Sep 19, 2024 Regular Council

WE'VE MOVED THIS UP TO GIVE HONOR TO OUR NEW POLICE, TO OUR NEW FIRE CHIEF HERE.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT.

JANELLE, I WANT YOU TO GO AHEAD AND READ.

THEN IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND REPEAT AFTER ME.

I, MIKE VARELA, JR.

I, MIKE VARELA, JR., DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR.

DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF FIRE.

CHIEF OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, A FIRE CHIEF OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, STATE OF TEXAS, AND WILL, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY AND WILL TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND, PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND OF THIS STATE AND OF THIS STATE, AND THE CHARTER AND ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

AND THE CHARTER AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

SO HELP ME GOD. SO HELP ME GOD.

CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU.

RETIRED FIRE. YEAH, I BET Y'ALL DIDN'T KNOW.

21 YEARS LATER, YOU'D GET ANOTHER VARELA UP HERE, SO YOU KNOW.

AND I WANT TO BE I WANT TO BE THE FIRST TO REFER TO YOU AS CHIEF VARELA.

CONGRATULATIONS, SIR.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UP. I'LL TELL YOU THIS THE MEN AND WOMEN BACK THERE.

OH. GO AHEAD, CHIEF. EXCUSE ME FOR INTERRUPTING FOR JUST A SECOND.

WE HAVE SWORN YOU IN, BUT I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF MICHAEL VARELA AS OUR NEW CHIEF OF THE FIRE CHIEFS.

MAKE A MOTION. THAT IS SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB.

ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

[00:20:02]

THANK YOU. LOOK, I KNOW I ONLY HAVE ABOUT 30 MINUTES UP HERE.

NO, I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE A LONG ONE, SO I'LL KEEP IT SHORT.

MAYOR, COUNCIL.

BRIAN. DAN, THANK YOU ALL.

I CAN TELL YOU THIS LIKE I WAS SAYING EARLIER.

WHAT MAKES THIS GREAT, WHAT MAKES THIS FIRE DEPARTMENT GREAT IS THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT ARE SITTING BACK THERE BEHIND US.

THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT MAKE THIS DEPARTMENT GREAT AND REALLY SHOW UP WITH THE PROFESSIONALISM AND COURTESY TO THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON.

I CAN TELL YOU THIS.

IT'S AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE TO SERVE AS FIRE CHIEF IN THE COMMUNITY I WAS RAISED IN.

I'M A B-O-I.

I'VE LOVED THIS ISLAND FROM THE START, AND I'LL.

I'LL NEVER STOP. AND THE ONE THING YOU KNOW, I CAN PROMISE YOU IS I WILL DO THE BEST BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND BY THE CITIZENS.

SO YOU KNOW.

THANK YOU AGAIN. I'M GLAD TO HAVE MY GREAT FAMILY HERE TONIGHT WITH US.

THEY MEAN THE WORLD TO ME.

THEY CAN TELL YOU I MAY HAVE BEEN GALVESTON FIRE DEPARTMENT SOMETIMES A LITTLE BIT BEFORE FAMILY.

SO I'M GETTING BETTER AT THAT.

AND TO MY WIFE, MY WIFE HAS BEEN BY MY SIDE FOR A LONG TIME.

WHEN I KNOW I'VE BEEN IN THE HOSPITAL FOR BURNS.

YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN HURT AND.

AND THIS AND THAT. SHE'S PROBABLY HAPPY.

I SIT BEHIND A DESK NOW.

SO LIKE I SAID MAYOR, COUNCIL BRIAN, I CAN PROMISE YOU THIS.

I'M GOING TO SHOW UP TO WORK AND DO MY BEST EVERY DAY.

THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, WE REALLY WE DON'T NORMALLY DO THIS, BUT YOU HAD MENTIONED IT.

DOES YOUR WIFE WANT TO SAY A FEW WORDS? OKAY. WOULD YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE YOUR DAD SAY A FEW WORDS, SIR? YEAH. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME BEFORE I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF COUNCIL.

BUT LIKE YOU SAID, 21 YEARS AGO, I TOOK THE OATH AND SWORE TO DO MY BEST FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

AND I HOPE THAT I DID.

AND I CAN SAY THAT MIKE HAS WORKED HARD TO GET THIS APPOINTMENT.

AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK FORMER CHIEF CHARLIE OLSEN BECAUSE HE MENTORED HIM AS THE ASSISTANT CHIEF, AND I WAS BEHIND THE SCENES.

HEY, MIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU OUGHT TO, BUT I THINK HE'S WELL DESERVED.

I'M NOT ONLY SAYING IT AS A DAD, BUT AS A FORMER FIRE CHIEF.

IF I WAS HERE AND I HAD TO APPOINT SOMEBODY, THIS WOULD BE THE PERSON THAT I WOULD APPOINT AND I MAY BE A LITTLE BIASED.

HE'S MY SON AND EVERYTHING, BUT HE'S ALSO LIKE I SAID, WORKED HARD FOR THIS AND I'M VERY PROUD OF HIM.

WHAT HE'S DONE IN THE YEARS THAT HE'S BEEN IN.

SO. AND I KNOW HE'LL DO THE BRIAN RIGHT AND THE COUNCIL RIGHT, THE MAYOR RIGHT AND DEFINITELY THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON.

SO THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS YOU ALL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NOW I GOT THIS OUT OF THE WAY. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY STAY IF YOU WANT TO.

SO WE'RE GOING TO STEP OUT JUST FOR A SECOND.

YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO WELCOME ONE OF OUR NEW FIRE CHIEFS OR POLICE CHIEFS, BUT ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S ONE OF OUR OWN, IT'S REALLY, REALLY DOUBLY NICE.

AND IT'S NICE TO SEE CHIEF VARELA FOLLOWING IN THE LINE THAT HIS FAMILY HAS ESTABLISHED FOR MANY YEARS HERE IN GALVESTON. I'M PROUD TO SAY HE'S ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS.

ONE. GOOD FOR YOU THAT IN DISTRICT SIX.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO THOSE ITEMS, NELLIE THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING.

[8.A. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Designating The Property Located At 1027 Avenue K, As A “Galveston Landmark”, Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lots 1 And 2, Block 70, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Requesting The Historic Preservation Officer Record The Property's Landmark Designation In The Official Public Records Of Real Property In Galveston County, The Tax Records Of The City Of Galveston And The Central Appraisal District, And The Official Zoning Maps Of The City Of Galveston, Texas; Planning Case Number 24P-029; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (D. Lunsford)]

ITEM EIGHT A, PLEASE.

[00:25:01]

ITEM EIGHT A CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1027 AVENUE K AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK PROPERTY, IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS M.B.

MENARD SURVEY, LOTS ONE AND TWO, BLOCK 70, IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, REQUESTING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RECORD THE PROPERTY'S LANDMARK DESIGNATION IN THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF REAL PROPERTY IN GALVESTON COUNTY.

THE TAX RECORDS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

PLANNING CASE NUMBER 24P-029, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

VERY GOOD. WE HAVE DANIEL LUNSFORD TO INTRODUCE THE SUBJECT.

GO RIGHT AHEAD, DANIEL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

SO, THIS IS EXCUSE ME FOUNDED IN 1870 AS FIRST UNION FREE MISSION BAPTIST CHURCH BY THE AMERICAN BAPTIST FREE MISSION SOCIETY OF BOSTON.

IT WAS THE FIRST SUCH CHURCH ORGANIZED IN TEXAS.

THE MISSION WAS BORN OF A NEED TO WELCOME RECENTLY FREED SLAVES INTO CHURCH CONGREGATIONS.

IT WAS ORIGINALLY LOCATED AT 11TH STREET AND STRAND.

THE 1880 CHURCH WAS DESTROYED IN THE 1885 FIVE, OF COURSE, IN 1900, STORM DESTROYED A SECOND CHURCH.

THE CURRENT CHURCH WE HAVE HERE FOR LANDMARK WAS BUILT IN 1955, AS A CHURCH IS OUTSIDE OF ANY HISTORIC DISTRICT.

GALVESTON LANDMARK STATUS WILL PROTECT THE CHURCH IN THE FUTURE AND PROVIDE FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONSERVATION.

A LANDMARK COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST, AND OF COURSE, PLANNING RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS WELL.

WE HAVE A PHOTO HERE OF THE CHURCH AS IT SITS TODAY.

AND THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S REPORT.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

DANIEL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. LUNSFORD? ALL RIGHT.

IT IS 5:26 P.M..

I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS? ITEM? YES.

PLEASE COME FORWARD.

I'M ALICE GADSDEN.

HOW ARE YOU, MISS JACKSON? MISS PASTOR DAVID EVERSON, SENIOR.

ALL RIGHT.

YEAH, WE WE'D LIKE TO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU PASS THAT.

WE GET THIS LANDMARK DISTINCTION BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE ALONG WITH WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

AND WE LOVE OUR CHURCH, AND WE THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE HERE FOREVER.

OKAY. YES.

AND I'M JUST GRATEFUL BECAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE AT GALVESTON PASTORING THIS CHURCH FOR 25 YEARS.

AND I AM WELL ACQUAINTED WITH VARIOUS PEOPLE HERE.

CHIEF OF POLICE.

AND I'M ACTIVE ALSO WITH THEM.

AND AT THIS TIME, IF YOU ALLOW, I WOULD ASK SOME OF MY MEMBERS WHO HAS COME TO RISE.

PLEASE STAND. WILL YOU STAND? OH HOW WONDERFUL! VERY NICE.

SO WE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SOME YEARS.

I BEEN WORKING ALSO WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HERE IN GALVESTON TO SET UP BREAKFAST, AND WE CAN DISCUSS SITUATION THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED.

THE FOCUS HERE IS TO GET WHAT WE NEED TO IN ORDER TO GET HELP TO RESTORE FIRST UNION BAPTIST CHURCH.

SO I WOULD THAT WE CAN GET SOME HELP WITH THAT FROM THE CITY.

IF, IF YOU SO RECOMMEND AND WE CAN GO FORWARD.

MY TENURE I'VE BEEN PASTORING NOW FOR 42 YEARS AND THE LORD HAS BEEN GOOD TO ME.

I WANT TO IF THE LORD'S WILL STAY HERE IN GALVESTON TILL HE CALL ME HOME.

THANK YOU SIR.

VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING NONE, I AM GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU CAN STAY RIGHT THERE WHILE WE VOTE.

AND IT IS 5:29 P.M..

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM.

I'M GOING TO GO TO COUNCILMAN FINKLEA.

THIS IS IN YOUR AREA, SIR.

I APPRECIATE THAT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF CASE 24P-029.

I'LL SECOND IT. SECOND IT.

[00:30:03]

WHOEVER WAS QUICKER ON THE DRAW.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL FROM COUNCILMAN FINKLEA AND THE SECOND IS BY COUNCILMAN BOB BROWN.

ANY DISCUSSIONS ON THAT? YES, BOB. I LIVE JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM THIS CHURCH, AND IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT ACROSS BROADWAY FROM THE EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AND IT'S A GREAT ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ESPECIALLY LIVELY ON SUNDAYS.

SO CONGRATULATIONS ON A WELL-EARNED DISTINCTION.

THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.

ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

COUNCIL. CONGRATULATIONS.

IT'S UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU SIR.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL, GALVESTON CITY COUNCIL, AND ESPECIALLY KATHERINE GORMAN AND DAVID LUNSFORD.

THANK YOU, BECAUSE THEY HELPED US OUT A LOT.

AND WE'RE GOING TO LOOK TO THEM TO HELP US OUT MORE.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THIS IS A TRACK, AND WE'RE TAKING A PHOTO RIGHT HERE IF YOU'D LIKE.

THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NINE, PLEASE.

[9. PUBLIC COMMENT]

NELLIE. ITEM NINE.

PUBLIC COMMENT A AGENDA ITEMS B NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS OUR TIME FOR OUR PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.

AND AS YOU KNOW AT OUR PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION, WE HAVE THREE MINUTES FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO MAKE THEIR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WHEN YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

AND ALSO IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED A FORM THAT'S IN THE BACK, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SIGN THAT.

THAT'S ONE WAY THAT WE CANNOT, COUNCIL CANNOT RESPOND TO YOU DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENTS TO ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THIS ALLOWS US TO HAVE YOUR CONTACT INFORMATION SO WE CAN GET BACK WITH YOU LATER, OR STAFF CAN VISIT WITH YOU LATER.

SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO START THIS OFF WITH SHEILA BELL.

SHEILA. YEAH.

HOW'S EVERYBODY IN GALVESTON? HEY. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. STANDING ROOM ONLY TODAY.

HI, EVERYBODY.

COUPLE OF COUPLE OF THINGS.

THE HURRICANE FLOODED OUR CAR, AND SOME OTHER THINGS HAPPENED, SO WE WERE FORCED TO TAKE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.

AND WHAT I DISCOVERED WAS THERE'S NO BUS SERVICE ON SUNDAY.

CAN'T GO TO CHURCH.

THERE'S FOR HANDICAPPED, DISABLED PEOPLE OR PEOPLE WHO JUST WANT TO GO TO A MOVIE, TAKE IN OR GO TO GO BOWLING.

CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THE BUS STOPS AT 81ST STREET.

TWICE. WE HAD TO WAIT FOR TWO HOURS FOR A TAXI.

THEY PREFER THE DRIVERS PREFER TOURIST DOLLARS AND BUT NOT LOCAL DOLLARS.

SO THE TOURISM TRANSPORTATION FOR THE PUBLIC IS UP HERE FOR LOCALS, DISABLED, HANDICAPPED, ELDERLY AND WHOMEVER IS DOWN HERE. SO I'M HOPING THAT CITY COUNCIL, THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER CAN BALANCE THINGS OUT.

THAT NO MATTER WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK, THIS THRIVING, WONDERFUL, EXCELLENT ISLAND HAS TRANSPORTATION FOR EVERYBODY.

BECAUSE WE FAIL AROUND HERE, WE DON'T PLAY FAVORITES, RIGHT.

WE LOVE EVERYBODY THE SAME.

SO I'M HOPING THAT THE CITIZENS IF YOU KNOW THIS YOU TALK TO CITY COUNCIL RESPECTFULLY BECAUSE THEY RESPECT US.

LOOK HOW THEY TREAT SHEILA BELL.

NO MATTER HOW OFF SOMETIMES MY COMMENTS MAY BE, THEY YET RESPECT ME AND TALK TO ME LIKE A DECENT HUMAN BEING.

AND THEY'LL DO THE SAME FOR YOU.

SO IF YOU HAVE TRANSPORTATION CONCERNS AND YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET TO WORK, OR YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO VISIT YOUR ELDERLY, YOU KNOW PEOPLE, LET THEM KNOW, GIVE THEM A PHONE CALL, SPEAK RESPECTFULLY TO THEM, AND I GUARANTEE YOU THEY'LL HEAR YOUR CONCERNS.

AND BY GOD'S GRACE, THEY'LL ADDRESS THEM AS WELL.

THE OTHER THING IS ON TORNADOES, YOU KNOW, GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH.

HE KNOW WHAT WE ALL DON'T KNOW.

AND I WAS CURIOUS.

I JUST ASKED THE LORD A QUESTION.

LORD, WHAT IS IT WITH TORNADOES? AND HE SHARED IT WITH ME.

HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF IT.

NOW THEY'RE CALLING THIS GLOBAL WARMING, WHICH IS A STUPID TERM BECAUSE IT AIN'T JUST THE GLOBE WARMING SPACE IS WARMING, TOO.

REVELATION 612 AND 613 SAYS THAT THE SUN IS GOING TO TURN BLACK.

THE SUN IS A STAR.

WHEN STARS DIE, THEY GET HEATED UP MORE.

[00:35:02]

SO WHAT YOU'RE EXPERIENCING IS HEATING UP OF A DYING STAR.

NOW, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE ON THAT.

I HAVE BOOKS AND BOOKS AND BOOKS ON IT, BUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IS PREPARE IN THE MEANTIME BECAUSE THINGS ARE GOING TO GET HOTTER.

SO WHAT GOD SENDS THESE WARNINGS FOR IS SO WE'LL HAVE OTHER MEANS OF COOLING SYSTEMS. WE'LL GET AHEAD OF HOW TO KEEP OUR CITY AND MAYBE, PERHAPS SHARE IT WITH OTHER PEOPLE.

AND WHERE THERE IS ELECTRICAL, THE SUN IS ELECTROMAGNETIC ELECTRICITY MAGNET.

BUT NONE OF THE NEW STATIONS GAUGE ELECTRICITY, ELECTRIC, ELECTRIC ATMOSPHERE, ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY.

AM I SAYING THAT RIGHT? AND MY TIME IS UP.

ARE YOU SERIOUS? THANK Y'ALL.

THANK YOU. SHEILA.

SETH. JONES.

SETH. AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.

MAYOR. GOOD TO SEE YOU.

MY NAME IS SETH JONES. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THE STEWART BEACH SPECIAL USE ACCESS AREA.

SPECIFICALLY, THE ELIMINATION OF THE 1000FT OF THE 2600FT THAT WE HAVE FOR THOSE.

FIRST OF ALL, CONGRATULATIONS TO THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS.

MR. PORETTO, MR. ROLLINS, MY COUNCIL MEMBER MR. BROWN, CONGRATULATIONS.

AND HOPEFULLY WE HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP.

JUST A REAL QUICK BACKGROUND.

THREE MINUTES IS NOT ENOUGH TO GO INTO ALL THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ONE.

BUT ESSENTIALLY MR. TIETJENS HAS ADMITTED AND I THINK NOW MR. KYLE CLARK HAS ADMITTED THAT THIS PROPOSED CHANGES FOR ELIMINATING THE VEHICLE ACCESS TO STEWART BEACH IS AT BEHEST OF A HOTEL DEVELOPER.

OKAY. MR. TIETJENS IS ON RECORD SAYING THAT I BELIEVE MR. KYLE IS NOW FINALLY ADMITTING THAT THAT IS THE ACTUAL REASON FOR THE CHANGES.

WHAT IS THE STEWART BEACH SPECIAL USE AREA? WELL, WHEN I WAS A KID IN HIGH SCHOOL AT BALL HIGH, WE HAD THREE MILES WHERE WE COULD ACCESS FROM STEWART ALL THE WAY TO EAST BEACH BY VEHICLE, TAKING YOUR FISHING POLES, YOUR KAYAKS, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.

NOW, WELL, 20 SOME ODD YEARS AGO, THEY TRIED TO CLOSE THAT ENTIRE THREE MILES, AND NOW THEY MADE A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE GLO.

THEY SAID THAT WE'LL LET YOU CLOSE TWO AND A HALF MILES, BUT YOU GOT TO KEEP THE HALF MILE, THE SPECIAL USE, RIGHT? HANDICAP, DISABLED VETERANS, FISHERMEN, KAYAKERS, PADDLE BOARDERS.

AND NOW THIS COUNCIL OR THE PRIOR COUNCIL.

THIS WASN'T THE COUNCIL THAT STARTED IT, BUT SPECIFICALLY ONE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS CHAMPIONED THIS REMOVAL OF 1000FT.

LAST SUMMER WE DID SURVEYS TO COUNTER THE REPORT THAT KYLE CLARK WAS USING SAYING THAT THERE'S NO USE.

PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ALL OVER THE DUNES ENDANGERING CHILDREN.

LAST MEMORIAL DAY, WE CANVASED, WE COUNTED EVERYBODY FROM THE THREE MILES FROM THE FROM THE START OF THE STEWART BEACH TO EAST BEACH.

TWO AND A HALF MILES, WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THE CONDOS AND BEACH TOWN.

THERE WERE 220 PEOPLE ON MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE AFTERNOON ON I THINK IT WAS A SATURDAY.

IT COULD HAVE BEEN A SUNDAY IN THE HALF A MILE OF BEACH THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO, THERE WERE 800.

OKAY. SO WHERE IS THE USE? NOW BEFORE US IS ARE YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS, ARE YOU MISS LEWIS, ARE YOU MR. PORRETTO, ARE YOU MR. ROLLINS, WILLING TO SELL YOUR CONSTITUENTS THAT YOU GAVE THEIR RIGHTS TO VEHICLE ACCESS AT THE BENEFIT OF A HOTEL DEVELOPER? THAT'S WHAT'S.

THAT'S THE BASIC ITEM THAT'S BEFORE YOU ALL.

THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE TAKING THAT ACCESS AWAY FROM.

THIS IS A FAMILY FROM HOUSTON.

THEY HAVE TWO HANDICAPPED DAUGHTERS.

THEY COME DOWN. CAUGHT HER FIRST FISH FISHING ON THAT BEACH LAST SUMMER.

THIS IS A TYPICAL SUMMER DAY, PEOPLE FISHING.

THIS YOUNG LADY COMES FROM DALLAS TWO TIMES A YEAR BECAUSE THIS IS HER HAPPIEST PLACE.

SHE COMES ACROSS THE CAUSEWAY.

SHE SMELLS THE OCEAN WATER.

SHE'S JUST VERY, VERY, VERY HAPPY.

HER STORY IS INCREDIBLE.

