, anchored by the dedicated express bus from Princeton Junction to Nassau Street along the Dinky tracks, emerged out of conversations between the Master Plan Subcommittee of the Regional Planning Board of Princeton, which he chairs, neighboring municipalities, NJ Transit, the state Department of Transportation and other agencies.
4/4/2011 20 BRT buses are more efficient and sophisticated than current NJ Transit buses, and a BRT system combines the infrastructure and “branding” of rail transit with flexible routes, Mr. Reed told each governing body.
“The system is rail-like, faster, frequent and with improved reliability,” he said.
In addition to ending the debate over siting the Dinky station, removing the Dinky train and tracks and not replacing them would save a large amount of money on the project, Mr. Reed said. The Dinky right-of-way would be converted into two exclusive BRT express roadways as well as a parallel walkway/b ikeway, he said.
The goal for the new BRT line from Princeton Junction to Nassau Street would be a one-way trip time of 10 minutes, and a frequency of one trip every 10 minutes, Mr. Reed said. Federal funding was a possibility for the project with this type of service, he said.
The initial phase of the plan would involve new frequent BRT service being offered along existing bus routes, between the Junction and downtown Princeton, as well as along bus routes to the Princeton Shopping Center, the new hospital on Route 1 in Plainsboro, Plainsboro’s new downtown, and in the south to Burlington and Bordentown, Mr. Reed said.
Princeton Borough resident Eric Dutaud said it currently takes him three minutes each way on the Dinky to and from Princeton Junction — Mr. Reed noted the scheduled trip time is five minutes — and if that trip time was increased to 10 minutes, his added travel time over a week increased significantly.
“When you do that 10 times a week the difference is huge,” Mr. Dutaud said.
Increasing the one-way time and making him take a bus along Alexander Road, which Mr. Dutaud said was frequently congested, might encourage him to drive his car instead, the exact opposite of public officials’ intent to recruit more public transit riders.
Mr. Reed said his presentations on the BRT plan before Borough Council and Township Committee were “the first time we’ve really had an opportunity to come out and discuss it in public.”
He said public discussion would help the Master Plan Subcommittee “refine our thinking” and pass the plan to the Regional Planning Board, where only after further public exposure and debate would a proposed resolution be brought to the governing bodies.
03/14/10 Washington Post Metro aims to use travel training to help disabled passengers and save money By Nicole Norfleet
“C’mon, Randy!” Ed Biebel said as he stood and made his way to the train’s doors. He then looked back at Randy and called again for him to follow.
“It’s moving!” Randy said, referring to the motion of the car. He got partly out of his seat but halted before standing, not sure whether to go. Biebel continued to coax him out of his seat as the chime sounded, announcing that the doors were about to close.
Randy, 48, has a developmental disability. Thursday was his first time on a subway.
4/4/2011 21 In Watertown, Conn., where he lives, the subway is not an option. Washington area transit officials say the convenience of the rails and other fixed-route public transportation allows many with disabilities to travel on their own.
Many of the Districts disabled travelers, however, rely on MetroAccess, a shared-ride service for those who can’t navigate the bus and rail system. With Metro facing a projected $190 million budget gap for the coming fiscal year, new emphasis is being placed on helping people with disabilities be more independent.
Almost 15 percent of people in the District age 5 and older have some form of disability, according to a 2007 report, and many of them use Metro services. MetroAccess has about 8,000 trips on an average weekday, agency officials said. This fiscal year, there have been about 320,000 Free Ride trips on Metrobus and Metrorail. The Free Ride program allows MetroAccess customers to ride without charge on many local bus systems and Metrorail if they have a valid MetroAccess photo ID card.
And although the overall Metrorail subsidy rose 12 percent from 2000 to 2009, MetroAccess service has grown 321 percent during that time.
Last month, Metro launched a two-year pilot program to provide in-depth travel training to people with significant disabilities. The program is an expansion of the one-day individual and group travel-training orientations Metro has provided for years. The agency has partnered with several independent living centers in the region to hire more trainers. The program is funded by a $1 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration. The hope is that more intensive travel training will not only help people become more independent but also save money.
After exiting the Metro train at Federal Triangle Station, Randy, whose last name was not given because of federal privacy laws, said that he had enjoyed his Metro experience and that he would prefer using Metrorail over the paratransit van he normally rides in.
“If they can travel by train, that gives them more decisions, so they can go where they want, when they want.” said Biebel, who traveled with Randy from Watertown.
Switching to fixed-route transportation also cuts costs. A trip on a MetroAccess shuttle costs Metro about $40 one way, but the rider pays a base rate of $2.60. The key to reducing MetroAccess costs is to make sure that only the people who really need it use it, said Christian T. Kent, assistant general manager for Metro’s department of access service. Because of less stringent eligibility analyses in the past, many people have full paratransit privileges but might not need them, he said.
But that’s about to change.
Starting in July, the beginning of its fiscal year, Metro will enforce a conditional eligibility policy. Some people might be allowed to use the paratransit service under certain conditions, but at other times, they will use one of the fixed-route services, Kent said. For example, a person with a visual impairment might be trained to use the rail system during the day but at night will use MetroAccess.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Metro has 21 days to process an application for paratransit services, Kent said. Because of the intense demand for MetroAccess, more than 4,000 people have been granted presumptive eligibility until they can be evaluated, he said.
Other proposals to cut MetroAccess costs will be discussed at public hearings scheduled from the end of this month through the beginning of next month. Officials are considering proposals to increase MetroAccess fares, reduce its service area and restrict the Free Ride Program.
4/4/2011 22 Intensive travel training, which could mean an average of 35 hours of one-on-one sessions, would help address some safety concerns, said Richard Simms, executive director of the D.C. Center for Independent Living. Despite recent accidents involving disabled people, including one in December in which a blind man fell onto the tracks and died, Simms said that Metro has “all the bells and whistles” in terms of safety features.
“The bottom line to me is lack of training,” he said.
Although travel training will help Metro address some of the issues with disabled travelers, it won’t solve all of its accessibility problems, said Wendy Klancher, principal transportation planner with the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board, which awarded the federal grant to Metro.
Issues that need to be addressed include daily elevator outages and accessibility to bus stops, she said.
“You can’t travel-train somebody if they can’t get to the bus stop,” Klancher said. “All the travel training in the world can’t fix that.”
Metro introduced a lengthy list of guidelines Friday aimed at improving bus stop accessibility.
03/14/10 North Fork Vue County Planners Devise Comprehensive Plan To Attract Younger Population Back To The Region Developing Downtowns Key To Reversing Aging Trend By Joseph Pinciaro
By coordinating planning for infrastructure such as highways, rail service, and sewer service - which helps determine where downtown communities would be most suitable - an overall view of development continues to rest in the hands of the county government. Image courtesy of Interstate Guide. Photo taken by Alex Nitzman and Justin Cozart
Riverhead - Suffolk County, long identified as a trend-setting demographic, is losing its competitive, youthful edge. While that may not come as news to many who have watched their graduates leave home in search of affordable lifestyles, county planners say it is high time to address the shift.
The second of two kick-off’ meetings launching the two-year process aimed at bringing the county’s comprehensive plan more in line with creating a more vibrant, affordable county was held at Suffolk County Community College in Riverhead on Thursday. Spearheaded by the Suffolk County Planning Commission, town planners from America’s most populous suburban county are being asked to participate.
County Executive Steve Levy’s office is making moves to address the county’s population shifts to attract a younger workforce to the region. The end goal of the plan update, which was last revised 30 years ago, is to get towns thinking regionally. How will what one town does affect next door?” explained Shelter Island’s representative on the board, Commissioner Linda Holmes.
Chris Kent, chief deputy to County Executive Steve Levy, highlighted issues facing Suffolk County as the commission focuses on in its data gathering process in the initial step of the plan
4/4/2011 23 update. High cost of living is leading to “the loss of tomorrow’s leaders,” he notes, resulting in an aging population.
Transit-oriented Development Kent suggested that transit-oriented development in vibrant downtown areas would draw younger crowds, adding that the county’s investment of $2 million in Riverhead’s Summerwind project, a 52-unit workforce housing project overlooking the Peconic River, is an example of how to achieve their goals. Young people like having things to do,” Kent said. “We have to create those opportunities for them to have a good time and be able to walk home, or at least take a train. The real key to developing downtown areas is to have people living in them. Residents are captured patrons.”
Developing individual downtowns has and will continue to remain in a matter of home-town rule as smaller municipalities such as towns and villages field their own planning boards. Though, by coordinating planning for infrastructure such as highways, rail service, and sewer service - which helps determine where those downtown communities would be most suitable - an overall view of development continues to rest in the hands of the county government.
Following Kent’s presentation, County Planning Director Tom Isles offered a brief historical perspective and laid out the process for the plan update moving forward. He shared some salient statistics that succinctly captured the phenomenon of that is Suffolk County:
• Sixty years ago, he noted, Suffolk County’s population was 300,000, less than the current population of slip. • Currently at around 1.5 million, the county’s population is expected to blossom 17 to 20 percent to 1.8 million in the next 35 years. • With less than 10 percent of Suffolk’s residents residing in the five East End towns, coordinating regional goals moving forward will be paramount in the upcoming two years.
Chris Kent, deputy executive of Suffolk County, at Thursday night’s “kick-off’ meeting for a countywide comprehensive plan update. Kent stated vibrant, transit oriented downtowns will help the county keep its younger residents and should be accounted for moving
Currently, Southold town officials are working on their own comprehensive plan update. Isles had made clear that the Planning Commission’s goal is not to replicate, but complement what towns are doing,” and Southold Planning Director Heather Lanza echoed those sentiments.
“I think it’s beneficial that we’re doing this as the same time as the county,” said Lanza, who was in attendance on Thursday. “We can share information such as economic studies and GIS data that will probably improve both plans. Ideally the county plan would be done first, so we could take into account the bigger picture things that they see.”
The Planning Commission will move forward in the first of two phases by taking an ‘inventory’ of the county, focusing on the environment, the economy and quality of life issues such as housing and transportation. Phase two will reflect an analysis of the data and policy recommendations. Workshops in each of Suffolk County’s 10 towns will be conducted in the fall to provide forums for local input to the plan.
4/4/2011 24 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:57 PM To: ‘Wes Peoples’ Cc: Cole, Sheryl; Shade, Randi Subject: RE: Council sets new priorities for affordable housing efforts
Thanks for the note, Wes. and for all you do
Regards,
Chris
From: Wes Peoples [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 12:06 PM To: Cole, Sheryl; Shade, Randi; Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Council sets new priorities for affordable housing efforts
P.S. Let me know if there is any way can help.
Wes
From: Wes Peoples [mailto:[email protected] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 11:57 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Council sets new priorities for affordable housing efforts
Thank you anc congratulations to the three of you for spearheading this effort to help those who need our helo he most. Affordable for-sale housing will continue to be a passion and focus for me but itis extremely important that we address housing needs fDr the entire spectrum of our popuation. To paraphrase Councii Member Cole, “you put your m.oney where your mouth is.” Good job:
Sincerely,
Wes Peoples
March26, 2010 Council sets new priorities for affordable housing efforts By Mike Kanin The City Council voted unanimously Thursday to refocus the city’s affordable housing efforts in a way that would prioritize the needs of the chronically homeless. As part of its resolution, the Council also moved to begin the process of constructing 350 permanent supportive housing units over the next four years.
However, the looming threat of a cut in federal funding could put a damper on the project.
Neighborhood Housing and Community Development (NHCD) Department Director Margaret Shaw told In Fact Daily that the move represented the firm policy decision that staff had sought from Council. “(They) gave (us) very clear direction to prioritize funding for our most vulnerable residents, treating them as really the first among equals,” she said.
Both Council Member Sheryl Cole and NHCD officials said that the city’s practice of matching
A IA I’ñ1 1 Page 2 of 2
affordable housing projects with the most appropriate source of funding would continue, no matter the focus of the housing effort. They also stressed that all such projects, whether or not they fall under the permanent supportive housing description prescribed by the Council, would continue to be funded by a mix of federal funds and the $13 million remaining in resources raised by a 2006 General Obligation bond election.
All in all, Cole seemed thrilled with the outcome. “I am delighted that this Council has made a commitment to this population,” she told In Fact Daily during a break in Thursday’s Council action. “(We) pretty much knocked the ball out of the park and said that we are willing, essentially, to put our money where our mouth is.”
“Ever since I came to Austin, there has been a sentiment that perhaps we care more about the environment than people,” she said. “(This) clearly sends a signal that we care about both.”
Cole sponsored the measure. Her co-sponsors were Council Members Randi Shade and Chris Riley.
According to the city’s Public Information Office, “Permanent supportive housing... provides supportive services that address the root causes of homelessness, including mental health disorders, addictions, and financial instability.” The comprehensive nature of the concept will require the involvement of multiple Austin city departments, including those of Public Housing and Health.
As city officials move forward with their redefined affordable housing agenda, they may have to contend with a cut in the amount of federal dollars that are directed their way. The bulk of that funding is distributed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As of Thursday afternoon, Shaw’s office had yet to receive estimates of how much money it could expect to receive.
NHCD officials typically receive those figures by this point in the year. Shaw termed the lack of those estimates as “unusual but not uncommon.” She told In Fact Daily that, though her department anticipates receiving estimated allocations from HUD in the next few weeks, they are currently using a more conservative estimate as their budget planning begins. This estimate assumes a 10 percent cut in federal dollars.
Shaw also noted that the Obama administration had announced federal departments that would be spared the budget axe, and that HUD was not on that list. “Given the state of the national deficit, I think it’s reasonable and appropriate for local housing officials to plan to receive less,” she said.
She added that a drop in HUD funding would have “significant impact” on any Austin affordable housing venture.
4/4/2011 Page 1 of I
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 3:32 PM To: Allen, Doug Cc: ‘John Langmore’; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; ‘Bui, Tina’; Timbes, Elaine Subject: crossing arms on Sunday Attachments: Denson rail crossing .jpg
Hey Doug --
Following up on our brief conversation before lunch --I’m attaching a photo I took around 5:32 p.m. yesterday (Sunday, 3/28/10) at the rail crossing of Denson Drive, on the west side of Airport Blvd., just north of the Highland Mall station.
As I mentioned, I happened to be there around 5:30, when the lights started flashing and the arms came down pretty quickly, narrowly missing a car. They were down just a minute, & then went up. A minute or two later, the same thing happened again (that’s when I got the photo). I was on Airport Blvd. for a good half hour before & after this, and never saw a train in the area.
This raises a few questions for me -- why does this happen, does it happen often, does it happen at other crossings, what can be done about it. Could you see if anyone can shed some light on this?
Thanks,
Chris
A IA /flAl 1 City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:51 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Cc: Parkerson, Matt Subject: FW: Submitted from City Council web site - Councilmember
Watt’s going to work on scheduling something -- join in if you’re up for it
Original Message Prom: Gary Guion [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:59 AM To: Martinez, Mike [ Council Member] ; Leffingwell, Lee; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl Cc: Moore, Andrew; Jason Post
Subject: RE: Submitted from City Council web site - Councilmember
Council Member Martinez,
Thank you for the reply. I also heard from Council Member Riley last night.
We have begun making a large investment in SE Austin off Riverside. We closed on a 300 unit deal (formerly Longhorn Station now Bluffs at Town Lake) that is at 2005 Willow Creek, was severely distressed and crime ridden and 25% occupied. We had to remove all tenants due to the crime issue and invested $3 million into the asset to completely rehab the structure. We are now leasing and the market has been very responsive — signing on average 4 leases per day. The change in the neighborhood has been appreciated.
As an ax—UT student I’m also personally very interested in Austin and the student population.
We are now under contract on another property in SE Austin and will own close to 750 units. We will at the end of this project have invested $8 million in the area. Would you or any of your fellow Council Members be interested in meeting with us to discuss how we can even go a step further to better the community and possible synergies?
I am in Austin weekly and would love to set something up.
Thanks.
Gary D. Guion Chief Operating Officer
Post Investment Group, LLC 2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201 Tel: 214—558—2777 Fax: 214—273-5159 gary@postinvestmentgroup. com
Original Message From: Martinez, Mike [ Council Member] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 9:12 AM To: Gary Guion; Leffingweli, Lee; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl Cc: Moore, Andrew
Subject: RE: Submitted from City Council web site — Councilmember
We are all your council member. All council members are elected at large.
1 What can we do to help.
Mike
Mayor Pro Tern Mike Martinez 310 W. 2nd Street Austin, Texas 512.974.2264
2 Page 1 of7
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:21 AM To: ‘Gregory A Copp’ Cc: Beaudet, Annick; Leffingwell, Lee: ; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl; ‘Richard MacKinnon’; Lazarus, Howard Subject: RE: Tom Wald & Bicycle Boulevard
I’m sorry if you misunderstood me, Greg, but I’ve never said that the point of a bicycle boulevard is that “we have to separate the bicycles from the cars.” A bicycle boulevard is, by definition, a shared roadway; see http://en.wikipcdia.org/wiki/Bicycle_boulevard . I don’t know of any bicycle boulevard anywhere that separates bicycles from cars.
Regards.
Chris
From: Gregory A Copp [ Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 11:42 PM To: Beaudet, Annick; Lefflngwell, Lee; Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl; ‘Richard MacKinnon’; Lazarus, Howard Subject: Tom Wald & Bicycle Boulevard
Greetings,
I honestly don’t know whether it is appropriate to continue this debate in your inboxes or not, but I will assume Mr. Wald who has much more experience in lobbying knows what is best in this situation so I will follow his lead.
It is very generous of Mr. Wald to inform me now about his response to my concerns. Much like the debate that took place as Nueces was being selected as a “Bicycle Boulevard” it is best if the other side of the argument is not present. Much easier to make your case.
Unlike Mr. Wald and his token supporter we are compiling a census of all Nueces Stakeholders. While I am sure that the coincidentally and conveniently located Mellow Johnny’s is in favor, if the Council or any other Board member has any interest in the rest of Nueces we will be glad to share our results with you. While still a work in progress and not quite complete I can assure you the sentiment is overwhelmingly opposed. If Mr. Wald and the City would be interested in a simple ballot to decide this issue (yes or no) I think we would be amendable.
Mr. Wald mentions the HDR traffic study. I have to be honest I did not read it all. I got to
5. The overall results of this study indicate that any of the alternatives analyzed will have no appreciable differential traffic impact as compared to a No-Build (No Bicycle Boulevard) scenario. The number of intersections operating at an unacceptable level of service was comparable under each of the scenarios analyzed as part of this study. Based on this evaluation, all bicycle boulevard scenarios modeled would have minimal impact compared to the No-Build (No Bicycle Boulevard) scenario.
And I quit reading. If my English serves me then this seems to say no matter what the City builds (partial diverters, pinch points, speed bumps, traffic circles) there will be NO significant (or minimal) change in the traffic. Then why build it? At this point I realized that instead of a traffic study we got a public relations ploy and a rigged game. It explained why the final meeting turned into a media show and tell. All very disingenuous. My comment was “this is a lot like the Iranian election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad”. You may have rigged it a little too good. That conclusion is outlandish and totally contradictory to a “Bicycle Boulevard”. The point is “we have to separate the bicycles from the cars” as Council Member Riley said to me at an event when we were seated at the same table. Why do it if the cars stay?
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 7
Next it appears is a bogus economic impact study. Unless Nueces is involved in choosing criteria, firm, and possibly involved in the funding and hiring then your results will have the same validity as your traffic study. Virtually none, except for public opinion which apparently is the whole point.
Once again I invite objective Council members to visit Nueces (surreptitiously so as not to incite crowds of cyclists) and count and compare. I’m here and I do every day.
Attached is a picture from a few nights ago at 10:30 at night as one of our signs is being vandalized. The signs on our street have been decimated. I am sure to the delight of the bicycling community. This guy votes with his actions and appears to be with the league of bicycle vandals. It might be appropriate for the City to step up surveillance on this issue. We plan to reintroduce our rights to free speech (signs) again soon.
Finally, I am working at this point about 70 hours a week. That will only get worse until mid April. Once I am through that time frame I will be glad to meet with Mr. Wald to see what agreement we can find on the issues.
Sincerely,
Greg Copp
From: Tom Wald [mailto Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 10:39 PM To: Gregory A Copp; ‘Annick Beaudet’; ‘Lee Leffingwell’; ‘Chris Riley’; ‘Mike Martinez’; ‘Randi Shade’; ‘Laura Morrison’; ‘Bill Spelman’; ‘Sheryl Cole’; ‘Richard MacKinnon’; ‘Howard Lazarus’; ‘Rob D’Amico’ Subject: Re: Nueces Bike Blvd. opposition is shouting, but unwilling to talk
I appreciate that Mr. Copp has taken some more time to address what is an important issue to him and the City, even if he is unable to have a face-to-face dialogue with a leader in the Austin bicycling community.
I will note that I have previously sent to all of you (less Mr. Copp), a link to a document that responds to every concern expressed by Mr. Copp and others. http://lobv.org/20l 0/02/nueces-responding-to-the-oppositions-concerns! http://lobv.org/wp-content/uploads/20 1 O/02/Nueces-Responding_to_Concerns_20 1 O-02-09.pdf If anything has been neglected, please let me know.
Strong Support for Nueces Bike Boulevard... on Nueces Street I will also note that there are strong supporters for the Nueces Bike Blvd. on Nueces St. and nearby, including property and business owner, Betty Blackwell. She is not herself a regular bicyclist, but she has a sober approach to the city’s interest in improving bicycle mobility on Nueces St. She sees it as a wonderful investment that will only enhance her property’s value. She and her neighbor, Scott Smith, are not alarmed as Mr. Copp is, yet they have businesses that also depend on client visits. It is difficult to understand why there is such strong support for the Nueces Bike Blvd. from stakeholders _on Nueces St., but we are expected to simply believe the opponents that the project will be so detrimental to their interests, which are stated as the same interests as Nueces St. proponents (e.g. property values, client and employee accessibility, etc.).
Will Continue to Seek Dialogue I will continue to seek out dialogue with the producers of http://keepaustinmoving.org/ I still believe that Austin is one of those places where sincere, respectful dialogue can occur among fellow citizens on issues that effect us all, such as urban transportation. Such dialogues will bring us to find solutions that work for all. I believe that this project would have been less contentious and more rewarding for the current opponents and proponents had more civil discussion occurred beginning in November 2009.
,11A/’)ñ1 1 Page 3 of 7
The battle part of this community experience serves no one -- it is a detriment to Austin.
Improving Downtown Mobility As I have said before, the basis for this project is in improving downtown Austin mobility. Even the HDR traffic study requested by the opposition supports a bike boulevard. The City of Austin has found that improving bicycle mobility into and within downtown to be one of the most cost-effective way to deliver transportation services to its citizens. Improving bicycle mobility on Nueces St. will be far more cost effective than creating a new arterial inlout of downtown. The economic vitality of downtown depends on increased mobility, and a Nueces Bike Blvd. would serve this need to achieve increased economic viability of downtown.
Tom Wald League of Bicycling Voters, Executive Director Bicycle Advisory Council, Chair Austin’s Community Climate Action Plan, Transportation Co-Chair http://lobv.org
Gregory A Copp wrote: Unfortunately, for your inboxes, I find it necessary to respond to Mr. Wald. While I have joined with others in the fight for Nueces my opinion is just that. My opinion. But, I also know that it is as legitimate as any opposing opinion since so much of what is proposed is full of unknowns and conjecture, particularly in regards to business and property owners on Nueces. To say LOBV has addressed every issue is so incredibly disingenuous as to be ridiculous. Cyclists have nothing to lose with the City’s and their proposed experiment.
I will state that I am opposed to any plan for Nueces St or San Antonio that would give bicyclists any special status over cars or would in any way discourage car traffic. In short, I am opposed to a Bicycle Boulevard.
I am also a CPA with a large tax practice. My family, friends and clients all know what that means. I work 7 days a week and most nights from February 1 through April 15th Many nights until midnight or later. My family, friends and I sacrifice precious time together because this is my livelihood. Consequently, I am stingy with my time and I also consider Nueces a home of sorts.
Mr. Wald is correct that I have given valuable and dear time to opposing the Bicycle Boulevard even in the midst of my tax season. I feel passionately about the matter. I did intend to respond to Mr. Wald’s email. I flagged it to return to later; however, I get approx 60 emails a day and much of it business. Especially during busy times I do occasionally miss returning someone in a timely manner. My apologies to Mr. Wald, but I also am not being paid for my time dedicated to this issue.
As I mentioned to Mr. Wald. I simply do not think our discussing the issue will bring us closer together. I find the notion of turning this street into a Bicycle Boulevard preposterous. To take a street used by 1.3 million cars and divert them so that a tiny fraction of that number of cyclists can use it is incredible luxurious and obviously desirable for cyclists, but nonsense for everyone else. There are very few cyclists on Nueces today. It’s raining. Visit Nueces on the weekend. I am here every Saturday and Sunday. Hardly any cars, hardly any cyclist. Putting a Bicycle Boulevard on a street with this mixture of business activities and zoning defies logic. It shows a total disregard and disrespect to all the businesses and valuable business real estate in this area. And approving it before telling us simply
4/4/2011 Page 4 of 7 reinforces my opinion that this idea was hatched by a very dedicated, very insular group of cyclist within the city who suspected getting it past the real world might be a problem. There should have been some checks and balances in the system. These opinions won’t change. I also do not expect Mr. Wald to adopt them.
I understand why the cyclist want Nueces. Good grade and it runs where they want to go. But that doesn’t mean they should get it or that it is the right thing to do. I wish there was a way to dedicate a Bike Blvd, but not by impeding any critical street in this district.
And, while I know it doesn’t mean much to the City, Nueces St owners and businesses do not want it. We hope to quantify that for you soon. Not just Susan Harris and Greg Copp. I am thanked ofien for doing this by Nueces residents. We would also love to demonstrate with our signs, but cant seem to keep them up. As for shouting and hatred I have not personally heard any of it from either side. I certainly have no hatred for anyone on the other side of the issue. I will admit I’m not feeling the love for those stealing and destroying the signs.
I think everyone on this email list is well aware of the issues. Austinites for Downtown Mobility is committed to informing the public about these issues and that is what we are doing.
Thanks for your time.
Greg Copp
From: Tom Wald [mailto Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:36 PM To: Annick Beaudet; Lee Leffingwell; Chris Riley; Mike Martinez; Randi Shade; Laura Morrison; Bill Spelman; Sheryl Cole; Richard MacKinnon; Dave Sullivan; Howard Lazarus Cc: Gregory A Copp; Rob DAmico Subject: Nueces Bike Blvd. opposition is shouting, but unwilling to talk
Many leaders in the bicycling community have sought out having sincere discussions with the various stakeholders in the Nueces Bike Boulevard project. In fact, dialogue among those who disagree is an essential part of the public process. However, when one of the major opponents of the project, Greg Copp, is confronted with a genuine and eager request for a dialogue to discuss his concerns, he does not find it worth his time. Please see the e-mail thread below in reverse chronological order.
Greg Copp’s biggest stated complaint of this project is that there has been inadequate opportunity for the community to discuss the merits needs. and consequences of this project. Where is Mr. Copp when he is asked to be a part of this public discussion? If Mr. Copp wants a public process. why is he unwilling to be a part of that public process? I-Ic said that he does not have time for such a meeting (an hour, perhaps), but he certainly has time for lobbying, making meetings with the press, and organizing with other opponents for a yard sign and propaganda campaign: http://keepaustinmoving.org/featured/austinites—for—downtown-mobiiity/
He has strongly stated concerns, but they seem either completely irrelevant to this project or are overstated to the point that they are irrelevant. That is why a sincere discussion is so vital. I believe that Mr. Copp is a kind, sincere person with genuine, valid concerns, and that is why I and others want to
,ii,ii-rni 1 Page 5 of 7 meet with him. I use my e-mail thread with Greg Copp as a characteristic example of the unfortunate manner in which the opposition has chosen to participate in the public process and discussion about the project.
I would hope that neither city staff nor city council would be willing to take seriously and decide public policy based on the many specious claims of Mr. Copp and the few others (e.g. Susan Harris) who have expressed concerns, unless a public discussion vets the validity of these concerns. Other than the screaming, what are the actual concerns?
The League of Bicycling Voters and City of Austin staff have addressed 100% of the oppositions’ concerns as the opposition has stated them. If anything remains, I look forward to discussing the remaining concerns. This penny-wise project to improve Austin’s mobility must go through, for the sake of Austin’s economic vitality. It must not be stopped or diluted by shouting or hatred -- only sincere, civil, and clear concerns should sway the city at this time. http ://wviw.lobv.org/nueces/
Tom Wald League of Bicycling Voters, Executive Director Bicycle Advisory Council, Chair Austin’s Community Climate Action Plan, Transportation Co-Chair http://lobv.org
Original Message Subject:Re: Signs Date:Tue. 02 Mar 2010 15:28:57 -0600 From: Tom Wald < RepIy-To: To:Gregory A Copp
I can understand if you do not have time to meet. However, I am available and willing to discuss your concerns and to address them, item by item.
I still do not understand why you are opposed to this project. I’ve noticed that some complaints you’ve had are not about the project itself, e.g. the public process.
I’ve also noticed that you are still under the misconception that the primary beneficiaries will be people who already bike daily: “It is the same people you are asking us to turn our street over to that are doing this.” It has been stated by me and city staff many times that this project is met to meet unmet demand for improved bicycle access downtown. An improved bicycle facility would primary serve people who currently do not bike much or at all, but have strongly indicated that they want such facilities. Another point that has been made, perhaps not enough, is that the intent of the bicycle boulevard is to increase overall mobility of people into and out of downtown, for the sake of the _economic_ viability of downtown into the future.
My support for the project is certainly not unwavering. That is part of the reason that I would like to meet with you.
4/4/2011 Page 6 of 7
-Torn
Gregory A Copp wrote: Tom,
This is a particularly busy time of year for me and my activities in opposition are already utilizing a lot of that time. >From what I understand you are unwavering in your support of the project. I would call my opposition visceral. So I don’t think we will achieve anything productive by meeting. Perhaps we’ll meet again under better circumstances another time.
Greg Copp
From: Tom Wald [ma lt Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2010 12:21 PM To: Gregory A Copp Subject: Re: Signs
It is disappointing to see that people are vandalizing your signs. Are you available to meet to talk about this and other issues regarding the Nueces Bike Boulevard?
I’m available today until 2:30pm or after 4:30pm. I am also available tomorrow.
-Tom
Tom Wald Executive Director, League of Bicycling Voters http://lobv.org7
Gregory A Copp wrote: Tom,
This is third time the ill mannered juvenile delinquents have vandalized my signs. It is the same people you are asking us to turn our street over to that are doing this. They want to take away our use of our street and our constitutional right of free speech. You can probably understand that this only hardens our resolve to derail this nonsense.
Greg Copp
Tom Wald
Tom bald
4/4/2011 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 10:27 PM To: ‘[email protected]’ Cc: Leffingwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl; Beaudet, Annick; Leff, Lewis; Parkerson, Matt; ‘Rob D’Amico’; ‘Hill Abell’
Subject: RE: Submitted from City Council web site - Fwd: Release: City Abandons Nueces Bike Boulevard
The staff recommendations call for a downtown bicycle boulevard to be achieved through improvements on both Rio Crande and Nueces. I support the proposed improvements on Rio Grande, which include a new bike-ped bridge over Shoal Creek, landscaped traffic circles at four intersections, and the removal of several north—south stop signs. I’d like to see similar improvements on Nueces as well. Because of a water line project scheduled to begin next year, we won’t be able to make signficant changes to Nueces Street for at least two years. In the meantime, I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to evaluate the improvements on Rio Grande and consider additional traffic calming and other improvements on Nueces in the future.
