>> WE'RE BROADCASTING, COUNCIL.
[00:00:04]
IT IS 9:00 AM.[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
I AM GOING TO CALL THE WORKSHOP MEETING TO ORDER.>> WE GET THOSE CLIENTS ALL THE TIMES.
I AM CALLING THE WORKSHOP FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON TO ORDER FOR MARCH 27TH, 9:00 AM.
WE'VE GOT A VERY BUSY SCHEDULE, SO WE'LL MOVE RIGHT ALONG.
WE SHOULD HAVE A QUORUM HERE, BUT LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> HE'S HERE. HE'S ON HIS WAY HE'S IN THE OTHER ROOM.
WE DO HAVE OUR COUNCIL HERE AND SEATED, SO WE'RE MOVING RIGHT ALONG.
COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME HOUSEKEEPING IDEAS FOR OUR AGENDA TODAY SO WE CAN MOVE ALONG AS EFFICIENTLY AS POSSIBLE.
FOLLOWING OUR CLARIFICATION ITEMS, I'M GOING TO MOVE ITEM 3I.
WILL BE MOVED UP TO FOLLOW THE CLARIFICATION ITEMS. THIS IS THE PRESENTATION CONCERNING GARTEN VEREIN THERE.
OUR CONSULTANT WILL BE COMING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN TO BE TALKING WITH US ON THE GARTEN VEREIN ISSUE.
WE'LL MOVE THAT FOLLOWING 3A WILL MOVE TO THAT.
ALSO, WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SECTION ITEM TODAY.
COUNCIL, WE MAY GO QUITE A LONG TIME THIS AFTERNOON SO I'M GOING TO TALK TO CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.
WE'RE GOING TO BREAK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WE'LL PROBABLY MOVE THAT UP INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE AGENDA HERE SO THAT WE CAN HAVE TIME FOR LUNCH AND SO FORTH.
LUNCH WILL BE HERE LATE AT 12:30, I THANK, JANELLE.
SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE, WE'LL BE BREAKING FOR OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM AT THAT POINT.
VERY GOOD. SAYING THAT, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3A.
[3.A. Clarification of Consent and Regular City Council Agenda Items - This is an opportunity for City Council to ask questions of Staff on Consent and Regular Agenda Items (1 hour)]
WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT I GUESS, ROBIN, FINKLEA, BOB AND I PUT ON SEPARATELY THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TOGETHER.
I THINK THAT SHOULD BE UNDER THE DISCUSSION OF 3G AND THEN ALSO 3N.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT BE MOVED UNDERNEATH 3D.
I SEE THE CONNECTION OF 3L AND 3G.
THE OTHERS STRETCH, BUT SURE, WE CAN DO THAT.
>> JUST ANNOUNCE THEM BOTH MAYOR AT THE SAME TIME, AND YOU CAN DO THAT.
>> WE CAN. JANELLE, WHEN WE READ THOSE ON 3D, WE'LL ALSO READ 3N, NANCY AND WHEN WE READ 3G, WE'LL NEED TO READ 3L ALSO.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU ALEX, ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT, SIR?
>> VERY GOOD. WE'RE MOVING TO OUR CLARIFICATION ITEMS. COULD YOU READ 3A, PLEASE, MA'AM?
>> 3A. CLARIFICATION OF CONSENT AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS.
>> I'M GOING TO LEAVE THIS OFF THIS MORNING JUST WITH ONE ITEM.
I HAVE A NUMBER OF THEM, BUT I'M GOING TO BRING ONE UP BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONSULTANT WITH US FROM OUT OF TOWN ON THIS ITEM.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE ITEM 11E IS IT THEN UP.
I GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
THAT'S CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT WITH ASAKURA ROBINSON TO PRODUCE AN UPDATE TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE AMOUNT OF $290,061, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS.
TIM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME UP, PLEASE, SIR, AND INTRODUCE WHO YOU HAVE HERE? I WANT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNCIL ON THIS AND IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE OUR GUESTS TODAY.
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNCIL, TIM TIETJENS, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
ALSO WITH US TODAY, WE HAVE ANDREW KNUPPEL FROM ASAKURA ROBINSON, WHO IS THE LEAD IN OUR CONSULTANT PROCUREMENT AS WE PROPOSED IT.
>> VERY GOOD. COULD YOU JUST GIVE US
[00:05:06]
A QUICK OVERVIEW TIM OF WHAT WE'RE APPROVING TODAY AND WHERE WE'LL GO FROM HERE, SIR?>> YES, SIR. THIS IS THE CONTRACT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT THAT PROSPECTIVELY, WE'LL BE RECEIVING FROM THE GLO FUND THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO COME SOMETIME THIS SUMMER, AS I'VE BEEN TOLD.
WE ARE RESPONDING TO AN RFI ON THAT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND GET THAT WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS IN PLACE FOR US TO BEGIN WORK, PROBABLY A NOTICE TO PROCEED IN PROBABLY SOMETIME AROUND JULY IS WHAT I'M ANTICIPATING.
IT COULD BE EARLIER. I HOPE IT'S NOT LATER.
ANDREW AND HIS TEAM HAVE PUT TOGETHER A SCOPE OF SERVICES TO DO A FULL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
IT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GLO REQUIREMENTS THAT INCLUDE RESILIENCE AND THEIR FUNDING IS BROKEN OUT BASICALLY IN A 5% INITIAL PHASE, AND THEN THREE, 30% PHASES, AND THEN ENDING 5%.
THAT'S HOW BASICALLY, WE WOULD PAY THE CONTRACTOR.
IT'S A FULL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE.
THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL THE ELEMENTS IN SOME FORM OR FASHION THAT WERE INCLUDED IN 2011 PLAN AND PROBABLY ADDITIONAL ONES AS WELL, AS, OF COURSE, DETERMINED NECESSARY BY STEERING COMMITTEE, GENERAL PUBLIC.
THERE'S A SERIES OF MEETINGS THAT ARE DEFINED IN THIS SCOPE AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION BEFORE ABOUT POSSIBLY EXPANDING THAT ENGAGEMENT.
WHAT WE'RE ASKING TODAY IS THAT YOU AWARD THE CONTRACT, AND IF THERE IS A MOOD OF COUNCIL TO FURTHER THE ENGAGEMENT, WE CAN COME BACK AND AMEND THAT WITH A CHANGE ORDER OF UP TO 25%.
>> WE HAVE QUESTIONS. COUNCILWOMAN ROBB.
>> I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION, AND YOU MAY HAVE SAID IT AT THE BEGINNING, BUT I WAS DEALING WITH SOMETHING ELSE.
WE HAVE RECEIVED THE FUNDING FROM THE GLO?
>> BUT BEFORE OR AFTER WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IT'LL HAPPEN?
>> YEAH. THIS CONTRACT IS SET UP CONTINGENT UPON RECEIPT OF THAT FUNDING.
WE WOULDN'T DO THE NOTICE TO PROCEED UNTIL AFTER THAT IS PROCURED.
WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T ENGAGE A WHOLE LOT OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE ACTIVITY BEFORE WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE SOME IN ADVANCE OF THAT, BUT WE REALLY WANT TO GET STARTED ONCE WE HAVE THAT FUNDING IN PLACE.
>> ANYTHING YOU DO BEFORE YOU GET THE FUNDING IS NOT REIMBURSED?
>> YES. IN THE BUDGET PREVIOUS YEAR AND THIS YEAR WAS $250,000 FOR COMP PLAN UPDATE.
TELL ME ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THOSE FUNDS THAT ARE AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY AND THE GLO GRANT THAT YOU'RE PURSUING.
>> THE GLO GRANT CAME AFTER WE INITIALLY HAD ASKED FOR THAT MONEY, AND IT'S BEEN KEPT IN THERE AS A PLACEHOLDER, JUST IN CASE FOR SOME REASON, WE WOULDN'T BE GRANTED THE FUNDS.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE WAY THIS GRANT IS SET UP, IT'S CENTERED REALLY ON A PARTICULAR PART OF THE COAST, THE NORTH SECTION OF THE COAST, AND THE COUNTIES SURROUNDING US.
I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.
BUT OF COURSE, WITH YOUR BUDGETARY RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE, I KNOW FUNDING IS TIGHT, AND IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, WE'D LIKE TO USE THOSE FUNDS FOR WHATEVER ELSE YOU ALL DEEM NECESSARY.
>> FOLLOWING UP ON THAT. FIRST OFF, I ALWAYS APPLAUD YOU ALL.
YOU ALL ARE VERY AGGRESSIVE IN TERMS OF GOING AFTER GRANTS TO HELP REDUCE THE TAX BURDEN FOR OUR CITIZENS.
HOWEVER, THIS ITEM HAD BEEN BUDGETED FOR OVER TWO YEARS AND NOW WE'RE TYING THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT TO THE GRANT, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THE FUNDS BUDGETED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS A FURTHER DELAY BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE FUNDS IN PLACE IN ORDER TO START THE PROCESS WITH THE COMP PLAN.
[00:10:04]
I GET IT THAT WE CAN USE THOSE $250,000 SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS HAS BEEN BUDGETED AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL FOR NOT JUST THIS YEAR, BUT ALSO PREVIOUS YEARS AS WELL.A FURTHERMORE, QUESTION ON THE SCOPE OF WORK.
YOU SAID THAT THERE'S A SERIES OF PUBLIC OUTREACH MEETINGS.
DO YOU KNOW THE QUANTITY OF THOSE BY CHANCE?
>> IT'S ABOUT THE QUALITY NOT THE QUANTITY.
>> HEY, YOU WILL GET QUALITY PEOPLE THERE.
>> THE CITIZENS ARE GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN DOING THIS.
>> THAT'S REALLY GOOD. [LAUGHTER]
>> THEN I'LL REFER. I READ YOUR REPORT.
I JUST DIDN'T READ THE PACKAGE SO MY APOLOGIES. THAT'S ALL I GOT.
>> WE HAVE ALEX TO FINISH HIS THOUGHT AND THEN WE GO TO BOB BROWN. ALEX.
>> WE HAD THIS TASK 3.0, WHICH IS THE ENGAGE ASPECT OF IT.
THOSE ARE THE THREE, I GUESS, BENCHMARKS WHEN WE REACHED COMPLETION THAT THE FIRM WILL BE FULL HANDS ON GUIDING IT INTO THE NEXT STEPS.
IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I'M READING?
>> WELL, THEY'LL BE INVOLVED IN ALL THE PHASES.
THEY'LL BE MANAGING THIS ENTIRE PROJECT.
>> BUT SPECIFICALLY, THE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THE COMPANY TEAM WILL WORK WITH THE CO TO FACILITATE UP TO THREE MEETINGS.
>> THOSE ARE BENCHMARKS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
THOSE ARE THE FULL HANDS ON WE ARE LOOKING AT, I GUESS YOU SAID 30, 60 AND 85%?
>> FIVE, 30, 30, 30, AND THEN FIVE AT THE END TO WRAP UP.
THAT'S HOW THE GLO HAS IT BROKEN.
>> THAT'S AS PER REQUIREMENT FOR THE BRANCH.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T JUST THREE MEETINGS.
CONFIRM THAT, AS I PUT GLASS ON.
IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THAT ENGAGEMENT AND THE SCHEDULED MEETINGS THAT ARE IN THIS PROPOSAL.
>> WE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT TRYING TO GET AS MUCH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AS POSSIBLE.
AT WHAT POINT CAN WE REVIEW IN DETAIL THE SPECIFIC SCOPE AND WHERE WE MIGHT WANT TO INCREASE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION? CAN WE GO WITH THIS RIGHT NOW?
>> YES. IT'S BEFORE YOU FOR ACTION, SO IT'S BEFORE THE PUBLIC NOW.
>> FOR INSTANCE, IN THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I THINK I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, WE HAD 30 SOMETHING PEOPLE ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER SEPARATE COMMITTEE FOR EACH OF THE 10 ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
TOTAL WE HAD 80 SOMETHING PEOPLE DOING THIS.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAD A LOT MORE MONEY LAST TIME TO DO THAT.
BUT THE FACT REMAINS THE MORE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WE CAN GET THE BETTER THIS PLAN IS GOING TO BE IN THE END.
I'M INTERESTED IN LOOKING FOR WAYS TO INCREASE THAT PARTICIPATION, AT LEAST HAVE SUBCOMMITTEES FOR THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS THAT CAN GET INTO THEM IN DETAIL AND THEN FEED THAT UP TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE.
I'D LIKE TO BE LOOKING AT THAT.
>> SORRY, ONE OTHER THING. THAT $250,000 THAT WAS BUDGETED.
IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY OF THAT BEING ABLE TO ADD TO THE SCOPE OF WORK UP TO 25%?
>> I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY CALL IT'S OUTSIDE OF THEM.
>> WE ARE GOING TO BE USING SOME OF THAT TO BRING ON SOME ADDITIONAL STAFF TO HELP WITH THIS BECAUSE THIS IS TO ME THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS DOING.
WE'VE HAD A HIRING FREEZE, SO WE'VE ALREADY BEEN SHORTHANDED UP TO THERE SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO BACK FILL A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS POSITION, BUT WE'LL HAVE SOME OF THAT, NOT ALL OF IT, BUT SOME OF IT.
>> REMEMBER THAT MONEY IS IN FUND BALANCE.
>> JUST SO YOU ALL GET FAMILIAR WITH THE FACE, ANDREW IS HERE.
>> STAND UP HERE IF YOU WOULD, SIR.
>> HE'S A SHARP SHOOTER. HE'S A GOOD GUY, SO YOU WILL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH HIM VERY MUCH.
>> I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON COUNCILMAN BROWN'S THOUGHT BEFORE WE LEAVE THE SUBJECT.
GUIDE ME LOGISTICALLY IF WE WANT TO EXPAND THE PUBLIC INPUT PORTION OF THIS.
WHERE DO WE DO THAT? DOES THAT HAVE TO BE DONE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THIS CONTRACT TODAY?
BUT MAYOR, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE GET THE CONSULTANT ON BOARD, AND YOU GUYS VISIT WITH HIM ABOUT THE PROS AND CONS.
THEY DO THIS ALL OVER THE WORLD HERE, LET THEM GUIDE US IN THAT.
[00:15:01]
JUST BECAUSE WE DID IT THIS WAY RIGHT AFTER A HURRICANE, DOESN'T MEAN WE NEED TO DO IT THAT WAY FOREVER.THERE MAY BE SOME NEW OR BETTER WAYS AND THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS OF PUBLIC OUTREACH THAN THERE ARE THEN.
WE CAN ALWAYS GO OUR OWN WAY. I'M NOT SAYING WE CAN'T.
BUT LET'S HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY AND WHAT THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, AND IT MIGHT NOT BE AS DRACONIAN AS WE THINK IN TERMS OF FUNDING.
>> WE HAVE TO GET THEM ON BOARD AND THEN MAYBE AT THE NEXT MEETING WHEN WE HAVE TIME TO DIGEST WHAT WE'VE SEEN, WE CAN EXPAND ON HOW WE WANT DO THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.
>> LET'S HERE THEIR SUGGESTIONS AND THEIR PLAN AND LET THEM LAY IT OUT FOR YOU.
>> THEY WOULD PRESENT AT THE NEXT MEETING SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>> YEAH. IF YOU GOT TO WORK TOO.
>> COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULD, SIR.
>> WANT TO GET YOU ON CAMERA, TOO.
>> YOU'RE NOT GETTING ANY OF THE LOCAL KNUPPELS, I GUESS.
>> YOU'LL GET THE MIDWESTERN KNUPPELS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] I SEE THERE'S GREAT KNUPPELS HERE.
BUT BE GREAT TO MEET YOU I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HOPEFULLY WORK WITH YOU ALL ON THIS PROJECT.
AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLANNING PIECE GO, WE DID BUILD THAT INTO THE SCOPE OF ITEM 3.1.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE ANTICIPATE, REALLY WORKING ON THE FIRST MONTH OR SO OF WORKING WITH THE CITY WITH STAFF, AND I KNOW SOME INTERVIEWS WITH YOU ALL AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS AS WELL TO UNDERSTAND YOUR EXPECTATIONS FOR THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS, BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE RECOGNIZE IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO SUCCESS THIS PLANNING EFFORT.
WE KNOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY DONE SOME LEG WORK TO THINK ABOUT THE STEERING COMMITTEE COMPOSITION AND ROLE AS WELL.
WHAT WE'VE SCOPED OUT SO FAR IS TO MAKE SURE WE'RE MEETING THE GENERAL LAND OFFICES GRANT REQUIREMENTS OF THIS PROGRAM.
THEY REQUIRE SOME VERY SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES TO BE IN PLACE AT SOME OF THE DRAW POINT.
THAT'S WHY WE'VE SET UP THREE, ALL HANDS ON DECK STAFF COMMUNITY MEETINGS AND A STEERING COMMITTEE.
BUT I THINK WE WOULD BE OPEN TO OTHER SUGGESTIONS AND WAYS WE CAN WORK WITHIN THE SCOPE OR OTHER RESOURCES TO MAKE SURE WE REACH THE PUBLIC BEST WAY POSSIBLE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT AND REMIND PEOPLE OF THE OLD ADAGE THAT TOO MANY CHEFS CAN SPOIL THE POT AS WE LOOK AT THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE ON THE COMMITTEE.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER INPUT OR QUESTIONS?
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND SO NEXT WORKSHOP, WE WILL HAVE ANDREW'S FIRM COME BACK AND DISCUSS THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PLAN AND IDEAS FOR BEST PRACTICES ASSOCIATED WITH COMMUNITY OUTREACH, KNOWING THAT THERE IS A DESIRE BY COUNCIL TO POTENTIALLY EXPAND THAT OUTREACH.
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD.
>> YOU'RE CLEAR TIM ON WHAT WE'LL HAVE ON OUR NEXT WORKSHOP AGENDA.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT'S NICE TO MEET YOU.
>> VERY GOOD. NOW, LET'S MOVE FORWARD, BOB.
>> I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO KNOCK A FEW MORE OF THESE BACK, BUT THERE IT GOES. I'VE GOT SEVERAL HERE.
THIS IS THE APPROVAL AND ORDINANCE, THE BILLING CODE IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON [OVERLAPPING] PREVENTION ORDINANCE.
WE HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ONE OF THEM DESCRIBED THE CRS RATING SYSTEM, AND HOW IT WORKS, AND WHEN IT GETS REVISED AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THE OTHER ONE WAS DESCRIBING SOME OF THE CRS CREDITS.
I WAS CURIOUS AS TO THIS ONE IS ABOUT RAISING TRAILERS 18 INCHES OR 40 INCHES.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS.
WHAT AREAS OF GALVESTON DOES THIS TAKE IN, AND HOW MANY TRAILERS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, AND HOW IS THE COST OF THIS IMPLEMENTED TO DO THE [INAUDIBLE] IS ALL TRAILERS A GOOD THING, OR NOT GOING TO BE?
>> THIS ONLY RELATES TO NEW, AND IT'S NOT JUST TRAILERS AS IN RVS.
THIS IS MOBILE HOME TYPE, MANUFACTURED HOME PRODUCT, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH OF AT ALL NOW IN TERMS OF PERMANENT PLACEMENT, AND IT'S GOING TO BE THE NEW PLACEMENTS ONLY.
AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, WE ALREADY ALLOW FOR THE 48 INCHES ABOVE GRADE, THAT'S IN OUR REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS JUST THE HIGHER OF THE 48 INCHES GRADE, OR THE 18 INCHES ABOVE [INAUDIBLE] SO IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW ANYHOW.
IT'S NOT MUCH DIFFERENT, BUT IT DOES GET US SOME CRITICAL POINTS IN CRS.
>> WHEN IS THAT CRS [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE'RE STILL GOING THROUGH IT.
[00:20:02]
>> [INAUDIBLE] THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS [INAUDIBLE]
>> YES. I THINK WE WILL BE WRAPPING IT UP PROBABLY IN MAY, AT THE VERY LATEST, I'M PRETTY SURE.
>> BUT ANY COST ASSOCIATED PROBABLY WILL BE OFFSET WITH [INAUDIBLE] CLAIM RATES WE'RE HOPING.
>> YES, SIR. WE'RE HOPING TO GET TO A FIVE.
>> YOU CAN'T FIGURE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO.
>> I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT, BUT WE ARE WORKING VERY HARD TO GET TO A FIVE IF WE CAN, AND THAT MEANS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SQUEEZE EVERY POINT WE CAN INTO THIS PROGRAM.
>> LET'S LET BOB FINISH HIS THOUGHTS. GO AHEAD BOB.
>> THIS LIST AND THE OTHER HANDOUT HERE, THIS LIST FROM INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICES LISTED SEVERAL ACTIVITIES.
ARE THESE ACTIVITIES THAT WE'RE PURSUING? ALL OF THESE?
>> YES. EVERYTHING'S ON THE TABLE.
THESE DIFFERENT CLASSES OF REVIEW CRITERIA THAT THE CRS PROGRAM USES, WE'VE GOTTEN CERTAIN POINTS IN THE PAST.
WE'RE TRYING TO INCREASE WHERE WE CAN.
WITH AN INCREASE MEANS PROBABLY ADDITIONAL STANDARDS.
THERE WAS ONE THING THAT WE ALSO DISCOVERED ABOUT THE 299 SQUARE FEET UNDER THE HOMES THAT WAS INADVERTENTLY REMOVED BY ACCIDENT, AND WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH ANOTHER ORDINANCE THAT PUTS THAT BACK IN.
>> YES, SIR. THERE'S PROBABLY MORE CHANGES TO COME, AND THEY'RE ALL PRETTY MINOR.
>> WHEN THEY CHANGED THE FLOOD RATING SYSTEM A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT ELEVATION ANYMORE LIKE IT ONCE WAS.
IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT PROXIMITY TO WATER, WHICH IF YOU'RE ON AN ISLAND, YOU'RE PRETTY PROXIMATE TO WATER.
PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY IN GALVESTON, REGARDLESS OF ELEVATION OR ANYTHING ELSE, IS GOING TO BE SEEING FLOOD INSURANCE INCREASES EVEN IF YOU'RE IN AN X ZONE JUST BECAUSE OF PROXIMITY TO WATER IN THE WAY THEY'RE DOING THE RATING.
I THINK UNDER FEMA LAW, YOUR FLOOD INSURANCE CAN GO UP 18% A YEAR. IT'S CAPPED.
I WOULD BET THERE'S GOING TO BE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE BUMPING UP ON THAT EVERY YEAR BECAUSE OF PROXIMITY TO WATER AND THE OTHER RATING FACTORS THAT HAVE COME INTO PLACE NOW, SO WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN WITH THE CRS TO TRY TO OFFSET THAT AS BEST WE CAN.
>> ALL OF THESE HERE ARE POSSIBILITIES, ALL OF THESE ACTIVITIES.
>> THAT WAS INCLUDED, I THINK, JUST TO GIVE YOU A SCOPE OF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE PURSUING IN THAT CRS REGARD, ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE'RE PURSUING, BUT THAT SPECIFIC ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IS VERY NARROW.
>> JUST CURIOUS, YOUR ACTIVITY FOR 30 HIGHER REGULATORY STANDARDS TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR COASTAL EROSION REGULATIONS.
THE REGULATIONS MUST PROHIBIT ALL NEW BUILDINGS FROM AN AREA EXPECTED TO ERODE OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
THAT'S JUST ABOUT THE WHOLE WEST END.
>> THERE ARE CERTAIN POINTS WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET, I'M PRETTY SURE, AND PROBABLY OTHERS THAT WE WON'T.
>> THEN THE OTHER ONE, 450 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, WE TOUCHED ON THAT AT OUR LAST MEETING AS A WAY TO EASE UP ON SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.
THIS ONE SAYS "THE LANGUAGE MUST REQUIRE THAT PEAK RUNOFF FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT [INAUDIBLE] THAN THE RUNOFF FROM THE SITE IN ITS PREDEVELOPMENT CONDITION." IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT YOUR EFFORT TO TRY TO EASE UP ON SOME OF THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL AS YET.
WE'RE WORKING ON THAT ITEM RIGHT NOW WITH ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE TO COME ON THAT ONE BECAUSE IT'S A HIGH POINT ITEM NUMBER 1, AND IT'S ALSO A LOT OF EFFORT BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
WE HAVE TO BALANCE WHAT OUR STAFF IS CAPABLE OF DOING IN THE TIME FRAMES AND REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT NEW CRITERIA ALLOWS.
>> ONE MORE THING, I JUST MISSED IT.
WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME ON HAVING [INAUDIBLE]
>> WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED A FIRST DRAFT TO THE CRS REVIEWERS, AND THEY ARE REVIEWING IT AND GIVING COMMENTS.
BUT IT'S ITERATIVE, SO WE'LL CONTINUE ON AREAS WHERE WE THINK WE CAN MAKE SOME PROGRESS, AND PROBABLY MAY IS WHEN.
>> IT'S MARCH 17TH. THAT WAS THE DEADLINE.
>> YOU GOT EVERYTHING SUBMITTED BUT SHOWING UP THE DOCUMENTATION.
>> YEAH. THEY DO ALLOW US TO AMEND AND CONTINUE ON IF WE'RE MAKING SOME PROGRESS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE INTEND TO DO.
>> AS LONG AS THE INTENT IS THERE TO SUBMIT IT AND HAVE IT.
>> AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE SUBMITTAL.
WE'VE MET THE DEADLINE, BUT WE'RE TWEAKING THIS SUBMITTAL.
>> MARIE, YOU HAD A QUESTION, THEN BO.
[00:25:03]
>> WHEN WE HAD THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGER HERE LAST WEEK, BECAUSE I SEE WE HAVE STORMWATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND SHE SAID THAT IT DIDN'T AFFECT IT, DIDN'T SHE?
>> I THINK THE POINT THERE WAS WE HADN'T GOTTEN POINTS PREVIOUSLY FOR IT.
>> IF WE'RE DOING THE SAME THING AND WE'RE NOT GETTING POINTS, IF WE REMOVE IT, OR ALTER IT, IT MAY NOT CHANGE GETTING THOSE POINTS REGARDLESS.
>> YES. BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THOSE POINTS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] CAN YOU TELL ME HOW MANY POINTS WE GET FROM THAT?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> BECAUSE SHE IMPLIED THAT IT DIDN'T, AND SHE'S OUR FLOODPLAIN MANAGER.
>> WE DIDN'T GET POINTS IN THE PAST, THAT'S CORRECT.
I THINK THERE'S A CERTAIN NUMBER OF POINTS DEPENDING ON THE CERTAIN SIZE STORM THAT YOU ACCOMMODATE, THE 10 YEAR STORM, OR MORE.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF SUBJECTIVITY TO IT, AND THEY DON'T NECESSARILY AWARD PARTIAL POINTS SOMETIMES, AND IT'S AN ALL OR NOTHING DEAL, SO WE HAVE TO REALLY WEIGH IT OUT AND MAKE SURE WE'RE GOING TO GET ALL THE BANG FOR OUR BUCK THAT WE CAN GET.
>> TO ME, THIS IS CIRCLING BACK.
>> LET ME FINISH THEN YOU CAN COME BACK.
>> BUT YOU CAN [OVERLAPPING] ON THE TRAILERS, THE ONLY SITUATIONS I CAN THINK OF WOULD BE CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS.
WHAT ELSE AM I NOT THINKING OF, THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE MOBILE HOMES THAT ARE IN, THERE'S A PARK OFF, I THINK, HEARDS LANE.
AS ONE COUPLE MOVES OUT AND ANOTHER MOVES IN, THOSE WILL BE SUBJECT TO IT.
>> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS, ESPECIALLY ON LARGE CONSTRUCTION SITES THERE ARE UNDENIABLY TEMPORARY OFFICES THAT ARE IN TRAILERS.
>> ON THAT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, AND MAYBE YOU COULD ANSWER BETTER, IS THAT AN UNUSUAL REQUEST? ARE TRAILERS MADE THAT THEY CAN GO UP TO X, Y, Z? I DON'T KNOW.
>> OFTEN TIMES THEY ARE SET AT THREE OR FOUR FEET OFF THE GROUND ANYHOW.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH A TYPICAL SETTING.
IF THE BFE PLUS 18 INCHES HAPPENS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT, THEN IT WOULD GO UP TO THAT LEVEL.
IT DEPENDS ON WHERE THE PROJECT IS.
LET'S TALK ABOUT A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN V ZONE.
THE ELEVATION IS 18 FEET, AND THE AREA WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR TRAILER IS NINE FEET.
WE'RE SAYING THEIR TRAILER HAS TO BE NINE FEET, 18 INCHES OFF THE GROUND?
>> I THINK TEMPORARY IS SIX MONTHS [INAUDIBLE]
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> WITH THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION WE HAVE GOING ON ON THE WEST END, IT SEEMS LIKE IT'D BE SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO LOOK AT.
>> THE TERM THEY'RE USING IS MANUFACTURED MOBILE HOMES, AND CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS AREN'T THAT.
LET ME TRY TO FIND THAT OUT BY DAY'S END.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF PERMUTATIONS FOR THIS BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE CONTAINERS THAT ARE SITTING FLAT ON THE GROUND.
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF ISSUES WITH THAT.
>> I WILL TRY TO NAIL THAT DOWN.
>> AT THE END OF THE DAY A RISING TIDE LIFTS ALL TRAILERS.
>> IN SOME AREAS IT'S IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION TRAILER RAISED UP SO YOU DON'T LOSE ANY TIME IF IT FLOODS.
>> TIM, ONCE YOU FIND THAT OUT, IF YOU WOULD LET ALL COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE]
>> SURE, I'LL SEND AN EMAIL OUT.
>> SEND AN EMAIL OUT WITH ALL CLARIFICATIONS.
>> IN CIRCLING BACK, I'M GOING TO PUT THREE MEETINGS TOGETHER.
OUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING, IT WAS CLEARLY STATED THAT WE WERE WORKING OFF A 25 YEAR FLOOD, IS THAT RIGHT? IS IT 10 OR 25?
>> I THINK IT'S 25 IN THE ENGINEERING [INAUDIBLE]
>> IN THAT 25, THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT THE OVERKILL DRAINAGE THAT WE'RE REQUIRING RIGHT NOW IS GOING BACK TO A SHEET DRAINAGE, OR, I FORGET THE THE DESCRIPTION HE MADE, BUT TO HAVE A RETENTION OR DETENTION POND IS OVERKILL AND RIDICULOUS.
[00:30:05]
PARING THAT WITH WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS MEETING, THAT DECISION WAS MADE WHOLLY BY AN INDIVIDUAL.THAT WAS MADE STRICT BY WHAT YOUR STATEMENT WAS, STRICTLY BY THE ENGINEER.
TO ME, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS RIGHT NOW, AND IF WE GO BACK TO THAT 25 YEAR ASSESSMENT WITH THE FLOOD RATES, AND THE AMOUNT AND HOW MUCH IT'S AFFECTING OUR ABILITY TO BRINGING BIG INVESTMENTS IN THAT ARE CONSIDERING NOT COMING BECAUSE OF THAT, WHY IS IT AGAIN GOING TO TAKE SO MANY DEPARTMENTS, SO MANY MEETINGS, SO MUCH TIME? BEFORE IT WAS MADE BY ONE INDIVIDUAL, BY HIS DECISION.
WHY ARE WE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT OUR CITIZENS FLOOD RATES?
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I THINK THAT THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS IS THAT WE BOUNCE IT OFF SEVERAL DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WAS LACKING WHEN THAT DECISION WAS MADE IN 2017 OR 2018, AND I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT BRANDON AND HIS TEAM IS WORKING HARD ON WHERE THE FINAL [OVERLAPPING] SHOULD BE.
>> THERE IS SUCH A HIGH DEGREE OF SUBJECTIVITY TO THIS THAT IF YOU DON'T BOUNCE IT OFTEN.
>> THE SUBJECTIVITY WASN'T BOUNCED OFF THE LAST TIME IT WAS DECIDED.
>> YOU WOULD NEED A CONSULTANT FOR THAT.
>> OR AN ENGINEER WHO WE GOT RID OF.
>> WE'RE NOT THE ONLY COASTAL COMMUNITY ON THE GULF.
>> THERE'S NEEDS TO BE A REALISM TOO.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL THAT INSTITUTED THE CRS SYSTEM, I THINK THE GOAL WAS TO GET IT AS HIGH AS WE CAN, BUT THERE'S A BALANCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STRIKE HERE, AND THE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE WANT TO GROW OUR TAX BASE AND DO THINGS, THAT THERE MAY BE SOME SACRIFICES, AND SOME OF THAT MAY BE THAT WE'RE CAPPED OUT AS TO HOW MUCH WE CAN GET ON CRS RATE.
>> ESPECIALLY IF IT'S UNAFFECTED.
>> THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET ADDITIONAL SAVINGS, WE MAY HAVE TO JUST CAP IT AND SAY THIS IS AS FAR AS WE CAN GO.
>> I THINK OUR NUMBER'S PRETTY GOOD.
I DON'T NEED TO FORMALLY KNOW.
>> I THINK WE HAVE ONE OF THE HIGHEST CRSS OF A COASTAL CITY GOING RIGHT NOW.
>> WHY ARE WE PUSHING PEOPLE AWAY BECAUSE OF THE STRINGENT OVERKILL?
>> THAT'S WHAT'S BEING ANALYZED.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHO WE'RE PUSHING AWAY.
>> WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT AS FAR AS DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THE COST OF WHAT IT WAS GOING TO TAKE.
>> WE HAD ONE GUY, BUT THERE WERE TWO OTHER JUST IDENTICAL BUSINESSES BUILT UNDER THESE RULES, NO PROBLEM.
I DON'T KNOW BUT I DON'T DISAGREE.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE EITHER, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S BEING ANALYZED NOW.
WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU.
I KNOW YOU HAVE A DISCUSSION ITEM ON THIS AS WELL, AND WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW THAT SHOULD PROCEED FORWARD HERE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.
>> I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHAT THE THING IS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO LIVE AND WORK HERE IS IT DECREASES THEIR INSURANCE, AND THEREFORE IT DECREASES THE COST OF LIVING HERE.
THAT'S THE UPSIDE OF THIS THAT WE'RE REALLY WORKING TOWARDS.
I'M DONE WITH THAT ONE. EVERYBODY DONE WITH THAT ONE?
>> THIS TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, I JUST WANT A LITTLE CLARITY, 36 MONTHS INITIAL TIME FRAME PLUS 12 MONTH EXTENSION FOR 48 MONTHS.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. WITHOUT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPEAL? THAT'S CORRECT.
THEN COULD YOU GIVE ME SOME EXAMPLES OF SOME PROJECTS DRIVING THE QUEST? I KNOW A COUPLE OF BIG PROJECTS OUT THERE, PARTICULARLY IN MY DISTRICT THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON FOR ALL LONG TIME.
>> JOE, DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OF ANY PROJECT THAT'S DONE THIS?
>> SOME THAT ARE IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE TIERRA, WE KNOW THAT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN TWO YEARS.
THE PROJECT OVER ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN ON THE BEACH THAT HASN'T FORMALLY ANNOUNCED THEIR NAME YET IS ALSO ONE OF THOSE THAT WE KNOW WILL TAKE MORE TIME THAN NOT. JOE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER?
>> EXCUSE ME, SIR, IDENTIFY YOURSELF ON CAMERA.
>> ROBERT TOLAN. I'M ASSISTANT [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
[00:35:01]
AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL.>> CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER, PLEASE? THANK YOU.
>> WHAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO WITH THESE TIME FRAMES ARE PEOPLE ARE GETTING REAL CLOSE TO THE END OF THEIR PROJECTS.
UNDER THESE CURRENT RULES, I ONLY HAVE 30 MONTHS, AND THAT'S IT.
I HAVE NO AUTHORITY PAST THAT POINT TO EVEN ALLOW HIM TO FINISH THE JOB.
IT HAS TO GO BASED ON THE CURRENT RULES, IT HAS TO GO DIRECTLY TO BBA TO GIVE THEM THE EXTENSION TO EVEN ALLOW THE EXTENSION.
IF WE'RE RIGHT AT THE FINISH LINE, WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO IS GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE LATITUDE IN ALLOWING FOR AN EXTENSION IF IT'S WARRANTED.
I'LL LOOK AT EVERY REQUEST AND MAKE SURE IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S JUSTIFIED.
NOW, WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TOO IS DEFINING WHAT A LARGE SCALE PROJECT IS.
WE'RE GIVEN A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR LARGE SCALE PROJECTS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO AND IT CAUSED A HUGE LOG JAM.
>> WE HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, BUT REAL QUICKLY, EVEN WITH THIS CHANGE, THEY STILL CAN GO TO THE BBA AND GET AN EXTENSION.
>> WHAT IS THE CAP ON THOSE EXTENSIONS THAT THEY CAN GRANT?
>> UNDER THIS RECOMMENDATION, IT'S ALLOWED ME A YEAR.
IT WAS SIX MONTHS, BUT NOT THE BBA HAS ANOTHER YEAR.
>> ANOTHER YEAR THEY CAN ADD ON TO.
>> THAT'D BE UP TO FIVE YEARS TO COMPLETE.
>> WE'RE A LARGE SCALE PROJECT.
>> WE HAVE MARIE AND THEN ALEX.
>> I THINK THIS IS GREAT, ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE FACTORS THAT WE DEAL WITH.
I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT WE'RE EXTENDING IT, BUT SHOULDN'T WE ALSO HAVE SOMETHING IN HERE FOR NATURAL DISASTERS?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD CLASSIFY THIS UNDER, BUT WE KNOW WHY THE TIERRA, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS SO BEHIND SO TO SAY, HAD TO DO WITH THE BEACH ACCESS PLAN.
WHAT COULD WE CALL THAT? BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A NATURAL DISASTER.
>> EXACTLY, BUT HOW COULD WE HAVE SOMETHING IN GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENT EXTENSION.
IT WASN'T THE FIRST AND IT WON'T BE THE LAST.
>> THIS IS SET UP JUST IRREGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE.
IT ALLOWS JOE MORE ABILITY TO MOVE BACK AND FORTH WITH THOSE EXTENSIONS ADMINISTRATIVELY RATHER THAN GO TO BEFORE A BOARD.
IT'S REALLY AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUE MORE THAN ANYTHING, SO IT'S IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD REALLY CARE TO GET INTO A LOT OF THOSE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES BECAUSE IT'S AN UMBRELLA ORDINANCE ANYHOW AND IT ALLOWS IT ALL TO BE EXTENDED, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
THERE WERE CIRCUMSTANCES UNIQUE TO THAT PROJECT.
>> HURRICANES CAN BE IN MANY FORMS.
>> I LIKE THE ONES FROM NEW ORLEANS.
>> I WANT TO THANK YOU. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK COUNCIL WANTS TO SEE, IS STAFF COMING FORWARD WITH THINGS THAT HELP DEVELOPMENT.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, AND I'M ENCOURAGING OTHER CITY STAFF TO DO THE SAME IF THERE'S REGULATIONS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT OR IDEAS THAT STAFF CAN HAVE TO HELP MAKE US WORK BETTER TOGETHER WITH RESIDENTS AND DEVELOPERS, SO THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE IT.
>> THIS WOULD TAKE EFFECT AS SOON AS THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED THIS AFTERNOON?
>> EVEN IT IT'S NOT EXISTING PERMIT.
>> IT WOULD APPLY TO EXISTING.
>> FIRST OFF, I LOVE THE DEFINITION OF LARGE PROJECTS, GREATER THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH PRETTY MUCH GETS YOU INTO THE COMMERCIAL REALM AND OUTSIDE OF RESIDENTIAL, SO THAT'S A GOOD DEMARCATION.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU ARE NOT A LARGE PROJECT,
[00:40:01]
THEN I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT THE STANDARD PERMIT TIME FRAME STILL REMAINS AT TWO YEARS.>> BECAUSE IN-TOWN, WE HAVE SOMETIMES A CASE WHERE PEOPLE HAVE JUST ABANDONED CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.
THAT IS A SOURCE OF BLIGHT IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT THOSE CONDITIONS STILL REMAIN THE SAME.
I ALSO APPRECIATED THE DETAIL THAT YOU GAVE RELATED TO EXTENSIONS AND PERMIT FEES, ADDITIONAL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL.
IT'S A GOOD CLEANUP BECAUSE OFTENTIMES, QUESTIONS BECOME, I'M AT THE END OF MY PERMIT, WHAT THE HECK AM I GOING TO DO, HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE, AND THIS IS REALLY A VERY GOOD DEFINITION ON THAT, SO THANKS FOR THAT.
>> I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF YOU GENTLEMEN.
IT'S A GREAT TO STEP FORWARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT 11A APPROVAL OF [INAUDIBLE] AUDIT PLAN.
>> THIS IS UPDATING OF HIS PLAN.
>> CITY AUDITOR, GLENN BULGHERINI.
>> I JUST WANT A LITTLE CLARIFICATION ON THE IMPACT OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
THE PREVIOUS APPROVED AUDIT PLAN HAD SIX AUDITS FOR THE CITY, FOUR FOR THE PARK BOARD, AND ONE FOR THE PORT.
THIS NEW ONE HAS THREE FOR THE CITY, ONE FOR THE PORT, AND SIX FOR THE PARK BOARD.
THAT MEANS THREE OF THE CITY'S AUDITS WERE ELIMINATED FROM THIS YEAR'S PLAN.
>> THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S TRAVEL AND TRAINING EXPENDITURE POLICIES WAS DROPPED OF THE USE OF OVERTIME AND RELATED APPROVAL FOR TRACKING PUBLIC WORKS.
AN AUDIT ON THE POLICE CITY'S FUNDS, CASH, AND CITY'S ASSETS, EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT TRACKING DISPOSAL WAS DROPPED?
>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HIRE SOME ADDITIONAL PEOPLE TO HELP YOU DO THIS, GET THIS DONE?
>> THIS ONE IS EXISTING STAFF.
THE ONE WHERE WE WILL NEED THE DATA ENTRY CLERKS IS ON THE ONE COUNCIL APPROVED FOR THE AUDIT OF 100% HOT EXPENDITURES FOR 2022 AND 2024.
>> I'M SORRY. WE WILL NEED THE DATA ENTRY CLERKS FOR WHEN WE INCLUDE THE AUDIT OF 100% OF HOT EXPENDITURES AT THE PARK BOARD FOR THE 2022 AND 2024 YEARS.
>> IT'S NOT ONE OF THE ONES YOU MENTIONED.
THAT'S WHERE WE NEED COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS.
>> LET ME CLARIFY THAT TOO, IF I COULD.
ONCE COUNCIL APPROVES IF WE DO THIS AMENDED AUDIT PLAN FOR GLENN, IN THAT EXTRA PERSONNEL HE'S ALREADY PROPOSED WHAT THE COST WOULD THAT BE.
THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGEMENT BY BRIAN THAT WILL HANDLE THE FUNDING FOR THAT EXTRA PERSON.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL'S AWARE OF THAT.
>> THAT'S A TEMPORARY STAFF I GUESS.
>> IT'S TEMPORARY STAFF. UNDER 15,000 BECAUSE I CAN DEAL WITH THAT.
>> I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT BASED ON THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD ON THAT.
>> VERY GOOD. ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS ON THIS PROPOSAL THAT GLENN HAS GIVEN FOR HIS AMENDED PLAN.
ITEM 3 AND 4, HE'S ALREADY COMPLETED.
>> THEM FIVE WE'RE DISCUSSING IN DEPTH?
>> YOU'RE NOT MOVING DOWN THIS AGENDA VERY MUCH.
>> WE'LL GET THERE AT LUNCHTIME.
>>THIS ONE IS THE TEXAS GAS SERVICE RATE INCREASE.
THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE, THE AVERAGE INCREASE IS $3.36 A MONTH.
>> TREVOR, IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.
>> I'M TREVOR FANNING, I'M THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.
>> WE HAVE A PERK. NOT HIM, THIS.
>> WE'RE A MEMBER OF THE IT'S CALLED THE GCCC, GULF COAST COALITION OF CITIES,
[00:45:02]
AND THEY REPRESENT CITIES IN OUR AREA FOR THOSE RATE INCREASES.THIS ONE IS ONE THAT WILL TAKE EFFECT.
WE CAN'T STOP IT, BUT WE CAN DELAY IT FOR 45 DAYS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. MY POINT ON THIS WAS HAD SO MUCH INTEREST WHEN SOME OF OUR UTILITY RATES INCREASED.
I JUST WONDERED WHAT THE PLAN FOR LETTING THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THIS IS COMING.
>> THEY HAVE TO DO ALL THAT, THE PUC AND EVERYBODY ELSE HAS TO PUBLISH ALL THAT.
THERE'S A DISSEMINATION PERIOD THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH FOR THE RATE INCREASE.
>> DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY PLANS FOR SOMEHOW GETTING THIS WORD OUT TO THE CITIZENS WHO AREN'T PUTTING INTO THAT?
>> WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT IN THE PAST, WE COULD LOOK INTO THAT.
>> THE ONLY REASON I BRING IT UP IS BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, OF THE REALLY INTENSE INTEREST WE HAD FROM EVERYBODY WHEN WE RAISED THE UTILITY RATES, AND SO THIS IS NOT THAT MUCH DIFFERENT.
