Aug 24, 2023 Regular Council

>> REBECCA, WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS COMING UP. THANK YOU.

>> VERY GOOD. IT IS 5:16 PM, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8A.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? HEARING NO COMMENT AND NO RESPONSE.

IT IS 5:17 PM, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING THIS BACK TO COUNCIL FOR ACTION.

>> I'LL MOVE AN APPROVAL FOR THIS ONE.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL, AND COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING MANUALLY TODAY.

I FORGOT TO MAKE WE'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS WITH COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, ATTENDING FROM A VIRTUALLY.

WE NEED TO VOTE MANUALLY IF WE COULD, SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, COUNCILMAN COLLINS AND SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN LEWIS.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND FOR THOSE THAT ARE ON APPROVAL? THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

ITEM 8B, PLEASE, MA'AM?

[8.B. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Designating The Property Located At 1620 Winnie/Avenue G, As A “Galveston Landmark”, Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lots 12 & 13, Block 376, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Requesting The Historic Preservation Officer Record The Property's Landmark Designation In The Official Public Records Of Real Property In Galveston County, The Tax Records Of The City Of Galveston And The Central Appraisal District, And The Official Zoning Maps Of The City Of Galveston, Texas; Planning Case Number 23P-044; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (D. Lunsford)]

>> ITEM 8B, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1620 WINNIE AVENUE G, AS THE GALVESTON LANDMARK PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS NB MINARD SURVEY LOTS 12 AND 13 BLOCK 376.

IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, REQUESTING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RECORD THE PROPERTY'S LANDMARK DESIGNATION IN THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF REAL PROPERTY IN GALVESTON COUNTY, THE TAX RECORDS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

PLANNING CASE NUMBER 23P-044 MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

>> MR. LUNSFORD WITH THIS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS THE BOYD SILING HOUSE.

BOYD SILING SENIOR WAS BORN HANOVER GERMANY IN 1821.

HE IMMIGRATED TO GALVESTON IN 1845, THE AGE OF 21.

RECENTLY TRAINED IN SADDLERY.

HE OPENED HIS OWN BUSINESSES, WHICH LED HIM TO EXPAND HIS VENTURES INTO REAL ESTATE.

MR. SILING BUILT A HOUSE AT 1620 WINNIE FOR HIS DAUGHTER CLARA AND HER HUSBAND WORTHY BOYD.

BOYD WORKED AS A COTTON WARE AND FOUND THE SEALY RIFLES, WHICH WAS A SPORT SHOOTING TEAM WITH WHOM HE WON A NUMBER OF COMPETITIONS.

THE SILING BOYD HOUSE AT 1620 WINNIE WAS COMPLETED IN 1890 AND RETAINS A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY.

BECAUSE OF THIS AND ITS ASSOCIATION WITH GALVESTON BUSINESS OWNERS, LANDMARK COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

THAT CONCLUDE STATUS REPORT.

>> THANK YOU, DANIEL.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LUNSFORD, COUNCIL? VERY GOOD.

IT IS 5:19 PM, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8B.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS? HEARING NO RESPONSE, I'M BRINGING IT BACK TO COUNCIL AT 5:19 PM, AND MOTION FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL, COUNCIL?

>> I WILL MOVE APPROVAL OF ITEM 8B.

>> HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COUNCILMAN COLLINS AND SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.

ITEM 8C, PLEASE?

[8.C. Landmark Designation Request (3205 Avenue N) Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Designating The Property Located At 3205 Avenue N, As A “Galveston Landmark”, Property Is Legally Described As M. B. Menard Survey, Lot 6, Northwest Block 38 Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Requesting The Historic Preservation Officer Record The Property's Landmark Designation In The Official Public Records Of Real Property In Galveston County, The Tax Records Of The City Of Galveston And The Central Appraisal District, And The Official Zoning Maps Of The City Of Galveston, Texas; Designating The Site As A Historically Or Archeological Significant Site In Need Of Tax Relief To Encourage Its Preservation; Planning Case Number 23P-048; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (D. Lunsford)]

>> ITEM 8C, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS,

[00:20:03]

DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3205 AVENUE N, AS THE GALVESTON LANDMARK.

PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS NB MINARD SURVEY LOT 6 NORTHWEST BLOCK 38, GALVESTON OUT LOTS.

IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, REQUESTING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RECORD THE PROPERTY'S LANDMARK DESIGNATION IN THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF REAL PROPERTY IN GALVESTON COUNTY, THE TAX RECORDS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, DESIGNATING THE SITE AS HISTORICALLY OR ARCHAEOLOGICAL, SIGNIFICANT SIGN IN NEED OF TAX RELIEF TO ENCOURAGE ITS PRESERVATION.

PLANNING CASE NUMBER 23P-048, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

>> MR. LUNSFORD? [NOISE]

>> THANK YOU, AGAIN. I'LL START BY TALKING ABOUT CONTRACTOR JAMES BURKE.

HE ACQUIRED THIS HOUSE IN 1894 FOR USE AS A TENANT RENTAL PROPERTY FOR AFRICAN AMERICANS.

1894 INSURANCE RECORDS NOTE THE HOUSE EXISTS AS EARLY AS 1886 WHEN IT WAS FIRST REPAIRED AND ENLARGED.

THE HOUSE WAS FURTHER MODIFIED TO A SKIRT APPEARANCE AROUND 1924.

IN 1899, THE GALVESTON CITY DIRECTORY NOTES DAO SMITH IS OCCUPANT OF 2617 AVENUE IN WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS ADJACENT TO CENTRAL HIGH.

NOTES MR. SMITH WAS IMPORTANT TO HER COTTON COMPRESS.

IT WAS MR. SMITH'S WIDOW AND DAUGHTER NONA WHO MOVED THE HOUSE TO ITS CURRENT LOCATION TO MAKE WAY FOR CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL EDITION.

NONA SMITH WAS AN EDUCATOR AT CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL, THE STATE'S FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOL.

SHE WAS EDUCATED AT FISK UNIVERSITY AND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND RETURNED TO CENTRAL HIGH AS A TEACHER AND THE DEAN OF STUDENTS.

AFTER HER PASSING IN 1944, THE HOUSE IS OWNED BY WILLARD DICKERSON.

MR. DICKERSON WAS AN EDUCATOR WHO SERVED AS A TEACHER, COUNSELOR AND BAND DIRECTOR AT CENTRAL HIGH, AND WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE ALPHA PHI ALPHA FRATERNITY.

BECAUSE OF ITS ASSOCIATION WITH PROMINENT GALVESTON AFRICAN AMERICAN EDUCATORS AND CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL LANDMARK COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION, STAFF RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

AND THIS CONCLUDES STATUS REPORT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LUNSFORD? IT IS 5:21 PM, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8C, ANY INPUT? YES, MA'AM. COME FORWARD.

>> MY NAME IS SARAH SALZMAN, I'M THE CURRENT OWNER OF SATA HOUSE.

YOU SAID 95% OF WHAT I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT, BUT I DO WANT TO MENTION SOME OF MY MORE RECENT RESEARCH ON MR. DICKERSON.

IN ADDITION TO BEING A JAZZ BAND LEADER IN TOWN AND BEING AN IMPORTANT PERSON AT CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL, THERE WAS A GROUP OF STUDENTS AT CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL WHO WANTED TO DO SOMETHING WHEN THE LUNCH COUNTER BOYCOTTS STARTED.

IN HIS SOCIAL SECURITY CLASS, SECURITY, I'M SORRY.

[LAUGHTER] I'M NOT NERVOUS, IN HIS SOCIAL STUDIES CLASS, HE GOT THE KIDS TOGETHER.

THEY FORMED A GROUP CALLED THE PROBLEM-SOLVERS AND HIS STUDENTS WERE THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE DAIRY QUEEN BOYCOTT AND WERE ARRESTED AT A LUNCH COUNTER SIT IN AT DAIRY QUEEN.

I THINK THAT IN ADDITION TO A NONA SMITH GOING ALL THE WAY TO NEW YORK TO GET A TEACHING DEGREE AND COME BACK HERE.

AND TO DOW AND ELIZABETH SMITH, WHO WERE BOTH BORN IN THE MIDDLE 1800S AND CAME HERE AND BECAME A FAMILY IN GALVESTON, I THINK THAT THIS HOME IS AN IMPORTANT STOP IN THE HISTORY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN GALVESTON.

THERE ARE PEOPLE MENTIONED IN IRELAND OF COLOR.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOUSE IN 1893, THERE'S A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HOUSE IN HERE.

WE JUST BELIEVED THAT THIS HOUSE IS AS GREAT VALUE IN GALVESTON AND IN THE AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITY.

>> THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR CARE TAKING ABILITIES WITH THIS HOME.

>> WE LOVE THIS HOME.

>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER INPUT ON THIS PUBLIC HEARING? IT IS 5:24 PM, I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8C, BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR ACTION.

>> I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, COUNCILWOMAN ROBB, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN LEWIS.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU'RE WELCOME. ITEM 8D, PLEASE, NELLY.

[8.D. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Creating A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay Zoning District In A Commercial, Height Density Development Zone (C-Hdz-6) Zoning District To Construct Eleven (11) SingleFamily Residential Units And A Reserve, On Property Commonly Known As 12223 San Luis Pass Road / FM 3005, And Which Is Legally Described As Part Of Lots Part 308, 325 And 326 (325-2), Trimble And Lindsey, Section 2, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Planning Case Number 23P-049; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject; And Providing For An Effective Date. (A. Montalvan)]

>> ITEM 8D, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, CREATING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT IN A COMMERCIAL HEIGHT DENSITY DEVELOPMENT ZONE.

ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT THE 11 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS, AND A RESERVE ON PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 12223 SAN LUIS PASS ROAD, FM3005, AND WHICH IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PART OF LOTS PART 308, 325, AND 326.

TREMLIN LINDSAY, SECTION 2 IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

PLANNING CASE NUMBER 23P-049,

[00:25:03]

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

>> PEDRO MANTOVAN FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PEDRO?

>> YES, SIR. THIS IS A REQUEST TO INCORPORATE YOUR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF PUD OVER LAKE DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL BASE ZONING DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT 11 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS.

THE INTENT OF THIS PART IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WIDTH REQUIRED AND THE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR A PRIVATE STREET AND TO REDUCE THE WIDTH OF THE PRIVATE STREET FROM 60 FEET TO 30 FEET.

PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS REQUEST IN JULY 18TH, AND A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED DUE TO A LACK OF FOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL WITH THE SPECIFIC AND STANDARD CONDITIONS LISTED ON PAGES 4 AND 5 OF THE REPORT. THAT CONCLUDES STATUS SUPPORT.

>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, PEDRO.

WE DISCUSSED THIS, THIS MORNING QUITE A BIT AT OUR WORKSHOP MEETING.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. MANTOVAN?

>> I HAVE ONE MAYOR. BRIEFLY THIS MORNING, ADRIAN, WE TALKED ABOUT CERTAIN STATE-LEVEL REVIEWS AND APPROVALS.

DOES THAT APPLY TO THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT OR JUST THAT PORTION OF IT ABUTTING THE BEACH?

>> YEAH. IT WOULD APPLIES TO, IN THIS CASE, THREE OF THE LOTS FALL WITHIN THE BEACHFRONT REQUIREMENTS, SO THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE, OF COURSE, REVIEWED DURING THAT PROCESS.

>> AND DO WE TYPICALLY WAIT FOR THE STATE TO WEIGH IN ON THESE THINGS BEFORE WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS OR ARE THEY WAITING ON US? I WAS UNCLEAR ON THIS ONE.

>> THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL, SO YEAH, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS, THE PUD.

>> SO IT ISN'T PERMITTED?

>> CORRECT, IT'S NOT OFFICIALLY PERMITTED THROUGH.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLEAR ON THE PROCESS HERE, WE WOULDN'T GO FORWARD WITH THE PERMITTING PROCESS UNTIL WE HAD HEARD FROM THE STATE'S REGARDING THE STATE REVIEW OF THIS.

IS THAT FAIR?

>> YEAH. THE FIRST STEP IS TO PUT PROCESS THEN DISTRICT PLOTTING PROCESS, AFTER THE LOTS ARE PLOTTED, THEN OF COURSE, THEY COULD COME BACK AND ASK FOR THE BEACHFRONT PERMITS, AND THAT'S WHEN PLANNING COMMISSION GETS INVOLVED, THEN THE STATE GETS INVOLVED.

>> THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE IS WHAT INVOLVES THE STATE?

>> CORRECT.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. THANK YOU.

>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR PEDRO?

>> IT IS 5:27 PM, I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.

I THINK WE HAVE A GROUP THAT WANTS TO BE SEQUENTIAL IN THEIR PRESENTATION.

WHAT I'M GOING TO DO, LET'S START OF, I THINK WERE SEVEN OF YOU, IS THAT CORRECT? ALRIGHT, LET'S GO AHEAD.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT IS 5:27.

[BACKGROUND] EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY.

[BACKGROUND] SURELY.

IS THE DEVELOPER HERE? I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, MARIE.

YES, SIR COME FORWARD.

>> JAY TULASEK, TULASK ACCOUNT.

>> DID YOU HAVE ONE MIKE, GIVE INPUT TO THE COUNCIL ON THIS PROJECTS, SIR?

>> REALLY I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

>> IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, SIR.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> REALLY ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS APPROVAL FOR 11 LOTS AND A PRIVATE STREET INSTEAD OF A PUBLIC STREET, AND SO THERE ARE A COUPLE ESSENTIALLY MINOR PERIMETERS THAT IN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PUBLIC STREET AND THE PRIVATE STREETS.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

IS IT CONSIDERANCE OF APPROVAL FROM COUNCIL FOR THAT?

>> ALRIGHT, GOOD. COUNCIL MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU COMING UP, BUT THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS, COME FORWARD.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SIT, SIR.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS LARRY MARBLE, I'VE OWNED A HOUSE IN SPANISH GRANT FOR 31 YEARS.

>> EXCUSE ME? OKAY

>> THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS TO CITY COUNCIL.

I'M GOING TO READ THIS, SO I DON'T GET DISTRACTED BY GETTING INVOLVED.

THIS MEETING IS NOT ABOUT ANYTHING BUT MAKING THE DEVELOPER DO WHAT IS RIGHT FROM THE START.

AT THE PLANNING MEETING, WE EXPRESS MANY MAJOR ISSUES THAT REMAIN UNCERTAIN AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION MUST HAVE AGREED BY REJECTING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

LAST WEEK, WE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER AT MY HOUSE IN SPANISH GRANT TO DISCUSS THE MAJOR CONCERNS AND HE INDICATED THAT HE WAS WORKING ON SOME OF THEM, LIKE BEACH ACCESS.

WE TOLD HIM THAT WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT THESE MAJOR ISSUES NEED TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE DEVELOPMENT IS APPROVED.

[00:30:01]

BEACH ACCESS IS ONE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT IS NOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

HOMES ON THIS SIDE OF 3005 NEED AN ACCESS PLAN.

THE SIZE, COST, AND DESIGN OF THESE 11 HOMES CANNOT GO FORWARD WITHOUT A PLAN FOR BEACH ACCESS.

WALKING THROUGH A PEDESTRIAN GATE ON 3005 TO GET TO THE BEACH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR PEOPLE AND GUESTS OF THESE HOMES.

DRIVING A GOLF CART OR A VEHICLE TO SPANISH GRANT OR HERSHEY BEACH ON 3005 TO GET TO THE BEACH IS AN UNREALISTIC SOLUTION.

THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED ADDING A GATE AT THE BEACH SIDE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE PEOPLE AND GUESTS FROM 11 HOMES ACCESS TO THE BEACH WITHOUT A DUNE PROTECTION PLAN AND WITHOUT FORM OF GLO APPROVAL SINCE THE DEVELOPER HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE EROSION RESPONSE PLAN THAT APPLIES TO SPANISH GRANT.

IF THE DEVELOPMENT WERE TO BE APPROVED WITHOUT BEACH ACCESS, HOW WILL IT BE RESOLVED? PROMISES BY THE DEVELOPER TO CORRECT MAJOR ISSUES ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY IF THEY ARE NOT IN THE INITIAL PLAN.

PER THE PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS PRESENTED, IT STATES, "MINOR ADDITIONS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN MAY BE APPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.'' THESE ARE NOT MINOR ISSUES.

THE ORDINANCE THAT IS TO BE SIGNED BY CITY COUNCIL STATES THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONFORM TO THE SITE PLAN AND DESIGN DETAILS.

AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE MAJOR ISSUES AND DEFICIENCIES THAT EXIST IN THIS PLAN, WE HOPE THAT YOU WILL AGREE THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO APPROVE THIS PLAN AT THIS TIME UNTIL CHANGES ARE MADE TO RESOLVE ALL OF THESE MAJOR ISSUES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE IT.

ANYONE ELSE?

>> [BACKGROUND] I DON'T KNOW IF SHE CAN GET [BACKGROUND].

>> WE GOT ONE FOR YOU, YOU CAN STAY SEATED.

>> I'M BETH MARBLE AND I'VE OWNED A HOME IN 12515 EAST VENTURA IN SPANISH GRANT FOR OVER 31 YEARS.

TO QUOTE PUD DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER, "THIS WILL BE A QUAINT, QUIET, AND AFFORDABLE COMMUNITY FOR BEACH LOVERS OR VACATION HOME OWNERS ALIKE." I QUESTION IF SELLING BEACH HOMES FOR $1 MILLION TWO TO $1 MILLION FIVE IS CONSIDERED TO BE AFFORDABLE.

THESE HOMES WILL BE ONLY 10 FEET APART AS THEY ARE NOT THE SAME DENSITY AS THE HOMES IN SPANISH GRANT.

THE LOT SIZES IN SPANISH GRANT ARE 6,350 SQUARE FEET ON THE EXISTING FIRST ROW, 5,130 SQUARE FEET ON THE EXISTING SECOND ROW, AND 5,643 SQUARE FEET ON THE EXISTING THIRD ROW, WHICH WILL NOW BE ADJACENT TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

SEVEN OF 11 OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT LOTS ARE SMALLER THAN THE SMALLEST SPANISH GRANT LOTS WITH MUCH LARGER HOMES OVER 3,000 SQUARE FT EACH IN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.

THEY ARE ALSO LONG AND NARROW BECAUSE THEY ARE ONLY 40 FEET WIDE LOT.

SPANISH GRANT HOMES ARE 20 FEET APART OR MORE.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS DENSITY IS AT LEAST ONE-AND-A-HALF HOMES TO R1 HOME, SINCE THEY ARE ONLY 10 FEET APART.

WE JUST WANT RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? [BACKGROUND]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

MY NAME IS PAT TOLLAD, BOY 1950.

[LAUGHTER] OUR HOME IS 12432 EAST VENTURA.

WE'VE HAD OUR HOME FOR 11 YEARS.

I HAVE THREE ISSUES THAT I WANT TO DISCUSS FLOODING, LACK OF DUNE PROTECTION, AND THE SEWER LIFT STATION.

FIRST, THE DEVELOPERS PROPOSED A DETENTION POND TO COLLECT RUNOFF.

THERE'S ALSO A PROPOSED PUMP LIFTS STATION TO MOVE THE WATER OUT OF THE DETENTION POND TO THE STORMWATER LINE ON FM 3005, SPANISH GRANT IS MOST VULNERABLE DURING STORMS, THAT IS WHEN WE'RE LIKELY TO HAVE A POWER FAILURE, AND WHEN A POWER FAILURE OCCURS THE PUMP WILL NOT WORK, THE HOMES ON SPANISH GRANT WILL FLOOD.

THERE'S ALSO A SWALE THAT IS PROPOSED,

[00:35:03]

RUNNING ALONG THE BACK OF THE SUBDIVISION.

THE SWALE IS PROPOSED ON THE BACK OF OUR HOMES, AND THE BACK OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

RUNOFF WILL BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE SWALE, WHICH MEANS IN HEAVY RAINS THE SWALE IS GOING TO OVERFLOW IN OUR ADJACENT PROPERTIES INCLUDING OUR STORAGE UNITS WILL BE IMPACTED.

THE DESIGN CALLS FOR THE SWALE TO START AT THE VERY SOUTHERN TIP OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS AT THE 25 FOOT BUILDING PROHIBITED ZONE, AND IT'S A CURRENT DUNE AREA.

SOMEHOW THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BUILD UP AN AREA AND GET THE WATER TO FLOW TO THE DETENTION AREA.

THE ELEVATION OF THAT AREA AT THE SOUTHERN TIP IS LOWER THAN THE ELEVATION OF THE DETENTION POND, SO WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO MOVE WATER UPHILL.

TRADITIONAL ENGINEERING WOULD HAVE THE RUNOFF FLOWING TO 3005, AND NOT TO THE BACK OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE BETTER SOLUTION WOULD BE ADDING CULVERTS WITH EACH DRIVEWAY ALONG THE PROPOSED ROAD, ALONG WITH DITCHES THAT WOULD MOVE THE WATER TO 3005.

THIS WOULD PREVENT THE WATER FROM BACKING UP INTO SPANISH GRANT, AND WOULD ACTUALLY MOVE IT OUT TO 3005, WHICH IS TRADITIONALLY HOW IT WOULD BE ENGINEERED.

ITEM NUMBER 2 IS THE DUNE PROTECTION IS NOT PART OF THE PROPOSED PLAN.

THE SOUTHERN TIP IS A UNIQUE AREA, BECAUSE IT COLLECTS RAINWATER UP THERE HIGH TIDES, STORM SURGES, AND BECAUSE THERE'S NO DUNE PROTECTION THEN THOSE THREE LOTS ON THE END WILL BE IMPACTED.

