[00:00:01]
>> THAT'S A CITY CLOCK. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.WELCOME TO OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THIS AFTERNOON.
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME COUNCIL BACK.
WE HAD A LONG WORKSHOP THIS MORNING AND HAD A LOT OF GOOD DISCUSSIONS.
THOSE THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE AND STAFF, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, AND LIKE TO WELCOME THOSE THAT MAY BE LISTENING TO THIS IN THE COMMUNITY.
GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE WITH US THIS AFTERNOON.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM HERE, BUT COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL PLEASE?
>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE OUR INVOCATION, WE'RE HONORED TO HAVE FROM WESTMINSTER PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, REVEREND GEE TOD WILLIAMS. REVEREND WILLIAMS, GLAD TO HAVE YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH AND THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE YOU TODAY.
I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU, READ A QUOTE BY DIETRICH BONHOEFFER AND THEN OPEN WITH PRAYER.
HE WRITES, "THERE REMAINS FOR US ONLY THE VERY NARROW WAY.
OFTEN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO FIND A LIVING EVERY DAY AS THOUGH IF IT WERE OUR LAST.
YET LIVING IN FAITH AND RESPONSIBILITY AS THOUGH THERE WERE TO BE A GREAT FUTURE." LET US PRAY.
IT IS THE FUTURE GOD THAT WE OFTENTIMES CONSIDER WHEN WE GATHER IN MEETINGS LIKE THIS AND THE RESPONSIBILITY CAN BE GREAT.
WHEN WE THINK ABOUT WHAT ONE GENERATION ACCEPTS AND THE NEXT GENERATION PERHAPS EMBRACING, WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT WE CAN DO SO THAT THERE IS PEACE, BUT ALSO HARMONY, BUT ALSO SAFETY.
IN ALL THAT WE DO, THIS IS A HUGE UNDERTAKING FOR SO MANY AND WE HAVE LOTS OF PEOPLE TO THANK FOR THAT.
A COMMUNITY THAT CONTINUES TO OPEN THEIR DOORS WHEN VISITORS COME, THE HOSPITALITY THAT WAS EXPRESSED HERE THIS DAY, WE KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT THAT YOUR PRESENCE IS FELT, BUT ALSO THAT OUR HEARTS AND OUR EYES, EARS, EVERYTHING IS OPEN TO YOU.
MAY ALL THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE THIS DAY BE INDEED A BLESSING TO THIS COMMUNITY.
FOR WE ASK THIS IN YOUR NAME. AMEN.
ARE THERE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO PROCLAIM? HEARING NO RESPONSE.
BEFORE WE GO TO ITEM 6, I'M GOING TO CHANGE THE ORDER OF BUSINESS ON OUR COUNCIL MEETING HERE.
TONIGHT IS GRADUATION FOR GALVESTON BALL, AND WE HAVE ONE OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS.
COUNCIL MEMBER BOUVIER HAS A DAUGHTER THAT'S GRADUATING, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE SOME OF OUR ITEMS SO THAT WE CAN GET ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS INPUT ON A COUPLE OF OUR ITEMS. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ITEM 10A AND 10B, WHICH ARE THE BEACH ACCESS ITEMS THAT ARE ON OUR AGENDA.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THEM NEXT, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION JUST FOR THOSE ITEMS PRIOR TO THOSE.
IF YOU WANT TO GIVE INPUT TO 10A OR 10B,
[10.A Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending The Code Of The City Of Galveston, Chapter 29, “Planning – Beach Access Dune Protection & Beach Front Construction”, Article Ii. “Beach Access Dune Protection & Beach Front Construction Regulation”, To Allow For Exemptions To The Use Of Reinforced Concrete; To Authorize The City Manager And Or Their Designee To Submit The Requested Amendment To The Texas General Land Office For Certification And To Execute All Necessary Documents Related To The Same; Planning Case Number 23pa-004; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (Council)]
WE'RE GOING TO CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT JUST ON THOSE TWO ITEMS NOW.WE WILL BE GOING BACK A LITTLE LATER IN THE AGENDA FOR OUR REGULAR PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.
SO SAYING THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON 10A AND 10B IF WE COULD.
VERY GOOD. WE'RE GOING TO START.
IS ANYONE WANT TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I HAVE A LIST OF THOSE HERE?
>> WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU WOULD USE WHO BROUGHT THAT.
THESE ARE ITEMS WITHOUT A HEARING SO YOU WOULD USE THE ONES THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
>> YEAH. THESE ARE ITEMS 10A AND 10B.
DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED TO THEM.
[00:05:01]
BUT IN THE COMMON AND OPEN PUBLIC HEARING PORTION, INDIVIDUALS CAN COMMENT ON ITEM 10A AND 10B, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE NOW.I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH MY LIST HERE.
FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE MARYANNE MARK IN.
MARYANNE, DID YOU HAVE, I THINK YOU WANTED TO TALK ABOUT ONE OF THOSE ISSUES COME FORWARD.
ON OUR PUBLIC COMMENT WHILE MARYANNE IS COMING FORWARD, WE ALLOW THREE MINUTES.
ACCORDING TO THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WE CANNOT RESPOND TO YOU, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR INPUT, AND IF YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO FILL OUT A FORM SO WE HAVE INFORMATION WHERE WE COULD GET BACK WITH YOU AT A LATER DATE IF NEED BE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH MAYOR, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH MEMBERS.
WE APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK THAT YOU DO.
I'M COMMENTING ABOUT THE BEACH AREA.
I'M VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CARS THAT ARE DRIVING ON THE BEACH BECAUSE IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, AND I'VE BEEN ON THE BEACH MANY, MANY TIMES AND LITERALLY SEEN PEOPLE DOING DONUTS ON OUR BEACH TEARING UP OUR BEAUTIFUL DUNES, ENDANGERING PEOPLE.
THERE'S PEOPLE THAT ARE DRINKING OVER THERE WHICH THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE, AND I'M SMELLING DRUGS AND THINGS THAT I KNOW ARE NOT RIGHT ON OUR BEACHES, SO I'M VERY, VERY CONCERNED.
BUT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF CHILDREN THAT ARE PLAYING.
I LOVE IT WHEN WE SEE FAMILIES OUT THERE AND THEY'RE HAVING A GOOD TIME.
BUT I REALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO THINK TWICE ABOUT ALLOWING VEHICLES ON OUR BEACHES.
I HAVE SEEN, I SAW A LITTLE, SHE WAS EITHER THREE OR FOUR YEARS OLD, JUST RUNNING AND SHE WAS IN HER CUTE LITTLE BIKINI AND SHE WAS PLAYING WITH HER BROTHER AND THEY WERE KICKING THE LITTLE BALL AND SHE JUST ABOUT GOT RUN OVER.
SOMEBODY WAS BACKING OUT AND THEY DIDN'T SEE HER.
IT SCARES ME TERRIBLY TO THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE VEHICLES.
WHY DO WE HAVE VEHICLES ON A BEACH? IT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
THE OTHER THING IS, THIS IS CRAZY, BUT THERE ARE LITERALLY PEOPLE COMING IN AND BRINGING CAMPERS ON THE BEACH BECAUSE VEHICLES ARE ALLOWED AND THEY'RE TRYING TO STAY OVERNIGHT.
THE POLICE ARE HAVING TO BE CALLED, YOU KNOW THAT WE DON'T NEED TO BE USING OUR POLICE FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
WE LITERALLY SHOULD TAKE OUR VEHICLES OFF AT THE BEACH.
ALSO I'M SEEING, LET ME SEE HERE.
OH, THE OTHER THING IS THAT OUR BEACHES, I'M VERY CONCERNED.
WE HAVE THESE CARS ON THERE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE NO LIFEGUARDS, AND WE HAVE NO POLICING GOING ON ON THIS PARTICULAR BEACH.
MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE IS, I WAS ON THE BEACH AND ALL OF A SUDDEN I SAW THE PEOPLE THAT PROTECT OUR BEACHES LIKE THE LIFEGUARDS, THEY DROVE A VEHICLE OVER SOMEBODY, THE UNCLE HAD COME OUT OF THE WATER AND HIS NEPHEW WAS IN THE WATER.
I THINK HE WAS 17, BUT THERE WAS NOBODY THERE WATCHING OVER HIM AND HE ALMOST DROWNED.
I WAS THERE. IT WAS VERY DRAMATIC.
THIS YOUNG MAN COULD HAVE DIED ON THAT BEACH BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA WATCHING OVER OUR PEOPLE.
BUT THE MAIN THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO ASK YOU TO LITERALLY PLEAD WITH YOU, CAN WE GET THE VEHICLES OFF OF THE BEACHES? IT'S UNSAFE, AND I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO BE SUED, OR WE'RE GOING TO BE SUED BECAUSE SOMETHING TERRIBLE HAPPENS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
GILBERT ARCARION, I'M SURE YOU ARE RELATED IN SOME WAY. [LAUGHTER]
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ALL YOUR WORK THAT YOU GUYS PUT IN.
WE'RE HERE TO REALLY DISCUSS STEWART BEACH AND THE ACCESS ALLOWING VEHICLES THAT GO ON FROM STEWART BEACH ONTO PROPERTY THAT REALLY IS NOT STEWART BEACH.
WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN SAFETY AND NOT HAVE PROBLEMS. ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE CITY SHOULD REVIEW IS THAT AT DUSK THE LIFEGUARDS COME AND THEY SAY, EVERYBODY OFF THE BEACH, OKAY.
BUT THEY DON'T LOCK THE DOORS TO COME ON THE BEACH SO PARKED CARS ARE COMING IN AT NIGHTTIME AND THEY'RE DRIVING IN, THEY ARE GOING IN THROUGH THIS ACCESS POINT.
[00:10:01]
THEY'RE GOING IN WITH THEIR VEHICLES, THEY'RE FISHING, THEY'RE DOING BONFIRES AT NIGHT, THEY'RE LIGHTING OFF FIREWORKS.NOW YOU HAVE ONE OF THE NICEST NEIGHBORHOODS THAT'S BEING BUILT RIGHT THERE CALLED THE PRESERVE ON THAT EAST SIDE.
I'M JUST SAYING THESE HOMEOWNERS ARE PAYING SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THE CITY FOR TAXES.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL KNOWS, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE ALL THIS WHAT WE CALL UNCONTROLLED PARTYING GOING ON AT THE BEACH AT ALL DIFFERENT HOURS OF THE NIGHT AND DURING THE DAY.
AS MARYANNE SAID, THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN, MOSTLY SAFETY.
THERE'S NO ONE WATCHING OVER THAT AREA DURING THE DAY.
WE'VE SEEN CHILDREN ALMOST GET HIT BY A VEHICLE AND KILL THEM AND WE THINK, OH MY GOSH, THIS JUST GIVES US CHILLS TO THINK THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN.
WHY DO WE HAVE THIS PLENTY OF PARKING AT STEWART'S BEACH.
THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING AT THE AREA NEXT DOOR BETWEEN US AND THE OTHER NEIGHBOR.
WE INVESTED FUNDING TO PAY FOR THE WALK OVER FOR THE PUBLIC, AND WE CUT OUT A PART OF THAT AREA FOR PARKING FOR PUBLIC USAGE FOR FREE.
THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING AT STEWART'S BEACH AND THE OTHER PUBLIC AREA.
WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS ACCESS IS OPEN AND ALLOWING PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT DOING THE RIGHT THING.
PEOPLE COME IN, THEY GO IN THROUGH THE ACCESS, THEY PULL ALL THEIR CARS AND TRUCKS UP.
THEY BRING OUT THEIR GAS GRILLS, THEY'RE HAVING A PICNIC.
THEY CAN'T DO THAT AT STEWART BEACH, BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY CAN DO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THIS ACCESS AREA, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FAIR.
PEOPLE ARE PAYING A LOT OF MONEY AND THESE PEOPLE ARE GETTING BEACH FRONT PROPERTY MIGHT SAY FOR FREE.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I APPRECIATE YOUR VOTE TO CLOSE IT.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. GARY WILCOX. GARY.
>> THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK UP.
I ATTENDED THE WORKSHOP THIS MORNING AND I GATHERED SOME INFORMATION.
I'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT IN MY DISCUSSIONS.
BUT I THINK ONE OF THE TOP THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IN GALVESTON IS AT THE BEACHES.
OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE BIG DRAWL TO GALVESTON PROBABLY THE HIGHEST REASON WHY PEOPLE ARE TOURISM AND GALVESTON, IT BRINGS A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONETARY VALUE TO THE CITY.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE JLO AND PARK BOARD TRYING TO GET THE BEACH CLEANED UP TO THE WEST OF THE SEAWALL AS YOU PROBABLY MOST OF YOU ARE AWARE, WE'VE HAD SOME DEBRIS PUT OUT THERE I'VE BEEN PART OF TRYING TO GET THAT CLEANED UP.
I FEEL THERE'S TWO THINGS WE NEED TO HAVE IN GALVESTON, CLEAN BEACHES AND SAFE BEACHES.
I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE FOR JUST SOME OF THE BEACHES IN GALVESTON.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE FOR ALL THE BEACHES IN GALVESTON.
FROM WHAT I GATHERED WITH THE WORKSHOP THIS MORNING, I SEE WHAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE'RE GOING TO CONDENSE THE 2,600 FEET DOWN TO 1,600 FEET.
WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO IS THAT'S GOING TO FORCE ABOUT 40 PERCENT OF THE CARS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SPREAD OUT DOWN TO THE 1,600 FEET AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE THAN WHAT WE HAD BEFORE WITH, AS GILL SAID, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF CHILDREN PLAYING OUT ON THE BEACH.
I THINK THIS WOULD EQUATE THIS TO HAVING A PARK WITH CHILDREN PLAYING WITH SWINGS AND WE'VE GOT CARS BASICALLY DRIVING THROUGH THE PARK WITH KIDS TRY AND AT THE SAME TIME PLAY ON THE BEACH.
AS THEY'VE ALREADY POINTED OUT, IT IS A SAFETY HAZARD.
I'VE SEEN SOME OF THE SAME THINGS THAT THEY'VE DISCUSSED AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AS THE WORKSHOP POINTED OUT THIS MORNING, THE ACTUAL PEOPLE THAT SHOULD REALLY BE OUT ON THAT BEACH ARE VERY FEW, ALMOST A FIVE-YEAR SURVEY THAT WAS DONE.
MOST OF THE PEOPLE, 97 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE OUT THERE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE OUT THERE.
WE HAVE NO ENFORCEMENT THAT'S TRIED TO CURTAIL THAT, IS A FREE-FOR-ALL WHO'S BEING ALLOWED OUT THERE.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET PEOPLE OFF THE ENTIRE SEGMENT, THEN WE NEED TO GET SOME ENFORCEMENT ON WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THE CONDENSED 1,600 FEET THAT ARE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN OPEN FOR THE CARS.
IN MY OPINION, WE NEED TO CLOSE THE ENTIRE SPECIAL USE RESTRICTED AREA FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE OUT THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'M A UTMB OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY DOCTORATE STUDENT AND I'M CURRENTLY WORKING ON ACCESSIBILITY STUDIES TO HELP MAKE OUR GALLAS AND BEACHES HAVE EQUAL ACCESS FOR ALL.
I ASK THAT YOU TAKE HEAVY CONSIDERATION ON WHAT REMOVING DRIVE-ON ACCESS WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC.
DRIVE-ON ACCESS ALLOWS EVERYONE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO ENJOY THE BEACH SHORE UP CLOSE.
THIS ESPECIALLY HELPS A LARGE POPULATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE THE ENDURANCE OR
[00:15:01]
ABILITY TO WALK LIKE AN ABLE BODIED PERSON SUCH AS YOU AND I.MANY WALK WITH EQUIPMENT SUCH AS A CANE, A WALKER, A MANUAL OR POWER WHEELCHAIR TO NAVIGATE THEIR ENVIRONMENT.
DRIVE-ON ACCESS ALLOWS FAMILIES TO PARK THEIR CAR AND LOAD THEIR BEACH GEAR WITH EASE AND CONVENIENCE.
TO TAKE AWAY THIS PRIVILEGE WOULD TRANSLATE INTO LOSS VISITS AND MEMORIES MADE FOR FAMILIES WHO NEED TO ESCAPE AND ENJOY THE OUTDOORS THE MOST.
CLOSING ACCESS WILL IMPACT INDIVIDUALS OLDER THAN 65, FAMILIES WHO MAY HAVE CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES, AND SO MANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS THAT MAY BE EXPERIENCING OTHER DISABILITIES AND CONDITIONS.
STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, ACCORDING TO THE 2017 STATE REPORT FOR TEXAS COUNTY LEVEL DATA, 13.5 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION OF GALVESTON COUNTY REPORTED HAVING DISABILITY.
MOBILITY IS THE HIGHEST RANK OF THE FUNCTIONAL DISABILITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AFFECTING 14 PERCENT OF ADULTS.
THEREFORE, THIS SPACE MAKES THEM POSSIBLE NAVIGATING THE SAND MUCH MORE FEASIBLE.
BEACH ACCESS 1C AS ONE OF THE ONLY, IF NOT ONE WAY FOR SOMEONE WITH DISABILITIES TO ACCESS THE BEACH QUICKLY AND EASILY.
THAT BEING SAID, I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT NIGHTTIME VISITORS.
HOME SAFETY IS IMPORTANT TO ME AND THE PEOPLE AROUND ME.
I STILL WANT THAT FOR GALVESTON'S RESIDENTS, BUT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT WITHOUT DISMISSING INNOCENT VISITORS.
THERE IS A SOLUTION HERE THAT WE CAN BOTH HELP RESIDENTS FEEL SAFE AND FOR THOSE WITH DISABILITIES TO ENJOY THE BEACH.
I HAVE WORKED WITH PATIENTS WHO HAVE ALS, WHICH IS A PROGRESSIVE NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE WITH NO CURE.
RIGHT NOW THOSE PATIENTS CAN'T USE THE STAIRS YOU FIND ALONG THE SEAWALL, BUT THEY CAN USE BEACH ACCESS 1C.
UNLIKE OTHER ACCESS POINTS, BEACH ACCESS 1C HAS THE GREATEST EASE OF USE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT WHEN YOU'RE DEPENDENT ON THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR MOVEMENT.
I'M SURE BOTH CITY COUNCIL AND RESIDENTS ALIKE WANT THEM TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY.
WE DON'T WANT TO CLOSE IT OUTRIGHT.
POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS TO RESOLVE VIOLATORS INTERROGATING THIS AREA AT NIGHT OR INSTILLING A CURFEW AT BEACH ACCESS 1C, FINES FOR DISRUPTIVE VIOLATORS OR INSTALLATION OF A GATE AT NIGHT TO DENY ACCESS.
THESE SOLUTIONS SHOULD BE REVIEWED BEFORE COMPLETELY BANNING THIS AREA TO THE PUBLIC.
I AM ASKING THAT YOU WOULD PLEASE DISCUSS AND WORK MORE CLOSELY WITH THE ORGANIZATIONS WHO SHARE THE SPACE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES AT HAND WITH A MORE PRACTICAL SOLUTION.
SPACE FROM THE PUBLIC AND CLOSES THE DOORS FOR MILLIONS AND BENEFITS OF ONE PERCENT.
HONESTLY, PROBABLY EVEN LESS THAN ONE PERCENT.
