[00:00:03]
>> [BACKGROUND] GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
IT IS 9:00 AM.IT'S A THURSDAY HERE IN GALVESTON.
GLAD TO HAVE EVERYBODY IN HERE.
THIS IS OUR WORKSHOP, AND WE HAVE OUR REGULAR MEETING THIS AFTERNOON.
I WOULD LIKE TO OFFICIALLY CALL THE WORKSHOP TO ORDER FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON THIS MORNING.
I'M GOING TO SAY SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT I WOULD NEVER SAY HERE TOO MUCH HERE IN GALVESTON.
I HOPE EVERYBODY ENJOYED YOUR TWO SNOW DAYS OFF.
[LAUGHTER] ANYWAY, WE'RE BACK IN BUSINESS NOW.
I'LL OPEN OUR MEETING AND I KNOW YOU WANT TO HAVE A ROLL CALL, JASON, FOR YOUR GROUP.
WE ARE HONORED TO HAVE THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES WITH US THIS MORNING.
THIS IS OUR JOINT MEETING THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAVE THESE PROGRAMMED IN OUR AGENDA.
WE'LL BE DOING THESE JOINT MEETINGS WITH THE PARK BOARD EVERY THREE MONTHS OR SO COMING UP HERE THIS COMING YEAR.
SAYING THAT LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE, JANELLE.
>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE THIS MORNING.
JASON, I'M GOING TO TURN THAT OVER TO YOU SIR.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH CITY COUNCIL FOR INVITING US OVER, AS WELL.
I ALWAYS LOOK FORWARD TO THESE MEETINGS.
SHEL, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, CALL A ROLL CALL.
>> ROBERT QUINTERO? BARRY WILLEY?
>> VERY GOOD. AS I MENTIONED, I'M VERY PLEASED TO HAVE THE PARK BOARD WITH US THIS MORNING.
BEFORE WE START, JUST FOR THE COMMUNITY'S SAKE, I'M GOING TO DO SOME HOUSEKEEPING CHORES.
REAL QUICKLY HERE, AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO OUR JOINT MEETING AGENDA.
COUNCIL, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW ON OUR WORKSHOP TODAY AND FOR THE PUBLIC THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS MORNING.
ITEM 3C WILL BE PULLED [NOISE] OFF THE AGENDA.
ON OUR [NOISE] REGULAR AGENDA, COUNCIL, ITEM 11Z AS IN ZEBRA HAS BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA, SO WE WILL NOT BE ADDRESSING ITEM 11Z.
THAT IS 3C HAS BEEN PULLED, 11Z HAS BEEN PULLED.
ONE LAST ITEM, COUNCIL, FOR YOUR THOUGHTS.
WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TODAY.
WE HAVE ONE OF OUR ATTORNEYS THAT IS WORKING WITH ONE OF THESE ISSUES IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
IT'S GOING TO BE WITH US AT NOON.
AS WE APPROACH THAT NOON HOUR, WE'LL PROBABLY GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION SO WE CAN COORDINATE WITH OUR ATTORNEY'S SCHEDULE.
I JUST WANT TO LET EVERYONE KNOW.
LET'S MOVE FORWARD NOW WITH OUR JOINT MEETING.
[3.A. Joint Meeting With City Council/Park Board Of Trustees ( C Brown/Hardcastle - 90 Min )]
THIS IS ITEM 3A.WHAT WE'LL DO. LET'S TAKE ONE AT A TIME IF WE COULD NOW AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AND DO THE NEXT ONE.
WE'LL START JUST WITH NUMBER ONE RIGHT NOW.
>> OKAY. 3A. JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES 1.
UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF [NOISE] PLANNING FOR STEWART BEACH PARK, EAST BRIDGE, AND REVIEW OF THE [INAUDIBLE] AND ROGERS PARTNERS PLANTS.
>> THESE WERE DIRECTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS THAT [NOISE] WE HAD HERE AT COUNCIL TABLE AT THE WORKSHOP, NOT TOO LONG AGO.
WE HAD GIVEN INPUT ON STEWART BEACH, AND WE HAD ASKED STAFF TO START MOVING IN A DIRECTION TO GET INPUT ON MOVING TOWARDS A MASTER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH.
BRIAN, I'M GOING TO TURN THAT OVER TO YOU AND [NOISE] I THINK DUDLEY'S HERE TO LEAVE THIS DISCUSSION OFF.
>> WE'VE BEEN TRYING FIRM MASTER PLAN ASSOCIATES.
DUDLEY HAS HAD A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY GET BACK WITH THEM AND HE'S BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH, THE PRINCIPAL IN THAT FIRM IS NEARING RETIREMENT, AND THEY WERE WILLING TO WORK WITH US, BUT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE ON AND ACTUALLY DEVELOP THE PLAN.
>> SINCE THEY DID THIS PLAN, I'D SAY WE DOWNSIZE.
>> YES. DUDLEY, FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU WOULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF, WHO YOU ARE.
>> IF YOU WOULD JUST GIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY'S SAKE WHEN YOU SAY THIS PLAN, IF YOU TELL THE COMMUNITY, PLEASE.
>> MASTER PLAN I BELIEVE THIS IS 15.
[00:05:05]
IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION.EVEN THOUGH IT'S 10 YEARS OLD, I WENT THROUGH IT AND IT IS A VERY IMPRESSIVE VERY GOOD PRODUCTION.
WE CALLED THEM TO TALK WITH THEM ABOUT UPDATE BEACH PARK AND EACH FILING IN A HOT OF JOINERS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS HAPPENING.
THE COMPANY IS NO LONGER ABLE TO DO THE PRODUCTION.
TIME. SHE'S PERFECTLY WILLING TO HELP US FIND A GOOD PLAN.
WE'RE GRAPH LOOKING FOR SUCH A PERSON.
BUT THE IDEAS THAT ARE EMBODIED IN THIS PLAN BY AND LARGE, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WE'RE WORKING WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH MISS JOYNER TO TRY TO FIND A FIRM THAT CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND THE OTHER COPY OF THAT.
THIS IS I THINK THIS HAS BEEN SENT TO COUNSEL. WE'VE HAD THAT COPY.
>> WE'RE HAPPY TO RESEND. WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THEM TO TRY TO FIND A FIRM THAT CAN WE DON'T WANT TO RECREATE THIS WHEEL, WE DON'T WANT TO PAY A FIRM OR START ALL OVER AGAIN.
WE'VE GOT A VERY GOOD BASE WORK HERE.
WE ALSO WANT TO GET A FIRM THAT IS NOT GOING TO TRY TO UP-SELL US ON WANTING TO DO A WHOLE NEW PROJECT.
DUDLEY'S BEEN AGGRESSIVELY WORKING ON WE'VE HAD A FEW INKS THROWN AT US IN THE WAY HERE WITH SOME EVENTS, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO GET UP ON THAT.
HOPEFULLY, STARTING NEXT WEEK, WE CAN ACTUALLY START AGGRESSIVELY LOOKING AT THESE OTHER FIRMS TO SEE [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, BUT BEFORE WE BRIAN, I WANT TO WE NEED TO GET A TIMELINE HERE ON WHAT WE'RE DOING.
SO WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THIS?
>> WE'RE GOING AS FAST AS WE CAN GO WITH IT, MARY, BUT WE'RE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE VENDORS AT THIS POINT. OKAY. YOU'RE TRYING.
>> WE HAVE GO RIGHT AHEAD. JASON? SURE.
>> WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE AGENDA, WE TALKED ABOUT THE HUDSON PLAN AND A ROGERS PLAN.
NOW, ROGERS'S PLAN NOT BEING CONSIDERED AT ALL.
>> PLAN THAT I HAVE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS.
THE NUTSON PLAN DID A MASTER PLAN FOR ALL THE BEACH PARKS.
ROGERS PARTNERS WAS WORKING SPECIFICALLY ON A BEACH PATROL FACILITY.
AND JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, I GUESS WHAT THE OVERALL DIRECTION IS HERE.
IN ORDER TO GET STEWART BEACH TO WHERE EVERYBODY WANT TO SEE A THREE-STEP PROCESS THAT WE'VE AGREED TO.
FIRST ONE IS A MASTER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH AND EAST BEACH.
SIMULTANEOUS TO THAT WORK RIGHT AWAY WITH GOING BACK TO THE ROGERS PARTNERS PROGRAM FOR THE BEACH PATROL FACILITY.
IT WAS A LITTLE TOO AMBITIOUS THE FIRST TIME AROUND.
THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO REVISIT THAT PROGRAM IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE ONLY PUT ON THE BEACH WAS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL BECAUSE BUILDING ANYTHING ON THE BEACH IS THE LAST RESORT.
IT'S THE MOST HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT YOU CAN BUILD ON.
WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WAS GO BACK TO ROGERS AND SAY, LET'S DEVELOP A PLAN THAT PUT WHAT'S ESSENTIAL ON THE BEACH.
THEN WHAT'S NOT ESSENTIAL, WE CAN PUT IT ON A SILLY CITY FACILITY SOMEWHERE ON DRY LAND.
THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING TO THIRD PART OF THAT WAS ONCE WE GET THE MASTER PLAN DONE, THAT WILL INFORM HOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEWART BEACH IS THE DIRECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEWART BEACH WITH THE INPUT OF ALL OUR STAKEHOLDERS.
SO IT'LL CONTAIN WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO SEE ON STEWART BEACH, INCLUDING THE LOCATION FOR A BEACH PATROL FACILITY.
AND AT THAT POINT, WE'RE READY THEN TO ISSUE AN RFP FOR A MASTER DEVELOPER FOR STEWART BEACH.
>> AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL PLAN WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE OUT THERE.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR IS A FIRM THAT CAN TAKE AND PUT THEIR ARMS AROUND ALL THE WHILE.
IT'S BEEN DONE AND CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE ASSISTANT PLAN THAT MOVES IN THE DIRECTION THAT COUNSEL.
>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT OUR TAKEAWAY WAS ON THE LAST.
>> THAT'S ACTUALLY EASIER SAID THAN DONE.
MOST FIRMS LIKE TO RID OF AUTHORSHIP AND OWNERSHIP.
SO FINDING A FIRM THAT'S GOING TO TAKE OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK, JUST HOW IT IS.
>> DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHEN THEY SEND YOU THIS MASTER PLAN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS MASTER PLAN AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, IS THIS ONE AT THE TIME, DID A MASTER PLAN FOR ALL THE PARK FORT BEACH FACILITIES, BUT WE'RE NOT DOING AT THIS TIME.
WE'RE ONLY FOCUSING ON EAST BEACH AND STEWART BEACH.
[00:10:01]
>> AWARE OF THAT. WHEN YOU KEEP SAYING WE, WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER US MAKING ALL THOSE DECISIONS ABOUT WORKING WITH JUST THOSE TWO PLANS.
>> IS THE CITY DRIVE ALL OF THIS PEOPLE WOULD BE WORKING FOR THE CITY?
>> I KNOW, BUT SAYING WE'RE WORKING WITH THESE TWO PLANS.
I DON'T REMEMBER US SAYING WE WERE GOING TO LIMIT IT TO THOSE TWO VENDORS.
>> VENDORS? WE DON'T HAVE A VENDOR FOR THE MASTER.
>> ROGERS AND [INAUDIBLE]. [OVERLAPPING]
>> ACTUALLY, THOSE ARE REFERENCED ONLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SAYING WE'RE GOING TO NECESSARILY WORK WITH THOSE FIRMS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR WORK.
WE'RE JUST TRYING OUR BEST NOT TO SPEND MONEY AGAIN ON NEW PLANS.
THERE'S BEEN SOME SOLID WORK DONE BY ALL OF THESE GROUPS, AND WE WANT TO TRY TO GET THEM CONSOLIDATED INTO ONE PLAN THAT MOVES FORWARD IN THE DIRECTION THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO DO.
>> WE DID DISCUSS THAT, MARIE, AT A PAST MEETING.
I THINK IT WAS NOVEMBER MEETING WE, CORRECT?
>> WE DISCUSSED [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DIDN'T HAVE WE'RE GOING THIS WAY AND THAT WAY.
IT WAS THE CITY MANAGEMENT WAS COMING BACK TO US.
>> AND THEY WERE GOING TO REVIEW THESE PAST TWO PLANS WE'VE DONE INCORRECT WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.
YES, MA'AM. YEAH. WE HAVE DAVID FINKLEY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
>> I GOT MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED WHEN BOB OUTLINED THE THREE-STEP APPROACH.
MY COMMENT WAS, IS THAT THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN NOVEMBER WAS ULTIMATELY GETTING TO A PLACE WHERE WE COULD GO OUT TO THE MARKET TO THE DEVELOP COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MARKET TO RESPOND WITH WHAT IS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND THE ULTIMATE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STEWART BEACH WAS REALLY THE BIG OBJECTIVE.
AND THE STEPS THAT WE'RE TAKEN HERE ONE, WAS THE REVIEW, WHICH WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, AND COMPILING KIND OF THE BEST CONCEPTS OUT OF THAT.
MOVING. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT KUTSEN IS NOT ABLE TO DO THE WORK, BUT AND I AGREE YOU'RE GOING TO BE CHALLENGED WITH TRYING TO FIND SOMEBODY THAT IS GOING TO BE WILLING TO TAKE THIS ON.
SO YOUR SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR HOWEVER YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH, THAT'S GOING TO BE.
>> BUT TO ANSWER OR TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED.
OUR PLAN IS ONCE WE GET THESE COMBINED, WE'RE GOING TO BRING THESE BACK AND YOU GUYS CAN GO THROUGH THEM WITH A FINE TOOTHCOMB AND TELL US, WE DON'T AGREE WITH THIS PART, WE WANT TO GO A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS CONSULTANT WILL DO IS AFTER HE'S CONSOLIDATED EVERYTHING AND GOT IT IN A NICE SUMMARY PACKAGE FOR YOU GUYS, YOU GUYS CAN TAKE IT, WORK WITH IT AND THIS SAME FIRM WILL WORK THROUGH ALL THAT AND TRY TO CREATE WHAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE THE FINAL PRODUCT FOR BID.
OR FOR REQUESTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION.
>> I'LL FOLLOW UP ON THE MAYOR'S COMMENT RELATED TO TIMELINE.
THIS IS GOING TO BE A CONVENTIONAL, YOU KNOW, RFQ THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO UP TO THE STREETS WITH?
>> OR THAT NO, THESE ARE THESE ARE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, SO WE ARE QUICKLY TRYING TO GET SOMEBODY ON BOARD WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH AN RFQ FOR THE SERVICES.
>> ALL RIGHT. AND I WOULD SAY ALEX WANT TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT I WOULD SAY WE'VE GOT A JOINT MEETING, I THINK AGAIN IN APRIL.
>> IF I'M UP HERE TELLING YOU THIS AGAIN IN APRIL MARA, THEN WE NEED TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO JUST START FROM SCRATCH BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO GET A FIRM.
I THINK I JUST GOT I HATE TO SPEND THE MONEY TO RECREATE THIS WHEEL.
>> I MEAN, YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PLANS DO WE HAVE? LIKE, SIX PLANS, FIVE PLANS? I FEEL LIKE THIS IS RECREATING THE WHEEL.
I MEAN WE'RE PLANNING TO CREATE A PLAN TO GO TO ANOTHER FIRM? IT'S GOING TO CREATE A PLAN THAT WE CAN ALL PICK APART FOR THREE MONTHS.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, HERE'S NEXT YEAR TODAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A PLAN.
AND IT'LL BE REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE.
IF WE HAVE YOU KNOW, THERE'S DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES OUT THERE THAT ARE WELL VERSED IN PARKS THAT ARE WELL VERSED IN ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PLAN AND FOLLOW THE PROCESS.
I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A PLAN FOR ONE FIRM WHO ONLY DOES PLANNING, AND THEN THE NEXT FIRM IS GOING TO BUILD TO THAT PLAN.
I MEAN, WHY DON'T WE JUST I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT OUT TO A DEVELOPER.
ABOUT DOING LIKE A DESIGN-BUILD.
LIKE THEY DESIGN IT AND BUILD IT.
WE CAN GET OUR INPUT WHILE WE'RE WORKING TOGETHER THROUGH THE PROCESS. IT'S FASTER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION YOU HAVE.
>> WHAT KIND OF PLANS? I MEAN, IT'S LIKE WE'RE PLANNING TO PLAN AND THEN I MEAN.
>> JUST FOLLOW THE DIRECTION WE'RE GIVEN, GUYS.
IF YOU ALL WANT TO GO THAT DIRECTION BUT I NEED ALL OF YOU TO AGREE, OKAY?
>> THAT'S FINE. THAT'S WHERE I WANTED TO GO.
THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I OUGHT WE WERE GOING TO DO.
I MEAN, I THINK EVERYONE AT THE TABLE I MEAN, UNLESS SOMEONE SPEAK UP, I DON'T THINK THAT THE ONLY COMPONENT THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IS A LONG-TERM OR SHORT-TERM HOTEL ASPECT STEWART BEACH.
>> YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LONG TIME WAY BACK, AND BECAUSE YOU'RE RIGHT.
[00:15:03]
THERE IS AN OPTION WHERE A MASTER DEVELOPER CAN TAKE ON THE SCOPE OF WHAT A MASTER PLAN WOULD DO.THAT IS TO GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, CREATE A MASTER PLAN JUST LIKE A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION WOULD DO, AND THEN DEVELOPER.
YOU COULD PUT THAT IN A MASTER DEVELOPER SCOPE IF YOU WANTED AND DO IT ALL AT ONCE.
THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
>> I MEAN, I JUST LIKE [INAUDIBLE], RIGHT? THEY SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.
THEY'RE GOING TO GO HELP US FIND A VENDOR AND IT'S LIKE WE JUST LIKE THE PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING ON STEWART.
CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE. I MEAN, I WANT TO SEE SOMETHING GET DONE AND LIKE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I JUST AFFIRMATIVE VOTES AND WE WILL GET IT DONE.
>> PREVIOUSLY, CHAIRMAN HARD COUNSEL, YOU MAY REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER, YOU AND I TALKED TO YOU DIRECTLY.
I SAID, HAVE YOU ALL DONE A YOU DEVELOPED A DEVELOPMENT RFP PREVIOUSLY, CORRECT?
>> YOU WENT OUT TO THE MARKETPLACE, YOU RECEIVED THREE BIDS, AND THEN AT THAT TIME, YOU GOT STOPPED BY COUNSEL.
>> WE HAD THREE BIDS, AND THEN WE STARTED A NEW COMMITTEE AND THEN DID ANOTHER RFQ PROCESS.
THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS THROUGH JLL.
AND THE SUBSEQUENT ONE WAS DONE THROUGH JUST THE PARK BOARD.
AND THE COMMITTEE THAT WAS FORMED, I GUESS, THE THIRD ITERATION OF THE STEWART BEACH AD HOC COMMITTEE.
SO AND THEN TWO OF THE RESPONDENTS WERE THE EXACT SAME OF THE THREE THAT RESPONDED THE FIRST TIME.
>> THE BIGGEST THING WE WOULD BE SOLICITING TO WELL-QUALIFIED PEOPLE WHO CAN DO EVERYTHING IN HOUSE AND 100 PERCENT FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END.
>> I WANTED TO REMIND YOU ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE.
SO WE'RE PERFECTLY CAPABLE OF DOING THAT.
IN THAT PROCESS BYPASSES SOME OF THESE OTHER EFFORTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAD TOLD BRIAN OR WHATEVER.
BUT THE ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO TRY TO GET BACK OUT ON THE STREET WITH THE DEVELOPMENT RFQ.
>> WELL, AND HAVE THE INPUT OF STAKEHOLDERS.
WE CAN'T JUST DO THAT WITHOUT THE STAKEHOLDERS BEING PARK BOARD, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC, EVERYBODY OUT THERE, THE LIFEGUARDS, EVERYBODY THAT HAS A STAKEHOLDER AND THAT HAS TO WEIGH IN ON THIS AND SOLER'S RIGHT TO BE.
>> BUT YOU CAN DO THAT AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE DEVELOPMENT CAN HAVE THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS, AND WE PUT IT ON THE DEVELOPER AND IT'S THE CO-RESPONSIBILITY.
>> I BELIEVE THE THREE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS OUR DEVELOPERS THAT PROPOSED LAST TIME, THEY ALL INCLUDED A HOTEL.
THEY FELT THAT THAT WAS THE PATH FORWARD.
SPECIFICALLY, WE COULD TAKE THAT WHOLE THING OUT, MASSAGE IT, PUT IT OUT AND SAY, ABSOLUTELY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] PROBLEM AND WE HAVE THE LAND COVENANTS PROBLEM.
THE HEIRS OF MICO STEWART WOULD COME BACK AND SAY IT'S NOT SOMETHING FOR THE PUBLIC, AND I MEAN, IT'S THOSE PEST TEN YEARS.
>> WE COULD DO THAT. WE COULD PUT IT BACK OUT.
WE COULD SAY, EXCLUDING IT, THIS CANNOT INCLUDE A HOTEL OR WHATEVER ELSE, AND SEE WHAT WE GET.
WE'RE HAPPY TO PUT THAT TOGETHER AND USE THE RFP THAT HAS ALREADY GONE OUT AND JUST MASSAGE IT AND GET IT OUT QUICK.
I JUST NEED YOU GUYS TO AGREE ON WHAT YOU WANT.
WE KEEP GETTING PING PONGED AROUND HERE.
JUST TELL US WHAT YOU WANT. WE'LL DO WHATEVER YOU WANT.
>> I PROBABLY KNOW THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO HAVE SOME INPUT HERE, BUT I JUST DO WANT TO OFFER A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARITY.
ONE IS THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR DID COME BACK WITH HOTEL/RESORT OPTIONS.
THAT WAS BECAUSE IN RFQ, WHICH IF WE DID THIS PROCESS AGAIN, AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID, MASSAGED IT AND CHANGED IT, WE COULD SAY THAT THERE CAN BE NO HOTEL ON THIS.
IN ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS SAID THAT WE CAN DO THIS PROJECT WITH ONE, WITHOUT ONE, BUT WHEN WE ISSUED THE RFQ, THE CHALLENGE WAS TO THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO PRODUCE THE HIGHEST REVENUE POSSIBLE WITH THIS PROPERTY WITH THE THOUGHT THAT WE WERE GOING TO SEND A HIGH REVENUE SHARE OVER TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
SO THAT IS WHY THEY ALL CAME BACK, BUT THEY ALL ALSO RECOGNIZED IT'S NEGOTIABLE AND ONE OF THEM SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A LOWER REVENUE SHARE WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> THIS IS A MINUTE OF EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID.
NUMBER 1, MASTER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH AND EAST BEACH.
NUMBER 2, DEVELOPMENT OF A BEACH PATROL FACILITY, THREE, FUNDING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT, FOUR, SEPARATION OF STEWART AND EAST BEACH DEVELOPMENT, FIVE, PARKING AND HOTEL DEVELOPMENT, AND SIX, FEATURE COLLABORATION WITH THE PARK BOARD.
COUNCIL DISCUSS MOVING FORWARD WITH A FOCUS MASTER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH, PRIORITIZING THE BEACH PATROLS FACILITIES IMMEDIATE NEEDS AND ADDRESSING PARKING AND DEVELOPMENT AND ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S GOALS FOR BOTH BEACHES.
PLANS FOR STEWART BEACH ARE SEEN AS
[00:20:01]
A MORE IMMEDIATE PRIORITY WITH EAST BEACH FOLLOWING LATER.SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE AT FOLLOWING A MASTER PLAN WITH VERY SPECIFIC FOCUSES ON THAT.
>> WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CIRCLE OF WAGONS ON THAT.
>> QUICK QUESTION. TWO WAYS THAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING THEY WERE SAYING THAT YOU SAY YOU GUYS ARE BEING PING PUNK WHICH WAY IS THE FASTEST?
>> THE FASTEST WAY WOULD BE TO DO EXACTLY WHAT ALEX IS TALKING ABOUT, WHICH IS JUST TO PUT OUT AN RFQ FOR SOMEBODY TO BRING IN A MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN?
>> I MEAN THAT FAST WOULD MEAN LIKE IN TWO, THREE YEARS HAVE SOMETHING DONE, READY AND OPEN I CAN'T SEA FOR THE DEVELOPER. SAYING MORE OR LESS.
>> I THINK THE MORE MONEY IT MAKES FOR THE DEVELOPER, THE FASTER IT GETS DONE.
THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW THOSE THINGS WORK. OKAY.
>> WE KNOW THE MASTER DEVELOPER.
SO WHY DON'T WE GO FOR THE FASTEST? OKAY.
>> GO AHEAD, DON. WELL, THE MASTER DEVELOPER, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE WANT TO PUT ON STEWART BEACH WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS WHAT THE PARK BOARD WANTS WHAT THE CITY WANTS, NOT WHAT THE MASTER DEVELOPER WANTS.
HE NEEDS DIRECTION. AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT DIRECTION, HE NEEDS TO HAVE THE STAKEHOLDER INPUT, THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT TO GET THERE.
SO THAT ORDINARILY THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL SCOPE.
HE MAY EVEN HIRE ANOTHER CONSULTANT TO THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE BROKE IT UP INTO TWO SECTIONS OF ONE FOCUSING ON MASTER PLAN, ONE FOCUSING ON BECAUSE THE MASTER PLAN IS GOING TO INFORM THE MASTER DEVELOPERS SCOPE OF WORK TO SOME DEGREE.
SO HE'S STILL GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT.
IF WE MAKE IT ALL ON ONE THING, WHICH IS TOTALLY POSSIBLE, STILL GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT MOST MASTER DEVELOPERS DEAL WITH, BUT IT CAN BE DONE.
>> SO SECOND TO THAT QUESTION.
OUR PRIORITY RIGHT NOW, THE OTHER PARKS, IT'S A STEWART BEACH, CORRECT? STEWART BEACH AND [INAUDIBLE].WELL, THE BIGGEST PRIORITY WHERE WE HAVE A POND RIGHT NOW.
IT'S AT STEWART BEACH. WE AGREE WITH THAT, CORRECT?
>> SO WHICH WAY AGAIN, WHICH WAY IS THE FASTEST WAY TO GET SOMETHING DONE IN STEWART BEACH BECAUSE THAT WE DON'T WANT SOMEBODY GOING FISH IN THREE YEARS FROM NOW AT THE POND THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
>> YEAH. I AGREE WITH BRIAN. THE FASTEST WAY WOULD BE HAVE A MASTER DEVELOPER THAT INCLUDES THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PART OF IT.
>> AND I WOULD INCLUDE IN THAT BECAUSE MY CONCERN, WHILE I WANT TO GET STEWART BEACH DEVELOPED, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS WE'VE GOT OUR BEACH PATROL OPERATING A TRAILERS OUT THERE AND WE'VE GOT TO GET THEM SETTLED SOMEPLACE.
AND I'M GOING TO GO ON LIMB HERE AND SAY GALVESTON HAS NEVER HAD A MAJOR HURRICANE AFTER WE'VE HAD A MAJOR SNOWFALL EVER IN OUR HISTORY.
>> THEY'RE ALWAYS TIED TO GET.
>> YEAH. TYPICALLY, THE HURRICANE COMES FIRST, WHICH IT DID.
SO I'M HOPING FOR THAT, BUT GUYS, WE GOT TO BE THIS IS WHERE OUR PRIORITY REALLY NEEDS TO BE IS GETTING THIS BEACH PATROL SAFE, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST PLOP IT DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF IT, THEN YOU SCREWED UP THE WHOLE PLAN OUT THERE.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
>> YOU CAN'T BUILD A SOMETHING FOR BEACH PATROL IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN BUILD AROUND [OVERLAPPING]
>> PLUS, TYPICALLY, MOST LIFEGUARD BUILDINGS ARE NOT ON THE BEACH.
>> I DID SEARCH ALL THE WAY AROUND.
>> I SEARCHED ALL THE CHIEF PATROL OF CHIEFS AROUND THE WITH USLA, AND THEY ALL EITHER A STREET, A SMALL STREET LIKE THE ONE [OVERLAPPING].
>> MOST OF THEM ARE ON [INAUDIBLE].
>> I SAY THERE'S THERE'S NOT A BIG FOUR WAYS [OVERLAPPING].
>> OR THEY'RE RIGHT ON THE OTHER.
>> BUT INSTALL A BIG STREET LIGHT LIKE THE ONE WE HAVE IN BETWEEN STEWART BEACH.
WE HAVE A SMALLER STREET, THE ONE RIGHT THERE IN BETWEEN THE SEA WALL AND THE SAND, RIGHT THERE WITH THE HELIPAD WAS.
THAT'D BE FINE IF IT'S MOVED THAT WAY AGAINST THE WALL.
>> WHAT'S A DIFFERENT DRIVING COMPONENT FOR OUR BEACH PATROL IS THAT WE ARE DOING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PLANNING ON A SIX WEEK SUMMER CAMP.
WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY TO ACCOMMODATE A SIX WEEK SUMMER CAMP, WHICH IS IMPORTANT, BUT WE'RE SPENDING A BIG COMPONENT OF OUR PLANNING ON THAT.
I THINK BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, THERE'S A COMPONENT OF BEACH PATROL THAT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE SOMEWHERE ON THE BEACH.
BUT WHERE SOMEBODY'S COMPUTER IS IN THEIR DESK AND EVERYTHING ELSE DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE ON A BEACH AND THAT'S IT SURE AS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD AN OFFICE ON THE BEACH VERSUS SOMEPLACE ELSE.
>> WELL, WE'RE TURNING AROUND TO THAT, BUT WE'RE COMING BACK TO NOT HAVING A POND ON STEWART BEACH FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS, WHERE WE CAN GO FASTER TO GET SOMETHING BUILT.
YOU SAID NO BEACH PATROL THERE? OKAY, BUT DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GET AFTER [OVERLAPPING]?
>> I'M NOT SURE THE MASTER PLAN INCLUDES THE POND.
>> WE SHOULD, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS IT WAS FROZEN.
>> I THINK IT'S A RIDICULOUS PROJECT.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T REALLY DISCUSSED.
I KNOW THAT'S ANOTHER TOPIC ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE WE INCLUDE IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS SOLVING THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AT STEWART BEACH.
LAST GUY I KNEW THAT WALKED ON WATER MIGHT STILL BE AVAILABLE,
[00:25:03]
I DON'T KNOW. SO WE'LL TRY.>> BILL CLEMENTS HAD HIS HAND UP, JASON.
AND THEN I WANT TO MAKE A MAKE A COMMENT. GO AHEAD, BILL.
>> I WANT TO AGREE WITH AND REINFORCE WHAT BOB SAID ABOUT STAKEHOLDER INPUT BECAUSE I SPEND A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE SEAWALL AND WITH THE BEACH PATROL, AND I'VE BEEN DOING SOME INFORMAL CANVASSING, IF YOU WILL.
SO THIS IS ANECDOTAL GRANITE, BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM OUR VISITORS IS THEY VERY MUCH WOULD LIKE TO SEE A FACILITY SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS THERE BACK IN THE '60S AND '70S AND '80S WHEN IT WAS MORE OF AN ATTRACTION FOR DAY VISITORS AND LOCALS.
SPECIFICALLY, THE LOCALS ARE LOOKING FOR SOME PLACE TO GO WITH THE FAMILY, AND I HAVEN'T HEARD A LOT OF OBJECTION, SOME DESIRE, BUT NOT A LOT OF OBJECTION TO THE PARKING FEE, SOME DESIRE TO ELIMINATE IT.
BUT AS WE PREPARE FOR MOST OF THE TIME, SEMI-TROPICAL ISLAND PARADISE FOR VISITORS, I HOPE THAT WE'LL DO WHAT BOB IS SUGGESTING AND GO TO THE STAKEHOLDERS ON THIS FOR THEIR DESIRES BECAUSE THE FOLKS CURRENTLY VISITING GALVESTON AND STAYING IN THE MAJOR HOTELS ARE QUITE HAPPY TO WALK ACROSS THE STREET.
IN FACT, THAT'S ONE OF THE ATTRACTIONS IS THE ABILITY TO WALK ACROSS THE STREET AND VISIT THE BEACH RIGHT THERE.
AND EVEN A COUPLE OF THEM, THE LARGER ONES, ARE NOW PROVIDING UMBRELLAS AND PLACES FOR THEIR GUESTS TO GO. SO THAT'S NUMBER 1.
NUMBER 2, IN TERMS OF STAKEHOLDERS, I'M ALSO ON THE BEACH PATROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE PARK BOARD, AND I VISITED WITH MOST OF THE COMMAND STAFF, THE STAFF THERE, AND THEY'RE ALL VERY STRONGLY OF THE OPINION THAT IT'S NOT CONDUCIVE TO GOOD OPERATIONS TO SEPARATE THE BEACH PATROL.
I KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO AWAY FROM THE BEACH.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMMAND STAFF THAT NEEDS TO BE LOCATED TOGETHER AND IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH OUR LIFEGUARDS, MANY OF WHOM ARE IN THE 16, 18, 20-YEAR-OLD RANGE, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THEY'RE WONDERFUL ON THE BEACH ON A CHAIR WHERE THEY'VE BEEN TRAINED.
PUT THEM AWAY FROM THAT AND THEY NEED THE ADULT SUPERVISION, IF YOU WILL, AND OUR FOLKS DO A TREMENDOUS JOB OF THAT.
AS I LOOKED AT IT, THERE'S ONLY ONE POSITION THAT I SAW THAT COULD ACTUALLY BE LOCATED SOMEPLACE OTHER THAN WHERE THE MAJORITY OF YOUR BEACH PATROL STAFF MEETS TO GO OUT TO WORK EVERY DAY, AND I HOPE WE'LL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE THOUGHTS OF THE BEACH PATROL COMMAND STAFF, THE BEACH PATROL, SENIOR MANAGEMENT, AND ALSO THE PARK BOARD STAFF, BECAUSE I THINK YOU WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND ANYONE WHO WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH SEPARATING THE BEACH PATROL INTO TWO SEPARATE FACILITIES.
SO I VERY STRONGLY URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AS YOU LOOK AT THIS.
THEY'VE ASSURED ME THEY CAN MAKE IT WORK, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A DESIRABLE NOR A PARTICULARLY SATISFYING SITUATION FOR THEM.
I WANT TO TRY TO GET THIS BACK INTO MOVING FORWARD IN A DIRECTION. TWO THINGS.
I WANT TO ASK DON A QUESTION IN A SECOND, BUT BRIAN, I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO OUTLINE TO THIS GROUP, THE PROS AND CONS OF MOVING FORWARD NOW WITH A MASTER DEVELOPMENT APPROACH OR MOVING FORWARD WITH A MASTER PLAN APPROACH FIRST BEFORE.
>> I THINK THE PROS ARE IS GOING TO MOVE VERY QUICKLY.
I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET A PRODUCT THAT PROBABLY PRODUCES MORE REVENUE.
THAT'S UP TO COUNSEL AND US TO NEGOTIATE, AND I THINK THAT YOU ULTIMATELY WILL END UP WITH A BETTER PHASED PROJECT AS IT RELATES TO BOTH BECAUSE THE REASON THESE BEACH NEEDS TO BE A COMPONENT OF THIS IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BASICALLY HAVE TO SHUT DOWN ONE PART WHILE THE OTHER ONE GETS DONE, SO YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEM BOTH OPERATIONAL.
I THINK THE CONS ARE IS THAT A MASTER DEVELOPER IS GOING TO WANT TO MOVE FAST.
I THINK THAT IT'S WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE VERY STRONG GUARD RAILS ON IT, THAT THEY HAVE PUBLIC INPUT IS WHAT YOU WANT, OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE VERY STRONG GUARD RAILS ON THAT,
[00:30:02]
AND YOU MAY EVEN WANT TO SUGGEST WHO THEY USE FOR THEIR PUBLIC INPUT, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE DOWNSIDE TO IT.I ALSO THINK THAT YOU MAY LOSE SOME OF WHAT YOU LIKE FROM THESE OTHER PLANS.
WE CAN ALWAYS INSERT THAT, BUT A MASTER DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE MOST INTERESTED IN EXPEDIENCY BECAUSE TIME IS MONEY FOR A MASTER DEVELOPER.
I THINK IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO TIME AND THOSE THINGS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH TIME.
I SEE NO TRUE CONS WITH EITHER DIRECTION, ONE JUST TAKES A LITTLE LONGER, THAT'S ALL.
>> OUR MASTER PLANNING, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, POSSIBLY A PRO WAS A PRO OF THAT WOULD BE WE WOULD GIVE DIRECTION WHEN WE GO OUT TO LOOK FOR A MASTER DEVELOPER THEN, HE WOULD GET OR SHE WOULD GET MORE DEFINITE DIRECTION.
>> DON, I NEED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION.
FOR COUNSEL'S SAKE, HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? WHAT ACTION DOES COUNSEL NEED TO TAKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MAKING DECISION TO MOVE WITH THE MASTER DEVELOPER APPROACH OR A MASTER PLANNING APPROACH ON THIS ONE?
>> MAKE A DECISION THAT DIRECTIONS YOU WHERE TO GO TO AND HOW TO DO IT AND ADVISE THE CITY MANAGER WHERE YOU WANT TO GO.
>> DOES THAT HAVE TO BE ON AN REGULAR AGENDA ITEM FOR A VOTE?
>> HERE'S A THING, WE HAVE WORKED WITH CONSENSUS AND I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH CONSENSUS, BUT AS SOON AS WE LEAVE THIS ROOM, THEN WE DON'T HAVE CONSENSUS, AND THAT HAS US SWINGING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, WE WILL BEGIN MOVING TOWARDS A MASTER DEVELOPER BECAUSE THAT'S THE CONSENSUS THAT I'M FEELING.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO BACK THAT UP WITH A VOTE AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING, PLEASE.
WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET A VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
WE TALK ABOUT THIS SUBJECT, YOU COME BACK, AND NOW WE HAVE INDIVIDUALS SAYING THEY DIDN'T WANT TO MOVE IN [INAUDIBLE] WE NEED TO MOVE IN A DIRECTION AND WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT.
IN GENERAL, WE'LL NEED TO WORK WITH THE COMING UP AGENDA TO MAKE SURE WE GOT SOMETHING SO WE CAN VOTE ON THIS AND [INAUDIBLE].
>> AND WE WILL TRY OUR BEST BY THAT POINT, BY THE NEXT MEETING TO TRY TO HAVE A DRAFT OF R/Q FOR THAT PURPOSE.
WE'LL GET WHAT THE PARK BOARD PUT OUT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO START FROM SCRATCH, WE'LL TRY TO WORK THROUGH THAT.
>> OKAY. SO BEFORE ALEX SPEAKS, AND I THINK YOU HAD A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WANTED TO TALK, BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT, YOU'LL HAVE THIS ON NEXT TIME, NEXT MEETING'S AGENDA.
COUNSEL, WHAT I HEAR FROM COUNSEL'S STANDPOINT, JASON CAN GET THIS WITH CARDBOARD.
WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MORE OF A MASTER DEVELOPER APPROACH AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. ALEX.
>> I MEAN, SOMEONE ELSE WAS UP FOR ME.
>> THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT FIRMS THAT CAN DO ALL OF THIS IN HOUSE.
I DON'T THINK THAT, AND ONE OF THE GUARD-RAILS COULD BE I DON'T WANT TO SELECT IT, HAVE THEM PICK A FIRM TO DO THE PUBLIC.
THAT SHOULD BE A PART OF THE RFQ.
THAT SHOULD BE A PART OF WHAT THAT DEVELOPER CAN DO.
WE SHOULDN'T WORK WITH DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE TO CONTRACT EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF THIS THING OUT.
WE SHOULD WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED, WHO HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH BEACH PARKS.
WE SHOULD WORK WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE PRIVATE-PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, WE SHOULD HAVE GOOD CLAW-BACK CLAUSES, WE SHOULD JUST PROVIDE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, OVERSIGHT ON THE DIRECTION ON HOW THEY DO THINGS, THE STANDARDS THAT WE WANT TO HOLD.
WE DON'T HAVE THE [OVERLAPPING].
BUT THE CON OF THE PLANNING PART, LIKE A MASTER PLANNER, IS YOU'RE CREATING SOMETHING THAT IT'S A THEORY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE PLANS ANYWAY.
SO IF YOU DO ALL IN HOUSE, IT'S THIS IS OUR PLAN, AND IF THERE'S CHANGES, THEY'RE PROBABLY MINOR JUST BECAUSE OF PRACTICAL [OVERLAPPING].
>> I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD LIMIT IT TO SOMEBODY WHO COULD DO 100% IN HOUSE BECAUSE JUST ABOUT EVERY FIRM WE DO BUSINESS WITH SUBS OUT PARTS OF THEIR WORK.
THEY SUB OUT THE MECHANICAL, THEY SUB OUT I MEAN, THESE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PLANNING PROCESS.
>> NO, I GET THEY SUB I MEAN, NOT EVERYONE.
>> NO, BUT IT'S YOU KNOW ULTIMATELY WE HOLD THE MASTER DEVELOPER RESPONSIBLE.
HOW THEY GET THAT DATA AND HOW THEY COLLECT IT IS REALLY NOT OUR PURVIEW.
WE JUST TELL THEM WHEN WE WANTED, HOW WE WANT IT, AND WE PUT THOSE GUARD WHEELS UP, DON'T YOU? I'VE REFERRED TO DAVID, HE DOES THIS FOR A LIVING, SO.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT I SPENT 20 YEARS IN THE BEACH WORLD AND THERE ARE COMPANIES AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO DO THIS BECAUSE THERE ARE BEACH PARKS ALL OVER [OVERLAPPING].
THERE IS NO REASON TO REINVENT THE WHEEL.
>> THAT'S JASON, WE HAVE COUNSEL, NEED YOU SPEAK UP, IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
WE ARE COUNSEL'S MOVING IN DIRECTION OF HAVING ON OUR AGENDA NEXT MEETING DETAILS FROM STAFF ON MOVING FORWARD WITH A MASTER DEVELOPER THIS PROJECT.
[00:35:04]
AND THEY WILL BRING FORWARD THE DETAILS THAT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT RF.>> WE'LL BRING THE DRAFT TO YOU BOTH IN A WORKSHOP AND AN ACTION ITEM AT THE NEXT AGENDA.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ACTION IF YOU'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THE DRAFT, BUT WE'LL GET INPUT AT YOUR NEXT WORKSHOP MEETING IN FEBRUARY. OKAY.
>> THAT'S WHERE WE'RE MOVING ON OUR END.
>> TO BE CLEAR IN THAT DIRECTION.
THAT IS A MASTER DEVELOPER RF WHO WILL INCLUDE THE PUBLIC MANAGEMENT PART.
WE HAVE STAKEHOLDERS THE RIGHT STAKEHOLDER AT THE TABLE AND WE'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WHO THOSE STAKEHOLDERS ARE.
>> OKAY. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER YOU FOR JUST A SECOND JASON TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS SIR.
SOMEONE'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE 2018.
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW LATE I AM TO HEAR THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A VOTE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE TRUSTEES, IN MY OPINION, BASED ON ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS ON THIS, PREVIOUS TRUSTEES TO THE CURRENT SLATE OF TRUSTEES ARE HERE TO TAKE THE DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL, AND WE'RE HERE TO FOLLOW YOUR LEAD.
WE DO WE'RE EXCITED TO FOLLOW THAT DIRECTION.
THERE'S FOUR THINGS THAT UNANIMOUSLY CAME OUT FROM ALL OF THE COMMITTEES, PREVIOUS CITY COUNCILS AND PREVIOUS PARK BOARDS, AS WELL, THAT A DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE, THERE'S FOUR BROAD SCOPES THAT DID COME AS A CONSENSUS OUT OF THOSE.
ONE IS THAT IT ATTRACTS PEOPLE YEAR ROUND.
IT'S NOT JUST STRICTLY A BEACH PARK THAT PEOPLE GO TO IN THE SUMMER.
TWO, THAT IT ENCOURAGES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
THREE. IT ENCOURAGES LONGER STAYS BY THOSE GUESTS HERE HERE.
FOUR, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO IN TURN ALSO RAISE THE AVERAGE DAILY RATES OF OUR HOSPITALITY PARTNERS WITH THEIR HOTELS AND RESORTS AS WELL IN SHORT TERM RENTALS.
THOSE ARE THE FOUR THINGS THAT BASICALLY EVERYONE AGREED ON THAT DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THESE RF.
>> I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I THINK I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE, AND I AGREE WITH THAT WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
WE NEED TO MOVE ON FROM THIS SUBJECT, BUT I WANT TO GET ANY OTHER THOUGHTS.
CAPTAIN PARK BOARD, DO YOU KNOW WHERE OUR THOUGHTS ARE HERE AT COUNCIL? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VOTE AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MASTER DEVELOPER APPROACH.
STAFF WELCOMES THE DEFINITIVE VOTE OKAY.
>> DO YOU THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AS PART OF THAT MASTER PLAN NOT TO CLOUD ANY ISSUES.
THAT YOU'LL BEGIN TO START FIGURING OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE LAGOON.
AS PART OF AS PART OF THAT MASTER PLAN.
>> WE WILL INCLUDE SOLVING DRAINAGE ISSUES AS PART OF THE [INAUDIBLE] ARE YOU CLEAR ON WHAT WE NEED TO HAVE IN [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT JUST SEEMS LIKE ALL OVER AGAIN.
>> WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT [INAUDIBLE].
>> I CAN REMEMBER WHEN JERRY KINAR WAS CHAIR.
HOW LONG DID YOU GO WITH THAT?
>> QUITE A FEW YEARS. LET'S GO TO ITEM 2, PLEASE.
>> ITEM 2. DISCUSSION OF GOALS, STRATEGIES, BUDGET, AND SCHEDULE FOR IMPROVEMENTS AT SEAWORLD PARK.
>> WAS PUT ON BY BOB BROWN, THIS IS REALLY JUST FOLLOWING UP ON OUR LAST JOINT MEETING.
WE DISCUSSED THE STEWART BEACH ISSUE AT LENGTHS, AND WE SAID THAT WE DISCUSSED SEAWORLD PARK AT OUR NEXT JOINT MEETING.
