[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
MORNING. IT IS SEPTEMBER 19.IT IS MY HONOR TO CALL OF THE WORKSHOP FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER.
I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYBODY HERE TODAY.
WE HAVE A LOT OF STAFF MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WE HAVE SOME RESIDENTS IN THE AUDIENCE.
COUNSEL, OF COURSE, WE'LL BE HAVING A LONG DAY TODAY AND LOOKING FORWARD TO A LOT OF BUSINESS.
I WANT TO WELCOME EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS BROADCAST.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MEETING FOR THE CITY, CONCERNING ESPECIALLY OUR BUDGET, AND I HOPE EVERYONE THAT HAS A CHANCE TO TUNE IN HAS DONE THAT.
YOU SHOULD REMIND THEM THAT THEY CAN COME AND COMMENT AT 5:00 P.M.
THIS EVENING, WHICH IS WHEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE OR IF YOU ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASE IN YOUR TAXES? CORRECT OR IF YOU HAVE ANY INPUT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON THE TAXES, YOU CAN COME THIS AFTERNOON AT 5:00 P.M. GIVE THAT INPUT.
SAYING ALL THAT, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, BUT COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MAYOR BROWN? PRESENT.
COUNCILMEMBER FINKLEY? PRESENT.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN? PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTO? COUNCIL MEMBER ROLLINS? VERY GOOD. ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE HERE AND SEATED.
[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 MOVE TO ITEM 3A, PLEASE, MA'AM.ITEM 3A. 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. VERY GOOD. IS THERE A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO'D LIKE TO LEAVE THIS OFF, COUNSEL? I GO. I'VE GOT FOUR ITEMS I WANTED TO DISCUSS AND, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE PARK BOARD BUDGET AND THIS GALVESTON BUDGET ON THIS AGENDA LATER ON.
I NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THOSE COMING UP.
BUT FIRST ONE IS 10A THAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT.
THIS IS A APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE, AMENDING GALVESTON BEACH ACCESS AND DUNE PROTECTION PLAN.
IT'S THE PROCESS THAT I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND.
I'VE BEEN EMAILING BACK AND FORTH WITH KYLE TRYING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE REMEMBER, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF COMPONENTS TO THE AMENDMENTS.
ONE OF THEM WAS ALLOWING CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE VEGETATION LINE FOR PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT ON THE BEACH.
THE OTHER ONE WAS FOR RELOCATING SPECIAL USE AREA ON THE PROPERTY THAT'S ADJACENT TO JUST EAST OF STEWART BEACH.
AS I UNDERSTAND, NOW, THERE IS NO MORE ACTION FROM COUNSEL REQUIRED ON THE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET REINFORCED CONCRETE.
LET ME JUST CLARIFY THAT WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE GREAT LINE OF VEGETATION.
APPARENTLY, THAT'S THAT'S A DONE DEAL.
I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS ALL THAT WELL, BUT APPARENTLY THERE'S NOTHING ELSE WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
HOWEVER, ONE THAT'S BEFORE US TODAY IS THE AMENDMENT THAT RELOCATES A LARGE PORTION OF THE SPECIAL USE AREA JUST EAST OF STEWART BEACH AND THE SPECIAL USE AREA IS ONE THAT ALLOWS A HANDICAP OR PEOPLE TO LAUNCH NON MOTORIZED BOATS.
VEHICLES ACCESS DIRECTLY TO THE BEACH.
IT'S A CONVENIENT FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT PRACTICAL TO DROP SOMEBODY OFF, GO PARK AND HAVE THEM SIT THERE WHILE THEY'RE WAITING TO GET ACCESS TO THE BEACH.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART. BUT THE THING THAT I DON'T REALLY DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND IS THE PROCESS WHICH IS, I GUESS, THE THE TRAJECTORY OF THESE AMENDMENTS.
IT APPEARS THAT FIRST COUNCIL APPROVES THEM BY RESOLUTION.
THEN THEY PROCEED THE GLO REVIEW PROCESS AND THEN COME BACK FINAL FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
BUT IN THE CASE OF THE CONCRETE, THERE WAS REALLY NO OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT.
OF COURSE, THERE WAS ONE PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK FROM COUNSEL ON THAT I WASN'T ON THAT COUNCIL THAT APPROVED THAT.
BUT THE GLO ALSO GOES THROUGH A PROCESS WHERE THEY THEY REQUEST INPUT.
THAT SEEMS TO HAPPEN ON THE TAIL END.
IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO FORUM TO CONSIDER THE INPUT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE ON THESE ON THESE BEACH AMENDMENTS.
THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE AND USE THE BEACH, THERE REALLY WAS NO WAY FOR THEIR COMMENTS TO BE INCORPORATED OR AT LEAST CONSIDERED.
I ASKED KYLE FOR THE COMMENTS, ALL THE COMMENTS THAT CAME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, EITHER WRITTEN OR VERBAL AND ALL THE COMMENTS THAT CAME BEFORE GLO.
HE WAS GOOD ENOUGH TO SEND ME ALL OF THAT.
THERE WAS OVER 140 INDIVIDUAL COMMENTS
[00:05:05]
AND OBJECTING TO THE AMENDMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.THAT INCLUDES COMMENTS FROM THE SPYDER FOUNDATION, WHICH IS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND ALSO FROM THE TEXAS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, WHICH IS A STATEWIDE ORGANIZATION.
ALL OF THESE FOLKS WERE IN OPPOSITION TO IT, BUT I COULDN'T SEE WHERE THERE WAS ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THIS OPINION FROM THE CITIZENS IN ANY OF THIS PROCESS.
I STILL DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND AS I THINK I'VE BEEN TOLD THE REASON FOR IT IS THAT THERE WERE SOME COMPLAINTS FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR THE SPECIAL USE ACCESS AREA JUST EAST OF STEWART BEACH.
WELL, THAT'S FINE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO AND WE HAVE TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE 140 COMMENTS WE GOT A AGAINST TWO OR THREE PEOPLE WHO WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT CARS ON THE BEACH IN THAT AREA.
I'M REALLY NOT SEEING ANY GOOD REASON TO CHANGE THIS AMENDMENT.
THAT PARTICULAR STRETCH OF BEACH, TO ME, IS ONE OF THE LAST QUIET STRETCH OF BEACHES THAT A LOCAL CAN GO TO ON A WEEKEND.
EXCUSE ME, BOB FOR INTERRUPTING.
I'D LIKE TO KEEP OUR COMMENTS TO THE CLARIFICATION OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
WE CAN DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS OF THAT OF COURSE AT THE MEETING OF SELF.
WELL, THEN THE CLARIFICATION OF IT, I GUESS, THE PROCESS AS PART OF THAT CLARIFICATION? YES, SIR.
YES, SIR. KYLE CLARK, COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER.
YES. THE PROCESS FOR US TO AMEND OUR PLAN IS UNDER THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THERE HAS TO BE AN ACTION TAKEN BY BY THE GOVERNING BODY, CITY COUNCIL, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WHATEVER.
IF THERE IS A REQUEST TO AMEND IT, THEY CAN VOTE ON ON AN ACTION.
LAST YEAR, WE WE PASSED ORDINANCES FOR SUNNY REMOVAL OF VEHICLES FROM SUNNY BEACH, FOR THE CONCRETE, REINFORCED CONCRETE WITHIN 200 FEET.
THEN ALSO FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE 1,000 FEET OF THE RESTRICTED USE AREA.
WHEN WE WENT WE PASSED THOSE ORDINANCES.
WE SENT THEM UP TO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
THEY CAME BACK, AND SO WHAT THE PROCESS IS, WE SENT THEM UP.
THEY HAD TO CLARIFY AND CERTIFY THAT WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
THEY SENT A MEMO BACK AND HAD SOME COMMENTS ON SOME MORE CLARIFICATION ON THOSE THREE ITEMS. THE SUNNY BEACH AND THE CONCRETE REINFORCED CONCRETE, WE WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE ANSWERS, THEIR QUESTIONS.
THE THING ABOUT THE RESTRICTED USE AREA, WE'RE THE ONLY MUNICIPALITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS THIS REQUIREMENT.
IT'S NOT OUTLINED IN THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, IT'S NOT OUTLINED IN THE NATURAL RESOURCE CODE.
WHEN WE TRY TO REMOVE VEHICLES FROM SAY SUNNY BEACH, THERE'S A CLEAR PATH OF IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE VEHICLES, THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE, THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO.
BUT WITH THE RESTRICTED USE AREA, WE SENT A REQUEST.
JELLO CAME BACK AND SAID, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
WE HAD AN ORDINANCE, PASSED ON THE ORDINANCE.
WHAT WAS DONE TO REPLACE THAT.
WHAT'S THAT? THE AREA THAT WAS MADE.
WE I MEAN, IT IT WAS IT WAS, THIS, REMOVING IT, FIRST, WE REQUESTED TO REMOVE 1,000 FEET AT THE, GLO BEFORE WE BROUGHT THIS TO CITY COUNCIL, SAID THAT WAS A VIABLE OPTION IS JUST TO REMOVE IT OUT RIGHT.
WHEN WE REMOVED IT, THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, NO, YOU HAD TO PROVIDE IT.
THEN WE WE PROVIDED SOME ALTERNATIVE AREAS.
COORDINATED THAT WITH THEM, CAME TO,, CITY COUNCIL AND GOT THE ORDINANCE FOR THAT AND THEN THEY SAID, WELL, NO, THOSE AREAS AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH.
THIS WAS LIKE WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU ALL TODAY WAS LIKE THE THIRD OR FOURTH THING THAT WE BROUGHT UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE RESTRICTED USE AREA.
TALKING TO LEGAL, TALKING TO THE CITY SECRETARY, WE WERE SENDING EVERY TIME THE ORDINANCE GOT PASSED, THINGS WERE BEING SENT UP TO MUNICO TO BE PUT INTO OUR, POTENTIAL TO BE PUT INTO OUR ORDINANCE.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE SURE SOMETHING WENT THROUGH THAT HAD CHANGED.
LOOKING AT THE LANGUAGE IN THE TEXT ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, IT SAYS AN ACTION.
LEGAL SAID, WELL, UNTIL WE CAN GET THIS FINALIZED, LET'S DO A RESOLUTION, GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, AND THEN IF EVERYTHING IS THE SAME, THEN WE'LL JUST BRING IT BACK AS AN ORDINANCE FINALIZING IT.
EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE SENT UP TO THE GLO, THEY HAVE CERTIFIED THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE REQUESTED IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW.
MAYBE WE'RE WATCHING THE COUNCIL MEETINGS OR THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS AT THE TIME.
THERE WERE AT LEAST 10 HOURS OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
[00:10:01]
BETWEEN BOTH MEETINGS.EVERY ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT THEY MADE AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS HAVING TO DO WITH IT OR EVEN MAY HAVE BEEN AT A HURRICANE MEETING WHEN I ASKED HOW MANY COMMENTS CAME IN.
THERE WERE A LOT OF FORM LETTERS.
WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR OVER A YEAR.
I WOULD SAY, AND THERE HAS BEEN AMPLE.
ALL THE SPOTS AND EQUALITY AND WHAT THAT 1,000 FEET HAS BEEN MOVED, I THINK IT'S TO THE EAST OF STEWART BEACH, CORRECT? YES. ON THE EAST END OF STEWART BEACH, AND THEN WE'RE OPENING UP 500 FEET AT POCKET PARK ONE.
THEN POCKET PARK THREE ON THE WEST END OF.
YOU, THE PROCESS THAT GLO HAS RIGHT NOW IS WHEN THEY PUT THIS REQUEST OUT ON OUT IN THE TEXAS REGISTER, THEY'VE ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH ALL THE STATE LAWS.
WHEN IT GOES OUT, THAT'S BEYOND OUR CONTROL.
THEY'VE ALREADY MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT HERE IT IS, SO THE COMMENTS THAT COME IN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT THE CITY.
HAS THE GLO MADE THE DETERMINATION ON ALL OF THOSE? YES.
ALL THE GLO, ALL WE'RE WAITING FOR TO GET THESE THINGS FINALIZED IS I ONCE THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED, I'M SENDING IT TO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.
THEY'RE FINISHING UP THEIR PREAMBLE, AND THEY'RE GOING THEY'RE LOOKING AT HAVING THAT POSTED IN THE NEXT TWO TO THREE WEEKS IN THE TEXAS REGISTER, THAT IT WILL BECOME ACTIVE 21 DAYS AFTER IT'S PUT INTO THE TEXAS REGISTER, BUT WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING INPUT TO THEM FOR THEIR PREAMBLE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT THEY'VE HAD, BUT I I HAD I'M SORRY.
I HAD I HAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TWO, ESPECIALLY DURING BERYL, AND THEN THEY EXTENDED.
WHAT DO YOU KNOW THE THRESHOLD THAT HAS TO HIT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO EXTEND YES.
WHEN THIS IS NOT JUST FOR THE GLO, BUT ANYTHING THAT GOES INTO TEXAS AITRIT.
THEY RECEIVE 25 IF 25 PEOPLE REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING OR IF AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS 25 PEOPLE REQUEST A PUBLIC HEARING, THAT'S THE TRIGGER THE TRIGGER.
BOB, DO YOU MIND, IF I ASK A QUESTION, THE WE'RE MOVING 1,000 FEET THAT CURRENTLY IS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE WITH ADA CONCERNS INDIVIDUALS WITH PRIVATE MOTOR CRAFT THERE, NON MOTORIZED MOTOR CRAFT AND FISH AND FISHER LADIES, I GUESS THERE ON THAT AREA.
AS WE MOVE THIS, WE'RE MOVING A PORTION OF IT.
HOW MANY LINEAR FEET WILL GO TO THE WEST PORTION OF STEWART BEACH? 500 FEET. 500. THEN YOU HAVE 500 FEET THAT WILL BE ALLOCATED AT POCKET PARK ONE AND THREE? YES, SIR.
THOSE ALL HAVE THE SAME AVAILABILITY FOR THOSE THREE ACTIVITIES I MENTIONED.
THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT GLO STATED IN THEIR THE PREAMBLE FOR WHAT THEY PUT OUT FOR AMENDMENTS IN THE TEXAS REGISTER WAS THAT OPENING THESE AREAS UP TO VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AT POCKET PARK 13, YOU ARE ENHANCING IN PRESERVING WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED FOR AT THE RESTRICTED USE AREA TO ALLOW VEHICLES TO TO THE WATER'S EDGE? ONE LAST QUESTION, WOULD YOU REPEAT AGAIN, WHAT STARTED THIS WHOLE PROCESS? LAND OWNERS OR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS CAN REQUEST VEHICLES TO BE RESTRICTED FROM, AN AREA IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY.
THE OPEN BEACHES ACT IS JUST AN EASEMENT PLACED ON ONTO THE BEACH FOR THE PUBLIC BEACH.
THERE WAS A REQUEST TO REMOVE VEHICLES FROM THAT THIS SECTION OF 1,000 FEET THAT WE WERE MOVING.
THE ONLY WAY THE ONLY VEHICLES THAT ARE ALLOWED THERE NOW ARE FOR THE RESTRICTED USE AREA.
THE ONLY WAY THAT WE COULD ACHIEVE NOT HAVING VEHICLES THERE IS TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTED USE AREA DESIGNATION.
THAT'S WHAT LED TO IT AND LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NOTHING OUTLINED IN THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU REMOVE THIS? BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT ON ANYONE EXCEPT FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON? VERY GOOD. BOMB.
I UNDERSTAND THE GLO IS OKAY WITH IT, BUT JUST BECAUSE THE GLO IS OKAY WITH IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT PEOPLE WHO USE THE BEACH AND LIVE HERE ARE OKAY WITH IT.
I THINK THAT HAS TO GO INTO THE EQUATION.
THAT GETS BACK TO THE PROCESS, I THINK, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT BROKEN IN TERMS OF HOW WE MANAGE OUR BEACHES.
BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE USE THEM AS WELL AS THE TOURISTS AND I THINK THEY DESERVE SOME INPUT ON WHEN WE MAKE THESE CHANGES.
[00:15:03]
THE OTHER THING IS YOU'RE RIGHT, KYLE, THERE IS NO OTHER I MEAN, ALL THE OTHER BEACHES IN THE TEXAS, YOU CAN DRIVE ON ANY BEACH YOU WANT.THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO SPECIAL USE ACCESS, PARTICULARLY APPLIED TO ANYWHERE ELSE.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE. WE DO RESTRICT DRIVING ON THE BEACH IN SOME OTHER PLACES.
IT'S NOT REALLY AN ISSUE THAT HAPPENS IN MOST OF THE OTHER BEACHES IN TEXAS.
I WOULD JUST JUST SUBMIT THAT AND I'M NOT SURE WHY WE ARE WHAT'S THE URGENCY AROUND DOING THIS RIGHT NOW WITHOUT CONSIDERING ALL THESE 140 COMMENTS THAT WE GOT.
WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THE COMMENTS.
THEY JUST PROVIDED US THE COMMENTS.
THE CITY DIDN'T RECEIVE THESE RECEIVE THESE COMMENTS.
THEY'RE NOT WE'RE NOT RESPONDING TO THESE COMMENTS.
THESE ARE NOT COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED.
THE GLO HAS RESPONDED TO EACH AND EVERY COMMENTS.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE'VE DONE IS PROVIDED SOME INPUT TO INPUT TO THE GLO, SUCH AS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT NOT HOLDING, COMMENTS YOU RECEIVED ABOUT PUBLIC HEARINGS.
I WENT THROUGH AND SAID, THIS IS WHERE WE WERE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS IS WHERE THIS WAS AT, CITY COUNCIL, PROVIDING INPUT LIKE THAT THAT THEY MAY NOT BE INTIMATELY AWARE OF.
PROVIDING INFORMATION LIKE THAT BUT.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON CLARIFICATION? WELL, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A STATEMENT THAT YOU MADE THAT ALL THE OTHER TEXAS COAST CITIES ALLOW PEOPLE TO DRIVE ON THAT ON THEIR BEACHES.
I MEAN, A LOT OF IF YOU TAKE PADRE ISLAND, A LOT OF THAT IS NATURAL PARK AND UNRESTRICTED AND YOU CAN, BUT THE CITY OF SOUTH PADRE DOES NOT ALLOW PEOPLE TO DRIVE ON THEIR BEACHES.
SURFSIDE CHARGES PEOPLE, BUT THEY RESTRICT IT DEPENDING.
WE HAPPENED TO BE ONE OF THE MOST SAND STARVED AREAS.
THAT'S A BIG PART OF THIS BECAUSE VEHICLES DO CAUSE PROBLEMS. FOR AN EXAMPLE, SUNNY BEACH, THERE HAVE BEEN DAYS THAT OUR ENTIRE POLICE FORCE IS AT SUNNY BEACH BECAUSE IT WAS SO OUT OF CONTROL.
>> AGAIN, AND I'M SURE JANELLE COULD PULL IT UP FOR YOU, THE MULTIPLE COMMENT, PERIODS BOTH AT PLANNING BECAUSE I THINK YOU WERE STILL ON PLANNING WHEN IT BEGAN.
THAT WAS WHAT, THREE YEARS AGO?
>> TWO YEARS AGO. THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON, COMMENTS, RESPONSES. TIM?
>> TIM, IF YOU'LL IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.
>> TIM TIETJENS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ASPECTS OF THIS PROJECT, THIS HAS HAD EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SOME OF THOSE ARE CITY PUBLIC HEARINGS, SOME OF THOSE WERE GLO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THIS PROJECT HAS HAD MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT THAN ANY PROJECT, PROBABLY ON PERHAPS OUR HISTORY.
THIS HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF INPUT PROVIDED BY FOLKS, AND THERE'S PASSIONATE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF INPUT IN THIS PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU, TIM. ANY CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS NOW? WE CAN DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS OF THAT THIS AFTERNOON IF THAT POPS UP DURING OUR DISCUSSION TIME.
>> THIS IS THE APPROVAL OF APPROVING ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF GALVESTON AND TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR A SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT REGARDING BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS ON THAT.
THIS IS A STUDY THAT'S ONLY GOING TO FOCUS ON THE SEAWALL END-TO-END, NO OTHER CONNECTIONS TO TOWN OR ANYTHING.
>> GOOD MORNING. ROBERT WINIECKE, DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING. YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT.
THIS IS A FOCUS ON TRYING TO CREATE A MULTI-MODAL PATH ALONG SEAWALL FROM SAN LUIS PASS BASICALLY TO BODDEKER ROAD.
>> MULTI-MODAL, YOU MEAN NOT ONLY BICYCLES, BUT MOTORIZED, SKATEBOARDS, AND ONE WHEELS? [LAUGHTER]
>> SINGLE WHEELS. THERE YOU GO.
[OVERLAPPING] SCOOTERS, THAT TYPE OF THING.
THIS IS TO LOOK AT TRYING TO PUT A FOCUS ON SAFETY FOR THAT EMPHASIS OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
>> ARE THEY GOING TO COME UP WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION, I GUESS?
>> THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THIS IS?
[00:20:03]
>> CURRENTLY, WE SPEND THAT MONEY FROM H-GAC.
THEY HAVE A LARGE POOL OF MONEY.
THE CITY IS GOING TO BE CLAWED BACK BY FHWA IF THEY DON'T SPEND IT, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING FUNDS THROUGH THERE.
>> THE FOCUS OF THE TBC RIGHT NOW IS THEY PROBABLY HAVE ONE OF THE HIGHEST RESERVE OF ANY MBO IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND THEY'RE VERY MUCH FOCUSED ON FUNDING AS MANY PROJECTS IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS AS POSSIBLE.
>> IT'S POSSIBLE, I GUESS WE MIGHT GET SOME FUNDING FROM THAT SOURCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION?
>> POTENTIALLY, YES. THIS LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR THAT.
THEY HAD ASKED FOR PROJECTS THAT COULD BE LED BY AUGUST IN 2025, SO THIS ONE FALLS IN THAT CATEGORY.
CONSTRUCTION OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING] DOWN THE ROAD.
>> THE OTHER THING I NOTICED IN THE, I JUST WANT SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS, PART OF THIS PROCESS WOULD INVOLVE WHAT THEY CALL A PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS A STAKEHOLDER INPUT IN THIS PROCESS ANALYSIS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> WE'LL HAVE SOME FORUM FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO AND PROVIDE SOME COMMENT.
>> I'LL TRY TO WHETHER IT BE PUBLIC HEARINGS OR OPEN HOUSE, SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE TO GET THAT INPUT.
>> THAT'S GREAT. WHEN DO YOU THINK THAT WILL START?
>> WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO GO AHEAD AND DO AN RFP ON THAT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES, SO I ANTICIPATE THAT STARTING NOW.
>> YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT, COUNCILMAN FINKLEY?
>> JUST A FOLLOW UP, HAVE THERE BEEN OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO H-GAC AS PART OF THIS?
>> YES, THERE HAVE. YOU'VE GOT TWO OTHERS ON THE LIST.
>> YES. THESE ONES HERE, AND THEN H-GAC NOW HAS A CALL OUT FOR PROJECTS TO BE LED BY AUGUST OF 2026 WHICH IS DUE ON MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30TH OF THIS YEAR.
WE'RE WORKING ON PUTTING THE LIST TOGETHER AS WELL FOR THAT.
>> THESE ARE ALL THE H-GAC CARRYOVER FUNDS? > YES, SIR.
>> IS THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR APPLICATION STILL OPEN?
>> IT IS RIGHT NOW. IT'S OPEN UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30TH OF THIS MONTH, SO WE GOT 12 DAYS.
>> I SAID NOW YOU CAN DO YOUR BACKYARD.
BROWN, YOU REMEMBER BOB AND I CAME IN, WE SAT IN WE TALKED ABOUT A SEAWALL MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH IS FAR OFF FROM WHAT ALEX TALKED ABOUT.
I'D LIKE TO SIT DOWN AND REVISIT THAT FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBMITTAL.
>> VERY GOOD. YES, SHARON ON THAT. YOU HAD A QUESTION?
>> I JUST WANTED TO DETOUR WHAT BROWN SAID, AND AT THIS TIME WHEN WE TALK ABOUT OTHER PROJECTS, WE WILL BE MOVING POSSIBLY THOSE BICYCLE THINGS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT'S ANOTHER STUDY, BUT I WOULD EXPECT THAT IF YOU'RE DOING A PLAN ON THE SEAWALL THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER CONNECTIONS TO OTHER THINGS.
>> YES. THERE WOULD BE CONNECTIONS TO OTHER ASPECTS FOR THE COMMUNITY.
>> THAT'S ALL ON THAT ONE, I'VE GOT 11P.
>> 11P, CONDUCT A COMPREHENSIVE BUILDING ASSESSMENT OF THE GARTEN VEREIN PAVILION AND PROVIDE REPORTS.
FIRST OF ALL, JUST TO CLARIFY HOT IS PAYING FOR ALL OF THIS PARTICULAR ANALYSIS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IT'S COMING FROM THE HISTORIC.
>> FROM THAT HISTORIC BUCKET. WHAT IS OUR PLAN FOR OPERATING THIS, BECAUSE THE STAFF REPORT INDICATES THAT GHF WILL NO LONGER MANAGE IT.
>> IT WILL BE OPERATED EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS NOW JUST THROUGH OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT.
>> OKAY. THERE'S GOING TO CERTAINLY BE A SCOPE OF WORK COME OUT OF THIS?
>> YES. I WAS AT A FUNCTION THERE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHEN THERE WERE BUCKETS ALL OVER WHEN IT WAS RAINING, AND SO IT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE A LOT OF WORK IN THE BUILDING.
>> I ASSUME THE HOT WOULD ALSO PAY FOR WHATEVER RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION AND ANY OUTFITTING OF THE BUILDING THAT WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE THAT'S OUR STUFF IN THERE.
>> WE'VE ALREADY GOT STUFF TO PUT IN THE BUILDING.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO MANAGE IT?
>> NOTHING ELSE. COUNCILMAN FINKLEY.
DOES THE [NOISE] DEPARTMENT AND THE STAFF HAVE THE BANDWIDTH IN ORDER TO ASSUME CONTROL AND OPERATION OF THIS FACILITY?
>> YES. BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY BOOKING OTHER FACILITIES.
>> YES, WE'RE WORKING ON A CONTRACT, AND WE'VE ALREADY PURCHASED FURNITURE FOR THE BUILDING, TABLES, CHAIRS, ETC.
>> SO HOT FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE USED TO MAKE THE REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE FOR THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, HOT, BUT THE HISTORIC BUILDING WHICH IS OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
>> HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THANK YOU.
>> BARBARA, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE CAMERA.
>> BARBARA SANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION, AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH.
>> SINCE YOU'RE UP HERE, COULD YOU [OVERLAPPING].
>> CHARLES KENWORTHY, DIRECTOR FACILITIES. THANK YOU.
>> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME THAT WAS LOOKED AT STRUCTURALLY.
>> STRUCTURALLY, I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT.
[00:25:02]
[OVERLAPPING]>> WE DID AN MEP REVIEW ON IT HERE LAST YEAR THOUGH.
>> THAT'S WHAT PRECIPITATED THE CHANGE.
>> WE DID THE RESTORATION IN THE '90S, I THINK, RIGHT?
>> '96 WE DID AND THERE WERE SOME OTHER UPGRADES IN EARLY 2000.
>> THEN WE DID HVAC UPGRADES AFTER HURRICANE IKE, AND THERE HASN'T BEEN MUCH DONE TO THE HVAC WORK AND IT WAS NEEDING WORK, AND THAT'S WHEN GHF DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND THAT MONEY IN IT.
>> GHF WAS MANAGING THIS FACILITY FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
WE TOOK THAT BACK OVER FROM GHF.
THEY REQUESTED TO RELINQUISH THAT MANAGEMENT OF THAT FACILITY BACK TO THE CITY.
THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED ALL OF THIS, YES.
>> WELL, WHAT DOES MEP STAND FOR?
>> MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING.
>> VERY GOOD. DAVID, GOOD TO GO.
>> OH, SORRY. WERE YOU DONE, BOB?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I WAS GOING.
>> I'M SORRY, BOB. YOU WEREN'T THROUGH.
>> WELL, THERE [INAUDIBLE] YOU.
>> THIS IS THE RESOLUTION OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL CONTRACT WITH THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE COLLECTION OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS IS A CONTRACT ABOUT MANAGING THE HOT.
THERE IS ANOTHER INTERLOCAL CONTRACT WITH A PARK BOARD THAT'S SEPARATE FROM THIS.
>> CORRECT. THE ANNUAL HOT CONTRACT.
>> WE HAVE TO APPROVE THIS BEFORE WE APPROVE THE PARK BOARD BUDGET, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE HOT.
>> SO IT'S NOT NECESSARILY LINKED TO THE PARK BOARD BUDGET IN THAT WAY.
>> BUT IF YOU DON'T APPROVE IT, WE CAN'T DISTRIBUTE.
>> EXCUSE ME BEFORE WE LEAVE THAT.
WE HAVE THE PARK BOARD BUDGET ON OUR AGENDA FOR APPROVAL TODAY.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT THOSE BOTH HAVE TO BE APPROVED FOR THIS PARK BOARD BUDGET TO BE APPROPRIATE?
>> FOR THE INTERLOCAL, THE PARK BOARD BUDGET IF YOU ALL DON'T APPROVE IT, IT'S GOING TO GO INTO EFFECT.
THE HOT CONTRACT IS THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROCEEDS.
>> WELL, THE PROPOSED CONTRACT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM LAST YEAR'S, AND THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO CARRY OUT THE BUDGET AND APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE HOT CONTRACT.
THE PARK BOARD BUDGET INCLUDES SOME FUNDS THAT ARE PART OF THE 2% OF THE STATE REALLOCATION BACK TO THE CITY THAT FUNDS PART OF THE PARK BOARD'S OPERATION.
IN THE CONTRACT IS WRITTEN AS DISCRETIONAL.
THAT IS, PARK BOARD HAS TO APPLY FOR IT, AND THEN THE CITY HAS TO APPROVE IT, AND THIS IS FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT.
HOWEVER, THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS ARE ALSO FUNDING THE THREE FTE THAT IS REQUIRED TO MANAGE THOSE PROJECTS, ALSO FUNDING PART OF THE GRANT MATCH FOR THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS.
THAT'S TO SAY THAT BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS REALLY SPAN OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS, AND IN FACT, THEY'RE JUST BECOME A NORMAL PART OF THE STANDING OPERATIONS OF THE PARK BOARD.
IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THE PARK BOARD TO BUDGET OR HAVE ANY CLARITY OR CONFIDENCE THAT THOSE PARTS OF THE OPERATION ARE GOING TO BE FUNDED EVERY YEAR.
IT'S THE ONLY PART OF THAT 2% THAT IS ACTUALLY IN THAT TYPE OF APPROVAL PROCESS.
THE OTHER THING I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WERE MADE WITHOUT THE PARTICIPATION OF ANYBODY FROM THE PARK BOARD.
BEING ON AGREEMENT, I WOULD THINK WE'D WANT SOME INPUT ON HOW THE CHANGES ARE GOING TO IMPACT THE OPERATIONS OF THE PARK BOARD.
THE CURRENT AGREEMENT HAS THE SAME HOT NUMBERS AS THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS A COUPLE OF CLAUSES IN THERE THAT ARE MAKING IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR THE PARK BOARD TO OPERATE.
>> CAN I ADD ON TO WHAT HE'S SAYING BECAUSE MY QUESTION WAS AMONG THE LINES.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT KIMBERLY DID NOT EVEN SEE THE CONTRACT UNTIL SHE HAPPENED TO LOOK AT THE AGENDA AND HER CONTRACT.
WHY IS IT THAT THEY WEREN'T INVOLVED IN THE CONTRACT?
>> I CAN PROBABLY ADDRESS THESE BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY THINGS YOU BROUGHT UP, COUNCILMEMBER AS A MATTER OF LAW, AND DON PUT THEM IN THE CONTRACT BECAUSE THEY'RE REQUIRED BY LAW. DON, GO AHEAD.
>> WHO PUT THIS DOCUMENT TOGETHER? THAT WAS DON? OKAY. GO RIGHT AHEAD.
[00:30:03]
DON IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE, SIR.>> CITY ATTORNEY. WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION, PLEASE?
>> WELL, SAME QUESTION AS BOB HAD.
WHY IS IT THAT THE PARK BOARD WASN'T INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS ON THE HOT CONTRACT?
>> WELL, I WROTE IT UP WHEN I FOUND OUT THE NUMBERS WOULD BE FLAT, SENT IT BACK TO FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT, AND THAT HAS ENDED MY INVOLVEMENT IN IT.
I WOULD SAY THIS, IT'S NOT QUITE IDENTICAL OF WHAT PASSED LAST YEAR, AND WHAT WE HAD LAST YEAR WAS NEGOTIATED WITH THE PARK BOARD'S COMMITTEE.
>> THERE IS A DIFFERENCE THOUGH.
>> THAT CAN BE A VERY MAJOR DIFFERENCE.
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT DIFFERENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> WELL, THE DIFFERENCE IS IN SECTION 9 STATE HOT TAX FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT.
IT SAYS, I'LL JUST TAKE A SECOND, THE CITY RETAINS DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY OVER THE RENOURISHMENT OF THE BEACHES IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
THEREFORE, FROM THE HOT FUNDS SENT TO THE CITY FROM THE STATE, THE CITY WILL RETAIN 0.57% OF THE 2% FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECTS IN THE CITY.
IF THE PARK BOARD HAS A BEACH RENOURISHMENT PLAN IT MAY APPLY SEPARATELY TO THE CITY FOR A PORTION OF THE RETAINED STATE HOT AND THE CITY WILL DETERMINE WHETHER TO FUND THE PROJECT AND THE AMOUNT OF SUCH FUNDING.
HOWEVER, IN LAST YEAR'S CONTRACT, IT SAID, THAT CONDITION NOTWITHSTANDING, AS PART OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE CITY WILL DELIVER THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT FUNDS 0.57% OF THE STATE HOT TO THE PARK BOARD IN FISCAL YEAR 2024.
THAT LAST STATEMENT WAS REMOVED IN THE REVISION OF THE NEW HOT CONTRACT.
THAT'S WHAT'S GIVING CAUSE, I GUESS, IS THE UNCERTAINTY AROUND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO RECEIVE THAT MONEY TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
>> WELL, LET'S LET DON ANSWER THAT.
>> TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND, THE CONCERN IS IT'S TOO HARD FOR THE PARK BOARD OR?
>> WELL, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET IN A RABBIT HOLE.
MY MAIN POINT IS THAT THIS CONTRACT NEEDS TO BE NEGOTIATED WITH THE PARK BOARD AT THE TABLE IN ORDER FOR US TO IRON OUT THESE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER AT ALL THIS IS, BUT I DO KNOW THAT IT'S GIVEN SOME DISTRESS TO THE PARK BOARD IN TERMS OF HAVING CONFIDENCE IN THEIR BUDGET IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO BE SURE THEY CAN GET THESE FUNDS.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS OTHER THAN TO STOP AND NEGOTIATE WITH THE PARK BOARD ON THIS CONTRACT.