HER STORY WAS EMAILED TO YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WERE HERE LAST YEAR.

SETH.

THANK YOU SETH I APPRECIATE IT.

MR. VAN PHILLIPS.

COUNCIL FOR THE TIME.

THIS KIND OF GOES BACK 18 TO 24 MONTHS, I THINK.

SO I'M KIND OF LATE TO THE PARTY ON THIS, BUT IT MAY TIE INTO THE BUDGET AND THE SHORTFALL THAT WE HAVE NOW.

BUT MY QUESTION WAS RELATED TO THE INCIDENT MAYBE 18 MONTHS AGO, REGARDING THE COUPLE OF FINANCE EMPLOYEES WHO DIDN'T

[00:40:03]

PROPERLY VERBALLY CONFIRM WIRING INSTRUCTIONS FOR SENDING TRASH TRUCK PAYMENTS FOR NEW TRASH TRUCKS, I THINK IT WAS 6 OR $700,000.

I MAY BE OFF ON THAT, BUT MY QUESTION IS, HOW DOES THAT FLOW THROUGH TO THIS BUDGET OR TO THIS DEFICIT? AND HOW IS IT ABSORBED BY THE CITY WHERE SERVICES, YOU KNOW, SHORTENED FOR RESIDENTS? OR I HEAR THE TERM SELF-INSURED BY CITY EMPLOYEES AND IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY, THAT MEANS THE ORGANIZATION PAID FOR IT.

SO TO ME THAT SAYS THE CITY JUST ATE IT, WHICH MEANS TAXPAYERS ATE IT, I GUESS, I DON'T KNOW.

AND MY FINAL QUESTION IS, DID THE CITY AUDITOR DO A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT AFTER ALL THE DUST SETTLED? I'M SURE THE FBI WAS INVOLVED AND EVERYTHING, BUT DID THE CITY AUDITOR DO A COMPREHENSIVE REPORT? AND IF HE DID OR SHE? I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S A HE OR SHE.

IS IT PUBLISHED SOMEWHERE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE? IS THERE TRANSPARENCY SO THAT TAXPAYERS KNOW WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED? I THINK THE TWO EMPLOYEES WERE STILL EMPLOYED.

I DON'T THINK THEY WERE LET GO LIKE THEY PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY BECAUSE IN PRIVATE INDUSTRY, YOU KNOW, YOU VERBALLY CONFIRM WIRING INSTRUCTIONS.

IF SOMEBODY SENDS YOU WIRING INSTRUCTIONS VIA EMAIL, YOU DON'T JUST SEND $700,000 OFF TO A SWISS BANK ACCOUNT OR WHEREVER IT ENDED UP GERMANY OR WHATEVER.

BUT WHAT WAS THE RESOLUTION OF THAT? WHO ATE THAT? I'M ASSUMING IT WAS TAXPAYERS.

IT WAS A REPORT PUBLISHED, AND IF SO, WHERE IS THAT REPORT? BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.

AND THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE.

APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT.

DARYL HILL.

AND IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THESE FORMS IN THE BACK, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

BOBBY FILLED IT OUT.

I FILLED IT OUT. WE TALKED IN THE HALLWAY.

WE HAVE SOME MORE COMING UP.

BEFORE YOU START THAT CLOCK, I WOULD.

I'D IMPLORE YOU TO JUST GIVE ME 30S TO EXPLAIN THIS SITUATION.

I'M SUPPOSED TO BE ON MEDICATION FROM TWO EMERGENCY SURGERIES.

I CHOSE VOLUNTARILY LAST NIGHT NOT TO TAKE THEM BECAUSE THEY SUBDUE MY PERSONALITY.

AND I CAN'T KEEP MY WITS ABOUT ME.

I DID THAT BECAUSE I WANTED TO REPRESENT NOT ONLY THE CITIZENS, BOTH IN GALVESTON, BUT ALL THE WORK IN HARD WORK IN HOTELIERS INVOLVED.

AND SO I'VE MADE THAT DECISION ON MY OWN IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT I CAN, I CAN EXPRESS HOW I FEEL AND THEIR SENTIMENTS TOWARDS HIS CURRENT INCREASE OF 40% ON THE WATER. IT IS DISGUSTING.

YOU CAN START YOUR TIMER. IT IS DISGUSTING THAT THIS IS HAPPENING.

THIS CITY, AS YOU WELL KNOW, THIS ISLAND HAS HAD TWO HURRICANES.

BERYL DEVASTATED MOST OF MY ASSOCIATES.

I PROVIDED HOUSING FOR THEM, I PROVIDED FOOD, I PROVIDED WATER, AND I STILL HAVE ASSOCIATES LIVING IN A HOTEL FREE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOWHERE TO GO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO HOUSING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT INTACT FOR THEM TO LIVE IN.

SO MY OWNERSHIP WAS GENEROUS ENOUGH TO DO THAT.

BUT NOT ALL ASSOCIATES WHO HAVE WORKED THIS ISLAND, WOULD IT BE IN RESTAURANTS, HOTELS, OR ANY OF THE MONEY THAT YOU GARNISH FROM THE HOT TAXES HAVE THAT ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR THEIR ASSOCIATES.

BUT WE HAVE, AND WE'RE FORTUNATE.

I IMPLORE YOU, IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN INCREASE TO THIS CAPITAL PROBLEMS, I UNDERSTAND.

I RUN A BUSINESS THAT HAS CAPITAL GROWTH AND GAIN, BUT TO DO 40% IS LUDICROUS AND IT WILL DEVASTATE THIS COMMUNITY FINANCIALLY.

IT MAY BE $20 TO YOU AND I CAN SEE BY YOUR SUITS AND TIES YOU CAN AFFORD THAT.

THEY CANNOT, THEY CANNOT.

SO I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION, AND IT'S A REALLY BRIEF.

AND I WILL MAKE IT VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE YOU'VE CONTROLLED MY TIME AND I'M IN PAIN.

HOW MUCH MR. FINKLEA IS A GALLON OF MILK TODAY? HOW MUCH IS A GALLON OF MILK? HE CAN'T ANSWER THAT. OKAY, I RETRACT THAT STATEMENT.

LET ME GIVE YOU AN IDEA.

THREE YEARS AGO FOR EXCUSE ME.

FOR CHICKEN. JUST TO HAVE A CHICKEN WAS $1.60.

TODAY IT IS $2.

IF MY STAFF WANT TO BUY EGGS.

TWO YEARS AGO IT WAS $1.70.

TODAY IT'S $3.20.

THAT IS REAL MONEY OUT OF THEIR POCKETS THAT THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO FEED THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES.

AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUBSIDIZE THESE PEOPLE.

BUT IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE OUR CITIZENS AND OUR HARD WORKING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, GET THE SUPPORT FROM THE PEOPLE THAT THEY PUT IN PLACE THAT VOTED YOU IN PLACE.

SO I IMPLORE YOU, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, DO THE RIGHT THING THIS EVENING.

[00:45:04]

AND IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN INCREASE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYONE OUT HERE WHO WILL SAY ANY DIFFERENT, BUT 40% LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IS INSANE AND IT IS OBNOXIOUS.

SO I WOULD ASK YOU IF THERE HAS TO BE ONE, LIMIT IT, TEAR IT UP OVER A COURSE OF YEARS BECAUSE THEN WE CAN AFFORD IT.

INFLATION IS UP 24%.

IF YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED, IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TO A GROCERY STORE OR A GAS STATION IN THE PAST YEAR.

SO WHAT I ASK OF YOU, POLITELY AND AS RESPECTFULLY AS I CAN IN THIS PAINFUL MOMENT OF MY LIFE, IS TO HONOR THEM AND INCREASE IF NEEDED, BUT 5% MAYBE. BUT 40 IS INSANE AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PATIENCE WITH ME.

THANK YOU DARYL.

BOBBY KENNEDY.

BOBBY. I'M BOBBY KENNEDY, 32ND K HERE IN GALVESTON.

YOU ALL HAVE MY CONTACT INFORMATION ALREADY.

A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

WELL REGULATED MEN AND WELL TRAINED, NOT MEN BEING REGULATED BY YOU, THE TYRANNICAL RICH, TAKING OVER OUR CITY COUNCIL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, IMPOSING MULTIPLE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDINANCES, AND VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF THE WORKING CLASS TO GIVE IT ALL TO THE FILTHY RICH.

GALVESTON CITY COUNCIL, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF MAYOR CRAIG BROWN AND THE CITY MANAGER, BRIAN MAXWELL, HAVE CONSPIRED TO DO SO, AND THEY HAVE VIOLATED THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF EVERY LIFELONG WORKING CLASS RESIDENT FROM THE CITY OF GALVESTON, EXCLUDING THE DOCTORS, NURSES, LAWYERS, JUDGES, COPS AND THE RICH, WHILE UTILIZING THE COLOR OF LAW BY USING UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDINANCES TO VIOLATE THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF THE RESIDENT, BY PREVENTING THEM THE PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF THEIR HOMES AND HOMESTEADS, BY TAKING PARKING RIGHTS, AS WELL AS MANY OTHER RIGHTS THEY HAVE HAD FOR NO LESS THAN 50 YEARS, THEIR TAKEN FROM THEM, AND BY USING THE COLOR OF LAW TO PREVENT THEM, TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING SECURE IN THEIR PAPERS, POSSESSIONS AND EFFECTS AT THEIR HOMESTEAD BY USING COLOR OF LAW TO TAKE THEIR RESIDENTIAL PARKING PRIVILEGES, AS WELL AS MANY OTHERS, SUCH AS FEEDING THE CAT AND GIVING THEM PARKING PRIVILEGES TO THE FILTHY RICH.

AND THE AIRBNB TOURIST LIMITED MY VEHICLES, BUT ALLOWING A TWO BEDROOM AIRBNB AS MANY AS THEY WANT.

IT IS WRITTEN RIGHT IN YOUR UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDINANCE THAT SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE EXEMPT, AND THE ORDINANCE IS ONLY ENFORCEABLE ON THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE HERE AND HAVE LIVED HERE. YOU CANNOT DO THIS.

YOU HAVE WRITTEN SELECTIVE PROSECUTION INTO YOUR OWN UNCONSTITUTIONAL ORDINANCE AS WELL.

IT IS AN ILLEGAL ORDINANCE MEANT TO FURTHER YOUR AGENDA OF FORCING THE WORKING CLASS OUT AND CREATING A PLAYGROUND FOR THE FILTHY RICH, WHILE FORCING THE WORKING SERVANT CLASS TO LIVE OVER THE CAUSEWAY AND COMMUTE, CREATING MORE HOMELESSNESS AND MAKING IT HARD FOR BUSINESSES IN GALVESTON TO FIND DEPENDABLE PEOPLE TO WORK.

BECAUSE YOU AND YOUR AGENDA WITH THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL COMMUNIST ORDINANCES HAVE FORCED THE MAJORITY OF THE BEST OF THE WORKING CLASS TO MOVE AWAY.

AGAIN, TRUTH IS TRUTH AND IT IS WHAT IT IS.

THESE ARE THE FACTS AS I SEE THEM.

I LOST WEEKS OF SLEEP OVER THE CAT INCIDENT AND NOW I HAVE LOST AND HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO SLEEP LAST NIGHT OVER THIS TRAILER INCIDENT.

THERE ARE MANY DAMAGES.

NUMBER ONE, THIS IS A REGISTERED PRIVATE VEHICLE.

OKAY. NUMBER TWO, IT IS PARKED IN AN AREA THAT IS DEEMED AS RESIDENTIAL PARKING THAT HAS ACCESS ONLY TO MY FRONT DOOR AND NO OTHER PROPERTIES.

OKAY. NUMBER THREE, IT IS NOT A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE.

IT IS USED FOR MY PERSONAL USE ONLY AND IT IS AN EXTENSION OF MY HOME.

OKAY. IT'S ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN YOUR ORDINANCE IN CHAPTER 34 THAT THE SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE EXEMPT AND IT IS ONLY ENFORCEABLE ON RESIDENTS.

SELECTIVE PROSECUTION WRITTEN RIGHT IN IT.

IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND IT'S TYRANNICAL AS IT CAN BE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LETTING ME SPEAK, MAYOR BROWN.

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. YOU'RE WELCOME.

BOBBY. THANK YOU.

BRUCE REDMAN.

BRUCE. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL.

GOOD EVENING. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE'RE HAVING WITH THE GALVESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

FROM THEM DELETING EVIDENCE AND ALSO THE VIOLENCE THAT THEY PUT ON TO THE CITIZENS AROUND HERE.

A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS AGO, LIEUTENANT CALDWELL, WHEN HE SAW THAT I WAS VIDEOING, PEPPER SPRAYED, TASED ME TWICE AND BEAT ME IN MY DRIVEWAY.

[00:50:03]

HE THEN PROCEEDED TO SMASH MY PHONE.

GOOGLE HAS THE DATE AND LOCATION, AND THE TIME OF MY ARREST IS THE LAST TIME THAT PHONE WAS EVER TURNED ON.

A FEW MONTHS BEFORE THAT, SERGEANT DOHERTY AND OFFICER REYES, UNDER HIS COMMAND, UNLAWFULLY ARRESTED ME.

AND WELL I TOLD THEM TO GET OUT OF MY PHONE.

YOU CAN SEE NOW THAT I HAVE THE BODY CAM, WHICH THEY TRIED TO SUPPRESS FOR QUITE A WHILE.

YOU CAN SEE ON HIS BODY CAM HIM DELETING VIDEOS OFF OF MY PHONE AND ILLEGALLY SEARCHING IT.

TWO WEEKS LATER, DOHERTY AGAIN ARRESTED ME, THIS TIME WITH NO CHARGES AT ALL, JUST SPENT THE NIGHT IN JAIL.

THEY TACKLED ME AND STARTED BEATING ME WITH THE HANDCUFFS BEFORE THEY USED THE HANDCUFFS FOR WHAT THEY WERE INTENDED FOR.

THEY AGAIN TURNED OFF MY PHONE AND DISABLED THE RECORDINGS.

THERE'S NO BODY CAM OF THAT.

THERE'S NO DASH CAMS OR ANYTHING THAT ALL DISAPPEARED.

THIS COMES, NOW WE FAST FORWARD AND WE HAVE THIS INCIDENT WITH OFFICER RIVAS.

AND LUCKILY THERE WERE PEOPLE TAKING VIDEO.

SO AFTER MANHANDLING THE KIDS AND THE WOMEN, A GOOD SAMARITAN WENT TO TRY AND STOP HIM.

AND HE WAS THEN BEAT.

OFFICER RIVAS, AS TRAINED BY LIEUTENANT CALDWELL, THEN PROCEEDED TO HEAD OVER TO THE WATER AND FOUND THE PEOPLE THAT WERE VIDEOING FROM A DISTANCE AND STARTED BEATING THEM. THIS IS A PATTERN.

IT IS TRAINED OF THE OFFICERS THAT WE FIND THAT ARE PROBLEM OFFICERS.

80 TO 90% OF THEM ARE UNDER LIEUTENANT CALDWELL'S SUPERVISION.

ON TOP OF THIS, ONE OF THE VICTIMS WAS THREATENED WITH HIS LIFE AND ENDED UP HAVING TO MOVE OUT OF COUNTY FOR FEAR FOR HIM AND HIS FAMILY.

AND WITHIN HOURS OF RIVAS GETTING HIS GRAND JURY INDICTMENT, ANOTHER ONE OF THE VICTIMS HAD HER APARTMENT BUILDING SHOT UP.

THERE ARE SOME SERIOUS ISSUES HERE.

THEY ARE CIRCLING AROUND A PARTICULAR OFFICER WHO SEEMS TO BE THE EYE OF THE HURRICANE, AND EVERYBODY'S GETTING ALL THE LITTLE BANDS AS THEY SPIN OUT.

I HAVE BEEN COMING HERE FOR OVER TWO YEARS TALKING ABOUT THIS, AND I'VE YET TO BE, HAVE ANY OF YOU REACH OUT TO ME.

OFFICER RIVAS, WE HAVE ON VIDEO ALMOST THREE YEARS AGO DOING ALMOST THE EXACT SAME THING.

AND WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET YOU GUYS TO LISTEN.

THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN MORE.

THERE ARE MORE BAD OFFICERS.

PLEASE REACH OUT AND HELP. THANK YOU, MR. REDMOND. PLEASE EXCUSE MY PRONUNCIATION.

I CAN'T, SEAN, AND COULD YOU PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME FOR ME, PLEASE? PORSCHE. PORSCHE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE TAX INCREASE.

AND I AM HERE FROM THE WEST END.

I AM A BUSINESS OWNER OF THREE BUSINESSES HERE AND HEAVILY INVOLVED IN FOUR OTHERS.

AND I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT ANY SORT OF INCREASE HERE IS GOING TO REALLY WIPE OUT PART OF THIS ISLAND.

WE'VE ALREADY HAD OUR WORST YEAR AND 11 YEARS DUE TO THE EARLY SEASON STORMS. I MEAN, IT WAS WORSE THAN IKE THIS YEAR AS FAR AS INCOME AND REVENUE, AS FAR AS PEOPLE COMING TO THE ISLAND.

A LOT OF PEOPLE AREN'T COMING TO THE ISLAND BECAUSE ALREADY WITH ALL OF THE INSURANCE AND PROPERTY TAX INCREASES THAT'S BEING PASSED ON TO PEOPLE WHO ARE RENTING HOMES, WE'VE PRICED OURSELVES OUT OF THE MARKET AND THEY'RE LIKE, WHY WOULD I DO THIS? I GO TO THE CARIBBEAN INSTEAD.

AND I THINK THAT COUPLED WITH, YOU KNOW, DAMAGES WHICH AREN'T BEING PAID FOR THE HOMES HERE AND THE LACK OF TOURISM, YOU'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A TON OF BUSINESSES ON THE WEST END SHUT DOWN.

AND I'M NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT MY BUSINESSES.

I SPEAK FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THE WEST END.

I TRY TO REPRESENT OUT THERE.

I TRY TO BRING THINGS OUT THERE AND THERE'S A REAL PROBLEM, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST ON THE WEST END.

I THINK IT'S ALL THROUGH GALVESTON, BUT I'M MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE WEST END AND PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT THE HOMES WHEN THE PRICES WERE INFLATED AND THEY THINK THAT THEY'RE GOING TO RENT THEM AND THAT'S HOW THEY'RE GOING TO AFFORD THEM.

AND THEN THEY DON'T RENT THEM, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE TAXES ON TOP OF THAT, AND THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT.

THERE'S SO MANY HOUSES ON THE MARKET THAT IT'S CRAZY, AND THEY'RE NOT BEING SOLD BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET WHAT THEY PAID FOR IT, AND THEY CAN'T BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH THAT. AND YOU'RE GOING TO I THINK IT'S GOING TO SNOWBALL PERSONALLY, I REALLY FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO START SEEING FORECLOSURES AND YOU'RE GOING TO START SEEING BUSINESSES CLOSE.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHILE A LOT OF YOU PROBABLY REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE WEST END, I THINK IT'S GOING TO TRICKLE THROUGH THE WHOLE ISLAND.

AND THERE'S ALREADY A LOT OF BUSINESSES ON STRAND TALKING ABOUT CLOSING, AND THOSE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LIVE HERE WITH THESE CRAZY HOUSING PRICES

[00:55:07]

AND CRAZY TAXES.

IF THEIR BUSINESSES ARE NO LONGER HERE, THEY'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF HERE.

AND SO I REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO VOTE DOWN THIS TAX INCREASE BECAUSE IT'S JUST IT'S CRAZY.

PEOPLE ALREADY CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE HERE.

WE'RE ALREADY HAVING TO TRY TO PULL WORKERS FROM OFF THE ISLAND.

AND WHY DO THEY WANT TO COME HERE? TO WORK AT SEASONAL BUSINESSES WHEN THEY CAN WORK ON THE ISLAND FOR THE SAME PAY RATE? SO I JUST WANT TO END WITH SAYING MAKE GALVESTON AFFORDABLE AGAIN, PLEASE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BILL BROUSSARD, BILL.

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NEW ON COUNCIL AND WHO DON'T KNOW ME, MY NAME IS BILL BROUSSARD, I'VE I'M A B-O-I AND I'VE SPENT THE LAST 50 YEARS OF MY LIFE CONSULTING TO MAJOR ORGANIZATIONS, ALMOST EVERY FORTUNE 100 COMPANY AT ONE POINT IN TIME AND JUST BEFORE I HAD MY ACCIDENT, I FINISHED A TWO YEAR STINT CAN CONSULTING TO THE CEO OF A $3 BILLION ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN HOUSTON. SO, I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE BUSINESS ASPECTS OF WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY TONIGHT, BECAUSE I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO PRECEDED ME DID A MUCH BETTER JOB OF TALKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL DIFFICULTY.

THROUGHOUT THE SO LET ME JUST START BY SAYING I'M A FIRM BELIEVER THAT WITHOUT INTEGRITY, NOTHING WORKS.