>> I JUST CAUTION YOU THAT IF WE PUT IT OUT THERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE CALLING US TO THINK WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT AND WE CAN'T.
>> MAYBE WE CAN PUT A DISCLAIMER, THIS AIN'T US, PLEASE. CALL THIS NUMBER.
>> THE FIRM CALLED [INAUDIBLE] TO DO OUR UTILITY STUFF.
I TYPICALLY HAVE TOM BRACADO COME DOWN TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT UTILITIES ABOUT EVERY TWO, THREE YEARS, SO WHY DON'T I INVITE HIM DOWN FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND HE CAN TALK TO YOU ABOUT ELECTRIC RATES, GAS RATES, RIPS, PASS THROUGH THINGS, ALL THE THINGS YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. ARCANE.
>> ARCANE, BUT TRANSPARENCY, I THINK IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO HERE JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY OUT THERE WHO'S GOING TO BE AFFECTED BY THIS KNOWS WHAT'S COMING AND KNOWS HOW IT'S COMING.
>> HOPEFULLY, SOMEBODY FROM THE NEWSPAPER IS MONITORING THIS AND THEY'LL PICK UP.
>> AND HOPEFULLY KNOWS WE'RE NOT THE ONES WRITING THEM.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IF WE DON'T GET OUT AHEAD OF IT, EVERYBODY GOING TO THINK THAT.
>> BUT IT SEEMS LIKE OUR HOUSEHOLD HAD BEEN NOTIFIED.
MY WIFE BROUGHT THIS UP TO ME SOME WAY OR ANOTHER.
I DON'T KNOW IF SHE GOT AN EMAIL OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW.
>> I THINK THERE WAS A NOTICE THAT WENT OUT IN THE BL.
>> I THINK PEOPLE HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN SOME WAY ALREADY, BUT GO AHEAD, BOB. THANK YOU, TREVOR.
>> 11G. THIS IS APPROVAL FOR THE PERFECT [INAUDIBLE].
IT'S 389,000 FOR THREE YEARS, AND THE STAFF REPORT SAID THE FUNDING FOR ONE YEAR; IS THAT RIGHT?
>> WE FUND IT A YEAR AT A TIME.
>> YOU DO IT A YEAR AT A TIME. GO AHEAD.
>> EVERYBODY KNOWS YOU, CHIEF, BUT IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE?
>> YES, SIR. DOUG BALLI, CHIEF OF POLICE.
>> THANKS, CHIEF. THE FUNDING YOU HAVE IN PLACE FOR THE FIRST YEAR, YOU WOULD DO THE SAME KIND OF GRANTS NEXT YEAR?
>> WE WILL BE SEEKING THE GRANT AGAIN FOR NEXT YEAR.
>> FOR EACH YEAR, THE THREE YEAR CONTRACT?
>> BUT JUST TO LET YOU-ALL KNOW THAT IS A COMMITMENT. WE'RE GOING TO TRY FOR THE GRANT.
IF WE DON'T, IT'S GOING TO BE AN OBLIGATION TO THE CITY.
IT'S ALSO A FORCE EXTENDER, SO CHEAPER THAN POLICEMENTS.
>> LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN ABOUT PRIVACY OF DATA.
THE VENDOR'S ROLE IN THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND ON THE STAFF REPORT, THE VENDOR KEEPS THAT TO CLOUD SOMEWHERE, AND THEN YOU HAVE ALL KINDS OF CONTROLS PLACED ON YOUR OPERATIONAL.
>> I BELIEVE I SENT OUT TO YOU GUYS LAST NIGHT THE CHIEF'S POLICIES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WAS LAST NIGHT. I SENT THEM LAST NIGHT AGAIN.
>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS ABOUT, AND I BELIEVE DON HAD BROUGHT THIS UP EARLIER WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS CONTRACT, WHAT KIND OF SECURITY THERE IS WITH THIS DATA RESIDING AT THE CONSULTANT'S CLOUD SITE?
>> THE CLOUD SITE IS A GOVERNMENT-SECURED CLOUD SITE THAT IS UTILIZED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES UP TO IT INCLUDING FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES, AND IT'S WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT SECURED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT THERE WERE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT DON HAD IN REGARDS TO THE USE AGREEMENT WITH FLOCK THAT WERE IRONED OUT AS WELL.
>> DON, YOUR CONCERNS WERE ALL ADDRESSED, I GUESS IN THIS.
>> BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A YEAR, I THINK.
I THINK THEY'VE ALL BEEN ADDRESSED.
>> NO, THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE ONE THAT WE APPROVED LAST YEAR OR A YEAR-AND-A-HALF AGO WAS JUST A DATA USAGE AGREEMENT DOES NOT INVOLVE OUR PURCHASE OR OWNERSHIP OF THE CAMERAS, AND DON WAS SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING SOME SUCCESSFUL TERMS THAT BENEFITED THE CITY WITHIN THAT FLOCK AGREEMENT.
[00:50:05]
THAT WAS FOR THE DATA USAGE.WHAT BRIAN PROVIDED LAST NIGHT COURTESY OF YOU WAS THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PARTICULAR PURCHASE.
>> TO THAT END, PREVIOUSLY AS COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MENTIONED, THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT USAGE.
IN FACT, ON OUR AGENDA TODAY, WE FIND THAT THERE'S A CLAIM FROM A POLICE OFFICER ASSOCIATED WITH THE UNLAWFUL ACCESS OF INFORMATION IN THE DATABASE.
THE SOP YOU PUT TOGETHER, FIRST OFF, I THINK ADDRESSES 90% OF THE ITEMS AND CONCERNS THAT I HAD HAD PREVIOUSLY.
THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE YOU AND YOUR STAFF TO TAKE A LOOK AT ARE TWO THINGS.
ONE, PUBLIC DISCLOSURE AND INFORMATION.
WE NEED TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ABOUT WHAT THIS IS AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE USED FOR AND WHY IT'S A BENEFIT SO THAT THERE'S NOT THIS UMBRELLA OF SECRECY ASSOCIATED WITH IT WHEN YOU GO AND IMPLEMENT IT.
THAT'S THE FIRST ONE. THE OTHER ONE, IN ADDITION TO THE AUDITS THAT YOU SPECIFIED IN THE STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE, WHICH IS GREAT, BECAUSE THEN THAT INFORMATION IS PUBLIC, AVAILABLE TO A FOIA.
THE REPORTING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE FLOCK SYSTEM, I THINK IS VERY ROBUST AND WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC IN TERMS OF HOW IT'S BEING USED, HOW IT'S BEING ACCESSED, ETC.
THE ONE THING I WOULD ASK FOR CONSIDERATION AND IT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO DO NOW IS A THIRD PARTY ASSESSMENT DOWN THE LINE, OF THE SECURITY PROTOCOLS THAT ARE IN PLACE ONCE YOU GET UP AND OPERATING, TO MAKE SURE THAT YES, THEY DO MEET PRIVACY AND SECURITY STANDARDS.
I THINK THAT WOULD HELP TO FOSTER PUBLIC TRUST OF THE SYSTEM.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THINGS I'D LIKE TO BRING UP.
>> YES, SIR. FLOCK ITSELF OFFERS A TRANSPARENCY PORTAL FOR THE PUBLIC FOR EVERY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY.
SOME AGENCIES UTILIZE THAT AND SOME DO NOT.
WE WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THAT AND WANT TO UTILIZE IT SO THAT 24-HOURS-A-DAY, SEVEN-DAYS-A-WEEK, YOU CAN LOG ONTO THAT SYSTEM.
YOU CAN GET THE MONTHLY REPORT THAT TELLS YOU HOW MANY CAMERAS WE HAVE, HOW MANY VEHICLE LICENSE PLATES IT PICKED UP, USUAL REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, ETC.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU'LL PROVIDE THAT TO ME, I'LL SPIN IT OUT TO MY CITY MANAGER'S REPORT THAT I DO EVERY MONTH SO THAT WAY THE PUBLIC GETS IT THROUGH OUR CHIPS.
>> I JUST WANT TO COMMEND YOU THAT SOP HAD SOME VERY GOOD BEST PRACTICES AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS ON THAT. THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT AS WE'VE BEEN COMMENTING TODAY.
IN THE PIRATES COMMUNITY, WE HAVE HAD 21 FLOCK CAMERAS FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
I DON'T EXACTLY REMEMBER HOW LONG, BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
JUST SO THAT OUR CITIZENS UNDERSTAND, ALL FLOCK CAPTURES IS THE LICENSE PLATE AND LIKE IT'S A RED CHEVROLET, THE FINGERPRINT OF THE CAR, SO TO SAY.
IT HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN SOLVING CRIMES.
WE HAVE HAD NO DATA LEAKS BECAUSE AGAIN, ALL IT'S TAKING IS A LICENSE PLATE AND THE FOOTPRINT OF THE CAR.
IT DOESN'T TAKE A PICTURE OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN IT, BUT IT WILL IDENTIFY IMMEDIATELY IF IT'S A STOLEN CAR.
WE HAD A POOL HEATER THAT WAS STOLEN THAT TURNED OUT TO BE A RENTAL CAR, THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO TRACK TO THE AIRPORT.
UNFORTUNATELY, A VERY STUPID CRIMINAL LEFT HIS BILLFOLD IN THE CAR, SO THEY WERE ABLE TO CAPTURE THE PERSON.
AS WITH ALL THE OTHER CITIES THAT USE FLOCK, IT'S HAD GREAT SUCCESS.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? CHIEF, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT 11M, BUT AFTER HAVING SEEN THAT STAFF IS SPITTING IT OUT.
11M IS ABOUT THE GARTEN VEREIN.
GARTEN VEREIN, I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT IT APPEARS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION A LITTLE BIT LATER.
I'LL JUST STRIKE THAT ONE AND GO TO 11 AA.
THIS IS A TRAFFIC SIGNAL SECTION PURPOSE.
I'M JUST A LITTLE BIT CURIOUS TO GET SOME CLARITY ON THE CITY IS A LEAD SPONSOR BUT THE FUNDING IS ALL GRANT FOR THIS PROJECT.
[00:55:01]
>> [NOISE] EXCUSE ME. ROBERT WINIECKE DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING.
YES. WE CAME BACK TO YOU WITH THESE ITEMS IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
ORIGINALLY, THE PROJECT WAS GOING TO COMBINED TOGETHER.
TEXT HAS REQUESTED US TO BREAK IT UP IN INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS.
ITEMS 11 Y, 11 Z, AND 11 A A ARE A PACKAGED DL ALL THREE GO TOGETHER AND INTERRELATE.
THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GRANT FUNDED PROJECTS.
ANY OVERAGES WE WOULD BE ON HOOK FOR.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A MATCH IN THAT, JUST THE OVERTIME.
>> THE MATCH WAS ELIMINATED AS PART OF SOME OF THE PROGRAMS AT EACH EAC INVOLVED. CORRECT.
>> THE MATCH WAS ELIMINATED BY TRANSFER DAY TO CREDIT AT THE TPC.
WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THE MATCHES FROM A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WENT ON.
>> IS THE PORT PARTICIPATING IN THIS?
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION ON THAT, ROB.
THESE ITEMS, THESE ARE IN CONJUNCTION.
I KNOW THE PORT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THESE TWO.
>> YOU'RE WORKING WITH THEM OF COURSE ON THEM?
>> WE'RE WORKING WITH JEFFERY TOMAS ON A REGULAR BASIS ON THESE, CORRECT.
>> YOU MENTIONED 11 Y, Z, AA SINCE IT'S ALREADY ALMOST 10, I'M GOING TO JUST MAKE ON 11 Y.
WE ACTUALLY RESCINDED THE AFA AND DID A NEW AFA.
>> YES BECAUSE ORIGINALLY, WE WERE GOING TO PACKAGE THE TWO INTERSECTIONS TOGETHER WITH THE SCHEDULES AND NOW THINGS ARE WORKING.
TXDOT REQUESTED THAT WE GO AHEAD AND SEPARATE THOSE INTO INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE RESCINDING THAT FIRST RESOLUTION, AND WE'RE ISSUING THESE TWO NEW RESOLUTIONS AT EACH ONE INDEPENDENTLY.
>> IT'S AS SIMPLE AS DISCUSSING IT AT A MEETING, RESCINDING AN A OF X.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, ROB.
THIS IS ABOUT THE SEAWALL BOULEVARD RESURFACING PROJECT FROM BROADWAY TO 61ST.
>> I SEEM TO RECALL A SEAWALL MOBILITY PLAN THAT WAS NOT THIS.
IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS GOING TO LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT. OF MOBILITY.
>> THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROJECT, YES.
>> WOULD THIS COORDINATE WITH THAT PLAN SOMEHOW BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO ONE THOUGH.
>> YES. THIS IMPLEMENTATION WILL BECOME THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PLAN.
>> THIS WOULD BE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT PLAN.
WE WOULD DO THE PLAN, GET THE RIGHT CONFIGURATION DOWN FOR SEAWALL AND THEN WE WOULD GO AHEAD AND EFFECT THAT WITH THIS PROJECT. THAT'S THE GOAL.
>> THE STAFF REPORT TRIGGERED THAT WHERE IT SAYS DEDICATED MULTI-MODAL LANES FOR BICYCLES AND OTHER FORMS OF MOTORIZED AND NON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION WHICH IS REALLY AN ISSUE UP ON THE SEAWALL.
YOU MAY IMPACT THIS WITH STRIVING, I GUESS, OR TAKING SOME PARKING PLACES.
>> THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT AS A WHOLE BECAUSE WE HAVE THE GOO PARKING PLAN, AND WE NEED TO SEE WHERE PARKING BUS GET THIS PLACED TO MAKE SURE WE STILL HAVE WHAT WE NEED.
BUT THE GOAL IS TO TRY AND LOOK AT THE CORRIDOR AND MAKE IT SAFER FOR ALL USERS WHETHER THAT IS POTENTIALLY DOING AWAY WITH THE CENTER TURLING IN SOME AREAS, AND SHIFTING TRAFFIC NORTH SO YOU GOT OPPOSING RIGHT AGAINST ONE ANOTHER AND CREATING A LANE WHERE THE PARKING AREA IS FOR THAT OTHER USE.
THOSE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS.
>> THERE'S NOT A LOT OF REAL ESTATE UP THERE.
>> NEXT QUESTION WAS, DOES THIS INCLUDE THE ACTUAL SIDEWALK ON TOP OF THE SEAWALL OR ONLY THE STREET?
>> THE FOCUS HERE WOULD BE FROM THE STREET NORTH, TRYING TO KEEP THE [INAUDIBLE] BASICALLY WHERE THE BOLLARD LINE IS FOR THE LIGHTER BOLLARDS THAT WE HAVE, TRYING TO KEEP FROM THEIR SOUTH AS IS AND THEN MAKING USES BETWEEN WHAT IS CURRENTLY THE RIGHT EASTBOUND LANE AND THE PARKING AREA.
THAT'S THE FOCUS AND THOUGHT OF WHERE THIS ONE IS GOING TO TAKE US.
>> A WHOLE LOT OF THE PROBLEM IS ON THAT SIDEWALK AREA JUST SOUTH OF THE BOLLARDS IS WHERE YOU HAVE ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION GOING ON.
SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING 20 MILES AN HOUR AND SOME MOTORIZED THING, AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE JUST WALKING AROUND WITH THEIR HEAD IN THERE NOT LOOKING WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEN THERE'S BICYCLES AND SKATEBOARDS, AND YOU CAN PUT A MOTOR ON JUST ABOUT ANYTHING THESE DAYS.
THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM IS AS I SEE IT.
>> ON THAT PROBLEM, BOB, WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT AT COUNCIL BEFORE.
WE'VE DISCUSSED IT, BUT YES, WE COULD BRING THAT BACK AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE AND LOOK AT OUR REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES AND HOW WE COULD ADDRESS THAT.
>> BUT THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE MULTIMODAL LANE IS TO TRY TO LOOK FOR A PLACE TO PUT THESE MOTORIZED VEHICLES THAT AREN'T CARS OR GOLF CARTS, BUT THE ONE WHEELS AND THE MOTORIZED SCOOTER.
>> NON-LICENSED MOTORIZED VEHICLES.
>> WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE, THE TIMING AND THE DEADLINES AND ALL THAT?
WE'RE LOOKING AT '26, I BELIEVE LATE DATE.
WE GOT AUGUST OF 2026 AS THE TARGET FOR GETTING THIS OUT ON THE STREET FOR ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BACK ON
[01:00:01]
THE SUBJECT BECAUSE WE GOT OFF A LITTLE BIT ON THE MOBILITY PLAN.>> THAT IS THE ANSWER WHICH MAY HAVE SOME STRIPING IN THERE.
>> WITH THIS AFA AND THE SCOPE OF THIS, IT'S NOT TO INTEND TO CHANGE THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION.
>> I JUST HEARD THAT IT COULD.
>> NO AND YES. THERE'S A CHANCE THAT IT COULD.
IF THE MOBILITY PLAN COMES ON AND SAYS, LOOK THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO, PUBLIC BUYS INTO.
YOU GUYS ACCEPT THAT, AND IT REQUIRES TAKING OUT THAT TWO WAY TURN LANE, THOSE THINGS.
THOSE COULD BE OFFICIALLY CHANGED.
>> REMEMBER THE SEAWALL IS NOT THE SAME WITH ALL WAY DOWN.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A BIT VARIATION.
>> YOU BROUGHT UP THE MOBILITY PLAN, WHICH I THINK IS GREAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE TIMING FOR THE COMPLETION OF THAT STUDY INTERNALLY AND THE PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL.
>> LET ME GET YOU AN ANSWER AND I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER AT THIS EXACT MOMENT.
>> THAT'S AN INPUT INTO THIS, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL INFORMATION.
>> HAVE WE SEEN THE RESULTS OF THE MOBILITY PLAN, THE COUNCIL?
>> WE COULD GET THAT AT OUR NEXT MEETING, I THINK?
>> SURE, WE MIGHT AS WELL [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE MAY STILL BE HERE. [LAUGHTER]
>> I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE RESULT OF THAT MOBILITY PLAN AT THIS COMING MEETING.
>> OR WE COULD DISTRIBUTE TO YOU GUYS.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT TIME IN MEETING.
>> WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS, COUNCIL, IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE.
LET'S DISTRIBUTE THAT. I DON'T KNOW.
THEN IF COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS THEY COULD GET WITH STAFF ON THAT.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION THERE ON ACQUIRING.
>> THIS IS A QUICK ONE. I HOPE. I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE STAFF REPORT REFERENCED TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASES, DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE THOSE EASEMENTS DURING CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO GO AWAY?
>> THE AMOUNT OF MONEY REQUIRED, I GUESS WE'RE RENTING THAT PROPERTY FOR THE TIME PERIODS HERE.
THAT'S ALL IT IS. AFTER CONSTRUCTION, THOSE EASEMENTS.
>> THE LAND WILL BE RESTORED AND THE EASEMENTS GO AWAY AT THAT POINT.
>> 11 DD, HAVE WE GONE FORTH AND SPOKEN TO ALL OF OUR EASEMENTS THAT WE NEEDED TO ACQUIRE?
>> WE WILL BE DOING THAT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE APPROVED THIS TO DO THAT?
>> IF THERE'S ANY ISSUES ARISE THAT COMES BACK UP TO US, CORRECT?
>> SHARING THAT FUND. [LAUGHTER]
>> FORTUNATELY. SIR, I WAS KIDDING WHEN I SAID WE GOT TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT TOO.
>> THE WAY WE'RE GOING, ROB, DON'T SIT DOWN TOO LONG.
>> NO, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING FOR HIM.
12A IS THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS LATER.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. YES, SIR.
>> I'LL JUST HOLD OFF ON THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT 12B.
>> THIS IS ROSENBERG SCHOOL TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
>> COUNCIL, IF I COULD GUIDE YOU JUST A BIT ON THIS.
THIS IS FOR CLARIFICATION OF THIS ITEM.
IT'S NOT TO DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS.
IT'S NOT TO DISCUSS ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES.
THAT CAN BE DONE IN A REGULAR SESSION.
THIS IS JUST CLARIFICATION OF THE ITEM.
>> I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. I'LL JUST DO THIS IN THE REGULAR SESSIONS. WITH THAT, I'M DONE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, BOB. DAVID?
>> YES. ACTUALLY, I WANT TO OPEN THAT BACK UP.
OUT OF ALL THE ONES YOU COVERED.
THAT WAS THE ONE THAT I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON.
CLARIFICATION, ITEM 2 IN THAT SAYS, GISD MUST PERFORM A PHASE 2 ENVIRONMENTAL.
HAS THERE BEEN A PHASE 1 FORM THAT HAS DETERMINED THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PHASE 2?
>> NO. WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE A PHASE 1.
THE REASON THAT'S IN THERE IS THAT IN MOST OF OUR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS HERE, I'VE YET TO HAVE ONE OF OURS GO FORWARD THAT I HAVEN'T HAD TO DO A PHASE 2.
OUT OF FAIRNESS TO EVERYBODY INVOLVED, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT A PHASE 2 WOULD PROBABLY BE REQUIRED.
OBVIOUSLY, IF A PHASE 1 COMES BACK AND SAYS, WE ARE ALL GOOD, THEN THAT WILL WORK ON THEM.
>> THIS IS JUST A HEADS UP, GUYS, BE PREPARED THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A PHASE 2, ENVIRONMENTAL.
>> THERE IS A PHASE 1 UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW.
PROJECT ROSENBERG IS COORDINATED WITH GISD TO GET ACCESS TO THE BUILDING AND THEY'VE HIRED A CONSULTANT AND THE PHASE 1 IS SUPPOSED TO BE DUES BACK SOMETIME, APRIL 4TH.
>> AGAIN, WE'RE NOT AWARE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT MEETS OUR SCOPE BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PROPERTY OUTSIDE THE BUILDING THAT'S INCLUDED IN ALL THOSE THINGS.
BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE WORKING.
WE WERE A LITTLE CONCERNED IN THE GISD IS NOT PERFORMING THIS WORK OR ADMITTING THIS WORK.
IT'S BEING DONE BY OUTSIDE GROUPS, AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BONDING REQUIREMENTS ARE OR INSURANCE OR VALIDATION OR ANYTHING ELSE.
[01:05:02]
AND THEY COME BACK WITH THE RESULTS, AND THEY HAVEN'T MET SOME STANDARD, ARE THEY GOING TO DO IT ALL OVER AGAIN?>> NO, SIR. MAYBE WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO EXPAND THE SCOPE, GO BACK AND FINISH IT UP IF THERE'S SOME.
BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT SCOPE WAS GIVEN TO THEM TO DO THE PHASE 1.
ARE THEY JUST DOING THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING? ARE THEY DOING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? THEY'VE NOT TALKED TO US ABOUT ANY OF IT.
>> IT'D PROBABLY BE A GOOD IDEA TO GET THAT SCOPE TO THE CITY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>> WE'LL DO PHASE 1 AND THEN PHASE 2 COMES AFTER PHASE 1 USUALLY.
>> ONE AND TWO. THE THINGS IS WE HAVE DEEPER REMEDIATION.
>> THE ISSUE HERE IS WE'RE DEALING WITH GISD.
WE ARE NOT DEALING WITH PROJECT ROSENBERG.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GISD IS DOING WITH PROJECT ROSENBERG IN TERMS OF HOW THEY'RE ALLOWING THEM TO DO ALL THIS WORK ON THEIR PROPERTY AND LIABILITY, BONDING, WE HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT THAT.
THIS IS OUR AGREEMENT THAT WOULD GO FORWARD WITH GISD.
>> PART OF THE MECHANISM IS BETTER PARKED FOR GALVESTON.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND GISD NEVER TALKED TO US ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE DOING A PHASE 1 ON.
I ASSUME IT'S ON THE ENTIRE SITE.
BUT WE'LL FIND THAT OUT. I CAN CALL MATT AND FIND OUT, BUT I'M NOT REALLY SURE HE KNOWS.
>> HE KNOWS. HE'S BEEN COORDINATING WITH THE PROJECT ROSENBERG.
THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GET THAT SCOPE OF WORK TO THE CITY TO REVIEW.
>> BUT AGAIN, IT NEEDS TO COME TO GISD, BECAUSE THAT WHY WE ARE DOING THIS.
>> I WOULD ASSUME GISD HAS A DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION ON ALL THIS, BUT THAT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
>> I KNOW. PROJECT ROSENBERG HAS BEEN COORDINATING WITH GISD TO DO THIS.
SO THEY'RE TRYING TO GET AHEAD AND GO THROUGH A PROCESS LIKE RYAN WAS SAYING, THE GISD PHASE 1 INDICATES SOMETHING MORE NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT, TESTED, AND EVALUATED IN PHASE 2, THAT'S WHAT THEY'LL DO.
THEY'LL DO THAT IN PHASE 2 AND IT'LL BE THE PART OF THE DEMOLITIONS.
>> TO THAT END, ITEM 2, I'M NOT DONE WITH THIS BECAUSE I THINK DON, IF YOU'VE DRAFTED THIS AND THIS IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN US AND GISD, THERE IS NO MENTION OF A REQUIREMENT FOR A PHASE 1.
I WOULD SUGGEST TO COUNSEL THAT WE OUGHT TO BE EXPLICIT GIVEN THE FACT THAT MR. MAXWELL HAS STATED THAT HE DOESN'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF ANY PHASE 1 THAT HAS BEEN PERFORMED.
COULD WE OR SHOULD WE INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS, A PHASE 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT SHALL BE DONE FOR BOTH THE BUILDING AND THE ENTIRE SITE.
>> THAT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF PHASE 2 ASSUMES THAT THERE'S A PHASE 1, BUT WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.
>> GOOD POINT. COUNSEL, YOU CAN SUBMIT THAT AT THE REGULAR MEETING IN THE MOTION SO THAT WE CAN [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE AGITATING WHAT WE GOT FROM COUNSEL BACK TO YOU GUYS, SO THAT'S FINE.
>> I'LL MAKE IT DURING THE MEETING. THANK YOU.
DAVID, DO YOU HAVE CLARIFICATION ITEMS?
>> WOULD YOU EXPLAIN NUMBER 13 TO ME? CLARIFICATION ON NUMBER 13.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY'RE STILL THE SAME.
>> NO, NUMBER 13 [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S 13 CONDITIONS ON THERE, IS IT?
>> I THINK IS THAT THE ONE THAT SAYS THAT COUNSEL CAN REJECT ALL THE WAY UP UNTIL RECEIPT?
NOTHING'S FINAL UNTIL IT'S FINAL.
IS NOT FINAL UNTIL YOU VOTED ON IT.
>> IN A REGULAR SCHEDULE MEETING.
BUT WHAT THAT BASICALLY SAYS IS BY GIVING THEM THESE REQUIREMENTS IS NOT AN ACCEPTANCE OF THE PARK, WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL THAT AND COUNSEL CAN REJECT IT AT THAT TIME, TOO.
THAT'S YOUR OPTION, GUYS. YOU ALL HAVE THAT.
>> I THINK IT'S MORE OF A JUST CLARIFICATION.
YOU GUYS HAD THAT RIGHT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE AGREEMENT SAYS, BUT IT'S JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE SO THERE'S BEING TRANSPARENT. THAT'S JUST HOW WE DO IT.
>> FOR THE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE HERE, I WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND 12B IS NOT ACCEPTING THE PARK LAND AND IMPROVING THAT ACCEPTANCE BY COUNCIL AND BY THE CITY.
THIS IS ESTABLISHING THE CONDITIONS THAT WE CONSIDERED IF WE ACCEPTED, AND THAT WOULD BE BACK ON OUR AGENDA AT SOME FUTURE TIME TO APPROVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE LAND,
[01:10:01]
IF ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE MADE ON THAT.I JUST WANTED THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE OF THAT ON THAT. OH, YES, MA'AM.
>> WELL, NO. SHE CAN FINISH AND THEN I HAVE AN ITEM ON THE SAME ONE.
>> YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SAME THING?
>> I HAVE ANOTHER ITEM 6 I WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
>> I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH SOMETHING UNDERSTOOD, BUT I GUESS THE PART I WAS WAS NOT CLEAR WHEN YOU SAID ANY TIME.
IF YOU DECIDED 10 HOURS FROM NOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT THIS, THEN THAT CAN HAPPEN.
>> A VOTE OF COUNSEL, BUT COUNSEL CAN VOTE TO SAY, HEY, WE DON'T WANT THIS DONATION.
>> OR IF THE DEADLINE GETS HERE AND THEY'VE GOT ALL THE MONEY AND GISD AND THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT, EVERYTHING'S READY TO GO.
CITY COUNCIL COULD SAY, SORRY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT.
>> THAT'S THE [OVERLAPPING] WHAT I NEEDED TO KNOW.
>> THAT'S TROUBLING TO ME BECAUSE, IT'S LIKE YOU GO INTO THE BANK AND YOU GET A LOAN AND YOU SIGN THE DOCUMENT SAYS, I'LL PAY ALL THIS BACK.
UNLESS MAYBE I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT IN THE END.
THE OTHER THING IS, IT DOESN'T INSPIRE CONFIDENCE FOR THE PEOPLE THEY'RE TRYING TO RAISE THE MONEY FOR TO HAVE A CLAUSE LIKE THAT.
IT SEEMS A LITTLE DISINGENUOUS TO ME TO PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THERE RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT MIGHT SAY IF ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET, THE PROPERTY WILL BE CONVEYED.
>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN DO AN AUTOMATIC CONVEYANCE.
>> EVEN IF IT WAS RESTRICTED, THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
WE CAN DENY OR A PROVE ANYTHING THAT COMES ACROSS OUR TABLE.
WE COULD TAKE ALL THE CONSENT ITEMS AND SAY, SORRY.
>> MAYBE IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE SHOULD PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAY SOMETHING LIKE THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN ORDER TO GIVE IT SOME QUALIFICATION SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS.
>> WE'RE GETTING YOURSELF UP FOR LITIGATION AT THIS POINT, I THINK THIS WAY WE'RE FOLLOWING STATE LAW AND I THINK WE'RE CLEAR.
>> COUNSEL, WE'RE GETTING OFF THE CLARIFICATION PORTION OF THIS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS IN THE REGULAR MEETING IF YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THAT, MARIE, AND THEN BOB.
>> I APOLOGIZE IF THIS WAS COVERED WHEN I WAS OUT OF THE ROOM, BUT PART OF THIS AGREEMENT IS NUMBER 6.
THE ESCROW ACCOUNT MUST BE IN THE BANK TODAY.
>> YEAH. IT DID. IT WAS MET LAST WEEK.
WE GOT THE BALANCE FROM BETTER PARKS, A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK IT WAS REPORTED AT THE BOARD MEETING LAST NIGHT.
THE BOARD REPORTED TO ME THAT THEY'VE GOT OVER 1.25 MILLION IN THE BANK.
>> WAS IT TWO WEEKS AGO YOU SAID 550?
>> AT THE LAST MEETING, ONE OF THE REASONS, AS FAR AS MY UNDERSTANDING OF PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2, THAT'S MORE OF A SOIL REPORT.
NO PARTICULARLY THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND MY INVOLVEMENT IN BRINGING THE CAMPUSES BACK ONLINE, THERE WAS MULTIPLE OCCASIONS OF ASBESTOS PRESENT IN EACH OF THOSE BUILDINGS.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT ROSENBERG IS GOING TO HAVE THE SAME ISSUE.
>> THE BIGGEST ISSUE WE ENCOUNTER IN GALVESTON IS KEROSENE TANKS.
>> WELL, IT WAS JUST IMPORTANT TO ME THAT IF IN DEMOLITION AND PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORHOODS THROUGH THAT DEMOLITION, I WAS HOPING THAT THERE WAS WORDING THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT OF THE BUILDING.
>> THAT IS AN ITEM THAT WOULD BE DONE AS PART OF PHASE 1.
>> IF IT IS DENOTED IN THE SCOPE.
>> THE PHASE 1 IS INTENDED TO DISCOVER THAT STUFF.
IT DOES INVESTIGATIONS, IT DOES ON SITE VIEWS OF IT.
>> I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD DO THE PHASE 1 AFTER YOU DEMOLISHED THE BUILDING.
IF THEY'RE DOING THE PHASE 1 NOW, THAT'S A LITTLE CONCERNING TO ME.
>> THEY WOULD DO IT PHASE 1 OF THE BUILDING.
THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO TO DEMOLISH IT.
>> BUT OUR CONVEYANCE IS UP THE ENTIRE PARCEL, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO BE SURE, THAT'S NOT POSE AN ENVIRONMENTAL RISK.
>> THAT'S PHASE 1 TO BUILD [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE CAN'T DO WHAT'S UNDER THE BUILDING UNTIL IT'S GONE.
[01:15:03]
>> I GUESS, IN A COUPLE OF THINGS, THIS IS PUT ON OUR LAPS.
THIS IS NOT OUR BUSINESS UNTIL IT'S OUR BUSINESS.
WE'RE NOT A PARTY THAT WAS PART OF THE BIDDING PROCESS NOR THE ACCEPTANCE PROCESS.
WE DIDN'T GET INVOLVED IN THAT UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.
SO TO SAY THAT WE'RE BEING DISINGENUOUS, I THINK IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD.
WE WE'RE BASICALLY BEING FED WITH WHAT'S ON OUR LAPS.
SO TO ME, IT'S JUST VERY IMPORTANT THAT WHATEVER IS IN THE BUILDING, WHICH IS GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED IS ASSESSED, AND IF IT'S NOT PART OF THE SCOPE OF THE INSPECTION, AGAIN, THAT WE HAVE NO CLUE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INVOLVED IN THAT AGREEMENT OR THAT PROCESS, IT WAS JUST IMPORTANT TO ME TO ASSESS THE FACT THAT THERE'S PROBABLY REALLY GOOD CHANCES.
THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF ASBESTOS MATERIALS IN THAT BUILDING.
LIKE I SAID, OUR CONCERN IN THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE BUILD'S GOING TO BE GONE.
>> WE WON'T ACCEPT IT, THE BUILDINGS THERE.
OUR CONCERN AS A PARK IS THAT THE SOIL HAS BEEN REMEDIATED AND THAT THERE'S NO CONTAMINANTS IN THE SOIL BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE KIDS ARE GOING TO BE PLAYING.
>> WHY DO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PRIOR TO THE BUILDING BEING DEMOLISHED, TO MAKES THEIR SENSE?
>> I BELIEVE THERE WAS PROBABLY AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE BUILDING FOR DEMOLITION.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO THESE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE PHASE 1 IS IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT.
I WOULD HOPE THEY WOULD DO IT ONCE THE BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>> WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE CONDITIONS.
THEY'LL DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL OF THE ENTIRE ONCE THE BUILDING IS REMOVED.
>> I CAN INCLUDE THAT AS AN AMENDMENT.
>> WE CAN PICK AND CHOOSE THROUGH THESE AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME.
WE CAN CHANGE THIS WHEN THE MOTION IS MADE.
WE CAN ADD TWO CONDITIONS AND WE CAN DELETE.
>> I'LL TELL YOU THAT BASED ON SANDBORN MAPS SINCE 1839, THAT SITE HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT A CITY PARK OR A SCHOOL, BOTH SITES, THAT SITE AND THE ADJACENT ADEN PARK.
I APPRECIATE YOUR KNOWLEDGE, BUT THE THING IS IS THAT WHEN A BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED, THINGS GO AIRBORNE.
YOU CAN ASSESS WHAT WAS THAT THERE BEFORE UNDERNEATH AROUND FOR 200 YEARS UNTIL THAT BUILDINGS DEMOLISHED AND THINGS GO AIRBORNE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOIL IS GOING TO BE ONCE THAT'S GONE.
>> I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO BE ABLE TO ANALYZE WITHIN THE SOIL.
I'M JUST EXPRESSING THE LIKELIHOOD OF WHAT'S [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT WILL COME OUT IN PHASE 1.
>> WE'RE GETTING OFF OF THIS CLARIFICATION OF THIS ITEM.
IS THERE ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION OF THE POINTS THAT ANYONE WANTS TO MAKE?
>> I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION.
APPARENTLY, I'VE JUST BEEN MADE AWARE GISD HAS NO REQUIREMENTS.
THESE ARE ALL CITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO WHY AREN'T WE INVOLVED IN IT?
>> I'M SORRY, THESE ARE OUR REQUIREMENTS TO ACCEPT CONVEYANCE FROM GISD.
WE CANNOT ACCEPT CONVEYANCE FROM [OVERLAPPING]
BUT GISD IS NOT INVOLVED WITH PHASE 1, PHASE 2, WHATNOT.
IF THESE ARE OUR REQUIREMENTS, WHY AREN'T WE INVOLVED?
>> NO IDEA. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU GUYS HAVE TO APPROVE THEM.
WHEN YOU DO, WE'RE GOING TO SEND THEM TO GISD AND AT THAT POINT, I WOULD SUSPECT GISD WOULD GET INVOLVED IF THEY WANT TO CONVEY THE LAND TO US.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO GET OUT THERE BECAUSE I'M GETTING ALL DONE.
[LAUGHTER] ANY OTHER INPUT ON THIS? WE'LL GET INTO MORE OF THE DETAILS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS OF THE CONDITIONS IN OUR MEETING THIS AFTERNOON.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? DAVID, ANYTHING ELSE.
>> THANKS, SIR. IT'S QUITE COVERED. THANK YOU.
>> [LAUGHTER] FORGIVE ME. I DID HAVE ONE THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED.
I JUST SIMPLY WANTED TO KNOW 4 AND 11J.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING SIMPLE, [INAUDIBLE].
>> I BELIEVE THIS IS A PREPOSITIONED CONTRACT FOR LEAKS AND THINGS, CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THE CASE CITY'S IMPACTED BY A NATURAL DISASTER OR A FLOOD OR A FIRE.
CORRECT. IT'S JUST A CONTRACT THAT WE BRING IN THESE COMPANIES TO DO THE REMEDIATION.
I ALSO INCLUDED DOCUMENT RESTORATION.
[01:20:01]
>> NO, MA'AM. THIS IS AS UNLIMITED CONTRACT.
>> FOR ANY I HAD THE SAME QUESTION ISSUE BECAUSE IT DIDN'T REALLY SAY WHAT IT WAS COVERING.
BUT IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND THAT TO 11 SINCE HE'S UP HERE, J, K, AND L.
>> K AND L IS CONCRETE AND THOSE ARE NOT EMERGENCY SERVICES.
>> IF WE WERE TO ACTIVATE SOMETHING LIKE 11 J, THE ABILITY FOR YOU TO GO DO THESE THINGS.
THIS WOULD MOST LIKELY BE COVERED UNDER ACTIVITY.
>> FMA REQUIRES US TO HAVE THESE PREPOSITIONED CONTRACTS IN PLACE.
>> THEY HAVE FEDERAL CLAUSES ATTACHED TO THEM.
IT MIGHT BE EVEN AS SIMPLE AS SOMETHING THAT WE'D HAVE TO DO AS SMALL INSURANCE CLAIM OR SOMETHING THAT IS REMEDIATION FOR [OVERLAPPING]
>> VERY GOOD. SHARON. ANYTHING ELSE?
>> THANK YOU, BOTH. ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION ITEMS, SHARON?
>> I DO. I HAVE K AND L. IT'S TYSON'S ITEM.
>> GOOD MORNING. YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ARNOLD DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES.
>> THE CONCRETE COMPANY AND CRUSH CONCRETE.
WHAT'S THE FUNDING SOURCE OF THAT?
>> HONESTLY, IT'S VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES ON THAT ONE BECAUSE THAT CONCRETE IS [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON IF WE'RE DOING A ROAD PROJECT, IT'S GOING TO COME FROM STREETS, IF IT'S A UTILITY REPAIR, IT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF THE UTILITY THAT WE'RE DOING THE REPAIR FOR.
THAT'S WHY IT SAYS VARIOUS BECAUSE WE PULL IT FROM DIFFERENT ONES DEPENDING ON THE ACTUAL REPAIR THAT WE'RE MAKING.
>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION ON THAT AND THEN L.
THIS IS THE LINING OF THE PIPE OF WHICH I HEAR FROM MANY CONTRACTORS, THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES WHERE IT'S NOT BEING USED OR THEY'RE TOLD, WELL, WE DON'T HAVE AN OPERATOR FOR THE EQUIPMENT WHERE YOU'RE STILL HAND DIGGING OUT AND REPLACING PIPE.
WHAT IS THIS LIKE, ARE WE USING THIS?
THAT'S THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THIS IS TO PURCHASE MORE OF IT.
WE'VE ALREADY USED ALL THAT WE PURCHASED IN JANUARY.
I BELIEVE IT IS WHEN I BROUGHT THAT TO COUNSEL LAST TIME.
THERE'S STILL SOME DIGGING THAT'S REQUIRED EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.
THERE'S A PRE-INVESTIGATION ON THE LINE.
>> SOMETIMES IT REQUIRES MODIFICATION.
IF YOU FIND THAT THE LINE HAS GOT TWO DIFFERENT SIZES OR A LITTLE BIT OF AN OFFSET, THEY WANT TO ADJUST THAT SO THAT THEY CAN BE SUCCESSFUL IN THE LINING PROCESS.
AS FAR AS STUFF GOES, WE HAVE ALL THE STUFF THAT WE NEED TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE.
>> WHY WOULD EMPLOYEES BE MAKING THAT STATEMENT TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT EMPLOYEE IS MAKING THAT STATEMENT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT TRUE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'VE BEEN TOLD BY DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS, AND THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE BEING TOLD THEY'RE HAND DIGGING WHEN IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE WITH LINING, AND THEY SAY THERE IS NO OPERATOR TO THE MACHINE.
I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT ON THE SITE
>> WE'VE HAD AN OPERATOR THE ENTIRE TIME.
IT'S A TEAM OF PEOPLE, AND WE'VE GOT OVER 20 TRAINED INDIVIDUALS THAT CAN OPERATE THE MACHINERY.
>> IT'S NOT A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL.
IT DOESN'T ELIMINATE DIGGING COMPLETELY BECAUSE WE'RE DEALING WITH THESE OLD LINES, IF THERE'S AN OFFSET OR THERE'S A PIPE SIZE DIFFERENCE OR DIFFERENT THINGS, THERE HAS TO BE A JUNCTION MADE, THEY STILL HAVE TO DIG.
IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEBODY THAT'S MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY 100% UNDERSTANDING HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS.
IT MIGHT BE FEEDING THIS TO YOU.
>> NO. I'VE HEARD FROM MORE THAN ONE CONTRACTOR.
>> WELL, THAT MAY BE POSSIBLE.
IT'S VERY COMPLEX SYSTEM AND THE MEANT TO UNDERSTAND I THINK THEY GET A GOOD GRIP ON IT.
>> IF A CONTRACTOR BRINGS THAT FORWARD, MARIE, PLEASE COME BACK TALK TO ME OR TYSON.
[01:25:05]
>> IS DAVID SMITH HERE? DAVID, COME ON FORWARD, SIR.
THOUGHT YOU COULD GET AWAY, RIGHT, DAVID?
I'M SUPPOSED TO BE PROJECTING WHERE I AM WHEN I KEEP ASKING EVERYONE TO PROJECT ONE.
IN YOUR REPORT AND IT WAS IN A COUPLE OF YEAR REPORTS, IT SAYS, "THE FUNDS GO INTO THE CITY COFFERS." I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT ACCOUNT COFFER IS?
>> I WOULD IMAGINE YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT WHEN WE AUCTION THE VEHICLES OFF.
WHAT HAPPENS IS WE WILL AUCTION THEM OFF ONLINE THROUGH [INAUDIBLE] DEALS, AND WHEN THOSE FUNDS COME IN, THEY'RE TRANSFERRED OVER TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, AND THOSE MONIES GO TO THE FUND THAT ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THE VEHICLE.
IF IT'S A GENERAL FUND VEHICLE, POLICE CAR, IT'LL GO BACK IN THE GENERAL FUND.
IF IT'S UTILITIES, IT WILL GO INTO THEIR ACCOUNT.
THE FINANCE MAKE SURE THAT THOSE VEHICLES SALES FUNDS GO INTO THE CORRECT FUND.
>> WELL, I WAS, I HAD NEVER SEEN AN ACCOUNT CALLED COFFER.
I WAS JUST CURIOUS EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE NOW.
>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DAVID.
I HAVE ITEMS 10C AND D. THIS IS THE PORTION OF THE LAND THERE AT THE AIRPORT OF THE TWO SECTIONS OF THAT LAND.
BRIAN, WHAT HAPPENS IF FOR SOME STRANGE REASON WE DON'T CLOSE ON THESE BIDS?
>> WELL, IT DEPENDS. IF A BIDDER BACKS OUT, WE HAVE THE OPTION TO GO TO THE NEXT HIGH BIDDER.
IF THE NEXT HIGH BIDDER CHOOSES NOT TO TAKE THAT, AND THEN IT GOES BACK OUT FOR BID.
>> BUT WE GET SOME MONEY IF THEY BACK OUT?
THE $10,000, WHATEVER IT IS, YEAH.
>> VERY GOOD. WALK THROUGH THAT AGAIN ONE MORE TIME.
