Dec 08, 2022 Regular Council

OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

LET'S MOVE TO ITEM EIGHT B, PLEASE, MA'AM.

[8.B. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Creating A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Zoning District In A Residential, Single-Family (R-1) Zoning District To Construct A Single-Family Residential Development And Commercial-Retail Land Use For A General Purpose Store, On Property Commonly Known As 0 San Luis Pass Road / FM 3005, And Which Is Legally Described As Lot 1 (1 -3), Lots 2 And 3 Of Seabird Acres, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Planning Case Number 22P-067; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject; And Providing For An Effective Date]

8B, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ARE ONE ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL RETAIL LAND USE FOR A GENERAL PURPOSE STORE ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS ZERO SAN LUIS PASS ROAD FM 3005 AND WHICH IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOT ONE, LOTS TWO AND THREE OF SEABIRD ACRES IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS. PLANNING CASE NUMBER 22P067, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ADRIEL MONTALVAN FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, ADRIEL.

GOOD EVENING COUNCIL.

THIS IS THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REQUEST.

WE SENT OUT 34 PUBLIC NOTICES.

ONLY ONE OF THOSE RETURNED WITH NO COMMENT.

IN THIS CASE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT 40 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A COMMERCIAL RETAIL GENERAL PURPOSE STORE WITH THE DEVIATIONS LISTED ON YOUR REPORT ON PAGE ONE AND PAGE TWO, PLEASE PLEASE NOTE THE DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON PAGES TWO THROUGH FOUR OF YOUR REPORT AND AT THE NOVEMBER 8TH, 2022, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, WITH ONE ADDITIONAL CONDITION LISTED IN YOUR REPORT, AND STAFF IS ALSO RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS LISTED ON REPORT AS ONE THROUGH 11.

AND NOW WE HAVE SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.

THIS IS THE AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SUBJECT SITE.

IT'S A ZONING MAP AS WELL.

AND THE NEXT SLIDE, WE HAVE THE SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.

AND THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU, ADRIEL. COUNCIL.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MONTALVAN? I DO, ADRIEL.

THANKS. THIS IS THE WHERE IS THE MISSING TURNAROUND? ONE OF THE THINGS, THE PLANNING, WE NORMALLY REQUIRES A TURNAROUND, RIGHT.

THE FIRE MARSHAL HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT? NO. SO IT WOULD BE FOR THAT ROAD IN THE BACK AND NO, THE THE THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL PERTAINING TO THAT.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ADRIEL? ALL RIGHT. IT IS 5:24 P.M..

I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM EIGHT B.

[00:25:03]

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS HEARING? NO RESPONSE. JANELLE, ANYTHING IN WRITING ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. IT'S A 5:25 P.M..

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8B, BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR ACTION.

COUNCIL. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER.

YOU KNOW. THANKS.

SORRY. ANY DISCUSSION COUNCIL.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

VERY GOOD. ITEM 8C, PLEASE, JANELLE.

[8.C. Galveston Landmark - 3827 Avenue L Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Designating The Property Located At 3827 Avenue L, As A “Galveston Landmark”, Property Is Legally Described As M. B. Menard Survey, Lot Portion Of Lot 1 (1 -0), Block 38, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Requesting The Historic Preservation Officer Record The Property's Landmark Designation In The Official Public Records Of Real Property In Galveston County, The Tax Records Of The City Of Galveston And The Central Appraisal District, And The Official Zoning Maps Of The City Of Galveston, Texas; Designating The Site As A Historically Or Archeological Significant Site In Need Of Tax Relief To Encourage Its Preservation; Planning Case Number 22P-073; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. ]

EIGHT C, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3827 AVENUE L AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.

PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS M.B.

BERNARD SURVEY LOT PORTION OF LOT ONE, BLOCK 38 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, REQUESTING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RECORD THE PROPERTY'S LANDMARK DESIGNATION IN THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS A REAL PROPERTY IN GALVESTON COUNTY.

THE TAX RECORDS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

DESIGNATING THE SITE AS A HISTORICALLY OR ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE SITE IN NEED OF TAX RELIEF TO ENCOURAGE ITS PRESERVATION.

PLANNING CASE NUMBER 22P-073 MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE CATHERINE GORMAN, CATHERINE.

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING.

IS THE [INAUDIBLE] MARKET? IT WAS BUILT IN 1922.

IT CURRENTLY HOUSES THE CORDRAY'S ICE CREAM SHOP.

IT'S A NICE EXAMPLE OF A TYPICAL CORNER STORE.

IT SURPRISES ME. WE HAVE OVER 100 LOCAL LANDMARKS AND NOT ONE OF THEM IS A CORNER STORES.

AND SO OUR FIRST EXAMPLE OF THAT.

IT ALSO HAS THIS UNUSUAL FEATURE OF A WORLD WAR TWO CALL BOX THAT'S WITH THAT WHITE STRUCTURE IS UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY THAT WAS USED BY SOLDIERS WHO WERE ON PATROL DURING WORLD WAR ONE TO COMMUNICATE TO FORT CROCKETT.

PLANNING COMMISSION, LANDMARK COMMISSION AND STAFF ARE ALL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

VERY GOOD. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS..

GORMAN? COUNCIL? VERY GOOD.

IT'S 5:27 P.M..

I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM 8C, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? ANY COMMENTS YOU RECEIVED JANELLE? VERY GOOD.

IT'S 8:27 P.M..

I'M GOING TO CLOSE EXCUSE ME, 5:27 P.M.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL.

I'LL SAY GO FOR IT.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

COUNCILWOMAN ROBB SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS.

ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ONCE WE GET THAT.

IT'S STILL LOCKED IN YET.

AND SECONDED BY, ALL RIGHT. LET'S FOR THE RECORD, WE HAD A MOTION COUNCILWOMAN ROBB FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM EIGHT B, SECONDED BY.

OH, IT'S UP THERE, COUNCILWOMAN LOUIS.

VERY GOOD. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES COUNCIL.

WE ARE NOW MOVING TO PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AS EVERYONE KNOWS, OR IF YOU'RE NEW TO THE COUNCIL, THIS GIVES YOU 3 MINUTES TO MAKE A

[9. PUBLIC COMMENT ]

COMMENT TO COUNCIL ON AGENDA ITEMS OR NON AGENDA ITEMS. WE DO, UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WE CANNOT RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENTS, BUT WE'RE ALWAYS ANXIOUS TO HEAR THEM. AND IF THERE IS ACTION THAT YOU FEEL NEEDS TO BE TAKEN, OUR CITY STAFF AND COUNCIL IS MAKING NOTES ON THIS.

SO LET'S START WITH MARTY FLUKE, MARTY.

GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS MARTY FLUKE, I LIVE AT 3214 ECKERD DRIVE, GALVESTON, TEXAS.

[00:30:01]

I'M A CITIZEN OF GALVESTON AND I'M CURRENTLY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GALVESTON ISLAND PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

SO MY FRIEND BRYSON FRAZIER LIKES TO QUOTE LINES FROM MOVIES, BUT I PREFER SONG LYRICS.

AND MY FRIEND DAVID COLLINS WILL RECOGNIZE THESE SINCE HE'S AN EX DEEJAY.

BUT THESE COME FROM BUFFALO SPRINGFIELD, A SONG FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

AND THE LYRICS ARE WRITTEN BY A MASTER LYRICIST NAMED STEPHEN STILLS, WHICH MOST OF YOU WILL KNOW.

IT'S A VIETNAM WAR PROTEST SONG.

SINCE I'M A VETERAN OF THAT AREA, I FEEL LIKE I'M ENTITLED TO TO TALK ABOUT THEM.

SO THE SONG BEGINS.

THERE'S SOMETHING HAPPENING HERE.

BUT WHAT IT IS AIN'T EXACTLY CLEAR, RIGHT? SOMETHING'S HAPPENING HERE.

BUT WHAT IT IS AIN'T EXACTLY CLEAR.

SO I SAW CONFUSION THIS MORNING SURROUNDING THE VALIDITY OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES, AND THAT BROUGHT THIS TO MIND.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT EXACTLY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE DOING.

THE THIRD VERSE CONTINUES.

THERE ARE BATTLE LINES BEING DRAWN.

NOBODY'S RIGHT IF EVERYBODY'S WRONG.

RIGHT. SO I CONTINUE TO WONDER, DOES THIS SOUND LIKE OUR CURRENT SITUATION? EVERYBODY'S WRONG.

NOBODY'S RIGHT.

AND I'M ASKING, WHY ARE WE DRAWING BATTLE LINES HERE BETWEEN THE PARK BOARD AND THE CITY? AND WHY AREN'T WE WHY DON'T WE STOP FOCUSING INTERNALLY AND START FOCUSING ON THE RESIDENTS, THE TOURISTS, OUR PARTNERS OUT HERE THAT ARE DRIVING THE ECONOMY AND ARE THE ECONOMIC ENGINE THAT DRIVE THIS CITY FORWARD? THEY FUEL THE CITY'S ECONOMY.

AND BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OWN ADMISSION THIS MORNING, THE ORDINANCES DON'T FIX THE LEGALITY OF THE PROBLEMS. AND SO RATHER, HE STATES, WE NEED A CONTRACT OR AN INTERLOCAL TO SOLVE THE LEGALITY OF THE PROBLEM THAT IS THE CENTERPIECE OF THIS DISCUSSION.

SO WITH RESPECT, MY QUESTION IS WHY WOULD THIS COUNCIL PASS ORDINANCES AND ADD TO THE CITY'S BUREAUCRACY WHEN THEY ADMITTEDLY DO NOT SOLVE THE PURPORTED PROBLEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MARTY.

APPRECIATE IT. BILL KEYES.

HI, BILL. HEY, MR. MAYOR. HOW ARE YOU DOING TODAY? GOOD. COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TODAY.

MY NAME IS BILL KEYES.

I LIVE AT 1401 25TH STREET JUST DOWN THE ROAD FROM HERE.

I AM CONFUSED ABOUT WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE WE ARE WITH THE PARK BOARD.

IT'S BEEN RUNNING THE WAY IT HAS FOR 14 YEARS.

IT'S BEEN DOING A FINE JOB.

I THINK EVERYBODY IN THE COUNCIL HAS ADMITTED IT'S BEEN DOING A FINE JOB.

AND ALL OF A SUDDEN A COUNCILMAN DIGS INTO THE LAW AND DISCOVERS SOMETHING THAT HE DOESN'T LIKE AND HE GOES TO CITY ATTORNEY AND THEY COME UP WITH A REASON WHY THE PARK BOARD ISN'T WORKING THE WAY IT SHOULD BE WORKING.

AND THEY SAY IT'S UNLAWFUL AND WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

THE LAW IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEVER VERY PRECISE.

I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I USED TO MAKE LAWS.

THE LAW IS BASED ON INTERPRETATIONS, AND SO FAR I'VE HEARD FOUR INTERPRETATIONS ONE SUPPORTING WHAT THE CITY IS ABOUT TO DO, AND THREE OPPOSING WHAT THE CITY'S ABOUT TO DO.

I THINK TIME IS IMPORTANT THAT THE CITY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS NOT UNANIMOUS HERE IN THIS ISSUE, AND I'M ALSO CONFUSED ABOUT THE LEADERSHIP ROLE.

FOR SOME TIME NOW, I HAVE BEEN WATCHING AS THE CITY ATTORNEY SETS POLICY IN THIS CITY.

AND I URGE ALL OF Y'ALL TO THINK DEEPLY ABOUT THAT.

YOU ARE THE ELECTED PEOPLE TO REPRESENT GALVESTON.

IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE POLICY, AND YOU'RE ABOUT TO MAKE POLICY BASED ON ONE MAN'S OPINION.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE WAY OF USING YOUR POWER.