WHAT OUR GOALS ARE, WHAT STEPS ARE WE TAKING TO GET TO THOSE GOALS.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> IT MAY BE THAT WE ASKED THE PARK BOARD TO START OFF WITH THEIR GOALS FOR SEAWORLD PARK AND THE BRIAN, YOU START OFF WITH HIS GOALS AND HAVE A KIND OF A REPORT SESSION AND RESPOND.
>> YOU THINK HE JUST WOULD COME BACK AT OUR APRIL MEETING FOR POSSIBLY.
>> OKAY. BUT I JUST WANT TO GET THE BACKGROUND THAT EVERYBODY BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY IS MOVING TOWARDS SEAWORLD DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR OWN DIRECTIONS, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TOGETHER TO DISCUSS THAT WE NEED TO NEED TO COME TOGETHER WITH OUR GOALS FOR SEAWORLD.
I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD TAKE THE PARK BOARD WOULD NEED TO PUT IT SPOT TO THAT AND GET THEIR GOES TOGETHER AND ALL OF THAT FOR SEAWORLD PARK.
>> FROM A BROAD PERSPECTIVE, IN COMPLETE CONTRAST TO THE START BEACH.
THERE IS MINIMAL PRIVATE SECTOR INTEREST IN ANY TYPE OF OPERATIONS OR ANYTHING AT SEAWORLD PARK.
[00:40:02]
ONE REASON IT'S JUST SO MUCH SMALLER TO IT'S MORE ISOLATED.SO THERE HAVE BEEN SOME PLANS INTERNALLY THAT HAVE BEEN DONE THAT CAN BE WHAT WE SEE REVENUE PRODUCING.
WHEN WE SAY REVENUE PRODUCING, WE'RE ALWAYS CONSIDERING A REVENUE SHARE TO BE NEGOTIATED WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON AS WELL.
WE THINK INTERNALLY WITH SOME OF OUR PLANS THAT WE'VE PRELIMINARILY PUT FORWARD IS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT MARGINS THAT WE CAN COVER OUR EXPENSES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL CAPITAL INVESTMENTS OUT THERE, WHICH ALL CENTERS AROUND A WASTEWATER SYSTEM.
THAT IS NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, EVEN IF GALVESTON NAVAL MUSEUM CONTINUES ON ITS CURRENT TRACK OF ATTRACTING YES ANNUALLY, WE'RE AT CAPACITY WITH THE WASTEWATER OUT THERE.
I KNOW THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO ELEVATE THEIR PRESENCE AS WELL, AND AS A MUSEUM THAT HAS EVENT SPACES AS WELL AS MORE ARTIFACTS AND DISPLAYS.
THEN THERE'S ALSO THE POTENTIAL THAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THE ADDITIONAL FISHING REVENUE THAT'S BEING RAISED OUT THERE IN THE ADDITIONAL GUESS THAT WE HAVE FISHING.
ALSO WE WANT TO BETTER CONNECTED TO GALVESTON ISLAND THROUGH A WATER TAXI.
WE'RE WORKING ON THAT WITH GALVESTON NAVAL MUSEUM BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THEIR IDEAS TO HAVE OUT THERE.
THEN ALSO, WE WANT TO PAY TRIBUTE TO THE IMMIGRATION HISTORY OF THAT AREA TOO.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS FROM STAFF, VINCE.
I KNOW THAT YOU CAN SUPPLEMENT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE AS WELL.
>> I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE PARKS AND AND AMENITIES COMMITTEE FOR FOR THE PARK BOARD.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AND SO FAR, THE GOALS COMMITTEE HAS IDENTIFIED ARE NUMBER ONE REVENUE BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY AN UNRESTRICTED SOURCE.
UNRESTRICTED. THE GOAL IS TO BEAUTIFY THE PARK.
IT'S ATTRACTIVE AND READY TO SERVE.
THIRD, TO DEVELOP THIS WASTE WATER SOLUTION SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES OUT THERE, WHICH WILL LEAD BACK TO THE REVENUE GENERATION.
BUT VINCE HAS GOT A WHOLE FRED HERE FOR YOU, AND I THINK IT WILL HELP IDENTIFY SOME OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HE'S GOT SPECIFICALLY IN MIND.
>> YES. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.
JUST WANT TO START OFF A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND.
>> PLEASE WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF IN YOUR POSITION FOR THE COMMUNITY.
I AM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COASTAL OPERATIONS FOR THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
BEFORE YOU TODAY IS JUST A SPREADSHEET THAT GOES ON COST ANALYSIS AND SOME PROJECTIONS OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES AS RELATES TO THE DEVELOPMENT OR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SEAWORLD PARK.
IN THE PAST TWO BUDGET YEARS, WE'VE HAD THE RV PARK AS A COMPONENT OF THE BUDGET.
THAT WAS ONE OF SEVERAL ACTIONS AND DIRECTION THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD THROUGH THE TASK FORCE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN MARCH OF 2022.
THAT TASK FORCE WAS COMBINATION OF CITY STAFF, PARK BOARD STAFF, AND SOME PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTNERS.
THROUGH THAT TASK FORCE, WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES TO DIVERSIFY THE REVENUE STREAMS. THEY ALL CAME BACK TO TWO DIFFERENT REAL FUNDS AND REAL SOURCES.
ONE WAS AN RV PARK, AND ONE WAS A BOAT RAMP.
BOTH THOSE ITEMS ARE PART OF THIS COST ANALYSIS IN THIS PHASE DEVELOPMENT APPROACH.
THERE WAS ALSO, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, SOME DISCUSSION RELATED TO ADDITIONAL ATTRACTIONS AND SERVICES AND AMENITIES AT THAT PART TO MAKE IT MORE SUSTAINABLE LONG-TERM.
THOSE INCLUDED A SPLASH PAD, SOME ROMATAS THAT RESEMBLE THE OLD QUARANTINE STATIONS, AND THEN I'LL SEE THE INVESTMENT OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT ITSELF.
THE VERY TOP OF THIS SPREADSHEET, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S ABOUT $6.5 MILLION OF TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT INTO THIS PROJECT.
WHEN THIS TASK FORCE FIRST MET, THE BIGGEST NUMBER ONE GOAL WAS, HOW DO WE GET WASTEWATER OUT THERE ON PELICAN ISLAND AT SEAWORLD PARK.
THAT WAS THE VISION WAS, HOW DOES THIS PROJECT HELP FUND THAT INVESTMENT? ON THE BOTTOM OF THE SPREADSHEET IS A VERY ELEMENTARY ILLUSTRATION OF WHAT THAT PARK COULD LOOK LIKE.
[00:45:04]
NOTHING ON HERE IS FULLY TO SCALE.THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ENGAGE WITH A STUDENT ARCHITECT TO PRODUCE FOR US.
AGAIN, NOTHING IS IT WAS IN DEPTH PLANNED ON THAT ILLUSTRATION.
GO THROUGH THE FINANCIALS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHASED APPROACH FOR FULL DEVELOPMENT, YOU'LL SEE ALL THE EXPENSE SIDE THERE.
YOU'LL SEE THE EXPENSE OF THE RV PARK, YOU'LL SEE THE EXPENSE OF THE BOAT RAMP, EXPENSE OF THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, THE RAMADA, THEY HAVE THE FACADE OF THE QUARANTINE STATIONS, AND THEN THE SPLASH PAD EXPENSE ITSELF.
ALL THOSE EXPENSES ARE ALL GOING TO BE IN THE RED.
AS YOU LOOK AT THE REVENUE STREAMS OF BOTH THE RV PARK AND THE BOAT RAMP, YOU'LL SEE THAT YEAR 1, IT'S THERE AT THE SURPLUS CASH.
EVEN IN YEAR ONE, WE START SEEING A SURPLUS CASH.
THIS IS IF WE WERE TO TAKE OUT DEBT SERVICES AND REPAY OFF AT THAT POINT.
REALLY WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO SHOW AND HIGHLIGHT WAS THROUGH THE 20 YEAR LIFE CYCLE OF THAT PROJECT AT ABOUT YEAR 15, THERE'S ABOUT $2.7 MILLION OF SURPLUS CASH AT YEAR 20, THERE'S ABOUT $5.2 DOLLAR TOTAL.
THERE'S SOME QUICK ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE BELOW TO KIND OF LOOK AT SELF PERFORMING THE RV PARK.
AGAIN, THE CONCEPT IN THE DESIGN WAS THAT THE RV PARK WOULD BE BUILT WITH WASTEWATER PIPE INSTALLED UNDERGROUND.
BUT NOT CONNECTED INITIALLY, THE FIRST PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PARK WOULD BE A LIMITED SERVICE RV PARK, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE AT STATE PARK TODAY, WHERE THERE WOULD NOT BE A SEWER CONNECTION, THERE WOULD BE WATER AND ELECTRIC.
WE WOULD ALSO NOT MAKE MAJOR INVESTMENTS IN THE RV PARK IN THE SENSE OF NO LAUNDRY ROOMS, NO SHOWER ROOMS. THIS WOULD REALLY JUST BE THE CONCRETE PAD AND THE ELECTRICAL PEDESTAL.
THIS WAS PER THE TASK FORCE FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT REASONS.
I LOWERED OUR INITIAL INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL COSTS.
BUT IT ALSO MADE THAT LOCATION IN THAT PROPERTY SOMETHING WHERE IN THE FUTURE, IF THERE WERE A HIGHER IN BEST USE, THE ASSET AND THOSE IMPROVEMENTS COULD BE RECYCLED INTO ANOTHER REDEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT, TEN, 15, 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
WITH THAT, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON THE SPREADSHEET, AGAIN, JUST WANTED TO SHOW ALL OF OUR EXPENSES AND OUR REVENUES AND WHERE WE START SEEING THAT RETURN BACK ON INVESTMENT BASED OFF OF THIS.
LOOK AT THE RV PARK AND THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN ON THE BUDGET AND HAS BEEN IN CONSIDERATION.
WITH THE DEBT SERVICES, WE'VE GOT ABOUT A 4.3 YEAR ROI.
BY YEAR 5, BY END OF YEAR 4, WE'RE ACTUALLY IN THE MONEY, WHERE IT IS A TRUE REVENUE PRODUCING ASSET.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT IN THE TASK FORCE, WE DID HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS.
FROM THE DISCUSSION, COUNSEL DID GIVE US DIRECTION TO GO OUT TO RFP TO SEE IF THERE WAS A PRIVATE INTEREST.
WE DID HAVE ONE PRIVATE INVESTOR THAT WANTED TO GO IN THERE, DO A LIMITED SERVICE RV PARK.
THEY JUST RECENTLY OPENED UP AN RV PARK RIGHT THERE AT SEVEN MILE ROAD.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS SUCH A SMALL PARK.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 36 PHASES.
YOU BASICALLY HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER PARK IN OPERATIONS TO HAVE THE MANAGEMENT, THE SOFTWARE, ALL THE, YOU KNOW, INTERNAL CONTROLS ALREADY ABSORBED IN ANOTHER COST CENTER SIMILAR TO DELAIN ARA TO MAKE THIS REALLY FEASIBLE, AND MAKE IT WHERE IT DOES PRODUCE ENOUGH CAPITAL CASH.
THAT I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OR I KNOW WE HAVE QUESTIONS.
BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, BRIAN BRIAN STILL HERE HE BRY, COULD YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING FORWARD, PLEASE.
COULD YOU COMMENT ON THE WASTEWATER SITUATION WHERE WE ARE WITH.
>> WE'VE GOT A DESIGN. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA, DESIGN IS ON THE AGENDA NEXT MONTH.
YEAH. WE'VE ALREADY GOT A PACKAGE PLAN PICKED OUT.
THIS IS SORT OF THE FIRST TIME HEARING ABOUT THIS.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING DOWN ONE PATH BASED GET UP, MARY.
STAS BEEN WORKING OUT A PATH THAT WAS GIVEN BY COUNSEL.
DAN BUCKLEY DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.
THIS IS A SHIFT BACK TO BEING TOLD WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH SEAWORLD PARK INSTEAD OF COUNCIL DIRECTING WHAT WE WANT DONE AT SEAWORLD PARK.
BUT WE'RE MOVING AHEAD WITH THE WASTEWATER PLANT.
WE ALREADY HAVE A LICENSE PLANT THERE.
WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK IN WITH A 15,000 GALLON A DAY PLANT.
THE DESIGN WILL BE DONE IN ABOUT FOUR MONTHS.
THE PACKAGE PLANT IS SELF CONTAINED.
ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS DESIGN THE PLATFORM FOR IT AND IT CAN GO IN PROBABLY TAKE ABOUT WHO HAVE IT IN PLACE WITHIN A YEAR.
BUT YEAH, I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS WAS MY HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR SEAWORLD PARK SINCE I GOT TO THE CITY.
WE FINALLY JUST DID IT BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT TOO LONG.
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TRUSTEE WILSON TO WELL, AS FAR AS CAPACITY, DO YOU THINK THAT WHAT ROUGH DESIGN HERE SHOWS WE CAN I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.
[00:50:01]
SO I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE AGENDA AS A PRESENTATION TO DO SOMETHING WE.WE HAVEN'T BEEN A PARTY TO THIS LET'S SPEAK AS A LAYMAN.
>> THIS IS ENOUGH CAPACITY FOR 100 HOMES, 15,000 JUST TO GIVE SOME IDEA, WE'RE ABOUT 15,000 HOMES.
>> THAT'S THE WAY YOU WOULD LOOK AT IT.
>> SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW MANY SPOTS WAS THIS?
>> THIRTY-SIX. I THINK IS WHAT HE SAID.
>> THEY'RE NOT FULL CAPACITY DAILY USE?
>> THIS IS WHAT THE PLANT HAS ALREADY LICENSED. WE HAVE AN ACTIVE.
>> THE PLANT LICENSE FOR THAT FACILITY, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. THIS IS THE CHANCE.
>> I DON'T SEE THE PLANT BEING A HINDRANCE ON THIS.
>> NO, I GUESS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IS THAT WE'RE NOT WORKING IN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.
AT LEAST THE DIRECTION YOU'RE WORKING IN WILL ACCOMMODATE THE DIRECTION THEY'D LIKE TO GO, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
>> IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE DIRECTION WE GOT FROM COUNCIL IN THE PAST ABOUT SEAWOLF PARK.
>> WE'RE BUILDING IT FOR ENOUGH CAPACITY TO DEVELOP BASICALLY WHAT'S OVER THERE.
WHETHER YOU PUT A TRAILER PARK IN OR WHETHER YOU PUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT A HOTEL [LAUGHTER] BUT WE DON'T LOOK [OVERLAPPING].
>> I LOOK AT OUR PARK SAY THINGS TO GENERATE REVENUE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS IS BEING BUILT TO ACCOMMODATE SEAWOLF PARK.
WHY AREN'T WE USING HOT TAX TO COVER THAT VERSUS OUR TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS?
>> A SEWER SYSTEMS FUNDED BY SEWER REVENUE BONDS AND SEWER PAYMENTS.
IT'S NOT A GENERAL FUND OBLIGATION.
I GUESS YOU COULD FIND A FUNDING PATH TO USE HOT, MARIE, BUT WE'VE ALREADY GOT IT PROGRAM.
IT'S IN THE CIP, THE COUNCIL APPROVED.
>> IT'S BEEN IN THE CIP A COUPLE OF YEARS.
>> IT'S NOT JUST FOR SEAWOLF PARK, IT'S FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PELICAN ISLAND.
>> WELL, NO, IT'S NOT, MAYOR. THIS IS FOR SEAWOLF PARK.
[OVERLAPPING] BE AT SEAWOLF PARK.
>> THAT'S NOT TO SAY IF THERE'S SOME SMALL DEVELOPMENT ON PART OF HOUSTON PROPERTY, THEY COULDN'T EVENTUALLY TIE INTO IT, BUT KEEP IN MIND THIS IS AN EXPANDABLE PLANT. IT'S MODULAR.
IT'S LIKE THE ONE EVEN GALVESTON HAS, AND YOU CAN KEEP ADDING TO IT, AND THAT WHETHER YOU WANT TO KEEP ADDING TO IT INSIDE YOUR PARK OR NOT, THAT'S A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.
YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT ASPECT, MARIE, THAT THE PLANT COULD BE EXPANDED FOR FREE TO USE DEPENDING ON THE DEVELOPMENT.
WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT YOU GET ON PART OF HOUSTON PROPERTY IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE INDUSTRIAL.
AS FAR AS TREATING SEPTIC-TYPE MATERIAL, MOST WAREHOUSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT DON'T HAVE HUNDREDS OF BATHROOMS. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THAT, BUT YES, IT COULD.
THAT COULD AID THAT DEVELOPMENT DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE IT IS EXPANDABLE.
NOW, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO EXPAND THAT IN YOUR PARK OR NOT, THAT'S GOING TO BE A DISCUSSION FOR YOU AND THE MAYOR.
>> AGAIN, REMEMBER, THE SANITARY SEWER IS TYPICALLY GRAVITY FEE THAT'S THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OTHER THAN THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE LIFT STATIONS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FLOW FROM THE CENTER PART OF THE ISLAND BACK TO SEAWOLF PARK.
THIS PLANT IS IN SEAWOLF PARK FOR SEAWOLF PARK, MEET THE NEEDS OF THAT PARK.
THERE ISN'T A LOT OF PROPERTY OUT THERE FOR REDEVELOPMENT, WE DON'T OWN IT.
IF YOU REMEMBER, THE DESTROYER ESCORT THAT WAS BROUGHT IN SEAWOLF PARK WAS AFTER THE STORM ENDED UP ON PORT OF HOUSTON PROPERTY.
WE'VE NEGOTIATED WITH PORT OF HOUSTON AND THEY GAVE THAT PROPERTY TO THE CITY TO KEEP THE FOOTPRINT OF SEAWOLF PARK AMBIGUOUS TO THE CITY PARK.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S LIKE THE LAST DISCUSSION I LISTENED TO.
WE NEED THE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL, AND WE'LL KEEP GOING, BUT I CLEARLY DELINEATED THE FACT THAT WE WANTED TO GET THE PACKAGE PLANT OUT THERE.
THAT'S WHERE WE WERE GOING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE WITHOUT IT.
>> MEDIEVAL MUSEUM [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THE ENTERPRISE FUND.
>> PAYMENTS OF PEOPLE'S TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE CITIZENS THAT STILL DON'T HAVE SEWER ON THE ISLAND.
THE PLANT WAS DESTROYED, BUT THE UNDERGROUND WORKS FOR THE PLANT WERE NOT.
WE'RE STILL OPERATING THAT PLANT BY BACKING IT OUT.
>> IT'S STILL BEING PAID FROM REQUIRED CITIZEN?
>> YES, MA'AM. IT'S PAID FOR BY THE USERS OF OUR SEWER SYSTEM AS WELL.
>> THIS IS A SMALL ITEM, BUT WHERE EXACTLY WOULD THAT BE PLACED?
>> GIVE ME AN IDEA WHERE THAT IS.
AS FAR AS WHEN WE ENTER THE PARK.
>> ON THE MAP, YOU SEE THE TWO BUILDINGS IN THE CENTER.
IT WOULD BE WHERE THE LONGER BUILDING IS AT TODAY.
>> OF COURSE, THAT IS RV BUILDING.
>> THAT'S WHERE THE SEWER PLANT WOULD BE?
>> IT IS. THAT'S WHERE IT EXISTS RIGHT NOW.
>> WHERE IT SAYS, "SPLASH PAD, NO PUN INTENDED?".
>> AGAIN, WE WEREN'T PARTY TO THESE DISCUSSIONS.
WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW THE PARK WORKS.
[00:55:01]
>> AGAIN, I'M ONLY ASKING SO THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO MOVE FORWARD.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND SAY, HEY, YOU DIDN'T EVEN TAKE INTO THE FACT, WE HAVE A PLANT.
>> SEWER PLANT, IT WILL HANDLE ANYTHING YOU BUILD INSIDE THE PARK.
SUBJECT SOME 20-STORY TOWER OR SOMETHING.
IT CAN HANDLE ANYTHING IN THE PARK.
>> AGAIN, IT GETS BACK TO THE DIRECTION WE GET FROM COUNCIL ON WHAT YOU ULTIMATELY WANT TO DO WITH THE PARK.
WE'VE BEEN GETTING REALLY MIXED SIGNALS.
PARK BOARD HAS ONE DESIGN CRITERIA, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO WITH THE PARK, CREATING REVENUE.
WE LOOK AT PARKS AS MORE OF A CITIZEN-CENTRIC.
WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARKS, YOU HAVE THE REVENUE PARKS, YOU HAVE TOURIST-RELATED PARKS, AND YOU HAVE CITIZEN PARKS.
COUNCIL, WE'RE WORKING DOWN THAT PATH WITH YOU GUYS TO DECIDE HOW WE UTILIZE THE PARKS, HOW WE FUND THEM, WHAT WE DO WITH THEM.
>> ONCE AGAIN, WE'D APPRECIATE A VOTE ON THIS UP OR DOWN.
IF YOU GUYS WANT TO GO THIS DIRECTION? GREAT. WE'RE 100% ONBOARD. LET'S GO.
IF YOU'RE AGAINST IT, WE'RE GREAT.
WE'RE 100% ON BOARD GOING IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.
I JUST NEED A DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL IN A DEFINITIVE VOTE SO WE CAN MOVE.
>> WASTEWATER TREATMENT IS GOING IN.
>> WASTEWATER TREATMENT IS HAPPENING IN REGARD.
>> TO ANSWER, COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB'S DISCUSSION.
IF WE WANT TO SHUFFLE THE FUNDING LATER OR SOMETHING, THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR COUNCIL TO HAVE, WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO SLOW ANYTHING DOWN.
>> JASON, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER FOR YOUR TRUSTEE.
I THINK TRUSTEE WILSON HAS BEEN WITH US.
I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY A COUPLE OF THINGS AND PUT A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THEIR CONTEXT.
ONE, CITY STAFF WAS INVOLVED ON THE SEAWOLF PARK AD HOC COMMITTEE WHERE THIS WAS FIRST CONCEIVED.
IT MAY NOT BE THIS EXACT DOCUMENT, BUT THIS IS NOT A BIG SURPRISE.
THIS IS WHAT THE DIRECTION WAS GIVEN TO THE TRUSTEES AS WELL, AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF INCLUSION IN DEVISING THIS PLAN.
WHILE THE TRUSTEES HAVE DIRECTION TO PROVIDE REVENUE, THIS IS THE BEST WAY THAT WE SEE TO BE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF MONEY, FUNDING SOURCES ARE DEFINITELY JUST LIKE THE CITY MANAGER SAID, THERE ARE OPTIONS THERE AND WE ARE DEFINITELY OPEN TO THOSE AND WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TOO.
I'D LIKE TO ALSO PUT IT IN CONTEXT THAT WE ARE NOT HERE AS A TRUSTEES TO TELL YOU THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WITH THE CITY ASSET.
THAT IS NOT WHY WE'RE HERE OR WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I JUST WANTED BEFORE WE CONTINUE DISCUSSION, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THOSE POINTS OF CONTEXT THAT NEED TO BE MADE.
>> TRUSTEE WILSON, I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM NEEDS TO BE THERE.
HOW IT GETS THERE, WHEN IT GETS THERE, I THINK WE ALL IN AGREEMENT.
MY QUESTION IS FOR THE COUNCIL, WE TALK ABOUT THE WATER TAXI CONNECTION.
IS THAT GOING TO BE A REVENUE PRODUCER ONCE THAT'S AGREED UPON WITH THE LABOR MUSEUM, WOULD IT BE A PROFIT-PRODUCED SYSTEM?
>> IT HAS POTENTIAL TO BECOME THAT.
AT THIS POINT, THERE'S GOING TO BE A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SOME PARTNERSHIP WITH A CURRENT PROVIDER AT PIER 241.
IF THAT IS SUCCESSFUL THROUGH A PROOF OF CONCEPT, THEN THERE WILL BE A BIGGER INVESTMENT THROUGH THE MUSEUM AND TO MAKE A PERMANENT SOLUTION.
THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR REVENUE SHARE.
WHAT LEVEL THAT WOULD BE IS NOT 100% SURE AT THIS POINT.
THERE'S SOME GUESSTIMATES OUT THERE, BUT NOTHING REAL DEFINITIVE UNTIL WE DO THAT PROOF OF CONCEPT AND LOOK AT THE DEMAND AND WHAT THAT MIGHT YIELD.
THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WHAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE TALKED WITH THE MUSEUM ON WAS THAT NOTHING WITH THE WATER TAXI WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THE PARK FROM THE REVENUE GENERATION.
TODAY, IF SOMEBODY GOES TO THE MUSEUM, THEY PAY A PARKING FEE AS YOU WILL PARK.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS OFFSET.
IF SOMEBODY TAKES A WATER TAXI INSTEAD OF PARKING AT THE PARK, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PARK IS MADE WHOLE.
THAT'S BEEN THE CONVERSATION TODAY.
>> JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, SINCE WE ARE LOOKING AT DEVELOPING PELICAN ISLAND AND INDUSTRIAL, HAVE YOU TALKED TO THE COAST GUARD ABOUT THE LONG-TERM FEASIBILITY AS MORE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS ON PELICAN ISLAND?
WE HAVE NOT DIRECTLY BEEN INVOLVED BECAUSE THE MUSEUM CEO HAS ENGAGED WITH THE COAST GUARD AND OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES TO MAKE SURE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS ACCEPTABLE.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES OF USING AN EXISTING OPERATOR.
IT WOULD BE ONE OF THE ONES THAT DO THE DOLPHIN TOURS.
THEY WOULD BE ONE OF THE OPERATORS THAT WOULD TRANSFER REFORMS.
FIRST TO RESPOND TO THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING MORE CLEAR.
THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PARKS AND AMENITIES COMMITTEE ALL ALONG HAS BEEN
[01:00:02]
THE ENJOYMENT OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE VISITOR ALIKE.FOR ME, THAT'S ALMOST UNSPOKEN AS THAT'S OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY WITH ALL THE PARKS WE MANAGE.
REVENUE HAS BEEN A VERY PROMINENT TOPIC ON SOME OF THE RECENT DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY COUNCIL, AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO RE-ENFORCE THAT TO YOU.
THIS ALLOWS US TO EXPAND THE CAPACITY OF THE PARKS TO INCLUDE VISITORS AND DAY VISITORS, NOT JUST FISHING.
THIS ALLOWS MORE PEOPLE AT THE NAVAL MUSEUM AND ACCOMMODATES THE GUESTS THAT THE NAVAL MUSEUM MIGHT BRING IN ON THE WATER TAXI.
IT WILL ACCOMMODATE THE EXPANDED FISHER.
PEOPLE WITH THE EXPANDED PIER.
AND THEN, IN ADDITION, WE'LL ALLOW THE RV PARK TO BECOME FULL-SERVICE.
ONE OTHER OBJECTION I'VE HEARD FROM SEVERAL PEOPLE, AND I'D LIKE VINCE TO COME BACK UP AND GIVE HIS THOUGHTS ON IT BECAUSE HE AND I HAVE TALKED FAIRLY EXTENSIVELY ON THAT.
AND THAT IS THE CONCERN WITH PUTTING THE RV PARK AT THE ENTRANCE.
IT IS A BIT OF A LIMITED OPTION, BUT I WANT HIM TO TELL YOU HIS THOUGHTS BECAUSE HE'S GOT SOME GOOD ONES ON HOW WE'RE GOING TO ENSURE THAT THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE ENTRANCE AND THE DRAW OF THE ENTRANCE TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME ON IN, IS MAINTAINED.
>> ABSOLUTELY. AGAIN, THIS LAYOUT IN THIS DESIGN IS VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL.
IF WE WENT DOWN THIS DIRECTION, THIS IS THE DIRECTION COUNCIL WANTS TO GO, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY GOT THIS OUT A LOT MORE IN-DEPTH.
LIKE ANYTHING, ANY NEW ATTRACTION, ANY NEW FACILITY, ANY IMPROVEMENT, YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE.
YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A NEGATIVE EFFECT BY BRINGING SOMETHING LIKE THIS INVOLVED.
CLEARLY, AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE PARK, THERE WOULD BE SOME ENRICHED LANDSCAPING, SOME BUFFER ZONES, AND THEN SOME SEPARATION OF DIFFERENT LINEAR FENCES AND THINGS LIKE THIS TO SEPARATE THE TWO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
AS YOU ENTER INTO THE PARK, THERE WOULD BE A DESIGNATED APPROACH FOR RVEERS TO GO INTO RV SECTION THAT WOULD NOT IMPEDE THE FLOW OF THE DAY TRIPPERS TO USE THE PARK LOCATION.
>> I WENT WITH VINCE, HE GAVE US A TOUR OF SEAWOLF PARK AND THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS THAT CAME TO ATTENTION.
IT WAS INTERESTING TO GO OVER THERE AND SEE WHERE ALL THESE AMENITIES WERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE MENTIONED THAT WAS AMAZING AND IT OPENED THE EYES IS THE SUNSETS AND THAT YOU GET THERE AT SEAWOLF PARK, THAT WILL BE AMAZING FOR WEDDING, LIKE A LITTLE WEDDING CHAPEL THERE SO YOU CAN RENT OUT.
ALL OF THIS, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE RV PARK, THE FISHING, I THINK THIS WILL PROBABLY EVEN COULD OBVIOUSLY WITH THE DIRECTION OF COUNCILS WE HAVE HEARING EVIDENCE THAT WE CAN MAKE HOW WE CAN BREAK REVENUE FOR THE CITY.
BUT ALSO COULD LOWER THE WAY OTHER CITIES DO WHERE THEY LOWER THE PRICE OR EVEN IT'S FREE AS LONG AS YOU PROVE RESIDENCY OF THE CITY.
IF YOU HAVE YOUR ID, AND YOU LIVE IN GALVESTON, YOU CAN COME IN FOR FREE OR WITH A VERY 75%, 50% DISCOUNT.
WELL IF YOU ARE NOT A CITIZEN OF OF THE CITY OR YOU DON'T LIVE IN THE CITY, YOU DON'T RESIDE IN THE CITY, YOU PAY THE FULL PRICE.
MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW THAT GO TO SEAWOLF PARK THAT I TALKED TO, THEY LIVE IN HOUSTON, MOST OF THEM THEY LOVE GALVESTON, FROM THE SEAWOLF PARK BECAUSE THEY GO THERE AND FISH ALL NIGHT, THEY GO FISH A LOT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD REVENUE SOURCE FOR THE CITY PLUS THE RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON COULD BENEFIT THAT THEY WILL OFFSET THE COST FOR THEM TO GO OVER THERE.
LIKE I SAID, MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW IN HOUSTON WHERE I WORK AND WHERE I HAVE A LOT OF FRIENDS, THEY ALL SAY, "OH, GALVESTON, I GO TO SEAWOLF PARK.
GALVESTON, I GO TO SEAWOLF PARK." BUT YOU'D GO, "NO, NO, I GO STRAIGHT TO SEAWOLF PARK." I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY WELL USED FOR THE CITY.
THEN THE RV PARK, I SEE NOWADAYS THESE BEAUTIFUL RV PARKS THAT THEY BUILD, LIKE THE MARGARITAVILLE ACROSS THE CHANNEL.
THEY'RE A HIGH-END, AND PEOPLE LIKE TO SPEND THEIR MONEY JUST GOING THERE.
I THINK MOST OF THEM ARE NOT GOING TO BE RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON, AND THEY CAN ALSO SUBSIDIZE THE COST FOR ALMOST FREE ENTRANCE FOR RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON.
THAT WAY WE CAN PROVIDE THE PARKS LIKE THEY ARE ASKING TO THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON.
>> WE HAVE THOUGHTS HERE FROM COUNCILMAN PORRETTO AND RAWLINS,
[01:05:06]
BUT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, COUNSEL, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO EVENTUALLY VOTE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IF WE WANT TO SUPPORT MOVING IN THE DIRECTION THAT THE PARK BOARD WANTS TO DO.MY SENSE IS, COUNSEL, AND I NEED TO GET GUIDANCE FROM YOU, WE ARE NOT READY TO VOTE ON THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO WORKSHOP THIS A LITTLE MORE TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
BUT I'M OPEN TO COUNSEL'S THOUGHTS.
IF YOU WANT IT ON THE NEXT MEETING TO SUPPORT THIS APPROACH OR NOT, AS AN ACTION ITEM, WE CAN SURELY DO THAT ON THAT.
>> FIRST TO YOUR THOUGHT, I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT AT LEAST AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD HAS FIGURED OUT WHAT WOULD BE THE COST-SHARING? WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IF COUNCIL DECIDED, WE WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS RV PARK, HOW MUCH OF THAT WOULD BE COMING BACK TO THE CITY? I THINK THAT'S EITHER YOU GOT THE ANSWER OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TABLE IT TO GO FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
SECOND, IF WE DO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE RV PARK, THERE'S TWO POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, AND MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR DON BECAUSE I GUESS IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MUNICIPAL RV PARK, CORRECT? AM I CORRECT ABOUT THAT? IT CAN'T BE PRIVATE CITY PARK.
>> CITY PARK UNDER THE JURISDICTION IS A PART OF PARK BOARD.
>> IF WE MOVE FORWARD IN THAT DIRECTION, MARGARITAVILLE AND BOLIVAR, THE RV RESORT, THEY HAVE STANDARDS AND RESTRICTIONS.
YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING UNDER 10 YEARS, HAS TO BE NEWER.
HOW THAT WORKS WITH THE MUNICIPAL, I'M NOT SURE.
THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE THOUGHTS THAT POPPED UP IN MY HEAD, WAS CAN WE RESTRICT LIMITS OF RVS OR IF THEY EXCEED IT, IF IT'S LIKE A CLASSIC AIR STREAM, THERE'S A CERTAIN STANDARD THAT HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED? THAT WOULD BE THE SAME THING ABOUT KEEPING THE AESTHETICS UP AND THE BOLIVAR RV RESORT OR MARGARITAVILLE RV RESORT.
THEY HAVE A HIGHER STANDARD OF WHAT THEY ALLOW IN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S STANDARDS THAT WE CAN IMPOSE BEING MUNICIPAL.
>> I THINK WE COULD, BUT THAT IS PART AND PARCEL IF YOU WANT TO HIRE AN OPERATOR TO DO THIS FOR YOU AND JUST ADOPT THEIR STANDARDS.
>> PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, HAS THERE BEEN ALSO RESEARCH AS FAR AS DOING PARTNERSHIPS WITH NAMING RIGHTS? I'M SEEING, THE ONES LIKE A MEMORIAL EXHIBIT POSSIBLY NAMING THE FEW AFTER-WAR HEROES.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY PARTICIPATION WITH GROUPS OF POSSIBLY WANTING TO HELP FUND THE RENEWAL OF THIS PARK?
>> TO ME, THIS HAS BEEN A VERY PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT PROBABLY HASN'T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT YET, BUT I TURN IT OVER TO VINCE IF YOU WANT TO CLARIFY.
>> YES. AT THIS STAGE, THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY OUTREACH OR MARKETING EFFORTS TO SEE IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR NAMING RIGHTS AS MENTIONED.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY, I THINK THERE'D BE A LOT OF PARTICIPATION WITH THAT.
>> EXCUSE ME, DAVID, AND JASON, HAS THIS BEEN APPROVED BY THE TRUSTEES, THIS PLAN? THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SUBMITTING TO THE CITY?
>> THE WAY I REMEMBER IT AND I'M WILLING TO DEFER, BUT IS THAT THIS HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE TRUSTEES BECAUSE THIS WAS A DESIGN THAT WAS DIRECTED BY COUNCIL TO BRING BACK ALMOST TWO YEARS AGO.
>> YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS ON THE NEXT WORKSHOP, POSSIBLY.
TO COUNCIL MEMBER PARETO'S POINT, FINANCIALS ARE ONE THING, BUT THE BUSINESS PLAN AND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO OPERATE IT, SOME OF THE DETAILS RELATED TO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO SEE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PARK BOARD COME BACK WITH A AND IF IT'S NOT AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, YOU TELL US WHEN.
COME BACK WITH A MORE OF A NARRATIVE RELATED TO THE ACTUAL BUSINESS PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
WHICH WOULD INCLUDE COST SHARING, MARKETING, THOSE TYPES OF COMPONENTS THAT YOU PUT IN THE TYPICAL BUSINESS PLAN.
>> OKAY. HEARING THE COMMENTS, COUNCIL, I WANT TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS THINKING ABOUT PUTTING THIS ON THE WORKSHOP FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, NOT OUR APRIL MEETING, BUT OUR NEXT MEETING.
WHERE WE WOULD DISCUSS THIS FURTHER.
WE WOULD NOT HAVE THIS AS AN ACTION ITEM ON NEXT MONTHS MEETING TO WORKSHOP.
[01:10:05]
THEY ALLOWED THE TWO THINGS TO HAPPEN.ALLOWED THE PARK BOARD TO COME BACK WITH A BUSINESS PLAN THAT IS MORE ITEMIZED CONCERNING THIS PROPOSAL.
SECOND OF ALL, TIME FOR OUR STAFF TO LOOK AT THIS.
WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE OUR STAFF TO REVIEW THIS AND COME BACK WITH THEIR COMMENTS ON THIS.
DOES THAT MEET COUNCIL'S APPROVAL?
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, THERE'S NO PARTICULAR OBJECTIONS TO ANY OF THESE GOALS THAT I'VE HEARD.
THE GOALS THAT ARE OF EMBODIED IN THIS PLAN WHAT JASON COVERED.
IF WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH THAT, WE DON'T WANT TO DO WHAT BRIAN WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, GIVE THEM SOME DIRECTION AND HAVE THEM GO WORK ON IT AND THEN COME BACK AND WE DON'T AGREE TO CORRECT.
I THINK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS LONG AS WE AGREE ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY, THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY WILL DEVELOP AND BRING BACK AT THE WORKSHOP AND COORDINATE WITH OUR DECISION PLAN.
>> YES, AND THAT'S THE WAY I SEE IT.
I WANT COUNCIL'S THOUGHTS HERE I WANT TO WIND THIS SUBJECT COUNCIL ANY MORE THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO COMMENT THAT I THINK AS FAR AS THE PARKS AND AMENITIES COMMITTEE IS CONCERNED, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY ASK STAFF TO POSSIBLY HAVE THIS READY FOR THE PARK BOARD CONSIDERATION NEXT WEEK IF YOU WANT SOME COMMITMENT FROM US, WE CAN HAVE IT PREPARED IN TIME FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
>> I LEAVE THAT UP TO THESE GUYS.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I KNOW THAT COUNCILMAN PORRETTO, YOUR QUESTION ON THE REVENUE SHARE, IN MY MIND, THAT IS ULTIMATELY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE NEGOTIATED IN THE INTERLOCAL CONTRACT.
I DO THINK THAT THAT CURRENTLY NEEDS TO BE REVISITED BECAUSE THAT'S $300,000 OUT OF SEAWELL PARK NOW, AND I THINK LOOKING BACK IN HINDSIGHT, THERE'S PROBABLY BETTER WAYS TO DO THAT THAN WAS ORIGINALLY NEGOTIATED IN 2019.
BUT ABSOLUTELY, I DO THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER.
IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A HIGHER REVENUE PRODUCING ASSET OUT THERE, THEN ABSOLUTELY, THAT SHOULD BE MEMORIALIZED.
>> ITEM 3, UPDATE AND DISCUSSION IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND HOT CONTRACT, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING, A, REVENUE SHARING WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON FOR PARK BOARD MANAGED ASSETS, B, PAYMENTS TO THE CITY WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, AND C, HOT FUND EXPENDITURES RESULTING IN UNRESTRICTED FUNDS.
>> I KNOW I WANTED A FEW EXTRA ITEMS ON HERE, AND MAYOR, THIS IS A LITTLE FRUSTRATING WITH THE AGENDA MAKING PROCESS BECAUSE SOME OF THEM CAN'T BE DISCUSSED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T ON THERE AND I WANTED THEM ON THERE HOW I WROTE THEM FOR A REASON.
>> LET ME MENTION THAT, COUNCILMAN.
I DID TAKE THOSE ALL OF THE WAY THIS IS LISTED.
WE CAN DISCUSS EVERY ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT YOU HAD.
THERE THERE WAS ONLY ONE ITEM NOT ON THERE SPECIFICALLY.
>> FOR EVERYBODY'S SAKE, I DIDN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HOT CONTRACT BECAUSE AS WE'RE ALL AWARE, WE PASSED THE HOT CONTRACT.
MINE WAS JUST TO GET OUR CITY STAFF'S INPUT AND PARK AND ASSESS INPUT OF WHERE THEY ARE WITH THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WANT TO START OFF.
I GUESS THE SECOND ONE WILL BE REVENUE SHARING.
WE KIND OF BRUSHED UP ON THAT, BUT I GUESS IT SHOULD BE IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
WE WANT TO MAXIMIZE AS MUCH REVENUE SHARING AS POSSIBLE.
PAYMENTS TO THE CITY IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS, I DON'T KNOW IF MY REQUEST GOT FINALIZED, BUT I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THE PAYMENTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE PARK BOARD HAS THOSE PAYMENTS THAT HAD BEEN MADE TO THE CITY.
THEN I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS A BIT OF A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE LAST TIME BUT IF THERE ARE EFFICIENT WAYS, NOT SPENDING EIGHT HOT TAX DOLLARS TO GET ONE HOT TAX DOLLAR BACK FOR UNRESTRICTED REVENUES, I WANT TO SEE IF THE BOARD OR COUNCIL OR STAFF EVEN HAVE IDEAS ABOUT WAYS TO CREATE WAYS TO USE OUR HOT TAX FUNDING THAT COME BACK AND RESTRICTED FUNDS.
I GUESS IT SHOULD BE IN THERE, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE COUNCIL HAS TO BE BEHIND, IS EVALUATING THE PARK BOARD, LOOKING AT SUCCESSES AND FAILURES AND HOW WE IMPROVE ON THAT, HOW CAN THIS IS JUST PRELIMINARY SO I DON'T WANT TO THINK THAT ANYBODY WITH THIS KIND OF CREATED A VACUUM, BUT I JUST WANTED OUT THERE BECAUSE WE CAN TALK ABOUT FEEL GOODS ALL DAY LONG.
[01:15:02]
BUT QUANTITATIVE DATA ABOUT WHAT'S A SUCCESS, WHAT'S A FAILURE, HOW WE IMPROVE THAT, HOW WE RENDER SERVICES BETTER, SHOULD THE PARK BOARD BE IN BUSINESS FOR BUSINESS OR SHOULD IT BE FOR PROMOTING TOURISM? NONE OF THAT DRIFT THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST, JUST BEING AS FOCUSED AS WE CAN TO DO THE MISSION OF THE PARK BOARD TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND GET THAT BEST VALUE OF THE DOLLAR SPENT AND MAKING SURE THAT IT'S SPENT WELL.>> I PUT THE HOT CONTRACT ON THERE, COUNCILMAN PREDIC BECAUSE YOUR ITEM NUMBER C INVOLVES THAT.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT AND THEN WE'LL WORK OUR WAY UP.
CURRENTLY IN THE HOT CONTRACT, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THAT THERE IS REVENUE WHERE HOT FUNDS ARE UTILIZED AND THAT REVENUE IS PRODUCED FROM THE USE OF THOSE HOT FUNDS THAT BECOMES UNRESTRICTED REVENUE.
AND THAT CURRENTLY IN THE HOT CONTRACT, WE SHARE THAT 50/50.
I SEE PEOPLE WHO NODDING THEIR PRICES.
>> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. THAT'S WHERE WE TURNING AROUND.
>> THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT THIS.
>> GIVE ME I'D LIKE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING.
>> MAGAZINE. BUT THAT'S THAT $8 SPENT TO GET ONE BACK.
I THINK EIGHT TO ONE IS NOT GOOD.
>> THESE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS, COUNCILMAN.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BRYSON PAGER.
I'M THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER FOR THE PARK FORT.
COUNCILMAN PREDIC YOU DID SAY YOU NEEDED A BUSINESS PLAN AND THE FINANCIALS WEREN'T ENOUGH.
NOW, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN PORRETTO, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT WAYS.
WE PRODUCE A VISITORS GUIDE IF IT'S A MARKETING TOOL.
THAT TOOL IS GOING TO BE PRODUCED ANYWAY, USING THE HOT FOR THAT TO PRODUCE THAT VISITORS GUIDE IS AN ACTIVITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ANYWAY.
BENEFIT FROM DOING THAT IS SELLING THE ADVERTISING SPACE IN THAT MAGAZINE. WE'RE NOT DOING THAT ANYMORE.
WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. THAT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE FROM THE PAST.
A CURRENT EXAMPLE IS THE WEBSITE.
WE MAINTAIN A WEBSITE AT VISITGALVESTON.COM, THAT'S OUR MARKETING TOOL IT'S A MARKETING WING.
THERE'S ADVERTISING SPACE THAT'S SOLD ON THERE TOO.
OF COURSE, THERE'S THE TROLLEY.
THEN THERE'S THE ADVERTISING THAT WE SELL THE SPACE THAT ARE ON THE TROLLEYS AND STUFF.
THAT REVENUE COMES IN IS NOT HOT. WE KNOW WHAT HOT IS.
HOT'S DEFINED BY CHAPTER 351 IS THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM A HOTEL AND ANY INTEREST DERIVED FROM THAT INVESTMENT.
SO IT'S NOT HOT WHEN IT COMES BACK IN.
WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO RESTRICT IT LIKE HOT IS SOMETHING THAT THE GOVERNING BODIES DECIDE, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU DON'T RESTRICT IT.
THERE'S SOME OTHER EXAMPLES AND THERE'S SOME CREATIVE WAYS I THINK THAT YOU COULD PROBABLY EXPEND HOT TO GENERATE SOME BOND RESTRICTED FUNDS.
MAYBE THE CITY'S DOING THIS, FORGIVE ME IF I'M SAYING SOMETHING THAT'S WRONG, MARDI GRAS.
HOT IS USED TO PUT ON THE MARDI GRAS EVENT.
I THINK MAYBE SOME OF THOSE TICKET SALES THAT COME IN THERE AT THE GATE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE CONSIDERED HOT.