IF THESE DON'T CLOSE, THEN WE GO TO THE SECOND OF THAT?
>> BEFORE THE DATE, I THINK IS APRIL 7TH, THIS IS IN THE AGREEMENT, IF THEY DECIDE NOT TO, THE OPTION GOES TO THE SECOND HIGHEST BIDDER, THE NEXT HIGHEST BIDDER.
IF THAT PERSON CHOOSES NOT TO HONOR THAT BID OR DOESN'T WISH TO PARTICIPATE, THEN IT GOES OUT FOR BID AGAIN.
>> WE START OUT FROM SCRATCH AGAIN LIKE WE DID IN THE BEGINNING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY GOOD.
COUNCIL, WE ZIP RIGHT THROUGH THESE CLARIFICATIONS.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE SOMEONE FROM OUT OF TOWN, BUT I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL.
[3.I. Update and Discussion of the Garten Verein Facility Assessment Report (C. Kenworthy - 20 min)]
AND THEN AFTER 3I, WE'LL TAKE A BREAK FOR COUNCIL AND GIVE US A LITTLE BREAK BEFORE WE START FOR THE OTHER ITEMS HERE.THANK YOU TO OUR STAFF FOR BEING HERE.
>> ITEM 3I, UPDATE AND DISCUSSION AT THE GARTEN VEREIN FACILITY ASSESSMENT REPORT.
>> LET'S LET THE ROOM CLEAR OUT FOR A SECOND.
MAKE SURE WE GET ALL THIS SQUARE AWAY.
>> VERY GOOD. BUTCH, FIRST OF ALL, IT'S A PLEASURE SEEING YOU.
WE DON'T SEE YOU OFTEN [OVERLAPPING] AT WORKSHOP, SO I THINK YOU HAVE A GUEST WITH YOU TODAY, SIR?
>> YES, SIR. I DO. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR, COUNCIL.
BACK ON JANUARY 1ST, THE GALVESTON HISTORICAL FOUND DECIDED TO OPT OUT OF THE LEASE THAT THEY HAD WITH THE GARTEN VEREIN FACILITY.
THEY HAD IT FOR THE LAST 28 YEARS.
STAFF BROUGHT TO COUNCIL A PROPOSAL TO HAVE THE LABICHE ARCHITECTURAL GROUP COMMISSION TO DO A FULL FACILITY ASSESSMENT ON THE BUILDING, WHICH THEY HAVE DONE, AND WE'RE BEFORE YOU THIS MORNING WITH MR. DON LABICHE FROM THE LABICHE ARCHITECTURAL GROUP TO PROVIDE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE REPORTS.
WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. LABICHE.
>> THANK YOU, BUTCH. IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE.
I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON ME.
I'M A FELLOW AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS.
BEEN WORKING IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION SINCE THE 1990S.
HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON SINCE 2016, WHICH WE WERE COMMISSIONED TO DO THE 30TH STREET PUMP STATION.
IT'S ONE-THIRD DIFFERENT DESIGN AWARDS, AND IT IS TRULY A GYM FOR THAT PART OF THE CITY
[01:30:02]
AND WE'RE STILL WORKING ON BEING ABLE TO BETTER UTILIZE THAT FACILITY, WE'RE CHOOSING THOSE ITEMS. DOING SOME RESEARCH ON GARTEN VEREIN, ONE OF THE BEST PIECES OF COMMENTS THAT I RAN ACROSS WAS FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION.THEY SAID THE REVIEWER AT THE TIME, AND I GUESS IT WAS IN THE '90S DURING THE TIME THAT THE LAST RENOVATION WAS DONE, 1998, BETWEEN '91 AND '98.
HE SAID THAT THIS IS THE BEST PIECE OF VICTORIAN ARCHITECTURE IN GALVESTON, IF NOT, IN THE WHOLE STATE OF TEXAS.
I'VE GIVEN YOU A LITTLE SHORT BROCHURE ON OUR STUFF AND WORK THAT WE DO, SO WE'LL PASS THROUGH THAT. THERE IT IS.
WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THIS POINTER, BUT RIGHT HERE. THAT'S THE POINTER.
THERE IT IS AFTER THE 1900 HURRICANE STILL STANDING UP THERE AND EVEN THAT IT HAD TO GO THROUGH SOME MAJOR RENOVATIONS.
A REAL TESTAMENT, AND YOU CAN SEE THE LANDMARK SIGNS THAT ARE ON THAT BUILDING ALSO.
START WITH THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THIS BUILDING.
THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT IT'S RELATIVELY LEVEL.
WE DON'T SEE ANY BIG FOUNDATION PROBLEMS WITH THE BUILDING.
THERE'S NO CONDITIONS THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW THAT PREVENT YOU FROM USING IT ON A DAILY BASIS.
PEOPLE IN BEAUMONT KNOW THIS BUILDING.
THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR WEDDINGS AND CEREMONIES.
IN THAT, AND JUST LOOKING AT SOME THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF, OUR MAIN UPPER LEFT CORNER, THE KEMPNER PARK MAIN ENTRY GATE THERE, HAS HAD SOME PROBLEMS OVER TIME.
IT JUST NEEDS A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO PUT THE CASH STONE BACK ON IT AND GET IT BACK IN SHAPE OF THINGS.
THE EXTERIOR SIDING IN SOME PLACES, WE HAVE SOME ROTTEN SIDING, SO IT'S GOT TO BE REPLACED.
A LOT OF IT IS DOWN NEAR THE ROOF LEVELS.
WHEN THE ROOFING IS DONE, WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THOSE LOWER LEVEL THINGS.
THERE'S SOME LATTICE WORK AROUND THE FOUNDATION THAT I DON'T BELIEVE IS ORIGINAL.
I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY CLEAR PICTURES THAT REALLY DETAIL THAT LATTICE WORK.
BUT THE LATTICE WORK WAS MEANT TO KEEP PEOPLE AND ANIMALS OUT FROM UNDERNEATH THIS BUILDING.
WELL, WE HAVE PEOPLE AND ANIMALS LIVING UNDER THIS BUILDING.
ONE OF THE THINGS AS FAR AS SECURITY GOES, IT'D BE NICE TO PUT SOMETHING BETTER THAN JUST SOME WOOD LATTICE IN THAT AREA THAT ALLOW THE AIR CIRCULATION AND SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR THE BUILDING.
THE SECOND PICTURE ON THE LEFT.
YOU'LL SEE IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A TOOTH MISSING IN THE DETAILING ON THE BUILDING AND DOWN BELOW IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
SOME OF THE RENOVATIONS OVER THE YEARS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE.
THAT WORK WAS DONE WITH PLYWOOD.
SOME OF THE MATERIALS, THOSE THINGS ARE JUST THINGS THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF WHEN WE DO THINGS.
WE'VE GOT TREES GROWING INTO THE BUILDING AND UNDER THE BUILDING.
THE INTERIOR, REAL BASIC THINGS.
WE NEED TO DO SOME WORK ON THE FLOORS.
THERE'S SOME WORK ON WOOD COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING THAT NEED TO BE FIXED.
THE DOORS AND WINDOWS NEED SOME REPAIRS.
THERE'S A LITTLE BAR AREA AND THAT FLOOR IS PRETTY SPONGY.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS IS THIS RIGHT TO THE LEFT THERE.
THAT SURFACE SINK, THERE'S NOTHING UNDER IT, SO WHEN PEOPLE MOP THE FLOORS, DUMP THE WATER, IT GOES UNDER THE BUILDING.
IT'S NOT GOING INTO THE APARTMENT THERE.
THE BUILDING ITSELF HAS AN INNER AND OUTER SUPPORT RING, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THE LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER IN THE MIDDLE CENTER.
OUR BIGGEST PROBLEM AS FAR AS STRUCTURE GOES, AS YOU CAN SEE THOSE COLUMNS ARE ROTTING OUT.
THOSE ARE COLUMNS THAT SUPPORT THE INNER RING OR THE CUPOLA THAT GOES OUT THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING, AND THE OUTER RING, WHICH IS WHERE THE EXTERIOR WALLS ARE.
WE'VE GOT A LITTLE DETERIORATION ON THE CONCRETE.
[01:35:03]
YOU CAN SEE IN THE LEFT ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, SOME OF THE REINFORCING THAT THAT'S STARTING TO SHOW NOW THAT WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO.THAT BAR AREA INSIDE THE BUILDING HAS A SPONGY FLOOR, SO THERE'S BEEN SOME WATER.
>> WHAT WAS THAT PHOTOGRAPH ON THE LOWER RIGHT? TELL US ABOUT THAT. THE LOWER RIGHTS OF THE RAMP.
>> THAT'S THE CONCRETE RAMP, THE HANDICAPPED RAMP.
>> LIKE I SAID, NOTHING THAT'S DANGEROUS RIGHT NOW, BUT WE JUST NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO IT.
>> THERE IS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT UNDER THE FLOOR, RIGHT?
>> ALL THE TOUGH WORK IS ON THE FLOOR.
THE EQUIPMENT ITSELF IS ON THE ROOF AND THEN THE BACK BUILDING.
WE'VE GOT SOME SPLITTING OF THE SUPPORT BEAMS. WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THOSE PROBLEMS. BLOCK WOOD.
BASIC THINGS YOU'D FIND IN THE OLDER BUILDING.
AS FAR AS A ROOF GOES, IT'S A TPO TYPE ROOF ON THE LOWER ROOF SECTION, WHICH IS A SINGLE MEMBRANE ROOF.
IT'S BEEN REPAIRED A LOT OF TIMES.
YOU CAN SEE THE EQUIPMENT IN THE UPPER DEAL SITTING ON THE ROOF.
WE'VE GOT SOME PROBLEMS ON THE EDGES.
IT'S CALLED OUT IN SOME OF THOSE PICTURES.
>> ANGULAR LOSS. WELL, THAT IS A SINGLE PLY PLASTIC ROOF SYSTEM TO BE JUST PUT IN ON.
>> NO, SIR. THE WHITE ROOFS ON THE LOWER PORTION OF THE BUILDING OR A SINGLE PIECE OF PLASTIC.
>> OH, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ONE ON THE BOTTOM RAMP.
>> THAT'S A MODIFIED BIT IN THE ROOF THAT SHADED ALL THIS.
>> ABOUT 15, 19 YEARS. ALTHOUGH THAT GOT REPLACED.
>> THE UPPER ROOF IS A SHINGLE ROOF.
IT'S JUST TIME TO REPLACE SOME ROOFS ON THE BUILDING.
AS FAR AS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT GOES, THE DUCK WORKS PROBABLY SERVED IT'S TIME.
WE'VE GOT SITUATIONS WHERE OVER TIME PEOPLE LEFT THOSE PANELS OFF THOSE UNITS, SO THAT'S A CONCERN FOR MAINTENANCE AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EQUIPMENT.
THE EQUIPMENT IN THAT BUILDING IS ABOUT 2015, IS WHAT? THE PANELS ON THE EQUIPMENT SHELVE.
IT'S GETTING TO BE ABOUT 10 YEARS OLD.
ALL THE DUCK WORK THAT'S UNDER THE BUILDING IS NOT IN THE GREATEST OF SHAPE.
>> NOT THE ACS, WE DID THAT NOT TOO LONG AGO.
>> I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT [OVERLAPPING]
>> FIFTEEN, I THOUGHT IT WAS IN 2000 WE REPLACED SOMETHING.
>> CONTROLS, THIS IS A CONTROL THAT'S JUST HANGING ON THE WALL RIGHT NOW, AND BUTCH HAS NO CONTROL OVER WATCHING THE ECONOMY OF THE WAY THAT THE EQUIPMENT'S RUN AND THOSE THINGS.
>> WHOEVER IS USING THE BUILDING CAN ADJUST IT.
>> STANDARD MAINTENANCE THINGS, EMPTY BOXES, THIS DOESN'T NEED WORK, THOSE THINGS.
WE FIXED A LOT OF THESE ITEMS THAT I TERM LOW HANGING THROUGH.
THOSE HAVE ALREADY BEEN CORRECTED.
WE DID THAT AFTER DON PROVIDED US THIS REPORT.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS YOU SEE IN THESE PICTURES, IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING IN OUR IN-HOUSE STAFF.
WHEN PEOPLE DO WORK ON UNDER THIS BUILDING, THEY TEND NOT TO TAKE WHAT THEY'VE TAKEN OUT, I'LL LEAVE IT.
SO BEING VIGILANT IN THE FUTURE WOULD BE HELPFUL.
THAT'S [INAUDIBLE] AND THAT'S JUST A SHORT RUN THROUGH OF OUR FINDINGS.
>> MR. LABICHE, AS YOU LOOK THROUGH THIS STUFF, HE'S THE ONE THAT DID 30TH STREET PUMP STATION FOR US.
WE'VE INHERITED THIS BUILDING IN THE PAST YEAR BACK FROM GHF.
SEEMS LIKE THE TIMING WAS GOOD ON THEIR PART.
WE'RE GOING TO BE MOVING FORWARD WITH REPAIRS ON THIS BUILDING.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LEASE IT DURING THAT TIME AS BEST WE CAN.
BUT WE WANTED COUNCIL TO BE APPRISED OF THIS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF MONEY.
>> YOU SAID PEOPLE FROM WHERE KNOW ABOUT THE BUILDING?
>> THERE'S A LOT OF TOURISTS THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH THIS.
>> OH, WOW. I THINK JOHN'S WEEDING [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT JUST A BIT.
THE FUNDING FOR THE REPAIRS HERE, WE HAVE AN ACCOUNT HERE AT THE CITY THAT THE HOT FUNDED, WHICH IS OUR HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ACCOUNT, IT HAS TO BE USED ON BUILDINGS THAT ARE OWNED BY THE CITY.
[01:40:03]
THIS NOW IS OWNED BY THE CITY.IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO TAP THOSE FUNDS?
>> WELL, AND ALSO OF THAT RESTRICTION ON THE HOT, IT HAS TO BE, LIKE YOU SAID, TOURIST RELATED.
>> THE GOOD NEWS IS, IS THAT THE RENTAL REVENUE THAT'S GENERATED OFF OF THIS GOES INTO OUR PARKS, SO THAT'S A GOOD THING.
>> HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE IN THAT FUND?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT THERE'S ENOUGH TO COVER WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW, I THINK AND IT GROWS.
>> DO YOU HAVE AN APPROXIMATION?
>> IT'S $3.8 MILLION TO COMPLETELY RENOVATE THIS FACILITY TO WHERE IT WOULD ALMOST BE BRAND NEW.
>> WE'D HAVE TO DO IT IN PHASES.
>> THERE'S A CRITICAL POINT FIRST, THE STRUCTURAL.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THEN WE WOULD WORK OUR WAY DOWN.
>> THEN WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO RENT IT OUT.
>> ABSOLUTELY, THAT IS THE GOAL.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, YOUR INTENT IS TO DO THIS IN PHASES WITHIN THE FUND LIMITS THAT ARE EITHER IN PLACE NOW OR AS THEY WOULD BECOME AVAILABLE IN THE FUTURE.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. WE'RE FORMULATING A GOOD GAME PLAN.
>> BEFORE WE DID ANYTHING, WE WANTED COUNCIL TO KNOW BECAUSE IT'S A BIG TICKET ITEM.
>> MR. LABICHE IS ONE OF OUR PREFERRED ARCHITECTS THAT'S ON OUR [OVERLAPPING].
>> HIS SPECIALTY IS OLD STUFF.
>> JUST ON THE FUNDING HERE, I KNOW ALEX WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING.
ON THE FUNDING, THAT'S ONE-EIGHTH OF THE PENNY OF THE HOT THAT IS COLLECTED HERE GOES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
>> IN THE PAST, WE'VE USED IT FOR THINGS LIKE THE MONUMENTS.
WE'VE USED IT FOR WORK AT THE CEMETERY.
WE'VE USED IT FOR WORK HERE ON A HISTORIC BUILDING HERE.
I THINK IN THE PAST, EVEN GOING WAY BACK BEFORE WE GAVE IT TO HIM, WE USED IT AT ASHTON VILLA, DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE ADAPTING IT FOR ANY PURPOSES, IS WHAT IT'S FOR IS FOR CITIES WHO HAVE INHERITED THESE HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
>> THIS BUILDING PUTS HEADS AND BETS.
>> MANY A WEDDING I'VE BEEN AT IT PUT [OVERLAPPING] HEADS IN THERE VERSUS, I HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CEMETERY PUTS ITS BETS.
>> WELL, I WOULD HAVE AGREED WITH YOU 100% UNTIL YOU REALIZED HOW MANY DAMN TOURS GO THROUGH THAT CEMETERY.
>> TRUST ME. ASK BARBARA WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE MOW THE FLOWERS.
>> BY THE WAY, THE CEMETERY LOOKS GREAT.
>> THE FENCE AND THE BRICKWORK LOOK WONDERFUL.
>> PEOPLE ARE DYING TO GET IN THERE.
>> WE HAVE ALEX AND THEN SHARON.
>> I DON'T WANT TO GET OVER MY SKIS FROM WHAT THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD WANTS TO DO.
THAT'S UP TO THEM TO DISCUSS, BUT WE RAN INTO AN ISSUE.
I DON'T WANT TO CLASSIFY IT AS AN ISSUE, BUT THERE'S AN AUXILIARY RESERVE ACCOUNT THAT HAS GENERATED A SURPLUS.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S NOT IN THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD IS LANGUAGE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
THAT CONVERSATION HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN CHANGES BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT CHANGES WE WANT TO DO.
BUT WE TALKED ABOUT EVERY X AMOUNT OF YEARS LOOKING AT A BIG PROJECT ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE POSE, WHETHER IT CAN BE USED FOR 5013CS WHO APPLY FOR A PROJECT.
BUT WE DO KNOW FOR A FACT, AS THE MAYOR SAID, THAT WE CAN USE HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUNDS FOR THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS.
I THINK IF THERE IS A MECHANISM THAT WAS CREATED BY JUST VIRTUE OF THEM NOT HAVING LANGUAGE TO DEAL WITH THAT SURPLUS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING NOW, I THINK IF COUNCIL WOULD WANT ME TO BRING THAT BACK TO THE NEEDS OF THE GARTEN VEREIN AND BACK TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD AND OFFER OPPORTUNITY FOR THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD TO PARTICIPATE IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT IF WE CAN USE THOSE FUNDS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR CITY PROPERTY.
>> GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, ALEX, AND I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD TOPIC TO DISCUSS.
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT COUNCIL MOVED FORWARD IN MAKING SURE THAT OUR HISTORIC ONE-EIGHTH PENNY FUNDS ARE USED FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION HAD TO BE WITH A STRUCTURE OWNED BY THE CITY BECAUSE WE STARTED GETTING APPLICATIONS.
THERE IS A LOT OF NON-PROFITS THAT HAVE HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT ARE LOOKING FOR FUNDS.
[01:45:06]
WE STARTED GETTING THOSE, AND WE GOT QUITE A FEW OF THEM, AND WE DECIDED THAT IF THESE MONIES ARE GOING TO BE UTILIZED, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE UTILIZED IN A MANNER THAT MEETS THE HOT TAX REQUIREMENTS, BUT ALSO TO REALLY SUPPORT OUR STRUCTURES OWNED BY THE CITY..>> SO THAT THESE DON'T BECOME BURDENS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
>> THAT'S THE LEGAL QUESTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING FURTHER AT THE BOARD, ARTS AND HISTORIC.
WE'RE FIGURING OUT, OKAY, CAN WE USE IT THE SAME KIND OF WAY WE USE THE FUNDS FOR MARKETING, BUT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION STRUCTURES FOR TOURIST-RELATED THINGS UNDER A 5013C, WHICH IT SEEMS OTHER CITIES DO.
IT'S ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, BUT THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
>> THIS BUILDING NOT ONLY IS A VENUE, BUT THERE'S ALL KINDS OF WALKING TOURS AND PEOPLE.
I HAVE YET TO DRIVE BY THERE WAS NOT SOMEBODY TAKING PICTURES OF IT OR ANYTHING ELSE.
IT'S A VERY ICONIC STRUCTURE, AND IT'S ONE OF THE FEW BIG VENUES LIKE THAT THAT SURVIVED THE 1900 STORM AS WELL, SO IT'S GOT A LOT OF HISTORY.
I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER ROB, VERY MERITORIOUS OF THE USE OF THE MONEY.
>> IT'S ONE OF THE FEW OCTAGONAL DANCE HALLS STILL REMAINING.
>> BEING OCTAGONAL, IT HAS EIGHT SIDES.
>> IT'S BEEN UP IN THE CONVERSATION, AND I COULD BRING THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO WITH IN ON IT AND SAY, YES, THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE, NO, THEY DON'T, AND IT COULD BE A NEW AVENUE FOR THE SURPLUS THAT'S BEEN CREATED THAT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT UNDER THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD.
IT'S JUST TO BOUNCE IT OFF AND THEN GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM THERE.
OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S WHAT WE DID ON THERE.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP.
IN ADDITION TO ANY LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THIS, I'D APPRECIATE IT IF Y'ALL COULD DO A REPORT ON WHAT THE HISTORICAL USAGE OF THAT FUND HAS BEEN SAY OVER THE PAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS.
[OVERLAPPING]. WELL, THERE WE GO.
>> IT'S A WEIRD [OVERLAPPING] CREATED BY THE SURPLUS GENERATED BECAUSE THE HOT TAX HAS BEEN GROWING, BUT [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THIS STUFF TODAY.
BARBARA'S GOT A COUPLE OF HUNDRED PEOPLE WAITING ON THE LIST TO GET IN THERE.
IT'S A POPULAR VENUE. WE NEED TO GET MOVING ON IT BECAUSE IF IT STARTS LOSING FLAVOR, WE'RE GOING TO START LOSING THESE RESERVATIONS, AND WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
>> IF APPROVED, WILL THIS GO OUT FOR A PUBLIC BID?
>> ABSOLUTELY, YEAH. THE WORK WOULD BE WE WOULD LIKE TO USE THE SERVICES OF MR. LABICHE'S GROUP AND HIS ENGINEERS SINCE THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS BUILDING.
>> BUT THE WORK ITSELF WOULD BE BIGGER.
>> BUT THE WORK ITSELF WOULD BE BIGGER. THAT'S CORRECT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO PACKAGE IT.
BECAUSE WE'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO DO IT ALL AT ONE TIME, SO CAN WE PACKAGE IT OUT..
THERE'LL BE A ROOFING BID. THERE'LL BE PLUMBING. THERE'LL BE AIR CONDITIONING.
>> THERE'LL BE STRUCTURAL. THERE'LL BE SIDING. THERE'LL BE ALL THAT STUFF.
>> HOPEFULLY, THE PEOPLE ARE ON THAT, LET'S START WATCHING THIS MORNING.
>> ACTUALLY, MOST OF THEM ARE BRIDES, AND THEY HAVE PARK STAFF IN THERE AGAIN TO TODAY SCRUBBING THE BUILDING DOWN TO GET RID OF ALL THE DUST AND READY TO GO.
SATORI IS WAITING FOR THEIR ANNUAL BARBECUE THERE.
>> MAY 3RD. IT'S A VERY [OVERLAPPING].
>> THIS WILL EASILY BE EVERY WEEKEND, TWO OR THREE TIMES A WEEKEND, ESPECIALLY IF WE PUT IT BACK IN PRISTINE CONDITION.
>> MECHANICAL IS WORKING OKAY, I BET. [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE CONTROL OF IT NOW.
I HAVE HELPED WITH IT, SO NOW WE'RE ABLE TO CONTROL THE BUILDING THROUGH THE BUILDING AUTOMATION SYSTEM.
>> A LOT OF WHAT MR. LABICHE'S REPORTED BUTCH HAS ALREADY GOTTEN ONTO.
>> SHARON, YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> I DID. CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE REPAIRS WERE BECAUSE I HEAR YOU THROWING OUT AC AND THAT THING.
BUT THE INSULATION THAT WAS ON THE PICTURES, HAS THAT BEEN REPAIRED?
>> YES. THAT'S IN THE MECHANICAL ROOM.
>> THAT'S A PRIORITY KNOWING THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE WAITING.
>> YES. THAT'S BEEN TAKEN CARE OF.
>> IT'S ALREADY COOL. BECAUSE OVER THE LAST WEEKEND IT WAS LOOKING WARM.
>> IT'S GOING TO STRUGGLE UNTIL WE GET THE WINDOWS FIXED BECAUSE THERE'S MORE AIR GAPS IN THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S THE OTHER BIG CHALLENGE IS THAT BUILDING WAS DESIGNED.
>> NO AIR CONDITIONING. YOU'VE GOT SO MANY SOURCES OF AIR INFILTRATION IN THIS BUILDING.
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE ALL OF THE CONDENSATION BUILT UP ON ALL THE GLASS BECAUSE IT'S A FIGHT.
>> THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT OUT THE FILTH.
>> THAT WAS PART OF WHAT WE'LL DO.
WE'LL COME BACK, MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO INSULATE THE FLOOR, INSULATE THE WALLS, MORE AIR CIRCULATION.
>> ONE OF THE COMPLAINTS THAT WE HAVE HEARD, EVEN WHEN GHF HAD IT, IS THAT THERE'S SOUND IS CHALLENGING IN THAT BUILDING SOMETIMES [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM. WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING THROUGH THAT ON 30TH STREET RIGHT NOW.
THAT'LL BE ONE OF THE FINAL THINGS THAT WE WORK ON WITH THIS BUILDING TO TRY TO
[01:50:04]
ATTENUATE THE SOUND JUST A LITTLE BIT SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE USEFUL FOR PEOPLE.>> I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT THAT IF YOU HAD ANY ACOUSTIC ANALYSIS, RECOMMENDATIONS.
I PLAYED MUSIC IN THAT BUILDING BEFORE.
SOUND BOUNCES AROUND. YOU CANNOT HEAR YOURSELF.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 30TH STREET PUBLIC STATION?
>> LET'S GET IT STRUCTURAL, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON THAT.
>> I CAN'T TELL YOU THE NUMBER OF EVENTS THAT I HAVE BEEN IN A GOWN AND THEY'VE ASKED ME TO GO BEHIND A COLUMN AND WHISTLE BECAUSE I HAVE A VERY LOUD WHISTLE SO THE HOST CAN GET THE ATTENTION OF THE CROWD.
BUT I DON'T KNOW, AND I'M GOING TO SEND YOU AN ARTICLE.
THERE IS A NEW TYPE OF GLASS THAT'S BEING MADE THAT IS ACTUALLY UTILIZING THE GLASS FROM THE IPHONE, THAT IS TWO PANELS WITH THE GLASS FROM AN IPHONE IN BETWEEN, THAT IS EXTREMELY COST BENEFICIAL WHEN IT COMES TO CONDITIONING OR HEAT. BUT IT MIGHT BE [OVERLAPPING].
>> ANYTHING THAT WE DO IN THE BUILDING, WE HAVE TO GET THE BLESSINGS FROM THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION, CATHERINE GORMAN.
>> THAT COULD BE NICE IF YOU WANT TO OPEN THE WINDOWS, YOU JUST SWIPE UP.
>> CATHERINE IS GOING TO [LAUGHTER].
>> IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK.
>> WELL, IT'S SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.
IT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD MAYBE EVEN CONVINCE HIM TO DO A HISTORIC BUILDING AS A SHOWPIECE VERSUS BEACH OR MOUNTAIN HOMES BECAUSE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW STRONG IT WILL BE FOR A HURRICANE AS WELL AS HOW STRONG IT WILL BE IF YOU'RE IN A VERY COLD ENVIRONMENT.
BUT ANYWAY, I'LL SEND YOU WHO IS DOING IT.
>> THERE'S A LOT OF WINDOW SURFACE, AND THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE HEAT GAIN AND THE LOSS OF THE COOLING IN THERE, AND THERE'S A LOT.
I UNDERSTAND THIS HAS TO CONFORM TO WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR VENTILATION.
>> I KNOW THAT. USUALLY, THAT MEANS STICKING TO A SINGLE PANE GLASS.
>> WE CAN'T DESTROY THE WINDOWS THAT ARE THERE.
>> WE CAN ONLY ADD SOMETHING ON THE INTERIOR OF THOSE WINDOWS SO THAT WE CAN'T SEE IT FROM OUTSIDE THAT WOULD HELP US.
>> WE CAN PUT FILM ON THEM, I GUESS.
>> I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT.
>> WE HAD CATHERINE LOOK AT THIS WITH US BEFORE.
>> THERE ARE SOME WINDOWS THAT HAVE A FILM.
>> PROBABLY THE ENTIRE BUILDING, IT WOULD HELP IF WE HAD TO PUT THEM ON.
>> REMEMBER, IF WE DO SOMETHING INSIDE, IT COULD ALSO WORK WITH THE SOUND ATTENUATION AS WELL LIKE DRAPES OR SHADES, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT WHAT YOU SEE FROM THE OUTSIDE HAS TO BE A LOT OF RULES WITH THIS.
THAT'S WHAT IT [NOISE] COSTS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT.
BUT I THINK IT'S WELL WORTH IT FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS FOR THE TOURISM INDUSTRY BECAUSE IT'S HIGHLY IRRESISTABLE.
>> THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO RESTORE POST-1996, WENT AHEAD OF '81.
WAS THAT '86 WENT AHEAD. '91 WENT VIRAL.
>> NO, '96 WAS WHEN THEY RENOVATED.
>> I THINK THE WORK WAS ACTUALLY DONE IN 1998.
IT TOOK A TWO-YEAR PERIOD BECAUSE IT WAS A PARK RENOVATION AND THAT.
>> REMEMBER, THIS IS A NATIONAL HISTORIC BUILDING.
>> YES, NATIONAL LANDMARK, HISTORICAL BUILDING.
>> THIS IS KNOCKED UP FROM NATIONAL REGISTER.
>> IT'S LIKE A DOWNTOWN STRAND HAS ONE.
>> EAST END HISTORIC DISTRICT HAS ONE.
>> MR. LABICHE, I WANT TO THANK YOU AND YOUR COMPANY.
WE REALLY ENJOY WHAT YOU'VE DONE FOR THE CITY IN THE PAST.
I WAS OVER AT THE PUMP STATION YESTERDAY.
GREAT TURNOUT THERE. IT'S BEING USED.
>> OF COURSE, WE NEED TO GET ACOUSTIC.
>> WE ARE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> BUTCH, IF YOU COULD KEEP US UPDATED.
>> A LOT OF IT'S IN ORANGE COLORS. ANYWAY. [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU CAN KEEP US UPDATED, BUTCH, NOT NECESSARILY AT A WORKSHOP ITEM, BUT IF YOU COULD LET BRIAN KNOW.
BRIAN, YOU COULD CIRCULATE KIND OF WHERE WE ARE AS WE GO THROUGH THAT.
>> I'LL SEND OUT UPDATES, AND I'LL ALSO INCLUDE IN MY CITY MANAGER'S REPORT AS WELL TO COUNCIL.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE DONE AT 30TH STREET IS I'M WAITING ON THE CARPET TO GET HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO CARPET THE CENTER OF THE BUILDING.
>> I THINK THAT YOU'LL NEED A LOT OF SAND.
>> WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN PHASES TO SEE WHAT IMPACTS WE GET SO WE DON'T SPEND A WHOLE LOT AT ONE TIME.
WE'RE GOING TO DO CARPET. WE MAY DO SOME WINDOW COVERINGS. WE MAY DO SOME OTHERS.
>> THIS IS A REALLY GOOD STEEL WORK.
I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK YOU'VE GONE INTO AND THE PROFESSIONAL LOOK TO IT.
I'VE DONE SEVERAL OF THE OVER MY CAREER, AND THIS IS A REALLY GOOD ONE.
>> IT MEANS A LOT FROM THE OTHER ARCHITECT, IT REALLY DOES. [LAUGHTER]
>> MR. LABICHE, THANK YOU AGAIN.
BUTCH, KEEP US UPDATED. THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
>> THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] YES, 10:55.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK.
[01:55:02]
AT 11:05, WE'LL RECONVENE.WE'RE RUNNING ABOUT A MINUTE BEHIND, BUT 10 10-MINUTE BREAK.
WE ARE NOW BACK IN SESSION WITH OUR WORKSHOP FOR MARCH 27TH, AND WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM 3B AS IN BOY, JANELLE.
[3.B. Discuss Policies and Procedures for the placement of agenda items on City Council’s Agendas ( C Brown - 15 min )]
>> ITEM 3B. DISCUSS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF AGENDA ITEMS ON CITY COUNCIL'S AGENDAS.
>> COUNCIL, I PUT THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS.
BUT FIRST OF ALL, I NEED TO GET COUNCIL'S INPUT ON THESE AGENDAS AND HOW WE MANAGE THESE AGENDAS.
THE CHARTER ALLOWS COUNCIL, BY ORDINANCE, TO DETERMINE ITS OWN RULES AND ORDER OF BUSINESS AS IT INVOLVES OUR AGENDAS.
WE NEED TO RELOOK AT, IN MY OPINION, HOW WE'VE BEEN MANAGING OUR AGENDAS AND SEE IF WE WANT TO MAKE ANY PARTICULAR ORDINANCE CHANGES TO ADDRESS THAT.
ALSO, THESE CONCERNS OF THE AGENDA, AND I'M GOING TO GO OVER SOME THOUGHTS THAT I HAVE ON THIS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION BY STAFF AND BY THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE THAT ARE ANXIOUS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
[NOISE] I'M GOING TO THROW OUT SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ON THIS AND THEN SEE WHERE WE WANT TO GO.
AS YOU SAW TODAY, WE GO THROUGH WORKSHOPS, AND IT'S MENTIONED BY COUNCIL THAT WE WANT TO PUT CERTAIN ITEMS ON THE NEXT WORKSHOP OR TWO WORKSHOPS FROM NOW, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, WE HAVE QUITE A LENGTHY AGENDA BEFORE ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS COME ON THE AGENDA FOR OUR WORKSHOPS.
WE NEED TO GIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS THE PRIVILEGE, OF COURSE, OF BRINGING FORTH COUNCIL WORKSHOP ITEMS, BUT THEY ARE COMING ONTO THE AGENDA THAT IS PRETTY FULL FROM ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED FROM PAST MEETINGS, OR AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING HERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
THE OTHER THING, TOO, THE WORKSHOPS IN MY OPINION, THEY ARE TO ADDRESS ITEMS THAT ARE POSSIBLY AN UPCOMING AGENDA ITEM, PROCEDURAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, OR ITEMS, AS I MENTIONED, THAT HAVE BEEN REQUESTED FROM PAST MEETINGS.
AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, THE WORKSHOPS ARE NOT A FACT FINDING PROCESS.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN INDIVIDUALLY GO TO STAFF ON IF YOU'RE NEEDING INFORMATION, AND SO FORTH, ON CERTAIN ITEMS, YOU CAN GO TO STAFF.
I KNOW BRIAN IS ALWAYS OPEN WITH STAFF MEMBERS TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU.
>> STAFF ALSO NEEDS ADEQUATE TIME TO PREPARE.
ITEMS SOMETIMES WILL COME IN AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A NEED FOR THAT AT THE LAST MINUTE ON OUR AGENDAS AND IT'S ITEMS THAT WHEN THEY COME ON THE AGENDA, THEY'RE POSTED ON A FRIDAY AND SO WE ARE CLOSED FOR A COURSE FOR THE WEEKEND AND THAT REALLY ONLY GIVES STAFF A COUPLE OR THREE DAYS TO BRING INFORMATION TOGETHER.
STAFF REALLY DOESN'T HAVE TIME TO PREPARE PROPERLY ON SOME OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS THAT ARE PUT ON ON THE LAST MINUTE.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OR AT LEAST THE WAY I WORK WITH STAFF ON THIS.
IT TAKES ABOUT TWO WEEKS NOTICE FOR STAFF TO REALLY PUT TOGETHER AND TAKE SOME TIME TO PUT TOGETHER INFORMATION FOR THE ITEMS.
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE ITEM, BUT IF YOU PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA AND YOU WANT TO GET INFORMATION, WE'RE HAPPY FOR YOU TO DO THAT BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THERE'S A CONVEYANCE ISSUE AND YOU WANT YOUR CONSTITUENCY TO KNOW, BUT IF YOU GIVE US A GOOD HEADS UP ON IT, WE'LL MAKE SURE WE HAVE GOOD COMPLETE INFORMATION, VISUAL, ANYTHING YOU NEED TO HAVE FOR THOSE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
BUT IF THEY JUST POP ON THE AGENDA AND NOBODY'S EVER TALKED TO US, WE'RE COMING INTO THIS BLIND AND ALMOST ALWAYS YOU'RE GOING TO GET, WE APPRECIATE THAT WE'LL GET WITH YOU ON THAT, AND THAT DOESN'T HELP THE CITIZENRY OR ANYBODY ELSE.
THAT'S WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO HERE, TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE.
>> I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND ON SOME ITEMS AS WE GO THROUGH THE AGENDA TODAY THAT STAFF IS GOING TO MENTION THAT.
I REALLY CAN'T DISCUSS IT BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE DATA AND HAVEN'T HAVE TIME TO PUT THE DATA TOGETHER.
WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE PUT THESE ITEMS ON THERE, AND FEEL FREE TO WORK WITH STAFF AS YOU MOVE FORWARD ON THESE ITEMS.
[02:00:04]
I'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT WORKSHOPS ALSO IS TO GET DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL ON MOVING FORWARD, AND I GREATLY APPRECIATED COUNCILMAN PRETA TODAY.HE BROUGHT FORWARD AN ITEM ABOUT THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND FELT THE PULSE OF COUNSEL SHOULD, DO YOU WANT ME TO BRING SOME THINGS BACK TO YOU CONCERNING THIS ITEM? I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PROCESS IN THE WORKSHOP.
I'M GOING TO UTILIZE WHEN WE DID THE FERAL CAT ORDINANCE, THOSE THAT WERE AROUND AT THAT TIME.
THAT WAS RESEARCHED PROPERLY BY THE COUNCIL MEMBERS INVOLVED.
THEY WORKED WITH STAFF ON THAT AND THEN THEY BROUGHT IT TO COUNSEL AND WANTED TO KNOW IF COUNSEL FELT THAT THEY SHOULD MORE FORMALLY PURSUE THIS ITEM WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
COUNSEL GAVE THEM PERMISSION, AND THEY MOVED FORWARD BRINGING BACK AN ORDINANCE THEN FOR COUNSEL TO LOOK AT.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A DISCONNECT ON THE SECOND OF ITEMS ON THIS.
JANELLE GETS CALLED, AN INDIVIDUAL, COUNCIL MEMBER SAY, "WELL, I WANT TO PUT THIS ITEM ON AND SO AND SO, ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IS THE SECOND." WHAT HAS HAPPENED, I WAS CONTACTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NOT TOO LONG AGO, THAT THE ITEMS WERE POSTED, AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY DID NOT WANT THEIR NAMES ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE ITEMS. I'VE TALKED TO JANELLE ABOUT THAT PERSONALLY I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IF WE ARE GOING TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT YOU LET JANELLE KNOW WHO THE SECOND WOULD BE, BUT THAT SECOND NEEDS TO CONTACT JANELLE IN WRITING TO CONFIRM THEY ARE THE SECOND.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, SO THERE'S NO MISCOMMUNICATION ON THAT.
WE'VE ALSO HAD AN INSTANCE OR SO WHERE A COUNCIL MEMBER WILL CALL AND SAY, SO AND SO, COUNCIL MEMBER, ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER WANTS TO PUT THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
IN MY OPINION, JANELLE NEEDS TO HEAR FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT IS GOING TO SPONSOR THAT ITEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA.
THEN IT'S UP TO, AS I MENTIONED, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE COUNCIL MEMBER TO LET THAT SECOND KNOW, TO BE SURE TO CONTACT JANELLE TO CONFIRM THEIR SECOND OF THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.
THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT ON THAT.
WE'VE BEEN GETTING ITEMS THAT SOMETIMES ARE NOT AS THOROUGH AS I THINK THEY NEED TO BE TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC PROPERLY ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IT COULD BE, WE ITEMS AND THIS HAS NOT REALLY HAPPENED THAT MUCH.
IT HAS HAPPENED OCCASIONALLY, BUT WE'LL GET ITEMS THAT AND I'M USING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE.
THIS DID NOT OCCUR, BUT DISCUSS LDRS.
THAT DOESN'T GIVE THE PUBLIC THE ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC ITEM, THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO SAY, DISCUSS THE LDRS AS THEY APPLY TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
THAT GIVES THE PUBLIC NOW THE OPPORTUNITY TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON THAT.
SAYING ALL THAT, WELL, I HAVE HAD DUPLICATE ITEMS COME IN.
SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
TWO OR THREE DAYS LATER, WE'LL GET FROM ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER TO THE ITEM, THEY'RE DUPLICATE ITEMS, BUT THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEIR ITEMS ARE ON THERE, AND SO THERE'S TWO ITEMS ON THERE.
WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THESE ITEMS COMBINED SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS DETAILS ON THOSE ITEMS, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO IT UNDER ONE ITEM ON THAT, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT JANELLE AND I TALK ABOUT QUITE A BIT TO COMBINE THOSE ITEMS TO POSSIBLY MAKE THEM MORE EFFICIENT FOR THE USE HERE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
WHAT CAN WE DO? I'VE HAD INDIVIDUALS COME TO ME AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNSEL ON OUR AGENDAS.
COUNSEL, WE CAN SET AN END TIME TO OUR WORKSHOPS.
WE CAN SAY OUR WORKSHOPS WILL BE 09:00-1:00 IF COUNSEL WANTS TO DO THAT AS A POLICY FOR COUNSEL.
WE CAN PUT INTO THAT POLICY THAT AT
[02:05:02]
1 O'CLOCK THEN WITH THE CONSENSUS OF A MAJORITY OF THE COUNSEL, WE CAN GO PAST THAT ONE O'CLOCK IF WE WANT TO, OR WE WOULD JUST NEED TO STOP AT ONE O'CLOCK AT THAT POINT WHEREVER WE ARE.THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD PUT IN.
NOT NECESSARILY TALKING FOR AGAINST THESE, BUT THESE ARE ITEMS THAT ARE SUGGESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO ME.
WE CAN PUT ITEMS ON THERE AND NOT NECESSARILY STATE WHO'S A COUNCIL MEMBER IS.
WE JUST PUT ITEMS ON THERE AND NOT NECESSARILY HAVE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS NAMES ATTACHED TO THAT.
WE CAN CONSIDER AND THIS IS ONE THAT I PERSONALLY AM NOT IN FAVOR OF, BUT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT WE CAN SAY EACH COUNCIL MEMBER HAS TWO ITEMS THAT THEY CAN PUT ON THE WORKSHOP EACH TIME THAT A WORKSHOP IS DONE.
I THINK THAT CIRCUMSTANCES ARISE FOR SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT ONE MONTH MAY HAVE MORE ITEMS THAN TWO ITEMS, AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO COME DOWN ON THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO TRY TO PUT A LIMIT ON WHAT THEY CAN TALK ABOUT ON THIS AGENDA.
SAYING ALL THAT, I WANT TO MENTION TO THE COUNSEL THAT I AM ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO WORK WITH THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO TRY TO GET THESE ITEMS STATED IN A PROPER WAY AND OR TO PLACED ON THE AGENDA IN THE PROPER TIMELINE AND HAVE THE PROPER TIME TO DISCUSS THEM.
PLEASE FEEL FREE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CONTACT ME AND I'LL WORK WITH YOU TO HELP IN ANY WAY TO MAKE SURE YOUR TOPICS ARE HEARD PROPERLY BY THE COUNCIL.
SAYING THAT, LET'S OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION, ALEX.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JUST COMES TO MIND HERE AND FROM STAFFS REQUEST OF TIMING AND, IT TAKES TWO WEEKS TO BE FULLY PREPARED.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY, COUNSEL WOULD HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON, BUT PUSHING BACK A DEADLINE, WE TALK ABOUT THIS JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD.
WE GOT THE ITEMS IN BY THE DEADLINE.
BUT IF PEOPLE FEEL LIKE THEY'RE BEING BOMBARDED, THEN LET'S MOVE THE DEADLINE BACK SO PEOPLE CAN BE AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.
IS THE NEW SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE, ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A PORTAL OF A WORKING COPY OF WHAT THE AGENDA IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE? LET'S SAY WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AGENDA ITEMS ON.
WE KNOW THERE MIGHT BE DUPLICATES.
WE CAN VIEW IT IN ADVANCE TO SEE, OR THAT WOULDN'T BE AVAILABLE TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE IN THE BOARD PORTAL IS THE PUBLISHED DRAFT AGENDA.
ONCE IT'S PUBLISHED TO YOU GUYS.
BUT YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE A WORKING AGENDA.
>> MAYBE WE MOVE THE DEADLINES BACK, AND THEN IT'S UP TO COUNSEL TO REVIEW IT BEFORE THE POSTING DEADLINE AND THEN WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER ABOUT MOVING ITEMS TOGETHER, COMBINING THEM, SO TO SPEAK.
>> AFTER WE SEE A DRAFT, SEE WHAT'S ON THERE?
>> WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE A DRAFT OR UNDERSTAND, HEY, THERE'S A TWO DAY LAG PERIOD WHERE ALL THE CONCERNS THAT THE MAYOR BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS A SECOND MUST CONFIRM BY THE DEADLINE.