AND I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I'M CONFUSED ABOUT IS WHY THIS ISSUE CAME TO THE PUBLIC WITHOUT PRIVATE INVESTIGATIONS AND PRIVATE DISCUSSIONS.

LIKE TOO MANY THINGS IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY, ISSUES ARE BROADCAST IN THE NEWS MEDIA AND THE SOCIAL MEDIA, AND IT GETS DISTORTED AND PEOPLE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO THINK.

I WONDER WHY LEADERSHIP DIDN'T COME TOGETHER WITH THE PARK BOARD LEADERSHIP AND SAY, WE THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM.

WHY CAN'T WE WORK TOGETHER?

[00:35:02]

IT'S HIGH TIME, IN MY OPINION, TO ECHO SOMETHING MARTY JUST SAID AND SOMETHING THAT COUNCILMAN SHARON, AS YOU SAID IN THE LAST MEETING, IT'S TIME FOR US TO WORK TOGETHER.

IT'S TIME TO PULL TOGETHER AND NOT FUSS WITH EACH OTHER.

IT'S A TIME TO UNITE AND MOVE FORWARD IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF GALVESTON.

AND NOT JUST A FEW.

THANK YOU, BILL. MAUREEN PATTON.

MAUREEN PATTON, 7666, CHANTILLY CIRCLE, GALVESTON RESIDENT.

AS A FORMER PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEE MEMBER, I ALWAYS APPRECIATED OUR COLLABORATION WITH CITY COUNCIL THROUGH OUR INTERLOCAL CONTRACTS.

IT HAS SADDENED ME TO SEE THAT IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS WE'VE GOTTEN AWAY FROM WORKING TOGETHER THROUGH CONTRACTS TO NOW IMPOSING ORDINANCES WITHOUT PROPER DISCOURSE BETWEEN THE TWO ENTITIES.

I'M ASKING COUNCIL TO PUT THEMSELVES IN THE SHOES OF THE TRUSTEES.

THEY WERE APPOINTED BY YOU.

THEY SERVE ALONGSIDE OF ONE OF YOU ON THE BOARD.

THEY PROVIDE THEIR FULL BUDGETS, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND AUDITS.

MANY OF YOU HAVE GONE ON THE RECORD TO SAY THAT THIS IS ABOUT LEGAL COMPLIANCE AND THAT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THE PARK BOARD DOES A GREAT JOB.

THESE ORDINANCES DO NOT REFLECT THAT STATEMENT.

I'M ASKING YOU TODAY IF THE ORDINANCES PRESENTED ARE TRULY THE WILL OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

DO THESE ORDINANCES THAT DON'T PROVIDE SOLUTIONS AND IN FACT REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL CONTRACT TO FUND THE PARK BOARD PASSED MARCH 31ST.

REPRESENTS YOUR VALUES.

AS A FORMER TRUSTEE, I KNOW HOW MUCH TIME AND EFFORT GOES INTO PLANNING AND EXECUTING THE PARK BOARD BUDGET.

I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT ONLY BEING FUNDED THROUGH MARCH 31ST WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THEIR OPERATIONS.

AS A BUSINESSWOMAN, THESE ORDINANCES DO NOT APPEAR TO BE THOUGHT THROUGH THOROUGHLY, AND THEY REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL WORK TO BE MADE COMPLIANT BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION.

FROM MY VIEWPOINT, IT'S A BAND-AID APPROACH TO ISSUES THAT REQUIRE MAJOR SURGERY.

PLEASE DO NOT HASTILY VOTE ON TWO ORDINANCES.

WAIT TO DEVELOP A CONTRACT THAT ENSURES FUNDING FOR THE PARK BOARD PAST THREE MONTHS AND ADDRESSES YOUR ORIGINAL COMPLIANCE CONCERNS.

IF THE MONEY BEING DEPOSITED IN THE PARK BOARD ACCOUNTS IS TRULY THE PROBLEM, THEN ADDRESS THAT.

BUT DON'T CREATE AN ORDINANCE JUST TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAUREEN.

JOYCE CALVERT MCLEAN.

MRS. CLAUS.

MRS. CLAUSE.

HE COULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN DRESSED WITHOUT ME.

MY NAME IS JOYCE CALVERT MCCLAIN.

I LIVE AT 1010 WINNIE STREET IN GALVESTON, TEXAS, AND I AM A FORMER PARK BOARD CHAIR.

CITY STAFF HAS ASSERTED THAT ORDINANCES ARE NECESSARY TO BRING THE CITY AND PARK BOARD INTO COMPLIANCE AND THE WAY IT DEPOSITS HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. TWO ORDINANCES BY THE CITY'S ATTORNEY OWN ADMISSION DO NOT ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL, AS NOTED IN A MEMO ATTACHED TO THE TWO ORDINANCES.

FURTHERMORE, THE TWO ORDINANCES GO FAR BEYOND THEIR PERCEIVED BUDGET AND DEPOSITORY COMPLIANCE AND THREATEN TO DEFUND THE PARK BOARD THROUGH A COMPLEX APPROVAL PROCESS RESTRICTING FUNDS WITH NO CURRENT PLAN TO FUND THE PARK BOARD AGAIN PASSED MARCH 31ST OF 2023. THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE LEGALLY UNFOUNDED AND UNPRECEDENTED.

AS I SAID, AS A FORMER PARK BOARD CHAIR AND SOMEONE WHO LIVED THROUGH A SIMILAR ATTEMPT BY THE CITY TO REAPPROPRIATE HIGHLY RESTRICTED FUNDS, I CAN SEE THIS FOR WHAT IT IS.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT LEGAL TAX CODE COMPLIANCE.

IF IT WAS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WOULD SATISFY THAT ISSUE.

TWO ENTITIES HAVE BEEN GOVERNED BY CONTRACT FOR OVER 60 YEARS.

THE PARK BOARD HAS NEVER SHIED AWAY FROM FINDING LEGAL WAYS TO HELP THE CITY FIND FUNDING.

IN THE 2019 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THE PARK BOARD AGREED TO AN ANNUAL REVENUE SHARE TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON, AMOUNTING 300,000.

THE PARK BOARD ALSO TOOK OVER THE SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION AT THE CITY'S REQUEST AND AS WELL AS THE COLLECTION OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.

THAT ACTUALLY COSTS THE PARK BOARD A LITTLE OVER $200,000 A YEAR.

[00:40:01]

ALL THE ANSWERS ABOUT COMPLIANCE LIE AND SECTION 351.105 FOR ELIGIBLE COASTAL COMMUNITIES AND THE TEXAS STATE TAX CODE, WHICH STATES THAT IT PREVAILS OVER ANY CONFLICTING PROVISION IN THE CHARTER.

GALVESTON IS AN ELIGIBLE COASTAL MUNICIPALITY.

THE CITY ATTORNEY CONTINUES TO REFERENCE 351.101, EVEN THOUGH IT IS PREEMPTED BY 351105. THEREFORE, AS AN ELIGIBLE COASTAL MUNICIPALITY, AND IN KEEPING WITH CHAPTER 306, THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD REQUIRES NO FURTHER AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.

I'M ASKING YOU NOT ONLY AS A FORMER PARK BOARD MEMBER, BUT AS A VOTING CITIZEN, NOT TO HASTILY VOTE ON TWO ORDINANCES THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COMPLIANCE YOU ARE SEEKING AND AREN'T EVEN NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE IT.

I'M ASKING YOU TO RECOGNIZE THE PARK BOARD AS THE SEPARATE ENTITY THAT IT IS.

IT WAS ENACTED IN A SPECIAL ACT OF THE TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE AND MEMORIALIZED IN THE TAX CODE AS AN ELIGIBLE COASTAL MUNICIPALITY, WHICH INCIDENTALLY, WAS VOTED BY THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON, NOT THE CITY COUNCIL.

THANK YOU, JOYCE.

JAY BANGLE.

J BANGLE, 2415 AVENUE N, AND I CAME HERE IN 1991 TO COMPLAIN TO YOUR PREDECESSORS ABOUT THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

THEY WERE SHUTTING DOWN THE STRAND TOO EARLY FOR WHATEVER THAT WAS DICKENS OR AND ROBERT LYNCH RESPONDED BY ASKING ME TO SERVE ON THE PARK BOARD.

AND I DID. I SPENT THREE YEARS THERE.

AT THE END OF EACH YEAR, WE GAVE THE EXCESS FUNDS TO YOU.

OH, AND I SERVED WITH MARILYN, MARILYN SCHWARTZ.

SO ABOUT 2 TO 3 TIMES A MONTH, I HAD LUNCH WITH BABE, AND HE TAUGHT ME THE HISTORY OF GALVESTON BEACHES.

AND I DO REMEMBER WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO HOUSTON, MY FORMER IN-LAWS SAID, DON'T YOU TAKE THOSE KIDS DOWN THERE.

IT'S FILTHY, IT'S DANGEROUS.

BY GOLLY, IT WAS.

BABE SCHWARTZ FIXED THAT BY VERY IMPORTANT LEGISLATION AT THE STATE LEVEL.

AND BABE EXPLAINED TO ME IN FIXING IT THE DIRE NEED TO SEPARATE THE FUNDS FROM YOU.

YOU HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

YOU TAKE AN OATH TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

WHEN I SERVED ON THE PARK BOARD, I TOOK AN OATH TO THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES.

AND THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT BABE IMPRESSED UPON ME HEAVILY WAS THE IMPORTANCE FINANCIALLY TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

5 MILLION PEOPLE LIVE WITHIN A 50 MILE RADIUS, AND HALF THAT RADIUS IS UNDERWATER, AND YOU ARE THE CLOSEST SALTWATER.

AND YOUR CONFLICT IS THE ONLY WAY IN YOUR MIND THAT YOU CAN SERVE YOUR CITY IS TO GET REELECTED.

AND THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET REELECTED IS TO TAKE ANY AVAILABLE MONEY AND GET WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS WANT.

BABE KNEW THAT.

AND THAT'S WHY HE SEPARATED THE PARK BOARD MONEY FROM YOU.

YOU'LL SAY, OH, WELL, WE WON'T SPEND IT, BUT YOU HAVE TO.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET REELECTED WITHOUT GIVING YOUR CONSTITUENTS WHAT THEY WANT? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SAVE THE BEACHES WITHOUT TAKING CARE OF THE PARK BOARD? IT'S LIKE ME, I HAVE A LITTLE STORE.

IF I DON'T TAKE CARE OF MY STORE.

I DON'T MAKE ANY MONEY. YOU DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE BEACHES.

GALVESTON IS GOING TO LOSE MONEY, JOBS, BUSINESSES, THE BEACHES LIKE BABE SAID.

AND YOU NAMED THE BEACH AFTER HIM.

[00:45:01]

BUT NOW YOU'RE GOING TO DENIGRATE HIM BY TAKING AWAY HIS LEGACY.

BECAUSE YOU GUYS WANT THE MONEY TO BUY YOUR VOTES BACK.

IT'S DISGUSTING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, JAY.

ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT AT THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION HERE.

COME RIGHT AHEAD, SPENCER.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. SORRY I WAS LATE TO THE MEETING.

SPENCER PRIEST, 29 QUINTONNA DRIVE HERE IN GALVESTON.

EXCUSE ME. A CURRENT TRUSTEE AND A FORMER CHAIR OF THE PARK BOARD.

I JUST WANTED TO TALK TODAY ABOUT WHAT MANY OF US DO.

ITEM AGENDA ITEM TEN C AND WHY THE PARK BOARD SHOULD REMAIN SEPARATE FROM THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

AS A RESIDENT, I APPRECIATE THAT OUR ISLAND IS A DESTINATION AND WE HAVE SO MUCH TO OFFER OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR TOURISTS.