I KINDLY ASK YOU TO PLEASE THINK ABOUT THE OTHER 99.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME HEARING MY CONCERNS.
IT IS, MY HONOR, AS A UTMB OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS ADVOCATE FOR THE PATIENTS I SERVE THINKING IT NOW.
>> THANK YOU, MS. LEE. APPRECIATE IT.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEN AND COUNCIL LADIES, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME SPEAK TODAY.
I AM DIANE COLLINS, FORMERLY MRS. DAVID COLLINS, BUT NOT THAT DAVID COLLINS [LAUGHTER].
I AM A PROFESSOR AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH AND JAMIE IS ONE OF MY STUDENTS.
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE ACCESSIBILITY FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES TO OUR BEAUTIFUL BEACHES IN GALVESTON.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR SAFETY ISSUES I REALLY DO.
BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE ME, I CAN'T TRAVEL FAR IN A POWER WHEELCHAIR OVER THE SAND.
IF I CAN BRING MY VAN UP CLOSE TO WHERE THERE IS A WHEELCHAIR TRACK, THEN I CAN ENJOY THE BEACH.
I CAN GET INTO A FLOATING WHEELCHAIR THAT I CAN TAKE OUT ON THE WATER.
IT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO HAVE OTHER PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES EXPERIENCE.
IF THERE IS A WAY WE COULD BALANCE THE SAFETY OF THAT AREA, BUT KEEP OPEN THE ACCESS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, ESPECIALLY OLDER PEOPLE WHO HAVE TROUBLE CLIMBING THE STAIRS TO THE BEACH.
I THINK I WILL HELP YOU TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION IF YOU NEED.
BECAUSE I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE ADA GUIDELINES AND THE ACCESS BOARD GUIDELINES THAT'S WHAT I TEACH.
I TEACH ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND ACCESSIBILITY AT UTMB FOR OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS.
WE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO HELP PEOPLE RETURN TO THE ART OF LIVING ONCE THEY'VE HAD A SIGNIFICANT DISABILITY.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO ADVOCATE FOR THAT POPULATION.
BUT WE ALSO NEED TO KEEP THE PEOPLE OF GALVESTON SAFE.
WE JUST HOPE THAT YOU WILL CONSIDER PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND THEIR ACCESS TO THESE AREAS IN A SAFE WAY FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.
[00:20:02]
MS. COLLINS. MICHAEL NEIGHBOR.>> GOOD EVENING. THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFICALLY 10A TO START.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MAKE ORDINANCE CHANGES SIMPLY TO MAKE IT EASIER TO DEVELOP ALONG OUR BEACH DUNE SYSTEMS AND SUB-SYSTEMS, NOT JUST THE DUNE ITSELF.
IN REGARDS TO 10B, I'M GOING TO PREFACE THIS BY SAYING, I DON'T LIKE VEHICLES ON THE BEACH.
I THINK THEY DAMAGE OUR WILDLIFE. I THINK THEY'RE BAD FOR OUR BEACHES.
I THINK THEY'RE BAD FOR OUR DUNES. BUT THIS ISN'T ABOUT WHAT I LIKE AND IT SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT WHAT YOU LIKE.
IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL STATE RIGHT TO HAVE OPEN ACCESS BEACHES, AND WE ALL NEED TO REALIZE THAT.
WE SHOULDN'T CATER TO THE SELECT FEW WHO WANT TO USE THE ABILITY TO PSEUDO PRIVATIZE THEIR BEACHES FOR THEIR OWN PERSONAL USE, BENEFIT OR PROFIT.
IF IT'S ABOUT SAFETY, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE WE CAN BRING UP, BUT WE CAN'T JUST CLOSE THE BEACHES.
IN REGARDS TO THESE ISSUES LAST WEEK DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, CITY STAFF, WHAT THEIR NEEDS AND REASONS FOR THESE CHANGES, IN REGARDS TO THE FIBER CRETE USE FOR 10A, CITY STAFF SAID, AND I QUOTE, "THERE ARE THREE PROJECTS THAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN THE CITY.
THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT CODE PROVISIONS.
IN ONE PARTICULAR CASE, TIARA WILL PROCEED FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT UNLESS THE CITY MAKES THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE." LATER IN REGARDS TO THE BEACH ACCESS OF BOTH C1 AND SUNNY BEACH, CITY STAFF SAID AND I QUOTE, "REMOVING ACCESS IN C1 IF THERE'S PENDING INVESTMENT THERE THAT IS ALSO SUBSTANTIAL.
THEY WON'T BUILD THAT PROJECT UNLESS THEY GET WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR, WHICH IS A PEDESTRIAN ONLY BEACH.
THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO INVEST IF IT IS A DRIVE ON BEACH." IN THESE TWO INSTANCES, CITY STAFF MADE IT CLEAR THAT DEVELOPERS WHO BY THE WAY, HAVE ALREADY INVESTED KNOWING THE CURRENT STATE AND CITY ORDINANCE AND LAWS WILL NOT INVEST MORE UNLESS THEY GET WHAT THEY WANT.
TO ME, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS HAS EVEN COME FORWARD FOR A VOTE.
LOOK INTO SAFETY IF YOU WANT, BUT DO NOT PRETEND THIS AS ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE BUT PROFITING AND PRIVATIZING OUR BEACHES.
I URGE YOU ALL TO VOTE AGAINST BOTH OF THESE ORDINANCES.
>> THANK YOU, MR. NEIGHBOR. THAT'S ALL THE FORMS I HAVE.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT 10A OR 10B, WHICH IS THE BEACH ACCESS CHANGES? JANELLE, WE HAD SOME WRITTEN COMMENTS, IS THAT RIGHT? DO YOU HAVE THOSE SORTED OUT OF THOSE THAT WERE FOR THESE TWO ITEMS HERE 10A AND 10B?
>> ALL THE COMMENTS RECEIVED WERE FOR 10B.
I DON'T HAVE THOSE SORTED OUT.
WE'VE RECEIVED APPROXIMATELY 70.
I THOUGHT FROM THE CONVERSATION THIS MORNING THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT ME TO SUMMARIZE.
YOU SEND ALL THOSE TO COUNCIL THOUGH. IS THAT RIGHT?
WELL, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOW AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 10A, PLEASE. NELLY.
>> ITEM 10A, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON CHAPTER 29, PLANNING BEACH ACCESS, DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACH FRONT CONSTRUCTION, ARTICLE 2, BEACH ACCESS, DUNE PROTECTION, AND BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION REGULATION TO ALLOW FOR EXEMPTIONS TO USE OF REINFORCED CONCRETE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER AND OR THEIR DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE FOR CERTIFICATION AND TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE SAME PLANNING CASE NUMBER 23PA-004, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS WAS ON COUNCIL'S AGENDA LAST MEETING, AND I THINK STAFF GAVE INPUT BEFORE ON THIS.
TIM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE A LITTLE INPUT ON THIS? I THINK WE HAVE SOME CHANGES HERE. IS THAT RIGHT, SIR?
>> CORRECT, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
I'M TIM TIETJEN, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
WHAT WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING WAS THE PROPOSAL AS BROUGHT FORTH REALLY TO CREATE AN EXEMPTION PROCESS FOR FOLKS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION.
THAT EXEMPTION PROCESS WOULD CONSIDER, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CONSTRUCTION
[00:25:03]
OF REINFORCED CONCRETE RATHER THAN FIBER CRETE.[NOISE] AS YOU HEARD THIS MORNING, WE DO HAVE SOME PROJECTS THAT ARE PENDING AND ONE IN PARTICULAR, THE CONCERN I HEARD FROM COUNCIL BASICALLY WAS THAT, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD DO THIS WITHOUT HAVING TO NECESSARILY OPEN THIS UP TO THE ENTIRE ISLAND.
DANKO WOFSKI, DIANA FAIRWEATHER, MYSELF, AND CARL CLARKE WORKED TOGETHER THIS AFTERNOON TO COME UP WITH AN AMENDMENT TO WHAT YOU HAD BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING THAT IN ESSENCE CREATES A BRACKETED EXEMPTION AND IN PARTICULAR WOULD ALLOW THESE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS THAT OBVIOUSLY THE SAME THING WOULD APPLY AS WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED ABOUT HAVING THE ELEVATED REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK AT OR ABOVE THE BASE FOR THE ELEVATION.
BUT INSTEAD OF JUST ANYWHERE WITHIN THAT 200 FOOT AREA.
THE BRACKETED EXCEPTION IS FOR EXISTING STRUCTURES OR PROPOSED STRUCTURES, IN THIS CASE, THAT ARE DESIGNED, BUILT, RENTED, OR LEASED TO BE OCCUPIED OR ANY PORTION THEREOF, AS AN ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LIVING UNIT OF FIVE STOREYS IN HEIGHT.
THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LIVING UNITS CONSTRUCTED AT LEAST IN PART, BEHIND THE SEAWALL AND SUCH THAT IT USES A STORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEM WHICH MITIGATES PEAK WATER RUNOFF ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE.
THOSE ARE BASICALLY THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN GENERATED TO ALLOW AN EXCEPTION, AND AS YOU CAN TELL IT GETS VERY SPECIFIC.
THAT'S WHAT'S BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT AS AN ALTERNATIVE.
SHOULD YOU APPROVE IT, THIS COULD GO INTO THE AMENDMENT WITH THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE PROPOSED UP TO THE GLO.
IN FACT, WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE GLO THIS AFTERNOON ABOUT THIS AND THEY BASICALLY REPRESENTED THAT THEY WOULD MUCH PREFER A BRACKETED SOLUTION RATHER THAN AN ENTIRE ISLAND WIDE SOLUTION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS I MIGHT ASK?
>> LET'S START THE QUESTIONS OFF.
TIM, WITH THESE BRACKETED CRITERIA HERE, AM I CORRECT IN THINKING THIS ISOLATES, THEN THIS PARTICULAR IF COUNCIL APPROVES THIS JUST TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND SITE.
>> VERY GOOD. FIRST OF ALL, LET'S SEE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS.
I WANT TO JUST SEE IF THERE'S QUESTIONS FOR MR. TIETJEN AND THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. QUESTIONS.
>> MR. TIETJENS THIS MORNING WE TALKED ABOUT THE APPLICATION OF THIS BOTH FOR PROPOSED AND EXISTING STRUCTURES.
WE HEARD CONFIRMATION THAT A CHANGE TO THE CODE AND ORDINANCES RELATED TO THE REPAIR TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND THE USE OF STRUCTURAL REINFORCED CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET OF LANDWARD OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION WAS NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THOSE EXISTING STRUCTURES HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO MAKE THOSE REPAIRS, AND YET THE LANGUAGE STILL INCLUDES LANGUAGE STATING THAT THIS APPLIES TO EXISTING STRUCTURES.
>> YES, THAT WOULD BASICALLY MEAN ANY PROPOSED STRUCTURE AND ANY EXISTING STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S ISOLATED TO THIS PROPERTY.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WOULD BE WHAT THE DEVELOPER PROPOSES AND AT SUCH TIME AS THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME REPAIR, AS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, IT WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THAT STRUCTURE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
I NEED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT A LITTLE MORE, TIM.
SAYS PROPOSED OR EXISTING STRUCTURES.
>> BUT THE EXISTING STRUCTURES, DOES THIS MEAN ARE THERE STRUCTURES THERE THAT ARE EXISTING THAT MEET THE CRITERIA THAT ARE LISTED HERE?
>> NO, SIR. THAT'S INTENDED BASICALLY AS A FUTURE REFERENCE.
IN OTHER WORDS, FOR PROPOSED, IT WOULD ACCOMPLISH WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS REQUESTED.
OVER TIME, SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN,
[00:30:04]
THAT LINE OF VEGETATION PERHAPS MOVES EVEN FURTHER, OR ANY CIRCUMSTANCE THAT REALLY COULD COME UP OVER TIME.UNTIL THIS WOULD BE AMENDED, THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE IN THERE.
THIS CONTEMPLATES THE FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THAT PROPERTY AS WELL.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF THEY HAD AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE, THE EXISTING CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY UTILIZED OR PLAN TO UTILIZE COULD THEN BE USED IN ANY FUTURE REPAIRS RATHER THAN BEING PROHIBITED.
>> WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING BY PUTTING THE EXISTING IN, IT ONLY APPLIES TO THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT?
>> FOR ANY PROPOSED OR FUTURE REPAIR? YES.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, DAVID?
>> I'D LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN FOR US SOMETHING THAT CAME AS QUITE A SURPRISE TO ME THIS MORNING.
THIS APPLIES TO REINFORCE CONCRETE ON THE BEACH.
BUT I THINK WE DISCOVERED IN CONVERSATION THIS MORNING THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY NO RESTRICTION ON USING REINFORCED CONCRETE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, OR THIRD FLOOR, OR FOURTH FLOOR.
>> SO THAT 70% OF THE BASE OF THE STRUCTURE COULD BE BUILT WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE AND ALL THE REST OF IT COULD BE BUILT WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE.
THERE'S A 30% OF THE BASE THAT IS COVERED BY THIS.
THAT'S NOT JUST OUR ORDINANCE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT IS OUR ORDINANCE, BUT I MEAN, THAT STATE CODE. AM I RIGHT?
>> THE SUPPOSITION WAS THAT THE FEE THAT WAS ATTACHED TO IT WAS TO ASSIST IN CLEANUP.
AS THOUGH IF A FIVE-STORY CONCRETE STRUCTURE WAS DESTROYED, WE'VE COLLECTED MONEY TO CLEAN UP THE BOTTOM FLOOR.
DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE AND JUST ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS TO HAVE THAT EITHER SAY YES OR SAY NO.
THIS PROJECT STRIKES ME IS SILLY ANYWAY, BUT BECAUSE IT SEEMS AN ODDBALL PLACED TO BUILD A STRUCTURE AT RISK.
BUT NONETHELESS, IF THE STATE ALLOWS THE CONCRETE ON THE SECOND FLOOR AND DOESN'T ALLOW THE FIRST FLOOR, IS THAT AN OVERSIGHT ON THE STATE'S PART? THEY JUST NOT CONTEMPLATED THIS BEFORE.
BECAUSE OURS WAS IMPLEMENTED, THIS ORDER WAS INSTITUTED WITH A REFERENCE TO BUILDING SLAB-ON-GRADE HOUSES THAT CLOSE TO THE BEACH. AM I RIGHT?
>> IN ESSENCE, THE CITY HAS ADOPTED THAT IN ITS PLAN AND IT'S PART OF THE GLO'S BASICALLY CRITERIA WHICH BASICALLY MANDATES THAT IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ON THE SLAB ON GRADE, BUT YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY IN THE VE ZONES OUT WEST, YOU HAVE TO HAVE YOUR FINISHED FLOOR TO THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.
IT'S RECOGNIZING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE FROM THAT POINT UP AND WHAT'S ON THE GROUND AND ITS PURPOSES.
THE ORDINANCE ITSELF IS BASICALLY DESIGNED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE IT ONLY CONTEMPLATES THE FIBER CRATE THAT'S NOT VIABLE ON LARGE-SCALE BUILDINGS LIKE THIS.
>> SERIOUSLY, BUT HERE'S MY CONFUSION.
THAT STATE REGULATIONS DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A SCANT CHANCE YOU'RE GOING TO BE FORCED.
THERE WAS INSTITUTED RIGHT, BECAUSE OF THE COST AND DIFFICULTY OF CLEANING UP REINFORCED CONCRETE.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE FIBER CRETE OR SOME OTHER AGGREGATE OR SOMETHING ON THE BOTTOM, IT'S A LOT EASIER TO CLEAN UP THAN A GIANT SLAB OF REINFORCED CONCRETE, AND EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.
BUT THAT'S WHY THIS IS IN THERE.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE STATE LAW THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE REST OF IT TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN REINFORCED CONCRETE.
I THINK THERE'S A VERY SMALL CHANCE YOU'RE GOING TO BE CLEANING UP REINFORCED CONCRETE DESTROYED BY A STORM ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH FLOORS 2, 3, 4, AND 5.
>> DAVID, I THINK ONE REASON THEY TALKED ABOUT THE FIBERCRETE IS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T ANTICIPATE, EVEN IN A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, THAT THE HOUSE COLLAPSING.
THE HOUSE IS BUILT IN A MANNER THAT WOULD NOT COLLAPSE IF THERE WERE SCOUR BELOW.
YOU POSSIBLY WOULD HAVE TO CLEAN UP THE CONCRETE BELOW THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE SCOURING THAT WOULD DISRUPT THE CONCRETE DOWN THERE.
[00:35:02]
BUT THE HOUSE WOULD NOT COLLAPSE BECAUSE IT IS SUPPORTED ON A FOUNDATION THAT IS MADE FOR THAT.>> THAT'S FAIR. BECAUSE THAT HAPPENED IN IKE.
ANY NUMBER OF HOMES WILL LET, APPEARS IN THE HOUSE REMAIN [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU TAKE THE SLAB OUT FROM OTHER HOUSE, PUT SAND BACK, AND THEN REPLACE THE FIBERCRETE UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE.
>> YOU'RE STILL GOT A HOUSE ABOVE?
>> BUT THE FIBERCRETE IS NOT A STRUCTURAL MATERIAL.
>> THE STATE REGULATIONS DON'T CONTEMPLATE THIS. THEY DON'T?
THEY DO NOT CONTEMPLATE ANYTHING ABOVE THAT GRADE-LEVEL FIBERCRETE STRUCTURE.
>> LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE CASES WHERE I SAID WE PUT THIS IN THE AMENDMENTS, SEND TO THE STATE, LET THEM GET THEMSELVES STRAIGHT ON THIS AND THEN WE'LL FOLLOW THEIR LEAD ON THIS BECAUSE THE STATE NEEDS TO BE SQUARE ON THIS.
BECAUSE THERE'S A CERTAIN CHANCE THAT IF WE ARE NOT JUST BUT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE CHANCE THAT IF WE PUT THIS IN THE AMENDMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO REJECT IT ANYWAY.
I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN IN THIS CONVERSATION WITH THEM.
DO YOU HAVE A STRONG FEELING THAT THEY WILL APPROVE THIS IF YOU GET IT?
>> AS OF OUR CONVERSATION THIS AFTERNOON IN WHICH WE PITCHED THIS IDEA, I GET A MUCH BETTER FEELING THAT THEY'LL APPROVE IT.
>> WHY? I KNOW YOU'RE NOT THE GLO.
BUT WHY WOULD THEY BE [OVERLAPPING] AMENABLE TO THIS, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, BUT NOT ELSEWHERE?
>> THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENTS THAT OTHER COMMUNITIES UP AND DOWN THE COAST COULD USE.
>> I GET THAT, BUT WHY WOULD THEY DO IT HERE ANYWAY?
>> I DON'T THINK THEY NECESSARILY WANTED TO ISLANDWIDE.
>> WHY ARE THEY OKAY WITH DOING IT HERE, BUT NOT NEXT DOOR, A MILE DOWN THE BEACH?
>> WELL, BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE ADDRESSED HERE IN THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS THEY'RE DOING THINGS WITH STORMWATER DETENTION THAT ARE UNIQUE TO PRESERVING THE BEACH OUT FRONT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NOT EROSION HAPPENING BECAUSE ALL THIS STORMWATER, I'M SORRY.