FINALLY, THE SEWER LIFT STATION IS NOT INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS, BUT EVEN THE DEVELOPER HAS ADMITTED THAT IT'S REQUIRED OR NOT SURE HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THE LOT SIZES, OR THE DESIGN OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT IMPACTED BY THE OPERATION OR THE LACK OF OPERATION OF THIS-.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE?

>> HI. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY.

MY NAME IS ARLENE GREINER, AND I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT AT 12436 EAST VENTURA DRIVE IN SPANISH GRANT [NOISE] FOR 37 YEARS.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, ACCORDING TO BOTH THE DEVELOPER'S SUBMISSION AND AS AMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, REQUIRES A THREE-SIDED FENCING AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PROJECT BOUNDARY.

ALSO, PLEASE NOTE THAT SOME OF THE FENCE IS LOCATED IN THE NO CONSTRUCTION ZONE.

FENCING IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO PREVENT TRESPASSING FROM A SEPARATE NEIGHBORHOOD THROUGH OUR HOMES, WITHOUT A MINIMUM SIX-FOOT FENCE IT IS GUARANTEED THAT OUR HOMES WILL BE USED TO GAIN ACCESS TO THE BEACH, WITHOUT A PRE-APPROVED ACCESS PLAN, OUR PROPERTIES WILL BE BREACHED.

>> CAN YOU MOVE THE MIC CLOSER TO YOU?

>> CLOSER?

>> SPEAK UP IF YOU COULD, PLEASE MA'AM.

>> SORRY. THEREFORE, WHISPERING SHORES IS A FENCED DUNE COMPOUND, HOMEOWNERS AND RENTERS WILL NEED TO EXIT THE COMPOUND THROUGH EITHER A MAIN GATE SHOWN ADJACENT TO FM 3005, THAT HAS NO SIDEWALK OR GET IN THEIR CAR AND DRIVE TO MOST LIKELY HERSHEY BEACH OR SPANISH GRANT TO ACCESS THE BEACH.

THIS IS DEFINITELY A SAFETY ISSUE.

SPANISH GRANT AND HERSHEY BEACH COMMUNITIES WILL BE IMPACTED.

WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS THAT THERE IS NO BEACH ACCESS PROVIDED IN THE PROPOSAL.

HOW DOES THE PROPOSED COMPOUND CALLED WHISPERING SHORES FALL UNDER A BEACH FRIENDLY COMMUNITY PROMISED BY THE DEVELOPER? AFTER MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPER LAST WEEK, I STILL FEEL THAT THERE ARE MANY MAJOR UNKNOWNS TO BE RESOLVED BEFORE THIS PLAN SHOULD BE APPROVED, AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF THEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

ANYONE ELSE ON THIS ITEM?

>> [BACKGROUND] [NOISE] HELLO.

>> HELLO.

>> MY NAME IS ROBIN MARTIN.

I'M IN 412 HERSHEY BEACH ROAD.

I'M ON THE BEACH ADJACENT SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND AS I SAID BEFORE WHEN I'VE BEEN IN A DIFFERENT MEETING IS, I REALIZED THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT LAW.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S PUT IN RIGHT,

[00:40:03]

AND THAT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY, EVEN THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO PURCHASE IT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE LIVING RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM, AND IT CAN AFFECT US.

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING SAID, AND HOPEFULLY THOSE WILL BE ADDRESSED.

I HAVE A LITTLE MORE OF A PERSONAL ISSUE.

WE BUILT A HOUSE IN 2014 ON OUR PROPERTY, AND WE MET WITH LYDIA AND THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, AND SHE TOLD US WE HAD TO PUT OUR HOUSE ALL THE WAY BACK.

WE HAD TO GO AND REDO OUR STRUCTURE DRAWINGS, WHICH WAS EXPENSIVE AS WELL AS TIME-CONSUMING, AND WE HAD TO RETAKE.

WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A FRONT DOOR LIKE MOST BEACH HOMES DO, BECAUSE WE HAD TO GET RIGHT UP AGAINST THE HOUSE BEHIND ME.

WE HAD TO MOVE THE STAIRS TO THE SIDE, PUT THE FRONT DOOR ON THE BACK, AND WE DO HAVE A LOT OF ROOM IN FRONT OF US NOW.

WHAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IS, IF WE ALLOW THIS DEVELOPMENT TO COME IN AND BUILD A BEACH HOUSE THAT I'M GOING TO BE FACING THE FRONT OF THE BEACH HOUSE.

NOW, THERE WAS A PRECEDENT SET FOR SURE ALREADY, WHEN I ASKED FOR A PERMIT IN 2014, AS I UNDERSTAND, THERE WAS RECENTLY SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROVED THAT WOULD ALLOW TO BUILD CLOSER, MAYBE THE 25 FOOT.

I'M NOT SURE AND I'M SURE THERE WAS EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THAT, BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS DIFFERENT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IS A PRECEDENT, IF YOU'VE MADE AN EXCEPTION.

WE CANNOT BE DOING THIS TO OUR RESONANCE, IT'S INFURIATING.

WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY.

WE LOVE GALVESTON, AND I'M FINE.

WE EVEN WENT TO BUYING THE PROPERTY OURSELF, AND BUILDING TWO OR THREE HOMES.

BUT FOR THEM TO WANT TO DO THAT, HAVE A HOUSE THAT FACES ME AND BUILD ALL THESE JUST TO SQUEEZE AND MANIPULATE AN EXTRA LAW IN THERE, IT'S JUST INFURIATING AND LUDICROUS.

I HOPE Y'ALL CONSIDER IT.

ALTHOUGH, I GUESS I CAN BUILD A HOUSE IN FRONT OF MINE.

[LAUGHTER] WE MAY APPLY FOR THAT PERMIT.

HOPEFULLY IT'S NOT APPROVED FOR THAT ONE HOUSE THAT I WILL BE FACING NOW, BECAUSE THAT'S I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK I REALLY LIKE GALVESTON.

I THINK IT'S REPRESENTED WELL, AND I KNOW Y'ALL MAKE A GOOD DECISION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR.

>> ONE MORE TIME, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

MY NAME IS JOE BELSKY, AND WE HAVE A PLACE IN SPANISH GRANT ON 12608 WEST VENTURA.

YOU'VE HEARD ALL THE CONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT, AND UNDERSTAND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE IS OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

THEY'RE OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT AS IT IS PROPOSED.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AS A COUNCIL IS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, WHICH IS PACK IN AS MANY HOUSES INTO A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY INSTEAD OF GOING OUT, AND BUYING A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WILL ACCOMMODATE WHAT THEY WANT.

THEY WANT TO PACK IT IN THIS SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND IT WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON DRAINAGE AND FOOT TRAFFIC, AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND THAT AREA.

WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GRANT THEM VARIANCES, AS THE YOUNG LADY JUST MENTIONED OVER HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GRANT THEM VARIANCES TO DO WHAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE ASKING YOU NOT TO APPROVE.

I UNDERSTAND BEING A COUNCIL MEMBER IN ANOTHER CITY, I WAS ON THE COUNCIL FOR 11 YEARS, SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR POSITION.

BUT YOU ARE OUR VOICE.

YOU ARE OUR REPRESENTATIVES AS TAXPAYERS.

WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO STAND UP AND SAY, NO, MR. DEVELOPER, WE LIKE IT THAT YOU'RE COMING INTO GALVESTON TO BUILD, BUT WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO BUILD IT UP TO OUR STANDARDS.

WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO IT PROPERLY, WHERE WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU VARIANCES, SO YOU CAN MAKE AN EXTRA DOLLAR AND THEN YOU'RE DOWN THE ROAD, AND YOU'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH IT LATER ON AFTER THE FACT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT ALONG.

FRANKLY, YOU DON'T REALLY WANT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FILLED UP EVERY MEETING EITHER, BECAUSE WE'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT IT.

BECAUSE I KNOW I DIDN'T LIKE IT THAT AWAY, THAT'S GOING TO BE A BAD NIGHT WHEN THE WORK OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FULL.

BUT I ASKED YOU TO DO YOUR JOB AND TO REJECT THIS AS IT IS PROPOSED, MAKE THEM COME BACK WITH A PLAN THAT IS SUITABLE FOR THE PIECE

[00:45:02]

OF PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE?

>> HI, THERE. MY NAME IS TERRY MUNIS AND I AM ALSO A FULL-TIME RESIDENT AT SPANISH GRANT.

THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY.

I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH ON A PERSONAL SIDE, MY HOME IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THOSE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE THE PROPERTIES BEHIND IT.

I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT MY BEDROOM IS GOING TO HAVE 20 FEET BEHIND MY BEDROOM AND THE LOT RIGHT RIGHT BEHIND IT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FOUND INTERESTING IS THAT STAFF DISCUSSED IN THE WRITE-UP THAT A PUD IT IS TO SCALE AND TO THE DENSITY OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND THEY ALSO USED A WORD THAT WILL ALSO PROVIDE THE APPROPRIATE BUFF, WHICH THAT TO ME MEANS THAT THERE'S ENOUGH DISTANCES BETWEEN THE HOUSES, AND YET WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE TURNED AROUND AND THE LIVING SPACE IS GOING TO BE FACING THE BEACH.

THEY HAVE THE PORCHES ALL LINED UP AND BUDDING RIGHT UP AGAINST MY BEDROOM.

TWENTY FEET I MEASURED BEFORE THE MEETING FROM THAT BLUE LINE ON THE WALL TO THAT FIRST WALL BACK THERE, THAT'S HOW CLOSE TO MY BEDROOM THE PORCHES THAT ALL THE RENTERS AND ANYBODY THAT COMES TO VACATION AND HAVE A GOOD TIME ARE GOING TO BE SITTING ON THOSE PORCHES BOTH ON THE FIRST-LEVEL AND THE SECOND LEVEL, HAVING A GOOD TIME.

I'M A FULL-TIME RESIDENT, I WORK FULL-TIME, I GOT TO GET UP AT 6:30 IN THE MORNING.

I GOT TO GO TO BED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, I GOT GRAY HAIR, SO IT BECOMES A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT AND CHALLENGING WHEN YOU HAVE THAT.

I WOULD JUST LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THAT.

I KNOW AT THE WORKSHOP YOU ALL DISCUSSED A LOT ABOUT THE ENTRANCE DRIVE, BUT I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN ADDITION TO, NOT ONLY HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT RIVERA AND THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT THEY'RE FENCED IN, AND I'M SURE WHEN THEY WERE DESIGNED, FM 3005 WAS NOT HAD AS MUCH TRAFFIC ON IT.

THEY DO HAVE A POCKET THAT ALLOWS FOR THE CARD READER TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE SITE, AND IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR A BIT DEEPER POCKET TO ALLOW CARS TO PARK.

YET HERE, THE WAY THEY'VE GOT THE FENCE AND NO CARD READER ACCESS, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.

ADDITION TO THAT, LOTS 3 AND 4, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICED THAT THE PERSON DRIVING IN HERE HAS TO DRIVE THROUGH LOT 4 TO GET INTO LOT 3 AND CAN'T EVEN BACK OUT, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK ON THAT PROPERTY.

IF THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE A POCKET HERE, THEN ALL SUDDENLY THESE TWO LOTS, HOW ARE THOSE GOING TO WORK? THEY'RE ALL GOING TO DRIVE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE EVEN GOING TO PARK IN THEIR OWN DRIVEWAYS, AND SO NOT ONLY IS THIS SEVERELY DANGEROUS TO HAVE THIS CAR STICKING OUT ON 305 WHEN EVEN COMING TO THE GROCERY STORE YESTERDAY.

MY TIME'S ABOUT UP, BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND HOPE Y'ALL REALLY TAKE IT INTO ACCOUNT. THANK YOU.

>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SERVING AS VANNA WHITE THROUGH ALL THIS.

[LAUGHTER] GREAT JOB ON THAT.

ANYONE ELSE? PEGGY?

>> [INAUDIBLE] PERSON INSURANCE ON TERRY BECAUSE SHE IS SO CRITICAL TO US, PULLING US TOGETHER.

I WANT TO GIVE HER KUDOS.

I AM UNSCRIPTED, SO STRAP ON YOUR SEAT BELT.

I'M ON THE SPANISH GRANT BEACH BOARD, I AM THE CITY LIAISON.

ADDITIONALLY, I AM THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE WEST GALVESTON ISLAND PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

YOU CAN TELL BY MY NEIGHBORS THAT WE ARE TAKING THIS VERY VERY SERIOUSLY.

WE ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT DOING WHATEVER WE CAN TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE BARELY SURVIVED IKE, AND YOU CAN TELL BY THE PASSION OF MY NEIGHBORS THE WORK WE'RE WILLING TO PUT IN.

YOU KNOW FOLKS, WE MET, WE REHEARSED, WE'RE GIVING YOU THE BEST WE CAN GIVE YOU.

I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ALL WE'RE REALLY ASKING IS THAT YOU ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE MULTIPLE VARIANCES REQUIRED.

IF YOU APPROVE THE PUD, THEN WE WILL ALWAYS BE IN THE ISSUE WHATEVER IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS THIS SUBSTANTIAL? IF IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL, THEN GUESS WHAT, IT DOESN'T DO GOOD FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

IF YOU DENY THE PUD TONIGHT THAT SIMPLY SAYS THAT YOU WILL THEN ALLOW US IN SPANISH GRANT BEACHFRONT DEMONSTRATE OUR COMMITMENT TO CARING FOR OUR COMMUNITY, TO CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED AND NOTIFIED AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

[00:50:01]

THE DEVELOPER, FRIDAY, TOLD US, HE BASICALLY TOLD US FIVE TIMES, THE ONLY REASON WHY HE WANTED THE PUD IS FOR THE PRIVATE STREETS, THAT'S ALL.

HE IS ANTICIPATING THAT HE WILL NEED NO VARIANCES, AND I'LL TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD.

I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT I'LL TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD, SO WHY DON'T WE SAY IF THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY HE'S APPLYING FOR THE PUD AND THAT'S WHAT HE'S TOLD US, WE'LL ALL TELL YOU THAT, WE'LL EVEN TAKE IT UNDER OATH AND WE'LL TELL YOU.

WE WANT TO SAY WE RESPECT THAT, WE APPRECIATE HIM MEETING WITH US.

WE UNDERSTAND HE HAS TO MONETIZE HIS INVESTMENT AND WE WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT WE WANT TO BE PARTNERS.

OVER THE YEARS, I THINK ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE WORKED WITH ME AND WITH OUR SUBDIVISION, YOU UNDERSTAND WE WANT TO BUILD TRUST, WE WANT TO BE YOUR PARTNER IN WHATEVER ENDEAVOR IS UNDERTAKEN, AND THIS IS ANOTHER WAY WE CAN DEMONSTRATE WE WANT TO HELP ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT NOT AT OUR COST.

WHEN WE WERE TALKING AT WORKSHOP TODAY ABOUT WHERE THE RISK IS, AND I HEARD IT AND I AGREE, I THINK THERE IS HIGH RISK ON THE DEVELOPER.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT UNLESS YOU DENY THE PUD, YOU'RE PUTTING AN INHERENT RISK ON US, BECAUSE HOW ARE WE GOING TO KEEP UP WITH ALL OF THIS? WE WORK FULL TIME, SO PLEASE SUPPORT US.

WE WILL WORK WITH YOU AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

[BACKGROUND]

>> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU, PEGGY. ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR.

>> [INAUDIBLE] HERE IN GALVESTON NOW, FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS, WE'VE OWNED OUR PROPERTY SINCE 2003 AND I FINALLY CONVINCED MY WIFE TO LET ME LIVE HERE FULL TIME.

I RETIRED IN 2015.

IN 2015, I STARTED VOLUNTEERING WITH TEXAS BAPTIST MEN.

I SERVED AS A COASTAL PLAINS AREA COORDINATOR.

HARVEY HIT TWO MONTHS AFTER MY INDOCTRINATION AND HAD 17 COUNTIES IMPACTED BY IT.

IN THE FIVE YEARS I WENT ALL OVER THE SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES DOING DISASTER RECOVERY WORK ON A VOLUNTEER BASIS.

SO MANY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE WENT INTO TO WORK AT NEVER FLOODED FOR THREE OR FOUR GENERATIONS, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, PEOPLE WOKE UP ONE MORNING AND THEY HAD 4-5 FEET OF WATER IN THEIR HOMES.

THE REASON FOR THIS WAS THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT DOWN THE STREET THAT CHANGE THE NATURAL FLOW OF WATER AND THE ENVIRONMENT.

MY CONCERN IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE.

I'M FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT MAKE SURE THAT EVERY AVENUE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND EVERY WHAT-IF SCENARIO HAS BEEN APPROACHED.

BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, ONE MORNING WE'RE GOING TO WAKE UP AND PART OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO BE UNDERWATER BECAUSE YOU TAKING A FIELD THAT HAS BEEN A SPONGE FOR RAIN THAT SOAKS UP THE WATER, NOW IT'S 80 PERCENT CONCRETE, THAT WATER HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE.

GO TO KATIE, GO TO FAYETTEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, GO TO CHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA, GO TO LAFAYETTE, LOUISIANA, ASK THOSE PEOPLE WHAT HAPPENED.

IT WASN'T BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE TRYING TO UNDERMINE THE SYSTEM OR THAT THEY JUST DIDN'T KNOW AND THEY DIDN'T DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, SO I ENCOURAGE YOU PLEASE, ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THIS COUNTY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT DEVELOPERS DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE ON THE REST OF THE ENVIRONMENT.

NOT ONLY THE HOMES, BUT THE BEACHES AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR COME FORWARD.

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS GREG WILSON.

MY WIFE AND I INVESTED IN ONE OF THE LAST AVAILABLE LOTS IN SPANISH GRANT IN 2017, BUILT A HOUSE, SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, USED IT FOR RENTAL PROPERTY, IT'S BEEN A GREAT, GREAT INVESTMENT AND WE WILL MAKE IT THAT WAY, KEEP IT THAT WAY.

WE LOVE LIVING AND WE LIVED THERE FOR OFF AND ON FOR 30 YEARS, FOUR OR FIVE TIMES A MONTH AND COME DOWN FROM HARRIS, TEXAS NEAR THE DFW AIRPORT.

I ENJOY IT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE OUR INVESTMENT IS SECURE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? COME FORWARD, SIR OR MA'AM?

>> HI, I'M LISA BROGDEN AND I LIVE AT 12605 WEST VENTURA, ALTHOUGH I'M SECOND ROW ON THE BEACH.

[00:55:02]

BUT I'M RETIRED, I LIVED THERE FULL TIME, AND I'M LIKE KAREN AT THE BEACH.

WE'RE GOING TO GO THE PR ROUTE.

ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD TAKE ANOTHER 11 HOUSES, 11 LOTS MEANS 11 PEOPLE, IT MEANS 50 PEOPLE.

THERE'S THE ORDINANCE THAT THEY DON'T FOLLOW THE RULES.

I FEEL SO SORRY, BECAUSE WHEN I CALL THE POLICE NON-EMERGENCY, I THINK THEY HANG UP ON ME AND I'M CONSTANTLY CALLING.

IT'S THE DOG'S NOT ON LEASHES.

IT'S JUST THIS CONSTANT PATROL THAT I DO, BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT SPANISH GRANT.

I WALK MY DOG 2-3 TIMES A DAY ON THE BEACH, AND I'M JUST LIKE, MY JESUS, HERE WE GO AGAIN, MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BREAK THE RULES NOT FOLLOW.

I'VE BEEN THERE, I LIVE THERE THROUGH HARVEY, THE FLOODS, THE PIPE FREEZES, AND FOR MY HOUSE TO FLOOD, THIS IS MY INVESTMENT, THIS IS ALL I HAVE TO.

I LIVE THERE PERMANENTLY, I DON'T WANT TO MOVE.

THIS EXTRA LOAD OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T BEHAVE SINCE THEY GET OVER THE CAUSEWAY IS LIKE ALL THE RULES ARE OUT THE DOOR.

I DON'T KNOW. I FEEL SORRY FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY ON THE WEST END, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON OVERLOAD AND A LOT OF PHONE CALLS, SO ANYWAY, PLEASE.

IT'S NOT LIKE I'M REALLY AGAINST FOR PROPOSAL, BUT I'M AGAINST JUST CRAMING THAT MANY PEOPLE TOGETHER.

THE PARTIES, THE LOUDNESS, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO GO THROUGH EVERY SINGLE WEEK AND WEEKEND, AND IT GETS OLD.

THERE'S NO THERE'S ONLY ME, AND FOR ME TO PATROL THEY LOOK AT ME LIKE THIS OLD WOMAN, SHE'S AN OLD BUILDING.

BUT ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME, AND I HOPE ALL GOES WELL.

ANYONE ELSE? YES, SIR COME FORWARD.

>> HELLO.

>> MY NAME IS MATTHEW SIGMAN.

I'M THE APPLICANT FOR THE SUBDIVISION.

I WOULD LIKE TO [NOISE] ADDRESS A COUPLE OF CONCERNS.

AS FAR AS BEACH ACCESS, WHICH I THINK HAS A WHOLE LOT TO DO WITH THE CONCERNS THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE DEVELOPER HAS FOUND A SOLUTION, WHERE THEY CAN PROVIDE DIRECT BEACH ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE USE OF THE LOT, THAT IS BELONGS TO THE CITY THAT IS IN-BETWEEN THEM AND THE BEACH.

WHEN WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THE PLAN TO THE CITY, WE WERE TOLD THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO GET BEACH ACCESS.

THOSE TALKS AND NEGOTIATIONS HAD BEEN GOING ON THROUGHOUT THE PUD PROCESS, AND IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN OUR INTENTION TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BEACH ACCESS.

YOU CAN IMAGINE, AS THE DEVELOPER OF THE TRACTOR WOULD HIGHLY VALUE THE DEVELOPMENT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE DIRECT BEACH ACCESS.