WHETHER OR NOT COUNCIL WANTS TO RESTRICT THOSE OR FIND A DIFFERENT USE FOR THOSE, I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD LOOK INTO IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY.
BUT THOSE ARE JUST SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW YOU CAN UTILIZE HOT FOR AN ACTIVITY THAT YOU WERE ALREADY GOING TO USE IT FOR AND YOU GENERATE SOME OF THOSE OTHER REVENUE SOURCES THAT ARE NOT HOT.
THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN?
>> SO IT'S COVERED CURRENTLY IN THE HOT CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE AND WE HAVE IT SET UP IN THE MANNER THEY MENTIONED.
>> REFERENCE TO ON THIS SUBJECT, HOT EXPENDITURES RESULTING IN UNRESTRICTED.
THERE'S HOT EXPENDITURES THAT COULD BE USED.
I CAN'T HELP BUT SEE BARBARA BACK THERE IN OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT WHERE WE'RE CONSTANTLY HAVING TO CALL ON HER TO CLEAN LIKE 355 OR OTHER AREAS THAT RESULT IN HOT TAX FROM SHORT TERM RENTALS.
SO I'D LIKE TO SEE US LOOK AT HOW WE CAN BE MORE CREATIVE BECAUSE CURRENTLY THE CITIZENS PAY FOR THAT.
YES, THERE IS A WELL, ACTUALLY, PORTIONS THAT GO TO PARKS FROM IDC REALLY COVER OUR PARKS.
BUT THIS IS BEAUTIFICATION THAT IS DONE TO ENHANCE OUR TOURISTS, AND IT'S THE CITIZENS THAT END UP PAYING FOR THAT, AND THAT REALLY ISN'T FAIR.
>> YEAH, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE OFF TOPIC.
>> WELL, NOT REALLY, IT'S HOT TAX.
>> WELL, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK COUNCILMAN PORRETTO WANTS TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE UNRESTRICTED FUNDS ARE GENERATED FROM HOT AND HOW THAT'S NEEDED.
[01:20:04]
>> WELL, I WANT TO MAXIMIZE THAT.
I WANT TO MAXIMIZE THAT PROCESS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCILMAN HERE IN TERMS OF MAXIMIZING UNRESTRICTED REVENUE.
COULD YOU DESCRIBE IN REFERENCE TO THE SEAWELL PARK PLAN THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, WHAT KIND OF INCOME WOULD THAT BE, WOULD THAT BE UNRESTRICTED FUND OR?
>> THAT WOULD BE UNRESTRICTED.
IN THE SENSE THAT TYPICALLY ENTERPRISE FUNDS KEEP THAT REVENUE AND REINVEST BACK IN PARK, I THINK THERE'S ABSOLUTELY OPPORTUNITIES TO GENERATE UNRESTRICTED REVENUE AND SHARE WITH SEAWELL PARK.
>> AND DELANA AIRPORT PRODUCES RIGHT NOW UNRESTRICTED FUNDS.
>> AND CAMPING ARE TWO MOST LUCRATIVE UNRESTRICTED.
>> WELL, NOW THAT THE HOT CONTRACT IS ON THERE, THIS HAS BEEN THE BUZZ, I GUESS, FOR QUITE A LITTLE BIT, AND IT'S MAYBE UNPOPULAR.
BUT WE HAVE TO DECIDE, DOES THE PARK BOARD COLLECT HOT TAX OR DOES THE CITY? THAT'S BEEN THE JOCKEYING POSITION FOR AT LEAST THE LAST MEETING.
IT KIND OF WAS JOCKEYING FOR THAT.
SO I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD OPEN A DISCUSSION UP OF WHO'S BETTER EQUIPPED OR HOW WE MOVE FORWARD AND EXAMINING WHO CAN DO IT BETTER OR WHO HAS THE MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO COLLECT THE HOT TAX?
>> WELL, THAT IS GETTING OFF THE AGENDA.
>> IT GOT HOT CONTRACT ON THERE. THAT'S THE CONTRACT.
BUT THE PARK BOARD COLLECTS IT.
>> IS IT THE CITY THAT AUTHORIZES?
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE COLLECTION.
>> THE PARK BOARD COLLECTS IT.
>> THEN IT GETS DEPOSITED IN THE CITY, AND THEN WE APPROVE THEIR BUDGET AND THEN IT GOES OUT.
IS THERE A MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO DO IT?
>> NO. THE COLLECTION OF THE HOT IS PERFORMED BY THE PARK BOARD BECOMES A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH THEM.
IF WE WANTED TO CHANGE THAT, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL CAN DO THAT, AND THAT IS REFLECTED IN THE HOT CONTRACT.
WE'RE FUNCTIONING UNDER A HOT CONTRACT CURRENTLY FOR HOW LONG? A HOT CONTRACT'S ONE YEAR FROM THE POINT OF THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
>> DAN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, DOESN'T THE INTERLOCAL 2019 ALSO STIPULATE HOT COLLECTION?
>> YEAH. IT'S IN THE CURRENT CONTRACT AS WELL TO CONTINUE COLLECTIONS FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.
THEN THERE'S A 2019 INTERLOCAL THAT TALKS ABOUT THE PARK BOARD DOING THOSE COLLECTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED A NEW INTERLOCAL.
>> WHAT IS THE STATUS ON THAT? WHAT'S THE STATUS ON THE INTERLOCAL?
>> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNCIL WAS GOING TO GIVE INPUT TO CITY STAFF.
COUNCIL, YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO GIVE YOUR INPUT TO CITY STAFF.
DAN OR BRIAN, THAT IS GOING TO BE ON OUR AGENDA, I THINK FOR DAN SAID MARCH, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> NO. WE'RE GOING TO BRIEF YOU GUYS.
WE'RE GOING TO BRING FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN FEBRUARY, THE GUIDANCE WE NEED FROM COUNCIL.
JUST TO I GUESS REITERATE, SOME OF THE THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW ARE ITEMS WITHIN THE INTER LOCAL, THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR PARKS, HOW WE DO ALL THAT.
YOU'RE IMPACTING OUR ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE WHEN YOU'RE CUTTING OTHER DEALS BEFORE WE EVER BRING ANYTHING FORWARD TO YOU RELATED TO OUR PARKS AND THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PARKS AND THE REVENUE IN THE PARKS BEING ONE OF THEM.
WE'VE HAD PRIOR COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WANT OUR PARKS FOR OUR CITIZENS.
WE HAVE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT DON'T THINK THE CITY OUGHT TO GO IN COMPETITION AGAINST PRIVATE BUSINESSES, THEY DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD USE OF MUNICIPAL ASSETS.
THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT COUNCIL HAS TO PROVIDE DIRECTION BACK TO US, YET, THE SEAWOLF DISCUSSIONS ARE, WE'RE GOING TO GO IN COMPETITION.
THERE'S PRIVATE RV PARK OPERATORS, AND IS THAT A ROLE OF GOVERNMENT? THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND DISCUSS HOPEFULLY IN FEBRUARY AND GET GUIDANCE FROM YOU GUYS AS WE WORK DOWN THIS PATH TOWARD NEGOTIATING WITH PARK BOARD.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR. YOU'RE COMING BACK IN FEBRUARY TO PRESENT YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE LOCAL AGREEMENT TO GET COUNCIL'S THOUGHTS ON MOVING FORWARD?
>> WE CAN FINALIZE IT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WHEN WE SIT DOWN WITH KIMBERLY AND STAFF, WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL ON WHAT YOU WANT.
THIS HAS BEEN THE PROBLEM FOR ALL THE YEARS.
[01:25:01]
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHERE DOES THE GUIDANCE COME FROM? I THINK COUNCIL, LISA HAS SPOKEN AND SAID THE GUIDANCE IS GOING TO COME FROM THE CITY, AND THEN WE NEED TO SIT DOWN WITH THE PARK BOARD AND FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN EFFICIENTLY DO THE THINGS THAT COUNCIL WANTS THEM TO DO, AND THEN HOW DO WE ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVES OF COUNCIL. THAT'S WHAT IT OUGHT TO BE.>> IN A HOT CONTRACT, WHERE ARE WE ON THAT?
>> WE'RE UNDER A HOT CONTRACT RIGHT NOW.
>> WE'VE ALREADY PROVED THE HOT CONTRACT.
>> SO YOU'RE JUST BRINGING THE LOCAL BACK TO US.
>> GOING TO COME AND TALK ABOUT THE IDEAS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM A FEW COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THEN THE TOPICS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED OVER THE YEARS ABOUT HOW WE MODIFY OR CHANGE INTERLOCAL OR MANAGEMENT OF VARIOUS CITY ASSETS.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE.
I JUST WANT TO PUT THE IDEA OUT THERE.
THIS HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BETWEEN COUNCIL MEMBERS, BETWEEN PARK BOARD TRUSTEES, ABOUT WHO COLLECTS IT.
I DON'T WANT A SURPRISE AND HERE WE GO ANOTHER YEAR WITH NO SOLID DEAL BECAUSE WE'RE BUTTING HEADS AND NOT PUTTING IT OUT THERE PUBLICLY THAT THERE IS THIS COLLECTION ASPECT OF THINGS.
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS BROUGHT FORTH, SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND TALK TO COUNCIL ABOUT.
WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE REGISTRATION, COLLECTION REGISTRATION FEES GOING BACK TO THE CITY, WE'VE HAD COUNCIL MEMBERS.
YOU MADE UP AS THE CITY SHOULD BE COLLECTING ALL THE HOT AND THEN DISTRIBUTE WHAT IS NECESSARY TO THE PARK BOARD INSTEAD OF INSERTING THE PARK BOARD IN THE PROCESS.
>> ENFORCEMENT AND MECHANISM OF THE STRS.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO BE COMING BACK, START THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION IN FEBRUARY.
>> THE FIRST TOPIC THAT COUNCILMAN FRET AND ROLLINS HAVE HERE, REVENUE SHARING WITH CITY OF GALVESTON, WILL YOU HAVE COMMENTS?
>> WE SURE WILL. THEY TALKED ABOUT THE $300,000.
I THINK CHAIRMAN HARDCASTLE TALKED ABOUT THE MONEY COMING OUT OF SEAWELL PARK.
THE $300,000 WAS SOMETHING NEGOTIATED IN THE INTERLOCAL.
THE TAKING OUT OF SEAWELL PARK WAS SOMETHING DONE BY THE PARK BOARD.
THAT WAS NOT DIRECTED BY THE CITY SAYING $300,000 IS GOING TO COME OUT OF SEAWELL.
THAT WAS SOMETHING DONE BY A PRIOR DIRECTOR OF THE PARK BOARD, AND IT HAS MEMORIALIZED AND IT HAS HAPPENED SINCE THAT POINT.
BUT THAT DOESN'T EXIST GOING FORWARD.
HE'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THAT PROBABLY SHOULD NOT COME OUT OF SEAWELL PARK.
>> VERY GOOD. PAYMENTS TO THE CITY WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, DAN AND STAFF, CAN YOU WORK WITH TO MAKE SURE WE GET THAT REPORTED BACK TO COUNSEL HERE COMING UP HERE AS SOON AS WE CAN?
>> ABSOLUTELY, I DID I PUT TOGETHER A DOCUMENT THAT I'LL SHARE WITH DAN WHEN WE'RE DONE HERE.
WHAT WERE YOUR OTHER THOUGHTS ON THAT, SIR?
>> WELL, I MEAN, LOOKING AT EVALUATION, COUNSEL CAN GIVE GUIDANCE ON HOW WE COULD QUANT QUANTITATIVELY EVALUATE THE SUCCESS PARK BOARD, MEASURES OF HOW THOSE.
I THINK ONCE WE DO THAT, I GUESS IN FEBRUARY, WE'LL HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS TOO WITH OUR STAFF.
WE CAN MEMORIALIZE THAT IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT SO THAT WHEN THESE QUARTERLY MEETINGS IN THE REVIEW BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS, WE CAN SEE WHAT IS WORKING, WHAT ISN'T WORKING, HOW WE CAN GIVE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PARK BOARD TO CHANGE.
BRIAN ALWAYS SAYS IT'S CLEAR AS MUD OR SAND, AND I WANT TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THE DIRECTION THAT WE DO GIVE TO THE PARK BOARD.
I'M GOING TO LET JASON GO AHEAD. JASON.
>> SO I THINK COUNCILMAN FRET YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER ON THE STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS.
I MADE NOTES HERE. REVENUE SHARING, PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE TO THE CITY.
WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS AS WE ALLUDED TO, WITH A FLAT $300,000 PAYMENT ON THE SEA PARK.
THE PART BOARD WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS A NEGOTIATION OF A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE THAT IS SHARED WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON AS WELL.
AND TO TALK ABOUT THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS AND EVERYTHING, I JUST WANT TO ASSURE COUNSEL THAT WE ARE GIVING OUR STAFF TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH.
AND WE ARE ALL RESIDENTS HERE TOO.
WE ARE ALL NEIGHBORS WITH RESIDENTS AS WELL, AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR SLIMMEST OF MARGINS IN A REVENUE SHARE.
AND WE THINK THAT WE'RE PROBABLY THE BEST PARTNERS THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT AND FIND OUT THERE THAT IS WILLING TO SHARE THE MOST REVENUE BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING TO COVER OUR EXPENSES OR WE'RE LOOKING BY COUNSEL DIRECTION TO REIMBURSE IN THE ASSETS OUT THERE.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO FILL ANY OTHER SILOS, ANY OTHER FUNDS, ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
[01:30:05]
WE ARE LOOKING AT YOUR DIRECTION TO INVEST THE BEST WE CAN AND TO BE ABLE TO SHARE AS MUCH REVENUE BECAUSE WE ARE SYMPATHETIC.WE HAVE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES HERE TO YOUR GENERAL FUND.
AND ALSO, IT IS VERY GOOD TO HEAR SOME DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL WOMAN ROB ON BEAUTIFICATION.
IN OUR DISCUSSIONS AMONG THE TRUSTEES WITH OUR CFO, THAT IS AN ELIGIBLE EXPENSE.
AND WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO COME BACK WITH SOME PLAN TO HELP OFFSET SOME OF THOSE EXPENSE BURDENS FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
>> BECAUSE THEY COULD BE 355, 61ST, ROB WAY, HARBOR SIDE, EVEN STEWART ROAD.
BUT 355 JUST JUMPS INTO MINE BECAUSE OF LIMITED TIMES THAT TEXT DOT DOES KNOW.
THEY DON'T PICK TRASH BEFORE THEM AND WE'RE ALWAYS HAVING TO SEND OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS THE GENERAL FUND EXPENSE, WHICH COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE CITIZENS.
SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING AT THAT AND SEEING HOW WE CAN ACHIEVE THAT.
>> MR. CARA WANTING TO SAY SOMETHING. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
>> MY QUESTION. AND COMING BACK TO ALEX'S ABOUT THE HOT TAX FUNDING TO CHANGING IT INTO UNRESTRICTED FUNDS? IF I'M UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WANTS.
IT WANTS TO SEE HOW WE CAN CHANGE SOME OF THE HOT TAXES THAT WE INVEST BECOME UNRESTRICTED FUNDS WHEN THEY COME OUT.
IF WE INVEST A DOLLAR, WE MAKE SOME MONEY OUT OF THAT DOLLAR.
IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN LOOK INTO DOING THAT AND GETTING THE MOST REVENUE OUT OF THE BOX THAT WE SPEND HOT TAXES, TURNING COMING BACK AS UNRESTRICTIVE? IS THERE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT OTHER THAN THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE?
>> LOOK AT WAYS TO MAXIMIZE WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
I THINK ANOTHER WAY IS WHAT COUNCIL MARO WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, COUNCILMAN PETO WAS TALKING ABOUT TOO, FINDING DIFFERENT WAYS TO UTILIZE HOT THAT FREE UP OTHER DOLLARS THAT ARE OTHERWISE COMMITTED TO THOSE GENERAL FUND DOLLARS, STUFF LIKE THAT.
YES, I ABSOLUTELY THINK THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS.
THE ONES THAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEAUTIFICATION, BUT WE CAN EXPLORE THOSE ONES.
>> SO THAT WOULD PLEASE THE CITY.
WE DO THAT AND WE BRING YOU GUYS WAYS THAT WE CAN GENERATE MORE REVENUE.
IT COMES BACK TO THE CITY FOR THE EXPENSES THAT THE CITY NEEDS.
I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE LACKING OF MONEY.
WE'RE NOT SAYING ANOTHER WAY, THERE'S MANY WAYS THAT THE REVENUE THAT THE PARK BOARD CAN PRODUCE OUT OF THE HOT TAXES AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS THE WAY WE CAN CHANGE IT OVER TO MONEY THAT YOU GUYS CAN SPEND IN HELPING THE RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD PLEASE?
>> YEAH. CAN SOMETHING THAT'S CURRENTLY COMING OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND WITH HOT TAX SUCH AS BEAUTIFICATION, OR IF WE'RE TAKING FUNDS OUT OF IDC.
INSTEAD, THOSE IDC FUNDS COULD ACTUALLY BE USED TO THE BETTERMENT OF OUR CITIZENS PARKS, THAT VISITORS ALSO USE, BUT ALSO THE BEAUTIFICATION.
>> THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A DIRECTION FROM YOU ALL TO US?
YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO LOOK AT THE HOT TAX LAWS ON THIS.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT IT DOES QUALIFY.
>> THIS IS A CONSISTENT DIRECTIVE FROM PREVIOUS COUNSEL AS WELL.
AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BRING BACK AT THE NEXT JOINT MEETING.
I'M LISTENING ON THE BEAUTIFICATION.
AND I THINK BARBARA SANDERSON CAN PROBABLY GIVE MORE DETAILED INFORMATION, BUT [INAUDIBLE] IS ALSO HAVING BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS TO THE ISLAND.
I KNOW HARBOR SIDE AND I THINK 61ST STREET WAS MENTIONED, SO THAT YOU AREN'T SPENDING MONEY TWICE.
THE TECHCO HAS A BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT.
>> YEAH. THAT'S REFERRING TO PLANTING TREES OR PLANTS.
THIS IS REFERRING TO STILL GOOD AT MAINTENANCE.
>> YES. WE'LL BE HAPPY TO COORDINATE WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON IN TEXAS,
[01:35:01]
THROUGH CITY OF GALVESTON WITH TEXAS?>> [INAUDIBLE] WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS REALLY WHAT WE NEED DATA AND SPREADSHEETS AND ACTUAL PROJECTS THAT THEY'VE ACCOMPLISHED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> YEAH. WE WOULD HAVE TO GET WITH OUR STAFF AND FIGURE OUT THE WAY WE WOULD LOOK AT HOW WE WOULD EVALUATE.
AND THEN I'M SURE THEY WOULD WANT TO GET WITH ALL STAFF AND FIGURE OUT HOW YOU WOULD LOOK AT IT.
NEXT JOINT MEETING, WE CAN COMPARE.
WE CAN CROSS OFF THE THINGS WE DON'T LIKE, THE THINGS WE DO LIKE THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE UPON, AND JUST MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE, NOT TO HOLD UP THE INTERLOCAL CONTRACT THAT WE'VE GOT GOING NOW, BUT THIS IS TO MEMORIALIZE THAT IN THE FUTURE.
SO HEY, WE CAN TWEAK AND BUMP THINGS AND MOVE THINGS AND WE END UP WITH A GOOD RELATIONSHIP.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO HELP US MUTUALLY UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER'S OPERATIONS AND GOALS, AND OR HOW THEY'RE PERFORMING.
>> DAN, WHEN YOU COME BACK IN FEBRUARY, COULD YOU BRING BACK SOME THOUGHTS ON QUANTITATIVELY HOW WE EVALUATE THE SUCCESS OF THE PARK BOARD, NOT ONLY THEIR PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES, BUT ALSO INTER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY ON THAT.
>> THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT STAFF AND PARK BOARD WOULD WORK ON DEVELOPING TOGETHER.
>> AND WE NEED TO GET STRAIGHT.
THIS IS A VERY TRICKY SUBJECT.
YOU DON'T REALIZE HOW COMPLEX.
>> I DO. IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT'S JUST ESSENTIALLY A MONEY PIT OR SOMETHING THAT HAS GONE ON UNDER THE RADAR, WHETHER IT BE MINOR OR MAJOR, WE SHOULD ALL BE LOOKING AT EVALUATING EACH OTHER OURSELVES AND CHANGING THAT.
>> DO YOU THINK ABOUT AN ANNUAL EVALUATION BASED ON GOALS THAT WE SET YEAR TO YEAR.
>> AND ONCE IT'S SET, IT'S A MEASURE AS YOU MOVE ALONG KIND OF THING.
AND I REALLY ENJOY THE, IT'S A LITTLE BUMPY.
I MEAN, LET'S BE HONEST, IT'S A LITTLE BUMPY HERE, BUT ULTIMATELY IT SHOULD GET TO A POINT WHERE IT'S SMOOTH.
WE HAVE THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING FOR.
WE OPEN BETTER DISCUSSION AND JUST MOVE FORWARD.
IT'S GOING TO BE BUMPY, BUT WE KNOW MEETING AGAIN IN APRIL, AND THEN WE MEET AGAIN.
SO NO SURPRISES WITH THE BUDGET, NO SURPRISES COMING ALONG.
WE'VE DISCUSSED IT. WE GET WITH OUR STAFF, YOU GET WITH YOUR STAFFS.
AND THEN, THERE'S AGAIN, NO SURPRISE.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING I DON'T WANT.
WHEN IT'S ALL FRESH ON OUR MIND, OR WE SAY IT OUT LOUD LIKE, THE COLLECTIONS OF A HOT TAX. WE KNOW IT'S COMING UP.
WE KNOW OUR STANCES AND DISCUSSIONS SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE TOO.
>> YEAH. NO. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARDS WOULD HAVE TO WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN ALL PUT TOGETHER AND SAY, THIS IS THIS TOO MINUTE? IS THIS TOO BROAD? IT'S A COMPLEX.
GOVERNMENT'S SUPPOSED TO BE EASY.
>> WELL, LET'S GET INPUT FROM STAFF, DAN, WHEN YOU COME BACK IN FEBRUARY ON THAT QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENTS.
>> IT'S GENERAL GUIDANCE ABOUT HOW YOU DO IT.
COUNCILMAN PRETA, THIS WAS YOUR AND I KNOW COUNCILMAN ROLLINS.
ANY OTHER SUBJECTS ON THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL INCLUDED IN HERE THAT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THAT YOU SENT IN.
>> IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANYTHING, JUST WHERE MY THOUGHTS WERE OR HOW WE SHOULD HEAD IN THAT DIRECTION.
PART OF OUR DIRECTION WAS TO PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD COLLECT THE HOT TAX AND THEN AUTHORIZE IT OR THE PARK BOARD SHOULD COLLECT IT AND TRANSFER TO THE CITY AND THEN THE CITY THEN AUTHORIZES IT.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO BRING BACK? WHICH ONE WORKS BEST? WHICH METHOD?
THAT'S INCLUDED IN WHICH SOME OF THE THOUGHTS HE'S BRINGING BACK IN FEBRUARY, BOB.
>> YEAH. AND ALL OF THIS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD BE WOULD BE WOULD BE DEVISED IN A WAY THAT INCLUDES THE PARK BOARD TO IN ON THE DISCUSSION.
[01:40:04]
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS GOT TO BE A COLLABORATION OF STAFF BEHIND THE SCENES BRINGING US.>> AT THIS POINT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S A NEGOTIATION.
SO, JUST WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT, THAT WAY, THERE'S NO SURPRISES AND HOT HEADS AT THE TABLE.
>> GETS SOME POLICY DECISIONS.
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHY WE'RE MEETING.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC? LET'S MOVE TO FOR THEN.
>> ITEM FOUR. DISCUSSION OF PORTA POTTIES ON THE BEACH THROUGHOUT THE ISLAND AND THE PARK BOARDS PROCESS FOR REMOVAL.
>> I BRING UP THE CRAPPY SUBJECT.
AND WE KNOW WE HAD A BIG ISSUE WITH RAW SEWAGE AND THE FAILED DRAINAGE, AS I CALL IT, RUNNING ONTO THE BEACH AT STORK BACH.
BUT AFTER EVERY FORUM, WE HAVE PORTA BODIES THAT ARE SMASHED INTO THE DUNES.
SO WHAT IS YOUR POLICY? DOES THE VENDOR PICK THEM UP, WHICH TO ME THEY SHOULD.
AND THE CITY HAS AN ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW THAT ALL PORTA POTTIES HAVE TO BE SECURED, ESPECIALLY IN THE EVENT OF A STORM.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL ARE AWARE OF THAT.
BUT THIS TO ME, IT'S AN ONGOING ISSUE BECAUSE I GET CALLS ON AND I KNOW THE CITY IS LOOKING AT THE SAME THING ON THIS AGENDA, PUTTING PORTA POTTIES AT PARK ONE AND FOUR, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE.
>> THAT I'LL BRING UP EVENTS FOR THE EXACT DETAILS OF THE OPERATIONS, BUT IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE SECURED.
THE BALLARDS, AND THE BALLARDS WASHED OUT.
WE HAVE HAD OVER 60 LITERS OF RAIN THIS YEAR, SO THE WATER TABLE IS EXTREMELY HIGH, AND THE GROUND IS EXTREMELY SATURATED AS WELL, AND I SHOULDN'T SAY THIS YEAR, BUT IN 2024.
ALSO, THE PORTA POTTIES ARE MEANT JUST LIKE EVERYTHING AT STEWART BEACH RIGHT NOW TO BE TEMPORARY.
MY IDEA IS THAT WE SHOULD BE MOVING AWAY FROM THEM?
>> I KNOW THAT BUT THERE WAS AN INCIDENT THAT JUST OCCURRED.
I CAN CONFIDENTLY SAY THAT ALL THE REGULATIONS ARE BEING FOLLOWED.
THERE'S JUST A COUPLE OF EXTREME EVENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AND COMPILED ON ONE ANOTHER AS WELL.
BUT VINCE, WOULD YOU COME UP AND DISCUSS THE POLICY OF REMOVING THEM?
>> GREAT TOPIC. VINCE LOREFICE S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF COASTAL OPERATIONS.
YES, WE ABSOLUTELY DO FOLLOW OUR PROCEDURES.
OUR PROCEDURE INCLUDES, WE HAVE THE PORTA-POTTIES REMOVED, IF WE KNOW THERE'S A MAJOR STORM.
THE VENDOR GOES OUT AND RETRIEVES THE ACTUAL UNITS, AND THIS IS ALONG THE COAST.
WE'VE GOT ABOUT 50 UNITS TOTAL DEPLOYED AT ANY GIVEN TIME IN THE OFF SEASON.
THIS NEXT YEAR IN THE BUDGET, WE ADDED AN ADDITIONAL 32 UNITS IN THE BUDGET TO GO ON THE WEST SIDE.
ALL OF THOSE [NOISE] REQUIREMENTS ARE PART OF OUR CONTRACT WITH OUR VENDOR, THAT WE GIVE THEM ADVANCED NOTICE, THEY GO OUT AND PICK THEM UP.
WE HAVE HAD, ESPECIALLY ON THE WEST END, QUITE A FEW WHERE OURS HAVE BEEN PICKED UP, BUT THERE HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTION THAT'S TAKEN PLACE, AND A LOT OF TIME THOSE PORTA-POTTIES GET WASHED OUT AS WELL.
>> AT LEAST THE ONES I'M REFERRING TO WERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER STORMS, EITHER I'LL GO OUT WITH JAMAICA BEACH, OR I'LL GO OUT WITH THE A CITY IDENTIFICATION ON MY VEHICLE DEPENDING UPON HOW BAD IT IS.
THERE ARE PORTA-POTTIES CRUSHED AGAINST THE DOODLE.
THESE ARE DEFINITELY THE PORTA-POTTIES ON THE BEACH.
>> I HAVE NOT BEEN MADE AWARE OF ANY OF THOSE ON THE WEST SIDE OR WEST END AS FAR AS THAT HAPPENING.
I WILL DEFINITELY CHECK INTO THAT.
WE DID HAVE, AS NOTED, THE INCIDENT AT STEWART BEACH, AND THAT'S ON US.
WE HAD AN AREA WHERE FRANKLY, WE PROBABLY SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A PORTA-POTTY, AND WE'VE SINCE RELOCATED THOSE PORTA-POTTIES FURTHER INTO THE PARKING LOT, ANCHOR TO A LARGER BALLARD TO AVOID THAT IN THE FUTURE.
UNFORTUNATELY, DURING THAT EVENT, WITH THE PAVILION GONE,
[01:45:02]
WE'VE GOT A HIGHER DEPTH OF WATER WHERE THE PAVILION WAS AT.THE PORTABLE THAT WAS INSIDE THAT STRUCTURE, THAT ENCLOSURE FOR THE DEMO, ALSO HAD TIPPED OVER AND HAD ISSUES.
WHEN THAT WATER WAS RELEASED, IT DID UNDERMINE THE ONE PORTA-POTTY THAT WE HAD, BUT WE DID TAKE CARE OF THAT.
BUT YES, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT LESSON LEARNED.
WE HAD A BAD PLACEMENT OF THAT.
WE'VE SINCE RELOCATED THAT PORTA-POTTY AND RE-ANCHORED IT DOWN TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION.
>> HOW DO YOU FOLLOW UP? DOES THE VENDOR HAVE TO REPORT BACK TO YOU THAT THEY PICKED UP THE 25 PORTA-POTTIES OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS ON BOTH THE EAST AND THE WEST END?
>> YES. WE AGAIN, PROVIDE NOTICE TO THEM.
GENERALLY, IF IT'S DEPEND ON WHAT LEVEL OF STORM.
LIKE A RAINSTORM, THERE'S NOT ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THAT MIGHT COME IN WITH DELAYED NOTIFICATION.
BUT GENERALLY THE RAINSTORMS DON'T REALLY CAUSE US TO HAVE ISSUES.
[NOISE] IT'S MORE OF A MAJOR HIGH TIDE, A MAJOR WIND, MAJOR EVENTS.
IN THAT CASE, USUALLY WE HAVE ADVANCED NOTICE, TWO, THREE DAYS.
GENERALLY WE PROVIDE NOTICE TO THEM AND THEN THEY DO REPORT BACK TO US.
OUR CREW ALSO USES WHAT'S CALLED WHATSAPP AND WE ACTUALLY GO THROUGH AND DOCUMENT THOSE ITEMS AS WELL.
>> THE QUESTION FROM THE EAST BODEGA AREA THERE'S FORTIFIES.
ARE THERE THE 244 PORTA-POTTIES AND THAT USED TO BE LIKE FISH CAP OR WHATEVER AREA OF THAT PARK BOARD?
>> THE PARK BOARD DOES PROVIDE THOSE THERE AT THE EAST AND LAGOON TRAILHEAD POTTIES OR WHAT DO YOU SAY.
>> THEY SECURED AND DO YOU PICK THOSE UP?
>> ALL THE [NOISE] ENTIRE CONTRACTS WE HAVE WITH THE LOCAL VENDOR, THAT'S IN THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE THOSE PICKED UP WITH NOTICE.
AGAIN, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE LEVEL OF STORM THAT WE HAVE WHEN WE TRIGGER ACTIVE.
>> GENERALLY, AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE A HEAVY WIND OR A HIGH TIDE EVENT OR OBVIOUSLY YOU GO INTO TROPICAL SWARM OR HURRICANE.
WE'RE ABSOLUTELY GOING TO HAVE THOSE PULLED UP.
THAT'S SOME CRITERIA THAT OUR COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT TEAM HAS DEVELOPED AND USES.
BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TRACKING THAT, ESPECIALLY ON THE WEST END WHERE YOU'VE HAD SOME CONCERNS AND WHAT WE WILL DO IS WHEN WE SEE SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE THAT IS OUTSIDE OF A PARK FOR PORTA-POTTY WE'LL MAKE SURE TO COORDINATE THAT WITH THE CITY.
BUT FOR ANY CODE COMPLIANCY AS WELL.
>> IS THERE A PLACE WHERE THE CITIZENS CAN REPORT THIS? THEY SEE SOMETHING [NOISE] THAT SECURED THE BUTTON CLOSE.
>> THEY CAN BE REPORTED TO THE MARSHALS.
>> THEN THEY WILL COME TO YOU.
>> IF IT'S A FAR COURT RELATED ITEM THEY WILL REACH OUT TO YOU.
>> I WENT OUT THERE THE DAY THAT I WAS MADE AWARE OF IT AND TOOK [NOISE] THAT THERE'S A HANDICAP PORTA-POTTY.
THERE'S A YELLOW PORTA-POTTY AND THEN THE YELLOW PORTA POTTY THAT WASHED DOWN THE BEACH.
THE BOLLARDS THAT ARE DIRECTLY BEHIND THOSE ARE SOUTH OF THESE PORTA POTTIES WERE STILL THERE AND THEY WEREN'T ADHERED TO ANYTHING OR SECURED TO ANYTHING.
POSSIBLY REVIEWING MAYBE WITH YOUR VENDORS BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME BALLERS WASHED AWAY FURTHER FROM THOSE PORTA BODIES BUT NOT THOSE PARTICULAR SET OF PORTA BODIES.
THEY WEREN'T SECURED ANYTHING.
MAYBE FOLLOWING BACK UP ON THE VENDORS, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, THEY DEFINITELY WEREN'T SECURED.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER SEEN THE WEST ONE SECURED.
>> AGAIN I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ISSUES HERE.
ONE IS THE MINOR ISSUE OF MAKING SURE THAT THE PORTA-POTTIES ARE LEASED.
BUT THE BLOWOUT THAT OCCURRED WAS ALMOST A THREE AND HALF TO FOUR FOOT WASH OUT WHICH, THAT QUITE A BIT OF SAND WE LOST.
TWO BIG ISSUES WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THAT.
ONE SMALL SECURING PORTA BODIES I THINK THAT'S PRETTY EASY.
BUT THE BIGGER PICTURE OF WHAT WE ARE LEFT WITH AFTER THIS LAGOON BLOWOUT IS A LOT BIGGER PICTURE.
>> AGAIN, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE DID ALREADY REMOVE THOSE LOCATIONS AND RE-ACRED THEM INTO THE PARKING LOT MORE CENTRAL AWAY FROM THE POTENTIAL ISSUE.
>> COULD YOU SEND OVER AN UPDATED REPORT FROM YOUR VENDOR ON HOW THEY'RE SECURING ALL THE PORTA-POTTIES?
>> VERY GOOD. I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE AFTER EVENTS.
>> MADE SURE DUE STORMS, HIGH WATER EVENTS, THAT THIS SITUATION DOES NOT REOCCUR.
>> IF I COULD ADD, IT JUST TIE THIS BACK TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM.
I THINK THAT THIS IS, IT'S VERY ENCOURAGING ONE OF THE REASONS TO HEAR ABOUT COORDINATING
[01:50:02]
A PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH IS BECAUSE EVERYTHING OUT THERE AND I MEAN, EVERYTHING IS SUPPOSED TO BE TEMPORARY TILL WE GET A SUSTAINABLE PLAN FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT AND EVERYTHING.HEARING THESE DISCUSSIONS, IT ENCOURAGES ME TO THINK A FEW YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THAT BASICALLY THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF WHAT WE SEE OUT THERE IS GOING TO BE VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS.
>> ITEM 5, DISCUSSION OF TOPICS FOR FUTURE JOINT MEETINGS.
>> I DO HAVE, I'M GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH WITH THE COUNCIL AND THE TRUSTEES NOTES I HAVE FOR FUTURE AGENDAS, THESE ARE MORE FOR COUNCIL'S FUTURE AGENDA IN FEBRUARY.
WE'RE GOING TO GET A REPORT BACK FROM STAFF ON THE MASTER [NOISE] DEVELOPMENT APPROACH OR THE DETAILS INVOLVED WITH THAT AND WE WILL HAVE THAT AS AN ACTION ITEM ON OUR COUNCIL AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY.
ALSO IN FEBRUARY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PLAN TO LOOK AT THE CURRENT PROPOSED PLAN FOR SEAWOLF PARK.
WE'LL HAVE THE INPUT FROM OUR STAFF AND INPUT FROM THE PARK BOARD FROM [NOISE] THE BUSINESS PLAN.
IT IS MORE DETAILED CONCERNING THIS PARTICULAR.
[NOISE] THEN ALSO DAN WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD THE INTER LOCAL AND ALL OF THE DETAIL WITH INTER LOCAL AND NOTES FROM INPUT FROM COUNSEL AND TRUSTEES AS WE MOVE FORWARD OF DISCUSSING THE PARTICULAR DETAILS OF THIS INTER-LOCAL, AND DAN, I THINK HAS A LIST OF ALL THOSE ISSUES.
ANY OTHER FUTURE FOR THE JOINT MEETINGS COMING UP, ANY OTHER AGENDA ITEMS?
>> WELL, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW ALEX PRAISE IT AS A EVALUATION, I GUESS AS THE PARK BOARD AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE LIKE I SAID, DATA AND SPREADSHEET EVALUATIONS AS WELL AS PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN UNDERTAKEN AT CITY COUNCIL DICTION TO EVALUATE EVERYTHING THEY'VE BEEN DO. THAT'S A TOPIC IN IT.
>> IT IS. DAN WAS GOING TO BRING DETAILS INPUT ON THAT TOO ON FEBRUARY FOR THE LOCAL.
>> WELL, I GUESS MY POINT WAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO THE PARK BOARD AS TO WHAT TO PREPARE FOR THAT PARTICULAR TOPIC BECAUSE OF COURSE, THE PARK BOARD IS BEEN TWO OF THIS WORK.
THEY GOT TO BE THE ONE TO ACTUALLY SAY WHAT THEY DID.
IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT DAN WAS GOING TO WORK WITH PARK BOARD STAFF TO COME UP WITH THOSE THOUGHTS ON THAT.
BUT HOW WOULD YOU LIKE ANY SUGGESTIONS.
>> EVERYTHING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TO COME BACK HAS GOT TO BE A COLLABORATION OF THE PRODUCT BETWEEN [NOISE] C7 WAS THERE.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PARK BOARD HAS BEEN DOING, THE PARK BOARD HAS TO TELL YOU WHAT THEY'VE BEEN DOING NOT THEM OR US.
BUT OF COURSE, AGAIN, THAT SHOULD BE A COLLABORATION BUT THE PARK BOARD IS THE ONE HAS BEEN DOING THE WORK.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT NEED TO TELL THE BOARD WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING,.
>> WHAT THE OBJECTIVES, IF WE'RE FULFILLING YOUR OBJECTIVES OR IF YOU ARE REMOVING SOME OBJECTIVES OR ADDING MORE OBJECTIVE GOALS THAT WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING, HOW DO YOU MANAGE, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE HITTING THE GOALS THAT YOU WANT SO WE CAN PUT THEM TOGETHER.
I DON'T KNOW ONE PERSON WHO CAN DO IT.
I THINK ALL I'M SAYING I THINK THE PARK STAFF HAS TO WORK TOGETHER WITH THE CITY STAFF AND PUT THOSE GOALS TOGETHER AND JUST ON UNILATERAL WORD.
>> I'LL MAKE SURE, BOB, IF I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING CORRECTLY, COUNSEL, IF THIS IS YOUR APPROVAL, WE'LL PUT THAT AS A SEPARATE ITEM.
>> IS IT IN FEBRUARY, ARE YOU SAYING?
>> YES, SIR. THAT'S THE WHY I SEE THIS COMING.
>> HOLD ON. THE CLARIFICATION.
THE DISCUSSION ABOUT PERFORMANCE METRICS OR KPIS RELATED TO PARK BOARD PERFORMANCE COMING BACK IN FEBRUARY OR AT THE NEXT JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD?
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD BE ON THE DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT JOINT MEETING BECAUSE THAT IS FIRST OFF, YOU HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT YOUR KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS ARE KPIS.
THEN YOU HAVE TO GO AND COLLECT DATA AND YOU'VE GOT TO PROVIDE TIME FOR THE PARK BOARD TO ACTUALLY COME BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION.
>> I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THAT IN 30 DAYS.
>> I THINK DISCUSSION ABOUT, WHAT I MEAN, IN 30 DAYS YOU HAVE AT LEAST A ROUGH DRAFT.
[01:55:02]
JUST BE SHORT, SIMPLE, AND SWEET.>> NOW, THAT I'M FINE. IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON THE NEXT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M NOT SAYING LIKE NEXT DAY. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NEXT THING THAT WE CAN DO AN INTERIM REPORT ON WHAT ARE THE SUGGESTED KPIS. HOW ABOUT THAT?
>> THAT WAS KIND OF MY [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO HAVE A FULL REPORT.
>> NO. TRUST ME, I'M LEARNING THAT GOVERNMENT IS VERY SLOW.
>> ANYWAY, THAT IS ON OUR FEBRUARY MEETING.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME MICHELLE BECKWELL TO HER FIRST JOINT MEETING AND I'M SURE SHE'S SITTING THERE THINKING, WHAT THE HELL.
>> MICHELLE, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU.
YOU'VE HANDLED YOURSELF BEAUTIFULLY.
YOU SAT BACK AND TOOK IT ALL IN AND WAITING TO MAKE COMMENT.
VERY GOOD. JASON, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE TOPICS THAT ARE ON OUR JOINT MEETING.
>> I WANTED TO THANK EVERYONE FROM A CITY STANDPOINT FOR BEING HERE.
THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE LENGTHY BUT THE REASON THEY'RE LENGTHY IS THEY'VE BEEN PUT OFF SO LONG THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY SAT DOWN AND GOT INTO THEM AND WE JUST KEEP KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.
I THINK WE'RE MAKING GOOD PROGRESS.
>> I THINK JASON STILL HAD A COMMENT.
>> A COUPLE OF THINGS, T, THE GOOD NEWS ON REPORTING BACK AND BEING AS TRANSPARENT AND ACCOUNTABLE AS POSSIBLE AS AN ORGANIZATION TO CITY COUNCIL IS KIMBERLY, WHEN SHE MADE THAT REPORT BACK IN DECEMBER ABOUT ALL OF THE DIRECTIVES THAT WE HAD MOVED ON THAT COUNSEL HAD DELIVERED, THAT GIVES US A GOOD BLUEPRINT AND BASELINE TO SHOW THAT WHAT WE CAN DO MOVING FORWARD MAYBE ON A MORE FREQUENT BASIS, SO THAT COUNSEL FEELS AS INFORMED AS POSSIBLE THAT WE ARE CARRYING OUT THEIR DIRECTIVES THAT ARE PROVIDED HERE AT THIS TABLE AND THEN FOR THE JOINT MEETING, FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. ANOTHER THING THAT I DID HERE FROM COUNCILWOMAN ROB IS FOR US TO BRING BACK A BEAUTIFICATION PLAN FOR SOME OF THE AREAS THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT.
ANY MORE COMMENTS? TRUSTEES, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
THANK YOU ALL. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND WE'LL COME BACK [OVERLAPPING].
WE HAD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD.
WE ARE NOW BACK IN SESSION WITH OUR CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS.
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3B IF WE COULD PLEASE.
[3.B. 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 3B, 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.
>> COUNSEL, JUST FROM A STANDPOINT OF TIMING.
[NOISE] LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP OUR COMMENTS FOR CLARIFICATION ONLY ON THESE ITEMS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THEM PROPERLY.
DAVID, SINCE YOU'RE THERE ON MY LEFT, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS SIR?
>> I DO, 11N. IT JUST DIDN'T COME UP.
MY APOLOGIES. YOU JUST PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOURSELF.
>> TYSON RUDOLF, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES.
I KNOW YOU WANT ME TO KEEP THE CLARIFICATIONS BUT THIS IS TRULY JUST A THANK YOU.
THIS IS RELATED TO AVENUE O&P AND THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CONTROLLERS ALONG THERE.
THE 22 CONTROLLERS AND BRIAN, I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU.
TYSON TAKE CREDIT FOR THAT IS REALLY QUITE NOW.
>> NOW, I HATE WHEN YOU'RE JUST LOUD.
>> 11 NN. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A THANK YOU TO PUBLIC STAFF ON BEHALF OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE CALLED ME AND COMPLAINED ABOUT TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ON O&P.
I COMMEND YOU ALL FOR NOT JUST TRYING TO DO A QUICK FIX BUT RECOGNIZING THAT THOSE CONTROLLERS ARE AGED AND THAT THEY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND I'M GLAD THAT WE'VE AN IMPOSE. THANK YOU.
>> YOU GUYS ARE DOING A FANTASTIC JOB FOR AND I'M ALSO GOING TO ECHO MICHAEL PERKINS,
[02:00:03]
WHO'S OVER A TRAFFIC FANTASTIC JOB.REALLY STEPPING UP DOING A FANTASTIC JOB.
>> PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT FORD'S TIMING TODAY.
>> I'VE GOT ONE MORE ITEM [OVERLAPPING] AND THAT IS 12 A.
THIS IS THE RESOLUTION AND SUPPORT OF LA MORGAN.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT CAN SPEAK TO THAT, DON, I THINK YOU WERE THE ONE THAT CRAFTED THE.
>> IS IT DONNA OR YOURSELF ON THE LA MORGAN ONE.
[NOISE] MISS SHARON, THIS WAS GUIDED BY SHARON ALSO.
>> WELL, I'M LOOKING FOR SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS.
I KNOW THAT GISD IS TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT'S THE BEST AND HIGHEST USE FOR THAT LAND.
IN THE RESOLUTION ITSELF, I WANTED TO BRING UP FOR CLARIFICATION IF THIS IS TRULY THE INTENT.
SECTION 2 OF IT SAYS THAT CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSED ITS SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT, THAT THE GALVESTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEES CONSIDER PROPOSALS FROM THE COMMUNITY FOR ANY FUTURE USE OF THE SCHOOL PROPERTY TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE TO BE A CENTER OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
WHAT MY CONCERN IS, IS THAT THE LANGUAGE OF CENTER OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE SPECIFYING FUTURE INTENDED LAND USE, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, [OVERLAPPING] IS THAT OUR INTENT? WELL, NO. AT THE SAME TIME, LATER ON, IT ALSO SAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMS ITS COMMITMENT THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE PART OF A PUBLIC DECISION MAKING THROUGH HEARINGS FORUMS AND OTHER PARTICIPATORY OPPORTUNITIES.
