[00:00:05]
[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
IT IS 9:00 AM.I AM OFFICIALLY GOING TO CALL THE WORKSHOP FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF GALVESTON TO ORDER FOR THURSDAY, DECEMBER 12TH.
COUNCIL SEATED HERE, AND WELCOME EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE.
STAFF, THANKS FOR BEING HERE THIS MORNING.
FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE WATCHING THIS WORKSHOP IN THE COMMUNITY, GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING.
JANELLE, WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, BUT LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> VERY GOOD. ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT.
WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY FOR THE WORKSHOP COUNCIL, WE'RE TRYING TO BEAT THE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA BY PUTTING THEM ON OUR WORKSHOP AGENDA THIS MORNING.
WE HAVE A LONG WORKSHOP THIS MORNING, SO MOVE ALONG AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING CHORES, ITEM 3C HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
WE WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING ITEM 3C.
ALSO, JUST A THOUGHT, COUNCIL, WE HAVE ON ITEM 3F FOR CHARTER CHANGES AND PROCESS.
WE HAVE FOR THAT DISCUSSION, ESPECIALLY FOR THE 421 TOPIC, WE HAVE MR. HEATH, THE ATTORNEY THAT HAS BEEN GUIDING US ON OUR DISTRICTING AND REDISTRICTING AND THOSE ISSUES THAT ARE LEGALLY INVOLVED WITH THE 421 CHANGES THAT COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING.
HE WILL BE WITH US BY PHONE AT 11:00 AM.
MR. HEATH WILL, AND WE'LL HAVE DON INTRODUCE HIM TO US.
AT 11:00 AROUND THAT TIME, WHEREVER WE ARE, IF THAT MEETS COUNCILS' APPROVAL.
WE'LL SEE ABOUT MOVING INTO THE CHARTER CHANGE DISCUSSION SO WE CAN GET TO THE SAME POINT.
>> THE GOAL SHOULD BE, THAT WE BE DONE WITH THE OTHER ITEMS.
>> WE'RE MOVING THAT DIRECTION [LAUGHTER].
VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3A, PLEASE.
[3.A. Clarification Of Consent And Regular City Council Agenda Items - This Is An Opportunity For City Council To Ask Questions Of Staff On Consent And Regular Agenda Items (1 Hour)]
>> ITEM 3A. CLARIFICATION OF CONSENT AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS.
>> THANK YOU. NOW, SHARON, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO START WITH THAT OR?
>> SKIP ME, I'M STILL PULLING MY STAND.
>> SURE I'LL OMIT. WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON THAT, ALEX.
>> I'D LIKE TO PULL 11L, PLEASE.
THIS IS THE PUMP STATION BID AWARDING IN OUR STAFF REPORT, IT HAS SOME OF THE INFORMATION, BUT, MY GENERAL QUESTIONS ARE, DID WE NOT GO OUT AND FIND ENOUGH MORE QUALIFIED BIDDERS BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE FIRM THAT IN MY OPINION, DOESN'T HAVE A STELLAR TRACK RECORD IN GALVESTON FOR WORK FOR THIS PROJECT.
>> THEY'VE NEVER DONE A PUMP STATION.
>> INTRODUCE YOURSELF IF YOU WOULD, [BACKGROUND]
>> CAN YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE? [LAUGHTER]
>> WE [BACKGROUND] ALSO PUT OUT ON THE OPEN MARKET SO PEOPLE CAN GO THERE AND FIND IT [BACKGROUND].
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT? YOU SAY YOU DIRECTLY SOLICITED CONTRACTORS? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF KNOWN ENGINEERING GROUPS THAT HAVE EXPERIENCE IN LOUISIANA AND AROUND THE WORLD.
DID WE SPECIFICALLY GO TO THEM?
>> WE SPECIFICALLY TARGETED A THREE TO FOUR-HOUR RANGE OF OUR LOCATION HERE.
>> WHY WERE WE LIMITED TO THAT?
>> THE GOVERNMENT ISSUED A DIRECT NOTICE [BACKGROUND] GROUP TALKS.
[00:05:01]
[BACKGROUND] I GOT THIS NOTICE [BACKGROUND] THE CONTRACT WAS [BACKGROUND] WHAT'S GOING ON [BACKGROUND] CONTRACTORS CLOSE TO US [BACKGROUND] REGION COULD GO AHEAD AND GIVE US AT LEAST THE BEST OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE EXCESS MOBILIZATION [BACKGROUND].>> I'M TALKING ABOUT A VERY SPECIFIED, VERY SPECIFIC PROJECT, AND SO I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> WE DIDN'T DIRECTLY SOLICIT.
IT WAS ACTUALLY OUR ENGINEER RECORD, AND MAYBE JEFF MIGHT WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE OUTREACH THAT WE DID WITH THE CONTRACTOR.
HE'S A CONSULTANT WITH SANTE, WHO WAS ACTUALLY THE GROUP RESPONSIBLE FOR DESIGNING THE PROJECT, AND WHY DON'T YOU REACH OUT, HE HAS A TON OF EXPERIENCE IN LOUISIANA AND BUILDING THESE.
>> COULD YOU COME FORWARD, SIR, AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE CAMERAS AND THE PUBLIC?
I WAS THE DESIGN LEAD FOR THE PROJECT.
ROB CASES, WE DID PUT A LIST TOGETHER OF CONTRACTORS.
WE DID HAVE SOME FROM LOUISIANA.
SPECIFICALLY OF SEA LEVEL, CAJUN ONES WE'VE WORKED WITH PREVIOUSLY ON PROJECTS OF THIS MAGNITUDE.
>> I MEAN, THOSE CONTRACTORS WORKED ON MANY PUMP STATIONS FOR ME, SO WE DID SUPPLY A COUPLE OF NAMES THAT I'M AWARE OF AND THAT I KNOW.
[NOISE] WE DID SUBMIT SOME OF THOSE.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM, NONE OF THEM SUBMITTED A BID.
[LAUGHTER] [NOISE] I KNOW, ROB, YOU TALKED TO A FEW OF THE CONTRACTORS AFTERWARD.
>> AND WHY THEY DIDN'T BID ON IT? IT'S JUST, THAT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF RISK WITH THE PROJECT.
WHERE IS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND CLOSE TO HOUSES.
I DON'T KNOW, THERE WAS A LIST OF THINGS THAT THEY SAID.
>> BUSY. BUT WHY, THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT ON IT, I HAVEN'T CONTACTED THEM AND SAID, WHY DIDN'T YOU, THIS WAS A GOOD PROJECT TO BID ON.
>> I THINK WE DID REACH OUT TO SOME OF THEM [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M ON THE FEEDBACK PAGE AND IT'S NERVOUS, SOMEONE SAID THAT THEY DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE 100% SUCCESSFUL.
YOU HAVE THE BIDDING, AND THEN ONE SAID THAT THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO SUB EVERYTHING OUT TO GET THE JOB COMPLETED.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT MAYBE MC SQUARED OR WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO SUB A LOT OF THIS OUT.
>> THEY'VE HAD AN ISSUE WITH COST OVERRUNS.
>> AND THIS GOES INTO ANOTHER ISSUE.
WE'VE ISSUED THAT 20 MILLION BOND AND IT'S GETTING CHEWED UP SIGNIFICANTLY WITH THIS PROJECT, AND IT'S GOING TO HAMSTRING US, AND IF WE GO 4 MILLION OVER, THEN WHAT'S THE SAFETY NET? HOW MUCH DOES IT AFFECT THE CITY? HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO COME OUT OF OTHER FUNDS? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO TABLE IN OUR MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN, OR OUR IMPROVEMENTS TO GET THIS PROJECT COMPLETE IF IT DOES, COST ADDITIONAL FUNDING?
>> SINCE YOU WERE THE DESIGN FIRM, DID YOU NOT SEE SOME OF THIS COMING?
>> THAT IT IS NOT IN AN IDEAL LOCATION, WHERE IT'S LOCATED, AND SO FORTH.
>> THE LOCATION IS WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE [NOISE] CURRENT DRAINAGE GOES.
THAT'S THE LEAST INVASIVE LOCATION AS FAR AS PUTTING DRAINAGE IN THE STREETS AND UPGRADING WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE, SO THAT LOCATION IS THE LOCATION. I'M JUST SAYING [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE WAS ONE DAY THIS WEEK, I THINK IT WAS EITHER MONDAY OR TUESDAY, AND I WAS HEADING OFF THE ISLAND, AND ON 61ST STREET, THE TIDES WERE ABOUT EVEN.
THAT WOULD BE WHEN YOU WOULD PUMP BECAUSE THERE WERE HIGH TIDES AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOWHERE TO PUMP.
>> WE'RE SEEING THE STAFF SHAKE THEIR HEAD.
>> YOU WOULDN'T PUMP ON HIGH TIDE DAYS.
>> WE DON'T HAVE FLOODING ON HIGH TIDE DAYS?
>> IF IT RAINS YOU DO, BUT IT WASN'T RAINING, SO YOU WOULDN'T PUMP JUST BECAUSE THE TIDE WAS HIGH.
ACTUALLY, THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE PROJECT DOES, IT KEEPS THE TIDE FROM FLOWING BACK INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
IF YOU DO PUMP, YOU PUMP OUT ABOVE TIDE LEVEL.
IT'S FORCE-FED, SO IT'LL PUMP RIGHT THROUGH, BUT IT KEEPS IT FROM BACK-FLOWING BACK INTO THE SYSTEM. IT'S PRESSURIZED.
[00:10:03]
>> BUT WE'RE GETTING MORE [OVERLAPPING] FEEDBACK FROM CREDIBLE ENGINEERING FIRMS WHO HAVE DEALT WITH PUMP STATIONS AND THEY'RE SAYING NOT THE IDEAL LOCATION.
>> THEN ANOTHER QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR STAN TECH, HOW WERE WE 10 MILLION DOLLARS OFF FOR OUR ESTIMATE FROM WHAT WE GOT BACK FROM IT?
>> WE BASED OUR ESTIMATES ON PROJECTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
I WENT THROUGH IT AGAIN LAST NIGHT AND SAW WHERE THE DIFFERENCES WERE, ONE BIG ONE WAS SOME OF THE STREET COSTS, WITH CULVERTS AND WHATNOT, AND WE WERE IN RANGE ON SOME OF THEM, BUT SOME OF THEM WERE A LOT HIGHER.
IT DEPENDS ON, I GUESS TIME OF THE BID AND THE RISK THEY'RE ASSOCIATED WITH WHERE IT'S GOING IN THE STREETS AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
BUT THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG THINGS, AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS, I THINK OUR ELECTRICAL WAS A LITTLE BIT OFF THERE.
I TALKED TO OUR ELECTRICAL FOLKS, OUR DESIGNERS, AND WHATNOT, AND THERE ARE TREMENDOUS LEAD TIMES, YOU CAN'T GET NAILED-DOWN PRICES IF YOU'RE GOING OUT FOR MONTHS.
THERE'S A LOT OF RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ORDERING PANELS AND MOTOR STARTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE PUMPS CAME IN, I THINK, RIGHT ON TARGET, BUT IT WAS JUST AN ACCUMULATION OF ALL THOSE THINGS.
AGAIN, I CAN'T ASSUME WHAT THE RISK IS, THERE'S A LITTLE RISK WITH THE CONTRACTOR WHERE HE'S LOCATED, RIGHT? WE'RE ONLY YARDS AWAY FROM HOUSES AND WHATNOT, AND WE'VE PUT ENTIRE SPECS ABOUT VIBRATIONS AND NOISE AND ALL THAT STUFF HERE WHILE THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING IT AND WHATNOT.
THERE'S AN INHERENT RISK OF WHERE IT'S AT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> HOW MANY PUMP STATIONS HAVE YOU DESIGNED?
WE HAVE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> I SAY THE RISK OF WHERE IT'S AT, IT'S JUST DURING CONSTRUCTION AND WHATNOT, WHILE WE HAVE CAFORDAMS OPEN, IT'S 20 [OVERLAPPING].
>> MY QUESTION WAS, HOW MANY PUMP STATIONS?
>> HOW MANY? ALL RIGHT. STAN TECH.
WE DID THE PCCP PUMP STATIONS AND THE 20,000 CFS PUMP STATIONS IN NEW ORLEANS ON THOSE THREE CANALS. WE DID THOSE.
THAT'S THOSE ARE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF NEIGHBORHOODS, SO WE'VE CONSTRUCTED THOSE, DESIGNED AND BUILT.
WE'RE DOING THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER RIGHT NOW, LAFOURCHE PUMP STATION PUMPS, I THINK IT'S 1,500 CFS, PUMPING FRESHWATER INTO THE BAYOU.
PERSONALLY, I'VE DONE I DON'T KNOW, PROBABLY TEN PUMP STATIONS.
>> OKAY. LET'S GET COUNCIL FRANKY.
>> I'D LIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.
ABOUT HOW YOU WANT A 70 MILLION JOB YOU END UP WITH THE SOLE SOURCE REQUEST.
I'VE ALREADY HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOU GOING OUT TO TEN, YOU WENT OUT TO THE OPEN MARKET, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING IN THAT SCOPE OF WORK THAT FRIGHTENED OFF EVERYBODY, AND SO I WANT TO KNOW FROM YOUR ASSESSMENT, WHAT IS THAT? AND HOW CAN THAT BE ADDRESSED THROUGH OR CAN'T BE ADDRESSED THROUGH A VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS? FURTHERMORE, IF AWARDED, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS ANYWAY BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, YOU'RE 10 MILLION DOLLARS OFF AN ESTIMATE THAT WAS PROVIDED 60 DAYS PRIOR TO RECEIVING THE BID, AND THAT SHOULD BE AN ALARM AS WELL.
THAT MEANS EITHER SOMETHING IN THE ESTIMATED SCOPE OR THERE'S THERE'S SOME BID TAB ITEMS IN THAT BID THAT ARE OUT OF THE MARKET, ONE OF THE TWO, SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO CHECK THAT.
BUT RELATED TO VALUE ENGINEERING, I LIKE YOUR OPINION RELATED TO WHETHER IS THERE SOMETHING IN THERE THAT SCARED EVERYBODY THAT CAN BE VALUE ENGINEERED OUT AND THEN TELL ME ABOUT WHAT A VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS LOOKS LIKE MOVING FORWARD POST BID.
THEN I WANT TO FOLLOW UP WITH ANOTHER QUESTION RELATED TO THE SCHEDULE. [LAUGHTER] [BACKGROUND]
>> THE PROCESS, WE DID LOOK AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS, YOU KNOW, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CONTRACT IN THE DESIGN.
OKAY. NOW, WE WERE LIMITED TO THIS LOCATION PUMP STATION, SO THAT'S SET WHERE IT'S AT.
WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT DRAINAGE LOCATIONS, BRINGING DIFFERENT STREETS, BRINGING DRAINAGE IN, WE HAD CERTAIN CRITERIA, WE HAD TO MEET.
WE HAD TO BE ABLE TO DRAIN 25-YEAR STORM EVENTS AND 100-YEAR STORM EVENTS.
VALUE ENGINEERING AS FAR AS WHERE TO PUT THE PUMP STATION, THAT WASN'T [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE TO DO WITH MOVING IT.
IT'S GOING TO BE DEALING WITH THE SCOPE AT THAT LOCATION.
>> WE WENT THROUGH IT, SO WE HAVE DURING ITS,
[00:15:04]
LIFESPAN IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.OUR BIGGEST CRITERIA WERE, WANTING TO KEEP IT QUIET, AND WANTING TO KEEP THE VIBRATIONS DOWN.
WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THAT, WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT PUMPS BUT WE ENDED UP GOING WITH SUBMERSIBLE ELECTRIC BECAUSE THEY'RE QUIET, THEY'RE UNDERWATER, LESS VIBRATION.
WE WENT TO SMALLER PUMPS, WHICH GIVES THE CITY A LOT MORE VARIABILITY IN WHAT THEY CAN RUN AND KEEPS IT DOWN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE THREE MASSIVE GENERATORS THAT ARE GOING UP THERE ON THAT SECOND FLOOR, 0.5 MEGAWATTS A PIECE.
WE HAVE SOUND ATTENUATION FOR ALL THOSE AND WHATNOT, SO WE LOOKED AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS THERE, AND WE ENDED UP WHERE WE'RE AT.
YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I THINK WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB AS FAR AS VALUE ENGINEERING WHAT WE HAVE, AS FAR AS WHAT SCARED OFF CONTRACTORS.
>> DAVID, CAN I JUST DO [OVERLAPPING] ABOUT WHAT HE JUST SAID ABOUT PUTTING THE ELECTRIC UNDERWATER?
>> HOW MUCH ENVIRONMENT IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT?
>> ALL OF OUR SEWER PUMPS, THEY'RE ALL SUBMERSED ELECTRIC.
>> IT'S IN A VALUE. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO. IT'S NOT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE LAND SIDE.
>> LET'S LET DAVID GET HIS QUESTION.
>> THAT POST-AWARD, IT'S VERY TYPICAL TO GO THROUGH ANOTHER VALUE ENGINEERING PROCESS WITH A GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THAT ABSOLUTELY BE A FOCUS OF THE DESIGN TEAM AND OF STAFF MOVING POST-AWARD.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS REGARDING THE SCHEDULE.
IN THE PACKAGE, I COULD NOT SEE WHAT THE SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETION WAS, ONCE A NOTICE TO PROCEED IS PROVIDED.
>> WE HAVE A TWO-YEAR PERFORMANCE PERIOD THAT WE PUT INTO THE BID THAT THE CONTRACTORS PERFORM UNDER.
AS PART OF THAT, WE HAD TO GO TO THE GLO TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION ON THE CONTRACT TO START WITH A FIVE-YEAR WINDOW WITH A ONE, TWO-YEAR EXTENSION, SO WE SUBMITTED THAT ON NOVEMBER 21ST, AND THAT PUTS A COMPLETION DATE AROUND JANUARY 31, 2027.
>> HOLD ON. ALL RIGHT, SO JANUARY 27?
>> THAT WAS WITH YOUR TWO YEARS EXTENSION? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S THE MAXIMUM THEY WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE AT THIS TIME.
>> I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION.
I GOT TO ASK IT. CAN WE GO BACK AND ASK FOR MORE TIME?
>> I THINK OUR GRANT ADMINISTRATORS TOLD US, NO, WE CANNOT UNLESS WE'RE WELL THROUGH THE PROCESS AND SAY WE'RE 95% DOING CONSTRUCTION.
>> THEN WE'D SAY, LOOK, WE'RE THIS FAR FROM COMPLETION.
GIVE US A BIT EXTRA TIME TO GET THIS FINISHED UP.
>> OKAY. THEN IF YOU CANNOT EXTEND THE GLO GRANT, THAT MEANS THAT THE CBDG MONEY IS AT RISK AFTER THAT POINT IN TIME, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WELL, I'LL COME BACK TO [OVERLAPPING] JUST ONE SECOND.
I THINK, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION HE WAS FOLLOWING DAVID.
>> I DID, BUT I GUESS IT'S FOR BRIAN OR SOMEBODY.
IN THAT IT SAYS THE STAFF REPORT SAID THAT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO NEED TO INCREASE THE RATE TO CITIZENS TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN THIS.
>> LONG TERM THESE ARE VERY EXPENSIVE PUMP STATIONS.
THERE [BACKGROUND] THAT WOULD DO IT NO MATTER WHAT THE PRICE OF THE PUMP STATION IS.
WHEN YOU START ADDING MECHANICAL COMPONENTS TO A NON MECHANICAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM, THERE'S GOING TO BE INCREASED COST DOWN THE ROAD, SO THIS PUMPS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE REPLACED, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED, THEY'RE GOING TO BE SERVICED.
>> YOU ALL DID A UTILITY STUDY, I GUESS A WHILE BACK.
BUT STORM SEWER WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT UTILITIES PROTECTION STUDY?
>> NO. ALL WE DID WITH THE STORMWATER RATES WAS TO GO AHEAD AND SEE HOW IT WAS BEING APPLIED ACROSS THE BOARD.
WE FOUND THAT THERE WAS SOME DISCREPANCIES.
IT WASN'T BEING APPLIED FOR ORDINANCE, SO WE BASICALLY CORRECTED THAT TO FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE AS WAS ESTABLISHED.
>> WHEN DO YOU THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT AN INCREASED RATE PER PUMP?
>> BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE LAID OUT HERE IN THE STAFF REPORT OF THE FUTURE PROJECTION, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO LOOK AT THAT BY THE TIME WE HAVE THIS COME ONLINE.
>> THE NEXT TWO YEARS WE'LL BE LOOKING AT A RATE DECREASE.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY I THINK IT SHOULD BE PUT OUT AGAIN.
I THINK THE PROJECTED COSTS SHOULD BE REMOVED.
I THINK THAT WAS PART OF WHAT KEPT PEOPLE FROM BIDDING, AND JUST I PERSONALLY CANNOT SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE THIS, AWARDING A CONTRACT TO A COMPANY THAT HAS ALREADY CAUSED THE CITY TO BE SUED MULTIPLE TIMES WHO HAS NO EXPERIENCE IN PUMPS.
>> THE ESTIMATE FROM STAN TECH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BID PACKAGE, WAS IT?
[00:20:01]
>> THAT'S NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT.
>> PART OF THE FUNDING COMES FROM IDC.
THAT WAS ORIGINALLY A 20 MILLION DOLLAR FUND PACKAGE OUT FOR, AND ON THIS ONE PROJECT, WHICH ORIGINALLY THOSE FUNDS WERE SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR TWO, WE'RE GOING TO BE USING THREE QUARTERS OF THOSE FUNDS.
THE QUESTION IS, AFTER THIS, KNOWING THAT THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT PROJECT, WE NEED TO SOMEHOW FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT GOING.
COMING ON THIS IS GOING TO BE 14TH STREET, WHICH ORIGINALLY WE WERE GOING TO USE A FORTUNE CDBG MONEY FOR.
SORRY. MR. PINA, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE ENGINEERING QUESTIONS.
[LAUGHTER] MY QUESTION IS REALLY ABOUT FUNDING.
IS IT LIKE THIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM ONLY WORKS PER THE MODELS THAT WE SHOWED PREVIOUSLY IF YOU GET BOTH OF THESE PUMP STATIONS UP AND GOING.
HOW DO WE GET 14TH AND HOW DO WE KEEP 14TH ON SCHEDULE AND NOT CONTINUE TO HAVE IT SLIP? [BACKGROUND].
>> COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
>> TESA WROBLESKI, DIRECTOR OF DISASTER RECOVERY GRANTS.
CURRENTLY, WE HAVE FEMA FUNDING AND THE AMOUNT OF ROUGHLY 35.5 MILLION DOLLARS.
LAST MONTH, THE GLO DID A CALL FOR PROJECTS.
THEY HAVE EXTRA MONEY FROM HURRICANE HARVEY, AND THEY HAVE EXTRA MONEY FROM HURRICANE IKE.
WE SPLIT OUT THE 14TH STREET PUMP STATION, 500 LINE ITEMS INTO TWO PROJECTS, ONE BEING THE COLLECTION SYSTEM, ONE BEING THE PUMP STATION BECAUSE YOU'RE LIMITED TO HOW MUCH YOU CAN REQUEST ON THESE GLO ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE.
WE'RE REQUESTING 20 MILLION DOLLARS ON THE COLLECTION SYSTEM, 20 MILLION DOLLARS ON THE PUMP STATION, WHICH SHOULD GIVE US MORE THAN ENOUGH, AND THAT WOULD RESULT ULTIMATELY IF WE GOT BOTH AND POSSIBLY NO FUNDING FROM THE CITY.
WE'RE GOING TO HOPE THAT WE CAN GET ONE OF THOSE BEST CASE TWO.
THAT CALL FOR PROJECTS WAS DUE THE END OF NOVEMBER.
THE GLO WILL BE EVALUATING AND SCORING THOSE PROJECTS AND WHO'S ELIGIBLE AND HOW MUCH THEY HAVE.
THEY HAVE ABOUT 200 MILLION DOLLARS BETWEEN THE TWO POTS.
WE HAVE SCORED PRETTY HIGH IN THE PAST, SO WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT IN FEBRUARY, WILL BE A RESPONSE THAT SAYS, GO AHEAD AND GIVE US A FULL APPLICATION FOR BOTH.
THE CAVEAT IS THAT THEY HAVE TO DUMP THIS MONEY FAST.
WHEN THEY DUMP IT ON, I SAY DUMP, WHEN THEY GIVE IT TO US, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 24 MONTHS TO SPEND IT.
BUT ON THE HEELS OF THAT, WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE CDBG MITT PROGRAM, WHICH IS HOW SOUTH SHORE WAS FUNDED, OTHERWISE, WE WOULD HAVE SAID, WE NEED ANOTHER 20 MILLION OVER HERE AND LET'S JUST PUT OUR DESIRE, OUR PRIORITY ON THAT, SO WE WENT TO THE 14TH STREET.
NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES.
WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES COMING ON THE 59TH STREET, AND THE WATER LINE, SO SPLITTING EVERYWHERE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HOPE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE CAN DO, AND ONE OF THE CAVEATS IN THE SCORING IS HOW WELL YOU HAVE MANAGED GLO FUNDING.
IF WE SLIP THIS PROJECT, WE'RE ALREADY STARTING TO MOVE OUR LINE WITH THEM.
WE'VE BEEN FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS IN PROCUREMENT ON THIS NOW.
IF WE START SLIPPING AND WE CAN'T MEET THAT TWO YEARS OR COME CLOSE TO MEETING IT, THEN IT'S GOING TO IMPACT US WHEN THEY LOOK AT GIVING US 20 MILLION, 40 MILLION ON THIS OTHER PROJECT.
>> CLARIFICATION ON 14TH STREET.
>> TWO YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO RESPONSE IN FEBRUARY FOR WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT IT FOR THE FUNDS OR [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY WILL SEND US A NOTIFICATION TO SAY, WE'VE SCORED YOUR PROJECT, NOW WE WANT YOU TO GIVE US A FULL APPLICATION.
>> OKAY. THE QUESTION IS IS IT I'M ASSUMING THE 14TH STREET IS ALREADY IN DESIGN BECAUSE OTHERWISE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OKAY.
[OVERLAPPING] ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
THAT'S WHAT I HAVE AT THE MOMENT.
>> SO STAN TECH IS WORLDWIDE, I MEAN [OVERLAPPING].
>> FROM WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING.
>> IS THERE ANY EXAMPLES OF AN ISLAND PUMP STATION THAT YOU CAN RECOLLECT THAT YOU'VE DESIGNED?
>> AS FAR AS STAN TECH OR HAWAII.
NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> NOTHING FOR YOU PERSONALLY IN THE HOUSTON OFFICE, I GUESS.
>> ME PERSONALLY. I'VE DONE PUMP STATIONS ON GRAND ISLAND, LOUISIANA, THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> DO YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE THROUGH STAN TECH?
>> WE'RE A LITTLE SENSITIVE ABOUT DRAINAGE HERE, OBVIOUSLY, RIGHT? SORRY FOR THE [OVERLAPPING].
[00:25:01]
>> I'M COMING OUT TO UNDERSTAND.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S UTILIZE THAT PAST EXPERIENCE.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MATTERS MOST.
AS FAR AS AN ISLAND COMPARISON WITH THIS TYPE OF PUMP, WHAT IS THE EXPERIENCE THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH THAT DESIGN? AS FAR AS SAME TYPE OF, IS IT SIMILAR TO OUR ISLAND, BASICALLY 3 MILES WIDE, 26 MILES LONG THING, OR [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHETHER IT'S AN ISLAND OR NOT, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF POPULATION ALONG THE COAST OF LOUISIANA.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING, ST. MARY PARISH, TERREBONNE PARISH [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF THOSE APPLICATIONS ALSO ARE IN ASSOCIATION WITH BERMS OR [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT, WE'RE OPEN ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE BAY.
>> BUT YOU'RE ALSO ABOVE SEA LEVEL.
>> THE SITUATION IS NOT SUNNY DAY FLOODING AND [OVERLAPPING] ABOVE SEA LEVEL.
>> THERE, I GUESS THERE'S PRETTY MUCH A LOT OF PARTS IN NEW ORLEANS [OVERLAPPING] SEA ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>> I'M MENTIONING THOSE BECAUSE SOME OF MY WORK WAS IN LOUISIANA, BUT IT IS THE SAME SITUATION WE HAVE HERE.
WE'RE CONCERNED WITH TIDAL FLOODING AND MOST OF THE PUMP STATIONS WE'VE DONE.
THE TWO WE'RE DOING I'M PERSONALLY DOING THIS ON WEST SHORE.
IT'S FOR TIDAL INFLUENCES AND STORM SURGES COMING IN, SO WHEN YOU'RE WORKING ALONG THE COVES, THEY'RE ALL HAVE TO DO WITH TIDE, SUNNY DAY FLOODING, THINGS LIKE THAT.
THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL CASE WE HAVE HERE.
LIKE HE WAS MENTIONING BEFORE, THIS PUMP STATION IS GOING TO RUN BASICALLY IN A COUPLE OF MODES.
ONE IS A TIDAL MODE WHERE IT'S GOING TO KEEP THE WATER BELOW THE STREET, AND IT'LL CLOSE THE GATES, KEEP THE WATER BELOW THE STREETS.
WHEN THE STORMS COMING OR SOMETHING, IT'S GOING TO GO INTO STORM MODE, IT'S GOING TO DRAIN IT EVEN FURTHER.
STORAGE AND KEEP THAT WATER BELOW THE STREETS FOR THOSE STORM EVENTS.
I'M SAYING, WE'VE DONE SOME PUMP STATIONS IN MIAMI ALL OVER THE PLACE THAT ARE JUST LIKE THIS.
>> I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT ONE.
DAN WAS INVOLVED WITH IT, BUT HE WAS THE PM, HE'S THE PM ON THIS ONE, TOO, BY THE WAY.
WE USE SOME OF THAT EXPERIENCE HE HAD THERE AND HE USED SOME ELECTRICS ON THOSE AND IT WAS FOR SOME NEIGHBORHOODS AND WHATNOT.
I KNOW THERE'S OTHER CASES, I JUST CAN'T THINK OF THEM RIGHT NOW, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN COASTAL COMMUNITIES.
>> I NOTICED THAT AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.
BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR CITIZENS TO KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT THROWING MONEY IN.
>> OF ALL THE PUMP STATIONS WE'RE DOING, THEY HAVE TO BE PUMPING ALL THE TIME, LIKE THE HOUSES ARE MINUS SOMETHING.
THE PUMP STATIONS WEREN'T RUNNING AND THE LEVEES WEREN'T THERE, THEY'D BE FLOODING.
>> WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE LEVEES YET.
>> THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I'M TRYING TO PUT WRAP MY MIND AROUND.
>> TECHNICALLY THE RIM OF ENGLISH BAYU IS AROUND FIVE OR SIX FEET.
>> TECHNICALLY IT DROPS OFF QUICK TO HERDS LANE AND OTHERS, SO IT'S TWO OR THREE FEET LOWER OVER HERE THAN IT IS AROUND THAT.
TECHNICALLY ALMOST HAVE LIKE A BURN RIGHT AROUND THAT STREET.
>> WE'RE KEEPING THE WATER LOWER IN HERE AND HOPE WE GET INTO ENGLISH [OVERLAPPING]
>> THESE ARE NOT FOR STORM SEARCH, THESE ARE FOR [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES, I DON'T THINK WE CAN FIGHT THAT.
>> BEACH FLORIDA HAS A SIMILAR SYSTEM TO THIS [BACKGROUND]
>> SECONDLY, HAVE YOU WORKED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH MG SQUARED ON A PUMP STATION YET?
>> EVEN WITH YOUR OLD COMPANY?
>> THAT YOU SAID, YOU HAVE 35 MILLION FROM FEMA.
WHAT PROJECTS ARE THAT MONEY COMING FROM?
>> WE HAVE 35 MILLION FROM FEMA ON 14TH STREET.
WE HAVE 47.5 IN GLO MONEY ON SOUTH SHORE.
WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 35 MILLION COMING IN FOR A COMBINATION OF FEMA AND REGIONAL GLO MONEY FOR THE CAUSEWAY WATER [OVERLAPPING] MONEY.
>> THE FEMA OBVIOUSLY, WASN'T BECAUSE THE PUMP STATION WAS DESTROYED.
WHAT DID THE FEMA MONEY COME FROM? WHAT IS IT BEING TAKEN FROM TO BE PUT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE FEMA FUNDING IS COMING FROM THE 404 FEMA HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN PROGRAM.
THEY PUT SO MUCH MONEY AWAY, THIS ONE'S FROM HURRICANE HARVEY.
IT STARTED FROM HURRICANE HARVEY.
WE'VE ALREADY GONE BACK ONCE TO FEMA AND HAD TO ASK FOR MORE MONEY AND WAIT ANOTHER YEAR AND A HALF TO GET ADDITIONAL MONEY TO GET THERE, AND THEN WE HAD TO RE REAPPLY INTO THE COVID.
THIS MONEY IS NOW COMING FROM COVID MONEY, BUT IT'S MITIGATION FUNDING, AND IT WAS IN OUR MITIGATION PLAN,
[00:30:01]
SO THAT'S HOW THAT'S BEING FUNDED.>> ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, ALEX, THIS WAS YOUR TOPIC.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THAT, SIR.
>> I HATE TO FEEL LIKE OUR BACK IS AGAINST THE WALL, BUT OUR BACK IS AGAINST THE WALL HERE, AND THIS WAS A PROBLEM THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AMONGST COUNSEL IN OCTOBER AND THEN NOVEMBER AND THEN WE'RE HERE.
>> IN OCTOBER, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE GRANT THAT WAS COMING OUT FROM THE GLO AT THE TIME, AND SO WE WANTED TO DO AN ASSESSMENT OF THAT WHOLE PROGRAM BEFORE WE COME WITH A PATH FORWARD ON OUR FUNDING STRATEGY.
AT THE TIME WE WERE THINKING THAT MAYBE WE COULD APPLY FOR THE SOUTH FORD DRIVE PUMP STATION FOR THE THE EXTRA 20 MILLION UNTIL WE FOUND OUT IT WASN'T [BACKGROUND]
>> BUT AGAIN, WE'RE HERE, AND HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES, THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING CORRECT [OVERLAPPING]
>> EITHER REBID IT OR BEEN CREATED WITH HOW WE DO IT.
>> WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT UNTIL THE BIDS CAME IN [BACKGROUND].
>> THE BID CAME IN ON SEPTEMBER 24TH THIS YEAR.
>> WE COULD HAVE DISCUSSED IT IN OCTOBER.
>> CHOOSING A COMPANY THAT HAS NO EXPERIENCE IN PROJECTS LIKE THIS, THAT'S JUST [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S MY BIGGEST PLIGHT AND THAT'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT HAS ALREADY CAUSED SO MANY PROBLEMS AND LAWSUITS TO THE CITY.
>> WE HAVE NO LAWSUIT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT WAS WAS HEARING ISSUE THAT WASN'T CONTRACTOR ISSUE.
>> ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, WE'RE GETTING INTO DEBATING THE PROS AND CONS OF THIS.
THIS IS MORE FOR CLARIFICATION OF THIS ITEM.