AND HAVING SAID THAT, I'M GOING TO FURTHER SAY THAT STARTING IN LIDEN'S TENURE UP THROUGH MR. ROSEN AND CERTAINLY MR. YARBOROUGH, WE SAW MANY PEOPLE COME UP HERE SAYING THAT IF YOU WOULD JUST ALLOW ME TO BUILD OR YOU WOULD JUST ALLOW ME TO CONSTRUCT, THEN THE TAX RATE WILL GO DOWN.

WE'RE GOING TO UNDERWRITE THE KIND OF TAXES YOU PAY IN GALVESTON.

I THINK YOU HAVE A CHANCE TONIGHT TO MAKE TRUE WHAT THEY WERE SAYING ALL THOSE YEARS THAT THE TAX RATE, IN FACT, COULD GO DOWN. MATTER OF FACT, I'M A BIG SUPPORTER OF BRIAN'S NOTION THAT PERHAPS A HIRING FREEZE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE JUST GOT ON YOUR HANDS.

THE, THIS CITY HAS USED WHAT I WOULD CALL BUSINESS UNITS ANCILLARY TO THE COUNCIL AS THEIR CREDIT CARD.

AND FRANKLY, THE PARK BOARD HAS RESPONDED GENEROUSLY.

THE RESIDENTS HAVE GIVEN YOU A PRETTY NICE CREDIT CARD OVER THE LAST 12 YEARS TO BE ABLE TO SUBSIDIZE DEVELOPMENT, AND YOU'VE ONLY GOT ONE CREDIT CARD LEFT.

UNLESS, OF COURSE, MAYOR BROWN WAS ABLE TO CHARM THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INTO DONATING TO THE CITY'S OVERALL.

I DON'T THINK HE DID, THOUGH.

BUT YOU'VE GOT ONE CREDIT CARD LEFT, AND THAT'S SUPPORT.

AND THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOW SERIOUSLY.

THE PORT IS IN A DIFFERENT PHASE.

THE BANKERS HAVE DONE THEIR JOB.

THEY'VE MANAGED TO GET THE KIND OF MONEY THAT YOU WOULD HOPE YOU COULD GET IN ORDER TO DO THE BUILD OUT THAT YOU DID, AND THAT HAS BEEN PROMISED. HOWEVER, I'M NOT SURE A BANKER IS WELL EQUIPPED TO TRACK RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED.

I'M PRETTY SURE BANKER IS NOT EQUIPPED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT SAFETY, COST OVERRUNS AND PERFORMANCE ON A ON A PROJECT PLAN.

THANK YOU, BILL, VERY MUCH.

YES, SIR. UNFORTUNATELY, YOUR TIME IS OVER.

OH, I WAS HOPING YOU WERE GOING TO CONSIDER ME A CITY EMPLOYEE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

BILL. WE HAVE JEFF SEINSHEIMER.

JEFF.

GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JEFF SEINSHEIMER.

I'M A FIFTH GENERATION B-O-I AND RESIDENT OF GALVESTON OR TIKI ISLAND FOR MY ENTIRE LIFE.

I'M ALSO AN AT LARGE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF SURFRIDER FOUNDATION GALVESTON CHAPTER.

[01:00:07]

I'M GIVING THIS COMMENT OFFICIALLY ON BEHALF OF OUR ORGANIZATION AND OUR CHAIR, SARAH BURGESS, WHO IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

THIS COMMENT PERTAINS TO ORDINANCE TEN A AS LISTED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.

BEACH ACCESS IS A KEY COMPONENT OF OUR NONPROFIT'S MISSION.

THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOY THE BEACHES IN GALVESTON BEGINS WITH THEIR ABILITY TO ACCESS IT FREELY, FAIRLY, AND WITHOUT BURDEN.

THANKS TO OUR GREAT STATE OF TEXAS, THE OPEN BEACHES ACT FURTHER ENSHRINES THIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ALL OF US.

THE PROCESS OF AMENDING THE BEACH ACCESS AND DUNE PROTECTION PLAN HAS BEEN VERY CHALLENGING TO FOLLOW.

VARIOUS PARTS OF THE PLAN HAVE BEEN ADOPTED THROUGH NUMEROUS ORDINANCES, PASSED AT DIFFERENT TIMES OVER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN A YEAR.

PART OF WHAT'S PROPOSED FOR ADOPTION IN TONIGHT'S ORDINANCE IS MITIGATION FOR OTHER PARTS OF THE PLAN, ADOPTED IN ORDINANCES FROM MAY AND OCTOBER OF 2023, WITH THE FULL SCOPE OF THE PLAN BEING PIECEMEALED OUT ACROSS ORDINANCES IS VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE PUBLIC TO FOLLOW AND UNDERSTAND THE PLAN AS A WHOLE.

AND AS OUR ORGANIZATION UNDERSTANDS IT, IT HAS ALSO BEEN CHALLENGING FOR THIS CITY COUNCIL TO FOLLOW AS WELL.

TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 31, PART ONE, CHAPTER 15, SUBCHAPTER A, SECTION 15.7 H, REQUIRES THAT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATE PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR BEACH ACCESS, TRAFFIC, AND PARKING ON THE BEACH ONLY IN A MANNER THAT PRESERVES OR ENHANCES EXISTING PUBLIC RIGHT TO USE AND HAVE ACCESS TO AND FROM THE BEACH.

WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE CITY'S PROPOSED PLAN, ON THE WHOLE, RESULTS IN A NET LOSS OF DEDICATED ADA PARKING, BOTH ON BEACH AND OFF BEACH, AND THAT IT MAY RESULT IN A NET LOSS OF GENERAL ON BEACH PARKING.

IF SO, THE PLAN WOULD NOT BE CONSISTENT WITH TEXAS LAW.

WE ASK THAT THE COUNCIL TABLE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE PROPOSED IN THE ITEM TEN A ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA TO ALLOW FOR STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A CLEAR AND CONCLUSIVE SUMMARY OF ALL THE CURRENT ADOPTED AND CURRENT PROPOSED PLAN AMENDMENTS, AS WELL AS A SUMMARY OF THE NET LOSSES OR GAINS TO ADA PARKING AND GENERAL PARKING ON BEACH AND OFF BEACH.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND SURFRIDER FOUNDATION GALVESTON CHAPTER LOOKS FORWARD TO CONTINUING OUR WORK ON BEACH ACCESS IN GALVESTON AND WORKING WITH OUR CITY COUNCIL. WELCOME TO THE NEW MEMBERS.

YOU'LL BE SEEING A LOT MORE OF ME.

THANK YOU, JEFF, VERY MUCH.

THAT IS ALL THE APPLICATIONS I HAVE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE HAVE A COUPLE MORE, THOUGH.

THEY'RE COMING FORWARD.

JAKE SMITH.

JAKE. GOOD AFTERNOON.

THANK YOU ALL FOR GIVING ME A CHANCE TO TALK.

I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT TAXES.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN A POPULAR SUBJECT UP HERE, BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF REAL LIFE.

I OWN A FEW PROPERTIES THAT I HAVE RENTED.

I HAVE A ONE BEDROOM, ONE BATH THAT I HAVE TO RENT AT $1,500 TO BREAK EVEN.

WHEN I BOUGHT THIS HOUSE, MY MONTHLY PAYMENTS WERE $1,800.

NOW THEY'RE $2,800.

ALL TAXES.

IF YOU MAKE $15 AN HOUR, WHICH I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S PROBABLY PEOPLE THAT MAKE $15 AN HOUR.

IF YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT, THAT'S 32% OF THEIR INCOME.

IF YOU HAVE ONE PERSON, IT'S 62% OF THEIR INCOME.

UNAFFORDABLE, BARELY AFFORDABLE FOR TWO PEOPLE, SO THAT PRICES IT OUT FOR THAT ECONOMIC DEMOGRAPHIC.

WE'RE HAVING TO RENT TO PEOPLE COMING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN, NURSES, DOCTORS THAT COME IN FROM OUT OF TOWN, SHORT TERM STAYS, AND THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PRICES.

I APOLOGIZE, BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL I CAN DO.

MY OWN PERSONAL HOUSE I BOUGHT FOR $415,000 THREE YEARS AGO.

NOW, I'M NOT A B-O-I, SO I'VE GOT A FRESH SET OF EYES.

I'VE BEEN HERE ABOUT THREE YEARS.

BOUGHT THAT HOUSE FOR 415.

IT JUST GOT APPRAISED FOR 782.

IF ANYBODY UP HERE WANTS TO BUY MY HOUSE, I'LL GIVE YOU A DEAL.

I'LL GIVE YOU 682, AND YOU CAN HAVE EVERYTHING IN IT.

I'LL EVEN LET YOU HAVE MY DOG.

IT'S RIDICULOUS.

AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT INCREASING TAXES AGAIN.

WE ARE ALREADY SO UNAFFORDABLE.

I OWN A BUSINESS. WE'RE IN 42 STATES.

[01:05:03]

WE'RE THINKING ABOUT MOVING AND WE DON'T WANT TO MOVE.

WE LOVE IT. WE LIVE CLOSE TO THE STRAND.

WE LIVE CLOSE TO POST OFFICE.

WE LOVE RUNNING AROUND. WE LOVE GOING TO THE BEACH.

OUR KIDS LOVE IT HERE.

WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO GET INTO PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

WE FOUND OUT THAT ONCE WE MOVED HERE.

THEY GO TO TRINITY NOW, BUT IT'S RIDICULOUS.

AND I REALLY HOPE IT DOESN'T INCREASE AT WHAT THE NUMBERS I'M HEARING IT'S GOING TO.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

VERY GOOD. THAT'S ALL I HAVE NOW FOR THE APPLICATIONS FOR SPEAKING AND PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE ARE MOVING FORWARD TO OUR ORDINANCES NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[10.A. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston Amending The Code Of The City Of Galveston, Chapter 29, The City Of Galveston’s “Beach Access And Dune Protection Plan”; Appendix A: “Beach Access And Parking Plan And Article Ii. “Planning - Beach Access Dune Protection & Beach Front Construction Regulations; Which Proposed Amendments Relate To Beachfront Construction Extensions And Renewals And To Beach Access And Parking At Access Points Commonly Known As, Beachtown Development, Palisade Palms, Stewart Beach, Seawall Beach Urban Park, Pocket Park #1, And Pocket Park #3; Planning Case Number 24PA-001; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject (K. Clark)]

LET'S MOVE TO TEN A, PLEASE.

ITEM TEN A, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, CHAPTER 29.

THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S BEACH ACCESS AND DUNE PROTECTION PLAN.

APPENDIX A.

BEACH ACCESS AND PARKING PLAN IN ARTICLE TWO.

PLANNING, BEACH ACCESS, DUNE PROTECTION, AND BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS, WHICH PROPOSE AMENDMENTS RELATE TO BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION, EXTENSIONS AND RENEWALS, AND TO BEACH ACCESS AND PARKING AT ACCESS POINTS, COMMONLY KNOWN AS BEACH TOWN DEVELOPMENT, PALISADE PALMS, STEWART BEACH, SEAWALL BEACH URBAN PARK, POCKET PARK NUMBER ONE, AND POCKET PARK NUMBER THREE PLANNING CASE NUMBER 24PA-001, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

WE HAVE KYLE CLARK WITH US.

KYLE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

COUNCIL. YES.

THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WE WENT OVER SOME OF IT THIS MORNING.

WE DIDN'T GET TO GO OVER THE ENTIRE THING, SO I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO HIT ON SOME OF THE ITEMS, OTHER ITEMS IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE DIDN'T TOUCH ON THIS MORNING.

THERE IS JUST LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT'S KIND OF CLEANING UP WHERE THE CITY CAN ADMINISTRATIVELY DO SOME EXTENSIONS ON SOME OF OUR PERMITS.

WE HAD IN OUR IN OUR PLAN, WHERE THOSE WERE HAVING TO BE SENT TO GLO FOR KIND OF REVIEW.

BUT WE TOOK THAT, TOOK THAT STEP OUT.

SO WE'RE KIND OF BRINGING US BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.

THE OTHER ITEM ON THE IN THIS ORDINANCE IS WE UPDATED SOME OF THE PARKING ON THE EAST END.

WE DID NOT HAVE SOME OF THE ALREADY DESIGNATED OFF BEACH PARKING NUMBERS DESIGNATED FOR THOSE AREAS.

SO THIS WAS KIND OF JUST PUT IN A SPECIFIC NUMBER TO THOSE CERTAIN SPOTS.

AND THEN THE LAST THING IN THIS ORDINANCE IS THE RELOCATION, NOT REMOVAL OF 1000FT OF THE RESTRICTED USE AREA FROM THE EAST END OF EAST SIDE OF STEWART BEACH, 500FT UNDER STEWART BEACH, AND THEN SOME ON THE POCKET PARK ONE AND POCKET PARK THREE.

THIS RESOLUTION HAS AN ORDINANCE HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.

IT'S WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO THEY'VE STATED THAT ALL OF THE LANGUAGE IN THIS ORDINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW.

SO AT THIS TIME, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE? ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER CLARK? YES, BO. ARE YOU ABLE TO AMEND THIS ORDINANCE? IF WE COULD PULL ONE OF THESE PROPOSALS OUT? WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, BECAUSE THIS WAS PART OF THE NOTICE IN THE TEXAS REGISTER.

WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK OUT, RESUBMIT THIS TO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE, GO BACK THROUGH ON THE IN THE TEXAS REGISTER AND PUT ALL OF IT BACK OUT ON FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

BUT WE HAVE A TON OF COMMUNITY THAT UTILIZES THIS SPACE, AS WELL AS PEOPLE THAT COME IN THAT ARE HANDICAPPED LIKE WE'VE SEEN IN THE PICTURES THEN? WELL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO DENY THE WHOLE THING OR NOT.

WELL, WE HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH.

AND JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR, THE CITY IS NOT THE ONE WHO SAYS THAT, THAT THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.

THAT IS THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.

THAT IS, WE PROPOSED IT.

YES, SIR, WE.

I MEAN, IT CAME FROM US.

THEY JUST APPROVED IT.

NO. NO, SIR. OKAY.

THIS CAME THROUGH MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE LAST APRIL WHEN I FIRST CAME ON BOARD.

WE SAT DOWN WITH THEM AND PROPOSED.

HEY, IS THIS A VIABLE OPTION? WE PROPOSED IT.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID. RIGHT.

WE ASKED IF THIS WAS A VIABLE OPTION.

THEY SAID WE COULD REMOVE IT AND STILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

SO THAT IS THE THAT'S THE AVENUE THAT THAT THAT WE WENT.

INITIALLY THEY TOLD US WE COULD JUST OUTRIGHT REMOVE 1000FT OF IT, NOT EVEN RELOCATE IT, ACTUALLY JUST REMOVE IT.

THAT IS WHAT WE SENT UP IN THE FIRST ORDINANCE.

THAT'S WHAT WE FIRST SENT UP.

THEN THEY CAME BACK AND SAID, NO, WE'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

YOU CANNOT JUST REMOVE IT, YOU HAVE TO RELOCATE IT.

SO THERE WAS OTHER CONVERSATIONS OF, OKAY, WE WANT TO RELOCATE IT HERE.

[01:10:02]

EVERYTHING THAT WE BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL WAS AT KIND OF THE DIRECTION OF GLO TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO BE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

SO IT WASN'T JUST US COMING OUT HERE SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE THIS.

AND AS MR. JONES STATED, THIS WAS A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT.

YOU KNOW, THE OPEN BEACHES ACT IS NOT PUBLIC PROPERTY.

IT IS AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC USAGE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

SO THERE'S A MISCONCEPTION OF, OKAY, WELL, THIS IS PUBLIC.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE OPEN BEACHES ACT IS.

IT'S ACTUALLY AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC USE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

LET ME ASK A QUESTION DIFFERENTLY.

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? A BOTTOM LINE, AS FAR AS THE DIFFERENT THINGS YOU'VE SAID, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU IN YOUR POSITION HAVE SAID WE NEED TO DO THIS.

SO WE HAVE HAD AND JUST ANY PART ON THE BEACH THAT SOMEBODY CAN COME IN AND REQUEST VEHICULAR RESTRICTIONS ON THE BEACH AND IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY.

HOA SUBDIVISIONS, WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE HAD THAT REQUEST OF RESTRICTING VEHICLES IN THIS AREA.

THE ONLY VEHICLES ALLOWED IN THIS AREA ARE BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTED USE AREA.

SO THE ONLY WAY THAT WE CAN RESTRICT THE VEHICLES IN THIS AREA IS TO REMOVE THAT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE RELOCATING IT TO OTHER AREAS TO ALLOW THAT, TO ALLOW ADA FISHERMEN, PEOPLE LAUNCHING NON-MOTORIZED VESSELS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE WATER.

AND LIKE I SAID, THE GENTLEMAN FROM SURFRIDER SAID WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH 15.7 BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENHANCING AND PRESERVING.

THE GLO HAS SAYS, YES, YOU ARE PRESERVING AND ENHANCING ACCESS FOR RELOCATION OF THAT AREA.

YOU HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS.

THIS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE LAW.

YEAH. I'M NOT EVEN ARGUING THAT POINT.

ALL I'M BASICALLY GAINING KNOWLEDGE OF IS THE FACT THAT I'M ENVISIONING A GROUP OF HOMEOWNERS OR HOA ASKS YOU TO DO THIS, BUT THEN WE'VE ALSO GOT A GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT DEPEND ON THIS AND UTILIZE IT QUITE A BIT.

SO HOW DO YOU CHOOSE BETWEEN THOSE TWO? WELL, I'LL BRING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

THE CITY COUNCIL VOTES ON IT AND WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

IF IT'S NOT A LEGAL PROCESS AND THE GLO WILL SAY THIS IS NOT LEGAL, BUT WE'RE IN THE, IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, I MEAN, THAT'S ALL I CAN ALL I CAN FOLLOW IN THIS ROLE IS BRING IT TO Y'ALL.

IF YOU PASS IT IN THE EYES OF THE LAW, IT'S SAYING THAT THIS IS THE REQUIREMENTS ARE BEING MET.

I MEAN, THAT'S ALL I CAN DO.

AND THAT'S ALL I CAN DO IN MY ROLE IS GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, MR. CLARK? YES, BOB, I JUST WANTED TO GET A LITTLE CLARIFICATION.

THAT SPECIAL USE AREA IS AN AREA PARTICULARLY FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LAUNCH NON-MOTORIZED BOATS BECAUSE THEY CAN BRING THEIR TRAILER RIGHT DOWN TO THE BEACH FOR HANDICAP ACCESS ESPECIALLY.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE AND FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO FISHING, OF COURSE THAT'S KIND OF IS THAT DOES THAT DESCRIBE THE [INAUDIBLE] YEAH.

THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THE YOU HAVE TO BE ONE OF THOSE 3 IN 1 OF THOSE THREE GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE RESTRICTED USE AREA.

SO WHEN YOU GO INTO STUART BEACH, THEY'RE ASKED FOR A FISHING LICENSE OR A ADA PLACARD, OR IF YOU'RE PULLING A BOAT, IT'S ROUTINELY PATROLLED BY YOU KNOW, GPD, THE PARK.

THE PARK BOARD, STEWART BEACH PARK MANAGER.

TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ENTITIES ARE USING THE ONLY ENTITIES UTILIZING THAT AREA.

OKAY. AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS JUST TO CLARIFY, 500FT OF THAT, WHERE WE'RE TAKING 1000FT² OFF OF THE EXISTING SUA AND 500FT OF THAT WOULD GO TO STEWART BEACH, RIGHT? YES. AND THAT PART THAT GOES TO STEWART BEACH, CAN THAT WILL THAT ALSO FUNCTION AS AN SUA? THAT IS CAN YOU GO FISHING THERE? CAN YOU LAUNCH YOUR KAYAK THERE? CAN YOU GET TO THE BEACH WITH A WHEELCHAIR.

WELL IT'LL BE IT'LL IT'S MAINLY GOING TO BE DESIGNATED FOR ADA ACCESS.

I MEAN, YOU CAN WALK OVER THERE TO FISH.

YOU CAN'T. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO LAUNCH YOUR BOAT VESSEL OR ANYTHING.

BUT WE'RE OPENING UP 500FT AT POCKET PARK ONE, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING BOLLARDS OVER 500FT TO THE WEST, YOU KNOW, INCREASING ACCESS TO THE WATER'S EDGE AT POCKET PARK ONE.

SO YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GO LAUNCH YOUR VESSEL THERE.

YOU'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THE AT THE, AT STEWART BEACH IS MAINLY FOR ADA, RIGHT.

I CAN IMAGINE A CONFLICT WITH SOMEBODY THROWING A FISHING LINE IN THE WATER WITH KIDS EVERYWHERE.

[01:15:01]

YEAH, IT'S MAINLY DESIGNATED FOR JUST THE ADA AT STEWART BEACH.

AND SO THAT I'M TRYING TO ADD THIS ALL UP NOW.

THREE AND YEAH, 300FT WOULD GO TO POCKET PARK THREE AND THAT'S ADA AND BOAT LAUNCHING AND FISHING.

YES, SIR. AND THEN 200FT WOULD GO TO POCKET PARK ONE.

SAME DEAL. 500.

YEAH. I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY.

I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT IT'S. YEAH, IT'S GOING TO BE I THINK IT'S 500FT ACTUALLY.