MY CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE A STATEMENT IN HERE THAT POTENTIALLY LIMITS THE FUTURE LAND USE OR DOES IT.
I DON'T WANT TO DO IS I DON'T WANT TO DICTATE TO GISD, ANY FUTURE LAND USE FOR THAT PROPERTY.
I WANT TO ABSOLUTELY WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THEM IN DOING AND AFFIRMING THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE A PART OF THIS PUBLIC DECISION PROCESS.
CLARIFICATIONS DONE. QUESTIONS?
>> I DO NOT THINK IT LIMITS THE FUTURE LAND USE.
IT IS MERELY AN EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT FOR SOME PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE TO TALK TO GISD ABOUT MORGAN BEING USED SOMETHING BETTER THAN COMMUNITY.
>> WHATEVER THAT MAY BE. I AM ABSOLUTELY IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE NOT IMPLYING THAT WE WERE DICTATING ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE.
>>TO CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE MORE.
AS YOU KNOW, WE APPROVED A RESOLUTION FOR THE ROSENBERG PROPERLY.
THIS IS A SIMILAR, NOT IDENTICAL, BUT A SIMILAR APPROACH OF SAYING THAT IF, THINGS MOVE FORWARD AND SOMEONE PURCHASES LAND AND SO FORTH, THESE ARE SOME THINGS THAT THEY COULD CONSIDER.
THOSE ARE MY ONLY TWO ITEMS, MAYOR. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANY THINGS, SIR?
>> YEAH. I CORNER OF PARRICIDE AND 14TH.
THERE WERE SOME, I THINK THAT'S 8B.
>> IT'S ABOUT THE FACILITY PROPOSED FOR 14TH AND SIDE.
>> THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS WITH OBJECTIONS BY A COUPLE OF FIRE MARSHAL HAD A COMMENT, AND THE PUBLIC WORKS HAD A COMMENT ON THEIR OBJECTION.
COULD YOU CLARIFY WHAT ABOUT THOSE COMMENTS, WHAT THEY REALLY MEAN?
>> THE CAPTAIN FORMAT, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF THE DELVES SERVICES DEPARTMENT AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER.
THE FIRE MARSHAL HAD NO OBJECTION TO COMMENT, AND HIS COMMENT WAS THE DRIVE OFF HARBORSIDE SHALL ACCOMMODATE A FIRE APPARATUS PROPERTY, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REVIEW DURING THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
>> HE WOULD, I GUESS THE PLANNING WOULD ENSURE THAT YOU COULD GET A FIRE TRUCK ON THE PROPERTY IN AND OUT IF YOU NEEDED TO.
>> SURE. FIRE MARSHAL IS A REVIEWER.
ALL OF COMMERCIAL PERMITS, SO HE WOULD DO THAT REVIEW DURING THE COMMERCIAL PERMITTING PROCESS.
[02:05:02]
>> THE OTHER ONE WAS FROM PUBLIC WORKS.
>> PUBLIC WORKS HAD NO OBJECTION.
THOSE WERE COMMENTS REGARDING THE INTERACTION OF THE PROPOSED SITE WITH HARBOR SIDE AND REQUIRING A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TO ENSURE THAT THE LEVEL OF SERVICE REMAINS THE SAME.
>> HAS THE APPLICANT CONDUCTED A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS?
>> NO. THEY'LL NEED TO THAT, PERMITTING PROCESS AFTER IT IS APPROVED.
>> THAT INTERSECTION IS GOING TO GET BUSY 16, A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND A PROJECTION TO INCLUDE 16.
>> I THINK THE CRITICAL DECISION MAKE WHETHER OR NOT TO CHAT IS A CHICKEN IN THE EGG PROCESS? YES. WHICH APPROVAL COMES FIRST? WE TRY TO NOT EXPOSE THE REQUESTER TO A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY UP FRONT BECAUSE YOU KNOW I UNDERSTAND.
THEN THEY HAVE A TON US SOME COST WE TRY TO BE AS DEVELOPER FRIENDLY AS I UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT'S JUST IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR A LOT MORE TRAFFIC AT THAT INTERSECTION I JUST 1 SECOND.
IN THE APPLICATION, THE PLAN SAYS ON THE PLAN ITSELF.
THERE'S A NOTATION THAT SAYS RIGHT ON THE TEA SHOP, IT SAYS 1,000 DRIVE THROUGH COFFEE OR TEA SHOP OR SIMILAR.
SO WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME IS THEY.
THEY DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT THEN THERE'S NOT A COMMITMENT FROM THAT TO BE A TEA SHOP.
WELL THE REQUEST AS IS RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH.
OKAY. SO WHAT'S BEEN SHOWN TO US IS THIS COFFEE OR TEA CONCEPT, BUT IT COULD BE ANY RESTAURANT WITH A DRIVE THROUGH.
RIGHT. MCDONALD'S OR SONIC OR ANYTHING THAT'S GOT A DRIVE THROUGH.
COULD GO THERE. NOT NECESSARILY THE TEA.
NOT NECESSARILY THE TEA ALTHOUGH THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN DEMONSTRATED. YEAH.
YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT I THINK IT'S RELEVANT.
THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PROVIDE SOME ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS.
I JUST WONDER IF THE CRUISE SHIP TERMINAL ACROSS THE STREET IS ALSO GOING TO BE PROVIDING ELECTRIC CHARGING TERMINALS IN THEIR PARKING.
THEY ALREADY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE.
MARIE HAD I HAVE A QUESTION TOO. GO AHEAD, MARIE.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A VERY DIFFICULT TRAFFIC AREA.
AND IT ALREADY HAS LINE SPOTS GRANITE WITH CHANGING THE BUILDINGS THAT'LL CHANGE IT SOMEWHAT.
BUT PEOPLE STOPPING TO TURN IN OR COME OUT SORT OF RIGHT BEFORE AN INTERSECTION.
HAS ANYBODY IS THAT A TEXAS ROAD, HARBOR SIDE AS I IS.
HAVE THEY TALKED TO TEXT THAT WOULD EVEN BE ALLOWED? THEY WOULD HAVE TO PETITION FOR A CUR CUT FOR TEXT THEY HAVE A CUR CUT THERE.
I DON'T THINK THEY MAKE ANY CHANGES TO MAKE CHANGES TO IT, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO TALK TO TEST.
AND THE DEVELOPER IS AWARE OF THAT.
THEN SO THEY'RE PROPOSING CHARGERS AND THOUGHT IS TIED TO PEOPLE GOING ON THROUGH.
ARE THEY GOING TO GET ACROSS THE STREET? THAT CAME UP AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE OPERATOR INDICATED THAT THERE WOULD BE A SHUTTLE SYSTEM THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE MORE.
SO WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT WHOLE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH AND CHARGING AND PARKING IS 18,000 SQUARE FEET.
A WHOLE LOT OF ACTIVITY IN A REALLY SMALL AREA.
YOU KNOW THE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? NO. I JUST WANT TO SAY I EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF WHAT THEY'RE SUGGESTING IN THAT AREA.
THAT PARTICULAR IT'S INTERESTING THAT'S REALLY A PARKING LOT CORNER THROUGH THERE.
IT SEEMED LIKE EVERYTHING AROUND THERE IS PARKING LOTS.
DUE EAST OF THAT IS A PARKING LOT THEY WALK
[02:10:02]
ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT PARKING LOT CONSTANTLY ON BACK AND FORTH ON THERE.MY QUESTION IS, THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT THIS HAS COME BEFORE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THIS PARTICULAR TIME, IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION NOR HAS IT BEEN RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
ALSO, THEY'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE EXTERIOR LANDSCAPING AND THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPING BOTH, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S JUST THE INTERNAL LANDSCAPING, BUT THEY'RE REQUESTING NOW.
THE PREVIOUS REQUEST, THEY INCLUDED EXTERIOR LANDSCAPING, BUT THEY'VE REMOVED THAT FROM THIS REQUEST.
SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANT OR A DEVIATION FROM THE INTERIOR LANDSCAPING AND THEN THE REQUIRED VISUAL SCREENING FROM RESIDENTIAL USES.
SO THEY DO THEY'RE REQUESTING THEY WILL NOT VISUALLY SCREEN ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THAT PROPERTY? THAT WOULD BE THE EASTERN BORDER.
THEY HAVE THE HOUSE RIGHT ON THE CORNER A 14TH STREET IS IN THIS REQUEST AND THEN THERE ARE TWO SMALLER HOUSES THAT ARE NOT THAT ARE UNDER SEPARATE OWNERSHIP.
OKAY. THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO SCREEN FROM THOSE, THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT THAT BE WAIVED.
WHAT THAT OTHER SIDE TO THE SOUTH SIDE.
SOUTH SIDE, THEY WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT IMMEDIATELY. THERE'S NO ALLEY.
THEY'RE USING THAT ALLEY FOR EGRESS.
AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS FROM PUBLIC WORKS WAS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO PAY ALLEY SO THERE WOULD BE A DOES THERE BE A WOOD PRIVACY FENCE BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BUT NOT ASKING THE VISUAL RECRUITING REQUIRES.
IS THERE A LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF SPACES THERE A LIMIT ON THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THERE IS NOT.
THEY ADDED IN THE COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT COMMERCIAL SERVICE PARKING AREA, WHICH IS YOU CAN USE FOR CRUISE PARKING.
BUT WE CAN WE RECOMMENDED LIMITATION OF SPACE.
IF COUNSEL CAN PUT ON CONDITIONS THEY FIND APPROPRIATE.
I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT BECAUSE I JUST QUESTIONED, THE USE OF THIS PROPERTY IN THIS REGARD.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO CONCEIVE SOMEONE COMING OR GOING TO A CRUISE LINE AND SAYING, I'M GOING TO STOP FOR A COMPANY TEA BEFORE I LEAVE.
I MEAN, THE WHOLE CONCEPT IS HARD FOR ME TO COME.
I KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT STARBUCKS KILLS IT.
IT'S NOT IN THE SAME AREA IN THERE AND OUT THAT WASN'T EVEN FULL.
CUSTOMERS FROM THE BUSINESSES AND SO FORTH.
SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE APPLICANT IS ONE OF OUR BIGGEST CUSTOMERS BOTH WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND THE PORT AS FAR AS A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL THAT PAYS $1 PARKING BOTH TO US AND THE PORT UPWARDS OF ONE MILLION DOLLAR A YEAR.
I WAS HESITANT INITIALLY WITH THIS APPLICATION ONLY BECAUSE I FELT LIKE THE PERSON PRESENTING IT WAS NOT BEING FORTHRIGHT ON SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD.
BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT AN AERIAL SATELLITE AERIAL OVER THESE TWO PROPERTIES WITH, YOU KNOW, A PARKING LOT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM IT.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF AS MUCH THOUGHT WAS PUT INTO TRAFFIC AS WHEN THIS PARKING LOT CAME ONLINE.
I KIND OF LIKE THAT NOW IT'S BEING PRESENTED IN A WAY OF MORE ELECTRIC CHARGING STATION SOURCES AS COMPARED TO, YOU KNOW, AND YES, THERE ARE CHARGING STATIONS ACROSS THE STREET WITH THE PORT.
BUT I THINK HIS TRACK RECORD HAS SHOWN THAT HE'S BEEN NOT ONLY A GOOD NEIGHBOR, BUT A VERY GOOD SOURCE OF INCOME TO OUR CITY.
AND AFTER GETTING TO LEARN THE AREA, WHICH I WAS NOT FELT LIKE I WAS NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE ENOUGH IN THE LAST MEETING AND LOOKING AT OVERHEAD SATELLITE IMAGES, GETTING CONFIRMATION THAT HE WAS GOING TO DO ALL THAT HE COULD TO SALVAGE THE HOMES THAT ARE THERE ON THE SITE.
I I LOOK FORWARD TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY.
[02:15:03]
AGAIN, I KNOW THAT THAT'S A BIG EXPENSE TO GET IT 100% DONE, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A BAD IDEA AFTER GETTING TO KNOW IT BETTER.SO I'M GOING TO JUST COMMENT. WELL, NO.
WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING A CRUISE.
OFFICE OUT OF THAT OFFICE AT ONE POINT.
AND IT'S A DIFFICULT SITUATION EVEN BEFORE THE CRUISE LINE.
I WANT TO ANYMORE ON THAT BOT, DID YOU HAD 1 SECOND. THANK YOU.
OKAY. THE ELIMINATION OF THEY'RE REQUESTING ELIMINATION OF THE VISUAL SCREENING FROM RESIDENTIAL USES.
YOU MENTIONED THAT'S ONLY ON THE INTERSECTION? RIGHT. BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO SMALL HOUSES THAT DON'T BELONG TO THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE DEVELOPER, AND SO THAT IT'LL BE REQUIRED TO DO VISUAL SCREENING TO THOSE.
OKAY. AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO SCREEN FOR THE HOME THE RESIDENTIAL THAT'S ACROSS THE PARKING LOT? WELL, ACROSS THE PARKING LOT, I MEAN, IT'S THE JEAN LAFITTE SITE.
IT'S NOT CURRENTLY USED FOR RESIDENTIAL.
SO NO, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO TO SCREEN FOR THAT.
AND THEN THEY DON'T SOUTH SOUTH OF THAT PROPERTY, THERE'S HOMES.
YES. BUT IT'S IT HAS TO BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT. OKAY.
SO IT EXCLUDES THEM HAVING TO RESIDE.
VERY GOOD. IF THE ELECTRIC CHARGING STATIONS, IF THEY DECIDE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CARS FOR THAT, THEY CAN PARK CARS THERE LONG TERM.
THEY CAN B OF THE INCLUSION OF PARKING LOT COMMERCIAL SURFACE PARKING.
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN THE I GUESS YOU YOU'RE SAYING LONG TERM PARKING.
THEY ALSO HAVE FOUR SPACES, TWO HANDICAP AND TWO ORDINARY SPACES RIGHT NEXT TO THE FACILITY.
IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT THAT QUALIFICATION COULD THAT BE LONG TERM PARKING OR IS THAT SPECIFIC TO THE TEA SHOP OR WHATEVER IT GOES? IT'S NOT. THEORETICALLY, ANY OF THESE PARKING SPACES COULD BE USED FOR LONG TERM.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION. VERY GOOD.
IF EVERYBODY'S DONE WITH THAT, I GOT ANOTHER ONE.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE OVERHEAD.
AND SO THEY OWN THESE TWO BUILDINGS, WHY WOULDN'T WE REQUIRE DO NOT RIGHT.
BUT THEY'RE JUST ASKING TO PUT.
THE NEXT ONE IS 11 P. 11 OR AT THE RESTORATION OF THE SYDNEY MUN THE STAFF REPORT INDICATES THAT A FUR THE CITY COUNCILS DIRECTION LAST TIME THAT THE CITY DOES NOT OWN THE TEXT HEROES MONUMENT, SO WE CAN'T USE HOT FUNDS.
AND SO IN THE LAST TIME THIS WAS IN THE 90S WHEN THIS WAS A MONUMENT WAS RESTORED, THEY INDEED HAD A PUBLIC FUND RAISING THING, LIKE THE JUDGE WAS HEADING THAT UP AND THEY RAISED THE MONEY TO DO IT BACK THEN.
AND I'M I'M WONDERING WHAT THE POSSIBILITY OF TAKING THE STEPS FOR THE CITY TO OWN THAT SO WE COULD HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER.
C THAT'S SOMETHING THEY WANT TO IT'S A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD.
>> IT IS HARD TO MAINTAIN AND THAT'S ONE THING, BUT THAT LOOK AT AND YOU HAVE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU DON'T KNOW THAT ANYMORE, AND THAT'S BEEN THE TAX MONEY TO MAINTAIN.
I THINK THAT'S A DECISION THE COUNSEL HAS TO MAKE.
IF IT IS, I'M SURE THE STATE WOULD BE MORE THAN WILLING TO GIVE IT TO YOU.
>> IN MY MIND THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST ICONIC HISTORIC FEATURES ON THE WHOLE ISLAND AND IT DESERVES PROTECTION.
THE STATE IS NOT GOING TO DO IT, WE KNOW THAT.
IN FACT, I KNOW GHF IS APPLYING FOR A STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDMARK STATUS FOR THAT MONUMENT WHICH IS THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF PROTECTION IN THE COUNTRY FOR HISTORIC MONUMENTS.
I JUST THINK WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT HOW THAT OWNERSHIP CAN BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY SO WE CAN PROTECT IT.
>> I'M VERY OPEN PERSONALLY FOR THAT SUBJECT.
THE QUESTION I HAVE THOUGH WITH THE HEROES MONUMENT, HAVE WE APPLIED WITH THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION TO GET THEM TO COME DOWN AND DO SOMETHING TO THIS?
>> WE HAVE IT IN OUR DIRECTION.
>> WE DON'T KNOW THAT [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE]
>> UNTIL GHF POINTED OUT THAT WE HAD KNOW THAT WE WERE MAINTAINED.
IF THAT'S THE CASE NOW, NO WE HAD NOT.
>> THE LAST TIME IN 1991 IS ONE OF THE RESTORED, TEXAS HISTORICAL MISSION DID COME DOWN AND CONSULT ON THE RESTORATION.
>> MY QUESTION IS, THE STATE OWNS THAT.
WE NEED TO HAVE THEM STEP UP AND TAKE CARE OF IT.
>> I BELIEVE FIRST OF THAT I THINK WE'RE WORKING WITH A LOT OF THIS WORK PREEMPTIVELY.
[02:20:01]
I THINK STATE TENDS TO BE NOT BEAUTIFULLY AESTHETIC.WE CAN CERTAINLY SAY, HEY, COME FIX YOUR STATUTE.
>> THE RED TAPE, PAPERWORK, AND PRIORITIZATION MIGHT NOT GET IT DONE WHEN WE WANT IT DONE.
>> YOU GOT TO ASK FIRST, SO YES, SIR.
>> WE HAD IT ON THE BID LAST TIME.
IS THERE A WAY WE CAN GET THEM, BECAUSE GOD KNOWS HOW LONG A RESOLUTION FROM THE STATE TO GIVE US THE MONUMENT TO MAINTAIN IT NOW IT'S GOING TO TAKE.
CAN YOU PLEASE GET A FIRM DEFINITE NUMBER OF DAYS THAT WE CAN GET THAT BID HELD FOR THE FUTURE.
>> THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO LIMITATIONS.
ONE IS GOING TO BE OBVIOUSLY BY THE VENDOR.
THE OTHER I THINK THERE'S A POINT IN THE GOVERNMENT BUILDING BUSINESS THEY DON'T LIKE TO MENTION.
>> AS LONG AS THE VENDOR IS WILLING TO HONOR THE BID PRICE, I THINK WE'RE OKAY.
IF ANOTHER VENDOR WERE TO APPROACH. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DON'T EVEN KNOW TIMELINE WISE WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO BE THAT COUNSEL.
REMEMBER WE DO NOT KNOW, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE STATE.
IT COULD BE DRAWN OUT FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND WHERE WE'RE LIMITED IS THE FUNDING SOURCE.
I INDICATED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IF THERE WAS AN ALTERNATE FUNDING SOURCE THAT COULD BE FOUND, THEN THE VENDOR CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.
IT'S JUST, BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING SOURCE THAT LIMITS US DOING ANYTHING TO THAT MIND.
NOW WE CAN'T USE HALF THAT SOURCE.
>> WELL, IT'S BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN THE STATUTE.
>> BUT WE HAD IT ON AND WE WERE ASSUMING THE MAINTENANCE OF IT TO BEGIN WITH AND UNTIL WE SAID, LET'S EVALUATE IT MORE.
REGARDLESS IF IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE TO USE IT, WE WERE ALREADY MAINTAINING IT.
>> I LIKE THE CLARITY OF IT, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET IT. HISTORY IS IMPORTANT.
>> LET ME OFFER SOMETHING HERE.
FIRST OFF AS MY DAUGHTER TELLS ME REGULARLY, NO ASKEY NO GIDDY.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE TO MAYBE A DIRECTION TO GO MIGHT BE, HAVE STAFF TALK TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION.
FIND OUT WHERE THIS MIGHT BE AND THEIR PRIORITY OR LACK THEREOF.
UNDERSTAND IF THE STATE WAS TO OWN IT, WHAT WOULD BE THE TIMELINE FOR THE POTENTIAL RESTORATION OF THAT.
THAT'S STEP 1. STEP 2, AT THE SAME TIME SEE IF YOU CAN GET A MOU THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO MAINTAIN THE MONUMENT FOR CONSIDERATION.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE.
LET ME FINISH, PLEASE. THANK YOU.
GET AN MOU FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSIONER OR THE STATE STATING THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN IT.
WE CAN ALSO DETERMINE AT THAT TIME WHETHER IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO ACTUALLY TAKE OWNERSHIP OF IT, OR IF THE STATE BASED UPON WHAT THEY COME BACK WITH THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF IT.
THAT'S THE MOU. THEN THIRD RELATED TO THE FUNDING SOURCE, IF WE ARE DOING IT OURSELVES AND IF WE CAN DO IT WITH HOT FUNDS, THAT'S FINE.
IF NOT THEN WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THE FUNDING SOURCE WITHIN THE CITY BUDGET.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN MISCONSTRUED.
THIS IS NOT A RESTORATION OF THIS MONUMENT?
>> PROCESS WE'RE DOING TO KEEP FROM HAVING THE FUTURE RESTORE THIS MONUMENT.
WE KEEP HEARING IT. THIS WAS DONE IN 1990, AND WHY ARE WE DOING IT AGAIN? THESE THINGS YOU CAN START AT, IT'S NOT A ONE AND DONE THING.
THIS IS ONGOING MAINTENANCE, NOT A RESTORATION OF A MONUMENT.
THE MONUMENT IS NOT GOING TO FALL DOWN TOMORROW.
>> NO. TRY TO KEEP IT LOOKING NICE AND VERY SIMPLE.
TRY TO PRESERVE IT, BECAUSE IT IS A HISTORIC LANDMARK.
CERTAINLY THE FIRST TIME THEY GOT RESTORED, IT WENT TO HELD A LOT LONGER THAN WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING IN TWEED MAINTENANCE THOUGH.
>> THE STATE DOES IN FACT OWN THIS OR IS IT JUST BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE STATE WAS THE LAST ONE TO DO THE RESTORATION?
>> WE DID AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH THROUGH THE US DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND WE COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING AS FAR AS IT IDENTIFIED THE STATE AS THE OWNER OR THE CITY.
>> BUT THEY WERE THE LAST ONE TO DO A FULL RESTORATION.
>> THE CITY WE DID THAT OURSELF.
>> I'M SORRY, THE CITY ON THE RESTORATION.
NOW FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THEY HAVE THE GALVESTON DAILY NEWS ARTICLE ON THE DEDICATION OF THE STATUTE.
IT WAS PAID FOR BY THE ROSENBERG ESTATE AND THEY HAD THAT DEDICATION,
[02:25:02]
GAVE THAT TO THE STATE OF TEXAS.THE GOVERNOR CAME DOWN AND RECEIVED IT AS NOW THE OWNER OF THE STATUTE.
GALVESTON DAILY NEWS HAS THAT ARTICLE.
THAT WAS BACK A LONG TIME AGO.
>> I THINK A WORTHY COAL WOULD REINFORCE THE CITY OWNING IT IS THE FACT THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE HOT TAX TO MAINTAIN IT AND RESTORE IT.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. AS WELL AS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF TO THE CITY, I THINK WE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
ONE OTHER THING WHILE WE'RE ON THIS SUBJECT IS, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE ALSO USEFUL IF WE HAD A POLICY FOR MAINTENANCE OF ALL CITY OWNED MONUMENTS AND SCULPTURES LIKE THAT, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE DOLPHIN ON THE SEAWALL.
WE HAVE THE 1,900 STORM SCULPTURE RIGHT BEHIND US HERE.
WE HAVE THE TEXAS HEROES MONUMENTS.
WE HAVE SIDNEY SHERMAN AND WE HAVE THOSE WORD WAR II MONUMENTS.
>> WORD WAR II OWNERSHIP IS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.
THERE'S DUAL OWNERSHIP ON END.
>> WHATEVER THESE MONUMENTS ARE THAT THE CITY HAS AN INTEREST IN, WE SHOULD HAVE SOME POLICY THAT DESCRIBES REGULAR MAINTENANCE, SO WE DON'T GET INTO THE RESTORATION ASPECT OF IT AS OFTEN AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS STUFF.
IT'S JUST A ROUTINE MAINTENANCE FOR THESE THINGS.
>> I HEARD WHEN COUNSEL FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT ARTS AND GETTING ALL THESE GRANTS, ALL THESE THINGS.
CREATING FUTURE LIABILITY GOING FORWARD, BECAUSE THE CITIZENS OF GALVES HAVE TO MAINTAIN ALL OF THIS.
THE ARTIST THAT DOES IT IS DONE, AND THE FIRST TIME SOMEBODY COMES IN PAINTS SOMETHING OBSCENE ON IT, THE CITY IS GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING IT UP, FIXING AND PREPARING IT, RESTORING IT, AFTER STORMS, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.
WHILE ALL THESE ARE NOBLE CAUSES AND THEY'RE REALLY GOOD TO THE CITY, JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT YOU'RE CREATING LIABILITIES EVERY TIME YOU DO THIS FUTURE.
TAX OBJECT IS GREAT, BUT IT NOT ALWAYS HAVE HIGH TAX.
YOU MAY HAVE HIGHER AND BETTER USE FOR HIGH TAX, AND YOU'RE MAKING COMMITMENTS [INAUDIBLE].
>> [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] HISTORIC COMMISSION LOOKS AT IN TERMS OF THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL THESE THINGS SPECIFICALLY?
>> GOING FORWARD, EVERYTHING THAT THEY GRANT IS THERE'S MONEY LEFT IN THAT FUND TO DO MAINTENANCE.
THESE STUFF THAT'S BEEN HERE UP TO THIS POINT, NO.
WHETHER THAT LITTLE PERCENTAGE SET ASIDE IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH, GIVE ME SOME TYPE OF [INAUDIBLE].
>> MAYBE YOU WANT TO EXPAND THERE THAT ANALYSIS TO INCLUDE THESE OTHER MONUMENTS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
JUST IN TERMS OF REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND WE COULD USE HOT TO DO THAT.
>> DID YOU SAY THE HISTORIC FOUNDATION IS APPLYING FOR A GRANT?
>> THEY'RE APPLYING FOR A DESIGNATION STATE ARCHAEOLOGICAL LANDMARK.
OF COURSE, THAT BEING THE VERY HIGHEST DEGREE OF HISTORIC PROTECTION YOU CAN GET, I THINK LOOKS GOOD ON GRANT APPLICATION.
WE CAN ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THAT.
COUNSEL WHEN YOU MAKE THAT MOTION AND FOR THIS PARTICULAR ITEM IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW A CERTAIN APPROACH FOR HOW THAT IS LOOKING AT FUNDING, GOING TO TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION, AND ALSO APPLYING TO SEE ABOUT WHAT'S INVOLVED WITH THE OWNERSHIP, WE CAN MAKE THAT IN THE MOTION.
>> WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT TIME AND MAKE THIS LINK [INAUDIBLE]
>> YOU CAN DEFER IT IF COUNSEL WANTS TO VOTE IT.
>> ELEVEN W, THIS IS ABOUT THE PAY STATIONS.
YES. THESE WERE THE PAY STATIONS DOWNTOWN.
THEY ARE THOSE PEDESTAL THINGS THAT YOU NIKI INTERIM CITY MARSHALL?
>> THEY ARE. THEY'RE REPLACING ALL THE ONES THAT WE HAVE DOWNTOWN AND ADDING ONE MORE.
>> WELL MY QUESTION WAS, WHERE ELSE DO WE USE THESE PEDESTALS?
>> WELL MY QUESTION IS, WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PAY METHODS NOW I GUESS, PEDESTALS AND THEN WE HAVE THE PAYPAL PHONE APP.
>> I'M JUST WONDERING WHY WE HAVE TWO.
WOULD BE BETTER TO JUST HAVE THE ONE PAYPAL PHONE APP?
>> IT'S EASE OF ACCESS. [NOISE] YOU FIGURE THAT SOME FOLKS WOULD PREFER TO USE AN ACTUAL PHYSICAL PAY STATION COMPARED TO AN APP ON YOUR PHONE.
TECHNOLOGICALLY SPEAKING SOME FOLKS DON'T LIKE TO USE THEIR PHONE, BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE CREDIT CARD INFORMATION.
THEY DON'T WANT TO PUT THERE. THEY'D RATHER USE THAT MACHINE THAT'S RIGHT THERE IN VIEW, AND IT'S LOCKED UP AND SECURITY.
>> WE HAD LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS ON THIS.
I WILL TELL YOU THE ADOPTION OF PAY-BY-PHONE IS MUCH FURTHER ALONG THAN IT WAS WHEN WE FIRST DID THIS AND WE DID THIS AS A BRIDGE.
BUT I PERSONALLY SEE PEOPLE USING THESE ALL THE TIME.
THERE'S STILL PEOPLE WITH FLIP PHONES.
>> IT'S JUST TO PROVIDE ANOTHER OPTION FOR SOMEBODY DIDN'T WANT TO USE THE PHONE.
>> CORRECT. THEY'RE LIMITED TO JUST THE CORNERS.
[02:30:01]
>> THERE WAS MORE PARKING ADDED PAY PARKING ADD TO DOWNTOWN, SO WE WANTED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT WITH ONE EXTRA PAY STATION.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO WALK DOWN FARTHER IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE THE PAY STATION.
>> THE GOAL IS TO NEVER WALK MORE THAN A BLOCK TO GET TO THE PAY STATION.
>> THE AVERAGE ABOUT 10 YEARS.
WITH OUR WEATHER I HATE SAYING IT'S A LITTLE BIT SHORTER.
THE WEAR AND TEAR WITH OUR WEATHER IS VERY HARD ON THESE MACHINES.
THE STRATAS ARE A LOT BETTER ENCLOSED.
THEY'RE MADE FOR THIS TYPE OF WEATHER.
>> THAT'S WHY WE'VE NEVER REALLY DEPLOYED THESE ON THE SEA WALL, BECAUSE THEIR ELEMENTS ARE REALLY ROUGH ON THESE THINGS.
>> MAYBE THE NEXT TIME THIS COMES AROUND THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEM.
MAYBE EVERYBODY WILL BE USED TO PAY BY PHONE, WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THEM AND NOT HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEM AGAIN.
THAT'S A MATTER OF WAITING FOR THAT TO HAPPEN, I GUESS.
>> WE DON'T. ON THE SEA WALL, IT'S JUST PAY BY?
>> WE STARTED OUT WITH CONCERNS THAT PEOPLE WANTED THE KIOSK UP THERE.
IT'S WORKED OUT NOW THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE TO PAY BY PHONE.
I THINK DOWNTOWN WOULD BE THE SAME.
>> WELL, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT CLIENTELE DOWNTOWN AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT PEOPLE DO USE THE KIOSKS.
>> THEY DO, BUT I KNOW THE USE OF THEM HAS BEEN DROPPING.
SEE WHEN WE FIRST PUT THEM IN, THEY WERE USED A LOT.
I THINK IT'S BEEN DROPPING CONSTANTLY ON THOSE.
>> I CAN DO SOME RESEARCH. I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL USAGE OF THEM. I KNOW THAT IT IS.
IT'S STILL LEVEL. IT HASN'T DROPPED TO MY KNOWLEDGE IN THE BETTER IN FIVE YEARS.
IT'S STILL MAINTAINED THAT CONSTANT BASE.
>> IT'S NEVER BEEN. IT'S PROBABLY 20% OF THE USAGE OF THE SYSTEM DOWNTOWN, BUT IT'S PRETTY MUCH STAYED AT 20%.
I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA, BUT THAT'S JUST MY LOOKING AT THEM.
>> NO. I THINK YOU CONVINCED ME THAT THOSE THINGS ARE WORTH KEEPING THERE FOR NOW, AND IN THE FUTURE THEY MAY GO AWAY.
IF YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE, MA'AM.
>> GOOD MORNING. CHIU DANI, FINANCE DIRECTOR.
I JUST WANTED WE KEEP DOING A LOT OF AMENDMENTS FOR LAST YEAR'S BUDGET AND I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHERE THIS LEAVES US.
>> THIS IS THE FINAL AMENDMENT.
IT'S ACTUALLY THE THIRD AMENDMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 24.
IT'S IN ADVANCE OF THE AUDIT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR EXPENDITURES ALIGN WITH WHAT COUNSEL HAS APPROVED SO THAT ALL OF OUR EXPENDITURES HAPPEN AT THE LEGAL LEVEL OF AUTHORITY.
ALL OF THESE ITEMS WERE INCLUDED IN THE FOURTH QUARTER REPORT THAT WE PRESENTED TO COUNSEL LAST MONTH.
BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMEND.
>> NO. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THIS CHANGED THAT ALL WHERE WE ENDED UP AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
>> IN THE PACKET, THERE IS THREE ATTACHMENTS REGARDING THE GENERAL FUND SPECIFICALLY.
THE ONLY INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND IS RELATED TO FISCAL YEAR '22 AND '23 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES THAT CARRIED OVER, AND COUNSEL APPROVED THOSE WITH BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 WHICH OCCUR I WANT TO SAY, LAST FEBRUARY.
THIS AMENDMENT IS MORE OF A CLEANUP.
THERE ARE SOME DEPARTMENTS THAT HAD INCREASES AND WE ACCORDINGLY HAD DECREASES IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS SO THAT THE EXPENDITURE RELATED CHANGES IN THE GENERAL FUND NET TO ZERO.
>> THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU GATES AS THE REPORT BEFORE, SO IT'S HARD SOMETIMES CHALLENGING TO GO HARD READING NUMBERS FOR.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, I KNOW THE BUDGET WAS CUT AND I KNOW SOME COUNSEL MEMBERS TALKED ABOUT MAYBE GOING TO A PRIVATE FOR THE TRASH PICKUP.
WHERE IN HERE WOULD THESE NUMBERS CHANGE, BECAUSE WE GAVE A RAISE AND WE HAD TO INCREASE.
>> SANITATION OR RAISE FOR THAT.
WHAT DEPARTMENT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING PRIVATIZING AND HOW WOULD THAT RELATE TO THE BUDGET NUMBERS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'LL BE IN THE SANITATION BUDGET.
>> IT WOULD THAT WE MADE THOSE CHANGES AND WE HAD THOSE DISCUSSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR '25 AND THIS IS STILL RELATED TO FISCAL YEAR 24.
THESE CHANGES ONLY APPLY TO ACTIVITIES THAT OCCURRED BEFORE SEPTEMBER 30 AND ARE NOT RELATED TO THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS WE HAD FOR THIS OCCUR.
>> YOUR FIRST QUARTER BUDGET AMENDMENT WILL SHOW HOW WE'VE PROGRESSED THERE.
>> I KNOW, BUT AS WE MOVE ALONG BUDGET WISE WE CUT THIS TIME AND IT'S GOING TO COME
[02:35:04]
AROUND AGAIN IN TEXAS AT SOME POINT OR OTHER.>> ALL THE FIRST QUARTER REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR '25 WILL PROBABLY BE AVAILABLE IN MARCH.
FEBRUARY, MARCH WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
IN THAT REPORT WE'LL PROBABLY REVIEW HOW THE ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET BOTH THE DECREASES IN VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, AS WELL AS WHATEVER HAS OCCURRED IN THE FIRST QUARTER HOW IT PLAYS OUT AND WHERE WE'RE AT YEAR TO DATE AS FAR AS THAT.
>> YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE HOW SOME OF THE ACTIONS THAT WE'VE TAKEN IN TERMS OF HIRING FREEZES AND SERVICE CHANGES HAVE IMPACTED THE BUDGET, AND IF WE'RE AHEAD OR BEHIND AND ALL THAT WHEN WE DO THAT QUARTERLY FOR YOU.
>> THUS FAR, WE WILL PROBABLY KEEP THEM FREEZE ON HIRING.
>> PROBABLY THROUGH THE FIRST QUARTER. YES, MA'AM.
WE PROBABLY NEED TWO QUARTERS BEFORE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE MAKING THOSE CHANGES IF WE HAVE TO, WHETHER WE HAVE TO GO FURTHER OR WHETHER WE CAN RELAX.
>> FOUR PICKING THEM UP WHEN THERE'S STORMS AND DIES.
>> YOU WANTED TO KNOW WHAT YOUR PLAN WAS FOR SECURING THEM IN OR REMOVING THEM?
>> MY PLAN TO SECURE AND REMOVE.
WE WE GROUP THEM TOGETHER DOWN THERE FOR USE.
THEN WE HAVE A WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH OUR VENDOR TO REMOVE THEM.
IF THEY DO NOT REMOVE THEM WITHIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, WE REMOVE THEM AND MOVE THEM TO MINARD PARK AND SECURE THEM UP THERE.
>> WHY WOULDN'T WE COVER THIS OUT OF HOT TAX?
>> WELL, THESE ARE PAID FOR OUT OF USER FEES FOR PARTICULAR PARKS.
THERE'S NO GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE.
>> I MEAN, COULD YOU USE HOT FORD? YEAH. BUT WE HAVE USER FEES FROM THOSE PARKS AND MONEY HAS TO BE SPENT TO PROVIDE SERVICES ON THE BEACH.
>> THIS WILL BE OUR FIRST A GOOD.
>> YOU CAN USE HOT TAX FOR DUNES TOO, SO EITHER ONE.
>> THIS WILL BE OUR FIRST YEAR OF OPENING UP POCKET PARK THREE.
>> HOPE HOPEFULLY WE'LL GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE IN THESE FUNDS.
POCKET PARK THREE ORIGINALLY, WHEN THE COUNTY DID IT WAS BUILT FROM REVENUES GENERATED THROUGH POCKET PARK ONE AND TWO.
HOPEFULLY THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CASE HERE AS WELL.
>> I READ THE REPORT SO WHAT [INAUDIBLE]?
>> RIGHT NOW, THE CITY HAS A CASHIERING SOLUTION THAT THEY USE THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE BANNER SYSTEM, THAT WILL BE GOING AWAY WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WORK DAYS.
THIS IS A CASHIERING SOLUTION TO SUPPORT CITY OPERATION.
>.> WHICH IS PRIMARILY IN THE WATER DEPARTMENT, I BELIEVE.
>> IT'S ALL OVER. I MEAN, IT'S PRIMARILY HERE, BUT YOU HAVE CASHIERING OPTIONS OVER AT PUBLIC WORKS, YOU HAVE THEM AT POLICE.
I MEAN, ALMOST ALL OF OUR FACILITIES HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE.
>>THIS IS GOING TO UNIFY ALL THE COLLECTION AS FAR AS THAT WOULD COME THROUGH CASHIER?
>> IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM.
>> IT CURRENTLY DOES IT'S PRETTY ROBUST SYSTEM, AS I RECALL THE DISCUSSIONS.
>>INTERFACE BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS.
>> THE CURRENT CASHIERING SOLUTION IS INTEGRATED WITH OUR CURRENT SYSTEM.
WORK DAY DOESN'T OFFER A CASHIERING SYSTEM SO, WE KNEW WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS. OKAY.
>> THE WORK DAY TIES INTO THE NEXT ITEM TO 11 R.
>> 11 R IS GREAT NEWS FOR LIVE ONE PHASE FOR DAY ONE HR.
HR PAYROLL WENT LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF DECEMBER.
WE JUST PROCESS OUR SECOND PAYROLL.
AND SO WHAT THIS IS WHAT THE NEXT ONE IS IS IS POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT FROM THE IMPLEMENTER WHO HAS HELPED US IMPLEMENT THE SYSTEM SO,
[02:40:04]
IT'S TIME AND MATERIALS ON ON A TIME AND MATERIALS BASIS.>> AND HOW DOES THIS ALL TIE IN WITH [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE]?
>> WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR SECOND PHASE.
WE KICKED OFF THE FINANCE SYSTEM PROJECT WAS KICKED OFF IN NOVEMBER, AND WE EXPECT THAT PORTION OF THE SYSTEM TO BE ONLINE IN OCTOBER.
>> HOW IS THE WHOLE GENERAL RP PROCESS COMING?
>> IT'S GONE WELL. SO WE CAME IN ABOUT $65,000 UNDER BUDGET FOR PHASE ONE.
WE'LL BE MOVING THAT OVER TO PHASE TWO, AND IT WAS IMPLEMENTED ON TIME.
SO I BELIEVE THAT, YOU KNOW, SO FAR, IT IS PHASE ONE AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HCM AND PAYROLL HAS GONE JUST VERY WELL.
>> COUNSEL, I WANT TO MENTION WE'VE GOT AROUND NOON.
WE'LL BE BREAKING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.
>> OKAY. NEXT ONE WILL BE FOR MIKE 11.
>> I KNOW IN ALL THE DISCUSSIONS AT LEASES AND WHATNOT, ARE WE TAKING THE INPUT FROM CURRENT HANGAR OWNERS AND SO FORTH AS WE ADDRESSED IT?
>> WELL, THIS POLICY DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT THE CURRENT HANGER OWNERS, BUT WE'VE DEFINITELY TAKEN A LOT OF INPUT FOR PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO BUILD HANGERS.
THE PRIMARY REASON NO ONE IN THE PAST HAS SIGNED A LEASE WITH US IS BECAUSE OF THE TRANSFER FEE. THAT'S BEEN REMOVED.
>> TRANSFER FEE AND THEN ALSO THE YEARS OF LEASE.
>> WELL, THOSE REALLY HAVE REMAINED THE SAME.
THE MAXIMUM WE CAN DO BY STATE LAW IS 50 YEARS.
WE STILL HAVE IN ESSENCE, AT 20,30 AND 40 YEAR LEASE, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF DEVELOPMENT.
WE CHANGED IT A LITTLE BIT INSTEAD OF JUST STRAIGHT 20, 30 AND 40.
IT'S EVERYBODY GETS A 20 YEAR LEASE, AND THEN YOU HAVE ONE OR TWO YEAR EXTENSIONS.
AND THAT'S MAINLY DONE TO MAKE SURE TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE MAINTAINING THEIR HANGERS IS A USERS OF [OVERLAPPING].
>> A LEASE, THAT'S A 20 YEAR THAT HAS EXTENSIONS THAT GOES TO THE TRANSFER WELL, THE TRANS I'M SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN?
TERMINAL AND THEY HAVE THEY'VE GOTTEN RID OF THEIR PLANE AND SOMEONE WANTS TO TAKE OVER THEIR LEASE HOW DOES [INAUDIBLE]
>> OKAY. THEN IT'S JUST A TRANSFER.
LEASE THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE IT, AND IT'S JUST TRANSFERRING THE LEASE FROM ONE OTHER TO THE OTHER.
>> 20 YEAR, TWO EXTENSIONS WITH TRANSFER
>> THE WHOLE LEASE TRANSFERS OVER WHATEVER THE TERMS ARE.
YOU CAN'T YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T YOU DON'T GET A NEW 50 YEARS, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE OPTION OF WHATEVER RENEWALS ARE LEFT.
>> I GET THAT IT WAS SOMEONE WHO WAS IN THEIR LAST EXTENSION.
COULD SOMEONE NEGOTIATE A LONGER LEASE ON THAT?
IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME, LOOK GRANT AN LEASE.
BUT THE WAY THE LEASES ARE WRITTEN AND IT'S PRETTY MUCH 90 PERCENT, 95 PERCENT OF ALL AIRPORTS HAVE IT THAT THE IMPROVEMENT REVERTS TO THE AIRPORT.
IT'S WHY THE GRAND LEASES ARE AS LOW AS THEY ARE.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT WOULD BE 11 V.
>> WHY DO WE NEED TASERS FOR MARSHALS?
>> USE OF FORCE CONTINUUM WITH THE DEPUTIES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF OUR DIVISION, WE DO NOT HAVE A INTERMEDIATE WEAPON.
IF WE GO OUT ON THE SCENE OR ASSIST SOMEBODY GPD, OTHER AGENCIES, WE HAVE OUR HANDS AND WE HAVE A FIREARM, WE DO NOT HAVE AN INTERMEDIATE WEAPON, WHICH WE CAN UTILIZE A LOT QUICKER THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
>> THEY TYPICALLY DON'T REQUIRE THIS TYPE OF STUFF.
MOST OF WHAT THEY DO IS CIVIL IN NATURE, BUT THEY DO GET PLACED IN LAW ENFORCEMENT POSITION SOMETIMES AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD WANT TO AVAIL THEM OF SOMETHING LESS ILLEGAL
[02:45:01]
>> ORDINANCE FOLLOW UP OR WHATNOT.
I MEAN, IF I NEVER UNDERSTOOD MARSHALL'S HEAVY GUN TO BE IS THIS SOMETHING MAYBE WHERE WE SHOULD REPLACE GUNS WITH TASERS? I MEAN, BECAUSE I'VE HAD A LOT OF CONTRACTORS COMMENT TO ME ABOUT A MARSHAL COMING UP WITH A GUN ON.
YOU KNOW, DO THEY NEED TO BE ARMED AS WELL? PERHAPS WE SHOULD GO FROM GUNS TO TASERS?
>> YOU CAN'T DO THAT TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL.
YOU'RE PUTTING THEM IN GRAVE DANGER IF YOU DO THAT.
I MEAN, THEY'RE STOP THEY'RE MAKING TRAFFIC STOPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AS PART OF THEIR JOB AND THEIR ROUTINE.
>> JUST OUR TRAFFIC GUYS. WAR GUNS?
>> JUST THE LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL, YES.
NOW THIS ISN'T FOR YOUR CODE ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE.
THIS ISN'T FOR YOUR BUILDING INSPECTORS.
THIS IS JUST FOR THE FEW LAW ENFORCEMENT GUYS THAT WE HAVE IN THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.
YOU PARKING ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE, NONE OF THEM ARE CARRYING TASERS OR GUNS OR ANYTHING.
>> WHERE'S THIS MONEY COMING OUT OF?
>> IT'S COMING OUT OF THE WITH OUR GENERAL FUND.