>> CLARIFICATION IS TO, AT A CERTAIN POINT, IF THE GLO SAYS, WE CAN'T GET THE FUNDING, I THINK IT MIGHT BE [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE US TO REBID IT.
>> I THINK IT MIGHT BE POIGNANT FOR COUNCIL TO COME TOGETHER AND SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE GLO ASKING HIM TO EXTEND IT BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH A CONTRACTOR WHO I DON'T THINK AND THE PUBLIC HAS NO TRUST IN, THAT WE WANT TO SPEND WHOEVER MONEY WE'RE GETTING, FEMA, CPG, HUD MONEY, GLO MONEY SPENDING IT PROPERLY BECAUSE I WANT THIS PROJECT TO WORK.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MAINLAND OR MC SQUARED, THEIR TRACK RECORD DOWN HERE IS IS NOT THE GREATEST.
THAT'S WHERE I STAND AND I HATE TO FEEL LIKE MY BACKS AGAINST THE WALL, BUT I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND THAT IF ANYTHING LIKE THIS COMES UP, THAT WE ARE MADE AWARE OF IT SO WE CAN COME UP WITH A STRATEGY AS A COUNCIL TOGETHER SO WE CAN KNOW HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
THAT'S ALL I GOT FOR THIS ITEM.
>> ONE THING BRANDON ASKED ME HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS OUR HISTORY OF REBIDDING PROJECTS.
THE SEAWOLF PARKWAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
THAT ONE HAS BEEN REBID A COUPLE OF TIMES IN THE PAST.
WE STILL DON'T HAVE A TREATMENT PLAN OUT THERE.
IN 2022, WE PUT THE IZA FOR THE POWER SPEECH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT THAT CAME IN AT 16.5 MILLION, WHICH WAS REBID.
IT CAME BACK IN AT 23 MILLION.
WE'RE BUILDING THAT PROJECT RIGHT NOW, SO OUR HISTORY OF REBIDDING PROJECTS TO GET A BETTER COST DOESN'T APPEAR TO WORK THAT WAY [OVERLAPPING].
>> USUALLY COMES HIGHER, BUT [OVERLAPPING].
>> SORRY, BUT STAN TECH, WHEN WE HAD THIS COMPLETED IN, I GUESS JUNE OR JULY FOR THE SUBMITTAL, FOR THE ESTIMATION OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST.
HOW MANY MONTHS WENT BY? THREE MONTHS WENT BY AND IF YOU'RE GOING OFF OF, I GUESS I BOUGHT IT OR MISSED A FEW THINGS, WHAT'S THE COST GOING TO BE IN THE FUTURE, THREE, OR FOUR MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD? WE ONLY HAVE 4 MILLION DOLLARS IN THE BOND MONEY TO COME UP WITH ANY OVERRUNS OR WORK ORDER CHANGES OR THINGS, AND WHERE'S OUR SAFETY NET?
>> 5% CONTINGENCY BUILT INTO THE PROJECT AND AN ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY [BACKGROUND].
>> AND IF I CAN RESPOND TO THE COMMENT YOU MADE ABOUT LET'S SEND A LETTER TO THE GLO.
THE GLO HAS A CERTIFIED APPROVED PLAN ON HOW THIS MONEY IS SPENT AND THEIR PLAN WITH HUD THAT HUD HAS APPROVED.
IT STICKS YOU TO A 1 - 2 YEAR EXTENSION, SO WE JUST GOT THAT EXTENSION APPROVED THIS PAST WEEK AND THAT'S WHEN IT EXPIRES IN 2027.
OUR HOPE IS IF WE SOMEHOW AT THE END OF THIS, WE'RE THREE OR MONTHS BEHIND, WE CAN SHOW LOOK, WE'RE AT 75% COMPLETE, WE NEED ANOTHER THREE MONTHS.
[00:35:02]
AT THAT POINT, HOPEFULLY, THEY CAN EXTEND IT, BUT TO STOP NOW AND SAY, AND I HATE TO BEAT THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM BUT TO STOP NOW AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS REBID IT AND IT MAY COME IN HIGHER, PROBABLY WILL THE WAY EVERY TIME WE BID SOMETHING, THE INFLATION IS JUST SHOOTING THROUGH THE ROOF.>> I THINK THEY WILL SEE, OKAY, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN CONSTRUCTION.
YOU'RE NOW 6 8 MONTHS BEHIND SCHEDULE.
>> IF WE HADN'T ASKED FOR THIS EXTENSION IN NOVEMBER, WE WOULD HAVE LOST THE FUNDING ON JANUARY 31ST, IN 20 DAYS.
>> OUR GRANT WOULD HAVE EXPIRED IN JANUARY AND OUR FUNDING WOULD GO AWAY, AND WE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO PAY BACK THE 5 MILLION DOLLARS IN ENGINEERING AND ALL THE OTHER COSTS THAT ARE IN THIS PROJECT.
>> YES. I KNOW, BUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> YES, BUT COUNCIL MAN ROLLINS [NOISE]
>> THIS ONE'S GONE TO BRIAN AND IS BOTH ON AND COORDINATING WITH MC SQUARED, I GUESS, FORMALLY ASSOCIATED THAT WE'RE STILL IN TOUCH WITH MAIN LANE.
IN TALKING WITH ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS, IT WAS INVOLVED IN THE 45TH STREET PROJECT.
>> AND THE LONG-TERM DELAY THAT HAPPENED.
IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS A DESIGN ISSUE AND THAT THE PLANS DID NOT SHOW A CERTAIN DRAINAGE TIE-IN.
>> IT WAS AN ENGINEERING FIRM.
>> OKAY. GOOD. AWESOME. THANK YOU.
>> WHO WAS A VERY SMALL FIRM AT PORT.
>> OKAY. AND SO [OVERLAPPING].
>> IN OUR PREVIOUS CITY ENGINEER TOO.
>> SAY ONE OTHER THING REAL QUICK ABOUT MAIN LANE.
WE'RE FOCUSING ON 45TH STREET.
MAIN LANE PERFORMED VERY SUCCESSFULLY ON THE 18TH STREET STORE GRAND PROJECT, BUILDING A SLEET GATE AND THEN UPGRADING THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOWN THROUGH THE SYSTEM, SO THEY HAVE DONE SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS FOR THE CITY.
>> THEY'VE ALSO CHANGED [OVERLAPPING] THEY WEREN'T MC SQUARED WHEN THEY DID.
>> IT'S THE SAME COMPANY, THEY JUST CHANGED THEIR NAME.
>> ACTUALLY THE PRESIDENT MAIN LANE IS RIGHT HERE.
>> OKAY [OVERLAPPING] LET'S [BACKGROUND] OKAY.
FIRST OF ALL, LET'S GET OUR QUESTIONS SO I CLARIFY [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M STILL NOT [NOISE] WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT I'M TRYING TO SEPARATE THIS FROM THIS PROJECT THAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY, AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE DELAY WAS MONTHS, RIGHT? SIX, OR EIGHT MONTHS?
>> NINE MONTHS, AND SO A LOT OF THE PUBLIC VIEW ON MAINLY NOT PERFORMING THE WAY THEY SHOULD, AND BUSINESS IS HURTING AND ROADS CONTINUE TO CLOSE.
THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THE CONTRACTOR COULD DO, WHILE HE WAS OBVIOUSLY, OKAY, SO MY BACKGROUND IS A CONTRACTOR.
WHATEVER'S ON THE PLANS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD, SO IF THE PLANS WERE LACKING AND WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BUILD AND TYING INTO THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN PRICE IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T ON THE PLANS.
THEN THE DELAY TO GET ENGINEERING DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TYING IN CORRECTLY, I CAN'T REALLY PUT THAT OFF ON THE CONTRACTOR.
I PUT IT OFF ON MAYBE, THE FACT THAT WE HIRED THE WRONG DESIGN FIRM.
BUT, I CAN'T REALLY PUT THAT ON THE CONTRACTOR.
I KNOW I'D BE PRETTY DISAPPOINTED IF IT WAS PUT OFF ON ME.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IN LOOKING AT THE NETWORK OF MC SQUARED, YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS.
IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE ASSOCIATIONS OR BUSINESS SIZE OR PARTNERSHIPS WITH FIVE COMPANIES, LLC, IS THAT PART OF YOU TOO?
>> OKAY, SO ALTHOUGH WE'RE LOOKING AT MC SQUARED, I THINK THAT THERE ARE FIVE COMPANIES, LLC THAT I'VE DONE RESEARCH ON.
THEY HAVE EXTENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF PUMP STATIONS, SO THAT MAKES ME FEEL GOOD.
THAT WAS REALLY THE BIGGEST THING THAT I'M LOOKING AT.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAD TO WAIT NINE MONTHS AND BASICALLY HE HAD TO GET THE MUD WIPED ON THE FACE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC SAW.
THEY SAW THEY COULDN'T GET HOME.
BUSINESSES SAW THEY COULDN'T GET CUSTOMERS IN, AND ULTIMATELY AFFECT OUR CITIZENS.
IMMEDIATELY, THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT THE PUBLIC SAYS, AND THE PUBLIC SAYS, THE CONTRACTOR'S NOT DOING HIS JOB RIGHT.
THEY CAN'T REALLY BE THE DESIGN FIRM, IT'S IN PORT ARTHUR.
>> WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT, AND WE'VE ADJUSTED OUR SPECIFICATIONS.
WE ONLY ALLOW CONTRACTORS TO DO WITHIN THE TWO-BLOCK RADIUS AT A TIME SO THAT WE'RE NOT LETTING THEM GET AHEAD WITH THE DEMOS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND OTHER CHEST SPECIFICATIONS TO ALLOW US TO MANAGE CONTRACTORS.
[00:40:03]
>> WHICH MAKES YOUR PROJECTS MORE EXPENSIVE? THE COUNTY FOUND THAT OUT.
>> COUNCIL, TO ME, THE BIGGEST ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS, ON ONE HAND, I DON'T WANT OUR CITIZENS TO BE AFFECTED BY AN ILL DESIGN FIRM OR AN ILL CONTRACTOR, HOPEFULLY, WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT.
BUT THE BIGGEST THING IS FUNDING, IF WE SCREW THIS UP, WE SCREW UP A LOT, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S VERY CONCERNING.
ULTIMATELY, IF WE SCREW THAT UP AND WE DON'T GET TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON OUR DRAINAGE PROJECTS AND WE LOSE THE PUBLIC TRUST, AND WE LOSE THE GLO TRUST, AND WE LOSE VMS TRUST.
>> AND YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR DESIGN MONEY BACK.
>> ANTHONY, I HOPE YOU CAN HELP US OUT WITH SOME KNOWLEDGE, BUT I APPRECIATE IT. COME ON FORWARD.
>> BUT JUST ONE SECOND, SIR, COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.
>> BO WENT RIGHT DOWN THAT ROAD WITH THE LLCS AND IDENTIFIED THE PUMP STATION EXPERTS.
THAT WAS MY CONCERN, I DID SEE THAT IN THE LLCS.
I HAVE A MINOR DETAIL, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S REALLY APPROPRIATE.
>> ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE DO, COUNCIL, WE'LL HAVE YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF, SIR, IN JUST A SECOND.
COUNCIL, WE'VE GOT TO KEEP THIS TO A CLARIFICATION-TYPE DISCUSSION.
>> MAYOR, THIS IS PART OF THE 70 MILLION DOLLARS.
>> THAT'S WHY I'VE ALLOWED IT TO CONTINUE TO GO ON BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN APPROPRIATE.
BUT IF WE WANT TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION OF PROS AND CONS, THAT'S WHERE IT'S ON THE REGULAR MEETING.
BUT WE HAVE I THINK ALL OF IT HAS BEEN GOOD THIS MORNING BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN CLARIFYING THINGS.
IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF HERE.
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M ANTHONY COLOMBO.
I'M THE PRESIDENT OF MC2 CIVIL, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY MAIN LANE INDUSTRIES.
MC2 CIVIL WAS A HOLDING COMPANY OF MAIN LANE AND GOT TOO CONFUSING WITH TOO MANY NAMES OUT THERE, SO WE JUST CHANGED THE ENTIRE NAME TO MC2, SO IT IS THE SAME COMPANY.
ADDITIONALLY, IN SEPTEMBER A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, WE MERGED WITH NBG CONSTRUCTORS, AND NBG CONSTRUCTORS IS PROBABLY THE PREMIER STORMWATER PUMP STATION CONTRACTOR IN THE GULF COAST IN THE HOUSTON REGION.
THEY HAVE DONE MORE PUMP STATE STORMWATER PUMP STATIONS THAN PROBABLY ANYONE ELSE IN OUR REGION.
THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY THE PREFERRED CONTRACTOR FOR ALL LIDS.
DAVID BEAM BROUGHT ABOUT 100 PEOPLE WITH HIS COMPANY TO OUR FIRM.
HE JOINED AS AN EQUITY PARTNER.
HIS WHOLE CREW IS WITH US, AND TWO YEARS AGO, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BID THIS JOB BECAUSE WE DIDN'T BUILD PUMP STATIONS.
WE DO LARGE STORM SEWERS THAT WE'VE DONE QUITE A BIT FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON, AND I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, WITH A VERY GOOD REPUTATION.
DAVID BEAM BROUGHT THE PUMP STATION PROGRAM TO OUR TEAM.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE YEARS OF PUMP STATION CONSTRUCTION WITHIN OUR ORGANIZATION TODAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE GENTLEMAN? THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
THIS WILL BE OUR TOPIC THIS AFTERNOON.
>> SHOULD I COME TO THE 5:00 MEETING?
>> YES, SIR. I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO DO THAT. YES, SIR.
>> THANK YOU, SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
ALEX, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA? [NOISE] ALL RIGHT.
>> THIS IS AN ITEM OF 11C, AND IT'S CONSIDERED ACTIVE REGARDING AN ADJUSTMENT TO FIRE BEACH WEST PROPERTY OWNERS [NOISE] IT'S PIRATES PROPERTY BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS.
>> 11C THANKS. [NOISE] THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PIRATES BEACH WEST PROPERTY OWNERS.
THERE'S THE PIRATES BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, BUT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS PIRATES BEACH WEST.
>> THE NAME ON THE ACCOUNT IS PIRATES BEACH WEST, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT WAY.
>> DID THIS COME FROM WHAT'S IT CALLED? [BACKGROUND]
[00:45:01]
>> NO. IT'S THE ACCOUNT HOLDER FOR PIRATES BEACH WEST, AND IT'S REGARDING THE SPRINKLER AT THE ENTRANCE.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE BILL IS.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS, THE PIRATES BEACH WEST PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
THERE MAY BE A PIRATES BEACH SPRINKLER ACCOUNT, I'M JUST SAYING I LIVE THERE.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS [OVERLAPPING]
>> MY GUESS IS THAT TWO THINGS WERE PUT TOGETHER, SO BECAUSE THE ACCOUNTS AS PIRATES BEACH WEST, AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WAS THE ONE THAT REACHED OUT TO GET THE ADJUSTMENT.
>> IT SHOULD BE PIRATES BEACH PROPERTY OWNERS.
>> JUST FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE USED TO BE A PIRATES BEAST WEST PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.
>> IT'S PROBABLY WHY THE ACCOUNT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE ADJUSTMENT WILL BE MADE TO THIS SPECIFIC ACCOUNT, SO NOBODY RECEIVES A CHECK.
THERE'S NOT AN ASSOCIATION THAT'S GETTING ANY FUNDING.
THE ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE MADE TO THIS SPECIFIC ACCOUNT.
>> COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF?
>> SHEILA LUDANI, FINANCE DIRECTOR.
>> 11G [NOISE] BRANDON, I THINK.
>> 11G, IT SAYS EXPENDITURES OF THE IDC CORPORATION GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF PIPES [BACKGROUND] I'M TRYING TO SEE HOW THAT FITS IN THE IDC SCOPE.
>> THIS IS RELATED TO THE D PROJECT, [BACKGROUND] THE IDC [BACKGROUND] IMPROVEMENT SYSTEM.
AND ALL THIS IS [BACKGROUND] A REPORT.
LIMITED TO CAPITAL BUDGETS AND OPERATING BUDGETS.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PLAYS PARTS OF [BACKGROUND] WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH IDC FUNDING.
>> THE WAY THIS IS STATED, I DON'T THINK IT FALLS UNDER IDC GUIDELINES, SO I GUESS THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY.
>> PROVIDE YOU THE PROJECT [BACKGROUND] WITH COUNCIL. [BACKGROUND]
>> I KNOW PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURES, BUT TAKING IT DOWN TO PIPE PARTS, I DON'T THINK FITS WITH IDC LANGUAGE.
[BACKGROUND] I JUST LIKE TO GET A LEGAL OPINION ON THAT.
>> I WOULD HAVE TO GO WITH BRANDON ON THIS ONE. OKAY.
>> I BEG TO DIFFER WITH BRANDON.
>> I'M GOING TO CHANNEL MY ENERGY ON [INAUDIBLE].
ONCE AGAIN, WE HAVE TWO BIG PROJECTS GOING TO CRESCENT ELECTRIC.
IF WE FIT THESE OUT, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL, CHARLES KENWORTHY DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES FOR THE CITY.
>> AGAIN, YOU SHOULD BE ON RADIO.
>> MAYBE WHEN I RETIRE. COUNCIL, REMEMBER, THE REASON WHY WE'RE UTILIZING CRESCENT ELECTRIC IS THEY ARE ON CONTRACT TO PROVIDE THESE TYPES OF SERVICES.
IT'S ALREADY GONE BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
IT'S A COUNCIL-APPROVED CONTRACT, AND IT'S A LOT EASIER TO UTILIZE THEM BECAUSE WE HAVE CONCRETE.
>> I KNOW WE HAVE BOLLARDS, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF BLAH BLAH BLAH, HALF A MILLION FOR MORE BOLLARDS, BUT THEN 11A, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING THE LIGHTING.
[00:50:02]
>> NO, MA'AM. I WENT STRAIGHT TO CRESCENT ELECTRIC BECAUSE THEY'RE ON CONTRACT TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES.
THAT'S WHY I HAVE THAT CONTRACT IN BID.
>> THAT'S 61,000, AND DO WE KNOW WE'RE GETTING THE BEST PRICE? THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN THE BOLLARDS.
>> WE'RE STILL GOING TO PAY THE CONTRACT WAGE RATES FOR BOTH PROJECTS.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A COST MARK UP FOR PARTS.
IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE SAME PROJECT.
YES. IT'S ALL PART OF THE CONTRACT, SO WE'RE GOING TO STICK TO THAT CONTRACT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE EQUIPMENT TO REACH THAT.
>> IT'S JUST LIKE TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN ELECTRICAL PROJECTS THAT WE'RE NOT BIDDING OUT.
>> THEY HAD BEEN BID OUT OF SERVICES.
>> WE EVEN HAD UNIT PRICE CONTRACTING FOR THESE TYPE OF THINGS.
OTHERWISE, IF WE HAD TO STOP AND BID OUT EVERY TIME WE HAD THESE PROJECTS, THESE PROJECTS COULD NEVER GET DONE.
THAT'S WHY CITIES, TXDOT, EVERYBODY DOES THEIR CONTRACTS.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, MARIE?
>> IS THIS GOING TO SHUT TRAFFIC DOWN ANYWHERE?
>> YES. WE'LL PROBABLY CLOSE THE LANE OF TRAFFIC.
>> IS THIS WORK IN THE MEDIAN?
>> I RECALL PREVIOUS WORK IN THE MEETING, THEY REALLY TORE OFF ALL THE OLEANDERS.
>> THE OLEANDERS ARE GOING AWAY.
IT'S PART OF THE OVERALL TXDOT PROJECT, AND ACTUALLY, WE HELD OFF ON THIS BECAUSE WE KEPT THINKING THE TXDOT PROJECT WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THESE LIGHTS, BUT THEY HAVE NOW PUSHED US BACK TO A LETTING DATE OF LATE 26TH, EARLY 27TH, SO WE NEED TO GO AND GET THESE LIGHTS WORKING.
>> THE OLEANDERS ARE ULTIMATELY GOING TO GO AWAY.
>> THE OLEANDERS WILL ULTIMATELY GO AWAY, BUT THESE SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPACT ON ANY OF ANY OLEANDERS, WE'RE JUST REPLACING THE EXISTING POLES AND LIGHTS.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING GOING IN THE OLEANDERS' PLACE?
>> THE MEDIA BECAUSE THEY NEED EVERY INCH OF SPACE BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDING THE ADDITIONAL LANES IN THE NEW PROJECT.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE AN EDITORIAL COMMENT.
THIS SHOULD BE PAID FOR BY TXDOT.
>> WELL, THERE'S A STATE STATUTE THAT SAYS, ONCE A CITY GOES OVER 50,000, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT.
NOW, WHEN WE DROPPED BELOW 50,000, THEY GAVE US TIME WHERE WE STILL MAINTAINED IT, BUT NOW WE'RE BACK OVER 50,000.
THIS HAS BEEN AN ARGUMENT I HAVE HAD WITH TXDOT AND DAN HAS HAD SOME PRETTY HEATED ONES WITH THEM TO GO OVER THIS, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING ALL THE OTHER CITIES OVER 50,000 AS TEXAS CITY AND LAKE CITY ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW.
>> I KNOW IT'S BEEN A POINT OF CONTENTION, YOU'RE STILL WORKING ON IT, BUT THANKS FOR THAT.
>> NOW, THE NEW LIGHT FIXTURES THAT WE'RE PUTTING UP WILL BE CANDELABRA FIXTURES, WHICH HAVE HOIST ON THEM, SO THAT WILL BE MUCH CHEAPER AND EASIER FOR US TO MAINTAIN.
WE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO DO IT IN THE HOUSE WHEN THAT ULTIMATELY GETS DONE.
>> MARIE, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> ARE WE GOING TO CHOOSE, TO YOUR QUESTION, BOB, OR WHOEVER ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE LANES BEING CLOSED, ARE WE GOING TO TIME THAT TO WHEN THERE'S NOT TRAFFIC?
>> AFTER RUSH HOUR IN THE MORNING, AND THEY HAVE TO BE OFF THERE BY 3:34 O'CLOCK?
>> YES, SIR, THREE O'CLOCK. WE HAVE TO FOLLOW TXDOT GUIDELINES.
>> WE HAVE TO SUBMIT A TRAFFIC PLAN.
>> BUT TXDOT GUIDELINES LAY ON CLOSURES ON 45.
>> CRESCENT'S REALLY LOOKED AT THAT.
WE HAVE TO HAVE APPROPRIATE CRASH TRUCKS AND ALL THAT STUFF.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT? THANK YOU.
>> BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS SIDE, SHARON, ANYTHING YOU HAVE?
>> I DID. MAYBE YOU GUYS CAN HELP ME, BUT IT'S THE ONE THAT DEALS WITH THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
I THINK THEY HAD TO REWRITE GUIDELINES OR COME WITH THE STANDARDS.
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS JUST HAD TO DO WITH THE SAFETY ON THERE.
>> SOME OF THE EARLIER REPORTS THAT WE WOULD GET REGARDING PEOPLE BEING INJURED OR WHATEVER ON, AND I THINK I'VE SHARED THIS WITH YOU PROBABLY, DAVID, SOME OF THE ELDERLY ON RIDING THOSE, ARE THERE ANY SPECIFIC SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE CAN HANDLE WITH THE ELDERLY WHO RIDE THOSE AND [INAUDIBLE].
>> YES, MA'AM. WHAT 11O IS FOR THE RAIL SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE AGENCY SAFETY PLANS. ONE FOR THE RAIL.
[00:55:04]
THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE GENERAL FTA REALLY AND TXDOT SSO REALLY HITS US HARD ON.THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS THE BUS SIDE, WHICH WOULD BE ALSO THE ELDERLY 5310 ELDERLY AND DISABLED.
THEY CAME OUT WITH NEW RULES WITHIN THE LAST 45 DAYS FOR THAT AGENCY SAFETY PLAN, OR THAT AGENCY SAFETY PLAN THAT WE HAVE TO REVISE THAT AGAIN THIS YEAR.
IT WILL LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE THERE.
DON'T FORGET, WE'RE A TIER 1 PROVIDER NOW, SO WE'RE IN THE BIG LEAGUES.
WE HAVE TO PLAY BY THE RULES THAT METRO AND DALLAS AND THE REST OF THEM PLAY BY.
PART OF THAT IS, ON THE BUS SIDE OF THE HOUSE, CAN DO THAT AGENCY SAFETY PLAN, WHICH WOULD ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS.
>> IS THERE ANY PERCENTAGE OR TRACKING?
>> YES, MA'AM. WE DO IT INTERNALLY RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE SO SMALL, AND OUR RIDERSHIP IS SMALL.
IT'S 0% ALL THE WAY ACROSS WHAT THEY CONSIDER INJURY COMPLAINTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
THE GOAL IS 0% PER 100,000 MILES.
WE TRACK COMPLAINTS, ACCIDENTS, EVERYTHING INTERNALLY.
WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVIDE THAT AS WELL.
>> IF YOU WOULD. THAT'S GOOD. THANKS.
>> IS THAT AN ANNUAL REPORT YOU-ALL PROVIDE?
WE HAVE TO REVISE IT EVERY YEAR.
IT'S EVERY THREE YEARS THAT GENERALLY YOU GO THROUGH.
>> WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THE SAME REPORTS EVEN THOUGH OUR TRAILER GOES IN A CIRCLE AS THOUGH THEY'RE ON LONG DISTANCE ROUTES.
>> JAMES, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE CAMERAS, PLEASE?
>> MY NAME'S ALBERT, GENERAL MANAGER OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYTHING ELSE, SHARON?
>> YEAH. THIS ACTUALLY GOES BACK TO WHAT MARIE HAD MENTIONED, AND MAYBE BRIAN AND DON, YOU-ALL CAN HELP ME OUT.
IF YOU LOOK AT 11P AND 11Q, AND JUST UTILIZING THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, WELL, ONE THE SCHOOL BOARD SITUATIONS CAME UP LIKE THIS TOO, LIKE THROUGH THE [INAUDIBLE] BOARD, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THIS IS, , IN OTHER WORDS, THIS GOES BACK TO YOUR CONCERN WITH CRESCENT, IS THERE ANY WAY IN THE WORDING OF THESE RFPS THAT WE CAN INCLUDE PERIODIC REVIEW OF PRICING TO WHERE WE HAVE THE ABILITY OF, SAY, EVERY SIX MONTHS TO LOOK AT CERTAIN ITEMS?
>> WE REVIEW IT CONSTANTLY, AND IF WE THINK THE PRICES HAVE GONE DOWN, WE WOULD DO THAT, BUT TYPICALLY, THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH THESE ITEMS. TYPICALLY, WE'RE LOCKED IN ON A PRICE AND THE PRICES ARE GOING UP, SO WE ACTUALLY FEEL PRETTY FAVORABLE ON IT, BUT WE MONITOR THAT STUFF CONSTANTLY.
>> WELL, I GUESS WITH CRESCENT, THERE'S SO MANY ITEMS INVOLVED IN THAT IN THAT RFP AGREEMENT. I COULD UNDERSTAND.
I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THIS IS THE TIME THAT IF YOU HAD CONCERNS, MARIE, THAT YOU WOULD BRING IT UP WITH SIGNING ON FOR LET'S SEE.
>> WHICH PRICES ARE COMING DOWN.
>> WELL, WE HOPE SO, BUT I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE IS AN ABILITY IN THE RFPS TO ACTUALLY PUT IT IN THERE TO SAY WE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO EVERY SIX MONTHS.
>> ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO TERMINATE TOO.
WE TERMINATE IN WHAT? SIXTY DAYS, 30 DAYS.
>> ONLY ASKING THE QUESTION FOR KNOWLEDGE, IS SIMPLY IF WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO PUT THAT IN RFP TO PROTECT OURSELVES WITH SOMEONE THAT MAYBE IS GETTING A LITTLE OUT OF HAND WITH PRICING. THAT'S IT.
THIS IS REALLY JUST FOR EDUCATION.
IT STATES IN THERE THAT DESIGN IS UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW? WHEN IS DESIGN ANTICIPATED TO BE COMPLETED?
>> SOON. THEY WERE ACTUALLY AT 60% DESIGN.
ROBERT WINKIE [PHONETIC], DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE. SORRY.
>> ONCE YOU MOVED A ROUND, YOU CHANGED CHAIRS OVER TO RENE'S [PHONETIC] SIDE.
AS WE GOT KICKED OFF WITH TXDOT, THEY HAD TO BASICALLY START BACK AT 60% FOR THEIR REVIEW.
OTHERWISE, IF THEY ADVANCED TOO FAR, TXDOT WAS GOING TO SAY, NO, THESE PLANS HAVE TO GO BACK.
DESIGN'S UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE TARGETING, I THINK, IT'S A JUNE LATE DATE OF 2025 FOR PUTTING THAT ON THE STREET.
[01:00:04]
>> JUNE '25, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR BOTH SIGNALS AT THE SAME TIME, ONE CONTRACT?
>> ONE IS ONE IS JUNE '25, THE OTHER IS AUGUST.
>> ARE THEY GOING TO USE SULFUR OR BLACK?
I JUST HOPE THEY USE SOMETHING THAT GOES FASTER THAN THE ONES THEY'RE DOING ON 61ST STREET?
>> JUNE AND AUGUST FOR LIGHTING.
>> ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FROM NOTICE PROCEED?
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> SIGNALS, WE TIME ON THE PULSES ALONG THEM.
>> THE BOTTOM LINE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IS THE COURT IS PAYING ALL THE COSTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.
IT'LL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY FOR MANAGEMENT.
>> ONE FINAL, AND THIS IS PROBABLY NOT PART OF THE SCOPE, BUT IT'S JUST EDUCATION.
BRIAN YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS ABOUT THE ONGOING COMPUTERIZATION OF SIGNAL SYSTEMS. I WANTED TO SEE IF THESE TWO SIGNALS AND OR OTHER SIGNALS ALONG HARBOR SIDE ARE ALL CONNECTED ON ONE SYSTEM.
WE ARE ACTUALLY WORKING WITH EGC TO GET A INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM GRANT [INAUDIBLE] ALL THE SIGNALS.
>> THE KEY TO THAT'S GOING TO BE KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF OUR BOXES THEN ADJUST THE SIGNALS.
>> I WAS GOING TO GO THERE, BUT YOU BEAT ME TO IT.
ARE YOU-ALL WORKING ON AN ITS GRANT RIGHT NOW TO COMPUTERIZE ALL THE SIGNALS? THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. MAYOR, THAT'S ALL I HAD.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN FINKLIE. COUNCILMAN BROWN.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. I WAS JUST WONDERING, IS THERE A TARGET NUMBER WE'RE LOOKING FOR FROM THEM?
>> THAT'S A WORK IN PROGRESS RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T KNOW THIS YET, BUT THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON IT.
>> WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A SPECIFIC AMOUNT.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEE IF THEY'RE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE.
>> THOSE MEETINGS ARE ONGOING RIGHT NOW. YES, SIR
>> THE OTHER ONE I HAVE IS 11Z, AND I HAD TROUBLE [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT THE MONUMENT RESTORATIONS.
WHEN WAS THE SIDNEY SHERMAN MONUMENT LAST RESTORED?
>> SIDNEY SHERMAN. THAT'S ONE ON FAR EAST.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHEN IT WAS DONE.
>> IT'D BE MY GUESS. THE SIDNEY SHERMAN.
BUT HE'S GOING TO GET A SCOPE, HE WAS GOING TO GET A SCABBARD.
THERE WAS NO SWORD, IT WAS JUST A SCABBARD.
>> IT'S BROKE, SOMEBODY BROKE IT OFF.
>> BUT IN THE ORIGINAL SCULPTURE, I'M ASKING, WAS THERE A SWORD AND A SCABBARD OR JUST A SCABBARD AND NO SWORD?
>> I DO NOT KNOW. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK.
>> BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF WORK SAYS WE'RE GOING TO PUT THE SCABBARD BACK.
MY QUESTION WAS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE?
>> I CAN'T IMAGINE GENERAL SHERMAN NOT HAVING THAT SWORD.
>> ME NEITHER. WHAT GOOD IS AN EMPTY SCABBARD? ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE DO A LITTLE RESEARCH AND SEE WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY INSTALLED ON THAT SCULPTURE, AND IF IT WAS A SWORD AND SCABBARD, WE PUT BACK.
>> WE'LL PUT IT BACK THE WAY IT WAS.
>> BECAUSE THIS SCOPE OF WORK DOES NOT INDICATE THAT.
>> WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE IF WE CAN GET SOME MORE PICTURES.
>> I'LL SEE IF I CAN RESEARCH.
>> THEN THE HEROES MONUMENT ON 25TH AND BROADWAY, WAS THAT RESTORED NINE YEARS AGO?
>> I'M JUST WONDERING, BRONZE AND [INAUDIBLE] ARE REALLY DURABLE MATERIALS.
I'M JUST WONDERING ARE WE GOING TO BE FACED WITH RESTORING THAT EVERY NINE YEARS?
>> WELL, THIS ISN'T A RESTORATION.
THIS IS MORE OF A MAINTENANCE.
>> YEAH. I UNDERSTAND. THEY DID FIX THIS EARLIER, SO THIS IS MORE OF A MAINTENANCE, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE FACED WITH MAINTENANCE EVERY NINE OR 10 YEARS.
>> THE METHOD THEY'RE USING IS HEAT AND WAX.
IS THERE A DIFFERENT METHOD OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE US A LITTLE MORE UTILITY?
>> IT LOOKS LIKE THEIR GOAL IS TO KEEP THAT BRONZE AND THAT DARK BROWN TAN.
IF YOU DIDN'T DO IT, THE BRONZE WOULD TURN GREEN.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE'RE COMMITTING TO EVERY NINE OR 10 YEARS A RESTORATION ON THAT MONUMENT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE BECAUSE OF THE METHOD WE'RE USING.
I DON'T HAVE RAY HOLBROOK TO CALL ME TO REMIND ME TO DO IT ANYMORE.
>> WE DIDN'T DO IT FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
>> CORRECT. WE'RE WORKING WITH THE GENTLEMAN WHO DOES THIS WORK.
>> SAME ONE DOING [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT IS CORRECT. YES, HE DOES A LOT OF MONUMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING LIKE, SAY, EVERY NINE OR 10 YEARS FOR THESE MONUMENTS.
THAT WORLD WAR II MONUMENT ON 23RD AND BROADWAY IS IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
[01:05:03]
THE ONE THAT HAS THE PEOPLE IN THE COUNTY WHO DIED IN WORLD WAR II.>> YES, IT'S NOTHING BUT GRANITE, BUT IT'S IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IS SHOULD WE PUT THAT ON THE LIST?
>> WE'LL HAVE TO RESEARCH AND SEE.
>> THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A LOCAL MONUMENT COMPANY OR SOMEBODY WE COULD CONTRACT TO DO THAT.
>> THE BENCHES ARE IN REALLY BAD SHAPE.
>> THE BENCHES HAVE BEEN HIT BY CARS.
>> JOINTS ARE ALL FLAILING AND THERE'S BOULDERS EVERYWHERE.
>> I THINK, BOB, WE GOT A QUESTION.
>> I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH A QUOTE.
LEFT-HAND RESTED ON THE SWORD AND ERECTED 1936.