WE'RE WORKING VERY HARD ON THAT AND HAVE ACTUALLY COME UP WITH A PLAN, SO THE BEACH ACCESS IS NO LONGER A QUESTION.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PROVIDE.

THE QUESTION OF INAPPROPRIATE FENCING IS SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY.

FOR HOW LONG WAS THAT, LIKE 3 HOURS?

>> TWO HOURS.

>> SEEM LIKE 3, BUT IT HAS TO DO.

>> [LAUGHTER] WE SAT AND TALKED FOR QUITE A LONG TIME, AND FENCING IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE COMMITTED TO.

IT'S ACTUALLY REQUIRED ANYWAY.

WE'RE GOING TO FULFILL THAT REQUIREMENT, AND WE'VE COMMITTED TO BUILDING IT TO SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND THE DEVELOPER.

I THINK THEY'VE HAD SOME INITIAL TALKS ABOUT WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

THE MAIN THING THAT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR IS THAT, WE ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH THE SUBDIVISION ON HAVING SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR BOTH PARTIES.

ANOTHER THING THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS UNDERSTOOD IS THAT, THE SITE PLANS AND THAT THE THINGS THAT THE DEVELOPER AND MYSELF AND THE ENGINEER HAS MADE AVAILABLE.

OUR PRELIMINARY, THEIR SITE PLANS NO ONE'S GOING TO DESIGN A DETENTION PLAN OF A SQUARE DRAWN ON A PAGE, NOBODY'S DECIDED.

THE ENGINEER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE ENGINEER FOR THE CITY WILL WORK TOGETHER TO FIND THE APPROPRIATE DEPTH.

BECAUSE THE CITY'S REGULATIONS DON'T ALLOW US TO AFFECT THE RUNOFF AND THE DETENTION OUTSIDE OF OUR SUBDIVISION.

WE CANNOT INCREASE FLOODING OUTSIDE OF THE SUBDIVISION FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR LAND, LIKE WE CAN'T BUILD UP AND PUSH WATER OUT TO THEM.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ABSOLUTELY IS GOING TO BE DEALT WITH DURING PERMITTING.

I THINK THAT STOPPING THIS DEVELOPMENT SHORT DURING THE PUD PLAN IS PREMATURE.

WE HAVEN'T HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE OUR PUBLIC HEARING, AND THIS IS VERY MUCH LIKE A PUBLIC HEARING.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PUD DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE PROCESS.

APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT?

[01:00:07]

>> I'M HERE COUNSEL. HELLO, SOMEBODY IS THERE? WE'RE GOOD.

I JUST RETIRED AND BASICALLY A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO ABOUT THIS HOUSE AT 12439 EAST VENTURA DRIVE, BEAUTIFUL I LOVE IT.

NOW I JUST LEARNED ABOUT THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT GOING THERE.

WHAT I CAN SEE FROM MY CONSTITUENT, I MEAN, PERSONALLY HOMEOWNER THEY CAME TO ME, THEY EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT WAS HAPPENING THERE.

I'VE BEEN A REAL ESTATE AGENT FOR 28 YEARS.

I KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT RIGHT.

THERE'S A 75 FOOT PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AREA.

THE BUILDING THREE HOURS, IF NOT FOUR ON IT.

I DON'T WANT TO SOUND AS IT'S BEEN VOTED BEFORE. WHY NOW? THAT'S BEEN REVISED SUDDENLY WHEN THEY FORCED MY ONE OF THE OWNER, THAT WAS HERE EXPLAINING THEMSELVES, TELLING YOU THAT THEY HAVE TO PUSH THEIR HOUSE, BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS BEEN VOTED.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THAT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART, AND THAT'S PRETTY HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND.

NOW ALSO THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, LET ME TELL YOU WHEN YOU DRIVE THERE AND YOU SHOULD DRIVE AT ONE TIME AND JUST GO INSIDE, AND IF YOU GO INSIDE THE PROPERTY.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE THERE TO PARK YOUR CAR IN LITTLE MORE THAN THAT, HE MAY HAVE AND GET INTO AN ACCIDENT, REALLY FAST.

NOW, THE THIRD I HAD ANOTHER POINT THERE, ALSO THE DENSITY.

THE DENSITY IS ABOUT TWICE AS MUCH AS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS GOING TO LET REVISE THEIR PLAN, REDO THE WHOLE BUILDING DOING BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THE BUILDER IS PROPOSING RIGHT NOW.

IT'S CONTRARY TO WHAT IS THERE, EVEN IF IT'S A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, IT'S NOT ACCORDING TO WHAT WE HAVE AT SPANISH GRANT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. YES, MA'AM.

>> GOOD EVENING. I AM THE MAYOR IN SEALY AND ARE 12608 WEST VENTURA HOUSE.

I'M SITTING HERE LISTENING AND TAKING ALL THIS IN, AND I KNOW WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES YOU HAVE, AND I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO GIVE YOUR TIME TO BE A COUNCIL MEMBER.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ALONG WITH WHAT PEGGY SAID, THE PUD IS REALLY THE MAIN ISSUE TONIGHT ON YOUR AGENDA, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT A 30 FOOT WIDE ROAD.

THEN YOU LOSE A LOT OF THAT CITY GOVERNANCE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE, AND I HAVE TOLD PEOPLE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT OUR ATTORNEY TELLS US.

THEY SAID THIS PERSON FLOODED MAY, WHEN THEY BUILT THEIR HOUSE, AND OUR ATTORNEY SAYS, "SORRY, IT'S A CIVIL MATTER IT'S OUT OF OUR HANDS." YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING YOU WANT WITH THE ENGINEERING TO THE BEST OF YOUR INTENTIONS.

BUT THEN WHEN YOU DO HARM TO YOUR NEIGHBOR, TRYING TO FIND THAT PARTY THAT YOU NEED TO SUE COST YOU MONEY FOR THAT INJURY.

PLEASE CONSIDER WHAT PEGGY SAID.

I THINK SHE WRAPPED IT ALL UP, ABOUT WHAT THE RELIGION TO ATOMISTS TODAY. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD TO HAVE YOU HERE. COME FORWARD, SIR.

>> HELLO. GOOD EVENING.

I WORK WITH COBALT ENGINEERING, AND SO WERE THE ENGINEERS THAT IS HELPING THE DEVELOPER LOOK INTO THE PUD APPLICATION, AND THE PROCESS TO HELP WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS OR MAYBE SOME OF THE LOGIC OR THE THINKING.

>> FRANK SOUTHHALL.

IT IS A DIFFICULT PROCESS, AND WE'VE HEARD THAT FROM BOTH SIDES.

THERE'S A LOT TO LOOK AT BOTH DENSITY WISE AND ELEVATION WISE.

SOMETHING FOR THEM TO KNOW TOO, WE ALSO WORK WITH GLO AND FEMA AT OUR COMPANY, AND SO WE'RE IN ABOUT 55 DIFFERENT COUNTIES HERE ALONG THE COAST.

WE'RE ALSO WORKING IN PARADISE, CALIFORNIA WE'RE ALSO DOING LOUISIANA, ALABAMA, FLORIDA, AND NORTH CAROLINA, AND THAT'S HAPPENING RIGHT HERE IN GALVESTON.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON. WE ARE NOT JUST LOOKING AT A SMALL PICTURE, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT EVERYTHING.

SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE A HARD TIME PLANNING FOR LIKE ANYONE ELSE WOULD IS A STORM, AND HOW MUCH THAT STORM IS GOING TO AFFECT AN AREA.

I HAD A CHANCE TO WORK ALSO DURING 2008 WITH THE SURVEYOR FROM LAKE JACKSON MAX HAGAN SURVEYING, WHO WAS SURVEYING SINCE 1948.

LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION CAME FROM HIM TO BE ABLE TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WOULD COME UP AND ESPECIALLY ALONG THE COAST.

WE ALSO HAD TO GO OUT AND FIND ALL THE WASHOUT,

[01:05:02]

THE DEPTH OF THEM AND GETTING INTO WATER.

EVERYTHING LIKE THAT TO FIND THE DEPTH OF THE WASH OUTS, SO THAT THERE COULD BE BEACH RECLAMATION THERE.

RIGHT NOW, I WAS JUST LISTENING TO WHAT THEY WERE SAYING THEIR CONCERNS.

THERE IS A WASH OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, THAT IT HASN'T BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE IN HURRICANE SEASON.

SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE THERE REGARDLESS.

BUT THEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO'S LOOKING AT INVESTING MONEY IS IN DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT, AND ALSO THAT COMES INTO GALVESTON AS WELL.

THERE ARE SOME GOOD THINGS THAT COME FROM THAT.

BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE EASY, THEY'RE PRETTY DIFFICULT.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO REASSURE THEM THAT AS A COMPANY HERE LOCALLY, THESE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING INTO.

TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HOMEOWNERS THERE.

BUT AGAIN, HAS SOME THEY WERE SAYING THEY ARE FOR DEVELOPMENT, AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIND THOSE UNDERLYING ISSUES THAT CAN COME UP LATER ON.

BUT WE'RE TAKING [NOISE] A CLOSE LOOK AT THAT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. APPRECIATE IT.

GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS HENRY RAFAEL FROM COBALT ENGINEER.

I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CIVIL DESIGN IN THE COMPANY.

AS YOU SEE HERE, IS THE EXISTING SHEET FLOW.

NOW, ACTUALLY, ALL THE SITE IS GOING TO THE BEACH.

I WANT TO MENTION HERE, WE TAKE ALL THIS TO HOLD IT AND SET THE TENSION BOUND.

WE HAVE TWO ISSUE HERE.

ONE OF THEM IS WE CONTROL ALL THE SHEET FLOW TO PREVENT IT TO GO FOR ALL THE NEIGHBOR.

THE SECOND, WE HAVE A LID FLOW.

WE FOLLOW THE CITY OF CRITERIA TO DO IT.

SECOND THING IS THE TRAFFIC.

WE CAN'T GET A BETTERMENT WITHOUT A TRAFFIC-BACKED STUDY.

THIS ONE, IT WILL BE INCLUDED IN OUR DESIGN, WHICH IS ALLOW FOR US MANY WAY TO AVOID IT.

WE'D LIKE WIDENING THE LANE OUTSIDE, AND WE HAVE LANE SPARE TO HOLD THE CAR TO ENTER.

I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE FOR ME IS THE ROUTE.

I THINK MY CLIENT HAVE A REASON TO DO IT AS A PUBLIC, TO MOVE THE ROUTE FROM PUBLIC TO PRIVATE IS ONLY TO MAKE A FENCE AND MAKE IT AS A SEPARATE COMMUNITIES.

THIS IS ALL THE ISSUE I THINK.

BUT I THINK THE ROUTE WE CAN DO 60 FOOT AS A PUBLIC, WE CAN HAVE IT. THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH IT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. APPRECIATE IT.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS? YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU SINCERELY FOR YOUR TIME.

I KNOW YOU'RE ALL ARE BUSY.

I'M GOING TO BE QUICK, BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES.

WE WENT AND MET WITH ALL YOU FOLKS BECAUSE WE CARED, AND WE'RE NOT THE NORMAL DEVELOPER IN TOWN THAT RUNS IN AND DOES WHATEVER WE THINK WE WANT TO DO.

WE CARED ABOUT EVERY ONE OF YOU GUYS, AND WE WENT AND MET WITH THEM ON FRIDAY AFTERNOON, MYSELF AND MY FATHER, EVERYONE TO SAY, HEY, GUYS, WE'RE HERE TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND WORK WITH YOU.

WE DO CARE AS A DEVELOPER.

A COUPLE OTHER THINGS I'LL BE QUICK, BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF THEM.

SPANISH GRANT, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ROADS, BUT I KNOW THEY'RE LESS THAN 30 FEET OR AROUND 30 FEET.

WHAT A SPANISH GRANT HAS VERSUS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, I THINK SPANISH GRANT'S ROADS ARE ACTUALLY SMALLER. NOT THAT THIS MATTERS.

WE ARE A THIRD GENERATION.

I'VE BEEN COMING TO GALVESTON FOR 39 YEARS AS A LITTLE KID.

WE CARE ABOUT GALVESTON AND WE LOVE THE HISTORY.

AS A BABY I'VE GROWN UP AND WE'VE BUILT HERE FOR A PRETTY LONG TIME NOW.

WE'RE A TAXPAYER AS WELL.

OUR FAMILY OWNS PROPERTIES IN GALVESTON.

WE'RE WITH YOU GUYS.

THEY'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE PAYING TAXES, WE ARE AS WELL ON OUR PROPERTIES, AND NOT THAT THAT MATTERS, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT COMING IN FROM CALIFORNIA OR SOMEWHERE TO SAY, HEY, WE JUST WANT TO DEVELOP IN TEXAS.

THE LOT SIZES ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE IN SPANISH GRANT.

NOT PERFECT, BUT WE HAVE SOME LOTS THAT ARE OVER 6,000.

WE HAVE SOME LOTS THAT ARE OVER 4,000.

THEY'RE ALL VERY SIMILAR.

THEY DO HAVE SOME LARGER LOTS, AND WE HAVE SOME SIMILAR SIZED LOTS.

MOST OF EVERYTHING WE'RE PROPOSING REALLY IS PER CODE.

WE'RE 40 BY 100 LOTS.

IT'S WRITTEN IN THE CODE.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS A 30-FOOT STREET INSTEAD OF A 60 FOOT, THAT AGAIN, IS LARGER THAN WHAT THEY HAVE IN SPANISH GRANT.

[01:10:03]

FLOODING ON SITE, IT'S A VERY DETAILED ANALYSIS, GUYS.

EVERYTHING IS DETAINED ON SITE.

ANY CONCERNS ABOUT FLOODING OFF SITE, THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT GOES.

IT'S VERY STRINGENT WITH THE CITY AND THE STATE, BUT IT'S VERY STRINGENT APPROVAL PROCESSES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

WE MET WITH THEM ABOUT THE FENCES, GAVE LARRY AND MY CELL PHONE LITERALLY.

AGAIN, WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO LITERALLY BE BY CODE AND WORK WITH ALL THE FOLKS IN SPANISH GRANT.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT SHOWS SOMETHING ABOUT WHO WE ARE AS A COMPANY, NOT ONLY NOT READING BY THE RULE BOOKS, BECAUSE REALLY EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING IS BY THE RULE BOOK BESIDES THE STREET.

I HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER AGAIN.

I SINCERELY APPRECIATE ALL YOUR TIME.

I'M SURE IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, SO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? IT IS 6:10 PM.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8(D).

I'M GOING TO BRING THAT BACK TO COUNCIL.

>> MAYOR.

>> I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO DENY THE PUD FOR MULTIPLE REASONS.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL OF 8(D).

IS THERE A SECOND THAT MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB? IS THAT A SECOND, COUNCILMAN FINKLEA?

>> YES, IT IS.

>> WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN FINKLEA ON THAT.

OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION, COUNCIL.

>> I WOULD ASK ONE QUESTION, DENIAL OF THE PUD THAT'S PRESENTED TO US TODAY WOULD NO WAY PREVENT THEM FROM COMING BACK WITH ANOTHER APPLICATION OF DIFFERENT PLAN. DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY?

>> ADREW.

>> YEAH, COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT APPLICATION, IF IT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT, OF COURSE, A DIFFERENT LAYOUT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY COULD COME BACK AT A LATER TIME.

>> WELL, THAT WAS MY QUESTION TOO, ADREW.

IF THE IDEA IS DENIED, IS IT DENIED BASED UPON THE DETAILS OF THIS PARTICULAR PUD, AND IF THEY TWEAK THIS PARTICULAR PUD WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE AND COME BACK WITH A SIMILAR ITEM, BUT SOME DIFFERENT THINGS THEY COULD REPLY.

>> DO THEY HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ALL THE PERMITTING FEE AND ALL THAT AT THAT POINT?

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PROCESS AND PLANNING COMMISSION INCLUDED, YES.

>> GETTING A PERMIT.

>> I MEAN, NOT A PERMITTING FEE, BUT AN [OVERLAPPING] APPLICATION FEE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> WHAT ARE THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR APPROVAL ONE WITH THE CONDITIONS?

>> THIS WAS LISTED ON PAGES 3 AND 4.

WE REPORT I BELIEVE THERE ARE SEVEN OF THOSE, ESSENTIALLY STATING THAT THEY NEED TO GET A PERMANENT WITHIN 24 MONTHS.

NO NUISANCE CREATED, ANY DEVIATIONS FROM WHAT'S PRESENTED WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK, THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> ANY FURTHER, JOHN?

>> I HAD A QUESTION. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM GOING ALONG WITH THE MOTION.

I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SOME DIRECTION HERE.

THIS PROPERTY EVENTUALLY IS GOING TO GET DEVELOPED.

THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT. [NOISE] I'M SORRY.

THIS PUD IS ASKING FOR BASICALLY THREE ITEMS, PRIVATE DRIVE.

ADREW, CAN YOU TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE EXACTLY WHAT OUR DEFINITION OF A PRIVATE DRIVER IS?

>> ESSENTIALLY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THE REGULATIONS FOR THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE, WHICH REQUIRES A 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A 30-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

>> OUTSIDE OF THAT 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS SPECIFIED IN THE ZONING.

DIFFERENT ZONINGS HAVE DIFFERENT RIGHT OF WAY WIDTHS?

>> BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE STREET ITSELF.

LOCAL STREETS AND ARTERIAL ROADS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE DIFFERENT.

BUT YES, MOST OF THE LOCAL STREETS SUCH AS SUBDIVISION ROADS WOULD BE A 60-FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

>> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GATE, OR DOES IT?

>> NO, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GATE.

>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ONE OF THEM.

THERE'S THREE LOTS THAT DON'T MEET THE 40-FOOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT THAT IS REQUIRED IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE PROPERTY, THAT'S CORRECT?

>> YEAH. THAT'S A KEY DISTINCTION AS WELL,

[01:15:01]

THAT SPANISH GRANT IS ZONE R1, THIS PROPERTY ZONE COMMERCIAL.

THE LOT AREA STANDARDS ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

>> WHICH IS 40 FOOT.

>> FORTY FOOT BY 100.

>> THREE OF THESE LOTS DO NOT MEET THAT, THEY'RE [OVERLAPPING] 39, 37 FOOT.

>> CORRECT.

>> WELL, YOU GET TWO HERE, ONE BEING THE PRIVATE DRIVE, ONE BEING THE 60-FOOT RIGHT OF AWAY GO INTO A 30-FOOT RIGHT OF AWAY.

>> CORRECT. THE PRIVATE ROAD, PRIVATE DRIVE IT'S REQUIRED TO HAVE A PUD IF YOU WANT TO DO A PRIVATE STREET, PRIVATE DRIVE.

>> WELL, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON HOW YOU EXPLAIN THAT TO ME.

THEN WHY ARE THERE TWO BASIC VARIANCES HERE, ONE BEING A PRIVATE DRIVE, ONE BEING A VARIANCE OF THE WIDTH?

>> IN ORDER TO DO A PRIVATE DRIVE, PRIVATE ROAD IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON, YOU HAVE TO GET A PUD.

>> WHAT IS THE PRIVATE DRIVE THEN? BECAUSE WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY WAS, SINCE THEY REDUCED THE WIDTH THAT CREATED A PRIVATE DRIVE.

BUT THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE CORRECT ANSWER.

>> NO. IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD, IT'S WHAT IT IS.

[NOISE] IT'S OUTSIDE OF THE PLATTER LOTS, SO THAT'S A ROAD.

IT'S NOT PART OF THE LOTS.

THAT'S A PRIVATE ACCESS DRIVE. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

WHAT THEY'RE ASKING IS THEY'RE ASKING FOR 30 FEET INSTEAD OF THE TRADITIONAL 60 FEET.

BUT IN ORDER TO GET THE 30 FEET, THEY HAVE TO GET A PUD BECAUSE THE LDR STATES THAT YOU NEED A PUD IF YOU WANT TO DO A PRIVATE ROAD.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMUNITY, SPANISH GRANT IS THAT AT LEAST ONE PERSON SEEM LIKE THE PRIVATE ROAD WASN'T THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE.

BUT THERE WERE MANY OTHER CONCERNS HERE.

BUT I GUESS JUST BY MAKING THESE LOT SIZES CORRECT, MIGHT NOT ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS.

I'M OKAY WITH THE WAY THE MOTION IS, BUT I WAS TRYING TO GIVE THE DEVELOPER SOME INPUT HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DO THAT OR NOT BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY ONLY TWO THINGS THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR.

ROAD VARIANTS AND THEN THESE THREE LOTS, THE ONE OR TWO FEET IN THESE THREE LOTS.

>> CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT THAT WAY, YES.

>> COUNCILMAN COLLINS?

>> I HEAR THREE THINGS.

EVEN IF THE ROAD WAS 60 FEET WIDE TO MAKE IT PRIVATE AND GATED THAT REQUIRE PUD.

>> BUT NOT GATED NECESSARILY, BUT PRIVATE, YES.

>> BUT THIS IS GATED?

>> RIGHT.

>> SO THAT WOULD BE REGARDLESS OF ITS SIZE, THAT REQUIRE PUD.

>> RIGHT.

>> WHEN WE REDUCE THE SIZE OF IT, SO THAT'S THE SECOND VARIANCE RIGHT THERE.

THEN WE HAVE THE LOT ISSUES.

[NOISE] DO YOU IN THIS PROCESS CONSIDER QUESTIONS ABOUT DRAINAGE OR IS THAT A PERMITTING ISSUE?

>> THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS.

USUALLY DRAINAGE DITCHES ARE DISCUSSED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WHICH COME AFTER PRELIMINARY PLAT.

