>> THAT'S WHERE WE LOOK. OH, NOW, WE DON'T. 
          [00:00:02]
          >> LET'S BEGIN, LEE. 
          >> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. 
          [1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
          >> IT IS NINE O'CLOCK. 
          >> GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. 
          I AM GOING TO OFFICIALLY CALL THE WORKSHOP FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF GALVESTON TO ORDER. 
          IT IS 09:00 A.M. 
          I WANT TO WELCOME THE COUNCIL. 
          THANK YOU, STAFF. GOOD MORNING TO YOU. 
          THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, STAFF. 
          ALSO THOSE THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS BROADCAST, GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING. 
          LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, MA'AM. 
          >> SHARON IS NOT ON. 
          >> MAYOR BROWN? 
          >> PRESENT. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM COLLINS? 
          >> PRESENT. 
          >> COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS? SHE IS NOT ON. 
          COUNCILMEMBER FINKLEA? 
          >> PRESENT. 
          >> COUNCILMEMBER BOUVIER? 
          >> HERE. 
          >> COUNCILMEMBER LISTOWSKI? 
          >> HERE. 
          >> COUNCILMEMBER ROBB? 
          >> PRESENT. 
          >> VERY GOOD. BEFORE WE START THE MEETING, I WANT TO DO SOME HOUSEKEEPING CHORES, AND ALSO, COUNCIL, WE NEED TO GET YOUR GUIDANCE ON SOME THINGS HERE. 
          I TALKED TO COUNCILMEMBER LEWIS THIS MORNING EARLY. 
          SHE HAS REQUESTED THAT THE ITEM 3E HAS TO BE DEFERRED. 
          SHE WOULD LIKE TO BE PRESENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION, AND SHE MAY NOT BE HERE FOR THE MEETING. 
          I DON'T THINK SHE WILL BE HERE FOR THE WORKSHOP THIS MORNING. YES, GO AHEAD. 
          >> I'M COOL WITH THAT, IF WE WANT TO PUT THAT OFF, BECAUSE I KNOW ANTOINETTE HAS DONE A FAIR AMOUNT OF WORK ON THIS. 
          I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THE COUNCIL HEARS THIS, THAT THERE'S SOME FUNDING THAT'S COMING BEHIND THIS, AND SO IF WE PUT IT OFF, I WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER PUTTING IT ON WORKSHOP NEXT MONTH AND CONSIDERATION FOR FUNDING. 
          >> I AGREE. 
          >> AT THE EVENING MEETING, THE SAME TIME. 
          >> WE SURELY COULD, DAVID. 
          I'VE GOT JANELLE CHECKING. 
          SHE IS CHECKING WITH ANTOINETTE ON THE TIMELINES AND WHAT TYPE OF THINGS WE HAVE TO MEET ON THAT. 
          SO SHE'S MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION. YES, MIKE. 
          >> IS THERE A WAY WE CAN, AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, GET AT [NOISE] WHATEVER LITERATURE OR ANYTHING THAT CAN BACK THIS UP, SO WE CAN [INAUDIBLE]? 
          >> I THINK, YEAH, I'LL TALK TO HIM, BUT I THINK WE CAN DO EXACTLY THAT. 
          >> WE SURELY CAN, AND SHE HAS A POWERPOINT AND WE CAN GET THAT POWERPOINT TO YOU. 
          JANELLE. 
          >> I'LL SEND IT TO YOU, COUNCIL. 
          >> COULD YOU SEND IT TO ALL COUNCIL, PLEASE, MA'AM? 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          >> THE OTHER THING, COUNCIL, I NEED TO VISIT WITH YOU ON, COUNCILWOMAN ROBB NEEDS TO LEAVE AT 11:00, IS THAT RIGHT? 
          >> YEAH, 11:15. 
          >> ELEVEN OR 11:15, SHE SAID. 
          COUNCILWOMAN ROBB WOULD LIKE TO HAVE INPUT INTO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM CONCERNING THE HOT TAX CONTRACT. 
          SHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE INPUT INTO THE BUDGET OF THE PARK BOARD AND TO THE DISCUSSION ON THE FINANCIAL AUDITS AND SO FORTH. 
          SHE IS REQUESTING THAT WE MOVE THESE ITEMS UP FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY MR. REESE AND THE AWARDS BOARD THAT WILL COME UP HERE THIS MORNING. 
          JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL, IS EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? 
          >> I AM GOOD. 
          >> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, DAVID. 
          DAVID, I THINK HE'S JOINING US BY ZOOM. 
          DAVID, BE SURE TO CHIME IN OR RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          >> I'LL WATCH FOR YOU. 
          >> YEAH, I'VE GOT MY BACK TO YOU, SO WE DON'T FORGET YOU ON THIS, DAVID. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> YOU'RE WELCOME. VERY GOOD. 
          [3.A. Clarification Of Consent And Regular City Council Agenda Items - This Is An Opportunity For City Council To Ask Questions Of Staff On Consent And Regular Agenda Items (1 Hour)]
LET'S READ ITEM 3A, PLEASE, JANELLE. 
          >> THREE A, CLARIFICATION OF CONSENT AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS. 
          >> JUST FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND FOR THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE ALSO, ITEM 8C ON OUR AGENDA FOR THIS AFTERNOON WILL BE DEFERRED TO DECEMBER 14TH. 
          EIGHT C AND 11A WILL BE DEFERRED ALSO. 
          SO IF YOU CAN MAKE NOTE OF THAT, THOSE TWO ITEMS THERE. 
          LET'S START, DAVID COLLINS. 
          ANY INPUT, SIR, ON THE AGENDA? 
          >> NO, WAIT, I'LL START WITH JOHN [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> IT'S MOST MUNDANE CONSENT OR CONSENT ITEMS I THINK WE'VE EVER HAD. 
          >> IT REALLY IS ONE OF THE SHORTER CONSENT. 
          BUT I HAD A VISIT TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM LAST NIGHT WHICH PUT A REAL CRAMP IN MY REVIEW OF THESE ITEMS. 
          >> I'LL START. 
          >> I'M GOING TO PASS OFF TO JOHN. 
          >> JOHN, BEFORE WE GET TO YOU, LET ME MAKE SURE, SO WE DO NOT FORGET HIM, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO DAVID FINKLEA. 
          [00:05:02]
DAVID, ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA, SIR? 
          >> NO, I'M FINE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          >> YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          >> JOHN, GO RIGHT AHEAD. 
          >> I THINK I'LL MONITOR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS STARTING WITH 11C, WHICH IS THE INTERLOCAL BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY. 
          THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE DONE AN INTERLOCAL BETWEEN CITY AND COUNTY WHERE WE HAVE BUYING ABILITY. 
          >> NO, WE PIGGYBACK OTHER CONTRACTS, BUT THE ISSUE HERE IS, IS THEY ARE REFURNISHING THE DISPATCH CENTER AND WE SPECIFICALLY WANT TO PIGGYBACK THERE. 
          BECAUSE WE SHARE THE DISPATCH CENTER WITH THEM OUT THERE, WE WANT TO PIGGYBACK THEIR CONTRACT AND BUY THE FURNITURE. 
          >> IS THAT PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THIS ONE? 
          >> YEAH. BECAUSE WE TYPICALLY RIGHT NOW WE'RE ALL PRETTY MUCH IN THESE NATIONAL CO-OPS. 
          BUT THIS IS A SPECIFIC RFP THEY'RE DOING, SO WE JUST WANT TO PIGGYBACK THEIR RFP. 
          >> IS THIS INTERLOCAL SPECIFIC TO THAT OR COULD WE USE IT FOR OTHER THINGS? 
          >> IT CAN BE USED FOR OTHER THINGS. 
          WE'RE JUST USING IT PRIMARILY FOR THIS PURCHASE. 
          ONCE IT'S IN PLACE, IT'LL BE IN PLACE UNTIL IT'S CANCELED. 
          PROBABLY WE CAN USE IT FOR ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE ALSO. 
          >> CAN WE PIGGYBACK OTHER CITIES, OTHER COUNTIES? IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING SOMETIMES AND THEY'VE GOT A BETTER BID, WE PIGGYBACK, AND YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT BY LAW. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> MR. CARUSO IS VERY GOOD AT THAT. 
          >> WE NEED THE COUNTY'S APPROVAL TO DO THIS AS WELL, OR? 
          >> ON THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE WE DO, I THINK, YES. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> OTHERWISE, OUR MEETING WAS BEFORE THEIRS, SO WE'LL DO IT AND THEN IT'LL GO TO THEIR COMMISSIONER'S COURT, I BELIEVE, ON THE [NOISE] 20TH, THEY'RE HAVING A MEETING. 
          >> OKAY. THAT'S MY QUESTION ON THAT ONE. 
          ELEVEN D, THIS IS AN AIRPORT ITEM, THE CONTRACT FOR THE LIGHTING SYSTEM. 
          THIS GRANT IS FOR $85,000, BUT WE'RE ONLY USING ABOUT 49,000 OF IT. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> DO WE GIVE THE REST OF IT BACK, OR WHAT HAPPENS? 
          >> IT GOES AWAY. 
          >> THAT'S HOW MUCH THE ACTUAL SYSTEM COSTS [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER WORK WE COULD DO IT OUT THERE? 
          >> NOT QUALIFIED FOR THAT [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> IT'S GOOD TO SEE THAT SOMETHING COMES UNDERNEATH THE AMOUNT OF GRANT WE GOT FOR ONCE, USUALLY, IT'S NOT THAT WAY. 
          >> WE UNDER-PROMISED AND THEY OVER-DELIVERED. 
          >> IN THE NEXT ONE, I DON'T HAVE IT ON MY DEAL HERE, BUT 11E. 
          >> AN ELEVATOR. 
          >> THE ELEVATOR. 
          >> SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND, BUT IT WENT OVER WHEN WE OPENED UP THE VISIT TO 40, I THINK. 
          >> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME OUT OF POCKET ABOUT $4,000 ON THAT ONE. 
          >> THERE'S ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE, IT'S LIKE OUR ENTITLEMENT FUNDS WHERE WE GIVE 150,000 A YEAR. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS ABOUT 190,000 WE GET A YEAR, SO WE'RE USING ABOUT 40,000 OF THAT TO COVER THAT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> WHEN WE'RE DONE OUR ELEVATOR WILL GO TO THE TOP FLOOR. 
          >> WOW. NO MORE STAIRS. 
          [LAUGHTER] [INAUDIBLE] USE STAIRS. 
          >> GREAT. I JUST WAS WONDERING ABOUT THAT UNDER THE GRANT AMOUNT. 
          ELEVEN H, MY FAVORITE FORM OF TRANSPORTATION. 
          >> I ALREADY ASKED THIS QUESTION OUTSIDE, SO I COULD ANSWER IT. 
          IT'S A PROPELLING SYSTEM THAT'S BEHIND THAT TROLLEY, AND ONE WENT OUT ON THE TROLLEY AND WE'RE REPLACING THE ONE THAT IS BURNED OUT AND THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING AT WHY IT BURNED OUT, SO THEY CAN PICK UP ANY COST. 
          THAT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. 
          >> WELL, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. 
          OUR WARRANTY ON THESE IS ONLY A TWO-YEAR WARRANTY. 
          [OVERLAPPING] WE DON'T HAVE A FIVE-YEAR 100,000-MILE BUMPER TO BUMPER. 
          >> FIVE MINUTES OR FIVE MILES. 
          [LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND] [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> THEY WERE WARRANTIED OUT BUT IT IS OUT OF WARRANTY, GOMACO HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AT SUPPORTING US. 
          THEY HAVE CUT THESE COSTS IN HALF FOR US. 
          REALLY WHAT IT IS IS AN ELECTRIC MOTOR. 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> THEY ALSO WANT TO KNOW WHY IT HAPPENED. 
          >> THE GOOD NEWS IS WHATEVER IT IS, WE HOPE WE CAN CORRECT IT IN THE ONE THEY HAVE GOT UP THERE NOW TOO. 
          >> TWO OF THESE IN EACH TROLLEY, FRONT AND BACK? AND WE'VE GOT FOUR TROLLEYS? 
          >> YEAH, THREE TROLLEYS. ONE OF THE FOUR IS CURRENTLY BEING REBUILT. 
          >> OKAY. THEY ARE GONNA LOOK INTO THIS AND WHY IT FAILED SO EARLY AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE THIS. 
          >> THEY ARE MORE INTERESTED IN IT THAN WE ARE. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THEY WILL BE FLYING DOWN TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. 
          >> OKAY. THAT IS ALL MY QUESTIONS THERE, THANK YOU. 
          >> IT IS BEING PAID FOR [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> OH, WAIT, DAVID, I THINK YOU ARE ON THE NEXT ONE TOO,11I. 
          IT IS TRANSPORTATION SOFTWARE, IS THAT YOU? 
          >>THIS IS SOFTWARE WHICH OUR TRANSIT HAS HAD FOR DECADES. 
          THEY CURRENTLY ARE IN A CONTRACT WITH IT AND WHAT IT DOES, IT CONTROLS THE RIDERSHIP. 
          THEY [NOISE] PUT IN THE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MANY RIDERS AND IN WHICH ROUTES, SO ON AND SO ON. 
          >> SO THIS IS $22,000 A YEAR ANNUALLY? 
          >> YES. 
          >> SO THIS JUST INCREASES AT ANOTHER INCREASE IN OUR ANNUAL BUDGET. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> HONESTLY, IT HAS BEEN THAT HIGH FOR SEVERAL YEARS. 
          I'M SURPRISED IT HAD NOT GONE UP MORE. 
          IT IS A LITTLE HIGH, WE ARE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT, 
          [00:10:02]
SO WE ARE LOOKING AT SOMETHING ELSE. 
          >> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. 
          EACH YEAR WE DO THIS 22? I THOUGHT THIS WAS NEW [OVERLAPPING] SOFTWARE OR AN UPGRADE OR SOMETHING. 
          >> IT IS A LITTLE MORE EXPENSIVE THIS YEAR, BUT WE HAVE HAD THIS SOFTWARE IN THE BUDGET FOR YEARS. 
          >> OKAY. HOW MUCH DID IT GO UP THIS YEAR? 
          >> IT DID NOT GO UP AT ALL. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I THOUGHT IT WENT UP, OR WAS IT LAST YEAR THAT IT WENT UP? 
          >> IT WAS LAST YEAR, YEAH. 
          BUT IT IS STILL A LITTLE HIGH [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> THE YEARS RUN TOGETHER. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] . WE ARE, IN THE FUTURE, LOOKING AT SOME DIFFERENT SOFTWARE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> THIS IS LIKE CLOUD-BASED SOFTWARE? 
          >> IT IS CLOUD-BASED, YES. 
          >> THIS ISN'T THE FIRST YEAR WE'RE IMPLEMENTING THIS FILE-BASED? 
          >> THEY UPGRADED TO CLOUD-BASED PROBABLY ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> I'VE BOUGHT THIS EVERY YEAR. THAT'S OUR ANNUAL FEE FOR SUPPORTING THEM. 
          >> OKAY. SO THIS ITEM COMES TO US EACH YEAR? 
          >> CAN I INTERJECT A QUESTION? WHAT DOES THE SOFTWARE DO? 
          >> THE SOFTWARE, WE USE IT AS A DATABASE. 
          IT TRACKS OUR TRIP NUMBERS, [OVERLAPPING] ALL OF OUR METRICS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT, OUR REVENUE HOURS, ALL THAT. 
          >> CAN WE LOOK AT GETTING AN APP THAT PEOPLE CAN USE TO FIND OUT WHERE THE TROLLEYS AND THE BUSES ARE? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I KNOW OF THE TROLLEY COMMITTEE LOOKED AT YEARS AGO. 
          THAT WOULD HAVE FIGURED IT BOON TO THE CITIZENS AND TOURISTS ALIKE. 
          >> YOU USE THIS SOFTWARE ON THE RUBBER WHEEL TROLLEYS TOO? 
          >> CURRENTLY, NO. WE DO NOT AT ALL. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] AFTER WE TRACKED THE MILEAGES THEMSELVES AND THE FLOORS' ACTUAL SCHEDULING, NO. 
          WE DO A GOOD JOB. 
          >> WHY NOT? 
          >> [NOISE] WHAT IT'S SET AT RIGHT NOW IS JUST STRICTLY DEMAND RESPONSE. 
          IT'S MORE OF A DATABASE TYPE OF SOFTWARE FOR US AND WHAT WE'RE USING IT AS AN ASSET. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] THIS SOFTWARE WAS ORIGINALLY PUT IN MANY YEARS AGO WHEN WE HAD DEMAND RESPONSE. 
          THE DEMAND RESPONSE, WHERE PEOPLE WOULD CALL IN A DAY AHEAD, WE PUT IT INTO THE SOFTWARE AND IT WOULD CREATE A SCHEDULE FOR THE NEXT DAY. 
          WE NOW CONTRACT THAT CONTRACT OUT TO HARRIS COUNTY RIDES, SO WE DON'T UTILIZE THAT BUT, THIS SOFTWARE DOES HAVE THE ABILITY, TO TRACK BY US INPUTTING HOW MANY RIDERS ON SO MANY ROUTES [NOISE], FIXED ROUTES, AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT TRYING TO GET SOME BETTER SOFTWARE. 
          IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE CHEAPER. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> AND KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS FOR FEDERAL REPORTING. 
          WE DON'T DO FEDERAL REPORTING ON THE RUBBER WHEEL TROLLEYS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT FUNDED, THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE FTA SYSTEM. 
          >> WITH THIS, DO YOU TRACK RIDERS ON THE RUBBER WHEEL TROLLEYS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> OKAY. HOW DO YOU DO IT THERE? 
          >> THIS IS DONE MANUALLY. WE COUNT IN MANUALLY [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> THEY GOT A LITTLE BUTTON. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SCANNING A PASS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> WE DON'T HAVE TO HOLD OUT ON THOSE TROLLEYS BECAUSE IT'S A FUNDING THING. 
          >> THANK YOU ALL. I THINK THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE IS 11K: THE PAVING PLAN. 
          >> SO, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ABOUT $3 MILLION TOTAL, 2.4, 2.3 OR SO. 
          THERE'S A 1.7 INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE FINE ANNUALLY THAT GETS ALLOCATED TOWARDS THIS AND WE'RE SUPPLEMENTING THAT WITH $486, 000 WORTH OF CDBG FUNDS. 
          >> DOES THAT KEEP US AT OUR CURRENT LEVEL OF PAVEMENT? IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WHEN I READ THE REPORT. 
          [OVERLAPPING] IT SEEMED LIKE IT WOULD TAKE MORE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> IT DOES. [OVERLAPPING] IF WE DO THE SLURRY SEAL AND THINGS, IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE. 
