>> I GUARANTEE JOHN THE WEBINAR WILL BE USED MORE THAN SEVEN. [LAUGHTER]
[00:00:03]
[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
GOOD MORNING EVERYBODY.>> I'D LIKE TO WELCOME COUNCIL HERE THIS MORNING AND LIKE TO WELCOME THOSE THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE THIS MORNING.
STAFF THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, OF COURSE.
FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS TELECAST IN THE COMMUNITY, GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING.
I'D LIKE TO FORMALLY CALL THE WORKSHOP FOR MARCH 9TH TO ORDER IT IS 9:00 AM.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, BUT COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> MAYOR FRIENDS AND COLLEGUES.
>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT.
BEFORE WE START OUR DISCUSSION ITEMS. I WANT TO GIVE SOME DIRECTION COUNSEL ON THESE ITEMS AS WE GO THROUGH THOSE.
THESE TWO ITEMS, 3A AND 3B ARE ON OUR AGENDA MAINLY BECAUSE THESE ARE TOPICS THAT HAD IN SOME FORM COME UP DURING OUR PART BOARD DISCUSSIONS AND AS WE'RE HOPEFULLY WINDING DOWN TOWARDS THE FINAL VERSION OF OUR PARK BOARD DISCUSSIONS HERE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT COUNCIL WAS CLEAR ON ALL ASPECTS OF THESE TWO TOPICS.
WE HAVE THE HOT CONTRACT COMING TO US AT THE MARCH 23RD MEETING, IS THAT RIGHT, BRIAN?
>> YEAH. WE'RE WAITING ON THEM TO SEND US THEIR COMMENTS. BUT YEAH.
>> THEY GAVE US THEIR COMMENTS YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
>> GOOD SO WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THE HOT CONTRACT COMING UP ON MARCH 23RD AND WITH THESE TWO TOPICS, ESPECIALLY 3A, THESE ARE DOWN FOR CLARIFICATION IN EDUCATION PURPOSES FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THESE PROPERLY SO WE CAN EVALUATE, OF COURSE, THIS HOT CONTRACT WHEN IT COMES TO US.
SECOND OF ALL, IF THEY ARE DOWN HERE TO SEE IF COUNCIL WANTS TO GIVE GUIDANCE TO STAFF OR TO GUIDANCE CONCERNING FUTURE ORDINANCES THAT WOULD CLARIFY SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING IN ITEM 3A AND 3B.
WE'LL GET INTO THE DETAILS ON THOSE HERE AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
JANELLE COULD YOU READ 3A PLEASE.
[3.A. Discussion Of Hotel Occupancy Tax As It Relates To City Ordinances 22-073 And 22- 074 (Bouvier/Brown - 1 Hr) 1. Restrictive and Non Restrictive Hotel Occupancy Tax]
>> 3A DISCUSSION OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY ORDINANCES 2273 AND 2274.1 RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.
>> THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS AN ITEM THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED AT OUR LAST WORKSHOP AND DON IS GOING TO IN A SECOND HERE IS GOING TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS FOR COUNCIL.
AS WE WALK AWAY FROM THIS MEETING, COUNCIL WHEN WE DISCUSS THIS SUBJECT, WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY GET INTO A LOT OF DIFFERENT AREAS, WHICH IS GREAT SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS SUBJECT A LITTLE BETTER.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO IF COUNCIL FEELS THAT THAT'S THE WAY WE NEED TO MOVE, I WOULD LIKE TO WALK AWAY FROM THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION ON 3A WITH SOME THOUGHTS FROM COUNCIL ON THE STATUS OF DETERMINING THE STATUS OF HOT AND WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THAT WHEN IT COMES TO RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE FUNDS AND I WOULD LIKE TO WALK AWAY FROM THIS MEETING FOR EVERYONE WITH WHERE THIS HOT NO MATTER HOW IT IS DEMARCATED OR DELINEATED LIKE TO WALK AWAY WITH AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE THIS HOT MONEY RESIDE.
THIS MAY BRING UP QUESTIONS ON WHERE THERE'S HOT MONEY WOULD COUNTS THEY WOULD BE IN AND WHAT TYPE OF HOT WE WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER FROM THE STANDPOINT OF RESTRICTIVE OR NON-RESTRICTIVE ITEMS. DON BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, MIKE, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT YOU INITIALLY BROUGHT UP.
DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMUNISTS BEFORE WE TURN OVER TO DON ON THIS.
>> I WROTE AN OUTLINE BUT LET'S HEAR WHAT DON HAS TO SAY FIRST.
>> ALL RIGHT. DON GO RIGHT AHEAD, SIR.
>> THESE ARE TOPICS THAT HAVE COME UP WITH OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PARK BOARD AND LET ME JUST MAKE A COMMENT.
I HANDED YOU A LITTLE OUTLINE THAT WE'LL BE FOLLOWING HOT TAX PER SE ON YOUR CHAPTER 351 IS RESTRICTED.
[00:05:07]
A PURPOSES THAT HOT CAN BE USED FOR ARE SENT OUT IN THE STATUTE THERE ARE VARIOUS BUCKETS, 3% FOR TOURISM, 1% FOR LIFE GUARDS.IT'S ALL SET OUT IN THE STATUTE.
WE CAN'T USE THEM FOR ANY PURPOSES OTHER THAN WHAT'S PUT OUT IN THE STATUTE.
NOW, WE HAVE HAD A QUESTION IN THE PAST THAT DEALT WITH THE FUNDS FROM THE CONVENTION CENTER CALLED TRICKLE-DOWN BOX.
IT WAS AN AG OPINION THAT WAS ASKED FOR AND RECEIVED FROM GREG ABBOTT, IN WHICH HE RULED THE TRICKLE-DOWN FUNDS THAT THE CITY RECEIVES FROM THE OPERATION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER, ARE HOT FUNDS, AND THEY ARE RESTRICTED.
THAT OPINION FORMS THE BASIS OF THE CITY POLICY THAT WE HAVE FOLLOWED.
THAT ANY HOT TAXES RESTRICTED IF WE GET MONEY BACK IN FROM HOT TAX, IT'S RESTRICTED HOT TAX AND CITY MANAGEMENT HAS BEEN VERY, VERY STRICT ABOUT THAT.
FOR EXAMPLE WE GIVE MONEY TO [INAUDIBLE] TO HELP CLEAN THE STREETS.
WHEN MIKE DEAN PAYS US BACK, IT GOES BACK INTO HOT. THAT'S FINE.
BUT NOW SCOTT JUST LOVE HAS POPPED UP AND HE HAS SAID THAT INCOME THAT IS DERIVED FROM THE EXPENDITURE OF HOT FUNDS IS NON-RESTRICTED.
THE CONTEXT THAT THIS CAME UP WITH WAS THE PARK BOARD FUNDS, A MAGAZINE.
THE PARK BOARD GET SOME REVENUE FROM THE ADS AND THEY SAY, THOSE ARE NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS.
UNDER OUR CITY POLICY WE CONSIDER THEM, RESTRICTED.
NOW, SCOTT TRIES LOVE, WHO IS THE GURU OF HOT.
IF HE SAYS THAT THOSE ARE NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS AND YOU CAN USE THEM IN A NON-RESTRICTED WAY, THAT'S FINE.
BUT THAT'S A DECISION FOR CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE HAD AN INDICATION WHICH WAY YOU WERE LEANING ON THAT.
I WOULD HASTEN TO ADD THAT IN THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW, IT'S REALLY NOT AN ISSUE.
THE REASON IT'S NOT AN ISSUE IS THE PARK BOARD AND IT'S VERSION THEY SENT US SAID, WE'RE GOING TO TREAT THEM AS HOT FUNDS.
WE MIGHT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY GOING FORWARD IN FUTURE YEARS TO PUT THAT INTO THE CONTRACT.
BUT RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE WILLING TO SAY, THOSE ARE HOT FUNDS AND THEY ARE RESTRICTED.
>> CAN I ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION?
>> EXCUSE ME DAVID LET ME CLARIFY THIS WITH MIKE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PART BOARD AT ONE POINT IN OUR INITIAL DISCUSSIONS, WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT THERE WAS THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF RESTRICTED AND NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS.
THEY HAVE CHANGED THEIR THOUGHT ON THAT AND THE RESPONSE.
>> IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU, DAVID GO AHEAD.
>> ANY EARNINGS FROM HOT ARE EARNINGS IN EXCESS OF THE ORIGINAL EXPENDITURE SO PROBLEM,.
>> THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE FOR YOU TO DECIDE.
YOU CAN SAY ALL THE REVENUE IS NON-RESTRICTED OR IT'S RESTRICTED TO THE POINT OF THE HOT FUNDS WE HAVE SPENT AND ANY EXCESS WOULD BE NON-RESTRICTED.
>> EXCESS TO WHAT YOU'VE SPENT TO MAKE A PROFIT.
>> I MEAN, BUT IF YOU USE A MILLION DOLLARS TO START MAGAZINE, $700,000 ISN'T UNRESTRICTED.
YOU GOT TO GET ABOVE THAT INITIAL MILLION DOLLARS BEFORE YOU'RE IN UNRESTRICTED TERRITORY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU SAID POLICY, BECAUSE THAT'S POLICY DECISION.
>> WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY [INAUDIBLE].
>> BECAUSE I THINK MR. JOCELYN WAS CLEAR.
THE LAW ISN'T REALLY CLEAR ON THIS.
>> WELL, AND HENCE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR, HE TAKES THE POSITION THAT IT'S NOT RESTRICTED, [NOISE] WHICH IS FINE.
IF HE HAS CONSTITUENCY, HE HAS TO ANSWER TO.
[00:10:02]
>> BUT WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS HOT IN AND HOT OUT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE WILL HANDLE THAT AND THAT'S CERTAINLY HOW WE'VE DEALT WITH IT.
>> SO THAT'S WHAT THE, TRICKLE-DOWN FINE ART.
>> NOW THE BOARD AND THEIR CONTRACT ARE SAYING HOT IN HOT OUT.
>> WHO'S SAYING THAT BOARD [INAUDIBLE]?
>> YEAH ALREADY WE HAVE THERE?
>> THAT WAS SIMMONS, THEIR ATTORNEY WROTE IT INTO THEIR CONTRACT DRAFT.
>> THAT'S NOT A BOARD DECISION, THAT'S JUST WHAT THEIR ATTORNEY HAS PUT IN THEIR CONTRACT.
>> YES, BUT HE IS JOINED, WITH PRICE, AND THEN KELLY, AND WILL SOMETHING THERE.
>> YOU KNOW MARTY IS [OVERLAPPING] NOT PARTICIPATING.
>> I BELIEVE LENS COMES OVER FROM TIME TO TIME.
>> I DON'T THINK HE'S IN THE DECISION WE CAN LOOK ON THAT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YEAH. WELL, THE BIG STAFF.
[OVERLAPPING] SO IF THEM HAVING SAID THAT, I CONSIDER THAT ISSUE TO BE GOING THROUGH HERE.
>> DON REALLY WHERE WERE YOU [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, I MEAN, THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> HOLD ON. WE DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH IT THAT WAY, [NOISE] IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING FIRST [OVERLAPPING] THAT IF WE WERE TO CHANGE [NOISE] THAT WAY, LET'S FINISH THIS CONTRACT NOW AND DEAL WITH IT, IN FUTURE YEARS.
>> WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? WE'RE HERE TO SET POLICY TODAY, NOT, A YEAR DOWN THE ROAD.
OUR FOCUS IS GETTING THE CONTRACT TO YOU TO SIGN, AT THE END OF MARCH.
>> HE DIDN'T SAY NEW ISSUE MIGHT BE, COUNTER PRODUCTIVE [NOISE]
THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, [NOISE] TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE FOR THE CONTRACT.
>> THAT IS COMING IN MARCH. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT IS CORRECT. NOW SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND, THAT CONTRACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, EXPIRES, AT THE END OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.
WE WOULD HAVE TO INITIATE, [NOISE] THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED IN AN ORDINANCE, WE'D HAVE TO INITIATE A NEW, HOT CONTRACT AT THAT POINT.
>> I THINK IT'S STRUCTURED THAT WAY IN THE STATE LAWS, [OVERLAPPING] BUT THE KEY IS [OVERLAPPING] HAMMER THIS OUT NOW, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE, NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE NEXT [INAUDIBLE]
>> I AGREE WITH JOHN ON THIS POINT THAT [NOISE], WHATEVER WE'RE DECIDING HERE, [NOISE] IS IN MY OPINION, SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH FUTURE CONTRACTS.
>> OUR FUTURE, THE CURRENT CONTRACT [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL THE CURRENT AND FUTURE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS IS WHY I'VE ALWAYS ARGUED THAT THIS, COUNCIL POLICY SETTING ORDINANCE, NOT WRITTEN, CONTRACT.
BECAUSE, AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES, PARK BOARD IS THE, BIG GORILLA IN THIS CONVERSATION, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY ORGANIZATION WE, HAVE HOT TAX CONTRACTS WITH.
WE FIND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS SO MUCH LESSER DEGREE, BUT IT STILL APPLY.
>> THAT BRINGS ABOUT SOMETHING DON'S GOING TO BRING UP.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT SILOS HERE IN MY MIND.
YOU HAVE HOT INCOME DERIVED FROM HOT EXPENDITURES, AND THEN THERE IS THE TRANSFER OF HOT INTO AN ACCOUNT THAT MIXES WITH NON HOT [NOISE] AND THE OUTCOME OF THOSE FUNDS.
[OVERLAPPING] THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN HOW THAT SHOULD BE HANDLED [BACKGROUND]
>> MIKE IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT STUFF.
>> I WANT TO SEPARATE THESE OUT BECAUSE THIS CAN GET VERY CONFUSING.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS RESTRICTED, NON-RESTRICTED, ALL OF THAT RIGHT NOW, THEN WE NEED TO GET INTO THE OTHER.
BUT, MIKE, YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS YOU WANTED TO MAKE.
>> ALRIGHT. WE'LL START WITH, TEXAS TAX CODE 351.001.9.
THE ONLY PLACE THAT IT TALKS ABOUT RESTRICTED ON HOT, AND THE STATE, IS THAT THE INTEREST, IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IS STILL RESTRICTED, AS HOT.
THAT IS THE ONLY THING IT SAYS ABOUT RESTRICTED, IN A HOT.
THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE IN THERE, CAUSE IN SAME ABOUT, REVENUE MADE OFF OF HOT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THE AG REPORT, WAS FOR THE TRICKLE DOWN, AND IT REFERRED TO, THE HOT ITSELF.
IT NEVER REFERRED TO ANYTHING, AS, HOT REVENUE OFF OF THE HOT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT SPECIFICALLY WAS TO DEAL WITH THE TRICKLE-DOWN MONEY, THAT WAS FOR, THE, CONVENTION CENTER.
THAT IS, WHAT I READ, AND THEN THAT IS, THE DISCUSSION THAT I HAD WITH SCOTT JOCELYN.
WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO MY, OUTLINE HERE.
MY OUTLINE, WHY SHOULD WE UNRESTRICT HOT? THE BENEFITS, IS AN ALTERNATIVE REVENUE STREAM THAT CAN BE SHARED, WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON, AND THE PARK BOARD.
[00:15:03]
WE WOULD FREE UP LIFE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IF, THEY ARE APPROVED.WE WOULD REDUCE THE MONEY TIED UP IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS THAT WE'RE SEEING OVER EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, THAT WOULD HELP THAT, AND THEN THERE IS NO WAY OF PREVENTING OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE FOR DOING THE SAME THING, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND IF WE DON'T CHANGE THIS, AND PUT SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE THEN OTHERS COULD DO THIS, AND MAKE IT A BAD SITUATION.
CONS, IF, IT'S THE SAME THING, IF, THE WRONG CITY COUNCIL GETS INTO PLACE, THEY COULD DO THE WRONG THINGS WITH THE FUNDS.
IF WE TAKE TOO MUCH FUNDS AWAY FROM THE PARK BOARD, IT MAY HINDER THEIR OPERATIONS.
THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF, RESTRICTED FUNDS, HOT SPENT TO PROMOTE, AND THE REVENUE, RECEIVED FROM THAT EVENT OR ITEM, IS, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
THEN, LIKE I GOT, WHO SHOULD RECEIVE IT? SHOULD BE THE CITY, SHOULD BE THE PARK BOARD OR BOTH? THEN, WHAT SHOULD IT BE SPENT ON? I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO, WEIGH IN ON, WHETHER IT'S PARKS AND REC, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, GENERAL FUND, ANYTHING, OR IMPROVING THE PARKS.
THAT'S, WHERE I'M AT WITH THAT.
AUSTIN, TEXAS, AND SAN ANTONIO, BOTH, HAVE RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED FUNDS, THAT THEY, USE IN A WAY THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE TAKING AT HOT.
PROCEEDS FROM HOT OR EXCESSIVELY HOT.
HOW DOES IT GET FROM HOT TO NOT HOT IN THOSE?.
>> IN THE WAY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, BY USING IT AND THEN TAKING THE INCOME FROM WHATEVER THEY USE THE HOT FOR, AND THEN THEY HAVE THAT ON [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S JUST UNRESTRICTED FUNDS.
>> MY FIRST COMMENT TO YOUR FIRST POINT, AND THEIR UNRESTRICTED FUNDS, THEY SHOULD STATE THE CITY.
>> OKAY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE NEED TO DISCUSS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> DON CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME DEFINITIONS, SO I'M GOING TO UNDERSTAND THIS LAYER.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE HOT.
IS THAT THE RIGHT TERM TO USE? RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE HOT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] RESTRICTED FUND AND NON RESTRICTIVE FUND THAT MAY BE GENERATED BY A HOT.
>> FOR THE 12 PEOPLE THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT RESTRICTIVE HOT IS.
BUT THEN WHEN WE SAY NON-RESTRICTIVE HOT.
>>WELL, YOU CAN'T SAY HOT [OVERLAPPING]IT'S NOT RESTRICTIVE FUNDS.
THAT'S NOT REALLY A TRUE WORD WE USE.
>> FIRST 351,101, DIMENSION OF INTEREST AT STATUTE SAYS IT INCLUDES THE INTERESTS BECAUSE AT ONE POINT CITIES WERE PUTTING THE HOT IN THE BANK AND SKIMMING THE INTEREST.
THAT WAS ADDED IN TO MAKE SURE THE INTERESTS TURNED OFF OF HOT WAS IS CONSIDERED HOT.
SINCE WE HAVE GOTTEN FUNDS FROM THE PORT BOARD, WE HAVE GENERATED HOW MUCH INTEREST?
>> HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
>> I GUESS IT'S THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS [NOISE]. I.
>> IN 351105, THE FINALS ARE BROKEN DOWN AND RESTRICTED WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR.
[OVERLAPPING] WE CHARGE 7%, 3% GOES FOR ADVERTISING, WHILE THE SAID GOES TO BEACH.
EACH OF THE FUNDS RESTRICTED FOR THOSE PURPOSES.
REVENUE GENERATED FROM HOT IT'S NO LONGER HOT ACCORDING TO MR. JONES OF NS.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT HOT, IT'S UNRESTRICTED.
>> OKAY. I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
>> IF I MAY. BUT THE WAY I SAW RESTRICTED HOT AND UNRESTRICTED HOT, IS LIKE IF MONEY IN FOR ADVERTISING, THE EXCESS OF THAT CAN BE USED FOR SAND OR COULD BE USED FOR SAND.
>> COULD BE USED FOR ANYTHING.
BUT THERE ARE SO MANY FUNDS FROM HOT.
>> BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT, RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED.
WITHIN THE BUCKET OF HOT THERE ARE THOSE SILOS.
>>BUT WITH THE NON-RESTRICTED OR LIGHT FROM THE INTERESTS, FROM THE HOT FUND.
>> WE CAN BUILD A JUNETEENTH MUSEUM.
[00:20:02]
THAT'S AN ALLOWABLE HOT FUND.I'VE READ THE HOT LAWS THIS WEEKEND WHEN I COULDN'T SLEEP.
>> DIDN'T HELP ME GO TO SLEEP.
>> THE FUNNY THING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.
THE PARK BOARD, IN THEIR TERMINATION AND THEY'RE DETERMINING NON-RESTRICTIVE HOT, THEY'RE STILL USING IT FOR HOT OR IT'S PROJECTS.
WITH AMENITIES, THE STUART BEACH, WITH PLAYGROUND [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S THEIR SCOPE. THEY USE IT WITHIN THEIR SCOPE.
>> BUT THEY ALSO HAVE OTHER WAYS THAT THEY GENERATE FUNDS FROM CONTRACTS THEY HAVE THAT ARE CONSIDERED HOT.
IF YOU'VE READ THE GOVERNMENT LAW AND IF THEY'RE DOING THEIR BUDGET CORRECTLY.
WE ARE TO REVIEW THEIR BUDGET EACH YEAR AND WE'LL FUND THEM FROM THE HOT TAX THAT IS DEPOSITED HERE.
IF THEY'RE NOT PUTTING IT IN THEIR BUDGET, THEN SHAME ON THEM.
BUT FOR THEM TO SAY THEY CURRENTLY CAN'T FUND SOME PROJECTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY.
CLEARLY ISN'T TRUE BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHAT ARE THEY NOT PUTTING IN THEIR BUDGET?.
SHAME ON THEM. WHAT WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT
>> YOU WERE JUST SAYING THAT WE SHOULD SHARE ON RESTRICTIVE FUND FOR THEM.
WELL, EVERYTHING THEY DO SHOULD BE IN THEIR BUDGET.
YES. WE MIGHT HAVE TO DO AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND OUR BUDGET, JUST LIKE IF THERE WAS SOMETHING WITH THAT.
BUT THEY GAVE US A BUDGET AND CLEARLY IN THE STATE LAW.
IT SAYS THAT GOVERNING BODY, WE ARE THE GOVERNING BODY.
WE REVIEW THEIR BUDGET, THEY COME TO US SO NEITHER MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY BASIS AND WE REVIEW IT.
IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY MISS, WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND MAKE A CHANGE TO THAT.
BUT FOR THEM TO SAY, THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO OPERATE, THEN THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG WITH THEIR BUDGET.
>> WELL, WE ARE OFF THE TRACK ON THIS.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESTRICTED, NOT UNRESTRICTED FUNDS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU SAID WE SHOULD SHARE UNRESTRICTED.
>> RIGHT. SO HOW DOES THAT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEIR BUDGET?
>> YOU SAID THEY'RE SPENDING MONEY ON OTHER THINGS, SO THAT SHOULD BE IN THEIR BUDGET.
>> YOU SAID THEY ARE PAINTED LIKE A PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT RIGHT NOW.
>> I GOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, BECAUSE YOU BRING UP A POINT THERE.
THAT IS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, RIGHT?
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE USE $100,000 FOR ANY TYPE OF NEW CONSTRUCTION AS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT THRESHOLD.
>> FOR THE CITY. WE'RE TRYING TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE HOT AGREEMENT.
BUT YOU CAN'T BUY PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR LESS THAN TWO GRAND.
>> I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THIS BECAUSE Y'ALL BROUGHT IT UP STUART BEACH AND HOT FUNDS, NUMBERS ACCOUNT FUNDS.
TAKE THE MOBILE AMENITIES OUT THERE.
THAT WOULD BE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, RIGHT?
>> THEY USE NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS TO DO THOSE MOBILE AMENITIES. [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY COULD USE HOT FUNDS TO BUILD THOSE.
>> THEY DIDN'T DO THAT. THEY TOOK A LOAN AGAINST [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU ARE ALLOWED TO ENHANCE PARKS.
>> DEDUCT THE THREE CENTS, BUT THE OTHER WAY YOU CAN.
>> YEAH YOU CAN. WE APPROVE THOSE MINUTES.
>> I KNOW WE DID. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT.
I'M JUST SAYING I THOUGHT THEY USE NON-RESTRICTIVE FUNDS TO DO THAT THOUGH.
>> THAT'S WHAT THEY USE, THEY'RE CONSIDERING [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S ALLOWABLE USE UNDER HOT FUNDS.
>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JOHN, I ASKED THAT QUESTION TO WHOM DIRECTLY? WHAT ARE YOU USING NON-RESTRICTIVE HOT ON? THEY SAID THE MOST RECENT IS AMENITIES FOR STUART BEACH AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> THAT'S CLEARLY SOMETHING THAT HOT COULD BE USED ON.
>> WHY WOULD YOU USE ONE OF THE OTHER?
>> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU MY FEELINGS ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF RESTRICTIVE NON-RESTRICTIVE POPPED UP WHEN WE PASSED THE ORDINANCE ON THE TRANSFER OF THE FUNDS.
ONCE THAT HAPPENED, BECAUSE THE PART BOARD STILL AND MIKE, PLEASE GUIDE ME I THINK THE PART BOARD STILL FEELS THEY TRANSFERRED 14 MILLION, BUT FOUR MILLION OF THAT WAS UNRESTRICTED.
>> THAT IS WHEN THE WHOLE TOPIC CAME UP.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S A NEW POINT ON
[00:25:03]
A STATIC POLICY ON WHAT'S RESTRICTED, NON-RESTRICTED.I THINK THAT IS VERY [OVERLAPPING]
>> MIKE, DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT NUMBER?
>> I DO AND I'D LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU AT SOME POINT THAT I'VE GOT THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> MIKE, COME ON AND HAVE A SEAT IF YOU WOULD, SIR.
>> I GUESS BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, THE TOPIC HERE IS POLICY ON RESPOND AND ON THAT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. COUNCIL, I'M JUST GOING TO THROW OUT AN IDEA TO YOU AND YOU'LL SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT.
PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT FOLLOW THE RULES THAT WE'VE BEEN FOLLOWING HERE AT THE CITY.
I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES AND IF WE DO THAT, THE CURRENT ORDINANCES COVER THAT ALREADY THAT WE HAVE PASSED ALL HOT HAS TO RESIDE BACK IN THE CITY OF EXCESS NATURE.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST NOT ONLY OF THE CITY BUT OF THE PART BOARD AT THIS [OVERLAPPING]
>> AGREED. IF I UNDERSTAND THAT, ALL FUNDS EVEN FUNDS THAT ARE GENERATED FROM HOT REMAIN HOT AND RESTRICTED?
>> I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, THAT'S HOW WE DO IT AT THE CITY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I THINK WE SHOULD SET A POLICY FOR THE CITY TOO.
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION WHERE I THINK THAT GETS BLURRY.
THE PARK BOARD EXPENSE FUNDS I DON'T KNOW WHAT [INAUDIBLE] BUT THE EXPENSE FUNDS FOR POLICE AND SECURITY OVER AND ABOVE THE BEACH PATROL ON THE BEACH ON A REGULAR BASIS.
[INAUDIBLE] EVENTS AND THAT THING.
BUT THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS READ IT AND I DON'T OBJECT TO THAT THEY NEED THE SECURITY OUT THERE WITHOUT DOUBT.
BUT THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS READ THAT AT THE CITY, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE WITHOUT SOME MODIFICATION [OVERLAPPING] TO FUND POLICE EFFORTS ON THE BEACH ON THE SEAWALL.
>> NO. WE ACTUALLY FUND A COUPLE OF POLICE OFFICERS UP THERE OUT OF OUR TRICKLE-DOWN NOW.
>> BUT THEY HAVE TO STAY ON THE SEAWALL.
>> BUT WHAT DAVID IS SAYING, IF WE NOW CLARIFY PART OF THE FUNDS WHICH I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO UNRESTRICTED, WE COULD USE THAT FOR DIFFERENT TOURISM RELATED.
>> WE CAN USE IT FOR ANYTHING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I ASSUME WHEN YOU START PAYING FOR THE STREETS YOU GOT [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT YOU CAN HAVE THE ACCESS TO PAY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] I DON'T THINK SO BUT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU SAID A HOT TAKE.
>> [LAUGHTER] PROBABLY EVEN FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO, IT PROBABLY MADE SENSE TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO RESTRICT THIS HOT TYPE EXPENDITURE TO THE SEAWALL.
I'VE GOT SHORT-TERM RENTALS NOW ON JUST ABOUT EVERY BLOCK OF EVERY STREET IN GALVESTON WITH TOURISTS LIVING IN IT.
>> NOT TO MENTION [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICT 6 AND WE DON'T HAVE THE SEAWALL.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD A DISTRICT 6 [OVERLAPPING]
>> MORE THAN 20 PERCENT OF OUR DISTRICT IS SHORT-TERM RENTALS IN THE URBAN CORE.