The staff recommendations don’t include everything I’d like to see on Nueces, but I disagree that staffTs position “nixes [the] vision for moving new bicyclists downtown by pedal power.” The recommendations would make the area significantly more bikeable, and would go a long way toward achieving the signature facility envisioned in the bike plan. I’m looking forward to getting additional input as the recommendations make their way through boards and commissions, and to seeing real improvements on both Nueces and Rio Grande as soon as possible.
Regards,
Chris Riley
Original Message From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 1:43 PM To: Leffingweli, Lee; Martinez, Mike [ Council Member] ; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl
Subject: Submitted from City Council web site - Fwd: Release: City Abandons Nueces Bike Boulevard
Date/Time Submitted: 1342 hours From: Shawn Shillington, Urban Development Editor at Austinist.com E-mail address: urban@austinist. corn Subject: Fwd: Release: City Abandons Nueces Bike Boulevard
Categories: transportation
Comments: Please let me know if you have any comments regarding the Press Release below that I received from the League of Bicycling Voters regarding the abandonment of the Nueces Bike Boulevard.
Thanks!
Shawn Shillington Urban Development Editor
Austinist . corn
1 News Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE April 6, 2010
CONTACTS: Rob D Lmico, 627—1343 Tom Wald, 203—7626
City abandons Nueces Bike Boulevard, but bicycling community pushes on with project
Goal of maintaining auto capacity and Nueces as a car thoroughfare nixes vision for moving new bicyclists downtown by pedal power
The League of Bicycling Voters (LOBV) said Monday that it will continue to pursue a bike boulevard on Nueces Street, despite a City of Austin staff recommendation instead calling for new traffic calming on Rio Grande and a watered down mix of bike lanes and sharrows on Nueces.
"First they took the word ‘Nueces’ out and began calling it the ‘Downtown Bike Boulevard Project, ‘ and now with this plan, they’ve essentially removed the word ‘bike’ as well," said Rob D’Amico, League of Bicycling Voters president. What once was a vision for defining a key corridor to move Austinites in and out of downtown by bicycles, has turned into a plan for pushing bikes to side to make sure cars aren’t burdened. Luckily we have thousands of bicyclists including some 2,000 signing a petition for a Nueces bike boulevard and a lot of momentum in our city leadership and planning to carry on the vision.
The City started its process in December by inviting the public to look at what types of traffic calming and design elements would be best for a Nueces Bike Boulevard, which was already a component of the Bicycle Plan that passed City Council last June, and the Downtown Plan process. LOBV also created its own plan for a Nueces Bike Boulevard that calls for a variety of traffic calming measures such as traffic circles, pinch points, partial diverters, signage, stenciling and more to slow auto traffic and make the boulevard more appealing to beginning bicyclists and families on bikes. Motorists would still be able to access the entire street with all of the plans, but with the understanding that they would need to drive slower.
However, city officials will release a plan today that calls for bike lanes on each side of Nueces, instead of a mix of innovative tools to open up the street to cyclists, after property owners with eyes on future development on the street pressured the city to take a new look at their plans. The bike lanes on the northern segment of Nueces will require removal of all on—street parking on one side of the street.
The city plan also provides for improvements on Rio Grande that will make the street somewhat safer for bicyclists and hopefully much safer for students and pedestrians. The city plan does have a lot of great things going for it on Rio Grande, but unfortunately, it’s at the expense of doing what’s right on Nueces, D’Amico said. Plans call for traffic circles, cutouts for car drop—offs at Austin Community College and Pease Elementary, resurfacing the road, speed cushions to reduce auto speed and a bike/pedestrian bridge over Shoal Creek just south of 5th Street that will connect to the Lance Armstrong Bikeway, Shoal Creek Trail and Lady Bird Lake. We love the idea of improving Rio Grande, but it’s still a street with hills that will deter many beginning or young cyclists, while the perfectly flat corridor on Nueces, the obvious choice for a great bike boulevard, gets a bike facility that can be intimidating and is definitely less attractive, D’Amico said.
"Much of the debate over the Nueces Bike Boulevard has been the idea that redevelopment at Seaholm and along the western edge of downtown will make Nueces an important thoroughfare for auto traffic when it connects to Cesar Chavez and that auto capacity needs to be preserved for development in that area," D’Amico said. "This runs counter to Austin’s rather ambitious goals for climate protection, air quality, mobility and public health.
The fault with the city’s plan isn’t any one facility or idea, D’Arnico said, but that it caters to the wrong path for future mobility. We feel intense development, downtown events, art museums, libraries and other great destinations are the perfect place to serve 2 with a bike boulevard, so we don’t buy the idea that it will hinder deveiopment or hurt property values.
D’Arnico also said that misinformation campaigns, intimidation and harassment by those opposing the bike boulevard on Nueces also took its toll on city officials trying to coordinate a public process. Threats to a city official, nasty letters, misinformation printed and spread throughout the area, and threat of lawsuits all have taken their toll, he said. I think the thought from some in city government is that it’s best to just get something done and move on. Our thought is, ‘Think big, get big results, follow through on our vision, let our leadership express confidence in what’s right, and do not stand for intimidation in civic life.
The Austin Bicycle Advisory Council which reviewed and outline of the city staff plan instead passed the following resolution at their P4arch 25th meeting: The Bicycle Advisory Council supports a full and expedient implementation of a bike boulevard on Nueces Street with significant traffic calming, with the specific devices and locations to be discussed at future SAC meetings. The BAC also supports roadway improvements, including traffic calming, on Rio Grande Street to provide safer access to Pease Elementary, Austin Community College and other schools and destinations for cyclists and pedestrIans.
The League of Bicycling Voters is Austin’s voice for bicyclists. LOBV is a nonprofit advocacy organization promoting better transportation policy decisions, justice for bicyclists, and more resources to increase the number of bicyclists in the Austin area. #11
3 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 5:07 PM To: Browder, Leslie Cc: Ott, Marc; Knodel, Jeff; Calk, Gerry; Ballas, Marisa; Leff, Lewis Subject: RE: TERP grant question
That makes sense to me, Leslie. Thanks for looking into this --
Chris
From: Browder, Leslie Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:06 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Ott, Marc; Knodel, Jeff; Calk, Gerry; Ballas, Marisa; Leff, Lewis Subject: TERP grant question
Council Member Riley,
I asked the staff at Fleet Services Division to research the TERP grant opportunity mentioned in an earlier email from you (grant described below) and do an analysis of the City fleet to see if there was any opportunity to use the grant for fleet improvements. After careful analysis it appears that this particular grant opportunity is not a good fit for the City. and would require a significant investment of City funding with little or no return.
Based on the criteria of the grant, the only eligible vehicles in the City’s fleet would be dump trucks for model years 2000 through 2002. Our Fleet Officer has indicated that these older model trucks will require substantial retrofit in order to fit a new engine into the chassis. We received a cost estimate from the local International dealership of over $50,000 per truck to make the necessary modifications to retrofit the vehicle with the new engine. The dealership also indicated that the effort to do this type of conversion work would be so complicated, they are not willing to get into this type of project. For comparison purposes, a new chassis costs approximately $75,000.
Another criteria of the grant requires the vehicle that is re-powered under the grant to remain in service for an additional 7 years after the retrofit has occurred. Our fleet officer’s primary concern is that this would lead to maintenance problems and costs from using a chassis from a model year several years old and is well past the normal life cycle of the vehicle.
Based on this information, it is not recommended that the City proceed with this grant opportunity. We will continue to monitor other opportunities as they become available. Let us know if you have questions.
TCEQ ANNOUNCES OPENING OF NEW TERP ARRA REBATE GRANT PROGRAM
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 2
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is pleased to announce the opening of the new Texas Emissions Reduction Plan (TERP) ARRA Rebate Grants Program. This special application period uses federal funds provided under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (AARA).
A Notice of Rebate Grants (NRC) and final application form are available from the TERP Web site at: www.terpgrants.org
This special program differs from the regular TERP rebate grants in that the replacement on road vehicles and engines may be powered by diesel, natural gas or propane. Non-road projects may only replace a diesel engine with a diesel engine.
Application forms will be received until April 30, 2010 or until all funds have been distributed. Applications are reviewed, processed, and awarded in the order received.
4/4/2011 Page 1 of2
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:25 PM To: ‘Joan Bartz’ Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: RE: Public Safety Commission
Attachments: PHHS AGENDA - APRIL 20.doc
Hey Joan
As you may know, the Council’s Public Health and Human Services Committee will be getting a staff update on this issue at its meeting this coming Tuesday, 4/20. I’m attaching the agenda, and it’s also online at www.ci. austin.tx. us/agenda/201 0/downloads!pubhealth_0420 10. pdf (see item 5).
I don’t serve on that committee, but I’ll be looking forward to the staff update anyway. And as always, I’ll be glad to visit with you about this issue at any time.
Regards,
Chris Riley
From: Joan Bartz [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 1:57 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris Cc: Subject: Public Safety Commission
Mayor Pro Tem Martinez and Councilmember Riley:
When we met with you last July 15 and July 14 respectively, you both stated that the group home task force needed to get on the agenda for the Public Safety Commission as soon as that body was up and running. We have been trying to do just that since last December without any success to date.
Requests for being placed on the Commission’s agenda for February, March, and April have produced nothing fruitful. Concerning an April appearance, emails were sent to the Commission’s staff liaison, Lee Davila, first on March 6th, then on March 19th and finally on March 29th. While recognizing everyone’s busy schedule and the possible lack of adequate staff, we are very surprised that we have not received the courtesy of a reply to any of these emails.
Having watched the Commission’s April meeting, with its focus on drug gangs and fusion concerns, it seems obvious that the work of the task force related to a) the involvement of APD, AFD, and EMS in th rouge home problem in northeast Austin re time and manpower, b) the annual fiscal cost associated with such involvement in assisting the disabled at these rogue locations, and c) the legislative solution provided to the city to correct this drain on the departments’ time, manpower, and funds, is not even a blip on the radar for the Commission.
In that regard, the task force is asking for clarification regarding your initial recommendation. Specifically, has a decision been made that the work of the task force is not relevant to the work of the Commission? If so, we would appreciate being advised of that decision so that we may concentrate on a constructive, proactive agenda for reaching our goal - to prevent discrimination against the diabled in matters of safety and health in the locations where they are housed - including the approval of a city licensing ordinance for boarding home facilities as outlined in the HB 216 state law.
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 2
Perhaps it is time for another round of meetings with council members at which we would be prepared to present our usual six-month update on the work of the task force including the current calls/cost analysis. We would be pleased to accomodate your busy schedules in arranging such meetings.
As always, the task force appreciates your concern for the mentally, addictively, and elderly disabled involved in the rogue group homes in northeast Austin. We look forward to your recommendations for a more productive interaction with various city entities. Much thanks for your assistance.
Joan Bartz, Chair UHNA Disabled Group Home Task Force
4/4/2011 MEETING AGENDA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY CO UNCIL PUBLIC HEALTH AND HUMAN SER VICES COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON Tuesday, April 20th, 2010 AT 3:00 P.M. AT CITY HALL, 301 WEST SECOND STREET, BOARD AND COMMISSIONS, ROOM 1101, AUSTIN, TEXAS
I. Call Meeting to Order
2. Review and approval of minutes for the committee meetings held Monday, March l and Wednesday, March 31, 2010.
3. Citizen Communications.
4. Presentation regarding CARE Memory Band (Dan McGinnis, Vice President for Your Life Band, Distributors of the Care Medical History Bracelet)
5. Receive Staff Update on HB 216 regarding Boarding Homes and Take Appropriate Action (Shannon Jones, Assistant Director for Public Health)
6. Staff Review of the Social Service Contract with Family Connections and Take Appropriate Action (David Lurie, Director, Health & Human Services Department and Vince Cobalis, Assistant Director of Human Services).
7. Receive Staff Update and Recommendations regarding Mobile Food Vendor Regulations, Including Discussion of Farmers Market Food Product Sampling RCA, and Take Appropriate Action. (David Lurie, Director, Health & Human Services Department, and Shannon Jones, Assistant Director of Public Health)
8. Receive Staff Update on the Implementation of Animal Services Recommendations and Take Appropriate Action (David Lurie, Director, Health & Human Services Department)
9. Presentation of the Fifth Annual Report of the Mayors Mental Health Task Force Monitoring Committee (Susan Stone, Executive Coordinator MMHTF Monitoring Committee)
10. Presentation of the ProTECT Proposal for Experimental Clinical Treatment regarding traumatic brain injury study and Take Appropriate Action (Alex Valadka, MD, Seton Family of Hospitals and Truman J. Milling, MD, Director of Clinical Research at University Medical Center at Brackenridge and Dell Children’s Medical Center of Central Texas, Members of Seton Family of Hospitals)
11. Receive Staff Update on the Plan for Social Service Contracts and Take Appropriate Action (David Lurie, Director, Health & Human Services Department and Vince Cobalis, Assistant Director of Human Services).
12. Consider agenda items for next meeting, scheduled for 3:00 pm on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 or at the call of the committee chair.
13. Adjourn
The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Reasonable mnodification and equal access to the communications will be provided upon request. Please call (512) 974-5254 (voice) or Relay Texas (800) 935-2989 (TDD/TT) for more information. Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:43 AM To: ‘Barchas, Isaac D’ Cc: Morrison, Laura; Leff, Lewis Subject: emerging tech / solid waste
Hey Isaac -- Now for something completely different.
At last week’s meeting of the Council Committee on Emerging Technology & Telecommunications, we had a very interesting presentation from Bob Gedert, our now Solid Waste Services Director. At first I wasn’t sure why we were going to hear about Solid Waste at an Emerging Tech Committee meeting, but once he got into it, it made sense. There really are a lot of possibilties in the emergence of Zero Waste efforts, with some parallels to how technologies have emerged locally in other sectors.
I got caught up in all this, and actually mentioned ATI, as mentioned in the InFact story below. I’m sorry I raised it without discussing it with you first; I was thinking out loud (and on camera).
In any event, if you have time to take a look at this, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about it (and so would Laura, who I’m cc’ing). The committee’s discussion is online at http://austintx.swagit.com/play/04142010- 35/0/; click on Item 5 to go straight to this topic.
I know cross-pollenization opportunities are an important consideration for ATI, and frankly I don’t know the extent to which such opportunities exist with respect to Zero Waste efforts. But if you think there’s room for discussion about the possibility of involving ATI in this, Laura & I would love to visit with you about it.
Thanks in advance for considering this --
Chris http://www.infactdaily.com/
April 20. 2010
New SWS director outlines plan to bring green industry to Austin
By Michael Kanin
The recently hired director of Austin’s Solid Waste Services department, Bob Gedert, would like to turn the city into a Silicon Valley for green industry. He presented his vision, which calls for a comprehensive local support system for eco-industrial development that could produce a host of employment options for Austinites, to the Council Committee for Emerging Technology and Telecommunications on Wednesday.
The idea will be more fully developed as part of a Solid Waste Services master plan to be prepared over the next year by HDR Engineering.
In a presentation he called “Trash to Treasure,” Gedert told the committee that his eco business model would work perfectly with the city’s Zero Waste goals. “Zero waste is an
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 2 economic driver in the community, particularly in high tech... (but also) in low tech activity,” he said.
He added that though green jobs can translate to blue-collar employment, he saw a broader effect for eco-business. “Generally speaking, we’re talking mid-to-upscale jobs in the green economy,” he said. “We’re talking product redesign. We’re talking about policy implementation, community organizing. We’re talking about entrepreneurs. We’re talking, at multiple levels in the business community, green jobs.”
Gedert suggested that research and development projects based around local handling of recycled goods such as discarded toilets or tires could provide some of that employment. “We would like to localize the markets of recyclables—where can we move our glass where it’s not moved to another state or another country?” he said. “There’s a lot of development and research dollars that are needed there.”
Indeed, he said that any industry that would like to green up its act could be a prime target for a green jobs project. “Industry that produces these products are asking—begging—for research assistance in how to make a cleaner product,” he said. “And they don’t necessarily have the in-house tools available to (them).”
Council Member Chris Riley asked Gedert if his model could utilize the existing partnerships that the city has used to foster high-tech growth, specifically that of the Austin Technology Incubator. Gedert told Riley that this is “absolutely” a possibility.
“It could be the same... but we’re bringing new topics to the table,” he said.
For her part, Council Member Laura Morrison was curious about what sort of volume it might take for Gedert’s concept to succeed. “I’ve heard some discussion in the past.. .that to really become a thriving industrial economy where we can actually use our own waste.. .that it might be an issue of regionalism,” she said.
Gedert told her “regionalization is very key to the success of (Austin) being an innovation center and a green jobs economy.” He then discussed the concept of a ‘wasteshed,’ a “market driver” that determines the size of a given waste region. These, he said, can be determined using the distance of how far a truck can drive to a waste site, and still present a municipality with an economically sustainable option.
He suggested that this zone might extend as far out as six or seven counties.
Because the venture would be a first-of-its-kind endeavor, Gedert couldn’t point to hard employment figures. Still, he appeared optimistic about the potential of the project.
“There are seven jobs in recycling to every job in a landfill,” Gedert told In Fact Daily. “The numbers are even more stunning in the reuse industry. For every job that’s involved in landfilling, you translate that into 40 or 50 jobs in the reuse industry.”
“What I’m focused on more is on the upscale of working with the product manufacturers and designers and upgrading technologies,” he added. “There’s a lot of technology jobs out there and that’s an unknown—how many jobs can you (throw) in for that.”
4/4/2011 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 9:46 PM To: ‘Allen, Doug’ Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Ballas, Marisa; Moore, Andrew; Timbes, Elaine; Watkins, Dottie; Bui, Tins; Csstillo, Gerardo; Easton, Ed; Cortez, John- Michael; ‘John Lsngmore’ Subject: RE: Streetfilms I Long Beach Shifts Cycling in to High Gear
Thanks, Doug; I would like to cover that at a committee meeting. At least a couple other transit agencies are currently installing the 3-bike racks http //sdotblog.seattle.gov/201 0/01 120/ous-bike-racks-party-of-three-please/ http://www.virginia.edu/parking’TDM/active/bikeracks.html
-- and I know a lot of local cyclists would appreciate the added capacity, so I think it would be worth revisiting the issue.
Chris
From: Allen, Doug [msilto:Doug.Allen©cspmetroorg] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 8:15 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Belles, Msriss; Moore, Andrew; Timbes, Elaine; Watkins, Dottie; Bul, Tins; Castillo, Gerardo; Easton, Ed; Cortez, John-Michael Subject: RE: Streetfilms I Long Beach Shifts Cycling in to High Gear
Chris — yes I have heard of these. I believe the agency looked into using them. I will be glad to include that in the bike item we will have at the rail committee (even though I know this is for a bus). My recollection of the reasons the 3-bike configuration was chosen was a) the extra length caused safety concerns for the bus operator and b) it was difficult for the owner of the bike in the rack closest to the bus to get his/her bike out if the other two slots had bikes in them. Again, glad to bring info to you and the other
Board members on this. Thx - Doug
From: Riley, Chris [meilto:Chris.Riley©ci.sustin.b.us] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 6:18 PM To: Allen, Doug Cc: Martinez, Mike; Ballas, Merisa; Moore, Andrew Subject: FW: Streetfilms I Long Beech Shifts Cycling in to High Gesr
Doug --
This video (at ww-w.streetfilms.org/long-besch-shifts-cycling-in-to-high-gear/ ) has been bouncing around among local cyclists today and one thing I noticed in it is the bike rack on the front of a bus on the street in Long Beech: it appears to have three slots for bikes instead of two (see the screen-grab below).
I didn’t realize three-slot racks of this type are available, Is there anyone with Cap Metro who could look into this? I’d like to consider whether we could transition toward these racks in the future, at least or’ certain routes where there would be a demand for it.
Chris
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 2
http:I/wwsvstreetFilmsorg/losg-beachshifts-cyc[ng-in-to-high-gearI V P
File Edit Pew Favorites Tools Help tConvert “?PeIect
/1Upda1ed Homeless Ordinanc ØAmericao Top POBike-Friendl. Streettilm I Long Peach ‘ tPs’L Page Tools
Long Beach Shifts cycling in ro High Gear Related Posts
lv’ ‘. it I : r.’lte L:sipepvp tvlvie utnvr P •[;asijLvn:P ader:.rtcvira,c,;a ‘C rcc c -
.: Ir.rvIrr Ii ivy r v, ::i tya terIvcI’rv ccv’ vtculalv’ Crn Cr,:,- C p. Internet 100% —
From: Katherine Gregor [mailto:kgregort0lprismnet.com] Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 10:42 AM To: Beaudet, Annick Cc: Riley, Chris; Belles, Manse Subject: Streetfilmo I Long Beach Shifts Cycling in to High Gear
This is a great videol Yall should get people to view it, in a competitive spirit - can we be cooler than Long Beach?
Can you get Ch. 6 or someone else to produce something like this for Austin? DAA TV show?
I especially like the convertible “pull-up” bollards to turn a street into a ped-bike path temporarily, KG http: vvvvus1rectfiIms org lonc—heacI:—sh:lts-c cling—in—to—high—gear
4/4/2011 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 4:53 PM To: Spelman, William
Subject: FW: Submitted from City Council web site - Item #31 on agenda for Apr-22
Hey Bill -- Wanted to make sure you saw this .
Original Message Prom: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 4:33 PM To: Leffingwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [ Council Member] ; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl
Subject: Submitted from City Council web site — Item #31 on agenda for Apr—22
Date/Time Submitted: 1632 hours Prom: Te3ry Moore E—mail address: [email protected] Subject: Item #31 on agenda for Apr-22
Categories: environment
Comments: I request that Item#3l on the Apr—22 council agenda be pulled from the consent agenda to allow separate discussion and consideration.
This item recommends that Council accept a bid for 36—month supply of concrete with options for three 1—year extensions. I have requested staff (Steve Cocke) to send me the Scope of Work for this bid solicitation. My concerns are:
1. The contract is too long. 3 years is very long and 6 years is far too long to lock the city into a contract that may be later determined not to meet the needs for our city in future years.
2. The Scope of Work in the bid solicitation needs to require the bidder to provide information regarding the sustainability of the product being supplied. In particular, we need to know
2.1 Which part of the product materials will be manufactured locally (aggregate, portland cement, supplementary cementious materials)?
2.2 What will be the greenhouse gas ORG intensity of the portland cement? Modern efficient cement kilns have much better (lower) ORG intensity than older wet kilns, and some Texas firms use carbon-neutral alternative fuels which lowers the GHG intensity of their portland cement.
2.3 Are there any socially responsible practices the bidder would like us to be aware of that are followed by them or by parties in the supply chain of the concrete they propose to supply?
3. Finally, I encourage Council to pass a resolution directing the City Manager to develope Sustainability Criteria for inclusion in all Scope of Work bid specs and bring that Criteria to Council for consideration and adoption.
Thank you Terry Moore Principal and Co—founder, Carbon Shrinks Conservartion Chair, Austin Sierra Club
1 Page 1 of2
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:00 PM To: Garza, Rudy; Meszaros, Greg Cc: Ballas, Marisa; Ott, Marc; Smith, David [City Attorney] Subject: RE: Pioneer Farms water bill
Do we have any indication about the extent of the customer’s responsibility for the leak?
If this leak is attributable to some carelessness or neglect on their part, I’m fine with letting t go. If not, I’ll be interested in considering some action that would cut them some slack -- e.g., a Council resolution to the effect that non-profits should be treated similarly to residential customers for purposes of leak adjustments.
Chris
From: Garza, Rudy Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 3:45 PM To: Riley, Chris; Meszaros, Greg Cc: Ballas, Marisa; Ott, Marc; Smith, David [City Attorney] Subject: RE: Pioneer Farms water bill
Council Member
We have reviewed the consumption, as well as had staff confirm a leak existed. The average monthly consumption is 74,000 gallons, while March was at 369,000 gallons. The Council Resolution and our Utility Policy and practice has been and continues to be that commercial customers are not eligible for a leak adjustment. Leak adjustments are specific to residential customers. The best we can offer Pioneer Farms is a payment plan for their unusually high bill. Thanks
Rudy
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:35 PM To: Meszaros, Greg Cc: Garza, Rudy; Ballas, Marisa Subject: FW: Pioneer Farms water bill
Hey Greg --
Below is a note from Jacqui Schraad at the Austin Heritage Society seeking help with a high water bill they got, which was apparently due to a water leak. I’d like to help if we can. Can you suggest a solution, or refer me to someone who could?
Feel free to call me or Marisa in my office if it would be easier to discuss this by phone.
Regards,
Chris 974-6064 cell:
d/dI’?fll 1 Page 2 of 2
From: Jacqui Schraad [mailto:jacqui©hsaustin.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 4:04 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: ‘Mike Wardt;‘Mandy Dealey’ Subject: Pioneer Farms water bill
Dear Council Member Riley,
I’m writing to ask if you could assist in securing a waiver for a very high water bill Pioneer Farms received due to a water pipe leak. Recently, Pioneer Farms was alerted by the city that they had extremely high water usage. The city sent out inspectors who found a leak caused by swollen terrain from all the March rains. Pioneer Farms has received a $1,800 water bill, as compared to the usual $300 or so.
As you know, residential users typically receive a waiver for usage caused by leaks, but Council passed an ordinance that commercial properties must pay for usage even if caused by leaks. From our perspective, it doesn’t seem that Pioneer Farms as a non-profit museum should be considered a “commercial property”. Would it be possible for you to help us secure the waiver from City of Austin Utilities on this bill that non-commercial properties customarily receive, or give us guidance on how we should proceed?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
Regards, Jacq u i
Jacqui Schraad Executive Director Heritage Society of Austin P.O. Box 2113, Austin, TX 78768 www. heritagesocietyaustin. org ph: 512-474-5198 ext. 15 Join us at www.facebook.com/heritagesocietyofaustin
4/4/2011 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:34 AM To: ‘T. Thayer’; doug.allencapmetro.org Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: RE: Route 171/Oak Hill Flyer changes
Thanks for speaking up, Thomas.
Doug, could you direct this to the appropriate staff, and include Mike & me on the response?
Chris
Original Message From: T. Thayer [mailto: Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:27 AM To: Martinez, Mike [ Council Member] ; [email protected]; [email protected]; Riley, Chris; [email protected] Subject: Route 171/Oak Hill Flyer changes
Dear Cap Metro board members,
Recently, it has been proposed to eliminate two of the Route 171/Oak Hill Flyer buses that go through the Windmill Run/Scenic Brook neighborhoods in the mornings and three of the buses that go through the neighborhoods in the evenings.
However, none of the proposed evening bus times that are retained for the neighborhoods are after 5 PM. Many people work after 5 PM and could be stranded at the Oak Hill Park and Ride if they cannot get off work right at 5 PM. People who take the 7:40 AM Route 171 get to work after 8 AM, so it stands to reason that they get off work some time after 5 PM.
If it is absolutely necessary to eliminate some neighborhood routes of the 171/Oak Hill Flyer, there should still be one bus that goes through the neighborhood that leaves UT/Downtown after 5 PM )5:40 PM or 6:00 PM)
I urge you to retain at least one of these neighborhood routes that leaves UT/Downtown after 5 PM. This will help to retain ridership for those who need flexibility after 5 PM and will help keep people on the bus and out of their cars at the busy Oak Hill Y intersection. There is strong support for the neighborhood bus routes in the Windmill Run and Scenic Brook neighborhoods.
Thank you,
Thomas Thayer Board Member, South Windmill Run NA
1 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:12 PM To: Shade, Randi; Spelman, William Cc: Parkerson, Matt Subject: RE: ACC Board To consider repeal of historic landmark abatement participation
I’d be glad to visit with her. Matt can help with scheduling. Thanks -
Chris
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 12:03 PM To: Spelman, William; Riley, Chris Subject: FW: ACC Board To consider repeal of historic landmark abatement participation
FYI —
This email is from the Pemberton neighbor opposing today’s HZ cases. She is the woman I told each of you about during our one-on-ones. She attended UT and returned to Austin to retire a few years ago after practicing law in CA and Washington DC. Her perspective is interesting, and she expressed interest in meeting with other Council Members. Would either of you (or a member of your staff) be willing to visit with her? If so, let me know and I’ll facilitate. If not, no worries. Either way, I think her info below ref ACC is interesting, too.
-Randi
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/shade.htm
From: [mailto: Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 11:53 AM To: Shade, Randi; Coleman, Glen Subject: ACC Board To consider repeal of historic landmark abatement participation
Dear Councilmember (Randi) and Glen, FYI: Allen Kaplan has said that the agenda of the ACC board meeting on Monday May 3 includes consideration of repealing the schools participation in the Historic Landmark Tax abatements.
He said he pushed for it last year but came up one vote short.
Thank you for meeting with me on Tuesday. I look forward to contributing whatever I can to get this situation fixed.
Yours truly,
Jane Hayman JD 1410 Wooldridge Drive Austin, TX 78703
4/4/2011 Page 1 of3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 10:09 AM To: Alexander, Jason; McDonald, Michael [APD] Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Ballas, Marisa; Moore, Andrew Subject: RE: Bus Stop Collaboration
Great, thanks. Jason & Michael.
Chris
From: Alexander, Jason Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 4:18 PM To: Riley, Chris; McDonald, Michael [APD] Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Ballas, Marisa; Moore, Andrew Subject: RE: Bus Stop Collaboration
Good afternoon Council Member and Mayor Pro Tern,
Responding on ACM McDonald’s behalf, we would like to provide you with our findings on this by next week. This is a bit outside the department’s enforcement jurisdiction and has raised some interesting points along the way. However, we are continuing to work with the Law Department and APD to explore ways that we can facilitate enforcement at these CapMetro stops. Again, we should have something more definitive for you next week.
Thank you, and please don’t hesitate to contact our office with any questions.
Jason Alexander, MPA Executive Assistant Assistant City Manager, Michael McDonald City of Austin, City Manager’s Office P: (512) 974-2194 F: (512) 974-2833 E: [email protected]
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 8:02 PM To: McDonald, Michael [APD]; Alexander, Jason Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Ballas, Marisa; Moore, Andrew Subject: FW: Bus Stop Collaboration
Hey Michael -- Any word on when we might see something from APD on this?
Chris
From: Frank Fernandez [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2010 10:53 AM
4/4/’?fll 1 Page 2 of 3
To: Frank Fernandez; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris Cc: Spikes, Blair; Abdul-Khaliq, Amir; Ockletree, Patrick [APD]; Rodriguez, Abby; Holland, Eddie; Jones, John W.,; Moore, Andrew; Ballas, Marisa; Allen, Doug; Butcher, Kern Subject: RE: Bus Stop Collaboration
Hey Mike and Chris,
I just wanted to follow up again regarding the email below to see if y’alI have any updates on your end.
Let me know.