THERE'S NO EROSION HAPPENING ON THE BEACH IN FRONT OF IT AS A RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE EROSION HAPPENING, OF COURSE, WE ALL KNOW.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. AS A RESULT OF RUNOFF.
THAT RUNOFF IS BEING CAPTURED, DETAINED, AND SENT TO THE NORTH.
THAT WAS THE CONDITION IN WHICH THEY SAID THAT'S A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL THESE ARE FOR QUESTIONS NOW RIGHT NOW, DAVID, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR DO YOU WANT TO?
>> NO, I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU SAID THAT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE ACTUALLY BRACKETS IT TO ONE SPECIFIC PROJECT, BUT READING SECTION 4A AGAIN, WHEN IT SAYS THE PROPOSER EXISTING USE OF THE STRUCTURE IS MULTIPLE-FAMILY COMMERCIAL, THERE'LL BE CONSTRUCTED OR HAVE AN ELEVATED REINFORCED CONCRETE DECK AT OR ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION.
WHAT'S TO SAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PROPOSAL FROM A DEVELOPER TO PUT DOWN ANOTHER MULTIFAMILY STRUCTURE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE LINE OF VEGETATION? YOU SAID THAT IT'S PROPOSED SO IT DOESN'T BRACKET IT JUST TO ONE PROJECT THIS COULD APPLY TO OTHER PROPOSED PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE.
>> NO, IT DOESN'T. IT BRACKETS TO THIS PROJECT.
IN ORDER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE TO THIS EXCEPTION, IT'S ONLY APPLICABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING UNITS CONSTRUCTED AT LEAST IN PART BEHIND THE SEAWALL.
>> JUST BE BEHIND THE SEAWALL.
>> THIS IS IN PART BEHIND THE SEAWALL.
I GOT MY QUESTION REGARDING THE CONCRETE MAINTENANCE FEE OF ONE DOLLAR PER SQUARE FOOT ANSWERED PREVIOUSLY AS WELL SO, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. TEACHINGS? I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI.
ANY DISCUSSION COUNCIL? YES, DAVID
>> MAYOR, I'M ALL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REGARDING SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT DEVELOPMENT.
ONE COULD ARGUE THAT PLACING STRUCTURED REINFORCED CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET OF LINE OF VEGETATION DOES NOT MEET EITHER OF THOSE CRITERIA.
FURTHERMORE, IN DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S ALWAYS AN ANSWER THAT YOU CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU COULD DO SOMETHING EITHER NOTHING, ALL THE WAY UP TO ASKING FOR WHATEVER YOU CAN GET FROM YOUR GOVERNMENT.
THERE'S ALWAYS ANOTHER DESIGN SOLUTION THAT WOULD HELP PROTECT OUR DUNES.
I WOULD URGE US AS A COUNCIL TO EITHER DEFER OR REJECT THIS BECAUSE THIS PLAN, AS IT'S BRACKETED FOR ONE PARTICULAR PROJECT, I BELIEVE, CREATES MORE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND ALSO OPENS US UP
[00:40:04]
TO FURTHER POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS FOR EXCEPTIONS LIKE THIS. THANK YOU.>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? COUNCIL, LET'S CAST YOUR VOTES.
WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH TIM, HAS PASSED.
[10.B Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending The Code Of The City Of Galveston, Chapter 29, “Planning – Beach Access Dune Protection & Beach Front Construction”, Article Ii. Appendix A: Beach Access And Parking Plan, To Modify Regulations Related To Beach Access At Access Point 1(C):Area West Of The Islander East To Eastern Boundary Of Stewart Beach Park And Access Point 2: Stewart Beach; To Authorize The City Manager And Or Their Designee To Submit The Requested Amendment To The Texas General Land Office For Certification And To Execute All Necessary Documents Related To The Same; Planning Case Number 23pa005; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (Council)]
>> ITEM 10B, CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON CHAPTER 29 PLANNING, BEACH ACCESS, DUNE PROTECTION AND BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION, ARTICLE 2 APPENDIX A, BEACH ACCESS AND PARKING PLAN TO MODIFY REGULATIONS RELATED TO BEACH ACCESS AT ACCESS 0.1.
AREA WEST OF THE ISLAND OR EAST TO EASTERN BOUNDARY OF STEWART BEACH PARK AND ACCESS POINT 2, STEWART BEACH.
TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER AND OR THEIR DESIGNEE TO SUBMIT THE REQUESTED AMENDMENT TO THE TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE FOR A CERTIFICATION AND TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE SAME.
PLANNING CASE NUMBER 23PA- 005, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.
NELLY, WE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH THIS MORNING ALSO, IT WAS ON OUR AGENDA LAST MEETING.
TIM, I'M GOING TO BRING YOU TO THE PODIUM AGAIN IF WE COULD.
DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND FOR THE SAKE OF THE COMMUNITY TIM.
COULD YOU PARAPHRASE EXACTLY WHAT THIS DOES? I THINK IN JUST TWO OR THREE SENTENCES, I THINK WE DID THAT THIS MORNING.
>> I DON'T THINK I'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN TWO OR THREE SENTENCES, BUT I'LL GET CLOSE [LAUGHTER].
WHAT THIS DOES IS IT REDUCES THE RESTRICTED USE AREA THAT EXISTS CURRENTLY JUST EAST OF STEWART BEACH, IT REDUCES IT BY 1,000 FEET.
THE REMAINING 1,600 PLUS WOULD REMAIN IN PLACE FOR THE TIME BEING UNTIL THAT GEOGRAPHICAL AREA BUDDING, WOULD BE PREPARED AND MEET THE GLO STANDARDS FOR TAKING CARS OFF THE BEACH AND IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD COME FORWARD WITH ANOTHER AMENDMENT.
THIS AMENDMENT SIMPLY REMOVES THE RESTRICTED ACCESS AREA IN FRONT OF WHAT'S CALLED THE RAPHE PROPERTY EAST OF PRESERVING GRAM BEACH AND BASICALLY ALLOWS THEM TO THEN REQUEST VEHICULAR RESTRICTIONS ON THAT BEACH.
>> YOU DO WANT TO BE CLEAR FOR THAT SECTION THAT IS LEFT, THE 1,600 FEET.
>> THEY CAN APPLY FOR HAVING THE SAME CONSIDERATION THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING FOR THIS AT 1,000 FEET SECTION IN FRONT OF REEF, IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH FREE PARKING IN PARKING. IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
>> CORRECT. YOU'D HAVE TO FILE WITH THE GLO AND TO ENSURE THAT YOU'RE MEETING THEIR STANDARDS FOR REMOVAL OF CARS OFF THE BEACH.
YOU HAVE TO MITIGATE THAT BY PROVIDING ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 15 LINEAR FEET OF THAT BEACH FRONT.
AT THIS POINT, THERE IS PUBLIC PARKING IN THE PRESERVE, A GRAM BEACH.
IT'S JUST NOT ENOUGH TO MEET THE STANDARD FOR THE 1,640 FEET THAT THEY HAVE.
THEY ALSO HAVE SOME INTERNAL PARKING WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, WHICH COULD ALSO BE UTILIZED, BUT AT THIS MOMENT, IT'S BEHIND A GATED, LOCKED SUBDIVISION ENTRANCE, SO IT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED PUBLIC AT THIS POINT.
>> IN ONE LAST QUESTION TIM, WE'VE HAD SOME COMMENTS AND I THINK AT LEAST FROM MY STANDPOINT, I'M WELL-TAKEN ABOUT THE ABILITY FOR THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES TOO, GETTING NEAR THE BEACH, WHAT IS OUR OPTIONS HERE IF WE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I KNOW THE OPTION CURRENTLY WOULD STILL BE FOR THE 1,600 FEET [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER AREAS THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> YES, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE COME DOWN RECENTLY FROM THE GLO, RECENT ADMINISTRATIVE RULE CHANGES THAT THEY'VE MADE.
THEY RELATE TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES HAVING ACCESS ON SEVERAL PARTS OF THE ISLAND.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'LL BE WORKING WITH SUBDIVISIONS EAST AND WEST, ALL UP AND DOWN THE ISLAND TO IMPLEMENT THAT RULE.
MANY SUBDIVISIONS ALREADY FOLLOW THAT RULE AND HAVE ADEQUATE TIE-INS TO ALLOW FOR THAT, OR ON VEHICULAR ON BEACH PARKING, WHICH OF COURSE IS DEEMED HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE.
BUT ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT STEWART BEACH IN PARTICULAR, THE PARK BOARD RECEIVED, I WANT TO SAY IT'S THREE WHEELCHAIRS THAT ARE FOR DISABLED FOLKS IN PARTICULAR, WHICH THEY CALL THEM BEACH-FRIENDLY WHEELCHAIRS.
[00:45:04]
THEY'RE IMPLEMENTING THAT AT STEWART RIGHT NEXT DOOR, BUT YES, YOU'RE RIGHT.THE 1,600 FEET, THAT WOULD REMAIN IS STILL RESTRICTED TO THE THREE CLASSES, THE FISHERMEN, THE HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK THE PARK BOARD HAS ALSO ADDED MORE HANDICAP PARKING SPOTS CLOSER THAT ACCOMMODATE THE WHEELCHAIRS.
>> I WASN'T AWARE OF THAT, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD POINT.
>> BUT CAN YOU ALSO CLARIFY FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE IN THE PUBLIC FROM THE PRESERVE? THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE HOW MANY SPOTS?
>> I THINK THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE 110, THEY HAVE 80 ON THE THIN STRIP THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR EASTERN NEIGHBOR.
I BELIEVE THEY HAVE ENOUGH IN THAT PARKING LOT, MORE IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THEIR SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD FILL THAT GAP AND I THINK THEY COULD GET TO 110.
I THINK THEY MAY BE AT 110, BUT THEY'RE JUST NOT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> PARKING LOT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE IT'S GATED?
>> EVEN IF YOU HAVE RENTALS RUNNING YOUR HOUSES THAT DOES NOT COUNT AS PUBLIC PARKING,.
>> RIGHT, PROBABLY CAN'T GET TO IT.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE SUBDIVISION COULDN'T COME IN AND DO SOME ACCESS DRIVE TO GET TO THAT LOT AND THEN THEY COULD PRESUMABLY THEN FILE FOR THE SAME THING.
>> WE HAD A STUDY DONE BY CHIEF ON A SUNNY BEACH FOR THE AMOUNT OF CALLS THAT WERE OUT THERE BECAUSE OF PEOPLE AND DISORDERLY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WE HAVE A REPORT FOR THIS AREA?
>> I GOT A REPORT FROM CAPTAIN SIMS. THIS AREA DOES NOT HAVE ANY REPORTS TO IT.
THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE FROM POLICE OUT THERE FOR ANY DISORDERLY, PEOPLE CAMPING, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AS FAR AS THE POLICE PROBABLY GO, THEY DON'T SEE IT AS A [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'VE RECEIVED A REPORT FROM MR. ANDERSON TODAY WHO HAS BEEN DOING WEEKLY CAPTURES.
>> THIS IS TELLING US HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE OUT NOW.
>> EXCUSE ME, COUNCIL MEMBER, THERE CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN CALLS OUT THERE.
WE MAY NOT HAVE A REPORT ON THAT, BUT I ASSURE YOU THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF CALLS [OVERLAPPING].
>> CAPTAIN SIMS WITH THE GPD SAYS NO.
>> LET'S KEEP RIGHT NOW OUR COMMENTS TO QUESTIONS FOR MR. TIETJENS .
ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS? YES, DAVID.
>> IN THE ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED, IT STATES THAT PUBLIC NOTICE OF HEARING, REQUIRED BY LAW HAS BEEN HELD.
WHEN WAS A PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON THIS?
>> THIS MEETS THE OBLIGATIONS OF A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> ANYTIME THAT YOU ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT ON A PARTICULAR SUBJECT, YES, IT'S PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM TIME STRATEGY? I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION COUNCIL.
>> WE HAVE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 10B BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB. ANY DISCUSSION?
>> WELL, WE'RE HERE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE, AND FROM WHAT I SEE, WE BROUGHT PROBABLY SEVEN OR EIGHT PEOPLE THAT ARE AGAINST THIS.
WE'VE PROBABLY GOT 60 PEOPLE THAT ARE WRITING IN SAYING THEY WANT TO KEEP THE BEACH OPEN.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT OUR CONSTITUENTS WANT, THEY WANT TO KEEP THIS OPEN.
THE SEVEN OR 10 PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE PRIVATE BEACH.
>> COUNCILMAN COLLINS AND THEN COUNCILMAN THINKER.
>> I THINK THAT'S MISS CHARACTERIZATION OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THIS IN THE DISTRICT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR FIVE YEARS.
IN ALL THE TIME THAT MR. ANDERSON HAS BEEN DOING THESE STATISTICS THIS HAS BEEN A HOT-BUTTON TOPIC.
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
THERE'S ONE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BEACH TOWN.
IT STRIKES ME AS LET'S REMEMBER THAT USED TO BE ALL OF GALVESTON BEACHES WERE OPENED TO TRAFFIC, AND THEN WE PAIRED THAT DOWN TO JUST A FEW.
WE ARE STILL CLOSING BEACHES FOR SAFETY REASONS, FOR ACCESSORIES.
THERE WAS A TIME WHEN YOU COULD DRIVE OFF THE END OF THE SEAWALL,
[00:50:03]
DRIVE ALL THE WAY TO THE SIGN LET ME PASS.WE'VE TIGHTLY RESTRICTED THESE PLACES AND THE PLACES WHERE THEY'RE HARD TO PATROL, THE PARTIES OCCUR, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF POLICE CALLS, THE SAFETY ISSUES.
THOSE ARE THE ONES WE'RE CLOSING.
BUT IT'S VERY STRICTLY CONTROLLED BY THE GLO.
IT'S OUR BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND THE GLO HAS BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IF YOU WANT TO CLOSE THE BEACH TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
HALF OF THIS BEACH, 1,000 FEET OF IT HAS MET THAT.
THE OTHER 1,600 FEET OF IT HAS NOT.
ANYONE WHO ATTENDED OUR MEETING LAST WEEK NOTED THAT THE ENTIRE AREA WAS UP FOR DISCUSSION.
BUT YOU CAME BACK, YOU DID THE DIVIDING LINE IN THERE.
I THINK YOU'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE GLO.
IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE 1,600 LINEAR FEET CLOSEST TO STEWARD BEACH.
IT COULD IF THE HOA DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD AND COMPLY WITH GLO REGULATIONS AS MOST OF THE ISLAND HAS DONE.
WE GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO SEE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE PARKING, THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE HANDICAP AREAS OR ACCESS, AND THERE'S PLENTY OF PLACES ON THE WEST BEACH WHERE YOU CAN DRIVE DOWN THE BEACH ACCESS AREA, AND PARK DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH.
THERE'S A LOT OF THAT. IT'S TRUE OF THIS BEACH AS WELL.
ALL OF THIS BEACH, MORE THAN A MILE OF IT OUT THERE.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAYS THIS IS SEVEN PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS.
THERE HAVE BEEN COMPLETED CALLS OUT HERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT KEVIN SIMS HAD TO SAY ABOUT IT, BUT WE'VE BEEN ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE FOR THE ENTIRE FIVE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON CITY COUNCIL ASSIGNED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE GLO REQUIREMENTS.
THEY'VE REQUESTED THIS, LET'S MOVE THIS FORWARD.
>> WE HAVE COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, WE HAVE COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI AND COUNCILMAN BOUVIER. DAVID.
>> WE RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM A MEMBER OF THE BEACH ACCESS AD HOC COMMITTEE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT THAT WAS COUNTER TO WHAT STAFF HAD MENTIONED TO US LAST WEEK, WHICH SAID THAT THEY HAD NOT MADE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CLOSING OF ACCESS 0.1C, CARE TO CLARIFY?
>> SAY THAT AGAIN. I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> WE RECEIVED A PUBLIC COMMENT FROM THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BEACH ACCESS AD HOC COMMITTEE WHO MADE THE STATEMENT THAT THEY NEVER RECOMMENDED CLOSING THIS STRETCH OF BEACH, NOT INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A COMMITTEE.
HOWEVER, IN STAFF REPORT PREVIOUSLY AT CITY COUNCIL, I BELIEVE IT SAID THAT THE AD HOC COMMITTEE HAD RECOMMENDED CLOSING ACCESS 0.1C. CAN YOU CLARIFY?
>> I MYSELF CANNOT KNOW. THAT WAS GENERATED.
>> I'M SORRY TO ASK QUESTIONS AS WELL.
>> I JUST DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I DIDN'T PREPARE THAT STAFF REPORT, BUT KYLE DID.
>> KYLE WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE PUBLIC PLACE?
>> KYLE CLARK, CITY OF GALVESTON COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER.
THEY DID RECOMMEND CLOSING IT TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
THAT WAS THEN AND THEN THE SPECIAL USE WE HAVE TO GET THAT REMOVED BEFORE WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR RECOMMENDED PLAN OF REMOVING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OFF OF THAT SECTION OF THE BEACH.
>> I ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED TAKING VEHICULAR [OVERLAPPING] OF THE ENTIRE.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL ISSUES WITH CLOSING THIS SECTION OF THE BEACH TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.
I THINK MR. ANDERSON'S DONE A GOOD JOB WITH SERVING THIS BEACH.
HE'S MET THE REQUIREMENTS, AND SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE 1,000 FEET THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
ONE THING THAT I DID LIKE SEEING IS THE SURVEY THAT MR. ANDERSON DID ON WHO USES THIS BEACH AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES ACTUALLY USE THE BEACH AND ACTUALLY USE IT FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE.
I ONLY HAVE LESS THAN A YEAR SITTING IN THE SEAT SO IF THIS COMES BACK TO US FOR THE NEXT 1,600 FEET, I MAY OR MAY NOT BE HERE.
BUT IF IT DID COME BACK TO US, WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO SEE TO APPROVE THAT IS THAT A SECTION OF THIS BEACH STILL REMAIN OPEN TO THE INTENDED USE.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR, IF THIS ISSUE DID COME BACK TO US.
I THINK SOME GREAT THINGS ARE SAID TODAY ABOUT THE USE OF THE BEACH FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSE, AND I WOULD WANT TO SEE THAT STILL AT THIS LOCATION IN THE FUTURE.
IF THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK TO US AT A FUTURE TIME FOR THE REMAINING 1,600 FEET.
I WOULD NEED TO SEE THAT TO APPROVE ANOTHER SECTION OF BEACH BEING CLOSED.
I DON'T THINK VEHICLES REALLY BELONG ON THE BEACH.
[00:55:01]
OUR BEACHES ARE STILL FOLLOWING THE OPEN BEACH PLAN.I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS 1,000 FEET TODAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> WE STARTED WITH SUNNY BEACH.
NOW WE'RE HEADING TO THIS BEACH HERE IN FRONT OF THE RESERVE.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER BEACH DOWN THE WAY OVER BY E-SPEECH THAT'S GOT BEACH ACCESS.
I HEARD THAT ONE'S GOING TO BE CLOSED WITHIN NEXT SIX MONTHS. THAT'S GOING TO BE UP.
WE'RE JUST CLOSING ALL THE BEACHES AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY ACCESS POINTS FOR ADA PEOPLE.
WE'RE ON A SLIPPERY SLOPE AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO CLOSE EVERYTHING DOWN.