          >> YES, BUT THIS IS A START. ALL RIGHT. 
          THIS IS IN THE WORKSHOP AND WE GOT COUNSEL LAST TIME. 
          BEFORE THIS, WE WERE ONLY DOING MILL AND OVERLAY. 
          WE CAME TO THE WORKSHOP AND WITH THE COUNSEL, YOU ALL GAVE US DIRECTION TO START DOING THIS SURFACE PRESENTATION-TYPE PROGRAMS. SO WE'RE SUPPLEMENTING THE MIDDLE AND OVERLAID WITH THE CDBG FUNDS AND WE'RE TAKING SOME OF THE LOCAL FUNDS AND DOING SLURRY SEAL. 
          I'M LOOKING AT CONTRACT IN AND OUTS TO TRY TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF OUR STREETS. 
          >> CAN I ASK? IF I INTERPRET JOHN'S QUESTION CORRECTLY, YOU REMEMBER IN THE PRESENTATION, IT WAS A LINE BELOW WHICH WE SHOULDN'T FALL BECAUSE WE WOULD JUST CREATE INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEMS IN THE PAST. 
          WILL THIS KEEP US, AT LEAST AT THAT LEVEL GOING FORWARD? 
          >> NOT YET, NO. 
          THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION THOUGH. 
          SO WE'LL START ANNUALLY ALLOCATING AND WE'LL SEE HOW THIS WILL BE THE PILOT KIND OF PROGRAM AFTER WE'VE BIDDED IT OUT AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          THEN WE'LL CIRCLE BACK NEXT YEAR AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS AND LOOK AT WAYS TO KEEP [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> WE'RE ABOUT $1 MILLION SHY OF ACTUALLY MAKING INCREMENTAL PROGRESS. 
          SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO FALL TERRIBLY BEHIND WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE WE'RE STAYING ON TOP OF IT. 
          BUT BECAUSE OF THE AGED INFRASTRUCTURE HERE IN ALL THE YEARS OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, WE'RE [OVERLAPPING]. 
          [00:15:01]
          >> IT'S A GOAL WORTH PURSUING. 
          >> ABSOLUTELY. 
          >> WHEN I LOOK AT THIS PAVEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT PLAN, IS THIS IN PRIORITY ORDER? 
          >> YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S MY THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION. 
          WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WHY ARE ALL THESE IN GREEN AND YELLOW? 
          >> THE GREEN LOOKS LIKE IT HAS MILL AND OVERLAY AND THE SLURRY AND PATCHES IS THE YELLOW. 
          THAT'S HOW I READ THIS. 
          >> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          >> AND THEN THEY ARE IN ORDER ON WORST TO BEST? 
          >> FIRST, YOU'RE GOING TO START WITH 77TH STREET [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> OPTIMIZED PRIORITY IS WHAT IT IS. 
          [OVERLAPPING] OPTIMIZED PRIORITY IS WHAT IT IS. 
          [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] SO WHAT IT IS, IT LOOKS AT SEVERAL FACTORS, TWO OF WHICH ARE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD ARE LIKE THE TYPE OF PAVEMENT DISTRESS THAT'S THERE AND VOLUME OF TRAFFIC, AS WELL AS THE PCI SCORE AND SEVERAL OTHER FACTORS THAT ARE IN THERE. 
          >> AND THOSE DETERMINE WHAT'S WORST. AND THEN WE GO FROM THAT. 
          BUT IT'S NOT JUST WORSE FIRST. 
          IT HAS THIS NUMBER OF POTHOLES, AND ALL THE FACTORS THAT DETERMINE WHAT'S WORST. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> IS IT GOING TO BE DONE THROUGHOUT THE ISLAND? 
          >> ONLY IN DISTRICT FIVE. 
          ACTUALLY. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] TAKE IT WHILE YOU CAN, BABY. 
          TAKE IT WHILE YOU CAN. 
          >> OKAY. 
          RIGHT NOW. I'M JUST LOOKING AT ONE OF THESE AND THIS IS A PRETTY THOROUGH REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CONSULTANT. 
          >> IT'S ALSO LINKED TO A MAP IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE FOR VISUAL DEPICTION OF IT, ALWAYS DOES BETTER, I WILL DO BETTER WITH PICTURES. 
          >> IN OUR NETWORK IS RIGHT NOW, RIGHT AT ABOUT 76, I THINK AND SO IF I'M READING THIS GRAPH HERE RIGHT, WE NEED TO SPEND ABOUT $3 MILLION TO STAY AT 76? 
          >> YES. 
          >> OKAY AND THEN THIS IS FOR ABOUT 2.4 WE'RE SHORT OF THAT 3 MILLION. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE 3 MILLION TO KEEP US AT LEAST AT 76. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> IF NOT A LITTLE MORE TO TRY TO BETTER. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> IF OTHER PROJECTS FALL OUT AND DIFFERENT THINGS, WE WILL LAST YOU AND END UP SPENDING MORE THAN WE BUDGETED ANY WAY TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND SO WE'RE AT 2.4. 
          I BET WE ENDED UP SETTLING ABOUT 2.6 THIS YEAR, PROBABLY 2.6 AND A HALF. 
          BECAUSE IF WE HAVE OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT DIFFER, WE'LL HAVE MONEY, WE CAN DROP IT AND DO MORE PAINTINGS. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> I THINK YES. 
          >> BUT THE GOAL NEXT YEAR WILL BE TO TARGET THROUGH. 
          >> GREAT. 
          >> THANK YOU, BRANDON. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEA HAS A QUESTION. 
          >> EXCUSE ME. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEA HAS A QUESTION. 
          >> COUNCILMAN FINKLEA. YOU'RE ON MUTE DAVID. 
          >> THAT ALWAYS HAS TO HAPPEN TO ONE PERSON, RIGHT? I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ITEM HAS LISTED AT 11K, APPEARS TO BE 1.75 MILLION AND THEN THE CDBG FUNDS OF 486,000. 
          IT SAYS FOR FISCAL YEARS 24 AND 25, WHICH IS OVER A TWO-YEAR PERIOD, BUT THE REPORT TENDS TO INDICATE THAT IN SOME AREAS IT SAYS AT LEAST A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FOR THIS LEVEL OF INVESTMENT, BUT IN ANOTHER AREA, IT SAYS THAT A ONE-YEAR PERIOD, CAN YOU CLARIFY AS TO IF THIS COMMITMENT FOR 1.7 MILLION AND 496,000 IS FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD OR ONE YEAR? 
          >> THAT'S AN ANNUAL BASIS. 
          IF YOU LOOK ON THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S ESTIMATED ANNUAL BASIS SO THEN NEXT YEAR. 
          >> I'M SORRY. 
          >> IT'S PART OF THE BUDGETING PROCESS, THEN WE'LL CIRCLE BACK AND TRY TO KEEP INCREASING THAT AS OPPORTUNITIES ARISE. 
          >> SO YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE THIS FOR FISCAL YEARS 24 AND 25, THAT'S THE LEVEL SHOWN IN THE REPORT? 
          >> YES AND WE PLAN ON BIDDING OUT THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT YEAR, THE SLURRY SEAL CONTRACT AND SO THAT'LL BE COMING BACK TO COUNCIL AS WELL. 
          WHENEVER WE GET A CONTRACTOR ON BOARD AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WE'RE DEVELOPING BID DOCUMENTS ON IT RIGHT NOW AND THAT'LL BE COMING BACK TO YOU FOR CONSIDERATION AS WELL. 
          >> ONCE WE BID THAT OUT, IF WE'RE GETTING GOOD SUCCESS WITH IT, AND THEN WE'LL START LOOKING TO SEE IF IT'S BETTER TO BRING IT IN-HOUSE OR OTHER THINGS WE'VE DONE WITH OUR MILL AND OVERLAY. 
          BUT WE NEED TO GET A CONTRACT ON THE GROUND TO SEE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SUCCESS WITH THE ACTUAL WORK AND ACTUALLY WHAT THE COST IS WITH THE CONTRACTOR FIRST AND IF HE CAN DO IT CHEAPER, THAN AS, IF NOT, IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT TORINO SPECS OUT AND YOU START BRINGING IT IN-HOUSE. 
          >> OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE? 
          >> I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCILMAN DAVID. 
          >> I'LL PASS. 
          >> VERY GOOD COUNCIL. 
          >> TWO ITEMS ALREADY ON, SOUND GOOD. 
          >> GOOD, ONE QUESTION REAL QUICKLY, 8B. 
          >> YES, SIR. 
          >> JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 
          IT'S CATHERINE, COME ON UP TO THAT IF IT SAYS 
          [00:20:06]
AS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE EXCEPT HAS PROVIDED ELSEWHERE THESE REGULATIONS, EVERY NON-RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN THE CITY SHALL BE OPERATED OUT OF A STATIONARY BUILDING. 
          WHAT ABOUT THESE INTERNET BUSINESSES. 
          IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THAT, RIGHT? 
          >> NO, IT DOESN'T. AN INTERNET BASED BUSINESS IS USUALLY TYPICALLY CLASSIFIED AS A WHOLE LOT OF PATIENT. 
          >> OKAY, THAT'S ALL I NEEDED. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CATHERINE. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAD. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCIL FOR THAT AND LET'S MOVE NOW TO ITEM 3B, PLEASE, MA'AM. 
          [3.B. Discussion Of Contractual Agreements As They Relate To Cruise Terminal 16 (Brown/R. Rees - 15 Min)]
          >> THERE HAS TO BE A RECORD? 
          >> THAT HAS TO BE A RECORD. 
          >> IT IS A RECORD AND STAFF THANKS. 
          >> TEMPORARY AGENDA. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> 3B, DISCUSSION OF CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS AS THEY RELATE TO CRUISE TERMINAL 16. 
          >> VERY GOOD, WE HAVE WITH US ROGER REESE THIS MORNING. 
          WE HAVE WITH US JEFF PATTERSON WITH THE VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD FORWARD AND TONY BROWN THE ATTORNEY SO GENTLEMEN COME ON UP IF YOU WOULD PLEASE. 
          >> WE GOT A CHAIR HERE. 
          >> WE HAVE PLENTY OF SEATS HERE. 
          >> SIT THERE. 
          >> COULD YOU CLICK ON MY MAP TO SEE BECAUSE IT PULLED OUT EVERYTHING THEY'RE GOING TO DO THIS YEAR? 
          >> I SAW THAT. 
          >> THE COUNCIL, AS YOU MAY REMEMBER AT OUR JOINT MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT THE MSC CONTRACT. 
          IT'S COMING UP THAT WILL BE GO BEFORE THE WAR EXPLORED, IT'LL BE ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA THIS COMING TUESDAY I THINK, IS THAT CORRECT, ROGER? 
          >> WE DON'T KNOW YET. WE'RE NEGOTIATING HOT AND HEAVY RIGHT NOW, SO I'M HERE TO REPORT WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO REPORT. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> THAT'S A REPORT. 
          >> THERE ARE SOME ITEMS TOO IN THIS CONTRACT COUNSELLORS, YOU PROBABLY COULDN'T IMAGINE THAT THERE ARE MORE ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SITUATION SINCE WE ARE NOT A PARTY, DON HAS ADVISED ME THAT SINCE WE ARE NOT A PARTY OF THIS CONTRACT, THAT DOES AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IS NOT APPROPRIATE, I THINK HE TALKED TO YOU. 
          >> YES. 
          >> HE IS, CORRECT. 
          >> YES SO BECAUSE OF THAT, IF YOU HAVE ANY OVERARCHING IDEAS ON THIS CONTRACT AND SECONDLY, AN ABILITY FOR COUNCIL TO GIVE INPUT TO ROGER AND TO JEFF AND TONY AS THEY GO THROUGH THESE NEGOTIATIONS, ROGER? 
          >> WELL, AS I SAID, WE GOT THROWN A LITTLE BIT OF A CURVE BALL COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND WE'RE WORKING. 
          >> LAST WEEK. 
          >> YEAH, LAST WEEK AND IN WHAT IT WAS BASICALLY IS WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING HERE LOCALLY AND WITH SOME PEOPLE IN GENEVA AND THEN THE GENEVA ATTORNEY GOT INVOLVED AND JUST REWROTE THE CONTRACT AND SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REWRITING THE CONTRACT AND SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING HOURS AND HOURS ON THIS THING AND SO WE THINK WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE. 
          OUR GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET TO THE BOARD ON THIS NEXT MEETING. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE OR NOT BUT I THINK IT'S JUST THOSE ITEMS. IT'S THE DETAILS THAT THEY WENT INTO HERE WE DIDN'T HAVE AS MUCH DETAIL AS I GUESS THEY WANTED AND SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT. 
          EVERYTHING IS STILL ON GO AS YOU KNOW, THE BOARD PASSED MOVING FORWARD ON THE CONTRACT AND MOVING FORWARD ON THE TERMINAL AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          WE HAVE NOT YET SIGNED THAT CONTRACT WITH BA BUT WE'RE EMINENT ON THAT. 
          >> QUICK QUESTION, ARE THESE THINGS NECESSARILY LINED UP ONE BEFORE THE OTHER WE NEED TO CONTRACT BEFORE HIS MOVE FORWARD FROM SPIRIT 16? 
          >> NO. 
          >> YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON SPIRIT 16. 
          >> WELL, I THINK IT'S A BOARD QUESTION REALLY. 
          >> WELL, IDEALLY, THE BOARD HAS SAID WE WANT TO MOVE THE NUMBERS WITH PRO FORMA NUMBERS. 
          >> LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. 
          >> IT'S A GOOD DEAL FOR THE POOR. 
          GOOD DEAL FOR THE CITY SO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT IT'S REALLY GETTING THE MSC CONTRACT IN PLACE. 
          >> YOU DON'T HAVE THAT IN PLACE. YOU DON'T WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON THEM? 
          >> WELL, WE'VE APPROVED THE ENGINEERING ON THE TERMINAL. 
          >> THAT'S THE ONLY THING YOU'VE IMPROVED. 
          >> THE ONLY THING WE IMPROVED. 
          >> A CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND. 
          >> DETAILED ENGINEERING PIECE OF IT AND THEN THE NEXT STEP IS GETTING THE CONTRACT SIGNED BEFORE WE DO ANY OTHER MAJOR. 
          >> I JUST HAVE TO SAY, I APPRECIATE THE WAY YOU GUYS ARE DOING THIS. 
          COMING AND BRINGING THIS TO COUNSEL, SHARING THIS INFORMATION WITH US IN 
          [00:25:01]
A TIMELY MANNER ONGOING BASIS I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          >> I SECOND THAT. 
          >> VERY MUCH SO. 
          >> JUST TO FURTHER THAT, SO BOARD'S APPROVED ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. 
          YOU'RE WORKING ON THE CONTRACT WITH MAC. 
          CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS AND ENGINEERING SHOULD BE DONE JANUARY. 
          AT THAT POINT, YOU CAN START LOOKING AT WHAT THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO COST. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> WE'VE GOT NUMBERS THAT EVERYONE HAS AGREED ON. 
          BUT OBVIOUSLY, THOSE WERE BASED ON OUR CURRENT CONTRACTOR, HENSEL PHELPS, WHO'S BEEN WORKING HERE. 
          THEY BUILT CRUISE TERMINAL 10 AND IS DOING 25, AND HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS MARKET NOW. 
          WE'VE GOT SOME NUMBERS THAT WE THINK THAT EVERYBODY IS AGREEING ON. 
          OUR ENGINEERS ARE AGREEING THAT THESE LOOK LIKE GOOD NUMBERS. 
          THEY WON'T BE FINAL NUMBERS UNTIL WE SEE THE DRAWINGS AND SEE WHAT WE GOT TO DO THERE. 
          BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S PROBABLY JANUARY BEFORE WE'LL HAVE THAT FINAL NUMBER. 
          BUT EVERYBODY AT THIS STAGE IS COMFORTABLE THAT WE'RE CLOSE. 
          WE'RE ALSO DESIGNING A PARKING GARAGE. 
          PART OF THE WHOLE PROCESS IS INCLUDING A 1500 SPACE PARKING GARAGE THAT WILL BE ADJACENT TO THE TERMINAL. 
          >> THAT'S PART OF THE $5,000,000 CONTRACT FOR DESIGN SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> AS YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL PRICE OF THE CONTRACT WAS 7.2 AND THE REST OF THAT IS CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. 
          >> AT HENSEL PHELPS, DO YOU HAVE TO BID THAT WORK OUT? 
          >> WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. WE ALREADY BID IT OUT AND THEY WERE CHOSEN TO CMAR. 
          WE HAVE FOUR RESPONSES TO THE RP. 
          >> THEY'RE JUST CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, SO YOU DON'T HAVE PRICE YET THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE HELD TO OR ANYTHING. 
          >> CMAR IS CALLED THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE. 
          >> GOT YOU. 
          >> ONCE THEY GET THEIR ENGINEERING, THEY'LL EVALUATE IT, THEY'LL DO ANY VE AND THEN THEY'LL COME BACK AND SAY WE AGREE THAT WE CAN DO THIS WITH A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF THIS. 
          >> WE HAVE COUNSEL IN BOUVIER AND THEN FINK. 
          >> IN THE CONTRACT, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE CRUISE PEOPLE NEED OR WANT IN THE TERMINAL? DO THEY DESCRIBE CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THERE OR IS IT SOLELY UP TO THE WARPH? 
          >> WELL, I WOULD SAY IT'S BEEN A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT. 
          WE'VE BEEN TALKING ALL ALONG. 
          I ACTUALLY CALLED A MEETING OVER MIAMI A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WHERE I PULLED THEM, AND NORWEGIAN, AND US, AND THE ENGINEERS ALL IN THE SAME ROOM SO WE ALL CAN UNDERSTAND. 
          WHAT WE HAVE IS BEAUTIFUL DRAWINGS BUT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH, BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS AGREEING THAT FUNCTIONALITY IS THE MAIN THING WE'RE LOOKING FOR AS WE TALK. 
          THE GOOD THING ABOUT THAT BUILDING IS IT'S INTUITIVE IN THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE DESIGNED. 
          YOU CAN'T GO WRONG, IF IT'S ONE BIG ROOM, BASICALLY. 
          THERE'S GOING TO BE A HALLWAY DOWN THE MIDDLE OF IT. 
          THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY'S AGREED JUST MAKE THIS SIMPLE. 
          THE PROBLEM IS, SIMPLE ISN'T CHEAP. 
          THAT'S THE PROBLEM. [LAUGHTER]. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] IT CHANGES FROM A BANANA WAREHOUSE TO A CRUISE TERMINAL. 