Than ks,
Frank
From: Frank Fernandez Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 10:21 AM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris Cc: Spikes, Blair; Abdul-Khaliq, Amir; Ockletree, Patrick [APD]; Rodriguez, Abby; Holland, Eddie; Ostertag, Mark; Jones, John W.,; Moore, Andrew; Ballas, Marisa; Allen, Doug; Butcher, Kern; Frank Fernandez Subject: Bus Stop Collaboration
Hi Mike & Chris,
I am writing to follow up on our conversation from last week re: bus stop collaboration among CapMetro, APD, and the City of Austin. As we discussed, after meeting with representatives from both CapMetro and APD it appeared that there are several City actions that could potentially help make our buses safer and reduce crime in areas that greatly need it. These actions are:
Remove Illegal Pay Phones at/near CapMetro Bus Stops. Illegal pay phones at/near CapMetro bus stops foster an environment, especially in lower income neighborhoods, that facilitates illegal criminal activity. CapMetro know this. APD knows this. City of Austin knows this. CapMetro is able
and willing to remove these illegal phones — especially those at bus stops that we know have higher crime issues. However, CapMetro has been hesitate to move forward because of concerns that they may be sued by the parties that put up the illegal pay phones. In order to move forward, CapMetro
needs a hold harmless agreement/letter from the City of Austin — given that these pay phones are technically in the City of Austin’s easement. Some work has been done on this issue, but it has not been able to make it through the bureaucratic morass. Anything y’all can do to facilitate this process would be great. Give All APD Officers the Authority to Issue Criminal Trespass Warrants (CTW) on CapMetro Property. Right now, CapMetro hires off-duty APD officers to provide security for CapMetro buses and bus stops. These officers, as CapMetro representatives, have the authority to issue CTWs to passengers that create problems. However, on-duty APD officers do not have that authority unless there is a CapMetro representative present. This is ok on the buses because the operators are there; however, it is problematic at bus stops, especially the ones that are having a lot of problems, because most of the time there are not any CapMetro representatives present. CapMetro appears willing to grant/authorize on-duty APD officers to issue CTWs on their behalf in order to improve safety for bus riders. However, the City needs approve this decision. Clearly, there are civil liberties issues at play in this process. We would not want to abrogate any citizen’s civil liberties. However, there is a compelling community interest in improving the safety of bus stops that have higher criminal activity. The CapMetro andAPD representatives I met with were hopeful that they could
Lt/Lt/)fll 1 Page 3 of 3
meet with the appropriate City staff (legal or otherwise) to begin to move forward to craft some sort of agreement that would enableAPD officers to issue CTWs on behalf of CapMetro. (Folks at the meeting please clarify/correct anything I may have misrepresented or misunderstood.) Encourage APD to Include CapMetro Activities in APT Training. With the imminent (hopefully) opening of the Red Line, it would be greatly useful for APD officers to get training not only on security as it relates to the rail line, but also at all the bus stops. Apparently, APD officers used to get training on CapMetro activities, but it has not occurred in recent years. It would be great if y’aIl could encourage APD executive team members to restart CapMetro training. APD officers who work with CapMetro believe it is a good idea, but would benefit from others also advocating for this training.
Any help y’all could provide would be greatly appreciated. Also, CapMetro & APD folks who attended the meeting, please feel free to add or correct any of the above, if I misstated something.
Than ks I
Frank Frank Fernandez Executive Director Green Doors P.O. Box 685065 Austin, TX 78768 512-469-9130 (Phone) 512-469-0724 (Fax) ffernandez©greendoors.org
...... Iiidiii GREEN LEORS
L1./L1/)u11 1 MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Pro Tern Martinez and Council Member Riley
From: Michael McDonald, Assistant City Manager
Date: March 3, 2010
Subject: CapMetro Bus Stop Safety
The City Manager recently made me aware of your concerns regarding public safety issues at CapMetro bus stops and have asked the police department to examine this matter further. Police Chief Acevedo will be developing a plan of action, which I wifl share with you upon completion.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. c.c. Mayor & City Council Marc A. Ott, City Manager Art Acevedo, Austin Police Chief Page 1 of4
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, May 11,20107:14 PM To: Curtis, Michael; Leffingwell, Lee Cc: Ballas, Marisa; Lazarus, Howard
Subject: RE: Connect - sidewalks to nowhere
That’s great to hear, Michael. Thanks for all your work on this --
Regards,
Chris
From: Curtis, Michael Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 2:34 PM To: Leffingwell, Lee; Riley, Chris Cc: Ballas, Marisa; Lazarus, Howard
Subject: RE: Connect - sidewalks to nowhere
Mayor & Councilmember Riley -
I am responding at Howard’s request.
In summary, I believe the issue in the initial emails below has been resolved to everyone’s satisfaction.
A brief history follows.
The fee-in-lieu fee setting and collection process had been administered by the Planning & Development Review Dept. prior to a recent decision to move it to our division in Public Works who will ultimately decide when and where these resulting projects will be located from this funding (= $150,000 to date). In making this transfer, I had been in meetings and contact with the Home Builders Assocation (HBA) and other stakeholders who objected to the existing residential development fee (which was based on an average construction cost of projects done by the City but without “soft costs” i.e. engineering, project management, inspection etc). I subsequently had an engineering consultant provide the attached study which looked at average costs from several different perspectives including private estimating manuals, private contractors, cost to developers where fee-in-lieu was exercised etc. These costs were similar to the $12.00/square foot previously being charged for residential development (note averaged into these costs were a % cost for driveways, curb ramps etc). From this study however, $1 0/sf seemed a reasonable average cost to a developer knowing, depending on site conditions, some locations will be less, some more. However, in meeting with Howard yesterday (and coincidently before these complaints came to you), as an incentive to developers to opt into the fee-in-lieu program, he directed me to use a 75% multiplier and propose $7.50/sq. ft. Both individual developers involved with this and the HBA have subsequently accepted and the rate will become effective immediately.
Please let me know if you have any comments or questions
Thank you
Mike iIicliae! Curtis, Di’isiou Manager Neighborhood €onnectivity Division (Pedestrian, Bicycle, Child Safety, Urban Trails & Neighborhood connectivity Programs)
4/4/2011 Page 2 of 4
974-7056
-Original Message- From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 10:11 AM To: Curtis, Michael Cc: Ballas, Marisa
Subject: FW: Connect - sidewalks to nowhere
Hey Mike --
This email below echoes a concern I think lye heard from Ken Pfluger: That the fee in lieu of building a sidewalk is too high, resulting in more of the orphan sidewalks that the fee was intended to avoid.
Can you shed any light on the amount of the fee? We could schedule a meeting or visit over the phone if that would be easier.
Thanks,
Chris 974-6064
Original Message From: dandandayhomes.com [rnai Ito:dandandayhomes.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 8:52 AM To: Riley, Chris; Parkerson, Matt
Subject: Connect - sidewalks to nowhere
Date/Time Submitted: Wednesday, 5/5/10, 0851 hours From: Dan Day E-mail address: dandandayhomes.com Subject: sidewalks to nowhere Category: zoning land use Comments: Dear Mr. Riley:
Please see my correspondence with the Mayore regarding sidewalks to nowhere.
Dear Mayor Leffmgwell:
I am attaching a copy of my correspondence with Brooke Bulow. The ordinance requiring sidewalks on new and remodel construction is ridiculous. We are forced to build sidewalks to nowhere. Nobody wants them. It is a waste of resources and man power. The fees are excessive. I am available to discuss, but this ordinance needs to go away. Best regards,
Dan Day
I am in agreement with you Dan. It is very frustrating. This is a good example of the ludicrous policy. I still have not received the memo from Mike on the exact fee.
AlA I)111 1 Page 3 of 4
Original Message From: Dan Day [maiito:dandandayhomes.corn] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:08 PM To: Brooke Bulow Subject: RE: Feed to death.
Brooke:
Were putting the sidewalk in. Cant wait on the city and the home owners can t afford it. We are putting in almost 150 of walk or roughly 600 sf. I m paying $3/sf. If tax in lieu of side walk is $9/sf the additional cost is over $3,600; if it is $12/sf the cost is an additional $5,400. The home owners opted for the driveway to nowhere.
Out of state people and businesses are being lured to Austin (and Texas) for the quality of life, reasonable cost of living and no state income tax. Some day the word will get out that our high property taxes and, high utility rates, and other hidden fees may be substantially higher than what many pay in state income tax. My soap box.
Dan Day
1509-A West 6th Street Austin, TX 78703 Office: (512) 476-3344 Fax: (512) 476-1514 Cell: (
From: Brooke Bulow [rnailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:40 PM To: Subject: RE: Feed to death.
I still have not heard back from Mike Curtis on the memo for what the fee is. What were you charged per SF?
Original Message From: Dan Day [rnailto:dan2dandayhomes corn] Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:37 PM To: Brooke Bulow Subject: Feed to death.
Driveway Inspection Fee - PDR $67.50 Yes $0.00
Driveway Inspection Fee - Transportation $7.50 Yes $0.00
Driveway Inspection Fee - PDR $67.50 Yes $0.00
Driveway Inspection Fee - Transportation $7.50 Yes $0.00
Excavation/Concrete Permit Fee - Transportation $35.00 Yes $0.00
Sidewalk Inspection Fee - PDR $67.50 Yes $0.00
Sidewalk Inspection Fee - Transportation $7.50 Yes $0.00
Curb/Gutter Inspection Fee - PDR $28.80 Yes $0.00
Curb/Gutter Inspection Fee - Transportation $3.20 Yes $0.00
Concrete Re-inspection fee - PDR $45.00 $45.00
Concrete Re-inspection fee - Transportation $5.00 $5.00 Total: $338.00 $50.00 You cannot pay any of these fees over the Web
.and we still have to pay for the side walk or the fee in lieu of sidewalk.
A IA /flfll I Page 4 of 4
A/A/’Dfll 1 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 5:36 PM To: Shade, Randi; Nathan, Mark
Subject: RE: Reminder - night of the bat
Seems ok to me too.
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:46 PM To: Nathan, Mark Cc: Riley, Chris
Subject: RE: Reminder - night of the bat
I have no problem with it. The better food will be on South Congress, though:-)
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http:/!vvv\v.ci.austin.tx.us!council/shade.htnl
From: Nathan, Mark Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:44 PM To: Shade, Randi; Riley, Chris
Subject: FW: Reminder - night of the bat
Chris I Randi: Given what’s going on right now with mobile vendors, is there any problem with allowing Snappy Snacks and BestWurst to be vendors at the City-sponsored Night of the Bat event next month? Bat Conservation International has made a deal with them to share in their profits. Please advise?
From: Maurer, Jason Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:42 PM To: Nathan, Mark
Subject: RE: Reminder - night of the bat
To date -
BestWurst Snappy Snacks
Jason Maurer Parks and Recreation Department 5 2-974-242 7
From: Nathan, Mark Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:41 PM To: Maurer, Jason 1 Subject RE: Reminder - night of the bat
Jason, please tell me the name of the two mobile vendors that BC! is proposing to use again? Sorry, I misplaced my notes...
From: Maurer, Jason Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 4:01 PM To: Nathan, Mark
Subject: Reminder - night of the bat
Mark -
Just a courtesy reminder -
• Need quick feedback on mobile vendors on site. • Need contact for bat mobile. • Need more money!
Jason A. Maurer Sales and Events Manager Office of Special Events Austin Parks and Recreation Department 512-974-2427
2 Page 1 of3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:34 PM To: Bui, Tina Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Ballas, Marisa; Moore, Andrew; [email protected] Subject: FW: Public Hearing Requested on Ethanol Facility
Could we include this as an agenda item for the next rail committee meeting?
Chris
From: Ron Davis [mailto: Ron [email protected]] Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 3:02 PM To: BoardofDirectors; Tina Bui; Spelman, William; Morrison, Laura; Leffingwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Shade, Randi; Cole, Sheryl Cc: Doug Allen; Moore, Andrew; Wilson, Beverly (Council Place 6); Riley, Chris; Coleman, Glen; Gerbracht, Heidi; Williamson, Laura; Ballas, Marisa; Curtis, Mall; Levinski, Robert; McDonald, Stephanie; Deone Wilhite; Feli Chavez; Joe Gieselman; Sue Spears; dorothy.browne©house.statebcus; [email protected]; [email protected]. us; [email protected]; pamela .mcpeters©house.state.tx.us; [email protected]; Barbara Hanlon; [email protected]. us; [email protected]. us Subject: Public Hearing Requested on Ethanol Facility Capital Metro Board,
I am requesting that Capital Metro conduct a public hearing regarding the transport of ethanol and the ethanol facility location, and allow the site applicant to give testimony in a hearing before the general public. The Capital Metro board should be the facilitator of this hearing and the location should be in the area most affected by the facility. If Capital Metro cannot conduct the public hearing, their board should please give their response to me in writing.
Sincerely
Ron Davis, Travis County Commissioner Precinct I
>>> Ron Davis 5/27/2010 1:28 PM >>> Ms. Bui, thank you for your response, however, community input should have been obtained on such a critical environmental issue. Sincerely, Comr. Ron Davis.
>>> TBui, Tina’
A IA /)fll 1 Page 2 of 3
Please find below information shared with Commissioner Ron Davis and Travis County regarding the ethanol rail siding project proposed by U.S. Development Corporation. I have spoken with your staff about this previously but will circle back with your offices should you have any questions.
Best, tb
From: Bui, Tina Sent: Friday, May 21, 2010 4:00 PM To: ‘Joe Gieselman’ Cc: ‘Anna Bowlin’; ‘Feli Chavez’; ‘Ron Davis’; Allen, Doug; Castillo, Gerardo; Deweese, Charles; LeJeune, Bill; Timbes, Elaine Subject: RE: Ethanol Rail Siding Project
Joe,
Below are responses to the questions that Commissioner Davis asked in regards to the site development application that the U.S. Development Corporation is preparing to submit to the joint City-County office.
QI. Has the Corporation sought and received permission from Capital Metro to use its rail line? If so, when was the contract approved by the Capital Metro Board?
Al. There are no state or local requirements with respect to the commodities that railroads carry. Since railroads are federally chartered and regulated, this federal status supersedes state and local laws. As such, approval by the Capital Metro Board of specific freight commodity movements by the freight railroad operator, the Austin Western Railroad (AWRR), is not required.
As background, Capital Metro acquired the rail line from the City of Austin, and with respect to rail freight, has discharged its federally-mandated common carrier obligation through contracts with railroad short line operators since 1986. The federally-mandated common carrier obligation requires rail freight carriers to move all of the commodities offered for shipment so long as all federal statutory requirements are met (documentation, placarding, packaging, Federal Railroad Administration safety requirements for railroad operations, and federal Department of Transportation regulation for packaging and transportation of various hazardous and other materials requiring extra attention). The AWRR, which operates freight services for Capital Metro, is competent of and capable of meeting these requirements.
The AWRR is statutorily required to handle all of the freight, and any changes to this statutory requirement require the approval of the federal Surface Transportation Board. AWRR’s obligations stem from their agreement with Capital Metro and their designation by the Surface Transportation Board as the common carrier.
Q2. Was community input to the rail service authorization solicited andlor enabled?
A2. As noted, federal regulations require AWRR to move all of commodities offered for shipment so long as all federal requirements are met. Public or community input can neither block nor accelerate the process. Therefore, public comment was not solicited since there was no significant action that could follow. The AWRR will move the commodities offered for transportation in ways that meet the federally- mandated common carrier requirements.
In sum, Capital Metro has what are referred to as Common Carrier Obligations, which means that we (through our contractor, the AWRR) are federally required to serve businesses desiring freight service, as long as all federal requirements are met. Our freight operations do generate revenue for our agency, which means that our sales tax revenue can be used for the purpose of providing quality public transportation to the community and not subsidizing freight service.
I hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to let me know if you have additional questions.
4/4/2011 Page 3 of3
Thank you,
Tina Bui
512369.6554, office
From: Ron Davis [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 11:37 AM To: SheryLCole@austin’tx.us; bill.spellman©ci.austin.bcus; [email protected]; lee. [email protected]. us; Martinez, Mike; randi.shade©ci.austin.txus Cc: BoardofDirectors; Allen, Doug; Deone Wilhite; Fell Chavez; Sue Spears Subject: Fwd: Ethanol Rail Siding Project
This is for your information. Future agenda item. Thanks, Comr. Ron Davis.
>>> Ron Davis 5/17/2010 2:24 PM >>> Chris, the following are my questions to Capital Metro. This is FYI. Thanks, Comr. Ron Davis.
>>> Joe Gieselman 5/14/2010 11:27 AM >>> Tina: The U.S. Development Corporation is about to submit its application for a site development permit to the joint development office of the City and County. Commissioner Davis has asked the following questions: 1. Has the Corporation sought and received permission from Capital Metro to use its rail line? If so, when was the contract approved by the Capital Metro Board? 2. Was community input to the rail service authorization solicited and/or enabled? I would appreciate your response to these questions. Thank you, Joe Gieselman
,1/ziI’)fll 1 Message Page 1 of 1
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:15AM To: Ballas, Marisa Cc: Morrison, Laura Subject: FW: E. Riverside Corridor Regulating Plan
Marisa -- Could you see if there’s a way to extend that 6/14 deadline while we get this figured out?
If so, could you get back to Toni et aT. about that?
From: Toni House [mailto Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:53 AM To: Morrison, Laura; Riley, Chris Cc: Malcolm Yeatls; Gayle Goff; Toni House Subject: E. Riverside Corridor Regulating Plan
Dear Laura and Chris:
As you may know. June 14th is the deadline for submitting nominations for working group members. Based on the May 17th meeting, to date no one on the EROC contact team has indicated a willingness to commit to wasting another year on a planning exercise that will likely result in regulations that do not support the visions and goals of the Corridor Master Plan and the EROC Neighborhood Plan.
If this planning phase is restructured so that it is guided by someone with true expertise in this area, and/or is based on regulating plans that have worked in other cities, then a member of the contact team would commit to serving. The assumption is that under these circumstances, it would not take anywhere close to a year to develop a regulating plan.
In the event Tony Nelessen’s group, or some other firm experienced in the development of regulating plans, is tapped to guide the regulating phase of our Corridor Plan, or if Staff’s current plan is scrapped for something better, will there still be a working group along the lines of what Staff has proposed? If there is, we would like to have a contact team member serve. Would this be allowed even though we will likely miss the June l4 nomination deadline?
Thank you for your consideration and assistance.
Sincerely, /s/ Toni House 1503 Inglewood St. Austin, TX 78741 office: 225-0016; home:
d/7/7fl1 1 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:27 AM To: Shade, Randi; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Cc: Nathan, Mark; Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Lake Austin Task Force resolution
I like the idea of putting this on the current board, instead of creating another one.
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:25 AM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris Cc: ; Nathan, Mark; Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Lake Austin Task Force resolution
Wasn’t the Water Front Overlay Task Force for essentially the same purpose? Would another task force thwart adoption of the WFO standards? And/or be another opportunity to fight WTP4? The charge being suggested is awfully broad. My guess is that Dean Almy has no idea how big of a can of worms such a group could open unless the charge is narrower than: “broad enough to encompass all the many concerns about the lake that citizens have brought forward.”
Here’s the current charge to WAPB; maybe we could broaden its scope a bit instead?
The purpose of the board is to provide recommendations to the city council and city boards that: (1) assist in promoting excellence in the design, development, and protection of the City’s waterfront; and (2) help to provide a more harmonious interaction and transition between urban development and the parkiand and shoreline of Lady Bird Lake and the Colorado River.
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http:!/wvw.ci .austintx.us/council/shade.htm
From: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:35 AM To: Shade, Randi; Riley, Chris Cc: ‘[email protected]’; Nathan, Mark Subject: FW: Lake Austin Task Force resolution any takers on this suggestion?
From: alan roddy [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 3:28 PM To: Leffingwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; bill.spelmen©ci.austin .tx.us; Cole, Sheryl
A171’)fll 1 Page 2 of 2
Subject: Lake Austin Task Force resolution
I’ve attached a copy of the ‘Lake Austin Task Force’ resolution that Mary Arnold and the Waterfront Advisory Board passed on April 12th. Please place this resolution on your agenda and vote in favor of it. Lake Austin needs your help. Thank you.
Alan Roddy
4!717fl1 1 Page 1 of5
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:32 PM To: Shade, Randi; Coleman, Glen; Spelman, William Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
My fault -- Bill, I am sorry about that; I should have included you. I had been talking with Randi about this item late yesterday afternoon (in our 1-on-i), and just thought of her when I saw that email. Thanks for being open to the suggestion.
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:27 PM To: Coleman, Glen Cc: Riley, Chris; Spelman, William Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
I agree with Heidi that “I don’t think he will have a problem with it” does not mean, “I have final approval on the change.”
We owe Bill an apology. And, let’s hope that in the future we work with Heidi a bit more effectively. Every office does things differently.
I thought you had approval before going to the green sheet.
Miscommunication aside, I think it was a good suggestion on Chris’s part and am happy that Bill agrees and is ok with the language.
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http://www.ci.austin.txus/council/shade.htrn
From: Coleman, Glen Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 12:22 PM To: Shade, Randi Cc: Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
Am just told that:
1. Heidi said, “I don’t think he will have a problem with it” does not mean. “I have final approval on the change”. 2. Bill feels y’aIl went around him discussing this. 3. Bill is OK with the language
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:29 AM To: Coleman, Glen
A/7flhIl 1 Page 2 of 5
Cc: Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
Good. Would be best to provide a tracked change new version to everyone — maybe on another color paper; or on yellow with bold for insert?
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/shade.htm
From: Coleman, Glen Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:27 AM To: Shade, Randi; Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
Legal has no issues with suggested changes - just read the language in
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:21 AM To: Riley, Chris; Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
Great. Glen, please proceed ASAP with legal and with the co-sponsors. Thanks!
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http://wwwci.austi.tx.s/cquncil/shade.htm
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 11:05 AM To: Shade, Randi; Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
The 2 paragraphs basically say -- (1) The HLC can generally initiate as many cases per month as it wants in response to demo requests. (2) BUT within historic districts, the # of HLC-initiated nominations is limited to one per month, if both other slots are filled.
I think it’s reasonable to conclude that within historic districts, the # of HLC-initiated nominations is limited to one per month, even in response to demo permits.
How about this -- (1) add “or relocation” after demolition (2) after “located in National Register of Local Historic Districts,” insert” , other than those initiated by the Commission in response to a request for a demolition or relocation permit,”
A171’)fll 1 Page 3 of 5
Makes (2) pretty wordy, but could avoid arguments/concerns.
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:53 AM To: Coleman, Glen; Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
Chris — if you want to make that as a friendly amendment for clarification sake, I am fine with it.
Glen if Chris says yes --- would you please vet with Mike/Andy and with Bill/Heidi and legal? Thank&
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http:/Jwww.ci.austin.tx.us/councillshade.htrn
From: Coleman, Glen Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:48 AM To: Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
Yes, but demolition based applications would not be touched - I think that clause one speaks and two is silent on that issue - but I’m not the lawyer.
It won’t *hu* to spell it out in clause two if you feel we need to -
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:43 AM To: Shade, Randi Cc: Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
I agree with the intent-- but as I read the current draft, the 1-per-month cap in paragraph 2 would trump paragraph 1 if the HLC wanted to initiate >1 case in historic districts in one month when the other two slots are filled.
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:36 AM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: Please postpone agenda item #29
I saw this email earlier and have asked Glen look into this. But, when a demolition permit is involved then HLC can initiate a HZ case. That’s the point of #1. Perhaps, we should include re-location and demolition in #1. What we are trying to prevent is having the connected folks simply ask HLC to initiate a case if/when the slots are already filled in a given month.
Randi Shade
zt/7/’)I’il 1 Page 4 of 5
Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http://www.ci.austin.txus/counci1/shade.htm
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:30 AM To: Shade, Randi Subject: FW: Please postpone agenda item #29
About this point: More threatening, the language in (2) contains no exception for demolition or any other permits, meaning that the Commission would have no ability to initiate a case in a NRHD or LHD once the slots are taken, regardless of the merit or significance of the property. This creates an incentive for those seeking to scrape a potentially-historic structure to simply wait until the slots are filled, and then file a demolition or relocation permit.
Should we delete the words and Historic Landmark Commission-initiated from paragraph (2)?
From: Rosemary Merriam [ Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:12 AM To: Leffingwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Cole, Sheryl; Morrison, Laura; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Spelman, William Cc: Wilson, Beverly; Williams, Nancy; Moore, Andrew; Garza, Bobby; Rush, Barbara; Levinski, Robert; Leff, Lewis; Ballas, Marisa; Coleman, Glen; Bier, Marti; Gerbracht, Heidi; English, Barksdale; McDonald, Stephanie; Everhart, Amy; Nathan, Mark; Curtis, Matt Subject: Please postpone agenda item #29
Dear Mayor, Council Members and Staff,
I am writing to request that you postpone agenda item #29 at your June 10, 2010 Council meeting.
The posted information for the agenda item is SIGNIFICANTLY different than the language unveiled to you today. No member of the public including the neighborhood has been able to look at these changes. I am having difficulty understanding why this is so specific and why have you not solicited public comment? This Council has publically committed itself to operating in a transparent fashion, and the public should have the ability, at a minimum, to be able to review and comment on what is being proposed. Although this is to initiate a code change, this is very directive.
The resolution on-line:
- Does not mention allowing changes to the whole structure of the historic program. The new, unpublicized language you are reviewing states that the City Manager will work with the HLC.. .“and make recommendations to Council...on any other aspects of the historic property identification and designation process”. The whole structure of the program is at stake with this new wording. No mention of such authority is in the posted resolution.
- States “Limit the number of owner-initiated and Historic Landmark Commission-initiated historic landmark nominations which are located in National Register Historic Districts or Local Historic Districts to one per month”. The new language makes this one per month cumulative, not one per district.
zt/7/)fl1 1 Page 5 of 5
- States this is a temporary measure, while the materials you have before you would make this measure PERMANENT.
In addition to these unpublicized changes this resolution is being rushed without considering some significant unintended consequences. The Historic Landmark Commission has limited powers with respect to review of demolition, relocation, remodel and general building permits. Generally, the Commission must approve a permit within a period of time or initiate historic zoning. Limiting the ability of the Commission to initiate historic zoning takes away the only enforcement mechanism available to protect structures. The wording also only addresses demolitions, when they review other permits as well.
More threatening, the language in (2) contains no exception for demolition or any other permits, meaning that the Commission would have no ability to initiate a case in a NRHD or LHD once the slots are taken, regardless of the merit or significance of the property. This creates an incentive for those seeking to scrape a potentially-historic structure to simply wait until the slots are filled, and then file a demolition or relocation permit.
If the issue is owner-initiated cases, the language regarding the Commission is not necessary, and it would create an obvious hole in the program. If Council takes away this authority, the permits would have to be approved regardless of the merit or significance of the property, with no appeal rights to Planning Commission or Council. If the authority remains with the Commission, Council retains the discretion to approve or disapprove all cases initiated by the HLC.
Taking away the authority of the HLC to act in this manner and limiting owner-initiated cases would likely threaten the City’s status as a Certified Local Government under State Law, placing any and all grant opportunities and tax benefits at significant risk. Has the Texas Historical Commission been consulted to determine the risk to the City?
For these reasons, we would respectfully request a postponement on this item so a full discussion with all stakeholders can take place.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Merriam and George Warmingham
A17/’)Iul 1 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:59 PM To: ‘John Lang more’; Frank Fernandez Cc: Williamson, Laura; Martinez, Mike [CouncH Member] Subject: RE: Are we meeting tomorrow?
Ok, let’s stick with 8am tomorrow. See y’all then.
From: John Langmore [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:55 PM To: Frank Fernandez Cc: Williamson, Laura; Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: Re: Are we meeting tomorrow?
I could do either with a preference for tomorrow at 8.
J On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:53 PM, Frank Fernandez wrote:
I am available at 8:00 am tomorrow and 9 am on Thursday (though I would have to leave at 8:45 am for a 10 am meeting). Thanks, Frank From: Williamson, Laura [mailto:Laura.Williamson©ci.austin.tx.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:32 PM To: Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Cc: Frank Fernandez Subject: RE: Are we meeting tomorrow? Hey Chris, Mike has a 9:00am meeting scheduled for Thursday with some folks from out of town so we aren’t able to move it. Are you still available at 8:00am tomorrow?
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:30 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Cc: Frank Fernandez; Williamson, Laura Subject: RE: Are we meeting tomorrow?
I was suggesting 9am Thursday. Does that work?
From: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 4:28 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Frank Fernandez; Williamson, Laura Subject: Re: Are we meeting tomorrow?
I mis spoke. Wed I not good for me
ii /‘7 I)fl1 1 Page 2 of 2
Departe de iPhone
On Jun 22, 2010, at 4:26 PM, “Riley, Chris”
Should we move our 8am Wed. meeting to 9am Thursday? Mike & are both available then. Chris
www.JohnLangmorePJitos.corn
4/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:55 PM To: Shade, Randi Subject: historic zoning cases fyi...
(3:33 PM) marisa.ballas: Steve Sadowsky was wondering if we could do consent 1st reading for these historic cases and then they would come back in February for 2nd/3rd readings- (realistically, that’s when it is estimated when we would have all the long-term recommendations back from the HLC). Would you be ok with this? (3:40 PM) chris.riley: I think its too late to do consent at this point. I’m ok with passing them on 1st reading only, but I think we’ll need to have some discussion.
,1I’7/’111 1 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, June24, 2010 4:37 PM To: ‘Rob D’Amico’ Cc: Morrison, Laura Subject: RE: Bike Blvd. Briefing
Thanks, Rob. Sorry we weren’t able to get through the whole thing this am. -- C.
From: Rob D’Amico [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 4:25 PM To: Morrison, Laura; Riley, Chris Subject: Bike Blvd. Briefing
Watched the end online from my work conference. Briefing went great... .thank you for all your help
-- Rob
4/7/2011 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 3:35 PM To: Cc: Ott, Marc Subject: RE: Submitted from City Council web site - Inclusion on the Business Panel for Austin Energy CEO
This is the City Manager’s decision, Earl, so I’m passing your email along to him. Thanks for speaking up -—
Regards,
Chris
Original Message From: Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2010 12:19 PM To: Lefflngwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [ Council Member] ; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl
Subject: Submitted from City Council web site — Inclusion on the Business Panel for Austin Energy CEO
Date/Time Submitted: 1219 hours From: Earl M. Hairston, Austin Board of REALTORS E-mail address: [email protected] Subject: Inclusion on the Business Panel for Austin Energy CEO
Categories: energy
Comments: Good Afternoon Mayor and Council:
Request that the Austin Board of REALTORS be included on the City Manangers Business Panel to interview the finalists for the position of Executive Director of Austin Energy.
The Austin Board of REALTORS is curently working with Austin Energy on ECAD and upcoming residential and cornmerical rate issues; it is only logical that we participate in the interview process.
Thank you for considering the Association’s request.
Earl M. Hairston Director of Government Affairs Austin Board of REALTORS 512—533—4926
1 City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:41 PM To: ‘John Langmore’ Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Memberl Subject: RE: Next MMWG meeting
I talked with Elaine, and she checked with Inez & Chad. There is no MMWG meeting tomorrow. They were only meeting every Tuesday & Thursday to gear up for this week’s board meeting. The next meeting is set for July 13.
Maybe our goal should be to have a mediator/facilitator lined up to get to work on July 13. I am available that day.
Chris
Original Message From: John Langmore [mailto Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:31 AM To: Riley, Chris Subject: Next MMWG meeting
Chris,
Do you want to confirm with staff that there’s a meeting this Thursday? I’m able to attend if there is and I plan to. I hope you can go as well.
J
1 Page 2 of 2
From: Tolliver, Matthew [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 1:57 PM To: Riley, Chris; Spelman, William
Subject: Plug-In Vehicle & Infrastructure Deployment - Austin
Dear Chris and Bill:
The Department of Energy is in the process of reaching out to cities preparing to deploy plug-in vehicles and infrastructure. Through some of our initial research, your names have been mentioned as helping lead the planning for EV adoption in Austin.
Within the DOEs Recovery Act Office, I work with a group focused on advanced vehicles programs. As we on the Recovery Act team and in the broader DOE think beyond ARRA, we have identified EV infrastructure as critical to successful EV deployment and advanced vehicle adoption. To this end, we are organizing a workshop on 7/22 to gather input from cities on best practices for EV deployment.
Prior to the workshop, we would greatly appreciate a chance to speak with you regarding your experiences and progress thus far. In particular, I write to see if you might have an hour to speak durinE the afternoons of July 1 2, 6, 7, 8 or 9. If not, please suggest another time - morning or afternoon — and day that works for you.
If you feel that you are not the appropriate contacts, please let us know to whom we should reach out. Otherwise, feel free to extend this call invitation to anyone on your team, planning group, or local coalition whom you feel would be critical to the conversation.
Thank you in advance for your time and input.