>> WE'LL JUST GO WITH THAT. WE'LL GET THE SWORD.
>> I WAS HERE WHEN THIS WAS DONE.
>> MAYOR KNOW BECAUSE HE WAS FAVORITE SITTER.
>> GAETANO CECERE WAS THE ARTIST AND FUNDS WERE PREPARATED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IT'S A SWORD, NOT A SCABBARD, BO.
>> TAKE YOUR TIME [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT. WE'LL GET IT TAKEN CARE OF.
>> JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT EXTRA BRONZE ON.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, BOB. I'VE GOT JUST A COUPLE REAL QUICKLY, 10B ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE.
>> I HAVE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM THE GALVESTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, WANTING TO BE INCLUDED AS A NON-VOTING MEMBER OF THAT COMMITTEE.
THEY GAVE AN E-MAIL AND LISTED A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY THEY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO BE INTO THAT.
>> WE HAVE TWO ON THERE RIGHT NOW FOR STROKE AND GARAM.
>> STROKE AND GARAM, WHICH ARE BOTH SHORT-TERM RENTAL GROUPS.
THIS IS THE GALVESTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, GAR, WHICH ARE THE REALTORS THROUGHOUT THE ISLAND.
>> SO THAT WOULD BRING OUR TOTAL TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> 13, BUT STILL KEEP THE SAME NUMBER OF VOTES WHICH WOULD BE 7.
>> [NOISE] THAT IS CORRECT. YES, SIR.
>> DO YOU COVER [OVERLAPPING].
>> MY QUESTION ON 11. GOOD MORNING AGAIN.
MY QUESTION IS THIS REPLACING CURRENT BOARDS THAT WERE OLD-TYPE BOARDS?
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE WRITE-UP, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY REPLACING BOARDS THAT ARE THERE.
>> THE ORIGINAL ONES THAT IS THEY'RE BEGINNING TO FAIL.
>> WE'RE GOING BACK WITH A MORE ROBUST [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN IT'LL MAKE THEM ALL CONTINUE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE NEW ONES PUT OFF A LOT MORE LIGHT.
>> THEY'RE CHEAPER AND THEY'RE MORE ROBUST.
>> THEY'RE GOING TO BE RELOCATED BACK ON THE STRIPES WHERE THEY BELONG.
>> YES. I SET THEM IN THE MIDDLE, SO THE CAR [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE CAR DOORS HAVE BEEN HITTING THEM AND THEY GET [OVERLAPPING] ALL THE TIME.
>> THIS WILL FINISH THE STRETCH FROM 6TH STREET TO 61ST.
>> FROM THERE WEST, THE PERMIT ALLOWS US TO GO TO 103RD STREET.
>> YES. [BACKGROUND] MONEY BECOMES AVAILABLE AND WE KEEP GOING.
>> THAT'S GOOD. BOB, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? [BACKGROUND]
>> 6TH TO 61ST IS WHAT [BACKGROUND]
>> APPRECIATE IT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH OUR CLARIFICATION. ITEM STAN.
THOSE THAT WE'RE HERE FOR CLARIFICATION, GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.
>> ONE QUESTION. ARE YOU LOOKING KINDLY ON ADDING THE GALVESTON REALTORS?
>> I PREFER TO LEAVE THE COMMITTEE AS IT IS AS WELL BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY A BIG NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
>> [BACKGROUND] I WOULD SIDE IT LATER.
>> I KNOW YOU'RE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SUPPORTIVE OF IT [BACKGROUND] YES, YOU HAVE FROM 12-13, BUT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE VOTING NUMBER, WHICH IS THE PART THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
>> YOU'LL HAVE ONE VERSION WITH THEM HERE, ONE VERSION WITH THEM [BACKGROUND].
>> JANELLE. COULD YOU READ ITEM 3, PLEASE, MA'AM?
[3.B. Presentation And Receipt Of Agreed-Upon Procedures Report - Final Draft Regarding The Processes Of The Park Board Of Trustees, A Component Unit Of The City Of Galveston, For The Period Of October 1, 2019, Through March 31, 2024. (Ludanyi -10 Min))]
DISCUSSION OF THE CITY OF DALLAS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES DURING COMMITTEE COMPOSITION.
>> COUNSEL, IF YOU MAY REMEMBER, JUST ONE SECOND.
[01:10:01]
WE GOT TO CLEAR OUT.[NOISE] VERY GOOD. JUST ONE SECOND, LET THEM CLEAR OUT.
[NOISE] AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, COUNSEL, WE HAD APPROVED A LITTLE WHILE BACK DOING AN AUDIT FOR THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
THIS IS A REPORT ON THAT PARTICULAR AUDIT.
IT IS ITEM 11 B ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA, SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL BE ADDRESSING COMING UP THIS AFTERNOON. DO YOU HAVE [OVERLAPPING]
>> [BACKGROUND] YOU HAVE ADVANCED [BACKGROUND] SO THIS WILL BE OUR TIME FOR DISCUSSION.
YOU CAN COME FORWARD IF YOU LIKE.
>> I THINK YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
>> I HAVE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AND I HAVE THE AUDITORS HERE AS WELL, THEY CAN PROBABLY ANSWER MORE QUESTIONS THAN I.
>> OKAY. LET'S BRING THE AUDITOR FORWARD.
>> IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE CAMERAS?
>> PATRICK SIMMONS WHITLEY PENN.
>> GLAD TO HAVE YOU, PATRICK IN HERE.
>> YOU HAD A SERIES OF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO GO ON OVER THOSE.
IF WE ARE, AND THIS IS A QUESTION FOR DON.
DON, IF WE ARE TO SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH FOLLOWING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND MAKING THAT OFFICIAL TO THE PARK BOARD, CAN WE DO THAT IN THIS ITEM THIS AFTERNOON, OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO? [OVERLAPPING].
>> THIS IS A CONSIDERATION OF THE RECEIPT OF ACTION TO SUBMIT THE PARK BOARD AND AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES REPORT.
>> IF THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS AUDIT, DO WE NEED TO TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION OTHER THAN THIS TO REQUEST THAT THE PARK BOARD FOLLOW THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND GIVE US A WRITTEN REPORT OF THE STATUS OF THEIR COMPLIANCE?
IF WE COULD PUT THAT ON THEN FOR OUR JANUARY AGENDA, CADEL.
>> YOU NEED TO HAVE A SEPARATE ITEM THEN TO ADDRESS GETTING APPROVAL IF COUNSEL WANTS TO DO THAT. OKAY.
>> DID YOU HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON HERE AS CLEVED B.
EXCUSE ME. YOU HAVE IT AS AN ACTION ITEM.
11A NOW, EXCUSE ME, 11B IS JUST FOR THE EXCEPTIONS.
>> NO. IT SAYS, CONSIDERATION OF THE RECEIPT, AND ACTION TO SUBMIT TO THE PARK BOARD.
AGREED UPON PROCEDURES REPORT.
>> VERY GOOD. SO WE CAN HAVE IT IN THE MOTION.
MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO REQUEST THAT THEY FILE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE COMPLIANCE.
>> THANK YOU. [BACKGROUND] YES.
>> JUST TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A CONSENT ITEM, SO IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT WE NEED, IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE NEED TO PULL THIS OUT SEPARATELY AND ASK FOR A REPORT BACK?
>> MAKE SENSE BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT OTHERWISE, IT'S JUST SUBMITTING THE REPORT.
>> VERY GOOD. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
>> I'LL LET PATRICK SPEAK TO THE CONTENTS OF THE AUDIT.
>> WILL DO. AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE ARE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS REPORT, AND AT THE SAME TIME, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DETAIL YOU WANT ME TO GO INTO, BUT I'LL HIT THE HIGH LEVELS OF THE PROCEDURES WE DID AND THE RESULTS.
BUT FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT THE PARK BOARD WAS VERY RECEPTIVE TO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR ANY DISCUSSIONS WE HAD, IN ADDITION TO MOST OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT HAD HAPPENED IN THE PAST, HAVE ALREADY BEEN CORRECTED AS WELL, SO IT WENT PRETTY SMOOTHLY OVERALL.
[01:15:04]
THE FIRST THING WE DID WAS WE LOOKED AT HOT FUND TRANSFERS, IF THERE WERE ANY FROM A HOT FUND TO A NON-HOT FUND AND COMING IN A WAY, YES.A NON-HOT FUND, LIKE ONE OF THEIR ENTERPRISE FUNDS.
THEY DID MOVE ONE AND 22 FROM TOURISM DEVELOPMENT TO SEE WHAT PARK FOR 26,000 AND SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE SUPPORT FOR THAT ONE.
THEY ALSO TOOK ADVERTISING REVENUE FROM THAT FUND, AND SO THEY HAD $188,000 IN ADVERTISING REVENUE, WHICH EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF THE TRANSFER.
WITHIN EACH FUND IS THE WAY THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM IS SET UP, THEY ARE COMING HOT FUNDS AND NON-HOT FUNDS.
IT'S JUST NOT THE MOST EFFICIENT PRACTICE TO DO IT THAT WAY, AND SO WE DID DISCUSS DIFFERENT WAYS OF TRACKING THOSE AND ACTUALLY BREAKING OUT ANY EXPENDITURE, FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S NOT ALLOWABLE. AND NOT ALLOWABLE [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU CAN HAVE THEM IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA WITHOUT HAVING THEM COMING IN?
>> YES. YOU CAN HAVE ONE FUND FOR ALL NON-HOT EXPENDITURES.
IF THERE ARE ANY THAT ARE NOT ALLOWABLE, USE A HOT FUND, PUT THEM IN A SEPARATE FUND FOR TRACKING, AND THEN YOU CAN BRING IN ALL YOUR ADVERTISING REVENUE THERE.
BUT THEY HAVE REASONS WHY THEY'VE DONE IT THIS WAY IN THE PAST AND THEY LIKE TO TRACK IT BY LOCATION.
BUT WE DISCUSSED MAYBE SETTING THE FUND UP DIFFERENTLY AND THEN HAVING LOCATIONS [OVERLAPPING].
>> TWO FUNDS PER LOCATION, ONE HOT, ONE NON-HOT.
>> THAT'S SIMILAR. THEY HAVE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S IT'S ONE HOT FUND AND THEN NON-HOT AND HOT WITHIN THAT FUND.
>> YOU'RE SAYING JUST KEEP IT TAKE THAT EXTRA STEP OUT AND KEEP IT SEPARATE IN THAT LOCATION?
>> YOU DON'T EVEN NEED ONE NON-HOT FUND FOR EACH FUND, YOU CAN JUST HAVE ONE NON-HOT FUND AND THEN HAVE LOCATIONS WITHIN THE FUND.
>> BECAUSE THEY'RE KEEPING IT IN THE SAME FUND AND THE FUND IS GENERATING INTEREST, SO HOT INTEREST STAYS HOT VERSUS NOT LIKE HOW WOULD THEY EVEN THAT'S MAKING IT SO CONVOLUTED.
>> HOW WOULD YOU TRACK THAT INTEREST? I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES DIFFICULT, I GUESS.
>> YES, THERE SHOULD BE A MONTHLY RECONCILIATION WHERE THEY DO A PORTION AND ALLOCATE A PORTION OF INTEREST TO HOT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S WHY IT'S COMPLICATED AND IT TAKES TIME.
>> THAT MAKES MORE SENSE TO SEPARATE.
BUT WHAT PERPLEXED ME IN PARTICULAR ABOUT, SEAWOLF PARK IS THE REVENUE GENERATED, WHY WOULD YOU BE TRANSFERRING FUNDS INTO SEAWOLF PARK?
>> IT WAS FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN IT WAS A MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR, SO I THINK IT WAS SPECIFIC AND IT WAS BOARD-APPROVED AT THAT POINT IN TIME FOR A SPECIFIC EXPENDITURE.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED THERE WAS BOARD-APPROVED.
>> WAS IT REVIEWED OR NOT REVIEWED OR ACCURATE OR INACCURATE?
>> YES. BUT I THINK THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AND SO [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHY WOULD YOU USE THE FUNDS GENERATED FROM THE PARK TO COVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THE PARK?
>> THAT'S A QUESTION WE HAVE TO ASK.
>> A LOT OF QUESTIONS, DISCUSSIONS, AND RESULTS REALLY SURROUNDED BACK AND JUST CAME UP WITH A BETTER SYSTEM AND THEY HAVE IMPROVED ON SO YOU'LL SEE FURTHER IN THE REPORT PRIOR TO 2022, THEY DIDN'T REALLY DO THIS AT ALL, AND SO THEY ADDRESSED THAT STARTING IN 2022, THEY ADDRESSED THAT SO THEY SPLIT OUT THE PORTION THAT WAS RESTRICTED FOR IT VERSUS NON-RESTRICTED, AND THEN 2022 AND 2023 ARE SPLIT OUT, BUT JUST BEHIND THE SCENES IN THE WEEDS RESTRICTED.
THEY WERE VERY RECEPTIVE TO THAT AND A LOT OF THINGS JUST GETTING TOGETHER AND TALKING ABOUT THEM AND THEY LEARNED FROM WHAT WE'VE SEEN AT OTHER PLACES AND AT THE CITY AND HOW THEY TRACK IT, SO THEY FOUND THAT REALLY USEFUL.
PROBABLY MAY STILL BE IN TOUCH WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY GET IT BAILED DOWN THE RIGHT WAY.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TEST YOU WITH IS A FIVE-YEAR PLAN, BUT A LOT OF THINGS SEEM TO CHANGE IN 2018 GOING FORWARD, WHICH MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT TEN YEARS OR SOMETHING.
BUT IT WAS READING THROUGH THIS, I HAVE, I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU ALL THE QUESTIONS TODAY BECAUSE THEY NEED TO ANSWER THEM.
BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE DO YOU THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE EFFECTIVE TO HAVE GONE BACK TO 2018 WHERE I MEAN DRAMATIC CHANGES,
[01:20:02]
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES?>> YES. THAT'S [BACKGROUND] DECISION ON WHAT YOU ALL FIND USEFUL, BUT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATIVE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY REALLY TOOK OVER AND IMPLEMENTED STARTING AROUND 2022.
A LOT OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE DEFICITS THAT WERE CREATED WERE CREATED BEFORE THE CURRENT MANAGEMENT, AND MAN AT LEAST THE CURRENT CFO.
A LOT OF THE ISSUES SEEM TO ALREADY BE FIXED OR THEY'RE NOT FIXED, HE'S TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WAYS TO FIX THEM AND USING THIS AS A WAY TO DO THAT.
WOULD IT BE HELPFUL TO GO BACK FURTHER, MAYBE, BUT ALSO HE SEEMS TO HAVE THE MINDSET THAT IF WE KNOW WHAT'S WRONG, LET'S FIX IT NOW AND GO FORWARD.
>> COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND I THINK THESE ARE GOOD, THAT PATRICK CAN'T ANSWER THESE MORE OPERATIONAL ISSUES PARK BOARD HAS.
BOB, IF YOU'LL MAKE A NOTE OF IT, WE'VE GOT A JOINT MEETING, IT'S ON OUR SCHEDULE ON OUR AGENDA TODAY TO LOOK AT OUR 2025 CALENDAR AND ITS PROGRAM JOINT MEETINGS AND OUR FIRST JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD'S PROGRAM FOR JANUARY IN OUR COUNCIL MEETING.
THE COUNCIL REQUESTED ALL THESE JOINT MEETINGS BE HELD AT THE SAME TIME AS OUR WORKSHOP, SO MAKE A NOTE OF THOSE, BOB, AND WE COULD GET AN AGENDA I NOT SHOULD KNOW RIGHT NOW, MAKE SURE THOSE RANGED.
>> TALKING ABOUT THESE JOINT MEETINGS REAL QUICKLY.
WE'D ALSO DETERMINED THAT WE WOULD SEPARATE ON SEAWOLF PARK.
IS THAT FOR THE JANUARY MEETING?
>> WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT AS A COUNCIL. YES, SIR.
>> PARK BOARD HAS BEEN AUDITED ABOUT SEVEN TIMES IN THE LAST TWO AND A HALF YEARS AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING AN AUDIT BY HAMLIN.
HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THAT OR VICE VERSA?
WE LOOKED AT ABOUT FOUR YEARS OF AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND PERFORMED PROCEDURES ON THOSE, WE CHECKED THE CLERICAL ACCURACY OF FOOTED CROSSBUG.
WE TIED OUT EVERY STATEMENT TO WHAT THEY SHOW IN THEIR SYSTEM CURRENTLY.
FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AUDIT ONLY THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT COULD IMPACT IT IN MINOR WAYS, I GUESS, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION, SUCH AS WE RECOMMENDED THEY HAD SOMETHING IN RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE FOR GRANTS, BUT REALLY THEY HADN'T SPENT THE GRANT MONEY YET, SO IT SHOULD BE UNDER REVENUE.
IN ESSENCE, NOT A BIG DEAL, AND IT'S A COMMON ERROR WE SEE.
>> DON'T ADD YOUR GRANTS TO YOUR REVENUE BECAUSE THEN IT PUMPS UP YOUR REVENUE NUMBERS, AND IT SHOULD JUST BE.
>> YES. 120,000 OR SO IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
BUT THEY KEPT IT RESTRICTED FOR GRANTS, SO IT IS BROKEN OUT FROM EVERYTHING ELSE SEPARATELY, SO IN ESSENCE, IT WORKS THE SAME WAY.
>> IS THE RESTRICTED PURPOSE WHEN YOU CAN PURPOSE?
>> YES. EXCEPT FOR THAT GRANT, AND SO THEY HAVE IT BROKEN OUT, BUT TECHNICALLY IT SHOULD BE UNDER REVENUE AND AS A LIABILITY.
THEN THEY DO ALSO, THIS IS MORE OF ACCOUNTING SPEAK, BUT THEY COMMINGLED GOVERNMENT-WIDE, SO THEIR CAPITAL ASSETS AND THEIR LONG-TERM DEBT OR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS ARE IN WITH THEIR FUND STATEMENTS.
LIKE THE CITY, LIKE YOU ALL HAVE IT BROKEN OUT INTO A SEPARATE FUND FOR THE GOVERNMENT-WIDE ITEMS, SO WHEN THE AUDITORS COME IN, THEY CAN CLEARLY SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO, BUT AT THE PARK BOARD, IT'S ALL IN ONE, SO IT MAKES IT PRETTY DIFFICULT TO FILL THINGS OUT.
>> YES, THEY HAD JUST NEVER SEEN IT DONE ANOTHER WAY BEFORE.
>> ACTUALLY, BRYSON HAD SEEN IT DONE THAT WAY BEFORE AT HIS PREVIOUS JOB AND SAID THAT IT WAS A GREAT IDEA.
WE NEED TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER FOR THE AUDITORS TOO AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE STATEMENTS ARE CORRECT.
THEY MIGHT MAKE THAT CHANGE THIS YEAR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 AUDIT, BUT NONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS HERE WOULD IMPACT ANY TYPE OF FINDINGS AT THE AUDIT.
>> AND THE CURRENT AUDIT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ALL THE [BACKGROUND]
>> THE BIGGEST RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU WOULD BE SEPARATING THE NON HOT AND HOT FUNDS.
>> THAT'S THE BIG REVEAL TO KEEP THOSE SEPARATE IN THE FUND.
>> THAT'S THE GLOBAL RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD SAY.
THEY'VE IMPLEMENTED PIECES TO FIND BETTER WAYS TO DO IT, BUT THEY'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK AT LEAST.
THEY'RE DOING IT. IT MAY BE TAKING MORE WORK TO DO THAN IT NEEDS TO IF THEY WERE TO DO IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY.
>> CAN YOU GO THROUGH ALL YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS BECAUSE READING THROUGH THIS I CAME OUT WITH MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS.
[01:25:06]
>> MY INITIAL THOUGHTS ARE TO, I CAN ADD AS PART OF THIS REPORT, TO ACTUALLY LIST OUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS EXPLICITLY.
>> THAT WOULD BE GOOD. NOT TO PUSH YOU, CAN THAT POSSIBLY BE DONE, BROUGHT BACK TO US THIS AFTERNOON IN OUR REGULAR MEETING?
IF WE COULD PROVIDE THAT TO COUNSEL SO WE CAN SEE THAT LIST DIRECTLY.
SOUNDS GOOD. I'M SORRY, PATRICK, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> I WANT TO HEAR MORE [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S WHAT THE AGENDA ITEM IS.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY MORE YOU WANTED TO MENTION, PATRICK, AT THIS POINT?
>> I CAN GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE REPORT, BUT NOTHING RELATED TO THE OTHER.
>> THE NUMBERS 2 AND 3 WERE COMBINED, AND WE JUST NOTED THEY DID THEIR COST ALLOCATION PLAN.
THE LAST TIME IT WAS DONE WAS BASED ON 2018 DATA.
IT SAID THAT HOT EXPENSES MADE UP 81% COMPARED TO 19% IN NON HOT, BUT THEY'VE BEEN CHARGING LESS THAN THAT.
THEY'VE BEEN ALLOCATING LESS AS A MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH.
THEY RECOUPED A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT OVERALL THEY'RE STILL UNDER WHAT THEIR COST ALLOCATION PLAN WAS.
BUT OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO GET AN UPDATED PLAN THERE.
>> THAT'S THE MAXIMUM STUDY THAT THEY USE TO SUPPORT THEIR [INAUDIBLE]
>> RIGHT. THEN WE NOTED THE GENERAL FUND RUNS THAT DEFICIT, WHICH ALSO TELLS ME THEY'RE USING IT LIKE AN INTERNAL SERVICE FUND, AND THEY'RE NOT CHARGING ALL OF THEIR COSTS EACH YEAR.
THAT FUND SHOULDN'T RUN A DEFICIT.
THEY NEED TO CHARGE OUT ALL THE COSTS TO ALL THE OTHER FUNDS AND LET THE OTHER FUNDS PICK IT UP, OR ELSE YOU HAVE THIS MAKE BELIEVE FUND OVER HERE RUNNING A DEFICIT.
THEN THE DEFICIT AS OF 9/30/'23 WAS 1.4 MILLION IN THAT GENERAL FUND.
THEN ON PAGE 4, JUST TO ESTIMATE THE TOTAL DEFICIT IN THE ENTERPRISE FUND, WE USE THAT 75%, 25%, AND CALCULATED THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS HAD A DEFICIT OF ABOUT THREE MILLION.
WE NOTED THOSE ALL REALLY STARTED BEFORE FISCAL YEAR 2020, SO THOSE DEFICITS HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE.
BUT YOU ALL ARE AWARE THAT THERE'S A PLAN IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THOSE.
WE REVIEWED THE PLANS AS WELL.
BUT THEN WE ALSO NOTED THAT MANY OF THE COSTS THAT ARE IN THESE NON-HOT FUNDS, THERE'S DEFINITELY STRONG POSSIBILITY A LOT OF THOSE EXPENSES IN THERE ARE ALLOWABLE USE OF HOT FUNDS.
EVEN THOUGH WE'RE CALLING THEM NON-HOT FUNDS, THEY MAY STILL BE ALLOWABLE USES, SOME OF THE EXPENSES IN THERE.
THEN OUR RECOMMENDATION THERE WAS JUST TO DETERMINE THE BETTER WAY OF ACCOUNTING FOR HOT, NON-HOT, AND WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THESE OTHER ITEMS. THEN NUMBER 4, WE LOOKED AT THE GRANTS AWARDED TO THIRD PARTIES, SO THE JUNETEENTH PROGRAM.
THEY HAD EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION FROM EACH PERSON THAT HAD RECEIVED FUNDS.
WE SELECTED A SAMPLE OF THREE, AND THEY HAD REACHED OUT TO HIM.
SOME OF THEM HAVE TO PAY BACK SOME FUNDS, AND THERE WAS EXTENSIVE DOCUMENTATION.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE HOLDING THOSE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, AND THOSE AMOUNTS CORRECTLY.
WE GOT THE OPEN RECORDS REQUEST FROM FEMA.
THE TOTAL DISPERSED OVER FROM FISCAL YEAR '20 TO AUGUST 2024 WAS 2.2 MILLION.
WHEN WE COMPARED THAT TO WHAT WAS IN THEIR ACTUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, IT WAS VERY CLOSE.
IT WAS WITHIN $27,000, AND THAT COULD BE JUST DUE TO TIMING, OR THAT 27,000 MIGHT HAVE GONE INTO A DIFFERENT LINE ITEM ON THE STATEMENTS.
BUT THAT WAS REASONABLE, WE THOUGHT.
THEN WE SELECTED A SAMPLE OF FIVE TO SEE IF THE MONEY THAT THEY GOT REIMBURSED WENT INTO THE ORIGINAL FUND WHERE THE MONEY WAS SPENT FOR THOSE FEMA PROJECTS, AND WE DIDN'T NOTE ANY ISSUES THERE.
IT ALL WENT BACK INTO THE SAME FUND.
THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE RECEIVABLE.
THEY HAD A RECEIVABLE ON THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FROM FEMA OF 5.7 MILLION AS OF SEPTEMBER 30, 2023, AND THEN [INAUDIBLE] SAID THEY HAD 5.6 MILLION.
VERY CLOSE. REASONABLE. COMPLEX THE WAY [INAUDIBLE] GIVES US THE REPORT, SO IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.
NOTE THAT THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAYABLES BACK TO FEMA.
THEY HAD NO NEGATIVES. NUMBER 7 WAS JUST FOOTING AND CROSS-FOOTING ALL THE REPORTS.
[01:30:06]
FISCAL YEAR '20, AS I'M SURE SOME OF YOU WERE AWARE, HAD SOME ISSUES, INCLUDING SOME MINOR THINGS.BUT THEN LOOKING AT '21 AND '23, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY OF THAT IN THERE.
WE DID SEE SOME TIE-OUT ISSUES WITH FUNDS NOT BALANCING IN 2021.
BUT THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED ALREADY.
NUMBER 8 IS THE TIE OUT WHERE WE TOOK THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND COMPARED IT TO WHAT THEY HAD IN THEIR SYSTEM.
NONE OF THE DISCREPANCIES APPEARED TO BE INDICATIVE OF ANY WRONGDOING, OR PURPOSEFUL BOOKING SOMETHING WRONG.
I THINK A LOT OF IT IS COMMINGLING THAT GOVERNMENT-WIDE STUFF IN THERE, AND SO IT'S NOT GOING TO TIE AT THIS POINT UNLESS WE REALLY DUG IN AND TRIED TO BACK INTO EVERYTHING.
BUT THE FUND BALANCE ULTIMATELY CAME BACK TO THE SAME NUMBER AT THE END OF EACH YEAR, EVENTUALLY.
THEN NUMBER 9, WE JUST COMPARED THE BUDGET TO THE REPORT.
THE APPROVED BUDGET. WE DIDN'T NOTE ANY ISSUES THERE.
NUMBER 10 WAS THE FUND BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD, AND WE DID HAVE THAT ISSUE IN THE 2021 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WHERE THE FUNDS DIDN'T BALANCE, AND THAT WAS CORRECTED THE NEXT YEAR, BUT IT WAS UNUSUAL.
THEY'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT.
THEN NUMBER 11 IS WHERE WE LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL FUND BALANCE RESTRICTIONS.
THE FIRST ONE WE LOOKED AT WAS RESTRICTED FOR DEBT SERVICE.
IN THE REPORT, IT WASN'T REAL CLEAR.
IT ONLY HAD 45,000 RESTRICTED FOR AND IT MENTIONED THE OIL SPILL MONEY.
BUT THEN WHEN WE DUG INTO IT A LITTLE MORE, THERE WAS RESIDUAL FUNDS FOR THE SERIES 1999 IMPROVEMENT FUND THAT WAS STILL IN THERE.
IN THE REPORT THEY'RE GOING TO BREAK THAT OUT A LITTLE BETTER, OR SEE WHERE THAT MONEY NEEDS TO GO, IF IT CAN GO TO THEIR GENERAL FUND OR WHATNOT.
BECAUSE THIS IS JUST OLD MONEY.
THEN PAGE 14, SO THE RESTRICTED FOR HOT WE NOTED WAS INCORRECT PRIOR TO 2022, BUT IT APPEARS TO BE CORRECT NOW, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION ON TRACKING THAT BETTER.
THEN THIS IS WHERE WE HAD THE [INAUDIBLE] HAD THE 124,000 IN RESTRICTED FUND BALANCE FOR GRANTS, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER REVENUE.
THAT RECOMMENDATION, IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE, BASICALLY, BECAUSE THAT AMOUNT LOOKED LIKE IT HAD BEEN RESTRICTED FOR GRANTS FOR MULTIPLE YEARS, SO THEY'RE SAVING IT FOR THAT GRANT PROJECT.
THEN PAGE 15, NOTED THE DEFICIT DISCLOSURE AND THE REPORT JUST NEEDED SOME IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE IT ASSUMED THE DEFICIT FOR THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS WAS OFFSET BASICALLY BY THE INVESTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS, SO EACH ENTERPRISE FUND HAS A POSITIVE CAPITAL ASSET NUMBER, AND THEN THE DEFICIT IN THAT FUND WAS TAKING THAT IN THERE, BUT THEY CAN'T JUST SELL ALL THOSE ASSETS AND RUN AT A POSITIVE.
THAT'S NOT A REAL NUMBER IN THERE.
THE PLAN THAT YOU-ALL APPROVED, THAT ADDRESSES IT CORRECTLY.
BUT JUST A NOTE DISCLOSURE IN THE REPORT, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO EXCLUDE THAT CAPITAL ASSET NUMBER.
THE COMMITTED FUND BALANCE, VERY SMALL.
IT WAS A NEGATIVE $1,500 IN THE LAST REPORT.
THE NEGATIVE COMMITTED FUND BALANCE SHOULDN'T EXIST.
THEY AGREED THAT THEY NEED TO CORRECT THAT.
THEN PAGE 16, STARTING ON NUMBER 13, THE HOT FUND.
FIRST THING WE DID WAS WE DOWNLOADED ALL THE TAXABLE RECEIPTS FROM THE STATE, AND WE CALCULATED BASED ON 9%.
BUT WE HAD FIRST COMPARED THEIR DISTRIBUTION REPORTS THAT THEY DO EVERY MONTH, WHICH IS HOW MUCH THEY COLLECT, TO THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
THAT'S THAT TABLE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 16.
EVERYTHING CAME BACK TO THE NUMBERS THAT WERE ON THEIR DISTRIBUTION REPORTS, EXCEPT FOR IN '21 WHERE THEY HAD SWITCHED TO A MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS, SO CHANGE IN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES.
I THINK THEY PICKED UP TWO MORE MONTHS BECAUSE THEY GET THE HOTEL TAX RECEIPTS TWO MONTHS BEHIND, SO THEY PICKED UP TWO MONTHS AND CAUGHT UP.
THEN IN '23, WHENEVER THEY SWITCHED TO THE WAY THE TAXES ARE REMITTED BETWEEN THE CITY AND [INAUDIBLE] THERE'S A CHANGE THERE.
BUT THEN WE COMPARED IT TO WHAT THE STATE SAID THEY HAD FOR TAXABLE RECEIPTS.
THE TABLE AT THE TOP OF PAGE 17 IS INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THAT IN 2020, THEY CALCULATED THE PARK BOARD SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED 18.6 MILLION,
[01:35:01]
BUT THEN THEY ONLY RECEIVED 16 MILLION, AND SO 2020 AND 2021 WERE BEFORE YOU-ALL APPROVED THE ORDINANCES FOR AIRBNB TO REMIT THOSE TAXES.>> BECAUSE THAT'S HOW MUCH WE WERE MISSING.
CLOSE TO THAT NUMBER, BUT SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU SEE THE IMPACT ON '22, AND NOW IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE COLLECTING MORE.
BUT THAT'S JUST A REAL SIMPLE CALCULATION THAT WE DO, JUST TO SEE IF IT'S REASONABLE.
IT'S BETTER TO SEE IT THE OTHER WAY FOR SURE.
WE THOUGHT THAT WAS INTERESTING.
>> BUT ARE WE COLLECTING MORE?
>> IT'S JUST A SIMPLE CALCULATION THAT WE DO.
THE STATE REPORT, THEY OFFER AN EXEMPTION THAT THE CITY DOESN'T OFFER.
>> YOU GET 1% BACK FOR COLLECTING AND REMITTING IT YOURSELF INSTEAD OF HAVING SOMEONE ELSE DO IT.
>> BECAUSE WE CALCULATE OFF THE NET TAXABLE VALUE.
I THINK THAT'S WHY IT'S DIFFERENT.
>> PROBABLY ABOUT 2% BECAUSE PEOPLE GET MORE.
>> JUST TIMING DIFFERENCES TOO.
ANYWAY, THOSE ARE ALL GOOD THINGS TO SEE THERE.
THEN NUMBER 14 WAS JUST INTERFUND BALANCES.
WE JUST HAD A RECOMMENDATION TO CONSIDER NETTING SOME OF THOSE DOWN.
IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT IT IS CLEANER AND LESS EFFORT ON THEIR SIDE TO TRACK.
THEN WE ALSO DISCUSSED REPORTING ONE ENTERPRISE FUND INSTEAD OF FIVE OR SIX.
IN THE REPORT, YOU CAN STILL SHOW THE SIX FUNDS OR WHATNOT, BUT REPORT ONE OPINION.
>> MUCH CLEANER. ON THE FACE OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE OBVIOUS THE TOTAL IMPACT OF THOSE ENTERPRISE FUNDS. LESS PAPER.
THEY JUST WEREN'T AWARE THAT WAS AN OPTION, AND IN LINE WITH THAT, POSSIBLY REPORTING ONE HOT FUND AS AN OPINION UNIT WHEN YOU SPLIT OUT [INAUDIBLE] AND SUCH.
THEY WERE RECEPTIVE TO THAT TOO.
THEY JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS AN OPTION, OR FELT LIKE THAT MIGHT LEAD TO LESS TRANSPARENCY.
BUT AS LONG AS YOU HAVE IT IN THE REPORT STILL BROKEN OUT I THINK IT'S USEFUL.
THEN THE OTHER ITEMS, REALLY NO MORE RECOMMENDATIONS ON ANY OF THE OTHER ONES.
WE LOOKED AT CAPITAL ASSETS, THE CALCULATION FOR NET INVESTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS.
WE LOOKED AT THEIR CONTROLS ON PAYROLL, TRANSACTIONS, NON-PAYROLL, AND CAPITALIZATION AND DISPOSALS, AND DIDN'T NOTE ANY ISSUES WITH ANY OF THOSE. THAT'S ALL I HAD.
>> THAT'S VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> ARE THERE ANY ACTIONS NEEDED BY THE PARK BOARD ON ANY OF THIS?
>> WE HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS IN HERE, I BELIEVE.
>> HE'S GOING TO PUT THAT LIST TOGETHER BEFORE MEETING.
>> HE'S GOING TO PUT IT TOGETHER SO YOU GUYS CAN VOTE ON IT.
>> I'M JUST SAYING THE PARK BOARD [INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK YOUR VOTE THIS EVENING WILL DIRECT THE PARK BOARD.
>> IN THAT MOTION, YOU SHOULD BRING FORWARD THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE'LL HIGHLIGHT THAT IN THE MOTION, AND REQUIRE A WRITTEN COMPLIANCE REPORT FROM THE PARK BOARD THAT THEY MAKE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ON IT.