          >> YOU'RE PUTTING EVERYTHING IN ELECTRICAL, HVAC, PROBABLY A LOT OF ROOFING. 
          BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, WE ARE SPENDING $4 MILLION ACROSS THE STREET ON A BRAND NEW ROOF. 
          WHICH IS SORELY NEEDED. 
          >> DAVID FINKLEA. 
          >> MR. REECE, THANKS FOR THE UPDATE. 
          FROM OUR LAST MEETING, NOVEMBER 2ND, YOU HAD STATED THAT YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE MSC TO BE COMPLETED BY THE END OF 2023. 
          IS THAT STILL ON SCHEDULE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> IN THAT AGREEMENT, IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE RELATED TO RECOVERY OF BOARDING FEES THAT WOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE CITY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH CARNIVAL AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN? 
          >> YES. 
          >> DAVID. [OVERLAPPING] BASICALLY, THE SAME LANGUAGE IS IN THERE. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] WE TALKED ABOUT DOUBLING THAT. 
          >> WELL, YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT. 
          [OVERLAPPING] LAUGHTER] 
          >> WE'RE ALL HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          >> WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. 
          [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I GOT IT. 
          >> WHATEVER THAT IS, WILL COME OUT OF THE FOURTH BUCKET. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S LIKE A POOL MIRACLE. 
          [00:30:02]
          >> YOU SAID THAT BEFORE, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. 
          WHY IT WOULD COME OUT OF THE FOURTH BUCKET? ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY CONTRIBUTE HALF OF THIS AND YOU'D CONTRIBUTE HALF OF THIS? 
          >> NO. [OVERLAPPING] WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY'VE AGREED TO PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF FEES THAT THE OTHER CRUISE COMPANIES HAVE PAID. 
          NOW, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR MORE THEN THEY'RE SAYING, WELL, WE'VE AGREED TO PAY THIS. 
          I WOULD JUST BE HONEST WITH YOU, WITH CARNIVAL SAID NO. 
          WE PUT IT IN THE CONTRACT BUT WE HAD TO LOWER OUR FEES BY $0.25 PER MINUTE. 
          [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I'M NOT YOUR NEGOTIATOR HERE BUT, THEY WANT THIS MARKET. COME ON. 
          >> WELL, I WOULD SAY ALSO IN ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT THEY'RE PAYING QUITE A BIT MORE THAN THE OTHER CRUISE TERMINALS NOW. 
          I DON'T WANT TO GIVE OUT ALL THAT INFORMATION BUT THEIR FEES ARE CONSIDERABLY MORE IN THIS CONTRACT THAN ANYBODY ELSE'S CONTRACT, OTHER THAN DISNEY. 
          >> THE QUESTION THAT IS GOING TO COME UP IS, IS THIS INDEXED TO ANYTHING? [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> EVERYTHING. PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IS INDEXED. 
          >> IS IT INDEXED? THIS HAS COME UP A NUMBER OF TIMES. 
          WE'LL HAVE PAYMENTS HERE AND THERE THAT ARE NOT INDEXED TO ANYTHING AND THEN, 50 YEARS LATER, IT'S STILL $1. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE'VE GOT THAT. 
          >> THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF THE ANNUAL INCREASE IS STILL UNDER NEGOTIATION, BUT IT'S BUILT IN THERE. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] . 
          >> MR MAXWELL, HAS THE CITY CONVEYED A PER-PASSENGER BOARDING TARGET THAT WE WOULD AIM FOR ACROSS THE BOARD TO THE PORT? 
          >> NO, WE HAVE NOT. 
          >> IT'S FOR DISCUSSION HERE, OR MAYBE LATER. 
          BECAUSE, I KNOW THAT, MR. REECE; YOU'RE GOING TO NEGOTIATE YOUR CONTRACT TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITIES. 
          YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THAT IF WE SET A TARGET, AND YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT UP EITHER WAY IN ORDER TO MEET THE REQUEST OF THE COUNCIL. 
          I THINK, MR. MAXWELL, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CONSIDER IN A FUTURE WORKSHOP SO THAT WE HAVE AN EVEN DISTRIBUTION ACROSS ALL CRUISE LINES. 
          >>THAT WOULD BE A POLICY VOTE BY COUNSEL AND WE'LL IMPLEMENT WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO HAPPY TO. 
          >> I'VE MADE A NOTE, DAVID, AND WE'LL SEE ABOUT GETTING THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. 
          >>SUPER. THANK YOU, MATT. 
          >> I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT WE WOULD HAVE SOME INPUT IN THAT. 
          >> YES. BY ALL MEANS. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. REECE? 
          >> WELL, I GUESS THE COUNCIL IS SAYING GO FORTH AND PROSPER. 
          [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >>THERE YOU ARE. 
          >>I THINK WE'RE ON OUR WAY. 
          THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.[OVERLAPPING] 
          >> THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU GUYS COME IN AND GIVE US AN UPDATE EVEN IF IT ISN'T A MAJOR THING.[OVERLAPPING] 
          >> IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL. 
          >> I SAW YOU AT THE DRY CLEANERS THIS MORNING. 
          [LAUGHTER]. 
          [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] APPRECIATE IT. 
          >> JANELLE, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3C, PLEASE. 
          [3.C. Discussion Of The Scope Of A Financial Audit For The Park Board (Robb/Lewis/Brown - 15 Min)]
          >> ITEM 3C, DISCUSSION OF THE SCOPE OF A FINANCIAL AUDIT FOR THE PARK BOARD. 
          >> VERY GOOD. THIS IS AN ITEM THE COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE] AS YOU KNOW WE HAD PASSED THE MOTION HERE RECENTLY TO DO A [INAUDIBLE] AS YOU MAY KNOW IN THE HOT CONTRACT, THERE IS MENTION OF AUDITING THE HOT THERE AT THE PARK BOARD WITH THE EXPENSES PAID FOR BY THE CITY. 
          I THINK COUNCIL WOMAN ROBB, CAN EXPLAIN MORE WHAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO DO? 
          >> WELL ACTUALLY, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE AUDIT OF THE PORT, WE DISCUSSED HAVING AN AUDIT OF THE PORT AND THE PARK BOARD AND WE ALL AGREED TO THAT. 
          IF THE PORT HAS TO PAY THE EXPENSES OF THEIR AUDIT, THE PARK BOARD SHOULD HAVE TO PAY THE EXPENSES OF THEIR AUDIT AS WELL. 
          I THINK THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE LOOKED AT IS INTER FUND TRANSFERS OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS PICK A PERIOD, WE CAN USE THE SAME PERIOD AS WE DID FOR THE PORT. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED FUNDS. 
          MANY QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE HOT CONTRACT, I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ON THAT FIRST. 
          [00:35:03]
BUT JUST TO CLARIFY THAT THE ITEM WAS PUT ON BY ME, SHARON LEWIS AND CRAIG BROWN. 
          ALL THREE OF US PUT IT ON BUT THIS WAS SOMETHING WE ALL COMMITTED TO QUITE SOME TIME AGO AND WE HAVE NEVER MOVED FORWARD WITH IT. 
          I GUESS I MENTIONED TWO OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE LOOKED AT. 
          I'M INTERESTED IN GETTING OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE INPUT AS WELL AS OUR CFO'S INPUT. 
          >> AS MARIE MENTIONED, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD A CONSENSUS ON IN COUNCIL AS WE DISCUSSED THE COURTS AUDIT, SO WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH DISCUSSING THE PARK BOARDS. MARTIN. 
          >> I WOULD LOVE TO REFER TO GLENN BULGHERINI FOR SOME GUIDANCE SINCE HE'S OUR AUDITOR TO SEE WHAT HIS OPINIONS ARE. 
          >> ONE OF THE THINGS WE AGREED NOT TO DO THAT AT THE BOARD MEETING. 
          WE CAN GO OUTSIDE AND DO IT OUTSIDE. 
          >> I'M SAYING WE DO IT OUTSIDE. 
          I'M JUST SAYING FOR HIS OPINION ON TYPES OF AUDITS. 
          >> THERE WERE VERY SPECIFIC REASONS WHY WE DID WHAT WE DID AT THE PORT. 
          WHY ARE WE TRYING TO ALIGN THESE TWO THINGS SO CLOSELY TOGETHER? I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH DOING AN AUDIT AT THE AT THE PARK BOARD. 
          BUT WHY ARE WE COMPARING THE PORT AND THE PARK BOARD AND OUR ACTIONS. 
          >> WE AREN'T REALLY COMPARING THE PORT AND THE PARK BOARD. 
          [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE ARE COMPARING TO LOOK AT THE SAME CRITERIA AT BOTH. 
          LIKE YOU SAID THREE OR FOUR YEARS, YOU SAID WHATEVER WE DID AT THE PORT ON GOING BACK TO THE SAME AT THE PACK BOARD, WE MIGHT WANT TO GO BACK FURTHER OR WE MIGHT NOT NEED TO GO. 
          >> THAT'S FINE. WE CAN GO BACK FURTHER. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW WHY WE KEEP BRINGING UP THE PORTS AUDIT WITH THIS ONE. 
          THIS IS THE PARK BOARD AND WE NEED TO DO WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO THAT CONCERNS THE PARK BOARD. 
          >> I WOULD AGREE. 
          >> BUT THE ONLY REFERENCE SINCE I WAS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP OR SAID IT WAS THE FACT WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSIONS AT WORKSHOP AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE PORT AUDIT, WE ALSO DISCUSSED HAVING AN AUDIT OF THE PARK BOARD. 
          >> SURE. 
          >> I'M SAYING IT JUST TO REFERENCE. 
          I TOLD YOU THAT TWO THINGS. 
          I DON'T CARE IF WE DO A FIVE YEAR, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF THREE YEAR. 
          BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEE FIVE YEARS, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. 
          I HAVE NO PROBLEM. 
          I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO DO APPLES TO APPLES. 
          I'M SAYING WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT AND YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE WORKSHOPS, WE TALKED ABOUT DOING BOTH. 
          I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE A COST THE CITY HAS TO BEAR. 
          AS WE ALL THOUGHT, THERE WASN'T A COST THAT THE PORT AUDIT WAS A COST THE CITY HAD TO BEAR. 
          I THINK I WOULD BE MORE INTERESTED IN THE INPUT OF OUR CFO, SINCE SHE IS OUR CFO. 
          BUT I TOLD YOU IN MY REVIEW, WHICH I HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO READ ALL THE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED STILL, IN MY OPINION, WITH NOT ENOUGH EXPLANATION. 
          I THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT DINNER FUND TRANSFERS. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT RESTRICTED AND UNRESTRICTED. 
          THAT'S TWO OF THE THINGS I CAN NAME RIGHT OFF MY HEAD AND I'M INTERESTED IN WHAT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          >> CO-MINGLING OF FUNDS. 
          >> CO-MINGLING OF FUNDS, TRUE. 
          >> THAT'S FINE. BUT WE STARTED THIS DISCUSSION COMPARING THE TWO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE JUST STICK TO THE PARK BOARD. 
          >> I AGREE. 
          >> WE FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THIS AUDIT BASED ON PACK BOARD. 
          >> WE'RE SIMPLY REMINDING EVERYONE THAT WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION A LONG TIME. 
          >> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S QUESTIONING THAT WE ARE ALL IN FAVOR OF DOING ALL OF THEM. 
          >> WE DECIDE ON THIS AIR TO GET COUNCIL'S INPUT ON WHEN AND WHAT TOPICS WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ON A PARK BOARD AUDIT. 
          I'D OPEN THAT UP FOR THEM. 
          YOU HAD MENTIONED CO-MINGLING OF FUNDS. 
          >> I THINK NUMBER ONE IS HAVING A HOT CONTRACT SIGNED, EXECUTED BEFORE WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD. 
          >> I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT, THAT'S COMING UP HERE SHORTLY. 
          I WOULD RECOMMEND TO GET OUR BUDGET FOR THE PARK BOARD AND 
          [00:40:01]
THE HOT CONTRACT BEHIND THIS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ANY OF THIS. 
          >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT, I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE FORGOTTEN. 
          >> WELL, I AGREE, I THINK WE NEED TO GET A HOT CONTRACT IN PLACE, BUT WHY WOULD THAT AFFECT AN AUDIT AT ALL? 
          >> WE ARE LOOKING AT THINGS IN THE PAST ON THE AUDIT. 
          >> WELL, BECAUSE THERE'S SOME THINGS WE NEED TO AGREE ON HOW WE DO IT, WHAT WE'RE FUNDING. 
          BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT AN AUDIT TELLS YOU. 
          >> ARE YOU GOING TO GLEAN SOMETHING OUT OF THE AUDIT? 
          >> IF THE HOT CONTRACT IS TIED TO THE BUDGET IT DEFINITELY TIES TO THE AUDIT. 
          >> THE AUDIT IS IN THE PAST. 
          YOU DON'T AUDIT IN THE FUTURE. 
          YOU AUDIT IN THE PAST. 
          >> YOU MAY ALSO BE AUDITING PROCEDURES WHICH AFFECT VIEWER. 
          >> BUT YOU AUDIT THE PROCEDURES THAT WERE IN PLACE IN THE PAST. 
          >> JOHN, MY THOUGHT IS YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          THE COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD NOW WITH IT. 
          IT IS PERFECTLY FINE. 
          THERE'S JUST SO MUCH ON OUR PLATE RIGHT NOW GETTING THINGS [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE GOING HERE. 
          IF YOU WANT TO DELAY IT UNTIL WE DO A HOT CONTRACT, THAT'S FINE. 
          I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT'S THE REASON BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO DO ALL THIS. 
          I'M FINE WITH THAT. I JUST WANT A REASON. 
          >> NO, I UNDERSTAND MIKE. 
          >> THEN THERE'S ALSO, LIKE YOU SAID IN THE HOT CONTRACT, THERE'S AUDITS THAT ARE IN THERE. 
          MAYBE WE HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THE HOT CONTRACT HAS FOR AUDITS BEFORE WE DO OTHER AUDITS. 
          >> WELL, I DISAGREE WITH THAT. 
          I AM GOING TO MAKE A COMPARISON TO THE WORKS BOARD, WORKS BOARD HAS AUDITS, EVERYONE HAS AN AUDIT. 
          >> THE WORKS BOARD DOESN'T HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY. 
          >> THAT'S A MOOT POINT. 
          >> NO IT ISN'T. 
          >> YEAH IT IS. 
          >> HOW IS THAT A MOOT POINT? THE CITY HAS A CONTRACT WITH THE PARK BOARD THAT IS TELLING THE PARK BOARD THERE'S GOING TO BE CERTAIN AUDITS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE THAT WITH THE WORKS BOARD. 
          >> WE HAVE THE ABILITY WITH THE WORKS BOARD, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THROUGH THE CHARTER OR WHATEVER SO THAT WE CAN AUDIT THE WORKS BOARD. 
          >> I AGREE. 
          >> YEAH. 
          LET'S GET BACK TO THE TOP. 
          >> DAVID. 
          >> DAVID FINKLEA, DAVID? 
          >> I WANTED TO OFFER SOME CLARIFICATION IN THE DRAFT HOT AGREEMENT RIGHT NOW IT DOES GIVE AUDIT RIGHTS TO THE CITY. 
          FURTHERMORE, IT STATES THAT AUDITS WILL BE AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED AUDITOR AND LICENSED CPA SELECTED BY THE CITY. 
          THE CITY WILL PAY FOR THE COST OF ITS AUDIT AND THE PARK BOARD'S USE OF HOT. 
          THAT IS THE CURRENT LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT HOT CONTRACT, SO IF WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT, WE NEED TO DO THAT HERE FAIRLY QUICKLY. 
          DID YOU CATCH THAT LAST SENTENCE COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB? 
          >> I CAUGHT THAT LAST SENTENCE, AND I DON'T THINK THE COST SHOULD BE BEARED BY THE CITY. 
          I KEEP PULLING WHY WE WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS A HOT CONTRACT BEFORE THE AUDIT AS WELL. 
          >> TECHNICALLY, AND I CAN GET GUIDANCE FROM DON AND BRIAN ON THIS. 
          THE AUDIT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS FURTHER BEYOND THE AUDIT THAT'S IN THE HOT. 
          I THINK WE SHOULDN'T INJECT THIS INTO THE HOT CONTRACT. 
          PERSONALLY, I THINK THIS IS A SEPARATE DECISION OF COUNCILS THAT WE MAY CHANGE THE FOCUS IN THE YEARS TO COME AND ALL OF THAT AND MAY CHANGE ANNUALLY I DON'T KNOW. 
          >> ANOTHER THING IS HAVING THAT LINE IN THIS CONTRACT DOES NOT SPEAK TO PRIOR YEARS. 
          TO JOHN'S POINT, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIOR YEAR FOR TALKING ABOUT PRIOR YEARS, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT'S IN THE HOT CONTRACT. 
          >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS. 
          DO WE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS SUBJECT NOW OR WAIT TILL WE FINISH THE AUDIT? 
          >> WE CAN PUT IT ON NEXT COUNCIL AGENDA. 
          >> WE CAN JUST KEEP PUTTING IT ON COUNCIL AGENDAS UNTIL THERE'S HOT CONTRACT. 
          >> EXCUSE ME? 
          >> WE CAN JUST KEEP PUTTING IT ON COUNCIL AGENDA TILL THERE'S A HOT CONTRACT. 
          >> WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME ON THAT. 
          >> NO, WE'RE NOT. 
          >> WELL, NEXT MONTH COULD BE THE DEADLINE ON THAT. 
          DAVID FINKLEA, ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? 
          >> IF I LOOK AT THE REQUEST FOR US TO COMPLETE A HOT AGREEMENT AND I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR THAT THE REQUEST THAT'S BEING BROUGHT FORWARD NOW IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE LANGUAGE CONTENDS IN THE DRAFT HOT AGREEMENT. 
          WE AS COUNCIL, COULD SAY LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS IN WHATEVER MONTH, SAY DECEMBER GIVEN THE THREE AREAS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB HAS OUTLINED, 
          [00:45:02]
AS WELL AS THE REQUESTS FOR FEEDBACK FROM GLENN BULGHERINI AS OUR INTERNAL AUDITOR. 
          MAYBE THAT'D BE PRESENTED TO US AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP FOR US TO AGREE TO AND THEN RELEASE WHOMEVER WE NEED TO IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE AUDIT. 
          BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF A THREE-YEAR THAT'S PRETTY STANDARD. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE THE INPUT OF OUR CFO. 
          >> I APOLOGIZE. YES, I'D APPRECIATE THE INPUT FROM BOTH OF THOSE PEOPLE AS WELL. THANK YOU. 