Best, Matthew
Matthew A. Tolliver Department of Energy Recovery Act Fellow 202.586.0280 matthew.tolliver@ hq.doe.gov
zt/7/)II1 1 Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 5:14 PM To: ‘Tolliver, Matthew Cc: Spelman, William; Leff, Lewis
Subject: RE: Plug-In Vehicle & Infrastructure Deployment - Austin
Ill! be out of town most of next week, and wouldn’t have that much to add to the discussion anyway -- so I think I’ll just plan on catching up with the Austin Energy POC separately.
Have a great 4th --
Regards,
Chris
From: Tolliver, Matthew [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:23 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Spelman, William; Leff, Lewis
Subject: RE: Plug-In Vehicle & Infrastructure Deployment - Austin
Thanks for the quick response, Chris. I will look for Lewis’s communication regarding a POC at Austin Energy. Would you also like to be on the call, or is the City Council outside of any planning and coordination process ongoing?
Again, thank you for being in touch.
Best, Matthew
From: Riley, Chris Emailto :Chris. [email protected]. us] Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 6:16 PM To: Tolliver, Matthew Cc: Spelman, William; Leff, Lewis
Subject: RE: Plug-In Vehicle & Infrastructure Deployment - Austin
Hey Matthew --
Thanks for getting in touch with Bill & me about this. We’re both very interested in plug-in vehicles & infrastructure, but we think you might gain more useful information by speaking with someone in Austin Energy who has been working on EV deployment issues. Lewis Leff in my office is working on identifying the best person for this; he’ll follow up with you shortly.
Let us know if there’s ever anything we can do to help in the future. We’ll look forward to being in touch --
Regards,
Chris (512) 974-6064
4/7/2011 Page 1 of3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:42 PM To: Shade, Randi Cc: Ballas, Marisa; Parkerson, Matt; Leff, Lewis; Coleman, Glen; Williams, Nancy Subject: RE: draft ordinance re board chair term limits
Looks good to me, and I’d be glad to co-sponsor. Thanks for all your work on this --
Chris
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 3:46 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Ballas, Marisa; Parkerson, Mall; Leff, Lewis; Coleman, Glen; Williams, Nancy Subject: Fwd: draft ordinance re board chair term limits
Hi Chris - I am sponsoring this with Lee. Do you want to co-sponsor, too? This is the item we discussed earlier to enable chairs of boards/commission to serve 3 years. We will bring it to July 29th council mtg just in time to deal with August election timeline.
Randi Shade 512-974-2255 (o) http ://www.ci,austin.tx .us/council/shade.htm
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Grace, Cary”
To: “Shade, Randi”
All,
I’ve tried to address all concerns. Now, the language in both the code section and the bylaw provision applies to all officer positions of a board. (I didn’t go that route yesterday b/c it is further removed from what council apparently wanted to do in 2007 when the new ordinance was passed.)
I THINK I also made clear that a person is term limited only from serving as a
particular officer - he’s not term limited after three years from then serving as a different officer. So, the chairman of Planning can be reelected next month and serve another year. Then, he has to lay out as CHAIR for two election cycles. BUT, he could be elected as vice chair in August, 2011 and serve in that office for 3
4/7/71)1 1 Page 2 of 3
terms total. OR, he could serve as vice chair for two terms, then be elected AGAIN as Chair in August, 2013, assuming his 9 years total aren’t up.
Let me know what everyone thinks.
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 8:08 AM
To: Gentry, Shirley (Brown - CCC) Cc: Grace, Cary; Williams, Nancy; Coleman, Glen Subject: Re: draft ordinance re board chair term limits
Great suggestion. Thanks!
Randi Shade 512-974-2255 (o) http://www.ci.austtx.us/councW,shade.htm
On Jul 20, 2010, at 7:51 AM, “Gentry, Shirley (Brown - CCO)”
As understand it, there was no intent by Council to say that once a person served as chair they could never be chair again. I understood there was an interest in allowing the board to switch back and forth from chair to vice chair back to chair.
Could we mirror the language about terms in general that is found in the code. It says, “A board member who has served nine years on the same board is not eligible for reappintment to that board until the expiration of two years after the last date of the member’s service on that board.” We could say, “A chair who has served three years is not eligible for re-election as chair for 1 (or 2 or 3) years after the last date his/her term as chair expired.” That would mean they could be chair for 3 years, vice chair for 1-3 years and then chair again, if that is what the board wanted. It is easier to enforce and understand if there is a consistent pattern in the thought process.
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 6:04 PM To: Grace, Cary; Williams, Nancy
Cc: Gentry, Shirley (Brown - CCC); Coleman, Glen Subject: RE: draft ordinance re board chair term limits
Thanks. I am glad we are doing this -- still curious, though, about the issue of “consecutive years.” What is to stop someone from serving two years and then waiting a year or two (or not being elected for another term) and then serving another set of consecutive years.... Is the goal here to limit someone from more than 3 years of consecutive years of service, from a maximum of 3 years of total service as board chair, or something else? Sorry for my confusion. I know the purpose of this item is specifically to deal with the current situation and to get chair service to more closely align with board service term and to enable those many boards and commissions grappling with the first round of “chair term limits” to have some more time to figure out what to do... so, maybe this is something to bring up later when the other items associated with cleaning up the ordinance are considered later. All this to say, I will support whatever y’all suggest and am fine with this as is.. confusing as the whole thing continues to be:-)
4/7/201 1 Page 3 of 3
-Randi
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax)
From: Grace, Cary Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 5:19 PM To: Shade, Randi; Williams, Nancy
Cc: Gentry, Shirley (Brown - CCO) Subject: draft ordinance re board chair term limits
Ladies, here s the draft we talked about late last week. If it is approved on the 29th, any board that wants to reelect a chair for a third term at the first regular meeting in August (when everyone’s bylaws require that elections be held) must first approve amended bylaws that include the language reflected in this ordinance (the new bylaw language is in PART 2 of the ordinance).
I tried to make this as simple as possible, so that board liaisons will clearly know what must be done at their board’s August meeting.
Let me know what else I can do for y’all!
Cary
4/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 5:12 PM To: Curtis, Michael Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: RE: disappointing meeting
Thanks for passing this on, Mike
Chris
From: Curtis, Michael Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 4:06 PM To: Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: FW: disappointing meeting
Council members;
Mr. Blackburn, a blind individual with whom my division works in the sidewalk ADA area, inadvertantly sent me the following email rather than Councilmember Martinez. In following up on it, he asked that I please forward it to each of you. His phone # if needed =
Thank you
Mike
Michael Curtis, Division Manager Neighborhood Connectivity Division (Pedestrian, Bicycle, Child Safety, Urban Trails & Neighborhood Partnering Programs) 974-7056
From: Audley Blackburn [mail Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:38 PM To: Curtis, Michael Subject: disappointing meeting
This is Audley Blackburn I had a verydisappointing meeting yesterday. I was at the winter’s building for the capmetro meeting to attend the worshop on metro access changes. Before the meeting began Dian Bomar Alanon started making statements about how people were not imformed about the meeting. As the evening continued Several people there were abusive to staff. This slowed down the process and we didn’t get to answer alithe questions. There are three people who need to be removed from the access committee. The names as best I could tell from the meeting are Dian, Pat Bartell and a guy who was called Mr. Patterson. These people are spreading disinformation, fear, and conspioracy t thearies throughout the community. You don’t want a committee that will role over for the staff but you do need people who will wrok for the good of the comunity. Excuse my typing errors. I’m still very upset from the experience. Thank you. Audley Blackburn u
4/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Sunday, August01, 2010 3:16 PM To: Coppola, Christopher Cc: Shade, Randi
Subject: Fw: trial of the century ...‘?
Chris - See the email below. I’m out of town till late Monday night, but at some point after that I’d like to visit with you about whether this suggestion might help.
Chris
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: ‘Jim Harrington”
Chris
I had a long string of emails with Adam Loewy, most of it unpleasant. But my sense, when the smoke clears, is that the City needs to get a new, strong mediator, who can effectively relate with both sides, and get this back into talks.
Jim
James C. Harrington Director Texas Civil Rights Project 1405 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 512.474.5073 x.108 www.TexasCivilRightsProject.org
4/7/201 1 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2010 3:15 PM To: Shade, Randi Subject: Fw: Your voice mail
Fyi - I left Chris a voicemail late Friday suggesting he reach out to Loewy. He was a step ahead of me
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
From: “Coppola, Christopher!
Council Member Riley -
I got your voice mail this morning. I wanted to let you know that I conveyed that same message to Adam on Friday morning when I spoke to him. Of course he told me again that he will not settle for less than $750k, but we’ll see.
The mediator has also sent me and Adam and an email telling us that he is willing to facilitate additional settlement talks if the parties are interested.
I will, of course, keep the Council informed of any significant developments.
Thanks - Chris
Christopher Coppola Assistant City Attorney 512-974-2161
4/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2010 4:15 PM To: Morrison, Laura
Subject: FW: Memo to Mayor and Council by Acting ACM Lazarus re: CIUR 369 - Response to Council Resolution 201 000624-83 concerning the use of Airport Property by Mobile Loaves and Fishes Categories: Memorandum Attachments: CIUR 369-Response to Council Resolution 201000624-83 concerning the use of Airport Property by Mobile Loaves and Fishes.pdf
Here’s that email about the site Alan Graham has been proposing near ABIA.
From: From the Public Information Office Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 4:41 PM To: Official Distribution Cc: Baray, Ray
Subject: Memo to Mayor and Council by Acting ACM Lazarus re: CIUR 369 - Response to Council Resolution 201000624-83 concerning the use of Airport Property by Mobile Loaves and Fishes
4/7/2011 MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Howard S. Lazarus, Acting Assistant City Manager C-’Z)
SUBJECT: CIUR 369 — Response to Council Resolution 20100624-83 concerning the use of Airport Property by Mobile Loaves and Fishes
REFERENCES: (1) Council Resolution 20100624-83 dated June 24, 2010 (copy attached)
(2) Letter from Representative Lloyd Doggett to Mr. Marcelino Sanchez, Program Manager, Southwest Region, Airports Division, US Federal Aviation Administration, dated June 1, 2010, Re: Mobile Loaves and Fishes Proposal to Utilize Property Located at 2430 Cardinal Loop, Austin, Texas for Homeless Support Services (copy attached)
(3) Letter from Howard S. Lazarus, Acting Assistant City Manager to Mr. Marcelino Sanchez, Program Manager, Southwest Region, US Federal Aviation Administration, dated August 3, 2010, Re: Mobile Loaves and Fishes Proposal to Utilize Property Located at 2430 Cardinal Loop, Austin, Texas for Homeless Support Services (copy attached)
(4) Letter from Joseph G. Washington, Manager, Safety and Standards Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, Southwest Branch, dated August 9, 2010 (copy attached)
DATE: August 24, 2010
CC: M Ott, R Goode, R Garza, J Smith, L Rizer, J Hrncir
This memorandum provides a response to Council concerning the following direction provided in Reference 1:
The City Manager is directed to work with the Central Texas Federal congressional delegation to assess the likelihood of gaining FAA approval to release property for non-aviation use as well as its financial impact and report back to Council in 60 days. o Pursuant to this direction, the City Jntergovernmental Relations Officer (John Hmcir) initiated contact with appropriate staff members of the applicable representatives, specifically personnel in the offices of Senator Hutchinson and Representative Doggett. It should be noted that prior to Mr. Hmcir’s contacts, Representative Doggett had previously contacted the Federal Administration Agency (FAA) on June 1st (Reference 2) to request the FAA’s assistance in reviewing this case. o Concurrent with the outreach efforts to the Central Texas Federal delegation, City staff initiated conversations with the FAA Regional staff concerning the potential use of Airport property at 2430 Cardinal Loop. FAA personnel requested that the City provide its specific request in writing so that the FAA could review the proposal and provided a focused response. The City submitted its request on August 3, 2010 (Reference 3). FAA’s response to the City’s request for consideration (Reference 4) indicated a strong opposition to the proposed use by Mobile Loaves and Fishes (ML&F), and recommended that the City pursue alternative properties as considered under the Council resolution (see discussion below).
• The FAA response also pointed out that it “has issued almost $41 million in AlP (Airport Improvement Program) noise fund grants and “If the City of Austin fails to meet the conditions of the grant agreement, then the FAA wffl have to initiate a compliance investigation. The consequences of a finding of noncompliance, if that were the case, would be determined by the factual and legal finding or the official determination.”
• The FAA response clearly indicates that should the City pursue the use of the requested property for non-airport uses, it could not only lose future grant funding, but may also be required to reimburse the Federal government for uses inconsistent with the intent of the grant program.
The City Manager is directed to evaluate other City owned property that is available and would be appropriate for use by Mobile Loaves and Fishes’ Habitat on Wheels program and report back to Council in 60 days.
Throughout the process of contacting members of Congress and the FAA, the City’s Real Estate Officer (Lauraine Rizer) has been identifying alternative properties for ML&F’s use. In selecting alternatives, Ms. Rizer has incorporated the essential requirements of the conceptual site plan contained in the ML&F proposal. These factors include location, size, utilities, access to public transportation, and proximity to other support institutions.
Due to the strongly worded nature of the response received from FAA, City staff recommends that the alternative sites be considered over use of the proposed airport property and that further contact with the Central Texas Federal delegation not be pursued on this matter. The City will, however, continue to work with ML&F on identifying an acceptable alternative. We are currently coordinating with Mr. Alan Graham and Mr. Paul Bury to conduct a reconnaissance of the properties Ms. Rizer has identified. Staff will also follow-up with Mayor and Council on the status of the ML&F proposal using an alternative site following discussions with Mr. Graham and Mr. Bury. 2 As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance on this matter.
4 Attachments
3 REFERENCE 1 RESOLUTION NO. 20100624.083
WHEREAS, Mobile Loaves & Fishes is a social outreach ministry to the homeless and indigent working poor; and
WHEREAS, the mission of Mobile Loaves & Fishes is to “Provide food, clothing, and dignity to our brothers and sisters in need”; and
WHEREAS, Mobile Loaves & Fishes operates an outreach program titled Habitat on Wheels, which provides an affordable place to live for those with little to no income; and
WHEREAS, the Habitat on Wheels program offers low rent travel trailer housing to the homeless with the ultimate goal of integrating them into the community by providing a much-needed structure in their lives; and
WHEREAS, there is a public need for low/moderate income housing and the City of Austin has identified land that can accommodate the vision of the
Habitat on Wheels community; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to support the mission of Mobile
Loaves & Fishes by partnering with them in their Habitat on Wheels program; and
WHEREAS, The City of Austin has land in proximity to the Austin-
Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA); and
WHEREAS, some of this property was purchased with funding from the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); and
WHEREAS, The City of Austin must get approval from the FAA to release this property so it can be used for a purpose other than the operation of
ABIA; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF AUSTIN:
The City Manager is directed to work with the Central Texas Federal delegation to assess the likelihood of gaining FAA approval to release property
for non-aviation use as well as its financial impact and report back to Council in
60 days; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is directed to evaluate other City owned property that is available and would be appropriate for use by Mobile Loaves and Fishes’ Habitat on Wheels program and report back to Council in 60 days.
ADOPTED: June 24 . 2010 ATTEST: REFERENCE 2 000GETT WA4INGTON OFFIce LLOYD C.’,NNO, HOUSE OFcE UJLD1I4Q sRct 201 WABHNTON, — DC 2cet 2G2 22S-4a6a COMMITTEE ON WAYS ANO tSANS SLJaCOMMTTEE ON OSTI1ICTOFFIt:
TX 78701 SUBCOMMFEE Org (OIIWtS5 of tIIt iInitcd t1IS
suCoMMrvTEe ON ftUIIC Of Rcprescntittues SOCIAL SECUJY [email protected] JU , COMMITTEE ON THE 8UDET 1—866—S1a—521
Mr. Marcelino Sanchez Program Manager U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal. Aviation Administration Southwest Region. Airports Division 2601 Meacham Blvd Fort Worth, Texas 76137
Re: Mobile Loaves & Fishes Propose! to Utilize Property Located at 2430 Ctrrdirntl Loop, Aurtin, Texzsfor Homekss Srrppofl Servkes.
Dear Mr. Sanchez:
I was recently briefed by a coalition assisting Mobile Loaves & Fishes in a revised effort to utilize property owned by the City of Austin for a facility to assist the homeless. A version of this proposal was the subject of correspondence between you and Mr. Robert Holland, Manager ofPlanning and Engineering for Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.
Learning from the March 6, 2007, correspondence, Mobile Loaves & Fishes has fundamentally revised and reformulated its proposal. The 20-ace City-owned tract now proposed to be utilized is located north of SH 71 along the southern bank of the Colorado River at 2430 Cardinal Loop. The uses have also been changed to be limited to those defined as a “campgixnind” by the City of Austin Code of Ordinances. These uses have been deemed appropriate and permitted within the existing zoning and Airport Overlay Zones (the tract is contained within the AO-2 and AO-3 zones) by the City’s Planning and Development Review Department.
In addition, the uses now proposed are consistent with those contained in 14 CFR Part 150, and the ABIA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program, as a camp. Under Part 150 and the Program, camps are permitted in zones up to 75 decibels. Neither overlay zone (AO-2 allows 65-70 decibels, and AO-3 allows 65 or less decibels) in which the tract sits allows noise levels of 75 or more decibels.
It is my hope that the chances made to the Mobile Loaves & Fishes proposal will meet with FAA approval. The proponents of this effort have shown great flexibility to meet the important standards expressed in both City Code and the FAA’s Part 150 Regulations. The intent is to utIlize the property in a way that is of vital importance to the community, while in no way endangering the Noise Compatibility Program or use of federal funds for noise mitigation purposes. As contemplated, theproperty would be leased to Mobile Loaves & Fishes by the City of Austin for the stated uses, but Mobile Loaves & Fishes has expressed a willingness to include
•FN1SO Q EECYCEZ MPSf Page 2
for the tract of the lease if an airport use is identified a provision to allow for early termination during the lease period. if you Loaves & Fishes proposal every consideration, I trust you will give the revised Mobile Counsel free to contact me directly or Amanda Tyler, my require ftwther information, please feel and District Director. Sincerely,
Lloyd Doggett
Cc Mr. Kelvin Solco Division Manager, Southwest Region U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region Airports Division 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 76137-4298
Mr. Mike Nicely Branch Manager, Texas U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region Airports Division 2601 Meacham Boulevard Fort Worth, TX 761374298 ri
[TI ri City of Austin cgty Mnagera Office P.O. Box 1088. Austin, TX 78767 (512) 974-2200, Fax (512) 974-2833
--
August 3, 2010
Mr. Marcelino Sanchez Program Manager U.S. Department of Transportaticrn, Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Region, Airports Division 2601 Meacham Blvd Fort Worth, TX 76137
Re: Mobile Loaves & Fishes Proposal to Utilize Property Located at 2430 Cardinal Loop, Austin, Texas for Homeless Support Services.
Dear Mr. Sanchez:
On June 24, 2010, the Austin City Council unanimously approved Resolution No. 20100624-083 recognizing the tremendous services provided by Mobile Loaves and Fishes to the homeless and indigent working poor in our community. Furthermore, the resolution clearly demonstrated the City’s support and desire to partner with Mobile Loaves and Fishes in their Habitat on Wheels prograrm (Resolution attached)
After carefully assessing the requirements for an ideal location to meet the needs of a truly functional site which would serve approsimately 200 chronicafly homeless persons, we have identified a tract of land whIch is within the City’s Austin Bergstrom International Airport — Airport Noise Mitigation Land.. The identified site would house approximately 100 recreational vehicles, 50 cottages, and centralized laundry facilities, bathrooms for the cottages, a community pavilion, as well as operations buildings and offices.
The City absolutely appreciates the funding and support of the FAA. in our Airport Noise Mitigation program. We also recognize that existing rules and policies associated with the FAA funding pose some challenges in using this itact Lot a development to serve the chronically homeless. However, we are also faced with the challenge that all major cities are faced with and that is a nsing homeless population. In Austin, we estimate the homeless population at approxunately 5,000, with 1,000 being chronically homeless.
The City and its various social service partners have invested millions and work diligently to provide services and some housing options to the working poor and homeless. The Habitat on Wheels program presents us with an opportunity for private funding to serve approximately 200 chronically homeless persons. The program also places responsibility on the inhabitants. AU persons must have a source of income to pay an affordable tent as well as their utilities. The rents will be based on theit level of affordability on available income which could be disability income, retirement,
I (14.7/ciw ( JIlii/11d1(, (,t’k,Lfl’ M.i L’ ffl)J 1 wd i/c,.c,c o D’ employment or other subsidies. The plan of this program is not to provide someone a ‘ftee-ride’ but rather targeted at those persons that truly want to be independent, working, and for various reasons have found themselves homeless.
The specific tract of land which we axe requesting your consideration for is 20.1 acres and shown on the attached map. We have also enclosed a schematic master plan of the Habitat on Wheels.
If ML&F is allowed to place its Habitat on Wheels Program on ABIA land, how will this impact past, current and future airport improvement, discretionary and noise grants as well as the collection of passenger facility charges?
Your consideration is sincerely appreciated. [f you have any questions, need any additional information, or would like to discuss, please do not hesitate to call tue ot others I have identified below.
Howard S. Assistant City Manager City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78704
Other Points of Contact: Jim Smith, Director of Aviation City of Austin (512)530-7518 P.O. Box 1088 Austin,TX 78704
Alan Graham, President Mobile Loaves and Fishes (512)328-7299x1 00 5524 Bee Cave Road, Bldg. M Austin, TX 78746
Lautaine Rizer, Officer City of Austin Real Estate Services (5i2)9747078 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78704
Cir, f sr j? iirdii, ,bi!:;c Al ff if? )1 , 1! / Rudy Gatza, Assistant City Mnaget City of Austin (512)974-7789 P.O. Box 1088
f 5( s xr,t ja /Jc z’1 .L. !52: f&’es 4 i:/,?.c to ,r,wjq2’’1i’ ___
Travis Central Appraisal District [11 149012 I :2 PfoJckon: LrnbCoflftmfiLC*nC 4 C,os Pd P.O. B* I Auii41, Thxo 78Th4 Toxs 7?I4 Internet Address: www.tcavsccLorg II I2I$?r2,. ,I)44 9ff IfIJ 99)’9 I )j T991f 9-fl jj j rn _.JL TravisAD Detail - PropjD 446029 Page 1 of 1
TaxNtUSAo Trais CoProperIyiaforrnathn Propezt *IIbOt 446029 RefIDNumbct R31531I325Q0O0
OMe?etttm, CiTY OF AUSTJ? PrcperlyDeIails Dtodoete %D02g POBOX 1002 DndVdum. .‘4$Ftt, AITFL’tXWOP4O02 00022 dae 2402OXfi(FLLODP20SI7 TOT L Ffl324DELV1ieSAOT 2002 p Raptdad F 200* Prdatbttry AwCode 0 201000 003.00000 LandAu00 402tFtVXe Oct AGWdt A0P10*MVtTe 02024 000 Abu,altcctt PthddtdCo6I QEXMP 0.02
lOX CpV*. Data up to dale sot 2001-00-02
‘OAFFod4IMeFtT02VdT1odM
- FtaTiUP (PDR)
Viut fl> Iuvltdtctten ApISelLOd entity code lOOt Ta* 8e0* Aneedted Value ThaVolua H Oat Value T80213 VONOaaLAPP 011? 000 020.88080 0200Oo2 02 031’YOPAUOTIN 000 02200000 00Z00002 03 TOAVI800tJ,80Y Oct 800.80000 003.08000 02 GEL VALLO lED 000 80OO0 003.08000 03 TRAVIOCOH03LIT400REDISI 1180 803.CO 801.00003 80 AUOTOI000thIOOLL GIST 080 663.8000) 801.80002
mproaent1nforailon lltlprOX,itE000 3D 81110 CeteSm’y DeOCIIPUDO
Stodinfotmailue Omp ID TypO Code 15800(0. Ye80 OulEL Area Total LMng Acts 0
Lf 80 lVp. code SF71 51A885. P0)00 Depth Olee.SqlO 380001 1.050 00 30.000 0 0 010880
[atlow hlotonfl
http:llwww.travIscacLorgltravisdetail.php?theKey=446029 6124/2008 Space Vr)rp Opan cO,11
Min)eroce Plan KTutfl Povfllor $rea
frOriflg
Site ::. - —. I?o1- -, kaLi V
aIftZJfl(1y Conceptual ______REFERENCE 4 0 U.S. Department Airports Division 2601 Meacham Boulevard of Tronsportalion Southwest Region Fort Worth, Texas 76137 Aviation Arkansas, Louisiana, Federal Oklahoma, Administration :5xco
August 9, 2010
Mr. Howard S. Lazarus Assistant City Manager City of Austin P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78704
Dear Mr. Lazarus:
We have reviewed your request to use approximately 20.1 acres of land acquired with Federal assistance through issuance of Airport Improvement Program (AlP) noise funds. You propose to allow Mobile Loaves and Fishes (ML&F) to construct a site on the acreage that would accommodate approximately 100 recreational vehicles, 50 cottages, as well as other ancillary facilities, as part of its Habitat on Wheels program. We have also reviewed the city’s Resolution Number 20100624-083. We understand you have 60 days from the adoption of this resolution to assess the likelihood of using the 20.1 acres and to evaluate other city-owned property.
To date, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has issued almost $41 million in AlP noise fund grants to aid the city in purchasing approximately 256 acres of developed noise sensitive land and converting that land to compatible uses. This effort includes the approximately 20.1 acres in question. One of the conditions for accepting a grant is that appropriate action will be taken to restrict the use of land adjacent to, or in the immediate vicinity of the airport to activities and purposes compatible with normal airport operations. In addition, the city is obligated to not cause or permit any change in land use within its jurisdiction that will reduce compatibility with respect to the airport
The FAA does not concur with the use of the acreage in question by an organization that will use it for purposes that are not compatible with normal airport operations, including the landing and takeoff of aircraft. We recommend the Austin City Council pursue the second portion of the resolution to evaluate other city-owned property that is available and would be appropriate for this program.
If the city of Austin fails to meet the conditions of the grant agreement, then the FAA will have to initiate a compliance investigation. The consequences of a finding of noncompliance, if that were the case, would be determined by the factual and legal finding or the official determination. 2
If you would like to discuss this issue in more detail prior to the 60-day requirement to report back to the city council, please call Mr. Lance Key at (817) 222-5681.
Sincerely,
Original Signed By: Joseph G. Washington
Joseph G. Washington Manager, Safety and Standards Branch
ASW-6 13 :DMCMATH:jd:561 7:08/09/1 0:AUS NoiseLandLetter2.doc Page 1 of3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 5:09 PM To: Shade, Randi; Pitts, Don Cc: Leffingwell, Lee Subject: RE: Ranch 616 & Star Bar- outdoor music too loud-no response from City
I’ve met Susan too, and I agree. Thanks, Don --
Chris
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 11:28 AM To: Pitts, Don Cc: Leffingwell, Lee; Riley, Chris Subject: Re: Ranch 616 & Star Bar- outdoor music too loud-no response from City
Thanks, Don. I met Susan last year and realize what a tough situation this one is. Thanks again.
Randi Shade 512-974-2255 () http ://www.ci.austin.tx.us/council/shade.htrn
On Sep 3, 2010, at 10:52 AM, “Pitts, Don”
Mayor Leffingwell and Councilmember Riley and Councilmember Shade,
I wanted to make you aware of my response.
Thanks,
Don Pitts Music Program Manager
From: Pills, Don Sent: Friday, September 03, 2010 10:48 AM To: susan sullivan Subject: Ranch 616 & Star Bar- outdoor music too loud-no response from City
Susan,
Regarding Ranch 616, they continue to be in compliance whenever our team performs the spot checks. In addition, we measure the ambient sound level at Posada Del Rey (from the
4/7/2011 Page 2 of 3
Nueces side), and the last several measurements have been consistently at 58 decibels
(10:00-l1:OOpm) . This is in no way attempting to contradict your statements.
We understand that there is indeed a noise problem in the West 6th area that affects your area and we have been working diligently with APD on enforcement. Last night there were 3 citations issued for outdoor music without a permit and the music was shut down immediately.
The Music office has created a tip line to ensure that we get the necessary information so we can coordinate with the appropriate city department. I encourage you to use that number, in addition an email account was set up that goes to staff members in multiple departments, including the Neighborhood Advisors. 512-974-1000 and soun@ci,austi.tx,us
We have numerous locations we are monitoring frequently, as well as communicating with citizens everyday regarding these locations, I take issue with your accusations of any impropriety on my part, or the elected officials who work tirelessly to make this city great. Furthermore, I respond to every citizen who makes contact with my office, which means, you would had to have called my office in order to receive a call back.
As always, please feel free to contact me or the contact information provided earlier in this email at anytime.
Regards,
Don Pitts
Music Program Manager Economic Growth and Redevelopment Services Office Music Division 512-974-7821 Direct 512-974-7825 Fax This electronic transmission contains information that may be privileged and confidential. The information is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you are not and addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact Don Pitts at 512-974-7821. In addition, all email correspondence to and from the City of Austin is subject to requests for required disclosure under the Public Information Act.
From: Susan Sullivan [mailto:Susan.Sullivan©co.travis.tx.us] Sent: Friday, August 27, 2010 4:07 PM To: Riley, Chris; Pitts, Don; Leffingwell, Lee; Shade, Randi Subject: Ranch 616 & Star Bar- outdoor music too loud-no response from City
Ranch 616 & Star Bar had a battle of the bands last night 8-26-10 w/very loud music blaring from both bars. Several property owners of ‘Posada Del Rey Condos” across the street called 311 & made noise complaints but nothing happened. Regarding us protesting the latest outdoor music renewal request from Kevin Williamson, owner of both bars Case#SO-2010-0198M-- I personally went to City Hall and hand delivered pkts to the Mayor, all city council members & Don Pitt’s office, called council members Riley & Martinez, Don Pitts (City of Austin Music Board), Darin Kane (City of Austin Development Board), David Murray (City of Austin Sound Engineer), Clara Hilling (the few times she is in her office)
4/7/2011 Page 3 of 3
personally spoke to Mike Martinez as well as faxed documentation of repeated noise violations from Ranch 616, my medical documentation due to stress & lack of sleep from bar noise & trips to the ER and yet Ranch 616 is granted another outdoor music permit after yrs of complaints to APD because APD won’t write citations or bring a sound meter w/them on the calls. Who is telling them to lay off the bars? Residents of Posada Del Rey condos are mailed interested party forms alerting us bars in our neighborhood are requesting outdoor music permits, we fill them out, and they’re disregarded. Why send them if you won’t respond to the interested parties. YES I AM AN INTERESTED PARTY PAYING THIS CITY MONEY TO ENFORCE THE LAW. There are over 50 units at Posada Del Rey and it’s been a residential bldg since 1964. The city is scalping us for property taxes yet you discount our votes. The City catches up in zoning ioop holes which City officials change at the drop of a hat or fist full of money under the table. Just like the City did with Mike McGinnis’s big condo project that missed it’s 5 yr target date to go up on W.7th & Rio Grande. It didn’t go up within the 5 yrs yet you granted him another 5 yrs. Clara Hilling will not return my calls or respond to e-mails informing me of the decisions made about the nearby bars after all of my efforts. Don Pitts has not returned my calls or kept me informed of the situation after telling me there would be someone sent to the bars to make suggestions such as turning the speakers in a different directions, enclosing the bar patios w/glass if they have music, using his skills in the music business and common sense to eliminate bar noise for the residents. How much money is being spent on the salaries of the new Music Commission, where are their solutions, are they earning their keep? Why don’t they do something about Ranch 616 & Star Bar or at least call. WHAT ABOUT THE DAMAGE TO DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS QUALITY OF LIFE, OUR DECLINING PROPERTY VALUE TO THE UNITS FACING NUECES ST, OUR HEALTH IS DAMAGED DUE TO STRESS & INABILITY TO SLEEP FROM THE OUTDOOR MUSIC, INCREASED CRIME & TRASH IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DUE TO DRUNKS. AS LONG AS HANDS ARE BEING GREASED, PAID OFF AND ALL OF YOU COLLECT YOUR PERKS, FREE MEALS, FREE TICKETS & SHOWS, POWER & PAY OFFS, TO HELL W/US. What recourse besides selling and moving do we have? Which one of you wants to buy my place? You would never pay another cover charge to hear live music (2-3 bands at a time) from every room of my condo. You can hear and see it all and realize yes, you have created the Loud Music Vomit Sidewalk Capitol of the World. Nothing like working all day and coming home to the melodious sounds of fighting drunks, car windows being smashed and alarms going off, drunks bashing strangers on the head sending them to the ER, watching frat boys & girls urinating under the windows, picking up their trash... You too can pay $4600 in property taxes and never have the police respond to your noise complaints too.