>> RESTRICTING IT JUST TO THE SEAWALL I THINK IS A BIT OF A FALLACY ON OUR PART.
>> I AGREE IT'S JUST THE POINT.
THAT WAS [OVERLAPPING] A HOT IDEA, BRIAN.
>> WE HAVE MIKE OFTEN AVAILABLE.
MIKE, YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING AT THIS POINT?
>> I DO. I'D LIKE TO REPORT TO COUNCIL THAT WE'VE RECEIVED A DRAFT COPY OF THE PARK WORKS FINANCIAL REPORT.
THEY TOOK A CLOSE LOOK FROM THE LETTER WE SENT THEM THE QUOTED UP SOME THINGS THAT OUR AUDITORS AND OUR AUDIT STAFF, INTERNAL FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
IT QUESTIONS ABOUT LAST YEAR'S FINANCIAL REPORT.
THE NUMBERS THEY'VE GIVEN ME ARE THIS THAT THEIR FUND BALANCES ADD UP TO $28 MILLION.
THEY'RE CLASSIFYING 25 OF THAT AS RESTRICTED.
THE REMAINING THREE, 2/3 OF THAT IS IN THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT BUDGET.
BUT THERE'S BASICALLY DID A TURNAROUND OR A MAJOR COURSE CORRECTION ON THEIR DEFINITION OF RESTRICTED FUNDS, AND I THINK INCORPORATED A LOT OF OUR SUGGESTIONS.
THE UNRESTRICTED INCLUDES ADVERTISING, SPONSORSHIP REVENUE, SALE OF GOODS AND SERVICES, COMMUNITY DISASTER LOAN THAT WAS GIVEN ON FEMA, AND SOME REALLY MISCELLANEOUS THINGS THAT HAPPENED OVER THE YEARS.
TO THE THOUGHT THAT COUNCIL MAY WANT TO TAKE SOME OF THE UNRESTRICTED AND SPEND IT ON OTHER THINGS, CERTAINLY YOU CAN DO THAT.
THE GATSBY ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING RULE THAT
[00:30:04]
OUTLINES HOW THESE DEFINITIONS ARE TO BE APPLIED, REALLY ANTICIPATES THAT GOVERNING BODIES NEED THAT CHOICE.THEY NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH IS UNRESTRICTED SO THAT THEY CAN MAKE A DECISION 100 PERCENT.
AGAIN, THIS DRAFT IS BRYSON FRAZIER FINISHING UP WITH HIS AUDITORS, TRY TO DO EVERYTHING CORRECT THERE.
WE'RE SPEAKING NOT REALLY ON HIS BEHALF BUT JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE COUNSEL WITH CURRENT INFORMATION WE'VE GOT FROM [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M GLAD. I'M THE EX OFFICIAL IN FINANCE AND PART OF IT WAS TALKING ABOUT THEIR AUDIT REPORT.
THEIR AUDIT REPORT HAD QUITE A FEW FINDINGS WHICH IS NEVER SOMETHING YOU WANT TO HAVE IN YOUR AUDIT REPORT.
I'M GLAD MIKE IS WORKING WITH THEM BECAUSE THEIR FINANCIALS HAD A LOT OF ISSUES.
>> THE REPORT LAST YEAR WAS 50 PAGES.
THIS YEAR'S DRAFT, WHICH IS PROBABLY GOING TO GROW BY SEVERAL MORE PAGES, IS 70 PAGES.
THAT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF HOW MUCH MORE INFORMATION THEY'VE INCLUDED, ALL TO THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AND IN FACT BOARD AND COUNCIL.
>> MIKE, LET ME ASK THIS, THE THREE MILLION DOLLARS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT THEY CLAIMED IS UNRESTRICTED.
IS THAT OVER HOW MANY YEARS IS THAT ACTUALLY RELATED?
>> I THINK WHAT BRYSON HAS DONE IS GONE BACK AND LOOKED AT THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, AND HAS NOT GONE BACK TO 2002 OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
THEY COULD POTENTIALLY BE SOME MORE.
BUT I THINK THE WAY HE'S APPLYING THE DEFINITION OF RESTRICTED AND ASSIGNED WHICH IS WHERE THEY PUT THE UNRESTRICTED MONEY IS VERY STRICT.
IF THEY'RE RECOVERING ANY EXPENSE, IF FUND BALANCES ARE BEING TRANSFERRED FROM ONE FUND TO THE OTHER TO COVER EXPENSES, THAT'S ALL CONSIDERED HIGH.
>> THEY'RE NOT TREATING THAT EACH UNRESTRICTED.
>> I THINK I'M GOING TO ADD TO SOMETHING THAT MARIE SAID EARLIER THAT [NOISE] WHETHER IT'S HOT OR NOT, PEOPLE'S MONEY IN SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE'S MONEY OUT.
ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF BUDGET SHOULD BE IN A CITY ACCOUNT.
>> WELL, I'M NOT SURE EVERYBODY HEARD THAT.
OH SURE. THANKS FOR THAT. [NOISE]
>> SEEMS LIKE THERE'S MORE THAN THAT IN THE CITY ACCOUNT.
ALL THAT IS IN THE CITY ACCOUNT.
TRY AND GOES IN THE CITY ACCOUNT EVERY [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THREE MILLION DOLLARS THAT JUST [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY HELD ON TO QUITE A BIT OF CASH IN RIGHTFULLY SO THEY CAN OPERATE AND THEY HAVE 120 DAY RESERVE THAT PUSHING THEIR OPERATIONS.
>> FIRST THING [OVERLAPPING] FOR ALL THEIR OPERATIONS COST, BUT THEY HELD ON TO EXCESS CASH.
>> WELL, THEY NEED TO DO THAT.
>> WELL, IT REALLY [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES, THEY DO. THEY HAVE A RESERVE OVER THERE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE GAVE THEM RESERVE AND WE GAVE THEM THEIR OPERATING FUNDS [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHEN WE PUT THESE POLICIES IN PLACE AND FROM THAT POINT ON, THEY COLLECT OUR TAX AND ALL OF THAT GETS TRANSFERRED OVER HERE AND THEN WE SEND BACK THEIR BUDGET AMOUNT.
>> IT'S GOING FORWARD, IT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS RIGHT THAT THEY SEND US EVERYTHING.
>> YES, NOT WHAT MIKE IS SAYING.
>> I THINK HE'S TRYING TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY GOT ALL THE HOT TAX, BUT THEY HELD ON TO A LARGE NUMBER OF [OVERLAPPING]
>> COUNCIL, JOHN HAD A QUESTION THERE AND LET'S MIKE ANSWER IT.
JOHN, WOULD YOU SEE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MY QUESTION IS THAT THEY COLLECT THE HOT AND THEY SEND ALL OF IT TO US.
>> ALL OF THE HOT ON FIRST WATCH.
BUT WHAT THEY ARE RECOVERING AFTER THEY'VE SPENT SOME HOT AND THEY'RE RECOVERING IT VARIOUS WAYS, WE DON'T SEE THAT MONEY RIGHT DOWN UNDER THE ORDINANCES COUNCIL.
>> ORDINANCES NEED FOR SOME CLARIFICATION AND SOME. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MULTIPLICATIONS THERE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
WE JUST DIDN'T ADDRESS THAT ISSUE WITHIN THE ORDINANCES THAT WE PASS.
>> IF COUNCIL WANTED TO SEE ALL THAT MONEY, YES.
>> THE REVENUE CREDIT FROM HOT, WHERE DOES THIS SAY IS WHAT WE'RE ANSWERING RIGHT NOW, CORRECT.
>> IT ISN'T THERE. BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO SET POLICY EQUAL.
>> YOU HAVE A MAGAZINE THAT THEY RUN.
THEY USE THE HOT, WHICH IS THE PEOPLE'S MONEY.
THEY GO AHEAD AND THEY USE IT FOR WHAT IT'S INTENDED FOR.
THEY GO AHEAD AND THEY HAVE PEOPLE ADVERTISE IN THIS MAGAZINE, AND THAT REVENUE THAT COMES BACK.
[00:35:02]
>> BUT THAT WAS CREATED BY THE PEOPLE'S MONEY.
>> THAT REVENUE THAT COMES BACK IS NOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THIS REVENUE.
THERE IS NO MECHANISM FOR THAT MONEY TO COME TO THE CITY RIGHT NOW.
I GUESS, WHY WOULDN'T THAT BE MORE OF SOMETHING THAT WE WRITE IN THE INNER LOCAL AS A PROFIT-SHARING VERSUS EVERYTHING COMES BACK TO THE CITY.
WHY WOULDN'T IT BE SPLIT OF SOME SORT?
>> I WOULD OBJECT TO THAT, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT'S EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE THEY DON'T EARN $3 MILLION A YEAR ON THAT, THANKS.
>> WE'RE [OVERLAPPING] JUST TALKING.
HE WAS TALKING OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.
>> HE WANT TO TALKING ABOUT WHAT YEAR.
>> THEY AVERAGE ABOUT $400,000 A YEAR OFF OF THE MAGAZINE.
>> THEY PROFIT HOW MUCH? THAT COSTS THAT MUCH?
>> WHATEVER THE BUDGET IS, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT COULD COST THAT MUCH.
>> THE HIGHEST NUMBER THAT I MADE IS SIX SOMETHING.
>> SIX SOMETHING, WAIT A MINUTE.
>> THE TOTAL REVENUE THEY COULD THAT YEAR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, I MEAN, IT'S $4, 600,000.
>> COUNCILMAN SAYING THAT THAT'S 400,000 MORE THAN WHAT IT COSTS THEM TO PRODUCE THE MAGAZINE?
>> NO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.
>> NO. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE REVENUE THAT COMES IN FROM THE MAGAZINE IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 400,000 FOR ALL [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT IS THE COST FOR MAKING THE MAGAZINE?
>> WHAT IS THE PROFIT OFF THE MAGAZINE?
>> NO. WHY DO WE CARE WHAT THE PROFIT IS?
>> THE REVENUE NOW IS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHERE DOES THAT 400,000 STAY?
>> CURRENTLY IT'S SAYING THERE.
WE NEED TO SET POLICY ON WHERE THAT GOES.
I THINK MIKE IS SUGGESTING THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME PROFIT SHARING THAT IS WORKED OUT WITHIN THE INNER LOCAL.
I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I THINK THAT INCENTIVIZES THE PARK BOARD TO GO MAKE MONEY FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> BUT THE BIG MONEY IS PAYING FOR 100% OF THE MAGAZINES COST, WHICH WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
>> WELL, WE DO KNOW WHAT IT IS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEAD.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> THE INCENTIVIZATION IS THEY'RE DOING IT TO IMPROVE CITY OF GALVESTON.
OTHERWISE YOU GOT HAVE A NICE CITY THAT.
>> GO TELL YOUR WORKERS THAT YOU'RE DOING A JOB TO IMPROVE THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND SEE HOW WELL THEY, [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF THE CITY OF GALVESTON IS NOT HERE, THE PARK DOESN'T EXIST.
>> YOU'RE PRESUMING YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE SPENDING MONEY ON, THE ACCESS TO THE $400,000?
>> THERE'S A MINOR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE IT'S STILL IN [INAUDIBLE] IS TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
>> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.
>> BECAUSE IF NOT, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ALMOST WASHING DOLLARS THAT WAY.
I HAD TO THAT PHRASAL OUT, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
>> THERE'S A MINOR EXAMPLE OF THAT.
THAT'S ADVERTISING ALL THE TRIALS.
WE HAVE ENGAGED CVP TO MANAGE THAT ADVERTISING.
IT'S NOT A LOT OF ADVERTISING.
THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD WORK WITH THEM TO REALLY INCREASE.
I THINK THERE ARE MANY MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT.
BUT DIDN'T WE CUT LIKE A 50, 50 DEAL ON. [OVERLAPPING]
DO WE HAVE A COUNCIL.COM SCENE OF THAT? THERE'S YOUR INCENTIVE THAT'S NOT NORMAL WITH PEOPLE'S MONEY.
BUT SCOTTMOON IS SELLING AND ADVERTISING.
HE'S GOOD AT THAT AND IT GENERATES.
>> DO WE PAY THEM BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE TOO?
>> NO, IT'S STRICT 50, 50 SPLIT.
>> IT WAS JUST STRAIGHT COMMISSION AND WE STILL HAVE, [OVERLAPPING]
>> CONTROL OF THE MONEY WITHIN THE BUDGET?
>> ULTIMATELY, YES. SO LONG AS IT REMAINS ON BUDGET, I MEAN [OVERLAPPING]
>> HOW MUCH DO YOU INCLUDE THOSE ON THE WITHDRAWALS?
>> I'LL STOP THERE. [LAUGHTER]
>> BUT I SEE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS BECOMES, DO WE EVER SEE THAT MONEY IN THE BUDGET AGAIN? DO WE EVER SEE THIS ACCESS $3 MILLION OR IS THAT JUST BUILDING UP OVER THERE? BECAUSE THAT'S ESSENTIALLY HOW WE'VE GOT TO $14 MILLION TO BEGIN WITH.
>> YOU DON'T LEAVE IT OUT OF A BUDGET. YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW IT SOMEWHERE.
>> THAT'S THE ISSUE IT IS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I CAN'T WRAP WHY THERE'S SUCH AN ISSUE WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS TAKING CONTROL OVER TAXPAYERS DOLLARS? I DON'T GET THAT. COULD WE SAY THE WRONG CITY COUNCIL GETS ELECTED.
WHAT DO YOU DEFINE WRONG? THEY'RE ELECTED BY A FREQUENT DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.
>> I DON'T REMEMBER ARGUING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S WHY WE CREATED THE ORDINANCES TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENED IN 2015.
>> I'M STILL CONFUSED WHY YOU THINK I'M [OVERLAPPING]
>> HE SAID THAT, IN HIS OUTLINING HE SAID, IF THE WRONG CITY COUNCIL GETS PUT IN PLACE.
>> NO. BUT YOU ARE SAYING THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
[00:40:01]
I'M ARGUING WITH THE SAME ARGUMENT WE'VE HAD SINCE OCTOBER. THAT'S WHERE IT IS.
>> WHERE DID THIS MONEY RESIDES AT.
THE ACCESS REVENUE, WE'VE EVERYTHING WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE IPAD OCTOBER.
THAT'S SEEMS TO BE THE WHOLE CONVERSATION WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH RIGHT NOW.