IF ITEMS AREN'T AS THOROUGH AND THE MAYOR JANELLE ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION.
HEY, YOU GOT TWO DAYS TO DO IT, AND IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA, OR THERE IS SOME CONSENSUS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNCIL PEOPLE ABOUT HOW THOROUGH OR I GUESS THE MAYOR BECAUSE HE'D BE CONTROLLING THE MEETING, SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR GIVE STAFF A LITTLE MORE TIME.
WE HAVE A BETTER GRIP OF WHAT OUR AGENDA IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE.
>> I'M GOING TO SAY, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IF YOU GUYS COULD SEE WHAT THE ITEMS ARE GOING TO BE FOR THE WORKSHOP AGENDA SPECIFICALLY BEFORE WE SEND OUT THE DRAFT OR BEFORE YOUR DEADLINE.
YOU COULD HAVE A DEADLINE, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE DID NOT HAVE YOUR DEADLINE ON THE SAME DAY THAT WE PUBLISH THE DRAFT.
[OVERLAPPING] IT'S A BIT CHAOTIC FOR STAFF.
>> STAFF HAS ALL THEIRS IN ON WEDNESDAY.
IF YOU ALL DID THURSDAY, YOU COULD DO WEDNESDAY WITH US.
>> I DON'T WANT TO MOVE UP A DEADLINE AND CRUNCH IT, BUT USUALLY MOVE UP A DEADLINE AND STUFF GETS IN BEFORE THAT DEADLINE SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT STAFF IS GOING TO PUT ON THE AGENDA AND THAT WAY, IF WE DO PUT AGENDA ITEMS ON THERE THAT YOU ARE PREPARED FOR, OR THERE'S MORE TIME TO PREPARE, YOU CAN GIVE QUESTIONS BACK AND FORTH TO COUNSEL PEOPLE.
I THINK MAYBE MOVING IT BACK TWO DAYS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I THINK WOULD BE AMENABLE.
[02:10:02]
>> I JUST WORRY MOVING THE STAFF DEADLINE BACK, WE'RE ALREADY A WEEK OUT.
THE MAIN THING HERE IS WE JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT ANSWERS.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE ANSWERING YOU ON THE FLY BECAUSE THAT'S HOW BAD INFORMATION GETS OUT.
THERE'S STUFF THAT POPPED ON THE AGENDA TODAY.
I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
I'VE GOT STAFF SITTING AROUND HERE ALL DAY.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT'S ABOUT.
TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, SO THE BIGGEST THING THAT WE COULD DO TO ACCOMPLISH THIS IS JUST IF YOU PUT SOMETHING ON HERE JUST SAY HEY, I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA, JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU HEADS UP.
THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, AND WE'LL HAVE EVERYTHING FOR YOU.
>> THEY REALLY STAFF NEEDS LEAD TIME ON THIS, MOVING THE AGENDA BACK TO SAY, A WEDNESDAY OR SO, THE DEADLINE.
I'M ALL FOR THAT. THAT'S FINE, BUT THEY REALLY NEED A LOT MORE TIME THAN THAT.
>> IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE ITEM, SOME THINGS WE CAN GET YOU RIGHT AWAY.
OTHER THINGS ARE I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR A REPORT THAT WE HAVE TO DO A CUSTOM FILE REPORT FROM OUR SYSTEM, SOMETIMES THAT JUST TAKES FOREVER AND WE HAVE TO SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN TO DO IT IN A HURRY, AND I'D RATHER BE THOROUGH ABOUT IT AND GET YOU ACCURATE INFORMATION.
>> WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS, BUT LET ME MENTION ABOUT THE AGENDA.
THE AGENDA TIME JANELLE CAN MENTION TO YOU.
IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO PUT THIS AGENDA TOGETHER.
IT'S UNBELIEVABLY TIME CONSUMING.
WHAT I DO IS I USUALLY START 10 DAYS TO TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE MEETING, START WORKING ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE I'M GOING THROUGH THE PAST ITEMS THAT COUNSEL WANTS TO BRING FORWARD.
I GET WITH STAFF, I GET WITH LEGAL.
WE START WORKING TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THE AGENDA IS, AND IT CHANGES QUITE A BIT.
GOODNESS, 10 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING.
I'LL HAVE 25 ITEMS ON THERE FOR THE WORKSHOP AND THEN AS WE GET WITH STAFF, BRIAN INFORMS ME THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE READY TO HAVE THAT MATERIAL AND THEY'LL NEED TO MOVE IT BACK A MONTH AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
IT CHANGES DAILY BACK AND FORTH.
WHAT I TRY TO DO IS GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE CHANGES, TAKE THE INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, MAKE SURE WE GET THAT INCLUDED AND THEN I TRY TO SEND JANELLE A DRAFT AGENDA ON WHERE WE ARE AT THAT POINT, REALIZING THAT THAT CAN CHANGE SO THAT SHE CAN START WORKING ON IT.
BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME FOR HER TO GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND LOADED AND PUT INTO THE PROPER PLACE ON THAT. YES, MA'AM.
>> HERE'S MY APPROACH, AND I'M JUST GOING TO LAY IT OUT THERE.
I MAKE JANELLE AWARE OF THE ITEMS. I'M GOING TO PUT ON IN ADVANCE.
TWO REASONS, ONE, RIGHT NOW, MY LIFE HAS BEEN JUST 30 HOURS A WEEK ON THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T FORGET SOMETHING THAT'S ON THE AGENDA.
BUT THEN ALSO, SHE CAN SAY TO ME, YOU MIGHT WANT TO BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE A TWOFOLD ISSUE HERE.
WE ARE NOW ON ITEM 3B, AND IT IS 1124.
I THINK WE HAVE A TWOFOLD ISSUE.
I THINK WHEN PEOPLE ARE READING THEIR PACKETS, IT'S GOOD TO THOROUGHLY READ THE PACKETS WHEN YOU COME UP WITH YOUR ITEMS. I THINK WE HAVE NEW PEOPLE ON THE COUNCIL AS WELL AS PEOPLE WHO WERE ON THE COUNCIL.
I THINK IF SOMETHING IS NEW TO YOU, WE DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT EVERYTHING.
I THINK THAT TAKES UP A LOT OF TIME.
IF EVERY COUNCIL PERSON ON THEIR AGENDA ITEM, DID OVER AN HOUR OR JUST OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE WORKSHOP AGENDA WE HAVE SEVEN OF US, IT WOULD BE SEVEN HOURS.
BUT I ALSO WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT THEY GO BACK TO THE CHARTER.
IN THE CHARTER, IT ACCOUNTS FOR TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS A MONTH.
I'VE SERVED WHEN YOU HAD TWO COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND THAT ALLEVIATED A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS AS WELL.
I'M JUST JUST LAYING THAT OUT THERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> [INAUDIBLE] SONG JUST TWICE A MONTH.
>> ANYWAY, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THAT IS ANOTHER PIECE TO IT.
>> IT IS. CHARTER DOES ALLOW, AS YOU KNOW, COUNSEL CAN MAKE DECISIONS IF THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO TWO A MONTH, THEY CAN MOVE TO ONE A MONTH.
THE CHARTER ALLOWS THAT, AND THAT'S HOW WE DOING ONE A MONTH AT THIS POINT.
WORKSHOP AGENDAS TO ME ARE LIKE CLOSETS IN A HOME.
[02:15:04]
IF MY WIFE KEEP TELLING ME WE NEED MORE CLOSETS IN OUR HOUSE, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU WE COULD PUT FOUR CLOSETS IN THERE AND WE'LL FILL THEM UP WITH SOMETHING, SO WORKSHOP AGENDA.>> LET ME SAY THE WORKSHOPS ARE WORKING IN THAT YOUR EVENING MEETINGS, WHICH IS WHEN PEOPLE REALLY ARE FATIGUED, ARE MUCH SHORTER NOW BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING HEAVY LIFTING DONE AT THE MORNING MEETING, WHICH IS GOOD.
FROM MY STANDPOINT, THE ITEMS ALL THE ERRORS, IS I JUST FEEL LIKE I DON'T WANT TO LET YOU GUYS DOWN.
IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU REALLY NEED INFORMATION ON, GET IT TO US AND LET US KNOW, SO WE'RE NOT JUST WALKING IN THE ROOM AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
IT COST US A LOT OF MONEY BECAUSE I CAN HAVE STAFF SITTING AROUND FOR THAT.
TWO, I REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND HAVE IT BE CORRECT FOR THE PUBLIC.
>> THEN IF WE JUST ELIMINATED BRIAN'S CHEESY JOKE, I WOULD SAVE AT LEAST 45 MINUTES.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I NEED THOSE. [LAUGHTER]
>> THE AGENDA IS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT SETS THE TONE FOR THIS CITY, NOT ONLY CURRENTLY, BUT IN THE FUTURE, AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET THEIR THOUGHTS OUT THERE AND PUT AN AGENDA ITEM ON THERE.
BUT I THINK IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY ON ALL OF US, MYSELF INCLUDED TOGETHER THE DATA PROPERLY, WORKING WITH STAFF BEHIND THE SCENES, NOT NECESSARILY AT THE WORKSHOP.
AS AN EXAMPLE ON THE CLARIFICATION ITEMS, IF YOU'LL NOTICE, NOW I'M UP HERE ALL THE TIME, SO TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION.
I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITIES THAT ARE WORKING.
I GET ALL MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED USUALLY ON THE AGENDA WHEN I JUST GO TO BRIAN AND I'LL SIT DOWN WITH BRIAN BRIAN, SO AND SO HERE.
I GET ALL THOSE ANSWERED AHEAD OF TIME BEFORE THE WORKSHOP.
I THINK THAT WOULD HELP IF COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE TIME TO DO THAT TO GET THOSE ANSWERS FROM STAFF.
THEN IF IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE OR YOU FEEL IT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TO COUNCIL, WE CAN ALWAYS DO IT IN THE CLARIFICATION.
>> IT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO USE THIS AS A PLATFORM TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION.
THAT'S FINE. LET'S GET YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED IN ADVANCE.
THAT WAY, YOU HAVE A GOOD STRUCTURED ACCURATE ANSWER TO PUT OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
BECAUSE IT GETS LOST IN THE DIALOGUE WHEN WE'RE SITTING HERE GOING BACK AND FORTH, WE CAN ACTUALLY PROJECT THAT INFORMATION OUT AND PEOPLE GET GOOD INFORMATION. I THINK THAT'S GOOD.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS, COUNCIL? YES, BOB, AND SHARON.
>> WELL, OVERALL, JUST FROM A HIGH LEVEL, I REALLY LIKE YOUR IDEA FIRST OF ALL, ESTABLISHING THE DEADLINES THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS WORK.
SECONDLY, PUTTING A TIME LIMIT ON THE LENGTH OF THIS MEETING WITH THE ABILITY TO GO PAST IT WITH COUNCIL CONSENSUS.
>> WE'VE NEVER KEPT TO IT YET.
EVERY ITEM ON HERE HAS A TIME LIMIT, AND WE HAVE NEVER KEPT.
>> WELL, OVERALL TIME. NO. BOB.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE GO GET LEWIS ROSE. [LAUGHTER].
>> 1:09-2:00 OR WHATEVER IT IS.
>> WE WOULD PUBLISH AN IN TIME IF WE WANTED TO MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION AND IT'S 9:00-1:00.
AT 1:00, IF WE HADN'T GONE THROUGH ALL OF OUR ITEMS, THEN WE'D GET A CONSENSUS THAT A MAJORITY OF COUNCIL WANTS TO GO PAST 1:00, WE WOULD IF WE DON'T.
>> OR YOU MIGHT YOU MIGHT FIND THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO RUN OUT OF TIME, BUT YOU THINK ONE OF THESE ITEMS ON IS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN THE NEXT ONE COMING UP, AND YOU MOVE IT UP?
>> CORRECT. THIS IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY, NOT ONLY FOR THIS COUNCIL, BUT FOR COUNCILS IN THE FUTURE.
I JUST SEE AND MAYBE I SEE THE THE WORST CASE SCENARIO WHERE, A MINORITY GROUP OF COUNCIL PEOPLE BECOME FILIBUSTERED AND THEY JUST ROLL TO, AND THEN THEY CLOSE IT OFF.
I WOULDN'T, CURRENTLY, PEOPLE ARE I THINK PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY EXCITED AND EVEN THOUGH IT TAKES FOREVER AND IT FEELS LIKE MARATHONS.
I THINK PEOPLE ARE EXCITED ABOUT HOW THIS COUNCIL IN PARTICULAR IS TAKING ON A LOT OF ITEMS AND DISCUSSING THOSE.
I WOULD DEFINITELY BE TORN BETWEEN SETTING A TIME LIMIT AND CONTINUOUS DISCUSSION.
>> I LIKE WHAT, I GUESS, MAYBE A COUPLE OF YOU SPOKE ABOUT APPROACHING STAFF FIRST.
I THINK AS ADULTS THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE THAT SOMETIMES WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE PATIENTS.
IF SOMETHING TAKES LONGER TOGETHER THAT INFORMATION, WHY IS IT, IS IT A LAW RULE THAT IT HAS TO GO ON THAT MEETING? CAN WE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE ITEM.
[02:20:02]
BUT STILL, IF YOU'VE GONE TO THE STAFF AND THEY'RE STILL SAYING, IN ORDER TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION PROPERLY FOR YOU, WE NEED MORE TIME, THEN AS COUNCIL PEOPLE, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM THAT EXTRA TIME THAT THEY NEED.APPROACH EARLY, DISCUSS, GET NOTES, RESEARCH, AND IF THEY CANNOT ACCOMMODATE US, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY.
>> IF WE KNOW BY POSTING, WE ALMOST ALWAYS CAN ACCOMMODATE YOU.
BUT IF I DON'T KNOW UNTIL TODAY, I CAN'T ACCOMMODATE YOU.
THAT YOU CANNOT ACCOMMODATE, THEN YOU SHOULD PUT IT ON THE NEXT ONE BECAUSE WHY ARE WE SITTING HERE DISCUSSING IT, IF THAT'S THE ONLY SOLUTION.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FORCE ANYBODY, BULLY ANYBODY INTO PUTTING IT ON THAT AGENDA.
IF THAT'S A PROBLEM, THEN THAT'S A SOLUTION.
BUT IF IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, THEN WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THAT?
>> I THINK TO ADD TO WHAT SHARON SAID, STAFF, BRIAN, IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH SOMETHING SOMEBODY PUT ON THE AGENDA, AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET TO IT, REACH OUT TO THAT COUNCIL PERSON AND WE GET TO THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, WE CAN INFORM THE MAYOR AND STRIKE IT OUT OF THE MEETING AND SAY, IT'S GOING TO BE EITHER PLACED ON THE NEXT ONE OR I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH.
>> IT'S OUR GOAL TO ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS AND I DON'T WANT TO GET STAFF IN THE PRACTICE GETTING THINGS PULLED OFF AGENDAS OR THINGS.
MY GOAL IS TO GET YOU WHAT YOU WANT.
>> [BACKGROUND] STAFF IS USUALLY PRETTY ACCOMMODATING AND I THINK ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS KNOW THIS, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY ANYWAY THAT, SOMETIMES WE THINK THAT STAFF IS SITTING IN OUR OFFICES WAITING TO HEAR FROM US AND GET US INFORMATION PAPER.
THIS STAFF IS WORKING CONSTANTLY WITH ALL KINDS OF ITEMS. WHEN WE ASK FOR INFORMATION, THE MORE ADVANCED THAT WE CAN DO THAT WITH THE STAFF MEMBERS, THE BETTER TYPE OF FEEDBACK WE'LL GET FROM THEM. YES, MA'AM.
>> WELL, AS I MENTIONED, WE HAVE HAD SOME PROCEDURAL ISSUES WITH SECONDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I THINK WE NEED TO CLEAN UP TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE GET A POLICY THAT UNDERSTANDS THAT SECONDS NEED TO BE CONFIRMED WITH JANELLE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I THINK THE ITEMS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT IF COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE THE TIME TO VISIT WITH STAFF AHEAD OF TIME TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON THOSE ITEMS AND DETERMINE WHAT STAFF CAN DO TO PROVIDE THEM THAT INFORMATION.
SOME OF THESE ITEMS PROBABLY WON'T BE PUT ON OR THERE WON'T BE AN EMERGENCY NEED TO HAVE THEM ON THE AGENDA AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
THAT'LL HELP, I THINK A GREAT DEAL ALSO ON THAT.
I THINK IF COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE GATHERING INFORMATION, I THINK WORKSHOPS ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN MY MIND, AN INFORMATIONAL THING FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GATHERING DATA TO COME UP WITH AN IDEA OF BRINGING THE COUNCIL TO GET DIRECTION.
THE NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WE HAVE ON HERE.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IN MY MIND TO ADDRESS THE NUMBER OF ITEMS BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE NEEDS AND WANTS IN THEIR DISTRICTS AND JUST CITYWIDE THAT THEY WANT TO GET ITEMS OUT THERE QUICKLY TO DISCUSS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT I THINK IF WE CAN KIND OF BE COGNIZANT OF THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE CAN PROBABLY KEEP THE NUMBER OF ITEMS DOWN A LITTLE MORE THAN WE HAVE BEEN IN THE PAST.
ONE, I THINK THAT WAS A GREAT QUESTION, SHARON.
TWO, I THINK MORE PEOPLE WATCH OUR WORKSHOP THAN THEY DO COUNSEL, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S DISCUSSION, BECAUSE OF THE FACT, THEY WANT TO KNOW AND THEY'RE INTERESTED.
THEN WHEN WE START INVOLVING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR YOU TEND TO PUT CERTAIN COUNCIL URBANS AT THE END VERSUS THE BEGINNING EVERY.
I THINK WE NEED TO I TAKE REVERSE IT EVERY OTHER MEETING OR WHATNOT.
>> I TAKE IT WHERE I PUT THE COUNCIL WHAT I DO, I WORK WITH JANELLE.
LIKE TODAY, IF WE HAVE GUESTS FROM OUT OF CITY THAT ARE ON A TIME CONSTRAINT, I WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THOSE GUESTS AND THOSE CONSULTANTS IN AND OUT WHERE THEY'RE NOT SITTING HERE FOR FOUR HOURS BEFORE WE CALL ON THEM.
I ALSO TAKE THOSE ITEMS AND I TRY TO MOVE THOSE THAT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE ITEMS THAT HAVE ALREADY,
[02:25:01]
COUNCIL HAS REQUESTED FROM PAST MEETINGS ON THERE TO MOVE THOSE UP.THEN I TAKE THE ITEMS AND I PUT THEM IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.
SOME OF THESE ITEMS COME IN AT 60 SECONDS BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
SOME OF THE ITEMS COME IN AT NINE MINUTES BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR RECEIVING THE ITEMS. I TRY TO PUT THOSE ON THERE IN A MANNER THAT'S CHRONOLOGICAL IF THEY DON'T FIT INTO SOME OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
>> TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SECOND PERSON THAT'S ASSIGNED TO OUR AGENDA ITEM COMMUNICATES WITH JANELLE.
BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IF WE WHAT ELSE WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED.
>> WHAT I'LL DO, I'VE BEEN MAKING NOTES AS PEOPLE HAVE MADE COMMENTS.
WE CAN SEE OUT AN EMAIL TO YOU TO OUTLINE WHAT COUNSEL HAS MENTIONED ON THIS AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT AGAIN AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REALLY CHANGED ANYTHING.
>> WELL, THE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY VIA ORDINANCE TO STRUCTURE THE PROCEDURES WE'LL FOLLOW DURING THESE WORKSHOPS.
WE CAN VOTE ON THESE, IF COUNCIL.
IF COUNCIL FEELS AND I'LL BE HONEST, I'M FEELING THIS WAY.
IF WE TALK THIS OUT AND COUNCIL UNDERSTANDS THE CONCERN, I'M NOT SURE IF WE NEED TO MAKE ANY FORMAL CHANGES RIGHT NOW.
>> WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE A CONCISE LIST OF THESE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
[OVERLAPPING] I THINK ABOUT THEM AND SEE WHAT THEIR IMPACT ON THE QUALITY OF OUR MEETINGS WOULD BE.
>> THAT WOULD BE CHANGES WITHIN EACH OF US, THOUGH. I WOULD THINK.
BECAUSE IF I HAVE THE AGENDA ITEM, THEN IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID, I NEED TO GO TO STAFF FIRST AND TRY TO GATHER AS MUCH INFORMATION OR SHARE WITH THEM BECAUSE MY CONCERN MIGHT NOT BE AS BAD AS WHAT I THINK IT IS.
>> THAT WOULD BE ONE OF ONE OF THE THINGS.
>> EXACTLY. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE'RE STILL A COUNCIL PEOPLE GOING TO PUT THINGS ON THE AGENDA.
NOW, I HEARD YOU WHEN YOU SAID THAT WE COULD LIMIT THE TIME. WE COULD SAY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WITHIN, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR MANY OTHER OPTIONS.
>> THE DEADLINE WAS ONE. MOVING THE DEADLINE.
>> MOVING THAT ONE. BUT I JUST ALSO HEARD THE MAYOR SAY SOMETIMES WE'LL CALL IN FOR AGENDA ITEM IN SHORT TIME.
>> BY MOVING THE DEADLINE BACK, THAT HELPS A LITTLE BIT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF GETTING THESE SAY FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
IT HELPS THEN TO HAVE THOSE A LITTLE FURTHER OUT TO GIVE STAFF AND CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE TIME TO PLAN.
>> WE'RE HOPING THAT THAT WON'T HAPPEN BECAUSE YOU GOT A LITTLE SOLUTION TO THAT.
[LAUGHTER] NOBODY WILL CALL IN ONE FIVE MINUTES BEFORE THE DEADLINE.
>> MAYBE EVER THAT'S THE [OVERLAPPING] OR TO BE AWARE PUTS AN AGENDA ITEM ON YOUR AN AUTOMATIC SECOND.
THERE ARE AGENDA ITEMS OUT THERE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE RUN A CROSS ONE THAT I MAY NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE SECONDING, BUT IT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE TWO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS.
BUT I'M FINE TO CONTINUE TO BE THE SECOND.
THE PROBLEM IS, THOUGH, IT SEEMS COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE SO FAR, JUST THE FIRST COUNCIL I'VE BEEN ON THAT FEELS LIKE THEY WANT OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS TO BE INVOLVED WITH THE SECOND.
THAT'S THE WAY THE CHARTER IS, AND THEY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK SOMETIMES PEOPLE WANT THEIR NAME ON MULTIPLE ITEMS BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEPARATE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT ITEM? COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEA'S ITEM.
I CALLED JANELLE AND SAID, ADD ME AS A SECOND BECAUSE I HAD ALREADY HAD THAT AGENDA ITEM, AND IT'S VERY MUCH A CONCERN.
>> THEN TO ADD TO THAT THREE, I FELT LIKE IT WAS SIMILAR, BUT, IN THE SAME REALM, BUT ACCOMPANYING THAT ITEM.
WE ARE GOING TO GET THINGS IN BY THE DEADLINE BECAUSE IT'S A DEADLINE.
>> TEACHER KNOWS THAT KIDS TURN IT IN ALL DAY AT THE DEADLINE.
SOMETIMES YOU GOT A PLUS STUDENTS THAT DO IT AHEAD OF TIME, BUT.
>> THEY'RE A LITTLE YOUNGER. BUT, IF IT IS, AN EXTRA DAY WHERE IT'S A PRE-DRAFT DRAFT, AND I THINK THE BEST PERSON TO BE ABLE TO GIVE US RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE JANELLE, BECAUSE SHE IS THE GO BETWEEN FROM COUNSEL ON THE AGENDA ITEMS.
[02:30:01]
MAYBE JANELLE, WE ALL PUT OUR THOUGHTS TOGETHER AND JANELLE PUTS HERS TOGETHER TOO, AND CAN CONSOLIDATE THEM AND SEND THEM TO ALL OF COUNCIL, AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT AT THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN PUT IT OUT THERE FOR A POLICY CHANGE.>> WELL, I AGREE WITH THAT WHAT ALEX JUST SAID, AT THE RISK OF PILING ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT ADDING ANOTHER ANTENNA WORKSHOP.
AGAIN, HAVE A CONCISE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE SO WE CAN HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.
>> WELL, I THINK WHAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO COUNCIL TOO NOW TO HEAR YOU SAYING THIS.
I CAN SEND OUT TO YOU MONTHS IN ADVANCE ALL THE ITEMS THAT ARE COMING UP IN APRIL, MAY AND JUNE THAT ARE GOING TO BE ON THE WORKSHOP.
>> THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL SO YOU CAN SEE THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING ON THAT WORKSHOP COMING UP.
THESE AGENDAS, AS JANELLE CAN TELL YOU, IT WILL CHANGE FROM HOUR TO HOUR TO HOUR.
THINGS ARE JUST MOVING ON AND OFF THE AGENDA QUITE A BIT.
BUT IF YOU'VE GOT A YEAR LONG OR EVEN BY QUARTER, ITEMS THAT YOU KNOW ARE COMING UP, THEN YOU CAN SEND THAT OUT ON A MONTHLY BASIS, WE CAN SEE THE CHANGE FOR FUTURE MEETINGS.
>> BUT IT WOULD HELP HELP YOU WOULD HELP YOU WITH THE AGENDA, TOO IF WE HAD THAT ADVANCED INFORMATION.
>> I KNOW WHEN I CAMPAIGNED FOR THIS POSITION, I FELT LIKE WE HAD A LOT OF WORK TO DO.
I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE EASY AND I FELT LIKE IT WAS GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME.
I THINK PROPOSING LIMITATIONS ON TIME AND AGENDA ITEMS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PUBLIC HAS BECOME SO INVOLVED, BECAUSE THEY GAIN KNOWLEDGE WITH OPEN DISCUSSION.
I KNOW IT'S ALREADY BIT ME ONCE, WHEN I DO REACH OUT TO INDIVIDUAL STAFF, THEN IT'D SEEM AS I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE THAT THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS AREN'T GETTING AT THE SAME TIME.
I THINK THAT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE TO RECOMMEND THAT.
MOST OF WHAT WE HAVE HERE ON WORKSHOP AGENDA IS DISCUSSED.
WHEN WE HAVE OPEN DISCUSSION, SUPPORTED BY WHAT STAFF IS ABLE TO GIVE US WITH A BASIS, I THINK THAT'S WHAT OUR PUBLIC DEPENDS ON.
IT'S NOT ME GOING TO INDIVIDUAL STAFF AND NOT BEING ABLE TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION OPENLY IN THE PUBLIC OR DISCUSS IT OR DEBATE IT WITH THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I THINK TO LIMIT ONLY TWO ITEMS OR TO LIMIT TIME, I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR TO THE PUBLIC AND WHAT THEY DEPEND ON US FOR.
AS FAR AS POLICY CHANGE AND SAYING THAT WE SHOULD POSSIBLY BACK UP THE TIME FRAME AS TO WHEN WE GET THAT INFORMATION TO JANELLE SO SHE CAN GET IT OUT SO STAFF CAN PREPARE, I THINK THAT THAT IS A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST TO MOVE THAT TIME FRAME BACK.
I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST TO HAVE FORMALITY AND HAVING A SECOND.
BUT AS FAR AS LIMITATIONS AND MINUTES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE'S CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WANT CLARIFICATION, WANT TRANSPARENCY, THAT'LL AFFECT THE OTHER SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT IT BASICALLY AFFECTS THEIR TIME.
TO PUT LIMITATIONS ON TIME, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD PROPOSE.
OR AGENDA ITEMS, MAYBE THERE MIGHT BE ONE WEEK THAT I HAVE TWO, BUT THERE MIGHT BE ONE WEEK THROUGH A PUSH FROM PUBLIC, DEPENDING ON SITUATIONS THAT ARE GOING ON THAT THERE MIGHT BE SIX.
>> I WANT TO ADD ON TO WHAT HE SAID.
EVEN IN GOING TO STAFF FOR CLARIFICATION, WE MIGHT FIND IT NECESSARY TO BRING TO PUBLIC.
WE ARE THE POLICY MAKERS AND CERTAIN MEMBERS OF STAFF WE FOR THE COUNCIL.
THEN I THINK IT'S EVEN MORE IMPORTANT TO HAVE THAT IN PUBLIC SO I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID.
>> WELL, WHAT I'LL DO STAFF, COUNCIL, I'LL GO AHEAD AND PUT TOGETHER THE LIST OF THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
ALSO, I'M GOING TO PUT A ARTICULAR ON MY SCHEDULE TO MAKE SURE THAT I GET OUT TO YOU REGULARLY.
[02:35:04]
WHAT ARE THE ITEMS AS AN EXAMPLE.WE STILL HAVEN'T PUT TO BED THESE CHARTER CHANGES.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WADE INTO THAT.
WE STILL HAVEN'T PUT TO BED THE DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE REVENUE SOURCES.
WE STARTED ON THAT, AND THEN WE JUST FADED OFF, SO WE NEED TO GET BACK.
I'VE GOT A WHOLE LIST OF THINGS THAT WILL BE COMING UP HERE THAT WE NEED TO GET BACK INTO.
BUT I'LL SEND THOSE OUT TO YOU IN ADVANCE SO YOU CAN SEE THE MEETINGS COMING UP OF WHAT MIGHT BE ON THE AGENDA, AND YOU CAN SEE THE BUS BUSINESS OF THE AGENDA AT THAT POINT.
>> YOU INCLUDE THE RECOMMENDED DEADLINE PERIOD.
>> YES, SIR. I'LL RECOMMEND ALL THAT.
>> RATHER HAVE JANELLE RECOMMEND THAT.
>> [BACKGROUND] GOOD POINT. I PUT THOSE TIMES DOWN THERE JUST FOR MY SAKE TO TRY TO PLAN THIS AGENDA BECAUSE I NEVER KNOW SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE 15 MINUTES TAKE FIVE AND SOME OF THEM THEY ARE 15 MINUTES TAKE AN HOUR AND A HALF.
>> YOU NEED TO GET YOU BIGGER GAVEL.
AS YOU NOTICE, I'M NOT LIKE SOME PAST MAYORS, THEY ARE POUNDING THAT GAVEL ALL THE TIME.
VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3C, PLEASE.
[3.C. Discussion of the Master Developer Plan for Stewart Beach Park ( D Anderson -20 min )]
>> ITEM 3C. DISCUSSION OF THE MASTER DEVELOPER PLAN FOR STEWART BEACH PARK.
>> WELL, WE HAVE DUDLEY ANDERSON COMING FORWARD.
YES, DUDLEY, DO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY TO INTRODUCE?
>> ASK MIKE RUSSO TO COME AND ADDRESS A COUPLE OF ISSUES, AND THEN YOU'VE ALL MET AMBER GUERRERO WHO PUT POWERPOINT TOGETHER. I'M DUDLEY ANDERSON.
>> THIS IS OUR STEWART BEACH DISCUSSION.
COUNCIL, AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, WE ASK COUNCIL MEMBERS TO CONTACT DUDLEY AND BRIAN WITH YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STEWART BEACH, SO DUDLEY COULD BRING THOSE TO US.
>> THIS IS JUST OF ONE I WAS GOING TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT.
I'LL TRY TO KEEP THE TIME AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE.
>> WELL, NOW WE'RE GOING TO PUT A TIME ON IT.
ONCE YOU REACH YOUR MINUTES, WE'RE GOING TO CUT.
>> I'M WALKING OUT. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE RESPONSES WE'VE GOT FROM COUNCIL AND WE WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT A DEVELOPER IS, WE WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE PROCURE ANY SERVICE.
THEN WE'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT HOW WE WANT TO PROCEED FROM THAT POINT.
THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO START WITH IS JOSHUA OWENS WITH GALVESTON ECONOMIC, TALKING ABOUT WHAT A DEVELOPER IS.
WE KEEP USING THIS TERM MASTER DEVELOPER.
I CANNOT FIND A DEFINITION OF MASTER DEVELOPER A LICENSED INDIVIDUAL OR SOMETHING.
I'LL ASK JOSH TO ADDRESS THAT.
>> WELL, I DID MAKE SOME NOTES.
MY ROLE WITH THE GALVESTON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP IS TO DO TWO THINGS.
IT'S TO GROW GALVESTON'S ECONOMY BY ENHANCING CAPITAL INVESTMENT ON THE ISLAND, AND CREATING JOBS.
THAT'S MY BIAS, AND I NEED TO COME AT YOU WITH THIS BIAS THAT FOR STEWART BEACH PARK, WHAT I'M MOST INTERESTED IN SEEING IS GALVESTON HAVING A TAXABLE ASSET AND IN JOB CREATION SO WE CAN GROW THE ECONOMY OF THE ISLAND.
LOOKING AT THE RFP, I THINK THAT WE NEED REAL CLEAR OBJECTIVES FOR THE RFP.
THE CURRENT RFP IS RATHER BACKSIDE OF THE ENVELOPE BLANK, WHICH I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT CAUSES DEVELOPERS TO PAUSE IN RESPONDING TO IT.
BECAUSE THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE BEING GRADED ON.
THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND AM I LOOKING TO DO HIGHEST AND BEST VALUE OR THE MOST AMENITIES HERE? WHAT IS MY FINAL GOAL? WHAT IS THE CITY OF GALVESTON WANT OUT OF ME? WHAT IS MY FINAL PRODUCT LOOKING TO BE? WE NEED CLEAR OBJECTIVES IN THE RFP AND FROM THE DEVELOPERS COMING FROM CITY COUNCIL AS TO WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE ON THAT BEACH.
IF IT IS FROM ONE OF THE TWO MASTER PLANS CREATED A VISITOR CENTER OR AMENITIES IN THE DEVELOPABLE AREA WITH LARGE EXPANSES OF SURFACE PARKING,
[02:40:03]
IF THAT'S WHAT YOU DECIDED TO WANT, FORM THE RFP AROUND THAT.IF YOU WANT AN RFP WHERE YOU'RE LOOKING TO DRIVE JOB CREATION AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT, YOU WILL DETERMINE WHAT IS A DEVELOPABLE AREA? WHAT THE HIGHEST AND AND LEAVE IT OPEN TO THE DEVELOPER TO DETERMINE WHAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE FOR THAT DEVELOPABLE AREA IS, AND MAKE THEM PROPOSE WHAT CAPITAL AND JOBS WILL BE CREATED THROUGH THE PROJECT.
HAVE THEM PROVIDE A PRO FORMA OF THE PROJECT'S FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE AND WHAT THEIR ECONOMIC GOALS ARE.
THE THIRD THING THAT YOU NEED IN A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP TO BE SUCCESSFUL BECAUSE THIS IS E SIMPLY WHAT THIS IS IS CLEAR ROLES.
THE DEVELOPER HAVING TO DO THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS AND HAVING TO GATHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IS IN CONTRARY TO THEIR FUNDAMENTAL GOAL OF TURN ON INVESTMENT FOR THEIR CAPITAL.
IF THE FOLKS IF THEY ENGAGE IN A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS, AND EVERYBODY COMES BACK AND SAYS, HEY, WE WANT IT TO BE ALL PICKLEBALL COURTS, AND THAT'S THE OVERWHELMING PUBLIC OPINION.
THERE IS NO FINANCIAL ADVANCE OR ADVANTAGE FOR THE DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP A BUNCH OF PICKLEBALL COURTS, EXCEPT FOR THE FUNDS THAT CAN BE MADE FROM PICKLEBALL.
WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR IS A DEVELOPER TO TELL YOU WHAT THE HIGHEST INVESTMENT FOR THAT LAND IS IN TERMS OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR THEM AND FOR THE CITY.
SPEAKING OF RETURN ON INVESTMENTS, THAT'S WHAT A DEVELOPER IS FUNDAMENTALLY SEEKING.
IS THEY'RE LOOKING TO MAKE MONEY, AND THEY NEED A CLEAR PATHWAY TO THEIR RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
WITH THE AMBIGUITY AMBIGUITY AND WITH NO CLEAR TIMELINES OR DELIVERABLES, THAT CLARITY MAKES DEVELOPERS HESITANT TO RESPOND TO AN RFP BECAUSE TIME IS MONEY, ATTENTION IS MONEY.
WHY AM I GOING TO INVEST MY TEAM IN AN AMBIGUOUS QUESTION WHERE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR RETURNS ARE.
THEY WANT A REALLY CLEAR PRO FORMA.
IF I PUT A MCDONALD'S ON THIS CORNER WITH THIS MUCH VEHICLE TRAFFIC MILES, I KNOW WHAT LEASE I'M GOING TO GET, I KNOW WHAT RETURN I'M GOING TO GET, AND I CAN GO FORWARD AND MAKE MONEY.
WE NEED TO MAKE THE PROCESS FOR THESE DEVELOPERS TO SECURE THEIR FUNDING, THEIR FINANCING, AND TO MAKE THAT MONEY AS QUICK AND EASY AS POSSIBLE SO THAT THEY CAN THEN GENERATE REVENUE FOR THE CITY.
IN MY FINAL POINT, THE TWO MASTER PLANS THAT WERE CONDUCTED AND CREATED, NEITHER OF THEM SEEK MARKET BASED SOLUTIONS FOR THE SITE.
THEY ARE LOOKING AT PROVIDING PUBLIC AMENITIES.
THE ROGERS MASTER PLAN, THEIR PRIMARY DELIVERABLE AND THE DEVELOPABLE PORTION IS A VISITOR CENTER.
A VISITOR CENTER DOES NOT PRODUCE CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUFFICIENT FOR SUCH A PREMIER LOCATION ON THE ISLAND.
LARGE AMOUNTS OF SURFACE PARKING USE AREAS WHERE WE COULD HAVE STRUCTURED PARKING FOR AMENITIES ON THE BEACH RATHER THAN PARKING ON THE BEACH.
I THINK WE WILL GET A MUCH BETTER PRODUCT IF WE PUT IN CLEAR PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR THE DEVELOPERS, SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNCIL'S VISION GOALS ARE FOR THE SITE.
EVEN IF THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WANT THERE, AS LONG AS THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT PERFORMANCE THEY WANT TO SEE THERE.
>> I THINK AND THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL THING THAT NEEDS TO BE ON THERE THAT YOU'RE MISSING, WHICH IS THE RESTRICTIONS THAT EXIST ON THE LAND, THAT WHEN THE FIRST PROPOSALS WENT OUT AND PEOPLE CAME BACK WITH HOTELS, AND YET THAT IS A RESTRICTED USE.
I THINK THAT HAS TO BE IN THERE AS WELL.
>> YES. THE CARTAGE RESTRICTIONS HAVE TO BE, FOR EXAMPLE, CONFERENCE MEETING SPACE IS STRICTLY WITH YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER.
ARE THERE OTHER POSSIBILITIES FOR LODGING OR RESIDENTIAL USES? POTENTIALLY. DON'T SAY NOTHING ABOUT LODGING OR RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THEN YOU'LL GET NOTHING ABOUT LODGING OR RESIDENTIAL.
OBVIOUSLY, ABOVE THE SECOND THIRD FOURTH FLOOR, THOSE ARE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USES FOR AB.
>> MAYBE, BUT NOT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USES FOR OUR CITIZENS.
>> YES. THAT'S WHY THERE'S ADDITIONAL SPACE ON THAT PROPERTY.
MICHAEL, IF WE WANT CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, IF THAT'S THE GOAL, IF WE WANT THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF RETURN OR INVESTMENT FOR THE PROPERTY, IF WE WANT TO SEE THE HIGHEST TAX DOLLARS AND REVENUE COMING BACK TO THE CITY, MAKE THAT CLEAR.
IF IT'S ALL ABOUT DELIVERING AMENITIES, MAKE THAT CLEAR.
I THINK THAT IS THE CHALLENGE IS THAT YOU NEED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TOP AS THE POLICY MAKING BODY, NEEDS TO MAKE CLEAR WHAT THEIR PRIORITIES AND PREFERENCES ARE.
IS IT ABOUT PROVIDING THE MOST AMENITIES?
[02:45:02]
IS IT PROVIDING THE MOST JOBS? IS IT PROVIDING THE MOST CAPITAL INVESTMENT? IS IT PROVIDING THE MOST REVENUE FOR THE CITY? SO THOSE DETERMINATIONS NEED TO BE MADE AND ELUCIDATED AND COMMUNICATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY BEFORE YOU'LL RECEIVE THE PROPOSALS THAT WILL HELP US MOVE THIS PROJECT?>> YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING IT EITHER OR BECAUSE EVERYTHING YOU SAID IS PROBABLY IMPORTANT.
I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT THE PUBLIC HAVE SOME DEGREE OF INPUT, AND THAT MIGHT TRANSLATE INTO SOME AMENITIES OR SOMETHING, BUT ALL THE REST OF THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT, ALL THOSE OTHER EXPECTATIONS ARE ALSO CRITICAL.
>> WELL, IT MAY HAVE TWO SEPARATE USES FOR THE PROPERTY DEVELOP STEWART BEACH.
COUNCIL NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE ABSOLUTELY SET UP RIGHT NOW.
MAYBE WE COULD GET MIKE TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WE EVALUATE.
> SCORING CRITERIA. OPPOSED RFP, I KNOW WHAT I'M BEING GRADED ON.
I DON'T WANT TO TURN IN WORK THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT GROWING.
>> JOSH, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I COMMUNICATED TO DUDLEY'S.
I PROVIDED HIM WITH A BIT EVALUATION FORM THAT TAKES BOTH QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE METRICS AND PUTS IT INTO A MATRICES FOR EVALUATION THAT DOES RANKING SO THAT YOU CAN TAKE THE VARIOUS METRICS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU, WHETHER IT BE JOB CREATION, REVENUE GROWTH, SALES STRUCTURE, HEADS AND BEDS, WHILE THAT'S NOT.
ANY WAY, I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE.
BUT ANY ONE OF THOSE CRITERIA, WE HAVE A FORM NOW THAT WE CAN START TO DEFINE FROM POLICY SIDE ABOUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT AND BE ABLE TO QUICK FOR.
>> I THINK THAT SEGUES RIGHT INTO IT.
>> NOT TO BEAT THE DEAD HORSE, BUT WE TALKED AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS.
GETTING TO THE FINAL POINT IT'S NOT AN EITHER OR, BUT IT'S A COMBINATION OF BOTH.
WHAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT IS PROBABLY, 25 JUST A NUMBER, 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND MEETING THOSE CRITERIA, 11,000 SQUARE FEET OF AMENITIES THAT IS OPEN FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RESIDENTS USE AS WELL.
>> THAT'S WHERE WE COME IN THE NEED FOR A MASTER PLAN.
A MASTER PLAN DEVELOPED BY OUR WANTS, NOT SOMEBODY ELSE'S WANTS.
I THINK THE POINT HE WAS MAKING IS THE MASTER DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER HAS A SPECIFIC GOAL IN MIND, IS TO INCREASE HIS RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
>> THAT IS THAT IS OUR PURVIEW.
BUT IF WE USE A MASTER PLANNER, SO TO SPEAK, AND THEY SAY, HERE'S AN ARCH BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS THEMSELVES.
THEY'RE MAYBE AND IF WE DON'T PUT THAT IN THERE, THEN IT'S JUST GOING TO BE BASIC, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, A GUY COULD PROBABLY DO IT IN LOOKING AT EVERYTHING IN A MONTH.
HE COULD PROBABLY A CONSULTANT CAN KNOCK IT OUT IN A MONTH ABOUT, THIS IS PROBABLY THE PROBABLY THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE.
THEN WE COULD HAVE THAT CRITERIA ABOUT JOB CREATION, SALES TAX CREATION, REVENUE FOR THE CITY, ETC.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS SOMEONE FOR THEIR OWN ARCHITECTURAL RENDERING IN VIEW OF IT, AND WE TRY TO CRAM INTO THAT.
I WANT THEM TO HAVE FREEDOM TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT, BUT ALSO HAVE THE CRITERIA THAT OKAY, 25,000 SQUARE FEET IS GOING TO BE RETAIL, NOT TO EXCEED 30, WHATEVER THAT IS.
IF WE DO SOMETHING SHORT TERM?
>> ONE OF THE EXISTING MASTER PLANS APPROACHES THAT.
THEY DON'T DEFINE SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A FEW MINUTES.
BUT THEY DO BEGIN TO DEFINE AREAS AND WHERE YOU'D WANT CERTAIN THINGS AND WHERE YOU WANT OTHER THINGS.
THAT'S COMPLETING THE MASTER PLAN IS WHAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN A FEW MINUTES.
>> YOU TALK ABOUT COMPLETING IT BY INCLUDING WHAT JOSH DESCRIBED AS MARKET BASED SOLUTIONS IN ADDITION TO THE ASPIRATIONAL PARTS.
>> I WANT TO CLARIFY, COUNCIL.
WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AS ALEX MITSON IN THE PAST.
COUNCIL, THE CONSENSUS WAS WE WANTED TO MOVE IN THE DIRECTION OF A MASTERED..
>> NOW, DUDLEY HAS BEEN VISITING WITH JOSH AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAS COME UP WITH SOME ALTERNATE THOUGHTS ON THIS.
DUDLEY, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BRING MIKE UP.