Now, may I get a call? Susan Sullivan
4/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, October07, 2010 4:09 PM To: Kennard, Karen Cc: Ott, Marc Subject: invocations at Council meetings Attachments: invocations.pdf
Hey Karen --
I’m attaching a letter we got this week raising some concerns about the invocations we have at Council meetings. I don’t think a lengthy response is necessary, but I would like some assurance that the Law Dept. has considered these concerns, and that either (a) we’re comfortable with our current policy, or (b) we’re taking steps to make sure our policy is on secure ground constitutionally. Would you be able to help with that?
Chris
4/7/2011 ((r
Yearsof j Freedom ( October 4, 2010
Lee Leffingwell, Mayor Mike Martinez, Mayor Pro Tern Chris Riley, Council Member AMERICANS Raridi Shade, Council Member UNITED Laura Morrison, Council Member for Separation of Bill Spelman, Council Member Church and State Sheryl Cole, Council Member 518 C Street, NE. City of Austin
Washington, D.C. 20002 P.O. Box 1088 Austin, TX 78767 (202) 466-3234 phone
(202) 466-2587 fax RE: Sectarian Invocations at City Council Meetings [email protected] Dear Mr. Leffingwell and Members of the council: www au.org We have received a complaint about the Austin City Council’s practice of opening its meetings with sectarian prayer. Investigation reveals that of the seventy council meetings held between January 10, 2008, and September 30, 2010, thirty-seven have featured sectarian Christian prayer. We write to inforni you that allowing sectarian prayer to open legislative meetings violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to ask that you take steps to bring your prayerpractice into constitutional compliance. You may either replace the prayer with a moment of silence or revise your policy to call for only nonsectarian prayer that does not proselytize or disparage other faiths.
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that prayers at the opening of legislative sessions are constitutionally permissible if, but only if, they do not use language or symbols specific to one religion. See i’.’Iarsh v Chanthers, 463 U.S. 783, 793 n.14, 794-95 (1983) (noting that prayer-giver had “removed all references to Christ” and that “there was no indication that the prayer opportunity ha[dj been exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief’); see also County ofAllegheny v, ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 603 (1989) (explaining that “[tjhe legislative prayers involved in Marsh did not violate th[e Constitution] because the particular chaplain ‘had removed all references to Christ”) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, federal and state courts have struck down sectarian prayers before legislatures and other representative public bodies. See, e.g., Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F3d 292, 301-02 (4th Cir. 2004) (prayers in the name of Jesus “are simply not constitutionally acceptable legislative prayer like that approved in Marsh”); Rubin v. City ofBurbank, 124 Cal. Rptr. 2d 867, 873 (Cal. App. 2002) (holding references to “Jesus Christ” in prayers that opened city council meetings unconstitutional); see also Bacus v. Palo Verde UnfledSeh. Dist. Bd. ofFdu.c., 52 F. App’x 355, 357 (9th Cir. 2002) (school board’s practice of ending prayers “in the Name of Jesus’ displays the government’s allegiance to a particular sect or creed,” namely Christianity, and therefore violates principle that “one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another”). The Fifth Circuit, which has jurisdiction over Texas, has riot yet definitively ruled on this issue, but the last time the court examined the issue, it held, in a panel opinion, that Marsh forbids sectarian prayer. Doe v, Tan.gipahoa Parish Sch. Bd., 473 F.3d 188.
Your voice in the battle to preserve religious liberty 200-05 (5th Cir. 2006). That decision was vacated and the case dismissed on other grounds when the court reheard the case en banc (494 F.3d 494), but it remains the Fifth Circuit’s last official statement on the matter.
To be sure, the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have rejected the sectarianlnonsectarian distinction and have instead adopted an interpretation of Marsh that prohibits only proselytizing or disparaging prayer. See Pelphrey v. Cobb County, 547 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2008); Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 159 F.3d 1227, 1234 nAO (10th Cir. 1998) (en banc). But even if Pelphrey and Snyder were applicable here (which they are not), they would not provide you with any refuge because the Council’s selection of prayergivers lacks the requisite diversity to render your practice acceptable under those decisions. The practice at issue in Snyder featured a dizzying array of religious practitioners, and the one in Pelphrey featured Jewish, Muslim, Baha’i, and Unitarian Universalist prayergivers. Pelphrey, 547 F.3d at 1267; Snyder, 159 F.3d at 1228. By contrast, in the two years and nine months of invocations that we reviewed, Christian prayergivers have presented the Austin City Council’s prayer ninety-four percent of the time. Indeed, in that period the Council only had four non-Christian prayergivers, and all of those four were Jewish.
The lack of diversity in your prayergivers is all the more glaring in light of the number of different religious groups within the Austin area. Surely even the barest effort could secure clergy from one of these traditions more than once or twice per year. Indeed, a cursory internet search reveals the following houses of worship from which prayergivers could be recruited:
• North Austin Muslim Community PaIn Pema Od Ling (Buddhism) Center (Islam) • Austin Zen Center (Buddhism) • Islamic Center of Greater Austin • Dharma Drum Mountain Buddhist (Islam) Assoc. (Buddhism) • Nueces Mosque (Islam) • Dharmata Sangha of Austin • Central Texas Muslimaat (Islam) (Buddhism) • Masjid Ibrahimllslamic Society of • Chittamani Buddhist Center Delaware (Islam) (Buddhism) • Ordinary Mind Zen Group • Austin Shambhala Center (Buddhism) (Buddhism) • Chua Linh.-Son (Buddhism) • Plum Blossom Sangha (Buddhism) • Barsana Dham Hindu Temple • Sitagu Buddhist Vihara (Buddhism) (Hinduism) • A Community for Contemplative • Austin Hindu Temple (Hinduism) Practice (Buddhism) • Austin Hare Krishna Center • SokaGakkai International (Buddhism) (Hinduism) Xiang Yun Temple (Buddhism) • Singh Sabha Gurdwara (Sikhism) • Diamond Way Buddhist Center • Guru Ram Das Ashram (Sikhism) (Buddhism) Phoenix Moon Coven (Paganism) • Mariposa Sangha (Buddhism) • Baha’i Faith of Austin (Baha’i) • International Buddhist Progress * Austin Area Interreligious Ministries Society (Buddhism) (Interfaith)
2 Faiths United for Social and Religious Tolerance (Interfaith)
See, e.g., The Pluralism Project at Harvard University, http://pluralism.org/directory/indexlpage: I/country: US/state:TX.
We note that even nonsectarian prayers raise important concerns. The citizens of Austin adhere to a diverse array of religious traditions and beliefs, as you can see from the above list. Prayers associated with the Christian or Judeo-Christian tradition tend to exclude and alienate people of minority faiths as well as nonbelievers, sending them the message that the Council does not represent their interests or welcome their points of view in debates over matters of concern to the community. Accordingly, because the Council is a representative body for all Austin residents, regardless of their faith, we urge you to consider eliminating the prayers altogether, in order to make all councilmembers and their constituents feel equally welcome. If however, you insist on maintaining the practice of offering prayers before meetings, the Council must take action to ensure that those prayers are nonsectarian and diverse.
We would appreciate a response to this letter within thirty days that advises us of your plans. You may contact Ian Smith at (202) 466-3234 or at isrnithau.org if you would like to discuss this matter.
Very truly yours,
Ayesha N. Khan, Legal Director Ian Smith, Staff Attorney
AMERICANS UNIT E I) Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 5:54 PM To: Evins, Fred; Lloyd, Brent Cc: Morrison, Laura; Ballas, Marisa; Levinski, Robert; Leff, Lewis Subject: FW: Please Pull Items 13 and 14 From Agenda
From: Paul Robbins
Dear Councilmembers,
No matter which way you look at it, there are numerous problems with the proposal to sell the land at the Energy Control Center.
1. The developer is not signing to buy it. They have a 4-year option. This is nothing more than a land bank. How many homebuyers get a 4-year option?
2. If the developer does buy it, they are not giving us enough money. You are using a 2007 appraisal, not adjusted for inflation, for land that might be sold in 2017.
3. The appraisal is not for the right amount. It is only for the raw value of the land. The land has a functional building on it that can be remodeled if you so chose. If Austin were a private utility and bid this land without the value of a functional building, how well do you think the shareholders would accept it?
4. Austin Energy is planning a rate case now that includes the cost of the new ECC. However, reimbursement that Austin Energy is counting on from the ECC may be delayed until 2017 by the current proposal, and may be delayed indefinitely if the developer chooses not to buy the land and the City has to find a new buyer.
5. Undervalued property sold to the developer and the delay in selling it may impact the coming electric rate case. Improper transactions of this kind can be viewed on appeal to the Public Utility Commission as “imprudent, “and the City’s General Fund may have to repay the gap.
6. The developer has up to 5 years to build after purchase. This means that if you vote tomorrow, the land will not be sold until 2013, and the first shovel may not turn dirt until 2022. If getting this land on the tax roles and moving more people downtown is your goal, this sure seems like an uncertain and lackadaisical way to do it.
7. The City is going to need more office space in the central city, and no attempt has been made to procure some of this proposed development for this purpose.
4/7/2011 Page 2 of 2
Please fix this broken deal. Staff is obviously not going to.
Sincerely,
Paul Robbins
4/7/2011 Page 1 of 1
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, October28, 2010 2:25 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Cc: Moore, Andrew Subject: FW: In response to Councilmember Riley’s question on opportunities to increase transit revenue Attachments: City of Austin final audit report 5-2005.pdf
I think we talked about this briefly the other day
From: Beyer, Caroline [mailto:Caroline.Beyer©capmetro.org] Sent: Friday, January 15, 2010 12:00 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: Ballas, Marisa; Stokes, Corrie; Hume, Randall; Allen, Doug Subject: FYI: In response to Councilmember Riley’s question on opportunities to increase transit revenue
Councilmember Riley, In response to your question regarding whether it would make sense to engage a firm to evaluate the remission of sales tax receipts to Capital Metro:
At this point, it is unlikely that such an effort would yield much financial benefit. Back in 2005, I coordinated with the City Auditor’s Office (COA) on a project which evaluated whether the City/CapMetro was receiving its complete allocation of sales tax revenues. (Since the majority of CapMetro’s sales tax receipts (>98%) come from within the City of Austin, if the City has effective procedures in place to ensure all revenues are received, this also benefits Capital Metro.)
Effective 9/2005, the City Auditors Office began regular monitoring of sales tax information in order to identify niisallocated businesses in the State Comptroller’s Office database in a timely manner. Any subsequent corrections to incorrectly coded businesses located within Austin city limits will automatically “fix” CMTA coding errors. (If a business is flagged as being located within the Austin city limits, the database automatically populates the CMTA MTA code.) Based upon my discussion this morning with Ms. Corrie Stokes of the City Auditor’s Office, the responsibility for periodically monitoring and testing the validity of the sales tax submissions was transferred to the City Controller’s Office (as it should since it is an ongoing management responsibility.) It is her understanding that the quality of the data in the Comptroller’s database has been significantly improved and, as a result, errors in remitting revenues are reduced.
If you have further questions regarding the City’s efforts, Corrie would be a good place to start (974-2805). I’ve also attached my copy of the City Auditor’s report that was issued on this subject.
Please free to call if you have any further questions from me.
Regards, Caroline
4/7/2011 Audit Report
Austin City Council SALES TAX 2005: DATA RELIABILITY
Mayor Will Wynn May 2005
Mayor Pro Tern Jackie Goodman
Council Members Daryl Slusher Raul Alvarez Betty Dunkerley Brewster McCracken Danny Thomas
City Auditor Stephen L. Morgan
Deputy City Auditor Office of the City Auditor Colleen Waring Austin, Texas Audit Team Niki Raggi
Assistant City Auditor Corrie Stokes, CIA, CGAP
Additional Contributors UT McCombs School of Business Student Team Mary Haney Jennifer Linwood
NOTE: This report reflects clarifications made on October 6, 2005. Changes are not substantive to originalfindings.
A full copy of this report is available for download at our website: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/auditor/reports. You may also contact our office by email at [email protected]. Please request Audit No. AUO5 102.
OCA maintains an inventory of past audit report copies and we encourage you to return any unwanted hardcopy reports to our office to help us save on printing costs. Please mail to: P. 0. Box 1088, Austin, Texas 78767-8808.
Alternative formats are available upon request. Please call (512) 974-2805 or Relay Texas #711.
Printed on recycledpaper City of Austin Office of the City Auditor 301 W 2nd Street, Suite 2130 P.O. Box 1088 Austhi, Texas 78767-8808 (512) 974-2805, Fax: (512) 974-2078 email: [email protected], website: http://www.ci.ausun.tx.us/auditor
Date: May 24, 2005 (minor revisions made on October 6, 2005) To: Mayor and Council From: Stephen L. Morgan, City Auditor Subject: 2005 Audit Report on Sales Tax
I am pleased to present this audit report on sales tax data reliability, which is part of our office’s ongoing focus on revenue accountability. The purpose of this audit was to determine whether all businesses in Austin’s jurisdiction were allocated to the City of Austin in the State’s sales tax database and to review the City’s controls over the sales tax data.
Results of this audit show that some problems with allocation to the appropriate jurisdiction in the State Comptroller’s Office sales tax data are ongoing. Additionally, in our review of the sales tax collection and allocation process, we found that controls could be improved to ensure that businesses applying for sales tax permits are allocated to the appropriate taxing jurisdiction. The State Comptroller’s Office has indicated that they have an ongoing effort to implement an automated tax jurisdiction system to ensure that current and future business locations are correct.
From our testing of over 55,000 businesses, we identified 168 businesses within Austin’s jurisdiction that are currently not allocated to the City of Austin in the State Comptroller’s Office sales tax database. Since under State law the City is not allowed to access payment information related to individual businesses, the potential monetary impact cannot be determined. We have provided the list of the businesses identified to the State Comptroller’s Office for correction.
We have issued one recommendation intended to create compensating controls within the City to ensure that new businesses within Austin’s jurisdiction are properly allocated to the City in the State Comptroller’s Office sales tax database.
We appreciate the cooperation and assistance we received from the State Comptroller’s Office and staff of the City’s Financial and Administrative Services Department during this audit.
Stephen L. Morgan, CIA, CGAP, CFE, CGFM City Auditor
a ;lusc;n s committed cc cvmpidnce otto the tmer/cers P——c 7iTaJo5ef7deom/e c n JjJ7ç? /o7swl’/bep i o o i o
ACTION SUMMARY SALES TAX 2005: DATA RELIABILITY
Rec. # Recommendation Text Management Proposed Concurrence Implementation Date
01 The Chief Financial Officer should assign Concur September 2005 responsibility within the Financial Services Department for regularly monitoring sales tax information in order to identify misallocated businesses in the State Comptroller’s Office database in a timely manner. Specifically, this responsibility should include: • Regular monitoring of new permits issued to businesses located in and around Austin to determine whether they are allocated to the appropriate jurisdiction, and • Periodic review of available sales tax information.
AS-i TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background .1
Objectives, Scope and Methodology 3
Audit Findings 5
APPENDICES Appendix A: Management Response 11 Appendix B: Sales Tax Permit Application Form 15 Appendix C: FY 04 Estimated Revenue Loss for Misallocated City of Austin Businesses 23 Appendix D: Misallocated Businesses by Standard Industrial Classification 27 Appendix E: Letter from the State Comptroller’s Office 33
EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Sales Tax Application and Allocation Process 2 Exhibit 2 Sumrnaiy of Testing Steps Performed on SCO Data 4 Exhibit 3 Locations of Misallocated Businesses 5 Exhibit 4 Age and Status of Misallocated Businesses 6
BACKGROUND
The State Comptroller’s Office is responsible for administering the collection and allocation of sales tax revenues to municipalities. As required by State law, the City of Austin pays the State a two percent collection fee for this service. For fiscal year 2004 (FY 04) sales tax revenues of approximately $118 million, this fee amounted to approximately $2 million.
A description of the flow of information, from receipt of the sales tax permit application, to data entry in the sales tax database, and allocation to the City is shown in Exhibit 1 on the following page.
Under State law, municipalities with a population of more than 275,000 are not allowed to access sales tax payment infonriation related to individual businesses; however, upon request, local jurisdictions can obtain from the State Comptroller’s Office reports from the sales tax database listing information on known taxpayers such as business name and location, whether the business is located inside a city’s limits, and under whose taxable jurisdiction(s) the business is located. The business location is the basis for the allocation of the local portion of sales tax.
This audit is one in a series of audits conducted by the Office of the City Auditor (OCA) designed to optimize sales tax revenues. Previous audits on sales tax identified concerns with the reliability of the State Comptroller’s Office (SCO) data associated with the collection and allocation of sales tax from eligible businesses for the City of Austin and the need to create compensating controls in the City. Specifically, previous audit work focused on the following: • Businesses in all Austin-area zip codes not allocated to the City of Austin as of September 2002; • Businesses located in areas annexed by the City of Austin between 1997 and 2001 not credited to the City of Austin in a timely manner following annexation; and • Businesses located in eight selected zip codes potentially missing from the tax roll.
This particular audit focuses on testing all active and inactive businesses located in 45 Austin area zip codes that were not allocated to Austin in the SCO database. Additionally, we focused on correcting inaccurate addresses for businesses located in Austin. This work is intended to yield a “clean” universe of records so that the City of Austin can begin using an ongoing strategy to monitor the reliability of sales tax data maintained by the SCO.
1 EXHIBIT I Sales Tax Application and Allocation Process ThXPWER [ SCO I COA
SOURCE: OCA analysis of SCO and COA processes.
2 OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
Objectives Our objectives for this audit were to: 1. Verify that all businesses within Austin’s jurisdiction that offer taxable goods or services are properly allocated to Austin in the State Comptroller’s Office sales tax database; and 2. Identify where controls are missing with regards to sales tax collection and allocation process.
Scope We reviewed data regarding businesses located in and around Austin’s jurisdiction which provide taxable goods or services. Specifically, we looked at data from the State Comptroller’s Office sales tax database as of March 9, 2005 that included: • Businesses located in 45 zip codes covering the Austin area, with the exception of 184 businesses located in the 78746 zip code, which fall within several taxable jurisdictions and have been recently reviewed for allocation appropriateness by SCO. • All known active businesses as well as businesses that have gone out of business within the past four years. Per State law a jurisdiction can be credited with up to four years of back taxes. We did not audit the State Comptroller’s Office or their internal controls.
Methodology In order to perform our audit work, we used various methods, including: o Interviewing State and City staff • Researching State and City law • Testing the reliability of data from the State Comptroller’s sales tax database for all 45 Austin zip codes. This comprises full purpose zip codes, which cover an area that is entirely within Austin, and mixed purpose zip codes, that cover an area that is partially in Austin and partially in surrounding jurisdictions or unincorporated areas. • From the universe of businesses located in the 45 Austin zip codes, we extracted those records not allocated to Austin in the SCO sales tax database and focused on reviewing the allocation of those businesses. Our testing steps are summarized in Exhibit 2. These steps performed included: o Using the City’s Geographic Information System (GIS) to check the jurisdiction of business locations; o Researching “unmappable” and invalid addresses using the City’s Map Viewer, MAPSCO, and the internet to detennine the appropriate jurisdiction of the business.
This audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Chapter 7 of the government auditing standards requires that we consider risks due to fraud that could significantly impact our audit objectives. Although we did consider such risks related to sales tax reporting, we were unable to perform in-depth testing to identify potential fraud because State law prohibits our direct access to taxpayer data.
3 EXHIBIT 2 Summary of Testing Steps Performed on SCO Data
UNIVERSE OF BUS NESSES IN -. / 45 AUSTIN ZIP DODES J5
BUSINESS LOCATIONS VERIFIED THP.DUOH OCAMAF VIEWER, ETC.
RECORDS (ONF RMFI) 10 RF WITHIN AUSTIN J UN ISDIC ITO N
V UIMAPPABLE AUU-bS win Juri Cily i’’rorr Au4tin 2S
SOURCE: OCA analysis of SCO data, as of March 9, 2005.
4 AUDIT FINDINGS
During this audit of sales tax allocation, we noted several businesses that are within Austin’s city limits but are not allocated to Austin. We also identified many addressing problems, which limit our ability to verify the exact business location to deterniine whether the business is properly allocated to Austin. In addition, as we reviewed the sales tax allocation process, we found that controls could be improved both at the State Comptroller’s Office and at the City of Austin to ensure that all businesses are allocated to the appropriate jurisdiction.
Audit work performed on sales tax records indicates that concerns about the allocation of the sales tax to Austin are ongoing. Testing performed on businesses located in Austin zip codes indicated several inaccuracies including misallocation of businesses and inaccurate information regarding the business location.
Our work identified 168 businesses within Austin’s jurisdiction that were not allocated to the City of Austin in the State Comptroller’s sales tax database. Exhibit 3 shows the location, within the City of Austin, of the 168 misallocated businesses identified. EXHIBIT 3 Locations of Misallocated Businesses
SOURCE: OCA analysis of businesses listed in City of Austin zip codes, from data provided by SCO, March 2005.
5 Examples of misallocated businesses identified include: 1. One business located in the heart of Austin (in Hancock Center, north of the University of Texas campus) erroneously recorded as being in Cedar Park. 2. Sixteen businesses located in Lakeline Mall. While the mall’s postal address is Cedar Park, it is physically located in Austin and the local portion of sales tax should go to the City of Austin. 3. Several businesses located in the proximity of the city boundaries, such as on Highway 71, on Highway 290, along North Interstate 35, and on Westlake Drive, erroneously recorded as being outside the city limits.
Exhibit 4 shows the proportion of active and inactive misallocated businesses, along with how long these businesses have been operating. More than half of the businesses identified (88) are not operating any longer, but 80 are still operating and 37 of these locations became operational within the last year.
EXHIBIT 4 Age and Status of Misallocated Businesses
Age as of 311105 (in years) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4+ Total % In business 37 11 7 2 23 80 48% Out of business 9 8 18 13 40 88 52% Total 46 19 25 15 63 168 100% * The age is calculated from the permit issued date. For two businesses for which the permit issued date was not available, the age is based on the date of the first sale.
50
40
(I) 0 30 (I) 0
0 20 D
10
0 0-1 1-2 2-3 34 Years
C In business flOut of business
SOURCE: OCA analysis of businesses listed in City of Austin zip codes from data provided by SCO, March 2005.
Since under State law the City is not allowed to access payment information related to individual businesses, the monetary impact of the misallocated businesses cannot be determined. However, using FY 04 data from the State Comptroller’s Office for annual average taxable sales for Austin businesses, we initially estimated that the potential revenue loss for FY 04 from the 37 misallocated businesses that were active for the entire fiscal year could be as high as $300,000. Details on the calculation of this estimate can be found in Appendix C. However, SCO staff have subsequently advised us that the net revenue loss for FY 04 may be lower than this estimate. A letter from the State Comptroller’s Office reflecting their perspective is included in Appendix E.
6 A large number of business records could not be mapped on GIS due to lack of a proper address. From the 9,296 businesses we were able to map, we identified 168 misallocated businesses. However, there were an additional 297 businesses that we were not able to map. Specifically, after the first try, 1,014 records could not be mapped due to invalid or unrecognizable addresses. After some research and address clean-up there were 276 businesses that still could not be mapped and, therefore, we could not determine whether they are correctly allocated. As mentioned above, the business location is key information, as it is the basis for the allocation of the local portion of sales tax.
Invalid addresses found include addresses that were incorrectly listed with an Austin zip code; businesses that provided directions instead of a legitimate address; addresses without a street number; and blank or unintelligible addresses.
Examples of invalid addresses are: i. Business with a Waco address and Austin zip code (78701 instead of 76701) 2. Business with a Tyler address and Austin zip code (78704 instead of 75701) 3. West Ave # 175, Athens 78701 (should be HWY 175 West, Athens 75751) 4. IH-35 S QUITA RD 2ND HOUSE ON LEFT 5. HWY 175 NORTH SIDE 1293 FT WEST POST OFFICE 6. FM 2769 OFF FM 620 7. 9500 HWY EAST 8. ANDERSON MILL RD (no street number) 9. BARTON CREEK MALL (no street number) 10. AIR TERMINAL 11. 12403 Meadow Meadows (should be Mellow Meadows Rd)
Some invalid addresses could not be mapped to verify the exact business’ location, even with extensive research. And although some of the directions serve SCO for locating the business for enforcement purposes, they make it difficult for the City to verify whether the business is allocated to the correct jurisdiction. Additionally, since taxpayer data obtained from SCO is typically by zip code, this may mean that the City does not receive records of those businesses recorded under the wrong zip code, and therefore cannot verify whether they are properly allocated to Austin. For example, an Austin business hypothetically entered into the sales tax database with the correct Austin address but a Dallas zip code would not show up among the businesses listed in the 45 Austin zip codes we reviewed and we would not be able to check its allocation.
Although the State Comptroller’s Office has made corrections to properly allocate businesses based on our prior work, SCO has not made identified addressing corrections. This results in duplicate work for us, because these records appear in the list of businesses to research every time we review records not allocated to Austin from selected zip codes. During this round of work, we noted twenty records that had already been identified in previous audit work and brought up to SCO attention for correction. These records concerned “bad addressing” problems and were not records that should have been credited to Austin; however, they still present problems when reviewing the data.
7 Reasonableness tests of all records received from the State Comptroller’s Office showed other problems with SCO data, such as blank fields and illogical relationships between fields. For example, 1,168 businesses (approximately 2% of the businesses in the data set reviewed) had a blank “Permit Issue Date” field. While SCO staff explained that the permit issue date may be blank when a business is set up as “non-permitted”, we found some instances where the permit issue date was blank even if the business was permitted. Additionally, we identified four businesses located inside the city limits that are properly allocated to Austin in the sales tax database but recorded as being outside the city limits.
Controls could be improved to ensure that new businesses applying for sales tax permits are allocated to the appropriate taxable jurisdiction.
The State Comptroller’s Office stated that, at this time, they do not conduct front end reviews of business locations submitted from taxpayers. However, the SCO has indicated that they are presently working toward implementation of an automated tax jurisdiction system to ensure that current and future business locations are correct. In addition, the City does not perform routine back end reviews of sales tax data.
Taxpayers self-report their business location and jurisdiction on the sales tax permit application form, and there are no controls in place to check the validity of this self- reported information. Taxpayers are advised to verify their local sales tax responsibility upon receipt of the sales tax permit, as failure to do so can result in the taxpayer being assessed local sales tax not collected or remitted. However, SCO has not implemented an automated system to validate the business location or reported jurisdiction. While the SCO has a control in place to standardize the taxpayer mailing address, this control does not verify the business location address. In addition to the present lack of logical checks at the front end for reviewing business locations, SCO has also not implemented back-end review of the data to detect possible errors or blank field(s) in the sales tax database.
We found two records with a blank street address (but the city was indicated) and hundreds of records with an invalid business location address. Examples include: 1. CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY (no street number) 2. 1705 S COTH STE 305 (should be 1705 S Capital of Texas Highway) 3. LAKE TRAVIS 620 NEAR MANSFIELD DAM 4. ROUND ROCK & MCNEIL (these streets do not intersect) 5. P0 BOX 41623 (instructions on the sales tax pennit application direct not to use P0 BOX numbers)
With the exception of sporadic work performed by OCA, there is no entity within the City of Austin performing any compensating controls. Under the current statute the City is not allowed to access the breakdown of payments of sales tax, so allocations cannot be tied to the individual payment. However, there are a number of reports available online at SCO website, or upon request, that can be used to monitor sales tax information, such as allocation to the proper jurisdiction.
Our office has provided to the State Comptroller for correction, the names and location of businesses in the wrong taxing jurisdiction that should be credited to Austin and the names of the businesses located in Austin that have an invalid address that should be corrected. The corrections resulting from this and prior audits should make the information pertaining to Austin
8 businesses in the State Comptroller’s Office sales tax database relatively reliable. However, to further guarantee that new businesses added to the database will be allocated to the appropriate taxing jurisdiction, increased attention by the City is needed.
Recommendations 01. The Chief Financial Officer should assign responsibility within the Financial Services Department for regularly monitoring sales tax information in order to identify misallocated businesses in the SCO database in a timely manner. Specifically, this responsibility should include: • Regular monitoring of new permits issued to businesses located in and around Austin to determine whether they are allocated to the appropriate jurisdiction, and o Periodic review of available sales tax information.
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE: Concur The Financial and Administrative Services Department will begin a transition process in order to assume regular monitoring of the sales tax information.
9 10 APPENDIX A MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
11 Appendix A Appendix A 12 Memorandum
To: Steve Morgan, City Auditor
From: Jeff Knodel, Controller
Date: May 23, 2005
Subject: Response to Sales Tax Audit
The Controller’s Office represents Management’s response to the Sales Tax Audit presented on May 24, 2005. The Controller’s Office concurs with the single recommendation and will work with the Office of the City Auditor to transition the review and monitoring process.
I can be reached at 974-2589 if you require additional information.
cc: John Stephens, Chief Financial Officer Vickie Schubert, Deputy Chief Financial Officer
13 Appendix A ACTION PLAN SALES TAX 2005: DATA RELIABILITY
Responsible Proposed Rec Proposed Strategies for Status of Person! Phone Implementation # Recommendation Text Concurrence Implementation Strategies Number Date 01 The Chief Financial Officer Concur FASD will begin Planned Jeff .Knodel, September should assign responsibility transition meetings Controller 2005 within the Financial Services with the City 974-2589. Department for regularly Auditor’s staff that monitoring sales tax information were responsible for in order to identify misallocated developing and businesses in the SCO database in performing sales tax a timely manner. Specifically, monitoring process. this responsibility should include: . Regular monitoring of new permits issued to businesses located in and around Austin to determine whether they are allocated to the appropriate jurisdiction, and • Periodic review of available sales tax information.
Appendix A 14 APPENDIX B SALES TAX PERMIT APPLICATION FORM
15 Appendix B Appendix B 16 TEXAS APPLICATION
SALES TAX PERMIT çt FIREWORKS TAX
OFF-ROAD, HEAVY DUTY DIESEL A\ TELECOMMUNICATIOS POWERED CONSTRUCTION INFRASTRUCTURE FUND EQUIPMENT SURCHARGE ASSESSMENT
USE TAX PERMIT 9-1-I EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
CAROLE KEETON STRAYHORN • TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
GENERAL NSTRUCTONS
WHO MUST SUBMIT THS APPLCATON - You must submit this application if: you are an individual, partnership, corporation, or organization engaged in business in Texas: AND you are selling tangible personal property or providing taxable services in Texas to customers in Texas: and/or you acquire tangible personal property or taxable services from out-of-state supphers that do not hold a lexas permit: OR you sell or resell telecommunications services, such as the electronic transmission of tax returns or other information, the provision of phone service for a charge to tenants or hotel guests, fax services, or paging services, or you are a telecommunications utility or a mobile service provider collecting and paying telecommunications receipts under Texas Tax Code, Chapter 151: OR you are a telecommunications utility, a mobile service provider, or a business service user that provides local exchange access, equivalent local exchange access, wireless telecommunications connections, or intrastate long-distance service, and you are responsible for collecting emer gency communications charges and/or surcharges under Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 771: OR you collect tax on the retail sale of fireworks. (You are requited to charge both the sales tax and fhe fireworks tax.) OR you sell, lease, or rent off-road, heavy duty diesel powered construction equipment. (You ale required to charge both the sales tax and the surcharge.)