          >> LET'S DO THIS. LET'S PUT IT ON THE DECEMBER WORKSHOP. 
          WE'LL COME BACK AND DISCUSS IT. 
          GIVE US TIME TO THINK ABOUT THAT. 
          >> WHY WOULDN'T YOU JUST PUT IT UP FOR AN ACTION ITEM ON THE DECEMBER WORKSHOP AND VOTE ON IT? 
          >> I THINK WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING INPUT OF CFO AND SO FORTH. 
          >> WE MAY NOT HAVE A HOT CONTRACT NEGOTIATED BY THE TIME THAT ROLLS AROUND. 
          >> BUT IF YOU WANT THE AUDIT DONE WHY WAIT ON THE HOT CONTRACT? WHY DOES THE HOT CONTRACT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH AN AUDIT OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS THAT YOU'RE QUESTIONING? YOUR QUESTIONING INTER-FUND TRANSFERS AND RESTRICTED FUNDS. 
          >> CO-MINGLING. 
          >> CO-MINGLING OF FUNDS THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST. 
          WHY NOT JUST GO AUDIT THOSE THINGS? IF YOU WANT TO AUDIT DONE, JUST PUT IT ON THE AGENDA HAVE GLENN AND OUR CFO HERE, SHEILA HERE AND GET ANY FINE POINTS ANSWERED THEN AND SEND THEM ON THEIR WAY TO DO AN AUDIT. 
          >> YES. 
          >> THEY WOULD NEED A WAY TO PAY IT. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH MONEY LEFT. 
          >> WHO? PARK BOARD? 
          >> PARK BOARD. 
          >> I MEAN WE HAVE $14 MILLION SITTING IN A CHECKING ACCOUNT OVER HERE. 
          I MEAN, IF YOU REALLY WANT IT DONE. 
          >> WE WON'T TRANSFER ANY OF IT UNTIL CERTAIN PAPERWORK IS DONE. 
          >> THERE'S A LOT OF PAPERWORK. 
          >> IS THAT WHY YOU WANT THE HOT CONTRACT DONE SO WE CAN FUND MONEY TO PAY FOR THE AUDIT? 
          >> I DON'T CARE IF THERE'S AN ARGUMENT FOR DOING THE AUDIT FIRST BECAUSE IT COULD AFFECT PROCEDURES, COMMINGLING FUNDS, THINGS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE HOT CONTRACT. 
          I'M WILLING TO PUT THE HOT CONTRACT OFF AND NOT FUND THE PARK BOARD UNTIL SPRING. 
          WELL, THOSE ARE YOUR OPTIONS; AREN'T THEY? 
          >> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE MY OPTIONS, BUT I GUESS THEY ARE OPTIONS. 
          >> FORTUNATELY. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS, AT OUR PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING WE HAD PROVISIONALLY APPROVED THE PARK BOARD INCLUDING Q1 FUNDING FOR THE PARK BOARD. 
          >> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. 
          >> THEN WE DID ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. 
          THE PROVISIONAL MEANT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. 
          >> THAT IS ESSENTIALLY CORRECT COUNCILMAN. 
          THAT WE COULD APPROVE THE ENTIRE BUDGET AS IT IS TODAY, BUT UNTIL WE HAVE A HOT CONTRACT, WE CANNOT LEGALLY TRANSFER THOSE FUNDS. 
          >> IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A HOT CONTRACT HOW WE ABLE TO LEGALLY PULL BACK $14 MILLION FROM THE PARK BOARD? SHOULDN'T IT GO BOTH WAYS? 
          >> NO. BECAUSE THEY DON'T IMPOSE THE TAX WE DO. 
          >> WE ARE GETTING OFF TOPIC. 
          >> SORRY. 
          >> THAT'S COMING UP IN OUR BUDGET DISCUSSION HERE. 
          LET'S COME TOGETHER ON THIS ITEM ABOUT LOOKING IN AN ADDITIONAL AUDIT FOR THE PARK BOARD. 
          I CURRENTLY HAVE A THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING IT ON THE DECEMBER WORKSHOP AND CONSIDERING A ACTION ITEM ON THERE. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? 
          >> NO. 
          >> VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE FORWARD AGAIN. 
          LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3D PLEASE MA'AM 
          [3.D. Discussion And Possible Recommendations As It Relates To The Park Board Budget For 2024 And Subsequent Years Including Special Projects And Capital Improvement Items (Brown /Bouvier - 30 Min)]
          >> ITEM 3D DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE PARK BOARD BUDGET FOR FY 2024 AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS INCLUDING SPECIAL PROJECTS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS. 
          >> SHEILA, YOU'VE BEEN WAITING. 
          [LAUGHTER] BLESS HER HEART. 
          SHE'S GOTTEN UP AND DOWN THE NUMBER OF TIMES WANTING TO COME FORWARD. 
          >> MAYOR? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COULD I ASK YOU TO REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE DISCUSSION OF THE CULTURAL DISTRICTS, BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE HERE FOR THAT DISCUSSION AND THAT'S NOT LIKELY TO HAPPEN TODAY. 
          >> I JUST WATCHED THEM WALK IN. 
          FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT BE HERE FOR THE DISCUSSION OF THE CULTURAL DISTRICTS THAT ONES BEEN DEFERED TO DECEMBER 14TH. 
          >> BECAUSE COUNCILMAN LEWIS IS NOT WITH US. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS IS NOT PRESENT AND SHE'S NOT HERE TO DISCUSS THAT AND SO WE'VE MOVED IT ONE MONTH. 
          I TALKED TO SHARON THIS MORNING AND SHE REQUESTED THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> YOU'RE WELCOME. GLAD TO HAVE YOU STAY THOUGH. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY. 
          >> MAYOR NEEDS A COPY. 
          [00:50:03]
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I AM PASSING SOME ITEMS OUT JUST SO WE HAVE THEM FOR REFERENCE AS WE DISCUSS THE BUDGET AND I THINK THEY SHOULD BE COMING DOWN TOWARDS YOU ALL. 
          >> WE JUST FOUND AN EXTRA JOB. 
          >> CAN WE HAVE THAT ONE? HE'S KEEPING THEM ALL. 
          >> HE'S KEEPING THEM. 
          >> I'M SORRY. 
          >> IT'S OKAY. 
          >> AND YOU CAN NOW SEND A COPY TO COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEA. 
          >> YES. 
          >> YOU DON'T GET ANY DOWN TO THESE. 
          >> IT'S ALL RIGHT. 
          >> WHAT CAN I HAND YOU? 
          >> HERE, JOHN'S GOT TO TWO COPIES OF EVERYTHING 
          >> I'VE GOT EVERYTHING. 
          THE LAST ONE IS IN CASE YOU ALL DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB REQUESTED THE BEACH CLEANING BUDGET FOR SALARIES, AND SO THERE'S A PRINT OUT OF IT OKAY. 
          I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF PAPER [LAUGHTER] THE PARK BOARD HAS BEEN BUSY AND ON TUESDAY, THEY APPROVED A FUND BALANCE DEFICIT PLAN. 
          WE RECEIVED THAT YESTERDAY AROUND LUNCH AND YES, I'VE BEEN BUSY. 
          THAT'S ALL I'VE DONE SINCE YESTERDAY AT LUNCH. 
          THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START OUR REVIEW. 
          THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE TECHNICAL THAN I LIKE TO BE WHEN I'M PRESENTING SO, I'M GOING TO TRY AND BE REALLY SIMPLE ABOUT IT. 
          BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR IF I SAY ANYTHING THAT'S CONFUSING OR DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, PLEASE STOP ME. 
          >> WELL, BEFORE WE START, ONE QUESTION. 
          DOES THIS PLAN THAT THE PARK BOARD APPROVED MEET YOUR APPROVAL? 
          >> PORTIONS OF IT DO, BUT WE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. 
          SINCE WE ONLY RECEIVED IT YESTERDAY, WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT THOSE QUESTIONS AND SEE IF THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY ANSWERED IN THE DOCUMENT THEY PROVIDED OR NOT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> IT'S SPECIFICALLY THIS DOCUMENT. 
          I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME ITEMS ON THERE THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO. 
          AT THEIR MEETING ON TUESDAY, THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES AGREED TO ADDRESS DEFICITS IN THREE WAYS. 
          FIRST OF ALL, THEY PLAN TO WRITE-OFF THE R.A. 
          APFFEL PARK DEBT THAT IS OWED TO VARIOUS FUNDS. 
          THIS INCLUDES $1.3 MILLION IN DEBT OWED TO THE BEACH CLEANING, BEACH PATROL, AND TOURISM. 
          THAT COMES UP AS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL HOT FUNDED IN MAJORITY. 
          THEY ARE PAYING OFF THE DELLANERA PARK DEFICIT, PREDOMINANTLY WITH $1.7 MILLION OF FEMA REVENUE THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE IN 2024. 
          THEY ARE ADDRESSING A SMALL PORTION OF IT IN 2023 AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          THEY ARE ELIMINATING THE GENERAL FUND DEBT WITH A TRANSFER OF UNRESTRICTED FUNDS FROM TOURISM DEVELOPMENT TO THE GENERAL FUND. 
          NOW, IN THEIR DOCUMENT, ONE OF THE KEY POINTS THEY RAISE IS THAT THEY'RE USING ONLY UNRESTRICTED MONEY TO DO ALL OF THIS. 
          WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. 
          WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ENOUGH OF THE UNRESTRICTED MONEY. 
          BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT. 
          THEY ARE ALSO SAYING THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THEIR CASH POSITION IN ANY WAY. 
          WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT. ON THE SECOND SLIDE, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WORDS. 
          THEY'RE THERE FOR YOUR REFERENCE, BUT I THINK HEARING IT WHILE YOU SEE IT IS GOING TO BE MORE HELPFUL BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED. 
          AS WE LOOK AT THE DELLANERA PARK WRITE-OFF, IN YOUR DOCUMENT ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SECOND PAGE AND THE TOP OF THE THIRD PAGE, THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW SOME OF THOSE ITEMS. THEY ARE GOING TO TRANSFER ABOUT $134,000 IN FISCAL YEAR '23. 
          AS OF THE END OF SEPTEMBER, THAT IS BASED ON THE YEAR-OVER-YEAR FUND BALANCE INCREASE. 
          WHATEVER THAT FUND BALANCE INCREASE IS, THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT TO PAY OFF DEBT. 
          YOU SEE THOSE ITEMS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THE TOP OF PAGE 3. 
          THE SECOND PORTION OF THIS COMES FROM THE $1.7 MILLION THAT THEY ARE EXPECTING TO RECEIVE FROM FEMA IN FISCAL YEAR 2024. 
          THIS PORTION, HOWEVER, IS NOT A RECEIVABLE ON THE BOOKS IN THEIR AUDIT. 
          THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THERE IS A DEFICIT. 
          HERE I HAVE COPIED A COUPLE OF PAGES FROM THEIR FISCAL YEAR '22 AUDIT. 
          IF YOU GO TO THE THIRD OF THESE PAGES, YOU WILL SEE PROPRIETARY FUND BALANCE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          [00:55:02]
IF YOU LOOK AT DELLANERA PARK, THERE IS NOT A BOOKED ASSET THAT IS A RECEIVABLE FROM FEMA. 
          AS OF FISCAL YEAR '22, THEY WERE NOT EXPECTING THAT AS REVENUE ON THE BOOKS. 
          THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS YOU SEE THE DEFICIT. 
          IF THEY HAD BOOKED IT AS AN ASSET, THERE WOULDN'T BE A DEFICIT HERE. 
          IN THE CITY'S OPINION, THIS SOLUTION TO DELLANERA PARK IS OKAY. 
          HOWEVER, WE DO BELIEVE IT WILL CHANGE THEIR CASH POSITION. 
          UNLIKE WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOING TO INCREASE THEIR CASH POSITION BY 1.7 MILLION BECAUSE THIS RECEIVABLE WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY BOOKED ON THEIR FINANCIAL REPORT. 
          SO, ARE WE CLEAR ON DELLANERA? WE FEEL LIKE THE SOLUTION FOR DELLANERA IS GOOD BUT WE DO BELIEVE IT IS GOING TO INCREASE THEIR CASH POSITION OVERALL IN THE ORGANIZATION. 
          >> AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S A POSITIVE? 
          >> THAT'S A POSITIVE. WITH DELLANERA IT'S A POSITIVE. ABSOLUTELY. 
          >> ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'VE BEEN OPERATING WITH DEFICIT BUDGETS. 
          >> THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO R.A. APFFEL. 
          THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE MORE CONCERNING FOR ME. 
          THE R.A. APFFEL DEFICIT IS GOING TO BE WRITTEN OFF IN ALL THE FUNDS BECAUSE R.A. APFFEL DOES NOT REALLY HAVE A REVENUE STREAM THAT CAN SUSTAIN PAYING OFF THAT DEBT. 
          THE DECISION IS MADE TO WRITE IT OFF. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT THE GENERAL FUND DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO WRITE-OFF IT'S PORTION WITHOUT INCREASING THE DEFICIT. 
          IN THE NARRATIVE ON PAGE THREE, IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS DOCUMENT FROM PARK BOARD; YOU'LL SEE THAT IT SAYS THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT THE 1.4 MILLION OF UNRESTRICTED CASH THAT'S GOING TO BE TRANSFERRED SHOULD COVER THE LOSS FROM THIS RECEIVABLE BEING WRITTEN OFF. 
          THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HERE. 
          HOWEVER, WHEN WE GO BACK ONCE AGAIN TO THEIR FISCAL YEAR '22 AUDIT, ON THE VERY FIRST PAGE THAT I'VE PRESENTED YOU, PAGE 11 OF THEIR AUDIT, IN THE TOP LEFT COLUMN IT SAYS GENERAL GOVERNMENT. 
          SEVEN LINES DOWN, IT SAYS DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS AND IT IS $1.7 MILLION RIGHT AROUND HERE ON THE PAGE. 
          THIS $1.7 MILLION IN GENERAL GOVERNMENT ALREADY INCLUDES, AS AN ASSET, THE RECEIVABLE FROM R.A. APFFEL. 
          IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE BOOKED THAT RECEIVABLE AND THAT 1.7 MILLION. 
          WHAT THAT MEANS IS, WITH THEIR ASSETS AND THEIR LIABILITIES TOTALING AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR PAGE, THE NEGATIVE $824,000 BALANCE; ALREADY ASSUMES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET THAT MONEY FROM R.A. APFFEL, IN ORDER TO GET TO NEGATIVE $824,000. 
          WHEN THAT'S WRITTEN OFF, THE WAY I'M READING IT; IT INCREASES THE DEFICIT BY AN ADDITIONAL 1.3 MILLION. 
          YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE GENERAL FUND COLUMN. 
          THE 922 FUND BALANCE WAS AT NEGATIVE $824,000 AND THEIR BUDGET FOR 2023 IS PROJECTED TO INCREASE THE DEFICIT IN THE GENERAL FUND BY $560,000. 
          THE R.A. APFFEL WRITE-OFF THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS 1.3 MILLION, AND IT'S BEING PROPOSED TO BE WRITTEN OFF BY THAT NEXT LINE, THE GENERAL FUND DEFICIT PAY-OFF. 
          YOU'RE SEEING IT COME OUT OF TOURISM AND GO OVER HERE TO GENERAL FUND. 
          WHEN YOU ADD THAT ALL UP, THERE'S STILL $1.2 MILLION THAT IS NOT FUNDED. 
          WE BELIEVE, IN OUR READING OF IT, THAT THERE IS STILL A DEFICIT IN THE GENERAL FUND TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT $1.2 MILLION. 
          NOW, AS I SAID, I GOT THIS AT NOON YESTERDAY. 
          SO I MAY BE MISINTERPRETING IT. 
          BUT THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. 
          WITH REGARD TO THE RAF, FILL THAT HOLE RIGHT OFFLINE. 
          YOU'LL SEE THE IMPACT AND THE VARIOUS FUNDS. 
          BUT SPECIFIC TO THE GENERAL FUND, WE BELIEVE THAT LEADS TO AN ONGOING DEFICIT. 
          THE FINAL THING THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS THEY'RE GOING TO PAY OFF THE GENERAL FUND DEFICIT WITH $1.3 MILLION OF UNRESTRICTED FUNDS FROM TOURISM, IT'S ACTUALLY 1.4 MILLION. 
          BUT IN THAT RANGE, THE 1.3 MILLION IS THE ACTUAL DEFICIT. 
          THERE'S A LITTLE ADDITIONAL ADDED ON TO THAT. 
          ONE OF OUR CONCERNS WAS THE WAY IT'S PRESENTED, ALL OF IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE UNRESTRICTED MONEY, AND THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS WE'RE MOVING IT BETWEEN THE FUNDS. 
          THAT TOP LINE, LINE 1, YOU'LL SEE THAT I'VE SAID UNASSIGNED ARE ASSIGNED OR UNRESTRICTED. 
          WHAT THAT MEANS IS WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND I CAN POINTED OUT ON THE AUDIT, BUT THAT FUND BALANCE IS RELATED TO ONLY THE UNRESTRICTED PORTION AND ALL OF THOSE FILES. 
          THAT IS WHAT WE'RE SUBTRACTING OUT OR WE DON'T WANT TO REMOVE AND WE DON'T WANT TO USE ANY RESTRICTED BUTTONS FOR THESE OFFSET AND SO IN THE TOURISM FUN, 
          [01:00:06]
THERE WAS ABOUT $2 MILLION THAT WAS UNRESTRICTED OR IN THIS CASE, IT WAS CALLED ASSIGNED TO TOURISM. 
          IN FY23 WERE BASED ON THE BUDGET THAT WAS PRESENTED, SUGGESTING THAT THERE'S GONNA BE 280,000 IN ADDITIONAL NON HOT REVENUE. 
          WE'RE ALSO IN MEDELLIN ERA PAYOFF FOR FISCAL YEAR 23. 
          THEY ARE MOVING 88,000 FROM DEVLIN AREA, WHICH WOULD ALSO QUALIFY AS NON HOT. 
          AND SO THOSE ARE THE REVENUE SOURCES WE BELIEVE WILL BE AVAILABLE IN TOURISM FOR THIS WRITE-OFF. 
          WHEN THE RAF L PORTION IS WRITTEN OFF AT 1.1 MILLION, AND THEN THE GENERAL FUND DEFICIT IS WRITTEN OFF AT ONE OR TRANSFERRED OVER AT 1.4 MILLION. 
          THERE'S A REMAINING HUNDRED $58,000 AND WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE COVERED BY THE HOT PORTION. 
          [NOISE] NOW THAT IS FY23. 
