[00:00:01]
[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
[BACKGROUND] GOOD MORNING.GLAD TO HAVE EVERYBODY HERE THIS MORNING.
GOOD MORNING TO STAFF AND TO THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, AND I'D LIKE TO WISH A VERY GOOD MORNING TO EVERYBODY THERE IN THE AUDIENCE OUT IN THE COMMUNITY THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS TELECAST.
GLAD TO HAVE YOU. IT IS 9:00 AM, AND I'M OFFICIALLY CALLING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR SEPTEMBER 16TH TO ORDER.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, BUT COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL?
WE DO HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT.
IS REVEREND ZUMA HERE? OH, THERE YOU ARE. HOW ARE YOU, SIR?
>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR. GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL MEMBERS, FRIENDS.
ALMIGHTY GOD, THROUGHOUT SALVATION HISTORY, I'VE ALWAYS CALLED MEN AND WOMEN TO SERVICE.
WE THANK YOU FOR OUR SESSION THIS MORNING.
WE ASK YOU TO BLESS ALL WHO ARE GATHERED HERE TODAY.
GIVE US WISDOM TO COMPREHEND THE ISSUES IN LIGHT OF YOUR HOLY AND JUST LAWS.
GIVE US UNDERSTANDING TO PENETRATE THEM WITH YOUR OWN GOODNESS.
GIVE US COUNCIL TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE WELL AND GOOD FOR EVERYONE IN LIGHT OF YOUR HOLY WILL.
GIVE US FORTITUDE NOT TO BE AFRAID TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT AND JUST.
BLESS OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS EVERYWHERE, ESPECIALLY OUR JEWISH BROTHERS AND SISTERS WHO BEGIN THE YOM KIPPUR.
MAY YOU BLESS THEM IN THEIR PRAYERS AND IN ALL THAT THEY DO.
AS WE MEET TODAY, OH LORD, WITH ALL THAT WE DO, BE TO THE GLORY OF YOUR NAME AND FOR THE GOOD OF ALL WE ARE CALLED TO SERVE, YOU WILL LIVE AND REIGN FOREVER AND EVER. AMEN.
COUNCIL, LET'S HAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE?
[5. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST]
IS THERE ANY CONFLICT OF INTERESTS THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO DECLARE AT THIS POINT?>> I'M GOING TO DECLARE A CONFLICT OF INTERESTS IN CASE 7A.
>> 7A. COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI HAS DECLARED A CONFLICT ON 7A.
VERY GOOD. ANY OTHERS? THANK YOU, COUNCIL.
[6. PUBLIC COMMENT]
AND WE'LL START WITH THOSE IN ATTENDANCE ON PUBLIC COMMENT.I WOULD MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT AS WE GET TO OUR ORDINANCES THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT ITEM 7A, THE ABANDONMENT ON 93RD STREET WILL BE PULLED.
WE WILL NOT BE HEARING THAT ITEM THIS MORNING.
THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT FOR FURTHER RESEARCH, BUT LET'S START WITH OUR INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE.
I'M GOING TO START WITH SARAH CLICK, IF WE COULD, SARAH.
>> I'M GOING TO COMMENT ON THE AGENDA ITEM WHERE WE [INAUDIBLE]
>> NO. WELL, WHAT AGENDA ITEM IS IT, SARAH?
>> THAT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, SO YOU COULD COMMENT WHEN WE GET TO IT.
>> SHEILA ROSS SANCHEZ. SHEILA?
>> WHERE'S THE NOTE? [NOISE] GOOD MORNING [OVERLAPPING], MAYOR, CITY COUNCILMEN AND WOMEN [LAUGHTER].
LET'S SEE. WELL, I CAME PREPARED TO TALK ABOUT 7A, BUT YOU'VE PULLED IT, BUT I STILL WANT TO MAKE MY COMMENTS.
I LIVE AT 9111 TEICHMAN, SO I LIVE DOWN THE STREET FROM THE ABANDONMENT REQUEST,
[00:05:03]
THE RIGHT OF WAY IN QUESTION.WITH THAT SAID, YOU CAN SEE THAT I HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND ALSO, WE'VE RECENTLY PURCHASED PROPERTY ON THIS VERY STREET 400 FEET WITHIN THIS RIGHT OF WAY.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT TEICHMAN POINT NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ABOUT 200 ACRES IN TOTAL ON THAT POINT.
FIFTY-FOUR OF THOSE ACRES ARE PROTECTED WETLANDS WITH THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF BIRDS CALL HOME AND MANY MIGRATORY BIRDS COME EVERY YEAR.
WE LIVE IN A NATURE PRESERVE, AND IT'S OUR BIGGEST ASSET.
YOU SEE, WE DID NOT LIVE IN A TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD ON A HISTORIC GRID.
WE HAVE NO SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC PARKS, FANCY LAMPPOSTS OR CONCRETE CULVERTS.
WE LIVE IN A NATURE PRESERVE, AND WE LOVE WHERE WE LIVE.
I HOLD HERE AN ENGINEERED WETLAND DRAINAGE REPORT COMMISSIONED AND PAID FOR BY THE CITY IN 2008 ON THE TEICHMAN POINT.
IT'S ALL IN HERE ABOUT WE NEED TO KEEP THAT RIGHT OF WAY OPEN AS PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND IT'S FREE, YOU OWN IT, OR YOU HAVE ACCESS TO IT OR WHATEVER THE LEGALITY IS.
IT'S RIGHT HERE ON THIS REPORT.
YOU PAID FOR IT BECAUSE WE HAD PROBLEMS, AND WE CONTINUE TO HAVE PROBLEMS OUT THERE WITH FLOODING AND DRAINAGE.
ON PAGE 29 OF THIS REPORT, IT SAYS WETLAND AREA NUMBER 1, THEY'VE DIVIDED INTO FOUR AREAS ON THE TEICHMAN POINT.
WETLAND AREA NUMBER 1 IS THE AREA THAT WAS SOUTH OF PONTICELLO LISTOWSKI HATMAKER DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT WAS A MITIGATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PONTICELLO TO GIVE OVER THIS ACREAGE, ABOUT EIGHT ACRES OR SO.
IT SAYS IN THIS REPORT, EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO COORDINATE WITH A PONTICELLO DEVELOPER ON PRESERVING AND OVERTOPPING DRAINAGE PATH TO GALVESTON BASIN IS ADJACENT TO 93 STREET.
THE CITY IS TALKING ABOUT SELLING TO SOMEBODY WHO DOESN'T LIVE HERE YET, HAS HAD HIS PROPERTY FOR SALE SINCE HE BOUGHT IT IN 2015.
IT'S NOT EXACTLY A DREAM HOME STRATEGY.
WE NEED THAT RIGHT OF WAY TO STAY OPEN TO ALLEVIATE FLOODING LIKE WE HAD TWO DAYS AGO.
I'VE SENT YOU ALL THE VIDEO. YOU SAW IT.
THANK YOU FOR THE ONES OF YOU WHO'VE GONE OUT THERE TO LOOK AT IT PERSONALLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT A 2D GOOGLE EARTH SITUATION, IT'S A 3D COME LOOK AT IT, WHAT'S OUT THERE.
I IMPLORE YOU WHEN IT COMES BACK IN ANY FORM THAT YOU DO NOT ABANDON THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SHEILA. MR. KEVIN SUMMERS.
>> WELL, GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS KEVIN SUMMERS AND I LIVE IN PONTICELLO JUST THREE LOTS FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY ON 93RD STREET.
I SENT EACH OF YOU MY EMAIL LETTER WITH SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
I THINK THE PHOTOGRAPHS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THAT WETLAND, LET'S CALL IT THE WEST WETLAND OFF OF 93RD STREET, IS ACTUALLY STRUGGLING TO SURVIVE, IS DRYING UP EVENTUALLY, IS RAT-INFESTED, EVENTUALLY BECOME A WASTELAND IF IT DOESN'T START RECEIVING TIDAL FLOW.
BEFORE PONTICELLO WAS BUILT, THAT NORTH SIDE WOULD'VE HAD TIDAL FLOW COMING ACROSS DURING HIGH TIDES, WHICH WOULD NOURISH THAT WETLAND.
THE NORTH SIDE IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE SOUTH SIDE.
OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS FOR THE HOMES THERE, BUT ONCE ALL THE HOMES ARE BUILT ALONGSIDE THAT NORTH SIDE, THERE'LL BE NO WAY TO GET TIDAL FLOW BACK INTO THAT SIDE, THE WETLAND.
I'M REQUESTING THAT THE EASEMENT BE CONVERTED INTO A CULVERT TO ALLOW TIDAL FLOW BACK IN THERE.
DURING THE STORM HERE JUST FEW DAYS AGO, WE SAW THE REVERSE EFFECT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WATER FELL DOWN THERE, BUT MY RAIN GAUGE IS FIVE INCHES AND IT WAS FULL, SO ALL OF THAT RAIN THAT WAS DUMPED INTO THERE HAD NOWHERE TO GO.
YOU SAW THE VIDEO. I SAW A VIDEO OF THE WATER GUSHING DOWN THAT LITTLE CULVERT THERE THAT HAD BEEN ABANDONED BY THE RIGHT OF WAY.
IF NOT FOR THAT, THAT WOULD JUST BE [INAUDIBLE] OR WOULD JUST CONTAIN THAT WATER UNTIL EVENTUALLY, IT WOULD GO WHEREVER.
I THINK IF WE OPEN UP THAT CULVERT THERE AND GET TIDAL FLOW BACK IN THEIR HIGH TIDES, THAT WETLAND WILL SURVIVE AND WILL PREVAIL.
WE ALL WANT TO SEE THE BIRDS OUT THERE.
IT'S A GREAT TOURIST ATTRACTION FOR GALVESTON DURING FEATHERFEST.
DURING THE YEAR, WE SEE MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS DOWNTOWN ON THE ROAD PHOTOGRAPHING THE BIRDS.
[00:10:01]
YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF BIRDS ON THE EAST WETLAND.THERE'S [INAUDIBLE] GOING OUT, THERE WAS A BUNCH OF BIRDS DOWN THERE.
ON THE WEST SIDE, THERE'S USUALLY VERY FEW BIRDS, JUST LOTS OF RATS.
I SEE RATS ALL THE TIME OVER THERE.
I'M ASKING THE COUNCIL TO GO WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND DENY THE REQUEST TO ABANDON THAT RIGHT OF WAY AND THEN DO SOME RESEARCH INTO HOW WE CAN IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE ON 93RD STREET.
IT FLOATED REAL BAD DURING THE STORM BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THE WATER TO GO.
THE ROADS WERE FLOODED QUITE BADLY, AND WE STILL FLOW TO THE WETLAND.
I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS WITH YOU GUYS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
YOU CAN SPEAK NOW OR IF YOU WANT TO WAIT TILL THE ORDINANCE COMES UP, YOU CAN SPEAK AT THAT TIME.
>> YOU CAN SPEAK IT BOTH IF YOU WANT OR YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL WE DISCUSS THE ITEM, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
GOOD MORNING TO YOU. [BACKGROUND]
>> MORNING. MY NAME IS ASHLEY GROUP.
I'VE BEEN A GALVESTON RESIDENT FOR 17 YEARS.
I MOVED HERE IN 2004 FOR MEDICAL SCHOOL AND I HAVE SINCE MADE THIS MY HOME.
IN 2018, I BOUGHT TWO LOTS THAT WERE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ONE ANOTHER IN THE ROBERT COHEN NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY WERE SOLD TOGETHER BUT ARE PLOTTED SEPARATELY.
THE LARGER OF THE TWO LOTS IS ON THE WATER OWN OFF ITS BAYOU.
THE SMALLER LOT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET ON THE CORNER OF 64TH STREET IN AVENUE L, WHICH IS NOT ON THE WATER.
I'M CURRENTLY WORKING WITH A LOCAL ARCHITECT ON PLANS TO BUILD A HOME ON THE SMALLER LOT, WHICH IS NOT ON THE WATER, HOPEFULLY STARTING TO BUILD LATER THIS YEAR.
I PLAN TO LATER BUILD MY HOMESTEAD ON THE WATERFRONT LOT.
I WILL EVENTUALLY USE THE HOUSE ON THE SMALLER LOT AS EITHER A GUEST HOUSE FOR MY PARENTS OR FAMILY AND FRIENDS OR MAY ENCOURAGE MY PARENTS TO MOVE HERE FULL TIME.
I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A DOCKER BOAT HOUSE ON THE WATERFRONT LOT WHILE I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET ON THE SMALLER LOT.
YOU MAY ASK, WHY I DON'T JUST BUILD ON THE WATERFRONT LOT NOW AND SAVE ALL OF THIS HASSLE AND QUESTIONS.
THE TRUTH IS THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WANT IN MY FOREVER HOME YET.
I'M STARTING THIS LONGER-TERM PROJECT WITH BUILDING A SMALLER HOME AND I WILL BUILD ON THE WATERFRONT LOT WHEN I'M READY, HOPEFULLY IN THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE.
THERE COULD BE CONCERNS WITH HAVING A PROPERTY WITH AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, REBUILDING THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PRINCIPLE BUILDING THAT I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS.
THERE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP THE CONCERN FOR TRESPASSERS AND OTHER NUISANCES.
QUITE HONESTLY, THIS ALREADY HAPPENS WITHOUT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, PEOPLE COME OUT THERE FISHING AND I'VE GOTTEN TO ASK THEM TO LEAVE.
I KNOW THAT IS A CONCERN, BUT IF I HAD AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THIS PROPERTY, I WOULD DEFINITELY FENCE AND GATE THIS PROPERTY TO PREVENT AND DISCOURAGE ACCESS TO MY DOCK.
I WOULD ALSO HAVE NO TRESPASSING SIGNS AND I WOULD BE LIVING DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND WE'LL BE KEEPING AN EYE ON THIS PROPERTY.
AT THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING, THERE WERE CONCERNS WITH CHANGING OF CITY BUILDING CODE FOR ONE PERSON.
[NOISE] I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD CHANGE WOULD JUST BENEFIT ME.
SOON AFTER THE MEETING, ANOTHER LOCAL RESIDENT WHO'S HERE TODAY, MISS CLARK, REACHED OUT TO ME SAYING THAT SHE HAS A SIMILAR SITUATION AND WOULD ALSO LIKE THIS TO BE APPROVED.
I'M SURE WE'LL HEAR HER COMMENTS IN A FEW MINUTES [NOISE].
I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT I'M JUST NOT AWARE OF, THAT THIS COULD BENEFIT, SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.
AT THE PLANNING COMMITTEE MEETING, THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION QUESTIONING IF A DOCKER BOAT HOUSE EVEN QUALIFIES AS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY CONSIDERS THEM [INAUDIBLE] IN CONCLUSION, I WOULD JUST REALLY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO USE MY WATERFRONT PROPERTY, TO ALLOW ME TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE WATER WITH MY OWN PERSONAL DOCKER-BOAT-HOUSE PRIOR TO BUILDING MY HOMESTEAD ON THAT LOT.
ONE OTHER THING I DID FORGET TO MENTION IS THAT, THERE WERE CONCERNS WITH A CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP,
[00:15:01]
WHAT IF I WERE TO SELL THIS LOT DOWN THE ROAD.THAT COULD BE A REASONABLE CONCERN, BUT I CAN JUST TELL YOU THAT'S NOT MY CURRENT INTENTION AND HOPEFULLY YOU SEEING THAT I'D BEEN A LONG-TERM GALVESTON RESIDENT AND PROPERTY OWNER, I'M NOT BUYING AND SELLING PROPERTIES ALL THE TIME, SO THAT'S NOT MY INTENTION.
I'VE OWNED AND PAID TAXES ON THIS WATERFRONT LOT SINCE 2018, AND I WOULD JUST REALLY LIKE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OWNING THIS PROPERTY.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO CONSIDER THIS CASE.
>> THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I LIVE AT 624, 93RD STREET, WHICH AS YOU CAN SEE, IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED FOR ABANDONMENT.
WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT DRAINAGE ISSUES ON OUR STREET.
THE PROPERTY THAT IS IN CONSIDERATION FOR ABANDONMENT, IS VERY CRUCIAL TO THE DRAINAGE OF WATER FROM OUR STREET, WHICH JUST HAPPENED JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO, AS MOST OF YOU HAVE SEEN.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT ABANDON THAT PROPERTY. THANKS.
>> BOB RANDALL. I LIVE AT 722, 91ST STREET, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE SUBJECT.
I'VE LIVED THERE FOR 40 YEARS AND I'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WITNESS THE CHANGES ON TAGMENT POINT OVER THE DECADES, AND THE SUBTLE CHANGES IN THE WETLANDS AND HOW THEY'RE RESPECTED AND HOW PUBLIC AWARENESS IS BEING INCREASED TO THE VALUE OF THE WETLANDS.
I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU BRIEFLY SEVERAL THINGS THAT I LEARNED FROM BEING INVOLVED IN THE PAST 20 YEARS ON WETLAND DELINEATION AND PERMITTING OF BOTH PONTICELLO SITE PRIOR TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND THE BIRD SANCTUARY TO THE EAST, WHICH I WAS INVOLVED IN.
WHAT THE AGENCIES TOLD ME ON BOTH APPLICATIONS IS, LEAVE IT ALONE, OBSERVE IT, AND LEARN FROM IT.
WE DON'T WANT YOU TO ENHANCE IT, WE DON'T WANT YOU TO MITIGATE, WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.
THAT HURT BEING PRO-DEVELOPMENT, BUT OVER THE YEARS I'VE COME TO SEE THE WISDOM IN WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU IS THAT, THE RIDE AWAY IS AN OVERLAY ON GEOGRAPHY.
WHETHER IT'S AN UPLAND OR A WETLAND, IT'S STILL YOUR PROPERTY.
ONCE IT BECOMES A PUBLIC RIGHT-WAY, THE STUDY THAT [INAUDIBLE] ALLUDED TO EARLIER TALKS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF BACK BAY ACCESS.
IT ALSO MENTIONS DRAINAGE PATTERNS, AND IT'S THESE DRAINAGE PATTERNS THAT BECOME A PUBLIC UTILITY, IF YOU WILL, THROUGH THE WETLANDS.
WE HAVE NO DEEP BARRIERS, WE HAVE NO RESERVOIRS, THESE WETLANDS ARE THE DISCHARGE FOR STORM WATER.
THEY FILTER IT AND THEY ALLOW IT TO FIND ITS LOWEST LEVEL AND EVENTUALLY GET BACK INTO THE BAY.
ALL WE ASK IS THAT, IT APPEARS THAT THIS IS A CASE OF SOMETHING BORROWED AND WHEN SOMETHING'S RETURNED THAT'S BORROWED, IT SHOULD BE NO WORSE OFF THAN IT WAS WHEN IT WAS BORROWED.
BY THAT I MEAN, WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT PUT BACK TO THE WAY THAT IT WAS.
IT SEEMED TO FUNCTION WELL THEN, AND THIS TRANSITIONAL WETLAND IS VERY IMPORTANT BETWEEN THE TIDAL WETLANDS AND THE UPLANDS WHERE WE LIVE.
WE CAN CONTINUE IF WE RESPECT IT AND OBSERVE IT TO APPRECIATE THE SUBTLETIES AND THE BIRDING AND THE WATCHABLE WILDLIFE IN THIS UNIQUE AREA. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU BOB, APPRECIATE IT.
>> MY NAME IS TIM BATE. I LIVE AT 1416 BALL AND I OWN PROPERTY ON TYPHOON THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT REQUESTS, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT'S REQUESTED TO BE ABANDONED.
I WOULD LIVE OUT THERE, BUT ELIZABETH WON'T LET ME.
[LAUGHTER] I'M STUCK IN THIS STAND, I THINK FOR THE DURATION BUT ANYWAY, WITH BOB, WE HAVE DEVELOPED A NUMBER OF LOTS OUT THERE AND SOLD THEM, AND WE STILL OWN A COUPLE, A FEW, BUT WE'VE SEEN IT.
THIS PROPERTY IS AS COUNCILMAN WAS TAU SKIN NOT UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE ACCUSING YOURSELF IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
BUT AS HE KNOWS BECAUSE AT ONE TIME WHEN HE WAS DEVELOPING HIS PROPERTY, HE HAD AT ROAD ACROSS THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WAS USED FOR THE TRUCKS, FOR THE HEAVY HAULING AND STUFF.
HE'S HAD TO CHANGE THAT TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM UTILIZING IT AND THAT'S FINE AND GOOD.
[00:20:04]
BUT RIGHT WHERE THAT ROAD CROSSED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS A NATURAL CULVERT, A NATURAL SWALE, IF YOU WILL.THAT SWALE HAS PARTIALLY BEEN FILLED IN BY THE ROAD, BUT NATURE WILL TAKE CARE OF THAT, AT LEAST THAT'S OUR BELIEF.
THE NATURE, JUST AS THE STORM THIS WEEK DID SOME WORK ON IT.
I JUST WANT TO RECITE TO THE COUNCIL SOMETHING YOU ALL KNOW ALREADY FROM HAVING LOOKED AT THIS.
THAT IS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON IN SECTION 4.2, EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS TO ENSURE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.
THE LAST SENTENCE OF THAT SECTION SAYS, "NO RIGHTS OF WAY THAT PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO BODIES OF WATER SHOULD BE ABANDONED." THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. THIS ALLOWS ACCESS NOT ONLY TO WATER.
IT CONCEIVABLY IN TIME COULD BE ACCESSED TO THE BAY ITSELF.
THERE'S PRECIOUS LITTLE OF THAT ON TYPHOON.
I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THAT IN DETERMINING WHAT IS IN THE BEST PUBLIC INTERESTS.
I'M SURE THIS WOULD BENEFIT THEIR APPLICANT AND I DON'T BEGRUDGE ASKING FOR IT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTS.
I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL WHEN IT COMES UP, IF IT COMES UP AGAIN OR WHATEVER FORM TO PRESERVE THIS INTO NOT ABANDON THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THANK YOU.
THIS IS ALL THE APPLICATIONS I HAVE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT LET ME ASK IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? HEARING NO RESPONSE. JANELLE, DO WE HAVE ANY, [BACKGROUND] YES COME FORWARD, AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR, AND GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>> MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] I'M A PROPERTY OWNER OF THE WEST BAY ROAD AND I'VE APPLIED FOR THE EASEMENT.
THE ABANDONMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WETLANDS.
THERE IS NO WETLANDS ON THE EASEMENT.
HE CAN'T OWN PROPERTY ADJACENT BECAUSE I DO.
JOHN HALSEY THAT RECUSED HIMSELF DOES AND ARTIST BOWDEN'S, SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE HIS OWNERSHIP ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY IS.
SEPARATELY, THESE ARE APPROVED PLANS FROM AARON AND FRANKLIN FOR A VERY NICE HOME THAT I'D LIKE TO BUILD ON THE ISLAND.
I HAVE DOCUMENTATION AND VIDEO OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO WHERE ONE MINUTE AND TWO SECONDS IN MS. HOLLOWAY HAD NO CONFLICT OF INTERESTS.
WAS ANY CONFLICT OF INTERESTS? NO ONE. THERE WAS NONE.
41 MINUTES AND 45 SECONDS IN WHERE JOAN EDWARD SAID, OH, I'VE GOT A CONFLICT AND I COULD GO ON FOR HOURS.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS I AM READY TO BUILD AND HAVE OWNED THAT LAND.
EVERY DISCUSSION I HEAR IS ABOUT WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND MS. HOLLOWAY'S FAVORITE COMMENT WAS TOTAL INTERCHANGE, WHICH IS A DITCH.
I'M MORE THAN PREPARED TO PAY THE FAIR MARKET PRICE AND THEN I'LL GIVE A 1520 FOOT EASEMENT BACK TO THE CITY AND GO.