DERNTONS - SALES TAX PERMT: This permit is required for every individual, partnership. corporation, or organization who makes sales, leases or rentals of taxable items in Texas. Permits are issued without charge. • SALES TAX BOND: You may need to post a bond or other security forthis permit. To determine the amount of bond or security required, complete a “Texas Sales and Use Tax Bond-Security Information,” Form 01-707 Submit this application and Form 01-707 to avoid delay in receiving your permit. USE TAX PERMIT: This permit is required for every individual, partnership. corporation, or organization who makes sales, leases, or rentals of taxable items in Texas but does NOT have a place of business in Texas, AND for out-of-state contractors improving real property in Texas with tangible personal property purchased outside of Texas. ENGAGED N BUSNESS: You are engaged in business in Texas if you or your independent salespersons make sales. leases, o rentals, or take orders for tangible personal property. or deliver tangible personal property or perform taxable services: or have lease (personal) property. a warehouse or other location in Texas: or benefit from a location in Texas of authorized installations, servicing or repair facilities: or allow a franchisee or licensee to operate under your trade name it they are required to collect Texas tax. PLACE OF BUSfNESS OR BUSNESS LOCAflON: Any store, office, or location where you receive orders for tangible personal property or taxable services or make sales, leases, or rentals of tangible personal property or taxable services at least three times or more in a calendar year. (See Rule 3.286; State Sales and Use Tax Sellers arid Purchaser’s Responsibilities.)
NOTE: Ifyou have been making sales and have not applied fora permit. you will need to file retun7s and pay tax, piLls applicable penalty and interest. for the period of time that you have been in business.
FOR ASSSTANCE If you have any questions about this application, contact your nearest Texas State Comptroller’s Office or call us toll free at 1-800-252-5555. The local number in Austin is 512/463-4600. The Tax Help E-mail Address is: [email protected] us AMERICANS WITH DSABLITES ACT- In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may be requested in alternative formats by calling toll-free 1 -800-252-5555. From a Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD). our hearing impaired taxpayers ma call toll free 1-800-248-4099. or they may call via 1-800-RELAY-TX. The Austin TDD number is 512/463-4621.
FEDERAL PRPIACY ACT - Disclosure of your social security number is required and authorized under law, for the purpose of tax administration and identification otanyindividual affected byapplicable law. 42 U.S.C. §405(c)(2)(C)(i): Tex. Govt. Code §403.011 and 403.078. Release of information on this form in response to a public information request will be governed by the Public Information Act, Chapter 552, Government Code, and applicable federal law.
If you are hiring one or more employees, please contact the Texas Workforce Commission at 512/463-2699 or your local TWC tax office to determine if you are liable for payroll taxes under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act
Complete this application and mail to: COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS 111 E. 17th Street Austin, TX 78774-01 00
Under CIt. 559, Government Code, you are entitled to i’eview. request, and correct infonnation we have on file about you. with limited exceptions in accordance with Ch. 552. Government Code. To request information for review or to request en’or conection, contact us at the address or toll-free number listed on this form. AP-201-1 lRev 7-04/8) 17 Appendix B AP-2O12 (Rev.7-0418)
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS
Item 35 - You WILL be required to report interest earned on sales tax IF: • you make retail sales of taxable items on an installment purchase plan or deferred payment plan; AND • you charge interest on the entire balance, including sales tax, on the sale of taxable items made on installment purchases or deferred payment plans; AND you do your own financing on some accounts on which interest is charged; AND you include installment payments which were received during a reporting period in “TOTAL SALES” on your sales tax return for that period (i.e., you keep your records on a cash basis of accounting).
NOTE: If any one of the statements above does NOT apply to your business, then you will NOT be required to report interest earned on sa/es tax.
Below is a listing of taxes and fees collected by the Comptroller of PublicAccounts. If you are responsible for reporting or paying one of the listed taxes or fees, and you DO NOT HAVE A PERMIT OR AN ACCOUNT WITH US FOR THIS PURPOSE, please obtain the proper application by calling toll-free 1-800-252-5555, or by visiting your local Enforcement field office.
9-1-1 Emergency Service Fee/Equalization Surcharge If you are a Off-Road, Heavy Duty Diesel Powered Construction Equipment
telecommunications utility, a mobile service provider, or a business Surcharge - If you sell, lease or rent off-road, heavy duty diesel service user that provides local exchange access, equivalent local ex powered construction equipment, you must complete Form AP-201. change access, wireless telecommunications connections, or intrastate This is in addition to the sales tax permit. You are required to charge long-distance service, and you are responsible for collecting emergency both the sales tax and the surcharge. communications charges and/or surcharges, you must complete Form AP-201. Hotel Occupancy Tax - If you provide sleeping accommodations to the public for a cost of $2 or more per day, you must complete Form Amusement Tax - If you engage in any business dealing with coin-oper AP-102. ated machines OR engage in business to own or operate coin-operated machines exclusively on premises occupied by and in connection with the business, you must complete Form AP-146 or Form AP-147. International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) - If you operate qualified motor vehicles which require you to be licensed under the Interna tional Fuel Tax Automotive Oil Sales Fee - If you manufacture and sell automotive oil Agreement, you must complete Form AP-178. in Texas; or you import or cause automotive oil to be imported into Texas
for sale, use, or consumption; or you sell more than 25,000 gallons of Manufactured Housing Sales Tax - If you are a manufacturer of automotive oil annually and you own a warehouse or distribution center manufactured homes or industrialized housing engaged in business located in Texas, you must complete Form AP-161. in Texas, you must complete Form AP-118.
Battery Sales Fee - lf you sell or offer to sail new or used lead acid Maquiladora Export Permit if you are a maquiladora enterprise and batteries, you must complete Form AP-160. wish to make tax-free purchases in Texas for export to Mexico, you must complete Form AP-153. to receive the permit. Cement Production Tax If you manufacture or produce cement in Texas. or you import cement into Texas and you distribute or sell cement (I) in intrastate commerce or use the cement in Texas, you must complete Motor Vehicle Seller-Financed Sales Tax - if you finance sales of uJ Form AP-171. motor vehicles and collect Motor Vehicle Sales Tax in periodic payments, you must complete Form AP-169. I— Cigarette, Cigar and/or Tobacco Products Tax If you wholesale, x distribute, store, or make retail sales of cigarettes. cigars, and/or tobacco Motor Vehicle Gross Rental Tax - If you rent motorvehicles in Texas, products, you must complete Form AP-175 or Form AP-’193. you must complete Form AP-143.
Coastal Protection Fee - If you transfer crude oil and condensate from Petroleum Products Delivery Fee - If you are required to be licensed or to vessels at a manne terminal located in Texas. you n]ust complete under Texas Water Code. sec. 26.3574, you must complete Form Form AP-159. AP-154.
Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production Taxes - If you produce andior purchase crude oil and/or natural gas, you must complete Form AP-134. Sales and Use Tax - If you engage in business in Texas; AND you sell or lease tangible personal property or provide taxable services in
Direct Payment Permit - If you annually purchase at least 8800.000 Texas to customers in Texas; and/or you acquire tangible personal worth of taxable items for your own use and not for resale, you must property or taxable services from out-of-state suppliers that do not complete Form AP-1O1 to qualify for the permit. hold a Texas Sales or Use Tax permit. you must complete Form AP-201. Fireworks Tax If you collect tax on the retail sale of fireworks, you must complete Form AP-201. This is in addition to the sales tax permit. You Sulphur Production Tax - If you own, control, manage. lease, or are required to charge both the sales tax and the fireworks tax. operate a sulphur mine, well, or shaft. or produce sulphur by any method, system, or manner, you must complete Form AP-171. Franchise Tax If you are anon-Texas corporation or a non-Texas limited liability compan.y without a certificate of authority, you must complete Form AP-114. Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund -If you are a telecommu nications utility company or a mobile service providerwho collects and
Fuels Tax - If you are required to be licensed under Texas Fuels Tax Law pays taxes on telecommunications receipts under Texas Tax Code, for the type and class permit required, you must complete Form AP-133. Chapter 151. you must complete Form AP-201.
Gross Receipts Tax - If you provide certain services on oil and gas wells Texas Customs Broker License - If you have been licensed by the OR are a utility company located in an incorporated city or town having a United States Customs Service AND want to issue export certifica population of more than 1,000 according to the most recent federal census tions, you must complete Form AP-168. and intend to do business in Texas, you must complete Form AP-’llO. Appendix B 18 ______.111______
AP-201-3 ::3= fRev.7-04/8) TEXAS APPLCAflON FOR SALES TAX PERMT, USE TAX PERMT ANDIOR TYPE OR PRINT TELECOMMUMCATONS NFRASTRUCTURE FUND ASSESSMENT SETUP •Da NOTwrite in shaded areas. Page 1
1 Name of sole owner (First, middle Thitial, and last name
identification 2. Social security number (SSN) 3 Taxpayer number for reporting any Texas tax OR Texas Check here T you DO NOT number if you now have or _j have a SSN. have ever had one.
4. Business organization type Texas registered limited liability partnership (PR) Texas limited liability company (CL) Non-Texas limited liability company (Cl) Estate (ES> Non-Texas registered limited liability partnership (PS) Texas profit corporation (CT> f,J Non-Texas profit corporation (OF) Professional corporation (OP) General partnership IPG) Texas nonprofit corporation (ON) Non-Texas nonprofit corporation (CM) Professional sssociation (AP) LI Limited partnership (PL or PF) Trust (FM) Please submit a copy of the trust agreement with this application LI Other (explain) 5. Legal name of partnership, company, corporation, association, trust, or other
6. Taxpayer number for reporting any Texas tax OR Texas identification number if you now have or have ever had one 7. Federal employer’s identification number (FEIN) assigned by the Internal Revenue Service Li.L 8. LI Check here if you do not have an FEIN 3 9. Mailing address Street number, P.O. Box, or rural route and box number
City State!prusmce ZIP code county forcouniry. if outxids the US.)
10. Name of person to contact regarding day to day business operations Daytime phone I I 11. Principal type of business LI Agriculture LI Transportation LI Retail Trade LI Real Estate LI Mining LI Communications (See Item 40) LI Finance LI Services LI Construction LI Utilities LI Insurance LI Public Administration LI Manufacturing LI Wholesale Trade LI Other (explain)
12. Primary business activities and type of products or services to be sold SIC/NAICS LI,L..,L..,..L.,.J
, - . . . . . F/c/charter number Month Day Year 13. It the business ma Texas profit corporabon, nonprofit corporation, professional corporation, or limited liability company, enter the charter/Sic number and date II 14. If the business is a non-Texas profit corporation, nonprofit corporation, professional corporation, or limited liability company, enter the state or country of incorporation, charter number and date, Texas Certificate of Authority number and date. State/country of Inc. chaner number Month Day Year Texas certd/cate otAuthonty number Month Day Year
15. If the business is a corporation, have you been involved in a merger within the last seven years? LI YES LI NO State Number 16. If the business is a limited partnership or registered limited liability partnership, enter the home state and registered identification number 17. General partners, principal members/officers, managing directors or managers (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) Name TWe Phone tArea code and number) .1 Home address State ZIP code
SSN or FEIN . Month Day Year County (or country, if outaide the U.S.)
owcarsh__ % bi4h Position held LI Partner LI Officer LI Director LI Corporate Stockholder LI Record keeper Name Phone (Area code and nurnhe4
Home address City State ZIP code
SSN or FEIN Month Day Year County (or country, if outside the U.S.) Percent of Date of ownership % birth Position held LI Partner LI Officer LI Director LI Corporate Stockholder LI Record keeper 19 Appendix B Iii’i’iiiiiI ______I______Ii______
l,j ff75’ AP-201-4 CS’ (Rev.7-04!S) TEXAS APPUCATON FOR SALES TAX PERMT,
USE TAX PERMIT AND!OR TYPE OR PRINT
TELECOMMUMCATONS NFRASTRUCTURE FUND ASSESSMENT SET-UP - Do NOT write in shaded areas. Page 2 18. Legal name of entity (Same as Item I OF? Item 5)
19. Is your business located outside Texas’? LI YES LINO If “YES,” skip to Item 28
20. Business location name and address (Attach additional sheets for each additional location.) Business ocation name I Street end number (Do not use P0. Box or rural route) City State ZtP code County L, III Physical locabon (If business location address is a rural route and box number, provide directional Etuninens tocabon phone II L__J 21. Is your business located inside the boundaries of an incorporated city’? LI YES LI NO If “YES,” indicate city (You may need to contact your local citv/county o!anning offices for assistance in determining the city taxing jurisdiction for your z 0 business location address entered in Item 20,) Answer the questions below about the above location by checking “YES” or “NO.” r. O/L C) 0 22. Is your business located inside a metropolitan transit authority/city transit department (MTAICTD)’?...... ,...... YES NO -J LI LI (I) Cl, 23. Is your business located inside a special purpose district (SPD)’? NO LU LIYES LI z U) 24. Will you deliver in your own vehicles, provide taxable services, or have sales/service representatives going from this location to customers located in: another city’? LI YES LI NO another county’? LIYES LINO
anotherMTP’JCTD’? LIYES LIN0
anotherSPD’? LIYES LIN0 25. Will you ship from this location to other customers via common carrier’? LI YES LI NO 26. Are you a seller with no established place of business selling at a temporary location (trade show, event, or door to door>’? LI YES LI NO 27. Will you have out-of-state suppliers shipping taxable items directly to customers’ locations in Texas’? LI YES LI NO 28. If you sell fireworks, are you a LI Distributor LI Jobber LI Manufacturer LI Retailer 29. Do you sell, lease, or rent off-road, heavy duty diesel powered equipment’? DYES ENS 30. Check the box that best represents your anticipated quarterly state sales tax collections: LI lesslhan$250 LI $250-S1,500 LIgreaterlhan$1,Soo month day year 31. Enter the date of the first business operation in the above location that is subject to sales or use tax, or the date you plan to start such business operation. (Date cannot he more than 90 days in the future.) 32. Is your business operated all year’? LI YES LI NO If “NO,” list the months you will operate. 33. Will you sell any type of alcoholic beverages’? LI YES LI NO If “YES,” indicate the type of permit you will hold’ LI mixed beverage LI beer and wine x 34. Brief description of your business activities for this location, and the primary products or services to be sold. SIC/NAICS JL.,.J,,,J LU 0 35. Will you be required to report interest earned on sales tax? (See “Specific Instructions”) LI YES LI NO 36. Are you located out of state with representation in Texas’? LI YES LI NO If “YES,” complete Item 37. If “NO, skip to item 39. 37. List names and addresses of all representatives, agents, salespersons, canvassers, or solicitors in Texas. (Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) Name (First, middle initial, last)
Street City State ZIP code
__I-__ 38. Location of all distribution points, warehouses, or offices in Texas (Attach additional sheets, if necessaty.) Street City State ZIP code
Street City State ZIP code II I__ Appendix B 20 AP-201-5 y2 Rev.7-04/8) TEXAS APPUCATON FOR SALES TAX PERMT, USE TAX PERMIT ANDIOR • TYPE OR PRINT TELECOMMUNCATONS NFRASTRUCTURE FUND ASSESSMENT SET.UP Do NOT write in shaded areas. Page 3 39. Legal name of entity (Same as Item I OR Item 5) I___ . For Comptroller lice Only 40. Do you receive compensation for providing telecommunications services? ,...... YES NO Tax typelreason If “YES, “you are responsible for the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund (T1F) assessment and Q 00991 , 2 0 should complete Items 4143. Reference no. If “NO,” skip to Item 44. month day year 41. Date of the first business operation that is subject to the Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund I assessment in Texas or the date you plan to start such business operation 42. Telecommunications provider type El Telecommuncations Utility (24) El Commercial Mobile Service Provider (25) 43. 9-1-1 emergency communications fees you collect under Health & Safety Code, Chapter 771. (Check all that apply) El 9-1-1 (Wireless) Emergency Service Fee (91) El 9-1-1 Emergency Service Fee (92) El 9-1-1 Equalization Surcharge (93) If you purchased an existing business or business assets, complete Items 4447. Previous owner a taxpayer number Z 44. Previous owner’s trade name. (if available) I 45. Previous owner’s legal name, address and phone number, if available, Name Phone tetrea code and number) Z I / Ui Address (Street ard number) cay State ZIP code II rim 46. Check each of the following items you purchased. o El Inventory El Corporate stock El Equipment El Real estate El Other assets > Ui 47. Purchase price of this business or assets and the date of purchase. , month day year Purchase prce $ Date of purchase I______
Date 48. The sole owner, all general partners, corporation or organization president, vice-president, secretary or treasurer, of signature(s) managing director, or an authorized representative must sign. A representative must submit a written power of month day year attorney Applicants must be 18 or older. Parents/Legal Guradians may apply for a permit on behalf of a minor. I I (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
I (We) declare that the information in this document and any attachments is true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief.
Type or pent name end fda of sole ownrr partner, orofficer Dnvers license comber/state Date of Beth ‘ Sole owner, par’.ner. or officer I/III II
D Type or print name and trite of sole owner partner, orofficer Drivem hcense number/state Date of Beth Sole caner partner, or officer III / IhereI
Type or pent name and tithe of sole owner partner, orofl/cer Dr/mm license number/stale Date of Birth ‘ Sole osner partner, or officer I I I/I YOUR PERMIT MUST BE PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED IN YOUR PLACE OF BUSINESS. THE INFORMATION ON YOUR PERMIT IS PUBLIC INFORMAT1ON. OPEN RECORDS NOTICE Your name, address, and telephone number are public information under the Texas Open Records Act,
Chapter 552, Government Code.
Field office or section number Employee Name USERID Date
21 Appendix B Appendix B 22 APPENDIX C FY04 ESTIMATED REVENUE LOSS FOR MISALLOCATED CITY OF AUSTIN BUSINESSES
23 Appendix C Appendix C 24 FY 04 Estimated Revenue Loss For Misallocated City of Austin Businesses Based on 37 Misallocated Businesses Active in FY 04 Sum of Austin Taxable Average Number of Sum of Taxable Misallocated Number of Missing Est. Sales Multiplied Calculation! Standard Industrial Sales from SCO Outlets from SCO Sales Divided by Businesses Businesses Multiplied by by 1% (Austin portion) Description: Classification (SIC) Division Quarterly Reports Quarterly Reports Number of Outlets Identified by OCA Avg FY04 Sales less 2% collection fee
I FY04 Avg FY04Sales Missing Est. Sales of Austin Portion of Division Name Taxable Sales FYI Per Business Businesses Missing Businesses Estimated Sales Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing $ 89,682,855 656 $ 136,712 3 $ 410,135 $ 4,019 Construction $ 246,940,738 1,150 $ 214,731 1 $ 214,731 $ 2,104 Manufacturing $ 383,920,678 743 $ 516,717 3 $ 1,550,151 $ 15,191 Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Service $ 1,172,074,845 319 $ 3,674,216 4 $ 14,696,863 $ 144,029 WholesaleTrade $ 738,317,440 937 $ 787,959 2 $ 1,575,918 $ 15,444 RetailTrade $ 6,441,855,578 10,845 $ 593,993 19 $ 11,285,870 $ 110,602 Services $ 1,238,746,848 6,743 $ 183,709 5 $ 918,543 $ 9,002 $ 10,311,538,982 21,393 $ 482,005 37 $ 30,652,210 $ 300,392 SOURCE: OCA analysis of FY04 SCO Saies Tax Quarterly Reports and of businesses listedin City of Austin zip codes from data provided by SCO, March 2005.
25 Appendix C Appendix C 26 APPENDIX D MISALLOCATED BUSINESSES BY STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION
27 Appendix D Appendix D 28 Misallocated Businesses by Standard Industrial Classification STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SIC) MISALLOCATED DIVISION DESCRITPION BUSINESSES A Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing 3 B Mining 0 C Construction 8 D Manifacturing 13 E Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Service 7 F Wholesale Trade 9 G Retail Trade 98 H Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 1 I Services 29 J Public Administration 0 K Nonclassifiable Establishments 0 Total 168 SOURCE: OCA analysis of businesses listed in City of Austin zip codes from data provided by SCO, March 2005.
29 Appendix D Misallocated Businesses by Standard Industrial Classification Details DIVISION MISALLOCATED STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION BUSINESSES DMsion A Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing Animal Specialty Services, Except Veterinary 1 Forestry Services 1 Ornamental Floriculture and Nursery Products 1 Total 3 Division C Construction
General Bldg Contractors - Residential Bldgs 2 Plumbing, Heating and Air-Conditioning 2 Electrical Work 1 Floor Laying and Other Floor Work, Not Elsewhere Classified 1 Masonry, Stone Setting, and Other Stone Work 1 Special Trade Contractors, Not Elsewhere Classified 1 Total 8 Division 0 Man ifacturing Commercial Printing 2 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries 2 Air-Cond & Warm Air Heatg Equip & Comm & IndI Refrig Equ 1 Coating, Engraving & Allied Services 1 Construction Machinery & Equip 1 Electronic Components, NEC 1 Electronic Computers 1 Instruments For Meas & Testing of Electricity & Elec Sig 1 Misc Industrial & Commercial Machinery & Equipment 1 Semiconductors & Related Devices 1 Wood Household Furniture, (No Upholstered) 1 Total 13 Division E Transportation, Communications, Electric, Gas, and Sanitary Service Radiotelephone Communications 2 Trucking & Courier Services (No Air) 2 Public Warehousing & Storage 1 Telegraph & Other Message Communications 1 Trucking (No Local) 1 Total 7 Division F Wholesale Trade Wholesale-Apparel, Piece Goods & Notions 2 Wholesale-Durable Goods, NEC 2 Electronic Parts and Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified 1 Wholesale-Electrical Apparatus & Equipment, Wiring Suppl 1 Wholesale-Industrial Machinery & Equipment Wholesale-Lumber & Other Construction Materials 1 Wholesale-Motor Vehicle Supplies & New Parts 1 Total 9 Division G Retail Trade Retail-Retail Stores, Not Elsewhere Classified 22 Retail-Miscellaneous Shopping Goods Stores 10 Retail-Eating Places 8 Retail-Misc General Merchandise Stores 6 Motor Vehicle Dealers (Used Only) 5 Retail-Convenience Stores 5 Retail-Eating & Drinking Places 5 continues on following page AppendixD 30 DIVISION MISALLOCATED STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION DESCRIPTION BUSINESSES
Division G - cont’d Miscellaneous Food Stores 3 Miscellaneous Retail Stores, Not Elsewhere Classified 3 Retail-Hobby, Toy & Game Shops 3 Motor Vehicle Dealers (New and Used) 2 Retail-Computer & Computer Software Stores 2 Retail-Nonstore Retailers 2 Retail-Radio, Tv & Consumer Electronics Stores 2 Used Merchandise Stores 2 Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores 1 Eating Places 1 Gasoline Service Stations 1 Hardware Stores 1 Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores 1 Miscellaneous General Merchandise Stores 1 Miscellaneous Home Furnishings Stores 1 Motorcycle Dealers 1 Retail-Auto & Home Supply Stores 1 Retail-Catalog & Mail-Order Houses 1 Retail-Drug Stores and Proprietary Stores 1 Retail-Furniture Stores 1 Retail-Grocery Stores 1 Retail-Jewelry Stores 1 Retail-Record & Prerecorded Tape Stores 1 Retail-Shoe Stores 1 Retail-Women’s Clothing Stores 1 Sporting Goods Stores and Bicycle Shops 1 Total 98 Division H Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Mortgage Bankers & Loan Correspondents 1 Total Division I Services Watch, Clock, and Jewelry Repair 1 Surveying Services 1 Services-Miscellaneous Equipment Rental & Leasing 1 Services-Mailing, Reproduction, Commercial Art & Photogr 2 Services-Computer Integrated Systems Design 2 Services-Business Services, NEC 4 Services, Not Elsewhere Classified 1 Photographic Studios, Portrait 3 Laundry and Garment Services, Not Elsewhere Classified 1 Hotels & Motels 1 Help Supply Services 1 General Automotive Repair Shops 2 Garment Pressing, and Agents for Laundries and Drycleaners 2 Electrical and Electronic Repair Shops, Not Elsewhere Classified 1 Carpet and Upholstery Cleaning 2 Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified 1 Bands, Orchestras, Actors, and Other Entertainers and Entertainment Groups 1 Automotive Services, Except Repair and Carwashes 1 Automobile Parking 1 Total 29 Grand Total 168 SOURCE: OCA analysis of businesses listed in Austin zip codes from data provided by SCO, March 2005.
31 Appendix D Appendix D 32 APPENDIX E LETTER FROM STATE COMPTROLLER’S OFFICE
33 Appendix E Appendix E 34 COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS P.O. BOX 13528 AUSTIN, TX 78711-3528
CAROLE KEETON STRAYHORN Compirolier
October 6, 2005
Mr. Stephen L. Morgan City Auditor City of Austin 301 West Second Street, Suite 2130 Austin, Texas 78701-3906
Dear Mr. Morgan:
We appreciated the opportunity to work with you and your staff in resolving certain issues identified in your audit of the City’s sales tax data controls. As you are aware, most of the issues raised by your team have been resolved and were properly reflected by some of the changes to your initial audit report.
A number of these issues are being resolved as a result of an initiative we began in the spring of 2004 using a geographic information system to determine the sales tax locations in our database that may be incorrectly set up for local sales tax collection. In addition, this project allows us to validate existing and future addresses for business locations.
This effort, upon completion, will allow us to make a number of improvements to our sales tax location database and ensure that local sales tax is properly allocated to the local jurisdictions where the local tax is due. It will essentially provide appropriate controls on both the front and back end of our business location setup process whereby ensuring future setups are correct.
While we appreciate the changes made to your report, we remain concerned that the report fails to document the outcome of research conducted by our staff once the allocation issues were raised. Your report initially indicated 168 businesses were identified as being incorrectly set up and not allocated to the City of Austin. Following our research, we determined that 61 of these businesses had a revenue impact on the City. Specifically, we have already completed the reallocation of $42,823 to Austin and billed an additional $40,003 in tax due but not collected. One account has been referred to our Audit Division for review. The remaining 106 businesses, of which 31 were coded correctly, had no revenue impact on the city.
35 Appendix E Mr. Stephen L. Morgan October 6, 2005 Page Two
These gains to the City cover four years worth of collections, so the net change is on the order of $20,000 a year out of the City’s total sales tax allocation which has averaged more than $111 million annually over the last four years. As we told your staff, the businesses are small and widely scattered throughout Austin. In addition, you asked this office to review 267 invalid business locations to determine if they are correctly allocated. Of this number, 247 were properly set up as either inside or outside the city limits of Austin and addresses have been corrected. Our Enforcement Division is validating the remaining 20 locations. Finally, we corrected the zip codes on the 21 businesses located outside the Austin area that were coded with an incorrect Austin zip code. We believe that the reporting of this additional information will provide a more accurate presentation of the issues identified in the report.
At this point, there are 27,333 active businesses in Austin’s jurisdiction, of which the problems you identified were a small percentage. We have found that businesses near the city limits often have difficulty with their initial set up. In the future, technology will reach a point where it should eliminate many of these problems automatically. This technology is just becoming available, and we have found several problems we are resolving as we implement the system, just as we found several discrepancies with the information provided by your office relating to the 168 business locations.
With most jurisdictions—including the City of Austin—our longstanding policy has been to work on a cooperative and ongoing basis to rectif’ problems. Your report, though improved, leaves the impression that neither the City staff nor this office has worked in that direction. That is as unfortunate as it is inaccurate. With almost 684,000 sales taxpayers statewide, we have found that keeping the data clear and accurate at a level of 99 percent or better is an ongoing challenge.
Again, we appreciate the professional and cooperative attitude of your staff, and we look forward to continuing to work with the City on matters in the future.
Deputy ler
Appendix E 36 rage i 01 i
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Sunday, October31, 2010 11:05 PM To: ‘Stuart Werbner; Morrison, Laura Cc: Beaudet, Annick; Barrera, Nadia Subject: RE: Bike Share Demonstration at City Hall
I’d like to see more demos like this too. The timing on this one was B-Cycle’s call -- They were in the state anyway to do presentations in a couple other cities, so I encouraged them to come by Austin, and they were able to work this stop into their schedule between those two other presentations. They’ve said they were pleased by the reception they got here, so hopefully they’ll make it back again before too long.
Chris
From: Stuart Werbner [mailt Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 9:56 PM To: Riley, Chris; Morrison, Laura Cc: Beaudet, Annick; Barrera, Nadia Subject: Fwd: Bike Share Demonstration at City Hall
Adding Council members Riley and Morrison...
I’d like to see something like this put on during the weekend or at least at two different times during the week.
Sincerely, Stuart
Forwarded message From: Stuart Werbner Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:49 PM Subject: Re: Bike Share Demonstration at City Hall To: “Barrera, Nadia”
Ridiculous that this demo is done at lunch time, when it is only accessible to those who work downtown or are unemployed. --Stuart
On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Barrera, Nadia
The City of Austin Neighborhood Connectivity Division would like to let stakeholders know that there will be a demonstration on bikeshare systems tomorrow at City Hall Plaza.
Details are as follows:
WHAT
4/7/2011 rage L 01
• Check a bike in and out just like you were a member of a bikeshare network in Austin • Test-ride a bicycle
WHERE
• Austin at City Hall (301 W2nd St, Austin, TX 78701)
WHEN
• Wednesday, October 27th, llam-2pm
Many American cities are considering bikeshare systems similar to those of Paris, France; Minneapolis, MN; Chicago, IL; Denver, CO, and more.
On September 20, 2010 Washington, DC began operations of the largest bikeshare program in the US. Starting with 400 bicycles and 49 rental stations the network will eventually build-out to 100 stations.
Bikeshare systems allow residents and visitors to check a bike out from a network of automated bike stations, ride to their destination, and return the bike to a different station. An automated solar-powered bike sharing program may reduce traffic congestion and create healthier places.
For more information on bikeshare programs worldwide, CLICK HERE.
Nadia M. Barrera
Bicycle/Pedestrian Project Coordinator
Neighborhood Connectivity Division
Public Works Department
City of Austin
512.974.7142
*lnteresed in participating in the Bicycle Advisory Council?
Join the Google Group for updates and meeting information:
http;/tgrcupsgoogle.corn/group/austin-bc/sLibscribe
4/7/2011 ?age .3 oI .3
0
(*)/ (*)
Stuart Werbner Annuit Coeptis
0
(*)/ (*)
Stuart Werbner Annuit Coeptis
4/7/2011 ragw 1 Ui. I
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, November 11,20105:55 PM To: Shade, Randi; Cole, Sheryl Subject: RE: Meeting on Monday
Sure. I’ll need to get Matt’s help with the scheduling -- we’ll work on that tomorrow.
Hope y’all are having a good Veteran’s Day
Chris
From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:21 AM To: Riley, Chris; Cole, Sheryl Subject: Meeting on Monday
Can the three of us meet on Monday or Tuesday to discuss what seemed to be a fair amount of miscommunication re: the Facilities Commission resolution on this next week’s agenda?
I can make time on Monday before our specially called Council Meeting that starts at 10 or I am free between 11:30 and 1. I am also free before 10 AM’s Audit and Finance Committee Meeting on Tuesday morning. if you will let me know which of those three times works best for you, or if you’ll suggest some other times, I will get Tara, Matt and Elaine to get it scheduled.
I am very excited about the work we are trying to get done re: Wailer Creek and am committed to the success of this effort. I realize it is a complex process and one that Sheryl has been driving for a VERY long time. I want to support the project in any and every way I can, but I am concerned that we’re not all on the same page when it comes to working together as a team. The farther along this effort gets and the more additional people come forward to take on leadership roles, the more complicated it is to juggle roles and responsibilities. I feel too far out of the ioop to be effective. I want to change that so I can be a better member of the team.