          I WILL SAY THAT IN FY20 BEFORE ASSUMING THAT THE FEMALE MONEY COMES IN, THERE IS ADDITIONAL MONEY COMING FROM DEVLIN AREA WHICH WOULD ALSO BE NON-HOT AT THAT POINT AND SO IN FY24, THEY COULD MOVE THAT NON-HOT MONEY TO COMPENSATE FOR THE HOT USE IN FY23. 
          THERE IS A FUTURE SOURCE OF MONEY, BUT AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 23, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE USING A PORTION OF HOT TO ACHIEVE ALL OF THIS. 
          THAT'S OUR BELIEF BASED ON WHAT WE'VE REVIEWED IN THE LAST 24 HOURS. 
          THAT'S THE FUND BALANCE PORTION AND WHEN YOU ASK, ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FINDING TO BE THE CASE, RIGHT? 
          >> YES. LET ME RESTATE THE QUESTION. 
          THIS IS DOWN FOR APPROVAL THIS AFTERNOON. 
          >> YES. 
          >> IT COUNSELORS OR NOT A CRIMINAL, BUT IT'S FOR COUNCIL WOULD DEVOTE. 
          ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS I WANT THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF A NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE SQUARED AWAY TO MEET THE CITY'S APPROVAL. 
          YOU COULDN'T BE ABLE TO I'M JUST GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          >> WELL, IT'S SOMEWHAT TWOFOLD. 
          THEY APPROVED A BUDGET THAT WAS PRIOR TALL EFFECTS, AND SO THE BUDGET WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING IS NOT INCLUSIVE OF THIS. 
          I BELIEVE, THAT COUNCIL COULD APPROVE THE BUDGET AS COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO, REGARDLESS OF THIS, IF COUNCIL WANTS TO, BECAUSE THAT BUDGET WAS APPROVED SEPARATELY. 
          THIS FUND BALANCE PIECE IS TECHNICALLY AN AMENDMENT TO THEIR APPROVED BUDGET, AND I WOULD NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS IF WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THE GENERAL FUND QUESTION. 
          THAT'S THE PORTION I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          I FEEL TOURISM WILL WRITE ITSELF IN 2024, BUT I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND PORTION. 
          >> THE GENERAL FUND QUESTION, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU FEEL YOU CAN ANSWER BY THIS AFTERNOON OR NOT? 
          >> MAYBE. WE CAN TALK TO ME FIGURE IT OUT. 
          >> WELL YOU'LL COME BACK THIS AFTERNOON, GIVE HIM PUT IT ON THERE [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> IN THE MEETING THAT WE HAD WITH THE PARK BOARD, IT WAS THE CITY'S REQUEST TO ADDRESS AND BE AGGRESSIVE ABOUT THIS NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE. 
          THE PART WHERE I WENT AHEAD AND IS ADDRESSING THAT WITH YOU, AND THEY ARE STILL WORKING WITH YOU. 
          THIS WAS THE FIRST DRAFT. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW. DID YOU ALL APPROVE IT ON TUESDAY? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A DRAFT OR APPROVED. 
          >> NO. IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY OUR BOARD TO SEND TO YOU. 
          BUT THIS IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PARK COURT. 
          FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT, [INAUDIBLE], IS SENDING THIS AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME COMMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          I'M SURE, IF THERE'S THINGS THAT HE NEEDS TO CHANGE, WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND AN ANOTHER APPROVAL TO MEET YOUR SATISFACTION. 
          >> THAT MAY ANSWER YOUR TO QUESTION. 
          >> I DON'T THINK IT ANSWERS THE QUESTION, BECAUSE WE'RE STILL BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A DEFICIT BUDGET. 
          WHEN WE ALL TAKE OUR POSITIONS, WHETHER IT'S COUNCIL OR WHETHER IT'S PARK BOARD. 
          WE MAKE A COMMITMENT. 
          WE TAKE AN OATH TO THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION AND THAT TEXAS CONSTITUTION GRANTED LANE TO LEGISLATION. 
          IT IS ILLEGAL TO APPROVE A DEFICIT BUDGET YOU CANNOT APPROVE. 
          THAT IMPLIES DOWN THE LINE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES AND BE AT THE PARK BOARD IS A SUBSET OF THE COUNCIL TO TALK ABOUT BEING IRRESPONSIBLY. 
          HAVING FIDUCIARY IRRESPONSIBILITY IS CONTINUING TO APPROVE A DEFICIT BUDGET. 
          [01:05:08]
I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE A NON-PROFIT. 
          I DON'T CARE IF YOU'RE CORPORATION DEFICIT BUDGETS ARE NOT A GOOD IDEA. 
          THEN IF YOU TIE IT BACK TO THE AUDIT, THE SHELL GAME WHERE YOU'RE TAKING FUNDS FROM THIS TO THAT. 
          I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH. 
          >> WELL, SHAME ON YOU BECAUSE YOU'VE APPROVED THAT FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS, A DEFICIT BUDGET. 
          >> WELL, SHAME ON ME FOR NOT LOOKING CLOSER FOR SURE, I DID LOOK AT IT. 
          >> HOW ABOUT WE DO IT AGAIN? 
          >> I'M NOT SAYING BUT I'M SAYING YOU GUYS WERE RESPONSIBLE FIVE YEARS AND YOU GUYS DID IT. 
          >> WE'RE ARE TRYING TO CORRECT THEM. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WE'RE HERE ALL TO CORRECT THEM. 
          >> WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT. 
          >> WE'RE ALL TRYING TO CORRECT IT. 
          >> ALSO POINT OUT, AS COUNCILMAN, FRANKLY, AND I WERE SPEAKING ABOUT EARLIER, WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE THE BUDGET IN ANYTHING APPROACHING A TIMELY FASHION. 
          IF WE DON'T HAVE VOWED CONTRACT. 
          IT'S JUST IT'S A PROFORMA ACTION. 
          IT'S A PERFORMATIVE ACTIONS UNTIL WE HAVE A HOT CONTRACT SO GETTING THIS DONE TODAY IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. 
          THERE'S PLENTY OF TIME FOR YOU TO TAKE IT BACK TO YOUR BOARD JUST TO BE WORKED OUT, BRING IT BACK IN DECEMBER, ASSUMING WE HAVE A HOT CONTRACT. 
          I'M NOT CONFIDENT ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC ABOUT THAT. 
          I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY. WE CAN DO THESE THINGS AT THE SAME TIME. 
          >> NO, AND I AGREE WITH THAT. 
          >> THIS IS NOT UNLIKE THE TAX RATE AND OUR BUDGET. 
          WE CAN JUST DO THEM AT THE SAME TIME. 
          WE CAN DO THAT AT THE SAME TIME. 
          >> I ALSO FIND IT DISTRESSING. 
          WHEN INFORMATION IS REQUESTED. 
          HOW LONG AGO WAS OUR LAST MEETING? THREE WEEKS AGO. I KNOW I'VE REQUESTED THE INFORMATION ABOUT BEACH CLEANING PROBABLY FIVE WEEKS AGO AND WE RECEIVED IT 24 HOURS AGO. 
          >> THAT'S NOT CORRECT. 
          >> NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. 
          >> YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN SAY THAT AS IT'S TOTALLY NOT CORRECT. 
          >> SHE ASKED QUESTIONS ON THAT, SHE GOT IT YESTERDAY. 
          >> THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU ASKED FOR. 
          >> WHAT SHE GOT YESTERDAY? 
          >> I ASKED FOR THIS. 
          >> WE ARE DEALING WITH TWO ISSUES HERE. 
          >> YOU GOT THAT WHEN? 
          >> SOMETIME THIS WEEK. 
          >> YOU SAID 24 HOURS AGO. 
          THAT WAS EARLY THIS WEEK. 
          >> I ASKED FOR IT SIX WEEKS AGO AND I GOT IT MONDAY AND I HAD A VERY BUSY WEEK. 
          >> YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR IT SIX WEEKS AGO YOU ASKED FOR IT THREE WEEKS AGO IN THE LAST MEETING. 
          >> DAVID, I GOT A QUESTION. 
          DAVID, YOU BREAKPOINT WHERE YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL THIS ALL GETS CORRECTED TO PASS THE BUDGET? 
          >> NO, I SAID JUST THERE'S NO RUSH TO DO THIS BECAUSE THERE'S NO POINT PASSING A BUDGET WITHOUT A HOT CONTRACT. 
          >> WELL, IS THAT REALLY TRUE? WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS IF WE DO NOT PASS THIS AND HOW OPERATIONALLY, WHAT HAPPENS WITH PARK BOARD? 
          >> WELL, IF WE DO NOT PASS THIS THE BUDGET YOU MEAN? 
          >> WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO THINGS. 
          >> WE'VE ALREADY PROVISIONALLY APPROVED BUDGET FOR Q1 AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. 
          >> BUT THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY FUNDS, RIGHT? 
          >> UNTIL THERE'S A HOT CONTRACT, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN. 
          >> [LAUGHTER] AGAIN, I ASK OPERATIONALLY, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES WITH NOT PASSING A BUDGET OR A HOT CONTRACT? 
          >> THAT'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. NOT PASSING A BUDGET THERE ARE NONE. 
          >> THERE ARE TWO THINGS. THAT'S WHY I ASKED TWO THINGS. 
          >> MY POINT WAS THAT PASSING A BUDGET IS A PERFORMATIVE ACTION IF WE DON'T HAVE A HOT CONTRACT THAT SHOULD BE DONE FIRST. 
          THEN WE SAY THIS BUDGET CONFORMS TO THAT. 
          >> IF YOU WAIT TO DO THOSE. 
          >> WHICH OF THOSE? 
          >> EITHER, BOTH. 
          >> I MEAN, WE CAN PASS THE BUDGET THE DAY WE AGREE ON A HOT CONTRACT. 
          >> BOTH, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU WAIT TO PASS THOSE? WE HAVEN'T FUNDED THE PARK BOARD Q1. 
          >> IF WE DON'T HAVE A BUDGET, I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS. 
          THEY MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION THAT, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE A HOT CONTRACT, THE MONEY CAN'T MOVE. 
          >> LET ME SIMPLIFY THIS. IF WE DO NOT PASS A CONTRACT OR A BUDGET, PARK BOARD, WE CAN NOT MOVE MONEY OVER THERE AND SO DO THEY JUST SHUT DOWN WHAT HAPPENS? 
          >> THEY HAVE A 120 DAYS OF RESERVES. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING YOU WANT THEM TO GO INTO THEIR RESERVE? 
          >> I DON'T DOUBT FOR A SECOND THAT THEY ARE BURNING THROUGH THAT PRETTY QUICK. 
          BUT I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE AN INCENTIVE FOR THE PARK BOARD TO COME TO THE TABLE ON THE HOT CONTRACT AS OPPOSED TO I MEAN THEY CAN HOLD THEIR BREATH UNTIL DO NOTHING. 
          >> DO NOTHING? 
          >> THAT'S RIGHT. THEY CAN HOLD THEIR BREATH UNTIL THEY TURN BLUE. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO TURN ME BLUE. 
          >> YOU WEAPONIZED IT? 
          >> WEAPONIZED IT. THAT'S THE LAW. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? 
          >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WHEN WE DID ALL THIS STUFF AT THE BEGINNING THAT WE'RE GOING TO WEAPONIZE THIS MONEY AND YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW. 
          [01:10:04]
          >> WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT THAT. 
          >> YOU'RE TELLING THEM, SIGN THIS CONTRACT THE WAY IT IS, OR YOU AIN'T GETTING ANY MONEY. 
          THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. 
          >> YOU STILL HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT THAT IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY. 
          >> IT'S NOT MY MONEY, IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY. 
          >> IT IS MINE TO SUPERVISE. 
          IT IS MINE TO EXPAND, IT IS MINE. 
          >> YOU JUST TOLD ME IT WASN'T MY MONEY. HOW IS IT YOUR MONEY? 
          >> PARK BOARD TRUSTEE? 
          >> IT'S NOT MY MONEY. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          I TOLD YOU IT WASN'T MY MONEY. 
          >> WE DON'T AGREE THAT THIS IS HOW THE TAX MONEY THAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING. 
          >> IF YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPLAIN YOURSELF FOR WEAPONIZING THE FUNDS IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          THAT'S GREAT, DAVID. I'M FINE. 
          >> YOU CAN, AGAIN HOLD STILL TILL YOU TURN BLUE. 
          THIS IS THE GAME. 
          >> IT'S NOT A GAME. 
          >> IT IS A GAME. 
          >> IT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID. 
          >> UNTIL YOU FORCED THE COUNCIL INTO A CORNER. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO BE FORCED INTO A CORNER. 
          >> IT WASN'T A CORNER. WE STARTED THIS IN AUGUST. 
          >> WHERE ARE YOU ON IT NOW? 
          >> ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL. 
          >> WE HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED A DAMN THING OVER IT. 
          >> WE'RE GETTING OFF TOPIC. LET'S FIRST OF ALL LET'S GET SHEILA TO FINISH HER PRESENTATION BEFORE WE LEAVE THE DEFICIT. 
          >> SHE'S ALSO GOT A SECOND CAREER AS A MARRIAGE COUNSELOR I JUST THOUGHT I'D POINT THAT OUT. 
          >> I THINK YOU NEED IT. 
          >> NEVER MIND. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> FIRST OF ALL, BEFORE WE LEAVE, YOU'RE GETTING READY TO LEAVE THE DEFICIT? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> BEFORE WE LEAVE THAT TOPIC, YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH, POSSIBLY VISIT THE PARK BOARD. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK THIS AFTERNOON AND MAKE AND GIVE TO US ON WHERE WE STAND IN YOUR MIND WITH DEFICITS. 
          IF THE ITEMS ARE TO YOUR SATISFACTION, YOU'RE COMFORTABLE. 
          IF THE INFORMATION YOU RECEIVE ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS AND YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PLAN THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIT BUDGET. 
          >> YES. IF QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED SPECIFICALLY REGARDING THE GENERAL FUND PLAN. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. 
          >> IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT FUND BALANCE SPECIFICALLY, AND IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS AN OUTSTANDING CONTRACT, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF ON BUDGET APPROVAL IS LIMITED IN SCOPE TO THOSE AREAS THAT ARE NOT TOUCHED BY COUNCIL POLICY AND SO ON THE REVENUE SIDE. 
          >> I'M SORRY, WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT? 
          >> STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE GOING BE TO APPROVE THOSE ITEMS THAT DON'T STILL REQUIRE A COUNCIL POLICY DECISION. 
          >> YOU GOT TO DELINEATE THOSE ITEMS. 
          >> YES. WHAT YOU SEE UP HERE IS ON THE FAR LEFT COLUMN IS THE FY24 PARK BOARD BUDGET AS APPROVED BY PARK BOARD. 
          ON THE REVENUE SIDE, IT TOTALS $59 MILLION, ALMOST $60 MILLION. 
          STAFF'S RECOMMENDED APPROVAL FOR THE HOT ALLOCATION PORTION IS THE 17,919,000. 
          WE BELIEVE THAT CITY COUNCIL POLICY DECISIONS ARE STILL SUBJECT TO THE NOURISHED BEACH ITEM REVENUE [INAUDIBLE] 1.8 MILLION AND ALSO THE RV PARK PROPOSED FOR SEAWOLF PARK AND SO WE REMOVED THOSE REVENUE SOURCES. 
          THE 1.2 MILLION IN SEAWOLF PARK IS LOAN PROCEEDS. 
          WE MOVED THAT $3,096,000 AND SO FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, THE RECOMMENDED REVENUE BUDGET APPROVAL WOULD BE FOR $56,803,900 IN THOSE CATEGORIES. 
          >> RECAP THAT AGAIN WITH THE BEACH NOURISHMENT STATE 0.57. 
          WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT THAT? 
          >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS A COUNCIL POLICY DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE REGARDING BEACH RENOURISHMENT AND WHETHER THOSE FUNDS ARE GOING TO GO TO PARK BOARD OR NOT. 
          THAT IS PART OF WHAT IS IN THE CONTRACT THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING. 
          FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT SINCE COUNCIL STILL NEEDS TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION. 
          SAME FOR THE RV PARK, COUNCIL HASN'T VOTED FOR THE RV PARK YET, AND SO WE JUST REMOVED THAT REVENUE SOURCE. 
          >> WHY DO WE SAY LOAN PROCEEDS? I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          >> BECAUSE THE PARK BOARD IS PROPOSING TO BORROW $1.2 MILLION FOR THE RV PARK AND DOG PARK IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY WANT AT SEAWOLF PARK. 
          THEIR BUDGET INCLUDES BOTH THE REVENUE FROM THAT LOAN AS WELL AS THE COST OF THE PROJECT AND DEBTS. 
          >> I WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE THOUGH, THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT DECISION. 
          STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS, STAFF IT'S UP TO COUNCIL IF WE FOLLOW. 
          THIS IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION. 
          WHEN THIS STARTED OUT, I GOT A DIFFERENT FEELING THAT STAFF WAS SAYING THEY 
          [01:15:01]
HAVE CONTROL OVER THIS POINT AND OUR ENTIRE BUDGET NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, COMES TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. 
          >> ABSOLUTELY. 
          >> I'M GOING TO ADD ONE OTHER ITEM TO THAT JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION. 
          YOU'RE PULLING OUT THE RV PARK AND YOU'RE PULLING OUT? 
          >> THIS IS JUST THE REVENUE SIDE FOR STARTERS, THE NEXT PAGE WILL BE EXPENDITURE SO YES. 
          >> OKAY AND YOU'RE PULLING OUT? 
          >> 0.57 BEACH RENOURISHMENT. 
          >> THE BEACH NOURISHMENT, BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T WEIGHED IN AND GIVEN DIRECTION IN THE HOT CONTRACT? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> I WOULD WANT TO PULL OUT ALSO WAYFINDING. 
          >> I DO HAVE THAT INCLUDED ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE. 
          THE REVENUE SOURCE RELATED TO WAYFINDING IS THEIR FUND BALANCE, THEIR CASH FUND BALANCE. 
          IF WE'RE GOING TO PULL THAT OUT, THEN THAT WOULD BE PULLED OUT OF THE TOURISM ON THE REVENUE SIDE FROM THE CASH AND THEN ALSO ON THE EXPENDITURES. 
          >> LET ME MAKE A STATEMENT ON THE WAYFINDING. 
          I'M A BIG FAN OF WAYFINDING. 
          I'M VERY MUCH IN SUPPORT OF THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO PULL THAT OUT SO THAT THEY CAN COME WE CAN HAVE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON THE WAYFINDING SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND THAT BETTER AND ANSWER QUESTIONS OF THE CONSTITUENCY IN THE LETTER BETTER. 