>> THIS HAS A BEARING ON THE PARK BOARD'S OPERATION OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES OVER THERE.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO VISIT WITH THE PARK BOARD ON JUST TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS WITH THEIR FLOW OF SUPPORTING THOSE EMPLOYEES FINANCIALLY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WORK THROUGH THIS.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS.
CAN THE BUDGET OF THE PARK BOARD BE APPROVED AND THIS HOT CONTRACT THEN BE WORKED WITH WITH THE PARK BOARD AND COME BACK?
>> WELL, YOU HAD LAST YEAR MADE A POLICY STATEMENT THAT CITY COUNCIL WOULD BE IN CHARGE OF WHERE SAND IS GOT PUT ON THE BEACH.
>> IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT, WE HOLD A PORTION OF THE 2% FROM THE STATE FOR BEACH RENOURISHMENT, AND THEY HAVE TO TELL US EXACTLY HOW THEY'RE GOING TO USE IT.
THAT IS HOW I'VE SQUARED THE POSITION TAKEN BY COUNCIL LAST YEAR.
>> WE ALSO HAVE A [INAUDIBLE] THAT WE ARE MANAGING, AND MAYBE WANT TO INVITE KYLE OVER THAT.
RIGHT NOW, THE PARK BOARD IS MANAGING THESE BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS.
THEY HAVE A STAFF THAT DOES THAT.
THAT IS BEING FUNDED FROM THIS TRANSFER OF MONEY.
IF THE CITY TAKES THAT BACK OVER, THIS IS A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE, BUT I DON'T THINK COUNCIL HAS WEIGHED IN TO THAT SUBJECT AS YET.
>> ONE THING, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE ANY BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT.
>> CORRECT. THE CITY COUNCIL ALSO APPROVES ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, ANY BIG PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF THIS HOT TAX.
THOSE TWO THINGS ARE STILL WITHIN WHAT THE COUNCIL DOES, I GUESS, APPROVAL FOR [NOISE] PROJECTS.
[00:35:03]
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD EVER CHANGE, BUT WHAT WE DO NEED TO CLARIFY IS TO HOW TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION THAT HAS COME A TYPICAL OPERATION AND NOT A ONE YEAR THING.THE ONE YEAR APPROVAL ASSUMES THAT A BEACH RENOURISHMENT PROJECT IS ONLY GOING TO TAKE ONE YEAR TO DO. WELL, THEY DON'T.
THEY SPAN OVER SEVERAL YEARS, AND THEY ARE PART OF THE NORMAL OPERATION OF THE PARKS BOARD RIGHT NOW.
AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION TO THIS IS, ONLY THAT WE NEED TO SIT DOWN AT THE TABLE WITH THEM AND DISCUSS IT IN ANOTHER FORUM AND ARRIVE AT A SOLUTION THAT IS GOOD FOR EVERYBODY.
>> DON'T YOU WANT THE CITY TO HAVE INPUT AND OVERSIGHT OF HOW THIS MONEY IS SPENT?
>> ABSOLUTELY. JUST LIKE WE DO WITH CAPITAL PROJECTS.
I'M NOT SAYING DON'T HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER BEACH RENOURISHMENT, AND I'M SAYING TRY TO WORK OUT HOW IT CAN KEEP THAT CONTINUOUS PROJECT GOING WHILE STILL HAVING APPROVAL OF PARTICULAR BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS, JUST AS WE DO ANY OTHER CAPITAL PROJECT.
>> THIS IS SOMETHING BOB, I'M GOING TO REQUEST, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
BETWEEN NOW AND THIS AFTERNOON'S MEETING, IF YOU COULD VISIT WITH STAFF, GET A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NOT SO MUCH WORKING OUT THE DETAILS OF THE HOT CONTRACT.
BUT HOW THE BUDGET APPROVAL IN THE HOT CONTRACT INFLUENCE EACH OTHER AND MAYBE DETERMINE WHAT A PATH FORWARD HERE FOR THIS AFTERNOON WHEN THIS ITEM COMES UP.
>> WE WERE DISTRIBUTING HOT FUNDS BEFORE THE CONTRACT WAS FINALIZED LAST YEAR?
>> ALEX, IS THERE A WAY TO APPROVE AND AMEND IT?
>> I SUPPOSE IT COULD BE DONE.
HOWEVER, I WOULD SUGGEST TO APPROVE ONLY THE FINAL.
>> APPROVE WHAT DONE? SAY THAT AGAIN.
>> APPROVE ONLY THE FINAL BECAUSE THEN YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS YOU'RE AGREEING TO.
>> ONE THING THAT WE COULD DO RIGHT NOW IS CONTINUE TO USE EXISTING CONTRACT AND AGREE TO MEET AND AMEND THE CURRENT CONTRACT.
I THINK BECAUSE IT'S REALLY ABOUT THAT ONE SENTENCE, I GUESS THAT'S CAUSING THE CONSTERNATION BECAUSE THE NUMBERS ARE THE SAME FROM FY 24 -25.
>> NO, ONE OF STAFF RESPOND TO THAT.
>> IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE AND SOLUTION?
>> CAN A CONTRACT OR LAST YEAR'S HOT BE USED TO FUND THIS YEAR'S HOT?
>> NO. IS A ONE YEAR CONTRACTS.
>> CAN COUNCIL [OVERLAPPING]CONTINUANCE, THE FACT THAT THE PARK BOARD HAS BUDGETED STAFF INTO THIS SILO IS A PARK BOARD DECISION, NOT A CITY DECISION.
I'M SURE THEY HAVE LOTS OF DIFFERENT WAYS THEY COULD BUDGET STAFF.
THE FACT THAT THEY PUT THEM ON THIS FUNDING SOURCE MAY BE AN ISSUE THEY HAVE INTERNALLY. I DON'T KNOW.
WE'LL BE GLAD TO SIT WITH THE PARK BOARD AND GO OVER IT, BUT QUITE HONESTLY, THE CONTRACT WAS DONE, I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO IT.
IF THAT IS GIVING THEM CONSTERNATION, AS YOU SAY, CERTAINLY WE CAN LOOK AT IT, BUT I THINK THAT'S AN INTERNAL HOWEVER THEY FUNDED THEIR STAFF IS NOT SOMETHING WE DO.
>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. I THINK WE JUST NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH PARK BOARD AND DISCUSS HOW WE'RE GOING TO ORGANIZE THAT INTO A CONTRACT WHERE IT WORKS.
I'M JUST NOT SURE THAT THE HOT CONTRACT IS THE RIGHT PLACE TO ALLOCATE THEIR STAFFING.
>> WELL, WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHERE IT DOES GO, BUT YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO KNOW ANY OF THAT UNLESS YOU MEET WITH.
THAT'S WHAT IS A LITTLE BIT DISTURBING, IS IT I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ANY CONTRACT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES WHERE IT'S ONLY MODIFIED AND APPROVED BY ONE PARTY.
>> WE'VE HAD A REQUEST FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ROLLINS TO HAVE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE BRYSON AND KIMBERLY COME FORWARD.
>> TO BE ABLE TO STATE THEIR CONCERNS AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO.
I CAN STAND MR. MAYOR I'VE BEEN SITTING ALL DAY LONG..
OKAY. YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, CHAIR?
>> I WAS JUST LISTENING AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THIS RIGHT.
WHEN YOU SAID THAT, YOU JUST MADE A STATEMENT THAT THE PARK BOARD THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER HOW THEY BUDGET FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES?
>> I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THIS WAS STRICTLY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BEACH NOURISHMENT. IS THAT?
[00:40:02]
>> OKAY, SO IT'S NOT ALL EMPLOYEES, CORRECT?
>> OKAY. NOT ALL EMPLOYEES, I NEED TO GET THIS STRAIGHT, SO I CAN UNDERSTAND.
IT'S THOSE WHO ARE HANDLING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE BEACH NOURISHMENT?
>> LET'S HAVE, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF?
>> COULD YOU EXPLAIN THESE PARTICULAR FUNDS, HOW THEY ARE UTILIZED CURRENTLY AS APART.
>> SURE. THE HOT FUNDS THAT WE RECEIVED FOR BEACH NOURISHMENT ARE USED FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
IT'S OUR GRANT MANAGER, OUR PROJECT DIRECTOR, AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR OUT ON THE SAND.
THOSE ARE THE THREE POSITIONS THAT ARE IN THERE.
THE HOT IS ALSO USED BECAUSE ALL THESE GRANTS ARE ON A REIMBURSEMENT SCHEDULE.
YOU PAY FOR THE WORK FIRST BEFORE YOU CAN GET REIMBURSEMENT.
THAT CASH FLOWS KEEP THAT GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN MAKE PAYMENTS TO THE VENDORS, AND THEN SUBMIT THAT UP TO THE GLO AND ENDS UP TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE GRANT SIDE OF THINGS.
ALSO GET SOME MONEY FROM IDC FOR THAT STUFF, WHICH IS GREAT, AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT TO.
GRANT MATCHES TO KEEP THE GRANT PAYMENTS COMING UNTIL WE GET REIMBURSEMENT AND THEN TO PAY FOR THE STUFF AT MANAGEMENT POSITION.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT AS COUNCIL MAY KNOW, THESE PARTICULAR BEACH NOURISHMENT PROJECTS, THEY PARTNER WITH THE IDC.
WE HAVE A BEACH SILO THAT THEY PARTICIPATE WITH THE MATCHING FUNDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ON THAT.
>> THE ONE DIFFERENCE THIS YEAR IS THAT CAP 204 PROJECT IS HAPPENING UNDER THE CITY NOT THE PART.
>> THAT ALSO IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD EVEN THOUGH I THINK THAT IT'LL NEVER COME TO FRUITION.
>> I HOPE I'M WRONG TOO, SO THAT'S JUST ONE THING.
>> MR. MAYOR, DO YOU MIND IF I ADDED TO A [INAUDIBLE] I DO AGREE WITH MR. BUCKLEY THAT IT'S THE PARK BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY OF MANAGER STAFFING, 100%. THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT IN ORDER TO MANAGER STAFFING, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHEN OUR FUNDING MECHANISMS ARE GOING TO CHANGE AND THAT'S THE MAJOR CONCERN THAT BRYSON HAVE IS HAVE WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HOT CONTRACT AND THAT FUNDING WOULD NOT COME OVER AUTOMATICALLY TO THE BUDGET, THEN WE WOULD HAVE ALLOCATED FUNDING FOR STAFFING APPROPRIATELY.
BUT I DO AGREE THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY BASED ON THE BUDGET THAT IS OFTEN PROVIDED.
>> IF YOU WOULD HAVE DONE THAT, THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED SOME OF YOUR FUNDING FOR OTHER AREAS OF YOUR BUDGET ALSO?
ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE? THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU. I GOT THIS AT THE WOMEN'S CONFERENCE LAST WEEK [OVERLAPPING] THAT I HAD IN THAT.
>> THIS IS THE STYLE SHOW ALSO.
>> MAYOR, CAN I ASK FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF DIRECTION OF WHAT WE'RE GIVING TO STAFF ON THIS AT THIS TIME? WHAT'S THE OVERALL INTENT? RATHER THAN DISCUSSING THIS AFTERNOON, IS IT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING THEM TO GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE? ARE WE EXTENDING IT? I'M STILL NOT.
>> WHAT I WOULD RATHER DO IF IT MET COUNCIL'S OPINION, DR. BOB BROWN IS OUR LIAISON TO THE PARK BOARD HE'S BROUGHT THIS SUBJECT FORWARD.
I'D LIKE FOR BOB TO BRING FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL WHEN WE VOTE ON THIS THIS AFTERNOON AND DURING THAT DISCUSSION TIME, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS OF THAT MOVEMENT THAT BOB WOULD BRING FORWARD TO US.
WHENEVER YOU BRING FORWARD A CONTRACT FOR RENEWAL YEAR OVER YEAR, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A RED LINE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR SO THAT I UNDERSTAND VERY CLEARLY WHAT THE CHANGES ARE YEAR OVER YEAR, PLEASE.
>> PLEASE PASS ME ONE TIME IF YOU WOULD.
>> SURE. I'LL COME BACK TO YOU BOTH. MARIE? MY ONLY ONE AND NOT THAT I'M OPPOSED TO IT, AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT NUMBER IT IS, BUT I HAD TO DO WITH THE COST, WHICH I 100% ITEM 11A.[OVERLAPPING] THE LANGUAGE NOT TO EXCEED WAS USED, AND I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO ELIMINATE THAT SINCE IT TELLS PEOPLE OUR BANKS.
>> NOT BIDDING ANYTHING OUT HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD MATTER THIS IS ALL OUR STAFF.
>> ON 11, BRIAN, I JUST WANTED FOR THE COMMUNITY SAKE.
THIS IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR FUNDING NOW THAT
[00:45:04]
THE METALS FOUNDATION FUNDING HAS EXPIRED, IS THAT CORRECT? HOW LONG WILL THIS MOVE US FORWARD FOR JUST THIS FISCAL YEAR?>> I THINK IT IS TWO YEARS MIKE?
>> YES. IT'S TWO YEARS AND ANNUALLY WILL RECEIVE THE $440,000, AND THE GULF COAST CENTER WILL BE THE LIAISON WITH THAT FUNDING.
>> FOR THE COMMUNITY'S SAKE, YOU JUST HEARD FROM OUR INTERIM FIRE CHIEF?
>> HAS A ACTION ITEM THIS AFTERNOON TO BECOME THE PERMANENT FIRE CHIEF. THERE WE GO.
>> WHAT'S THE CHAIN IS IT THE SAME AMOUNT OF FUNDING FROM LAST YEAR? IS IT MORE OR LESS?
>> IT'S JUST AROUND THE SAME FUNDING AS WE BUDGETED FOR LAST YEAR, SO YES.
JUST TO BE ADVISED, WE ARE LOOKING FOR A MORE STURDY PERMANENT SOLUTION GOING FORWARD, SO WE ARE ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR OTHER GRANS AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO EXTEND THIS THING AND MAYBE EVEN GROW IT.
>> I JUST FOUND OUT THAT CENTER POINT WE ALL KNOW THEY HAVE GRANDS AVAILABLE, BUT SO DOES AT&T SO I'LL GIVE YOU A BUS ABOUT THAT.
>> ALSO, FOR COUNCILS, THIS IS A RECEIPT OF FUNDS AND THEY'VE ALLOCATED TO US $442,280, NOT TO EXCEED, SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE RECEIVING WITH THIS.
NO ALLOCATION OF CITY OF DALLAS, YOU UNDERSTAND.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT. ALEX, ANYTHING, SIR?
>> THERE ARE LOTS OF PARK IMPROVEMENTS WITH YOUR AWESOME SAFETY LIGHTS, BUT I DIDN'T SEE UNLESS I MISSED IT THE LIGHTING OUTSIDE RIGHT KUNEY PARK.
I SEE IT FOR OTHER PARKS, BUT I DIDN'T SEE.
>> EXCUSE ME, WE'VE DONE SOME LIGHTING REPAIRS AT RIGHT RECENTLY.
>> THE REPAIRS BUT IT'S VERY DARK AS PEOPLE ARE LEAVING THAT PARK AND I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE, SO I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHY KUNEY BE INCLUDED IN THIS MAINTAINING SAFETY ISSUE FOR THIS PARK AS WELL, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M.
>> YES, MA'AM. WE WILL BE ADDRESSING IT.
>> OKAY. BUT NOT HERE, I DIDN'T SEE IT.
>> WE'LL HAVE MORE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
>> OKAY. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WHY IT WASN'T WITH THESE? NO PARTICULAR REASON AND THEN WE WANTED TO GET THE LIGHTING IN THE DOG PARKS AREAS BECAUSE IT IS GETTING DARK.
WE DO HAVE SOME LIGHTING THERE AND WE'VE DONE SOME REPAIRS THERE, AND I HAD BEEN TOLD IT WAS MUCH BRIGHTER OVER THERE, BUT WE WILL ADDRESS IT. YES, MA'AM.
OKAY. I KNOW THE THREE LIGHTS OR WHATEVER WERE PLACED ON THE FRONT DOOR, BUT I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT'S DARK AROUND THERE.
IF THERE'S SOME WAY THAT WE CAN INCLUDE THAT IN HERE WE WOULD BE MUCH GRATEFUL.
>> THANK YOU, BARBARA, VERY MUCH.
>> ONLY ITEM I HAD, I'M GOING TO TURN OUR ATTENTION TO ITEM 11H, IF YOU COULD, PLEASE.
BRIAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT THIS IS FUNDING FOR THE 33RD IT INCLUDES THE 16TH STREET AND 33RD STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION, TRAFFIC INSTALLATION AT THOSE TWO INTERSECTIONS.
THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE PORT.
WOULD YOU GUIDE US THROUGH THIS, ROB.
GLAD TO HAVE YOU THERE. COULD YOU GUIDE US THROUGH THIS PROJECT, THE MATCHING, WHO HANDLES THAT AND HOW TIMELINE ON THIS PROJECT, PLEASE?
>> SURE. ROB WINNICK DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING AGAIN.
THIS PROJECT, BOTH THE PORT AND THE CITY SUBMITTED TO HCAC AS PART OF THE SPEND DOWN.
BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY A CITY SYSTEM, WE ORIGINALLY CHOSE TO HAVE THE CITY GO AHEAD AND BE OF THE SPONSOR FOR THIS PROJECT.
WE MET WITH THE PORT LAST WEEK AND TALKED WITH THEM ABOUT HOW WE GO AHEAD AND DO THIS BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THE DESIGNS UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW FOR THESE TWO INTERSECTIONS AND WE DECIDED THAT IT WOULD BE BEST FOR THEM TO GO AHEAD AND CONSTRUCT THEM AND TURN THEM OVER THE CITY.
WHAT WE LOOKED AT WAS TRYING TO DEVELOP AN MOU
[00:50:02]
BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES WHERE THE PORT PAYS THE MATCH, AND THEN THE CITY BASICALLY ACTS LIAISON WITH HCAC TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THAT WORK, WHAT WE ARE INTO RIGHT.>> WHAT YOU'RE MENTIONING IS FAIRLY VERBALLY BEEN AGREED ON AT THIS POINT.
WILL YOU BE BRINGING BUT SOMETHING BACK TO US ON THIS?
>> THE INTENTION IT'S WRITTEN IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER THE FUNDING SECTION THAT WE INTEND TO COME BACK WITH AN MOU FOR THAT FUNDING PIECE BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE PORT.
>> IN YOUR MIND, WHAT'S YOUR BEST GUESS ESTIMATE ON THE TIMELINE ON THIS?
>> I WOULD ANTICIPATE PROBABLY OCTOBER, NOVEMBER TIME FRAME AT THE LATEST.
>> OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, SO WITHIN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS.
>> FOR THE FUNDING AGREEMENT? > YES.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY. THE TRAFFIC LIGHT AT 16TH STREET IS REALLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC GENERATED BY A CRUISE SHIFT TERMINAL, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY AND SAFETY AROUND ALL THAT?
>> SAME THING, BUT IT'S MORE ACCESS TO THE PARKING LOTS THAT THEY HAVE OVER THERE.
>> LESS PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FOR ACCESS TO THE PARKING.
>> WE DISCUSSED COUNCILMAN FINKLEY AND I AND ROGER REESE THE IMPACT OF THAT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD 14TH AND 16TH, RIGHT THERE, IS PRETTY DUCH NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE SAFETY CONCERNS AROUND THAT BECAUSE THEIR STUDY DIDN'T INCLUDE ANY ANALYSIS OF IMPACT ON PEDESTRIANS IN THAT AREA.
MR. REESE SAID, WE'LL CERTAINLY HELP THE CITY DEAL WITH THAT AS IT COMES UP.
I'M JUST SUGGESTING, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THIS GRANT, BUT WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THE IMPROVEMENTS TO PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN AND AROUND THE ACCESS TO THE CRUISE SHIP TERMINALS.
>> WHAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT THE 33RD STREET LIGHT IS THAT FOR THE PORT, THERE ARE PLANS TO MOVE THOSE CARS AND TRAFFIC THAT ARE GOING TO CRUISE TERMINAL 25 AND 28.
THEY'LL COME TO 33RD AND MAKE A LEFT AND GO ON TO PORT PROPERTY ON THAT STREET THAT THOROUGHFARE THAT THEY'RE PAVING OVER THERE, AND THAT WILL HELP WITH TRAFFIC CONGESTION MOVING TOWARDS DOWNTOWN AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> THE CONCERN IS REALLY YOU CAN TRY AS YOU MIGHT TO CONTROL HOW PEOPLE GET THERE, BUT 14TH AND 16TH STREET ARE JUST RIGHT THROUGH THE BROAD WAY WAY TO HARBOR SIDE AND THEN THE [INAUDIBLE] MISS THE CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL, SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO THAT.
IT'S GOING TO IT MAY HAVE SOME IMPACT ON HOW PEDESTRIANS MOVE AROUND, ESPECIALLY ON 14TH STREET WHERE SO MANY RESTAURANTS AND PEOPLE TRYING TO PARK AND MOVE AROUND.
>> ROBERT, I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN IN DOING A PEDESTRIAN STUDY AROUND THE 16TH, 14TH INTERSECTION HARBOR SITE.
YOU HAVE THE TIA FROM THE PORT, AND THEY DID DO SOME ESTIMATES ON PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, BUT I THINK ANOTHER HARDER LOOK AT THAT MULTI MOLE ANALYSIS WOULD BE GOOD.
THE SECOND THING IS, DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE BASED UPON JUST, I KNOW THAT YOU GOT TO GO GET THE FUNDING AGREEMENT FIRST AND I KNOW THEY'RE IN DESIGN.
BUT DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE THAT IF MOVE FORWARD, YOU GET A NOTICE TO PROCEED HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE FOR IMPLEMENTATION INSTALLATION?
>> INSTALLATION OF SIGNALS IS PRETTY QUICK EXCEPT FOR THE SIGNAL POLES THEMSELVES.
THERE'S TYPICALLY A LONG LEAD NOT JUST SITTING ON A SHELF ANYWHERE, THEY HAVE TO MAKE THOSE EACH TIME.
I THINK THERE'S A RUNNING 12-15 MONTHS LEAD TIME.
>> THE PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS THAT THEY'RE DISCUSSING ON 16TH.
ARE YOU GOING TO CARRY THAT TO 33RD? BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING THROUGH SCHOOL.
THERE WAS A STOP LIGHT BEFORE AT THE CORNER OF 33RD IN BALL STREET, WHERE THE TRAFFIC WAS HIGH, NOW THAT TRAFFIC IS CHANGING BECAUSE OF THE PORT, AND THEY REMOVED THAT LIGHT.
HOW WOULD YOU LOOK AT THAT? THAT IS A COMMUNITY AS WELL WITH OVER 70% OF ESTABLISHED HOMEOWNERS THERE WHO ARE OF A CERTAIN AGE AND WHO GO OUT AND WHO WALK AND WHO DO THOSE THINGS.
WOULD THAT PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS BE DONE ON 33RD TOO AS WELL.
>> ONE THING ON THE PEDESTRIAN ANALYSIS IS IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO WAIT UNTIL THE SIGNAL IS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED.
WE CAN GET PREDATED, BUT ONCE YOU GET THE SIGNAL IMPLEMENTED AND YOU'LL HAVE THE ACTUAL CREWS OPERATING, THEN WE'LL REALLY GET A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE.
IT'S PROBABLY A TWO PHASE. ONE IS JUST TO LOOK AT WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE TODAY, BUT PLAN FOR KNOWING THAT IT'S GOING TO CHANGE ONCE THAT COMES ONLINE AND THEN RE-EVALUATE IT.
>> SECOND QUESTION, THE PAVING YOU REFER TO ON 33RD.
[00:55:01]
>> THE PAVING OF THE STREETS THAT YOU REFER TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT IS ACTUALLY NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS [OVERLAPPING]
THEY'RE GOING TO IMPROVE THAT TO BRING TRAFFIC INTO THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE] WON'T EVEN BE ON THE ARBOR SIDE OF THE TRAFFIC.
>> DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
COUNCIL, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A CLARIFICATION OF OUR ITEMS. LET'S MOVE TO 3B, PLEASE.
>> THREE B, THE DISCUSSION OF THE FY 2025 CITY [OVERLAPPING]
WE HAVE COUNCILMAN [OVERLAPPING]
>> DISCUSSION OF THE FY 2025 CITY OF GALVESTON BUDGET.
>> CAN WE TAKE A BREAK, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE LONG.
>> IT COULD BE SHORT. LET'S TAKE A BREAK.
WE'VE HAD REQUESTS FOR A BREAK.
LET'S RECONVENE AT ABOUT A LITTLE AFTER 10 IF WE COULD, COUNCIL.
WE ARE BACK INTO OUR WORKSHOP SESSION.
GLAD TO HAVE THOSE THAT HUNG ON TO STAY HERE THIS MORNING.
[3.B. Discussion of the FY 2025 City of Galveston Budget (C Ludanyi/City Staff - 1 hour)]
WE ARE NOW MOVING TO ITEM 3B, PLEASE. SHANEL.>> THREE B, DISCUSSION OF THE FY 2025 CITY OF GALVESTON BUDGET.
>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE CHILE ADAN WITH US TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] JUST STARTING AND I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO SHEILA AND LET HER DO HER BIT.
JUST WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING THE CHANGES AND DECISIONS YOU MAKE TODAY IMPACT ALL CITY OPERATIONS.
THE CITY STAFF'S JOB, WE'RE YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF.
WE'RE YOUR PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS ON THIS.
I'M THE BUDGET OFFICER. SHE'S YOUR FINANCE OFFICER.
OUR GOAL WAS TO TRY TO GIVE YOU THE BEST ESTIMATES AND PROJECTIONS AND POTENTIAL OUTCOMES THAT WE CAN AND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE FUND OPERATIONS AND SUSTAIN THE POLICIES AND THE PROGRAMS AND THE SERVICE LEVELS THAT COUNCIL DESIRES.
BUDGET AND THE ASSOCIATED TAX RATE IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING YOU GUYS DO.
PERIOD. BAR NOUN, 85% OF YOUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET IS BASICALLY PERSONNEL AND NON-NEGOTIABLE CONTRACTS OR CONTRACTS THAT ARE ALREADY SET IN STONE.
COUNCIL PLAYS A PIVOTAL ROLE IN THE LARGEST PIECE OF SALARIES.
AS YOU HAVE SOLE APPROVAL OF THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS FOR POLICE AND FIRE.
PUBLIC SAFETY ALONE IS 76% OF ALL YOUR GENERAL FUND SALARIES.
HONESTLY, WE DON'T COUNT IT, BUT THE ANIMAL SHELTER IS ACTUALLY PROBABLY PART OF YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF ANIMAL CONTROL.
BUT WE CLASSIFIED SEPARATELY BECAUSE IT'S A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER, BUT IT WOULDN'T DO OUR DOG CATCHERS WHOLE A LOT OF GOOD IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A PLACE TO TAKE THE ANIMALS.
THIS IS GOING TO BE, I THINK I TRY TO DO MY COUNT, MY 32ND OR 33RD PUBLIC BUDGET THAT I'VE WORKED ON IN MY CAREER.
THIS BEEN BY FAR THE MOST DIFFICULT, MAYBE NOT MATHEMATICALLY, BUT CERTAINLY OTHERWISE.
NEVER IN OUR RECENT DECADES, SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, AT LEAST, HAS THE CITY BEEN IN SUCH GOOD FINANCIAL HEALTH, HAS HAD SUCH ADEQUATE RESERVES.
HAS PUBLIC SAFETY STAFF HAS BEEN PAID AT MARKET OR AHEAD OF MARKET IN SOME AREAS.
WE HAVE PROBABLY ONE OF OUR NEWEST AND MOST ROBUST FLEETS AND A SPECIAL EQUIPMENT THAT'S NEEDED TO DO THE JOBS THAT OUR GUYS HAVE TO DO AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN HAVE TO DO.
I WOULD GUARANTEE WE HAVE THE MOST CREDENTIALED AND COMPETENT STAFF IN OUR CITY'S HISTORY, AND THAT'S COLLECTIVELY SPEAKING ACROSS ENTIRE CITY BUDGET.
YOU PROBABLY HAVE ONE OF THE MOST ROBUST CAPITAL AND GROWTH PLANS OF ANY CITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS GIVEN THE CITY OUR SIZE.
STAFF LIVES IN THE DOLLAR IN CENTS WORLD.
DOING A GOVERNMENTAL BUDGET, THERE'S A POLITICAL COMPONENT, WHICH IS INTANGIBLE IN TERMS OF OPERATING OUR CITY, BUT HIGHLY IMPORTANT TO MANY.
WE WANT TO TRY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT.
SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, THE CITY HAS BEEN BLESSED WITH CITY COUNCILS WHO RECOGNIZE THAT THE CITIZENS NEEDS AND ARE ALWAYS KEPT AN EYE TO THE FUTURE.
[01:00:01]
THE BUDGET WE SET TODAY WAS CAST YEARS AGO.THE WORK YOU DO TODAY MAY VERY WELL BE BEYOND YOUR TERMS HERE AT THE CITY AND IMPACT FUTURE GENERATIONS OF STAFF, COUNCILS, AND RESIDENTS.
WHAT YOU DO TODAY IS GOING TO IMPACT PEOPLE WELL BEYOND YOUR TIME HERE AT THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
IT'S HIGHLY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO OUR ABLE BEST TO SERVE OUR RESIDENTS TODAY AND NOT BURDEN FUTURE GENERATIONS AND COUNCILS AND STAFF.
I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT, AND THAT'S WHY YOU WORK SO HARD AT THIS.
STAFF WILL COME TO WORK EACH AND EVERY DAY HERE FOR YOU REGARDLESS OF WHO IS IN YOUR CHAIRS OR MINE, WITH THE RIGHT LEADERSHIP AND FUNDING RESPONSIBILITY, THEY WILL GIVE THEIR ALL TO OUR ISLAND.
WE SHOULD ALL BE VERY PROUD OF OUR WORKERS AND THE WORK THAT THEY DO FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
ANYTHING WE DO, ANY DECISION WE MAKE REGARDING OUR BUDGET OR OUR TAX RATE AFFECTS YOUR FUND BALANCE.
SHEILA HAS SLIDES FOR DAYS THAT SHE'S GOING TO SHOW YOU ABOUT AS MANY DIFFERENT PERMUTATIONS OF OUTCOMES AS YOU CAN POSSIBLY HAVE REGARDING YOUR FUND BALANCES.
AS A SIDE NOTE, I'LL SAY THAT SHEILA IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BEST FINANCIAL PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT THAT I'VE WORKED WITH IN MY 30 YEARS.
THAT INCLUDES MIKE LOFTON, I HOPE MIKE'S WATCHING THIS BECAUSE HE IS HER CREATOR.
[LAUGHTER] I MEAN THAT WITH A WHOLE HEART.
BUT FUND BALANCE IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BASE OF YOUR CREDIT WORTHINESS, WHICH CAN IMPACT CURRENT AND FUTURE CREDIT RATINGS FOR THE CITY, AND IT COULD QUITE POSSIBLY IMPACT YOUR COMPONENT UNITS WHO RELY HEAVILY UPON THE CITY'S CREDIT RATING AND THEIR DEBT FOR FUTURE GROWTH OPPORTUNITIES.
I NEED EVERYBODY TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
FUND BALANCES, MUCH LIKE THE PARK BOARD EXPRESSED IS USED FOR A WHOLE HOST OF OTHER REASONS AS WELL.
WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS HERE TODAY ALREADY ABOUT GRANTS.
MOST OF THESE GRANTS ARE REIMBURSABLE.
OUR FUND BALANCE IS CRITICAL FOR CASH FLOW IN ORDER TO FUND THESE THINGS, THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO KEEP 120 DAYS, SO WE NEVER DROP BELOW 90, BUT WE USE THIS FUND BALANCE ON A REIMBURSEMENT BASIS.
BUT WE ALWAYS WANT TO BE PREPARED IN THE EVENT WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY.
KEEP IN MIND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CITY, THERE'S NOT A DIRECT CONNECTION, BUT THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN YOUR ABILITY TO HAVE YOUR EMERGENCY LOAN AND YOUR FUND BALANCES AND YOUR CREDITWORTHINESS.
I NEED YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND BECAUSE WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THAT EMERGENCY LOAN LIKE IT'S READY CASH, AND IT'S NOT IMPACTED BY SOME OF OUR DECISIONS.
I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR CANDIDNESS DURING THIS BUDGET.
I THINK WE ALL NEED TO WORK HARD FOR A BETTER HOME FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
WE'VE MADE TREMENDOUS PROGRESS, AND I KNOW YOU WILL ALL DO ALL YOU CAN TO NOT SLOW AND HINDER OUR GREAT CITY AND THE GROWTH AND THE GREAT PROGRESS THAT WE'VE MADE.
I SHUT UP NOW AND LET SHEILA GET ON WITH HER PRESENTATION, BUT I JUST WANTED TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND CONCERNS REGARDING THE BUDGET.
STAFF IS HERE TO SUPPORT YOU WITH WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IS TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, BRIAN. APPRECIATE THAT. SHEILA.
>> GOOD MORNING. IS EVERYBODY READY TO HEAR IT ALL AGAIN? [LAUGHTER] THERE WE GO. JUST TO RECAP.
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET FOR THREE MONTHS NOW, AND WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT LONG RANGE FORECASTS.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS, THE CIP, PROPERTY TAX RATE, AND A LITTLE BIT OF HOW IT ALL COMES TOGETHER.
THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS PROVIDED TO COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC ON AUGUST 7TH AND PRESENTED ON AUGUST 8TH, SO THAT'S BEEN ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO, AND WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS SINCE THEN.
AT OUR LAST MEETING A WEEK AGO, WE DEFERRED DECISION ON THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE RATIFICATION.
THEN WE WILL ALSO HAVE THE TAX RATE ADOPTION TODAY.
ALL THREE OF THOSE ITEMS ARE SCHEDULED FOR TODAY, AND THERE ARE LEGAL RESTRICTIONS WHICH PRETTY MUCH REQUIRE ACTION ON THEM TODAY AS WELL.
DON AND I CAN PROVIDE YOU MORE INFORMATION AS WE GO THROUGH THESE SLIDES TO LET YOU KNOW.
ESSENTIALLY, WE'VE ARRIVED. IT'S THE BIG DAY.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT DAY IN THE CITY'S FUTURE FOR THE NEXT YEAR AND THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO.
JUST TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT LEGALLY WHAT THE GUARD RAILS ARE FOR WHAT WE ARE DOING TODAY.
THE ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET IS CONTROLLED BY THE CHARTER, SPECIFICALLY, ARTICLE 7, THE FINANCE SECTION 8, AS WELL AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 102.
BUT SPECIFIC TO WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY AS FAR AS THE CHARTER IS CONCERNED, THE CHARTER TELLS US THAT THE COUNCIL SHALL APPROVE AND ADOPT A BUDGET ON THE SECOND OR BY THE SECOND REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, THAT'S TODAY.
[01:05:05]
IT CAN BE IN THE FORM AS SUBMITTED OR COUNCIL CAN MAKE CHANGES AS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE.NO BUDGET SHALL BE ADOPTED OR APPROPRIATION MADE UNLESS THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR EQUAL OR EXCEED THE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES.