Thanks, Randi
Randi Shade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) http://www.cLaustin.tx.us/council/shade.htm
4/7/2011 City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 2:00 PM To: Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: RE: Rail mtg
I did ask Marc about whether Doug would be at the rail meeting on Monday. His first answer was no. When I started to raise a concern about that, he said hey, Linda’s the Pres.ICEO; whether Doug comes is her call.
So I just talked with Linda. She and Doug wilt both be there on Monday. 2pm.
I also talked with Linda about setting a BRT meeting. She agreed that we need to do that -- the sooner the better, she said. She’s going to talk with Elaine and then get us some possible dates, and we’ll go from there.
From: Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 9:01 AM To: Riley, Chris Subject: Rail mtg
Chris,
Did you ask Marc to invite Doug to Monday’s mtg?
J
Sent from my Verizon Wireless Phone
4/7/2011 I I Ui.
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Tuesday, November23, 2010 4:15 PM To: Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: FW: MetroRail versus traffic at Lamar and Airport/Justin
Hey John -- Passing this along fyi. Mr. Bijansky’s original complaint, down at the bottom, struck me as pretty legitimate & concerning. I was not impressed with Clendennen’s initial response, but I’m glad to see this latest offer.
From: Clendennen, Mark [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 4:07 PM To: Devon Bijansky Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Leffingwell, Lee; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl; Ott, Marc; Timbes, Elaine; Castillo, Gerardo; Mozdbar, Ali Subject: RE: MetroRail versus traffic at Lamar and Airport/Justin
Mr. Bijansky,
I would like to offer you the opportunity to meet with Mr. All Mozdbar from the City of Austin and I at the Capital Metro Crestview Rail Station to discuss the complexities and decisions made related to the Lamar crossing and the surrounding traffic lights. Would you be available to meet on either of the days listed below? If so, at what time would you be able to meet?
Date
Wednesday - 12/01
Thursday - 12/02 Thank you,
Mark Clendennen Manager Rail Systems Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority 9315 McNeil Road Austin, TX. 78759 [email protected] Direct: 512-369-6215
From: Devon Bijansky [mailt Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 8:03 AM To: Clendennen, Mark Cc: Martinez, Mike; [email protected]; [email protected]; randi.shade©ci.austin.bcus; [email protected]; bill.spelman©ci.austin.tx.us; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: MetroRail versus traffic at Lamar and Airport/Justin
Mr. Clendennen,
I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my e-mail earlier this month regarding the delays at the intersection of Airport and Lamar. However, I am already aware, from my own observation while spending untold time waiting at the Lamar/Airport intersection, how the traffic lights and train crossing arms are programmed. My issue is not that I do not understand how the traffic signals are programmed, but rather that I do not understand why these decisions were made, and I suspect that those responsible
4/7/2011 Page 2 of 4 for the programming are not entirely aware of the implications.
It was helpful that you told me that federal law requires twenty seconds’ warning before a train crosses an intersection. That sounds wholly reasonable. What is not reasonable is, for southbound trains, triggering the arms to go down more than twenty seconds before the train even reaches the station -- a station at which the train always stops and spends well more than twenty seconds again before leaving the station, approaching the intersection, and finally crossing. This morning, that amounted to approximately two minutes and ten seconds that the arms were down before the train even reached the intersection. (That is a typical wait time.) This, combined with the light priority issues I addressed in my previous e-mail (copied below), resulted in a seven-minute wait for Justin Lane trafffic turning northbound on Lamar.
I do not raise these issues merely because I like to complain, or because I am predisposed against MetroRail. On the contrary, as I indicated in my first e-mail, I am a huge supporter of public transportation, and I am concerned that programming without regard for real-life consequences is contributing to light rail’s mounting public relations problem.
I again stress my desire to be a part of the solution. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to help improve this system.
Sincerely, Devon Bijansky
On Tue. Nov 2, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Customer Service
I would like start by reassuring you that the crossing gates at Lamar Blvd are functioning properly and in accordance with federal regulations.
Allow me to explain how railroad crossing warning systems work. Circuits that are placed in the track detect approaching trains and are preset to activate the grade crossing to allow for the required warning time at the grade crossing. When a train arrives at the track circuit the flashing lights will activate and then crossing gate arms will slowly come down allowing motorists a chance to stop short of the crossing or to clear the crossing. After the train clears the crossing the warning system will deactivate and the crossing gate arms return to the upright position. Federal law requires a minimum of twenty seconds warning time at all grade crossings. To achieve the required amount of warning time, an approaching train must be detected quite some distance away from the crossing.
The Crestview and Highland stations being so close to the Lamar Blvd crossing affect the functionality of the crossing. The crossing gates at Lamar Blvd are programmed to remain in the down position for an additional amount of time while the train sits at the Crestview and Highland station for outbound trains, to allow sufficient time for boarding and de-boarding ofpassengers at the Crestview and Highland station.
Due to the unique configuration of the Lamar Blvd crossing with Airport Blvd and Justin Lane, once the gates activate they remain in the down position longer than at other locations because of the time required by the City of Austin for the traffic signal preemption. Traffic signal preemption is required by the City of Austin to allow cars enough time to clear the crossing prior to the arrival of the train. Once the train clears the crossing, the traffic signals begin their cycle. When there is a lot of traffic stopped at the lights, it does take longer for all the cars to get through the intersection. Justin Lane is included in the preemption. Traffic signal preemption is also used by the City of Austin for emergency vehicles to clear traffic at stop lights.
Thank you for taking time to make Capital Metro aware of your concerns. Customer input is essential in helping Capital Metro continue to provide the safest possible seivice to its patrons and members of the public, and we value your feedback. Should you need assistance in the future, please contact our Customer Service office at (512) 385-0190, or you may reach us online at www.caprnetro.org.
Should you need assistance in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me at
.4 I’71’4(.1 1 Page 3 of4
mark. clendennen©capmetero. org
Respectfully, Mark Clendennen Manager Rail Systems Rail Department Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority CCR 4413VR1 VERA
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Devon Bijansky wrote:
I am writing to express frustration at the way the traffic signals are programmed to respond to the MetroRail trains at the intersection of Airport and Lamar. My drive to work includes turning northbound onto Lamar from Justin (one block south of Airport) and then turning east onto Airport (and the reverse in the evening), and I am frequently held up at the train crossing. I understand this cannot be avoided, but the lights are programmed to give priority to Lamar traffic, and the interplay between the railroad crossing and the lights often leads to absurd delays. This morning, just before 7, I approached Lamar from Justin, just as Lamar traffic was stopping at a yellow, then red, light. However, instead of Justin traffic then getting the green light, as it normally would, our light stayed red and the railroad crossing arms went down.. .then back up, as there was no actual train (this is fairly common). Because Lamar traffic has priority, once the phantom train passed, Lamar had the green light. Then, after the Lamar signals turned to yellow and then red, Lamar got the green light again, this time because the priority to Lamar traffic extends to ensuring that Lamar has the last green before a train goes by as well. (This, too, is not uncommon, as something apparently triggers the signals well before the train reaches the station to ensure that Lamar traffic always has the green light last before the arms go down.) After this light cycle (“cycle” meaning that only Lamar got the green light), the arms went down again, the northbound train went by, and then Lamar traffic once again got the green light before traffic turning from Justin finally got a green.
Lamar had a green light four times before Justin got a green a single time. This is actually worse when the train is heading southbound, as the trigger to put the arms down occurs before the train is even in sight of the Crestview station -- the arms go down, everyone waits a while, eventually the train comes into view, then the train stops at the station, people load and unload, the train starts moving again, it crosses Lamar, and then the arms finally go back up -- and Lamar traffic always gets the green light first, no matter how much longer Airport and/or Justin traffic has been waiting. There are even times when the northbound train, southbound train, and a phantom train fall within a few minutes of each other. Lamar traffic clears out before and after each time the arms go down, but Airport/Justin traffic may end up waiting through the three train cycles and several Lamar green lights before ever getting the chance to cross the intersection. Needless to say, traffic on Airport and Justin sometimes backs up so far that it takes yet another light cycle for a car to make it through the intersection once these streets finally get a green light.
Throughout the lead-up to the commencement of service, there was no bigger MetroRail supporter in Austin than me (unfortunately, there aren’t stations close enough to my home or office to make this a viable option for my usually short commute). However, these delays -- caused by poor signal programming, not by the train itself -- are a constant reminder of the debacle that MetroRail has become...and I can only imagine the aggravation of those Airport and Justin drivers who are less enthusiastic about mass transit. The city and Cap Metro have suffered enough in the court of public opinion because of the various snafus that have plagued MetroRail; it makes no sense to continue to infuriate the populace by programming the traffic signals in a way that makes some drivers wait as long as ten minutes for a train that takes approximately five seconds to cross the intersection. I understand that Page 4 of 4 safety is, of course, paramount, but this is beyond excessive (and sometimes has led to drivers in front of me on Justin defring the red light to turn northbound onto Lamar in order to be first in line once Lamar gets the green light).
I would be happy to discuss these issues with you in an effort to improve on the current system. The restoration of MetroRail’s reputation is sure to be a long, uphill struggle, and I would love to be a part of the solution.
Sincerely, Devon Bijansky Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:45 AM To: ‘John Langmore’ Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Frank Fernandez (ffernandez©greendoors.org) Subject: RE: Linda’s evalutation
Looks good to me. Thanks, John -- hope you have a good Thanksgiving too.
Chris
From: John Langmore [ Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 10:39 AM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris; Frank Fernandez ([email protected]) Subject: Linda’s evalutation
All,
I have revised Linda’s evaluation and I hope I have accurately incorporated everyone’s input (revised the open-ended questions, altered the order of her primary goals, included some dates consistent with the Sunset report). I hope this can now go to the rest of the board and then on to Linda for final izatlo n.
Have a great Thanksgiving. See you next week.
Best, J
A /‘7/’(1 I Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 4:48 PM To: Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura Subject: FW: Message about OHAN Holiday Party
Anyone else going to this? I’m thinking I’ll ride the Oak Hill Flyer to get there. Just figuring out the trip back.
From: Oak Hill Association of Neighborhoods [mailto:info©mailva.evite.com] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 9:01 AM To: Riley, Chris Subject: Message about OHAN Holiday Party
Add info©mava evtecon to your address book to ensure that you receve Evbe ernas in your nbox
OHAN Hoday Party Hosted by Oak Hill Association of Neighborhoods
Have not heard from you about the merriment we have planned for next week. In order to arrange for food, please RSVP today. Season’s Greeting! Sandy Baldridge
View lnvtation Page 2 of 2
Having trouble viewing this email? Copy and paste this link into your browser: http:/inewevitecom/services!iinks/CYP2NFCFYF Note: Replies to this email will go directly to the person who sent this message, not to Evite. Evite respects your privacy. For more information, please review our Privacy Policy
a Jm,Infll -t Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:37 PM To: ‘Frances Ferguson’ Cc: Shade, Randi Subject: RE: Saltillo TOD project
Good points. Francie; thanks!
Chris
From: Frances Ferguson [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 1:26 PM To: Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi Subject: Saltillo TOD project
Hi Chris and Randi -- I met w/ Alice Glasco today. She said you had requested she get w/ us. Thank you very much.
I urged Alice to go back to the developer and press him to ask for what he NEEDED in ORDER TO INCLUDE 8 units instead of just looking for a way to get a waiver to get out. In looking at the design: a) Perhaps if they could include some smaller units
b) Kelly Weiss pointed out that frequently the affordable units actually sell FASTEST — and so can help the development meet its pre-sell requirements by funders. c) Perhaps if there was SOME wavier on compatibility to allow a little bit more unit count or some waiver on FAR/SAR.
I’d really like to be looking for how to GET TO INCLUDE ... instead of how to get OUT of including affordability. How to WAIVE something OTHER than affordability!!! It seems like a better solution to waive a rule just enough to get the units rather than always losing the units!
I really think sometimes these guys think the affordability stuff is harder than it is. A small unit marketed to 80% MFI can still be quite reasonably priced. So maybe it’s not “profit maximizing” but it doesn’t mean it’s not profitable!
FFergison L Frances Ferguson National Real Estate Programs NeighborWorks America Ph: (512)441-5441 Fx: (512) 441-5383
ZI /‘7I(1 1 Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 5:03 PM To: Spelman, William Subject: FW: Ren. Mkt Commission on council agenda
From: Jennie Bennett [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 3:41 PM To: Riley, Chris Subject: Ren. Mkt Commission on council agenda
Dear Chris,
Thanks for having Lewis let us know about the council meeting agenda item regarding the mkt commission. Please help us keep the commission for the market. It’s vital to have a citizen’s buffer with the city.
We would like to have authority over the market returned to the commission. We had originally planned to talk to you about this after Christmas. The Parks Dept. has been neglectful and disinterested in the market since it was given authority over the market in July 2008. Coming to you about the trees. concrete stain and signage are examples of market business that would have easily been processed with our commission if it had authority. I’m very concerned about how the market’s city account is being handled. The city wants to charge me $100 to get the information I asked for in October 2010. I’ve put in two Open Records Requests this year to find out how the funds are being spent, and I’ve been shown printed sheets with codes and amounts without explainations. As an example, against artists’ wishes, approximately $6,000 was spent on the market grand opening last November with only Channel 8 showing up at the last minute, because artists called them on that day. There are many examples I could give you.
I’d like to talk to you in further detail about this. Right now, please if anything, let’s table the item until after Christmas.
Thanks for everything,
Jennie Bennett
A I’7I1\1 I Dr. Chailes E. Urdy, Ph. D. - ARA Board Chair I Gregory L. Smith . President
December 7, 2010
Via E-mail Mayor Lee Leffingwell Mayor Pro-Tern Mike Martinez Honorable Council Members 301 West Second Street Austin, Texas 78701
RE: Proposed Acquisition and Renovation to the Marshall Apartments located on East 12t1 Street and on Sauna Street
Dear Mayor Leffingwell and Council Members
It is my understanding that the Austin Housing Finance Corporation’s Board of Directors will consider funding the proposed project referenced above on December 9, 2010. The Austin Revitalization Authority (ARA), the entity who facilitated the development of the Central East Austin Master Plan and the East 111h and 12thi Street Urban Renewal Plan (URP) would like to express its support for the proposed project based on the following reasons:
12thi • This proposed project, of rehabilitating 35 rental units on East Street, is in full compliance with: the East 1 1th and 12th Streets URP Plan: the community revitalization goals for housing, identified in the Central East Austin Master Plan; and the East 12th NCCD, all three documents adopted by City Council.
12th • This project represents one of the largest investments along the East Street corridor by a private developer in a number of years.
• The renovation of the 40-year old Marshall Apartments complex will have an immediate impact on the quality of life for the 100 families/households currently living in the complex, whose income is at or below 30% of the median family income (MFI).
• This project proposes to set-aside 20 units for Permanent Support Housing (PSH) residents. which is a population that is in great need of affordable housing units.
105 Navasota I Austin TX 78702 T 512-469-1705 F 512-479-6411 I www.austinrev.org • This project is also in accordance with City Council’s directive earlier this year to produce 350 units for PSH residents over the next four years.
ARA’s support is contingent upon the acceptance of the following the recommendations that will ensure a minimal negative impact on the Austin community, area stakeholders and residents, resulting from the PSH directive by Council and the proposed renovation of the Marshall Apartments.
• City staff ensures that the 350 PSH units are geographically disbursed through out the City of Austin.
• Any displacement of tenants resulting from the acquisition and renovation of this project would be done in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Act.
• Any potential tenant on the Marshall Apartments’ waiting list, at the time of application submittal, will be given first right of refusal for all available units prior to PSH residents.
o Caritas’ tenant selection criteria should give preference to PSH families versus a single resident.
• Summit Housing meets with all area stakeholders about the proposed project and addresses any concerns, within reason, that may come from those meetings.
Again this is a letter to express ARA’s support of the project and provide some recommendations for your consideration, which may address many of the concerns some residents in the community have expressed. If we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Dr. Charles Urdy Gregory L. Smith Chairman, Board of Directors President
1105 Navasota Austin TX 78702 T 512-469-1705 F 512-479-6411 www.austinrev.org Page 1 of 3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, November24, 2010 5:39 PM To: Williams, DAnne; Hensley, Sara Cc: Ott, Marc; Lumbreras, Bert; Leff, Lewis Subject: cyclocross/velodrome
D’Anne & Sarah --
I want to thank you for all the work PARD has been putting into idenfifying potential sites for a cyclocross course and velodrome. Robert Biard and Andrew Willis are very serious about working with us on this, and I see their stepping forward as a tremendous opportunity for us to enlist private-sector support for building our competitive cycling infrastructure. The facilities they’re proposing would strengthen our local cycling scene, and would put Austin on the map for events that would draw thousands of visitors each year. Earlier this month they met with Bob Lander & others with the ACVB, and the ACVB is excited about their efforts; I’ll forward a follow-up email from the ACVB separately.
I do need to relay a concern that Robert Biard is expressing; see below. He feels that this process is moving along very slowly; his sense is that during the time we’ve been looking at potential sites, plans have been developed to fill those sites with soccer fields, because PARD considers those a higher priority.
I understand that the holidays are busy times, especially for PARD. But I also know that plans on other fronts are still moving forward, and I’m concerned that we’re at risk of missing out on a very significant opportunity. It would be very easy to make a case for the economic impact of efforts like this; other cities have competitive cycling events that are the equivalent of their ACLs or SXSWs, while Austin -- which has Lance Armstrong and an eager local cycling community -- is essentially a no-show in this category, because we haven’t managed to pull together the facilities.
Is there anything we can do to provide additional support or resources for these competitive cycling efforts? I’d be glad to do a Council resolution, if that would help. I have considered whether EGRSO should be involved; we’ve had incentive packages and special called Council meetings for economic development efforts that will generate far less activity than the facilities Robert and Andrew are proposing.
I hope you’ll give this some thought, and let me know what can be done to accelerate the progress on this. In the meantime, I hope you have a great Thanksgiving.
Regards,
Chris
From: Robert Biard [ Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 2:18 PM To: Riley, Chris Subject: Fwd: Next Steps
Chris,
Needless to say I am disappointed. I understand that things aren’t going to happen quickly with the parks department but this is the second or third time I’ve been put on the back burner for a month or more at a time. After spending hours visiting all the sites they suggested and presenting a plan to them, the message they shared with Matthew Payne and me was that this is a politically charged environment, and getting cycling facilities is going to be tough. Let me know how you would like me to proceed. I Page 2 of 3 will be meeting with Travis County Parks in the coming weeks, as they have historically been much more supportive of the cycling community.
Regards,
Robert
Forwarded message From: Williams, D’Anne
Hi Robert, I’m afraid I’m playing catch up on a number of projects at the moment and have quite a few deadlines over the next month besides the holidays and working around everyones vacation time. I’d like to have a real game pTan in place before we meet again so we aren’t talking maybes and can make some real progress. It would be great if you can check back with me early January or maybe we should set up a meeting now so I’ll have a definite deadline. At this point I know I cannot make any substantial progress before then. Let me know what works best for you. Thanks
DAnne Williams, RLA
TraUs Coordinator Austin Parks and Recreation Department Planning, Design and Construction 919 West 28 1/2 Street, Austin TX 78705 512-974-9456
From: Robert Biard [ Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2010 9:33 AM To: Williams, DAnne Subject: Re: Next Steps
Just checking back to see what you would like to do next.
Regards,
Robert
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Robert Biard > wrote: DAnne,
Let me know what the next steps need to be. I think some combination of the parks could be used, Decker could offer all of the services but the distance might limit weekday use. I was somewhat disappointed to see the Onion Creek Park go from hundreds of acres of trails to less than 70 acres split between cycling/disc golf and multi-sport. The message I am hearing is that cyclists have not been calling the parks to ask for the facilities. If you would like me to organize that, I am happy to work on a petition or have cyclists call, I just did not think that was the most efficient process. Page 3 of3
I think we have several projects in mind some of which can be packaged together, just let me know what the next steps should be. Cycling Park-Velodrome, Cyclocross, BMX, Veloway, MTB trails
Special Events- Cyclocross course at Zilker to host Nationals/Worlds.
Thanks,
Robert Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 5:39 PM To: Williams, D’Anne; Hensley, Sara Cc: Ott, Marc; Lumbreras, Bert; Leff, Lewis Subject: FW: Downtown Crit, Cyclocross, and more
Here’s the email I mentioned from the ACVB.
From: Roy Benear [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 2:10 PM To: Robert Biard; [email protected]; Andrew Willis Cc: Matthew Payne; Bob Lander; Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Downtown Crit, Cyclocross, and more
Robert & Andrew,
It was great meeting with both of you at City Hall. We are in full support of your efforts to raise the level of cycling at all levels in Austin. We were impressed by your commitment, and the steps you have taken in laying the groundwork to make this a reality for our city.
The benefits to this initiative cannot be overstated, in terms of energizing an already enthusiastic cycling community, stimulating infrastructure developments for continued growth of the sport, the opportunity to showcase Austin to cyclist and pro cycling fans regionally, nationally, and internationally. As a long time cyclist, I can see the need, and believe as you do that this is a missing element that will add to the Austin experience for residents, and visitors alike.
We look forward to working with you both on this exciting project.
Roy
Roy T. Benear Senior Vice President Austin Convention & Visitors Bureau
V: (512) 583-7259 — F: (512) 583-7359 www.austintexas.org
DISCLAIMER: This message may contain confidential or proprietary information and is intended only for the use of the individual or group named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this e-mail or any part of it. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete it and any attachments from your mailbox. The Austin convention and visitors Bureau (ACVB) does not accept liability for any statements that are clearly the sender’s own opinion and not made on behalf of
From: Robert Biard [ Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010 3:52 PM To: Matthew Payne; Bob Lander; Roy Benear; [email protected]; Andrew Willis Subject: Downtown Crit, Cyclocross, and more
Gentlemen,
Thanks again for your time today. I will keep you posted on how things develop with Austin Parks after my meeting Friday. I think one thing that may help with the negotiations is the ability to show them that hosting national cyclocross championships is not just a pipe dream, but could be a reality if we put the infrastructure in place. My focus has been to start small and build for the larger events, but for the City Page 2 of 2 of Austin, the revenue will be realized when we have the infrastructure. I attached my initial presentation to the city which we should have provided you today.
The biggest roadblock for all of these projects has been ownership. Having a local cycling team, a local promoter, and someone that is as passionate about growing the sport, and adding a new brand to the city should provide the right balance to keep the momentum for the future.
Below are a few links for the crits in cities that I mentioned in todays meeting.
Best Regards,
Robert Biard http://w.tulsatough.com/site/sections/l http://gatewaycup.com/ http://yjiternationalcycijng.com/
A I’l/flfll I Page 1 of2
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:42 PM To: ‘Castillo, Gerardo’ Cc: ‘Watson, Linda’; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Ballas, Marisa; Moore, Andrew; Parkerson, Matt; Timbes, Elaine; ‘John Langmore’; ‘Frank Fernandez’ Subject: RE: Memo Re: Bike Racks Aftachments: FW bus bike racks.jpg
Gerardo: This memo states that the Fort Worth Transportation Authority is “Initiating installation of three-bike racks; they have not yet gone into service.”
I’m attaching a photo I took on Oct. 3 showing a 3-bike rack on a Fort Worth bus. Almost all their buses had these 3-bike racks. I spotted one that had an old 2-bike rack, and when I asked about it, the transit agency rep said that was an old bus.
As I’ve related many times, the Ft. Worth agency rep scoffed at the idea that there were any safety issues associated with these 3-bike racks. I had hoped that Cap Metro staff would be following up with the Fort Worth agency staff to discuss their experience. This memo does not give me much confidence about staff’s work in that regard.
Chris
From: Castillo, Gerardo [mailto:Gerardo.Castillo©capmetro.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:20 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: Memo Re: Bike Racks Importance: High
Sent bcc to: • All Board members • Andrew Moore, Marisa Ballas, Matt Parkerson, Linda Watson, Elaine Timbes, Jolinda Marshall
Members,
Attached is a memo from staff regarding the evaluation of using three-bike racks on Capital Metro buses. It is a follow-up from CM Riley’s request for more analysis on the proposal to change from two- bike racks to three-bike racks on the buses.
In summary, based on data collected from other transit agencies and from Capital Metro staff analysis, the staff recommendation is to continue the use of two-bike racks at this time. However, to see first hand the functions and limitations of the three-bike rack, we have ordered one to install on a bus for demonstration. When we received the bike rack in 30-60 days, we will coordinate times with you to demonstrate it. Staff will continue to monitor design improvements to the three-bike racks and reevaluate them as changes are incorporated into the design that can address safety and operative concerns. Concurrently, staff is obtaining user information from surveys to improve policies, facilities, and services for bicyclists that make traveling by bicycle- with-bus easier.
Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Thank you,
4 /‘7/flñl 1 Page 2 of 2
Gerardo
,1 11/f.1 I 1T F Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:12 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: FW: Memo to Mayor and Council by ATD re: Staff recommendations on downtown parking issues Categories: Memorandum Attachments: Staff Recommendations on Downtown Parking lssues.pdf
From: From the Public Information Office Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 10:36 AM To: Official Distribution Cc: Golbabai, Justin Subject: Memo to Mayor and Council by ATD re: Staff recommendations on downtown parking issues
A i’ii,r’.i 1 MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council Members
CC: Marc A. Ott, City Manager Robert Goode, Assistant City Manager
FROM: Robert Spillar, P.E, Director Austin Transportation Department
DATE: December 14, 2010
SUBJECT: Staff recommendations on downtown parking issues
Executive Summary of Staff Recommendation
The lack of on-street parking during the evening hours and Saturdays in downtown Austin has been a complaint by businesses, their patrons and visitors to Austin for years. Several professional surveys have confirmed what downtown parkers experience — downtown on-street parking after hours and on Saturdays is at or above capacity.
Daytime parking space turnover is managed by charging to park by the hour. This encourages turnover of spaces for more patrons and visitors versus use by long-term parkers. After hours there currently is no parking management to create a turnover in parking spaces.
The City of Austin Transportation Department, after meeting with numerous downtown stakeholders, has developed recommendations to improve evening and Saturday parking operations in Austin and especially the downtown area.
Staff recommends extending parking meter hours to include Saturdays across the city, and extending hours to 12 midnight in the downtown area. The key benefits from active parking management include:
• Increase parking space turnover of on-street short-term parking in central Austin during active use times. • Improve management and enforcement of on-street parking, by funding additional parking officers • Revenue capture for downtown reinvestment, transportation initiatives and general fund o Reduce carbon emissions - with more open spaces drivers “cruise” less to find a parking spot o Increase market viability for off-street public parking
Next Steps
ATD will present recommendations to the Urban Transportation Commission and Downtown Commission December 14 and 15, and will continue discussion with UTCIDC subcommittee through January 2011. A briefing to Comprehensive Planning and Transportation Council
Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region. Mayor and Council
Extended Hours - Page 2 12/14/2010
Committee is scheduled for January 10, 2011. A final recommendation for Council from UTC and the DC is tentatively scheduled February 17, 2011.
Current Parking Operations:
Currently, the City charges for on-street parking between 8:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. On-street parking after 5:30 p.m. in the downtown area is heavily utilized and is largely unavailable for both customers and visitors due to long-term parkers such as evening employees, valet operations, and entertainers. As a result, customers and visitors have limited on- street parking available. Therefore they often “cruise” for spaces, creating added carbon emissions and traffic congestion. As on-street parking is often difficult to find quickly and/or near their destination, customer and visitors maintain a perception that there is insufficient parking.
In the downtown area there are 2,300 on-street parking spaces and 14,000 surface lot and parking garage spaces. A study by Parking Planners in November 2008 conducted for the City indicated on-street parking was typically 87 percent utilized on Wednesday evenings after 5:30 p.m. and 96 percent utilized Saturday nights. Parking experts consider 85 percent utilization to be at capacity. Although there is significant capacity in commercial parking garages downtown, many of these garages are closed after hours because on-street parking is available for free.
Staff Recommendations on Parking Hours
Staff recommends changing parking hours Citywide to between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. City parking meters previously operated between these hours from 1955 to 1988. An 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. ordinance would be more in line with current State parking meter hours, which operate 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday to Friday. Additionally, staff recommends extending parking hours in the downtown area (identified as 1-35 to Lamar Boulevard and Cesar Chavez to 10th streets) to 12 midnight with a three hour time limit generally established.
Expected Outcomes of Extended Hours
• On-street parking spaces would be more available to the priority users, customers and visitors, thereby creating a positive parking experience • Additional revenue will enable the Parking Enterprise to provide parking enforcement in the evenings, increased valet enforcement, and improved management of the parking system • A portion (40%) of new downtown revenue generated could provide for downtown initiative projects like Way Finding, beautification, improved asset management, and a Transportation Management Association
o A portion of the remaining downtown meter revenue may be used for improved transit operations and transportation demand management initiatives, as well as other transportation projects city-wide • An expected revenue stream to the General Fund through ticket citation monies • Reduction in traffic circulation, congestion, and carbon emissions • Perception of parking shortage significantly reduced, encourages more business downtown • Encourages travelers to use alternate transportation modes when possible • Surface lots and garages will see increased demand for long-term parkers • Increased official presence during evening hours (“additional eyes on the street”) Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region. ______
Mayor and Council
Extended Hours - Page 3 12/14/2010
Downtown Utilization Map: Parking Planner’s study (November 2008)
85 percent utilization is considered full capacity Zone Two - Metro olitan Area 2,435 Metered S aces
* Parking meter/pay station 6:3Opm-8:3Opm 2!L6 88% hours and rates vary by 8:30pm - l0:Im 229 87% 87% location. Times/rates listed 10:33pm - 12:30pm 2062 81% above are typical for 11:03am- 130pm 2016 83% downtown. 1:00pm - 3:00pm 2104 86% 85%
3:00pm - 500pm 2096 86% I —
7:00pm - 900pm 2216 91%
- ;‘. 9:00pm -l 1:00pm 2366 97% 96%
11:O0prn-1:OOam 2419 I
Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region. Mayor and Council
Extended Hours - Page 4 12/14/2010
Community Outreach Process
The Austin Transportation Department (ATD) and Communications and Public Information Office (CPIO) recently completed a multi-month series of individual meetings and open forums with downtown stakeholders to elicit comments about current parking and valet practices in the downtown area. Prior to the meetings, staff conducted an online survey on parking issues in the downtown area and received over 600 responses from stakeholders and citizen representatives of various organizations. In addition, staff has evaluated parking data from previous commissioned reports, and parking management organizations and other cities.
Independent from the ATD efforts, the Downtown Commission passed a resolution May 19, 2010, calling for extended hours on both weekdays and Saturdays. Both the Urban Transportation Commission and The Downtown Austin Alliance Board of Directors have also endorsed policies to increase turnover in high density areas similar to those of the Downtown Commission. (see “Stakeholder” contacts in appendix)
Community Concerns
Three key issues that have been voiced by the community include: a perceived lack of available downtown parking, and need for way finding • insufficient employee! resident parking, and • need for vet ordinance changes and improved enforcement
1) Staff believes parking management and enforcement during evening hours is an effective tool to increase parking space turnover of on-street short-term parking. Revenue generated from extended hours can help pay for Way Finding - which can direct drivers to available parking spaces and garages, among other things.
2) To help accommodate evening employees currently receiving free on-street parking, as well as daytime employees, the Parking Enterprise is working with Downtown Austin Alliance, downtown employers, and parking garage owners, to arrange options for off-street parking at a reasonable rate and centralized location.
Residential Parking Permits (RPP), which limit who can park on streets in neighborhoods near high traffic areas, will be considered upon request for single-family residential areas near downtown.