THIS IS THE FIRST STEP, THE SECOND STEP WOULD BE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT PROCESS.

THEN AFTER THAT PROCESS THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS WHICH WOULD THEN ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE ISSUES.

>> YOU'D THINK AS MANY TIMES AS WE'VE THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN BEFORE US AND THESE LIST.

I KNOW THIS PROCESS, AND THEN AT WHAT POINT DO YOU ASK FOR GLOS REVIEW OF THIS?

>> ONCE A LOTS HAVE BEEN PLATTED, NOW WE HAVE OFFICIAL LOTS.

THEREFORE THEY CAN COME BACK AND REQUEST DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF THE HOMES, FOR THOSE THREE LOTS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THOSE LOTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE 75 FOOT OF THE NORTH [INAUDIBLE]

>> FINALLY, IS THE SAFETY OR THE DISTANCE FROM THE HIGHWAY OR THE DISTANCE OF THE GATE FROM THE HIGHWAY, IS THAT A CONCERN TO PLANNING AT THIS STAGE?

>> NOT AT THIS STAGE, IN ALL OF THE TEXTS THAT APPROVALS WOULD HAVE TO BE OBTAINED, OBVIOUSLY DURING THE PERMANENT PROCESSES AS WELL.

WE WOULD TYPICALLY ASK FOR PROOF OF THAT IN A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AS WELL, OUR CITY ENGINEER USUALLY REQUIRES THAT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, ANDREW.

IT WAS MENTIONED THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

I'VE ALWAYS FELT THAT WITH THE PUD THE SITE PLAN COMES WITH THAT PUD AND THAT'S THE SITE PLAN THAT WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH, EITHER APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I THINK THAT AS JOHN MENTIONED, THIS LAND IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.

PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK WE'RE HERE YET TO WORK OUT

[01:20:03]

THE DETAILS ON EXACTLY HOW THIS SHOULD BE.

I'M WRESTLING IN MY MIND, SHOULD WE DENY THIS? IF WE DEFER THIS, IF THEY GO AND WORK WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN ON THEIR SITE PLAN THAT MEETS EVERYBODY'S APPROVAL.

DO THEY HAVE TO FILE A NEW PUD OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> IF IT'S DIFFERED WITH WHAT THE COUNCIL IS ASKING, THEY CAN ALWAYS OBVIOUSLY FIND A REMEDY TO THAT AND COME BACK WITH A NEWER SITE PLAN THAT COULD BE APPROVED, POSSIBLY.

>> MY QUESTIONS TO BRIAN MAXWELL.

THERE'S TWO CITY OWNED LOTS THAT ARE AT THE BEACH SIDE.

HOW COMMON AND I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT THE SITUATION, BUT HOW COMMON IS IT FOR THE CITY TO GRANT ACCESS TO PEOPLE TO ACCESS THE BEACH?

>> DEFINE ACCESS.

THE LOTS ARE THERE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THEY CAN NEVER BE BUILT ON, BUT THAT ALSO MEANS THAT IF THERE'S A DUNE THERE, YOU CANNOT BUILD A DUNE WALK OVER THERE.

IF IT'S FLAT, THERE'S NOTHING THAT STOPS THE GENERAL PUBLIC FROM TRAVERSING THOSE LOTS.

HOWEVER, IF THERE'S DUNES OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS, YOU CAN'T BUILD A STRUCTURE OR ACCESS THOSE LOTS FOR THAT PURPOSE.

>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL THOSE THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR DENIAL, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE OR RAISE YOUR HAND.

THAT IS UNANIMOUS ON DENIAL.

I WOULD MAKE A COMMENT TO THE DEVELOPERS HERE TO GET WITH, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO WORK OUT A SOLUTION ON THAT.

VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE,

[9. PUBLIC COMMENT]

WE'RE ON ITEM PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE? [BACKGROUND]

>> ITEM 9, PUBLIC COMMENT, AGENDA ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS.

>> LET'S GIVE A FEW MOMENTS FOR THE ROOM TO CLEAR OUT.

>> [BACKGROUND]

>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A QUORUM HERE?

>> WE DO.

>> VERY GOOD. WE ARE NOW AT OUR, IF YOU'LL READ NUMBER 9, PLEASE, NILLY.

>> ITEM 9, PUBLIC COMMENT.

AGENDA ITEMS AND NON-AGENDA ITEMS.

>> THIS IS OUR PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.

I'LL GIVE THE INTRO THAT I GAVE EACH TIME.

THIS IS TIME FOR PUBLIC TO MAKE COMMENTS ON AGENDA OR NON-AGENDA ITEMS, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

AS YOU MAY KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE STATE'S OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WE CANNOT RESPOND TO YOU ON YOUR PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT WE ARE MAKING NOTE OF THOSE.

WHENEVER ANYONE SPEAKS FROM PUBLIC COMMENT, YOUR APPLICATION THAT YOU FILL OUT IS ALWAYS GIVEN TO

[01:25:02]

STAFF SO THAT THEY CAN FOLLOW UP ON THESE IF NEED BE ON THAT.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU FILL OUT A FORM HERE, SO WE CAN HAVE A WRITTEN RECORD OF WHO YOU ARE, SO THAT WE COULD GET IN TOUCH WITH YOU IF WE NEED TO DO THAT.

WE'RE GOING TO START WITH OUR PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND IF EACH INDIVIDUAL AS YOU COME FORWARD, COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME.

I HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT SHEET FOR GOOD CITIZEN NEWS.

IF YOU COULD COME FORWARD AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE, SIR.

>> I APOLOGIZE, I GOT A WORK INJURY.

MY NAME IS AUSTIN.

I'VE BEEN HERE SEVERAL TIMES BEFORE.

I'M JUST WEARING A LITTLE BIT OF A MORE COLORFUL T-SHIRT TODAY.

WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE WITH THE ISSUES WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I BELIEVE MS. LEWIS WAS ABSENT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING I WAS AT, WHICH WAS IN JULY.

I GAVE A VERY PASSIONATE SPEECH, I ACTUALLY GOT A LITTLE, FRUSTRATED.

THIS WEEK, I'M GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT CALMER.

SPEAKING ON WHAT THE MAYOR JUST SAID, REACHING OUT TO PEOPLE.

I'VE LEFT MY EMAIL ON EVERY ONE OF THOSE FORMS I'VE FILLED OUT, DO Y'ALL NOT HAVE EMAIL HERE IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON? IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO REACH OUT TO SOMEBODY AND SAY, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A PHONE CONVERSATION OR IN-PERSON MEETING.

I GIVE MY EMAIL BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE GIVING OUT MY PERSONAL CELL PHONE NUMBER, WHO WANTS TO GIVE THAT OUT? BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL SUBJECT TO PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST.

THAT BEING SAID, GUYS, I PUT IN A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST FOR BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE OF MAYA'S VIOLENT ASSAULT BY LIEUTENANT JOEL J.

CALDWELL AND ALL BODY CAM ASSOCIATED TO THAT.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH I WAS QUOTED? I WAS QUOTED $1,050 FOR BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE.

I WEAR A BODY CAMERA WHEN I GO OUT, I NORMALLY WEAR ONE WHEN I'M IN HERE, I LEFT IT AT THE HOUSE.

THE POINT IS, IT DOESN'T TAKE THAT MUCH MONEY OR TIME TO REDACT BODY CAMERA FOOTAGE, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME? SERIOUSLY, WE PAY EVERYBODY IN THIS BUILDING WITH TAX DOLLARS, FEDERAL FUNDS, AND PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.

I'M NOT A RESIDENT, BUT PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE PAY FOR Y'ALL'S SALARIES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

HOW HARD IS IT FOR Y'ALL TO JUST BE LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS ON OUR OWN.

Y'ALL PAY FOR THESE BODY CAMERAS AND FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS ON OUR OWN BECAUSE YOU ALREADY PAY US TO DO OUR JOBS AND THIS IS PART OF OUR JOB IS TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUIRED.

AGAIN, WE HAVE ISSUES WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTING STUPID.

THEY'RE DOING DUMB THINGS IN THE WORST WAYS, THEY'RE NOT EVEN FOLLOWING THEIR OWN POLICY.

ALMOST EVERY TIME WE GO OUT SOMEBODY GETS ARRESTED.

THERE WAS A MAN NAMED MATTHEW OLIVER REARDON, HE WAS ARRESTED FOR A DWI AND HE WAS NOT INTOXICATED.

HE WAS NOT INTOXICATED YET HE WAS ARRESTED, HELD ON A $10,000 BOND.

HE GOT BONDED OUT, TWO DAYS LATER, HE'S ARRESTED ON SOME CRAZY WARRANT FROM OUT-OF-STATE.

THIS IS RIDICULOUS, AND IT PUTS YOUR DWI TASK FORCE THAT YOU'LL HAVE THAT ROAMS THE STREETS INTO QUESTION.

IF HE WAS NOT INTOXICATED, WHY WAS HE ARRESTED FOR THIS WHEN THE OFFICER DIDN'T SMELL ALCOHOL?

>> THANK YOU. SHEILA BELL. SHEILA?

>> HEY, Y'ALL.

>> HEY, SHEILA.

>> BETTER NIGHT ALREADY.

[LAUGHTER] CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, HELLO EVERYONE.

I WANT TO FIRST THANK EVERYBODY.

PEOPLE STOP ME FROM TIME TO TIME AND JUST TO SAY HI AND THEY ENJOY MY COMMENTS.

YOU DO, HEY. I'M REALLY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

SHOUT OUT TO CATHOLIC CHARITIES, METICULOUSLY CLEAN FACILITY, AND COURTEOUS STAFF.

PLEASE GET YOUR LIFE JACKETS, REMEMBER WHEN THE GULF EVER TURNS DEEP BLUE OR TEAL, WHICH IS A GREENISH BLUE, GET YOUR LIFE JACKETS, GET TO HIGHER GROUND.

KEEP UP WITH FOOD, WATER, AND ESSENTIALS.

GOD SHOWING ME SOME BAD THINGS HAPPENING REGARDING FOOD, SO MAKE SURE YOU STOCK UP.

ANYBODY GOT A HANDICAP-ACCESSIBLE PLACE, LET SHEILA BELL KNOW, MY HUSBAND CAN'T TAKE THE STAIRS.

WE LIVE IN A VERY NICE PLACE, BUT HE CAN'T TAKE THE STAIRS DUE TO HIS DISABILITY.

YEARS BEFORE IKE IN 2005, I WARNED PEOPLE FOR THREE YEARS THAT IT WAS GOING TO FLOOD.

YOU KNOW HOW PEOPLE ARE.

[NOISE] NOBODY WANTED IT TO FLOOD, BUT IT DID.

BUSINESSMAN CALLED ME AFTER WENT, SHEILA, DO YOU REMEMBER THE CONVERSATION WE HAD BEFORE IKE? THEN, HE TOLD ME HE LOST HIS HOUSES AND HIS BUSINESS.

[01:30:01]

ANOTHER PERSON CALLED ME, A CITY WORKER, HYSTERICAL, LOST EVERYTHING.

THEN A MOM STOPPED ME, I HAD WARNED HER AND SHE SAID, I'D NEVER PUT MY CHILDREN THROUGH THAT AGAIN.

SEE IT'S NOT JUST YOU, IT'S YOUR KIDS TOO.

WEATHERMAN, TORNADOES ARE INDICATIVE OF THE POWER OF THE ATMOSPHERE.

Y'ALL MISSING THIS, Y'ALL DON'T READ THE BIBLE ENOUGH.

I'VE GOT ALL THIS GOOD INFORMATION.

HERE'S THE THING, CLOUDS ARE POSITIVELY AND NEGATIVELY CHARGED WITH POWER, THAT'S WHY WE GETTING ALL THIS LIGHTNING.

YOU CANNOT HAVE MILLIONS AND MEGAVOLTS OF LIGHTNING HITTING THE GROUND IN THE ATMOSPHERE AND NOT HAVE SOME PROBLEMS. OUR WEATHER IS A MESS AND THE LORD SHOW ME WHY WE'RE HAVING CLIMATE CHANGE.

Y'ALL NEED TO TALK TO SHEILA BELL ABOUT THAT, IT'S A HUGE BOOK.

I DON'T HAVE TIME AND SURE CAN'T DO IT IN THREE MINUTES.

GLOBAL WARMING, I HATE THAT TERM BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST THE GLOBE WARMING, THE SPACE TOO, AND THE ELEMENTS AREN'T JUST WARMING.

ACCORDING TO 2 PETER 3:10, THEY'RE GOING TO MELT.

ANYBODY BEEN HOT LATELY? IT'S GOING SOMEWHERE.

THE SUN IS A STAR, STARS DIE, THE SUN IS GOING TO DIE, REVELATIONS 6:12.

WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE SOON AS A CHAIN REACTION, THE MOON, THE STARS, THE SUN, THEY'RE ALL GOING TO STOP LIGHTNING, SAY MATTHEW 24:29, AND A WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER THINGS.

THE EARTH'S GOING TO SHAKE ISAIAH 13:13, ST. MARK 13:25. FORGIVE ME.

THE REASON WHY GOD DON'T TELL THE EXPERTS TOO MUCH IS BECAUSE Y'ALL THINK Y'ALL KNOW EVERYTHING ALREADY.

THAT'S WHY GOD CAN'T TELL YOU, BUT SAY SOMEBODY LIKE SHEILA BELL, I'M LIKE, LORD, WHAT'S GOING ON? THAT'S WHAT I DO. I SAY, GOD, CAN YOU EXPLAIN IT TO ME? SURE ENOUGH.

HE FAITHFUL, HE LOVED ME.

HE KNOW I LOVE HIM, HE KNOW I'M GOING TO TELL YOU AND THAT'S WHAT I DO WHEN I COME HERE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SHEILA. [APPLAUSE] GLAD TO SEE YOU.

THOSE THAT DON'T KNOW, SHEILA IS THE INFORMAL MAYOR OF GALVESTON.

[LAUGHTER]

>> SHEILA, YOU SHOULD KNOW THEY SAY WHEN THE SUN BURNS OUT, THEY'LL FINISH THE CONSTRUCTION ON 45 [LAUGHTER]

>> MS. E. ANDERSON.

>> COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SAME THING AGAIN.

THE POLICE ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOBS, I AGREE.

I'VE COMPLAINED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE POLICE AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE MORE THAN ONCE.

HERE'S MY PROOF, WHO DO I GIVE THIS TO? THAT I'M NOT LYING, AND SOMETHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED.

>> JANELLE, COULD YOU GRAB THAT? GIVE THAT TO BRIAN, IF YOU COULD.

>> BASICALLY, I DIDN'T NOTICE THE PERSON I COMPLAINED ABOUT, WHO'S LIKE ONE OF THE RING LEADERS, THE MASTERMINDS BEHIND THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN GALVESTON COUNTY AND SOME OTHER PLACES, I HAD NO IDEA THAT HIS RECORDS GOT EXPUNGED, SO THE EVIDENCE IS NOT THERE.

MY RESTRAINING ORDERS, MY COURT ORDERS AGAINST HIM, AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT HAS TO GET RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST, HIM BECAUSE HE'S A SEX OFFENDER AND A STALKER, THEY'RE GONE, SO THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

THEY WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO GET RID OF HIS RECORDS, BECAUSE HE IS AN ADULT OVER 40 YEARS OLD.

I FORGOT THE NAME OF THE POLICE OFFICER THAT USED TO WORK HERE.

HE SAID, DON'T YOU EVER REMOVE ANYTHING FROM YOUR RECORD AGAIN, INCLUDING THE RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST YOU, INCLUDING MINE.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM, THE PROOF IS GONE, SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY I CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO SAY, THIS IS BS.

I DON'T KNOW THE GOVERNMENT WORKERS THAT HELPED HIM DO IT.

HIS NAME IS ANTONIO SMITH.

I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE HAS HELPED HIM, BUT HE'S ONE OF THE RING LEADERS IN THE MASTERMINDS BEHIND IT.

THAT'S THE LITTLE BIT OF EVIDENCE I HAVE THAT I STILL HAVE PROBLEMS WITH STALKING.

THAT'S THE LITTLE BIT THAT I COULD FIND ON HIM.

I CANNOT AFFORD A LAWYER, I ALSO CANNOT AFFORD A PI.

I'VE COMPLAINED TO THE POLICE MORE THAN ONCE, THEY HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING, BECAUSE A GOVERNMENT WORKER HELPED HIM.

HE HAS BRIBED GOVERNMENT WORKERS.

I HEARD AT ONE POINT HE HAD A COUSIN THAT WORKED FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

I THINK HIS NAME MIGHT HAVE BEEN COREY, THAT'S ALL I KNOW.

I KNEW GOVERNMENT WORKERS WERE INVOLVED, HE IS GETTING HELP FROM GOVERNMENT WORKERS, THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL YOU.

I'M PISSED OFF. IT'S ALMOST TIME,

[01:35:02]

BUT THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.

I AM NOT LYING AND I AM PISSED OFF.

HE IS A SEX OFFENDER, HE'S A SERIAL RAPIST.

SOME OF HIS VICTIMS HAVE BEEN MINORS.

I WAS UNDER 18 HE WAS OLDER THAN 21, AND HE GOT MAD BECAUSE I SAID I WOULDN'T SLEEP WITH HIM.

HE'S STILL STALKS ME AND BOTHERS ME TO THIS DAY AND SOME OTHER PEOPLE.

I'M TIRED OF THIS, I DID NOT LIE.

BUT THE PROOF IS NOT THERE BECAUSE HE GOT HIS RECORDS EXPUNGED AND HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO, AND HE GOT RID OF MY COURT ORDERS AND IT WAS IRONCLAD. OH, THAT'S IT.

>> THANK YOU, MS. ANDERSON.

BRUCE REDMOND.

>> GOOD EVENING COUNCIL?

>> YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN ME UP HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE.

FIRST, I'D LIKE TO START BY THANKING YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU, AND THAT WASN'T PASSED.

I WOULD LIKE HOWEVER TO POINT OUT THAT THE EMAILS THAT ARE BEING SENT IN, I RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S A LOT AND MORE THAN CAN BE READ INTO RECORD REASONABLY IN A MEETING OF THIS SORT.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE PUT ONTO THE PAGE WITH THE MEETINGS, SO THEY CAN BE READ AS PUBLIC COMMENTS AS THEY'RE BEING MADE.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO COME BACK AND WATCH THESE MEETINGS LATER AND LOOK TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE ARE REACHING OUT AND TALKING ABOUT, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO ALL OF US.

THEN I WOULD LIKE TO REACH INTO THIS POLICING SITUATION, AS WE ARE PACKING MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ONTO THIS ISLAND WE'RE HAVING DIFFERENT SOCIAL NORMS AND WHAT NOT.

THEY'RE GETTING PACKED INTO THESE SMALL AREAS ESPECIALLY WITH THESE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND COMPLEX ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.

THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT, ESPECIALLY WITH PEOPLE COMING DOWN WITH THE INTENT TO HAVE A GOOD TIME, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE.

THE GALVESTON POLICE HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN HEAVY HANDED AND A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH.

WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO MOVE THROUGH THAT.

THERE'S A LOT OF CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS GOING ON BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

A SINGLE OFFICER GENERATES THREE VIDEOS ON A CALL.

MOST CALLS HAVE AT LEAST THREE OFFICERS THAT PUTS IT AT $1,000 JUST TO GET THE VIDEO OF YOUR ENCOUNTER WITH A POLICE OFFICER.

THEN IF YOU'RE OFF ISLAND, YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR TRANSPORTATION AND WHATNOT, MOST ISSUES TAKE AT LEAST THREE OR FOUR TRIPS TO EVEN JUST GET IT DISMISSED.

A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE JUST TAKE A DEFERMENT OR SOMETHING, AND CHOOSE NOT TO COME BACK FOR 90 DAYS.

THEREFORE, THINGS ARE BEING BASICALLY OUT MONEYED INSTEAD OF OUT-JUSTICED.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

I REALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A WAY OF ACCESSING THESE BODY CAMS. MAYBE I'M BRINGING THIS UP AGAIN, SOME COMMITTEE THAT CAN LOOK AT THIS STUFF, SIT DOWN WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND WITH ASSISTANCE AND LOOK THROUGH IN CITY CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AS THEY'RE HAPPENING AND START TO CORRECT THIS STUFF.

GALVESTON IS BECOMING A HOT SPOT FOR COP WATCHERS.

PEOPLE WANT TO COME DOWN HERE AND GO ON VACATION, ENJOY THEIR FAMILY DURING THE DAY AND WATCH COPS AT NIGHT, BECAUSE THE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS ARE JUST SPILLING OUT.

THE BEST WAY TO FIX THAT IS TO NOT COMMIT THEM, THEN THEY'LL BE NO CONTENT AND NO REASON.

THANK YOU, AND PLEASE REACH OUT.

YOU GUYS HAVE MY INFORMATION.

LET'S FIND SOME SOLUTIONS HERE.

DEBRA CURRY, DEBRA.

>> I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE COPS.

I DROVE TAXI MAYBE A GOOD 6, 7 YEARS.

MY MOTHER DROVE THE CAB FOR MAYBE 20 PLUS.

HER NAME IS GLORIA CURRY, SHE DROVE NUMBER 9 FOR BUSY BEE.

I GOT QUITE A FEW NAMES THERE FOR MY BROTHER, MY SISTER, MR. TEDDY, JIMMY LINCOLN, MY BRAD O'NEIL, AFRICK, MS. DORIS LEE, MR. LEWIS, MR. ANTHONY CARLIN, MRS. SAMMY COLON SENIOR, BRIGETTE QUITE A FEW NAMES OF PEOPLE THAT WE KNEW AS KIDS COMING UP.