OBVIOUSLY, IT REQUIRES A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
IN THE EVENT THAT THE BUDGET IS NOT ADOPTED, THE LATEST BUDGET PROPOSED BY THE CITY MANAGER SHALL TAKE EFFECT AND REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL A BUDGET IS FINALLY ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.
THE SECOND PIECE THAT HAPPENS TODAY IS THE RATIFICATION OF THE TAX RATE, WHICH IS OUTLINED IN TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 102, SECTION 102.007(C).
ESSENTIALLY WHAT IT SAYS HERE IS THAT ANY BUDGET THAT REQUIRES RAISING MORE REVENUE FROM PROPERTY TAXES THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, REQUIRES A SEPARATE VOTE OF THE GOVERNING BODY TO RATIFY THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET, SO WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT.
THE VOTE UNDER THIS SUBSECTION IS IN ADDITION TO AND SEPARATE FROM THE VOTE TO ADOPT THE BUDGET OR THE VOTE TO SET THE TAX RATE.
I KNOW IT SEEMS A LITTLE REDUNDANT, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE CODE SAYS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
FINALLY, THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX RATE IS CONTROLLED BY TEXAS TAX CODE, CHAPTER 26.
THE WHOLE CHAPTER 26 IS RELATED TO THIS, BUT SPECIFIC TO THE ADOPTION ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE TO OCCUR, 26.05 A AND C. THE GOVERNING BODY MUST ADOPT A TAX RATE BEFORE THE LATER OF SEPTEMBER 30TH OR THE 60TH DAY AFTER THE CERTIFIED APPRAISAL ROLE IS RECEIVED.
THE RATE CONSISTS OF TWO COMPONENTS THAT'S REFLECTED IN THE ORDINANCE, THE DEBT SERVICE RATE AND THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION RATE.
FINALLY, IF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE TAXING UNIT DOES NOT ADOPT A TAX RATE BY THE DATE REQUIRED, THE TAX RATE FOR THE TAXING UNIT FOR THAT TAX YEAR IS THE LOWER OF THE NO NEW REVENUE OR THE TAX RATE ADOPTED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR.
IN OUR CASE, THAT WOULD BE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
A RATE ESTABLISHED BY THIS SUBSECTION.
IF YOU FALL TO THAT NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THEN IT IS TREATED AS THE ADOPTED TAX RATE, AND ON THE FIFTH DAY AFTER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THIS RATE, WHICH WOULD BE SEPTEMBER 30TH, OCTOBER 1ST, THERE NEEDS TO BE A SUBSEQUENT MEETING TO RATIFY THAT TAX RATE.
>> I HATE TO INTERRUPT. ON THE CHARTER SECTION WHERE IT SAYS BY THE SECOND REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, THE SPECIAL MEETING THAT WE HAD LAST WEEK, IS THAT CONSIDERED A REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING?
>> WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.
>> DON. WE HAD A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING ON THE 12TH.
>> THAT WAS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THIS IS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> RIGHT. WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON THAT, DON?
>> I THINK THAT WAS A SPECIAL MEETING THAT YOU CALLED, AND THE CHARTER HEARKENS BACK TO THE DAY WHEN YOU HAD TWO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS A MONTH.
I WOULD SAY THAT THERE HAVE NOT BEEN TWO REGULAR MEETINGS OF CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER, INCLUDING THIS ONE.
>> THERE HAS NOT BEEN TWO MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
WE'VE HAD THE 12TH ON THE AGENDA WAS POSTED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.
>> THE CHARTER SAYS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
DON, WHAT ARE YOU SAYING TO US FROM A COUNCIL STANDPOINT?
>> I THINK I JUST SAID, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE HAVE BEEN TWO REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS.
>> WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING THAT WE NEED TO?
>> IT WOULDN'T BE A REGULAR MEETING, IF YOU DID IT, WOULD IT.
>> WELL, WE CAN DO IT TODAY, BUT WE HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING IT IN ANOTHER MEETING SCHEDULED IN SEPTEMBER.
>> ON THE 20TH [OVERLAPPING] REGULAR MEETING.
>> ACCEPT THAT UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, TODAY IS THE SEVENTH DAY AFTER THE PUBLIC.
YOU HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN YOU HAD SEPTEMBER 12TH MEETING.
YOU HAD SEVEN DAYS TO TAKE ACTION.
>> BACK TO ALEX, WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHT, ALEX?
>> I JUST THINK IT WAS SHORT SIGHTED NOT TO HAVE
[01:10:03]
AT LEAST TWO REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS IN SEPTEMBER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET.>> I JUST THINK IT WAS SHORT SIGHTED.
I READ THE CODES, AND IT'S LIKE WE COULD HAVE HAD EXTRA OPPORTUNITY, EXTRA MEETING.
>> WE DID HAVE THE EXTRA MEETING, BUT WE DIDN'T CALL IT A REGULAR MEETING, WE CALLED IT A SPECIAL MEETING FOR WHATEVER REASON, BUT WE DID HAVE A NUMBER OF MEETING.
>> IT SAYS AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE 12TH WAS THE TAX RATE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> ARE YOU PROPOSING, ALEX, THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING?
>> THE TAX CODE SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO NOTICE THE TAX RATE PUBLIC HEARING, AND YOU HAVE TO FROM THAT PUBLIC HEARING, YOU HAVE TO VOTE WITHIN SEVEN DAYS IF YOU DON'T RE-NOTICE.
ESSENTIALLY, YOU CAN'T VOTE ON A TAX RATE UNTIL YOU ADOPT A BUDGET LEGALLY.
IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE TAX RATE, YOU MUST ADOPT A BUDGET TODAY.
>> WE CAN'T ADOPT A BUDGET IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A ACCOMPANYING TAX RATE THAT CAN FILL THE REVENUES.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. WELL, WE'VE PROPOSED IT WITH A TAX RATE THAT WILL PROVIDE THE REVENUES.
THE PROPOSED BUDGET YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY HAS THE REVENUE SUFFICIENT TO MATCH THE EXPENDITURES IN THE BUDGET.
>> JANELLE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
WE WOULD HAVE TIME TO DO ANOTHER PUBLIC NOTICE AND HAVE A MEETING IN THE TIMELINE THAT STILL MEETS THE STATE STATUTE OR LAW OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT?
>> IT WOULD BE TIGHT, BUT YES, YOU WOULD.
>> BUT WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME.
>> IT WOULD BE PROBABLY THE 30TH, JUST QUICK MATH.
>> YOU HAVE TO NOTICE FOR FIVE DAYS.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THE NOTICE FOR FIVE DAYS HAS TO BE BUSINESS DAYS OR NOT, PROBABLY NOT.
>> THE NOTICE HAS TO BE PUBLISHED FOR FIVE DAYS BEFORE YOU CAN HAVE THAT MEETING.
>> WE COULD PUBLISH A NOTICE TODAY OR TOMORROW, HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEEK.
IT WOULD MEET BOTH THE FIVE DAYS.
>> IT HAS TO BE IN THE NEWSPAPER.
IF WE SUBMIT IT AFTER TODAY'S MEETING, WE COULD GET IT IN THERE EARLY NEXT WEEK.
>> DO WE GET IN FOR THE WEEKEND EDITION?
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF HAVING ANOTHER MEETING?
>> THE PURPOSE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE A TAX RATE THAT WE CAN AGREE ON TO RAISE THE TAX RATE.
I THINK MARIE ROBIN OR ROLLINS HAVE SAID THAT WE DON'T WANT TO RAISE TAXES.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVEN'T LOOKED, MAYBE IT'S IN HERE, BUT I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION, BUT LOOKING AT A TAX RATE, EVEN THAT'S THE SAME THAT HAS EVERYTHING THAT COUNCILS WANTED, THE COST OF LIVING, NOT PUTTING THE COST ON THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND IT'S NOT PRESENTED.
IT'S THE TAX RATE INCREASE, AND WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT THERE'S THREE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO RAISE TAX INCREASE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S PROBABLY MORE.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE WASTING THE TAXPAYER'S TIME DOING THIS INSTEAD OF FIGURING OUT THE NEXT STEP ON HOW WE CAN GET TO A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. THAT'S MY OPINION.
>> I'M HAPPY TO MOVE THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.
>> GO AHEAD. WE CAN GET TO THAT DISCUSSION LATER.
>> I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE QUESTION THAT HE ASKED.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF THE BUDGET DOES NOT PASS, THEN IT REVERTS BACK TO THE NO NEW REVENUE.
>> NO. IF THE BUDGET IS NOT VOTED ON, THEN IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY PROCEED AS A PROPOSED BUDGET UNTIL COUNCIL ADOPTS A BUDGET.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE WOULD WORK AND BRIAN WOULD BRING BACK ANOTHER BUDGET AT SOME POINT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
BUT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD INTO OCTOBER 1ST WITH THE PROPOSED BUDGET.
HOWEVER, STATE LAW SAYS YOU CANNOT VOTE ON A TAX RATE UNTIL YOU HAVE ADOPTED A BUDGET.
COUNCIL WOULD BE UNABLE TO CONTEMPLATE THE TAX RATE AT ALL IF THEY DON'T APPROVE A BUDGET.
>> THAT CAN BE PROLONGED IF COUNCIL DOES NOT APPROVE A BUDGET.
>> IF COUNCIL DOESN'T APPROVE A BUDGET BY THE END OF THE MONTH, IT AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO THE NO NEW REVENUE.
>> IF COUNCIL DOESN'T APPROVE A BUDGET-
>> IT GOES TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET.
[01:15:01]
>> YES. IF THEY CAN'T APPROVE A TAX RATE THEN.
>> THEN AT THE END OF THE MONTH, IT WOULD REVERT TO THE NO NEW REVENUE.
>> SINCE WE'RE GOING CLARIFICATION, WHAT IF THE COUNCIL PASSES, SAY, THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET, BUT NOT THE TAX RATE TO SUPPORT IT?
>> WELL, ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE WOULD WAIT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THAT TAX RATE SETTING PROCESS THROUGH THE END OF THE MONTH AND IF IT REVERTED TO THE NO NEW REVENUE, WE WOULD COME BACK AND AMEND THE BUDGET, ACCORDING TO THE NEW REVENUE SOURCES.
>> IF I HAVE A BUDGET WITH A NOTICED RATE APPENDED TO IT AND YOU ONLY NEED FOUR VOTES TO DO THAT.
UNDER THE TAX CODE, HOWEVER, YOU NEED FIVE VOTES.
LET'S SAY YOU DON'T ADOPT THE TAX RATE WITH FIVE VOTES AND YOU DON'T DO IT BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30TH, AND WE'RE AUTOMATICALLY IN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
AT THAT POINT, MR. MAXWELL HAS TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO COME INTO CONFORMITY WITH NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
>> WE STILL HAVE TO APPROVE THE BUDGET.
LET'S TAKE TODAY, WE HAVE DOWN FOR A BUDGET APPROVAL.
THIS COUNCIL CAN APPROVE THE BUDGET AS STATED AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TODAY TO THE TAX RATE, THIS COUNCIL HAS THE CHOICE OF APPROVING A TAX RATE THAT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE BUDGET THAT IS APPROVED.
>> WE'RE IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER.
>> JUST ONE SECOND. IF WE DO THAT, THEN THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, STAFF HAS TO COME BACK WITH AN AMENDED BUDGET THAT SUPPORTS THE TAX RATE THAT THE COUNCIL HAS APPROVED.
COUNCILMAN PORRETTO IS SAYING WE CANNOT DO THAT.
>> WE CAN, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY ADOPTED.
NO BUDGET SHALL BE ADOPTED OR APPROPRIATION MADE UNLESS THE ANTICIPATED REVENUES FISCAL YEAR EQUAL OR EXCEED THE AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES. IT'S A DOUBLE EDGE DECISION.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. IF COUNCIL APPROVES FOR SAKE OF DISCUSSION A 42 CENT BUDGET AS PROPOSED BY STAFF TODAY, AND THEN THE TAX RATE THAT IS APPROVED IS LESS THAN THE 42 CENTS.
THEN THAT BUDGET HAS TO COME BACK.
STAFF HAS TO REWORK THE BUDGET TO FIT UNDER THAT TAX RATE AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, AND THAT CAN BE DONE TODAY.
>> YOU CAN'T BRING IT BACK TODAY.
IF YOU APPROVE A BUDGET TODAY, THE AMENDMENT WOULD COME PROBABLY AT THE OCTOBER COUNCIL MEETING.
YOU CANNOT GET ALL THAT DONE TODAY.
>> NO. YOU CAN'T DO IT TODAY BUT BRIAN WOULD BRING BACK TO US THEN AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, AN AMENDED BUDGET FOR APPROVAL.
>> BUT WE ALSO CAN NOT APPROVE THE BUDGET TODAY.
IT ISN'T WE HAVE TO APPROVE THE BUDGET TODAY BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD HOW MANY HOURS OF MEETINGS, AND WE HAVE STATED OUR CONCERNS AND YET THE SAME THINGS.
MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING NEW INSTEAD OF GOING AFTER THE EMPLOYEES CALL LOG OR GOING AFTER THE HEALTHCARE.
MAYBE THEY HAVE LOOKED AT OTHER OPTIONS.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING THE OTHER OPTION IS NOT TO APPROVE.
>> WELL, I WANT TO MOVE THIS FORWARD IN A MANNER THAT WE KNOW THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TO GET TO AN END POINT HERE.
I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO COUNCILMAN PORRETTO'S THOUGHTS.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT HE IS REQUESTING.
WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING, ALEX IS THAT YOU WANT TO PUT THIS OFF BECAUSE YOU WANT TO SEE A BUDGET THAT IS BASED UPON A DIFFERENT TAX RATE IS ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
>> AN ACCOMPANYING TAX RATE WITH IT.
I WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT.
BUT LET JANELLE GO THROUGH IT AND THEN WE CAN [INAUDIBLE]
>> TO DO THAT I WOULD REALLY REQUEST THAT I GET SOME DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY, NOT JUST INDIVIDUALLY.
OTHERWISE, I WOULD HAVE SEVEN DIFFERENT TAX RATES AND SEVEN DIFFERENT BUDGETS.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT COUNCIL SPEAK WITH ONE VOICE, AND STAFF WILL DO WHATEVER COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY DIRECTS US TO DO.
>> JANELLE, CAN YOU PLEASE PRINT OUT ALL OF OUR INDIVIDUAL REQUEST THAT WE SENT?
>> INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS ARE FINE.
IF COUNCIL WANTED TO DO THAT, I WOULD NEED SOME TYPE OF DIRECTION.
>> WE CAN DISCUSS IT TOGETHER AND GIVE HIM A DIRECTION TO DO IT.
[01:20:01]
>> SOME TYPE OF VOTE FROM COUNCIL, PLEASE.
>> CORRECT. FIRST OF ALL, JANELLE?
>> WOULD YOU PRINT OUT THE REQUEST? WE HAD A DEADLINE FOR TUESDAY AT NOON TO HAVE THESE REQUESTS IN.
COUNCILMAN BROWN, COUNCILMAN PORRETTO, YOU GOT THOSE IN ON TIME.
>> WE HAD ONE TRICKLE IN THIS MORNING AND WE CAME OUT LAST NIGHT.
ONE CAME IN AFTER THE DEADLINE.
LET'S PRINT ALL THOSE OUT, AND LET'S GET THOSE TO COUNCIL, IF YOU COULD, JANELLE.
>> I'D LIKE TO DO THAT WHILE WE'RE HERE.
>> NOW, GO RIGHT AHEAD, JANELLE.
>> THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT WE HAVE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL OVER THE COURSE OF THE SUMMER MAINTAINS CURRENT SERVICE LEVELS.
IT UPHOLDS THE CITY'S COMMITMENT OF ACHIEVING AND SUPPORTING FUND BALANCE OF 120 DAYS TO ENSURE OPERATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY DURING A DISASTER.
THE END OF FISCAL YEAR '25 AS PRESENTED IN THE BUDGET, HAS 106 DAYS.
IT IS OBVIOUSLY BELOW THE 120, BUT IT IS STRIVING FOR THAT AND THIS IS LARGELY IMPACTED BY THE SALES TAX RECEIPTS DURING THE COURSE OF '24, NOT COMING IN AS PROJECTED.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I FOLLOW THE STATE SALES TAX, AND I KNOW THEY DO AS PROJECTED.
WHAT NUMBERS DID YOU RECEIVE VERSUS WHERE ARE YOU ON THAT?
>> WE'RE ABOUT 100 OR 101.2 MILLION BELOW WHERE WE BUDGETED TO BE.
>> ARE YOU LOOKING AT THROUGH SEPTEMBER, OR YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE LATEST NUMBERS THEY WERE RELATED?
>> WE'RE LOOKING AT THROUGH WHAT WAS RECEIVED IN SEPTEMBER.
THE SEPTEMBER SALES TAX WAS ABOUT 18% DOWN YEAR OVER YEAR FROM WHERE IT WAS LAST YEAR.
BUT OVERALL, FOR THE ENTIRE FISCAL YEAR SO FAR, WE'RE ABOUT 1.2 MILLION SHY OF WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED TO ACHIEVE.
>> THE AUGUST NUMBERS WERE WHAT? BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE STATE SITE THAT I'M LOOKING AT, THEY WERE HIGHER THAN LAST YEAR.
>> I HAVEN'T REVIEWED IT THIS MORNING, SO I CAN SEND OUT THE REPORT.
>> THOSE ARE PROJECTIONS FROM THE STATE AND THEY'RE BASED ON STATE WIDE TRENDS THEY'RE NOT SPECIFIC TO GALVESTON.
>> THOSE ARE JUST PROJECTIONS BASED ON PREVIOUS YEARS.
>> ESSENTIALLY, WE SET A BUDGET, AND WE'RE TRYING TO REACH AN END GOAL.
THE FULL AMOUNT IF WE ACHIEVE IT DURING THE YEAR, WE DON'T CARE WHAT MONTH WE GET IT IN.
FOR THE YEAR, WE'RE DOWN THAT 1.2 MILLION.
BUT WE ALSO DO MONTH TO MONTH COMPARISONS BOTH YEAR OVER YEAR AND OVER A LONGER TREND LINE, AND IN THOSE AREAS, WE HAVE BEEN BEHIND MOST OF THE MONTHS IN FISCAL YEAR '24.
I'M HAPPY TO SEND OUT THAT REPORT, BUT I WOULD SAY OF THE NINE OR 10 MONTHS WE'VE HAD SO FAR, SEVEN OF THEM OR SIX OF THEM HAVE BEEN LESS THAN WE PROJECTED, THEY SHOULD BE OR WOULD BE BASED ON LAST YEAR'S COLLECTION.
>> YOU JUST SAID THAT JULY WAS DOWN 40%, BUT IT WAS MUCH LESS THAN THAT.
>> HUT TAX WAS DOWN 45%, AND WE RECEIVED THAT FIRST SO IT'S A LEADING INDICATOR.
LUCKILY WE WEREN'T DOWN, THAT 45%, BUT IT WAS INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT WE WERE LOWER THAN WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO BE.
>> NOW, IN THAT COMMENT YOU MADE, SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, WHEN THIS SALES TAX AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR COMES DOWN, SAY IT'S 1.5, THAT MONEY IS COMING OUT OF FUND BALANCE.
>> CORRECT. THAT IS WHY WE'RE NOT AT THE 114 DAYS THAT WE WOULD HAVE LIKED TO BE AT.
BUT SO IN CONSIDERATION OF HURRICANE BERYL, WE'RE PROJECTING WE'RE GOING TO BE AT ABOUT 101 DAYS AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR '25.
THE CURRENT FUND BALANCE THAT WE HAD FOR FISCAL YEAR '24 IS THE REASON THAT OUR SITUATION IS SOUND RIGHT NOW, AND WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO MAKE THE CHOICES WE'RE MAKING TODAY.
IF WE HAD HAD A FUND BALANCE OF 90 DAYS, FOR FISCAL YEAR '24, THEN WE WOULD BE HAVING A VERY DIFFERENT BUDGET CONVERSATION TODAY BECAUSE BERYL WOULD HAVE PULLED US BELOW THAT 90 DAYS, AND THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTED BOTH OUR TRANSFER TO THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT SERVICE FUND AND OUR CHARTER REQUIREMENT TO BRING US BACK UP TO THAT 90 DAYS.
ESSENTIALLY THAT 30 DAYS THAT WE'RE BUDGETING HOPEFULLY TO 120 AT SOME POINT, BUT OVER THAT 90 DAYS GIVES US THE CUSHION TO RESPOND AND STAY ALIGNED WITH THE CHARTER REQUIREMENTS.
ADDITIONALLY, AS BRIAN MENTIONED EARLIER, FUND BALANCE IS A SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY'S CREDITWORTHINESS, AND POTENTIALLY BOND RATINGS IMPACTING THE COST OF BORROWING.
[01:25:05]
THIS WAS NOTED WHEN WE DID OUR RATINGS REPORT WITH FITCH AS WELL.FUND BALANCE IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY CONTINUE TO LOOK AT, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE A COASTAL CITY.
THE BUDGET ALSO PROVIDES COST OF LIVING INCREASES TO ALL CITY EMPLOYEES COMING OUT OF OUR MEETING ON THE 9TH.
HOWEVER, THIS HAS LIMITED OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A LOWER TAX RATE.
THAT INCREASE TO THE 5% REQUIRES, ESSENTIALLY, THAT IN ORDER TO BALANCE THE BUDGET, THAT TAX RATE BE MAINTAINED AT WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED.
THE BUDGET BALANCES RECURRING EXPENDITURES, SUCH AS SALARIES, CBA COMMITMENTS, THAT THING, WITH RECURRING REVENUE.
WE'RE NOT PUTTING THE CITY IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE AN ONGOING COMMITMENT AND THE REVENUE IS NO LONGER THERE TO SUSTAIN IT.
FINALLY, TO CONFIRM THIS PROPOSED BUDGET INCLUDES A TOTAL TAX RATE OF THE 0.428382.
JUST TO PROVIDE YOU WITH A TAX RATE COMPARISON AGAIN, TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE GALVESTON SITS WITH OTHER LOCAL COMMUNITIES SPECIFICALLY GALVESTON COUNTY.
FOR LAST YEAR'S FISCAL YEAR, WE WERE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE.
SEVERAL COMMUNITIES HAVE INCREASED TAXES ALREADY.
WE KNOW FRIENDSWOOD INCREASE TAXES.
I DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS ON ALL THE COMMUNITIES YET BECAUSE EVERYONE'S IN THE PROCESS.
BUT WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT GALVESTON IS REALLY GOING TO MOVE OUT OF THAT MIDDLE SLOT BASED ON THE TRENDS IN THE COUNTY.
>> CONSIDERING, WE HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF NEW CONSTRUCTIVE GROWTH OF ANY OF THOSE CITIES, EXCEPT FOR JAMAICA BEACH, PROBABLY, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD.
BAYOU VISTA, THEY DON'T HAVE A LOT OF LOTS.
>> JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE VARIOUS TAX RATES WE'VE DISCUSSED AS THEY COMPARE TO THE TAX RATES WE'VE HAD IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR YEARS.
YOU'LL SEE THAT THE PROPOSED TAX RATE IS THE SECOND FROM THE RIGHT AT THE 428382.
THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE IS TO THE RIGHT OF THAT.
IF WE MAINTAIN THE TAX RATE, IT'S DIRECTLY TO THE LEFT, AND THEN THE FY 25 NO NEW REVENUE IS NEXT TO THAT.
YOU'LL SEE HOW THOSE FOUR TAX RATES ON THE RIGHT THAT HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT DURING THIS BUDGET SEASON COMPARE TO THE TAX RATES THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED THE LAST FOUR YEARS FOR GALVESTON.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I THINK AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THIS DISCUSSION, WE MIGHT WANT TO ANSWER IS, THESE ARE THE TAX RATES THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO SOME EXTENT.
WE ARE UNABLE TO GO HIGHER THAN THAT GRAY COLUMN, THE PROPOSED RATE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE NOTICED THAT.
THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE IS OFF THE TABLE ENTIRELY, OBVIOUSLY.
THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THE CURRENT TAX RATE AT THE 408850, AND THEN A TAX RATE HALFWAY IN BETWEEN THE 4283 AND THE 4088.
YOU'LL SEE THE INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE FROM TAX RATE TO TAX RATE? THEN YOU SEE THE ESTIMATED REVENUE GENERATED FROM THAT TAX RATE AND WHAT THE REVENUE INCREASE IS.
TO GO FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE TO THE CURRENT RATE THAT WE HAVE, HOLDING IT FLAT, BRINGS THE CITY $2 MILLION IN REVENUE.
IF WE GO UP HALFWAY TO THE PROPOSED RATE, THAT WILL BRING YOU ANOTHER 1.1 MILLION, AND THEN FINALLY, THE PROPOSED RATE BRINGS YOU AN ADDITIONAL 1.1 MILLION.
THE GAP BETWEEN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND THE PROPOSED RATE IS A LITTLE OVER $4 MILLION AND I CAN'T GIVE YOU EVERY RATE IN BETWEEN, BUT THIS GIVES YOU SOME IDEA OF WHAT YOUR OPTIONS COULD BE AND WHAT KIND OF GAP YOU WOULD HAVE TO FILL IN WITH OTHER REVENUE.
JUST TO TALK ABOUT GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, AND WE LOOKED AT THIS SLIDE LAST TIME, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR ON ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
LESS THAN 7% OF GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ARE NOT TIED TO PEOPLE IN CONTRACTS.
YOU'LL SEE PERSONNEL SERVICES IS 69% OF THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET.
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES, WHICH INCLUDES ISLAND TRANSIT, COMPUTERS AND TECHNOLOGY, EMS, GARAGE, FLEET, AND THE JUSTICE CENTER, THERE'S ADDITIONAL OBVIOUSLY, AS WELL, BUT THOSE ARE THE BIG ITEMS IN THIS CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PIECE OF THE PI IS 15%.
OPERATING TRANSFERS IS 9%, AND 6.6 MILLION OF THAT IS YOUR CHARTER REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT SERVICE TRANSFER, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A TRANSFER TO THE SEPARATION FUND.
THESE REMAINING FOUR SLIVERS OF THE PIE,
[01:30:01]
MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES OF 4%, CAPITAL OUTLAY 1%, AND THAT'S PREDOMINANTLY FLEET FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, SPECIAL EVENTS AND PROGRAMS AT 1% AND OTHER CHARGES AND SERVICES AT 1%.THOSE ITEMS ARE ESSENTIALLY THE ITEMS THAT ARE SOMEWHAT NEGOTIABLE AND DON'T IMPACT CURRENT EMPLOYEES.
ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE'RE TOUCHING WILL HAVE AN IMPACT IN ESSENTIALLY SOME ATTRITION, HIRING FREEZES, OR IT'S PEOPLE.
I CAN ANSWER FURTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, BUT I JUST WANT US TO UNDERSTAND ESSENTIALLY WHAT PIECE OF THE PIE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHERE CUTS COULD POTENTIALLY BE MADE.
WE ALSO WANTED TO GIVE YOU ANOTHER LOOK AT OUR REVENUE AS THEY COMPARE TO OUR MAJOR EXPENDITURES.
THIS SLIDE SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS TO THE TWO LARGEST SOURCES OF REVENUE, WHICH ARE PROPERTY TAX, AND THIS IS SHOWING IT AT THE PROPOSED RATE AND SALES TAX AS WE'RE PROJECTING IT FOR NEXT YEAR, WHICH IS WE'RE PROJECTING AT A 1% INCREASE, BASED ON ACTUALS THIS YEAR.
>> THAT'S A BIG IF. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA, THAT PROPERTY TAX REVENUE AT THE PROPOSED RATE, EXISTING VALUE IS BRINGING US THE 47.1 MILLION, AND NEW CONSTRUCTION AT THE PROPOSED RATE IS BRINGING US ABOUT $912,000.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, WITHOUT HUGE GROWTH IN GALVESTON, WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ONLY GOING TO BE BRINGING US ABOUT $1 MILLION A YEAR.
THESE TWO REVENUE SOURCES MAKE UP 85.6% OF YOUR GENERAL FUND REVENUE, THAT 70.9 MILLION, AND THAT'S SHOWN IN THAT TOP PIE CHART, THE TWO DARK BLUE SECTIONS ARE YOUR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX AND SALES TAX.
ALL OTHER REVENUE IS ONLY BRINGING YOU ABOUT 23%.
YOUR LARGEST USE OF ALL GENERAL FUND REVENUE IS YOUR PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP.
YOU SEE HERE, POLICE, FIRE, EMS, CITY MARSHAL, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
THE TOTAL COST OF THESE PUBLIC SAFETY GROUPS ARE 50.8 MILLION.
THIS TAKES UP 71.6% OF JUST THOSE TWO MAJOR SOURCES OF REVENUE.
IT USES UP ALL YOUR PROPERTY TAX AND HALF OF YOUR SALES TAX.
THOSE ROYAL BLUE SECTIONS, PROBABLY THAT'S A BETTER NAME, AND HOW THEY CORRESPOND TO EACH OTHER IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THERE'S JUST NOT THAT MANY OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE TO SUSTAIN THESE OTHER SMALLER THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING PUBLIC WORKS, PARKS, DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, NON DEPARTMENTAL INCLUDES THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT SERVICE FUND TRANSFER AND YOUR FINANCE GROUP.
YOU'LL SEE THAT IF WE GO BACK AND WE LOOK AT JUST THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE BROUGHT IN BY PROPERTY TAXES, THESE ARE FULL DEPARTMENTS.
SO YOU COULD GET RID OF A FULL DEPARTMENT.
FINANCE IS 2.8 MILLION, AND THE FIRST STEP BETWEEN THOSE TWO TAX RATES IS THAT $2 MILLION.
I'M NOT PROPOSING YOU GET RID OF FINANCE BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE DOING GREAT THINGS FOR GALVESTON, BUT THERE'S JUST NOT THAT MANY ITEMS THAT CAN BE CUT TO GET TO A LOWER EXPENDITURE LEVEL.
>> IT WOULD TAKE NEW REVENUE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, GIVEN YOUR CONTRACTUAL AND SALARY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS THAT YOU'VE MADE.
>> TO THAT POINT, I BELIEVE WE HAVE INFORMATION THAT THE PORT HAS NOT COMMITTED TO ANYTHING AT THIS POINT YET, AND THAT'S STILL AN ONGOING CONVERSATION, SO THAT'S NOT A REVENUE SOURCE THAT WE'VE INCORPORATED IN HERE.
PORT BOARD DID VOTE YESTERDAY AT A SPECIAL MEETING AND THEY VOTED ON $300,000, ALTHOUGH 75 OF THAT WAS RELATED TO CITY REVENUE THAT WE HAVE HERE.
ONLY 225 OF IT WAS REALLY NEW TO THOSE.
>> LET ME EXPLAIN THE PORT SITUATION HERE.
THERE WAS A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING ON THAT.
THE PORT HAD A MEETING YESTERDAY MORNING.
THERE WAS TWO DISCUSSIONS, THE CONCEPT OF GIVING MONEY AND HELPING THE CITY WITH THEIR BUDGET, AND SECOND OF ALL, THE PROCESS.
THERE WERE SOME INDIVIDUALS ON THE PORT'S BOARD THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONCEPT IN GENERAL OF TRANSFERRING MONIES TO THE CITY AT THIS TIME, MAINLY BECAUSE THERE'S $300 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS ONGOING AT THE PORT RIGHT NOW, AND THEY ARE IN THE BEGINNING PHASES, AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN BEEN HIT WITH COST OVERRUNS OR ANY INCREASES OF THOSE.
[01:35:05]
THERE WERE SOME TRUSTEES THAT FELT THE WHOLE CONCEPT, THEY WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IT MORE THOUGHT.THE MAIN CONCERN WAS THE PROCESS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE PORT VOTED.
THEY ARE NOT AGAINST ASSISTING WITH THE CITY, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO GET A FORMAL REQUEST FROM ALL OF CITY COUNCIL WITH THE VOTE, THIS REQUEST NEEDS TO COME FROM CITY COUNCIL.
>> I TAKE EXCEPTION TO BOARD MEMBER YARBOROUGH'S SUMMATION THAT THIS WAS TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHAT WAS THE WORDS HE USED? THE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS STARTING A FIRE TO PUT OUT THE FIRE TO LOOK LIKE HEROES.
THAT WAS VERBATIM WHAT HE SAID.
I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THAT AND MAYOR, I'M SORRY.
YOU SHOULD HAVE STOOD UP FOR YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, BECAUSE ALL THAT RHETORIC DOES IS CAUSE PAIN AND DISSENTION AND MISTRUST AND NOT WORKING TOGETHER BETWEEN THE PORT AND CITY COUNCIL.
>> I THINK YOU CAN TAKE THAT UP WITH TRUSTEE YARBOROUGH.
BUT I THINK WHAT GOT THIS OFF IN THE PORTS BOARD'S FEELING IS THE PROCESS THAT WENT ON.
IT WOULD BE LIKE TWO PORT BOARD TRUSTEES COMING TO BRIAN, SAYING, BRIAN, WE NEED X TO BE DONE BY THE CITY OVER AT THE PORT AND ROGER REESE HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS, THE BOARD HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS, AND THE CHAIRMAN HAVING NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS, AND BRIAN PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA TO BE VOTED ON BY COUNSEL.
THE CONCEPT, I THINK HAS MERIT.
WHAT IS THE CONCERN IS THE PROCESS THAT WENT ON.
>> WELL, MY CONCERN AND THE REASON WHY I WENT OVER THERE WAS BECAUSE I WAS TOLD THAT YOU TOLD SEVERAL PORT TRUSTEES AND ROGER THAT ME AND BO ROLLINS WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE THE PORT'S REVENUE.
WE GOT PLENTY OF PHONE CALLS ABOUT THAT, AND I WENT TO GO CLEAN UP THAT MESS, PUT THAT FIRE OUT, AND I DID IT.
THROUGH THAT DISCUSSION, ROGER REESE SAID, THERE'S PROBABLY SOMETHING I CAN DO.
LET ME TALK WITH VICK, LET ME TALK WITH HIS CHAIRPERSON.
I LEFT IT ALONE BECAUSE I'M NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISCUSS WHAT THE COURT DOES WITH THEIR MONEY.
I'M NOT AT LIBERTY TO DISCUSS AMOUNTS.
HE PUT IT OUT AND I SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M NOT GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE.
YOU SAID IN THE MEETING THAT YOU HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT, BUT A COUPLE OF PORT TRUSTEES SAID YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE OF IT PRIOR TO.
>> HAD KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT, ALEX?
>> POTENTIAL PAYMENT FROM THE PORT TO THE CITY.
>> WE HAVE TALKED WITH A POTENTIAL PAYMENT OF THE PORT TO THE CITY ON A RECURRING BASIS, AND THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN OCTOBER.
THIS COUNCIL IS GOING TO COME TOGETHER.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I NEVER THOUGHT I'D SAY IT, BUT PORT DID A GREAT JOB, AND THE WAY THAT THEY LAID IT OUT WAS FOR PENDING COUNSEL APPROVAL.
WE THEY SAT HERE AND WE ASKED THEM, I THINK COLLECTIVELY WE WOULD ALL WANT ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM THE PORT.