3) The Austin Transportation Department Staff are currently working with valet operators to survey their needs and business practices. Additional stakeholder meetings will be conducted, along with review of best practices from other cities before a recommended change to current policies will be put forth to improve valet operations.
Financial Considerations of Proposal:
Currently the Parking Enterprise receives roughly $600,000 annually in City General Fund support, and is expected to continue receiving funds through FY 2012. Should parking meter hours be approved by Council, the Parking Enterprise anticipates the ability to become financially self- sufficient while continuing to generate revenue to the general fund.
Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region. Mayor and Council
Extended Hours - Page 5 12/14/2010
Downtown Revenue Enhancement with Extended Hours and Saturdays
Revenue Increase from Meters (first 12 months) Extended M-F to 6 p.m. $ 200,000 Extended Sat. 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. $ 800,000 > Extended DT M-S 6 p.m. to Midnight $2,100,000 Subtotal $3,100,000 Additional Operating Costs Credit card charges, tickets, envelopes $ 190,000 Administrative Costs (shared services) $ 300,000 Payroll Expenses $ 540,000 Subtotal $ 1,030,000
Net Revenue to Parking Fund (first 12 months) $2,070,000
Proposed Funding (Investments)
Downtown Reinvestment (40% of gross revenue) $1,200,000 Way finding system > Capital Projects (sidewalk replacement, street Reconstruction, streetscape, etc. Increased downtown maintenance (sidewalks, streetscape) > Transportation Management Association creation in partnership with DAA, Travis County and CMTA Transit operations and transportation demand management initiatives First year implementation costs
Parking Enterprise $ 680,000 > On-going parking equipment upgrades $ 200,000 Build and maintain 8% reserve fund $ 480,000
Transportation Initiatives $ 190,000 Circulation/mobility/signal timing
Total Proposed Funding $2,070,000
Estimated Increase in General Fund Revenue
Estimated Revenue increase to General Fund (first 12 months) from parking citations
Extended to Sat. 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. $ 290,000
> Extended DT meters 6 p.m. — Midnight $ 890,000 Subtotal $1,180,000
Added Court Operating Cost (estimate) $ 180,000
Net General Fund Revenue Increase (first 12 months) $1,000,000
Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region. Mayor and Council
Extended Hours - Page 6 12/14/2010
APPENDIX A:
Community Involvement — Stakeholders Contacted
Stakeholders Involved • 6th Street Austin, Executive Director • 2nd Street, Executive Director • Original Austin Neighborhood Association, Board Member • Austin Race and Event Directors Association, Representative • Texas Bar and Nightclub Alliance, Director • Hotel/Motel Association, President • Greater Austin Chamber, Senior VP of Governmental Relations • Downtown Austin Neighborhood Association, both President and Board Member • Downtown Austin Alliance, Director of Streetscapes and Transportation o Old West Austin Neighborhood Association, President • West Austin Alliance, President o CB Richard Ellis!AMPCO, Office Managers/Parking Providers T. Stacy & Associates, Office Managers/Parking Providers • University of Texas at Austin, Alternate Transportation Manager • Area churches, Business Administrator of St. Mary Cathedral, Representative of Downtown Churches on Street Closure Taskforce • Austin Restaurant Association, President
In addition to the meetings, staff conducted an online survey on parking issues in the downtown area and received over 600 responses from stakeholders and citizen representatives of various organizations
State and UT Discussions on Extended Hours The University of Texas at Austin has asked the City to extend parking meter hours to include Saturdays. Discussion to extend hours to Saturday in State operated metered spaces is currently underway.
Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region. Mayor and Council
Extended Hours - Page 7 12/14/2010
APPENDIX B: U.S. Cities: Prkinn Hours (nmnricon of Other Cities
NN ARBOR, MI* 8AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE
RLINGTON, VA 8AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE
‘.LBUQUERQUE, NM 8AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE ULANTA, GA* 24 HOURS 24 HOURS FREE
USTIN, TX :30AM - 5:30PM FREE ?REE 3ALTIMORE, MD AM-5PM 8AM-5PM FREE
BERKELEY, CA* )AM - 6PM AM - 6PM FREE
IETHESDA, MD* )AM — 10PM 9AM — 10PM FREE
BOSTON, MA* AM - 8PM 8AM - 8PM FREE
BOULDER, CO )AM - 7PM 9AM - 7PM FREE
CAMBRIDGE, MA* 8AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE
CHARLOTTE, NC* 7AM - 6PM FREE FREE
CHARLESTON, SC 8AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE CHICAGO, IL* 24 HOURS 24 HOURS 24 HOURS DALLAS. TX M 6:3OAM-6:3OPM, T-TX 6:30-I2rnid 8AM-2AM 8AM-5PM F 6:3OAM-2AM
)ENVER, CO* AM — 10PM 8AM - 10PM FREE
FORT WORTH, TX* AM - 6PM FREE FREE
HOUSTON. TX 7AM — 6PM 7AM — 6PM FREE
INDIANPOLIS, IN* AM — 6PM FREE FREE
FACKSONVILLE, FL AM? - 6PM ‘REE FREE
LAS VEGAS, NV AM? - 6PM 10PM??? FREE
- LOS ANGELES, CA AM - 8PM 8AM - 8PM 11AM 8PM
— — MIAMI BEACH, FL )AM — 6PM or 12AM 9AM 6PM or )AM 6PM or 12AM 12AM
— MINNEAPOLIS, MN* AM — 10PM 8AM — 10PM AM 10PM
ASHVILLE, TN* 8AM — 6PM AM - 6PM FREE
- I.JEWARK, NJ 8AM - lAM 8AM - lAM 1PM lAM
‘ORFOLK, VA* AM - 6PM )AM - 6PM FREE
‘JEW ORLEANS, LA* AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE
)AKLAND, CA* AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE
OKLAHOMA CITY, OK* AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE
ORLANDO, FL* 8AM - 6PM 8AM - 6PM FREE
HOENIX, AZ* 8AM - 8PM 8AM - 8PM FREE
- ORTLAND, OR* 8AM - 7PM 8AM - 7PM 1PM 7PM
RALEIGH, NC* AM - 5PM FREE FREE
SAN ANTONIO. TX’ 8AM — 6PM 8AM 6PM FREE
SAN DIEGO, CA* AM - 6PM AM - 6PM FREE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA* 7AM or 9AM - 6PM 9AM - 6PM FREE (mostly)
SAN JOSE, CA )AM - 6PM )AM — 6PM FREE
ST. PAUL, MN* AM — 4:30PM 8AM — 4:30PM FREE
- SEATTLE, WA* AM - 6PM 8AM 6PM FREE
ST. LOUIS, MO* 7AM - 10PM 7AM - 10PM FREE
TAMPA, FL AM - 12AM 8AM8PM 1PM-8PM VANCOUVER, BC )AM-1OPM 9AM-IOPM )AM-1OPM
WASHINGTON, DC* 7AM - 10PM 7AM - 10PM FREE?
* Parking meter/pay station hours and rates vary by location. Times/rates listed above are typical for downtown. Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region. Mayor and Council
Extended Hours - Page 8 12/14/2010
APPENDIX C:
Assumptions for Parking Revenue
Municipal Court Operating cost estimate based on 32,000 drop in average tickets due to pay stations and an estimated 52,000 ticket increase from extended time (resulting in a net increase of only 20,000 additional tickets. Also assumes conversion to photo evidence of ticket violation by enforcement officers and increased automated or electronic payment of tickets.
NOTES: 51 Saturday parking days
257 Monday - Friday parking days
308 Monday - Saturday parking days
Additional revenue assumes a daily 33% utilization rate Additional revenue assumes an evening 50% utilization rate
Delivering a safe, reliable, and sustainable transportation system that enhances the environment and economic strength of the region. Page 1 of3
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 3:00 PM To: ‘Frank Fernandez’ Cc: John Lang more; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: RE: bike sharing in Lyon
Cool, thanks. C.
From: Frank Fernandez [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 2:29 PM To: Riley, Chris Cc: John Langmore; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: FW: bike sharing in Lyon
Hey Chris,
I thought you might appreciate some of these different bike sharing programs going on in Barcelona, Lyon, and the Bay area. The citizen participation is pretty impressive...
Frank
From: Lake, Michael [mailto:M.Lake©neu.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2011 1:56 PM To: Doug Johnson; ‘david.r.carter©birmingham gov.uk’; ‘veronica.docherty©birmingham.govuk’;
‘Kelly. [email protected]’; Nico’ ‘Tillie; ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’; Casey Kuklick; Julianne Stern; ‘[email protected]’; Frank Fernandez;
‘e.rosso©torino-internazionale.org’; Howard Ways; Shawn’ ‘McCaney Cc: ‘[email protected]’; ‘NealPeirce’; Mario Gioannini; ‘[email protected]’; ‘KManiscalco@fftcorg’; ‘Franco Corsico’; ‘JudithTrinchero’; Brent Riddle; Maria Elena Gutierrez; Tamar Shapiro; Ursula Soyez; ‘[email protected]’; ‘Denis’; Subject: RE: bike sharing in Lyon
Happy Ne Year to eer one!
Doug—thank you for sharing as well.
I was recently speaking at a conference in Barcelona and while there was very impressed with their bike sharing program. it is not yet at the level of Paris. but the are not experiencing the threat oftheft to the sustainahility of’ the program either. So. if anyone is interested here is a quick piece on Barcelona, though additional growth has occurred since. http:// ww.treehugger.com/files/2009/03/bicingbarcelona-2-year-anniversary.php#
Best wishes,
A I71”)fll 1 Page 2 of 3
Mike
From: Doug Johnson [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 2:30 PM To: ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’;
‘[email protected]’; N ico’ ‘Tillie; ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’; Casey Kuklick; Julianne Stern; ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’; ; ; Lake, Michael; ‘[email protected]’; ‘e.rosso©torino-internazionale.org’; Howard Ways; Shawn’ ‘McCaney Cc: ‘[email protected]’; ‘NealPeirce’; Mario Gioannini; ‘[email protected]’; ‘[email protected]’; ‘Franco Corsico’; ‘JudithTrinchero’; Brent Riddle; Maria Elena Gutierrez; Tamar Shapiro; Ursula Soyez; ‘[email protected]’; ‘Denis’; Subject: Re: bike sharing in Lyon
Thanks Howard. The cities of San Francisco and San Jose, and a smaller cities along the west side of the bay are preparing to launch a coordinated bike sharing project funded in large part by the organization I work for. I’d like to say it is all going very smoothly, but that is not the case to date. I think, however, the extra attention from the media is helping get everyone on the same page.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_16987904 http ://www.contracostatimes.com/bay-area-news/cL1696 17 17?nclick_check= 1
Amazing to see how bike sharing is taking off - now to make safe streets for folks to ride them on.
And as for Oakland, it was not quite ready to be a player in this round of the program. We hope that’s just another year away.
Doug Johnson MTC 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607
p. 510.817.5846 f. 510.817.5848
>>> “Ways, Howard”
compare-favorably-to-ca rs/
Howard Ways, AICP Director of Planning and Sustainability Office of the Provost/Vice President for Academic Affairs University of the District of Columbia 4200 Connecticut Ave. NW Washington, DC 20008 voice 202-274-5390 fax 202-274-5305 www.udc.edu/sustainability
1 ffl /flfll I Page 3 of3
A I’,Iflfll I Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:08 PM To: Linda Watson ([email protected]); ‘Timbes, Elaine’; Castillo, Gerardo; ‘McKewen, Erica’ Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Bojo, Leah; Moore, Andrew Subject: FW: DART’s Purchase of CNG Busses Attachments: newspaper article.pdf fyi...
From: [email protected] [rnailto:JHarris©brownrnccarroll.com] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:25 AM To: Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Cc: [email protected] Subject: DART’s Purchase of CNG Busses
Mayor Pro Tern Mike Martinez and Council Member Chris Riley,
Attached is the article from yesterday’s Dallas Morning News regarding DART’s purchase of approximately 452 CNG busses.
Jerry
BROWNPC
Jerry L Harrs Partner Brown McCarroll, LL.P. 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400, Austin, TX 78701 office: 512-479-9710 I mobile: I fax: 512-479-1101 www.brownmccarroll.com [email protected] I bio
A 1 DART to buy natural gaspowered buses
-Continuedfrom PagelA BY THE NUMBER-S - all ofNorth Texas,” said Velasco, -DART’s new buses- - - an Oak Cliff businessman ap pointed to the board in 2001 by 452 the Dallas City Council. “Clean Maximum number of new large er air is better air and this helps buses to be ordered by DART DART clean the pollutants out of the North Texas region.” $217 MILlION Other board members ech Maximum purchase price oed Velasco’s enthusiasm, but Natural that it was the falling noted 5 price of natural gas that made the switch away from diesel do Security cameras in each bus gas buses able for the cash-strapped agency 2O1 Indeed, despite Velasco’s Year the first 185 buses will be WiIiOK nod to environmentalism, delivered; all will be delivered DART executives and- outside by 2015 CNG fleet costlier to experts have maintained buy than diesel, but throughout the two-year bus -- -- debate that newer, cleaner die Longest coaches; some will be fuel savings expected sel engines now on the market 30 feet cause no more pollution than By MICF-IAEL the compressed natural gas. time to explore a switch away LINDENBERGER Transportation Writer Those diesel-powered buses from diesel. rnIindenbergerdallasnews.com would have cost less to buy and “Obviously there was a lot of would not have required DART input from the board on that,” The next fleet of DART bus to build natural-gas fueling sta Thomas said. “What the board es will be powered by com tions, as it now must. directed us to do at that time pressed natural gas, and should “Emissions from both en was let that procurement lapse begin service in 2013, following gines were virtually the same,” and hind of reassess where we a DART board committee’s DART president Gary Thomas were and what we were doing unanimous vote Tuesday to au said after the vote. “We caine to and where we needed to be thorize $217 million to buy up the board I guess almost two headed.” to 452 ofthe coaches. years ago now with a procure The pressure caine as Dallas Each bus will come ment [for diesel buses] in place. Mayor Tom Leppert took an an- equipped with five wirelessly At that point, diesel prices were usually strong personal interest operated survefflance cameras relatively low and the natural in the decision, by his own ac as - well, an enhancement DART gas prices were relatively high.” count working overtime with board members said should spreadsheets and numbers to make passengers feel safer. build his case on why diesel was DART board chairman Wil Decision delayed abad option. ham Velasco said the vote is one Board members, however, He said at the time that even ofthe best he’s cast at DART. were insistent that DART staff if the efwironmental impacts ‘This is one of those game- look again at natural gas, de were about the same, the changing decisions that affects spite costs that appeared at the “greener” reputation of natural time to be higher. They instruct gas made it abetter choice. See DART Page 15A ed staff to make do with its ag Natural gas ws also cham ing eidsting buses for another pioned at the tinui’by Dallas bil year to give the agency more lionaire T. Boone Pickens, a if- nancial contributor to Leppert’s economical deal for DAW1” he campaign and owner of the saidTuesday. company whose bid for natural gas-powered buses had initially been rejected by DART. Pickens Fueling stations has led a national campaign to The agency will still have to boost the use of compressed spend more for each CNG-pow natural gas as a fuel, something ered bus. And it will have to he argues will help America ease build the fueling stations, its dependence on oil. though the U.S. government is Leppert pushed for a CNG— partially offsetting that cost. A fueled fleet for more than just 2010 report by the American environmental reasons, his Public Transportation Associa chief of staff Chris Heinbaugh tion showed CNG-powered saidTuesday. buses accounted for just 14 per- “It is notjust about branding cent ofnew bus orders bytransit the city as a green city,” Hem agencies in 2009. Diesel ac baugh said. “He caresvery much counted for about 28 percent, about easing this country off of and orders for buses with elec oil, and not just from an envi inc hybrid engines, imich also ronmental aspect. He looks at it use diesel, 43 percent. from a national security stand But after loCking in natural point, too, and that is why he gas prices through 2020, feels so passionately about this Thomas and other officials said and why he worked so hard to Tuesday that DART will save get DART to consider buying enough on fuel to more than the CNG buses.” compensate for the all the other Leppert has also been be higher costs. hind efforts to increase Dallas’ Thebuseswillbeamixof30- fleet ofnatural gas-powered city foot and 40-foot coaches, and vehicles and new rules at Love will be delivered between 2013 Field giving CNG taxis prefer and 2015. The purchase of 452 ence over traditional cabs when buses is considerably scaled picking up passengers. back from plans two years ago, Leppert convinced the board when DART had expected to to take more time in making its buynearly 600. decision, and the extra time Changes in bus-service levels proved pivotal in making his that took effectlast month, cou case. By 2009, natural gas pric pled with an ongoing effort to es had fallen by historic propor match the least-used routes tions, so much so that Thomas, with smaller vehicles, mean who had penned a guest editori DART expects to need about al for The DallasMorningNews 125 fewer large buses. The agen in favor ofdiesel buses, changed cyplans to buy scores ofsmaller his mind, and advocated natu vehicles as it boosts its on-call ral gas instead. service and so-called flex routes. “During that time period, DARrs order for new buses natural gas prices came way will be the nation’s largest, and down and diesel prices went up. will be the first big purchase to So from a financial standpoint, include electric air condition it became a much, much more ing, officials said. Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:18 PM To: McAllister, Kay Cc: Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Cole, Sheryl Subject: RE: Employee Commuter Benefit Program
Agreed, Kay. Thanks for the note, and for not using City parking I’m hopeful about making some good progress on this.
Chris
From: McAllister, Kay Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:20 AM To: Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Cole, Sheryl Subject: Employee Commuter Benefit Program
Council Members,
Thank you for bringing this item for City management attention. Currently, the employees using subsidized parking are receiving an economic benefit.
Your proposal makes sense from an economic and fairness perspective. In addition, such a strategy will impose the real costs on employees who choose to bring their cars to work.
I have never used City parking and guess theoretically I could have been renting out the space the City had provided for me to receive an equal benefit.
Regards, Kay McAllister
,1 I7/’ñ1 1 Page 1 of 1
City HaN Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:19 PM To: Shade, Randi
Subject: FW: Bradford-Nohra House - Please require that a site plan to be submitted and approved let’s talk about this at the break.
From: David Conner [mailt Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 9:02 AM To: Lefflngwell, Lee; Morrison, Laura; Cole, Sheryl; Spelman, William; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Riley, Chris; Shade, Randi; McDonald, Stephanie; Everhart, Amy; Moore, Andrew; Levinski, Robert; Coleman, Glen; Ballas, Marisa; Gerbracht, Heidi
Subject: Bradford-Nohra House - Please require that a site plan to be submitted and approved
Hello Mayor Leffingwell and Council Members,
Please support historic zoning for the Bradford-Nohra house. If by some reason the demolition permit of the historic house is granted, please require that a site plan be submitted and approved by the Preservation Office prior to release of demolition permit. This requirement has been made by Steve Sadowsky in other cases.
Hyde Park is a National Register District and a Local Historic District and site plans are reviewed by the Hyde Park Development Review Committee. This will be a very important and necessary stage in the redevelopment on this site.
Sincerely,
David Conner, HPNA - Chair of the Development Review Committee Page 1 of 1
City Hall Copy Center
From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 12:09 PM To: ‘[email protected]’; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Cc: knicholsoncleanenergyfuels.com Subject: RE: DART’s Purchase of CNG Busses
Thanks, Jerry. We’ll keep working on this.
Chris
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 10:25 AM To: Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member] [email protected] Subject: DART’s Purchase of CNG Busses
Mayor Pro Tem Mike Martinez and Council Member Chris Riley,
Attached is the article from yesterday’s Dallas Morning News regarding DART’s purchase of approximately 452 CNG busses.
Jerry
Jerry L Harris Partner Brown McCarroll, LL.P. 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400, Austin, TX 78701 office: 512-479-9710 mobile: fax: 512-479-1101 www.brownmccarroll.com I [email protected] I bio
A /‘7I’,r,1 I _
(Th
< (Th I- CDIR I_ ICDQCDlcD CD I CD n-CD iIi1 :- CD+ CDcE- “ ICD E CD CD. 4c) __);i I CD Dç) CD CD— •g1 I, — 0 0 (Th 0r 0 — CD 0+cID )— - r- CDC’ /N --0 CD ‘-c CD CD CDr) 0 )0 <0 .. CD -+-O0CD .cz) 0= CDCD 0 CD CD CD 0 CD (Th cm CDCD< 0 0 C CD 0 CD CD 0 CD PART 28. The Renaissance Market Commission is dissolved. (F) Four members constitute a quorum. (For a board ui/h more or fewer than seven members, the number should be changed to equal a ma/on/v o/ihe members.) (H) To be effective, a board action must be adopted by affirmative vote of the number of members necessary to provide a quorum. (For hoards wit/i 13 members Eanly Childhood Council and Sustainable Food Policy BoardJ or 15 members /Commumiv Development Commission and Dmi n/oi’ n Commission] the /ollou ing lanuae applies to an a//Il nialie vole (H) If only a quorum is present at a meeting. a board action is adopted by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the quorum (13 member board 5 votes 15 member board = 6 votes). If more than a quorum is present at a meeting, a board action must be adopted by an affirmative vote of the number of members necessary to provide a quorum (13 member board = 7 votes: 15 member board = 8 votes). MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council Members FROM: Rob Spillar, Director Austin Transportation Department Kevin Johns, Director Economic Growth and Redevelopment Services Office COPY: Marc A. Ott, City Manager Sue Edwards, Assistant City Manager DATE: October 7, 2010 SUBJECT: Eastern rail connectivity On October j4th City Council will consider an item to approve a master development agreement for the sale of the Austin Energy Control Center (ECC) site. Both Council Members Riley and Morrison have asked questions about eastern rail connectivity in relation to the ECC site. Below is the response to those questions. Question # 1 What options are being considered to provide a connection from the rail station on Street at the Convention Center to the future planned rail station on 3rd Street near Seaholm Power Plant? An Urban Rail System Plan has been proposed to City Council for your consideration and to designate the system plan as a locally preferred alternative. The system plan provides a high capacity rail connection between the end of the current MetroRail Red Line at 4th and Trinity to the proposed Seaholm station where Lone Star Rail (LSTAR) proposes an inter-city rail station. The proposed Urban Rail System Plan uses the Council-designated rail corridor (4th Street) to traverse from east to west through the heart of downtown. The system plan calls for constructing a double track Urban Rail corridor with stops at both ends as well as points between. The proposed Urban Rail corridor transitions from the 4th Street alignment to a 3 Street alignment using San Antonio and Nueces Streets, crossing Shoal Creek via 3rd Street. The proposed Urban Rail’s traverse of downtown on 4th Street also allows access to the Guadalupe/Lavaca Street Corridors which are important to the overall system. It is envisioned that the Urban Rail would be constructed to provide convenient and reliable transfers between each of the commuter rail lines (LSTAR and Red Line). Suggested extensions of the existing Red Line west of Congress Avenue would be detrimental to the implementation of Urban Rail. The Red Line operates a form of commuter rail that cannot operate concurrently with either Urban Rail or automobiles. Hence, on its existing alignment in downtown, the Red Line maintains an exclusive track way in 4th Street today. Although automobiles and pedestrians may cross the track, they may not drive on top of or walk on top of the tracks linearly along the tracks. The stopping characteristics, weight ratio, and operational design of the vehicles do not Page 2 render concurrent travel to be safe. Construction of a double track cross-section for Red Line across the 4th Street corridor would make that street impassible for Urban Rail. Urban Rail would be precluded from cross-town access via the 4th Street corridor. MetroRail in 41h Street would significantly limit the ability of that roadway to provide any capacity for private automobiles (or any other mode). Please note that Urban Rail, unlike MetroRail, can operate in mixed traffic (i.e., with automobiles) and can also operate in a pedestrian environment (i.e., in streetcar mode as in Portland). Transfers between the Red Line and the LSTAR commuter rail line are anticipated to be light in number. The primary destination for users of commuter rail is currently and is expected to be the central employment districts of the University, Capitol Complex, and Central Business District (CBD). Neither the Red Line nor the contemplated LSTAR commuter rail can access these employment districts because they lack the flexibility necessary to interact with the city street network successfully. Transfer capability between the two commuter rail lines will be facilitated by the Urban Rail system using the 4th Street Corridor. Additional transfer opportunities between the LSTAR and Red Line may be accommodated where the two lines cross to the north. Those opportunities are being evaluated by LSTAR as part of their environmental analysis. Question #2 Are there any. realistic scenarios where the current vehicles being used by CapMetro on the Red Line could be used to provide a direct connection south of Lady Bird Lake via the existing Union Pacific (UP) rail line? Response The current UP rail line and bridge represent the mainline freight corridor for the railroad through Austin. The Capital Metro rail technology represents non-Federal Railroad Administration (non-FRA) compliant vehicles. This means that the rail vehicles used by Capital Metro cannot operate on the active UP freight track without separation in time from freight operations. LSTAR has not yet selected a technology, however, given their primary market will be intercity trips; it is likely that they will select an FRA compliant technology to make their operations easier to maintain. This would allow AMTRAK to continue operation on their existing schedule and would allow for day-time freight operations where current customer base requires service. This would make the Capital Metro vehicles incompatible with the LSTAR service. Under these conditions, use of the UP line by MetroRail type vehicles would likely not be allowed under ERA regulations. Commuter service to South Austin (Buda, Kyle, San Marcos), as opposed to inter-city type service, could be provided within the LSTAR corridor using ERA compliant vehicles. This is the more traditional look and operation of commuter rail such as that seen in Minneapolis, Seattle, and Fort Worth. Passengers desiring to enter the heart of the Central Austin employment center could transfer to Urban Rail and access the core or transfer again to the Red Line. Page 4 of7 On Jan 25,2011, at 1:22 PM, Mandy De Mayo wrote: Karen, I read over the BEDI application online, the 2009 BEDI NOFA, and the governing federal regulations. Frankly, I am perplexed as to how these projects were selected and bundled together. I know that the BED/!1 08 monies cannot be used for housing (except in limited cases, usually related to redevelopment), but it can be used for property acquisition, site preparation and improvement, utilities, infrastructure, etc. If the BEDI focus is on creating and retaining jobs, affordable housing is a perfect mechanism to achieve these goals. The Center for Housing Policy (with data from the National Association of Home Builders) just published a report on the link between housing and job creation. These facts should be highlighted: 100 new Low-Income Housing Tax Credit units for families can lead to the creation of more than 120 jobs during the construction phase. Furthermore, once the paint is dry and the homes are occupied, new residents continue to support roughly 30 jobs in a wide array of industries. 100 Low-Income Housing Tax Credit units occupied by families generate roughly $827,000 in local revenue immediately, with more than half coming from permit/impact fees and utility user fees.6 Also, you mention that EGRSO claims that BEDI applications lose points if they include housing. WHAT? Here's the language directly from the NOFA: For projects that include the construction of housing, BEDI and Section 108 funds may be used to finance activities necessary to construct such housing, such as acquisition.n~J~lata~LdeIDolitiQUAancl;~l~nce on the acquired site, site improvements, public facilities and other eligible activities subject to each-Ofl1ie eligible activity provisions at 24 CFR 570.703; The applications are scored based on five rating factors: 1. Capacity of Applicant. (20 points) In this case, the draft BEDI application is technically from EGRSO, not NHCD. NHCD only gets a passing mention. 2. Distress/Extent of Problem. (15 points) Incorporates census data on income, poverty levels, etc. 3. Soundness of Approach. (35 points). HUD wants to see that specific sites are identified and that improvements can be achieved in the near-term. 4. Leveraging (15 points). Both federal (CDBG - Section 108) and public/private funds. 5. Achieving Results and Program Evaluation (15 points). Applicants need to tie back to HUD's policy priorities, which include affordable housing. I can find no evidence to support the assertion that affordable housing would jeopardize aBEDI/Section 108 application. I would love for someone from EGRSO to illuminate that assertion. One of my concerns is that we seem to be going down a road that ties up NHCD funding without extracting significant public benefit. It reminds me of 11th/12th revitalization, Millenium, etc. What else could we have done with the CDBG funds we are tying up with debt service? Mandy Mandy De Mayo Principal De Mayo Associates 3/3112011 Page 7 of7 Frances Ferguson National Real Estate Programs NeighborWorks America Ph: (512) 441-5441 Fx: (512) 441-5383 3/31/2011 Blank Page 1 of2 Christopher From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:25 PM To: Martinez, Mike [Council Member] Subject: FW: Saltillo Plaza HUD Job Creation application fyi - I've been thinking about asking a couple questions on this (#19 - BED I grants) -- specifically, about the protections in place in case of default on the loans. From: Leff, Lewis Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:48 PM To: Riley, Chris Subject: RE: Saltillo Plaza HUD Job Creation application The only office that seemed interested was MPT's, but I don't think it has been pulled at this time. I would bet that there will be enough speakers coming out tomorrow to pull it off the consent agenda. I can check in the morning, but would you want to pull it otherwise? From: Riley, Chris Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3:44 PM To: Leff, Lewis Subject: FW: Saltillo Plaza HUD Job Creation application Is this expected to be a discussion item? I'm hoping to have an opportunity to ask a couple questions about the city's exposure. From: Parker, Olivia Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 3: 16 PM To: Leffingwell, Lee; Riley, Chris; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Shade, Randi; Morrison, Laura; Spelman, William; Cole, Sheryl Cc: Ott, Marc; Edwards, Sue; Sandoval, Marie; Johns, Kevin; Curtis, Matt; Leff, Lewis; Garza, Bobby; Bier, Marti; Levinski, Robert; Gerbracht, Heidi; McDonald, Stephanie; McDonald, Stephanie; Baray, Ray Subject: Saltillo Plaza HUD Job Creation application FORWARDED ON BEHALF OF KEVIN JOHNS Mayor and City Council Up for your final review and a vote tomorrow, January 27th, 2011, is the Saltillo Plaza HUD Brownfield Economic Development Initiative (BEDI). This will be a request to submit the Saltillo Plaza economic development application. Today's memo is the most current update. On January 19th, the CDC endorsed the proposal, and recommended that Mayor and City Council approve the 3/3112011 1 1 From: Riley, Chris Sent: Thursday, January 20,2011 12:57 PM To: Shade, Randi Subject: RE: Time for City Auditor Annual Review That looks fine to me, Randi. During the AFL-CIO prescreening last night, there were some complaints about the City Auditor, and based on the discussion I'd be interested in asking a question or two about employee relations. But there's no need to adjust this outline for that. Thanks for asking -- Chris From: Shade, Randi Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2011 12:40 PM To: Leffingwell, Lee; Martinez, Mike [Council Member]; Cole, Sheryl; Morrison, Laura; Riley, Chris; Spelman, William Subject: Time for City Auditor Annual Review Colleagues -- Our City Auditor's annual review is due to take place this month as his one year anniversary with us has just past. The review is on our agenda for next week during Executive Session. Ken knows that his review is scheduled, and seems ready to discuss his first year on the job. Sheryl and I discussed the format we've used for doing the reviews for our other Council appointees. We are both fine with using the same format as we've used with the others, but before providing this outline to Ken tomorrow, I wanted to ask each of you suggest any additional questions (if you have any) and/or any suggestions for changes to the format we use. Please see below and send me any suggestions for changes, additions, etc. as soon as you can. Thanks, Randi The Council would like you to be prepared to discuss the following: 1. Key Accomplishments 2. Key challenges 3. Provide examples when you have demonstrated leadership In: o Driving Strategy o Supporting Diversity and Inclusion o Conflict Management o Customer Focus o Innovation 4. What do you need from Council to help you do your job better? After the first fifteen minutes of your overview and self-appraisal on the above items, you can expect some follow-up questions and discussion for the next 15-30 minutes. Feel free to provide any additional information you feel is pertinent. Let me know if you have additional questions. RandiShade Austin City Council Council Member Place 3 (512) 974-2255 (phone) (512) 974-1888 (fax) ht~p....Jlw~w. ct~1J~tinJx,J1~/S::QJJn~i1j~lli1d~J:ttm 3/31/2011