THE PARK BOARD WORKS TO MAKE SURE THE VISION ALWAYS HAS THE RESIDENTS IN MIND.

SO AS A REMINDER, TRUSTEES ARE ALL RESIDENTS.

AND NOW YOU HEAR THIS. BUT THINK ABOUT IT.

WE'RE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY VOTE FOR EACH OF YOU AND OUR DISTRICTS.

WE SUPPORT YOU.

IF WE DON'T AGREE WITH SOMETHING, WE DON'T GO OUT AND, YOU KNOW, BASH YOUR NAMES OR ANYTHING.

WE CONTINUE TO WORK OUT AND WE WORK THROUGH THIS.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR CITY COUNCIL TO DO WITH THE PARK BOARD, IF THERE'S SOME LEGAL ISSUE THAT'S OUT THERE, LET'S SIT DOWN AND HASH IT OUT.

I WAS PART OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT'S CURRENTLY IN PLACE WITH SOME OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT'S IN PLACE AND CITY STAFF THAT'S STILL WORKING UNDER YOU.

IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE, WHY DIDN'T WE IDENTIFY IT IN THOSE AWFUL NEGOTIATIONS THAT WE WENT THROUGH? THEY WERE TEDIOUS. THEY WERE LONG.

IT IT WAS A THIRD FULL TIME JOB FOR ME WHEN I DID IT.

AND I APPRECIATE IT. I'LL DO IT FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON FOR A PLACE I MOVED, DECIDED TO MOVE BECAUSE I WAS A TOURIST AT ONE TIME.

YOU KNOW, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR NEITHER ORGANIZATION IS WORKING WELL TOGETHER.

THIS IS NOT A US AGAINST THEM.

THIS IS A PLEA TO HAVE US WORK TOGETHER.

WE'VE GOT TO GET THESE JOINT MEETINGS.

BACK THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE HAVE NOT SAT IN FRONT OF EACH OTHER AND HAD ANY GOOD DISCUSSIONS.

THE VISION, THE VISION IS THERE.

WE HAVE MASTER PLANS, WE TALK ABOUT IT.

WE'VE GOT TO GET THOSE BACK IN PLACE.

BUT FOR YOU TO WRITE AN ORDINANCE AND JUST TAKE THE POWER OF THE PARK BOARD AWAY BECAUSE THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING, THAT'S NOT GOING TO IMPROVE ANYTHING.

IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.

AND THEN IT BEGS THE QUESTION, WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE TRUSTEE? YOU KNOW, DO ALL THE TRUSTEES JUST RESIGN AFTER THIS VOTE COMES IN? I SEE COLLINS NODDING HIS HEAD YES.

SO WE KNOW WHERE WE KNOW WHAT HE WANTS OUT OF THE RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON, APPARENTLY.

BUT I ASKED THE OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PLEASE TAKE A REAL HARD LOOK AT THIS.

YOU KNOW, IT'S AN ORDINANCE.

WE NEED INNER LOCALS AND CONTRACTS.

SOMETHING ISN'T WORKING RIGHT.

LET'S SIT DOWN AND HASH IT OUT..

I GUESS THIS MORNING, AND I MISSED IT.

I WAS IN MEETINGS. BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT THE DIRECTION YOU HAD GIVEN STAFF TO FIND ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAMS. NOBODY FOUND ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAMS. YOU'RE TAKING A CURRENT REVENUE STREAM.

SO IT'S NOT BENEFITING THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

ALL RIGHT. I THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

AND HAVE A GOOD ONE.

THANK YOU, SPENCER.

VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? WE HAVE FIVE WRITTEN COMMENTS.

JANELLE, NOW WE HAVE SIX.

WE HAVE SIX. THEY JUST CAME IN.

OKAY. OKAY.

THE FIRST ONE IS FROM WILL WRIGHT? THE SUBJECT IS PARK BOARD ORDINANCES.

THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES DO NOT GIVE ENOUGH DETAILED PROCESSES ON THE LONG RANGE IMPACT THESE CHANGES WILL HAVE.

THEY ARE SHORT TERM CHANGES THAT WILL HAVE A MASSIVE LONG TERM IMPACT.

THEY ALSO DON'T ADEQUATELY ADDRESS MANY OF THE COUNCIL'S COMPLIANCE CONCERNS, NOR NUMEROUS CONCERNS FOR PARK BOARD STAFF AND OPERATIONS.

I URGE THE COUNCIL TO WORK WITH PARK BOARD TO AGREE ON AN UPDATED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT CAN SERVE AS THE CONTRACT BETWEEN OUR ENTITIES AS OUTLINED IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCES. NEXT IS FROM MELISSA DRAMBURGER, AND THE SUBJECT IS SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION.

I WOULD LIKE MORE INFORMATION ON THE 400% INCREASE ON THE RENTAL REGISTRATION.

WE ALREADY PAY HOT.

DID YOU REDUCE THOSE? I'M SURE YOU DID NOT.

PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THIS MONEY IS USED FOR.

DOES IT BENEFIT ME? A HOMEOWNER WHO RENTS PROPERTY AND ALREADY PAYS FEES AND HOT.

[00:50:01]

THIS SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN VOTED ON, BUT AS A HOMEOWNER I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY INFO ON THESE ISSUES.

THIS IS REALLY ABUSING THOSE WHO SUPPORT GALVESTON.

NEXT IS FROM NICHOLAS ELLIS, AND THE SUBJECT IS NEW SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION FEES.

I WAS JUST NOTIFIED VIA EMAIL THAT MY SHORT TERM RENTAL FEE WAS INCREASED FROM 50 TO 250 ARBITRARILY WITHOUT ANY SORT OF PUBLIC VOTE OR COMMENT PERIOD.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS.

WOULD LOVE TO SEE A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THIS MONEY IS GOING TOWARD.

WHY THE FEE NEEDED TO BE FIVE TIMES ADJUSTED ONE YEAR AFTER ITS CREATION.

AND IF THE DEMONIZATION OF SHORT TERM RENTAL OWNERS WILL EVER STOP, ESPECIALLY LOCALS THAT OPERATE A SMALL HANDFUL OF UNITS.

FOR NOW, I'LL BE SURE TO VOTE FOR A DIFFERENT COUNCILMEMBER NEXT TIME.

NEXT IS FROM JENNIFER YANKEE.

THE SUBJECT IS POLE BARN IN NEIGHBORS BACKYARD.

I'M DEEPLY DISHEARTENED THAT MY NEIGHBOR WAS PERMITTED BY THE CITY TO PUT A METAL POLE BARN IN HIS BACKYARD AT 2810 AVENUE N AND A HALF.

THIS GREATLY REDUCES MY PROPERTY VALUE AS IT HAS THE APPEARANCE OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH HISTORIC PROPERTIES.

I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW THIS STRUCTURE DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ORDINANCE, WHICH STATES THAT STRUCTURES MUST BE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER AS ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

NOR ANOTHER ORDINANCE REQUIRING A YEAR ROUND LANDSCAPING BARRIER.

NEXT IS FROM KEVIN MCCRACKEN.

THE SUBJECT IS TRASH.

YOU SPEND A LOT OF MONEY KEEPING THE BEACHES CLEAN AND THEY LOOK REALLY GOOD.

BUT THE REST OF THE ISLAND IS FILLED WITH TRASH, MAINLY FROM THE HOMELESS PEOPLE WHO DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT THEMSELVES, MUCH LESS THE ENVIRONMENT.

SO MY ISSUE AS A RESIDENT WHO PICKS UP TRASH WHEREVER I GO.

MY ISSUE IS WHY AREN'T YOU REQUIRING BUSINESSES TO HAVE TRASH RECEPTACLES OUTSIDE OF THEIR BUSINESS? AND WHY AREN'T YOU ENFORCING THESE BUSINESSES TO KEEP THEIR PROPERTY CLEAN? EVERY BUSINESS HAS TRASH EVERYWHERE.

AND THE LAST ONE IS FROM POLEGATO, AND THE SUBJECT IS HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT IN THE 1970S, LOCAL HOTELIERS ASKED THEN-SENATOR BABE SCHWARTZ TO TAX THEIR INDUSTRY SO THAT THE FUNDS RAISED THEREBY COULD BE USED TO PROMOTE THE ISLAND AND GROW THE OVERALL TOURIST INDUSTRY.

WHEN SCHWARTZ INTRODUCED THE ENABLING LEGISLATION IN THE STATE IN THE TEXAS SENATE, HE WAS EMPATHETIC THAT THE TOURIST INDUSTRY ITSELF WAS ASKING TO BE TAXED.

THE INDUSTRY WOULD NEVER HAVE SUPPORTED THE TAX HAD THEY BELIEVED IT WOULD EVER BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAN PROMOTING THE ISLAND.

AND THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT.

THANK YOU, JANELLE. APPRECIATE THAT.

WE'RE NOW MOVING TO ITEM TEN, ORDINANCES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[10.A. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Approving The Amended And Restated Certificate Of Formation Of The Galveston Island Redevelopment Authority; Directing The Filing Of The Same With The Office Of The Texas Secretary Of State, Providing For Findings Of Fact And For An Effective Date. ]

TEN A PLEASE, JANELLE.

TEN A, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION OF THE GALVESTON ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIRECTING THE FILING OF THE SAME WITH THE OFFICE OF THE TEXAS SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

THIS IS LEGAL.

DON, DID YOU WANT TO MAKING COMMENTS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. EXCUSE ME.

ON 10A, DON.

IT'S ON THE RDA MERGER.

NO THE COUNCIL VOTED TO..

IS YOUR MIC ON? ALL RIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT IN THE WORKSHOP ON THAT.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO ITEM TEN A.

IS THERE A SECOND? OH, SORRY. HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES, PLEASE.

AND THAT IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

ITEM TEN B, PLEASE, JANELLE.

[10.B. Budget Amendment Ordinance An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending The Total Operating Budget For Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2022, By Adjusting Various Budget Accounts In The Amount Of One Million Three Hundred Eighteen Thousand Dollars ($1,318,000) To Properly Record Expenditures Including Eight Hundred Sixty Two Thousand Dollars Transferred From One Department To Another Department Without Increasing The General Fund Budget In Total And Four Hundred Fifty Six Thousand Dollars In Special Fund Costs; Such Costs Resulting From Increase In Garage Expenditures Related To Fuel Parts And Repairs Costs; Loss Of State Grants For Emergency Management Reimbursements; Reallocation Of Personnel To The Emergency Management Department; Increase In Local Match For Island Transit; Increase In Taxation Fees: Additional Funding For Separation Payouts For City Departures; And Various Other Budget Variations; Including Authority To Transfer Police Budget Underrun To The Technology Improvement Fund, Authority To Transfer The Budget Underrun In The Information Technology Operating Budget To The Technology Improvement Fund And Authority To Transfer Excess General Fund Balance To The Health Insurance Fund To Fund The Retiree Health Care Liability; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject; And Providing For An Effective Date.]

TEN B, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2022, BY ADJUSTING VARIOUS BUDGET ACCOUNTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,318,000.

TO PROPERLY RECORD EXPENDITURES, INCLUDING $862,000 TRANSFERRED FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER WITHOUT INCREASING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN TOTAL AND $456,000 IN SPECIAL FUND COST.

SUCH COSTS RESULTING FROM INCREASE IN GARAGE EXPENDITURES RELATED TO FUEL PARTS AND REPAIR COSTS.

[00:55:02]

LOSS OF STATE GRANTS FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT REIMBURSEMENT.

REALLOCATION OF PERSONNEL TO THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT.