LET'S MOVE FORWARD, AND THEN YOU CAN GIVE YOUR OPTIONS TO COUNCIL.
>> GOOD MORNING, FOLKS. THANKS FOR HAVING ME.
>> ANYWAY, DUDLEY ASKED ME TO SPEAK ON THE PURCHASING SIDE.
[02:50:01]
MY 35 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE.THESE GUYS BACK HERE WHO ROB WINNICKIS OVER THE WORLD HAVE HURT HEAR THIS ALL THE TIME, BECAUSE I INTERJECT A LOT OF WHAT I'VE SEEN IN MY 35 YEARS AND THE SCOPES OF WORKS WITH RFPS.
JUSTIN DID A NICE JOB, WE HAVE TO TELL THEM WHAT WE WANT.
COUNCILMAN, THINK THEY ALSO INDICATED WE HAD SOME DOCUMENTS WE WANT THE SHARE OFF US.
WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO EVALUATE WHAT WE WANT, AND THEN WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE.
THIS PROCESS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ONCE I GET A FINAL DOCUMENT, I RECOMMEND NOT PUTTING IT OUT FOR THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME, YOU PUT IT OUT FOR AT LEAST TWO MONTHS.
BECAUSE THE SHORTER THE TIME FRAME YOU PUT THE RFP, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION, JUST THE RFP, SELECTING MASTER DEVELOPER IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
FOR THE SHORTER AMOUNT OF TIME, YOU'RE GOING TO RESTRICT COMPETITION.
THE LONGER YOU PUT IT OUT THERE, WE CAN REACH OUT TO MORE FOLKS, WE CAN GET IT OUT THERE.
THE WHOLE PROCESS YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT THREE TO SIX MONTHS, WE OF COURSE NEED PERSPECTIVE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO BUILD INTO THE RFP, NOW WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.
IT'S AN RFP NOT RFQ, RFQ IS REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, TALKING ABOUT AN RFP.
RFQ ALLOWS US TO GO SHIP, BUT THAT'S BASED ON QUALIFICATIONS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEGOTIATING SITTING AT THE TABLE AS WE ARE TODAY WITH A RESPECTIVE CANDIDATE TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE WANT, HOW WE'RE GOING TO TIGHTEN THIS THING UP AND GET THE BEST BANG AND THE BEST VALUE FOR THE PRODUCT THAT WE'RE PUTTING OUT THERE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO BUILD INTO RFP IS THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO ASK US QUESTIONS.
AS I'VE SAID TO THE STAFF WHO PUT THESE RFPS TOGETHER WITH ME, I TRY TO MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF QUESTIONS, THEY HEAR AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. LET'S TALK.
DID YOU REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS IN YOUR SCOPE OF WORK WHEN YOU CREATED THIS BECAUSE I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET A QUESTION FOR IT.
WE TRY TO MINIMIZE THE QUESTIONS BECAUSE WHEN THOSE QUESTIONS COME IN AND WE DON'T HAVE ANSWERS FOR THEM, WE HAVE TO STOP EVERYTHING DID IN THE PROCESS BECAUSE WE WEREN'T CLEARED UP FROM WHAT WE WANT.
THEN THE EVALUATION TEAM, WE HAVE AN EVALUATION TEAM THAT DUDLEY WILL SELECT TO DETERMINE WHO BRINGS HIS BEST VALUE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA, AND WE PUT A PERCENTAGE TO EACH PART OF THE CRITERIA SO THAT THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BEING GRADED ON AND HOW MUCH THEY'RE BEING GRADED ON.
>> WAIT, WHEN YOU SAY PUT IT OUT THERE, WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
>> WE TAKE THE RFP, OUR FINAL DOCUMENT AND WE PUT IT OUT ON OUR WEBSITE, WE ADVERTISE IT.
WE ALSO ADVERTISE IT IN THE PAPER.
BY LAW, I HAVE TO ADVERTISE IT TWO WEEKS STRAIGHT BACK TO BACK IN A LOCAL PAPER.
IT'S THE FINAL DOCUMENT THEY CAN GO AND READ IT.
ALSO THERE'S CALLED AN ESBD WEBSITE, WHICH IS ELECTRONIC STATE BUSINESS DAILY THAT THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THAT'S A GLOBAL WEBSITE THAT EVERYBODY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND THE WORLD CAN GO OUT AND CHOOSE.
THEY CAN GO IN OUR WEBSITE, BUT MOST PEOPLE WHEN WE PUT OUT DOCUMENTS WE'D LIKE TO PUT OUT BIG DOCUMENTS OUT THERE, OR BIG PROJECTS OUT THERE BECAUSE THEN WE CAN GET A ROBUST GROUP OF PEOPLE TO LOOK AT THOSE DOCUMENTS AND SAY, YEAH, I'M INTERESTED IN DOING THIS.
THE SMALLER PROJECTS, WE REALLY DON'T DO THAT MUCH WITH BECAUSE THERE'S NO BIG BANG FOR OUR BUCK.
BUT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, IT'S A HARD DOCUMENT.
WE PUT IT OUT THERE SO THEY CAN GO READ THROUGH IT AND THEY KNOW ALL THE TIMELINES.
THEY KNOW WHEN TO ASK QUESTIONS, THEY KNOW WHEN TO SUBMIT THEIR DOCUMENTS AND HOW TO SUBMIT THEIR DOCUMENTS.
>> I JUST WONDER, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE COULD MAKE THE ARCHITECTURAL WORLD AWARE OF IT?
>> THAT'S THE WORLD WE'RE LOOKING FOR NOW.
>> RIGHT. WE'RE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE DEVELOPMENT ON IT.
>> I THINK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAN HELP US WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT TOO, WHEN WE JUST ADVERTISING THE LOCAL PAPER, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET A LOT OF EXPOSURE.
WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GET [OVERLAPPING].
>> BECAUSE THERE ARE COASTAL COMMUNITIES WHO HAVE DONE PHENOMENAL SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET IT OUT TO COASTAL DEVELOPERS TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE READY TO WORK ON THAT AS WE APPROACH THAT TIME [OVERLAPPING] WE'LL MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO GET AS MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE WORK BEFORE, ALL THE LOCAL COASTAL AND ALL REGIONAL COASTAL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO TO THE AMERICAN SHORE BEACH THAT THOSE DEVELOPERS WOULD BE AND TAKE AD OUT IN THEIR NEWSLETTER.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I DO, WE ASK FOR, GIVE US A VENDOR LIST.
IF YOU KNOW VENDORS WHO ARE GOOD IN DOING THIS, GIVE ME THAT LIST AND WE SEND OUT THAT DOCUMENT ON THAT DAY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT.
I SEND EMAILS OUT TO ALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO YOU'VE GIVEN ME A LIST OF VENDORS TO SEND THIS DECK.
>> WE DO THAT WITH ALL OF THE STUFF THAT WE SENT.
YOU ASK US FOR A LIST OF VENDORS IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY,
[02:55:01]
WE HAVE A WHOLE LIST OF CONTRACTORS WHO WORK FOR US AND SEND THEM PROPOSALS.THEY DON'T ALWAYS SEND IN PROPOSALS EVERY TIME.
WE ASK OTHER PEOPLE WHO IN THIS BUSINESS IS DOING THIS TYPE OF WORK.
>> WE KNOW IN VARIOUS, YOU WANT TO GET YOU.
>> ABSOLUTELY. BUT THAT ESPP WEBSITE IS THAT TEXAS ELECTRONIC STATE IS A DAILY BOB.
YOU PUT IT OUT THERE AND LIKE I SAID, IT REACHES TO THE WORLD OR THE WORLD COMES TO IT BECAUSE EVERYONE KNOWS IT'S DONE BY A COMMODITY CODE.
EVERYONE KNOWS TO PUT THAT COMMODITY CODE AND POPS UP.
>> THESE PEOPLE ARE SUBSCRIBED TO IT SO IT'S GOING TO POP UP?
>> AGAIN, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, EITHER I'LL GET A LIST OR THE DEPARTMENT HE'S PUTTING IN THAT AND GET ME A LIST OF VENDORS, WE CAN REACH OUT TO IT.
IF YOU'VE GOT A LIST OF VENDORS, CERTAINLY, WE CAN ACCEPT THAT TOO.
>> ALL RIGHT. DUDLEY, GO RIGHT AHEAD?
COUNCIL RESPONDED TO OUR REQUEST FOR INPUT ON WHAT THEY WANTED.
I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S RESPONSE.
IF YOU DON'T SEE IT WORDED EXACTLY THE WAY THAT YOU SENT IT TO ME, DON'T WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT THAT.
WE TRY TO KEEP IT AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE.
EACH ONE OF YOU HAS THIS LITTLE PACKET OF PAPER, THE POWERPOINT HERE SO YOU CAN TAKE THAT HOME AND PERUSE IT, LOOK AT IT, MAKE NOTES ON IT, SCRATCH ON IT, MAKE PAPER AIRPLANES, WHATEVER.
>> YOU CAN HAVE THAT AND MAKE NOTES ON.
THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM COUNCIL THAT EVERYBODY SEEMS TO WANT.
NOT EVERYBODY SAYS EVERYTHING.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS AND I THINK SURPRISE, WHICH IS PROBABLY A GOOD THING.
BUT WE HAVE A LIST OF THE INPUTS, THE KEY ELEMENTS THAT YOU WANT AND THEN WE HAVE A LIST OF DEVELOPMENT OF INPUT WHAT WE WANT THE DEVELOPER TO DO FOR US.
A PUBLIC OUTREACH, THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A DEVELOPER DOING THAT.
BUT THOSE ARE THE DEVELOPED ITEMS. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM AN RFP FOR THE DEVELOPER.
THIS IS AFTER WE DEFINE WHAT WE WANT THE DEVELOPER TO DO.
NOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH.
I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A RECOMMENDATION OR THREE OPTIONS OF HOW WE PROCEED FROM THIS POINT ON TO DEFINE THAT DEVELOPER.
>> NOW, THIS IS GOING TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS, COUNCIL, WE NEED TO GIVE DUDLEY.
THAT'S A WAY TO ADDRESS WHAT JOSH WAS BRINGING UP EARLIER.
>> ADDRESS WHAT EVERYBODY HAS BROUGHT UP TODAY.
JOSH WAS TALKING ABOUT, MICHAEL WAS TALKING ABOUT, BUT WE'VE ASKED ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO US.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM THIS POINT? RIGHT NOW, WE'RE ON A PATH AND WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT A CURRENT PATH.
YOU'VE ASKED ME TO PUT AN RFP TOGETHER FOR A DEVELOPER.
THIS IS NOT ON THE SCREEN, QUITE AS NICE AS PLAY.
>> IT'S LIKE THAT'S A WEIRD TO FIND.
>> YEAH, THE PRINTOUT WORKS WELL SO IGNORE WHAT'S UP THERE ON MATERIAL.
THE CURRENT PATH, WE WERE LOOKING FOR AN ART PAPER DEVELOPER.
I'VE GIVEN THE TIMELINE IN HERE OF ABOUT 13 MONTHS BEFORE WE BEGIN TO THINK ABOUT CONSTRUCTION.
THERE'S A TIME FOR PROCURING THE MASTER DEVELOPER.
MIKE'S TALKING ABOUT TWO MONTHS.
I'VE GOT 2.5 MONTHS LISTED IN HERE.
THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TIME IN THAT ONCE I SET THE THING OUT ON THE STREET TO GET THEM WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
TAKE A LONG TIME HERE EXECUTING CONTRACTS.
THAT'S ANOTHER MONTH AND A HALF.
IF WE'RE PUTTING THAT ON THE MASTER DEVELOPER, THEN I'M GOING GIVING THEM FIVE MONTHS TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO ALL THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
WE'RE ASKING THEM TO GO OUT AND DO THE REST OF THE INVESTIGATION FOR THE SITE, WHICH INCLUDES ALL THE LIMITATIONS ON IT.
WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUT ON THAT BEACH, WHICH WE HAVE OFF IN THE NORTHWEST, NORTHEAST CORNER, EXCUSE ME.
THE NORTHEAST CORNER, WHICH NOBODY EVER KNOWS ABOUT BECAUSE NOBODY PARKS THERE.
THE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT WE CAN PUT ON THE BEACH BECAUSE OF OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE PUT IN THERE.
THE DISTANCE WE HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM THE SEA WALL WHEN WE BUILD ANYTHING.
[03:00:06]
ALL THOSE THINGS NEED TO BE PUT INTO THAT AND SO I'M GIVING THEM FIVE MONTHS FOR THAT.WAS THE MASTER DEVELOPER DEVELOPING A MASTER PLAN, WHAT I'VE BEEN HEARING SO FAR IS THAT THE MASTER PLAN IS BASICALLY THE SET OF DIRECTION?
>> SO IF THE DEVELOPER IS WRITING HIS OWN SET OF DIRECTIONS, I'M JUST WONDERING HOW THAT WORKS.
>> WELL, THE NOTE I'VE GOT ON THE BOTTOM SAYS THIS OPTION HAS AN INHERENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH THE DEVELOPER WHOSE INTEREST IS MAXIMIZING RETURN ON INVESTMENT OF THE PUBLIC WHOSE INTEREST IS PUBLIC ABIT.
THAT'S THE DOWNSIDE IN MY OPINION.
>> YOU'LL HEAR THAT FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE. THE REASON YOU WANTED ME TO GO FOR AN RFP FOR MASTER DEVELOPER WAS TIME.
WE WANTED TO GET THIS THING IN THE QUICKEST TIME POSSIBLE.
LET'S SAY WE LOOK AT OPTION B, WHICH IS TO ADOPT ONE OF THE EXISTING MASTER PLANS.
THEN WE DON'T HAVE THAT LENGTH OF TIME TO CREATE THE MASTER PLAN AND THEN DO A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT OURSELVES, WE CAN GO OUT AND BEGIN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS AT THAT SAME TIME.
WE NEED TO BE INVOLVED AS A PUBLIC GAG OURSELVES AS IT IS, THEN WE CREATE A DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTUS.
>> BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OPTION B.
>> WHEN YOU SAY ADOPT AN EXISTING A MASTER PLAN AND THEN GO OUT FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, WOULDN'T THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT INFORM THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN AND MODIFY IT TO SOME DEGREE?
>> THE EXISTING MASTER PLAN IS I'VE LOOKED AT THEM. THEY'RE VERY GOOD.
THEY HAVE SOME VERY GOOD IDEAS AND I'D LIKE TO ADOPT THOSE AND WE HAVE TO AMEND THEM.
BUT AMENDING THEM IS A VERY SHORT PROCESS RATHER THAN GOING OUT FOR.
>> BUT WON'T A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS RESULT IN SOME AMENDMENTS?
>> SURE. YOU'RE RIGHT. WE KNOW AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE ANYWAY, JUST BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS ON THE PROPERTY.
WE MAY THEN FIND THINGS THAT THE PUBLIC WANTS, THAT WE ALL WANT THAT WE NEED TO ADD TO THAT MASTER PLAN AND THEN REVISING THAT MASTER PLAN SOMEWHAT INCREASE YOUR PROSPECTUS.
>> PART OF THIS REVISION AND AMENDMENT WOULD INCLUDE WHAT WAS CITED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER IS WHAT'S MISSING.
EVEN CURRENT MASTER PLANS, THAT IS MARKET BASED SOLUTIONS.
>> PERFECT. SIMPLE TERMS, DOESN'T THIS JUST COME DOWN TO, ARE WE PARTNERING WITH SOMEONE TO HELP PAY FOR THIS OR WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT OURSELF?
>> THE IDEA IS THAT WE PARTNER WITH SOMEBODY WHO PAYS FOR IT.
>> WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO PICK ONE OR THE OTHER WITH PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND PUBLIC AMENITIES.
>> WELL, I THINK PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS IMPORTANT, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SET THE PARAMETERS FOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
OTHERWISE, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS GOING TO YIELD A BUNCH OF STUFF THAT DOESN'T YIELD REVENUE FOR THE PERSON THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO DEVELOP THIS.
>> BUT WE'VE DONE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE PAST ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO SEE [OVERLAPPING] THAT PART IS GOOD, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN FOR YET IS ONE THAT AGAIN, INCLUDES MARKET BASED SOLUTIONS IN ORDER TO BE CLEAR ABOUT OUR DIRECTION TO A DEVELOPER.
THAT'S ALL MARKETS BASIS. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR IT? ARE WE GOING TO GET HELP PAYING FOR IT WITH A PERSON ABLE TO INVEST THE MONEY.
>> I THINK THE HOPE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AS IT'S BEEN DELIVERED TO ME IS THAT SOMEBODY'S MAGICALLY GOING TO PAY FOR ALL OF THEIR STUFF OUT THERE AND THEN GIVE US MONEY FOR THE PRIVILEGE.
I GOT TO TELL YOU THAT THAT'S NOT REALISTIC.
>> I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING TO.
WE HAVE WHAT WE WANT TO SEE IN THE PARK, AND WE HAVE WHAT WE HOPE SOMEBODY CAN DO TO HELP US PAY FOR IT AND TO KEEP US FROM HAVING A MASSIVE CAPITAL EXPENSE.
>> IT'S PRETTY HARD RFP TO PUT TOGETHER.
>> WE BRING A LOT TO THE TABLE, A PREMIER SITE.
WELL, WE NEED TO ALL AGREE WHAT WE WANT IN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AS PART OF THAT PROCESS OF ALL OF US AGREEING WHAT WE WANT ON THAT SITE.
THERE HAVE BEEN SOME SUGGESTIONS IN THESE MASTER PLANS IN THE ROGERS PLAN THAT I'LL LOOK THROUGH THAT HAS SOME UNIQUE WAYS OF ACCOMPLISHING THIS.
WELL, A COUPLE OF THINGS THEY HAVE IN THERE THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY WANT, BUT THAT'S THE REASON WE NEED TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN.
THERE'S NO REASON TO GO OUT FOR A FULL BLOWN MASTER PLAN EFFORT SO WE'RE MORE FOCUSED ON THE AMENDMENTS.
[03:05:02]
>> IS GOING OUT FOR [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU START FROM THE BEGINNING.
>> OPTION C IS WE GO OUT FOR A NEW MASTER PLAN.
>> B IS THE ONE WHERE WE ADOPT.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. THESE THREE OPTIONS, I KNOW WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO.
I THINK WE NEED TO ADOPT THE ROGERS MASTER PLAN.
I THINK WE NEED TO DO OPTION B. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE.
I WANT TO SEE WHAT OUR NEXT STEP IS.
>> I WANT TO COMMEND YOU FOR ACTUALLY COMING FORWARD WITH THE IDEA OF HIRING A CONSULTANT TO DO A DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTUS.
>> I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM.
>> WELL THAT'S THE THING. THIS IS BY FAR THE LARGEST PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP THAT GALVESTON WOULD HAVE EVER DONE.
WE DONE THE CONVENTION CENTER. THAT'S GOOD.
BUT THIS ONE HAS THE ABILITY TO BE THE ABSOLUTE ICON FOR THE ISLAND AND YOU'RE RIGHT.
WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL RESOURCE TO HELP WRITE THAT RFP THAT IS GOING TO DEVELOP THE PROPER RESPONSE.
>> IT'S ALSO SOMEBODY WHO'S IN THAT INDUSTRY WHO SPEAKS THE SAME LANGUAGE AS THE DEVELOPER.
>> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IMPERATIVE.
>> I SPEAK CONSTRUCTION LANGUAGE.
I DON'T SPEAK DEVELOPER LANGUAGE, AND IT COMES THROUGH.
>> IT'S FINE. I APPLAUD YOU FOR BRINGING THAT FORWARD.
THIS ONE TAKES THE ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH MASTER AND PROCESS PREVIOUSLY.
YOU GOT MY SUPPORT FOR CLEARLY.
>> RFQ THAT THE PARK BOARD PUT OUT HAD SOME VERY NICE ASPECTS TO IT.
IT WAS ATTRACTIVE. BUT THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF MEAT ON THE BONE.
>> WE NEED THE MEAT ON THE BONE AND, WE NEED IT TO BE ATTRACTIVE.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO THIS FOR A LIVING.
>> DUDLEY. THE WAY THIS ONE READS, WE TALKED ABOUT THE SEPARATION OF THE MASTER PLAN FROM THE FELVER.
THE WAY OPTION B READS, THE CITY WOULD ACTUALLY DO THIS, ADOPT A MASTER PLAN, ENGAGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND ALSO THE CITY WOULD DO THE SECOND PART THERE DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTUS.
>> WE WOULD HIRE THE PROSPECTUS.
>> THE CITY WOULD HIRE THE PROSPECTUS AND ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE INITIATED BY THE CITY AS PART OF BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THIS PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL.
>> WE WOULD HAVE SOME COST IN GETTING THIS PROSPECTIVE WRITTEN AND THE MASTER PLAN SUPPLEMENTED.
NOW HOW MUCH COST I DON'T KNOW.
>> IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH OPTION B, AND WE ADOPT A ROGERS PARTNER'S PLAN AS OUR MASTER PLAN, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO LOGISTICALLY? DOES IT NEED TO COME TO COUNCIL TO VOTE ON THAT?
IF YOU NOT ON BREAK I'LL GET BACK TO YOU NEXT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I WANT TO VOTE ON THIS.
>> BUT THEN I'LL BRING IT BACK TO YOU NEXT MONTH BECAUSE I NEED TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO CAN DO SOME OF THESE THINGS.
THEN YOU SAID THAT IS THE WAY WE'RE DOING VOTE ON.
>> WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS SO THAT WE KNOW WHO'S IN FAVOR, WHO'S NOT.
MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE A TIMELINE IF THAT IS APPROVED, WHAT OUR NEXT STEPS ARE AND WHERE WE'RE HEADING FROM THERE AND THE TIMELINE THAT GOES WITH THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK THE TIMELINE [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK THAT IS OUR SHORTEST TIMELINE.
BY A MONTH, ACCORDING TO MY VERY ROUGH CALCULATIONS, AND THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME MARGIN OF ERROR IN ALL THREE OPTIONS. WE'RE OPTIMISTIC.
>> WHEN WILL YOU BRING BACK DURING THIS PROCESS THE DETAILS THAT WOULD BE OUTLINED FOR US TO PUT OUT FOR AN RFB?
>> IF WE DECIDE TO DO OPTION B, WE WILL BRING YOU SOME STUFF NEXT MONTH.
ALONG WITH VOTING ON DOING IT.
>> I'M GETTING TO WHERE I CAN'T WAIT FOR NEXT MONTH.
>> I AGREE WITH YOU, MARY. OPTION B LOOKS GOOD AND ENABLES US TO USE OUR EXISTING PLANS AND RESOURCES, BUT STILL SEPARATES THE MASTER PLAN FROM THE DEVELOPER.
I THINK IT HITS A LOT OF THE RIGHT THINGS.
>> THE DEVELOPERS CAN BE INTERESTED IN THAT PART OF THE ACREAGE THAT WE WANT TO DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY.
>> SHE'S NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO WANT TO CARE ABOUT THE BABIES ON THE BEACH.
WHAT WE CARE ABOUT THE BABIES ON THE BEACH.
>> COUNCIL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT OPTION B AND POSSIBLY ADOPTION ROGERS PARTNER'S PLAN IS OUR MASTER PLAN TO WORK FROM AND AMEND FROM THERE.
I WANT TO KNOW, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? IF NOT, WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN ACTION ITEM TO GIVE US THE TIME TO LOOK AT THAT NEXT MEETING AND ALSO MORE INFORMATION.
>> [BACKGROUND] BUT DUDLEY CAN START MOVING FORWARD IN ANTICIPATION.
[03:10:02]
IT WAS CONSENSUS THAT STARTED US DOWN THIS RFP PROCESS.
>> LET'S SAY OPTION B, WHATEVER PLAN WE DO ADOPT.
ANY AMENDMENTS, DO WE BRING THOSE AMENDMENTS THAT WE WANT TO SEE FORWARD TO YOU OR WE JUST LET?
>> IF YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO AMEND TO THAT MASTER PLAN, EVERYBODY HAS A COPY OR HAS ACCESS TO A COPY OF THIS ROGERS PLAN? YES. WE JUST SENT IT OUT LAST TIME. LOOK THROUGH IT.
THERE'S POSITIVES. THERE'S NEGATIVES.
TELL US WHAT THE POSITIVE ARE, IF THERE'S A NEGATIVE SO I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.
>> THIS IS ANOTHER THING FROM ALL OF THE THREE PLANS WITH ALL OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT INVOLVED IN IT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TOO FOR US TO DEFINE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
>> WE WILL SET UP A PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT SCHEDULE TO BRING TO YOUR NEXT.
>> THERE'S A PROFIT MARGIN THAT IS INVOLVED IN THIS BECAUSE WE CAN'T OPERATE AND THIS RUNS RIGHT INTO DAN'S PRESENTATION TO US.
THIS IS A REVENUE PRODUCING PARK, AND WE NEED TO TREAT IT AS SUCH.
THESE ARE GOING TO BE OUR CRITERIA.
I WOULD CALL IT AS REVENUE GENERATED PROPERTY. THE PARK THERE.
>> IT IS PARKLAND. WE CANNOT SELL IT.
BUT WE CAN USE PARTS OF IT TO GENERATE REVENUE.
>> AKIN TO A DEVELOPER THAT'S PUTTING IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT HE PUTS IN A PARK.
THE PARK IS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT'S ALSO OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
>> BUT WE HAVEN'T MET DEFINITION WHEN WE GO OUT TO THAT DEVELOPER, THEY NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT.
>> IS THERE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED FROM A POLICY SIDE FROM THIS COUNCIL AND WANT TO CONTINUE DOWN.
WE HEARD FROM JOSH THAT DEVELOPERS NEEDED CLEAR GOALS.
WELL, YOU'VE GOT SOME INITIAL FEEDBACK ON EITHER AMENITIES OR USAGE.
BUT THESE IDEAS OF MAKING THE STATEMENT OF EITHER MAXIMIZING SALES TAX REVENUES, OR MAXIMIZING PROPERTY VALUE.
ARE YOU LOOKING FOR OTHER METRICS OR OTHER GOALS FROM US OR WE RELY ON THE PROSPECTUS?
>> I DON'T WANT TO RELY ON YOU FOR THIS.
BUT ANYTHING YOU GIVE ME, I APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME YOU ALL SPENT AT THIS? ANYTHING I GET WILL BE APPRECIATED, WILL BE CONSIDERED AS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL IS DIRECTING US TO DO.
>> DUDLEY NEXT MEETING, LET'S BE CLEAR. NEXT MEETING.
>> DUDLEY, I APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU'VE DONE.
I REMEMBER WHEN WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS, THERE WAS NOTHING BUT QUESTION MARKS.
>> NOW THESE QUESTION MARKS ARE BOLD.
>> YOU COME A LONG WAY. IT WAS A REALLY WELL THOUGHT OUT PROPOSAL.
I APPRECIATE YOU CONSULTING WITH JOSH EXPERT ON THIS MARKET DEVELOPMENT.
>> NEXT MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON THIS.
JANELLE MAKE A NOTE OF THAT, PLEASE.
NOW, COUNCIL I DON'T WANT TO ADOPTING THE LOOKING AT THE ROGERS PARTNER PLAN, MOVING FORWARD WITH OPTION B, YOU'LL HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON THIS AT OUR APRIL MEETING.
>> YOU HAVE A DEADLINE TO SEND.
>> THEN WE'LL DO A WORKSHOP ON THIS BECAUSE THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
ALSO. DUDLEY, I'VE SENT YOU MINE.
I'VE ALREADY CHOSEN, TOLD YOU WHAT I FEEL WE HAD EVERYBODY ELSE.
>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE IN MIAMI BEACH.
BEGIN TO THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX WHEN WE TALK ABOUT STEWART BRIDGE.
IT IS A COMMERCIAL AND IT IS A PARKING GARAGE.
THERE'S A LOT OF THESE TYPE OF THINGS IN MIAMI.
THIS ONE JUST HAPPENS TO BE VERY PHOTOGENIC.
I'M NOT PROPOSING WE HAVE SOMETHING TALL ON THE SEAWALL, BUT THERE ARE THINGS YOU CAN DO THAT ARE UNIQUE, THAT ARE ATTRACTIVE.
>> I DON'T WANT TO HAVE MY WEDDING DINNER ON TOP OF A PARKING SURFACE, BUT THAT'S UP TO THEM.
>> ESPECIALLY WITH NO RAILING.
>> YOU JUST CAN'T SEE THE WORDS.
>> I SEARCHED FOR THOSE RAILINGS. I FINALLY FOUND THEM.
THEY ARE VERY THIN. THEY ARE THERE.
I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE AUTOMOBILE PROOF, BUT THEY ARE THERE.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? BE SURE TO GET YOUR INPUT TO DUDLEY BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TWO WEEKS.
>> TWO WEEKS, THAT WORK? THE TWO WEEKS?
[03:15:01]
>> YOU NEED TO GET TO HIM AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
>> LEAST IT WAS WHEN WE CAME IN HERE.
>> ONLY TOOK 20 MINUTES LONGER THAN I SAID IT WOULD.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BY THAT TIME.
>> BY THE 10TH. THE 10TH IS PERFECT.
>> COUNCIL, MAKE SURE YOU GET YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE TO BE CANDID, DUDLEY IN THIS FIRST TIME AROUND IS SUPPOSED TO RECEIVE THEM, DIDN'T RECEIVE A LOT.
>> TWO WEEKS BEFORE [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DID INCLUDE EVERY COMMENT FROM COUNCIL IN WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE ON THOSE LIST.
>> [OVERLAPPING] GOT A TIME KEEPER HERE, CAROLINE.
>> HE SAID AT 12:30 WE WERE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE LUNCH IS BEING DELIVERED AT 12:30.
>> WELL, I SAID THAT IT WILL BE HERE AT 12:30, AND WE NEED TO DECIDE, COUNCIL, HOW DO WE WANT TO DO WE WANT TO GO IN NOW TO EXECUTIVE SESSION OR DO YOU WANT TO GET 3D OUT OF THE WAY?
>> EITHER WAY IS FINE WITH ME.
>> EITHER WAY IS FINE WITH ME.
>> LET'S BREAK THEN FOR LUNCH. IT IS 12:30.
WE ARE GOING TO BREAK FOR LUNCH.
[4. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
WE WILL END EXECUTIVE SESSION.4A, PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY.
AN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING PENDING LITIGATION AND OR 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 FOR A ONE DISCUSSION OF THE STATUS OF THE NEW PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE.
IT IS 12:28 WE ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THANK YOU.[BACKGROUND] GOOD AFTERNOON.
TO THOSE WHO IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE WORKSHOP.
WE ARE OUT OF OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION.
[Items 3.D. & 3.N]
MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO ITEM 3D, PLEASE, JANELLE.>> 3D. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE STATUS OF COMMUNITY REVENUE PRODUCING AND TOURIST ORIENTED PARKS, 01, LEGAL IMPLICATIONS. 2, OPERATIONAL BENEFITS, EFFICIENCIES, AND COST SAVINGS, 3 NEXT STEPS.
>>EN. STATUS UPDATE AND TIMING OF VIVID COLLECTION OF HOT TAX TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> VERY GOOD. GO RIGHT AHEAD, DAN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. LAST MEETING, PRESENTED A DISCUSSION WHERE I SUMMARIZED COUNCIL'S QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS RELATED TO HOW WE INTERACT WITH THE PARK BOARD OF THE OPERATION OF OUR PARKS.
AS A RESULT OF THAT, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS THAT WE PASSED ON TO LEGAL TO TRY TO GET SOME GUIDANCE FROM THEM BEFORE ALL COULD PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO US AS STAFF TO ADVANCE DISCUSSIONS ON THE INTERLOCAL.
I'VE GOT THOSE ANSWERS, AND I WANT TO GO OVER THOSE WITH YOU.
QUESTION 1 WAS WAS TWO PART AND IT WAS IS THE CITY'S DELEGATION OF THE PARK BOARD FOR THE MANAGER OF THE CITY PARKS AND SERVICES CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARTER. EASY ANSWER.
YES, IT IS. IT PROBABLY DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF EXPLAINING ON THAT.
IS THE CITY SELLING A PARK WHICH REQUIRES A VOTE FOR STATE LAW BY ALLOWING THE PARK BOARD TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE PARK?
>> NO, IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY SELLING A PARK, BUT THE LIMITATIONS WOULD BE SET BY COUNCIL.
IF WE LET SOMEBODY MANAGE A PARK FOR US, IT'S UP TO COUNCIL TO THE MANDATE AND DICTATE HOW THAT MANAGEMENT OPERATES.
IT'S NOT A SALE OF A PARK, BUT IT WOULD COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH LIMITATIONS.
>> SALE OF A PARK REQUIRES A VOTE?
>> SALE OF A PARK REQUIRES A VOTE?
>> ABSOLUTELY REQUIRES A VOTE.
THAT WAS WHAT DROVE THE QUESTION IS THE CITY DOING INDIRECTLY, WHAT IT CAN'T DO DIRECTLY AND SO THE ANSWER IS NO.
>> QUESTION 2, IS PARK BOARD ABLE TO UTILIZE PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND ITS MANAGEMENT THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED FOR THE CITY TO UTILIZE?
>> YES. THE PARK BOARD DOESN'T FOLLOW OUR RULES.
THEY CAN DO THINGS UNIQUE TO WHAT WE CAN BECAUSE WE HAVE CERTAIN CHARTER RESTRICTIONS
[03:20:04]
THAT DON'T ALLOW THE MANAGER TO DO CERTAIN THINGS AND REALLY DON'T ALLOW COUNCIL TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT US, IS IT AS WE DELEGATE, FOR EXAMPLE, FOR THE PARK BOARD TO MANAGE A PARK FOR US, OR TO OPERATE A PARK FOR US.
IT BEHOOVES THE CITY TO PLACE THE LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS INTO THOSE AGREEMENTS.
SPECIFICALLY, I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT I RAISED DURING THE DISCUSSION LAST TIME IS, CAN THE CITY DO INDIRECTLY, WHAT IT CAN'T DO DIRECTLY? ABSENT US PUTTING RESTRICTIONS IN OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE PARK BOARD, IT APPEARS THAT YOU CAN.
YOU JUST MISS I PASS THE CHARTER.
I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL EVER WANTS TO DO TO FIX THAT.
LEGAL IS PROPOSED THAT WE PUT IN OUR DELEGATION FOR ANY IF WE HAVE FUTURE PARK OPERATIONS BY THE PARK BOARD OR SOMEBODY ELSE, WE PUT IN THERE THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CITY PROCUREMENT RULES CONSISTENT WITH OUR CHARTER.
BUT THE ANSWER IS, YES, THE PARK BOARD HAS ITS OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, ABSENT THE CITY DELEGATING SOMETHING, THEY CAN FOLLOW THEIR OWN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
>> CAN THAT LANGUAGE BE PUT INTO A INTERLOCAL?
>> YES. THAT'S WHERE IT PROBABLY BELONGS IS IN THE INTERLOCAL.
>> I TOLD THE MAYOR WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ALONG.
QUESTION 3, CAN THE COUNCIL OR THE PARK BOARD CONVERT CITY PARK ASSETS TO PROPRIETARY NON-PUBLIC USES THAT COMPETE WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES? YES.
>> WELL, THE ANSWER I GOT FROM LEGAL IS YES.
>> WHAT IS THAT QUESTION, AGAIN?
>> YOU CAN CONVERT THEM, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
>> THE QUESTION WAS, CAN THE COUNCIL OR THE PARK BOARD CONVERT CITY PARK ASSETS TO PROPRIETARY NON-PUBLIC USES THAT COMPETE WITH OTHER LOCAL BUSINESSES.
ABSOLUTELY, YOU CAN COMPETE IF YOU CHOOSE TO WITH LOCAL TAXPAYERS.
THAT IS NOT A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
THAT'S A, WHAT'S IT CALLED, A PROPRIETARY FUNCTION.
IT IS COMPLETELY A POLICY DECISION.
IF COUNCIL CHOOSES IT WANTS TO USE TAX FREE ASSETS AND USE TAX MONEY TO COMPETE WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES, THAT IS A POLICY THAT COUNCIL IS FREE TO CHOOSE TO DO.
>> WHAT IS A PROPRIETARY NON PUBLIC USE SPECIFICALLY?
>> WHICH TALK ABOUT AN RV PARK.
>> THERE'S A CASE ON THIS WHERE THE COLORADO RIVER AUTHORITY, THEY OPENED A [INAUDIBLE] PARK AND RV PARK.
>> INSIDE A CITY PARK THERE'S TWO CASES THAT WE PUT IN THE MO THAT SHOW YOU HOW THE STATE ANALYZE IT.
>> IN BOTH CASES IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT ENTITY CONTRACTING WITH A PRIVATE ENTITY TO RUN AN RV PARK.
IN THE COLORADO WATER AUTHORITY CASE, THEY DETERMINED THAT IT WASN'T TAXABLE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE AT THE RV PARK WERE THERE TO VISIT THE PARK AND THAT THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO CONTRACT FOR SOMEONE TO MANAGE A PARK.
IT'S A NON GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
IT ISN'T THE DELIVERY OF MAIL STREETS AWAY.
BUT THE CITY CAN PUT IT ON ITS LAND AND IT CAN OPERATE IT.
WHAT IT CANNOT DO IS GIVE IT TO A PRIVATE COMPANY TO RUN AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS, NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
>> RV PARK, USING YOUR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, THOUGH.
>> ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC COULD WALK IN, COULD DRIVE IN AND USE IT.
AND IN THE INSTANCE OF DELLANERA PARK, THERE ARE, WHAT?
>> A FEW PUBLIC BECAUSE THAT WAS.
>> BEACH ACCESS SPOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
>> THAT PARK IS CONSIDERED OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
>> THE SECOND CASE THAT I TALKED ABOUT THAT SHOWS IT'S ALSO AN RV PARK NEXT TO A STATE PARK OR A COUNTY PARK, AND IT'S RUN BY A PRIVATE COMPANY, AND THAT'S A SEPARATE CASE IN A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION, MOST OF THE VISITORS THERE WERE NOT GOING TO THE PARK.
IT WAS SEPARATE FROM THE PARK SO THEY DETERMINED IT WAS TAXABLE.
THEY SAY YOU CAN'T DO THIS. THEY SAID IT IS TAXABLE.
[03:25:01]
>> WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC PARKS AND PUBLIC RV PARKS.
BUT WHAT IS A NON PUBLIC PROPRIETARY?
>> FOR INSTANCE A GOLF COURSE, 'CAUSE ONE ASSUMES THAT GOLF COURSES [INAUDIBLE] AS LONG AS IT WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, IT WAS OKAY.
BUT IF IT WAS ONE OF THOSE GOLF COURSES, THAT'S A COUNTRY CLUB TYPE THING, YOU'VE TO JOIN THEN IT'S NOT OPEN.
>> THAT EXPLAINS THE QUESTION.
>> WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE STATE PARK?
>> STATE PARK IS A VERY LARGE PARK RIGHT ON THE WEST END.
IT'S NOT PRIMARILY AN RV PARK, YET IT HAS RV SPOTS.
IT DOESN'T FUNCTION AS AN RV PARK, IT FUNCTIONS TO PROVIDE RV PARKING AS AN ANCILLARY USE.
>> COME TO THE PARK. I THINK THEY PAY FOR THE SPOT.
>> IT IS A STATE PARK FIRST THAT HAS RV PARKING SPACES.
>> YES, IT IS AN AMENITY AT THE PARK.
>> IT WOULD NOT BE ANYTHING LIKE IT'S NOT AN AMENITY OF THE PARK, IT IS AN RV PARK, EXCLUSIVELY.
AGAIN, THIS IS BACK TO A POLICY DECISION OF COUNCIL.
DO Y'ALL WANT AND BELIEVE THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF COMPETING WITH LOCAL BUSINESSES? YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO IT.
BUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE IS, WE NEED GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL.
THERE WAS ONE OTHER QUESTION IT CAME UP.
CAN CITY TAX DOLLARS BE USED TO OPERATE BUSINESSES AND COMPETE DIRECTLY? YEAH SO THEY CAN.
AGAIN, EVERY ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME OUT OF THE TOPICS THAT COUNCIL RAISED, COUNCIL CAN DO IT, CITY CAN DO IT, BUT THOSE ARE ALL POLICY DECISIONS OF COUNCIL.
WHAT STAFF'S BEEN ASKING FOR SOME TIME, AND I THINK WE'RE WELL ON OUR WAY NOW IS, YOU RECEIVE THAT GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL BECAUSE WE CAN'T NEGOTIATE AND INTERLOCAL WITH THE PARK BOARD UNTIL WE RECEIVE GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL ON, HOW YOU WANT TO DO THINGS? HOW COUNCIL WANTS STAFF TO NEGOTIATE, AND DOES COUNCIL BELIEVE THAT PARKS, FOR EXAMPLE, OUGHT TO BE OPERATED CERTAIN WAYS? DO WE INTERJECT A THIRD PARTY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OPERATION, INSTEAD OF KEEPING IT ON THE CITY'S BOOKS AND THE CITY OPERATING IT, AND THE DUPLICATIVE SERVICES, IF YOU REMEMBER, I USED THAT TERM LAST TIME, ARE ELIMINATED.
THOSE SAVINGS WOULD GO TO THE CITY.
SO REALLY, EVERYTHING WE DO OR POLICY DECISIONS GET DOWN TO SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING FOR Y'ALL TO TELL US AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE.
WE ARE HAMSTRUNG, HANDS ARE TIED IN NEGOTIATING INTERLOCAL UNTIL WE RECEIVE THAT TYPE OF DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL.
>> I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE INTERLOCAL DIRECTION HERE.
[INAUDIBLE] STATE THAT AGAIN, DAM.
>> IT GETS DOWN TO THE QUESTIONS OF WE'VE HAD COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SAY THAT WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE PARK BOARD OPERATING DELLANERA PARK, WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE THE PARK BOARD OPERATING SEAWOLF PARK, THAT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THE CITY CAN OPERATE DIRECTLY.
WE JUST NEED GUIDANCE FROM THE COUNCIL ON WHICH YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
>> WE'RE FINE EITHER WAY, GUYS. JUST TELL US WHICH ONE.
>> THOSE ARE BIG POLICY DECISIONS.
AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO OPERATE OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT ON A LIMITED BUDGET, THE REVENUES THAT BE CREATED IN THOSE PARKS CAN GO TO OFFSET THE GENERAL FUND EXPENSES TO OPERATE OUR PARKS.
RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOT A THIRD PARTY TAKING SOME OF THOSE FUNDS FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT THAT ARE UNAVAILABLE TO OUR PARK DEPARTMENT.
>> QUESTION I HAVE THEN, I HEAR A LOT, SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE CONTACTED ME.
POSSIBLY THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DATA FOR THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION RIGHT NOW.
THEY WANT TO SEE SOMEWHAT OF, IF THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE THOSE OVER, DO YOU HAVE A BUSINESS PLAN TO SHOW HOW MUCH MORE THE CITY COULD BRING TO THE CITY FOR THAT AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
>> I THINK THAT RIGHT OFF THE TOP, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS, YOU'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE THE SERVICES THAT ARE DUPLICATED BY HAVING SOMEBODY ELSE AROUND THE PARK.
WE ALREADY HAVE A FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
WE ALREADY HAVE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
THE STAFF THAT WORK AT THE PARK WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SAME.
WE JUST WOULDN'T NEED THE MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE THAT SUPPORTS THOSE STAFF.
THE ACCOUNTING SIDE AT THE PARK BOARD THAT DOES ALL THOSE.
SO THAT WOULD BE EASY ENOUGH TO IDENTIFY.
AGAIN, IT'S BACK TO A POLICY DECISION ON COUNCIL.
WHAT DOES COUNCIL WANT TO DO WITH OUR PARKS? ARE WE OPERATING THEM JUST TO GENERATE REVENUE, ARE WE OPERATING THEM TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND VISITORS TO GO TO AND ENJOY SOME OF OUR PRIME ASSETS?
[03:30:01]
THOSE ARE ABSOLUTE POLICIES.WE DON'T OPERATE, AT LEAST AT A STAFF LEVEL, AS A WAY THAT WE DON'T OPERATE TO MAKE MONEY.
WE'RE NOT FOR PROFIT BUSINESS AND THAT'S A VERY AWKWARD THING FOR US TO THINK ABOUT.
WE OPERATE OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS TO BREAK EVEN; TO BUILD A DECENT FUND BALANCE BUT TO BREAK EVEN.
PARKS DEPARTMENT IS A STONE LOSER.
IT'S MUCH LIKE OPERATING TRANSIT.
THESE ARE THINGS YOU DO AS A GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE NICE THINGS FOR OUR CITIZENS, RECREATIONAL AREAS FOR OUR CITIZENS.
WE ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BEING BUSINESS PEOPLE.
THAT'S THAT'S NOT WHAT A CITY DOES.
>> TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, IF WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION, A POTENTIAL CHANGE FROM CURRENT OPERATION, THEN WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, AND YOU POINTED TO, IT WOULD BE EASY TO GET.
I THINK THE PIECE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS, OKAY, THIS IS THE CURRENT OPERATION, THIS IS THE CURRENT FISCAL IMPACT OF THIS OPERATION UNDERNEATH THIS MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE, HERE IS WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE UNDER A DIFFERENT MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE.
