[00:00:02] >> [NOISE] GOOD MORNING. I AM GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE JUNE 22ND CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER THIS MORNING. IT IS 09:00 AM. JUST BEFORE WE DO A ROLL CALL, JANELLE WILL NOT BE WITH US THIS MORNING. SHE'S DOING HER CERTIFICATION TRAINING THIS MORNING. SO WE HAVE THE HONOR OF HAVING NELLY WITH US TODAY. GOOD MORNING, NELLY. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, COUNCIL, NICE TO SEE EVERYONE. STAFF, NICE TO SEE YOU, THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT ARE VISITORS, GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. OF COURSE, THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS TELECAST AT HOME, WE'RE VERY GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING FOR OUR WORKSHOP. NELLY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >> MAYOR BROWN. [NOISE]. >> PRESENT. >> MAYOR PROTON COLLINS. >> PRESENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS. >> HERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER FINKLEA. >> HERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER BOUVIER. >> HERE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER LISTOWSKI. >> I'M HERE. >> COUNCILMEMBER ROGUE. >> PRESENT. >> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT THIS MORNING. VERY GOOD. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO DISCUSSION ITEMS. [3.A. Clarification Of Consent And Regular City Council Agenda Items - This Is An Opportunity For City Council To Ask Questions Of Staff On Consent And Regular Agenda Items (40 Min)] ITEM 3A, PLEASE, NELLY. >> CLARIFICATION OF CONSENT IN REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM. [NOISE] THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS. >> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE OUR CLARIFICATION TODAY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO START, COUNCIL, WITH THEIR COMMENT? >> LET JOHN START. [OVERLAPPING] >> I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ACTUALLY TODAY. JOHN, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND START US OFF? >> FOR THE START. [INAUDIBLE] THE FIRST TODAY. I'M NOT PREPARED. >> LET'S START WITH THE LONG-TERM PARKING. >> WHAT ITEM IS THAT JOHN? >> 10E >> 10E. COUNCIL, AS YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ON OUR AGENDA, I THINK, LAST MEETING, JUST BEING BROUGHT FORWARD. IT WAS DEFERRED TO THIS MEETING. [NOISE] JOHN YOU HAVE SPECIFIC [OVERLAPPING]? >> NOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH THIS? >> TO MY KNOWLEDGE. BRIEF ME ON THE CHANGES. I MEAN I SEE WHAT'S HERE. >> THE LAST VERSION THAT CAME BEFORE YOU ALL, THE AMENDMENT, IS THAT TRUE? >> HERE? [LAUGHTER] >> WAS THAT LEFT [LAUGHTER] THEM WITH A CHOICE TO DO EITHER COLLECT THE EXTRA $0.15 OR NOT COLLECT IT. THIS CHANGE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO COLLECT UP TO $0.15, SO THEY COULD NOT COLLECT IT. THEY COULD COLLECT $0.02, THEY COULD COLLECT $0.15. THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE THOUGH. >> TREVOR, IT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE HAD LAST TIME. IT GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO COLLECT IT OR NOT. >> THEY CAN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT. EITHER WAY, IT'S $1 PER DAY PER VEHICLE THAT GOES TO THE CITY. THAT'S THE FEE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PARKING ARE PAYING. THEY CAN COLLECT AT AN ADMINISTRATIVE COST, RETENTION FEE FOR THEMSELVES OF UP TO $0.15 PER VEHICLE PER DAY. >> THANK YOU. >> IT'S THEIR CHOICE. >> MY BIG ISSUE WITH THIS IS THAT OF COURSE, WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, AND JOHN, YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHIME IN HERE TOO, IS THAT THE PORT IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY US A DIME. >> THE CHARTER PROVIDES THAT BIG PORT, ASSESSES THE FEES FOR ITS OWN ACTIVITIES. WE HAVE AN [NOISE] WITH THE PORT ON THEM TO COLLECT THE FEES. IT'S A LITTLE STUMBLING BLOCK WE'RE STILL WORKING ON. BUT I UNDERSTAND THEY'VE ALREADY TURNED OVER SOME MONEY. >> CURRENTLY, THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY US THIS. >> NO. [NOISE] CAN I ASK YOU JOHN? >> HE'S PROBABLY GOT THE RIGHT ANSWER [LAUGHTER]. >> IT CAME TO THE WORLD OF SPORT [NOISE]. THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO PAY THE FEE VIA THE INNER LOCAL THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE WHARVES BOARD AND SENT FROM THE CITY? YES, THEY ARE. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY FEE, THE DOLLAR FEE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? >> I'M SAYING, IF WE ASSESS THE PORT A FEE FOR PARKING, THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO PAY US. >> WELL [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE CAN'T LEGALLY ASSESS THE FEE. [OVERLAPPING]. >> THE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE TO LEGALLY, THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE HERE, DOES THAT MANDATE THAT THE PORT PAY THAT FEE? NO, BECAUSE OF THE CHARTER. WHAT WE DID IS DETERMINED LEGAL WORK AND PUT TOGETHER AN INTER LOCAL THAT MANDATES NOW THAT THEY PAY THAT DOLLAR FEE TO THE CITY. [00:05:06] >> THAT INTER LOCAL IS IN PLACE? >> IT'S NOT ENTIRELY IN PLACE. WE'RE STILL NEGOTIATING. CORRECT. THAT LANGUAGE INVOLVES WHEN THERE'S LEGAL ACTION WHAT HAS TO BE PAID AND WHEN IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE PAID. >> IT'S GETTING TO BE KIND OF A CIRCULAR CATCH-22 BECAUSE THE PORT [NOISE] IS TELLING US THEY WON'T AGREE TO PAY US IF WE HAVE SOME TYPE OF ISSUE, OR HAVE TO TAKE ISSUE WITH A PRIVATE PARTY PAYING US, AND THEY SUE US, GET A TRO OR WHATEVER ELSE, THE PORT WOULD STOP PAYING IS. WELL, THE PRIVATE PARTY IS TELLING US THIS IS NOT A FAIR AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE PORT IS NOT COLLECTING THE $0.15. THEY SEEM TO BE SOMEWHAT RELUCTANT TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH US, IT'S A CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS. >> WELL, THIS IS THE ISSUE HERE. THE RECHARGED THE DOLLAR FOR PARKING TO THE PORT, TO ALL THE PARKING LOTS PER DOLLAR PER CAR PER DAY. IT CAME TO OUR ATTENTION THAT THE CHARTER AND SOME OTHER LANGUAGE HERE AT THE CITY, DOESN'T FORCE THE PORT TO FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED WITH THIS DOLLAR FOR PARKING. WHAT LEGAL DID IS PUT TOGETHER AN INNER LOCAL AGREEMENT, THAT CAME TO THE WHARVES BOARD, WE APPROVED IT. GO AHEAD AND PAY THE DOLLAR PER DAY TO THE PORT. THE PORT KEPT OUT THERE $0.15 BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO ADMINISTRATIVELY HASSLE WITH THAT. THEY DECIDED THEY'D SEND $1 OVER TO THE CITY. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED. WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE WITH THIS ORDINANCE, IS WE'RE GIVING THE PRIVATE A LOT [NOISE] CHOICE THAT THE PORT HAS. EXCUSE ME, JOHN, ONE LAST THING. >> YEAH. >> IF THE COUNCIL FEELS THE WAY YOU WANT TO SOLVE THIS IS YOU GOT TO HAVE THE POOR PAY THE $0.15 AND FORCE THEM TO DO IT, AND THEREFORE FORESAW THE OTHER PART THAT PLOTS TO DO IT, THE PORT WILL DO IT. >> OKAY. SO I WOULD RATHER SEE THE LANGUAGE READ THAT ISN'T DOLLAR AND 15. IF YOU WANT TO KEEP $0.15, KEEP $0.15, IF YOU DON'T [INAUDIBLE] THE DOLLAR 15. >> WELL, IT WAS SET UP OVER $1 PER DAY PER CAR FOR THE CITY. THAT WAS THE MOUNT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO COME TO SEE. >> BUT I I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY IS, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT FAIR, DISCHARGED THE DOLLAR 15, AND IF YOU WANT TO KEEP IT KEEP IT, IF YOU DON'T SEND IT OVER HERE. >> ORDINANCE WAS ORIGINALLY STRUCTURED FOR THEM TO KEEP THE $0.15 OR TENTH. SEE, IT GOT WEIRD BECAUSE THEY SAID 10%, WHICH IS 13.5 OR WHATEVER. >> AS IT'S STRUCTURED AND THE VERSION THAT YOU ALL PASSED REQUIRES THEM TO COLLECT THE $0.15, AND THEN THEY CAN KEEP 10%, WHICH IS NOT QUITE, IT'S 13.5 CENTS. >> YEAH. >> I MEAN, IF YOU CAN'T DO THE MATH ON THIS, YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN THIS BUSINESS. >> NO, NO, NO. IT'S VERY SIMPLE. THIS IS A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE, MORE OF THE PRIVATE ENTITIES. TO MAKE IT FAIR, CHARGE THE DOLLAR 15, IF THEY WANT TO KEEP ADMINISTRATION FEE, THEY CAN KEEP IT, IF THEY DON'T, SEND TO THE CITY, WE CAN USE IT. IF THE PORT HAS SO MUCH MONEY THAT THEY DON'T NEED TO COLLECT TO $0.15. THAT'S GREAT FOR THE PORT. THEY MUST BE DOING PRETTY GOOD. >> THAT'S NOT THE REASON, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY. THAT'S ONE WAY OF SOLVING THIS. THE OTHER WAY IS TO SAY, LOOK, WE TALKED ABOUT AN ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCE OF $1 PER DAY PER CAR PERIOD. IF ANOTHER WAY OF SOLVING THIS IS, IS ALL ENTITIES PORT INCLUDED, CAN CHARGE THE EXTRA 15 CENTS IF THEY WANT TO, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO. >> NO, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IT WOULD ACTUALLY PUT EVERYBODY AT A DISADVANTAGE, BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, YOU'RE MANDATING THAT EVERYONE THEN CHARGE 15 CENTS AND YOU'RE TELLING THEM FOR IT, THEY DON'T WANT TO KEEP THAT THEY SEND IT. BUT WHAT IF A PRIVATE VENDOR DOESN'T WANT, THERE IS A HARD BOOK FEEDBACK ON THESE BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'RE TOO LOUD OR SOMETHING. >> I DON'T FEEL THE FEEDBACK. >> I HEAR IT. [OVERLAPPING] ANYWAY, WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEN THAT WOULD MAKE ALL PRIVATE COMPANIES HAVE TO CHARGE THEM 15 CENTS TOO, AND IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO, THEY WOULD HAVE NO OPTION. [00:10:01] BY THE WAY, YOUR LANGUAGE IS READING. WHERE THERE MIGHT BE SOME PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT DON'T WANT TO CHARGE IT. >> DAVID. >> COLLECT IT OR CHARGE IT. >> JOHN IS EXACTLY RIGHT. >> THIS IS SO SIMPLE. >> IT IS SO SIMPLE. JUST RAISED HIS FEE FROM $1-$1.15 AND SAID TO EVERYBODY, YOU WANT TO KEEP THE 15, THAT'S UP TO YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME TO KEEP THE 15 CENTS. THEN EVERYBODY'S AT THE SAME DISADVANTAGE. IT'S A DISADVANTAGE TO HAVE TO RAISE PRICES. ANYWAY, $1 OR $1.15 IT DOESN'T MATTER. IF THE PORT DOES NOT WANT TO KEEP THE 15 CENTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PURPOSES, THEY DON'T HAVE TO, THEY CAN SEND IT TO US. BUT EVERYBODY GETS CHARGED $1.15, AT LEAST $1 THAT GOES TO THE CITY. >> THEN IF A PRIVATE VENDOR DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT, THEN THEY SEND IT TO THE CITY TOO? >> ABSOLUTELY. [OVERLAPPING]. >> WHY NOT. >> I THOUGHT YOU WILL ELIMINATE IT. >> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, WHY ARE YOU SHAKING YOUR HEAD? BECAUSE WE STARTED WITH AN ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCE DISCUSSION, AND THIS WHOLE PARKING THINGS STARTED BRINGING $1 PER DAY PER CAR TO THE CITY. THAT'S COVERED NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. NOW, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THEY'VE GOT TO CHARGE $1.15 NOW. >> THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE. SAY EVERYBODY'S GOT TO CHARGE AT LEAST $1 AND THEY CAN KEEP 10 CENTS OF IT. WE ONLY GET 90 IF THEY CHOOSE TO. NOW YOU CAN SLICE AS ANY WAY YOU WANT FINANCIALLY. BUT IF YOU WANT TO PUT EVERYBODY ON THE SAME FOOTING, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT JOHN IS TALKING ABOUT, IS EVERYBODY HAS TO CHARGE $1.15. YOU WANT TO KEEP 15 CENTS OF IT? THAT'S UP TO YOU. BUT THE CITY GETS $1. >> IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY, THE PORT DOESN'T CARE. THE PORT IS GIVEN $1 PER DAY PER CAR TO THE CITY. WHEN THE PORT SAID, LOOK, WE WOULD RATHER NOT GO THROUGH ALL THIS 15 CENTS THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS SET UP, FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES, WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE CITY GETS THEIR MONEY. THIS ORDINANCE THAT TREVOR HAS MENTIONED MAKES A LEVEL OF PLAYING FIELD FOR EVERYBODY TO MAKE THEIR DECISION. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU THINK THAT IS A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WHEN THERE IS SOME MONITORS OF COURSE, TO MONITOR THIS. [NOISE] >> CORRECT. >> YOU BASICALLY WANTING TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE BUCKET AT THE PRIVATE ENTITIES BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO SET UP TO SOME ADMINISTRATIVE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. WOULD YOU SEE IT COSTS SOME MONEY? WHAT'S GOING ON THIS [INAUDIBLE] MORNING. WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE THIS MONEY. >> YEAH COST THEM MONEY ALSO [OVERLAPPING] >> SEND MONEY THEN THERE TO COLLECT. >> WHY WOULD THEY NOT COLLECT THE 15 CENTS? THIS MAKES NO SENSE. IF YOU HAVE SO MUCH MONEY THAT YOU DO NOT TAKE YOUR ADMINISTRATION FEE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE. I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD NOT DO THAT. I DO UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ALL ARE AT A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE BY NOT TAKING THE 15 CENTS. [OVERLAPPING] >> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT DOES MAKE THEM AT COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE. HOW ARE WE GOING TO WRITE IT? EVERYONE WHO COLLECT SUDDEN DOES RUNNING KEEP IT THEN THEY SEND IT TO US? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> ACROSS-BOARD THE [OVERLAPPING]. >> CROSS THE BOARD, YOU HAVE TO COLLECT $1.15, IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR 15 CENTS OR YOUR 10% OR WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE IS, KEEP IT. BUT YOU HAVE TO CHARGE THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE. ONE PERSON CAN'T CHARGE $1, ANOTHER PERSON CAN'T CHARGE $1.15. >> I JUST WANT $1, THAT'S ALL WE WERE AFTER IS $1. >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO GET YOU. KEEP THE 15 CENTS REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY DO WITH IT. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> IT'S YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON IT. PERSONALLY, I THINK THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN HERE GIVES EVERYBODY THE SAME CHOICE AND THE SAME PLAYING FIELD. BUT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, I JUST WANT THE DOLLAR FROM THE PARKING AND SO IT'S ALL I WANT. >> CAN YOU WRITE THAT LANGUAGE DIFFERENTLY AND HOW IS THE PORT GOING TO TAKE THAT WHEN WE SEND IT OVER TO THEM? >> [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] I SAID YOU'VE GOT TO WORK FOR TRUSTEES? >> YEAH. I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO, AND BY THE WAY, WE'LL VOTE ON THAT THIS AFTERNOON AND WE'LL JUST SEE WHAT COUNCIL WANTS DO. BUT IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE AND CHARGE EVERYBODY $1.15, AND THEN THEY CAN KEEP IT AS ADMINISTRATIVE FEE OR THEY DON'T WANT TO KEEP IT, [00:15:01] THEY'LL SEND IT OVER HERE. THEN IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS CHANGE THE INNER LAW AND TAKE IT BACK TO THE WALLS PORT. >> WELL, YOU DIDN'T CHANGE THIS LANGUAGE HERE AS WELL. >> RIGHT NOW IT'S THE 10% IF YOU WANT TO DO 15 CENTS OR NOT THEN IT WOULD REQUIRE [OVERLAPPING] >> I DON'T CARE HOW YOU WRITE THAT, BUT WHAT THIS IS NOT SAYING, THAT EVERYBODY WILL CHARGE $1.15, THEY DO NOT HAVE AN OPTION TO CHARGE LESS. >> THAT THEY MAY KEEP 15 CENTS OF THAT AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. [OVERLAPPING] >> UP TO $0.15. >> OR WHAT ARE YOU'RE PERCENTAGE? >> I WOULDN'T GO PERCENT. >> I DON'T KNOW, WHATEVER THEY MAY. [OVERLAPPING] >> I WOULD JUST SAY UP TO 15 CENTS, PERCENTAGE DOES MAKE IT DIFFICULT. >> THAT REALLY IS SIMPLE. >> YEAH. >> IT SHALL BE WRITTEN, SO IT SHALL BE DONE. >> [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] >> WE CAN HAVE THAT VERSION PREPARED, AS WELL AS THE VERSION THAT'S IN THERE [OVERLAPPING] FOR YOU ALL TO MAKE MOTIONS AND DECIDE. >> SOUNDS GOOD. >> GOOD. YES, JOHN. GO AHEAD. >> I THINK I'M JUST GOING TO END IT THERE AND [LAUGHTER] JUST LET EVERYONE ELSE. >> THAT'S ENOUGH? >> YEAH, QUITE GOOD. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE GOOD. DAVID. >> I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS. >> WHICH ONE? >> ITEM 10B. OH, SORRY. [LAUGHTER] OH, YEAH, FINKLEA. >> GO FOR IT. >> [OVERLAPPING] IF YOU ALL WOULD TAKE THAT AND PASS IT AROUND, PLEASE. >> WHICH LETTER? >> 10B. >> 10B. [BACKGROUND] >> 10B IS THE ORDINANCE ADDRESSING THE NON-AGENDA ITEMS. >> WE ALL WANT TO HEAR YOU. >> ME? >> YEAH. >> DO WE WANT TO DEBATE THAT NOW OR IS THIS ANOTHER [NOISE] ITEM FOR DISCUSSION? >> THIS IS JUST AN ITEM FOR DISCUSSION. I MEAN, YEAH, IT CAN BE A DEBATE. >> NO. I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOUR CONSIDERATION HERE, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I KNOW THE MAYOR HAS BEEN TRYING TO DO IN RECENT WEEKS, MONTHS IS TO LIMIT THIS TO CLARIFICATION AS OPPOSED TO OUT-AND-OUT DEBATE. >> WE JUST CHANGED ONE POINT BLANK ALL THE WAY AROUND. >> OKAY SMARTY PANTS. [LAUGHTER] >> I MEAN, NO. >> THIS IS THE CLARIFICATION OF THE AGENDA ITEMS. >> HE JUST WANTS TO PUT HIS 15 CENTS IN. [LAUGHTER] >> YOU GET TO KEEP IT. >> BUT IF YOU DON'T WANT [LAUGHTER]. >> YOU GO FORWARD. >> ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM, I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH FROM SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES, AND I'D LIKE TO OFFER THAT FOR SUGGESTION BECAUSE THE COMMENT HAD BEEN MADE TO ME BY SOME CONSTITUENTS OF EVERYBODY ELSE AROUND HERE ALLOWS NON-AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION. WELL, IF YOU GO AROUND IN THE REGION, THOSE THAT ALLOW NON-AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSIONS INCLUDE HARRIS COUNTY, THE THIRD LARGEST COUNTY IN THE NATION, LEAGUE CITY, ORANGE, TEXAS, AND TEXAS CITY. THOSE THAT DO NOT ALLOW NON-AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION INCLUDE MONTGOMERY COUNTY, SUGAR LAND, FRIENDSWOOD, AND I ALSO JUST THREW IN A COUPLE OF LARGER ONES, CITY OF LUBBOCK AND ARLINGTON DO NOT ALLOW THAT AS WELL. >> GALVESTON COUNTY. >> I COULDN'T FIND THAT. >> THEY DO NOT ALLOW NON-AGENDA. >> THEY DO NOT ALLOW NON-AGENDA ITEMS. >> WITH THAT SORT OF BACKGROUND, I THINK IT'S ALSO IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TRYING TO SILENCE CONSTITUENTS THAT HAVE PUT ME IN OFFICE FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF COUNCIL, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT KNOWN. THE INFORMATION THAT I PASSED AROUND WAS MAYBE SOME SUGGESTED LANGUAGE THAT MAYBE WE DO AS A COMPROMISE. THAT INSTEAD OF STRIKING NON-AGENDA DISCUSSION FROM THE PUBLIC, THAT MAYBE WE LIMIT IT TO ONE MINUTE IN TOTAL. THAT'S THE BIGGEST ONE THAT I HAVE THERE. ALSO, I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER MAYBE SOME LANGUAGE THAT THOSE WHO WISH TO SPEAK SUBMIT THEIR FORM NO LATER THAN ONE HOUR BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. THIS IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HARRIS COUNTY DOES. >> VERY GOOD. COUNCIL, I WANT TO CLARIFY HERE. THIS IS FOR CLARIFICATION OF THIS ITEM. IF WE WANT TO DEBATE THIS, THAT'S FOR TONIGHT [OVERLAPPING] AT 5:00 O'CLOCK. >> THAT'S FINE. >> I JUST WANTED YOU TO HAVE [OVERLAPPING] THE INFORMATION. >> I KNOW JANELLE DID A LOT OF WORK ON THAT, AND THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIES AND COUNTIES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS DO NOT ALLOW NON-AGENDA ITEMS. ALSO, I THINK LIMITING ANY KIND OF SPEAKER TO ONE MINUTE IS IMPOSSIBLE. HAVING BEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF SPEAKING, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO SAY SOMETHING. SO I'M IN SUPPORT OF JUST DOING AGENDA ITEMS BECAUSE, WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU ALL, BUT I'M ACCESSIBLE TO ALL MY CONSTITUENTS AND ALL YOUR CONSTITUENTS. [00:20:03] MATTER OF FACT, JOHN'S FATHER, CAME TO ME WITH ISSUES LAST NIGHT THAT I SENT OVER. I THINK WE HAVE TRANSPARENCY. I THINK WE'RE ALL ACCESSIBLE. I THINK WE'RE ACCESSIBLE BY EMAIL, [OVERLAPPING] AS WELL AS MEETING WITH PEOPLE. SO I SUPPORT THE COMMENTS ONLY ON AGENDA ITEMS. >> LET'S STAY WITH CLARIFICATION. >> I WILL CLARIFY. MY INTENT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T FINISH THIS DEBATE HERE TODAY AND JUST VOTE TONIGHT BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IN-DEPTH ON THIS IN THIS EVENING'S MEETING. [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S MY ONLY INTENT. >> I AGREE. I WOULD AGREE. >> I'M GOING TO THROW OUT A CLARIFICATION QUESTION ON THIS. DON, STATE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE NON-AGENDA ITEMS TO BE ON THE AGENDA. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THE REASON THAT WE REQUIRE THAT, IT IS IN AN ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE THAT NON-AGENDA ITEMS WILL BE INCLUDED IN OUR AGENDAS. IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE CITY CODE UNDER THE DESCRIPTION FOR THE PROCESS OF THE MEETING. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S BEEN IN THERE. I THINK IT'S BEEN IN THERE A LONG TIME. >> THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM THERE, IS THAT IT WAS IN THE CODE BEFORE THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. BEFORE THAT, YOU COULD COME UP TO COUNCIL AND YOU COULD SAY, HEY, I'VE GOT AN ISSUE. COUNCIL COULD SAY, PLEASE, TELL ME MORE, AND THEY COULD ENGAGE WITH YOU. NOW, COUNCIL CANNOT ENGAGE WITH YOU, AND THAT HAS CAUSED OTHER ISSUES AS WELL BECAUSE IT CAUSES FRUSTRATION ON THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THE PERSON CAME WITH A PROBLEM, THEY WANT IT SOLVED, AND YOU CAN'T EVEN ADDRESS IT WITH THEM. THE OTHER THING IS PEOPLE NOW HAVE LEARNED THAT SO THEY COME UP AND CAN SAY ANYTHING. THEY CAN SAY DAVID FINKLEA SELLS FLOODED USED CARS AND TURN AROUND AND WALK OFF, AND YOU CANNOT ADDRESS THAT. I BOUGHT ONE, IT'S OKAY. THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE THAT STAFF HAS RECEIVED COMMENT ON, IS THAT I CAME, NOBODY EVEN TALKED TO ME. I KNOW THERE WAS AN EDITORIAL IN THIS MORNING'S PAPER THAT TALKED ABOUT DIALOGUE AND DEBATE, AND THAT'S THE REAL ISSUE HERE. YOU CAN'T HAVE DIALOGUE AND DEBATE, AND BY LAW. NOW, IF THE STATE CHANGES THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WHERE YOU GUYS CAN DEBATE ANYTHING IN A PUBLIC MEETING THAT'S NOT ON AN AGENDA, THEN ABSOLUTELY PUT THIS BACK ON THERE. >> A CONSTITUENT COULD COME TO ANY OF US OR TWO OF US OR THE MAYOR WILL SECOND ANYTHING AND SAY I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA. [LAUGHTER] >> THAT'S THE WORD GOING AROUND THE COMMUNITY. >> I WILL SECOND MOST ANYTHING [LAUGHTER] APPROPRIATE. >> THE PART OF THE CITY CODE ON THIS WAS LAST FIDGETED WITHIN 2011. >> YES, SIR. WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY, COUNCIL, IS TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE TO REMOVE NON-AGENDA ITEM COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL MEETINGS FROM OUR ORDINANCE. WELL, WE'LL DISCUSS IT. WE'LL DEBATE THIS ISSUE MORE THOROUGHLY AS COUNCILMAN COLLINS MENTIONED. I AGREE. >> IF THERE'S ANY OTHER TECHNOLOGY NEED THAT COUNCIL WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH TO GIVE MORE OPPORTUNITY, JUST LET US KNOW. WE'RE HAPPY TO ADD IT. WE COULD DO A BLOG. WE COULD DO ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. >> DAVID FINKLEA, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SIR? >> NO. ALRIGHTY. DAVID, COMMENT? >> I THINK THE ONLY POINT OF CLARIFICATION I WANT HERE IS 11E. THIS IS A SOVEREIGN BUILDERS STAFF REPORT. THIS IS WE'RE FINALLY GOING TO ENGAGE ON THE REMODELED FOURTH FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING. >> YES, SIR. >> WHAT'S THE TIMELINE ON THAT? >> DUDLEY. >> THERE HE IS. >> THE PROPOSAL THEY SAID WAS 109 DAYS FROM NOTICE TO CHRISTEN. [OVERLAPPING] SLIGHTLY MORE THAN HALF A YEAR. >> THAT'S LESS THAN I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT, BUT [OVERLAPPING]. >> IT'S ALREADY GO IT SO. >> YES. >> IT'S AN EMPTY ROOM, AND SO BRIAN, ONCE THAT'S DONE, YOU'RE GOING TO REPOPULATE THAT FLOOR WITH? >> PRIMARILY IT BUILT FACILITIES AND [NOISE] JUST WANTED TO GROUP HELPING OUT LIKE IT FACILITIES. >> AND FACILITIES. >> AND FACILITIES. THAT'S OKAY. IT AND FACILITIES. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT IT SPREAD OUT ALL OVER. >> TWO THINGS. ONE, HOW PLANNING IS GOING TO STAY IN THE MADISON BUILDING, AND DO WE HAVE ANY PLANS TO BRING THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE BACK INTO THE BUILDING AND [OVERLAPPING] SHED THE? >> YES. [NOISE] BUT THAT'S GOING TO INVOLVE MOVING ON THE THIRD FLOOR WHEN WE START THE REMODELING THERE. >> WE START TO REMODELING. >> AS SOON AS WE FINISH THE FOURTH FLOOR, WE'RE TRYING TO DO FLOOR AT A TIME AND WE'RE GOING TO MARCH THROUGH IT. [00:25:02] >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL. >> ON THAT SUBJECT. MARIE HAD A QUESTION AND JOHN? >> I DID, AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE ONE OF JOHN'S ITEMS. TO ME, THAT PRICE SEEMS HIGH AND DIDN'T WE ALREADY APPROVE PART OF THIS AT A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING? >> THIS ONE'S THE DEMOLITION. >> AND A BUDGET FOR IT, CAN YOU REVEAL WHAT WE APPROVED BEFORE? >> WE APPROVE DEMOLITION ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO. THAT WAS THE PRECURSOR TO THIS. WE WANT TO DO A DEMOLITION SO THAT WE COULD SEE WHAT WAS INSIDE THE WALLS BEFORE YOU FINISHED THE DESIGN FOR THE FOURTH FLOOR. >> OKAY. >> NOW, WE'VE SEEN IT AND [OVERLAPPING]. >> A PART OF THIS IS STILL DEMOLITION TOO? >> THERE'S A VERY MINOR PART OF DEMOLITION LEFT. >> OKAY. WHICH IS? >> SOMETHING THAT WE OPENED UP WITH THE DEMOLITION. >> OKAY. >> [OVERLAPPING] THERE'S A BIG SHAFT IN THERE THAT WE DID NOT KNOW WAS IN THERE. >> OKAY. >> IT GOES UP TO THE ROOF. >> JOHN. >> MY QUESTION IS THE FUNDING SOURCE ON THIS. THIS IS INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT SERVICE FUND. THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT; THE INFRASTRUCTURE FUND AND THE DEBT SERVICE FUND? >> NO, THAT'S ONE FUND. >> ONE. THAT'S ONE FUND; INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S THE 8%. [OVERLAPPING] I DIDN'T KNOW WE USED THAT FUND FOR REMODELING PROJECTS LIKE THIS. >> YOU CAN USE IT FOR ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OVER $100,000. >> ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT? OKAY. >> FOR A CAPITAL PURCHASE FOR OVER 100,000. >> OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT, I JUST [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE ATTEMPTED TO DO THIS REMODELING IN THE PAST USING [OVERLAPPING] HOT AND WE MET WITH SOME OPPOSITION FROM THE PARK BOARD AND OTHERS. >> IT'S OKAY. DON'T BRING IT UP. >> OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW WE COULD USE THAT FUND FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS LIKE THIS [OVERLAPPING]. >> ABSOLUTELY, WE CAN BUY FIRE TRUCKS, WE CAN BUILD BUILDINGS, WE CAN REMODEL BUILDINGS, WE CAN DO ANYTHING. [OVERLAPPING] ROADS, AND WE DO A LOT OF ROADS. THAT'S WHERE WE PAY FOR ALL OF IT OUT OF. IT'S FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS, BUT WE CAN'T TAKE 10 CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT TOTAL 100,000. IT HAS TO BE A PROJECT OF 100,000 OR MORE CAPITAL. >> OKAY. DO WE ANTICIPATE THAT EACH FLOOR OF THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO COST THIS AMOUNT? >> SOME MAY BE MORE, SOME MAY BE LESS. IT DEPENDS ON THE PROJECT SCOPE, BUT I THINK THE THIRD FLOOR WILL PROBABLY BE THE CHEAPER OF THE FLOORS AND THEN TWO AND ONE WILL BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT. WE'VE ALREADY DONE A LOT OF WORK ON TWO AND ONE WITH THE BATHROOMS AND THINGS. >> AND TWO-IN-ONE BEING REMODELING. >> ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'RE HAVING AT THE VERY EARLY STAGES, IS WHETHER OR NOT COUNCIL CHAMBERS REMAINS ON THE SECOND FLOOR. WE HAVE ONE ELEVATOR SERVICING THIS BUILDING, AND WE ALSO HAVE ISSUES WITH PEOPLE COMING IN IN THE EVENING HOURS AT THIS BUILDING WHEN OTHER MEETINGS ARE GOING ON AND THEN TAKING UP RESIDENCE IN THE BUILDING WITHOUT US KNOWING ABOUT IT. WE'D LIKE TO TRY TO KEEP ALL THE PUBLIC SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'RE HAVING NOW TO SEE IF THERE'S SOME WAY WE CAN PUT COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND WORKSHOP ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDING ALONG WITH SOME OF YOUR WATER BILL AND PEOPLE THAT NEED TO ACCESS THE BUILDING PUBLICLY CAN COME IN BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A REAL PROBLEM IF THAT ELEVATOR BREAKS AND WE'RE HAVING A PUBLIC MEETING. >> YEAH. >> IT HAPPENS. >> SO IF WE DO MOVE THE CHAMBERS AND THE WORKSHOP ROOM, WOULD WE HAVE BETTER AIR CONDITIONING CONTROL? >> [LAUGHTER] WE'RE IMPROVING IT EVERYWHERE WE GO. >> SINCE IT'S ALWAYS FREEZING HERE. >> WELL, IT'S ALL READY. WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADJUST IT IN HERE NOW. IT'S RIGHT BEHIND YOU OVER THERE. >> OKAY. >> YES, JOHN. >> WE'RE LOOKING TO SPEND ABOUT SIX MILLION BUCKS ON THIS BUILDING ON A REMODEL. >> PROBABLY. >> I'D HAVE TO DO SOME NUMBERS ON IT. FIVE YEARS AGO WE WERE PLANNING ON SPENDING EIGHT MILLION, THAT MONEY WENT FOR SOMETHING ELSE AND SO WE'VE BEEN DOING IT PIECEMEAL BECAUSE WE'VE DONE THE FIRST FLOOR RESTROOMS AND THE THIRD FLOOR RESTROOMS, WE'RE SPENDING LESS MONEY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SPENT. >> OKAY. >> BUT THE BIG ITEM THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE THIS CONCERN IS FIRE SPRINKLING. WE'RE SPRINKLING THE ATTIC AND THE FOURTH FLOOR AT THE MOMENT, IT'S NOT A COMPLETE SYSTEM, SO IT'S NOT REALLY A COMPLIANCE SYSTEM. BUT AS WE COME DOWN, WE WANT TO EXTEND IT AND WE MAY HAVE TO DO SOME ADDITIONAL WORK THERE TO GET MORE PRESSURE, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE YET. >> YEAH. WE MAY INVOLVE THE PUMP? >> YEAH. FOR SURE, THEY WILL. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I REMEMBER. >> DUDLEY, JUST TO COMMENT ON THE FOURTH FLOOR. HAD THE OCCASION TO GO UP THERE AND LOOK AT THAT. IT HAS A HISTORICAL AMBIANCE TO IT THAT'S PRETTY COOL UP THERE. >> I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO GO UP THAT WANTS TO. [00:30:02] WE'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE YOU UP THERE, IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY DANGEROUS. >> RIGHT. >> BUT YOU CAN SEE HOW THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE OLD STUFF. >> IT'S TIMBER FRAMED, [OVERLAPPING] THAT ROOF IS, AND IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO SEE, BUT KEEP IN MIND WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS FIRST DEVELOPED, THE FOURTH FLOOR WAS NOT POPULATED, SO IT WAS DEVELOPED LATER IN THE BUILDING, BUILT OUT LATER. [OVERLAPPING] >> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS YOUR BUILD-OUT, ARE YOU GOING TO PUT DROP CEILINGS BACK IN AND COVER THE COLUMNS AND ALL THAT, OR IS IT GOING TO. >> WE WILL DROP CEILINGS JUST TO BE ABLE TO PUT LIGHTS, TO PUT AIR CONDITIONING, AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN, BUT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. AS WE GO AROUND THE EDGE, THE CEILINGS WILL BE PUT MORE IN THE 10 FOOT RANGE THAN THEY USED TO BE, WHICH WAS EIGHT AND NINE. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, [OVERLAPPING] ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO MAINTAIN SOME OF THE HISTORICAL AMBIANCE UP THERE? >> DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT. [OVERLAPPING]. >> [LAUGHTER] THERE WAS NONE BEFORE UNTIL WE GUTTED IT. >> THERE'S A VERY SMALL PART THAT DOESN'T. I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THOSE WALLS EXPOSED, THEIR SOLID MAY SPRING. THEORETICALLY SOMETHING MIGHT SPRING, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BREAKAGE IN THE STRUCTURAL CLAY TILES AND WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE AN INSULATED GAP SO THAT WE DON'T MOVE MOISTURE THROUGH AT THE RATE WERE. >> RIGHT. I GUESS AS WE MOVE DOWN THE FLOORS HERE, BRIAN, I HAD IN MY MIND THAT WE WERE GOING TO. >> MY THOUGHT, AND I CAN ONLY SPEAK, AND DUDLEY KNOWS MY BACK OF THE NAPKIN WORK AROUND HERE. MY THOUGHT IS YOUR FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS WOULD BE MORE ORIGINAL TO THE BUILDING WHERE YOUR WORKER FLOORS, WHICH IS THIRD AND FOUR, WILL BE MORE MODERN IN USE BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE EFFICIENT THAT WAY. BUT YOUR CEREMONIAL FLOORS OF ONE AND TWO WILL MORE THAN LIKELY STAY OF HISTORIC IN NATURE. THAT'S OUR GOAL. >> OKAY. >> ALL OF THE COMMUNAL AREAS WILL HAVE THE OLD TRIM SHAPES, WHICH ARE VERY MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S MODERN, SO THAT STUFF WILL FLOW THROUGH THE BUILDING. >> THE FOURTH FLOOR, LIKE I SAID, WAS DEVELOPED LATER SO IT WAS NEVER HAD ANY HISTORIC CHARM TO IT AT ALL. THREE IS NOT AT ALL, BUT ONE AND TWO, IF YOU POP THE CEILINGS IN MY OFFICE, THE CEILINGS ARE PROBABLY WHAT, 15 FEET DUDLEY? >> THEY ARE 12. [OVERLAPPING] THEY HAVE VERY ORNATE PLASTER WORK THAT'S BEEN [OVERLAPPING] DETERIORATED. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE BUILDING, AND THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE, OF COURSE TOO BUT WE MAINTAIN THE HISTORICAL AMBIANCE. >> ABSOLUTELY, AND THAT'S THE PLAN WITH ONE AND TWO WHEN WE GET THERE. >> OKAY. MARIE. >> ARE MOST OF THE TOXIC THINGS GONE, WASN'T THERE A LOT OF ASBESTOS? >> ALL OF THE ASBESTOS IN ALL BUT ONE SMALL PART IS GONE AND THAT'S THE PART THAT'S PART OF THE DEMOLITION FOR THIS PROJECT. >> OKAY. >> IT'S FLOOR TOP. >> I DON'T WANT IT TO WAIT UNTIL AFTER THAT. >> NO, AND DON'T EAT IT. [LAUGHTER] >> WE HAVE THAT HIGH RATE OF CANCER AMONG EMPLOYEES SO. >> THE ASBESTOS THAT'S FRIABLE IN ANY DANGEROUS AMOUNT HAS BEEN GONE FOR A LONG TIME. [NOISE] >> OKAY. >> WHAT'S THERE NOW IS THE OLD ASBESTOS FOR TILE AND THAT COMES UP IN A CHUNK. IT'S NOT DANGEROUS, IT EVEN GOES TO A REGULAR LANDFILL NOW. >> OKAY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT, DUDLEY. THANK YOU. DAVID, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> RIGHT. I WAS GOING TO SAY SO. I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THAT WAS IT. I RESERVE THE BIG COMMENTS FROM THIS CITY. >> MARIE. >> OKAY. I HAVE ONE THAT WASN'T COVERED YET, O AND 11O. WHERE ARE WE ON THE NEW METERS AS YOU'RE COMING UP? >> HE'S PREPARED. >> 11O THOUGH IS NOT THE AMI PROJECT, 11O WAS INVENTORY FOR NEW METER SETS. HOWEVER, 11M IS THE AMI PROJECT. THE PROJECT IS AS FAR AS METER CHANGE THAT IS ABOUT 28% IN, A LOT OF THE NETWORK SOFTWARE PLATFORMS AND WHATNOT ARE ALL STOOD UP IN COMMUNICATING AND WORKING OUR PLATFORMS UP. WE'RE BUILDING OFF THE SYSTEM. WE HAVE CUSTOMER PORTALS. THE SAME TIME THOUGH, WE'RE STILL MANAGING THE OLD SYSTEM. BECAUSE OF SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES THE PROJECT'S GOING SLOWER. THERE'S BEEN SUCH DELAYS ON RECEIVING METERS AND THAT'S THE ONLY HOLD OF THAT WE'RE HAVING. OUR DISTRIBUTOR, BADGER, HAS PROMISED TO [00:35:01] INCREASE THE METER SUPPLY AND THEY HAVE JUST STARTED RAMPING UP THIS MONTH, THEY TOOK CARE OF WHATEVER THEIR SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES ARE. WE HAVE 975 METERS IN STOCK FINALLY WITH 256 ON THE WAY. NOW, OUR CONTRACTOR CAN RAMP UP THEIR INSTALLATION. OUR CURRENT SCHEDULE PUTS US FINISHING VERY LATE SPRING WHERE WE WERE SUPPOSED TO FINISH LATE FALL. HOWEVER, OUR CONTRACTOR HAS GUARANTEED US THAT IF BADGER CAN KEEP UP WITH THE METER SUPPLY THEY WILL STEP UP AS MUCH AS THEY NEED AND BRING THE SCHEDULE BACK. THEIR CAPABILITY IS APPROXIMATELY 750 METERS A WEEK IF THE STOCKS IN. THEY'VE PROMISED TO RAMP UP TO THAT IF WE CAN GET THAT INVENTORY IN. >> ARE WE OVERSEEING THAT CONTRACTOR BECAUSE I KNOW I'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH [OVERLAPPING] SO FORTH AND SO ON? >> WE ARE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE DON'T HAVE AN INSPECTOR FOLLOWING THEM AT EVERY SINGLE METER SO THEY'RE IN AND OUT. BECAUSE WE'RE STILL MANAGING THE OLD SYSTEM AND BECAUSE IT'S SLOW, IT'S BECOME DOUBLE THE WORK, REALLY. YES, WE ARE, BUT ONCE WE KNOW ABOUT ISSUES, WE GET ON THE HONE WITHIN RIGHT AWAY AND WE TAKE CARE OF IT. I HAD SOME THIS WEEKEND A BROKEN SPRINKLERS AND OVER THE WEEKEND THEY GOT PEOPLE OUT, THEY'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. >> THEY'RE GOOD CONTRACTOR, THEY'VE BEEN REALLY RECEPTIVE TO COME IN AND TAKE CARE OF ANY ISSUES WE HAVE. THEN IF THERE'S A BILLING ISSUE AS A RESULT OF IT SARAH HAS BEEN REALLY GOOD ABOUT WORK. [OVERLAPPING] >> CONSTITUENTS WHERE THEY WERE VERY NICE, MAYBE NOT. IT'S HARD TO TELL SOMEBODY IN 110 DEGREE WHETHER THEY WONT HAVE SPRINKLER FOR THREE DAYS OR FOUR DAYS OR. >> I TELL YOU, A COOL FEATURE THAT WE'VE INSTALLED IN THE SYSTEM WITH THIS IS WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE TEMPERATURES OF THE WATER IN OUR SYSTEM. YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW. [LAUGHTER] >> [OVERLAPPING] I TELL YOU, WHEN YOU GO TO TAKE A COLD SHOWER, FORGET ABOUT IT. [LAUGHTER]. >> WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE OUR CLARITY OF THE WATER IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS AND OUR TOTAL CHLORINE RESIDUALS, OUR PH. I'M ACTUALLY GIVING A PRESENTATION ON THAT RIGHT AFTER THIS WORKSHOP. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT? >> CAN I ASK ONE MORE? >> SURE. >> DO WE HAVE THE ETA ON WHEN WILL BE FINISHED WITH INSTALLING THE NEW METER? >> RIGHT NOW, UNLESS BADGER RAMPS UP THE METERS WE'RE SCHEDULED PROBABLY MAY. >> IS IT COMPLETE? >> IF THEY CONTINUE WITH THE BULK OF METERS LIKE WE RECEIVED THIS MONTH WE MAY BE ABLE TO DIAL IT BACK TO DECEMBER, JANUARY. >> ARE YOU SENDING US THE REPORT UPDATING US? BECAUSE I COULD'VE MISSED THAT. >> I HAVE NOT. [NOISE]. >> IF YOU WOULD JUST HAVE IT PREPARED FOR THE MANAGERS REPORT SO THAT WAY IT GOES OUT AND EVERYBODY GETS IT. >> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. >> I HAVE TWO OR THREE QUESTIONS NOW THIS COMES UP. WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF METERS WE'RE REPLACING? >> THE TOTAL NUMBER OF METERS THAT WE HAD INTO CONTRACT WAS APPROXIMATELY 25,800. HOWEVER, FROM THE TIME WHAT WE HAVEN'T ADDRESSED YET AND WE'LL END UP COMING BACK IN THE FUTURE, FROM THE TIME THAT WE WENT OUT FOR BIDS, WE'RE GOING THROUGH CONTRACTS WAITING FOR THE NEW METERS TO COME IN, WE WERE STILL RECEIVING NEW METER SETS WITH NEW TABS. WE WERE INSTALLING OLDER METERS. RIGHT NOW HOPE IS WORKING WITH ME TO HELP FIGURE OUT WHAT OUR TRUE COUNT OF WHAT THE DELTA IS BETWEEN THE OLD METERS THAT WE'VE RECENTLY SOLVED IN THE LAST 18 MONTHS OR TWO YEARS VERSUS WHAT'S IN OUR PROJECT. I THINK THE DELTA IS GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE TO IT, 1,000 METERS OR SO AT WHICH POINT THEN WE'LL END UP COMING BACK WITH A CHANGE ORDER IN THE FUTURE TO ADDRESS THOSE SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS A NEW METER. >> THEN ONCE WE HAVE A GOOD SUPPLY, DAVID NEW TAPS WILL GET NEW METERS. >> WELL, THE NEW TAPS RIGHT NOW GET NEW METERS. [OVERLAPPING] >> IT WAS THAT TRANSITIONAL PERIOD. >> YEAH, WITH THAT TRANSITION. >> WHAT PERCENTAGE INSTALLATION WORK, HOW FAR OFF THROUGH THIS PROJECT ARE WE? >> WE ARE AT 28% EARLIEST. >> IS IT OBVIOUS THAT IT'S A NEW METER WHEN A HOMEOWNER LOOKS AT IT? >> YES, IT'S QUITE DIFFERENT THAN THE OLD. THE OLD IS A BRASS BODY, IT'S BROWN. THESE NEW ONES ARE THE REAL SLEEK, THEY'RE REAL THIN, THEY'RE JUST AN ELECTRIC COMPONENT ON TOP BECAUSE THEY'RE SOLID STATE SO IT'S A PIPE WITH THE ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS ON TOP AND IT'S JUST SHOOTING AN ULTRASOUND. [00:40:03] >> THERE'S A SENSOR ON THE LID TOO. >> ON THE METER COVER TOO, YES. THAT'S THE EASIEST WAY TO [OVERLAPPING] >> BECAUSE IT'S TEST TAMPER, WE'LL KNOW IF YOU TAMPER WITH IT. >> YOU HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO MY HOUSE BECAUSE I HAVE OCCASIONALLY [LAUGHTER] >> THAT'S I THINK PART OF THE CONFUSION SO WE'RE STILL INSTALLING NEW METERS THAT ARE OLD METERS BECAUSE. >> NOT NOW. >> NOT NOW. BUT THEN THE LAST YEAR SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE GOTTEN A NEW METER WHICH REALLY ISN'T A NEW METER. >> CORRECT. >> IT'S THE OLD METER. >> ARE YOU DOING RESIDENTIAL ONLY OR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL OF RESOLVED? >> WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE PLAN AFTER THE BIG FREEZE IN '21, I GUESS IT WAS, IT SEEMED THE PLAN WAS THERE WERE GOING TO BE SOME REGIONAL CONTROLS SO YOU COULD CUT OFF NEIGHBORHOODS AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO CUT OFF INDIVIDUAL METERS. >> ALL OF OUR DOMESTIC METERS, THE FIVE, EIGHT METERS, THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WITH THE TECHNOLOGY. ALL OF THE FIVE, EIGHT METERS HAVE REMOTE CONNECT, DISCONNECT AND WE HAVE THAT CAPABILITY RIGHT NOW TO TURN THEM ON AND OFF. ANYTHING LARGER THAN THAT DOES NOT HAVE REMOTE CONNECT, DISCONNECT BUT THAT'S TRUE ACROSS ALL THE DIFFERENT. >> BUT IT'S STILL AT THE INDIVIDUAL METER LEVEL THIS HAPPENS? >> RIGHT IN. >> BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE TALKED ONETIME ABOUT BEING ABLE TO. >> IT'S THE SAME, THE WAY IT IS. ONCE WE COMPLETE THIS INSTALLATION, THAT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER PROJECT WE BRING TO YOU FOR AUTOMATION OF THE VALVE SYSTEMS IN THE CITY. >> THAT WAY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TEST ONE SECTION OF THE ISLAND PRESSURE AGAINST ANOTHER SECTION OF THE ISLAND? >> YES. >> WE HAD SOME MASSIVE LEAKS WE COULDN'T FIND. >> IN PART OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS LIKE WE HAVE PRESSURE MONITORS, WE DID NOT HAVE THAT BEFORE. OUR PRESSURE MONITOR WAS A GUY IN A PICKUP TRUCK THAT DROVE OUT TO SAN LOUIS PAST AND HE WAS GOOD. BUT WE HAVE PRESSURE MONITORS THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM, WE HAVE WATER QUALITY MONITORS THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM, ALL THAT TYPE OF STUFF. WE'RE AUTOMATING BUT OUR MAIN GOAL IS GETTING THE MAJORITY OF THE METERS REPLACED. AUTOMATING OUR VALVES IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER PROJECT. NOT BIGGER PROJECT BUT A MORE IN-DEPTH PROJECT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE VALVES ARE HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLD. >> BUT IT'S ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL THAT WE DO THAT. >> YES. >> YOU DON'T THINK IT IS UNTIL YOU NEED IT. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FREEZE WHEN THINGS STARTED TO WARM UP. I KNOW YOUR CREWS WERE OUT THERE TRYING TO TURN SOME OF THOSE METERS OFF AND THEY'RE SOLD [OVERLAPPING]. >> PART OF THAT PROCESS HAS ALREADY STARTED, DAVID, I ADMIT. TRINO HAS DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF LOCATING THE VALVES. TRUST ME, GET A BREAK AND WE ARE SOME SCAVENGER HUNT TYPE. >> COMPUTER RECORDS JUST WEREN'T 100 YEARS AGO. >> NO. 100-YEAR-OLD GIS IS USELESS TO US. >> PAUL AND SOME OF THEM DIDN'T EVEN HAVE COMPUTER RECORD. >> NO. WE FIND VALVES, WE FOUND A WHOLE STORM SYSTEM WE DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD THE OTHER DAY, BECAUSE IT WASN'T ON ANYTHING. BUT THAT'S PART OF WHAT TRINO IS DOING AND EVERY TIME EVERYTHING WE TOUCH THEY ARE UPDATING OUR SYSTEM. WHEN THIS PROJECT IS READY TO KICK OFF WE WILL ACTUALLY HAVE BETTER LOCATES AND EVERYTHING. >> OUR CITY DEFINITELY HAS TWO DIFFERENT GIS TEAMS. ONE GROUP REPORTS TO HOPE, ONE GROUP REPORTS TO ME. MY GROUP ARE THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND. THEY GO OUT THERE, THEY OPEN LIDS, THEY OPEN VALVES, THEY GET SURVEY GRADE GPS POINTS, THEY GET IT UPDATED IN THE MAP AND THEN THE MAP IS RECONCILED EVERY FRIDAY. THEN ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAVE DIFFERENT PROACTIVE TEAMS GOING OUT THERE AND EXERCISING THESE VALVES. THEY OPEN AND CLOSE THEM, THEY CAPTURE THE NUMBER OF TURNS. THEY PUT THAT IN IN GIS, THEY GET A GPS AND THEN IF IT'S BROKEN WORK ORDERS START TO BUILD UP FOR REPAIR OR REPLACEMENT. WE HAVE QUITE A BIT OF A BACKLOG [OVERLAPPING] >> WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN AUTOMATED VALVE TRAILER NOW SO OUR GUYS DON'T GET DIZZY TURNING CIRCLES WITH 50 TURNS. >> MARIE, YOU HAD OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY MORE ON THAT? >> NO. THAT ONE'S DONE. SIR, DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP ON THAT? SOMEBODY ELSE HAD THEIR HAND UP. [OVERLAPPING] >> I DID BUT. [LAUGHTER] >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, AND YOU'RE DOING AN AMAZING JOB TRAINING THEM. 11P, ON THE TROLLEYS. >> YES. >> WHY ARE WE ONLY BUYING FOR WITHHOLD TAX, WHY AREN'T WE BUYING AQUEOUS TAX? >> BECAUSE FOUR OF THEM ARE ISLAND TRANSIT ASSETS AND FOUR ARE FOR TOURISM TRANSPORTATION, THEY WERE REPLACING THE FOUR WE HAVE NOW. BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE INVERTED COLORS SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. >> THE ISLAND TRANSIT TROLLEYS ARE ON DEDICATED ROUTES? >> WHAT WE'RE DOING IS, IS THE CUTAWAY BUSES WE DRIVE NOW THEY'RE AGING OUT. SO INSTEAD OF BUYING MORE CUTAWAY BUSES, THESE ARE MORE ROBUST. THEY'D BEEN VERY GOOD SERVICE VEHICLES FOR US, SO WE'RE JUST REPLACING THEM WITH A TROLLEY TYPE VEHICLE FOR OUR REGULAR ISLAND TRANSIT, WE THINK IT ADDS A LITTLE AMBIANCE TO IT. BUT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TELL BECAUSE ONE, [00:45:03] OUR TOURIST TROLLEYS ARE GREEN OVER RED AND OUR OTHER TROLLEYS ARE RED OVER GREEN. AND IF YOU'RE COLORBLIND, YOU MAY END UP IN LAMARCK. [LAUGHTER] >> THEY ALWAYS LOOK SO PRETTY WHEN THEY DROP THERE [OVERLAPPING]. >> TOURIST SERVICES IS A DIFFERENT MATTER, THEY'RE GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. BUT YOU CAN ALWAYS IDENTIFY WHAT TOURISTS ARE PAYING FOR, AND WHAT RESIDENTS ARE PAYING FOR. >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. >> I JUST HAVE TO COMMENT. WE'RE BUYING HOW MANY OF THEM? >> EIGHT OF THEM. >> WE ARE BUYING EIGHT, FOUR TO REPLACE THE FOUR RUBBER WHEELS WE'RE USING NOW AND FOUR TO REPLACE FOR THE CUTAWAYS. >> THESE PUPPIES ARE $300,000 A PIECE? >> YES, SIR. >> OKIDOKIE. [LAUGHTER] >> NOT THAT FAR OFF FROM WHAT THE CUTAWAYS COST US. >> REALLY. >> AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM, AND THIS IS FOR TEAM. AND THEY CAN'T FIND THEM ON THE SCHEDULE. BUT MY GUESS, RUN-INS, ROBB, WHY DOES TIM WE'RE CHANGING THE BFA TO MATCH THE QUESTION. THEN THE OTHER ONE IS. >> THE ONE WOULD ITEM IS WHAT IS 10C? >>IN JANUARY, WE UPDATED THE BUILDING CODES AND AS PART OF THAT THE DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA DONE INCORPORATED, I HAD A TYPO IN THERE. IT CHANGED THE VFE FROM 18 INCHES TO 2 FEET STORMWATER, SORRY NOT STORMWATER. THE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE SAYS IT'S 18 " ABOVE VFE. SO I NEED TO MAKE IT CORRECT WITH THE STORMWATER. >> RELIGIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE. >> THE TYPO WAS A TWO FEET INSTEAD OF 18. >> THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN 18 INCHES. TYPICALLY WHEN YOU REPORT ON ELEVATION CERTIFICATE, YOU JUST DO TO THE NEAREST FOOT. SO 1.5 FEET IS TWO FEET. WE GET A LITTLE BIT OF A CREDIT OF NOT HAVING TO GO TO THE ISSUE 6 INCHES I STILL GET THE BENEFIT. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> MY POINT WAS ROBB WAS ONCE YOU'RE UP ON PILINGS, SIX INCHES. >> WELL, UNLESS YOU HAVE BEEN TO DO IT SIX INCHES TOO LOW. >> BUT THEN THAT'S A PROBLEM. >> WHAT DO WE DO? >> IS THERE ANY CHANGE TO YOUR HYDRAULIC MODELS AS A RESULT OF THIS? >> YES. >> THANKS. >> TIM. THANK YOU, ROBB. THERE WAS A BEACH ACCESSING AND I CAN'T FIND THAT NUMBER EITHER. >> IT'S ACTUALLY NOT THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN THAT'S BEING AMENDED. IT'S THE LDR IN EQUATION TO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE BEACH ACCESS. AND YOU GUYS ALL DISCUSSED THIS. WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD THAT SAME DOCUMENT AS REQUESTED. IN THE MANNER THAT WE ENDED UP LANDING ON, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK-AND-FORTH ABOUT SHOULD WE DO THIS THROUGH POLICY OR SHOULD WE DO IT THROUGH AN ORDINANCE? IT WAS ORDINANCE AT FIRST AND THEN WE LEAN TOWARDS MAYBE WE CAN DO IT THROUGH POLICY AND THEN IN THE END WE LEFT IT TO LEGAL TO PROVIDE THAT DIRECTION. >> NOW, JUST FOR COUNSELORS INFORMATION, THERE'S NO ACTION ITEM ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS A WORKSHOP. AND THIS IS ONLY IT'S ITEM, 3C ON OUR WORKSHOP. BUT WE WERE VOTING ON THIS. >> NO. >> YES, NO. COMES BACK IN JULY. >> IN JULY. WE GOT TO VOTE ON AT SOME POINT. >> IN JULY. >> I HAVE A QUICK CLARIFICATION ON THIS ONE. AND I'VE I WENT OVER THIS IN PLANNING THE OTHER DAY. IT WAS MY RECOLLECTION THAT WE WERE HANDLING THIS THROUGH JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. BUT THEN IT SHOWS UP ON OUR PLANNING COMMISSION, THE AGENDA THIS WEEK. I RAISED SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. I DIDN'T GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE TAPES, BUT APPARENTLY, YOU-ALL MAY HAVE. >> DAN AND I BOTH DID. >> IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, TIM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND STAFF KNEW WHAT OUR GOAL WAS. WE LEFT IT UP TO THEM TO FORMALIZE THAT OR WHAT OTHER PROCESSES NEEDED TO BE DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS RECORDED AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE. YOU FELT WE TO CHANGE THIS DOCUMENT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE WANT TO DO? >> I DON'T THINK IT WAS TIM. LET ME PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT I DON'T THINK TIM THOUGHT THAT. I THINK LEGAL THOUGHT THAT THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD THIS. IT MIGHT NOT HURT MY POINT HERE. >> I RECEIVED IN COMMUNICATION FORM THE MAYOR THAT SAID IT WAS HIS UNDERSTANDING AND SHOULD BE DONE BY ORDINANCE. >> SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION HERE IT SEEMS LIKE. >> WE SHOULD ALL GET TOGETHER EVERY MONTH [LAUGHTER] TO FIGURE IT OUT. >> MAYBE IN THE MORNING, MAYBE IN THE EVENING. [00:50:01] >> IT WAS UNDERSTANDING JOHN, I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO KNOW HOW THIS IS DONE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS RECORDED SOMEWHERE AND FORMALIZED. NOW HOWEVER, STAFF AND LEGAL FIELDS THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, AND APPARENTLY YOU'VE DISCUSSED THAT AND FEEL THAT YOUR PROPOSAL THIS ON OUR WORKSHOP TODAY. >> WELL, OFTENTIMES AN ORDINANCE IS AMENDED THROUGH ANOTHER ORDINANCE, YOU ADOPT ANOTHER ORDINANCE. AND THE LDR, SO IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHICH IT DID AND THEY AFFIRMATIVELY APPROVE THIS AS WELL. SO JUST WHERE WE LANDED ON IT, BASED UPON WHAT WE HEARD AT THE AT THE END OF THAT MEETING, IN THE LAST WORKSHOP. >> MY POINT I BRING THIS UP IS NOT THAT I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS WHICH WAY IT GOES. MY POINT HERE IS THAT I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. AND BY BRINGING THIS THROUGH LEGAL AND TIM AND ALL THESE DEPARTMENTS, IT TAKES UP THEIR TIME AND RESOURCES TO CREATE THESE ORDINANCES, BRING IT BACK TO US FOR US TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION WHEN IT SEEMED IT COULD HAVE BEEN A SIMPLE POLICY THAT WAS IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT. >> POLICY HAS TO BE BY ORDINANCE. >> NO. >> NO? >> POLICY DOESN'T. BUT REMEMBER, THIS IS CHANGING AN ORDINANCE. THIS HEADING TO ORDINANCE. >> THIS IS CHANGING THE ORDINANCE, BUT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM JUST SAYING, HEY, TEAM, MAKE SURE THAT YOU PUT POLICIES IN PLACE THAT ANY AMENDMENT TO THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN GOES THROUGH PLANNING. AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT WE DISCUSSED OUR MEETING. AND THEN I GO TO MY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND WE HAVE A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT AN ORDINANCE THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. >> WELL, I AGREE WITH YOU IF THEY CAN DO IT. IT'S IN FRONT OF US NOW. >> IT'S IN FRONT OF US AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO IT. BUT THE PROBLEM I SEE, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS DOCUMENTED AND FORMALIZED SOMEWHERE. WE MAKE THESE DISCUSSIONS AT COUNCIL. WE TELL STAFF, HEY, GO AHEAD AND DO THIS. A YEAR FROM NOW, SOMEBODY BRINGS IT UP. WELL, I DON T KNOW. WE NEVER VOTED. I DON T KNOW HOW THIS GOT GOING AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IF WE DOCUMENTED IN A POLICY AND THAT'S FORMALIZED IN A POLICY THAT'S FINE, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT RECORDED SOMEWHERE. I RAN INTO THAT ALL THE TIME ABOUT WHERE THEY DISCUSSED IT AND TOLD THEM TO DO IT. BUT I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY VOTED ON. AND SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS FORMALIZED IN SOME WAY. >> AND CERTAINLY FORMALIZES IT. IN FACT, IT FORMALIZES IT IN A WAY THAT'S IN RECORDS THAT ARE IN THE SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND THE CODE OF ORDINANCES VERSUS AN APARTMENT SOMEWHERE HIDDEN AWAY. >> PEOPLE FORGET WE DID IT. >> I THINK IT'S HAPPENED WITH ORDINANCES TOO. >> FROM THE STANDPOINT, THAT'S A GREAT POINT. BUT IN THIS CASE, WE'VE GOT AN AMENDMENT THAT'S ALREADY UP THERE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY OTHER AMENDMENTS UNTIL GLO FINISHES THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST SIX MONTHS. WE DIDN'T SEE A PROBLEM IN LETTING THIS GO THROUGH THIS WAY. >> THAT'LL PUT TOGETHER OUR THOUGHT. >> THIS DOESN'T NEED TO GO TO THE GLM. >> NO. THAT DOES NOT. >> MARIE. >> NO. >> ANYTHING ELSE? >> MIKE. >> CLARIFICATION ON 10 D WILD FLOWERS? >> ARE WE GOING TO DISCUSS THAT? >> WE DO HAVE IT ON OUR AGENDA LATER, BUT IF COUNCIL WANTED TO BRING IT UP NOW, WE CAN WAIT. ANYTHING ELSE MIKE. >> NO >> VERY GOOD. >> KAREN. >> IS 10A ON FOR THE AFTERNOON? >> NO. >> JUST BULLET POINTS JUST SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR. >> SURE. >> MIKE OR JANELLE? >> YES. [NOISE] >> IT'S THE EXEMPTIONS. >> STATE PROPERTY TAX CODE REQUIRES, COUNCIL IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS, THAT THEY'RE DONE PRIOR TO JUNE 30TH EACH YEAR. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS MAKE IT A MATTER OF PRACTICE TO BRING THE EXISTING SET OF [00:55:02] EXEMPTIONS TO COUNCIL SO YOU COULD CONSIDER CHANGING IF YOU WANTED TO. LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST TIME WE ACTUALLY CHANGED IT. ALSO, WE INCREASED THE MINIMUM HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION TO 60,000 DOLLARS FROM FIVE. WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY ADDITIONAL CHANGES THIS YEAR IT'S JUST A LIST THAT ALREADY EXISTS. >> VERY GOOD. [BACKGROUND] [NOISE] >> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE. [NOISE] INVOLVING 11L AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE PLACE TO ASK THE QUESTION. >> I HAD 11L DOWN TOO. >> 11L IT'S FOR THE CONTRACT EXTENSION. >> YES, THAT'S FOR DEMOLITIONS. >> WHEN THAT CONTRACT IS GIVEN, THEY MUST COMPLY WITH THE CITY GUIDELINES FOR DEMOLITION PROCESS? >> YES, MA'AM, THEY HAVE TO PULL PERMITS, EVERYTHING. >> OKAY. >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> THESE ARE THE ONES WHERE WE'VE EXHAUSTED EVERY OTHER MEANS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE CARE OF IT, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO ENTER THE PROPERTY WITH COURT ORDER AND DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AND FOLLOW LIEN ON THE PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT OFTEN BUT WE UNFORTUNATELY HAVE TO DO IT SOMETIMES. >> WHERE CAN I FIND THE PROCESS FOR THE DEMOLITION? SOMEONE'S HOME IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED. WHAT ARE THE STEPS YOU TAKE BEFORE THAT, WHERE CAN I FIND THAT? >> I THINK DONNA HANDLES MOST OF THAT, DON'T YOU? >> GET A MEMO OUT. >> YEAH. THEY WILL OUTLINE IT FOR YOU IT'S IN THE STATE STATUTE [OVERLAPPING] WE HAD TO GO TO ALL THE COUNCIL. >> GREAT, THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU, SHARON. >> VERY WELL. >> BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW I HAVE SOME ISSUE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN TOUCHED FROM MY THAT [OVERLAPPING] IT'S MY WISH THEY COULD BE DEMOLISHED. >> YOU KNOW THIS IS NOT A HEY, WE'RE GOING TO TEAR THIS DOWN DEAL. IN TEXAS TO GET THIS DONE IT MAY GO THROUGH SEVERAL COUNCILS BEFORE WE GET IT DONE. >> WE'VE GOT ONE IN THE EAST END THAT'S BEEN FOUR-FIVE YEARS. >> IT'S STILL GOING. >> IT'S STILL GOING. YOU JUST CAN'T MOVE IN AND TAKE SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOUSE. >> ALMOST STAFF AND RIGHT AND THEN I GOT STOPPED. AND SO THEN THAT [LAUGHTER] CAUSED THE ISSUES WITH MY HOUSES THAT IT BE DEMOLISHED. HOW COME THEY ARE DEMOLISHING THEM ON THE EAST END AND NOT THE WEST END? [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] NEVER MIND. ANYTHING ELSE? [OVERLAPPING] >> THANK YOU. SHANNY ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU HAVE? >> NO. I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS BECAUSE I KNOW AFTER HIKE, SEVERAL HOUSES DEMOLISHED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY SEEM LIKE THEY HAPPENED QUICKLY. >> DIFFERENT PROCESS. >> THEY ARE BOTH DIFFERENT. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT WAS A MISTAKE. [OVERLAPPING] >> IT WAS [OVERLAPPING] STATE THAT WAS A DIFFERENT PROCESS. >> REALLY? >>YEAH. WHEN THERE'S A DISASTER THERE IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROCESS THAT'S FOLLOWED, AND THAT VARIES DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL OF THE DISASTER AND THE LEVEL OF FEMALE INVOLVEMENT AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT THAT GOES ON. >> OKAY. I HEAR YOU BUT NOT NECESSARILY THAT, BECAUSE MY HOUSE I HAD THE OPTION TEAR-DOWN, REBUILD OR ELEVATE. I CHOSE TO ELEVATE. BUT I MEAN HOUSES THAT DIDN'T HAVE THAT OPTION, SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE PROCESS FOR DEMOLITION. >> VERY GOOD. I HAD A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS ON THE AGENDA, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE PARKING ISSUE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT BRIAN, THAT THE PORT GOT RIGHT ON THIS AND START SENDING THEIR MONEY OVER AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S PARKING LOTS THAT HAVE NOT REGISTERED. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >>IF I HEAR WHAT JOHN IS SAYING THEY'RE NOT REGISTERING BECAUSE THERE'S 15 CENT PAYING BUT THE MATTER OF THE FACT IS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER WE DECIDE UPON THIS AFTERNOON, THESE PRIVATE LOTS NEED TO GET ON BOARD HERE. THE PORT'S ALREADY BEEN MOVING AHEAD AND SENDING THEIR MONEY IN. YES. >> WE WILL JUMP ON IT. >> ONE QUICK THING ON THAT. I GOT THE IMPRESSION LAST MONTH THAT WE DON'T TRULY UNDERSTAND THE MEETS AND BOUNDS TO THE PORT. THAT IT CROSSES HARBOR SIDE AND SOME PLACES, SOME PLACES DIDN'T, WE MADE SOME LAND SWAPS A FEW YEARS AGO. SO SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE BEING USED BY THE PORT AS PARKING LOT MAY NOT ACTUALLY FALL UNDER THAT CHARTER PROVISION PREVENTING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YEAH. IS THERE A PRACTICAL WAY OF KNOWING WHICH IS WHICH? >> THIS IS ANOTHER CASE OF ORDINANCE VERSUS POLICY VERSUS OTHER THINGS. THE ORDINANCES OR THE CHARTER OUTLINE CERTAIN MEETS AND BOUNDS, THINGS CHANGE, IT'S VERY FLUID AND YOU UPDATE THIS, BUT YOU DON'T UPDATE THAT. IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT HURT FOR US TO SIT DOWN WITH THE PORT AND WORK OUT A NEW BOUNDARY DELINEATION. >> IF WE'RE DISCUSSING PARKING LOTS ONLY, BUT IT COULD BE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BUT PARKING LOTS, [01:00:02] THERE ARE PARKING LOTS THAT THEY'RE LEASING. >. YOU'D WANT TO KNOW THE MEETS AND BOUNDS OF THE PORT IN GENERAL. MY QUESTION IS, WHICH PARKING LOTS LIE IN AND WHICH LIE OUT? >> IT'S GOING TO BE A GOOD THING TO KNOW. >> THE MAYOR IS RIGHT TOO. MY STATEMENT REVOLVES AROUND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE LEASED US SOME PARKING SPOTS. OBVIOUSLY, YOU WOULDN'T PUT THOSE IN THE MEETS AND BOUNDS OF THE PORT BECAUSE THEY'RE PRIVATELY OWNED, BUT THEY ALSO FALL OUTSIDE OF CHARTER OF WHICH THE PORT. >> [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T WANT TO GET OFF TOPIC IN THIS MEETS-AND-BOUNDS THING. BUT THIS HAS BEEN TRUE WITH SOME OF THE PARKS. >> YES, SIR. >> IT WAS NOT 100 PERCENT CLEAR WHAT WAS TRUE AND WHAT WASN'T. >> YEAH. >> SAME IS TRUE OF EAST. WHAT'S TRUE ON BODDEKER ROAD, SO FORTH? >> IT'S SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO THINK ABOUT AS WE GO FORWARD. >> THERE ARE SOME OF THE MEETS AND BOUNDS SURVEYS WITH THE PORT THAT DON'T EVEN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HARBOR SIDE DRIVE, SO I MEAN THAT STILL DIDN'T EXIST. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CORRECTED BUT I KNOW. >> WE'RE GETTING OFF-TOPIC HERE. >> I'M SORRY. >> LET'S STAY BACK I JUST BROUGHT UP THE CLARIFICATION ON THE PARKING THERE IT IS. IT'S THIS PARKING? >> YEAH. >> YOU GOT AHEAD. >> WELL THEY HAVE PROVED NOT TOO LONG AGO THE SALE OF THE EASEMENT, THAT WAS A PARKING AREA THAT WAS BEING LEASED TO THE PORT. SO THAT FALLS UNDER THE PORT OR PRIVATE? >> WELL IT'S PROBABLY OPERATED BY THE PORT, BUT WE DIDN'T AMEND THE ORDINANCE OF CHARTER THAT OUTLINES THE MEETS AND BOUNDS, SO THAT'S MY POINT. >> THE PORT IS SENDING OVER THEIR PARKING WHEREVER THEY PARK. >> YEAH, EXACTLY. THEY HAVE NOT SAID THIS IS IN, THIS IS OUT. >> THE PORT AND THEY GOT ON IT IMMEDIATELY. I'M OFF TOPIC BUT IT'S QUITE A LARGE SUM. JOHN. >> ALRIGHT. >> VERY GOOD. ONE LAST THING, I'M ALMOST RELUCTANT TO BRING THIS UP, 8C. THIS IS THE SPORTSMAN ROAD SITUATION. THIS HAS BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING AND PERSONALLY, I'M GOING TO GET A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED TO NOT THIS AFTERNOON SO THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR. BUT TIM, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CURRENTLY. HOW SHOULD I SAY THIS? THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT PROPERTY THAT ARE APPLYING FOR THE ABANDONMENT, DO THEY ALREADY OWN THAT LAND? >> THE CITY, HAS AN EASEMENT. THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE FEE UNDERLYING THE EASEMENT, TO THE CENTER LINE. >> THEY ALREADY OWN THAT PROPERTY DONE? >> YES. SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT. >> IN THE ABANDONMENT HERE, WE'RE ABANDONING LAND THAT THEY ALREADY OWNED? >> WHAT WOULDN'T BE ABANDONING. >> NO. WE ARE ABANDONING OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> YOU'RE ABANDONING YOUR RIGHT TO TRAVERSE THAT PROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OF A ROAD. >> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY. >> HOW IS THAT SO, IF IT NEVER SHOWN UP. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT. EVERY ABANDONMENT THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. THIS HAS COME UP. IT ALWAYS SEEMS TO GO BACK-AND-FORTH. SOME OF THESE RIGHT-OF-WAYS IS THE CITY DOES OWN, THEY WERE THEY WERE PLOTTED YEARS AGO. IN THIS CITY PROPERTY, SOME APPARENTLY DO NOT. IF THE PROPERTY HAS NEVER SHOWN UP ON A SURVEY, HOW DO THEY HAVE OWNERSHIP OF IT? WHEN CAD OR A SURVEY GOES OUT THERE AND SURVEYS THAT LOT, WHY DO THEY NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BOUNDARIES, WITHIN THE SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY? >> LET'S SEE WHAT THAT WOULD DO FOR BUILDABLE AREA AND SO FORTH. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ASSUME. >> BUT THEY NEVER SHOW OWNERSHIP OF IT. A SURVEY IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT OF OWNERSHIP. IF IT'S NEVER ON A SURVEY. HOW IS THAT THE CASE? I'M JUST. >> I CAN TALK ABOUT IS THIS CASE. >> ON THIS CASE, THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> IS ON A WHAT DO YOU CALL IT, THE ORIGINAL JC LEAGUE SUBDIVISION, WHICH HAS A MAP THAT SHOWS THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> THAT'S ALL IT IS SHOWN ON AS IT IS DESIGNATED AS A RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> I DON'T RECALL WHAT'S WRITTEN ON IT, BUT. >> I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. [01:05:02] >> [OVERLAPPING] IF YOU LIKE I HAVE A TML PAPER DIRECTLY ON THIS. I WILL GIVE YOU. >> THIS SAME THEORY EXIST ON MOST OF OUR ALLEYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT TOO. YOU CAN'T BUILD IN YOUR ALLEY. IT DOESN'T SHOW UP ON YOUR SURVEY. BUT BASICALLY, MOST RESIDENTS HAVE THE UNDERLYING FEE TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE ALLEYS. BUT THE CITY HAS A RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PURPOSES OF UTILITIES AND TRAVERSEMENT OF SERVICES. JUST GARBAGE. >> IN THE ITEM THAT'S ON BEFORE US THIS AFTERNOON, TIM, ON THIS SUBJECT. THERE'S A CONDITION STRUCTURES OF COURSE, CAN NOT BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY. >> THAT'S THE STANDARD CONDITION IN ALL OF OUR MANIFESTS, YES. SOUNDS GOOD. >> THAT'S ALL I HAD COUNCIL ON THIS. THANK YOU, STAFF. APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. [3.B. Discussion Of FY2024 Budget And Capital Improvement Plan (M. Loftin - 45 Min)] >> LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3B, PLEASE. NELLY. >> ITEM 3B, DISCUSSION OF FISCAL YEAR 2024, BUDGET AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. >> WELL, WE HAVE SHEILA WITH US AND MIKE LOCKED-IN [LAUGHTER] AND MIKE,. >> IF I COULD DO AN INTRODUCTION THAT. >> I WORKED LOVE THAT YES. >> JOINING US THIS MORNING AND LEADING THIS RECITATION IS SHEILA LOU DANNY. [NOISE] SHE WAS THE FINANCE DIRECTOR OF AN SR BAY FOR 14 YEARS. [NOISE] AS WONDERFUL RANGE OF CERTIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE. WE HIRED HER AS THE NEWEST MEMBER OF OUR EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT TEAM. SHE HAS 20 YEARS TOTAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT INCLUDING EXPERIENCE IN SANTA FE AND LEAGUE CITY. WE'RE REALLY GLAD TO HAVE HER AND I THINK YOU ALL WILL ENJOY HER SKILLS THIS WARM. >> WELCOME. WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU. >> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR THE INTRODUCTION. THIS PRESENTATION IS ONE THAT WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER AS A GROUP ON. I'VE BEEN HERE ABOUT TWO MONTHS, LEARNING ABOUT GALVESTON. FIGURING OUT WHAT THE BUDGET AND THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL PICTURE LOOKS LIKE. IT'S BEEN A GROUP EFFORT TO GET THIS DONE, BUT I'M THE LUCKY ONE WHO GETS TO PRESENT TODAY. FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS AS WE GO ALONG. THE PRESENTATION YOU ARE RECEIVING TODAY IS THE FIRST ROUND IN THE BUDGET PRESENTATIONS, WHICH MEANS THE NUMBERS ARE VERY PRELIMINARY AND WILL INEVITABLY CHANGE. TAKE THIS AS OUR FIRST GO AT IT AND HOPEFULLY IN LINE WITH WHAT COUNCIL IS INTERESTED IN SEEING. THE GOAL OF THE BUDGET YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU WENT AND WE ARE PRESENTING STRICTLY THE GENERAL FUND TODAY, WHICH IS YOUR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET. THE GOAL IS TO PRESENT A BUDGET WITH A TWO PERCENT REVENUE INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX THAT IS ATTRIBUTED NEW CONSTRUCTION ONLY WHILE MAINTAINING THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. THIS IS IN THE MIDST OF, FOR SURE, UNCERTAIN PROPERTY TAX VALUES AND REVENUES. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT WE'RE VERY EARLY IN THE PROPERTY TAX RATE SETTING PROCESS. THERE IS CONTINUED EMPHASIS IN THIS BUDGET ON IMPLEMENTING NON-PROPERTY TAX REVENUE SOURCES IN THE GENERAL FUND. THERE ARE SEVERAL SLIDES ON THAT AS WELL. IT IS IMPORTANT TO ALSO NOTE THOUGH, THAT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY IMPLEMENTED AS WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS MORNING. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE DON'T KNOW YET ABOUT THESE NEW NON-PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN THIS BUDGET WILL BE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION, SPECIFICALLY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING. I BELIEVE POLICE STARTED THIS WEEK AND FIRE HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET. THOSE ARE QUESTION MARKS. WE HAVE SOME IDEAS, BUT WE'RE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT HOW WE PROJECT THAT. CIVILIAN COMPENSATION AS WELL ALONGSIDE OF THOSE TWO GROUPS. HEALTH BENEFITS ALSO ARE IMPACTED BY INFLATION, WHICH IS ABOUT THREE TO FOUR PERCENT, YEAR OVER YEAR FOR THIS YEAR. ALSO, AS SOME OF YOU ALL MAY BE NOTICING THE ECONOMY, MAY BE SLOWING DOWN A BIT RIGHT NOW. THERE ARE SIGNS BOTH INTERNATIONALLY AND NATIONALLY THAT THAT MAY BE THE CASE. THIS PARTICULARLY IMPACTS SALES TAX FOR GALVESTON AS WE KNOW. >> WE WANT TO ADVANCE THE SLIDES. >> OH, I'M SORRY. >> CAN WE DO THAT TO. >> NO, I'M GOOD. WE ALL HAD IT IN FRONT OF US AND THEN I FORGOT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. FINALLY, BECAUSE IT WOULD PARTLY COME UP, BUT WE JUST WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW IN ADVANCE. THIS PRESENTATION DOES NOT REALLY CONTEMPLATE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX THAT WILL BE PRESENTED IN A SEPARATE BUDGET AT A FUTURE BUDGET WORKSHOP. [NOISE] JUST TO BEGIN WITH, TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE GENERAL FUND IS PREDOMINANTLY FUNDED. A COMBINATION OF PROPERTY TAX AND SALES TAX MAKES UP ABOUT 76% OF THE REVENUE FUNDING THIS FUND. [01:10:02] WITH ABOUT $33.9 MILLION COMING FROM PROPERTY TAXES THIS YEAR. SALES TAX AT ABOUT $23.3 MILLION FOR A TOTAL OF $57 MILLION. JUST TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE VARIOUS SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND ARE IMPACTED BY THAT. YOU'LL SEE PUBLIC SAFETY IS ABOUT $45.2 MILLION, WHICH TAKES UP ABOUT 79% OF THESE TWO SOURCES OF REVENUE. BY CHARTER OR THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT SERVICE FUND TRANSFER IS AT EIGHT PERCENT NOW, WHICH IS A FANTASTIC RESOURCE FOR ALL OF THE PLANNING ACTIVITIES, ACTIVITIES OF THE CITY BUT WE PROJECT THAT WILL BE $6 MILLION. THAT CONSUMES ABOUT ANOTHER ATTEMPT, 10.5% OF THESE TWO LARGE SOURCES OF REVENUE. WE KNOW STREETS AND TRAFFIC ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW IN GALVESTON. THAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE PROJECTING THAT BUDGET ON A BASE BUDGET SIDE. NONE OF THESE NUMBERS INCLUDE THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS AT THIS POINT YET, AT $4.7 MILLION, WHICH IS ABOUT 8.2% OF THAT $57 MILLION. THAT LEAVES US WITH ABOUT $1.3 MILLION FROM THESE PRIMARY SOURCES OF REVENUE AND AS YOU SEE, THAT DOESN'T EVEN COVER PARKS. AS WE PLAN FOR THE BUDGET AND THE SERVICES, THAT WE WANT TO PROVIDE FROM THE GENERAL FUND. IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW PREDOMINANT REVENUE SOURCES IS SPLIT OUT THROUGH THE VARIOUS. >> I WILL TELL YOU, WE ARE EXTREMELY UNIQUE AS A CITY. THAT YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY COSTS CONSUMES THIS MUCH AND WE HAVE NOT EVEN DONE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING YET THIS YEAR. WITH SALES TAX BEING FLAT AND GOING TO ANOTHER NEW REVENUE RATE. IF THAT'S THE TARGET OF COUNCIL, YOU ARE GOING TO PUT YOURSELF IN A VERY PRECARIOUS SITUATION. THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ONE OF THE ONLY CITIES WHERE YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY COST IS CONSUMING ALL YOUR TAX REVENUE. THAT IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE PLACE FOR THE CITY TO BE GOING FORWARD. I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT TO YOU. IT CAN BE DONE. IT'S JUST NOT SUSTAINABLE. >> QUESTIONS NOW OR LATER. >> WE CAN, HOWEVER, WORKS FOR EVERYONE. >> YOU ONLY HAVE TWO REVENUE SOURCES HERE, WHICH ARE DEFINITELY THE MAJOR ONES. WE HAVE OTHER REVENUE SOURCES. >> ABSOLUTELY AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS. MOVING ON TO JUST DISCUSSING PROPERTY TAX AND HOW IT IS BUDGETED IN THIS PRESENTATION. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THERE'S A 2% INCREASE IN THE REVENUE AND THAT IS RELATED TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION COMING ONLINE FOR THIS TAX YEAR. WE ARE PROJECTING AND THIS IS VERY PRELIMINARY, THAT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD BE AROUND 0.4080, SO ABOUT $0.40 PER HUNDRED DOLLAR VALUATION. >> THIS NUMBER IS CHANGING. IT'S PROBABLY CHANGED SINCE SHEILA PRINTED THIS, THIS MORNING. >> YES. >> JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. >> ONE PENNY ON THE TAX RATE IS GOING TO BRING APPROXIMATELY $833,000 TO THE GENERAL FUND. IT ACTUALLY BRINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE OVERALL, BUT IT SPLITS OUT. THIS IS THE IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUNDS SPECIFICALLY. NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE IS ESTIMATED TO BE DECREASING ABOUT 3.65 CENTS PER $100 VALUATION. THAT'S PARTIALLY ATTRIBUTED TO DEBT ROLLING OFF IN THIS COMING BUDGET YEAR. THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE CENT DECREASE ON YOUR DEBT RATE. OVERALL THAT IMPACTS THE WHOLE RATE. WE ARE RECOMMENDING A VERY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO THE HIGH LEVEL OF PROTESTS 60% OF THE PROPERTY VALUES THAT WERE SENT OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE BEEN CONTESTED THROUGH THE IRB PROCESS, AND THAT IS STILL IN PROGRESS. THE MAJORITY REALLY OF THE PROPERTY VALUES ARE BEING PROTESTED AND THAT IMPACTS OUR PROJECTIONS. ALSO, EVERYTHING THAT DOESN'T END AS WELL AS WANTED IN IRB. A LOT OF IT GOES TO LITIGATION AND THAT'S NOT EVEN CONTEMPLATED IN THE TRUTH AND TAXATION PROCESS. [NOISE] IN FISCAL YEAR 23, WE LOST 10 TIMES AS MUCH AS WE DID THE YEAR BEFORE IN LITIGATION. HOPEFULLY, IT'S NOT A TREND, BUT IT'S HARD TO KNOW. THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS WITH THIS PROJECTION. ALSO, AS A REMINDER, THE ROSENBERG LIBRARIES' FIVE CENTS REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER IS PART OF OUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS TAX RATE. IT REPRESENTS ABOUT 12% OF YOUR TOTAL TAX REVENUE AND ABOUT 16% OF THE MAINTENANCE OPERATION SIDE. THAT'S A LARGE CHUNK AND IT'S JUST GOOD TO UNDERSTAND THAT. THIS IS MITIGATED BY THE MOU WITH THE LIBRARY. WE'RE PROJECTING THAT BASED ON THE TAX RATE INFORMATION WE HAVE IN THIS BUDGET, APPROXIMATELY $1.4 MILLION WILL BE THE CONTRIBUTION BACK TO THE CITY FROM THE LIBRARY. [01:15:02] >> THAT IS A VERY LARGE CHUNK OF YOUR GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSE THAT IS BEING CONTROLLED BY AN INDEPENDENT BOARD OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. >> WHAT ELSE WE DON'T APPROVE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WHAT IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF THAT, THE TOTAL DOLLAR NOW? >> CONTRIBUTION BACK? >> NO. >>TOTAL AMOUNT THE LIBRARY GETS PASSED INTO IT WILL BE 5*833,000. >> NO, $5.3 MILLION IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS YEAR. >> ALMOST TWICE WHAT YOU SPEND ON YOUR PARK SYSTEM. >> ALMOST WHAT WE SPENT ON OUR STREETS. [NOISE] >> LET ME ASK THIS, THE RETURN OF 1.4 MILLION BACK TO THE CITY THEN, I THINK YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT. >> YEAH. THE ONLY OTHER THING MIKE WOULD PROBABLY INTERJECT RIGHT NOW IS THEY'RE GOING TO SEE ABOUT A 2% INCREASE JUST LIKE A CITY. THAT'S ABOUT $80,000. THAT'S THE REVENUE INCREASE ON THEIR END. >> OUR MOU WHEN WE STRUCTURED THAT WE MADE IT SO THAT THEY WOULD ASSUME THE SAME INCREASE THAT WE DID. WITHOUT THAT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LOST THIS 1.4? >> CORRECT. >> IS THIS MOU NEW FOR FY_2024? >> NO. >> HAVE THEY DONE SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR THE LAST TWO FISCAL YEARS? >> YES. ACTUALLY, THE THIRD FISCAL YEAR WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PLACE. >> DO WE EXPECT THAT TO CONTINUE ON? [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT UP TO THAT'S ENTIRELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ROSENBERG LIBRARY. >> YES SIR. >> HOW LONG WAS THAT IN MOU FORWARD? >> ABUSE. >> DOES IT HAVE IT? >> I DON'T THINK IT WAS FIVE. >> THINK IT WAS FIVE YEARS, BUT EITHER PARTY CAN DISCONTINUE WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PRIOR NOTICE. >> SIXTY DAYS, I THINK. >> WAS IT 60 DAYS? >> YOU HAVE FOR YOUR APPROVAL PARTY. >> JUST TO REITERATE, PROPERTY TAX MAKES UP ABOUT 43% OF YOUR REVENUE, AND SALES TAX ABOUT 31%. THEY CONTINUE TO BE THE TWO LARGEST SOURCES OF REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND. THEY ARE ALSO THE ONES THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE THE PRIMARY SOURCES FOR MOST GROWTH. SINCE VALUES AND COSTS CONTINUE TO RISE, THOSE REVENUES WILL GROW WHERE A LOT OF THE OTHER REVENUE SOURCES IN THE GENERAL FUND REMAINED FLAT. >> THEY TEND TO HAVE THE LEAST VOLATILITY OF YOUR REVENUE SOURCES. ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE BECOME QUITE VOLATILE IN AND OF THEMSELVES IN THE PAST FEW YEARS. WITH SALES TAX PAYING SOMEWHAT OF A WILDCARD IN PROPERTY TAX, USED TO BE, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR CERTIFIED ROLE TO THE BANK AND NOW THAT IS NOT THE CASE. >> JUST TO UNDERSTAND AND ONCE AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL PROJECTIONS AND ARE INEVITABLY GOING TO CHANGE AS A PART OF THE TAX RATE SETTING PROCESS. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE IMPACTS FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE. YOU'LL SEE AT THE NO NEW REVENUE, RATE WE'RE PROJECTING REVENUE AT ABOUT 33.8 MILLION TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR A TOTAL REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF 75 MILLION. THE BASE BUDGET, WHICH ONCE AGAIN DOES NOT INCLUDE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS. DEPARTMENT REQUESTS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BUDGET OFFICE ON FRIDAY AND WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THEM. BUT THE BASE BUDGET PRIOR TO THOSE REQUESTS IS ABOUT 74.3 MILLION AND THAT LEAVES US WITH AN AVAILABLE $760,000. THE WILDCARD ITEMS THAT WILL BE HANDLING IN THE NEXT SIX WEEKS INCLUDE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THE CIVILIAN INCREASE, ALIGNING WITH THAT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, AND THEN THE PRE-REVIEW MEANING BEFORE WE REVIEWED ALL THOSE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS, THAT AMOUNT OF 3.1 MILLION AND BASED ON THAT, NO NEW REVENUE RATE THAT WOULD LEAVE US WITH A DEFICIT AND CERTAINLY OF THAT DEPARTMENT REQUEST NUMBER. LET ME REASSURE YOU NOT ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN, NOR SOME OF THAT WILL MOVE OUT TO OTHER FUNDS BASED ON IF WE CATEGORIZE THEM AS CAPITAL OR OTHERWISE, WE'RE ABLE TO FUND THEM AND OTHER LOCATIONS. BUT WITHOUT HAVING REVIEWED THEM, THAT WOULD LEAVE US WITH A DEFICIT OF 4.1 MILLION. THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, WHICH GIVES US AN ADDITIONAL 3.5% ON THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION SIDE WOULD TAKE US UP TO MAYBE CLOSE TO 35 MILLION. BUT THAT WOULD STILL LEAVE US WITH AN ADJUSTED DEFICIT BASED ON SOME OF THESE POTENTIAL [NOISE] ACTIVITIES OVER THE NEXT SIX WEEKS. >> WHERE ARE WE FACTORING ALL THE FEES THAT WE'RE COLLECTING NOW? >> WE ARE ALMOST NEXT. LET ME DO SALES TAX AND WE'RE GOING TO GET IT. >> BEFORE WE LEAVE THAT SLIDE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING HERE WHERE IF WE MOVE TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WAS 40.8. IF WE MOVE JUST IN WHAT WE HAVE TO WITH THE 3.5, WHAT DOES THAT MOVE OUR PROPERTY TAX RATE TO? >> WE DON'T KNOW YET, CRAIG. WE CAN ONLY ESTIMATE. [01:20:02] >> WHAT, MAYBE 43? [OVERLAPPING] >> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] >> OR 800,000%. >> YEAH. WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. IF WE JUST MOVE TO THAT, WE STILL HAVE ABOUT A $3,000,000 DEFICIT BUDGET AND THAT'S EQUAL TO ABOUT 2.75 CENTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> NO NEW REVENUE WORKS GREAT AS LONG AS YOU HAVE NO NEW EXPENSES AND UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE ALL KNOW, EXPENSES ARE GOING AT A HIGHER PACE. WHAT HURTS US IS AS A CITY IS WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE DEVELOP-ABLE LAND TO CONTINUE TO HAVE NEW CONSTRUCTIVE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT THAT KEEPS US AHEAD OF THE CURVE. A LOT OF THE CITIES THAT ARE DOING NO NEW REVENUE RATES ARE HAVING OTHER GROWTH IN OTHER AREAS THAT WE DON'T GET TO CAPTURE. IT MAKES IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT ON AN OLDER BUILT OUT CITY TO MEET NO NEW REVENUE TARGETS. WE CAN ALWAYS ATTEMPT AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY IT, BUT I'M JUST POINTING THAT OUT WE DON'T HAVE THE GROWTH RATES THAT EVEN GALVESTON COUNTY HAS WHERE THEY HAVE ALL THIS UNDEVELOPABLE LAND THAT CONTINUES TO BE PUT ON THE TAX ROLLS FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. >> I WAS ON A PANEL WITH ALL THE MAYORS INCLUDING HOUSTON HERE RECENTLY UP IN LAKE CITY AND THEY ASKED THE MAYORS WHAT THEIR MAIN CONCERN WAS AND MANY OF THEM SAID THEIR MAIN CONCERN WAS ALL THE NEW GROWTH AND BUILDING THAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR COMMUNITY, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THAT. [OVERLAPPING] >> WELL MY DISTRICT DOES. [OVERLAPPING] >> NOT COMPARED IT TO WHAT THESE CITIES. [LAUGHTER] >> THESE PEOPLE ARE PUTTING TENS OF THOUSANDS OF SLABS ON THE GROUND, WE'RE NOT. >> THE OTHER THING AND I KNOW DAVID ONCE SAID, BUT THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME HERE ON THIS NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS IT'S SUCH A BENCHMARK FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND SO NOW WE'RE STARTING FROM A POSITION THAT REALLY PUTS PRESSURE ON US FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE, DAVID. >> I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS ARGUMENT EVERY YEAR, IT'S THE SAME ONE WE'VE HAD EVERY YEAR. BUT IS IT FAIR TO SAY THE CBA NUMBERS LOOK PRETTY HIGH BUT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE DON'T GET THERE, WE'RE NOT COMPETITIVE. >> WE'RE IN COLLECTIVE BARGAINING RIGHT NOW. WE ARE PROJECTING THIS BASED ON NUMBERS THAT WE HAVE CALCULATED. WE HAVE NOT BEGUN NEGOTIATING ANYTHING YET [OVERLAPPING]. NO. >> WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO KEEP THE POLICE FORCE, BECAUSE THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT BUT EVERYBODY IS HAVING TROUBLE. [OVERLAPPING] >> CORRECT. [OVERLAPPING] >> WE HAVE GOT TO REMAIN COMPETITIVE AND JUST KEEP IN MIND GUYS, WE'RE A CITY OF 50,000 PEOPLE. OUR POLICE FORCE IS TWICE THE SIZE OF A CITY OF 50,000 AND PEOPLE WOULD ARGUE IT'S NOT ENOUGH. MOST CITIES OF 50,000 WITHOUT HEAVY PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY DON'T HAVE A FULL-TIME FIRE DEPARTMENT LIKE WE DO, SO OUR PUBLIC SAFETY COSTS TREND WAY HIGHER THAN MOST CITIES OF 50,000 TO BEGIN WITH BEFORE YOU EVER FACTOR IN COMPETITIVENESS AND ASSOCIATED THINGS. [OVERLAPPING] >> THROUGH THAT POINT THOUGH, THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW PUBLIC SAFETY BENEFITS OUR TOURISTS. >> I AGREE. >> HOW WE COULD LOOK AT HOT TAX AS PART OF THAT, WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW US TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE WITH THE NO NEW REVENUE. [OVERLAPPING] >> NEVER AN ARGUMENT HERE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE STATE HADN'T CAUGHT UP TO OUR ARGUMENTS YET. >> WELL, PEOPLE SOMETIMES DON'T REALIZE IT COMPARES US TO THE CITY LIKE LAKE CITY, WHICH IS ALMOST EXACTLY TWICE THE SIZE OF GALVESTON. THEY DON'T HAVE A PAID FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE 3.1 POLICE OFFICERS PER 1,000 PEOPLE, THEY HAVE 2.1 POLICE OFFICERS PER 1,000 PEOPLE. >> THEY HAVE A LOT MORE DOWNTIME WITH THEIR OFFICERS THAN WE DO STILL, WHICH IS UNBELIEVABLE. >> THERE'S A REASON FOR THAT, LAKE CITY'S POPULATION DOESN'T DOUBLE EVERY DAY. [OVERLAPPING] >> RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] >> YEAH. >> IT'S VERY OBVIOUS WHY WE NEED THAT MANY POLICE OFFICERS. [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT NOT ONLY THAT TOO, BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT OTHER THINGS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OVERALL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS. THEY DON'T HAVE AS MANY MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WHICH REQUIRE MORE FIRE SERVICE, REQUIRE MORE POLICE SERVICE. WE ARE CRAMMING A LOT IN A PIECE OF GROUND THAT THEY'RE NOT. >> WE ARE, BUT THE MAIN REASON WHY OUR PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGETS ARE SO BIG AND WHY WE HAVE SO MANY OFFICERS AND SO MANY FIRE FIREFIGHTERS IS BECAUSE WE SERVICE A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN JUST OUR 50,000 RESIDENTS. >> WE DO MORE THAN THAT IS THE CALLS FOR SERVICE. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT'S CORRECT. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE VISITORS. [OVERLAPPING] >> I WOULD ARGUE THAT EVEN IN THE DOWN MONTHS WHEN WE'RE NOT A TOURIST CITY OUR CALLS FOR SERVICE HAVE OUTPACED. [OVERLAPPING] >> WELL, YEAH, WE'RE A YEAR ROUND. >> I GUARANTEE IN JANUARY, WE'RE STILL OUTPACING LAKE CITY, WHICH HAS TWICE OUR POPULATION PER VOLUME HERE. [OVERLAPPING] [01:25:01] >> I BEG TO DIFFER ON YOUR STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE THAT THE STATE DOESN'T SAY IT WHEN IT COMES TO BEACH VITRO, WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS, SEAWALL, WHEN IT COMES TO AREAS WHERE WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF OUR ISSUES STEMMING FROM, WE COULD BE CREATIVE WITH OUR BUDGET AND THEN USE IT FOR HOT TAX. >> MOVING ON TO SALES TAX, [LAUGHTER] I'M SURE WE'LL COME BACK AROUND TO THESE. YEAR-TO-DATE SALES TAX RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN FLAT FOR THE LAST TWO MONTHS IN A ROW, YEAR OVER YEAR. APRIL WAS THE SMALLEST EMPLOYMENT MONTH OR EMPLOYMENT GROWTH MONTH IN THE METRO AREA EVER RECORDED. >> TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION RECORDED 300 NEW JOBS, JUST 300. >. WOW. >> THAT'S THE LOWEST APRIL HAS EVER BEEN SEEN. >> AS I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE HEARD MIKE SPEAK ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, EMPLOYMENT REALLY DOES IMPACT OUR SALES TAX REVENUE HERE IN GALVESTON, AND SO IT IS A HARBINGER OF WHAT MAY BE TO COME. WE ALSO KNOW SUMMER MONTHS ARE CLEARLY THE HIGHEST REVENUE MONTHS FOR US BUT ECONOMIC DATA IS STILL POINTING TO A FLAT EXPERIENCE FOR THE WHOLE FISCAL YEAR COMBINED. FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR '23, THE BUDGET REFLECTS ABOUT 21.7 MILLION IN PROJECTED REVENUE AND THE ACTUAL ESTIMATES ARE JUST SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THAT. WE ARE PROJECTING CONSERVATIVELY FOR THIS COMING BUDGET YEAR AS A RESULT OF WHAT WE BELIEVE IS A SLIGHTLY SLOWING ECONOMY AND A FLAT EXPERIENCE THIS YEAR. NOW, TO ALL THOSE NEW NON-PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT. THE CRUISE PASSENGER FEE IS $0.25 PER MOVEMENT FOR CRUISE PASSENGERS AS YOU ARE AWARE OF, WHICH IS ABOUT $0.50 PER TOURIST ON A CRUISE SHIP HERE IN GALVESTON. THIS IS AS A RESULT OF CONTRACTS BETWEEN VARIOUS CRUISE PROVIDERS AND THE PORT. THIS REVENUE COMES ONLINE OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS BASED ON HOW THOSE CONTRACTS ARE IMPLEMENTED TIME-WISE. YOU WILL SEE IN '22 THERE WAS ZERO REVENUE FROM THIS REVENUE SOURCE. IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, WE'RE PROJECTING ABOUT $247,000, AND IN THE COMING BUDGET YEAR, WE'RE RAMPING THAT UP TO ABOUT 537,000 AND THEN THE FOLLOWING YEAR WE GET TO WHERE WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO FLATTEN OUT A LITTLE 621,000 AND THAT'S PARTIALLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE REVENUE RELATED TO THE CARNIVAL CRUISES WON'T COME ONLINE UNTIL THE FIRST-QUARTER BASICALLY IN FISCAL YEAR '24. WE'RE MISSING A QUARTER OF REVENUE IN THIS FIRST YEAR AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR WE'LL GET THE FULL 12 MONTHS. >> HARBOR A? >> YES. >> THIS I WOULD ASSUME BECAUSE IT IS GOES TO FLATTEN THOSE LATTER YEARS, DOES IT FACTOR IN ADDITIONAL CRUISE SHIPS AND SO FORTH COMING IN? >> YEAH, SO ESSENTIALLY OUR PROJECTIONS ARE BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT EXISTS, AND CERTAINLY ANY GROWTH IN THE CRUISE INDUSTRY WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE CITY BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T PROJECT THAT. [OVERLAPPING] >> I'M ASSUMING THAT'S IN THE CONTRACT. [OVERLAPPING] >> YES, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER IT. [OVERLAPPING] >> IT'S IN ALL THE CONTRACTS. >> THE COUNTER ARGUMENT CAN BE MADE TOO IF WE SEE A DECREASE IN CRUISE TRAFFIC, OR PANDEMIC, OR OTHER JUST PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO DO IT, THEN WE'RE NOT PULLING IN THAT REVENUE. >> YOU'RE A COUPLE OF ROTAVIRUSES AWAY FROM THIS NOT BEING A GOOD ENOUGH. >> THERE WE GO. >> WELL, AND EVEN A RECESSION COULD IMPACT TOURISM. >> SURE. >> YEAH, THAT'S WHY THIS IS HIGHLY VOLATILE. >> YEAH, UNDERSTOOD. >> WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACTS WITH THE CRUISE LINES? >> THE ONES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE NOW THEY RUN CARNIVALS CONTRACTS I'M GUESSING, MAYBE 15 YEARS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> WITH NO ESCALATION IN THIS FEE? >> NO, THERE'S NOT ANY ESCALATION IN THE FEE. >> THERE IS A SMALL ESCALATION, I THINK. STARTING 2028, YOU'LL SEE IT TAKE IT UP ABOUT 7,000, THAT'S BASED ON THAT CARNIVAL CONTRACT AND THERE'S A VERY SMALL ESCALATOR, I THINK, BUT IT'S MAYBE IN THE RANGE OF 2%. IT'S ONLY THE CARNIVAL SHIFTS, THE OTHER CONTRACTS THAT I'VE SEEN, I HAVEN'T SEEN AN ESCALATOR. >> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] >> NEGOTIATE THESE CONTRACTS. >> WELL, AGREE, AND WITH ROYAL, I THINK IT'S NOT IN THE ROYAL CONTRACT, I DON'T THINK. >> YEAH. >> YEAH. >> THAT'S. [OVERLAPPING] THE WHARVES BOARD, WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT JUNE 27TH, BUT THIS DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE POSSIBILITY OF BEFORE CRUISE TERMINAL. >> IT DOES NOT, BECAUSE THAT IS AT THIS POINT, THEORETICALLY FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND. >> YOU HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN APPROACHED YET AS A COUNCIL ABOUT [OVERLAPPING] A DEBT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE TO BUILD THAT? [01:30:01] >> THE COMPANION TO THIS NEW NON-PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IS THE LONG-TERM PARKING FEE, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS MORNING. AS WE KNOW, IT'S A $1 PER NIGHT FOR ANY VEHICLE STAYING MORE THAN TWO NIGHTS, AND THESE REVENUE ARE FROM BOTH THE PORT AND PRIVATE LOTS. THE FEE BECAME EFFECTIVE MAY 1ST, AND AS WE KNOW, WE'RE STILL DISCUSSING THE NUANCING AND IMPLEMENTING OF THAT. BUT JUNE, AS WE SAID, IS THE FIRST MONTH OF COLLECTIONS. IT IS A VERY UNTESTED REVENUE SOURCE AT THIS POINT. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE'S THREE CATEGORIES IN THIS GRAPH, AND ONE OF THEM IS UNREGISTERED QUESTION MARK BECAUSE ON THOSE LOTS WE HAVE NO IDEA ON THE NUMBER OF LOTS, AND NOW BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN UNRESPONSIVE, WE DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF HOW RESPONSIVE THEY WILL BE IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S AN ESTIMATE FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR OF ABOUT $437,000 AND THIS IS BASED ON THE PORTS SUBMISSIONS IN THIS MONTH, AND WE'RE PROJECTING THAT OUT OVER THE NEXT FIVE MONTHS OR NEXT FOUR MONTHS. BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW, THE POTENTIAL IN 24 COULD BE UP TO 1.5 MILLION. BUT WE ARE VERY TENTATIVE ABOUT HOW THAT MIGHT WORK, ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF THINGS IN FLUX. THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED IN THE BUDGET YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW IS AT 50% OF THAT, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS DISCUSSED INTERNALLY WAS THAT POTENTIALLY, IF THAT REVENUE CAME ONLINE AND WE HAD IT SIX MONTHS IN, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE THAT FOR ONETIME ITEMS, BUT WE HESITATE TO USE THAT AS A REVENUE SOURCE TOWARDS ONGOING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS. >> THIS CIRCLES BACK TO THE CONCERN THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER. YOU HAVE UNREGISTERED LOTS IN HERE, THE PORT HAS PLACED IT IN THEIR MOU THAT WE HAVE NOT YET AGREED TO, THAT IF ANY OF THESE LOTS GET SOME TYPE OF TEMPORARY STAY ON NOT PAYING AS THE PORT IS NOT GOING TO PAY US, AND IT IS IN THEIR AGREEMENT, AND WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THEM ON THAT, SO THAT MAKES THIS ALMOST JUST DEPENDING ON THAT. IT'S A PRECARIOUS SITUATION TO PUT THE CITY IN WITH THAT MUCH MONEY. >> MARIE? >> PERSONALLY, I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE FROM THE WHARVES BOARD AND THEY THINK THAT THIS NUMBER IS CONSERVATIVE. THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. BUT IN WHAT'S BEING SAID THAT NONE OF THE PRIVATE LOTS ARE DOING IT. [OVERLAPPING] >> NOT NONE. JUST ONE OF THE BIG ONES. [OVERLAPPING] NOT ALL BUT SOME ARE NOT DOING IT. >> SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO POLICE THAT? >> WE'RE WORKING ON THAT WITH LEGAL RIGHT NOW, BUT THE BIGGER CONCERN IS I THINK THE CITY WOULD BE ON BOARD THAT IF A JUDGE RULES6 THAT THIS CAN'T BE DONE, WELL, THEN OBVIOUSLY WE WOULDN'T TAKE THAT, BUT THE PORT, THEIR MOU IS THAT OF ANY GIVEN LOT GETS A [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT THEY'RE ALREADY GIVING MONEY, SO I WOULDN'T SAY ACTING IN GOOD FAITH[OVERLAPPING] >> THE PORT IS. NO, THEY ARE. NO, THE PORT IS DEFINITELY ACTING IN GOOD FAITH, BUT THEIR MOU GOT STATUTORILY. WHEN WE COME TO THE BUDGET, I HAVE TO GIVE YOU REALISTIC REVENUE PROJECTIONS AND I CAN'T PROMISE YOU THIS, AND I'M NOT GOING TO HANG THE CITY UP THERE FOR $1,500,000 AND THERE'S POTENTIAL, YOU HAVE TO KNOW THE RISK. >> DO YOU KNOW IF THE PRIVATE LOTS ARE COLLECTING THE FEE? >> WE'VE HAD EIGHT OF THE LOTS, SOME OF THEM ARE THE SAME OWNER OR OPERATOR. EIGHT REGISTRATIONS HAVE OCCURRED AND WE HAVE HAD SOME SUBMISSIONS ALREADY IN JUNE. NOT ALL EIGHT HAVE SUBMITTED, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY ABOUT 15 OR 20 OTHERS ON THE LIST THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED REGISTRATIONS FROM. >> TELL ME WHAT EXACTLY IS A SUBMISSION IN A REGISTRATION? >> REGISTRATION MEANS THEY SHOULD SIGN UP AS AN ACTIVE CRUISE LOT. SUBMISSION IS THEY PAID US MONEY. >> HOW MANY HAVE ACTUALLY PAID? EIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY PAID? >> EIGHT HAVE REGISTERED. SO THEY PAID THE $10 FEE AND THEY TOLD US HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS THEY HAVE AND WE HAVE OTHER CONTACTS. >> BUT HAVE THEY BEEN SENDING MONEY? >> OF THOSE, I THINK WE'VE RECEIVED TWO PAYMENTS SO FAR THIS WEEK. >> BUT DO WE KNOW IF THE OTHER LOTS ARE ACTUALLY COLLECTING THAT FEE? >> WE DO NOT. >> WELL, WE CAN DRIVE BY AND SEE IF THEY'RE FULL. [LAUGHTER] >> THERE'S ONE THING, COLLECTING. >> THEY WOULDN'T TELL YOU IF YOU'RE COLLECTING FEE OR NOT. >> BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS A WAY THAT WE WERE TYING IT TO SELL STOCKS [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY CARS THEY HAD. THAT PART WE CAN GET, BUT WHETHER THEY COLLECTED ADDITIONAL DOLLAR OR NOT, WE DO NOT KNOW. >> IN THE END, WE REALLY CARE IF THEY COLLECT THE DOLLAR, SO LONG AS WE GET A DOLLAR? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WHERE DID I HEAR THERE'S [OVERLAPPING]. >> THEY WANT TO LOWER THEIR PRICE TO COVER, AND THEN PUT THE DOLLAR ON THAT. >> TRUE. JUST TO SUMMARIZE, THESE NEW NON-PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. THEY ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET UNDER OTHER REVENUES, AND WE'RE GOING TO REVIEW THAT IN JUST A SECOND. [01:35:01] THE 23 BUDGET EXCEEDS COUNCIL'S GOAL OF THE $500,000 THAT WAS SET OUT AT THE ADOPTION OF THE FY23 BUDGET. SO COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT 500,000 OF PROPERTY TAX BE REMOVED AND DISPLACED BY NEW REVENUE SOURCES, AND SO THE PROJECTED REVENUE OF 684,000 MEETS THAT COUNCIL GOAL, WHICH IS EXCITING. >> AND IT'S CONSERVATIVE, SO IT CAN REALLY EXCEED THAT. >> HOPEFULLY. FY24, THE BUDGET IS A 93% INCREASE OVER THE PROJECTIONS FOR FY23. BUT BOTH REVENUE SOURCES DO RAMP UP OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT TWO YEARS AND THEN THEY ARE PROJECTED TO BE RELATIVELY FLAT AFTERWARDS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WHILE IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS THIS MIGHT COVER SOME GROWTH IN THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET WITHOUT KNOWN CRUISE SECTOR EXPANSION, WE CANNOT PROJECT THAT THIS REVENUE WILL SUSTAIN GROWTH IN THE GENERAL FUND. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, FY24 IS 93% INCREASE YEAR OVER YEAR? >> IN FY24, WE'RE PROJECTING ABOUT 537 FROM THE CRUISE FEES AND 785 FROM LONG-TERM PARKING, AND THAT, AT 1.3 MILLION, IS A 93% INCREASE OVER THE 684 IN THIS CURRENT YEAR. >> WHAT'S CAUSING THE LITTLE LINE CONNECT IN THE FUNCTIONAL LINE, THAT LITTLE GREEN? >> IT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE I DRAG IT ONE WAY INSTEAD OF THE OTHER WAY. [LAUGHTER] >> I JUST WONDERED BECAUSE THIS IS A WAY TO FAB NUMBERS TOO. >> NO. PROBABLY I WAS GOING ACROSS INSTEAD OF DOWN FOR THAT, SO I WOULDN'T NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE. GOING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU A PICTURE OF WHAT THAT OTHER REVENUES DETAILS LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE WE FELT THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. THERE'S VARIOUS REVENUE SOURCES IN HERE. THEY ALL ARE FLAT YEAR-OVER-YEAR, EXCEPT FOR THESE THREE REVENUE SOURCES THAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY ALREADY. THE ROSENBERG LIBRARY CONTRIBUTION, WHICH IS INCREASING DUE TO THE INCREASED REVENUE DRIVEN BY NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY TAX, THE LONG-TERM PARKING AND THE CRUISE FEES. THESE THREE REVENUE SOURCES ARE PROJECTED TO INCREASE IN THE COMING YEAR AND THEY WILL INCREASE THIS SPECIFIC CATEGORY OF REVENUE BY ABOUT 36% YEAR OVER YEAR. >> YES, JOHN? >> SORRY, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THIS LAST PAGE. WHERE DOES THAT EXCESS REVENUE COME FROM? >> THE 684,000 IS RELATED TO THE CRUISE PASSENGER IF YOU GO BACK. >> ONLY CRUISE VESSEL. SO WE MADE UP THAT $500,000 DIFFERENCE JUST BY CRUISE PASSENGER FEES? >> YES. >> FOR PARKING OR? >> THE COMBINATION. >> THE COMBINATION. >> COMBINATION OF BOTH. >> THANK YOU. >> BUT THAT'S IT. THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE, THAT'S THE ONLY ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT WE BROUGHT IN WAS THAT 684. >> THUS FAR BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN HITS AND OTHER AREAS THAT ARE NOT PERFORMING UP TO LEVELS. SO THAT'S THE NET POLICY. >> WE MIGHT TOUCH ON THAT. >> WELL, THAT'S THE NET POSITIVE OR THAT'S THE ONLY ADDITIONAL REVENUE STREAM THAT WE FOUND. >> WE'VE ADDED A LOT OF FEES, SO I DON'T WANT IT. >> WELL, YEAH, BUT THOSE ARE NOT NEW REVENUE STREAMS, THOSE ARE INCREASED REVENUE STREAMS AND WE'LL NOTE THOSE, BUT YOU DON'T AUTOMATE. WE KEPT TELLING YOU THIS EARLY ON, YOU DON'T AUTOMATICALLY SEE. THE RESULTS OF THAT TRICKLES DOWN. SO FAR THIS YEAR, THE BIGGEST HIT, POSITIVE HIT FOR YOU HAS BEEN ON THE CRUISE SIDE OF IT. YOU'VE HAD OTHER IMPACTS ON OTHER REVENUES, BUT THERE'S OTHER REVENUES THAT HAVE INCREASED AS WELL AS PART OF THAT. VERY SMALL THOUGH. >> LET ME ASK THIS IN THE BUDGET FIGURES THAT SHE HADN'T BEEN SHOWING US HERE. THESE OTHER REVENUE STREAMS ARE ALREADY INCLUDED IN THAT. >> CORRECT. >> THE PARKING, AND THE CREWS THAT YOU'RE PROJECTING, ARE THOSE ALREADY INCLUDED ALSO? >> YES. THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET WE'RE PRESENTING. >> SO YOUR THREE MILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, IF WE JUST LOWERED TO THE 3.5% RATE, IT'S DICTATED BY THAT. THIS MONEY WOULDN'T GO TO OFFSET THAT BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY IN YOUR BUDGET. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IT'S MORE, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE WITH THE BUDGET. >> SO JUST TO REVIEW THE INFLATION IMPACTS AND HOW THAT MIGHT PLAY OUT. >> WE JUST SKIPPED A SLIDE. >> NO, WE HAD GONE BACK A SLIDE. IT WAS JUST THE OTHER REFERENCE. >> MIKE AND I BOTH HAVE QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. >> GO AHEAD, DAVID. I'M LOOKING DOWN THIS MOODY GARDENS PILOT PAYMENTS. [01:40:01] >> THAT'S STILL GOING ON? >> I THOUGHT IT WASN'T. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE SAW? >> NO. THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR $407,000 A YEAR THAT WE WERE RECEIVING YEAR OVER YEAR THAT ENDED. THIS IS THIS REMAINS. >> IT'S FUNNY. IT STANDS OUT LIKE $114 FOR MINERAL OIL OR MINERAL AND GAS ROYALTIES. BUT SOMEBODY HOLDING ALL, IF SOMEBODY PAYING YOU THAT. >> THEY'RE TRYING NOT TO SPIT IT ALL IN ONE PLACE. [LAUGHTER] >> COFFEE. >> MY GUESS IS THAT HISTORICALLY, THERE WAS A LOT MORE AND SO A REVENUE LINE WAS CREATED FOR IT, AND THAT HAS DWINDLED OVER TIME MAYBE, AND IT'S STILL CAPTURED SEPARATELY. >> COME IN FRONT OF HIM. PRETTY CRYSTAL. [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT JUST AS A MATTER OF PRACTICE, IT'S A BYPRODUCT OF LAND OWNERSHIP THAT DOESN'T GET A LOT OF PLAY, SO WE STILL SEPARATE IT OUT. THERE ARE SOME CITIES IN TEXAS THAT GET A LOT OF INCOME FROM OIL AND GAS. >> SHE LED THIS IS A COLA OBJECTIONS IN YOUR BUDGET IS OVER IN THERE. >> I CHAT, BUT SHE'S GOING TO GO SALARY INCREASES FOR NOTHING THAT. [OVERLAPPING] >> DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE POLICE AND FIRE YET. >> SO IF WE LOOK AT INFLATION IMPACTS AND SPECIFICALLY HOW THAT IMPACTS PERSONNEL, WE JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH A PICTURE OF WHAT 1% INCREASE IN THE VARIOUS GROUPS, HOW THAT IMPACTS THE GENERAL FUND. SO WITH POLICE, IF THERE'S A 1% INCREASE IN SALARIES AND THAT OBVIOUSLY PUSHES THROUGH TO SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE PENSION. IT'S ABOUT A $159,000 IMPACT AND THAT IS ABOUT 163 EMPLOYEES THAT RECEIVE THAT IMPACT. FIRE IT'S ABOUT 105,000 IMPACTING 115 EMPLOYEES AND CIVILIANS. IT WOULD BE ABOUT $172,000 IMPACTING ABOUT 236 EMPLOYEES IN THE GENERAL FUND. THOSE IMPACTS WOULD BE FELT SEPARATELY AND OTHER FUNDS, BUT WE'RE [OVERLAPPING] >> THE MAJORITY OF YOUR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES ARE NOT IN THE GENERAL FUND. >> SO THAT'S WHAT 1% LOOKS LIKE RELATED TO EACH OF THOSE GROUPS. HEALTH INSURANCE IS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET WE'VE PRESENTED TO YOU. WE ARE PROJECTING IT TO BE A 10% INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR, WHICH IS ABOUT A $600,000 COST TO THE GENERAL FUND. THAT IS THE ONE ITEM WE'VE INCLUDED IN THIS BUDGET BECAUSE. [OVERLAPPING] >> WE HAVE NO CHOICE IN THIS. >> THEN JUST TO RECAP, THE REGION HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY APPROXIMATELY 3% INFLATION OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, AND THAT IMPACTS EVERYTHING FROM FUEL, ASPHALT, AUTOMOTIVE PARTS, AND SUPPLIES AND SERVICES OF ALL KINDS. >> IN ADDITION, WE'VE DONE THINGS LIKE WE'VE ADDED MORE STREETLIGHTS. THOSE COSTS DOES FOR EVERY MONTH. THEN OUR FEES TO THOSE HAS ALSO GONE UP IN TERMS OF OUR ENERGY USE, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVEN'T NEGOTIATED CONTRACT. I THINK THEY'RE ACTUALLY AT AUSTIN. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR TARIFF INCREASES AGAIN. >> SO WE ADD DRESSING ARE LIKE ELECTRICITY COSTS. >> WE COME TO AGREEMENT THAT I THINK TAKES EFFECT THIS JANUARY. >> HOW MUCH ARE WE PAYING? WELL, BECAUSE PIRATES PBOA IN THERE, WHATEVER COMMON LANDS JUST I FORGET WHAT COMPANY THEY USE, BUT I CAN GET YOU THE NAME. THEY JUST GOT A SEVEN CENT. >> WE'RE BELOW THAT. >> WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT 4.5. >> WE'RE CHEAP, BUT [OVERLAPPING] WE USE A LOT OF ELECTRICITY BECAUSE OUR PUMPS AND EVERYTHING RUN 24/7. THAT'S A FUNCTION OF TWO. AGAIN, THERE'S 50,000 PEOPLE HERE, BUT WE'RE PUMPING WATER TO EIGHT MILLION VISITORS A YEAR WHO ARE STAYING IN HOTELS AND SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE AND WE'RE PUMPING THAT WATER. IT'S INCREMENTAL IN EVERY LITTLE THING, BUT IT ADDS UP TO LARGE NUMBERS, JUST LIKE YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY DOES. >> LIKE ELECTRA COUNCIL AT ONE, PROBABLY THE MOST INTERESTING STATISTIC I'VE EVER SEEN IS THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO YOU COMPARE GALVESTON WITH. OTHER CITIES ARE SIZE IN TERMS OF POPULATION OR CITIES IN THE METRO AREA. CITIES THAT COMPARED TO US FROM TOURISM AND HOTEL TAX STANDPOINT, WE ARE 60-65% OCCUPIED IN OUR HOUSING STOCK. EVERY ONE OF THOSE OTHER CITIES IS ABOVE 90%. THAT'S MEASURED BY THE CENSUS EVERY YEAR. >> BUT THAT ALSO BENEFITS US BECAUSE THERE WAS SECONDARY HOMES DON'T HAVE HOMESTEAD, SO ON, AND OTHER EXEMPTIONS. >> IT LIMITS OUR ABILITY TO MAKE PER CAPITA COMPARISON. [01:45:08] >> WHAT YOU HAVE INCLUDED IN YOUR PRESENTATION, WHICH MIGHT BE A LITTLE EASIER TO SEE, BUT IT'S NOT TOO BAD UP THERE IS YOUR GENERAL FUND OVERVIEW BUDGET. THIS INCLUDES YOUR REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES. ONCE AGAIN, THE REVENUES CURRENTLY ARE PROJECTED AT 75.1 MILLION, WHICH IS WITH THE PROPERTY TAX BEING AT WHAT WE THINK WILL BE REVENUE FROM NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, AND THAT'S ABOUT A 2.3% INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR OVERALL, YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THAT IS OCCURRING AND OTHER REVENUES, THOSE CRUISE RELATED FEES, AND IN THAT LINE, YOU'LL SEE THAT 36.17% INCREASE FOR THAT MILLION DOLLARS. >> YOU WILL SEE AS YOU LOOK OVER 22-23 AND GOING FORWARD, THE INCREASES IN YOUR TOTAL GENERAL FUND OR ALMOST ENTIRELY IN PUBLIC SAFETY. THIS HAS BEEN MY ARGUMENT ALL ALONG WITH THE STATE WITH THIS 3.5% CAP, IS THAT THEY KEPT OUR REVENUE, BUT THEY DID NOT KEPT PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENSES. PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENSES ARE SOME OF OUR FASTEST-GROWING EXPENSES, AND RIGHTLY SO, BUT THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN KEEP PACE WITH THIS AND IT IS ALREADY CONSUMED JUST ABOUT ALL OF YOUR TAX REVENUE. IT IS A VERY PRECARIOUS SITUATION THE CITY IS IN GOING FORWARD. >> THIS IS SHOWING BASED ON ANOTHER NEW REVENUE. IF YOU HAVE A $759,000 LEFTOVER, THAT'S 120-DAY RESERVES AND ARE APPROXIMATELY 120 DAYS IN OUR RESERVES? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S TAKEN EVERYTHING TO 120 DAYS. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE BASED ON A KNOWN IN REVENUE RATE FOR THOSE ITEMS WE HAVEN'T COVERED, WE'VE GOT ABOUT A $4.1 MILLION DEFICIT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S ON [BACKGROUND] SLIDE 5. YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS. >> FOR ONE AND IF WE WENT TO JUST THE 3.5% MANDATED RATE, WE'D STILL HAVE THE THREE MILLION DOLLAR? >> YES. >> YES. THAT'S BASED ON THE REVIEWED DEPARTMENT REQUESTS PARTIALLY, SO THAT NUMBER WILL COME DOWN. BUT AS OF WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TODAY, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. >> I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THIS. KEEP IN MIND WHEN YOU'RE MOST STABLE FORM OF REVENUE IS TEXAS AVALON PRIMARILY SECONDARILY SALES TAX. SALES TAX HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE VOLATILITY. WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO STACK THIS WITH ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES. YOU MISS ON ANY OF THOSE. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO WAY YOU CAN GET BACK WITHOUT IMPACTING PUBLIC SAFETY BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NO MONEY LEFT. WE HAVE FARMED JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND OUT OF YOUR TAX REVENUE EXCEPT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. >> WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO ONLY LOOK AT PUBLIC SAFETY [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT MURRAY, IF YOU MISS YOUR ALTERNATIVE REVENUE TARGETS, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN PARKS AND TRANSIT TO MAKE THAT CUT. >> MIDDLE-MANAGEMENT [OVERLAPPING] >> LEVELS. >> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, MURRAY, THAT TELLS ME YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING OR BUDGET. >> I AM UNDERSTANDING. >> BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THAT OVERHEAD IS SPREAD ACROSS ALL FUNDS, IT'S NOT ALL IN THE GENERAL FUND. YOU CAN GET RID OF ALL OF US, AND YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TO MAKE THAT MOVE. >> WELL, THERE'S WAYS THAT YOU COULD ADDRESS IT THROUGH WHAT I SAID BEFORE. IF IT'S PUBLIC SAFETY AND THAT'S PROTECTING TOURISTS, THERE ARE WAYS THAT ARE LEGAL IN THE STATE THAT YOU CAN COVER SOME OF THOSE COSTS. >> BUT I DEFER TO OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND WHAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO DO WITH THAT NOW, I GUARANTEE IF COUNCIL VOTES FOR IT AND LEGAL APPROVES IT, I'LL PUSH IT AS HARD AS WE CAN. BUT, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OF THAT HOT MONEY SO HARD FOR ME TO SPEND IT. >> SLIDE 13 JUST GIVES YOU A VISUAL LOOK AT WHAT YOU RECEIVED ON SLIDE 12 BUDGET, AND HOW THE VARIOUS SERVICES SPLIT UP OVER THE GENERAL FUND. THEN JUST TO TOUCH ON THE LAST NON-PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED A LOT OVER THE LAST YEAR. THE SHORT TERM OR RENEW REGISTRATION FEE, SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION FEE. THE FUNDING RELATED TO THAT WILL BE PLACED IN A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND, WHICH IS NOT THE GENERAL FUND. YOU'RE NOT SEEING THAT IN THE BUDGET PORTION THAT WE PRESENTED YOU TODAY. AS YOU KNOW, THERE WAS AN INCREASE OF $200 PER REGISTRATION AND THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 4,400 STRS IN THE CITY. THE ANNUAL REVENUE THE CITY ANTICIPATES IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE 690,000-880,000. [01:50:05] THOSE REGISTRATIONS, AS WE KNOW, ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE PARK'S BOARD AND THE RECEIPTS ARE FORWARDED TO THE CITY. AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE'RE STILL WAITING ON WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. BUT JUST SO WE DON'T NOT TOUCH ON THIS BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] >> I APPRECIATE THAT. BUT [NOISE] I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT BULLET ITEMS HERE. >> OKAY. >> ONE, HAVE WE EVER RECEIVED ANY OF THIS MONEY? >> YEAH. >> REGISTRATION, ADMISSION ABOUT PARKING RECEIPTS, YOUR FORWARD TO THE CITY. NOT SO MUCH, HAS NOT HAPPENED. UNLESS SOMEBODY WHO TELL ME THAT DIFFERENTLY, BUT THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING. SECOND, FUNDING HAS BEEN PLACED IN A SEPARATE SPECIAL REVENUE FUND. WHEN DID WE DECIDE TO SILO THIS? I DON'T REMEMBER ANY DECISION BY COUNCIL TO SILO THESE FUNDS OUT OF THE GENERAL REVENUE. >> I THINK THE DISCUSSION WAS WORKING WITH LEGAL ON THE FEE. IS THAT THE FEE HAS TO BE INVESTED SOMEHOW TO BENEFIT AND OR ADDRESS TOURISM. >> IN SHORT-TERM RENTAL CARS? >> IN SHORT-TERM RENTAL CARS. >> SHORT-TERM RENTAL CARS BUT [OVERLAPPING] >> WE'VE GOT LOTS OF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS. >> WITH WHAT? >> SALES OF MONEY WITH LESS RESTRICTIVE LANGUAGE THAN THAT. ONCE YOU PUT IT IN THE GENERAL FUND, IT'S GONE. >> IT ISN'T GONE. >> IT WAS NOT GONE. MIKE, THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT TERM TO USE. ONCE IT'S IN THE GENERAL FUND, IT GETS SPENT ON GENERAL FUND EXPENSES. >> THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE IS A GENERAL FUND EXPENSE? >> YES. >> YES, IT IS. >> WE KNOW WHERE DID WE DISCUSS BY THE WAY [OVERLAPPING] >> WE DID NOT DECIDED THIS. >> IN THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE ALSO ANIMALS PARKING DOWNTOWN AND SOME OF THAT [OVERLAPPING] >> I KNOW WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING, MIKE, BUT I'M SAYING [OVERLAPPING] SHORT-TERM RENTAL RELATED ENFORCEMENT IS A GENERAL FUND ACTIVITY? >> IT IS, AND THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL FEE DOES NOT STIPULATE [OVERLAPPING] WHERE THAT MONEY GOES, DOESN'T STIPULATE HOW IT'S TO BE SPENT. >> OUR PLAN IS THAT ONCE THE SOFTWARE IS UP AND WE HAVE DATA, THAT WE WOULD TARGET THE MONEY FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTAL EXPENSES BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE THOSE EXPENSES ARE AND WHAT THEY ARE. IF THAT IS NOT THE DIRECTION COUNCIL WANTS TO GO, WE WILL DROP THIS MONEY IN THE GENERAL FUND AND GO AND WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THOSE EXPENSES AS THEY COME UP. >> WELL, I'M SUGGESTING WE DON'T SPEND IT ON THOSE THINGS. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS SAYS. THIS SAYS IT'S BEING PLACED IN A SPECIAL REVENUE FUND. THAT DECISION IS NOT MADE IN THE ORDINANCE WHICH WE IMPLEMENTED THAT FUND. SECOND, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THE SOFTWARE IS. WE APPROVE THAT SOFTWARE 18 MONTHS AGO. >> WHERE ARE WE CURRENTLY ON THIS? >> WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE SOFTWARE? WHY DON'T WE HAVE THAT DATA? WHY DON'T WE HAVE THIS MONEY? >> WELL, THE ISSUE ON NOT HAVING THE MONEY IS COMING UP ON OUR WORKSHOP AGENDA HERE IN JUST A SECOND, AND MIKE GOING TO MAKE A REPORT ON THAT. HE'S BEEN WORKING WITH THEIR ATTORNEY. YES MIKE. >> I'VE SEEN THE SOFTWARE. IT'S WORKING. IT'S UP. >> I'VE BEEN RUNNING IT TO UNIT TESTING? >> ARE WE GETTING DATA OUT OF THIS? >> THEY'RE GETTING DATA. >> ARE THEY? >> REPORTS ARE COMING OUT OF THIS? >> [OVERLAPPING] NOT 18 MONTHS AGO, BUT YEAH, WE'RE GETTING SOME. >> WHAT DOES THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE KNOW ABOUT THIS THEN? [BACKGROUND] >> THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS REPORTING SYSTEM WAS YES TO TRACK THEM. HOW DO YOU KNOW YOU'RE EXTENDING MARSHAL RESOURCES ON A SHORT-TERM RENTAL ISSUE? THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS THE SOFTWARE WAS DESIGNED TO DO, IS THE CALL CENTERS [OVERLAPPING] >> I APOLOGIZE. THE CALLS AND THE CALL CENTER, THAT IS NOT GOING ON RIGHT NOW. THE DATA AS FAR AS WHO'S REGISTERED AND PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T REGISTERED IT'S IDENTIFYING THEM AND IT'S DOING THAT AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS OFFLINE OR IF I'M TALKING ABOUT IT, THAT'S FINE. I'M VERY INTERESTED IN WHERE WE ARE ON THAT. THAT'S NOT AN AGENDA ITEM ERIC GARNER, I GUESS. >> WE HAVE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION COPY COMING UP ON OUR WORKSHOP AGENDA IN THE SECOND. LET'S LET [OVERLAPPING] NO ONE TO EITHER GO. >> I'M JUST GOING TO FINISH WITH THE LAST SLIDE THAT YOU-ALL HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT, THE UTILITY AND ENTERPRISE FUNDS YET. WATER, SEWER RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY RATE INCREASES UNTIL A YEAR OF EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN EVALUATED ON THE NEW AMI METERS. AS YOU HEARD, WE'RE ALMOST A YEAR OUT FROM THAT PROJECT BEING COMPLETE. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE PROCEEDING WITH THE RATES AS THEY EXIST BECAUSE WE JUST DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THE CONSUMPTION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. >> THEY WERE FINDING SAVINGS IN STOP LAWS WITH THE METER SYSTEMS, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE GOOD BASELINE BEFORE WE COME TO YOU. [01:55:02] >> WE'VE HAD A LOT OF THE INCREASES IN THESE AREAS TOO. >> I KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD A WATER INCREASE IN THE LONG TERM. >> THAT CONNECTION WE INCREASE. >> YEAH, BUT THAT'S [OVERLAPPING]. >> HARD WATER IS LIKE SOME OF THE MOST COSTLY WATER, SO I HOPEFULLY THOUGH [OVERLAPPING] >> YOUR WATER BILL MIGHT BE BUT YOUR WATER IS NOT. KEEP IN MIND, WE HAVE ONLY ONE MECHANISM TO BUILD RESIDENTS HERE AND THAT'S THE WATER BILL SO THERE'S A LOT THAT GETS PUT ON THERE. PEOPLE SAY, OUR WATER SO EXPENSIVE, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. [OVERLAPPING] THEIR WATER BILL IS HIGH BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] >> DRAINAGE RATE SAY WE'VE ADDED A LINE [OVERLAPPING] >> IT'S ALSO ANOTHER PLACE WHERE YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL WHEN COMPARING TO OTHER CITIES' GARBAGE IS ON THIS BILL. >> YES. >> PLENTY OF CITIES AROUND US WHERE GARBAGE ISN'T ON THE BILL. >> RIGHT. >> THIS PRESENTATION WAS WELL DONE [OVERLAPPING] >> THANK YOU. >> YES. >> THERE YOU GO [LAUGHTER] >> WELL DONE. >> CONVERSION IS OUR MIDDLE NAME. >> BRIAN, BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE OTHER SUBJECT HERE, THERE'S THINGS HANGING OUT LIKE THE COLA AND HOW MUCH COAL IS WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN THERE, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS, WHEN WE'LL GO START TRICKLING IN SO WE'LL SEE MORE DEFINITE [OVERLAPPING]? >> WELL, THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING DEPENDS ON HOW THAT GOES, AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT NOW. I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE BY OUR JULY MEETING, WE WILL HAVE SOME UPDATES ON THAT. >> BUT, THAT'S ALSO THE REASON THAT WE SUGGESTED THE SEPARATE MEETING ON MONDAY, JULY THE 31ST. THAT'S REALLY THE LAST DAY. WE CAN TAKE SOMEBODY'S DECISIONS AND PUT THEM IN THE BUDGET, AND MAKE SURE WEEK LATER THAT'S REALLY STRETCHED. >> THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPERATIVE THAT YOU GUYS ATTEND YOUR BUDGET MEETINGS WITH BUDGETS AND LET SOME OF YOUR PRIORITIES. >> WE HAVE PRIVATE MEETINGS, EACH INDIVIDUAL BE SURE TO MAKE THOSE IF YOU WOULD DAVID. >> QUICKLY, WHEN DO WE ANTICIPATE SEEING FINAL REVENUE NUMBERS FROM COUNTING? >> THE FINAL [OVERLAPPING]. >> A DAY AFTER THIS. >> THERE'S NEVER A FINAL ON THIS, I GET IT. >> BY STATE LAW, THEY HAVE TO PUBLISH [OVERLAPPING]. MS. JOHNSON HOPES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO COME FORTH ON THE 23RD, BUT IT'S TOTALLY INDEPENDENT FROM THAT POINT FORWARD ON IT [LAUGHTER]. SHE CAN PROCESS US AND ALL OF THE OTHER TAX COMMUNITY. >> JULY31ST. >> BUT ANECDOTALLY, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE FINAL 22 NUMBER YET. [LAUGHTER] >> [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS WHY WE'RE DOING THE SECOND MAJOR. >> IT'S SHEILA WITH THE CH SOUND AS I TOLD YOU ABOUT. BUT IT'S A HARD ONE. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] ITS HUNGARIAN. ALL MY FAMILY ON BOTH SIDES IS HUNGARIAN. >> HOW DO YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME? >> LOU DANI. >> LOU DANI. >> SHEILA. >> BUT, I REALLY AM VERY FORGIVING ABOUT IT. [LAUGHTER] >> VERY GOOD PRESIDENT. >> I'LL CALL HER LATE FOR LUNCH. >> THE S BECOME AN H. >> APPRECIATE IT. >> IN HUNGARIAN, THE C, H IS IN THE ALPHABET AND IT'S THE CH SOUND. >> THANK YOU, SHEILA. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THAT WAS EXCELLENT. >> YEAH, IT WAS. WELL DONE. WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE. >> YOU'RE ALWAYS EXCELLENT TO ACHIEVE AN EXCELLENT. >> WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE SHEILA HERE. >> MY TEACHER. >> ACTUALLY, SHEILA WAS ONE OF MY EXPERTS STUDENTS. >> WOW. >> [OVERLAPPING] WELL, I DIDN'T TEACH YOUR WHOLE LIFE, MIKE? >> YEAH. >> LET'S MOVE. >> CAN WE TAKE A BREAK? >> YEAH. COUNCIL ROBB LIKE FIVE-MINUTE BREAK, SO LET'S TAKE A BREAK HERE WE'LL COME BACK. WRAPPED [OVERLAPPING] [BACKGROUND] 6:00 AM, WE'RE BACK FROM OUR MORNING BREAK HERE IN OUR WORKSHOP, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 3C, PLEASE NELLY. [3.C. Discussion Of Planning Commission Review Of Changes To The Beach Access And Dune Protection Ordinance (T. Tietjens - 15 Min)] >> ITEM 3C, DISCUSSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF CHANGES TO BEACH ACCESS AND DOING PROTECTION ORDINANCE. >> VERY GOOD. WE'VE ALREADY REALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS ITEM. I THINK EVERYBODY HAS GOT THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED, BUT I'M GOING TO ASK TIM'S HERE, IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? THIS IS ITEM 3C, THIS IS NOT ACTION ITEM TODAY, THERE WILL BE NO VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM TODAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR TIM ON 3C BEFORE WE MOVE ON? [OVERLAPPING] >> I DID. >> YES, SIR. >> JUST SO I'M STRAIGHT ON THIS, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE'RE TRYING TO PUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN PART OF THE REVIEW OF THE BEACH AND NOT TAKING AWAY THE CITY COUNCIL. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. >> THEN THAT IS ALL MY QUESTIONS. [BACKGROUND] >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TIM, THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT, GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. [3.D. Discussion Of The Mission And Structure Of The Galveston Island Redevelopment Authority (M. Hay/T. Fanning - 15 Min)] LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3D, PLEASE. >> ITEM 3D, DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION AND STRUCTURE OF THE GALVESTON ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY. >> COUNCIL, I'D LIKE TO REALLY GET SOME GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM 3D AND THE NEXT ONE COMING UP, [02:00:01] WHICH WILL BE 3E. WE HAVE MICHELLE HAY WITH US, TREVOR FANNING WILL BE WITH US. THIS COMMITTEE HAS BEEN MEETING AND WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE GIVE THEM DIRECTION. WE HAVE SOME GOOD PEOPLE ON THAT COMMITTEE AND THEY'RE REALLY WANTING DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL AND WHERE WE NEED TO HEAD IN THE FUTURE. ALSO, LET ME MENTION COMING UP HERE ON 3E, THAT'S THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. AS YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED ON THE REGULAR AGENDA, WE HAVE APPOINTMENTS TO THAT COMMITTEE THIS AFTERNOON. IF COUNCIL HAS INDIVIDUALS THEY WANT TO BRING FORWARD, WE HAVE TWO OPENINGS ON THERE AND THEN RE-APPOINTMENT SO IF YOU DO HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD THIS AFTERNOON FOR THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, FEEL FREE TO DO THAT. >> HOW MANY POSITIONS? >> TWO. >> TWO. >> WELL, WE HAVE AND THEN RATHER RE-APPOINTMENTS SO SEVEN ON THAT COMMITTEE, FIVE REAPPOINTMENT AND TWO OPENINGS ON THAT. >> IS THERE ANY APPLICATION PROCESS FOR THAT? >> YES SIR THERE IS. I CHECKED WITH JANELLE YESTERDAY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY APPLICATIONS FOR THAT COMMITTEE. THIS WOULD BE OTHER INDIVIDUALS IF YOU'D WANT TO PUT OUT. LET'S GO AHEAD NOW AND LET'S TALK ABOUT THE GALVESTON ISLAND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MICHELLE. TREVOR, YOU WANT TO HAVE A SEAT ALSO? COME ON OVER HERE, TREVOR. >> [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]. >> WELL, I GUESS TO START OF WITH, AND I GUESS FOR COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEA, YOU WERE NOT IN THE LAST DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD WITH REGARDS TO THESE ENTITIES, BUT I GUESS ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WE THOUGHT TO BRING THE RDA AND THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE, PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY BOARDS UNDER THE SAME UMBRELLA. APPOINT THE SAME BOARD FOR ALL THREE OF THOSE TWO STREAMLINES AND PROCESSES. IT REALLY HASN'T, IN MY OPINION, WORKED OUT VERY WELL, WE STILL HAVE TWO ACCOUNTING BOOK-KEEPING ENTITIES, ATTORNEYS AND SUCH AND SO WE'VE NOT REALLY STREAMLINED AND IT'S BEEN A LITTLE DISCONNECTED AND WE SPENT MOST OF OUR TIME FOCUSING ON OUR HOUSING FINANCE AND PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY, MISSION AND OBJECTIVES AND THE RDA HAS PRETTY MUCH JUST BEEN THAT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE FOR THAT TOURS 13. I RECOMMEND WE MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF JUST SPLITTING THOSE APART AND THEN ALLOWING THEM TO FIND THEIR OWN MISSIONS. IF WE CHOOSE TO HAVE THE RDA GO OFF INTO SUBMISSION OTHER THAN JUST OVERSEEING THE TOURS 13, WE COULD DO SO, BUT THEN WITH THE HOUSING FINANCE, PROPERTY FINANCE, ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FORWARD THERE. >> SO THAT WE CAN START THE DISCUSSION HERE, I WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION FROM COUNCIL. DO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FORMALIZED NOW THE SPLITTING OF THESE TWO GROUPS? AS YOU MAY KNOW, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS BACK, WE HAD SOMETHING THAT WE PASSED HERE, AN ORDINANCE WHICH ALLOWED US TO A POINT DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO EACH ONE OF THESE DIFFERENT TWO GROUPS. NOW, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL WANTS TO SPLIT THESE APART SO THAT TREVOR I GUESS YOU'LL BRING BACK HOWEVER WE NEED TO DO THAT. >> YES SIR. WE DID PASS THAT, IT BASICALLY JUST SAID THAT. WE HAD PASSED A YEAR AGO AN ORDINANCE SAYING THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SIT ON ALL THREE OF THESE BOARDS HAS TO QUALIFY FOR EACH BOARD. THE LAST ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED TOOK THE RDA BACK OUT OF THAT. THAT DOESN'T IN AND OF ITSELF SEPARATE THE BOARD, IT ALLOWS YOU'LL TO APPOINT DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO THE RDA IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. >> WE ALREADY VOTED ON SEPARATING THE RDA? >> WELL, WE VOTED IT OUT OF THAT ORDINANCE. >> WE VOTED IT OUT. >> BUT WE HAVEN'T SEPARATED IT THOUGH? >> RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] >> THE ACT OF SEPARATING THEM, WOULD I BELIEVE BE JUST Y'ALL APPOINTING DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO THEM. >> IF I MAY. >> WELL, LET MARIE, GO AHEAD MARIE. >> I'M OF THE OPINION THEY SHOULD BE SEPARATE BOARDS. I THINK THEY'VE REALLY FOCUSED ON TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I THINK IT'S A SHAME THAT OUR RDA, WHICH FUNCTIONED VERY WELL YEARS AGO UNTIL THERE WAS A COUNCIL THAT WAS VERY ANTI-TERRORISM AND WHATNOT. I THINK WE SHOULD GO BACK TO HAVING AN RDA THAT FUNCTIONS AS AN RDA. I DO NOT THINK THE RDA SHOULD BE INTERNAL, I THINK IT SHOULD BE EXTERNAL MEMBERS. BUT I ALSO THINK, AND I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE DISCUSSED, CERTAINLY JOHN HAS BROUGHT IT UP, WE NEED TO GIVE THEM DIRECTIONS, [02:05:02] BOTH GROUPS, WHICH WE WEREN'T VERY GOOD ABOUT. BUT I DO THINK THEY NEED TO BE SEPARATE BOARDS SEPARATE ENTITIES. >> ALL RIGHT. DAVID. >> I HAVE TO PRETTY MUCH ECHO WHAT MARIE JUST SAID THAT I'M PERFECTLY OKAY WITH SPLITTING THEM APART. MERGING THEM DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY EFFECT, DIDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR US. I'M OKAY WITH SEPARATING THESE TWO. BUT CONTRARY TO WHAT MICHELLE SAID. NO, LET'S NOT PUT THEM OUT THERE AND LET THEM FIND THEIR WAY. [LAUGHTER]. [OVERLAPPING] WE'VE HAVE TROUBLE ENOUGH WITH THE OUTLIERS, [LAUGHTER] BUT THAT SUGGESTS THAT COUNCIL HAS TO GIVE THEM DIRECTION, WHICH IN TURN SUGGESTS WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO AND THAT'S JUST NOT CLEAR TO ME. >> IT IS NOT CLEAR AT ALL, WE'RE JUST SPEAKING OF THE RDA. >> THE HOUSING FINANCE. >> THE RDA, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, DAVID. THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, THE WAY INPUT I'M RECEIVING FROM WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE SEPARATED SO THAT THEY'RE NOT COMBINED BUT YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, WE HAVE NOT GIVEN DIRECTIONS TO THE RDA. >> OR THE HOUSING FINANCE. >> [OVERLAPPING] CORRECT, BUT WE'RE COMING TO THE HOUSING FINANCE HERE IN JUST A SECOND, BUT ON THE RDA, LET'S NOW, YOUR COMMENTS ON SPLITTING THEM, MAKING SURE THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE COMMITTEES, AND SECOND OF ALL, DIRECTION FOR THE RDA ON THIS. >> FIRST OF ALL, I TOTALLY SEE AND UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WOULD BE SEPARATE, THEY HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT MISSIONS AND OBJECTIVES. MY QUESTION IS THAT HAS COUNCIL RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE RDA IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY BELIEVED THEIR OBJECTIVES ARE OR THEIR MAIN GOALS ARE? >> OTHER THAN THE BROAD OBJECTIVES THAT, AND I WILL PASS, MAYBE PASS THIS OUT IN CASE. >> WHEN WE, I GUESS COUNCIL VOTED BACK IN '21. >> BUT WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM? >> RIGHT. THESE WERE THE BROAD ONES? THEY REALLY HAVEN'T FOCUSED MUCH ON ANY RDA OBJECTIVES, IT'S AGAIN MOSTLY FOCUSING ON THE HOUSING FINANCE, PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY [BACKGROUND] OBJECTIVES AND THEIR PURCHASE PROGRAM AND TRYING TO GET THAT ROLLING. I WOULD IMAGINE MAYBE ONCE THEY WERE GOING TO GET THAT, THEN WE CAN FOCUS ON MAYBE SOMETHING FOR THE RDA BUT I THINK IN MY OPINION, IT PROVED TO BE DIFFICULT TO HAVE THEM ALL TOGETHER AND THEN OFF WITH SEPARATE OBJECTIVES IN THE MAKEUP [OVERLAPPING]. >> I THINK WE ALL KNOW. I THINK THE MAJORITY HAS AGREED THEY SHOULD BE SEPARATE BECAUSE WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THEM, VOTED ON IT. BUT IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HAVE THE MEETING WITH THE RDA. >> [BACKGROUND] EXACTLY, BECAUSE WELL, NOT NECESSARILY, BUT PREVIOUS COUNCILS RESTRICTED THEM FROM OPERATING AS WHAT A RDA WOULD TYPICALLY BE DOING. SIMILAR TO DAVID HAS SPENT TIME IN THAT WORLD, I SPENT TIME IN THAT WORLD WITH HAVING A NICHE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHEN I HAD MY MARKETING AND ADVERTISING SO I WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT RDAS IN DIFFERENT CITIES. PREVIOUS COUNCILS LIKE SODA TIED THEIR HANDS BEHIND THEIR BACK SO THAT THEY WEREN'T ALLOWED TO FUNCTION THE WAY THEY SHOULD BE. >> TO THAT END, YES, I AGREE. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB'S COMMENT ABOUT THE NEED TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE RDA BECAUSE AS I SEE THERE, THEY'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIAL EITHER EFFORTS OR PROJECTS RELATED TO ATTENTION RE-DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING ON. BUT THEN ALSO, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MEET WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY CAN PROVIDE VALUABLE INPUT INTO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH WE STILL NEED TO UPDATE. >> SURELY. OKAY. I'M GETTING. >> YES, JOHN. >> I'M GOING TO GO WITH COUNCILMAN BENTLEY, SO NOW WE GET TWO DAVIDS UP HERE SO I GOT TO [OVERLAPPING] A LITTLE MORE FORMAL. >> DAVID. CAPTAIN DAVID. >> YOU SAID THAT YOU THINK THEIR ROLES ARE DIFFERENT AND THAT FACILITATES TWO DIFFERENT ENTITY OR TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS? IS THAT WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY? >> YEAH. >> DID I SAY THAT WRONG? WHAT DO YOU THINK THE TWO BOARDS' OBJECTIVES ARE? >> WELL, I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY LOOKING AT WHAT SOME OF THEIR GOALS ARE. [02:10:02] THEY'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT CREATING ZONES AND CHANGING POTENTIAL LAND-USE. NOT NECESSARILY CHANGING LAND USE, BUT PROVIDING POLICY THAT HELPS TO SPUR ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IS REALLY TARGETED, REALLY TOWARDS SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING. >> RIGHT. >> IS THAT CORRECT? >> ALL HOUSING. >> OKAY. THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS NOT RESTRICTED TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING, BUT IT'S REALLY LOOKING AT LARGER SCALE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. >> RIGHT. >> DO YOU THINK THE MEMBERS OF THOSE BOARDS WOULD NEED DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS AND SKILL-SETS TO BE ON THOSE DIFFERENT BOARDS? I MEAN, IS THAT WHY YOU WANT THEM TO BE SEPARATE? >> NO. I'D LIKE FOR THEM TO STAY SEPARATE BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THEIR GOALS AND MISSIONS ARE DIFFERENT. >> COULD NOT ONE BOARD PROVIDE ALL THOSE? HAVE THOSE SKILL SETS AND ACCOMPLISH THAT MISSION? >> YEAH, BUT WE HEARD THAT THAT'S NOT REALLY THE WAY THAT THINGS HAD BEEN GOING OVER THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF. >> WELL, SO OVER THE PAST YEAR-AND-A-HALF, COUNCIL HAS GIVEN THEM ZERO DIRECTION ON WHAT COUNCIL WANTS THEM TO DO? NOT THAT ONE GOAL, NOT ONE TALK? >> WELL, WE DID GIVE THEM THIS. THIS WAS HOW LONG AGO? >> I THINK AUGUST OF 21, IF I'M [OVERLAPPING]. >> AUGUST 20TH, COUNCIL DID AGREE UPON THIS. HERE IS THEIR MISSION STATEMENTS. >> JOHN PAUL? YES. I AGREE THAT YES, YOU COULD HAVE THE SIMILAR SET OF SKILL SETS OR BACKGROUND OR EDUCATION, WHATEVER COULD BE VALUABLE IN BOTH CASES. >> WELL, I'D LIKE TO COME INTO YOUR QUESTION. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT GOALS AND MISSION. I THINK, YES, BOTH BOARDS NEED QUALIFIED PEOPLE THAT THERE MAY BE SIMILARITY. BUT YOU'RE THEN TALKING ABOUT A MUST HAVING TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE MEETINGS WITH THE SAME BOARD BECAUSE IT'S TWO DIFFERENT GOALS AND MISSIONS. WHERE TO ME, THAT'S WHY IT SHOULD BE TWO DIFFERENT BOARDS OF PEOPLE BECAUSE OF THE MISSIONS AND THE GOALS. >> IS IT A TIME ISSUE? >> I JUST THINK IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. [OVERLAPPING] >> I THINK IT'S A LITTLE CHALLENGING PUTTING THE AGENDA TOGETHER. I CAN TELL YOU IT GETS A LITTLE CHALLENGING WHEN WE HAVE [NOISE] PAYMENTS FOR INVOICES ON THIS BOARD VERSUS THAT BOARD, AND THEN THERE'S INTERMINGLING OF THE OTHER IT DOES GET TO BE A LITTLE. >> I MEAN, BUT YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT WITH THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND THE PROPERTY AUTHORITY? THOSE ARE TWO SEPARATE BOARDS, TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES, TWO SEPARATE ACCOUNTS. YOU HAVE TO KEEP THOSE SEPARATE. >> I GUESS SO FOR RIGHT NOW, MOST OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING. THERE HAVEN'T BEEN VERY MANY SEPARATE, OTHER THAN THAT. >> ACTIVITIES, PRIMARILY IN ONE OF THESE, NOT THE OTHER. >> INVOICES OR LEGAL. >> YEAH, I WOULD SAY THIS. THE COMBINED BOARDS, THEY'VE REALLY CONCENTRATED ON GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BUSINESS. THAT'S BECAUSE COUNCIL IS NOT GIVING THEM DIRECTION ON THE RDA SIDE OF IT. >> WELL, THAT'S ALSO BECAUSE THE MEMBERS FOCUS ON THAT. >> CORRECT. >> A LOT OF THE MEMBERS CAME FROM THAT SIDE OF THE BOARD. >> THE CHAIRPERSON CAME FROM [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU'RE RIGHT. GO AHEAD. >> SO TO THAT END, I MEAN, THE ARGUMENT OF MAYBE HAVING THE RDA FOR BEING THE SAME AS THE OTHER ONES. I MEAN, THINK WE'VE SHOWN RECENTLY BASED UPON THE PARK BOARD APPLICATIONS THAT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING THE COMMUNITY. I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO TRY TO FIND, MAYBE SOME OF THOSE OR OTHERS THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE AND FOCUS THEIR ENERGIES ON THAT PARTICULAR MISSION AND OBJECTIVE OF THAT PARTICULAR BOARD FOR THE RDA. >> I MEAN, THAT'S FINE. IT JUST COMES DOWN TO EFFICIENCY AND STAFF THAT WE HAVE TO HANDLE THIS. ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE COMBINE THESE IS BECAUSE OF THAT, IS THAT WE THOUGHT THAT WE COULD DO A BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT JOB IF WE COMBINE THESE BOARDS. GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION HAS NEVER HAD STAFF. THEY PAID AN ATTORNEY TO RUN THEIR ORGANIZATION. THEY'VE HAD ZERO STAFF IN THE PAST ON THE CITY SIDE, NONE, AND SO WE THOUGHT THAT BY BRINGING THAT IN AND COMBINING THESE BOARDS, [02:15:04] WE COULD PROVIDE THEM STAFF TO SERVICE ALL THREE OF THESE BOARDS AND CREATE SOME EFFICIENCY THERE. >> I THINK THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE TOPICS HERE. ONE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOARD APPOINTMENTS, AND THEN TWO, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STAFF EFFICIENCIES. IS THERE THE POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD EITHER HAVE STAFF OR THAT THOSE THREE ORGANIZATIONS COULD USE THE SAME ACCOUNTING? >> THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE I'M LOOKING AT, THAT YOU JUST POINTED TO. THE BOARD APPOINTMENT'S SEPARATE. NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STAFF AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY. NOT NECESSARILY JOINING THE THREE BOARDS TOGETHER, BUT IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY MAYBE FOR SOME SHARED EFFICIENCIES BY THE USE OF THE SAME FOREIGN FIRMS, SAME ATTORNEY, ETC? >> TYPICALLY, AN RDA DOESN'T INVOLVE CITY STAFF OR AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE, WHAT'S BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE? >> WE'VE HAD THE EXACT OPPOSITE THOUGH. YEAH. NO, IT DOES. >> IS IT THAT HOW IT STARTED OUT, THE RDA? >> WELL, RIGHT NOW. >> WELL, WE'VE HAD ZERO STAFF ON THE HOUSING FINANCE SIDE AND WE HAVE HAD CITY STAFF WORK ON THE RDA SIDE. >> RIGHT. DAVID, YOU HAD A QUESTION? >> YEAH. I HAVE TO REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS. I THINK THE THE ISSUE WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE YOU'RE APPOINTING IS ACTUALLY NOT TRIVIAL. THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM IN THE PAST. YOU MAKE THE COMMENT ABOUT THE PARK BOARD APPLICANTS AND THEN THIS WOULD BE THE SAME, WE APPOINTED WHARVES BOARDS THE SAME WAY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT RDA AND THE HOUSING FINANCE, THESE ARE NOT BOARDS THAT ARE IN THE NEWSPAPER, SO YOU DON'T GET PEOPLE CLAMORING TO BE ON THAT. THAT'S WHY YOU GET SUCH BIG NUMBERS IS BECAUSE THE LARGER THE BOARDS ARE WELL-KNOWN, AND I THINK IT TAKES A SPECIFIC SKILL SET I THINK TO DO WHAT RDA OR HOUSING FINANCE UNIT NEEDS TO DO. I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN DO THAT WITH JUST SEVEN RANDOM PEOPLE. YOU NEED PEOPLE THAT HAVE INTEREST IN THAT. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT'S WHAT'S A SKILLS SET. >> I THINK THAT WOULD MITIGATE AGAINST SEPARATING THEM SO LONG AS WE UNDERSTOOD THERE WERE SEPARATE MISSIONS, AND WHEN WE CHARGE THOSE PEOPLE IS BECAUSE I'VE NOT GOTTEN THE IMPRESSION THERE'S SO MUCH WORK THAT THAT COMMITTEE COULDN'T HANDLE BOTH IF IT WAS INCLINED TO DO SO. >> THAT'S CORRECT. KNOW I SEE YOUR POINT. >> I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE. I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO DEFINE THE GOALS OF THESE BOARDS AND PUT THEM ON A TASK TO ACHIEVE, AND WE JUST HAVEN'T DONE THAT. >> IS THIS NOT USEFUL IN THAT REGARD? >> I MEAN, TO ME, NOT REALLY BECAUSE, [OVERLAPPING] CONTINUING WITH. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RDA RIGHT NOW, CONTINUING WITH THE CURRENT TERMS PROJECTS. THAT'S ONE. CONTINUE WITH CURRENT [INAUDIBLE] . >> THAT'S ONE OR TWO. >> YEAH, A COUPLE OUT THERE DOES PELICAN ISLANDS REDEVELOPMENT AREA. I MEAN, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO REALLY DO WITH PELICAN ISLAND? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO TASK THEM TO DO WITH PELICAN ISLAND? >> WELL, THAT THAT CAME UP BECAUSE THEIR STAFF IS IN DISCUSSION WITH THE PORT OF HOUSTON ABOUT WORKING OUT SOME ARRANGEMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, POSSIBLY IN PHASES RATHER THAN ALL AT ONCE. IF WE MOVED IN THAT DIRECTION, THIS COMMITTEE WOULD INTERPLAY WITH LOOKING AT HOW PELICAN ISLAND COULD BE UTILIZED. >> WHAT DOES THAT ACTUALLY, DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM A BUDGET TO GO OUT THERE AND MASTERPLAN PELICAN ISLAND OR WHAT DOES THAT REALLY DIRECT THEM TO DO? >> I DON'T KNOW. BUT IF WE MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION, ACCORDING TO WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY TOLD THEM, THEY WOULD BE CONTACTED AND WOULD BE THE ENTITY THAT WE HAVE WORKED WITH ON DEVELOPING HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. DAVID? >> IS THE LACK OF STAFF PERHAPS A MAJOR PART OF THIS? >> SURE. BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IN A MINUTE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CULTURAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT, AND I'M GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH BRIAN ABOUT SOME MINIMAL STAFFING BECAUSE WE'VE SAID BEFORE ONE OF THE REASONS THAT CBP IS SO SUCCESSFUL IS BECAUSE THE WORK'S DONE BY STAFF OVER THERE. THEY'VE GOT TDAC TO GUIDE THEM, BUT THEY'VE GOT DEDICATED STAFFERS DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING OVER THERE, RIGHT? WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN CULTURAL ARTS INSIDE THE CITY, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT THAT WE SHOULD. MAYBE THAT'S A POINT TO BEGIN HERE. THAT YOU HAVE CITY DEDICATED STAFF. I MEAN, I KNOW YOU WANT IT TO BE A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION, BUT IDC IS A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION, YET WE DEPEND ON CITY STAFF FOR RESOURCES. >> YOU CAN FIND THE SEVEN PEOPLE SIT AROUND THE TABLE AND DISCUSS THINGS AND TRY TO MAKE DECISIONS, BUT YOU TELL THEM TO GO OUT THERE AND DO WORK. >> YEAH. RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T HAVE TO HOLD THOSE IN. >> RIGHT NOW YOU'VE GOT A COMMITTEE IN SEARCH OF PURPOSE INSTEAD OF A PURPOSE IN SEARCH OF A COMMITTEE. [02:20:03] [LAUGHTER] >> WELL, I MEAN, WE NEED TO GO BACK AND DEFINE THAT PURPOSE. WE NEED TO DECIDE. THE MAYOR SAYS OR YOU SAID, WHAT DO WE ASK THEM TO DO IN PELICAN ISLAND? LOOK, THERE'S A BIG ISLAND. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IT? >> YES. >> I GUESS THAT HELPS CREW TOO WHO IS GOING TO BE ON THAT BOARD. >> BUT MAYBE HAVING A STAFFER TO CARRY COUNCIL'S MISSION AS A TASK AND THEN A BORDER AROUND IT TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND SET POLICY. MAYBE WE'RE GOING ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BACKWARDS. >> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY OUT THERE TO DO THE WORK. >> THESE MEMBERS ON THE BOARD THEY'RE VOLUNTEERS [OVERLAPPING] >> I AGREE. >> ME TOO, SO A QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. I KNOW THE RDA HAD A ATTORNEY, WAS THAT SAME ATTORNEY THAT WAS ON THE HOUSING FINANCE? >> I DIDN'T KNOW THEY HAD A SEPARATE ACCOUNT. THEY HOUSE PARTY HAD IT'S A SEPARATE ACCOUNT. >> [OVERLAPPING] NO. THEY USED TO HAVE SEPARATE ATTORNEYS AS WELL. WHAT'S THE GUY'S NAME DOWN, IT WAS ON THE RDA, THE ATTORNEY SCOTT BOUNDS. >> YEAH, BUT THAT'S OKAY. >> FOR A LONG TIME WHERE SCOTT. >> I THINK DAVID BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT ON THIS. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE THE TOTAL EXPERTISE TO PUT TOGETHER WITH THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR THESE GROUPS ARE. NO, MAYBE WE DO. IT'S LIKE CULTURAL ARTS. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO COME TO THAT, BUT I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A RECOMMENDATION TO HIRE SOMEBODY TO BRING BACK TO THE CITY A PLAN ON HOW WE SHOULD APPROACH THIS IN THE USE OF HOT FUNDS. BUT BACK TO THIS HERE, WE, WE NEVER HAD REAL GOOD ORGANIZATION WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT HERE. MICHELLE HAS BROUGHT PROBABLY THE MOST ORGANIZATION TO IT WE'VE HAD IN A LONG TIME. I DON'T THINK ARE WHERE WE NEED TO BE AND HOW THESE COMMITTEES INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER AND WHAT THEIR ROLE IS. I JUST DON'T KNOW. >> I WOULD COMPARE AND CONTRAST CULTURAL ARTS. THERE'S A DESIRE AND A NEED OUT THERE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO MEET THAT. WE'VE STRUCTURED COMMITTEES TO THAT END AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO STAFF IT TO THAT END. I DON T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THAT NEED AND DESIRE ARE OUT THERE TO DRIVE YOUR RDA AT THIS POINT, I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE MISSING. >> I THINK BECAUSE THEIR HANDS WERE SHACKLED FOR THE LONGER. >> BUT THEY SHOULDN'T BE BRINGING YOU THE NEEDS AND DESIRES, YOU SHOULD. THEY SHOULD BE CARRYING OUT YOUR MISSION. >> EXACTLY, WE NEED TO FAIL IN THE MISSION. >> IN YOUR MIND, JOHN, WHAT WOULD BE THE MISSION FOR THE RDA? >> THAT'S GREAT QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW. >> I THINK THEIR STATUTORY MISSION IS TO MANAGE THE TOURS. >> I THINK YOU'RE HITTING A COUPLE OF POINTS HERE, BUT WE NEED TO TELL THEM WHAT WE WANT TO DO. WE DON'T NEED TO SAY DESIGNATE PELICAN ISLAND HAS REDEVELOPMENT AREA. WE NEED TO SAY, HEY, GO OUT THERE, MASTERPLAN THAT THING, HERE'S YOUR BUDGET. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT YOU TO FOCUS ON. IF WE WANT TO DESIGNATE A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, IF WE WANTED TO SAY WE'D LIKE TO SEE, 39TH STREET GET REDEVELOPED. THERE'S A LOT OF BUSINESS ON 39TH STREET, OLDER BUSINESSES, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THAT REDEVELOPED. FOCUS ON 39TH STREET, GO OUT, TALK TO THOSE OWNERS, SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO GET NEW BUSINESSES IN THERE, REHAB EXISTING BUILDINGS. THOSE ARE DIRECT THINGS THAT WE CAN TELL THEM THAT WE WANT THEM TO DO. >> LIKE GARRETT SAID, SHARON'S DISTRICTS LIKE THAT DEPOT, THAT COULD BE A HEAVENLY MARKET, THAT WOULD BRING JOBS AND OPPORTUNITY. THERE'S SO MANY AREAS. >> I BET IF WE BRAINSTORM THIS, WE CAN COME UP WITH A LOT OF THINGS BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL. >> OF COURSE. >> THE IDEA OF FINDING THESE QUARTERS, MAKING NEWER REPORTERS THE WAY LIKE 14TH AND SOMETHING. THIS IS A 45TH AND SAY, FINDING SOME OF THE OLDER ONES AND TRYING TO [OVERLAPPING]. >> DO YOU WANT TO DELEGATE THEM TO A COMMITTEE OR DO YOU WANT TO DELEGATE THEM TO YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? >> FIRST, YOU GIVE ME SOME IDEAS. >> NEED TO BE A JOINT EFFORT AND THAT'S THE RDA PROBLEM. >> WHAT'S THE POINT OF THE RDA? >> OKAY. THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. >> HAVE THE RDA INVOLVED, I THINK IT WILL BE INVOLVED. >> SURE. WHAT WOULD THE PURPOSE OF THE RDA BEING IF WE WERE SAY TO BRIAN AND MICHELLE, FIND THE STREET, FIND SOME BLOCKS, LET'S START DEVELOPING THE MARKET AREAS. THE THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. DO WE NEED AN RDA FOR THAT? >> I THINK WE MIGHT IF WE USE SOME OF THE TOOLS THAT THE RDA HAS AT THEIR DISPOSAL. IF WE SET UP A TERMS OR WE SET UP TAX INCENTIVES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, [02:25:01] THAT WE NEED THE RDA IN PLACE TO USE THOSE TYPE OF TOOLS, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DELEGATE. WE WOULD TELL MICHELLE FIRST, HEY, THIS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. THEN SHE WOULD SAY, OKAY, WELL, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD FIT FOR THE RDA. SHE'D BRING TO THE RDA, RUN THAT BODY RDA. THEY COULD GO OUT THERE, THEY COULD BRAINSTORM THOSE IDEAS AND THEN IT COULD COME BACK. >> WITH THE 30TH, IF WE'RE GOING TO USE 39TH STREET FOR AN EXAMPLE, I CAN SEE SAY, MICHELLE REDEVELOP 39TH STREET. SHE'S GOING TO GO TO THE RDA. WHAT INCENTIVES CAN WE PUT IN PLACE TO ENTICE BUSINESSES? SHE'S GOING TO COME TO IDC AND SAY, WHAT STREETSCAPE PROJECTS SHOULD WE BE DOING HERE TO ENTICE THAT BUSINESS? HE'S GOING TO GO TO THE GDP AND SAY GDP, WE NEED YOU TO HELP. WHAT BUSINESSES THAT HAVE HAD CONTACT WITH YOU ARE LOOKING TO RELOCATE TO GALVESTON? DO ANY OF THESE THINGS FIT YOUR NEEDS? BUT THAT STAFF DRIVEN. IT COMES FROM COUNCIL TO STAFF AND THEN THE RDA IS A TOOL THAT WE'LL USE. >> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM DIRECTION. >> WE'VE HAD SHELVES AND THEN FRANKLY, VERY PATIENT HERE. >> [OVERLAPPING] THE MOST PATIENTS ARE DAVID [LAUGHTER] >> THEN WE HAVE COUNCILMAN RULES? >> THE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO THE RDA AND THE PROJECTS THAT MIGHT BE TRIED TO BE DEVELOPED BY THE RDA ARE A PRODUCT OF YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT, WE COULD GO DO THIS DOWN THIS CORRIDOR OR WHATEVER, THAT NEEDS TO BE DEFINED IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THEN YOUR CIP IS INFORMED BY YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE RDA IS A TOOL BY WHICH YOU CAN DRIVE THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THAT GOES BACK TO, WE TRIED TO GIVE DIRECTION TO THE RDA. RDA ARE BE LOOKING AT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CIP, IN ORDER TO LOOK FOR THOSE OPPORTUNITIES FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. HERE WE GO. >> AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT THESE PROJECTS CAME ABOUT JUST OUT OF THE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE HAD A MISSION SOMEWHERE. SOMEONE STATED AT SOMEWHERE AS TO WHAT TO DO AND WE'VE ALWAYS HAD NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION PLANS THAT HAVE SAT ON THE SHELF, THAT HAD BEEN VERY INCLUSIVE. I KNOW THE TERRORISTS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY. IN ORDER TO GET PROJECTS IT STARTED SOMEWHERE. WHERE WAS A MISSION ON? >> LET ME ANSWER THE QUESTION WITH THESE TWO THAT ARE ON THE LIST HERE. THESE CAME FROM PRIVATE DEVELOPERS. THE PRIVATE SECTOR DROVE THESE PROJECTS. THEY PRESENTED THE PROJECT. >> THEY CREATED THE RDA. >> NO. >> CREATE THE TOURS AND [OVERLAPPING]. >> BUT HOW DID IT COME UNDER THE RDA? >> INITIALLY, THE RDA WAS DEVELOPED BECAUSE WE HAD A NUMBER OF THE TOURS DISTRICTS AND SO IT WAS CREATED TO MANAGE THEM SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T JUST BE OFF DOING THEIR OWN THING. >> THAT WAS THE MISSION. >> THAT WAS THE INITIAL MISSION. >> OKAY. THEN EXPAND IT. >> TODAY WE HAVE ONE TOURS. >> YEAH. >> IF WE BOUGHT LET'S JUST SAY WE BOUGHT PELICAN ISLAND, YOU COULD HAVE SIX TOURISM. >> NO. FALSTAFF WAS A 380 AGREEMENTS AS DETERMINED BY LAW. >> THERE USED TO BE TOURS IN THAT AREA, IT'S DISSOLVED. >> THE TRAM WAS TOURS, WHEREVER BEACH WAS A TOURS [OVERLAPPING] >> POWER DISSOLVED. >> THE RDA BE ABSORBED BY ANOTHER ENTITY AT THE CITY, IN OTHER WORDS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. HAS THE RDA COME TO THE END OF ITS USEFUL LIFE WITH ONLY ONE TOUR REMAINING? >> NO. [OVERLAPPING] >> DISCUSS THIS. WHEN THE RDA WAS INITIALLY CREATED HERE AS A MANAGEMENT OF THE TERMS IS IT WAS STAFFED BY CITY STAFF, AND WE REPORTED TO COUNCIL. IT WAS LATER DETERMINED BY SUBSEQUENT COUNCILS THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT STAFF IN IT. THEY WANT IT TO HAVE MORE POLITICAL INPUT INTO IT, AND THEY EVEN CHANGED IT OUT. >> LAWYERS SNEAKING UP ON YOU. >> THAT'S ONE REASON WHY THESE BOARDS WERE COMBINED BECAUSE THEY HAD LIMITED THINGS THAT THEY WERE DOING. >> WELL DONE. >> ONE OF THE REASONS THEY WERE COMBINED, I'M SORRY, CHERYL. >> WHAT DOES DISSOLVED MEAN? >> THE TERRACES. >> HOLD ON, TO RESOLVE A LAWSUIT RIGHT BY CHURCH 13. THE AGREEMENT SIGNED OFF AND BINDING ON THE CITY IS THAT THE RDA WOULD NOT BE DISSOLVED. >> OKAY. >> SO THE RDA CONTINUES TO FUNCTION AS A SYMBOL OF THE AGREEMENT WITH TOPHI, I GUESS. PLUS IT HAVE USED THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLANS, THAT ARE, WHAT I MEAN IT'S PAIRED. THERE'S A COUPLE OF >> [OVERLAPPING] INSIDE THE VELVETS THERE'S. >> BUT IT'S VERY [OVERLAPPING] >> THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT TO DO. >> BUT WE ALSO BECAME ANTI-TOURS, PIG. WE BECAME A CITY THAT WAS ANTI ANY KIND. [02:30:06] >> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHAT SHUT DOWN A LOT OF THE CHOICES. >> [OVERLAPPING] RIGHT. >> NOT THAT IT WAS RIGHT. IT WAS JUST ANTI. >> THERE'S NOTHING INHERENTLY WRONG WITH CHOICES, THEY'RE A GREAT TOOL. >> THEY'RE A GREAT TOOL. [NOISE] >> BUT POLITICAL WINDS ARE POLITICAL WINDS. >> THERE'S NO MISSION NOW AND A VERY SUCCESSFUL ONE. >> BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, DAVID, THAT'S WHY IT WAS CREATED AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, YOU HAVE AN RDA OUT THERE THAT'S HIRING OUTSIDE LEGAL AND OUTSIDE COUNTING AND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE BY CITY STAFF. >> ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL. WE NEED TO GET SOME DIRECTION HERE. FIRST OF ALL, ON THE ITEM OF SPLITTING THE TWO ENTITIES, WHAT'S THE THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING TREVOR BRING SOMETHING BACK? IS IT PREMATURE TO DO THAT NOW, COUNCIL OR DO YOU WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING AT OUR NEXT MEETING TO VOTE ON THAT? [OVERLAPPING] EXCUSE ME. >> I COULD, MAYOR. THERE WOULD ONLY BE FIVE PEOPLE THAT WOULD, AT THIS POINT, NEED TO BE APPOINTED TO THE RDA BECAUSE THEY REJECTED OUR REFILLING AT THE PARTICULAR FORMATION. THERE'S SEVEN PEOPLE ON IT NOW, BUT UNDER ITS EXISTING, WE ONLY NEED TO APPOINT FIVE TO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD NEED AN ACTION ITEM FOR THAT. >> [OVERLAPPING] YOU APPOINT DIFFERENT PEOPLE TO THAT GROUP. >> THEY ARE THERE. >> [OVERLAPPING] WE DON'T NEED TO FORMALIZE SPLITTING THEM ANY MORE THAN WHAT WE'VE DONE. >> YES. I SEARCHED WITH JANELLE WHAT RECORDS WE GET TO COMBINE THEM AND THE ONLY ORDINANCE WE COULD FIND IS THAT ONE THAT'S SAYING THEY ALL HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS, WHICH WE CHANGED. >> WELL THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. IT'S WHAT WE DID AND VOTED TO HAVE DIFFERENT [OVERLAPPING] INDIVIDUALS ON EACH ONE. WE'VE HIDDEN REALITY AND SPLIT THOSE. [BACKGROUND]. >> EXCEPT THEY'RE ALL MANNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE RIGHT NOW. >> CORRECT. >> [OVERLAPPING] JUST PUTTING SOMEONE ELSE ON THERE WILL SPLIT THEM. >> OKAY. >> WE DO HAVE THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION IN A FOOTLOOSE THIS AFTERNOON IF WE MAKE THOSE. NOW, LET'S GIVE DIRECTION, COUNCIL, HOW DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RDA AND DEVELOPING A MISSION AND ALL THAT? >> I THINK IT SHOULD BE A SEPARATE ENTITY. I THINK WE SHOULD WORK, GET THE CURRENT MEMBERS BECAUSE THERE ARE MEMBERS THAT ARE ON THE GROUP THAT WERE FROM THE RDA. THEY GOT MERGED INTO THE NEW ONE. BUT WE SHOULD BE PROVIDING THEM DIRECTION AND CLEAR DIRECTION, BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD BE SEPARATE ENTITIES. >> THE CLEAR DIRECTION, HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, DAVID? >> I THINK BEFORE WE GO PRACTICALLY SPLITTING THEM, WE NEED TO GET MUCH BETTER CLARITY ON WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO, WHAT WE WANT RDA TO DO. IF IT'S BE STAFFED BY THE CITY WITH WE'RE COMING OUT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT USING THEIR TOOLS, THAT THING, AS BRIAN DESCRIBED IT. WE NEED TO KNOW THAT, WE NEED TO GET THAT DOWN ON PAPER FIRST. WE NEED TO SAY THAT. >> I AGREE. BUT HOW DO YOU WANT TO PROCEED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN? >> SHAW(PH), CAN YOU MAKE THAT HAPPEN? >> SURE. >> IT'S HOW THAT WORKS? [OVERLAPPING]. >> THERE YOU GO. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] >> THEY SHOW EVERYONE. [OVERLAPPING] YOU HAVE 47,00 JOBS RIGHT NOW. >> THAT SEEMS THE WAY. I'M NOT THE EXPERT IN THIS BY ANY STRETCH. >> I'M NOT EITHER. >> BUT WE DO HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS [OVERLAPPING] >> NO, BUT I DO. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A WORKSHOP WHERE WE GIVE A LITTLE MORE TIME TO WHAT WE WANT, WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE FUTURE, WHAT AREAS. >> WOULDN'T HURT MY FEELING IF COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WERE INTERESTED HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH BRIAN, MICHELLE, DAVID, IS IT TRUE? >> I'M INTERESTED. >> [OVERLAPPING] EARLY ON I HAD. >> SHARON'S INTERESTED. >> TWO YEARS AGO WHEN I FIRST CAME ON BOARD, I SAT DOWN WITH EACH COUNCIL MEMBER AND WE DISCUSSED WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS WERE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHAT YOUR GOALS IN ISSUES MIGHT BE FOR GALVESTON, YOUR DISTRICTS, SPECIFICALLY IN SUCH, AND I HAVE THOSE. YOU ALL HAD A MEETING A FEW MONTHS BACK WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT GOALS. I WROTE ALL THOSE DOWN, ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SO IT'D BE GREAT TO DO THAT ONCE MORE, REFRESH AND THEN LET ME BRING BACK SOME. >> MIKE, YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING. >> DIDN'T COUNCILMEN THINK WE MENTION THAT THEIR GOALS SHOULD BE DRIVEN BY THE CIP AND THE [OVERLAPPING] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? >> YEAH. I DID SAY THAT. WHEN I SAID THAT, I MEANT THAT THE RDA SHOULD HAVE A VERY CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF [02:35:01] THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CIP AND THAT THAT INFORMS WHAT THEIR MAJOR GOALS ARE GOING TO BE, AND THAT'S REALLY THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD WORK. THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS THAT WE HAVEN'T UPDATED OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN 12 YEARS, OR 11 YEARS, AND SO WE'RE STRUGGLING WITH THIS ABILITY TO GIVE THEM CLEAR DIRECTION. ANYWAY. THAT'S MY OPINION. >> I CAN ALSO ADD THAT I, IN COMING ON BOARD, LOOKED AT EVERY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND EVERY PLAN THAT THE CITY HAD BACK TO MAYBE 1965 WHEN WE WERE AT OUR PEAK POPULATION AND MOST ALL OF THOSE INITIATIVES, ISSUES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS THAT WERE OUT THERE ARE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE SAME. THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM HAVE CARRIED ON. >> THEY ARE [OVERLAPPING]. >> I CAN HAVE A MUCH DIFFERENT. >> [OVERLAPPING] I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND, COUNCIL, LET ME THROW THIS IDEA OUT. WHAT IF HE WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO ACCEPT IT THAT WE ASK COUNCILMAN FINKLEA TO WORK WITH [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] >> I WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED AND I THINK SHARON WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT'S FINE. SURE. >> THE THREE OF US. >> ALL THREE OF YOU. WHOEVER, COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, COUNCILMAN LEWIS, COUNCILWOMAN ROTH, WORK WITH TREVOR AND MICHELLE TO BRING BACK TO COUNCIL A STRUCTURE THAT WE COULD START OUR DISCUSSIONS FROM. I LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE EXPERTS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE, DAVID, YOU HAVE >> [OVERLAPPING] INTENDING WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO DO THAT, CIRCLE BACK WITH MICHELLE, AND REFRESH OUR DESIRE FOR INDIVIDUAL DISTRICT IF WE HAVE A COUPLE OF NEW MEMBERS SINCE THAT HAPPENED, AND I THINK THAT'D BE VERY USEFUL IN TANDEM WITH THAT. >> OKAY. >> THERE WE GO. I LIKE THAT. >> WHAT ARE YOU SAYING DAVID, ON THE [OVERLAPPING] >> NO, I LIKE YOUR SUGGESTION, PEOPLE [OVERLAPPING] THAT PARTICULAR INTERESTS SHOULD ENGAGE WITH THE MISSION. >> THEN BRING BACK AND THEIR GOAL IS TO BRING BACK A STARTING POINT FOR DISCUSSION AND GIVE DETAILS ON THE MISSION STATEMENT FOR THE RDA. IS THAT CORRECT? >> ACTUALLY, I'D SAY NOT A MISSION STATEMENT, BUT DELIVERABLES. >> AND DELIVER. >> LET'S ACTUALLY GIVE THEM SOMETHING TO DO. >> OKAY. >> IT'S ALMOST LIKE A PROCESS OF MICHELLE'S MIXED WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER AND THEN ROBB, LEWIS, AND FINKLEA GET TOGETHER AND REVIEW THOSE JOINTLY WITH MICHELLE AND THEN BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION. >> AND OUR IDEAS, YEAH. >> OKAY. NOW, ONCE WE GET THAT STRUCTURE DEVELOPED BY THIS TASK FORCE, I'M GOING TO CALL IT. THEN THE RDA WOULD BE BOUGHT IN AND WE COULD MEET WITH THE RDA WHEN WE DISCUSS THESE. IS THAT WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO? >> YEAH. >> OKAY. WHAT TIMELINE ARE WE LOOKING AT, MICHELLE? >> TWO WEEKS DOWN. KIDDING. [OVERLAPPING] >> HEY. >> I'M JOKING. THAT WAS A JOKE. [LAUGHTER] >> I WILL LOOK TO SEE HOW QUICKLY I CAN MEET WITH ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO GET THEIR INPUT AND THEN HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET SOMETHING THAT'S QUICK. >> YOU'LL JUST LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU WANT IT BACK ON THE ISSUE. >> I'LL KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP. >> OKAY. DOES COUNCIL FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? >> YEAH. >> VERY GOOD. THAT'S A GREAT POINT. LET'S MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM, PLEASE, NELLY. [3.E. Discussion Of The Galveston Housing Finance Corporation/Galveston Property Finance Authority And Their Proposed Ordinance (M. Hay/T. Fanning - 20 Min)] >> ITEM 3E, DISCUSSION OF THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, GALVESTON PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY, AND THEIR PROPOSED ORDINANCE. >> VERY SIMILAR DISCUSSION. WE HAVE ROBERT BESTEIN WITH US. ROBERT, HOW ARE YOU? ROBERT, I'M GOING TO INVITE YOU UP TO THE TABLE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. COME ON UP HERE AND LET'S SEE IF WE GOT ANOTHER SIT HERE. BRIAN, YOU GAVE THAT UP REAL QUICK? [OVERLAPPING] >> YEAH, REAL QUICK. >> NOT AN ISSUE. >> WELL, WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU BACK. ROBERT, HAVE A SEAT AND I'D LIKE TO DISCUSS THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. A COUPLE OF THINGS ON THIS COUNCIL. THEY HAVE PROPOSED AN ORDINANCE TO US. IT WAS SENT TO US A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AND IT WAS SENT TO YOU AGAIN YESTERDAY AFTERNOON BY JANELLE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO READ THAT. MR. BASTIEN, YOU'VE BEEN THE ATTORNEY, IS THAT RIGHT FOR THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION? >> TEN YEARS NOW. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEIR ORDINANCE THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED TO US. THERE WAS NOT AN ACTION ITEM ON THIS, BUT THEY HAVE PUT THIS TOGETHER AND I WANT TO OPEN THAT DISCUSSION UP ON THE ORDINANCE, FIRST OF ALL, AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS TO MR. BASTIEN. [02:40:03] COUNCIL. YES, MA'AM. >> I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON ORDINANCE. THANKS. I HAVE IT HERE SOMEWHERE. BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE A BLANK CHECK OR A DANCE, THEY CAN DO ANYTHING. IT DOESN'T SEEM THERE'S A DANCE CONTROLS IN THE ORDINANCE, PERHAPS IT'S A WAY TO SAY IT. >> THAT A QUESTION? [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] >> WELL, IT'S A STATEMENT. [OVERLAPPING] >> I WILL BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO IT. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME POINT OUT THAT THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION IS PRETTY MUCH TO A LARGE EXTENT INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY ANYHOW. THE CITY CAN APPOINT OR UNAPPOINT MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. BUT IT HAS ITS STATUTORY ASSIGNED GOAL AND SO FOR YEARS, THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION HAS BEEN COOPERATING WITH THE CITY, BUT OPERATING LARGELY INDEPENDENT OF THE CITY. I DON'T WANT TO EXTEND THIS TOO MUCH. A QUICK EXAMPLE. EARLY 2000S, HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION BUILT A SERIES OF HOUSES WITH THE CITY CDBG MONEY, SO THAT'S AN INCIDENT OF COOPERATION. ALSO, I THINK IN THE EARLY 2000S, THE BARTON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT WAS BUILT AND I COULDN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT STREET IT'S ON. I COULD FIND IT BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT STREET IT'S ON. [OVERLAPPING] >> I KNOW WHERE IT IS. >> THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY THE BOARD APPROACHED THE CITY AND SAID, "WILL YOU PLEASE APPROVE THIS?" NOW, THAT WAS DONE UNDER THE PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL. THAT IS A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION THAT IS OUT THERE. THEY'VE ALWAYS HAD COMBINED BOARDS. BUT BECAUSE THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION HAS CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT ACTIVITIES IT CAN UNDERTAKE, THE PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY IS THERE TO DO RELATED THINGS THAT THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION CANNOT. AGAIN, BARTON SQUARE, MIDDLE-INCOME, I WOULD SAY AT THE TIME THAT WAS FINANCIALLY AN UPPER MIDDLE-INCOME DEVELOPMENT, [LAUGHTER] WHICH COULD NOT REALLY HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. [NOISE] THIS WAS REALLY, I WOULD SAY, JOHN'S BABY. THE FIVE HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT AT 35TH AND WINNIE WOULDN'T HAPPEN EXCEPT FOR JOHN. [NOISE] THAT AGAIN, IT WAS SITUATION WHERE BOTH A CORPORATION HAS APPROACHED THE CITY TO GET APPROVAL OF THAT BECAUSE PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY MONEY WAS INVOLVED. THIS AGAIN, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, IS A SITUATION WHERE PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY MONEY IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED BECAUSE IT HAS MORE MONEY THAN HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. [OVERLAPPING] >> RIGHT. >> RIGHT. >> SORRY. >> NO, YOU'RE ORDINANCE THOUGH, ROBERT, THE QUESTION COUNCILWOMAN ROBB HAD ABOUT YOUR ORDINANCE, COULD YOU GO THROUGH THAT FOR US WITH THIS? >> THERE'S A HISTORY OF OPERATING BASICALLY INDEPENDENT OF CITY CONTROL. CITY SAYS, PROGRAM SOUNDS GOOD AND THEN THE CORPORATIONS RUN WITH IT. WHAT WE DON'T WANT HAPPENING HERE. WE'RE ALL AWARE OF THE EXPONENTIAL INCREASES IN LAND VALUES IN GALVESTON OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. WE'RE ALL AWARE OF THESE WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, HIGH-RISE CONCRETES POPPING UP ALL OVER TOWN. I DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS THEM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THEM IS. I DOUBT THAT THE PURPOSE OF THOSE BUILDINGS IS HOME OWNERSHIP. WHETHER THEY'RE RENTAL, WHETHER THEY'RE VACATION RENTALS, I DON'T KNOW. BUT SINCE THESE CORPORATIONS' GOAL IS BUILDING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING FOR PEOPLE THAT WILL OWN THEM AND LIVE HERE IN GALVESTON, WHERE WE'RE IN THE POSITION OF BEING IN SOME RESPECTS LIKE A PRIVATE DEVELOPER. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO GRAB A PIECE OF PROPERTY. >> IT IS AVAILABLE. [OVERLAPPING] >> BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MANY PROPERTIES HAVE GONE OFF THE MARKET, YES, SINCE WE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO ACQUIRE PROPERTY WHEN WE SEE THE OPPORTUNITY. [02:45:01] WHAT I WOULD SAY AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION TO THIS COUNCIL IS YOU GET TO A POINT TO PEOPLE TO THE BOARD. YOU HAVE RE-APPOINTMENTS AND POTENTIALLY TWO NEW APPOINTMENTS TODAY. MY GENERAL SUGGESTION TO COUNCIL WOULD BE APPOINT GOOD PEOPLE AND TRUST THE PEOPLE THAT YOU APPOINT, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE IMPROVIDENTLY PURCHASING PROPERTIES IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PURCHASE PROPERTIES THAT THEY HAVE SOME DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST IN. AGAIN, ALLOW THEM TO DO THE JOB ON THE BOARD THAT THEY'VE BEEN APPOINTED TO. DELAY IS FATAL, PARTICULARLY IN CURRENT MARKET CONDITIONS. I WISH MR. LIGHTFOOT WERE HERE BECAUSE HE HAD REALLY STUDIED THIS IN DETAIL BEFORE WE PUT THIS TOGETHER AND PROPERTIES WERE JUST GOING OFF THE MARKET BEFORE WE COULD DO ANYTHING. >> ALONG WITH THIS ORDINANCE, WE ALL KNOW THAT GOURDS LIKE HOME-OWNERSHIP, WORKFORCE HOUSING, HAVE WE EVER LOOKED AT GOING OFF THE ISLAND TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL? >> WELL, THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO GO OFF THE ISLAND. >> OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S HOW YOU CAN'T HELP BUT LOOK AT, I'M GOING TO CALL RESORTS CITIES, WHICH WERE CERTAINLY GOING IN THAT DIRECTION. THEY'LL LOOK AT AREAS CLOSE VICINITY AND COME UP WITH RESTRICTED COMMUNITIES THAT ARE TIED TO, YOU HAVE TO SHOW YOU WORK IN EITHER THE CITY OR THE COUNTY TO BE ABLE TO QUALIFY. THEY LIMIT THE INCREASE OF VALUE ON THE HOUSE TO 2% OR SOMETHING, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING BECAUSE THERE'S SOME VERY SUCCESSFUL WORKFORCE HOUSING PROGRAMS BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW ON THE ISLAND, YOU COULD BUILD THE SAME STRUCTURE BUT THEN ONCE YOU HAVE WINDSTORM, FLOOD, AND THE OTHER THINGS TO IT, IT MAKES IT A WHOLE DIFFERENT CATEGORY. >> WELL, LET ME ADD THIS COMMENT THEN. BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DEFINE WORKFORCE HOUSING. BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF CITIES WHERE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATIONS HELP BUILD ENORMOUS APARTMENT PROJECTS. BUT AGAIN, EARLY 2000S, I THINK IT WAS, AND SO I GET A LITTLE BIT OFF ON THE DATES, PERHAPS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN THE LATE '90S, CITY COUNCIL TASKED HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION WITH BUILDING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THAT'S REALLY ALL IT'S DONE I'D SAY FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS ARE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS. >> THEY COULD DO IT LIKE A TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX? >> WELL, CERTAINLY. >> OKAY. >> THEY MAY HAVE. >> BUT [LAUGHTER] YOU ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER THAT I GUESS WE ARE USING A VERY BROAD WAY. WE DON'T NEED TO BE ADDING TO THE TAX BASE OF SOME OTHER COMMUNITY. WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THIS SO THAT IT BENEFITS GALVESTON NOT ONLY GIVING PEOPLE, LET'S SAY WHO LIVE IN THE LA MARQUE OR TEXAS CITY, BUT WORK HERE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE HERE. WE'RE ALSO ADDING TO THE TAX BASE BY BUILDING NEW STRUCTURES OR UNDER THIS PROGRAM, TAKING A SERIOUS LOOK AT REHABBING OLDER STRUCTURES. >> MR. BASTIEN, THIS ORDINANCE, EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING YOU, THIS ORDINANCE THAT YOU PROPOSED TO US HERE, IT'S JUST GEARED TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THERE'S NO MULTIFAMILY IN THE PROJECTS INVOLVED HERE? IT'S MAINLY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES OR REHABILITATION OF EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THAT'S ALL THAT THIS IS COVERING IN YOUR ORDINANCE THAT YOU PROPOSE. >> YES. >> YOU ARE ALSO PROPOSING THAT ONCE WE APPROVE THIS, THIS GIVES THE ABILITY FOR THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION TO GO OUT, PURCHASE LAND, AND DO WHAT YOU FEEL IS APPROPRIATE WITHOUT COMING BACK TO COUNCIL FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PURCHASE? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> IT ALSO IS DEVELOPING A SYSTEM WITH THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION THAT YOU'RE GIVING AUTHORITY TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF MEMBERS OF YOUR GROUP TO GO OUT AND PURCHASE THAT LAND WITHOUT COMING BACK TO YOUR BOARD. IS THAT RIGHT? >> NO. THAT WOULD NOT ACCEPT EXCEPT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE TAX FORECLOSURE SALE. [02:50:05] BECAUSE THAT'S GOT TO BE DONE IMMEDIATELY OR IT CAN'T HAPPEN. >> NOW, IF THIS IS PASSED BY THIS COUNCIL, THEN WHAT WE'RE DOING IS BASICALLY APPROVING WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING IN THE PAST, AND ADDING TO THAT A CONFIRMATION THAT ONCE WE APPROVE THIS, YOU DON'T BRING THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. >> I AGREE WITH THAT, MAYOR, BECAUSE AGAIN, DELAY IS FATAL. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE SALIENT POINTS ARE COVERED HERE SO COUNCIL CAN UNDERSTAND THIS, SO WHERE WE ARE GOING FROM THERE. NOW, LET'S DISCUSS THIS ORDINANCE. >> I GUESS THAT'S MY REFERENCE TO THE BLANK. >> YES, MA'AM. >> I UNDERSTAND WHY. DON'T GET ME WRONG. I UNDERSTAND AND I AGREE WITH YOUR STATEMENTS OF WE EMPLOYED THE PEOPLE AND SO FORTH. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR. BERNSTEIN, BECAUSE IF YOU FIND A PROPERTY AND THEN YOU NEED TO PURCHASE THAT AND IT JUST FOLLOWS THE DAY AFTER OUR COUNCIL MEETING AND GOT TO WAIT ANOTHER MONTH BEFORE YOU COULD GET EVER COME BACK TO COUNCIL TO GET APPROVAL AND SO FORTH AND SO ON. I UNDERSTAND THAT. DAVID, DID YOU? >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, ESPECIALLY USE ENTITIES. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU CREATE THEM IS THAT THEY TYPICALLY HAVE ABBREVIATING PROCESSES OR THE ABILITY TO ACT QUICKER TO MARKET CONDITIONS THAN YOUR ONCE A MONTH MEETINGS WITH COUNCIL. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO HAVE CONTROL. COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB, I THINK YOU POINT TO THAT VERY CLEARLY IN THAT, IT'S OUR ROLE IN MAKING SURE THAT WE APPOINT THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO THE BOARD. BUT I LIKE THE FLEXIBILITY THAT THE ORDINANCE CREATES, AND IT'S A ONE-YEAR TERM. THE CARBON EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM. >> CORRECT. NEVER DONE IN QUITE THIS WAY BEFORE? >>> YEAH. I UNDERSTAND IT DOES HAVE SOME SOME LANGUAGE AND IT WON'T WORK. YOU JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING THE FINAL SAY ON IT, EVERY PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GO AFTER? >> YES, JOHN. >> ROBERT, WHAT'S THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT YOU WILL AUTHORIZE THAT YOUR BOARD MEMBERS TO SPEND UP TO? >> WELL, THAT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED BY THE BOARD YET BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO HAVE SOME A APPROVAL ON THIS BEFORE WE ACTUALLY BE MORE SPECIFIC. THAT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED. I WILL SAY THAT THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS OF EMPTY LOTS, LET'S SAY, THAT WE'RE OUT THERE FOR 50,000. ACCORDING TO THE RESEARCH THAT MR. LIGHTFOOT GAVE, PROBABLY A PRETTY GOOD PRICE. >> IF YOU GET AN EMPTY LOT FOR $50,000, IT'S PRETTY GOOD. >> BUT NOT EVEN ON THAT PARTICULAR NOTE, NOT HAVING THE ABILITY TO JUMP ON IT. IT WAS GONE BY THE TIME OUR BOARD MET HERE. >> WOULD YOU ALL BE SELLING THESE UNDER THE REGULATIONS OF HOUSING FINANCE? HOUSING FINANCE HAS THE REGULATIONS? >> HAVING FINANCE, YES. >> WE WOULD BE PUTTING TOGETHER, AGAIN, MORE SPECIFICALLY, A PROGRAM SIMILAR TO THE 35TH STREET HOUSES. IT'S ACTUALLY STATED IN HERE IN TERMS OF INCOME LEVEL REQUIREMENT THAT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GALVESTON, WORK IN GALVESTON OR THE OTHER. THERE'S THE THIRD REQUIREMENT IN THERE. AGAIN, TRYING TO ATTRACT PEOPLE FROM OFF THE ISLAND OR GET PEOPLE TO STAY THAT ARE LIVING ON THE ISLAND ALREADY. BECAUSE THEY CAN MOVE, LET'S SAY, FROM A RENTAL UNIT INTO THE HOME OF THEIR OWN. YOU'RE ON THE ISLAND INSTEAD OF HAVING TO LOOK OFF THE ISLAND FOR SOMETHING. >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HAPPY FINANCE AUTHORITY WOULD BE THE ONE PRIMARILY PURCHASING THE PROPERTIES. THEN IT WOULD BE DETERMINING WHETHER HOUSING FINANCE OR PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY WOULD BE THE ONE CONSTRUCTING DEPENDING UPON WHERE IT'S FIT WITH. >> I GUESS I DON'T REALLY THINK THERE IS A NEED FOR THE CITY. THIS IS A SEPARATE CORPORATION CONTROLLED BY THE CITY BY THE BOARD WE PLACE ON THERE. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS ENTITY GO OUT THERE AND COMPETE AGAINST THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT FILLS A NEED THAT IS NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR. THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN THE PAST. [02:55:02] GONE OUT THERE, BUILT HOMES, BUILT TOWN HOMES THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR DIDN'T WANT TO DO OR NEEDED HELP DOING, AND WE FILLED THAT VOID IN THE HOUSING MARKET. >> IN THAT, JOHN, THAT IS OUTLINED, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, IN THEIR ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THEY OUTLINED WHO IS ELIGIBLE TO PURCHASE THESE HOMES IN THE PRICE POINT IN THE MARKET THAT THEY'RE AFTER. >> DOES THAT LIMIT THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T NECESSARILY READ IT THAT WAY. PROPERTY FINANCE IS ACTUALLY PURCHASING THE PROPERTY. THEY HAVE NO RESTRICTIONS ON INCOME LEVELS. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. >> WELL, NOT SOLELY BUT YOU KNOW THEY HAVE THAT MONEY TO WORK WITH. JUST AS IN THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, AND MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T SPEAK FOR THE BOARD, BUT THE IDEA IS THAT, IF A PROPERTY IS SPOTTED, AND IT CAN BE PICKED UP AT A REASONABLE PRICE AND AGAIN, THE BOARD IS GOING TO MAKE THAT DECISION. THAT'S WHY WE WERE HAVING TWO CHANGES, BUT WE HAD A REALLY GOOD BOARD. THE BOARD IS GOING TO MAKE THAT DECISION. IT MAY BE NECESSARY AT THE FRONT END FOR PROPERTY FINANCE TO MAKE THE PURCHASE. AGAIN, IF THE DECISION IS THEN MADE THAT WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON THERE IS AN INCOME RESTRICTED HOUSING, AGAIN, LIKE THE 35TH STREET PROJECT, THEN JUST THINKING AND ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE, PROPERTY FINANCE CAN TRANSFER THAT PROPERTY TO GHFC TO BUILD ON IT AND THEN GET ITS MONEY BACK IN THE PROCESS. WE HAVEN'T BEEN SPECIFIC AS TO A TARGET AREA, AND THAT'S A LOT TO POP UP ALL OVER THE CITY. >> WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT HERE, CAN PROPERTY FINANCE GO OUT THERE AND BUILD THE STRUCTURE? >> YES. IF THAT'S THE BOARD'S DECISION. >> WHY WOULD THE BOARD DO THAT? WHY WOULD THE BOARD BUY PIECE OF PROPERTY AND GO OUT THERE AND BUILD A HOUSE WITH NO INCOME REQUIREMENTS OR LIMITS? >> WELL, IT DOES HAVE INCOME. >> ONLY AFTER GETTING FINANCE CORPORATION CONSTRUCTS IT. >> YES, YOU DEAL WITH TWO BOARDS HERE AND I'M SORRY, GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> WHAT WOULD CAUSE THAT SCENARIO TO HAPPEN? >> AGAIN, NOT SPEAKING FOR THE LORD, I CAN'T MYSELF SEE THAT EVER HAPPENING. BUT YOU ALSO WOULD NOTE IN HERE THAT THERE ARE PROVISIONS FOR PROPERTIES BEING RESOLD TO A PRIVATE DEVELOPER, WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP IT. IF IN FACT, NEITHER ONE OF THESE CORPORATIONS CHOOSES TO BUILD ANYTHING ON. AND THAT'S JUST SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME FLUIDITY IN TERMS OF WHAT OUR FUNDS TIED UP IN ONE PROBLEM THAT WE DECIDED WE CAN'T USE. >> I'D BE OKAY WITH EITHER ENTITY BUYING THE PROPERTY. YOU NEED TO ACT FAST AND YOU NEED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE SO INCLINED TO APPROVE IT IF PROPERTY FINANCE HAD THE ABILITY TO JUST GO OUT THERE AND BUILD SARC CONSTRUCTION, I THINK I WOULD WANT MORE RESTRICTIONS ON THAT OR MORE INPUT ON THAT. >> WHY WOULDN'T WE HAVE A WORK REQUIREMENT? BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THE BIGGEST ISSUE IS WORKFORCE HOUSING. WHY WOULDN'T WE REQUIRE THEM TO WORK? [OVERLAPPING] >> WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BUILD MORE TRANSIENT TYPE HOUSING, WHICH IS RENTAL PROPERTIES OR DO YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE HOME OWNERSHIP? >> HOME OWNERSHIP. >> IF YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE HOME OWNERSHIP YOU NEED TO BE DIRECTING THESE WILL WORK FOR RESALE. FOR FAMILIES TO OWN A HOUSE [INAUDIBLE]. >> THAT WORK HERE. >> YOU GOT A LOT OF THAT. >> THAT COULD BE ANOTHER RESTRICTION WITHIN THE [OVERLAPPING] >> PUT WORK THAT THEY WORK HERE. WELL, WE HAVE A BIG POINT. >> CAN A HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION PUT IN RESTRICTIONS THAT'S RESTRICTIVE [OVERLAPPING]. >> THERE IS A RESTRICTION IN HERE ACTUALLY. >> WHERE? >> IT SAYS AN E ACQUIRED PROPERTIES CAN BE DEVELOPED BY GHFC, GPFA. [03:00:05] OTHER COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS ARE TO BE SOLD AT THE DEVELOPMENT AS HOUSING FOR CURRENT RESIDENTS IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND FOR FAMILIES IN WHICH AT LEAST ONE MEMBER WORKS IN A SEA OF GALVESTON. >> CAN WE PUT 30 HOURS A WEEK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? >> WELL, KEEPING TRACK OF ALL THE THINGS THAT [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT'S WHAT A LOT OF PLACES DO. >> WELL, WE SURE COULD DAVID. >> TO JOHN'S POINT ABOUT LIMITING THE ABILITY FOR THE PROPERTY FINANCE. UNDER SECTION F COULD CHANGE BE MADE OR AN ADD TO BE MADE. IT SAYS PROPERTIES ON WHICH GFC OR GFPA. IT'S SELF CONSTRUCTS THAT WOULD THEN TIE IT BACK TO A FINANCIAL LIMIT. >> JUST LIKE G [OVERLAPPING] >> IS THE SAME FINANCIAL LIMITATION. >> WITH THE SAME FINANCIAL LIMITATION ON HOUSING FINANCE AS YOU DO. [OVERLAPPING] >> I DON'T KNOW IF I NECESSARILY WANT TO SEE JUST THAT RESTRICTIVE. I JUST WANT ANOTHER MECHANISM IN THERE FOR EITHER A COUNCIL OR SOMEBODY TO LOOK AT WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY BUILDING WHEN THERE ARE NO INCOME REQUIREMENTS ON IT. THEY HAVE DONE THIS. THE TOWN HOMES WERE BUILT WITHOUT ANY INCOME REQUIREMENTS. BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY FUNDED THROUGH FEDERAL. >> THE TOWN HOMES WERE ACTUALLY FORECLOSED ON. >> BUT WE FUNDED THOSE. [OVERLAPPING] >> RESOLD WITHOUT ANY INCOME. >> I THINK THERE ARE PROJECTS OUT THERE THAT COULD HAPPEN. BUT I DON'T WANT THE BOARDS TO HIDE THE AUTHORITY JUST TO GO OUT THERE, BUY PROPERTY AND START BUILDING STUFF SPECULATIVE ON WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. >> GOOD THING. >> [OVERLAPPING] ALSO IN COMMERCIAL. >> SURE. >> THAT'S ABOUT RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD RESTRICT TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY FINANCE CORP BECAUSE THAT'S A TOOL THAT YOU MAY WANT TO USE FOR COMMERCIAL. >> BUT THIS IS JUST ABOUT [OVERLAPPING] SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND THAT'S WORTH TALKING ABOUT. BUT THE OTHER THING MIGHT BE AND TO YOUR POINT ABOUT INCOME AND SO FORTH. LIKE, WHAT IF TWO RODS CAME UNDER FORECLOSURE AND BEACH LIKE VILLAGE, YOU COULD NEVER BUILD A HOUSE THAT WOULD BE AFFORDABLE TO WHAT THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE AND THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS IN STOPPING THAT. THE POINT COULD BE THAT YEAH, THEY'RE GOING TO BUY IT AND FLIP IT TO HAVE AN INCOME SOURCE, BUT THEN THEY ARE DIRECTLY COMPETING WITH PRIVATE. THERE'S NOTHING THAT RESTRICTS THAT FROM HAPPENING IN HERE. >> DAVID, DID YOU HAVE MORE COMMENTS? >> NO, THAT WAS MY COMMENT UNDER SECTION F [OVERLAPPING]. >> IF YOU PROPOSE SECTION F AS COUNCILMAN FINKLEA'S MENTIONING [NOISE] TO INCLUDE GPFA AND THAT HAS A REQUIREMENT ON WHO THAT HOUSE CAN BE. IT PUTS IT LIMIT IT HAS TO BE FALL WITHIN US UNDER A CERTAIN LIMIT, IS IT? >> WHAT WE KEEP THEM FROM? >> ROBERT WHO ACTUALLY DEVELOPED THIS? >> THEY DID. >> THE ALL THE OTHER? >> HAPPENS TO BE FINANCE CORPORATION. >> I ACTUALLY WROTE IT WITH THE BOARD AND THEN PASSED [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU'VE HEARD WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN HERE. HOW WOULD YOU RESTRICT THAT IN THIS DOCUMENT? >> I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE GPFA UNDER AN INCOME RESTRICTION BECAUSE THEN BASICALLY WE'LL JUST DO ALL THE PROJECTS UNDER GHFC. BUT I'M NOT 100% SURE RIGHT NOW HOW TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN, WHICH IS [NOISE] COMPETING WITH PRIVATE DEVELOPERS. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY HOW WE DEAL WITH THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT. I HAVE TO GIVE THAT SOME THOUGHT. >> IS THERE A DESIRE TO REPLICATE THE BARTON'S SQUARE DEVELOPMENT? >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LEAVING THE DOOR OPEN HERE ON. >> IT COULD BE. THAT'S WHERE I DON'T THINK THE HASTE IN GRANTING APPROVAL ON CONSTRUCTION IS NECESSARY. PROPERTY WISE IF YOU WANT TO GO BUY SOME PROPERTY AND YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A HOUSING FINANCE PROJECT WITHOUT INCOME REQUIREMENTS, THERE COULD BE A GOOD PROJECT OUT THERE THAT CAN FIT THOSE NEEDS. BUT I DON'T WANT TO GIVE APPROVAL TODAY ON A PROJECT LIKE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. [03:05:03] I WOULDN'T MIND GIVING AUTHORITY TO GO OUT THERE AND BUY THE PROPERTY. BUT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE PROJECT BEFORE I GIVE AUTHORITY TO ACTUALLY GO OUT THERE AND BUILD A BUNCH HOUSES. >> HERE'S WHAT I WOULD HAVE TO SAY. I THINK UNDER THE ORGANIZATIONAL DOCUMENTS FOR PROPERTY FINANCE AUTHORITY, TO DO ANY CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO REQUIRE COMING BACK TO CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT USING PROPERTY FINANCE MONEY OR A CORRECTION PROGRAM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED AND WHICH IS NOT COVERED UNDER THIS DOCUMENT. >> AS LONG AS THAT'S HOW IT IS. I DIDN'T THINK THAT IS HOW THE DOCUMENT WAS. I THOUGHT THAT THIS GIVES YOU APPROVAL TO GO OUT THERE, BUY PROPERTY AND START CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT INCOME REQUIREMENTS ON IT. BUT IF I'M NOT READING THAT CORRECTLY, THEN. >> WELL, YOU MAY BE READING IT CORRECTLY BECAUSE IT MAY BE JUST AN IDEA THAT WAS GOING TO DRAG LAWYERS HERE. [LAUGHTER] >> ROBERT, YOU REALIZE WHAT COUNCIL MAN LISTKOWSKI IS ASKING. YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT IN THIS DOCUMENT WITH CHANGES YOU FEEL. >> I THINK IT CAN BE EASILY ADDRESSED. >> GO AHEAD. SORRY. >> WOULD YOU HAVE A PROBLEM MAKING IT WORK SO MANY HOURS A MONTH OR LIKE THAT? >> WELL, [OVERLAPPING] WHO KEEPS TRACK OF THAT AND WHAT DID THEY LOSE YOUR JOB? >> THAT HAPPENS IN OTHER CITIES, SO THERE MUST BE A WAY OF DOING IT. >> FINANCE CORPORATION. I AGREE THAT HAPPENS IN THE CITIES, BUT DOES HAPPEN TO AN ORGANIZATION LIKE IS. >> WELL, IT'S WORKFORCE HOUSE AGAIN, I BELIEVE IT DOES. WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT OUR BIG POINT OF THIS IS WORKFORCE HOUSE. THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE VOID AND NOT TO HAVE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT YOU WORK HERE. >>> AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, MONITORING THAT IS NOT REALLY PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE. >> IT WORKS IN OTHER PLACES SO THERE'S GOT TO BE A WAY THAT THEY DO IT. >> WHY DON'T WE DO THIS. WE NEED TO MOVE ON COUNCIL ON THIS. BUT FIRST OF ALL, MR. BASTIEN, YOU HAVE GOT THE INPUT FROM COUNCIL MAN LISTKOWSKI. >> I WOULD LIKE MINE ADDRESSED TOO. >> WELL, I'M COMING TO YOURS ON HIS THOUGHTS ON THE CONCERNS OF COMPETING WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE, A CHANGE IS MADE. WE ALSO HAD MS. ROBB'S CONCERNS HERE. MICHELLE, WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT AND SEE NOW THAT POSSIBLY COULD BE INCORPORATED IN THIS. THEN IF YOU COULD BRING THIS ITEM BACK TO COUNCIL, MR. BASTIEN. IF YOU WANT TO GO IN MY OPINION, COUNCIL, MR. BASTIEN MAKES THESE CHANGES, WE COULD PUT IT ON FOR THE JULY ACTION ITEMS FOR OUR JULY MEETING. THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS GOING TO BE ANY WAY, BUT WE NEED TO SEE THOSE CHANGES, IF YOU WOULD, SIR. MICHELLE, ONCE THAT IS SUBMITTED TO YOU BY MR. BASTIEN, WOULD YOU GET THAT TO COUNSEL AHEAD OF TIME AND POINT OUT THOSE CHANGES, MICHELLE THAT COUNCIL WAS WANTING TO HAVE. ANYMORE THOUGHTS ON THIS COUNCIL? MR. BASTIEN THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. >> COUNCIL I'M GOING TO MOVE THE AGENDA AROUND. WE HAVE ONE OF OUR ESTEEMED ATTORNEYS THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE. IF IT MET COUNCILS APPROVAL. >> ONE OF OUR OTHERS. [LAUGHTER] >> WE'RE HAVING ONE ESTEEM ATTORNEY LEAVING AND ANOTHER ONE COMING UP IN JUST A SECOND. NELLY, COULD YOU READ 3G4, PLEASE MA'AM. >> ITEM 3G4, DISCUSSION OF WILDFLOWER ORDINANCE. >> VERY GOOD. DONNA, COME ON UP. DONNA IS GOING TO HAVE TO LEAVE US AND SHE WANTED TO GIVE INPUT ON THIS. >> JUST FOR A FEW MINUTES. THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING IS ALSO HERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT SOME CHANGES WERE REQUESTED THE WILDFIRE ORDINANCE IN YOUR PACKET, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME AT THE TIME. I'M HERE FOR ANY OF THE DIRECTION REGARDING THE WILDFLOWER ORDINANCE. [03:10:05] CONCISE IT THE PERMIT TIME WAS EXTENDED FROM JANUARY 31ST TO MARCH 31ST. THE HERBACEOUS LAYER LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED FOR THE HERBACEOUS LAYER TO BE MOWED ANNUALLY. THE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS PRESENTED, WAS FOR AFTER JUNE 30TH. THEN THE WILD FLOWERS WOULD HAVE TO BE KEPT IN LINE WITH OUR CURRENT HIGH WEEDS AND GRASS ORDINANCE OF THE CITY. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE MAY BE SOME CHANGES OR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. SO I'M HERE. >> COUNCILWOMAN ROBERTS. >> I KNOW THIS IS A LOT, BUT YOU SAID NODE ANNUALLY, BUT THEN YOU SAID HAD TO REQUIRE ALIGNMENT OF OUR REGULAR MOWINGS. >> THE ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY UP THERE WITH THE CHANGES, OF COURSE, AS WE'VE DONE ORDINANCES IN THE PAST, WHATEVER IS IN YELLOW ARE THE DIRECT CHANGES. THE LINES IS WHAT'S BEING REMOVED. THE LINE UNDER IS WHAT'S BEING ADDED. JUST LOOKING AT WHAT YOU HAVE THERE AGAIN, THE HERBACEOUS LAYER WAS ORIGINALLY IN THE REMOTE ANNUALLY. >> SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU SAID WE WERE SAYING BOTH AT ONCE LIKE THEY CAN FLAKE [OVERLAPPING] >> WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW. BUT AGAIN, THAT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED OR CHANGED. >> MY QUESTION DONNA. >> YES. >> I'M SORRY MICHAEL RIGHT HERE. WELL, WHY DID WE CHANGE OR PUT IN JUNE 30TH? >> WELL, MY QUESTIONS RIGHT THERE. >> BECAUSE WILDFLOWER IS EXTEND PAST THERE INTO FALL. MILKWEED AND BLAZING STAR, TWO OF THEM THAT ALSO ARE FOOD FOR THE MONARCH BUTTERFLIES. >> WELL, AS I REVISITED THE MEETING, JUNE 30TH WAS A DATE THAT WAS GIVEN. >> WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THAT? >> YES. >> WE CAN CHANGE THAT. I HAVE THE SAME FEELING IS COUNCIL MEMBER BOUVIER ON THAT. I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT. >> I'D LIKE TO ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER BOUVIER'S CONCERN ABOUT IT. I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE OH, I HAD IT. >> CAN YOU MOVE IT UP. >> CAN YOU MOVE IT UP? >> YES. I'D LIKE TO PUT IN BACK SECTION F, WHICH SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO MOW IT AT LEAST ANNUALLY, DOESN'T SPECIFY THE TIME, AND THEN DELETE SECTION 4 AND ITS ENTIRETY, GIVING THE APPLICANT THE ABILITY TO DETERMINE WHEN THEY NEED TO MOW THEIR HERBACEOUS LATER. >> I'D LIKE TO NARROW IT. MOVING THE MOW ANNUALLY COULD [OVERLAPPING] >> NO. I SAID RE-INSERT. >> BUT ONLY MOWING ANNUALLY COULD CREATE A NIGHTMARE FOR CITY STAFF. >> WELL, LET ME SAY THIS. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN FOR YEARS. I DON T THINK WE'VE RUN INTO ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT, HAVE WE? >> BECAUSE THIS ONLY PERTAINS TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN THEIR APPLICATION [OVERLAPPING] >> ONLY FOR PERMANENT HOLDERS. >> THE THIS IS ONLY FOR PERMIT HOLDERS. >> YEAH, THIS IS ONLY FOR PERMANENT HOLDERS. >> THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE DEMONSTRATED AN INTEREST IN MAINTAINING NATIVE LANDSCAPES. >> CORRECT. BUT IF SOMEBODY GETS CITED FOR HIGH WEEDS AND GRASS, THEY'RE GOING TO WALK IN HERE AND PULL A PERMIT BECAUSE YOU'VE JUST EXTENDED THE PERMANENT PERIOD OUT SO LONG. THAT'S THE PROBLEM [OVERLAPPING] >> WHY NOT? >> WELL, YOU CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S JUNE. YOU ONLY HAVE FROM JANUARY [LAUGHTER]. >> WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THAT. >> THERE YOU GO. >> WELL, SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR PROPOSAL THEN? >> MY PROPOSAL IS THAT YOU KEEP YOUR REGISTRATION PERIOD EARLY IN THE YEAR, MAYBE THE FIRST TWO MONTHS OF THE YEAR. PEOPLE DO THIS WITH INTENT. THAT WAS THE WHOLE PURPOSE. IF YOU RESEARCH THE ORDINANCE AND HOW IT WAS PASSED, [NOISE] A LOT OF THE CITIES THAT WERE CITED AS COMPARATIVE ARE BIG OPEN SPACE CITIES WITH OPEN FIELDS. WE HAVE 2,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS IN SOME AREAS HERE IN TOWN. YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME MODICUM OF CONTROL OVER THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE HOAS AND MASTERPLAN COMMUNITIES. THE AREAS IN THESE CITIES WHERE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT. THE REASON IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, AND I REACHED OUT TO THESE CITIES IS THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE SO MANY ACTIVE HOAS THAT HANDLE ALL THAT. THEY'RE REALLY DEALING WITH OPEN FIELD UNDEVELOPED LAND, WHICH IS GREAT. BUT YOU CAN'T JUST EXEMPT THIS. WE GET SO MANY COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS, ONE PERSON'S WILDFLOWERS OR ANOTHER PERSON'S WEEDS. >> I'M GOING BACK TO YOUR FIRST COMMENT WHICH YOU SAID EXTEND THE APPLICATION FRAME FOR JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS. >> COUPLE OF MONTHS. PEOPLE DO AGREE WITH YOU. PEOPLE DO THAT WITH INTENT. [03:15:01] IF YOU REALLY INTEND TO GROW WILD FLOWERS OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU GUYS DECIDE YOU WANT TO LET PEOPLE GROW THEY MAKE THAT DECISION EARLY ON, NOT AFTER THEIR CITED. >> GREAT. >> BUT WE'VE BASICALLY DONE THAT. >> I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD INCLUDE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT IF YOU DID NOT REGISTER DURING THIS PERIOD AND YOU WERE LATER CITED, THAT YOU CAN'T RETROACTIVELY DO IT. >> GOT YOU. >> I WILL ALSO ADD INTO THAT THAT WE DO IT RIGHT NOW, WITHIN THE FIRST MONTH. JUST JANUARY, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO FAILED TO REGISTER, EVEN THOUGH OUR STAFF CALLS ALL THE PREVIOUS YEARS REGISTRANTS AND REMINDS THEM TO, IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS AGAIN THIS COMING YEAR, GO AHEAD AND FILL THIS OUT. SOME OF THEM FAILED TO DO IT AND WANTED TO COME BACK AND SAY, CAN I DO IT NOW? I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT THAT BRIAN SITTING ON IS THAT THEY'LL JUST COME IN. >> I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD THAT WE ARE NOT RUNNING AROUND LOOKING FOR PEOPLE WITH WILDFLOWERS IN THEIR YARDS. WE'RE RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS FROM THEIR NEIGHBORS. THERE ARE OTHER RESIDENTS HERE THAT DON'T NECESSARILY 100% AGREE WITH THIS. >> DAVID, YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD WITH DAVID. >> PEOPLE CALL ME ALL THE TIME. WHAT THE HELL THE MARSHALL'S OFFICE DRIVING AROUND LOOKING FOR WAYS, BUT MARSHALL'S OFFICE NOT DOING ANYTHING OF THE SORT MARSHALL'S OFFICE STRUCTURES, ALL THESE THINGS, THEY'RE RESPONDING TO COMPLAINTS. ALL OF THEM BUT I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. HOW MANY PERMITS DO WE HAVE OPENED FOR THIS RIGHT NOW? >> IT'S A DOZEN. >> A DOZEN. >> THEY'RE RIGHT HERE. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT MILKWEED. MONARCH MIGRATION DOESN'T TAKE PLACE IN THE SUMMER. >> I KNOW, THE SPRING, FALL, SO I'M NOT SURE. MAYBE IT GOES INTO JUNE. I'M NOT A BUTTERFLY EXPERT HERE, BUT OTHER LEVEL UP ADOPTERS, BUT IT DOESN'T EXTEND INTO THE LATE SUMMER. >> HE'S BEEN DYING TO USE THAT WORD FOR YOU. >> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] >> YEARS HE'S BEEN WAITING FOR THE SAME [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] >> THE MODE THAT DOESN'T CONCERN ME, BUT HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT HAS CONCERN ME. WHAT DOES THIS APPLY TO? DOES IT APPLY TO YARDS? DOES IT APPLY TO OPEN FIELDS? DOES IT APPLY TO THE WEST END THE SAME WAY IT APPLIES TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD? DOES IT APPLY TO YARDS VERSUS BEDS? IF I PUT BRICKS AROUND MY WILD FLOWERS, IS THAT SUDDENLY A GARDEN BED AND NOT MY YARD? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COME, AND I'M CULTIVATING WEEDS OR MILKWEED OR WHATEVER. I THINK IT'S INTERESTING, AND MILKWEED DOES HAVE WEED IN THE NAME OF IT. I POINT THAT OUT. NOT THAT IT ISN'T USEFUL WE'RE A MONARCH FLYWAY. I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT IN AUGUST, AND WHAT IF SOMEBODY COMPLAINS THAT ARTIST BOAT ISN'T MOWING THEIR LAWN? [LAUGHTER] DO WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT THESE VAST TRACKS OF LAND ON THE WEST END ARE MAINTAINED? >> NO, I KNOW SERIOUS ROAD AND WHATNOT ISSUES. THE AREAS SAY NEXT [OVERLAPPING] BAY SIDE, THERE ARE ISSUES. >> YEAH. BUT WHEN YOU GET AN EXTRA NEIGHBORHOOD THERE ARE. I'VE GOT ONE OF THE NICEST OFFENDERS IN THE CITY NEXT DOOR TO ME. BUT DOES THIS APPLY TO THE IRB RECORD? DOES IT THAT APPLY TO THE WHOLE ISLAND? DOES IT APPLY TO THE ACREAGE? ENOUGH I'VE GOT COWS GRAZING OUT THERE TO EAT THE WILDFLOWERS. >> TIM ANSWERED IT. >> YES, I DO. IT APPLIES TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, SO ALL PROPERTIES THAT THERE'S NO DISTINCTION. AT THIS POINT IN TIME ANYBODY COULD COME IN AND APPLY FOR THIS ON AN OPEN FIELD OR A FIELD THAT'S NEXT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD OR THEIR OWN FRONT YARD. >> I THINK THAT BEGS THE QUESTION THOUGH. WHEN'S THE LAST TIME WE CITED SOMEBODY ON THE WEST END FOR NOT KNOWING THEIR ACREAGE. [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE HAVE ALONG THE NON MOCK CORRIDOR. >> YEAH, AND 11. >> ELEVEN. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE BUT ONLY ON A COMPLAINT, WE DON'T GO OUT THERE, CHASING COWS ON HIGH GRASS. >> A LOT OF YOUR HOAS AS FAR AS INTERNAL OF THE HOAS ACTUALLY HAVE FOUR. >> WE'VE CHOICE I GET THAT. YOUR YARD I HAVEN'T SEEN YOUR YARD LONG TIME BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT OVERGROWN. >> WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS COUNCILMAN FINKLEA HAS MENTIONED, PUTTING BACK IN THE MOWING OF THE HERBACEOUS LAYER ANNUALLY, AND TAKING OUT A SECTION 4. YES JOHN. >> I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE TO THIS IF WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO REVISE THIS ORDERS. [03:20:02] >> GREAT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FIND IN THIS IS IT SEEMS LIKE ALL OF US ARE MASTER GARDENERS OR HAVE EXPERIENCE RELATED TO THIS. ONE OF MY SUGGESTIONS IS ACTUALLY PULLING THIS FROM THE AGENDA AND REFERRING IT TO THE TREE COMMITTEE, WHICH IS ABOUT THE CLOSEST THING THAT WE HAVE TO NATURALISTS. WHERE THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO MEET WITH THE EXPERTS AND THEN PULL IN STAFF IS APPROPRIATE TO WORK TO TRY TO AMEND OR PRESENT AN ALTERNATE. WE'RE PRETTY MUCH PASSED NOW THE SPRING SEASON ROW INTO THE FALL, KEEP THE CURRENT ORDINANCE THE WAY IT IS, AND WHAT'S REVISITED WHEN THEY HAVEN'T OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT. >> AS LONG AS PLANNING STAFF AND ENFORCEMENT STAFF CAN BE PART OF THAT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY EASY TO CREATE PIE IN THE SKY RULES THAT CAN'T BE ENFORCED. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO HAVE BECAUSE THIS IS THE SITUATION WE HAVE RESIDENTS POINTING OUT THAT PEOPLE ARE IN VIOLATION OF AN ORDINANCE. WE TAKE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE AND WE'RE INSTANTLY CRITICIZED. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT ENFORCEMENT IS PART OF ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THESE RULES BECAUSE WE'RE REALLY GOOD ABOUT PASSING RULES THAT WE CAN ENFORCE. OR WE LISTEN TO ONE GROUP AND WE PASS IT AND I GET COMPLAINTS EVERY YEAR FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO VISIT THE CEMETERY. IT'S A PLACE WE PLACE OUR LOVED ONES TO REST AND THEY WANT TO GO VISIT THEIR LOVED ONES AT GRAVE, AND THEY'RE SCARED OF TRIPPING AND FALLING OVER HEADSTONES THAT ARE COVERED UP BY HIGH GRASS OR GETTING TANGLED UP IN THE WEEDS. WE SOMEHOW HAVE TURNED OUR CEMETERY ON BROADWAY INTO A TOURIST ATTRACTION. THAT'S GREAT BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HEAR ALL SIDES OF THIS AND NOT PUNT IT TO ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER BECAUSE WE GET THE BRUNT OF THIS IN THE OFFICE. I LIKE WILDFLOWERS, I LOVED THE FACT THAT WHEN I VISIT MY GRANDMOTHER'S GRAVE ON BROADWAY, SHE HAS WORKED REALLY HARD TO PUSH UP A LOT OF THESE WILD FLOWERS. BUT THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE THAT GO THERE THAT DO NOT ENJOY THEM. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> OUTSIDE OF THE TREE COMMITTEE WHAT'S THE POINT? A ACTUAL TASK FORCE THAT'S MADE UP OF THOSE EXPERTS, ALONG WITH REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CITY AND REGARDING PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT AND WE CAN GO THAT WAY. >> THE TREE COMMITTEE COULD DO THAT, THEY COULD APPOINT A TASK FORCE IT'S A GREAT ONE TO DO. >> I LIKE THAT IDEA PERSONALLY. >> AS LONG AS CITY STAFF IS INVOLVED. >> EXACTLY. >> YEAH. >> IF YOU MAKE A MOTION THIS AFTERNOON COUNCILMAN FINKLEA BE SURE TO INCLUDE, IF THAT IS GOING TO THE TREE COMMITTEE THAT THAT INVOLVE CITY STAFF FROM PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT. >> THAT PART NEEDS TO BE IN THAT END PART. >> HERE WE GO. THANK YOU, THAT'S ALL. >> ANYMORE QUESTIONS HAVE DONNA OR TIM ON THIS. >> WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YARD NEED TO BE FLOWERED? [OVERLAPPING]. >> YOU CAN ALSO GROW A LOT OF THESE SEEDS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BUTTERFLIES IMPORTS, BECAUSE BY ROTARY HAS INITIATIVE ON BUTTERFLIES AND THEY'RE SUGGESTING IT IMPORTS. >> WE HAVE A BIG POPULAR TONY BROWN'S WIFE DID THAT AND WE'VE GOT BEAUTIFUL BUTTERFLIES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WE LOVE IF. >> YEAH. WE HAVE AMEND OUR YARDS ARE [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU TIM, THANK YOU, DONNA VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, BROWN. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. LET'S MOVE TO 3F PLEASE NILLY. [3.F. Update And Discussion Of Park Board Related Topics (B. Maxwell/ D. Glywasky - 15 Min) 1. Stewart Beach / Beach Patrol Headquarters 2. Short Term Rental Registration Fees and Transfer to the City 3. Procedure governing the swearing in of new Park Board members] >> ITEM 3F, UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF PART 4 OF RELATED TOPICS. ONE, STEWART BEACH/BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS TO SHORT-TERM REGISTRATION FEES AND TRANSFER TO THE CITY, AND THREE PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE SWEARING IN OF NEW PARK BOARD MEMBERS. >> WE BREAK AND BRINGING THEM WHEN WE WORK THE REST OF THIS BECAUSE IT'S SITTING THERE. >> WHAT IS THAT? >> BREAK AND BRING LUNCH HIM WHILE WE'RE DOING THE REST OF THIS. >> WE'RE ALMOST DONE HERE GUYS. >> YEAH. THIS IS GOING TO MOVE QUICKLY. >> YOU'LL GO TO LUNCH BUT STAFF WON'T, SO WE NEED TO WRAP THIS UP I THINK. >> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEND STAFF. >> IF THAT'S THE CASE DON'T KEEP NEEDING BREAK. >> WE'VE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION COMING UP WHEN YOU DO IT THEN. >> OKAY. >> YEAH, BROWN GO AHEAD AND START WITH THE STEWART BEACH AND BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS. >> DEFINITELY HAS A [OVERLAPPING] >> WELL, YOUR OFFICE COULD MAKE COPIES FOR US, RIGHT? >> YES. >> [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE HAVE THREE EFFORTS INVOLVED AT THE MOMENT WITH OUR COOL. ONE IS TO DEMOLISH STEWART RIDGE. PRIOR TO THAT, WE NEED TO PROVIDE TEMPORARY FACILITIES. THAT IS THE NEXT STEP WE'RE WORKING ON. WE'VE ACTUALLY COMPLETED THE PRODUCTION WORK FOR THE DEMOLITION, [03:25:04] BUT WE'RE WAITING UNTIL WE HAVE A PLACE FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES TO GO. APART BOARD SHOULD BE HEARING NEXT WEEK FROM THEIR STAFF A REQUESTS FOR PURCHASING TRAILERS, TEMPORARY. WE NEED A PROGRAM THAT PARALLELS THAT TO MAKE THE PLACE ON THE BEACH FOR THAT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HOOK THOSE THINGS UP, LIKE PLACE WHERE WE CAN GET THEM ON AND OFF. THEN THE LAST STEP IS TO PUT THE PERMANENT FACILITIES THERE. ALL OF THIS IS ABOUT A TWO YEAR PROJECT. BY THE END OF 2025, THAT SHOULD ALL BE DONE. WE HAVE COUNCILMAN LEHMAN AND THEN COUNCILMAN OBIYE. >> I THINK YOU HAVE [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU SAID THIS IS ABOUT A TWO YEAR PROJECT, BUT THE TIMING OF THIS IS THAT THE TEMPORARY FACILITIES HAVE TO BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE DEMOLITION OF STREET BEACH. CORRECT? >> YES. THAT'S HOPEFULLY NOVEMBER, DECEMBER THIS YEAR. >> THE TEMPORARY TRAILERS ARE GOING TO BE IN PLACE BY NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD HEARD FROM CHIEF DAVIS THAT THERE WAS A LONG LEAD TIME IN THE ACQUISITION. >> ONE OF THE ITEMS IS A FIVE MONTH LEAD TIME. THE ONES THAT ARE REALLY ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ON ABOUT 3-4. ONCE THOSE ARE IN PLACE, THEN WE'LL START THE DEMOLITION, THAT'S ABOUT A MONTH. I ANTICIPATE ALL OF THAT HAPPENING BEFORE THE END OF THIS YEAR. IT COULD STRETCH INTO JANUARY OR FEBRUARY. >> NOVEMBER FOR THE TEMPORARY TRAILERS AND THEN THE DEMOLITION. WHEN DO YOU PROPOSE THAT WHEN YOU START? >> AT NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER AND JANUARY, IT DEPENDS ON TIMING OF THE TRAILERS AND HAVING THAT SET UP. >> THEN OF COURSE, THE DETAILS ON THE PERMANENT LOCATION IS STILL GOING TO BE IN THE FUTURE. >> WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND START THAT EFFORT NOW BY PUTTING OUT RFQ FOR AN ARCHITECT TO DO THAT WORK, TO GET THE PERMANENT FACILITATE UP AND RUNNING. AT THE SAME TIME WE'RE DOING THESE OTHER TWO PROJECTS. THEY'LL RUN CONCURRENT. >> DOING THE RFQ, IS THAT GEARED TO THE LAND THAT'S OVER THERE THAT WE'RE SHARING OR THE UTM BE HAD MENTIONED BRIAN? >> NO. THIS IS STRICTLY FOR PETER'S OPERATIONS ON THE BEACH. WE'VE TALKED WITH PETER, THIS WON'T BE NECESSARILY THERE ALL THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WOULDN'T BE INVOLVED IN THE OTHER FACILITIES. [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS JUST THE OPERATIONAL PIECE ON THE BEACH. >> ON THE BEACH. >> SOUND-BASED PORTION OF A BEACH CONTROL. >> BUT WHAT ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND THE COMMUNICATION CENTER? WHERE WOULD WE BE ON THAT? >> TEMPORARILY, WE WILL HOUSE THEM ON THE BEACH. >> BUT ON A PERMANENT BASIS? >> PERMANENT BASIS, WE HOPE THAT THEY'RE GOING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SEAWALL. >> JOHN. >> WE'RE GOING OUT FOR AN RFQ FOR PERMANENT FACILITIES ON STEWARD BEACH? >> ALL RIGHT. THE RFQ IS FOR TO LOCATE THE MOST QUALIFIED DESIGN FIRM TO DO IT, WORK WITH THEM AND IT'S ABOUT A SIX MONTH PROCESS TO SET UP A PERMANENT FACILITY. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHY ARE WE DOING THAT WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A MASTER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH? >> THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT EFFORT. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY ISN'T THAT [OVERLAPPING] >> WE HAVE PLANS THAT THEY'VE DONE ALREADY. >> WHO HAS DONE? >> THE PARKBOARD? THERE'S LAYOUTS OF THERE. WE KNOW WHERE WE WANT TO PUT BEACH PATROL PORTION OF THAT LAYOUT. >> LAYOUTS OF WHAT? SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T SEEN. >> NO. IT'S JUST LAYS OUT THE POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR BEACH PATROL. >> EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SHOWN. >> NO. IT'S JUST WHERE BEACH PATROL. THERE'S NO MASTER. BUT WHAT WE'LL DO IS ONCE WE DECIDE ON. WE'VE GOT AN EMINENT NEED RIGHT NOW WITH THIS. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. BUT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO DROP IT RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF STEWART BEACH. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO PLACE IT IN A WAY THAT LEAVES OPEN FOR THE MASTER PLANNING AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESTAURANT PARK. >> WELL, COULD WE I GUESS, REVISIT THAT SOON BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GET DOWN THE ROAD LIKE WE HAVE IN THE PAST AND WE GET A PLAN FOR A BUILDING IN A LOCATION AND AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND AND WE SCRAP THAT. >> WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PROVEN EVERY BIT OF EVERY STEP OF THE WHY. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE STILL GOING A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER HERE ON MASTER PLANNING, STEWART BEACH, AND LOCATING THIS BUILDING. >> WE'RE GOING IN THE ORDER YOU TOLD US TO, WHICH WAS TO GET THE PAVILION TORN DOWN AND GET PETER HEADQUARTERS. [LAUGHTER] >> I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING [OVERLAPPING] SUSPEND ON PERMANENT. >> YOU GET THE TEMPORARY FACILITIES READY FOR. THAT WILL PLAN TO BE TAKEN OFF THE BEACH WHEN THE FINAL FACILITIES COMPLETE. THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD OF TIME, [03:30:03] WE HOPE TO GET THE RFQ FOR THE DESIGN WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SOME MASTER PLANNING. >> GO AHEAD AND FINISH UP JOHN. >> AGAIN, WE'RE HEADING DOWN THE SAME PATH THAT WE HAVE IN THE PAST ON JUST PUTTING A BUILDING OUT THERE. I WANT TO SEE A MASTER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH. >> IF YOU WANTS TO WAIT THAT LONG, WE'LL DO IT. >> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU. THAT IT CAN BE PART OF THAT SIX MONTH. >> I JUST SAID, THAT'S NOT WHAT I HEARD ORIGINALLY. I HEARD THAT WE WERE PLANNING AN RFQ FOR A NEW BEACH PATROL FACILITY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. BUT THAT'S IN THAT SIX MONTH PERIOD OF TIME, IT ACTUALLY WOULD GO OUT FOR THE DESIGN TEAM FIRST, GET THAT PROGRAMMED FOR WHAT GOES IN AND HIRE THEM AND THEN THEY CAN DO THE MASTER PLAN AND THE LOCATION OF EACH PATROLS FACILITY. THAT'S NOT SET YET. >> I'M HERE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. >> JUST THE TEMPORARY LOCATION IS KNOWN. >> JUST WHAT I NEED YOU TO DO IS BRING BACK TO ME WHAT'S IN THAT FRQ. >> IT'S NOT WRITTEN YET, SO WE WILL. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT I HEARD JUST THEN IS THAT YOU'RE GOING OUT THERE TO UNDERSTAND THE NEEDS OF WHAT WOULD BE IN A FACILITY. NOT NECESSARILY THE PLACEMENT OF THE FACILITY, BUT JUST THE NEEDS WITHIN THE FACILITY. >> THAT HAPPENS IN THE FIRST PART OF THAT SIX MONTHS. >> AM I MISSING SOMETHING? AM I NOT SO EVER? >> NO. I'M JUST VERY CONFUSED HERE BECAUSE I WAS TOLD THAT WE WERE RACING TO GET THIS DONE, TO GET THIS PAVILION TORN DOWN AND GET PETER ON A TEMPORARY AND TO GET HIM A FACILITY THAT WE CAN USE OUT THERE AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. WE WILL PLACE IT IN AN AREA THAT COINCIDES WITH THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEWART BEACH PARK. IF YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE A COMPLETE MASTER PLAN OF STEWART BEACH PARK AND EVERYBODY SINGS GOODBYE ON AGREES TO IT. PETER IS GOING TO BE IN A TRAILER FOR A LONG TIME. JUST SAYING THAT. >> WE'RE GOING DOWN THE SAME PATH THAT WE HAVE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. >> JUST ONE SECOND HERE. MIKE BOUVIER AND THEN DAVID FINKLEA AND DAVID COLLINS. WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WAS TO TAKE DOWN THE PAVILION AND THERE WAS AN OFFSITE OFFICE FOR PETER. WE DIDN'T REALLY DISCUSS ABOUT A BEACH FACILITY FOR PETER. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SOMETHING REALLY SMALL AS FAR AS MAYBE A CANOPY OR SOMETHING, OR MAYBE SOME SMALLER STRUCTURES FOR PETER. BUT I THINK THE MAIN STRUCTURE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS THE ONE THAT WAS GOING TO BE AT THIS UTM BE A PROPERTY. >> CORRECT. >> PETER HAS TOLD US HE NEEDS ON THE BEACH TO MEET JUNIOR GUARD, WHICH WAS A PRIORITY OF EVERY SINGLE PERSON HERE, INVOLVES THAT CONSTRUCTION ON THE BEACH. THAT'S A BIG DOLLAR [OVERLAPPING]. >> THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY USE. >> I'M NOT DONE YET. THEN THE OTHER THING I HEARD WAS THAT THE RESOLUTION SAID THAT YOU WERE TO PROVIDE THE TEMPORARY TRAILERS AND WORK WITH PETER TO GET THOSE TEMPORARY TRAILERS. NOW, I HEAR YOU JUST PUT IT BACK TO THE PARK BOARD. >> NO. NOT AT ALL. THAT'S NOT TRUE AT ALL. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS BUT HEAR ME OUT. THE PARK BOARD BUDGETED MONEY FOR THIS. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS AS DADLY HAS DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED US TO DO. ALL HE IS ASKING THEM TO DO IS TO PROCURE THE TRAILERS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE MONEY BUDGETED FOR THE TRAILERS. THAT'S ALL WE'VE ASKED HIM TO DO. >> THEY DID THE RESEARCH ON THE TRAILER. >> THEY GOT THE CONNECTION AND EXPERTISE ON THESE TRAILERS. THEY DID A VERY GOOD JOB. >> WHY DID WE WAIT THIS LONG? WE LOST TIME. WHY DID WE PUT THAT IN THE RESOLUTION? WE ALREADY KNEW THAT PETER HAD TRAILERS. WHY DIDN'T WE JUST SAY IN THE RESOLUTION CITY TAKE DOWN THE PAVILION PARK BOARD BY THE TRAILER FOR PETER, BECAUSE EVERYTHING WAS GOOD. WE WAITED DAYS BEFORE WE'RE NOT DAYS, I'M SORRY, WEEKS BEFORE THIS ALL HAPPENED. IT WAS QUITE A BIT OF TIME. NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE PARK. WE'RE DOING IT BECAUSE THEY HAD THE MONEY. >>> THE PARK IS NOT DOING IT. THE PARK BOARD IS JUST BUYING IT MAINLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T FOLLOW OUR PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, AND THEY HAVE MUCH LOOSER PROCUREMENT FACILITIES, AND THEY CAN BUY IT FASTER. IF YOU WANT US TO BUY IT, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE MONEY BACK FROM THEM, AND WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, AND IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH OUR PROCUREMENT PROCESS, WHICH IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER. >> PART OF THE CONCERN HERE, I THINK, WE NEED TO SEE SOMETHING IN WRITING FROM YOU. ON THIS TIMELINE, I WANT TO SEE IN WRITING IF YOU COULD. >> OKAY. >> I CAN SEND THE WHOLE PACKAGE. [03:35:02] >> EXCUSE ME. >> I CAN SEND THE WHOLE PACKAGE. >> WELL, NO. I JUST LIKE TO SEE IN WRITING BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GETTING CONFUSED. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RFQ APPLIES TO ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE PERMANENT FACILITY ON THE SAND FOR THE [OVERLAPPING]. CONTROL. >> THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO RFQS. THE FIRST RFQ, WHICH WE WANT TO DO IMMEDIATELY IS TO FIND A CIVIL ENGINEER WHO CAN LOCATE THE UTILITIES AND THE TEMPORARY COMPOUND IF YOU WEIGH. THAT'S THE FIRST PRIORITY. RIGHT FOLLOWING THAT, WE WANT AN RFQ TO GO OUT FOR A DESIGN FIRM TO DO THE PERMANENT FACILITY. >> NOW, WHEN YOU SAY PERMANENT FACILITY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SMALLER FACILITY [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S ON THE BEACH THAT'S GOING TO ACCOMMODATE IN LIFEGUARD PROGRAM. >> RIGHT. >> OKAY. >> IN THAT SIX-MONTH PERIOD BEFORE WE ACTUALLY TEAR THE BUILDING DOWN AND LOCATE THE BEACH PATROL TEMPORARILY ON THE BEACH, ALL OF THEM, WE CAN PROGRAM THAT OUT, MASTER PLAN IT OUT, AND PROCEED ON DOWN THE WAY. ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME. WE'RE NOT WAITING FOR ONE THING, THEY COMPLETE BEFORE WE START THE NEXT PHASE. >> THE COUNCILMAN FINKLEA. >> THERE WAS A MASTER PLAN DEVELOPED IN 2018 FOR STUART BEACH. THEN I UNDERSTAND AND COUNCIL MEMBER BOUVIER, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE PARK BOARD WAS IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING A MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR RFP THAT WAS GOING TO GO OUT TO THE STREET, CORRECT? >> YEAH. >> HOW IS THAT RELATED TO THIS EFFORT? IN OTHER WORDS, ARE WE GOING BACK OUT TO THE STREET FOR AN RFP FOR ANOTHER MASTER PLAN? >> NO. >> THAT'S WHAT I HEARD THOUGH. >> NO. WE'RE DOING IT FOR AN RFP FOR DESIGN OF THE LIFEGUARD FACILITY. >> THE DESIGN OF THE LIFEGUARD FACILITY. HOW DOES THAT RELATE BOTH TO THE 2018 MASTER PLAN AND OR THE DEVELOPMENT MASTER AGREEMENT THAT WAS BEING DEVELOPED BY THE PARKS BOARD? >> I THINK WE'LL TAKE ALL OF THE PLANS THAT HAD BEEN DONE TODAY AND WE'LL INCORPORATE THEM INTO THAT AND STUDY THEM, PICK OUT THE PARTS THAT WORK, PICK OUT THE SIDES THAT DON'T, PUT THEM ASIDE, AND COME UP WITH A MASTER PLAN FOR WHAT WE KNOW IN THE NEAR FUTURE. NOW, WHETHER YOU WANT TO PUT A HOTEL OR SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AT ANOTHER TIME. BUT WE KNOW THE FACILITIES THAT WE WANT TO PUT ON THE BEACH. >> DAVID COLLINS. >> THE PLAN THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN 2017, 2018 WAS MASSIVELY EXPENSIVE AND COUNCIL REJECTED THAT BECAUSE OF ITS COST. ALSO, JOHN, I HEAR YOU ON THIS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MASTER PLAN. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON MASTER PLANS FOR A DECADE, LITERALLY. I ARGUED WHEN I WAS A TRUSTEE AND I'LL ARGUE TODAY THAT IF WE DON'T DO THIS INCREMENTALLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO GET DONE. NOW, I DON T THINK THAT WHAT WE BUILT FOR PETER IS GOING TO BE SO BIG, IT'S GOING TO PRECLUDE US DOING OTHER DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES, OR MONETIZING IT, OR BUILDING A PARKING GARAGE, THAT THING. THIS IS THE NEED WE TOLD YOU THAT WE FELT WE NEEDED. I THINK BUILDING SOMETHING PERMANENT [NOISE] FOR THOSE YEARS, ADDITIONAL TO WHAT WE SAID IN OUR CONVERSATIONS HERE LAST TWO MONTHS OR THREE MONTHS AGO, WHENEVER WE SET THIS IN MOTION. BUT I LIKE THE IDEA. HE NEEDS A PERMANENT PRESENT AND WE CAN NOT WAIT TILL THE FIRE STATION IS BUILD. HE NEEDS OUR PRESENCE ON THE SAND. I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES OR WHAT CAN BE KEPT IN TEMPORARY FACILITIES OR WHAT CAN BE TAKEN APART OF OUR PLAZA, I DON'T KNOW THAT. BUT IT NEEDS SOME PRESENCE ON THE SAND. I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE TO DO IT THE WAY YOU'RE DOING IT, WHICH IS IDENTIFY PLACES IN THE SAND, LET PARK BOARD FUND THIS BECAUSE THEY THEY HAVE BEEN. >> IT'S IN THEIR BUDGET AT THE MOMENT. >> IT IS. THEY'VE BEEN PLANNING ON FUNDING SOMETHING EXACTLY LIKE THIS [OVERLAPPING] FOR SEVERAL YEARS OUTSIDE SIDE A MASTER PLAN AND OUTSIDE A NEW PAVILION BECAUSE THESE PLANS HAVE ALWAYS INCLUDED A NEW PAVILION. DON'T REPLACE MY PAVILION. >> SURE, I UNDERSTAND. [OVERLAPPING]. >> I BEG YOU, REPLACE MY PAVILION. >> I DID NOT INFER THAT YOU'RE DOING ANYTHING WRONG OR INCORRECT. [OVERLAPPING] I WAS ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION [OVERLAPPING]. >>THAT'S THE THING WE DON'T KNOW CAUSE IT SEEMS TO CHANGE EVERY TIME WE COME HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> JOHN, GO AHEAD. >> HOW HARD WOULD IT BE TO BLOCK OUT AREAS OF SWORD BEACH TO DO A MASTER PLAN? WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT A MASTER PLAN? >> IT'S NOT HARD. I DIDN'T SAY WE DON'T WANT A MASTER PLAN. >> [OVERLAPPING] WELL, BUT DAVID SAYING, HEY, WE HAD ONE. IT DIDN'T WORK, SO WE JUST SCRAPPED IT. LET'S NOT USE A MASTER PLAN ANYMORE BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO IT. [03:40:02] >> WE COULD NEVER COME TO CONSENSUS. >> WHAT WE KNOW WE NEED TO LOCATE NOW IS BEACH PATROL FACILITIES. WE CAN LOCATE THAT. IT'S A VERY SMALL FACILITY. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, SMALL? [OVERLAPPING] >> I DON'T HAVE THAT YET. WE'RE TALKING IN A. >> THE FOUR MILLION DOLLAR FACILITY? >> POSSIBLE. >> WE TALKED ABOUT AN EIGHT MILLION DOLLAR FACILITY BEFORE. >> WELL, KELLY PARK TALKED ABOUT A $10 MILLION FACILITY. >> EIGHT TO TEN WAS WHAT PARK WAS KIND OF. >> WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, THEY DID A SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR BEACH PATROL FACILITY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ABOUT HALF THAT SPACE. >> MAYBE HALF THOSE? >> YEAH, MAYBE 4 MILLION DOLLARS. >> IT RARELY WORKS THAT WAY, BUT YEAH. >> [LAUGHTER] I KNEW THAT. >> YOU WILL GET THAT INFORMATION AS IT'S DEVELOPED WITHOUT JUST GIVING YOU A NUMBER RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. IF IT'S UNREALISTIC. >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE AGAIN. [OVERLAPPING] >> I MEAN, IT'S SMALL THINGS THAT I WISH WE COULD COME TO CONSENSUS ON IT. BRIAN, YOUR IDEA WAS PARKING GARAGE OUT THERE. >> IT'S VERY POSSIBLE. >> THAT WOULD BE ONE THING THAT WOULD BE ON A MASTER PLAN AND SO WE WOULDN'T WANT TO PLACE A BEACH PATROL FACILITY WITHIN THAT. OR MAYBE WE DO BECAUSE WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SOME [OVERLAPPING]. >> THAT'S FAIRLY EASY TOO. I CAN POP OFF AN ANSWER FOR THAT. [NOISE] BEACH PATROL FACILITY, IT NEEDS TO BE AS CLOSE TO WATER AS POSSIBLE, WHICH IS THE LIMIT. THE GLO HAS GIVEN THE DISTANCE FROM THE CURRENT FACILITY. >> WE'RE GOING TO PUT $10 MILLION FACILITY ON THAT LINE? >> YES. >> IF POSSIBLE. >> THAT'S WHAT PETER WANTS. >> THE PARKING FACILITY NEEDS TO BE AS CLOSE TO THE SEAWALL TO GET ON AND OFF OF IT. >> I DON'T I MEAN. I'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION WITH PETER ABOUT THAT. >> WELL, THAT'S JUST FINE. I THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE. BUT YOU NEED TO HAVE THE VISIBILITY. >> GUYS, DON'T GET STUFF IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS POLITICAL STUFF. JUST TELL US WHAT YOU WANT AND WE'LL DO IT. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT YET, WE'LL STOP UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. WE'RE SPENDING AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME AND MONEY ON THIS, TRYING TO GIVE YOU GUYS WHAT YOU WANT AND I'M GETTING WHIPPED SHOT AROUND, AND IT'S JUST NOT APPROPRIATE TO KEEP DOING THIS TO STAMP. >> I THINK YOU'RE GOING DOWN THE RIGHT ROAD. >> LET'S LET MIKE BOUVIER AND THEN I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. GO AHEAD, MIKE. >> I DON'T WANT TO BEAT THIS TO DEATH, BUT THAT RESOLUTION WAS DONE IN APRIL. FIFTY THREE HAVE PASSED AND NOW YOU PASSED IT BACK. YOU'VE TOOK 53 DAYS TO FIGURE OUT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PASS IT BACK TO THE PARK BOARD. [OVERLAPPING] >> NO, MIKE. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT. ALL WE'VE ASKED THEM TO DO IS TO USE THE MONEY IN THEIR BUDGET. IF THEY WANT TO TRANSFER THE MONEY TO ME, WE'LL BUY IT. >> JUNE 19TH, WAS THE EMAILS BACK-AND-FORTH BETWEEN YOU AND THE PARK BOARD AND THE PARK BOARD STATING, HEY, PETER JUST CAME BACK TO US AND SAID THAT WE ARE NOW RESPONSIBLE FOR BUYING THE TRAILERS, AND YOU SAID YES. >> PURCHASING THE TRAILERS. NOT PLACING THEM, NOT INSTALLING, NOT DOING ANYTHING. >> I SAID BUYING. >> THEY HAVE THE MONEY IN THEIR BUDGET. >> BUT WHY DID IT TAKE YOU 53 DAYS TO FIGURE THAT OUT? >> BECAUSE PETER, WE WERE WORKING ON THE TRAILERS THAT HE WANTED, MIKE. >> BUT THE SAME TRAILERS YOU'RE GETTING THEM. >> NO, THEY'RE NOT. THAT WE'VE HAD TO LOOK AT AVAILABILITY. WE HAD TO FIND ONE THAT WAS ON THE BUY BOARD. THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT THAT WENT ON WITH THAT. >> BUT YOU'RE NOT BUYING THEM OFF THE BUY BOARD. >> YES, WE ARE. >> I JUST WANT SOME INFORMATION UP FRONT. I DON'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WE GO OUT FOR RFQ AND SEE ALL THIS. DUDLEY, IF YOU CAN JUST PUT A LITTLE PLAN TOGETHER ON THE BEACH ON, HEY, WE'RE LOOKING TO PUT THE BEACH PATROL HERE ON THIS LINE. [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE'VE GOT THAT. [OVERLAPPING]. >> BRIAN AND DUDLEY, PART OF THIS, I THINK WE'RE GETTING WHERE THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO. WE NEED TO SEE SOMETHING IN WRITING. >> WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A SCHEDULE, BUT IT'S A SCHEDULED FOR THINGS YOU'VE ALREADY TOLD ME, CRAIG, THAT YOU DON'T WANT US TO DO NOW. >> NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE, BRIAN. I DON'T EVEN KNOW BECAUSE I HADN'T SEEN YOUR SCHEDULE. LET'S GET SOMETHING TO COUNCIL IN WRITING. >> I'M STARTING TO SENSE THE FRUSTRATION THAT THE PARK BOARD HAS HAD ALL THIS TIME BECAUSE THIS IS WHY WE CAN'T MOVE THIS FORWARD, CRAIG. I WAS GIVEN VERY SPECIFIC ITEMS AND TASK WITH. WE ARE MOVING FORWARD I THINK PRETTY QUICKLY TO GET THIS DONE TO MEET PETER'S NEEDS. TO SAY THAT WE'RE PUTTING IT TO THE PARK BOARD IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. BUT HOWEVER, IF I JUST TOOK THE MONEY OUT OF THE HOT $14 MILLION THAT THE CITY IS HOLDING RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD MEAN THE PARK BOARD IS SITTING ON THREE OR $400,000 THAT THEY'VE ALREADY GOT, THAT THEY BUDGETED FOR THIS. ARE THEY GOING TO TRANSFER THAT BACK TO US? I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. I WAS TRYING TO DO THIS FOR EXPEDIENCY PURPOSES. WE HAVE GIVEN THEM THE VENDOR, WE'VE DONE ALL THE WORK. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS ISSUE A PL. THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE TO DO. IF THAT'S A BIG TASK FOR THE PARK BOARD AND THAT SEEMS TO BE CAUSING THEM HEARTBURN, PUT IT BACK TO US. >> I DON'T SEE THIS CAUSING THEM HEARTBURN. I DON'T SEE STAFF OVER THERE IN HEARTBURN. ARE THEY'RE NOT WILLING TO DO THIS? >> FIRST TIME HEARING THAT THIS IS A PROBLEM. [OVERLAPPING] [03:45:02] >> I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THIS VERY CLOSE. >> YOU'RE KEEPING KIMBERLY DENESI [OVERLAPPING] IN ALL THIS. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> BRIAN, I THINK YOU'RE FOLLOWING WHAT COUNCIL'S DIRECTIONS HAS BEEN AND YOU'RE DOING IT, I THINK IN A VERY EFFICIENT MANNER. I JUST NEED TO SEE THIS. I THINK WE NEED TO SEE A MAP, WE NEED TO SEE A TIMELINE. WE NEED TO SEE SOMETHING SO WE CAN KNOW EXACTLY. WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS IT GETS CONFUSED. >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I CAN GET THAT TOGETHER TUESDAY. >> IF WE COULD GET THAT TO COUNCIL. COUNCIL, JUST A HEADS UP. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING COMING UP HERE, A SPECIAL MEETING ON THESE TYPES OF THINGS HERE SHORTLY. JUST GET READY FOR DISCUSSING THAT BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT. DUDLEY, I THINK YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT YOU TO DO. >> WELL, IN ADDITION, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK CLOSELY AND COOPERATIVELY WITH PARK BOARD STAFF TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY NEED, THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE NEED, AND HOW TO GET FUNDED MORE THAN ANYTHING. THAT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT PART OF IT. HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT? WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT NOW AND THAT'S JUST FINALLY BEEN DEVELOPED HERE RECENTLY. AS WE BEGAN TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR IT, HOW TO ORDER IT, HAVING THEM DO IT WITH CENSUS ALREADY IN THEIR BUDGET SEEMED TO BE THE MOST EXPEDITIOUS WAY TO GET IT DONE, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANTED. WE WANTED TO GET AS QUICKLY AND AS EFFECTIVELY AS POSSIBLE. >> THEN ONCE WE GET THE INFORMATION, THEN COUNCIL, YOU CAN GET WITH BRIAN. GET YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND ALL OF THAT. >> I DO NOT WANT TO GET IN THE MIDDLE OF A POLITICAL TUSSLE BETWEEN THE TWO BOARDS. YOU'VE ASKED ME TO TASK THIS. IF YOU DON'T WANT US TO DO IT, WE WILL STEP ASIDE. >> BRIAN, NOBODY'S ASKING THAT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GETTING ACCUSED OF DUMPING ON THE PARK BOARD AND THAT'S NOT AT ALL APPROPRIATE. >> NOT SAYING YOU'RE DUMPING. WHAT I AM SAYING THAT IS WHEN I ASKED YOU IF YOUR PLATE WAS FULL. >> THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY PLATE BEING FULL. THIS HAS TO DO WITH WHERE THE MONEY IS, MIKE. >> THAT'S FINE, BRIAN. I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH IT ANYMORE. >> LET'S GET SOMETHING SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IT, MIKE. PERSONALLY, I THINK WHERE WE NEED TO BE, YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB MOVING FORWARD. BUT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS. LET COUNCIL GET A LOOK AT IT AND ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS. >> I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IS A SOMEWHAT SEMI-PERMANENT PART OF THE WORKSHOP. [OVERLAPPING] >> THIS WILL BE ON EVERY WORKSHOP. >> I'LL GET THIS TO YOU NEXT WEEK, BUT IN ADDITION, AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE'LL TRY TO FOLLOW THIS TIMELINE AND SEE WHAT'S LACKING, AND WHAT'S AHEAD, AND WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS. BUT THERE'S CONVOLUTED EFFORTS AND INTEGRATING THEM IS THE BIG PROBLEM. THAT WE FIGURED OUT HOW TO DO IT, WE'RE GOING TO GET IT DONE. WORK WITH PURCHASING, WE'LL BEGIN TO WORK ON THESE CONTRACTS SO WE CAN GET THIS DONE, AND GET THEM ON THE BEACH AND REASONABLE FACILITIES BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR, AND GET THEM INTO PERMANENT FACILITY HOPEFULLY WITHIN BEFORE THE END OF 2025. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHERE EXACTLY AT THE MOMENT. >> NO. IT MAY BE INCORPORATED INTO AN OVERALL ENTRY WAY TO THE PARK. WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON THAT. [OVERLAPPING] I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DESIGNS ON PETER'S, WHAT HE NEEDS, AND START WORKING ON IT BEFORE WE HAVE A COMPLETE MASTER PLAN TO THE NTH DEGREE FOR THAT PART. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO. >> I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME KIND OF INITIAL CONCEPT [OVERLAPPING] ON WHAT THAT PARK IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. >> IT WILL BE. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR. >> I DON'T KNOW WHY THERE'S SO MUCH PUSH BACK ON THAT. >> BECAUSE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A FULL MASTER PLAN AND I KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET DOWN TO IT. WE'RE GONG TO SAY, WHY I DIDN'T GET WHAT I ASKED FOR? >> JUST GIVE ME SOMETHING. GIVE ME SOMETHING. >> WE CAN YOU GIVE ME ZONES EASILY IN THERE. THIS PIECE [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT'S WHAT I TOLD YOU WE WILL DO ORIGINALLY. >> I DIDN'T HEAR THAT FROM WHEN WE STARTED THIS CONVERSATION. >> NO, WE SAID THAT EARLY ON THAT WE WOULD BRING YOU A VERY ROUGH RUDIMENTARY OUTLINE FOR THE PARK AND I'M NOT GOING TO DETERMINE THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE A HOTEL OR THERE'S GOING TO BE THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THIS MINUTE. [OVERLAPPING] >> I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> THAT'S FINE. >> WHEN WILL YOU HAVE THAT, BRIAN? >> WE WILL START HAVING THAT WITHIN TWO MONTHS OF SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY WELL THOUGHT OUT AND WE WILL PRESENTED TO YOU. BUT FIRST WE HAVE TO GET THAT DESIGN GROUP ON BOARD. >> BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE TO TRY TO WORK AROUND THE ENGINEER DRAINAGE OUT THERE AND THE OTHER THINGS TOO. >> THE FIRST STEP IS GETTING [NOISE] SOME OF FACILITY UP AND RUNNING AND WE HAVE A PLACE THAT WE ARE GOING TO SUGGEST TO PUT IT. [03:50:02] IT'S NOT IN THE WAY OF ANYTHING THAT I CAN BELIEVE WOULD FEEL FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT THE SCHEMATIC DESIGN FOR THE LARGER FACILITY SHOWED WHERE IT WOULD BE. WE'LL WORK THAT OUT. >> WE HAVEN'T EVEN SEEN IT. >> WHERE THAT LARGER FACILITY WAS GOING TO GO. >> SURE, THAT'S THE ONE. THAT WAS THE $10 MILLION. >> WE'VE SEEN THAT IN A COUNCIL MEETING? [OVERLAPPING]. NO, WE HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. >> PARK BOARD WAS GOING TO DO IT WITHOUT ASKING YOU. >> I'M JUST SAYING, WE HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE WILL GET THAT TO YOU. >> LET ME LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ON HERE, PARK BOARD HAS BEEN VERY FORTHCOMING. THEY HAVE BEEN WILLING TO WORK WITH US. THERE HAS BEEN NO HOOKUPS. WE ARE MOVING IN LOCK STEP ON THIS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS MEETING HERE IS THE FIRST AT ALL ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP WITH THEM BUYING THE TRAILERS. KIMBERLY HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY JUST KEEP ME IN THE LOOP. THERE'S BEEN NO OTHER ISSUES. >> I WANT TO STATE THAT THIS IS NOT COMING FROM THEM. IT'S COMING FROM ME AS THE RESOLUTION BECAUSE I WAS AGAINST THE RESOLUTION AND I'M JUST SEEING THAT 53 DAYS IS A LITTLE INEFFICIENT FROM MY STANDARDS. >> I WOULD RESPOND, IT'S SOME PROGRESS WHICH IS SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. >> THANK YOU, DUDLEY. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED AS YOU WANTED THEN. >> SOUNDS GOOD. SEND THAT MATERIAL, WILL BE HERE TO THIS PROBABLY IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. >> ACTUALLY, I'LL GET IT TOGETHER TUESDAY AND PROBABLY JUST EMAIL IT DIRECT OUT TO EVERYBODY. >> JUST EMAIL STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL. >> SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU, DUDLEY. >> ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE, FEEL FREE TO GIVE ME A CALL. >> SURE, WE WILL. >> THANK YOU. >> MOVING TO ANOTHER TOUCH SUBJECT THAT'S EASIER, SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION FEES AND TRANSFER TO THE CITY. DON. UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE ON THE TRANSFER OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL FEES >> I SENT AN AGREEMENT TO THEIR LAWYER A WEEK AGO. HE BROKE HIS KNEE. I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S HAD A CHANCE TO WORK ON IT. MY AGREEMENT WAS BASED ON AN ESTIMATE OF 5,000 SHORT-TERM RENTALS. BASED ON THE BUDGET DISCUSSION THIS MORNING, I SAW THE NUMBER IS 4,400. WHILE I WAS SITTING THERE, I CHANGED IT DOWN TO 4,400. CHANGED A LITTLE BIT OF THE MATH. HE THANKED ME FOR THE UPDATED VERSION AND SAID HE'S WORKING THROUGH THE ISSUES, BUT HE HASN'T TOLD ME WHAT THOSE ISSUES ARE. THERE'S MY UPDATE. >> I THOUGHT WE WERE VERY CLEAR IN OUR ORDINANCE WHEN WE WROTE THAT. >> IT WAS CLEAR, THE AMOUNT WAS TO BE 250. >> BUT WE NEVER ADDRESSED. >> BUT WE NEVER ADDRESSED WHAT THE SPLIT WAS GOING TO BE. >> WHERE THE MONEY IS [OVERLAPPING]. >> POSSIBLY WAITING FOR THE COST OF SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT. IT DOESN'T MATTER. I THINK NEXT MONTH I SHOULD BRING BACK AND ORDINANCE SAYING YOU'RE GOING TO DELIVER THE MONEY TO THE PARK TO CITY COUNCIL. >> I THOUGHT WE ALREADY COVERED THE AMOUNT THEY WERE KEEPING THE AMOUNT WE WERE GETTING AND THE REST. >> THAT CONVERSATION IN THE JOINT MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT $50 OF IT, EXISTING $50 TO FUND THEIR SOFTWARE AND THE 200 TO COME BACK FOR MARSHALL. THE MARSHALS EFFORTS, BRYSON SAID HE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE CLOSER TO SOMEWHERE BETWEEN $70-$100. MY COMMENT AT THE TIME WAS, WE CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE PARK BOARD HOLD ON THIS IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS JOB FOR US. THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THEIR ATTITUDE. THEIR SAID ATTITUDE IT SEEMS TO BE, LET'S JUST KEEP ALL THE MONEY AND THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. [OVERLAPPING] LIAISON, THAT IS NOT THE TEMPERATURE OVER THERE. THEY DID NOT SAY THAT. ONLY HAPPENING. >> ONLY ONE PERSON SAID THAT. >> THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING. >> THE ONLY REASON WHY THAT'S HAPPENING IS THERE'S NO VEHICLE TO SEND THE MONEY OVER. THERE'S NOTHING IN THAT ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, OTHER THAN THE $50, SEND THE MONEY OVER AND THEN THAT WILL MAKE THEM HOLD. [OVERLAPPING] >> WHY WAS THAT? [LAUGHTER] >> WE JUST GOT TO DO WITH BUTTERFLIES. [LAUGHTER] >> DAN, MIKE BOUVIER IS EXACTLY RIGHT. THERE'S NOTHING IN THAT ORDINANCE THAT OUTLINES THAT. DAN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN UPDATE TOO AS SOON AS YOU GET THAT FROM THE ATTORNEY, GO AHEAD AND NOTIFY COUNCIL, WOULD YOU PLEASE? [03:55:02] >> GOT YOU. >> THAT SOUNDS GOOD. PROCEDURES FOR GOVERNING THE SWEARING IN OF A NEW PARK BOARD MEMBER, DAN. >> I HARDLY DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY [LAUGHTER] THERE'S A STATUTE THAT DESCRIBES WHAT THE PROCEDURE IS TO SWEAR AGAIN. IT SAYS THE OATHS AND POSTING OF THE BOND HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE THE CITY SECRETARY. >> WITHIN 15 DAYS OF APPOINTMENT. >> WITHIN 15 DAYS. >> WHICH MEANS NO ONE SITTING ON THE PARK BOARD TODAY. >> NO. >> WAS JUST SWORN IN PER STATE LAW. THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE WAY BACK TO ME. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROCEDURE WAS IN THOSE DAYS. >> EVERYBODY DOES THE BOND THING. >> EVERYBODY DOES THE BOND. MORE THAN ONE TRUSTEE SAID, I DIDN'T DO A BOND. NOW YOU DO. MICHELLE PUT THAT ON THE TABLE IN FRONT OF YOU, ITS JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS TO SIGN IT'S THERE. BUT IT WAS NEVER FILED WITH THE CITY SECRETARY ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, CERTAINLY WOULDN'T NOT IN 15 DAYS. IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE. EVEN A GREATER CONCERN TO ME IS THAT THIS IS WHY I SAID WE NEED TO HAVE AN IMMEDIATE JOINT MEETING WITH THE TRUSTEE IS AFTER WE APPOINT THEM BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS THEY HAVE TO BE SWORN IN WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER APPOINTMENT. WE'VE NEVER DONE THAT. WE'VE NEVER COMPLIED TO THAT ASPECT OF THE LAW. MIKEY WAS NOT SWORN IN WITHIN 15 DAYS. I WASN'T SWORN IN 15 DAYS. >> WE'VE NEVER SWORN THEM IN, THEY'D BEEN SWORN IN AS A PARK BOARD. >> CERTAINLY NOT WITHIN 15 DAYS. >> NO, YOU'RE RIGHT. >> BUT I DON'T THINK THE PARK BOARD'S QUALIFIED TO SWEAR THEMSELVES IN, TO SEEK COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS. THAT'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL. >> THERE'S A LIST THIS LONG OF PEOPLE WHO CAN ADMINISTER AN OATH. IT INCLUDES THE GOVERNOR. MAYBE WE CAN GET HIM DOWN UP, BUT THE STATUTE SAYS IT HAS TO BE THE CITY SECRETARY. GOVERNOR ABBOTT, WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER TIME. >> [OVERLAPPING] IN YOUR MEMO, THE CODE THAT YOU QUOTED WAS 306015A. IT STATES THAT TRUSTEE MUST QUALIFY FOR OFFICE BY TAKING THE OFFICIAL OATH AND FILING A GOOD AND SUFFICIENT BOND WITH THE CLERK OR SECRETARY OF THE MUNICIPALITY. IT DOESN'T SAY WHO HAS TO ADMINISTER THE OATH, BUT IT JUST SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE OATH AND THEN FILE THE GOOD AND SUFFICIENT [OVERLAPPING] >> IN 15 DAYS. >> IN 15 DAYS. NO, I GET IT, BUT I WAS JUST POINTING TO THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T GET THE GOVERNOR, WE COULD PROBABLY GET THE SECRETARY. BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S GREAT. >> I'VE TALKED TO JANELLE ON THIS. THEY SAID THAT IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT, WE CAN SQUARE THEM IN HERE. JANELLE'S HAPPY TO GO OVER TO THE PARK BOARD AND SWEAR THEM IN. >> [OVERLAPPING] MR FINKLEA WHEN I READ THIS, IT JUST SAYS THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE OFFICIAL OATH AND THEN THEY HAVE TO FILE A GOOD BOND WITH THE CITY SECRETARY. >> ITS WHERE YOU PUT THAT COMMA. >> I READ IT THAT THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE OATH WITH THE CITY SECRETARY AND FILE THE BOND WITH THE CITY SECRETARY. >> DON'T YOU THINK THEY WOULD REWROTE THAT, IT WOULD HAVE SAID THE CITY SECRETARY MUST SWEAR IN THE TRUSTEE AND TAKE THE BOND. >> THERE'S NO COMMA IN THAT SENTENCE. >> WELL, THERE'S AN AND. >> A TRUSTEE MUST QUALIFY FOR OFFICE BY TAKING THE OFFICIAL OATH AND FILING A SUFFICIENT BOND WITH THE SECRETARY. >> WHICH IS PRETTY COMMITTED TO COMPLIANCE. >> WELL, YEAH. >> I HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM. BUT THAT TWO WEEKS FOLLOWING JANELLE'S SWEARING THEM IN, HAVE TO DO BOND AND FILE, WHICH HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. >> WE STRUCTURE THAT [OVERLAPPING] 60 SOMETHING YEARS. >> THE FACT THAT YOU'RE THAT YOU'VE BEEN SPEEDING FOR 60 SOMETHING YEARS DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ILLEGAL TODAY, DOES IT? >> I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO [LAUGHTER] >> I KNOW YOU DON'T LIKE COMPLYING WITH THE LAW. >> IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T LIKE COMPLYING WITH THE LAW. >> YOU MUST VOTED AGAINST COMPLYING WITH THE LAW EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, YOU HAVE. >> I HAVE NOT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAVID. [OVERLAPPING]. >> JUST BECAUSE ONE ATTORNEY SAYS SOMETHING IN ANOTHER ATTORNEY SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, DOESN'T MEAN I'M BREAKING THE LAW. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU KEEP SAYING THAT I VOTE TO BREAK THE LAW. >> HOW MANY CITY ATTORNEYS DO WE HAVE? >> DAVID AND JOHN [OVERLAPPING] >> WE HAVE ATTORNEYS OPINIONS OUT THERE. IF YOU WANT TO LISTEN TO HIM, THAT'S FINE. I THINK THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS OUT THERE AND THAT'S HOW THE LAW IS WRITTEN. I SEE THE LAW DIFFERENTLY. >> THOSE ARE ASSUMPTIONS. >> EXACTLY. >> I DON'T HAVE MY GAVEL, SO [OVERLAPPING] >> I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU KEEP SAYING WE'RE BREAKING THE LAW. I'M VOTING ON BREAKING THE LAW. [04:00:01] YOU'VE SAID IT SEVERAL TIMES IN WRITING [NOISE] AND YOU'RE WRONG. I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. YOU'RE WRONG. >> WELL, YOU KNOW YOU'RE LIKE THE PARK BOARD. PICK A LAWYER, ANY LAWYER? >> DAVID, THIS IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. LET'S MOVE FORWARD. [OVERLAPPING] >> I WASN'T EVEN TALKING. >> WE'RE NOT ON THIS. COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND, IT'S ALREADY FIVE AFTER ONE RIGHT NOW. COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE BRIAN, ON THE REMAINING PART, YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE HERE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YEAH. I CAN HIT THEM REALLY QUICK. WE HAVE A PLAN FOR TRAFFIC AND CONTROL INGESTION FOR THE 4TH OF JULY, [3.G. Discussion Of Council Topics (20 Min) 1. Discussion of Traffic Control /Traffic Congestion (Robb/Brown) 2. Discussion of Cellular and Internet Access During Peak Season (Robb/Brown) 3. Discussion of Arts Funding (Collins/Brown) 4. Discussion of Wildflower Ordinance (Council)] WHICH INVOLVE BARRICADING OFF CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE INUNDATED WITH CARS THE LAST TIME. WE CAN'T CONTROL WHAT GOOGLE MAPS DOES TO SEND PEOPLE PLACES, BUT WE'LL DO THAT. >> NOW, THIS IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I THINK I'M GETTING TAKEN CARE OF WITH THE MAYOR OF JAMAICA BEACH. >> ITS OKAY. >> THEY DIDN'T KNOW HOW TO SET THEIR LIGHT. WHAT HAD HAPPENED IS THERE WAS A 90 MINUTE BACK IN JAMAICA BEACH. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S IN REFERENCE TO. >> ON ITEM 2, I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU GUYS ADD TO SALLY'S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT THIS BE ATTACKED BY THE STATE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, OR ANY CONTROL OVER THE CELL PHONE CARRIERS OF THE INTERNET PROVIDERS HERE IN THE ISLAND. WE CAN ALWAYS CALL THEM, BUT WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE SAME NUMBER AND REQUESTED ANY CITIZEN. >> I BEG TO DIFFER ON THAT. THIS IS MY AREA, SO I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT. >> SURE. >> ONE, ALL OF US IN OUR AREAS COULD BE WORKING WITH UTILITIES AND GETTING MORE TOWER COVERAGE. WE HAVE A SAFETY ISSUES THAT EXIST ON WEEKENDS WHERE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND, YOU EITHER CAN'T MAKE A PHONE CALL OR YOU CAN'T GET TO THE INTERNET, OR YOU DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY. IT AFFECTS OUR TOURISTS, IT AFFECTS OUR CITIZENS. >> WHAT WOULD COUNCIL DO ABOUT IT? WE DON'T OWN CELL TOWERS. >> BUT WE COULD LOOK AT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY [OVERLAPPING] >> WE DON'T BUILD THAT INFRASTRUCTURE >> THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT AS FAR AS BROADBAND AND SO FORTH. >> TOWERS? NONE OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE BUILD OR CONTROL? >> NOT THAT WE BUILD, BUT WE COULD BE [OVERLAPPING] >> THIS IS NOT COUNCIL'S TIME. >> ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MEET WITH THOSE PROVIDERS TO UNDERSTAND THEIR CURRENT HEATMAP AND THEN TRY TO INFLUENCE ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE. >> WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. I'M ALREADY DOING THAT WITH AT&T AND WE'RE GETTING THREE NEW TOWERS, WELL, ACTUALLY FOUR NEW TOWERS. BUT THERE ARE WAYS THAT THE CITY COULD HAVE A BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE. FIBER WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE WIRELESS. IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT OUR TAX COULD SUPPORT IT. THERE ARE THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN WHERE YOU COULD HAVE BETTER SERVICES FOR A TOURIST AND OUR CITIZENS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE. >> BRIAN, WHAT CONVERSATION HAVE YOU HAD WITH OUR CARRIERS ON THIS? >> WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE GOVERNMENTAL CONTEXTS WITH OUR CARRIERS ABOUT IT AND THEY'RE AWARE OF THE ISSUE, BUT THEY STRUGGLE. EVERYBODY WANTS MORE TOWERS. NOBODY WANTS A TOWER BEHIND HER HOUSE. THAT'S WHAT THEY TELL US. KEEP IN MIND THAT AT&T AND VERIZON, THEY DON'T OWN THEIR TOWERS. THEY WORK WITH TOWER COMPANIES. WE GET APPROACHED ON A REGULAR BASIS FROM TOWER COMPANIES WANTING TO LOCATE TOWERS IN PLACES THAT WE JUST DON'T ALLOW TOWERS. >> WHAT'S THE STATUS ON THE TERM WATER TOWER, AND THE THREE AT&T. THEY ALREADY HAVE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. WHAT'S THE STATUS ON THAT? >> ON THEIR TOWER? >> ON OUR WATER TOWER. >> I THINK WE ANSWERED EVENTUALLY LIKE A YEAR OR TWO AGO. >> RIGHT, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING YET. BRAD, CAN YOU GET ME A STATUS UPDATE? >> WE'LL TRY. WE CAN REACH OUT TO THEM AND SEE, BUT YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT VERY RESPONSIVE. >> THAT'S YOUR SUGGESTION. LET'S SAY TALK TO SALLY AND GET IT ON THE LIST. >> YEAH. BECAUSE YOU KEEP IN MIND, GUYS, THE CITY USED TO HAVE FRANCHISE ABILITY ON ALL THESE THINGS, AND THE STATE TOOK ALL OF THAT AWAY FROM US. NOW EVERYBODY WANTS THE CITY TO DO SOMETHING WHEN THE STATE ACTUALLY TOOK OVER THAT RESPONSIBILITY. THAT'S WHY I SAY, SALLY REALLY IS YOUR KING PIN IN THIS BECAUSE EITHER THEY NEED TO DELEGATE THAT AUTHORITY BACK TO THE CITIES OR THE STATE NEEDS TO STAND UP SOMEBODY THAT WE CAN TALK TO, THAT IT'LL HELP US. >> WELL, AND YOUR LEGISLATORS, BUT I STILL THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL COULD BE MORE PROACTIVE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN FASTER. THAT'S MY OPINION. I'M HAVING SUCCESS AT IT. IF WE WERE ALL WORKING THAT WE COULD HAVE MORE SUCCESS. WE COULD INSTEAD LOOK AT WIRED SOLUTIONS WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO SUBMIT INFRASTRUCTURE. [04:05:03] YOU CERTAINLY SEE CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE COUNTRY WORKING ON SOLUTIONS ALONG THAT LINE WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY DONE BY THE MUNICIPALITY. >> COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ALREADY HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE PROVIDERS. >> ONLY AT&T BECAUSE WE HAVE A MAJOR VOID ON THE WEST END. >> BUT IN THE PROCESS OF MEETING WITH THE AT&T PROVIDERS FOR YOUR SPECIFIC DISTRICT, WOULDN'T IT BE A VERY EASY ASK TO HAVE THEM LOOKING AT AN EXPANDED HEAT MAP FOR THE ENTIRE ISLAND SINCE YOU ALREADY HAVE THEIR ATTENTION? >> WE COULD, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE IF OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE IN THE CITY WERE INVOLVED IN IT BECAUSE THIS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS TOURISTS AND CITIZENS ALIKE. WHEN PEOPLE CAN'T ON A BUSY WEEKEND, MAKE A PHONE CALL OR CALL THE POLICE, THAT'S AN ISSUE. WE NOW ALL KNOW AS MOST PEOPLE GOT RID OF THEIR LANDLINES BECAUSE THEY WERE WASHED OUT. I THINK WE CAN KEEP OUR HEADS IN THE SAND OR WE COULD ADDRESS THIS AS ACIDIC BECAUSE I THINK IT IS A CRITICAL ISSUE. >> I WOULD AGREE. I THINK WE CAN PUT PRESSURE IN SOME MANNER HERE AT THE CITY. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH? >> WELL, PERHAPS I COULD BE INVITED TO ATTEND. >> WE'LL DO OUR BEST. >> WHAT WOULD YOU SAY, DAN? >> PERHAPS INVITE SOME OF THE COMPANIES TO DO YOUR INSURANCE DIRECTLY. >> ANY MORE ON THAT? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHEN YOU HEAR TALKING, YOU READ ABOUT BROADBAND BEING EXPANDED IN CERTAIN COMMUNITIES, DOES ANYBODY KNOW HOW THIS? >>THEY'RE DOING IT THROUGH FIBER OPTICS AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MUNICIPALITIES CAN BE INVOLVED IN AND YOU ARE SEEING THAT HAPPENING ACROSS THE COUNTRY. >> WE DO IT WITH EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICTS AND COMMUNICATION DISTRICTS TYPICALLY. WE HAVE ONE HERE, THEY HAVE CHOSEN. IT'S AN INDEPENDENT BOARD APPOINTED BY THE COUNTY, NOT THE CITY. IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE PAST ABOUT SMART CITIES AND ALL THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. WE COULD PROBABLY FORM A DISTRICT HERE, WOULD PROBABLY TAKE A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE TO DO THAT. BUT LOOK AT THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALREADY DID. THERE'S A TAXING DISTRICT [OVERLAPPING] >> THE PEOPLE, I KNOW I'M GETTING CALLS. MEMORIAL DAY. PEOPLE COULDN'T MAKE A CALL, GET TO THE INTERNET OR ANYTHING AND WHEN YOU CAN'T EVEN CALL THE POLICE, THAT'S AN ISSUE. THAT'S UNDENIABLY AN ISSUE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WERE STUCK, NOT DEPENDENCE ON THE OTHER SIDE, MAKE A BEACH AND YOU COULDN'T EVEN CALL ANYONE. THEY UNDERSTAND IT, THEY HAVE A NEW MARRIAGE. SHE'S GREAT. I MET HER AT THE HURRICANE MEETING. I'D LIKE TO MAYBE IF I COULD BRIAN HAVE A MEETING WITH HER, MAYBE BRING SOMEBODY FROM OUR TRAFFIC DIVISION OR TRAINER BECAUSE I THINK THEY JUST DON'T KNOW. >> I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT'S YOUR SIGNAL. >> BUT THAT'S THEIR SIGNAL. IT'S TECH STUFF, BUT WE CONTROL. LIKE OUR CITY DOES, IT'S THROUGH THE TECH STUFF. >> HAPPY TO AND WE CAN SHOW THEM HOW TO OPERATE THE BOX MANUAL. >> RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IF IT WAS CHANGED TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE CITIZENS TO GET OUT ON A REGULAR DAY AND THEY DIDN'T FACTOR IN WHAT WOULD HAPPENED ON A WEEKEND. >> HAPPY TOO. WE DO THAT HERE ALL THE TIME. >> BUT I WOULD LIKE ASSURANCE, IF YOU GO TO A TML OR NATIONAL LEAGUE CITIES, CITIES ARE DOING THIS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. >> VERY GOOD. >> WE'LL SEE ABOUT INVITING THEM TO ONE OF COUNCIL MEMBER MEETINGS. >> DISCUSSION OF ARTS FUNDING, I CAN MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. BECAUSE IT HAS BECOME ONE MORE POLITICAL FOOTBALL TRYING TO GET CERTAIN ENTITIES LINED UP ON THIS, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESEARCH THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. BUT I NEED ANOTHER MASTER PLAN, BUT WE NEED SOMEBODY ON STAFF WHO'S GOING TO SEE HOW THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN OTHER CITIES, AND COME BACK TO US WITH A PLAN. I'VE TALKED WITH BRIAN ABOUT THIS AND HE'S WILLING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GETTING SOMEONE TO YOU. >> WE'LL GET SOMEBODY STAFFED UP, RUNNING ALL THIS. >> WE'LL BRING US BACK TO COUNCIL WHEN WE ASK HIM. >> IS IT RELATED TO LIKE DEFINING EITHER METRICS OR KPIS FOR EVALUATION FOR FUN? >> NO, IT'S HOW WE AS A CITY ORGANIZED THE FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CULTURAL ARTS. IT'S PART OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR CULTURAL ARTS MASTERPLAN. >> GOT YOU. BUT DAVID, I TALKED TO BRIAN A LITTLE BIT ON THIS. [04:10:01] MY THOUGHT IS IF WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION WITH SOMEBODY TO EVALUATE AND SEE HOW THAT SHOULD BE STRUCTURED. WE NEED TO ALSO LOOK AT ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION. >> ABSOLUTELY, BELIEVE ME. >> WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARK BOARD AND HOW THEY UTILIZE THEIR HIGHER. >> WE'RE IN EACH OTHER, CBP ARTS, HISTORIC CULTURAL ARTS WERE IN EACH OTHER'S LANES ON THIS SOMETIMES. THESE FUNDS, THE FUNDING IS KIND OF SHOTGUN. THEY'RE OUTSIDE ENTITIES THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN THIS THAT SOMEWHAT THE CITY INVOLVES SOME DON'T. WE NEED SOMEBODY. >> WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS COMPREHENSIVELY ON OUR TOTAL MANAGEMENT THOUGHT. >> AS THE IMPLEMENTATION. WE HAVE THE CULTURAL ARTS MASTER PLAN. WE NEED A MAP FOR IMPLEMENTING THIS AND SO THAT'S WHAT ONE OF THE WORKERS OF BRIAN SAID. >> I SEE YOU FEEL MY PAIN. SHE JUST BROUGHT THE BLANKET UP [LAUGHTER]. >> CAN WE COUNCIL ON ROBERT BLANK. >> WE'LL MOVE FORWARD BRIAN, THAT PERSON YOU'LL COME BACK AND REPORT TO COUNSEL BEFORE DO ANYTHING, OR THAT IS BEFORE THAT PERSON'S FIRED? >> NO. >> OR WHEREVER WE WANT. >> AS A STAFFING ISSUE, I'LL TAKE HIM. >> WITH THAT, COME BACK TO COUNCIL THEN. >> WHEN SHE HAS A PLAN OR HE HAS A PLAN. >> BUT WHAT WE WANT HER TO DO COMPREHENSIVELY. >> HE OR ME? >> YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? >> YES, SIR. [3.H. Discussion Of Park Board Applicants (Robb/Collins - 20 Min)] >> NELLIE, 3H PLEASE. >> ITEM 3H, DISCUSS OF PARK BOARD APPLICANTS. >> WELL, ANOTHER VERY SIMPLE TOPIC. DAVID, YOU HAD BROUGHT THIS FORWARD. >> WE'RE NOT GOING TO COME TO ANY FURTHER AGREEMENT THAN WE HAVE ALREADY, SO NO APPOINTING THE HOST. >> BECAUSE IT WASN'T AS TALKING ABOUT HOW THEIR RANK EM OR THINGS LIKE THAT OR. >> I THOUGHT WE'RE GOING TO AGREE ON THAT EITHER. >> I HAVE SOME OF THE INPUT. HOW DO WE GO FROM FIVE APPLICANTS OR FIVE TOP FIVE TO SEVEN. IN THE MEETING, WE ALL AGREED UPON AND YOU RESTATED FIVE. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE GET AN EMAIL FROM JANELLE SAYING TO LIST YOUR TOP SEVEN THAT WAS NEVER AGREED UPON IN THIS MEETING. >> CORRECT. >> THAT WAS MINE, I TOOK THAT ON MYSELF. I TOOK INPUT FROM COUNCIL WOMAN ROBB, AND I MADE THE DECISION TO MOVE IT TO SEVEN. >> TO SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS. >> YOU'RE RIGHT MIKE. I DID NOT REMEMBER. I HAD YOU NOW, AFTER I MADE THAT DECISION. HAD JANELLE GO BACK AND LISTEN TO THE TAPING, AND SHE SAID IT WAS FIVE. THAT WAS MY MISTAKE. >> WELL, HERE'S MY QUESTION. WHY IS IF WE WENT BACK IN 19 WE ALL CHANGE THE PROCESS. SHE WENT TO THIS RANKING THING OR MAYBE IT WAS IN 15 OR 16 WHENEVER THAT RANK HE SAYS THAT COMMAND, AND IT WAS ALL THE APPLICANTS, WE RANK THEM. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT CAME TO THIS AND IT'S LIKE, NOPE, WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT, EVEN THOUGH THIS IS THE WAY WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IT. NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO INTERVIEWS, WHICH IS INSULTING TO THE APPLICANTS WHAT EVERYONE ELSE SAYS, I'LL ALWAYS HAD A CHANCE TO INTERVIEW. YOU KNOW IT'S LIKE WE DO THINGS A CERTAIN WAY AND THEN IT'S LIKE DOWN WEIGHT THEM LIKE THAT, SO IT WILL CHANGE THAT NOW. >> WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN ORDINANCE. >> RESOLUTION. >> EXCUSE ME,. >> THAT'S A RESOLUTION. >> RESOLUTION AND THAT RESOLUTION ALLOWS US TO NOT DO INTERVIEWS. RESOLUTION DID NOT SAY THAT INTERVIEWS HAVE TO BE DONE AND WHEN WE DISCUSSED THAT AT THE WORKSHOP, IT WAS THE CONSENSUS OF COUNCIL THAT WE WOULD NOT DO INTERVIEWS. >> THAT RESOLUTION GAVE US PRETTY MUCH CORD WANTED, THE WAY WE WANTED. >> CORRECT. >> I'VE NEVER AGREED WITH THE RANKING NOTION. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GIVE JANELLE THE LIST OF WHO WE WANT ON THERE AND SHE BASICALLY COUNTS VOTES, AND THEN SEES WHO WINDS UP TOP FIVE ON THE LIST. THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO IT THAN IT'S BEEN DONE. >> UP UNTIL THIS ONE, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN INTERVIEWS OF PLANNING, PARK BOARD AND ABOUT ARE HOW MANY APPLICANTS, AND GRANTED. IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN A LONG TIME. I JUST THINK IT'S DISRESPECTFUL TO THE PEOPLE APPLYING THAT, YOU CHANGE IT, IT IS LIKE, WELL, THEY WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO BE INTERVIEWED BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY NOW. WE'RE NOT GRANTED, I KNOW IT TAKES OUR TIME AND BUT IT'S DISRESPECTFUL TO PEOPLE TO SAY, BUT THIS GROUP WE'RE NOT GOING TO INTERVIEW. >> WOULD HAVE HAD TO DO WITH THE NUMBER AND I DON T THINK IT WAS DISRESPECTFUL. I THINK COUNCILMAN COMICS EVEN BROUGHT UP THAT IT WAS MORE RESPECTFUL OF THE CANDIDATES TO PUT UP TO QUESTIONS. [04:15:01] >> I DISAGREE. >> WELL, I UNDERSTAND. >> THIRTY SEVEN SITTING IN THE ROOM WAITING AND BY THE TIME HE GOT TO NUMBER 30, WERE YOU GIVEN THEM THE SAME CONSIDERATION AND ATTENTION YOU GAVE A NUMBER 2? A QUESTION WHETHER WE WOULD KNOW,. >> BUT I MEAN, WE'RE BLESSED IN A CITY TO HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING [OVERLAPPING]. >> LISTEN, SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT DISCIPLINE. WE DID ALL AGREE TO THE PROCESS, THE PROCESS HAS BEEN COMPLETED. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH AND DISCUSS THE WHATEVER THE TOP FIVE THEY'RE GOING TO BE. >> HE PUT THIS ITEM ON I JUST SECOND IN TIP OF THE SOCCER. >> LESSON LEARNED. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REVISIT WHEN WE HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN. >> YEAH [NOISE] >> NEXT TIME AROUND WE'LL BE INTERVIEWING AGAIN. WE'LL HAVE 60 CANDIDATES [LAUGHTER]. WE FIGURE OUT WHERE WE WANT TO DO WITH 60 CANDIDATES. >> ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD. >> DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE DAVID, YOU WANT TO SAY? MARIE, THIS WAS YOU AND DAVID SAY? >> WELL, I JUST SECONDED IT [LAUGHTER]. >> SOUNDS GOOD. IT IS 1:23 PM PURSUANT TO [4. EXECUTIVE SESSION] TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.072 AND EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE ACQUISITION OF REAL ESTATE BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON. IT IS NOW TAKING PLACE. IT IS 1:24 P.M, WE ARE NOW MOVING IN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> OKAY. >> WE'RE BACK ON. IT IS 01:34 P.M. WE ARE NOW BACK OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.