INCREASE IN LOCAL MATCH FOR ISLAND TRANSIT.

INCREASE IN TAXATION FEES.

ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR SEPARATION PAYOUTS FOR CITY DEPARTURES AND VARIOUS OTHER BUDGET VARIATIONS, INCLUDING AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER POLICE BUDGET UNDER RUN TO THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT FUND.

AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER THE BUDGET UNDER RUN TO THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OPERATING BUDGET TO THE TECHNOLOGY IMPROVEMENT FUND AND AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER EXCESS GENERAL FUND BALANCE TO THE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND TO FUND THE RETIREE HEALTH CARE LIABILITY.

MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WE DO NEED TO REDUCE THESE CAPTURES.

MIKE, GO RIGHT AHEAD, SIR.

COUNCIL KNOWS WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF QUARTERLY REPORTS THAT WE FILE.

ONE IS ACTUALLY FILED AS A PART OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET EACH YEAR FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND THE OTHER THREE QUARTERS.

THERE'S A REPORT FILED THAT DOES PROJECTIONS THROUGH THE END OF THE YEAR.

THIS IS ONLY OUR SECOND AMENDMENT THIS YEAR.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT OCCURRED AT THE START OF 2022 TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS THAT AROSE FROM THE YEAR END PROCESS WHERE PARTICULARLY THIS YEAR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME THING IN THE FIRST QUARTER WHERE VEHICLES WERE NOT DELIVERED AND FUNDS NEEDED TO BE CARRIED OVER AND REALLOCATED TO COVER COVER THAT COST.

THE LIST OF THINGS THAT YOU HEARD IS A REALLY SMALL LIST OF ITEMS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET IN OCTOBER OF 21.

AND THE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING IN HERE, I WILL POINT TO AND THIS CAME UP IN THE WORKSHOP THIS MORNING, A COUPLE OF SIGNIFICANT THINGS AS FAR AS TRANSFERS ARE CONCERNED.

AND THIS IS NOT BUDGET AUTHORITY.

THIS IS ACTUALLY TRANSFER OF CASH.

WE ARE TAKING OUR PROPOSING TO TAKE WITH COUNCIL'S APPROVAL THE $695,000 UNDER RUN FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THIS YEAR'S THE 2022 BUDGET AND SET THAT ASIDE FOR THEIR RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE REPLACED IN THE NEXT 18 TO 24 MONTHS.

WE DID THIS LAST YEAR.

WE HAD 1.3 MILLION SET ASIDE WITH THIS PLUG OF MONEY THAT HOPEFULLY YOU'LL APPROVE, AND THAT PUTS US IN THE BALLPARK OF WHAT THAT PROJECT IS LIKELY TO COST.

THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING THE EXCESS OF IN FUND BALANCE AFTER THESE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS THAT I'VE MENTIONED AND MOVING IT TO THE HEALTH BENEFITS FUND TO ADDRESS WHAT LAST YEAR WAS EXCUSE ME, WAS A $14 MILLION LIABILITY FOR RETIREE HEALTH CARE.

WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT 4.6 MILLION INTO THE HEALTH BENEFITS TRUST FUND TO ADDRESS THAT.

AND WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MIKE.

COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LOFTON? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM TEN B BY COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT COUNCIL, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

ITEM TEN C, PLEASE, JANELLE.

[10.C. Ordinance - Transfer Of HOT To Park Board Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Relating To The Distribution Of Hotel Occupancy Taxes (Hot) To The Galveston Park Board Of Trustees; Providing Provisional Approval Of The Park Board’s Budget For The Use Of Hot Funds Distributed By The City To The Park Board; Providing For The Delivery Of Hot Funds To The Park Board By The City; Providing For The Submission Of Quarterly Reports By The Park Board To The City Detailing Its Use Of Hot Funds; Providing For The Continued Collection Of Hot Tax By The Park Board Until September 30, 2023; Directing Staff To Draft A Contract For Delivery Of Hot To The Park Board For The Period Beginning April 1 Through September 30, 2023; Providing For The Submission Of Hot Budget Requests By The Park Board For The Fiscal Years Beginning October 1, 2023; And Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject.]

TEN C, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, RELATING TO THE DISTRICT DISTRIBUTION OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY, TAXES TO THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PROVIDING PROVISIONAL APPROVAL OF THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET FOR THE USE OF HOT FUNDS DISTRIBUTED BY THE CITY TO THE PARK BOARD, PROVIDING FOR THE DELIVERY OF HOT FUNDS TO THE PARK BOARD BY THE CITY, PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF QUARTERLY REPORTS BY THE PARK BOARD TO THE CITY DETAILING ITS USE OF HOT FUNDS, PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUED COLLECTION OF HOT TAX BY BY THE PARK BOARD UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2023.

DIRECTING STAFF TO DRAFT A CONTRACT FOR DELIVERY OF HOT TO THE PARK BOARD FOR THE PERIOD BEGINNING APRIL 1ST THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2023.

PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF HOT BUDGET REQUESTS BY THE PARK BOARD FOR THE FISCAL YEARS BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2023, AND MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

VERY GOOD. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT WAS DEFERRED FROM TWO MEETINGS AGO TO THIS MEETING HERE.

IT IS AN ITEM THAT WE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH THIS MORNING IN OUR WORKSHOP.

WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US ORIGINALLY IN THIS ITEM.

AND I THINK, DONNA, YOU HAVE PASSED THESE OUT TO COUNCIL.

COUNCIL, THIS IS ITEM TEN C AND THE CHANGES THAT COUNCIL WANTED TO HAVE IN THERE ARE HIGHLIGHTED.

[01:00:07]

WE HAVE REMOVED A SECTION AND WE HAVE ADDED SOME AND ADDITIONAL WORDING TO SECTION THREE COMING UP HERE.

SO THAT IS WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT.

DONNA OR DON, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS BEFORE WE OPEN THIS DISCUSSION? I'VE SAID SO MUCH ALREADY.

NUFF SAID. THIS NECESSARY TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

I'M GOING TO BRING THIS BACK FOR COUNCIL.

LET'S. I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR US TO START OUR DISCUSSIONS FROM ON THIS.

IS THERE ANY MOTION? I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL? SECOND THAT.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM TEN C, IT'S SECONDED BY A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER.

AND, OF COURSE, DAVID, THAT IS THE AMENDED VERSION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US.

YES. THAT IS, I MOVE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED VERSION THAT WAS HANDED TO COUNCIL THAT HAD THOSE TWO [INAUDIBLE] ONE OF THE WAREHOUSES WAS REMOVED AND THE LINE ADDED TO SECTION THREE.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

AND SECOND, LET'S OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI.

SO I SEE THERE'S BEEN SOME TEXT AMENDMENT HERE TO SECTION THREE, BUT IN OUR WORKSHOP, THAT'S NOT WHERE I WANTED TO SEE THAT TEXT. AND IT WAS IT WAS IN SECTION FIVE WHERE I WANTED TO SEE THE TEXT.

THE SAME TEXT, JOHN.

I MEAN, THAT TEXT WOULD BE OK, I GUESS.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, MY PERSONAL OPINION WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD SAY RESOLVE BY CALCULATIONS BY THE CITY MANAGER AND SUBJECT TO THIS DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL WHOSE DETERMINATION SHALL BE FINAL.

ARE YOU REQUESTING AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON THAT, SIR? YES, RIGHT.

WE HAVE A11 THING, AND I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, TOO.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S FIRST OF ALL, DID YOU HAVE OTHER AMENDMENTS, JOHN? NOT SO MUCH AMENDMENTS, JUST MORE QUESTIONS, MORE QUESTION.

LET'S LET'S MOVE WITH AMENDMENT.

FIRST. WE HAVE A RECOMMEND.

I WOULD HAVE NO TROUBLE WITH MOVING THAT LANGUAGE TO SECTION FIVE.

ALL RIGHT. AND COUNCILMAN DON, WHAT WHAT WHAT SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO THE BUDGET AND THE BUDGET INFORMATION WAS IN SECTION THREE.

BUT IF YOU FEEL THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THE SAME LANGUAGE.

WELL, I THINK THE QUESTION THIS MORNING, COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI'S QUESTION IS, I THINK WELL TAKEN.

THE QUESTION THIS MORNING WAS WAS, I THINK, MORE DIRECTED TOWARDS SECTION FIVE.

SO WE COULD IF WE COULD MOVE THAT THAT LINE TO SECTION FIVE, YOU KNOW, THE CONCERN BEING THAT THAT THAT COUNCIL HAVE FINAL APPROVAL OF THE THESE RECALCULATIONS.

AND NOW WE LOOK TO THE BUDGET OFFICER TO BRING THESE THINGS TO US.

BUT AND THEN THEY HAVE TO BE VOTED ON BY COUNCIL IN EITHER CASE.

BUT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH ADDING THAT LANGUAGE TO THAT.

ALL RIGHT. SO, SO SO FOR CLARITY, ANY CHANGE TO THE BUDGET SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL, WHICH IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, WHICH IS IS THAT NOT CURRENTLY WHAT? ABSOLUTELY. IT'S THE RULE OF LAW ACTUALLY LET'S CODIFY THAT.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S LET'S BEFORE WE MOVE ON, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE AMENDMENT CORRECT.

WOULD YOU READ SECTION FIVE AS YOU INTERPRET WHAT OUR.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT MEETS COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI'S APPROVAL.

SECTION FIVE HASN'T CHANGED.

SO COULD YOU MOVE YOUR MICROPHONE DOWN, PLEASE? ON IT. LET ME LET ME READ TO YOU WHAT I WOULD LIKE SECTION FIVE TO SAY.

OKAY. WHERE IT SAYS, I'M GOING TO PICK UP HERE AT THE BOTTOM HERE.

CALCULATIONS BY THE CITY MANAGER AND SUBJECT TO A DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL WHOSE DETERMINATION SHALL BE FINAL.

MAY I? IF YOU DO THAT, I THINK I KIND OF THINK WE NEED TO LEAVE THAT LINE AS IT IS IN SECTION THREE.

I MEAN, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT EITHER, BUT IT ALREADY HAS.

I KNOW WE'RE. SUCH APPROVALS MUST BE ATTAINED FROM CITY COUNCIL BY SEPARATE APPLICATION.

I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH LEAVING THAT LANGUAGE TO SECTION 3 TOO, BUT MY DISCUSSION THIS MORNING WAS ABOUT SECTION FIVE.

I HAVE I HAVE NO TROUBLE WITH WHAT COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI JUST SAID.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? WELL, AND IN THAT MAYBE DON DOES.

EXCEPT THAT IN 14 DAYS, IF MIKE LOFTON AND BRYSON DO NOT AGREE HOW MUCH

[01:05:08]

MONEY IS TO BE TRANSFERRED, IT HAS TO COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL AND THEY'RE CONTINUING TO HOLD THE MONEY IN THE MEANTIME. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, I DON'T SEE HOW YOU WOULD DO IT ANY OTHER WAY WITH SUCH A BIG DISCREPANCY IN EXHIBIT A THAT WE SAW THIS MORNING.

WELL, IF I MAY, WE CAN PLAY HIDE THE HOT TAX FOR AS LONG AS THEY WANT TO.

AT SOME POINT, WE DO NEED TO MAKE A DECISION AND WE LOOK TO MR. LOFTON AND MR. MAXWELL TO TO BRING US THOSE FIGURES.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHICH OF THESE LINE ITEMS IN EXHIBIT A IS VALID AND WHICH IS NOT.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT OUR EXPERTISE.

WELL, NOT ONLY THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT HERE BECAUSE THE BUDGET WAS PRESENTED BY THE PARK BOARD.