BUT WE DID IT, AND I ASKED PLEASE.
I SAID, PRETTY PLEASE, IF SOMETHING FELL OUT OF THE SKY, IT'D BE GREAT.
THIS IS THE CONSTRAINTS WE'RE WORKING WITH WITH THE CHARTER, WITH THE TODAY'S TAX RATE VOTE, WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET AND I JUST THINK IT WAS A HUGE MISSED OPPORTUNITY THAT WE COULD HAVE GONE, AND JUST THE FACT THAT THAT WAS PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC THAT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS CREATED A FIRE TO PUT IT OUT TO LOOK LIKE HEROES, THAT'S JUST WRONG.
I'M FIGHTING FOR THE TAXPAYERS.
THERE'S NOTHING I'M GETTING FROM [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'D LIKE TO CHIME IN BECAUSE I LISTENED TO THE AUDIO OF THE MEETING, AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR IN THE MEETING THAT YOU WERE THE ONE WHO FELT THAT THE WHOLE COUNCIL NEEDED TO SAY, IT'S OKAY FOR THE COURT TO GIVE US $1 MILLION.
I THINK WE HAVE BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT A 42 CENT TAX RATE.
THE ONLY OPTIONS WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN EVERY MEETING IS HOW IT WILL AFFECT PEOPLE.
USUALLY IT'S THE LOWEST LEVEL OF PEOPLE.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN OPTIONS,
[01:40:02]
WE COULD RESTRUCTURE THIS OR WE COULD RESTRUCTURE THAT.I MYSELF EVEN CALLED THE PORT.
I CALLED JASON HARDCASTLE, AND GUESS WHAT? WE ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
>> THERE'S NOBODY SAYS YOU'RE NOT.
>> EVERYONE IS WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO HELP US NOT RAISE TAXES, BECAUSE, AGAIN, THEY'RE ALL CITIZENS, OR THEY COULDN'T SERVE ON THE BOARD THAT THEY'RE SITTING ON.
REALLY YOU WERE KIND OF THE PERSON WHO STOPPED IT BECAUSE I HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS YESTERDAY SAYING THAT THEY WERE READY TO APPROVE THE MILLION DOLLARS.
>> WELL, I'M JUST TELLING YOU I GOT TO SAY [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU GOT A TEXT TODAY FROM A TRUSTEE THAT OUTLINED IT TO YOU EXACTLY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OUTLINED IT TO YOU, AND THAT IS THE TRUTH.
YOU CAN THINK WHAT YOU WANT, BUT THE PORT IS NOT AGAINST THE CONCEPT OF THIS THING.
THEY SAID THEY WOULD LIKE TO GET A REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL, AND I AM NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR CITY COUNCIL.
THEY ASKED, WAS THIS A REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL? I SAID AT THIS POINT, NO, BUT THAT COULD BE AND THAT'S WHAT LED TO THIS DECISION.
>> WITHOUT THE OPTIONS ON THE TABLE FROM OUR CITY MANAGER TO SAY, HERE'S YOUR MENU, HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN CUT, HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN CHANGE, HERE'S WHAT WE CAN DO, WE ARE WHAT BOARD MEMBER YARBOROUGH SAID.
WE ARE AT THE FINISH LINE HERE.
WE DON'T REALLY HAVE MUCH OPTIONS.
HE SAID THERE'S NO ROOM FOR THOSE KINDS OF POLITICS HERE.
IT JUST FEELS LIKE THERE'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF POLITICS BEING PLAYED.
ONE LADY, SWEET LADY, SHE SAID THAT WAS THE ONLY PERSON I'VE EVER GOT THAT SAID YOU CAN RAISE MY TAXES TO PAY THE POLICE, FIRE, FIRE AND I'VE GOTTEN ABOUT 50:1.
THAT'S THE ONE SWEET LADY WHO SAID IT.
PEOPLE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GETTING SQUEEZED OUT. WHY LIVE HERE? PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BEING SQUEEZED OUT OF THEIR HOMES.
THEY FEEL LIKE BEING SQUEEZED OUT, AND THIS TAX RATE DIRECTLY AFFECTS HOW THE TAXPAYERS CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.
AS SMALL AS $100, NOT EVERYBODY MAKES A LOT.
SOME PEOPLE ARE ON FIXED INCOME.
SOME PEOPLE WORK TWO JOBS JUST TO GET BY BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THREE KIDS.
SOME PEOPLE PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK.
I'VE BEEN THERE. I'M A YOUNG GUY.
I DON'T HAVE MONEY TO JUST BLOW.
I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON.
I UNDERSTAND ALL THIS STUFF IN FRONT OF ME.
BUT JUST TO PUT A DECISION TODAY ON SOMETHING THAT'S MAYBE FOR TOMORROW.
>> I JUST THINK IT WAS A HUGE MISSED OPPORTUNITY, AND IT WAS TURNED POLITICAL.
I JUST HAD NO BUSINESS GOING TO SAY THAT TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS STARTED TO FIRE TO PUT IT OUT.
I THINK THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE WOULD HAVE TO YOU SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED COUNSEL ON THAT ONE. YOU SHOULD HAVE DEFENDED YOURSELF.
>> I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON.
IS THE LIAISON OF THE PART OF THE PORT WAS NOT KNEW THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING.
I HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING HERE.
AND I WANT TO I WANT TO REITERATE HERE A COUPLE OF THINGS.
THE PORT AND RECEIVING A REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL IS OPEN TO DO THAT.
I AM GOING TO STAND BY AND I'M NOT GOING TO I'M NOT GOING TO WAIVER FROM THE PROCESS THAT IS APPROPRIATE, THAT THESE DECISIONS HAVE TO COME FROM COUNSEL.
>> THAT'S FINE. THE PARK BOARD DID IT.
>> THAT HERE IN THAT OTHER ROOM ON THE 12TH, HE SAID, WE'RE ALL WORKING TOGETHER. I AGREE.
I, BELIEVE AND I'M NOT GOING TO IF I'M WORKING WITH TWO OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, I I CAN'T WORK WITH THE FOURTH.
I BELIEVE THAT EVERYBODY'S WORKING TOGETHER.
I THINK THAT DIDN'T IT DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WORKING TOGETHER WHEN IT IT JUST GOT SHOT DOWN.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHO WANT TO FORMAL YOU MEAN AT THE PORT.
>> IT SAID THEY WANTED TO PUT IN LIMBO.
[01:45:02]
I THEY HAD WANTED TO HAVE A PROCESS FOR THIS REQUEST FROM CITY COUNCIL.I WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER THING.
>> THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN PUT IN OUR BUDGET.
I HEARD MARIE SAY IT WAS ABOUT 1 MILLION, WE DON'T KNOW THE AMOUNT.
WE CAN'T CALL OVER TO THE PORT BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE TO HAVE A MEETING ABOUT THAT AMOUNT.
WE DON'T KNOW THE AMOUNT. WE DON'T KNOW THIS.
WE CAN'T PUT IT IN OUR BUDGET.
IT'S JUST A CONSTRAINT THAT WE HAVE GOING INTO THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
IT LITERALLY IS AT THE FINISH LINE.
THIS IS MAYBE IT'S NOT THE LAST RESORT.
WE CAN GO THROUGH WHAT WE ALL WANT TO DO AND GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO BRIAN.
BUT PEOPLE WATCHED THAT AND IT WAS JUST IT BLEW EVERYBODY'S MIND THAT THAT GOT SHOT DOWN.
BLEW EVERYBODY'S I DID NOT GET SHOT DOWN.
SORRY, AND PUT IN LIMBO FOR THE FUTURE PAST THE BUDGET.
>> PUT IT PUT THE PROCESS BACK FOR CITY COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN AND GIVE DIRECTION ON THIS TO THE PORT.
NOT ONLY FROM A CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION, FROM A MAJORITY VOTE, THE COUNCIL, IF THEY WANT TO MOVE THAT WAY, WHAT AMOUNT THEY WANT TO REQUEST FROM THE PORT.
I WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER THING.
JUST BECAUSE THE PORT MAY HAVE PASSED OR DIDN'T PASS YESTERDAY AND THE PARK BOARD DID, THAT MONEY DOESN'T FLOW INTO THE CITY IMMEDIATELY.
YOU HAVE TO SIT DOWN, YOU HAVE TO PUT TOGETHER MOU CONTRACTS, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT ACTIVITY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
I IF YOU WATCH THE MEETING AND I THINK YOU DID, ROGER WAS COMMENDED ON BRINGING THAT FORWARD, AND HE DID THAT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE TO HELP THE CITY.
THAT WAS MENTIONED MANY TIMES TO ROGER.
WE NEED TO WE NEED TO BE VERY IMPORTANT HERE.
THIS CITY FOR MANY YEARS HAS RUN ON A MANY YEARS IN THE PAST, IT RAN ON A WE'LL DO THIS, BUT WE DON'T FOLLOW THE PROTOCOL PROPERLY, WE'LL JUST MAKE IT HAPPEN.
AS LONG AS I'M MAYOR, THIS COUNCIL SPEAKS FOR COUNSEL.
I DON'T OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS DON'T SPEAK FOR COUNSEL, AND THAT'S THE WAY IT'S GOING TO STAY.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE OTHER THOUGHT.
THIS IS A VERY EMOTIONAL SUBJECT FOR MANY OF US IN THE COMMUNITY AND ALL OF US SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE HERE.
WE ALL HAVE AN INTEREST IN TRYING TO KEEP THIS TAX RATE AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. WE ALL DO.
I GET COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE AND THEY'RE SAYING IF SOMEONE DOESN'T VOTE TO MAKE THIS GO TO A CERTAIN RATE, THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN THE CITIZENS.
EACH ONE OF US MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT THE BEST THAT WE CAN BASED ON A LOT OF RESEARCH.
I'M GOING TO COMMEND THIS COUNCIL.
EVERY ONE OF US SITTING AT THIS TABLE HAS REALLY DID INTO THESE FIGURES AND WORKED TO MAKE IT THE LOWEST WE POSSIBLY CAN.
WHAT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND, AND I'M NOT TALKING AT THIS POINT IN FAVOR OF A A PARTICULAR TAX RATE OR NOT.
THE CITY IS AFFECTED BY THE PRICES GOING UP, PERSONNEL COSTS GOING UP, ALL OF THOSE ACTIVITIES THAT GENERATE REVENUE FOR A BUSINESS OR A PERSONAL HOUSEHOLD, THE CITY IS SUBJECTED TO THOSE SAME CONSTRAINTS.
I TRUTHFULLY BELIEVE US WORKING TOGETHER, WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION ON THIS THAT WILL BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS AS WELL AS THE CITY.
>. CONTINUING ON GENERAL FUND PERSONNEL COSTS TOTALED A 57.4 MILLION, THEY'RE ON THE TOP RIGHT HAND SIDE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT BUDGETS AS WE LOOKED ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, TOTALING THE 60.8 OF THAT, 43.7 MILLION IS STRICT PERSONNEL COSTS.
86.1% OF THE GENERAL FUND PERSONNEL COSTS ARE RELATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
ONE OF THE ACTIVITIES WE WENT THROUGH IN THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS AS WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO PROVIDE COUNSEL WITH INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACTS OF THE DECISIONS MADE THROUGH THIS BUDGET PROCESS IS WE'VE DONE A FORECASTING MODEL, AND I'M ONLY GOING TO SHOW YOU ALL THE NUMBERS ONCE AND THEN I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU GRAPHICALLY WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT I DO WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS THIS FIRST SLIDE IS GOING TO BE NO NEW REVENUE.
IF WE JUST HELD IT AT NO NEW REVENUE STARTING THIS YEAR AND INTO THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE? THIS IS OBVIOUSLY AN ESTIMATE, BUT BASICALLY HOLDING SAME REVENUE FOR EXISTING CONSTRUCTION YEAR OVER YEAR.
YOU'LL SEE I'VE SPLIT THE PROPERTY TAX INTO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE ON EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
[01:50:03]
WHAT REVENUE THAT BRINGS YOU.THE FIRST COLUMN IS FISCAL YEAR 24 AFTER THAT IS STARTING THE BUDGET YEAR IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
SALES TAX, THE SAME WAY WE'VE PROJECTED IT, AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING, THE GROWTH IS THAT 1% YEAR OVER YEAR.
LONG TERM PARKING AND CREWS IS ONE OF THE AREAS I KNOW THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN EXPANDING AND FINDING OTHER RESOURCES TO HELP FUND GENERAL FUND COSTS.
YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A LITTLE TAG IN THE COLUMN FOR FISCAL YEAR 26, THAT'S RELATED TO MY VERY ROUGH ESTIMATES FOR WHAT THE MSC TERMINALS OPENING IN NOVEMBER OF 2025 OR IN THAT RANGE IS GOING TO BRING TO THE CITY STARTING IN FISCAL YEAR 26.
BUT AS A REMINDER, WE DON'T EXPECT THIS REVENUE SOURCE TO GROW.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A ONE YEAR INCREASE AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY STEADY THEREAFTER.
YOUR TOTAL ON THESE THREE MAJOR REVENUE SOURCES IS SHOWN AS THE 686,971 MILLION AND MOVING FORWARD INTO FUTURES.
THIS IS NOT ALL YOUR GENERAL FUND REVENUE, IT'S JUST THE MAJOR ONES THAT WE FEEL HAVE IMPACT ON THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE.
BASED ON THIS MODEL, THE EXPECTED REVENUE GROWTH WITH SALES TAX INCREASING AT 1% AND LIMITING IT TO THE NO NEW REVENUE YOU'LL SEE IS ABOUT, 1.100000,2 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 26 BECAUSE OF THAT CRUISE INCREASE, YEAR OVER YEAR.
MOST OF THAT IS MADE UP BY THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION RIGHT AROUND 1,200,000 IN SALES TAX YEAR OVER YEAR WITH A 1% GROWTH.
THE BIGGEST GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED OVER AND OVER, RIGHT, WE'RE PROJECTING OUT POLICE AT 5%, FIRE AT 5% HEALTH INSURANCE AT 10%, EMS AT 2% GROWTH, ANIMAL SHELTER AT 5% ANNUAL, AND CIVILIAN SALARIES AT 2% STARTING IN FISCAL YEAR 26.
YOU'LL SEE THE EXPECTED EXPENDITURE GROWTH, JUST BASED ON THESE ITEMS, IF EVERYTHING ELSE STAYED EXACTLY AS IT IS TODAY, IS 4 MILLION IN FISCAL YEAR 25, 2.9 AND 26, AROUND THREE TO 3.5 MILLION IN THE OUT YEARS.
THERE IS A LARGE DIFFERENCE IN THE EXPECTED GROWTH OF EXPENDITURES AND THE EXPECTED GROWTH OF REVENUE IN THESE MAJOR AREAS.
WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE GRABBED WHAT WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET REIMBURSED POTENTIALLY FROM FMA IN FISCAL YEARS 26 AND 27.
THIS STORM IS RIGHT NOW 75% REIMBURSEMENT STORM.
BASED ON THE SLIGHTLY OVER $1,000,000 THAT WE'VE EXPENDED IN THE GENERAL FUND RELATED TO BARREL, WE'RE ANTICIPATING REIMBURSEMENT BETWEEN FISCAL YEAR 26 AND 27.
WE JUST PLUGGED IN HALF AND HALF JUST TO GROW THAT FUND BALANCE A LITTLE BASED ON THAT EXPECTED REIMBURSEMENT.
>> PLEASE DON'T HOLD US TO THOSE TWO YEARS BECAUSE THEY STILL OWE ME $1,000,000 FROM IC.
WE ARE JUST HOPING AND PRAYING, WE GET IT IN 26 AND 27.
ALSO DON'T THINK THAT OUR ONLY BARREL EXPENDITURES WERE THAT AMOUNT.
BARREL WAS VERY HIT US HARD IN THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS.
THIS WAS AN ENTERPRISE INTENSIVE STORM.
IT REALLY IMPACTED BECAUSE OF POWER AND OTHER THINGS, OUR PLANTS, OUR LIFT STATIONS, OUR WATER PLANTS, SANITATION, ALL THOSE THINGS.
NO, THIS IS JUST GENERAL FUNDS.
THIS IS JUST MAINLY REBUILDING YOUR WEST BEACH ACCESS POINTS, CLEARING AREAS DOWN THERE, ALMOST ENTIRELY ON THE WEST END.
>> WHICH BRINGS A QUESTION TO MIND SINCE WE'VE ALL GONE THROUGH THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TRAINING.
THE FACT THAT WE DECIDED TO DISBAND OUR EMERGENCY ORDERS THEN LIMITS US ON THE FUNDS.
EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE LATEST TIA CLAIMS THAT ARE OUT THERE ALL RELATED TO HURRICANE BORG, THEY ARE CONTINUING TO GRAFT UP, AND THEY JUST SENT OUT A REPORT THIS WEEK.
I WONDER IF WE WERE A LITTLE PREMATURE.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THE TUIA CLAIMS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH US IN OUR DISASTER DECLARATION, UNLESS YOU'RE DIP.
>> MAJOR IMPACT ON OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND ON OUR WASTEWATER AND ON OUR STREETS.
>> HOW DOES THEY HAVE TO HIT A CERTAIN THRESHOLD STATEWIDE, CORRECT?
>> WELL, HE SAID HE WAS CLOSED, BUT KEEPING THAT OPEN WOULD HAVE AT LEAST HELPED TO.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE THE CASE.
WE HIT OUR THRESHOLD, SO I MEAN, WE SUBMITTED OURS, SO WE ANYMORE, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTER.
>> ONLY REIMBURSED UP UNTIL AT LEAST ACCORDING TO WHAT OUR GUY WHO HAS GIVEN US THE INSTRUCTIONS,
[01:55:04]
UP UNTIL WE HAVE OUR EMERGENCY ORDERS IN PLACE.>> WE WERE PRETTY BUCH BACK TO NORMAL OPERATION AT THAT POINT?
>> I THINK THAT WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF REPAIRS GOING ON.
>> THE REPAIRS. I DON'T WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH REIMBURSEMENT FOR BY BURL.
BUT WHAT DOES THAT COST IN THE CITY?
>> THAT'S ON DEBRIS REMOVAL, WE WE COMPLETED THE SAME TIME AS THE OTHER CITIES.
YOU DON'T YOU JUST CAN'T SUSPEND AND GIVE FREE DE.
>> INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS THAT WERE CAUSED BY.
>> INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS ARE NOT NO.
THAT'S THAT YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT.
INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS ARE FILED UNDER PW. THEY'RE SPECIFIC.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO KEEP OTHERWISE, WE'D STILL HAVE A DISASTER DECLARATION FOR HURRICANE IKE. WE DON'T DO THAT.
THESE ARE THESE ARE FOR OPERATIONAL ISSUES, AND WE WERE BACK IN NORMAL OPERATIONS WHEN THE MAYOR SUSPENDED THAT.
>> ENDING FUND BALANCE IS PROJECTED BASED ON EXPENDITURES, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
FOR FISCAL YEAR 25, WE'RE PROJECTING AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, 105 DAYS ENDING FUND BALANCE, BUT YOU'LL SEE IF WE HOLD IT AT A NO NEW REVENUE RATE THAT DECREASES OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WITH THAT INCREASE IN EXPENDITURE GROWTH AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE THAN REVENUE AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
GRAPHICALLY PRESENTED, THAT IS WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE.
HOLDING A NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE WOULD WITHOUT FINDING LARGE ONGOING REVENUE RECURRING REVENUE, IT WOULD RESULT IN A DRAWDOWN OF YOUR FUND BALANCE TO BALANCE THE BUDGET.
BY FISCAL YEAR 27, YOU'D HIT THAT 90 DAYS AND YOU'D BE DOWN TO 78 DAYS BY FISCAL YEAR 28.
JUST AS A CAVEAT, NONE OF THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS.
NONE OF THESE ARE 100%. THESE ARE ESTIMATES.
THE MODELS ALSO DO NOT CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT SERVICE FUND AS WELL AS DEBT.
NO NEW REVENUE RATE? IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL DEBT, THEN NO NEW REVENUE RATE DOES NOT CONSIDER THAT.
ANY INCREASE IN YOUR DEBT SERVICE RATE WILL DECREASE YOUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION RATE AT NO NEW REVENUE.
ADDITIONALLY, WHEN YOU HIT THAT 90 DAY MARK, YOUR CHARTER REQUIRES THAT YOU START MAKING UP THE DIFFERENCE OF THE 90 DAYS OUT OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT.
IT WOULD START REMOVING FROM THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR THE CAPITAL ITEMS IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT SERVICE.
>> DO THESE NUMBERS INCLUDE THE APPROVED PROJECTS? THAT ARE THE NEW REVENUE COMING IN FROM CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE ALREADY APPROVED PROJECTS THAT ARE MOVING FORWARD.
>> IT'S REGULAR PROJECTIONS ON.
>> BUT IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING THAT'S IN PERMITTING.
ALSO, IT'S ESSENTIALLY CONSIDERING 10% GROWTH IN VALUE BASED ON THAT HOMESTEAD CAP.
IT'S USING A TREND FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION AT 1.9%, WHICH IS WHAT THE HISTORICAL TREND IS FOR US.
WE DON'T KNOW WHEN PROJECTS MIGHT COME ONLINE, BUT HISTORICALLY, GALVESTON HAS ABOUT 1.9% OF THEIR VALUE IN NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN ALL OF THESE MODELS.
>> WE HAVE SOME VERY LARGE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING ON BOARD.
>> I DON'T HAVE INFORMATION ON WHEN THAT VALUE WILL BE ON THE GROUND.
ALL I CAN USE IS A WE CAN ONLY.
>> WE CAN ONLY MAKE ESTIMATES, AND WE'VE USED HISTORICAL TRENDS, AND EVEN THROUGH SOME OF OUR HIGHEST GROWTH YEARS, IT'S AVERAGE 1.9%.
>> ONE, THEN AS, IF WE CONTINUE TO RAISE TAXES AS WE HAVE OVER THE LAST HOWEVER MANY YEARS, HAVE WE FACTORED IN THE FACT THAT THEY'LL BE LESS HOMESTEADS BECAUSE PEOPLE WON'T BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE FULL TIME.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT.
IT'S NOT AN IMPACT I WOULD NECESSARILY CONSIDER IN THESE PROJECTIONS.
BUT SO I'M NOT GOING TO SHOW YOU THE DATA AGAIN, BUT I DO WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE TREND LINE LOOKS LIKE WITH VARIOUS OTHER SCENARIOS, WHICH WOULD BE IN A SCENARIO WHERE YOU DID NO NEW REVENUE THIS FIRST YEAR. THEN YES.
>> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT THAT CHART THE FORECAST FOR NO NEW REVENUE PROJECTIONS.
>> THIS ONE OR THE ACTUAL DATA.
>> THE ONE BEFORE. THAT ONE THERE.
YOU TALKED ABOUT THE FUND BALANCE.
I WANT TO BE CLEAR, BRIAN, WALK US THROUGH IN YOUR MIND THE REDUCTION IN THIS FUND BALANCE AND WHAT IT MEANS PRACTICALLY TO THIS CITY.
>> WELL, YOU CAN'T GO BELOW 90 DAYS.
THE PROJECTIONS OF IT GOING BELOW 90 DAYS WILL JUST ROB FROM YOUR CAPITAL PROJECTS.
IT'LL ROB FROM YOUR STREETS AND EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT COMES OUT OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SET ASIDE.
[02:00:01]
WHAT ABOUT OUR BOND RATING? VERY MUCH SO.WE JUST RECEIVED, THEY UPHELD OUR BOND RATING AT FIH AND WE JUST RECEIVED THAT CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT YOUR CREDITWORTHINESS, WHICH AFFECTS EVERYTHING, INCLUDING THE EMERGENCY COULD IMPACT THE EMERGENCY LOAN.
IT COULD IMPACT OUR COMPONENT UNITS, BORROWING, IT CO IMPACT ALL THOSE THINGS.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE IS SUGGESTING THAT WE DRACONIANLY REDUCE OUR UNBALANCE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SHOW YOU HOW TIGHT EVERYTHING IS RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THIS SLIDE BACK THERE, BECAUSE LOOKING AT THE NEW CONSTRUCTION AND ESTIMATE.
YOU HAVE THIS YEAR HIGHER THAN ANY FUTURE YEARS.
>> THOUGH WE KNOW WE HAVE MULTIPLE $100,000,000 PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY MOVING FORWARD.
>> YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF THOSE IN PREVIOUS BUDGET YEARS THAT WERE GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> YEAH. YOU DID. YOU MENTIONED TIERRA LAST YEAR WHEN WE WERE DOING THIS?
WE HAVE MULTIPLE PROJECTS THAT HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH PLANNING AND APPROVAL.
>> WHAT'S IT CALLED THE ONE ON EAST BEACH? WE HAVE HOUSES, NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE HAPPENING.
WE ALSO HAVE BOTH THE AIRPORT PROPERTY THAT IS COMING UP FOR SALE.
THAT YES, THAT MONEY GOES TO THE AIRPORT, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE THE TWO PARCELS THAT ARE THE CITY PARCELS THAT WILL BE COMING UP FOR SALES AND I COULDN'T FIND THAT REVENUE ANYWHERE IN OUR BUDGET.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S UNPROTECTED, WE HAVE APPRAISALS TO WORK FROM.
WE KNOW THEY WILL BE DEVELOPED AS EITHER ROOFTOPS OR WELL, WE'RE LEAVING THE ONE COMMERCIAL, SO THAT COULD HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY.
>> CERTAINLY AS ANY OF THIS VALUE COMES ONLINE, IT WILL BE VALUE THAT GENERATES REVENUE.
THAT IS WITHOUT A DOUBT TRUE, AND ASSUMING THAT ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS COME THROUGH, IT WILL BE FANTASTIC FOR GALVESTON, AND I'LL BE PRESENTING YOU WITH A VERY DIFFERENT FORECAST THEN.
BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, I JUST DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE WHERE I COULD ACTUALLY PROJECT THAT IN FISCAL YEAR '27, WE'RE GOING TO SEE A VALUE INCREASE THAT'S 10% HIGHER THAN NORMAL.
I DON'T HAVE THAT CRYSTAL BALL.
I HOPE THAT AS THAT VALUE COMES ONLINE, THAT THESE FORECASTS GET ROSIER.
BUT BASED ON HISTORICAL TRENDS, I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO GO ON, EXCEPT THE FACT THAT THE AVERAGE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ABOUT 1.9% COMPARED TO YOUR EXISTING VALUE.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE USED. HOPEFULLY IT'S WRONG.
HOPEFULLY WE HAVE A LOT OF VALUE COME ON AND HOPEFULLY JANUARY 1, WE SEE THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE VALUE ON NEW CONSTRUCTION ON THE GROUND FOR FISCAL YEAR '26.
>> WE TRY TO BASE THINGS ON ACTUALS.
WE TRY NOT TO JUST PLUG NUMBERS FOR THE SAKE OF PLUGGING NUMBERS.
BUT IF COUNSEL HAS A TOLERANCE FOR RISK, THAT'S A HIGH RISK HIGHER AREA, [NOISE] COUNSEL WANTS TO TAKE THAT RISK, WE'RE HAPPY TO PUT THAT NUMBER IN.
THAT'S NOT WOULDN'T BE OUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT THAT'S YOUR CALL, NOT OURS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION TO CHILO ON THAT CHART, CIVILIAN SALARIES.
>> IN '25, DOES THAT INCLUDE A 5% RATE?
>> IT DOES INCLUDE A 5% AND 24.
>> BUT FROM THEN FORWARD, IT'S ALWAYS A 2%.
>> WHICH HAS BEEN YOUR AVERAGE.
>> NOW, WHAT I WILL SAY IS THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT IS ON THE COUNSEL'S AGENDA HAS NOT BEEN ADJUSTED SINCE THE WORKSHOP.
IF COUNSEL WANTS TO DO 5% INSTEAD OF THE 4% THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE MOTION THAT'S MADE TO APPROVE THAT BUDGET, IF COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE INCREASE TO CIVILIANS TO BE 5% AND NOT 4%.
>> BUT THIS PROJECTION IS [OVERLAPPING] BASED ON FIVE.
>> FORECAST CONCERNS, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT NO NEW REVENUE THIS YEAR, AND WHAT IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE IF WE TOOK IT TO THE CAP ALL FUTURE YEARS.
ONCE AGAIN, ESTIMATES, NOT RECOMMENDATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEBT SERVICE FUND AND DEBT ARE NOT CONSIDERED IN THESE GRAPHS.
BUT SO YOU'LL SEE THAT BY YEAR 5, EVEN TAKING IT TO THE MAX MAY NOT BRING YOU ENOUGH MONEY TO SUSTAIN YOUR FUND BALANCE.
THERE'S A PROGRESSIVE DECREASE IN YOUR FUND BALANCE, AND BY YEAR 5, EVEN THE MAX, WHAT'S PROJECTED TO BE TO MAX WOULDN'T QUITE GET YOU THERE.
THEN FINALLY, THE LAST ONE WE DID WAS A MODEL THAT SHOWS
[02:05:01]
YOU IF YOU WENT WITH THE PROPOSED TAX RATE IN FISCAL YEAR '25 AS WE'VE PROPOSED IT, AND THEN ADJUSTED TAX RATES TO MEET THE NEED THEREAFTER, NOT GOING HIGHER THAN THE MAX.YOU COULD SUSTAIN UP TO THAT 90 DAYS BY FISCAL YEAR 2030.
AND SO WE CLEARLY STILL NEED OTHER SOLUTIONS, WHETHER IT'S LIMITING EXPENDITURES, ONGOING AND THE GROWTH OF THOSE EXPENDITURES OR FINDING NEW SOURCES OF REVENUE.
ABSOLUTELY. I THINK BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS HAVE TO BE IN THE CONVERSATION MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, AS I SHOWED YOU, THE INCREASES ARE WAY LARGER THAN THE PROJECTED REVENUE INCREASES.
THAT HAS TO BE DISCUSSED AND MANAGED.
BUT EVEN IN A SCENARIO WHERE WE ADOPT THE PROPOSED RATE THIS YEAR AND THEN MANAGE IT THERE, WE'RE STILL DECREASING TO 90 DAYS.
>> JUST KEEP IN MIND, THERE'S ALMOST NOTHING IN THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE WISE.
ONE TIME CAPITAL AND ALL THAT STUFF IS ALL CALCULATED AND DONE IN DIFFERENT AREAS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET, IT IS ALMOST ENTIRELY RECURRING.
AS WE LOOK FOR REVENUE, WHICH I'VE BEEN PLUGGING FOR THIS AND IT BEEN REBUFFED MANY TIMES ON HOW WE CAN DO THIS, I WOULD STILL RECOMMEND THAT YOU HAVE TO USE RECURRING REVENUE.
>> CORRECT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MRS. LADONE?
I JUST NEED TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING.
THE CLARIFICATION AND THIS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU.
I THINK WE LEFT TO SEAM SEWED OR WHATEVER.
WILL CITY COUNCIL BRING FORTH REQUESTS TO THE PORT OR DO WE JUST LEAVE THAT HANGING? HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE HANDLED?
>> I'LL TELL YOU MY PERSONAL FEELING, I THINK WE SHOULD.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD INCLUDE.
NOW, DON, YOU'D NEED TO GUIDE ME, BUT IF COUNSEL WANTED TO DO THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL COULD PUT IN THE MOTION FOR EITHER THE APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET OR THE APPROVAL OF THE TAX RATE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> SAY THAT AGAIN. PLEASE REPEAT THAT.
>> I WAS SPEAKING OF THE REQUEST TO THE WARS BOARD.
EVERYBODY WENT BACK, PEOPLE WENT BACK AND FORTH, BUT THERE WAS NO SOLUTION TO IT.
WILL COUNSEL PRESENT A LETTER REQUESTING FUNDS ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS FROM THE PORT? THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING, ARE WE?
>> NO, I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION HERE.
>> WE CAN GO BACK, YOU KNOW, TO THE TAPES TWO MONTHS AGO OR 2.5 MONTHS AGO WHEN WE STARTED THE BUGGERS DISCUSSION.
EVERYBODY AT THE TABLE, I THINK WE THREW UP A COUPLE OF IDEAS, AND ONE OF THEM WAS TO LOOK AT SOME POTENTIAL REVENUE SHARING FROM THE PORT.
THE QUESTION IS, [BACKGROUND] AND THE PARK BOARD.
ABSOLUTELY. THOSE NEED TO BE DONE.
I THINK THAT WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY IN SEPTEMBER 9TH WAS OCTOBER.
IN OCTOBER, WE WOULD BRING THESE IDEAS FORWARD AND START THE PROCESS OF MEETING WITH THE BOARD IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHAT THE CORRECT AVENUE IS FOR THAT.
TO YOUR POINT RIGHT NOW, WE COULD ABSOLUTELY.
I WOULD SUPPORT, ISSUING A LETTER TO THE PORT AND ASKING THEM FOR HELP OR FOR WHATEVER, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A ONE TIME CONTRIBUTION, AND HOW DO WE REFLECT IT IN THE BUDGET? THEN WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER MOVING FORWARD.
IT'S A GOOD FIRST STEP AND A STOP GAP MEASURE, BUT WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PORT AND THE PARK BOARD ABOUT ONGOING SUSTAINABLE REVENUE TO THE CITY.
DID I ANSWER YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE BIT.
>> I'M SORRY. [LAUGHTER] I TRY.
>> NO, YOU DID FINE. [BACKGROUND] WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS ASKING JUST WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? I UNDERSTAND THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS.
BUT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? THAT'S THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
>> DON, I'M ASKING THIS IS, WHEN WE APPROVED THE BUDGET OR THE TAX RATE, IF THAT IS APPROVED, LET'S SAY THE TAX RATE IS APPROVED AT A LESSER AMOUNT THAN WHAT IS REQUESTED BY STAFF.
IN THAT MOTION WHEN THEY PROPOSED THE TAX RATE, YOU CAN PUT IN THERE TO REQUEST THAT CITY STAFF GETS WITH PORT STAFF AND PARK BOARD STAFF FOR THIS YEAR TO LOOK AT ADDITIONAL FUNDING STREAMS.
BUT THERE'S THERE NEEDS TO BE A DECISION MADE AT
[02:10:02]
THE POLICY LEVEL THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO DO THAT, AND IT NEEDS TO BE DIRECTED TO YOUR BOARDS DOWN THERE.SENDING ME TO ROGER TO SAY, GIVE ME MONEY IS NOT GOING TO END WELL.
NEITHER IS IT GOING TO END WELL, IF YOU SEND ME TO KIMBERLY AND SAY, GIVE ME MONEY.
I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO TAKE AN ACTION THAT AND SOME OF THESE THINGS TO MAKE IT SUSTAINABLE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET MONEY FROM THE PARK BOARD IS IF YOU TAKE MONEY FROM THE PARK BOARD. YOU CAN'T THERE'S NO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I FIND THAT OFFENSIVE.
>> WHY DO YOU FIND THAT OFFENSIVE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I DISAGREE WITH THAT.
I THINK I DON'T, I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THE MAYOR SAID.