WE HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO THESE BEACHES.
YOU CAN SAY WE HAVE ADA-APPROVED PARKING SPOTS, BUT THAT DOESN'T GET YOU TO THE BEACH.
THESE PEOPLE HAVE THEIR OWN WAY OF GETTING AROUND AND THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO A STEWARD BEACH AND THEN JUMPING ANOTHER CHAIR THAT THEY'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH AND BE IN AN UNFAMILIAR AREA.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEIR OWN AREA WITH THEIR OWN VEHICLE AND THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT.
>> THERE IS SUCH AN AREA THAT'S JUST ADJACENT TO THE GATE AT APPLE PARK.
HOW MANY OF THE BEACH ACCESS POINTS WEST OF THE SEAWALL HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE SAND, TO THE WATER? YOU COULD DRIVE YOUR CAR RIGHT INTO THE OCEAN IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT.
>> IT'S GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
I THINK IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT HALF OF THE ONES THAT ARE OUT THERE.
WAS A PLACE VIRTUALLY EVERY MILE WHERE YOU COULD LIKE AS I DRIVE INTO THE GOLF, IF IT'S SUITED YOU.
IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN'T ACCESS THE BEACH HERE.
>> BUT AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, EAST BEACHES ARE ENORMOUS BEACH.
>> THERE'S ENORMOUS SPACE DOWN THERE.
>> COUNCIL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND A SECOND.
PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THIS.
THAT IS APPROVED BY 5-2. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, TIM. WE ARE NOW BACK INTO OUR-NORMAL FLOW OF OUR AGENDA AND WE ARE IN ITEM 6.
[6. PRESENTATIONS/REPORTS OF COUNCIL, OFFICER BOARDS, AND CITY MANAGER]
COULD YOU PLEASE READ SIX, PLEASE?>> ITEM 6, PRESENTATIONS, REPORTS OF COUNSEL, OFFICER OF BOARDS, AND CITY MANAGER.
>> VERY GOOD. THIS IS TIME FOR FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO RECOGNIZE OUR PROCLAMATIONS IF I COULD.
LET THE AUDIENCE, THOSE THAT WANT TO LEAVE AGAIN [BACKGROUND] VERY GOOD.
FIRST OF ALL WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR PROCLAMATIONS THAT WE HAVE THIS EVENING.
NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK PROCLAMATION COUNCIL MEMBER BOUVIER.
>> GOOD TO SEE YOU. LET'S HOPE THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT WORDING.
CITY OF GALVESTON PROCLAMATION, WHEREAS NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK IS OBSERVED TO BRING ATTENTION TO IMPORTANT LIFE-SAVING TIPS FOR RECREATIONAL BOATERS SO THAT THEY CAN HAVE A SAFER, MORE FUN EXPERIENCE OUT ON THE WATER THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
WHEREAS BOATING SEASON BEGINS, MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WILL BE PARTICIPATING IN RECREATIONAL BOATING.
WHEREAS SAFE BOATING BEGINS WITH PREPARATION.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT EVERYONE IS AWARE OF THE POTENTIALLY LIFE-SAVING PROCEDURES BEFORE BOATING, INCLUDING CARRYING, LIFESAVING EMERGENCY DISTRESS AND COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT, WEARING LIFE JACKETS, ATTENDING SAFE BOATING COURSES, PARTICIPATING AND FREE BOAT SAFETY CHECKS, AND STAYING SOBER WHEN NAVIGATING.
[01:00:04]
THEREFORE, WE, THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM MAY 20TH THROUGH MAY 26TH, 2023 AS NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK.IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON, I'D ENCOURAGE BOATERS TO BOAT RESPONSIBLY AND TAKE EXTRA PRECAUTION THIS BOATING SEASON TO KEEP NOT ONLY YOURSELF, BUT OTHER BOATERS SAFE.
TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES BY MY HAND AND SEAL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023, SIGNED BY DR. CRAIG BROWN, MAYOR JANELLE WILLIAMS, CITY SECRETARY.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT WE ARE HERE FOR THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON.
THIS IS THE LARGEST SHIPPING AREA IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT IT'S ALSO ONE OF THE LARGEST RECREATIONAL BOATING AREAS IN OUR JOBS TO HELP KEEP IT SAFE. THANK YOU.
>> NATIONAL BEACH SAFETY WEEK PROCLAMATION COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB.
WHEREAS THE BEAUTIFUL COASTAL ISLAND BEACHES OF TEXAS REPRESENT A WORLD RENOWN RECREATIONAL SORES, AND WHEREAS TEXAS AND VISITORS ALIKE ARE DRAWN TO THESE BEACHES BY THE MILLIONS EACH YEAR FOR WATER AND BEACH ACTIVITIES.
WHEREAS THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT HAS DANGERS THAT CAN BE EFFECTIVELY MANAGED THROUGH PUBLIC AWARENESS AND VIGILANCE OF PROFESSIONAL LIFE GUARDS.
WHEREAS FOR REASONS OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND ANNUAL REMINDERS OF THE JOYS AND HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT ARE APPROPRIATE AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSY SUMMER BEACH SESSION.
WHEREAS TEXANS AND VISITORS ALIKE MUST REMEMBER TO LEARN TO SWIM, WEAR A LIFE JACKET, ENTER THE WATER FEET FIRST.
SWIM WITH A BUDDY, A BAY POSTED SIGNS AND FLUX.
LEARN ABOUT RIP CURRENTS BECAUSE WE'RE ALMOST ALWAYS SEND A WARNING EVERY DAY.
USE SUNSCREEN, DRINK WATER, AND KEEP THE BEACH AND WATER CLEAN.
THEREFORE, WE, THE MARIN CITY COUNCIL, OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM MAY 29TH THROUGH JUNE 5TH AS NATIONAL BEACH SAFETY WEEK, IN TEXAS AND URGE ALL RESIDENTS USING OUR BEACHES TO ENJOY THEMSELVES AT THE BEACH THIS YEAR WHILE TAKING APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES AND THEIR CHILDREN, AND TESTIMONY, WHEREAS WITNESSED BY THE MAYOR'S HAND WITH THE SALES CITY OF GALVESTON, CRAIG BROWN JANELLE WILLIAMS, CITY SECRETARY. THANK YOU.
>> MAYOR COUNCIL MR. MAXWELL, I JUST WANT THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND THIS I ALSO WANTED TO JUST MENTION BRIEFLY THAT WE'RE A PART OF A SAFETY NET THAT TAKES CARE OF THE BEACHES.
THE BEACH PATROL COULDN'T POSSIBLY DO THAT ALONE.
ARE PARTNERS WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT ARE HERE, THEY'RE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THAT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND HELPS IMMENSELY JAMAICA BEACH FIRE AND RESCUE.
ALL THE GAUSS MARINE RESPONSE PARTNERS AND OUR VOLUNTEER GROUPS WITH A SURVIVOR SUPPORT NETWORK AND WEIGHT WATCHERS ARE CRITICAL PIECES TO THIS.
BUT YOU ALSO ARE AS, AS THE MEDIA, AS IS THE COMMUNITY OF GALVESTON BECAUSE REALLY WE'RE CREATING AN AWARENESS OF HOW TO STAY SAFE WHEN YOU'RE GONE THE WATER, WHEN YOU DO THIS, SO WITH 8.1 MILLION PEOPLE THAT CAME TO OUR ISLAND LAST YEAR, WITH US EXPECTING 500,000 PEOPLE HERE THIS WEEKEND.
WE NEED EVERY LITTLE PIECE OF SUPPORT WE CAN GET AND I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE TO HELP WITH THAT. THANK YOU.
>> BEACHES LOOK LIKE THEY DID TODAY.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE PEOPLE DOWN HERE.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT IS AMAZING UP THERE. LOOK BEAUTIFUL.
[01:05:04]
>> OUR NEXT IS PROCLAMATION HONORING JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH. LET ME COME DOWN.
[BACKGROUND] JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH HAS ITS ORIGINS IN 1980 WHEN CONGRESS PASSED A RESOLUTION WHICH AUTHORIZED AND REQUESTED THE PRESIDENT TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 21ST THROUGH APRIL 28TH, 1980 AS JEWISH HERITAGE WEEK.
THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY DATES BACK TO 1654, WHEN A GROUP OF 23 JEWS FLEEING PERSECUTION AT THE HANDS OF THE PORTUGUESE INQUISITION FLED BRAZIL AND FOUND REFUGE IN NEW AMSTERDAM, NOW NEW YORK.
FROM THAT TINY GROUP, THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMUNITY, HAS GROWN TO OVER SIX MILLION, REPRESENTING APPROXIMATELY 2% OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION TODAY.
OVER THE PAST 369 YEARS, JEWISH AMERICANS HAVE GIVEN TO THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THIS NATION AS LOYAL AND PATRIOTIC CITIZENS, ALWAYS GRATEFUL FOR THE SAFE HARBOR THAT AMERICA PROVIDED FOR THEM.
AMERICAN JEWS HAVE ALWAYS PUSHED AMERICA TO LIVE UP TO ITS PROMISE AS A NATION THAT UPHOLDS FREEDOM AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
THE STRENGTH OF SOCIETY CAN BE MEASURED BY HOW THEY PROTECT THEIR MINORITY POPULATIONS AND CELEBRATE THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS.
IT IS ALTOGETHER FITTING FOR THE US TO ONCE AGAIN MARK MAY AS JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH.
NOW, THEREFORE, WE THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM MAY 2023 AS JEWISH AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH IN OUR GREAT CITY.
I CALL UPON ALL CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF OUR STATE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HERITAGE AND CONTRIBUTION OF JEWISH AMERICANS AND TO OBSERVE THIS MONTH WITH APPROPRIATE PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES, AND CEREMONIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE]
>> LET'S DO A PHOTO OP AND THEN WE'LL HAVE YOU SAY A FEW WORDS.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS SHRUB KEMPNER.
I'M A CITIZEN. I ALSO HAPPEN TO BE JEWISH.
IT IS NOT JUST THE UNITED STATES BUT GALVESTON THAT HAS BENEFITED, I THINK, FROM OUR POPULATION.
REALLY, SINCE THE BEGINNING WE'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN MEDICINE, LEGAL, COMMERCIAL, EDUCATIONAL, GENERIC STUFF IN THE CITY AND IN POLITICS.
MOST EXPLICITLY SINCE 1900 AND THE COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT, THERE HAVE BEEN DOZENS OF JEWISH MEN AND WOMEN WHO HAVE SERVED IN THE CITY COUNCILS AND ON THE COMMISSIONERS COURT OF GALVESTON.
AT LEAST FIVE MAYORS THAT I CAN REEL OFF.
THE FIRST WOMAN EVER TO BE ELECTED TO ANY GALVESTON GOVERNING BOARD WAS ALSO JEWISH.
BUT I WANT TO NOTE THAT THOSE WERE ELECTED.
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO THANK YOU FOR, YOU THE CITY.
GALVESTON IN IT'S COSMOPOLITAN TOLERATION OF DIFFERENT SINCE 1900, TREATS PEOPLE LARGELY AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT AS PART OF A GROUP AND NOT AS A STEREOTYPE.
IT HAS BEEN REMARKABLE HOW MUCH THAT HAPPENS HERE.
THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO THANK YOU FOR.
IT HAS NOT BEEN EASY, IT HAS BEEN A STRUGGLE.
IT IS NOT PERFECT, IT'S NOT NIRVANA.
[01:10:02]
BUT IT IS BETTER HERE THAN I BELIEVE IT IS IN MANY, MANY OTHER PARTS OF THIS COUNTRY AND UNCERTAINLY OF THIS WORLD.MAYOR AND COUNCIL, LET'S KEEP UP THE STRUGGLE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
CITY MANAGER AND ADMINISTRATION, THE SAME.
PEOPLE HERE ASSEMBLED, CITIZENS OF GALVESTON, PLEASE KEEP UP THE STRUGGLE TO MAINTAIN THIS, NOT ONLY FOR US, BUT FOR EVERY OTHER SMALL AND LARGE MINORITY GROUP IN THE COUNTRY, IN THE CITY.
>> WE NOW HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER FINKELELY.
HE'LL READ THE PROCLAMATION FOR MENTAL HEALTH MONTH.
>> THERE'S CONNIE HARRIS BANKS.
CITY OF GALVESTON PROCLAMATION.
WHEREAS ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA SORORITY INCORPORATED ADVOCACY AGENDA ADDRESSES THE CRISIS OF SUICIDE AMONGST BLACK YOUTH, WHEREAS THE SUICIDE DEATH RATE AMONG BLACK YOUTH HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE INCREASING FASTER THAN ANY OTHER RACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUP, ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA SORORITY INCORPORATED ADVOCATES FOR FUNDING, SERVICES, RESOURCES, AND RESEARCH REGARDING THE CRISIS OF BLACK YOUTH SUICIDE.
WHEREAS MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES ARE SOME OF THE MOST COMMON HEALTH PROBLEMS IN THE UNITED STATES, WITH THE CDC PROJECTING THAT MORE THAN 50% OF THE POPULATION WILL BE DIAGNOSED WITH A MENTAL ILLNESS AT SOME POINT IN LIFE.
WHEREAS ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA SORORITY INCORPORATED WILL FACILITATE CONVERSATIONS AND EDUCATION AROUND THE TOPICS OF TRAUMA, ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, TEENS, YOUTH, ADULT, AND FAMILIES AND WHEREAS ALPHA KAPPA ALPHA SORORITY INCORPORATED BETA PHI OMEGA CHAPTER OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AND DR. MONICA E ALHARAZIM, PHD, LPCS, AND CRC, WILL PRESENT YOUR MENTAL HEALTH MATTERS ON SATURDAY, MAY 20TH, 2023, FROM TWO O'CLOCK TO THREE O'CLOCK.
THEREFORE, WE, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM MAY 2023 AS MENTAL HEALTH MONTH IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF WITNESSED MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023.
HONORABLE DR. CRAIG BROWN, MAYOR, JANELLE WILLIAMS, CITY SECRETARY.
>> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] I GET IT, I NAVIGATE THIS.
THANK THOSE PERSONS WHO VOTED FOR THE TWO.
WHAT I WANTED TO SAY IS THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCIL FOR THIS PRESTIGE.
I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT ALSO JUST ONLY AMONG AFRICAN AMERICANS, BUT AS WE KNOW, WE SAW YOUR COMMENT TODAY ABOUT THE HOMELESS IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
WE NEED TO DO MORE THAN WE CAN TO HELP THE HOMELESS AND ALL FOLK WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM MENTAL HEALTH AND I THANK YOU FOR THE RECOGNITION.
I LIKE TO INTRODUCE OUR PRESIDENT, CRYSTAL DELANEY, MRS. DELANEY, AND ONE OF OUR MEMBERS, MRS. O'NEIL, MISS KARI O'NEILL AND SO THANK YOU AGAIN, I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE LISTENING TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> SO NICE TO SEE YOU, CORNELIA. [LAUGHTER]
>> TURN AROUND. LET ME FIGURE THIS OUT.
>> THOSE OF US WHO HAVE LEARNED SOMETIMES YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT SITUATION YOU'LL BE IN.
>> THANK YOU TO SEE ALL OF YOU.
[01:15:05]
WE NOW HAVE COUNCILMAN COLLINS WILL BE HONORING THE PUBLIC WORKS, FIRST RESPONDERS.
>> PUBLIC WORKS HERE, BUT I THINK IT'S HOLDING THE DOOR RIGHT NOW.
[NOISE] IF YOU'RE FROM PUBLIC WORKS COME AND JOIN US. WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT.
>> THANKS. GOOD TO SEE YOU FOLKS THERE HE IS COME BACK DOWN HERE.
WHEREAS THE YEAR 2023 MARKS THE 63RD ANNUAL NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK AS SPONSORED BY THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION AND PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES PROVIDED IN OUR COMMUNITY AN INTEGRAL PART OF OUR SAFETY AND WELL-BEING AND WHEREAS FIRST RESPONDERS OFTEN RISKED THEIR OWN SAFETY, TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF OTHERS AND FIRST RESPONDERS ARE THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE AGAINST THREATS AGAINST SAFETY BE THE NATURAL OR MAN-MADE, DOMESTIC OR FOREIGN AND WHEREAS HOMELAND SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL DIRECTIVE 8 DESIGNATES PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES AS FIRST RESPONDERS IN RECOGNITION OF THE VITAL ROLE THEY PLAY IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND THEIR VITAL ROLE IS ROUTINELY SELF-EVIDENT IN GALVESTON AS WEATHER-RELATED EMERGENCIES ARE BECOMING EVERMORE FREQUENTLY.
THEREFORE, WE, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF MAY 21ST TO 27, 2023 AS PUBLIC WORKS AS FIRST RESPONDERS WEEK.
HERE IN TESTIMONY WHERE I'VE WITNESSED MY HAND IN THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023, SINE CRAIG BROWN MAYOR, AND JANELLE WILLIAMS CITY SECRETARY.
I THINK EVERYBODY CAN AGREE IN GALVESTON, PUBLIC WORKS IS FIRST RESPONSE WHEN A STORM HITS.
I'M BEEN A BIG SUPPORTER OF YOU GUYS, YOUR STAFF, AND ALL THE WORK YOU DO FOR US.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, THE PUBLIC DOESN'T APPRECIATE YOU NEARLY ENOUGH.
>> CAN YOU ALL COME UP BEHIND COUNCIL TO GET THE PICTURE PLEASE?
>> COME ALL BEHIND COUNCIL TO GET YOUR PICTURE[OVERLAPPING]
>> MAKE A LINE BEHIND COUNCIL WE GET EVERYBODY IN THE PICTURE.
>> WE REALLY DO HAVE THE MOST AMAZING PUBLIC WORKS PEOPLE, AND I DON'T THINK PEOPLE REALIZE THEY WORKED 24/7 SEVEN DAYS A WEEK, 365 DAYS A YEAR, ALL DAY LONG, ALL NIGHT LONG, WHENEVER IT'S NEEDED. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU TRINO, DID YOU WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS OR.
>> I'VE LOST MY VOICE TODAY, PROBABLY FROM SHOUTING AT THE CAVE IN YESTERDAY.
[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU VERY MUCH, WE LOVE THIS CITY, WE LOVE YOUR SUPPORT, WE DO IT ALL FOR YOU AND CITIZENS SO THANK YOU.
>> I'M A LITTLE UPSET THAT TRINO CHOSE TO HAVE ANOTHER ONE OF OUR ALL NIGHT PARTIES WHILE I WAS OUT OF TOWN, I WISH HE WOULD HAVE WAITED FOR ME.
>> HE HAS ALL THE FUN, RIGHT BRIAN? YOU KNOW THAT WE TALK ABOUT UNSUNG HEROES SOMETIMES AND THESE GENTLEMEN AND LADIES THERE ARE THE UNSUNG HEROES HERE IN OUR CITY.
NOW LET'S MOVE TO OUR LAST RECOGNITION.
WE'RE GOING TO BE HONORING IS ITEM 11G ON OUR AGENDA BUT WE'RE HONORING CHRISTOPHER AND
[01:20:03]
CHRISTIAN JOHNSON AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS PROCLAMATION AND THIS RECOGNITION PRESENTED BY YOUR TEACHER, COUNCIL WOMAN LEWIS.>> WOW, WHAT AN HONOR IT IS TO STAND HERE.