YOU NEED A DITCH. YOU KNOW WHAT? I'LL PAY FOR IT. MY ONLY CONCERN IS I'M GOING TO BUILD A MILLION AND A HALF DOLLAR HOUSE PLUS AND PAY THE CITY TAXES FOREVER, AND BE ON MY DECK AND HAVE WHAT FOUR PARKING SPACES.
I KNOW WHAT ADA IS, I'M A DEVELOPER.
ON A 50 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT HOW MANY PARKING SPACES CAN YOU GET? FIVE. FIVE PARKING SPACES ON A PROPERTY, THAT I HAVE MOLDED AND LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED FOR ABOUT EIGHT YEARS NOW.
THE REASON IT'S NICE AND MODE.
MY 80 YEAR-OLD FATHER MOPS IT EVERY 2, 3 DAYS.
ALL THE WETLANDS, THERE ARE NO WETLANDS ON THE EASEMENT, NOT ONE WETLAND ON THIS EASEMENT.
I HAVE TOPO, I HAVE SURVEY. I'M A DEVELOPER.
WHAT'S A BETTER USE THAN SOMEONE BUILDING A NICE HOME AND MANICURING AND KEEPING THE ROCKS AND THE WETLANDS AND OFFERING US 15 FOOT EASEMENT FOR ANYBODY AND I'LL PAY FOR THE DITCH, TELL ME WHAT IT COSTS.
I'LL HAVE MY GUYS DO IT, ENGINEERED IMPROVED DRAINAGE.
THE INNER TOTAL FLOW COMES FROM MY DEAR FRIEND, RAKESH SHAW, BARRY HART OWNER, ONE OF THE BEST NEUROLOGISTS AND CARDIOLOGISTS IN THE WORLD.
HE BOUGHT THE HOUSE FROM STEPHEN CAROL KELLY.
WHEN TIDE COMES IN, IT GOES DOWN HIS SIDE, IT FILLS UP THE DITCH AND STOPS AT THE EASEMENT.
GUESS WHAT? YOU'VE GOT INNER FLOW, IT NEVER HAPPENS.
A THIRD-GRADER COULD FIGURE IT OUT.
[00:25:01]
HIGH TIDE IT FLOWS THROUGH THE [INAUDIBLE], COMES THROUGH THE DITCH WHEN IT GETS TO THE EASEMENT BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A DRAINAGE PIPE THERE, IT STOPS AND ALL THEIR STORY MAKES NO SENSE.I WILL PUT A DITCH IN THERE TOMORROW AND THE NEXT TIME IT RAINS, I'D LIKE TO SEE THEIR VIDEO OF THE FLOW AND WITHIN SIX MONTHS WETLANDS WILL COME BACK.
THE WETLANDS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS EASEMENT.
I'M NOT HERE TO DEVELOP IT, I'M HERE TO MANICURE, FENCE IT SO I CAN BUILD MY HOME THERE AND MAYBE WE MISS OUT ON FIVE PARKING SPACES. MAYBE WE DON'T.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU FROM VIDEO THAT I HAVE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE DEBACLE THAT WAS IT'S NOT GOING TO GO WELL AND I'M A GUY THAT WANTS TO HELP.
BRIAN MAXWELL CAN TELL YOU, WASN'T WELL RECEPTED.
THE NUMBER ONE RV RESORT IN THE UNITED STATES, IF YOU WANT INFORMATION ON THAT, I CAN SEND IT TO YOU.
WE'VE BROUGHT IN OVER $10 MILLION IN EXPENDITURES TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
I'M ON HOMETOWN BANK BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOARD.
I'M PARTNERS WITH TILLMAN FOR TINA.
I WANT TO LIVE HERE AND BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WETLANDS AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TIDAL FLOW, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EASEMENT.
IF THEY WERE SMART, THEY'D SAY, HEY, CITY, THIS GUY WANTS TO PUT IT, HE'LL GIVE YOU 15 FEET IF YOU PASS THOSE WHO PAY FOR IT AND THEN ONCE THAT'S IN THE WETLANDS COME BACK.
THAT EASEMENT CANNOT STAY LIKE IT IS OTHER THAN IT CAN STAY LIKE IT IS, SORRY OTHER THE DITCH FROM MY LOT GOING BASICALLY EAST TO TIE THE WETLANDS TOGETHER IS WHY THERE'S NO WATER HITTING THE WETLANDS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS DEVELOPED.
THAT WAS ALL MITIGATED, BY THE WAY, MR. [INAUDIBLE] DID THAT RIGHT, I'VE SEEN THE PLANS, I'VE SEEN ELEVATION USING THE TOPO.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR THAT LOT TO NOT JUST SIT THERE FOREVER AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERTIDAL FLOW OR WETLANDS.
THERE ARE NO WETLANDS PER MY ENGINEER ON THIS SLOT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? VERY GOOD. JANELLE, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT?
>> WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE ON THE ZOOM CALL AND I'M JUST GOING TO UNMUTE EVERYONE SO THEY CAN SPEAK IF THEY'D LIKE TO.
ATTENDEES ON THE ZOOM CALL HAVE NOW BEEN UNMUTED.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD.
THEY ALL MUTED THEMSELVES BACK.
ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS, JANELLE?
>> I HAVE ONE WRITTEN COMMENT FROM SARAH CLICK, BUT SHE'S HERE.
>> GO AHEAD AND READ SARAH'S COMMENT.
>> OKAY. THE SUBJECT IS PLANNING CASE NUMBER 21 ZA 003, ITEM 7B ON THE AGENDA.
THIS AMENDMENT REQUIRES IMPROVED LOT UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHIN 200 FEET OF A STRUCTURE.
THIS SHOULD SATISFY THE CITY'S CONCERNS OF TRESPASSERS AND SANITATION ISSUES.
AS HOMEOWNERS, WE'RE INVESTED IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS OF OUR IMPROVED PROPERTIES. WE LIVE HERE.
WE DON'T WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO LOOK BAD.
BY PURCHASING MULTIPLE PROPERTIES, WE HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO AND ARE INVESTED IN THIS ISLAND.
I AM PROUD TO BE HERE, BUT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE MY PROPERTIES.
WE'RE THROUGH THE PUBLIC COMMENT TIME.
AS I MENTIONED, WE'RE NOW IN PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 7.
ITEM 7A HAS BEEN PULLED BY STAFF, SO WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM 7B, PLEASE, JANELLE.
[7.B. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending The 2015 Galveston Land Development Regulations, By Amending ‘Article 2: “Uses And Supplemental Standards”, To Modify The Requirements For Accessory Buildings And Structures; Planning Case Number 21ZA-003; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (C. Gorman)]
>> ITEM 7B, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS AMENDING THE 2015 GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS BY AMENDING ARTICLE 2, USES AND SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS, TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES PLANNING CASE NUMBER 21Z-003, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
>> VERY GOOD. CATHERINE, GOOD MORNING TO YOU.
>> GOOD MORNING. ARE THE APPLICANTS REQUESTING A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE GALVESTON OF LANDS DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARTICLE 2 TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING CONSTRUCTION? AS CURRENTLY REGULATED, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES CANNOT BE LOCATED ON LAUNCH WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
[00:30:03]
THE APPLICANTS PROPOSING TO MODIFY THAT REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON DECK AND LAUNCH IF THERE IS A LOT UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHIN 200 FEET.SUFFICE THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE CRITERIA AND CONSIDERATION TO THE TEXT AMENDMENT, ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THE LDR IS ENCOURAGING THE MOST APPROPRIATE USES OF LAND AND MINIMIZE CONFLICTS AMONG ADJACENT AND NEARBY LAND USES.
THEIR PLANS TO PROPOSE TEXT AMENDMENT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CREATE CONFLICT AMONG ADJACENT AND NEARBY LAND USES.
ACCESSORY BUILDING ON LOTS, THAT DO NOT HAVE A MAIN STRUCTURE CAN BECOME NUISANCES, THESE TYPE OF STRUCTURES DO NOT HAVE SANITATION FACILITIES AND VISITORS TO THE STRUCTURE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO A BATHROOM.
THEY ARE ALSO ATTRACTIVE TO VAGRANTS AND TRESPASSERS.
STAFF ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE RECOMMENDING DENIAL.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, CATHERINE. APPRECIATE THAT.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT FOR CATHERINE OR STAFF ON THIS ITEM?
>> CAN I SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK?
>> SINCE WE PULLED THAT LAST CASE, CAN WE HAVE SOMEONE GET WITH MR. SMITH AND JUST [OVERLAPPING] RE-PROCESS?
>> ACTUALLY, I WANT TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT POSSIBLY CARBON AT THE DITCH.
LOOKING AT THE VIDEOS THAT I RECEIVED THIS WEEKEND, I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT WATER THAT WAS FLOWING WAS NOT IN OUR EASEMENT.
I THINK IT WAS FLOWING THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY.
[LAUGHTER] SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE OUR SURVEYOR TO RELOOK AT IT AGAIN.
>> THIS IS FIRST SUNDAY OF THE EASEMENT OF THE ITSELF.
>> I APPRECIATE IT BUT ANYWAY, I WILL GET WITH MR. SMITH.
>> THE YELLOW'S A 15 FOOT EASEMENT THAT I THINK WOULD WORK.
>> IT'S NOT RIGHT. IT'S NOT FLOWING THROUGH THAT.
>> MR. SMITH, BRIAN, OUR CITY MANAGER, WILL GET WITH YOU.
>> NO, I'VE WORKED WITH MR. SMITH MANY TIMES.
WE'RE GOOD. WE'LL GET TOGETHER ON IT.
>> YEAH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR CATHERINE'S COUNCIL OR STAFF ON THIS?
>> CATHERINE, WERE YOU ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE SITUATIONS? THIS IS 7, WE'RE ON 7B UP HERE? [LAUGHTER] SORRY, MAKE SURE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT CASE.
THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE PIERS ON THEM THAT DON'T HAVE STRUCTURES?
>> WE HAVE STARTED TO RESEARCH THEM.
WE HAVEN'T DETERMINED HOW THOSE WERE DEVELOPED CURRENTLY.
JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD THE DISCRETION ITEM ON THE TOPIC OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES APPEARS TO BE HEARD AT THEIR MEETING ON TUESDAY, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE RESEARCHING.
>> SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND DEFERRING UNTIL WE HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AT A PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL TO BRING ABOUT THE COUNCIL?
>> THAT WOULD BE UP TO COUNCIL.
>> WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS AT PLANNING COMMISSION.
THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE ISLAND THAT HAD THIS SAME SITUATION THAT CURRENTLY HAVE PIERS ON THEM, DON'T HAVE A HOUSE ON THEM.
SO IT'S THE ONLY STRUCTURE ON THOSE PROPERTIES.
SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON THAT, SEE HOW THOSE WERE ALLOWED IF THEY ACTUALLY HAVE APPROVAL FOR THAT, AND THEN SEE IF WE NEED TO MODIFY THE REGULATIONS FOR THAT.
WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS CASE AT PLANNING, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME AT LEAST THAT PEOPLE WITH WATERFRONT PROPERTY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD A PIER WITHOUT A HOUSE AIR IF THEY IF THEY GATE IT, IF THEY FENCE IT, NO TRESPASSING SIGNS, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT FOR THIS WATERFRONT PROPERTY.
SO I'D LIKE TO GET COUNCIL'S THOUGHTS ON THAT SO I COULD BRING THAT BACK TO OUR PLANNING AND TALK TO THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, JOHN.
BEFORE WE GET INTO DISCUSSION ON THIS, LET'S FINISH THIS PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
ANY QUESTIONS, FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR CATHERINE, OR STAFF ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. IT IS 9:34 A.M.
I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7B.
IS THERE ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? COME RIGHT UP. YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT, SARAH.
>> GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS SARAH MOORE CLICK.
I LIVE AT 1015 COMMODORE, AND I'M HERE TO ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LDR.
IT'S REGARDING ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES.
LIKE THE APPLICANT, I OWN TWO LOTS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM EACH OTHER, [NOISE] ONE IS CONSIDERED VACANT, EVEN THOUGH UPON BUYING IT, WE IMMEDIATELY INSTALLED A CURB DRIVEWAY FENCE AND
[00:35:02]
CUSTOM GATE THAT COMPLIMENTED OUR PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET.WE PURCHASED THIS LOT AFTER MOWING AND MAINTAINING IT FOR THREE YEARS.
I TRACKED DOWN THE OWNER AND MADE AN OFFER.
LIKE THIS CITY, MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE MANY PLANS.
OUR SIX MONTH PLAN WAS TO BUILD A GARAGE ON THE BACK OF THE LOT SO WE COULD MOVE OUR BOAT AND TRAILER OFF OF THE STREET.
BOATS AND TRAILERS AND THE VEHICLES THAT TOW THEM TAKE UP A LOT OF STREET PARKING.
THEY ALSO DECREASE THE VISIBILITY OF WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE STREET AND AT NEARBY PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY AT NIGHT.
WE'D LIKE TO FREE UP STREET SPACE, BUILD A GARAGE AND USE OUR LOT.
OUR 7-10 YEAR PLAN, WE'D LIKE TO BUILD A LITTLE BAY HOUSE ON OUR LOT.
I HAD NO IDEA THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY UNTIL WE BUILT A HOUSE ON IT.
THIS AMENDMENT REQUIRES THERE BE AN IMPROVED LOT UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP WITHIN 200 FEET OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
THIS SHOULD SATISFY THE CITY'S CONCERNS OF TRESPASSERS AND SANITATION ISSUES.
AS HOMEOWNERS, WE ARE PRETTY INVESTED IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS OF OUR IMPROVED PROPERTIES.
WE LIVE HERE. WE DON'T WANT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS TO LOOK BAD BY PURCHASING MULTIPLE PROPERTIES WE HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO AND ARE INVESTED IN THIS ISLAND AND CITY.
I'M PROUD TO BE HERE, BUT I WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE MY PROPERTY, NOT JUST PAY TAXES ON IT AND LOOK AT IT OUT MY WINDOW.
APPROVING THIS AMENDMENT WILL NOT BE A FREE FOR ALL.
THERE WON'T BE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES POPPING UP ALL OVER THE ISLAND.
THERE ARE STILL REQUIRED SITE PLANS AND PERMITS, ETC.
COUNCIL, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND AGAIN, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO PLEASE APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT.
>> THANK YOU, SARAH. APPRECIATE IT.
ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS? ACTUALLY, THAT GIVES YOU A CHANCE.
DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE?
>> I THINK I SAID IT. I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS [INAUDIBLE]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE THAT.
IT IS 9:36 A. M. I'M CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM 7B.
COUNCIL, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A MOTION ON THIS.
>> I WOULD MOVE TO DEFER ON WHAT JOHN WAS SAYING.
ALRIGHT. WE HAVE MOTION FOR DEFERRAL OF ITEM 7B. IS THERE A SECOND? I WOULD SECOND THAT.
>> WELL, COUNCILMAN KRUGER HAD HIS HAND UP ON THAT, SO THAT'S A SECOND.
>> I UNDERSTAND DEVELOPMENT CONCERN BUT I WOULD THINK WE DON'T SEPARATE WATERFRONT USAGE FROM JUST A REGULAR SECONDARY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
I WOULD THINK THERE WOULD BE, WHERE WE WOULD HANDLE THAT DIFFERENTLY.
BEACH FRONT, WATERFRONT, BOAT ACCESS, THAT KIND OF THING.
IT'S ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FOR ME BUILDING A SHED ON A IN TOWN LOT.
I WOULD WONDER IF WE COULDN'T TAKE A LOOK AT FINDING A WAY TO DELINEATE THOSE ITEMS TO DEAL WITH WATERFRONT PROPERTY.
THEY ACCESS PROPERTIES DIFFERENTLY THAN WE DO NORMAL BUILDING LOTS.
THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION, SEEMS TO ME.
>> I WOULD BE WILLING TO EVEN REMOVE THE DEFERRAL IF COUNCIL FEELS COMFORTABLE MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO STAY IN A DISTRICT THAT HAS QUITE A FEW OF LOTS THAT SIMPLY HAVE PEERS OR BOAT REEVES AND THEY'RE GATED AS JOHN SAID AND THEY DON'T CAUSE PROBLEMS. BUT IF YOU STILL THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
>> I MEAN CURRENTLY I DON'T LIKE THIS TEXT AMENDMENT BECAUSE IT ONLY ALLOWS FOR YOU TO DEVELOP YOUR WAYFARING PROPERTY IF YOU HAVE A PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET OR IN PROXIMITY THAT.
I MEAN, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT IF YOU HAVE A WATERFRONT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU WANT TO BUILD A PEER AND A BOAT HOUSE, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT TO INCENTIVIZE THEM TO GATE IT AND FENCE THE PROPERTY TO MAKE THE PROPERTY EVEN SAFER.
I THINK WATERFRONT PROPERTY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A PEER AND A BOAT HOUSE ON IT OR SOME STRUCTURE OUT THERE.
ESPECIALLY IF IT'S REQUIRED THAT THEY FENCE THE PROPERTY AND GATE IT AND THAT'S YOU DON'T NEED A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE PROXIMITY OF THAT PROPERTY.
>> I AGREE WITH JOHN PAUL. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THESE ARE SEPARATE USES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, SEPARATE CATEGORIES OF USE.
I THINK WE DO NEED TO CONTINUE THAT REFERRAL TO GIVE STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT MAKING THE DIFFERENTIATION CLEARLY.
>> I PERSONALLY AGREE. I THINK THIS, I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT ON POP PROPERTY THAT IS NOT CONTIGUOUS WITH
[00:40:03]
THEIR OWNERSHIP PROPERLY BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO DEFER IT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO GET MORE INPUT ON THAT.I HAVE A FEELING THIS IS MAYBE STOPPED A LITTLE SHORT AND WE NEED TO LIKE TO EXPAND THAT POSSIBILITY SO VERY GOOD.
WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COUNCIL? WE DO NOT HAVE OUR ELECTRONIC VOTING WORKING SO WE'LL HAVE TO SIGNIFY BY JUST GO BACK TO THE OLD METHOD.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED. IT IS UNANIMOUS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] VOTE ON REFERRAL 7A?
[7.A. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Abandoning Property Adjacent To 628 93rd Street And Adjacent Property Is Legally Described As Lot 1, Block 9, Massa Unrecorded Subdivision; In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Planning Case Number 21P-040; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (C. Gorman)]
>> THEY PULLED IT. IT WASN'T A DEFERRAL.
YES, SIR. OKAY. WE WILL DO IT.
SHADY ATTORNEY WANTS TO HAVE A VOTE ON 7A TO PULL THAT ITEM.
OFFICER MAY, I WOULD MAKE THAT MOTION FOR REMOVING 7A BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL AT A LATER DATE.
>> ARE YOU WANTING US TO DEFER THAT AND DO WE NEED A SPECIFIC DATE ON THAT OR?
>> WE'VE GOT THIS SURVEY BUT I WANT OUR GUY TO LOOK AT IT TOO.
>> JOHN, WE COULD PUT AN OCTOBER 28TH DATE ON THAT IS OUR NEXT MEETING AND WE CAN ALWAYS MOVE THAT IF WE'D NEED TO.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.
I'M GOING TO MAKE THAT MOTION FOR DEFERRAL THE END TO OCTOBER 28TH.
>> AND WE'VE GOT A SECOND ON THAT.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR COUNCIL.
[7.C. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Creating A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Zoning District In A Residential, Single-Family (R-3) Zoning District To Allow For An “Office” Land Use On Property Commonly Known As 1301 Market / Avenue D, And Which Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey Lots 5-7, Block 493, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Planning Case Number 21P-041; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject; And Providing For An Effective Date.]
CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR AN OFFICE LAND USE, SOME PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1301 MARKET AVENUE D IN WHICH IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MINARD SURVEY.
LOTS FIVE THROUGH SEVEN, BLOCK 493 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.
MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, NELLIE.
STAFF WHO'S GOING TO PRESENT THIS CASE? I DON'T SEE CATHERINE ON THERE. IS THERE ANYBODY?
>> DANIEL. GO. GO RIGHT AHEAD, DANIEL.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING.
YEAH, THIS IS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AT 1301 MARKET.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO USE APPROXIMATELY 1652 SQUARE FEET OF THE EXISTING HOME, IT'S EXISTING ENCLOSED IMPROVED AREA FOR AN OFFICE LAND USE WHICH WOULD NOT TYPICALLY BE PERMITTED IN R3 ZONING.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING ADDITIONAL TWO SQUARE FOOT OF SIGNAGE FOR NAMEPLATE SIGNED TO BE LOCATED AT THE EXISTING ENTRY GATE FACING 13TH STREET.
THERE ARE NO OTHER VARIANCES REQUESTED AS PART OF THIS PUD.
THE HOUSE WOULD REMAIN PRIMARILY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND EXISTING OFF STREET PARKING IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PROPOSED OFFICE LAND USE.
THIS WOULD BE FOR THE APPLICANTS, A LAW OFFICE AND A FEW EMPLOYEES.
PLEASE NOTE THE MORE DETAILED ANALYSIS.
THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS IN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BECAUSE THE OFFICE LAND USE WOULD BE INCIDENTAL TO THE RESIDENTIAL LAND USE AND BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL HAVE MINIMAL, IF ANY, IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.
LANDMARK COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THEIR AUGUST 16TH, 2021 MEETING.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST AT THEIR AUGUST 17TH MEETING FOR VOTE OF ONE IN FAVOR AND SIX OPPOSED.
FINALLY, THERE WERE 22 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT TO OR RETURN BUT BOTH OF THOSE WERE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST.
WE DO HAVE A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE IT AS A EXISTING RESIDENTIAL HOME IN CHARACTER AND NATURE AND THIS REQUEST WOULD JUST TAKE IN PART OF THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DANIEL OR STAFF, COUNCIL? ALRIGHT. IT IS 9:44 AM.
I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7C.
ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS COME FORWARD. MORNING, DAVID.
>> I'M THE ARCHITECT REPRESENTING THE OWNER FOR THIS PROPERTY.
[00:45:04]
THERE WERE TWO ISSUES THAT APPEAR TO BE FROM THE LANDMARK FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.IT'S NOT SHOWING IN THIS PHOTO BUT THERE IS A GATE ENTRY THROUGH THE FENCE THAT HAS PILASTERS THAT ARE OVER TWO FEET WIDE.
WE WERE REQUESTING A SIGN FOR THAT AREA.
SOME OF THE MEMBERS HAD AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
PUT IN CONTEXT THE STICK IN THE GROUND SIGNS THAT PEOPLE USE FOR SALE, REAL ESTATE SIGNS. THAT'S TWO FEET.
SO THAT'S HOW BIG OF A SIGN WE'RE LOOKING AT.
IT'S NOT A MONUMENT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THE OTHER ISSUE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DIDN'T EXPRESS ANYTHING UNTIL IT WAS JUST BEFORE VOTING AND IT WAS READ INTO THE MEETING MINUTES THE DESCRIPTION OF AN R3 AND THAT IS TO BASICALLY INTENDED TO PRESERVE THE RESIDENTIAL USES FOUND IN THE CITY'S HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
I DON'T THINK THIS REALLY VARIES FROM THAT BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE CITY ALREADY ALLOWS IN AN R3, IT ALLOWS A CLINIC, A MEDICAL LAB, A MEDICAL OFFICE, MULTIPLE EMPLOYEES.
IT ALLOWS A PLACE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY, INCLUDING AN EVENT CENTER.
IT ALLOWS A NURSERY AND GREENHOUSE FOR RETAIL SALES.
IT ALLOWS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH UP TO TWO EMPLOYEES.