I THINK IT'S MORE THAN 1000FT THAT WE'RE DOING.

WE'RE DOING 500 AT FOR ADA ONLY AT STEWART BEACH, 500 FOR ALL THREE OF THEM AT POCKET PARK ONE.

AND THEN I BELIEVE MAYBE ANOTHER 2 OR 300 AT POCKET PARK.

THREE FOR ALL THREE OF THEM? YEAH. OKAY, WELL, I GUESS MY OBSERVATION THERE IS THAT, FIRST OF ALL, THE MOVING, MOVING, MOVING THAT KIND OF ACCESS WHERE YOU CAN LAUNCH YOUR BOAT AND GO FISHING TO A BEACH THAT'S ERODING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THREE, 4 OR 5FT A YEAR.

DOESN'T SOUND VERY PRACTICAL TO ME WHEN YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IT LOCATED ON A ACCRETING BEACH.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THE PART WHERE WE'RE RELOCATING TO STUART BEACH.

STUART BEACH IS ALREADY HAVE HAS ACCESS TO VEHICLES, AND INDEED SOME OF THE SPECIAL USE ACTIVITIES WILL NOT BE ALLOWED THERE BECAUSE IT'S JUST YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE OF THE MIX OF THE KIND OF PEOPLE THAT GO THERE.

SO, I MEAN, THERE'S A KIND OF A NET LOSS IN DOING SOMETHING, SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO THE SPECIAL USE ACCESS ACTIVITY. AND I REALLY, REALLY CAN'T JUSTIFY WHY WE'RE DOING IT.

I ASSUME THE GLO WAS OKAY WITH IT THE WAY IT WAS, YOU KNOW, WITH WITHOUT MOVING THAT THOUSAND FEET AND THIS GLO SAYS WHAT WE'RE DOING IS.

OKAY, WELL, THE GLOW IS ONE MEASURE OF WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT.

THE OTHER MEASURE, AND THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY AMENABLE TO DOING WHATEVER THE CITY HAS ASKED THEM TO DO.

AND BUT THE OTHER MEASURE IS, WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE HERE WHO USE THE BEACH THINK? AND I WASN'T REALLY AWARE OF THAT UNTIL YOU KNOW, WE YOU AND I HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING AND I ASKED FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT THAT WERE WRITTEN AND OR ORALLY PRESENTED IN CITY COUNCIL, AS WELL AS ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT THE GLO HAS RECEIVED.

AND IT WAS OVER 140 INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE AGAINST MOVING THIS SPECIAL USE AREA, AS WELL AS TWO INSTITUTIONS.

THE SURFRIDER IS AN INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION, AND THEN THE TEXAS CONSERVATION ALLIANCE IS A IS A STATE ORGANIZATION.

SO AND THE WHOLE PROCESS HAS BEEN QUITE CONFUSING FOR ME.

AND AS IT HAS BEEN FOR A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.

WELL, YES, AND IT IS CONFUSING.

AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY IT'S BEEN SO CONFUSING, BECAUSE RESTRICTED USE AREA IS NOT OUTLINED ANYWHERE IN THE LAW.

AND SO IT'S BEEN THIS PING PONG BACK AND FORTH, BECAUSE SUNNY BEACH CAME IN LAST YEAR AT THE SAME TIME AND SAID WE WANT TO RESTRICT THIS AREA.

AND I WAS ABLE TO SIT DOWN AND SAY, OKAY, YOU HAVE THIS MANY LINEAR FEET.

THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE SAYS YOU MUST PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPOT PER 15 LINEAR FEET.

YOU MUST PROVIDE THIS, YOU MUST PROVIDE THIS.

YOU MUST PROVIDE THIS.

CAME TO COUNCIL ONE TIME.

IT WAS VOTED ON. THIS HAS BEEN HERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN LAW I CAN'T NOBODY CAN SIT HERE AND SAY, THIS IS THIS, THIS IS THIS, THIS IS HOW WE ACHIEVE THIS.

AND SO IT HAS BEEN A PING PONG BECAUSE BECAUSE WE PUT SOMETHING OUT THERE, PEOPLE COME OUT AND IT'S LIKE, OKAY, WELL YEAH, PEOPLE SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE THIS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S HOW DO WE IF WE WANT TO REMOVE THIS IN THE FUTURE, WHAT DO WE DO? BECAUSE IT'S STILL A IT'S A GENTLEMAN'S AGREEMENT.

AND IT'S SOME OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT THOSE THAT'S ON THESE YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT GOES ON TO THE BEACH.

SO THERE IS STILL PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT'S UNDER THIS RESTRICTED USE AREA.

AND SO IF WE SAY, OKAY, WE CAN'T DO THIS, I MEAN THERE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY OUT THERE THAT'S KIND OF HAS SOMETHING THAT'S ON IT.

THAT'S NOT ANYWHERE IN THE IN THE LAW OF HOW WE HOW WE MANAGE THAT IF WE EVER DO WANT TO REMOVE IT.

AND THE GLOW, AS I SAID EARLIER, I ASSUME WAS OKAY WITH THE WAY IT WAS, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NO SUCH THING AS THAT IN THE STATUTES.

THEY WERE OKAY WITH US DOING IT THAT WAY.

I MEAN, WE WEREN'T DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

WELL, I MEAN, NOT I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT LEGALITY, IF WE GOT SOMETHING THAT'S PUT ON THERE THAT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY LAW.

I MEAN, IS THAT LEGAL? I'M KIND OF GETTING BACK TO MY POINT OF, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT KIND OF A THING.

WELL, I WILL BE CANDID.

GLO IS FINE WITH JUST FOLLOWING TACK.

YOU KNOW THESE ORDINANCES THAT WE DID LAST YEAR, THEY WERE FINE WITH ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, VEHICLES ON THE BEACH.

YOU KNOW, THEY WERE FINE WITH NOT HAVING THE CONCRETE.

IT'S THE TACT IS WRITTEN.

SO IF THERE IS A SPECIFIC THING THAT THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THEIR AREA THAT WE MAY HAVE HERE THAT CORPUS CHRISTI DOESN'T HAVE, OR SOUTH

[01:20:07]

PADRE WE HAVE, THAT WE HAVE THAT FLEXIBILITY TO DO WHAT'S THE BEST THING FOR GALVESTON AND NOT BE HAVE OVERSIGHT FROM AUSTIN, YOU KNOW. YEAH.

THEY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO COME IN AND SAY, OH WELL, HEY, WHY DON'T Y'ALL RESTRICT THESE VEHICLES ON SUNNY BEACH? THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO APPROACH THEM.

AND, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC APPROACHES US FOR THESE.

THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT ACTUALLY, THAT THAT THE WAY IT WAS WORKING WAS WORKING PRETTY WELL FOR AT LEAST 140 INDIVIDUALS AND TWO INSTITUTIONS, AND IT WASN'T WORKING SO WELL FOR A FEW PEOPLE WHO WERE UPSET THAT PEOPLE WERE DRIVING CARS OVER THERE ON THE BEACH IN FRONT OF HIM IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, OR WHATEVER TIMES.

AND THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM FIXED BY.

THAT'S A PROBLEM YOU FIXED BY.

I CAN WELL, I CAN SAY THAT THE PEOPLE, THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE CHILD SAFETY AND THE THINGS LIKE THAT ARE NOT THE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TO US TO REQUEST THIS.

THEY'RE NOT IN THEY'RE NOT IN THE AREA THAT'S WITHIN 1000FT.

THEY'RE NOT IMMEDIATELY LANDWARD OF THIS THOUSAND FEET.

SO THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMPLAINING, THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE RESTRICTED USE AREA IN FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY.

THIS WAS NOT, THEY'RE NOT THE ONES WHO CAME UP HERE AND ASKED FOR THIS.

THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE IT IF THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED.

WELL, I GUESS THAT WAS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL THIS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SO UNCLEAR ALL ALONG TO EVERYBODY.

EVERYBODY. AND WE'RE KIND OF BOILING IT DOWN REALLY, TO JUST THIS, THIS PART OF THE AMENDMENTS, THE THOUSAND FEET, AND WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH THOSE QUESTIONS.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO SEPARATE THESE TWO ISSUES OUT, YOU KNOW, OR THREE ISSUES OUT? NO, SIR. THIS IS A RESOLUTION.

IF WE IF WE SEPARATE THIS SEPARATE THIS OUT.

THIS IS WHAT WENT THROUGH THE TEXAS REGISTER.

IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK.

WE'D HAVE TO RESUBMIT THIS TO GLO.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK OUT ON THE TEXAS REGISTER BECAUSE WHAT THEY RECEIVED COMMENTS ON INCLUDED THIS LANGUAGE.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS SINCE THIS LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED.

YEAH. WELL, I STILL KIND OF CONTEND THAT WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT REALLY REPLACING THAT 1000FT² WITH THE SAME TYPE OF BEACH THAT PART OF THE BEACH OVER THERE IS.

PROBABLY THE LAST REMAINING ACCRETING QUIET BEACH THAT WE HAVE ON THE ISLAND, EVEN DURING HOLIDAY WEEKENDS.

IT'S A NICER, NICER TYPE OF IT'S WIDER, BETTER ACCESS, ACCRETING, AND WE'RE REPLACING IT WITH AN ERODING BEACH AND A QUIET, CROWDED FAMILY BEACH.

SO IT'S FROM WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE, THAT'S KIND OF THE BEACH THAT REALLY SERVES THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE THAT WANT TO GO SOMEWHERE WITHOUT BEING OVERRUN BY TOURISTS. AND THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MEASURE THAT AGAINST THE REASON THAT WE STARTED DOING THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

AND I JUST CAN'T SQUARE IT.

I'M SORRY. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MR. CLARK? YES, MARIE.

IF THIS HAS CHANGED AND THE PROCESS BEGINS AGAIN, HOW LONG OF A PERIOD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WELL, WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE ORDINANCE.

THE ORDINANCES FROM LAST YEAR.

SUNNY BEACH AND CONCRETE WITHIN THE 200FT.

WE'D HAVE TO GET IT. HAVE TO GET THIS BACK UP TO IT, TO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE YOU KNOW, AT LEAST A 30 DAY, YOU KNOW, NOTICE IN THE TEXAS REGISTER AND THEN HOWEVER LONG IT WOULD TAKE FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH ANY COMMENTS THAT THEY RECEIVED FOR THIS FOR ALL THREE OF THEM.

THREE OF THEM AGAIN.

SO I'M, I'M GOING TO SAY SIX MONTHS.

AND HOW LONG HAS THIS PROCESS BEEN GOING ON? I'VE BEEN HERE FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, AND I THINK IT STARTED THE DAY I CAME ON BOARD.

YEAH, IT'S BEEN GOING ON A LONG TIME.

I FEEL LIKE IT HAS STARTED THE DAY I CAME ON.

SO A YEAR AND A HALF, AND WE PASSED MULTIPLE ORDINANCES ALREADY, AND WE'VE HAD EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS WE'VE HAD IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HERE AT CITY COUNCIL, JOINT ONE WITH A GENERAL LAND OFFICE.

YOU KNOW, AND I THINK ONE OF THE AND I UNDERSTAND THE PUBLIC'S FRUSTRATION BECAUSE WHEN THE, WHEN THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE PUT THIS OUT, THEY CERTIFIED IT.

IT'S ALREADY CERTIFIED THAT IT'S BEING, IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.

AND SO I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF I'M COMMENTING ON THIS, BUT THERE WAS ALREADY A DECISION MADE.

IT WASN'T THE CITY'S DECISION.

IT'S NOT THE CITY'S PROCESS.

IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT OUR PROCESS.

AS I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF, WE SUBMITTED THESE COMMENTS TO GENERAL LAND OFFICE AND IT FEELS LIKE THE DECISION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE.

SO CAN YOU COMMENT ON THE PHOTOS THAT WERE TAKEN OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD DOCUMENTING THE USE OF THE SINCE? NO, A LOT OF THESE PHOTOS.

YEAH. SO THERE WAS THERE WAS A FIVE YEAR THE OWNER OF PALISADES PALMS THEY WENT OUT AND DID A FIVE YEAR SURVEY GOING OUT MONTHLY.

[01:25:05]

YOU KNOW, JUST SEEING WHAT WAS BEING UTILIZED OUT THERE AND OVER 50% OF WHAT HE, WHAT THEY CAPTURED WERE PEOPLE THAT WERE USING IT, NOT ADA FISHING OR LAUNCHING MOTORIZED VESSELS.

AND MOST OF IT WASN'T.

I THINK THE SECOND MOST WAS PEOPLE USING IT AS TO LAUNCH NON-MOTORIZED VESSELS, YOU KNOW.

LIKE I SAID, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DAYS THEY WENT OUT THERE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY FOUND OVER THE, OVER THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD.

ACTUALLY WEEKLY, NOT MONTHLY, BUT NO, IT'S BEEN SO LONG.

YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION, KYLE.

I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED HERE.

THE CONCRETE AREA THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT, THE THAT IN THE CONCRETE TOPIC OF THIS, IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD TODAY WITH THIS SPECIAL USE AREA, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CONCRETE? THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH AS PART OF OUR PLAN AMENDMENT.

SO THEY, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH AND SAY, I WOULD HAVE TO SEND THIS BACK UP TO GLO.

WE HAVE I HAVE TO SEND UP A REDLINE PLAN AGAIN WITH THIS CHANGES TAKEN OUT.

THEY HAVE TO, LIKE I SAID, PUT IT BACK THROUGH THE TEXAS REGISTER WITH THIS RESOLUTION ORDINANCE WITH THAT REMOVED, PLUS THE SUNNY BEACH PLUS THE REINFORCED CONCRETE.

AND SO ALL THREE OF THEM'S GOT TO BE WE CAN'T SEND WE CAN'T SAY, WELL, WE'VE ALREADY WENT THROUGH TWO.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT THE PLAN OVERALL.

SO WE MAKE A CHANGE IN THIS.

IT'S ALL GOT TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS I THOUGHT THERE WAS NO MORE COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED ON THE CONCRETE PART.

WELL, IT'S THE FINAL ORDINANCE.

IT'S SO IT'S AN ORDINANCE SO THERE'S NOT SO FOR GLO TO FINALIZE IT, IT HAS TO BE A FINAL ORDINANCE.

WE DID THIS AS A RESOLUTION BECAUSE IT KEPT GOING BACK AND FORTH AND TALKING WITH THE CITY SECRETARY AND LEGAL.

WE DIDN'T WANT 3 OR 4 DIFFERENT ORDINANCES FOR THIS ITEM GOING TO MUNICODE AND SOMETHING GETTING IN.

SO THAT'S WHY WE DID THIS AS AN ACTION, WHICH IS STILL ALLOWABLE UNDER TAC.

BUT WE HAD TO HAVE A FINAL ORDINANCE FOR THE GLO TO FINALIZE OUR PLAN.

BUT IF WE ELECT NOT TO PURSUE THIS SPECIAL USE AREA AS OUTLINED, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION WITH THE GLO, IT JUST STAYS AS IS.

IS THAT RIGHT? NO, NO.

THAT SPECIAL USE AREA.

IT'S OUT THERE NOW, ISN'T IT? YES, SIR. SO IF WE DON'T CHANGE IT, DOES IT JUST STAY RIGHT THERE? IF WE DON'T CHANGE IT. YEAH.

IF YOU DO AN ORDINANCE, THEN I SEND THIS FINAL ORDINANCE TO, I MEAN, LEAVING THE RESTRICTED USE AREA IN.

I SEND THE FINAL ORDINANCE UP TO THE GLO SINCE WE HAVE FINAL ORDINANCE FOR ALL THREE OF THOSE ITEMS. CORRECT? THEY FINALIZED THE PLAN, WHICH THEY SAID SHOULD TAKE ABOUT 2 OR 3 WEEKS, AND THEN IT'LL GO INTO TEXAS REGISTER SAYING IT BECOMES ACTIVE 21 DAYS FROM THIS ISSUE. I UNDERSTAND, BUT IF WHATEVER, IF WE GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS AND WE DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE SPECIAL USE AREA.

IT WILL JUST STAY OUT THERE AS IS.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

AND WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS THAT THE SUNNY BEACH AREA, THE CONCRETE SITUATION THERE ON THAT PROJECT THAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED, THAT'S TIED TO THIS? YES. SO WE CAN'T SEPARATE OUT THE SPECIAL USE AREA IN ANY WAY.

WE HAVE TO THEN COME BACK AND SEPARATE THEM OUT AND GO TO THE VIA THE GLO, WHERE WE HAD PUT THE CONCRETE AND SUNNY BEACH TOGETHER AND POSSIBLY NOT EVEN PURSUE.

THEY LOOKED AT OUR ENTIRE PLAN.

SO WE IT HAD TO GO BACK THROUGH OUR ENTIRE PLAN.

SO IF YOU IF THE RESTRICTED USE AREA WAS TAKEN OUT TONIGHT AND YOU PASSED AN ORDINANCE WITHOUT THE RESTRICTED USE AREA, THEY WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE ENTIRE PLAN BACK.

I'D HAVE TO RESUBMIT ANOTHER SUBMITTAL TO THEM AND SAY, HERE'S, HERE'S OUR HERE'S OUR PLAN.

THIS IS HOW WE THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THE PLAN, BECAUSE THAT'S A CHANGE OF WHAT WAS PUT OUT IN THE TEXAS REGISTER.

OKAY. IT WOULD ALSO MORE THAN LIKELY THE PENDING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE TIED TO SUNNY BEACH AND THE TIERRA PROJECT.

KILL THEM. BECAUSE FINANCIAL INSTITUTES ARE GOING TO SIT BACK AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOUR FUNDING.

NO, I UNDERSTAND.

REMEMBER, WE THAT AGAIN, IT'S NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT AFFECTS OUR TAX RATE, NOT REMODELING. YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AT THERE ON THAT.

I'M KIND OF FEELING A LITTLE BACKED INTO A CORNER HERE.

YOU KNOW, BY THIS, LIKE I'M BEING HELD HOSTAGE.

IF WE DON'T, IF WE IF WE IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS ONE ITEM THAT WILL, THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE JEOPARDIZING SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING.

[01:30:04]

I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING WE WOULD BE JEOPARDIZING.

WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS.

I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, WE THE GLO IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SAY, OKAY, WELL, WE FINALIZED YOUR PLAN BECAUSE IT'S THE PLAN WILL HAVE CHANGED.

SO IT WILL HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PROCESS.

WE'RE NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO JEOPARDIZE IT.

WILL WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS THROUGH ALL THREE AGAIN.

YES. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.

THAT WAS A I MEAN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROCESS, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT IMPACTS, DIFFERENT EFFECTS, DIFFERENT.

THEY LOOK AT OUR PLAN OVERALL.

IT'S AN OVERALL PLAN.

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE NOT.

WHEN IT WENT OUT ON THE TEXAS REGISTER, IT WASN'T THE ENTIRE PLAN.

I HAD TO SEND THE ENTIRE PLAN TO REDLINE.

SO IT'S NOT THAT THEY TOOK THE SECTIONS FOR EACH OF THOSE AND PUT IT THROUGH THE TEXAS REGISTER.

IT'S THE ENTIRE PLAN THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT.

OKAY. COUNCIL I YES, DONNA, I HOPE I CAN CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT.

THE REQUEST CAME FROM THE GLO TO SUBMIT THE PLANS TOGETHER.

SO THAT'S WHY ALL THREE SEGMENTS ARE KIND OF BEING SUBMITTED TOGETHER.

AS WAS STATED BEFORE, THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE MATTER.

I UNDERSTAND THAT COUNCIL HAS NEW MEMBERSHIP AS WELL, AND THEY MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PRESENT FOR ALL THOSE PREVIOUS HEARINGS.

THE LAST HEARING ON THIS MATTER THAT CAME BEFORE COUNCIL WAS IN THE FORM OF A RESOLUTION.

THE REASON WHY LEGAL SUBMITTED IT AS A RESOLUTION WAS THAT SINCE WE'RE HAVING SO MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE GLO, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THE CITY SUBMITTED WAS GOING TO BE CERTIFIED BY THE GLO.

RIGHT? THE CITY'S PROCESS WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE CITY'S PROCESS, INCLUDING THE REVIEW OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, AGAIN THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND HERE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

ONCE CITY COUNCIL AGREED ON WHAT TO SEND UP, THAT'S WHAT WAS SENT UP AND THE GLO CERTIFIED THOSE AMENDMENTS. SO WE'RE JUST BRINGING THE ORDINANCE BACK IN THIS FORM BECAUSE IT DOES REQUIRE AN ORDINANCE.

AN ORDINANCE UNDER A CHANGE OF OUR CODE IS CODIFIED, CORRECT, BY OUR CODIFIERS.

AND WE DIDN'T WANT FOLKS TO LOOK UP SOMETHING IN OUR CODE UNDER CHAPTER 29, AND THEN HAVE TO TRY AND FIND IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, OR NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND IT ON OUR WEBSITE.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE SENT IT UP THROUGH RESOLUTION.