>> I COMES OUT OF THEIR BUDGET.
>> WE ARE HIRING FREEZES AND [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE HAVE TO DO THAT FOR PD TWO.
>> I BELIEVE THEY AND THEY THEY'RE FULFILLING A MISSION THAT PD NO LONGER FULFILLS.
IF YOU WANT TO TRANSFER THAT MISSION BACK TO PD WITH THEIR LIMITED NUMBER OF OFFICERS THAT WE CAN'T FILL THE POSITIONS, I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING THIS.
THIS IS A FORCE EXTENDER FOR PD.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S BEEN ALL ALONG.
>> I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT? YES, MA'AM.
>> JUST EXPLAIN AGAIN TO ME THE LAYOUT OF THE MARSHALL OFFICE, AND I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THESE TASERS ARE NOT FOR EVERYONE.
>> HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH AND AT WHAT POINT THERE A LINE DRAWN WHERE THE OFFICER WITH THE TASER ONLY DOES CERTAIN THINGS AND THE ONES WITH ME BRING SOME CLARITY.
>> WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION, WE HAVE A LOT MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO ACT.
WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY.
SO WHEN WE GO TO A SCENE DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS, OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE IS THAT.
COMPARED TO A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS ONLY A CIVILIAN.
THERE'S CIVILIAN GUYS THAT ARE INSPECTORS.
THEY GO OUT AND INSPECT FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS.
THE DEPUTIES WILL DO TRAFFIC STOPS, WARRANTS, IT'S DIVERSIFIED.
SO WE DO A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST STRICTLY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PART OF IT.
IT'S MORE IN DEPTH FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT GUYS THAN IT IS OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT VS.
>> FOR INSTANCE, WE GET A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT HOMELESS.
SOMETIMES PD, THAT'S IT'S PRIORITY FOR AS BEST IT CAN FOR PD, BUT A LOT OF TIMES THE MARSHALS HANDLE THOSE HOMELESS CALLS.
SENDING SOMEBODY OUT THERE, WE SEND A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL.
WE DON'T SEND A CODE ENFORCEMENT GUY THAT'S GOING TO GET ASSAULTED BY SOME PERSON THAT MAY BE UPSET THAT WE'RE MOVING THEM ON.
WE JUST WANT TO GIVE THEM A LESS AND LETHAL OPTION. THAT'S ALL.
.. WE GET A BREAKDOWN OF THE PERCENTAGE OF THOSE CALLS?
ON THE NEED FOR THESE BECAUSE IF IF I WE KNOW THAT STATISTICALLY, PEOPLE WHO ARE PRETTY MUCH HOMELESS HAVE SOME OTHER ISSUES.
>> AS WELL SO, I DON'T KNOW IF A TASER GUN, I WAS SEE A TASER GUN THAT WOULD CALM ME DOWN OR MAKE ME RESPECT THE SITUATION MORE.
SO HOW MANY OF THESE ARE THEY? SEVEN. SO THERE ARE SEVEN OFFICERS WHO WOULD HAVE THIS?
>> AND THOSE OFFICERS WILL GO TO SPECIAL CALLS, NOT CODE ENFORCEMENT, NOT PARKING ENFORCEMENT, ANY OF THOSE OTHER.
>> WELL, WE HAVE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL TO HANDLE ALL THOSE THINGS.
IF WE GET BACKLOG, THESE GUYS THEY BACK THEM UP.
THEY GO OUT AND IF THERE'S A CALL AND AND THERE'S A HIGH GRASS COMPLAINT, WE HAVE AN OFFICER IN THE AREA, THEY GO HANDLE A HIGH GRASS COMPLAINT.
WE DON'T WAIT FOR A CIVILIAN OFFICER TO GO TAKE CARE OF A CITIZENS COMPLAINT.
WHETHER THEY'RE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR NOT HANDLING A CIVIL ISSUE IS NOT THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS THAT, I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, NOW, OUR MARSHALS ARE HANDLING ANIMAL CRUELTY INVESTIGATIONS.
THOSE CAN BECOME VERY VOLATILE.
SO WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST TO MAKE SURE WE GIVE THESE GUYS AN OPTION.
THIS IS STANDARD ACROSS LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND YOU KNOW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IT'S I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE SOMEBODY, NO.
WE DON'T USE A TASER TO CALM HOMELESS PEOPLE, BUT IF A HOMELESS PERSON IS ATTACKING SOMEBODY, WE WOULD MUCH RATHER USE A LESS AND LETHAL METHOD TO STOP THEM FROM ATTACKING THEM THAN TRYING TO HIT THEM WITH A CLUB OR SHOOT THEM WITH A GUN.
[02:50:01]
>> I MEAN, THE CHIEF POLICE COULD SPEAK EASILY TO THE VALUE OF THE MARSHAL SERVICE TO THEM, BUT THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY.
>> BRIAN, HELP ME WITH WHAT IS THE ACTUAL MISSION OF THE CITY MARSHAL?
>> I MEAN, IS THERE TO HANDLE THE CIVIL AND CIVIL ACTIONS AND HANDLE THE NON LAW ENFORCEMENT ISSUES PRIMARILY THAT PD USED TO HANDLE.
THEY HANDLE RECORD INSPECTIONS, TAXI INSPECTIONS, THEY HANDLE THEY'RE NOW HANDLING ANIMAL CONTROL.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE HANDLING THEY ALSO HANDLE GOLF CART ENFORCEMENT.
A ABANDONED CARS TO HAVE THEM TOWED, WHICH WAS THE MAIN DRIVING FORCE BEHIND ALL THIS.
AND IF YOU DON'T THINK THOSE SITUATIONS BECOME ISSUES WHERE LAW ENFORCEMENT GETS INVOLVED, TRY TO ON SOMEBODY'S CAR.
THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY LAW ENFORCEMENT SIDES OF IT.
BEYOND THAT, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SIDE OF IT JUST TRANSFERRED OVER FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE IT MADE SENSE TO INTEGRATE THEM TOGETHER AND IT GAVE US A WIDER FOOTPRINT TO DO THAT.
PARKING ENFORCEMENT? SAME THING.
>> I MEAN, I GUESS JUST THE INITIAL PRESENTATION OF OUR MARSHALS LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO A SWAT CALL.
I MEAN, THEY HAVE INITIALLY, I THOUGHT IT CAME JUST CAME TO FRUITION BECAUSE OF PARKING COMPLIANCE.
INITIALLY. AGAIN, I'M DUMB ON THE SITUATION.
I COULD LEARN A LOT MORE, I GUESS I NEED TO BUT INITIALLY, I THOUGHT IT WAS PARKING WHEN MICHAEL GRAY TOOK IT OVER, THAT WAS THE MAIN INITIATIVE FOR THE CITY MARSHAL'S OFFICE.
AND THEN I UNDERSTAND THAT IT EVOLVED INTO ALSO DOING CODE COMPLIANCE AND COMPLIANCE ISSUES.
BUT THE OVERLAP NOW SEEMS THAT IT'S TAKING OVER WHAT OUR TAXPAYERS FUND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR.
>> THEY DO IT AT ABOUT HALF THE COST OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
>> AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING I'LL HAVE TO LEARN MORE OF.
BUT TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY WOULD BE MORE LIAISONS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE VISITING GALVESTON, MORE EDUCATORS, THE ABILITY TO PRESENT THEMSELVES AS SOMEONE TO GET TO KNOW GALVESTON, TO KNOW OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS.
>> THEIR NUMBER 1 GOAL IS COMPLIANCE.
THEY DON'T TICKET ON THE FIRST.
NICK CAN GO THROUGH ALL THIS WITH YOU.
>> I CAN RUN DOWN THE WHOLE LIST OF PEOPLE YOU WOULD LIKE TO MEET.
NOW I'LL DEFINITELY APTLY GO OVER EVERYTHING.
YOU KNOW HOW OUR PROCEDURES ARE, AND GIVE YOU THE IN DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
YOU COULD RIDE AROUND WITH ME.
MAYBE A DAY YOU CAN TAKE A RIDE AND [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T MIND DOING THAT AT ALL.
>> IF WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT, I'M ALL [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, I THINK THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A SEVERE MISUNDERSTANDING OUT THERE AS TO WHAT THE MARSHALS ARE.
>> ALSO PUBLIC SENTIMENT. YOU AND I HAVE TALKED.
WE HAVE A PUBLIC DEFINITION OF THE CITY MARSHAL, AND IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD DEFINITELY IMPROVE ON.
>> THE FUNNY THING IS SO MANY CITIES HAVE REPLICATED WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.
IT'S PRETTY AMAZING TO ME THAT THEY'VE DONE THAT.
>> WELL, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT AS GOING TO SAY THAT WE DON'T NEED IT.
>> IT'S A HUGE FORCE EXTENDER FOR OUR PD2 BECAUSE IT TOOK ALL THOSE CIVIL FUNCTIONS OUT OF PD THAT THEY WERE TYING UP POLICE OFFICERS WITH.
YOU WOULD LOSE A POLICE OFFICER, A MOTORCYCLE OFFICER, HALF A DAY WAITING FOR A CAR TO BE TOWED.
IT'S JUST CRAZY. THESE GUYS BEING NOT CIVIL SERVANTS AND THINGS, WE DO IT AT SUCH A DECREASED COST.
>> MY NEXT ITEM IS [NOISE] [INAUDIBLE] UTILIZATION.
>> YES, MA'AM. I MENTIONED THAT AT THE BEGINNING.
>> MY NEXT ONE IS 11AA, AND MY QUESTION IS SIMPLE.
WE WERE INITIALLY DOING AN AMOUNT OF A MATCH TO THIS AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET COVERED BY TRANSPORTATION POLICY CREDIT.
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOUR WHOLE QUESTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] SMART TRANSPORTATION SMART GRANTS.
WE WERE ORIGINALLY HAVING TO DO A MATCH AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET THAT COVERED BY TRANSPORTATION CREDITS.
>> THIS GRANT IS THE SMART GRANT, AND WE HAVE NO MATCH REQUIREMENT ON THIS.
WE'RE NOT HAVING ANY MATCH ON THE INITIAL STAGE 1 OF THIS GRANT.
>> THERE WAS PART OF THIS MAR GRANT THAT WE WERE ABLE TO.
IF YOU COULD JUST SEND ME THAT AMOUNT,
[02:55:01]
BECAUSE IT'S OFF THE AGENDA.>> NO, MY QUESTION LIES ON THE OTHER.
>> SHE'S TALKING ABOUT AN ITEM, IT'S NOT ON [INAUDIBLE]
>> I THINK IT'S REGARDING THE SIGNALIZATION.
THIS IS THE ONE ON THE MAINTENANCE ON THE [INAUDIBLE] GREAT BANK.
CAN YOU PROVIDE FOR DETAIL ON THAT?
>> ROBERT WINNIE, DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING, WE CAME TO YOU LAST YEAR FOR THE FIRST PAYMENT ON THIS FOR THE CITY.
AT THAT TIME, IT WAS A THREE-PARTY SHARE BETWEEN THE CITY, GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY, AND THE [INAUDIBLE] BOARD.
WE WENT AHEAD AND SUBMITTED THE BILLS TO THE [INAUDIBLE] BOARD AND TO GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY.
WE GOT RESPONSE BACK FROM GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY SAYING, YOU DON'T HAVE ASSETS ON THE BRIDGE.
YOU GUYS JUST AGREED TO NEW WATER CONTRACT WITH US LAST MONTH.
WE CAN PAY IT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TURN AROUND AND SEND YOU GUYS A BILL AND YOU'RE GOING TO PAY IT EITHER WAY.
TALK WITH MANAGEMENT, DECIDED IT WAS PROBABLY BEST FOR US JUST GO AHEAD AND TAKE CARE OF THAT NEEDS.
>> IT'S OUR LINE ON THE BRIDGE.
>> THEN WE'RE WORKING WITH THE ENTITIES TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A REVISION TO THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE.
>> ON 11KK, MY QUESTION IS, WERE YOU [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE SUPER COVERS, I BELIEVE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SHARON. VERY GOOD.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS FOR THE PUBLIC.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHERE WE STAND ON THIS.
IT'S JUST MINOR THING, BUT WE'RE SAYING WE NEED TO HAVE 100 AUDITS.
WE'VE DIRECTED OUR AUDITOR AT BUT NOT TO GO OVER $60,000.
THAT MEANS THE WAY THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL AUDITS ARE $600.
IF HE DOES 100 AUDITS OF THOSE, THAT'S GOING TO BE THE 60,000.
IF WE DO HOTELS, WE WON'T MEET THE 100 AUDITS REQUESTS.
I GUESS THE AUDITOR UNDERSTANDS. GO AHEAD.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION ON [INAUDIBLE] I THOUGHT WE WERE REQUESTING MORE FUNDS TO COVER THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE CERTAINLY CAN. GLEN OR DAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE TO ANSWER THAT, I'M NOT THAT UP TO SPEED ON IT.
>> NO, I'LL GET GLEN, HE'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THAT.
>> IN OUR AUDIT REPORT. I REMEMBER THAT WE DOUBLED THE AMOUNT OF AUDITS FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS 50:100 OR 100:200.
>> I THINK THIS HAD MORE TO DO WITH THE REIMBURSEMENT THAN YOUR REIMBURSEMENT.
IT'S REIMBURSEMENT FROM THE PARK, AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE LIMITED TO 60,000.
>> WE HAVE REQUESTED MORE FUNDS TO COVER THE AUDIT.
>> THE FUNDINGS COME [OVERLAPPING]
>> RECENTLY WE DID TALK ABOUT.
WE TALKED ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S NOT WHAT ON THIS ITEM.
REALLY, WE HAVE A CONTRACT TO CONDUCT [INAUDIBLE] UP TO 100 OF THEM FOR THE PARK BOARD, AND THAT'S THE FUNDING THAT THE PARK BOARD'S GUARANTEEING BACK TO THE CITY TO COVER THOSE COSTS.
THEN WILL SPEND MORE ON SOME, LESS ON OTHERS, ON THE AVERAGE IS WHERE HE COMES OUT TO.
>> WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT HE WON'T BE ABLE TO DO [INAUDIBLE]
>> IF HE CAN PHYSICALLY DO MORE, THEN HE CAN COME BACK AND ASK FOR MORE MONEY FROM THE PARK BOARD TO DO IT.
IT'S NOT A GENERAL FUNDING TO THAT. WE WOULD JUST GO BACK.
>> BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO THE PARK BOARD, NOT US.
[03:00:05]
>> 1100. CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE BUY BOARD CONTRACT FROM BORTEX SERVICES PURCHASE OF ADEN SECURED AND PLACE SANITARY SEWER LINE IN THE AMOUNT OF 17,967.
I ACTUALLY GAINED KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE TWO OF THESE TRUCKS, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, OR ONE TRUCK ACTUALLY THAT USES SPECIFICALLY THAT BORTEX MATERIAL.
THEN THERE WAS A SEPARATE TRUCK THAT I THINK DOES SOMETHING SIMILAR AS FAR AS ACTUALLY BLOWS OR HAS A BUBBLE AT THE END AND BLOWS OUT.
>> I HAVE A BACK TRUCK, WE HAVE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THIS IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
>> I KNOW THIS IS A LINER TRUCK.
WHAT IS IT THAT WE CAN DO TO ACTUALLY KEEP, BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT THIS TRUCK WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO UTILIZE PRETTY MUCH CONSTANTLY.
IS THERE SOMETHING IN OUR BUDGET THAT WE KEEP THESE MATERIALS, AS FAR AS BEING SUPPLIED IN A CYCLE OF TERMS, OR IS IT JUST AS WE NEED THEM, BECAUSE I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED THESE IN STOCK AND AVAILABLE.
>> I'M NOT 100% SURE AS FAR AS REPLENISHING THE STOCK WE HAVE ON A REGULAR BASIS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS FOR TO REPLENISH WHAT WE HAD ALREADY USED.
I THINK IT WAS A STARTING, SO HAVING THIS CAPABILITY.
I THINK WE WANTED TO SEE HOW IT WENT, LEARN, GO FROM THAT.
>> IT'S ABOUT A TWO-DAY TURNAROUND TO GET THE MATERIALS, SO WE CAN GET IT PRETTY QUICK.
WHAT CATCHES US ON THE AGENDA IS OUR LIMIT'S $15,000.
>> THIS IS THAT PLASTIC MATERIAL THAT LINES THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S A GOOD SYSTEM. IT'S WORKING OUT PRETTY WELL.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING AS FAR AS DEFINITELY WITH OUR ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THINGS BECAUSE IF WE GET BEHIND, THAT THIS WOULD REALLY SPEED SOME THINGS UP.
>> WE'RE ONE OF THE ONLY CITIES DOING THIS IN HOUSE.
MOST OF THEM HE IS A CONTRACTOR.
>> DO WE HAVE A SPECIALTY DRIVER OR SOMEONE THAT ACTUALLY OPERATES THIS VEHICLE?
>> THE VEHICLE IS A TRUCK THAT'S GOT MANY DIFFERENT PIECES OF EQUIPMENT IN THE BAG.
IT'S REALLY NOT ABOUT DRIVING THE VEHICLE, IT'S ABOUT OPERATING THE MACHINERY IN THE BACK OF IT, AND ALL OF OUR GUYS HAVE BEEN TRAINED ON HOW TO USE IT.
MAJORITY OF THEM. WE'VE GOT A SLEDGE FEW THAT WE WANT TO TRUST WITH DOING THAT.
>> IT'S UTILIZED WITH ME BEING OUT-DEVELOPED FROM EAST TO WEST I'D LOVE TO.
>> I WAS WONDERING, WHAT DOES REALLY CURED IN PLACE PIPE MEAN?
>> IT BASICALLY LOOKS LIKE A WET SOCK, AND THEY BLOW IT INTO THE PIPE AND IT TAKES THE SHAPE OF THE PIPE.
THEN IT CURES AFTER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN IT BASICALLY IS A NEW PIPE WITHIN A PIPE.
>> YOU CAN COAT THE CLAY PIPES OR OLDER PIPES THAT WE HAVE?
>> WE CALL IT TRENCHES REPLACEMENT, BUT IT'S A MODERN FORM OF SLIP LINING.
BUT IT DOES IT WITH A VERY THIN LEVEL SO YOU DON'T LOSE A LOT OF PIPE CAPACITY, WHICH YOU USED TO USE IN SLIP LINING, IF I COULD SAY IT CORRECTLY.
>> MOST CITIES USE CONTRACTORS FOR THIS.
WE WENT AHEAD AND STEPPED UP AND BOUGHT THE EQUIPMENT.
IT WAS ONE OF THINGS TRINA WANTED TO GET ACCOMPLISHED, AND WE'VE DONE IT.
WE'VE BEEN [INAUDIBLE] AROUND.
WE'VE USED IT IN A COUPLE OF SPOTS, I BELIEVE, SO FAR. IT'S WORKED REALLY WELL.
>> KEEP IT UNDER 15 AND KEEP IT IN STOCK.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO DO.
BUT IT'S MORE OF A LIMITATION.
THAT'S MORE OF A LIMITATION ON OUR PURCHASING LIMITS THAN IT IS ON ANYTHING ELSE.
>> VERY GOOD. ONE THING I WANT TO BRING, WE'RE HAVING C. COUNCIL, THAT'S ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND COPY FINANCE AUTHORITY.
THEY HAVE THE NOMINATION LISTED AS CODY WRIGHT, BUT THE LINE THAT SAYS, COUNCIL APPOINTS, THAT SHOULD BE CODY WRIGHT ALSO.
>> VERY GOOD. WE ARE NOW THROUGH OUR CLARIFICATION PROCESS.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS HERE.
LET ME READ THOSE FOR YOU. COMING UP.
[4. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
IT IS 12:13 P.M.WE'RE MOVING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THEN WE'LL COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS, AND WE'LL GO BACK INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA OF OUR WORKSHOP.
4A, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.076 [NOISE].
[03:05:06]
AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE THE INFORMATION RELATED TO THE DEPLOYMENT OR SPECIFIC OCCASIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATIONS OF SECURITY PERSONNEL OR DEVICES AT VARIOUS EVENTS HELD WITHIN THE CITY OF GALVESTON, 4B, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY.AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING PENDING LITIGATION AND/OR A SETTLEMENT OFFER ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING.
4B1, 21-CV-00359 SONIA PERETA VERSUS THE CITY OF GALVESTON ET AL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 21CV-00359.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> I JUST WANTED TO PUBLICLY STATE THE WAY THAT I WORKED THIS AGENDA ITEM WAS SO THAT IT DID NOT INCLUDE PERETA BEACH.
IT INCLUDED SPECIFIC CITIZENS SO THEY CALLED IN ON THIS.
THEN THEY GOT RELATED TO THE REST OF THIS, AND I JUST WANTED TO STATE THIS PUBLICLY.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I'M SURE I'LL UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO MAKE IT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE THAT I FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC.
>> CORRECT. WHEN I RECEIVED THAT BOW, I REFERRED THIS TO OUR CITY ATTORNEY THE WAY YOU LISTED YOUR ITEMS THERE.
CITY ATTORNEY RULED THAT THIS NEEDED TO BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION BECAUSE IT DID INVOLVE THE LAWSUIT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. I JUST SPECIFICALLY DID NOT NAME PERETA BEACH FOR A PURPOSE.
>> I HAVE A CONFLICT WITH 4B, SO I'M [INAUDIBLE]
>> WHAT I THOUGHT WE WOULD DO, BECAUSE WE HAVE A TIME CONSTRAINT ON THE ATTORNEY THAT'S GOING TO BE VISITING US HERE.
>> IT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.
>> CORRECT. WHAT WE COULD DO IS WE'LL START WITH THE PERETA BEACH ISSUE, AND THEN WE'LL CALL YOU BACK IN, ALEX, AS SOON AS WE FINISH WITH THIS.
>> LEAVING THE ROOM IS A DIFFERENT THING, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LEGAL OPINION STATED WHEN DON GOT IT FROM.
>> EXECUTIVE SESSION, I'M SORRY, BUT YOU'LL HAVE TO LEAVE.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT THE LEGAL OPINION SAID.
>> I'M SORRY, BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO LEAVE.
>> I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THE LEGAL OPINION, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAID.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT IN THE LEGAL OPINION [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING]
>> EXCUSE ME, JUST ONE SECOND. I NEED GUIDANCE.
WE'RE TELEVISING HERE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> WE'RE NOT IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION YET. WE'RE STILL ON.
>> ARE WE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THIS POINT?
>> WE ARE BROADCASTING, COUNCIL.
WE HAVE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WE'RE NOW BACK IN [NOISE] FOR OUR REGULAR SESSION WORKSHOP ITEMS. COULD WE GO TO 3.D, PLEASE, JANELLE.
[3.D. Discussion Of The City Of Galveston Comprehensive Plan Update - Steering Committee Composition (Milburn/Tietjens - 10 Min)]
>> 3.D, DISCUSSION OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, STEERING COMMITTEE COMPOSITION.
>> WE GOT A REPORT FROM PETE, I THINK, MILBURN THAT WAS GIVEN TO US THIS MORNING CONCERNING THIS ITEM.
BRIAN IS SOMEONE GOING TO ADDRESS THIS OR MAKE A PRESENTATION?
>> PETE HAS RECOMMENDED COUNCIL APPOINT TWO MEMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THEY WOULD HOPEFULLY COME FROM THE BACKGROUNDS HE'S LISTED.
PETE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY.
>> TIM, IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE CAMERA, PLEASE.
>> I'M TIM TIETJENS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
[03:10:01]
>> PETE MILBURN, PROJECT MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
>> VERY GOOD. WE ARE NOW ON THE AGENDA ITEM, GENTLEMEN, THAT INVOLVES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
WILL THIS BE PETE PRESENTING OR TIM?
>> LET ME JUST QUICKLY KICK IT OFF, IF YOU DON'T MIND, MAYOR.
BASICALLY, WE'RE RESPONDING TO WHAT YOU ALL HAD DIRECTED US TO DO AT THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS BASICALLY COME UP WITH INSTEAD OF ACTUAL PERSONS DESIGNATED, MORE LIKE CATEGORIES OR GENERAL BROAD AREAS TO SELECT FROM RATHER THAN ACTUAL INCUMBENTS, SO TO SPEAK.
PETE'S PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF WHAT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER FOR THOSE CATEGORIES.
I'LL LET YOU GO AHEAD AND TAKE IT, PETE.
>> THANK YOU. AS TIM MENTIONED, I INCLUDED IT IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE DOCUMENT THAT'S CIRCULATING.
THIS HAS ALSO BEEN UPLOADED TO THE CITY'S AGENDA FOR THOSE THAT ARE USING ELECTRONIC VERSIONS.
I'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND READ THROUGH THE BACKGROUND WHILE THAT'S CIRCULATING.
AT THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING OF DECEMBER 12TH, THE CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSED THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
THE COUNCIL REVIEWED A MEMO PROVIDED BY STAFF THAT OFFERED A LIST OF SEVERAL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD BE USED AS A GUIDELINE FOR SELECTING THE MEMBERS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
STAFF ALSO PROVIDED LISTS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEES OF THE PREVIOUS TWO COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, AND THOSE WERE FROM 2001 AND 2011.
IN THE SUMMARY, WE JUST INCLUDED SOME LANGUAGE THAT OFFER WHAT THE TASK IS OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
THOSE DUTIES WILL INCLUDE PROVIDING INPUT AND FEEDBACK ON EACH ELEMENT OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, INCLUDING PRELIMINARY PLAN, VISION, AND GOALS, GUIDING PRINCIPLES, BASE CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT AND STRATEGIES, ELEMENT POLICIES AND PRIORITY ACTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, STRATEGIES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
AT THE LAST MEETING, THE WORKSHOP, YOU GUYS AGREED TO A 14-MEMBER STEERING COMMITTEE, WITH EACH OF YOU SELECTING TWO MEMBERS, AND THE CATEGORIES THAT WE'RE OFFERING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ARE ARTS AND CULTURE, BUSINESS INDUSTRY, DESIGN ARCHITECTURE, DOWNTOWN, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT, ENVIRONMENT.
HISTORIC RESOURCES, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, REAL ESTATE, TOURISM, TRANSPORTATION, AND WEST END.
STAFF WOULD WANT TO HEAR HOW COUNCIL FEELS ABOUT THIS AND HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED.
>> BEFORE WE OPEN THAT, PETE, WHAT'S YOUR TIMELINE? ARE YOU THINKING WE'D HAVE THIS BACK ON OUR ACTION ITEM IN OUR FEBRUARY MEETING? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE THINKING?
>> YES, SIR. WHAT WE'RE ANTICIPATING IS TO HAVE A RESOLUTION PREPARED WHERE WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE OPEN BLANKS THAT WE WOULD FILL IN AS YOU GUYS SELECT FOLKS THAT YOU'RE INTERESTED IN.
EITHER WE COULD DO THAT IN ADVANCE OF THAT OR DURING A WORKSHOP NEXT MONTH AND THEN ACTION THAT EVENING.
THAT'S THE INTENTION BEHIND IT.
>> WE HAVE A FORM THAT OR MORE INFORMATION YOU WANT US TO HAVE, I WOULD SEND THAT TO COUNCIL BEFORE.
>> TO LET THEM KNOW, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE IT AS AN ACTION ITEM, AND THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
IF COUNCIL WANTED TO HAVE IT AS A SEPARATE WORKSHOP ITEM, I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE A NEED FOR THAT.
IT COULD BE UP TO COUNCIL MEMBERS.
BOB, DO YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> YEAH. AT THE LAST TIME I REVIEWED THIS, I WAS A LITTLE BIT DISTURBED, I GUESS, AT THE LIMIT OF THE [NOISE] 14-MEMBER COMMITTEE.
I UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S LIMITED TO 14-MEMBER COMMITTEE BECAUSE OF THE FEES FOR THE CONSULTANT.
THAT'S THE MOST COSTLY PART OF A THING LIKE THIS IS THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.
THE REASON I WAS CONCERNED IS BECAUSE THE LAST TIME WE DID THIS IN 2011, WE HAD SOMETHING LIKE 44 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THEN EACH OF THE 10 ELEMENTS HAD ITS OWN SUBCOMMITTEE THAT REPORTED UP TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE, AND THERE WAS PROBABLY 75 OR 80 TOTAL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN IT.
I THINK AT THAT TIME, WE HAD, BY DEFAULT, CRITICAL ISLAND INSTITUTIONS BY DEFAULT BEING ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
THAT MEANS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEND
[03:15:01]
THEIR VOTE ON GETTING THE CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS THERE AND THEY COULD POPULATE THE COMMITTEE WITH ORDINARY CITIZENS BECAUSE I SEE ON THIS LIST DOWN HERE OF ALL THESE CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS, BUT ONES THAT'S MISSING IS OUR RESIDENTS.JUST THE REGULAR PEOPLE FROM THE COMMUNITY NEED TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS.
I THINK WE NEED MORE REPRESENTATION IN ORDER TO CREATE THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT THE CITY HAS ALL OF OUR OTHER DOCUMENTS.
I TALKED TO CRAIG, MAYOR, ABOUT IT AND TIM ABOUT IT.
[NOISE] SINCE THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PART IS THE MOST COSTLY PART OF A THING LIKE THIS, WE CAN USE OUR LOCAL RESOURCES TO HANDLE THAT.
VISION GALVESTON'S JOB IS PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS OFFERING VISION GALVESTON'S SERVICES OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT TO ASAKURA ROBINSON AT NO COST.
THEY COULD COORDINATE WITH ASAKURA ROBINSON THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF WORK AND THEN ASSIGN THEM AS THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PART, AND THEY WOULD DO ALL THIS AT NO COST.
>> I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH VISION GALVESTON COMING IN TO TAKE OVER OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> THEY'RE NOT TAKING OVER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THEY'RE TAKING OVER THE SUGGESTION TO HAVE THEM RUN THE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PORTION.
>> I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK THE WHOLE INITIAL PART OF HOW THEY PROFESSED TO HAVE TALKED TO THE MOST PEOPLE ACROSS THE ISLAND, [NOISE] AND I ASKED THEM TO SIMPLY SUPPLY ME WITH THE ZIP CODES OF WHO THEY TALKED TO, NO OTHER INFORMATION, AND THEY WOULDN'T DO THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S VERY FEW PEOPLE THAT WERE TALKED TO IN AT LEAST 20 MILES OF THE ISLAND, IF NOT MORE, OR ELSE YOU WOULD HAVE GLADLY PROVIDED ZIP CODES.
I DON'T THINK THEY REPRESENT THE WHOLE ISLAND.
>> THEY WOULD BE WORKING AT THE DIRECTION OF ASAKURA ROBINSON.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO BRING IN OUTSIDE AGENTS.
>> TO GET MORE REPRESENTATION, BECAUSE WITH 14 PEOPLE, IT'S NOT ENOUGH.
>> HOW IS IT TO GET MORE REPRESENTATION? WE'RE GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO AN OUTSIDE AGENCY THAT WAS VERY LIMITED IN THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT THEY TALKED TO ACROSS THE ISLAND, THEY TARGETED ONLY CERTAIN ZIP CODES, AND NOW THAT'S GOING TO OPEN IT UP TO AN EVEN WIDER RANGE.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT PROJECT.
THIS IS NOT THAT PROJECT. THIS IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
>> WELL, ANYWAY, THE WHOLE POINT IS TO GET MORE REPRESENTATION IN ORDER TO HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT BETTER REPRESENTS THE CITIZEN FOR THE NEXT 5-10 YEARS, I GUESS.
>> WHY WOULDN'T WE OPEN IT UP THEN AND INCLUDE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WITH THE PUBLIC? YOU HAVE PEOPLE AT UTMB THAT PROBABLY COULD DO THIS AND MAY OFFER TO DO IT.
>> UTMB CAN'T DO THIS. IT'S NOT IN THEIR MISSION.
>> ANYWAY, YOU COULD HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM UTMB.
YOU COULD HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS A&M.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING THE MAJOR INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED.
PLUS WE COULD EACH APPOINT TWO PEOPLE.
BUT THERE AGAIN, GOING BACK TO EVERYTHING WE CREATE LATELY, MY DISTRICT IS 20 MILES LONG AND ANY COMMITTEE WE REPRESENT, I GET TWO.
YOU ALL ARE CONDENSED AND YOU GET EIGHT.
I ONLY GET TWO TO REPRESENT 20 MILES.
WE ALL HAVE THE SAME POPULATION.
>> SO YOU SHOULD GET THE SAME NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIVES?
>> IT'S 20 MILES AND I HAVE SECOND HOME RIGHT NOW.
>> DAVID, JUST LIKE YOU SAID WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS, IF YOU ADD THE THREE OF YOUR DISTRICTS TOGETHER, YOU HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT AS I DO.
NO, I HAVE HALF OF THEM, AND I ONLY GET ONE REPRESENTATIVE.
THERE IS AN INADEQUACY IN IT, AND I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH USING VISION GALVESTON.
>> BUT WHAT WE COULD DO IS, IF WE DECIDE TO GO THIS DIRECTION, I THINK TIM AND WE WOULD MEET WITH ASAKURA ROBINSON AND VISION GALVESTON AND WE WOULD REVIEW THEIR SCOPE OF WORK.
IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW THAT SCOPE OF WORK, THAT'S JUST FINE, AND WE CAN ADJUST IT HOWEVER YOU WANT.
>> WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS, BRIAN?
I THINK THIS IS A POLICY DECISION AS TO HOW YOU GUYS GATHER PUBLIC INFORMATION.
>> I THINK STAFF WILL WORK WITH EITHER WAY.
I WOULD SAY THIS, YOU GET BETTER INFORMATION WHEN YOU WORK WITH SMALLER GROUPS.
[03:20:02]
I WILL SAY THAT A 300-PERSON COMMITTEE IS NOT AS PRODUCTIVE AS A 30-PERSON COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF GETTING SPECIFIC ANSWERS.NOW, WHETHER THAT REPRESENTS EVERYBODY'S FEELINGS AND THOUGHTS, THAT DEPENDS ON THE MECHANISM BY POLICY THAT YOU GUYS IMPLEMENT.
>> THAT'S PART OF WHAT WE WOULD BE MEETING WITH THEM ABOUT, IS TO FIND EXACTLY WHAT THAT COMMITTEE IS.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 75 OR 80 PEOPLE.
WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO HAVE THAT KIND OF THING, BUT IT'S GOT TO BE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN.
>> ALEX HAD A HAND UP, AND THEN BEAU, AND THEN SHARON.
>> JUST FOR SOME CONTEXT SAKE FOR 2011, SOMEBODY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
WE WERE JUST COMING BACK AFTER IKE, WE HAD [NOISE] PROBLEMS WITH THE POPULATION.
WITH THAT BIGGER INVOLVEMENT, YOU HAVE A LOT MORE INVOLVEMENT FOR WHERE IS THE CITY GOING AFTER A GENERAL DISASTER LIKE IKE.
THIS ISN'T THAT. 2024 AND 2011 ARE LEAPS AND BOUNDS WHERE WE NEED TO BE.
AGAIN, WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE WORK THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS GROUP, ARE THEY PREPARED TO DO THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS?
BUT IT WAS FAIRLY LIMITED, AS WAS MENTIONED.
BUT IT'S ALSO LIMITED BY THE NOTION THAT BACK IN 2011 WHEN THE PLAN WENT THROUGH ITS PROCESS, IT SUSTAINED AND KEPT GOING ON AND ON AND EVENTUALLY GOT TO A POINT WHERE FOLKS SAID, LET'S JUST WRAP THIS UP, AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS COMPLETED THE WAY IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN.
THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE GIVEN THE NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT WERE ON THE COMMITTEE AND ALL THE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
BUT YOU MIGHT CONSIDER THIS WITH MAYBE TWO TIERS OF INPUT OR COMMITTEE, I SHOULD SAY.
ONE BEING THE OVERALL STEERING COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE BASICALLY THAT PRESENTS BACK TO YOU GUYS.
>> YES. SUBCOMMITTEES CAN BE OF WHATEVER [NOISE] DEPTH THEY NEED TO BE.
YOU'VE GOT A POINT THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW MAY NOT BE AS DEEP AS THE 2011 PLAN, PERHAPS IT SHOULD BE DEEPER.
BUT AGAIN, WE WERE DOING DIFFERENT THINGS IN THAT 2011 PLAN, INCLUDING CREATING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
WE WERE STEPPING INTO OTHER THINGS IN THIS REALM OF PLANNING THAT PERHAPS REQUIRED MORE OF THAT.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED HERE.
I'M SIMPLY SAYING THAT WHEN YOU GET A HUGE COMMITTEE LIKE THAT, IT DOES SLOW THINGS DOWN, THERE'S MORE BACK AND FORTH THAT LEADS TO OVERAGES, PERHAPS THAT OUR CONSULTANT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO IF WE HAVE TO CONTRACT THEM FURTHER, THAT KIND OF THING.
THAT WAS THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHY WE CAME UP WITH JUST A 14-MEMBER COMMITTEE TO BEGIN WITH.
>> I HAVE AN IDEA WITH YOUR 14-MEMBER COMMITTEE.
WE'RE EACH PICKING TWO FROM OUR DISTRICT THAT ARE IN THIS SUBSET.
WE COULD THEN HAVE A DISTRICT MEETING WHERE WE COULD GIVE INPUT ALONG WITH THE TWO REPRESENTATIVES THAT COULD TALK TO LARGER SECTIONS OF OUR DISTRICTS TO GET THEIR INPUT, AND THOSE TWO THAT REPRESENT THE DISTRICT COULD BRING THAT BACK.
>> LET ME TELL YOU HOW IT WORKED IN 2011 BECAUSE I WAS ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND I ALSO WAS THE CHAIR OF THE DISASTER PLANNING ELEMENT.
THE REASON I THOUGHT IT WORKED SO WELL THAT WAY IS BECAUSE EACH ONE OF THE 10 ELEMENTS IN THIS COMP PLAN HAD ITS OWN COMMITTEE TO FOCUS ON THAT ELEMENT.
IN FACT, THE DISASTER PLANNING WAS A BRAND NEW, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT ONE WHEN WE STARTED IN 2008.
THEY TOOK THEIR ANALYSIS AND FED THAT UP TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE, WHICH MADE THE DECISIONS ABOUT ALL OF THIS.
YOU SEPARATED THE HIGH-LEVEL STEERING COMMITTEE FROM THE WORKER BEES THAT DO EACH ELEMENT.
I THINK EACH ELEMENT REALLY DESERVES ITS OWN COMMITTEE.
IT'S THAT IMPORTANT. WE MAY PUT ON NEW ELEMENTS WE DON'T HAVE NOW, I DON'T KNOW.
>> WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO GET INTO RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY AS A MAJOR COMPONENT OF THIS.
>> WELL, WE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ANYHOW.
>> BUT CLEARLY, THIS GRANT REQUIRES IT.
>> IT OUGHT TO HAVE ITS OWN COMMITTEE IF WE HAVE A SEPARATE THING FOR THAT TO FOCUS ON.
[03:25:01]
WE CAN'T EXPECT 14 PEOPLE TO DO 10 OR 12 ELEMENTS IN GREAT DETAIL AT ALL.>> TIM, MY QUESTION IS, THE SUBCOMMITTEES YOU TALKED ABOUT, THE TWO LEVELS, WHO MAKES THE DECISION ON THE SUBCOMMITTEES? IS THAT YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE?
WE HADN'T NAILED THAT DOWN SPECIFICALLY AS TO YOU GUYS DOING THAT OR THE SUBCOMMITTEE EITHER WAY.
WE JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
MY THOUGHT PERSONALLY IS THAT YOU GUYS OUGHT TO HAVE A GREATER HAND IN IT [NOISE] THAN JUST LETTING THE STEERING COMMITTEE GO WHEREVER THEY'RE GOING TO GO.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS IN THIS CURRENT AGREEMENT, BUT THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S JUST 14 PEOPLE.
>> I'M SORRY. REAL QUICKLY, SO THAT'S WHERE YOUR CONCEPT WITH ANOTHER FIRM, WHOEVER, VISION GALVESTON OR WHOEVER, EXPANDING THE ABILITY OF THEM TO DO THAT WOULD MAKE SOME SENSE.
BUT IN THE END, WHEN YOU GET TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE MAKING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, IT JUST SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT TO DO IT WITH A SMALLER COMMITTEE.
>> YEAH. WELL, LIKE I SAID, THE NUMBER ON THAT COMMITTEE IS STILL IN FLUX, I GUESS, BUT THE IDEA WOULD BE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT LEVEL.
MORE WORK DONE AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE LEVEL AND THE DECISION-MAKING DONE UP AT THE STEERING COMMITTEE LEVEL, BUT IT REMAINS.
I STILL THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED BY DEFAULT SO WE CAN APPOINT CITIZENS TO BE PART OF ALL OF THIS.
OTHERWISE, CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
>> CRITICAL INSTITUTES, UTMB, TEXAS A&M, GHF, GEDP.
WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE LAST ONE TO SEE WHO THOSE CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS WERE BACK IN 2011 AND START THERE, I GUESS.
BUT I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT WE HAVE THAT GROUP PLUS CITIZENS.
CITIZENS NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT.
>> YES, I DID. WHEN WE HAVE THESE 14, NOW, AREN'T THEY STILL GOING TO INVOLVE THE CITIZENS BECAUSE THOSE TWO PEOPLE SAY DISTRICT 1, IN ORDER FOR THEM TO WORK THROUGH ARTS AND CULTURE OR WHATEVER, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO INVOLVE THE COMMUNITY?
>> OH, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S THE INTENT.
>> THEREFORE, THEN I THINK I HEAR YOU-ALL SAYING THE TWO PEOPLE HERE DESIGN OR GET A COMMITTEE UNDER THEM.
WHO WOULD HELP TO DO ARTS AND CULTURE IN THE COMMUNITY AND THEN BRINGING BACK TO HERE?
>> I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE THE TWO.
IT WOULD BE, LET'S SAY THERE'S ONE, ARTS AND CULTURAL AND THEN THE 14 I ASSUME WOULD PICK PEOPLE TO BE ON THAT COMMITTEE OUTSIDE OF THE TWO PROBABLY WITH ONE OF THE PERSON OF THE TWO OF THE CHAIR.
WHAT I WAS ASKING AND THEN YOU CAN HELP ME.
ARTS AND CULTURE, JUST SAY TWO, HOW MANY ARE HERE ALTOGETHER?
>> FOURTEEN, SO I HAVE TO PICK TWO OF THEM, RIGHT?
>> YOU JUST PICK TWO FOR THE TOTAL.
THE COMMITTEE THAT STEERS THE ENTIRE COMPREHENSIVE [OVERLAPPING]
>> SHARON THESE LISTS, THESE ARE JUST SUBJECT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT FROM THOSE.
>> THE SUGGESTED LIST HERE JUST TO GET AN IDEA, THEN THERE WILL BE TWO OF THESE.
>> RIGHT. THEN EACH OF THOSE WILL GO AND GET A SUBCOMMITTEE, AND WORK WITHIN THE COMMUNITY.
>> POSSIBLY, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH THAT.
>> RIGHT. EXACTLY. IN THAT CASE, IF IF I CHOSE TO SAY VISION GALVESTON, CAN YOU HELP US GET A SURVEY FOR ARTS AND CULTURE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY WITH THIS THEN THAT'S OKAY.
>> BUT IN ORDER FOR THAT TO BE PRACTICAL, YOU WOULD DO THAT WITH EVERY SINGLE.
>> BUT SEE, WOULD YOU HAVE TO? BECAUSE IF THIS IS THE DIRECTION THAT THEY'RE GOING AND THEY WANT TO BRING BACK THAT INFORMATION, CAN THEY SO NOT CHOOSE WHOEVER THEY'D LIKE TO TO HELP GATHER THAT INFORMATION? EVEN IF IT'S THE BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, IF IT'S EDUCATION, WHAT DO YOU OFFER? WHAT ARE YOUR PERCENTAGES OF BOYS INCOME? CAN YOU GIVE US A SURVEY OF YOUR PARENTS WHEN THEY COME IN? WHAT THEY WANT? WE SHOULD NOT BE HELD TO JUST ONE ORGANIZATION THAT WILL HELP TO BRING ABOUT THE MISSION OF THIS COMMITTEE TO BRING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
[03:30:03]
>> THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE WENT AWAY FROM A SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION TO GENERAL CATEGORIES, THAT GIVES YOU THE ABILITY TO SELECT FROM WHEREVER YOU THINK.
THESE COMMITTEE MEETINGS WILL BE PUBLICLY POSTED AND THERE WILL BE PUBLIC INVITED AND PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED.
IT'S NOT LIKE THIS LITTLE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO GO IN A BACK ROOM AND DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> BUT THE QUESTION BECOMES WITH THE CONSULTANT, IS THAT THEY'RE FUNDED TO DO X AMOUNT OF THESE TYPE THINGS.
IF YOU WANT TO GO BEYOND X AMOUNT OF THOSE THINGS, IT'S GOING TO BE COVERED.
THERE'S A COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
I THINK WHAT BOB IS PROPOSING IS THAT YOU COULD DEFER THOSE COSTS TO AN AGENCY THAT'S WILLING TO DO IT FOR YOU FOR NOTHING, OR YOU GUYS COULD JUST SIMPLY PAY THE CONSULTANT TO DO MORE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
>> OR YOU CAN WORK WITH YOUR HOAS, WHY NOT? THAT COMES AT NO COST EITHER.
>> YOU CAN GET MORE CITIZENS OUT THERE FROM THE ENTIRE ISLAND BY WORKING FOR YOUR INSURANCE.
>> THE POINT WAS THAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE ABLE TO FOCUS ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS IN THE 10 THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
YOU'RE ABLE TO FOCUS ON THAT ELEMENT IN THE CITY'S PUBLIC MEETING WITH APPOINTEES THAT ARE EXPERTS IN THAT OR WHATEVER, AND THEN THEY REPORT UP TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
THE POINT IS BEING ABLE TO BRING MORE FOCUS TO THE INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS IN A STRUCTURED WAY THAT REPORTS UP IN THE SYSTEM.