TO HAVE AN OFFICE ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF WHERE YOU LIVE, YOU WANTED TO HAVE FOUR EMPLOYEES WON'T IMPACT THE PARKING AND THE FACT THAT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IS ALL UTMB FOR BLOCKS AND BOX AND TWO LOTS TO THE WEST, IT BECOMES THE 14TH STREET QUARTER WHICH IS THIS WOULD'VE BEEN ALLOWED IN SO WE'RE SHORT 85 FEET ONE DIRECTION OF BEING WITHIN ALLOWED TO DO WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO DO.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS SHOULD GO STRAIGHT FORWARD THROUGH BECAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT HERE? DAVID. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
ALRIGHT. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON THIS ITEM? JANELLE, IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM 7C.
IF ANYONE ON THE ZOOM CALL WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS CASE, PLEASE USE THE RAISE YOUR HAND FEATURE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT IS 9:48 AM.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7C.
WE'RE GOING TO BRING THIS BACK TO COUNCIL.
>> I MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM 7C.
>> GOT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN ROB, ANY DISCUSSION?
>> YEAH, I DO. I'VE LOOKED AT THIS PRETTY CLOSELY.
I'M WITH MR. WATSON, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT PLANNING OBJECTION TO THIS WAS.
IT WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY AT LANDMARK, AS HE POINTS OUT, THE ENTIRE STREET ACROSS THE STREET IS UTMB IN FACT, THIS USED TO BE THE UTMB PRESIDENT'S HOME AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST.
ONE THING MR. WATSON FAILED TO MENTION WAS THAT JUST A FEW HOUSES DOWN IN THE DIRECTION OF 14TH STREET, THERE WAS AT ONE POINT AN ART GALLERY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S STILL IN OPERATION ON I DON'T THINK IT IS, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY NON RESIDENTIAL USE IN THIS BLOCK.
I DON'T THINK THIS IMPACTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AT ALL ACTUALLY.
>> ALRIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, JOHN AND THEN MARIE.
>> I SAT THROUGH THIS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THIS WAS DENIED.
IT WAS A VERY INTERESTING CONVERSATION.
I THINK IT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE USE OF THIS PROPERTY AND I'M ALL FOR THIS ONE.
>> I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT JOHN SAID.
I TEND TO LISTEN TO A LOT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND I TELL HIM HE SHOULD BE SAINTED, HAVING TO LISTEN TO DISCUSSIONS THAT GO ON FOR TWO HOURS WHEN AND SHOULD BE A FIVE-MINUTE DISCUSSION.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THIS.
>> THAT'S HOW SOME PEOPLE FEEL ABOUT COUNCIL.
>> THEY TOLD ME THAT ABOUT YOU.
[00:50:01]
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON ITEM 7C. VERY GOOD.
PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE BY RAISING YOUR HAND COUNCIL.
[7.D. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Granting A Variance Pursuant To Section 4-1 “Sales Near Schools, Churchs Or Hospitals” Of “The Code Of The City Of Galveston, 1982 As Amended” And In Accordance With Section 109.33(E) Of The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code; Regarding The Sale Of Alcoholic Beverages On Property Located At 5102 Broadway / Avenue J; Which Is Legally Described As “M. B. Menard Survey, Lots 8, 9, & East 38-4 Feet Of Lot 10, Block 231, In The City And County Of Galveston Texas And Which Is Located Within Three Hundred Feet Of A School, Church, Or Hospital; Planning Case Number 21PLM-00104; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject.]
>> ITEM 7D. CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS GRANTING A VARIANT PURSUE TO SECTION 4-1, SALES NEAR SCHOOLS, CHURCHES, OR HOSPITALS OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON [NOISE] 1982 AS AMENDED AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 109.33 OF THE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE REGARDING THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5102 BROADWAY AVENUE J, WHICH IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS [INAUDIBLE] SURVEY LOTS 8, 9, AND EAST 38-4 FEET OF LOT 10, BLOCK 231 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AND WHICH IS LOCATED WITHIN 300 FEET OF A SCHOOL, CHURCH, OR HOSPITAL.
PLANNING CASE NUMBER 21 PLM-00104 MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. CATHERINE, WHO'S AVAILABLE FOR THIS?
>> DANIEL, GOOD. GLAD TO HAVE YOU, DANIEL. GO AHEAD.
>> YES SIR, THANK YOU. YES, THIS IS ALCOHOL SALES VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR 5102 BROADWAY, WHICH IS JUST THE CORNER OF 51ST IN BROADWAY, THE NORTHWEST CORNER, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF A SMALL SHOPPING CENTER BUILT 1967 OR POSSIBLY BEFORE.
IT'S BEEN THERE AWHILE. THE OWNER WISHES TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE AT A CONVENIENCE STORE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SOME ALCOHOL SALES TO THE EXISTING BUSINESSES IN THAT BUILDING BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN 300 FOOT OF AN EXISTING DAYCARE AS MEASURED PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE NOW YOU CAN SEE IN THE EXHIBIT THERE THAT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 297 FOOT.
IT'S ACTUALLY A BIT LESS THAN THAT.
VARIANCE IS REQUIRED PER STATE LAW.
OF COURSE THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED NARRATIVE IN THE COUNCIL STAFF REPORT, WHICH INCLUDES A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.
I DO HAVE AN UPDATE TO COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ON PAGE 2, THERE WERE 28 PUBLIC NOTICES SENT.
WE HAVE SINCE RECEIVED ONE NOTICE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST, AND I BELIEVE THIS INCLUDES STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. APPRECIATE THAT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, COUNCIL? HEARING NONE.
I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7D.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE? HEARING NO RESPONSE.
ANYONE ONLINE [INAUDIBLE] THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS?
>> MIKE. I UNDERSTAND YOU [OVERLAPPING] WANT MAKE A COMMENT. GO RIGHT AHEAD SIR.
>> I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM HERE, AT THE MEETING BY ZOOM AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT FORWARD CASE BUT I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT MIKE KIRCHNER COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MIKE, FOR BEING HERE.
VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE? [INAUDIBLE] IT'S 9: 53 AM.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7D AND BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL.
I'M GOING TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION OR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 7D ISN'T? SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN QUIROGA.
VERY GOOD. ANY DISCUSSION COUNCIL? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE BY RAISING YOUR HAND, PLEASE. THAT IS 6,4.
ALL THOSE AGAINST AND ONE COUNCILWOMAN, [INAUDIBLE] AGAINST. VERY GOOD.
MOVING TO ORDINANCES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARING, 8A PLEASE.
>> TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS.
>> YES BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE ALONG DISCUSSION. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK THAT SETTING IS UP HERE.
I'M FINE TO TAKE A BREAK IF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT.
LET'S DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
LET'S TAKE. IT IS NOW 9:54, SO AT 10:00 AM.
WE ARE BACK FROM OUR BREAK AND WE ARE NOW CONTINUING ON WITH OUR SEPTEMBER 16TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
[8.A. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas Levying Ad Valorem Taxes For Tax Year 2021 In The Amount Of 49 Cents And 8.500 Mills ($0.498500) Upon Each One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) Of Property Valuation For The Tax Year 2021; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject]
[00:55:02]
NELLY, IF YOU COULD READ PLEASE.>> ITEM 8A FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, [INAUDIBLE] TEXAS FOR THE TAX YEAR 2021 AND THE AMOUNT OF 49 CENTS AND 8.500 MEALS UPON EACH $100 OF PROPERTY VALUATION FOR THE TAX YEAR 2021, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
>> THANK YOU, NELLY. MIKE, GOOD MORNING.
I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT THIS AGAIN TO US. GO RIGHT AHEAD SIR.
IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
FOR THE PEOPLE WATCHING AT HOME, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS A RIGHT PROPOSED BY CITY MANAGEMENT OF 49.85 CENTS PER A $100 OF TAXABLE VALUE FOR THE COMING YEAR.
THAT IS JUST UNDER THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE OF 49.8537.
IT IS ABOUT 3 CENTS HIGHER THAN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE OF 0.46558.
THE DISCUSSION IS WHAT RIGHT TO SET TODAY AND HOW TO SYNCHRONIZE THAT WITH THE BUDGET.
IF A RATE IS NOT ADOPTED TODAY, THE TAX ASSESSOR COLLECTOR HAS ADVISED ME THAT SHE WILL NEED TO ADVERTISE A MEETING AT WHICH ANOTHER VOTE WOULD TAKE PLACE.
IF THE RATE IS NOT ADOPTED BY SEPTEMBER 30TH AND NO NEW REVENUE RATE WILL TAKE EFFECT AUTOMATICALLY.
NEXT SLIDE. GO AHEAD AND GO TO SLIDE 4.
THIS IS THE IMPACT ON PREVIOUS ONE.
ON THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET AND THE CITY IN GENERAL OF THESE RATE CUTS.
ALL OF THE REVENUE LOSS WILL COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS WHERE WE PROVIDE PUBLIC SAFETY AND GENERAL INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES INCLUDING STREET REPAIR, TRAFFIC, POLICE, AND FIRE.
NOW, IF YOU WOULD JUMP TO SLIDE 7.
THIS IS THE IMPACT ON SINGLE-FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS, INCLUDING HOMESTEAD OWNERS THAT LIVE IN THEIR HOMES AND NON-HOMESTEAD OWNERS.
YOU CAN SEE THE EFFECT THAT THE EXISTING HOMESTEAD PROTECTION EXEMPTIONS HAVE.
THIS YEAR, THE AVERAGE MARKET VALUE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOMESTEAD IS $309,832.
WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] ASKED IF I COULD CALCULATE THE AVERAGE MARKET VALUE OF NON-HOMESTEADS, I DID THAT.
IT'S ABOUT $60,000 HIGHER AT $368,582.
THE AVERAGE TAXABLE VALUE IS THE SAME FOR THE NON-HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES.
THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES TAXABLE VALUE IS ABOUT A $107,000 LESS BY VIRTUE OF THE HOMESTEAD CAP.
THAT KEEPS HOMESTEADERS FROM SEEING MORE THAN A 10 PERCENT INCREASE IN THEIR TAXABLE VALUE AND THE 20 PERCENT EXEMPTION THAT EXISTS OFF OF TAXABLE VALUE.
AVERAGE TAX BILL IS ABOUT $800 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO CATEGORIES OF OWNERSHIP.
HOMESTEAD OWNERS NUMBER ABOUT 9,000 AND A ONE CENT REDUCTION IS $20 SAVINGS FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE HOMEOWNERS.
THAT ADDS UP TO ABOUT A $178,000.
FOR THE NON-HOMESTEAD OWNERS, THEY WOULD SAVE ABOUT 36.86 CENTS OR ONE CENT REDUCTION AND THERE ARE 12,000 OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS.
THESE ARE CERTIFIED NUMBERS ONLY, I'M NOT GOING WITH ANYTHING THAT'S STILL IN REVIEW FOR COMPARISON SAKE.
THAT GROUP WOULD PAY ABOUT $435,000.
GIVE IT BACK TO COUNCIL AND I'M PREPARED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH
>> WE'VE GOT A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION IF YOU WANT TO ASK ABOUT ANYTHING IN IT.
>> LAST LINE, TOTAL TAX SAVINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THIS IS THE SAVINGS THE PUBLIC WOULD SEE TOTALLY? WHAT'S THAT $178,000? WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY? TELL ME.
>> THAT $178,000 IS WHAT THE GROUP OF HOMESTEAD PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD SAVE WHO HAVE BEEN THROUGH HEARING.
>> WHAT THEY WOULD COLLECTIVELY SAVE?
>> THAT IS THE TOTAL FOR THE GROUP.
>> THAT IS TO SAY THAT IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WOULD NOT COME INTO THE GENERAL FUND?
>> VERY GOOD. THAT'S BASED ON YOUR $20 AND 20 CENTS?
OKAY. COUNSEL, [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE GOING TO ISOLATE THIS TO RIGHT NOW TO QUESTIONS TO MR. LOFT AND GO AHEAD, MARIE.
>> WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN LAST YEAR'S APPRAISED VALUE VERSUS WHAT WE KNOW OF THIS YEAR'S APPRAISED VALUE.
[01:00:01]
>> I CUT THIS PRESENTATION DOWN COUNCIL MEMBER AND I DON'T HAVE THAT WITH ME.
IT WAS MUCH MORE FOR THE NON-HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES THAN IN THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES.
>> IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL FOR ALL OF OUR PROPERTIES ACROSS THE CITY?
>> THE HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES WENT UP 25 PERCENT AND THE NON-HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES WENT UP OVER 30 IN TERMS OF MARKET VALUE.
BUT AS YOU SEE, THE EXISTING EXEMPTIONS AND THE 6.15 CENT TAX CUT THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED, NEUTRALIZE THAT FOR A HOMESTEAD OWNER.
>> I MEAN, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN BOTH HOMESTEADED AND NON-HOMESTEADED THAT HAVE GONE UP ANYWHERE FROM 30-70 PERCENT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT BUT THE HOMESTEAD IS CAPPED AT 10 PERCENT.
THE HOMESTEAD IS CAPPED AT 10 PERCENT AND EVERY YEAR, FOR THE LAST HOWEVER MANY YEARS, WHEN DID THE 3.5 CAP GO INTO PLACE?
>> I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY THE THIRD YEAR IT'S BEEN EFFECTIVE.
>> THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR AND EVERY YEAR, WE HAVE TAKEN NO MATTER WHAT THE APPRAISAL VALUES WERE AND WE'VE MADE IT JUST UNDER THE 3.5 CAP.
THIS YEAR LET'S LOOK AT WHAT WE HAD, EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE IT.
SALES TAX ARE UP, DEVELOPMENT IS UP, PROPERTY TAX IS UP, AND I THINK AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US AT MINIMUM, SHAVE ONE CENT OFF THIS.
HAVING GONE THROUGH THE BUDGET WITH A LOT OF DETAIL, I MEAN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DETAILED, WE DIDN'T GET HIT BY A HURRICANE AND MY DISTRICT WAS PERHAPS MOST AFFECTED, BUT I CERTAINLY HAVE FOUND A NUMBER OF AREAS DIFFERENT THAN THE MANAGERS REPORT.
I HAVE TO SAY, JUST THEN KNOWING WHAT HE WOULD WRITE, I COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS BEFORE I EVEN SAW IT.
>> MARIE, WE'RE HAVING QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GET THAT NUMBER BECAUSE I'M SURE SOMEONE IN YOUR DEPARTMENT COULD GET THAT NUMBER, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE APPRAISED VALUE.
>> IF YOU COULD TEXT YOU TEXT THEM OR SOMETHING OR ARE THEY LISTENING?
>> IF YOU GIVE ME A MINUTE, I CAN CHECK IT ON MY PHONE.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MIKE ON HIS STATS THAT HE RELAYED TO US? STAFF HAS SENT OUT A STAFF REPORT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM TO US.
BRIAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO OVER THAT IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE SIR?
>> SURE. [NOISE] BASICALLY, WHAT STAFF DID WAS, IS WE LOOKED AT WHAT CHANGED FROM LAST YEAR BECAUSE THAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP; IS THAT WE WERE GOING UP OVER LAST YEAR AND WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT.
BASICALLY, WE'VE PEELED OFF EVERYTHING THAT WAS ADDED FOR THIS YEAR THAT WOULD CAUSE THE INCREASE.
WE'VE THROWN THAT BACK TO SHOW YOU GUYS EXACTLY WHERE THE INCREASE CAME FROM.
OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE, YOU CAN GO BACK AND YOU STOP THE ADS BEFORE YOU GO BACK AND CUT THINGS THAT WERE WORKING LAST YEAR. THAT'S WHAT WE DID.
>> I WOULD BEG TO DIFFER WITH THAT.
THIS WAS LIKE WHEN I READ IT, IT'S LIKE, LORD, I COULD HAVE WRITTEN THIS FORM BECAUSE I KNOW RIGHT WHERE YOU WERE GOING TO ATTACK.
THERE ARE OTHER AREAS IN THE BUDGET THAT ARE WAY OUT OF LINE THAT WE COULD SHAVE SOME COSTS FROM.
>> LIKE FOR ONE, THE [NOISE] SALARY SURVEYS, THERE'S OVER 300,000.
>> I KNOW THERE ARE OVER 300,000.
BOTH YOUR DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS IN THE HR DEPARTMENT, THERE WAS 100,000 IN EUROS FOR A SALARY STUDY.
>> COMPENSATION STUDY THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THERE'S OVER 220,000 IN THE HR DEPARTMENT.
WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE LINE BY LINE DETAIL AND I APOLOGIZE THAT MY TIME WAS LIMITED DUE TO THE HURRICANE, BUT WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THINGS THAT JUMP OUT AT YOU, ARE IT.
IT CHARGES EVERY DEPARTMENT ACCUMULATIVE, $2.2 MILLION.
I HAVE GONE OUT AND DONE RESEARCH.
I'VE TALKED TO COMPANY OWNERS, I HAVE TALKED TO COMPANIES WHO HAVE TO FACILITATE FLEETS AND THINGS LIKE YOU HAVE TO DO WITH OUR WORKERS SOMEWHAT NOT.
[01:05:03]
THAT'S ABSURD THAT WE'RE PAYING 2.2.I THINK THAT'S A DEPARTMENT THAT WE COULD DO.
>> THAT'S IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES OUR SIZE, COUNCIL MEMBER. [OVERLAPPING].
I THINK THAT'S A DEPARTMENT THAT WE CAN DO SOME SHAVING.
THE OTHER THING WHERE THERE'S A CAUSE FOR REFLECTED AND EACH AND EVERY DEPARTMENT HAS TO DO WITH FLEET CHARGES.
IT'S VERY DECEIVING [NOISE] EXACTLY WHAT THAT GOES TO.
IT'S LIKE WE'RE LEASING CARS FROM OUR FLEET DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT I THINK IS THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THESE WERE SET UP YEARS AGO AS INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS AND THAT'S HOW INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS WORK.
>> THAT'S AN AREA THAT I THINK WE COULD SHAVE SOME THINGS FROM.
WE HAVE THE SEPARATION LIABILITY, I THINK OF A SIDE 650, 680 THAT'S TRANSFERRED IN EVERY YEAR.
SEPARATION FUNDS ARE AT LIKE 1.2 MILLION.
WHAT IS THAT ACTUAL LIABILITY? HOW MUCH OF THAT HAVE WE SPENT OVER TIME, IS THAT JUST SOMETHING THAT WE TRANSFER FUNDS IN, AND IT'S A WAY THAT BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT GETS TRANSFER IN AND THEN IT GETS TRANSFERRED BACK.
>> I CAN EXPLAIN THAT, SEPARATION PAY IS HANDLED WHEN SOMEBODY LEAVES THE CITY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SURE. IT'S HANDLED SEPARATELY AND CENTRALIZED IN ANOTHER ACCOUNT, YOU'D HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE BENEFIT STRUCTURE FOR CITY EMPLOYEES TO AFFECT THAT AND THAT NUMBER IS BASED ON TREND.
THERE'S SOME RISK ASSESSMENT THAT GOES WITH IT BECAUSE WE CAN'T PREDICT EXACTLY HOW MANY PEOPLE OR WHO IS GOING TO LEAVE WITH OUTSTANDING TERMINATION PAY. MIKE?
>> NO IT CAN'T BE. [BACKGROUND] [OVERLAPPING] MIKE, I CAN TELL YOU, YOU HEAR ME TALK ABOUT DEBBIE PIERCE A LOT? THIS IS THE PROFESSIONAL LADY THAT'S BEEN HERE FOR 20 YEARS AND DOES THOSE ESTIMATES AND SHE'S GOT THE TREND ON SEPARATION PAY UP HERE.
>> MIKE, DEFINE THE SEPARATION PAY, WOULD YOU PLEASE?
>> WHEN SOMEBODY SEPARATES FROM THE CITY THEY'RE DUE TO PAYMENT OF THEIR OTHER OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF LEAVE.
>> IF IT'S NOT PREDETERMINED HOW YOU DETERMINE THAT FACTOR?
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S BASED ON TRENDS, IT'S A RISK ASSESSMENT.
>> ARE WE PROJECTING WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE LEASE?
>> YES, IT'S UNREALISTIC TO SAY THAT.
>> HAD A LOT OF THAT ISN'T NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET BECAUSE THEIR CONTRACTS OFFER GREATER BENEFITS IN YOUR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND WHEN THEY TERMINATE AND RETIRE, THERE'S A LOT OF PAYOUTS INVOLVED IN THAT.
>> ANY ONE OF THOSE CENTRALIZED ACCOUNTS THAT YOU LOOK AT IN THE GENERAL FUND INCLUDING VEHICLE REPAIR, SEPARATION PAY, IT ARE GOING TO BE MORE HEAVILY WEIGHTED TOWARDS PUBLIC SAFETY BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE SUPPORT AND THE COSTS ARE GENERATED.
>> BUT THAT'S ALL STILL PROJECTION ISN'T IT?
>> EVERYTHING WE DO IS A PROJECTION IN THE BUDGET COUNCILMAN.
>> [NOISE] I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THE GARAGE.
THE GARAGE LET'S SAY THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT.
I'VE SEEN THE FIGURE SOMETHING LIKE $300,000.
THEY'RE PREDETERMINING THAT I WOULD BUY IT IF I HAD SOME ANALYZATION ON IT.
WHEN I LOOKED AT THE LINE ITEM, THERE'S NOTHING IN THERE TO EXPLAIN WHY WE'RE CHARGING THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
>> IT'S BACKED UP. OUR SOFTWARE PRODUCES THAT REPORT.
DAVID WOULD BE HAPPY TO PROVIDE IT FOR YOU.
>> SOFTWARE YOU CAN PUT ANYTHING IN YOUR SOFTWARE.
IT'S GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT PREDETERMINATION.
IF THE SOFTWARE SAYS I NEED FIVE POLICE CARS BASED ON THE SOFTWARE'S ANALYSIS, IS THAT TRUE? IF THAT VEHICLES MAINTAIN PROPER, YOU CAN STRETCH THAT OUT FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF YEARS, THREE YEARS.
BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GO STRICTLY ON THE SOFTWARE SAYS, IT'S TIME WE'VE HAD THIS VEHICLE FOR FIVE YEARS SO THEREFORE, I WANT ANOTHER VEHICLE.
>> WE DO NOT. DAVID SMITH COMES OVER EVERY YEAR WITH A LIST OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REPLACEMENT BUT HE'S LOOKED THROUGH THE MAINTENANCE RECORDS, HE'LL TELL US HERE'S A VEHICLE THAT CAN GO FOR ANOTHER YEAR.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S CONSIDERED IN DETAIL IN THE MANAGER'S OFFICE.
>> IT'S CORRECT. HE'LL GO THROUGH IT AND SAY THIS CAR WAS WRECKED AND IT WAS A NEAR TOTAL. WE FIXED IT.
WE'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH THIS CAR.
THIS ONE'S NOT IN BAD SHAPE, WE CAN KEEP THIS ONE.
DAVID DOES A VERY THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF ALL OF OUR FLEET.
>> GO AHEAD. I DO HAVE THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION.
>> THE NON HOMESTEAD HOMES AVERAGE LAST YEAR MARKET VALUE WAS $276,774.
>> MY QUESTION IS, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENTIAL IN THAT TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M ABOUT TO TELL YOU THAT, THIS YEAR WAS 368,582.
[01:10:01]
THE DIFFERENCE WAS $91,808, A 33 PERCENT INCREASE AS MY MEMORY SERVED ME WELL ON THAT ONE.FOR HOMESTEAD HOMES, THE DIFFERENT WAS SOMEWHAT LESS.
THAT WAS A 25 PERCENT INCREASE.
>> THEY'RE NOT ANSWERING MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION WAS, THE TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE THAT WE BASE THINGS OFF LAST YEAR WAS 700 AND THIS YEAR IS THAT'S THE NUMBER.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NOT THE AVERAGE?
>> NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE AVERAGE.
>> BECAUSE EVERYONE KEEPS SAYING WE'RE REDUCING TAXES AND WE AREN'T REDUCING TAXES, EVERYONE'S TAX RATE WILL STILL GO UP.