I'LL BE 66 IN NOVEMBER, BUT I KNOW THAT MY MOM WHEN SHE PUT ME IN A CAB, SHE KNOWS WHO SHE'S PUTTING ME IN A CAB WITH, AND WHO SHE TRUSTED AND A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE.

MY MOTHER HAD SPECIAL ONES IN THE MORNING, BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET OUT TO CAB AT NIGHT WHEN I WAS WITH HER.

I DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE UP THE CAB SO SHE CAN STORE IT.

BUT SHE HAD A SPECIAL PEOPLE THAT WILL CALL HER, AND THEY KNEW THAT SHE WOULD BE THERE AT A CERTAIN TIME TO GET THEM, TAKE THEM TO WORK AND ALL THIS STUFF.

HERE, I REMEMBER SHE TOLD ME THAT A GUY TOLD HER THAT SHE NEEDED TO PAY INTO SOCIAL SECURITY OR RETIREMENT OR WHATEVER,

[01:40:01]

BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET ALL OF THAT THEN DRIVING THE CAB.

EVEN WHEN I KEPT BROKE DOWN, SHE STILL HAD TO PAY FOR THE KFC I'M RENT, THAT CAME OUT OF HER POCKET.

BUT MY MOTHER LOVED IT.

SHE LOVED THE PEOPLE WERE FROM HERE.

I'M BORN AND RAISED HERE. I LOVE GALVESTON.

THIS IS MY HOME. THEN VOICE CALLING A CAB AND KNOWING THAT PERSON IS DRIVING A CAB, THAT MEAN A LOT.

A LADY THE OTHER DAY OFFER A RUSH SHE'S SAYING, OH NO, I'M WAITING ON THE CAB. I SAY, ARE YOU SURE? SHE SAID, THAT'D BE IN A MINUTE THAT'S OKAY, I DON'T MIND GIVE ME A RIDE, AND WHAT IS LEAVING CHURCH? BUT SHE WAS WAITING ON A CAB, AND SHE WAIT EVEN FROM HERE, SHE'S MOVING HERE NOW.

BUT SHE SAID SHE LOVES GALVESTON.

BUT JUST TO KNOW THAT THIS CAB DRIVER IT JUST MEAN A LOT.

WE NEED OUR CAB, OUR ELDERLIES THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT AN UBER, AND ALL THIS OTHER STUFF CALLING THESE ARE THE PEOPLE.

BUT WE DO KNOW OUR PEOPLE HERE WHERE I BORN AND RAISED, SO WE KNOW OUR PEOPLE.

IF WE DON'T, THE OTHER ONE KNOW, WHILE I BROKE WITH SUCH WAY HE LOOKED LIKE THIS, THAT WAS SUCH, I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BUT WE KNOW ONE ANOTHER, WE CARE ABOUT ONE ANOTHER.

BUT WE NEED OUR COPS, AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO DRIVING THE CAB MYSELF.

I USED TO DRIVE TO SCHOOL BUS TOO, BUT I WANT TO GO BACK TO DRIVING A CAB BECAUSE I LIKE PEOPLE.

I LIKE MEETING PEOPLE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

JOE RYAN [NOISE]

>> HI, MY NAME IS JOE RYAN.

I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF PIRATES PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

AS MOST Y'ALL KNOW PIRATES IS THE LARGEST HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION IN ALL OF GALVESTON.

WE HAVE OVER 1,700 PROPERTIES.

AND IT'S PROBABLY ROUGHLY 25 SQUARE MILES IF YOU CAN DO ALL THE DIFFERENT ENTRANCES AND EXITS AND EVERYTHING.

WE UTILIZE FLOCK CAMERAS, WE HAVE 21 FLOCK CAMERAS.

WE HAVE A CAMERA AT EVERY ENTRANCE AND EXIT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE'VE HAD THE CAMERAS FOR THREE YEARS.

WE PARTNER WITH THE GALVESTON COUNTY AUTO THEFT TASK FORCE.

GPD HAS A REPRESENTATIVE ON THAT TASK FORCE AS WELL, AND THEY UTILIZE ALL THE DATA THE CAMERAS GENERATE.

WE HAVE EXPERIENCED A DRAMATIC DROP IN THEFTS AND AUTO BREAK-INS IN HOME INVASIONS, BECAUSE AS YOU COME INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THERE'S A SIGN THAT SAYS YOU'RE BEING VIDEOTAPED 24/7.

NOW THESE CAMERAS AREN'T LOOKING AT THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE VEHICLES, ALL WRITTEN IS THE LICENSE PLATE, AND THEY'RE RECORDING THE TYPE OF VEHICLE IT IS, THE COLOR OF THE VEHICLE, THE TIME IT ENTERED THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY EVEN ESTIMATE THE AGE OF THE VEHICLE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY NICE ABOUT IT GOES IN GOES OUT.

WE KNOW EXACTLY EVERYBODY WHO'S COMING IN AND OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T MONITOR IT, FLOCK MONITORS IT.

BUT IF WE HAVE A DATA SHARING AGREEMENT WITHIN THAT SAYS, THAT THEY WILL ONLY SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES.

NOW, COULD THERE BE BAD ACTORS THAT STEAL THAT DATA? THAT'S WITH ANYBODY, EVERY COMPANY HAS TO WORRY ABOUT THAT.

BUT THAT WAS OUR AGREEMENT WITH FLOCK, THEY'RE NOT TO USE THAT INFORMATION EXCEPT WITHIN FLOCK, BUT WITHIN THE OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.

THESE CAMERAS HAVE NOT ONLY DEALT WITH VEHICLES, BUT THEY ALSO BEEN ABLE TO SOLVE SEVERAL CRIMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

LAST DECEMBER, WE HAD ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS NOTICE ON THEIR HOME CAMERA THAT SOMEONE WAS IN THEIR DRIVEWAY.

WHEN THEY CAME DOWN, THEY NOTICED THAT THEIR POOL PUMP WAS STOLEN.

THE DEPUTY HUDSON WITH THE GALVESTON COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT OR GALVESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT RESEARCHED IT, LOCATED THE INDIVIDUAL, RETRIEVED IT, ARRESTS WERE MADE.

IT'S NOT JUST FOR VEHICLES, IT'S ALSO TO KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU'VE GOT MY NUMBER, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I'M NOT AN ADVOCATE FOR FLOCK, I JUST WANTED TO TELL YOU MY EXPERIENCE THAT WE HAVE HAD WITH THE CAMERAS, AND JUST THINK YOU MIGHT WANT TO RECONSIDER DOING A DATA SHARE.

GALVESTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVAL FOR PUTTING FIVE IN THE RURAL AREAS NOW.

>> THANK YOU, JOE. APPRECIATE IT.

SAMUEL KOTLIN, SAM.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I CAME TO INVITE THE COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER TO THE GALVESTON ARTWALK THIS WEEKEND.

[01:45:01]

NOTICED IN THE PAMPHLET THAT IT SAYS THAT THE ARTWALK IS SUPPORTED BY A MOTEL TAX DALLAS.

I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR THE MOVEMENT OF THE FUNDS FROM THE PARK BOARD, TO EARN MORE INTERESTS WHICH WILL BENEFIT THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON.

IN THE PAMPHLETS, I BROUGHT SEVERAL.

IF I GIVE IT TO HER TO PASS TO YOU.

THERE ARE 23 LOCATIONS LISTED, OF COURSE ONE OF THOSE LOCATIONS IS THE NIA CULTURAL CENTER.

I WANT TO INVITE THE COUNCIL NOW TO SEE THE NIA CULTURAL CENTER, WHICH CONTINUES TO PROVIDE SOME DIVERSE ARTWORK.

WE HAVE 11 ARTISTS FEATURED AT THE GALLERY RIGHT NOW.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'D BEEN WORKING WITH RICE UNIVERSITY, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY, THEY CONTINUED TO PROVIDE CONTENT THAT IS ROTATED ON A SIX-MONTH BASIS THAT WILL HELP TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC.

THE BUSINESS CODE TRIAD IS VISIONS AND VOICES OF EMANCIPATION, DONE BY A PHD STUDENT AT TEXAS A&M, JASON SPENCER.

YOU CAN SCAN THAT CODE, WHICH ARE CELL PHONE TO GET ACCESS TO THE ONLINE PRESENTATION.

ALSO WE HAVE ON DISPLAY RIGHT NOW, 11 CONCEPT DESIGNS DONE BY PRAIRIE VIEW A&M STUDENTS FOR POSSIBLE JUNETEENTH MUSEUM, OF COURSE I'M NOT ASKING THE CITY TO PAY FOR THAT, BRIAN.

I KNOW YOU'RE SITTING THERE HOLDING YOUR CHECKBOOK.

[LAUGHTER] BUT WHAT I AM GOING TO ASK IS THAT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS COME DOWN, TAKE A LOOK, THIS IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO SELECT ONE OF THE PLANTS THAT YOU LIKE THE BEST.

THIS WILL BE ON DISPLAY AT ARTWALK 6:00 PM TO 9:00 PM SATURDAY.

THE GALLERY IS OPEN TUESDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 10:00 AM AND 03:00 PM, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY 12:00- 06:00 PM.

BUT SPECIFICALLY THIS WEEKEND WE WILL HAVE SPECIAL GIFTS THERE, ALL 11 DESIGNS WILL BE ON DISPLAY.

OFTENTIMES PEOPLE COME AND THEY THINK ABOUT JUNETEENTH OR SLAVERY, AND THEY THINK THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THEM FEEL GUILTY.

JAMES BALDWIN HAS A, "I'M NOT INTERESTED IN ANYONE'S GUILT." GUILT IS A LUXURY, WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD.

I KNOW YOU DIDN'T DO IT AND I DIDN'T DO IT.

BUT I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, BECAUSE I'M A MAN AND A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY, AND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VERY SAME REASON.

WE'RE ALL ON THIS AMERICAN DEED, THIS AMERICAN HOUSE WE'RE ON THE DEED.

THIS GALVESTON HOUSE WERE ON THE DEED, SO IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS HOUSE IS HERE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

THE NIA CULTURAL CENTER PROVIDES INFORMATION AND DISPLAYS OF INFORMATION, THAT WILL HELP TO REPAIR THIS AMERICAN HOME, GALVESTON HOME THAT WE LIVE IN, SO THAT IT WILL BE HERE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

MY NAME IS SAMUEL COLLINS III, MY GRANDFATHER DROVE CABS, BOR 7TH GENERATION TEXAN AND MY CHILDREN ARE-.

>> THANK YOU, SAM. PEGGY SAILOR, PEGGY.

>> [BACKGROUND].

>> SHE WAS HERE BEFORE.

YES, PEGGY. NICE TO SEE YOU.

>> HI, PEGGY SAILOR 12520 EAST VENTURA, ON BEHALF OF SPANISH GRANT BEACH I WOULD LIKE TO PERSONALLY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

THE DIALOGUE THAT GOES ON, AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND OUR ISSUES IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME.

ALTHOUGH WE HAVE SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IN GALVESTON, IN LAKE CITY WE DO NOT.

ACTUALLY SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS TO ME JUST MEANS NOT MAYBE THAT CLOSE TO ME, BUT I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ANYWAY.

AS CITY LOUISIANA FOR THE BOARD, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT AT ANY TIME IF I CAN HELP YOU, IN ANY WAY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED.

A MENTOR OF MINE TOLD ME ONE TIME HE SAID, IF YOU'RE NOT AT THE TABLE, THEN YOU'RE ON THE MENU.

WHEN I TALK IN TERMS OF SPANISH GRANT BEACH WOULD LIKE TO BE ENGAGED, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT'S WHERE IT COMES FROM, BECAUSE I THINK NOBODY UNDERSTANDS OUR ISSUES AS WELL AS WE DO.

I TRUST THAT YOU REPRESENT US, BUT I GUARANTEE YOU THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT CONCERNED US THAT ANY DAY AND TIME, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW.

WE WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU, AND WE WANT TO KNOW, YOU TO KNOW THAT WE CONSIDER THE CITY OF PARTNERSHIP, AND THAT'S HOW I WANT TO GO FORWARD, AND WE'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT PROPERTY WILL BE DEVELOPED.

WHAT WE ALWAYS HOPED IS THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE'D HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO WOULD WANT TO VOLUNTARILY ENGAGE WITH US, AND WE WOULD WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS TOGETHER.

THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND A THANKS TO JOHN PAUL, WHO ARE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS GRACIOUS ENOUGH TO STAY AFTER THE MEETING, ANSWERED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS.

[01:50:03]

WE HAD A GREAT CONVERSATION AND I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.

THEN TO MY VERY SPECIAL FRIEND MARIE ROBB, SHE WAS THERE EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, AND WHEN WE FINALLY WERE ABLE TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER AGREE TO MEET WITH US, SHE MADE HERSELF AVAILABLE AT ANY TIME.

WE WERE TRYING TO GET AT LEAST SIX BEACH GRANT PROPERTY OWNERS TOGETHER, AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPER, AND SHE MADE HERSELF AVAILABLE.

THAT'S THE PARTNERSHIP I'D LIKE TO HAVE WITH ALL OF YOU, AND I'LL TELL YOU WE'LL BE THERE FOR YOU.

WE JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE LISTENED TO.

I'LL DROVE FROM LAKE CITY, I LOVE IT HERE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU HAVE MADE MY DAY.

THIS LIFTED A WEIGHT OFF OF ALL OF OUR SHOULDERS, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN REHEARSING AND THIS MEANS A LOT TO US. THANK YOU.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU, PEGGY.

HERBERT FOREMAN, HERBERT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, SIR.

>> I WANTED TO ADDRESS REAL QUICK ABOUT THE TAXI STUFF THAT'S GOING ON IN GALVESTON.

I THINK DR. MAYOR BROWN, WE'VE HAD OUR DISCUSSION.

BRIAN HAVEN'T MET, I TALKED BRIEFLY WITH MS. LEWIS, ME, AND RICKY MOHANDAS.

BUT ANYWAY TO GET TO THE NUTS AND BOLTS, I KNOW WE'RE HERE MOMENTARILY TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION ABOUT THE AGE LIMITS OF TAXIS.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION TO ASK.

IF YOU WERE IN BUSINESS AND YOU DECIDED YOU WANTED TO BRING A BUNCH OF 1965 OR 55 CHEVY, AND PUT THEM ON JUST TO WOW THE PEOPLE OF GALVESTON SAY, THOSE ARE SOME REALLY NICE CARS.

DOES IT HAVE TO BE AN AGE LIMIT FOR, SHOULD WE NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE FREE ENTERPRISE, FREEWILL? IT COULD BE GOVERNED, BUT AT LEAST ALLOW THEM TO LAST AS LONG AND NOT BE DICTATED BY CERTAIN PEOPLE, AS TO WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK.

WE SHOULD ALL BE ABLE TO HAVE THE FREEWILL, AND THE FREE ENTERPRISE TO RUN AND OPERATE A BUSINESS.

WE'RE NOT KILLING ANYBODY, WE'RE NOT ROBBING ANYBODY.

BUT THEN WE ALLOWED FOR YEARS NO UBER, NO LYFT.

BUT THEN AND THAT'S NO OFFENSE, THAT'S HIM OR WHOMEVER WANTS TO COME IN AND DRIVE UBER, AND WE HAVE NO RECOLLECTION OF WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE.

BUT THEN JUST LIKE [OVERLAPPING] MS. DEBORAH WAS SAYING, IN THE TAXI BUSINESS YOU KNOW EVERY PERSON BEHIND THE WHEEL, BECAUSE WE CARE ENOUGH.

I'M TALKING ON BEHALF OF A BUSY BEE, A STAPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY AFRICAN AMERICAN COMPANY FOR OVER 65 YEARS.

I THINK THEY DESERVE NOT TO BE CURTAILED BY A YEAR MILEAGE.

IF THAT VEHICLE CAN PASS A STATE INSPECTION, IS SHIRKING PASS THE STADIUM MARSHAL'S INSPECTION. Y'ALL HAVE A NICE NIGHT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR.

MORGAN CANGELOSI.

I'M SORRY IF I MISPRONOUNCED THAT.

[LAUGHTER]

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS MORGAN CANGELOSI AND THIS IS MY FIRST TIME COMING TO CITY COUNCIL.

I WASN'T AWARE HOW THIS PROCESS WORKS, SO I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND WHO IS THE FIREMAN IN QUESTION ON 11M.

MY HUSBAND HAS NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA.

WHEN WE WENT TO THE ONCOLOGIST, WE FOUND OUT THAT FOLLOWING 9/11, THERE ARE A LOT OF FIREMEN THAT HAVE HAD CANCER AT UNEXPECTED AGES.

MY HUSBAND'S THE ONLY ONE ON WORKMAN'S COMP FOR THE GALVESTON FIRE DEPARTMENT, BUT HE IS THE THIRD GUY IN HIS LATE 30S OR EARLY 40S WITH CANCER, AND THERE'S ABOUT 120 FIREMEN.

WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD EXTEND HIS LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

WE DEAL WITH ASKING FOR APPROVAL EVERY SINGLE DAY.

WE HAVE TO ASK FOR INSURANCE, WE HAVE TO ASK FOR MEDICATIONS, WE HAVE TO ASK FOR APPROVAL FOR A LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

WE'RE CONSTANTLY ASKING FOR APPROVAL.

SO I'M JUST HERE ASKING IF YOU WOULD PLEASE CONSIDER THAT AND IF YOU WOULD PLEASE APPROVE IT.

[01:55:01]

THE PLAN FOR HIM IS A STEM CELL TRANSPLANT, IT'S A FOUR-MONTH PROCESS AND HE'LL HAVE TO SPEND 30 OF THOSE DAYS IN THE HOSPITAL, AND THEN GO TO THE HOSPITAL EVERY SINGLE DAY.

IF WE HAVE TO ASK FOR WORKMAN'S COMP AND GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING WHERE IT'S ONE MORE THING WE HAVE TO DO, SO WE WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER THAT.

I ALSO WAS HOPING TO ASK IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I LEARNED YOU CAN'T TALK TO US, SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTACT ME MY EMAIL IS MORGAN, M-O-R-G-A-N.CANGELOSI, I HAVE THE SAME LAST NAME AS MY HUSBAND, @GMAIL.COM, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

[BACKGROUND] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> OUR PRAYERS ARE WITH YOU AND YOUR FAMILY, MORGAN.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I APPRECIATE IT.

>> ROSILYN JACKSON.

>> HELLO, EVERYBODY. I AIN'T BEEN HERE IN SO LONG.

[LAUGHTER] IT'S BEEN SINCE THAT HOUSING.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CABS.

I GREW UP IN GALVESTON WHERE CABS WOULD PICK US UP AND TAKE US HOME.

I KNOW THEY HAVE UBER AND ALL THIS, BUT I OWN A CLUB, THE ONLY BLACK CLUB IN GALVESTON.

I DO HAVE SOME ELDERLY PEOPLE THAT WANTS TO GO HOME AT NIGHT AND I CALL A CAB BECAUSE I DON'T LET THEM DRIVE BECAUSE THEY OLD, AND NOT TRYING TO MAKE FUNNY, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY GET HOME SAFELY.

I CALL FOR UBER, THEY TELL ME, I DON'T WANT TO GET IN THE UBER BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THEM AND I'M NOT GETTING IN.

I CALL A CAB, THEY GET IN THE CAB, THE CAB KNOW WHERE THEY LIVE AND WHERE THEY GOING, AND SO THEY FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE CAB DRIVERS.

I FEEL COMFORTABLE BECAUSE I KNOW HALF OF THE CAB DRIVERS HERE.

A UBER? YES, I HAD A FRIEND GET IN AN UBER, HE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE HE WAS TAKING HER.

SHE GAVE HIM THE ADDRESS.

HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT ADDRESS.

HE TRIED TO PUT IT INTO, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S AT.

BUT THAT'S WHAT WE LIVING WITH TODAY.

I'M JUST PLEASED WITH YOU ALL, JUST KEEP THE CABS HERE IN GALVESTON. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? WE'RE IN TROUBLE NOW, HERE HE COMES.

[APPLAUSE] LET ME INTRODUCE EX-CITY COUNCILMAN, WILLIAM SCHUSTER. WILLIAM.

>> I'LL BE QUICK. I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO GET OUT OF HERE, YOU HAD A LONG DAY.

I'M HERE TO TALK TONIGHT ABOUT CONSENT ITEM 11B, AND JUST AS I SPEAK ABOUT IT, I JUST WANT TO SAY I WANT TO THANK YOU COUNCIL FOR APPROVING THIS ITEM TONIGHT AND THE CITY STAFF WHO WORKED WITH THE GMPA TO MAKE THIS POSSIBLE.

THESE PAY INCREASES ARE WELL-DESERVED FOR OUR DEPARTMENT HERE IN GALVESTON.

GALVESTON POLICE ON A DAILY BASIS DEAL WITH WAY MORE THAN ANY OTHER DEPARTMENT IN THE STATE.

WITH 53,000 FULL-TIME RESIDENTS AND 7.5 MILLION VISITORS, THEY DO THE BEST THEY CAN WITH WHAT THEY HAVE TO KEEP US ALL SAFE.

IT'S A THANKLESS JOB AND I'M HERE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE MEN AND WOMEN WHO PATROL OUR COMMUNITY.

IT'S A STRESSFUL JOB DAY IN, DAY OUT, AND I'LL ALWAYS REMEMBER AT A UNION MEETING I ATTENDED, AN OFFICER SAID OUR POLICE SEE THINGS ON A DAILY BASIS THAT NO INDIVIDUAL SHOULD EVER HAVE TO SEE IN A LIFETIME.

ARE THEY PERFECT? NO. BUT IF I MADE APARTMENT ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THAT IS.

I THINK THEY DO THE BEST THAT THEY CAN IN A TIME WHEN THEIR JOB CAN BE SO UNSAFE.