I GOT THESE GENTLEMEN AND MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND BOY, THEY WERE SUCH AWESOME STUDENTS AND I'M JUST SO GLAD TO SEE YOU ALL WITH AN AWESOME MOM WHO ALWAYS KEPT THEM INVOLVED IN THINGS FROM SPORTS TO EVERYTHING IMAGINABLE.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION PRESENTED TO CHRISTOPHER AND KRISTIN JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF O'CONNELL HIGH SCHOOL, FOR DONATING 2,000 TO THE GALVESTON FIRE DEPARTMENT BY RAISING MONEY FOR THEIR SENIOR PROJECT AT O'CONNELL HIGH-SCHOOL.
MONEY WAS RAISED BY SELLING SCHOOL SHOP PROJECTS THAT THEY WORKED ON WHILE ATTENDING SCHOOL.
IN TESTIMONY WHERE I'VE WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, THERE'S 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023, DR. CRAIG BROWN, MAYOR, CITY SECRETARY, JANELLE WILLIAMS. CONGRATULATIONS, AND I AM JUST NOT SURPRISED.
>> CHIEF OLSEN, DID YOU WANT TO SAY THANKS.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR RECOGNIZING THESE TWO YOUNG MAN.
DID YOU NOTICE THEY ALSO HAD FIRE DEPARTMENTS SHIRTS ON.
WE'RE HOPING TO SEE THAT EMINENTLY.
THEY'VE BEEN RIDING WITH OUR TRUCK AS WE ALLOW RIDERS DURING THE DAY TO COME ON TO SEE IF THEY LIKE TO FIRE CAREER.
THEIR GRANDFATHER SERVED LIKE 35-36 YEARS IN THE FIRE SERVICE, AND THEY HAVE DONATED EACH ONE OF THEM $1,000 EACH OUT OF THEIR PROJECT, WHICH HAS GONE BY AN AED AUTOMATIC ELECTRONIC DEFIBRILLATOR THAT WE USE ON THE TRUCKS EVERYDAY TO SAVE LIVES HERE IN GALVESTON.
SO THEIR DONATION IS GOING TO DO IS IT'S GOING TO SAVE AND A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE IN THE FUTURE, WE USUALLY ANYWHERE BETWEEN 4-6 PEOPLE A MONTH, WE USE THEM ON TO SHOCK THEM BACK.
SO THAT'S QUITE. A BIT AND A TESTAMENT TO THEIR MOM WHEREVER SHE MAY BE BACK HERE, SHE'S DONE A GREAT JOB IS TO GET THESE TWO GUYS ARE REALLY GOOD.
NOW, ONE OF THEM IS THINKING ABOUT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT I THINK HE'LL WAKE UP SOON.
NOW EITHER WAY, IT'S A NOBLE PROFESSION AND THEY'LL DO A GREAT JOB HERE, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU-ALL FOR RECOGNIZING A MIRROR.
FUTURE GAUSSIANS IN GOOD HANDS.
I HOPE TO SEE HIM PERMANENTLY RIDING THEM TRUCKS ACROSS THE STREET.
>> THANK YOU, CHIEF. [APPLAUSE]
YOU GOT A COUPLE OF PEOPLE SITTING UP HERE THAT ARE O'CONNELL GRADS, WE'RE PROUD OF YOU, AND A PARENT OF AN O'CONNELL, GRAD.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
VERY GOOD, WE ARE NOW GOT ALL OF OUR PROCLAMATIONS.
COUNCIL IS THERE ANY OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS IN COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO MAKE? YES, SHARON.
>> I LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE JUNE 19TH IS A SPECIAL TIME OF CELEBRATION RIGHT HERE WHERE IT ALL BEGAN IN GALVESTON 1865, THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.
BUT IT'S NOT ONLY ON JUNETEENTH THAT WE'RE CELEBRATING AND THIS IS THE HISTORY OF EVERYONE WITHIN THIS COUNTRY.
THERE ARE LOTS OF ACTIVITIES, SO GO TO VISIT GALVESTON.COM AND YOU CAN PULL UP JUNETEENTH AND THEIR ACTIVITIES THAT EXTEND EVERY MONTH.
SO WE'RE ASKING THAT YOU PLEASE GO TO THE SITE AND CHECK OFF SOME EVENTS AND ATTEND THEM. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SHARON VERY MUCH.
BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS TOPIC, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT.
OUR CITY MANAGER HAS BEEN GONE ON VACATION.
BRIAN, I WOULD JUST WANT TO SAY WE'RE GLAD TO HAVE YOU BACK.
I WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK DAN BUCKLEY.
[01:25:04]
I TELL YOU HE WORKED VERY, VERY HARD WHEN YOU WERE GONE.A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY DON'T REALIZE WHAT OUR CITY MANAGER AND DEBT B CITY MANAGER DO.
BUT IT'S A 2047 TYPE JOB AND I WANTED TO JUST COMMEND DAN, HE DID A SUPERB JOB WHILE YOU WERE GONE.
VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 7, PLEASE.
[7. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS]
>> ITEMS 7, COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS CLAIMS 23-033 THROUGH 23-043 ARE ON THE SCREEN.
>> VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 88 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.
[8.A 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 Multi-Family Residential Development On Property Commonly Known As 7228 Jones Road, 7224 Jones Road, 2315 72nd Street, And Adjacent Parcel, And Which Is Legally Described As Abstract 121 Page 78, Lots 7-12, Block 4, Magnolia Park Subdivision; And Abstract 121 Page 78 Part Of Lot 122 (122-8), Trimble And Lindsey Section 1, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Planning Case Number 23P-027; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject; And Providing For An Effective Date. (D. Lunsford)]
>> ITEM 88 CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAID ZONING DISTRICT IN A RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 7228 JONES ROAD, 7224 JONES ROAD, 2315 72ND STREET AND ADJACENT PARCEL, WHICH IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS ABSTRACT ONE-TO-ONE PAGE 78, LOTS 7-12 BLOCK 4.
MAGNOLIA PARK SUBDIVISION AND ABSTRACT ONE-TO-ONE PAGE 78, PART OF BLOCK 122, TRIMBLE AND LINDSAY SECTION ONE.
IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, PLANNING CASE NUMBER 23P-027, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
DANIEL. GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS REQUEST IS TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT AND RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY R1 BASED ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW NEW TWO-STOREY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WOULD BE LOCATED OVER COVERED PARKING.
A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 35 DWELLING UNITS IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH CURRENTLY INCLUDES A NUMBER OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS.
HOWEVER, AS A PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY ZONED FOR NEW MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY IS REQUESTED.
NOTE THIS REQUEST WAS PREVIOUSLY PROVED AN ORDINANCE 21-013, HOWEVER, IS THAT APPROVAL HAS EXPIRED.
OTHER REQUEST IS BEING PRESENTED AGAIN.
BOTH STAFF AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS INCLUDE IN COUNCIL STAFF REPORT, AND WE DO HAVE A FEW VERY QUICK LITTLE OVERVIEW PHOTOS HERE OF THE PROJECT.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, DANIEL VERY MUCH.
IT'S KIND OF A REDO OF SOMETHING WE'VE HAD IN 21. VERY GOOD.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LUNSFORD? IT'S 6:27 PM I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS COME FORWARD? YES, MA'AM.
>> HI, MY NAME IS PAM CHRISTENSEN AND I LIVE AT THE END OF 73RD STREET ON THE NORTH SIDE.
WHEN THE DEVELOPER SUBMITTED THIS REQUEST TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A PUD, IT ALLOWED THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW IT AND CIRCUMVENTING THE GENUINE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IF IT WAS ACTUALLY A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST.
THIS REALLY BOILS DOWN TO ITS SPOT ZONING AND IT REALLY SHOULDN'T HAPPEN.
COUNCIL HAS THIS AREA ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS, AND IT SHOULD BE HONORED.
IT WAS ARGUED THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPLEX WOULD MEET THE OBJECTIVE FROM 2011, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ED1.5, WHICH IS FACILITATING THE DEVELOPMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING.
I ARGUE THAT INDEED IT WILL NOT SUPPORT WORKFORCE HOUSING BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T INCLUDE WORKERS THAT HAVE FAMILIES.
OUR OWN FIRST RESPONDERS DO NOT LIVE ON THIS ISLAND BECAUSE THERE'S NOT AN AFFORDABLE HOME.
IF WE WANT TO ATTRACT WORKFORCE THAT WILL TRULY PUT DOWN ROOTS, WE NEED TO GIVE THEM A YARD.
THE AREA IS ZONE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS, AND IT SHOULD REMAIN SO.
THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE SUGGESTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPLEX WILL MEET THE OBJECTIVE LU-3, WHICH IS TO PROTECT, STABILIZE, AND REVITALIZE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROMOTE THE CREATION OF NEW NEIGHBORHOODS.
THE INSERTION OF A MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX INTO AN AREA ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS WILL NOT MEET ANY OF THOSE OBJECTIVES.
IN FACT, IN MY OPINION, IT IS CONTRARY TO ALL OF THOSE OBJECTIVES.
IT'S ARGUED THAT THE PUD WOULD BE APPROVED AS THE PROPOSED SITE IS ALREADY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
BETWEEN JONES ROAD AND THE BAYOU FROM 71ST TO 73RD STREET, THERE ARE 942 APARTMENT UNITS.
DO WE REALLY NEED MORE? YOU EXPAND THAT AREA TO 61ST THROUGH 81ST STREET, SEAWALL TO THE BAYOU AND YOU NOW HAVE 3,008 APARTMENT UNITS.
[01:30:04]
YOU ADD CONDOMINIUMS INTO THAT MIX THAT ARE USED PRIMARILY AS APARTMENTS, AND YOU HAVE 4,345 UNITS.IF YOU CONSIDER THAT THERE'S A 90% OCCUPANCY RATE WHICH WOULD BE A STRETCH, YOU HAVE OVER 400 AVAILABLE UNITS IN THAT AREA.
PLUS THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION GOING IN PLACE ON 81ST IN STEWART.
IS THE NEED FOR APARTMENT HOUSING SO GREAT THAT THE COUNCIL WILL ELECT TO ELIMINATE SPACE ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES.
I WOULD HOPE THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS ITEM?
>> I'M MARY NELSON. THE ADDITION OF EVEN A SMALL APARTMENT COMPLEX AT THIS SIDE WILL HAVE A SERIOUS IMPACT ON ALREADY PROBLEMATIC TRAFFIC ISSUES.
JONES ROAD, 73RD STREET, AND HERD'S LANE BECOME HEAVILY CONGESTED, PARTICULARLY ON WEEKENDS DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS AND WITH EVENTS AT MOODY GARDENS.
THE AREA IS ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES AND SHOULD REMAIN SO. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE?
>> MAYOR COUNCIL, MY NAME IS JOE MILLAY AND I LIVE ON 73RD STREET.
CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX WILL CONTRIBUTE INCREASE FLOODING TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
PRESENTLY, THERE ARE SUBSTANTIAL STREET FLOODING WITH THE SLIGHTEST OF RAIN ON STREETS THAT RUN NORTH AND SOUTH BETWEEN JONES DRIVE AND HERD'S LANE.
WHEN IT'S RAINING, FAMILIES IN THIS AREA CANNOT LEAVE THEIR HOME UNLESS THEY HAVE A HIGH VEHICLE.
THE AREA SHOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY ONLY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE?
>> I AM AWARE OF PROPERTIES, THAT IN MY HONEST OPINION, WOULD BE BETTER FOR THIS, AND ALSO AWARE OF A WORKFORCE THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO, AND IN FACT, I'M GRATEFUL TO HAVE A CHANCE TO BE A PART OF THIS AND ALSO OFFER A BETTER SOLUTION FOR ISSUES THAT INVOLVE OUR COMMUNITY AND AFFECT OUR FAMILIES OUT HERE.
I BELIEVE THAT A PROPOSAL IN A DIFFERENT AREA WOULD BE A BETTER IDEA FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
>> THANK YOU. WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN, SIR?
>> GOOD. I THINK I HAVE A FORM ON YOU.
YES, SIR. ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS COME FORWARD.
>> HI, COUNCIL, MY NAME IS CHERINDA ROLICS.
I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE OWNER TO HELP MAKE THESE PLANS AND DEVELOP THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE ANALYZED THIS PROPERTY TO TAKE FOUR LOTS AND MAKE IT INTO ONE, SPECIFICALLY TO INCREASE THE DENSITY WHICH THE CITY DIRECTLY NEEDS.
THE OWNER HIMSELF HAS BOUGHT UP THESE PROPERTIES OVER TIME TO DEVELOP FOLLOWING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LAND BANKS, AND HE WANTS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE TYPES OF HOMES AND THIS TYPE OF DOMICILE ON THE ISLAND, AS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES COME AT A HIGHER COST.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORDS SPOKEN ABOUT DETENTION, BUT ONE OF THE FEATURES ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE THAT WE HAVE AN UNDERGROUND DETENTION, SO WATER WILL ACTUALLY FLOW ONTO THE PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD WANT TO REMARK ON THIS? HOW ARE YOU, SIR?
>> GOOD. MY NAME IS RICKY MORALES.
I'M A POI, LIVED HERE FOR 57 YEARS.
[01:35:01]
I GUESS, 2008, I STARTED PURCHASING ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES ONE AT A TIME, AND AS I GOT CLOSER TO GETTING THE NEXT ONE AND GOT MORE EXCITED, AND EVENTUALLY I GOT THE LAST PIECE.I HAD IT IN MIND IF I EVER GOT ALL OF THE PIECES OF PROPERTY, I WAS GOING TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THAT WAS AFFORDABLE AND IT WOULD BE ATTRACTIVE AND SOMETHING TO BE PLEASANT TO LOOK AT AS YOU VENTURE OFF TOWARDS MOODY GARDENS, AND I FINALLY ACHIEVED IT.
MY MOM ALWAYS TOLD ME WHEN I WAS YOUNG IF YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING, YOU GOT TO GO AFTER IT, AND SO THAT'S WHAT I DID.
SHE SAID PROPERTY WAS THE WAY TO GO.
I THINK I PURCHASED MY FIRST PROPERTY WHEN I WAS 24 YEARS OLD, AND OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, I ACQUIRED ABOUT 20 DIFFERENT PROPERTIES, SOME BEING SMALL APARTMENT COMPLEXES, SO I GOT REALLY GOOD AT MANAGING THEM AND SCREENING MY TENANTS, GETTING GOOD TENANTS, AND ABLE TO CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS THERE.
I THINK THIS PROJECT WILL BE GOOD FOR GALVESTON.
IT'LL GIVE PEOPLE ACCESS TO SOMETHING THAT IS AFFORDABLE.
A SINGLE-FAMILY WELL, IT'S GOING TO COST A LOT MORE TO RENT THAN IT WOULD BE A MULTI-FAMILY SETUP AND I'M JUST EXCITED.
IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO GET TO THIS POINT, AND HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL GET APPROVED AND I COULD ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING BIG.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, APPRECIATE IT.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE? I HAVE A FORM HERE FROM A CAROLINE REBAGO THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.
I'M NOT FORCING YOU TO COME UP, MS. REBAGO.
[LAUGHTER] DID YOU WANT TO SAY A COMMENT?
>> WELL, JUST FOR THE RECORD, MRS. REBAGO IS TALKING FROM THE AUDIENCE AND SHE DID SIGN A FORM AND WANTS TO OPPOSE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
VERY GOOD. ANYONE ELSE? IT IS 6:37 PM.
I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 88.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. I DIDN'T SEE THEY OPPOSED WHAT THEY SAID, I DIDN'T SEE IT IN HERE.
IS IT IN HERE? THEY HAVE ONE THAT WAS IN FAVOR AND THREE OPPOSED.
>> IS IT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THOSE THREE WHO OPPOSED IT?
>> GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE BELIEVE FELLOW PLANNER, KARINA WOULD SEND THOSE OUT.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE WAS ONE PERSON WHO WAS IN SUPPORT TO THIS POINT.
WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO IS WE SEND OUT FIRST SIGN OF NOTICES AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAGE, AND I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OF THE PLANNING RECEIVED SINCE THEN, BUT OF COURSE, OTHER FOLKS CAN COME UP IN THE MEANTIME AND SAY THEIR PIECE AS WELL.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT THEY SAID.
I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT THEY SAID. THAT'S ALL.
>> I'M NOT SURE. DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED? I THINK SHE WAS ASKING WHAT THE COMMENTS WERE ON THE RESPONSES YOU DID RECEIVE.
>> I'M AFRAID I DON'T HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF ME, I APOLOGIZE.
>> VERY GOOD. IF WE DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. LUNSFORD, I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, COUNCIL?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS.
THIS CASE HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF US BEFORE, IT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY, AND THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR A TIME EXTENSION ON THIS.
I FEEL THAT BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY THAT WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO MOVE DOWN THAT PATH.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI, IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT?
>> HAVE SECOND IT FROM COUNCILMAN FINKLEA.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION COUNCIL? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.
>> THAT IS UNANIMOUS, BUT FOR ABSTENTION FROM COUNCILMAN BOUVIER, HE IS NOT PRESENT.
VERY GOOD. WE'RE NOW MOVING TO OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION.
[9. PUBLIC COMMENT]
I ONLY HAVE TWO FORMS HERE TO READ FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO DO PUBLIC COMMENT,[01:40:01]
AND WOULD BE FITTING TO START WITH SHEILA BELLE. SHEILA?>> HELLO, EVERYONE. HOW ARE YOU ALL DOING?
>> GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY'S STILL HERE IN THE LAND OF THE LIVING, GOOD TO SEE YOU [LAUGHTER] I WANTED TO SAY, FIRST OF ALL, CITY COUNCIL MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, MR. BRIAN MAXWELL, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE.
JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.
THANK YOU. GOT A LOT OF THINGS TO SAY.
ALL THIS DEBT CEILING, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT'S PROPHESIED IN DANIEL CHAPTER 2.
THE GOLD, THE SILVER, THE BRASS, THE IRON, WERE ALL DENOMINATIONS OF US CURRENCY.
WHAT THE BIBLE IS DESCRIBING IS A MASSIVE WORLD ECONOMY THAT THE US HEADS, DANIEL 2:38, I BELIEVE AND THEN IT SAYS IT'S GOING TO ALL CRUMBLE NOW.
IF YOU KNOW SOMEBODY IMPORTANT, FAMOUS, IN GOVERNMENT, GIVE THEM A CALL BECAUSE IF THIS HAPPENS, THE US WILL NOT RECOVER FROM IT.
WE'RE A TOURIST TOWN, WE DON'T WANT THAT.
YOU ALL MAKE YOUR PHONE CALLS.
THEY'VE GOT TO FIX THAT. THEY HAVE TO FIX IT.
HAD A MEETING IN 2021 WITH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
ABOUT TORNADOES AND [NOISE] I GOT SOME STUFF TO TELL YOU ALL.
BUT YOU KNOW I DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO TELL YOU.
YOU KNOW THAT ALREADY. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT EVERY TORNADO HAS A DIRTY SIDE, JUST LIKE HURRICANES.
BUT YOU KNOW I DON'T HAVE TIME TO TELL YOU.