THAT WAY, WE HAVE AT LEAST A FISCAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL IDEA IN ORDER TO INFORM A POTENTIAL POLICY CHANGE.
>> I THINK WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION A COUPLE OF TIMES AND WE GET THESE LITTLE TIP BITS OF INFORMATION, BUT TO HAVE THAT COMPREHENSIVE VIEW SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE BENEFITS OR THE CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH POLICIES.
>> BUT REMEMBER, IT STILL GETS BACK TO WHAT DIRECTION DOES THIS COUNCIL WANT TO STAKE FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE OF HOW DO YOU WANT TO OPERATE OUR PARKS? REMEMBER, I BROKE THE PARKS DOWN INTO FOUR TYPES LAST TIME?
>> RECREATIONAL, REVENUE, AND SO ON.
IS IT THIS COUNCIL'S POSITION GOING TO BE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE THESE PURE FOR PROFITS TO OFFSET PARK COSTS ACROSS OUR PARK SYSTEM? IS THAT WHAT YOUR POLICY WANTS TO BE? I WOULD SAY THAT OPERATING THE PARKS THE WAY THE PARK BOARD DOES IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY.
IT MAY BE THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU RIGHT OFF THE TOP IS THERE'S CERTAIN EXPENSES WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO INCUR.
THERE'S A BLENDED OPERATION AT SEAWALL PARK.
THE PARK BOARD IS IN BUSINESS WITH THE KALALA FOUNDATION.
THAT'S A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP THEY DEVELOP THAT ON CITY PROPERTY, AND THAT IS INTERTWINED WITH THE OPERATION OF THAT PARK.
AGAIN, WE CAN CERTAINLY COME UP WITH INFORMATION.
AT A MINIMUM, WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS, IF WE DECIDE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE A THIRD PARTY OPERATED, IS THE PARK BOARD THE BEST PARTY TO OPERATE IT? DO YOU GET AN RV OPERATOR, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IS IN THE RV BUSINESS TO OPERATE DELLANERA, AND THE CITY HAS A CERTAIN CASH FLOW STREAM FROM THEM BECAUSE WE DO IT LIKE POCKET PARK 2, WE LEASE OUT THE OPERATIONS, WE HAVE A GUARANTEED REVENUE SOURCE.
I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S AN OPTION FOR COUNCIL POLICY DECISION.
SEAWALL PARK, DO YOU MODIFY THE PARK TO MAKE IT MORE WELCOMING DUE TO ADDITIONAL THINGS FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC VERSUS IT BEING OPERATED IN A MANNER THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH GENERATING CASH FLOW TO CREATE A BUSINESS? THOSE ARE POLICY DECISIONS.
WE CAN CERTAINLY TELL YOU WHAT DUPLICATE TYPE SERVICES COULD BE ELIMINATED.
BUT IT'S ONLY A SMALL PIECE OF IT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO COUNCIL TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION ON, WHERE DO YOU WANT TO PLACE THAT PARK? IS IT GOING TO BE A REVENUE PARK? IS IT GOING TO BE A RECREATIONAL PARK? JUST WHAT IS IT GOING TO BE? BECAUSE THERE'S COST THAT COME ALONG WITH THAT.
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT DAVID WAS SAYING.
FROM A DECISION MAKER'S PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD NEED TO SEE A BUSINESS PLAN SIDE BY SIDE OF PARK.
WE WERE BOTH TALKING ABOUT EXACT SAME SCOPE OF WORK, ALL THE MAINTENANCE, CAPITAL COSTS, REVENUE OVERHEAD ADMINISTRATION, STAFFING, BENCHMARKS, PERFORMANCE GOALS, PROJECTIONS OF DATA SIDE BY SIDE, TO SEE, LIKE AN RFP, I GUESS BECAUSE WHAT'S THE PARK BOARD'S OPERATION AND WHAT'S THE CITY'S PLAN FOR OPERATING IT, GIVEN THE SAME BASELINES, IS WHAT I WOULD WANT TO SEE.
BUT ANOTHER THING IS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT COMPETITION, DO WE WANT TO COMPETE? THE PARK BOARD'S MODEL IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE MONEY GENERATED BY THESE PARKS IS USED TO MAINTAIN THE PARKS AND FOR ANY CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVES.
THEY DON'T MAKE A PROFIT. THERE'S NOT A THING UP THERE THAT'S PROFIT.
IT'S ANYTHING THAT THEY DO OUTSIDE OF JUST THE REGULAR MAINTENANCE THAT THEY'RE CHARGED WITH DOING, WHICH WOULD BE SOME CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS TO MAKE A PROFIT, THEY'RE IN THE BUSINESS TO OPERATE THESE THINGS AND MAINTAIN THEM IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY'RE ATTRACTED TO THE TOURISTS, WHICH IN TURN DRIVES THE HOT,
[03:35:02]
WHICH IN TURN BRINGS BACK MORE MONEY TO THEM TO DO WHAT THEY'VE BEEN CHARGED TO DO.>> HOW DOES IT DRIVE HOT THOUGH? IF YOU'RE IN RV, HOW DOES IT DRIVE?
>> NO HOT COLLECTED AT DELLANERA.
>> NOT HOT COLLECTED SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID THERE.
HOT COMES FROM HEADS ON [INAUDIBLE].
>> I KNOW. YOUR AMENITIES AND YOUR PARK QUALITY DRIVES TOURISTS.
IT BRINGS THE TOURISTS TO THEM.
THE SEAWALL PARK IS 96% TOURISTS, AND DELLANERA IS ALMOST 100% TOURIST.
>> THAT DOESN'T DRIVE HOT. HOT IS HEAD.
>> IT DOES. IT BRINGS MORE PEOPLE IS WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU HAVE A RUNDOWN LOCATION, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET TOURISTS TO COME.
IF YOUR LOCATION IS ATTRACTIVE AND IT'S GOT AMENITIES LIKE AN RV PARK AND AN EFFICIENT [INAUDIBLE], OR WHATEVER, THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO ATTRACT TOURISTS.
THE MORE TOURISTS YOU HAVE, THE MORE HOT YOU HAVE. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE BECAUSE THERE'S DAY TRIPPERS THAT COME DOWN JUST TO FISH.
AT SEAWOLF PARK, IT'S BEEN A STICK, BUT I THINK DAN IS POINTING OUT THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.
ONE, I BELIEVE, IF THE CITY RAN IT, WE SHOULD GIVE MORE AND THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO WITH PARKS THAT AREN'T BEACH PARKS.
WE CAN GIVE, WHICH WE ALREADY DO AT SOME ASPECT, FREE ENTRY TO RESIDENTS.
>> I KNOW THAT. WE AS IN THE CITY OR WE AS IN THE PARK BOARD.
>> YOU ARE NOT A PARK BOARD TRUSTEE.
YOU ARE A LIAISON FROM THE COUNCIL.
>> I'M A TRUSTEE. I VOTE ANYWAY.
>> I GOT COUNCIL PEOPLE THAT CALLED ME THAT DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA ITEM FOR THE JOINT MEETING AND I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL DISCUSS THESE THINGS BECAUSE INSTEAD OF WHICH HAPPENED NOW BECAUSE OF A CANCELED MEETING, AND EVEN STAFF TOLD ME NOT TO DO IT BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL THE DECISION MAKERS AT THE TABLE.
NOW IT'S TWO PEOPLE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CORNERS DOING THIS, AND THERE'S NO COLLABORATION.
INSTEAD OF MEETING, WE'VE DONE THIS THING WHERE NOW THERE'S PARK BOARD TRUSTEES SAYING THAT WE ALL JUST LISTEN TO THE GOSPEL OF DAN BUCKLEY.
ALSO, PUNCHING, BREAK A BRICK WALL, OR IN A DEFENSIVE MODE, TURMOIL, ALL THOSE WORDS ARE JUST NOT CONDUCIVE TO WORKING TOGETHER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO.
THE PARK BOARD WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED NOT TO COMPETE WITH BUSINESSES, NOT TO TELL PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY, NOT TO BUILD A HOTEL IN '63.
THIS ALL AS MISSION CREEP IS BEING ADDRESSED, AND HERE WE ARE, ARGUING WITH.
JUST LET'S LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY.
SEE HOW THE CITY CAN OPERATE IT, HOW THIS VISION IS.
WE ALL NEED TO MAKE A DECISION.
AGAIN, DAN SAID RIGHT OFF THE TOP.
THERE'S DUPLICATIVE SERVICES. THERE PROBABLY IS.
BUT HOW DO WE FUNCTION AND DO THAT? INSTEAD OF FIGHTING AND COMPLAINING, LET'S GET EVERYBODY TOGETHER.
WE CAN HEAR THE BUSINESS PLAN FROM THE CITY, WE CAN LOOK AT IT.
IT CAN GIVE US OPTIONS LIKE WE DID WITH THE STEWART BEACH MASTER PLAN.
HE'S ALREADY BROKEN IT DOWN INTO FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND HOW HE VIEWS IT.
I AGREE AND DISAGREE, AND WE CAN CHANGE THAT, HOW WE WANT TO.
HE'S ASKING, WE NEED TO STEP UP AND SAY, WHAT WE WANT.
I DON'T THINK GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE COMPETING WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS.
I THINK THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE.
USE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS UNLESS IT IS A SMALL TOWN SOMEWHERE WITH NOT A SINGULAR THING TO DO.
>> I AGREE WE SHOULDN'T COMPETE WITH PRIVATE BUSINESS.
THE COUNCIL, I GUESS, APPROVED AN RV PARKS AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST.
>> DELLANERA, HE DIDN'T SAY SEAWALL.
>> IN SOME CASES, LET'S SAY THE RV PARK AT SEAWOLF PARK, THE PARK BOARD TRIED TO SEND AN RV FOR AN RV PARK JUST TO TEST THE WATERS, AND THEY ONLY GOT BACK ONE RESPONSE, AND IT DIDN'T BRING ENOUGH MONEY BACK TO THE CITY TO MAKE IT VIABLE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER THIS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS INSTEAD OF ONE BLANKET.
EVERYTHING CONSTITUTES COMPETING WITH THE LOCAL VENDORS BECAUSE IT MAY BE THE CASE WHERE THERE WOULD BE A OPPORTUNITY FOR AN AMENITY SOMEWHERE THAT THE MARKET CAN'T HANDLE, CAN'T DO IT.
IT MAY BE THAT WE CAN PUT SOMETHING IN THERE,
[03:40:03]
BUT THE MARKET CAN'T.I WOULD ALSO PROPOSE THAT THE CITY NOW OWNS GARDEN RYAN, YOU COULD SAY IT'S COMPETING WITH OTHER LOCAL VENUES.
>> THAT IS A PART OF THIS CONVERSATION, TOO.
AGAIN, AS MUCH REVENUE IT GENERATES, IT'S MORE OF A SERVICE THAT WE OFFER.
BUT MAYBE THERE'S A WAY THAT ONCE WE DO THE REPAIRS, WE CAN CUT THAT COST OUT OF OUR OPERATING BY HAVING A CONTRACT DONE WITH A PRIVATE VENDOR WHO CAN DO THAT THING.
>> WELL, THE VENDOR THEY'RE DOING THE STUFF THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO AT SOME POINT.
THE CITY CODE SAYS PARK BOARD MAY ACQUIRE, IMPROVE, ENLARGE LAND AND BUILDINGS FOR USES PUBLIC PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS, HISTORICAL MUSEUMS, AS WELL AS LAND OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
IT ALSO STATES THAT PARK BOARD SHALL IMPROVE, MANAGE, OPERATE, MAINTAIN, EQUIP, AND FINANCE PARKS AND FACILITIES UNDER ITS MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PARKS AND FACILITIES AS ACQUIRED BY GIFT. THAT'S JUST PART OF IT.
WE ARE THE COUNCIL THAT SAYS YOU MANAGE THIS.
IF WE DON'T LIKE SOME MANAGEMENT ASPECT OF IT, OR IF WE THINK IT COULD BE DONE BETTER, WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE SEARCHING FOR EFFICIENCIES EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE WAY.
>> EVERY STEP OF THE WAY. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S SOME BACKLASH OR RESISTANCE FROM THE PARK BOARD, BUT I WANTED TO DISCUSS THIS.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY WAS AWARE OF.
I MADE IT AWARE OF THE LAST JOINT MEETING WE HAD.
HEY, THIS IS THE TALK THAT WE'RE HAVING AT THE CITY.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT COLLECTING THE HOT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PARKS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS.
>> FOR SOME OF THEM, I GUESS, IT'S SCARY.
BUT FOR ME, IT'S JUST BASIC PRINCIPLES OF BEING EFFICIENT IN GOVERNMENT.
>> I THINK THE PARK BOARD AGREES.
THEY WOULD LOVE TO DO WHAT I DESCRIBED EARLIER.
THAT IS, COME UP WITH A BUSINESS PLAN THAT COMPARES TWO DIFFERENT PROPOSALS.
>> BUT WE DID WITH ALL OF THIS POLITICAL JOCKEYING INSTEAD OF JUST DIVING INTO IT AND SAYING, HEY, WHY DON'T YOU ALL PRESENT YOUR THINGS? I THINK IT'S QUIET QUIET, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THE CITY DIRECTION TO SAY, GIVE US A BUSINESS PLAN, GIVE US WHAT YOU THINK.
WE CAN CHANGE, DAVID SAID IT, BUT I THINK THEY NEED DIRECTION.
YOU CAN'T JUST SIT HERE AND PUT IT OUT THERE AND NOT DO ANYTHING. WE GOT TO DO SOMETHING THAT.
>> TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE PARKS.
CURRENTLY, THE CITY HAS ALL THE PARKS THAT DON'T GENERATE.
WE ASSUME ALL THE COSTS, AND WE ALL KNOW IT'S A LOSS LEADER.
THEY HAVE THE PARKS, GRANTED, NOT GIVEN THEM, THEY CAME BY COUNCIL THE PARKS THAT CAN GENERATE REVENUE THAT BENEFIT US IN A SMALL WAY.
BUT WE HAVE THE EXPENSE OF ALL THE OTHER PARKS.
I APPRECIATE WHAT PROJECT ROSENBERG HAS DONE, BUT I HAVE YOUNG FAMILIES CALL ME AND SAY, EVEN OUR PARKS HAVE EQUIPMENT THAT IS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE.
THIS IS ABOUT BEING EFFICIENT AND LEVERAGING OUR TOURIST-DRIVEN ASSETS SO WE CAN BETTER BENEFIT THE RESIDENTS.
>> I WILL GIVE GERALD WILSON A GOLD STAR FOR THE LAST MEETING BECAUSE HE SAID SOMETHING THAT I TAKE NEAR AND DEAR TO ME.
THAT IS THE NORTH STAR FOR ALL OF US SHOULD BE OUR RESIDENTS AND TAXPAYERS.
>> THE PARK BOARD, LIKE I SAID, WHAT YOU AND DAVID HAVE DESCRIBED AS WANTING TO SEE AND I'VE ALSO SAID THE SAME THING, THE BUSINESS PLAN.
I THINK THE PARK BOARD WILL BE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO DO THE SAME THING, PRESENT A BUSINESS PLAN AND HAVE THESE TWO THINGS SIDE BY SIDE.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION ABOUT WHICH WAY TO GO WITH ALL THIS.
>> THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE WAY THE GOVERNMENT DOES BUSINESS. YOU UNDERSTAND? TYPICALLY, IF WE HAVE A PARK THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY TO MANAGE, WE WOULD PUT OUT AN ADVERTISEMENT ON THE STREET FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN AND MAKE A PROPOSAL FOR THAT.
AGAIN, POLICY DECISION IS, DO YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE OTHER OPERATORS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE PARK BOARD? YOU CAN DO THAT.
>> THIS IS AN ORGANIZATION WE ALREADY HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH AND WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO GET AROUND TO IS HOW DO WE WRITE THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT?
>> BUT WHAT I WAS SAYING IS IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE WITH THE PARK BOARD.
IT MAY BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY TO HAVE ANOTHER PARTY OPERATE DELLANERA, ANOTHER PARTY OPERATES SEAWOLF PARK.
WHATEVER BENEFITS OUR TAXPAYERS IS WHAT WE AT THE CITY TRY TO STRIVE.
[03:45:01]
BUT AGAIN, THAT'S A POLICY DECISION.IF YOU ALL TELL US TO GO DOWN ROAD B, WE GO DOWN ROAD B.
YOU TELL US GO DOWN ROAD A, WE DO THAT.
THE LACK OF THAT DIRECTION HAS GOTTEN US WHERE WE ARE.
BUT BEFORE WE COULD DO THAT, I WOULD PREFER TO SEE HOW THE PARK BOARD OPERATION COMPARES TO YOUR PROPOSAL AND LET'S JUST SAY, WE WANT TO CHANGE THIS AND WE WANT TO CHANGE THAT IN THE INTERLOCAL, OR WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY THE PARK BOARD IS DOING IT AT ALL.
>> LET ME INTERJECT HERE, COUNCIL, WE COULD GO ROUND AND ROUND ON THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, DAN, THE INTERLOCAL, IS EVERYTHING PRETTY WELL PUT TOGETHER OTHER THAN CERTAIN ITEMS?
>> NO. THE INTERLOCAL NEEDS TO BE GONE THROUGH, BUT WE NEED DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL ON HOW WE NEGOTIATE IT.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THE PARK BOARD DOES THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S IN QUESTION ABOUT WHAT WE CONTINUE WITH THOSE TYPE OF SERVICES.
BUT I THINK WE NEED DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL ON THE PARKS.
YOU'VE TOLD STAFF TO GO AND TRANSFER THE COLLECTION OF THE SHORT TERM REGISTRATION FEE BACK TO STAFF.
WE HAVE CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE DIRECTED US AND WE'VE HEARD DISCUSSION TO TRY AND MOVE THE HOT COLLECTIONS BACK TO THE CITY.
WE'RE ALREADY THEORETICALLY WORKING ON THAT, BUT WE NEED DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL BECAUSE THOSE ARE INTEGRAL TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.
>> DAN, THE WAY MY MIND WORKS, I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THOSE AREAS ARE IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT'S HOLDING THIS UP AND YOU NEED COUNCIL'S INPUT.
NUMBER 2, THEN LET COUNSEL LOOK AT THESE AND SEE HOW WE WANT TO APPROACH EACH ONE OF THOSE.
NOW, THIS PARK SITUATION HERE, WE'LL DISCUSS IT AT THE WORKSHOP AND VOTE ON IT IMMEDIATELY.
THIS IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME IN MY MIND TO SORT THIS OUT.
I THINK MEETING GIVE MORE DATA, AS YOU CAN SEE, SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO SEE MORE DATA ON A BUSINESS PLAN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEIR SERVICES WE'RE ALREADY DOING AND SO FORTH.
I'D LIKE TO SEE DOLLAR AND CENTS WISE, HOW MUCH BETTER THAT WOULD BE.
I DON'T KNOW. IS IT $100,000? IS IT $500,000?
>> I THINK THE BEST EXAMPLE I COULD SHOW YOU, AND WE COULDN'T LOOK AT IT FROM A PER DATA DRIVEN PERSPECTIVE WAS THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COUNTY PARKS.
THEY WERE ALL UNDER THE PARK BOARD.
COUNTY TRANSFERRED THOSE UNDER CITY MANAGEMENT.
THEY CONTINUALLY LOST MONEY BEFORE THEY WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY, AND WE BUILT UP FUND BALANCES SINCE WE TOOK THOSE PARKS OVER.
THAT IS A CLEAR EVIDENCE OF HOW EFFICIENT THE CITY CAN OPERATE THE SAME PARKS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING A STEWART BEACH DEVELOPMENT.
THAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE CITY TAKING OVER THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT PARK.
>> CASE BY CASE BASIS I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT THERE.
>> THAT'S FINE. I GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDITS DUE.
THE USE OF STEWART BEACH FOR ZOPPE CIRCUS, I WAS A CRITIC.
IT GOT RAVE REVIEWS, AND THEY LOVED IT.
I DON'T THINK THAT THIS PRECLUDES THEM FROM DOING SOMETHING CONTINUOUS IF WE DO TAKE BACK SOME OF THE PARKS AND OPERATE THEM FROM THE CITY LEVEL.
BUT WE CAN'T JUST DO THIS AMBIGUITY STUFF WHICH HAS HAPPENED AND DAN'S RIGHT.
MAYOR SAID IT LAST TIME, PREVIOUS COUNCIL SAID, DO WHAT YOU WANT AND THAT'S NOT HOW I WANT TO OPERATE.
I WANT TO BE HANDS-ON AND NOT MICROMANAGING, BUT BE HANDS-ON.
LET'S FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO BETTER AND JUST BE MORE EFFICIENT.
>> POINT BLANK, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE ADVANTAGEOUS OPPORTUNITIES THAT YOU SEE AS FAR AS PARKS THAT WE COULD MANAGE, NAME THE PARKS?
>> HOW HARD IS THAT YOU-ALL? WE CAN EXPERIMENT, WE CAN PROPOSE, WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH.
>> IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE OTHER PARKS, INCLUDING A PARK IN MY DISTRICT THAT HAS SEEN ZERO LOVE, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY YEARS, AND WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A FUND BALANCE IN DELLANERA OR SEAWOLF PARK THAT CAN HELP OFFSET OUR COST OF A NO INCOME PARK GIVING BACK TO OUR RESIDENTS.
WHY ARE WE NOT MAKING THAT MOVE? WHY DO WE HAVE TO HAVE SO MUCH EXPERIMENTATION AND PRESENTATIONS AND COMPARISONS?
[03:50:03]
IT'S TO ME, VERY SIMPLE AND CUT AND DRY.>> BARBARA IS HERE, AND OBVIOUSLY OUR PARKS DIRECTOR, AND SHE CAN GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF IT.
>> FIRST OF ALL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR ME OUT OF THOSE FUNDS.
I'M ALREADY GETTING THE PAYCHECK.
I ALREADY HAVE HIRED A REVENUE GENERATING MANAGER WHO'S OVER THE POCKET PARKS AND ANY REVENUE THAT COMES IN THROUGH OUR CONCESSIONAIRES OR ANYTHING.
HE OVERSEES THAT AND SPECIAL PROJECTS. THANK YOU.
WE ALREADY HAVE THAT GENTLEMAN.
WE ALSO HAVE ONE THAT A YOUNG LADY THAT'S BEING PAID PORTION OUT OF THE POOL, PORTION OUT OF POCKET PARKS, WHO I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO THE POCKET PARKS BECAUSE THEY'RE GROWING.
WE'VE OPENED UP POCKET PARK 3.
WE'VE ALREADY PUT A PORTAL IT'S DOWN THERE.
WE'RE TRYING TO GET A CONCESSIONAIRE DOWN THERE.
WE'D LIKE TO BUILD THAT FUND BALANCE UP, SO EVENTUALLY, MAY WE CONSTRUCT AN OPEN AIR PAVILION TO OFFER MORE AMENITIES DOWN ON THE BEACH.
POCKET PARK 2, WE SHOULD BE BRINGING YOU THAT CONTRACT NEXT MONTH TO COUNCIL.
WE HAVE TO DO SOME MAJOR REPAIRS AFTER HURRICANE BARREL.
POCKET PARK 1, EVERYBODY LOVES IT.
THEY WANT TO DRIVE ON THE BEACH, THEY WANT TO PARK.
WE'VE ALREADY GOT A MOTION IN PLACE.
WE'D LIKE TO SEE DELLANERA OUT FOR A THIRD PARTY TO RUN IT.
WELL, WE JUST RECEIVE A CHECK, AND WE JUST DO SPOT CHECKS.
WE HAVE A CHECKLIST AND WE GO OUT AND WE HAVE A CONCESSIONAIRE WHO'S LIKE A POCKET PARK 2, WE CHECK OFF, IT'S WEEKLY.
THERE'S SOME THINGS I THINK WE COULD DO OVER AT SEAWOLF PARK.
I'D LOVE TO SEE ANOTHER OPEN AIR PAVILION OF SOME SORT.
>> WE HAVE THOSE NUMBERS ACCESSIBLE TO US.
WE HAVE THE NUMBERS AND HAVE BEEN PRESENTED THE NUMBERS OF WHAT DELLANERA AND WHAT SEAWOLF PARK HAS BROUGHT IN OVER THE YEARS.
I GUESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING AGAIN, THIS NEED FOR ANALYSIS, THIS NEED FOR PRESENTATION AND SEEING THE NUMBERS. THE NUMBERS ARE THERE.
WE NEED TO ACT AS A COUNCIL, THAT'S WHO WE ARE.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE NEED WHEN THE INFORMATION IS ALREADY THERE.
>> WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE PARK BOARD.
>> YES, WE HAVE HEARD FROM ON THE PARK BOARD.
>> NO, IT'S OKAY. WE DO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES ON THE PARKING.
WE CHARGE THE SAME AMOUNT AS THE PARK BOARD.
WE MATCH UP WITH THEM EVERY YEAR.
WE WORK IN COLLABORATION TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE SAME PAYING PAGE THAT THEY ARE.
WE TAKE CREDIT CARDS, WE TAKE CASH.
>> THOSE BEACH RATES ARE VOTER APPROVAL.
YOU MENTIONED YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MOVE FORWARD.
>> WELL, I'M RECOMMENDING WHAT OUR STAFF IS BASICALLY SAYING, I WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT WE TAKE OVER DELLANERA AND SEAWOLF PARK.
>> I'D LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD JUST WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PARK BOARD ABOUT THIS JUST TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO IN PARTICULAR, JUST THESE TWO PARTS.
LET'S JUST SAY RESPONDING TO ALEX.
I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS WITH US SO WE CAN ASK THEM QUESTIONS.
>> THEY HAD THE CHANCE WITH THE JOINT MEETING.
HOW MANY MORE TIMES? CHANCE AFTER CHANCE.
WE GOT TWO ITEMS FROM GLENN THAT ARE TELLING US THAT MAYBE SOMETHING'S NOT RIGHT.
WE'RE LACKING INTELLECTUAL HONESTY HERE, THAT WHEN WE HAVE PROBLEMS, WE ADDRESS THEM EXPEDITIOUSLY, QUICKLY, AND WITH FORCE AND VIGOR, NOT SIT AROUND AND JUST SAY, WE'LL CHANGE A POLICY.
THIS IS A PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE BEEN FACING.
IT IS A PROBLEM THAT REARED ITS UGLY HEAD, AND IT'S NOT MEANT FOR FODDER.
IT'S MEANT FOR AT THE TIME WE TRANSFERRED HOT TAX OVER TO THE PARK BOARD.
IT WAS PROBABLY GOOD BECAUSE OUR FINANCES WEREN'T GREAT AT THE CITY AT THE TIME.
NOW, WE'VE 10 TIMES WHAT WE COLLECTED BACK THEN, COLLECT NOW.
THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE, AND WE HAVE A DUTY TO THE TAXPAYERS TO FIX IT.
THIS FALLS UNDER ALL THE SAME KIND OF THINGS.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO MAXIMIZE OUR BOTTOM LINE FOR THE RESIDENTS? I AGREE WITH BEAU. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT.
WE'VE DONE IT WITH THE POCKET PARKS, WE'VE PROVEN.
[03:55:02]
I WROTE ARTICLES BACK BACK IN TIME, WHERE THE HIGHEST PARKING REVENUE GENERATED AT THE BEACH PARKS 2012-2019, PRE COVID WAS 2012, AND WE DOUBLED OUR PARKING RATE IN 2016.HOW WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE COMING DOWN TO THE ISLAND EVERY SINGLE YEAR, BUT WE CAN'T INCREASE OUR REVENUE EARNED AT THE BEACH PARKS.
IT IS A CONTROL PROBLEM, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO BACK INTO THE PAST, BUT IF I SEE A WAY FORWARD, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE EASIEST, MOST EFFICIENT, BEST FOR THE TAXPAYERS WAY FORWARD.
ALL THIS TIME WASTING ON, YOU PUT TOO MANY, WE MOVED OUR MEETINGS TO A SPECIFIC DAY, SO WE ALL HAD MORE TIME.
I TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE WHEN THIS ITEM WAS ON A JOINT MEETING AND THE CHAIRMAN SAYS, YOU, MAYOR, AND HIM, WORKED ON FIVE ITEMS, WHICH WERE PAT ME ON THE BACK ITEMS AND NOT DISCUSSING THE ACTUAL THINGS THAT POLICYMAKERS NEED TO DISCUSS.
THE DISPOSITION OF THESE TWO PARKS IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, AND THAT WAS NOT ON ANY AGENDA PROPOSAL.
[OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] IT'S A UNIVERSAL AND GLOBAL THING.
ARE YOU GOING TO REPRESENT THE CITY COUNCIL OR ARE YOU GOING TO REPRESENT THE PARKS BOARD? ARE YOU ELECTED TO THE PARKS BOARD OR TO THE CITY COUNCIL?
>> I'M ON THE LIAISON FOR PARKS.
>> I'M REPRESENTING THE PARKS BOARD THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> LET'S GET BACK TO THE ITEM IF WE CAN.
>> REAL SIMPLE. WERE WE NOT PRESENTED BY THE PARKS BOARD, A BUDGET THAT SHOWED EXACTLY WHAT THEY BROUGHT IN AT DELLANERA AND SEAWOLF PARK? YES OR NO? DOES ANYONE REMEMBER THAT?
>> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING.
THAT INFORMATION IS THERE, HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND IS IN OUR POSSESSION.
DAN IS SAYING IS THAT IS A GENERATING PARK, NOT A MONEY LOSS PARK THAT WE HAVE ACROSS OUR CITY THAT WE'RE WANTING TO BETTER FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY WITH DELLANERA AND SEAWOLF PARK TO OFFSET THOSE EXPENSES. SIMPLE.
>> BOB HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE CITY TAKE OVER SEAWOLF PARK AND DELLANERA PARK?
>> LET'S GET SOME THOUGHTS ON THAT, SHARON?
>> I'VE HEARD SEVERAL COMMENTS REGARDING.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS, SHOULD THE CITY TAKE OVER THOSE TWO PARKS? TELL ME IF I HEARD INCORRECTLY.
I ALSO HEARD INSINUATIONS THAT IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN IT COULD BETTER SOME EQUIPMENT IN OTHER PARKS THAT FAMILIES HAVE CALLED IN AND SAID, EQUIPMENT IN OTHER PARKS.
WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY WAS FOR THE EQUIPMENT IN THE PARKS? BECAUSE I COULD SIT UP HERE AND SPEAK ABOUT PARKS AND EQUIPMENT.
IF THIS HAPPENS, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT EQUIPMENT IS GOING TO GET BETTER IN A PARK BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE BETTER, REGARDLESS OF IF THE CITY TAKES THESE TWO OVER.
HAVE WE BEEN NEGLECTING EQUIPMENT IN A PARK?
>> WE DON'T HAVE THE REVENUE TO DO IT.
>> THE FUNDING HAS BEEN THE ISSUE.
>> BUT MY QUESTION IS, I UNDERSTAND THE FUNDING, HAS IT BEEN NEGLECTED?
>> IF SOMETHING HAS BEEN NEGLECTED, MAYOR, THINGS JUST WEAR OUT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] BUT SOMETIMES IN OTHER PARKS, YOU GET OTHER EQUIPMENT THAT YOU DON'T GET IN OTHER PARKS SO THE CITY HAS TO LEARN TO BE FAIR AS WELL IN PARKS FOR THE EQUIPMENT.
BUT ALSO ARE WE FAIR? PARK EQUIPMENT.
WE CAN SIT HERE AND WE ALL KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
MY POINT I'M BRINGING OUT NOW IS JUST THE CITY ACQUIRES THESE TWO, IS ANYTHING GOING TO REALLY CHANGE IN OTHER PARKS?
>> IT'S UP TO US TO SAVE THE MONEY.
>> REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE CITY ACQUIRES THESE TWO PARKS, WE SHOULD IMPROVE PARKS.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE THE WORST PARK IN THE CITY IN MY DISTRICT.
>> AS FAR AS ANDY PARK, YOU CAN'T GO TO THAT PARK.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO IN THAT PARK?
>> I'M GOING TO LET YOU GET FINISHED OFF.
>> YOU WERE THERE. [OVERLAPPING].
>> LETS DO THIS. WE HAVE A THOUGHT OF BRINGING BACK TO COUNCIL, TAKING OVER THESE TWO PARKS.
WHAT'S INVOLVED WITH THAT IF THAT OCCURS?
>> I DIDN'T COME HERE WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.
[04:00:01]
>> WHAT'S INVOLVED LOGISTICALLY IF THAT MOVES FORWARD OF COUNCIL.
>> JUST HAVE TO WORK IT OUT WITH THE PARK BOARD.
RIGHT NOW THEY'RE MANAGING THOSE PARKS.
I THINK IT WOULD TAKE A TRANSITION PERIOD TO DO THAT.
>> WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, SIX MONTHS, A YEAR?
>> HOW COOPERATIVE EVERYBODY IS.
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE COOPERATION YOU RECEIVE DOING IT.
YOU GOT TO WORK THE TRANSITION, YOU'RE GOING TO HIRE PROBABLY ALL THE OPERATIONAL STAFF THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE, YOU MOVE THEM TO THE CITY SO THAT'S A PROCESS, MAYOR.
AGAIN, THAT WASN'T WHAT WE WERE BRINGING FORWARD.
WHAT WE WERE BRINGING FORWARD IS, LOOKING TO YOU ALL TO PROVIDE US SOME GUIDANCE FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT.
IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO, WE CAN DO THAT.
MY DIRECTION IS, FOLLOW THE POLICIES THE COUNCIL DIRECTS US AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AS THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> ALEX, YOU MENTIONED THAT IF WE DO ANY DISCUSSION OF TAKING OVER PARKS, IT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED WITH THE PARK BOARD.
>> WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> THIS IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S STILL GOING TO BE ON THE DISCUSSION.
IF SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL, THAT WE SHOULD NOT JUST, WITH GREYWATER SAY, LET'S DO THIS.
WE SHOULD PUT A RESOLUTION ON.
NOW, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO SPEAKING WITH THE PARK BOARD PRIOR TO THAT.
I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT.
THIS IS WHEN I RAN. I HEARD AND I LISTENED.
COUNCIL JUST MAKES DECISIONS AND DOESN'T TELL ANYBODY WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE DECISIONS MADE BEFORE WE GET THERE SO WE'RE PUTTING IT ON THERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT.
BUT WHEN I HEAR THAT ALL THESE ITEMS GOT CRAMMED ON BEFORE THE DEADLINE, WHAT WAS BEFORE THE DEADLINE? BUT ALSO, IT'S DUPLICITOUS TO SAY THAT WE ARE NOT WANTING TO TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS WHEN THEY'RE ON THE AGENDA TO TALK ABOUT.
>> WELL, I'M JUST ASKING YOU, YOU'RE SAYING BEFORE ANY DECISIONS ARE MADE ON THAT, YOU WANT TALK TO THE PARK BOARD YOU SAID.
>> I'D LIKE THEM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT BOARD SUGGESTED AND THEN WE TALK TO THE PARK BOARD AND IF SOMETHING HAPPENS DIFFERENTLY AND WE CAN'T COME TO AGREEMENT AS A COUNCIL, THEN HEY, IF WE CAN'T HAVE A VOTE ON TO TAKE THOSE OVER AND WE PUT IT OUT FOR COUNCIL TO VOTE, THEN NOTHING HAPPENS AND THEN WE JUST TABLE THAT DISCUSSION FOR A LATER TIME.
>> IS THAT NOT WHAT BROWN SAID EARLIER?
>> THAT'S WHAT I SAID EARLIER.
BUT LET'S HEAR FROM THE PARK BOARD ON THIS IDEA ABOUT TRANSFERRING THESE TWO PARKS.
>> I'M SAYING NOT PUT IT OUT FOR VOTE UNTIL WE HEAR FROM THE PARK BOARD IN JOINT MEETING.
[OVERLAPPING] BUT WE SHOULDN'T STOP THEM FROM, TIE THEIR HANDS AND SAY, DELAY IT.
WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING AND DELAY IT UNTIL AFTER WE HAVE A CONVERSATION AND THEN ANOTHER WORKSHOP WHERE WE DISCUSS THIS TYPE OF ITEM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANTED TO THINK.
>> WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
>> WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
>> ALL WE WOULD ASK, MAYOR, FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE IS TO RECEIVE SOME GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. WE'VE ARGUED FOR YEARS THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M GOING TO SAY ONE MORE TIME, I NEED TO VOTE.
>> BUT I CAN'T VOTE RIGHT NOW.
>> EXCUSE ME, BARBARA, JUST ONE SECOND.
>> WE CAN'T VOTE ON THIS TODAY.
BUT WE CAN PUT IT ON THE JOINT WORKSHOP AGENDA.
I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD PRIOR TO OUR APRIL MEETING SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IT WITH THEM.
YOU SAID YOU WANT TO DISCUSS IT BEFORE YOU VOTE ON IT AND SO THAT CAN BE DONE.
IT CAN BE PUT ON THE JOINT MEETING.
YOU'RE SAYING THE SAME THING, BOB.
>> YEAH. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE TRANSFER OF THESE TWO PARKS?
THEN WE CAN PUT AN ACTION ITEM ON ON APRIL TO MOVE FORWARD ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON THAT.
BARBARA, YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO SAY IS PARKS DEPARTMENTS ACROSS THE STATE OF TEXAS FIGHT FOR FUNDING ALL THE TIME.
IT'S ALWAYS A LOW TOTAL POLE IN A CITY BUDGET.
SOME OF YOUR PARKS NOW ARE MOVING MORE TO A REVENUE GENERATING PARK AND THEY'RE EVEN RUNNING PICNIC TABLES IN REGULAR PARKS THAT ARE OCCUPIED BY OUR CITIZENS NOW FREE OF CHARGE.
I'D HATE TO THINK WE HAD TO MOVE TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN ORDER TO GENERATE EQUIPMENT IN OUR PARK.
>> KEEP IN MIND, MAYOR, YOU'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON HERE VERY SOON IN THE NEXT COMING MONTHS TO TAKE ON ACRES OF PARKLAND AND WE'RE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.
>> 3N STATUS DATE AND TIMING OF MOVING COLLECTION OF HOT TAX TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> DON, IF COUNCIL MOVES IN THE DIRECTION TO MOVE COLLECTION HOT TAX OVER HERE,
[04:05:05]
YOU'D PUT DOWN OCTOBER 1ST FOR THE SHORT TERM REGISTRATION.>> WOULD THE COLLECTION OF THE HOT TAX FOLLOW AT THE SAME TIME?
>> I TALKED TO JILL ABOUT THAT.
SHE PROBABLY RECOMMEND WE GO TO YEAR END.
REMEMBER, WE'RE DOING THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM AT THE SAME TIME.
SHE WOULD THINK THAT WILL BE EFFECTIVELY WE COULD DO THAT AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
>> THESE ARE LIGHT SWITCH THINGS, GUYS.
>> DECEMBER 31ST. OCTOBER 1ST, [INAUDIBLE] THE REGISTRATION FEES.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR.
>> WE OPEN REGISTRATION ON DECEMBER 1ST.
>> OCTOBER. WE WOULD TAKE THAT IN OCTOBER IN ADVANCE OF THE DECEMBER 1ST DATE.
HOT TAX COLLECTION, WE WOULD DO ON A CALENDAR YEAR BASIS.
>> I GOT A QUESTION, MAYOR, I GUESS 3N.
I WASN'T HERE, BUT AS I UNDERSTAND, THE CITY USED TO COLLECT THE HOT?
>> THEN THEY TURNED IT OVER TO THE PARK BOARD BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH IT AND I GUESS OR JUST DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT, WANT SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO IT SO WHAT?
>> FIFTEEN AND IT WAS WHEN THE MAYOR WAS ON COUNCIL.
>> I THINK IT WAS BEFORE THEN.
>> BEFORE THEN. THERE WAS SOME PERSONNEL ISSUES IN THE FISCAL DEPARTMENT, YOU MAY RECALL THAT PREVENTED ADEQUATE MANAGEMENT, AND THERE WAS SOME SOFTWARE ISSUES.
THERE WAS, 'CAUSE JUST SAYING THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT WELL MANAGED.
>> I THINK THAT WAS STILL '15.
>> IT WAS RIGHT AFTER I GOT HERE.
>> IT WAS RIGHT AFTER I GOT HERE.
>> I THINK THAT ISSUE CONTINUED UNTIL '15.
>> THEN PART OF THE ISSUE CHANGED IN '14.
>> BUT WE HAVE SYSTEMS, CONTROLS, THE ADEQUATE STAFF.
IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE DO.
WE AND THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE CITY IS TASKED WITH IT.
I'VE REVIEWED IT WITH HER AND SHE HAS NO OBJECTION TO IT.
>> WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND THE PART WE THINK, COLLECTING THE HOT AND DOING THE STR REGISTRATION, IS THE FULL TIME JOB OF SOMEBODY OVER THERE.
>> I DON'T KNOW. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY HAVE ONE PERSON THAT DOES SHORT TERM REGISTRATION.
COLLECTION OF HOT [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S PROBABLY BASED ON SOME OF THE GRANT FINDINGS AND SOME OTHER THINGS, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT ADEQUATELY STAFFED.
WE HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT FOR FORESEEABLE ACCOUNTS PAY.
WE PROBABLY PULL IN A STAFF POSITION WITH THAT.
IF THERE'S SOMEBODY OVER THERE THAT DOES IT AND THEY WANT TO COME AND MOVE IN TO THE CITY AND THEY WANT TO COME TO THE CITY, THEN WE PROBABLY CERTAINLY HIRE THAT PERSON.
>> WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF PULLING BACK THE HOT COLLECTION BACK TO THE CITY.
BUT OUR QUESTION, I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THERE WAS A BILL INTRODUCED BY SENATOR MAYES MIDDLETON RELATED TO THE COLLECTION OF HOT AND MOVING THAT TO THE STATE AND THEN ALSO [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT WASN'T FILED BY MIDDLETON.
IT WAS FILED BUT IT WOULD BE TREATED LIKE SALES TAX.
BUT THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE FIGHTING OVER THAT ON HOT.
>> IF IT DOES HAPPEN, EVERYBODY'S HAND UP.
>> THEN WE'RE DONE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY WOULD SEND THE MONEY TO THE CITY.
>> IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON BILL.
BUT SECOND OF ALL, BACK THEN BILL DOESN'T ADDRESS THE COLLECTION OF HOT TAX.
>> THE ONE HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS IT WOULD GO TO STATE.
>> ONE IS MIDDLETON'S BILL ABOUT THE HOT TAX GOING TO PARK BOARD AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE ABOUT THE 2%, WHICH IS IN OUR CHARTER ANYWAY.
THEN THERE'S ONE THAT TREATS HOT TAX LIKE SALES TAX AS IN THE COMPTROLLER TAKES IT AND THEN DISTRIBUTES IT OUT.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> WE JUST HAVE TO SEE WHERE THOSE BILLS GO.
>> MAYOR. I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK COMMENT.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BRINGING UP THE HISTORY.
I REMEMBER BACK A FEW YEARS AGO WHEN I ASKED HOW WAS THAT MONEY MOVED FROM THE CITY BACK TO THE PARK BOARD? I WAS TOLD RIGHT HERE AT THIS TABLE THAT THE HISTORY OF IT IS NOT IMPORTANT, AND IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP, AND NOW I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS.
>> BY BRINGING IT BACK TO THE CITY, I ASSUME THAT WE'D BE GETTING MORE MONEY OR GENERATING MORE MONEY SOMEHOW.
>> I WOULD HOPE THAT THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN, AND THEY'RE AS EFFICIENT, AND WE COLLECT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.
YOU GET RID OF THE DUPLICATIVE NATURE OF MANY OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DO THAT ALREADY EXIST HERE AT THE CITY.
[04:10:01]
WE ALREADY HAVE A FINANCE DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE PEOPLE, WE HAVE ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PEOPLE.>> CURRENTLY, THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS.
THE REGISTRATION OPENED UP ON DECEMBER 1ST.
THERE ARE ONLY 3,500 REGISTERED.
BUT PER THEIR SOFTWARE, THERE ARE 4,500.
AS OF LAST WEEK, THEY HAD NOT SENT OUT REQUIREMENT LETTERS OR COMPLIANCE LETTERS YET AND IT'S MARCH.
WE KNOW THERE ARE 4,500 SHORT TERM RENTALS FROM THEIR SOFTWARE, BUT ONLY 3,500 ARE REGISTERED, JUST SO YOU'RE ALL AWARE.
BRYSON SHARED THAT WITH ME LAST WEEK.
>> ALEX, BACK TO THIS ITEM ON COLLECTION OF HOT.
WHERE DO YOU WANT TO GO WITH THAT? WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT?
>> I'D LIKE TO GET A TIMELINE.
AGAIN, WE'LL DISCUSS IT WITH THE PARK BOARD, BUT THERE'S OBVIOUSLY SOME ISSUES WITH THAT AND I THINK COUNCIL SHOULD MOVE EXPEDITIOUSLY IN DOING IT.
BUT IN SPIRIT OF COLLABORATING OR REGARDLESS OF PEOPLE SEE IT AS COLLABORATING OR NOT, THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY AND NOW THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT WANT TO PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA.