I THINK MAYBE IT'S TIME THAT WE FORM A COUNCIL COMMITTEE SINCE WE'RE THE PEOPLE WHO APPOINT THEIR BOARD MEMBERS.
>> WE ARE INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSION.
>> WHAT I'VE HEARD BOTH THE PARK BOARD AND THE WHARF'S BOARD IS OPEN TO GIVING THE CITY REGULAR ANNUAL.
I DO NOT REMEMBER US HAVING A DISCUSSION THAT WE WERE GOING TO ADDRESS IT TO OCTOBER BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE ALL REQUESTED THAT WE'D HAVE IT BEFORE WE CAME TO THESE FINAL DAYS OF BUDGET.
BUT I THINK BOTH OF RECEPTIVE.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A LINE THAT SAYS ALTERNATE INCOME STREAMS IN OUR CURRENT BUDGET BECAUSE WE ALREADY KNOW THAT I THINK WHAT THEY DISCUSSED YESTERDAY WAS A MILLION DOLLAR FROM THE WARS BOARD.
I THINK THEY'RE WILLING TO LOOK AT THEIR BUDGETS AND PUT IT IN A CONTRACT.
BUT I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE COUNCIL PEOPLE BECAUSE YOU KEEP SAYING IT'S POLICY.
WELL, WHAT ARE THE POLICY MAKERS? [BACKGROUND] I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST THE ONE WHATEVER YOU'RE CALLED, WHAT'S THE WORD? WHAT DID THEY SAY.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE JUST LIKE WE'RE DOING THE REAL ESTATE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE A COUNCIL GROUP.
THAT WAS THE WHOLE THAT NEGOTIATES.
WELL, BUT THEY WERE ALREADY WILLING TO GIVE US AND WE STOPPED IT.
[OVERLAPPING] WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE TO OUR PUBLIC.
EVERYBODY LISTENED, YOU CAN WATCH IT.
IF YOU HAVEN'T GONE IN AND LISTENED OR WATCH, YOU SHOULD.
>> IF COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO PLUG A NUMBER FOR FUTURE REVENUE, YOU CAN DIRECT STAFF TO DO THAT.
HOWEVER, I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IT REALLY IS NOT A BEST PRACTICE TO PULL A NUMBER OUT OF THIN AIR AND HOPE FOR THE BEST.
HOWEVER, YOU GUYS RUN THE CITY, YOU TELL US IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, WE'LL DO IT.
I DON'T FEEL I CAN DO THAT WITHOUT COUNSEL DIRECTING ME TO DO IT BECAUSE IT IS CERTAINLY IN MY 32 YEARS OF DOING BUDGET, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU DO.
HOWEVER, THERE'S A FIRST TIME FOR EVERYTHING, AND I'M WILLING TO ENTERTAIN ANYTHING.
COUNSEL COLLECTIVELY WOULD LIKE TO DO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>> MY APOLOGIES. LAST YEAR, IF YOU REMEMBER, WE DID PLUG A NUMBER IN BECAUSE THE VERY LAST MINUTE WE CAME IN WITH THE INCREASE FOR PARKING. REMEMBER THAT? WE PLUGGED A NUMBER IN BECAUSE WE PASSED AN ORDINANCE TO DO THAT, AND THEY WORKED REALLY QUICKLY SO WE HAD ASSESSED THAT $15 ON PRIVATE AND ON PORTLAND AND SO YOU DID PLUG A NUMBER IN LAST YEAR.
>> AS LONG AS YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THE BACKSTOP TO THAT IS YOUR FUND BALANCE.
NUMBER DOESN'T MATERIALIZE, IT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT YOUR FUND BALANCE.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU'VE GOT ENOUGH MONEY IN YOUR OVERALL FUND BALANCE TO DO THIS NOW IF YOU WANT TO JUST BALANCE IT AND GO.
>> MY POINT IS, IS THAT IF WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THE DISCUSSIONS, FOR EITHER THE PORT OR THE PARK BOARD.
YOU'VE GOT THE PARK BOARD WHO SAYS, WHO HAS ALREADY SAID, LISTEN, IF WE GET A REQUEST, IT'S $300,000.
DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, A PORT, BUT IF THERE'S OPEN DISCUSSION THAT CAN BE HAD.
IF WE AS COUNSEL WANT TO PLUG IN SOME NUMBER BECAUSE WE TRULY BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO BE GENEROUS ENOUGH FOR A ONE TIME OFFER.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I THINK THAT'S MORE THAN A ONE TIME OFF.
>> NO. HOLD ON. HOLD ON. HOLD ON.
THIS TIME IS JUST A ONE TIME OFFER BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] WE DO NOT HAVE AN ONGOING SUSTAINABLE SOURCE FROM THE PORT.
I AM TALKING ABOUT JUST FOR THIS BUDGET.
JUST RIGHT NOW. THAT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO CONSIDER, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT.
>> I WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER AND TO MY QUESTION EARLIER, THEIR FISCAL YEAR RUNS ON THE CALENDAR YEAR AS WELL.
THE FUNDING IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
I THINK EVERYONE'S AMENABLE TO CHANGING THE ANTIQUATED PAYMENT, BUT MY OPINION TOO, YES, THEY CAN HELP.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO, WE JUST APPROVED A BOND.
I DON'T THINK PEOPLE THINK I GRAB THAT.
[02:15:01]
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE CAN'T HURT THE BOND.
>> WE CAN'T HURT THEIR BOTTOM LINE. THEY HAVE $19 MILLION A YEAR, THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH FUND AND EVERY WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT, I UNDERSTAND THAT.
VERY CLEARLY, NOT THIS COUNSEL.
I THINK THIS COUNSEL IS THE ALTERNATIVE REVENUE COUNSEL.
>> YOU DON'T WANT TO KILL [OVERLAPPING] THE GOLDEN NUMBER?
>> CORRECT. PUBLICLY, I HAVE SAID THAT WHEN WE INTERVIEWED CHAIRMAN PEARSON, I CLEARLY SAID, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CONSIDER ADDITIONAL REVENUE, NOT IMPACTING THE EXISTING DEBT COVERAGE FROM THE PORT.
THAT'S VERY CLEAR. THAT IS NOT AN OBJECTIVE THAT I AM ADVOCATING FOR.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IF YOU'RE WANTING TO PLUG A NUMBER IN THIS YEAR, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT THAT NUMBER MIGHT BE.
BRING THE PORT AND THE WHARF'S BOARD OVER HERE AND SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT MIGHT BE.
[OVERLAPPING] THE CLOCK IS TICKING AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TAX RATES THAT HAVE BEEN PUT IN FRONT OF YOU, NUMBER WAS THROWN OUT THERE THAT IS A MILLION.
GREAT. MILLION DOLLARS. NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT A COVERAGE OF $1.3 MILLION.
STILL DOESN'T GET YOU TO THE FOUR.
THAT'S THE GAP BETWEEN NO NEW REVENUE AND THE CURRENT PROPOSED TAX RATE.
IT GETS YOU FURTHER. MAYBE THAT'S A GOOD START.
I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION, MAYOR. THANK YOU.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. FIRST OF ALL, NOW WE'RE BACK ON LINE THE WAY IT SHOULD BE DONE.
THIS SHOULD BE A MOTION FROM COUNSEL TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF IN THIS BUDGET TO WORK WITH THE PORT AND THE WARS BOARD, AND THAT'S THE WAY THIS SHOULD BE DONE.
SECOND OF ALL ON THIS, THE DISCUSSIONS IN MY MIND ON RECURRING REVENUE IS GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE TIME.
WE NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH THE PORT AND THE PARK BOARD BECAUSE THIS IS IMPACTING THEIR BUDGETS FOR QUITE A LONG TIME.
IN THE PORT STANDPOINT, IT INVOLVES THE POTENTIAL TO INVOLVE THE CHARTER.
THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PUBLIC AND WE'LL NEED TO DETERMINE HOW WE PROCEED.
>> BUT IT MAY NOT IF WE'RE ABLE TO COME TO A MULTIPLE YEAR AGREEMENT WITH THEM THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THEIR BOTTOM LINE.
YOU HAVE EVERGREEN AGREEMENT THAT IS TERMINABLE WITH THE LIBRARY.
FOR A COMPARABLE SUM THAT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR.
THAT'S NOT UNHEARD OF OR OR UNKNOWN TO THE CITY.
>> I WOULD SAY THESE DISCUSSIONS ON AND I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RECURRING REVENUE STREAM, AND COUNCILWOMAN ROB, IS CORRECT, THAT IT COULD BE THAT IT DOESN'T AT THE PORT, REQUIRE ANY MAJOR CHANGES OF THE CHARTER, BUT WE WON'T KNOW TILL WE SIT DOWN AND START TO DISCUSS THIS SERIOUSLY WITH THE WARS BOARD.
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID AND I THINK COUNSEL SHOULD BE THE PEOPLE HANDLING THIS DISCUSSION, AND A PERFECT EXAMPLE WOULD BE WHAT HAPPENED TODAY.
I'M SURE BOB WOULD AGREE WITH ME.
THAT A FACT THAT A HOT CONTRACT CAME FORWARD WITHOUT THE PARK BOARD SEEING OR BEING INVOLVED WITH THE NEGOTIATIONS.
I UNDERSTAND WHY THE CHANGE IN THAT LANGUAGE WAS MADE, BUT IT STILL ISN'T A WAY TO PARTNER WITH SOMEONE.
IT WOULD BE GOING TO A CLOSING ON THE HOUSE AND SAYING, HERE'S WHAT THE PEOPLE AGREED TO.
YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT. IT JUST SHOULDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY.
>> BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS SUBJECT, I WANT TO GO BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTO FOR A SECOND.
ALEX. YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD A THOUGHT ABOUT YOU WANT TO PASS THOSE OUT, JANELLE.
>> YOU HAD A THOUGHT, ALEX, ABOUT SETTING UP A FUTURE MEETING TO ADDRESS THE APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE, THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT.
WHAT DO YOU SEE AS THE ADVANTAGE OF THAT?
>> MY POINT BEING WITH ALL OF THIS, IS WE HAVE, AND BRIAN TALKED TO THE PAPER, AND WE SAW THE ARTICLE YESTERDAY, FORGIVE ME IF I'M OFF BY A DAY OR TWO.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S RAISED TAXES OR GO BELOW NO NEW REVENUE, AND NO PROJECTION WAS CREATED FOR THE CURRENT TAX RATE WITH THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED.
NO TALK ABOUT EVEN THE CURRENT TAX RATE THAT IS [OVERLAPPING]
[02:20:01]
>> BECAUSE REQUEST FOR COUNSEL, THERE'S NO WAY THAT I CAN BALANCE THE BUDGET GIVEN THE REVENUE SOURCES THAT I HAVE AT MY DISPOSAL AT THAT REVENUE RATE, I HAVE TO BRING YOU A BUDGET WITH REVENUE THAT SUPPORTS THE PROGRAMS, THE SERVICE LEVEL IN YOUR ASKS, AND THAT'S WHAT I BROUGHT YOU.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LOWER THE TAX RATE TO THAT, I'M HAPPY TO BRING YOU BACK A BUDGET THAT BALANCES TO THAT, BUT COUNSEL HAS TO COLLECTIVELY TELL ME THAT THAT'S THE RATE THAT THEY WANT.
IF YOU WOULD HAVE TOLD ME THAT IN JUNE, IF COUNSEL WOULD HAVE VOTED, NOT JUST YOU, NOT JUST YOU, NOT JUST YOU, NOT JUST YOU, HAD COUNSEL JUST TOLD ME BECAUSE IF I GO AROUND THIS TABLE, I MIGHT GET FIVE DIFFERENT NUMBERS.
COUNSEL WOULD HAVE TOLD ME COLLECTIVELY, BRIAN, IT'S BUDGET TIME BEFORE YOU EVEN GET STARTED.
DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT BRINGING ME ANYTHING BUT X CENTS.
I WOULD HAVE BROUGHT YOU BACK THAT BUDGET.
IF YOU'D HAVE ADDED THINGS, I WOULD HAVE TAKEN THINGS OUT.
RIGHT NOW, EVERY TIME WE HAVE MET ON THE BUDGET, WE HAVE ONLY ADDED THINGS.
[LAUGHTER] I JOKED ABOUT THAT AT THE LAST MEETING.
WE'RE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION HERE.
>> COUNCILMAN FINKLEY BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT LAST MEETING.
LET'S PUT OUR THOUGHTS TOGETHER AND SEND IT OVER TO THE MANAGEMENT.
LET'S NOT GO INTO THAT, BUT BARRING SOME BEING LATE, YOU GOT SOME RECOMMENDATIONS. RIGHT?
>> MOST OF THEM ARE MOST OF THEM THAT MATTER ARE REVENUE CENTRIC.
THERE ARE THINGS THAT I CAN'T DO BY MYSELF, THEY TAKE COUNSEL ACTION.
>> WE DON'T EVEN HAVE OPTIONS OF POTENTIALS OF WHAT WE COULD AGREE OR DISAGREE ON.
NOW WE HAVE TO GO AGAIN, PROBABLY ANOTHER HOUR OF DISCUSSION, I WOULD SAY, TO GO THROUGH THESE TOGETHER AND LOOK AT THE COMMONALITIES AND LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO, WHAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH PUTTING IN FOR ALTERNATIVE REVENUE, AND THE TIME CLOCK IS TICKING AND IT'S A WASTE OF TIME IF YOU DIDN'T PUT TOGETHER OPTIONS.
THE ONLY OPTION WE GOT WAS NOT GROWING ISLAND TRANSIT BY THE $300,000 CUT.
WELL, I'M GLAD COUNSEL IS WORKING AND I'M REALLY GLAD BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING]
>> JUST POINTED OUT TO YOU, BUT WE HAVE VERY LIMITED AMOUNTS OF CUTS, AND IT HAS BEEN VOICED TO ME BY AT LEAST MORE THAN ONE COUNCIL MEMBER.
THEY WOULD PREFER FOR IT NOT TO IMPACT PERSONNEL, SO WE HAVE TRIED TO STEER, TRUST ME, EVEN WITH EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS HAVE ASKED, WE'VE HAD TO MAKE CUTS TO BRING IT TO THIS TAX RATE. GUYS.
>> IT'S NOBODY'S FAULT. SOMETIMES OUR EYES GET BIGGER THAN OUR STOMACH.
BUT YOU GAVE ME THE GUARD RAILS.
YOU SAID, DON'T GIVE A COLLAR TO THE EMPLOYEES.
DON'T CUT THE COLLAR, TRY NOT TO IMPACT PEOPLE'S JOBS, TRY NOT TO IMPACT SERVICES.
WE'VE SHOWED YOU GRAPHICALLY THE MATH AIN'T MATHING, GUYS, AND AT SOME POINT, REALITY HAS TO SET IN THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE NEW REVENUE.
I'VE BEEN PREACHING THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, BUT I CAN'T JUST PLUG NUMBERS INTO THIS BUDGET.
COUNCIL AND THOSE BOARDS HAVE TO AGREE TO LONG TERM FUNDING.
THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS GENERAL FUND THAT'S NOT RECURRING.
IT WOULD BE JUST TOTALLY RECKLESS TO PLUG IN ONE TIME REVENUE TO FUND THESE THINGS.
THAT WOULD BE RECKLESS, MY TWO CENTS.
32 YEARS OF DOING GOVERNMENT AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TELLING YOU, IT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU GUYS TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, WE CAN ONLY RECOMMEND TO YOU.
WE'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
>> BEFORE ALEX, I WANT TO GET BACK TO THIS THOUGHT.
BY PUTTING IF WE PUT THIS OFF, THEN YOUR FEELING THAT GIVES US TIME TO LOOK AT A NEW BUDGET BASED ON, AND I'M GOING TO THROW THIS OUT OF NOT INCREASING A TAX RATE, BUT KEEPING IT AS IT WAS AT THIS POINT.
>> THOSE TWO, AND WE CAN DISCUSS AS COUNSEL.
THERE'S TWO DISPARITIES HERE, AND LIKE THE MIDDLE LINE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ANOTHER MIDDLE LINE, BUT THE SAME TAX RATE, I THINK, IN MY OPINION, WOULD BE REASONABLE TO TAXPAYERS, THEY WOULD UNDERSTAND, EVEN THOUGH [OVERLAPPING] I UNDERSTAND THAT TOO.
>> WHAT ARE YOU SAYING, MARIE?
>> EVEN IF WE LEFT IT AT THE 40 CENTS, THAT'S STILL AN INCREASE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY VALUE INCREASES DUE TO US.
>> TO BE HONEST, THERE'S PEOPLE AT NO NEW REVENUE THEY'RE GOING TO EXPERIENCE TAX INCREASE.
>> IF YOU KEEP THE TAX RATE THE SAME AS IT IS.
[02:25:03]
>> IT'S STILL DUE TO US BECAUSE WE HAVE THE OPTION TO VOTE FOR A NO NET NEW REVENUE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. HOWEVER, AS WE'VE HEARD HERE, WITH THAT, ABSENCE OF NEW ADDED VALUE AND SIGNIFICANT ADDED VALUE TO THE TAX ROLES, THE REASON THAT THAT WORKS IN OTHER CITIES IS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'RE BRINGING ON NEW NEIGHBORHOODS TIME AFTER TIME, FRIENDSWOOD, LAKE CITY, ETC.
THAT'S HOW THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE THOSE NO NEW REVENUES.
THAT WORKS GREAT WHEN YOU HAVE A GROWING CITY.
WE ARE LANDLOCKED AND NEW DEVELOPMENT ON A LARGE SCALE IS VERY DIFFICULT TO OCCUR.
YES, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUSHED THROUGH AND BUT WE DON'T KNOW THE TIMING ON WHICH THEY'RE HAVING, BUT TO SIMPLY SAY THAT NO NEW REVENUE IS THE END OF BO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M NOT SAYING IT'S AN END OF BO I'M SAYING IT'S AN OPTION.
BUT IT'S NOT REASONABLE UNLESS YOU HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL VALUE ADDED TO YOUR TAX ROLES.
>> I THINK THERE ARE OTHER CUTS THAT CAN BE MADE ON THE BUDGET THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED.
WE ALWAYS LOOK AT HURTING THE LOWEST LEVEL PEOPLE VERSUS [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHERE DID I SAY I WANTED TO HURT THE LOWEST LEVEL
>> THE FIRST BUDGET YOU CAME BACK TO US WAS GIVING NO COLLAR.
>> THAT AFFECTS EVERY PERSON, DOESN'T IT.
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE COLLAR FOR EVERYBODY.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, I'VE PULLED MYSELF OUT OF EVERYTHING, SO IF THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT, THAT'S FINE.
BUT AGAIN, GUYS, THE WAY THE CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT WORKS IS THAT YOU TELL ME THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, THE SERVICES YOU WANT TO PROVIDE, AND HOW YOU WANT IT DONE, AND I BRING YOU BACK THE PLAN TO DO THAT.
THAT'S UP TO ME. IF I NEED SIX TRACTORS AND SIX PEOPLE TO DO IT OR THREE TO DO IT.
THAT'S MY DETERMINATION TO DO IT.
YOU'RE GOING TO HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE END PRODUCT OF THE POLICY, AND I BRING IT BACK TO YOU AND BUDGET.
AND SO WHETHER EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HAS TWO PEOPLE IN IT OR ONE PERSON IN IT OR THREE PEOPLE [OVERLAPPING] NO.
IT DOES NOT HAVE FOUR PEOPLE IN IT.
YOU CANNOT JUST KEEP MAKING UP NUMBERS AND THROWING THEM OUT THERE, COUNCILMEMBER, ROB, THERE HAS TO BE FACT, YOU'RE TALKING TO THE PUBLIC.
>> ACCORDING TO YOUR BUDGET, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING FROM.
>> THERE'S FOUR PEOPLE IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT?
>> TWO PART TIME, TWO FULL TIME.
>> TWO FULL TIME, TWO PART TIME.
THEY'RE SPLIT AMONGST THEIR TIME IN THE BUDGET.
THERE'S COST ALLOCATION IN OUR BUDGET.
IT WAS THAT WAY WHEN I GOT HERE.
>> LET ME ASK THIS, AND I WANT TO GO BACK BECAUSE I LIKE WHAT COUNCILMAN PORRETTO IS SAYING.
IF WE ARE LOOKING AT A NOT A NO NEW REVENUE RATE, BUT ARE CONSIDERING NOT A NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND NOT CONSIDERING POSSIBLY THE 42.
IS THERE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN HERE THAT WE CAN LOOK AT IF WE DID THAT AND GUIDE ME ON THIS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD SET THE TAX RATE IN THE BUDGET BASED UPON THAT AMOUNT, AND IT'S UP TO STAFF TO BRING US BACK A BUDGET THAT IS SUPPORTING THAT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING.
>> THAT CAN BE DONE AT A FUTURE MEETING OR THAT CAN BE DONE AT THIS MEETING?
>> I DO THINK PERSONALLY, GOING BACK TO COUNCILMAN FINKLEY'S THOUGHTS, THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME POSSIBLY CONSIDERATION IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, WHATEVER RATE WE ADOPT, IF IT'S BELOW THE 42 TO WORK WITH THE PARK BOARD AND THE PORT TO SEE ABOUT IF THERE IS ANY REVENUE STREAMS THAT CAN BE CUT AND IMPACT US POSITIVELY ON OUR REVENUE FLOW FOR THIS YEAR.
>> I THINK THAT WAS THE GENERAL CONSENSUAL.
ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, NOT JUST COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEY.
>> [NOISE] I THINK READING, COUNSEL, SPEAK UP, COUNSEL.
I DON'T THINK THAT COUNSEL HAS [OVERLAPPING]
>> IN FACT HE'S HAPPY TO BRING YOU BACK ALL THE OPTIONS THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH OF WAYS TO DO THAT.
WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. BUT WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT AND ALONG WITH THEIR BOARDS TO AGREE TO IT.
>> BOB, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING ONE TAX RATE OR ANOTHER, THAT IF I'M HEARING THE HISTORIC DATA CORRECTLY, WE'VE LOWERED THE TAX RATE EVERY YEAR SINCE 2021.
>> YES, WE HAVE. WE'VE LOWERED THE RATE EVERY YEAR.
>> WE'VE LOWERED THE RATE EVERY YEAR SINCE 2021, AND IT MAY BE THAT THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LIKE A MAINLAND COMMUNITY THAT HAS EVER EXPANDING TAX BASE.
[02:30:04]
WE'VE GOT LIMITED GEOGRAPHY AND A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ECONOMY.MAYBE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE.
I'M NOT REAL SURE, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY A SWEET SPOT IN BETWEEN RAISING THE TAX RATE AND KEEPING IT THE SAME OR SOMEWHERE IN THERE THAT INVOLVES THE CUTS THAT WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE TO LIVE WITH.
ONE THING, BEING A DEMOCRACY, WE ALL SHARE IN THE PROSPERITY OF THE CITY, BUT IT GOES THE OTHER WAY TOO.
EVERYBODY HAS TO SHARE THE BURDEN WHEN IT COMES AROUND, WE'VE SHOWN THAT WE CAN DO THAT WITH DIFFERENT HURRICANES AND DISASTERS AND SO ON.
IT GOES BACK TO THE POINT OF NOT PUTTING THE BURDEN ON ANY ONE PARTICULAR GROUP, BUT SPREADING THE BURDEN OUT, AND I'M TALKING ABOUT CITY EMPLOYEES, I GUESS SPECIFICALLY ON THAT.
IT'S JUST SOME OBSERVATIONS, AGAIN, I'M NOT ADVOCATING ONE TAX RATE OR ANOTHER RIGHT NOW I'M TRYING TO LIKE ALEX, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CONSEQUENCES OF DIFFERENT TAX RATES THAT IS SO WE'RE VERY CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE FUNDING IF WE DO THIS TAX RATE.
>> I HOPE YOU DON'T TAKE EXCEPTION TO THIS, ALEX, SO I'M GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION DIRECTLY.
I ASSUME THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 40 CENT TAX RATE OR WHATEVER THAT IS, THAT IS THE CURRENT TAX RATE.
>> AT LEAST NOT GOING ABOVE THAT.
I WANT TO CLARIFY THIS BECAUSE IF COUNCILMAN PORRETTO HAS A THOUGHT THAT HEY, I'LL ENTERTAIN ANYTHING ELSE ABOVE THAT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT HE'S SAYING THIS.
>> NO. I'M I'M ABSOLUTELY IN THE SAME CAMP BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT'S HOW DO YOU SAY SHARING THE BURDEN EQUALLY.
IT KEEPS THE TAX RATE THE SAME THAN IT IS.
IT'S DEFINITELY LOWERING THE OVERALL INCREASED TAXPAYERS DOWN FROM WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY PROJECTED.
THEN THE INCREASE IN TAXES OR RESULT EVALUATION INCREASES, THEN WE LOOK AT MAYBE A PLUG NUMBER, THAT SOFTENS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NO NEW REVENUE AND THE PROPOSED RATE OF 4 MILLION DOLLAR GAP, AND THEN THE REST OF IT IS UP TO BRIAN.
>> YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS ALONG THOSE LINES.
WE CAN DELAY, I GUESS, AND PRE-POST AND DO ALL THAT STUFF OR YOU CAN ADOPT A TAX RATE TODAY AND I'LL BRING YOU BACK AN AMENDED BUDGET THAT DOES EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANT.
>> I WILL SAY THIS, I THINK, BRIAN [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT YOUR TAX RATE, GUYS.
I WILL DO WHATEVER TAX RATE YOU WANT, BUT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU ASKED FOR AND I HAVE TO PAY FOR IT SOMEHOW.
>> I WOULD SAY THIS THAT WHATEVER TAX RATE WE ADOPT, BRIAN IS GOING TO BRING US BACK A BUDGET AND HE'LL WORK DILIGENTLY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
I WOULD SAY DON, I NEED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION OR PROCEDURAL QUESTION.
WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA A ITEM FOR A 42 CENT TAX RATE BUDGET.
CAN WE AMEND IF A COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS TO AMEND THAT BUDGET MOTION TO BE A 40 CENT BUDGET? CAN THAT BE DONE?
>> YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE BECAUSE THAT IS STILL A TAX INCREASE.
[NOISE] AND YOU WOULD RATIFY THAT 408 TAX RATE.
>> AND PASS THE BUDGET BASED ON THAT 408 TAX RATE.
>> IF YOU COULD INCLUDE IN YOUR MOTION, EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO INCLUDE FOR THE BUDGET, YOU COULD INCLUDE GUARD RAILS.
YOU COULD SAY BRIAN BRING US BACK AN AMENDED BUDGET, BUT WE WANTED TO INCLUDE A 5% COLLAR FOR EMPLOYEES.
WE WOULD PREFER IT NOT TO INCLUDE BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT EVEN COUNSEL CAN DICTATE THE INSURANCE BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN INSURANCE COMMITTEE THAT SETS A LOT OF THAT STUFF AND I DON'T WANT TO GET CROSSWAYS WITH OUR CIVIL SERVICE GROUPS WHO HAVE SAY AND ALL THAT, BUT YOU COULD SUGGEST THAT.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GOING TO ARGUE THAT POINT.
YOU COULD GIVE ME THE GUARD RAILS, AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE TRIED TO LIVE IN AS THE GUARD RAIL [NOISE] THAT YOU'VE GIVEN ME.
>> NOW, THAT IS MY SECOND QUESTION HERE PROCEDURALLY.
IF COUNCIL MOVES IN THAT DIRECTION, IF WE WANT TO PUT CRITERIA TO THAT MOTION SUCH AS WORKING WITH THE PORT AND THE PARK BOARD TO BRING IN EXTRA REVENUE, OR AS COUNCILMAN FINKLEY MENTIONED, EVEN PLUGGING IN A NUMBER OR GIVING OTHER GUIDANCE TO STAFF, IS THAT DONE IN THE BUDGET MOTION OR THE TAX RATE MOTION?
[02:35:05]
>> I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE DONE IN THE BUDGET MOTION.
>> HOWEVER, I WOULD CAUTION AGAINST INCORPORATING ANY SPECIFIC FIGURE BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T EXIST RIGHT NOW.
YOU PASS THE BUDGET WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF THAT THEY INITIATE TALKS WITH THE PORT AND THE PARK BOARD AND I CAN GO DO THAT.
EVENTUALLY, THOUGH, HE WILL BRING YOU BACK AN AMENDED BUDGET BASED ON THE 408 AND LATER AS THINGS FLESH OUT WITH THE WARS BOARD AND THE PARK BOARD [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S A SHIFTING DOCUMENT.
IT'S A PLAN IS SOMETHING YOU DEVIATE FROM, AND THAT'S WHAT THE PLEDGE DID.
>> IF WE MOVED IN THAT DIRECTION, BRIAN YOU AND STAFF WOULD MOVE FORWARD IN CONTACTING THE PORT STAFF AND PARK BOARD STAFF TO SET THAT UP TO MOVE FORWARD, GETTING IT ON THEIR AGENDAS FOR APPROVAL AT THE PORT AND SO FORTH.
>> I THOUGHT TALKED ABOUT HAVING JOINT MEETINGS.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S NOT THAT EASY MAYOR BECAUSE I COULD COME UP WITH A NUMBER YOU NEED RIGHT NOW OUT OF MY HEAD AND I HAVE GOOD IDEAS WHERE TO GET IT FROM, BUT I'M NOT SURE THEY WOULD AGREE WITH IT.
I THINK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT BECAUSE IT IMPACTS, NOBODY'S JUST GOT STACKS OF MONEY SITTING AROUND ON THEIR TABLE DOWN THERE, GUYS.
WHATEVER YOU TAKE FROM THEM IS GOING TO IMPACT THEIR OPERATIONS, TOO, SO THINK IT HAS TO BE A TEAM EFFORT.
>> IT DOES, BUT IT WOULD BE AN EMOTION THAT WOULD GIVE GUIDANCE FOR THIS.
IF IT COMES OUT AT THE BUDGET WHEN THAT BUDGET MOTION IS MADE, IT WOULD THEN COME OUT IN THE MOTION ON WHAT GUIDANCE YOU WOULD GET.
>> WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO BRING YOU BACK A LIST OF PROPOSED REVENUE IDEAS FROM THEM THAT COUNCIL COULD THEN TAKE AND WORK AND NEGOTIATE.
>> CORRECT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD GET ON THE AGENDA FOR THE WARS BOARD COMING HERE SHORTLY.
>> COUNCIL COULD ADD TO IT WHEN I BRING IT TO YOU.
>> WHY WOULDN'T WE DO A JOINT MEETING.
SINCE WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT COUNCIL.[OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M TRYING TO MOVE IT QUICKLY, I WAS THINKING THAT THE PORT COULD EVEN CALL A SPECIAL MEETING TO EVEN CONSIDER THIS.
TRYING TO DO A JOINT MEETING TOGETHER SOMETIMES GETS DIFFICULT TO GET EVERYBODY'S SCHEDULES TOGETHER.
BUT WHATEVER THE MOTION IS, WE CAN DO IT, BOB.
>> ARE WE GOING ALONG THE PREMISE THAT WE NEED THIS, WE'LL CALL IT PLUG MONEY FROM THE BOARD IN THE PARK BOARD RIGHT NOW.
HOWEVER, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM IN THE FUTURE ON HOW TO CREATE THAT AS A RECURRING SOURCE OF REVENUE, NOT JUST A PLUG NUMBER.
>> WELL, OF COURSE, THIS IS JUST WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE MOTION WOULD INCLUDE THIS YEAR ONLY.
STARTING IN OCTOBER, WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCES AND MEETING JOINTLY WITH THE PARK BOARD AND THE PORT, MAKE SURE WE PLAN A PATH FORWARD FOR RECURRING REVENUE.
>> BECAUSE IT IS A RISK BASED ON A BUDGET ON A PLUG NUMBER AND GET TO MEASURE THAT.
>> JUST SOME INSIGHT INTO HOW I'LL DO IT IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS IS I'LL STRUCTURE EXPENSE CUTS THAT WE CAN PHASE BACK IN IF THE REVENUE MATERIALIZES.
IF THE REVENUE DOESN'T MATERIALIZE, WE'LL TRY TO NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT YOUR FUND BALANCE THAT'S THE GOAL HERE.
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE JUST BACKSTOPPING ALL THIS WITH THE FUND BALANCE, AND THAT'S A RISK THAT I DON'T THINK A CITY ON THE COAST SHOULD TAKE.
>> PREVIOUSLY, MR. MAXWELL, YOU OFFERED UP THAT IF WE WANTED TO INCLUDE SOME OF THESE ITEMS LIKE THE [INAUDIBLE], ETC INTO THE BUDGET, YOU RECOMMENDED THREE SAFEGUARDS.
DO THOSE NEED TO BE ENUNCIATED IN THE MOTION OR IS THAT JUST SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE JUST GOING TO RESPOND TO?
>> YEAH. WE'LL JUST RESPOND TO THAT.
>> VERY GOOD. COUNCIL, LET'S GET YOUR THOUGHTS OUT ON THE TABLE ON THIS SUBJECT BECAUSE. YES, BOB.
>> ONE MORE THOUGHT, WAS ONE PAGE PART OF THE PRESENTATION THAT FORECASTS CONCERNS ON NO NEW REVENUE PROTECTIONS GENERAL FUND.
THAT'S A VERY USEFUL TO ME A PIECE OF INFORMATION, SO IF WE COULD TAKE WHATEVER TAX RATE IS RECOMMENDED AND BUDGET, THAT WE COULD APPLY THE SAME ANALYSIS.
MY POINT IS ANYTHING LIKE THIS IS NOT A DECISION BASED ON ONE YEAR, IT'S A DECISION BASED ON SEVERAL YEARS GOING INTO THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HAMSTRING ANY OF OUR PEOPLE WHO COME AFTER US, AND WE WANT TO BE FAIR TO THE NEXT PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE DOING BUDGETS, WHETHER IT'S US OR ANYBODY ELSE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I SAID EARLIER AND I AGREE WITH YOU BOB ON THAT.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER INPUT COUNCIL? YES, SHARON.
[02:40:03]
>> I'D LIKE THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT THE 0.408 WITH THE BUDGET AND I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE.
BUT MY QUESTION WOULD BE AND I KNOW IT'S UP TO YOU WHERE WHAT THOSE MAJOR CUTS OR CUTS TAKE PLACE.
MY SECOND QUESTION IS ON THE CONVENTION CENTER SURPLUS, MAY I ASK A QUESTION ON THAT HONEY?
>> WHAT IS THE SPORTS TOURISM? NOTHING IN 2023, NOTHING IN 2024 AND THEN FOR 2025, IT'S LIKE THREE MILLION.
>> THOSE ARE FIELDS THAT WE USED HOT TO BUILD, AND THEREFORE, WE'RE GOING TO USE A LITTLE HOT TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE THEM.
THE SOCCER FIELDS PRIMARILY, I BELIEVE.
>> IT'S THREE MILLION TO OPERATE THE.
>> IN BASEBALL FIELD.[BACKGROUND] SOFTBALL FIELDS OUT AT LASSIE LEAGUE.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT NUMBER TO SEE IS THAT A HIGH FAR ENHANCING OR MAINTAINING FIELDS?