>> I ALSO SERVED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE AND WAS VERY INVOLVED WITH THAT.
WHAT I REMEMBER IS THAT WE HAD MULTIPLE PRESENTATIONS.
FOR EXAMPLE, PRESENTATION FROM GEDP, PRESENTATION FROM THE CHAMBER, PRESENTATION FROM GAR, PRESENTATION FROM GISD OF WHICH, THEY WERE GIVEN AMPLE TIME TO PUT THINGS TOGETHER TO CONVEY WHAT THEIR VISION AND THEIR PARTICULAR CATEGORY, WHAT THEY WANTED TO SEE HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY.
I THINK THAT VISION GALVESTON WOULD BE A GREAT TOOL FOR THAT, BUT JUST IN THE SAME EQUALITY AS ANY OTHER PRESENTATION, NOT TO RELY ON JUST THEIR SOURCE, BUT TO RELY ON MULTIPLE SOURCES.
>> BECAUSE THE CHAMBER WOULD PROBABLY OFFER THE SAME THING FOR FREE TOO.
>> SUCH AS EACH OF THESE 14 BULLET.
WE ARE GOING TO RECOMMEND TWO INDIVIDUALS TO REPRESENT US A TOTAL OF 14, TO COMPLETE THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
THERE IS A STRONG POSSIBILITY THAT MAYBE ONE OF THESE BULLET POINTS WITH THOSE 14 DESIGNEES WON'T FIT INTO A CERTAIN CATEGORY, SOMEHOW.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO OUR BEST, THAT EACH OF THESE BULLET POINTS DEPENDING ON WHAT OUR FINAL MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE IS, HOW IT IS MADE UP IN THE FINAL COMMITTEE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REACH OUT TO EACH OF THESE BULLET POINTS.
PICK ARTS AND CULTURE, PICK A SUBGROUP OUT OF THAT AND OFFER THEM, HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING, THIS IS A CHANCE FOR YOU TO PRESENT WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT WHAT'S HAPPENED AND WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE FUTURE.
JUST AS VISION GALVESTON SHOULD HAVE THE SAME PLATFORM.
I JUST DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD RELY ON ONE SOURCE OF DATA.
I THINK WE SHOULD RELY ON EACH SOURCE OF DATA.
THEN THAT'S WHAT THE, TO ME, JOB THAT THE STEERING COMMITTEE IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, WHICH IS TAKING BULLET POINTS FROM EACH OF THE PRESENTATIONS, TO GATHER FACTS, TO GATHER INFORMATION, TO GATHER OPINIONS, ALL BEING DONE IN A PUBLIC SETTING THAT IS, WELL MARKETED THAT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.
THIS EVENING, WE'RE PRESENTING VISION GALVESTON'S PRESENTATION.
THE NEXT MEETING, WE'RE PRESENTING GISD AND WHAT THEY ENVISION GALVESTON TO BE IN ACCORDANCE TO WHAT THEIR PLANS ARE.
THAT WAY, AGAIN, WE HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM THE TWO THAT WE DESIGNATE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THESE 14 BULLET POINTS.
THEN EACH OF THE PEOPLE THAT FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE HAS THAT SEAT IN A WAY OF HOW THEY PRESENT DURING THEIR ASSIGNED TIMES.
[03:35:03]
>> I THINK WE'RE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING VISION GALVESTON TO DO.
WE'RE NOT ASKING VISION GALVESTON FOR THEIR OPINION ON ANYTHING.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO IS ACTUALLY DO THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND STAFFING WORK THAT'S REQUIRED TO BRING THESE GROUPS TOGETHER, ESPECIALLY EACH ONE OF THE ELEMENTS AND JUST FACILITATE WHAT THOSE GROUPS WANT.
WE'RE NOT ASKING VISION GALVESTON FOR THEIR OPINION.
WE'RE JUST ASKING THEM TO FACILITATE, LIKE I SAID, THE STAFF AND THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND WORK CONVENED THESE EXTRA SUBCOMMITTEES THAT ARE ALL THE 10 ELEMENTS.
>> AGAIN, VISION, THAT'S THEIR VISION, AND I'M SAYING THAT'S THEIR VISION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HOLD ON. LET ME FINISH MINE.
VISION, THEY HAVE A MISSION STATEMENT AS TO GATHER INFORMATION.
SOMETIMES THAT INFORMATION, DEPENDING ON THE QUESTIONS, IS SKEWED TOWARD THEIR VISION.
ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EACH GROUP HAS JUST AS MUCH WEIGHT AND CONVEYING HOW THEY FEEL WITH THAT DATA.
WE AGREE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF WORK PUT IN BOOTS ON THE GROUND BRINGING IN DATA.
BUT THERE MIGHT BE ANOTHER ONE OF THESE BULLET POINTS THAT SAY, HEY, NOT ONLY IF WE ALREADY HAD THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND, THIS IS OUR DATA.
I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO RABBIT HOLE US INTO THIS IS THE DATA WE'RE GOING TO ACCEPT.
>> WE COULD JUST PAY ASAKURA ROBINSON MORE MONEY TO DO THE SAME THING WE'RE ASKING VISION GALVESTON BECAUSE YOU SAID THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> RIGHT. WE HAVE THE CHAMBER, WE COULD USE THE CHAMBER TO INTRODUCE THE GEDP.
>> WE MENTIONED THAT VISION GALVESTON WOULD FILTER THEIR DATA.
ASAKURA ROBINSON IS GOING TO BE FILTERING THE DATA BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRODUCING THIS REPORT, ANYBODY THAT DOES THIS WORK FOR YOU GOT TO BE ASSEMBLING THIS DATA, BUT WE ARE THE DECISION MAKERS NOT ASAKURA ROBINSON.
>> AGAIN, WE'RE AGREEING ON THE FACT THAT'S A BIG STEP.
THAT DATA IS THE BASIS OF WHAT WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS OFF OF.
>> THE MORE AND BETTER DATA WE HAVE, THE BETTER OUR DECISIONS ARE.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS IS LET'S GET AS MUCH DATA AS WE CAN FROM AS MANY ANGLES AS WE CAN.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE GIVE VISION GALVESTON AND BRING US ALL THAT YOU CAN.
I WANT TO GET IT BACK ON TRACK A LITTLE BIT.
TIM, WALK US THROUGH THE TIMELINE.
>> THIS IS FROM MCCALL, I HAD WITH REGINA EARLS HERE JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO.
SHE'S THE GLO GRANT COORDINATOR FOR THIS PROGRAM, RESILIENT COMMUNITIES PROGRAM.
I ASKED HER ABOUT THE PROCESS FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDING AND POTENTIALLY ADDED TO OUR CONSULTANT SCOPE, WHETHER THAT BE THROUGH SOME ORGANIZATION THAT DOES THIS WORK PRO BONO OR OTHERWISE, OR WHATEVER THE CASE.
SHE SAID THAT WHATEVER FUNDING WE GET WOULD BE CONSIDERED NOT MATCH, BUT IN-KIND FUNDING.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHY THEY SAID THAT.
>> I THINK THE MAYOR IS MORE ASKING, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THIS WHOLE PROCESS WITH THE GRANT?
>> THE GRANT APPROVAL SHOULD BE 3-4 MONTHS.
THEN BEYOND THAT, THE TIMELINE WE HAD IN OUR CONSULTANT SCOPE WAS A YEAR TO PRODUCE.
LET'S JUST SAY THAT'S MAY, IT WOULD BE GRANTED IN MAY.
THEN WE GOT TO ALSO IMPLEMENT WHATEVER ZONING REVISIONS THAT WE DO AS A RESULT OF THIS WITHIN A TWO YEAR PERIOD UNDER THIS GRANT.
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THE GRANT FUNDING HOPEFULLY OR POSSIBLY UNTIL 3-4 MONTHS?
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD, YES.
>> WHEN DO WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR THOUGHTS ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND ALL THAT?
>> I'D SAY WE DO THAT AS SOON AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.
GET THAT MOVING. HAVE IT READY FOR WHEN IT'S AWARDED SO WE CAN RELEASE AND BEGIN.
>> WITH THAT FUNDING, YOU'LL BE HIRING A CONSULTING FIRM TO MANAGE THIS, IS THAT CORRECT? SEEMS LIKE WE NEED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM AND GET THEIR GUIDANCE ON HOW WE STRUCTURE THIS, THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
NOT NECESSARILY THE 14, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
>> YES. I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE.
>> WE'VE HAD SOME PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT WE CAN HAVE CERTAINLY MORE IN-DEPTH CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM.
[03:40:04]
>> ITEM BEFORE US IS THAT IN FEBRUARY, TENTATIVELY, STAFF WILL BE BRINGING BACK THIS APPOINTMENT OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF 14.
THAT'S ALL THIS TALKING. GO AHEAD.
>> 3-4 MONTHS FROM NOW WILL TAKE THAT LONG FOR THE GRANT APPROVAL?
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD. THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE DOING A RFI FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S APPLIED TO DELVE INTO THE INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDED IN OUR GRANT APPLICATION.
>> SURE. I GUESS THE SHORT OF IT WITHOUT GETTING TOO MUCH INTO THE WEEDS IS THAT THROUGHOUT THIS GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTAL PROCESS, THE GLO HAD CONTRACTED A THIRD-PARTY.
THAT THIRD-PARTY IS NO LONGER WITH THE REVIEW PROCESS.
WE RAN INTO A PARTICULAR ISSUE WITH THE SUBMITTAL OF THE APPLICATION.
IT WAS EVENTUALLY WORKED OUT WITH A STAFF MEMBER.
BASICALLY, THERE WAS SOME TABS AND THERE WASN'T A TAB AND WE WERE GETTING THIS LOOPY PROCESS THAT WE COULDN'T INPUT A CERTAIN FIGURE.
IT WAS RESULTING IN US MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR 250,000 AS OPPOSED TO THE FULL 300,000.
THEY HAD THEIR PERSONS AND THEIR TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT CREATE THE OTHER TAB IN THE APPLICATION THAT ALLOWED US TO ASK FOR THE FULL $300,000 FOR THIS APPLICATION.
THAT'S BEEN WORKED OUT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY'RE BRINGING ON A NEW REVIEW GROUP TO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS AT THIS POINT.
>> BEFORE US RIGHT NOW IS THE STEERING COMMITTEE THAT TENTATIVELY IS GOING TO COME BACK IN FEBRUARY.
SUBCOMMITTEES AND ALL THAT STILL CAN BE DISCUSSED FROM THAT POINT FORWARD.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND GIVE SOME FINAL THOUGHTS ABOUT IT BEFORE WE MOVE ON
>> WELL, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ASAKURA ROBINSON ABOUT THEIR SCOPE OF WORK, AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO HEAR THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT THEIR SCOPE OF WORK WOULD BE IF THEY DID HAVE VISION GALVESTON CONSULTANT COMPARED TO THE SCOPE OF WORK IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT AS A CONSULTANT.
>> WHY ARE YOU ONLY LIMITING IT TO VISION GALVESTON WHEN THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMUNITY GROUPS, SUCH AS THE CHAMBER.
>> THE CHAMBER IS NOT GOING TO CONVENE 10 DIFFERENT MEETINGS AND TRACK ALL THE MEETINGS, COLLECT ALL THE DATA.
WITH ALL THE ENTITIES, ALL THESE THINGS THAT ARE MENTIONED, THEY DO THAT.
>> HERE'S WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE THEN.
>> GEDP DOES IT WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
>> WEST END, THEY HAVE LARGE GROUPS THAT COULD COLLECT DATA.
BUT YOU JUST WANT TO LIMIT IT TO ONE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HELP ORGANIZE ALL THOSE GROUPS.
>> I DON'T THINK WE NEED THAT.
I THINK THERE IS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE SCOPE OF WORK AND WHAT I REALLY LIKE TO FOCUS THIS ON IS WHAT ESCURA ROBINSON'S SCOPE WOULD BE WITH OR WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PART AND ESCURA ROBINSON WOULD BE DIRECTING ANY CONSULTANT LIKE THAT.
>> WELL, THAT'S COMING DOWN THE LINE.
I'M BACK TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
LET'S TAKE IT ONE STEP AT A TIME.
ESCURA ROBINSON GROUP, THE SUBCOMMITTEES, ALL OF THAT, WE CAN CONTINUE TO DISCUSS.
WE'RE ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE WILL BE BACK TO US IN FEBRUARY, 14 MEMBERS.
PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO.
AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO GET ON THE AGENDA.
WE'LL VOTE ON THAT, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
AS WE GET INTO OUR DISCUSSIONS MORE, WE'LL GET INTO SOME OF THESE OTHER TOPICS AS BEFORE.
>> ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, MAYOR, IS WE HAVEN'T CONTRACTED, OF COURSE, WITH ESCURA ROBINSON YET.
WE'VE DONE JUST A PRELIMINARY VETTING, STAFF LEVEL VETTING.
IT'S ALL GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU GUYS IN A FORMAL ACTION, OF COURSE.
>> NO. IT'LL PROBABLY BE BEFORE THAT.
FROM A PROCUREMENT STANDPOINT, IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH FOR US TO ENGAGE WITH ESCURA ROBINSON BEFORE WE DO THAT.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE CONTRACT WILL DO?
>> I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY BRING IT BACK JUST ABOUT AT ANY TIME,
[03:45:01]
BUT WE REALLY WANT TO FLESH OUT, IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD MORE TO IT OR NOT.I MEAN, THAT HAS TO BE A PART OF IT.
>> THAT'D BE FOR SURE GET THE GRANT?
>> WELL, NOTHING'S FOR SURE. [LAUGHTER] BUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE HAVE A VERY GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING THIS, YES.
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
SO I GUESS YOU CALL IT RF5, RFP, WHAT I UNDERSTAND AS FAR AS, Y'ALL HAVE ALREADY DONE, TAKEN THOSE STEPS TO REACH OUT.
AND WHERE WE HAVE ENDED UP WITH AS FAR AS THE PROPOSAL GOES IS WITH, NAME.
>> SO THAT'S ALREADY BEHIND US, RIGHT? WE'VE ALREADY VETTED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WHO WERE AT LEVEL ONLY, BUT YES.
>> SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ROLLING WITH? AND SO, BASICALLY, SOMEONE TO UNDERSTAND.
IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO ENCAPSULATE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
MEANING, ARE WE GOING TO ROLL WITH THIS, WITH 14 BULLET POINTS, WITH THEM AS THE CONSULTANT WITHOUT ADDING A CONSULTANT SUCH AS VISION GALVESTON? AND I THINK YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, LOOK, WE NEED TO WORK THAT OUT TO SAY, WE'RE ROLLING WITH THE 14 BULLET POINTS.
>> AT LEAST BEFORE WE GET TO THE POINT OF CONTRACT WITH ESCURA IF THAT IN FACT IS.
>> THIS NEEDS TO BE FOR DECISION AND DISCUSSION ON WORKSHOP IN THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YOU MEAN THE CONTRACT WITH ESCURA AND ALL THAT?
>> WE'LL DECIDE HOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
AND YOU SAID THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO MOVE IT, I GUESS WOULD PROBABLY THE NEXT AGENDA, IS THAT?
>> THE NEXT AGENDA, WE HAVE THE STEERING COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS.
>> FOLLOWING AFTER THAT, THE WAY I SEE IT, WE'D COME BACK AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE CONTRACTUAL DETAILS AND FRAMEWORK.
>> IF I'M HEARING THIS CORRECTLY, WE STILL NEED TO DECIDE, ARE WE GOING WITH 14 CLAIMS?
>> AND THEN THE MEETING AFTER WE HAVE BOARD.
>> NO. THE MEETING AFTER, THE WAY I VIEW IT IS THAT WE WOULD POSSIBLY HAVE AN ACTION ITEM IN OUR NEXT MEETING ON THE 14TH, WHERE WE WOULD MAKE APPOINTMENTS, ON THE 14TH. [NOISE]
>> I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACTION ITEM, HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO THROUGH A WORKSHOP FOR THAT ACTION ITEM.
SO WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION OF EXACTLY WHAT FRAMEWORK WE'RE TRYING TO.
>> WELL, THE FRAMEWORK WOULD COME THEN IN MARCH.
BUT YOU WOULD BE BRINGING THE FRAMEWORK FOR ESCURA AND ALL THAT IN MARCH, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THE WAY I'M UNDERSTANDING IT IS WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO GO INTO A CONTRACT.
WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, IS THE STEERING COMMITTEE GOING TO BE 14 MORE OR LESS? THEN THE NEXT MEETING AFTER WE GET THAT DONE, THEY CAN WORK ON THE CONTRACT.
AND THEN WE, NOT THIS NEXT ONE, BUT THE FOLLOWING IN THE MARCH, WE WOULD THEN MAKE APPOINT.
>> THAT IS, WELL, WE COULD, IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK WE GOT APPOINTMENT IN FEBRUARY.
>> WE'RE FORGETTING THE STEP, HERE, I THINK CONSIDERING IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT THE FRAMEWORK IS ESTABLISHED.
YOU'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS, IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THEM WITH THE CONTRACT ROLL WITH THERE'S GOING TO BE AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT ADDED TO THEIR CONSULTANCY, OR IF WE'RE GOING TO ROLL WITH, THESE ARE THE 14, THEY'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH THE SUBCOMMITTEES.
THEY'RE GOING TO ESTABLISH PRESENTATIONS FROM WHOEVER WOULD LIKE THE STAGE.
THAT FRAMEWORK HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED SO THAT CONTRACT CAN BE COMPLETED.
>> I WOULD AGREE. AND THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THIS, GUIDE ME, WE WOULD APPOINT IN FEBRUARY, WE WOULD APPOINT THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF 14 PEOPLE IF COUNCIL SUPPORTS THAT.
AND THEN IN MARCH, YOU WOULD BRING BACK THE INFORMATION ON ESCURA FOR US TO DISCUSS THE FRAMEWORK AND MOVING FORWARD.
>> AND I THINK THAT WHOLE DISCUSSION IF THERE'S SOME EXTRA GROUP THAT WOULD HELP PRO BONO SERVICES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THE CONSULTANT IS GOING TO NEED TO KNOW THAT.
>> I THINK THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF GROUPS THAT WOULD HELP PRO BONO.
>> TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD EVER BE LIMITED TO WHAT.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A DISCUSSION FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE ASPECT OF IT OR FRAMEWORK.
>> BUT I THINK WITHOUT COUNCIL FINALLY MAKING A FOR UP, WOULD AGREE TO MAKE A FORMAL DECISION ON IF WE'RE GOING TO DO 14 MORE OR LESS.
BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE IF WE APPOINT,
[03:50:03]
IF WE HAVE EACH HAVE TWO PEOPLE.I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THREE PEOPLE ON STANDBY OR, PICK ONE OF THE THREE.
I'D RATHER MAKE A DECISION ON HOW MANY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOR THE COMMITTEE AND THEN MAKE APPOINTMENTS THE FOLLOWING MEETING.
>> WELL, IF YOU WANT TO DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 14 OR 16 OR WHATEVER AT THE NEXT MEETING THE WHOLE END.
>> THE POTENTIAL OF THIS CONSULTANCY IS TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS THAT WE WOULD MAKE AND THEN THE NUMBER OF SUBCOMMITTEES.
I DON'T REALLY SEE A BIG RUSH INTO DOING THAT IN FEBRUARY.
WE'VE GOT THREE MONTHS GOING ON HERE.
WHAT WE COULD DO THOUGH IS, WE HAVE A PROPOSAL FROM ESCURA ROBINSON THAT DESCRIBES OUR SCOPE OF WORK?
>> IF WE COULD REVIEW THEIR SCOPE OF WORK.
>> AND IN FEBRUARY, WOULD THAT BE READY IN FEBRUARY 18?
>> THEIR SCOPE OF WORK IS ALREADY PRODUCED [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF WE NEED OPINIONS AROUND THE ROOM ABOUT 14 OR NOT.
>> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE 14 [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHERE I SEE THE DISCREPANCY IS FORMALLY REQUESTING A SECONDARY CONSULTANT.
THAT'S WHERE I SEE, NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH THE 14, I DON'T THINK.
>> THAT'S THE MESSAGE I'M GETTING.
>> I SEE THAT THERE IS A REQUEST, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, TO BASICALLY FORMALLY NAME A SUBGROUP AS A ASSISTANT CONSULTANT.
IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING?
>> WELL, WHAT I'M ASKING IS, INCREASE THE NUMBER OF APPOINTMENTS THAT WE MAKE TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND ALSO ALSO INCREASE THE SUBCOMMITTEES TO CONCLUDE EACH ELEMENT.
>> MADE UP OF VISION GALVESTON?
WE MAKE THOSE APPOINTMENTS, NOT VISION GALVESTON.
>> ANYWAY, I THINK WHERE WE'RE GOING IS TO HAVE AT THE NEXT MEETING A DECISION TO FINALIZE VOTING ON 14 PEOPLE AS THIS STEERING COMMITTEE.
AND THEN AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING, WE MAKE A 14 PEOPLE, AND TIM COULD ALSO COME BACK WITH THEIR SCOPE OF WORK.
>> AND JUST THINK ABOUT THIS SHOW.
HIS SCOPE OF WORK WITH THIS GROUP.
I GUARANTEE DOESN'T INCLUDE HAVING AN ASSISTANT CONSULTANT.
>> THAT COULD BE AN ADDED COST.
THEY COULD SAY, HEY, IF WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY OVERSEE THIS [OVERLAPPING] I'M NOT SAYING THAT EITHER WAY.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS HE'S GOING TO BRING A CONTRACT THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THAT.
AND THERE'S PEOPLE IN THE COUNCIL THAT WOULD LIKE THAT INCLUDED.
TO FINALIZE THIS CONTRACT, WE, AS A COUNCIL, NEED TO DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM DIRECTION TO SAY, HEY, HAVE THEM PRICE OUT TO OVERSEE A SUB CONSULTANT.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO EAT THIS ELEPHANT ABIDE AT TIME.
I THINK YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK TO DO THAT.
I JOKED WITH TIM. LET'S CREATE A COMMITTEE OF 25, DATE 14.
BUT I THINK WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
LET'S GET IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA TO GET THE 14 DONE.
THIS IS IN MY MIND, IS A SEPARATE DISCUSSION TO HAVE ABOUT BRINGING ON AN INDEPENDENT OR MULTIPLE.
>> I MEAN, JUST REMEMBER, BRING ON MULTIPLE.
>> I DON'T THINK WE NEED IT AT ALL. [INAUDIBLE]. WE CAN SET OUR OWN SUBCOMMITTEE.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE. I THINK THOSE ARE ALL DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE AMONGST YOURSELVES TO PICK THE BEST POSIT, BUT I THINK FOR NOW, WE NEED THE COMMITTEES CREATED.
>>> AT LEAST AT THE HIGH LEVEL.
>> THAT WAS MAJOR DECISION THOUGH.
I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND ESCURA SCOPE OF WORK WITH OR WITHOUT THE PRO BONO CONSULTANCY.
>> IT'S WITHOUT RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN CERTAINLY SEND THAT OUT.
I ALSO NEED TO CHECK WITH OUR PROCUREMENT FOLKS, AS WELL.
>> WE CAN'T NEGOTIATE WITHOUT, THERE'S SOME PROCUREMENT ISSUES THAT WE'RE WORKING ON [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT IT COULD BE ANY PRO BONO BECAUSE THERE'S A NUMBER.
>> WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO DO THIS AND WE COULD HAVE THAT TETHERED.
IT COULD BE HOTEL AND LODGING.
>> NEXT MEETING ON FEBRUARY, I AM GOING TO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR WORKSHOP TO TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS ON THE STEERING.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON THAT MEETING ALSO.
>> YES, SIR. IF COUNCIL FEELS THAT WE DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON IT AT THAT MEETING, WE DON'T HAVE TO, BUT WE'LL HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON THAT MEETING TO DETERMINE THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
IN MARCH, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT AND HAVE AN ITEM AS A WORKSHOP ITEM ON THE FRAMEWORK, ESCURA CONTRACT, THE DIFFERENCES IN THE FEES ON THAT.
[03:55:02]
AND WE'LL DISCUSS THAT AT THE WORKSHOP.>> GOOD NOTES ON THIS FEET TO KNOW THE TIMELINE.
IT'S EXPECTED. I HOPE THIS IS BEING RECORD.
>> ARE WE STILL DISCUSSING THAT.
>> I THOUGHT WE WERE GOOD WITH THAT.
>> I'M FINE WITH NOT HAVING A WORKSHOP ON THAT.
>> THAT'S FINE. THERE'S NO WORKSHOP.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE TABLE GOT WAY LONGER DOWN HERE, SO WE'RE TRYING TO.
>> LET ME DESCRIBE, NEXT MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON VOTING ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND THE NUMBER ON THAT STEERING.
>> LET ME FINISH BOB EXCUSE ME JUST A SECOND.
AND THEN IN THE MARCH MEETING, WE'LL HAVE A WORKSHOP ITEM FOR YOU TO BRING BACK ALL THE DETAILS ON THE FRAMEWORK, THE ESCURA ROBINSON CONTRACT AND THE DIFFERENT PRICES AS WE TALKED ABOUT. YES.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW WE COORDINATE OUR APPOINTMENTS IF EACH HAVE TWO OF THEM WITHOUT OVERLAPPING.
THEY'D SAY, I WANT TO APPOINT SOMEBODY THAT'S A HISTORIC RESOURCE REPRESENTATIVE AND SO DOES BOTH.
WE PROBABLY SHOULDN'T OVERLAP. WE'VE ONLY GOT 14.
>> AND SOMEBODY FROM HIS DISTRICT, EACH DISTRICT'S DIFFERENT.
>> LIMIT IT TO DISTRICT? NO, WE CAN'T LIMIT IT TO DISTRICT.
>> AND WE PROBABLY WON'T HAVE THAT MUCH OVERLAPPING TO BE HONEST.
BUT PERSONALLY, I WOULD COME WITH ABOUT 3-4 NAMES IN MIND, AND THEN YOU IF ONE OF THEM OVERLAPS, YOU'LL HAVE ALTERNATE.
>> SO WE'RE GOING TO WORK THIS OUT IN A WORKSHOP TO AVOID THE OVERLAP.
>> NO, SIR. WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> SO WE'LL WORK OUT THE OVERLAP AT THE VOTE.
>> SO IF THERE IS OVERLAP, WE'LL SAY WELL, NO, YOU DO ANOTHER ONE.
>> IF SHARON SAYS SALLY SMITH AND THAT WAS ON YOUR LIST, YOU'LL HAVE SOME ALTERNATE BACKUPS DOT BOB THAT YOU CAN [INAUDIBLE].
>> AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE ENSURE THAT WE HAVE LET'S JUST SAY NOBODY VOTED FOR ANYBODY FROM UTMB REPRESENTATIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
HOW DO WE GET THEIR REPRESENTATION? [OVERLAPPING] COLLECTIVELY, HERE ALL OF US MAY NOT HIT ALL OF THE CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET RESIDENTS, BUT WE MAY NOT HIT ALL THE CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
>> MAYBE MY QUESTION IS NOT CLEAR.
AND THEN THE INSTITUTES WOULD BE DIFFERENT?
>> THERE IS NO APPOINTMENT FOR INSTITUTIONS IN THIS CURRENT SCOPE.
>> FOR THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
>> THIS IS THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
I'M ASKING HIM ABOUT INSTITUTIONS.
BUT WOULDN'T THAT BE IN THE OVERALL PROJECT, THE INSTITUTIONS?
>> I COVERED IN THE SCOPE OF WORK?
>> NOT AT ALL. OKAY. WELL, THEN YOU'LL MAKE SURE YOU PUT IN A UTMB PERSON.
>> AND MARIE WILL MAKE SURE SHE PUTS IN A RESILIENCE PERSON OR SOMETHING, AND SO ON, WE'LL GO DOWN THE LINE WITH THAT.
AND IN THE END, SOMETHING'S NOT GOING TO BE COVERED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY WANT TO HAVE OTHER MEETINGS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY GROUPS THAT THE STEERING COMMITTEE CAN MEET WITH, I WOULD THINK EACH OF US WOULD BE INVOLVED WITH OUR PEOPLE AND DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND THINGS THAT AFFECT THE ENTIRE ISLAND.
>> AND I MEAN, YOU JUST STONE THROW AWAY FROM HAVING PERSON WITH ONE OF THESE 14 BACKGROUNDS.
SOME OF THEM OVERLAP IN GENERAL.
>> OF COURSE, THIS IS ISN'T EVERY ALL THE CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND OUR FEBRUARY MEETING IN MARCH, WE'LL HAVE THE OTHER PRESENTATION BY PLANNING SERVICES, AND WE'RE MOVING.
>> I WOULD THINK THE STEERING COMMITTEE HAS TO BE A FULL TIME RESIDENT.
>> THERE ARE RULES FOR WHO COULD SERVE ON.
>> WE'RE MAKING APPOINTMENTS NEXT MEETING TOO, RIGHT?
>> SO WHAT I'M GOING TO BRING BACK TO YOU GUYS IS A RESOLUTION WITH, EACH COUNCIL DISTRICT AND A COUPLE OF BLANKS FOR EACH.
AND WE WILL BE FILLING THOSE IN AS THAT DAY PROGRESSES AS YOU GO SELECT.
AND IF YOU NEED TO SHIFT AROUND, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU ALL WOULD DO THAT AGAIN.
>> WE HAVE OVERLAP AND CAN'T HIT 14.
>> WE CAN APPOINT THE REMAINING MEMBERS AT THE NEXT FOLLOWING MEETING.
>> I THINK YOU'LL GET TO THE 14. I'M PRETTY SURE YOU'LL GET THAT.
>> I THINK 14. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD.
>> WAIT A MINUTE. I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION.
THIS CAME FROM THE COMPANY COMMITTEE PLAN?
>> NO. THEY WERE THEY WERE OUR STAFF SUGGESTION.
THIS IS BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE.
[04:00:04]
YOU COULD SLIP FROM.THIS IS SOME SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT WE THOUGHT, IMPORTANT ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED.
IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVES TO BE COVERED.
[3.E. Update And Discussion Of The Pelican Island Bridge ( C Brown/Robb - 30 Min ) 1. AFA Contract 2. Request from TxDOT and the City of Galveston for Additional Funding from HGAC]
>> MOVING RIGHT ALONG. [LAUGHTER] [INAUDIBLE]
>> COUNSEL, IMPORTANT DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE.
THIS IS DIVIDED INTO TWO SECTIONS.
ONE IS THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAD BEEN PRESENTED THIS MORNING.
AND THAT ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT HAS BEEN A WORK IN PROGRESS AND HAS CHANGED DRASTICALLY IN SOME AREAS TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE CITY.
>> BUCKLEY HAS BEEN OUR POINT PERSON ON THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
DAN'S GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME THOUGHTS ON THIS ON THE CONTRACT.
BUT I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS CONTRACT HAS REACHED A POINT, FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME, THAT WE NOW HAVE SOME AREAS AND THE CONTRACT IS SOMEWHAT ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY STAFF.
NOW, WE'LL DISCUSS THE DETAILS MORE OF THAT IN JUST A SECOND.
THE SECOND PART OF THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE CONTRACT THAT THE CITY AND THE LOCAL PARTICIPANTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR NO MORE THAN $36.2 MILLION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE, AND THAT TXDOT IS GOING TO BE WORKING.
THEY STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN ALL THEIR FUNDING FROM FEDERAL AND STATE SOURCES, AND THEY WILL BE PRESENTING PROBABLY IN FEBRUARY.
>> TXDOT AND THE CITY WILL BE.
TXDOT IS NOT TAKING IT FORWARD.
>> I'M COMING TO THAT. TXDOT IS GOING TO BE LOOKING TOWARDS HDAC IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY AT THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY COUNCIL LEVEL, AT HGAC.
THEY'LL MAKE THEIR INITIAL PRESENTATION IN FEBRUARY.
COUNCILWOMAN ROBB REPRESENTS THE CITY AT TPC, AND THAT WILL BE MADE IN FEBRUARY, AND HOPEFULLY, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE TPC IN MARCH TO COME UP WITH APPROVAL OF THE FUNDING THAT IS REQUIRED TO REACH THE TOTAL AMOUNT THAT'S NEEDED.
OUR FIRST DISCUSSION IS THE CONTRACT.
DAN, I'M GOING TO TURN THAT OVER TO YOU AND LET YOU GO THROUGH THAT.
LET ME JUST ADD TO WHAT THE MAYOR SAID, THAT I WAS APPOINTED TO OVERSEE THESE DISCUSSIONS RECENTLY.
I HAVE NOT BEEN THE LEAD ON THIS UNTIL JUST RECENTLY, AND WE ARE MOVING FORWARD EXPEDITIOUSLY AT THIS POINT.
THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT DRAFT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO COUNCIL INCORPORATES PROBABLY THREE MAJOR CHANGES.
WHEN WE FIRST RECEIVED AN AFA, WE WERE TOLD SIGN IT, AND THAT'S IT.
NO CHANGES. TXDOT NEVER CHANGES THEIR AFAS.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING THEY DON'T DO.
WELL, WE'VE WORKED TO A POINT WHERE WE GOT SOME CHANGES MADE IN THE AFA THAT GIVE US MORE COMFORT THAT WE CAN BRING A DOCUMENT TO COUNCIL SEEKING THE CITY TO SIGN THE AFA AS A LOCAL SPONSOR.
ONE BEING THE CAP ON LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THE MAYOR COMMENTED ON.
IT WAS UNLIMITED IN THE INITIAL DRAFT SO LOCAL CONTRIBUTION LEVEL COULD EXCEED THAT THAT WE HAD PROMISED OF 36.2 MILLION.
IT COULD BE MULTIPLES OF THAT.
WE'VE WORKED THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH TXDOT TO LIMIT THE EXPOSURE OF THOSE LOCAL CONTRIBUTORS TO 36.2, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, LIMITING THE EXPOSURE TO THE CITY TO NO MORE THAN THE 36.2.
THE FUNDING HAS TO BE IN PLACE.
THE 36.2 MILLION HAS TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE COUNCIL HAS SIGNED THE AFA.
THAT REQUIRES US TO GO TO EACH ONE OF THE ENTITIES LISTED IN THE FUNDING.
THAT'S PORT OF HOUSTON, PORT OF GALVESTON, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, NAVIGATION DISTRICT, TO GET EVERYBODY'S MONEY IN HAND BEFORE WE COME FORWARD WITH AN AFA FOR THE CITY TO SIGN.
>> THAT WAS A CHANGE THAT WAS NOT IN THE DOCUMENTS AND THAT HAS NOW BEEN CHANGED TO ACCOMMODATE OUR NEEDS.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE AFA WAS CHANGED TO REQUIRE THAT FUNDING BE IN THE CITY'S HANDS BEFORE THE AFA IS SIGNED.
[04:05:05]
COST OVERRUNS WILL COME FROM THE PROJECT.THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE AT THE EXPENSE OF THE LOCAL SPONSOR.
THAT IS ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE AGREEMENT.
ANOTHER ITEM, KEY AND ONE THAT WE HAD TO FIGHT FOR, IS STATE MONEY CANNOT BE SPENT ON RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION OR UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS.
THROUGH NEGOTIATIONS, WE'VE CAPPED THAT AT $2.5 MILLION AGAINST THE LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS.
IF IT COMES IN AT A MILLION DOLLARS AND THE 1.5 MILLION GOES TOWARD THE OVERALL PROJECT, IF IT COMES IN IN EXCESS OF THE 2.5 MILLION, IT WILL COME FROM OTHER FUNDING AVAILABLE FOR THE CONTRACT.
WE ARE, AS A SIGNER OF THE AFA, RESPONSIBLE FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION.
THERE'S SOME PLAY THAT HAS TO TAKE PLACE AS WE GET CLOSER TO THIS TO ACQUIRE SOME OF THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT'S NECESSARY FOR THIS BRIDGE.
TXDOT IS GOING TO HELP US WHERE THEY CAN LEGALLY, BUT THEY CAN'T EXPEND MONEY TO DO THAT.
>> IF IT'S MORE THAN 2.5 MILLION?
>> THEY'LL CONTRACT IT BACK TO THE CITY.
>> THEY'LL PAY IT BACK TO THE CITY. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE GOING TO KEEP $2.5 MILLION OF THE 36.2 TO COVER THOSE COSTS, THOSE TWO ITEMS. IF IT'S LESS THAN THAT, WE STILL HAVE TO GIVE THE MONEY TO THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE CONSTRUCTION.
IF IT'S MORE THAN THAT, THEY WILL USE OTHER FUNDING AVAILABLE TO PAY US BACK.
THE BIG THING IS, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT OF WAY TEAM. TXDOT HAS ONE.
WHEN WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WE NEED HELP, ASSISTANCE, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE US HELP THAT WAY.
THEY JUST CAN'T FINANCIALLY PARTICIPATE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT ALLOWED BY STATE LAW.
ANOTHER ITEM, ONE THAT IS OWNERSHIP OF THE BRIDGE.
WE'RE GOING TO OWN IT, CITY OF GALVESTON.
LIKE IT OR NOT, AS THE LOCAL SPONSOR, THAT'S THE PRIVILEGE YOU GET, IS TO OWN THAT BRIDGE ONCE IT'S DONE.
AN ANCILLARY ISSUE TO THAT IS THE 51ST STREET VIADUCT.
WE STARTED RAISING THIS ISSUE SOME TIME AGO.
THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ON WHO OWNED THAT.
I THINK WE'VE RESOLVED THAT QUESTION NOW IN THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT.
BEGRUDGINGLY OR OR MAYBE NOT BEGRUDGINGLY, BUT THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THAT WAS BUILT ALONG WITH THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE, AND SO WE LOOK AT IT AS THEIRS.
NOW, WHEN THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE IS TORN DOWN, AND IF AND WHEN THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT GOES AWAY, THERE'S A QUESTION ON WHO WILL OWN THAT 51ST STREET BRIDGE.
I BELIEVE WHAT DON HAS TOLD ME, AND HE CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT'S BY BASICALLY [OVERLAPPING] OPERATION OF LAW, IT WILL BECOME THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S.
WE WILL THEN ACQUIRE THAT BRIDGE.
WE DON'T HAVE MANY BRIDGES IN GALVESTON.
THE ONE ON JONES DRIVE IS ABOUT IT AS FAR AS AN ELEVATED BRIDGE.
THIS WILL TRIPLE OUR INVENTORY OF BRIDGES WHEN IT COMES TO WHAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR WITH THE ACQUISITION OF PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE.
MAINTENANCE. I WILL TELL YOU, MAINTENANCE IS GOING TO BE OURS.
THERE WAS A, LET'S JUST SAY, INFORMATION PUBLICLY THAT THAT'S A BATTLE WE'RE FIGHTING. THERE'S NO BATTLE.
IT'S OURS. WE OWN IT, WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT.
NOW, THERE'S LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS OF WHERE THE FUNDING WOULD BE TO DO THAT.
I WILL TELL YOU THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE, WHEN THEY'VE HAD DAMAGE OR THEY'VE NEEDED WORK, THEY'VE GONE TO THE OFF SYSTEM BRIDGE FUND AT TXDOT AND RECEIVED FUNDS FOR THAT.
WE WOULD PROBABLY LIKELY DO THE SAME THING.
WE'VE GOT LOTS OF IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO FUND AND TRY TO COVER MAINTENANCE COSTS.
IT OUGHT TO BE RELATIVELY INEXPENSIVE TO BEGIN WITH.
THAT'S THE OUT YEARS WHERE YOU GET THERE.
BUT THIS BRIDGE IS NOT THE BRIDGE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED.
IT IS NOT THE BRIDGE THAT EVERYBODY WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT WAS GOING TO BE BUILT FOR UNDER $100 MILLION.
THIS IS A WAY DIFFERENT BRIDGE.
IT GOES A LOT FURTHER AROUND THE CAMPUS THAN THE ORIGINAL DESIGNS DID.
YES, SOME OF IT IS INFLATION AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION INCREASES.
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THIS IS NOT THE BRIDGE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED ON THE SAME PATH.
>> IT WAS PRICED AT $100 MILLION.
>> YES. WHEN I WAS FIRST BECAME INVOLVED WITH THIS, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT $70 MILLION.
ANDY ANDERSON, DECEASED, I MISS HIM EVERY DAY,
[04:10:02]
WAS GOING TO PUT THE BRIDGE RIGHT THROUGH THE ORIGINAL PATH, ELEVATE IT, THEY COULD GO UNDERNEATH IT, AND HE HAD IT ALL LINED OUT.BUT THAT'S NOT WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
THAT IS TRULY WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
>> IT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE IF SOMEBODY RAN INTO THE BRIDGE AND WE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THAT.
>> WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO THEIR INSURANCE FIRST.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT MOST OF THE VESSELS THAT OPERATE IN THE INTERCOSTAL WATERWAYS AND IN THE HARBOR HAVE INSURANCE.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT OVER THE YEARS HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN RECOVERING FUNDING FROM THEM.
BUT YES, THAT IS GOING TO BE ON US.
>> CAN I THROW ANOTHER MISNOMER THAT'S OUT THERE? THIS BRIDGE WILL HAVE A PEDESTRIAN PATH.
>> THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING FEDERAL HIGHWAY FUNDS.
>> THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY THAT YOU HAVE BIKE, AND BECAUSE I'VE HEARD A LOT OF FALSE RUMORS ON THAT.
>> THE BIKE LANES WILL CONNECT TO NOWHERE.
>> IT WILL HAVE BIKE LANES AND IT WILL HAVE PEDESTRIANS.
YOU CAN FIND A WAY ON IT SOMEWHERE AND THEN YOU CAN GO BACK AND FORTH ON THE BRIDGE.
BUT ON THE GALVESTON SIDE, THERE'S REALLY NO CONNECTION FOR IT.
>> WELL, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I GUESS WE WOULD BE THINKING OF.
>> CERTAINLY. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CHANGES TO THE 51ST STREET BRIDGE TO MAKE IT ONE WAY.
THERE'S THINGS YOU CAN DO. THAT'S A VERY NARROW BRIDGE.
THESE ARE ITEMS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DISCUSS.
THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AFA, NOTHING.
WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT, WE THINK WE HAVE AN AFA THAT WE COULD BRING TO ALL.
BUT WHAT I'M DOING NOW IS WORKING WITH CITY LEGAL, DON, AND WE'RE GOING TO EACH ENTITY THAT HAS PLEDGED MONEY TO THIS.
WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FINALIZE THOSE AGREEMENTS VIA INTERLOCAL WITH EACH SPONSORING ENTITY, GIVE THEM AN EXPECTATION OF WHEN WE'LL NEED THE MONEY, AND THEN INK THE DEAL, BASICALLY, AND GET THEIR GOVERNING BODIES TO APPROVE THE FUNDING SO THAT WE CAN SECURE IT AND WE CAN ADVANCE AND BRING THE AFA TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, DAVID, BEFORE WE GET TO THOSE, IF YOU GET YOUR APPROVAL, I'D LIKE FOR MARIE TO WALK US THROUGH NOW THE HGAC APPROVAL. WOULD YOU AGREE?
>> YEAH. IT'S ACTUALLY THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE MEO, WHICH IS WHERE ALL FUNDING IS FUNNELED THROUGH.
BOTH WE AND TXDOT WILL BE PRESENTING.
TXDOT WILL BE UPDATING WHERE THEY ARE.
I BELIEVE AT THIS POINT, IT'S GOING TO BE APPROACHED AS AN OVERRUN.
IT DOESN'T MAKE IT UNCOMMON FOR THE MPO.
THERE ACTUALLY WAS A SIMILAR THING THAT HAPPENED BEFORE, AND IT WAS WITH THE RAILROAD BRIDGE.
THE MPO IS WHERE WE'RE GOING FOR THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING.
>> COULD YOU GIVE THEM AN APPROXIMATION OF WHAT YOU'RE REQUESTING?
>> WE'RE REQUESTING, I THINK 150?
>> THE SHORTFALL NOW IS $139 MILLION.
>> THE SHORT FALL NOW, BUT WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING FOR, WE ALL KNOW THIS ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IN A MINUTE.
TXDOT HAS NEVER STOPPED THEIR DESIGN ON THE BRIDGE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS SLOWING DOWN THE PROCESS IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL, WHICH WE'RE HOPING, ME BEING AN ETERNAL OPTIMIST, WE MIGHT STILL BE ABLE TO SHAVE A YEAR AND A HALF OFF THE TIMELINE AND WE COULD MOVE THAT FORWARD.
BUT WE HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED A NUMBER OF LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THE BACKING OF THE MPO AS WELL AS AT THE ANNUAL MEETING, WHICH WAS ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO.
IT WAS ONE OF TWO PROJECTS THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED, WHICH WAS VERY NICE OF THE HGAC TO DO.
I WOULD SAY WE HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF SUPPORT AMONG THE 32 MEMBERS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO SUPPORT THIS.
[04:15:01]
>> I AGREE. I WOULD SAY THESE LETTERS OF SUPPORT HAVE BEEN COMING THROUGH OUR LOCAL STATE POLITICAL FIGURES, AND THEY'RE STILL COMING IN, SO WE HAVE A GOOD SUPPORT OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE AREA.
>> THAT, AND WE HAVE ONE IS BAY TRAM, WHICH IS ABOUT BAY AREA TRANSPORTATION.
THE CODE LETTER, THE CHAMBER, THE PORT INDUSTRIAL GROUP THAT'S NORTH OF US, AS WELL AS THE GEDP HAVE DONE A SIGNED LETTER TOGETHER.
>> I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IS SQUARELY IN THE TXDOT ARENA.
THEY ARE THE OTHER ONES CONTROLLING IT.
WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
>> THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO COMMUNICATE TO COUNCIL IS, WE'RE NOT DONE.
WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF INTEGRAL NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON WITH THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT, WITH OUR OTHER PARTNERS.
THE AFA, THAT'S TXDOT, BUT IT IS NOT THE WHOLE PROCESS.
THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER STEPS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON.
I WILL ASK THAT IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, COME TO BRIAN DONNER, COME TO STAFF.
WE'RE THE ONES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE DISCUSSIONS OVER THE YEARS, AND IT HAS BEEN YEARS.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE.