SO FOLKS WOULD BE AWARE OF WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE IF IT'S CERTIFIED, AND THEN BRING IT TO COUNCIL TO SAY YES, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE GLOW.

CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY REVIEWED EVERYTHING.

MORE PUBLIC COMMENT CAME AFTER THAT AS WELL.

AND NOW THE PROCESS CAN CONTINUE THROUGH THE GLO WITH THEIR PREAMBLE VERBIAGE AND THEN THE CHANGES THROUGH TAC.

SO PROCEDURALLY, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.

OKAY. THANK YOU DONNA.

WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM TEN A.

IS THERE A SECOND MOTION? I'M SORRY. THAT DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. NO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. I'D ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION.

I'LL MAKE A SECOND.

LET ME ASK YOU, HAVE YOU HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH ANY OF THE DEVELOPERS FROM MARGARITAVILLE? MARGARITAVILLE? HAVE YOU HAD ANY CONVERSATION WITH THEM AT ALL? LET ME CLARIFY HERE.

I WANT TO GET BACK.

WE'VE HAD A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? YOU ALREADY. YOU ALREADY.

OKAY, BUT DIDN'T YOU ALREADY SAY? YES, SIR. THAT IS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. GO RIGHT AHEAD, SIR.

YES. DID YOU.

HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH MARGARITAVILLE DEVELOPERS AT ALL? YES, WE ISSUED A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE FOR THE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE.

I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED GALVESTON RESORT.

WE ISSUED A BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE FOR THEM LAST YEAR.

DID THEY BASICALLY HAVE I MEAN, BECAUSE HOW LONG HAS THIS AREA BEEN? WHAT IS IT, 1500 LINEAR FEET.

I'M TRYING TO THINK OF THE AS FAR AS THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EAST OF 1000.

THE AREA THAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT 1000FT OR IS IT.

IT'S CURRENTLY 1000FT, RIGHT? NO, SIR. IT'S 26, 2640FT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT RELOCATING 1000FT.

SO THERE WOULD STILL BE 1640FT OF A OF A SPECIAL USE AREA, RESTRICTED USE AREA THERE.

[01:35:01]

THERE IS STILL GOING TO BE A SPECIAL USE AREA THERE.

IT'S NOT ENTIRELY GOING AWAY IS THE AREA THAT WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE AREA THAT'S IN FRONT OF MARGARITAVILLE? IT'S IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED GALVESTON RESORT.

THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. OKAY.

GOT IT. VERY GOOD.

I'D ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION ON THIS.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THIS APPLICATION OR THIS ORDINANCE.

SECOND. I'LL SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.

OH. I'LL SECOND FOR DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DENIAL OF THIS SUBJECT NOW.

AND WE HAVE A SUBJECT AND A HAVE A SECOND.

IF THIS IS APPROVED, THEN WHAT THAT MEANS, COUNCIL, IS THAT WE GO BACK TO THE GLO AND START THIS PROCESS OVER THE WAY I WOULD, I AND DONNA CAN CORRECT ME.

I THINK I WOULD NEED TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE ADDRESSING THE ITEMS THAT ARE NOT THE RESTRICTED USE AREA, AND THEN ONCE THAT PASSES THE COUNCIL, THEN I WOULD RESUBMIT, RESUBMIT UP TO GLO, ANOTHER SUBMITTAL, AND THEN THEY WOULD REVIEW IT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT AND THEN GO INTO THE TEXAS REGISTER.

BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING.

IF THIS IS DENIED, I HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO TAKE TO GLO.

I MEAN, IF Y'ALL PASS IT TONIGHT THIS WAY, THEN WE STILL HAVE TO WE STILL HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH AND GO THROUGH THE TEXAS REGISTER PROCESS.

SO THERE'S REALLY NO ACCOMMODATION IN THE GLO PROCESS FOR ACCOMMODATING OUR APPROVAL OR NOT OF THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE.

SO IT'S EITHER WE PASS THE ORDINANCE, OR YOU START ALL OVER.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN.

IT'S A CUMBERSOME PROCESS, WITHOUT A DOUBT.

I KNOW. COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB ABOUT PULLED HER HAIR OUT OVER THIS PROCESS SEVERAL TIMES.

IT'S IN THE ISSUE IS, IS THE REASON YOU TAKE THESE THINGS IN TANDEM IS BECAUSE IF WE TOOK ONE THING AND THEN ANOTHER ONE CAME UP, YOU CAN'T START THE SECOND ONE UNTIL THE FIRST ONE IS ALREADY DONE.

SO IF YOU HAD THREE THINGS, IT WOULD BE THREE TIMES AS LONG.

SO THE GLOW ENCOURAGES EVERYBODY TO TAKE THEM AT ONE TIME BECAUSE OF THAT PERIOD OF WAITING, RIGHT OR WRONG, OR WHETHER YOU'RE FOR OR AGAINST.

THAT'S JUST THE PROCESS THAT THE GLOW FOLLOWS.

AND THAT'S WHY THE PROCESS, LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHY THE PROCESS IS SO LONG.

JUST BECAUSE OF THIS ONE ITEM, THERE'S NOBODY KNOWS HOW TO ADDRESS IT AND TAC.

I CAN LOOK AT EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE SENT UP AND SAY, THIS IS HOW WE ADDRESS THIS AND HOW WE CAN COMPLY WITH IT, BUT THIS IS NOT OUTLINED ANYWHERE.

SO IT'S JUST FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AS WE AS WE GO.

YES, MA'AM. I ALSO SO THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN AROUND SINCE THE BEGINNING OF GALVESTON.

THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT 2004, 2004, JERRY PATTERSON SAID, HEY, I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS.

WHAT? BLAH, BLAH BLAH.

AND IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S IN STATE LAW.

IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE REGISTER.

IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE BY PATTERSON RANDOMLY.

IT THIS IS 2600FT, OF WHICH A THOUSAND OR IS BEING RELOCATED.

SO THERE'S STILL 1600 FEET IN THE SAME EXACT PLACE.

AND THE FACT THAT IF THEY'RE ALL TIED TOGETHER, WHICH I HAVE TO SAY, I NEVER THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA, BUT IT'S AS IT WAS REQUESTED, AND THIS IS SUCH A TEDIOUS PROCESS.

I JUST WANT YOU ALL TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN YOU'RE VOTING, BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE A HUGE FINANCIAL EFFECT ON MULTIPLE AREAS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE ACCESS PLAN.

AND NOT ONLY THAT, BUT JUST BASIC GRAMMATICAL CHANGES, WHICH ARE SOMETHING THAT WILL HOLD US BACK AS WELL.

BECAUSE OF LANGUAGE THAT WAS DIDN'T HAVE ITS I'S DOTTED AND T'S CROSSED, I WOULD I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT.

I WOULD, I WOULD SUPPORT PORTWOOD COUNCILWOMAN ROBB IS SAYING ON THAT.

AND WE DO HAVE 1600 LINEAR FEET THERE FOR ADA ACCESSIBLE AND ALL OF THAT.

[01:40:06]

THAT IS RIGHT UP NEXT TO STEWART BEACH.

CORRECT? YES, SIR.

YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR DENIAL.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

MAKE A MOTION FOR THE DENIAL.

OKAY. FOR DENIAL.

THAT DOES NOT PASS.

SO DO WE NEED TO HAVE A MOTION NOW FOR APPROVAL AGAIN OF THIS? NO, I THINK THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO COUNCIL.

DON, I DEFER TO YOU ON ROBERT'S RULES.

YEAH, I NEED TO. I NEED TO CHECK ON THAT DON.

DEFER. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO COME BACK WITH A PLAN.

WELL, PERSONALLY I HAVE THE INFORMATION FROM KYLE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME.

BUT I, I WOULD ENTERTAIN ANOTHER MOTION.

THIS DENIAL HAS FAILED.

I'M GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO APPROVE SINCE IT DIED.

I CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO APPROVE.

HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT? I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.

SECOND, THAT MOTION MANUALLY.

YOU'VE ALREADY USED YOUR.

WE'VE USED OUR ELECTRONIC THINGS UP FOR THE YEAR.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION FOR THE DISCUSSION PHASE.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD ON THIS.

ANY COMMENTS ON THIS OR HAVE WE GOT ALL OF OUR COMMENTS DONE.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO IF THIS DOESN'T PASS THEN DO WE STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO DEFER OR NOT.

NO MORE AFTER THIS.

OKAY. WELL IF WE DIDN'T MOTION TO DEFER IF THIS MOTION FOR APPROVAL DOES NOT PASS, WE CAN HAVE A MOTION FOR A DEFERRAL.

OKAY. I DON'T THINK IT'S NEEDED BECAUSE IT'S DEAD AT THE NEXT MEETING.

HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND BRING IT BACK.

BUT THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE.

THAT IS CORRECT.

SO IF THIS MOTION FAILS, WE CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO DEFER TODAY.

RIGHT. WE TRY EVERYTHING UNTIL YOU GET SOMETHING YOU WOULD.

YOU WOULDN'T NEED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AT THE NEXT MEETING, BUT.

OH, YOU WOULDN'T NEED A MOTION.

THAT'S WHAT THAT WOULD BE, THE DEFAULT.

OKAY. IT'D BE LIKE A DEFERRAL.

YEAH. OKAY.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR.

AND WE'RE GOING TO VOTE MANUALLY FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? THAT IS THREE.

THAT ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

OKAY. SO FAILED.

OKAY. YOU'RE ABSTAINING.

OKAY. WE HAVE 3 OR 4.

THREE AGAINST, THREE FOR AND ONE ABSTENTION.

THAT DOES NOT PASS.

SO I'D ENTERTAIN A THIRD MOTION THEN WE DON'T A FOURTH.

YOU DON'T NEED IT.

YOU DON'T NEED IT. YOU DON'T NEED IT.

WE'RE GOOD. OKAY, SO THIS DO WE NEED? DO WE NEED TO TAKE ACTION TO HAVE THIS RECONSIDERED AND PUT BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MONTH? NOT AT THIS TIME. I KNOW WE'VE BEEN WAKING UP SO WE CAN PUT THAT BACK ON THE AGENDA ON NEXT.

NEXT MONTH? YES. ANY TWO.

MEMBERS. OKAY. COUNCIL.

YES. OR THE MAYOR? OKAY. VERY GOOD.

MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS.

YES, SIR. BY ALL MEANS.

WHEN WE WHEN WE GET BACK TO IT, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE A PLAN AND A TIMETABLE FOR, FOR PERHAPS SEPARATING THIS, THESE ISSUES OUT. SOME OF THEM ARE URGENT AND SOME OF THEM ARE NOT.

AND SOME OF THEM, SOME OF THEM HAVE KIND OF GONE DOWN THE ROAD.

AND SOME OF THEM ARE STILL, I THINK, IN NEGOTIATION, SOME KIND OF PLAN NEGOTIATED WITH THE GLOW.

THAT GIVES US A TIMETABLE.

I CAN'T IT'S NOT A NEGOTIATION WITH YELLOW.

IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT US GO UP AND SAY WE WANT TO SPLIT THIS OUT.

LIKE BRIAN WAS SAYING, IT'S THE WAY THE TAC IS WRITTEN.

THE WAY THAT THE REGULATIONS ARE WRITTEN IS IF YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT UP THERE, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING UNTIL YOU GET THIS THROUGH.

LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS JUST THE DIRECTION OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE.

IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A NEGOTIATION WITH THEM.

[01:45:01]

I HAVE TO GO BACK UP AND RESUBMIT AND SAY, HERE IT IS.

OUR CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THIS ACTION.

WE'RE WANTING TO CHANGE THIS.

AND IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A, AND THEN SAY YOU'RE IN COMPLIANCE.

YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.

YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE FOR THIS WAY.

THEY SEND IT BACK TO ME I BRING IT TO INTO COMPLIANCE.

AND THEN WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

BUT IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A NEGOTIATION.

IT'S NOT A TIMELINE.

IT'S NOT A PLAN.

IT'S NONE OF THAT.

WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS WE CAN'T JUST KEEP DOING THE SAME THING AND EXPECTING A DIFFERENT RESULT WHEN WE COME BACK TO IT NEXT MONTH.

WHAT WOULD BE THE PLAN OR THEN THE TIMETABLE AND ALL THE THINGS WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO IF WE JUST REMOVE THE PART THAT TAKES 1000FT².

I THINK WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN IS ASKING IS FOR YOU TO PREPARE A FLOWCHART OR A TIMELINE IF WE BECAUSE WE START OVER AGAIN AS TO HOW LONG AND WE CAN USE THIS PROCESS FOR THE BENCHMARK, AND THAT'LL TELL US EXACTLY HOW LONG, AND WE CAN MARCH THROUGH THAT WITH THE IDEA OF SIMPLY REMOVING FROM THE REQUEST THE AMENDMENT TO RELOCATE 1000FT OF THE WHETHER YOU REMOVE ONE, TWO OR THAT IT STARTS OVER.

BUT I MEAN, WE CAN GET YOU THAT TIMELINE AGAIN.

THAT'S THE CHANGE THAT'S DRIVING ALL OF THIS.

YOU BET. YEAH. BUT I MEAN, THE WHOLE THING STARTS OVER AGAIN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

AND KYLE CAN GET US A TIMELINE ON THAT.

YEAH. OKAY. WE HAVE COUNCILMAN RAWLINS.

SO I GUESS THE THING IS, IS THAT WE HAVE THREE BRAND NEW PERSONALITIES UP HERE WITH THREE BRAND NEW GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT PUT THEM IN THIS PLACE.

AND, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS STARTED A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

THIS IS FOR ME, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST REALLY IN-DEPTH UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE ARE.

SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTIONING IS FOR.

LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT PUT ME HERE.

IF IT'S POSSIBLE, IF YOU'VE HAD AN INTERACTION AND WHY, I'VE ASKED IF YOU'VE HAD COMMUNICATION WITH MARGARITAVILLE THE DEVELOPERS, IF YOU'VE HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH TIERRA.

NONE OF THEM ARE PRESENT TODAY AND.

YEAH, WE. OKAY.

I JUST DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING FROM THEM.

BUT ANYWAY, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM ANY OF THEM YET.

IF THERE IS A WAY.

IF YOU'RE HERE, SIR, I'LL SEE YOU.

IF THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF COMMUNICATION TO THEM, WHETHER IT'S A LETTER ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL.

JUST SOMETHING SO THAT WE CAN SEE IF THERE ARE RAMIFICATIONS OF US NOT APPROVING THIS, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST LISTENING TO A GUY THAT WORKS FOR US.

TELL US WHAT HE'S DONE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISRESPECT THERE.

I'M JUST SAYING, I KNOW I WAS, I DON AND DONNA CAN STOP ME OR ANYBODY HERE.

THERE ARE THERE ARE RAMIFICATIONS.

AND I WILL SAY THIS IS WHAT THE RAMIFICATION IS, IS THE TIARA HAS A HAS A POD THAT IS HAS TO HAVE THE BUILDING PERMIT BY THE END OF THIS YEAR.

THEY CANNOT GET THE BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE.

THEY CAN'T GET THE BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION CERTIFICATE UNTIL WE DID THIS 200 FOOT.

OH, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT.

WELL, I CAN'T, COMMENT ATTACHED TO THIS.

WELL I CAN'T COMMENT ON THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION TO SAY IF YOU IF YOU DON'T PASS.

THAT'S WHAT COUNCILWOMAN ROBB WAS SAYING.

WHEN THERE ARE ECONOMIC IMPACTS, I DON'T.

AND RYAN CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF I IF I'M UP HERE, IF I'M SUPPOSED TO DIVULGE THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION.

I'M HERE FOR AN ORDINANCE.

I'M HERE TO GET THIS THROUGH AND ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

I DON'T FEEL THAT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE OWE TO THE PUBLIC.

I MEAN, I MEAN, THE PUBLIC'S I, THE PUBLIC'S BEEN THROUGH IT AGAIN.

AND THIS BACKS WHAT YOU SAID, BRIAN.

YOU KNOW, WE GET EVERY TWO YEARS AND YOU KNOW, WE GET THREE NEW FACES UP HERE AND IT'S TOUGH.

IT'S JUST LIKE THE BUDGET. EVERYBODY APPROVED A BUNCH OF CONTRACTS.

NOW YOU GUYS GOTTA PAY FOR IT.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S NOT GET OFF ON THAT SUBJECT.

KYLE AND JANELLE, I WANT TO FORMALLY REQUEST THAT THIS BE ON THE BUDGET FOR NEXT MEETING TO RECONSIDER AGENDA.

THE AGENDA ON THE AGENDA.

WE GOT A BUDGET.

NO PROBLEM. BUDGET ON THE BRAIN.

BUDGET ON THE BRAIN.

VERY GOOD. WE HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA.

THANK YOU. KYLE. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM TEN B, PLEASE.

THIS MOVED.

[10.B. Consider for approval an ordinance of the City of Galveston, Texas, amending the code of the City of Galveston, as amended, Chapter 15, “Garbage and Trash”, Article II. “Rates and Charges”, regarding the rates of solid waste removal charged for garbage and trash collection: providing for the rate change to go into effect on October 1, 2024: making various findings and provisions related to the subject; providing for an effective date. (B Cook)]

ITEM TEN B, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, AS AMENDED.

CHAPTER 15 GARBAGE AND TRASH.

ARTICLE TWO, RATES AND CHARGES REGARDING THE RATES OF SOLID WASTE REMOVAL.

CHARGE FOR GARBAGE AND TRASH COLLECTION.

PROVIDING FOR THE RATE CHANGE TO GO INTO EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2024, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

VERY GOOD. WE HAVE BRANDON COOK.

BRANDON. GOOD EVENING MAYOR COUNCIL.

[01:50:01]

BRANDON COOK, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.

AND JUST CONTINUE WITH THE THEME OF THE DAY.

I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK TRASH.

IT LOOKS LIKE I LUCKED OUT, AND I GET TO KICK OFF THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT, EVEN THOUGH LORD KNOWS I'M NOT THE BEST AT IT.

BUT WE DID HIRE ONE OF THE FOREMOST EXPERTS IN THE COUNTRY TO ANALYZE THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE SANITATION DEPARTMENT.

TERRY BOVERY WITH RAFTELIS.

HE STOOD RIGHT HERE IN ROOM 204, AND HE TOLD US SOME SOBERING FACTS.

HE SAID THAT DUE TO INFLATION AND SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES, THE CITY'S EXPENSES IN THE SANITATION FUND HAVE INCREASED BY ALMOST 25% SINCE 2021.

AND WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD TO OPERATE AT A $500,000 PER YEAR DEFICIT.

AND REMEMBER, THIS ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED BEFORE HURRICANE BERYL CAME THIS SUMMER AND WORSENED THE PROBLEM AND SENT OUR OPERATING COSTS THROUGH THE ROOF.

NOW, THIS SITUATION DIDN'T HAPPEN OVERNIGHT.

WE SAW THE COST RISE, AND WE TOOK ACTION TO ADDRESS THE INFLATIONARY PRESSURES WHERE WE COULD.

OUR SANITATION DIRECTOR NEGOTIATED OVER A HALF $1 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL REVENUE THROUGH THE NEW FEES BEING ASSESSED UNDER THE TRANSFER STATION ORDINANCE.

WE CUT OPERATIONAL COSTS BY ELIMINATING DAILY DOWNTOWN SERVICE.

WE IMPROVED EFFICIENCY BY ENCOURAGING CONTAINERIZATION AND MINIMIZING RETURN TRIPS THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INCIDENTAL FEE ORDINANCE.

AND WE EVEN EXPLORED APPLYING COMMERCIAL RATES TO SHORT TERM RENTALS.

BUT BOTH OUR FINANCIAL CONSULTANT AND THE CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED THAT THIS WOULD BE LIKELY CONSIDERED AN UNAUTHORIZED TAX BASED ON THE DATA THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE RIGHT NOW.

NOW, I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON ME TO POINT OUT THAT THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THIS SERVICE AS A NOT FOR PROFIT BUSINESS.

THERE IS NO TAX MONEY SUPPORTING TRASH COLLECTION IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

IT GENERATES ALL OF ITS REVENUES FROM ITS OWN OPERATIONS.

HAVING SAID THAT, I CANNOT OVEREMPHASIZE THE FOLLOWING POINT.

VOTING AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE IS A DIRECT VOTE AGAINST THE POSSIBILITY OF A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR OUR SANITATION WORKERS, UNLESS WE FIND ANOTHER FUNDING STREAM TO SUBSIDIZE ITS OPERATIONS, AND THE CITY SHOULD NOT AUTHORIZE ADDITIONAL RECURRING EXPENDITURES WITHOUT ENSURING RECURRING REVENUE TO SUPPORT SUCH.

DOING SO WOULD NOT ONLY BE FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, IT WOULD BE DEEMED AS A BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE PUBLIC.

IT'S AKIN TO SIGNING OFF ON A CAR.

NOTE YOU CAN'T AFFORD PAYING FOR THOSE NOTES OUT OF YOUR SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND HOPING YOU'LL HIT THE LOTTO BEFORE YOUR SAVINGS ARE DEPLETED.