>> WE CAN LOOK AT IT, WITH HOT, WE TRY TO BALANCE IT WITH ACTUAL EXPENSES WE DON'T WANT TO FLUFF IT, SO WE HAVE TO TIE HOT EXPENSES TO HOT ACTIVITIES.
>> BECAUSE IT WASN'T THERE IN THE PREVIOUS?
>> NO, IT'S SOMETHING NEW WE'RE DOING THIS YEAR.
IT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TRIED TO IDENTIFY THIS YEAR.
>> BECAUSE WE HAVE SANDHILL CRANE PROJECT.
>> 2.45 MARIE I'M SORRY, SHARON, GO AHEAD.
>> POSSIBLY WE COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT NUMBER AND SEE THAT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT ALL OF IT, BUT WE CAN'T JUST GRAB HOT RANDOMLY IT HAS TO BE PACKED UP AND SUBSTANTIATED.
ABSOLUTELY AND THERE'LL BE A HARD LOOK AT THAT.
>> THAT WON'T IMPACT THE GENERAL FUND?
>> THAT WON'T IMPACT THE GENERAL FUND NOW.
>> OKAY. THE GENERAL FUND, I AGREE WITH YOU, WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT THE CITY HAS TO MAINTAIN AND THERE AND IT NEEDS A GOOD LOOK FOR THE FUTURE.
BUT I'M JUST HOPING THAT THE CUTS, WHATEVER YOU MAKE, THAT IT DOES NOT AFFECT AREAS THAT ARE.
>> THAT'S THE GUARD RAILS THE JOB PUT ON IT, AND THAT YOU TELL ME YOU DON'T WANT TO REDUCE SERVICES, OR YOU DON'T WANT TO REDUCE OR YOU DON'T WANT TO CHANGE YOUR PROGRAM? THAT'S THE POLICY SIDE OF IT YOU GUYS TELL ME.
>> LASTLY, AND THIS IS A LITTLE SMALL, BUT I STILL DIDN'T SEE FIREWORKS.
>> FIREWORKS IS IN CONVENTION CENTER SURPLUS, WE JUST HAVEN'T PROVIDED YOU WITH AN UPDATED VERSION OF THAT PROPOSED BUDGET, THE CAPITAL RESERVE, I BELIEVE, IS LISTED AS $6 MILLION AND IT WILL COME OUT OF THAT.
>> HOT IS VERY LIMITED COMPARED TO UNRESTRICTED FUNDS AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE SUGGESTIONS ISNN, IT'S ALL ABOUT HOT AND WHAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE DONE WITH HOT.
>> IT'S A LOT OF STUFF WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THAT.
WHERE AND WHEN AND WHAT'S THE PROCESS OF.
OF GIVING BRIAN GUARDRAILS FOR A DIFFERENT.
>> I THINK YOU GUYS, YOU'VE PRETTY MUCH ALREADY DONE IT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING I'VE MISSED YOU WANT TO CONTINUE SERVICE LEVELS.
THERE'S NO MAJOR PROGRAMMATIC CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE.
>> YOU HAVE THE LIST OF ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THERE THAT YOU CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATIONS AS WE GO THROUGH THAT,.
>> I'M SORRY, MARIE, GO AHEAD.
>> I WAS REFERRING TO WHAT SHARON WAS SAYING.
YOU SAY THAT IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE GENERAL FUNDS, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BALLPARKS AND THE FIELDS AND SO FORTH, SOME OF THAT COMES OUT OF THE PARKS, WHICH IS A GENERAL FUND, ALTHOUGH A LOT OF THAT IS FUNDED BY IDC.
BUT THEN YOU CAN'T HELP BUT LOOK AT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PARK BOARD, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO LASSIE LEAGUE.
>> BECAUSE WITH LASSIE LEAGUE, YOU HAVE A TON OF TOURNAMENTS THAT COME IN HERE AS WELL AS WITH THE BASEBALL FIELDS.
THERE ARE A TON OF TOURNAMENTS THAT COME IN THAT ARE WEEK AND LONG OR PUTTING HEADS IN BEDS AND THE FACT THAT IT'S ONLY THE TRICKLE DOWN FUNDS.
THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT SHOULD BE HAD WITH THE PARK BOARD SO THAT PERHAPS TRICKLE DOWN FUNDS COULD BE USED FOR ANOTHER AREA THAT'S AFFECTING OUR GENERAL FUND BECAUSE OF THE FUND.
>> TRICKLE DOWN AND HOT THAT'S ALL THE SAME USE.
>> BUT IT'S DIFFERENT SOURCES IT'S COMING FROM.
>> YOU ALSO HAVE $14 MILLION IN HOT SITTING IN YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, TOO.
[02:45:02]
>> BUT FOR THAT MATTER AGAIN, IF IT'S RECURRING, TRICKLE DOWN DOES RECUR, BUT IT'S ONLY GOING TO RECUR FOR A FEW MORE YEARS, IT'S NOT GOING TO RECUR FOREVER AND YOU DON'T WANT TO FALL OFF A CLIFF IN 10 YEARS.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BUDGET OUT 10 YEARS, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET FIVE ON THE TABLE.
>> THAT'S WHY I SAY WE NEED TO LOOK BEYOND TRICKLE DOWN FOUR.
>> 100% BUT JUST REMEMBER, WHEN YOU DO THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO REMIND YOU.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT FOR COUNCIL TO BE INVOLVED BECAUSE IT'S NOT A MATTER OF BRIAN SAYING, WE'RE JUST GOING TO PAY FOR THAT AT A HOT.
THAT HOT, IT'S GOT TO COME FROM A RECURRING SOURCE AND RIGHT NOW, THE PARK BOARDS ASKING FOR ALL THE HOT AND THEY NEED ALL THE HOT FOR THEIR CURRENT BUDGET PROPOSAL.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE SOME OF THAT RECURRING HOT, IT'S GOT TO COME OUT OF SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE DOING.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU SHOULDN'T OR THAT IT SHOULD OR ANYTHING ELSE.
BUT I'M JUST PUTTING THAT ON THE TABLE UNLESS YOU WANTED TO TAKE IT FROM THE $14 MILLION IN RESERVES THAT YOU HAVE, IT'S GOING TO INTERRUPT OR TAKE MONEY FROM SOME OTHER OPERATION THAT'S BEING HOT FUNDED.
I'M ALSO GOING TO MENTION AT THIS TIME THAT THE $14 MILLION RESERVE SOUNDS VERY LUCRATIVE FOR THAT PURPOSE, BUT YOU DO HAVE A BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS ON THE TABLE THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION THAT WE DO NEED TO FUND.
>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE A BIG CHUNK.
>> WE HAVE A JOY OF MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD ON OCTOBER 10, YOU'VE BEEN NOTIFIED OF.
>> BOB AND I HAVE SHARED SOME IDEAS ON THAT AS WELL THAT MAY ACTUALLY SAVE US SOME MONEY THERE.
GUYS, Y'ALL ARE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, I JUST I NEED SUPPORT TO GET IT DONE.
>> THAT'S WHY COUNCIL SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN DISCUSSION.
>> WE'RE GETTING NO QUESTION FOR ME OUT OF THAT AT ALL BUT IT HAS TO BE COUNCIL COLLECTIVELY.
AGAIN, I DON'T MEAN THIS FACETIOUSLY, BUT CHILA CAN'T PRODUCE SEVEN DIFFERENT SCENARIO BECAUSE IT'S A BIG DEAL TO TEAR THESE BUDGETS UP AND REDUCE IT AND COME UP WITH DIFFERENT SCENARIOS AND ALL, IT'S A LOT OF WORK.
FUTURE YEARS, IT WOULD REALLY HELP IF SOMEBODY WOULD TELL CHILA IN JUNE AT OUR VERY FIRST BUDGET KICKOFF MEETING, TAKE A BACK WE'RE NOT GOING ABOVE THIS NUMBER AND HERE'S YOUR GUARD RAILS.
>> NO, WE DIDN'T BUT WE HAVE CELL PHONES, AND BRIAN, YOU COULD HAVE CALLED INDIVIDUALLY AND ASKED US.
>> THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.[LAUGHTER] THAT WOULD BE A WALKING COURT.
>> SPREAD AROUND THE ROOM IN A WORKSHOP AND STATED OUR FEELINGS ON MONTHS AGO.
>> WE STATED WELL, SOME OF US MADE COMMITMENTS TO CERTAIN THINGS.
>> TWO OF YOU THAT MADE COMMITMENTS, BUT I NEED COUNCIL TO COLLECTIVELY TELL ME THAT.
GUYS, I'VE NEVER NOT DONE WHAT YOU'VE TOLD ME TO DO, BUT I'M NOT A MIND READER, AND ALSO I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU WHAT YOU WANT.
>> PROCEDURALLY, I'VE LEARNED A LESSON WE CAN TALK AROUND THIS WORKSHOP TABLE UNTIL WE VOTE THAT'S WHAT STANDS.
I'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE AT THE WORKSHOP TABLES HAVE ONE OPINION AND THEY VOTE THE OPPOSITE WAY.
IT TURNS INTO ACTUALLY VOTING ON THESE AND THAT'S WHY GETTING THIS BUDGET, WHATEVER THAT MOTION MAY COME OUT TODAY, WE'LL GET SOME DETAILS ON THE BUDGET AND VOTE ON IT.
>> WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO MAKE IT WORK, BUT UNDERSTAND THAT MAINTAINING PROGRAMS AND SERVICES ARE ONE THING BUT THERE'S DIFFERENT COMPONENTS TO THAT.
WE MAY STILL ALWAYS PROVIDE THIS SERVICE, BUT IT MAY BE A LITTLE SLOWER OR IT MAY BE AND I TALKED TO BOB ABOUT THIS THE OTHER DAY AND BOB, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID HE SAID HE DIDN'T THINK ANYBODY THAT'S REQUESTING CERTAIN CUTS, DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAY SOMEHOW SLOW SERVICE OR IMPACTED OR ADVERSELY DO IT, WE'RE GOING TO TRY NOT TO.
IT'S GOING TO BE OUR VERY BEST, IT ALWAYS IS, BUT WE'VE BUILT A VERY HIGH LEVEL OF SERVICE HERE ON THIS ISLAND AND IT'S EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN.
>> I THINK, COUNCIL, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?
>> I WOULD SAY, WE CAN GO INTO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE WANT THE MOTION TO LOOK, SHE HAS A LOT OF THESE, BUT SEND OUR FINALS NUMBERS.
IT'S JUST DIFFICULT WITH THE TIME CONSTRAINT TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE MOTION FOR THE BUDGET IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
>> UNLESS WE GO AHEAD AND PLAY ANOTHER MEANING NOW.
>> WELL, AGAIN, YOUR ROLE IN BUDGET IS TO SET FORTH WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH.
THERE'S A LOT IN HERE THAT'S VERY GOOD IN TERMS OF REVENUE, EXCEPT THERE'S A LOT OF IT THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC TO OPERATIONS THAT IF IT'S NOT COUNCIL'S PURVIEW.
THAT'S MY JOB, YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT TO ACCOMPLISH, AND I'LL STAFF IT ACCORDINGLY TO GET IT DONE WITHIN THE BUDGET THAT'S HOW THE CHARTER WORKS.
>> ALEX, DID YOU GET YOUR THOUGHT OUT COMPLETELY?
>> JUST FIGURING OUT HOW TO MAKE A MOTION THAT SATISFIES ALL THE GUARD RAIL REQUIREMENTS AND BEING SO SPECIFIC THAT BRIAN KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT BUT GUESS THAT'S THE FEELING.
>> THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS OBVIOUSLY CAN'T PLEASE ALL SEVEN OF YOU AT ONE TIME,
[02:50:01]
SO THAT'S WHY IT COLLECTIVELY NEEDS TO BE A DECISION.IN THE PAST, THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSENSUS AMONGST THE DIFFERENT COUNCILS.
THERE'S SOME DIVISION IN THIS ONE, I NEED DIRECTION.
>> WE GAVE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
I THINK COUNCILMAN FINKLEY SAID, GIVE IT AND WE COULD HAVE IT ALL READY TO GO, AND IT'S NOT READY TO GO. IT'S NOT.
WHOEVER DOES IS GOING TO BE FIGURING IT OUT AND I'M OKAY WITH THAT, BUT THIS FEELS LIKE A WASTE OF A GOOD IDEA FROM A COUNCILMAN THAT WE ALL COULD HAVE HAD AT LEAST A FRAMEWORK OF WHAT WE WOULD WANT.
THAT'S FINE. MY THOUGHTS ARE DONE.
>> USUALLY, I'LL MOVE ON, BUT I'M RELUCTANT TO LEAVE THIS SUBJECT UNTIL WE GET SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE THE ISSUE IS HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD AT THE COUNCIL MEETING WITH A PARTICULAR MOTION THAT WILL GET US WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
WHAT WOULD THAT MOTION LOOK LIKE?
>> I THINK WHAT WE COULD DO IS MAKE ONE BIG LONG ONE.
GO INTO DISCUSSION AND VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENT THAT WE WOULD WANT TO KEEP IN OR REMOVE AS A GUARDRAIL.
I THINK THAT WOULD FALL UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, AND I THINK WE COULD GO AND HAVE IT LISTED.
MAYBE WE CAN SEND OUR THOUGHTS TO JANELLE IN THE MEANTIME AND SHE CAN GIVE US A PRINTOUT OF WHAT A POTENTIAL MOTION WOULD LOOK LIKE AND VOTE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL ITEM TOGETHER AND SAY, YES TO THIS, YES TO THIS, NO TO THIS.
>> THEN THE REMAINDER IS JUST UP TO OPERATIONS?
>> YOU CAN'T PUT IMPOSSIBLE GUARD RAILS ON IT.
>> I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T PUT IMPOSSIBLE GUARD RAILS ON IT.
>> THIS IS THE PROCEDURAL PART OF THE POLICY OF THAT.
>> IT WOULD BE RELATIVE TO A PARTICULAR TAX RATE.
>> RELATIVE TO A PARTICULAR TAX RATE, YES.
>> BUT WE HAVE TO TAKE IN CONSIDERATION, THOSE THAT VIOLATE THE CHARTER, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT BRIAN WOULD MONITOR, WE DON'T HAVE A SAY IN.
>> GUARDRAILS ARE VERY HIGH-LEVEL GENERAL.
>> BUT THE GUARDRAILS THAT WE'LL PUT IN, I WOULD ASSUME ARE MORE HIGH-LEVEL GUARDRAILS.
>> FOR INSTANCE, AN INCREASE IN BENEFITS AND PAY FOR CITY STAFF WOULD BE A GUARDRAIL.
>> THE ONLY GUARDRAILS I HAVE HEARD HERE IS YOU WANT THE COA, NO CHANGES IN HEALTH BENEFITS, YOU WANT STAFF TO START TALKING TO THE PARK BOARD AND THE WHARVES BOARD.
>> YOU WANT STAFF TO COME UP WITH A NUMBER.
>> IF BOB DID IT, I WOULD SECOND ANOTHER GUARDRAIL FOR LOOKING AT ADDITIONAL HOT FUNDING FOR THE THINGS THAT HE LISTED IN HIS.
WE'RE LOSING THE TRICKLE-DOWN, AND I THINK WE NEED TO START RE-EVALUATING HOW WE USE HOT AND WE'RE A TOURIST TOWN I WOULD SAY THAT TOO.
I JUST THINK MAYBE WE SEND OUR THOUGHTS TO DON OR SEND THEM BOTH AND HE COULD COME UP WITH A MOTION AND WE CAN STILL STRIKE THINGS FROM IT AND HAVE IT IN DISCUSSION WHEN IT'S.
>> MY SENSE IS THAT THE GUARDRAILS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE CONSIDERING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT MANY.
WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE FIVE, I THINK, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> I STILL THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IT WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT UNTIL FIVE O'CLOCK.
>> ONE THING WE DO HAVE TO BE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE IN THE MOTION IS ACCEPTING THE HOT CASH FROM THE PARK BOARD BECAUSE THEIR MOTION WAS TO PROVIDE THAT MONEY AS LONG AS THE CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTS IT SO WE HAVE TO BE SURE WE DO THAT TECHNICALLY.
>> THAT MONEY WAS GIVEN THOUGH FOR VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSES.
IT WAS PARTS, WHICH FALLS UNDER GENERAL.
>> I'LL MAKE IT WORK, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IF YOU PLUGGING A NUMBER, THAT'S NOT THE END ALL FOR HOT.
>> NO. IT'S A ONE-TIME THING AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO GET TO.
WHAT TO BUY US TIME TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE RECURRING REVENUE STREAM.
>> I'M SORRY, [INAUDIBLE]. YOU GETTING UNEASY ABOUT THIS?
>> GOOD. THE ONLY THING I WANT TO SAY IS FOR THE PORTS FUNDING, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, IF THE PORT VOTES IN THAT DIRECTION, IS THAT THAT COULD GO TO THE FUND BALANCE.
>> PORTS FUNDING COULD GO TO THE FUND BALANCE IF WE HAVE A BUDGET THAT IS REDUCING THE FUND BALANCE IN ANY WAY AND ANY MONIES THAT WE BRING FROM THE PORT.
[02:55:03]
>> I DON'T THINK YOU CAN TAKE DROPPING THE FUND BALANCE OFF THE TABLE UNLESS THAT'S ONE OF THE GUARDRAILS YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT THE FUND BALANCE CAN'T DROP.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT OUR BACKDROP IS THE FUND BALANCE.
I THINK THAT'S UNDERSTOOD BY EVERYBODY HERE.
THERE'S TONS OF THINGS AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT PROMOTE HEAVILY NEW ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT'S NOT A BUDGET ITEM.
>> THAT'S A LONG-TERM COUNCIL THING THAT I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT TOO.
>> I DID HAVE MY QUESTION RIGHT THERE. GUARD RAIL.
THE FIRST I REMEMBER YOU SAYING OR SUGGESTING THAT TRANSPORTATION BE CUT, 300,000 SO WHAT IS A GUARD RAIL? DO I SAY, HEY, I DON'T WANT TRANSPORTATION?
>> NO. A GUARD RAIL WOULD BE MAINTAIN SERVICE LEVELS IN TRANSPORTATION.
>> THAT'S THE GUARD RAIL TO MAINTAIN.
>> IN MY MIND, A GUARD RAIL WOULD BE TO REVIEW OUR USE OF HOT AND UTILIZE HOT IN ANY WAY THAT COULD BE SUPPLEMENT IN OUR GENERAL FUND.
>> IF YOU CHARGE US WITH FINDING EVERY POSSIBLE USE OF HOT THAT'S LEGITIMATE I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.
>> WE WANT THE CITY MARSHAL PROGRAM TO BE REDUCED BY TWO INDIVIDUALS.
>> NO. BUT A GUARDRAIL WOULD BE YOU WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF ENFORCEMENT OR YOU WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF THINGS THAT YOU WANT ENFORCED, THEN I WOULD SCALE THE PROGRAM ACCORDINGLY.
>> BUT YOU CANNOT SAY REDUCE STAFF.
>> BEAU HAS BEEN WAITING. I'M SORRY BEAU.
>> I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION.
WE'VE GOT 12 FUNDS BASICALLY UNDER THREE.
WE'VE GOT BUDGET FUND, AND THEN WE'VE GOT THREE SEPARATE ENTERPRISE GOVERNMENTAL INTERNAL, AND THEN WE'VE GOT 12 UNDERNEATH THAT SO THERE'S BASICALLY 12 DIFFERENT FUNDS ACCORDING TO YOUR PRESENTATION ON THE WEBSITE.
>> THERE'S MORE THAN 12 FUNDS.
YOU HAVE YOUR GENERAL FUND, YOU HAVE YOUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS.
THERE'S FIVE ENTERPRISE FUNDS WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE AIRPORT AND SANITATION AND DRAINAGE IN ADDITION TO WATER AND SEWER.
YOU HAVE I WANT TO SAY CLOSE TO 20 MAYBE 24 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS THAT INCLUDES ALL THE INDIVIDUAL SILOS ON HOT FUNDS.
>> THOSE ARE YOUR THREE MAIN AREAS.
YOU ALSO HAVE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUNDS.
>> I WAS JUST GOING STRAIGHT OFF OF WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE WEBSITE, WHICH ONLY SHOWS 12, SO I WAS JUST WONDERING THAT.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ON THE WEBSITE, BUT THAT'S THE ORG CHART FOR HOW THE RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION ARE AND HOW THEY ROLL UP.
>> FOR THE PUBLIC, IT'S IS-20, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANYTHING ON OUR WEBSITE.
THEN YOU HAVE A CLASSIFICATION UNDERNEATH THAT THAT BASICALLY GIVES THE DEPARTMENT AND IT ACTUALLY GIVES A CLASSIFICATION UNDER BY WHICH WE HAVE THE EXPENDITURES CLASSIFIED.
IT'S EITHER GENERAL FUNDS, SPECIAL REVENUE, DEBT SERVICE, ENTERPRISE, OR INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS.
>> IF YOU TAKE THAT FURTHER, AND IF YOU GO TO A CERTAIN AND, OF COURSE, I'M JUST ASKING BECAUSE I NEED TO UNDERSTAND KNOWLEDGE.
LET'S JUST TAKE A CERTAIN DEPARTMENT AND THAT CERTAIN DEPARTMENT, IF YOU GO UNDER CLASSIFICATION, IT ONLY GIVES ONE CLASSIFICATION.
LET'S SAY CITY MARSHAL IS UNDER GENERAL FUND.
BUT THEN WHEN YOU GO TO THE ACTUAL STAFF TABLE, AND FROM WHAT BRIAN SAID DAY BEFORE YESTERDAY, THERE'S A PORTION OF IT THAT'S FUNDED BY GENERAL FUND, AND THEN THERE'S A PORTION OF IT THAT'S FUNDED FROM OTHER SOURCES.
>> GENERAL FUND IS REIMBURSED BY THOSE OTHER SOURCES, YES.
>> LIKE, CAN WE CHANGE THE ALLOCATIONS BETWEEN FUNDS? IS THAT YOUR QUESTION?
>> COST ALLOCATIONS, THEY SEEM TO BE OVER THE YEARS, I LOOKED FROM 20 AT HOME.
I LOOKED FROM 21 THROUGH THIS YEAR'S PROPOSED AND THOSE ALLOCATIONS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE MANIPULATED.
>> SOME OF IT IS REIMBURSEMENTS BASED ON ACTUAL ACTIVITIES.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY ENGINEER IS REIMBURSED BASED ON THE PROJECTS HE DOES.
THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE FROM YEAR TO YEAR BASED ON HOURS RELATED TO CERTAIN PROJECTS.
>> MANIPULATED IS NOT THE WORD.
>> THAT'S NOT THE APPROPRIATE WORD.
>> IT'S EITHER REIMBURSED BASED ON ACTUAL ACTIVITIES
[03:00:02]
OR WE CALCULATE IT BASED ON THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE FUNDS.FOR EXAMPLE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE THAT EACH OF THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS TRANSFERS OVER IS TIED TO THE WORK PERFORMED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE GROUP ON BEHALF OF THOSE VARIOUS FUNDS.
IT CAN BE CHANGED BASED ON THE NEED OR THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS.
I WOULD SAY DEPENDING ON THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE AND WHAT FUND IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH, YOU'RE USING THOSE ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES TO ASSIST WITH GENERAL FUND EXPENSES.
>> HOW IS THAT DETERMINED? SOMEONE'S OPINION?
>> NO. A LOT OF IT'S REIMBURSABLE.
IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A REIMBURSEMENT, AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY ALLOCATING THE TIME PER THEIR TIMESHEET TO CERTAIN PROJECTS.
WE'RE ALLOCATING FUNDS TO REIMBURSE THAT BASED ON THE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING DESIGNATED ON TIME SHEETS.
IT'S VERY SPECIFIC IN SOME CASES.
THEN WITH REGARD TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, YOU USE THE RATIOS BASED ON THE 3.18 ADMINISTRATIVE COST THAT THOSE HOLD ON LET ME GET MY [INAUDIBLE].
>> THEN WE BASE THAT BASED ON THE PERCENTAGE OF THE BUDGET BECAUSE, IN THE GENERAL FUND IT'S 30% OF EVERYTHING WE DO, SO 30% OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS GET BILLED TO THE GENERAL FUND.
THEN THERE'S THE AIRPORT GETS A VERY SMALL SLIVER BECAUSE WE SPEND THAT MUCH TIME BASED ON THE AIRPORT.
NOW, I SPEND THE MAJORITY OF MY TIME IN WATER AND SEWER, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU OR STREETS, WHICH IS THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF IT.
I SPEND VERY LITTLE TIME IN PD AND FIRE, THEY ARE CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENTS.
I HAVE VERY LITTLE SAY SO IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS.
UNLESS SOMEBODY DOES SOMETHING STUPID AND WE GET ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PAPER, I DON'T GET A LOT OF INVOLVEMENT.
>> ON PAGE IS4, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OVERHEAD CALCULATION.
THE TOP PORTION OF THAT IS ALL THE DEPARTMENTS THAT FALL INTO THAT ADMINISTRATIVE CATEGORY.
FOR FISCAL YEAR 25, WE HAVE THAT BUDGETED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET AT $7.2 MILLION.
THE TRANSFERS INTO THE GENERAL FUND ARE OFFSETTING A PORTION OF THAT BASED ON THE WORK PERFORMED RELATED TO THAT.
FOR EXAMPLE, MY SALARY IS BUDGETED IN THE GENERAL FUND.
BUT IN FINANCE, WE'RE DOING THINGS FOR EVERY DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY, INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS, INSURANCE, ENTERPRISE FUNDS, WE'RE HELPING WITH ALL THOSE THINGS.
THE VARIOUS FUNDS PAY INTO THAT ADMINISTRATIVE FEE TO OFFSET THOSE COSTS RELATED TO THE WORK OF FINANCE AND PURCHASING AND ACCOUNTING AND BUDGET THAT APPLIES TO THE WHOLE ORGANIZATION.
>> YOU'RE SAYING THE GENERAL FUND GETS REIMBURSED?
>> YES. YOU'LL SEE THAT REIMBURSEMENT IN THE BUDGET IF YOU GO TO PAGE GF4.
THERE'S A SECTION THAT'S CALLED INTER FUND TRANSFERS FOR SERVICE, AND YOU'LL SEE LIKE WATER FUND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FEE.
FOR FISCAL YEAR 25 RIGHT NOW, IT'S BUDGETED AT $983,000.
BUT IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE FUND AND THE PORTION OF THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT THE ADMIN GROUP IS DOING.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, EVERYONE IN THE ADMIN GROUP IS ASSISTING THE WHOLE CITY.
CITY SECRETARIES DEPARTMENT HELPS POST AGENDAS HELPS WITH AGENDA ITEMS RELATED TO WATER, SEWER, ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND SO WE'RE JUST ALLOCATING THAT COST ACROSS THE CITY IN THE VARIOUS FUNDS.
>> THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE IS SEEN AS A NET THAT NUMBER.
IT'S NOT A REIMBURSEMENT THAT COMES AFTER THE FACT AND ADDS TO THE GENERAL FUND, THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE YOU'RE SEEING ALREADY INCORPORATES THOSE REIMBURSEMENTS IN IT.
THE EASY ONE FOR YOU TO SEE WOULD BE PD.
THAT SEAWALL DISTRICT IS PAID FOR WITH OTHER THINGS THAN THE GENERAL FUND.
THAT DISTRICT IS PAID FOR THINGS OTHER THAN THE GENERAL FUND.
HOWEVER, THE SALARIES ARE THAT YOU SEE IN THE GENERAL FUND OR NET OF THOSE REIMBURSABLES FROM DOWNTOWN PARKING OR FROM ALONG THE SEAWALL FOR THE SEAWALL DISTRICT.
THAT'S THE WAY YOU SEE IT, AND THAT WILL VARY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF STAFF.
IF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DOESN'T HAVE THAT DISTRICT ACTIVE THAT NIGHT, THEY DON'T BILL THE HOURS.
THAT REIMBURSEMENT WILL CHANGE UP AND DOWN DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY PUT THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT OFFICERS NOT WORKING, THERE WILL BE NO REIMBURSEMENT FOR THAT TIME.
IT'S ONLY WHEN HE'S WORKING ON A DIRECT BASIS.
THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL SEE REAL VARIATIONS IN THE REIMBURSEMENTS.
>> GF15, FOR EXAMPLE, AS DAN HIGHLIGHTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOWS SALARY REIMBURSEMENTS, BOTH GENERAL AND FROM GRANTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF A POLICE OFFICER IS WORKING ON ACTIVITIES THAT ARE GRANT-FUNDED,
[03:05:06]
THEN THERE'S AN ACTUAL ALLOCATION BASED ON THAT TIMESHEET RELATED TO THAT GRANT ACTIVITY, AND THEN WE'RE ABLE TO REIMBURSE IT FROM GRANT FUNDS.BUT THOSE ALLOCATIONS OF THOSE REIMBURSEMENTS ARE ALREADY BUDGETED.
THE COST, AS DAN SAID IS NET OF IT.
WE'RE ALREADY ASSUMING THAT COST IN THE BUDGET AND THAT REIMBURSEMENT FROM THOSE VARIOUS WHETHER IT'S MARDI GRAS OR A GRANT LIKE THE SPEED GRANT.
WE'RE INCORPORATING THAT IN OUR COST.
>> WOULD A GUARDRAIL BE TO MAXIMIZE THAT?
>> WE DO, BUT WE'RE HAPPY TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN, BUT WE DO.
>> TRUST ME, THAT'S ONE OF THE FIRST THING WE LOOK AT.
>> THERE WAS JUST ONE MORE GUARD RAIL, WHICH IS TO GET REGULAR UPDATES.
SORRY, CHILA. EVERY MEETING OR AT LEAST AFTER Q2.
>> I'M HAPPY TO UPDATE Y'ALL AS LONG AS YOU'RE WILLING TO LISTEN TO ME [LAUGHTER]
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE REVENUE, COUNCIL MEMBER, OR WHAT?
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT FOR FY 26, 27.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO GET IT EVERY QUARTER. FOR SURE.
>> I WOULD PREFER IT BEYOND JUST THE QUARTER SO WE CAN JUST MAKE SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT.
>> I'M TRYING TO CUT BUDGET, SO LIKE, LET'S MAYBE GO WITH.
>> WELL I KNOW BUT[LAUGHTER] GUARD RAIL TO THINK ABOUT FOR THE FUTURE.
>> GUARD RAIL MORE, SO WE CHOOSE.
>> EXCUSE ME, SHARON, JUST FOR A SECOND.
COUNCILMAN ROLLINS, WILL YOU GET ANY MORE QUESTIONS, SIR, OR?
>> THAT ONE I'M CHEWING ON IT RIGHT NOW.
>> WHEN THE DEPARTMENT COMES AND REQUEST AN INCREASE IN SOMETHING OR MORE MONEY FOR TECHNOLOGY, IS THAT ALREADY IN THE BUDGET?
WE GO THROUGH THE DEPARTMENTS BEFORE WE EVER DO ANYTHING TO SEE WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE AND THAT GETS VETTED DOWN BY, WHEN IT COMES LIKE WITH TECHNOLOGY, THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE, HEY, I WANT THE NEW IPHONE.
YOURS IS FINE, HASN'T REACHED INTO LIFE, AND IT'S FINE.
DAVID SMITH FERRETS DOWN OR HIS SOFTWARE FERRETS DOWN THE FLEET AND DETERMINES WHAT FLEET IS GOING TO GET PURCHASED, AND SO THAT ALL GETS DONE WELL IN ADVANCE.
>> BUT SOMETIMES THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CHANGES WHERE THEY COME BACK AND THERE WAS AN INCREASE.
>> IT DEPENDS SOMETIMES THERE'S A BID MIDWAY THAT CHANGES THINGS OR A CAR GETS WRECKED, OR A COMPUTER GOES OBSOLETE, SOMETIME MID YEAR THAT WERE OR A PIECE OF SOFTWARE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THERE'S ALWAYS LITTLE NUANCES, MID YEAR AND YOU'LL SEE THOSE IN YOUR QUARTERLY BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS.
>> IT WAS SO MANY BUCKETS OR FUNDS.
>> THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST COMPLICATED BUDGETS I'VE EVER WORKED ON.
>> MUNICIPAL BUDGETS ALMOST ALWAYS ARE.
THE SIMPLEST YOU'RE EVER GOING TO WORK ON IS THE COUNTY THEY ARE A LITTLE MORE FRIENDLY.
>> I HAVE FRIENDS WHO WORKED FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
SHE SAID, THIS IS CRAZY [LAUGHTER] THIS BUDGET IS JUST NOT.
>> [OVERLAPPING]ALL THE MULTIPLE REVENUE SOURCES.
>> ALL THOSE BUCKETS. YES, SO THAT'S WHY.
>> THE BRACKETING GOVERNMENT, THERE'S THE LEGAL RESTRICTIONS, SO MANY THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW WHEN GOING TO THE LEGALLY RESTRICTED AREAS.
>> WHAT WE DO IN A LOT OF THESE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS BECAUSE I KNOW THIS WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS I SAW IS THERE'S BALANCES.
WE BUDGET ALL THOSE FUND BALANCES IN THOSE FUNDS IN CASE SOMETHING DURING THE YEAR COMES UP.
LIKE WE BUDGET FOR INSTANCE, THE FLOCK CAMERAS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUY THOSE PROBABLY MID YEAR BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING UP WHEN THE BID COMES IN, THE CAMERAS, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY A BRAND NAME.
WHEN THE CAMERAS COME UP, THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO COME OUT OF ONE OF THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GENERAL FUND EXPENSE, EVEN THOUGH THE ONGOING EXPENSE IN FUTURE YEARS MAY VERY WELL BE.
YOU BUDGET THOSE AMOUNTS SO COUNCIL HAS THAT ULTIMATE FLEXIBILITY.
THEY ALL HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY COUNCIL, I CAN'T MOVE MONEY BETWEEN FUNDS OR ANYTHING ELSE WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL.
YOU SEE EVERYTHING AND YOU ALSO SEE THE PURCHASES.
>> ALONG THOSE LINES OF WHAT BOB WAS SAYING, AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE POLICE IS ESTIMATED TO FINISH OUT 112, SO THEN THAT MONEY GOES BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND.
>> TALKING ABOUT THEIR VACANCY LABS?
>> WELL, IT DOES. BUT THEN AGAIN, BECAUSE THEY ARE RUNNING SO SHORT, THEIR OVERTIME IS ALMOST ALWAYS WELL OVER BUDGET, SO IT WASHES OUT IN THE END, AND YOU SEE THAT IN YOUR QUARTERLY.
IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT YOUR QUARTERLY BUDGET AMENDMENTS, THAT'S ALWAYS ADDRESSED IN THERE.
>> IT'S MONEY NOT SPENT VERSUS MONEY COMING BACK.
>> IT DOESN'T GET SPENT ANYWHERE ELSE, IT WASHES TO THE BUNKERS' BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT ALMOST ALWAYS WASH.
>> WE HAD TRANSFERRED MONEY OUT OF POLICE, OVER TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS AND.
>> NO, NOT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
>> PURCHASES IN PD, PROBABLY, YES.
BUT I WOULDN'T TAKE MONEY FROM PD AND SPEND IT SOMEPLACE ELSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY AS IT IS, USUALLY.