THEY PRESENTED THEIR BUDGET IN CIP AND BETWEEN THE WORKSHOP AND TONIGHT.

I WENT HOME, I PULLED OUT THEIR BUDGET, I REREAD IT AND THE NUMBERS WERE CONSISTENT, AND WHAT WAS IN EXHIBIT A? THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN TODAY, AND MR. BRYSON EVEN ADMITTED HE WOULD HAVE HAD NUMBERS TO US A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, BUT HE WAS TOLD NOT TO.

THEY PRODUCE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUDGET THAT WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH ANYTHING THEY HAD PRODUCED IN THE PAST THREE MONTHS.

AND TO ME THAT'S SOMETHING I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BECAUSE REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANYONE SAYS, THIS IS THE PEOPLE'S MONEY.

IT ISN'T OUR MONEY, IT ISN'T THE PARK BOARD'S MONEY, IT'S THE PEOPLE'S MONEY.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T I, I SUPPORT US MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

I WOULD ACCEPT YOUR LANGUAGE, BUT EXHIBIT A.

BEING DIFFERENT WAS DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING THEY PRESENTED TO US.

AND I DO TAKE ISSUE WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ALL OF A SUDDEN COME IN ONE DAY AND SAY, I CHANGED THE NUMBERS.

THIS ISN'T WHAT WE HAVE.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

IF YOU WENT BACK AND READ EVERYTHING THEY HAVE PRESENTED TO US AND EVEN LOOKED AT THEIR WEBSITE, THEIR WEBSITE HAD THE NUMBERS THAT WERE CONSISTENT TO WHAT WAS IN EXHIBIT A UNTIL WE GET A NEW DOCUMENT TODAY, WHICH MAKES ME VERY UNCOMFORTABLE.

MAY I? THIS IS A ONE TIME THING, YOU KNOW, SO JOHN AGREEING WITH YOU HERE, MAYBE I'M PREMATURE IN AGREEING WITH YOU THAT THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

I THINK THAT THE CITY MANAGER NEEDS TO MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION ON THIS.

THE FUTURE CHANGES TO THE BUDGET.

YES, THOSE SHOULD ALL COME TO CITY COUNCIL.

BUT THIS. BUT THIS REREADING THIS THIS LINE ITEM IS NOT ABOUT THE BUDGET.

THIS LINE ITEM IS ABOUT THE FUNDS THAT TO BE RETAINED, THE 112 DAYS OR WHATEVER THAT CALCULATION IS THAT THAT ARE TO BE RETAINED THAT'S AND AN OPERATIONAL THAT IS ABSOLUTELY OPERATIONAL.

SO I'M SORRY I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO HAVE TO WITHDRAW MY AGREEMENT WITH YOU ON THIS.

I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS LANGUAGE.

I LIKE IT IN SECTION THREE.

THERE SHOULD BE NO AMENDMENT TO THE APPROVED PARK BOARD BUDGET WITHOUT PRIOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW.

THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN ASKING WHICH OF THE FUNDS CAN BE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE YOU KNOW, THE ARGUMENT, THE BEGINNING ARGUMENT IS NONE.

AND NOW IT'S SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WAS IN THEIR, YOU KNOW, BUDGET AND WHAT WAS IN THAT ATTACHMENT.

EXHIBIT A WELL, THE ATTACHMENT A, THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT IS THAT BRYSON CAME BACK AND ADDRESSED HOT ONLY.

AND THAT'S WHY THE DIFFERENCE IS THERE YOU CAN SAY THAT BUT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT DIFFERENCE, SOME OF THAT IS HOT.

YOU CAN'T SAY HALF OF WHAT CBB DOES ISN'T HOT.

YOU CAN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, WE FRONT MONEY TO FEMA AND WHEN THEY GIVE IT BACK, IT'S NOT HOT ANYMORE.

NOW WE NEED TO DETERMINE, FIRST OF ALL, HOW HOW PERTINENT IS EXHIBIT A TO THIS MOTION? NOT AT ALL, ACTUALLY, BECAUSE THAT NUMBER..

MR. OFTEN AND BRYSON, IF BOTH EXPRESS YOUR CONFIDENCE IN THEM TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY, IF THEY'RE A FEW BUCKS SHORT, I MEAN BRIAN JUST MAKES A DECISION AND ON WE GO.

YEAH, BUT WHAT WE SAW THIS MORNING WASN'T JUST A FEW BUCKS.

SORRY. WHAT WAS THAT, JOHN? WHAT WE SAW THIS MORNING WAS NOT JUST A FEW BUCKS.

AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DIFFERENCE THERE.

WELL, IT WAS AND IT'S MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF DIFFERENCE THAT SUDDENLY APPEARED WHEN WHEN THE LANGUAGE OF THIS THIS ORDINANCE CAME OUT.

AS YOU KNOW, I REFERRED TO IT AS HIDE THE HOT TAX.

[01:10:02]

AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, WHERE THEY'RE GOING BACK AND CLAIMING THINGS THAT ARE CLEARLY HOT AREN'T HOT.

I MEAN, EVERYTHING CVB DOES IS IS HOTEL TAX JUST EVERYTHING.

I MEAN, THEY CAN'T JUST MAGICALLY MAKE SOME OF IT, NOT HOTEL TAX.

SO I THINK THIS NEEDS TO BE PASSED AS IS.

I'M AS IT WAS PRESENTED BY LEGAL THIS AFTERNOON.

SHARON I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT WHAT I RECALL THIS MORNING THAT WE GAVE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THEM TO ADD THAT LINE OF SECTION THREE.

THAT IS WHAT I RECALL FROM THE MEETING.

AND I RAISED A QUESTION, EXACTLY WHAT WAS THE POINT? WHAT WERE WE TRYING TO SAY IN SECTION FIVE? AND I NEVER GOT CLARITY ON THAT.

SO NOW WE'RE SAYING THAT WE WANT THIS SAME STATEMENT IN SECTION FIVE? NOT NOT THE SAME STATEMENT. I GAVE THE LANGUAGE HERE, BASICALLY SUBJECT TO THE TO THE DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL.

I MEAN, THIS IS PUBLIC MONEY. THIS IS THIS IS I THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO COME TO US, AND WE HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THAT.

AND I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTION.

I NEED CLARIFICATION.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO ADD APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL BY CALCULATION, BY THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL? THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THEIR SECTION FIVE? YES. OKAY. I JUST NEED TO KNOW CLARIFICATION OF WHAT..

MY ONLY CONCERN AND I DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY IS THAT THIS IS AN OPERATIONAL BUDGET ISSUE, JUST LIKE OUR OWN BUDGET.

THAT'S NOT HOW WE WOULD HANDLE OUR OWN BUDGET.

AND I DO NOT WANT TO SOLVE ONE LEGAL PROBLEM AND CREATE ANOTHER ONE TO MAKE THINGS POLITICALLY RIGHT.

SO I DEFER TO THE ATTORNEY ON THIS.

AND THE REASON WHY I WOULD HAVE THIS IN THIS PARAGRAPH HERE IS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T REALLY APPROVED A BUDGET.

AND SO THIS DOES GIVE SOME TYPE OF PROCESS TO US THAT WE SEE WHAT'S GOING ON OVER THERE AND WE HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THAT.

YOU ARE BASING THIS OFF A BUDGET THAT WE HAVE NOT APPROVED, RIGHT? DID WE NOT GIVE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO THEIR CURRENT BUDGET? THAT IS NEXT. THAT'S NEXT, ACTUALLY.

I THINK WE HAVE GIVEN CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

THOUGHT SO TOO OR ELSE THEY COULDN'T BE SPENDING MONEY.

YEAH, I MEAN, IN MASS WHERE ALL THE FUNDS ARE CO-MINGLED.

SO THAT EXHIBIT A HAD TO BE EXTRAPOLATED FROM THE PARK BOARD BUDGET.

AND I'M NOT SURE IT'S COUNCIL'S JOB TO BE DETERMINING WHAT BELONGS IN EXHIBIT A AND WHAT DOESN'T.

AND THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LEAD US DOWN TO DOING.

AND THAT'S NOT OUR JOB.

THAT'S NOT STRICTLY AN OPERATIONAL ISSUE.

THAT'S WHAT. MR. LAWSON DO THE MATH, MR. MAXWELL, TO CERTIFY TO US THAT THAT IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

BUT THAT'S THAT JUST AS WE SAID THIS MORNING, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS.

THAT THAT'S AN ADDENDUM, BUT IT'S NOT.

HE IS THE CITY'S BUDGET OFFICER CONSTITUTIONALLY.

I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES IN EXHIBIT A, THAT'S AN OPERATIONAL ISSUE.

WE'RE GOING TO WORK THOSE THINGS OUT WITH MR. LOFTON AND EMBRACE AND FRAZIER.

I THINK WE NEED TO, IN MY MIND, LOOKING AT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US.

I DO SEE JOHN PAUL'S CONCERNS, THOUGH, ABOUT THIS.

GRANITE THIS IS AN OPERATIONAL ISSUE, BUT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT DECISION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THINGS WHERE I FEEL COUNCIL SHOULD STEP IN AND TAKE A ROW IF THAT IF THERE'S A DIFFERENCE OF DECISION ON WHAT TYPE OF FUNDING NEED TO BE ALLOCATED THIS FIRST TIME AROUND.

NOW, WITH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, JOHN, IS PUT LANGUAGE IN TO THAT TO ADDRESS THAT.

WHERE THIS COMES TO COUNCIL.

IS THAT RIGHT, SIR? YES.

IF THERE IS A DISPUTE OVER THE CALCULATIONS.

WELL, AND THAT THEN FORESTALLS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ALL TOGETHER.

LIKE I SAID, WE CAN DO THIS.

WE CAN THAT'LL THAT'LL DEFER TO THE END OF JANUARY.

THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER DISPUTE.

IT'LL DEFER TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING.

IF YOU'D ALLOW ME, MAYOR, TO RESTATE MY MOTION.

YES, SIR. I MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM TEN C AS WRITTEN AND PRESENTED TO COUNCIL THIS AFTERNOON.

IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND BY WILLIAM SCHUSTER ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT. YES, MIKE.

SO IT WAS STATED IN THE WORKSHOP THIS MORNING THAT THE PARK BOARD IS A CONTRACTOR TO THE CITY, AND WE ARE WRITING AN ORDINANCE TO A CONTRACTOR TO HAVE THEM ABIDE BY AN ORDINANCE WHICH I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A CONTRACT, NOT AN ORDINANCE BETWEEN A CONTRACTOR AND THE CITY.

[01:15:02]

SO I DON'T FEEL THAT THIS IS EVEN LEGAL, THAT WE COULD.

WELL, IF I MAY, I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, BUT BY THEIR ATTORNEY'S OWN ADMISSION FOR HOT TAX PURPOSES, THEY ARE AN AGENT OF THE CITY SO WE CAN DIRECT THEM TO TAKE ACTION AS IT WAS STATED THAT THEY WERE A CONTRACTOR.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ABLE TO TAKE THE MONEY INTO THEIR ACCOUNTS.

IF THEY'RE NOT AND THEY'RE AN AGENT, THEN THEY CAN'T PUT THAT MONEY IN THEIR ACCOUNT.

THAT HAS TO STAY IN THE CITY DEPOSITORY.

THAT'S WHEN WE PAY OUT MONEY TO THEM.

THAT'S TRUE. THEY WE WE OPERATE UNDER A CONTRACT, BUT THEY'RE COLLECTING AND HOLDING HOTEL TAX ON OUR BEHALF, MAKES THEM AN AGENT TO THE CITY.

AND THAT'S WHAT THIS THAT'S WHAT THIS PARAGRAPH.