>> VERY GOOD. [INAUDIBLE] ANY QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENTS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
DID YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK AT THIS POINT, COUNSEL?
>> LET'S TAKE A BREAK. [BACKGROUND] WE ARE NOW LIVE, COUNSEL.
WE ARE TELEVISING, AND WE ARE BACK.
WE ARE BACK INTO WORKSHOP SESSION, AND WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE OUR ORDER HERE.
OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA WAS ITEM 3(D), BUT WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THE ORDER, MOVING DOWN TO ITEM 3(F).
[3.F. Discussion Of Charter Changes And Process (Brown - 30 Min)]
WE ARE NOW AT 3(F).JANELLE, IF YOU WOULD READ THAT, PLEASE.
>> DISCUSSION OF CHARTER CHANGES AND THE PROCESS.
>> COUNSEL, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ON OUR AGENDA TODAY.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN A COUNSEL REQUEST TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL CHARTER CHANGES.
WE HAVE NARROWED THAT DOWN, COUNSEL'S INPUT TO FIVE OR SIX SUBJECTS.
I HAVE IT DOWN TO SEVEN SUBJECTS HERE.
ONE OF THOSE SUBJECTS IS MOVING FORWARD NOW WITH
[01:40:02]
THE 421 STRUCTURE FOR COUNSEL PARTICIPATION AND AT LARGE POSITIONS.IF WE MAKE ANY CHANGES AND MOVE FORWARD, COUNSEL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
WE'RE ON A VERY FAST TIME SCHEDULE IF WE WANT TO GET THESE ON THE MAY AGENDA.
COMING UP AT '25, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION AT OUR JANUARY MEETING COMING UP HERE FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THOSE PARTICULAR ACTION ITEMS. AS I MENTIONED, ONE OF THE FIRST ONES, THERE ARE 421 PARTICIPATION OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.
DON, IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE THE SUBJECT AND INTRODUCE MR. HEATH WHO'S WITH US TODAY.
BOB HEATH IS REPORTING WITH THE STAFF FIRM.
HE'S BEEN DOING REDISTRICTING SINCE I KNOW PROBABLY THE '80S.
HE'S DONE THE CITY'S REDISTRICTING FOR; POOR BOB DOESN'T WANT TO CONFESS HOW MANY YEARS.
HE WAS THE COUNSEL WHO DREW THE REDISTRICTING IN 4-2-1 IN 2000 THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE DECLINED TO APPROVE.
HE HELPED US DO THE 2000 REDISTRICTING AND HIS FIRM DOES THE ECONOMIC DEMOGRAPHICS AND ASSEMBLING DISTRICTS.
HERE IS THE ORDINANCE FROM 2021.
IN THE BACK ON THE FINAL COUPLE OF PAGES ARE THE DEMOGRAPHICS THAT COMPRISE EACH OF THE DISTRICTS.
HE'S AWARE WHY 4-2-1 WAS OBJECTED TOO AND WHAT THE PITFALLS ARE WITH 4-2-1 RIGHT NOW.
WHY DON'T WE JUST GO RIGHT INTO THAT MAYOR? LET ME HELP BOB START TALKING ABOUT POSSIBLE REDISTRICTING FROM SIX COUNCIL DISTRICTS TO FOUR DISTRICTS; TWO EITHER AT LARGE OR TWO AT THE ISLAND AND HALF KIND OF THING AND OF COURSE THE MAYOR.
>> DID YOU WANT ME TO JUST DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE?
>> OKAY. ONE THING THAT'S JUST CLARIFICATION ON THE EARLIER CHARTER AMENDMENT TO GO WITH 4-2-1.
THAT WAS ADOPTED I THINK BEFORE 2000.
BUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE REJECTED IT.
I CAME IN THE 2001 REDISTRICT AND THE COUNCIL ASKED THAT WE ASK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO RECONSIDER WHICH I DID ASK THEM TO DO THAT AND THEY DID NOT RECONSIDER THIS SUGGESTION.
THE COUNSEL ASKED AGAIN IN 2011 AND AGAIN THEY DID NOT RECONSIDER THEIR OBJECTION TO 4-2-1.
NOW, THAT OBJECTION WAS UNDER SECTION 5 OF VOTING RIGHTS ACT.
UNDER THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, THERE ARE BASICALLY TWO SECTIONS THAT ARE OF PARTICULAR DEPARTMENTS.
ANY JURISDICTION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS HAD TO SUBMIT ANY CHANGE IN ELECTION PRACTICE STANDARD PROCEDURE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR FREE CLEARANCE FOR THE COURT.
ESSENTIALLY, THEY HAD TO APPROVE IT.
WITH THE CHANGE IN 4-2-1 THEY DID NOT APPROVE THIS.
>> CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? I'M SORRY YOUR VOICE TRAILED OFF.
>> UNDER SECTION 5, WE HAD TO SUBMIT ANY CHANGE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE ANY REDISTRICTING CHANGE; ANY CHANGE AFFECTIVE VOTING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEFORE [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY GOT THE OPTION TO OBJECT IT WHICH THEY DID AND THEY REFUSED TO LIFT THAT OBJECTION IN 2001 AND AGAIN IN 2011.
THAT OLD CHARTER AMENDMENT FROM PROBABLY MORE THAN 25 YEARS AGO; WHATEVER IT WAS,
[01:45:05]
HAS NEVER GONE INTO EFFECT AND I THINK WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE BROUGHT INTO EFFECT WITHOUT A SUBSEQUENT CHARTER AMENDMENT.SECTION 5 WENT AWAY AND I THINK IT WAS 2013 IN A CASE CALLED SHELBY COUNTY V. HOLDER.
IN THAT CASE, THE SUPREME COURT ESSENTIALLY SAID SECTION 5 HAD OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS AND IT NO LONGER APPLIED.
BUT THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT STILL HAS SECTION 2 AND UNDER SECTION 2, IF THE CITY DOES SOMETHING THAT DISCRIMINATES AGAINST A RACIAL MINORITY OR A LANGUAGE MINORITY GIVEN THE CASE, SO GALVESTON, YOU'RE LOOKING AT AFRICAN AMERICANS AND HISPANICS AS FALLING IN THOSE CATEGORIES, THEN YOU CAN BE SUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.
IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO SWITCH FROM A 6-0 TO 4-2-1, THEY CAN DO THAT WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT A SECTION 5 OBJECTION.
THE PROBLEM IS IF THEY DO IT, THEY MIGHT BE SUED UNDER SECTION 2.
CITY OF PASADENA FOR EXAMPLE, AFTER THE SHELBY COUNTY CASE WHICH DID AWAY WITH SECTION 5 PASSED A CHARTER AMENDMENT TO GO FROM THEIR 8-0-1 SYSTEM TO A 6-2-1 SYSTEM.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO BE PUT CLEAR BECAUSE SECTION 5 HAD GONE AWAY, BUT THEY WERE SUED BY THE HISPANIC.
THE CITY HAD PREPARED AN APPEAL, SUBMITTED, FILED THE APPEAL, BUT AFTER THE ELECTION, THE COMPOSITION OF THE COUNCIL CHANGED, THEY THEN DECIDED TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL AND JUST ACCEPT GOING BACK TO OF THE 8-0-1 SYSTEM.
NOW, IN PASADENA OBVIOUSLY FACTS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
THEY HAVE MOVED [INAUDIBLE] AND SOME PLAINTIFFS WILL ARGUE THAT PLAINTIFFS OF GALVESTON WILL HAVE A HARDER TIME THAN THE PLAINTIFFS OF PASADENA.
IF WE WERE TO GET INTO IT SOMETIME, I CAN GET INTO WHY THAT IS.
IF YOU GUESS THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU WOULD BE SUED, I THINK A PLAINTIFF WOULD HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME FOR VEILING OF THE SUIT, BUT IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
LIKE I SAY, I THINK THIS CITY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE GOOD DEFENSES TO THAT SUIT IF IT WERE BROUGHT AND IT WOULD PROBABLY BE BROUGHT BY HISPANICS MORE LIKELY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE TO SAY? WE'RE GETTING READY TO TAKE QUESTIONS FROM-
[LAUGHTER] I THINK IT'S BETTER JUST TO HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS. LET'S GO.
>> HELLO, SIR. TAKE OUR DEMOGRAPHICS INTO ACCOUNT.
OF COURSE WE'RE HAVING TO RELY ON 2020.
IS THERE SOME EXAMPLES OF MUNICIPALITIES YOU'VE REPRESENTED OR ADVISED THAT HAVE DONE THE SAME THAT ARE SIMILAR IN DEMOGRAPHIC MAKEUP?
[01:50:02]
>> I'M NOT THINKING OF ANYONE QUICKLY THAT WENT FROM A ALL SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT TO A MIXED SYSTEM LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING.
>> YEAH. IT'S HARD TO COMPARE THOSE TWO.
>> OF COURSE THAT'S AN ON THE SPOT QUESTION.
BUT IF YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE A NOTE TO MAYBE PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO THAT AND REFER BACK TO DON, PLEASE?
>> SURE. I CAN TELL YOU OR DON A TALK THROUGH.
CERTAINLY THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE REPRESENTED [INAUDIBLE].
>> EVEN TO FURTHER THAT IS MAYBE SOME MUNICIPALITIES THAT YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THAT MAYBE AREN'T THE SIX SEPARATE DISTRICTS, BUT MAYBE ONE THAT HAVE A SIMILAR MAKEUP AS TO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT HAVE HAD THAT IN PLACE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO GO TO, BUT MAYBE THERE ARE SOME MUNICIPALITIES THAT WE CAN USE IN COMPARISON THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THAT MAKEUP.
>> THERE ARE A NUMBER ACROSS TEXAS.
>> TO PUT THAT ON YOUR NOTES AND POSSIBLY I'D APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD GET WITH DON MAYBE TO GIVE OUR COUNCIL SOME EXAMPLES THAT WE CAN RESEARCH AND LOOK INTO.
THE BASIC THING IS IMPORTANT IN SECTION 2C, A PLAINTIFF IN SECTION 2C HAS TO MEET THREE THRESHOLD CRITERION FOR BRINGING THE SUIT.
THE FIRST CRITERION IS THAT MINORITY GROUP BRINGING THE SUIT HAS TO BE SUFFICIENTLY LARGE AND GEOGRAPHICALLY COMPACT SO AS TO BE ABLE TO CONSTITUTE A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT.
IN THIS CASE, COULD THE PLAINTIFF GROUP CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY OF A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT IN A SIXTH DISTRICT PLAN? BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? BY GOING 2-0-4, THEY COULD DO THAT IN A SIX, BUT NOT IN A FOUR; THE PLAINTIFF MIGHT HAVE A CASE.
THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY HARD FOR EITHER GROUP TO ESTABLISH.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN HAVE OUR GIS PERSON PLAY AROUND AND TRY AND GET HANDIEST MINORITY COMPONENT POSSIBLE, BUT BASICALLY, WHEN WE DID THIS IN 2021, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT DISTRICTS 1 AND DISTRICT 4 HAD.
PRESERVING CONTIGUITY AND COMPACTNESS [INAUDIBLE] HUNDRED DIFFERENT SIDE OF DISTRICT RUNNING ALL OVER THE ISLAND.
>> JUST AN ADD ON TO SPECIFICS THAT ON TO [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TECHNICALLY THOUGH, IT'S GIVING PEOPLE FOUR PEOPLE TO REPRESENT THEM VERSUS ONE.
WOULDN'T THAT BE A HARDER ARGUMENT TO MAKE FOR THE 4-2-1?
>> NO. THAT IS A BENEFIT OF A MIXED SYSTEM.
BUT IF WE WERE INVOLVED IN A SUIT, THAT MIGHT HAVE SOME IMPACT.
YOU WOULD THINK IT WOULD TELL YOU THAT THE COUNSEL HAS VALID NONDISCRIMINATORY REASONS FOR DOING THIS.
[01:55:08]
>> THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A COUNCIL ARGUMENT OR LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT WE'RE DOING THIS IN GOOD FAITH NOT TO DISCRIMINATE TOWARDS MINORITY POPULATIONS.
>> YEAH. THAT'S THE ULTIMATE ISSUE, BUT THE PLAINTIFFS HAVE TO GET OVER THESE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE THREE. THE FIRST ONE IS MOST IMPORTANT WHICH IS, IS A MINORITY GROUP BIG ENOUGH TO CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY OF A LEGAL SUIT? THE OTHER TWO ARE, IS IT COHESIVE? DOES IT TEND TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES OF THAT GROUP OR SIMILAR CANDIDATES? THROUGHOUT TEXAS, THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE IS GENERALLY YES AND THEN THE OTHER IS THE WHITE MAJORITY; VOTERS OF WHITE EASILY DEFEAT THE MINORITY CHOICE? YOU JUST HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ELECTION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE AN OUTPUT.
IN MOST CASES, PLAINTIFFS WERE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THIS.
THE BIG ISSUE IS THE FIRST PRONG AND THAT IS, IS IT BIG ENOUGH TO COMPACT TO THOSE?
>> WHAT WAS THE THIRD COMPONENT?
>> DOES THE WHITE MAJORITY VOTE TO DEFEAT THE MINORITY CHOICE? THE REASON FOR THAT BY THE WAY IS THAT IF ALL THOSE THREE THINGS ARE TRUE, THEN THE MINORITY GROUP IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO ELECT IN A SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICT.
BUT IN [INAUDIBLE] SYSTEM, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF THE THIRD ELEMENT, DESPITE THE MAJORITY VOTERS USUALLY THINK THEY GENERALLY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN THE MIXED SYSTEM.
MIX SYSTEMS, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE HOUSTON.
HOUSTON HAS HAD A MIXED SYSTEM FOR A LONG TIME.
THAT WORKS VERY WELL FOR AFRICAN AMERICAN VOTERS.
THEY DO VERY WELL IN THIS SYSTEM.
HISPANICS DO NOT DO SO WELL AND THERE ARE REASONS FOR THAT.
>> PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE CITIZENSHIP FACTOR, WHILE CITIZENSHIP IS AN ISSUE IN EVERY RACE OR ETHNICITY.
THERE ARE WHITES, THERE ARE BLACKS, ETC THEY ARE NON-CITIZENS.
BUT HERE'S A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF NON-CITIZENS THAN HISPANICS.
ABOUT 20% OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S, ADULT HISPANICS ARE NON-CITIZENS.
THAT, BY THE WAY, I'M NOT SAYING [NOISE] WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS, ILLEGAL ALIENS, ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT A CITIZEN.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF LEGALLY RESIDENT NON-CITIZENS, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE HIGHER IN THE HISPANIC COMMUNITY IS IN THE ANGULO COMMUNITY OR BLACK.
>> BOB, DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED?
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MR. [INAUDIBLE].
>> HOW WOULD YOU GO ABOUT COMING UP WITH FOUR DISTRICTS JUST SADLY?
>> BUT BEFORE YOU GO THERE, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
>> WE DID, REDISTRICTING A FEW YEARS AGO [NOISE] AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO ASSEMBLE A MINORITY-MAJORITY PRECINCT IN DISTRICT 1.
HOWEVER, WE WERE ABLE TO CREATE ENOUGH, WHERE THE BLACK COMMUNITY ACTING TOGETHER BEHIND A CANDIDATE WAS STILL ABLE TO ELECT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THEIR CHOICE.
THERE WOULD BE TO MY MIND, A DILUTION FROM GOING FROM SIX DISTRICTS TO FOUR DISTRICTS.
HOW IS THAT FACTORED INTO THESE DECISIONS?
>> NUMBER 1, THE POINT YOU MADE ABOUT DISTRICT 1 IS A VERY
[02:00:06]
GOOD ONE AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS TRUE.I KNOW THAT IN HOUSTON, IN THE CASE, I WORKED ON REPRESENTING HOUSTON, WHICH IS SOME YEARS AGO, THE EXPERT ON THE OTHER SIDE HAD LOOKED AT HUNDREDS OF ELECTIONS IN HOUSTON AND HARRIS COUNTY AND SO FORTH, AND BASICALLY, WHEN THE COCK PERCENTAGE WAS ABOUT 35%, THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN CANDIDATE WAS SUCCESSFUL, I THINK 100% AT THE TIME.
35% AFRICAN-AMERICAN DISTRICT IS LIKELY TO ELECT.
NOW, IF YOU GO TO FOUR DISTRICTS 76, THAT PERCENTAGE YOU PROBABLY GET 28 OR 30, WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO PLAY WITH THE DEMOGRAPHICS TO SEE.
>> BUT [OVERLAPPING] YOU CAN'T BASE IT OFF PERCENTAGES, UNLESS YOU HAVE TO TIE IN THE PERCENTAGE WITH THE GEOGRAPHICAL.
>> YES, AND TO KNOW HOW WHAT KIND OF DISTRICT WAS TO DRAW [INAUDIBLE]
>> JUST OFF OF YOUR OPINION, YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO I GUESS DRAW A SQUIGGLY LINE THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAP TO MAKE IT WORK.
YOU WANT TO TRY TO KEEP IT CONTIGUOUS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S RIGHT. YOU WANT TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WANT IT TO BE COMPACTED AND SO I'M NOT LOOKING AT YOUR MAP RIGHT NOW.
BUT TO MY RECOLLECTION, THERE ARE MAYBE FIVE REGIONALLY COMPACT DISTRICTS IN THE CENTRAL AND EASTERN END, AND THEN OF COURSE WEST END, IT'S COMPACT, BUT IT'S BIG, IT'S VERY LONG BECAUSE IT FOLLOWS THE HOME.
>> THOSE ARE PRETTY COMPACT DISTRICTS.
ONE THING, SOMEBODY SAID HOW YOU WOULD DRAW THEM IN THE PREVIOUS CHARTER AMENDMENTS, 2000 OVER FOUR 2000 WHATEVER THAT WAS.
MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT IT SAID THAT YOU START PROBABLY AT THE EAST END OF THE ISLAND, WHAT IS, AND JUST GO WEST UNTIL YOU GET A PART OF THE POPULATION, THEN YOU DROP LINE ALONG ONE OF THOSE NUMBERED STREETS, AND THAT'S YOUR FIRST DISTRICT.
THEN YOU KEEP GOING WEST TO GET ANOTHER 25% OF THE POPULATION [NOISE] DROP ANOTHER LINE.
I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS IT PRECLUDES YOU FROM TRYING TO DRAW DISTRICTS THAT ARE MORE LIKELY TO ELECT MINORITIES.
ALSO, YOU END UP SPLITTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND HISTORICAL DISTRICT AREAS THAT ARE HISTORICALLY TOGETHER IN CONSUMPTION PRO, IT'S TOO MUCH OF A STRIKE JACK, I THINK.
>> BACK IN 2000, DISTRICT 6 ACTUALLY ENCOMPASSED TYKE MANERA AND CEDAR LAWN.
>> IT WAS. ANY FURTHER, WE HAVE SHARON AND THEN BOB. SHARON.
>> AT ONE TIME, WAS IT DISTRICT 1 TYPE, ONE TIME BACK SOME YEARS AGO, [OVERLAPPING] INCLUSIVE.
YES. I'M NOTICING THE PERCENTAGES AND I UNDERSTOOD YOU VERY WELL WHEN YOU SAID THE LARGER THE AREA, THEN THAT MINORITY OR PERCENTAGES BEGAN TO DECREASE.
[02:05:06]
BECAUSE, AS I LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION FROM THE CENSUS, THEN OF COURSE, IN DISTRICT 1, YOU HAVE YOUR HIGHEST NON-HISPANIC POPULATION. O>> BOB, SHE'S LOOKING AT EXHIBIT B. I'LL ASK FOR [INAUDIBLE]
>> AS WE GO THROUGH ACROSS THE DISTRICTS, WE CAN SEE A DECREASE IN THE NON HISPANIC BLACK POPULATION, AND THE NON HISPANIC WHITE WILL CONTINUE TO INCREASE.
WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS, THIS DOES NOT GIVE IT VALIDATION, FOR CUTTING THE FOUR DISTRICTS BECAUSE IT IS NOT GIVING PEOPLE, VOTERS, JUST PERIOD CITIZENS, AND I ALWAYS HEAR US TALK ABOUT THE PEOPLE HERE.
NOT GIVING THEM A FAIR SHAKE IS WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE DONE IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND IMPROVED IN THEIR COMMUNITY, BUT NOT ONLY THAT BUT GIVING THEM ACCESS TO CIVIL AND INFORMATION THAT THEY COULD USE TO BETTER THEMSELVES AND POSSIBLY TO BECOME A CITY COUNCIL OR RUN FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
THAT'S THE ONE REASON THAT I DON'T SEE IT AS BEING THE RIGHT THING FOR US TO DO [NOISE] ON THIS ISLAND WHEN WE'RE SUCH A DIVERSE ISLAND AND WE WANT ALL THESE SPECIAL THINGS.
MY LAST POINT IS THE HISTORICAL VALUE DOES GET BROKEN UP, AND THAT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
SOMETIMES I'LL SHARE WITH MY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT MY INTERESTS ARE NOT YOUR INTERESTS, AND WHAT PEOPLE COME TO ME FOR, THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN.
I THINK AS PEOPLE HERE, WE NEED TO RECIPROCATE THAT.
ANYWAY, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT EXHIBIT B AND LISTENING TO YOU, AND I MISSED YOUR SECOND POINT WHEN YOU WERE SHARING THE THREE THINGS THAT THEY NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO PROVE.
>> IT'S THE MINORITY-MAJORITY PRECINCT DISTRICT.
>> FOR EXAMPLE, WITH AFRICAN-AMERICANS, THE AFRICAN-AMERICANS TEND TO VOTE TOGETHER?
>> IN PARTICULAR IF YOU HAVE THE CHOICE BETWEEN THE MINORITY CANDIDATE AND THE MAJORITY CANDIDATE.
>> WOULD THEY TEND TO VOTE TO.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, CLEARLY A GREATER NUMBER OF SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTS IS LIKELY TO BE MORE FAVORABLE TO MINORITY COMMUNITIES.
NOW, IN MY ROLE, I THINK THAT'S A FACT.
AS FAR AS WHAT THE COUNCIL COULD DO, I ALWAYS FEEL MY ROLE IS TO TELL YOU WHAT THE LAW IS AND THE POLICY DECISION IS UP TO YOU NOT TO ME.
I ADVISED ON THE LAW OF POLICY FIRST WHEN I WORKED FOR A STATE SENATOR.
THE FIRST THING WAS, YOU NEED TO REMEMBER THE ELECTION CERTIFICATES OF HIS HALL NOT MINE AND YOU HAVE TO ALWAYS TRY TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> SHARON, DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED?
>> WE HAVE BOB. WE HAVE COUNCILMAN BOB BROWN.
>> EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T NEED TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 5 [INAUDIBLE] THE INTENT WAS TO [INAUDIBLE].
I'M WONDERING THE LAST TIME WE SUBMITTED THIS 421, AND IT WAS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE OF SECTION 5.
WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA IN SECTION 5 THAT MADE US NOT COME UP TO THE STANDARDS?
>> THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION, SOMETHING I THOUGHT ABOUT MENTIONING BECAUSE [INAUDIBLE].
THE STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 5 AND UNDER SECTION 2 ARE DIFFERENT.
[02:10:01]
ONE WHERE SOMEBODY CAN SEE YOU.IT'S A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PLAN IS DISCRIMINATORY.
NOW, UNDER SECTION 5, THE STANDARD IS RETROGRESSION.
>> RETROGRESSION. ARE YOU MOVING BACKWARD IN REGARD TO MINORITY VOTING RIGHTS? AND GOING FROM A SIX PLAN TO A FOUR-TO-ONE PLAN IS LIKELY TO HAVE BEEN FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO BE RETROGRESSIVE, UNLESS YOU CAN MAKE A PRETTY STRONG SHOWING THAT THE MINORITY GROUPS HAD EVERY REALISTIC OPPORTUNITY TO WAR SEATS.
IN HOUSTON, FOR EXAMPLE, THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY HAS DONE VERY WELL WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE THEY'RE BIG ENOUGH, THEY HAVE A VOTING BLOCK, AND THERE ARE NO CALLS OVER VOTES OF THAT, IN FACT, THE FIRST TIME I REPRESENTED HOUSTON, I THINK THERE ARE THREE OF, I THINK IT'S TO FIVE.
I THINK IT'S FIVE OR SIX, AFRICAN-AMERICANS ELECTED IN THREE OR MAYBE EVEN FOUR VARIES OVER THE YEARS, IT WAS MUCH HARDER FOR HISPANICS TO ELECT LARGELY CITIZENSHIP ISSUES FOR CITIZENS NON-CITIZENSHIPS MUCH HIGHER IN HOUSTON THAN JUST THE COUNCIL.
>> IN GALVESTON, WE DID NOT PASS THAT STANDARD, ACCORDING TO THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> RIGHT. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT BELIEVES THAT IT WAS RETROGRESSIVE.
ALSO, THE FACT THAT YOU HAD THAT MECHANICAL REDISTRICTING PROCEDURE THAT I MENTIONED, YOU JUST GO TO GET 25% OF THE LINE.
YOU DON'T LOOK AT MINORITIES, YOU DON'T LOOK AT NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU DON'T LOOK AT ANYTHING ELSE, THAT AGGRAVATED THE ISSUES.
WHEN THE COUNCIL ASKED IN REGARD TO THE 2011 REDISTRICTING ROUTE TO GO AHEAD AND ASK THEM TO DROP THAT OBJECTION IN PREPARING THE ARGUMENT.
MY RECOLLECTION IS I HAVE SAID, CONSIDER JUST GOING TO 421 AND FORGET ABOUT IT.
EVEN IF YOU LEAVE THE OBJECTION TO THE MECHANICAL GROWING PROCESS BECAUSE I WAS CONVINCED THAT NEVER WOULD THAT MECHANICAL GROWING PROCESS, BUT THEY STILL WOULDN'T.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME TEST DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE WHETHER WE'RE HAVING EQUITABLE VOTING DISTRICTS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I THINK SO. [INAUDIBLE] WE HAVE SOME IDEA, BUT [INAUDIBLE] I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO SIT DOWN AND CROSS.
>> BEFORE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO EVALUATE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY DISCRIMINATORY OR [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT, LIKE, 13,410 IDEAL SIZE PER DISTRICT BASED ON OUR NUMBER NOW.
IF WE DID THAT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT 35% SHOULD BE A BENCHMARK IN DISTRICT 1 THAT IF WE DO LOOK AT THE DISTRICT THEN WE SHOULD TRY TO, AT LEAST, PRESERVE OR MAINTAIN.
THEN FOR DISTRICT 4, HOWEVER, THAT WOULD BE BROKEN UP.
WE WOULD WANT TO TRY TO MAINTAIN A MAJORITY MINORITY HISPANIC POPULATION IN THAT DISTRICT AS WELL.
BUT BACK TO THE POINT OF LOOKING AT THE HUNDREDS OF ELECTIONS IN HOUSTON'S HISTORY,
[02:15:06]
LOOKING BACK EVEN IN THE '70S, WE HAD A PRETTY DIVERSE COUNCIL WHEN WE HAD SIX AT LARGE WITH ONE MAYOR DISTRICT.IT WOULDN'T EVEN BE A DISTRICT.
IT WOULD JUST BE ALL AT LARGE.
WOULD THAT PLAY INTO SOME OF THE HISTORICAL PROCESS FOR A LEGAL CHALLENGE, SO TO SPEAK, OF THE HISTORY PRIOR TO THIS IS HOW THE MAKEUP WAS, OR IS THAT JUST SO FAR IN THE PAST THAT IT DOESN'T EQUATE TO 2024?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> COUNSEL, WE'VE HAD MR. HEATH HERE.
I WANT TO MAKE AN EDITORIAL COMMENT.
FIRST OF ALL, MR. HEATH IS AVAILABLE TO US AS WE CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS AT ANY TIME.
THIS IS, AS YOU CAN SEE, A VERY INVOLVED ISSUE, AND PERSONALLY I DON'T THINK IT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE NEED TO RUSH THROUGH.
IT'S NOT AN ISSUE THAT PERSONALLY, I THINK, WE NEED TO CONSIDER FOR OUR MAY BALLOT.
WE NEED TO CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS.
THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT TO EDUCATE OUR COMMUNITY ON THIS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THESE DIVISIONAL LINES AND SO FORTH.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT WE HAD A CONSENSUS MOVING FORWARD WITH 421.
>> JUST FOR ANALYSIS [OVERLAPPING] TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE THOUGH, JUST ON ANALYSIS, LOOKING AT IF WE DID REDISTRICT, BUT WE KEPT THE MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICTS INTACT, WOULD THAT STILL BE A POSSIBILITY? I THINK IF WE COULD PUT IT ON A MAP SO WE CAN ALL SEE IT, A VISUAL, THE BEST THAT OUR GIS CAN PUT TOGETHER WITHOUT WATERING DOWN, GOING BACK, SO TO SPEAK, IF THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, I THINK THE VOTERS HAD WANTED IT IN THE PAST.
IT DID PASS. BUT TO THE FACT THAT WE SHOULDN'T GO BEYOND, OR BELOW WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE, AND IF WE DO THERE'S SOME EXPLANATION THAT WE DO OWE THE PUBLIC, I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE A COMPLETE ROADBLOCK LIKE WE SHOULD STOP.
I THINK WE SHOULD, AT LEAST, EXPLORE WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND IF IT MEETS THE THRESHOLDS AND THE NUMBERS, AND IT DOESN'T WATER ANYTHING DOWN, I STILL THINK THAT GIVING EVERYBODY TWO EXTRA VOTES IS VERY BENEFICIAL TO THE HEALTH OF OUR LOCAL POLITICS.
I THINK ALL OF US AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I THINK THE KEY IS, DO YOU THINK WE HAVE TIME TO DO THAT AND VOTE ON THIS IN JANUARY?
>> THAT'S A QUESTION FOR BRIAN STAFF, OR DON, WHAT WE CAN PUT TOGETHER.
>> IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION THAT WE RETAIN BOB'S FIRM IN JANUARY TO DO THE DEMOGRAPHICS, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE DETAILED.
WE WOULD HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE IN.
>> JANUARY? I THOUGHT IT WAS EARLY FEBRUARY.
>> WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING.
>> IT'S BEFORE OUR FEBRUARY COUNCIL MEETING.
>> WHAT'S BRIAN'S EXPENDITURE LIMIT?
>> I CAN DO ANYTHING YOU WANT. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> SHARON'S BEEN LATE TO SPEAK. SHARON.
>> I'M GOING TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID.
MY QUESTION IS, WHY IS THIS SUCH A PUSH TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW.
I HEAR ALL OF US TALK ABOUT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR RESIDENTS, OUR CONSTITUENTS.
THIS IS UNFAIR BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T KNOW.
I WAS AT A EVENT THE OTHER NIGHT AND MENTIONED, AND THEY SAID, WHAT IS THAT? WHAT ARE WE DOING? WE HAVE GOT TO GET THIS INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
MY QUESTION, WHY IS THIS SUCH A PUSH FOR IT TO HAPPEN? USUALLY WHEN THINGS HAPPEN THAT WAY, THEY DON'T COME OUT GOOD.
YOU'RE PUSHING FOR WHAT PURPOSE? WHY?
>> FIRST OF ALL, THE VOTERS WHO ARE GOING TO BE MOST AFFECTED BY THIS NEED TIME TO ANALYZE THIS.
[02:20:04]
SECONDLY, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT PROBLEM WE'RE TRYING TO SOLVE [LAUGHTER] WITH THIS.I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT HAS GONE WRONG WITH THE WAY IT HAS BEEN IN THE PAST. I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND.
>> I'M GOING TO SAY SHARON AND I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.
I THINK IT'S CRAZY TO DO A CHARTER CHANGE ELECTION IN MAY.
ONE, IT WILL COST US MORE MONEY.
I THINK IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE, AND WE'D HAVE A BETTER TURNOUT IF WE DID IT IN NOVEMBER, OR THE FOLLOWING MAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE RUSHING TO THIS.
I THINK WE'D BE BETTER OFF SHOOTING FOR A NOVEMBER DATE, AND THERE WILL BE OTHER ELECTIONS IN NOVEMBER, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH, CORRECT, JANELLE?
>> IT JUST MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
>> I THINK WE AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILOR PORRETTO IS SAYING.
I JUST THINK MOVING THIS FORWARD FROM MAY IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CITIZENS HERE IN GALVESTON.
I'M TAKING THE LEGAL OUT OF IT.
I'M NOT SO SURE IT'S THE BEST MOVE ANYWAY.
>> WHAT PROBLEM ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. WE HAD, WAS IT DAVID OR BO? SOMEBODY.
>> I HAD A QUESTION. RUSHING THIS THROUGH, THE AMOUNT OF ANALYSIS THAT'S REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY EVEN CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN A MONTH OR TWO.
MY QUESTION TO MR. HEATH IS, THERE WAS A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT RETAINING HIS SERVICES FOR THE PURPOSES OF DOING THE DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH AND DRAFTING A THOUGHT OF WHAT A 421 MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
HOW LONG DOES THAT TAKE, MR. HEATH?
>> WHEN WE DID THE LAST REDISTRICTING WITH UNITY AND PURPOSE.
IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT B, I THINK WE ADOPTED PLAN E.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT.
BECAUSE I'M LIKE, THIS ONE, THERE'S A PLAN E, THERE HAD TO BE OTHER ONES INVOLVED AS WELL.
>> I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMMENT THAT MR. HEATH MADE EARLIER WHERE HE SAID "A GREATER NUMBER OF SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS PROVIDES GREATER OPPORTUNITY FOR LESS MINORITY REPRESENTATION." THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID?
>> I'M SORRY. THE GREATER NUMBER OF DISTRICTS, YOU HAVE GREATER OPPORTUNITY.
>> YOU WILL HAVE MINORITY REPRESENTED.
>> THERE WE GO. BY MAKING FEWER OF THEM, THERE'S A REAL DANGER THAT WE DISENFRANCHISE OUR MINORITY POPULATION. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
>> TO ADD ON TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I THINK ONLY THE MAYOR AND I WERE HERE WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS REDISTRICTING.
>> ALL WE WERE DOING WAS SIX DISTRICTS, AND HOW LONG DID THAT TAKE?
>> THIS IS A LOT MORE INVOLVED THAN JUST GETTING DATA AND SITTING DOWN AND VOTING.
WE'VE GOT TO REALLY LOOK AT THIS CLOSELY.
WE NEED TO DISCUSS IT AND INVOLVE THE CONSTITUENTS.
>> THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TIMELINE WAS.
I THINK DON TALKED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT.
I WAS JUST TOUCHING TO THE BASIS OF MR. HEATH'S PROCESS, JUST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HIS PROCESS LOOKS LIKE.
>> WE CAN DO SOME DEMONSTRATION DISTRICTS FAIRLY QUICKLY.
BASICALLY IT WOULD BE ME WORKING WITH OUR GIS PERSON WHO IS IN-HOUSE, AND I'D HAVE TO CHECK WITH HER SCHEDULE, BUT ONCE WE GET GOING ON IT WE CAN DRAW DISTRICTS IN A DAY.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT A WEEK OR SO TO DRAW SOME DISTRICTS PROBABLY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
>> TO ANSWER SHARON'S QUESTION EARLIER, WHY WAS THIS TIME PRESSING.