I BELIEVE WE COULD SHAVE A CENT OFF THAT NOT HAVE TO MAKE CUTS OF EMPLOYEES.
THE BEST IDEA THAT THE MAYOR HAD AT THE LAST MEETING WAS FOR COUNCIL TO GET TOGETHER AND DO A LINE-BY-LINE BECAUSE WHEN YOU START GOING THROUGH THIS, THERE'S SO MANY VAGUE THINGS SUCH AS [BACKGROUND] IN THE MANAGER'S BUDGET, HE HAS A MILLION DOLLAR OVERLAY FOR VEHICLES, AND THERE'S NO DETAIL TO EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS.
WE HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE MONEY THAT HAS TO GO IN EVERY YEAR.
I KNOW THAT'S A DEDICATED BY CHARTER.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S COMING OUT OF IT, OR IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT ENGINEERING SERVICES, IT'S THAT'S ONE, WE HAVE HAD MULTIPLE QUESTIONS.
I HAVE SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL.
WE'RE JUST SETTING RANDOMS AND I REALIZED BUDGETS ARE FORECASTS THAT AMOUNT.
BECAUSE I WOULD ASSUME PART OF THIS WILL BE FOR THE ROAD AND THE DRAINAGE.
WE'RE TELLING PEOPLE HOW MUCH MONEY WE HAVE WHEN THEY SEND THE BID UP, I JUST THINK THERE'S SO MANY VAGUE THINGS.
THERE'S 454K IN SALARY REIMBURSEMENT BUT IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT WHERE THAT GOES TO WHAT FUNDS, WHAT DEPARTMENTS.
THERE ARE JUST SO MANY THINGS AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FLEET AND THE BUDGET.
YOU CAN'T HELP BUT LOOK AT ONE DEPARTMENT SUCH AS THE MARSHALS THAT HAVE GROWN EXPONENTIALLY.
I UNDERSTAND WHY OUR POLICE NEED TOP-LINE CARS.
>> OUR MARSHALS ALL HAVE HAND-ME-DOWN CARS.
WE'VE BOUGHT NO NEW CARS FOR THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.
>> I JUST QUESTION HOW WE SPEND THAT MONEY. ANYWAY, JOHN.
>> BEFORE JOHN MENTION SOME THINGS.
I WANT TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS.
I DID NOT REQUEST THAT WE HAVE A LINE-ITEM REVIEW OF THIS BUDGET, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVEN ALLOWED.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S ALLOWED.
>> WE ADJUSTED THAT AT THE LAST MEETING.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT WAS A GOOD THOUGHT.
BRIAN SAID, "NO, I'LL DO IT," BUT I'M JUST SAYING I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD THOUGHT BECAUSE IF I HAD NOT HAD TO BE SO TIED UP WITH TRYING TO GET INFRASTRUCTURE FIXED IN MY DISTRICT, I COULD HAVE SPENT ANOTHER TWO DAYS SOLELY ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE BREAK THIS CYCLE OF RAISING IT TO THE MAXIMUM.
>> LET ME SAY THIS TOO AND JOHN, I APOLOGIZE.
>> COUNCIL SOME CITIES HAVE GONE THROUGH THEIR BUDGET AND HAVE TRIMMED THOSE DOWN, BUT THEY HAVE SPENT MONTHS DOING THAT.
HERE WE ARE TOWARDS THE END OF THIS AND WE'RE NOW GOING MAKING STATEMENTS THAT YES, THERE'S BLUFFING IN THAT BUDGET AND WE SHOULD TAKE IT OUT OF THERE.
I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THESE THOUGHTS THAT ARE BEING MENTIONED AND LET'S DISCUSS THEM BECAUSE WE NEED TO HEAR THE TOTAL BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE HERE.
JUST TO SAY THAT WE'VE GOT EXTRA MONEY IN THIS BUDGET AND WE CAN PULL IT OUT OF THERE IT SOUNDS GOOD WHEN YOU SAY IT, BUT WHEN YOU GET DOWN TO THE DETAILS ON THAT, WE MAY FEEL VERY DIFFERENTLY ON THIS.
>> I'VE LOOKED AT THIS INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED TO US, AND I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE WE FIND $0.01 HERE.
[01:15:01]
MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE THAT WE TAKE OUT THIS OUR COMPENSATION STUDY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT'S 350,000 AND YOU PUT THE EIGHT PERCENT ON TOP OF THAT, IT'S 378,000.WE NEED TO FIND ABOUT ANOTHER 350,000.
I'M ASKING WHERE I CAN FIND ANOTHER 350,000 TO GET DOWN $0.01.
>> I WOULD POINT TO THE PROPOSED CUTS THAT WE'VE GIVEN YOU.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO CUT THE ALREADY APPROVED STAFF RAISES THAT WE'VE ALREADY VOTED ON.
I'M NOT GOING TO CUT ANY OF THE POLICE ITEMS HERE ON THIS BUDGET, I'M NOT GOING TO CUT THE CIVILIAN COLA OR THE OR $15 PER HOUR RAISE.
SO THAT LEAVES THREE ITEMS LEFT, THE SALARY COMPENSATION STUDY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THEN THE EIGHT PERCENT TRANSFER TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
I HAVE PULLED OUT 378,000 OF THAT.
>> YOU REALIZE THAT YOU'RE NOT CUTTING THOSE, YOU'RE JUST DEFERRING THEM.
>> THAT'S RIGHT, IT IS A DEFERMENT.
>> THAT MEANS THAT EVEN WITH A 3.5 PERCENT GROWTH NEXT YEAR AND GIVEN OUR CONTRACT AGREEMENTS WITH OUR TWO PUBLIC SAFETY UNITS, YOU WON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY WITHOUT RAISING THE TAXES AND POSSIBLY BUSTING THE CAP NEXT YEAR TO PERFORM THOSE SERVICE.
>> WELL, AT SOME POINT IF WE GO DOWN THIS PATH, WE'RE GOING TO BUST HIS CAP.
THAT'S MY PROBLEM, IS THAT EVERY YEAR WE HAVE GONE JUST UNDER THE MAX.
SO AT WHAT POINT DO WE GO OVER THAT AND HAVE TO GO TO THE PEOPLE FOR A VOTE? UNLESS THERE ARE SOME THINGS PRESENTED TO US ON HOW WE STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING, WE NEED TO START DOING THIS.
I MEAN, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG HERE.
>> DEFERRAL DOES NOT SAVE YOU MONEY.
YOU CAN DEFER IT THIS YEAR, BUT ARE YOU SAYING WE NEVER REDO THE COMP PLAN? WE NEVER REDO THE SALARY SURVEY?
>> BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT SOONER OR LATER.
>> YOU HAVE TO GO FIND MONEY ELSEWHERE.
>> SO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THESE THINGS? THIS IS CLEAR.
IT COMES OUT OF PERSONNEL AND IT'S WAY TOO LATE IN THE PROCESS TO DO THIS.
THIS CONVERSATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN HEARD IN JUNE OR JULY.
>> NO. JOHN LISTEN, IF YOU WANT TO SAVE REAL MONEY, YOU HAVE TO DEFER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THIS HAS GOT TO COME OUT OF CAPITALS AT SOME POINT.
BECAUSE THE COST OF OPERATIONS SIMPLY ISN'T GOING DOWN.
UNLESS YOU START CUTTING PEOPLE, YOU CAN'T TAKE A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK OUT OF THIS.
YOU CAN DEFER SOME OF THESE THINGS INTO NEXT YEAR, THE YEAR AFTER.
WE NEVER HAVE TO DO ANOTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SAVE US OFF A COUPLE OF $100,000.
WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO ONE [OVERLAPPING]
>> EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU CONTINUE TO DO THIS AND HOW YOU DON'T REACH THE CAP?
>> I'M NOT SUGGESTING. YOU WERE RIGHT, AT SOME POINT WE'RE VERY LIKELY TO HAVE TO GO TO THE PEOPLE ON THIS.
>> SO WHEN YOU START MAKING THOSE CUTS AND WHEN YOU START BRINGING THE REVENUE IN FROM OTHER SOURCES?
>> THAT'S WHAT THIS BUDGET HAS BROUGHT TO US, IS MAKING THOSE CUTS.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT BUT BRIAN [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT YOU NEED TO BRING IN MORE REVENUE TOO THOUGH, IT'S TWO-SIDED HERE.
I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE REVENUE SIDE OF THIS.
>> I HAD SOMETHING ON THE REVENUE.
AGAIN, IT'S MY JUDGMENT THAT WE'VE GOT A BUBBLE GOING ON RIGHT NOW, THAT WE'RE VERY LUCKY THAT WE'VE GOTTEN ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS THIS YEAR THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE UNDERLYING ECONOMICS ON SALES TAX.
THIS NEXT YEAR WE STAND TO GET ANOTHER SIMILAR SUM IF THE EFFECT OF THE RECOVERY AND THE STIMULUS PROGRAMS WE WANT HEAVILY REMAINS IN PLACE.
THE QUESTION IS JUST HOW LONG THAT'S GOING TO LAST.
NOBODY CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
>> LET ME JUST FINISH MY POINT AND I WILL SHUT UP.
THIS YEAR WE'VE SEEN RECORD NUMBERS IN REVENUE AND YET WE CONTINUE TO INCREASE OUR TAXES.
AT SOME POINT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THAT ANYMORE.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO AT THAT POINT? YOU'RE GOING TO HIT THAT CAP.
>> THAT'S WHEN YOU START REDUCING SERVICES IN PARKS AND TRANSIT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> DO YOU THINK WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT THAT STUFF BEFORE THEN?
>> WE ARE. THERE'S A FIVE-YEAR PLAN HERE.
IF YOU READ YOUR BUDGET, IT GOES OUT FIVE YEARS.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO TELL YOU.
IF YOU DO THIS REDUCTION NOW THIS IS ALMOST A FIVE MILLION DOLLAR REDUCTION OVER FIVE YEARS.
YOU'LL NEVER GET THERE. YOU'RE ACCELERATING THE PROCESS IF YOU CUT IT.
JOHN, WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN OTHER CITIES ARE.
>> THE OTHER THING IS THAT THERE'S A REASON WHEN OUR SALES TAX GOES UP, IT'S BECAUSE WE HAD MORE VISITORS AND WHEN WE HAVE MORE VISITORS, I HAVE MORE EXPENSE.
BUT THEN AGAIN JOHN, I'M ALSO GOING TO POINT OUT, I HAVE BROUGHT TO THIS COUNCIL MULTIPLE TIMES DIFFERENT WAYS TO RAISE REVENUE IN TERMS OF SANITATION FEES, USING PRIVATE HAULERS, FOR COMMERCIAL FEES.
[01:20:01]
I HAVE BROUGHT TO YOU INCREASE PERMIT FEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THEY WERE ALL REJECTED EVERY SINGLE TIME I BROUGHT THEM IN THE NAME OF DEVELOPMENT AND GOOD WORK.>> WE JUST APPROVED RAISING FEES.
>> YOU DID NOW, BUT IF WE'D DONE IT THREE YEARS AGO MAYBE WE WOULDN'T BE HERE NOW, THAT'S MY POINT.
IF YOU WAIT TO THE LAST MINUTE THE FEES BECOME DRACONIAN AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
>> THAT'S MY POINT I'M TRYING TO PROVE HERE.
LET'S NOT WAIT UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. THAT'S WHY THAT WE DO A FIVE-YEAR PROJECTION ON OUR BUDGET, JOHN.
IF YOU CUT IT THIS YEAR, YOU'RE GOING TO BUST THE CAP AND A HALF TO GO TO VOTERS IN ANOTHER YEAR OR TWO AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM.
LOOK IT'S YOUR BUDGET, I PRESENT TO YOU WHAT'S BEST.
IF YOU SAY CUT THIS MUCH, I WILL BRING YOU BACK, BUT THE CUTS ARE MINE BECAUSE I HAVE TO FULFILL THE POLICY DECISIONS OF THE COUNCIL AND PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT YOU WANT TO PROVIDE.
BUT THOSE DECISIONS ARE MINE NOT COUNCILS.
>> WELL, I'M ASKING YOU FOR $350,000.
>> THAT'S THE DESIRE OF COUNCIL TO SET THE TAX RATE AT THAT. I'LL BRING YOU BACK 300.
I WILL BRING YOU AN AMENDED BUDGET FOR $350,000, BUT THOSE ARE MY DECISIONS, THOSE AREN'T COUNCIL DECISIONS, BY CHARTER AND I'M GOING TO UPHOLD THE CHARTER BECAUSE I WAS SWORN TO DO THAT WHEN I TOOK THIS JOB.
I'M NOT GOING TO BREAK THE RULES FOR POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY FOR PEOPLE TO GET BROWNIE POINTS WITH WHOEVER THEY'RE TRYING TO GET BROWNIE POINTS FOR.
I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE CHARTER.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR.
>> JOHN, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> WE GOT COUNCILMAN QUIROGA, WE GOT COUNCILWOMAN ROB, AND THEN WE GOT COUNCILMAN COLLINS. GO AHEAD, BILL.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE LINE ITEM BUDGET, WHAT WAS YOUR COMMENT?
>> I SAID THE EXAMINATION OF THE LINE ITEM BUDGET.
MY OPINION WAS NOT [INAUDIBLE].
LET'S NOT SUGGEST THAT EITHER BUY THE CHARTER OR UNDER THE BUDGET BAR.
THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT THE MANAGER IS GOING TO BRING THE COUNCIL AN ENTIRE BUDGET FOR YOU TO ADOPT, THE SAME IS SET OUT IN THE BUDGET LAW IN WHICH HE IS MADE THE BUDGET OFFICER.
>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
HE CAN SET THE BUDGET, BUT COMING UP HERE, WE CONTROL THE MONIES.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO AGREE WITH ROB SAYING AND I AGREE WITH WHAT JOHN PAUL IS SAYING.
ALL WEEKEND, I LOOKED AT THE LINE ITEM BUDGET AND IN MY OPINION, THE ANALYTICALS ARE NOT THERE TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IN A CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET, YOU'VE GOT A MILLION DOLLARS FOR VEHICLE OVERLAYS AND IT DOESN'T TELL ME FOR WHAT.
WE GOT A GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY OF $100,000.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT IS THAT FOR? IF HE BUILDS THAT INTO THE BUDGET AND GIVES ME PER LINE ITEM, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT IF HE CAN JUSTIFY IT.
BUT WHEN YOU COME BACK AND YOU TELL ME YOU HAVE A LINE ITEM FOR CONTRACTORS, WHAT CONTRACTORS? WHAT IS IT FOR? I LOOK AT THE ANALYSIS OF IT SO THAT I CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
YES, MR. MAXWELL I APPROVE THIS, YOU CAN GO FORWARD.
BUT WHEN YOU TELL ME RUN OFF THE BAT THAT YOU GOT $100,000 FOR A GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
I NEED IT SPELLED OUT A-B-C-D. YOU'VE GOT A MILLION DOLLARS IN THERE FOR VEHICLES, WHAT VEHICLES, WHAT DEPARTMENT? THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO KNOW.
>> THAT'S WHY WE GIVE YOU A BUDGET 30-45 DAYS BEFORE WE GET TO THIS POINT.
>> THAT'S WHY WE GIVE YOU A BUDGET 30-45 DAYS, A COMPLETE BUDGET BEFORE THIS POINT.
SO YOU CAN COME TO STAFF AND ASK ALL THOSE QUESTIONS AND WE CAN PROVIDE YOU 100 PERCENT OF THAT BACKUP.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE COUNCILWOMAN ROB THEN COUNCILMAN COLLINS.
>> WELL, EVERYONE IS SAYING WE'RE LOWERING THEIR TAXES, WHICH WE AREN'T.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BRIAN, YOU JUST MADE A STATEMENT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE FORCED TO MAKE CUTS.
BUT AGAIN, IF I COULD GET THAT ACCUMULATIVE NUMBER IN THE DIFFERENTIAL OF APPRAISALS FROM LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR. YOU KNOW WHAT? WE KNOW WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT COMING.
WE KNOW THAT THEY JUST BROKE GROUND ON A $100 MILLION CRUISE TERMINAL.
WE KNOW THAT WE JUST APPROVED A $75-100 MILLION CONDO PROJECT.
WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE LANDS THAT ARE UNDER CONTRACT THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.
WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT COMING IN, BECAUSE ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS COME TO OUR MEETINGS AND ATTEND THINGS WE APPROVE OR LISTEN TO PLANNING.
BUT WE DON'T FACTOR THAT IN, AND I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE START FACTORING THAT IN.
>> WE DO HAVE A FUTURE GROWTH FACTOR IN THERE.
>> BUT YOU ALWAYS GO CONSERVATIVE.
[LAUGHTER] I'M NOT OPPOSED TO CONSERVATIVE,
[01:25:03]
BUT YOU'RE NOT ADDING THE REAL.>> WELL, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE.
THAT PROPERTY'S BEEN UP FOR DEVELOPMENT SINCE DIAMOND BEACH WAS BUILT AND IT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED.
JUST BECAUSE YOU CHANGED ISSUE TO PUT FOUR, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT YEAR, TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS.
WHEN IT DOES HAPPEN, IT'LL CERTAINLY BE FACTORED IN.
WE DO FACTOR IN WHAT HAS BEEN THE AVERAGE GROWTH FOR THE CITY IN OUR BUDGET.
IF YOU LOOK AT WE DO A FIVE-YEAR PROJECTION.
YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE CRUISE TERMINAL.
I'M STILL VERY UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT REVENUE IF ANY THE CITY IS GOING TO GET OFF OF THAT, BUT WE CAN DEFER THAT FOR ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON ANOTHER DAY.
BUT WITH EVERYTHING YOU MENTIONED ALSO BRINGS INCREASED EXPENDITURES ON THIS CITY.
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT COME WITHOUT COST.
>> I REALIZED IT DOESN'T COME WITHOUT COST, BUT WE HAVE THE DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, SO THAT ISN'T COST, AND WHEN WE HAVE MORE RESIDENTIAL HOMES COMING IN THAT INCREASES THE REVENUE.
ALL I'M SAYING IS, I'M ON FOR A ONE CENT CUT ON THIS.
>> WHICH I THINK WE COULD EVEN DO A LARGER CUT IN MY OPINION, BUT I'M WILLING TO SETTLE FOR A CENT.
I THINK IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT CUTTING PEOPLE.
I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO COME BACK AND ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU.
>> WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ALL THOSE QUESTIONS.
THAT'S WHY YOU'VE HAD THIS BUDGET FOR 45 DAYS NOW.
>> I KNOW. BUT GUESS WHAT? WE'RE ALL UP HERE AND WE ARE NON-PAID POSITIONS AND WE PUT AS MUCH TIME AND THIS IS MORE THAN A 40 HOUR A DAY JOB.
I FEEL BAD FOR JOHN-PAUL AND WILLIAM BECAUSE THEY BOTH WORK TOO.
IT'S TIME WE STARTED LOOKING IN THE FAVOR OF OUR CITIZENS.
WHETHER IT'S A SECOND HOMEOWNER OR A HOMESTEAD OF PROPERTY, THERE ARE STILL OUR CITIZENS.
IT'S BECAUSE OF THE TOURISTS THAT OUR COSTS KEEP GOING UP.
I HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED YOU IN EVERY FEE INCREASE THAT YOU'VE BOUGHT BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
THE COMMERCIAL GOLF CART SHOULD HAVE BEEN A HIGHER FEE.
I BELIEVE THE FEES THAT WE SET FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL SHOULD BE CONSIDERABLY WHAT'S COULD COMPARE TO OTHER CITIES.
YES, THAT'S THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HELP US OFFSET AND THAT'S THINGS THAT WE'LL HAVE DONE IN THIS BUDGET.
IT'S JUST TIME WE STARTED LOOKING OUT FOR OUR CITIZENS.
>> MARIE, LET COUNCILMAN COLLINS AND WE GOT COUNCILMAN QUIROGA.
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY A HOMEOWNER WOULD SAVE BY REDUCING THE TAX RATE OPINION.
I'M WILLING TO PAY THE $36 SO THAT WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO THAT WE HAVE A SALARY SURVEY THAT KEEPS US IN LINE WITH OUR SISTER CITIES BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO START LOSING PEOPLE AND I DON'T WANT TO START CUTTING.
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MAKE CUTS, YOU'RE TALKING NICKEL AND DIME HERE, YOU THINK YOU CAN SHAVE A NICKEL OUT HERE AND A NICKEL OUT THERE AND GET THIS DOWN ANOTHER PENNY.
BUT I REMIND YOU THAT'S A PENNY YOU'LL NEVER SEE AGAIN.
IT ISN'T LIKE WE MAGICALLY GET A BUDGET THAT COMES IN 3.49 CENTS ABOVE LAST YEAR.
CUTS HAVE TO BE MADE TO GET IT DOWN TO THAT.
IT'S NOT LIKE THIS IS SOME BUCKET THEY'RE JUST SITTING AROUND AND BRIAN'S OFFICE FIGURING OUT WAYS TO FILL.
THIS BUCKET HAS BEEN FILLED FOR A LONG TIME.
BUT IF YOU START DIFFERING THINGS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET RIGHT BACK INTO THE SITUATION WE HAD 25 YEARS AGO.
THAT'S WHY THIS CITY WAS SO ILL-PREPARED FOR HURRICANE IKE BECAUSE THE CITY 25 YEARS AGO DECIDED WE COULD SAVE MONEY BY NOT PAVING STREETS, BY NOT IMPROVING DRAINAGE, BY NOT HARDENING THE INFRASTRUCTURE, BY NOT BUILDING PROPER PUMP STATIONS OR A SANITATION FACILITY, THAT ALL COSTS MONEY.
THE REASON THAT WE TOOK SUCH A HIT IN IKE WAS BECAUSE THE CITY FOR 15 YEARS DIDN'T DO DIDDLY ABOUT IMPROVING THAT SITUATION SO WHEN IT HIT, THIS CITY FELL OVER ON ITS HEAD.
WE WERE SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF DAMAGE.
THIRTEEN YEARS AGO TODAY, PEOPLE WERE LOOKING AT SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF DAMAGE ON THE STREET IN THIS CITY.
IF YOU DON'T KEEP UP WITH IT, THE SAME THING IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
THE BIG ONE'S MISSED US LAST YEAR.
[01:30:01]
NICHOLAS DIDN'T DO THAT MUCH DAMAGE, BUT IT DID PLENTY A DAMAGE ON THE WEST END.THAT $800,000 YOU WANTED TO TAKE OUT OF THE RESERVE FUND, WHERE IS THAT NOW? I'LL TELL YOU WHERE IT IS. IT'S BEEN SPENT.
THE REASON IT'S BEEN SPENT IS BECAUSE OUR SANITATION, OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, OUR STREET AND ROAD CREWS WERE OUT THERE 24 HOURS A DAY ON A CAT 1 STORM THAT JUST BRUSHED PAST US, IT COST US A MILLION DOLLARS, AND THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN EVERY TIME IF, LORD FORBID, WE HAVE A CAT 3, CAT 4 STORM HIT US THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR.
IF YOU START CUTTING THE BUDGET NOW, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT.
WE CAN STOP HARDENING INFRASTRUCTURE.
YOU WON'T HAVE TO FACE VOTERS DOWN WHEN THIS HAPPENS.
HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU SPEND THIS PAST WEEK ON HURRICANE NICHOLAS?
>> SEVERAL $100,000 AND STILL COUNTING.
LAST WEEK WE WANTED TO CUT $800,000 OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, OUT OF THE OPERATIONS FUND.
THAT MONEY GOT SPENT THIS WEEK.
IT WASN'T FLUFF, AS WAS SUGGESTED IN THE NEWSPAPER.
THIS IS MONEY WE'RE PAYING PEOPLE TO GO OUT THERE AND DO ACTUAL WORK.
WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING, I'M OVER 65, I HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.
I DON'T THINK MY TAXES ARE GOING UP.
NOBODY SAYS TAXES ARE GOING DOWN.
WE SAY THE TAX RATE IS GOING DOWN.
OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME PATTING THEMSELVES ON THE BACK FOR REDUCING THE TAX RATE OF THE COUNTY.
IT'S NOT LIKE THE COUNTY IS GOING TO SEE LESS REVENUE THIS YEAR THAN THEY SAW LAST YEAR.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE THAT MUCH NEW DEVELOPMENT.
BY MY CALCULATION, NEW DEVELOPMENT LAST YEAR, $147 MILLION.
PEOPLE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY, AND IT PUT ABOUT $800,000 BY MY CALCULATION INTO THE GENERAL FUND. THAT'S ALL.
THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE BILLION DOLLARS, TWO BILLION DOLLARS, NEW DEVELOPMENT THEY'RE SAYING ON THE MAINLAND.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.
BUT IF YOU DECIDE TO DEFER EVERYTHING, STOP DOING THIS, WE CAN DO THAT.
WE CAN ELIMINATE THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
WE CAN'T DO IT THIS YEAR, BUT WE CAN ELIMINATE IT.
IT'LL COST US SOME MONEY UP FRONT, BUT WE COULD ELIMINATE THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.
THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO TO SERIOUSLY CUT THE BUDGET AROUND HERE.
BUT FIRST OF ALL, WE SHOULD DO IT IN JULY, NOT SEPTEMBER 16TH.
SECOND, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE.
THIS CONVERSATION IS ABOUT THE GOOD YOU CAN DO SECOND HOMEOWNERS.
THIS CONVERSATION YOU'RE HAVING DOESN'T MAKE ONE BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO AN OVER 65 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION HOLDER.
IT DOESN'T MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO SAVE THOSE PEOPLE ANY MONEY.
WHAT IT'LL DO IS SAVE YOUR SECOND HOMEOWNERS $300 ON A THREE MILLION DOLLAR BEACH HOUSE.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO. IF THAT'S CHASING PEOPLE OUT OF TOWN AND TURN THEM INTO SHORT-TERM RENTALS, THEN THAT'S THE NET EFFECT OF IT.
I'M SO TIRED OF THIS CONVERSATION THAT YOU CAN FIND A NICKEL HERE, YOU CAN GO IN THE LINE ITEM AND MR. GLYWASKY HAS TRIED TO TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN'T DO A LINE ITEM ANALYSIS OF THE BUDGET.
BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
BUT ALL OF THIS STUFF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOONER OR LATER.
YOU CAN PAY FOR IT NOW. YOU CAN PAY FOR IT AFTER THE NEXT HURRICANE.
>> WE HAVE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS HERE.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE START MOVING DOWN THE LINE ON THOSE.
WE TALK ABOUT THESE APPRAISED VALUES AND THE SUFFERING THAT THE HOME OWNERS AND BUSINESS OWNERS HAVE TAKEN BECAUSE OF THESE APPRAISE VALUES.
THAT IS TRUE, AND WE'VE HAD IN ALL OF THE SITTING HERE, HAVE HOMES AND STRUCTURES THAT HAVE BEEN INFECTED BY THAT.
REALLY THE SOLUTION TO THIS LIES WITH OUR STATE LEGISLATURE IN MY MIND.
NOW GRANTED, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A BIG HIT FROM A STANDPOINT OF APPRAISE VALUES AND MORE TAXES PAID, AND THAT'S WHY BRIAN AND THE STAFF IS WORKED AND BRING YOU A VERY LEAN BUDGET, AND AS MENTIONED, THIS IS NOT A BUDGET THAT THEY JUST PUT TOGETHER AND HAVE A WISH LIST.
THIS IS A BUDGET THEY STARTED OUT WITH THE IDEA, WHAT IS THE BUDGET THAT WE CAN BRING BEFORE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE SERVICES FOR OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE APPROPRIATE, AND FOR THE LEAST AMOUNT OF COST POSSIBLE.
WHERE THIS APPRAISED VALUE SITUATION, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO LOWER THEIR TAX RATE TO HELP DEMONSTRABLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS OUT THERE WITH THIS APPRAISE VALUE CREEP.
[01:35:02]
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN INCREMENTS AS IT WAS GONE ALONE AND IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO WEIGH IN ON THAT AND ADDRESS THAT.I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE COMPENSATION PLAN HERE.
WE'VE DONE A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR A POLICE, WE'VE DONE AT COMPENSATION PLAN FOR FIRE, WE'VE DONE A COMPENSATION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES THAT ARE UNDER COUNCIL'S CONTROL.
IF WE DON'T DO THIS COMPENSATION PLAN, WE'RE NOT AFFECTING THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE AFFECTING THE FRONT LINE WORKERS OUT THERE IN THE CITY TO NOT DO A COMPENSATION STUDY THAT THESE OTHER GROUPS HAVE ALREADY HAD, AND SO THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO TAKE IT ON THE CHIN.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO SUFFER AND NOT HAVE GUIDELINES TO BRING THEM UP TO MARKET RATES IN THE MID-LEVEL, AS WE HAVE MANY OF OUR OTHER EMPLOYEES.
THIS COMP PLAN, YES, WE CAN KICK THAT DOWN THE ROAD AND THAT'S A PHILOSOPHY THAT WE FOLLOWED FOR SO MANY YEARS IN THIS CITY, IS KICKING THINGS DOWN THE ROAD.
I TELL YOU THAT I'M JUST TIRED OF THAT.
WE TALK ABOUT IN FAVOR OF CITIZENS AND WE WANT TO CUT THE BUDGET IN FAVOR OF CITIZENS.
BUT I'LL TELL YOU ONE THING WITH THE CITIZENS WANT IS THEY WANT TO PAY IT, BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE, AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT I THINK MAJORITY OF CITIZENS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO THAT, BUT THEY ALSO, THE CITIZENS WANT TO HAVE QUALITY OF LIFE, AND THEY WANT TO HAVE SERVICES PROVIDED, AND WE CAN BE VERY SHORT-SITED AND TAKE A POLITICAL GAIN HERE BY SAYING WE'RE GOING TO CUT THESE TAXES MORE.
BUT THE MATTER OF THE FACT IS THAT WE'RE NOT ADDING TO THIS FINANCIAL STABILITY OF THIS CITY.
WE HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD ABOUT THAT SINCE 2014 IN MY MIND, OF LOOKING AT THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THESE FINANCIAL DECISIONS.
THAT'S WHY THIS CITY IS IN THE BEST FINANCIAL STATE THAT IT'S BEEN IN AND FOREVER ALMOST.
THAT'S WHY OUR BOND RATINGS ARE AS HIGH AS THEY ARE.
WE NEED TO CONTINUE THAT PHILOSOPHY OF BEING EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE, BUT ALSO PROVIDING SERVICES IN A MANNER IN MAINTAINING OUR FINANCIAL STABILITY.
I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO COUNCILMAN CORRADA, AND THEN COUNSELED WARMING, ROB, AND THEN TO JOHN. [NOISE].
>> GETTING BACK TO THE LINE OUT OF BUDGET AND THE BUDGET THAT'S PROVIDED BY MR. LAUGHLIN.
I DON'T LOOK AT A SUMMATION BUDGET.
I'LL LOOK AT THE LINE ITEM BUDGET BECAUSE THAT DETERMINES IT SHOULD BE ANALYTICAL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT LINE ON. WOULD YOU AGREE?
>> WHEN I [OVERLAPPING] SEE YOU ONE, THAT HAS WELL, IS MR. MAXWELL, WHAT DID WE NEEDED A MILLION DOLLARS FOR A VEHICLE OVERLAY? WHERE'S THAT WHERE'S THAT GOING? WHY WASN'T THAT PUT IN THERE? THE MILLION DOLLARS I THINK IS THIS SET ASIDE FOR ALL GENERAL FUND EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT? I THINK YOU'RE SEEING IN THE DETAIL PAGE, IS THAT CORRECT EVERYWHERE THE CITY MANAGER IT'S PART OF HIS BUDGET, BUT YOU'LL VOTE ON EVERY ONE OF THOSE DECISIONS THIS YEAR.
THAT'S THE MAIN EQUIPMENT PURCHASE ACCOUNT.
347 IS POLICE AND FIRE VEHICLES.
WE DO HAVE A LIST TO SUPPORT ALL OF OUR VEHICLE REPLACEMENT PLANS CITYWIDE BASED ON THE PROCESS THAT I DESCRIBED EARLIER.
>> ALL THIS IS BASED ON THE FAST TRACK OR THE FASB PROGRAM THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> A HUMAN BEING ASSESSING IT, IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC PLAY BUT THE INFORMATION COMES FROM A MODERN FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE HERE FOR SOME TIME.
>> WELL, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW THAT I ALWAYS USE LINE ITEM, ALWAYS WANT THE ANALYSIS DONE ON SO I CAN MAKE THE DECISION.
MR. MAXWELL CAN TAKE THAT INFORMATION AND THEN CREATE HIS BUDGET.
THAT'S THE WAY I LIKE TO SEE IT THAT EACH DEPARTMENT HEAD COMES IN AND DESCRIBES TO US AT COUNCIL OR THE COUNCIL THEMSELVES, LOOK AT THE LIGHT I'M TO MAKE A DETERMINATION BECAUSE THERE'S TOO MANY VARIABLES IN THERE THAT ARE BROAD GENERAL STATEMENTS.
IF YOU COME CONTRACT MANAGEMENT, A $100,000 TO $200,000, THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO ME UNLESS I KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO.
THAT'S WHAT THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE AS FAR AS EVERYBODY ELSE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO CUT WAGES, WE DON'T HAVE TO IF WE GO TO THAT LINE OUT AND START LOOKING AT IT. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> THERE'S A WOMAN IN THE ROOM,
>> I'M ALWAYS AMAZED THAT THE THINGS THAT COME OUT OF COUNCIL MEMBER COLUMNS.
LET'S GO BACK TO IKE SINCE HE CHOSE TO BRING THAT UP, WHY WAS THE CITY IN SUCH BAD SHAPE FOLLOWING IKE.
BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T PREPARED.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT, AND TODAY? TODAY, WE HAVE CREDIT LINES IN PLACE THAT WILL PROVIDE US MONEY THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE ANY MATCH IN FEMA.
[01:40:05]
WE DO. WE HAVE GREAT RESERVE FUN.I STILL SAY AND I'VE TALKED TO BIND COUNSEL.
IT WOULD NOT IF WE TOOK SAY AT THIS POINT TWO DAYS BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS 350,000 THAT WE NEED.
I AM LOOKING OUT FOR ALL OF OUR CITIZENS.
I HAVE HEARD FROM PEOPLE FROM ALL YOUR DISTRICTS BECAUSE I AM VERY IN TUNE TO THE PUBLIC AND IN VIEW HAVE BECAUSE COMPANIES ARE DIFFERENT NOW.
A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL HAVE MANDATORY RETIREMENT AT 60 ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CUTTING BACK, ESPECIALLY WITH THE PANDEMIC.
YOU HAVE A FAMILY THAT AREN'T TOO ALL THE EXEMPTIONS, AND THEIR TAXES ARE GOING UP.
THEY WENT UP LAST YEAR, AND THEY WENT UP THE YEAR BEFORE THAT, AND THEY WENT UP THE YEAR BEFORE THAT.
WE HAVE NOT CUT TAXES IN THIS CITY.
WHY CAN'T REMEMBER IF WE'VE EVER CUT TAXES? BUT WE ARE IN A GREAT FINANCIAL SHAPE. I AGREE.
BUT I DO THINK THERE ARE SOME DEPARTMENTS WHERE WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO GET RID OF PEOPLE, BUT WHERE WE COULD SHAVE COSTS TO BE ABLE TO GIVE A BREAK TO ALL OUR CITIZENS.
YOU KNOW, AND PEOPLE ALWAYS SAY, WELL, IF THEIR HOMESTEAD [NOISE] HELP A LOT OF CITIZENS OF FRIENDS WITH TAX PROTEST, BECAUSE I JUST THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA FOR PEOPLE TO PROTEST THEIR TAXES, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
LIKE I HAD A FRIEND, SHE NEVER EVER PROTESTS THAT HER HOUSE.
HER HOUSE IS SO OVERVALUED RIGHT NOW THAT EVEN WITH THE HOMESTEAD CAP, THE WOMAN HAS HER TAXES, HAVE GONE UP BECAUSE OF THE APPRAISAL PROCESS.
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW TO PROTEST TAXES AND WE'RE NOT PROTECTING THOSE PEOPLE.
CITIZENS ARE FULL-TIME CITIZENS THAT PAY TAXES THAT ARE LIVING ON LIMITED INCOMES.
IT'S JUST, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A HUGE BREAK.
I DON'T THINK WE'D HAVE TO CUT ANY PERSON.
I WILL ALWAYS SUPPORT FIRE, AND NO CUTS IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS.
I JUST WANT TO SAY YOU, CAN SPOUT OUT AS MANY RIDICULOUS NUMBERS AS YOU WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE, SUCH AS YOUR ARTICLE YESTERDAY AND THEN PAPER.
BUT THEY AREN'T ACCURATE AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE PEOPLE.
>> WOULD YOU DETAIL THE INACCURACIES FOR ME, PLEASE?
>> WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT WE'RE NOT RAISING TAXES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DID NOT SAY WE WERE NOT RAISING TAXES. I DIDN'T SAY THAT.
>> I DON'T HAVE THE ARTICLE IN FRONT OF ME.
>> BUT YOU JUST SPOUTED A NUMBER OF THINGS OUT.
[NOISE] NOW, I'M ONLY LOOKING AT THE SECOND HOMEOWNER AND GUESS WHAT? I HAVE AS MANY FULL-TIME PEOPLE AS YOU DO AND I HAVE MANY HOME VESTED PEOPLE AS YOU DO.
BUT I'M LOOKING OUT FOR YOUR PEOPLE.
I'M LOOKING OUT FOR WILLIAM'S PEOPLE.
I'M LOOKING OUT FOR THE MAYOR'S PEOPLE.
I'M LOOKING OUT FOR BILL'S PEOPLE AND I'M LOOKING OUT FOR JOHN PAUL'S PEOPLE, AND I'M LOOKING AT COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS'S PEOPLE.
IT ALWAYS TURNS OUT, SO LAST YEAR THIS TIME, WE HAD A 120 DAYS OF RESERVE.
IT WAS PROJECTED BY THE END OF THIS YEAR, WE WOULD HAVE, I THINK IT WAS A 109 DAYS IN RESERVE.
WELL, GUESS WHAT? WE WENT THROUGH WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN THE WORST YEAR EVER, WHICH WAS NOT THE WORST YEAR EVE AND WE'RE AT A 119.7 DAYS IN RESERVES.
I'M NOT ASKING TO CUT RESERVES.
I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THAT, BUT I'M ASKING US TO LOOK WHERE WE CAN SHAVE COSTS SO WE CAN TAKE ONE PENNY OFF THAT.
WE KNOW WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ALREADY IN THE BOOKS AND I JUST THINK WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT WHERE WE CAN GIVE BREAKS TO OUR CITIZENS.
IT SEEMS SO MANY TIMES AT THIS COUNCIL, THINGS ARE DONE IN THE BENEFIT OF TOURISTS AND I HAVE
[01:45:01]
A REAL PROBLEM PUTTING TOURISTS OVER OUR CITIZENS.>> WE'RE GETTING TO A POINT, WE'RE STARTING TO REPEAT OURSELVES, SO JOHN?
>> DAVID, YOU WERE RIGHT ON A LOT OF THINGS YOU SAID, JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO.
IF YOU'RE 65 OR OLDER, THIS IS NOT GOING AFFECT YOU ONE BIT.
FOR MOST HOME SETTERS, IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT YOU ONE BIT.
YOU MIGHT EVEN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF A DECREASE IN YOUR TAX BILL.
MY WHOLE POINT HERE IS THAT, WE CONTINUE YEAR AFTER YEAR TO RAISE IT AT THE 3.5 PERCENT LEVEL.
IF THAT IS THE TREND THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO, LET ME KNOW THAT SO I CAN GO OUT AND TELL MY CONSTITUENTS THAT EACH YEAR WE'RE GOING TO PUSH THAT TO THE VERY MAX THAT WE CAN.
>> IT'S NOT EVERY YEAR WE'RE GOING TO PUSH THAT TO THE VERY MAX.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO FIX THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MAY I ANSWER THAT QUESTION? BECAUSE THE COST OF PUBLIC SAFETY WENT UP NINE PERCENT LAST YEAR.
THE COST OF OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE LIBRARY WILL GO UP 19 PERCENT.
>> I WOULD AGREE BUT YOU CAN'T FIX IT THIS YEAR.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU CANNOT FIX IT AT THE COST OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
>> LET ME JUST FINISH. MY POINT HERE IS THAT, WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT TREND AND ONE CENT DECREASE IS A TOKEN.
IT IS A BLIP ON THE RADAR ON WHAT PEOPLE WILL SEE IN THEIR TAX BILL.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT TREND AT SOME POINT AND I THINK, THIS IS THE BUDGET TO DO IT IN.
WE'VE DONE THIS THREE YEARS IN A ROW THAT WE'VE MAXED OUT OUR TAX RATE, WE GOT TO CHANGE THAT.
WE GOT TO LOOK AT OTHER THINGS.
I THINK, WE'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
WE CHANGED OUR WATER AND SEWER TAP AND METER FEES TO MORE OF A USER BASE FEE TO MAKE UP COSTS LIKE THAT.
IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ME MORE THAN MOST PEOPLE BECAUSE I'M A BUILDER, BUT I'M FINE TO GO THAT ROUTE.
BUT WE HAVE TO GO THAT ROUTE, WE CAN'T COME BACK EACH YEAR AND CONTINUING TO PUSH THE LIMIT ON OUR TAX BASE.
>> JUST MY THOUGHTS ON WHAT JOHN IS SAYING.
YES, WE ARE PUSHING UP AGAINST THAT 3.5 PERCENT TAX CAP EACH YEAR.
BUT WE ARE LOWERING OUR TAX RATE EACH YEAR.
THE TAX RATE IS GOING DOWN AND THE REASON THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE PAYING MORE TAXES OUT THERE IS THEIR APPRAISED VALUES.
BUT THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE HERE.
IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND I KEEP SAYING THIS, IT'S REPEAT DAY, SO I'M GOING TO REPEAT IT AGAIN, STATE LEGISLATURE NEEDS TO STEP UP AND ADDRESS THIS.
THEY DIDN'T DO THIS THIS SESSION AND I'M NOT SURE THEY EVER WILL, BUT THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER ISSUE ON THIS.
ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? YES.
>> I AGREE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE STATE NEEDS TO LOOK AT THIS, BUT STILL THE PROPERTY VALUATIONS ARE GOING UP AND THE CITY IS GETTING MORE MONEY FROM THE PROPERTY EVALUATIONS.
>> TO PAY FOR THE INCREASED SERVICE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL SAY THE MIDDLE-CLASS IS DEAD IN HIS TOWN BECAUSE THEY CAN'T EVEN AFFORD A 250,000 DOLLAR HOME.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FAMILY THAT LIVES HERE AND IT'S THEIR PRIMARY RESIDENCE. THEY GOT A TAX BREAK.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FAMILY WITH KIDS THAT LIVES HERE.
THEY GOT A TAX BREAK THIS YEAR.
UNDER THIS BUDGET, THEY GET A TAX BREAK.
>> A 1.86 PERCENT, I BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT NUMBER.
>> MAYOR, THERE WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS I'D LIKE TO TRY TO PROVIDE SOME ANSWERS TO WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.
>> ALL RIGHT, YOU WERE GLEANING SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE STATEMENTS, BUT GO RIGHT AHEAD, MIKE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
>> THE FIRST POINT, AND KATHLEEN KROGER IS CORRECT, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT DETAIL TO UNDERSTAND A BUDGET, BUT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT GOALS AND CLAIMS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.
THAT'S ALL PART OF WHAT A BUDGET IS ABOUT.
IT'S NOT JUST AN ALLOCATION OF MONEY, ITS IMPACT, IT'S WHERE YOU GO.
THIS BUDGET HAS ALL THAT IN IT.
IT ALSO HAS A LIST OF THE POSITIONS FOR EVERY DEPARTMENT IN ADDITION TO THE LINE ITEMS. NOW, PROVIDING A DETAILED EXPLANATION AT THE LINE ITEM LEVEL, IF ONE IS NEEDED, THAT'S WHAT THOSE FILES INCLUDED THAT WE GAVE YOU ON THE FLASH DRIVE, THOSE DEPARTMENTAL REQUESTS AND SUBMISSIONS.
>> MIKE, IF I MAY INTERJECT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BUT A MAJORITY OF THE ANALYSES THAT WERE DONE PER LINE ITEM WEREN'T IN THERE, THERE WAS A FEW, BUT NOT MANY.
>> WELL, THE ASSESSMENT THEN GOES ON.
EACH DEPARTMENT BUDGET HAS A SECTION THAT EXPLAINS AT THE PRIME ACCOUNT LEVEL,
[01:50:04]
THE BIG CATEGORIES, WHAT THE REASONS FOR THE CHANGE ARE.THAT PROBABLY ADDRESSES 95 OR CLOSE TO A 100 PERCENT OF THE CHANGE IN THE BUDGET.
NOW, THE OTHER PARTS OF THE BUDGET THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT, WE ADDRESSED WITH AS MUCH DETAIL AS WE CAN.
THERE'S SIX PAGES ON THE PROPERTY TAX ROLL THAT SHOW IF YOU LOOK AT IT AND I COULD WALK YOU THROUGH IT, THE 1.5 BILLION DOLLAR INCREASE IN TAXABLE VALUE THIS YEAR.
THAT'S THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER, BUT IT'S IN THE BUDGET IN A TABLE THAT COVERS A WHOLE PAGE AND IT SHOWS IN A VERY TRANSPARENT WAY, HOW WE CALCULATE THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BIG DOLLARS, I THINK WE INCLUDE A CHART ON GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY CHARGES, WHICH IS, 10 MILLION DOLLARS ON OUR WATER FUND.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
WE'VE GOT A TABLE IN THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET INTRODUCTION THAT SHOWS ALL THE CHANGES BY DEPARTMENT AND MAJOR CATEGORIES SINCE 2017.
IT REALLY COMES HOME TO YOU THERE HOW WE HAD TO INCREASE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSFER FROM A LOWER PERCENT UP TO THE TIME THAT IT GOT TO EIGHT PERCENT IN FISCAL 20.
THAT WAS ALL A PART OF THIS GROWTH OF EXPENDITURES, SO IT WAS MANDATED BY THE CHARTER.
YOU LOOK AT WHERE WE PUT OUR MONEY IN THE LAST SIX YEARS, IT HAS BEEN ON PRIORITY THINGS, AND WE'VE HAD TO CUT DOWN THE NON-PRIORITY ITEMS. THAT'S WHAT WILL WE DO IN A VERY LOW-KEY WAY, TO SOME EXTENT WE MAKE IT LOOK TOO EASY AND SO PEOPLE THINK WE HAVEN'T WORKED VERY HARD AT IT.
BUT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM, MS. PEERS HERE, MYSELF, THE MANAGER'S OFFICE, THERE'S VERY RARELY A YEAR THAT GOES BY THAT SOMETHING IS NOT DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT EVERY ACCOUNT IN THE BUDGET.
WE TREAT IT VERY SERIOUSLY AS FAR AS INFORMATION IS CONCERNED.
TECHNOLOGY WAS ONE OTHER THING THAT CAME UP.
WHEN THIS MANAGEMENT TEAM GOT HERE, WE HAD A LITTLE MORE THAN A DESKTOP SERVICE ORGANIZATION.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO IMPLEMENT MAJOR NEW SYSTEMS. THERE WERE BIG IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE NEEDED IN OUR ONLINE PAYMENT PROCESSING WITH WATER CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND SO WE HIRED A PROFESSIONAL CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.
HOPE DEAN, IS ONE OF THE MOST QUALIFIED CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICERS YOU WOULD EVER FIND.
SHE'S BEEN IN THE BUSINESS ABOUT 25 YEARS.
SHE'S WORKED ON EVERY SYSTEM THAT EXISTS IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.
SHE'S BEEN A PRIVATE-SECTOR PROJECT MANAGER OF PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEMS. THAT PATTERN OF HIRING A PROFESSIONAL MANAGER AND HAVING HER COME IN AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO RUN THEIR SHOP, IS THE PATTERN THAT'S BEEN FOLLOWING OTHER PLACES, BUT THAT'S THE CASE WITH FLEET, WITH TECHNOLOGY, AND EVERY AREA WE'VE GOT.
>> LET ME ECHO THAT. WE'RE BEING FORCED TO MIGRATE TO A NEW RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE PD DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OUR CONSORTIUM IS MOVING.
THAT IS A MILLION DOLLAR MOVE.
I HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE BACK INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THAT READY, AND THIS IS AN FY 2023 PROJECT.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET MONEY AHEAD ON IT RIGHT NOW TO DO THAT.
YOU START TAKING CUTS LIKE THIS, THAT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR CUT AND YOU CAN'T RAISE A MILLION DOLLARS IN A YEAR ON A 3.5 PERCENT CUT, YOU CAN'T DO IT, AND STILL COVER YOUR LABOR CONTRACT COMMITMENTS.
THAT'S WHY WE DON'T DO A ONE-YEAR BUDGET GUYS, WE DO A FIVE-YEAR BUDGET.
LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING, AND RITA WILL TELL YOU THIS BECAUSE SHE WAS HERE WHEN I WAS APPOINTED TO THIS JOB.
WE DID NOT HAVE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AGAINST THE CHARTER.
WE DID NOT HAVE A FLEET REPLACEMENT PLAN.
WE DID NOT HAVE [NOISE] A CERTIFIED OR ANY COMPENSATION STUDY OR WAGE PAY STUDY TO BENCHMARK US AGAINST ANYBODY.
WE WERE BLEEDING EMPLOYEES AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY WORK PROJECTS GOING AT ALL.
THE REASON THAT YOU GUYS HAVEN'T BEEN AND RITA WILL TELL YOU TOO, UNDER PREVIOUS MANAGEMENT, IT WAS THE CALAMITY OF THE WEEK.
WE DIDN'T HAVE MONEY TO FIX THIS.
WE DIDN'T HAVE MONEY TO FIX THAT. IT WAS EVERY DISASTER.
YOU GUYS AREN'T GETTING FACED WITH THAT BECAUSE WE MANAGE THAT AND WE BUDGET FOR THAT.
THAT'S WHY THESE BUDGET NUMBERS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE.
THERE'S THINGS THAT COME UP HERE EVERYDAY THAT WE DON'T EXPECT.
WE JUST GOT TOLD TODAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET REIMBURSED ONE PENNY FOR THE WINTER STORM, $750,000 THAT WE FRONTED AND SPENT FOR THE WINTER STORM, I JUST GOT THE EMAIL FROM FEMA, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET REIMBURSED FOR THAT.
THAT'S HOW WE MANAGE THE CITY LIKE THIS.
WE DON'T BUDGET FOR A WINTER STORM EVERY YEAR.
I CAN'T BUDGET $750,000 EVERY YEAR TO THE FACT THAT THE TEMPERATURES ARE GOING TO DROP TO 17 DEGREES AND FREEZE EVERYBODY'S PIPES,
[01:55:01]
AND WE'RE GOING TO BLEED OUT OUR WATER SYSTEM.BUT, WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT STUFF, AND WE HAVE BUDGETS IN THAT.
A LOT OF THAT CAME FROM RESERVE, BUT MOST OF THAT CAME FROM HIS OPERATING FACILITY OVER IN THE MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AND IN OUR STREETS AND TRAFFIC.
WE HAD THREE STORMS LAST YEAR.
WE GOT REIMBURSED FOR NONE OF THEM.
WE FRONTED 100 PERCENT OF THAT MONEY.
DID I COME IN HERE AND TELL YOU WE WERE LAYING PEOPLE OFF TO DO THAT? DID I COME IN HERE AND TELL YOU WE'RE NOT GOING BE ABLE TO BUY VEHICLES? I'M JUST NOW COMING TO YOU TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE GARBAGE TRUCKS THAT WE'VE JUST TOTALLY ROASTED CARRYING ALL THE DEBRIS AND GUESS WHAT? I'M FIXING TO ROAST THEM AGAIN.
I'M GOING TO BE RUN THEM SEVEN DAYS A WEEK FOR THE NEXT PROBABLY MONTH COLLECTING DEBRIS FROM THIS HURRICANE THAT I ALMOST GUARANTEE YOU THAT, IT'S TAKEN US THIS LONG.
WE DON'T EVEN OUR CAT A OR CAT B DESIGNATION YET FROM THE WINTER STORM.
WE'RE JUST STARTING TO TRICKLE IN.
WE WON'T KNOW ANYTHING WE'RE GOING TO GET FROM FROM NICHOLAS FOR PROBABLY A YEAR OR TWO, AND WE'RE FRONTING OUT ALL OF THIS MONEY, AND THAT INCLUDES ALL OF OUR STAFF, ALL OF OUR EQUIPMENT.
I GUARANTEE YOU EVEN IF I GET REIMBURSED, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REPLACE ALL THE EQUIPMENT I'VE ROASTED TRYING TO DO ALL THIS STUFF.
MARIE WILL TELL YOU, I'VE GOT EVERY PIECE OF EQUIPMENT I HAVE IN MY DRAINAGE DEPARTMENT IN HER NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT NOW CLEANING HER DITCHES, 100 PERCENT.
THESE ARE THE DITCHES I JUST FINISHED A MONTH AGO, AND I'M OUT THERE DOING IT AGAIN.
THAT'S WHY THIS BUDGET HAS ALL THE CONTINGENCIES IN IT.
THAT'S WHY IT HAS ALL THAT'S BUILT IN.
BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU AND COUNCIL MEMBER ROB WOULD BACK THIS UP, WHEN SHE FIRST GOT ON THIS COUNCIL, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A CALAMITY OF MAJOR PROPORTIONS.
THERE HAD BEEN DEPARTMENT HEADS SITTING HERE BEGGING YOU TO HELP THEM BAIL THEM OUT OF THESE BUDGETS TO HELP OUT.
WE MAY EVEN HAD TO TAP OUR DEBT RESERVE, WHICH IS ONLY $50 MILLION.
KEEP IN MIND, WE MOVED OVER $78 MILLION WORTH OF DEBRIS FOR IKE, THAT WOULDN'T NOT EVEN NEAR OR COVER WHAT WE SPENT JUST FOR THE DEBRIS DURING HURRICANE IKE.
THAT LINE OF CREDIT IS A GREAT THING, AND IT INCREASED SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE. WHY DID IT INCREASE? BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY $10 MILLION IN BECAUSE OF OUR BOND RATING, BECAUSE OF OUR FINANCIAL STABILITY, BECAUSE OF HOW WE'VE GOT THIS BUDGET BUILT.
THAT'S HOW WE WIN BUDGET AWARDS EVERY YEAR FOR THIS BUDGET FOR TRANSPARENCY.
TO SIT HERE AND SAY THAT WE'RE NOT BEING TRANSPARENT IN OUR BUDGET, TO SIT HERE AND SAY THAT WE'RE SAND BAGGING OR CITIZENS, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
I THINK ANY OF OUR CITIZENS WILL TELL YOU AS THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR STUFF OUT RIGHT NOW, PEOPLE WERE SURPRISED WE WERE PROVIDING GARBAGE SERVICE WHEN THE WINDS WERE STILL 45 MILES AN HOUR HERE, TRYING TO GET THE TRASH PICKED UP.
THAT BUDGET IS BUILT AROUND THAT.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF FLUFF IN THIS BUDGET.
IF YOU GUYS WANT TO REDUCE THE TAX RATE, I'LL FIGURE IT OUT. I'LL TELL YOU THAT.
I'LL FIGURE IT OUT. BUT THERE COMES A POINT IN TIME WHAT COUNCIL DOES, AND I DON'T WANT TO LECTURE YOU, BUT WHAT COUNCIL DOES IS YOU SET THE POLICY IN DIRECTION TO THE CITY, AND YOU TASK ME WITH CARRYING THAT OUT.
I BRING YOU A BUDGET TO DO THAT.
IF YOU ADJUST THAT BUDGET DOWN, I WILL DO MY BEST TO FULFILL THAT, BUT AT SOME POINT THERE'S GOING TO BE A REDUCTION IN THOSE SERVICES.
WE TAKE MONEY IN AND WE PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS.
THAT'S ALL WE DO. IF WE DON'T TAKE IN ENOUGH MONEY TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO THROTTLE BACK ON THOSE SERVICES.
WE'RE IN A GOOD SHAPE RIGHT NOW. WE'RE IN REALLY GOOD SHAPE.
IF YOU ASK ME TO CUT $350,000 JOHN PAUL, I PROBABLY COULD COME UP WITH IT TO BE REAL HONEST WITH YOU.
BUT THEN AGAIN TOO, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH I'M GOING TO BE OUT ON NICHOLAS.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS WINNER IS GOING TO HOLD.
JOHN, YOU'VE LIVED HERE YOUR WHOLE LIFE, WHAT HAPPENS ON THE YEARS WHEN WE'VE BEEN HIT BY A HURRICANE? YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET.
I'M PUTTING THAT OUT THERE FOR YOU GUYS.
>> I HAVE ONE MORE THOUGHT. LET ME ASK ALL OF THIS QUESTION.
ARE WE GOING TO SEE A RATE EACH YEAR THAT IS GOING TO BE RIGHT UNDER THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE RIGHT UNDER THE VOTER APPROVAL, BUT YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE A NO NEW REVENUE IN GALVESTON BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M NOT ASKING THAT. I'M ASKING, DAVID SAID YES, 3.5 PERCENT EVERY YEAR.
JUST LET ME KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE.
IF THAT'S HOW OUR FORECASTED FINANCIAL FUTURE IS, LET ME KNOW THAT.
I CAN GO BACK TO MY CONSTITUENTS IT SAYS, AND PREPARE THEM THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SEE EACH YEAR.
BASICALLY, I DON'T NEED TO SIT UP HERE AND ARGUE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.
[OVERLAPPING] LET ME LET ME FINISH ONE THING.
THERE WAS A RECORD NUMBERS, APPRAISAL RATES HIGHER THAN WE'VE EVER HAD, SALES TAX RATES HIGHER THAN WE EVER HAD, AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO HIT THIS 3.5 PERCENT.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE YEARS [NOISE] THAT WE DON'T HIT THOSE NUMBERS? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO A VOTE FOR OUR TAX RATE?
>> THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. [NOISE] IF THAT'S THE CASE, I WANT TO CHANGE THAT TRACK THAT WE'RE ON AND MAKE THE CUTS THAT WE NEED TO CUT SO WE DON'T GET TO THAT POINT.
>> THERE ARE SEVERAL ANSWERS TO THAT.
[NOISE] THE FIRST ONE IS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVEN'T MENTIONED ABOUT THE FUND BALANCE IT'S TO PROVIDE FOR THAT SAFETY NET WHEN YOU HAVE A BAD YEAR.
[02:00:05]
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO AND DO SOME HASTY THINGS.YOU HAVE TIME TO CONSIDER CUTS GOING INTO THE FOLLOWING BUDGET YEAR.
WE'RE ACTUALLY HELPING OUR ABILITY TO RESPOND IN THAT CASE, IF IT GOT THAT BAD.
THE SECOND ANSWER IS, THE ONLY TWO REVENUE SOURCES THAT NOW SHOW GROWTH IN THE GENERAL FUND, ARE PROPERTY AND SALES TAXES.
YOU HAD ALL THE REST OF THEM UP OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS AND THEY DON'T CHANGE A BIT.
THE LEGISLATURE HAS HAMSTRUNG US ON OUR FRANCHISE TAXES.
THEY USED TO GROW SOME, THEY DON'T ANYMORE.
THE MIXED DRINK TAX IS A SMALL SOURCE, BUT IT'S AS VOLATILE AS A SALES TAX AND YOU CAN'T COUNT ON WHICH WAY IT'S GOING TO GO BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO STORMS AND TOURISM OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
WE BASICALLY HAVE ABOUT A MILLION AND A HALF IN NATURAL REVENUE GROWTH FROM YEAR-TO-YEAR.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE 3.5 PERCENT FROM PROPERTY TAX.
LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE HAD TO DO THE LAST COUPLE YEARS.
THIS YEAR WE HAD TO INCREASE OUR FUNDING FOR HEALTH BENEFITS BY $2 MILLION, AS THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION.
HALF OF THAT HIT THE GENERAL FUND.
PUBLIC SAFETY WHICH INCLUDES ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF HEALTH BENEFITS, WAS ANOTHER MILLION TOO FOR THE PAY RAISES AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
THOSE BIG BUDGETS, THEY SQUEEZE OUT EVERY OTHER PRIORITY THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE IN THE GENERAL FUND, CODE ENFORCEMENT, RECREATION PROGRAMS, NICE THINGS FOR THE KIDS.
>> WITH THAT SAID, THOSE ARE THINGS I WANT TO LOOK AT.
DO WE NEED TO TAKE PARTS AND PULL THAT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND FIGURE OUT ANOTHER WAY TO PAY FOR PARTS? DO WE NEED TO TAKE TRANSIT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND?
>> UNLESS YOU CAN START CHARGING FEES FOR GRASS MOWING OR STRAIGHT REPAIR, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT A USER-FEE FEE LIKE THE SGR FEE AND SAID THAT YOU'D DISCUSS IT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN FINANCE POLICE AND FIRE THAT WAY.
>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN EITHER, I THINK POLICE AND FIRE GOT TO BE THE GENERAL FUND.
IN MOST CITIES, THAT IS THE MAJORITY OF THEIR BUDGET. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WAS TRYING TO PRESERVE OUR ABILITY TO DO THAT.
>> BUT THOSE THINGS THAT WE CAN TAKE OUT, DO WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT THAT NOW? I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE DOWN THIS RATE, RAISE TAXES EACH YEAR, HIT A BAD YEAR, AND THEN WE'RE STRUGGLING TO MAKE BUDGETS WITHOUT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE AND PULL THAT STUFF OUT.
>> I DID WANT TO SAY SOMETHING THAT THAT BRIAN SAID, WE ARE WORKING ON OUR FIVE-YEAR PLAN TO GO IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET.
WE DO GET COUNCIL'S APPROVAL TO INCLUDE IT IN THE FINAL BUDGET DOCUMENT, BUT WE DO THAT EVERY YEAR FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION.
IT'S ALL THE MAJOR FUNDS, GENERAL FUND, DEBT SERVICE FUND, ALL IN TRANSIT BECAUSE THAT FUNDING SITUATION IS SO VOLATILE, AND THE COMBINED UTILITY SYSTEM, WATER AND SEWER.
>> JOHN, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
NOW IS THE TIME TO LOOK AT THAT.
WE CAN'T KEEP KICKING THAT DOWN THE ROAD EITHER, AND TURN A BLIND EYE.
TRANSIT IS ONE OF THOSE WE NEED TO TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK AT.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT, BUT WE'VE NEVER FOLLOWED UP ON THAT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] TRANSIT BUDGET IS HITTING THE GENERAL FUND FOR $200,000 THIS YEAR.
THAT NUMBER, WHEN OUR ZESTER MONEY RUNS OUT, THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO GO TO $800,000 TO A MILLION DOLLARS NEXT YEAR.
>> NO, I UNDERSTAND. IN THE LIBRARY, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT.
COMING UP IN THIS YEAR, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO THAT, JUST DOING THAT AT THE LAST MINUTE LIKE THIS.
>> I BELIEVE JOHN, AND I KNOW YOU KNOW THIS.
WE'VE BEEN SOUNDING THE ALARM ON THE LIBRARY AND ON THE TRANSIT STUFF FOR THREE YEARS NOW WITH YOU GUYS, THAT THIS IS COMING TO A HEAD GUYS.
WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT.
WE'RE WILLING TO TAKE THAT DISCUSSION DOWN THE ROAD.
WE'VE SHIFTED ALL THE PARKS' CAPITAL TO IDC.
THERE IS NO GENERAL FUND MONEY GOING INTO THAT.
OUR IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR PARKS, AND A LOT OF YOUR MAINTENANCE ON ALL THESE PROJECTS IS BEING PAID FOR OUT OF IDC.
THAT POOL IS BEING MAINTAINED OUT OF IDC.
IT'S A GREAT AMENITY. EVERYBODY LOVES IT.
I DOUBT ANYBODY WANTS TO PAY A $15-FEE TO USE OUR POOL.
THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO GO WITH THAT.
THOSE ARE ALL THINGS. WE'VE SHIFTED MOST OF THAT, WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT.
WE HAD BEEN SHIFTING EVERYTHING OFF AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
THERE'S A REIMBURSEMENT FEE THAT COUNCILMEMBER QUIROGA REFERENCES A LOT OF THAT, IS WE REIMBURSE OURSELVES.
IF IT'S AN IDC PROJECT AND I'M USING CITY GENERAL FUND STAFF TO MAINTAIN IT, I REIMBURSE MYSELF FROM IDC.
YOU KNOW THAT JOHN, YOU'VE BEEN ON IDC, YOU KNOW HOW WE DO THAT.
WE'RE TRYING TO SHED AS MUCH AS WE CAN OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.
I WOULD NORMALLY HAVE TOLD YOU 10 YEARS, GIVEN THESE GROWTH FACTORS AND THE WAY THE LIBRARY IS TREATED, THIS IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE GENERAL FUND IS GOING TO BE FUNDING POLICE AND FIRE.
THAT'S GOING TO BE IT. YOU'RE RIGHT.
AT SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SOME VERY HARD DECISIONS AS TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THAT.
[02:05:05]
BECAUSE WE'RE IN A LOW TO NO GROWTH CITY.COUNCILMEMBER ROBB IS RIGHT, WE NEED TO PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT.
BUT THAT DEVELOPMENT AT THAT LEVEL HAS TO HAPPEN EVERY YEAR, YEAR OVER YEAR, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE-TIME MONEY.
IT HAS TO HAPPEN YEAR OVER YEAR, OVER YEAR TO CONTINUE TO GET THAT GROWTH, TO CONTINUE TO PAY THESE ESCALATING COSTS THAT WE'RE DOING.
THERE'S NEW GROWTH FACTOR INTO THIS BUDGET.
PRIOR TO THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT CAP JOHN, IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK, OUR BUDGETS WERE GROWING, TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH INFRASTRUCTURE, 4 1/2, 5/ 1/2 PERCENT.
WE'VE REALLY CUT THAT BACK IN OUR NON-POLICE AND FIRE EXPENSES.
THE OTHER GENERAL FUND OPERATING REVENUE IS DOWN, HOW MUCH MIKE? THOSE EXPENSES, IT'S IN THE BUDGET.
>> IT'S A BOUT A BREAK-EVEN PROPOSITION.
>> BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT WE HAD BEEN REDUCING THE CIVILIAN SIDE OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS.
>> WE HAVE CUT SOME POSITIONS.
>> WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN WITHOUT REDUCING SERVICES.
NOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AND I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT WHAT SERVICES AND EVERYTHING THAT WE WOULD TRY NOT TO IMPACT BUT COULD BE IMPACTED.
I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH YOU.
BUT AT THIS STAGE OF THE GAME, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THIS.
THIS IS WHAT IT COSTS TO OPERATE THE CITY.
OUR FUEL COST WENT UP 40 PERCENT THIS YEAR.
I DIDN'T COME TO YOU TELLING YOU WE HAD TO HAVE MONEY EXTRA YEAR, WE HAD TO HIT RESERVES AND ALL THAT. WE HAVE THAT BUILT-IN.
THAT'S WHAT PART OF THAT FLEET MANAGEMENT BUDGET DOES.
WE TRY TO INSULATE THE CITIZENS AS MUCH AS WE CAN FROM VOLATILE SWINGS, AND THAT'S WHAT MIKE IS TRYING TO INDICATE TO YOU, IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS BUDGET.
I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION HERE, COUNCIL IF WE COULD.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE A 0.488537 RATE.
>> I'VE GOT A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN QUIROGA.
BRIAN BROUGHT UP SOME VALID POINTS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT, LET'S SAY THE STEPHEN GREENBERG INFRASTRUCTURE FUND, A LOT OF THAT FUND FROM YEAR TO YEAR JUST GETS CARRIED FORWARD.
WE'RE NOT UTILIZING THOSE FUNDS.
THERE WERE JUST ELECTION APPROVED BONDS A YEAR AGO, TWO YEARS AGO? FOUR YEARS AGO. A LOT OF THAT MONEY IS STILL SITTING THERE AND HASN'T BEEN PULLED DOWN.
WE KEEP SAYING WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS AND ANOTHER PROJECT TALL SITES AND SOMEBODY BROUGHT UP THE IDC, WE'RE HOLDING THREE MILLION DOLLARS FOR 23RD STREET.
THAT'S ALMOST TO ME GIVING A MESSAGE TO OUR STAFF.
COME UP WITH THREE MILLION DOLLARS OF COSTS, EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE OTHER GRANTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
COUNCIL, I WOULD FOR MULTIPLE REASONS, BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST OUR CITIZENS, I WOULD ASK YOU TO SUPPORT LOWERING THE TAX RATE [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES, WILLIAM.
>> WHEN YOU VOTE ON THIS, IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE I VOTE FOR A VOTE INCREASE IN TAXES OR I VOTE CUTTING TAXES, WHATEVER.
BUT IT GOES DOWN TO THE QUALITY OF LIVING OF OUR DISTRICT.
FOR MOST RESIDENTS IN MY DISTRICT WHO WOULD SEE MAYBE $1.75 A MONTH DECREASE ON THEIR AVERAGE HOME, YOU START GETTING INTO WALLS AT $1.75, IS THAT GOING TO REALLY BREAK THE BANK OR IS THAT GOING TO BREAK THE BANK OF CITY SERVICES? THAT'S THE FINE LINE THAT WE'RE WALKING AT, AND THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON IT. I'M A NO TO IT.
BUT IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE VOTING NO TO INCREASE TAXES HERE, IT'S JUST I'M VOTING THOUGH REALLY IN THE NAME OF PUBLIC SAFETY, QUALITY OF LIVING FOR RESIDENTS WHO PERMANENTLY LIVE HERE. THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON.
>> IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT WE'RE NOT VOTING WHETHER TO RAISE TAXES OR CUT TAXES.
WE'RE VOTING ON HOW BIG THE RAISE SHOULD BE OR IF IT'S A LOWERING OF THE TAX RATE.
BUT NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, THE COST OF TAX IS GOING TO GO UP.
THE NO-NEW REVENUE RATE IS WHAT THAT OTHER RATE WOULD BE.
IF WE ADOPT SOMETHING AS COUNCILWOMAN ROBB HAS SUGGESTED, IT WILL STILL BE A HIKE IN TAXES.
I'M WITH WILLIAM. I'M GOING TO VOTE NO ON THIS.
BUT LET'S BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A VOTE TO LOWER TAXES.
>> LET'S MAKE SURE, MARIE, YOU GOT ANYTHING NEW TO ADD.
[02:10:02]
>> BECAUSE EVERYBODY KEEPS MENTIONING PUBLIC SAFETY, I WOULD NEVER CUT PUBLIC SAFETY.
BUT I'D LIKE TO REFLECT OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS.
A PUBLIC SAFETY OF THEIR BUDGET IS PUBLIC SAFETY.
THE LAST SIX YEARS, THAT PERCENTAGE HAS INCREASED.
FOLKS, IF YOU'RE SAYING WE NEED TO DO THIS BECAUSE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, YOU NEED TO BE REALLY CLEAR.
>> I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE PUBLIC SAFETY ACTUALLY GREW IN PERCENTAGE AS PART OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET THIS YEAR.
>> OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS OR HAD BEEN SERIOUS [OVERLAPPING]
>> I CAN ONLY SPEAK SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
IT'S GROWN EVERY YEAR SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
>> I KNOW WHEN I WAS PREVIOUSLY ON COUNCIL, IT WAS A HIGHER PERCENTAGE THAN 60 PERCENT.
SIXTY PERCENT FOR A CITY THAT HAS THE ACTIVITIES THAT WE HAVE, THAT'S ACTUALLY A LOW NUMBER.
AGAIN, WE HAVE ALL THESE FUNDS THAT ARE APPROVED FUNDS THAT COULD BE USED, THAT WE CARRY FORWARD.
WE ALREADY IDENTIFIED $378,000.
ANOTHER $350, WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO CUT PUBLIC SERVICES.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE TO CUT OTHER SERVICES TO THE CITIES.
THERE IS WAYS THAT WE COULD SHAVE THIS OUT IN AREAS THAT ARE HIGHER THAN THEY SHOULD BE.
I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT.
>> MAYOR, CAN I GET ON THE LIST?
>> GO AHEAD, BUT I JUST LIKE TO BE ON THE LIST. [INAUDIBLE]
>> INTERESTING QUESTIONS. JOHN?
>> WE'RE UP HERE TO SET POLICY.
THE LAST THREE BUDGETS THAT I'VE BEEN SITTING IN THE SEAT ON, WE HAVE CONTINUED TO BRING THE TAX RATE TO RIGHT UNDER THE 3.5 PERCENT.
I'D LIKE TO CHANGE THAT POLICY.
I WANT STAFF TO KNOW THAT WE NEED TO START LOOKING IN OTHER DIRECTIONS SO WE DO NOT COME UP AGAINST A VOTE OF APPROVE, RIGHT? ONE YEAR. WE'VE HAD STELLAR YEARS, BEST YEARS WE'VE EVER HAD AND WE STILL CONTINUE TO GO UP.
I UNDERSTAND THE REASON FOR THAT IS TRYING TO GET US IN THE BEST FINANCIAL POSITION WHEN WE DO HAVE A BAD YEAR.
BUT AT SOME POINT, WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT TREND.
I THINK WE CAN REDUCE THIS BY $700,000.
I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS ONE.
WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM THERE.
>> ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL. LET'S CAST YOUR VOTE ON THIS.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR IN REDUCING THAT TAX RATE ONCE SAY AYE. YES.
>> THERE NEEDS TO BE A RECORD VOTE.
>> RECORD VOTE. BEFORE WE DO THAT, MIKE WAS ON THE LIST.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE MONEY IS LIMITED TO PROJECTS THAT ARE OVER A $100,000 THAT CAN'T BE USED FOR OPERATION.
THE BOND FUNDS ARE COMMITTED TO A LIST OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT WE TOLD THE VOTERS WE WERE GOING TO IMPLEMENT.
I JUST CHECKED THE PERCENTAGE AND IN 2017, THE PUBLIC SAFETY'S CATEGORY WAS 59 PERCENT OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET.
TODAY, THIS YEAR, IT'S 64 PERCENT.
THAT'S BASED ON DATA THAT'S IN YOUR BUDGET.
>> THANK YOU, MIKE. APPRECIATE THAT.
[INAUDIBLE] IN ANOTHER MOTION, DAVID.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE LEVY AT AD VALOREM TAX RATE FOR THE TAX YEAR 2021 IN THE AMOUNT OF 49 CENTS AND 8.5 MILS UPON EACH $100 OF PROPERTY VALUATION FOR THE TAX YEAR 2021.
>> I'M GOING TO SECOND THAT AND DAVID SEE IF YOU WOULD ENTERTAIN AN AMENDMENT TO THAT.
I'D LIKE TO HONOR JOHN PAUL'S REQUEST BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S SO IMPORTANT IN WHAT HE'S SAYING THERE.
I'D LIKE TO AMEND THAT TO ALSO INCLUDE FOR STAFF AND COUNCIL TO BEGIN WORK ON FOR OUR NEXT BUDGET YEAR, TO WORK ON LOOKING AT SERVICES AND BRINGING BACK INFORMATION, SO HOW WE CAN LOWER OUR TAX BELOW THAT [NOISE] 3.5 PERCENT CAP.
>> I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT IF THAT'S LEGAL.
>> I ACTUALLY THINK THE LANGUAGE HAS TO GO NARROWLY TO THE ADOPTION OF THE [INAUDIBLE].
[02:15:06]
>> CAN WE COME BACK AND ENTERTAIN A SECOND MOTION AFTER THAT?
>> WELL, THERE'S NOTHING ON THE AGENDA FOR THAT.
>> WE'LL WAIT FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
>> I THINK EVERYBODY IS IN AGREEMENT.
>> I THINK EVERYBODY GETS TO THE POINT.
>> I THINK IF THIS PASSES, I'LL PUT IT ON THE AGENDAS FOR US TO COME BACK AND HAVE A VOTE ON THAT BECAUSE WE NEED TO DO THAT.
WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO ANYBODY, ANY DISCUSSION.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL, VERY MUCH.
ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO, YES BY ALL MEANS?
TRYING TO MEAN THAT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.
IF I'M SITTING IN THE SAME SEAT, NEXT BUDGET, THEN I AM GOING TO WANT TO SEE A REDUCTION OR A PATH TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
>> ABSOLUTELY. I JUST WANT TO CAUTION EVERYBODY THAT WITH THAT, AGAIN, AS I'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, A SHIFT TO CONSUMPTIVE TAXES, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
IT SOUNDS GREAT, BUT AS YOU'VE POINTED OUT WITH YOUR [INAUDIBLE], IT AIN'T GREAT FOR YOU.
WHEN WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, THERE IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE SITTING OUT HERE THAT IT AIN'T GREAT FOR THEM, AND WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO TELL THEM THIS FOR THE BETTER GOOD OF THE CITY AND THE REDUCTION OF OUR OVERALL EXPENDITURES.
BECAUSE IN ESSENCE, WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE GENERAL FUND TO DO IS TO SUBSIDIZE A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS.
WE'RE ASKING A LOT OF OUR CITIZENS TO SUBSIDIZE SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS A SMALLER AMOUNT.
WHEN YOU GO TO CONSUMPTIVE TAXES, WHICH I'M A BIG FAN OF, I'VE TOLD YOU THAT BEFORE.
GALVESTON IS IN THE BEST PLACE FOR CONSUMPTIVE TAXES.
WE CAN DO THAT, BUT I JUST WANT TO WARN EVERYBODY, IT COMES WITH GROWING PAINS AND I APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT, JOHN.
>> AT SOME POINT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAPPEN.
AT SOME POINT, I SEE THIS, IF WE DON'T MAKE CHANGES, THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THIS UNDERNEATH THIS 3.5 PERCENT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE IN REAL TROUBLE.
>> ACTUALLY, I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT YOU'RE A RAINY 4TH OF JULY FROM BEING IN TROUBLE.
>> JOHN, I WANT TO SAY, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT ON THIS.
THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS THING FOR OUR CITY.
I'M PERSONALLY NOT GOING TO DROP THAT SUBJECT.
WE'LL BRING THAT BACK AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THAT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 9, CONSENT ITEMS. PLEASE, NELLIE.
>> ITEM 9, CONSENT ITEMS. THE FOLLOWING ITEM SHALL BE CONSIDERED [INAUDIBLE].
BEFORE THEY LEAVE, I WANT TO THANK MIKE AND ESPECIALLY DEBBIE.
WE ALL LEAN ON MIKE AND HE'S THE SPOKESPERSON, BUT THE BRAINS OF THE OPERATION IS WEARING THAT MAROON SHIRT AND THERE'S SOME PARALLEL OVER HER WEARING A MAROON SHIRT.
BUT THE BRAINS OF THAT OPERATION IS DEBBIE AND I WANT TO THANK HER FOR ALL OF HER HARD WORK.
DEBBIE AND MIKE, REST ASSURED YOU'RE ALWAYS NUMBER 1 ON OUR LIST.
[LAUGHTER] ITEM 9 CONSENT ITEMS, PLEASE.
[9. CONSENT ITEMS]
>> ITEM 9, CONSENT ITEMS. THE FOLLOWING ITEM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ACTION AS A WHOLE UNLESS ONE OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS OBJECTS.
THE CITY MANAGER HAS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE ITEMS 9A THROUGH 9C AS CONSENT ITEMS. ANYONE LIKE TO PULL ONE OF THOSE OUT? YES, DAVID.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT TO PULL IT OFF BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT.
BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT 9C, AND THAT'S THE REAPPOINTMENT OF [INAUDIBLE] AS OUR MUNICIPAL JUDGE.
I THINK JIM DOES A FINE JOB AND WE'RE VERY FOND OF HIM, AND HE'S DONE THIS COMPETENTLY FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
BUT AT SOME POINT IT SEEMS TO ME, MR. MAXWELL, WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND WHAT WE GET FROM MUNICIPAL COURT BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WHERE I CALL YOU BECAUSE SOME CITIZEN HAS CALLED ME AND YOU CALL THE MARSHAL AND THE MARSHAL GOES AND TALKS TO SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY GETS CITED, MR. KOWALSKI GETS IN THE CONVERSATION, IT GETS TO MUNICIPAL COURT AND THEY'RE GIVEN ANOTHER 30 DAYS, AND IT'S ANOTHER 90 DAYS BEFORE WE CITE THEM AGAIN OR IT'S A 120 DAYS BEFORE WE CITE THEM AGAIN.
IT'S A LOOP WE GET INTO AND I CAN POINT TO.
>> IT'S VERY TIMELY BECAUSE PART OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER ROSTOWSKI IS TALKING ABOUT,
[02:20:01]
YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHERE WE SPEND A LOT OF MONEY? I'M OWING A LOT OF PEOPLE'S LOANS IN GALVESTON RIGHT NOW.I WILL GET THAT MONEY BACK SOMEDAY.
[LAUGHTER] I AM GETTING PAID OFF ON LIENS THAT EXISTED UNDER DOUG MATTHEWS, RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S ONE OF THE WAYS THAT YOU COME BACK AND YOU HANDLE THESE THINGS IS THROUGH BETTER FEES, BETTER FUNDS AND ALL THOSE TYPE THINGS. THAT'S HOW WE DO IT.
>> JUST CALL THIS MY PERSONAL MESSAGE TO JUDGE SCHWEITZER, IS TOUGHEN UP.
[LAUGHTER] THE OTHER END OF GOOD ENFORCEMENT IS GETTING ACTION OUT OF THE COURT.
>> IT IS. JIM'S PRETTY GOOD ABOUT WORKING WITH THIS.
I THINK DON WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
>> HE IS. I DON'T KNOW IF [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE'S SOME VERY SAD STORIES OUT THERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S A WONDERFUL TOPIC FOR CONVERSATION.
>> WE HAVE ITEM 9A THROUGH 9C.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL ONE OUT?
I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEMS 9A THROUGH 9C. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> I HAVE A SECOND, COUNCILMAN COLLINS, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
MOVING TO ITEM 10A, PLEASE NELLIE.
[10.A. Discuss And Consider For Action Approval Of The Redistricting Calendar. (Legal)]
>> ITEM 10A. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER FOR ACTION APPROVAL OF THE REDISTRICTING CALENDAR.
>> IT'S REDISTRICTING YEAR AND IT'S VERY EXCITING TIME, IT COMES EVERY 10 YEARS.
WE PREVIOUSLY HIRED THE [INAUDIBLE] STAFF FIRM, THEY DID REDISTRICTING, I THINK FOR THE CITY IN 2010, PROBABLY FOREVER BEFORE THAT.
NONETHELESS, THEY WERE ON BOARD.
I'VE COMMUNICATED WITH THEM AND THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY EXPECT TO BE COMPLETE IN THEIR INITIAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA AROUND OCTOBER 15TH.
IT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM BEFORE THE DATA IS READY.
BUT WE DO NEED TO MOVE THIS ALONG.
THIS CALENDAR IS BASED ON HAVING REDISTRICTING COMPLETE BY DECEMBER 16TH.
THE REASON WE WANT TO DO IT IN DECEMBER IS FILING FOR COUNCIL OF ACTIONS WILL TAKE PLACE EARLY IN FEBRUARY.
I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW, IF THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT RUNNING WHERE THERE PRECINCTS ARE GOING TO BE.
THIS COUNTER PROVIDES THAT THERE WILL BE AN INITIAL MEETING WITH THE OUTSIDE COUNCIL, OCTOBER 28TH.
I HAVE ASKED THAT THEY CONSIDER DOING ALL THEIR MEETINGS BY ZOOM SO AS TO CUT DOWN TRAVEL COSTS.
THEY HAVE REQUESTED THAT AFTER THE INITIAL MEETING, THEY HAVE TWO STAND ALONE MEETINGS WITH, AS WE SAY UP NORTH YOU GUYS, WHERE WE CONSIDER ONLY REDISTRICTING.
THIS WILL BE A COUPLE OF HOURS.
THEY WILL HAVE THEIR GIS PEOPLE ONLINE, THEY'LL MAKE AN INITIAL PRESENTATION AND WE CAN START.
IF NUMBER ONE, THEY FIND REDISTRICTING IS REQUIRED AT THE INITIAL MEETING, YOU'LL MAKE A DECISION WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO REDISTRICTING AT ALL.
YOU MAY DECIDE THAT YOU ONLY WANT, I DON'T KNOW, NO MORE THAN TWO MEDICAL CLINICS IN A DISTRICT, I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S GOING TO BE UP FOR YOU TO DECIDE BUT IF REDISTRICTING IS REQUIRED, WE'LL MOVE ALONG WITH IT.
ONE ON NOVEMBER 10TH, THE OTHER ONE DECEMBER 2ND.
IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING WHERE THE PUBLIC COMES AND GIVES YOU THEIR INPUT, WE WOULD HAVE TO SET THAT.
I WOULD RECOMMEND AFTER THE NOVEMBER 10TH MEETING SO YOU GET YOUR FIRST SHOT AT IT.
BUT BEFORE THE DECEMBER 2ND MEETING, AS IF YOU GET COMMENTS DURING THAT PUBLIC HEARING, YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THEM AND INCORPORATE THEM IN THE DECEMBER 2ND MEETING.
A CHOICE WHETHER TO HAVE A PUBLIC WORKSHOP IS TOTALLY UP TO YOU.
YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION TODAY.
NEXT. I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A COUNCIL WORKSHOP ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR DECEMBER 9TH, THAT WOULD MEAN IF WE HAD THE DECEMBER 2ND MEETING,
[02:25:06]
THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE PLANS READY FOR DECEMBER 19TH.I'VE SPOKEN WITH OUR COUNCIL AND THEY THINK THEY CAN GET THAT DONE.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS LIKE HAS THE DATA COME IN YET? OR IT HASN'T COME IN YET.
>> THEY DON'T HAVE ALL THE DATA.
[BACKGROUND] THEY TOLD ME THE DATA THEY'VE RECEIVED WAS IN A FORMAT OF AN [LAUGHTER] OLDER VERSIONS SO THEY'VE HAD TO RECONVERT IT.
THEY ARE STILL GETTING DATA IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> HAS CENSUS RELEASED ANY MORE DATA PUBLICLY [OVERLAPPING] THE NATIONAL.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT.
YOU SAID FILING STARTS IN FEBRUARY, FILING STARTS IN JANUARY.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS FEBRUARY 10TH.
>> STARTS MID-JANUARY AND ENDS MID-FEBRUARY.
>> FILING. I CAN OPEN IT IN JANUARY.
>> CAN OPEN IN JANUARY. SO WE NEED TO KNOW FOR THE PUBLIC'S EDIFICATION, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THESE DISTRICT LINES ARE WELL IN ADVANCE OF THAT SO THAT PEOPLE [BACKGROUND] CAN KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE AND INDEED WHERE THEY CAN FILE TO RUN.
>> SEEMS A MATTER OF FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS.
SO IF WE GET THE DATA AS YOU SAID, IF THEY COME BACK TO US THEN WE LOOK AT IT AND WE SAY, OH THERE ISN'T NEED FOR REDISTRICTING, THEN DO WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE ALL THESE MEETINGS?
>> REMEMBER, I THINK THE STAFF FIRMS SAID THE CRITERIA IS YOU DIVIDE THE POPULATION OF EACH.
YOU TAKE THE POPULATION OF EACH DISTRICT AND IF THERE IS A VARIATION OF MORE THAN 10 PERCENT BETWEEN THE LOWER POPULATION DISTRICT AND THE HIGHEST POPULATION DISTRICT, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT 10 PERCENT VARIANCE OR MORE THAN REDISTRICTING IS REQUIRED.
>> WITHIN THE TOLERANCE IS YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
ALTHOUGH, I NEVER I MEAN, LIKE JOHN PAUL AND EVEN LIVE IN HIS DISTRICT ONE TIME.
>> SEEMS TO BE STANDARDS SOMETIMES.
ALRIGHT. COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. GRABOWSKI?
>> I NEED TO POINT OUT CHERYL JOHNSON POINTED OUT SOMETHING TO ME.
ANOTHER REASON TO GET THIS DONE IN DECEMBER.
CHERYL RELATED TO ME AND I WAS ASTONISHED.
THERE IS NO IT PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS HER TO DRAW A PRECINCT LINES IN THE VOTER ROLLS AND SHE DOES IT BY HAND.
>> EXACTLY HOW JOHN PAUL ENDED UP WITH AN OPPONENT THAT DIDN'T LIVE IN HIS DISTRICT. [LAUGHTER]
>> CAN I ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE COUNTIES VOTING PRECINCTS, OUR VOTING DISTRICTS AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DISTRICTS ARE ALL SEPARATE.
THEY ALMOST NEVER HAVE CONCURRENT LIVES.
>> THIS WILL BE MY REDISTRICTING THAT WORKED ON NOW.
YOU ALWAYS START OUT WITH THAT GOAL OF TRYING TO HAVE LINES THAT COME TOGETHER BUT YOU KNOW, GISD BECAUSE THEY TAKE HIM PART BOLIVAR, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO LINE UP WITH GISDS NUMBERS.
AND THEN THE COUNTY BECAUSE THEY'RE HAVING TO BALANCE WITH STEPHEN AND EVERYBODY ELSE.
YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BALANCE WITH THEM. YOU TRY.
IT'S A NOBLE CAUSE BUT IT JUST NEVER SEEMS TO HAPPEN.
>> ON DECEMBER 23RD OF 1992 AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE AFTERNOON.
I WAS IN A REDISTRICTING LAWSUIT HEARING BEFORE JUDGE KENT.
I REMEMBER THAT DATE BECAUSE MY YOUNGEST SON HAD BEEN BORN 12 HOURS EARLIER.
WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THIS VERY CAREFULLY.
ALTHOUGH IT'S BEING DONE IN A RUSHED MANNER, THIS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
>> I TEND TO AGREE THAT THERE MAY BE SOME MINOR CHANGES.
OF COURSE YOU NEVER KNOW, BUT.
>> YEAH, BUT MY GUT IS IT'S NOT GOING TO BE GOOD.
>> I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THIS CALENDAR.
>> I WILL SECOND THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD AMEND THAT, PLEASE.
DAVID, TO MOVE FROM DECEMBER 16TH TO DECEMBER 9TH, WE HAVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S THE ADOPTION MEETING.
>> DECEMBER 9TH WOULD BE THE ADOPTION MEETING.
[02:30:01]
>> AND IT'S THE SAME TIME WE HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING SO WE WOULDN'T [OVERLAPPING] HAVE SPENT FOR ME, VERY GOOD.
>> THEY SAID THAT THEY COULD GET IT DONE IF THERE'S A PROBLEM.
>> THEN WE CAN ALWAYS [OVERLAPPING].
WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND FOR THIS CALENDAR BUT SUBSTITUTING OUR LAST ITEM, DECEMBER 16TH FOR DECEMBER 9TH.
ANY DISCUSSION COUNCIL? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
[10.B. Consideration Of Retaining The Firm Of Lloyd Gosselink To Represent The City Of Galveston In Contract Negotiations With The Gulf Coast Water Authority. (Legal)]
>> ITEM 10B. CONSIDERATION OF RETAINING THE FIRM OF LLOYD GOSSELINK TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF GALVESTON IN CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY.
>> WE HAVE A CONTRACT, AND BRIAN YOU'LL HAVE TO HELP ME ON THIS.
>> WHERE THE PROVISION OF WATER THROUGH THE GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY THAT GOES THROUGH AUGUST OF 2027.
THE GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY WANTS TO OPEN RENEGOTIATIONS WITH THE VARIOUS CITIES THAT THEY SERVE NOW INSTEAD OF WAITING LATER.
THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT THEY'RE INTERESTED IN PURSUING, INCLUDING A, IS IT FAIR TO SAY FAIRLY GRANDIOSE HEADQUARTERS?
>> THEY WANT TO PASS ALL THOSE COSTS TO THE VARIOUS CITIES.
MANAGEMENT FELT THAT WE WOULD BE GETTING NOT WELL SERVED BY GCWA WITH PRESENT COST ALLOCATIONS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
THEY HAVE TWO CANAL SYSTEMS. ONE SERVES THE NORTHERN PART OF THE COUNTY.
THE OTHER SERVES THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE COUNTY.
WE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH COST ALLOCATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROJECTS FOR THE NORTHERN CANALS, AS I RECALL, AND ALSO WE HAVE A, WHAT WE CALL IT? IS IT JUST A WELL OR IS THERE A PUMPING STATION IN SANTA FE?
>> WE'LL NEED. IT REALLY DOESN'T DO US ANY GOOD BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PUMP WATER OUT OF THERE TO GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY FOR PURIFICATION AND HEAD BACK TO THE CITY.
WE NEED TO DISPOSE OF THOSE WELLS AND NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT.
IVAN LANGFORD OF WCID CAME TO THE CITY WITH THE THOUGHT.
>> ALSO THE PREVIOUS DIRECTOR OF GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY,.
>> KIND OF A COALITION, A GROUP OF CITIES TO START NEGOTIATIONS THROUGH COUNCIL.
WCID HAS CHOSEN LLOYD GOSSELINK.
THE CITY WANTS TO USE LLOYD GOSSELINK TODAY AS WELL.
I THINK WE GET A LITTLE BIT MORE BARGAINING POSITION OUT OF THEM.
THEY HAVE BEEN DOING WATER RIGHTS PROJECTS FOR YEARS.
THEY ALSO HAVE DONE PREVIOUS CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE GULF COAST ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SUGAR LAND.
I BELIEVE THERE IS A THOUGHT THAT OTHER CITIES WILL JOIN.
A MARK WAS SUPPOSEDLY ON BOARD BUT SOME THINGS HAPPENED IN LAMARCK THAT SLOWED THEM.
I THINK TEXAS CITY IS CONSIDERING IT.
I'M NOT SURE BUT WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH HIRING LLOYD GOSSELINK TO REPRESENT THE CITY SO THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO.
>> ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, IT MAY HAVE BEEN IN THERE AND I DIDN'T SEE IT.
I SAW A PER HOUR COSTS BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY ESTIMATION OF WHAT YOU THINK THIS COSTS WOULD BE.
I WOULD DARE NOT TRY TO EVEN ESTIMATE.
>> CAN WE SET A LIMIT ON THAT AND THEN COME BACK TO COUNCIL WITH THIS?