I THINK WE SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD EXPEDITIOUSLY IN SEEING HOW WE CAN BRING THAT OVER.
SO WE WILL DISCUSS IT HOPEFULLY AT OUR JOINT MEETING SOMETIME IN APRIL, AND I'D LIKE THE CITY STAFF TO PREPARE TO START WORKING ON GETTING THAT HOT TAX COLLECTION OVER.
TO THAT POINT, DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FIGHT THE CLAIMS FOR THE BACK DUE HOT TAX?
>> WELL, THERE'S A SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT I DON'T MUCH LIKE AND THIS IS THAT GLENN DOES THE AUDIT.
THEY SEND IT BACK TO THE PARK BOARD TO CALCULATE PENALTY AND INTEREST, THEY SEND OUT AN INVOICE, AND THEN WHEN IT DOESN'T GET PAID, THEN THEY SEND IT TO MY OFFICE.
>> THAT WOULD CUT ALL OF THAT EXTRA BACK AND FORTH, WHICH HAS BEEN A CONTENTIOUS THING THAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS WHEN THIS IS BEING DISCUSSED OUT OF THE PICTURE AND IT WOULDN'T AFFECT US APPROVING THE BUDGET, IT WOULDN'T AFFECT ANYTHING THAT WE DO.
WE WOULD ABSORB IF THAT EMPLOYEE WANTED TO COME OVER HERE, I'M GOING TO ABSORB THAT FUNCTION AND I BELIEVE IT'S A CITY TAX AND IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
>> I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT IT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED AT THE PARK BOARD. I'LL JUST GO THAT FAR.
BECAUSE JUST LIKE WE DID WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS, WE AT THIS TABLE SAT AND SAID, SHORT TERM RENTALS FOR THESE VARIOUS REASONS, AND WE NAMED EFFICIENCIES AND WHAT NOT.
>> IMPLICATION EFFORTS AND ENFORCEMENT.
YOU JUST PRESENTED GREAT EVIDENCE ALONG WITH DON ABOUT SOME OF THE REASONS WHY PULLING THE HOT COLLECTION BACK TO THE CITY WOULD BE ONE.
>> BEFORE WE LEAVE THESE TWO ITEMS, I'M JUST GOING TO GO BACK ON THE JOINT MEETING.
WE'LL HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CITY TAKING OVER TO DELLANERA PARK AND SEAWOLF PARK AND MOVING THE HOT COLLECTIONS OVER TO THE CITY.
WE'LL HAVE AN ACTION ITEM ON THE APRIL AGENDA FOR COUNCIL VOTING ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON DELLANERA PARK AND SEAWOLF MOVING TO THE CITY, AND WE CAN'T HAVE AN ACTION ITEM POSSIBLY ON THE COLLECTION OF HOT.
>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS?
>> THAT TAKES CARE OF THE NEXT STEP.
>> YOU'VE GOT NEXT STEPS. THANK YOU, DAN.
>> LET'S GO TO ITEM 3E, PLEASE.
[3.E. Discussion of Findings of the Park Board’s Current Conflict of Interest Audit ( Bulgherini - 20 min )]
>> ITEM 3E, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS OF THE PARK BOARD'S CURRENT CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT.
>> WE HAVE GLENN BULGHERINI WITH THIS CLAN.
GLENN, HAVE A SEAT, IF YOU WOULD.
GLENN, YOU ARE REPORTING NOW, SO WE MAKE SURE BECAUSE YOU HAVE MULTIPLE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA.
YOU'RE REPORTING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, YOUR FINDINGS FROM OUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT THAT YOU HAVE JUST CURRENTLY FINISHED, IS THAT CORRECT?
[04:15:04]
>> GLENN BULGHERINI, CITY AUDITOR.
THE SCOPE OF THIS AUDIT REPORT WAS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH PARK BOARD POLICY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
WE HAD TWO DISCOVERIES OF FACTS.
THE FIRST DISCOVERY WAS THAT A PARK BOARD DIRECTOR HIRED HIS WIFE'S COMPANY TO DO WORK IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT THAT WAS UNDER HIS DIRECT SUPERVISION.
EXECUTIVE STAFF AT THE PARK BOARD WAS UNAWARE THAT THE COMPANY BELONGED TO THE DIRECTOR'S WIFE.
THE SECOND DISCOVERY OF FACTS.
HE HAD HIS PERSONAL BUSINESS ON PARK BOARD CONTROL PREMISES, AND THAT THESE PREMISES WAS UNDER HIS DIRECT SUPERVISION.
PARK BOARD POLICY WAS NOT FOLLOWED WHEN EMPLOYEES INVOLVED THEIR RELATED PERSONAL BUSINESSES WITH THE PARK BOARD.
PARK BOARD POLICY CLEARLY STATES, "IT IS THE PARK BOARD POLICY THAT ALL EMPLOYEES AVOID ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THEIR PERSONAL INTEREST AND THOSE OF THE PARK BOARD.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY IS TO ENSURE THAT THE PARK BOARD'S HONESTY AND INTEGRITY, AND THEREFORE, ITS REPUTATION ARE NOT COMPROMISED.
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE GUIDING THIS POLICY IS THAT NO EMPLOYEE SHOULD HAVE OR APPEAR TO HAVE PERSONAL INTEREST OR RELATIONSHIPS THAT ACTUALLY OR POTENTIALLY CONFLICT WITH THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PARK BOARD." WE GET TO WHY THIS PROBLEM OCCURRED.
THE PROBLEM OCCURRED BECAUSE PARK BOARD DIRECTORS, THEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST VIOLATIONS BECAUSE OF CHAPTER 176 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, WHICH STATES THAT THEY DO NOT NEED TO FILE A CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IF THEIR BUSINESS DOES NOT EXCEED $2,500 IN TAXABLE INCOME.
MY AUDIT REPORT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH CHAPTER 176.
I'M CONCERNED WITH PARK BOARD POLICY.
THE DIRECTORS DID NOT TAKE PARK BOARD POLICY INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE THEY ASSOCIATED THEIR PERSONAL BUSINESSES AND RELATED BUSINESSES TO THE PARK BOARD.
WE MADE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PARK BOARD, WHICH IN THEIR RESPONSE, THEY DID ACCEPT.
FIRST, AN EMPLOYEE OR RELATION TO THE EMPLOYEE CANNOT CONDUCT BUSINESS WITH THE PARK BOARD OR ON PARK BOARD CONTROL PREMISES.
IF THAT SAME EMPLOYEE HAS SUPERVISORY CAPACITY OVER THE PARK BOARD DEPARTMENT INVOLVED WITH THE EMPLOYEE'S BUSINESS OR RELATION TO THE EMPLOYEE.
SECOND, THE PARK BOARD SHOULD INCLUDE IN THEIR WRITTEN POLICIES A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT THAT ALL EMPLOYEE BUSINESSES HAVING FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THE PARK BOARD OR ARE TO BE OPERATED ON PARK BOARD CONTROLLED PREMISES SHOULD FIRST BE APPROVED BY THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
THE THIRD RECOMMENDATION, ACTUAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST SHOULD BE DETAILED AND EXPLAINED ON THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD'S WEBSITE WITHOUT REGARDS TO CHAPTER 176 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, GLENN. BOB.
>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PARK BOARD BROUGHT ONE OF THESE ISSUES TO THE CITY WHEN THEY DISCOVERED IT AND ASKED YOU TO AUDIT THAT I'D TALK ABOUT THE FIRST ONE.
DID THEY DISCOVERED IT AND BROUGHT IT TO OUR LIGHT.
>> NO. IT WAS DISCOVERED DURING A PRIOR AUDIT WHEN WE AUDITED FOR THE POTENTIAL EMBEZZLEMENT OF FUNDS.
I THINK IT'S ALREADY GONE TO TRIAL.
WE AUDITED AND THAT'S WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED.
>> THAT'S WHY WE EXPANDED TO THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT, CORRECT?
>> YOU SAID, THERE WERE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PARK BOARD ACCEPTED TO IMPLEMENT?
>> YES, SIR. I THINK IT'LL MAKE THINGS MORE TRANSPARENT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
>> YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PARK BOARD?
>> THANKING YOU FOR THE AUDIT FINDINGS AND I THINK MENTIONING THAT THEY
[04:20:04]
WILL FOLLOW UP AND ADOPT THOSE CHANGES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE AUDIT, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.>> MY READING OF, I'VE READ A TON OF CITY AND PARK BOARD POLICIES, AND MY JUST SUMMARIZATION IS THAT THESE POLICIES ARE WELL WRITTEN.
IT SAYS THREE TIMES, THE PARK BOARD POLICY.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE GUIDING THIS POLICY AND IT'S OVERLOOKED.
THEN YOUR POLICY PRESCRIPTIONS ARE BASICALLY EXPANDING ON POLICY THAT ALREADY IS PRETTY WELL WRITTEN, WOULD THAT BE FAIR TO SAY?
>> YOUR FIRST POLICY THAT YOU CREATED IS JUST DETAILING THAT, HEY, ABSOLUTELY NO WHATSOEVER AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS BREAK GLASS IN CASE POLICY IS BROKEN TO SUMMARIZE IT.
THE FIRST POLICY PRESCRIPTION IS NOT FOLLOWED, THEN THERE'S A SECOND ONE THAT HAS TO DO WITH GIVING THE BOARD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALLOW THIS CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR IF IT'S DECLARED, BE OKAY.
>> WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO WAS TO ENSURE THAT WE INSTALLED SOME PROCEDURES THAT WOULD HELP TO MAKE THINGS HELP EXECUTIVE STAFF, MAKE THINGS TRANSPARENT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
THAT'S WHAT THESE WERE BASICALLY FOR.
THE POLICY IS WRITTEN VERY WELL.
BUT I FEEL LIKE WITH THESE ADDITIONAL PROCEDURES THAT I RECOMMENDED THAT I THINK THEY ARE GOING TO INSTALL, THE DECISION IS UP TO THEM.
BUT I THINK THAT IT WILL HELP TO MAKE THINGS TRANSPARENT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC BY PUTTING IT ON THE WEBSITE, ASKING PERMISSION FROM THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES FIRST, AND ALSO ABSOLUTELY, NO ONE CAN HAVE A BUSINESS IN THE SAME DEPARTMENT THAT THEY'RE IN DIRECT CONTROL OF SO THAT WAS MY ATTEMPT TO DO THAT WITH THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE PARK BOARD HAS ALSO DONE SOME MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING STRUCTURE TO HELP ALLEVIATE STUFF LIKE THIS HAPPEN, ESPECIALLY RELATED TO THE FIRST ONE.
>> BUT YOU HAVE TWO DIRECTORS FLOWING THROUGH CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THE FIRST ONE [INAUDIBLE] 176 AND THEN THE REPORT IT SAYS YOU GUYS DIDN'T FIND ANY DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THE DIRECTOR'S CLAIM AND THEN THE SECOND ONE SAYS THAT IT COULDN'T BE CONFIRMED THAT LEGAL COUNSEL WAS NOTIFIED.
>> WELL, ON THE DISCOVERY OF FACTS, THE SECOND ONE IS WHERE THE DIRECTOR SAID THAT HE HAD INFORMATION THAT WOULD PROVE THAT HE HAD LESS THAN $2,500 OF TAXABLE INCOME.
HOWEVER, MY AUDIT REPORT IS NOT CONCERNED WITH CHAPTER 176.
NOW, IF COUNCIL DID WANT TO LOOK INTO THAT, THEN I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE AN AUDIT OF FUTILITY BECAUSE THE AUDIT INFORMATION IS TAINTED.
THAT DIRECTOR WAS IN DIRECT CHARGE OF THE LIST OF BOOKING EVENTS THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO DETERMINE HOW MANY EVENTS WERE ACTUALLY AT THE PARKS, AND THEREFORE, HOW MANY EVENTS HE COULD HAVE PROVIDED A SERVICE TO.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR AM I GETTING OFF BASE?
>> THAT ANSWERS THAT. I JUST I DON'T.
>> TO BOB'S COMMENT, THOUGH, WHAT I WAS TOLD BY THE CHAIR IS THE DIRECTOR 2 OR THE COMMENT 2 NOW REPORTS OR ONE NOW REPORTS TO TWO.
THAT WAS THE HIERARCHY CHANGE THAT WAS MADE.
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY.
I WAS ONLY AWARE OF THE RESPONSE THEY GAVE US.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY DISCIPLINARY ACTION TAKEN?
>> BUT BRIAN, WHEN THERE WAS A CITY EMPLOYEE THAT DID SOMETHING SIMILAR, WHAT WAS THE CONSEQUENCE?
>> STATE THAT QUESTION AGAIN, PLEASE, ALEX.
>> HAS SOMETHING SIMILAR LIKE THIS HAPPENED OR DID
[04:25:01]
HAPPEN IN THE PAST WITH A CITY EMPLOYEE?? OR IF IT HAPPENED IN THE FUTURE, WHAT WOULD BE THE END RESULT FROM YOUR MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE?>> THIS PARTICULAR PERSON LEFT THE CITY, WAS NO LONGER WITH THE CITY.
>> BRIAN, LET ME EXPAND ON THAT BECAUSE I WANT TO UNDERSTAND.
WE HAD AN EPISODE HERE AT THE CITY NOT TOO LONG AGO WITH CYBER SECURITY ISSUES.
[OVERLAPPING] JUST ONE SECOND.
THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF POLICY ON THAT, SO THOSE INDIVIDUALS, WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE?
>> ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED RETIRED.
>> BUT NONE OF THEM PROFITED TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE OFF OF THOSE TRUCKS?
WHERE I TAKE EXTREME ISSUE TO THIS, IS THAT THERE WAS PROFIT TAKEN FOR SOMEBODY'S BUSINESS, CLEARLY BREAKING PARK BOARD POLICY ON CITY PROPERTY.
EVEN THOUGH IT'S MANAGED BY THE PARK BOARD, IT WAS ON CITY PROPERTY.
THIS IS PART OF MY REASONING FOR WANTING TO SUPPORT GETTING THE PARKS OVER HERE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER.
DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY POLICIES WE CHANGE, DOESN'T MATTER HOW MANY POLICIES WE MAKE, IF THERE'S NO DISCIPLINARY ACTION, AND I DON'T MEAN A SLAP ON THE WRIST, SOMETHING AND NOT TELLING THEM HOW TO DO THEIR MANAGEMENT DUTIES, BUT THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE.
I REALIZED THAT HABITS ARE FORMED AND WAYS ARE UTILIZED THROUGHOUT TIME, DEPENDING ON MANAGEMENT, DEPENDING ON WITH SOME CHARACTERS, WHAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH, BUT THERE WAS DEFINITELY POLICY IN PLACE BECAUSE THE POLICY THAT YOU REFERRED TO GLENN WAS STRAIGHT OUT OF THEIR POLICY BOOK.
>> I'M GOING TO START WITH NUMBER 1.
TO ME, THERE WAS FIVE IN A ROW, POLICIES THAT WERE BROKEN.
WHAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT'S REQUIRED AS FAR AS PROCUREMENT PROCESS TO GO OUT FOR PUBLIC BID, INSTEAD OF JUST HIRING WHOEVER YOU WANT? WHAT IS POLICY STATE AN AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO OUT AND ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO BID ON WHATEVER CONSULTATION OR SERVICE THAT A PARTICULAR PUBLIC ENTITY NEEDS?
>> WITH THE PARKS BOARD IS $2,000, I BELIEVE.
>> TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THERE WAS A SERVICE OR SOMETHING THAT THE PARKS BOARD NEEDED, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT FOR A PUBLIC BID SO THAT ANY COMPETITORS WHO WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE, THEY WOULD HAVE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO WIN THE BID?
>> THAT'S THE FIRST THING THAT I'M GOING TO ROLL WITH.
THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS WAS NOT CLOSE TO FOLLOW IT AT ALL.
WITH EXAMPLE 1, I THINK THAT WAS DEFINITELY OVER 2,000.
NUMBER 2, THE DIRECTOR HIRES HIS WIFE.
>> THEN AFTER THE SERVICES WERE PERFORMED, HE PERSONALLY APPROVES THE PAYMENT?
>> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IN HOT TEX FUNDING WAS USED TO PAY FOR THAT SERVICE?
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT FALLS WITHIN THE SILO OF HOT TAX? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT [INAUDIBLE] THAT SERVICE THAT WAS PERFORMED.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HOT TAX CAN PAY FOR? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT FALLS IN THE PURVEY OF BRINGING TOURISTS TO GALVESTON?
>> IT WAS FOR INTERCULTURAL TRAINING.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN IN THAT RESPECT BUT IT WAS FOR THAT DEPARTMENT.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC THINGS THAT HOT TAX CAN PAY FOR SO YEAH, THAT WOULD BE OF AN OPINION, I GUESS.
>> THEN THERE'S A SECOND PAYMENT THAT THE DIRECTOR APPROVES THAT PAYS FOR HIS WIFE'S FOLLOW UP SERVICES SO THERE ACTUALLY WAS TWO CHECKS THAT HE APPROVES, CORRECT? OR TWO PAYMENTS?
>> THERE WAS NOT 3,200 AND THEN 2,800?
>> THE 2,800 THAT WAS MENTIONED IN THE AUDIT REPORT.
[04:30:03]
THE DIRECTOR TOLD US THAT THE OUT OF THE 3,200, 02,800 WAS LATER SPENT AND PAID TO THE INDIVIDUAL WHO ACTUALLY PERFORMED THE TRAINING.>> WELL, IT WAS A THIRD PARTY THAT THEY GAVE THE 2,800.
>> WHO WAS ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL PERFORMED THE SERVICES, AND THEY PAID THAT INDIVIDUAL $2,800.
>> WHO OWNED THE COMPANY THAT HE WORKED FOR?
>> THAT'S ALL, WANT TO MAKE SURE. THEN ON THE SECOND ONE, AGAIN, I WANT TO GO TO THE FACT THAT REGARDLESS OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, THE PERSON THAT THIS REPORT IS OVER, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING RIGHT, IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE TO REVIEW VENDOR APPLICATIONS TO BE APPROVED BY THE PARKS BOARD.
IN OTHER WORDS, HE'S THE ONE THAT INTAKES AND REVIEWS AND BASICALLY ASSIGNS OR DOESN'T ASSIGN OR APPROVES OR DENIES VENDORS APPLYING FOR THE PARKS BOARD, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I'M NOT CERTAIN ABOUT THE VENDOR APPLICATIONS.
NOW, THEY DO TAKE THE BOOKING EVENTS.
HIS DEPARTMENT BOOKED THESE EVENTS.
>> THE DEPARTMENT THAT HE HEADS BOOKS THE EVENTS?
>> HE ALSO WAS THE ONE THAT DIRECTLY OWNED THE BUSINESS THAT WAS ON THE PROPERTIES, BASICALLY, AS A BUSINESS FOR PROFIT?
>> AND YOU DIVULGE WHICH PROPERTIES WERE USED?
>> LET ME MAKE SURE. SEAWOLF AND [INAUDIBLE] OR JUST SEAWOLF?
>> THIS OCCURRED, MAYBE THEY HAVE 2022.
>> IS THIS [INAUDIBLE] STILL IN BUSINESS?
>> TO MY UNDERSTANDING, NO, SIR.
>> AS 176 NOTES, AND I'M SURE DON COULD HELP OUT WITH THIS.
ONCE YOU FIND OUT ABOUT IT, YOU HAVE 30, 45 DAYS TO FILE SOMETHING.
>> NO. UNDER CHAPTER 176, THERE WAS NOTHING FILED.
>> BUT THEN THERE'S TESTIMONY AGAINST IT?
>> YES, SIR. WE DID HAVE SOMEONE COME INTO THE OFFICE AND TESTIFY THAT HE PERFORMED MORE THAN TWO EVENTS, WHICH HE HAD TOLD US FROM THE BEGINNING, AND WHICH IS WHAT HE'S STILL SAYING.
THE OTHER PERSON WHO WAS AN EX EMPLOYEE SAID THAT THERE WAS NUMEROUS EVENTS THAT HE PERFORMED SERVICES, WHICH WOULD IMPLY THAT HE COULD HAVE GONE OVER THE $2,500 TAXABLE INCOME AMOUNT.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY PERFORM SERVICES?
>> IT WAS A BAR TENDING SERVICE.
>> HE BARTENDED AT EVENTS, SO HE WASN'T BARTENDING.
HE WAS SUPPLYING WITH A ALCOHOL TRUCK.
IT WAS A TRUCK THAT PROVIDED BAR SERVICES, NOT BARTENDING.
>> IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS BARTENDING.
THAT THEY HIRED FOR PRIVATE EVENTS.
THEY HIRED HIS BUSINESS TO COME PERFORM BARTENDING SERVICES.
THAT HE DID NOT PURCHASE ANY ALCOHOL, OR SELL ANY ALCOHOL, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> WHEN DID HE INFORM EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT ABOUT THIS?
>> HE SAID THAT HE INFORMED EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT BEFORE IT STARTED, AND THAT WAS VERIFIED BY THE CURRENT CEO, THAT HE DID.
HE HAD TOLD US THAT HE VERIFIED IT WITH EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT, THE CEO, AND LEGAL COUNSEL.
LEGAL COUNSEL, THAT COULD NOT BE VERIFIED.
WE COULDN'T FIND ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT LEGAL COUNSEL WAS NOTIFIED, AND THE CEO HAS TOLD US THAT SHE HAS A TEXT MESSAGE.
>> WE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE TEXT MESSAGE BECAUSE IT GOT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF OUR AUDIT.
[04:35:03]
WE WERE JUST CONCERNED WITH WAS PARK BOARD POLICY BROKEN.IF COUNCIL WANTS US TO GO FURTHER, I WOULD CAUTION THAT THIS WOULD BE AN AUDIT OF FUTILITY BECAUSE THE AUDIT EVIDENCE AND DISCOVERY OF FACTS NUMBER 2 IS TAINTED BECAUSE THAT PARTICULAR PERSON WAS IN CHARGE OF THE BOOKING EVENTS.
I'M NOT SAYING THEY WOULD, BUT THEY COULD TAKE OFF EVENTS, DELETE THEM, OR WHATEVER, SO IT IS TAINTED FOR FUTURE TO DETERMINE IF THERE WAS OVER $2,500 OF TAXABLE INCOME OR NOT.
I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO AUDIT IT ANY OTHER WAY.
>> IS THERE A REASON THAT THE DEPARTMENTS AREN'T NAMED?
>> IN MY REPORTS, AS A PRACTICE, I'VE NEVER INCLUDED THE DEPARTMENT NAMES, OR PERSONAL NAMES, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> YOU MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THAT ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT CAME TO TESTIFY WAS AN EX-EMPLOYEE, BUT RELATED TO DISCOVERY OF FACTS 1.
IS THAT DIRECTOR STILL IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE PARK BOARD?
>> I BELIEVE BOTH OF THEM ARE STILL IN.
IT WASN'T RELATED TO NUMBER 1.
>> BUT THERE'S A DIRECTOR FOR DISCOVERY OF FACTS 2 THAT'S STILL EMPLOYED BY THE PARK BOARD?
>> FOR DISCOVERY OF FACTS 1, THAT DIRECTOR IS STILL EMPLOYED BY THE PARK BOARD?
>> THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES ARE, AND I'M GUESSING HERE, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THE PARK BOARD WOULD BE HAPPY TO TELL US WHAT KIND OF PUNISHMENT THERE WAS, WHAT KIND OF MANAGEMENT CHANGES HAPPENED, WHAT KIND OF POLICY PROCEDURES HAPPENED, JUST TO REPORT BACK ON ALL OF THIS.
LET'S GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO DO THAT.
>> WE CAN PUT THAT ON THE JOIN MEETING. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
>> I'VE GOT THAT DOWN. [LAUGHTER]
>> MAY I FINISH MY QUESTIONING?
>> WE WERE ON THE DISCOVERY OF FACTS FOR SITUATION NUMBER 2, AND HELP ME OUT BECAUSE SOMETIMES MY UNDERSTANDING IS LIMITED.
IT SAYS THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT AT THE PARK BOARD OPERATED A BUSINESS THAT PROVIDED A SERVICE FOR PRIVATE SPECIAL EVENTS.
YOU CAN HAVE A BUSINESS THAT PROVIDES A SERVICE FOR PRIVATE EVENTS?
>> NO, MA'AM. HE BROKE PARK BOARD POLICY.
>> WHEN HE OWNS A BUSINESS AND THAT PROVIDES A SERVICE FOR EVENTS, PERIOD, HE CAN'T HAVE A BUSINESS THAT PROVIDES.
>> ACCORDING TO PARK BOARD POLICY, NO.
>> THOSE EVENTS WERE BOOKED AT THEIR BUILDING.
>> I'M NOT ASKING THAT. I'M JUST ASKING IF I WORKED THERE AND I HAD A PRIVATE BUSINESS ON THE SIDE, WOULD YOU HAVE TO TELL ME WHAT BUSINESSES I COULD HAVE, OR WHAT I COULD NOT HAVE?
>> NO, MA'AM. PER PARK BOARD POLICY, AS LONG AS THEY WEREN'T ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARK BOARD.
>> DO YOU WANT TO HELP ME OUT.
>> WHAT I THINK COUNCILMAN LEWIS IS ASKING, HE CAN HAVE A BARTENDING BUSINESS, AND HE CAN PROVIDE THAT BUSINESS AND BE A PARK BOARD EMPLOYEE.
THAT'S NOT BUSINESS THAT'S NOT RELATED TO EVENTS AT THE PARK BOARD INVOLVED WITH THE PARK.
>> IT WASN'T RELATED TO THE PARK BOARD, AND MOST CERTAINLY IF HE WASN'T IN CHARGE OF THAT DEPARTMENT.
>> I HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT ONE YET.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT'S OKAY FOR HIM TO OWN A BUSINESS THAT PROVIDED SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR EVENTS. THAT WAS OKAY.
>> IT SAYS PRIVATE SPECIAL EVENTS HERE.
IT SAYS, THIS BUSINESS PROVIDED SERVICES TO PRIVATE SPECIAL EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE AT FACILITIES MANAGED BY THE PARK BOARD.
HIS BUSINESS, HE PROVIDED SERVICES TO PRIVATE SPECIAL EVENTS, AND THOSE EVENTS TOOK PLACE AT FACILITIES THAT WERE MANAGED BY THE PARK BOARD.
>> YES, MA'AM. I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION.
>> MY QUESTION IS, IT SAYS THIS BUSINESS PROVIDED SERVICES TO PRIVATE SPECIAL EVENTS.
>> THOSE EVENTS TOOK PLACE IN FACILITIES MANAGED BY THE PARK BOARD.
>> THIS IS WHERE THERE WAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
>> IT'S A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IF HE KNOWINGLY PUTS AN EVENT THERE, RIGHT?
[04:40:09]
IF HE KNOWINGLY SETS UP AN EVENT, WHERE DOES THE CONFLICT COME IN THIS PARTICULAR SENTENCE?>> I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO READ THE PARK BOARD POLICY AGAIN.
>> BECAUSE IT SAYS THERE WERE NO FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS OR OTHER TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR'S BUSINESS AND THE PARK BOARD.
NO FINANCIAL EXCHANGE TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE PARK BOARD AND HIS BUSINESS.
>> BUT HE HELD FUNCTIONS ON SPECIFIC FACILITIES THAT WERE OWNED BY THE PARK BOARD.
>> PER MY INTERPRETATION OF PARK BOARD POLICY, NO.
THAT'S WHERE HE OVERSTEPPED THE LINES, I THINK, IS WHERE HE INCLUDED THE PARK BOARD WHERE THERE IS THAT APPEARANCE OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
THE OTHER PART OF IT IS, OF THE EQUATION, IS HE WAS IN CHARGE OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS BOOKING THOSE EVENTS.
IF YOU WERE IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WOULD YOU THINK THAT THAT WAS TRANSPARENT?
>> I HADN'T GOTTEN TO THAT POINT YET.
I WAS TRYING TO LOOK AT THIS AND TAKE IT PIECE BY PIECE.
HE HAS A BUSINESS, AND HE HAPPENS TO WORK A PLACE WHERE THERE'S A LIST OF FACILITIES OF EVENTS, OR EVENTS.
IT'S A CHANCE THAT HIS BUSINESS CAN PROBABLY GET ONE OF THOSE BOOKINGS.
>> HE'S IN CHARGE OF THE BOOKINGS.
>> YES, HE IS IN CHARGE OF THE BOOKINGS.
THAT DOESN'T APPEAR TRANSPARENT TO ME.
>> CAN WE PROVE WHICH BOOKINGS HE KNEW ABOUT, OR THEY'RE CONNECTED TO THE PARK BOARD?
>> HE'S IN CHARGE OF THE BOOKINGS.
>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOU CAN'T DOCUMENT IN ANY WAY THAT HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THIS EVENT, AND THEN HE CAME, AND HE BOOKED, AND HE SAID, GLENN, YOU GOT AN EVENT COMING UP AND I WANT TO HANDLE THAT EVENT.
>> I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROVE IT AS AN AUDITOR.
I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PROVE INTENT ON THAT.
THAT MAY BE SOMETHING FOR SOMEONE ELSE, BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO.
>> YOURS IS PAPER DOCUMENTED WITH HIS POSITION AND WHAT THE POLICY STATES?
>> YES, MA'AM. THAT WAS THE SCOPE OF THIS AUDIT.
>> AGAIN, IT'S HIS KNOWLEDGE AND POSITION TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER ANYBODY ELSE THAT MIGHT BE IN THAT BUSINESS, TO BOOK DIRECTLY WITH WHO HE HAS BOOKED WITH, AND THAT'S WHY THE MONEY IS EXCHANGED TO THE PARTIES THAT HE BOOKED WITH, NOT TO THE PARKS BOARD.
BUT THAT KNOWLEDGE IS THE ADVANTAGE AND WHERE HE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF HIS POSITION AS OPPOSED TO JUST GOING OUT THERE, OR ANYBODY BEING ABLE TO BOOK THAT EVENT FOR THE PARTIES THAT HE HAD THE KNOWLEDGE OF?
>> IT WOULD NOT APPEAR TRANSPARENT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
>> HOW DO YOU COME UP WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT?
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE $2,500?
>> [INAUDIBLE] ATTORNEY'S DEFENSE. THAT'S WHAT THE ATTORNEY'S LETTER SAYS.
>> THIS IS ABOUT PARK BOARD POLICY.
>> [INAUDIBLE] DOLLAR AMOUNT. THAT HE BROKE THE PARK BOARD POLICY BY HAVING A BUSINESS AND HAVING ACCESS TO EVENTS THAT HIS SAME BUSINESS COULD BOOK.
>> THAT'S THE POLICY THAT WAS BROKEN?
>> YES, MA'AM. THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF THE POLICY.
>> BUT THEY DID ADMIT HE MADE MONEY, AND THEY TRIED USING 176 AS THE JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.
>> CAN THAT BE JUSTIFIED, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY HE MADE?
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IT CAN'T BE.
I CAN'T AUDIT. HE'S IN CONTROL OF THE BOOKING EVENTS.
>> I NOTED WHAT THE 176 SAID, WHICH YOU SAID THAT'S NOT PART OF WHAT I'M DOING.
>> THE REASON THAT I CITED THIS IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM IS, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLEAR UP FOR THE PARK BOARD
[04:45:02]
IS THIS IS ABOUT PARK BOARD POLICY.THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN OUT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
>> IT DIDN'T MATTER IF HE MADE MONEY OR NOT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] TO GET RID OF HIS BUSINESS IN ORDER TO KEEP THAT POSITION?
>> YOU ARE TO STOP DOING BUSINESS WITH THE BOARD MANAGED PROPERTY THAT HE OVERSEES.
>> HE TOLD THE EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT.
>> SHARON, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. [INAUDIBLE] ON THIS? JANELLE, LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3F,
[3.F. Discussion Of Failure To Collect Audited STR And Hotel HOT Tax Resulting In Loss Of HOT Funds (G Bulgherini/ Porretto/Rawlins - 15 minutes)]
IF WE COULD, PLEASE.>> 3F. DISCUSSION OF FAILURE TO COLLECT AUDITED STR AND HOTEL HOT TAX RESULTING IN LOSS OF HOT FUNDS.
>> I THINK YOUR MIC RAN OUT OF BATTERY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN HERE SO [LAUGHTER] GO RIGHT AHEAD ON 3F, PLEASE.
>> WE JUST NOTIFIED THE PARK BOARD THAT WE'RE LOSING STATUTES.
I BELIEVE WE DID THAT IN MARCH OF 2025.
WE HAD SENT EMAILS TWICE BEFORE THAT, FEBRUARY 18TH AND DECEMBER 20, 2024, AND THEY BILLED THEM RIGHT AWAY, AND WE REDID THE AUDITS, AND THEY GOT THEM OUT RIGHT AWAY.
THE TOTAL LOSS I THINK BRYSON CALCULATED AT 21,600.
WE HAD ABOUT $5,000 LOSS IN THE INTERNAL AUDIT DEPARTMENT. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> TO CLARIFY THIS IN MY MIND, GLENN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 19 AUDITS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> OF THOSE 19 AUDITS, 13 OF THEM UNDER YOUR GUIDANCE AND NOTIFICATION OF BRYSON FRAZIER OVER THERE, THEY'VE RE-BILLED THOSE 13.
>> WE GOT THEM DONE IMMEDIATELY, AND AS FAST AS WE COULD, AND THEY GOT THE BILLINGS OUT.
>> THE REMAINING SIX OR SO, THAT'S ON YOUR REVISED AUDIT PLAN THAT WE'LL BE APPROVING THIS AFTERNOON.
>> IT'S ON YOUR REVISED AUDIT PLAN.
THOSE NEED TO BE REWORKED AND RECALCULATED BEFORE THOSE COULD BE BILLED BY THE PARK BOARD, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT IF THEY BILL THE 13 AND THE SIX GO OUT, YES, THEY DIDN'T BILL THAT, BUT IT'S NOT A LOSS OF REVENUE.
THAT CAN BE RECOUPED, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THE 13 THAT THEY ARE BILLING, ARE THEY GETTING MONEY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE NORMALLY GOTTEN IF THAT WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THROUGH AT THE TIME THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO?
>> WE LOST THE STATUTES FROM MARCH 2021 FURTHER BACK.
>> SO THERE IS A LOSS OF MONEY, EVEN IF THEY BUILD THEM NOW AND THEY GET PAYMENT, THERE IS A NET LOSS OF MONEY?
>> HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WHEN WE REDO THESE SIX COMING UP, AND WE PLAN ON DOING IT ON 13, IS WE LOST MONTHS FROM MARCH 2021 BACK, BUT WE WANT TO DO ADDITIONAL MONTHS FORWARD.
NOW, SINCE THE LOSS, WE HAVE INCURRED MORE MONTHS THAT WE CAN AUDIT.
BASED UPON THESE ESTIMATE AUDITS, WE CAN KNOCK THAT 21,600 DOWN TO WHERE WE DON'T LOSE SO MUCH, AND INCLUDE THEM IN THE AUDITS.
THAT'S WHAT BRYSON I THINK HE WAS REFERRING TO.
>> YES. IT COSTS THE CITY AUDITORS DEPARTMENT'S MONEY.
HOPEFULLY, WE'LL BE REIMBURSED BY THE PARK BOARD.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS, BOB?
>> I JUST UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THIS WORKS AT THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AUDITOR AND THE PARK BOARD.
AS I UNDERSTAND, THIS ALL STARTED IN 2022 WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTER LOCAL.
THE PARK BOARD HAD BEEN USING AN OUTSIDE VENDOR TO DO THIS UNSATISFACTORY RESULTS.
HERE IN THE PARK BOARD GOT TOGETHER AND CREATED THIS PROGRAM.
[04:50:04]
>> IMMEDIATELY, I THINK, AS I UNDERSTAND, YOU STARTED BILLING PRBO AND AIRBNB, WHICH WE HADN'T DONE BEFORE.
BUT JUST TO PUT THE 21,600 IN CONTEXT A LITTLE BIT.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THESE ARE THE LATEST NUMBERS I GOT SINCE THE PROGRAM STARTED IN '22 UP TO '25.
THERE'S BEEN 142 AUDITS, 915,000 BILLED, AND OUT OF THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE MISSING OUT $21,600.
THAT'S ABOUT 2% OF THAT 915, I GUESS, AND WE DO HAVE A CHANCE OF RECOUPING SOME OF THAT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO PREVENT AS MUCH LOSS AS WE CAN FOR THE TAXPAYERS.
WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN.
>> YOU AT THE PARK BOARD ARE WORKING PRETTY CLOSELY TO FINE TUNE THIS PROGRAM AND MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.
>> WE DID. BEFORE THIS OCCURRED OR THESE LAST SET OF AUDITS, HE'S 19, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH RECEIVING THE BILLINGS AND GETTING THEM ONTO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
FOR SOME REASON, HE'S 19, THE PARK BOARD DIDN'T GET THE BILLINGS TO US, WHICH I TOLD BRYSON, AND I THINK HE REPORTED IT TO YOU.
THAT'S HOW THIS ALL CAME ABOUT, BUT THE PROBLEM IS FIXED.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, ALEX?
>> WHEN I WATCHED THE MEETING, IT WAS SAID THAT IT WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION.
IF THERE'S EMAILS FROM DECEMBER 20TH AND IN FEBRUARY ABOUT THIS, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE A MISCOMMUNICATION BECAUSE ONCE YOU ALERTED COUNSEL TO IT, EVERYTHING GOT DONE IN A WEEK.
WHILE THE HOT TECHS AUDITED HOT TEXT THAT'S LEFT GOT DONE AND SENT OUT IN A WEEK, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S ONCE MR. BROWN FOUND OUT ABOUT IT.
THAT'S WHEN WE GOT THE BILLINGS AND WE STARTED GOING IMMEDIATELY.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE COMMUNICATION PROBLEM WAS BUT EVERYTHING GOT STRAIGHT AND WE GOT THE WORK OUT AND THE BILLS GOT OUT SO THAT WE CAN NOW GET THOSE TO LEGAL IF THEY DON'T PAY.
YOU CAN EXPAND AND GO FORWARD MONTHS TO TRY TO RECAPTURE THAT.
>> THAT MADE IT TO WHERE THAT REVENUE, WHETHER IT BE COLLECTED OR NOT, COULD NOT BE REALIZED LEGALLY.
>> CORRECT. FOR THOSE MONTHS, THEY'RE LOST PERMANENTLY. THEY'RE LOST.
>> IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT IF YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE STATUTES, YOU SHOULDN'T BE COLLECTING THAT TAX.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD THINK WOULD BE A REASONABLE STATEMENT.
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASON WHY THEY WEREN'T BILLED. I DON'T.
>> IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT ONE PERSON DOING ALL THE WORK, AND YOU ALL GAVE THEM NOTIFICATION TWICE, AT LEAST IN DECEMBER.
AND WHEN YOU SENT OVER YOUR, I FORGET.
IT WAS ONE OF THE SHEETS, AND IT SAYS THE DATES COMPLETED.
I THINK WHEN I COUNTED, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE SENDING OVER, AND THIS ISN'T AN ATTACK ON ANY EMPLOYEE.
I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITUATION AND I DO BELIEVE THAT EMPLOYEE IS ESSENTIALLY DROWNING IN WORK.
THE SHORTEST AMOUNT OF DAYS BETWEEN WHAT YOU SENT WAS ABOUT FOUR DAYS.
YOU DON'T JUST SEND HERE'S 19.
>> YOU SEND THEM AS YOU COMPLETE THEM.
>> THIS WAS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME.
I BELIEVE THE FIRST ONE STARTING IN AUGUST OF 2024, I BELIEVE, AND THEN MOST OF THEM CAME IN SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER AFTER THAT, AND SO WE STARTED LOSING STATUTES.
>> ALTHOUGH WE ARE GETTING MORE HOT TAX, YOU ARE STILL LOSING 04,000 PER HOTEL AND ABOUT THOUSAND PER STR.
>> WE GOT THAT STOPPED WITH THE BILLING FOR THOSE.
>> WHEN YOU DO THESE AUDITS, EVERYTHING IS PAID FOR BY.
>> WE CAN STOP. WE'LL CUT THE LOSSES AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO THE POINT THAT I, WELL, TWO THINGS.
[04:55:02]
ONE, WE KNOW RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THOUSAND RENTALS THAT AREN'T REGISTERED AND THAT DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE CITY.TWO THAT ALSO THEN LEAVES THE QUESTION OF HOT TAX.
BUT WHEN DID WE GO TO THE STATE HOT TAX.
WHERE THE STATE COLLECTS FROM AIRBNB?
>> WE'RE GOING TO BE AT A POINT OF DIMINISHING RETURNS WHEN IT'S COLLECTED BY AIRBNB, EXCEPT THE OPERATORS THAT ARE.
>> ACTUALLY, IT PROVED TO BE BENEFICIAL.
BUT I GUESS YOU'RE QUESTIONING OR MY THINKING OF THAT IS, IF WE CONTINUE TO AUDIT INTO WHEN WE HAD THE PERIOD OF AIRBNB, IT STOPS BECAUSE AIRBNB, VRBO COLLECTS IT.
>> WELL, EXCEPT FOR WE KNOW RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 1,000 SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT AREN'T REGISTERED.
NO, IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE SOFTWARE.
>> WHICH MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE A REGISTRATION NUMBER, WHICH MEANS THE AIRBNB INFORMATION IS INCORRECT WHETHER WE'RE GETTING IT FROM THE STATE OR NOT.
>> WE CAN'T AUDIT AIRBNB OR BBRO.
WE KNOW WE HAVE 1,000 THAT AREN'T REGISTERED.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON 3F FROM MR. BOGORENNY?
WE'RE GOING TO IMPROVE YOUR AUDIT THIS AFTERNOON.
THANK YOU AND YOUR STAFF FOR ALL YOUR WORK YOU'RE DOING.
>> WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 3G, BUT WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.
LET'S COME BACK AT THREE O'CLOCK AND WE WILL BE GOING THROUGH FIVE OF THEM.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE, THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS WORKSHOP FROM THE.
>> WE JUST WANT TO SAY GOD BLESS YOU IF YOU ARE STILL WATCHING.
>> THAT IS EXACTLY RIGHT, AND YOUR EYES ARE NOT DECEIVING YOU.
YES, WE ARE STILL IN OUR WORKSHOP MEETING FOR MARCH 27.
[Items 3.G. & 3.L.]
IT'S 3:00 P.M. WE ARE MOVING NOW TO ITEM 3G AND 3L, PLEASE, JANET.>> 3G. PRESENTATION OF THE CURRENT STATUS OF AVAILABLE CITY DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS AND CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOWERING FISCAL IMPACT OF REQUIRED DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND 3L.
DISCUSS CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO SPUR DEVELOPMENT AND INCREASE THE TAX BASE.
>> VERY GOOD. THIS WAS PUT ON BY COUNCILMAN FINKLEA, AND COUNCILWOMAN ROB, AND THEN WE HAVE 3L, COUNCILMAN RAWLINS FROM COUNCILMEMBER PORRETTO.
MICHELLE HAYES HERE AND PROVIDED US WITH A STAFF MEMO AND PACKAGE OF INFORMATION.
OVER THE PAST, PROBABLY SIX MONTHS OR SO, SHE AND I HAVE MET ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND DISCUSSED WAYS FOR US TO ENCOURAGE ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AND LOOK AT NOT JUST 380 AGREEMENTS, BUT ALSO OTHER INCENTIVE PROGRAMS, AND SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO HER FOR A PRESENTATION AND THEN WE GO FROM THERE.
>> THANK YOU. I DID PASS YOU OUT A HANDOUT FOR THAT JAY.
I TRIED TO CONDENSE IT BECAUSE I KNEW THERE WAS A LOT ON THE AGENDA.
WE HAVE A TWO PAGER HERE OF SOME RECOMMENDATION.
THEN IN THE EXHIBITS BEHIND IS JUST MORE OF THE ORDINANCES FROM THE PREVIOUS 380 POLICY.
I ACTUALLY FOUND ONE BACK FROM 2002 A POLICY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS TIED INTO OUR TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT AND THEN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THE CHAPTER 380 LANGUAGES IN THERE AS WELL.
>> CAN I ADD SOMETHING INTO YOURS, BECAUSE ASIDE FROM LOOKING AT WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO BRING IN NEW DEVELOPMENT, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT IS STIFLING BUSINESSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE AND WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR CURRENT RULES.
I'M GOING TO DO A BRIEF, A ONE PAGER HANDOUT.
HANDSOME THAT WAY AND HANDSOME THIS WAY.
LEAVE ME ONE BECAUSE IT'S THINGS LIKE THIS WHEN WE HAVE CURRENT BUSINESS OWNERS THAT ARE
[05:00:06]
WANTING TO MAKE A $9 MILLION INVESTMENT AND BECAUSE OF RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE ARE MAKING THEM CUT THAT.IT REALLY SEEMS ESPECIALLY THE HONDA SIGN PART OF IT IS REALLY LUDICROUS TO ME THAT WERE, BECAUSE OF OUR RESTRICTIONS, ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS IMPROVE THEIR SIGN, AND NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING IN A 50 FOOT SIGN BECAUSE OF WHAT OUR REGULATIONS ARE IN PLACE.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT BOTH OF THOSE IS MY POINT.