IN MY OPINION, WE'RE GIVEN STAFF DIRECTION.
I WOULD STILL LIKE TO SEE THOSE EXCESS FUNDS RESIDED TO CITY.
>> I THINK WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
>> COOL. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> LET'S BRING THIS BACK TO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MY BAD JOHN, I'M A LITTLE FRUSTRATED JUST BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE OCTOBER.
WE APPOINT THESE BORDER NOT TO BE CONTENTIOUS, BUT TO CARRY OUT THE BEST DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY.
YOU CAN'T HAVE A STRONG TOURISM BASE WITHOUT A STRONG CITY.
IF YOUR WHOLE MISSION IS, HEY, WE'VE GOT THIS IDEA, THIS IDEA OF WHATEVER, THAT'S GREAT.
BUT IT SHOULD BE FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY OVERALL, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT MUCH TOURISM WITHOUT A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE.
IT'S JUST BOTTOM LINE, THIS IS MY OPINION, I'M A PROBABLY RECEIVE 20 PHONE CALLS ON THIS IN ABOUT 30 MINUTES, BUT I DON'T CARE.
I REALLY DON'T. THAT'S JUST HOW I FEEL LIKE THE NEXT DISTRICT REP TO WORRY ABOUT NOW.
>> THE RECORD REFLECT SPOKEN LIKE A LAME DUCK COUNSEL.
>> THAT WAS LIKE DORCAS, I WOULD JUST SIT AT HOME AND NOT COME HERE.
>> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING.
I'M GOING TO BE HERE FOR AWHILE.
>> LET'S BRING IT BACK TO THIS RESTRICTIVE CONSTRICTIVE DISCUSSION.
JOHN AND MIKE SEEMS LIKE TO ME YOU HAVE A THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO POSSIBLY CONSIDER A SHARING PROCESS, A NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I GOT THE FIRST THING IS BECAUSE I THINK YOU WERE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH MY POSITION HERE ON RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE.
IF THE DECISION IS TO RESTRICT THE FUNDS, THERE'S NO REASON TO EVEN TALK ABOUT SOME PROFIT-SHARING.
I THINK THAT IT SHOULD STAY HOT.
SHOULD THE ORDINANCE ALREADY COVERS IT THAT WAY WE FOLLOW THE RULES THAT THE CITY IS FOLLOWING AT THIS POINT.
>> IT JUST TO COMMENT ON WHAT HE SAID, BECAUSE THERE'S RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED, UNRESTRICTIVE FUNDS DON'T HAVE TO BE A PROP, THEY'LL ALWAYS COME FROM PROFIT CENTER.
>> THERE ARE NO UNRESTRICTED FUNDS IF WE MAKE OUR ORDINANCES, I'D SAY EVERYTHING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> MIKE GREAT, BUT YOU SAID, IF WE'RE GOING TO SHARE THE PROFIT.
>> WELL, YOU SAID PROFIT ON IT.
>> UNRESTRICTED FUNDS. [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S WHY AS DEFINITIONS OF PROFIT.
LET'S LAY THE IDEA OUT ON THE TABLE ON CONSIDERING RESTRICTIVE, NON-RESTRICTIVE IN A PROFIT OR PROFIT SHARING PROCESS.
THROW THAT OUT THERE AND LET'S LOOK AT THAT.
>> REVENUE DERIVED FROM THE EXPENDITURE OF HOT WOULD BE UNRESTRICTED REVENUE AND THAT THE INNER CITY LOCAL AGREED, BOTH BY THE CITY AND THE PARK BOARD, WOULD BE SHARED IN SOME WAY.
>> BEFORE THAT, BEFORE YOU EVEN TALK ABOUT IT IN TIGHT PROFIT-SHARING, I STILL WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE OF A FEEL FOR YOU-ALL'S THOUGHTS ON UNRESTRICTIVE HOT, THIS UNRESTRICTED FUNDS, EVEN AT THE CITY, TAKE MY DEAN AND MONITOR OFF. I THINK. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DON'T WANT TO COVER THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDER OUR SHOULDER.
>> NO. I DO THINK WE WANT TO COVER STUFF THAT'S UNDER OUR SHOULDER.
>> TAKE SHARE ANYTHING OUT OF IT? THAT'S THE SECONDARY OF THE TOPIC.
[OVERLAPPING] WE FUND MONOGRAPH.
WE NOW TAKE THAT REVENUE AND WE RESTRICTED, IT IS STILL HOT.
I WOULD SAY THAT'S NOT THAT IS UNRESTRICTED.
THAT'S NOT WHAT OUR POLICY IS RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT'S HOW I WOULD SET THE POLICY.
I WOULD DO THE SAME THING WITH HOT FUNDS COMING TO THE PARK BOARD.
>> WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS PRECISELY HOW THE MAGAZINE WANTS.
>> THE CITY, [INAUDIBLE] DOESN'T, THE MAGAZINE DOES.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. THERE'S NO INCONSISTENCY THERE. THERE IS.
>> I WOULD MAKE IT CONSISTENT WHERE IT IS UNRESTRICTED WHEN WE WOULD GET THAT REVENUE BACK.
WE HAVE TONS OF HOT SITTING IN OUR ACCOUNTS THAT WE DO NOT USE.
MIKE HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE IN OUR ACCOUNTS THAT'S RESTRICT TO WRITE DOWN IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON OUTSIDE OF [INAUDIBLE]
>> I HAVE TO OPEN THE FIRST-QUARTER REPORT TO RESIZE, BUT IT'S SEVERAL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
>> SEVERAL MEANING 16 MILLION?
>> IN THIS LAST YEAR WE GOT $5 MILLION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> $16 MILLION, YOU GET $16 MILLION.
[00:45:01]
I DON'T THINK. [OVERLAPPING]>> THAT'S WHY I GOT THE GUY RIGHT HERE SITTING TO TELL US THE TRUTH.
>> THAT'S EXACT. WHEN JOHN BRINGS UP THE POINT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT IS THE CONCEPT OF RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE.
I FEEL THAT IT ALL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED HOT.
THAT'S JUST ME. LET'S WALK AROUND THE TABLE HERE.
>> I THINK IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED AND NON-RESTRICTED AND I THINK ALL NON-RESTRICTED SHOULD STAY AT THE CITY.
>> CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE RESTRICTED AND NON-RESTRICTED?
>> WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, THE REVENUE THAT COMES FROM MARDI GRAS OR ANYTHING THAT COMES IN [OVERLAPPING], NO LONGER HOT.[OVERLAPPING] OTHER INFO, NON-RESTRICTED, AND I THINK ALL THE NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS SHOULD RESIDE IN THE CITY.
>> I THINK THAT ANY EXCESS FUNDING FROM HOT TAXES SHOULD BE UNRESTRICTED, AND I'M GOING TO PASS ON THE SECOND PART.
BUT I THINK ANY EXCESS OR ANY MONEY THAT'S MADE FROM HOT TAX SHOULD BE CONSIDERED UNRESTRICTED.
>> LET EVERYBODY GET THEIR THOUGHTS OUT.
SHARON, IN YOUR MIND, WHERE DOES THAT UNRESTRICTED RESIDE IN?
>> I HEAR THAT IT SHOULD RESIDE WITH THE CITY.
BUT WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO DRAW THE LINE TO KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY IS TO PUT IT IN THE CITY TO RESIDE? IS EVERY PENNY THEY GET AND THEN THE EXCESS, YOU JUST TAKE IT ALL, PUT IN THE CITY DEPOSITORY?
>> THERE'S SOME COST ACCOUNTING THAT WILL HAVE TO TAKE PLACE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE COST OF GENERATING THE REVENUE WAS AND THEN I'M ASSUMING YOU'D TAKE THE NET.
THAT PROCESS COULD BE DONE QUARTERLY.
IT MIGHT BEST BE DONE ANNUALLY DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH MONEY IT IS.
>> AS A PART OF THE REGULAR PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OF PROVIDING THEM FUNDS TO OPERATE WITH.
>> THAT IS IN THE CITY CHARTER?
>> THIS IS NOT IN THE CITY CHARTER.
>> THIS IS A POLICY THAT'S BEEN FOLLOWED.
I GUESS YOU MIGHT CALL IT A CUSTOM THAT DERIVES OUT OF THIS AG OPINION.
IN MY MIND, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS EVER BEEN DISCUSSED IN DEPTH.
>> YEAH. EXACTLY. TO ANSWER MR. LISTOWSKI'S QUESTION, WE'VE GOT EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS AS OF SEPTEMBER 30TH
>> JOHN, I THINK I'M READING THE TEA LEAVES RIGHT THAT YOU FEEL WE SHOULD HAVE A NON-RESTRICTIVE RESTRICTIVE TYPE. DAVID?
>> MY FEELING IS THAT HOT SHOULD REMAIN HOT, BUT WE CAN BE A LOT MORE CREATIVE ABOUT WHAT IS ELIGIBLE.
IF YOU READ 351 TOP TO BOTTOM, WE'RE NOT THE WIENER DOG RACE CITY, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT THIS CAN BE USED FOR.
>> SUCH AS THE JUNE 15TH MUSEUM.
>> THE SAME WAY WE DO 4TH OF JULY, JUNETEENTH, THE MORE CHRISTMAS, MORE LIGHTING, [OVERLAPPING].
THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO IMPROVE THIS. LET'S NOT GO THERE.
>> WE COULD USE IT FOR SPORTS TOURISM.
>> IT'S CLEAR THAT WE COULD USE IT FOR PROMOTION OF SPORTS TOURISM, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CVV ISN'T DOING THAT OR ARE OPEN TO DOING THAT.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S TRUE THAT CVV DOES THAT.
BUT MY BUG IS ADDITIONAL MARSHAL AND POLICE PRESENCE CREATED BY THINGS THAT ARE CREATED DIRECTLY BY TOURISM.
BECAUSE MANAGING AND RESTRICTING THAT, OR I SHOULD SAY POLICING THAT, IT ONLY IMPROVES THE CITY FOR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS AS WELL.
I THINK HOT IS HOT, BUT WE CAN GET A LOT MORE CREATIVE ABOUT HOW WE DO THAT.
>> I GIVE MY SPEECH AGAIN? I'M JOKING.
IF A DOLLAR IS CREATED BY HOT, I THINK THAT'S EXCESS REVENUE, IT CAN BE UNRESTRICTED, STAY WITH THE CITY.
>> EXCESS REVENUE GENERATED FROM HOT IS UNRESTRICTED.
[00:50:03]
>> THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL FEELS, IN MY ESTIMATION HERE, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT POSSIBLY CONSIDERING RESTRICTED NON-RESTRICTIVE BUCKETS OF HOT.
I WOULD TAKE IT FROM COUNCIL'S THOUGHTS TO THAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR THAT IT'S SET UP IN THAT MANNER THAT IT WOULD [OVERLAPPING]
>> SINCE IT'S SUCH A HOT TOPIC.
>> THE MOM JOKE OF THE DAY [LAUGHTER].
>> I TAKE IT FROM COUNCIL'S THOUGHTS TOO THAT IF WE HAVE A SYSTEM OF RESTRICTED, NON-RESTRICTED, THOSE NON-RESTRICTED MONIES RESIDE AT THE CITY HERE.
>> IN MY COMMENT, I'M NOT MARRIED TO THE IDEA OF THE HOT IS HOT.
IF IT'S THE RULE OF COUNCIL THAT THERE BE UNRESTRICTED FUNDS OUT OF THIS SO LONG AS MR. LISTOWSKI IS COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE'RE GOING INTO LAW.
>> HOT FUNDS PER SAY ARE RESTRICTIVE.
REVENUE DERIVED FROM HOT, YOU WERE DISCUSSING THE POLICIES WHETHER TO CONSIDER THAT REVENUE THAT THEY RESTRICTED OR NOT RESTRICTED.
WHAT I HEAR IS A SENTIMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE NOT RESTRICTED.
WHEN I ALSO HEAR IT'S A DIFFERENCE OF WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD GET IT ALL OR SHARED IT WITH DEPART FOR.
I DON'T REALLY HEAR MUCH OF A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
BUT IF IT IS THE RULE OF COUNCIL THAT THERE IS AN UNRESTRICTED CATEGORY AND THAT YOU CAN BE COMFORTABLE WITH LEGALLY, I'LL GO ALONG WITH IT.
>> WELL, THE REVENUE IS NOT HOT, THEREFORE NOT RESTRICTING
>> THE SHARING SITUATION, LETS WALK AROUND THE TABLE ON THIS.
MAJORITY FEELS THAT IT SHOULD BE UP TWO-BUCKET SITUATION.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY FEELS THAT WAY.
I THINK THE CONSENSUS IS THAT IT SHOULD RESIDE WITH THE CITY, BUT WE HAVE A SHARING THOUGHT ON THE TABLE HERE.
>> WELL, IF THERE'S FUNDS OR EXPENDITURES THAT THEY HAVE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS THAT THEY USE NON RESTRICTIVE, THEN THAT SHOULD COME TO US IN THEIR BUDGET, WHICH SHOULD BE REVIEWED AT MINIMUM QUARTERLY, ACCORDING TO STATE LAW.
BUT WE REVIEW THEIR BUDGET, AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING THEY'RE USING UNRESTRICTED, THEN IT SHOULD BE COVERED IN THEIR BUDGET.
>> I THINK THAT THOSE FUNDS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY COUNCIL ON WHAT THEY NEED TO BE USED FOR.
BUT THERE'S ALSO THEIR BUDGET, LIKE MARIE SAID, IF THERE ARE FUNDS THAT NEEDS TO BE USED FROM THESE REVENUES THAT AREN'T HOT ANYMORE, THAT ARE THAT ARE ACQUIRED OR THAT ARE NEEDED FOR THEIR BUDGET, THEN I THINK THAT'S AS LONG AS THE BUDGET'S APPROVED AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVES IT, IT WOULD STILL BE THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> IT'S VIA THE BUDGET ON UTILIZATION OF UNRESTRICTED FUNDS FROM THE PARK BOARD,.
>> I AGREE WITH THAT ON THE REVENUE FROM THE UNRESTRICTED THAT THE PARK BOARD HAS IT IN THEIR BUDGET, THEY USE THAT.
>> I THINK DID YOU HAVE TO INCENTIVIZE SPARK BOARD TO KEEP DOING THE GREAT JOB THEY'RE DOING.