I CAME TONIGHT BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE SPEAK, IT'S ALWAYS ON THE NEGATIVE ON OUR DEPARTMENT, AND I WANTED TO FOCUS ON ALL THE POSITIVE THEY DO ACROSS THE ISLAND.

AGAIN, THANKS GPD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND THANK YOU TO THE UNION AND THANK YOU TO CITY STAFF AND CITY COUNCIL TONIGHT TO APPROVE THIS RAISE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, WILLIAM. ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? I'M CLOSING PUBLIC COMMENT AT 6:58 PM,

[10.A. Consider For Approval Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Authorizing The Issuance, Sale And Delivery Of City Of Galveston, Texas, Wharves And Terminal First Lien Revenue Bonds, Series 2023 (Amt); And Providing For The Security Thereof; Approving The Form And Substance, And Authorizing The Execution And Delivery Of An Amended And Restated Trust Indenture And First Supplemental Amended And Restated Trust Indenture; Approving And Authorizing The Execution And Delivery Of Related Transaction Documents; Approving The Use And Distribution Of A Preliminary Official Statement And The Use And Distribution Of An Official Statement; And Making Certain Findings With Respect Thereto And Containing Other Provisions Relating To The Subject. (M. Loftin)]

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM ORDINANCES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ITEM 10A, PLEASE.

>> ITEM 10A, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS WHARVES AND TERMINAL FIRST LIEN REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2023 AND PROVIDING FOR THE SECURITY THEREOF, APPROVING THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF AN AMENDED AND RESTATED TRUST INDENTURE, AND FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED AND RESTATED TRUST INDENTURE.

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF RELATED TRANSACTION DOCUMENTS, APPROVING THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND THE USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS WITH RESPECT THERETO AND CONTAINING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE SUBJECT.

>> THANK YOU, NELLY. MIKE, DID YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE OR SAY ANYTHING ON THIS SUBJECT, SIR?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN BRIEFED BY

[02:00:04]

THE PORT BEFORE AND THERE IS DISCUSSION IN TODAY'S WORKSHOP OF THIS ISSUE.

FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC, WE'LL SAY THAT THE SALE IS FOR A MAXIMUM OF 53 MILLION IN REVENUE BONDS.

THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR WHICH WILL BE PAID THROUGH REVENUE RAISED BY THE PORT, THROUGH THE NEW CRUISE TERMINAL THAT'S UNDERWAY.

SOME PORTION OF THE PROCEEDS WILL GO TO REIMBURSE THE PORT FOR OPERATING CASH THEY'VE ALREADY INVESTED IN THE PROJECT AND PAY THE CONTRACTOR WITH.

WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TONIGHT.

I SEE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PORT INCLUDING TONY BROWN, MARK MURCHISON, AND WE'VE GOT THE CITY'S BOND COUNSEL, BARRON WALLACE AND OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR, CAMERON THATCHER.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU, MIKE.

>> I GUESS I WILL ADD, THIS IS AN ISSUANCE OF NEW DEBT, AND THERE WERE SOME INFORMATION EARLIER THAT SOUNDED LIKE PEOPLE WERE NOT PROPERLY INFORMED.

THE CITY CHARTER REQUIRES SIX YES VOTES FROM THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS ITEM.

JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT UP.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 10A.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT?

>> I'LL SECOND

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB.

LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS NOW COUNCIL. YES, DAVID.

>> MR. LOFTIN, IS THIS A RESPONSIBLE FIDUCIARY MOVE?

>> I'M SORRY.

>> IS THIS A RESPONSIBLE FIDUCIARY MOVE ON OUR PART TO APPROVE THIS?

>> I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE.

>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I'M FOR THIS BOND.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE EVERYTHING GO THROUGH AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I HAVE RESERVES FOR THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF WHAT THE STATEMENTS ARE IN OVER THERE.

I'LL JUST READ WHAT I HAVE HERE. IT'S GOING TO BE EASIER.

ON AUGUST 22ND, THE WHARVES FINANCIAL MEETING HAD A LETTER FROM THE PORT'S OLD AUDITOR PRESENTED RSM.

THE OLD PORT AUDITOR STATES THAT THERE'S AN INCONSISTENCY AND CONTRARY INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO RSM ON AUGUST 16TH, 2022 AND DECEMBER 27TH, 2022.

THERE ARE TALKS ABOUT HAVING TO REINSTATE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM 2018 TO 2022.

IT APPEARS THAT THE PORT OWES FEMA ABOUT $11 MILLION.

IN 2018, GLENN BULGHERINI REPORTED THERE WAS A TWO MILLION DOLLAR LIABILITY AT THE PORT FROM FEMA.

HARRY MAXWELL, ROGER REES, MARK MURCHISON DISAGREED WITH GLENN AND HAD JOEL PEREZ WITH RMS LOOK AT GLENN'S WORK.

MR. PEREZ DISAGREED WITH GLENN BULGHERINI AT THE TIME AND CHARGED THE PORT ANOTHER $15,000 AND BLAMED GLENN FOR THE EXTRA COST.

UNFORTUNATELY, GLENN WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ON THIS SITUATION ON 2018.

JANUARY 2022, THE PORT GOT A LETTER FROM FEMA STATING THAT THE PORT OWED THEM $10.7 MILLION.

AT THIS TIME, MAXWELL REES, MURCHISON, AND PEREZ AGREED THAT $10 MILLION WAS NEEDED TO BE LISTED ON THE LIABILITIES OF THE PORT FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

A NOTE FROM FEMA HAS A PORTAL SHOWING THE PORT STATUS OF FEMA'S PROJECTS.

AT ANY GIVEN TIME, THE PORT CAN SEE WHAT IS OWED AND WHAT IS NOT OWED.

THERE IS NO EXCUSE THAT THE PORT DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY OWED FEMA.

FOUR YEARS, THE PORT NEVER LISTED THE FEMA'S MONEY THAT THEY OWED ON THEIR LIABILITY.

DURING THIS TIME, THE PORT REFINANCED BONDS FOR 13 MILLION TO 22 MILLION.

THE NINE MILLION INCREASE WITH LONG-TERM LIABILITIES IN 2022.

TO REFINANCE THESE BONDS, THE PORT GAVE DON GLYWASKY, 2018, 2019, 2020 COFFERS FOR DOCUMENTATION ON THE REFINANCING,

[02:05:06]

WHICH THE COFFERS WERE INCORRECT.

DON GLYWASKY WAS UNAWARE OF THIS PROBLEM, WHICH BRINGS ME UP TO DATE.

MY CONCERN IS THAT THE PORT NEEDS TO FIX THE ISSUES WITH FEMA AND THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS BEFORE TAKING ON ANOTHER $53 MILLION OF LIABILITY.

WE NEED GLENN BULGHERINI TO FINISH UP HIS REPORTING FROM 2018 AT THE PORT.

THE REASON WHY WE NEED GLENN THERE IS HE HAS MOST OF THE WORK FINISHED, JUST NEEDS TO FINISH IT UP.

THE CITY OF GALVESTON NEEDS TO APPOINT AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR TO INTERNAL CONTROL AUDITS OF THE PORT.

THE PORT NEEDS TO CONTACT FEMA AND CORRECT THIS ISSUE BETWEEN THEM.

AT THIS TIME, I BELIEVE THE PORT OF GALVESTON HAVE THE BOND ISSUES TO THEM FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF PIER 25.

THE PORT SHOULD INCLUDE ANY EXTRA COST INCURRED TO THEM OF THE $53 MILLION TO PAY BACK.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY THERE IS LATER ON AFTER THEY FIX THESE PROBLEMS, THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND THEN RELEASE THESE BONDS, GIVE THEM THE MONEY THAT THEY NEED AND ANY OTHER COSTS THAT OCCURRED BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, PUT THAT ON TOP OF THE $53 MILLION SO THEY CAN PAY THEMSELVES BACK.

I THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO RESOLVE BEFORE WE HAVE THESE BONDS GO THROUGH.

>> THANK YOU, MIKE. YES, MARIE.

>> I'LL ASK A QUESTION OF TONY.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE BOND WAS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY AT THE WHARVES PORT.

>> FOR THE RECORD, TONY BROWN, 5127 DENVER DRIVE, ATTORNEY FOR THE PORT.

YES, IT WAS VOTED AND APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHO REQUEST THAT THE BONDS BE ISSUED.

>> THE MEETING AT WHICH IT HAPPENED? I BELIEVE THERE WERE TWO MEETINGS.

>> WHEN WAS THAT?

THERE WAS A REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING AT THE END OF JULY, AND THEN THERE WAS A SPECIAL MEETING TO FORMALLY SET OUT A RESOLUTION, SETTING OUT THE ITEMS THAT CITY STAFF REQUESTED, SUMMARIZING THAT ON AUGUST 8TH.

>> THAT MEETING HAPPENED BEFORE WE RECEIVED THIS LETTER FROM RSM?

>> WELL, THE LETTER FROM RSM WAS RECEIVED LAST WEEK.

>> BUT THAT MEETING WAS PREVIOUS TO THAT LETTER, CORRECT?

>> RIGHT. NOW, THE BOARD DID HAVE IT AND DISCUSSED IT IN FINANCE AT THEIR MEETING ON TUESDAY OF THIS WEEK.

AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD ITSELF DISCUSSED HAVING OPTIONS PROVIDED FOR AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR TO AUDIT THEIR INTERNAL CONTROLS.

THE TRUSTEES ARE CLEARLY THINKING THE SAME AS YOU ARE ON THAT ISSUE.

>> WE ARE, AND THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA FOR UPCOMING MEETING TO DELINEATE THOSE AREAS FOR THAT INTERNAL AUDITS.

>> INTERNAL CONTROLS.

IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER NORMAL AUDITS THAT TAKE PLACE EACH YEAR.

>> DAVID HAS A QUESTION.

>> DAVID FINKLEA. DAVID.

>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK TONY BROWN, AND MAYOR, YOU DID CLARIFY THIS A LITTLE BIT IN THE WORKSHOP.

>> COULD YOU SPEAK UP, DAVID? DAVID, COULD YOU SPEAK UP?

>> YEAH. SORRY. IS THIS A LITTLE BETTER?

>> TINY BIT, BUT NOT A LOT.

>> I'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

>> WE GOT TO WAIT FOR HIM TO COME STRONGER? [LAUGHTER]

>> WHILE HE'S DOING THAT, TONY, HOW LONG WILL THESE INTERNAL AUDITS TAKE? WHAT'S THE PROCESS ON THIS?

>> I DON'T KNOW, WE'LL FIND OUT FROM WHEN WE GET THE OPTIONS PRESENTED OR THE BOARD WILL AT THEIR NEXT MEETING.

>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE BOARD, BUT IT'S MY OPINION THE BOARD WANTS TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

>> YES. BUT AS FAR AS THE MECHANICS OF THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THOSE AUDITS TAKE.

>> DAVID'S READY, MAYOR.

>> DAVID, GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME BETTER NOW?

>> WELL, THAT'S STILL A PROBLEM, DAVID, UNFORTUNATELY.

>> CAN YOU TURN THE VOLUME UP ON YOUR COMPUTER?

>> NO, I'VE GOT MY AIR PODS IN AND THAT MIC SHOULD WORK A LOT BETTER THAN THE MIC ON THE. [OVERLAPPING]

[02:10:01]

>> CAN WE TURN OUR VOLUME UP?

>> OH, IT'S COMING FROM HERE.

>> QUESTION FOR TONY BROWN, BUT I THINK HE'S STATED IT, WHICH WAS HOW LONG DOES A FINANCIAL AUDIT TAKE? THE OTHER QUESTION IS, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE GLENN BULGHERINI TO COMPLETE HIS WORK AS COUNCILMEMBER BOUVIER STATED PREVIOUSLY.

>> IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, DAVID, YOU WERE ASKING ABOUT HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE FOR GLENN BULGHERINI TO COMPLETE HIS AUDIT WORK AS MENTIONED BY COUNCILMEMBER BOUVIER?

>> MR. BULGHERINI IS NOT PARTICIPATING IN ANY AUDITS AT THE PORT.

WE DISCUSSED HIS AUDIT PLAN TODAY, WE'RE STILL NOT FINISHED WITH THAT AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PUT INTO HIS AUDIT PLAN IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.

>> IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT FROM MR. BOUVIER'S STATEMENT, SO THAT WAS 2018 AND MIGHT HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS HISTORICAL THING THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER.

I THINK THAT THE TRUSTEES ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE COMPREHENSIVE ON CURRENT INTERNAL CONTROLS.

IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, I THINK THE BOARD WOULD STILL WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROCESS THEY'D BEEN DISCUSSING.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE BOND COUNSELS, I KNOW WE HAVE MULTIPLE HERE, YOU SPOKE ABOUT THIS WORKSHOP, AND WHAT YOUR OPINION IS IN MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS ONE.

>> FOR THE RECORD, BARREN WALLACE, I'M WITH BRACEWELL, BOND COUNSEL TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

HERE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE TO THINK THROUGH IS THAT WHEN YOU GO ISSUE BONDS, YOU'RE SELLING THEM TO THE MARKETPLACE AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE DISCLOSURES AND AN OFFERING DOCUMENT.

IT IS OUR JOB, WHETHER IT'S THE PORT, CITY, AND YOUR CONSULTANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IN THAT DOCUMENT IS ACCURATE.

WE HAVE TO GO ABOUT DOING DILIGENCE OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS OR HOWEVER LONG IT TAKES TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE FACTS AROUND THE LETTER, THE FACTS SURROUNDING ANY HISTORICAL ISSUES, AND THEN THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS ARE THEY MATERIAL? WE DON'T KNOW THAT NOW, WE HAVEN'T ASKED ENOUGH QUESTIONS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

BUT WE WOULDN'T MOVE FORWARD IF THEY ARE MATERIAL.

OR IF THEY ARE MATERIAL, WE'LL PUT IT IN BOLD LETTERS, BUT THE MARKET IS GOING TO EVALUATE WHETHER THEY WOULD BUY THOSE BONDS.

WE HAVE UNDERWRITERS AND OTHER PEOPLE, THEY NEED TO EVALUATE WHETHER IT'S MATERIAL, BUT IT IS A PROCESS AND IT WILL TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

>> WHILE YOU'RE UP HERE.

>> THIS VOTE TODAY WITH CITY COUNCIL, THEN WHETHER IT'S DEFERRED, APPROVED, YOU WOULD CONTINUE ON WITH THAT, YOU WOULD WORK THROUGH THIS ISSUE THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT UP TODAY?

>> WELL, THERE ARE SOME CONCLUSIONS, IF YOU TOLD ME TO STOP WORKING THEN I'D STOP WORKING.

>> WELL, THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T SAY DENIED.

BUT IF IT WAS APPROVED OR DEFERRED, YOU WOULD CONTINUE DOWN THIS PATH TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE?

>> I THINK IF THE CITY SAID, HEY, KEEP WORKING, WE'RE GOING TO DEFER IT, WE'LL KEEP WORKING.

IT'S UP TO YOU, YOU'RE THE CLIENT.

BUT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS TO DO AFTER THIS.

JUST TO BE REAL CLEAR, THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE APPROVING SETS FORTH THE PROCESS, IT DOESN'T CAUSE THE BONDS TO BE PRICED.

THERE ARE CERTAIN, WHAT WE CALL THEM PARAMETERS THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET.

THEN THEY ARE APPROVED BY THE CITY MNAGER AT SOME LATER DATE.

THERE ARE A LOT OF HURDLES THAT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH IN ORDER TO ISSUE BONDS, BUT YES, I WOULD ASSUME THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTION ON THIS?

>> I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT.

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE AUDITS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.

IF WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVED THIS AND THE PORT SAYS, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT AND WE GO AHEAD AND ISSUE THESE BONDS, THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE AUDITS DONE.

THIS IS THE ONLY TIME THAT WE HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE ARE GOING TO GET DONE AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THIS.

>> MAYOR?

>> I JUST HEARD YOU SAID, IF WE HAVE PROVED THIS, THEN IT'S A COMPLETE AND THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE LETTER,

[02:15:03]

THE FINANCIALS AND SO FORTH FOR THE PACKET TO BE PUT TOGETHER.

BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S WHETHER SOMEONE WOULD BUY IT OR NOT BUY IT AND THERE'S A WHOLE LEGAL PROCESS THAT GOES INTO THAT.

>> YEAH. I THINK THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS THERE.

WE HAVE TO DO DILIGENCE AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LETTER MEANS, WHAT'S MATERIAL AND WHAT THE OUTCOME IS, I THINK THAT'S A SEPARATE QUESTION FROM WHAT THE PORT TRUSTEES DO.

BUT OBVIOUSLY, IF IT'S ON THE AGENDA AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALSO DISCLOSE, IS THAT THE PORT IS GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO I THINK IT'S AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR TO LOOK AT INTERNAL CONTROLS IF I HEARD CORRECTLY.

>> COULD WE APPROVE THIS BOND THIS EVENING AND ADD TO IT THAT THE PORT CONTINUE ON WITH DOING AN EXTERNAL AUDIT REVIEW?

>> BY ALL MEANS. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD AMEND THIS MOTION TO INCLUDE THE APPROVAL OF THE BONDS AND THAT THE PORT WOULD MOVE FORWARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE FOR THE INTERNAL AUDIT OF THEIR OPERATING SYSTEMS THERE.

>> DAVID HAS HIS HAND UP.

>> YES, DAVID?

>> I WOULD APPROVE YOUR AMENDMENT.

>> DO YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT? DO YOU WANT TO AMEND THIS BEFORE?

>> I'M FINE TO INCLUDE THAT.

YES, BY ALL MEANS, THE WHARVES BOARD FEELS THE SAME WAY, WE'RE TALKING IN UNISON HERE.

IF THE COUNCIL FELT MORE COMFORTABLE PUTTING THAT IN IN A MORE FORMAL MANNER WITH THIS MOTION, I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.

>> MY COMMENT IS THIS, THAT THESE QUESTIONS HAVE COME UP, OUR HESITATION IS BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS BY WHICH WE GOT FROM CONTRACT, CONSTRUCTION, EXPENDITURE TO THE BOND.

IT WAS BACKWARDS. I THINK COUNCIL AND THE CITY HAVE EXPRESSED THEIR DISPLEASURE WITH THIS.

WHAT WE DO TONIGHT, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THAT PROCESS.

THESE ARE WORTHWHILE MODIFICATIONS THAT ARE BEING MADE AT THE PORT.

THIS WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE ON 25, IT'S BEING DONE NOW AND IT'S A SIGNIFICANT STEP FOR THE PORT TO BE ABLE TO HOST THESE NEW SHIPS AND TO HAVE THESE NEW FACILITIES FOR CPP AND THE LIKE.

I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MEASURE HOWEVER YOU AMENDED BECAUSE THESE BONDS NEED TO BE ISSUED.

BECAUSE IF WE DELAY THIS MUCH LONGER, WE KNOW WE'VE BEEN BACKED INTO A BIT OF A CORNER HERE, BUT IF WE DELAY THIS MUCH LONGER, THE POTENTIAL OF RUNNING UP AGAINST CASH-FLOW ISSUES AS THE YEAR WEARS ON.

I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT.

WHERE WE HAVE THE CONTROL TO SEE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN IS THE RECOGNITION THAT DEVELOPMENT, AT LEAST CONSIDERATION FOR PIER 16 CONTINUES A PACE AND THAT'S SOME TIME BETWEEN NOW AND 2030.

[LAUGHTER] WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT AT SOME LENGTH, WHETHER IT'S SIX MONTHS FROM NOW OR TWO YEARS FROM NOW, THE TRUSTEES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO US FOR ANOTHER MEASURE.

I THINK THE DELAY IN THIS PROCESS MAY BE PERCEIVED AS A SHOT ACROSS THE BOW OF THE WHARF BOARD, TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS WAS NOT DONE CORRECTLY AND WE REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS PROCESS IMPROVED NEXT TIME AROUND.

THE $50 MILLION, YOU WERE DOWN THIS ROAD, BUT I THINK THE WHARF BOARD HAS TAKEN SOME SIGNIFICANT STEPS TO SEE THAT THIS WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN, THAT YOU'RE LINING THESE DOCKS UP.

THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT WAS DELAYED OR WHAT WAS SAID IN THE TUESDAY MEETING, BUT THE POINT IS YOU'RE GETTING A BETTER CONTROL ON THIS AND I THINK THE TRUSTEES UNDERSTAND THIS.

I WOULD URGE US TO SUPPORT THIS MEASURE TONIGHT AND EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE GOING TO FACE THIS AGAIN, ALMOST CERTAINLY.

I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT SOONER OR LATER THERE'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT AT 16, AND THAT THE PROCESS IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE ENGINEERED DIFFERENTLY NEXT TIME SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THESE QUESTIONS, WE DON'T HAVE THESE DELAYS, WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE THESE ISSUES, WE DON'T HAVE THE DOUBT IN OUR MINDS OF WHETHER THIS IS THE PROCESS BEING DONE CORRECTLY.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND WHARF BOARD TRUSTEES TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING TO PROCEED IN THE FUTURE.

>> BY ALL MEANS, WE HAVE AN AMENDED MOTION ON THE FLOOR. YES.

>> ONE LAST COMMENT. WE HAVE ANOTHER COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 14TH.

[02:20:06]

I WOULD LIKE US TO DEFER THIS AND GIVE THE WHARFS THE TIME TO PROCURE OR OBTAIN THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR AND GET THEM IN PLACE AND THEN WE WILL APPROVE IT ON THE 14TH.

THAT GIVES THEM AMPLE TIME TO GET THE AUDITOR AND GET EVERYTHING MOVING.