I TALKED A LOT WITH HIM ABOUT TORNADOES, METEOROLOGISTS, YOU'RE ALL MISSING THE MAGNETIC PART OF IT.
YOU'RE ALL MISSING THE CURRENT PART OF IT.
A TORNADO IS A LIVE CURRENT. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
GOD, EXPLAINED THAT TO ME SO WELL, IT WOULD JUST BLOW YOUR MIND IF YOU HEARD WHAT HE HAD TO SAY.
BUT OF COURSE, I DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO TELL YOU BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MUCH TIME.
FOOD AND WATER. MAKE SURE YOU STOCK UP ON FOOD AND WATER.
NOW, THE LORD SHOWED ME IN 2012 A VISION ABOUT CHINA.
THEY'RE NOT DONE. CHINA'S NOT DONE. IT WAS WORSE.
IT WAS HORRIBLE. IT WAS HORRIFIC.
I CAN'T TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, BUT, GOD TOLD ME TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS TO HAVE DUCK TAPE.
THEY'RE GOING TO LET CHEMICALS OUT AGAIN.
YOU NEED IT FOR YOUR WINDOWS AND YOUR DOORS.
KEEP UP ON FOOD AND WATER, THERE WILL BE MARTIAL ART AND A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS.
CHINA'S DANIEL 7 AND 4, IT'S THE BEAR.
IT'S A PANDA BEAR PROPHETICALLY.
I WRITE BOOKS ON PROPHECIES LEST, THAT'S WHERE THEY COME FROM.
ANOTHER THING, YOU ALL JUST BE SWEET TO EACH OTHER THIS WEEKEND.
DON'T BE SPEEDING ALL DOWN THE SEAWALL.
THEY WERE ABOUT TO BE NICE. WE DON'T WANT YOU ALL GETTING TICKETS NOW, COMING DOWN HERE.
EVERYBODY ENJOY YOUR FAMILIES, LOVE EACH OTHER, AND I'M TRYING TO SEE IF I MISSED SOMETHING HERE.
MOVIES, BLACKOUT, HIGH WATER, DAILY BREAD AND DRAGON DAY.
ALL THIS STUFF I TALK ABOUT, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MAKING MOVIES ABOUT AND YOU KNOW THEY'RE GETTING IT FROM THE BIBLE.
THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE GETTING IT FROM. GOD BLESS.
THANKS, SHEILA. MY LAST FORM HERE IS TONY LYLE. TONY.
>> GOOD EVENING. MAYOR BROWN, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, MR. MAXWELL, I'M TONY LYLE FOR THE RECORD.
I'M HERE TONIGHT TO INTRODUCE MYSELF AS THE NEW CHIEF TOURISM OFFICER FOR THE PARK BOARD TOURIST DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THE CVB VISIT GALVESTON.
I'M FOUR WEEKS INTO THE JOB, AND I COME TO YOU FROM LAKE TAHOE WHERE I WORK FOR THE LAKE TAHOE VISITORS AUTHORITY FOR NEARLY 11 YEARS, CLOSING OUT AS THEIR CHIEF MARKETING OFFICER.
I HAVE BEEN IN THE US FOR 25 YEARS.
I HAVE BEEN IN THE TOURISM INDUSTRY FOR OVER 30, I BECAME AN AMERICAN CITIZEN LAST YEAR.
I'M LIVING HERE ON THE ISLAND, I'M ACTUALLY MOVING TO PERMANENT ACCOMMODATIONS THIS WEEKEND, MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND.
GOOD TIME TO MOVE, BUT DOWN ON THE WESTSIDE.
THAT'S WHERE I AM. A LITTLE UPDATE FOR YOU.
MYSELF AND TWO OF MY COWORKERS, SHAWN, AND DOTTIE, WHO YOU MAY KNOW, HAVE JUST GOT BACK THIS AFTERNOON FROM SAN ANTONIO WHERE WE ATTENDED THE US TRAVEL ASSOCIATION'S ANNUAL IPW EVENT.
IT'S A MEETING OF TRAVEL TRADE PROFESSIONALS.
THERE WAS OVER 5,000 ATTENDEES FROM 60 COUNTRIES,
[01:45:01]
INCLUDING 1,400 INTERNATIONAL DELEGATES.TRAVEL TRADE IN THIS CONTEXT IS THIRD PARTY VENDORS OF TRAVEL.
TOUR OPERATORS, TRAVEL AGENTS BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY.
WE WERE WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH VISIT HOUSTON AND TRAVEL TEXAS, SPEAKING TO ALL THESE PROFESSIONALS PROMOTING GALVESTON.
LASTLY, I KNOW LATER IN YOUR AGENDA, UNFORTUNATELY I CAN'T STAY FOR IT.
I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION, AND I'M VERY HOPEFUL THAT YOU'LL GRACIOUSLY APPOINT ME TO THAT, SO I CAN SERVE ON THAT COMMISSION.
>> TONY IT'S SO NICE TO MEET YOU AND THANK YOU FOR INTRODUCING YOURSELF.
I WOULD SAY THIS. HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN IN THE UNITED STATES?
>> I BET YOUR ACCENT WAS PRETTY THICK AFTER 25 YEARS, YOU STILL HAVE SOME.
>> YES, I'M TOO OLD IN THE TOOTH FOR IT TO CHANGE.
>> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU, TONY.
>> WE HAVE NOW OCCLUDED OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION.
LET'S MOVE NOW TO ITEM 10.C, PLEASE.
[10.C Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending "The Code Of The City Of Galveston 1982, As Amended”, Chapter 19, “Licenses, Permits And Business Regulations,” Article Viii. “Long Term Paid Parking”; Adjusting A Fee To Be Paid By Operators Of Vehicles Parked In Excess Of Forty-Eight Hours In Certain Long Term Parking Facilities; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject; Providing For An Effective Date. (Legal)]
>> ITEM 10.C, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, 1982 AS AMENDED CHAPTER 19, LICENSES, PERMITS, AND BUSINESS REGULATIONS.
ARTICLE 8, LONG-TERM PAID PARKING.
ADJUSTING A FEE TO BE PAID BY OPERATORS OF VEHICLES PARKED IN EXCESS OF 48 HOURS IN CERTAIN LONG-TERM PARKING FACILITIES, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> MR. MAYOR. YOU'LL RECALL FEW MONTHS AGO WE PASSED THIS ORDINANCE FOR LONG-TERM PARKING, REQUIRING THEM TO REGISTER AND PAY A FEE.
THIS AMENDMENT IS AN ADJUSTMENT OF THAT FEE.
THE FEE AS IT WAS, WAS THEY COULD COLLECT $1.15 AND THEY COULD RETAIN 10% OF THAT AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE FOR COLLECTING IT.
THAT WAS AN AWKWARD 3.5 CENTS.
IT ALSO WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION THAT SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO COLLECT IT IF THEY HAD THE OPTION BECAUSE IT MIGHT NOT BE WORTH IT TO THEM, AND THEY MIGHT RATHER JUST CHARGE $1 THAN $1.15.
THE CHANGE HERE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO CHOOSE, THEY COULD EITHER CHARGE $1.15 AND RETAIN 15 CENTS MAKING IT AN EVEN DOLLAR, OR THEY COULD JUST CHARGE A $1.
BUT EITHER WAY, IT WOULD BE A $1 FOR THE CITY PER FEE, PER SPACE PER DAY.
>> CORRECT. THANK YOU, TREVOR.
>> THIS WAS ON MY LIST THIS MORNING.
IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO COLLECT THIS AND REMIT THE PAYMENT?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD BE, BUT THIS GIVES THEM THE OPTION TO DO THAT OR NOT.
IT'S HARD TO SAY INDIVIDUALLY, THEY MAY OR MAY NOT FIND IT WORTH IT, BUT THIS GIVES THEM THE OPTION IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.
>> DO THEY PAY SALES TAX ON PARKING FEES CURRENTLY?
>> WE DON'T MAKE THAT A NICE EVEN NUMBER, DO WE?
>> NO. BUT THAT WOULD GO FOR WHATEVER THE WHOLE NUMBER IS THAT THEY'RE CHARGING THEIR CUSTOMER.
>> DO WE REALLY WANT TO HAVE ONE PERSON CHARGING LESS MONEY THAN THE OTHER, IF THEY CHOOSE TO NOT TAKE THEIR 10%?
>> THAT COULD BE A CHOICE FOR THEM TO MAKE.
I DON'T KNOW IF $0.15 PER DAY WOULD BE ENOUGH OR NOT FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE A BUSINESS DECISION OF WHERE TO PARK, IT WILL GIVE THEM THE CHOICE.
>> WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THIS ONE DOLLAR VERSUS $1.15? DID SOMEONE REQUEST THIS THAT WE NOT BURDEN THEM WITH COLLECTING AND RETAINING THE $0.15?
>> DURING OUR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PORT OVER THE ADMINISTRATION OF THIS, THEY DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE WORTH IT FOR THEM TO COLLECT IT SO THEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT IT, TALKING ABOUT IT AGAIN AND THAT'S WHERE IT CAME FROM.
>> THIS SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF MICRO MANAGEMENT IN TERMS OF HOW A VENDOR ESTABLISHES WHATEVER DAILY RATE THAT THEY CHOOSE TO CHARGE.
IT SEEMS LIKE THE INTENT IS THAT YOU'RE JUST LOOKING FOR A DOLLAR BACK TO THE CITY PER DAY FOR LONG-TERM PARKING, CORRECT?
>> WHY DO WE NEED THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE AND CLARIFICATION? IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE STEPPING INTO SOMEBODY'S BUSINESS IN TERMS OF HOW THEY CALCULATE WHATEVER RATE THEY CHOOSE TO CHARGE?
>> I THINK [OVERLAPPING] I CAN ANSWER THAT.
[01:50:04]
>> GO AHEAD, CRAIG, YOU'RE ON. I'LL LET YOU DO THAT.
>> WELL, THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS NOW THAT THEY HAVE TO REMIT OR THEY SEND A DOLLAR TO THE CITY AND $0.15 THEY KEEP TO THEMSELVES.
>> THE IDEA IS IT'S THE PEOPLE PAYING FOR THE PARKING SPACE WHO ARE PAYING THIS FEE, BUT THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE LOT IS COLLECTING IT TO BE PAID TO THE CITY.
ADMINISTRATIVELY, THEY'RE DOING THAT PORTION AND SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO UTILIZE SOME MONEY IF THEY CHOOSE TO HELP REIMBURSE THEM FOR THAT.
>> THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE IT WAS MANDATORY TO DO THIS, THE $0.15 EXTRA.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. WELL, IT WAS 10%.
>> TEN PERCENT. THEN NOW IT GIVES THEM THE OPTION AS LONG AS THE CITY GETS THEIR DOLLAR, THEN IT'S UP TO THEM.
>> I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT. IF THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE THEIR 10%, JUST SEND IT TO THE CITY.
BUT IF SOMEONE SEES THEY HAVE TO REMIT A DOLLAR AND THEY DECIDED THEY SHOULD UP THERE RATE BY $1.15 TO COVER THEIR COST, ISN'T THAT THE MARKET AT WORK?
>> I DON'T SEE WHY WE HAVE THIS RETENTION FEE ON HERE AT ALL.
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT BOTH DAVID F AND DAVID C SAID.
>> THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN MARRIED TO DAVID C.
>> WE ARE MICRO MANAGING, WHY DON'T WE JUST GIVE IT [OVERLAPPING]
>> FOR THE BUSINESS OWNER, THERE IS AN EXTRA BURDEN OF DOING THIS.
THAT'S WHERE WE THOUGHT IT WAS FAIR TO GIVE THEM 10% TO COVER THAT COST OF COLLECTING THIS FEE.
BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PORT NOT WANTING TO COLLECT THE EXTRA $0.15.
>> YEAH, THEN JUST COLLECT THE DOLLAR AND SEND US A DOLLAR.
>> WELL, I HAVE TO REITERATE WHAT COUNCIL FRANKLIN SAID AND WHAT I SAID THAT IF THEY FEEL LIKE THEY NEED TO ADD $0.15 TO COLLECT, THAT'S UP TO THEM.
WE'RE NOT NOT REGULATING THE MAXIMUM SOMEONE CAN CHARGE FOR PARKING.
>> WE ARE TELLING SOMEONE THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT A CHARGE ON IT.
>> WE'LL JUST MAKE IT A DOLLAR ACROSS THE BOARD. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DOING TAKING THAT OUT OF THERE.
>> IT'S ALL A CHOICE OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
>> THEY HAVE THAT CHOICE TO MAKE IT $1.15, $1.25, THEY COULD ADD TWO DOLLARS.
>> WHY NOT JUST SAY REMIT A DOLLAR, BE DONE WITH IT.
IF THEY NEED TO CHARGE MORE TO COVER THEIR COSTS, IF THE PORT DOESN'T, THE PORT CHOOSES NOT TO.
>> BUT WE ALREADY PROVED IT THE WAY IT DID.
>> WELL, BUT WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE IT NOW.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THE AMENDMENT IS THOUGH.
>> BY CHARTERING THE TRANSPORTATION CODE, THE PORT SETS FEES, INCLUDING PARKING FEES WITHIN ITS TERRITORY EXCLUSIVELY.
IT HAS CHOSEN TO SET ONE DOLLAR AS ITS FEE, NOT $1.15.
BUT IT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH.
WE MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.
>> WHAT WAIT A MINUTE. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY.
>> THAT'S WHAT TREVOR REFERRED TO DURING OUR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PORT.
>> THE WHARVES BOARD HAS TO PASS THIS FEE?
>> YES. FOR PARKING IN IT'S PROPERTIES.
>> BUT THEY DON'T SET THE FEE ACROSS THE BOARD IN THE THE PRIVATE LOTS?
>> WE HAVE SET A FEE OF $1.15 BY PRIOR ORDINANCE AND ALLOWED LOT OWNERS TO KEEP 10%.
THE PORT HAS DECLINED TO FOLLOW THAT MODEL AND WE HAVE A DIVERSITY OF ONE DOLLAR FOR PORT PARKING, $1.15 ADD-ONS FOR CITY PARKING.
BASICALLY, AND BY WAY OF AN IMPACT FEE CAUSE EXPERIENCE FOR
[01:55:03]
DAMAGES EXPERIENCED BY THE CITY BECAUSE OF INCREASED TRAFFIC AND PARKING AND DRAINAGE, ETC.DURING THE REVIEW OF THE ORDINANCE, IT WAS THOUGHT THAT SOME LOT OWNERS MAY NOT WANT TO CHARGE A ADD-ON FEE AT ALL.
ALLOWS THEM TO KEEP THE CHOICE.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THE CITY GETS THE BUCK.
PART OF THIS STEMS FROM THE FACT TOO THAT THE PRIVATE OPERATORS WANTED A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
>> AND THEN THE PORT UP AND DECIDED THEY WERE GOING TO UNDERCUT IT AND THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY CAUSED THAT.
>> THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE.
>> IT MIGHT NOT BE WHAT THEY SAID IN THE MEETING, BUT THAT'S HOW I SEE IT.
>> NO, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THE PORT DID THIS WITH ANY MALICIOUS INTENT.
THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO MAKE CHANGE AND I GET THAT.
BUT WE ALSO WERE MANDATING A $15.
THEY'RE GOING TO DO A DOLLAR AND SO YOU'VE GOT THESE PRIVATE OPERATORS AFTER THERE WHOSE FEE IS PREMATURELY GOING TO BE 15 CENTS MORE.
>> WHAT WE'RE MAKING IS MORE OF A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
>> YEAH. IF YOU DID IT THIS WAY, THIS WOULD MAKE IT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AND THEN IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO THE OPERATOR.
>> NO, IT DOES NOT. I'M CONFUSED HERE.
THE PORT WANTS TO SEND US A DOLLAR AND THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO CHARGE A DOLLAR.
EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO HAVE TO [NOISE] CHARGE A DOLLAR 15.
THE SECOND LINE SAYS YOU CAN CHARGE A DOLLAR AND NOT RETAIN.
>> IT GIVES THEM THE CHOICE. THEY CAN CHARGE A $15 AND RETAIN 15 [OVERLAPPING] OR THEY CAN CHARGE A DOLLAR.
>> YES, THEY CAN. BUT UNDER THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE, THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE $15 IN THE PORTS AND NO ONE CAN DO THAT.
EVEN THOUGH THE ORDINANCE SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE A $15.
NOW WE'VE GOT THIS DISPARITY OUT THERE WITH THE PRIVATE OPERATORS WHO ARE DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AND THEY'RE COLLECTING THE $15 AND THE PORTS UNDERCUTTING THEM BY 15 CENTS.
WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS IT LEVELS IT OUT AND SAYS, HEY LOOK PRIVATE OPERATOR, IF YOU WANT TO CHARGE A $15 AND KEEP 15 CENTS, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
BUT YOU CAN CHARGE JUST A DOLLAR IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE.
>> IT EMPOWERS THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE CITY IS GETTING THEIR DOLLAR NO MATTER WHAT.
>> BEFORE IN THE ORDINANCE, IT WAS MANDATED THEY CHARGE A $15 AND THEN THEY'D GIVE THE CITY BACK A DOLLAR.
THIS ALLOWS THE PRIVATE OPERATORS, THE PORT WHOMEVER, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO CHARGE THE 15 CENTS AND GO THROUGH ALL THAT BUREAUCRACY OF TRACKING ALL THAT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
>> BUT YOU SAID THIS ORDINANCE WHERE THEY CAN BE AUDITED, THEY HAVE TO COLLECT THIS MONEY, THEY HAVE TO SEND IT OVER.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL WORK THAT THEY HAVE TO DO, AND YOU GIVE THEM THE OPTION WHERE THEY CAN EITHER BE PAID FOR THAT EXTRA WORK OR THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE PAID, THEY DON'T HAVE TO COLLECT THE 15 CENTS.
>> THE PORT, WE DON'T NEED THE EXTRA MONEY, WE WILL JUST SEND YOU THE DOLLAR.
I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM THAT WE ARE NEGOTIATING WITH THE PORT ON THE FEE THAT WE WANT TO CHARGE.
>> MAY I ASK A QUESTION? HOW WOULD YOU FIX IT? BECAUSE AS DON SAID, THE PORT SETS ITS FEES.
AND I DON'T WANT TO GET THIS OFF IN A TANGENT, BUT I'M GOING TO. [LAUGHTER].
>> WELL NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO BE CAUTION YOU.
>> JOHN, AND CORRECT, ME IF I'M WRONG DON.
THE PORT IS NOT MANDATED BY OUR ORDINANCES ON THIS.
>> THEY ARE GOVERNED BY THE CHARTER AND I THINK IT'S CHAPTER 50 FOR THE TRANSPORTATION CODES.
>> SO THEY'RE NOT GOVERNED BY THIS ORDINANCE.
>> WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY THAT THESE PARKING LOTS ARE ON?
>> BUT WE'VE ALREADY TESTED THAT AND TALKED THAT BACK-AND-FORTH WITH THE PORT.
WHAT THE PORT DID IS THEY WANT TO HONOR WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS IS A DOLLAR PER CAR PER DAY.
SO WE SET UP A MOU WITH THE PORT SO THAT THEY COULD HONOR THAT BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THE ORDINANCES.
THE ORDINANCE DON'T APPLY TO THEM.
>> WHAT GAVE THEM A RIGHT TO OPERATE THESE PARKING LOTS ON CITY PROPERTY?
>> IT GIVES THEM THE PARKING LOT?
>> IT GIVES EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO MANAGEMENT, TO MANAGE THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED IN THE CHARTER.
>> WE DON'T KNOW THAT ALL THESE PARKING LOTS
[02:00:02]
FALL WITHIN THE MEETS AND BOUNDS IN THE CHARTER, DO WE DON?>> WHAT WOULD BE THE NET EFFECT, THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE CITY IF WE TOOK THAT LINE ABOVE THEM, A $15 AND RETENTION OUT AND JUST SAID A DOLLAR?
WE'RE GETTING OUR DOLLAR AND WHAT THIS DOES, IN MY MIND IS IT LEVELS THE PLAYING FIELD.
SO IF A PRIVATE OWNER WANTS TO NOT CHARGE THE 15 CENTS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO.
>> NO, I AGREE. BUT WE WOULD ALSO LEVEL IT IF EVERYBODY COLLECTED A $15 SO THAT WAY THE PRIVATE OPERATORS COULD KEEP THEIR MONEY AND IT DOESN'T HURT THE SMALL BUSINESS.
>> YOU HAVE A PUBLIC ENTITY COMPETING AGAINST A PRIVATE ENTITY.
YOU'RE ASKING THE PRIVATE ENTITY TO TAKE ON THE BURDEN OF COLLECTING THIS MONEY FOR US, AND THEN YOU'RE TELLING THE PUBLIC ENTITY WHO IS FUNDED BY TAX DOLLARS IN SOME WAYS THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE PROFIT.
THEY JUST TAKE THIS BURDEN ON, NO PROBLEM.
>> WELL, MY SENSE IS THE PRIVATE OPERATORS ARE NOT GOING TO FOOL WITH THIS 15 CENTS.
BUT ANYWAY, IF WE DON'T WANT TO APPROVE THIS, THEN THE ORDINANCE STANDS AS IS, THAT EVERYBODY HAS TO MANDATORILY CHARGE A $15.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, CAN WE MANDATE THAT THEY CHARGE A $15 AT THE PORT?
>> NO, I DO NOT BELIEVE WE CAN UNDER THE CHARTER.
>> I'M GOING TO WANT TO SEE WHICH LOTS ARE WITHIN THE CHARTER AND WHICH AREN'T IN THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
>> I HAVE MY HAND UP, DAVID SEE.
TO ME WE SHOULD JUST BE SAYING CHARGE A DOLLAR AND TAKE THE 15 CENTS OFF BECAUSE THE PRIVATE LAND OWNERS ARE ALREADY AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PAY THE PORT XYZ EVERY TIME THEY BRING A VAN TO DROP THEIR PARKING PEOPLE OFF.
THEY'RE ALREADY AT A DISADVANTAGE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY TO ME, WE SHOULD DEFER THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING AND TAKE THAT 15 CENTS OUT, PERIOD.
>> WELL, THAT BRINGS UP A QUESTION.
CAN WE AMEND THIS ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT AS COUNCILWOMAN ROBB IS REQUESTING?
>> HOW MUCH THOUGH ARE YOU SAYING THE CITY WOULD GET?
>> THE CITY ALWAYS GETS A DOLLAR.
>> YES. SO THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING A BURDEN ON THE PRIVATE COMPANY TO COLLECT THAT FEE NOW AND THEN SEND IT OVER TO THE CITY.
SO THE 15 CENTS WAS PUT ON THERE BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE.
WE HAD SOME OTHER THINGS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH.
>> BUT THEY COULD CHARGE A $50 IF THEY WANTED TO.
THEY ARE ALREADY AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE THEY'RE HAVING TO BRING THE VAN IN.
>> BUT THEN CHARGING A $50 PUTS THEM IN EVEN MORE OF A DISADVANTAGE.
THE HIGHER PRICE THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT ON THEIR PARKING FEE.
>> SOMEONE MANDATED SOMETHING AT MY PRIVATE BUSINESS, I WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME WITH.
AND THIS IS A MICROMANAGEMENT TELLING THEM THAT THEY HAVE THE CHARGE, THEY CAN CHARGE 15 CENTS MORE.
THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO.
I DON'T KNOW, WE'D HAVE TO GET CLARITY ON THE CHARTER LANGUAGE.
BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T AMEND IT AND TAKE THE 15 CENTS OUT.
>> WE HAD A WHOLE MEETING ON THIS.
WE'VE TALKED TO BUSINESS OWNERS, WE'VE TALKED TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
NOW THE PORT DOESN'T WANT TO NEGOTIATE OR WANTS TO NEGOTIATE THIS AND NOW WE'RE LISTENING TO JUST THE PORT AND WE'RE NOT LISTENING TO OUR PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS.
>> WHAT WOULD YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER?
>> IF THEY THINK THIS IS A FAIR AGREEMENT.
>> THE PORT NOT HAVING TO PAY THE 15 CENTS, NOT HAVING TO COLLECT THE 15 CENTS.
>> I UNDERSTAND AND THAT'S WHY I THINK DON AND BRIAN AND THEM LOOKED AT THIS TO GIVE THE PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IF THEY WANT TO.
>> YEAH, THEY CAN PUT AN EXTRA BURDEN ON THEMSELVES AND NOT COLLECT THE FEE.
[02:05:01]
THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNER.>> YEAH, THANKS. [LAUGHTER] ALL MY LIFE PEOPLE HAVE CALLED ME COLLINS.
SO FEEL FREE TO REFER TO ME THAT WAY. I'M ALL RIGHT WITH IT.
>> NOT COLLINS. BECAUSE WE WERE NEVER MARRIED.
>> NO WE WERE NEVER MARRIED. AN EQUIVALENT ARGUMENT WOULD BE REDUCE OUR RATE TO A DOLLAR AND SAY, THEY COULD KEEP 10% OF THAT AND THAT WILL REDUCE OUR COLLECTION FROM A DOLLAR TO 90 CENTS ON PRIVATE LOTS.
BUT THERE'S NOTHING AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM KEEPING THE PORT FROM COMING BACK AND SAYING, OKAY FINE, WE'LL MAKE OURS 85 CENTS.
SO THAT WE HAVE THIS ONE DOLLAR AGREEMENT WITH THE PORT BUT THAT'S ALL IT IS.
THEY CAN ADD THERE'S WHAT THEY SENT TO THE CITY.
THAT'S JUST THEM DECIDING TO GO ALONG WITH THIS REQUEST FROM THE CITY. I'M I RIGHT?
>> LANGUAGE REGARDING THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS, THE GALVESTON WHARVES TO GET THE COMMON REVENUE THERE FROM SHALL BE FULLY MANAGED, CONTROLLED, MAINTAINED AND OPERATED BY A BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO BE KNOWN AS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON WHARVES.
>> BUT WITHOUT KNOWING WHICH PARKING LOTS ARE IN THE MEETS AND BOUNDS OF THE PORT, WE'RE SUGGESTING, IF I HEAR YOU RIGHT, THERE ARE SOME PARKING LOTS FOR WHICH THE PORT IS COLLECTING MONEY THAT DO NOT FALL UNDER.
>> WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY DRAWN AT THE WOODEN HARBORSIDE DRIVE THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS IN THERE AS WELL SO YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK AT [NOISE].
IT'S NOT SO MUCH IN MY MIND, THE LOCATION, MOST OF THE PARKING TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT THE PORT MANAGES OVER THERE IS ON CITY OF GALVESTON LAND.
THERE MAY BE SOME PORTIONS THAT THEY ARE, AND I THINK THEY ARE, THAT THEY ARE USING FOR PARKING THAT THEY ARE LEASING FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS OR OTHER ENTITIES.
>> THERE'S ALSO PROBABLY CITY OF GALVESTON LAND THAT'S OUTSIDE THE MEETS AND BOUNDS THAT ARE DESCRIBED IN THE CHARTER.
>> MEETS AND BOUNDS IN THE CHARTER GO BACK TO [LAUGHTER]
>> BUT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE ADDRESSES DOESN'T MATTER IF THESE ARE LEASED LANDS OF THE PORT ARE OWNED BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON LAND, THEY GET A DOLLAR FOR EVERY CAR NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE CITY'S WHOLE, WE'RE GETTING A BACK, NO MATTER WHAT.
>> THE $15 WAS PUT IN THERE TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELDS BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ONE THING THE PRIVATE OPERATORS SAID IS, I DON'T WANT THE PORT UNDERCUTTING ME, BUT THEY COULD DO THAT ANYWAY. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
>> I THOUGHT WAS YOU CHARGED A $1.15.
IT'S A FLAT FEET, EVERYBODY AND YOU CAN KEEP $0.15 IF YOU WANT.
>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE FAIR DEAL TO ME.
>> THERE'S REALLY NO HARM IN INCLUDING THE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE THE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES WILL SET THEIR FEES HOWEVER THEY WANT. IS THAT KIND OF.
>> IF WE WANTED TO MAKE IT, IN MY OPINION, AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLE, WE WOULD DO WHAT COUNCILWOMAN ROBB SAYS, THEY JUST HAVE TO RETURN A DOLLAR TO US.
NOW WHAT THEY CHARGE OVER THERE, THAT'S UP TO THEM.
IF THEY WANT TO CHARGE, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO CHARGE.
>> DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER TO THE NEXT MEETING TO GET SOME MORE INPUT FROM THE PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ON THIS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD COME BACK LANGUAGE WISE IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT A JUST A STRAIGHT DEFERRAL FOR NOW WOULD BE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO DEFER THIS TO GET MORE INPUT FROM THE PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS.
I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS.
I'M TELLING YOU, YOU OPEN THIS UP TO THESE PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS.
[LAUGHTER] THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE DOLLAR.
>> WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE REALLY HEARD THAT THE PORT IS TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH US ON THIS FEE AND THAT WE CANNOT APPLY THIS FEE.
IN NONE OF OUR MEETINGS WAS IT EVER BROUGHT UP THAT WE COULDN'T APPLY THIS FEE TO THE PORT AND THE PORT HAD TO SIGN OFF ON IT.
>> NO, YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP. EXCUSE ME, JOHN.
[02:10:01]
>> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING THIS AND I'M NOT TOO HAPPY ABOUT IT AS YOU CAN SEE.
>> JOHN, LET ME ASK THIS. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS, WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DETERMINE?
>> IF THE PRIVATE SECTOR OUT THERE SAYS, YEAH, NO PROBLEM. WE DON'T CARE ABOUT $0.15.
IF THE PORT WANTS TO CHARGE A DOLLAR AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE CHARGING OUR $1.15 AND WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT OUR $0.15. THAT'S FINE.
BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF PRIVATE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT CALLED ME THE LAST TIME THIS WAS ON OUR AGENDA AND WE APPROVED THIS AND THEY WERE NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT AT ALL, TO BEGIN WITH, AND NOW WE'RE CHANGING THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE AWARE OF IT.
>> IF I COULD TECHNICALLY MAKES IT LESS, NO MATTER WHICH WAY THEY CHOOSE, 10% OF A $1.15 WAS $11.5, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY $1.035 CENTS
>> I GET THE ATTEMPT TO SIMPLIFY THIS, AND I DID NOT TALK TO MANY OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THE PRIVATE PARKING LOT OWNERS.
BUT I'VE TALKED TWO, THREE OF THEM, INCLUDING ONE WHO RUNS A LOT OF THAT PRIVATE SPACE.
WHO SAID, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO, SO LONG AS WHAT WE'RE PAYING IS THE SAME AS THE PORT IS PAYING.
THIS IS BEFORE I KNEW THAT THE PORT WAS GOVERNED BY, THEY HAD TO SET THIS BY THEMSELVES, OR THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO SET THEMSELVES.
BUT THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD THAT THEY WERE ATTEMPTING TO UNDERCUT THIS FOR WHATEVER REASON, WHETHER IT'S CONVENIENCE OR AN ADVANTAGE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT.
>> WE HAVE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
WE HAVE A SECOND TWO FOR A DEFERRAL OF THIS AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR.
WHEN DO YOU WANT TO DEFER THIS TO WHAT MEETING?
>> NEXT MEETING BE JUNE 22ND, AND YOU WANT STAFF TO GET WITH THE PRIVATE PARKING OWNERS?
>> NO. I JUST NEED TIME TO TALK TO THE PRIVATE.
>> SEE IF THEY HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT.
IF THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT, YOU COULD BRING THIS BACK.
I'LL VOTE FOR IT, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S THE CASE.
>> I WANT TO BE YOU'RE GOING TO TALK WITH THEM ABOUT DO YOU GUYS WANT TO BE LIKED THE PORT AND NOT CHARGED THAT $0.15?
>> YEAH, OR IF THEY DON'T CARE THAT THERE IS A DISCREPANCY AND WHAT THE PORT CHARGES AND WHAT THEY COULD CHARGE.
IF THEY'RE OKAY WITH THAT, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF MONEY, BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME.
I'M SURPRISED THAT WE'RE NEGOTIATING WITH THE PORT HERE, SO I JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF THIS.
I WOULD THINK IF THEY WOULD HAVE READ THIS, THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT, BUT MAYBE THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT, MAYBE I'M JUST CAUSING DELAY HERE.
>> WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR A DEFERRAL.
>> I WILL POINT OUT THAT IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO REDUCE, THIS TO $0.75, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT?
>> YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.
[OVERLAPPING] PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES, PLEASE.
IT DOES PASS BY FOUR TO TWO AND ONE ABSTENTION.
JANELLE, IF YOU'LL PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING, IF WE COULD.
VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO THE CONSENT ITEMS 11.
[11. CONSENT ITEMS]
>> ITEM 11. CONSENT ITEMS, THE FOLLOWING ITEM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ACTION AS A WHOLE, UNLESS ONE OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS OBJECTS.
THE CITY MANAGERS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
CONSENT ITEMS 11A THROUGH 11T ARE ON THE SCREEN.
>> VERY GOOD. COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY ITEM YOU WOULD LIKE TO SINGLE OUT AND VOTE ON SEPARATELY?
>> UNLESS I GET SOME INFORMATION THAT I ASKED FOR TODAY.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING THAT CAME OVER THE EMAIL.
IF YOU'VE GOT EMAIL TO ME ABOUT FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR [OVERLAPPING].
>> I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE DAN HAD TO LEAVE.
IS BUTCH STRAUT (PHONETIC) HERE.
I THINK BUTCH WAS SUPPOSED TO GATHER THAT INFORMATION. ANY OVER IN THE OTHER ROOM?
[02:15:01]
>> IS THIS REGARDING THE PARKING FEES?
>> YEAH. WELL, NOT THE PARKING FEE, BUT THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, WE'RE TRYING TO BRING OURSELVES HERE INTO THE 21ST CENTURY WITH THIS.
>> YEAH. BUT WELL, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT WE'RE TRYING TO APPEASE EVERYBODY HERE.
WE ARE GETTING COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEM STOPPING TO WRITE TICKETS ON THE SEAWALL.
THIS IS THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO THAT.
AND I ALSO THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY HELP WITH YOUR COLLECTIONS.
>> IT WOULD. LET ME MAKE SURE WHAT ITEM IS THIS, JOHN? DO YOU KNOW?
>> 11H? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO PULL 11H SEPARATELY.
>> HE SAID THAT IF HE COULD GET HIS QUESTIONS ANSWERED HE MIGHT NOT HAVE TO.
>> CORRECT. YOU DON'T WANT TO PULL THAT SEPARATELY, JOHN?
>> CAN WE JUST ASK SOME QUESTIONS REAL QUICK.
>> WHY NOT NEED A BULLET? BUTCH.
>> WERE YOU ABLE TO GET ANY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR ME?
>> I DIDN'T GET THE FINANCIAL INFORMATION, BUT I DO HAVE THE TICKET COUNT.
I CAN GIVE YOU WHAT LAST YEAR'S TICKETS WERE.
THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, 81,400 AND THE SEAWALL DISTRICTS, 46,764.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I WOULD SAY THAT A REASON YOU SEAWALL TICKETS ARE PROBABLY LOWER IS BECAUSE DURING BUSY TIMES AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE HAVE STOPPED ENFORCING UP THERE BECAUSE WE CAN'T PULL INTO TO WRITE THE TICKETS.
>> BUT THAT WAS WHAT WAS WRITTEN OR WHAT WAS COLLECTED?
>> WELL, THAT'S HOW MANY CITATIONS WRITTEN.
>> THAT DOESN'T COVER HOW MANY WERE COLLECTED?
>> THAT 50% IS OUR COLLECTION RATE.
>> 50% IS ABOUT OUR COLLECTION RATE.
>> YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO COST US ABOUT $3,000 OR $4,000 TO RUN THIS PROGRAM.
IT MAY GO UP, BUT THE MORE TICKETS YOU WRITE, THE MORE IT'S GOING TO COST.
BUT THE MORE YOU WRITE, THE MORE YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT.
THIS NUMBER WILL DEFINITELY GO UP ON THE SEAWALL BECAUSE WE'RE CATCHING EVERYONE THAT WAY.
AS IT IS NOW, LIKE MR. MAXWELL SAID, BUSY WEEKENDS, THERE'S NO PLACE FOR US TO GET OUT OF THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC, SO WE'RE NOT ABLE TO STOP.
>> BUT WHEN I WAS ON MY WAY BACK INTO TOWN, THERE WAS A MARSH ON THE SEAWALL GOING 15 MILES AN HOUR.
WILL THEY STILL HAVE TO DRIVE THAT SLOW?
>> WELL, YOU TALKED ABOUT ON THE WEST END?
>> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT ON THE SEAWALL.
>> RIGHT, AT THE WEST END OF THE SEAWALL.
>> WELL, IN BUSY TIMES, 15-20 MILES AN HOUR, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE YOUR SPEED.
YOU'RE GOING TO NEED GETTING CONGESTED TRAFFIC.
>> I MEAN HE WAS THE ONLY ONE DRIVING SLOW.
>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT IF HE'S SCANNING LICENSE PLATES AND THE CARS ARE PARKED CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER, YOU HAVE TO SLOW DOWN SOME SO SOME READERS WILL PICK THOSE UP.
IF THERE'S CARS ARE SPREAD OUT, THEN SURE, YOU CAN GO FASTER.
ON THE BUSY WEEKENDS, THE SPEED LIMIT IS NOT GOING THAT FAST ANYWAY.
THE SPEED LIMIT IS GOING LESS THAN 20 MOST OF THE TIME.
WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC BECAUSE THAT'S HOW FAST THE TRAFFIC WILL BE FLOWING.
>> BUTCH, YOU DON'T KNOW THE REVENUE SIDE OF THAT BETWEEN DOWNTOWN AND SEAWALL?
>> YOU GAVE US THE COLLECTIONS OF THE TICKETS. OKAY.
>> JOHN, KNOWING THIS, WOULD YOU WANT TO PULL A 11H AS A SEPARATE ITEM?
>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SORRY. OR JUST MAYBE TWO QUESTIONS.
>> THIS IS A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT?
>> THIS IS A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT IS WHAT IT IS.
>> DOES IT COST? I MEAN, I DON'T SEE A COST OF THE CONTRACT ITSELF.
WE JUST SIGN A CONTRACT AND THEY TAKE CARE OF THE SERVICE.
>> THE COST IS GOING TO BE A $1,000 ESCROW ACCOUNT.
