Amendments to Item 125 on the 6/28/18 Agenda

Only City Council members and authorized staff are allowed to post on this message board.

Amendments to Item 125 on the 6/28/18 Agenda

Postby Alison Alter » Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:16 pm

Colleagues,

First, I want to thank Council Member Troxclair for her leadership in developing this resolution to ensure we have a code that works and achieves the goals of Imagine Austin. I’d like to offer the following amendments to this item:

• Change part (1)(b) to specify that proposed recommendations for resolving conflicts should come from *staff* not the stakeholder group.

• Clarify section 2 to specify that the work group must adhere to the Texas Open Meetings Act.

• Specify that a person who is registered or required to register as a lobbyist under City Code Chapter 4-8 or who is employed by a person registered or required to register under City Code Chapter 4-8 is prohibited from being part of the group of design and development professionals convened by the City Manager.

• Members of this group must agree to comply with the City's ethics and personal responsibilities guidelines.


Also, I’d like to have a discussion about the potential role of the Code Advisory Group. If the Council would support this, I would prefer to pursue a process that reconstitutes the Code Advisory Group to include one appointee from the Mayor and one from each council member. The CAG would be made up of environmental experts, architects, engineers and other development professionals and with the following conditions:

• The reconstituted CAG would provide support and feedback on the development and implementation of modeling and testing of the latest draft of CodeNEXT and the recommendations of City Commissions. The modeling and testing should select a variety of sites across the city, including at least 1 site per council district. The selection of sites for modeling should be done in consultation with the ten district council members.

• Change part (1)(b) to specify that proposed recommendations for resolving conflicts should come from *staff* not the stakeholder group.

• The CAG would continue to be subject to TOMA.

• A person who is registered or required to register as a lobbyist under City Code Chapter 4-8 or who is employed by a person registered or required to register under City Code Chapter 4-8 would continue to be prohibited from serving as a member of this body.

• Members of this group must agree to comply with the City's ethics and personal responsibilities guidelines.


Again, I appreciate Council Member Troxclair’s leadership and work to develop a solution on the issue of modeling and testing the code, and I look forward to our discussion. My hope is that by posting my desired changes we can arrive at an outcome we can all support.

Regards,
Alison Alter
Council Member, District 10
Alison Alter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: Amendments to Item 125 on the 6/28/18 Agenda

Postby Alison Alter » Thu Jun 28, 2018 7:41 pm

Colleagues,

I’ve drafted the suggested amendments into a motion sheet for your consideration. I look forward to the discussion on this item.

http://assets.austintexas.gov/austincou ... 93807.docx


Regards,
Alison Alter
Council Member, District 10
Alison Alter
 
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:52 pm

Re: Amendments to Item 125 on the 6/28/18 Agenda

Postby Ellen Troxclair » Thu Jun 28, 2018 8:23 pm

Council Member Alter,

Thank you for posting your proposed amendments and for your willingness to work toward an approach that we can all agree on.

Regarding (1)(b):

I'm agreeable to language that would *direct a staff response* to the professional/expert group's recommendations relating to the resolution of conflicts.

Perhaps a subsection (c) that reads: (c) City Staff should provide Council with a staff response to each recommendation made by the group of design and development professionals.

Regarding transparency:

I agree with the sentiment that we should observe the highest level of transparency in this, and all of our City processes. In fact, an early draft of this resolution contemplated the applicability of the Texas Open Meetings Act and other City ethics rules. However, after conferring with our legal staff, it's not quite that simple. The applicability of those requirements may be problematic because this item does not create a formal body like City board or commission. Rather, my intent is that staff to convene and conduct an open consultation process with professionals and technical experts.

However, perhaps we could agree to add clarification language to Section (2) that would "direct the Manager to establish strong legal and ethical guidelines that would ensure an open and transparent public process..."

Regarding a reconstitution of the CAG:
Although this might have been an interesting approach, it seems like it would be a cumbersome process to revive at this point in time. Further, I'm not sure that the posting language for the Item would permit such an amendment.

If we can agree on these changes on the message board, maybe we will save some discussion time on the dias.

Thanks!
Council Member District 8
Ellen Troxclair
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:26 pm


Return to City of Austin Council Message Board

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests