[00:00:02]
IT IS 9:00 AM.[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
THE CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP TO ORDER FOR DECEMBER 8TH THIS THURSDAY.I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE IN THE AUDIENCE TODAY.
COUNCIL, OF COURSE, GOOD MORNING TO YOU.
STAFF, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS TELECAST IN THE COMMUNITY, WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM HERE, BUT LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. JANELLE.
>> VERY GOOD. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT.
ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT.
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3A PLEASE. JANELLE.
[3.A. Clarification of Consent and Regular City Council Agenda Items - This is an opportunity for City Council to ask questions of Staff on Consent and Regular Agenda Items (1 hour)]
>> 3A, QUALIFICATION OF CONSENT AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS AND STAFF ON THIS STAND AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS.
>> COUNCIL, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO TO HELP GUIDE US ON THIS DISCUSSION THIS MORNING BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S SOME TOPICS THAT EVERYONE WANTS TO GET INTO.
TWO THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO START.
LET'S GET THE NONE PARK BOARD ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA OUT OF THE WAY FIRST FOR YOUR QUESTIONS.
LET'S GO AROUND THE ROOM IN JUST A SECOND AND IF YOU HAVE NON PART BOARD RELATED QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE ITEMS, PLEASE BRING THEM UP AND WE WILL GET QUESTIONS ANSWERED ON THAT.
THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND WE'LL START WITH ANY PART BOARD RELATED ITEMS THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS.
ALSO, ON ITEM 10D IS ON DAVID.
WE HAVE SOME CHANGE OF WORDING ON THAT, I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR CITY SECRETARY, JANELLE WILLIAMS TO EXPLAIN THIS. JANELLE?
>> COUNCIL, IF YOU COULD LOOK AT ITEMS, 10C AND 10D, I JUST WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO SOMETHING.
ON 10C, THIS IS THE ORDINANCE TRANSFER OF PARK TO THE PARK BOARD.
YOU HAVE THE TITLE THERE, YOU HAVE THE CAPTION, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE ATTACHMENTS DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.
EVERYTHING ON THAT IS CORRECT.
IF YOU LOOK AT ITEM10D, THE TITLE SAYS ORDINANCE HOT COLLECTION FROM PARK BOARD TO CITY DEPOSITORY.
THEN YOU HAVE THE CAPTION AND THE ATTACHMENTS.
THE TITLE AND THE ATTACHMENTS ARE CORRECT.
BUT THE CAPTION THERE, THE WRONG CAPTION WAS PASTED ONTO THE AGENDA.
WHEN WE GET TO THIS ITEM IN THE MEETING, I'LL BE READING THE CAPTION DIRECTLY FROM THE ORDINANCE AND NOT WHAT'S ON HERE.
JUST WANTED TO CALL THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
>> THANK YOU JANELLE, VERY MUCH.
>> LET'S START TO ON NONE PARK BOARD RELATED ITEMS THAT NEED CLARIFICATION ON THIS. MARIE?
>> WELL DONE. PLANNING [INAUDIBLE] A LITTLE BIT MORE.
>> DO YOU WANT TO COME SIT UP HERE?
>> EVERYTHING CAN SEE YOUR HANDS AND FACE.
>> OR DOWN THERE ANYWAY. [NOISE]
>> WHAT WERE YOUR QUESTIONS MARIE?
>> JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF DENSITY [NOISE] WOULD LIKE TO GET A LITTLE MORE IN DETAIL ON IT.
>> THERE ARE 40 LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSING.
MOST OF THE LOTS MEET OUR AREA REQUIREMENTS.
MINIMAL WIDTH REQUIREMENT DEVIATION FROM 50 FEET THAT'S REQUIRED TO 48.11.
>> THIS IS GOING TO BE IT'S ALL SINGLE-FAMILY?
>> IS IT PLANNED AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL?
>> I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I BELIEVE IS FOR SALE.
THIS DEVELOPER HAS DONE A COUPLE OF PUDS.
ONE ON MARINA, AND THEY'RE USUALLY FOR SALE PROPERTIES.
>> PUD IS PLAN IN THE DEVELOPMENT?
>> CAN YOU SAY WHAT THAT IS FOR OUR AUDIENCE?
>> PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IT'S BASICALLY ANOTHER LAKE DISTRICT THAT GOES ON TOP OF THE BASE ZONING DISTRICT.
>> YOU SENT OUT HOW MANY NOTICES?
>> IN THIS CASE, WE SENT THIRTY FOUR.
>> ONLY ONE CAME BACK? [OVERLAPPING]
[00:05:02]
>> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE?
>> YES. I'LL ASK IF ANYONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING.
THEN I HAVE A QUESTION ON 11E.
>> THIS IS FOR THE SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT.
SOME WERE REFERRING TO STREET PAVEMENT.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT SIDEWALKS, WE'RE JUST SIMPLY LOOKING AT STREET?
>> WE ARE LOOKING AT HANDICAP RAMPS AS PART OF ONE OF THE BIGGEST COST IN THIS WHOLE ENDEAVOR IS OUR MOBILIZATION COST.
WE'RE ALSO GOING TO LEVERAGE THAT AND MOBILIZATION TO LOOK AT STRIPING.
WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE HANDICAP RAMPS AND OF COURSE, THE PAVEMENT AND OUR SIGN INVENTORY AS WELL.
>> WE ARE COVERING THE ENTIRE ISLAND?
>> THREE HUNDRED AND FORTY THREE CENTER LINE MILES.
>> I WAS READING THROUGH IT AND THERE WAS SOME SCORING SYSTEM TO RANK WHO YOU'RE GOING TO USE.
>> WHAT DOES THAT TAKEN IN THE CALENDAR?
>> MOSTLY THE HIGHEST WEIGHTED PART OF THAT IS THE QUALIFICATIONS OF THE ENGINEERING FIRM THAT'S GOING TO DO THE ASSESSMENT.
HOW MANY PROJECTS HAVE THEY DONE AND WHERE THE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
>> THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY THE LOWEST BIDDER?
>> NO, FOR ENGINEERING FIRMS, WE DO NOT EVEN ENTERTAIN PRICE, INITIALLY.
WE GO IN AND SELECT THEM ON QUALIFICATIONS.
THEN ONCE WE PICK THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRM, THEN WE BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS.
THAT'S WHY I TYPICALLY NEWS SCOPING OUT ENGINEERING CONTRACT IT'S USUALLY A LOT LONGER OF A PROCESS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE QUALIFICATIONS AND THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT THEY'VE DONE.
>> THEN IT SAYS THAT THE CITY WAS TO PROVIDE ALL THE SURVEY TOOL?
>> YES. THAT IS GOING TO BE AFTER, IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE CONTRACT AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND GIVE THEM A LOT OF DELIVERABLES THAT THEY ASK FOR.
>> HAS THE SURVEY ALREADY BEEN DONE OR IS THIS ANOTHER THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR?
>> THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A SURVEY IN THERE.
I HAVE TO [NOISE] SEE EXACTLY WHAT PORTION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM ALL LOT OF OUR GIS FILES, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN A BIG SAMPLE OF IT TOO.
THAT'S HOW THEY RAN THE ESTIMATES IT CAME UP WITH 343 CENTER LINE MILES THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED.
BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY SURVEY WHAT THEY DO, IS THEY ATTACH CAMERAS.
THESE 360 LADYBUG CAMERAS IS WHAT THEY ARE, I THINK THEY'RE LIKE AK RESOLUTION ON THEM AND THEY DRIVE THE STREETS AND THEY'RE OUTFITTED WITH THESE LASERS AT THE BACK THAT PENETRATE THE PAVEMENT TO SEE HOW DEEP THE CRACKS ARE WITHIN YOUR PAVEMENT.
THEN THEY ATTACH THAT FILE AND RUN IT THROUGH LIKE AN AI CAMERA SOFTWARE.
THEN THEY GO IN AND SAMPLE AT ALL AND COME UP WITH THE PCI INDEX SCORE FOR ALL THING.
>> MARIE BROUGHT UP ABOUT SIDEWALKS.
>> TALKING ABOUT PAVING ROADS, BUT YOU MENTIONED ADA, ON THE TITLE OF THAT.
LET'S SAY YOU FIND A CORNER IN THIS STUDY WHERE ADA IS OFF OR WOULD THAT BE ADDRESSED OR?
>> WE'RE JUST GOING TO COLLECT IT IN ANTICIPATION OF SOME FEDERAL LEGISLATION THAT'S COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE IN CASE WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO DO AN ADA.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO COLLECT THE INVENTORY.
IN-CASE, BECAUSE ROBB HAS BEEN MONITORING SOME FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING ON THE HORIZON THAT MAY PUSH THAT OUT.
WE DELIBERATELY DIDN'T DO SIDEWALKS, BECAUSE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY UNDER THE CHARTER.
BUT THEY MAY REQUIRE US TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE HANDICAP RAMPS.
EVEN THE HANDICAP RAMPS TO NOWHERE AS WE ALL KNOW, EXISTS ON THE ISLAND.
WE'RE JUST GATHERING THAT INVENTORY IN CASE WE HAVE TO DO ANOTHER STUDY REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW THAT MAY BE ON THE HORIZON.
>> THAT'S WHERE GET YOUR MONEY'S WORTH.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. IT WAS ANONYMOUS CLASSES TO ADD THAT IN THERE.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC, THIS IS OUR REGULAR SURVEY OF STREETS, SO WE DECIDE WHICH STREET NEEDS MOST FIXING AND [NOISE] WHAT ORDER WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE [INAUDIBLE] THE STREETS.
[00:10:01]
WE DID THIS EVERY 3-4 YEARS.>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THIS IS HOW WE DECIDE WHICH STREET GETS PAVED NEXT.
>> WITHOUT BARRING FAILURES AND SINKHOLES.
>> JUST WANTED TO LET HIM KNOW THAT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO THAT.
I HAVE SOME STREETS IN MY DISTRICT THAT HAVE NEVER, EVER BEEN TOUCHED.
SOME OF THEM ARE BEING REPAVED OR RESURFACED NOW, BUT SOME AREN'T.
I KNOW WHEN THEY DO THIS STUDY, THEY DO THE CREVASSES AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
BUT THEY ALSO FACTOR IN AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC.
WHICH [NOISE] ROY DOESN'T, IT MAKES SENSE WHEN YOU HAVE A STREET THAT HASN'T BEEN TOUCHED FOR 50 YEARS.
>> YOU MEAN, THEY FACTOR IN THE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC BASED ON THE CONDITION OF THE STREET.
IF YOU'VE GOT MINOR CRACKING AND LOW TRAFFIC, THAT STREET WILL TAKE A LOWER PRIORITY THAN A STREET THAT HAS THAT SAME AMOUNT OF CRACKING, HOWEVER, IF THE STREETS IN BAD SHAPE, IT'S GOING TO GET PRIORITIZED HIGHER REGARDLESS OF TRAFFIC.
THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME.
BUT THEY DO LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC COUNTS BASED BECAUSE JUST LIKE A CAR, [NOISE] IF YOU'VE GOT A CAR WITH 100,000 MILES, BUT YOU ONLY DRIVE 1,000 MILES A YEAR.
IT'S PROBABLY OKAY VERSUS ONE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT BE REALLY OLD. [LAUGHTER]
>> A REALLY OLD CAR, BUT THEY LOOK AT THAT AS A MEASURE OF THE WEAR [NOISE] AND TEAR ON THE STREET.
NOT NECESSARILY OF WHETHER IT RANKS PRIORITY WISE.
BRANDON, YOU HAVE IN THE PACK OF MATERIAL HERE.
STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT WE ELIMINATE THAT POLICY, THE POLICY WE HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING.
>> THAT GIVES [NOISE] NO CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL DISTRICTS, BUT INSTEAD FOCUSES ON IMPROVING THE CITY'S OVERALL SCORE, COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THAT IS?
>> YES, IN 2017, I THINK WHEN WE STARTED THE WHOLE STREETS INITIATIVE.
OUR STREETS WERE IN SUCH BAD SHAPE AT THE TIME.
THERE WAS A NEED TO SPREAD THAT MONEY THROUGHOUT THE ISLAND AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE WORST STREETS IN EACH DISTRICT.
IF WE WERE MAYBE JUST TAKING THEM ONE DISTRICT, THEY COULD HAVE JUST GOBBLED UP ALL THE INITIAL MONEY AT FIRST, AND SO NOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IS JUST TAKING THE OVERALL PCI INDEX OF THE ENTIRE ISLAND AND TRYING TO GET THE BEST BANG FOR OUR BUCK, AND USE OUR MAINTENANCE MONEY TO TACKLE THE WORLD'S FIRST THROUGHOUT WITH NO REGARD FOR ANY CITY COUNCIL DISTRICTS, OR ANYTHING ELSE IT'S JUST GOING TO LOOK AT THE ENTIRE ISLAND COMPREHENSIVELY.
>> THAT MEANS THE 20 MILES THAT ARE IN MY DISTRICT WILL GET MORE ATTENTION THAN THEY HAVE FREE GASOLINE.
>> IT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW THE STUDY COMES BACK AND THE CONDITION ASSESSMENT OF EVERYTHING.
>> THE GOOD NEWS IS WE'RE USING A VERY NON-POLITICAL TECHNICAL SYSTEM, NOT ONE THAT RELIES ON THAT. I THINK IT'D BE FAIR.
>> ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM?
>> HOW DO WE FIND OUT A HISTORY OF WHAT THEY'VE NORMALLY DONE IN THE PAST? FOR EXAMPLE, AVENUE I IN BALL STREET.
HOW DO WE FIND OUT WHETHER THAT'S EVER BEEN ON THE LIST AS A HIGH PRIORITY?
>> IT'S ALL ON LOAN. THE CURRENT STREET ASSESSMENT IS ONLINE.
>> IF THIS PROCESS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR SOME YEARS IN THOSE STREETS, SO THEY SHOULD BE COMING UP NOW, POSSIBLY?
>> THIS IS GOING TO REVAMP OUR ENTIRE PLAN.
THIS IS GOING TO REVAMP THE ENTIRE PLAN, AND SEALY WAS NOT NECESSARILY ON THERE EXCEPT FOR THE SMALL STRETCH THAT SURROUND 35TH STREET IS THE ONE THAT I KNOW OF THAT'S PART OF ONE OF THE OTHER PROJECTS, [NOISE] BUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S WHAT THE ASSESSMENT WILL ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, IF THERE'S A MAJOR UTILITY PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR THAT WILL INVOLVE REPAVING IN THE STREET.
THAT GETS FACTORED OUT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO REPAVE THE STREET ANYWAY AS PART OF THAT.
>> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND EVEN SOME OF THE STREETS AROUND THERE THAT THEY'VE TORN UP TO DO THEIR PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO BE REPAIRED AS WELL?
>> YES, THE ONES THAT THEY HAVE TORN UP ABSOLUTELY.
>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION AND SHARON BROUGHT UP AN EXCELLENT POINT, SO THANK YOU FOR REFRESHING ME ON WHAT I WANTED TO ASK.
I HAD TRIED TO GO BACK AND FIND THE HISTORY OF THE STATUS ON MULTIPLE DIFFERENT STREETS AND THEY COULDN'T FIND MORE THAN THE LAST REPORT.
I WOULD LIKE US, FOR EVERYONE ELSE ON COUNCIL.
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GOOD TOOL TO US RETAIN, EVERY TIME WE DO THIS HAVE THAT REPORT ACCESSIBLE [NOISE] ELECTRONIC, THIS WHY WE CAN GO BACK AND SAY,
[00:15:01]
HEY, WAIT A MINUTE.THIS STREET HASN'T BEEN TOUCHED IN 30 YEARS.
NOW THERE'S NO HISTORY [NOISE] AS THE LAST REPORT.
CAN WE GET PREVIOUS RECORDS? [NOISE]
>> I THINK THERE WAS ONE DONE PRIOR TO THE 2019, THERE WAS NO LOADS OF 2014.
WE HAVE THE GIS LAYERS THOUGH. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I KNOW. BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE THE COMPANY'S REPORT, BECAUSE, THINKING OF IT AND IT WAS TALKING ABOUT PIRATES COVE AND THEN GOT FORMED.
I KNEW [NOISE] THE STREETS IN GAUFAM, WHICH IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD, WAS RESURFACED WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL LAST, I HAD A REFERENCE POINT, BUT I COULDN'T FIND THAT ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, BUT I KNEW THAT, SO WAS A REFERENCE.
BUT IF I RUN INTO [NOISE] THE STREET IN PIRATES COVE THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN TOUCHED SINCE IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED.
[NOISE] THERE WAS NO WAY TO DO THAT.
I THINK IT'S A GOOD TOOL FOR THIS COUNCIL, FOR FUTURE COUNCILS TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND REFERENCE THOSE STREET STUDIES.
>> WE WILL EVEN BRING THE STUDY BACK TO COUNCIL AND RECEIVING FILE.
>> BUT I WANT A HISTORIC RECORD.
FROM THIS POINT ON, WE HAVE LAST YEAR WE HAVE THAT.
YOU CAN'T FIND ANY OTHER PRIOR STUDIES.
AT LEAST WHEN I HAD REQUESTED THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TO GET ME A COPY [NOISE] OF PRIMARY STUDIES, THEY WERE NOT AVAILABLE.
I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PULL THE HISTORY OF ALL THE STREETS IN GALVESTON.
KEEPING EVERY STUDY AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC OR FOR COUNSEL.
>> MARIA, IF YOU'LL GET WITH BRANDON TELLING WHAT YOU WANT MORE SPECIFICALLY TOO AND THEN YOU CAN SEND THEM TO COUNSEL.
>> BUT BRANDON'S SAYING IS EVERYTHING THAT'S COME IN HAS BEEN MAINTAINED ON GIS OVERLAYS, SO WE HAVE THAT.
YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE IF THE STREET WAS READ IN 2014 AND IF IT WAS READ IN 2016, WHEN WE'VE DONE THE STUDIES IN THE PAST OR '17.
>> YOU COULDN'T GO BACK THAT FAR.
WHEN I REQUESTED THE AMAZON PUBLIC.
>> YEAH. IT MAY BE ON THE ANTERIOR SIDE, BUT WE CAN GET YOU ACCESS TO IT.
>> I KNOW. I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE PUBLIC THAT YOU CAN REFERENCE.
YOU CAN GO TO X, Y, Z AND SEE YOUR STREET WAS RATED SUCH AND SUCH AND THIS IS WHY THAT STREET WAS DONE PREVIOUS AND THEN IT'S ALL ELECTRONIC, IT'S NOT MAKING MORE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK IT'S JUST A MATTER OF ACCESS.
>> ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE ASSESS STREETS BASED ON HOW LONG IT'S BEEN SINCE THEY WERE PAVED, RATHER THEIR CONDITION?
>> THIS LATEST STUDY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU AREN'T LISTENING BECAUSE MY REQUEST WAS TO START BY ITS ONLY PROVIDE [LAUGHTER] ACCESS TO INFORMATION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
>> THAT'S INTERESTING. BUT WHERE DOES IT GET YOU?
[OVERLAPPING] WE'RE BACK TO THE AGENDA ITEM HERE THAT'S BEFORE US ON THAT.
MARIA, YOU'D HAVE TO REQUEST GET WITH BRANDON.
>> ANY OTHER ITEMS YOU HAVE MARIA?
>> NOW, I DID HAVE ONE OTHER ONES, SORRY.
IT WAS SIMPLY I READ THROUGH IT AND I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IF THIS WAS AN ISSUE OR NOT AN ISSUE, BUT IT HAD TO DO WITH AGAINST DIKE REMEDIATION.
>> ON DOWNTOWN. WE CONTINUE TO FIND THESE OLD KEROSENE TANKS WHEN WE EXCAVATE THESE OLDER AREAS OF TOWN.
WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO JUST START PLANNING FOR IT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE HIT ONE AT EVERY CORNER.
>> THERE ARE TANKS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN A SEDI PROPERTY?
>> THERE WERE A LOT OF GAS STATIONS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL NOT JUST GAS STATIONS, BUT THESE ARE KEROSENE TANKS.
>> YEAH, EXACTLY. [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S RIGHT.
>> 11A, WHICH IS THE LEGISLATION AGENDA.
[NOISE] WE HAVE THAT, MIKE, I THINK.
>> NO, SIR. IT'S NICE. [INAUDIBLE]
>> FRIENDS TOO OF ENVIRONMENT.
>> DID YOU WANT TO REFERENCE THE FIREFIGHTERS OR WAS THAT WHAT YOU WERE WANTING TO TALK ABOUT IN THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA?
[00:20:02]
WE'RE TRYING TO RAISE THE FEES TO SOME OF THE PARKS LIKE LASKER, THE POOL, THINGS LIKE THAT, SO PUTTING MY BUSINESS HAT ON AND MAYBE I SHOULDN'T BECAUSE THIS IS A CITY POOL, ARE THESE FEES GOING TO COVER?THE COST IS HELD WITH THE PERSONNEL?
>> YEAH. THEY HELP TO FRAY JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THE COST OF OPERATING THE POOL.
>> THEN IT LEADS TO MY OTHER QUESTION, IS THERE A PROGRAM OUT THERE FOR UNDER-PRIVILEGED FAMILIES TO REDUCE OR FREE ACCESS?
>> WE HAVE A SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM THAT'S THE LINED UP WITH BETTER PARKS FOR GALVESTON, AND SO MUCH FUNDS A YEAR FOR THAT TYPE OF SITUATION.
IF WE NEED MORE MONEY, WE GO BACK AND ASK FOR IT.
>> I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HAD TO DO THAT, DON'T HAVE WE?
>> NO. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD PLENTY OF MONEY THERE TO OFFER THE PROGRAM.
>> WE'RE LOOKING AT BETTER PARKS THAT HELP US SPONSOR THE SWIM TEAM, ALONG WITH ETNB HAS REACHED OUT TO US AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SWIMSUITS AND SHIRTS, AND BETTER PARKS IS ALSO GOING TO SPONSOR SOME CHILDREN WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO BE ON THE SWIM TEAM ANYWHERE ELSE, BUT HERE IN GALVESTON.
>> QUICK QUESTION, THE POOL RUNS AT ABOUT THREE OR $400 DEFICIT A YEAR?
>> FOUR THOUSAND RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> WHICH IS PICKED UP BY THE ITC.
[OVERLAPPING] I REALLY PUT ON THE BUSINESS AT END, TRY TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE.
>> VALERIE, THE MILITARY IS FREE.
>> YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE YOUR [OVERLAPPING]
>> VERY GOOD. MIKE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU GOT?
>> YEAH. I'M ALL SET. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. JOHN PAUL. [NOISE]
>> I'VE GOT MOST OF MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED, AND I WOULD LIKE TO GO TO 12F, THE PRIMARY POLICY COMMITTEE.
AS YOU KNOW, TPC IS A SUBSET OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE HGC.
THEY MOVE SEVERAL BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN REGIONALS SPENDING ON GRAPHIC AND HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES, AND IN ALL OF THIS.
ALL THIS IS COMING DOWN THE FREEWAY AT US, RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, IT'S THERE.
IT'S INTERESTING, BUT I SIMPLY DON'T HAVE THE TIME.
I'VE BEEN ON THE DPC NOW FOR THREE YEARS.
I'M FINDING I DON'T HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO STAY INTERESTED IN THIS.
THE OTHER THING, WHEN I LOOK AROUND THAT ROOM, EVEN THOUGH BY ZOOM, FOUR WHITE GUYS MY AGE.
I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WOULD HAVE ANY INTEREST IN RATE?
>> THEY DO IT VIA ZOOM NOT IN PERSON?
>> THEY STILL DO IT BY ZOOM OR YOU CAN GO UP TO THERE.
ONCE THE ZOOM GOT STARTED, I HAVEN'T BEEN BACK IN THAT BUILDING.
>> I AM CURRENTLY THE PRIMARY, JOHN PAUL THE SECRETARY.
UNLESS YOU GOT AN INTEREST IN.
>> YOURS, I WANT IT. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> WELL, YOU CAN THINK OF PRIMARY AND I'LL BE SECONDARY.
>> HEY, I DID IT FOR TWO YEARS WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE ZOOM AND YOU DRIVE ALL THE WAY UP.
>> IN THE NAME OF THE LAST 50 MINUTES.
>> YEAH. IT'S LITTLE HOURS EVERY TIME, OF COURSE SHE GETS TO GO TO LUNCH SOMEPLACE THERE IN MIDTOWN, WHICH IS WHAT I DO WHEN I GO UP THERE.
BUT I WANT US TO BE AS ENGAGED IN THAT COMMITTEE AS WE CAN BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT.
>> WE CAN SHARE THE RESPONSES.
LIKE I SAID, THERE WEREN'T THAT MANY WOMEN REPRESENTED ON THAT BOARD AFFORDED JACKIE.
JACKIE ALWAYS HAD THAT TO CONFIRM DBC THAT THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH WOMEN AROUND THAT TABLE.
>> WHEN WE HAVE A VOLUNTEER FOR THIS.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF MEETING.
>> I'LL DO PRIMARY, AND YOU DO SECONDARY.
>> BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THIS ONE, SO I CAN DO THIS.
>> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE, DAVID? [NOISE]
>> HELP ME THAT ONE THING. I MISUNDERSTOOD YOU.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING DID WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MRS. ANDREWS.
>> I'M SORRY, SHARON. GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>> IT'S JUST ONE. I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION ON 8A.
[00:25:02]
I SAID JUST CLARIFICATION.THE WATER STORAGE CAPACITY IS GOING TO INCREASE FOR OUR ISLAND BECAUSE OF THIS NOTE.
BUT THE ONE MILLION IS GOING TO HOLD 7.5 MILLION GALLON? THAT'S OKAY. WE ARE GETTING RID OF NEUTRINOS.
>> WE HAVE TANK 2,3, AND 4 AND 59 STREAMS WHICH ARE OUT OF COMMISSION FOR THIS DIMENSION, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, SO THAT THEY ARE OUT OF COMMISSION.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE GOING TO DEMOLISH THEM AND THEN REPLACE THEM WITH A SEVEN-AND-A-HALF MILLION GALLON ROUND STORAGE TANK.
>> TRINA, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT ALSO OR MAYBE IT'S FOR TESLA TOO.
THE 1.7 ON THE LOCAL MATCH ON THAT?
>> THAT'S FROM THE BONDS. YES SIR.
>> THAT'S FROM OUR LATEST BOND ISSUANCE.
>> OKAY. GOOD. I COULDN'T GET THAT UP FROM THE PACKET.
I MADE THEM OVERLAP TOO, BUT THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT? VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
SHARON, ANYTHING ELSE? I HAD A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS.
ITEM 10A, THIS IS THE FILING FOR THE RDA AND SO FORTH.
DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN WE WOULD GET A RESPONSE BACK ON FROM THE STATE.
>> STATE RESPONSES ARE 6-8 MONTHS.
AS YOU MAY RECALL, THIS IS WEST FLORIDA ATTEMPT.
YOU GET THIS THROUGH AUSTIN AND ALLISON DID THE FIRST SET AND I DID THE SECOND SET.
DAG, SECRETARY OF STATE CHECKSUM FOR DIFFERENT REASONS EACH TIME ABOUT HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM WITH THE IDC.
>> HOPEFULLY, WE'LL GET A POSITIVE WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.
>> THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. YES, MA'AM.
>> BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO COMBINE THE RDA WITH THE HOUSING FINANCE AND SO FORTH.
IF WE KEEP GETTING REJECTED BY THIS DATE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THEY DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THEIR LAWS, MAYBE WE NEED TO ADDRESS IT.
>> WELL THAT'S A TOPIC THAT'S OFF AGENDA BUT WE COULD PUT THAT ON FOR DISCUSSION.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THOUGH THEY'RE NOT PINPOINTING NECESSARILY THIS MERGER.
>> THERE'S HYPOTHETICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE EXTENSION.
>> THEY'RE CATCHING A LOT OF THEM LIKE THIS.
>> I STILL WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA TO READDRESS BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE COMMENTS I HEAR FROM MEMBERS THAT IT'S NOT DOING A WHOLE HECK OF A LOT RIGHT NOW.
>> WE SURELY COULD AND AS YOU KNOW, WE APPOINTED SHARON AS OUR LIAISON RDA LAST MEETING TOO.
I THINK SHARON WILL BE ATTENDING THOSE MEETINGS AND WE SURE COULD PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA. VERY GOOD.
>> ONE THING, JUST TO ADDRESS A COMMENT.
I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE REALLY CLEAR DIRECTION ON WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING OVER THERE EITHER FROM THE COUNCIL.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THEY'RE SITTING THERE TWIDDLING AROUND THEIR THUMBS.
>> WHICH WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA WHY WE NEED TO PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
>> IF THAT'S ON THE AGENDA ITEM, WE NEED TO REALLY DISCUSS WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO. [BACKGROUND]
>>ON ITEM 10B, THERE'S A NOTICE THAT'S OUR ADJUSTMENT OF OUR BUDGET.
THERE'S A NOTICE ABOUT TRANSFERRING MONEY FROM THE POLICE FUNDS AND SO FORTH.
COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE MORE, MIKE?
>> NUMBER 1, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BUDGET WILL TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT EVEN THOUGH THE MONEY IS NOT EXPENDED ON THE NORMAL OPERATING COSTS, IT'S STILL GOING TO GO TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE.
IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE'VE TRANSFERRED INTO THE TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS FUND, TO BEGIN BUILDING FUNDS UP TO REPLACE THEIR RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WHICH IS UNDERWAY.
SAME THING HAPPENING WITH THE TECHNOLOGY SERVICES OPERATING BUDGET, WHERE ALL DEPARTMENTS HAVE BEEN BUILT FOR THEIR SHARE OF THAT, [NOISE] AND THEY UNDER SPEND, AND THAT'S SPENDING THEN IS BEING SET ASIDE FOR CITY-WIDE SYSTEM PROJECTS.
WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE NEW FINANCIAL SYSTEM,
[00:30:01]
WE'RE GOING TO COME TO YOU WITH A RECOMMENDATION ON IN THE NEXT NUMBER OF MONTHS, AND THAT'S WHERE THAT MONEY IS GOING TO GO.LAST TRANSFER, IS THE HEALTH BENEFITS RETIREE LIABILITY, THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ADDRESS WITH THAT, AS WE DISCUSSED WITH YOU BEFORE.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS THAT EXCESS THAT'S IN THE POLICE BUDGETS STAYS FOR UTILIZATION OF THE POLICE, IN THE POLICE BUDGET.
>> IT'S GOING TO MOVE TO THE TECHNOLOGY BUDGET, SO I CAN GET LOST IN THIS YEAR'S POLICE OPERATING BUDGET, AND WE'LL PLAN TO DO THE SAME THING THIS YEAR WITH THE POLICE BUDGET, IF IT HAPPENS DOWN THE ROAD.
>> BUT THAT MOVEMENT OF THE MONEY GOES BACK TO ADDRESSING IT ISSUES IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I GUESS THAT'S IT, COUNCIL. THANK YOU.
WE HAVE GOT A STAFF THAT MAY OR MAY NOT NEED TO STAY IF YOU NEED TO LEAVE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE THIS MORNING.
LET'S MOVE TO OUR PART BOARD ITEMS NOW.
AS YOU MOST HAVE, WE HAVE A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM FOR OUR CIP TYPE DISCUSSION.
LET'S SEE. WE'LL LET THE ROOM CLEAR OUT FOR A SECOND.
[BACKGROUND] ITEM 3B WILL BE OUR CIP, AND THAT IS 12D ON OUR AGENDA THIS AFTERNOON, SO IF YOU HAVE AN ITEM ON 12D, WE'LL PICK THAT UP ON 3B WHEN WE COME TO THAT.
THESE ARE JUST ITEMS OTHER THAN THAT THEN, WE HAVE ITEMS 10C, WHICH IS THE BUDGET APPROVAL ITEM AND TRANSFER OF HOT FUNDS, WE HAVE ITEM 10D, WHICH IS THE CITY DEPOSITORY ITEM, WE HAVE ITEM 12B, WHICH IS THE CIVIL WORK ITEM, 12C THE STEWART BEACH ITEM, AND 12E ADDRESSING THE INNER LOCAL.
WE HAVE MEMBERS FROM THE PART BOARD HERE, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP NOW COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING TO GO ON REVERSE ORDER NOW, WILLIAM, DID YOU HAVE ANY PART BOARD ITEMS YOU'D LIKE TO BRING UP SIR?
>> YES, BUT LET'S KEEP THE DISCUSSION GOING THEN I'LL HOP IN. [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'M NOT USING MY TERM BUT MIKE HAS SAID THEY HAD CHANGED THEIR BUDGET THAT WHAT WE HAD ISN'T THE LATEST COPY.
>> WELL THEY HAD SENT ME A COPY OVER, SAYING THAT WHAT THEY SAW IN THE [NOISE] WASN'T CORRECT.
THEY GAVE ME A COPY OF WHAT THEY THINK IS CORRECT, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR BRYSON FRAZIER.
>> BRYSON COME ON UP IF YOU WOULD.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S THE TRANSFER BUDGET APPROVAL ITEM, IS THAT CORRECT 10C?
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE ITEMS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S THE PDF EXHIBIT A, IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, AND SO, BRYSON HAD EMAILED ME LAST NIGHT, SAYING THAT HE WAS GOING TO TRY TO GET WITH MR. LOFTIN THIS MORNING TO SEE IF THEY COULD TALK ABOUT THIS AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED OR DID IT?
>> MIKE HAVE A SEAT UP HERE, IF YOU WOULD SIR.
>> IF I COULD, THIS IS THE EXHIBIT FOR THE WITNESSES REGARDING TRANSFERS OF MONEY.
>> NOT THE ITEM ON YOU THAT YOU HAVE THAT 10C.
>> LET ME MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING JOHN, 10C IS THE TRANSFER OF THE HOT TO THE PARK BOARD.
>> OKAY. ON THE WORKSHOP AGENDA [BACKGROUND] WE HAVE A DISCUSSION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
>> WE'RE STILL IN THE CLARIFICATION SECTION ON EXHIBIT A,
[00:35:01]
IS REFERENCED IN ITEM 10C.>> GOING TO HAVE AN EXTENSIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT THOSE TWO WOULDN'T, IT'S PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED SEPARATELY.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WE CAN DISCUSS THEM BECAUSE THIS IS IN THE CLARIFICATION SESSION, AS LONG AS WE JUST KEEP IT TO QUESTIONS FOR THAT IR.
>> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR, COUNSELORS, APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR IN FRONT OF YOU AGAIN.
WE TOOK A LOOK AT EXHIBIT A AS IT WAS PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA, AND I WAS INSTRUCTED BY LEADERSHIP OVER AT THE PARK BOARD TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
THERE WAS JUST A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT I NOTICED WITH THIS EXHIBIT A THE ORIGINAL AND ONE IT INCLUDES A COUPLE OF FUNDS THAT DON'T ACTUALLY RECEIVE HOT, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR DEBT SETTLEMENT FUND AND YOUR SAND REPLENISHMENT FUND.
>> OUR AGENDAS ARE VERY ABSORBENT.
>> WE NOTICED THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE [NOISE] THAT WEREN'T HOT RECIPIENT FUNDS AND THEN WE WERE NOTICING THAT WE'RE ALSO INCLUDING SOME RESERVE BALANCES THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY HOT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE GOTTEN A COPY.
I APOLOGIZE, I WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE COPIES, BUT IT DID TAKE A FIRST CRACK AT REVISING.
>> CAN WE GET THEM TO MAKE A COPY SO WE KNOW?
>> SURE. COUNSEL, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR [NOISE] BECAUSE DAN'S POINT IS WELL-TAKEN HERE.
THIS IS NOT FOR A LENGTHY DISCUSSION NECESSARILY.
THIS IS FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA.
>> WHAT WE DID OR WHAT I DID IS I TOOK THE HOT RESERVE BALANCES [NOISE] AS OF 8-31-22 OUR 930 BALANCES ARE BEING AUDITED RIGHT NOW.
AS SOON AS I GET THAT COMPLETED I CAN UPDATE THE CHART.
I JUST USED THAT AS A STARTING POINT TO COME UP WITH WHAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE A TRANSFER OF HOT OVER TO THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS ORDINANCE.
I DID MEET WITH MIKE LOFTAN THIS MORNING AND WE DISCUSSED IT AND WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE DISCUSSION AND MORE REFINING.
EVEN THOUGH RECALCULATION I DID HERE IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME ADDITIONAL ROTATION TO COME UP WITH THAT AMOUNT.
BUT THAT WAS MY ATTEMPT WAS TO ISOLATE THE HOT BECAUSE IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT AND TRY TO CALCULATE WHAT THAT RETENTION OF HOT RESERVES WOULD BE AND WHAT THAT TRANSLATES TO CITY WOULD BE.
>> I THOUGHT WE COULD DO THAT WITH ORDINANCES?
>> MR. MAYOR, I'LL JUST ADD THAT THIS WOULD BE A COMPLICATED ISSUE BECAUSE IN ANY EVENT, REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT WE JUST TALKED THIS MORNING AND JUST GOT THIS NUMBERS LATE YESTERDAY.
THE ISSUE I THINK IS ADDRESSED IN THE ORDINANCE BY SAYING THAT THE FINAL CALCULATION WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY MANAGER, AND IT WILL BE BY DEFINITION IN FRONT OF EVERYBODY.
IT'LL BE AN OPEN TRANSPARENT CALCULATION THAT WE'LL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL OF RECORDS, CONCERNS, AND NUMBERS.
[OVERLAPPING] I'M GOING TO SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THIS IS JUST AN ILLUSTRATION OF WHY SECTION 5 IS WORKING THE WAY IT IS INTENSELY.
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS COMPLEX, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT.
[INAUDIBLE] THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
>> THE ORDINANCE IS THERE AN ORDER TO CONTEMPLATES THERE BEING A RE-CALIBRATION OF THIS, I GUESS ON A REGULAR BASIS.
>> THAT'S A STAFFING ISSUE, THAT'S NOT A CITY COUNCIL ISSUE.
>> PRICE OF THE DIVIDE AND SO FORTH, RIGHT?
>> THEN THIS CONCERN NOT CONCERNED, BUT THIS COMMENT FROM BRYSON WELL-TAKEN AND I'M GLAD THAT YOU GOT WITH MIKE, BUT IT HAS NO BEARING ON THE ORDINANCE AS WE SEE ON OUR AGENDA HERE.
I WOULD SAY THOUGH, TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI BUT HE HAD SOME QUESTIONS IN THE PAST ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ADDRESSED.
THEN YOU HAD QUESTIONS TO CLARIFY THIS ORDINATES JOHN, ON TRANSFER THE MONEY?
>> DID YOU HAVE ONE? WHAT'S THOSE?
>> IF I MAY, MR. MAYOR, DID EVERYBODY GET THE INITIAL ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE SENT OUT YESTERDAY, I BELIEVE?
[00:40:01]
>> THAT SHOWS ME, THE WAY WE'RE PLANNING TO APPROACH THIS LIKE WE DO WITH ANY LEGALLY RESTRICTED REVENUE SOURCE, THE BEST, IF NOT, THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS WITH A SEPARATE FUND.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SIX NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS THAT WILL APPEAR IN THE CITY'S BUDGET.
EXPENSE LINE MAY JUST BE A SINGLE LINE AND TITLE TRANSFER TO THE PARK BOARD UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THESE ORDINANCES AND THE INTER-LOCAL REVISION THAT'S COMING IS HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THESE ORDINANCES.
BUT I THINK THE KEY FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND IS WE DO THIS EVERY DAY, MAKE SURE THAT THE FUNDS ARE SPENT ONLY ON THE LEGALLY INTENDED PURPOSES.
THAT WAS THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THE ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT WAS SENT OUT.
>> I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, THIS ORDINANCE HAS THE PARK BOARD COLLECTING HOT TAX AND KEEPING A PORTION OF IT.
THIS ADDITIONALLY CAME UP IS THAT WE WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THE OTHER DAY, SO I'LL JUST BRING UP AGAIN.
WE WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW BECAUSE THE CHARTER SAYS THAT IF ALL DOLLARS NEED TO BE DEPOSITED INTO A CITY DEPOSITORY.
HOW DO WE FOLLOW THE LAW IF THIS IS SAYING THAT THE PARK BOARD IS ACTUALLY RETAINING A PORTION OF THOSE TAX DOLLARS?
>> A HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE HOT FUNDS WHEN THEY INITIALLY COME IN WILL GET PAID TO THE CITY TWICE A MONTH AND FOR THE PARK BOARD TO ACCESS THOSE FUNDS, CERTAINLY THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME THROUGH SOME QUARTERLY REVIEW OR WHAT HAVE YOU THAT'LL BE FLESHED OUT FURTHER TO THE INTERVAL.
THIS JUST SPEAKS TO THE FIRST TRANSACTION, WHICH IS FOR THEM TO BE ALLOWED TO KEEP SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS FOR THEIR RESERVES AND PAID THE BALANCE.
>> I DON T THINK KEEPS THE WORD, WE'RE USING HERE RIGHT.
>> HOW ABOUT RETAIN? [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT THEY ARE NOT RETAINING IT.
>> THAT'S WHAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE. RETAIN.
>> IT'S STILL GOING INTO THE DEPOSITORY, BUT THEN IT'S BEING TRANSFERRED ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.
HERE YOU'RE SAYING THE FIRST ONE.
>> THE INITIAL ONE THEY WILL RETAIN.
>> BUT I THINK JOHN'S QUESTION IS THOUGH, IF WE'RE SAYING THAT CAN'T BE DEPOSITED IN ANY OTHER ACCOUNT BUT THE CITIES ACCOUNT ON THIS FIRST GO ROUND, WE'RE HAVING THEM KEEP MONEY.
>> THAT'S GOOD. THAT'S QUESTION OF MINE.
>> WELL, LET ME ASK MORE QUESTIONS THEN I'LL LET YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
THIS IS AN INITIAL PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE AND THEN AFTER THAT, ALL FUNDS GET DEPOSITED INTO A SET OF DEPOSITORY AND THEN GET REIMBURSED OR REALLOCATED TO THE PARK BOARD BASED ON THEIR BUDGET?
>> YES. THEY CONTINUE TO COLLECT THE HOT, THEY TRANSFER IT TO THE CITY ACCOUNT ON THE 1ST OF EACH MONTH.
THAT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PARK POINT BECAUSE I SAID IT WAS [NOISE] TOO HARD [INAUDIBLE] AS THE SUMS GO INTO THE CITY DEPOSITORY [NOISE] THEY WILL BE DISTRIBUTED BACK TO THE PARK BOARD IN THE BUDGET AND THE CONTRACT THAT WE WILL WORK WITH THEM AND SUBMIT JUST CITY COUNCIL BY MARCH 1ST.
IF YOU RECALL THE STATE HOT STATUTE SAYS YOU MUST HAVE A WRITTEN CONTRACT.
YOU WANT IT TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
WE ARE ALLOWING THEM TO RETAIN THE 112 DAYS IF THEY'RE OPERATING AND 120 DAYS OF RESERVES BECAUSE OF THE STATED PREFERENCE NOT TO INTERRUPT THEIR DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS.
IT IS MORE EXPEDIENT TO ALLOW THEM TO RETAIN THAT MONEY, STAY IN OPERATION WHILE WE BITE THE CONTRACT.
>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CURRENT CONTRACT?
>> WE DO NOT HAVE A CONTRACT AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER THE TAX CODE.
THE TAX CODE CONTRACT REQUIRES A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE MONEY AND US
[00:45:02]
AGREEING TO THEIR BUDGET AND REQUIRING THEM TO MAKE QUARTERLY REPORTS ALL OF WHICH WOULD BE IN A WRITTEN CONTRACT WITH THEM.>> THE CONTRARY CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE WITH THEM THAT THAT'S REALLY NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW? THAT'S NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW?
>> WE HAVE AN INTRO-VOCAL CONTRACT THAT SPEAKS GENERALLY AS TOO HOT, BUT NOT WITH THE SPECIFICITY CRAVED BY STATUTES.
>> WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW WITH THAT CURRENT CONTRACT?
>> WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.
>> GOOD. SAME WAY TO SAY THAT, I GUESS DIFFERENT WAYS?
>> YOU KNOW HOW I LIKE COMPOUND WORDS.
>> YEAH, I KNOW. I AM INTERESTED IN THIS EXHIBIT A SINCE IT IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE AND IF IT'S NOT RIGHT, I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT IN THERE.
MIKE WITH RICENCE FIGURES HERE, THESE ARE DEFINITELY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE IN THE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE JUST STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT THIS MORNING.
>> MAY I INTERJECT? EXHIBIT A WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE TWO ORDINANCES TWO MONTHS AGO THAT WERE BEFORE YOU THAT WERE DEFERRED.
>> TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME WE'RE HEARING ALL OF THIS PROBLEM WITH THEM AND WITHOUT EXHIBIT A FROM THE PARK BOARD SO I DON'T GET IT.
>> BASED ON THEIR BUDGET IS PROPOSED, ASSUMING THAT THEY CALCULATED THE 120 DAYS AND THE 90 DAYS THE SAME WAY WE DO FOR THE CITY BUDGET.
SHORT OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS BRYSON THIS MORNING.
>> MIKE, THE NUMBERS THAT BRYSON HAS PUT BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING, I KNOW YOU'RE [NOISE] JUST LOOKING AT THIS AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD A LOT OF TIME TO STUDY IT BETTER BUT THESE, DO YOU THINK THESE ARE PRETTY ACCURATE?
>> I THINK THEY'RE MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT.
WHETHER THEY'RE CONCEPTUALLY, SOMETHING THAT WE'D AGREE TO IS ANOTHER MAP.
THAT'S REALLY THE REASON WE HAVE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.
>> MAYOR, I WANT TO GO BACK TO SAY THOUGH THE ORDINANCE DOESN'T GET INTO THOSE DETAILS NECESSARILY, THE ORDINANCE IS ABOUT THE PROCESS, OVERARCHING PROCESS AND SETTING UP A CONTRACT.
>> THE ORDINANCE IS A LIE, MIKE'S GOT THE HOUSE.
>> CORRECT. THAT'S BASICALLY IT.
>> WELL, I WOULD SAY THE ONLY THING IN THERE IS THAT BECAUSE THERE'S SUCH A BIG DISCREPANCY HERE AND THEN IN SECTION 5, I GUESS IT SAYS THAT A DISPUTE OVER THE CALCULATIONS BASICALLY, IT WILL BE RESOLVED BY THE CITY MANAGER.
>> THAT'S HOW WE HANDLE ALL CITY FUNDS?
>> WHICH MIGHT COST PER REGION.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BUDGET ITEMS [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF IT AMENDS THEIR BUDGET, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL.
>> IF IT AMENDS OUR BUDGET? [OVERLAPPING] BUT IF THERE'S A DISPUTE AND YOU MAKE A CALL DIFFERENT THAN THEIR BUDGET, THEN YOU'RE SAYING IT COMES TO COUNCIL?
>> YES. BECAUSE WE APPROVE THE BUDGET.
>> THIS DOESN'T REALLY GIVE ME THAT WARM AND FUZZY FEELING LIKE THAT.
>> IF YOU DON'T TRUST ME, YOU DON'T TRUST ME.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING, IF YOU HAVE A [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT. THIS SAYS THAT IT'S RESOLVED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THAT DETERMINATION SHALL BE FINAL.
>> THAT'S HOW WE RESOLVE ALL OF OUR FINANCIAL PROBLEMS.
>> BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT COMES TO COUNCIL.
>> IF IT ALTERS THE BUDGET JUST LIKE THE CITY BUDGET, I RESOLVE ALL FINANCIAL MATTERS WITHIN THE BUDGET.
BUT IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN THE BUDGET, IT COMES TO YOU JUST LIKE IT'S ON YOUR AGENDA TODAY FOR THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.
>> REMEMBER, WE WILL BE SUBMITTING A CONTRACT TO YOU IN MARCH.
>> ANALYTICAL AGREEMENT. [OVERLAPPING].
>> HE SAID A CONTRACT IN MARCH. IT'S THE INTER LOCAL.
[OVERLAPPING] HE'S CALLING THE CONTRACT.
THE CONTRACT IS THE INTER LOCAL.
>> INTER LOCAL.I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO BE A SINGLE INTER LOCAL ACTIVITY.
>> ALL CONTRACTS BETWEEN GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES, HERE ARE LOCAL AGREEMENTS.
>> JUST TO CLARIFYING, IF I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY.
YOU ARE CALLING IT A CONTRACT I'M CALLING IT INTER LOCAL. [OVERLAPPING].
WE SHOULD JUST CALL IT A HOT CONTRACT, AND BE DONE WITH IT.
IMAGINE [OVERLAPPING] BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PARK BOARD.
[00:50:02]
>> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THE CORRECT WORDING HERE.
I STILL DON'T REALLY LIKE THIS SECTION 5 THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
IT TALKS ABOUT A DISPUTE AND THAT DISPUTE IS RESOLVED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THAT SHALL BE FINAL.
IT DOESN'T TALK ANYTHING ABOUT IT COMING BACK TO COUNCIL.
MAYBE I'M OVER WORRIED ABOUT THIS.
>> I CANNOT AMEND THEIR BUDGET.
IF YOU'VE APPROVED THEIR SPENDING PLAN, IT'S APPROVED AND IT GETS FUNDED.
>> SECTION 5, THIS IS THE WITNESS REGARDING THE INITIAL TRANSFERS, CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. YES BUT ALSO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE IS THIS 112 DAYS [NOISE] OF DECIDING HOW MUCH MONEY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS ORDINANCE GOES AWAY IN 112 DAYS?
>> THE INITIAL CONTRACT FOR THE INITIAL TRANSFER SAY PAY US THE MONEY.
IT PROVIDES, PAY US THE MONEY, KEEP 112 DAYS AND 120 DAYS RESERVES.
>> AND THEN AFTER THAT, THIS ORDINANCE DOES NOT APPLY?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GETTING TO.
>> THE ORDINANCE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, APPLIES AND THIS WILL BE FORMALIZED IN THE HOT CONTRACT THAT WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO US IN MARCH OF 23.
>> COUNCIL RIC IF I MAY, ANY LEGAL REQUIREMENTS LIKE THIS, THAT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY MENTION AN END DATE, WE TREAT AS IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO THE TIME OF AUDIT AND PERHAPS EVEN PAST THAT INTO THE NEXT YEAR IF THERE'S INFORMATION BROUGHT FORTH.
>> I WOULD THINK SO TOO. BUT THAT'S NOT.
THERE'S 112 POTENTIALS ON FIRST TIME.
ONCE THAT IS DONE, THEN IT BECOMES AN ANNUAL CONTRACT THING BASED ON THEIR BUDGET.
THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A CALCULATION OF BRYSON MIKE WORK THROUGH.
>> COULD THIS ORDINANCE GO AWAY AFTER THAT CONTRACT IS IN PLACE?
>> NO. BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER THINGS IN THE ORDINANCE AND THIS IS JUST ONE SECTION.
[OVERLAPPING] INITIAL TRANSFER OF FUNDS, BUT AFTER THAT AND IT GOVERNS THE OVERALL OPERATION OF THE FUND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT HE'S SAYING WE'RE ONLY REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST 120. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOUR QUESTION SPECIFIC TO ME HAVING A FINAL AUTHORITY OVER THAT DOES INVOLVE THE FIRST TRANSFER THE MONEY.
BUT BEYOND THAT, THE OPERATIONS OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM REVOLVED AROUND THE ORDINANCE.
>> CORRECT. IF THERE'S CHANGES TO THAT BUDGET, IT COMES TO COUNSEL.
>> I AM HEARING DIFFERENT THINGS HERE BECAUSE I'M HEARING THAT THIS DEALS WITH THE FIRST TRANSFER THE MONEY.
>> SECTION 3, WOULD BE THAT AS WELL, RIGHT?
>> THE DELIVERY OF OP-AMPS IN THE PARK BOARD SHALL EXTEND TO ALL HOT BUTTONS APPROACH, WHICH IS IN THE 240 DAYS.
>> SECTION 3, I GUESS THIS IS A CLARIFICATION.
PROVISIONAL APPROVALS DO NOT INCLUDE THE USE OF HOT BUTTONS FOR ANY CAPITAL PROJECTS OR IMPROVEMENTS.
SUCH APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED FROM CITY COUNCIL BY A SEPARATE APPLICATION.
>> IF THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED COMING UP AT 3B.
>> SECTION FIVE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE INITIAL TRANSFER.
IT SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO TRANSFER 120 DAYS OF RESERVES AND 112 DAYS OF MAINTENANCE, IN OPERATION FUNDS.
THEY ARE GOING TO TRANSFER, EVERYTHING EXCEPT THOSE TWO AMOUNTS.
IF THERE'S A DISPUTE OVER WHAT 120 DAYS AND 112 DAYS EQUALS, THAT'S THE CALCULATION THAT'S FINAL DETERMINATION IS GOING TO BE MADE BY THE CITY MANAGER.
I WOULD EXPECT THAT BRICE AND MR. WALFTON TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THAT AMOUNT IF IT'S MERELY MATTERS.
>> THAT'S DISCUSSED IN BOTH ORDINANCES.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF ME BECAUSE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK THERE IS A REFERENCE TO IT.
>> SECTION 5 OF THE OTHER ONE, IT SAYS THE SAME THING ABOUT DISPUTES BEING RESOLVED BY THE CITY MANAGER,
[00:55:01]
AND THAT DETERMINATION WILL BE A FINAL.>> NO. DISCRETION BUDGET IS YOUR ISSUE.
IF IT ALTERS THE BUDGET, THAT IS YOUR ISSUE.
[OVERLAPPING] DISCRETION AMONGST EXPENDITURES WITHIN THE BUDGET.
>> COULD WE JUST SAID THAT LINE AFTER TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IF IT INVOLVES A BUDGET AMENDMENT, IT WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
IT'S THE PROCESS, BUT IT'S WRITTEN.
IT'S WHAT WE ALL STATED [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHY NOT JUST PUT IT IN FOR CLARITY?
>> JOHN, DO YOU MIND IF I ASK A QUESTION?
>> THIS STARTS THAT WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS IS, IT STARTS APRIL OF 23. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE ACTUAL TRANSFER OF MONEY HAPPENS [NOISE] WHEN I GET 14 DAYS TO GET SOME MONEY.
FIRST LET'S TRANSFER 14 DAYS FROM NOW.
>> THEN CONGRUENT AND A FORMALIZED CONTRACT THAT WILL BE ENFORCED BEGINNING APRIL 1, 2023 THAT WILL END SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2023.
>> WHAT SECTION ARE YOU READING DONALD?
>> [NOISE] RIGHT. WE WOULD HAVE A CONTRACT THAT WOULD START APRIL 23 RUN THROUGH SEPTEMBER 23.
>> BRINGS YOU TO THE END OF THE FISCAL SCHOOL.
>> BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE A WRITTEN CONTRACT FOR THIS EVERY YEAR.
>> THAT HOT CONTRACT, I GUESS THAT WOULD COME BACK TO US FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL.
>> I HAVE CONTEMPLATED IT BEING COMPLETED MARCH 1, 2023, SO COULD BE PUT ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA IN MARCH.
>> FOR THE ONE FOLLOWED FOR THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR WOULD COME WITH THE BUDGET.
>> [NOISE] BECAUSE WAS THE NORMAL BUDGET.
>> [NOISE] I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
ONE I'M GLAD YOU'RE FEELING BETTER.
>> BUT YOU ALL SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE AND THEN WE GET A COPY OF SOMETHING THAT'S QUITE DIFFERENT AND WE ALL KNOW EXTERNAL AUDITS THAT'S AN OUTSIDE THERE UNLESS YOU'RE HAVING ISSUES, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF CHANGES.
WHY IS THIS SO DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US?
>> BECAUSE I WAS ISOLATING ONLY HOT.
[NOISE] WE'D BE TAKING A LOOK AT THESE FUNDS HERE LIKE BEACH CLEANING, THEY GET FUNDED THROUGH MULTIPLE SOURCES, PRIMARILY HOT, BUT THEY GET GRANT FUNDING, THEY GET FEMALE REIMBURSEMENTS, THEY GET OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE.
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT HAS ADVERTISING REVENUE.
THIS TROLLEY AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S HOW THEY GENERATE SOURCES OUTSIDE UPON.
THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE IN ORIGINALLY AND EXHIBITATED I INCLUDED THOSE OTHER AMOUNTS, SO I JUST ISOLATED HOT.
>> JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY SINCE WE DID DEFER THIS FOR 60 DAYS, WHY IS IT JUST COMING IN TODAY?
>> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.
I HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS TODAY.
YESTERDAY WAS THE FIRST DAY ACTUALLY GOT THE DOCUMENT OVER TO THEM BECAUSE SOMETHING I WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE GOTTEN OVER A LOT EARLIER, BUT IT'S THE PARK BOARD'S POSITION THAT WE THINK THAT THIS CAN BE RESOLVED [NOISE] IN OUR LOCAL, SO THAT'S WHAT WAS PROPOSED.
AFTER TALKING ABOUT IT YESTERDAY, I RECOMMENDED AND IT WAS AGREED THAT NOW WE GOT TO RESPOND TO THIS PARTICULAR EXHIBIT A, SO THAT'S WHY I DID IT YESTERDAY.
>> BUT IF YOU HAD HAD YOUR CHOICE, YOU WOULD HAVE RESPONDED [NOISE] EARLIER.
>> DIFFICULT FOR ME TO ANSWER.
I SERVE AT THE PLEASURE AND THE WILL OF THE BOARD.
>> BRYSON HAS BEEN OUT FOR A LITTLE WHILE TODAY.
>> I DID HAVE A FAMILY EMERGENCY THAT I ATTEND TO FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
>> COUNCIL, LET'S WE'VE HAD THE ITEM 10.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER [NOISE] QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION NOW ON THIS? YES, MIKE.
>> [NOISE] GO BACK TO SECTION 6.
[NOISE] THROUGHOUT THIS ORDINANCE IT REFERS BACK TO A CONTRACT.
[01:00:03]
WE'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH A ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS CONTRACT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.THOSE ARE SEEN PREMATURE TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE THAT REFERS TO A CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE NO IDEA?
>> WHAT IS BEING DONE HERE IS GIVING STAFF AS THEY DEVELOP THIS CONTRACT, GIVING THEM GUIDANCE ON THE WISHES.
>> I COULD EXPLAIN THIS A LITTLE.
>> I LIKE TO SPEAK IN QUOTES IN MOVIES AND STUFF LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT'S FUN.
I LOOK AT THIS LIKE A FOOTBALL GAME.
UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT THE RULES OF THE GAME ARE, MIKE AND I WILL HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME CRAFTING THE PLAYBOOK.
>> HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO MENTION AND YOU GUYS DID SEE THAT IN YOUR E-MAIL FROM THE CHAIR THE OTHER DAY THAT WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE DRAFTED AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR LOCAL THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THESE ISSUES.
>> ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION ON TENNESSEE?
>> YEAH. DOES [NOISE] THE CITY SHARE WITH THE PARK BOARD IF THEY'RE GOING TO USE ANY OF THE HOCK LIKE THE FUNDS DON'T DIMINISH?
WE [OVERLAPPING] CAN'T EXTEND IT WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL.
>> WHAT I WOULD EXPECT IS TO PRESENT A PROPOSED BUDGET TO COUNCIL THAT INCLUDES WHAT THE PARK BOARD GIVES US, THAT IF THERE'S EXCESS REVENUE THAT COMES IN, IT WOULD NOT BE ADDED AUTOMATICALLY TO THE PARK BOARD BUDGET, IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL.
>> I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE DO THAT WITH OUR OWN FUNDS AND THAT'S WHY IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US.
>> IF THE PARK BOARD IS WANTING THAT MONEY, THAT MONEY IS AVAILABLE.
THEY JUST HAVE TO AMEND THEIR BUDGET TO COME BACK.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY TRULY, I THINK WE'RE BLESSED TO HAVE TWO GREAT CFO MINDS THAT ARE DEALING WITH THIS TOGETHER, AND I'M SURE THEY CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITIZENS AND THE PEOPLE OF GALVESTON.
>> LET THE RECORD REFLECT THEY ARE GREAT CFO MINDS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BRILLIANT CFO.
>> WE BOOKED [NOISE] SALES TAX, WE GIVE IT OUR BEST SHOT, WE ADOPT OUR BUDGET.
WE'VE BEEN BLESSED LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IT CAME IN HIGHER.
SOME YEARS IT DIDN'T COME IN HIGHER, SOME YEARS IT COMES IN LOWER.
BUT WHEN IT DOES COME IN HIGHER, WE CAN'T JUST AUTOMATICALLY SPEND THAT SALES TAX MONEY.
IT HAS TO COME TO YOU GUYS FOR THAT APPROPRIATION.
IT'S VERY MUCH THE SAME WAY WITH ANY CONSUMPTIVE TYPE TAX LIKE HOT OR SALES TAX.
>> THAT'S NOW WHAT I WAS GETTING TO.
I WAS GETTING TO WE HAVE A SILO HERE WITH HOT IN IT.
THEY PRODUCE A BUDGET THAT USES 90% OF IT.
YOU HAVE A BUDGET THAT YOU WANT TO USE 30% OF IT, THEN THERE'S MISSING.
>> IN COUNCIL THAT'S WHY AND WE WON'T SPEND ANY OF IT UNLESS IT COMES TO YOU AND OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER THEY HAVE ASKED FOR AND FUNDED IS THE PRIORITY.
>> I WANT TO MENTION ALSO THAT EVEN FURTHER THAN THAT, THAT THE FUNDS ARE DELINEATED IN OUR BUDGET SO THAT THE INTENDED USE OF THOSE FUNDS, THEY'RE STILL HONORED.
THEREFORE, WE JUST CAN'T TAKE THOSE FUNDS AS CVP FUNDS.
>> CORRECT. WELL, TO THE POINT THAT MR. WATKINS ESTABLISHED, A NUMBER OF COUNTLESS SILOS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT BEING SAID, THE COUNCIL AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD BE, BUT IF COUNCIL HAD SOME APPROVED CVP'S AND COUNCIL WANTED TO SPEND THAT MONEY YOU ALWAYS HAVE THAT PREROGATIVE HERE.
I JUST DON'T SEE US HAVING THE EXPERTISE NECESSARILY DO THAT, BUT HEY, IT'S YOUR MONEY.
>> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON HERE AND LISTEN [NOISE] TO QUESTIONS ON TENNESSEE. YES.
>> I JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON [NOISE] THIS POINT. CAN YOU HELP ME OUT? WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND HANDLING THE FUNDS WOULD TAKE AWAY THEIR OTHER EARNED FUNDS? I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. JUST HELPED ME OUT.
>> MY POINT IS THAT I WOULD WANT TO SEE [NOISE] SOME LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT SAYS THAT DISCREPANCY.
I MEAN WHAT IT SAYS NOW IS ANY DISPUTE OVER THE CALCULATIONS OF THE MONETARY AMOUNT SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE RESOLVED BY CALCULATIONS BY THE CITY MANAGER AND SHALL BE FINAL.
>> I JUST WANT TO BE REAL CAREFUL HERE THAT BY FIXING THINGS AND COMING IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW, WE DON'T VIOLATE OUR CHARTER BY TRYING TO OVERCOME ISSUES THAT WE MADE PROCEED WITH THE PARK BOARD ITSELF.
[01:05:05]
OUR CHARTER IS VERY SPECIFIC ON BUDGET OPERATIONS AND WHO HAS WHAT AUTHORITY AND I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANCE IS IN LINE WITH THAT.>> BUT I THINK THAT IN ONE SECTOR [OVERLAPPING] CLARIFY ANY CONCERN.
>> WITH THAT ANSWER WHAT YOU [NOISE] WERE TRYING TO GET AT BY ADDING THAT STATEMENT? IS THAT?
>> THE POINT MR. FRAZIER HAS SUBMITTED TODAY IS TRULY RELIABLE, BUT IT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE OFTEN CAN WORK [OVERLAPPING] [NOISE]
>> I DON'T PLAN ON SPENDING A LOT OF TIME MITIGATING THIS.
I'M LOOKING AT BRYSON AND MIKE TO FIGURE THIS OUT.
>> I THINK THAT'S THE CASE, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT THINK OTHERWISE.
AS COUNSEL, WE NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED.
>> [NOISE] OUR BUDGET PROCESS IS EXTREMELY TRANSPARENT.
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS AFTERNOON WHEN THIS ITEM COMES UP, IF YOU ADD ITEM, IF YOU'VE MADE CHANGES TO THAT, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SUGGESTED, THAT YOU MAKE SURE YOU HIGHLIGHT THOSE TO COUNCIL WHAT THOSE ARE ON THE CHANGES THEN THE ORIGINAL IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S IN THE AGENDA [OVERLAPPING]
>> ON THIS CHUNK HERE AND USE IT AS A POST-BUDGET AMENDMENT BY THE PARK BOARD TO HOT THAT IT HAD COME TO COUNCIL.
>> WELL, I THINK I DIDN'T USE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE WOULD BE THERE SHALL BE NO AMENDMENTS TO BUDGETS WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL.
>> [NOISE] YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> SECONDLY, WITH PAUL AND JOHN, IF YOU HAVE WORDING TODAY THIS AFTERNOON THAT YOU FEEL WOULD CLARIFY THIS MORE TO MEET YOUR NEEDS FEEL FREE TO BRING THAT TO COUNCIL AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.
>> I'VE GOT ONE OTHER QUESTION HERE.
[NOISE] THIS ORDINARY SECTION 12 SAYS IT BASICALLY GOES INTO EFFECT UPON ADOPTION, SO IMMEDIATELY.
>> HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION HERE.
IF WE WANTED TO, WE COULD HAVE THIS ORDINANCE GO INTO EFFECT ANYTIME OR AN ORDINANCE GOING TO EFFECT ANYTIME.
IF IF PEOPLE FELT THAT THEY WANTED TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH SOMETHING, THEY COULD CRAFT THAT ORDINANCE THAT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT UPON AN EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT.
>> I'M NOT SURE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BASICALLY JOHN, THIS ORDINANCE WOULD GO INTO EFFECT UNLESS THERE WAS A CONTRACT AVAILABLE?
>> OR WHEN A CONTRACT IS PLACED.
>> SO THE ORDINANCE IS ON HOLD UNTIL THE CONTRACT IS PLACED?
>> NO. THE ORDINANCE IS IN PLACE.
>> I WANT MY QUESTION ANSWERED.
>> MY QUESTION IS, CAN YOU PLACE TIME LIMITS OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS, OR REQUIREMENTS ON ORDINANCES?
>> THERE'S A TIME LIMIT IN HERE THAT SAYS WE'LL HAVE A CONTRACT BY JUNE AND EARLY MARCH.
>> THERE IS, BUT THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO AT THE TIME THAT THIS ORDINANCE GOES TO EFFECT.
WHAT IF YOU DON'T DOES THAT MEAN THE ORDINATES IS NOT EFFECTIVE? NO.
>> IF YOU NOT DIRECT THEM TO DELIVER THE FUNDS TO THE CITY OR CONTINUE NOT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH A TITLE AS EACH STATUTE.
WE'VE PUT AN EFFECTIVE DATE ON EVERY SINGLE ORDINANCE.
I'M ASKING ABOUT LANGUAGE THAT COULD GO IN TO AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF AN ORDINANCE.
>> WHEN DO YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE EFFECTIVE?
>> CAN YOU CRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT GOES INTO EFFECT BASED ON EXECUTION OF CONTRACT?
>> THAT'S NECESSARILY RIGHT TO IT.
>> I THINK THAT THE WHOLE REASON FOR THIS ORDINANCE IS MAKE SURE THE MISTAKES DON'T HAPPEN LIKE WE'VE EXPERIENCED OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR HOWEVER LONG IT WAS.
THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO MAKE IT CLEAR, DEFINE PLAYBOOK AS BRUCE HAS PUT IT SO THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS.
SO THE ORDINANCE GOING IN EFFECT TODAY IS SOMETHING THAT WILL PROTECT THE PLAYBOOK FOR FUTURE GAME, [NOISE] WHATEVER YOU WANT AND CALL IT.
>> BUT THE CITY ALSO IN THAT ORDINANCE MUST COME UP WITH THE CONTRACT WITH THE PART FOR IT.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT PASSAGE OF AN ORDINANCE IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT.
[01:10:06]
IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT DEPENDENT ON THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH A SECOND PARTY, THAT IS PROBABLY AN UNLAWFUL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY SINCE YOU'RE BASICALLY GIVING THE OTHER CONTRACT PARTY A VETO OVER YOUR PASSAGE OF AN ORDINANCE.>> SO YOU COULD ALSO PUT END DATE ON ORDINANCE TOO, CORRECT?
>> WELL, EFFECTIVELY, THIS HAS AN END DATE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONTRACT THAT DUE ON MARCH 1ST.
>> WITH THAT SAID, THE WAY I TOOK THAT WAS IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT TO US BACK ON MARCH 1ST, THIS IS NULL AND VOID?
>> YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.
>> THIS ORDINANCE IS IN PLACE UNTIL SAID CONTRACT IS IN PLACE.
>> WHAT'S THE CONTRACTS IN PLACE?
>> THIS ORDINANCE CONTEMPLATES A CONTRACT BEING WRITTEN BETWEEN REASONABLE MINDS RESOLVING THE ISSUE AND BEING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS. GO AHEAD.
>> I'LL WAIT TILL YOU'RE FINISHED.
BASICALLY WHEREVER THE CONTRACT HAS TO COMPLY WITH THIS ORDINANCE. CORRECT?
>> IF THEY WANT MONEY AFTER VOYAGE FIRST, THEY'LL HAVE TO BE IN CONTRACT.
>> BUT IT'S GOT TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE.
YOU CANNOT WRITE A CONTRACT THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE [OVERLAPPING]
>> CONTRACT THAT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE TAX CODE.
>> WHICH WOULD BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE?
>> YOU CANNOT WRITE A CONTRACT THAT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE ORDINANCE.
WE DON'T PASS ORDINANCES AND THEN WRITE CONTRACTS THAT SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE ORDINANCE.
>> I COULDN'T WRITE A CONTRACT TO SAY SOMETHING IN ORDINANCE, THIS ORDINANCE HAS STILL SOMETHING TO DELIVER THE MONEY.
>> ARE YOU SURE YOU'RE NOT CONFUSING THE TWO STEPS HERE? THE FIRST STEP IS DELIVER THE MONEY, SECOND IS RUN A CONTRACT.
>> MOURINE WAS SAYING THIS IS IN PLACE, SO IN THE FUTURE THIS WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT THE CONTRACT ALSO STATES THAT TOO.
[OVERLAPPING] IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD JUST GO AND WRITE A CONTRACT.
>> BASED ON DIRECTION OF COUNCIL.
>> I UNDERSTAND THIS IS ONE WAY TO GET DIRECTLY TO SNAP FROM COUNCIL, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT AS WELL.
>> EXACTLY HOW WE DO IT WITH OUR BUDGET IT'S THROUGH THE BUDGET ORDINANCE.
>> COUNCIL WE'RE GETTING OFF INTO DISCUSSION NOT CLARIFICATION.
SO LET'S GET FURTHER CLARIFICATION.
>> WELL, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED.
>> ASK IT AGAIN AND I'LL ANSWER IT AGAIN.
>> YOU COULD HAVE A EXPIRATION DATE ON AN ORDINANCE?
>> YOU GET RESTRICTIVE ORDINANCE BASED ON FUTURE ITEMS ISSUE CONTRACTS?
>> DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JOHN?
>> ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE MOVE ON [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> ARE THERE OTHER DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CITY THAT THE CITY TAKES THE MONEY OUT OF THE DEPOSITORY AND PUTS IT IN ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT?
>> ALL CITY FUNDS ARE HELD IN THE CITY DEPOSITORY.
>> SO THEN WE'RE TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE CITY DEPOSITORY TO PUT IN ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH IS NOT THE CITY IF POSSIBLE?
>> WE DO THAT AND WE'VE VENDORS EVERY DAY AND THAT WE ARE CONTRACTING WITH THE PARK BOARD PERFORM CERTAIN SERVICES AND WE ARE PAYING THEM TO DO SO THROUGH AN APPROVED BUDGET.
>> THIS WOULD BE LIKE PAYING A PO OR SOMETHING LIKE THOSE LINES?
>> COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON TNC?
>> JUST ONE MORE POINT ON TNC IF I COULD USE THE CLARIFICATION.
I'M LOOKING AT ONE OF THE WHEREAS SECTIONS.
THIS IS THE WHEREAS THE PARK HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE USAGE DEPOT.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION LAST TIME YOU WOULD STRIKE THAT.
>> I THOUGHT THEY TOOK THE SECOND PLACE.
[01:15:02]
>> IT'S ON THE SECOND PAGE OR AT LEAST ON MINE.
>> WHERE IS PROCESS BRINGING UP WHERE'S THE PARK BOARD HAS NOT SUBMITTED THEIR PROPOSED BUDGET FROM THE USE OF FUND FOR THE REVIEW OF CITY COUNCIL BUT IS INSTEAD INCLUDED THEM IN THE ENTIRE BUDGET PARK BOARD, MAKING IT DIFFICULT TO DISCERN BUDGET USES OF THE HOT FUNDS.
>> THE REQUEST AT THE TIME WAS FOR THE FULL BUDGET, WHICH IS WHAT I GAVE HIM, AND THERE'S THE EXPENSE OF THE HOT THAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT BUDGET AND THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT HOW THAT'LL BE USED.
THEN OF COURSE, THERE'S THIS DOCUMENT HERE.
I GRANTED IT WAS DELIVERED YESTERDAY, AND WE HAD TALKED LAST TIME THAT THAT MIGHT BE STRICKEN FROM HERE.
>> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT IT LAST TIME ALSO.
PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT IT'S STRICKEN FROM THE ORDINANCE.
COUNCIL ANY THOUGHTS ON THERE?
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T SEE THE PURPOSE TO THAT. WHAT'S THE PURPOSE?
>> WELL THE PURPOSE DIDN'T PLAY ANYTHING.
WE HAD TO EXTRAPOLATE THE NUMBERS [NOISE] TO COME UP WITH EXHIBIT A, AND NOW TODAY WE'RE TOLD THE EXHIBIT A IS INCORRECT.
BUT I AGREE WE CAN TAKE IT OUT.
>> MAYBE YOU DIDN'T DO WELL ON AN ENGLISH TEST AND THEN TEACHER WRITES.
[LAUGHTER] I THINK IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
>> I THINK IT'D BE GOOD TO STRIKE THAT. [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF YOU CAN OUTLINE THAT IN THE COUNCIL SO THAT IF WE WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT, WE COULD.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 10C? WE'RE MOVING TO 10D, CITY DEPOSITORY ORDINANCE.
ANY CLARIFICATION ON THAT COUNCIL THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? [INAUDIBLE] PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, 10D.
IT STARTS 14 DAYS AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, IF IT'S APPROVED.
THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE FOR CLARIFICATION IN SECTION 8 OF 10D.
>> 10D IS THE BUDGET ORDINANCE?
>> 10D IS THE DEPOSITORY. YEAH.
>> WHICH DOCUMENT IN THE ORDINANCE?
>> IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THAT.
>> IN SECTION 7, DISTRIBUTION OF HOT FUNDS TO PARKS BOARD SHALL BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SEPARATE COORDINATES TO BE PASSED BY CITY COUNCIL.
IS THAT THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OR WHAT ORDINANCE IS THAT?
>> WHAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.
>> WHEN DO YOU ACTUALLY NUMBER THESE ORDINANCES?
>> SO CAN YOU PUT IN THERE THE ORDINANCE NUMBER?
>> IF WE COULD JUST PUT IT IN THERE, A SPACE FOR THE NUMBER [OVERLAPPING].
>> SOMEHOW TO EASE THAT ORDER TODAY OR.
>> BACK TO MY QUESTION THEN WE HAVE MARIE HAS A QUESTION, BUT IN SECTION 8, THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE TRANSFER THE HOT ORDINANCE.
I'M PROPOSING THAT WE PUT IN SECTION 8 THAT WILL BE HELD IN ANY RESERVE HOT FUNDS RETURNED TO THE CITY WILL BE HELD IN THE CITY ACCOUNT AND BE USED ONLY FOR ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH THE FUNDS WERE ATTEMPTED. THAT'S WHAT THAT SAYS.
[01:20:01]
>> ONLY USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY CHARTERS.
>> IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT TO ME.
AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG COUNCIL, I THINK ALL OF US WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE MONIES ARE DELINEATED IN THE CITY ACCOUNTS AND ARE USED FOR THEIR INTENDED PURPOSE.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE INTENDED PURPOSES ARE?
>> CBB MONEY SAY FOR MARKETING AND PROMOTION.
>> THERE'S A SECTION OF THE CHARTER THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT MONEY NOT COMMITTED AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, IS RETAINED IN THE FUND WHERE IT STARTED.
PRETTY OFTEN LOOK AT REALLOCATE FOR WHAT HERE.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THOUGH, MIKE, THAT MEANS THAT THOSE FUNDS, IF WE HAVE ACCESS MONIES IN THE CBB FUND, THAT THEY'RE ONLY TO BE USED FOR MARKETING AND PROMOTION.
>> WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, MAYOR, WITH EVERY DEPOSIT THAT COMES TO US, IT'S GOING TO GET SPLIT UP IN ALL THESE BUCKETS AS REVENUE.
>> AND MONEY CAN'T BE SPENT IN THAT BUCKET WITHOUT YOUR AUTHORIZATION.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT'S BASED ON THE BUDGET THAT YOU PASS.
AND IF THERE'S MORE MONEY COLLECTED, THEN IS AUTHORIZED THROUGH THE BUDGET, IT STAYS IN THAT FUND.
>> CORRECT AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS FIVE YEARS FROM NOW OR TEN YEARS FROM NOW THEY GO BACK TO THIS ORDINANCE AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE WAY IT'S SET UP NOW THAT IF THOSE ARE EXCESS CBB MONIES THAT IF COUNSEL SAYS I WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH THOSE MONIES, IT IS MENTIONED TO COUNSEL THAT THEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR MARKETING AND PROMOTION.
>> IT'S A LAW, IT'S A STATE LAW. [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT SAY LAW TO BUT WE SOMEHOW GOT OUT OF WHACK WITH THAT.
SO THE MORE LANGUAGE YOU PUT IN HERE TO CLARIFY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT TO ME SAYS THAT YOU DON'T TRUST THE CITY BANK. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT LANGUAGE WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE COMFORT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?
>> THAT SECTION 8 WILL BE HELD IN THE CITY ACCOUNT, AND BE USED ONLY FOR ACTIVITIES [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE WILL ADD THOSE WORDS IN.
>> BECAUSE WHAT THE FUNDS ARE INTENDED FOR IS SPELLED OUT IN THE STATE LAW.
>> WELL, IT'S A SIMILAR THING THAT WE DID WITH THE LAST ORDINANCE.
IT WAS COVERED, BUT WE PUT IT IN THERE TO MAKE SURE IT WAS DELINEATED.
>> IF EVERYBODY FOLLOWED STATE LAW WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TALKING ABOUT THE FLORIDA TODAY, RIGHT?
>> ALRIGHT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR CLARIFICATION ON ITEM 10D? YES, MIKE.
>> ARE WE GOING OVER THE ELECTION HOT TAX? THIS IS A NOTE THAT THE CITY HAD WRITTEN ABOUT THE RECEIPT AND A COLLECTION OF PARK BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THIS AND THE CITY IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS.
ARE WE GOING OVER THAT DOCUMENT? IT'S THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY, TAX COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION.
>> IF YOU WANT TO GO OVER THAT DOCUMENT FOR CLARIFICATION, MIKE, WE SURE YOU CAN.
IT'S NOT A DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS.
>> SO NUMBER FOUR, MAINTAIN THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, ACCOUNTING FUNCTIONS, PROCEDURES, AND RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO THE COLLECTION OF HOT TAX PAYMENTS FOR THE HOTEL OPERATORS AND SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNERS AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> PARDON ME WHAT ARE YOU READING?
>> I'M SORRY. NUMBER 4 ON THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX COLLECTION DISTRIBUTION.
>> IT'S PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, COUNSELOR.
>> ALRIGHT. YOU BACK TO TENNESSEE NOW MIKE?
>> WHAT TYPE OF DIRECTION IS THE CITY OF GALVESTON, REFERRING TO, WHAT DIRECTION WOULD THEY BE GIVING TO THE PARK BOARD?
>> IT'D BE WHAT GOES IN THE CONTRACT, COUNSELOR.
>> SO ANYTIME IT SAYS DIRECTED BY CITY OF GALVESTON THEN THAT WOULD BE AS WHAT'S IN THE CONTRACT.
>> I AUTHORED THAT DOCUMENT AND IT WAS A QUICK LOOK AT THE MAJOR FUNCTIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED.
FRANKLY, I'D START THERE WITH ANY CONTRACT THAT WE DERIVE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE DIRECTION WAS.
SO NOW THE DIRECTION IS ACTUALLY IN THE CONTRACT.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON 10D FOR CLARIFICATION?
[01:25:05]
LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM THEN.>> [BACKGROUND] 12B IS AN OATH.
THIS IS THE SIMPLE PART AGENDA.
>> IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE PARK BOARD MY COLLEAGUE, CHERYL, WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT MUCH THAN WHAT I WAS GOING TO.
>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD. [OVERLAPPING]
>> ITEM 12B, COUNCIL, IS DISCUSSING CONSIDERABLE APPROVAL OF THE CIVIL PARK CONCEPT FOR THE PART BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPING MORE SPECIFIC PLANS.
>> YEAH. I THINK THERE ARE SEVERAL.
>> VINCE, COULD YOU COME UP AND CHERYL WILL HAVE THEM AVAILABLE TO POSSIBLY ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THAT.
>> WELL, [OVERLAPPING] THE TERMS ARE FIRST OF ALL, ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH PART BOARD MANAGING THE CIVIL PARK FOR US OR ARE WE GOING TO TAKE THAT BACK INTO THE CITY PARKS DEPARTMENT? BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF REVENUE IN THAT PARK THAT I THINK SUSAN, I THINK THE ADVANTAGE OF $500,000 SHORT IN OUR BUDGET AND LOOKING FOR PLACES AND I KNOW THIS ONE REPLACES THE STAFFING, THAT MONEY BEING MAYBE RESIDE.
[NOISE] SECOND, THE NOTION THAT THEY SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPING AN RV PARK OUT THERE IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE I THINK AS MR. WATSON CAN TELL YOU THERE MAY BE SOME LEGAL ISSUES AROUND THAT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW DEEP YOU WANT TO GET INTO THAT RIGHT THIS SECOND.
>> WE CAN ONLY OBSERVE THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A RATTLING OF SORTS.
>> BECAUSE THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY A CONTRACT FOR AN RV PARKED OUT THERE.
PARK BOARD ASSERTS THAT CONTRACTOR IS NO LONGER VALID.
I'M NOT SURE IF THE VENDOR THAT WAS INITIALLY SELECTED THINKS THAT'S NO LONGER VALID.
SO THERE'S THAT AND I'M YET TO SEE THE CITY STEP INTO THAT BEFORE THAT IS FULLY RESOLVED LEGALLY.
THIRD, THE CONCEPT PICTURE THAT WAS PUT ON THE WALL, I DIDN'T SAY THIS AT THE TIME, BUT THERE ISN'T ANYTHING NEW IN THERE THAT WASN'T DEVELOPED OR ADDED BY THE KABBALAH HISTORICAL FOUNDATION.
THAT PICTURE IS MORE THAN THREE YEARS OLD.
THAT PLAN WAS DONE BY STUDENTS FROM ST. MARY'S UNIVERSITY WELL OVER THREE YEARS AGO BECAUSE IT ALREADY EXISTED WHEN I GOT TO THE PARK BOARD IN 2019.
IT DOESN'T CONTEMPLATE ANYTHING NEW.
WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'LL BE FUNDED.
THE ONLY THING THERE IS I CAN SAY, YEAH, THAT LOOKS GOOD, AND SAY YOU GUYS GO DEVELOP THAT.
I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT'S WHERE WE WANT THAT PARK TO GO.
EVEN IF IT IS, WE ONLY SAW A PIECE OF THAT.
IT ALL SEEMED TO BE ABOUT THE RV PARK.
THE RV PARK IN THE KABBALAH HISTORICAL FOUNDATION, WHICH PARK BOARD SEEMS TO COMMANDEER AS THEIR OWN, WHICH I DON'T SEE THE PARK BOARD BUILDING AND RUNNING AN HIGGINS BOAT OUT THERE.
THAT WAS CHF'S IDEA, TO BEGIN WITH.
I JUST THINK IT'S PREMATURE FOR US TO SAY SURE, THAT LOOKS GOOD, GO FORWARD.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE LEGAL ISSUES AND WE HAVEN'T DECIDED WHETHER THAT'S A SOURCE OF CONTINUED FUNDING FOR THE CITY, NOT FOR THE PARK.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT, DAVID, BUT WE ARE OFF INTO DISCUSSION NOW THAT I DON'T RATHER THAN CLARIFICATION OF THIS.
>> THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION.
>> DON HAS ALREADY TOLD US THAT WE WERE NOT POSTING THESE INDIVIDUALLY TO GET INTO DISCUSSION.
I THINK GETTING INTO CLARIFICATION, WE COULD DO THAT.
>> I HAVE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
>> THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR THE ABSOLUTE GO-AHEAD TO DEVELOP AN RV PARK RIGHT NOW, WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IS EXPLORE SOME MORE.
THIS NEW LAW THING CAME UP AND SO THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE EXPLORATIONS TO SEE THE NEW RATTLING OF THE SOURCE OR THE SABERS.
THAT WAS ONLY A DAY OR TWO AGO THAT WE'VE RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION FROM DON.
ANYWAYS, THEY'RE LOOKING TO EXPLORE WHETHER THIS IS, A, WHETHER WE CAN DO IT BECAUSE OF THE LEGAL MATTERS, OR B, WHAT IS THE MOST WAY TO MAKE THE MOST REVENUE.
[01:30:02]
IS THAT PRIVATE OR IS THAT PUBLIC? THEY'RE WANTING TO GO AHEAD AND RESEARCH THAT TO SEE IF IT'S A VIABLE THING.>> I KNOW, THAT WAS VINCE'S POINT HERE AS WELL.
>> SO THIS IS 3B, RIGHT? WE ARE DISCUSSING 3B?
>> 12B. BUT THIS IS PART OF THEIR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION [OVERLAPPING] BIG CHUNK OF THAT TO BE CONSIDERED HERE AS WELL. THE ONE POINT TO ME.
>> THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER TOPIC WE'RE GOING TO COME TO IN JUST A SECOND.
>> WELL, IT COULD BE A CLARIFICATION ON THAT, SO BUT CIVIL PARK, BENCH, REAL QUICKLY, WHAT IS THE TIMELINE AND IF THIS, COUNCIL, IF WE APPROVE MOVING FORWARD WITH SUPPORTING THE CONCEPT AND GETTING MORE INFORMATION FROM THE PARK BOARD, WALK US THROUGH IT QUICKLY WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. FOR THOSE OF YOU ON COUNCIL THAT DON'T KNOW WHO I AM, I'M [INAUDIBLE] THE GENERAL MANAGER OF PARKS FOR THE PARK BOARD.
THANK YOU AND IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE WITH YOU TODAY.
YES, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AS PHASE 1.
PHASE 1 IS REALLY TO GET THE INFORMATION OR REQUESTS OUT THERE TO THE PUBLIC TO SAY HERE IS OUR INTERESTS.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO BUILD AN RV PARK AGAIN? THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY A CONTRACT BACK IN 2012 THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO EXPLORE.
THAT BEING SAID, THE PARK BOARD FEELS VERY STRONGLY THAT THAT MATTER HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND THAT IS A LEGAL MATTER BETWEEN THE PARK BOARD AND THAT PRIVATE DEVELOPER.
ONE OF THE BEAUTIES OF THE PARK BOARD AND THE CITY IS THAT THAT IS A LEGAL MATTER THAT WOULD BE A CITY OR, I'M SORRY, PARK BOARD CONCERN, AND SOMETHING THE PARK BOARD WOULD HAVE TO HANDLE WITH THAT DEVELOPER.
AS FAR AS THE TIMING AND THE PHASING OF THIS PROJECT, WHAT WE ANTICIPATED AND NON-APPROVAL FROM THE COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD IS THAT IN JANUARY WE WOULD ISSUE THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION.
THAT IS THE PROCESS THAT WE WORKED WITH CITY STAFF TO HELP TO FIND AND PUT INTO A STANDARD FORMAT.
WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT WORK WITH THE CITY STAFF IN COLLABORATION.
WE WOULD PUT THAT OUT ON THE STREET.
THAT PROCESS WOULD GET US THROUGH ABOUT MARCH.
AT THAT TIME, STAFF AND THE TASK FORCE, THE SEA WOLF DEVELOPMENT PARKS TASK FORCE, WILL BRING BACK TO COUNCIL THE FINDINGS OF THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION AS WELL AS THE FIRST RENDITION OF THAT SITE PLAN.
THERE ARE SEVERAL MASTER PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS TO RECALL HIS POINT AND TRYING TO SOLIDIFY AND COME BACK WITH THAT CONSOLIDATED VISION.
THAT'S WHAT THAT TASK FORCE HAS BEEN CHARGED WITH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.
>> WHAT QUESTIONS DO YOU ANTICIPATE THIS RFA ANSWERING?
>> IT'S REALLY TO SEE IF THERE'S A NEW INTEREST.
>> I ALSO THINK, WE'RE LOOKING OUT THERE TO SEE HOW VIABLE IT IS.
>> WELL, YEAH BUT I WOULD ASK THAT YOU LOOK AT A SECOND POSSIBILITY OUT THERE BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT EXTENDING THE FISHING PIER AND DEVELOPING THE T-HEAD AND SO FORTH ON THE PIER AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A BIG MONEYMAKER.
IT'S A VERY POPULAR FISHING SPOT, MAYBE MOST POPULAR FISHING SPOT IN GALVESTON.
>> THAT'S SO POPULAR. WHAT IF WE EXTEND THE PIER AND WE PUT IT ON A BOAT RAMP, MIGHT THAT SPACE NOT BE BETTER USED FOR PARKING BOATS AND PUTTING [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT. VINCE AND I SPOKE ABOUT THIS, AND I ACTUALLY BROUGHT THAT UP.
I THINK IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO GO WITH AN RFI, IS TO DECIDE, IS A 35-SPOT RV PARK FINANCIALLY VIABLE, OR IS THERE A MORE VIABLE USE? IF THEY COME BACK AND SAY, THIS IS MARGINAL OR IT'S NOT, WELL THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT SOME OTHER OPTIONS OVER THERE.
BUT I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU AT ALL.
I CAN SEE AN RV PARK OVER THERE IN MY MIND AND AS A PERSON THAT HAD AN RV, I WOULD LOVE TO STATE OVER THERE.
BUT WE'VE ALSO WHITTLED IT DOWN TO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE FULL HOOKUPS AND ALL THAT STUFF AND NOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT IMPACT AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT VINCE IS ALLUDING TO.
WE DON'T REALLY KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT.
IF WE'RE LIMITING OURSELVES TO PEOPLE IN LUXURY MOTOR COACHES THAT ARE FULLY SELF-SUSTAINABLE I MEAN WE MAY NOT HAVE A MARK IN THERE?
>> FEMA HASN'T DONE US ANY FAVORS OUT THERE AS WELL.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY PRUDENT TO SAY,
[01:35:01]
GO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS PARK IS.>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO THINK.
>> I THINK WE'RE USING PROCESS OF ELIMINATION.
>> AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL RV PARK, WHICH IS THE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION TO SEE IS THERE A DEVELOPER THAT'S INTERESTED IN IT STILL.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE DEVELOPER THAT HAS BEEN QUESTIONED OVER THE LEGAL PIECE, WE AS THE PART WERE TO HAVE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS THAT WE WANT TO ENGAGE THAT INDIVIDUAL, THAT GROUP, BECAUSE WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF THEY HAVE REVISED INTEREST.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN THE LAST FOUR, SIX YEARS.
WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT AND THIS IS THE TOOL THE RFI TO GET THAT OUT THERE.
TO MR. MAXWELL'S POINT, WE'VE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND ACTUALLY ONE OF THE TASKS THAT HAVE BEEN TASKED WITH ME BEFORE JANUARY 10TH, STEELWALL'S PARK DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE IS FOR ME TO DO A COST ANALYSIS AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF A BOAT RAMP AND WE GET THE PARKING.
WE'RE DEFINITELY WANTED TO EXPLORE DIFFERENT PIECES, BUT INSTEAD OF US JUST FRANKLY DOING NOTHING AND KICKING THE CAM, LET'S START EXPLORING THESE PIECES AND GETTING THAT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SO WE CAN DEVELOP THAT FULL PLAN.
THAT AGAIN, I CAN'T STRESS THIS ENOUGH, WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL BECAUSE THIS IS THE COUNCIL DECISION.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. IF COUNCIL APPROVE THIS AFTERNOON, WHEN DO YOU COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND WHAT DO YOU BRING TO US?
>> THE SCHEDULED TODAY WOULD BE THE BEADING IN MARCH, WE WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO COORDINATE WHAT MEETING THAT WOULD BE WE WOULD BRING IT BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ANOTHER PROBABLY WORKSHOP, GIVE THE FINDINGS AND THEN [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS THEIR INTEREST, IS IT VIABLE, IS THERE A BETTER USE, WHO SHOULD OPERATE?
>> ONLY RV PARK OR THE DESIGN OF THE ENTIRE PARK?
>> DESIGN OF THE ENTIRE PARK GIVES THE SITE PLAN AND THEN WE'D ALSO BRING BACK IF RV PARK, LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY, THERE IS TWO PEOPLE WHO SHOW INTEREST TO DEVELOPERS, AS WELL AS HAVING US DO OUR ANALYSIS AND COME BACK OH, WE CAN DO THE BOAT OR THERE'S SOME OTHER MEANS THAT THE TASK FORCE HAS BEEN DEVELOPED, IS REALLY EXPLORED ALL THOSE DIFFERENT VENUES TO SEE WHAT IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE.
I THINK EVERYONE HAS THE COMMON GOAL THAT IS TO MAKE IT.
>> TOWARDS MARCH, WE WILL BRING THOSE FINDINGS BACK IN MARCH.
>> BASICALLY, LET'S JUST SAY THE SCENARIO IS THE RV PARKS ARE BREAK-EVEN PROPOSITION, WELL, THERE MAY BE A HIGHER AND BETTER USE AND THAT'S WHEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?
>> THEN ONE OTHER THING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, REVENUE FROM THE PARK.
PERFECT OPPORTUNITY IN THE CONTRACT TO NEGOTIATE A REVENUE SOURCE THERE.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO USE THE CONTRACT.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM 12?
>> COUNCIL APPROVED 12 B, BUT THEN COME BACK AT 12D AND NOT APPROVE THE INDIVIDUAL ITEMS?
>> CORRECT. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT.
>> 12C IS DISCUSSING CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PARK BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MASTER DEVELOPER FOR STUART BEACH PARK TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO PROGRESS AT THE FEBRUARY 23RD CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
VINCE WALK US THROUGH THIS ISSUE, WHAT YOU DID, WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE, IF THIS IS APPROVED, FIRM LINE AND ALL THAT.
>> ABSOLUTELY. SIMILAR TO THE LAST ITEM, WE DO WANT TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY IN A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS.
THIS IS LOOKING FOR A MASTER DEVELOPER.
THAT MASTER DEVELOPER WOULD ASSIST THE TASK FORCE AND AGAIN, JUST FOR REFERENCE, THE TASK FORCE IS A CITY PARK BOARD WITH PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AS WELL, WILL ASSIST IN THE REVIEW OF THE QUALIFICATIONS.
IN YOUR PACKET AS A NICE, LENGTHY DOCUMENT, THE FRONT SIDE IS ALL PRETTY, ALL THE FACTS, WHAT WE REALLY USE TO GET INTEREST FOR MASTER DEVELOPERS.
IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS PROCESS THAT WE WOULD QUALIFY A FIRM A GROUP, A DEVELOPER WHO HAS THE RESOURCES, WHO HAS THE EXPERTISE, WHO HAS THE BACKGROUND PROVEN EXPERTISE, TO ACTUALLY COME WITH THE TASK FORCE AND MASTER PLAN US TO REPEAT, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS ABOUT WHAT IT SHOULD BE, HOW IT SHOULD LOOK AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, THIS IS PHASE 1.
THIS IS ABOUT A FOUR-PHASE PROCESS.
THIS FIRST PHASE IS TO ENGAGE AND FIND THAT MASTER DEVELOPER, SOMEBODY WHO CAN COME IN IN PHASE 2, WORK WITH THE TASK FORCE, WORK WITH THE CITY, WORK WITH THE PARK BOARD IN DEFINING WHAT THE FUTURE OF THAT PARK SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
>> WHEN WILL YOU COME BACK TO COUNCIL ON THIS?
>> THAT ONE RIGHT NOW IS ALSO SCHEDULED FOR MARCH TIME-FRAME.
[01:40:01]
RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE HAVE IS RESPONSE THAT WILL BE DUE MARCH 6TH, SO DEPENDING ON THE COUNCIL SCHEDULE AND MEETINGS, IT WILL BE IN THE LATER PART OF MARCH OR THE 1ST OF APRIL OF 2023.>> THIS IS TO FIND A MASTER DEVELOPER.
>> JUST THE FINDINGS OF THE RFQ.
FROM THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT PHASE, WHICH IS PHASE 2. I'M SORRY.
>> IF I CAN ASK, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GO ABOUT FINDING THE MESSAGE TO THAT RFQ OUT? BECAUSE YOU KNOW MAY BE A LITTLE BEFORE YOU WERE HERE, WE ONLY WENT AND DID THIS TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO AND IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU ASK.
IF YOU ASK A PARK DEVELOPER, WHAT'S THE BEST USE OF THIS PARK, THEY'LL SAY IT SHOULD BE A PARK.
YOU ASK A HOTEL DEVELOPER THEY'LL SAY YOU NEED A HOTEL.
THAT'S THE ROUTE WE WENT DOWN BEFORE AND THAT GOT REAL ROCKY REAL FAST.
WHO ARE WE ASKING THIS QUESTION? [NOISE]
>> IT IS THE CITY'S PARK CITY COUNCIL IS THE VOICE OF THE CITY.
I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD COME UP WITH THE TOP SIX OR SEVEN THINGS THEY WANT TO SEE IN THIS PARK SO THEY HAVE SOME DIRECTION OF WHICH WAY WE'RE GOING TO GO.
THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE A HOTEL HERE COME IN IF YOU DON'T WANT A HOTEL.
>> I SPENT A YEAR LAST YEAR, EARLIER THIS YEAR MOSTLY GOING THROUGH THIS VERY PROCESS.
THEN WHAT JASON [INAUDIBLE] THOUGHT CONNECTION JOB PRESENTING LAST MONTH OR TWO MONTHS AGO OR WHAT WAS EXACTLY WHAT THAT GROUP TO COME UP WITH.
THESE ARE THE THINGS WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE PARK AND THAT'S THE BEST WE COULD DO IN SIX MONTHS MEANING OF THIS.
I MEAN, IF YO GET A MASTER DEVELOPER OUT THERE WHO SAYS, YEAH, THAT'S COOL, BUT HERE'S HOW YOU MAKE MONEY OR HERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO IT I'M FINE WITH THAT.
I HAVE ZERO PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT PARK NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED.
THIS BE A REVENUE SOURCE, I NEED TO BE AMENITIES THERE.
WE'VE BEEN SITTING WATCHING NOTHING BUT A PARKING LOT FOR 10 YEARS, AND THAT'S THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THAT PARK AND THE DEVELOPER COMES AND TELLS YOU, PARKING IS WHERE YOUR MONEY IS, MAYBE THAT'S IT.
BUT LIKE I SAID, WE GOT WHERE WE GOT OFF TRACK IN 2020 OR WHENEVER IT WAS WE DID IT WAS WE ASKED A HOTEL DEVELOPMENT GROUP, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE THIS PARK IS? THEY SAID, BUILD A HOTEL. THAT WAS SOME BOWL OF WORMS, BUT THAT'S THE ANSWER YOU GET IF YOU ASK A HOTEL DEVELOPER WHAT DO YOU THINK WE OUGHT TO BUILD HERE.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PROCESS BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE SAID COUNCIL, TO PARK BOARD, THIS IS THE THINGS WE WANT TO SEE OUT THERE.
WE WANT TO SEE TOURIST AMENITIES, WE WANT TO SEE PERHAPS A PARKING [NOISE] [OVERLAPPING] AMENITIES FOR EVERYONE.
MY CONCERN IS HOW YOU GO ABOUT WHO ARE GOING TO ASK?
>> WILLIAM, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> MY QUESTION IS EXACTLY INTO QUESTION.
THERE IS OCCASIONS WHEN WE'RE DOING GREAT.
>> [LAUGHTER] BUT MY QUESTION WAS THE SAME.
IT WENT DOWN TO LIMITING PEOPLE LAST TIME.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT THOUGH.
HUNDRED THOUSANDS AND YOU GOT THREE RESPONSES.
>> IT'S PRIMARILY IN REFERENCE TO A HOTEL.
>> THE HOTEL INN. BUT IT LOOKED AT BROAD DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK.
>> TO BE FAIR, I THINK I'D LIKE DEFENSE TO COME UP WITH MORE SPECIFIC REQUESTS IN RFQ.
THAT RFQ IS A PRETTY BROAD BASED, JUST LIKE, HEY, WE'VE GOT 69 ACRES IDEA, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK?
>> THAT'S PROBABLY THE WRONG QUESTION TO ASK. [BACKGROUND]
>> IT'S LIKE A FAMILY WHERE THEY WANT TO GO TO DINNER.
>> HAVING WORKED IN THE COASTAL MARINE UP FOR 20 YEARS, THERE ARE NUMEROUS COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE DONE TREMENDOUS BEACH PARKS THAT SERVE THEIR RESIDENTS, THAT SERVE TOURISTS, AND I'M SURE THAT [INAUDIBLE] HAS THE EXPERIENCE TO GO FIND OUT WHO'S LIKE CLEAR WHAT OR WHO DID THAT PARK, GET IT OUT TO THE PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY THERE [NOISE]
>> NOW, WE'RE BACK TO 12C ON OUR CLARIFICATION [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT.
>> IF I COULD JUST FOR THAT CLARIFICATION ON THERE.
IN THE RFQ PACKET, AND I KNOW IT'S IN YOUR, THESE ARE THE PROJECT GOALS, SO THIS HAS BEEN REFINED BASED OFF OF THE TASK FORCE FOR COUNCIL REFERENCED IN THE LAST WORKSHOP MEETING.
REALLY, WE ARE TRYING TO TAKE THE TASK FORCE,
[01:45:03]
AND REALLY PUT THAT WORK THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE AND FRANKLY LESSONS LEARNED THROUGH THAT LAST PROCESS, AND IMPLEMENT INTO THE NEW REVISED PROCESS.WE'VE ALSO IN THE BACK DOCUMENTS, LEGAL DOCUMENTS, HAVE THE QUALIFICATION REVIEW.
WHEN WE LOOK AT SELECTING THE FIRM, WE'RE FINDING SOMEBODY WHO REALLY HAS EXPERIENCE AND NOT JUST COMING IN AND SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP AND THIS IS IT, OR THEN GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON HELPING YOU BUILD A MASTER PLAN.
WE WANT EVERYTHING THAT'S A TURNKEY, THEY'RE GOING TO HELP US BUILD THAT PLAN.
BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T FORCE REINFORCES ENOUGH AT EACH STEP THAT TASK FORCE IS INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW OF QUALIFICATIONS.
THE TASK FORCE IS INVOLVED ONCE COUNCIL, IF THEY GO TO THAT STEP WHERE THEY GO AHEAD AND DO A FORMAL AGREEMENT WITH [NOISE] [INAUDIBLE], THEN THE TASK FORCE AND THE CITY CONTINUES TO DEFINE WHAT THAT MASTER PLAN LOOKS LIKE.
IF THERE'S A COMPONENT OF THAT MASTER PLAN THAT'S ON THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, YOU'LL HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, WE LIKE ITEMS 1-4 BUT 5, NO WAY IN HECK, REMOVE THAT OUT OF THAT MASTER PLAN, BRING BACK SOMETHING WE CAN AGREE TO.
SO IT REALLY PUTS THAT CONTROL OF THE DEVELOPMENT IN COUNCIL'S HANDS AND THAT'S FOR SURE.
>> I'VE INTRODUCED EVENTS TO MIKE CARUSO AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER THE PARK BOARD IS DOING ON THESE PROJECTS ON CITY PROPERTY, THAT IT'S IN THE FORMAT THAT WE'RE USED TO SING THROUGH OUR PURCHASING DEPARTMENT WITH OUR HEADERS, AND FOOTERS ON IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL.
THAT WAY, WE DON'T GET CAUGHT UP ON, WE DON'T GET FIVE MILES DOWN THE ROAD AND GET CAUGHT UP ON TECHNICALITY.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE 12C? YES.
>> I'M COOL WITH THE GOALS AND THE VISION OF STUART BEACH.
BUT WHAT IF WE PUT THIS OUT, JUST PLANNING WHAT IF AND NOTHING COMES BACK?
>> PARKING WILL STILL BE LOOKED AT.
>> THEN THE CITY HAS TO TAKE THE INITIATIVE TO GO OUT THERE AND DO SOMETHING WITH IT. [BACKGROUND]
>> I WOULD PUT OUT THERE, WHAT IF WE DON'T PUT IT OUT AT ALL? WE HAVE CML COMPANY, SO WE PUT OUT ON THE STREET [INAUDIBLE].
>> OUR NEXT ITEM THAT WE'RE APPROVING WITH OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS, WHEN IT'D BE A LITTLE PREMATURE TO NOT HAVE THIS APPROVED.
THEN WE'RE COMING TO LOOK AT 500,000 FOR BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS AND SEE WHAT A PARK AMENITIES.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE, WHY WOULD WE APPROVE HALF-A-MILLION FOR BEACH A TROPE OF BILLIONS A DAY WHEN YOU MIGHT PUT OUT AN RFQ AND SAYS, HEY, IF YOU LET ME BUILD SOMETHING THERE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND [INAUDIBLE] IT'S A TALL HEADQUARTERS FOR YOU.
>> YEAH. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT [BACKGROUND] WE'LL ADDRESS THAT PATTERN APPEARING TO THE POINT.
>> FOR CLARIFICATION, IF I COULD, THAT IS ACTUALLY SPELLED OUT IN THE RFQ.
WE ABSOLUTELY SEE THE VALUE IN ONE OF THOSE PROCESSES PARALLEL.
SEEING THE VALUE OF THAT MASTER DEVELOPER FRIENDLY FROM A COST OF SERVICE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ADMINISTER DOPA IS GOING TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.
UNIT COST AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CAPITALIZE ON BUILDING A BEACH PATROL FACILITY, WALLED UP THE SAME TIME.
>> TODAY SO MUCH OF YOUR COST IS MOBILIZATION.
IF YOU'RE MOBILIZING SOMEBODY ON SOMETHING OTHER PURPOSE, IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO COMBINE THE TWO.
>> IT COULD THE BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS WOULD BE PART OF ANOTHER STRUCT.
>> BUT IT ALSO ADDS A SENSE OF URGENCY TO THIS TWO MAYOR JUST SO I CAN TELL YOU, SINCE WE KNOW THE BEACH PATROL HAS SOME VERY SPECIFIC NEEDS AND HAS THEM ON A TIMELINE.
I DON'T WANT TO MEAN THIS IN A BAD WAY, BUT IT KEEPS US FROM THINKING ABOUT STUART BEACH TOO MUCH AND IT GETS US MOVING IN A DIRECTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, RIGHT OR WRONG, AND IT KEEPS US ON TASK.
>> WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME? WE PUT THIS OUT AND THE TIMELINE IS OR WHAT'S THE DEADLINE FOR THE LAST MIDDLE.
>> [BACKGROUND] WE PUT A DATE ON THE VERY FRONT HERE.
>> THIS IS ASSUMING THAT THE FORM WHICH WE STILL HAVE, I KNOW IT'S AN INTERNAL REVIEW AND THINGS THAT WILL WORK WITH CITY STAFF ON TO CONTINUE IT.
WE WANTED TO GET THROUGH THE HOLIDAY SEASON TO MAKE IT FAIR, SO TO GET THE BEST RESPONDENTS.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THIS HITTING THE SCREEN ON JANUARY THE 9TH WITH GETTING ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OPPOSING, AND ALSO GIVE US SOME ADDITIONAL TIME.
IT WOULD BE MARCH THE 6TH WHEN THE FORMAL REQUEST WOULD BE BACK INTO OFFICE.
[NOISE] WE WOULD HAVE SEVERAL WEEKS WORTH OF REVIEW WITH THE TASK FORCE.
THEN AS I SAID, WE WOULD EITHER BRING BACK, DEPENDING ON THE SCHEDULE OF COUNCIL, LATE MARCH OR EARLY APRIL.
>> WHEN YOU SAY TASK FORCE, YOU'RE REFERRING TO IN THIS CASE, OR YOU'RE REFERRING TO WHAT?
>> THE TASK FORCE THAT YOU LEAD [INAUDIBLE].
WHATEVER THAT IS AS FAR AS THE PLAYERS, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A COUNCIL.
>> MARCH 16TH. OPTIMISTIC, BUT IF YOU CAN GET IT LIKE THE TIME, GO FOR IT.
>> WELL, A LOT OF TIMES YOUR VENDORS WILL TELL YOU IF THEY NEED MORE TIME.
[01:50:03]
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? YES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE GOING TO FLIP TO 12D, JUST SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTION IS THAT'S DISCUSSING CONSIDER HAVING THE CITY MANAGER INITIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH PARK BOARD, STAFF CONCERNING A NEW INNER LOCAL AGREEMENT WHICH IS A HOT DAD CONTRACT, ACCORDING TO DOUG, AND REPORT PROGRESS TO COUNCIL FOR JANUARY COUNCIL MEETING.
I THINK IT'S PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY.
>> GIVE ME SOME GUARD RAILS AND WE'LL TRAVEL.
>> SOUNDS GREAT. THANKS, RYAN.
ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION? WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO CIP.
[3.C. Discussion of Details of Upcoming Elections: (Legal - 20 minutes) Polling Place Locations District 2 Election IDC Extension Charter Amendments ]
I'D LIKE TO MOVE ITEM 3C UP TO WE HAVE A GUEST HERE TODAY.IF IT MEANT COUNCIL'S APPROVAL, I'D LIKE TO GO TO 3C BEFORE 3B.
>> ESPECIALLY IN DETAILS IN UP COMING ELECTIONS.
THREE, IDC EXPANSION, AND FOURTH, [INAUDIBLE].
>> COUNCIL, WE HAVE A GUEST TODAY, WENDI FRAGOSO, FROM THE COUNTY.
YOU ARE THE COUNTY DEPUTY OF ELECTIONS?
>> COME ON UP WENDI, AND HAVE A SEAT. GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
>> THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY.
>> LET'S START WITH THE POLLING LOCATIONS.
I WAS INFORMED BY A JANELLE JUST A SECOND AGO THAT YOU HAVE SOME NEWS FOR US.
>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FIRST FOR LETTING ME SPEAK AND HELP YOU OUT WITH ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH THIS, EARLY IS ALWAYS BETTER THAN TOO LATE.
WE HAVE VOTE CENTERED COUNTY, AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT YOUR VOTERS CAN VOTE AT ANY LOCAL STATION[NOISE] WITHIN OUR COUNTY AT ANYTIME DURING THE ELECTION.
IF THEY ARE ON THE MAINLAND FOR A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT, THEY CAN VOTE THERE AT ANYTIME.
BUT WHAT THAT WILL MEAN IS ON ELECTION DAY, [NOISE] WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE ALL OF OUR LOCATIONS IN THE ENTIRE COUNTY ARE LEVELING OUR COMMISSIONERS, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER MORE THAN DOUBLE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP OF THE ENTIRE COUNTY, YOU'LL SEE THAT YOU HAVE FOUR COMMISSIONERS, AND NOT ONE OF THEM CAN HAVE MORE THAN DOUBLE THE OTHER.
BECAUSE OF REDISTRICTING, YOUR ENTIRE CITY IS A COMMISSIONER 2.
WE HAVE TO PLAN THAT AHEAD OF TIME SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE 10 IN COMMISSIONER 2 AND ONLY TWO IN COMMISSIONER 1, FOR INSTANCE. THAT IS THE LAW.
WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY OF OUR LOCATIONS ARE, OF COURSE, ADA COMPLIANT.
THEY HAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR YOUR VOTERS TO GET IN SAFELY, VOTE, AND LEAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS I CAN HELP YOU WITH?
>> HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE NUMBER OF LOCATIONS THAT WE CAN HAVE HERE IN GALVESTON COUNTY?
>> IT'S JUST GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE.
IN OUR CONTRACT FOR THIS NEXT ONE COMING UP FEBRUARY THE 21ST IS THE DEADLINE, WE CAN WORK AROUND THAT IF YOU HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING.
I DO BELIEVE I HEARD THE 23RD.
BUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO SET UP A MAP OF THE COUNTY, LOOK AT WHERE YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE YOUR LOCATIONS, WHICH ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR YOUR LOCATIONS WITH THE BIGGEST SPACE, OBVIOUSLY AS PARKING, AND THEN WORK THROUGH THAT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY.
>> JANELLE, COULD YOU OUTLINE TO COUNCIL WHAT ARE HISTORICALLY OUR POLLING LOCATIONS HAVE BEEN ON A MOST COMMON?
>> YES. EVERY ELECTION, THE JUSTICE CENTER HAS TO BE AN EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS.
WE'VE ALSO HAD GALVESTON COUNTY COURTHOUSE, MOODY METHODIST CHURCH, SEASIDE BAPTIST CHURCH.
IN THE PAST WE'VE USED REBECCA SEALY.
THERE'S AN ELECTION DAY LOCATION.
FOR THE DISTRICT 1 SPECIAL ELECTION, WE HAD THE LOCATION AT THE 30TH STREET PUMP STATION, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE A REALLY GOOD LOCATION.
>> MAY I HAVE A QUESTION A LITTLE BIT? YOU SAID THE JUSTICE CENTER HAS TO BE USED?
[01:55:01]
>> IS THAT COUNTY RULE? IS THAT OUR RULE?
>> IT'S A STATE LAW, BUT IT'S BECAUSE WE CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY, AND DWIGHT SULLIVAN IS DESIGNATED AS THE EARLY VOTING CLERK.
WHEREVER HERE THE LOCATION IS, [OVERLAPPING] HIS OFFICE IS AT THE JUSTICE CENTER, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONLY FOR EARLY VOTING, NOT FOR ELECTION DAY.
>> MAYBE YOU PAID UP FOR MY PARKING TICKETS IF I GO [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> JANELLE, AS FAR AS NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS VOTING AT THOSE SITES, WHICH ARE OUR BUSIEST SITE? DO YOU KNOW THE PRIORITY OF THOSE?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE COURTHOUSE LOCATION IS A BUSY LOCATION AND ALSO MAINLY [NOISE] METHODIST IS PROBABLY [OVERLAPPING]
>> I CAN TELL YOU IN THE LAST ELECTION, THOSE WERE THE TWO HIGHEST.
>> THE COURTHOUSE AND MOODY METHODIST.
>> YES, MOODY METHODIST, I THINK IT'S THE NUMBER 1.
>> MAY ACTUALLY BE THE NUMBER 1.
>> WE HAVE ELECTIONS COMING UP.
WE HAVE COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER'S ELECTION COMING UP TO REPLACE HIM IN DISTRICT 2, AND THAT WILL BE IN MAY.
THEN WE HAVE AN IDC EXTENSION ELECTION COMING UP.
I'D LIKE TO GET SOME THOUGHTS FROM COUNCIL ON THE POLLING LOCATIONS BECAUSE WE NEED TO GET THIS ON OUR AGENDA FOR JANUARY COMING UP.
>> IF MOODY CHURCH IS STILL WITH US ON THIS, THAT AND THE COURTHOUSE.
I THINK THE COURTHOUSE IS ESSENTIAL, NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT'S SUCH HIGH TRAFFIC THAT I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE MOST DISTRICT 2 VOTERS WOULD ACTUALLY GO TO VOTE.
I WOULD SUGGEST WE GO WITH COURTHOUSE AND MOODY METHODIST AND THEN WHATEVER ELSE WE ARE ALLOWED.
>> THAT'S MY POINT. WHAT'S THE NUMBER WE'RE ALLOWED RIGHT NOW? [OVERLAPPING] YOU WOULD KNOW THIS.
WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT WE HAVE OUT THERE AND GIVE YOU A LIMIT OF, I HAVE FIVE IN THIS DISTRICT, SO YOU CAN GO UP TO 10, AND COMMISSIONER TOO.
>> THAT IS GOING TO INCLUDE SANTA FE, THAT KIND OF THING.
>> SANTA FE WOULD BE HAVING ELECTIONS AS WELL, AM I RIGHT?
>> IT DEPENDS. CITY COUNCIL USUALLY GOES ON NOVEMBER, SO IT WOULD JUST BE THE CITY, AND I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY INFORMATION [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE RULE ON COMMISSIONERS, IS THAT A LOCAL RULE THAT COMMISSIONERS COURT ADOPTED?
>> IT IS NOT, IT'S A STATE LAW.
IT'S A 43.007 OF THE ELECTION COUNT.
>> THE VOTE CENTER ITSELF IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC GIVEN OUTSIDE OF THAT COUNT?
>> WE JUST TRIED TO WORK WITH ALL OF THE ENTITIES TO TRY TO DO THAT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO UP THOSE NUMBERS.
>> I JUST THOUGHT A LOT OF TIMES THAT YOU WOULD COUNT THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICES IF YOU DID THE JUSTICE CENTER, THAT DOESN'T COUNT ANYBODY'S BECAUSE THAT'S A [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S LAW. IT HAS TO BE THERE.
>> CORRECT. WILLIAM, YOU HAD A QUESTION.
>> IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ELECTIONS THIS MAY, DOES THAT ALLOW US TO HAVE MORE BASED ON THE NEXT?
>> OKAY. BUT IF THEY DO, WE'RE LIMITED UNTIL A WEEK-AND-A-HALF BASED ON THE COUNTER SEAT OVER, I GUESS?
>> RIGHT. NICELY FOR GALVESTON, YOU NORMALLY LIKE TO HAVE PLENTY OF LOCATIONS FOR YOUR VOTERS.
WE DO HAVE CITIES THAT WANT ONE.
WHEN LOOKING AT THAT, WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS IF YOU HAVE A REASON THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THREE BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE OF YOUR POLLING LOCATIONS FOR YOUR CITIZENS, I WOULD CONTACT ONE OF THE OTHER ONES AND SAY, "HEY, IS THERE ANOTHER BUILDING WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE SO THAT WE CAN HELP GALVESTON UP THEIR NUMBERS?" AS LONG AS I KNOW AHEAD OF TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE ISSUES, WE CAN USUALLY WORK IT OUT.
BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FROM YOUR COUNCIL IS, WHAT ARE YOUR MOST IMPORTANT LOCATIONS? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ADDED TO THAT AND US WORK TOGETHER?
>> I THINK IT REQUIRES TO HAVE A PRIORITY LIST SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW WHAT THE TOP ONES ARE.
AS WE WHITTLE THAT DOWN IF WE NEED TO, JANELLE WOULD HAVE THE DIRECTION FOR COUNCIL.
>> NOT ONLY THAT, THIS ASSIGNMENT IS WE HAVE JUST A SINGLE DISTRICT 2 ELECTION THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN IF WE HAVE IDC ON THE BALLOT BECAUSE THAT'S NOW A STATE-WIDE ISSUE THAT MARIE WOULD NEED SOMETHING OUT WEST, AND THE SAME THING I WOULD NEED ADMIN BUILDING VERSUS IF YOU'RE DOING THE PUBLIC WORKS TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S MY QUESTION, THOUGH, IT'S LIKE SEASIDE BAPTIST, WHICH A LOT OF WESTERN DISTRICT 6 PEOPLE VOTE IN, IS ACTUALLY IN JAMAICA BEACH.
SO DOES THAT COUNT AS A SEPARATE CITY'S NUMBERS?
>> IT DOES BY THE COMMISSIONER.
>> THIS HAS NEVER BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST, WHY ARE WE BRING IT UP NOW?
>> BECAUSE OF THE RE-DISTRICT.
[02:00:02]
>> JANELLE, HOW MANY DID WE HAVE IN LAST ELECTION HERE ON THE ITEM?
>> WE HAD THREE COMMISSIONERS ON THE ITEM THAT TIME.
THAT GAVE YOU UP TO SIX LOCATIONS.
>> WELL, IT'S NOT TWO PER LOCATION THOUGH.
>> LAKE CITY HAS MORE THAN TWO.
>> IN 2022, WE HAD FIVE EARLY VOTING LOCATIONS ON THE ISLAND, AND WE HAD FOUR ELECTION DAYS.
>> OKAY. TO GET THAT SAME NUMBER, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TWO OR THREE IN OTHER PRECINCTS?
>> IN OTHER DISTRICTS FOR THE COMMISSIONERS.
>> ARE THEY DISTRICT OR PRECINCTS?
>> IT'S NOT PRECINCTS, IT'S COMMISSIONER AREAS.
>> WOULDN'T THERE BE THE PRECINCT, THOUGH? I'M SORRY.
>> PRECINCTS YOU HAVE LIKE 30 PRECINCTS IN [NOISE] GALVESTON [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE COMMISSIONERS HAS PRECINCTS.
[OVERLAPPING] NOW OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER COVERS BOLIVAR TOO, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A LOCATION, BUT THEN THAT LIMITS OUR NUMBERS EVEN MORE SO.
>> ARE COMMISSIONERS GOVERNED BY PRECINCTS? THE PRECINCT 2.
>> YOUR THINKING OF CONSTABLES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRECINCTS.
>> FOUR COMMISSIONERS PRECINCTS, DISTINCT FROM VOTING PRECINCTS.
THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN CONFUSING, BUT JOHN IS CORRECT.
>> WITHIN THE COMMISSIONERS PRECINCT, IF YOU HAVE TWO OR THREE WITHIN THE PRECINCT, THEN YOU CAN HAVE TWICE AS MANY IN THE OTHER ONES?
>> OUT OF THE FOUR PRECINCTS, WE WOULD ONLY NEED THEM TO HAVE TWO OR THREE IN THOSE OTHER PRECINCTS TO STILL HAVE A NUMBER THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY?
>> RIGHT. EXCEPT FROM WE HAVE TO COUNT [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE ALSO SHARE WITH SANTA FE AND ANYONE ELSE.
>> MOST OF HIGHWAY 6 GOING UP HIGHWAY 6 IS ALSO COMMISSIONER 2.
>> THERE'S A SMALL PORTION THAT'S NOT.
COMMISSIONER 2, SO SANTA FE AND BAYOU VISTA, TIKI ISLAND, GALVESTON, BOLIVAR, AND JAMAICA BEACH, THAT'S ALL ONE COMMISSIONER AREA.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TOTAL.
>> WE THINK THAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM?
>> IT'S NOT A PROBLEM IF WE KNOW AHEAD OF TIME.
IF I DON'T KNOW AHEAD OF TIME, IT'S A PROBLEM.
>> BECAUSE I HAVE TO GIVE PERMISSION TO USE THESE BUILDINGS.
>> YES. JANELLE, COUNSEL CAN SET THE DATES AS FAR AS HOW MUCH EARLY VOTING AS OF NOW WHEN WE GET?
>> SPECIAL ELECTION FOR DISTRICT 2, IT IS ON A UNIFORM THEY MAY WRITE.
>> WE WOULD HAVE ONE WEEK OF EARLY VOTING?
>> TWO WEEKS OF EARLY VOTING, RIGHT?
>> PLUS TWO DAYS, SO THE OTHER DAYS.
>> THAT'S A UNIFORM? ALL THE TWO WEEKS? IF IT'S LEWIS, IT WASN'T UNIFORM, IT WAS A SPECIAL AND IT WAS ONLY THREE DAYS OR EARLY.
I THINK IT WAS ONLY A COUPLE OF DAYS EARLY.
>> IT'S STILL THE SAME AMOUNT OF DAYS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE SAME SCHEDULE.
>> BUT THE ONE THING THAT CITIZENS CAN CONTROL, THEY CAN DO A PETITION, AND IT ONLY TAKES 20 SIGNATURES TO CHANGE AND EXPAND WEEKEND [OVERLAPPING] WHICH HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST.
>> IN HOURS OR [INAUDIBLE] STATE RATE.
>> WE HAVE A DISTRICT 2 ELECTION COMING UP THIS MAY.
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT HAVING AN IDC ELECTION [NOISE] THIS MAY TO EXTEND THE IDC.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS MAY WITH DATE OF WHAT LOCATIONS.
DO WE WANT TO PRIORITIZE NOW FOR THOSE TWO?
>> I HAVE A DUAL QUESTION ON THAT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING THE IDC ELECTION IN MAY.
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO START MARKETING THAT? I KNOW WE CAN BUT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN AND WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT AND TO GO INTO A BLIND COULD BITE OFF OUR NOSES, BITE OFF OUR FACE.
>> IT'S VERY WHEREAS THE DEADLINE TO PUT LANGUAGE ON THE BALLOT.
>> PROBABLY OUR JANUARY MEETING.
>> THE COUNCIL HAS TO VOTE ON THE ELECTION ORDER IN JANUARY.
IT'S A JANUARY 26TH MEETING YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO KNOW IF YOUR BALLOT IS GOING TO INCLUDE THE IDC.
>> WE NEEDED TO GIVE SOME THOUGHT TO THAT BECAUSE THAT DOES TAKE
[02:05:04]
SOME PLANNING TO MAKE SURE THAT'S APPROPRIATE AND PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY PROPERLY.>> I MIGHT POINT OUT, IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED TO HAVE THE SELECTION BUT THE IDC RIGHT NOW CONTINUES TO, I THINK IT'S 27.
>> WE GOT SOME TIME LEFT, ALTHOUGH THERE IS BEEN ADMITTEDLY A LOT OF INTERESTS TO JUST GETTING THIS DONE.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ELECTION SIGNS BECAUSE WE NEED TO KNOW THIS FOR JANUARY'S MEETING COMING UP HERE.
LET'S SAY FOR INSTANCE, WE DO HAVE DISTRICT 2 IN IDC ON THAT AGENDA.
WE NEED HAVE MOODY METHODIST CHURCH, WE NEED [NOISE] COURTHOUSE HERE, WE NEED TO HAVE SEASIDE BAPTIST OUT THERE.
GISD IS ONE OF THOSE THAT WE USE IN THE PAST.
WE HAVE USED THE 30TH STREET PUMP STATION IN THE PAST AND WE'VE USED UTMB IN THE PAST.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IN THE LAST SELECTION, GISD HAS NEVER BEEN A BIG VOTING.
IN THE LAST ELECTION BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT VOTED, PEOPLE WERE IN LINE FOR AN HOUR AT MOODY METHODIST SINCE I WANT MONEY GO OVER IT IN GISD.
THEY PROBABLY HAD MORE VOTE THERE.
IS THERE ANY WAY TO GET THE NUMBERS?
>> YEAH, SURE. [OVERLAPPING] REQUESTS FROM THE PUBLIC INTERNET. I'VE SEEN IT.
>> I'VE HAD HEARD IT BEFORE. [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S YOU? [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] SORRY.
WE CAN GO BACK AS LONG AS YOU WANT AND TELL YOU WHAT JOHN HAWLEY, YOU'RE VOTING WAS FOR DIFFERENT ELECTIONS.
>> WE DO THAT BEFORE GET THOSE FIGURES IN.
IF YOU COULD LET JANELLE KNOW, PLEASE, WENDI, AND WE'LL GET THOSE TO COUNSEL ON THIS.
>> WHAT WERE YOU LOOKING TO TRY TO HAVE FOUR PULLING PRICES OR FIVE?
>> I THINK AS MANY AS WE CAN GET.
>> IF WE DO AN IDC YOU WANT TO HAVE AS MANY ISSUES YOU CAN GET.
>> WE NEED TO TELL WENDI HOW MANY WE WANT AND SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT MANY.
>> I THINK IF WE DO AND THIS IS ME, WE DO IDC ON THE BALLOT.
IT SHOULD JUST FOLLOW OUR NORMAL WAS IT FIVE TO SIX THAT WE HAVE IF WE CAN OTHERWISE AND IF IT'S JUST A STRICT TO COURTHOUSE AND IF I COULD GET MAYBE THE ADMIN RULING, THAT'D BE COOL TOO.
>> I THINK THE POLLING PLACE AT UTLA, PERSONALLY, I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THAT, TMB.
I DO SEE THE NEED FOR THE PUMP STATION.
>> I WOULD INCLUDE SEASIDE BAPTISTS MOODY CHURCH, THE COURTHOUSE, GISD ADMIN BUILDING, AND THE PUMP STATION.
>> TO UNDERSTAND THEN THAT GIVES US FIVE I THINK WAS THE NUMBER THERE, SANTA FE WILL HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO, BOLIVAR WILL HAVE THE MINIMUM OF ONE, WHICH BRINGS US TO EIGHT WHICH IS, IT'D BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THAT BALANCES.
>> EXCUSE ME, WHERE YOU DON'T [INAUDIBLE].
YOU HAVE A SPOT FOR THEM TO VOTE THE PRESIDENT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] DON'T THEY LOOK LIKE THAT.
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHERE IT ISN'T SANTA FE [INAUDIBLE].
>> WHAT'S HAPPENING ABOUT ELECTION?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING.
>> ISLAND JUST HAD AN ELECTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT FOR MAY, SO WE MIGHT ONLY HAVE ONE THERE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO COUNT THEM IF THEY'RE NOT ADDED.
JOE BAGARD USUALLY IS A POLLING LOCATION IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING OVER THERE.
THEY HAVE ISD IN OUR COMMON LAW.
IT JUST DEPENDS IF WE NEED TO PUT ONE THERE.
>> WHEN WILL WE KNOW HOW MANY WE'RE GOING TO GET?
>> I WILL START HITTING CONTRACTS BEGINNING OF JANUARY AND I'LL HAVE A LIST OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE ELECTIONS AND GIVE JANELLE AN IDEA OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT COUNTYWIDE.
>> BECAUSE WE NEED TO KNOW THIS FOR THE JANUARY WHEN WE CALL THE ELECTION BECAUSE I RECALL, WE'VE AMENDED THAT WITH YOUR OFFICE IN THE PAST IN FEBRUARY OR WHATNOT.
>> THE CONTRACT OR THE NUMBER?
>> OF WHICH LOAD POLLING LOCATIONS THERE.
BUT I AM JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE AMENDED THAT AFTER WE PASS THE ELECTION.
>> BECAUSE THEY HAD REMOVED MANY METHODS I ASSUME [INAUDIBLE].
[02:10:03]
>> THOSE WERE FIVE LOCATIONS THAT WE OUTLINED JANELLE ON THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE OUR STANDARD LOCATIONS ON THIS.
>> WOULD YOU READ IT BACK TO US.
>> MOODY BAPTISTS, MOODY METHODIST, THE COURTHOUSE, GISD ADMIN, AND THE 38TH STREET PUMP STATION.
>> WE NEED TO MOVE THE MOODY METHODIST AND I WOULD PUT THE COURTHOUSE, MOODY METHODIST, SEASIDE BAPTIST, PUMP STATION AND GISD ADMIN BUILDING.
>> YOU GOT LAST PLACE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY COME ACROSS ROADWAY BECAUSE OF THE COURTHOUSE.
>> HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? THAT'S WHERE I GO TO DO THAT, IS THE GISD ADMIN BUILDING, EVERY TIME. [LAUGHTER]
>> IF ANYBODY RUNS, I WON'T KNOW UNTIL THEN.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT COUNCIL. VERY GOOD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.
>> WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DISTRICT 2 ELECTION IN MAY IDC.
APPROACH IT AS IF WE'LL DO IN MAY ELECTION, BUT WE NEED TO PUT SOME THOUGHTS ON OUR PLANNING GEAR, DISCUSS THIS OUR NEXT MEETING OR SO ON THAT.
CHARTER AMENDMENTS, DAVID, YOU WANTED THIS ON THE AGENDA?
>> I DO. I DON'T WANT THIS FALL, BUT THE WAYSIDE.
I THINK JANUARY MAYBE THEY'RE JUST THINGS WE MIGHT WANT TO BE DISCUSSING OUR STARTING CONVERSATION ABOUT ANYTHING THIS MORNING.
>> I JUST DIDN'T WANT THIS TO FALL BY THE WAYSIDE IF I HAVEN'T DRAWN HERE TODAY, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ANYBODY HAS IN MIND.
I THINK A NUMBER OF THINGS IN THE CHARTER WE NEED TO REDUCE TO FOLLOW STATE LAW BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY TODAY, BUT THIS ALLOWED US TO DISCUSS THIS AND WE CAN HAVE THIS.
OF COURSE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IN JANUARY BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE WILL BE SETTING THE SELECTION COORDINATES.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY PERSONAL THOUGHTS ON THAT.
I'VE GOT SOME THAT I THINK WE ALL HAD CHANGED, BUT I DON'T THINK THE TIMING IS CORRECT AT THIS POINT.
>> BECAUSE WE COULD STILL HAVE A CHARTER ELECTION NEXT THING.
>> SINCE WE'RE PUTTING OTHER THINGS ON THE BATTLE, I WOULDN'T PROBABLY JUMP TO A CHARTER, ONLY A CHARTER ELECTION.
BUT SINCE WE KNOW WE'RE VERY LIKELY TO HAVE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TO CONFUSE PEOPLE WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THE IDC.
>> I THINK CAN FIT TWO THINGS IN THEIR BRAINS AT ONE TIME, I WOULD WANT TO CONTROL ON. [LAUGHTER]
>> I'M NOT PRESSING ANYONE'S BRAIN.
I JUST STAY IN CHARTER AMENDMENTS [NOISE] TOPIC AND YOU CAN TURN IT INTO THE LAW.
>> YOU NEVER GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT, WHEN THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, CHARTER ELECTION.
>> BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PULL OUT THE ORDER TO WRITE THE IBC ELECTION, LAST ONE HAD CAP ON A LIFE OF IT?
>> THIS TIME YOU WANT TO KEEP IT ON. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK THE LANGUAGE THAT IDC SENT FORWARD.
>> THE LANGUAGE THAT IDC APPROVED, IT'S NO.
THERE'S NOT A LIMIT. [INAUDIBLE].
>> ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. LET'S READ ITEM 3B,
[3.B. Discussion of the Park Board Capital Improvement Projects for 2022-2023 and an Approval Process for the following years (Bouvier/Brown - 30 minutes)]
IF WE COULD PLEASE, CHANEL?>> 3B, DISCUSSION OF THE PARK WORD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR 2022-2023 AND AN APPROVAL PROCESS FOR THE FINAL [INAUDIBLE].
>> IN MY MIND COUNCIL, WE HAVE TWO THOUGHTS HERE ON THIS CIP.
ONE IS, APPROVING CIP PROJECTS FOR THIS CURRENT YEAR THAT THE PART BOARD HAS SUBMITTED.
IN RESPONSE TO THAT, DAN BUCKLEY, AND STAFF HAVE WORKED ON THIS AND THEY HAVE SENT TO YOU A LIST OF THE PART BOARD PROJECTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF ON HOW THOSE SHOULD BE ADDRESSED.
WE DO HAVE AN ITEM ON OUR AGENDA WHICH IS 12D, THAT LIST ALL OF THE PART BOARD REQUEST ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND ALLOWS US TO APPROVE OR NOT EACH ONE OF THOSE.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME.
SECONDLY, WE HAVE ALSO THE DISCUSSION OF THE CIP PROCESS MOVING FORWARD AFTER THIS YEAR.
I THINK IT WAS THE INTENT OF COUNCIL, THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT, THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWING THE NORMAL BUDGET PROCESS BEING PRESENTED TO THE CITY AHEAD OF TIME, IN WORKING WITH THE CITY AHEAD OF TIME, AND BRINGING THAT FORWARD IN A WRITTEN FORM DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, AND THEN,
[02:15:01]
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL WOULD REVIEW, AS WE GO THROUGH OUR BUDGET REVIEWS EACH YEAR.THEN, WOULD APPROVE DEPENDING UPON INPUT FROM THE PART BOARD IN FRONT SIX STAFF.
ON ITEM 12D WE DO HAVE A LIST OF ALL THOSE PROJECTS, AND AS I MENTIONED, STAFF HAS GIVEN THEIR INPUT ON THAT, AND I'D LIKE TO OPEN THAT UP TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE. YES DAVE?
>> WHERE IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION DOCUMENT? IS THAT IN THE BACK?
>> IS IT IN THE [INAUDIBLE] [NOISE]?
>> YOU GOT TO THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE?
>> WELL, I WAS TRAVELING PRECEDENTS, THOROUGHNESS, WHICH STAFF HAS GONE THROUGH THESE THINGS AND MADE A RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS TO THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> I DON'T. WE HAVE DOWN THERE, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF REQUESTS FROM THE PART BOARD, THE STEWARD BEACH CONCRETE WORK WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED.
THE HALF OF PART PROJECT, IN THE AMOUNT OF 150,000 THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO MOVE TO OUR MARCH CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ALLOW STAFF MORE INPUT INTO RESEARCH THAT, TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO COUNCIL, AND TO WORK WITH THE PART BOARD, AND GAIN MORE INFORMATION.
BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS, IS DOWN FOR A DEFERRAL ALSO.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT LOOKING AT THE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPERS FOR STEWART BEACH PARK, SEAWORLD PARK, MARINE PROJECT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO MOVE TO THE FEBRUARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
SEAWORLD PARK FISHING PIER EXTENSION TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING.
SEAWORLD PARK SHIP IN BULK HEAD TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING.
THEY HAVE STAMP IS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE CONTINGENCY, SEAWORLD CARGO EROSION FILL PROJECT.
THEY HAVE RECOMMENDED DEFERRAL OF THE SEAWORLD PARK, RV PARK PROJECT, AND ALSO HAVE RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE EAST END LAGOON PROJECT IN DEFERRING THE URBAN PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF 500,000 TO JANUARY FOR STAFF TO GET MORE INFORMATION, AND BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS.
I COULD GO THROUGH THESE OTHERS.
YOU PROBABLY HAVE READ THOSE, BUT I DON T HAVE PERSONALLY ANY COMMENTS ON THESE THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND CHANGES ON.
I THINK STAFF DID A GOOD JOB IN GOING THROUGH EACH ONE OF THESE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? YES, MIKE?
>> CAN WE HEAR FROM BRYSON AND ABOUT MAYBE SOME OF THE SCHEDULING FOR THESE PROJECTS AND OR MAYBE CONTRACTS THAT HAVE BEEN ALREADY SUBMITTED FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, AND THEN IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON FUNDING.
>> SURELY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BRING BRYCE AND MIKE? COME ON UP, BRYCE UNION.
>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DIFFER A LOT TO CHERYL.
ALL THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT EXPERT, BUT MORE THAN [OVERLAPPING].
>> THIS IS SERIOUS DISCUSSION COUNCIL IS GOING FOR CHART.
>> ANYTHING STRONGER THAN CHART [INAUDIBLE]? [LAUGHTER]
>> GO AHEAD, MIKE, YOU HAD SOME POINTS.
HAVE YOU SEEN THIS LIST BY CHANCE?
>> OKAY. ARE THERE ANY PROJECTS ON THIS LIST THAT ARE BEING ASKED TO BE DEFERRED, THAT ARE IN THE MOTIONS OF BEING WORKED ON?
>> WELL, OF COURSE, THIS BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS, WHAT IS OBVIOUSLY IN SOME LEVEL OF MOTION.
THE STEWART PARK MOORING PROJECTS FOR THE USS STEWART.
WE HAVE FULL ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS AND A BID PACKAGE READY TO LET ON THE STREET.
THAT IS A FEMUR PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME, AND THE BOAT IS UNMOORED AND THE BOAT NEEDS TO BE MOORED.
[02:20:03]
THE FISHING PIER EXTENSION THAT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH AN IDIQ QUALIFICATIONS CONTRACT TO PUT OUT ON THE STREET, TO DETERMINE AN ENGINEERING FIRM TO DO THAT PROJECT.BECAUSE IT'S A FEMA PROJECT, WE CANNOT PIGGYBACK OFF THE CITY CONTRACTS.
WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR OWN QUALIFICATIONS PROCESS, BECAUSE OF FEDERAL FUNDING.
>> CAN I GET STAFF TO JUMP IN HERE TOO, AND TALK ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS EXTENSION.
LET'S SEE WHAT FOR FISHING PERIOD.
>> I THINK THAT'S ONE [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE WERE QUESTIONS ON SOMETHING WITH THE DEFERRALS, HOW ARE WE DEFERRING THESE?
>> IS THIS A CIVIL PART FISHING PIER EXTENSION?
>> WE HAVE NO INFORMATION ON IT OTHER THAN [INAUDIBLE]
>> LIKE CIVIL PARK FISHING PIER EXTENSION, I THINK WE ALL WANTED TO SEE THAT OF COURSE GO FORWARD AND WITHOUT TOO MUCH DELAY, WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON TO DEFER THAT, AND DID I SEE A DOCUMENT THAT TALKED ABOUT DEFERRAL DATES?
>> THERE'S A DATE FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S IN IT.
>> WELL, IT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT MAYBE I'M [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT'S THE STAFF RECOMMENDING? I MEAN [OVERLAPPING]
>> STAFF RECOMMENDATION SAYS DATES ON EVERY ITEM.
>> WELL, IN THE ORDINANCE IT SAYS STAFF RECOMMENDS DEFERRAL.
>> THE STAFF DOCUMENT HAS DATES.
>> THE DOCUMENTS YOU MAY BE THINKING OF SENT BY JANELLE STAFF PROPOSAL [OVERLAPPING]
[OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE I THOUGHT I REMEMBER SEEING THAT.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE, YOU GOT THE FORM?
>> [OVERLAPPING] FEBRUARY 2023.
>> THREE MONTHS, THAT'S ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT, COULD YOU DO THAT QUICKER?
>> WE MAY VERY WELL BE ABLE TO DO THINGS QUICKER, BUT WE'VE TRIED TO LINE THINGS OUT IN A PRIORITY ORDER IN OUR MINDS.
WE HAVEN'T SAT AND TALKED TO THE PARK ABOUT WE WEREN'T INVOLVED IN ANY DISCUSSIONS ON ANY OF THESE PROJECTS.
FACT OF MATTER IS AS THE COUNCIL CHARGED US WITH BRINGING BACK, SAY, REVENUE SOURCES OR WAYS TO CREATE REVENUE.
WELL, IF WE START DOING THINGS TO SEE WHAT PARK YOU'RE SORT OF CUTTING THE LEGS OUT FROM UNDER US AND NOT ALLOWING US TO BRING FORWARD ITEMS. CIVIL PARK FOR EXAMPLE IS A CITY PARK, IT'S OWNED BY THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON.
>> ALL THE REVENUE FROM THAT PARK RIGHT NOW EITHER GOES TO THE PARK BOARD OR STAYS WITHIN THE PARK.
[OVERLAPPING] WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GETTING THAT MONEY FROM, IT'S VERY HARD TO TELL.
[OVERLAPPING] FROM THEIR BUDGETS, BUT THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR A LATER DATE.
I MEAN, [OVERLAPPING] WE DON'T KNOW, WE'RE NOT READY TO BRING YOU RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF COUNCIL WANTS TO KEEP THE RELATIONSHIP THE WAY THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE, A CITY PARK MANAGED BY AN OUTSIDE PARTY AND THE FUNDS NOT COME TO THE CITY, I'M READY TO DO THAT.
I'M READY TO DO WHATEVER COUNCIL WANTS TO DO.
>> WHO IS IN CHARGE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE GET THE FUNDS THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GET, THAT WE'VE TOLD STAFF THAT WE ARE WANTING?
>> WE NEED TO GO GET THAT MONEY FROM WHO?
>> WE'RE GOING TO BRING RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU.
>> DOES COUNCIL NEED TO GO TO THE PARK BOARD AND TELL THEM THAT WE WANT OUR $350,000?
>> WHAT $350,000 ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THREE HUNDRED.
>> IT'S IN THE BUDGET, THEY SEND US A CHECK ONCE A YEAR. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT COMES FROM.
>> THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE ARE DOING NOW.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM.
IT'S CERTAIN THEY SAY IT'S FROM CIVIL PARK, BUT MAYBE WE OUGHT TO GET A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO BUT IF YOU TAKE AWAY OUR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE, MAYBE THE PARK [OVERLAPPING]
>> HOW I'M I TAKING AWAY YOUR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE?
>> YOU TYING UP ALL THE MONEY FROM THE PARK, JOHN.
>> WE'RE TYING UP THE MONEY FROM THE PARK BY CREATING ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCES.
>> YOU'RE EXTENDING PARK FUNDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS OVER THERE.
>> BUT THAT'S ADDITIONAL REVENUE SOURCE TO WHO? THERE'S NOTHING BUILDING THIS PIER THAT SAYS THAT THE MONEY [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU'RE TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE PARK TO DO SO.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. [OVERLAPPING] WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THOUGH, IS WHY DON'T WE JUST ASK FOR THE MONEY THAT WE WANT TO MAKE OFF THIS PARK? IF IT'S OUR PARK, WHY DON'T WE JUST TELL THEM THAT THIS IS WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE FROM THIS PARK, AND IF THEY CAN'T DO THAT THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT TAKING THAT PARK?
[02:25:04]
>> THERE IS A POLICY ISSUE BY COUNSEL IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU WANT US TO GO.
OTHERWISE, OUR ONLY CHOICE IS TO GET INTO THE OPERATIONS OF THE PARK AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW MUCH REVENUE IS THERE, HOW MUCH IT COSTS THEM TO OPERATE.
BUT YOU KNOW, JOHN, WE DON'T HAVE PRO FORMA ON THIS PIER.
YOU'RE SPENDING A BUNCH OF MONEY OUT OF THIS PARK AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT'S [NOISE]
>> THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO KNOW.
>> IF THIS DOESN'T WORK, WE GET A PRO FORMA.
>> YOU'RE ASKING FOR THREE MONTHS TO STUDY THAT AND SEE WHAT THOSE ARE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I WANT TO ANTICIPATE THE PARK BOARD HAS ALREADY DONE IT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TWO MONTHS, JANUARY TO FEBRUARY.
>> DO WE NEED TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION ON WHAT WE ARE EXPECTING?
>> NO. [OVERLAPPING] YOU'VE ALREADY GIVEN US THAT EXPECTATION DURING THE BUDGET, THAT YOU TOLD US TO GO OUT AND SEEK NEW REVENUES AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING.
>> BUT SEEKING NEW REVENUES DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN TAKING THESE PARKS OVER BACK TO THE CITY.
>> DO WE NEED TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION ON [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, WE'RE GOING TO BRING YOU RECOMMENDATIONS AND YOU ALL CAN THUMB UP OR THUMB DOWN.
>> ONE OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS MIGHT BE, LET'S TAKE THE PARK.
>> WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON [INAUDIBLE] VERY WELL COULD BE THAT WE SAY WE NEED X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS OUT OF THE PARK AND YOU ALL CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
THEIR ANSWER MAY BE, WE DON'T WANT TO OPERATE.
>> TWO MONTHS IS ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO DO THAT, FOR YOU TO COME BACK IN FEBRUARY AND SAY, WE EITHER NEED TO TAKE THE PARK AND THIS IS THE MONEY THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET OFF OF IT, OR WE CONTINUE TO LET THEM OPERATE IT AND BUILD THIS PIER?
>> WELL CERTAINLY, FIRST THING WE NEED FOR THIS PROJECT, AS I WOULD HOPE FOR ANY PROJECT, YOU WOULD DO THIS REVENUE BASE BUSINESS AS YOU WOULD WANT TO GET A PRO FORMA TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THEY EXPECT TO GAIN OUT OF THIS EXPANSION.
THAT IS SEPARATE AND APART FROM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE OVERALL OPERATION IN CIVIL PARK.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. TWO MONTHS IS ENOUGH TIME FOR YOU TO COME BACK WITH THOSE [OVERLAPPING]
>> RECOMMENDATION ON THE PIER, YES IT IS.
>> TO SAY EITHER WE WANT TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> RECOMMENDATION ON THE PIER IS A STAND-ALONE ITEM, RIGHT? THE OPERATIONS OF THE PARK, MY BET IS YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND SEE YOUR RECOMMENDATION FROM THE STAFF TO IMPROVE THE CONTRACT WE NOW HAVE WITH THE PARK BOARD, PUT IT OUT FOR BID TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND A BETTER OR MORE EFFICIENT OPERATOR OR THE CITY TAKE THE PARK BACK AND APPLY ALL THE MONEY TO OFFSET PARK EXPENSES OTHERWISE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ULTIMATELY BRING TO COUNCIL, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO MEET WITH THE PARK BOARD, STUDY WHAT THEY'VE DONE, SEE IF IT'S EFFECTIVE AND COST-BENEFICIAL TO BUILDERS' PIER EXTENSION AND COME BACK TO YOU WITH A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.
WE MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT ANYWAY.
IF IT'S A REVENUE SOURCE AND IT'S COST-EFFECTIVE, AND THEY BUILD THE PRO FORMA, WE'LL PROBABLY BRING YOU BACK A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
>> BEFORE DAVID SAYS SOMETHING, EXCUSE ME, JOHN.
HOW DOES THAT INTERFACE WITH WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE CONCEPT AND LET THEM BRING BACK TO US WHERE WE STAND WITH THIS?
IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE GOING TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
MONTHS AGO DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS, STAFF WAS CHARGED WITH BRINGING FORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE REVENUE STREAMS FROM NONTRADITIONAL SOURCES.
PART OF THAT WOULD BE TO ASSESS WHAT WE DO WITH OUR PARKS' MANAGEMENT.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TWO PARKS THAT ARE NOT BEACH PARKS, THAT ARE REVENUE-GENERATING PARKS, AND THE REVENUE DOES NOT COME TO THE CITY.
OBVIOUSLY, THOSE WOULD BE LOW-HANGING FRUIT IN MY OPINION.
WE WOULD LOOK AT THOSE AND DETERMINE WHETHER WE HAVE THE BEST MANAGEMENT POLICY FOR THEM OR THE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THEM.
I DON'T KNOW THAT. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION, BUT THAT'S PART OF THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT.
WE HAVE AN ITEM WE'RE BRINGING BACK TO YOU PROBABLY NEXT MONTH TO IMPLEMENT A PARKING FEE ON PARKING LOTS, TOURISTS RELATED PARKING ACTIVITY.
WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO BRING YOU THOSE THINGS INCREMENTALLY AND THAT'S OUR PLAN.
BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OTHER PROJECTS ON SEAWOLF PARK OR DELLANERA OR WHEREVER, YOU'RE TAKING THAT OPTION OFF THE TABLE FOR US.
>> I'M ENCOURAGED BY OUR CONVERSATION WITH VINCE THIS MORNING ABOUT PLANS FOR THESE PARKS.
I THINK IT WOULD BE SHORT-SIGHTED TO SAY YES TO THIS, YES TO THAT BEFORE WE SEE THAT [INAUDIBLE].
I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING YOU GUYS WORKING WITH VINCE OUGHT TO BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> [INAUDIBLE] INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION EVENTS.
THE MARINE PROJECT, I WISH WE KNEW MORE ABOUT THAT BECAUSE AS CHERYL SAYS, THAT'S NOT A NEW PROJECT, THAT'S BEEN HANGING OUT THERE [OVERLAPPING] SINCE [INAUDIBLE], SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT STORY IS ON THAT.
BUT THE FISHING PIER EXTENSION, LIKE THE CONTINGENCY FOR RV PARK, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE PICKING AND CHOOSING THOSE ITEMS BEFORE YOU AND VINCE HAVE A PLAN TOGETHER AND YOU CAN COME BACK AND SAY TO US.
THERE'S NOT A HALF-A-MILLION DOLLARS WE HAD OUT OF THAT PARK OR THERE'S $750,000 THAT WE HAD OUT OF THAT PARK.
[02:30:02]
WE DON'T KNOW THAT, AND I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO BE.APPROVING THESE LINE ITEMS, LIKE THE FISHING PIER EXTENSION, UNTIL WE KNOW THAT.
UNTIL WE GET TO THIS, BRIAN SAYS WE SEE A PRO FORMA ON THAT.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THAT'S NOT WHY I'M HAVING THE DISCUSSION.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN TWO MONTHS.
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO SEE IN TWO MONTHS? ARE WE GOING TO COME BACK AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME? [OVERLAPPING]
>> FIRST THING WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO GET THE BACKGROUND ON THE PIER.
WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT HOW MUCH YOU'RE EXPANDING THE PIER, HOW MANY ADDITIONAL FISHERMEN DO YOU FEEL YOU'RE GOING TO GET ON THE PIER, HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE ON THAT.
I THINK THAT'S SEPARATE APART FROM THE OVERALL REVENUE GENERATION BECAUSE IF THE CITY IS PLANNING ON LEAVING IT INTO THE PARK BOARD CONTROL, GETTING A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR, OR OPERATING OURSELVES, THAT'S GOING TO PLAY A PART AND PARCEL BECAUSE WHILE THERE'S SOME FEMA MONEY INVOLVED IN THIS, MAJORITY OF THIS IS COMING OUT OF THE PARK OPERATION FUNDS, AND BEFORE YOU EXPEND MONEY THAT'S GENERATED BY THAT PARK, LET'S SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF IT.
THE CITY MAY VERY WELL SAY REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO LONG-TERM WITH SEAWOLF PARK, THIS IS A GOODBYE, WE NEED TO DO THAT.
>> I THINK WHAT JOHN IS ASKING IS, CAN YOU MAKE THAT BUY IN TWO MONTHS?
>> ON THE PIER BUT NOT THE REST?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED YET.
>> I THINK ON FEBRUARY WE'LL HAVE A GOOD IDEA ABOUT THE PIER.
I DON T KNOW ABOUT THE OVERALL REVENUE SOURCE FOR THE PARK, NO.
>> THE PIER IS THE ONLY ITEM DISCUSSED HERE IN THE CIP.
THE OTHER ITEM THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR AGENDA, WHAT THE PARK BOARD WANTS TO DO, MASTER PLANNING OR SOMETHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN? IT'S ONLY IF. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'LL HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO YOU ON THE PIER.
IT MAY BE THAT THE PIER LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GOOD REVENUE RETURN FOR THE INVESTMENT, IT MAY NOT BE A GOOD REVENUE RETURN FOR THE INVESTMENT, WILL BRING THAT FORWARD TO COUNCIL.
FURTHER SCHEDULED THE WEEKEND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S A GOOD RETURN FOR THE PARK BOARD.
IT'S A GOOD REVENUE RETURN FOR THE CITY THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW WE LOOK AT IT.
>> JUST STAYING ON [NOISE] PARK TOPIC, THESE OTHER ITEMS HERE WHERE YOU'VE ALSO ASKED FOR DEFERRAL ON THE BULKHEAD IN THE MAURY.
ARE YOU LOOKING FOR SOMETHING? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A REVENUE GENERATING ITEM.
>> BUT HONESTLY, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STUART AND THE KABBALAH IS ONE THAT WE DON'T CLEARLY UNDERSTAND.
THE PARK BOARD IS IN SOME TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP WITH A FOUNDATION OR A GROUP THAT WE ARE NOT A PARTY TO.
THE PART OF THE STORE ISN'T EVEN ON CITY PROPERTY.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE FUNDS ARE GOING TO COME FROM AND HOW THEY'LL BE SPENT.
WE DON'T CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> ARE WE USING SEAWOLF PARK PROCEEDS TO DO THIS [INAUDIBLE] PROJECT OR IS IT USUALLY ADD FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT? ARE YOU USING FEMA FUNDS OR A COMBINATION OF WE HAVE NO IDEA.
>> DAVID, ARE THOSE FEBRUARY TOO?
>> THE FISHING GREAT EXTENSION IS FEBRUARY.
>> IN THIS TWO MONTHS, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO STUDY ALL THOSE?
>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE SITTING DOWN ACROSS THE TABLE UNDERSTANDING THE PROJECTS.
IF WE GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF WE GET THERE BY JANUARY, WE'LL BRING YOU WHAT WE HAVE BY JANUARY.
>> THESE ARE OUTSIDE DATES. YEAH.
>> I WANT TO SUPPORT WHAT COUNSELOR COLLINS IS SAYING, I LIKE VINCE'S APPROACH ON THIS.
WHEN WE COME TO THOSE ITEMS THERE, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD AND GET SOME INPUT FROM THE PARK BOARD WHERE WE NEED TO HIT WITH THIS.
BUT THAT HAS SOME BEARING I KNOW [NOISE] ON THIS, BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.
BUT ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MARIE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT PROJECT.
BUT I HAVE A QUESTION ON STOURBRIDGE DRAINAGE.
>> IT WAS DEFERRED TILL MARCH IS IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
>> WITH 12B AND 12C, WE APPROVED TO GIVE CARDBOARD TO GO AHEAD AND FIND A CONCEPT AND IDEA DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE ANYWAYS? TO GET TO THE IDEAS OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MONEY ON MAURY IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEND MONEY ON A PIER.
SOMEBODY HAS GOT TO DO THAT, CORRECT? WHETHER IT'D BE THE PARK BOARD OR THE CITY?
>> IT'S CART BEFORE THE HORSE OR A HORSE BEFORE THE CART.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE VOTE THIS DOWN 12B AND 12C, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN PROBABLY SAY THAT IT DID.
>> WE WOULD BE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT THERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE WOULD BE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT ON IT? WE DON'T APPROVE THOSE.
>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE SAYING THAT EITHER SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN.
[02:35:02]
>> I SHOULDN'T HAVE USED THAT TERM.
>> IN ORDER TO MAKE AN EDUCATED DECISION WE NEED THE INFORMATION.
>> I AGREE. THAT'S GETTING YOU THE INFORMATION 12B AND 12C, CORRECT?
>> WELL, YES AND NO. THAT IS BEFORE WHAT WOULD BE PLAN FOR THESE PARKS AND THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
THAT I DON'T KNOW THE BULKHEAD REPAIR NECESSARILY, IN THE PART OF THE ONGOING PLAN.
IN THE MEANTIME, THERE ARE SOME OF THESE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT MNO.
>> I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S PERMISSIBLE USE OF OUR FUNDS FOR OUR PARKS.
IF IT'S BEING DONE ON THE PORT OF HOUSTON PROPERTY [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S JUST WHAT I'M SAYING I'M NOT EVEN 100 PERCENT SURE IT'S ON CITY PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S STUFF THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE STAFF WORK WITH DANCE AND GERALD TO UNDERSTAND, AND BRING US BETTER INFORMATION ON THAT.
>> I THINK ALL OF THIS IS GOING TO CREATE A GREATER DIALOGUE BETWEEN THE PARK BOARD OF THE CITY. IT JUST HAS TO.
BECAUSE AS WE WORKED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS, THAT'S GOING TO BE INSTRUMENTAL AND WHAT WE HAVE THAT RELATIONSHIP IS MANAGED GOING FORWARD.
ALL OF THESE PROJECTS, I THINK THE PARK BOARD CLEARLY UNDERSTANDS NOW THE CITY MUST BE INVOLVED WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH OUR ASSETS.
[NOISE] WE HAVE TO MAKE OURSELVES AVAILABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
>> WHEN DOES THE BEACH PROJECT AMOUNT OF 456 WHEN IS THAT DEFERRED TO? I DON'T HAVE A DATE ON THAT.
>> YOU HAVE THIS JUNE ON THAT?
>> AGAIN, THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT UNTIL WE SEE WHAT WE WIND UP WITH THE MASTER PLANNER, AND SO FORTH. [NOISE]
>> EXACTLY. WHEN DID WE DEFER THE CONTINGENCY SEAWOLF PARK? PARK RV PARK, WHEN IS THAT DEFERRED TO?
>> THERE IS NO DATE [OVERLAPPING] SENT ME THAT DOCUMENT I CAN'T FIND THAT FOR [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT'S THURSDAY FROM JANELLE.
[INAUDIBLE] WHERE EVERYTHING IS DEFERRED TO.
>> ON THURSDAY YOU SENT TO HER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS WOULD HAVE COME FROM JANELLE ABOUT A WEEK AGO.
>> IT SPELLS STAFF PROPOSAL FOR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN WE COPY THAT, PLEASE STAN.
>> CAN YOU PRINT THAT FOR ALL FOR US. [OVERLAPPING].
>> GETTING BACK TO THE CONTINGENCY, SEAWOLF PARK, WHEN WAS THAT DEFERRED TO? I DON'T HAVE A DATE.
>> WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH VINCE THIS MORNING.
I DON'T THINK THE RECEIVABLE PARK COMMITTEE HAS A DATE.
>> THE THINGS THAT ARE IN HERE THAT I THINK WE'RE RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL NOW IS EASTERN LAGOON RESTORE MONEY EXPENDITURE SHOP AND TWIN CITY AND THE PARK [INAUDIBLE].
>> I HAVE THREE DATES THE COUNCIL VOTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
>> YOU'RE GETTING A RECOMMENDATION?
>> I THINK THAT'S RECOMMENDATIONS IN PLACE.
THE EROSION WHICH EROSION FILLS SEAWOLF PARK STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT.
THE EROSION FILLED BECAUSE THAT'S MNO OR WHAT IT IS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
THEN WE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CONCRETE REPAIR ON BECAUSE THAT HAS TO BE DONE JUST TO MAINTAIN, IF NOT FOR NOTHING ELSE FROM INSURANCE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? MIKE, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CIP PROCESS COMING UP IN THE FUTURE NOW?
>> WHEN WE GET TO THIS EVENING, WILL WE BE VOTED ON THESE AS A WHOLE OR LINE BY LINE?
>> WE CAN DO IT EITHER WAY MIKE.
MY THOUGHT WAS TO BRING THEM UP AND WE WOULD GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THEM AND VOTE ON THEM AS A PACKAGE.
>> THAT'S WHAT IT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE WINDOWS IS STRUCTURED AND [OVERLAPPING]
>>CORRECT. IT'S MY THOUGHTS NOT [OVERLAPPING]
>> HOW WOULD YOU VOTE ON THEM AS A PACKAGE INDIVIDUALLY?
>> SOMEBODY WAS MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE IN DIFFER. THIS ONE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I GOT A QUESTION, ONE MORE QUESTION.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE RV PARK ITEM, WHICH IS I GUESS H. SO HAVE WE GIVEN, DIRECTION TO PARK BOARD ON HOW TO PROCEED ON THAT?
>> NOT YET, I THINK I'LL DO THAT BY SAYING RIGHT, MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONCEPT RATHER THAN YOURS MAY NOT [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ON A LITTLE BIT LATER THAT REAL QUICK. [NOISE]
>> WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RESOLUTION THAN THE OTHER AGENDA?
>> THE COURT MOVED TO THE HORSE HERE [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, THEN I SEE THE MILLION TO THERE AND 12D,
[02:40:03]
IT TALKS ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF SEAWORLD PARK CONCEPT AND APPROVAL FOR THE ART BOARD MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPING MORE SPECIFIC CLIENTS.WHAT ACTUAL ACTION ITEM ARE WE GOING TO BE APPROVING THERE?
>> I THINK MOVING FORWARD MEANS DEVELOPING CONSCIOUS CONSUMPTION CLIENTS.
>> ALSO SUBCOMMITTEE, RIGHT BRIAN.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BACK TO THE MEDIEVAL BUT I THINK WE DEPEND OFFENSE.
>> WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, JOHN?
>> I MEAN, IS THERE SOME LANGUAGE THERE THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING [NOISE] TO BE APPROVING BESIDES JUST 12D.
>> IF I MAY FOR CLARIFICATIONS, IN ITEM 12D, THERE WERE MULTIPLE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT ITEM.
THERE WERE TWO ITEMS UNDER THAT ITEM THAT ACTUALLY PROBABLY BELONGED WITH BNC SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBERS.
[NOISE] THERE'S A DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRODUCED AN RFQ FOR STUART BEACH IN AN RFI FORESEEABLE PARK, [NOISE] THAT NEITHER ONE OF THEM SPENDING ANY MONEY WHEREAS THE CIP ITEMS FOR SPENDING. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> 12D BASICALLY IT GIVES DIRECTION ON BNC.
>> YES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S CLEAR ON THAT.
>> BRIAN, DAN, ARE YOU CLEAR ON THE MOVING FORWARD AS YOU GET INTO THE HOT CONTRACT [NOISE] ON BOTH THE PROCESS WOULD BE FOR THE CIP APPROVAL FOR THE FUTURE YEARS?
>> I THINK WE'VE GOT IT [INAUDIBLE] IN PLACE.
>> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IN THE INNER EAR.
>> WE LOOK FORWARD TO SITTING DOWN WITH BRYSON MIKE IN THAT GROUP AND GET THAT WORKED OUT.
>> MAYOR THERE'S JUST NO WAY THAT ANYBODY [NOISE] CAN THEME OF ALL THE CURVES ARE GOING TO BE CREATED AS WE START THIS CHANGE.
THINGS ARE GOING TO COME UP BUT WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND COLLECTIVELY.
IF WE CAN DEAL WITH COMPLEXITY, I'M CERTAIN YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT IT.
BUT I MEAN, EVERYTHING IS IN OUR INTERESTS TO SIT DOWN, SELECT THE ART BOARD, ADDRESSES MANY OF THEM AS YOU CAN IN THE CONTRACT [NOISE] BUT THAT CAN'T PREVENT OCCUR BEING THROWN.
>> WE DIDN'T GET ANOTHER DOCUMENT HERE CALLED THE BUDGET AND CIP REVIEW APPROVAL PROCESS.
[NOISE] BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THIS IN PLACE THAT'S WHY WE'RE AT WHERE WE'RE AT WITH ALL THESE CIP.
ONCE WE HAVE THIS IN PLACE, THEN WE WON'T HAVE THIS ISSUE ANYMORE, WE WON'T HAVE THAT.
BUT THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE ON IT IS, IS THERE'S A STAFF LEVEL COMMITTEE OF FIVE PEOPLE WHO'S INVOLVED WITH THAT STAFF LEVEL COMMITTEE, IS THAT BALLPARK BOARD AND CITY OR IS THAT IS THE CITY ARTBOARDS GOING TO PUT TOGETHER?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION I THINK MIKE BRINGS UP BECAUSE THAT'S MORE OF AN OPERATIONAL THING THAT YOU DO [NOISE] SHE HAD PUT ON.
>> HE WOULD BE STAFF AND STAFF FROM BOTH AGENCIES WORKING TOGETHER TO GET IT ALL PUT TOGETHER.
>> REMEMBER THE DRAFT DOCUMENT AND LIKE I PROMISED YOU ONE THING, IT WILL CHANGE BECAUSE LOGISTICS, AS WE WORKED THROUGH THAT WILL MAKE US DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, A DEADLINE OR HOW WE DO IT OR HOW THE COMMITTEES STAFFED BY WHOM AND WHAT ARE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SOME CHANGES IN INDUSTRY THAT CAUSES A CHANGE TO BE FLEXIBLE.
>> MEETING MONTHLY WOULD USUALLY [NOISE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMETIMES WE MIGHT NEED TO BE MORE MUCH MORE THAN MONTHLY IS GOING TO SEND OUT THEIR OWN.
>> THAT'S PROBABLY BEST POSITIONS VERSUS PEOPLE.
SO CLEARLY MY PARK DIRECTORS DON'T BE HONEST.
THERE'S SO MUCH OF IT INFLUENCES PARK, SO I'M BARBARA RETIRES WHOEVER KNOWS PARK DIRECTOR JUST NATURALLY TRANSITION INTO THAT.
THAT PORTION OF RETIRE [OVERLAPPING].
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM THREE BIG COUNCIL? THANK YOU CHERYL [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANKS FOR ALL THE OTHER ONES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I GET TO AMANDA SEAWORLD PARK COMMITTEE.
I'VE BEEN ON THE STUART EACH COMMITTEE.
WE HAVE GOOD [NOISE] RELATIONSHIPS WITH FELLOW WORKING EVENTS.
I THINK WE ARE WERE WEIGHED FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD THAN WHAT IT APPEARS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE DOCUMENTS, WHERE ARE YOU?
>> VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3D.
[3.D. Council Updates Pelican Island Bridge (Brown - 10 minutes) Alternate Revenue Source Update (B. Maxwell - 15 minutes)]
PLEASE EMAIL.>> 3D THE COUNCIL OF ECONOMIC TO ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCE ON DATE.
>> WANTED TO UPDATE COUNCIL ON THIS.
[02:45:02]
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS GOING ON ON BOTH OF THESE TOPICS.SO FAR PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE THINGS HAVE BEEN CHANGING [NOISE] HERE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS, HOT AND HEAVY.
SINCE WE TALKED AT LAST, THERE HAS BEEN [NOISE] MANY DISCUSSIONS WITH TAX LOT [NOISE] PARTICIPANTS WITH FELLOW ECONOMIC BRIDGE, WITH OUR STAFF AND WITH THE COUNTY AND WE HAVE FOCUSED RECENTLY OR IN THE PAST, WE HAD PUT OUR FOCUS ON THE MOU WITH THE PARTICIPANTS, TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY WAS ON BOARD ON HOW MUCH MONEY THEY WOULD GIVE TO THE PROJECT AND HOW THAT WOULD TAKE PLACE AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
[NOISE] WE'VE HAD WITH SOME OF OUR DISCUSSIONS THE COUNTY NOW HAS BEEN WORKING WITH US AND PROVIDED ASSISTANCE THROUGH THEIR COMMISSIONERS, SPECIFICALLY, COMMISSIONER ARMSTRONG, JUSTI AND HATFIELD HAD PARTICIPATED WITH SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH TEXT STANDING OURSELVES ON THIS.
WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT IS THAT TAX LOT HAS VERBALLY MENTIONED THAT THEY WILL COVER THE COST OVERRUNS [NOISE] THEY ARE AND THAT'S QUITE A MAJOR CHANGE FOR THIS PROJECT.
WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT, IS THAT [NOISE] TAX LOT COVERING THE COST OVERRUNS THE CITY MAY WANT TO CONSIDER SIGNING AFA, ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT BEING THE LOCAL SPONSOR IN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BRITISH.
>> BEFORE WE HAVE IT IN WRITING.
>> OH NO. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT MAY BE SPELLED OUT IN THE AFA THAT WE WOULD SIGN.
>> MY BACK WAS THAT I TALKED WITH MISS PAUL A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO.
SHE CLAIMS THAT SHE WILL HAVE THIS IN WRITING TO THE CITY WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS.
SHE SAID I'LL HAVE THAT TO YOU IN A COUPLE OF DAYS.
AS SOON AS WE CAN THAT COUNTY STAFF WILL BE REVIEWING THAT.
WE'LL BE REVIEWING IT WITH THE COUNTY AND WE WILL THEN BRING IT TO COUNCIL, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'LL START OUR DISCUSSIONS AT THAT TIME.
TXTDOT HAS NOTIFIED THE HOUSTON GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL THAT'S CONTRIBUTING APPROXIMATELY 23 MILLION TO THIS PROJECT THAT THEY ARE MOVING THEIR LETTING DATE BACK FOR THIS PROJECT.
IT WAS IN 24. THEY HAVE MOVED THAT BACK TO 25.
TXTDOT IS MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL, THEIR ENGINEERING, AND THEIR DESIGN.
IN ALL THE OTHER DUE DILIGENCE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT AND THEY'RE PAYING FOR THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'RE ALSO UPDATING THE COST ESTIMATES ON THE BRIDGE.
>> THAT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT BY THE COUNTY NOT AGREEING TO SIGN THE AFA, WE HAVE LOST A MILLION-AND-A-HALF DOLLARS IN THE PROJECT.
>> THAT IS A CONCERN THAT TXTDOT HAS.
THEY HAVE TALKED WITH US ABOUT THAT.
WHEN THE COUNTY HAS DECIDED THEY DO NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN SIGNING THE AFA, THEN WHAT THAT DOES AS BRIAN MENTIONED, THEY WERE RECEIVING A CREDIT OF 1.5 MILLION FOR SOME ROADWORK THAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST IF THEY SIGNED AFA.
NOW THAT THEY'RE NOT SIGNING THAT THAT CREDIT HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF THE TABLE AND THAT MEANS WE'RE IN THE DEFICIT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY.
MISS PAUL TALKED WITH ME ABOUT IT.
SHE'S GOING TO TALK WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT IT.
I'M GOING TO VISIT WITH THE COUNTY ABOUT IT.
THE OTHER PARTICIPANTS AND STAFF WILL VISIT WITH COUNTY AND SEE IF THEY WOULD MAKE THIS $1.5 MILLION UP.
IF NOT, WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT HOW THAT WILL BE HANDLED.
A&M HAS COME ON BOARD WITH AN EXTRA MILLION.
AS YOU KNOW, COUNCIL, YOU APPROVED AN EXTRA MILLION ABOVE THE 5 MILLION WE WERE GOING TO NEED.
THAT WAS TO BE UTILIZED IF NEEDED.
BUT NOW, SINCE THE TXTDOT IS GOING TO OVERTAKE AND TAKEOVER THE COST OVERRUNS, THEY NEED TO HAVE THAT EXTRA MILLION DEFINITELY FOR THE CITY AND A&M.
A&M IS AWARE OF THAT AND WE HAVE CORRESPONDED WITH THEM.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BUT IT STILL DOESN'T COVER THE 1.5
WE'RE GETTING UPDATED COST ESTIMATES.
THE WAY THIS AFA IS AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE HAVEN'T SEEN YET, IS THAT ONCE TXTDOT HAS LOCKED IN ON AN ESTIMATED THE BUDGET, WE'RE GOING TO AGREE TO THAT ESTIMATED BUDGET AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO TAKE ON ANY OVERRUNS AFTER THE BIDS.
[02:50:01]
WHAT WE'VE AGREED TO GO OUT TO BID, WE HAVE A PAUSE IN THERE.IF THAT COMES IN BEYOND EVERYTHING THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO COMMIT.
>> BUT IF THEY'LL TAKE THE OVERRUN, WE DON'T HAVE TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY I DON'T KNOW WHY THE COUNTY WOULDN'T SIGN THE AFA BECAUSE THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO RISK AT THIS POINT.
ONCE WE HAVE A BID NUMBER AND TXTDOT AGREES TO COVER COST OVERRUNS, I DON T KNOW ANY REASON OTHER THAN POLITICS I GUESS, AS TO WHY WE WOULD WALK AWAY FROM A MILLION-AND-A-HALF DOLLAR CREDIT WITH TXTDOT.
THE COUNTY MAY NOT BE WALKING AWAY [NOISE] FROM THAT MILLION-AND-A-HALF DOLLARS, THEY MAY APPLY IT TO ANOTHER PROJECT.
BUT IN TERMS OF THIS PROJECT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FIGURE OUT THAT MILLION-AND-A-HALF DOLLARS.
IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN ISSUE.
I THINK WE MAY BE OVER FUNDED ON THE PROJECT, BUT WE WON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL WE GET THIS UPDATED [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK THE MILLION-AND-A-HALF, ONCE WE GET OVERSUBSCRIBING DEPOSITS AS BRIAN MENTIONED, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE COVERED FOR ME.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THAT.
BUT WE NEED TO GET THIS IN WRITING AND COST ESTIMATES FROM TXTDOT.
WE KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY HAS BEEN COMMITTED.
WE'D BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY TO GET THE PARTICIPANTS TO AGREE VERBALLY TO THEIR PARTICIPATION IN MONEY.
I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN ENOUGH.
WE'LL HAVE ALL THIS TO YOU AS SOON AS WE GET THAT AFA.
TXTDOT, IF THEY SEND THIS IN WRITING TO US, I AM TOLD THROUGH TXTDOT AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS, THEY HAVE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE.
THEY HAVE NOT SAID THAT THEY WOULD COVER COST OVERRUNS.
>> WHICH IS WHY THERE'S SHARPENING THEIR PENCIL ON THE ESTIMATE. [LAUGHTER]
>> THIS WILL BE IF THAT MOVES FORWARD AND WE GET IT IN WRITING, AND IT MEETS WHAT WE THINK IT WILL MEET IN OUR APPROVAL, THIS COULD MOVE VERY QUICKLY HERE AND THIS WOULD BE A MASSIVE STEP FORWARD.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT I CONTEMPLATE IS THE INTER LOCAL BETWEEN ALL THE ENTITIES.
ALL THOSE ENTITIES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SIGN IT AND FUND IT BEFORE WE SIGN THE AFA.
WE'RE HANGING OUT THERE, YOU NEED TO HAVE ALL OUR PIECES IN PLACE ON EITHER SIDE AND THEN WE SIGN THE AFA.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU'RE BUYING A BRIDGE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO OWN THIS BRIDGE.
WE STILL NEED TO WORK OUT WITH TXTDOT ON MAINTENANCE OF THIS BRIDGE SO THAT IF IT'S [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY WORKED IT OUT, WE'RE GOING TO BE MAINTAINING IT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO BE MAINTAINING IT.
>> THE CONCERN IS, FOR MASSIVE REPAIRS OF THESE BRIDGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE NEED TO SPELL THAT OUT.
>> WELL, THERE'S AN OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGE FUND FOR THAT PURPOSE, BUT WE WILL ALLUDE TO THAT.
BUT THERE'S NEVER ANY GUARANTEES WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE WHIMS OF FEDERAL FUNDING JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IS.
>> IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IN THE JANUARY AGENDA, WE MAY HAVE THIS BACK TO YOU SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS AND SO FORTH.
VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? NO, NOT JANUARY.
>> I DON T THINK THAT IS [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHEN WE MAY HAVE AN AGREEMENT BACK FROM [OVERLAPPING].
>> [OVERLAPPING] INDICATION FROM TXTDOT.
>> I'M HOPEFUL FIRST QUARTER OF 23 WILL BE [INAUDIBLE]. [NOISE]
LET'S MOVE TO THE ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCE UPDATE.
I'VE PUT THIS ON HERE AND ASK BRIAN TO GIVE US AN [OVERLAPPING].
OF COURSE, WE'VE BEEN VERY OCCUPIED LATELY WITH OTHER ISSUES, BUT DON AND SPECIFICALLY TREVOR HAVE BEEN WORKING VERY HARD ON THE PARKING SIGN OF IT WITH THE PORT.
THE MAYOR AND I HAVE MET BOTH WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] BOARD CHAIRMAN AND THE [INAUDIBLE] BOARD DIRECTOR AND LET HIM KNOW I'VE MET WITH LOCAL PARKING OPERATORS.
WE HOPE TO HAVE THAT FOR YOU POSSIBLY IN JANUARY, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A BIG BUMP TO US AS WE BEGIN WORKING THROUGH THE INTER LOCAL WITH THE PARK BOARD NOW.
ASSUMING EVERYTHING IS PASSED TODAY, WE CAN HONE IN ON THOSE REVENUES AS WELL, BEGINNING WITH WHAT THEY ARE TODAY AND WHAT THEY COULD BE IN YEARS 2, 3, 4, TO 5.
WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT OTHER REVENUE ENHANCEMENT.
I'VE GOT ALL DEPARTMENTS WORKING ON FEES AND FINES.
WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR FEES MATCH OUR COST.
WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE PROFIT CENTERS IN ANY DEPARTMENT.
THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE AS A GOVERNMENT, BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO SUPPLEMENT DIFFERENT AREAS.
WE'VE DONE A PRETTY GOOD JOB WITH THAT SO FAR IN OTHER AREAS, BUT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT IT.
IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT UNFORTUNATELY FOR YOU GUYS, YOU COULD GO THROUGH A WHOLE TERM ON COUNCIL OR ALL THREE TERMS ON COUNCIL AND NEVER HAVE TO TOUCH FEES IN THE WAY WE DID IN THE PAST.
WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THESE FEES EVERY YEAR AND WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING THOSE FORWARD TO YOU OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT YEAR,
[02:55:05]
IF NOT PART OF THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AS WELL.IT'S AN ONGOING PROCESS WITH US.
EVERY SINGLE THING WE TOUCH IS LOOKING AT REVENUE ENHANCEMENT.
YOU SAW PART OF AN ALL READY ON TODAY'S QUESTIONS ON IT REGARDING LASKER POOL.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR THOSE PARKS' OPERATIONS.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE ACCESSIBLE.
BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE HAVE SPECIAL EVENTS AND WE HAVE THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE'RE GOING TO HOST A 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION, IT NEEDS TO COVER COST.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP IT; NO RESIDENTS FOR THOSE COSTS.
>> PART OF THE INCREASE FOR ALTERNATE REVENUES IS TARIFFS FOR THE CRUISE PASS [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE PORT'S BOARD IS WELL AWARE OF THIS.
WE'VE BEEN BRINGING THAT MESSAGE FORWARD.
IT'S IN OUR ROYAL CARIBBEAN CONTRACT.
WE HAVE IN OUR BUDGET $300,000 FOR THIS COMING YEAR FOR THE TARIFFS FROM THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CONTRACT.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN THAT.
THEN WE ARE DOING THE CONTRACTS WITH DISNEY.
WE'RE DOING THE CONTRACTS WITH CARNIVAL.
WE'VE HAD OTHER CRUISE LINES THAT IF THEY COME ON BOARD AND HAVE SHIPS OUT OF HERE, WE NOTIFIES ALL THE CRUISE LINES THEY WILL HAVE THE TARIFF.
>> I WAS INVITED AND ATTENDED THE MASTER PLANNING MEETING AT THE PORT LAST WEEK.
OUR REPRESENTATIVES ON THE [INAUDIBLE] BOARD WERE VERY QUICK TO POINT OUT THAT ANY NEW CRUISE CONTRACTS WILL INCLUDE A TARIFF FOR THE CITY.
>> WE ARE WALKING DOWN THESE ROADS VERY QUICKLY.
>> THE PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING. WE'LL SEE HOW EXACTLY HOW MUCH ALL THIS NETS OUT TO BE.
WELL, MICHAEL OFTEN IS TRACKING IT.
BUT WE'RE AGGRESSIVELY GOING AFTER THIS TO OFFSET COST TO OUR RESIDENTS AT EVERY TURN.
WE'RE ALSO STILL WORKING ON SALES TAX ENHANCEMENTS.
MICHELLE IS GOING CRAZY WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INQUIRIES OUT WHERE KEENLY FOCUSED ON THINGS THAT WILL PRODUCE SALES TAX.
WE HAD A GREAT MEETING WITH BAYES MIDDLETON.
>> TWO DAYS AGO AND WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT CONSUMPTIVE TAXES AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO FOCUS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU GET A ONETIME SHOT WHEN IT PRODUCES AD VALOREM TAXES, SALES TAXES AT ONE THAT GIVES THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING SO WE'RE REALLY GOING TO FOCUS OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS ON THINGS THAT RAISE SALES TAX.
>> BRIAN AND I HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED WITH TERRI WILSON, IT WILL BE NEXT WEEK.
I VISITED WITH HER YESTERDAY, BRIAN ON A NUMBER OF THINGS AND THEN ALSO WE HAVE A MEETING I THINK NEXT WEEK, FOR DR. BUTTON TO GO OVER THESE SAME TYPE OF THING SO WE'LL BE VISITING WITH THEM.
>> IT'S NOT JUST REVENUE FOR US PER SE.
BUT I'VE ALSO BROACHED THE SUBJECT.
DIFFERENT CONTEXTS AND OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE LOCAL LEGISLATORS.
>> ALSO, WHEN WE BRING BACK THESE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES, WE WILL HAVE SOME PROJECTIONS ON WHAT WE POSSIBLY CAN EXPERIENCE ON THE ANNUAL REVENUE STREAM THAT WILL BE COMING TO US HERE.
COUNCIL CAN LOOK AT THAT AND GET SOME IDEA OF WHAT THIS ALL MEANS FROM A DOLLAR AND CENTS STANDPOINT AND SO THAT'LL BE COMING.
>> WE'RE FOCUSING ON STABLE RECURRING REVENUE.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ACCOUNT? VERY GOOD. [NOISE]
[3.E. Discussion of Pension Items (Robb/Listowski - 15 minutes) Police and Firefighter Pensions as it relates to the Legislative Agenda Update on the status of the Fire Pension]
>> LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3E. PLEASE.
>> THREE E, DISCUSSION OF PENSION ITEMS. ONE, POLICE AND FIREFIGHTERS, INCHES AS IT RELATES TO THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA INTO UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE FIRE KITCHEN.
>> MARIE, I KNOW YOU WANTED TO DO SO.
>> I'VE HAD CALLS AS WELL AS OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE FROM BOTH POLICE AND FIRE IN REGARDS TO THE AGENDA ITEM ON LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT HAS TO DO WITH PENSIONS AND I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE CLARITY OR A PREMIUM FOR THAT.
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THAT AGENDA ITEM?
>> COULD I MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT TOO, MARIE? IN OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, WE HAVE A SECTION ON THE PENSIONS AND FOR BEST PRACTICES.
I HAVE DONE SOME RESEARCH, TALKED TO A NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND YESTERDAY, TALKED TO SOME INDIVIDUALS THAT THE STATE ON THIS.
THE PENSION REVIEW BOARD WILL BE LOOKING AT THESE ISSUES AS THEY APPLY TO FIREFIGHTERS AND TO OTHERS COMING UP WITH THE STATE.
I THINK THAT HAVING THAT ON OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AT THIS POINT IS NOT APPROPRIATE AND I WOULD RECOMMEND TO REMOVE THEM ALL.
[03:00:01]
>> I THINK IT'S MOVING FORWARD WHETHER WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA OR NOT.
>> AS WE COME UP FOR THAT ITEM THIS AFTERNOON, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THAT SECTION OF IT FROM OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.
[BACKGROUND] ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT COUNCIL.
>> THE OTHER QUESTION THAT WAS ON THAT SECOND ITEM WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE BUDGET, WAS 3.5, 3.1 THAT WE WERE GIVING TO THE FIREMAN'S PENSION.
>> IT'S STILL THERE, WE HAVEN'T SPENT A LOT OF IT WAS BUDGETED TO GO INTO EFFECT AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, BUT WE'RE STILL FINALIZING THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT WITH FIREFIGHTERS PENSION.
ONCE IT'S FINALIZED, BUT A FIND WHAT'S NECESSARY.
>> BRIAN, THERE ARE SOME OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS I KNOW COMING FROM THE FIREFIGHTERS PICTURE BOARD ON HOW THEIR THOUGHTS ON HOW THEY COULD HELP GET THIS PLAN IN THE FUTURE UNDER CONTROL, EVEN TOR YOU GUYS ARE WORKING WITH THEM ON THAT, ON THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WERE EXTREMELY CLOSE.
>> AFTER FOLLOWING OUR LAST NOVEMBER 16.
SEE THE DOCUMENT ACTUALLY FOR THE FIREFIGHTERS PENSION PLAN.
THEN EIGHT WORK DAYS SINCE I RECEIVED WHEN I RECEIVED IT, I SENT IT TO OUR OUTSIDE ACTUARY.
SOON AS I GET HIS COMMENTS WE WILL ANOTHER MEETING WHICH WE DO SPONTANEOUSLY WHEN WE ADD AN INFORMATION ARE READY TO MOVE.
WE HAVE A DRAFT DOCUMENTS AND VERSION 3.3 TO 2.8 WE'RE CLOSE.
WE BUDGETED FUNDS FOR THE [NOISE] THEIR ACTUARIAL STUDY.
WE'RE WAITING TO GET THE FUNDING POLICY DONE.
I HOPE YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN PUT OUT DEVOTE TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP IN DECEMBER, AND THEN WE CAN BRING TO YOU GUYS IN JANUARY AND THAT'S BEEN THE ANTICIPATION ALL ALONG TO BEGIN THE FUNDING IN JANUARY BECAUSE THAT'S THE CALENDAR YEAR FOR THE PENSION PLAN.
>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO MARIE'S COMMENT, THE 3.2 PERCENT, THAT'S GOING TO BE FUNDED INTO THEIR PLAN, THAT'S NOT TIED NECESSARILY TO FINISHING UP THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
THAT'S GOING TO GO YOU'RE GOING TO START [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING] [NOISE]
>> THE GOAL IS TO DO THEM SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY HURDLES THAT CAN'T BE OVERCOME TO GET THE FUNDING POLICIES?
>> THE BIGGEST HURDLE IS COMPUTED AS DEVOTED THEIR MEMBERSHIP AND THEN WE BRING IT TO YOU ALL FOR YOUR APPROVAL AND THAT'S PORTRAIT WAS THIS.
>> SINCE WE HAVE SOMEONE [INAUDIBLE] CAN WE ASK THAT QUESTION OR.
>> TRAVIS WAS THE ONE MENTIONED THE BOARD?
>> TRAVIS. [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE]
>> TRAVIS HAVE A SIT, IF YOU WOULD.
>> WE NEED TO BE VERY COGNIZANT OF CHARTER ISSUES HERE, GUYS.
>> MORAINE, WHICH BRINGS TRAVIS UP, WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN ANY NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS PLAN.
TRAVIS, WOULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF, SIR, AND FOR THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS WATCH YOU AND, SO FORTH.
>> MY NAME IS TRAVIS SILVA, THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE GAUSSIAN FIREFIGHTERS PENSION FUND, AND I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 18 YEARS AND BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR, I THINK 6-7 YEARS AND JUST GOT THE CHAIRMAN POSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE, DO YOU FEEL THERE'S ANY HOLDUP SO ON THAT 3.2.
>> NO. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY HOLDUP.
I KNOW IT WAS DISCUSSED IN REGARDS TO DEVELOPING THE FUNDING POLICY THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD, YOU GET THIS RESOLVED SO THE 3.2 WAS A NUMBER THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BY OUR ACTUARY AND ARE LESS VALUATION WHERE THE 3.2 WAS IF WE WERE TO RECEIVE A STARTING JANUARY FIRST OF 2023 OUR FUNDING OR AMORTIZATION WOULD BE 30 YEARS, ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT BELOW 30 YEARS.
>> THAT'S THE GOAL IS TO KEEP IT BELOW 30.
>> IT'S EVERYONE'S GOAL TO HAVE THAT ACHIEVED IN JANUARY?
>> I THOUGHT THERE WERE SOME TIME RESTRAINTS ON THIS THAT WERE ACTUALLY FURTHER OUT THAN IN JANUARY.
>> I DON'T KNOW THE PUBLIC POLICY.
>> WERE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WITHIN THE FIREFIGHTERS?
>> I THINK THERE'S AN OUTLIER NUMBER AND FOR THEM TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT DONE IN JANUARY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I THOUGHT I HAD A DISCUSSION FURTHER DATE OUT WITH STAFF.
>> THIS COULD BE TWO YEARS AWAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST TO GET IT DONE BY
[03:05:02]
JANUARY AND TRAVIS HAS BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH.REALLY REPRESENTS HIS MEMBERSHIP.
WELL, HE'S VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND VERY LEVEL HEADED ABOUT THINGS EASY TO WORK WITH.
>> STRICT FUNDING POLICY IN MY OPINION.
IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT FOR THE MEMBERS TO UNDERSTAND AND BRIAN SAID, I HAVE TO VISIT ALL THE STATIONS TO EDUCATE OUR MEMBERS SO THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON BECAUSE THERE'S GOING BE SOME THINGS IN THERE WHERE IT LIMITS US THE ABILITY TO MAKE BENEFIT INCREASINGLY AND WE ALL KNOW AS FIREFIGHTERS, THIS ALL WE HAVE.
WE DON'T HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY.
THIS IS THE ONLY RETIREMENT THAT WE HAVE BESIDES THE FACT OF A DEFERRED COMP ON IRA.
BUT WE REALIZED THAT OUR BENEFITS ARE VERY GOOD AND THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE PUT INTO IT OURSELVES, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT, AND WE'RE WILLING TO PUT THEIR MONEY IN AS LONG AS WE CAN MAINTAIN THE BENEFITS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
>> WE'RE NOT CONTEMPLATING ANY BENEFITS?
>> THIS IS WITH NO BENEFIT CHANGES.
JUST PUT THE FUNDING POLICY WILL LIMIT THE ABILITY TO MAKE BENEFIT INCREASES OR ADD BENEFITS.
IT'S JUST THINK THERE'S ONE BENEFIT THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY LOOK AT WAS AN AD HOC COST OF LIVING, BUT THAT WAS TO THE RETIREES THAT DON'T RECEIVE THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS ONE THING THAT WE DID TAKE AWAY FROM FEW YEARS BACK, WE REMOVED A BENEFIT WHICH WAS AD HOC COST OF LIVING.
BUT THE 18 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN HERE, WE HAVE NOT INCREASED OR ADDITIVE BENEFIT TO THE PLAN.
>> WE UNDERSTAND THAT SO WE JUST WANT TO MAINTAIN WHAT WE HAVE AND CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH OF ACHIEVING 100 PERCENT FUNDING.
>> APPEARS WE'RE HAVING TO COMBINE MINUTE [INAUDIBLE]. [LAUGHTER]. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. OUTSIDE COUNSEL, MR. ABRAMS IS HERE.
>> WE HAVE LUNCH HERE ALSO COUNCIL LET ME GET LEAD THIS DONE AND THEN WE COULD GO GRAB SOME LUNCH.
ITEM 4A PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071,
[4. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
CONSULTATION WITH AN ATTORNEY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, AN OBJECTIVE TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE, VOICE OR ANY LITIGATION OR A SETTLEMENT OFFER ALL ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF ATTORNEY, THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY, UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING.FOR A 122-CB-00258, US DISTRICT COURT SD TEXAS, CITY OF GALVESTON VERSUS SONYA PARETO ON REMOVAL FROM THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON IN 4A.21 [NOISE]- CV 359 US DISTRICT COURT, SD TEXAS PER RATE VERSUS CITY OF GALVESTON PART BOARD AT ALL.
WE ARE MOVING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THANK YOU.
WE [INAUDIBLE] EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE AGENDA ITEMS ON OUR WORKSHOP AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 8TH, AND WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU COUNCIL. SEE YOU THIS AFTERNOON.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.