AT THE COUNCIL MEETING LAST WEEK, SOMEONE BROUGHT UP ELROY THOMAS, SUPERINTENDENT OF SANITATION.

WELL, I GREW UP THREE BLOCKS FROM ELROY ON NINTH STREET, AND WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER FOR NEARLY 30 YEARS, STARTING BACK WHEN HE WAS A SECURITY GUARD AT THE HOTEL GALVEZ AND I WAS PARKING CARS.

SO WHEN ELROY WALKS INTO MY OFFICE ASKING WHY HIS SANITATION TEAM CAN'T GET A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH THEM.

I HAVE TO TELL THEM, EVEN THOUGH COUNCIL ADOPTED A BUDGET SHOWING A COLA EXPENDITURE, IT DIDN'T APPROVE THE REVENUE TO FUND THAT EXPENDITURE.

IN FACT, WE'RE GOING TO BE SO STRAPPED FOR CASH THIS FISCAL YEAR THAT NOT ONLY OUR COLA IS OFF THE TABLE, BUT WE NEED TO PUT A PLAN TOGETHER TO SCALE BACK SOME OF OUR OPERATIONS.

YOU SEE, WITHOUT THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE, WE WILL BE FORCED TO REDUCE SERVICES EVEN FURTHER IN A DEPARTMENT THAT ONLY PICKS UP GARBAGE ONCE A WEEK.

IF YOU THINK RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE UPSET ABOUT A $4.52 CENT INCREASE ON THEIR BILL, JUST WAIT UNTIL WE START GETTING CALLS ABOUT DEBRIS PILES SITTING FOR WEEKS.

YOU KNOW, LET'S BE HONEST, YOU CAN'T EVEN BUY A WHATABURGER FOR $4.50 THESE DAYS, MUCH LESS EXPECT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WE CURRENTLY RECEIVE FROM OUR PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES.

I WAS TALKING TO A COUPLE OF VISITORS A FEW WEEKS AFTER HURRICANE BERYL, AND THEY COULDN'T BELIEVE HOW GREAT THE CITY LOOKED, CONSIDERING WE HAD JUST BEEN HIT BY A STORM.

AND THESE VISITORS WERE FROM SOUTHERN LOUISIANA, SO THEY KNEW A THING OR TWO ABOUT STORMS. I TOLD THEM THAT THE CITY'S CONDITION WAS THANKS TO THE LONG HOURS AND HARD WORK THAT OUR PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES PUT IN, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE STORM.

TO ME, THAT WAS A TESTAMENT TO THE INCREDIBLE TEAM WE BUILT OVER THE YEARS, AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO NURTURE THAT TEAM OR RISK LOSING THEM.

SO LET'S DO WHAT'S RIGHT BY OUR EMPLOYEES AND THE COMMUNITY AND STOP KICKING THE TRASH CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY.

THANK YOU BRANDON.

APPRECIATE IT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. COOK? COUNCIL.

BRANDON, I HAVE A QUESTION.

TWO THINGS. I'VE HAD PEOPLE, AS WE HAD A PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THE INCREASE IN THE WATER RATE, IS ARE THEY REFERRING TO THIS? I DON'T KNOW, SIR.

IF YOU'LL RECALL, COUNCIL APPROVED A WASTEWATER RATE INCREASE AT ITS LAST MEETING.

OR A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO.

NOW, AT THIS POINT, WE'VE HAD SO MANY OF THEM.

THEY'RE ALL KIND OF RUNNING TOGETHER NOW.

IT WAS A WASTEWATER RATE INCREASE THAT WAS APPROVED, NOT A WATER RATE INCREASE.

WE PERFORMED A COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS ON THAT AS WELL.

REMEMBER THAT. AND SO IT'S YOUR SANITARY SEWER SERVICE.

THAT BECAUSE THOSE RATES HADN'T BEEN INCREASED SINCE 2015 BY THAT POINT.

[01:55:03]

AND SO WITH INFLATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE WE'RE SEEING ACROSS THE BOARD.

RIGHT. YEAH, WE HAD TO ADDRESS THAT.

BUT WATER IS IN GOOD SHAPE, THANKFULLY.

SO THAT ONE YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND ANY KIND OF ADJUSTMENTS THERE ON THAT ONE.

AND WE'RE SOMEWHAT GUILTY ACROSS ALL THESE FUNDS.

WE TRY TO NOT WE TRY TO SUPPRESS THE RATES, JUST LIKE WE TRY TO DO THAT WITH THE TAX RATE.

AND WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS YOU JUST GET YOURSELF IN A HOLE, THEN YOU GET SO FAR DEEP IN A HOLE THAT THE SHOCK TO THE SYSTEM TO TRY TO BRING IT BACK IS CRAZY.

SO WE TRY TO BALANCE IT OUT AS BEST WE CAN WITHOUT JUST COMING EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

BUT IF COSTS GO UP, COSTS GO UP, AND WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST TO MANAGE THOSE COSTS, I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN, WE HAVE FANTASTIC SERVICE.

WE PROVIDE WAY MORE SERVICE THAN A PRIVATE CARRIER WOULD, BUT IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE FOR AN ISLAND OF 50,000 PEOPLE TO OPERATE IN, ESPECIALLY GIVEN OUR GEOGRAPHY TO OPERATE A PRIVATE, YOU KNOW, AN IN-HOUSE SANITATION SERVICE.

AND THAT'S REQUIRED BY CHARTER.

MAYOR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO COMMENT, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN ASKING THAT WE LOOK AT THE RATES FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS.

WE KEEP PUTTING THE BURDEN OF EVERYTHING ON OUR CITIZENS BACKS.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR DRAMATIC PRESENTATION.

BUT EVERYONE IN COUNCIL FEELS THAT THE EMPLOYEES WILL GET A COLA, BUT I HAVE TO SAY THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT HOW WE'RE RUNNING OUR SYSTEM AND HOW I MEAN, WE ACTUALLY TOOK AWAY FROM THE COST BECAUSE AT ONE POINT, RENTALS WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE SIX TRASH CANS WHERE WE CHARGE THEM, WHAT, FIVE, $10 A MONTH.

BUT WE LIMITED THAT TO FOUR, SO WE HURT OURSELVES FINANCIALLY.

WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WITH RENTALS, CHARGING A COMMERCIAL RATE, OR LOOKING AT THE SIZE OF THE DWELLING, WE SHOULD IN THE FUTURE CHANGE THE CHARTER SO THAT WE CAN HANDLE THIS DIFFERENTLY.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ALREADY ABOUT DOING A TAX INCREASE AND WE'VE ALREADY INCREASED WASTEWATER, WE'VE INCREASED DRAINAGE, WE'VE INCREASED THE TAP RATE.

WE'VE BEEN WE DID NOT.

WE ARE NOT INCREASING WATER THIS YEAR.

BUT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AT THE SAME PRESENTATION, IT WAS, WELL, MAYBE WE'LL HAVE TO DO THAT NEXT YEAR.

WE HAVE SOME OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE WATER IN THE AREA, AND I JUST HOPE YOU ALL LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE CREATIVE ON HOW WE CAN STOP CONSTANTLY RAISING THINGS ON OUR CITIZENS.

BOB. YEAH.

BRANDON I THINK YOU KIND OF MENTIONED IT QUICKLY THAT THE INCREASE IN SERVICE FOR RESIDENTIAL ONE CART WOULD BE $4.52 A MONTH, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE INCREASE.

YES. IS THAT WHAT IS WHAT IS THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF SERVICE? IS IT RESIDENTIAL? ONE CART.

RESIDENTIAL TWO CART.

COMMERCIAL TWO CART OR WHAT? RESIDENTIAL. ONE CART IS THE PRIMARY SERVICE, AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE UNDER THE CHARTER.

YEAH. I GOT TO TELL YOU, I APPRECIATE THE PROFESSIONAL ANALYSIS HERE THAT YOU ALL WENT TO THE TROUBLE TO DO, ESPECIALLY AS IT PROJECTS OUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN BY EITHER RAISING THE RATE OR NOT RAISING THE RATE EVEN 9 OR 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

SO IT DEMONSTRATES CLEARLY, I THINK, THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FUNDING THE CURRENT SERVICE.

SO YOUR CHOICE IS DIMINISHED.

SERVICE, I GUESS IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING.

ABSOLUTELY. AND IT ALSO SEEMED PRETTY THOROUGH.

THE ANALYSIS THAT WE REVIEWED IN THE WORKSHOP EARLIER SEEMED PRETTY THOROUGH THAT THAT ALTERNATIVES HAD BEEN EXPLORED.

ALTERNATIVE WAYS OF OPERATING THIS THIS SERVICE HAS BEEN EXPLORED.

IS THAT RIGHT? NOT ONLY ALTERNATIVE WAYS HAVE BEEN EXPLORED, WE'VE IMPLEMENTED THOSE BY CUTTING OUT THE DAILY DOWNTOWN SERVICE, BY IMPLEMENTING THE NEW INCIDENTAL FEES TO INCREASE EFFICIENCY WITHIN DEPARTMENT.

YEAH. I MEAN, WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER.

THAT'S WHAT WE ALWAYS DO BEFORE WE RAISE RATES.

YOU KNOW, WE LOOK AT EFFICIENCIES, WE LOOK AT WHERE WE CAN CUT BACK BECAUSE IT'S THE LAST THING THAT I WANT TO DO IS STAND UP HERE AND, YOU KNOW, ADVOCATE FOR A RATE INCREASE.

WELL, WE HAVE WE HAVE, THOUGH.

AND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BOB, ALREADY INCREASED RATES BECAUSE WE INCREASED WHAT IT COSTS FOR THEM TO PUT OUT LARGE TRASH.

MY QUESTION TO OTHER QUESTION WAS, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE INCREASED THIS SERVICE? SO THERE WAS AN INFLATIONARY BUMP IN 2021.

BECAUSE PRIOR TO THAT IT WAS ABOUT 2012.

[02:00:02]

THERE WAS TWO RATE INCREASES, 1 IN 2011, 2012, I BELIEVE.

AND THAT'S WHEN THE LAST TIME IT WAS ACTUALLY ANALYZED FROM A COST OF SERVICE STANDPOINT, LIKE WITH A RATE CONSULTANT AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE JUST GONE THROUGH.

AT THIS AND THEN SO IN 2021 IT WAS JUST ADJUSTED FOR CPI, THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX.

ABOUT THE 2 OR 3% THAT HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR THE PAST DECADE OR SO THAT WAS PRIOR.

SO IT GOT ADJUSTED TO THERE.

AND THEN IN 2021, WE START GETTING HIT WITH THE DOUBLE DIGIT INFLATION AND IT JUST WENT RAMPANT AND VEHICLE PRICES WENT THROUGH THE ROOF.

CDL WAGES WENT THROUGH THE ROOF.

DIESEL STARTS GOING UP RIGHT AND IT'S LIKE SO YEAH.

OH YEAH. WORKER'S COMP AS WELL.

YEAH INSURANCE.

WE'VE GOT DOUBLE DIGIT HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS GOING UP RIGHT.

EVERY TIME YOUR BENEFITS GO UP.

AND SO THANK YOU.

VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. COOK? BRANDON I WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS PROBABLY FOR YOU AND BRIAN JUST TO GET THIS OUT PUBLICLY.

THIS IS NOT A GENERAL FUND.

THIS IS OUT OF THE ENTERPRISE FUND, CORRECT? IT'S AN ENTERPRISE FUND. IT EATS WHAT IT KILLS.

OKAY. THERE'S NO TAX DOLLARS THAT GO INTO THIS, UNLIKE THE CITY OF HOUSTON.

AND ACTUALLY, THEY'RE EXPLORING RIGHT NOW AND TRYING TO IMPLEMENT A FEE AND TAKE IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY PERFORM THEIR SERVICES IN-HOUSE.

MOST OF THEM ARE GENERAL FUND.

YEAH. AND SO BECAUSE THEN YOU END UP DEALING WITH THE ISSUES THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS MORNING AND THE WORKSHOP ROOM AND THE GENERAL FUND.

RIGHT. THIS PROPOSED RATE, BRANDON DOES THAT HOW DOES THAT RANK AS AMONG THE CITIES AROUND IN THE AREA HERE? WELL, THAT'S NOT IT'S HARD TO COMPARISON BECAUSE THEY ALL OUTSOURCE ALL THE SMALLER COMMUNITIES, OUTSOURCE THEIR SANITATION SERVICES TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR, AND THEY HAVE ECONOMIES OF SCALE.

THEY HAVE EMPLOYEES THAT DO NOT THEY DON'T PAY BENEFITS TO THEY WORK THEM 30 HOURS, AS YOU KNOW, A SIDE JOB AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

SO IT'S NOT BUT WE HAVE DONE AN ANALYSIS OF COASTAL COMMUNITIES, SIMILAR COASTAL COMMUNITIES FROM FLORIDA TO TEXAS ALONG THE COAST.

I THINK MISSISSIPPI IS EVEN ONE THAT POPPED, AND THIS RATE WOULD BRING US TO RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE ON THAT PARTICULAR ANALYSIS THAT WE DID UNDER THIS CURRENT STUDY.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

COUNCIL I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

YES. I'M SORRY.

AND THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW CRAZY THOUGHT JUST SINCE IT IS OUT OF THE ENTERPRISE FUND AND SINCE WE ARE HAVE AN UPCOMING VOTE HERE SOON ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE BUDGET AND OUR TAX OUR TAX LEVEL.

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT WE CAN DO WE CAN, SINCE IT'S ENTERPRISE FUND THAT WE CAN EARMARK THROUGH THE ENTERPRISE FUND A COST OF LIVING INCREASE FOR JUST YOUR STAFF THROUGH ENTERPRISE FUND OR JUST THE SANITATION WORKERS.

YOU CAN EARMARK IT.

YES. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO AMONGST MORALE.

IF WE DON'T SPREAD IT ACROSS THE BOARD TO THE CIVILIANS, AND THEN IT CREATES A LITTLE TURMOIL.

WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING A COST OF LIVING INCREASE THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND.

YES. AND AT THIS POINT, NOT KNOWING WHERE WE'RE AT, IF I KNOW THAT I CAN BEGIN, IF I CAN SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT CAN BEGIN TO GET THAT STARTED WITH A GROUP OF OUR EMPLOYEES, SINCE IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FUND, I JUST WONDERED THAT.

YES, SIR. COUNCIL HAS DISCRETION OVER THE BUDGETS AND THE RATES AND THE REVENUES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

YES. SHARON. OKAY.

I'M CONFUSED NOW TODAY WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE BUDGET AND TO HAVE THE GIVE THE EMPLOYEES THE COLA THAT'S COMING OUT OF WHICH FUND THIS MORNING. ALL FUNDS? ALL FUNDS. SO DOES THAT FUND CONNECT TO THE ENTERPRISE FUND? BECAUSE IF I UNDERSTOOD YOU CORRECTLY, YOU SAID.

I HEARD YOU SAY THAT MAYBE IF WE DID NOT INCREASE THE RATES, THEN WE COULD NOT FOR SANITATION.

NO SANITATION. SANITATION.

IF WE CANNOT, IF WE DON'T INCREASE THESE RATES, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CASH IN SANITATION TO BE ABLE TO ESCALATE THE SALARIES ANYMORE.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE SITTING AT ABOUT A 28 DAY GENERAL FUND.

YEAH. OKAY.

SO IF THIS DOESN'T PASS, THEN YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY CANNOT GET THE COLA IN SANITATION? IN SANITATION? NO. WELL, LET'S BE THEY CAN GET A COLA BASED UPON OUR MOVEMENT ON, THEIR A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE.

[02:05:04]

IT'S BASED ON FUNDS.

YOUR TAX AND I APOLOGIZE IF THIS HASN'T BEEN CLEAR, BUT YOU GUYS, ALL YOUR TAX DISCUSSIONS REVOLVE AROUND THE GENERAL FUND AND THE EMPLOYEES IN THE GENERAL FUND. AND AS YOU'VE HEARD ME TELL YOU, THERE'S VERY LITTLE DISCRETION IN THE GENERAL FUND.

THE MAJORITY OF THE GENERAL FUND ARE YOUR COLLECTIVE BARGAINING UNITS, EXCEPT FOR THE AND THE ONLY PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES THAT ARE IN THE GENERAL FUND ARE STREETS AND TRAFFIC.

THAT'S IT. EVERYBODY ELSE IS IN INDEPENDENT FUNDS THAT ARE FUNDED NOT BY TAX DOLLARS.

THAT'S SANITATION.

THAT'S WATER, THAT'S SEWER, THAT'S DRAINAGE.

CORRECT. AND ALL THE OTHER FUNDS ARE FINANCIALLY HEALTHY AT THIS POINT.

THE OTHER ENTERPRISE FUNDS ARE FINANCIALLY HEALTHY AT THIS POINT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SANITATION.

WE HAVE A 20.

WE'RE PROJECTING A 28 DAY FUND BALANCE AT THE END OF NEXT FISCAL YEAR BEFORE THE BARREL EXPENSES HIT.

SO ONCE THE BARREL, ONCE WE RECONCILE THE BARREL EXPENSES, YOU KNOW.

YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS MINE, BUT IT'D PROBABLY BE DROPPED DOWN TO MAYBE 15 DAYS OR SO, DEPENDING ON WHAT OVERTIME AND DIESEL AND EVERYTHING ELSE HIT US FOR DURING THOSE OPERATIONS.

AND WE'RE STILL WE'RE STILL OPERATING OUTSIDE OUR NORMAL OPERATING PROCEDURES AT THE BEHEST OF COUNCIL.

EXACTLY RIGHT, UNTIL SEPTEMBER 30TH.

SO THE PRICE IS STILL TICKING UP.

WELL, I WANT TO BE I WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE, AND I APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN ROLLINS BRINGING THIS FORWARD, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BUDGET AND GIVING A 5% COST OF LIVING INCREASE.

THAT'S THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE SANITATION WORKERS.

IF THIS ORDINANCE PASSES, THEN IT WILL.

YES. IT'S IN THIS ORDINANCE.

BUT IF YOU PASS THIS, IF YOU DON'T PASS THIS ORDINANCE, THEN THE GENERAL FUND WILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE RAISES FOR THAT AND THAT WILL FURTHER REDUCE YOUR ABILITY TO FUND THE GENERAL FUND. THE GENERAL FUND IS YOUR CATCH ALL FUND.

IT'S IT IS YOUR MOST.

IT IS THE MOST FLEXIBLE MONEY YOU HAVE.

AND IT'S THE LAST MONEY YOU SPEND.

SO IF THE OTHER FUNDS CAN'T FUND IT, GENERAL FUND KICKS IN.

WE HAVE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON OF NEVER HAVING THE TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE THESE ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

THIS WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES THAT IF WE DO THIS, THAT THE GENERAL FUND AND THE TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE TO START SUBSIDIZING THAT FUND.

SO ANOTHER WAY TO THINK OF IT, YOU CAN'T GET BLOOD FROM A TURNIP, GUYS.

ANOTHER WAY TO THINK OF THIS IS YOUR PROPOSAL INCLUDES COST OF LIVING INCREASES FOR SANITATION CREW.

YES, YES. AND WE FACTORED THAT ALL INTO THE FINANCIAL MODELING THAT WENT FORWARD.

WE FACTORED ALL THAT INTO THE COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS THAT WENT INTO THIS.

SO THE APPROVAL OF THIS NOT ONLY HELPS FUND THE OPERATION, BUT ALSO FUNDS THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE FOR THE SANITATION WORKERS.

CORRECT. OKAY.

YES, SIR. AND THAT IS EVEN IF WE STAY AT A NO NEW REVENUE.

CORRECT. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE QUESTION? SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE LATER.

NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE LIKE AN NO IDEA.

BUT WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY AND WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING, AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN UNDERSTANDING FOR THE LAST TWO WEEKS, IS THE ENTERPRISE FUND FUNDS YOUR DEPARTMENT THROUGH AND YOUR STAFF.

RIGHT. AND THE SANITATION, WATER, WASTEWATER.

SO DRAINAGE.

SO THERE IS A CHANCE BY US APPROVING THIS, THAT YOUR STAFF IN YOUR DEPARTMENT WOULD GET THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE, EVEN IF THE GENERAL FUND WHICH HAS TO DO WITH OUR TAX.

VOTE LATER DOESN'T PASS.

WE'VE, WE'VE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE BECAUSE OF INTERNAL EQUITIES FROM AIR ALREADY BUILT IN.

YEAH IT'S BUILT IN. IT'S IN THERE.

SO IT'S VOTING ON IT.

I MEAN I GUESS IF COUNCIL DIRECTED THE MANAGER TO DO THAT I MEAN I DON'T KNOW BUT WHAT YOU WHAT YOU I MEAN WHAT YOU END UP WITH IS A LOT OF INTERNAL INEQUITIES THAT GO ON FROM YOUR SALARIES. BUT ANYTHING CAN BE DONE.

WELL LET ME WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE THAT'S CALCULATED IN FOR THE SANITATION WORKERS? I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY.

I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND PULL THE, THE REPORT BECAUSE WE FACTORED IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND THEN WE I THINK WE AND THEN WE PROJECTED IT OUT.