          >> I WILL SAY THAT SOME OF THE ITEMS WE PULL IN EXPENDITURES ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO CONTRACT DECISIONS THAT OUR POLICY ON COUNCILS' END THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DECIDED AND SO WAYFINDING MIGHT ALSO BE A GOOD ONE SO WE'LL TAKE THAT SINCE IT'S NO CONTRACT DECISION. 
          >> I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THE BEACH NOURISHMENT. 
          I MEAN, THAT IS DEFINED BY THE STATE JUST TO BE. 
          >> THE 0.57 IS SET BY THE BOND DOCUMENTS ATTACHED TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT. 
          >> THAT'S SPECIFICALLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH BEACH NOURISHMENT. 
          YOU SIMPLY CAN'T PUT IT IN THE BUDGET AND CHANGE THE NAME TO NOURISH BEACH AND USE FUNDS THAT ARE DOCUMENTED BY BOND LEGALLY. 
          BUT ANYWAY, I AGREE. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE REVENUE SIDE? ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE, WE'VE DONE A SIMILAR REVIEW OF IT TO SEPARATE OUT STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ITEMS THAT WE BELIEVE ARE STILL COUNCIL DECISIONS FOR POLICY REGARDING PARK BOARD. 
          YOU'LL SEE ON THE FAR LEFT COLUMN, THE PARK BOARD FY 24 BUDGET IS 58,045,000. 
          OF THAT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AT THIS POINT, IT'S 51,361,800. 
          RIGHT NOW THAT INCLUDED THE WAY-FINDING SO THAT WE WOULD NEED TO COME OUT OF THAT 12 MILLION ON THE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT BUDGET. 
          THEN THE COUNCIL POLICY DECISION COLUMN IS SPECIFIC TO THERE IS IN THE CONTRACT ITEMS DISCUSSED REGARDING SPENDING THE FUND BALANCES DOWN AS WELL AS REIMBURSEMENT OF 120 DAYS FUND BALANCE, AND SO STAFF FELT IT WAS MOST APPROPRIATE NOT TO SPEND DOWN THE CASH FUND BALANCE UNTIL THOSE POLICY DECISIONS ARE MADE, AND SO THE ITEMS THAT WERE PULLED FOR FURTHER CITY COUNCIL POLICY DECISIONS ARE RELATED TO THE CASH SPEND DOWN IN EACH OF THESE FUNDS AND THE TOTAL OF THOSE IS 6,683,200, AND THAT'S BEING PULLED OUT FROM OUR RECOMMENDATION. 
          >> TWO THINGS ON HERE I DON'T UNDERSTAND, THE PAVILION DEMO $159,000 THAT'S NOT GOING TO NEARLY. 
          >> NO, SIR. THE PAVILION DEMO AND MOBILE TRAILERS, THAT DESCRIPTION IS RELATED TO THE YELLOW COLUMN. 
          >> RIGHT. 
          >> THAT 5,882,000 INCLUDE THE PAVILION DEMO AND THE MOBILE TRAILERS THAT WAS MOVED OVER. 
          IN THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET, THOSE ARE BEING FUNDED OUT OF CASH, SO IF I HAD SIMPLY PULLED ALL THE CASH ITEMS, THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THIS COUNCIL DECISION COLUMN AND I FELT THAT WAS ALREADY A DECISION THAT COUNCIL SUPPORTED ENTIRELY. 
          THAT WAS CASH THAT COUNCIL SUPPORTED SPENDING AND SO I MOVE THAT BACK OVER TO BEACH PATROL AND DID NOT PULL IT OUT IN THEIR TOTAL CASH AMOUNT. 
          >> SECONDLY, THE WAYFINDING AND OFFICE BUILDING OUT, HAVE TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. 
          WHY IS THAT OFFICE BUILDOUT IS NOT OUR CONCERN? 
          >> PART OF IT IS THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT AND I DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO LEAVE THEM IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. 
          THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE ONLY REASON I MOVED IT OVER, BUT IT'S COUNCIL'S PROJECT. 
          >> I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS. 
          I BELIEVE IF PARK BOARD HAS DECIDED TO DO THAT OFFICE BUILDOUT, THAT'S THEIR CONCERN, NOT OURS. IT'S NOT OUR BUILDING. 
          >> THAT'S $100,000 IT'S MOVED OVER THERE. 
          >> THE WAYFINDING, I DO HAVE TWO CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, ONE I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT SEPARATELY BECAUSE IT'S NEVER BEEN PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL. 
          THOUGH THE CITY HAS BEEN VERY INVOLVED IN THIS. 
          I HAVE HIGH CONFIDENCE THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS BEEN ENGAGED ALL THE WAY IN THIS PROJECT, 
          [01:20:02]
AND THIS IS A VERY WORTHWHILE PROJECT. 
          BUT AS I RECALL, WE APPROVED THAT ENTIRE BUDGET FOR LAST YEAR. 
          WHY IS THAT MONEY IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET? DID I MISUNDERSTAND THAT? 
          >> I DON'T HAVE A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT WAS SPENT LAST YEAR VERSUS THIS YEAR, ALL I KNOW IS HOW MUCH WAS IN THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 24, AND IN MY READ OF IT, BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED, I JUST MOVED THAT AMOUNT INTO THE APPROVED COLUMN. 
          HOWEVER, IT'S EASY TO PULL THAT OUT AND DO IT SEPARATELY, BUT THEY DO HAVE A SUM. 
          I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IS ASSOCIATED SPECIFICALLY WITH THE COSTS THEY ANTICIPATED FOR FISCAL YEAR 24. 
          >> IS CLOSE TO $1.7 MILLION. 
          >> I WANT TO SAY 1.4. 
          >> I GOT THAT ONE, BUT NONETHELESS, I THOUGHT WE FUNDED THAT WHOLE THING LAST YEAR. MAYBE NOT. 
          >> THEY HAVE THE SAME ENCUMBRANCE PROCESS THAT WE DO WITH THAT MONEY IS PULLED OUT AND NOT REPEATED EVERY YEAR. 
          I THINK WHATEVER PORTION WAS NOT FUNDED WAS PLACED IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. 
          THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING VOTE. 
          >> WELL, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD HAVE CREATED A BUTTON, BUT $1.4 MILLION SURPLUS IN THAT FUND, BUT MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE APPROVED THE WHOLE THING LAST YEAR. 
          >> WELL, THEY ARE FUNDING TO GET OUT OF CAST SO IT MAY BE PART OF THEIR SURPLUS. 
          >> AS THE MAYOR SAYS, WE NEED TO BRING BACK AND TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE. 
          >> STAMP. 
          >> I'M A REAL PROPONENT TO THAT PROJECT. 
          >> ON THE OFFICE FILLED OUT, I MEAN, I AGREE THAT'S NOT OURS, BUT MINE [NOISE] IS COMING NEXT YEAR, SO WHY ARE WE FUNDING? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CONVENTION AND VISITORS. 
          >> NO, BUILDOUT? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKWAY PLAZA. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THAT'S NOT REALLY OUR CONCERN. 
          >> I AGREE 
          >> YOU HAVE MORE TO GO THROUGH. 
          >> NO, THAT IS ALL I HAVE. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. 
          >> LET ME MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON WHERE WE ARE, WE HAVE NOT GIVEN THEM OPERATIONAL FUNDS FOR THE FIRST QUARTER OF THIS YEAR AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE HOT CONTRACT IS NOT APPROVED. 
          ONCE THE HOT CONTRACT IS APPROVED, HOWEVER, THAT FOR MANY DECADES AND THE FIRST-QUARTER WOULD BE FUNDED AND THEN WHATEVER ELSE WE APPROVE ON THE BUDGET WILL BE FUNDED AT THE APPROPRIATE TIMES FOR THERE. 
          0.57 THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT IN THE HOT CONTRACT, DEPENDING ON HOW COUNCIL MOVES FORWARD WITH THAT, THAT WILL EITHER STAY OUT OF THEIR FUNDING OR IT WILL GO BACK INTO THEIR FUNDING DEPENDING ON THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTIONS. 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> VERY GOOD, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 
          >> NO. 
          >> JOHN? 
          >> NO, SIR. I'M HERE TO ANSWER THEM, HERE FOR LUNCH. [LAUGHTER] 
          >> YES, BRIAN. 
          >> HOW WOULD YOU FEEL IF WE WENT THROUGH YOUR BUDGET LIKE THIS AND STARTED PICKING APART EVERYTHING LINE BY ITEM BY LINE ITEM? 
          >> I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT OUTSIDE OF A PUBLIC MEETING, YOU GUYS ARE WELCOME TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE. 
          >> WE WOULD NOT JUST ASKING QUESTIONS, GOING THROUGH AND SAYING, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT, WE ARE NOT DOING THAT, AND WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. 
          >> WE DO THAT. 
          >> WE DO THAT. 
          >> NO, WE DON'T. 
          >> NO, WE DO NOT. 
          >> WE TRIED TO DO THAT IN THE PAST. 
          >> NO WE TELL BRIAN WHO'S SAT THERE AND SAID, THAT IS NOT HOW YOU DO IT, YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT THE BUDGET TO BE AT THE BOTTOM LINE. 
          >> YES. 
          >> HE'S GOING TO MAKE IT WORK. WE DO NOT GO TO LINE ITEM BY LINE ITEM [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION SO WHY IS IT THEN FOR HOWEVER MANY YEARS AND YOU FOR FIVE YEARS HAVE GIVEN BRIAN A GLOWING PLAY REPORT, YOU HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY HE WAS BUDGETING? 
          >> I DON'T. 
          >> I TOLD HIM EACH YEAR WHERE I WANT THE BUDGET TO BE AND I WANTED REDUCED EACH YEAR AND HE HAS MET THAT. 
          >> NO, WE HAVEN'T MET, NO NEW [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> WE ARE ON OUR WAY THERE. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU BUT I HAVE NUMBERS OF DISCUSSIONS WITH OUR STAFF ON THE BUDGET. 
          WE DO ASK QUESTIONS, I DO TAKE LINE ITEMS. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. 
          >> I'M JUST SAYING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING I DISAGREE WITH. 
          >> WE ASK QUESTIONS, BUT WE DON'T GO THROUGH AND SAY WE'RE NOT DOING THIS, AND WE ARE NOT DOING THIS, AND WE ARE NOT DOING THIS. 
          >> WE DISCUSS IT. 
          >> LET ME MAKE IT CLEAR. 
          >> NO WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING THIS YOU GUYS THROUGH. 
          >> IF YOU GUYS PICK PROJECTS AND IF YOU SAY, BRIAN, WE'RE NOT DOING STREET SIGNS THIS YEAR. 
          THAT WOULD BE A POLICY DECISION BY COUNCIL AND I WOULD TAKE THAT OUT OF THE BUDGET. 
          WHAT YOU DON'T DO AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE DOING IT HERE IS WE DON'T TELL THEM HOW TO OPERATE. 
          [01:25:01]
WE DON'T TELL THEM HOW MANY SCREWS THEY NEED. 
          WE DON'T TELL THEM HOW MANY PENCILS THEY NEED, HOW MANY PINS THEY NEED. 
          I DON'T THINK WE'RE DOING THAT I THINK WE'RE STAYING PRETTY MUCH AT A HIGHER LEVEL WITH THIS. 
          IF WE'RE DIGGING TOO DEEP, TELL US, GUYS, WE'RE HERE TO SERVE YOU ALL. 
          >> I JUST SAID THE OFFICE BUILDOUT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM. I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS. 
          >> THE BUDGET THAT WE HAVE THAT WILL BE PROPOSED BY STAFF IS THE PART BOARD'S BUDGET EXCLUDING THE 0.57, THE SEAWOLF PARK OF 1.2 MILLION WILL BE TAKEN OUT OF THAT 
          >> WAYFINDING. 
          >> THE WAYFINDING AT 1.7 MILLION. 
          >> THAT INCLUDES THE NOURISHMENT BEACH FINDING FUND. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THE WAYFINDING, WE'LL COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION FROM THE PARK BOARD AND THEN APPROVAL TO MOVE THAT FORWARD IN THEIR BUDGET. 
          THE RV PARK THAT WILL NEED SEPARATE COUNCIL APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AND THE 0.57 WILL BE MANAGED ON HOW WE ADDRESS THE HOT CONTRACT. 
          >> THE FINAL PIECE IS, THERE'S LOTS OF SMALLER ITEMS THAT'S IN THIS CASH SPEND DOWN. 
          WHEN COUNCIL REVIEWS THE CONTRACT AND DETERMINES THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS THAT IMPLICATE OR THAT IMPACT FUND BALANCE, THEN COUNCIL CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH ALL OF THIS, SO FULL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE DON T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT WILL BE SO WE CAN'T [NOISE] FOR THAT IT'S NOT BASED ON PROJECT, IT'S MORE BASED ON PROCESS AND CONTRACT. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MIKE. 
          >> TWO DAYS AGO. 
          >> DAVID AS A QUESTION. 
          >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> DAVID, GO RIGHT IN. 
          >> THIS QUESTION IS FOR CILIA. 
          CILIA IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS PASSED BY THE PARK BOARD IN JULY 25TH, THEY'RE SHOWING AN FY 2024 BUDGET NUMBER OF INCLUDING CAPITAL GRANTS AND FEMA 54.2 MILLION, AND YOU SHOWING ON THE SCREEN NUMBER OF 58.0 MILLION. 
          CAN YOU HELP CLARIFY THAT FOR ME? 
          >> I BELIEVE IT'S WITH THE UPDATED BUDGET THAT AND HOLD ON LET ME TELL YOU WHEN I RECEIVED IT. 
          ON NOVEMBER 6TH, I RECEIVED AN UPDATED VERSION OF THAT JULY 25TH BUDGET AND THAT IS WHAT I'M BASING THESE NUMBERS ON. 
          THIS IS THE ONE I BELIEVE COUNCIL RECEIVED IT AS WELL. 
          >> MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT REVIEWING THAT, AND IN THAT UPDATED BUDGET DID THERE EXPENDITURE EXCEED THEIR ANTICIPATED REVENUES? 
          >> IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE FUND. 
          >> OH, BY FUND BUT OVERALL? 
          >> WHEN I TALK ABOUT AN OVERALL, I'M COMINGLING HOT WITH NON-HOT, AND SO I'M NOT ENTIRELY COMFORTABLE WITH DOING THAT. 
          >> OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> CAN I MAKE ONE STATEMENT? I'M SO HAPPY YOU TOLERATE US ALL MISPRONOUNCING YOUR NAME. 
          [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE EACH ONE OF US HAS DONE IT AND IT'S NOT RIGHT. 
          >> TWO DAYS AGO, I REQUESTED THE CITY'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND IT'S PRETTY CLEAR YOU HAD SOMETHING WRITTEN AND I DIDN'T GET IT UNTIL NOW. 
          >> DAN DIDN'T GET UNTIL 12:30 THIS MORNING. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> I SENT YOU A MESSAGE YESTERDAY TELLING YOU WHERE WE WERE. 
          >> I ASKED FOR ANY RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          I MEAN, YOU COULD HAVE GOT ME SOMETHING. 
          >> WE WERE WAITING. WE DIDN'T GET THEIR STUFF TILL YESTERDAY NOON. 
          >> ALL YOU GOT YESTERDAY WAS HOW THEY WERE GOING TO HANDLE THE DEFICIT. 
          >> WHICH DRIVES EVERYTHING. 
          >> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER THING SHE WROTE OUT HERE. 
          THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS REALLY. 
          >> YES. 
          >> WELL, IF YOU THINK THERE'S SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED YOU IN ADVANCE FOR THE MEETING. 
          >> SEE NOW, WE TALKED ABOUT WEAPONIZATION. 
          HERE'S WHERE YOU GUYS FIGHT WITH EACH OTHER AND THEN YOU TURN ON THE CITY STAFF. 
          YOU HAVE THROWN US IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS CRAP AND THEN YOU WANT TO CHEW US OUT OVER STUFF. 
          [OVERLAPPING] PARK BOARD STAFF AND US ARE GOING CRAZY. 
          WE'RE WORKING TILL ALL HOURS OF THE NIGHT TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH YOU GUYS. 
          >> TWO DAYS AGO, I REQUESTED IT. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M THROWING IT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. 
          >> WE PUT IT OUT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN GET IT AND CAN TURN IT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. 
          >> I DON'T HAVE A CITY TO RUN [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WELL, WE DIDN'T HAVE INFORMATION TO GIVE YOU TWO DAYS AGO. 
          >> NO. 
          >> I LEFT MY GAVEL IN THE OTHER ROOM SO I DON'T HAVE A GAVEL. 
          >> HE REALLY EXACERBATES ME WITH THIS. 
          >>LOOK, LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. 
          >> WRITE YOUR POLICY AND WE'LL CARRY IT OUT. 
          >> LET'S MOVE FORWARD. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE BUDGET? 
          [01:30:01]
          >>JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT ONCE THE HOT CONTRACT GETS RESOLVED, ONCE THE BUDGET GETS RESOLVED, THEN WE'LL START THE INNER LOCAL. 
          RIGHT NOW WE'RE IN AN EVERGREEN OF LAST YEAR'S INNER LOCAL SO THEN WE'LL START THE PROCESS FOR AN INNER LOCAL AGREEMENT ON HOW THE PARK BOARD MANAGES CITY ASSETS AND THAT'LL BE COMING. MORE TO COME. 
          >> I WANT TO THANK THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, BRIAN AND DAN AND SHEILA. 
          THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TIME YOU SPENT ON THIS. 
          IT'S BEEN A BAPTISM OF FIRE, HASN'T IT? 
          >> I WANT TO THANK BRYSON AND STEWART FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS TOO. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION RIGHT NOW. 
          [4. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
          >> I'M GOING TO RUN TO THE RESTROOM REALLY FAST. I'LL BE BACK. 
          >> WHAT ARE WE DOING FIRST? [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> WE'RE DOING THE PARK BOARD FIRST. 
          >> ITEM 4, EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          ITEM 4A, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071: CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY. 
          AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING PENDING LITIGATION, AND/OR A SETTLEMENT OFFER, OR ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING: 4.A.1 CITY PARK BOARD HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX CONTRACT. 
          4.A.2 AQUEOUS FILM FORMING FOAM PRODUCT LIABILITY ET LITIGATION, MDL NO. 
          2: 18-MN-02873; CITY OF CAMDEN ET AL V. E.I. 
          DU PONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY ET AL NO. 
          2:23-CV-03230-RMG. IT IS 10:32. 
          WE ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          >> KEEP YOUR DAY JOB. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT. 
          >> VERY GOOD. WE ARE NOW OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          IT IS 12:02 P.M. 