>> I THINK BY AMENDING THE MOTION THAT WE COVER THAT.

I THINK WE HEARD OUR CFO, WHO WE ALL RESPECTS, SAY THAT THIS IS A GOOD FIDUCIARY MOVE.

WE HAVE PUT IN THE CONTROLS INTO THE MOTION, SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE MOVE THIS FORWARD THIS EVENING.

>> COUNCILMAN FINKLEA? YES, SIR.

>> YES, MAYOR. RATHER THAN LANGUAGE IN THE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD SAY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT WE PUT A 30-DAY TIME PERIOD FOR THE PROCUREMENT OR ON-BOARDING OF THE THIRD-PARTY EXTERNAL AUDITOR.

THAT WOULD BE A SPECIFIC TIMEFRAME BY WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THAT OBLIGATION.

WHAT WAS YOUR SUGGESTED TIME?

>> A 30 DAY TIME PERIOD?

>> I'M FINE TO PUT 30 [LAUGHTER].

>> I APPROVE.

>> I'M FINE TO PUT A 30-DAY TIME PERIOD ON THAT.

I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT QUICKER THAN THAT.

TONY, COME FORWARD.

>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD NOTE IS THAT THE BOARD'S NEXT MEETING IS SEPTEMBER 26TH.

I GUESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A SPECIAL MEETING TO MEET THE 30-DAY REQUIREMENTS?

>> YES, SIR, BY ALL MEANS.

WE HAVE A MOTION, NOW LET ME MAKE SURE IT'S ON THE FLOOR.

TO APPROVE THIS ITEM AND TO NOTIFY THE WHARVES BOARD THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE PUT INTO ACTION THE APPROVAL OF AN INTERNAL AUDIT FOR THE WHARVES BOARD WITHIN 30 DAYS.

>> I KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN A LONG MEETING AND YOU ALL ARE WORKING ON THE FLY.

BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS AN EXTERNAL AUDIT OF INTERNAL CONTROL.

>> THAT IS CORRECT, I'M SORRY.

AN EXTERNAL AUDIT OF INTERNAL CONTROLS OF THE WHARVES BOARD WITHIN 30 DAYS.

MARIE, DID THAT MEET YOUR APPROVAL?

>> TO BE CLARIFYING, YOU SAID AMENDMENT TO BE CONTAINED IN THE ORDINANCE OR JUST A SEPARATE INSTRUCTION TO BE SENT TO THE WHARVES?

>> VERY GOOD.

>> HOWEVER WE FORMALIZE THIS, HOW MUCH SHOULD WE FORMALIZE IT DONE?

>> I DEFER TO MR. WALLACE ON THIS.

>> I WAS GOING TO DEFER TO YOU.

[LAUGHTER] BUT I WOULD SUGGEST WITH YOUR CONCURRENCE THAT IT WOULD BE AN INSTRUCTION DIRECTED TO THE TRUSTEES BOARD.

I THINK IT COULD BE MISCONSTRUED IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. MARIE?

>> YES

>> TONY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S FINE, I COULD YOUR HEAD MOVING.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT DOES NOT PASS.

>> FOR ME TO VOTE ON THIS AND APPROVE IT, I WOULD NEED THE WHARVES BOARD TO APPROVE THIS FIRST.

FOR ME, I WOULD NEED THAT, I WOULD ALSO NEED THE BOND COUNSEL TO REVIEW THIS LETTER THAT WE RECEIVED THIS PAST WEEK, AND GIVE A BETTER RECOMMENDATION ON HOW THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT THIS.

WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING ON THE 11TH OR 14TH?

>> FOURTEENTH.

>> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME AT THAT MEETING IF THE PORT COULD GET A MEETING CALLED BY THEN, AND WE CAN GET A MORE THOROUGH REVIEW OF HOW THAT LETTER IS GOING TO AFFECT THIS.

>> JOHN?

>> IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS THIS LETTER TONIGHT.

THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED ON THAT.

SAY AGAIN WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE, BECAUSE I'M TOTALLY CONFUSED ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO ON THIS. SAY THAT AGAIN.

>> I MEAN, THERE IS A MATERIAL FINDING IN THAT LETTER FOR THAT AUDIT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

>> NOT NECESSARILY.

>> THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT,

[02:25:01]

AND SO UNTIL I GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET TONIGHT, I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT I SAID IS UNDERSTOOD IN CONTEXT.

[BACKGROUND] THE OFFERING DOCUMENT, THE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED ATTACHES THE MOST RECENT AUDIT, THEY WON'T BE ATTACHING THAT AUDIT.

BUT WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING IS DOING DILIGENCE SO THAT WE CAN PUT THAT LETTER IN CONTEXT FOR THE BONDHOLDER.

THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.

THOSE ARE NOT FINANCIALS THAT THE BONDHOLDERS ARE RELYING ON.

BUT IF SOMEONE'S RAISED A QUESTION, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT IT WAS, THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS, AND HERE'S THE RESPONSE FROM THE BOARD OF THE TRUSTEES.

>> THAT'S WHAT I NEED, HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE TO DO THAT?

>> WE COULD DO IT NOW.

>> NO [LAUGHTER]

>> NOT NOW, BUT YOU WERE GOING TO INCLUDE THAT, BARREN.

IF THIS HAD PASSED, THAT WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THERE.

>> I WOULD NEED THAT DONE FIRST.

>> WELL, LET ME JUST SAY THIS WAY.

IT IS A PROCESS THAT WE DO NEED TO TALK TO AUDITORS, TO MARK MURCHISON, TO OTHERS.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO IT AT THE TABLE HERE, THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

>> HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE TO DO THAT?

>> I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT'S WEEKS

>> WHO KNOWS?

>> SAY IT AGAIN, BARREN.

>> I DON'T KNOW, BUT I SAID I THINK IT'S WEEKS, NOT MONTHS. BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> I'M STILL UNCLEAR, JOHN.

DO YOU WANT THIS LETTER THAT CAME FROM MAURICE? YOU'RE WANTING SOMEONE TO TELL YOU

>> I WOULD NEED THAT AND HAVE A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE DETAILS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW.

I DON'T HAVE THAT. I DON'T THINK THE BOND COUNSEL HAVE THAT.

>> WE'VE BEEN SENT A LETTER, WE HAVE NOT REVIEWED IT.

BUT THERE MAY BE OTHERS HERE WHO DO HAVE FACTS ON IT.

>> ANYONE FROM THE PORT HAVE INFORMATION?

>> WE CAN ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW.

DON, ONE THING.

I'M READY TO GET INTO THAT.

CAN WE DISCUSS THAT AND START GETTING INTO THAT AT THIS POINT?

>> BUT NO, THERE'S AN ACTIVE MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND.

>> NO, THERE'S NOT ANYMORE.

>> OH, IT FAILED?

MR. LISTOWSKI ARE YOU ASKING THE PORT TO GIVE AN ANALYSIS OF THE [INAUDIBLE] AND AN ACTION PLAN?

>> IT DID.

>> NOT ASKING THE BOARD TO DO THAT, I'M ASKING THE BOND COUNSEL TO DO THAT, WHICH I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

>> I DON T THINK WE WILL.

I MEAN, AS A LAWYER, WE ARE GOING TO GET THE FACTS TO BE ABLE TO DESCRIBE WHAT THE LETTER MEANS, BUT IT'S AN AUDITOR ACCOUNTING QUESTION.

WE, AS LAWYERS TRY TO DETERMINE THE MATERIALITY AND WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE PUT INTO THE DOCUMENT.

MY GUESS IS, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION, WE WILL PUT IT IN THE DOCUMENT, AND AS I TOLD SEVERAL OF THE STAFF ASSET, AND PROBABLY MAKE A VOLUNTARY FILING.

WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MATERIAL, BUT THE LIKELY THING IS GO AHEAD AND PUT IT OUT THERE, DESCRIBE IT, AND LET OTHERS MAKE THAT DECISION SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BE IN THAT POSITION.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, I SUSPECT YOU WILL SEE DISCLOSURE DESCRIBING IT, WHATEVER IT MAY BE.

>> BUT THE REASON WHY THIS LETTER HAS APPEARED IS THERE'S AN OPEN CASE WITH THE STATE OF TEXAS.

>> WE DON'T KNOW THAT, MIKE.

WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

>> I'VE SEEN LETTERS FROM THE STATE.

>> NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT IS, DO WE, TONY?

>> NO.

>> WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.

>> THEY HAVE MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN WE DO.

>> WELL, THAT'S THE REASON WHY THEY WROTE A LETTER.

>> BUT WHAT I'M SAYING, MIKE, IS THAT COULD BE ALL THE SAME? WE HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS OTHER ACTIVITIES GOING ON ON THAT.

>> IN THE PORT'S FINANCIAL, MARK, CAN YOU COME UP AND COMMENT ON THIS?

>> MAYOR.

>> THE AGENDA ITEM IS FOR THE APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE, FOR THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS.

AND I FEAR YOU ARE ABOUT TO GO BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THAT DESCRIPTION.

>> [NOISE] CAN WE ASK WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, MARIE? WHAT DID YOU WANT MARK TO ANSWER?

>> THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A MATERIAL FINDINGS, AND LIGHTERS THAT HAVE [OVERLAPPING].

>> MARK, COME FORWARD IF YOU WOULD.

>> MULTIPLE YEARS AFTER THAT SUDDENLY APPEARED OUT OF THE BLUE THAT ARE AFFECTING A CRITICAL VOTE,

[02:30:03]

THAT AFFECT THE BOARD AND YOU'RE THEIR CFO.

SO DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MATERIAL ALREADY OR THE SITUATION?

>> RSM RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY.

I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT LETTER.

I DO NOT KNOW THE EXACT CONTENT OF THAT LETTER.

IT QUESTIONED OR OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT IT QUESTIONED RSM AUDIT PROCEDURES.

IN JANUARY 2022, WE RECEIVED A DEMAND LETTER FROM TDEM, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

THAT WAS GIVEN TO OUR AUDITOR'S, WE RECORDED THAT LIABILITY, AND PRIOR TO THAT, THE PORT HAD RECEIVED THROUGH THE RISK MANAGER, SOME LETTERS THAT WERE DENYING CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT WERE ON APPEAL, THEN GONE ON TO APPEAL WITH FEMA WITH THE PROCESS WORKS TDEM GETS IT, TDEM LOOKS AT IT, TDEM APPROVES OR DENIES.

THEY DO NOT MAKE THE FINAL DECISION.

FEMA MAKES THE FINAL DECISION, [NOISE] PRIOR TO US RECEIVING THE DEMAND LETTER, WE DID NOT RECORD A LIABILITY.

[NOISE] THE AUDITOR'S SHOWED ME, I BELIEVE IT WAS FOUR DIFFERENT OCCURRENCES.

I BELIEVE IT WAS FOUR. I'M GOING FROM MEMORY, SO BEAR WITH ME.

ONE OF THOSE HAPPENED TO BE PRIOR TO 2021.

THE REST WERE IN 2021, THOSE WERE ALL RECORDED IN 2021.

WE RECORDED $10.7 MILLION LIABILITY IN 2021.

WE WENT THROUGH EXTENSIVE WORK WITH THE AUDITORS ON THAT.

WHEN WE PUBLISHED OUR FINANCIALS IN JUNE OF 2022, EVERYONE WAS HAPPY WITH THAT.

YOU'VE MENTIONED A LITTLE OVER $11 MILLION TDEM IS STILL REVIEWING.

WE STILL HAVE ITEMS ON APPEAL, TDEM IS STILL REVIEWING.

WE`LL BE RECEIVING SOME ITEMS. I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE RECEIVING SOME THAT ARE GOING TO BE DENIED, AND AS THEY COME IN AND WE KNOW THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, WE WILL BOOK THEM PRIOR TO THE END OF THIS YEAR, ONCE WE GET THROUGH THE PROCESS.

IF IT'S $11.5 MILLION, WE`LL HAVE $11.5 MILLION.

THE ONLY ITEM THAT THE AUDITORS FOUND AN ISSUE WITH WAS HURRICANE IKE, AND THIS DEMAND LETTER, AND ITEMS RELATED TO THE DEMAND LETTER.

THERE WAS NO OTHER WEAKNESSES IN OUR CONTROLS THAT THEY COMMENTED ON.

MATTER OF FACT, WHAT THEY HAD TO DO WAS SEND US A LETTER, STATING THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A WEAKNESS IN YOUR CONTROLS RELATED ONLY TO HURRICANE IKE, AND WE HAVE TO RESPOND, WHICH WE DID DO.

WE HAD TO WRITE A RESPONSE, AND THAT GOES TO THE FEDERAL SINGLE AUDIT.

IT GOES TO THE [NOISE] STATE SINGLE AUDIT, AND WE'RE IN THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW, REPUBLISHING THOSE AND THE FEDERAL REGISTER.

IT'S IN THE AUDITOR'S HANDS.

THEY HAVE TO DO SO MUCH, BEFORE WE CAN GO IN AND ACCEPT THOSE CHANGES.

WE MADE THE BOARD AWARE OF IT, NO NUMBERS AND OUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CHANGED AT ALL.

IN ANY YEAR IT'S ONLY FINDING THAT CERTAIN INFORMATION, DID NOT GET PASSED ON TO FINANCE FOR RISK MANAGEMENT.

>> WARNED OF ORDERED MR. MAYOR.

EXCUSE ME, MR. MURCHISON.

WE'RE NOT ONLY WAY OFF.

WITH THE MOTION FAILED WE DO NOT HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AND UNLESS WE'RE WORKING TOWARD RECONSIDERING THIS TONIGHT.

I THINK WE'RE [NOISE] COMPLETELY OUT.

[02:35:01]

>> I WOULD RATHER NOT RECONSIDER IT TONIGHT.

>> THEN I THINK WE'RE COMPLETELY OFF THE AGENDA.

>> APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION.

>> COUNCILMAN COLLINS IS CORRECT.

I'VE ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN, BECAUSE THERE SEEM TO BE SO MANY INTERESTS TIED TO THIS BOND ISSUANCE.

>> OH, THANKS

>> I ALLOW THAT TO GO ON.

WE HAD A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, IT IS FAILED. WE'RE MOVING ON.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER.

>> STIPULATIONS.

>> STIPULATIONS OF THE BOND PEOPLE MOVING FORWARD AND THAT THE PORT STARTS OR PROCURES THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR TO DO THEIR AUDIT AND I DEFER IT TO SEPTEMBER 14TH.

>> SO MIKE, YOU WOULD NEED THE WORST BOARD TO APPROVE THE EXTERNAL AUDIT BEFORE OUR MEETING ON 14TH.

IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE AT WITH?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> ENGAGED [INAUDIBLE].

>> THEY NEED TO ENGAGE TO GET AN AUDITOR WHETHER THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT OR NOT, THAT'S WHAT I'M PUTTING UP.

>> JUST ONE SECOND DAN.

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE MOTION TO BE OCCURRED, BECAUSE IT'S NOTHING TO BE OCCURRED. [INAUDIBLE]

>> WE NOW HAVE A REPORT BACK TO YOU BY SEPTEMBER 14TH.

I THINK THEY'VE FIGURED THAT OUT.

[LAUGHTER]

>> THERE'S NO MOTION ON.

TONY, COULD I ASK YOU A QUESTION, SIR?

>> SURE.

>> WALK ME THROUGH, WHAT IS OUR TIMELINE ON HAVING THIS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, IF COUNCIL ELECTS TO APPROVE THIS AT SOME FUTURE DATE, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE AND HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE PORT? IS THERE MOVING FORWARD WITH CRUISE TERMINAL 25.?

>> WELL, I THINK THAT THE LONGER IT GOES, THE CLOSER THEY GET TO.

I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THE FACTS ON THE FINANCES ON THAT PIECE, BUT OBVIOUSLY, IF THEY HAVE TO KEEP SPENDING MONEY OUT OF RESERVES THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE BOND PROCEEDS FOR, LATER, WE'LL PROBABLY COME BACK WITH ANOTHER REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION IN THE MEANTIME, I WOULD EXPECT.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S JUST A FUNCTION OF TIME WHEN THEY GET REAL CLOSE ON THEIR RESERVES BEYOND WHAT WOULD NORMALLY MAKE PEOPLE COMFORTABLE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THE ONLY OTHER THING, I'M THINKING PRACTICAL MATTER BECAUSE THIS IS EVOLVING ON THE FLY, IS OUR CHAIRMAN LEFT AFTER OUR MEETING, HE'S OUT OF THE COUNTRY RIGHT NOW AND ON A PERSONAL TRIP.

I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT GETTING IT TOGETHER AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET A QUORUM TO DO THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

>> WELL, AND COULDN'T YOU HAVE HIM ATTEND BY ZOOM?

>> I SUPPOSE SO.

>> POSSIBLY COULD?

>> VERY GOOD. I THINK WE'RE MOVING ON THEN.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

BARREN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, 10B PLEASE, NELLY.

[10.B. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending The Code Of The City Of Galveston, As Amended, Chapter 35, “Vehicles For Hire”, Article 1. “Ground Transportation Services”, Division 7, “Vehicles And Equipment”, Section 102, “Taxicab Age Limits”, To Remove The Age Limits For Taxicabs; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject; Providing For An Effective Date. (Lewis/Brown)]

>> ITEM 10B CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AS AMENDED CHAPTER 35, VEHICLES FOR HIRE, ARTICLE 1, GROUND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, DIVISION 7, VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT, SECTION 102 TAXICAB AGE LIMIT TO REMOVE THE AGE LIMITS FOR TAXICABS, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> THANK YOU, NELLY. VERY GOOD.

SHARON, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ON THIS TOPIC OR HAVE ANY MOTION FOR THIS?

>> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS IS WRITTEN BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

>> I WILL SECOND

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT.

ANY DISCUSSION COUNCIL? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

THAT IS UNANIMOUS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT'S SOMETHING WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[LAUGHTER] LET'S MOVE TO THE CONSENT ITEMS, PLEASE, MA'AM.

[11. CONSENT ITEMS]

>> ITEM 11 CONSENT ITEMS, THE FOLLOWING ITEM SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ACTION AS A WHOLE UNLESS ONE OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBER OBJECTS.

THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE ITEMS ON THE CONSENT ITEMS FROM, LET MAKE SURE I GET ALL THIS COUNTED HERE,

[02:40:05]

11A-U OR IS THERE ANY ITEMS THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO PULL OUT AND ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY? DAVID?

>> I DO NOT WISH TO ADDRESS IT INDIVIDUALLY, BUT I DO WANT TO CALL OUT ITEM 11Q.

THE GIFT FROM THE DON SANDERS FAMILY FOUNDATION FOR THE BALLISTIC VEST FOR THE K9 OFFICERS.

THAT'S A SPECIAL GIFT AND WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE OF THAT.

>> VERY MUCH SO, THAT'S VERY NICE OF THAT FAMILY.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL [OVERLAPPING]

>> WAIT, HOLD ON, MAYOR.

>> I'D LIKE TO PULL OUT 11C.

>> 11C.

>> MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO PULL OUT 11S.

>> DID SOMEONE SAY A 11F?

>> YOU SAID F [OVERLAPPING] AND DAVID FINKLEA SAID S, AS IN SAM?

>> CORRECT.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ECHO THE COMMENTS BY COUNCILMEMBER COLLINS ON THANKING THE FOUNDATION OR THE PEOPLE FOR THE DONATION OF THE BULLETPROOF VESTS FOR OUR K9 OFFICERS.

>> TO DON A. SANDERS WHO DONATED THAT. VERY NICE.

LET ME MAKE SURE WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF PULLING OUT 11C, 11F, AS IN FRANK, AND 11S, AS IN SAM.

IS THAT CORRECT, COUNCIL? VERY GOOD.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 11A-11U EXCLUDING 11C, 11F, AND 11S.

>> I WOULD SECOND THAT

>> HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS, I THINK, UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU, 11C, PLEASE MA'AM.

[11.C. Consider For Approval A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Galveston, Texas Approving A Contract Between The City Of Galveston And The Board Of Trustees Of The Galveston Wharves For Collection Of A Parking Fee At Parking Lots Operated By The Board Of Trustees Of The Galveston Wharves, Providing For The Payment Of The Fee To The City, Approving And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute The Agreement; Providing For Findings Of Fact And Providing For An Effective Date. (Legal)]

>> ITEM 11C CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, OR PROVEN A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON WHARVES FOR COLLECTION OF A PARKING FEE AT PARKING LOTS OPERATED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON WHARVES, PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE FEE TO THE CITY APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

JOHN, I THINK THIS WAS YOURS.

>> MY ONLY THOUGHT HERE IS THIS 30 DAY.

>> WRITTEN CANCELLATION.

>> WRITTEN CANCELLATION WITHIN 30 DAYS.

WE OF COURSE, PLAN OUR BUDGETS ON 12 MONTHS AND THIS COULD HAVE A MAJOR EFFECT ON OUR BUDGET.

I WOULD THINK THAT ANY CONTRACT THAT IS A REVENUE-GENERATING CONTRACT THAT AFFECTS OUR BUDGET WOULD HAVE MORE OF A LONG-TERM CANCELLATION POLICY IN IT.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION FIRST?

>> MR. GLYWASKY, OF COURSE AS WE DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, THIS IS A FAIRLY STANDARD LANGUAGE IN THE AGREEMENT.

BUT IF THIS MOU DID NOT HAVE THIS, GIVEN THAT IT IS A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US AND THE WHARVE BOARD TRUSTEES, IF THEY CHOSE SIX MONTHS, 30 DAYS A YEAR FROM NOW, WHATEVER TO RESCIND THIS, DOES THIS LANGUAGE MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF IT'S IN THERE OR NOT? COULD THEY NOT SIMPLY CANCEL THE DEAL?