I TRIED BRINGING THIS UP A LOT EARLIER IN THE YEAR, BUT WE'RE HERE NOW.
I DON'T MIND WAITING, BUT WE HAD A COUNTY ELECTION IN MAY.
MY INTENT AND PURPOSE TO BRING IT UP WAS TO TRY TO GET THINGS ON THERE FOR THE COUNTY ELECTION IN MAY. THAT'S ONE REASON.
WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO HAVE A VOTE. IT WOULD BE CHEAPER FOR US TO DO IT AT THAT TIME AS WELL.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, AGAIN, WAS DONE IN THE PAST,
[02:25:02]
WAS BROUGHT UP AGAIN IN 2011, '13. SORRY, '11.THIRTEEN WAS WHEN THE PREAUTHORIZATION, GOT MIXED.
BUT SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF VOTERS WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE, AND TALKING AMONGST THE CONSTITUENTS AND THE PEOPLE THAT I REPRESENT, AN EXTRA TWO VOTES GOES A LONG WAY.
I AM SYMPATHETIC AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE SHOULD NOT WATER DOWN, OR GO BACK, OR HOWEVER THE TERMINOLOGY IS, THESE MINORITY MAJORITY DISTRICTS.
WE CAN WAIT. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A BETTER IDEA TO LOOK AT IT, IS WAIT.
BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS PASSED BY THE VOTERS AND PEOPLE ARE STILL GRUMBLING ABOUT.
PERSONALLY, I'M NOT COMING AT IT OUT OF BAD FAITH.
I WANT MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, AND MY OBSERVATION IS THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS FALLING OFF BECAUSE THEY DON'T FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE A VOICE ACROSS THE ENTIRE ISLAND, SO TO SPEAK.
THAT'S A PRESCRIPTION THAT I WOULD THINK WOULD HELP.
BUT THAT'S JUST MY OBSERVATION, OPINION, AMONGST CONSTITUENTS.
>> WE HAVE COUNCILMAN RAWLINS.
>> THIS IS JUST SPEAKING OFF THE CUFF, AND I'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO LOOKING AT THINGS.
CURRENTLY AT THE TABLE, AND THIS IS TALKING SIX MEMBER DISTRICT WITH OUR MAYOR AT LARGE, WE'VE GOT SIX NON-HISPANIC ANGLOS IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM.
IN THE OTHER DISTRICT WE HAVE ONE BLACK.
CURRENTLY WHAT WE HAVE OUR DISTRICT LINES ON, THAT'S OUR MAKEUP.
THAT'S JUST LOOKING AT CURRENTLY WHAT WE GOT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ACTUALLY LOOK BACK JUST ON THE FACE VALUE OF THINGS OF WHAT HAS OUR CURRENT LINES AND MAKEUP OF HOW WE VOTE, WHAT'S BEEN THE OUTCOME? JUST TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT THAT, TO SEE IF LOOKING AT THIS CHARTER CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR MORE MINORITY REPRESENTATION, OR IF IT'S FINE THE WAY IT IS.
SECONDLY, AND LIKE I SAID, I'M GLAD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS, BUT MY MOST IMPORTANT THING, AND I DON'T THINK THIS INVOLVES ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE DOJ OR MINORITY REPRESENTATION.
MY BIGGEST GOAL WHEN I CAME ON COUNCIL WAS ACTUALLY EXTENDING OUR TIME TO REPRESENT SOME MORE CONTINUITY AMONGST OUR COUNCIL MAKEUP SO THAT WE HAD A SYSTEM TO WHERE A, WE HAD LONGER TIME, AND B, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF THE ENTIRE COUNCIL COULD GET WIPED CLEANED EVERY TWO YEARS.
TO ME THAT WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO ADDRESS WHILE I WAS ON COUNCIL.
THAT WAS ONE THING MAYBE I WAS GOING TO ADD TO THIS, IS EXTENDING THAT TIME AND MAKING IT TO WHERE IT'S STAGGERED, AS FAR AS THE ELECTION GOES.
THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH DOJ, OR PUTTING THE CITY AT RISK OF GETTING SUED.
THAT'S FINISHED WITH A QUESTION MARK.
>> THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
>> YOU SAID YOU'RE THROUGH WITH [INAUDIBLE]
>> THERE'S NO ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH MOVING FROM TWO YEAR TERMS, EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME ELECTION CYCLE, THEN MOVING TO A THREE, TWO YEAR TERMS AND STAGGER ON THEM.
>> THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LEGAL IMPLICATION.
>> I HEAR THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS WANT TO ACTUALLY INVESTIGATE.
THAT IT DOES NEED TO BE DONE, AND IF SO, NEEDS TO BE DONE DILIGENTLY BUT NOT HASTILY, AND HAVE A LARGE COMMUNITY OUTREACH COMPONENT TO IT.
I JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT BACK IS WHAT I HEARD.
[02:30:05]
>> ONE MORE THING. IN THIS ANALYSIS, I WOULD WANT TO HAVE ONE OF OUR MEASURES OF APPROPRIATENESS TO MEASURE IT AGAINST SECTION 5 PRE-CLEARANCE CRITERIA OF RETROGRESSIVENESS, AND ALSO SECTION 2, JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND IF WE'RE LIMITING THE MINORITY MAJORITY ANYWHERE ON OUR [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK WITH YOU ON THAT, AND IN FACT, WHEN WE DO REDISTRICTING FOR PEOPLE, WE TRY TO ANALYZE THAT SO THEY KNOW, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A LEGAL CRITERIA ANY MORE.
>> THIS IS JUST A MEASURE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND.
>> AS WE MOVE ALONG WITH THIS, I THINK I HEARD ALEX SAY, YOU USED THE WORD SYMPATHY.
IT'S NOT SYMPATHY FOR MINORITIES OR WHATEVER.
NUMBER 2, HOW MANY VOTES DOES IT TAKE TO PASS SOMETHING? NO. HERE.
> FOUR. YOU'RE GOING TO STILL HAVE SIX PEOPLE SITTING HERE AND BECAUSE I THINK I HEARD THE COMMENT ABOUT TWO EXTRA VOTES, THAT'S NOT GUARANTEED THAT THOSE TWO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO VOTE THAT DIRECTION.
>> BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> I THINK IF I EITHER READ THIS SOMEWHERE OR DISCUSSED THIS, THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED WAY BACK DURING WRIGHT KUNI'S TIME WHEN HE RAN FOR.
>> BUT ALSO, WHOEVER DESIGNED FOR 2000S.
I'M SAYING THAT THIS CITY IT HAPPENED IN GALVESTON AND AT THAT POINT, IT'S NOT IN, BUT HE DID LOSE THAT WHEN HE HAD THE 421, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S AN ADVANTAGE.
BOB, I GREATLY APPRECIATE ALL YOUR INPUT.
>> THANK YOU. IF YOU NEED ME TO DO SOME DEMONSTRATION DISTRICTS FOR THAT SORT OF THING JUST LET ME KNOW.
>> COUNCIL, HERE ON THE 421 I SEE A SENSE OF CONSENSUS OR HEAR A CONSENSUS THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO PURSUE THIS FOR OUR MAY 25TH ELECTION.
WE DO WANT MORE INFORMATION TO CONTINUE TO FOLLOW UP ON THIS.
BO BROUGHT FORWARD REQUESTS FROM MR. HEATH ON PROVIDING INFORMATION TO DON THAT HE COULD DISTRIBUTE TO COUNCIL, AND WE NEED TO GET THIS BACK ON THE AGENDA THEN TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS TOPIC.
>> I THINK THAT IS RECEPTIVE TO ENGAGING MR. HEATH'S FIRM.
>> WE MAYBE NEED A BETTER DESCRIPTION OF THE SCOPE OF WORK.
>> WE EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT HE CAN PROVIDE.
>> INCLUDING, ALSO JANELLE, BREAKDOWN FOR US WHAT THE ELECTIONS WOULD COST FOR THE TIME PERIOD.
>> TO BE CLEAR, THE SYMPATHETICNESS I WAS SPEAKING ABOUT WAS TO THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
I THINK I'VE MADE IT CLEAR THAT I DON'T WANT TO WATER DOWN OR GO BACK OR VIOLATE THE LAW OR VIOLATE THE DEMOGRAPHIC MAKEUP OF OUR ISLAND, JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND.
>> I DO UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING [INAUDIBLE]
>> COUNCIL, ALSO ON THIS TOPIC, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT, WAS MENTIONED JUST A SECOND AGO, OF CHANGING OUR THREE TWO-YEAR TERMS TO TWO THREE-YEAR TERMS. WAS TALKING ABOUT STAGGERING ELECTIONS.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A STIPEND OF SOME SORT FOR COUNCIL.
IT WAS BROUGHT UP, POSSIBLY CODIFYING THE CURRENT LIBRARY CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE IN THE CHARTER.
IT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT TRASH COLLECTION, POSSIBLY GOING TO A PRIVATE TAXATION OF TRASH COLLECTION.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THOSE ITEMS BECAUSE IF COUNCIL WANTS TO PURSUE ANY OF THOSE, WE NEED TO GET THOSE ON THE JANUARY AGENDA FOR VOTING.
[02:35:01]
>> I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO DO CHARTER CHANGES, WE DO THEM ALL TOGETHER.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BREAK THEM UP.
>> I THINK THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS NEEDS TO BE MORE ROBUST.
>> FOR ALL THE CHANGES. ABSOLUTELY. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DEPENDING ON SOME OF THESE, IT MIGHT BE A FAIRLY EASY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS BETWEEN NOW AND MAY.
SOME OF THESE ARE MUCH MORE COMPLEX LIKE THE ONE WE JUST TALKED OF, BUT TAKING FOR CONSIDERATION, THE ONE FOR CHANGING FROM TWO, THREE.
>> I EVEN THINK THE THREE, TWO, IF WE CAN GET THE BENCHMARKS RIGHT, I THINK ALL OF THOSE TWO TOGETHER WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, BUT WE ONLY HAVE CHARTER AMENDMENTS EVERY TWO YEARS.
>> THERE'S PROBABLY STILL MORE TO BE SPEAKING TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS FOR THE FUNDS? HOW DO WE DO THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE HEARD WAS THAT IF YOU DO THE THREE TWO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE WEST AND ELECT A MAYOR EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ARE HURT, WELL, YOU CAN'T KICK THE BUMS OUT
>> IT ALL DEPENDS WHO'S IN OFFICE.
>> YOU CAN'T KICK THE BUMS OUT.
>> IT GET BACK TO THE SKILL OF THE VOTERS TO ELECT THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> I'VE NEVER FIGURED OUT WHO THE BUMS ARE.
>> POLITICALLY SPEAKING, I HAVE FOUND IN MY 30 PLUS YEARS OF DOING THESE THINGS, THINGS PASS AND FAIL BASED AS MUCH ON THE MERITS OF THEIR OWN VOTE AS THEY DO AS TO WHAT ELSE IS ON THE BALLOT WITH IT.
ALWAYS CONSIDER THAT WHEN YOU PUT CHARTER AMENDMENTS ON A BALLOT, IF YOU-ALL ARE PUTTING SOMETHING ON THAT YOU KNOW PEOPLE REALLY JUST DON'T WANT, BUT YOU WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE FOR A REFERENDUM, THAT COULD HAVE A NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE EFFECT DEPENDING ON HOW YOU'RE LOOKING ON OTHER THINGS.
YES, YOU CAN ONLY AMEND YOUR CHARTER EVERY TWO YEARS, BUT ALSO, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING COUNCIL STRUCTURE AND COUNCIL TERM LIMITS, SOMETIMES IT'S BETTER TO DO THAT OVER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS SO YOU CAN GET IT SETTLED BEFORE YOU MAKE ANOTHER CHANGE, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO JUST PUTTING EVERYTHING IN A BLENDER AND STIRRING IT UP AT ONE TIME.
>> JUST MY TWO CENTS, IT'S ALL POSITIVE. [OVERLAPPING]
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ALL THESE ITEMS NOT ON THE MAY 25TH AGENDA.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR.
>> WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THEM FOR FUTURE DATES.
>> WE GOT A LOT OF PUSHBACK FOR EVEN A STIPEND FOR COUNCIL PERSONS.
>> THAT ONE JUST NEEDS TO GO AWAY.
>> I WOULD LEAVE THE STIPEND, I WOULD DONATE IT BACK.
>> I THINK THAT ONE PROBABLY NEEDS TO JUST GO AWAY.
I'LL JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE, BUT THE BIGGER THING, MAYOR, THAT YOU JUST SAID, I THINK IS IMPORTANT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO NOT DO THIS AND TRY TO PUSH THIS TO MAY, BUT INSTEAD, LOOK FOR A CHARTER AMENDMENT PROGRAM, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT FOR NOVEMBER.
>> BRIAN, I ABSOLUTELY HEAR YOU VERY CLEARLY THAT WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE PUT ON THAT CHARTER CHANGE BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU PUT ONE VALID ONE ON THERE, THEN IT COULD AFFECT ALL THE OTHER ONES.
>> TIMES CHANGE AND SOMETIMES CHARTERS NEED TO BE UPDATED JUST BECAUSE, AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREES TO IT.
IT'S VERY MAGNANIMOUS. OTHER TIMES THERE'S CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES AND HOW YOU COMMINGLE THOSE ON A BALLOT AFFECTS THE OUTCOME.
>> MY SENSE IS, AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONES, BUT AFTER WE TALK ABOUT THESE SIX ITEMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, PROBABLY ONE OR TWO WILL GO ON THE BALLOT, BUT WE'LL SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT WITH COUNCIL.
>> WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ANALYZE, AND JUST USE TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON THEM IMMEDIATELY AS WE GO ON RIGHT NOW.
>> I WOULD SUGGEST SO THAT YOU STILL GO AT IT CURRENTLY BECAUSE LET'S NOT JUST STOP AND THEN, NO, MY BACKS AGAINST THE WALL.
>> UNLESS THERE'S SOME PRIVATIZED TRASH COLLECTION.
>> I KNOW THAT BRIAN HAS ALREADY DONE A WHOLE LOT OF COMPARISONS IN THAT REGARD AND HAS A COST BENEFIT IN ALL OF THIS THAT WOULD BE THE MOST EFFICIENT.
>> WE'VE ACTUALLY TAKEN BIDS AND THINGS.
>> AND THE MOST FOR TAXPAYERS.
>> ONE LAST THING BEFORE WE LEAVE THE SUBJECT, JANELLE, IF WE MOVE TO A NOVEMBER '25 BALLOT, WHEN DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT?
>> MID AUGUST. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, COUNCIL.
VERY GOOD DISCUSSION, AND THANK MR. HEATH AGAIN. GOOD JOB.
[3.D. Discussion Of City Of Galveston Comprehensive Plan Update - Steering Committee Composition (P. Milburn - 20 Min)]
THEY'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT WAITING, PETE AND TIM.COULD YOU READ 3D, PLEASE, MA'AM.
[02:40:01]
>> ITEM 3D, DISCUSSION OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES DURING COMMITTEE COMPOSITION.
>> 3D FEELS LIKE IT'S COMING RIGHT AT HIM.
>> WE'VE GOT TIM [INAUDIBLE] WITH US, INTRODUCING THIS SUBJECT, AND PETE MILBERG WILL BE WITH US ALSO INVOLVED WITH THIS DISCUSSION.
THIS WAS PUT ON HERE AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STRUCTURE.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL.
TIM [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
IT'S MY PLEASURE TO TALK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AT A HIGH-LEVEL, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY GET DOWN TO WHATEVER DETAILS YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS SHORT TO, OF COURSE, US HAVING AN AWARD FOR A CONTRACTOR TO DO THE SERVICE, WHICH HAS ITS OWN PROCESS, WHICH YOU HAVEN'T REALLY FULLY ENDEAVORED INTO YET.
WITH THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO HIT THE OVERALL DISCUSSION, AND PETE'S GOING TO FOLLOW THAT UP WITH OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CONTENT OF A STEERING COMMITTEE.
JUST A COUPLE OF RELEVANT QUOTES HERE.
IF YOU DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR WHERE YOU'RE GOING, YOU MAY END UP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
THIS IS ONE FROM A STATEWIDE LOCAL PLANNER, DAVID PUGH, WHO'S DONE A LOT WITH THE TEXAS CHAPTER OF THE APA, BUT PLANNING IS A TRIUMPH OF LOGIC OVER DUMB LUCK.
THERE'S SOME TRUTH TO THAT. PETER DRUCKER, THE MANAGEMENT GURU, SAYS, IF YOU WANT TO PREDICT THE FUTURE CREATED.
HISTORY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BASICALLY, IN THE 1920S, THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE LAID OUT TWO ACTS, ZONING ENABLING ACT OF '26 AND THE STANDARD CITY PLANNING ENABLING ACT OF '28.
THEY WEREN'T ACTUALLY FORMAL LEGISLATION.
THEY WERE SORT OF MODEL PROGRAMS THAT STATES COULD ENACT, AND MANY STATES HAVE, BUT IT CREATED THAT PARTICIPATION PROCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL LEGAL STRUCTURE THAT PRETTY MUCH IS IN MOST PLANNING DOCUMENTS TODAY, CREATED THE COMPOSITION OF A PLANNING COMMISSION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN CITIES AND THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
IT ALSO ADDRESSED REGIONAL PLANNING.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE HGAC REGIONAL SITUATION FOR US HERE LOCALLY, SUBDIVISION CONTROL, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS.
IT WAS REALLY DEALING MORE WITH HOW A CITY BASICALLY MOVES FORWARD WITH WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ON THE PUBLIC SIDE OF THINGS.
PRIVATE PROPERTY STANDARDS WERE IN THE ZONING ACT, AND THAT'S IN A DIFFERENT CHAPTER.
IT WAS INITIALLY AN ENDEAVOR TO COORDINATE THOSE PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT.
OF COURSE, FAIRLY SHORTLY THEREAFTER, MANY CITIES BEGAN TO ADD LAND USE, RECREATION, ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, SOCIAL ISSUES, FISCAL AND BUDGETARY ISSUES, WHICH ARE CLEARLY A VERY IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THE CITY'S FISCAL HEALTH AND AESTHETICS.
THIS IS ONE OF MANY DEFINITIONS OF WHAT PLANNING IS.
IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST CONCISE I'VE EVER SEEN, BUT IT'S A METHOD OF IDENTIFYING THE ENVISIONED FUTURE AND IDENTIFYING THE STEPS TO ACHIEVE THAT ENVISIONED FUTURE.
AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IN THE MISSION PORTION OF DEFINING WHAT WE WANT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BE, THERE WILL BE DEFINITELY DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD DO IN THAT REGARD.
I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT PLANNING, AS A FIELD, IS CONTROVERSIAL.
WE ALL KNOW THAT HERE AT THIS TABLE.
IT'S CONTROVERSIAL BECAUSE YOU ARE ENVISIONING WHAT YOU WANT A FUTURE TO BE, AND WHEN YOU DO THAT, THERE ARE DIFFERENT VISIONS BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE.
IT'S CONTROVERSIAL BY ITS NATURE.
>> LIKE HOUSTON. NEVER CEASES TO AMAZE ME.
>> NOW, HERE'S OUR AUTHORITY TO CREATE THE PLAN.
[02:45:02]
EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS PLANNING DONE WELL BEFORE THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE ADDED THIS AS A CHAPTER, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR QUITE A WHILE, BUT THIS IS NOW THE LEGAL CHAPTER, CHAPTER 213 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT ENABLES MUNICIPALITIES TO DEVELOP AND ADOPT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO.IT ESTABLISHES A FEW MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS: LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION, AND PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE THOSE LISTED IN THE LEGISLATURE DOCUMENTS, AND SO, OF COURSE, MOST OTHER COMMUNITIES GO WELL BEYOND THAT.
PLANS CAN CONSIST OF TRADITIONAL MAP-BASED PLANS, FUNCTIONAL PLANS, SUCH AS, WHAT BRANDON [PHONETIC] AND HIS TEAM HAVE BEEN WORKING ON WITH THE MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
POLICY PLANS THAT ARE MUCH MORE NOT RELATED TO MAPPING, BUT HOW WE DO THINGS.
SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS, SUCH AS, CORRIDOR, SECTOR NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS, WHICH WE HAVE A FEW OF THOSE IN THE CITY, BUT ONE OF ITS MOST IMPORTANT PURPOSES IS TO DETERMINE THAT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
WE PLANNERS LIKE TO DABBLE IN THE LONG RANGE THINGS LIKE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS BECAUSE IT'S THE FUN SIDE OF THINGS.
THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATION, HOWEVER, IS PRETTY MUCH MORE OR NORMAL DAILY DUTY, AND THAT'S THOSE TWO THINGS CONNECTING THERE.
THIS IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE, I SHOULD SAY, IN CHAPTER 213.
OFFICIALLY. IT'S REALLY NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I JUST DESCRIBED, BUT THIS IS THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE.
THE ONE THING THAT TEXAS DOES THAT SOME OTHER COMMUNITIES DO NOT DO IS THEY REQUIRE A NOTATION ON OUR ZONING MAP THAT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ZONING REGULATIONS OR ESTABLISH ZONING BOUNDARIES.
>> THE PART THAT'S IN PARENTHESES IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS ALMOST A REGULATORY DOCUMENT THAT IS REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR YOU TO EFFECTIVELY GO MAKE ZONING CHANGES.
>> I KNOW IT'S NOT REGULATORY.
>> I SAID THE WORD REGULATORY.
>> [LAUGHTER] BUT MY POINT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN ECHOING FOR QUITE A WHILE IS THAT WE CAN'T GO AND MAKE SIGNIFICANT ZONING CHANGES UNTIL WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
>> MOST DEFINITELY. IT IS THE GUIDING DOCUMENT TO ALL YOUR ZONING DECISIONS.
>> THE ONLY STAFF REPORT I'VE EVER SEEN FROM THE LANDMARK COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND CITY COUNCIL ON STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY ALWAYS REFERENCE WHERE THAT RECOMMENDATION IS VERIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> ANY OF THE APPLICANTS IN THESE CASES CITE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO SUPPORT THEIR ARGUMENT.
>> IT'S AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT DOCUMENT.
NOW, RECOGNIZING THAT WE'RE DYNAMIC AND EVER-EVOLVING, HERE'S WHAT THE PLAN DOES.
IT DEFINES THE IDENTITY AND ROLE OF THE CITY, ESTABLISHES GENERAL DIRECTION THROUGH LONG AND SHORT-TERM GOALS, IDENTIFIES BASICALLY YOUR SWOT ANALYSIS, WHERE YOUR OPPORTUNITIES, CHALLENGES, WEAKNESSES, STRENGTHS, GUIDES CONSISTENCY AND DEVELOPMENT.
CONSISTENCY IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF NOT GETTING SUED FOR MAKING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS DECISIONS.
FORMULATES RECOMMENDATIONS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS, REGULATION GOALS, BUT DOES NOT REGULATE.
[LAUGHTER] YOU GUYS ARE WAY AHEAD OF ME.
[LAUGHTER] SPECIFIES MONITORING AND PROVIDES FOR REVISION, ACHIEVES EFFICIENT USE OF FUNDS IF APPLIED CORRECTLY, COPES WITH POTENTIAL GROWTH AND POTENTIAL DECLINE IN CITIES.
WE DON'T REALLY NECESSARILY HAVE A DECLINE ISSUE, BUT OBVIOUSLY, THAT AFFECTED US AFTER HURRICANE IKE WHEN WE DID HAVE SOME EXODUS FROM THE ISLAND.
PRESERVES UNIQUE AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE CITY AND ESTABLISHES THE LEGAL FOUNDATION FOR THE REGULATIONS.
[02:50:03]
>> I WOULD ADD TO THAT, AS AN ISLAND, WE'RE MORE VULNERABLE TO ANY [INAUDIBLE] BECAUSE OF OUR DYNAMIC NATURE, I GUESS.
I WOULD ADD TO THAT THE THREATS TO OUR NATURAL RESOURCES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES [INAUDIBLE] GLOBAL WARMING, SEA LEVEL RISE, EROSION.
EVERYTHING IS ATTACKING, I GUESS, OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.
WE NEED TO ADD THAT TO THAT LIST, I THINK.
[INAUDIBLE] OUR NATURAL RESOURCES, OUR HABITAT, AND OUR WILDLIFE.
>> YEAH. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GAVE EARLIER WAS WHAT THE STATE LEGAL DEFINITION OF [OVERLAPPING].
BUT TO COUNCILMEMBER BROWN'S POINT IS THAT, YES, THAT ABSOLUTELY, WE NEED TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S A LIMIT AS TO WHAT YOU CAN PUT INTO THIS COMPREHENSIVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU CAN DO SAFETY, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER THE HECK YOU WANT TO DO.
>> NO, I'M NOT GOING TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT ACTUAL STATUTE, THAT CHAPTER 213 THAT ADDRESSES IT, IT SAYS VERY SPECIFICALLY, CITY CAN DO WELL BEYOND ALL OF THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE ARE CITIES THAT PUT WELLNESS GOALS IN THERE AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF.
>> THE OVERALL NATURE OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT'S ONGOING AND PERPETUAL THROUGHOUT WHATEVER YOU DETERMINE THE PLANNING HORIZON IS.
THAT'S TYPICALLY SOMEWHERE AROUND 20 YEARS, COULD BE 10, COULD BE 30.
THAT'S ONE OF ITS ASPECTS, IT'S OBVIOUSLY LONG-RANGE AND SHORT-RANGE STRATEGIC.
IT'S VISIONARY AND ASPIRATIONAL.
THIS IS ALL ABOUT WHAT DO WE WANT TO BE GOING FORWARD.
WE KNOW WHAT WE'VE BEEN, WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE, WE KNOW WHAT CONDITIONS ARE CURRENTLY, AND IN THE FUTURE, PROSPECTIVELY, WHAT DO WE WANT TO ASPIRE TO? IT'S DYNAMIC AND FLEXIBLE, BUT THE KEY IS NOT TOO FLEXIBLE.
IT HAS TO HAVE DYNAMIC AND FLEXIBLE MEANING THAT YOU ASSIGN THE GOALS TO IT AND YOUR OBJECTIVES AND YOUR MISSION AND ALL THOSE THINGS, AND YOU DON'T WANT TO REALLY STRAY FROM THAT IN THE OVERALL CONTEXT, BUT YOU CAN STRAY INDIVIDUALLY WITH THINGS IF THE SITUATION WANTS.
>> ALSO, REMEMBER COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ARE A 10-20 YEAR DOCUMENT, 10 ON THE SHORT SIDE, 20 ON THE LONG SIDE.
YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SO RIGID THAT THE PLAN CAN'T EVOLVE AND GROW AS THINGS CHANGE.
NOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE UNFORESEEN THINGS.
WHEN WE DID OUR LAST COMP PLAN, NOBODY EVER CONTEMPLATED A PANDEMIC.
BUT STILL, YOU HAVE TO LEAVE ENOUGH AREA IN THERE TO WHERE YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CHANGES.
THE PLAN HAS TO BE SOMEWHAT ADAPTIVE.
>> YOU HAVE TO BE CLEAR ON THE EXPECTATION [INAUDIBLE].
>> AT THE END OF THE 20 YEARS, AT THE END OF THE 10 YEARS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, HOW YOU GET THERE, THE PLAN IS NOT SO OPERATIONAL AS IT IS ASPIRATIONAL.
>> TWENTY-YEAR HORIZON, BUT WE WILL REVISE THAT PLAN [INAUDIBLE] FIVE YEARS [INAUDIBLE].
>> I THINK THAT YEARS AGO, THAT WAS THE CASE.
THESE PLANS HAVE GOTTEN SO EXPENSIVE NOW THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY DO THAT AS OFTEN.
SOME CITIES HAVE STAFF IN-HOUSE THAT DO IT AND DO SOME REVISIONS, BUT I CERTAINLY THINK IT'S ALWAYS WORTH REVISITING IF THERE'S BEEN MASSIVE CHANGES EITHER IN MARKET, DEMOGRAPHIC, [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK THE BIG REASON WHY, IN MY OPINION, 2012, ONE OF THE FIRST MEETINGS WE HAD, WE'VE JUST TABLED IT AND WE'VE STILL FOLLOWED A LOT OF THE THINGS THERE, BUT A PLAN SHOULD BE LIVING AND BREATHING AND MOVING, AND I THINK WE CAN HAVE A SHORT LIST EVERY YEAR OF THINGS THAT WE COULD CHANGE OR WE COULD ADD TO IT OR WHEN WE ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING IN OUR PLAN, HEY, PUT IT IN THERE THAT WE ACCOMPLISHED IT, PUT IT IN THERE THAT HEY, WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH THIS.
>> I HEAR YOU TWO SAYING THE SAME THING.
>> AS FAR AS I KNOW, AT END OF THE YEAR, YOU DO EVALUATE WHAT YOU'VE ACCOMPLISHED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE TRY TO. WE DON'T ALWAYS [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT SAYS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO IT [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER].
>> I'M LOOKING BACK. [LAUGHTER]
>> [INAUDIBLE] TO DO ONE EVERY FIVE-YEAR. I THINK IT'S PRUDENT TO US TO ESTABLISH A TIMELINE FOR THAT AS WELL, SIX YEARS, SEVEN YEARS, WHATEVER IT IS, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO REVISE, [INAUDIBLE] REVISE THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON PREDICTABLE PLACES.
>> THAT'S FINE. IT JUST NEEDS TO MADE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THERE'S A COST AND A BUDGETARY DEAL THAT GOES WITH IT.
>> IT'S THE SHORT-TERM REPLACEMENT, REPAIR, PATCH, UPDATE THAT SAVES US THAT 20 YEAR.
[OVERLAPPING] I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE TO RESUBMIT A BRAND NEW PLAN EVERY 20 YEARS,
[02:55:04]
BUT WE'RE IN THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ONE BECAUSE WE JUST LET THINGS [OVERLAPPING].>> YOU CAN WANT THINGS GO FASTER [INAUDIBLE], AND IF WE'RE UPDATING IT, THEN WHERE'S YOUR COMP PLAN? WELL, IT'S A LIVING, BREATHING DOCUMENT, AND EVERY FIVE YEARS, WE DO A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW.
EVERY YEAR, NOT EVERY SIX MONTHS, WE CHECK OFF, WE UPDATE [INAUDIBLE] THE CONSENT ITEMS DEAL.
>> THE PLAN IS REALLY WORTH [INAUDIBLE] UNLESS YOU HAVE REPORT ON PROGRESS [INAUDIBLE] ON YOUR ERROR.
>> THAT'S TRUE. OBVIOUSLY, A LOT OF THE IMPLEMENTATION IS IN REGULATORY FORMAT.
YOU'RE REACTING RIGHT NOW TO STRS, THAT'S CLEARLY AN ISSUE.
THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME PROBABLY REGULATORY REVISIONS TO.
IF IN THE OVERALL, YOUR PLAN SAYS, HEY, WE NEED TO ADDRESS WHAT THE IMPACTS OF STRS ARE, THEN THAT'S HOW IT ALL WORKS TOGETHER.
>> WE HAVEN'T, IN THE PAST, EVER HAD AMENDMENTS TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN [INAUDIBLE]?
NO. THAT'S WHY YOU REALLY DON'T WANT TO GO MUCH BEYOND MAYBE 10 OR SO YEARS.
>> BACK WHEN YOU HAD STAGGERED TERMS AND THINGS, THE COUNCILS THAT BROUGHT THESE PLANS WERE MORE ATTUNED TO THEM.
BUT GIVEN OUR EVERY TWO YEARS, I'M PUSHING THAT EVERY TWO YEARS AND THE CHANGING OF THE COUNCILS, THEY LOSE SIGHT OF THE COMP PLAN.
IT TRIES TO LIVE IN YOUR OTHER CODES AND ORDINANCES LIKE YOUR LDRS, AND YOUR OTHER POLICIES THAT WE ADOPTED.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE COST CONSTRAINT, BUT HOW I'M CONSUMING IT IS, IS IT REALLY TO LOOK AT THE OVERVIEW OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND APPLY IT TO THE PLAN THAT YOU'RE DOING, THE COMP PLAN? WHAT'S THE [OVERLAPPING]?
>> I THINK IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT YOU WANT ON THE UPDATES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE EXPENSE COMES IN.
>> IT DEPENDS ON HOW COMPREHENSIVE YOU WANT TO BE ON THAT THAT THESE TAKE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DO THE STATE OF THE CITY.
YOU COULD TIE THINGS INTO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I FOLLOW YOUR STRATEGY BECAUSE YOUR ONE-YEAR REPORT TELLS YOU WHAT YOU'VE DONE OR WHERE YOU'RE GOING, BUT YOUR FIVE-YEAR IS A BROAD ENOUGH HORIZON AND ALLOWS YOU TO RESPOND TO MARKET CONDITIONS AND DEVELOPMENT CHANGES THAT REQUIRE MAYBE SOME ATTENTION AND SOME RESEARCH AT A FIVE-YEAR MARK.
HONESTLY, THE LAST THING YOU WANT TO HAVE IT DO IS JUST BE STUCK ON THE SHELF AND NOT EVOLVE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
RECOGNIZING THAT THAT IS WHAT OCCURRED, AND WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND SPEND THE MONEY AND MAKE THE CHANGE INITIALLY.
BUT TO COUNCILMEMBER PORRETTO'S OPTION, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT.
WELL BEYOND YOUR NEXT ELECTION CYCLE, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, FIVE YEARS OUT, WE NEED TO DROP A LITTLE MONEY IN THE CIP IN ORDER TO DO AN UPDATE.
>> BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRES ABSOLUTELY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT BECAUSE IT'S SUPPOSED TO REFLECT WHAT PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND WANT TO SEE 100%.
>> WE KNOW IT'S CYCLICAL. WE JUST DISCUSSED [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER].
IT TRANSCENDS CITY COUNCIL, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND STAFF.
THE PLAN IS CERTAINLY BIGGER THAN OUR STAFF.
IT'S REALLY BIGGER THAN ANY OF US, SO TO SPEAK.
BUILT ON PAST EFFORTS, BUT IT CAN BE INCREMENTAL AND/OR REVISIONIST AS WELL.
THE INCREMENTAL COMPONENT, REVISIONIST COMPONENT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT THE TAKE IT ALL AT ONE TIME KIND OF EFFORT.
[NOISE] THIS IS WHAT THE ACTUAL PURPOSE, AS STATED IN THE 2011 GALVESTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS, WHICH, BY THE WAY, I WILL ADD WAS A GOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT WAS VERY DEEP. MOST OF ITS ELEMENTS ARE STILL ABSOLUTELY RELEVANT.
BUT ANYHOW, IT SAID IT WAS DEVELOPED AS A LONG-RANGE PLANNING TOOL TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON THE ISLAND.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT USED BY STAFF, DECISION-MAKING BODIES, RESIDENTS, BUSINESS OWNERS AS WELL, OF COURSE.
PLAN IDENTIFIES GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND STRATEGIES CONCERNING CONSERVATION, GROWTH, AND HUMANITY ELEMENTS.
CERTAINLY, SOME OF THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE IN THAT PLAN ARE WELL BEYOND WHAT THE STATE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE.