          COUNSEL, IF IT MET YOUR APPROVAL, I'LL HAVE JANELLE IN JUST A SECOND READ ITEM 3F. 
          BUT ON ITEMS 3E, 3G, 3H, AND 3I, WE WILL DEFER THOSE TO OUR NEXT MEETING IF THAT MET COUNSEL'S APPROVAL. 
          ON ITEM 3E, JANELLE, JUST TO MAKE SURE, THAT IS FOR A WORKSHOP IN AN ACTION ITEM FOR THE DECEMBER 14TH. 
          >> OKAY. VERY GOOD. 
          >>ALL RIGHT. COULD YOU READ ITEM 3F, PLEASE? 
          [3.F. Discussion Of The Galveston Essential Workforce Housing Fund (Tyler Robert /Brown - 15 Min)]
          >>ITEM 3F: DISCUSSION OF THE GALVESTON ESSENTIAL WORKFORCE HOUSING FUND. 
          >> VERY GOOD. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE TYLER ROBERTS WITH US TODAY, AND WE ALSO HAVE JOHN RUTHERFORD. 
          I WANT TO THANK YOU GENTLEMEN FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY. THANK YOU. 
          WE HAD AN INTERESTING FLOW OF INFORMATION TODAY, SO THANK YOU FOR HANGING AROUND. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN ON THE RADAR SCREEN OF THE CITY FOR A LITTLE WHILE. 
          THEY'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH MICHELLE, WITH BRIAN, WITH MYSELF, AS THEY MOVE THROUGH COMING UP WITH AN IDEA FOR ASSISTING WORKFORCE HOUSING IN GALVESTON. 
          I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO TYLER. TYLER. 
          >> APPRECIATE IT. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. 
          FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T MET ME, TYLER ROBERTS. 
          I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE BUILD GALVESTON COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. 
          BEFORE WE GOT INTO THE GALVESTON WORKFORCE FUNDS, I WANTED TO JUST BRIEFLY GO OVER WHAT BUILD GALVESTON IS AND WHAT WE ARE AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, AS IT RELATES TO WORKFORCE HOUSING. 
          WE ARE A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, 501C3, AND A 509A3 SUPPORT ORGANIZATION OF VISION GALVESTON. 
          WE SPUN OUT FROM VISION GALVESTON'S PLANNING AND I BELIEVE IF YOU GO TO THE THIRD SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE LEADERSHIP STRUCTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION. SORRY. 
          >> FOR YOUR INFORMATION, TWO SLIDES PER PAGE HERE. 
          [01:35:11]
          >> DO I HAVE ACCESS TO CHANGES? 
          >> YEAH. LET ME JUST GET IT. 
          >> ON EFFECTS, WE STARTED IN OUR MISSION TO PROVIDE WORKFORCE-LEVEL HOUSING HERE WITHIN THE ISLANDS. 
          WE KNOW IT'S A MISSING SECTOR HERE IN TERMS OF HOUSING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          AS I STATED, WE CAME OUT FROM VISION GALVESTON'S PLANNING DOCUMENTS IN ARTBOARD LEADERSHIP. 
          MANY OF THEM HAD BEEN WORKING SINCE 2022 BEFORE WE EVEN RECEIVED OUR NON-PROFIT DESIGNATION. 
          IT'S BUILD US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. 
          FROM THAT, WHAT I WILL ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT INEFFECTIVE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE DISCUSS WORKFORCE HOUSING. 
          WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC HOUSING. 
          WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT LOW-INCOME HOUSING OR FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING. 
          WE ARE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY USING PRIVATE DOLLARS TO HELP BRING ABOUT, I THINK CHANGE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AND BRINGING MORE OPPORTUNITIES IN TERMS OF HOUSING TO THE COMMUNITY. 
          BACK IN 2020, VISION GALVESTON AND SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF BUILD EFFECTIVELY LOOKED AT PARTNERING WITH CDS-PROVIDED RESINTEL STUDY FOR THE HOUSING MARKET HERE IN GALVESTON. 
          THROUGH THAT STUDY, WE RECEIVED 21 RECOMMENDATIONS. OF THOSE THREE. 
          I THINK THE BIGGEST KEY PARTS THAT BUILD IS HERE TO TACKLE IS THE INCENTIVES FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT OR COLLABORATING WITH OUR EMPLOYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS HERE AND PRESERVING THE EXISTING HOUSING AND RESIDENTS VIA REHAB. 
          WE TOOK THAT 2020 SURVEY. 
          WHEN I CAME ON BOARD FOUR, FIVE MONTHS AGO, WE WANTED TO GET A REFRESHER OF THIS ON THE ISSUES THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE FACED, ESPECIALLY DURING COVID AND THE IMPACT ON THE HOUSING MARKET, TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE OUR EMPLOYEES WANTING. 
          BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THE WHAT AND THEN WE KNOW THE WHY. 
          NOW WE NEEDED TO FIGURE OUT AS WE DEVELOP FURTHER, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TYPES OF PROJECTS THE EMPLOYEES OF GALVESTON WERE REALLY WANTING TO SEE IN TERMS OF HOUSING. 
          WE PARTNERED WITH CDS ONCE AGAIN. 
          WE CURRENTLY HAVE A SURVEY GOING OUT CLOSES NOVEMBER 28TH. 
          I WANTED TO PULL SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTED DATA POINTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR. 
          IN SAYING THIS, WE'VE RECEIVED OVER 700 RESPONSES TO THE SURVEY. 
          I KNOW IN LARGE PART WE HAVE DONE OUR HOMEWORK IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE SOME INPUT. 
          SOME KEY HIGHLIGHTS. OBVIOUSLY, WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW WERE THE TOP THREE DESIRES FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE RIGHT NOW. 
          OBVIOUSLY, LOWER HOUSING COSTS, LARGER HOMES AND HOME OWNERSHIP ARE GOING TO BE YOUR KEY AND DESIRES. 
          WE DO HAVE A MAJORITY THAT ARE LOOKING TO OWN HERE ON THEIR NEXT HOUSING VENTURE. 
          I PULLED HERE OUR MONTHLY HOUSING COSTS AS IT RELATES TO THE EFFECTIVE MARKET THAT BUILD GALVESTON IS TRYING TO TARGET. 
          THESE ARE WHAT YOU SEE HERE ARE WHAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY ON A PERMANENT BASIS FOR HOUSING. 
          THAT'S EFFECTIVELY YOUR RENT OR YOUR MORTGAGE. 
          WHAT WE WANTED TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE. 
          WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS EFFECTIVELY 25% OF THE SURVEY MARKET BEING WHAT BUILD GALVESTON WOULD TRY TO EFFECT. 
          THEN OBVIOUSLY, THE OTHER BIG CAVEAT IS UNDERSTANDING WHAT TYPE OF HOUSING THESE INDIVIDUALS WERE LOOKING FOR. 
          UP TO 60% RIGHT NOW, ARE DESIGNED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. 
          WHEN WE SAY DOWNTOWN, OBVIOUSLY WE MEAN OUR DOWNTOWN HERE IN GALVESTON RATHER THAN APARTMENTS WHERE WE WOULD SAY THOSE ARE SEPARATE OFF WITHIN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT DIFFERENTIATION. 
          THEN AGAIN, LOOKING AT MINIMUM SIZES PEOPLE WOULD BE WILLING TO PURCHASE AND SO LET'S SAME WITH THE BEDROOMS. AGAIN, I'VE PULLED THE HIGHEST DATA POINTS FROM THIS SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IT. 
          I THINK REALLY KEY HERE, ESPECIALLY A MINIMUM SIZE, IS THAT THE CURRENT STRUCTURE OF GALVESTON'S DEVELOPMENT WOULD PROBABLY LEAN TOWARDS MORE OF THAT 900-1,500 SQUARE FOOT DEVELOPMENT. 
          BUT WE'RE SEEING A LARGE PORTION OF MARKET BEING ACCEPTABLE TO THAT. 
          AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE EARLY LEAVES THAT WE HAVE FROM THAT SURVEY. 
          WE ANTICIPATE TO CLOSE IT OUT NOVEMBER 28TH. 
          BY THIS TIME NEXT MONTH, WE'LL HAVE A FINAL REPORT. 
          WE CAN PRESENT THAT TO COUNCIL AS WELL, OR AT LEAST GIVE YOU ALL THE DATA. 
          EVERYBODY CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. 
          THEN I'M LOOKING AT WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT AS WE'VE UNDERSTOOD WHAT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS WE'RE NOW GOING TO BE LOOKING AT. 
          HOW ARE WE GOING TO BE FUNDING THOSE DEVELOPMENTS? THAT GETS US INTO THE GALVESTON ESSENTIAL WORKFORCE HOUSING FUND 1. 
          BACK IN A FEW YEARS AGO, I BELIEVE THE VISION GALVESTON TEAM AND BUILDS BOARD OF DIRECTORS TOOK A TRIP TO 3CDC AND THE LARGEST COMMUNITY THAT ON THE CORPORATION IN THE NATION AND 
          [01:40:03]
CINCINNATI AND WHO HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THESE FUNDS AND HOW TO DEVELOP THEM. 
          FROM THAT WE'VE TAKEN A LOT OF INSPIRATION FROM THEM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS BECAUSE THIS ISN'T A PROBLEM WITH ADJUSTING GALVESTON WORKFORCE HOUSING AND THE ISSUES THAT REVOLVE AROUND IT ARE SEEN NATIONWIDE. 
          I THINK AT THAT POINT THAT'S WHEN JOHN WAS BROUGHT IN. 
          HE'S WORKED FOR OVER A YEAR NOW TO TRY TO HELP DEVELOP THIS FUN. 
          HE'S PROVIDED HIS TIME AND SERVICE PRO BONO TO US, SO WE'RE REALLY THANKFUL FOR HIM. 
          I'LL LET HIM GO INTO THE FUND AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. 
          >> THANK YOU, DAVE. WHAT WE DID WAS WE LOOKED AT WHAT'S BEING DONE ACROSS THE NATION AND [NOISE] OTHER MARKETS, PARTICULARLY IN CINCINNATI, AND THEN TRIED TO DETERMINE WHAT ARE THEY DOING THAT MIGHT APPLY TO GALVESTON. 
          OBVIOUSLY, CINCINNATI IS MUCH LARGER FOR THINGS THAT WOULDN'T APPLY. 
          BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT WE TOOK, SOME GOOD [NOISE] BEST PRACTICES THAT ARE TRYING TO APPLY THEM HERE. 
          WHAT WE CAME UP WITH WAS A DECISION TO FORM A POOL OF CAPITAL THAT WOULD HELP TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP WORKFORCE HOUSING ON THE ISLAND. 
          WE WENT TO SEVERAL DEVELOPERS AND SAID, WELL, WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF INCENTIVES YOU'D NEED TO DO THIS? THAT'S WHAT WE TRIED TO BUILD IN THE FLEXIBILITY OF FUN TO BE ON PROVIDED. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, SOME OF THEM SAID, WE CAN'T FINANCE PRE-DEVELOPMENT COST. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IN A PRIVATE SECTOR WE CAN DO THROUGH THE FUND. 
          THE FUND ITSELF IS BEING CAPITALIZED THROUGH THE GRACIOUS. 
          SOME OF THE MISSION-DRIVEN FOUNDATIONS THAT ARE LOCAL HAVE COMMITTED. 
          WE HAVE A SOFT COMMITMENT TODAY FOR ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS, STILL SUBJECT TO DOCUMENT REVIEW WITH A TARGET FOR FIVE MILLION. 
          WE PICKED THAT BECAUSE WE THINK THAT'S LARGE ENOUGH TO MAKE AN IMPACT AND YET A SMALL ENOUGH TO BE ACHIEVABLE. 
          WE CAN HAVE A PROTOTYPE, SAY, WE DID IT ONCE. 
          WHAT DO WE LEARN FROM IT? NOW LET'S DO IT AGAIN TO DO WITH FUN TOO. 
          FUND 1 IS BEING FUNDED INITIALLY BY LOCAL FOUNDATIONS. 
          THEN PHASE 2 THAT WILL ASK FOR DONATIONS BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE A TAX-EXEMPT STATUS. 
          AS A RESULT, WE CAN ACCEPT INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS, BUT WE THINK THE MASS MAJORITY OF THE MONEY IS GOING TO COME FROM THE FOUNDATIONS. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FOUNDATIONS HAVE TOLD US THOUGH, IS THEY SAID, WELL, WE WANT TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMUNITY AND BUSINESSES ARE BEHIND IT ALSO. 
          AS WE NOW GET MAYBE A MAJORITY OF THE MONEY FROM THE FOUNDATIONS WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT SECTOR AND GO INTO THE BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS TRY TO SUPPORT. 
          WHAT THE FRONT ACTUALLY DOES IS IT THEN WE'LL PROVIDE CAPITAL TO DO FINANCING WITH DEVELOPERS WHO MAY SUBMIT PROPOSALS. 
          THEY MAY DO SITE SECURING. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE VERY PROJECT-SPECIFIC. 
          THEY MAY PROVIDE LOW BELOW-MARKET CONSTRUCTION LOANS, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          IT CAN BASICALLY DO ANYTHING THAT THE BOARD AUTHORIZE IT TO DO ON A PROJECT-BY-PROJECT BASIS TO ENCOURAGE THOSE DEVELOPERS COME TO THE ISLAND TO DO THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'RE ALL SEEKING. 
          WE THINK THE MARKET IS ASKING FOR LEGAL STRUCTURE. 
          THE FUND IS SET UP AS A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. 
          IT WILL BE MANAGED BY A BOARD OF DIRECTORS. 
          AT BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS GOING TO BE A MAJORITY OF IT WILL BE ELECTED BY THE FUNDERS. 
          THE FOUNDATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO MAKE DONATIONS AND MINORITY OF THE BOARD WILL BE APPOINTED THEM BY BUILD GALVESTON. 
          THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WILL THEN APPOINT A INVESTMENT COMMITTEE. 
          THAT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE WILL REALLY HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO BE ABLE TO UNDERWRITE THE PROJECTS. 
          AS A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS, WE HAVE THESE THREE ACRES AND WE WANT TO DO THIS NUMBER OF HOMES ON IT, HERE'S THE PROJECT. 
          IT WILL BE THAT INVESTMENT COMMITTEE THAT REALLY MAKES THE DETERMINATION. 
          DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? WHO'S THE BEST PROJECT? DOES IT FIT WHAT THE OVERALL MISSION IS? THEN THEY'LL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO EITHER APPROVE IT OR NOT. 
          THE BOARD WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THE MATTER. 
          [NOISE] INITIALLY, WE ANTICIPATE THAT MOST OF THE FUNDS WILL BE USED FOR SHORT-TERM LOANS TO DEVELOPERS. 
          END UP BEING A REVOLVING SOURCE OF CAPITAL FOR THOSE DEVELOPERS, WHETHER THAT BE THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION LOAN OR PRE-DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES. 
          WE SEE THAT MONEY TURNING OVER MULTIPLE TIMES. 
          TO COMMITMENTS BACK TO THE FENDERS TAKES TWO FORMS. DONATIONS. IF A FOUNDATION WANTS TO MAKE A DONATION, THEY CAN. 
          OR THEY CAN ACQUIRE A NOTE. 
          WE HAVE FIVE-YEAR NOTES AT 2% INTEREST. 
          IT'S BELOW MARKET RATE OF INTEREST. 
          THOSE THEY CAN ACTUALLY RECORD AS PROJECT RELATED INVESTMENTS, WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO PULL FROM PRINCIPLE THE FOUNDATIONS VERSUS JUST THE 5% THAT THEY HAVE TO UTILIZE FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES EACH YEAR. 
          THEY CAN DO EITHER ONE DEPENDING UPON WHAT THEIR BALANCE SHEET LOOK LIKE. 
          THE INITIAL TWO THAT WE'VE GOTTEN SOFT COMMITMENTS FROM HAVE GONE THE ROUTE OF ACQUIRING THE NOTES. 
          AS WE DO THE BUSINESS PLAN, 
          [01:45:01]
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INCOME STREAM COMING BACK INTO THE FUND IS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE DEBT SERVICE AND ULTIMATE REPAYMENT OF THOSE DEBTS. 
          >> THEY'RE TAKING THAT FROM THEIR CORPUS? THEN IF THERE'S DEFAULT ON THAT, ARE THERE ANY LIENS? 
          >> IT'S UNSECURED NOTES. 
          >> UNSECURED NOTES. 
          >> YEAH. NOW THERE'S ALSO BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE FOUNDATIONS REALIZE IF THINGS GO AS PLANNED, THEY CAN EASILY TURN THOSE INTO DONATIONS, AND I THINK IF WE DO OUR JOB, I THINK ULTIMATELY, WHEN THE NOTES COME TO YOU, THEY'LL MAKE A DECISION. 
          YEAH, WE'D LIKE THE PROJECT. 
          [INAUDIBLE]. 
          BUT THEY ARE LEGALLY BINDING PROMISSORY NOTES. 
          THAT'S REALLY THE LEGAL STRUCTURE OF IT AND SO WE WANTED TO LEAVE TIME FOR QUESTIONS. 
          I'LL STOP THERE UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING I MISSED. 
          >> LET ME MAKE JUST A COMMENT. 
          WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE ON THE ISLAND FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME TALK RECENTLY ABOUT THE WAY TO DO THIS. 
          IT HAS TO BE INCENTIVIZED IN SOME WAY. 
          IN THE FOUNDATION IS AND BUILD, GALVESTON HAS STEPPED UP. 
          I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS. 
          YOU HAVE CARRIED THE BALL ON THIS AND WORKING WITH THE FOUNDATIONS AND I WANT THEM TO THINK THOSE FOUNDATIONS. 
          I THINK THE MITCHELL FOUNDATION HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN THIS AS THE KINTANAR HAS BEEN INVOLVED, I THINK A LITTLE BIT IN THIS AND OTHER FOUNDATIONS ARE STEPPING UP HERE IN GALVESTON. 
          THIS IS QUITE A GIANT STEP FORWARD FOR PROVIDING WORKFORCE OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ON THE ISLAND. 
          >> ENCOURAGING HOMEOWNERSHIP. 
          >> ENCOURAGING, BRIAN AND I HAD BEEN MEETING WITH THE GROUP AND THAT WAS ONE THING THAT WE KEPT PUSHING IS THE HOME OWNERSHIP ON THIS TYPE OF PROJECT. 
          THEY HAVE BEEN SO KIND TO INCLUDE THAT AND MAKE THAT A FOCAL POINT OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THIS PROJECT. ANY QUESTIONS? 