[03:10:02]
>> COUNCILMAN ROLLINS, ANYTHING ELSE, SIR?
>> JUST ONE THOUGHT. LET'S JUST SAY WE PLAY THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT AND WE ARRIVE AT A MOTION THAT WE'LL ADDRESS SOME PARTICULAR TAX RATE WITH GUARD RAILS FOR BRIAN TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER BUDGET.
THAT'LL BE AT SOME SUBSEQUENT MEETING, I ASSUME.
>> THEN[BACKGROUND] I CAN IMAGINE SOME PEOPLE NOT AGREEING WITH SOME OF BRIAN'S BUDGET CUTS, FOR INSTANCE.
WE'RE GOING UP FROM ITERATION TO ITERATION TO ITERATION.
>> IN MY MIND, YOU GUYS HAVE SET SERVICE STANDARDS, YOU'VE SET LIMITS, YOU'VE SET DESIRES THAT YOU WANT YOUR BUDGET.
HOW I STAFF THEM AND TO ARRIVE AT THEM, IF I DETERMINE I CAN DO IT WITH ONE PERSON OR 10 PEOPLE AND IT'S WITHIN THE BUDGET, THAT'S OPERATIONAL.
>> WHAT I'M REALLY GETTING AROUND TO IN THE END IS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR A CONSTITUENTS OF WHAT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GIVE UP TO MAKE THIS CITY VALID BUT THEIR BUDGET.
WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TELL THEM WHAT ARE THE NOISE]CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS AND SO.
>> WE'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU THAT.
>> WE'LL LEARN THAT AFTER WE GET THE NEXT ITERATION OF THE BUDGET, ASSUMING WE PLAY OUT WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED.
>> WHEN THAT COMES BACK, WE HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE THAT BUDGET.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING HE JUST TELLS US WHAT HE'S GOING TO DO, WE HAVE TO APPROVE IT, AND WE HAVE INPUT TO IT AT THAT POINT.
>> IF THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THAT BUDGET THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE CHANGE, WE WOULD PUT THAT IN THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE BUDGET WITH A CERTAIN AMENDMENT THAT.
>> LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS SERVICE LEVEL SUSTAINED WITH MORE HOT?
>> AS LONG AS THE BALANCE CONTINUES TO BUDGET.
>> THAT'S RIGHT AS LONG AS IT BALANCES, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WE WOULD CONTINUE TO BUDGET.[LAUGHTER]
>> BUDGET WILL CONTINUE TO BE. YES.
>> YOU BROUGHT THE FLOCK CAMERAS.
WHAT DID YOU SAY ABOUT THAT? WHO WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT FUNDING?
>> OKAY. ARE THEY ABLE TO USE THAT INTER DEPARTMENT, LIKE IF THEY HAD, LIKE, SEIZED ASSETS OR?
>> ALL POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES, UNTIL WE GET THE ACTUAL COST, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO DETERMINE WHERE WE GET IT FROM BUT THERE'S DIFFERENT FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT.
>> THE CHIEF WOULD BRING THOSE FORWARD WITH HIS RECOMMENDATION [OVERLAPPING]PURCHASE OF A CAMERA SYSTEM.
HE IDENTIFIES A FUNDING SOURCE, AND THAT'S WHAT COMES TO COUNCIL WHEN WE BRING YOU THE STAFF REPORTS.
IT'LL SHOW THE ACTION ITEM TO WHATEVER CAMERA SYSTEM WE'RE GOING TO BUY IT'LL SHOW A FUNDING SOURCE, SO THAT'LL TELL YOU WHERE THOSE FUNDS WILL COME FROM, AND THAT'S WITH EVERY ITEM THAT COMES TO YOU GUYS.
>> THOSE SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS, THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED THE PROCESS OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT PURCHASING THESE THINGS.
>> IT'S IN THE CHIEFS COURT RIGHT NOW TO HANDLE, SO.
>> DOES CS ASSETS ACTUALLY STAY WITHIN THEIR BUDGET OR THEIR FUNDS?
>> IT'S VERY SPECIFIC IN WHAT THEY CAN BE.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT THEY STAY WITHIN THEIR FUNDS, THEY'RE YOUR FUNDS, THEY'RE THE CITY'S FUNDS, BUT THEY HAVE VERY SPECIFIC USES.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS.
YOU CAN'T JUST SPEND THEM ON ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO BE SPENT.
>> I'M SAYING THEY KEEP THEM TOGETHER WITH THE GENERAL FUND.
>> THESE FUNDS ARE NPD, AND THEY STAY STATE LAW.
>> I SAY WE CALLED FOR A BREAK AT THIS POINT.
>> WE'VE HAD TO CALL FOR A BREAK ANY FURTHER.
I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THIS SUBJECT.
>> I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE THIS SUBJECT[OVERLAPPING].
>> I ACTUALLY FEEL REMISS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THIS IS JUST BASIC INFORMATION.
I THINK MAYBE DIDN'T DO AS GOOD ENOUGH A JOB EXPLAINING TO THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS HOW ALL THIS WORKS [BACKGROUND]
>> NOW, COUNCIL, WE CAN COME BACK HERE.
WE CAN BREAK, WE DO HAVE A LUNCHTIME HERE, BUT WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN WAITING, SO
>> I'M JUST SAYING WE JUST BREAK FOR A RESTROOM BREAK.
>> A RESTROOM BREAK AND THEN MOVE FORWARD.
LET'S TAKE A RESTROOM BREAK OF ABOUT 10 MINUTES IF WE COULD, IT'S 12:21 PM WE WILL RECONVENE AT 12:31 PM.
>> [OVERLAPPING]WE ARE ON AND WE'RE TELEVISING AND WE HAVE AUDIO.
IT IS 12:31, WE ARE BACK IN SESSION.
GLAD TO HAVE EVERYBODY BACK WITH US HERE AND COUNCIL, I NEED TO GET SOME DIRECTION FROM YOU.
IN MY MIND, I'M THINKING WE'RE MOVING TO ITEM 3C COMING UP HERE.
BUT DOES ANYBODY WANT TO CONTINUE ANY DISCUSSION 3B WHICH IS OUR BUDGET.
>> JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I THINK WE'RE LEAVING HERE WITH SOME INSTRUCTIONS TO PROVIDE TO STAFF, THE RECOMMENDATION OR HOW DO I PUT IT?
[03:15:05]
THE BACKSTOPS AND SERVICE ISSUES OF THIS WHOLE LIST OF STUFF THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE TO JANELLE AS A PART OF A MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT ON THE TAX RATE.>> I THINK WE COULD PROVIDE IT TO BOTH JANELLE AND DON, BUT DON SAID HE WAS GOING TO CREATE A MOTION AND THEN I THINK WE CAN GO THROUGH AND IF ANYONE HAS AN OBJECTION TO ANY GUARD RAIL, WE CAN MAKE A MOTION AND DECIDE.
>> THERE'S NOTHING THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE TO STAFF?
>> NOT IN THIS SCENARIO THAT ALEX MENTIONED.
IS THERE A LOT OF GUARD RAILS IN THAT OR IS.
>> I THINK LIKE FIVE WE'VE DISCUSSED JUST A FEW OF THEM.[OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT I'LL DO, THIS COUNCIL SEEMS TO WANT TO DO IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY IN FUTURE YEARS.
I JUST TOLD CHILA, YOUR BUDGET COVER AND I'VE NEVER DONE IT THIS WAY.
I'VE NEVER SEEN A GOVERNMENT DO IT THIS WAY, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO IT THIS WAY IS WE'LL START AND I WILL JUST START AT OUR VERY FIRST BUDGET MEETING.
>> I THINK THAT'S DANGEROUS BUT WE'LL DO IT YOUR WAY.
>> THE STATUTORY MAGIC LANGUAGE YOU USE WHEN YOU PASS BUDGET, I'M GOING TO SET WITH CHILA.
WE'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE THESE THINGS INTO THAT MAGIC LANGUAGE AND GIVE IT TO THE MAYOR BECAUSE SHE HAS TO READ IT OUT LOUD, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RECORD.
>> WOULDN'T THAT BE TIED TO A PARTICULAR TAX RATE THOUGH?
>> NO, THE TAX RATE IS SEPARATE.
>> THIS WILL BE IN THE BUDGET MOTION AND IS EVERYONE CLEAR ON WHERE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD THIS AFTERNOON WITH THAT?
>> WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVING THE BUDGET WITH THESE GUARD RAILS, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING?
>> WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND APPROVING THE BUDGET BASED ON X TAX RATES.
>> YES, SIR. WITH THE FOLLOWING GUARD RAILS [BACKGROUND] AND COUNCILMAN PORRETTO MENTIONED THAT WE WOULD HAVE THOSE LISTED.
HOW DO WE HANDLE THAT, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE GUARD RAILS TO DETERMINE IF WE WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE OR NOT?
>> NO, I HAD SAID WE WOULD WRITE IT OUT USING [INAUDIBLE] HOWEVER, BEARING IN MIND THAT SPECIFIC LINE ITEMS ARE UP TO HIM.
WE PASS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, THIS WILL INCLUDE A COA OF 5%.
WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, THERE WILL BE NO INCREASE IN HEALTH CO PAYS OR WHATEVER.
WITH RATHER UNDERSTANDINGS OF A GENERAL NOTION YOU WANTED ME TO ADD IN?
>> I WROTE THEM DOWN.[OVERLAPPING]
>> ALSO, JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR, SO NOBODY'S SURPRISED.
THE WAY CHILA WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO STRUCTURE THIS IS THAT ON THE INITIAL BUDGET THAT I BRING YOU WHEN WE BRING THIS TO YOU, IT'S GOING TO SHOW A HIT TO FUND BALANCE, BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO COME BACK IN AND FILL THAT BACK IN WITH THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT YOU WANT TO DO.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, ALEX? VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 3B?
[3.C. Discussion of the FY 2025 Park Board Budget (C Ludanyi/ City and Park Board Staff - 20 min)]
>> 3C, DISCUSSION OF THE FY 2025 PARK BOARD BUDGET.
>> VERY GOOD. THIS SHOULD BE A QUICK ONE.
>> THE PRESENTATION YOU HAVE IS THE SAME ONE WE LOOKED AT TWO WEEKS AGO, I THINK IT WAS, SO THERE'S NO CHANGE IN WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING.
AS BRYSON HAD MENTIONED THEN, THEY DID AMEND THEIR BUDGET TO INCLUDE JUNETEENTH ITEMS AND THEY'VE ADDITIONALLY, AS OF YESTERDAY, AMENDED POTENTIALLY CONTINGENT ON COUNCIL'S ACCEPTANCE, AMENDED THEIR BUDGET FOR ANOTHER $25,000 DECREASE TO COME TO THE CITY.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE CITY HAS PUT FORTH IS THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THEIR BUDGET CONTINGENT ON REMOVING THE CIP AND THE SPECIAL PROJECTS FOR APPROVAL SEPARATELY AT A SEPARATE TIME.
COUNCIL, THE WAY THE AGENDA ITEM IS WORDED ON THE AGENDA, COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO APPROVE WHATEVER THEY WANT, BUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS ALL OF THESE SPECIAL PROJECTS THAT ARE LISTED AND ARE IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL, AND I CAN PULL THEM UP NOW.
THESE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION SEPARATELY FROM THE BUDGET, SO APPROVAL OF THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS BUDGETS AS AMENDED BY THE PARK BOARD THROUGH TODAY, I GUESS, AND THEN OR THROUGH YESTERDAY,
[03:20:02]
SAVE FOR THE SPECIAL PROJECTS AND COUNCIL ITEMS, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.>> WE WANT TO INCLUDE IN THE MOTION ACCEPTING THE PARK BOARD AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY.
>> I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO SHOW THAT.
>> WELL, I FEEL LIKE THAT MIGHT BE WHAT THEY DID.
HOLD ON. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THE EMAIL.
YESTERDAY, THE ACTION THEY TOOK AND EVERYBODY LEFT, I BELIEVE WAS TO AND I THOUGHT I PRINTED IT OUT.
I DID. THE EMAIL, AND I DON'T KNOW I FORWARDED IT TO Y'ALL, BUT SO I BELIEVE THEY AMENDED THEIR BUDGET YESTERDAY TO REFLECT THESE CHANGES THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING, WHICH WAS, HOLD ON, I GOT IT FROM BRACE LAST NIGHT, JUST A SECOND.
>> I ACTUALLY WAS REFERRING TO THE BUDGET PROPOSAL THAT THE MOTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
>> BUT WE WANT TO ADD SAYING AND ACCEPT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE ART BOARD OFFERED TO US SINCE BOB SAID IT IS REQUIRED FOR COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THAT.
>> YES, YOU CAN DO THAT, I DON'T SEE THE REASON WHY
>> YOU COULD, IT'S ALREADY IN THEIR BUDGET, SO IT'S.
>> IN THE NEXT MEETING, IT WOULD BE BEFORE WE APPROVE OUR BUDGET.
>> I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT IT'S IN THEIR BUDGET.
>> IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN OURS AND IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN WHAT I PRESENTED TO YOU ORIGINALLY BECAUSE THEY HAD A SPECIAL MEETING YESTERDAY [BACKGROUND] THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS A PORTION OF THE FUNDING THEY APPROVED YESTERDAY IS $75,000 FROM THE 14 MILLION THAT'S THE CITY'S PORTION AND SO ESSENTIALLY THEY GOT IT UP TO THE 300,000 LEVEL MARK WITH THAT AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN ACCEPT THEIR ALLOCATION OF OUR MONEY.
>> IT'S LIKE WHEN WE GO TO COLLEGE STATION AND MY DAUGHTER TAKES ME OUT TO EAT ON MY CREDIT CARD.[LAUGHTER]
>> BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE WANT TO ACCEPT ANY ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT THEY WANT TO PROVIDE US, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
>> BUT THAT WAS FROM CASH WHAT THEY WERE OFFERING IN THEIR BUDGET.
>> QUESTION SHEILA I HAVE ON THIS, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE BUDGET, BUT HOLDING OUT THE SPECIAL PROJECTS TO BE ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY BY COUNCIL.
>> SEPARATELY. SEPARATELY MEANING AT A FUTURE MEETING OR SEPARATELY RIGHT NOW?
>> WE USUALLY BRING THEM FORWARD AS THE PARK BOARD QUEUES THEM UP.
>> THE REASON I'M ASKING, THERE ARE THREE SPECIAL PROJECTS THAT I'M GOING TO SEE IF COUNCIL WOULD SUPPORT APPROVING NOW WITH THEIR BUDGET.
ONE WOULD BE THE JUNETEENTH $200,000.
ONE WOULD BE THE DOWNTOWN LIGHTING PROGRAM FOR CHRISTMAS, AND THE OTHER WOULD BE THE WAYFINDING SIGNAGE PROGRAM THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED.
>> I WAS WRONG. WE ALREADY APPROVED THAT ONE.
>> I WANTED TO APPROVE WITH THE BUDGET THE JUNETEENTH AND THE DOWNTOWN LIGHTING PROGRAM, WHICH IS FOR CHRISTMAS.
>> CLARIFICATION, MAYOR, WHERE DOES THE JUNETEENTH SHOW UP ON THE CAPITAL AND SPECIAL PROJECTS? MAYBE I'M NOT SEEING.
>> IT DOES NOT BECAUSE THEY AMENDED THEIR BUDGET.
>> I WAS GOING BY THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET.
>> SHOWS UP BETWEEN MAY AND JULY.
>> IT'S REALLY WANTING TO APPROVE THE DOWNTOWN LIGHTING PROGRAM AND JUNETEENTH BECAUSE I GUESS WE HAVE TO APPROVE WAYFINDING AND SIGNAGE AGAIN.
>> WAYFINDING IS ONGOING. IT'S IN PHASES.
THEY'VE ALREADY ACTUALLY SPENT SOME OF THAT [OVERLAPPING] GOT APPROVED.
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SUBSEQUENT PHASE OF THE WAYFINDING.
>> BUT WE APPROVED THE FULL $1.7 MILLION LAST YEAR OR $2.7. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ONE OR TWO.
>> THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
THIS DOESN'T NEED TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR SEPARATE APPROVAL, THE WAYFINDING.
>> THE WAYFINDING, THAT IS CORRECT.
>> BUT ON JUNETEENTH AND THE DOWNTOWN LIGHTING PROGRAM, I WOULD LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE APPROVAL OF THEIR BUDGET ALSO.
>> QUESTION. ARE THERE OTHER ONES THAT ARE IN THESE CAPITAL AND SPECIAL PROJECTS THAT THE PARK BOARD IS RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL BEYOND THAT?
>> WELL, WE HAVE TO APPROVE EVERY CAPITAL PROJECT THEY DO.
ARE WE APPROVING THEIR BUDGET INCLUDING THESE PROJECTS,
[03:25:03]
BUT NOT APPROVING THE PROJECT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE TWO?>> I THINK THE WAY IT WORKED IN THE PAST, IF THE PROJECT IS TRIGGERED BY THE LIMITATIONS ESTABLISHED IN THE INTERLOCAL, THEY'D HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO US.
IF IT DOESN'T, IT'S ALREADY APPROVED WITHIN THEIR OPERATIONAL BUDGET.
>> WE'RE APPROVING THEIR BUDGET.
>> WE'RE JUST SAYING RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE APPROVING THESE TWO PROJECTS TO GO FORWARD, THAT IS TO GET THAT CASH AND GO FORWARD.
>> YEAH. JUST KEEP IN MIND, IF YOU HAVE HOT EXPENDITURES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PLUG INTO YOUR BUDGET ABOVE THE $300,000 THAT THEY'VE GIVEN, YOU'VE COMMITTED YOUR WHOLE ENTIRE RECURRING HOT REVENUE STREAM TO THE PARK BOARD, WHICH IS FINE.
ANYTHING YOU WOULD DO NEXT YEAR WOULD HAVE TO COME FROM OTHER HOT SOURCES, YOUR FUND BALANCE.
>> WHY DON'T WE WANT TO ADD THAT INTO OUR APPROVAL? THAT ONGOING DISCUSSIONS HAPPENED BETWEEN COUNCIL AND PARK BOARD FOR POTENTIAL OTHER AVENUES OF REVENUE.
>> WE HAVE A MEETING ALREADY SCHEDULED IN OCTOBER.
I WILL SHARE WITH YOU ALL THAT WE ARE IN PART OF THE INTERLOCAL DISCUSSIONS.
WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THE CITY CREATING REVENUE STREAMS FROM ALL OUR ASSETS THAT ARE UNDER MANAGEMENT OF THE PARK BOARD, AND WE'RE IN THE INFANCY OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
THERE WAS A DISCUSSION SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT RELATED TO THE PARK BOARD RETURNING SOME FUNDING TO THE CITY.
THE PARK BOARD ALLOCATED THAT ENTIRELY TO SEAWALL PARK, NOT TO ANY OTHER PARK.
EVERY PARK THEY MANAGE IS THE CITY'S PARK.
IT'S THE TAXPAYERS PARKS AND REALISTICALLY WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY RETURN ON THOSE ASSETS.
IN THE INTERLOCAL DISCUSSIONS, WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
THE EXPECTATION IS TO HAVE THOSE INTERLOCALS BACK TO THE PARK BOARD TRUSTEES AND THE CITY COUNCIL BY THE END OF MARCH.
WE'RE GOING WE'RE ALREADY WORKING ON THAT.
>> I BROUGHT IT UP LAST TIME, THE GLENN'S AUDIT FOR CONDITIONAL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S WILL AT COUNCIL TO DO THAT, BUT I DISAGREE, BUT I THINK THEY'RE HAND IN HAND.
I THINK FOR VISION JUST I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO TAKE, BUT 60 DAYS THEY COME BACK AND COME UP IMPLEMENT THOSE CHANGES IN THEIR BUDGET.
>> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE JUNETEENTH?
>> I'M REFERRING JUST TO THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET, NOT THE [INAUDIBLE] SPECIAL FUNDING.
>> WELL, GLENN IS THERE, YOU CAN ASK HIM.
>> DO YOU HAVE A TIMELINE ON WHEN ALL THIS I GUESS THE AUDITS AND THE AUDIT PLAN FOR THE PARK BOARD IS GOING TO BE COMPLETED. I DON'T WANT TO JUMP AHEAD.
>> COME FORWARD GLENN AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE CAMERA, PLEASE.
>> GLENN BULGHERINI, CITY AUDITOR, CITY OF GALVESTON.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FINAL DRAFT FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE TODAY ON THE CURRENT AUDIT REPORT THAT WE'RE DOING FOR THE PARK BOARD.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> WHAT IS THE PARTICULAR TIMELINE FOR THAT THAT YOU SEE IN COMPLETION OF IT? IF IT'S A YEAR, THEN THEN MY POINT IS MOOT.
IF IT'S WITHIN A YEAR, THEN I THINK IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING.
>> IT'S FINISHED. IT TOOK US ABOUT THREE MONTHS TO DO.
BRYSON IS NOT HERE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO TALK OUT OF TERM, BUT I THINK THAT BRYSON IS GOING TO WANT US TO DO MORE AUDITS AT THE PARK BOARD, BECAUSE THIS ONE THE COOPERATION WAS GRAY.
WE GOT OUR INFORMATION THE SAME DAY WE ASKED FOR IT.
BRYSON IS REALLY INTENT ON BEEFING UP THE PROCEDURES.
>> THAT'S THE NEXT TOPIC HERE, BUT WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR AUDIT REPORT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHANGE ON YOUR AUDIT PLAN FROM WHAT WE HAD SEEN IN THE PAST TO CONTINUE YOUR AUDITS THERE AT THE PARK BOARD.
>> WE HAVEN'T DECIDED ON WHICH ONES YET, AND HE'S GOING TO GIVE ME A LIST OF AUDITS AND THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND REVISE THE AUDIT PLAN, WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO AUDIT OVER AT THE PARK BOARD.
BUT THEY'LL BE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM BRYSON FRAZIER, THE CFO.
>> OKAY. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> GLENN, BASED ON YOUR EXPERTISE FOR TIMELINE, DO YOU THINK IT'S WITHIN A YEAR? DO YOU THINK IT'S OVER A YEAR FOR THOSE TO BE COMPLETE? DO YOU THINK IT'S SIX MONTHS?
>> I THINK WE CAN COMPLETE WHATEVER BRYSON WANTS US TO WITHIN A YEAR.
[03:30:07]
I'M SORRY. I WASN'T TRYING TO AVOID YOUR QUESTION.>> JUST FOR SAKE OF IF THERE'S RECOMMENDATIONS GIVEN BACK FROM OUR CITY AUDITOR TOWARDS THE PARK BOARD OR TO COUNCIL, I THINK MAYBE JUST KEEPING THAT OPEN, NOT HAMSTRINGING ANYTHING, NOT HOLDING THEIR FUNDING OVER THEIR HEAD, BUT WE CAN GIVE THEM 60 DAYS CONDITIONAL UPON COMPLETION OF GLENN'S AUDIT PLAN.
THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT, JUST TO HAVE THOSE APPLIED TO THEIR BUDGET FOR RE-APPROVAL.
>> ALSO JUST TO BE CLEAR, ALL THEIR ENTERPRISE FUNDS, THEY HAVE THAT MONEY, AND THOSE ARE BUDGETS THAT ARE THERE.
THE ONLY PORTION THEY'RE GETTING FROM THE CITY ARE THE HOT FUNDS AND THAT WILL BE CONTINGENT ON THE APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT AS WELL.
EVEN IF WE APPROVE THE BUDGET TODAY, IT WILL REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THAT HOT CONTRACT FOR US TO TRANSFER THE MONEY OVER TO THEM, AND WE DO IT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO DO ANYTHING CONTINGENT, I WOULD MAKE IT CONTINGENT ON THOSE QUARTERLY DROPS SO THAT IT JUST GOES WITH THE FLOW OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING SO FAR.
>> WE CAN REVIEW QUARTERLY AND IF THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED TO MOVE ON AND THEN IF THERE IS SOME ACTION GIVE IT.
>> QUARTERLY REVIEW MIGHT BE A REALLY GOOD SOLUTION.
>> THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO FUNDING THE SPECIAL PROJECTS THAT WE?
I'M SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY JUST THE BUDGET IF IS IN THERE AND I GUESS THAT HAS TO COME TO THE SPECIAL PROJECTS HAVE TO COME TO US ANYWAY FOR JUST APPROVABLE BASIS.
BUT THIS IS JUST FOR THE BUDGET AS A WHOLE.
I'M NOT LOOKING TO HAMSTRING THEM, NOT LOOKING TO HOLD ANY FUNDING.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE, BUT IF WE DO GET RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHANGES AND IT AFFECTS THE BUDGET, I WOULD JUST LIKE THE ABILITY FOR COUNCIL TO GET THOSE AND APPROVE IT SO THAT GOING INTO THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, IT'S ALL IN THIS BUDGET JUST LIKE OURS GETS AMENDED QUARTERLY.
THAT'S JUST MY ONLY RESERVATION.
>> I WILL SAY THAT WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD YESTERDAY AND THE AUDIT CAME UP AND BRYSON MADE THE COMMENT, HOW MUCH HE APPRECIATES GLENN'S WORK ON THIS AUDIT AND HOW MUCH IT REALLY MAKES THEIR FINANCE AND BUDGETING BETTER.
I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD INDICATION OF CONTINUING TO HELP REBUILD THE TRUST BETWEEN THE PARKS BOARD AND THE CITY.
ALONG THOSE LINES, ANOTHER THING THAT CAME UP WHEN THE PARKS BOARD VOTED TO COMMIT THE 300,000 TO THE CITY WAS THAT IT WAS IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO REPAIR THE TRUST BETWEEN THE PARKS BOARD AND THE CITY COUNCIL AND BUILD A LITTLE CREDIBILITY BECAUSE THEY DID THAT ON THEIR OWN.
AS A RESULT OF THE MEETING THAT WE HAD AND THEY ALSO WATCHED THE COUNCIL MEETING WHERE WE DISCUSSED ALL THIS, THEY JUST CAME UP WITH THIS INITIATIVE ON THEIR OWN.
I APPRECIATE THEM DOING THAT AND THE SPIRIT THAT IT WAS DONE FOR HELPING US OUT AND TRYING TO AGAIN, BUILD A BETTER WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNCIL.
>> I THINK GLENN'S PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO MAKE THINGS BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT.
IT'S IN THE CHARTER, SO IT'S SPELLED OUT AND I THINK HE DOES A GREAT JOB WITH THAT.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS ON THE BUDGET? YES.
>> THE MOTION WOULD BE, I GUESS, TO APPROVE THE BUDGET AND THESE TWO PROJECTS?
>> AND ACCEPTING THE $300,000.
>> YOU HAVE THOSE THREE AMENDMENTS.
>> I'M JUST GETTING A FEEL IF COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE IT CONDITIONALLY OR QUARTERLY.
I DON'T KNOW THE MAGIC WORDS FOR FINANCE TO SAY BUT [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO CROSS TALK HERE, BUT A QUICK QUESTION.
IS THE PREMISE BEHIND THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO WAIT FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE AUDIT AND SEE THE IMPACT UPON THE BUDGET?
>> NO. IN MY OPINION ACT AS IF THERE IS NO AUDIT GOING ON EVEN THOUGH THERE IS, BUT ACT BUDGET-WISE.
THEN EACH CHOICE AT EACH QUARTER, WE REVIEW IT.
IF THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED, THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED.
IF WE GET THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE SEND IT BACK AND SAY 60 DAYS APPLY THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SEE IF IT CHANGES ANYTHING, AND THEN WE WILL APPROVE IT.
>> YOUR COMMENT IS THAT WE WOULD REVIEW AND APPROVE ANY NECESSARY AMENDMENTS ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.
>> THE COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT.
>> FURTHERMORE, THE OTHER POINT WAS RELATED TO THE QUARTERLY DISBURSEMENT OF HOT REVENUE TO THE PARK BOARD.
[03:35:02]
ARE YOU TYING THOSE TWO THINGS TOGETHER? ARE THEY NOT TIED?>> I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE HOT CONTRACT.
OR IS IT TIED TOGETHER BECAUSE IS PART OF THE BUDGET?
>> IF YOU'RE SEEKING INFORMATION FROM THEM IN RESPONSE TO THE AUDIT, THE BEST PATHLE FOR THAT MAY BE TO PUT IN THE INTERLOCAL, SAY THE PARK BOARD HAS TO RESPOND TO THE CITY AUDITOR'S FINDINGS WITHIN 60 DAYS BY REPORTING TO COUNCIL ITS FINDINGS OR ACTIONS TAKEN.
THAT MAY BE THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT.
>> YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT FROM ENCUMBERING US THE PROCESS IN THE FUTURE IF WE COULD ATTACH IT TO AN INTERLOCAL, AND MAKE IT PART OF AN INTERNAL PROCESS.
>> I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT.
I THINK MAYBE IN OUR DISCUSSION IN OCTOBER, WE COULD PROBABLY BE AMENABLE TO THAT AS WELL.
LIKE YOU SAID, AS CLEAN AS POSSIBLE AND JUST MAKE SURE IT'S.
>> DAN'S COMMENT IS MAKES IT CLEAN AND INTO THE INTERLOCAL, IT'S A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT.
>> THEN IN FUTURE WHATEVER, 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, LET'S SAY, THE SAME SITUATION IS HANDLED IN A CONTRACTUAL BASIS.
>> YEAH. YOU COULD DO THAT FOR ANY ENTITY.
>> [NOISE] GLENN DID RAISE A GOOD POINT, IS WE WILL CONFIRM THIS AFTERNOON IF THE ACTION PARK BOARD TOOK WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THEIR BUDGET BECAUSE THE BUDGET YOU WANT TO BE APPROVING TONIGHT IS THEIR MOST RECENT AMENDED BUDGET.
WE'LL CONFIRM THAT FOR YOU FOR THIS EVENING.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PARK BOARD BUDGET? LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3D, PLEASE.
[3.D. Discussion of the City Auditor’s Status Report concerning the Current Park Board Audit and Amendments to the 2024 - 2025 Audit Plan (G Bulgherini - 20 min)]
>> 3D, DISCUSSION OF THE CITY AUDITOR'S STATUS REPORT CONCERNING THE CURRENT PARK BOARD AUDIT AND AMENDMENTS TO THE 2024-2025 AUDIT PLAN.
>> GLENN, GO RIGHT AHEAD. GLAD TO HAVE YOU.
>> GLENN BULGHERINI, CITY AUDITOR FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND [INAUDIBLE] WHO WAS THE AUDITOR IN CHARGE OF THIS AUDIT, AND OUR ASSISTANT CITY AUDITOR, CARRIE SUMRALL.
I WANT TO COMMEND THEM THEY DID A GREAT JOB ON THIS AUDIT.
THEY ESTABLISHED RELATIONS WITH THE PARK BOARD.
LIKE I SAID, WE GOT ALL INFORMATION THE SAME DAY WE ASKED FOR IT.
WE WORKED IN COOPERATION WITH THE CFO, BRYSON FRAZIER, AND CHIEF PETER DAVIS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS AUDIT ON TIME.
I THINK WE HAVE A GREAT AUDIT PRODUCT THAT WILL POSSIBLY PREVENT THIS FROM OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE.
THIS AUDIT, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF NON BONA FIDE PURCHASES BEING MADE AT THE PARK BOARD BY AN EMPLOYEE.
WE USED A SET OF THREE CRITERIA TO AUDIT AGAINST.
THAT WAS THE ADEQUATE SEGREGATION OF DUTIES BETWEEN PURCHASES MADE AND THE DISBURSEMENT RECONCILIATIONS, MONITORING ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY THE SUPERVISOR TO EVALUATE THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THOSE PROCEDURES, AND A TIMELY SUPERVISING OF PHYSICAL INSPECTIONS TO ENSURE VERIFYING THE GOODS AND SERVICES PURCHASED.
IN THIS PARTICULAR AUDIT, WE FOUND THAT THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND CONTROLS WERE WRITTEN.
THEY JUST WERE NOT BEING FOLLOWED.
WE AUDITED OVER 1,100 DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS AMOUNTING TO ABOUT $1.4 MILLION OF [INAUDIBLE] TRANSACTIONS AND CHECK DISBURSEMENTS.
WE FOUND THAT ROUGHLY THE PROCEDURES WERE NOT BEING FOLLOWED.
THEY DID EXIST. THEY WERE NOT BEING FOLLOWED.
THE EFFECT WAS WE DETERMINED WITH BRYSON FRAZIER AND CHIEF DAVIS THAT THERE WERE 74 VIOLATIONS WHERE THERE WAS NON BONA FIDE PURCHASES MADE AT THE PARK BOARD AND IT AMOUNTED $9,396.35.
>> BRYSON HAS ALREADY REVIEWED OUR REPORT AND HE'S IN
[03:40:05]
AGREEMENT WITH IT AND HE CAME UP WITH, I BELIEVE, SEVEN DIFFERENT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HE WANTS TO IMPROVE HIS PROCEDURES.YOU KNOW WHAT? BASICALLY, AT NUMBER 1 IS AN APPROVED VENDORS LIST, IS WHAT IT IS.
NUMBER 2 IS A PREVENT ALL GOODS AND SERVICES BEING DELIVERED TO PERSONAL ADDRESSES TO BE PROHIBITED.
HE WANTS TO CREATE A CHAIN OF CUSTODY RECORD OF THE CREDIT CARDS.
BASICALLY, BRYSON WANTS TO PUT IN WHERE THIS WILL BE AN EMPLOYEE ADVANCE THAT HE WILL RECORD IT IN THE BOOKS AND WITH NO RECEIPTS, THEN THE EMPLOYEE MUST PAY THAT BACK.
THESE ARE ALREADY IN THE PROCEDURES, BUT HE JUST WANTS TO MAKE SURE THAT HE USES AN EMPLOYEE ADVANCE FORM AND TO RECORD THOSE IN THE BOOKS.
AGAIN, THE MISSING RECEIPTS WILL BE DISALLOWED.
HE WANTS ALL RECEIPTS FOR MEALS TO BE ITEMIZED.
MOST OF THEM WERE, BUT I THINK ONE OR TWO WERE NOT.
THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE MEETING AND THE SCHEDULE PROOF OF THE MEETING TO BE DOCUMENTED ON THAT INVOICE AND HE WANTS ALL SIGNATURE STAMPS TO BE DISALLOWED.
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR BRYSON BEFOREHAND, BUT HE'S ALSO MENTIONED THAT EVERY THIRD YEAR THAT WE COME IN THE CITY AUDITOR'S OFFICE, AND WE USE, WHAT MASHA USED IN THIS AUDIT, FORENSIC TYPE PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE IF THE PURCHASES ARE BONA FIDE OR NOT.
IN SOME INSTANCES, IT DID GET PAST THE ACCOUNTING CLERK BECAUSE THEY DID LOOK BONA FIDE.
[LAUGHTER] THEY WERE, BUT THEY JUST REALLY WERE NOT TRUE AND MASHA HAS SPENT A LOT OF TIME RESEARCHING AND PROVING THIS AND IT CAN ONLY BE DONE WITH AN AUDIT AND A FORENSIC TYPE PROCEDURES BEING APPLIED.