BUT YOUR COST OF LIVING INCREASE, I WANT TO BE CLEAR, IS COVERED IN THIS INCREASE RATE PROPOSITION.

THAT'S BEFORE US.

YES, ABSOLUTELY.

BUT WE DON'T KNOW THE PERCENT NO OF INCREASE.

I WANT TO SAY IT WAS ABOUT FIVE IN THE FIRST YEAR, 4 OR 5 IN THE FIRST YEAR.

AND THEN IT WAS PROBABLY 2% EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER, IS WHAT I RECALL, BUT I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK ON THERE JUST TO MAKE SURE.

SEE WHAT THE MODEL EXACTLY SAYS.

[02:10:02]

THAT'S WHAT MY MEMORY TELLS ME, THOUGH.

I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHERE THE MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS AND THE PERSON WHO DID THE STUDY AND WHATNOT.

WHY THIS HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE.

WHY HASN'T WE'VE DISCUSSED IT FOR SEVERAL MEETINGS.

WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED TYING THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE WELL TO THIS.

WELL, BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING LATELY WITH THE COLA.

I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO POINT THAT OUT, THAT THIS FUND, IT OPERATES ON ITS OWN.

THERE'S NO GENERAL FUND DOLLARS IN THERE.

AND SO IF IT'S RUNNING OUT OF CASH, IT'S JUST LIKE A BUSINESS.

YOU HAVE TO RUN IT LIKE A NOT FOR PROFIT BUSINESS.

THE ONLY WAY, THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT BETWEEN THIS AND THE GOVERNMENT IS OBVIOUSLY THE RED TAPE THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT, BUT ALSO THERE'S NO PROFIT BAKED INTO IT, RIGHT? SO. BUT OTHERWISE, IT'S JUST LIKE A BUSINESS THAT YOU HAVE TO RUN THESE.

NOW, IF WE WANTED TO CHANGE THE POLICY AND START THROWING TAX DOLLARS TO SUBSIDIZE THE BUSINESS, WELL THEN THAT'S WITHIN COUNCIL DISCRETION.

BUT, YOU KNOW, JUDGING FROM THE DEBATE THAT COUNCIL WAS HAVING THIS MORNING, THAT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT WOULD BE A VIABLE OPTION AT THIS POINT.

JUST CURIOUS IF YOU'RE SAYING IT'S RUN LIKE A BUSINESS, WHY DID WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TRASH CANS TO RENTAL, WHICH DECREASED THE REVENUE? I DON'T THINK WE LIMIT IT TO RENTAL.

WE LIMITED IT TO RESIDENTIAL.

SORRY. WHY DID WE DECREASE THE NUMBER OF CANS OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY? COULD HAVE WHEN IT TOOK AWAY FROM YOUR BOTTOM LINE? I DON'T RECALL. DO YOU RECALL EXACTLY? BUT IT HAD TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF LIFTS IN THE IN THE SPEED OF THE SCHEDULE AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS TO, TO TRY TO GARNER MORE EFFICIENCIES OUT OF THAT.

RIGHT? YES, YEAH. YES.

BECAUSE WE DETERMINED THAT ANYTHING MORE THAN FOUR CARDS WAS ACTUALLY GETTING INTO COMMERCIAL TERRITORY, WHICH WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU THAT IF YOU GOT SIX, IF YOU GOT, UNLESS YOU JUST GOT A REALLY BIG FAMILY, SIX CARDS IS TYPICALLY SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IN A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, AND YOU'RE HAVING THAT IN NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT NEED SIX CANS.

HOWEVER, THE STATE LAW AND EVERYTHING ELSE HASN'T CAUGHT UP WITH THAT YET.

SO WE GET CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE ON THESE THINGS.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM. IF YOU WANT TO RAISE THE BAG SIX CANS, RAISE THE BAG SIX CANS.

IT'S GOING TO MAYBE SLOW THE ROOTS A LITTLE BIT, BUT THAT'S IT.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ITEM.

COUNCIL. YES, BOB.

I'LL MOVE THAT. WE APPROVE 10C THAT THE.

OH, NO. I'M SORRY. 10 B, 10B FOR APPROVAL.

IF YOU COULD TOUCH THAT. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? I'LL SECOND HAVE A COUNCIL.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BROWN.

SECOND BY COUNCILMAN FINKLEA.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? YES, BO.

I JUST I'M GLAD THAT IT YOU KNOW IT FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE LIKE.

WELL, THERE IS A CHANCE BEING THAT WE'VE KIND OF PUT IT OUT THERE PUBLICLY, THAT IF WE PASS THIS IF WE PASS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, WHICH IS WHY I WOULD SUPPORT IT, THAT MEANS YOUR STAFF'S GOING TO GET THE 5%.

NOW, I KNOW WE'VE GOT TO WORK ON THE REST OF THE CITY, BUT IF I CAN KNOCK THAT PART OUT, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT IT.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

THAT IS APPROVED BY ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

COUNCILWOMAN ROBB HAS ABSTAINED AND COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTA HAS VOTED NO.

THAT IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU.

LET'S MOVE NOW TO ITEM TEN C PLEASE.

[10.C. Consider for action an ordinance of the City of Galveston, Texas, adopting the annual governmental and proprietary funds budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025; Making appropriations for city operations and capital projects for such fiscal year as reflected in such budget; Authorizing various other transfers; Approving and adopting the FY 2025 Capital Budget; Approving and adopting the FY 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Plan; and making various findings and provisions related to the subject and providing for an effective date. (C. Ludanyi)]

ITEM TEN C CONSIDER FOR ACTION AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL GOVERNMENTAL AND PROPRIETARY FUNDS BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2024 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025, MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR OPERATIONS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR AS REFLECTED IN SUCH BUDGET, AUTHORIZING VARIOUS OTHER TRANSFERS.

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 CAPITAL BUDGET.

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 THROUGH 2029 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

HE'S GOING TO DO THE BUDGET.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SHEILA.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, AS YOU ALL ARE WELL AWARE, WE DISCUSSED THIS A GREAT DEAL THIS MORNING.

YOU HAVE THE PROPOSED BUDGET IN FRONT OF YOU, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED IT MANY TIMES.

THE PROPOSED BUDGET IS FOR FISCAL YEAR 25, AS WAS MENTIONED, AND IT INCLUDES ALL OF THE FUNDS IN THE CITY AS WELL AS THE CIP.

THIS BUDGET THAT IS BEFORE YOU IS AS PROPOSED.

BUT AS DISCUSSED THIS MORNING, THERE ARE SEVERAL GUARDRAILS COUNCIL MIGHT WANT TO ADD ON TO THIS BUDGET.

AND WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, PROVIDED COUNCIL WITH A WAY TO DO THAT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE BUDGET DOCUMENT, BUT I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START WITH THE PRESENTATION.

[02:15:06]

SO I'M GOING TO LET YOU ALL ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS LADANYI? THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT IF THE CITIZENS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS, WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS MEETINGS ON.

AND BEFORE WE OPEN THIS UP FOR A MOTION I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT HERE THAT THIS BUDGET PROCESS, THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED AND WE'RE FOLLOWING STATE LAW ON THIS, IS THAT WE APPROVE THE BUDGET FIRST, AND WE CAN APPROVE A BUDGET RATE AT THAT WHEN WE APPROVE THAT BUDGET.

THEN SECONDLY, WE COME BACK AND WE RATIFY A TAX RATE, AND THEN WE COME BACK.

AND THOSE ARE THE ITEMS IN OUR AGENDA AND THEN WE COME BACK AND WE APPROVE A TAX RATE.

IT IS STRUCTURED THAT WAY BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE, SEEMS A LITTLE BACKWARDS TO ME, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THE STATE LEGISLATURE DOES THAT.

WE WILL FIRST, THIS ITEM IS TO APPROVE A BUDGET ON A PARTICULAR TAX RATE.

YES. COUNCILMAN I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS.

BEFORE WE DO A MOTION, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNCIL IS WORKING DILIGENTLY.

AND MY ULTIMATE GOAL, AT LEAST HOPEFULLY BY THE END OF MY TERM, IS TO BRING US DOWN TO A NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

I KNOW IT'S DISAPPOINTING THAT WE CAN'T GET THERE.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN GET THERE RIGHT NOW.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE COUNTY KIND OF DID US A SOLID BY DROPPING BELOW THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

I DIDN'T WANT TO RAISE TAXES ABOVE THE CURRENT RATE.

I THINK THAT WAS VERY IMPORTANT FOR RESIDENTS.

I'VE LIKE PROBABLY MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES UP HERE, WE'VE GOTTEN NUMEROUS EMAILS.

I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATIONS.

YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, BUT I KNOW I WORK PRETTY HARD AND, YOU KNOW, THINGS ARE TIGHT AT THE HOUSE.

I'M A YOUNG GUY, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE.

AND I DO WANT TO MAKE GALVESTON AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE TO GET HERE.

BUT I THINK HOW WE DO THAT IS THROUGH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALL PUT FORWARD.

I MEAN, I THINK REALLY THINK THIS COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO A TREMENDOUS JOB THIS YEAR IN GETTING US TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE TO LEVERAGE TAX NON PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THROUGH TOURISM TO REALLY MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

THIS HAS BEEN A REALLY LONG PROCESS.

I THINK EVERYBODY INVOLVED WITH IT IS HAS LOST SOME SLEEP OVER IT.

BUT I'M JUST WANTING TO SAY THAT I'M GOING TO KEEP THE I WANT TO VOTE TO KEEP THE TAX RATE THE SAME.

AND I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION HERE.

AND IT'S FOR TWO VOTES.

SO I MOVE WE ADOPT THE BUDGET PROPOSED BEFORE US AT THE RATIFIED RATE OF 0.408850, AND THE CITY MANAGER AMEND THE BUDGET TO REFLECT THAT RATE.

THIS MOTION IS MADE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY MANAGER WILL INCLUDE THE AMENDMENT THAT A 5% ACROSS THE BOARD COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR ALL CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES, ELIMINATION OF ANY PROPOSED CHANGES IN CO-PAY AND OR DEDUCTIBLES UNDER THE HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.

PRESERVATION OF ISLAND TRANSIT SERVICES AT THEIR PRESENT LEVEL, AND STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO SEEK ADDITIONAL NON-PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.

YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

I WOULD SECOND THAT.

WE WILL DO OUR BEST.

TO OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

YES, BOB.

JUST A COMMENT, I GUESS.

I GUESS I'M JUST LUCKY, BUT I'VE HEARD THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN CRAIG'S CAREER THAT THERE'S EVER BEEN A CONTROVERSY LIKE THIS OVER THE TAX RATE, AND I GUESS THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE LOWERED THE TAX RATE EVERY YEAR SINCE 2021.

SO I GUESS THE THREE OF US UP HERE THAT ARE NEW ARE JUST LUCKY THAT WAY.

BUT I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE THE HARD WORK AND THE PROFESSIONALISM OF THE STAFF AND, AND HOW HOW THEY'VE GIVEN US INFORMATION TO MAKE THIS DECISION.

AND I ALSO APPRECIATE THE INPUT THAT WE'VE GOTTEN FROM THE PUBLIC BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STUCK IN THE MIDDLE, REALLY.

WE GOT TO KEEP THE CITY OPERATING AND WE'VE GOT TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE PUBLIC.

AND THAT REQUIRES NEGOTIATION, I THINK, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THOSE TWO THINGS AREN'T HEADING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

SO I THAT'S JUST A LONG WINDED WAY OF SAYING I SUPPORT THE COMPROMISE HERE.

BETWEEN THE CITY RECOMMENDED TAX RATE, THE NO NEW TAX RATE, AND THAT BEING KEEPING WITH OUR EXISTING TAX RATE LIKE ALEX WAS

[02:20:06]

SUGGESTING. VERY GOOD.

ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? DAVID, I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT.

YOU KNOW, THE CITY IS NOT DEVOID OF ANY INCREASES THAT HAPPEN IN THE MARKETPLACE RELATED TO SUPPLY MATERIALS, LABOR HEALTH INSURANCE AND WAGES AS WELL.

AND SO WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY NOT JUST THIS TIME AROUND, BUT ALSO IN THE LONG TERM HEALTH OF THE CITY TO TAKE UNDER ADVISEMENT THE VARIOUS MACHINATIONS AND RESEARCH AND GRAPHS, ETC.

THAT COME FROM FINANCE, THAT COME FROM OUR FISCAL, FINANCE AND FISCAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, WHICH WORKED TIRELESSLY ON THIS AS WELL AND MADE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL.

ULTIMATELY, IT IS A POLICY DECISION TO COME FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BUDGET AND FOR THE TAX RATE.

AND I THINK IT'S I'LL PUT IT OUT THERE.

I THINK IT'S A LITTLE RISKY TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

BUT YOU DO HAVE THE COMMITMENT OF EVERY SINGLE COUNCIL MEMBER UP HERE TO LOOK AND TO WORK TIRELESSLY TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL REVENUE, NOT FROM RESIDENTS AND NOT FROM OUR OUR PROPERTY TAX RATE.

SO MY HOPE IS, IS THAT WHEN WE COME HERE NEXT YEAR WE'RE NOT FACED WITH THE SAME DECISION THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

THANK YOU. VERY GOOD.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? JUST ONE. ONE MORE.

YOU KNOW, THIS THIS THIS MOVE WILL HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

IT'LL HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND THE LEVEL OF SERVICE I GUESS, THAT THE CITY HAD WAS ANTICIPATING BY PROPOSING AN INCREASE IN RATES AND IN OUR NEXT BUDGET MEETING, WHEN WE REVIEW WHAT THE NEW BUDGET IS GOING TO BE THAT'S GOING TO CONFORM TO THIS RATE, WE'LL BE ABLE TO REVIEW ALL OF THAT.

WE'LL BE ABLE TO REVIEW WHAT? MAYBE IF WE FOUND SOME NEW REVENUE SOURCES TO HELP TEMPER THAT.

BUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS UP HERE ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC.

THEY'RE USED TO ONE PARTICULAR WAY OF SERVICE.

AND THEY'RE AND THEY NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THIS, OF APPROVING THIS BUDGET AND THIS TAX RATE ARE GOING TO BE TO THEM IN THEIR EVERYDAY LIVES.

SO AT OUR NEXT MEETING, BE PREPARED.

I GUESS WE'LL BE PREPARED TO REVIEW THAT.

AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I WANT TO THANK STAFF.

I WANT TO THANK SHEILA.

SHE SPENT UNBELIEVABLE NUMBER OF HOURS NOT SLEEPING THROUGHOUT THE WEEK GETTING THESE TAX FIGURES TO US.

I WANT TO THANK COUNCIL.

I THINK WE WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY ON A VERY EMOTIONALLY CHARGED SUBJECT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THE BEST THAT WE COULD FOR NOT ONLY THE CITY, BUT FOR THE CITIZENS THAT ARE HERE.

AND I APPLAUD COUNCIL ON NOT RAISING THIS TAX RATE THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET YEAR.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT.

YES, MA'AM. I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO OUR CITIZENS WE ARE RAISING YOUR TAXES.

THE ONLY WAY THAT WE WOULD NOT BE RAISING YOUR TAXES IS TO DO A NO NET NEW REVENUE RATE.

I HAVE THIS BEING MY FIFTH YEAR OF COUNCIL SEEING THIS SHELL GAME OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

WE COULD DO A NO NET REVENUE TAX RATE AND NOT HURT THE CITY.

AND I JUST SAY I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? BO? WELL, FIRST OFF, I DON'T WANT TO THROW YOU UNDER THE BUS.

I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK YOU'VE DONE.

THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE REPORTS THAT YOU'VE THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED TO US, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S.

YOU'VE BEEN THE ONE THAT.

SO ME AND THE TEAM, I COULD NEVER.

YOU AND YOUR TEAM AND I.

AND I MEAN IT BY THAT.

YOU AND YOUR TEAM HAVE TAKEN THE BRUNT OF WHAT WE'VE WHAT WE'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, NOT DEMANDED STRAIGHT TO YOU, BUT DEMANDED OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ONE THING THAT WAS REALLY DIFFICULT FOR ME OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS NOT ONLY JUST THROUGH PRESENTATIONS, BUT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF WHAT WE GOT, WE BASICALLY REVIEWED, YOU KNOW, AND MADE DECISIONS ON WITH WITHIN HOURS SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, AND JUST HAD DISCUSSION OVER WITHIN HOURS.

AND SO THAT WAS REALLY, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT COMING AT US AT ONE TIME.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN.

I HOPE THAT NEXT YEAR WE'RE ABLE TO KNOW KIND OF THE PERSONALITIES AND WHERE EACH OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS STAND AS FAR AS HOW THEY ARE REPRESENTING THEIR VOTERS.

TO BRIAN.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS IS AS CLOSE AS WHAT YOU HAD PROPOSED.

YOU HAD YOU HAD MENTIONED $0.01 THAT MORNING, AND YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT WE HAD RIGHT AT 2 MILLION.

NOW WE'RE AT 5 MILLION.

I'M NOT SURE HOW WE LAW OR HOW WE GAIN 3 MILLION IN DEBT, BUT RAISE THE COLA.

[02:25:02]

OKAY. SO I THOUGHT THE COLA WAS A YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T REALIZE THE COLA WAS 3 MILLION.

BUT WHEN WE TALKED THAT MORNING IT WAS 1.9.

THAT WAS JUST THE POLICE AND FIRE INCREASE.

AND THEN THE COLA WAS 800,000, BUT THAT WAS AT 3%.

YOU'VE RAISED IT TO 5%.

THAT COLA HAS BEEN ALL OVER THE BOARD IN DISCUSSIONS.

SO OKAY.

SO YEAH I MEAN BUT IT'S HARD.

YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, YOU BET IT IS.

WHEN, WHEN I'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, ONE NUMBER LOOKING AT ME AND I'M TRYING TO MAKE DECISIONS AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT IN THE FOLLOWING MORNING, THAT NUMBER CHANGES.

IT'S JUST KIND OF HARD TO KEEP SUPPORTING.

SO AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO PRESENT WHAT YOU HAVE AND I GUESS WE'LL GO FROM HERE.

VERY MUCH. THIS WE NEED TO PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. THIS REQUIRES A ROLL CALL.

LET'S HAVE A RECORD VOTE.

YES, MA'AM.

THAT DOES PASS.

LET'S MOVE TO ITEM TC ONE, PLEASE.

[10.C.1. Consider for action a motion ratifying the property tax increase reflected in the FY 2025 Budget. (C. Ludanyi)]

ITEM TC ONE.

SHE'S GOT 30 MORE DAYS.

CONSIDER FOR ACTION A MOTION RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE REFLECTED IN FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET.

YES, CSILLA.

SO THIS RATIFICATION IS SPECIFIC TO THE BUDGET YOU JUST ADOPTED.

AND YOUR CRITERIA FOR THAT WAS THE 0.408850 TAX RATE.

AND SO THE TAX RATE THAT YOU NEED TO RATIFY IS THE ONE THAT YOU AMENDED THE BUDGET WITH.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL FOR RATIFICATION OF THE TAX RATE OF 0.408850. I'LL SECOND THAT.

I'VE SECOND COUNCILWOMAN LEWIS.

ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

I NEED A RECORD VOTE ON THIS ONE.

I DON'T THINK SO.

THAT IS FIVE IN FAVOR AND TWO NO VOTES OF COUNCILWOMAN ROBB AND COUNCILMAN ROLLINS.

THAT DOES PASS.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM TEN D, PLEASE.

[10.D. Consider for approval an ordinance of the City of Galveston, Texas levying ad valorem taxes for tax year 2024 in the amount of 42 cents and 8.382 mills ($0.428382) upon each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of property valuation for the tax year 2024; Making various findings and provisions related to the subject. (C. Ludanyi)]

ITEM TEN D, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, LEVYING AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE YEAR 2024, IN THE AMOUNT OF $0.42 AND 8.382 MILLS UPON EACH $100 OF PROPERTY VALUATION FOR THE TAX YEAR 2024, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

SO, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED COUNCIL IS LOOKING AT A TAX RATE OTHER THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY NOTICED, IT IS LOWER THAN THAT TAX RATE.

AND SO IT IS OKAY FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE A LOWER TAX RATE.

WE HAVE GIVEN YOU, I BELIEVE, A PACKET OF INFORMATION THAT ADJUSTS THE ORDINANCE TO THE NEW PROPOSED TAX RATE, AS WELL AS GIVING YOU THE MOTION THAT MUST BE USED TO ADOPT THE NEW TAX RATE.

IT CHANGES THE CALCULATION RELATED TO THE INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE.

IT IS. YES, IT'S ON THE VERY COVER AND SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

IT AS COUNCILWOMAN ROBB STATED, THIS IS AN INCREASE FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE.

SO BY TRUTH AND TAXATION IT IS CONSIDERED A TAX INCREASE.

HOWEVER, IT IS A FLAT TAX RATE YEAR OVER YEAR.

WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE SAME TAX RATE IN FISCAL YEAR 25 AS WE DID IN FISCAL YEAR 24.

VERY GOOD. I ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS COUNCIL.