          >> I'D ADD TO THAT, ONE OF THE MOTIVATIONS AND PART OF THE MISSION AS WE DEVELOPED THIS WAS TO ENABLE MULTIPLE GENERATION HOMEOWNERS TOO. 
          IT'S NOT JUST A MATTER OF TRYING TO GET PEOPLE MOVE BACK TO THE ISLAND, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF GETTING PEOPLE TO STAY ON THE ISLAND, HAVING THEIR KIDS FEEL STAY ON THE ISLAND AND HAVING TWO AND THREE GENERATIONS OF VOI. 
          >> IN OUR POINT ALL ALONG THAT THE MAYOR AND I KEPT MAKING IS, IS THAT BUILDING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OR RENTAL PROPERTIES IS GREAT, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE ANYBODY STAY HERE. 
          IF YOU WORK HERE, IF YOU WANT A COMMITMENT FROM A TEACHER, FROM A NURSE TO BE COMMITTED TO YOUR COMMUNITY, THEN YOU DON'T GO. 
          YOU'RE ON A HOME THERE. YOU'VE GOT A LEVEL OF COMMITMENT AND INVOLVEMENT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THAT THAN SOMEBODY THAT'S RUNNING. 
          >> IN YOUR SURVEYS ARE SHOWING THAT? 
          >> YES. 
          >> THERE IS A BACKING UP THE IDEA THAT WE AND I THINK ALL OF US HAVE BEEN TRYING TO PROMOTE. 
          >> NOT THAT WE DON'T NEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RENTAL PROPERTY, BUT IT'S JUST THAT WE REALLY THINK THAT WE WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE OWNERSHIP IN OUR ISLAND AND BE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY. 
          >> DAVID FRANKLY FLAVORED. 
          >> YEAH, I'D LIKE TO CONGRATULATE GALVESTON AND THANK GALVESTON ON MOVING THIS FORWARD AND PROVIDING THE LEADERSHIP FOR THIS. 
          THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT IS SORELY MISSING, YOU ALL HAVE SEEN, I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT TO CREATE THE DIVERSE ECONOMY THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE, END UP BEING JUST SIMPLY A TOURIST TOWN, WHICH WE COULD EASILY HAPPEN. 
          IF NOT FOR PROGRAMS LIKE THIS. 
          MY QUESTION IS, IS THAT, LOOKING FORWARD IN TERMS OF TO RESOURCE OUR PATIENTS, WHO DOES WHAT BEST? THE CITY HAS TWO ENTITIES, GALVESTON HOUSING AUTHORITY AND GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. 
          THEY HAVE EXISTING PRODUCTS OR EXISTING PROJECTS THAT THEY'VE GOT. 
          HOW DO WE SEE OR IS THERE ANY INTERACTION BETWEEN THIS PROGRAM AND THOSE PROGRAMS IN THE CITY? 
          >> DAVID, I'D LIKE TO JUST FIRST MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT. 
          YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          AS WE DISCUSSED THIS, WE THOUGHT ABOUT HOW THE HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION COULD INTERFACE AND THEY CAN APPLY FOR FUNDING THROUGH THIS PROGRAM AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THOUGHTS THAT BRIAN AND I BROUGHT FORWARD TO THEM SO THAT THAT WAS OPEN FOR THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION, PRIVATE BUILDERS, INDIVIDUALS TO APPLY FOR THESE TYPES OF FUNDS. 
          I'D WANT TO COMMEND YOU ON THE FLEXIBILITY HERE, AS THEY STARTED THEIR DISCUSSIONS, THEY WERE LOOKING AT DOING ONE THING OR THIS THING. 
          AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE A LOT OF LAND LEASE, SITE CONTROL, LAND ACQUISITION. 
          MANY DIFFERENT WAYS AND THESE ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE 
          [01:50:05]
EVERY CASE IS A CASE ON UNTO ITSELF TO EVALUATE AND HOW THEY WOULD BE FUNDED. 
          I GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          THAT WAS A GOOD MOVE. 
          >> THE THING THAT'S INTERESTING, THESE FUNDS THAT WE FOUND, SINCE WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING PUBLIC DOLLARS, WE CAN MARK THIS TO A LIMITED GROUP. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, IF GISD WANTED TO DO SOMETHING ON SOME OF THEIR LAND, WE CAN MARK IT JUST TO GISD EMPLOYEES AND LIMIT IT TO THAT TO THE EXTENT IT FILLS IT UP. 
          THE FLEXIBILITY OF HAVING ONLY PRIVATE DOLLARS ALLOWS US TO DO THINGS THAT SOME OF THE PUBLIC MONEY FUNDS CAN'T DO. 
          THEY WOULD HAVE TO OPEN IT UP TO A BROADER SEGMENT. 
          NOW, MAYBE WE DO IT BROADLY, BUT THAT'S UP TO THE DEVELOPERS TO DETERMINE. 
          BUT I LIKE THE FLEXIBILITY, BUT IT'LL GO TO UNDERTAKE HER EMPLOYER AND SAY, YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE HIRING AND KEEPING YOUR EMPLOYEES, UTMB, HERE'S A WAY TO DO IT. 
          >> JOHN. 
          >> I THINK ITS A GOOD START TO GET SOMETHING GOING. 
          IN THE OTHER CITIES, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO INCENTIVIZE OR ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT? 
          >> IT DEPENDS UPON WHAT ENTITIES BEHIND IT. 
          BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN TEXAS WHERE THEY ARE PROVIDING THE LAND AT. 
          THEY'RE BASICALLY LEASING LONG-TERM LEASES ON THE LAND. 
          EFFECTIVELY TAKES YOUR LAND COSTS OUT OF THE METRICS AND THAT'S HOW THEY'RE GETTING LOWER ENTRY POINTS THEN FOR THEIR END PRODUCT. 
          THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE, BUT THAT'S ONE WAY THEY'RE DOING IT. 
          ANOTHER ONE IS DOING THROUGH THE LOWER-COST FINANCING, WHICH IS I THINK ONE OF THE ONES THAT WILL PROBABLY BE EXPECTING TO GET REQUESTS FOR PRE-DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS. 
          >> TAKE THOSE TWO SCENARIOS. 
          ONE BEING THE LONG-TERM LAND LEASE. 
          THERE'S HOMEOWNERSHIP, YOU CAN HAVE HOMEOWNERSHIP WITH A LONG-TERM LAND LEASE. 
          >> IT'S THE SAME AS IS DONE BY THE CORE ENGINEERS IN TEXAS WITH SOME OF THE LAKES AROUND THE STATE WHERE THEY ACTUALLY OWN THE LAND X NUMBER OF FEET OUT FROM THE WATER SURFACE AND YOU TAKE THEM TO 99 YEAR LEASE ON THAT. 
          THOSE ARE IT'S BECOME A GOOD, WELL PROVEN MODEL WHERE BANKS WILL LEND ON IT AND YOU OWN IT UNTIL THAT LEASE RUNS OUT AND THEN HOPEFULLY IT GETS RENEWED. 
          >> HOPE YOU'LL LIVE TO BE 100. 
          [LAUGHTER] 
          >> DO YOU THINK THAT THIS GROUP IS THE CATALYST THAT COULD BRING SOMETHING LIKE THAT TOGETHER? 
          >> WELL, I THINK HE'S CAN BE UP TO THE DEVELOPERS TO COME UP WITH THE BUSINESS MODEL AND MAKE SENSE FOR THEM. 
          WE CAN JUST PROVIDE CHEAPER CAPITAL OR HELP LOCALLY WORKING WITH THE CITY OR WORKING WITH EMPLOYERS TO, HOPEFULLY, LET THEM SEE THE LIGHT OF, HEY, HERE'S HOW IT HELPS YOU AS A BUSINESS. 
          I THINK WE CAN BE THAT GO-BETWEEN. 
          WE CERTAINLY DON'T PLAN TO BUILD THE EXPERTISE TO BUILD A NEW DEVELOPMENT AT ALL. 
          >> BUT GISD, THEY HAVE SOME SURPLUS LAND PER SE AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED WITH IT. 
          YOUR GROUP WOULD FACILITATE MOVEMENT IN THAT DIRECTION? 
          >> ABSOLUTELY. IN FACT, WE'VE ALREADY STARTED TALKING TO THE INDIVIDUAL TRUSTEES ABOUT IT. 
          WE HAVEN'T MADE A FORMAL PRESENTATION BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL WE COULD GO TO THEM, SAY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO RAISE THIS MONEY AND THEY'RE LIKE SURE. 
          WE WANTED TO ACTUALLY HAVE THE COMMITMENTS AND HAND BEFORE WE WENT IN AND TRIED TO MAKE A FORMAL PRESENTATION OF, HEY, HERE'S HOW WE THINK IT WOULD HELP THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. 
          BUT I WOULD SAY PRETTY CLOSE TO DOING THAT NOW. 
          >> NOW WE ARE. 
          >> TWO MORE QUESTIONS. THAT'S ON THAT SIDE THE LANDLORD SIDE ON THE OTHER SIDE WOULD BE YOU MENTIONED LOW-INTEREST LOANS. 
          DO YOU THINK THAT IS ENOUGH TO GET INTO A PRICE POINT THAT WOULD PRODUCE WORKFORCE HOUSING OR HOUSING AT THIS LEVEL? 
          >> WE HOPE SO. IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEYS, AND HOW YOU CAN SPEAK MORE ON THIS, AND WHAT PRICE POINTS YOU THINK WE CAN GET TO? 
          >> REALLY. 
          >> THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION ON PRICE POINTS. 
          >> JUST GOING BACK A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF PRICE POINTS. 
          WE CAN EVEN TALK ABOUT THIS WITH ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS IS A REALTOR AND HAS OBVIOUSLY ACCESS TO MODELING SOME OF THESE OUTBURSTS. 
          WHAT THEY'VE EFFECTIVELY TOLD US IS HERE'S PRICE POINT, MONTHLY PAYMENT OF A $200,000 HOME AND $250,000, OR $300,000, WHICH IS WHAT WE SEE AS OUR TARGETED DEMOGRAPHIC IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT AND SO ALL OF THOSE FALL WITHIN THE LINES OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING FROM THE HOUSING COSTS AND THAT'S WHY IT SPECIFICALLY PULLED UP THESE PRICE POINTS BECAUSE WE KNOW OUT OF FACT AT THAT BOTTOM BUT '17, '15-'19, CALL 2000, THAT'S ROUGHLY WHAT WE CAN EXPECT PAYMENT WISE FOR $200,000 HOME. 
          THAT CAUSED IN WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AT SAY 900 SQUARE FEET, 
          [01:55:03]
1,000 SQUARE FEET WE THINK WE CAN GET THERE WITH THIS TYPE OF FUNDING. 
          THAT'S JUST IN TERM OF SMALL-SCALE PROJECTS, A FEW HOMES A YEAR THAT'S NOT LARGER PROJECTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH POTENTIALLY SCHOOL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT. 
          THERE'S OBVIOUSLY OTHER WAYS THAT I THINK EVEN THE CITY HAS CONTRIBUTED TO US, SUCH AS THE TOURS AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS THAT HAVE HELPED OUT SOME OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS BUT I THINK JOHNNY BE ABLE TO SPEAK ON THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. 
          >> ULTIMATELY DEWEY, WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL THE DEVELOPERS COME IN WITH THEIR PROJECTS AS SAYING, HERE'S THE PRICE POINT THEY THINK THEY CAN PRODUCE THE PRODUCT THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S HIGH INTEGRITY HOMES, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S SUSTAINABLE, WE WANT IT TO LOOK GOOD IN 10 YEARS SO THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION WHEN YOU'RE APPROVING PROJECTS WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT. 
          CAN WE SAY ABSOLUTELY FOR CERTAIN THAT WE CAN GET IT AT $300,000? NO, NOT YET BUT THAT'S THE GOAL. 
          >> DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY MECHANISM IN THERE FOR LONG-TERM FUNDING, MORTGAGES, AND THINGS LIKE THAT? 
          >> NO [NOISE] WE DON'T. 
          OTHER THAN WHERE YOU WILL BE APPROACHING THE BANKS AND MORTGAGE COMPANIES TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE EDUCATED ON THE PROCESS OF, HERE'S HOW THIS CAME TOGETHER, AND HERE'S THE THINGS WE'RE PUTTING IN PLACE BUT NOW LONG TERM, WE'RE JUST WAY TOO SMALL TO HAVE ANY LONGEVITY. 
          >> YOU HAD YOUR SOFT SECONDS? 
          >> YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT ALL TOGETHER TO MAKE IT WORK. 
          IF YOU GO TO A $200,000 HOUSE, AND SOMEONE HAS TO GET A 10% OR 12% MORTGAGE. 
          > IF WE WERE TO DECIDE CINCINNATI IS THEY HAVE SOME LONG-TERM FINANCING THERE BUT INITIALLY, WE GET IF WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO DO THAT. 
          >> IS THIS MONEY FOR THE DEVELOPERS COME IN AND IT'S A SHORT-TERM LOAN FOR THEM TO START BUILDING? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> WAS THIS MODEL HOME THAT YOU WOULD APPROVE? 
          >> WELL, WE'D APPROVE THE PROJECT OVERALL, SO WE'D IMPROVE ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PROJECT TO GET IN THAT STAGE WHERE THEN A BANK WOULD COME IN AND UNDERWRITE IT. 
          THE THINGS WE'RE GOING TO CARE ABOUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF SUSTAINABILITY AND MAKING SURE IT LOOKS GOOD AND IT FITS THE COMMUNITY AND THAT SIDE OF IT, AND THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE THE ONE TO SAY WHETHER THEY CAN ECONOMICS, THEY DO IT AT THAT PRICE POINT OR NOT. 
          WE WANT THIS DATA BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE ABLE TO ONE CONFIRM WE'RE GOING DOWN THE RIGHT ROAD BUT TWO WHEN THE DEVELOPERS COME IN, UNLESS THEY'VE WORKED ON THE ISLAND BEFORE, THEY'RE GOING TO WANT THE SAME TYPE OF DATA. 
          WE WANTED TO BUILD AT LEAST A PRELIMINARY SHOW THE DEMANDS HERE TO THOSE DEVELOPERS WHO AREN'T ALREADY HERE. 
          I THINK A MAJORITY OF THEM ALREADY BE THE ONES THAT ARE HERE. 
          >> THE FOUNDATION IS IT A 501C? 
          >> BASICALLY THE FUND ITSELF, WHICH IS DOWN HERE IS NOT, BUT IT'S OWNED 100% BY BUILD GALVESTON, AND AS A SOLE MEMBER, THE WAY THE IRS TREATS THAT AS THIS IS DISREGARDED SO THE 501C3 QUALIFICATION OF BUILD GALVESTON WOULD APPLY. 
          IF SOMEONE WROTE A CHECK TO THE FUND, THEY GET A TAX FOR IT AS IF IT'S GOING TO BUILD GALVESTON BECAUSE FEDERALLY DEFINED DOESN'T EXIST. 
          IT'S A DISREGARDED ENTITY. 
          OUR STATE LAW PURPOSES OF THAT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT? 
          >> WELL, I'M JUST GETTING AT THAT SO I CAN'T SEND THE CHECK TO BUILD GALVESTON, I HAVE TO SEND IT TO THE FUND AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS FUND DOESN'T HAVE A 501C, BUT THEY DO AND SO I GET THAT PRIVILEGE? 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. IT NEEDS TO GO TO THE FUND AND AS THE IRS WE HIRED A NON-PROFIT LAWYER IN DALLAS TO CONFIRM THIS. 
          THERE'S IRS SUPPORT FOR A DISREGARDED ENTITY ALLOWING TO USE THE PARENT'S 501C3 STATUS. 
          >> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COUNCIL. DAVID FRANKLY, BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS TOPIC, ANY QUESTIONS, SIR? I THINK YOU'RE ON MUTE. 
          >> NO I'M GOOD. 
          >> THANK YOU. WELL, TYLER AND JOHN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND THANK YOUR BOARD VISION GALVESTON THANK YOU. 
          WE HAVE SOME MEMBERS FROM THE VISION GALVESTON BUILD GALVESTON HERE SO THANK YOU THIS IS A GREAT STEP FORWARD. 
          WHEN WILL THIS BE ACTIVE? WHEN WILL THE PUBLIC BE ABLE TO AVAIL THEMSELVES? 
          >> IT'S AVAILABLE NOW. YOU FILL IN A FORM. 
          WE HAVE GOTTEN SOME INPUT FROM MITCHELL FOUNDATION WHO MADE THE FIRST COMMITMENT OF SOME SUGGESTED TWEAKS, WHICH WE'VE MADE THOSE SO WE'RE OUT ACTIVELY SOLICITING FUNDS NOW. 
          NOW, I KNOW WE'VE TALKED WITH THE CITY BEFORE, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE A JOINT ANNOUNCEMENT. 
          [02:00:04]
THE MITCHELLS HAD ASKED THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT JOINT ANNOUNCEMENTS ONCE THERE'S AT LEAST THREE FOUNDATIONS COMMITTED. 
          WE HAVE TWO THE THIRD ONE, I'M HOPING WE'LL HEAR FROM NEXT WEEK. 
          FROM THAT SIDE, THEY'RE WILLING TO GO OUT WITH PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE EXTENT THE CITY WANTS TO JOINTLY AFTER WE GET THAT THIRD COMMITMENT, WHICH AGAIN, I HOPE IS NEXT WEEK. 
          >> WELL KEEP US INFORMED IF YOU WOULD, LET US KNOW. 
          >> WHAT ARE THE COMMENTS BECAUSE A POINT WAS RAISED AS FAR AS COORDINATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, THE FUND ITSELF COULD DO A JOINT VENTURE REALLY EASILY. 
          FOR EXAMPLE, IF GHFC HAD LAND THEY WANTED TO ACQUIRE, THAT MIGHT END UP BEING A JOINT VENTURE THEN TOO WE PROVIDE FINANCING FOR DEVELOPER TO COME IN ON THE LAND THEY ACQUIRE. 
          I THINK THAT CAPITAL, IT'S ALL FOR THE SAME MISSION. 
          I THINK WE'D BE REAL FLEXIBLE IN HOW WE PARTNER WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. 
          SAME THING WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT. 
          THEY MAY WANT TO KEEP THEIR LAND AND WILL JUST PARTNER AND HELP YOUR DEVELOPERS COME IN TO FINANCE DEVELOPMENT ON THEIR LAND. 
          ANYWAY, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. [BACKGROUND] 
          >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. 
          WELL, IT IS 12:31 PM. 
          WE HAVE DEFERRED ALL THE OTHER ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA TO OUR DECEMBER 14TH MEETING. 
          WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF OUR ITEMS AND WE ARE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.