>> I ALWAYS FEEL LIKE WHEN YOU SET A LIMIT, I AM CONTINUALLY COMING BACK TO BEG FOR FOUR OR FIVE MORE THOUSAND.
>> AND ALSO TO FORWARD A POINT MADE BY COUNCILMAN GROGAN.
IF WE SET A LIMIT IN A PUBLIC MEETING, THEY KNOW THAT LIMIT. [LAUGHTER]
>> BUT USUALLY DAWN, YOU COME IN AND GIVE US AN ESTIMATION OF HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO BE AND SAY IF WE.
>> THAT'S ON LITIGATION MATTERS WHERE THERE'S RULES TO FOLLOW.
EVEN THEN I NEVER SEEM TO GET THAT ESTIMATE QUITE RIGHT.
NONETHELESS, THAT IS DONE WITHIN A FRAMEWORK WITH WHICH I AM FAMILIAR.
[02:35:05]
I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO.I ALSO DO KNOW THAT WE HAVE A CONTRACT DUE UP IN 2027.
I WOULD HOPE WE'RE NOT NEGOTIATING FOR FIVE YEARS.
>> IF THIS PASSES, WE NEED A REPORT BACK, DAWN.
>> ON COUNCIL. COMING UP HERE SHORTLY TO TELL US WHAT THE STATUS OF THIS IS SO WE CAN KEEP OUR FINGER ON THE PULSE.
>> AFTER WE'VE HAD SOME INITIAL MEETINGS, I WOULD THINK IT APPROPRIATE FOR MR. PROCATO TO COME IN AND GIVE US A CHAT ON THAT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS OF LEGAL ON THIS COUNCIL? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS.
[NOISE] A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS.
>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN LISTALSKI.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR RAISE YOUR HAND PLEASE.
[INAUDIBLE] IN 10 C, PLEASE, MILLIE.
[10.C. Discuss And Consider Appointments To The Following City Boards, Commission, And Committees]
>> ITEM 10 C, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES.
>> BEFORE WE GO THROUGH THESE, COUNCIL, I WANT TO MENTION, ON AN EARLIER LIST WE HAVE THE CULTURAL ARCH COMMISSION IS UP FOR SOME RE-APPOINTMENTS AND NEW APPOINTMENTS, BUT THEY DID NOT GET ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA.
SO WE'RE GOING TO PUT THEM ON FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CHANEL, MAKE SURE WE GET THOSE APPOINTMENTS DONE.
LET'S START WITH THE AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
THIS IS BY COUNCILMAN CORRADA FROM DISTRICT FOUR.
BILL, DID YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THAT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND [INAUDIBLE] WHAT HAPPENS THOUGH.
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
WE HAVE ANIMAL SERVICES BOARD, WE HAVE BASICALLY THE ANIMAL SERVICES BOARD, TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT, JOE CALDWELL AND SUZANNE PELICAN.
>> I WANTED TO APPROVE RE-APPOINTING THEM.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN ROB, TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF JOE CALDWELL AND SUZANNE PELICAN TO ANIMAL SERVICES BOARD. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> VERY GOOD. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS.
[INAUDIBLE] HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD.
WE'VE GOT TWO INDIVIDUALS FOR REAPPOINTMENT AND ONE VACANCY ON THAT.
DAVID, YOU'RE THE LIAISON ON THAT.
>> REMIND ME WHO'S UP FOR RE-APPOINTMENT?
>> TERESA ELLIOTT AND MARY BRANDON FOR RE-APPOINTMENT.
>> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE REAPPOINT TERESA ELLIOTT AND MARY BRANDON TO THOSE POSITIONS AND DIFFER CONSIDERATION ON THAT INTO THE VACANCY SEAT UNTIL OUR FUTURE MEETING.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE MOTION AS OUTLINED BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS AND SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ROB.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
WE'VE GOT ONE OPENING AND THEN WE HAVE TWO RE-APPOINTMENTS ON THAT.
BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE INPUT ON THAT.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO REAPPOINT LARRY RYAN AND WINS GUZMAN TO THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
>> GOT A SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN LISTALSKI. ANY DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE RE-APPOINTMENTS? VERY GOOD.
WE HAVE A VACANCY THERE AS MENTIONED.
ANY NOMINATIONS FOR THAT VACANCY?
>> THAT'S BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
MR. PETE NANOS IS GOING OFF THAT BOARD.
>> HAS ANYONE SUBMITTED THEIR NAME? HAS ANYONE APPLIED?
>> NO. WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS ON FILE.
>> DO WE HAVE OLD APPLICATIONS FOR THAT BOARD THAT WE CAN CONTACT AND SEE IF THERE'S [INAUDIBLE]?
WE'RE MOVING TO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.
MR. CHARLES STOTT IS GOING OFF THAT.
ANY NOMINATIONS FOR THAT POSITION?
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S MY APPOINTMENT AND I'M STILL GOING THROUGH THAT.
[02:40:05]
>> NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE ETHICS COMMISSION MAYOR ON THE AGENDA.
>> RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU, BRIAN.
THANKS, JANELLE. WE GOT ETHICS COMMISSION.
WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR OPENINGS ON THAT COMMISSION.
DISTRICT 1, SHARON, DO YOU HAVE ANYBODY YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPOINT TO THE ETHICS COMMISSION AT THIS TIME?
IT'S ALL OUT WITH THE COUNCIL.
I'M GOING TO JUST KEEP THESE AS ONE ITEM AND WE'LL BRING EVERYBODY TOGETHER.
WE HAVE A NOMINATION DISTRICT 1, VARNA BROWN. DISTRICT 2.
>> IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO ME, JOYCE MCLEAN.
>> I HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT I AM TRYING TO GIVE COMMITTEE TO SUBMITTING THEIR APPLICATIONS FOR THIS POSITION.
CAN I DEFER THAT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING [OVERLAPPING] IT'S SORTED OUT BY THEN?
>> YES. BY ALL MEANS. DISTRICT 6, MARY?
>> I THOUGHT I ALREADY HAD AN EMPLOYMENT ON THIS COMMITTEE, BUT IT MAY BE FOR THE CIVILIAN BOARD WHO WAS THE PREVIOUS APPOINTMENT.
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME. DO YOU?
>> IT'S BEEN VACANT FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
>> OKAY. I'LL ADD THAT FOR MY APPOINTMENT TO THE NEXT MEETING.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPOINT VARNA BROWN IN DISTRICT 1 SPOT AND JOYCE MCLEAN IN DISTRICT 2 SPOT.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT IS UNANIMOUS.
>> CAN WE GET A COPY OF WHO'S ON THIS? WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU RECEIVED. DID YOU?
>> SORRY, I MISSED THAT AGAIN.
>> FAMILY CHILDREN AND YOUTH BOARD COUNCIL, THAT HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT GROUP AND THEY DID SEND IN THEIR NOMINATIONS.
THERE ARE 10 OPENINGS ON THAT GROUP IN THAT BOARD AND THEY HAVE SENT IN NINE NOMINATIONS: SHANICE BLAIR, MARSHA RAPAPO, TOBY AGNEW, LIZ WHITE, AMY OWEN, ELIZABETH LIZ MURPHY, SUE JOHNSON, ANGELA BERNARD, AND SARAH SPENCE.
I WOULD NOMINATE THOSE, APPROVE THEIR APPOINTMENT TO THE FAMILY CHILDREN AND YOUTH BOARD. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND FROM COUNCILMAN, YOU'RE THE LIAISON, AREN'T YOU WILLIAM ON THAT? WE HAVE STILL ONE OPENING ON THAT.
WILLIAM, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE YOU WANT?
>> WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MEET NEXT WEEK [INAUDIBLE].
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THOSE NINE APPOINTMENTS TO THE FAMILY AND CHILDREN YOUTH BOARD.
FINANCE AND FISCAL, AFFAIRS AND INVESTMENT, WE HAVE THREE RE-APPOINTMENTS, EDDIE WALSH, ABEL LONGORIA AND STEPHEN MAXWELL.
STEPHEN MAXWELL IS MY APPOINTMENT AND I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR STEPHEN MAXWELL.
WHILE I'M AT IT, IS ANYONE INVOLVED WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, LIAISON? JOHN PAUL?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. I AM SORRY ABOUT THAT.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE RE-APPOINTMENT BILL?
>> NO, I DON'T. NOT THIS TIME.
>> OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND EDDIE WALSH, ABEL LONGORIA AND STEPHEN MAXWELL BE RE-APPOINTED.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I MOVE TO SECOND.
>> SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN ROB.
>> THAT WOULD FILL ALL OF THOSE FOR THIS YEAR.
YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT IS UNANIMOUS.
WE HAVE ONE OPENING FOR THE RDA.
[02:45:03]
DOES ANY COUNCIL MEMBER HAVE A NOMINEE FOR THAT?>> MAYOR, THAT ONE IS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
>> NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
>> OH, WE LEFT THE RDA OFF TOO.
WE'RE GOING TO GALVESTON WHARVES BOARD.
IT WAS LIKE WATER HOUSE PRICE.
I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE FOR THE WHARVES BOARD, VICTOR PEARSON AND SHEILA LEADSTONE.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT FROM COUNCILWOMAN ROB. ANY DISCUSSION?
WE HAD A BOUNTEOUS SET OF APPLICATIONS.
WE HAD JUST A TON OF VERY QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO APPLIED FOR THESE POSITIONS.
THERE ONLY TWO OPENINGS, OF COURSE, BUT WE HAD, I BELIEVE, 13 PEOPLE OR SOMETHING IN THAT ORDER THAT WE INTERVIEWED THERE.
A NUMBER OF THEM ARE REALLY IMPRESSIVE IN THEIR INTERVIEWS.
I WOULD HOPE ANYONE THAT APPLIED FOR THIS AND ISN'T BEING APPOINTED TODAY WOULD CONSIDER APPLYING FOR ANOTHER POSITION.
WE COULD USE A LOT MORE VOLUNTEERS THAN WE HAVE.
WE SAW SOME NEW, FRESH FACES, AND WE'D REALLY LIKE TO GET THOSE PEOPLE ENGAGED IN CITY.
I REALLY APPRECIATE HAVING ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WE DID.
>> SO MANY CITIES ARE ENVIOUS OF US BECAUSE THEY HAVE BOARD OPENINGS AND NO ONE PUTS THEIR NAMES IN.
BEN, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH A NUMBER RARELY HAPPENS, BUT WHEN SOME OF THE PEOPLE WERE TALKING AND SAY; 'KATH, THEY SHOULD BE ON THAT COMMITTEE.
THIS PERSON WOULD BE GREAT ON THAT COMMITTEE.'
>> HAD GREAT APPLICANTS IN BOTH PLANNING AND WHARVES BOARD ON THAT.
WE HAVE MOTION FOR VICTOR PEARSON AND SHEILA LEADSTONE IN SECOND.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT IS UNANIMOUS.
THANK YOU. LANDMARK COMMISSION, DAVID.
>> [INAUDIBLE] AND I HAVE BETTER THIS ONE BACKGROUND AND FORTH LIKE A CAT TOY, BUT I DON'T THINK EITHER OF US HAS A NOMINEE FOR THIS OPENING RIGHT NOW, IF WE COULD PUT THIS ON A FUTURE AGENDA?
>> YES, SIR. NOW, WE DO HAVE RE-APPOINTMENTS, DAVID, SARAH CLICK, STEPHANIE LANG AND CONSTANCE PATTERSON.
>> OKAY, THEN I WOULD MOVE THAT WE REAPPOINT THOSE THREE INDIVIDUALS AND DEFER THE OPEN POSITION UNTIL A FUTURE MEETING.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT IS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.
WE'RE NOW MOVING PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD.
WE HAVE ONE REAPPOINTMENT THERE.
IT'S MOLLY WILLIAMS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR REAPPOINTMENT OF MS. WILLIAMS. IS THERE SECOND?
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? [NOISE] IT IS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.
>> I APOLOGIZE. CAN WE REVISIT THE LANDMARK? BECAUSE I ALWAYS TEND TO FORGET THIS.
>> DO EITHER OF OUR ALTERNATES QUALIFY FOR APPOINTMENT TO THIS OPEN POSITION? THIS IS ONE OF THOSE COMMISSIONS THAT HAS A REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN SEATS ON THE COMMISSION.
>> JANE SWANSON WAS APPOINTED IN JANUARY OF 2020.
>> BUT DOES SHE QUALIFIED FOR THIS FOURTH SEAT?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO, BUT I BELIEVE THAT SHARON STETZEL THOMPSON DOES QUALIFY FOR THAT.
MAYOR, IF WE COULD REVISIT THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE SHARON STETZEL THOMPSON TO FILL THE OPEN POSITION.
THAT LEAVES US WITH AN ALTERNATE POSITION THAT NEEDS TO BE FILLED AND I'LL TAKE THAT UP AT A FUTURE.
>> NO PROBLEM, SIR. YOU HAVE A NOMINATION.
WOULD YOU REPEAT HER NAME AGAIN?
>> YES, SIR. I MOVE THAT WE MOVE SHARON STETZEL THOMPSON FROM ALTERNATE POSITION TO THE OPEN SEAT ON LANDMARK.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? VERY GOOD.
WE'RE MOVING TO, LET'S SEE HERE, POLICE PENSION FUND.
WE HAVE ONE REAPPOINTMENT ON THAT.
>> MOVE FOR APPROVAL, COUNCILWOMAN ROB.
[02:50:02]
SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND.MOVING TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
WE HAVE A REAPPOINTMENT AVAILABLE POSSIBLY IN A NEW APPOINTMENT.
I'M GOING TO NOMINATE DAVID FINKLY AND STEPHEN PENA TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE THIRD ONE, [LAUGHTER] STAN HUMPHREY.
>> THANK YOU. YEAH, WE HAD A THIRD ONE THERE. VERY GOOD.
THAT'S DAVID FINKLY, STEPHEN PENA AND STAN HUMPHREY.
IT IS A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. I'LL SECOND.
PLEASE SIGNIFY YOUR APPROVAL BY RAISING YOUR HAND.
WELL, KEEPING UP WITH ALL THESE.
WE'VE GOT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE RE-APPOINTMENTS. YES.
>> SYDNEY IS NOT APPLYING FOR RE-APPOINTMENT.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR RE-APPOINTMENTS.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SHERRY ROOKS, JOE CAPPADONNA, LEAH TUTEN AND STEPHEN DUNKEN AS RE-APPOINTMENT TO THAT COMMITTEE. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> HAVE A SECOND, COUNCILWOMAN ROB.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SIGNIFY.
ANY NOMINATIONS FOR THE OPEN POSITION ON THE SISTER CITIES PROGRAM?
>> WE HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS ON FILE.
ONE IS FROM PAMELA WILLIAMS AND SHE'S BEEN SERVING AS AN ADVISORY MEMBER TO THE BOARD AND NOW SHE WISHES TO BECOME A REGULAR MEMBER.
THEN WE HAVE A NEW APPLICATION FROM DR. ROBERT PHILPOT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. PAMELA WILLIAMS, WHICH DISTRICT IS SHE FROM? BECAUSE I KNOW A COUPLE OF PAMELA WILLIAMS.
>> OH, NO. SHE [OVERLAPPING] DISTRICT.
>> WE CAN'T THINK OF FOUR PAMELA WILLIAMS, SO WHICH ONE IS IT?
>> SHE'S BEEN SERVING AS AN ADVISOR FOR THAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> SHE'S BEEN ATTENDED THE MEETINGS AND THINGS?
>> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPOINT HER AS A PERMANENT MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION.
>> WOULD YOU REPEAT HER NAME, JANELLE?
>> PAMELA WILLIAMS. I'M LOOKING TO SEE WHAT DISTRICT SHE'S IN.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND COUNCIL WOMAN, ROB.
PLEASE SIGNIFY BY RAISING YOUR HAND IF ITS APPROVAL.
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, UNTIL THE LAST ONES, WE'VE GOT WILLIAM CLEMENT, LIDIA [INAUDIBLE] AND ALICE WATFORD FOR REAPPOINTMENTS ON THERE.
[BACKGROUND] GOT APPROVAL FROM COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI SECOND ON THAT.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? VERY GOOD.
JANELLE, DO YOU HAVE DOWN NOW ALL THE DEFERRALS AND ALL THE OTHER CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE? OKAY. JANELLE, ALSO I WOULD REQUEST FOR PLANNING AND [INAUDIBLE].
IF WE COULD NOTIFY OF COURSE THOSE THAT ARE SELECTED IN WRITING, AND THEN IF WE COULD NOTIFY ALL THE APPLICANTS OF THANKING THEM FOR THAT, I THINK YOU HAVE A "WE PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR THAT", HAVEN'T WE JANELLE?
>> SIR, WE HAVE AN AUTOMATED SYSTEM THAT DOES THAT FOR US.
>> YEAH. JANELLE AND [INAUDIBLE] SECRETARY'S OFFICE IT'S SOME BELIEVE IT'S AUTOMATED OVER THERE, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
YEAH. IF WE COULD MAKE SURE WE THANK ALL OF THOSE APPLICANTS.
[10.D. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Declaring A State Of Disaster And Emergency In The City Of Galveston Related To The Threat Posed By Tropical Storm Nicholas To The City Of Galveston; Extending The State Of Emergency Ordered By Mayor Brown, Extending Various Emergency Orders Issued By The Mayor; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject, Providing For A Penalty And Providing For An Effective Date.]
PLEASE, NELLY.>> ITEM 10D. CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS DECLARING A STATE OF DISASTER AND EMERGENCY IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON RELATED TO THE THREAT POSED BY TROPICAL STORM NICHOLAS TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON, EXTENDING THE STATE OF EMERGENCY ORDERED BY MAYOR BROWN, EXTENDING VARIOUS EMERGENCY ORDERS ISSUED BY THE MAYOR, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT,
[02:55:03]
PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.>> WHEN THE MAYOR DECLARES A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON, THAT DECLARATION IS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF SEVEN DAYS UNLESS EXTENDED BY A CITY COUNCIL.
THIS IS PRESENTED TO YOU FOR AN EXTENSION OF THAT STATE OF DISASTER.
THE DECLARATION OF THE STATE OF DISASTER IS THE FIRST STEP THAT OPENS THE SPIGOT FOR FEMA FUNDS.
WE DECLARE ONE, THE GOVERNOR DECLARES ONE.
WHEN THE GOVERNOR DECLARES A STATE OF EMERGENCY, IT MAKES AVAILABLE STATE RESOURCES TO THE COUNTY OR CITY AFFECTED.
THEN IF THE PRESIDENT DECLARES A STATE OF EMERGENCY, THAT ALLOWS FEMA FUNDS TO FLOW DOWN TO THE CITY AND WHERE WE RECOUP [INAUDIBLE] COSTS.
TYPICALLY, WE SEE A NUMBER OF ACCOMPANYING ORDERS, SUCH AS EVACUATION ORDERS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
THAT WAS NOT DONE IN THIS INSTANCE.
WE ONLY ARE ASKING FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE STATE OF DISASTER.
AS OF THIS TIME, THE PRESIDENT HAS NOT DECLARED TEXAS A DISASTER AREA.
PERHAPS HE WILL, PERHAPS HE WON'T.
I THINK THE ONLY POINT IN EXTENDING THE STATE OF DISASTER AT THIS TIME IS IF HE DOES DECLARE THAT STATE OF TEXAS IS A DISASTER AS A RESULT OF THIS HURRICANE, WE WILL CONTINUE OUR ELIGIBILITY FOR DISASTER RELIEF FUNDS.
I WOULD THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT WITH FINALITY AT THE MEETING IN OCTOBER.
SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CONTINUE THE STATE OF DISASTER TILL OCTOBER 21.
>> TWENTY EIGHTH, I THINK, DON.
>> WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS.
I MET WITH STATE REPRESENTATIVE, MAYES MIDDLETON YESTERDAY TO TALK ABOUT ONE, BEACH ISSUES AND HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET SOME EMERGENCE ORDERS.
TWO TO TALK ABOUT MY CONCERNS THAT THIS WAS PRIMARILY A WINDSTORM AND WE MAY NEED HIS HELP WITH [INAUDIBLE] CLAIMS. BUT THREE, I THINK THERE IS POTENTIAL.
I THINK THE STATE IS TRYING TO GET THE FEDERAL DISASTER APPROVAL.
SO I RECOMMEND WE CONTINUE THIS.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE IT.
>> WELL, UNLESS WE FIND A NEED TO HAVE A MEETING BEFORE THAT END, BUT ARE THERE ANY REPERCUSSIONS FROM EXTENDING IT TO THE 28TH?
>> WE'LL JUST KEEP THE DOOR OPEN.
>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE DISASTER DECLARATION.
ANY DISCUSSION COUNCIL? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS.
>> IF I MAY BEFORE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WE DIDN'T HAVE THE NORMAL ANNOUNCEMENTS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, OR I MISSED IT.
>> I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SAY. I'M VERY SAD.
>> I WANTED TO REPORT LAST NIGHT WE LOST MR. RAYMOND GUZMAN.
I'VE KNOWN MR. GUZMAN PROBABLY MY WHOLE LIFE.
HE'S ONE OF THOSE GUYS MARCHED TO THE BEAT OF HIS OWN DRUMMER.
BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS, I'VE NEVER MET ANYBODY THAT LOVE GALVESTON AS MUCH AS RAYMOND GUZMAN DID.
I KNOW MYSELF AND SARAH, AND MY OFFICE, WE WILL MISS MISTER GUZMAN BECAUSE WE TALKED TO HIM ON A REGULAR BASIS.
HIS SON-IN-LAW TEXTED ME THIS MORNING TO LET ME KNOW HE'D PASSED AWAY.
SO OUR PRAYERS ARE WITH THEIR FAMILY AND WE'RE GOING TO MISS MR. GUZMAN.
>> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT BRIAN.
I HEARD THIS MORNING THAT MR. GUZMAN HAD PASSED AWAY.
GOT TO KNOW HIM DURING THE CAMPAIGN.
AFTER THE ELECTION, HE AND I MET FAIRLY REGULARLY FOR LUNCH.
MR. GUZMAN, ONE THING ABOUT HIM, HE WAS SUCH A COMMUNITY SPIRITED INDIVIDUAL AND EVERY TIME WE MET AT LUNCH, HE ALWAYS HAD A VERY DEFINITE IDEA OF WHAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HAPPENED IN THIS CITY, AND IT'S THAT TYPE OF SPIRIT THAT WE THINK OF IN GALVESTONIAN,
[03:00:01]
SO HE WILL BE MISSED.>> TO COMMENT ALONG, HE HAD A PASSION FOR THIS, THAT HE BEYOND ANYONE ELSE AND HE WAS AN INCREDIBLE MAN OF FAITH AND YOU COULDN'T HELP BUT LOVE HIM.
I MEAN, YOU JUST COULDN'T HELP BUT LOVE HIM.
>> PASSION WAS THE WORD I WAS GOING TO USE.
HE HAD A PASSION FOR IT AND WE SAW HIS NAME ON THE BALLOT A NUMBER OF TIMES.
HE WAS A PRESENCE. THAT'S TRUE.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[11. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE'RE GOING TO RETIRE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.>> IF YOU'D LIKE TO DO IT IN ROOM 204.
YOU CAN STAY HERE IF YOU LIKE.
>> WE HAVE FOOD AVAILABLE TOO. IS THAT RIGHT? [BACKGROUND] WHY DON'T WE USE 1205.
WE'LL START EXECUTIVE SESSION IF WE CAN PICK SOME FOOD UP AND THEN HEAD ON IN.
[BACKGROUND] IT IS NOW 1:00 PM.
WE HAVE NOW FINISHED OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE'RE NOW BACK INTO OPEN SESSION.
WE HAVE GONE THROUGH OUR AGENDA AND I AM GOING TO OFFICIALLY CALL OUR SEPTEMBER 16 COUNCIL MEMBER MEETING AS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL. [BACKGROUND]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.