QUALITY AND CHARACTER OF THE ISLAND'S COMMERCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS, INDUSTRIAL CENTERS, KEY CORRIDORS, SUCH AS BROADWAY, SEAWALL, AND 61ST.
THE CONSERVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF NEIGHBORHOODS, CITYWIDE,
[03:00:03]
INCLUDING THE REBUILDING AND RENEWAL OF NEIGHBORHOODS DAMAGED BY HURRICANE IKE.THERE'S BEEN SOME IMPLEMENTATION OF ALL OF THESE THINGS TO SOME DEGREE.
>> WE ACTUALLY STARTED THE REVISION IN [INAUDIBLE] 2011.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF SENSITIVE NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES.
WE HAVE A LOT OF THAT ON THE ISLAND.
INVESTMENT IN THE ISLAND'S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK, COMMUNITY FACILITIES, UTILITIES, AND SUPPORT SYSTEMS. NOW, THE PROCESS ITSELF, THIS IS BASICALLY THE STANDARD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS WHERE YOU IDENTIFY ISSUES, YOU STATE YOUR MISSIONS, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES, YOU COLLECT THE DATA, PREPARE THE PLAN USING ALL THAT DATA, YOU CREATE THE ALTERNATIVES AND YOU EVALUATE AND SELECT THOSE ALTERNATIVES, YOU GET TO THE POINT OF ADOPTING THE PLAN, AND THEN YOU HAVE YOUR IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING SCHEDULE.
THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED OF US.
OBVIOUSLY, THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE STATE STATUTE, THOSE THREE THINGS.
IT WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE.
THIS IS, OF COURSE, REQUIRED BY OUR RESILIENT COMMUNITIES PROGRAM GRANT, WHICH REQUIRES THIS, YOU ALL WOULD HAVE DONE THIS ANYHOW.
RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY ARE ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THIS COMMUNITY GIVEN WHAT WE'RE FACING.
IT COORDINATES BETWEEN THE CIP AND THE CITY'S BUDGET.
THERE WASN'T VERY MUCH OF THAT IN THE LAST PLAN.
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO REALLY MOVE ON A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THIS PLAN IS INCORPORATING THE THINGS THAT ARE SHOWN IN THE DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN.
>> BACK IN 2011 THE CITY REALLY DID NOT HAVE A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
WHEN I GOT HERE, THE CITY WAS GOING TO IDENTIFY THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND THEY WERE DOING VERY LITTLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHY [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE] HAVE MATERIALITY.
>> RIGHT. BUT NOW YOU'VE ESTABLISHED A DEDICATED FUNDING SOURCE FOR THAT.
>> WE ALSO HAVE A ROLLING FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN THAT'S PART OF OUR TERMINAL PROCESS.
>> OF COURSE, IT ALSO IDENTIFIES THAT PROCESS FOR SPECIFYING FUTURE LAND USE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER STATE STATUTE AS WELL.
WE NEED TO HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN GENERATED AS PART OF THIS PROCESS.
THERE WILL BE THINGS THAT COME OUT OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS THAT WILL GO BEYOND THESE THINGS, AND OF COURSE, THERE'S MUCH MORE INVOLVED.
>> WHAT ARE THOSE UNIQUE THINGS THAT WE HAVE THAT MAYBE OTHER CITIES IN TEXAS DO NOT HAVE? WELL, WE WERE ONE OF THE FIRST LOCATIONS THAT WAS EXPLORED AND SETTLED BY NOT NATIVE PEOPLE.
REMAINS ONE OF THE MOST HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT CITIES, BOTH IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN TERMS OF BUILDINGS AND EVENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED HERE.
THE LAND USE IS PREDATED TRANSPORTATION AND THE INDUSTRIALIZED ERA AND ZONING.
THAT'S WHY OUR PLANS, LIKE OUR ZONING, FOR EXAMPLE, AS A RESULT OF OUR PLAN, HAS URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS THAN PERHAPS A SPRAWLING COMMUNITY.
IT WAS DEVELOPED AS AN ORGANIC, WALKABLE COMMUNITY THAT MANY CITIES NOW THAT ARE SPRAWLING STRIVE TO ARTIFICIALLY REPLICATE.
THEY LOVE US DOWN HERE AND WITH GOOD REASON.
>> YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE ORIGINAL GRID?
>> THE GRID, THE USES. EVERYTHING.
>> YOU'RE THE HOME OF THE ORIGINAL T&D GUYS [LAUGHTER]
>> YES, WE ARE. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.
>> PEOPLE ARE DOING T&DS ALL OVER AND IT'S AN EFFICIENT USE OF LAND, BUT THEY POINT TO GALVESTON AND SAY, WE WISH WE HAD THAT.
THE BARRIER ISLAND, OBVIOUSLY WITH ITS UNIQUE CONFIGURATION OF BY 32 MILES, BOTH RISKS AND REWARDS OF OCEANFRONT LOCATION.
WE HAVE RISKS. WE ALSO HAVE REWARDS. THAT'S ALL PART OF THIS.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY GOT A LARGE TOURISM AND VISITOR ECONOMY,
[03:05:01]
AND THAT IMPACTS OUR HOUSING ACCOMMODATION, OUR TRANSPORTATION, PARKING, OUR SERVICE PROVISION, THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, AND WE HAVE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL SCALE EVENTS THAT OCCUR IN THE CITY THAT ARE REALLY SECOND TO NONE.WE HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CRUISE AND CARGO ASSET PORT, AND THAT'S EVER GROWING AS WELL.
ARTS AND CULTURAL SCENE IS MUCH DEEPER THAN IN TYPICAL TEXAS COMMUNITIES.
THAT'S ARGUABLE, BUT I WOULD CERTAINLY ARGUE THAT WE ARE WAY AHEAD OF OTHERS.
>> I'M SURE ANTOINETTE'S GOT SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
>> I'M SURE. GETTING BACK TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND WHERE WE WANT TO GO WITH THAT PORTION OF THE DISCUSSION, THE STEERING COMMITTEE'S PURPOSE IS TO OBVIOUSLY PROVIDE ONGOING OVERSIGHT OF THE PLANNING PROCESS AND TO ENSURE THE PLAN IS REPRESENTATIVE OF GALVESTON.
OVERSIGHT OF THAT WITH THE PROPER REPRESENTATIVES IS GOING TO BE CRITICAL.
SAME THING THERE WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE COMPOSITION.
THEY WILL ALSO LOOK AT THE VISION AND MISSION STATEMENT GENERATION.
THE GOAL AND OBJECTIVE COMPILATION.
THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STATUS OF ACCOMPLISHMENT IN THE CURRENT PLAN.
OF COURSE, THAT'S MORE A STAFF ASSOCIATED THING, WHICH WE WOULD REPORT.
BUT I THINK THE COMMITTEE WILL WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT WORKED IN A 2011 PLAN, WHAT DIDN'T, WHAT TO CARRY FORWARD, AND IN WHAT FORM AND WHICH TO ELIMINATE.
THEN, OF COURSE, THEY GENERATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADOPTION AND IMPLEMENTATION.
THAT'S THE OVERALL 101 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRESENTATION.
I THINK PETE'S GOT SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW WE MIGHT SET UP THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
I'M ABSOLUTELY AVAILABLE FOR ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.
>> VERSION OF YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> I ACTUALLY THINK THAT WHEN WE HAVE A KICKOFF MEETING, WHEN WE GET THIS MOVING, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO OCCUR ANYHOW.
ABSOLUTELY, I'LL GET THAT ALL OUT TO YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I KNOW PETE'S GOING TO GO OVER THE PROCESS THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TICHERS.
I MEAN, COUNSEL. PETE. YOU'RE ON, SIR.
>> COUNSEL. PETE MILLBURN, PLANNING DIVISION.
TIM, DID A GREAT PRESENTATION.
I DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT FOR YOU.
I WON'T TAKE UP MUCH OF YOUR TIME.
YOU HAD THE MEMO INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA.
WHAT THE GUIDANCE THAT WE'RE WANTING FROM COUNSEL TODAY IS THE PROCESS FOR COMPOSITION OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAVE IN THE MEMO IS FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE MAYOR TO OFFER TWO MEMBERS TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
WE'VE INCLUDED SOME EXAMPLES OF GROUPS FROM WHICH YOU CAN DRAW FROM.
THOSE ARE JUST EXAMPLES, WE'RE NOT LIMITED TO THOSE GROUPS.
BUT WE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO HEAR THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WANT TO GIVE US.
THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE FOR US TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND COME BACK TO YOU ESTABLISHING THAT STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> PETE, COULD YOU VERBALLY GO THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHTS OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION, PLEASE, SIR, FOR THE COMMUNITY.
>> THE HIGHLIGHTS IS BASICALLY THAT THE STEERING COMMITTEE IS GOING TO BE PROVIDING INPUT AND FEEDBACK ON THE ELEMENTS OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, INCLUDING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, VISION, AND GOALS, THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, THE BASE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES, ELEMENT POLICIES AND PRIORITY ACTIONS, AND THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IT'S MADE UP OF LOCAL RESIDENTS, BUSINESS OWNERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, INSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVES, AND OTHER KEY PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
AGAIN, WE'RE WANTING TO HAVE A 14 MEMBER COUNT.
THAT WOULD BE EACH COUNCIL MEMBER OFFERING US TWO MEMBERS TO APPLY TO THE COMMITTEE.
>> CAN COUNSEL BE ON THE COMMITTEE?
>> WELL, COUNSEL IS GOING TO HAVE THEIR SEPARATE OPPORTUNITY FOR
[03:10:03]
INPUT WITH THE VENDOR, WITH THE CONSULTANT.YOU'RE GOING TO BE AT AN ADVANTAGE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER IN PROVIDING YOUR INPUT AS OPPOSED TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
>> ARE WE GETTING CONSISTENT FEEDBACK.
>> YOU GUYS ARE ALSO GOING TO BE INDIVIDUALLY INTERVIEWED AS OPPOSED TO MORE GROUP INTERVIEWS AND THAT THING?
>> BEFORE WE GO DOWN THE ROAD OF TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY AND DID IT WORK? IN 2001, YOU HAD A STEERING COMMITTEE OF 26.
THEN IN 2011, THE ONE YOU SAT ON, YOU HAD A STEERING COMMITTEE OF 33.
TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE LAST ONE WENT LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT.
>> WELL, WHAT I REMEMBER WAS THAT WE DID HAVE A STEERING COMMITTEE, BUT THERE WAS A SEPARATE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR EACH ELEMENT.
THAT'S DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PEOPLE THAT BUT THEN THEY REPORT UP TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ENVISIONING?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. IF WE'RE GOING DOWN THAT ROAD, I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MUCH GREATER EXPENDITURE THAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
>> I GUESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT HOW WE GET TO THE DETAIL REQUIRED FOR EACH ELEMENT WITH 14 PEOPLE.
>> IT'S NOT THAT THEY CAN'T DISCUSS THOSE ELEMENTS. THEY CERTAINLY WOULD.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE DID. LIKE I SAID, IN ORDER TO FOCUS ON THE DETAIL OF EACH ELEMENT, THERE WAS A SEPARATE COMMITTEE ASSIGNED TO EACH ELEMENT.
THEN THEY DID THEIR WORK AND SENT IT UP DURING COMMITTEE.
>> MY ANSWER ALWAYS IS IF YOU PUT TOO MANY HUMPS ON THE CAMEL, THERE'S NO PLACE TO RIDE AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GOT TO BE CAREFUL.
>> THEN IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT I JUST NEED TO SELECT. I'M TRYING TO WRITE THEM.
>> TIM, TO YOUR POINT. WHAT YOU'VE JUST POINTED TO IS THAT OBVIOUSLY WE'VE ESTABLISHED A BUDGET FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
THEN YOUR CONSULTANT HAS WRITTEN A SCOPE OF SERVICES THAT HE CAN DELIVER A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT MEETS OBVIOUSLY THE OBJECTIVES THAT YOU'VE OUTLINED THERE.
THAT'S WHY HE'S COMING FORWARD WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR 14 BECAUSE HE'S NOT RECOMMENDING GOING DOWN THE ROUTE OF DOING SUBCOMMITTEES. IS THAT WHAT I HEAR?
>> THIS IS NOT AS A DEEP A DIVE AS MAYBE IS WHAT WE DID IN 2011.
>> IN 2011, YOU WERE RECOVERING FROM A MASSIVE HURRICANE.
EVERYBODY HAD INTEREST IN REBIRTH AT THAT TIME.
>> YOU ALSO HAD A FEDERALLY FUNDED BUDGET OF $1.6 MILLION? AT THAT TIME, IT WASN'T JUST A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WAS BEING DONE.
IT WAS THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE ANCILLARY TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> WE'RE ALL DONE AT THE SAME TIME.
>> ALL THAT WAS DONE ALL AT ONCE.
THIS IS MORE OF A SCALE BACK FOCUS ON JUST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ASPECTS OF IT.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING IF 14 PEOPLE IS ENOUGH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT TO GET THIS.
AS A CONSULTANT, ARE THEY ANTICIPATING SOME OTHER PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS?
>> ABSOLUTELY. THERE WILL BE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
ALSO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS CURRENT UPDATE OPPORTUNITY AND 2011 IS NOT ONLY THE FUNDS, BUT ALSO THE TIME RESTRICTION.
THE GLO HAS A PRETTY TIGHT TIME FRAME, WHICH IS 24 MONTHS TOTAL.
THAT 24 MONTHS, IT INCLUDES THE UPDATE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THEN SECONDARY TO THAT, WE HAVE TO INCORPORATE THE ELEMENTS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTO THE ODRS.
WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE THE ZONING STANDARDS.
>> PARTICULAR WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE, THE ASPECTS.
>> THIS DOES LDR FROM WHAT I'M GATHERING, I HATE TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, BUT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT WHAT WE'VE DONE OR WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE DONE DO THE BOARD UPDATE AND THEN SEE WHERE WE WANT TO GO FROM WHERE WE WERE AT IN THE 2011.
>> LET ME ASK THIS, TIM, IF I COULD.
IF WE MOVE IN THE DIRECTION TO THE 14 MEMBER OF STEERING COMMITTEE.
WHAT'S OUR TIMELINE? WHAT'S THE PROJECTED BUDGET? WHEN DO WE START ON THIS?
[03:15:03]
>> TIMELINE IS SOMEWHAT UNDETERMINED BECAUSE IT'S BASED UPON WHEN WE RECEIVED THAT GLO GRANT.
WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED WORD YET.
YOU ALL AUTHORIZED US TO APPLY FOR THAT GRANT, I THINK IN MARCH OF '24.
WE'RE HEARING THAT THEY'RE MOVING ON IT, BUT WE HAVE NOT HEARD YET WHEN THEY'LL BE ACTUALLY AWARDING.
IN FACT, WE'VE ASKED THE QUESTION OR NOT.
>> HAVE WE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED OUR FINAL GRANT APPLICATION TO THE GLO?
>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT WE JUST HAD A DRAFT THAT WAS SITTING THERE.
>> WAITING FOR THE GLO TO SAY, HERE'S YOUR CHECK.
>> WE'RE WAITING FOR THE AWARD.
WITH THAT THE GLO THEIR TIME FRAMES, THEY'RE NOT SPECIFIED IN ANY DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN SEE ANYWHERE.
>> THEY DO HAVE LIMITS ON WHEN WE HAVE TO EXPAND AND COMPLETE OUR PROJECT.
THEY DON'T TELL US ANYTHING ABOUT WHEN WE WOULD BE AWARDED.
>> TWENTY FOUR MONTHS FROM A FUNDING STANDPOINT, OUR CONTRACT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN VENDOR PROBABLY WOULD BE AROUND A 12 MONTH.
>> WE AS STAFF WOULD MOVE FORWARD ON THE ZONINGS.
I WOULDN'T SAY, BUT I REMEMBER DEALING WITH IT.
I THINK WE HAD TO EXTEND HDR? WE HAD TO EXTEND THEM.
>> IF WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS DIRECTION, YOU WOULD BRING BACK SOME TYPE OF ACTION ITEM IN JANUARY TO COUNSEL?
>> I THINK DEPENDING ON HOW WE IRON THIS OUT TODAY YES, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD EITHER IN JANUARY OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER, IF NOT JANUARY.
>> THE PROCESS LAST TIME, THEY APPROVED THE CORE OF WHAT YOUR COMP PLAN DOES IS REFLECTED IN YOUR LDRS.
WE DIDN'T ADOPT LDRS UNTIL 2015.
YOU HAVEN'T EVEN HIT A 10 YEAR POINT YET ON WHAT YOU'VE DONE IN YOUR LAST COM PLAN, SO SUBSTITUTE.
>> WHEN YOU SAY BRING BACK SOMETHING OR TO JANUARY, WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR US IN JANUARY?
>> DEPENDING ON WHAT WE DECIDE
>> ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE LOOKS..
>> THE COMPOSITION OF THAT STEERING COMMITTEE.
MOSTLY THE NUMBER OF FORKS ON IT.
GAIN, PETE'S MEMO DISCUSSES AGENCIES AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
THERE'S DATA OUT THERE FROM SOME OF THESE AGENCIES THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY BENEFIT FROM.
VISION GALVESTON HAS DONE THEIR PLAN.
BUT THERE ARE CERTAINLY THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME.
THE NATURE OF THE CITY IS DYNAMIC AND IT'S CHANGED, AND WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE AND JUMP FROM THAT IN BOTH DATA AND POLICY AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> WHAT'S THE TOTAL NUMBER BESIDES JUST US APPOINTING TO YOU JUST SAYING 14 PERIOD AND WE SHOULD SELECT FROM THE GROUPS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE COMPILED FOR US?
>> BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY GO OUTSIDE OF THAT.
>> WELL, I'M SURE THERE'S ABOUT HOW MANY GROUPS?
>> INSTITUTIONS AND INTERESTS THAT AREN'T ON THAT LIST.
>> THIS LIST WAS NOT DEFINED TO BE ALL INCLUSIVE AND ALL ENDING.
>> IT APPEARS THAT THERE'S QUALIFICATIONS, I GUESS, TO SERVE ON IT AND QUALIFICATIONS BEING ASSOCIATED WITH THESE INSTITUTIONS.
BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY INCLUDING AN ORDINARY CITIZEN IN THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
THEY'LL BE ENGAGED IN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> WELL, ALSO I THINK WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE DON'T DUPLICATE OUR REPRESENTATION FROM THE INSTITUTION.
>> I GUESS LET'S SAY WE'RE LIMITING IT TO 14 INSTITUTIONS OR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS THAT ARE IN ON BASICALLY.
>> COULD WE LIMIT IT TO ONE PER INSTITUTION?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IF WE DON'T WANT TO DUPLICATE OR ELSE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE REPRESENTATION WE NEED.
>> FOUR PEOPLE FROM THE CHAMBER OR [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT LIMITING IT TO ONE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE LOOK AT 21 [INAUDIBLE] 14.
>> I KNOW. WELL, IT CAN BE THREE PER COUNCIL.
>> [INAUDIBLE] AT THE MATH. [LAUGHTER]
>> THE BIG NUMBERS AGAIN. THE NOTION OF GOING FROM 14-21 ISN'T A BAD NOTION.
WE'RE ALL I THINK WANTING TO ACCEPT ALL THAT EXTRA PERSPECTIVE.
[03:20:06]
THE ISSUE BECOMES WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GET A GROUP THAT MAYBE BECOMES SO LARGE THAT IT BECOMES UNMANAGEABLE AND THEY ARE GOING FIVE DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.>> AGAIN, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THIS, WHETHER IT'S 7, 14, 21, WHATEVER PERMUTATION THAT YOU WANT TO DO, THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE BUSIER THAN A CRANBERRY MERCHANT AT [INAUDIBLE].
>> THIS IS THE BUSY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY'VE GOT A SHORT TIMELINE.
>> THERE WILL BE MEETING COST TO THAT.
>> THE ISSUE WITH 21, THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT I CAN SEE IS TRYING TO GET THE MEETINGS TOGETHER. THAT'S THE THING.
BUT THEN, AGAIN, TOO, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD AND 21 AND YOU SET THE MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF YOUR MEETINGS AT 10 WHERE THAT'S A QUORUM, MAYBE IT WORKS.
BUT IF YOU'RE TRYING TO COORDINATE 21 PEOPLE SCHEDULED TO MEET TRYING TO MEET A 24-MONTH TIMELINE, THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY CONCERN.
I AGREE MORE INPUT IS ALWAYS BETTER, BUT YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO SLOW THAT PROCESS BECAUSE, KEEP IN MIND, I DON'T WANT TO GET MY BACK AGAINST THE WALL ON A 24-MONTH TIMELINE.
>> WOULDN'T THAT HAVE BEEN THAT CRANBERRY MERCHANT AT THANKSGIVING TURN? [LAUGHTER]
>> THE LAST TIME WE DID IT, WE HAD 33 PEOPLE, WE WEREN'T UNDER THIS ONE-YEAR TIME CRUNCH.
>> CORRECT. IT WAS A DIFFERENT FUNDING SCENARIO, DIFFERENT PARAMETERS THEN.
>> WE COULD BRING BACK, IN JANUARY, A ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
WE COULD LEAVE THE NUMBER OPEN FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT IN THE MOTION AND SEE WHAT COUNCIL SUPPORT WAS SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN JANUARY.
I LIKE THE 14 PERSONALLY, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT WITH THIS PROCESS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOUGH A CRITERIA ON WHICH YOU WOULD RECOMMEND FOR THOSE APPOINTMENTS.
I'M A LITTLE UNCLEAR ON THE CRITERIA.
>> YEAH, QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS ON THAT.
>> I THINK LIMITING IT TO ONE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE PULL FROM TO PUT THAT AS A [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT ALMOST EVERY BUSINESS, THEY'RE PROBABLY A MEMBER OF THE CHAMBER, AND JUST SAY THERE'S ONLY ONE PERSON.
>> I DON'T MEAN LIKE I'M A MEMBER OF THE CHAMBER AND I CAN ONLY PICK ONE MEMBER OF THE CHAMBER.
I MEAN FROM THE CHAMBER, LET'S JUST SAY [OVERLAPPING].
>> FROM THE BOARD. [OVERLAPPING]
>> FROM GINA, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TWO OR THREE BOARD.
IT'S REDUNDANT AT A CERTAIN POINT.
>> OR WE COULD EVEN DO IT IN BROADER TERMS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHICH COULD INCLUDE THE CHAMBER, GDP.
THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME GUIDANCE ON QUALIFICATIONS IN WRITING TO COUNCIL IF YOU COULD.
>> YOU CAN LOOK AT THE CURRENT COMP PLAN AND THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, AND USE THESE ELEMENTS AS A GUIDELINE OF YOUR INSTITUTIONAL REPRESENTATIVE.
>> YOU COULD TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU JUST PRESENTED TO US IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU BELIEVE ARE THE MAJOR STRATEGIES THAT YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IN THE COMP PLAN AND YOU CAN LINE UP YOUR ORGANIZATIONS ACCORDING TO THAT.
I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT BECAUSE, OTHERWISE, IT BECOMES A LITTLE DAUNTING.
>> THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY OF IS THAT, WELL, THERE ARE SEVEN OF US WITH TWO.
ALEX MAY WANT SOMEBODY FROM THE SAME ORGANIZATION OR WHATEVER, AND SO ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU GET 14 AND THREE OF THEM ARE FROM THE SAME ORGANIZATION.
>> THAT'S WHY WE HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
>> [INAUDIBLE] I THINK WHOEVER SAID IT OVER THERE, IF THEY'RE ON THE BOARD OF THE DIRECTORS OR NOT.
A PERSON CAN BE A MEMBER OF A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATION, THAT DOESN'T MEAN [OVERLAPPING] THAT.
>> MORE SO FROM LEADERSHIP [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S FROM THE LEADERSHIP POSITION.
I'M SAYING THAT'S OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH AS COUNCIL, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT THAT TO DELAY ANOTHER MONTH.
IN OTHER WORDS, HEY YOU GIVE HER 14, TWO OF THEM FROM THE SAME GROUP, OKAY, WE NEED TO GO CHANGE IT.
THAT'S JUST AN EMAIL [INAUDIBLE].
>> COULD YOU ADDRESS THAT, PETE, WHEN YOU BRING BACK THIS ORDINANCE, GIVE US GUIDANCE ON HOW WE GET TO HANDLE THOSE CONCERNS THAT COUNCILMAN FINKLEA IS BRINGING UP?
>> THIS IS A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE DISCUSSION, BUT I'VE JUST GOT A QUESTION RELATED TO FUNDING.
IS 100% OF THIS COMP PLAN UPDATE COMING FROM THE GLO OR IS ANY OF IT FROM THE ESTABLISHED LINE ITEM THAT HAS BEEN IN THE BUDGET FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS?
>> AT THIS POINT, IT'S 100% FROM THE GLO.
THEY'RE VERY CLOSE TO 100%, I THINK THEY [OVERLAPPING].
I CAN'T GET INTO ANY BIT IN ISSUES HERE.
[03:25:01]
>> THE ONLY REASON I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T START THE PROJECT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE FUNDING IN PLACE.
>> THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION BECAUSE IF YOU'VE GOT A SOURCE FROM THE BUDGET THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT WE'VE BEEN CARRYING FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO START THIS PROCESS? BRIAN, THANK YOU.
>> IT HAS TO DO WITH THEIR FUNDING MECHANISM AND HOW WE DID IT [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M TRYING TO MOVE THINGS ALONG.
>> [LAUGHTER] [INAUDIBLE]. BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE BRIGHT SIDE.
THIS IS A MAJOR EXPENSE BEING PICKED UP BY SOMEBODY OTHER OUR CITIZENS [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHAT ARE WE SPENDING ON THIS PLAN?
>> THAT'S WHAT THE GRANT IS ELIGIBLE, UP TO 300,000.
>> I SUSPECT, GUYS, IT'S GOING TO BE MORE THAN THAT AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND FOR A TWO-YEAR PROCESS.
>> WELL, THE CONSULTANT WOULD BE ENGAGED FOR ABOUT A YEAR, ROUGHLY.
BUT AS TO OUR DELIVERABLES TO THE GLO, IT'D BE THE 24-MONTH PROCESS.
>> I'M SURE I DON'T REMEMBER, BUT I THINK WE EXTENDED HDR TWICE, [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GETTING EXTRA MONEY.
>> THIS INCLUDES THE CONSULTANT WORK, INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISION, BUT ALSO THE LDR.
>> NO, THAT PROBABLY LIKELY WOULD BE STAFF.
>> CONSULTANT, WE EXPECT THAT WORK TO TAKE A YEAR THEN NOW.
>> THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND OVER ONE YEAR.
>> THE LDR WORK WE'LL TRY TO DO IT BY STAFF, BUT THERE MAY BE A NEED FOR [INAUDIBLE], I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE'LL SEE.
>> WE CAN EVALUATE THAT AS WE GET THROUGH THE PROCESS AND PUT IN FUTURE REQUEST FOR MONEY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] COMMENT. I GUESS DO WE NEED TO SAY THAT ANYONE SERVING ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE HAS TO LIVE IN GALVESTON?
>> I THINK THAT'S IN OUR COMMITTEE RULES REGARDLESS.
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> SHARON [OVERLAPPING]. [LAUGHTER]
>> THE SELECTION OF THE PEOPLE, ARE WE GOING TO RELATE IT TO THE CONTENT THEMES HERE? IF I SAY, OKAY, I WANT HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS ELEMENT.
I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, I'M JUST ASKING.
THE PEOPLE THAT WE SELECT, ARE WE GOING TO TAKE THESE CONTENT THEMES AND MAKE SURE THEY CAN WORK WITHIN THAT? BECAUSE IT SAYS HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS ELEMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, LAND USE.
>> THE PEOPLE WE'RE SELECTING, CAN WE LOOK AT MAYBE LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN WORK WITHIN THIS CONTENT THEME HERE?
>> I THINK THE ANSWER IS, AND I'M GOING TO TAKE MR. FINKLEA'S APPROACH.
IT IS A DAUNTING TASK TO COME UP WITH WHO'S GOING TO FIT INTO THESE CATEGORY.
>> IT'S LIKE TAKING ON HELL WITH A SQUIRT GUN.
>> YES, WE WANT TO HAVE THAT LEADERSHIP AND THE GUIDANCE OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE, BUT THE REAL ESSENCE OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET OUT OF THIS IS GOING TO COME FROM THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
>> THAT'S THE NUMBER ONE IMPORTANT PART, THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
>> BUT TO YOUR POINT THOUGH, THE EXPERTISE OR QUALIFICATIONS THAT WE NEED ARE GOING TO BE RELATED TO EACH ELEMENT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING.
I GUESS WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH ELEMENT AND REVISE IT OR ADD OR TAKE AWAY ELEMENTS AND PROCESS.
IS THAT HOW THIS COMMITTEE WILL WORK? WELL, WE'LL GET THE BIG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE'LL START GOING ELEMENT BY ELEMENT.
>> I DON'T THINK CONSECUTIVELY.
NO, I THINK IT'LL BE AN APPROACH THAT'S STARTING FROM SCRATCH, SO TO SPEAK, BUT IT WILL CONTEMPLATE ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT ARE IN THERE AND THEN GO FROM WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE ON SOME OF THOSE ISSUES TO WHERE THE GAPS THAT HAVE TURNED UP SINCE THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> I THINK A LOT OF THOSE ORDERS WILL DEPEND ON THE CONSULTANT THAT WE SELECT AND THEIR TYPICAL PATH, FOR THEY ALL HAVE THEIR PROGRAMS THAT THEY FOLLOW.
>> LET ME QUICKLY FINISH MY QUESTION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT WOULD BE A TASK TO DO, BUT I THINK OF THIS AS WE'RE NOTHING BUT GROWN-UP KIDS.
IF I'M A HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEN YOU START WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, OH, I THINK I GOT SOMETHING ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOO.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THAT QUESTION TO JUST, NOT PIGEONHOLE, BUT TO GIVE PEOPLE THEIR EXPERTISE.
BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS NUMBER 1.
>> YES, IT IS. BUT WE ALSO CONCEIVE THIS TO BE A REFLECTION OF YOU.
THIS IS THIS IS YOUR PLAN AS A BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY, CITY COUNCIL.
IF SHARON'S MAJOR CONCERN WAS X AND Y, THEN YOU WOULD SUBMIT THOSE TWO AND BEAU'S IS C AND D, IT WOULD REFLECT YOUR PRIORITY.
[03:30:03]
THAT WAS THE OVERALL THINKING.NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT TRANSLATING TO THAT, BUT WE HOPE IT DOES.
>> IT MAKE SENSE JUST AS LONG AS WE DON'T DUPLICATE.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THIS COORDINATION IS GOING TO HAVE TO OCCUR WITH WHAT WE GET BACK TO YOU NEXT MONTH IS HOW TO NOT DUPLICATE.
>> WHAT IS OUR EXPECTATION OF STARTING THAT COMPANY ON THIS, WHOEVER WE [OVERLAPPING]?
>> AS SOON AS WE GET THE AWARD FROM THE GLO AND THE PROCUREMENT GUIDELINES, WE'RE GOING TO GO.
>> YOUR APPLICATION HAS BEEN IN SINCE HOW?
>> WELL, YOU AUTHORIZED US TO SUBMIT IT IN MARCH.
I THINK WE SUBMITTED IT IN JULY.
>> IT WAS DURING THE SUMMER, SOMETIME [OVERLAPPING].
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS JULY [INAUDIBLE].
>> YOU HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS, YOU'RE JUST WAITING [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU'VE GOT A PREFERRED VENDOR AND YOU'RE READY TO GO.
>> THAT'S BEEN A BENEFIT OF US WORKING THROUGH THIS APPLICATION PROCESS, IS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO CONCURRENTLY TAKE CARE OF ALL THIS STUFF THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> JUST WAITING FOR THE MONEY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] DISCUSSION TODAY, THE COURT'S A LITTLE AHEAD, BUT WE'RE GOOD.
>> WE CAN THINK OF IT AS ALL THE PIECES ARE IN PLACE AND THEN ONCE THE GUN SIGNS.
>> BEAU HAD TO QUESTION. BEAU.
>> I SAW THIS IN THE COMMITTEE THAT'S BEING FORMED FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
JUST IN WORDING, PETE, I WOULD RECOMMEND, SINCE TIM SAID BASICALLY, HEY, IT'S A REPRESENTATION OF EACH OF US, THAT IT BE LIKE A SUGGESTION OR A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE NAMING THESE GROUPS OFF, THEY'RE EITHER, A, GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY THAT THEY WERE INCLUDED, OR B, A GROUP IS GOING TO SAY WHY WERE WE NOT LISTED? I THINK THE MORE BASIC WE CAN KEEP NOT NAMING INCLUDE THIS, AND THEN OTHERS THAT SAY, HEY, WHERE'S OUR RECOGNITION TO BE INCLUDED? WOULD BE A GOOD POINT TO TAKE FROM WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL GROUP.
>> SO KEEP IT IN BROADER TERMS, NOT AGENCY-SPECIFIC.
>> AGAIN, I WAS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE PAST, AND IT WAS, I THINK, IN THE SAME GROUP. WAS IT 2011?
>> THERE WAS TOWN HALL MEETINGS, THERE WAS A LOT OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
AGAIN, A, I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ANYBODY OUT, AND B, I DON'T WANT TO PUT TOO MANY CONSTRAINTS ON IT.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I JUST WANT TO BE SENSITIVE TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE WORKED HARD TO FORM GROUPS AND MAKE CHANGES AND TO NOT BE INCLUDED, JUST NOT NAME ON ME.
PUT TWO PEOPLE ON THAT YOU THINK IS GOING TO BALANCE OUT AND REPRESENT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO HAVE DONE.
>> PERSONALLY, I SUPPORT WHAT COUNCILMAN RAWLINS IS SAYING ON THAT.
>> BUT TO BE CLEAR THOUGH, THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITY FOR PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS FOR EVERYBODY.
>> I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO PROMOTE THIS WHOLE THING TO ALL OF OUR CONSTITUENTS.
I'VE ALREADY STARTED DOING IT, [INAUDIBLE] THE PRESENTATION RIGHT HERE WILL REALLY HELP ME, I THINK, IN CONTINUING TO DO THAT TO BRING THIS OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND GET THEM ENGAGED IN OUR PROCESS.
>> THE PUBLICITY OF THIS PLANNING PROCESS WILL CERTAINLY BE SOMETHING THAT WE WORKED THROUGH MARISSA WITH, AND BEING THE CONSULTANTS, ALSO WILL BE HAVING A WEBSITE THAT'S UP AND RUNNING COMPLETELY TO NOT ONLY TAKE COMMENTS AND THINGS, BUT TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S A DIFFERENT WORLD AROUND THAN IT WAS IN 2011, '12 WHEN WE ADOPTED [INAUDIBLE].
>> ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, I THINK IT'S BEEN A GREAT DISCUSSION.
>> JUST ONE QUICK THING. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU WOULD AGREE AND COUNCIL, IF WE CAN PUT MR. [OVERLAPPING].
>> THANK YOU. I WAS GETTING READY TO SAY THE SAME THING.