>> IT REQUIRES A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME PRIOR TO THEM DOING IT.

>> WHAT DO YOU SAY?

>> CANCEL IT EVERY YEAR. LET ME SEE.

THIS ARE YEARLY AGREEMENTS, AND THEY WOULD BE RENEWED ANNUALLY EACH FISCAL YEAR BY THE CITY, AND BOTH PARTS ACCORDING TO THE TERM.

WE'RE GOING TO GO A YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO RENEW IT, AND IT'S SUBJECT TO A 30-DAY CANCELLATION.

>> WELL, OKAY, BUT WHEN YOU SAY THAT, COULD THEY HALFWAY THROUGH IT, JUST SAY 30 DAYS AND WE ARE OUT? OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THEY HAVE TO GIVE US, IT WILL AUTO-RENEW IF THEY DON'T NOTIFY US AT LEAST 30 DAYS BEFORE THAT AUTO-RENEWAL DATE, THOSE ARE NOT QUITE THE SAME THING?

>> NO, THEY'RE NOT. I WOULD NOTE THAT I WAS TAUGHT IN CONTRACT LAW,

[02:45:04]

EVERYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO BREACH A CONTRACT, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD BE DOING WITH ABSENT TO 30 DAYS.

>> ABSENT TO 30 DAYS.

>> WHAT THE WHARVES BOARD I THINK IS CONCERNED ABOUT ON THIS, WE REACH A POINT THAT EVERYBODY FEELS SUCH BAD FAITH AT THE PORT, THAT'S AMAZING TO ME.

BUT ANYWAY, WHAT THE PORT IS CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT THE PRIVATE LOTS QUIT CHARGING THE FEE, AND THE PORT IS THE ONLY ONE CHARGING THE FEE, THEY FEEL IT'S AN UNLEVEL PLAYING GROUND AT THAT TIME.

>> MAY I RESPOND? THE PRIVATE LOTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE, THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE LAW.

>> CORRECT, AND SO AS THE PORT.

>> WE HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER THE PRIVATE LOTS THAN WE DO OVER THE PORT.

>> I THINK JOHN'S RIGHT, AND I GET THE IRONY OF THAT, BUT AT THIS POINT, THE WAY IT READS THE PRIVATE LOTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ORDINANCE.

I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE A SIMILAR VEHICLE TO ENFORCE THAT AT THE PORT OTHER THAN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.

>> THAT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING HAS THE SAME, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THE SAME LEGAL WEIGHT AS THE ORDINANCE DOES ON THE PRIVATE LOTS

>> NO, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT VEHICLES.

>> RIGHT, BUT.

>> ONE IS A LAW, ONE IS A CONTRACT.

>> WELL, BUT BOTH OF THEM. EXCUSE ME.

>> BOTH ARE ENFORCEABLE.

>> USING DIFFERENT AVENUES.

>> CORRECT. EXACTLY. [NOISE]

>> THERE'S NO YEAR-TO-YEAR WITH THE PRIVATE LOTS, THAT'S AN ORDINANCE.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> NOT UNTIL COUNCIL COULD ESSENTIALLY IN 30 DAYS CANCEL THAT. BUT

>> THE ORDINANCE?

>> YEAH. I'M NOT SURE WHAT OTHER VEHICLE WE HAVE FOR ENFORCING THIS ON THE PORT.

>> THAT IF THEY CHOSE.

>> HOW MANY PRIVATE LOTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE?

>> ALL BUT ONE, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

>> THERE'S ONE THAT'S NOT I WAS TOLD.

>> I HAVE TO TALK TO A GLENN ABOUT THAT, HE IS.

>> BRIAN, DO YOU KNOW?

>> I THINK IT'S JUST ONE, BUT I'M NOT EVEN THAT UP-TO-DATE.

I THINK IT'S JUST ONE, AND THEY MAY HAVE COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

>> THE QUESTION IF THERE IS ONE, WHICH YOU'RE SAYING, MAYOR BROWN, IS THAT THE PORT COULD CANCEL THIS AGREEMENT.

THAT WOULD GIVE THEM CAUSE TO CANCEL THE AGREEMENT, IF ONE LOT OWNER DIDN'T PAY?

>> NO.

>> THAT LANGUAGE WAS CHANGED, WAS IT NOT?

>> I DON'T SEE THERE'S A CAUSE ARGUMENT IN HERE.

>> WELL, THAT WAS ONE OF THE [OVERLAPPING].

>> I'M NOT SAYING IT'S CAUSE ARGUMENT, BUT I HEARD THE REASON WHY THIS WAS IN HERE IS BECAUSE THE PORT THOUGHT THEY WOULD BE AT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE IF A PRIVATE LOT DIDN'T PAY THE FEE.

>> I THINK THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

I THINK THERE WAS, AM I WRONG ABOUT THIS? THERE WAS A STIPULATION THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO DO IT IF THE PRIVATE LOTS WEREN'T ALL DOING IT, AND THAT WAS CHANGED.

>> ALL THE PRIVATE LOTS.

>> WE CHANGED THAT, THIS 30 DAYS IS.

>> WHAT WE TOOK OUT WAS A.

>> WHAT I HEARD FROM MAYOR BROWN WAS THAT THE PORT WAS WORRIED THAT THERE WOULD BE AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE IF A PRIVATE LOT WASN'T PAYING US THE DOLLAR, 15 OR WHATEVER IT IS.

THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO HAVE THIS CLAUSE, THIS PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT THAT THEY COULD CANCEL THE CONTRACT WITHIN 30 DAYS. IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

>> WHAT THE PORT IS CONCERNED ABOUT IF THE PRIVATE LOTS, THE TOTAL, QUIT PAYING THAT FEE.

THEY FEEL THAT IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE AND NOT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD IF THEY HAD TO BE THE ONLY ONE CHARGING THAT FEES.

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

>> I WANT THEM ALL TO PAY THE AGREED AMOUNT PRICE.

BUT IF THE PRIVATE LOT STOPPED PAYING, WHAT WOULD THE CITY DO TO THE PRIVATE LOTS?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE WRITTEN THE POLICY YET, BUT THEY'D PROBABLY GET DEMANDS LETTER.

GLENN WOULD ISSUE AN AUDIT NOTICE.

IF THEY WERE IGNORED, EVENTUALLY, WE WOULD FILED COLLECTION ACTION AGAINST THEM.

>> WHICH YOU WOULD ALL HAVE TO APPROVE.

[02:50:02]

>> DON, IS THERE A 30-DAY CANCELLATION IN THE PRIVATE LOTS ORDINANCES?

>> NO, IT'S AN ORDINANCE.

>> RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I ASKED.

IN THE ORDINANCE, THERE'S NOT A 30-DAY CANCELLATION.

JOHN, GO AHEAD AND PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, JOHN.

>> I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS WITH A 12-MONTH PERIOD WITHIN THIS CONTRACT, THAT IT COULD NOT BE CANCELED WITHIN 12 MONTHS, SINCE WE ARE BASING OUR BUDGETS ON REVENUE FROM THIS CONTRACT.

>> SINCE IT'S EFFECTIVE ONLY ON A YEAR-TO-YEAR BASIS, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS TAKE THE 30 DAYS OUT.

>> THAT WOULD BE FINE AS WELL, THAT'S TRUE.

>> YOUR MOTION IS WHAT AGAIN, JOHN?

>> TO APPROVE IT WITH REMOVAL OF THE 30-DAY CANCELLATION PERIOD.

>> WELL, THIS HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHARVES FOR APPROVAL THERE.

>> OH, YEAH.

>> OH, YEAH

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

>> WHARVES BOARD HAS APPROVED ALREADY SO IT [OVERLAPPING]

>> YEAH, [LAUGHTER] THEY'RE GOING TO BE READING IT OTHERWISE.

>> REMOVE IT, SO WE WOULD TAKE IT BACK TO THE WHARVES BOARD AND SEE HOW THEY WANTED TO APPROACH IT.

VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT?

>> WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR ITEM 11(C) OF APPROVING REMOVING THE ITEM REQUIRING 30-DAY CANCELLATION.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT'S ONLY TWO VOTES.

THREE DOES NOT PASS.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE ITEM AS PRESENTED.

>> I WOULD SECOND THAT.

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WE HAD A MOTION ONCE AND THEN IT DIED, AND THEN I MADE A MOTION AND I WAS SAID I COULDN'T MAKE A MOTION.

WE HAD A MOTION HERE AND NOW MARIE JUST HAD A MOTION.

>> IF IT FAILED, THEY CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION, THAT'S FINE.

>> OURS FAILED.

>> YOU COULDN'T MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.

>> WHY?

>> BECAUSE THAT'S ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER.

>> WELL, NO.

HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE LAST CASE FROM THE BOARD. HE COULD HAVE MADE A MOTION. [OVERLAPPING]

>> MIKE'S GOING BACK TO THE PORT, IT'S WHAT HE'S GOING BACK TO.

>> DON RULED.

>> HE WAS SAYING HE DIDN'T WANT TO GET THE MOTION TO DEFER.

I WAS SAYING THE MOTION TO DEFER WHICH WAS BOOT, BECAUSE THE MOTION HAD BEEN DEFEATED.

>> BUT THE MOTION TO DEFER WOULD HAVE DEFERRED IT TO THE 14TH, AND WE WOULD'VE GIVEN DIRECTION TO THE BOND PEOPLE TO KEEP IN THE PROCESS.

>> I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE BACK HERE ON THE 14TH.

>> MAYBE, MAYBE NOT.

>> [BACKGROUND]

>> BUT I WAS TOLD. NEVER MIND. GO AHEAD.

>> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND?

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION, WHY WOULD YOU HAVE THIS 30 DAYS IN THERE? WHY WOULD YOU GIVE THE PORT THE OPTION TO CANCEL THE CONTRACT THAT YOU APPROVED A BUDGET WITH REVENUE IN IT FROM THIS CONTRACT, WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

>> THERE IS.

>> MARIE MADE THE MOTION.

>> CAN I ASK, DID YOU VOTE FOR THE MOU FOR THE LIBRARY BECAUSE IT'S EXACT SAME THING.

>> I AGREE 100% WITH THAT.

>> I VIEWED A STANDARD, IT'S JUST STANDARD LANGUAGE.

BUT I TAKE YOUR POINT

>> BECAUSE WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST, [LAUGHTER] SHOULD WE DO IT IN THE FUTURE?

>> WHY DOES COUNCIL MEMBER BOUVIER HAVE A LETTER THAT THE WHARVES PORT DOESN'T HAVE.

WHY DOES SO MANY OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED TONIGHT HAPPENED? I HAPPEN TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE PORT AND THAT'S WHY I'M DOING A MOTION.

THEY WERE THE FIRST ONE.

>> THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONFIDENCE.

>> TO PAY THEIR PAYMENT, IT IS.

THEY WERE THE FIRST ONES TO COME UP AND PAY THEIR PAYMENTS AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE MOTION AS IT READS.

THEREFORE, MY MOTION IS ON THE FLOOR.

IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

I'M CALLING FOR THE VOTE.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL HERE TO DO SOMETHING THAT COULD PUT A BUDGET AT RISK IN ANY OF OUR CONTRACTS.

>> YOU'D IMPOSE THE QUESTION, JOHN, THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, HAS RESPONDED.

>> HEY, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY IT IN PUBLIC, THAT'S FINE.

>> I RESPONDED.

>> NO, FOR COUNCIL TO RESPOND.

>> ANYWAY, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

I'M CALLING THE VOTE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. THAT MOTION DOES PASS.

[02:55:03]

THANK YOU. WE HAVE 11F IS IN FRANK.

[11.F. Consider Approval Of A Contract With Lucas Construction Company, Inc. For The Sandhill Crane Soccer Complex Project (RFP 23-06) In The Amount Of $6,018,980.63. Authorizing The City Manager To Execute All Necessary Documents Upon Final Approval By The City Attorney. (B. Cook)]

>> ITEM 11F, CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT WITH LUCAS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INCORPORATED FOR THE SANDHILL CRANE SOCCER COMPLEX PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,018,980.63, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY

>> COUNCILMAN BOUVIER.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING OR PURSUANT OF A CHANGE ORDER TO MAKE ONE OF THESE FIELDS A TURF FIELD.

>> IF YOU COULD PUT THAT INTO MOTION

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE THE STAFF EXPLORE, CHANGE ORDER TO MAKE ONE OF THESE FIELDS A TURF FIELD.

>> AN ARTIFICIAL TURF?

>> RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?

>> I'LL SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN LISTOWSKI.

OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION.

>> I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS MOTION.

THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, WE HEARD FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TODAY, AND WE'VE ALSO HEARD FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE COACHES AND SOCCER PLAYERS THAT IT IS NOT ADVISABLE TO GO WITH A TURF FIELD, AND THEREFORE, I WILL NOT SUPPORT IT.

>> I MISSED THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE COACHES, PLAYERS.

WHERE DID WE SEE THAT, IT'S NOT ADVISABLE TO PUT A TURF FIELD IN?

>> IT'S A PERSONAL COMMUNICATION TO ME FROM A SOCCER COACH. I DON'T KNOW WHO ELSE.

>> I'VE RECEIVED TEXTS FROM WILLIAM SCHUSTER WHO HAS COACHED SOCCER.

>> HOW MANY YEARS?

>> FIVE

>> WEREN'T YOU AWARD-WINNING TOO?

>> [LAUGHTER]

>> WE'RE DRAGGING YOU BACK INTO THIS, WILLIAM.

[BACKGROUND]

>> ALSO UNDER THE ADVISEMENT OF BARBARA, WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS FOR YEARS AT IDC.

I'M JUST SAYING, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS MOTION.

>> COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

>> I WOULD NEED SOME PAPER TO WRITE THIS DOWN.

ONCE AGAIN, I AGREE WITH MARIE.

[LAUGHTER] WE HAVE BADGERED THIS TOPIC, THIS SOCCER.

SOME OF THESE KIDS HAVE GROWN UP WAITING FOR US TO BUILD A SOCCER FIELD, AND HONEST-TO-GOD, THIS IS PART OF THE REASON THAT I WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PARKING AGREEMENT IS WE'VE KICKED THIS BACK-AND-FORTH.

LET'S TAKE SOME ACTION, WE NEED TO MOVE THIS PROJECT ALONG.

IT HAS BEEN HANGING OUT THERE FOR THE LONGEST, AND YOU'RE RIGHT PARK DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECOMMEND THAT WE GO TO ARTIFICIAL.

>> ACTUALLY, WHILE SITTING HERE IN HIS MEETING, I RECEIVED A TEXT MESSAGE FROM THE SOCCER PARENTS, AND THEY ARE HAVING A MEETING AT THIS TIME AND THEY ARE HOPING WE VOTE FOR IT TONIGHT.

>> VOTE FOR WHAT? [LAUGHTER]

>> THE COMPLEX. [LAUGHTER]

>> I'M NOT SAYING NOT TO VOTE FOR THE COMPLEX, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THEY EXPLORE THE OPTION OF [OVERLAPPING]

>> IF I COULD THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST AS SIMPLE AS DO TURF, NOT GRASS.

IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT MAINTENANCE ISSUES, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENGINEERING ISSUE.

THE DRAINAGE WILL HAVE TO BE RE-ENGINEERED, IT DOESN'T WORK THE SAME AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

WE'VE DELAYED THIS FIELD FOR SO LONG.

I JUST WANT TO SEE IT APPROVED AS IS, MOVED A LONG TIME.

>> I DON'T KNOW, I'M SORRY.

>> GO RIGHT AHEAD, SIR.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ARTIFICIAL TURF OR REAL TURF IS BETTER OR WORSE FOR SOCCER PLAYERS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO RUN THOSE NUMBERS TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD COST, AND IF THERE IS SUPPORT FOR THE PLAYERS OUT THERE, IF THEY WANT IT OR NOT.

I WOULD BE WILLING TO LOOK AT THAT.

I DON'T THINK IT SLOWS ANYTHING DOWN.

BUT I MEAN, BALL HIGH HAS AN ARTIFICIAL FIELD, THAT'S WHAT THEY PLAY ON.

WE'VE GOT TO COACH OUT THERE IN THE BACK, I DON'T KNOW IF HE WANTS TO COME UP HERE AND SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.

>> [BACKGROUND]

>> YOU DO HAVE TO REPLACE IT AFTER 10 YEARS, THAT IS THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF THE TURF.

>> THERE'S AT LEAST $150,000 IN

[03:00:04]

THE CURRENT BUDGET FOR THE TURF FIELD WITH SPRINKLER SYSTEMS AND TURF.

I CAN'T REALLY WEIGH ON THIS, I DON'T HAVE ANY DOGS IN THIS FIGHT.

>> WE HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND ITEM 11F TO SEND IT BACK TO IDC.

>> NO, APPROVE WITH THE AMENDMENT OF AN OPTION TO SEE WHAT A CHANGE ORDER WOULD COST TO PUT A TURF FIELD IN? I WANT TO APPROVE IT, I DON'T WANT TO SEND IT BACK.

>> THERE'S SOME LEGALITIES WITH IDC.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN TELL IDC.

WE CAN SEND IT BACK STATING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING ARTIFICIAL TURF IN, AND THEN IT'S UP TO THEM TO SEND IT BACK TO US.

IS THAT CORRECT, DON?

>> I WOULD REFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY.

>> ASK YOUR QUESTION AGAIN, MAYOR.

>> WHEN WE HAVE SOMETHING FROM MY DC, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT, COUNCIL CANNOT JUST CHANGE THAT AND MANDATE THAT TO IDC.

WE HAVE TO REMAND IT BACK TO HIM WITH SUGGESTIONS TO IDC TO RELOOK AT THAT.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE, BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING COMPONENT.

>> WHAT YOU'RE ASKING MIKE, IS I THINK YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IDC LOOK AT THIS TO CONSIDER HAVING A CHANGE ORDER FOR ONE OF THESE FIELDS TO BE ARTIFICIAL TURF?

>> THEN I RETRACT, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HOLD THE PROJECT UP.

I THOUGHT IT WAS AS EASY AS JUST GETTING A CHANGE ORDER OR AN OPTION TO SEE WHAT A TURF FIELD COSTS.

BUT IF THAT'S THE THING, THEN RETRACT IT AND GO AHEAD AND APPROVE IT AS IS.

>> OR IDC CAN DO THAT.

>> BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND THEN COME BACK FOR APPROVAL?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> NO, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

I THOUGHT IT WAS AS EASY AS APPROVING IT AND LOOKING TO SEE WHAT IT COST TO PUT A TURF FIELD IN ON ONE OF THE FIELDS.

[BACKGROUND]

>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING IN THE IDC AGREEMENT THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT THIS FIELD BEING TURF OR NOT BEING TURF?

>> NO, THERE'S NOT.

>> I DON'T THINK IT MAKES A CHANGE.

I WOULD NOT THINK THIS WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO IDC.

>> IT WOULD.

>> IT DOES.

>> IF IT IS NOT IN THE DESCRIPTION THAT IDC APPROVED, THEN IT WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO BACK.

CHANGE ORDERS ARE MADE ON PROJECTS ALL THE TIME, THEY DON'T GO BACK TO IDC.

>> YES?

>> IF WE COULD JUST AWARD THE CONTRACT, WE WILL ASK THE CONTRACTOR TO GIVE US SOME ESTIMATES ON A TURF FIELD AND WE'LL BRING THOSE BACK TO YOUR CONSIDERATION AT THAT POINT.

>>THERE YOU GO, IT'S THAT EASY.

>> WE CAN WORK WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO CHANGE IT IF WE NEED TO, BUT WE WON'T DELAY THE PROCESS.

>> THAT IS THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT IT IS IN THE BYLAWS, I THINK JOHN, OF IDC THAT DICTATES THAT.

VERY GOOD. WAIT A MINUTE.

>> MY MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE AS IS.

>> [OVERLAPPING] YES.

>> I THINK BARBARA AND BRIAN UNDERSTAND WE'RE GOING TO GET WHAT YOU WANT. I CAN COME BACK.

>> WE'LL GET YOU AN UPDATE.

>> IT NEVER HURTS TO ASK.

>> WELL OBVIOUSLY IT DOES, BECAUSE [LAUGHTER] I'M PRETTY PEPPERED OVER HERE, BUT KEEP GOING.

>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR IN A SECOND, AND SOME DIRECTION TO STAFF WITH THAT MOTION.

I THINK BARBARA YOU UNDERSTAND, AND BRIAN DOES.

>> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? IT IS UNANIMOUS, AND WE HAVE TWO HANDS FROM SHARON LEWIS.

[11.S. Consider For The Approval Of The Partnership Agreement/Contract Between The City Of Galveston And Lone Star Rally Inc. For The Planning, Organizing, Promoting, And Managing Of The Motorcycle Event Known As Lone Star Motorcycle Rally. The Term Is For Three Years With An Option To Extend It For Two Additional Years. (D. Smith)]

THEN WE HAVE 11.S, NELLY.

>> ITEM 11.S CONSIDER FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF GALVESTON LONE STAR RALLY INCORPORATED FOR THE PLANNING, ORGANIZING, PROMOTING, AND MANAGING OF THE MOTORCYCLE EVENT KNOWN AS LONE STAR RALLY.

THE TERM IS FOR THREE YEARS WITH AN OPTION TO EXTEND IT FOR TWO ADDITIONAL YEARS.

>> [NOISE] COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, YOU WANT IT TO ADDRESS THIS?

>> DAVID, BEFORE YOU MENTIONED WE WERE JUST HANDED A CONTRACT WITH THE LONE STAR RALLY, ITEM 28 INVOLVES THE ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY.

>> RECEIVE THE COPY BY EMAIL.

>> DID HE GET IT? DID YOU SEE THAT IN YOURS?