NO, YOU'RE TALKING IN CIRCLES NOW.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS PARAGRAPH IS TALKING ABOUT.

IF I MAY SHED SOME LIGHT ON IT.

CHERYL JOHNSON ACTS AS AN AGENT OF THE CITY WHEN SHE COLLECTS OUR TAXES, SHE TRANSFERS IT TO THE CITY UPON COLLECTION.

THE CITY OFTEN DOES INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS WITH THE COUNTY FOR PERFORMANCE OF ROADWORK AND THINGS.

THE CITY, THEN THROUGH A CONTRACT PROCESS, SENDS THEM MONEY TO PERFORM THOSE DUTIES.

THIS IS ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENT BETWEEN TWO GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.

SO WE WRITE ORDINANCES TO THE COUNTY.

WE HAVE IN THE PAST.

YES, IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF WORK WE'RE DOING AND WHAT'S HAPPENING.

I STILL DON'T APPROVE IT.

HMM. BUT THE ORDINANCE'S IS IN RELATION TO THE COLLECTION OF THE HOT TAX.

IT'S NOT IN RELATION TO THE OPERATIONAL AGREEMENT FOR THE WORK TO BE PERFORMED.

SHOULD WE BE DOING THIS ITEM D FIRST? WELL, LOGICALLY THE FLOW IS WE DO THE COLLECTION CONTRACT AND THEN WE DO THE DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY TO DOING THAT? LET'S DO ITEM TEN D FIRST.

THAT I THINK THAT WOULD RESOLVE THIS QUESTION.

WELL, WE HAVE TEN B.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW FROM COUNCILMAN COLLINS AND SECOND BY COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? NOW, IF THIS MOTION DOES NOT PASS, FOR SOME REASON, WE CAN ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION.

IS THAT CORRECT, DON ON THIS? NO A MOTION? NO, NO.

YOU CANNOT TEDDY KENNEDY WOULD SAY, LET'S DRIVE OFF THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET TO IT.

ME. ALL RIGHT, JOHN, I'D LIKE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, COULD YOU STATE AGAIN WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THERE IF THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE THING TO SECTION FIVE? I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IF ANY DISPUTE OVER THE CALCULATIONS OF THE MONETARY AMOUNT SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION SHALL BE RESOLVED BY CALCULATION, BY CALCULATION, BY THE CITY MANAGER, AND DETERMINE AND SUBJECT TO A DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL WHO'S WHOSE DETERMINATION SHALL BE FINAL.

OKAY, VERY GOOD.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? MOTION IS FOR AS PRESENTED, ISN'T IT? YES. IF IT FAILS, WE CAN ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION ON THAT.

ALL THOSE AND PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE AS IS.

AS IS. AS IT'S PRESENTED.

IT PASSES 4 TO 3.

ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

WE ARE MOVING ITEM TO ITEM TEN C, IF WE COULD, PLEASE.

I BELIEVE EXCUSE ME, TEN D?

[10.D. Ordinance - HOT Collection From Park Board To City Depository Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Relating To The Distribution Of Hotel Occupancy Taxes (Hot) To The Galveston Park Board Of Trustees; Providing Provisional Approval Of The Park Board’s Budget For The Use Of Hot Funds Distributed By The City To The Park Board; Providing For The Delivery Of Hot Funds To The Park Board By The City; Providing For The Submission Of Quarterly Reports By The Park Board To The City Detailing Its Use Of Hot Funds; Providing For The Continued Collection Of Hot Tax By The Park Board Until September 30, 2023; Directing Staff To Draft A Contract For Delivery Of Hot To The Park Board For The Period Beginning April 1 Through September 30, 2023; Providing For The Submission Of Hot Budget Requests By The Park Board For The Fiscal Years Beginning October 1, 2023; And Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject]

TEN D, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, RELATING TO THE CUSTODY OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES, HOT TAX, DIRECTING THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO DELIVER ALL HOT TAX COLLECTED AND OR HELD BY THE PARK BOARD TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON, PROVIDING FOR THE TWICE MONTHLY DELIVERY BY THE PARK BOARD, A FUTURE HOT TAX COLLECTION TO THE CITY PROVIDING FOR THE DEPOSIT OF SUCH HOT FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE PARK BOARD INTO THE CITY DEPOSITORY, ALLOWING FOR THE RETENTION OF A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF OPERATIONAL AND MAINTENANCE HOT FUND RESERVES BY THE PARK BOARD, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

VERY GOOD.

DON, THIS IS ANOTHER DEFERRAL FROM TWO MEETINGS AGO.

ANY COMMENTS ON THIS, DON OR DONNA? YEAH, IS BAD WEATHER HAS MADE THE CHANGES REQUESTED IN THIS MORNING'S MEETING.

SAY THAT AGAIN, DON.

A COPY OF THAT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO YOU.

[01:20:03]

CORRECT. AND WE HAD SOME UPDATED ORDNANCE THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED ON TEN D AND YOU READ THE RIGHT CAPTION ON THAT.

THANK YOU, JANELLE.

WE'VE HAD SOME CHANGES TO THAT ALSO THAT ARE IN HERE THAT WE DISCUSSED AT OUR MEETING THERE.

VERY GOOD. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TEN D.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, COUNCIL? I WOULD COMMENT THAT THIS IS A MAJORITY VOTE.

YES, I WOULD.

I WOULD COMMENT THAT THIS IS WHERE A THE AMENDMENT EXHIBIT A MATTERS IS WHAT IS RETAINED AND WHAT IS.

SO OK ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SO MUCH DISCUSSION HERE TONIGHT ABOUT WHY ARE WE DOING THIS BY ORDINANCE.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE.

WELL I SERVED ON THE PARK BOARD AND I SERVED ON THE COUNCIL FROM 12 TO 14.

AND IT WAS DONE EXACTLY THIS WAY.

THIS DIDN'T CHANGE UNTIL 2015.

HOW THAT HAPPENED, NO ONE'S BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER.

BUT THIS ORDINANCE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

IT'S AN EXTRA PROTECTION.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE.

AND STATEMENTS THAT THIS IS THE WAY IT'S HAPPENED FOR 60 YEARS.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

WHEN I WAS IN THE CITY'S FINANCE COMMITTEE, EDDIE WELCH, HE SERVED ON THE PARK BOARD IN 2005 TO 2006 OR 11.

AND HE'S LIKE, THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT HAPPENED.

SO ALL THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS IS SOMETHING NEW.

IT'S THIS, IT'S THAT THAT SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE.

MAYOR. AND I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT TO I SERVED ON THE PARK BOARD FOR GOODNESS ALMOST EIGHT YEARS, MAYBE EVEN LONGER AND PORTION OF THAT AS THEIR CHAIRMAN THERE.

THERE'S NO ONE THAT APPRECIATES WHAT THE PARK BOARD DOES MORE THAN I DO, I THINK.

AND THEY DO AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB IN THIS CITY.

BUT THE WAY I LOOKED AT THIS HERE, IF THIS IF VOTING FOR THIS DEPOSITORY ORDINANCE WOULD UNDERMINE WHAT THE PARK BOARD CAN DO IN ANY WAY, I WOULD BE CONCERNED OF THAT.

I TRUTHFULLY BELIEVE IT DOES NOT.

IT'S AN ACCOUNTING CHANGE THAT WE ARE PUTTING IN COMING IN TO COMPLIANCE WITH LAW IN MY MIND.

AND IT'S AN ACCOUNTING CHANGE, AND I THINK THE PARK BOARD WILL BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND FUNCTION JUST AS THEY HAVE IN THE PAST.

WE JUST HAVE THIS NOW FOLLOWING A PROCEDURE THAT IS MORE LEGALLY SUPPORTED.

I JUST WANT TO BRING CLARITY TO SOMETHING TO WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE CITY IN 2011, WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT FUNDING, IT BLEW MY MIND THAT WHEN THE CITY FUNDS AND ADOPTS BUDGETS, THEY DO IT THROUGH ORDINANCE COMING FROM THE COUNTY.

WE DIDN'T DO ORDINANCES.

WE, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL COMMISSIONERS COURT APPROVED IT AND WE HAD A BUDGET.

AND I JUST WANT TO BRING CLARITY WHEN PEOPLE ASK WHY WE DO THIS BY ORDINANCE, THAT'S HOW THE CITY FUNDS AND ACTS IS THROUGH ITS ORDINANCES.

IT'S IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I WAS USED TO.

BUT OF COURSE, 11 YEARS, 12 YEARS LATER, I'VE GOTTEN USED TO IT NOW.

BUT THAT IS HOW THE CITY OPERATES.

AND THEY THEY REDUCE THINGS TO ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT MAKE IT APPROPRIATE.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND AND I WOULD SAY TOO THAT, IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A CHARTER OR REQUIREMENT REQUIRING THIS OR THERE WASN'T TAX LAW THAT IS REQUIRING THIS AND WE WERE STRUCTURING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, I WOULD STRUCTURE THAT WHERE THIS MONEY COMES TO THE CITY DEPOSITORY.

IT MAKES SENSE.

THIS IS CITY TAX MONEY THAT'S COMING IN AND THIS NEEDS TO BE INTO THE CITY DEPOSITORY AND ALLOCATED APPROPRIATELY.

AND I WOULD SAY AS THE PARK BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE SAW THIS THIS MORNING IN THE WORKSHOP, THIS MONEY, IF THERE'S EXCESS MONIES, THIS IS GOING TO BE DELINEATED IN THE CITY'S ACCOUNT AND THOSE MONIES AND WE CHANGE SOME WORDING IN THIS DEPOSITORY ORDINANCE SO THAT THOSE MONIES CAN ONLY BE USED FOR WHAT THOSE MONIES WERE ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO BE USED FOR, AND THAT PROTECTS THE USE OF THOSE MONIES.

SO SAYING THAT LET'S CAST YOUR VOTES, PLEASE COUNCIL, I THINK EXCUSE ME, JOHN.

[01:25:04]

DAVID, YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS WHERE EXHIBIT A COMES INTO PLAY, BUT THAT NUMBER IN EXHIBIT A IS DETERMINED FROM THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS ISN'T A SINGLE ORDINANCE.

I HONESTLY DON'T.

BUT I'M NOT YOUR LAWYER.

BUT I MEAN, THIS THIS IS THIS REFERS TO WHAT IS HELD BY THE PARK BOARD, RIGHT? THE DEPOSIT MINUS THIS THAT EXHIBIT A RELATES TO WHAT IS WHAT IS RETAINED.

AND THAT'S THE THAT'S ACTUALLY THE NUMBER THAT MATTERS RIGHT NOW IS IS A NUMBER IS RESOLVED IN THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE AND BOTH OF THOSE THINGS HERE IN A MINUTE ONE HOPES TO BOTH BE LAW AND YEAH THAT'LL BE RESOLVED BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY FINANCE DIRECTOR. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. DO YOU HAVE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD WHAT CRAIG JUST SAID TO ME.

SAID YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE MENTIONED IT.

COUNCIL. SHARON.

SHARON. SORRY.

IT IS UNANIMOUS, BUT FOR COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI AND BOUVIER.

WELL, IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS.

UNANIMOUS. SORRY.

THAT'S FIVE FOR AND TWO AGAINST.

YEAH. THAT'S PUTTING A REAL SPIN ON IT.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE.

[11. CONSENT ITEMS]

GET MY AGENDA BACK HERE.

VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 11 NOW, PLEASE, JANELLE.

ITEM 11, CONSENT ITEMS. THE FOLLOWING ITEM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ACTION AS A WHOLE.

UNLESS ONE OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS OBJECTS, THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AND WILL HAVE THE CONSENT ITEMS ON THE SCREEN SHORTLY.