>> WHAT'S THAT? [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND LET MR. MILBURN STAY A MINUTE TO ANSWER 3-L, ABOUT THE LIGHTS, I'M SURE HE HAS SOME GREAT NEWS BECAUSE RESIDENTS KEEP SAYING IT LOOKS LIKE VEGAS OVER THERE.
IT'S FINE WITH ME WHAT I WOULD ALSO SUGGEST, COUNCIL, IF THIS IS A SHORT ITEM ON 3L, THAT WE BREAK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.
LET'S GET SOME LUNCH AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND FINISH UP THE ITEMS IF WE WANT TO.
[3.L. Discussion And Update Of Neighborhoods Lighting In District 1 (Lewis/C Brown -10 Min)]
>> 3L. DISCUSS AN UPDATE OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIGHTING IN DISTRICT 1.
>> THE UPDATE FOR THE LIGHTING IN DISTRICT 1 FOR THE CORNERSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD
[03:35:05]
IS CENTERPOINT HAS INFORMED ME THAT THE MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.THEY'VE COME IN APPROXIMATELY A MONTH NOW.
THEY'VE BEEN IN THEIR WAREHOUSE.
RIGHT NOW, THE ISSUE IS WITH THE INSTALLATION.
THE LIGHTS ARE IN THE QUEUE FOR INSTALL.
THEY'RE ESTIMATING A TIME FRAME OF FEBRUARY, MARCH FOR THE INSTALLATION, THAT'S WITH WEATHER PERMITTING.
THAT'S THE UPDATE THAT I HAVE.
>> WE WON'T BE HERE AT THIS POINT NEXT YEAR-
>> UNLESS WE GET ANOTHER SOMETHING HAPPENS THAT DELAYS CENTERPOINT AGAIN THERE.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY'VE GOT THEY'VE GOT A GUBERNATORIAL MANDATE THAT'S COMING.
>> I'D ADD THAT IF THERE WAS A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S SOME NEW LIGHTS PURCHASED THAT IT WOULDN'T TAKE AS LONG AS IT'S TAKEN FOR THIS.
>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE PURSUING ANYMORE I GUESS.
[4. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE HAVE, FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC THAT MAY BE WATCHING, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE OUR AGENDA ITEMS AROUND.WE'RE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND WHEN WE COME OUT, WE'LL FINISH OUR AGENDA AS LISTED.
IT IS, AS I MENTIONED, 12:49 P.M. PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY AND EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING PENDING LITIGATION AND/OR A SETTLEMENT OFFER OR ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING RAC INDUSTRIES VERSUS CITY OF GALVESTON.
WE NOW ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. EXCUSE ME.
WE ARE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SECTION.
WE HAD SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, BUT WE ARE NOW ABOUT TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND COULD YOU READ OUR NEXT ITEM, PLEASE, JANELLE?
[3.E. Discussion Of Pelican Island Bridge Advanced Funding Agreement And Memorandum Of Understanding For Bridge Participants (Brown - 30 Min)]
>> ITEM 3.E. DISCUSSION OF PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR BRIDGE PARTICIPANTS.
>> THIS ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA.
COUNCIL HAS BEEN GIVEN A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FROM TXDOT CONCERNING THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT THAT THE LOCAL SPONSOR AT THIS POINT IS IN GALVESTON IS THAT POTENTIAL LOCAL SPONSOR.
THIS IS THE CONTRACT THAT WE WOULD SIGN WITH TXDOT THAT MAKES THIS BRIDGE MOVE FORWARD IN AN EXPEDITIOUS MANNER.
THIS CONTRACT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT.
THERE ARE ASPECTS OF THE CONTRACT, ESPECIALLY IN THE FINAL TOTAL FUNDING ASPECTS OF IT THAT ARE NOT COMPLETE YET.
THOSE ARE STILL BEING NEGOTIATED, AND TXDOT IS WORKING WITH THE HOUSTON GALVESTON AREA COUNCIL.
SPECIFICALLY, THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY COUNCIL, COUNCILWOMAN ROBB REPRESENTS THE CITY ON THAT PARTICULAR BODY AND IS UP TO DATE ON THIS.
[NOISE] THAT ITEM IN THE CONTRACT IS STILL NOT FINALIZED.
CONTRACT, THOUGH, DOES HAVE A LOT OF ITEMS IN THERE THAT IS PRETTY WELL SET IN THE CONTRACT, AND THOSE ITEMS WILL NOT CHANGE.
BUT THERE ARE SOME AREAS OF THE CONTRACT THAT ARE STILL OPEN TO DISCUSSION.
ONE IS THERE'S NO WORDING IN THAT CONTRACT, CONCERNING COST OVERRUNS.
THERE'S NO WORDING IN THAT EVEN THAT SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE.
THERE'S NO WORDING IN THAT ABOUT FUNDING FOR RIGHT OF WAYS, ESPECIALLY FROM SUBMERGED IN SUBMERGED LAND, CONCERNING SUBMERGED LAND.
AND OTHER ITEMS, DON AND DAN, DAN BUCKLEY, OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, AND DON GLYWASKY, OUR ATTORNEY, OR OUR REPRESENTATIVES WITH TXDOT AND ARE HANDLING ALL NEGOTIATIONS ON THIS.
THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING WITH THEM TO GET THESE OUTSTANDING ISSUES MOVING FORWARD HERE.
OUR GOAL IS TO UPDATE COUNCIL ON THIS.
OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS, OF COURSE, THAT COUNCIL HAS, BUT UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FINALIZED AT THIS TIME.
TXDOT IS COMMITTED TO MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
[03:40:01]
WE ARE COMMITTED TO THIS.WE UNDERSTAND HERE AT THE CITY THAT THIS HAS QUITE AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THIS ISLAND AND TO THE ENTIRE AREA HERE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF MOVING THIS FORWARD AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
THERE ARE ITEMS OF THIS CONTRACT THAT WE STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT.
THESE ITEMS NEED TO BE LOOKED AT CLOSELY, AND I JUST ENUMERATED THOSE, BUT WE HAVE, AS A COUNCIL, THIS IS A MAJOR DECISION WHEN WE COME DOWN TO THE FINAL DOCUMENT ON LOOKING AT THIS CONTRACT, COMMITTING THE CITY TO THIS, AND MOVING FORWARD.
SAYING THAT I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE HGAC, I THINK TO MAKE THEIR DETERMINATION ON THEIR CONTRIBUTION IN JANUARY.
>> WELL, THERE'S NO WAY THE CITY COULD AFFORD TO COVER THE ADDITIONAL COSTS OR THE COST OF MAINTAINING.
BUT IT'S NOT ONLY THE MPO, TXDOT IS LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AVENUES.
>> WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS ONCE HGA COMMITS, WHICH WE WERE ASKING THEM TO DO, IS THAT THE LAST STEP THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT? WILL THAT HELP COVER THE ITEMS YOU MENTIONED LIKE COST OVERRUNS [OVERLAPPING]?
>> WE'D HAVE TO FORMALIZE IT IN THE AFA, BUT I THINK SO.
>> WELL COST OVERRUNS HAVE VERBALLY BEEN COMMITTED BY TXDOT.
AND WASN'T IT IN A PREVIOUS AFA?
>> NEVER HAS BEEN [OVERLAPPING].
>> ARE DIFFERENT THAN HAVING THE INITIAL FUNDING FOR THE PROJECT.
RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T HAVE THE INITIAL FUNDING NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT.
THEY ARE HOPING TO GET IT FROM HDAS.
>> ARE YOU SAYING WE COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH A PROJECT WITHOUT HAVING TO IDENTIFY COST OVERRUN SOURCES?
THERE IS A SECTION ON COST OVERRUNS.
HOWEVER, IT CONFLICTS WITH WHAT'S REALLY THE DRIVING INSTRUMENT, WHICH IS ATTACHMENT B, WHICH LISTS A TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS.
>> OUR CONTRIBUTIONS AS A LOCAL ENTITY ARE A TOTAL OF $36,100,000.
>> IT'S 200. WHICH I RECALL INCLUDES 1,100,000 FOR RIGHT AWAY UTILITY WORK.
>> IS THAT NOT ENOUGH IS THAT COVERED? IS THAT STILL A PROBLEM, YOU WERE SAYING THAT WAS STILL.
THE THE RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION OF LAND THAT IS NOT SUBMERGED, IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY FEELS FAIRLY COMFORTABLE WE COULD HANDLE.
THE ISSUES RIGHT NOW IS THE LAND THAT'S UNDER THE WATER.
IT'S OWNED BY ONE ENTITY MAINLY.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD GET THE AMOUNT THAT'S SET ASIDE FOR LAND ACQUISITION, PROBABLY WOULD NOT COVER THAT.
>> MECHANICS OF DOING THAT RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION ARE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.
>> I THOUGHT TXDOT HAD COMMITTED TO AN EXTRA MILLION ON THE RIGHT AWAY.
THEY HAVE COMMITTED THAT OUR SHARE THE LOCAL SHARE IS GOING TO BE KEPT AT $1,100,000.
THAT'S THE COMMITMENT THEY HAVE GIVEN US.
>> THEY'RE SAYING THAT WE WON'T BE LIABLE FOR ANY MORE THAN THAT OR RIGHT AWAY.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE QUESTION GETS TO BE IF WE HAVE TO DO THE RIGHT OF WAY WORK AND BRIAN HAD RECOMMENDATIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY TXDOT IF THAT RIGHT OF WAY OF WORK RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION COSTS US TWO MILLION DOLLARS, I WANT THE MECHANICS OF THAT REPAYMENT CLEARLY SET OUT IN THE DOCUMENT BECAUSE ALTHOUGH WE HAVE A NEW VERONA WORKING FOR TXDOT, SEEMS TO BE WORKING.
WE HAD A PREVIOUS TXDOT PERSON WHO DISMISSED ALL OUR CONCERNS AND SAID, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
I WORRY ABOUT IT. I WANTED TO WRITE IT.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE.
COST OVERRUNS, WE'RE WORKING ON.
I'M GOING TO RECLINE THAT OUT.
WE HAVE A MEETING, I GUESS ON 18TH.
>> DAN EXCUSE ME, BEAU, BEFORE WE DO THAT.
DAN, DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING BEFORE WE START TAKING QUESTIONS HERE?
[03:45:02]
>> WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW LOOK CONTRIBUTIONS IS AT OUR LAST MEETING, WHICH COUNCILMEMBER ROBB ATTENDED, TXDOT WAS TALKING ABOUT DIFFERENT AVAILABLE SOURCES OF FUNDING.
THEY ASKED IF THERE WAS GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL LOCAL FUNDINGS AVAILABLE, WHICH OUR RESPONSE WAS UNLIKELY.
THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT, WOULD THERE BE A POSSIBILITY FOR FEDERAL EARMARKS.
WHEN THEY WOULD TALK TO REPRESENTATIVES THERE FROM HGAC, THE ISSUE WAS, COULD HGAC PROVIDE A BACKSTOP? IT'S SOMETHING THEY'VE NEVER DONE BEFORE.
SO THE REQUEST, WHICH TECH WILL FORWARD, WOULD BE TO THEM BE DISCUSSED AT THEIR JANUARY MEETING AND THEN VOTED ON IN FEBRUARY.
BUT THEY ARE PRINCIPALLY LOOKING TO BE A BACKSTOP.
SO IF OTHER FUNDING CAN BE IDENTIFIED, THAT WOULD COME FIRST WITH HGAC FUNDING AS A FALLBACK IF THAT DIDN'T COME THROUGH.
BUT THE INITIAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE THE HURDLE AT THIS POINT THAT HAS TO BE OVERCOME BECAUSE THEY'RE SO GREAT.
>> THE POSITIVE ABOUT THIS IN MY MIND IS THAT TXDOT RECOGNIZES A COURSE.
THE DEFICIT OF FUNDING THAT THEY ARE EXPERIENCING RIGHT NOW, AND THEY ARE CARRYING THE BALL FORWARD.
THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKING TO TRY TO GET THIS FUNDING TAKEN CARE OF AND THIS DEFICIT TAKEN CARE OF, BEAU
>> I'M LOOKING BACK AT, LIKE, A VERY BASIC COMPARISON.
BUT WHEN THE FIELD WAS PUT THERE ACROSS THE STREET FROM BALL HIGH.
THERE WAS A WHOLE HALF-BLOCK ROW OF HOUSES THAT CAME UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN THAT, THEY BASICALLY IT WASN'T THE HOMEOWNER THAT ESTABLISHED THE VALUE.
>> OF COURSE, IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE THAT HAPPENED.
>> THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT ON THAT TOO.
>> I GUESS I WAS JUST, [NOISE] I'M CURIOUS AS TO DOES THAT COMES INTO PLAY AT ALL AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO NOT JUST HAVE AN OPEN BOOK AS FAR AS WHAT THE VALUE IS?
>> TALK ABOUT FOR THE SUBMERGED RIGHT AWAY?
>> THERE'S A PROCESS WHERE WE WOULD GET A VALUE TO AN APPRAISAL.
THEY WOULD HAVE A RIGHT DOWN OR I'M WRONG AT SOME POINT, THEY CAN APPEAL THAT. THEY CAN GET-
>> THEIR OWN VALUE. AND THEN IT WOULD GO TO AN ARBITRATION [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE MAKE THEM AN OFFER WITH A VALUE IN THE INITIAL LETTER, EXPRESSED THAT IF WE CAN'T REACH A SETTLEMENT, WE WILL GO FORWARD AND OBTAIN IT THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN.
THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO GET THEIR OWN VALUE.
>> IF WE'RE FIVE MILLION DOLLARS APART, THAT'S AN ISSUE.
>> THERE WAS ONE HOME OF THOSE THAT HAD THE CUT-AROUND VALUE, AND I KNOW THAT'S A VERY SMALL COMPARISON.
>> WE FILE A SUIT IN COUNTY COURT.
THE COUNTY COURT, THE POINTS OF BOARD OF THEY'RE CALLED SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS 3.
THEY HAVE AN INFORMAL HEARING.
WE TAKE WE DEPOSIT THE MONEY IN THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT.
THE LAND OWNER HAS THE CHOICE AT THAT TIME TO ACCEPT THAT VALUE AND WITHDRAW.
HAVE THE CASE GO AHEAD GO AWAY, OR THEY CAN CONTINUE ON.
>> ALL SLOWING DOWN THE PROCESS.
>> ANY ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WE'LL KEEP YOU UPDATED, COUNCIL, AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON THIS.
DAN AND DON WILL BE WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH TXDOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET EVERYTHING AT LEAST OUR QUESTIONS AND HOPEFULLY, THIS CITY CONTRACT CHANGED IN A MANNER THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE TO OUR LIKING HERE AT THE CITY.
>> I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING IS THAT WE STARTED WITH TXDOT THAT THE AFA WAS WHAT THE AFA SAID, AND NEVER CAN BE CHANGED, NEVER CAN BE ALTERED, AND WE'RE A LONG WAY FROM THAT NOW.
IT HAS BEEN ALTERED. IT HAS BEEN CHANGED.
THEY HAVE ADDRESSED THE REQUESTS THAT WE'VE MADE.
SO WE'RE GETTING MUCH CLOSER TO A DOCUMENT THAT'S MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY THAN IT WAS WHEN WE FIRST STARTED A DISCUSSION.
SO WE'VE MADE A LOT OF HEADWAY.
>> THERE HAS BEEN AND I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE THIS COMMENT.
[03:50:01]
THERE'S BEEN COMMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THE HOLD-UP ON THIS HAS BEEN THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND IT'S NOT CASE.THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS AND A LOT OF BALLS IN THE AIR ON THIS.
RIGHT NOW, THE MAIN QUESTION IS IS WORKING OUT THE FUNDING FOR THE TOTAL FUNDING OF THIS PROJECT? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN THE HANDS OF TXDOT AND HGAC.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. OTHERWISE, WE'RE SITTING ON G WAITING ON O.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS WHEN WE MIGHT KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS IN TERMS OF TAXES OR ANY OTHER FEES THAT OUR COMMITMENT MIGHT GENERATE.
>> OUR COMMITMENT AT THIS POINT IS SIX MILLION DOLLARS [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND HELD.
>> IT'S ALREADY BEEN FOUND THAT THERE'S NO IMPACT.
>> YOU'RE ACQUIRING A BIG CAPITAL INVESTMENT OR PROBABLY A 15-YEAR LIFETIME WITH NO OTHER FUNDING SOURCE OTHER THAN THE HOPE THAT TAX CUT WILL FROM TIME TO TIME, GIVE US OFF SYSTEM FUNDING MONEY.
OTHERWISE, WE'RE ON THE HOOK TO MAINTAIN THAT BRIDGE FOR THE NEXT 15 YEARS.
>> DO WE ANTICIPATE IDC PARTICIPATING?
>> WELL, THE GOOD NEWS IS, ONCE YOU PUT IDC MONEY INTO A PROJECT, YOU CAN USE IDC MONEY FOR CONTINUED OPERATION OF THAT PROJECT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IDC WOULD EVER GENERATE ENOUGH MONEY TO FULLY FUND SUCH A THING.
>> THAT WOULD TAKE FUNDING FROM ALL THE OTHER IDC PROJECTS.
>> IT'S A BIG COMMITMENT THAT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CONSIDER AS WE BRING THIS.
>> IT'S A BIG YES, AND YOU'RE ALSO ELIMINATING A WHOLE TAX COMPONENT IN THE TAX SYSTEM IN GALVESTON, AND CURRENTLY FUNDS AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CURRENT BRIDGE, THAT'S GOING TO GO AWAY.
YOU'RE ASKING TO ABSORB THAT INTO THE CITY'S BUDGET, WHICH IS ALREADY PRETTY SLIM.
>> DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THE MAINTENANCE COSTS MIGHT BE ANNUALLY?
>> UP FRONT, ORIGINALLY, PROBABLY IN OUR TENURES, NOT A LOT, FUTURES.
JUST LIKE THE REST OF US, WE GET MORE [INAUDIBLE] IN. THAT'S HOW IT GOES.
>> THERE'S STILL A LOT OF ISSUES OUT THERE WITH COSTS.
WE TALKED ABOUT INSURANCE ON THIS BRIDGE.
THIS COULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE IF WE ELECT TO INSURE THIS BRIDGE.
THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT STILL NEED TO BE WORKED DOWN AND DON AND DAN ARE VERY AWARE OF THOSE WORKING FORWARD TO GET THOSE ADDRESSED.
>> I JUST LIKE TO KEEP THAT IN THE IN THE UPDATES, JUST THE IMPACTS.
>> IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE CITIZENS TO KNOW THIS IS A VERY CRITICAL COMPONENT TO OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM HERE IN GALVESTON.
IT'S GOT TO GET DONE, BUT THIS IS A MAJOR INVESTMENT BY THE CITY AND A MAJOR FUTURE BURDEN GOING FORWARD.
IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHEN WE'RE GETTING INTO THIS, WE GOT TO DO IT, IT'S IMPORTANT AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THAT THIS IS NOT A ONE-AND-DONE DEAL.
THIS IS GOING TO BE IT'S LIKE THOSE PUMP STATIONS.
YOU GOT TO MAINTAIN THEM, YOU GOT TO TREAT THEM. IT'S A LOT.
>> WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT THE 51ST STREET [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, WE HAVE NOT, AND THAT IS A MAJOR.
>> WE CAN'T BUILD A BRIDGE AND CONNECT IT TO NOTHING.
>> WE ARE KEENLY AWARE THAT THAT IS, WE RAISED THE ISSUE ON IT.
THE OTHER THING TO KEEP IN MIND, THIS ISN'T JUST A GALVESTON IMPACT.
THAT'S WHY THERE'S SO MUCH INTEREST AT THE HTAC LEVEL ON THIS AND A TEXTILE ISSUE.
THEY RECOGNIZE THE REGIONAL IMPACT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BRIDGE COULD HAVE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DEVERS CANAL.
>> IT COULD HAVE A STATE IMPACT.
>> IT FEEDS A MAJOR STATE ASSET.
>> YES. WE'RE GETTING BIGGER EVERY YEAR.
>> I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNSEL, VERY MUCH.
WE'LL KEEP YOU UPDATED REGULARLY ON THIS.
AS THINGS START MOVING FORWARD ON THAT.
[3.G. Discussion Of The STR Committee Ordinance (B. Brown/C. Brown - 20 Min)]
>> ITEM 3G, DISCUSSION OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE ORDINANCE.
>> THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ONCE OR TWICE HERE AT THE WORKSHOP.
WE DO HAVE AN ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT AT ITEM 10.B ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
THIS IS BOB, AND COUNCILMAN FINKLEA HAD BROUGHT THIS FORWARD.
BOB, DID YOU WANT TO OPEN UP A DISCUSSION ON THIS?
>> I GUESS WE REALLY REVIEWED EVERYTHING ON THIS PROCESS LAST TIME.
TWELVE MEMBERS IS WHAT WE HAD IDENTIFIED, ONE COUNCIL PERSON APPOINT ONE MEMBER OF THE BOARDING COMMITTEE AND THEN WE HAVE STROAG, GARM, AND VISION GALVESTON AS SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS NON-VOTING.
WE SAID WE WOULD FINISH OUR BUSINESS WITHIN A YEAR OF THE FIRST MEETING, AND ANY IMPACT ON THE CITY BUDGET WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED BY MAY.
I THINK THAT'S JUST ABOUT IT, EXCEPT YOU DID MENTION THE CONCLUSION OF ANOTHER REALTOR FIRM CALLED [OVERLAPPING]
[03:55:01]
>> GALVESTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
>> GALVESTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
>> SO DON CAN YOU MAKE THE CHANGE IN THE ITEMS [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'M SURE DONNA FAIRWEATHER, WHO'S LISTENING RIGHT NOW IS TAKING CARE OF IT.
IT'S GALVESTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. IT'LL BE 13 MEMBERS, THEN.
>> WE'RE STILL KEEPING THE SEVEN THOUGH.
>> ANY QUESTIONS, COUNSEL ON THIS? [BACKGROUND]
>> WELL, THIS IS A REAL ESTATE REALTOR AND CITIZENS ISSUE, I GUESS.
THE REAL ESTATE SIDE OF IT BEING THE RENTAL OF STRS, AND THE RESIDENT SIDE BEING THE RESIDENTS.
SO THE COMMITTEE WAS REALLY FORMED BECAUSE WE JUST NEEDED TO HAVE A FORM FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND SO TO INFORM THAT, SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS AND NOW WE HAVE THREE REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS, I GUESS.
THE REASON VISION GALVESTON IS ON THERE BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HUGE DATABASE OF STR INFORMATION, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND IMPACTS, AND EVERYTHING.
SO JUST TRYING TO KEEP IT FOCUSED ON THAT AREA, THE RESIDENTS, AND IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF, MOST OF THE MANAGEMENT COMPANIES ARE A BIG PART OF THE CHAMBER AND SO I WAS CURIOUS AS TO WHAT THEY WOULD [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE LOOKED AT THOSE ASSOCIATIONS AND A LOT OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE MEMBERS OF STROAG AND GARM ARE MEMBERS OF THE CHAMBER AS WELL.
>> BUT I CAN SEE WHY GARM WANTS TO BE ON IT BECAUSE IF THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS OR WHATNOT, IT WILL IMPACT THE COST OF REAL ESTATE AS HAS BEEN SEEN IN OTHER STATES.
>> WHAT WAS I GOING TO MENTION ABOUT THAT? WE HAVE IF YOU MAY REMEMBER, COUNSEL, DON PUT TOGETHER A PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND PENALTIES FOR A NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS OF OUR NUISANCE LAWS.
THIS COULD BE, I THINK, PERSONALLY, MAYBE ONE OF THE FIRST ORDERS OF BUSINESS.
>> THIS THING DOWN THERE WAS A REALLY GOOD POINT. THANKS FOR THAT.
>> YOU STOLE MY IDEAS. [LAUGHTER]
>> THEY WERE GOOD IDEAS. [OVERLAPPING]
APPRECIATE IT. LET'S MOVE FORWARD, 3H, PLEASE.
[3.H. Discussion Of Status And Development Of Stewart Beach Park (B. Brown/C. Brown - 30 Min)]
>> 3H, DISCUSSION OF STATUS AND DEVELOPMENT OF STEWART BEACH PARK.
>> COUNSEL, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS OFF AND ON SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL SINCE 2014, THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.
OUR MOST RECENT WAS A COUPLE OF THREE MEETINGS AGO, WE'VE DISCUSSED STEWART BEACH.
WE ASKED FOR STAFF TO SEND US PAST MASTER PLANS, PAST ANALYSIS, AND A LOT OF DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ADDRESSING THE FUTURE OF STEWART BEACH, NOT ONLY HERE AT THE CITY, BUT AT THE PARK BOARD, AND THAT HAS BEEN SENT TO US.
WE ALSO ASKED COUNSEL AT THE TIME, YOU HAD 45 DAYS TO SEND YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO STAFF CONCERNING STEWART BEACH.
AFTER EVALUATING THESE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU RECEIVED, STAFF HAS RECEIVED SOME INPUT FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS ON THIS.
RIGHT NOW, WE WANT TO MOVE AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE.
THIS IS STEWART BEACH RIGHT NOW.
>> SO THAT BUILDING IS MOVING FORWARD SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MOVE THIS AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THAT.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT.
BOB BROWN, BEING IN THE LIAISON TO PARK BOARD, HAS BEEN MONITORING THIS VERY CLOSELY, AND BOB, I THINK YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.
>> WELL, THERE'S SEVERAL ISSUES INVOLVED HERE.
THE BEACH PATROL FACILITY IS ONE, THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEWART BEACH PARK OVERALL IS ANOTHER ONE.
WE'VE BROKEN UP THE RECOMMENDATIONS INTO THREE ISSUES AND ONE FOLLOWS THE OTHER, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DO ONE AND THEN THE NEXT ONE.
SO THE FIRST THING WE DETERMINED WAS THAT WE NEED A MASTER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH AND EAST BEACH.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE THEY'RE RELATED BECAUSE OF THEIR PROXIMITY AND THEIR LOCATION.
WE CONSIDER DOING A MASTER PLAN FOR ALL OF THE PARKS THAT THE PARK BOARD MANAGES, BUT WE CONSIDER THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE EXPEDITIOUS SINCE WE'RE IN
[04:00:02]
A HURRY ON THIS BECAUSE WE WANT TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF TIME BEACH PATROL HAS TO SPEND IN TRAILERS.IT MIGHT BE MORE EXPEDITIOUS JUST TO FOCUS ON THAT BEACH AREA RIGHT HERE.
SO THAT MASTER PLAN THAT WON'T DEVELOP A COMPLETE DEVELOPMENTAL PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH OR EAST BEACH.
BUT IT WILL BE A PLAN THAT'S GENERATED BY THE PROPER STAKEHOLDERS IN THE AREA AND TO COME TO A CONSENSUS ABOUT WHAT WE WANT THOSE PLACES TO BE LIKE.
AND OF COURSE, IN THE STEWART BEACH COMPONENT OF THE MASTER PLAN, YOU WOULD RECOMMEND, I THINK, A DEVELOPMENT FOR STEWART BEACH FOR A MASTER DEVELOPER, AN RFP FOR A MASTER DEVELOPER.
THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME.
IN TERMS OF SEQUENCE, YOU DO THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE BEACHES FIRST, AND THEN YOU DO THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO THAT WOULD HAPPEN AFTER THAT.
BUT ALSO, WHAT WE CAN START DOING RIGHT NOW IS REVISITING THE PROGRAM FOR THE BEACH PATROL FACILITY.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF SHOTS AT IT AND HAVE NOT BEEN REALLY SUCCESSFUL.
THE LAST ONE I SAW WAS A FACILITY THAT THERE'S NO WAY THAT THE CITY COULD AFFORD TO BUILD.
WE WANT TO GO BACK TO A BEACH PATROL FACILITY AND START WITH A BUDGET.
LOOKING AT SOME OF THE FACILITIES THAT ARE COMPARABLE TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, COME UP WITH SOME GUIDELINES, SOME BARRIERS TO START WITH, FOR INSTANCE, A SQUARE FOOT COST FOR THE BILLING TYPE WE WANT TO DO, AND THEN DETERMINE WHAT EXACTLY HAS TO BE ON THE BEACH WITH THE BEACH PATROL TO FUNCTION AND ARE THERE OTHER FUNCTIONS THAT CAN BE LOCATED ON DRY LAND BECAUSE REALLY, BUILDING ANYTHING ON THE BEACH IS THE LAST RESORT BECAUSE OF THE HOSTILE NATURE, THE COST OF BUILDING THERE AND THEN THE HOSTILE NATURE OF MAINTAINING SOMETHING.
SO WE WANT TO WHATEVER WE BUILD ON THE BEACH SIDE, FOR THE BEACH PATROL, WOULD BE ONLY WHAT THEY REALLY NEED.
IT COULD BE A MULTIPURPOSE FACILITY.
WHEN THEY'RE NOT USING A SPACE, WE CAN RENT IT OUT OR DO SOMETHING ELSE WITH IT.
WE'RE GOING TO REVISIT THE PROGRAM IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL AND A LITTLE MORE PRACTICAL IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CITY CAN AFFORD.
IN THE MEANTIME, I THINK THE CITY YOU ARE LOOKING FOR A PLACE TO AT LEAST PUT THE OTHER PART OF THE BEACH PATROL IN ANY OTHER CITY FACILITY IF IT WORKS OUT LIKE THAT.
AS I UNDERSTAND, WE CAN PAY FOR THESE BEACH MASTER PLANS OUT OF HOT AND I THINK WE'VE ALSO BEEN PAYING THE ARCHITECT FOR THE BEACH PATROL FACILITY OUT OF HOT.
WE DO THE SAME THING WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND PUTTING THAT ALL TOGETHER.
THAT WOULD BE WHERE THE FUNDING FROM ALL THIS COMES FROM THE CITY HOT RESERVE.
>> WHEN YOU'RE SAYING WE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY COUNCIL OR PARK BOARD.
>> CITY COUNCIL WILL MANAGE ALL THIS.
>> CITY COUNCIL IS THE MANAGER OF THE BOARD.
>> CITY COUNCIL WOULD MANAGE ALL OF THIS.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY IT HAS COMMENDED THE CITY'S RESERVE.
>> WHERE ELSE WOULD IT COME FROM?
>> THIS IS HOT TAX THAT WE COULD USE SO WE ALREADY HAVE.
>> THE PARK BOARD, OF COURSE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE PARK BOARD IS NOT MANAGING THIS, BUT THEY ARE STAKEHOLDERS, SO THEY PARTICIPATE.
>> NOW WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.
WE HAVE A JOINT MEETING, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S ON OUR AGENDA TO APPROVE FOR '25 WITH THE PARK BOARD, A JOINT MEETING IN OUR JANUARY MEETING.
THIS WOULD BE A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THAT POINT.
SECOND OF ALL, BOB, AS WE JUST THOUGHT ABOUT GETTING TOGETHER A NEW MASTER PLAN, WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING IS LOOKING A LOT AT SOME OF THE PAST PLANS AND UPDATING THOSE, POSSIBLY, IF NEED BE.
BRIAN, I'D BE INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHT FROM [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WE DON'T HAVE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL HERE.
I THINK WE CAN BUILD ON SOME OF THOSE PREVIOUS MASTER PLANS AND UPDATE THEM.
WE'LL SELECT SOMEBODY TO DO THAT AND GET ON DOWN THE ROAD.
IF YOU HAVEN'T SUBMITTED YOUR INPUT ALREADY, PLEASE DO SO WE CAN MAKE SURE IT'S INCLUDED IN ANYTHING WE SUBMIT FOR THE ULTIMATE PLANNING DOCUMENT ON THE WHOLE THING.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE INCORPORATE ALL YOUR SUGGESTIONS.
>> AM I HEARING THIS CORRECTLY? THAT CITY WOULD BE THE ONE DEVELOPING THE MASTER PLAN AND THEN [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE TALKING ONLY A PLANNING DOCUMENT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT, OR BUILDING RFP.
>> JUST A PLANNING DOCUMENT AT THIS TIME.
>> THAT'S FINE. SO CITY MANAGES THE MASTER PLAN.
>> CITY PROPERTY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE.
>> HOLD ON. BRIAN PREVIOUSLY, YOU TOOK OVER STEWART BEACH AT THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL AND YOU SAID MULTIPLE TIMES, WE DON'T HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO DO THIS.
>> WE'RE RUNNING THIN. IF WE'RE GOING TO FUND THIS OUT OF HOT, PART OF THE FUNDING OUT OF HOT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE FOR SOMEBODY TO, A PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS.
BUT WE DO THAT WITH ALL OF OUR PROJECTS.
>> I DON'T WANT TO RUN DOWN THAT ROAD AGAIN WHERE IT JUST STALLS OUT.
[04:05:01]
>> YEAH, I AGREE. IT ALL COMES DOWN.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU. THERE'S BEEN A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN ISSUED BY THE PARK BOARD NOT TOO LONG AGO.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, WE COULD CRIB OFF OF THAT DOCUMENT FOR OUR NEXT PROJECT.
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE WITH THE HOTEL?
>> THERE WERE THREE RESPONSES TO THAT.
ONE OF THEM WAS REALLY GOOD AND THE OTHER TWO I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST WANT THE COMMITMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND DELIVERY OF IT.
THAT'S WHERE THIS HAS COME DOWN PREVIOUSLY.
>> MASTER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH AND EAST BEACH.
I WOULD LIKE TO COMPARTMENTALIZE THIS SEPARATELY.
I THINK NOT HAVING THEM TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY'RE TWO HUGE PROPERTIES.
UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO AWARD IT TOGETHER, I THINK, STEWART BEACH IS DEFINITELY MORE FAMILY-ORIENTED.
>> THE COMMENT ABOUT THE RED SOLO CUPS AT THE GAVE ME SOME PAUSE.
BUT EAST BEACH IS NOTORIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE PARTY BEACH WHERE YOU GO DRINK.
I DON'T WANT TO RUN INTO THE SAME PROBLEM THAT WE HAD ON EAST BEACH WITH CHILDRESS AND FLORES.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'M SURE SOME PEOPLE REMEMBER THAT ISSUE WHERE THEY RAN IT.
THEY WERE DOING REALLY WELL AND THEN GOT REINED BACK IN IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMEBODY, WE NEED TO HAVE A ROBUST CONTRACT GOING FORWARD.
NOW, MASTER PLAN, I GUESS THIS STILL FALLS INTO THE ITEM THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE IF IT'S GOOD FOR THE RESIDENTS, IT'S GOOD FOR THE TOURISTS.
THERE IS A BALANCING ACT THERE.
I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN TALKS ABOUT PARKING GARAGES AND JUST BASED ON MY WORK EXPERIENCE.
ENFORCING AND DOING THAT ON JUST A FLAT PIECE OF AREA IS DIFFICULT.
WHEN YOU HAVE A PARKING STRUCTURE IN THE MIDDLE, THAT'S WHERE THAT ENFORCEMENT EXPONENTIALLY GROWS.
IT'S BIG ON SAFETY TO THE PEOPLE WHO VISIT.
I THINK IF WE DID A PARKING GARAGE, I WOULD PREFER TO BE OVER BY THE FREE PARKING AREA WHERE IT CURRENTLY EXISTS THAT WAY WE CAN STILL MEET SOME OF THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
ON THE UPPER LEVELS, THEN YOU CAN START DOING OVERFLOW CHARGE PARKING.