THERE'S STILL MISINFORMATION OUT THERE.
I WOULD JUST ASK IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS TO COME TO US AND ASK.
>> LET ME JUST SAY THIS IS, OF ALL THE THINGS THAT CROSS YOUR PLATE, AND THERE'S A LOT THAT CROSSES YOUR PLATE AS VOLUNTEERS AT THE CITY OF GALVESTON, THIS ONE HAS GENERATIONAL IMPACT.
THIS AND YOUR PUMP STATIONS ARE THE TWO BIGGEST THINGS THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS DECIDED ON AND MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT HAVE GENERATIONAL EFFECTS, BOTH POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE.
KEEP THAT IN MIND, THAT A LOT OF THINGS THAT SEEM MINISCULE TO YOU TODAY.
I GUARANTEE YOU PROBABLY 2029, IF YOU JUST DO THE MATH, YOUR TERMS WILL BE UP IF YOU STAY ALL THREE TERMS. VOTING WISE, IS IT GOING TO IMPACT YOU? NO. BUT IS THIS GOING TO IMPACT THE FUTURE OF GALVESTON IF YOU BURDEN IT TOO MUCH OR YOU TAKE AWAY TOO MUCH FROM THE OTHER THINGS? VERY IMPORTANT.
THERE'S A REASON WHY THIS IS SUCH A METHODICAL PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH.
THEY ARE NOT THINGS THAT YOU RUSH INTO.
IT'S VERY EASY FOR THE PUNDITS OUT THERE TO SAY, JUST GET IT DONE ALREADY.
TRUST ME, THE MAYOR HAS HEARD THAT FROM ME ALREADY.
I SAID, JUST SIGN THIS THING, THIS THING IS NOT GOING TO GET BUILT WHILE ANY OF US ARE HERE ANYWAY.
YOU SAY THAT OUT OF FRUSTRATION, BUT THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
WE HAVE GOT TO THINK ABOUT HOW THIS IMPACTS OUR FAMILIES 10 YEARS FROM NOW, 15 YEARS FROM NOW, BOTH IN THE POSITIVE ASPECT.
DOES IT SERVE THE NEEDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PELICAN ISLAND? BUT ALSO, HAVE WE BURDENED OUR TAXPAYERS WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD? WE REALLY HAVE TO THINK THAT THROUGH.
>> PLUS THE OTHER THING THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND, THAT IN CONTRACTS SOME TIME AND THE NEXT YEAR DO NOT MOVE FORWARD, PART OF THIS FUNDING IS GOING TO DISAPPEAR.
>> THE COST ID GOING TO GO UP.
>> THIS THING IS MOVING SOMEWHAT HOPEFULLY QUICKLY NOW AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE COMING TOWARDS SEE A LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL ON THIS.
I'M GOING TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA ON EVERY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA WORKSHOP TO UPDATE YOU WHERE WE ARE AS WE MOVE THROUGH THIS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB, REGARDING THE REQUEST OF 150 MILLION FROM TPC.
WHEN DO YOU EXPECT THAT TPC WOULD REIMBURSE US?
>> I HOPE OUR PRESENTATIONS ARE GOING TO BE IN FEBRUARY.
>> JUST FROM A FUNDING STANDPOINT, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT IN PLACE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THERE WE GO. BRIAN, YOU SPOKE EXACTLY TO WHAT I WANTED TO MENTION, WHICH IS, BRIDGES ARE DESIGNED FOR, THEY DO A 50-YEAR DESIGN TIME FRAME.
WE KNOW THAT THE ONE THAT'S OUT THERE OBVIOUSLY LIVE A LITTLE LONGER THAN WE EXPECTED.
NOW WITH THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT POTENTIALLY, YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP ON TALKING ABOUT IT.
BUT IF THEY'RE DISSOLVED AND THAT FUNDING MECHANISM GOES AWAY, IT IS OUR DUTY AS A COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A FUNDING MECHANISM IN PLACE TO TAKE CARE OF THE FUTURE MAINTENANCE OF THIS BRIDGE, THE 51ST STREET VIADUCT, JONES ROD.
BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CREATE SOME, I DON'T KNOW.
SOME SPECIAL, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
BUT IT HAS TO HAVE DEDICATED FUNDING THAT COMES FROM THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE FUTURE OBLIGATIONS,
[04:20:03]
BECAUSE THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS ASSIGN SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR HOW WE'RE GOING TO FUND IN THE CASH.>> COME FROM THE COMMUNITY, COME FROM USERS.
THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US.
WHERE'S DISCUSSING THAT INTERNALLY?
>> MAYBE THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
DAN HAD HIS DISCUSSION WITH THE LOCAL, ESPECIALLY DISCUSSING WITH SOME OF THEM ON THAT EXACT POINT AS WELL AS DON ALSO.
>> THIS IS A REGIONAL PROJECT. THIS ISN'T JUST [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS IMPACTS THE STATEWIDE COMMERCE.
>> QUESTIONS ON THIS, COUNCIL?
>> AS WELL AS THE STATE UNIVERSITY.
>> WE'LL HAVE A [OVERLAPPING] ON THIS COMING UP AT OUR FEBRUARY MEETING AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3F, PLEASE, MA'AM.
[3.F. Discussion Of Alternate Revenue Sources For The City’s 2025/2026 Budget ( C Brown/Finklea - 20 Min )]
>> 3F. DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCES FOR 2025-2026 BUDGET.
>> I PUT THIS ON HERE, COUNCIL, AT THE REQUEST FOR TWO REASONS.
ONE IS, COUNCILMAN FINKLEY WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT ALTERNATE REVENUE SOURCES AT THE TIME THAT WE DISCUSSED THAT.
HE ASKED THAT BE PUT BACK ON FOR SOME DISCUSSION.
ALSO, I WANT TO GIVE COUNCIL A HEADS UP.
WE'RE COMING IN AT ANY TIME IMMEDIATELY.
WE'RE GOING TO START TALKING ABOUT OUR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, AND WE NEED TO START THINKING ABOUT ALTERNATE FUNDING STREAMS AND GETTING THOSE OUT THERE TO DISCUSS AND GETTING THEM TO STAFF AS SOON AS WE CAN.
I'M GOING TO BRING UP TWO POINTS ON THIS, BRIAN.
BRIAN? MY RECOMMENDATIONS ON ALTER FUNDING STREAMS. I THINK YOU'RE AWARE OF THIS, THAT WE NEED TO TAP INTO THE STATE TRUST FUND FOR EVENT REIMBURSEMENT AT THE STATE.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AT SCOTT JOSLOV, THAT WE'RE MISSING THE BOAT ON FUNDING FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF OUR HOT EXPENDITURES IN SOME MANNER.
WE NEED TO GET INPUT ON THAT, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
>> THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT IF WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY NOT DISSEMINATE 100% OF OUR HOT AND KEEP SOME OF IT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS.
>> THERE'S NO DOUBT. THE OTHER IS THE TOURISM IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.
I KNOW YOU'VE ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT THOSE, BUT WE NEED TO LOOK SERIOUSLY AT THAT TO SEE HOW THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO USE HOT AND OTHER AREAS OTHER THAN WHAT WE'RE USING.
THOSE TWO AREAS, DAN, I REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT AS ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES. DAVID?
>> I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING THIS BACK ON.
I'D MET WITH STAFF SEVERAL DIFFERENT TIMES, FERRETING OUT ORIGINALLY WHAT WAS ABOUT 12 DIFFERENT IDEAS, AND WE QUICKLY CAME DOWN TO REALIZE THAT SOME OF THOSE WERE JUST EITHER TO SOME TO GO THROUGH OR THE VALUE OF THE WORK IMPLEMENTATION.
DAN, I KNOW THAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR A VARIETY OF THEM.
I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU JUST SOME THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED TO ME IN THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN ALSO THAT I'VE TALKED WITH STAFF.
BY THE WAY, WHEN I TALKED ABOUT THIS, THE FOCUS IS ALWAYS LOOKING FOR WAYS TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL REVENUE FROM VISITORS.
NOT ADDITIONAL TAXES ON THE RESIDENTS.
THIS IS COMING FROM THE VISITORS, FROM TOURISM.
THE FIRST ONE THAT DAN AND I TALKED ABOUT WAS THE IDEA OF A TOUR TARIFF.
WE HAVE A VARIETY OF TOURS THAT ARE UTILIZING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THE FEE COULD BE COLLECTED FROM THOSE TOURS FOR THE PURPOSES OF OFFSETTING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC WORKS.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE TALK ABOUT SEGUES, GOLF CARTS.
WE'RE DOING A WHOLE HOST OF THAT.
>> THE THING WITH THIS IS THAT CURRENTLY, THESE ARE ALL ADDRESSED THROUGH A FRANCHISE FEE.
HOWEVER, THE FRANCHISE FEE, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS NOT NECESSARILY ENFORCED OR COLLECTED.
>> IT'S DIFFICULT. THIS IS A SIMILAR CONCEPT OF WHAT WE DID WITH THE CRUISE PASSENGERS.
WE ASSESSED A QUARTER ONBOARDING AND OFFBOARDING.
ANYWAY, THIS WAS ONE OF THE CONCEPTS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANTICIPATED VALUE OF THAT WOULD BE, BUT THIS WAS ONE OF THE CONCEPTS THAT I WANTED TO THROW OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION.
>> ANOTHER ONE WAS, THIS WAS ON THE REVENUE SHARING WITH THE PARK BOARD.
WE HEARD TODAY ABOUT, THEY'RE TRYING TO MOVE TOWARDS MAYBE JUST A PERCENT OF GROSS REVENUES SIMILAR TO WHAT THE PARK WAS LOOKING AT.
[04:25:01]
PRIOR TO THAT, I WAS LOOKING AT HOW THEY GO ABOUT DOING COLLECTION OF COSTS OR COLLECTION OF REVENUE ON OR ARE YOUR BEACH VENDORS.THE PARK BOARD HAS A POINT OF SALE SYSTEM OUT AT EAST BEACH.
THEY'RE COLLECTING COSTS AND AGGREGATING THAT.
ONE OF THE IDEAS WAS TO ASK THAT ALL VENDORS THAT HAVE CONCESSION AGREEMENTS WITH THE PARK BOARD IMPLEMENT A POINT OF SALE SYSTEM.
SO THAT YOU HAVE ACCURATE REPORTING COLLECTION OF COST.
>> I MENTIONED SOMETHING TOO EARLIER WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PARK BOARD, VERY HEALTHY ABOUT THIS.
JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THE HOT TAX IN GALVESTON IS YOUR HOT TAX.
ONLY THE CITY OF GALVESTON CAN ASSESS HOT TAX.
WE GIVE OUR HOT TAX, SOMETIMES OVER 100% OF IT TO THE PARK BOARD.
WHAT WE DISCUSSED TODAY WAS A FRAMEWORK FOR US TO ASK FOR IT BACK.
THAT'S LIKE GETTING YOUR PAYCHECK AND GIVING IT ALL TO YOUR KIDS AND THEN SAYING, HEY, CAN I HAVE SOME MONEY BACK TO PAY THE BILLS? JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE'S MORE TO THIS, AND IT'S FABULOUS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PARTNER WITH US.
I THINK THEIR HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE AND I THINK THEY REALLY MEAN IT.
BUT PROCEDURALLY, WE MAY BE DOING THIS WRONG, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK, AS DAVID IS POINTING OUT, THAT WE NEED TO REALLY LOOK AT.
>> THE POINT ABOUT THE VENDORS, IN MY PERSONAL OPINION, THE AGREEMENT, WHERE IT'S LIKE, 80% OF THE GROWTH.
I COULD MOVE, BUT I KNOW YOU HAVE A CERTAIN THRESHOLD THAT CLUBS UP. THAT DOESN'T [INAUDIBLE] > [OVERLAPPING] DOING BETTER.
>> WELL, WE ALSO HAVE THAT CONDITION ON LEASE AGREEMENTS OUT AT THE PORT AS WELL THAT LOOK MORE LIKE RETAIL LEASE AGREEMENTS RATHER THAN COMMERCIAL LEASE AGREEMENTS.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY ADDRESS.
>> I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED ABOUT THE REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE FOR THE PORT IN THE CITY, NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT, IF THERE ARE VENDORS OR LEASES OF LAND THAT ONE PURCHASED THE LAND, WELL, A, THAT TAKES A BIG CHUNK OF CHANGE THAT THE CITY CAN USE, THE PORT CAN USE.
THEN IT'S A ADDED BENEFIT FOR THE CITY FOR TAX REVENUE.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MOST EXPENSIVE LAND IN THE CITY.
YOU'RE TALKING OF A COUPLE OF HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR ADDED ONTO THE TAX ROLLS FOR RECURRING TAX REVENUE.
THAT'S SOMETHING TO EXPLORE AS WELL.
THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR THE REAL ESTATE COMMITTEE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW BAD THINGS ARE GOING TO BE.
WE HAVE THIS BRIDGE, WE HAVE ALL THESE PROBLEMS. LET'S ASSESS, IF WE DO ASSUME THE BRIDGE AND LET'S SAY THE DISTRICT NAVIGATION GOES AWAY, WE CAN LEVERAGE THAT USER FEE.
HEY, YOU'RE COMING OVER THE 50 FIRST STREET BIND UP TO GET THE TO CRUISE SHIPS.
WHERE IS THE EXTRA DOLLAR OR $2 FOR A USER FEE THAT SOME OF IT CAN BE EAR-MARKED OR SILO TO BRIDGE MAINTENANCE?
>> IS LIKE YOU'VE JUST TAKEN AWAY BY OTHER ITEM DOWN THERE.
3D AND THEN F. I WAS LIKE ROLLING IN [INAUDIBLE]
>> BUT I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO STAY CONSCIOUS THAT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS CAN ONLY BEAR SO MANY ADDITIONAL COSTS.
DEMANDING THAT A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER PUT IN A POINT OF SALE SYSTEM, IT'S A LOT FOR PEOPLE THAT AREN'T MAKING A LOT OF MONEY.
THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS KILL THE BACKBONE OF OUR CITY, WHICH IS SMALL BUSINESS, BY PUTTING IN A BUNCH OF TARIFFS ON THEM.
THIS IS NOT TRYING TO BE A BURDEN ON SMALL BUSINESSES, THIS IS RATHER A COLLECTION OF FEES FROM VISITORS.
>> YOU'RE SAYING IF YOU RENTED A X, Y, Z BECAUSE IT CHANGES EVERY DAY WHAT PEOPLE RUN AROUND HERE? THAT THERE WOULD BE A CITY OF SP ON TOP OF THAT.
IT WOULDN'T COME FROM THE LOCAL BUSINESS, IT WOULD COME FROM THE USERS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE SMALL BUSINESS WOULD HAVE TO PUT IN A SALE.
>> THAT WAS ON THE BEACH. [INAUDIBLE]
[04:30:02]
>> I'M JUST SAYING WE HAVE TO STAY CONSCIOUS [NOISE]
>> THAT'S WHY WE GIVE THE $0.15 FOR THE $2 PER DAY BACK TO THE OPERATOR FOR THE BURDEN BURDEN.
IF THAT IS THE CASE, I ALREADY DO IT.
BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO IMPOSE A FEE ON THE CUSTOMERS AND REQUIRE OUR SMALL BUSINESSES TO ASSESS THAT AND COLLECT IT, THEY NEED TO EITHER.
THEY NEED TO BE COMPETENT AT WORK OR AT LEAST DISCUSSIONS OF IT. I GET WHAT YOU DO.
IT'S JUST THAT THINKING OF, WE HAVE TO START, HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET? INSTEAD OF SOMEONE IS COMING DOWN AND SPENDING $5 DOWN HERE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET EXTRA $2 OUT OF EVERY PERSON?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT, WE'VE BEEN HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN PUTTING COST ON THE CRUISE PASSENGERS THAT COME IN PARK.
BUT THAT'S ONLY TWO MILLION OF THE SEVEN MILLION THAT COME HERE.
>> WE HAVEN'T BEEN HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN CAPTURING.
>> THAT'S A GREAT LEAD INTO MY NEXT ONE.
IT HAS TO DO WITH PARKING ON THE SEAWALL.
I KNOW THIS AFFECTS A LOT OF GROUPS, GLO, ETC., AND I GET IT.
BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN, THAT IF WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT INCREASING REVENUE FROM VISITORS, WHAT IS THE NUMBER 1 REASON PEOPLE COME TO VISIT THE ISLE? IT'S [INAUDIBLE]
>> PARKING REVENUES CAN ONLY BE USED ON THE BEACH.
>> ON THE SEAWALL, THAT'S CORRECT.
OR ON THE BEACH. IT CAN ONLY BE USED ON SEAWALL PARK.
BUT TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND THEN USE THOSE FEES TO HELP ENHANCE THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE ON THE SEAWALL.
TO HELP FUND ADDITIONAL EITHER FIRST CASE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S FINE. RESIDENTS USE THE SEAWALL ALL THE TIME.
BUT IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT GENERATING REVENUE FROM VISITORS, MY FIRST OBLIGATION WITH THAT IS TO HELP ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL VISITORS.
MAYBE I DIDN'T SAY THAT RIGHT. LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
THE IDEA WAS TO INCREASE PARKING COSTS ON THE SEAWALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF DOING A COMPREHENSIVE SEAWALL MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH I'LL TALK TO, WHETHER THAT IS IMPROVED SITE DISTANCES AT INTERSECTION DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS THAT ARE DONE CORRECTLY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] SILOS TAKE SOME OF THOSE BURDENS THAT WE ARE BEARING WITH OUR GENERAL FUNDING SILO UNDERNEATH THOSE THINGS.
>> THE [INAUDIBLE] CONTROLS THAT.
BRIAN, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE THE LAST TIME WE RAISED THE FEE?
>> BUT NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS ALONG COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEY, AS LINES WE CAN LOOK AT IS HOW THE CURRENT FEE IS BEING USED AND SPLIT AND WHO WE'RE PAYING IT TO AND WHETHER WE'RE GETTING THE BEST VALUE FOR THAT.
>> IT COULD BE THAT WE HAD WANT TO TAKE OVER THE MANAGEMENT OF SEAWALL PARKING BACK TO THE CITY.
WELL, IT'S FUNNY YOU BRING THAT UP BECAUSE IT DOVETAILS INTO THE DISCUSSION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN BROUGHT UP EARLIER ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN PARKING KIOSK.
WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY UPFRONT AND DELEGATED IT TO THE PARK BOARD SO THERE WOULD BE A MORE PERSONAL INTERACTION TO GET PEOPLE ACQUAINTED.
WE DON'T HAVE THE SCOOTERS UP THERE ANYMORE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT STUFF ANYMORE.
NOW THE PARK BOARD DOES A REALLY GOOD JOB OF KEEPING THE SEAWALL CLEAN AND ALL THAT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ON THE SEAWALL?
>> THE AMBASSADORS OR WHATEVER.
IN THE CALL CENTER, ALL THOSE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WE'RE SPENDING SEAWALL PARKING MONEY ON NOW COULD MAYBE BE HAVE A BETTER USE.
WE'LL LOOK AT ALL THOSE THINGS, AND DAN'S DOING THAT AS PART OF THE INTERLOCAL NEGOTIATIONS.
>> WHAT DAVID IS TALKING ABOUT, HE SAID, POTENTIALLY FUNDING A SEA BALL MOBILITY PLAN.
WELL, WE HAVE A SEA BALL MOBILITY PLAN COMING UP ON ANALYSIS.
WE HAVE A GRANT TO STUDY THE, I THINK, BICYCLE MASTER PLAN IS GOING TO STUDY.
[OVERLAPPING] I ASSUME WILL RESULT IN SOME ACTION OR PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT PER THAT PLAN, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> WE WILL CERTAINLY DO THAT, YES.
>> DAN, ALSO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT AS A PART OF THAT, YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL CHARGE ON ADMINISTRATION FEE FOR THE COLLECTION OF THAT.
THAT WOULD GO TO HELP OFFSET THE COST OF COLLECTIONS AND ALSO THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE VOTERS VOTED FOR A SPECIFIC USE FOR THE FUNDING, AND IT'S FOR SEAWALL IMPROVEMENTS.
THAT'S WHAT OUR VOTERS VOTED FOR.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT GLO WANTS US TO DO, OUR VOTERS HAS TO BE USED IN A CERTAIN WAY.
YOU'RE SEEING THAT IMPLEMENTED NOW WITH THE BOLLARD LIGHTING.
WE GET NOTHING BUT COMPLIMENTS ON THAT AND CREDIT COUNSEL FOR DOING THAT.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK OUR PEOPLE WANT TO SEE AND THEY SEE THOSE IMPROVE.
[04:35:04]
THAT'S VERY VISIBLE. YOU GET OUT THERE AND SEE IT.>> WE'RE BACK AND 1,000 CENTERPOINT IS NOT [LAUGHTER] IN TERMS OF THE STREET LIGHTS.
>> I'VE GOT ONE MORE, OR ACTUALLY, I'VE GOT TWO MORE.
BUT THE COUNCILOR OF PERETO ACTUALLY WHICH WAS, IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR CREATIVE FUNDING MECHANISMS FOR OUR BRIDGES THAT WE'RE NOW GOING TO HAVE TO ADOPT, MAYBE WE LOOK AT SOME TOLL FOR THE USE OF THE 51ST STREET BRIDGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
I'M GOING TO GO FURTHER AND JUMP OUT THERE TO SAY THAT, AND I'M SURE I'M GOING TO GET A LOT OF BACKLASH BUT I'LL PUT IT OUT THERE ANYWAY.
LOOK AT CONGESTION PRICING ON THE CAUSEWAY.
THEN CHARGING A CERTAIN MINIMAL AMOUNT. I KNOW.
THAT'S OKAY. HOLD ON. BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT CHARGING A MINIMAL AMOUNT FOR VISITORS TO COME ON THE ISLAND.
>> WELL, THE PROBLEM IS IF YOU DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION SOURCES, AND WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT.
>> LOOK, I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR FUNDING FOR COVERING THE COST OF OUR BRIDGE INFRASTRUCTURE, ONE WAY THAT YOU COULD DO THAT IS THROUGH ROAD USER FEES.
NOW, THE WAY THAT IT LOOKS IS, YOU'D HAVE TO STRUCTURE IT, I DON'T KNOW.
>> PART OF WHAT STINGS ON THE BRIDGE DISCUSSION IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT ON PELICAN ISLAND, AND IF THINGS STAY THE WAY IT IS, MOST OF IT'S GOING TO STAY OFF THE TAX ROLLS.
>> ONE THING, YOU GUYS REMEMBER [INAUDIBLE] YEARS AGO. OLD BRIDGE.
>> WE'LL JUST HAVE TO SET BRIDGE.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. A FUSER I GUESS OPERATION.
>> I JUST WANT TO SHAKE THE HAND OF THE KID THAT RIDES THE BIKE UP THE 75-FOOT BRIDGE.
>> BOB SLID FOR THE SNOW DAYS.
>> WE HAVE TO PREPARE FOR THAT NOW. I FORGOT.
>> I DIDN'T SAY THAT SOME OF THESE WEREN'T DIFFICULT TO WORK THROUGH, BUT I AT LEAST WANTED TO BRING THEM [INAUDIBLE].
BECAUSE I SEE WHERE WE'RE HEADED FOR NEXT YEAR, WE START THE BUDGETING PROCESS.
WE'VE GOT TO FIND THESE AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE IDEA OF GOING OUT TO OUR STATE OR FEDERAL PARTNERS AND LEVERAGING ADDITIONAL GRANT FUNDS FOR CREATIVE PROGRAMS. I KNOW THAT WE DO A GREAT JOB ANYWAY, BUT MAYBE THERE'S ONES THAT WE JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
DAN, WERE ANYTHING ELSE LISTED?
>> I THINK AS EVERYBODY AND COUNCIL KNOWS, WE ASKED FOR YOUR INPUT, RECEIVED SOME INPUT.
LET'S OPEN THE DOOR AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE OTHER THINGS YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO CONSIDER, CONSOLIDATE ON THE LIST THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING BACK TO YOU ALL FOR DISCUSSION.
THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING TO USE ON WHERE WE GO FROM HERE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF IDEAS, SOME THAT ARE MORE FEASIBLE THAN OTHERS.
SOME THAT A MAY LIKE AND MAY NOT LIKE, BUT WE NEED THAT DIRECTION FROM Y'ALL.
THAT'S THE IDEA BEHIND, GET THEM TO ME SO I CAN AGGREGATE THEM, BRING THEM TO Y'ALL, AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE.
>> THANK YOU, DAVID. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> WELL, TO REFER BACK TO WHAT WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY WITH A PARK FLOOR JOINT MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO GET DATA FROM THEM ABOUT PROJECTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS, ESPECIALLY [INAUDIBLE].
>> REMEMBER THAT [LAUGHTER] THAT HOT MONEY IS OURS FIRST ITEMS. ANYTHING YOU DO WITH IT, WE HAD TO DECIDE IT.
>> I KNOW. WE'VE GOT TWO ITEMS. COUNCILWOMAN ROB IS ASKING FOR A BREAK.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE THROUGH QUICKLY, BUT IF COUNSEL WANTS A BREAK, WE BREAK.
>> FINISH. I GUESS WE'RE TAKING A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.
>> HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN, JANELLE? WE HAVE TAKEN OUR FIVE-MINUTE BREAK, AND WE'RE MOVING TO ITEM 3.
[3.G. Update And Discussion Of Event/Arts Funding And The Related Process For Hotel Occupancy Tax Distribution ( A Lynch - 20 Min )]
G, PLEASE.>> ITEM 3.G. DATED DISCUSSION OF EVENT ARTS FUNDING AND THE RELATED PROCESS FOR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX DISTRIBUTION.
>> ANTOINETTE IS WITH US, LYNCH.
SHE WILL IDENTIFY HERSELF IN A SECOND AND GIVE US HER JOB DESCRIPTION AND SO FORTH HERE AT THE CITY.
ANTOINETTE, THIS IS LEFTOVER FROM MARCH OF 2023.
WHEN WE DISCUSSED COMING BACK WITH THE REPORT.
I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF,
[04:40:03]
YOUR POSITION, WHAT YOU'LL BE MISSING WITH US TODAY.>> SURE. I'M ANTOINETTE PERRY LYNCH.
I'M ARTS AND CULTURE COORDINATOR HERE AT THE CITY.
I'VE BEEN HERE JUST OVER A YEAR NOW.
WHEN I ORIGINALLY ARRIVED, IT WAS AFTER THE MASTER PLANNING FOR THE ARTS HAD BEEN COMPLETED.
THAT WAS A PARK BOARD AND CITY JOINT EFFORT THAT WAS CO-AUTHORED BY THE GALVESTON ART CENTER.
THE NEA DIDN'T RECOGNIZE THE PARK BOARD AS A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY THAT COULD OVERSEE THAT GRANT.
THEY BROUGHT THE CITY ON BOARD AND THE CITY AND THE GALVESTON ART CENTER.
HIRED A THIRD PARTY TO DO THE MASTER PLANNING, AND THE PARK BOARD PROVIDED THE MONEY MATCH. THANK YOU, SIR.
WHEN I ARRIVED, THE GOAL OF THE MASTER PLAN, WHICH WE HAVE ON OUR WEBSITE.
THE FIRST GOAL OF IT IS TO IMPLEMENT IT AND TO CREATE AN OVERSIGHT STRUCTURE FOR THAT MASTER PLAN.
WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE THAT UMBRELLA WAS SOMETHING THAT I WAS TASKED WITH BRINGING FORWARD TO COUNCIL.
AFTER ARRIVING, WE DECIDED WE NEED TO GET A FEW DUCKS IN ORDER AND ALSO A LITTLE MORE DATA.
WE NEVER HAD ANYBODY REALLY COLLECTING THAT DATA FOR US.
WE REACHED OUT TO SMU DATAARTS.
YOU DO NOT NEED TO READ ANY OF THESE SLIDES.
I'M JUST GOING TO FREEZE YOU THROUGH THEM.
THIS IS HOW SMU DATAARTS POLLS INFORMATION AND THE DIFFERENT SOURCES, AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO LOOK AT THESE AND I CAN SEND YOU ANY MORE INFORMATION YOU LIKE LATER.
BUT THIS IS HOW YOU MEASURE WHAT THEY CALL ARTS VIBRANCY IN COMMUNITIES.
DATE ARTS DOES THIS EVERY THREE YEARS, AND WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY AND DO A DEEP DIVE WITH THEM FOR THOSE CITIES I BROUGHT TO YOU LAST TIME I WAS HERE.
WE STARTED OUT WITH ABOUT 20 CITIES OF RECOMMENDATION TO COMPARE GALS 2.
WE PULLED THOSE CITIES FROM TEXANS FOR THE ARTS, SMU DATAARTS THEMSELVES, BARS AND CULTURE MASTER PLAN, AND VISIT GALVESTON.
WHAT WE DID WAS TAKE RECENT TOURISM STUDIES THAT HAD BEEN DONE IN WHAT CITIES WE'VE BEEN COMPARED TO IN THOSE TOURISM STUDIES.
THEN TEXANS FOR THE ARTS MADE RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON CITIES IN TEXAS THAT THEY KNEW TO BE DEVELOPING THE ARTS, AND THEN THE MASTER PLAN HAD PULLED THOSE FROM A NATIONAL LEVEL.
THESE ARE THE METRICS THAT WERE THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD.
ADDITIONALLY, WE LOOKED AT DEMOGRAPHICS, DISTANCE FROM THE AIRPORT, ANY VAST SIMILARITIES OR DIFFERENCES IN ACTUAL ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE, AND THEN WHAT THE OVERSIGHT ENTITIES LOOK LIKE, WHAT THEIR STRUCTURE IS, WHAT THEIR FUNDING IS, ETC.
>> WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS BEHIND?
>> THESE ARE WHAT PERCENTAGE YOU ARE IN AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL BASED ON THEY DO SMALL, MID, AND LARGE CITIES.
GALVESTON IS IN THE SAME BRACKET AS JACKSON HOLE, BRECKENRIDGE, AND GLENWOOD, THE THREE THAT ARE UP THERE IN THE COMPS.
CHARLESTON NEW ORLEANS ARE LARGE CITIES.
AS YOU CAN SEE JACKSON HOLE ACTUALLY RANKS IN THE TOP FIVE CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES FOR ARTS VIBRANCY.
THEY ARE RANKED 99.87 OF THEIR OVERALL VIBRANCY.
WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO OVER TO GALVESTON, YOU SEE WHAT I'VE HIGHLIGHTED.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO FOCUS ON RAISING.
TO THAT END, MR. PERETO KNOWS THAT I'VE BROUGHT FORWARD TO OUR ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
COMMITTEE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO POTENTIALLY USE SMU DATAARTS FOR OUR REPORTING.
SMU, LIKE I SAID, THIS ORGANIZATION THAT WE GOT THIS DATA FROM, THEY ALSO HANDLE GRANT MAKERS REPORTING FOR A FEE, WHICH WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHERE THAT WOULD COME FROM.
BUT FOR A FEE, THEY COULD OVERSEE THAT FOR US.
THIS WOULD DO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
NUMBER 1, IT WOULD HELP BREAK US OUT FROM THE GREATER HOUSTON AREA.
WHEN WE LOOK AT ANYTHING FOR THE ARTS, THEY PUT US WITH GREATER HOUSTON BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SEPARATING OURSELVES.
NUMBER 2, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT UP THERE AND YOU SEE THE NON-PROFITS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE ARTS AND HOW LOW THOSE SCORES, LIKE 68.31 FOR THE NON-PROFITS.
WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE ARTS FOCUSED ON PROFITS, BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY OUR BIG GUYS ARE USING SMU DATAARTS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE NEA AND THE NEH.
WELL, OUR SMALL ORGANIZATIONS NEED TO BE BROUGHT ON BOARD.
[04:45:01]
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THEY NEED TO APPLY FOR THOSE LARGER GRANTS.BUT WHAT WE CAN DO BY USING SMU DATAARTS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, THEY'LL BE REGISTERED IN THERE AND WE'LL AUTOMATICALLY START GOING UP IN OUR ARTS VIBRANCY.
THAT'LL HELP EVERYBODY WHEN THEY GO AND WRITE GRANTS TO SHOW THAT THEY ARE IN THIS DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE.
>> I THINK THAT FEE, I'M ASSUMING AS IS ALLOWABLE COULD COME FROM THE GRANT.
ADMINISTRATIVE PERCENTAGE OF SMU THAT HANDLES THE GRANT.
>> WE COULD HANDLE IT THAT WAY.
WE COULD ALSO TAKE IT OUT OF THE TOP OF SAY, ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION RECEIVES LIKE LAST YEAR, THE 1.8 OUT OR WHATEVER'S DOWN THERE.
>> WE COULD TAKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE OUT OF THE TOP BEFORE ALLOCATIONS ARE MADE.
>> 6% GOES TO BECAUSE OF THIS CONTRACT.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO NEGOTIATE IT, BUT WHATEVER THE READ-UPON AMOUNT.
BUT THEY COULD THEY ALSO TAKE THIS FROM THE GRANT, LIKE IF THEY WRITE THE GRANT, RECEIVE THE GRANT, THINK THERE'S SOME LEGAL LANGUAGE ABOUT ACCEPTING A CERTAIN AMOUNT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, THE PERCENTAGE OF THE GRANT COULD BE WRONG.
>> WELL, SO WE WOULD STILL DO THE GRANT.
>> WE WOULD STILL DO THE GRANT-MAKING.
WHAT THEY WOULD DO IS PROVIDE THE REPORTING.
PROS AND CONS, P WOULD BE THAT ONCE AN ORGANIZATION IS REPORTING THROUGH SMU DATAARTS AND THEY'RE STAYING WITH IT, WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SEEING WHAT ORGANIZATIONS ARE UP TO DATE ON ANYTHING.
THEY CREDIT WE PULL THEIR REPORT AND GO THEY QUALIFY.
THESE ARE PRE-EXISTING ORGANIZATIONS AND THEY QUALIFY.
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT LAST SLIDE? INDEPENDENT ARTISTS WERE IS AT 36%?
>> WE SCALE, LOW SCALE ON THAT BY ALMOST ABOUT 40 POINTS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] CAN YOU PULL THOSE TWO OUT AND GIVE US SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT?
>> SURE. IF YOU GO BACK, I'LL GO BACK TO THE SLIDE BEFORE, BUT I'LL READ IT TO YOU.
INDEPENDENT ARTISTS ARE CONSIDERED FREELANCE ARTISTS PRIMARILY ENGAGED IN PERFORMING IN ARTISTIC PRODUCTIONS AND CREATING ARTISTIC AND CULTURAL WORK PRODUCTIONS OR IN PROVIDING THE TECHNICAL EXPERTISE NECESSARY FOR THESE PRODUCTIONS, AGGREGATED AT THE ZIP CODE LEVEL.
>> IS THIS PERCENTAGE BREAKDOWN? IS THIS WHAT WE ARE BASICALLY GUIDED BY AS FAR AS WHAT WE CAN SPEND?
>> NO, THESE ARE GOING TO BE OUR RUBRIC FOR SUCCESS IF YOU WILL.
THESE ARE GOING TO BE WHAT WE AIM TO IMPROVE ON.
WE CAN TELL IF JACKSON HOLE IS IN THE 99% AND THERE'S GOING 99 IN ALL THREE MAJOR CATEGORIES, WHICH ONES CAN WE FOCUS ON AND WHAT CAN WE BRING UP? ANYTHING IN THE PINK HIGHLIGHTED OVER HERE, THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE NEED TO WORK ON. THEY'RE NOT BAD.
HONESTLY, THEY ARE THINGS THAT WE'RE ALREADY IN THE WORKS.
WHEN WE ARE IN PHASE 2 YEAR 2 OF APPLYING FOR AN ADDITIONAL CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICT, THAT WILL HELP THE STATE ARTS GRANTS NUMBER AND FEDERAL ARTS GRANTS NUMBER BOTH BECAUSE THAT IS STATE ARTS GRANTS.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THAT DISTRICT DOES IS GIVE ARTS-FOCUSED NON-PROFITS ACCESS TO STATE FUNDING.
>> IS THIS SCORE TALKING ABOUT, LET'S SAY, INDEPENDENT ARTISTS? ARE YOU JUST MEASURING HOW MANY WE HAVE?
BUT WHAT THEY'RE MEASURING ARE ONES THAT CLAIM IT BY TAX AND CENSUS, AND THEY PULL THEIR METRICS FROM AND YOU CAN SEE WHERE THEY SENT IT, BUT I CAN ALSO SEND YOU ALL A DEEP DIVE INTO SMU DATAARTS AND HOW THEY PULL ALL OF THEIR DATA.
>> THOSE ARTISTS DON'T HAVE TAX NUMBER ACCOUNT.
>> IF THEY'RE NOT CLAIMING TO BE AN ARTIST ON THEIR TAXES IF THEY DON'T HAVE A 99 FROM ANYONE, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
WHAT WILL ALSO HELP US IS MORE INDEPENDENT ARTISTS BEING CONTRACTED WHERE THERE'S THAT PAPER TRAIL.
>> GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR PRESENTATION AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS IF WE COULD.
[04:50:02]
>> HOW MANY MORE SLIDES TO YOU I'LL BE QUICK.
>> HE'S VERY POLITE. [LAUGHTER]
>> THIS IS THE SPENDING FOR FY24.
THIS IS HOW WE INVESTED BY [INAUDIBLE] INVESTED IN THE ARTS THIS PAST YEAR.
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT IS WHAT OUR ARTS AND HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE DOES TO THE TUNE IN 2024 1.8 MILLION.
YOU CAN SEE THE ORGANIZATIONS I DID THEM BY AMOUNT, SO YOU CAN SEE THE TOP ORGANIZATIONS THAT RECEIVE FUNDING FROM US.
THAT FUNDING IS CAPPED AT 20% OF THEIR TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET, AND I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE SUM TOTAL OF THEIR MARKETING BUDGET.
I HAVE NOT DONE A DEEP DIVE INTO HOW THEY AUDIT THAT AT ALL.
WE DID 130,000 IN ALLOCATIONS.
THAT'S 24. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE NOW UP TO 250,000, WHICH IS ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE'LL DISCUSS THAT.
BUT YOU ALL CHANGED THAT FUNDING YOU'VE INCREASED IT 100,000-250,000.
THEN WE'VE GOT THE SPECIAL PROJECTS ART DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IN 24, WE DID THE CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL HERITAGE DISTRICT AT 50,000, AND THEN WE DID THE AFRICAN AMERICAN BEACH LIFE BARD MONUMENT FOR 15,000.
THAT 15,000 IS STILL SITTING IN THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
DUE TO ISSUES WITH THE FUNDING FOR THE BOARD AND WHERE THAT WOULD GO.
MAJOR CHANGES THAT TOOK PLACE IN 2024.
YOU ALL CAN BREEZE THROUGH THOSE LATER, BUT SOME SIGNIFICANT STRIDES IN STREAMLINING THE ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING BACK TO YOU COLLECTIVELY.
I'VE BEEN BARTERING BETWEEN ARTS AND STORE PRESERVATION AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION BECAUSE CURRENTLY, I'M GOING TO SHOOT AHEAD FOR A SECOND.
CURRENTLY ON THE LEFT IS HOW WE STRUCTURE THE ARTS FUNDING.
THE CITY, SIX-EIGHTH OF A PENNY, IT GOES STRAIGHT TO ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND ART AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION RECEIVES 95% OF IT, 5% IS HELD BY THE CITY.
>> YES, IT'S REPORTS. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY.
THEN YOU NOW GIVE $250,000 TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION FROM ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
TECHNICALLY, THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION ORDINANCE FALLS UNDERNEATH THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, WHICH IS REALLY CONVOLUTED.
TO THE RIGHT, YOU'LL SEE THE IMMEDIATE SOLUTION THAT I'VE BEEN DISCUSSING WITH BOTH ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND CULTURAL ARTS WHERE WE BREAK THAT OUT.
THE ARTS FUNDING IS HERE AND THEN ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION GETS THEIR FUNDING FROM THE SAME SOURCE AS CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
THEY HAVE SEPARATE ORDINANCES THAT OVERSEE THE TWO.
CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION HAS AGREED TO DO A PERCENTAGE RATHER THAN A FLAT AMOUNT OF THAT $250,000, WHICH WAS A BIG ASK AND BIG GET FOR THEM TO AGREE TO THAT.
WHAT THEY AGREED TO WAS 20%, WHICH THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD SUGGESTED.
WHAT THEY HAVE NOT AGREED TO YET IS THE AMOUNT OF THE RESERVE, WHETHER IT BE 3% OR 5%, [NOISE] THAT'S STILL IN DISCUSSION, BUT THEY HAVE AGREED TO THE 20%.
THAT WILL COME TO COUNCIL WHEN THEY'VE AGREED ON THE RESERVE AMOUNT, BUT THOSE RESERVE AMOUNTS WILL ALSO COME AT THE SAME TIME AS WE HAVE LANGUAGE WRITTEN TO HANDLE THE RESERVE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO SHARE AN UPDATE SINCE I'M TALKING ABOUT IT.
CONGRESSMAN FINKLEA HAD APPROACHED ME ABOUT AN ISSUE WHERE SOME OF THE GRANT FUNDING ON A CYCLICAL BASIS COULD IT BE ESSENTIALLY SUBSIDIZING THEIR OPERATIONS.
THROUGH ALL THE MEETINGS WITH THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, WE'VE WENT TO THE REDIRECTION OF TWO ON, [NOISE] ONE, ONE OFF, SO THEY GET FOUR YEARS OF FUNDING [NOISE] ONE-OFF.
[NOISE] WHERE IT SAYS THE 5% PUT INTO RESERVE FUND WHEN FUND REACHES 15%, INTERIM FUNDING OPENS TO PREVIOUSLY FUNDED ORGANIZATIONS, WHERE IF YOU'RE NOT, LET'S SAY, THE HOT TAX COLLECTION IS HIGHER AND THE PERCENTAGE, THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT COULD BE DOLED OUT.
IF YOU DID NOT QUALIFY BECAUSE YOU WERE TURNED OUT FOR THE TWO YEARS, YOU COULD APPLY FOR INTERIM FUNDING.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE'RE NOT USING THIS AS A CRUTCH TO GET US ALONG,
[04:55:02]
BUT YOU WOULD QUALIFY IF YOU [NOISE] DIDN'T QUALIFY FOR THAT YEAR OF FUNDING FROM ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION HOT FUNDS.>> [LAUGHTER] CAN I ASK QUESTION? TWO DIFFERENT TERMS. YOU SAID FOUR YEARS ON ONE YEAR.
>> TWO YEAR FUNDING CYCLE? SO YOU GET TWO YEAR FUNDING CYCLES, SO FOUR YEARS, AND THEN YOU GET A GAP, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GAP FOR TWO YEARS.
THAT'S AT LEAST THE DISCUSSIONS OF MEETINGS.
>> YOU HAVEN'T FINALIZED THAT JUST TO KNOW WHERE YOU'RE HEADED?
>> THAT'S WE'VE ASKED MARON, AND I DON'T KNOW IF DON'S BEEN PRIVY TO THAT, BUT WE'VE WE'VE LOOKED AT NOT MAKING.
IT OPENS THE DOOR TO FOR SMALLER ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THAT PERIOD WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE EXCESS FUNDING WHERE THE SMALLER ORGANIZATIONS WILL QUALIFY, AND I THINK IT JUST MAKES FOR A HEALTHIER PROCESS THROUGHOUT.
>> IF YOU'RE GOING TO SEND THIS SLIDE PRESENTATION, CAN YOU CHANGE THE BLACK BACKGROUNDS THAT WE CAN PRINT IT WITHOUT COSTING LIKE A WHOLE CARTRIDGE?
>> I PULLED THESE FROM PREVIOUS SLIDES.
>> I'M GOING TO GO FORWARD ONE SLIDE AND THEN BACKWARDS TWO.
>> THIS IS THE END GOAL THAT I'M GOING TO COME TO FOR.
SO WHEN I GO BACK TO THE OTHER SLIDES, I'LL EXPLAIN.
BUT THIS WAS THE IMMEDIATE FIX ON THE RIGHT, THEN THESE ARE THE TWO OPTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
WHEN I BRING THE DIFFERENT STRUCTURES NEXT, COUNCIL, THIS IS GOING TO BE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
SO DO YOU WANT ARTS AND CULTURE BROKEN OUT AS A THIRD? YOU HAVE A QUIZ?
>> WELL, LET ME FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS A QUESTION ANTOINE TO YOU, AND TO ALEX, YOU'RE THE AISON AND ALEX IS ARTS AND HISTORIC.
YOU HAVE BEEN RUNNING BY THESE GROUPS, YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T FINALIZED WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL WILL BE YET?
>> NO. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER COME UP TO SEPARATE THEM.
IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED, BUT I THINK THE FUNDING MECHANISM THAT COMES FROM ARTS AND HISTORIC THAT ROLLS INTO IT OR MOVING THAT PERCENTAGE THOUGHT, I GUESS IT'S UP TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE WOULD BE.
BUT I THINK SOME OF THAT FUNDING THAT GOES DOWN, NOT HAVING A SEPARATE ARM, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
>> THAT 20 OR THE I GUESS RECOMMENDED PERCENTAGE GOES TOWARDS YOU COULD SAY HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF ART THAT'S COMMISSIONED BY THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
IS THERE ANY CHANGES ON THE MISSION OF THESE TWO GROUPS? IS THERE ANY CHANGES ARTS AND HISTORICALLY HAS ALWAYS FUNDED EVENTS? CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION HAS ALWAYS STARTED OUT FUNDING PUBLIC ART.
IS THAT THE WAY IT'S GOING TO STAY OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE MISSION OF THE GROUP?
>> SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVEN'T, THE ARTS AND HISTORIC I GUESS, SINCE IT'S BEEN HOUSED AT THE CITY HAS NOT REALLY TACKLED EVENTS AS MUCH.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG? BUT, WE'VE LOOKED AT HISTORIC PRESERVATION ASPECT OF IT AND THERE WAS AN ISSUE WHERE WHEN THE FUNDS REACH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OVER WHAT CAN BE ALLOCATED FOR THE RESERVE FUND AS WELL.