IF YOU TAKE ALL THEIR REVENUE AWAY FROM THEM DOING [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY HAVE A LOT OF GOOD REASONS TO KEEP DOING THE GREAT JOB THAT THEY'RE DOING.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM A PURPOSE, AND TAKING ALL THE REVENUE AWAY FROM THEM NOT MUCH PURPOSE OUT THERE ANYMORE.
NOT MUCH NEED FOR THEM AT THAT POINT. DO AWAY WITH THEM.
>> BUT IF IT'S IN THEIR BUDGET, HOW ARE YOU TAKING IT AWAY FROM THEM?
>> LET JOHN CONTINUE, LET'S GET EVERYBODY'S THOUGHTS OUT.
>> I THINK THIS PORTION OF OUR CONVERSATION HERE NEEDS TO GO TOWARDS THE INNER LOCAL.
[00:55:01]
THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING WITHIN THE INNER LOCAL THAT THERE'S SOME TYPE OF REVENUE SHARING ON THE REVENUE THAT THEY MAKE.THAT'S HOW I WOULD DO IT. IT STILL NEEDS TO GO IN THEIR BUDGET.
BUDGET IS A BUDGET. THE BUDGET SHOULD SHOW EVERY DOLLAR THAT GOES IN AND OUT OF THE BLACKBOARD.
>> I DON'T KNOW IT'S RESTRICTED OR UNDERSTRICTED.
>> RESTRICTED, UNRESTRICTED EVERY DOLLAR IT'S GOT TO GO IN THE BUDGET.
YOU DON'T HAVE A SEPARATE ACCOUNT OVER HERE THAT YOU DON'T SHOW IN YOUR BUDGET. IT'S IN YOUR BUDGET.
>> BUT THAT'S WHY THEY HAD SO MANY FINDINGS AND THEY'RE ON IT.
>> THERE MIGHT BE SOMEBODY IN COUNTY HERE IS IN THERE, BUT I DO NOT THINK THAT THE PORK BOARD IS TRYING TO HIDE MONEY SOMEWHERE.
THERE'S NOTHING NEFARIOUS GOING ON.
EVERYTHING GOES IN THE BUDGET.
WE FUND THE PARK'S BOARD BUDGET BACK TO THE PORK BOARD THROUGH A CITY DEPOSITORY.
YOUR QUESTION IS ABOUT REVENUE SHARING OR THAT'S HOW I WOULD SEE THERE IS SOME TYPE OF REVENUE SHARING AND THERE'S INCENTIVE FOR THE PORK BOARD TO KEEP GOING OUT THERE, KEEP DOING THE GREAT JOB THAT THEY'RE DOING.
IF THERE ISN'T, THERE IS NO NEED FOR PORK BOARD.
>> SHARON, YOU HAD A QUESTION?
>> I JUST NEEDED SOME CLARIFICATION.
[NOISE] I WAS IN A MEETING A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND IT IS RUMORED IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE ARE TAKING FUNDS FROM THE PORK BOARD, AND I JUST NEED THAT EXPLAINED HOW THE PORK BOARD OPERATES AND CONNECTS WITH THE CITY.
BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT WE NEED OUT THERE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE TAKING FUNDS FROM THE PORK BOARD AND I DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE A BUDGET AND THAT BUT IT'S OUT THERE, AND WHEN WE SAY THAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR.
I THINK IT'S DUE TO MISREPRESENTATION AND MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND I'M GOING TO NOT GET INTO INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS, BUT I THINK THAT'S OCCURRING AND I THINK AS WE CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS IN THE PUBLIC ARENA HERE, THAT WILL BECOME CLARIFIED EVEN MORE.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE EVERYTHING THEY DO, WE FUND THEM.
THEY COULD DO IT WITH THE FUNDS [NOISE] THERE'S A LITTLE BUTTON ON THE SIDE THERE.
[LAUGHTER] EVERYTHING THEY DO, FUNDS ALLOCATED WITH THE CITY AND DONE ON CITY PROPERTY, SO I THINK THAT'S FALSE.
WHEN IT COMES TO PROFIT SHARING, JOHN, I DON'T THINK I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE MEAN BY [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN I HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE YOU GET INTO YOUR SECOND?
>> DAVID, ARE YOU THROUGH WITH YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? [OVERLAPPING] LET DAVID FINISH YOU STOPPED HIM MARIE YOU CAN CALL IN ON THAT QUESTION.
>> ABOUT PROFIT-SHARING, I WENT TO ST. JOHN'S.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NOTION OF INCENTIVIZING BECAUSE PROFIT INCENTIVE REALLY ONLY CONTEMPLATES TO WAIT AND SEE, I HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO MAKE MORE MONEY TO PAY THE MORTGAGE AND DO STUFF I WANT TO DO.
OR IF YOU OWN A COMPANY OR IF YOU RUN A COMPANY IS TO MAKE YOUR STOCKHOLDERS HAPPY.
SOMEONE WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT THE INCENTIVE IS, WHAT'S THE PART WE'RE DOING WITH WHAT DO THEY WANT TO MAKE A PROFIT FOR SO THEY CAN DO WHAT?
>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR THEM.
NO. OKAY. IF IT'S NOT IN THEIR BUDGET.
I'D BE TOTALLY OPEN TO THE MID-YEAR CORRECTIONS ON THE BUDGET IF THERE'S EXCESS FUNDS AND PORK BOARD SAYS, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE'VE GOTTEN FOUR MILLION DOLLARS LET'S DO THIS.
I DON'T WANT TO BUILD A MIDDLE STORE BEACH OR A HOTEL [LAUGHTER].
I THINK JUST AS BRIAN AND MIKE BRING US BUDGET CORRECTIONS MID-YEAR, THE PORK BOARD CERTAINLY ARE WELCOME TO DO THE SAME THING.
BUT I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF PROFIT SHARING BECAUSE IT SUGGESTS THEY'RE BUILDING A FUND OVER THERE FOR SOMETHING AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
>> I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO WHAT SHARON SAID.
ALL THE ITEMS THAT THEY HAD COMMITTED TO, LIKE FESTIVALS OR ACTIVITIES, THEY WERE FUNDED IN THEIR BUDGET AND THERE WERE FALSE RUMORS GOING AROUND THAT THE CITY WAS HOLDING THE MONEY FOR SUPPORT OF CERTAIN ITEMS,
[01:00:05]
AND THAT SIMPLY WASN'T TRUE BECAUSE THEY WERE FUNDED EVERYTHING THEY REQUESTED.I KNOW THE ONE PARTICULAR THING THAT I HEARD ABOUT AND, AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE NAMES OR WHATNOT.
THAT MONEY WAS THERE, IT WAS ALWAYS IN THERE.
THEY HAD THE MONEY THAT CITY WAS NOT HOLDING IT, BUT I HEARD SIMILAR AGREEMENT.
>> OKAY. NOW WE'RE STILL GOING AROUND THE TABLE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS TOPIC.
MY COMMENTS ARE ON THE ROUNDTABLE DAVID GARDNER, THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING.
WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE AN EXCESS REVENUE WHEN IT COMES TO THE CITY AND IT COMES TIME TO DO PROJECTS FOR THE CITY WITH THAT EXCESS REVENUE? LET'S SAY YOU WANTED TO DO THIS OR THAT OR THIS.
WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THAT FROM THE CITY?
>> WELL, WE HAVE VERY TIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON EVERYTHING WE DO.
IF IT WAS A MID-YEAR, WE WOULD BRING IT TO YOU AS A BUDGET AMENDMENT.
PROBABLY, IF YOU WANT A QUARTERLY BUDGET UPDATES OR WE WOULD HOLD THE MONEY AND READ BUDGET IN THE NEXT YEAR.
>> BUT IF SOME COUNSEL HAD A GRAND SCHEME, THEY WANTED TO DO THIS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, WHAT DOES THAT PROCESS LOOK LIKE?
>> IF IT WAS A MAJOR PROJECT, YOU'D GET APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL, WE TRANSFER THE MONEY AND OFF WE GO.
WE'VE CRACK OPEN OUR QUARTERLY REPORTS TO HOW MUCH MONEY IS AVAILABLE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
>> BUT IT'S APPROVED BY COUNCIL AT THE END OF THE DAY.
OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY, CORRECT?
>> MAYOR, IF I COULD ONE THING TO CLARIFY HERE IS THIS POINT I THINK COUNCIL'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS BY THE PORK BOARD, WHICH HAS ALL OF THEIR HOT FUNDED ACCOUNTING FUNDS.
HAVE YOU ALSO BEEN THINKING OF THE NON HOT OPERATIONS SEAWALL PART, DELAWARE PART?
>> YEAH. THAT'S AN ANALYTICAL QUESTION?
>> I THINK WE COULD BE HERE ALL DAY IF WE WANT.
>> WHERE DOES THE PORK BOARD GET THE AUTHORITY TO EVEN BE IN THIS POSITION WITH COUNCIL?
>> JUST FOR ME HISTORY LESSON FOR I BELIEVE COUNCIL.
>> WELL, WE HAVE THIS CHARTER THAT SAYS, AFTER THE COST OF COLLECTION AND CITY PROLIFERATE, THREE PERCENT FOR USE OF ADVERTISING BY THE PORK BOARD.
SO WE'RE IN THIS POSITION, NUMBER 1 BY CHARTER, NUMBER 2, BY LIFEGUARDS SURPLUS, WHICH IS A HOT ELIGIBLE ITEM.
THE PORK BOARD HAS EMPLOYED LIFEGUARD SINCE GUARD WAS A BOY.
IT WAS MANAGED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT UNTIL I THINK THE '90S AND [OVERLAPPING] THE SHERIFF DIDN'T PROVIDE THE LIFEGUARDS, THE COUNTY DID IT.
>> THE SHERIFF PROVIDED MANAGEMENT.
I'VE GOT SOME CELLS WHERE PORK BOARD EMPLOYEES [OVERLAPPING]
LIFE GUARD BE EXPLAINING SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DEALT OVER THE YEARS AGAINST YOUR LOCAL AND PORK BOARD CLAIMS.
>> WHAT WAS THE CHARTER [NOISE] [INAUDIBLE]?
>> CHARTER PROVISION PROVIDES AFTER THE COST OF COLLECTION, CITY COUNCIL APPROPRIATE $0.03 FOR USE BY THE PORK BOARD TO ADVERTISE.
>> EVERYTHING LEADING UP TO THIS CONVERSATION, WHERE DO THEY GET THAT AUTHORITY FROM?
>> WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEAWORLD PARK, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EAST BEACH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FL PARK.
>> IN THE FORM OF [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE PUT IT UNDER THEIR MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OVER THE YEARS.
>> IN THE FORM OF [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S IMPLEMENTED BY THE INNER LOCALS.
>> WELL, THERE [OVERLAPPING] THE ORDINANCES PUT SUCH AND SUCH PARK UNDER THEIR MANAGEMENT CONTROL.
>> CAN I EXPAND ON WILLIAM'S QUESTION? YOU SAY THAT THAT'S TRUE, THE PARK CONTROL AND CBP IS FUNDED PERSONAL TO THE CHARTER OF LANGUAGE,
[01:05:04]
BUT WHY IS THE BEACH PATROL UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF PATROL? WHY IS PARK BOARD RESPONSIBLE FOR SAND FOR NOURISHMENT? I KNOW THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BEACH MANAGEMENT BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE INNER LOCAL AND IS SPECIFIC IN THAT ROLE?>> BECAUSE THE CITY DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT.
I THINK THE CITY HAS SUCCEEDED TO THE PARK BOARD TO DO THESE THINGS.
>> BUT BY JUST HISTORY AND CUSTOMER, THAT'S NOT IN A LAW GOVERNING IT.
I'M NOT OBJECTING BUT THEY'RE DOING A BEACH PATROL.
>> COUNCIL. I'M SORRY, WILLIAM, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS YOU HAD? ANY QUESTIONS?
>> WELL, I GUESS MY BIG QUESTION IS, WHERE DOES THE PARK BOARD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO EXIST?
>> CHAPTER 306, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, IT ALLOWS FOR THE CREATION OF A PARK BOARD AFTER THE CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION.
THE CITY HAD AN ELECTION, AND AS A RESULT OF THAT ELECTION, CREATED THE PARK BOARD.
>> THANK YOU. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT WAS FOR PUBLIC I'VE HAD SOME CONSTITUENTS ASKED ME THIS [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S ACTUALLY A SECOND CHAPTER TO THAT IN 1969 THAT POWER WAS ESSENTIALLY, AND BY STATUTE, GIVEN TO CITY COUNCIL TO CREATE A PARK BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL DIDN'T TAKE ANY ACTION, JUST LET IT RESIDE THE WAY IT WAS, JUST LET IT REST.
BY CURRENT STATUTE OR THE MOST RECENT STATUTE, THE POWER TO CREATE PARK BOARD BELONGS TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
BUT THE POWER TO ELIMINATE PARK BOARD WOULD BE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.
>> I THINK THE 69 ORDINANCE THROWS THAT INTO US. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M HEARING.
I'M HEARING IT'S BY ORDINANCE.
>> NO. WELL, I'VE BEEN UP, THE DAWN IS, OF COURSE, NONE OF IT.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT THE QUESTION IS OUT THERE. BELIEVE ME, I'M NOT TRYING TO ELIMINATE PARK BOARD.
I'M ABLE TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD RIGHT NOW.
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT. THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT I GET ASKED.
HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT WITH THE AUTHORITY THAT WAS GIVEN TO THEM? THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.
>> I WAS ASKED THIS QUESTION TWICE.
>> I AM MOVING TO ZOOM AND WON'T BE ATTENDING THE REST OF THE MEETING BY ZOOM.
>> OH, YOU WANT TO RECONNECT ZOOM?
>> JUST ONE SECOND. IT'S 10:07 AM, A COUNCIL MEMBER, ROB IS MOVING TO ZOOM TO ATTEND THIS WORKSHOP.
>> I'M ASKING PLEASE DON'T LET THE MAYOR IGNORE ME ON THE SCREEN WHEN I RAISE MY HAND [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE HE DOES IT ENOUGH WHEN I'M SITTING IN.
>> NO I'VE BEEN [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] TILL HE SAID IT IS POSTED.
>> I'M GOING TO LEAVE THE VIDEO OFF TILL I'M DONE.
>> EXCUSE ME, I WANT TO SUMMARIZE WHERE WE ARE ON THIS TOPIC BEFORE YOU GO.