MOTION. YES, SIR.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND I'LL READ IT JUST LIKE IT'S BEEN HANDED TO ME.

SO WE'RE ALL LEGAL.

AS I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.408850, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY 4.15% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE, 4.51% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE.

IS THIS A ROLL CALL VOTE? IT IS. YES.

I WILL SECOND THAT.

AND IT REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY OF COUNCIL TO PASS.

VERY GOOD. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS LADANYI? ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S HAVE THE VOTE.

NO. THAT DOES PASS.

THIS FEELS LIKE A GOODNESS GRACIOUS AT THE END OF A JOURNEY HERE.

[02:30:02]

SO. CSILLA, PLEASE.

YEAH. DO I LOOK LIKE I HAVE CIRCLES UNDER MY EYES? AS BRIAN SAID, IT'S NOT ENTIRELY OVER 30 MORE DAYS, SO WE'LL BE BACK IN OCTOBER WITH THE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THOSE CHANGES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU CSILLA.

APPRECIATE THAT.

YES, MY AWESOME TEAM.

THANK YOU. CAN YOU NAME THEM? LIKE. ABSOLUTELY.

SO, DEBBIE PEARCE, IF YOU DON'T KNOW HER, SHE'S AN INSTITUTION IN GALVESTON AND EVERYTHING WE KNOW WE'VE LEARNED FROM HER.

SO THANK YOU. DEBBIE.

ALSO ON THE TEAM FOR BUDGET SPECIFICALLY.

WELL, I SHOULD SAY MY COMPTROLLER, TAMMY, IS ALSO A HUGE HELP.

THE BUDGET TEAM SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES AMANDA COLLINS, WHO IS HERE TONIGHT.

AND THANK YOU, AMANDA AUTUMN.

AND I'M GOING TO FORGET YOUR LAST NAME JUST THAT FAST IS ALSO HERE TONIGHT.

WE HAVE TERESA MERRILL AND SHE DOES OUR CAPITAL ITEMS. AND THEN WE HAVE JORGE AYALA, AND HE'S HELPING OUT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT NOW, WHICH IS FANTASTIC.

THAT'S THE BUDGET. THANKS TO ALL OF THEM.

THANK YOU. YOU DESERVE A ROUND OF APPLAUSE.

THANK YOU.

JAMESON. HER LAST NAME IS JAMESON.

LET'S MOVE TO ITEM TEN, PLEASE.

[10.E. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Authorizing The Issuance Of City Of Galveston, Texas, Combination Tax And Revenue Certificates Of Obligation, Series 2024; Levying A Tax In Payment Thereof; Setting Certain Parameters For The Sale Of The Certificates; Approving The Preparation And Distribution Of An Official Statement; Enacting Other Provisions Relating Thereto; And Providing For The Effective Date Thereof. (B.Cook)]

ITEM TEN E, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS COMBINATION TAX AND REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION SERIES 2024 LEVYING A TAX AND PAYMENT THEREOF, SETTING CERTAIN PARAMETERS FOR THE SALE OF THE CERTIFICATES.

APPROVING THE PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT, ENACTING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING THERETO, AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE THEREOF.

MAYOR. THIS WILL REQUIRE SIX VOTES TO PASS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

DON. GO RIGHT AHEAD, BRANDON.

YEAH. SO THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU SEEKS AUTHORIZATION TO SELL CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION IN THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $20 MILLION, TO PARTIALLY FUND TWO MAJOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON THE ISLAND, ONE BEING THE SOUTH SHORE DRIVE PUMP STATION, AND THE OTHER IS THE 14TH STREET PUMP STATION ON HARBORSIDE.

AND AS DON MENTIONED, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THEY WILL REQUIRE SIX AFFIRMATIVE VOTES UNDER THE CITY CHARTER'S PROVISIONS REGARDING DEBT ISSUANCE.

AT THIS TIME, WE'RE ANTICIPATING 20 YEAR NOTES AT ABOUT A 4% INTEREST RATE.

YOU DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT APPROVED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO FUND THE DEBT SERVICE ON THESE NOTES, WITH ABOUT 60% OF THE FUNDS COMING FROM THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SILO AND ABOUT 40% OF THE FUNDS COMING FROM THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

IF COUNCIL APPROVES THIS ORDINANCE TONIGHT YOUR BOND TEAM PLANS TO GO TO MARKET AND LOCK IN RATES ON OCTOBER 1ST.

AND SO.

VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. COOK COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS.

I'D LIKE TO. MOTION TO APPROVE.

I'LL MAKE A SECOND.

YOU CAN GIVE BOB THE SATISFACTION OF HIS OWN DISTRICT.

I'M JUST. WELL, THERE ARE TWO OF THEM.

YEAH. VERY GOOD.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN PORRETO IS THERE A SECOND? I THINK THAT WAS DAVID.

YES. COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? I'M SORRY ABOUT NOT WORKING.

THIS IS TO ISSUE THE DEBT RELATING TO THE SOUTH SHORE DRIVE PUMP STATION.

AND ALSO THE 14TH STREET PUMP STATION REQUIRES SIX AFFIRMATIVE VOTES.

OH, WAIT A MINUTE. OKAY, WE'VE OH, IS THIS A ROLL CALL VOTE? NO, I THINK IT'S.

YEAH. CANCEL MY VOTE, PLEASE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT I HIT. YOU ONLY GET ONE A NIGHT, ARE YOU? LET'S HAVE A MOTION AGAIN FOR THIS.

THAT'S COUNCILMAN PORRETTA, COUNCILMAN FINKLEA.

ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM COUNCIL? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

WE HAVE ABSTENTION BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB, BUT EVERY OTHER COUNCIL PERSON PRESENT HAS APPROVED THIS.

THAT IS SIX VOTES.

THANK YOU. I WASN'T HERE AND DIDN'T HEAR THE DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.

LET'S MOVE TO THE CONSENT ITEMS, PLEASE.

[11. CONSENT ITEMS]

ITEM 11. CONSENT ITEMS. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ACTION AS A WHOLE.

UNLESS ONE OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS OBJECTS, THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

CONSENT ITEMS 11 EIGHT THROUGH 11 ARE ON THE SCREEN.

MAYOR. YES, SIR.

I'D LIKE TO PULL 11.

SEE, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION PRESENT, AND IF THEY WOULD CARE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THE PACKAGE AS INCLUDED IN OUR AGENDA PACKAGE.

[02:35:02]

YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME AND PRESENT.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE ITEM 11 C TO BE ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY ANY OTHERS COUNCIL YOU WOULD WANT TO ADDRESS INDIVIDUALLY. HEARING NO RESPONSE, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT ITEMS FROM 11 A TO 11 G, EXCLUDING 11 C.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? COUNCILMAN ROLLINS SECONDS THAT ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, LET'S READ 11 C, PLEASE.

[11.C. Consider for approval a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Galveston, Texas, approving distribution of hotel occupancy tax revenues to eligible artists or artist organizations under single-year contracts; authorizing the City Manager to execute contracts with such recipients upon approval of those contracts by the City Attorney’s office; providing for findings of fact and providing for an effective date. (Legal)]

ITEM 11 C, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, APPROVING DISTRIBUTION OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES TO ELIGIBLE ARTISTS OR ARTISTS ORGANIZATIONS UNDER SINGLE YEAR CONTRACTS.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH SUCH RECIPIENTS UPON APPROVAL OF THOSE CONTRACTS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF FACT PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

OKAY. AND WE HAVE ANTOINETTE LYNCH AND KATHLEEN DINATALE.

AND TREY CLICK WITH US FROM THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.

KATHLEEN IS THE CHAIRPERSON.

YOU ARE ANTOINETTE IS THAT DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT HERE AT THE CITY THAT IS INVOLVED WITH CULTURAL ARTS? ARTS AND CULTURE COORDINATOR.

AND TREY CLICK IS WITH US.

AND HE IS THE EMPEROR OF EVERYTHING.

SO THERE WE ARE.

VERY GOOD. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

ANTOINETTE OR KATHLEEN? EITHER ONE. OKAY.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.

SO THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU IS CONTRACTS FOR THE TWO PROJECTS THAT WE ARE FUNDING FOR THE FROM THE CALL FOR ARTISTS INTO THE COMMUNITY FOR 2024.

SO WE HAVE TWO PROJECTS THAT WE'RE FUNDING.

WE'RE ASKING TO ASKING YOU TO FUND.

ONE IS JODAMI, WHO IS GOING TO BE DOING A MUSIC CAMP, A MUSICAL CAMP, AND THEN ALSO ANNE WOOD, WHO'S GOING TO BE DOING A TOPIARY IN KEPNER PARK.

SO I THINK YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON THESE PROJECTS.

THEY'RE QUITE INTERESTING.

YES. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO APPROVE THEIR CONTRACTS TODAY.

LEGAL WILL STILL WRITE THOSE CONTRACTS, AND THEY WILL BE MUCH MORE PERSONALIZED TO OUR ARTISTS THAN THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.

WE INCLUDED EVERY DEPARTMENT WHEN WE BEFORE WE EVER APPROVED ANYTHING.

WE MET WITH EVERY DEPARTMENT, SENT IT OUT, MADE SURE NOBODY HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE PLACEMENT, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO WE'VE DONE OUR HOMEWORK.

SO WE HOPE THAT YOU'LL APPROVE BOTH PROJECTS.

IT'S ACTUALLY NOT ONE TOPIARY.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY THAT IT'S FIVE IN KEMPNER PARK THERE OF THE VICTORIAN ERA.

IT WILL BE VERY IT AND ANNA ACTUALLY DID HER HOMEWORK AND SHE HAD APPROVAL FROM KEMPNER FOUNDATION, THE HISTORICAL FOUNDATION.

EVERYBODY THAT COULD POSSIBLY PARKS AND REC BABS LOVES IT.

AND THEN THE, THE YOUTH CAMP.

I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S A, IT'S A YOUTH CAMP, BUT THEY'LL HAVE TWO PERFORMANCES.

SO THERE IS A TOURISM ELEMENT TO BOTH OF THESE.

THERE'LL BE TWO EVENTS OFF OF THE YOUTH CAMP, AND THERE WILL BE TWO EVENTS OFF OF ANNE WOOD'S PROPOSALS AS WELL.

SHE'S GOING TO DO A WORKSHOP WITH THE GALVESTON ARTS CENTER ON CREATING THEM.

AND THEN SHE'S GOING TO DO AN EVENT WITH IT'S GARDENING.

IT'S A GARDENING SOMETHING WITH THE TOPIARIES, THE MASTER GARDENERS, I THINK, IN KEMPNER PARK.

SO BOTH THINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DAVID, SINCE YOU ARE THE LIAISON FOR THAT GROUP, COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? SIR, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 11 C AS PRESENTED.

I'LL SECOND IT. SECOND, HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN FINKLEA AND SECONDED.

WELL, WE HAVE A MOTION BY BOB BROWN, SECONDED BY SHARON LEWIS.

THAT WORKS. THAT WORKS. YOU KNOW, I THINK OUR BRAINS ARE FRIED.

I THINK WE ARE.

I WANTED TO SAY THIS.

THIS COMMITTEE COMMISSION WORKS UNBELIEVABLY HARD ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO.

I APPRECIATE THAT, AND I WANT TO ADD THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A REMARKABLE PATIENCE HAVING SET HERE IN THIS ROOM FOR THE LAST, WHAT, THREE HOURS WAITING ON US TO GET TO YOU.

[02:40:09]

AND ALSO, THESE PROJECTS ARE JUST FABULOUS.

I THINK I'VE SEEN AND ANNE WOOD IS JUST SO QUALIFIED.

SHE'S WONDERFUL. AND SHE, YOU KNOW, SHE'S ONE OF THE ARTISTS THAT'S GOING TO BE FEATURED IN THE HOUSTON MEOW WOLF, WHICH SHOULD BE OPENING VERY SOON.

CAN I SAY ONE THING, PLEASE? I'LL PUSH YOU OUT OF THE WAY. THE IT'S THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE WE WERE GIVEN ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE ARTS.

AND WHEN YOU GET THAT AND YOU HAVE THAT MONEY COMING IN, THE REPLIES YOU GET BACK.

AND THE PROPOSALS THAT ARE SENT BACK IN ARE A MAGNITUDE ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IN THE PAST.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR BELIEVING IN THE ARTS, IN PUBLIC ART IN GALVESTON, WHICH IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

AND IT'S OUT OF HOT TAX.

YES. OH, YES.

IT'S A VERY MUCH SO.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON.

CONGRATULATIONS. APPRECIATE IT.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH OUR CONSENT ITEMS. LET'S GO TO 12 B, PLEASE.

[12.B. Consider for Approval A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Galveston, Texas Approving And Authorizing The City Manager To Execute An Interlocal Agreement / Contract With The Galveston Park Board Of Trustees Providing For The Collection Of Hotel Occupancy Taxes, (Hot), The Delegation By The City Of Duties Arising Out Of Texas Tax Code Chapter 351, The Delivery Of Hot To Fund Those Duties; Providing For A Specific Date; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject]

ITEM 12 B, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS.

APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT CONTRACT WITH THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES. THE DELEGATION BY THE CITY OF DUTIES ARISING OUT OF TEXAS TAX CODE, CHAPTER 351 THE DELIVERY OF HOT TO FUND THOSE DUTIES.

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

VERY GOOD. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS AT WORKSHOP THIS MORNING ON THIS.

THIS IS THE HOT CONTRACT.

SHEILA. SO HELLO AGAIN MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE CONTRACT AND THE FEEDBACK THAT COUNCIL PROVIDED AT THE WORKSHOP EARLIER TODAY REGARDING THE CHANGES, AND I BELIEVE DON REVIEWED SOME OF THOSE AND HAD SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU WANTED PUT BACK IN WAS PUT BACK IN.

OH, IN YOUR IN YOUR YOU REVISED THE REVISION TO PUT IT BACK IN.

ESSENTIALLY I GAVE IT TO DAN AND HE SENT IT TO THE PARK BOARD.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER TO SAY.

LET'S. I DON'T THINK EVERYONE CAN HEAR THIS.

SAY THIS. DON OR BOB, REPEAT WHAT YOU'RE HEARING.

WELL, WHAT I HEARD WAS JUST TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK HERE.

I GUESS THE HOT CONTRACT IS REALLY INTEGRAL TO THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET, BECAUSE THE CONTRACT ENABLES THAT BUDGET.

AND THERE WERE SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WAS, WAS, WAS, I GUESS, A LITTLE BIT SUSPECT OF THEM BEING ABLE TO DO THAT IN A COMFORTABLE WAY.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'VE JUST HEARD, IS THAT PARTICULAR LANGUAGE IS NOW REMOVED.

THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS DELETED HAS BEEN RESTORED.

THAT LANGUAGE SAYS NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE, THE CITY WILL DELIVER TO THE PARK BOARD FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR THE 0.57 BEACH RESTORATION MONEY.

SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

OKAY, OKAY. SO THAT EFFECTIVELY IS KIND OF THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE LAST YEAR IN FISCAL YEAR 24.

IS THAT RIGHT OR NOT? YES.

CORRECT. OKAY.

GO AHEAD.

MAYOR, MAYOR, MAYOR.

COUNCIL. WHEN WE RECEIVED THE CHANGES FROM DON, WE SENT THEM OVER TO MS. DENASI AT THE PARK BOARD.

SHE REQUESTED SOME TIME TO REVIEW THEM SO SHE DIDN'T RECEIVE THEM UNTIL, LIKE, 4:00 TODAY.

SO WE'RE NOT READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ITEM.

AND WE WOULD DEFER IT TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

A GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE.

I WAS JUST GOING TO DO A GOOD IDEA FOR A SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE MOTION FROM.

WE ACCEPT YOUR MOTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN FINKLEA.

IF YOU'LL PRESS THAT.

DAVID. ALL RIGHT. SURE.

OKAY. I DO HAVE ONE.

I THINK BOB DID.

AND THEN DAVID. SO THIS THIS SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD RESOLUTION.

I THINK IT GETS BOTH PARTIES AT THE TABLE, THE PARK BOARD AND THE CITY AND I GUESS WE'LL HAVE THIS IN TIME TO BE ABLE TO FUND THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET.

THAT'S ESSENTIAL THAT WE GET IT ON THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT THE FUNDING ISN'T GOING TO BE SLOWED, AND WE NEED TO GET IT ON AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.

RIGHT. BECAUSE THIS IF THE POSSIBILITY OF BEING DEFERRED IS THERE, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THEIR BUDGET THOUGH TONIGHT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU COULDN'T APPROVE THEIR BUDGET.

OKAY. VERY GOOD.

ALLOWS FOR THE FUNDING OF THE BUDGET.

CORRECT. THAT IS THE TRANSFER? THE CONTRACT ALLOWS FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE HOT FUNDS TO THE PARK BOARD.

CORRECT. SO THERE WILL BE A DELAY IN THE TRANSFER OF THE FUNDS.

NORMALLY WE WOULD TRANSFER ON OCTOBER 1ST, AND IF THE HOT CONTRACT IS NOT APPROVED, WE CANNOT TRANSFER UNTIL THE HOT CONTRACT IS APPROVED IN THE PARK BOARD IS AWARE OF THIS.

[02:45:06]

OKAY. I SEE THE HEAD NODDING OF HEADS.

OKAY. VERY GOOD.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR DEFERRAL.

YES, MA'AM.

DAVID WAS BEFORE ME.

YES, DAVID. THANK COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND REITERATE WHAT I DID IN WORKSHOP IS THAT WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO COUNCIL, AFTER IT'S BEEN NEGOTIATED AND AGREED TO BY THE PARK BOARD, THAT I WOULD LIKE A RED LINE COPY FROM LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR, HIGHLIGHTING ANY CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OR PROPOSED TO BE MADE IN THE CONTRACT.

VERY GOOD. COUNCILWOMAN ROBB.

I JUST WANT TO COMMENT TO THE FACT THAT THIS HIT OUR AGENDA WITHOUT THE PARK BOARD EVER SEEING THE INITIAL CONTRACT, AND THAT'S IT'S REALLY APPALLING TO ME THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD HAPPEN.

AND HENCE WHY I WANTED TO DEFER IT.

BECAUSE YOU SHOULD BE PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS.

AGREED. THAT WAS THAT WAS AN OVERSIGHT ON OUR PART.

WE THOUGHT DON SAID IT. DON THOUGHT WE SENT IT.

NEVER THOUGHT ANY MORE ABOUT IT.

ALL RIGHT, BOB, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY? NO, THAT WAS IT.

I JUST WANT TO BE SURE.

AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE BOARD IS OKAY, AND DON'S OKAY, AND DAN'S OKAY.

AND WITH THE WAY WE'RE PROCEEDING WITH GETTING THIS HOT CONTRACT CONTAINING THE LANGUAGE THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD, AND IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN EXPEDITIOUSLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE. SO THEY CAN DO THAT.

AND THAT'S THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM IN MY MIND.

AND THIS HAS BEEN DEFERRED TO OUR NEXT MEETING.

IS THAT THE. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

VERY GOOD. LET'S GO TO 12 C, PLEASE.

[12.C. Consider for approval the FY 2025 Park Board of Trustees Annual Budget.]

ITEM 12 C CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2025.

PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES ANNUAL BUDGET.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE WORKSHOP TODAY, STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS BUDGET AND APPROVE THE SPECIAL PROJECTS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS AT A LATER DATE.

THIS INCLUDES ALL OF THE HOT FUNDED FUNDS FOR THE PARK BOARD AS WELL AS THEIR ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO PROJECTS I THINK IS WHAT WE DISCUSSED.

OH, YES. I'M SORRY. YEAH.

JUNETEENTH AND THE DOWNTOWN LIGHTING PROGRAM.

YEAH. AND THE WAYFINDING PROJECT WAS ALREADY APPROVED SO THAT WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT AGAIN.

WE NEED TO PUT THAT IN OUR MOTION, THOUGH, TO MAKE SURE WE GET THAT IN THE MOTION.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, MISS LADANYI? I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE PARK BOARD'S BUDGET, AND ALSO THE APPROVAL OF THE JUNETEENTH SPECIAL PROJECT AND THE DOWNTOWN LIGHTING PROGRAM SPECIAL PROJECT.

I'LL SECOND THAT MAYOR.

AND NOW.

OH, THERE WE GO. AND THE OTHER PROJECTS ON THE SPECIAL PROJECTS WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR INDIVIDUAL APPROVAL.

ANY QUESTIONS? ANY DISCUSSION. SO I COMMEND BRYSON AND GLEN BECAUSE WHEN THEY TALKED IT OVER THAT MY BIGGEST CONCERN WAS PUTTING MAKING SURE THAT IF GLEN DID COME BACK AND WE CAME WITH AN AUDIT OR.

SORRY, IT'S BEEN A LONG NIGHT.

AN AUDIT PLAN.

AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS SENT OVER TO THE PARK BOARD.

I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU GUYS WERE AMENABLE TO IT.

IF YOU ALL ARE AMENABLE TO IT BEING IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT JUST BY NODDING OF THE HEADS, THEN THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.