IT WENT INTO A SEPARATE ACCOUNT.
I LOOK AT IT MORE OF A FEATURE THAN A BUG, WHERE THOSE FUNDS IF HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THE ONLY GROUP THAT COULD QUALIFY FOR ANY HISTORIC PRESERVATION USE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AT THIS TIME, WOULD BE THE NAVAL MUSEUM, WHERE THIS HAS BEEN A DISCUSSION WHERE IF WE WANT TO LOOK AT THIS RESERVE FUNDING, HOW DO WE WANT TO SPEND IT WISELY? AND THERE'S REALLY NOTHING ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT I GUESS THE COVAL AND THE STEWART, AND THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT.
HOW IT WOULD WORK WAS, YOU HAVE A SIX YEAR PERIOD OR HOWEVER THE PERIOD WOULD BE DEDICATED AND BUILD THE RESERVE FUND, AND ALLOCATE THAT TO A PARTICULAR PROJECT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
WE WOULDN'T JUST DOLE THAT OUT.
WE WOULD WAIT AND DO IT AS A REIMBURSEMENT STYLE.
[05:00:01]
THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE SURE ALL OF THE BOXES ARE CHECKED.THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE ARTS AND HISTORIC IS STILL DISCUSSING.
BUT THAT'S THE DIRECTION OF THE CONVERSATION.
WE'RE STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH THAT.
AND WE DO HAVE THE ONE A BIDDING.
IT'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION MONEY.
>> DEDICATED TO CITY FACILITIES.
>> AND THAT'S ONLY TO FACILITIES THAT ARE OWNED BY THE CITY.
>> WELL, YEAH. SO BUT CULTURAL ARTS IS JUST FUNDING PUBLIC ART, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> I KNOW IT'S FAIR SHARE OF ISSUES.
AND THEN THERE'S A WHOLE OTHER BOX THAT I DON'T HAVE UP HERE, WHICH IS THE CROSSOVER BETWEEN WHAT THE PARK FUNDS, WHAT WE FOUND OUT OF TAGS, AND THE FACT THAT OUR HOT TAX CANNOT EXCEED 15%.
BUT POTENTIALLY IF THEY'RE DEVELOPING ARTS FUNDING OVER THERE.
SO THEIR OPINION IS ONCE THEY RECEIVE HOT TAX, THEY CAN STILL SPEND IT AT ANY OF THE NINE HOT TAX BUCKETS.
SO WE HAVE ORDINANCES THAT OVERSEE THE WAY WE CAN SPEND HOT FOR ART.
>> WE RAN INTO A PROBLEM WHERE AN ORGANIZATION, LET'S SAY THEY GOT 15% FROM ARTS AND HISTORIC, THEY WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR ANY PERCENTAGE OR ANY DOLLAR AMOUNT OVER THAT 15%, NO?
>> NO. IT'S 15% FOR YOUR TOTAL SPEND.
SO 15% OF OR HOT WHICH SHOULD NEVER BE A PROBLEM.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT IF YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES DOING FUNDING FOR THE ARTS AND PLANNING PERPETUAL FUNDING FOR THESE THINGS.
WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE DAY IDC AGREES TO HELP US TO AN EVENT CENTER, WHICH IS IN THE SCOPE OF IDC, AND WE END UP WITH THIS VERY EXPENSIVE PROJECT THAT HITS THAT 15%.
THERE'S GOING TO BE THINGS ON THE CITY SIDE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF AND THAT WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
BUT THERE'S POTENTIAL THAT PARK BOARD COULD FUND THINGS THAT PUT US OVER THAT 15%.
>> SO WITH THE SMU AND THE DATA COLLECTION, SORRY, I'M UNDERSTANDING THE DIVISION AND THEN BASICALLY THE TWO, YOU SAID ARTS AND HISTORIC AND IN CULTURAL ARTS?
>> SO HOW ARE WE MONITORING OR ACCOUNTING FOR SUCCESSES? AS FAR AS AMOUNT OF ATTENDANCE, THE FINANCIAL EXPENSE AND WHAT OUR RETURN WAS LIKE, HOW WAS THAT BEING MONITORED? IS THAT BEING MONITORED BY SMU CALLING AND SAYING, HEY, WHAT WAS YOUR ATTENDANCE.
WHAT DID YOU SPEND? HOW WAS THAT BEING COLLECTED?
>> DATA SMU, WE ONLY PAID THEM A ONE TIME FEE TO BRING ME THIS DEEP DIVE ON THE CITIES OF COMPARISON THAT I RAN BY ALL.
WE DON'T CURRENTLY USE THEM FOR REPORTING.
I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN BECAUSE IT WILL HELP US RAISE UP IN THE VITALITY INDEX, BUT IT WILL ALSO MAKE THINGS EASIER ON STAFF TO BE ABLE TO JUST PULL REPORTS AND FOR ANY ORGANIZATION.
>> YOU EARMARK SOMEONE APPLIES.
YOU EARMARK AN AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT THEY REQUEST.
HOW IS THAT DATA COLLECTED OF HOW THEY SPENT THE MONEY, WHAT THEY HAD IN RETURN? WHO'S DOING THAT?
>> ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAS BEEN DOING THAT.
>> SO EVERY GRANT THAT WE'VE GIVEN OUT, THERE'S A REPORT TO SHOW HOW THEY SPENT THEIR MONEY.
>> IT'S A TWO YEAR FUNDING PERIOD.
THEY FILE FOR PART OF THEIR BUDGET FOR MARKETING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S ONE OF THE PERMITTED USES.
I THINK IT'S REALLY ONLY USE THAT THEY CAN WITH HOT TAX.
THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION GETS RIGHT NOW $250,000 BECAUSE THAT WAS THE AMOUNT SET.
HOWEVER, SAME WAY THAT WE'VE CREATED A, I WANT TO CALL IT A SURPLUS FUND ACCOUNT IS BECAUSE YOUR HOT TAX COLLECTIONS, LET'S SAY YOU SAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE 100% OF HOT TAX COLLECTION.
IT'S GOING TO COME OVER HIGHER USUALLY LIKE THIS YEAR, IT'LL COME IN LOWER BECAUSE OF BARREL. I FORGET THE FIRST ONE.
[05:05:02]
IT COMES IN LOWER.SO THEN THAT PERCENTAGE DROPS.
SO IT'S JUST LIKE YOU GET CUT A PENNY IN EIGHTHS AND I'D BE FUNNY TO FRAME A PENNY WITH EIGHT LITTLE PENNIES, BUT IT GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING WITH THAT.
>> BEFORE THEY CAN ASK FOR MORE MONEY, DO THEY HAVE TO, IN OTHER WORDS, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT MONITORS HOW THEY'VE SPENT THEIR MONEY, SO WHEN IT COMES TO BACK UP FOR RENEWAL?
>> THEY HAVE TO FILE. WE JUST WORKED ON TWO YEAR CYCLES TO DATE.
BUT WE JUST WORKED ON OUR APPLICATION PROCESS MAKING IT STREAMLINED.
JANELLE'S OFFICE KNOCKED IT OUT.
NELLI'S, THAT'S HER BOARD SHE OVERSEES TOO.
THEY'VE MADE IT, I GUESS THEY WORKED WITH IT.
EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE ONLINE, SO IT'S EASILY ACCESSIBLE.
>> THE ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TO FILE QUARTERLY REPORTS, AND THOSE ARE MONITORED AT THE CITY'S FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
>> AND WE OVERSEE IT TOO, SO EVERYTHING THAT WE GET THEY GET AND THEY SAY, HEY, THEY'RE OVER THEIR PERCENTAGE, WE GET TO SAY, HEY, YOU'RE OVER YOUR PERCENTAGE.
> AN ARTIST THAT GETS $10,000 GRANT.
>> THAT'S WHEN YOU GO INTO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
>> JUST FOR POINT OF REFERENCE.
THIS IS ALSO WHY WHEN I BROUGHT THIS TO BOTH BOARDS, AND THESE ARE THE SLIDES I BROUGHT TO BOTH BOARDS.
IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO BREAK THEM OUT.
SO RIGHT NOW, THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION BY ORDINANCE SAYS THAT ARTISTS AND COLLECTIVES CAN APPLY.
WELL, COLLECTIVE IS A CORE PROFIT ENTITY.
WELL, THE ORDINANCE FOR ARTS AND HISTORIC SAYS NONPROFIT ONLY, AND YOU'VE GOT ONE UNDER THE OTHER.
THEY'D HAVE TO COME OUT FROM UNDERNEATH EACH OTHER, OR DO ONE ORDINANCE THAT ENCAPSULATES THEM.
>> WHO ARE MY EXAMPLES OF EACH? GIVE ME A FEW.
>> SO THE CULTURE ARTS COMMISSION DOES ARTISTS.
>> BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, AND THAT WAS FROM CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
>> EXAMPLE OF ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION WOULD BE THE GRANT.
>> THEY'RE NON PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
>> ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT FOR MARKETING, SUPPOSEDLY.
>> IT'S MAINLY FOR PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY.
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ALEX, THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD DOES A GOOD JOB OF MONITORING THIS MONEY.
>> MARY BRANHAM DOES A VERY GOOD JOB OF MONITORING IT, AND THE BOARD DOES AS WELL.
WE'RE MAKING THIS PROCESS MORE STREAMLINED.
WE'VE GOT A RUBRIC FOR A BETTER RUBRIC.
GOT IT BROKEN DOWN FOR CRITERIA.
SO WE'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT IT GOING, THIS LOOKS GOOD, OR THEY MISSED SOMETHING.
WE HAVE WE ACTUALLY HAVE LIKE A RUBRIC THAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY GRADE ON, BUT THAT YOU GRADE THE PROJECT JUST FURTHER APPLICABILITY.
>> DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ANDREA?
>> WELL, WHEN YOU SAID THEY, YOU WERE REFERRING TO BOTH BOARDS.
YOU SAID THEY, THE ONE GROUP WILL USE IT FOR ANYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO ART.
I MEAN, ANYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO HOT ELIGIBILITY.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PARK PORT AND CITY?
>> I DON'T KNOW. YOU AT ONE POINT SAID THEY.
ONE USES IT FOR THIS AND THEY.
>> SO BETWEEN ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION ARTS AND HISTORIC FUNDS NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, SUPPOSEDLY.
AND THAT'S A WHOLE ANOTHER THING.
BUT ARTS FOCUSED ON PROFITS, ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT FOR MARKETING.
AND THEN CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION FUNDS ARTISTS AND COLLECTIVES OF ARTISTS.
>> AND THEY EACH ARE GIVEN HOW MUCH HOT TAX.
>> SO THE HOT TAX GOES INTO ARTS AND HISTORIC.
AND THEN ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE NOW, IT'S $250,000 THAT GOES TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
SO THEY ARE FUNDED VIA THE ARTS HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD.
WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH AND BOUNCED OFF THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO REFER TO THEM AS THE COMMISSION AND THE BOARD.
WE SAID, THE 250 IS NOT WORKING, AND WE SAID HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THIS SHOULD INCLUDE SOME OF THE COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC ART THAT THEY'VE COMMISSIONED.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK THAT FITS INTO THE DEFINITIONS OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT WAS INSTEAD OF THE 250,000, SINCE THIS ARBITRARY AMOUNT, AND HOT TAX DOES THIS UP AND DOWN? MOSTLY GOES UP, BUT EXCEPT THIS LAST YEAR,
[05:10:01]
BASE IT ON A PERCENTAGE.THAT PERCENTAGE WOULD GO UP AND DOWN FOR THE FUNDING FOR THE CULTURAL FOR THE COMMISSION.
>> THEN FURTHER ON THE COMMISSION SIDE, WE SAID, WE'RE GOING TO SET ASIDE PORTION OF THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PRESERVATION.
>> WHO PAYS FOR THE SORT? [LAUGHTER]
>> WHERE YOU HAD TO PAY HAVE BEEN FUNDED.
WHEN ARE YOU COMING BACK WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGES IN THESE ENTITIES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT?
>> WELL, I'D LIKE TO COME BACK AT THE NEXT COUNCIL AND TALK ABOUT THE STRUCTURES OF THE COMP CITIES.
AFTER SPEAKING WITH MICHELLE, BRING TO YOU THE UMBRELLA STRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALL TO SAY, GO THIS DIRECTION, GO THAT DIRECTION.
>> YOU'RE GOING BACK AGAIN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I GUESS THAT THAT WOULD BE A LEGAL QUESTION OF IF THE COMMISSION'S FUNDING FROM FROM THE ARTS AND HISTORIC BOARD, THE ARTS AND HISTORIC SAYS THAT IT CAN'T BE SPENT ON FOR PROFIT.
THEN THE COMMISSION SAYS IT CAN BE FOR ARTISTS TO APPLY.
>> IF IT'S HOW [OVERLAPPING] YEAH.
>> IS LIKE AT VERY LEAST A CLARIFICATION.
>> HOW DOES GO BACK TO THAT LIST OF [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHO'S FUNDED. HOW DOES THE FARMERS MARKET FALL UNDER ARTS AND HISTORIC RESERVATION?
>> BUT HOW DOES THE FOUNDER ARTS AND HISTORIC?
>> THE NAME ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD IS THE TITLE GIVEN TO THE ENTITY THAT ALLOCATES FUNDS OF HOT FUNDS FOR PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES.
THAT MONEY IN THAT LIST, THAT FARMER'S MARKET IS FOR PROMOTION OF THAT MARKET.
THEY ARE VERY ARTS AND HISTORIC IS VERY INTENT ON FOLLOWING THAT MAKE SURE IT IS USED FOR PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITY.
>> WHAT WE'VE SURMISED OR AT LEAST GOING IN THE DIRECTION OF ALL OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS USUALLY THEY'VE APPLIED FOR THIS FUNDING AND THEY'VE GOT IT FOR AT LEAST SINCE ITS EXISTENCE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A PRUDENT IDEA FROM COUNCILMAN WINKLEY TO SAY, OKAY, YOU GET IT FOR FOUR YEARS, YOU'RE OFF FOR TWO, THAT WAY, YOU'RE NOT RELIANT ON YOUR STANDALONE ORGANIZATION AND HOT TECH IS NOT SUBSIDIZING YOU, AND THAT WAY WE CAN.
>> WASN'T THIS ALSO SUPPOSED TO BE A PERCENTAGE TIED TO A PERCENTAGE OF YOUR OVERALL BUDGET?
>> OF YOUR OVERALL HOT TAX COLLECTIONS.
>> PERCENT OF THEIR OPERATIONAL BUDGET.
>> TONY IS THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY'RE VERY GOOD ABOUT THAT.
>> WE GET [OVERLAPPING] QUARTERLY REPORTS.
>> THESE AMOUNTS AMOUNTS THAT WERE GRANTED OR AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN SPENT?
>> THESE ARE AMOUNTS GRANTED IN 24. THEY'RE ALL SPENT.
>> THEY'RE ALL SPENT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF THEY DON'T SPEND IT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT MUCH IN RETURNS.
>> THESE WERE RECEIVED FUNDS BY LISTED ORGANIZATIONS OR PERSON IN 24.
>> THESE AMOUNTS THAT ARE LESS THAN 10,000.
WHAT'S THE LOWEST GRANT THAT'S BEEN AWARDED?
>> TWO THOUSANDS [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'VE DONE SOME LITTLE ONES.
THEY DID LIKE 2,500 FROM WHICH CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION HAS DONE SOME LIKE $2,500 GRANT.
REMEMBER, THEY USED TO ONLY GET $50,000.
THEY'VE CHANGED HOW THEY FUND.
>> WE'VE DISCUSSED THE JUNETEENTH FUNDING.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT AT THE BOARD.
HOWEVER, I THINK I'M NOT SURE IF WE'VE GONE FURTHER.
I THINK WE'RE STILL WAITING ON SOME INFORMATION FROM STAFF ON THAT.
BUT THERE HAS BEEN SOME EXPRESSION OF WE WANT TO LOOK AT MAYBE A ONE OFF, BUT USING SOME OF THAT SURPLUS FUNDING IF IT'S APPLICABLE FOR SPECIAL EVENTS MARKETING PURPOSES.
>> BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT FUNDING THAT IF YOU GET MORE THAN WE PLAN ON, THAT EXCESSES CAN BE DISTRIBUTED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL [NOISE] ENTITIES THAT RECEIVED FUNDING.
>> IF IT EXCEEDS THEIR 20% OF THEIR BUDGET, THIS IS WHY IT WOULD GO INTO THAT SURPLUS FUND I DON'T I MEAN, IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A NAME OF WHAT IT IS.
IT'S JUST ANY OVERAGES, ANY MONEY RETURNED BECAUSE THE HOT TAX COLLECTIONS CAME IN HIGHER.
[05:15:03]
I GUESS OVER OUR RESERVE IT'S LIKE THE PERCENTAGES.>> THAT BUILDS OVER TIME, AND WHEN YOUR COLLECTIONS ARE HIGHER, IT DOES, YES.
>> BUT IF THEY ALREADY RECEIVED IT, HOW DO YOU GET IT BACK?
>> NO, THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED THIS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED THIS.
>> THEY RECEIVED IT AND SPENT.
>> YOU HAVE 100% OF WHAT THE PORTION OF THE PENNY SIX EIGHTHS GOES TO ARTS AND A STORE?
>> TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY OFF THE TOP MOVE.
YOU HAVE 100%, 5% IS PULLED APART FOR YOUR RESERVE FUND.
NOW THIS IS WHERE IT GETS TRICKY IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS, NOT TO EXCEED 15.
YOU HAVE A EXTRA 10%, SO IF YOUR COLLECTIONS ARE IN 110%, ALL THAT GOES INTO YOUR RESERVE.
BUT IF IT COMES IN 116%, THIS HAS BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING TO THE WHOLE THING, THAT ONE EXTRA PERCENT GOES INTO THIS SURPLUS FUND THAT WAS CREATED PROBABLY TO CAPTURE THE OVERFLOW, BUT THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFYING WHAT TO DO WITH IT.
WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH AT THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION [NOISE] TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THE BEST USE FOR IT.
>> I'VE GOT THE ANSWER. [LAUGHTER]
>> I HATE TO MAKE MORE COMPLEX A HEAD SPINNING SUBJECT.
EARLIER TODAY, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE SET ASIDE THE 5% FOR MAINTENANCE FOR THIS PUBLIC ART. THAT'S THE COMMISSION.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT [NOISE] BECAUSE IT TAKE THE HEAT OFF A LITTLE BIT OF THE CITY, BUT EARLIER TODAY, IT DOESN'T COVER CITY ARTWORK THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING.
WE TALKED ABOUT THAT EARLIER TODAY, ALL OF THESE MONUMENTS THAT THE CITY OWNS THAT WE'RE FACED WITH EVERY NOW AND THEN WITH RESTORING OR BRINGING BACK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
I JUST WONDERED IF IF WE OUGHT TO BE INCLUDING CURRENT CITY ARTWORK IN OUR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM SOMEHOW, MAYBE THAT'S WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.
>> WELL, THAT WOULD BE, SO TWO QUESTIONS COME FROM THAT.
I THINK THE COMMISSION IS DISCUSSING WHAT TO DO WITH THE PUBLIC ART.
>> WHERE DOES THAT HOT TEXT COME FROM IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF ALL THE HOT ACCOUNTS?
>> IT HAS COME FROM VARIED LOCATIONS WHERE IT'S BEEN AVAILABLE.
WE'VE TAKEN IT FROM TRICKLE-DOWN.
WE'VE TAKEN IT FROM THE 16 PENNY FOR HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
>> NO, THAT SPECIFIC [NOISE] ORDINANCE THAT DEALS WITH THAT.
NO. THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE ALL JUST ADDRESSED THE NEED OF IT.
I COULD BRING THAT BACK TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD.
>> I THINK THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE THE PRICE FOR IT.
>> NO. IT'S IN THE NAME HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY.
>> THE IDEA IS JUST TO GIVE THE CITY A DEVICE TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THESE THINGS AND NOT BE FACED WITH EXPENSIVE RESTORATIONS NOW AND THEN.
>> I'VE LOOKED AT THAT HOW THAT SURPLUS IS CREATED.
IT WAS A BUG, BUT I SEE IT AS A FEATURE, NOT A BUG.
>> IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE STARTED THIS JOURNEY TOGETHER JUST HOURS AGO.
THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SETTING UP THIS UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION FOR THE ARTS.
HERE AT THE CITY, WHERE WE HAVE HIGH LEVEL DEVELOPMENT MINDED PEOPLE ON THE BOARD.
CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION IS AN ARRAY OF ARTISTS THAT COME TOGETHER AND THEY JURY THIS ART THAT COMES BEFORE THEM.
ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, THOSE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE THESE ORGANIZATIONS GET THE REPRESENTATION.
WHAT WE WANT AT THE UPPER ECHELON LEVEL ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE WHOLE ISLAND IN MIND, AND THEY HAVE LEVERAGING THE HOT TAX FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY, FOR STATE MONEY AND FOR FEDERAL MONEY, AND HOW DO WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN? IN MY LITTLE LIST ARE SO MANY THINGS YOU'LL MENTIONED TODAY.
INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF ALL ASSETS.
ASSETS, MEANING ALL OF THE THINGS, AND WE HAVE VARIOUS COMMISSIONS HISTORICAL AND EVERYTHING THAT HAVE DONE THIS ALREADY.
WE SEEKING A GRANT THAT WOULD DO A GENERAL INVENTORY AND THEN COME UP WITH A MAINTENANCE PLAN.
AS BRIAN WAS SAYING, WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE CURRENT LEVEL FOR THAT MONUMENT IS MAINTENANCE.
IT'S NOT FIXING IT, PER SE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED TO DO EVERY SO OFTEN SO THAT YOUR COST ISN'T GOING TO BE ASTRONOMICAL DOWN THE LINE AND SO WE NEED THAT FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE.
CREATION OF ASSET MAINTENANCE CALENDAR, SO WHEN WE RECEIVE THAT, THEN WE BEGAN A CALENDAR.
THEN WE MAKE SURE WE'RE APPLYING FOR FUNDING SOURCES OUTSIDE OF LOCAL TO MAKE SURE WE'RE KEEPING ON THAT MAINTENANCE.
[05:20:02]
DATA COLLECTION AND DISBURSEMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT THROUGH DATA ARTS.THAT IT'S NOTHING AGAINST WHAT THE BOARD HAS DONE FOR ARTS AND HISTORIC UNTIL NOW.
IS THAT WE WANT THIS DATA TO GLEAN THIS DATA.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT OUR LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS, HOW THEY'RE FUNDED, AND WHAT THAT FUNDING LOOKS LIKE AND HOW WE COULD BETTER SERVE THEM OR FILL ANY GAPS THAT THEY CURRENTLY NEED.
DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ART MAPS AND TOURS.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD HAVE [NOISE] ALREADY DONE THROUGH THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION BECAUSE TO HIT THAT HOT TEXT TWO STEP, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DRIVING VISITATION TO THOSE PUBLIC ART PIECES.
STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE AND BRANDING FOR ALL HOT RECIPIENTS, UMBRELLA STARTUP COSTS, PENDING COUNSEL, POSSIBLE PERPETUAL CARE, ARTS OUTREACH EVENTS, ARTS DEVELOPMENT GRANT MONEY MATCHES.
SOME OF THE THINGS I'LL BRING FORWARD TO ARE LIKE THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, THEIR MAYORAL CULTURAL AFFAIRS OFFICE HAS A MONEY MATCH FOR ANY OUR TOWN GRANTS, WHICH ARE SPECIFIC TO CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE ARTS, BUT ANY ORGANIZATION CAN APPLY FOR THEM, ANY ANY ART FOCUS NON-PROFIT.
THEY OFFER THE MONEY MATCH FOR THAT.
IF ONE OF OUR NON-PROFITS WANTS TO GET OUT THERE AND DO THE WORK FOR A DEVELOPMENT, PROJECT FOR THE CITY FOR THE ARTS, WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE A MONEY MATCH.
BRANDING AND WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT.
VISIT GALVESTON HAS AGREED TO DO THAT FOR US.
I'VE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSING IT WITH THE OUTREACH MATERIALS, CITYWIDE EDUCATION SESSIONS, SPECIFIC TO TRAINING FOR REPORTING, GRANT WRITING TRAINING AND SOCIAL MEDIA TRAINING, WHICH WOULD ALSO GO THROUGH.
VISIT GALVESTON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, WHAT THOSE MAY BE, AND THEN WEBSITE WITH MULTIPLE CAPABILITIES BECAUSE IT WOULD NEED A MARKETPLACE FOR THE ARTISTS, THINGS LIKE THAT THAT HAVE COME UP THROUGH THE OUTREACH THAT WE JUST DID, THE HUGE AMOUNT OF OUTREACH DURING THE MASTER PLAN, AND THEN A DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE ARTS.
THERE'S ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD BE PAID FOR TO COME DOWN AND MEET WITH ALL OF OUR ARTS ORGANIZATIONS AND CREATE AN EXACT PLAN FOR DISASTER RECOVERY.
>> HOW DOES THAT YOU JUST STARTED FITTING WITH THIS?
>> SARAH'S ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN AROUND.
WHEN THE CITY CREATED THE DOWNTOWN CULTURAL ARTS DISTRICT UNDER THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
IT THEN CREATED A NON-PROFIT THAT IT HANDED IT OFF TO THE OVERSIGHT OF IT.
THAT IS WHAT SARAH IS NOW HEADING UP.
YOU CAN SEE THROUGH THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON THE ARTS WHO AWARDS DISTRICTS THAT THERE'S BEEN FUNDING RECEIVED THROUGH THAT DISTRICT.
TO THE TUNE OF I THINK 1.4 MILLION OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS.
IT'S NOT A HUGE AMOUNT, BUT IT'S NOTHING TO SNEEZE AT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT, IT'S ONLY REALLY FUNDED THREE ORGANIZATIONS.
THAT'S A CHUNK OF CHANGE FOR THOSE ORGANIZATIONS.
IT'S AN INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT THING.
SARAH'S ORGANIZATION IS REALLY BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
THIS UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION WOULD BE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE OVERARCHING IT'S A PLACE FOR EVERYBODY TO GO, INCLUDING SARAH HAVING A SEAT, INCLUDING THE OTHER CULTURAL DISTRICT HAVING A SEAT.
IT'S IT'S THE UMBRELLA, THE GALVESTON MUSIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE AT THE PARK BOARD.
WE DISCUSSED WHEN THEY BEGAN THAT THAT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE AT THE SEAT SO THAT IT'S THEIR REPRESENTATIVE OF LARGER SILOS OF PEOPLE.
LIKE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING THAT LARGER REPRESENTATION, THEY WOULD EACH HAVE THEIR BOARDS THAT THEY WOULD OVERSEE.
>> INTERNET, LET ME ASK THIS IF YOU WOULD MIND.
[NOISE] WHEN YOU BRING THESE CHANGES BACK TO DISCUSS WITH COUNSEL, I'D LIKE TO SEE A LIST OF WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT COMPARED TO WHAT THE CHANGES ARE THAT YOU FEEL NEED TO BE DONE.
I'D LIKE TO SEE A LIST OF WHAT THE PARK BOARD IS CURRENTLY DOING ON HOW THEY'RE MANAGING THEY'RE HOT AND THE DISBURSEMENT AND ALLOCATIONS OF HOT.
>> WELL, THEY'RE ALL HOT, SO DO YOU HAVE A MORE SPECIFIC?
>> BASICALLY HOW THEY'RE DOING THEY HAVE A PERCENTAGE OF MONEY THAT THE PARK BOARD IS USING TO SUPPORT EVENTS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT CRITERIA THEY USE.
I DON'T KNOW I CAN YOU DOUBLE DIP? CAN YOU COME OVER HERE AND SAY, [OVERLAPPING].
>> CAN DOUBLE DIP OR IS IT NOT ALLOWABLE BY THE USE OF HOT TAX VIA STATE LAW?
>> ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CAN AT A LOCAL LEVEL, DOUBLE DIP, AND THERE'S NOTHING BY STATE HOT TAX THAT SAYS THEY CAN'T APPLY TO.
[05:25:03]
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING WITH CULTURAL ARTS AND WITH ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION, HOW YOU WOULD RECOMMEND WHAT CHANGES YOU WOULD MAKE WITH THOSE TWO GROUPS.
I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE PARK BOARD IS DOING AND ANY RECOMMENDATIONS YOU FEEL ARE NEEDED TO COINCIDE OR COORDINATE WITH THE PARK BOARD?
>> ARE YOU SAYING THE UMBRELLA GROUP IS ANOTHER GROUP?
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING WILL BE UP TO ALL.
WE CAN HAVE THOSE THREE SILOS OR WHAT WE CAN DO IF WE WHATEVER THE UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION LOOKS LIKE, AND THERE ARE MANY MODELS THAT I WILL WHITTLE DOWN TO FIVE TO BRING TO YOU.
I BRING THREE. HOW ABOUT THREE.
>> THE UMBRELLA COULD POTENTIALLY BE OVER THE OTHER TWO.
THEY HAVE ONE ORDINANCE THAT IS THE GUIDING BODY FOR HOW WE SPEND ON ARTS, BASICALLY.
THEN WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE DISTANT FUTURE, I'M NOT SAYING ANYTIME SOON, BUT I'M SAYING THAT THOSE TWO BOARDS COULD COME DOWN AND BE BASICALLY JURIES OF WHAT COMES IN.
IF WE STREAMLINE WHERE THE REPORTING IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PULLING FROM ONLINE, THEN THERE'S NO REASON THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD NEEDS TO MEET EXCEPT TO LOOK AT THE DATA THAT'S PULLED AND SAY, HEY, DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THE METRICS? DO WE WANT TO CHANGE WHAT WE'RE FUNDING AND HOW WE'RE FUNDING IT? THE SAME THING FOR CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
WE'VE GOT IT NOW WHERE THIS YEAR, THEY'RE PUTTING OUT CALLS TO ARTISTS SPECIFIC TO LOCATION FOR AMOUNTS.
WE'VE REALLY STREAMLINED THAT PROCESS AND THAT WAS DONE AT A STAFF LEVEL AND BROUGHT TO CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
WE'RE ALREADY PUTTING IN THAT LEVEL OF FOOTWORK BEFORE IT ARRIVES TO THE COMMISSION, REALLY WHAT THEY WILL BE DOING IN THE FUTURE IS JUST DURING THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN.
WE CAN REALLY LITTLE THOSE DOWN AND NOT HAVE THEM BE OFFICIAL CITY BOARDS SO MUCH AS AD HOC COMMITTEES TO THE UMBRELLA ORGANIZATION.
>> I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
>> THIS IS ME. WE'RE LISTENING.
>> 11K IS CITY GALVESTON OLD CENTRAL CULTURAL CENTER TO ADDRESS THE AFRICAN AMERICAN? NO. THAT'S A DIFFERENCE.
>> FROM SAYING WE SPENT 3,000 ON THAT ONE SLIDE.
>> THAT WAS FROM MARKETING FOR EVENTS AT OLD CENTRAL CULTURAL CENTER.
THIS OTHER DEAL IS A CONTRACT SERVICES ALIGN FOR THEM TO HELP CONSULTING FOR THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL DISTRICT.
>> I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHEN THEY GET MONEY, ARE THEY OBLIGATED TO SPEND IT IN A CERTAIN TIME FOR CERTAIN REASONS?
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THEY HAD TO SPEND IT WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR THAT IS GIVEN TO THEM.
THEN THEY HAD TO SPEND IT ACCORDING TO THE CONTRACT THAT THEY AGREED TO.
>> IN JANUARY OF 2024, CITY OF GALVESTON OLD CENTRAL CULTURAL CENTER RECEIVED 50 GRAND. YES?
>> I DON'T KNOW. WHAT WAS THE DATE YOU JUST READ OUT?
>> JANUARY 25TH, 2024. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT DATE THEY RECEIVED THE FUNDING.
>> IN OUR AGENDA PACKAGE. PRIOR COUNCIL ACTION.
JANUARY 25TH, 2024, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A FUNDING REQUEST FOR THE OLD CENTRAL CULTURAL CENTER FOR THE OVERSIGHT OF OUTREACH DATA, AND DIGITAL COLLECTING, ARCHIVING, AND DISPERSING, AND VIDEOGRAPHY.
NECESSARY TO APPLY FOR AN AFRICAN AMERICAN CULTURAL HERITAGE DISTRICT FROM HOT ARTS IN THE AMOUNT OF 50,000.
>> CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON AT OLD CENTRAL CULTURAL CENTER WITH THE FINAL APPROVAL.
WHAT I'M ASKING IS, YOU'VE ONLY SPENT 3,000 ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE?
>> NO. THAT CAME FROM THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD.
THEY RECEIVED ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUNDING FOR $3,000.
>> TO MARKET EVENTS IF THEY'RE.
>> I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE IT'S 2024/2025.
>> THIS IS COMPLETELY SEPARATE.
>> THIS IS A SEPARATE AGREEMENT.
>> THIS IS A SEPARATE AGREEMENT NOT TIED TO EITHER THE BOARD OR THE COMMISSION.
>> THEY'VE ONLY SPENT 3,000 OF THE 50,000?
THAT 3,000 CAME WAS APPLIED TO FROM
[05:30:01]
THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND RECEIVED FROM ARTS AND HISTORY PRESERVATION.THIS OTHER 50,000 IS A SEPARATE.
>> IT'S A TOTALLY SEPARATE CONTRACT FOR DIFFERENT SERVICES.
>> IT'S A DIFFERENT FUND, I BELIEVE.
>> I GOT 2025 AND 2024 OVERLAPPED. GOT IT.
>> I JUST WANT TO POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
WE HAD ANOTHER CLIENT UP THERE THAT SHOWED THE DATA OR ISSUES YOU'RE LOOKING TO ADDRESS AND HAD INVENTORY OF ART ON IT.
>> THAT ONE. THE VERY FIRST BULLET POINT INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT OF ALL ASSETS.
ARE WE TALKING HERE ABOUT CITY OWNED ASSETS?
>> DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH MONEY YOU WANT TO GIVE THIS ORGANIZATION AND WHAT THE SETUP OF IT AND THE SCOPE OF IT, THE GOAL WOULD BE TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE BURDEN FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
IF WE'RE PAYING STAFF TO DO SOME OF THESE THINGS, IS IT POSSIBLE TO USE HOT TAX TO LEVERAGE IT FOR A GRANT TO WRITE THIS AND TO MAKE MAINTENANCE PLAN AND TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WRITING GRANTS SPECIFIC TO THAT.
>> I GUESS THE INVENTORY OF THE ART POTENTIALLY COULD BE FUNDED BY HOT.
>> THEORETICALLY. WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE WHERE THIS ORGANIZATION CAN HELP WRITE GRANTS FOR THE WORK THAT THEY ARE ALREADY DOING.
BUT IT WOULD BE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE WOULD WANT TO SEEK A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND CARE.
>> IT'S NOT NECESSARILY, IT'S THE ONLY CITY ON GUARD.
>> WELL, I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE CITY OWNED GUARD.
IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARILY CITY.
>> WE HAVE THINGS LIKE THE FOUNTAIN AND KEPNER PARK THAT ARE GOING TO COST SO MUCH.
>> ALL OF THE SCULPTURES WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TO RELIEVE SOME OF THAT GENERAL.
>> MAYBE YOU JUST BRING THIS BACK ANTOINETTE.
>> YOU JUST GAVE ME A LITTLE BIT MORE.
I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO COME BACK WITH A SMALLER CHUNK.
I'D LIKE TO KEEP COMING BACK WITH SMALLER CHUNKS.
ALSO, SO THAT I'M NOT STRAYING FROM WHAT YOU ALL WANT ME TO DO BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE LAST TIME I BROUGHT THINGS FORWARD, WE DISCUSSED THAT IT WOULD BE THIS UMBRELLA AND THESE THINGS, AND NOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT SKEWS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M STAYING TOP OF MIND.
>> I'D BRING BACK THAT COMPARISON OF THOSE THREE THAT I MENTIONED.
I'D BRING THAT BACK, DAVID, I HOPE YOUR MOM'S GOOD.
I WOULD CONCENTRATE AT YOUR NEXT TIME ON THIS UMBRELLA SITUATION UNLESS GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
>> VERY GOOD. ONE LAST QUESTION, ANTOINETTE.
SINCE YOU'RE INVOLVED WITH THIS NOW, ARE YOU NOW THE STAFF PERSON IN WORKING WITH ARTS AND HISTORIC AND CULTURAL ARTS FROM AN ADMINISTRATIVE STANDPOINT?
>> I AM A STAFF PERSON ON CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
I AM NOT A STAFF PERSON ON ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
>> CERTAINLY CAN BE IF YOU'D LIKE HER TO BE MAYOR.
>> I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING THIS, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO DO BOTH OF THOSE ENTITIES.
>> STAFF PERSON FOR THAT RIGHT NOW.
BRING FOCUS ON THE UMBRELLA AT THE NEXT ONE.
>> ALL OF THE THINGS THAT YOU?
>> YES. BUT FOCUS ON THE UMBRELLA.
>> WOULD IT BE BETTER, MAYOR, FOR ANTOINETTE TO PUT THIS TOGETHER AND DISTRIBUTE IT TO COUNSEL AND GET THEIR FEEDBACK BEFORE WE PUT IT ON ANOTHER AGENDA AND TAKE.
>> AT LEAST FOR OUR UNDERSTANDING.
>> I THINK SENDING OUT FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES WOULD BE GREAT. THAT'D BE GOOD.
>> LET'S DO THAT. THEN ONCE WE GET FEEDBACK AND YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, PUT IT ON A SUBSEQUENT AGENDA, MAY OR MAY NOT BE NEXT MONTH.
>> WELL, WE MAY NOT GET INPUT.
>> WELL, IF WE DON'T, THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.
>> I'LL SEND YOU ALL THIS AS WELL.
>> BUT I THINK WE NEED TO PUT THIS UMBRELLA SITUATION TO BED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
IF WE DON'T DO THE UMBRELLA SITUATION, IT'S VERY SIMPLE, WE JUST CHANGE THE ORDINANCE AND ARTS AND STORING AND TAKE OUT THE 250 AND PUT IT IN A SEPARATE ORDINANCE FOR CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
I MEAN, WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT.
>> MAKING A STATEMENT HERE. WE DO REALIZE THAT WHAT WE GRANTED THE 50,000 FOR, WHICH I WAS NOT HERE IN 2024 OF JANUARY, ALMOST REACHED VERBATIM AS TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO APPROVE TODAY.
[05:35:01]
MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT CONTRACT.>> NO. THAT ITEM YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SEPARATE FROM ANY OF THESE DISCUSSIONS YOU'VE HAD TODAY.
IT'S FOR AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE, IT'S A ONE OFF PROJECT.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ARTS AND HISTORIC FUNDING OR ANYTHING.
>> WHAT THE PURPOSE WAS FOR OF JANUARY 25, 2024, READS EXACTLY WHAT THE PURPOSE IS FOR OF JANUARY 21 OR 2ND.
>> CORRECT. BUT THAT'S UNDER A SEPARATE AGREEMENT.
>> I UNDERSTAND, I GUESS I THOUGHT I WAS CONFUSED, BUT IT SAYS THE SAME THING. THAT'S ALL.
>> VERY GOOD. ANTOINETTE, THANK YOU.
YOU'RE GOING TO PUT TOGETHER THOSE THOUGHTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
YOU'RE GOING TO SEND THOSE TO COUNCIL AND REQUEST FEEDBACK, AND THEN WE'LL BE BRINGING BACK AND HOPEFULLY DISCUSSING THE UMBRELLA SITUATION.
JANELLE, WHEN YOU OUT OF THE ROOM, ANTOINETTE GOING TO BE HANDLING A STAFFING FOR ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND FOR CULTURAL ARTS.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL. MAYOR ROAN, I HATE IT FOR YOU TO BE HERE, NOT THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU'RE DOING THERE.
I APPRECIATE IT. YOU'VE BEEN A GOOD SOURCE.
>> ANTOINETTE AND I WORK VERY WELL.
WE'RE BOTH DOING OUR BEST ON THE REPORTS. THANK YOU.
[3.H. Review And Discuss Requirements And Process To Convey Abandoned City Street Easements, Alleys, Right Of Ways, Or Non-Utilized Public Properties (Rawlins/Robb 10 Min)]
IF WE COULD, PLEASE, MA'AM.>> THREE H. REVIEW AND DISCUSS REQUIREMENTS AND PROCESS TO CONVEY ABANDONED, CITY STREET EASEMENTS, ALLEYS, RIGHT OF WAYS, OR NON-UTILIZED PUBLIC PROPERTIES.
>> I JUST WANTED TO GET A UPDATE ON HOW PROPERTIES THAT WERE ABANDONED, WHETHER THEY BE PUBLIC PROPERTIES OR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO PRIVATE OWNERS.
WHAT IS THE POLICY OR WHAT IS OUR POLICY OF HOW WE ABANDON THOSE OR SIGN THEM OFF?
>> I MEAN, I'LL TAKE A STAB AT IT.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS HERE.
THE WAY RIGHT AWAY IS HANDLED IS DIFFERENT THAN DISPOSAL OF PUBLIC.
IF WE OWN A LOT, THAT'S GOING TO BE HANDLED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE DISPOSAL OF RIGHT AWAY OR EASEMENTS.
THOSE ARE USUALLY DONE THROUGH AN ABANDONMENT PROCESS WHERE I THINK FIRST OPTION IS GIVEN TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
>> NO. THAT'S FOR ABANDONMENT OF RIGHT AWAY.
IF IT'S A VACANT LOT THAT SOMEHOW THE CITY HAS ENDED UP IN OWNERSHIP WITH, IT GOES THROUGH, IT'S PRESCRIBED IN THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, HOW THE CITY CAN SELL LAND.
WE CAN ENLIST A LOCAL REALTOR, WE CAN PUT IT UP FOR PUBLIC AUCTION.
>> SUCH AS OF 130 OR I GUESS WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE PROPERTY OUT OF HOW ABOUT THE CROSS ROAD BASE.
>> THAT'S SALE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IT'S FOLLOWING THAT STATUTE.
>> EASEMENTS AND RIGHT AWAY OR THINGS LIKE ADJACENT ALLEYS OR UTILITY EASEMENTS OR RIGHT AWAYS, AND IF THOSE ARE NO LONGER NEEDED OR IT CAN BE DEVELOPED OVER THE TOP OF WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE CITY CAN STILL ACCESS IT IF IT'S AN EASEMENT THAT'S DONE THROUGH AN ABANDONMENT PROCESS.
IF THE COUNCIL VOTES TO ABANDON IT, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ASKED TO SOLICIT AN APPRAISAL.
ONCE THE APPRAISED VALUE IS SET, THEY PAY THAT APPRAISED VALUE, AND THE PROPERTY IS CONVEYED WITH COUNCIL APPROVAL.
>> SOMETIMES PROPERTY OWNERS APPROACH US.
>> SOMETIMES THE CITY DECIDES.
>> SOMETIMES THE CITY HAS THAT RIGHT TO SAY, WE DON'T NEED THIS ANYMORE.
WILL THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS BE AMENABLE TO ACCEPTING IT THROUGH AN ABANDONMENT PROCESS AND PAYING FOR IT.
BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IF THERE'S AN ALLEY RUNNING BEHIND YOUR HOUSE, SOMEBODY CAN'T BUY THAT ALLEY FROM BEHIND YOUR HOUSE.
>> THE REASON IS BECAUSE SAY IT'S AN ALLEYWAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE CONSENT OF PROPERTY OWNERS ON BOTH SIDES.
>> CORRECT. ALSO IN MOST CASES, IF IT'S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THERE'S ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE UTILITIES BENEATH THAT RIGHT AWAY.
WE WOULD ABANDONMENT FOR SURFACE PURPOSES, BUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE CITY HAS TO GET IN THERE AND GET TO ITS WATER LINE SEWER LINE, THAT TELEPHONE COMPANY, WHATEVER ELSE HAS TO GET IN THERE, THAT THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO GO IN THERE AND OPEN UP THE RIGHT AWAY IF THEY NEED TO.
>> WHAT IS IT BESIDES ADJACENT? IS IT LIKE A FOOTAGE, 500 FOOT THOUSAND FOOT, ANY ADJACENT?
>> FOR RIGHT OF WAY. NO, IT'S BUT UP ADJACENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY.
>> AS FAR AS NOTIFICATION GOES.
[05:40:03]
>> YES. I MEAN, WE WOULD NOTIFY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. YOU HAVE TO TOUCH IT.
>> NO. THAT'S NOT FOR ABANDONMENT OR PROPERTY.
>> FOR ABANDONMENT WE DO. YEAH.
>> IT GOES THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND WE NOTIFY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE PROPERTY TO BE ABANDONED.
>> BUT THEY DON'T HAVE A SAY SO AND THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO GET IT ABANDONED TO THEM.
THEY CAN EITHER OBJECT TO THE ABANDONMENT OR NOT.
>> THAT'S TO KEEP US FROM ALSO, ABANDONING AN ALLEY THAT WE MAY PROVIDE ACCESS TO SOMEBODY'S OUT TO THEIR GARAGE ON THE ALLEY OR SOMETHING.
>> WE HAD ONE WHERE ONE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER WANTED IT AND THE OTHER DIDN'T.
THE ONE WHO WANTED IT GET BOTH SIDES WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE OTHER LANDOWNER.
THERE'S SOME FLEXIBILITY, I SUPPOSE.
>> YEAH. BECAUSE SOME JUST DON'T WANT IT.
SOME SAY, NO, I'M HAPPY AT THE WAY IT IS, AND THEN THE GUY BEHIND HIM CAN TAKE BOTH SIDES.
>> DID THAT ANSWER EVERYTHING?
>> MY MAIN THING WAS NOTIFICATION.
>> VERY GOOD. COUNCIL, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF OUR ITEMS. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A BREAK BEFORE IT GETS DARK SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE A REST HERE AND WE'LL START BACK AT 5:00 P.M. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU. IT IS 3:44 P.M.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.