>> MIKE WANTED TO EXPLAIN SOME IMPLICATION OF INTRA FUND TRANSFERS.
>> WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT.
>> WE'RE MOVING INTO THAT. YES, SIR.
I WANT TO SUMMARIZE THIS RESTRICTIVE, NON-RESTRICTIVE SITUATION JUST THE WAY I INTERPRETED IT HERE AT COUNCIL.
I THINK THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL FEELS THAT HAVING RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE HOT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE.
SECOND OF ALL, THAT THOSE FUNDS WOULD LIVE WITH THE CITY.
AND THIRDLY, THAT THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL FELT THE UTILIZATION OF NON-RESTRICTED FUNDS BY THE PARK BOARD WOULD TAKE PLACE VIA BUDGET REQUESTS THAT WOULD BE IN THEIR BUDGET.
OKAY. I JUST WANT TO SUMMARIZE THAT FOR COUNCIL IS WHAT OUR CONSENSUS WAS IN THE WAY I INTERPRET THAT,
[01:10:02]
THAT'S GOING TO GUIDE STAFF AS THEY GO THROUGH THEIR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PARK BOARD HERE.I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE ON THAT.
NOW, LET'S MOVE TO THE COMMINGLING OF HOT FUNDS AND INTER FUND TRANSFERS, MIKE.
>> OKAY. LET'S TALK FIRST ABOUT INTER FUND TRANSFERS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE NOTION OF COMMINGLING COMES INTO PLAY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WITH INTER FUND TRANSFERS REALLY IS WHAT COST WAS INVOLVED THAT IS BEING REIMBURSED AND WHERE IS IT BEING REIMBURSED FROM? IF IT'S A NECESSARY FUNCTION THAT IS FUNDED LET'S SAY THROUGH BEACH PATROL AND FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, THERE'S SOME COST ASSOCIATED WITH ONE OF THE NON HOT BEACHES AND ARE ASSURE THAT DOESN'T TAKE PLACE.
BUT THIS IS THE LOGIC IF YOU GO THROUGH, IS IT MORE APPROPRIATE TO RECORD THE COST IN THE OTHER FUND OR TO CHARGE THE OTHER FUNDS AND ASK THEM TO PAY A FLAT FEE THAT COVERS THE COST? IT APPEARS AS THOUGH A NUMBER OF THE INTER FUND TRANSFERS ARE OF THE LATTER CATEGORY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OUR AUDITOR POINTED OUT IN THE WRITE-UP, THE JOB THAT WAS SENT TO THEM WAS THAT THEY NEEDED MUCH BETTER DEFINITIONS IN THEIR REPORT OF WHAT EACH INTER FUND TRANSFER WAS.
AND THERE ARE LEGITIMATE REASONS TO DO INTER FUND TRANSFERS, BUT REIMBURSING EXPENSE THAT'S BEEN INCURRED IN ANOTHER BASICALLY PARK BOARD FUND CAN JUST AS EASILY BE RECORDED AS AN EXPENSE IN THE OTHER FUND.
AM I MAKING MYSELF CLEAR ON THAT? QUESTION OF WHERE YOU ALLOCATE THE COST AND HOW YOU REPRESENT IT, AND WHEN DO YOU PAY IT BACK, IS IT A CREDIT TO WHAT THAT FIRM HAS ALREADY SPENT, OR IS IT REVENUE COMING IN? AND IN ANY EVENT, IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, THE WAY MR. FRAZIER HAS PREPARED HIS FINANCIALS, IT'S ALL HOT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TREATED AS NOT HOT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEY'RE NOT TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY.
IT'S BEING REPRESENTED NOW TO WASH THE MONEY OR CHANGE THE NATURE OF IT IN ANY WAY AND YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE NOTES WHERE YOU WON'T SEE IT UNTIL IT'S FINISHED, BUT SOME OF THE NOTES ARE STILL HIGHLIGHTED WHERE THEY'RE WORKING ON THOSE EXPLANATIONS.
SO I THINK ALL WILL BE KNOWN AS FAR AS THE FINANCIAL REPORTING PROCESS IS CONCERNED.
I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE 10% RATE FOR ADMIN THAT THEY CHARGE FOR A SMALLER ORGANIZATION.
BUT THE CITIES OVERHEAD CALCULATED, I THINK THE SAME WAY IS ABOUT 3 OR 4%.
WE HAVE MUCH BIGGER ORGANIZATION AND THERE'S SOME ECONOMIES OF SCALE THAT COME INTO PLAY IN THAT.
BUT THE COUNTY COSTS OF THE GOVERNING BOARD, HR COSTS, ALL OF THOSE KINDS OF THINGS ARE COVERED WITH THAT 10% AND I THINK IN SOME CASES THEY CAN JUSTIFY THEY'VE HAD COST ALLOCATION PLAN THAT THEY DO EVERY OTHER YEAR, I THINK TO SUPPORT THE 10%, BUT CERTAINLY THAT NEEDS SOME ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY.
AND I'M AT A LOSS, I'LL BE FRANK WITH YOU ON ONE THING.
WHEN YOU FINALLY SEE THE REPORT THAT COMES OUT, AND WE'VE BEEN SO BUSY, I MAY ASK BRYSON THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY, BUT HOW CAN THE MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE FUND RUN AT A DEFICIT AND THOSE FIGURES I WAS QUOTING TO YOU WHILE AGO? THE 28 MILLION, THERE'S A $900,000 DEFICIT BEING REPORTED FOR THE MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE FUND.
ON PAPER, THE ORGANIZATION IS NOT IN THE NEGATIVE, THAT ONE PIECE OF IT IS.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION REALLY QUICK? HOW IS THIS RELATED TO HOT, RESTRICTED, NON-RESTRICTED?
>> WELL, IF YOU WANTED TO TREAT THOSE INTER FUND BALANCES AS REVENUE FOR INSTANCE, THEIR ARE POLICY FOR RESTRICTIONS WOULD WOULD KICK INTO PLAY AND I THINK PREVIOUSLY THAT WAS SOME OF THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND REPORTING ALL OF THIS AS THE SIGN.
IN OTHER WORDS, NOT HOT, BUT WHEN THE HOT CAME IN, IT WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE INTER FUND TRANSFERS WORK.
SO THE HOT WOULD GET FINISHED FIRST AND YOU HAD THIS BILLING BALANCE OF UNSPENT INCOME FROM
[01:15:03]
THE OTHER FUNDS THAT WAS ASSIGNED AND THEREFORE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER PURPOSES.NOW, THEY'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THAT IT'S ALL BEING TREATED AS RESTRICTING.
AND THE OTHER THOUGHT I WOULD LEAVE YOU WITH ON THE NOTION OF COMMINGLING, AN ACCOUNT IS AN ACCOUNT TO A NON ACCOUNTANT, BUT TO AN ACCOUNTANT, IT'S NOT OKAY? [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> DON'T MAKE ME SAY IT AGAIN.
IT WAS A MOMENT OF INSPIRATION.
TALKING TO MR. JOHNSLOW, THE WAY HE DEFINES COMMINGLING IS COMMINGLING IN A BANK ACCOUNT.
WELL, IT'S SERIOUS IF YOU COMMINGLE FUNDS IN ANY RESPECT, BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT COMMINGLING FUNDS IN AN ACCOUNTING SENSE IS FAR WORSE BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE PUBLIC KNOWS HOW YOU'RE SPENDING THE MONEY.
LET'S TAKE THE ONE PERCENT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ALLOCATED TO BEACH MAINTENANCE, THE ONE PERCENT FOR BEACH PATROL.
LET'S TAKE ALL OF THOSE AND DUMP THE MONEY IN A SINGLE FUND AND SAY, NOW YOU GET TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH IS THERE FOR EACH OF THESE PURPOSES.
THAT'S WHY THE PARK BOARD HAS FUNDS SET UP SEPARATELY FOR EACH OF THOSE FUNCTIONS.
THAT'S WHY WE MIRRORED THAT ORGANIZATION IN OUR BUDGET.
YOU SEE IT IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT.
YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND, THERE'S COMMINGLING IN A CASH BANK ACCOUNTS SENSE, BUT THERE'S ALSO A COMMINGLING IN A BUDGET, ACCOUNTING, FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY SENSE THAT REALLY SERVES THE PURPOSE TO PREVENT IT.
YOU DON'T WANT TO DUMP MONEY THAT'S INTENDED FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES IN THE SAME FUND.
IT OBSCURES WHAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THE ORIGINALLY INTENDED PURPOSE.
>> I THINK WHAT MIKE WHAT IS DESCRIBING HERE, WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT NON RESTRICTED FUNDS ARE.
IN THIS IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT WE NEED TO DEFINE WHAT THOSE ARE.
WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE BEING REVENUE OR PROFIT FROM ENTITIES AND ACTIVITIES THAT ARE HOT FUNDED, BUT DOES THAT COVER THE COST OF THOSE, AND THEN THAT IS NON-RESTRICTED OR ANYTHING THAT IS GENERATED ON THAT?
>> I THINK THE WAY BRYSON SUMMARIZED SOME OF WHAT I WAS READING FROM HIS EMAIL TO ME WHILE AGO IS THAT HE REALLY STARTS WITH THE NOTION OF PURELY EXTERNAL INCOME.
YOU SOLD SOMETHING TO SOMEBODY.
>> NOT DEPENDED ON THE COST OF PRODUCING IT.
>> I THINK HE'S CLASSIFYING THE NET PROFIT AT THIS POINT.
>> IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEY'VE PROBABLY HAD VERY LITTLE NON-RESTRICTIVE.
>> THAT'S NOT HOW I UNDERSTAND IT.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD US WHEN WE HAD THE BIG HUBBUB OVER THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
>> AGAIN, HE AND I HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK AT GREAT LENGTH.
THE FINANCIAL REPORT WHEN THEY'RE FINISHED WITH IT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE A SOLID DEFINITION FROM THEIR STANDPOINT.
>> YOU TALKED ABOUT INTER FUND TRANSFERS AND RENDERING THINGS UNRESTRICTED, A QUESTION I'VE NEVER GOTTEN AN ANSWER TO.
I'M WILLING TO HEAR THAT I SIMPLY MISUNDERSTAND THIS, BUT I JUST NEVER GOTTEN AN ANSWER, AN EXPLANATION.
HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY TRANSFERRING MONEY OUT OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT INTO SEAWOLF PARK? THAT'S NOT EVEN A HOT FUNDED OPERATION.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE EXPLANATION THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE IN WRITING IS GOING TO ADDRESS IN THE CASE OF EACH TRANSFER, INCLUDING THAT ONE.
>> HOW ARE THEY DOING NOW? TAKE THAT INTER FUND TRANSFER FROM, WHERE DID IT COME FROM?
>> TOURIST AND DEVELOPMENT, THE THREE PENNIES.
>> TOURIST AND DEVELOPMENT, YOU TRANSFER IT OVER HERE TO SEAWOLF PARK.
>> CALL THAT WHEN IT GETS THERE.
>> WHAT DO THEY CALL IT IN OR THEY PUT IT BACK?
>> THEY'RE NOT PUTTING IT BACK. THAT WAS THAT QUESTION.
WHAT DO THEY CALL IT WHEN IT GETS THERE?
[01:20:03]
>> THERE'S NO RESTRICTED FUNDS IN SEAWOLF, SO I BELIEVE IT'S UNRESTRICTED.
>> SEAWOLF, IT'S UNRESTRICTED. IT'S NOT A BEACH OPERATIONS FUND.
>> BUT YOU COULD PUT HOT INTO SEAWOLF?
>> I'M JUST SAYING, YOU COULD USE HOT FUNDS TO DO THINGS AT SEAWOLF.
>> BUT THE THREE CENTS WHERE THEY'RE TRANSFERRING THIS MONEY FROM HAS VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSES TIED TO IT.
>> I THINK DAVID BRINGS UP A GOOD QUESTION.
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT MONEY IS THAT THREE CENTS, AND THAT'S ALLOCATED FOR PROMOTION AND SO FORTH OF THE ISLAND.
MOVING IT OVER TO OPERATIONAL ISSUES AT SEAWOLF PARK.
>> IF YOU'VE GOT AN EXPENSE IN SEAWOLF PARK THAT CAN BE FUNDED WITH TOURISM DEVELOPMENT MONEY, RECORD THE EXPENSE THERE AND REIMBURSE IT THERE, DON'T DO FUND TRANSFER OF SOME SIGNIFICANT DOLLAR AMOUNT.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS HYPOTHETICALLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE INS AND OUTS OF ALL THIS, BECAUSE MIKE IS TRYING TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
>> STILL TRYING TO FIT THE BOOKS OVER THERE. YEAH.
>> BUT YOU COULD TAKE THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS, TRANSFER IT OVER TO SEAWOLF, AND ADVERTISE FOR SEAWOLF.
>> SEAWOLF DOESN'T DO ADVERTISING.
>> WE'RE TALKING HYPOTHETICALLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW ALL THE INS AND OUTS HERE.
BUT YOU COULD DO THAT IF YOU WANT TO, RIGHT?
>> SEAWOLF DOESN'T DO ADVERTISING. THAT'S TRUE.
>> NO, BUT WHY DO YOU DO THAT IF IT IS A NON-RESTRICTED FUND?
>> IF YOU TRANSFER IT INTO A SPECIFIC ADVERTISING ACCOUNT.
IT MIGHT NOT BE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S HAPPENING.
>> IF YOU ARE HAVING AN EXPENSE AT SEAWOLF PARK, CBB COULD ADVERTISE WITH THE THREE CENTS, RIGHT?
>> SURE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT TAKING INTER FUND TRANSFER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, IF YOU'VE GOT DIRECT COSTS HARD DOLLARS YOU'RE SPENDING, WHAT THE AUTHORS ARE SAYING IS, REIMBURSE THAT WHERE IT SITS.
DON'T REIMBURSE IT WITH A GROSS DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT OBSCURES THE PURPOSE.
>> TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE AGENDA HERE, WE NEED TO SET POLICY ON HOW THOSE TRANSFERS ARE LOOKED AT AND CLASSIFIED.
>> IN MY MIND, WE COULD DO THAT IF COUNCIL WANTED.
I PERSONALLY THINK WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH DATA UNDERSTANDING OF THIS YET TO EVEN ESTABLISH THAT.
>> BRYSON AND MIKE, THEY'RE BUSY CRANBERRY MERCHANTS IN CHRISTMAS TIME TRYING TO FIGURE ALL THIS OUT.