VERY GOOD. AND COUNCIL IS THERE ANY COUNCIL MEMBER I WOULD LIKE TO PULL ANY ITEM TO BE DECIDED INDIVIDUALLY.

I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 11 A IF WE COULD, PLEASE.

AND IS THERE ANY OTHERS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO PULL? YES, I DO NOT WANT TO PULL, BUT I WANT TO COMMENT ON 11 J.

THE BINOCULAR VIEWING TOWER AT BERNARD PARK.

I'D LIKE TO THANK MARSHA RAPPAPORT AND TOM SCHWENK FOR THEIR OH, VERY NICE DONATION.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY POPULAR, POPULAR ATTRACTION THERE IN THE PARK.

VERY MUCH COMMENT ON THAT AS WELL.

JUST ONE THING, MARCIA.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR FAMILY, CHILDREN AND YOUTH BOARD.

AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT ADDITION OF AN ART PART.

I SAID IT LAST MEETING, BUT MENARD PARK KEEPS GROWING.

AS A KID, THERE WAS NOTHING THERE BUT A TENNIS COURT AND A SHELL.

AND NOW THERE'S ALL KINDS OF STUFF TO DO THERE.

AND THANK YOU.

THE UNOFFICIAL MAYOR OF GALVESTON, TOM SCHWEICH, FOR THAT DONATION.

YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT.

WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET'S LET'S GET I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FROM 11 B, AS IN BOY, ALL THE WAY TO 11 P AS IN PAUL.

IS THERE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THAT.

I'M SORRY. LATE FOR YOU, MURRAY.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, MURRAY, WE'RE APPROVING 11 B THROUGH P HAS BEEN [INAUDIBLE] AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

[11.A. Consider For Approval A Resolution Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Adopting The City Of Galveston’s 2023 State Legislative Agenda For The 88th Legislature; Providing For Findings Of Fact And Providing For An Effective Date.]

ON 11 A, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, BUT REMOVING THE ITEM THAT IS TITLED REACH PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM GOES THROUGH COOPERATIVE BEST PRACTICES.

IS THERE A SECOND? OH, OKAY.

MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF 11 A BUT REMOVING THE REACH PUBLIC RETIREMENT SYSTEM GOES THROUGH COOPERATIVE BEST PRACTICES ITEM.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

VERY GOOD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

[01:30:02]

I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE AND THANK MARCIA SAID THAT WAS ALL.

AND AGAIN, WE ARE BOTH GRADUATES ALONG WITH GINA OF LEADERSHIP 97.

SO THANK YOU, MARCIA.

THAT WAS LIKE SUCH A WONDERFUL GIFT.

THANK YOU. VERY NICE.

MARCIA IS GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE, MARCIA.

YEAH. I NEED TO SEE MORE OF YOU.

VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 12 A, PLEASE.

[12.A. Discuss And Consider Accepting The Resignation From City Council Member District 2 Representative William Schuster.]

12 A, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER ACCEPTING THE RESIGNATION FROM CITY COUNCIL MEMBER DISTRICT TWO, REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM SHUSTER.

ALL RIGHT, WE SAY NO.

I WAS JUST THINKING THAT.

CAN WE. CAN I VOTE NO ON THAT? YEAH, I MOVED THAT WE DON'T ACCEPT IT.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

BUT YES.

DID YOU WANT TO SAY NO? GO FOR IT, MAYOR.

NO, GO RIGHT AHEAD. WILLIAM.

YEAH, JUST I GUESS IF WE GOT THE NEWS, I'M MOVING OUT OF THE DISTRICT, SO BE RESIGNING IN MAY AFTER THE NEXT ELECTION OFFICIALLY.

I JUST WANT TO THANK ALL Y'ALL.

I'VE ENJOYED IT THE LAST TWO YEARS.

CITY STAFF. THANK Y'ALL LIVING IN GALVESTON MY WHOLE LIFE.

THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST FULFILLING THING I'VE EVER DONE LIVING ON THE ISLAND.

I ENJOY IT. IT'S FUN.

I CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF IT. ACTUALLY, I'VE COME A LITTLE OBSESSED WITH IT AT TIMES.

AND I LOVE GALVESTON TO DEATH.

IT'S A GREAT PLACE TO LIVE, PLANNING ON RAISING MY FAMILY HERE, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR THEIR SUPPORT.

KYLIE THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME DO THIS BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS GOT TO GET THE GREEN LIGHT WITH HER.

AND WHILE I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING, SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE ALL YOUR SERVICE.

WILLIAM WE'RE GOING TO MISS YOUR RESEARCH COMPONENT THAT YOU BRING TO COUNCIL.

SO VERY GOOD.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESIGNATION OF COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER.

I'LL SECOND. RELUCTANTLY.

SECOND? YEAH.

WAS THERE WAY? PUSH THE BUTTON.

SURE. BUT PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW YOU'LL BE WITH US THROUGH THE MAY ELECTION.

SO. GUESS I'LL VOTE YES.

GEEZ, THAT IS THAT IS NEGATIVE, WILLIAM.

THAT DID NOT PASS.

NEXT. OH, EXCUSE ME.

THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS.

YES, UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

VERY GOOD. ITEM 12 B, PLEASE, JANELLE.

[12.B. Discuss And Consider Approval Of The Seawolf Park Concept And Approval For The Park Board To Move Forward With Developing More Specific Plans.]

WELL, BE DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE C WOLF PARK CONCEPT AND APPROVAL FOR THE PARK BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPING MORE SPECIFIC PLANS.

VERY GOOD. WE DISCUSSED THIS QUITE A BIT AT WORKSHOP TODAY, AND THIS IS MOVING FORWARD.

I THINK THERE IS A TIMELINE THAT VINCE WHAT IS HIS LAST NAME AGAIN? LOREFICE, LOREFICE, VINCE LOREFICE.

EXCUSE ME, VINCE, IF YOU'RE WATCHING THIS, I APOLOGIZE.

VINCE LOREFICE BROUGHT FORWARD TO US, I THINK IN MARCH.

HE'S GOING TO BRING BACK INFORMATION IF THIS IS APPROVED.

ON MOVING FORWARD WITH MORE INPUT AND HOW TO DEVELOP C WOLF PARK.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM COUNCIL.

I WOULD MOVE APPROVAL.

HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

COUNCILMAN COLLINS SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SCHUSTER.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? YEAH. I'LL REPEAT WHAT I SAID THIS MORNING AFTER THE DISCUSSION WAS VINCE IS ENGAGEMENT IN THIS AND HIS PROCESS AND THE WAY HE'S BEEN INTERFACING WITH CITY STAFF I THINK IS VERY ENCOURAGING.

IT'S THE INTERACTION WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR ALL ALONG.

THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER ISSUES AROUND IT AND IT'S GOING TO BE COMPLEX, BUT BUT I THINK IT'S WISE OF US TO TO TO EMPOWER HIM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH LOOKING FOR A PLAN AND A WAY OF IMPLEMENTATION AND BRINGING THIRD PARTIES INTO IT AS NEEDED.

VERY GOOD. MAYBE SOMEBODY OUT THERE WHO SAYS, OH, YEAH, WE CAN MAKE A BUNCH OF MONEY OFF THAT.

AND I WANT TO MAKE MYSELF CLEAR ON THE MOTION.

WHO MADE THAT MOTION? I'M SORRY. THAT WAS.

I DID. YES. THAT IS IS INCLUDED IN THAT.

DAVID. THAT WOULD BE BRING BACK A REPORT IN MARCH TO CITY COUNCIL.

WHAT HE SAID THIS MORNING WAS MARKED.

YES. YEAH. OKAY THEN.

YES. TO BRING AND TO BRING.

AND DOES THAT MEET YOUR APPROVAL, WILLIAM.

OKAY, VERY GOOD.

JUST BRING BACK A REPORT TO US IN MARCH.

AND MOVING FORWARD, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

MARIE, I KNOW.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

OH, GO RIGHT AHEAD.

SO WE'RE VOTING ON THE 12 B.

B, AS IN BOY? B AS IN BOY.

[01:35:03]

AND THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

LET'S MOVE TO 12 C, PLEASE.

[12.C. Discus And Consider Approval Of The Park Board To Move Forward With A Master Developer For Stewart Park And To Report Back The Progress At The February 23rd City Council Meeting.]

12 C, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF THE PARK BOARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MASTER DEVELOPER FOR STEWART PARK AND TO REPORT BACK THE PROGRESS AT THE FEBRUARY 23 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. VERY GOOD.

THIS WAS BROUGHT WE DISCUSSED THIS THIS MORNING ALSO, AND I THINK VINCE HAS MENTIONED ALSO ABOUT BRINGING THIS BACK INTO COUNCIL IN MARCH.

SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

I WOULD LIKE TO LIKEWISE MOVE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, SECOND TO COUNCILWOMAN LOUIS AND A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

ANY DISCUSSION? AGAIN SAME THING.

THEY'RE GOING OUT. THEY'RE GOING TO INVESTIGATE AND HOPEFULLY BRING IT BACK AND SHARE IT WITH THE TASK FORCE.

HE DID MENTION THAT THIS MORNING, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE A REPORT BACK ON THEIR PROGRESS IN FEBRUARY, MARCH, MARCH.

YES. AND IS THAT IN YOUR MOTION ON THE MARCH REPORT? YES, WITH THE MARCH REPORT, AS I SAID.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

THANK YOU. ITEM 12 D, PLEASE.

[12.D. Consider For Approval A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Galveston, Texas Receiving The Galveston Park Board Of Trustees 2022-2023 Capital Improvement Plans For Ra Apfell Park; Stewart Beach; Seawolf Park; East End Lagoon; Seawall Urban Park; As Well As, Coastal Projects At Dellanera Beach, Babe’s Beach, Seawall West End Breakwater; And Beach Renourisment Projects Along The Seawall And West Of The Seawall; Giving Council’s Approval, Denial Or Deferral Of Such Projects, And Providing For Findings Of Fact And Providing For An Effective Date.]

JANELLE. TWELVE D, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, RECEIVING THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES 2022-2023 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR RAFL PARK, STEWART BEACH, C WOLF PARK, EAST END LAGOON, SEAWALL URBAN PARK, AS WELL AS COASTAL PROJECTS AT DEL HONORÉ BEACH, BABES BEACH, SEAWALL, WEST END, BREAKWATER AND BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS ALONG THE SEAWALL AND WEST OF THE SEAWALL, GIVING COUNCIL APPROVAL, DENIAL OR DEFERRAL OF SUCH PROJECTS AND PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

VERY GOOD. I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR PARK BOARD LIAISON, COUNCILMAN BOUVIER.

OKAY. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED UPON THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITY. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST GO DOWN THE LIST AND EITHER TELL YOU WHICH ONE IT IS, IF IT'S APPROVED, DEFERRED, OR DENIED, AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON IT AS A PACKAGE.

AND IF SOMETHING'S WRONG, THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.

SO A STEWART BEACH CONCRETE REPAIR WORK FOR ME.

CAN I HAVE CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION, ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE AND WE MIGHT AS WELL ADDRESS IT SO WE CAN VOTE FOR IT AS A BLOCK IF YOU AGREE.

IT HAS TO DO WITH THE BABES BEACH, BUDM, RESTORE, AND IT'S AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT AND I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THAT TO WE HAVE A NUMBER TO IT, WHICH THEY'RE SAYING IN THEIR INFORMATION THEY THAT PROJECT WILL BE MOVING BY MID 23.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THAT TO MARCH.

WHICH ITEM IS THAT NUMBER SEVEN.

WHICH WHICH HAS AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT WOULD BE OR ARE OR ARE.