>> THEN WE'LL PAY A $23 PER BATCH FEE, AND THEN $0.12 PER LICENSE PLATE RAN FOR A TEXAS LICENSE PLATE AND $1.50 PER OUT-OF-STATE LICENSE PLATE.
>> THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE TOLL ROADS DO.
>> YEAH. BUT BUT TOLL ROADS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, IN MY OPINION BECAUSE, WELL, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO PARK HERE.
YOU DON'T HAVE THE OPTION TO PARK HERE, I GUESS.
>> YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO GO ON A TOLL ROAD OR NOT.
>> THERE'S OTHER FORMS OF EMAIL AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT YOU SIGN UP FOR WHEN YOU GET A TOLL.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU CAN LEGALLY DELIVER A TICKET VIA EMAIL.
[02:20:01]
>> SAME, THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T GET EMAILS FROM EASY TAG.
>> IS THERE ANY REASON, LIKE I MENTIONED THIS MORNING THAT WE WOULD DO THIS ON A TRIAL PERIOD IN ONE AREA TOWN LIKE THE SEAWALL.
>> WE COULD IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO DO THAT, THERE'S NOTHING TO STOP US FROM DOING THAT.
>> WELL, JUST TO SEE HOW IT WORKS AND I MEAN, I DON'T LIKE THE SYSTEM AND I'M TRYING TO GIVE IT [OVERLAPPING].
>> WOULD YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE?
>> OKAY, COUNCIL LET'S DO THIS.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA 11A THROUGH 11T EXCLUDING 11H.
SECOND ON THAT, WE HAVE MOTION, LET'S SEE.
WE'LL HAVE TO VOTE BY HAND ON THAT. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> ON 11H. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL ITEM 11A TO 11T EXCLUDING 11H.
THERE'S A SECOND TO THAT BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB.
PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THAT.
THAT IS UNANIMOUS FOR THOSE THAT ARE HERE.
YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, JOHN, CONTINUE.
>> WELL, I THINK DAVID ASKED ME A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT I HAVE AGAINST THIS.
I JUST DON'T REALLY LIKE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE, IF YOU DON'T PAY YOUR FEE TO PARK THERE, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, AND THEN YOU GET A TICKET, SEVEN DAYS LATER.
I LIKE THAT TICKET BEING GIVEN THAT DAY AND PEOPLE KNOWING THAT THEY BROKE THE LAW THAT DAY FOR SOME REASON.
I JUST DON'T LIKE GETTING THAT TICKET IN THE MAIL I GUESS.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT IS, BUT IT'S LIKE A RED LIGHT CAMERA.
>> YOU GO THROUGH A RED LIGHT AND THEY SEND YOU A TICKET AND THERE'S A LOT [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S PICK YOUR POISON THING THOUGH, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE HOLDING UP TRAFFIC AND ALL OTHER ISSUES.
I'M WORRIED WE'RE GOING TO GET SOMEBODY HURT UP THERE IF WE KEEP DOING IT THAT WAY.
IMAGINE IF THEY STOPPED YOU EVERY TIME YOU RAN A TOLL PLAZA.
>> WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE ON THE SEAWALL TO SEE HOW IT WORKS IF IT'S GANGBUSTERS AND PEOPLE ARE PAYING MORE TICKETS BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THIS AND WE'RE ISSUING MORE TICKETS AND EVERYBODY IS HAPPY THEN LET'S GO FOR IT.
BUT AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE THE FIRST PEOPLE TO DO THIS.
>> THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE SINCE THE LEGISLATION WAS PASSED.
WE'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE TO APPLY THIS INFORMATION FROM DMV.
WE'RE THE FIRST ONES SINCE THEY PASS THE NEW LEGISLATION AND WE'RE THE FIRST ONES TO WORK WITH THE NEW PART.
>> IF WE WANTED TO TEST AN AREA, WHY WOULDN'T WE TEST THE DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS BRINGING IN MORE REVENUE?
>> WELL, BECAUSE WE'RE ACTUALLY LOSING REVENUE ON THE SEAWALL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALLY PATROLLING IN THAT VERY OFTEN OR AS MUCH AS WE USED TO BECAUSE WE GAVE DIRECTION TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> NOT ONLY THAT TOO, BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT ON A TIMING BASIS.
IF WE'RE NOT STOPPING, GETTING OUT, JOGGING DOWN THE SEAWALL, TRYING TO DO THIS STUFF WE'RE ACTUALLY PATROLLING MORE OFTEN, SO OUR CYCLES ARE GOING TO INCREASE.
THE SAME GOES FOR DOWNTOWN AS IT DOES ON SEAWALL.
ONE IS OBVIOUSLY TO INCREASE COLLECTION, TWO IT'S NOT TO IMPEDE TRAFFIC, THREE, IT'S TO INCREASE THE TURN, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, WHICH IS HOPEFULLY I DON'T HAVE TO BRING ON EXTRA PEOPLE TO WORK PARKING.
MY GUY CAN COVER ALL THE ROUTES BECAUSE HE'S NOT JUMPING IN AND OUT OF THE CAR THE WHOLE TIME.
>> ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> OR LADY, AS THE CASE MAY BE.
>> COUNCIL, LET'S HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR HERE BEFORE WE CONTINUE THIS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION BEFORE YOU CONTINUE.
YOUR RATIO OF NUMBER OF TICKETS, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT RATIO HOW YOU SAID IT INCREASED, THE MORE TICKETS THAT ARE GIVEN.
>> THE MORE TICKET YOU WRITE, THE MORE YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT.
IF YOU'RE COLLECTING 50% OF YOUR WRITTEN TICKETS, AND IF YOU WRITE 1,000 MORE TICKETS THEN YOU'RE GOING TO COLLECT MORE MONEY BECAUSE YOU'RE ISSUING MORE CITATIONS.
>> RIGHT. I MISHEARD YOU THEN EARLY BECAUSE NOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> NUMBER TWO THIS MORNING WHEN I ASKED, IT HAS TO BE A CRUISING, YOU CAN'T GO WITH THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC WHEN YOU ARE DOING THAT, EVEN THOUGH I HEAR YOU ALL SAYING IT'S AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE CAR, AND THIS, BUT I THINK I STILL SAY IT'S A MATTER OF CRUISING TO GET THOSE LICENSE PLATES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MACHINE IS LIKE.
I KNOW YOU SAID IT WAS QUICK WITHIN SECONDS.
I'M NOT AGAINST IT, BUT I HEAR WHAT JOHN IS SAYING, TO TRY IT IN AN AREA FIRST ON THE ISLAND.
>> HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO IMPLEMENT THIS AND IF WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, WHEN WILL YOU HAD THIS UP AND GOING AND WHEN WILL WE SEE RESULTS?
>> IT'S I MUST SAY WITHIN 90 DAYS,
[02:25:03]
MAYBE LONGER DEPENDING ON HOW LONG IT TAKES THEM TO GET THE SYSTEM UP AND RUNNING FROM TECH STANDPOINT.WHENEVER WE WERE HERE A YEAR-AND-A-HALF AGO, WE WERE ROLLING ALONG REAL GOOD, AND THEN WHENEVER IT STOPPED, WELL, THEN THEY STOPPED.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START GETTING THE BALL ROLLING DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN.
I WOULD SAY WITHIN SIX MONTHS FOR SURE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT HAPPENING BY THEN, BUT I CAN'T PROMISE THAT.
>> YES. I KNOW HE'S BEEN WAITING.
>> BUT IN THE CONTRACT IS THERE A FAVORABLE TERMINATION CLAUSE FOR CONVENIENCE? IN OTHER WORDS, CAN WE DO THIS FOR A YEAR AND THEN EXIT?
>> OKAY, SO THERE IS A TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE WITH NO PENALTY?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> HAS ANYBODY FACTORED IN, YOU'RE SAYING YOU MAKE MORE MONEY BECAUSE YOU'RE WRITING MORE TICKETS, BUT YOU'RE ALSO HAVING MORE COST INVOLVED PER TICKET.
HAS ANYBODY DONE THAT CALCULATION ON USING THE 50% NUMBER, HOW MUCH MONEY YOU REALLY WILL MAKE?
WE'RE LOOKING AT PROBABLY ABOUT $2.80 PER TICKET, IT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO ISSUE EACH CITATION.
BUT NO, MA'AM, WE HAVEN'T GOT THE FIGURES FOR THAT.
>> REVENUE IS IMPORTANT IN THIS, BUT KEEP IN MIND OUR MAIN GOAL HERE IS COMPLIANCE, AND WE'RE NOT GETTING GOOD COMPLIANCE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE FIGURING THIS OUT, AND ON A BUSY SATURDAY WE CAN ONLY HIT IT MAYBE ONCE OR TWICE ON THE SEAWALL BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC AND THE JUMPING IN AND OUT IN THE PARKING.
I NEVER WANT TO SAY THAT ANY OF OUR TICKET PROGRAMS ARE REVENUE GENERATORS.
THEY GENERATE REVENUE BY BYPRODUCT TO HELP COVER BUTCHERS COST, BUT THE MAIN GOAL IS COMPLIANCE.
I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY IF WE DIDN'T WRITE ANY TICKETS BECAUSE EVERYBODY WAS COMPLYING AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET HERE, IS COMPLIANCE.
THE MORE TIMES YOU PASS UP AND DOWN THE SEAWALL, THE MORE PEOPLE SEE YOU, THE MORE THEY'RE GOING TO PAY, VOLUNTARILY.
LIKE MR. MAXWELL SAID, IF WE NEVER WROTE A PARKING TICKET, I'D BE THE HAPPIEST PERSON ON THE ISLAND.
BECAUSE THAT MEANS WE'RE GETTING 100 PERCENT COMPLIANCE, AND PEOPLE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING.
THAT MAY NOT GOING TO BE ALWAYS THE CASE.
THE ADVANTAGE IS WE'RE NOT HAVING TO STOP, WE'RE MOVING, AND THE PEOPLE ARE HAVING TO GET OUT OF THE CAR, AND THERE'S NO CONFRONTATION.
YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE HOW MUCH CONFRONTATION YOU GET OVER A PARKING TICKET.
THERE'S NO CONFRONTATION AT ALL.
>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND THAT WE APPROVE THIS WITH SEAWALL ONLY.
THEN IN SIX MONTHS BRING THAT BACK TO US FOR FURTHER EXPANSION.
>> I DON'T KNOW [OVERLAPPING] SIX MONTHS.
SIX MONTHS OR SIX MONTHS AFTER IT'S IMPLEMENTED?
>> WELL, I SAY SIX MONTHS, YOU CAN COME BACK IN SIX MONTHS AND JUST TELL US WHERE THE PROGRAM IS AND IF WE NEED TO GO FROM THERE, WE CAN GO FROM THERE.
>> LET'S GET A SECOND. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT?
>> RIGHT. WE HAVE COUNCILMAN COLLINS SECOND THAT.
LET'S CLARIFY THE MOTION, IF YOU WOULD AGAIN, PLEASE, JOHN.
>> THAT WE APPROVE WITH STARTING THE PROGRAM ON THE SEAWALL ONLY.
THEN WITH WITHIN SIX MONTHS, BRING A REPORT BACK TO US FOR THE STATUS OF THE PROGRAM AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT EXPANDING IT FROM THERE.
>> IN THE MEANTIME, CAN WE GET THE ACTUAL REVENUES THAT WERE GENERATED?
>> LIKE, WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE CHARGING, BUT HOW MUCH WAS- [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M SORRY. CAN YOU HEAR ME? WELL, MORE THAN LIKELY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET, IS WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THE NUMBER OF TICKETS WROTE AND THEN WE'LL GIVE YOU A WEIGHTED AVERAGE.
I REALLY DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN TELL YOU THAT PEOPLE DOWNTOWN ARE A HIGHER COLLECTION RATE THAN THE PEOPLE ON THE SEAWALL OR VICE VERSA.
BUT WE'LL BE ABLE TO TELL YOU THE OVERALL REVENUE AND THEN THE PERCENTAGE OF COLLECTION.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. WE HAD TO ASK FOR THE FINANCIAL NUMBERS.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE MOTION ON THE TABLE HERE AND A SECOND ON THIS. SHARON.
>> I AM THINKING THAT YOUR RATE WILL BE HIGHER IF YOU DID THE STRAND AREA BECAUSE YOU GET MORE TICKETS, AND RIGHT NOW, I KNOW YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD NOW, BUT THE SPEED THAT YOU'RE GOING DOWNTOWN, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT BOULEVARD TO GO WITH TRAFFIC.
I HEAR YOU SAYING THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE CAR, BUT IT'S STILL GOING TO BE TRAFFIC ON SOMETIMES WHICH YOU'RE GOING TO SLOW IT DOWN.
WHEREAS I'M THINKING THAT THE DOWNTOWN AREA WOULD BE EASIER TO SCAN, TO GET SOME GOOD RESULTS.
>> THE ONLY PROBLEM IS THE MAIN ISSUE WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE -[OVERLAPPING] IS THE SEAWALL.
- IS THE OVERALL TRAFFIC IMPAIRMENT ON THE SEAWALL AND INCREASED PATROLS ON THE SEAWALL.
[02:30:04]
>> THEY DO THIS ON THE SEAWALL NOW.
I MEAN, THEY WOULD DO THIS THE SAME WAY.
THE SCANNERS ON THE CAR DON'T CHANGE.
THEY HAVE THAT TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY.
>> THEY'RE JUST BRINGING IN THE DV.
>> THEY'LL BE SCANNING FASTER BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE CAR ALL DAY LONG.
>> THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IS WHEN IT DOES REGISTER THAT THERE'S A CAR THAT HASN'T PAID, NOW INSTEAD OF THEM STOPPING THE CAR AND GETTING OUT, THEY JUST KEEP DRIVING.
>> WE HAVE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THIS, BUT ISOLATING IT AND GETTING TO THE SEAWALL PAID PARKING, AND HAVING A SIX MONTH REPORT BACK TO US IN SIX MONTHS.
ALL RIGHT, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THIS.
GOOD. WE'RE WHIPPING RIGHT ALONG HERE.
WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM 12A. I THINK IT IS.
[12.A Audit Plan 2023 Amendment Discuss and Consider for action extending Three Port Audits to September 30, 2024, due to Financing and GASB 87 responsibilities at the Port of Galveston. 1. Port Procurement Procedures Audit Follow-Up 2. Port Written Cash and Bank Reconciliation Procedures and Controls 3. Port Fixed Assets Procedures and Best Practices. (G. Bulgherini) ]
>> ITEM 12A, AUDIT PLAN 2023 AMENDMENT.
DISCUSS AND CONSIDER FOR ACTION EXTENDING THREE PORT AUDITS TO SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2024 DUE TO FINANCING AND GASB 87 RESPONSIBILITIES AT THE PORT OF GALVESTON.
ONE, PORT PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES AUDIT FOLLOW-UP.
TWO, PORT WRITTEN CASH AND BANK RECONCILIATION PROCEDURES, AND CONTROLS.
THREE, PORT FIXED ASSETS PROCEDURES AND BEST PRACTICES.
>> BRIAN, IS GLENN AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVEN'T SEEN GLENN SINCE.
>> I KNOW HE'S HERE. I SAW HIM AT LUNCH.
>> HE WAS HERE THIS MORNING AT WORKSHOP I KNOW.
WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS, GLENN HAD TALKED TO ME ABOUT THIS.
GLENN HAD VISITED WITH ME FOR A NUMBER OF VARIED REASONS DUE TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS WITH AUDITS AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHANGING TO THIS GASB 87.
GLENN HAD TALKED WITH THE PORT AND GLENN HAS RECOMMENDED ON HIS AUDIT PLAN TO DELAY THE PORT AUDITS UNTIL-, HE'S GOING TO PUT IT IN HIS NEW AUDIT PLAN THAT HE WILL BE BRINGING TO COUNCIL IN AUGUST.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THIS FOR 12A.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY DISCUSSIONS? OKAY. I'M GOING TO SECOND.
>> THANK YOU. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THAT.
THAT IS UNANIMOUS FOR ALL THOSE THAT ARE HERE.
[12.B Discuss And Consider Appointments To The Following City Boards, Commissions, And Committees: 1. Animal Services Advisory Board 2. Cultural Arts Commission 3. Parks and Recreation Advisory Board 4. TIRZ 13]
ITEM 12B PLEASE.>> ITEM 12B, DISCUSS AND CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE FOLLOWING CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES.
ONE, ANIMAL SERVICE ADVISORY BOARD.
>> HOW MANY OPENINGS DO WE HAVE THERE, JANELLE?
>> ONLY ONE AND IT'S IN THE ANIMAL SHELTER OPERATOR POSITION.
JOSH HENDERSON IS THE NEW EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OVER AT THE ANIMAL SHELTER.
>> I NOMINATE JOSH HENDERSON FOR THE VACANT POSITION ON THE ANIMAL SERVICES BOARD. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN LOUIS.
ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.
>> UNANIMOUS FOR THOSE THAT ARE HERE, CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION. DAVID.
>> IF I MAY, THE ORDINANCE THAT ESTABLISHES THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION MANDATES THAT THE CHIEF TOURISM OFFICER OF THE CVB IS A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD.
THAT'S TONY LYLE WHO IS NEW WITH THE ART BOARD.
I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPOINT HIM AS A VOTING MEMBER OF THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
>> VERY GOOD. MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF TONY LYLE TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS, SECONDED BY COUNCIL WOMAN LOUIS.
ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.
THAT IS UNANIMOUS FOR THOSE THAT ARE HERE.
PARKS AND RECREATION AND ADVISORY BOARD.
HOW MANY OPENINGS DO WE HAVE THERE?
>> WE HAVE ONE OPENING AND THAT'S IN THE DISTRICT TWO POSITION.
[02:35:05]
COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEA HAS A NOMINATION.>> YES MAYOR. WE HAD AN APPLICATION BY MR. BLAIR ALEXANDER, WHO HAPPENS TO LIVE IN DISTRICT TWO AND EXPRESSED HIS INTEREST TO SERVE ON THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD.
I SAT DOWN AND VISITED WITH HIM, HE'S BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE ISLAND FOR OVER 15 YEARS, HIS WIFE OVER 25 YEARS, AND IS VERY WILLING AND HAS A SERVANT'S HEART FIRST, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE HIM TO THE BOARD.
WE HAVE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, AND I'LL SECOND IT BY THE MAYOR. SOUNDS GOOD.
ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.
THAT IS UNANIMOUS FOR THOSE THAT ARE HERE.
TOURS 13. JANELLE, WE HAVE SOMEONE DID YOU WANT TO MENTION ON THAT?
>> YES. WE HAVE ONE PERSON ON THE BOARD THAT HAS MOVED, AS SUE GREER, SAYS SHE'S NO LONGER SERVING ON THE BOARD.
MR. SHIRAZI SENT OVER A NAME OF NADER SHIRAZI THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE HER PLACED.
>> I WILL NOMINATE NADER SHIRAZI FOR THE TOURISTS 13 BOARD.
>> SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB.
THAT IS UNANIMOUS FOR ALL THOSE THAT ARE HERE, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF OUR AGENDA ITEMS. IT IS 7:36 P.M. BEFORE WE ADJOURN, HAPPY MEMORIAL DAY TO EVERYBODY.
ENJOY YOUR TIME OFF AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.