>> THAT COULD BE OUTLINED IN THE INNER LOCAL?
>> NO. I WOULD SUGGEST SIMPLY EMPOWER THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO PROMULGATE STANDARDS FOR THE ACCOUNTING TO BE FOLLOWED, AND THAT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
>> BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO GET WAY IN THE WEEDS HERE.
>> YEAH. THAT WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE TAKING AN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM THAT THE PARK BOARD IS DOING, AND WE HAVE THE CITY ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, AND WE ARE UNDERSTANDING HOW THEY WERE DOING IT OVER AT THE PARK BOARD AND NOW STEERING THEM TO WHAT THE CITY WANTS TO SEE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THEM TO USE THE SAME GENERALLY ACCEPTED [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE ARE SUCH THING AND I'M SURE MIKE CAN EXPAND ON THAT, STANDARD ACCOUNTING PROCEDURE.
I THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THEM TO FOLLOW STANDARD ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES AS IT RELATES TO MUNICIPAL FUNDS.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT MIKE JUST SAID.
>> SORRY, I CAN'T HEAR VERY WELL.
>> YEAH. WE'RE GETTING A NEW SYSTEM, BY THE WAY, HERE, AS YOU KNOW MARIE, AND THE WORKSHOP FOR THIS.
I THINK DON'S SUGGESTION IS APPROPRIATE AND MIKE IS WHISPERING TO ME THAT IS APPROPRIATE.
WE NEED TO LET MIKE DETERMINE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS, TALK WITH BRYSON, AND THEN BRING BACK AND WOULD THIS BE IN THE HOT CONTRACT?
>> IT WOULD NOT. [NOISE] YES, SIR.
>> SAY WE HAVE THIS ORDINANCE, WE DEFINE RESTRICTIVE AND NON-RESTRICTIVE POT.
[01:25:04]
>> I THINK THE STATUTE DEFINES IT, BUT GO AHEAD.
>> WE WON'T BE SEEING AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> THE ONLY THING THAT I'M HEARING IS YOU WANT A POLICY STATEMENT BY WAY OF AN ORDINANCE, THAT REVENUE GENERATED FROM THE USE OF HOT FUNDS WILL BE CONSIDERED UNRESTRICTED.
>> THAT'S BLANKET ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF WHERE IF THE PARK BOARD OR, IF CITY STAFF DOES SOMETHING WITH HOT AND IT COMES BACK, IT IS UNRESTRICTED. [OVERLAPPING] FLAT OUT.
>> THOSE FUNDS BELONG TO THE CITY.
>> HOWEVER, THE PARK BOARD CAN INCLUDE THEM IN THEIR BUDGET FOR APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL.
>> THEY CAN REQUEST USING THOSE FUNDS THROUGH THE BUDGET.
>> THE ONLY THING NOVEL THAT WE HAVE HERE IS ADDRESSING THE FACT THAT REVENUE IS NOT GOING TO BE HARD.
>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE A RELIEF, REALLY.
>> WELL, THAT'S JUST A BIG DEAL.
>> PERSONALLY, I THINK IS GOING TO BECOME EXTREMELY CONFUSING ACCOUNTING FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST ME.
>> THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM. [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, IT IS OUR PROBLEM. [OVERLAPPING]
>> DON'T WE HAVE THE BEST ACCOUNTANT?
>> THERE IS. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> ON THIS TOPIC ON THE TRANSFER AND COMMINGLING, IS COUNCIL COMFORTABLE LETTING MIKE WORK WITH PART BOARD STAFF AND BRYSON OVER THERE TO COME UP WITH- [OVERLAPPING]
>> ON DOING ALL THIS RESEARCH AND TRANSFERRING AND LOOKING AT EVERYTHING THAT THE ART BOARD HAS DONE.
HAVE YOU FOUND ANY GROSS ERRORS ON THE PARK BOARD'S BEHALF?
>> THERE WERE SOME MATH ERRORS IN LAST YEAR'S FINANCIAL REPORT THAT WAS THE RESULT OF JUST FOR REVIEW, I'D USE THAT TERM BUT THEN THAT'S ALL IT WAS.
>> MIKE, COULD YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE?
>> BUT YOU DIDN'T FIND ANY WRONG DOING?
>> NO SECRET ACCOUNT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S NO SECRET ACCOUNT, THERE WAS NO MONEY THAT WAS MISAPPROPRIATED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT?
NOW KEEP IN MIND THAT WHAT FINANCIAL REPORT IS AND AN AUDIT IS JUST BASED ON THE BROAD OUTLINES OF WHAT'S COMING FROM THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM.
THAT'S A SPOUSE BEATING QUESTION THERE.
[OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] I'M SORRY DON.
>> YOU GOT SOME TOGETHER EVEN THOUGH IS MUCH MORE SPECIFIC, CORRECT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE ALL AWARE OF THAT ONE, THAT THE FUNDS THAT WERE FUNDS WITHOUT BOARD APPROVAL ON THOSE LEGAL FEES SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD BE CLARIFIED.
>> WE'RE GETTING OFF THE TOPIC A LITTLE BIT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.
>> WHETHER THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME FORENSIC AUDIT CONDUCTED, I THINK BRYSON IS OPEN TO THAT.
HE'S TAKING ALL OF THIS CONSTRUCTIVELY AS FAR AS [NOISE]OVERSEEING.
>> ARE WE LOOKING TO MIKE TO BRING BACK OR TO GET WITH BRYSON AND BRING BACK THE BEST ACCOUNTANT PROCEDURE FOR THE RESTRICTIVE AND THE NON-RESTRICTIVE FUNDS FOR USE?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL.
>> NO, IT DOESN'T CUT. IN MY OPINION, THIS COMMINGLING AND INTER FUND TRANSFER IS AN ISSUE THAT IS MORE ADMINISTRATIVE.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT MIKE CAN WORK WITH BRYSON ON TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROPER ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED.
>> SINCE WE'RE SAYING RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED.
>> NOW, THAT IS SOMETHING COUNCIL HAS SET UP.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING BROUGHT BACK TO US ON MARCH 23RD, AS IN TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE MANNER THAT I LISTED HERE. YES, MA'AM.
>> I'LL WRITE AN ORDINANCE IF YOU WANT IT.
DOES IT NEED TO BE IN AN ORDINANCE OR BE IN THE HOT CONTRACT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE IN THE HOT CONTRACT.
BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S COMING BACK IN THE CONTRACT.
>> IT'S IN THE CONTRACT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOMETHING IN THE CONTRACT WHEN IT COMES BACK.
>> PUTTING IT IN AN ORDINANCE, YOU SHORT-CIRCUIT, THE ANNUAL NEGOTIATION.
>> YOU DO CYCLE. YOU JUST SAY, LOOK,
[01:30:02]
THIS SIDE OF THE CITY SEES THIS.THIS IS WHY IT'S IN AN ORDINANCE, YOU GUYS WRITE A CONTRACT.
>> I AGREE WITH DAVID 100 PERCENT.
>> HERE'S WHERE I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
YOU'RE SAYING DON'T PUT IT INTO ORDINANCE?
>> NO PUT IT IN ORDINANCE SO THAT IT ISN'T SOMETHING WE HAVE TO ARGUE ABOUT ANNUALLY.
>> THIS WOULD BE AN ORDINANCE DESCRIBED BACK AND BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS TOPIC, DON, I WANT YOU TO DESCRIBE IN YOUR MIND WHAT YOUR DEFINITION OF NON-RESTRICTIVE BODIES.
>> DID WE PUT YOU ON THE SPOT?
>> HOT FUNDS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO CHAPTER 351101 AND SECTION 105, ARE RESTRICTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE STATUTES.
REVENUE IS PRODUCED FROM THE USE OF HOT, BY THE PARK BOARD OR BY THE CITY, WILL BE CONSIDERED NON-HOT FUNDS AND THEREFORE UNRESTRICTED.
THOSE FUNDS ARE SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND/OR THE PARK BOARD IN NORMAL BUDGETARY PROCEEDINGS.
HOT FUNDS GENERATE UNRESTRICTED FUNDS PRODUCED BY THE PARK BOARD, AS A RESULT OF THE USE OF HOT WILL BE FUNDS SET ASIDE THAT BELONG TO THE CITY.
HOWEVER, THEY MAY BE USED BY THE PARK BOARD AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN THEIR BUDGET.
>> IT'S RECORDED, DON'T WORRY. [LAUGHTER]
>> WE'VE GOT SCOTT, YOU GOT THAT BACK THERE.
>> COUNCIL, IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS,
[3.B. Discuss Adjusting The Terms Of Park Board Appointees To Begin On May 1st And End On April 30th Every Two Years (Brown - 15 Min)]
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 3B.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS COUNCIL? ITEM 3B PLEASE.
>> 3B DISCUSS ADJUSTING THE CHART OF PART BOARD APPOINTEES TO BEGIN ON MAY 1ST AND END ON APRIL 30TH EVERY TWO YEARS.
>> THIS IS ON HERE. THANK YOU MIKE.
[OVERLAPPING] THIS TOPIC IS HERE, THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSIONS IN PAST DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THE PARK BOARD ABOUT APPOINTMENT TIMES AND KNOWING THEM NOW, KNOWING THEM LATER WAITING.
I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO JANELLE IN JUST A SECOND INTO DAWN TO OUTLINE WITH THE STATE LAW MAY BE DONE WITH OUT-BUYING THE STATE LAW AND WHAT IT DESCRIBES ON HOW WE CAN CHANGE THE PART BOARD APPOINTMENT TIMES.
THEY'RE CURRENTLY UP COUNSEL TO BE APPOINTED SO THAT THEY CAN TAKE OFFICE ON JULY 1ST.
IF WE DID IT IN THAT MANNER, WE WOULD INTERVIEW PUT A CALL FOR APPLICATIONS OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF MAY, AND WE WOULD THEN INTERVIEW TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF JUNE AND MAKE OUR APPOINTMENTS AT OUR JUNE CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
I WOULD SAY THAT IT LOOKS LIKE I'M BEING TOLD THAT WE MAY HAVE FIVE OPENINGS AT THE PART-BOARD LEVEL THAT MAY REQUIRE REAPPOINTMENT OR APPOINTMENTS.
I'M UNDERSTANDING NOW, WE'LL HAVE THREE VACANT POSITIONS TO FILL IN TWO POTENTIAL REAPPOINTMENT POSITIONS TO FILL FOR THE PART BOARD.
NOW, BEFORE WE START THIS DISCUSSION TOO, THAT WOULD BE THE TIMELINE IF WE STAY WITH OUR JULY 1ST APPOINTMENTS.
THEN I'LL WALK THROUGH THE TIMELINE HERE IN A SECOND AFTER DAWN DESCRIBES WHAT OUR CHOICES ARE.
I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT TO THE BOARD AND TO THE COUNCIL.
IT'S MY FEELING THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET A LARGE NUMBER OF PART BOARD APPLICATIONS COMING IN.
THIS, WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IF WE STAY WITH OUR INTERVIEW PROCESS HERE, THAT THIS COULD BE A VERY TIMELY PURSUED, COULD TAKE DAYS OF INTERVIEWS DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS WE GET.
KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE DATES TO GIVE THIS ENOUGH TIME TO FOR ALL OF THAT.
SAYING THAT DAWN, DID YOU WANT TO OFFER WHAT OUR CHOICES ARE ACCORDING TO THE STATE LAW?
>> TERMS ARE SET OUT IN 306, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
>> THE STATUTE SAYS THAT YOU CAN VARY THE TERM UP TO THREE MONTHS.
[01:35:03]
>> IT HIT ME COLD ON THIS ONE BUT YOU CAN ONLY DO IT ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS.
THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE IN THE TERMS WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
YOU CAN GO AHEAD IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THEM AT THIS POINT.
>> THANK YOU, DAWN, CHANEL, YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT?
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE IN JUNE AND THEIR EFFECTIVE DATE IS JULY 1ST.
BUT YOU CAN ONLY MOVE IT BY REDUCING THE TERMS. YOU CANNOT EXTEND THE TERMS.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT WE CAN ONLY DO THAT AS DAWN MENTIONED ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS.
IF WE MOVE IT TO MAY 1ST, THEN IF WE WANT TO CHANGE IT AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO FORWARD AGAIN.
IT COULD NOT COME BACK TO JULY 1ST.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IF YOU MOVE IT NOW IN FIVE YEARS WE COULD MOVE IT, BUT YOU CAN ONLY REDUCE IT BY ANOTHER 60 DAYS.
WE COULDN'T MOVE IT BACK TO JULY 1ST LIKE YOU HAVE IT NOW.
>> IN THOSE APPOINTMENTS ARE MADE EVERY YEAR.
>> I THINK SOMEBODY SAID TWO YEARS.
>> COULD YOU COME CLOSER TO THE SPEAKER AND REPEAT THAT PLEASE?
>> I THINK WHAT SHE SAID WAS EVERY FIVE YEARS YOU HAVE TO MOVE IT TO MAKE IT AN EARLIER APPOINTMENT, BUT YOU CAN'T REDUCE THE LENGTH OF THE TERM BY MORE THAN 60 DAYS IN DOING SO. I'M SORRY.
>> MARIE, IF COUNCIL MOVES IN THAT DIRECTION, YOU ONLY CAN DO IT ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS, BUT YOU CAN'T MOVE IT BACK.
YOU CAN ONLY AS THEY MENTIONED, MOVE IT FORWARD AGAIN.
>> YOU CAN ONLY REDUCE THE TERM.
>> CORRECT. LET'S OPEN THIS UP TO DISCUSSION.
MIKE, DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS BEING OUR LIAISON ON THIS?
>> MY TWO COMMENTS ARE WE HAVE AN ELECTION COMING UP FOR A NEW COUNCIL PERSON TO BE ON THE BOARD.
THIS PERSON IS GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH THIS CHANGE WITHOUT HAVING TO BE MADE THE CHANGE.
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO MOVE THIS FOR A COUNCIL PERSON TO WALK INTO SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE STUCK WITH FOR FIVE YEARS AND DIDN'T GET AN APPOINTMENT ON?
>> THEY'RE NOT STUCK WITH A FIVE-YEARS, THEY'RE STUCK WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM AND THE FOLLOWING MAY OR APRIL THEY WOULD THEN VOTE ON APPOINTING THE FOUR REMAINING.