YES. MAYOR? YES. MAKE A SUGGESTION.

YES, MA'AM. EACH ITEM IS LISTED.

MAYBE WE IT WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO GO ONE NEXT, NEXT AND NEXT.

AND THEN SO EVERYBODY CAN BE ON THE SAME PAGE.

BUT WE COULD PUT THEM IN ONE MOTION.

CORRECT. PUT IT IN ONE MOTION OR YOU CAN ASK TO TALK ABOUT EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY.

BUT IF WE'RE JUMPING BACK AND FORTH.

YEAH, WE I THINK IT'S CONFUSING.

IT IS VERY CONFUSING.

LET'S START COUNCILMAN BOUVIER, LET'S START WITH THE FIRST ONE KIND OF QUESTION BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT.

SURE. SO ON SOME OF THESE THAT ARE DEFERRED LIKE STAFF IS RECOMMEND DEFERRAL ON SOME OF THESE OR IS IT PART BOARD THAT IS GOING TO BRING THAT BACK TO US? IS STAFF GOING TO BRING BACK TO US SOMETHING? WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE? WELL, MY PLAN IS TO BRING TO DISCUSS THESE AS QUICKLY SINCE WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON THE INTERLOCAL HERE PRETTY QUICK.

I TO BRING IT UP DURING THERE AND TRY TO BRING CLARITY TO YOU GUYS WITH A RECOMMENDATION AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

SO CITY STAFF, WE WILL INITIATE THE DISCUSSIONS, TAKE THIS BY THE REINS AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL.

THAT'S OUR PLAN WITH COOPERATION WITH PARK BOARD, OF COURSE.

HOPEFULLY. YEAH, I'M SURE THEY WILL.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. MIKE, GO RIGHT AHEAD.

[01:40:01]

SO DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AND THEN DO THAT? OR DO YOU WANT EACH ONE SEPARATE? WELL, THAT'S WHAT DONNA. NO, SHE SHE HAD SUGGESTED TO MAKE IT LESS CONFUSING FOR SINCE I HAPPEN TO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE VERY LAST ITEM THAT'S CONFUSING TO THE PEOPLE.

SO IF WE DO A MOTION PER EACH THING, THEN IT'S A LOT MORE TRANSPARENT.

FINE WITH ME. MIKE.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. WE'RE GOING TO DO A SEPARATE MOTION FOR EACH ITEM.

THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID.

YOU ALL THE ONES THAT.

MARIE, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY.

I ONLY HAVE A SUGGESTION THAT I THINK THE ROAD THAT MIKE SEEMS TO BE HEADED DOWN RIGHT NOW IS APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE WITH PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IF WE WANT TO ADD AN AMENDMENT TO THAT MOTION.

OKAY. BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CONCERN, I THINK THAT SOUND MIGHT BE LIKE, WELL, WE COULD DO THAT OR WE COULD EVEN DO IT LIKE THE CONSENT ITEMS. AS COUNCILMAN BOUVIER MOVES FORWARD, WE COULD PULL ONE OUT TO VOTE ON IT INDIVIDUALLY.

SO START AT THE BOTTOM AND WORK OUR WAY.

SO YOU DO THAT AND THEN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF OR PULL OUT.

YEAH THEY HAVE SECTION OF WE NEED TO DELINEATE WHAT THAT IS.

LET'S REMEMBER BOUVIER WANTS TO GO THROUGH EACH ITEM A, B, C, AND AND SAY WHETHER YOU'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, DEFERRAL OR DENIAL, THEN MAKE YOUR MOTION BASED ON THAT. SO WHAT I'M ASKING OR WHAT I WANT TO DO IS FOLLOW THE, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND JUST GO DOWN WITH WHAT THEY HAD RECOMMENDED WITH THE DATES, IF THEY'VE DEFERRED IT.

AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO OUR WE'LL HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS AND THEN WE'LL VOTE ON THAT ONE AND THEN HOPEFULLY THAT'LL BE THE WHOLE PACKAGE AND THEN WE CAN VOTE AND SOUNDS GOOD.

GO FORWARD. THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

OKAY. SO I'M JUST GOING TO READ THE HEADER AND THEN WHETHER IT'S APPROVED, DEFERRED OR DENIED.

SO A, STEWART BEACH CONCRETE REPAIR WORK FOR THE AMOUNT OF $200,000 I HAVE DOWN HERE, AS APPROVED AS WE APPROVE THAT EARLIER, THE RAFL BEACH DRAINAGE PROJECT FOR THE AMOUNT OF 150,322 DEFERRED UNTIL MARCH.

BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS AT STEWART BEACH FOR $456,000 DEFERRED TILL JUNE.

SEAWOLF PARK USS STEWART MORNING PROJECT FOR THE AMOUNT OF $347,549 TO BE DEFERRED FEBRUARY . SEAWOLF PARK FISHING PIER EXTENSION FOR THE AMOUNT OF 247,500 DEFERRED TILL FEBRUARY.

SEAWOLF PARK SHIP AND SUB BULKHEAD FOR THE AMOUNT OF 133,000 DEFERRED TILL FEBRUARY.

CONTINGENCY SEAWOLF PARK EROSION FILL 180,000 APPROVED CONTINGENCY.

SEAWOLF PARK RV PARK FOR 1.2 MILLION DEFERRED.

AND I THINK THAT'S DEFERRED BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING A DIFFERENT APPROACH AT THAT.

SO IT'S DEFERRED UNTIL WE GET THOSE OTHER STEPS DONE.

I DON'T HAVE A DATE ON THAT EAST END LAGOON RESTORE FOR $212,033 APPROVED URBAN PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF 500,000 DEFERRED TILL JANUARY.

DYLAN AIR BEACH REPAIR HARVEY FEMA FOR 4,680,797.

APPROVED BABES BEACH REPAIR HARVEY FEMA 2.9 MILLION 600 OR $61,909 APPROVE ENGINEERING DESIGN PERMITTING FOR OFFSHORE BREAKWATER I'M SORRY.

BREAKWATER APPROVE USACE BEACH NOURISHMENT PERMIT ADDENDUMS 250,000 APPROVED ENGINEERING DESIGN FROM DYLAN AIR WEST BOUNDARY TO 13 MILE 1.1 MILLION APPROVED ENGINEERING AND PERMITTING FOR EMERGENCY RAMPS WEST OF 61ST DEFERRED TILL FEBRUARY.

[01:45:03]

STEWART BEACH VEGETATION MITIGATION 135,000 APPROVED.

AND NOW WE COME TO THE DISCUSSION FOR BABES BEACH REST OR RESTORE WITH AN UNSPECIFIED AMOUNT.

I WOULD LIKE I WOULD REQUEST OF COUNSEL THAT WE DEFER THIS TO FEBRUARY OR MARCH BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED THAT THE PROJECT WILL BE GOING ON BABES BEACH.

SO THERE ISN'T ANY REASON BY FEBRUARY OR MARCH WE WOULD HAVE A SPECIFIED AMOUNT.

SO IF YOU'RE ALL.

YEAH, I THINK I THINK WE JUST NEED TO GET WE NEED TO GET A FUNDING AMOUNT AND A FUNDING SOURCE.

I DON'T THINK COUNCIL CAN APPROVE A BLANK CHECK.

RIGHT. SO SO CAN WE DEFER UNTIL AMOUNT IS PROVIDED.

AMOUNT AND SOURCE. YEAH. THAT'S ALL WE ASK FOR.

OKAY. SO DEFERRED UNTIL WE SEE THE AMOUNT.

YEP. OKAY.

MAY I ASK STAFF ONE THING? THESE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS WITH APPROVAL.

APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS.

MOST OF THOSE CONDITIONS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, REQUIRE THAT WE MEET WITH PARK BOARD TO FULLY UNDERSTAND PROJECT SCOPE AND TO IN MOST CASES GUARANTEE THAT OUR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IS INCLUDED IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS.

SO THAT YOU HAVE FULL.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT THAT YOU FULLY UNDERSTAND ARE ABLE TO REPORT TO US ON WHAT THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

YEAH. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR MOTION? SO WHEN YOU MADE YOUR MOTION, YOU HAVE.

OH, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS STATED.

I'LL SECOND. IS A MOTION IN A SECOND.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? NOW, DOES THAT GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE MIKE? [INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT WAS TO ITEM R, I MEAN 4R.

YES, OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND ON THAT.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

THANK YOU MIKE WORKING THROUGH THAT.

APPRECIATE THAT.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 12E, PLEASE.

[12.E. Discuss And Consider Having The City Manager Initiate Discussions With Park Board Staff Concerning A New Interlocal Agreement And Report Progress To Council At Their January Council Meeting.]

JANELLE. TWELVE E, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER HAVING THE CITY MANAGER INITIATE DISCUSSIONS WITH PARK BOARD STAFF CONCERNING A NEW INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND REPORT PROGRESS TO COUNCIL AT THEIR JANUARY COUNCIL MEETING.

I THINK EVERYBODY IN COUNCIL IS KIND OF AWARE OF THIS.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THAT.

IS THERE A SECOND? HAVE A SECOND. HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS, ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THAT.

AND WE ARE MOVING NOW TO 12F PLEASE, JANELLE.

[12.F. Discuss And Consider Appointments To H-GAC's 2023 Transportation Policy Council And Transportation Advisory Committee.]

WELL, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO HGAC'S 2023 TRANSPORTATION POLICY COUNCIL AND TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS THIS MORNING, AND I THINK WE DECIDED WE'RE GOING TO NOMINATE COUNCILWOMAN ROB TO BE THE PRIMARY REPRESENTATIVE FOR TPC, AND THE ALTERNATE WOULD BE COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI.

I WOULD SECOND THAT.

VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE.

I DON'T BACK OUT.

OH, WAIT, MAN. YEAH, THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

THAT'S STAFF.

THAT IS STAFF THAT STAFF.

WE WE HAVE STAFFERS ON THAT COMMISSION.

WELL, FOR JUST THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY, THE STAFF SHOULD DO.

THE MOTION IS FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY COUNCIL THAT WE JUST MADE.

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND WE'LL HAVE TO DO THAT ONE MANUALLY BECAUSE I PUT HIM IN AS ONE.

CORRECT. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE NOMINATIONS FOR TPC TRANSPORTATION POLICY COUNCIL? OH, WE CAN DO THAT ONE UP HERE.

CONGRATULATIONS. AND JANELLE WILL NOTIFY HCRC OF THAT CHANGE.

NOW, NOMINATIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

BRIAN LEE, ROB'S ON THAT COMMITTEE NOW.

YES. AND HE'LL CONTINUE TO SERVE IN THAT ROLE.

AND IT'S YOUR PLEASURE.

AND BRANDON COOK IS THE ALTERNATE.

BRANDON COOK WILL REMAIN AS THE ALTERNATE.

THAT IS CORRECT.

[01:50:02]

ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A NOMINATION.

I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE ROB WINNICKI AS THE REPRESENTATIVE AND BRANDON COOK IS THE ALTERNATE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

I'LL SECOND THAT, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ROB.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

THANK YOU. AND 12G PLEASE.

[12.G. Discuss And Consider Appointments To The Following City Boards, Commissions, And Committees: 1. Building Board of Adjustments and Appeals ]

TWELVE G, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.

ONE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

WE HAVE GOTTEN WORD JANELLE INFORMED ME TODAY THAT WE HAVE A NOMINATION, AND I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE SHELBY GONZALEZ TO THE POSITION ON THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THIS WAS RECOMMENDED BY TODD SUKO.

AND IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? PUT THAT IN THE GIVE IT TO HIM.

HE'S ONLY GOING TO BE HERE. NO.

WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN THIS MOMENT THAT IS UNANIMOUS.