WHEN WE DO THE MASTER THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
I THINK WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THOSE NO FULL SERVICE HOTELS AND A LIMITED I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE LODGING ON.
>> THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING A MASTER PLAN FIRST BECAUSE THERE'LL BE A LOT OF POLICY AND DIRECTION AND ASPIRATIONS IN THAT THAT WILL TRANSLATE INTO THE LANGUAGE FOR THE MASTER DEVELOPER.
I THINK YOU HAVE A REALLY GOOD POINT THERE.
THIS GROUP HERE SHOULD BE INVOLVED, I THINK IN THE CRAFTING OF THE SOLICITATION FOR PROPOSAL FOR A MASTER PLAN FOR THESE TWO BEACHES SO THAT WE MAKE CLEAR WHAT OUR EXPECTATIONS ARE.
TO THE WHOEVER THE PROPOSAL IS GOING TO BE SENT TO.
>> I'M NOT SAYING PUT EAST BEACH ON ON THE BACK TURN, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD MORE FOCUS ON WHAT WE CAN DO NOW AT STEWART BEACH.
THEN WE CAN APPLY, AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY LEARNING PAINS, BUT WE CAN ADJUST AND CHANGE TAILOR IT TO EACH SPECIFIC [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S A DIFFERENT MARKET. YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
>> IT IS BUT WE COULD PROBABLY WIND UP HIRING THE SAME PROFESSIONAL LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD, BUT CLEARLY THAT PROFESSIONAL, I THINK CAN WILL AND SHOULD SEPARATE THOSE TWO THINGS IN HIS ANALYSIS.
FOR INSTANCE, HE COULD HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PACKAGES, ONE SEPARATE PACKAGE FOR EAST BEACH, ONE SEPARATE PACKAGE FOR STEWART BEACH IN HIS SCOPE AND TREAT THEM BOTH SEPARATELY.
THIS ULTIMATELY WILL RESULT IN REMOVING LIKE STEWART BEACH OUT OF THE CONTROL OF THE PARK BOARD IF WE DO A MASTER DEVELOPER BECAUSE THEY WILL BE RUNNING EVERYTHING, AND THE DUTIES WILL BE LIMITED TO PROBABLY BEACH CLEANING, LIFEGUARD SERVICES, AND I DO WANT TO PUT THOSE INTO THE MASTER PLAN WHERE MASTER DEVELOPER WOULD COME IN AND SAY, WE DO HAVE TO PROVIDE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> SERVICE FOR THIS. I THINK THEY WOULD [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT IS GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON A PARK BOARD RIGHT NOW.
>> [NOISE] I KNOW COUNCIL IS COMMITTED TO MOVING THIS FORWARD VERY QUICKLY WITHOUT YOU DON'T WANT TO GET TO TOO FAST, BUT MOVING THIS AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
BRIAN, YOU CAN BRING BACK TO US WHEN DO YOU THINK FOR CONTRACTS AND LOOKING AT THAT.
>> YOU KNOW WITH FEBRUARY, MARCH.
>> THAT WOULD BE GOOD SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
>> I THINK COUNCIL HAS ALWAYS BEEN COMMITTED TO MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE I REMEMBER EVEN BEFORE WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL ON 12, AND THEN I WAS ON BMAC SIX YEARS BEFORE THAT.
>> IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DON'T WANT STEWART BEACH TO BE MORE THAN ONE SUMMER WITH ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THERE.
[04:10:05]
WE JUST DON'T WANT THAT MORE THAN ONE SUMMER IS GOING TO BE A CONTINUOUS PROBLEM, AND I THINK WE ALL SHOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.MOVING FORWARD, THE EMPHASIS IS ON US TO MOVE IT FORWARD EFFICIENTLY.
>> MARCH, WE WOULD SEE A PROPOSAL FOR AN RFQ FOR A DEVELOPER FOR A MASTER PLAN?
>> NO. PLAN ON BRINGING BACK TO YOU GUYS RIGHT AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, JANUARY, FEBRUARY, THE PROPOSAL FOR THE MASTER PLAN WORK TO BE DONE.
I DOUBT VERY SERIOUSLY YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CONTRACT FOR A MASTER PLAN DEVELOPER UNTIL YOU HAVE THAT MASTER PLAN AND FINALIZED.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. THE MASTER PLAN WILL INFORM WHAT OUR PROPOSAL OR OUR SOLICITATION OR MASTER DEVELOPER LOOKS LIKE.
>> GOOD NEWS IS WE'VE GOT SOME REALLY GOOD WORK ALREADY DONE GOING BACK TO 2015.
>> LIKE I SAID, THAT RFQ FOR R ARTBOARD SENT OUT FOR A MASTER DEVELOPER WAS A REALLY GOOD DOCUMENT.
WE COULD CRIB OFF OF THAT TO START WITH.
>> YES, WHY DO WE AGAIN HAVE TO DO ANOTHER PLAN? WE HAVE A PRETTY DECENT PLAN.
I DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY [OVERLAPPING]
>> MAYBE WE SHOULD DO A PLAN TO DEVELOP THE PLAN ABOUT THE PLAN BEFORE THAT PLAN.
>> AGAIN, LIKE NO LIKE THAT PLAN IS.
BOB AND I'M SAYING THAT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO HAVE A PLAN.
BUT WE HAVE SEVERAL ON THE SHELF AND WE'VE HAD THE ABILITY, LIKE IT'S NOT LIKE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CHANGE IN GALVESTON ISLAND IN THE LAST A WHILE.
>> WELL, I THINK THE MANAGEMENT OF THAT PLAN IS WHAT HAS BEEN THE FAILURE.
A LOT OF THOSE PLANS WILL HELP IN FORM WHAT WE DO NOW BECAUSE THEY DO REFLECT ASPIRATION THINGS, BUT I THINK THE MANAGEMENT IS WHAT HAS BEEN A FAILURE.
>> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE MANAGING IT NOW.
AND WE'RE GUARANTEED 17 MONTHS TOGETHER.
THAT'S WHAT WE GOT. WHAT? WE'RE GUARANTEED 17 MONTHS TOGETHER.
THIS IS NOT A GOING BACK TO GROUND ZERO.
THIS IS NOT A LONG DRAWN OUT PROCESS.
YOU ALREADY HAVE MULTIPLE MASTER PLANS.
THE OTHER THING IS IS THAT I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE DICTATED BY COUNCIL.
WHAT I WANT THIS TO BE DICTATED IS WHAT THE CITIZENS WANT.
THAT MASTER PLAN DOES NEED TO HAVE A SMALL PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS BECAUSE FOR US TO SIT AROUND HERE AND SAY, WE WANT THIS AND THIS, THAT NEEDS TO GO INTO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITHOUT CITIZEN INPUT, AND FOR US TO CONSTRAIN THAT AS A PART OF MASTER PLAN, YOU'RE LIMITING YOURSELF TO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE THAT THE MARKET WILL RESPOND TO AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT RFQ.
>> DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT AT ALL. WE JUST GOT TO GET IT OUT.
>> THOSE OTHER PLANS DID NOT HAVE I DON'T WANT TO DELAY AT ALL.
AND SO I'M TOTALLY ON BOARD WITH YOU.
>> YEAH. THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.
THAT'S ANOTHER REASON I THINK FOR THE FAILURE OF THE FAST PLANS.
THEY NEVER HAD A ROBUST [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE WORKING ON SOMETHING BIG AND THEN IT COMES OUT AND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN THE PUBLIC SAYS [OVERLAPPING], DOWN IT'S.
>> SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THE STAKEHOLDERS AND THE PUBLIC INVOLVED IN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
NOT TOO UNLIKE WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT WITH THE COMPLAIN.
>> YEAH, BUT YOUR MESSAGES DON'T DELAY IT.
>> WE'VE GOT GUYS WORKING IN TRAILERS OUT THERE.
WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SOME MOVES PRETTY QUICK.
I THINK ONE OF THE BEST SOLUTIONS THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH INTERNALLY HERE THAT THAT THE CITY HAS TAKEN UNDER IS THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT ULTIMATELY THERE'S GOING TO BE A BEACH PATROL COMPONENT ON THE BEACH THAT SERVICES THEIR SUMMER CAMPS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
BUT I THINK ADMINISTRATIVELY, WE'VE GOT TO GET THEM OUT OF THOSE TRAILERS AT SOMEPLACE ELSE SOONER IN A SAFER SPOT THAN THERE, AND I THINK WE CAN DO THAT MUCH SOONER.
>>THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING THAT WE CAN START THE PROGRAM REVISION OF THE BEACH PATROL FACILITY RIGHT NOW.
BECAUSE THE PROGRAM DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE A SPECIFIC LOCATION.
BUT THE MASTER PLAN WILL LOCATE THIS FACILITY.
IN FACT, WE'LL BE WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THIS PROGRAM AND THE MASTER PLAN.
THESE TWO DIFFERENT SIMULTANEOUSLY, THEY'LL BE DEVELOPED, AND THE WHOLE REASON FOR DOING THAT IS FIRST OF ALL, WE CAN.
AND SECONDLY, WE'VE GOT TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF TIME TO BEAT PATROLS IN A TRAILER AND THIS IS THE WAY TO JUMP START IT..
>> THOSE ARE VERY NICE TRAILERS, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LAST FOREVER SO.
>> BRIAN, I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL NOW.
WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO YOU IN JANUARY, FEBRUARY, COMING BACK TO.
[LAUGHTER] THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[3.I. Discussion Related To A Possible Request Of City Council To The Wharves Board For A Monetary Transfer From The Port To The City For Infrastructure Costs (Porretto/Robb -15 Min)]
>> ITEM 3.I. DISCUSSION RELATED TO A POSSIBLE REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL TO THE WHARVES BOARD FOR A MONETARY TRANSFER FROM THE PORT TO THE CITY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS.
>> THIS IS ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
IT IS ITEM 12.B ON OUR AGENDA.
I KNOW WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS BEFORE, COUNCILMAN PORRETTO.
>> THIS WOULD BE THE FINAL FORMAL REQUEST BY COUNTY TO THE COURT
[04:15:05]
TO HELP WITH WE DID 3.8 MILLION DOLLAR OF CUTS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT AMOUNT WOULD BE.I DON'T KNOW IF I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE OF DIRECTING BRIAN, BUT MAYBE I GUESS IT WOULD BE AT OUR DISCRETION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WELL, THE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS WERE ALWAYS IN MIND.
HAS ANYONE TALKED TO ROGER ABOUT THAT?
>> I WOULD SAY KICK IT TO THE PORT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY POSSIBLY COULD COME UP WITH.
THIS IS JUST AN UNDERSTANDING THAT MOVING FORWARD, WE ARE GOING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THAT THE PORT CAME IN COMES TO THE CITY, AND NOW THIS IS A GOOD FAITH GESTURE.
THIS IS STARTING THE NEGOTIATIONS FROM A POSITIVE PLACE THAT, HEY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE PORT HAS THIS GREAT THING GOING ON RIGHT HAND.
LOOKING I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ALSO HAVE A BIG OVERHEAD TO COME UP WITH.
BUT HISTORICALLY ORGANIZATION, THE PORT WAS DOING WELL WAY LONG AGO, AND THEY FELL OFF.
THE CITY WAS REALLY KEEPING UP WITH IT AND IT WAS A CRUTCH FOR THE CITY.
NOW THEY'RE TURNED AROUND, THEY'RE GENERATING REVENUE.
WE JUST SAW IN THE PAPER THE LAST TWO LAST MONTH.
CRUISE PASSENGERS THAN EVER AND MORE PARKING.
SO IT IS GROWING GROWING INDUSTRY, AND LET'S FIGURE OUT A WAY HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TOGETHER AND HOW THE CITY CAN BENEFIT FROM THE USE WEARING TEAR INFRASTRUCTURE.
>> PARTICIPATE IN [INAUDIBLE] REPORT.
>> EXACTLY. YOU KNOW WHAT? WE PARTICIPATED IN THE HARD TIMES AT THE PORT.
IT SHOULD BE A SYMBIOTIC, WHETHER WE'RE BOTH DOING BAD OR WE'RE BOTH DOING WELL TOGETHER.
WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? WE'RE VOTING ON ASKING ASKING FOR THE AMOUNT.
I'M GUESSING THE AMOUNT WAS THE THE ISSUE OF BRINGING IT UP.
YOU KNOW, DO WE ASK FOR ONE MILLION? I THINK WE SHOULD ASK FOR ONE MILLION AND SAY IF THERE IS ANYTHING LEAVE IT UP TO THE WHARVES BOARDS DISCRETION AT A CERTAIN POINT.
>>IS THIS A ONE TIME THING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> THIS WOULD BE A ONE TIME THING.
>> JUST A GOOD FAITH GESTURE TO FINALLY START WORKING TOGETHER ON HOW WE MOVE FORWARD WITH DIVIDEND PAYMENT OR HOWEVER WE WANT TO STRUCTURE IT.
>> MOVING FORWARD, WE COULD DEVELOP A STRUCTURE PARTICIPATING IN ACCESS MEANS LIKE YOU SAID PARTICIPATING IN THE FAILURES ALSO.
WE TIED IT TO SOMETHING THAT THE PORT EARNS OR SOMETHING SOME PERCENTAGE.
>> BUT MY BIG QUESTION IS, CAN THIS BE PUT ON THE AGENDA ITEM BEFORE THE PORT'S BUDGET, WHICH BEGINS ON JANUARY 1?
>> IT'S ALREADY ON THEIR AGENDA.
I PUT IT ON THERE YESTERDAY FOR THIS DECEMBER 17.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS ON THIS.
I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN PORRETTO FROM THE STANDPOINT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A SERIOUS DISCUSSION WITH THE PORT ON INCREASED FUNDING FROM THE PORT SO THAT WE CAN SHARE THEIR SUCCESS WHEN THEY HAVE SUCCESS OVER THERE.
THERE ARE SOME ISSUES RIGHT NOW AND I WANT TO MAKE COUNCIL AWARE OF THESE.
NUMBER 1, IF WE MAKE A REQUEST, THIS HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE WHARVES BOARD.
THE WHARVES BOARD HAS NO COMMITMENT WHATSOEVER, NOT THAT THEY WOULDN'T.
BUT THEY HAVE NO MANDATE TO APPROVE THIS AT ALL.
WE CANNOT TELL THE PORT WHAT TO DO, AND WE CANNOT TELL THE WHARVES BOARD WHAT TO DO AS FAR AS WE NEED MONEY HERE.
AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, WHEN WE INCREASED THE PARKING REVENUE FROM ONE DOLLAR A DAY ON THE WE PASSED AN ORDINANCE.
THE PRIVATE LOTS HAD TO MANDATORILY PAY THAT.
>> BUT THEY CHOSE TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
WE HAVE A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PORT.
THE PORT RIGHT NOW IS I BROUGHT THIS SUBJECT.
COUNCIL ASKED ME TO BRING THIS SUBJECT TO THE PORT.
I DID ON NOVEMBER 26 TO THE WHARVES BOARD, AND I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR DECEMBER 17 I AGREE, PERSONALLY, I THINK THE TIMING IS INCORRECT.
THE PORT IS JUST THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF COMMITMENTS OVER THERE.
ROGER REESE WAS GOING TO BE HERE TODAY TO MENTION THOSE, BUT HE IS IN FLORIDA RIGHT NOW AND IS OUT OF STATE.
HE CALLED ME AND LET ME KNOW SINCE HIS APOLOGIES.
BUT WE'RE GOING TO MEET JANUARY 9TH WITH THE PORT.
[04:20:01]
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING.THE PORT AND THE WHARVES BOARD WANTS TO DISCUSS WITH THE CITY VERY SERIOUSLY AT THAT MEETING, PUTTING TOGETHER A PLAN, AS COUNCILMAN PORRETTO MENTIONED FOR RECURRING REVENUE FROM THE PORT GOING FORWARD.
BUT TO HAVE A ONE TIME PAYMENT RIGHT NOW FROM THE PORT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW THE WARS BOARD WILL REACT ON THAT.
BUT I THINK IF WE CAN WAIT WORK OUT THIS LONG TERM PLAN WITH THE PORT WOULD BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST IN THE PORT'S BEST INTEREST.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO GET ABOUT 2.8 MILLION FROM THE PORT.
IF YOU MAY REMEMBER, NOT TOO MANY YEARS AGO, WE WERE GETTING ABOUT 200,000 FROM THE PORT.
>> IS THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CHARTER.
>> NO. IT'S 180, [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEN A PORTION OF IT GOES TO THE GISD.
>> WHEN YOU PUT OTHER THINGS, WE WERE GETTING AROUND 200,000.
IN NOVEMBER OF '25 THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE QUITE A BIT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A FOURTH CRUISE TERMINAL.
THE PARKING AND THE TARIFF WILL GO UP SO THAT'LL PROBABLY GO TO ABOUT 3.2 MILLION OR MORE AT THAT POINT, SO IT'S CLIMBING, AND WE'RE GETTING QUITE A BIT OF REVENUE FROM THE BOARD AT THIS POINT.
BUT IT'S ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
WE'LL SEE HOW WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT.
BUT I DO THINK THE TIMING IS A LITTLE OFF AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR HAD MENTIONED THE SAME TO ME.
>> WE TALK ABOUT THIS MONEY WE'RE GETTING FROM THE PORT LIKE IT'S FREE MONEY, BUT IT'S NOT.
THAT MANY MORE PEOPLE COMING HAS AN IMPACT ON OUR BUDGET, ON OUR POLICE, ON ROADS, ON ALL THINGS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT COME HERE.
THERE'S NO DOUBT. WE CAN'T JUST LOOK AT IT LIKE FREE MONEY.
IT'S NOT. THE MORE PEOPLE COME HERE, THE MORE COSTS US TO MANAGE THEM.
>> THERE'S NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER.
IT COULD BE THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS DOING AWAY WITH THE PARKING FEE, DOING AWAY WITH THE TARIFF FEE, AND JUST GOING TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE GROSS REVENUE THERE AT THE PORT.
THEY'RE VERY OPEN TO DISCUSS ALL OF THOSE.
>> THAT'S ON JANUARY 9TH, RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR, JANUARY 9TH. IT'S COMING UP.
>> WHAT'S OUR ACTION THIS AFTERNOON THEN?
>> THE ACTION IS, AS COUNCILMAN PERETO MENTIONED, IF COUNCIL WANTS TO APPROVE REQUESTING FROM THE WARDS BOARD A ONE-TIME PAYMENT JUST FOR THIS YEAR.
THEN MOVING FORWARD WITH TALKING ABOUT LONG-TERM COMING UP AT JANUARY 9TH, AS I MENTIONED, I THINK THE PORT IS GOING TO PROBABLY HAVE A DIFFERENT FEELING FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THIS ONE-TIME PAYMENT WOULD BE BETTER OFF AND LET'S TALK ABOUT A LONG TIME COMMITMENT.
>> COULD YOU APPROVE A ONE-TIME PAYMENT, BUT DEFER IT UNTIL IT IS CONVENIENT FOR THE PORT? BECAUSE ARRIVING AT AT SOME AGREEMENT THAT'S BASED ON OVERALL PROFITS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE MAYBE SIX MONTHS OUTSIDE AT LEAST.
BUT I'M JUST WONDERING IF WE COULD APPROVE THAT ONE-TIME PAYMENT TO HAPPEN WHEN IT'S MORE CONVENIENT FOR THE COURT LIKE MAYBE A COUPLE OF MONTHS FROM NOW OR THREE MONTHS NOW OR WHATEVER IT IS.
>> THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT IT IS IT'S JUST MORE FRUSTRATING AND PRESSURING, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE WE DID GET BEHIND THE TASK WITH THE 3.8 MILLION IN BUDGET CUTS.
WE'VE GOT THIS PUMP STATION THAT IS WAY OVER WHAT WE ESTIMATED.
THE MONEY THAT WAS FROM THE IDC BOND WAS GOING TO IT.
THEN WE HAVE THE 14TH STREET PUMP STATION THAT WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHICH WOULD SOMEWHAT CONSTITUTE MAYBE SOME OF THIS INFRASTRUCTURE PAYMENT TOWARDS THAT.
I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE JUST GRABBING MONEY FROM THE PORT, BUT I THINK IT'S GETTING TO THAT TIME WHERE MAYBE WE SHOULD NEED TO START BENEFITING FROM IT.
ANYTHING THAT WE CAN GET RIGHT NOW TO ALLEVIATE THE BURDENS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ALLEVIATE THESE HIGH COSTS.
WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME MEETING, SO WE'RE ALL HEARING COSTS ARE JUST GOING UP AND UP AND UP.
MAYBE I'M DISAGREEING WITH THE MAYOR ABOUT THE TIMING, BUT EVERY DOLLAR WE CAN GET CAN BE PUT TO GOOD USE.
BUT IF WE DON'T, THEN WE'RE JUST LEAVING IT OUT THERE IF THERE'S SOME GOOD FAITH THAT WE SERVE FROM.
[04:25:05]
>> WHEN I LISTEN TO YOU, COUNCILMEMBER PERETO, WHAT I HEAR IS WE'RE TRYING TO GET STARTED ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL CHANGE OF RECOGNIZING THAT AS WE OWN LAND, THAT IS CITY PROPERTY, IT'S THE MOST EXPENSIVE PROPERTY IN THE ENTIRE CITY OF GALVESTON, THAT THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT THAT THAT LAND DERIVES NEEDS TO BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS AT A CERTAIN POINT.
I THINK THAT'S THE KEY PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION.
NOW, ON THE LIGHTER SIDE, I WILL QUOTE MY DAUGHTER WHO SAYS, "NO ASKY, NO GETTY." THERE'S GOT TO BE A POINT IN TIME WHEN YOU GO FORWARD AND ASK.
>> BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T ASK YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS.
WHILE WE CAN'T CONTROL HOW THE WORLD IS GOING TO REACT, BUT TO THROW OR TO PASS THIS TO THEM AND SAY, LISTEN, WE WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THIS, GIVEN THE ECONOMIC CHALLENGES THAT WE'VE SEEN RELATED TO THE REDUCTION IN SALES TAX, REDUCTION IN HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.
IS THAT CORRECT TOO? YEAH, WE SAW BOTH OF THOSE.
THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE THIS ASK OF YOU, THIS ONE-TIME ASK, KNOWING THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD IN JANUARY 9TH FOR A LONGER-TERM DISCUSSION.
>> THE SAME HITS THAT WE TAKE, THAT INDUSTRY IS NOT TAKING THE SAME HITS THAT THE CITY TAKES.
>> ANECDOTALLY WE'VE GOT OUR NUMBERS.
WE HAD SOMETHING HAPPEN THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED.
SALES TAX WAS UP JUST A LITTLE BUT HOT TAX WAS WAY DOWN.
THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED. WE HAD TO OUT PACE THE SALES. THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED.
>> I THINK THAT MAKING AN OVERTURE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DOLLAR VALUE IS, WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT.
>> ORIGINALLY, THEY HAD AGREED TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> NOT AGREED TO IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT'S JUST BEST.
[OVERLAPPING]. ROGER DISCUSSED THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO BRING TO THE BOARD, BUT WOULD BE COMFORTABLE BRINGING TO THE BOARD.
AGAIN, IT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD'S DISCRETION OF IF A DOLLAR AMOUNT COULD BE ACHIEVED.
>> IT'S ABOUT NOT JUST A DOLLAR AMOUNT BUT THE TIMING, SO WE DON'T BURDEN ANYBODY WITH ANYTHING.
>> BUT THEY'RE RUNNING ON THE END OF THEIR BUDGET, AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT IT TO THE NEXT BUDGETARY CYCLE.
>> I BELIEVE WE WOULD NEED TO ASK THEM FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE, AND I AGREE WITH ALEX THAT IF WE ASKED THEM FOR A ONE TIME PAYMENT FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE, WE WOULD ASK THEM TO HELP PARTICIPATE IN THE 14TH STREET DRAINAGE PUMP STATION SINCE IT DIRECTLY BENEFITS THEIR CRUISE TERMINAL, ALL THEIR PARKING LOTS, EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> WELL,I KNOW BRIAN WAS JUST SAYING BECAUSE WHEN YOU JUST ASK SOMEBODY FOR SOME MONEY [LAUGHTER].
>> WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND THIS MONEY ON.
>> YEAH. WHERE PURPOSELY WOULD THIS MONEY GO WAS GOING TO BE MY FIRST QUESTION.
THEN I JUST WANTED TO RESPECT THE MAYOR AS THE ONE WHO SITS ON THAT BOARD AS TO THE DIRECTION OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT COULD BE A BETTER TIME TO DO IT.
IF YOU ASK THIS, WOULD THAT IMPACT OUR FUTURE COMMITMENT? YOU'RE ASKING THAT.
THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION.
CAN WE CONNECT THIS MONEY TO SOMETHING THAT IS USEFUL, AND THEN THEY'LL GO, YEAH.
>> I THINK THE MONEY THEY'LL GIVE US IS TO BENEFIT THEM.
>> I THINK THE TWO THINGS IT WOULD BENEFIT THEM WOULD BE THAT OR SOME TYPE OF FIRE APPARATUS THAT SERVES THERE ARE THESE BIG GIANT [INAUDIBLE] TERMINALS THAT WE DID PREVIOUSLY SERVE?
>> I BROUGHT THE SUBJECT FORWARD TO THE WARS BOARD IN NOVEMBER.
THE RESPONSE WAS, THEY'RE GOING TO PUT TOGETHER A ONE PAGE SHEET TO BRING TO COUNSEL TO SHOW THEM HOW THEY HAVE SO MANY COMMITMENTS FINANCIALLY THIS YEAR.
IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SEND MONEY OVER.
BUT THE BOARD'S BOARD HAS NOT VOTED ON THIS.
>> WHEN IT FIRST GOT BROUGHT UP IN SEPTEMBER AROUND THAT TIME, THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT PEOPLE WERE STARTING FIRES, THEY WERE TRYING TO PUT THEM OUT AND THERE WAS NO FORMAL REQUEST.
SO THIS WHOLE TAKEN A WHILE TO GET TO THE POINT OF WHERE WE'RE ASKING FOR A FORMAL REQUEST.
BUT WITHOUT SPEAKING FOR COUNSEL BEYOND MY POSITION, I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, THERE'S NO FORMAL REQUEST SO LET'S DO A FORMAL REQUEST.
WELL, THEN NOW THERE'S COMMITMENTS THAT CAN'T DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, I JUST WANT TO STRAIGHT ANSWER.
>> WHAT IF WE BRING FORWARD THIS AFTERNOON OR THIS EVENING, A REQUEST FOR AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WILL BE APPLIED TO EITHER THE 14TH STREET PUMP STATION OR FIRE APPARATUS?
[04:30:09]
>> YEAH. ONE TIME PAYMENT, THE TIMING OF THE PAYMENT TO BE DETERMINED.
>> THE TIMING OF THE PAYMENT TO BE DETERMINED.
>> IT DOESN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN IMMEDIATELY.
>> WE WANT TO PUT A NUMBER TO IT.
WANT TO SAY A MILLION SINCE THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL.
>> PUMPER AND THAT ACTUALLY MAKES IT DOWN IN YOUR 14TH STREET, EITHER ONE.
>> IT'S GOOD BUT BRINGS MORE MONEY TO THE FUND BALANCE. YEAH.
>> RIGHT. MAYOR, TO YOUR POINT THOUGH, WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THE MONEY IMMEDIATELY, IT'S OBVIOUSLY THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO EARMARK THE MONEY WITH IT TO BE TRANSFERRED AT SOME POINT IN TIME.
>> I THINK THEY'RE IN THEIR BUDGET PROCESS NOW AND THIS WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT WOULD BE IN THE BUDGET PROCESS FOR 2025, RIGHT?
>> BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE COULD GET, IN MY OPINION, TIMING WISE, I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET ANYTHING NEGOTIATED.
>> YEAH. WITH A RECURRING CONTRIBUTION WITHIN SIX MONTHS,\.
>> PROBABLY THE NEXT FUNDING CYCLE FOR THE PORT.
IT CAN PROBABLY GET IT EARMARKED FOR OUR BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR, BUT THEN IT WOULD [OVERLAPPING].
>> YEAH. I THINK ANY MOU THAT YOU WOULD HAVE WITH THE PORT FOR ONGOING FUNDING WOULD BE IN THEIR FY26 BUDGET.
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT PORT BASICALLY IS ASKING.
>> I KNOW BUT WE WANT SOMETHING BEFORE THEN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING.
>> WELL, THAT'S NOT WHAT ALEX SAID.
>> NO. I MEAN I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE BEEN IN OUR BUDGET FOR THIS TIME, BUT IT MIGHT BE ADDED TO IT, POSTHUMOUSLY, SO THE PORT'S BUDGET CYCLE FOR [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE TIMING NOW IS TIED TO THE 14TH STREET PROJECT.
>> I THINK THAT SHOULD BE THE APPROACH, INSTEAD OF JUST ASKING FOR SOME MONEY, CONNECTING IT TO SOMETHING THAT WILL BENEFIT THEM.
>> YEAH, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOO.
>> THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET THE CRUISE COMPANIES TO CHIP IN.
>> WE'LL BRING IT FORWARD TO HOW YOU WOULD LIKE THE MOTION WE'LL VOTE ON THIS AFTERNOON.
>> YEAH, $1,000,000 TO HELP PAY FOR THE 14TH STREET PUMP STATION OR FIRE APPARATUS WITH THE TIMING OF THE PAYMENT TO BE DETERMINED.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE PORT'S ASKING.
>> YOU GUYS ARE MOVING IN THE DIRECTION, I THINK, IN WHAT THE PORT IS WANTING TO DO.
THEY'RE WANTING TO SIT DOWN ON JANUARY 9TH, WORK OUT ARRANGEMENTS.
>> BUT IT WOULD BE BETTER TO HAVE AN APPROVAL WITH A TO BE DETERMINED DATE, AND THEN THAT WAY WE CAN SIT DOWN AND SAY, NOW YOU CAN IDENTIFY AN AMOUNT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT, HEY, LET'S GET THIS IN AND WE CAN PUT IT IN OUR BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR, THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT FOR YEARS AFTER THAT AS WELL.
>> YEAH. IT ALLOWS THE WARS BOARD TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS BY HELPING US WITH THE TIMING WHEN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEM.
>> WELL, I SEE THE GOVERNMENT WHEELS MOVE VERY SLOWLY, BUT LET'S TRY TO MAKE IT JUST A LITTLE QUICKER.
>> I DON'T THINK THE SPEED OF PUSHING IT IS A RESPECTFUL THING.
REQUEST IT, BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT BECAUSE WE DESPERATELY NEED THIS MONEY, THAT WE NEED TO PUSH IT ON THEM.
>> TO BE DETERMINED IS WHERE THE COURT IS FINE WITH. THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT.
>> I WILL LEAVE IT AS OPENED, MAYBE LET'S TALK ABOUT THE CITY'S FISCAL YEAR '25.
>> THE PORT WANTS TO TALK WITH YOU ALSO ABOUT SHARED PROJECTS.
THEY WANT TO TALK WITH YOU ABOUT THAT.
THE PORT'S ON BOARD WITH THIS, WHAT THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT IS WE NEED TO HAVE $1,000,000 AND WE NEED TO HAVE IT NOW.
>> NOW NOW IT'S TIED TO A PROJECT.
WE JUST NEED IT FOR THE PROJECT.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE PORT WANTS TO DO.
THEY WANT TO SIT DOWN AND TALK WITH THE CITY AND SEE HOW WE CAN COMBINE OUR EFFORTS FINANCIALLY TO MAKE THESE THINGS.
>> WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON, YOU'RE CLEAR, DON, RIGHT?
>> YOU'RE CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT? [OVERLAPPING].
>> BRIAN IS GOING TO BE MAKING THE APPROACH, CORRECT?
>> IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WISHES ME TO DO.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO SPECIFY AN AMOUNT.
[04:35:02]
>> IT'S GOING TO BE FOR THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF EITHER THE ACQUISITION OF A [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, WHAT'S THE GENERAL TERM?
>> TO INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO A FIRE TRUCK AND STATION [OVERLAPPING].
TO BE DELIVERED AT A TIME TO BE DETERMINED IN THOSE NEGOTIATIONS.
>> NOW WE'RE MOVING IN A DIRECTION I THINK IS APPROPRIATE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] OCCURRED DURING THE 2025 BUDGET [OVERLAPPING].
>> OCCURRED DURING THE 2025 BUDGET.
>> THAT WOULD BE YOUR TIME FRAME.
>> IT'S LIKE A UNIVERSAL REMOTE. IT CHANGES EVERYTHING [LAUGHTER].
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD THEN. DON, YOU GOT WITH COUNCIL IS DIRECTION YOU ON?
>> HE'S WRITTEN OUT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION, CORRECT?
>> I THINK WE'RE GETTING PRETTY [INAUDIBLE].
OTHERWISE IT'S AS USELESS AS THE G IN LASAGNA.
[3.J. Discussion Of Wharves Board, Park Board And Planning Commission Joint Meetings For 2025 (Brown -10 Min)]
DISCUSSION OF WARS BOARD, PARK BOARD AND PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETINGS FOR 2025.
>> THIS IS ITEM 10C, COUNCIL, AND IT'S ON THE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA.
TEN C OUTLINES OUR FUTURE MEETINGS, AND IT PUTS IN QUARTERLY PARK BOARD AND PORT MEETINGS ON THAT.
ALL I'LL SAY THAT AT TUESDAY'S MEETING, WE REVIEWED THE QUARTERLY MEETINGS AND THEY VOTED [INAUDIBLE]. THAT SOUNDS GREAT.
I BROUGHT THAT FORWARD TO THE WARS BOARD AND THE WARS BOARD APPROVED THAT.
THEY WERE ASSIGNED WITH BOARD MEETINGS ALSO.
THEIR COMMENTS WERE WE DO PORTING MEETINGS OR IF WE DON'T NEED A WILL COUNCIL?
>> YEAH. LIKE I'VE SAID BEFORE, WE HAD A CONCEPTUAL AGENDA FOR EACH ONE OF THESE MEETINGS LEADING UP TO THE BUDGET PROCESS.
>> I DID RECEIVE THAT BOB, AND THANK YOU. THAT WAS HELPFUL.
VERY GOOD. THAT'S ITEM 10C 3K, PLEASE.
[3.K. Discussion Of The Application Process For Juneteenth Event Funding (Lewis/C Brown -10 Min)]
>> 3K. DISCUSSION OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS FOR JUNETEENTH EVENT FUNDING.
>> APPLICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE JUNETEENTH UPCOMING EVENT, PLEASE.
THANK YOU TO THE PARK BOARD AND TO HEATHER AND EVERYONE WHO WORKED SO HARD.
EVERYTHING IS ONLINE, AND WE'RE JUST EXCITED.
WE ALSO WILL HAVE FIREWORKS THIS YEAR FOR THE 160TH YEAR ON THE CELEBRATION.
>> WILL YOU MAKE THAT ANNOUNCEMENT AGAIN THIS AFTERNOON?
>> YES I WILL. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT.
WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF OUR AGENDA ITEMS. WE ARE ADJOURNED UNTIL 4:30.
WE MEET BACK FOR PHOTOS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.