THE OTHER WAY IS PROBLEMATIC AS WELL.
WE WERE ALL ELECTED IN MARCH AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS APPOINTMENT IN JUNE.
I MEAN, IF YOU WIN THE SEAT IN A RUNOFF, YOU'RE GENERALLY NOT SEATED UNTIL THE JUNE DATE.
THAT'S THE MEETING AT WHICH THE PARK BOARD APPOINTMENTS HAVE TO OCCUR.
THAT'S WHY WE MOVED EVERYTHING FROM JUNE TO SEPTEMBER TO ALLEVIATE THAT.
BECAUSE OF THIS FACTOR WE COULD MOVE PART BOARD TO SEPTEMBER WHEN WE DID THAT THREE OR FOUR YEARS AGO.
EVERYTHING USED TO BE APPOINTED IN JUNE, ALL THE COMMITTEES.
WE MOVED THEM TO SEPTEMBER TO ALLOW NEW COUNSEL PEOPLE SOME TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS WHEN THEY CAME TO OFFICE TO GIVE THEM SOME TIME BEFORE THEY MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS BY MOVING IT BACK TO MAY.
IT'S REALLY ONLY EXPERIENCED COUNCIL PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE MAKING THOSE APPOINTMENTS.
SOMEBODY WHO IS ELECTED IN MAY IN THIS CASE, AN ODD YEAR, BUT USUALLY EVEN YEARS.
THEY WOULD HAVE UNTIL THE NEXT JUNE. THEY'D LIVE WITH IT.
BUT YOU LIVE WITH THE LAST COUNCIL APPOINTED FOR AT LEAST A YEAR ON EVERY BOARD OR TWO YEARS OR ON EVERY BOARD ANYWAY.
THIS WOULD GIVE THE SITTING COUNCIL OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS.
IT WOULDN'T BE A SURPRISE TO ANYBODY.
THEY WOULDN'T WALK INTO OFFICE AND THE NEXT DAY HAVE TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE APPOINTMENTS.
>> WE ALL HAD TO JUMP IN SOMETIME.
>> BUT LITERALLY SOMEBODY WHO'S ELECTED BY RUNOFF HAS TO MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS THE DAY THEY ARE SEATED.
>> THERE IS ONLY TWO. WHAT DO WE LOSE?
>> WE HAVE ONE DROPOUT, TONY [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S THIS CASE. BUT THAT WASN'T THE CASE OF JOHN'S ELECTION FRIENDS.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS?
[01:40:02]
>> I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT THAT YOU SKIPPED OVER ME THERE.
[LAUGHTER] BUT I THINK CHANGING THEM TO MAY MAKE SENSE BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THE EXPERIENCED COUNCIL PERSON OR I GUESS ACTUALLY, I MIGHT SAY, YOU'VE BEEN SOMEONE WHO'S DO COMING ON BOARD AND TO REITERATE WHAT DOES THE FOR THAT TERM OR A PERIOD OF TIME.
I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO DO THIS TO ALL BOARD.
WELL, THEY DO PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL, NOT ONLY PARK BOARD BUT THAT SUBJECT.
>> I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE UP THE APPOINTMENTS.
>> THAT WAS THE QUESTION, WHAT IMPLICATIONS WOULD THIS HAVE ON THE CURRENT BOARD? WHO'S COMING FOR INTERVIEWS? OR IT WOULD JUST BE THE FOUR, RIGHT?
>> WELL, WE HAVE TWO TERMS EXPIRING, SO THERE WERE DEFINITELY TWO SEATS.
WE HAVE TWO MEMBERS WHO ARE UP FOR POTENTIAL REAPPOINTMENT AND WE HAVE ONE MEMBER WHO, [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T BELIEVE HAS RESIGNED YET, BUT HAS ANNOUNCED TO SUPPORT BOARD THAT HE'S TAKING A JOB OUT OF TOWN AND SO WILL BE LEAVING THE BOARD.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD THAT IN ANY OFFICIAL NEW WORD THAT HE'S RESIGNED.
POTENTIALLY WE HAVE A ONE-YEAR UNEXPIRED TERM TO FILL, SO THAT WOULD BE FIVE POSITIONS TO CONSIDER.
>> WHAT WOULD BE THAT EXACT DATE? THAT'S WHAT I'M MISSING.
>> THAT WE WOULD DO THESE APPOINTEES.
>> BECAUSE THE NEW COUNCIL PERSON WHO GETS ELECTED OR SHE OR HE WILL GET ELECTED, WILL WE HAVE THE CANVAS ELECTIONS, FRIDAY OF 15TH?
>> THIS ONE TIME CASE BECAUSE THIS IS A NATIONAL ELECTION BECAUSE YOU'VE JUST THROWN EVERYTHING.
>> I HAVE ONLY A DUCK IN THE WORDS IN THERE. [LAUGHTER].
>> THAT PERSON WOULD TAKE A SEAT IN MAY AND THESE APPOINTMENTS IN THE CURRENT SCHEME WOULD HAPPEN IN JUNE.
>> THEY'RE PROBABLY LISTENING NOW AND REALIZING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE PART OF THEIR JOB DESCRIPTION, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT AS EXPERIENCED BUT I MEAN, LET'S BE REAL I WAS A [OVERLAPPING]
>> PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE TAKEN THE SEAT AND COMPLAINED THAT THE SWAN WILL MOVE THE OTHER'S DECEPTION.
PEOPLE WHO HAVE TAKEN THE SEAT AND COMPLAIN THAT THEY HAD MINIMAL TIME TO MAKE THESE.
>> WELL, THAT TIME OF THE SPEED [OVERLAPPING]
I'M THE OLD GUY ON THE COUNCIL HERE, SO I'VE BEEN COUNCIL SINCE 2014.
IN MY MIND THE ISSUE OF YES YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT EITHER YOU COME ON AND HAVE TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT IMMEDIATELY OR YOU'RE SADDLED WITH SOMEBODY, AM SORRY BUT, WE'VE HAD COMPLAINTS BOTH WAYS.
I REMEMBER WE WENT THROUGH COUNCILS AND THEY COMPLAIN THAT THEY WERE SADDLED WITH APPOINTMENTS AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY SAY IN THEM AND IT GOES BOTH WAYS ON THAT, SO I DON'T REALLY PERSONALLY FEEL THAT THAT'S THE ROW.
>> I COULD SETTLE WITH THE ELECTIONS FROM OTHER DISTRICTS TOO [LAUGHTER] BUT I CAN DO ABOUT IT.
>> MIKE, MY QUESTION IS, IS IT ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE PARK BOARD? IS IT ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE INDIVIDUALS THAT WE APPOINT TO BE OVER THERE TWO MONTHS EARLIER THAN NORMAL, AND WOULD THAT MAKE THE PROCESS AT THE PARK BOARD MORE EFFICIENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT?
>> I'LL TELL YOU WHY THAT'S TRUE FOR THE SAME REASON HAVING MAY ELECTION CITY COUNCIL AND THEN GOING STRAIGHT INTO BUDGET.
THAT DOESN'T GIVE A NEW COUNCIL MEMBER VERY MUCH TIME, TAKING THE SEAT AT PARK BOARD JULY 1 AND YOU'RE RIGHT IN THE THROWS OF THE BUDGET CYCLE AT THAT POINT.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THREE OR FOUR NEW PEOPLE TO COME UP TO SPEED ON THE BUDGET IF THEY'RE APPOINTED IN JULY 1 AND THAT BUDGET IS COMING INTO COUNCIL IN JULY.
IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE TRUSTEES IN THAT REGARD.
>> THAT GOES TO MY SECOND QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
YOU HAVE IN PLACE THE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD THAT KNOW THE BUDGETS AND KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE IN THE BUDGETS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THEY WOULD DEVELOP THE BUDGETS.
THESE PEOPLE WOULD COME IN AND THEN GO AHEAD AND GET UP TO SPEED AND THAT APPROVE WITH THE BUDGETS.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT COME-UP-TO-SPEED THING BECAUSE THE BUDGET AT PARK BOARD DOESN'T COME TO THE BOARD BEFORE JULY 1 FOR APPROVAL,
[01:45:01]
SO NO EXISTING TRUSTEES DON'T HAVE.>> THEN WHAT'S THE POINT OF EVEN CHANGING? WHY DID YOU EVEN MENTION THAT THOUGH?
>> BECAUSE THE BUDGET IS DEVELOPED FROM PRIORITY SET BY NINE MEMBERS, BUT IF WHETHER BE JULY 1ST APPOINTMENT, YOU DON'T APPROVE OF THIS, MIKE, I GET BUT THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M NOT TAKING IT PERSONALLY DAVID, I'M SITTING HERE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH YOU. THAT'S ALL.
WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU PIT AGAINST ME SAYING I'M AGAINST IT? I'M HAVING A CONVERSATION AND LISTENING TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
>> IF PEOPLE WERE APPOINTED ON MAY 1ST, WILL THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT INTO BUDGET PRIORITIES AND SEE THAT BUDGET THROUGH TO COMPLETION.
IF YOU TAKE A SEAT ON JULY 1ST, YOU DON'T HAVE AN INPUT IN PRIORITIES LOOKING UP TO IT.
>> WHEN DOES THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES SEE THE FIRST REVISION OF THE BUDGET?
>> SOMEWHERE IN JULY AND JUST FOR A COUNCIL'S INFORMATION, IF COUNCIL WANTED TO MOVE TO A MAY 1ST APPOINTMENT, WE WOULD TAKE ACTION ON THIS ON MARCH 23RD, THERE WOULD BE FOR A CALL FOR APPLICATIONS RIGHT AFTER THAT.
WE NEED TO GIVE 3-4 WEEKS OR CALL FOR APPLICATIONS.
WE WOULD THEN INTERVIEW SOMEWHERE AROUND APRIL 20TH.
WE WOULD POINT THEN AT OUR APRIL 27TH MEETING, AND THEY WOULD TAKE THEIR POSITION IN MAY 1ST.
NOW, THIS BRINGS UP THE QUESTION TO COUNCIL, AS I MENTIONED, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET QUITE A FEW APPLICATIONS, AND LET'S SAY THAT WE GET 30 APPLICATIONS FOR THESE FIVE POSITIONS SO THERE'S FIVE.
>> WE'RE TALKING DAYS OF INTERVIEWS HERE.
>> THAT'S WHY IT PAYS THE BIG DOLLARS, RIGHT?
>> PROBABLY THREE MORNINGS, AT LEAST.
>> OH, WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE WELL, 30, WE NEED TO DO THE MATH.
>> WE WOULD DO 10 A DAY, BUT WE'VE DONE THAT BUT IT WAS A CHORE.
IT WOULD STILL BE A CHORE NO MATTER WHETHER WE DO IT IN MAY OR JUNE.
>> NO. WHAT I'M GETTING AT [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT MIGHT NOT BE A CHORE FOR THEM.
>> I'M DOING THIS THING IN MISERY. IT'S FINE.
YEAH. GOD GAVE ME AN OPTION THREE MONTHS AGO.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AT SOME POINT COUNCIL TO DETERMINE AND DAWN, I NEED TO ASK YOUR GUIDANCE ON THIS.
CAN WE DISCUSS ON THIS TOPIC RIGHT NOW HOW COUNCIL MIGHT WANT TO MOVE WITH THEIR APPOINTMENT PROCESS CONCERNING INTERVIEWS?
>> WELL, THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AN ORDINANCE.
THAT'S A CALENDAR ISSUE FOR YOU TO WORK OUT.
>> NO. WE CANNOT DISCUSS THIS NOW IN UNDER THIS TOPIC.
>> DO YOU HAVE DATES FOR THE INTERVIEWS?
>> YEAH. WELL, HOW WILL THE POLICY FOR THE INTERVIEWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> YOU DON'T THINK SO? IF THAT'S THE CASE [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES. WE'LL NEED TO PUT ON THE MARCH 23RD AGENDA,\ NO MATTER WHAT WE DO ON THE TIMING, AND THINK ABOUT THIS COUNCIL, WHAT WE NEED TO DO ON THESE INTERVIEWS.
WE WENT THROUGH THIS AT ONE POINT IN THE PAST AND WE TOOK WRITTEN WITH THE COUNCIL PUT TOGETHER, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS.
WE TOOK IN OUR WRITTEN RESPONSES AND THEN WE CALL THE NUMBER DOWN FROM THE WRITTEN RESPONSES AND THEN WE INTERVIEWED.
>> I THINK THAT HAS TO BE DONE.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN THE PAST.
JUST THINK ABOUT THAT AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT COMING UP.
>> WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
>> THE PERSON OF SUBMITTED APPLICATION IS ACTUALLY WRITING THE PAPERWORK.
>> IT WAS WRITTEN AT A COFFEE SHOP WITH ANOTHER PERSON.
>> HE SAID CHAT [INAUDIBLE] THESE DAYS.
>> LET ME CHECK. MARIE, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> ANY COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT, MARIE?
I THINK THE APPOINTMENT SHOULD BE MOVED UP.
I THINK WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE SAME PROCESS WE USE AND IF WE'RE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE 30 PEOPLE WE CAN MANAGE TO INTERVIEW TO 10 MINUTE.
[01:50:04]
[INAUDIBLE] ISN'T THAT WHY THEY PAY US THE BIG BUCKS?>> WELL, ALL RIGHT, I DON'T GET BIG BUCKS, BUT THAT'S A [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'D LIKE TO KNOW, HOW MANY APPLICANTS DID WE HAD ON THE LAST GO AROUND? LIKE 10, RIGHT?
>>THERE WAS ABOUT 12 MAYBE, [OVERLAPPING].
>> BECAUSE WHEN WE KNOCK THAT OUT, WE DO ANOTHER MORNING, WE DID ALL AT ONCE.
NOW, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC HERE? DAWN, IF WE WANT IT TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION THAT YOU HAVE, WOULD WE NEED TO MAKE AN ORDINANCE CHANGE?
>> WOULD WRITE THE ORDINANCE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND YOU CAN PUT IT ON WORKSHOP FOR DISCUSSIONS AS WELL.
VERY GOOD? ANY OTHER THOUGHTS, COUNCIL? VERY GOOD. BEFORE WE ADJOURN, MARIE HAVE SAFE TRAVELS, ENJOY YOURSELF.
>> VERY GOOD. IT IS 10: 51, WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, WE ARE ADJOURNED.
>> LAST ONE WAS NOT COVERED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.