DIFFERENT CRITERIA ESTABLISHED AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR, AND SHE SEARCHED, INTERVIEWED AND DETERMINED THAT THEY WERE NOT BONA FIDE. SHE DID A GREAT JOB.
>> HOW DID YOU FIND OUT THE DETAILS OF THAT? THAT'S AMAZING TO ME.
KITCHEN CURTAINS, DID THEY HAVE THAT IN THE MEMO?
>> ANY BLANK ONES ARE PRESUMABLY MISSING RECEIPTS.
>> DID THEY ACTUALLY PUT IN A RECEIPT FOR KITCHEN CURTAINS?
>> I BELIEVE THAT WAS ONLINE ORDER, SO I WAS ABLE TO FIND IT.
>> SHE RESEARCHED THE DELIVERY ADDRESS.
SHE RESEARCHED THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE.
[NOISE] SHE DID A LOT OF TRACKING.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, DEFINE WHAT YOU MEAN BY NOT BONA FIDE.
DOES THAT MEAN NOT ACCORDING TO PURCHASING PROCEDURES?
>> IT MEANS NO BUSINESS PURPOSE FOR THE PARK BOARD PURPOSE.
>> NO PARK BOARD PURPOSE. DAVID?
>> JUST TO MAKE SURE, ITEM RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 4.
I THINK YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT THE PARK BOARD ALREADY HAS AN EMPLOYEE ADVANCED FORM THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE USED AS A PART OF THAT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THEN I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT WAS EITHER FROM YOU OR FROM BRYSON WAS THAT THIS TYPE OF AUDIT, THE P-CARD CONTROL AUDIT SHOULD BE DONE EVERY THIRD YEAR.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU DID IT THROUGH MAY OF 2024, YOUR NEXT TIME WOULD PICK UP FROM THAT POINT IN TIME TO A PERIOD THREE YEARS IN THE FUTURE.
IN OTHER WORDS, I'M ASKING, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A CONTINUAL.
YOU'RE NOT MISSING ANY MONTHS? HOW DO I SAY THAT? [LAUGHTER]
>> YES, WE'RE NOT GOING TO MISS ANY MONTHS IN IT?
>> BRYSON'S REASONING FOR THAT WAS THAT IF THE EMPLOYEES KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE REVIEWED IN FORENSIC STYLE AND WITH A GREAT DETAIL, MUCH MORE TIME SPENT ON IT THAN VERSUS THE ACCOUNTING CLERK APPROVING IT,
[03:45:01]
THAT IT WILL DETER FUTURE ACTIONS LIKE THIS.>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT WILL BE AT THEIR EXPENSE NOT BECAUSE WE PAID FOR THIS, CORRECT?
>> FUTURE ONES WILL BE AT THEIR EXPENSE?
>> I'VE ASKED HIM. WELL, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE, I DON'T WANT TO TALK.
>> I THINK THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT.
>> THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT USE HOT FUNDS?
>> WELL, THEY HAVE UNRESTRICTED FUNDS.
>> THEY DO. [INAUDIBLE] BASICALLY HAVE TO TELL THAT TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> BUT THAT'S THREE YEARS FROM NOW.
>> WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO HANDLE IT LIKE WE DID THE WHITLEY PENN AUDIT OF THE PORT.
WE PUT IN THE MOTION THAT THE PORT WILL PAY FOR THIS.
>> IT COULD TAKE THE PLACE OF HAVING TO DO THE WHITLEY PENN REPORTS, IT COULD REPLACE THOSE.
>> IS THAT IN THE INTERLOCAL THAT THERE'S ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT THEY FUND FOR [OVERLAPPING] THE REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE ENTITY THAT GLENN AUDITS OR THE CITY AUDITOR AUDITS.
IS THAT IN THE INTERLOCAL THAT WE PAY FOR IT OR IS IT?
>> THAT'S AN AGREEMENT. I DO NOT KNOW IF IT'S IN THE ACTUAL INTERLOCAL.
MR. BUCKLEY IS NEGOTIATING THAT.
>> BUT TYPICALLY THEY PAY US IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN 60,000 FOR HIGH TAX AUDITS. JUST FOR THAT.
>> IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO ASK THE PARK BOARD TO REIMBURSE US IN THE FUTURE AND FOR THIS AUDIT AS WELL.
>> DOES THE PARK BOARD DO THEIR OWN AUDITS? THIS IS IN ADDITION TO OTHER AUDITS.
>> YES, SIR. THEY DO HAVE AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR COME IN ONCE A YEAR.
>> THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR THAT NOW.
IT'S NOT DESIGNED FOR FRAUD AND THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER CAUGHT THIS.
I KNOW THAT IF I WAS AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR COMING IN TO DO THE EXTERNAL AUDIT, I WOULD HAVE NEVER CAUGHT THIS.
>> BUT GLENN, MY QUESTION IS, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE NOT REPORTED THIS OFFICIALLY TO THE TRUSTEES, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I WANT TO KNOW WHERE WE GO FROM HERE TO MAKE SURE THESE ARE INSTITUTED IN THE PROTOCOLS AND POSSIBLY POLICIES OF THE PARK BOARD?
>> WELL, I THINK THAT IF COUNCIL GIVES ME PERMISSION, I GO AND PRESENT THIS TO THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND THEN WE DO A SIX MONTH FOLLOW UP TO ENSURE THAT IT'S BEING ENFORCED.
>> THAT WOULD BE PART OF YOUR AUDIT COMING FORWARD IN THIS YEAR'S AUDIT PLAN? YES, SIR. WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE AUDIT PLAN.
I WOULD HAVE TO GET WITH BRYSON TO CONFIRM THE MORE AUDITS THAT HE WANTS.
HE FEELS LIKE THE MORE AUDITS, THE MORE COMPLIANCE.
HE FEELS LIKE IF THEY KNOW WE'RE COMING TO LOOK, IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT DETERRENT TO DO THIS AGAIN AND I AGREE WITH HIM.
BUT I WOULD URGE COUNCIL TO GIVE ME PERMISSION TO GO TALK TO THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND TO DO A SIX MONTH EVALUATION TO ENSURE THAT THEY'VE ENFORCED IT AND THEN WORK WITH BRYSON TO SEE WHAT MORE AUDITS THAT HE WANTS DONE AT THE PARK BOARD.
>> DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH WHAT HE'S MENTIONING?
BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY, SO LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD WANT FROM COUNCIL BESIDES SPEAKING TO BRYSON ABOUT IT? DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS THAT YOUR OFFICE WOULD WANT LOOK AT? OR IS IT JUST SPECIFICALLY BASED ON BRYSON'S RECOMMENDATIONS?
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT I WILL TALK WITH BRYSON ABOUT HIGH RISK AREAS THAT I HAVE SOME FEELINGS ON, BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE PRETTY MUCH IN AGREEMENT ON THE ONES THAT HE WISHES TO BE LOOKED AT.
BRYSON WANTS TO STRIVE FOR TRANSPARENCY AND TO A CONTINUOUS BEEFING UP OF HIS PROCEDURES.
HE WANTS TO STRIVE FOR THAT TO GIVE COUNCIL SOME SECURITY OF THE PARK BOARD'S ACTIONS.
>> GLENN, PERSONALLY, I KNOW YOU'LL BE VISITING WITH BRYSON, YOU'LL BE GETTING ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE NEED TO AUDIT AND SO FORTH.
YOU'LL BE INFORMING COUNCIL AND CHANGING YOUR PLAN ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT THOSE SPECIFICS ARE?
>> I WOULDN'T WAIT SIX MONTHS.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RESPONSE OF THE PARK BOARD IS TO YOUR AUDIT NOW.
I DON'T WANT TO WAIT SIX MONTHS.
>> DO I HAVE PERMISSION THEN TO GO SPEAK WITH THEM ON THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULE?
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, ANYBODY HAVE CONCERNS WITH THAT?
[03:50:02]
>> I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. [LAUGHTER]
GLENN WAS, I WANT TO TELL COUNCIL, VERY PROFESSIONAL.
HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL BEFORE HE TALKED TO THE PARK BOARD AND THANK YOU FOR THAT, GLENN.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE RESOURCES.
>> SHE REALLY DID A GREAT JOB.
IT WAS REALLY COUNCIL'S DECISION TO GIVE ME A THIRD PERSON, AND IT WORKED OUT TREMENDOUSLY.
>> GLENN, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU TO GET THE INFORMATION FROM BRYSON TO BRING BACK TO COUNCIL WHAT YOUR AUDIT PLAN WILL BE AS WE EXPAND WITH THE PARK BOARD.
>> I CAN HAVE IT WITHIN THE NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING NEXT MONTH.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT BACK THEN ON WHAT THE STATUS IS, HOW THE PARK BOARD IS MANAGING YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING FROM THERE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL MEMBERS? IS IT MASHA? THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS.
>> KARRIE, OF COURSE, NICE TO SEE YOU AND ALL YOUR EFFORTS.
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, GLENN.
[3.E. Discussion of Video Surveillance Cameras for the City of Galveston (Porretto/Robb - 15 min)]
>> ITEM 3E. DISCUSSION OF VIDEO SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> I THINK I SPOILED THE SURPRISE ON THIS ONE ALREADY [LAUGHTER] BUT THAT'S OKAY.
>> I DO. THIS ITEM WAS PUT ON DISCUSSION OF FLOCK CAMERAS BECAUSE I HAPPENED TO BE OF THE OPINION THAT THEY ARE A SOLE SOURCE AND I JUST WONDERED HOW THE ITEM GOT CHANGED.
>> HOW WOULD ITEM GET CHANGED?
>> COUNCILWOMAN ROB SAYS SHE FEELS THESE ARE SOLE SOURCE.
>> WE RECEIVED A LETTER, IT ACTUALLY CAME FROM THE GMPA PRESIDENT.
>> ACTUALLY, THAT WASN'T MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION WAS, COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTO AND I PUT ON THE AGENDA DISCUSSION ON FLOCK CAMERA AND THE AGENDA ITEM WAS CHANGED WITHOUT CONTACTING EITHER OF US AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW THAT HAPPENED.
DON HAD MENTIONED TO ME THAT THERE ARE OTHER COMPANIES OUT THERE THAT PROVIDE THIS SERVICE AND THAT HE RECOMMENDED THAT WE NOT PUT FLOCK CAMERAS ON AND THAT'S HOW THE VIDEO SURVEILLANCE GOT ON THERE.
>> SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF.
>> WE MAY NOT PUT THE WORD FLOCK ON THE AGENDA ITEM AND REPLACE IT WITH A GENERIC DESCRIPTION.
WELL, BUT I JUST THINK WHEN TWO PEOPLE PUT A ITEM THAT IT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED WITH THEM.
>> CHANGE SHOULDN'T BE MADE WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE.
>> SURE. [INAUDIBLE]. I WILL FOLLOW THAT.
>> YOU GUYS' STUFF ASIDE, THIS IS IN THE HANDS OF THE CHIEF.
HE GAVE THE FIRST DRAFT OF IT TO PURCHASING YESTERDAY.
THE PURCHASING AGENT MADE A COUPLE OF SMALL CONTENT CHANGES BACK TO DOUG, SO DOUG COULD GET IT ALTERED, AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GET IT BACK TO HIM, I THINK TODAY, SO WE'RE GOING TO GET ON THE STREET AND GET IT BACK PRETTY QUICK.
>> THIS WILL BE IN THE FORM OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TO MEET A SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. LET ME JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE WAS SOMETHING PUT OUT ON FACEBOOK THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
ALEX CALLED ME ABOUT IT LAST OR TEXTED ME ABOUT IT LAST NIGHT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR FOR ANYBODY ELSE THAT SAW IT.
I'VE NEVER ONCE TOLD THE POLICE OR ANYBODY THAT DON WAS DRAGGING HIS FEET.
WHAT I SHARED WITH MR. ROGERS WHEN HE CALLED ME, TONY CALLS ME ALL THE TIME AND BOUNCES IDEAS AND CONCERNS OF, I MEAN, I'M VERY HAPPY THAT WE HAVE THAT RELATIONSHIP.
BUT WHAT I SHARED WITH HIM IS IT, IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MAYOR JUST SHARED IS THAT, I SHARED THE LETTER FROM FLOCK THAT WE RECEIVED THAT IN SOME INSTANCES, THEY CAN BE A SOLE SOURCE.
NOW, ONCE YOU PROCURE A VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, I THINK THAT'S MORE APPLICABLE BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN'T START BUYING AND MIXING AND MATCHING AND I CAN'T BUY.
IF I GO TO A MOTOROLA SYSTEM FOR RADIOS, I CAN'T START PLUGGING IN OTHER RADIOS.
BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY AND THE PURCHASING AGENT, I BELIEVE, LOOKED AT IT, AND THEY FELT THAT IT WAS NOT A SOLE SOURCE AND SO THIS WOULD DRIVE US THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT THING, WHICH THAT UNDOUBTEDLY WILL SLOW THINGS DOWN EVER SO SLIGHTLY, BUT IT HASN'T STOPPED THE PROCESS AND THE PROCESS IS MOVING FORWARD.
I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD HAVE A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM, TO YOU GUYS, I'M HOPING BY THE OCTOBER MEETING IF WE CAN GET IT DONE, BUT IF NOT CERTAINLY THE END OF NOVEMBER.
>> THAT'S A LITTLE QUICK, BRIAN.
>> THAT'S QUICK FOR US TO GET CONTRACTS AND EVERYTHING, BUT WE'LL CERTAINLY HAVE IT FOR NOVEMBER, I THINK.
>> IT'LL MEET THE PERFORMANCE SPECS THAT CURRENTLY FLOCK OFFERS, WHETHER IT'S FLOCK PROVIDING THEM OR NOT.
>> I THINK CLIENT HAS TO IDENTIFY THE PERFORMANCE SPECS THAT
[03:55:04]
THEY WANT TO SEE AND THEN WE PUT THOSE OUT IN A [INAUDIBLE].THERE ARE RESPONSES, THEN WE EVALUATE RESPONSES.
>> THERE'S A COMPANY THAT IS CALLED [INAUDIBLE] IS USED BY THE PORT ST. LUCIE POLICE TO ACCESS COMMUNICATIONS, IS USED BY THE CITY OF [INAUDIBLE], MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS IS DONE BY GLENDALE, ARIZONA.
THE COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF HAS A BIG DATA CENTER.
THEY USE A COMPANY CALLED GENENTECH.
THERE'S A LIST OF A BUNCH OF COMPANIES THAT DO IT.
I COULDN'T PRINT THEM ALL OUT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A MEMBERSHIP, BUT IS HOW THE COMPANY IS OUT DOING IT.
>> IT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR US THOUGH TO HAVE A SYSTEM.
>> THAT'S PART OF THE QUALIFICATIONS, THE PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION.
>> THAT'S OKAY. YOU ALL CAN JUST [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE SOFTWARE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND EVERYTHING I'VE READ IS UNIQUE TO FLOCK, AND THE COUNTY, THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY, IF NOT ALL OF THE CITIES, CURRENTLY USE FLOCK CAMERAS.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FLOCK CAMERAS THAT ARE ALREADY USED THROUGHOUT THE ISLAND BECAUSE NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE PUT THEM IN BECAUSE THEY ARE SO EFFECTIVE.
IN REVIEWING YOUR SPECS, HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE COMPATIBILITY WITH WHAT THE COUNTY USES WITH WHAT IS GOING TO BE ON OUR CAUSEWAY WITH WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE FERRY WITH WHAT ALREADY A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOODS WILL BE USING.
HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE TWO?
>> NOBODY HAS SHOWN ME ANY SPECS AT ALL.
BUT THAT WOULD BE AN EVALUATION CRITERIA.
>> NOBODY HAS SHOWN YOU ANY SPECS AT ALL.
MR. CARUSO WOULD LIKE TO TALK.
>> YES. COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULD, SIR.
IT'S A PLEASURE FOR ME TO SIT AT THE TABLE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS MIKE CARUSO.
I'M WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON PURCHASING DEPARTMENT.
I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY ONE THING ON A SOLE SOURCE.
SOLE SOURCE FOR FLOCK IS A SOLE SOURCE TO FLOCK SERVICES AND PRODUCT BECAUSE IT'S TWOFOLD THERE'S SOFTWARE AND THERE'S THE HARDWARE.
YOU CAN'T GO TO A RETAIL STORE YOU DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC DISTRIBUTOR THAT DISTRIBUTES FLOCK PRODUCT YOU HAVE TO GO STRAIGHT TO FLOCK.
THAT'S A SOLE SOURCE STRICTLY TO FLOCK, BUT NOT A SOLE SOURCE TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
NOW YES, IT'S TRUE THAT THE COLORADO I45 HAS FLOCK CAMERAS AND SOFTWARE.
THE UNFORTUNATE PART WAS I DID THE RESEARCH TO FIND OUT HOW THEY PROCURE THOSE SERVICES.
I REACHED OUT TO LEAGUE CITY, TEXAS CITY.
NO ONE COULD TELL ME HOW THEY PROCURED THE SERVICES.
FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, FROM A PURCHASING PERSPECTIVE, THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT I'VE GOT TO FILE CHAPTER 252 IS I'VE GOT TO PROCURE THE SERVICES.
IT COULD BE FLOCK, BUT WE HAVE TO STOP USING THE NAME FLOCK BECAUSE FLOCK WAS NOT SECURED OR PROCURED IN A MANNER WHICH WAS LEGALLY PERFORMED WHEN I DID MY RESEARCH.
I REACHED OUT TO THOSE FOLKS, THEY GAVE ME A CONTRACT, BUT THE CONTRACT WASN'T SIGNED.
THAT'S NOT PROCURING A SERVICE, THAT'S THE BYPRODUCT OF THE PURCHASING PROCESS IS THE CONTRACT.
YES, I DID REVIEW THESE SPECS YESTERDAY WITH CHIEF BALLI I CALLED HIM.
I DIRECTED HIM THAT THE SPECS HAVE TO BE GENERIC ENOUGH, WHERE IT DOESN'T INDICATE ONE SPECIFIC VENDOR I'M TRYING TO APPEASE TO.
IT'S GOT TO APPEASE TO ANYONE WHO'S IN BUSINESS, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT VARIOUS DIFFERENT VENDORS WHO CAN PERFORM THE SERVICE AND PRODUCT.
THE FIRST QUESTION I ASKED CHIEF BALLI WAS, IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE THAT CAN PERFORM THE SERVICE? HE SAID, YES. I SAID, WELL, IT'S NOT A SOLE SOURCE.
>> WILL THE SOFTWARE BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FLOCK SYSTEM, WHICH IS USED BY THE MAJORITY?
>> WE CAN'T DO THAT IN A PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
WE CAN'T SAY IT'S GOT TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THIS GUY OR THAT GUY UNLESS WE HAVE IT ALREADY ON SITE.
A GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD SAY BE IT BANNER SOFTWARE.
WE'RE USING BANNER SOFTWARE ON A WORKDAY.
IT HAS TO BE COMPATIBLE SOFTWARES LIKE THAT.
THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY, BUT BECAUSE FLOCK I CAN'T SHOW THAT FLOCK WAS DONE.
>> YES. I REACHED OUT TO MIKE.
[04:00:02]
SENT AN EMAIL OUT TO HIM. THEY RESPONDED BACK.I THINK THEY WERE THE ONES WHO GAVE ME THE UNSIGNED CONTRACT.
BUT AGAIN, THERE HASN'T BEEN A LEGAL PROCESS THAT SUFFICES MY NEED TO BE ABLE TO SAY I CAN PIGGYBACK, WHEN I SAY MY NEED, THE LAW OF THE LAND THAT SAYS I CAN PIGGYBACK OFF THEIR CONTRACT OR THEIR SOURCING EVENT THAT TOOK PLACE, RFP OR A STRAIGHT BID, OR THREE QUOTES, SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO RELY ON THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO MAKE THAT ASSUMPTION.
>> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM. I CAN ONLY SAY THAT HOWEVER THEY BROUGHT THOSE FOLKS IN I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GAIN ANY KNOWLEDGE AND OR PROPER DOCUMENTATION, TO BE ABLE TO SAY WE CAN PIGGYBACK OFF, THEIR SOURCING EVENT.
>> IN MARK CAPABILITY, THERE'S A CERTAIN CAPABILITY THAT ONLY FLOCK CAN PERFORM.
YOU DON'T NAME FLOCK, BUT YOU NAME BASICALLY A CAPABILITY THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO PERFORM, SUCH AS FINGERPRINTING, WHICH IS A WAY TO LOOK BEYOND JUST A LICENSE PLATE AND PICK OUT CERTAIN DISTINGUISHING FACTORS SUCH AS BUMPER STICKERS OR OTHER THINGS THAT WILL DESIGNATE IT THAT VEHICLE IS WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
>> YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW IN A PROCUREMENT PROCESS THAT YOU'RE NOT FAVORING ONE VENDOR.
>> BUT IF THERE'S AN ADVANCEMENT IN TECHNOLOGY AND THAT ADVANCEMENTS PRETTY.
>> YOU CAN PUT IT IN THERE, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL HOW YOU DO IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DRIVE IT TOWARDS ONE PERSON.
IF YOU KNOW THERE'S ONE PERSON YOU ONLY DO THAT, AND YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT RESTRICTIVE FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO DO IT.
THEY CAN COME BACK AND FILE A GRIEVANCE AGAIN JUST SAY, HEY, WHY DID YOU PUT THIS ON THE STREET IN THE FIRST PLACE?
>> BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WANT.
>> NO, I GET THAT BUT REMEMBER.
>> BUT YOU HAVE TO IT'S HOW YOU DO YOUR SPECIFICATIONS.
WHEN I WORKED AT THE COUNTY WHEN JOE MAX TAYLOR WAS SHERIFF.
>> I GET IT BECAUSE WE HAD TO DO THE SAME THING WITH BUYBOARD, LIKE ITS THE SAME I UNDERSTAND.
>> BUT TO A FURTHER EXTENT, SHERIFF TAYLOR USED TO LIKE VERY NICE SEATS IN HIS PATROL CAR.
THE SPEC WAS NEVER THAT HE WANTED LEATHER SEATS.
HE WANTED NOT CLOTH OTHER THAN VINYL.
THAT SPEC WENT IN HIS CAR EVERY YEAR.
>> YOU COULD HAVE IT IN YOUR SPEC, BUT AS ADDITIONAL.
HERE'S MY BASIC SPECS BUT THE WISH I'D LIKE TO HAVE THIS, THIS, THIS, BUT NOT REQUIRED.
NOW YOU'RE SAYING TO THE FOLKS OUT THERE.
IT'S NOT REQUIRED IN MY BASIC SPECS, BUT IT'S OUT THERE.
>> IT'S ALSO PART OF YOUR SELECTION CRITERIA WHEN YOU'RE RANKING IT'S PART OF THE CAPABILITIES.
YOU'RE GOING TO RANK THE SYSTEM ACCORDING TO THE CAPABILITIES THAT YOU NEED.
THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU A LIST OF ALL THEIR CAPABILITIES, AND YOU'RE GOING TO RANK THEM BY THE CAPABILITIES THAT SUITS YOU BEST.
>> YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE BASICS.
THIS IS THE BASIC NUTS AND BOLTS I NEED AND NOW I WANT ALL THE SHINING PARTS THAT GO WITH IT.
THESE ARE THE ADDITIONAL THINGS.
I'M SORRY, YOU WERE GOING TO ASK THE QUESTION.
>> WHAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT WE ARE CITY MANAGEMENT IS HELD TO AS FAR AS BEFORE YOU HAVE TO UTILIZE AN MOU?
>> AGAIN REMEMBER, WE ARE CHARTER BOUND, TOO BECAUSE OF THAT 15,000 RULE HANDCUFFS US.
EVEN THOUGH THE STATEMENT SAYS THAT WE HAVE UP TO $50,000. WE'RE HANDCUFFED.
>> A $1,000 TO GET QUOTES OR BIDS, $15,000 REQUIRES COUNCIL TO APPROVE IT.
>> BUT BEFORE I GET TO YOUR COMMENT ON YOUR STATEMENT ONE OF THE THINGS WE BROUGHT UP ABOUT HOW YOU RANK THEM.
PART OF THE INFORMATION I SENT BACK TO CHIEF BALLI WAS I'M MISSING A PRICING SHEET THAT SAYS, DO AN APPLES-TO-APPLES RELATIONSHIP.
YOU WANT THEM TO BID ON INSTALLATION COST I'M SURE THERE'S A HARDWARE COST.
I'M SURE THERE'S A SUBSCRIPTION COST PER YEAR AND THEN OVER FIVE YEARS BECAUSE WE'RE BOUND BY A FIVE-YEAR.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BARN DID BRING UP WAS THE PERCENTAGES THAT WE PUT ON THOSE IN RANKING THE SYSTEM IN AN RFP.
BOB, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS BECAUSE WE WORKED AT UTMB TOGETHER.
>> THE SCORING MATRIX. THE OTHER THING I'VE ASKED, CHIEF BALLI WAS, I GAVE HIM AN EXAMPLE OF THE SCORING MATRIX EQUALING 100%, COST BEING 50%.
THEN THE OTHER SUBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAT YOU WOULD CHOOSE SUCH AS EXPERIENCE AND COMPATIBILITY, THE ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE.
THEN YOU BREAK THAT DOWN IN PROBABLY NO MORE THAN FIVE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT YOU WOULD TOTAL 100%.
[04:05:02]
THAT'S HOW WE DO OUR RFPS.BIDS A DIFFERENT STORY. IF YOU DO A STRAIGHT BID, THE STRAIGHT BID SAYS, I'M TAKING THE LOWEST BID AND THAT'S IT.
YOU MET ALL THE CRITERIA, BUT NOW IT'S THE LOWEST BID AND I MOVE FORWARD.
>> I COULD BE WRONG, BUT I WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION OR MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WEBSTER USED HOT FUNDS FOR THEIR CAMERAS.
IS THAT STILL SOMETHING THAT IS A POSSIBILITY?
>> THAT WOULD SURPRISE ME. I CAN'T IMAGINE HOW THEY WOULD DO THAT.
>> WELL IT'S SAFETY FOR YOUR TOURIST
>> WE TALKED ABOUT A POTENTIAL OF USING HOT FUNDS FOR THESE CAMERAS.
IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD USE IT FOR? IS THERE MAYBE WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF THAT IS A POSSIBILITY TO USE IT? I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT TOURISM SAFETY IS IN THAT EQUATION IS PRETTY HARD UNLESS YOU KNOW.
>> WE'RE PROTECTING THE SAFETY OF THE TOURISTS.
IT MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET TO THAT POINT.
>> I WOULD PROBABLY JUST HAVE DEFERRED TO DON.
>> BUT THAT'S NOT A SHOW-STOPPER. WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT.
>> THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, IT WAS THE POSITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CAMERAS. IS THAT STILL SOMETHING?
>> WELL, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IN THE JULY MEETING YOU GUYS HAD TOLD PD TO GO TO THE SO'S OFFICE, WORK OUT AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM.
>> COMMANDER BARROW DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING THAT.
>> THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO SUPPLY.
>> THIS IS OURS, WE'RE GOING TO OWN THEM.
THEY'RE OURS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE VENDOR AND THAT'LL BE PART OF THE AGREEMENT.
>> HOW MANY ARE YOU LOOKING AT, BRIAN?
>> [INAUDIBLE] PIRATES ALONE HAS 21.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THE CHIEF.
I THOUGHT THE AGREEMENT WAS WE WERE LOOKING AT WHAT IT TOOK FOR [INAUDIBLE] PASS, THE FERRY LANDING AND THE CAUSEWAY.
>> THAT WAS IF THE COUNTY DID IT.
NOW, IF WE'RE DOING IT, WE STILL HAVE TO HAVE THAT QUESTION ABOUT INDEMNIFICATION OF THE POSITION OF WHERE THE CAMERAS ARE.
I THINK LAST TIME WE DISCUSSED IT, WAS IT NEEDED TO BE OUR COUNCIL'S DECISION ON WHERE THEY'RE AT, IF I'M INCORRECT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
>> I THINK IT'S THE POLICE CHIEF'S DECISION. HE'S THE ONE.
>> WELL, HE NEEDS THE CAMERAS.
>> I BELIEVE THAT OUR CIVIL RIGHTS DEFENSE COUNCIL HAS SAID IT IS THE POSITION IN ANY DEFENSE THAT CITY COUNCIL IS THE POLICY MAKER, AND THAT IS THE BASIS OF DEFENSE AND THEREFORE, NORMAN SUGGESTED THESE GUYS MAKE THE DECISION.
>> BUT WE WOULD MAKE IT BASED ON A RECOMMENDATION THOUGH.
>> FROM THE POLICE CHIEF, YES.
>> WHEN YOU WERE CALLING CITIES OR WHATNOT
>> DID YOU REACH OUT TO THE AGENCIES AT ALL THAT ARE USED FOR THEM?
>> YES, THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT, AND I REACHED OUT TO THEM.
>> I MEAN THE AGENCIES AS FAR AS THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT?
>> NO. I REACHED OUT TO THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONES WOULD BROKER THAT.
>> OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE LIKE US.
THEY'LL HAVE CENTRALIZED PURCHASING.
>> BUT AT LEAST LOOKS LIKE A NUMBER OF THE AGENCIES FELT THERE WAS SOLE SOURCE THEREFORE THAT'S HOW THEY WENT WITH THEIR PURCHASE.
IT COULDN'T HURT TO REACH OUT.
>> THE PURCHASING AGENT IS THE ONE THAT DETERMINE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY.
>> ONE OTHER THING I DO WANT TO BRING UP BECAUSE I HEAR THE STATEMENT OFTEN.
WELL, DEPENDING ON THE FUNDING SOURCE, IF I'M NOT USING CITY FUNDS, IF I'M USING A GRANT, CAN I BYPASS THE PURCHASING APARTMENT?
>> NO. YOU STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE PURCHASING PROCESS BECAUSE IT'S THE PO IS BEING STAMPED BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND SO WE HAVE TO FILE IT.
SOURCING THAT OR THE FUNDING SOURCE IS NOT A MECHANISM TO TRY AND SWERVE AROUND THE POLICY.
>> LONG STORY SHORT WE'RE GETTING THIS ACCOMPLISHED, AND WE'RE GOING TO GET IT DONE.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, IT PROBABLY WON'T BE OCTOBER.
IT WILL PROBABLY BE BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR BECAUSE CHIEF AND I ARE WORKING ON THE SPECS AND ALL THE DETAILS TO PUT THIS THING ON THE STREET AND HAVE IT BACK SOONER THAN LATER, BUT BEFORE THE CALENDAR YEAR.
>> OUR MEETINGS ARE A LITTLE SKEWED LIKE THE EARLY NOVEMBER AND THE EARLIER IN DECEMBER, SO WE'LL TRY TO MATCH IT AS BEST WE CAN.
>> YOU GOT TO PUT IT OUT WITH THREE WEEKS FOR RESPONSES OR SOMETHING.
>> WE CAN. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE INFORMATION GOING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN CHIEF BALLI AND I.
>> WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THE POLICE LIKE THE FLOCK PRODUCT AND BECAUSE THEY LIKE THE FLOCK PRODUCT AND WHAT IT DOES,
[04:10:06]
IN THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL, THOSE QUALITIES OF THINGS THAT THEY DO WOULD FIND THEIR WAY INTO AN RFP AS IN TERMS OF A PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATION.THEY WOULD BE THE BASIC PART WOULD BE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND THEN THE REST OF EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE IN A RANK FORMAT.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS CORRECTLY, THAT THE END RESULT WOULD BE THE SAME THING, COULD BE, POSSIBLY THE SAME THING AS IF THEY WERE A SOLE SOURCE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THEIR PERFORMANCE SPEC IS GOING TO REFLECT WHAT FLOCK DOES BECAUSE THEY LIKE WHAT IT DOES.
>> WHAT THE PROCESS DOES IS IT REMOVES ANY SURPRISES.
IT MAKES SURE THAT THERE'S JUST NOT SOME VENDOR THAT NOBODY'S EVER HEARD OF THAT SHOWS UP WITH JUST THE BEST THING EVER THAT COMMUNICATES WITH EVERYTHING AND WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
IT STOPS THAT VENDOR FROM STANDING UP AT YOUR MEETING AND SAYING, YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE, WHY DIDN'T YOU.
>> IT PROTECTS US, THE PURCHASING DEPARTMENT, AGAINST ACCUSATIONS OF UNFAIR PROCUREMENT.
>> BUT TYPICALLY THEY PROVIDE REFERENCES AND WE CONTACT THE REFERENCES TO SEE HOW THEY ACTUALLY PERFORMED.
>> I GUESS MY POINT IS WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP WITH SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR THE POLICE JUST AS.
>> WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP WITH THE PRODUCT THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FEELS IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CITIZENS.
>> BY DOING THIS, WE'RE ALSO PROTECTING THE CITY.
>> WHICH LEAVES ONE QUESTION IS WHY ARE YOU SO OPPOSED TO FLOCK?
>> WHY AM I OPPOSED TO FLOCK? I AM NOT OPPOSED TO FLOCK.
I JUST WANT THE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED CORRECTLY.
BUT IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, I DO REMEMBER THEM TRYING TO FOIST A CONTRACT UPON US AND I FOUGHT VIGOROUSLY, AND UNDER THEIR CONTRACT, IF I HADN'T READ IT, IT WAS REQUIRING THAT THE CITY GIVE ACCESS TO FLOCK TO ALL IT'S FINANCIAL DATA AND ALL THAT STUFF.
>> BUT YOU STILL HAVE RESISTED IT.
I CAUGHT HELL FOR RESISTING THEN.
BUT IN THE END, WE GOT A CONTRACT THAT WE COULD LIVE WITH AND WE SIGNED.
>> CITY OF HOUSTON TWO YEARS AGO, SOLE-SOURCED FLOCK FOR 6.3 MILLION SO IF YOU WOULD, MAYBE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NICE TO SEE YOU
>> OBVIOUSLY, IF MR. CARUSO FINDS A WAY TO DO IT SOLE SOURCE, WE WILL, BUT WE'RE NOT SLOWING DOWN ON THE OTHER PROCESS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO SLOW THIS DOWN.
>> I'M WORKING ON A FRIEND OF MINE GETTING ME THAT AND I'LL FORWARD IT THE MINUTE I GET IT.
>> IF WE COULD FIND WORK BECAUSE REMEMBER THE WAY THIS ALSO WORKS TOO, A LOT OF OUR RFPS WHEN WE SOURCE IT OUT, WE PUT THE DISCLAIMER THAT THE ABILITY TO PIGGYBACK OFF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES OR GOVERNMENT ENTITY.
>> IT WOULD BE EASIER IF HOUSTON HAD BID IT OUT.
WE COULD HAVE JUST PIGGYBACK THEIR BID.
>> THEY SOLE SOURCED FROM THE PERSON THAT I KNOW.
>> I'LL REACH OUT IF BY CHANCE, YOU HAPPEN TO COME ACROSS IT BETWEEN NOW AND BEFORE WE PUT OUT ON THE STREET WOULD BE REALLY NICE TO SEE.
>> THANK YOU. HAVE A GREAT DAY.
>> COUNCIL, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA.
IT'S 1:30 PM. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
>> HEY ALI.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.