>> THAT WAS THE SPIRIT OF, AND THIS WAS ONE EXAMPLE, BUT THERE WAS OTHERS TWO THAT BOB AND I WANTED AND I'M NOT.
I'LL LET MICHELLE KEEP GOING, BUT THIS IS ALL.
I THINK THE WAY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST MEETING AND THINGS IN BETWEEN THEN, I THINK WE ARE ALL ON BOARD REALLY MAKING THE DEVELOPMENT EASIER.
WE HAVE VERY HIGH STANDARDS, AND MAYBE THERE'S SOME STANDARDS THAT WE COULD OR RETREAT BACK ON THAT DON'T I THINK FINKLEY AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS.
WE WE'RE NOT NEEDING WHATEVER YOU CAN BRING HERE TO HELP US SPUR STUFF. BUT WE SHOULDN'T.
I WANT PEOPLE TO SPEND MONEY HERE REGARDLESS IF THEY'RE A NEW BUSINESS OR BUSINESS PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND.
THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE WHO DID SPEAK UP AND WE OBVIOUSLY OCCURRED HIM.
BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND WHO DON'T WANT TO SPEAK UP BECAUSE THEY FEEL THAT.
>> THEY'LL BE EITHER TARGETED OR NOT FAVORED IN DEVELOPMENT STUFF.
REGARDLESS, IF THAT IS A, I KNOW BRIAN'S GOING TO SAY WHO, THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER BUT IT IS A PERCEPTION.
>> MR. BENTLEY WAS ASSIGNED AN OMBUDSMAN THAT WENT THROUGH THIS, WHICH IS MICHELLE, OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WE'VE DONE NOTHING BUT TRY TO HELP.
>> I'M SAYING, IF THERE IS A PERCEPTION OF BUSINESS PEOPLE ON THE ISLAND THAT WE ARE NOT FRIENDLY, I WANT TO SEE HOW WE CAN DO BETTER IN BEING MORE FRIENDLY.
I'M NOT DOING THIS IS JUST IF WE'RE BEING PERCEIVED A CERTAIN WAY.
>> THESE ARE YOUR RULES, GUYS.
>> YEAH, AND THERE'S A LOT OF RULES.
[OVERLAPPING] SORRY, MICHELLE.
I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME, AND THAT'S A BIG PART OF WHAT I DO IN MY ROLE IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF OMBUDSMAN.
THE MAJOR PROJECTS THAT ARE HERE.
I SIT IN THE PRE DEVELOPMENTS, I HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON, I TRY TO KEEP UP WITH ANYTHING THAT'S HAPPENING.
NOW, ONCE THEY GET TO A CERTAIN POINT, IF THEY'RE HAVING ISSUES AND THEY'RE NOT COMMUNICATING WITH ME, THEN IT'S HARD FOR ME TO HELP BUT I DO HAVE SOME THAT WILL REACH OUT.
THEN I CAN GO FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN HELP THERE, BUT AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT I CAN'T FIX.
>> I KNOW BUT WE CAN FIX THAT, AND IF IT WERE BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIX IT.
PROBLEM IS, IT WASN'T BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION UNTIL IT HAD ALREADY MOVED DOWN.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW THIS WAS AN ISSUE EITHER HONESTLY.
>> GREAT EXAMPLE WAS TOLAN COMING TO US AND SAYING HE HAD ISSUES WITH BIGGER DEVELOPMENTS AND THEN YOU NEED TO EXTEND THEIR TIME BY SIX MONTHS.
I THINK, HEY, I ALWAYS SAY WHEN I TALK TO STAFF, HEY, YOU GOT TO TELL ME WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE, BECAUSE I'M NOT FULLY AWARE OF ALL THE INNER WORKINGS THAT GO ON AND BRING FOR THOSE RECOMMEND, BRING FORTH.
HEY, WE ARE HERE TO WORK WITH STAFF AND STAFF WORK WITH US AND US WORK WITH THE.
WE ARE THE INTERMEDIARY BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND THE DEVELOPERS AND HOW THEY FEEL VERSUS HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE.
>> NOT RIGHT AHEAD IN MICHELLE.
>> LOOKING AT WHAT WE ARE CURRENTLY OFFERING FOR INCENTIVES.
I DIDN'T GO BACK THROUGH ALL OF THE TIME BUT WE'VE BEEN DOING THINGS LIKE OUR TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE SINCE ABOUT 81 OR DOWN TO OUR LAST ONE TAR 13, WHICH IS BEACH TOWN.
I THINK THE FIRST TEN OCCURRED BETWEEN THE '80 AND '84, AND THEN WE HAD THE LAST FOUR OCCUR IN 2001-2004.
[05:05:02]
WE REALLY HAVE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS HAD A TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE.IF YOU LOOK AT PROJECTS THAT WERE TURS, THE STRAND WAS A TURS.
THE PIRATES PROPERTIES WERE A TURS.
THE MA TARGET HOME DEPOT, THAT WAS A TURS.
>> THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAD A 380 AGREEMENT, WHICH IS ONE OF A VERY BROAD DEVELOPMENT TOOL.
YOU CAN TAKE IT AND DO PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO.
IT'S A PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT, BASICALLY.
IT SAYS, DEVELOPER, YOU'D LIKE TO DO XYZ HERE, WE'RE GOING TO HELP YOU GET OVER THIS HURDLE THAT'S A CHALLENGE WITH DEVELOPMENT, AND WE CAN DO A FEW THINGS.
WE CAN REBATE THEIR AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, YOU CAN REBATE SALES TAX, YOU CAN HELP WITH INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT'S JUST OPEN FOR WHAT THE MUNICIPALITY WANTS TO DO, BUT THEY HAVE TO PERFORM TO A CERTAIN DEGREE IN ORDER TO GET THOSE INCENTIVES.
INSTEAD OF JUST GRANTING STRAIGHT DOLLARS TO DEVELOPMENTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT FOLLOW THROUGH WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND THEN YOU'RE OUT, THEY HAVE TO HAVE MILESTONES AND YOU HAVE METRICS INVOLVED WITH IT TO KNOW, YOU'VE MADE THIS LEVEL OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT, OR YOU CREATED THIS NUMBER OF JOBS AND THOSE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF JOBS MAYBE WITHIN A HIGHER WAGE BRACKET OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
YOU'RE ABLE TO HAVE CONTROL ON THAT.
THAT MAKES SENSE, OBVIOUSLY A WIN-WIN FOR BOTH THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER THAT A PROJECT OCCURS.
QUITE A BIT OF THE 3D AGREEMENTS THAT I'VE LOOKED AT AND RESEARCHED REALLY HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH REIMBURSING DEVELOPERS ON SOME OF THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, WHETHER THEY'RE PUTTING IN STREETS OR TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT IF IT'S DONE ON THE DEVELOPER'S TIME, THEN SOME CITIES ARE GOING BACK IN OVER A PERIOD OF A NUMBER OF YEARS REBATING THEM.
THAT'S A TRADITIONAL 380 PROGRAM.
BACK IN 2016 WHEN THE CITY DECIDED WE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING, WE BABY-STEPPED IN.
WE STARTED WITH A PROGRAM THAT WAS FOR THE HISTORIC BUILDINGS DOWN HERE BETWEEN, I THINK, 19TH AND 26TH STREET, SOMEWHERE ABOUT THERE.
THERE'S HISTORIC BUILDINGS THAT WERE EXPENSIVE TO REHAB.
THAT'S HOW WE STARTED THE PROCESS, AND I THINK WE HAD THREE PROJECTS THAT WE DEVELOPERS MADE AGREEMENTS FOR, AND HONESTLY, NONE OF THEM WENT THROUGH THE COMPLETE PROCESS.
WE'VE NOT REALLY HAD TO ACT ON ANY OF THOSE THREE.
OUR EXPERIENCE WITH THAT HAS BEEN MINIMUM, BUT IN LOOKING AT EVERYTHING AND LOOKING AT SOME OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT GOES BACK FROM 2018 THAT WAS ADOPTED, TOOK SOME OF THOSE THOUGHTS AND IDEAS.
THEN IN THE MEETINGS WITH VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS AS YOU-ALL HAVE COME ON BOARD, I'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH MOST OF YOU TO SEE WHAT YOUR GOALS WERE, AND WE PULLED IN SOME OF THOSE INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS HERE.
LOOKING AT TARGET INDUSTRIES, WE KNOW MARITIME INDUSTRY, AVIATION [INAUDIBLE] SPACE, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS WERE OF INTEREST IN BOTH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IN MEETING WITH COUNCIL.
THEN STRATEGIC INVESTMENT AREAS, PELICAN ISLAND, THE BROADWAY CORRIDOR, THE AIRPORT.
TO WERE ALL THINGS WE'VE HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN OF AREAS THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR DEVELOPMENT.
>> MICHELLE, SINCE WE'RE HERE, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT STEWART BEACH FOR A LONG TIME THIS MORNING.
IS THERE ONE OF THESE DEVICES THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE URGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF STEWART BEACH?
>> I WOULD HAVE TO SAY IT WOULD, I GUESS, DEPEND ON WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
USUALLY, I THINK FOR US, [INAUDIBLE] AND TOURISM ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NECESSARILY INCENTIVIZE.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WHERE WE PROVIDE THE SITE AND THEY PROVIDE [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU-ALL.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS MORE OF THESE DEVICES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT,
[05:10:01]
WHICH ONE MIGHT BE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THAT?>> IF WE ADOPT A 380 PROGRAM, IT CAN COME WITH CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT YOU-ALL PUT IN PLACE.
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A 380 SALES TAX BECAUSE THERE'S NO PROPERTY TAX ON THAT ALREADY.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PRIVATE.
>> IF WE'RE GIVING UP ALL THE SALES TAX, WHY ARE WE DOING IT?
>> THE OTHER THING TOO IS, I THINK THE BIGGEST THING, MICHELLE WILL TOUCH ON EVENTUALLY, BUT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF BUSINESSES HERE ON THE ISLAND THAT HAVE BEEN LOYAL TO THE ISLAND, THEY STUCK WITH US THROUGH THICK AND THIN.
WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT INCENTIVIZING NEW BUSINESSES TO COME IN HERE AND WE'RE GIVING AWAY THE STORE TO GET THEM HERE SO THEY CAN COMPETE AGAINST PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS.
IT'S LIKE INCENTIVIZING RESTAURANTS. THAT'S GREAT.
EVERYBODY LOVES NEW RESTAURANTS, BUT IT'S NOT FAIR TO GUYS WHO'VE BEEN HERE FOR 100 YEARS THAT WE'RE GOING TO INCENTIVIZE A SEAFOOD RESTAURANT.
>> WHICH GETS TO THE POINT THAT ROBIN PEARL [PHONETIC] MADE TO EITHER FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THESE EXISTING OWNERS.
I THINK YOU GOT TO TAKE A LOOK AT BOTH OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT [INAUDIBLE] AGAIN.
I THINK THE FACT THAT THAT BECAME A DIRTY WORD.
>> TORRES IS NOT DIRTY WORD [INAUDIBLE] ARE SUCCESSFUL.
>> IT HAS BEEN A WORD AT THE CITY.
>> TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, MOST OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN PLAY NOW IS NOT EVEN ON THE TAX ROLL.
IF YOU'RE NOT GIVING ANYTHING UP BY OFFERING A [INAUDIBLE] OR PROPERTY ON BROADWAY OR ANYTHING ELSE, PROPERTY ON 45TH STREET.
>> WHAT ABOUT ONE WHO DID NOT COMPLETE THEIR [INAUDIBLE]? CAN SOMEONE ELSE PICK IT UP? FOR EXAMPLE, THE FALL STAFF, IF IT'S SITTING THERE.
>> RIGHT, BUT CAN SOMEONE COME ALONG AND DO IT AGAIN?
>> THEY COULD CREATE A NEW [INAUDIBLE].
>> YOU CREATE THE ZONE AND YOU CAN SHAPE THE ZONE HOWEVER YOU WANT.
>> FOR ME, WHAT I'D LIKE DIRECTION OR YOU'RE BLESSING ON IS TO CREATE THAT CRITERIA, THOSE TARGET INDUSTRIES LOOKING AT A STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS.
I HAVE SOME IDEAS DOWN HERE LOOKING AT JOB CREATION, CAPITAL INVESTMENT, IN THE VERY BACK, I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT.
>> INVOLVES SELF TARGETING AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX, INVESTMENT IS A GREAT THING.
A GOOD THING FOR THE CITY IS TARGETING SALES TAX REVENUE BECAUSE SALES TAX REVENUE IS TWO-FOLD.
IT ALLOWS US TO DO THINGS AT THE CITY, BUT IT ALSO HAS AN OFFSET TO YOUR PROPERTY TAX. IT BENEFITS.
AND BEACHES AND OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THE IDC FUND, BUT WHAT IT DOES DO IS IT LESSENS THE BURDEN ON EVERYBODY.
NOT ONLY ARE SOMEBODY GETTING A NEW BUSINESS THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY USE AND APPRECIATE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HELP THEM LOWER THEIR PROPERTY TAX.
WE'RE JUST SUDDENLY ADDING AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAX.
SOMETIMES DEPENDING ON WHAT STRAIN IT PUTS ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THAT FRONT.
>> YES. LOOKING AT THAT AND REVIEWING THESE, THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF TECHNOLOGY THAT I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT AND REVIEW ON SOME ECONOMIC IMPACT CALCULATORS BECAUSE WE CAN ESSENTIALLY REALLY LOOK AT AND SHOW YOU WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE BOTTOM LINE.
WHILE WE PUT IN ALL THE GOOD STUFF, THEIR CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND ALSO WE CAN PUT IN WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO FOR OUR UTILITIES, HOW MUCH CAPACITY IS IT GOING TO TAKE FROM US FOR SOME OF THESE PROJECTS.
WE CAN PRESENT TO YOU REALLY WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT TO GAIN OUT OF IT.
IF YOU'RE GIVING UP A LITTLE BIT, LET'S JUST MAKE SURE THAT IN RETURN, WE ARE GAINING ENOUGH, AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD UTILIZE.
>> YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK ON THIS LAST EXHIBIT, WHICH IS YOUR PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE CURRENT 380 POLICY?
>> YES. AT THIS TIME JUST MOVING TOWARDS A MORE TRADITIONAL 380 AGREEMENT, A PROGRAM WHERE WE CAN LOOK AT THE CRITERIA, WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO DO.
IS IT A CERTAIN NUMBER OF JOBS? IS IT A CERTAIN CAPITAL INVESTMENT? IT COULD BE A MIXTURE OF BOTH, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO THEN HAVE A REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT WHEN THESE APPLICATIONS COME IN, WE CAN REVIEW THOSE INTERNALLY AND THEN PRESENT THE ONES THAT WE FEEL ARE THE MOST VALID TO COUNCIL.
>> MICHELLE, YOU OUTLINED YOUR THREE NEXT STEPS HERE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
[05:15:03]
WILL YOU BE BRINGING THAT FORWARD TO US SHORTLY?>> THAT REQUIRES A VOTE OF COUNCIL?
>> THE SECOND AND THIRD ONE, WILL YOU BE BRINGING THAT INFORMATION TO US ALSO?
>> ARE YOU SAYING THE CRITERIA?
>> TO GIVE US A BASELINE TO START TALKING FROM.
>> DO WE WANT SOME REVIEW OF THE FINANCE AND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE JUST TO VET SOME OF THESE.
>> I THINK THEY GIVE A GOOD PERSPECTIVE ON IT.
CAN'T SAY WE'RE GETTING OVER ZEALOUS SOMEWHERE IN THE GROUNDING MECHANISM.
>> BECAUSE ANYTHING THAT WE GIVE UP. OBVIOUSLY, IF WE HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS ZERO TAX.
>> YOU HAVE A GOOD DIVERSE AMOUNT OF BUSINESS OWNERS AND THINGS ON THERE THAT WILL HELP GUIDE US IN THAT TOO.
>> TIMELINE GOING BACK TO THE LOGISTICS ON THIS, THE COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE NEW 380 AGREEMENT FRAMEWORK.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN BRING? DO YOU WANT TO WORKSHOP THAT AGAIN AND THEN PUT IT ON AGENDA.
>> IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, MAYOR, WHY DON'T WE SEE WHETHER WE CAN GET IT ON THE NEXT FFAC, DROPPING A COMMITTEE MEETING.
>> FINANCE? I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU A HARD DATE AND BECAUSE THAT'S MEAN DO WE TRY TO COORDINATE THOSE MEETINGS AROUND EVERYBODY'S SCHEDULES?
>> YOU'LL BE BRINGING THIS TO FINANCE FIRST.
>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION NEXT WEEK AT IDC AS WELL?
>> BECAUSE THAT'S AN THAT'S AN INTEGRATE PART.
I KNOW WE'VE SAID LET'S LOOK AT REGULATIONS TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT EASIER, ESPECIALLY FOR EXISTING BUSINESSES AND PEOPLE THAT WANT TO GROW AND DO NEW THINGS WHO ARE ISLAND BUSINESS PEOPLE.
I REALLY WANT TO EMPHASIZE, AND I THINK WE ALL GET THAT, EVERYBODY HERE WANTS TO DO THAT, WANTS TO HELP SPUR THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT.
WE MISSED SOME STUFF. WE'RE READY.
WE'RE READY FOR SOME STUFF TO START.
>> HANG ON A SECOND, ALEX. WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING YOU IF WE'VE GOT ISSUES, BUT DO YOU WANT US TO BRING YOU EVERY TIME SOMEBODY COMPLAINS ABOUT OUR BILLING REGULATIONS?
>> I DON'T WANT COMPLAINTS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOTTEN A COMPLAINT.
IF YOU'VE GOTTEN ANY SIMILAR COMPLAINT FROM SIMILAR THINGS.
I'VE HEARD SIGN COMPLAINTS TOO.
>> YOU'D LIKE TO REVISIT THE SIGN ORDINANCE?
>> JUST ONE PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, BUT IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I GUESS I SAID LAST TIME WITH THE MARSHALS, BRING US THINGS THAT CAN BE FIXED VIA CODE, REGULATION.
SOMETHING THAT IF THERE'S A COMPLAINT, DON'T LET IT FALL ON DEAF EARS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY ARE, BUT SOME PERCEPTION.
>> I JUST DO NOT WANT US VENTURING INTO THE POLICY WORLD.
WE ENFORCE WHAT YOU GUYS PASS.
>> I KNOW, BUT MAYBE WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'D LIKE TO READDRESS THE POLICY.
>> IF THERE IS SOME POLICIES THAT STAFF OR EVEN YOU OR ANYBODY COULD BRING FORWARD, WE SHOULD ALL, AS A UNIT, WORK TOGETHER TO CHANGE THINGS.
>> WE'VE GOT SOME STUFF THAT'S PRETTY OUT THERE BY MY OPINION, BUT THEY'RE NOT BY PREVIOUS COUNCIL'S OPINIONS.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY HOW THEY GO HERE.
>> I DON'T LIKE TO BE THE ONE THAT DOES THAT.
> I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS NUDGE ME IN THE DIRECTION YOU WANT TO GO TO LOOK AT IT AND I'LL BRING IT BACK TO YOU.
>> SLIDE INTO OUR MAILBOXES ANONYMOUSLY AND THEN WE'LL LOOK AT IT.
>> IT'S A VIOLATION OF TCA CODE OF ETHICS FOR ME TO DO THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT UNLESS I HAVE TO.
>> JUST A THOUGHT. WE CAN RE-LOOK AT THIS SIGN ORDINANCE.
I WAS ON THE SIGN COMMITTEE MANY YEARS AGO.
IT IS A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE.
>> I KNOW, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THIS CASE, BECAUSE I REMEMBER ALL THOSE ARGUMENTS AND SO FORTH, THIS IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE GOAL OF THE SIGNING ORDINANCE WAS.
>> I THINK THE ISSUE HERE, AND TIMOTHY, CORRECT ME IF I' WRONG, IS YOU'RE TEARING DOWN THE SIGNING, AND ONCE YOU TEAR IT DOWN, YOU LOSE THE GRANDFATHERING STATUS,; IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT'S PORTRAYED HERE.
>> ACTUALLY, AT THE TIME HE HAD FIRST STEPPED THROUGH THAT, WHAT DO WE DO IF WE WANT TO REBUILD A SIGN? I HAD ACTUALLY GIVEN HIM SOME ADVICE IN WRITING AND AN EMAIL THAT SAID, IF THIS IS A TEMPORARY SITUATION, KNOWING THAT THERE'S CLOTH AROUND THAT THING, YOU CAN REFACE THIS SIGN AS IS AND NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING.
[05:20:02]
I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING SINCE UNTIL HERE RECENTLY.>> ANYWAY, GO RIGHT AHEAD, ALEX.
YOU WANT TO FINISH YOUR THOUGHT.
>> WE'LL TAKE A LOOK HOLISTICALLY AT WHAT WHAT WE DO IN PREVIOUS COUNCILS IN THE PAST.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY GOT SOME THINGS WRONG.
>> AND WE'LL GET SOME THINGS WRONG.
>> HELL, WE'LL PROBABLY GET SOME THINGS WRONG, BUT THAT'S OUR ROLE.
>> I'VE DEFINITELY NEVER BEEN A BIG DEVELOPER OR SOMEONE THAT'S HAD THE BLESSINGS OF OPENING A LARGE BOX STORE, BUT I'VE BEEN PART OF THE PERMITTING AND PLANNING AND ZONING IN MY LINE OF WORK FOR THE LAST 24 YEARS IN GALVESTON.
I'VE SEEN SOME GREAT THINGS, AND I'VE SEEN SOME THINGS THAT ARE COMPLETELY BACKWARDS.
ONE OF THE THINGS, AND MICHELLE, YOU'VE ADDRESSED THE INCENTIVIZING, BUT THAT'S ONLY AS GOOD AS THE SUPPORT YOU GET FROM ALL OF THE OTHER PARTS OF THIS PUZZLE.
WE'VE GOT ROBERT IN THE ROOM, WE'VE GOT TIM IN THE ROOM, WE'VE GOT BRANDON IN THE ROOM, WE'VE GOT RYAN IN THE ROOM.
TO ME, THAT INCENTIVIZING IS GREAT, BUT IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE WORKING AGAINST THOSE INCENTIVES THAT WE CAN BASICALLY REVIEW AND TAKE A LOOK AT, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S A LOT, THERE'S COMMUNICATION BETWEEN YOUR MEETINGS WITH THOSE POTENTIAL INVESTORS AND PLANNING AND ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS.
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST ELEPHANTS IN THE ROOM.
TIM, HOW MANY OVERLAY ZONES DO WE HAVE?
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE]?
>> WE HAVE LITERALLY I WANT TO SAY.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE [INAUDIBLE].
>> OVERLAYS LIKE HDD. ALL THOSE.
>> R1, R2, R0, ALL OF THIS DIFFERENT HISTORIC.
>> THOSE AREN'T OVERLAYS. BUT YEAH, THE HDDZ IS, AND THE BROADWAY STANDARDS ARE AN OVERLAY, SEAWALL STANDARDS ARE AN OVERLAY. THERE'S SEVERAL.
>> WE GOT RID OF MOST OF THEM.
>> WE USED TO HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH MORE.
>> BUT IF IT HITS THE GEOGRAPHY WHERE MOST OF THAT ECONOMIC ACTIVITY OCCURS.
>> I'M SAYING THAT'S A PART OF IT, AND THAT'S SOMETHING, AGAIN, IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE DOING ANYTHING WRONG.
IT'S JUST ARE THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO BETTER SO THAT THE INCENTIVIZING PROGRAM, SOMETHING SIMPLE LIKE OUR TAP FEES.
>> THAT DOESN'T EVEN COVER OUR COST.
>> NO. BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT.
>> BUT THEN WHAT IT DOES IS WHEN THEY DON'T PAY THAT, EVERY OTHER BILL PAYER IN GALVESTON PAYS FOR IT.
>> AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S WRONG.
I'M JUST SAYING IT'S CHANGED, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT SOMETIMES IS A SURPRISE TO PEOPLE.
>> THEY'RE IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES.
>> AGAIN, EVEN IF WE HAD SOMETHING THAT JUST WAS A POINTS BULLETIN OF THINGS THAT, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT WE REQUIRE RIGHT OFF THE TOP AND THESE ARE THE INCENTIVE PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE TO OFFSET THAT.
WITH ROBERT, I ASKED YOU TO COME UP JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE OF THE TWO AGENDA ITEMS ON THE WORKSHOP, ONE OF THEM WAS THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM, BUT THE BIGGEST PART OF IT WAS DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN ALSO CHANGES TO DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATIONS TO SPUR DEVELOPMENT.
I GUESS IT'S, WHAT I'D SAY THAT I FEEL LIKE IS MISSING A LITTLE BIT IS THAT WE'VE GOT MICHELLE WORKING ISOLATED AND SHE'S TRYING TO PUT HER IDEAS TOGETHER.
IT WAS STATED THAT ONE PERSON MADE A CHANGE ON ALL THE OVERKILL REQUIREMENTS WITH DRAINAGE.
I THINK THAT WHAT ARE THE STEPS THAT WE CAN TAKE NOW WITH DRAINAGE? WHAT ARE THE STEPS WE CAN TAKE NEXT MEETING WITH DRAINAGE?
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'VE MET AND DISCUSSED.
LOOKING AT THOSE REQUIREMENTS, SOME OF IT'S A LITTLE INTERPRETATION AS WELL.
I WOULD JUST WANT TO SAY IS, THERE'S STRANGE REQUIREMENTS IN THERE, MAYBE 25 MAY OR MAY NOT BE HIGHER THAN ANYTHING, BUT THERE IS SOME INFORMATION WITHIN THAT DOCUMENT THAT SAYS,
[05:25:01]
LOOKING AT EVERYTHING ON CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND IF YOU'RE CLOSER TO OUTFALLS, THERE'S THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO, AND PEOPLE TEND TO JUST FOCUS ON THIS CHART THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE AND NOT ALL THE OTHER LITTLE STUFF.IF IT'S A MATTER OF PRESENTING IT DIFFERENTLY OR WHATEVER, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS SOME LEEWAY.
>> ARE WE GETTING RID OF DETENTION PONDS?
>> [INAUDIBLE] TALK. THAT'S A DUMB QUESTION.
>> NO. HOW CAN WE GET RID OF DETENTION POND REQUIREMENTS?
>> NOT A POND REQUIREMENT, BUT THERE'S DETENTION.
>> DETENTION REQUIREMENTS, THAT OUR FLOOD LADY SAT HERE AND TOLD US IT DID NOT AFFECT OUR RATING.
>> IT AFFECTS CRS, BUT IT DEFINITELY STILL IS SOMETHING WE COULD GET POINTS FOR.
>> BUT SHE TOLD US IT DIDN'T, BUT WE KNOW IT IS AFFECTING OUR DEVELOPMENT.
>> THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THIS.
>> I'LL SAY IT AGAIN. WHAT STEPS DO WE NEED TO TAKE TO DECIDE AS A COUNCIL THAT WE NO LONGER NEED TO DIG BIG HOLES ON AN ISLAND FOR DRAINAGE?
>> WE TALK ABOUT DETENTION, WE DON'T ACTUALLY SAY YOU HAVE TO BUILD A BIG POND.
>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT POND, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE DETENTION POND. I THINK BUZZ WAS ASKING IT.
>> BUZZ WAS ASKING A SIMPLE QUESTION OF THEORETICALLY, IF WE WANTED TO TAKE STEPS FOR NEXT MEETING TO REMOVE A REQUIREMENT, WHAT DO WE DO?
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS YOU COULD LOOK AT.
THE DRAINAGE DESIGN CRITERIA HAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT FACTORS IN IT.
ONE IS RIGHT NOW IT'S BASED ON A ONE PER ONE SIZE ON YOUR LOT.
IF YOU GOT A 10 ACRE LOT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 10 ACRE FEET OF DRAINAGE OR DETENTION.
>> IT'S A VERY LARGE NUMBER, ABSOLUTELY.
MAYBE IT'S DEFINITELY OVERKILL.
LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES USE 0.65 AS THE FACTOR OR MAYBE 0.5, JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE YOU'RE AT.
LOOKING AT THAT AS AN OPTION, THAT REDUCES THE SIZE OF THAT.
DETENTION IS A POSITIVE THING BECAUSE IT HELPS SLOW DOWN THE MASSIVE RUSH OF WATER GETTING TO OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM, WHICH GETS OVERSTRESSED AND SO IF WE GET HEAVIER RAIN AND WE'VE GOT A HIGH TIDE OR JUST A HEAVIER RAIN THAN YESTERDAY TYPE.
>> IT BASICALLY TAKES THAT PEAK AND IT STRETCHES OUT SO NOT EVERYTHING'S HITTING THE SYSTEM AT ONE TIME SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE.
>> COULD YOU TELL US, ROB, IT'D TAKE A LITTLE WORK.
BUT COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THE OTHER COASTAL ISLANDS IN TEXAS, WHAT THEIR RETENTION RATIO IS?
>> WE ACTUALLY AS PART OF THE STORM WATER MASTER PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, WE HAVE A SET OF A SCOPE ITEM IN THERE TO HAVE OUR CONSULTANT ASSISTANCE WITH US OF MAKING SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT WE CAN CHANGE TO MAKE THIS MORE DEVELOPMENT FRIENDLY, MORE IDEAL FOR THE ISLAND.
WE HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN THERE IS OUR SCOPE OF WORK.
WE HAVEN'T BEEN EXPLORING OR PUSHING THROUGH THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO GET SOME OTHER ITEMS WRAPPED UP, BUT THAT ISN'T INCLUDED IN THAT SCOPE OF WORK.
>> WELL, PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT'S GREAT, AND WE NEED TO PURSUE THAT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
THE OTHER THING THOUGH IS, I'M NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT CRS IMPROVEMENTS.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THOSE PROPERTIES AND HOW THIS STRANGE CHANGES AFFECTS THEM.
WE'VE GOT TO BE VERY CAREFUL, I THINK IN SHOTGUNNING THIS AND DOING AWAY WITH THINGS.
NEXT THING, WE GOT MORE PROBLEMS AND WE THINK WE HAVE.
>> WELL, HE JUST TOLD US ONE FOR ONE AS A [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE'RE NOT TRYING TO JUST SHOTGUN WATER ON [INAUDIBLE] BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>> BUT WE ARE AN ISLAND SO IT EVENTUALLY FINDS ITS WAY AND IT FINDS ITS WAY QUICKER THAN IT DOES IN THE INLAND.
>> BUT I WILL TELL YOU, HOUSTON HAS ONE ACRE FOOT REQUIREMENT.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DRAINAGE UP THERE AND IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF AREA BEFORE..
>> NO GUYS, WE RESPOND AND IT HASN'T RAINED HEAVY LATELY, SO NOBODY'S COMPLAINING ABOUT FLOODING.
BUT I GUARANTEE YOU THAT WHEN IT DOES AND EVERYTHING STARTS FLOODING, IT'S GOING TO BE WHAT CAN YOU DO? AND PREVIOUS COUNCILS REACTED TO THAT.
YOU PUT IN A PARKING LOT AND YOU DON'T PUT IT IN RETENTION, YOU DON'T [INAUDIBLE] THAT ORDER DUMP.
>> [INAUDIBLE] VOTED ON THIS DRAINAGE THING.
>> IN 2023, IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE ORDINANCES FOR THE NEW BUILDING.
>> HOW ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] THAT ITEM.
>> BUT WE CAN'T. I WILL TELL YOU, IN THE AREAS WHERE IF SOMEBODY COMES IN PAVES A BIG PARKING LOT, THIS HELPS.
IT HELPS. I'M NOT SAYING IT COULD HELP LESS, COULD IT HELP MORE.
THAT'S UP TO YOU ALL. BUT I CAN TELL YOU IT WORKS.
IT REALLY WORKS BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU'RE DUMPING ALL OF THAT INTO THE STREET, YOU SHEET DRAINING IT INTO THE STREET.
>> BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE LOSING TAXABLE INCOME FOR YOUR BUDGETS?
>> SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN COUNT AGAINST YOUR 3.5.
>> ALSO, WE'RE LOSING THE INCOME TO DO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
[05:30:02]
I HEAR YOU, BRIAN. I HEAR YOU.>> I FEEL ON THE NEED TO SAY, HALLELUJAH.
>> I'LL MAKE IT EASIER. HOW DO WE GET TO THAT 0.5 AND PROPOSE IT AND GET IT ON THE TABLE?
>> I CAN DEFINITELY WORK WITH THE CONSULTANT ON AND HAVE THEM LOOK AT THAT FOR US.
>> BRING THAT FORWARD. I THINK THAT'S THE PROPER WAY TO DO IT.
>> THERE ARE SOME CREATIVE WAYS, I'VE HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT USING PARKING LOT FOR RETENTION.
>> SURE, WE CAN DO THAT. WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.
>> THERE ARE OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> ALTERNATIVE ALREADY, ALL ALONG.
>> SOME OF THESE PLACES THAT YOU DON'T SEE THE DETENTION PONDS IN THEY'RE DOING IT IN THEIR PARKING LOT, SOME OF THESE NEW SPOTS.
THEY MIGHT BE DOING IT IN SOME UPGRADED UNDERGROUND.
THERE'S MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO SKIP THAT.
>> THE BIG DRIVER OF THIS WAS ALL THE CRUISE PARKING LOTS.
THOSE DIDN'T EXIST, AND WE'RE DUMPING ALL THAT WATER AND IT'S FIRST WATER IN INTO OUR SYSTEM BECAUSE IT'S CLOSEST TO THE PORT, SO IT JUST BACKS THE WATER ALL THE WAY UP INTO THE CITY.
THAT'S A TON OF WATER THAT'S GOING INTO OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT SHEET DRAINING IN THERE OFF THOSE PARKING LOTS.
THAT'S WHAT REALLY SPURRED THIS INITIAL DISCUSSION.
>> IT'S SOMETHING THOSE PARKING LOTS DON'T HAVE DRAINAGE IN THEM.
>> IF THEY DON'T HAVE A DRAIN IN THEM, THEY DRAIN RIGHT ON OUR STREET. THEY GOT TO DRAIN SOMEWHERE.
>> I KNOW. IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO FOR THAT?
>> HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU TO?
>> WELL, NOT ON EXISTING EITHER.
>> NOT ON EXISTING. WE DON'T REQUIRE ANYBODY TO MAKE THE CHANGE UNLESS THEY RIP UP THEIR PARKING LOT.
>> WELL, I'LL GET WITH YOU TO SEE WHEN THIS PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE THERE'S NO DRAIN.
>> ROB, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU TO WORK WITH THE CONSULTING, GET SOMETHING BACK TO US.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IS PROBABLY A PRETTY QUICK PROCESS.
IT'S JUST GETTING A USEFUL RESULT BACK TO US.
I'M NOT SURE IF A MONTH IS GOING TO BE ENOUGH TIME FOR THEM TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE SOMETHING WITH RESPECT TO.
>> WELL, AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
>> I WOULDN'T THINK WE COULD GET.
>> I'M GOING TO PUT THAT DOWN ON OUR WORKSHOP.
>> I'M 100% [LAUGHTER] ON BOARD.
IT'S JUST STUDIES AND STUDIES, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING. THAT'S WHY WE DEPEND ON THIS.
>> YOU SPEND A LOT OF MONEY ON DRAINAGE, GUYS.
TRYING TO SPUR THROUGH DEVELOPMENT.
>> ACTUALLY, THE OTHER WAY. IF YOU'RE NOT DETAINING THE WATER ON THE PROPERTY, THEN YOU'RE INCREASING THE PEAK IN YOUR SYSTEM, WHICH CHANGES YOUR DESIGN CRITERIA AND YOUR HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS, WHICH MEANS TYPICALLY YOU'RE GOING TO REQUIRE LARGER PIPE SIZES IF YOU'RE NOT DETAINING THAT WATER AND PROPERTY.
IT IS A VERY FINE LINE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WALK WITH THIS.
I DID BUSINESS UP IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON FOR 20 YEARS AND I WATCHED AS THAT DETENTION REQUIREMENT WENT FROM 0.5, TO 0.55, TO 0.65, AND NOW WE'RE ALL WAY UP TO ONE.
THE REASON THEY DID THAT IS BECAUSE YOU SAW THESE LARGE SCALE EVENTS THAT WERE ABSOLUTELY JUST REGULARLY DEVASTATING TO THE CITY.
THE ASK OF GOING FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW DOWN TO WHAT 0.5, CALL IT THAT, IS NOT JUST A SIMPLE ONE AND DONE SOLUTION.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THE IMPACT IS TO YOUR FUTURE DESIGN CRITERIA OR YOUR HYDRAULIC DRAINAGE SYSTEMS.
>> YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT BECAUSE I'M GOING TO TELL YOU.
AS I MENTIONED, I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW IT AFFECTS THE NEIGHBORS AROUND THESE PROPERTIES THAN I AM ABOUT THE CRS RATE.
>> I'M NOT EITHER. IT'S TRICKY.
>> I THINK IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO HAVE THE CONSULTANT LOOK AT IT TO SEE ARE WE GETTING THE MOST BANG FOR OUR BUCK? DOES 0.65 GET US WHERE WE NEED TO BE WITHOUT STRETCHING IT WHERE THEY HAVE TO DIG IT.
>> AGAIN, JUST ENVISION THAT WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO BUILT OUT. WE'RE AN ISLAND.
SOMEONE'S NOT GOING TO GO FAR WEST TO BUILD A LARGE SHOPPING CENTER AND THERE'S ONLY CERTAIN LOCATIONS THAT ARE LEFT WITHIN OUR 61ST EAST CORRIDOR THAT EVEN HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PUT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
WHAT REQUIREMENTS, I WOULD SAY, WOULD EVEN BE IMPLEMENTED HERE.
WE ALSO HAVE THE FACT THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE WHAT HOUSTON HAS AS FAR AS THE ABILITY TO DIG 10 FOOT DETENTION POND.
WE'RE HITTING 2,3,4 FOOT AND WATER'S COMING BACK UP THE OTHER WAY.
I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT IS JUST A COMMON SENSE APPROACH THAT SO WE CAN ONLY DIG THREE OR FOUR FEET DOWN.
THAT JUST MEANS WE HAVE TO DIG WAY MORE WIDE, SIZE WISE.
AGAIN, EVEN IF IT WAS TO A POINT OF 0.5 AND THE AREAS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT,
[05:35:04]
THERE'S NOT THAT MANY AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY THAT ANYTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS THE ABILITY TO GO INTO.I HAVE JUST AS MUCH CONCERN ABOUT DRAINAGE WITH MYSELF AND MY NEIGHBORS AND ALL THE OTHER CONSTITUENTS IN THE ISLAND.
BUT AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT VERY SPECIFIC SITES THAT ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SAN LOUIS PASS TO FERRY ROAD.
>> IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC SITES, THEN IS IT WISE FOR US TO JUST TAKE A GLOBAL PIECE OF CHALK AND MAKE THE CHANGE THERE OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS? AS A POLICY DECISION, WE NEED TO GIVE STAFF THE FLEXIBILITY TO ANALYZE DETENTION REQUIREMENTS PER DEVELOPMENT.
>> I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO THAT AT ALL.
>> I THINK THAT IN PUTTING ALL OF WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, WHICH IS GREAT DISCUSSION TOGETHER, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> I WOULDN'T BE AGAINST THAT, BUT THAT PUTS A LOT OF PRESSURE ON STAFF, I BELIEVE.
>> BECAUSE NOW THE MOMENT YOU GIVE ME THAT OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT HERE, AND I GIVE THIS PERSON [INAUDIBLE].
WE HAD TWO CAR WASHES GET BUILT UNDER OUR COMPLETE GUIDELINES WITHOUT ANY QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE'VE GOT ANOTHER GUY THAT WANTS TO BUILD A CAR WASH, HE DIDN'T WANT TO USE THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENT SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND.
THAT PUTS US IN A VERY BAD SPOT.
IF MICHELLE, AS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPER COORDINATOR SIMPLY SAYS, YOU ARE TASKED WITH PICKING 20 SITES, AND ON THESE 20 SITES, IN OTHER WORDS.
>> IF IT'S DEEMED THAT WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THE DRAINAGE AT THAT LEVEL, THEN THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN PUT TOGETHER A POTENTIAL PROGRAM.
>> THERE WE GO, TO OFFSET THOSE COSTS.
>> THAT'S WHY I'M WANTING ALL THIS TO COME TOGETHER.
>> YOU'RE UPSIZING THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IF YOU'RE DOING THOSE THINGS.
THOSE POTENTIALLY THINGS THAT CAN BE [INAUDIBLE].
>> MAYOR, I'D LIKE THOSE DIRECT, SORRY.
>> IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM THAT OPTION.
>> STAFF TOO. LET'S TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THAT.
FIRST, DETENTION REQUIREMENT, SEE IF ANYTHING CAN BE MOVED ON THAT, BUT THEN ALSO WITH MICHELLE LOOK AT INCENTIVE PROGRAMS TO HELP OFFSET THE COST.
>>CAN WE LET COUNCIL KNOW, MARY, YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE ADOPTED THIS, WE TOLD YOU THAT PEOPLE WERE GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS, BUT IT WAS DEEMED TO BE THE THING TO DO TO GET ONE, THE CRS RATING AND TWO, TO GET THE WATER ON THE STREETS.
>> GO AHEAD. THE GREAT THING ABOUT GALVESTON IS WE HAVE LAND AND THE LAND IS STATIC.
IF WE HAVE CERTAIN ZONES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS, THAT COULD WORK TOO.
>> ROB, YOU'LL GET WITH THE CONSULTANTS.
YOU'LL BRING THAT BACK AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN.
I'M GOING TO TENTATIVELY PUT THIS ON THE WORKSHOP AGENDA FOR THE LAST OF APRIL, ROB.
>> ROB IS A CONSULTANT FOR THIS.
>> ALSO, MICHELLE, ON YOUR THREE POINTS.
IF YOU WILL LET ME KNOW OR WHEN WE WANT THOSE BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION ON THAT NUMBER 1 AND THEN FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WORKSHOP ON THE OTHERS.
>> CAN YOU PLEASE SEND US THIS ELECTRONICALLY.
>> I WILL. THAT WAS THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO SAY IS I WILL SEND IT.
>> I'M SORRY FOR COMBINING THE TWO.
>> THANK YOU, GUYS. COUNCIL, WE HAVE NOW JUST FILLED UP APRIL AND MAY'S WORKSHOP.
[LAUGHTER] LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3.H, PLEASE.
[3.H. Discussion of proposed changes to City Code provisions dealing with vendors on the beach operating on claimed private property ( Legal - 20 min )]
>> 3.H, DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY CODE PROVISIONS DEALING WITH VENDORS ON THE BEACH OPERATING ON SAME PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> COULD DECLARE A CONFLICT FOR 3.H.
>> I NEED TO GO TO MAKE SURE ALEX ISN'T LONESOME.
>> I'M GOING TO GO THE WHOLE BUGGED THE HEAD.
>> ITEM 3.H WITH VENDORS ON THE BEACH OPERATING ON CLEAN PRIVATE PROPERTY.
WE CAN BE ALL OVER THE BOARD ON THIS.
I'VE GOT JUST ONE OR TWO SALIENT QUESTIONS, BUT DON, LET'S GO AHEAD AND LET YOU PROPOSE YOUR ORDINANCE HERE.
GIVE YOUR REASONS WHY, THEN WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.
>> YOU HAVE READ THERE ARE SOME CONTROVERSIES RELATED TO
[05:40:04]
VENDORS SELLING SERVICES ON THE BEACH, SUCH AS PROVIDING CHAIRS AND UMBRELLAS.UNDER THE CITY CODE, PERMITS FOR THOSE SERVICES ARE GRANTED THROUGH THE PARK BOARD.
CITY ISSUES PERMITS FOR PEOPLE NOT ON THE BEACH, SUCH AS STUFF RENTING BOATS ON 61ST STREET OR WHATEVER, WE HAD AN ISSUE ON THAT, BUT ON THE BEACH, AND THEY'RE MEANT IN THE AREAS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE PARK BOARD.
GO TO THE PARK BOARD FOR A PERMIT.
THE COMPLAINTS ARE THAT THE PARK BOARD IS ISSUING PERMITS FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE CONCESSIONS ON PARCELS OF LAND THAT ARE PRIVATELY OWNED, AND AS SUCH, WE HAVE TRODDEN UPON THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT, WHICH IS HERE JUST FOR WORKSHOP, IS TO DEAL WITH THAT ISSUE.
I WROTE THIS, I THINK, IN JANUARY.
MR. FINKLEA, I MISSPOKE WHEN I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY THE CITY WOULD ISSUE THE PERMITS UNDER THIS.
UNDER THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, IF SOMEBODY IS ISSUING PERMITS, SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO VENDING ON THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY AND RENT UMBRELLAS OR CHAIRS, AND THEY OWN THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS GO TO THE PARK BOARD, SUBMIT SOME PROOF OF OWNERSHIP FOR THIS PARCEL OF THE PROPERTY AND THE PARK BOARD GIVES THEM THE PERMIT, NO CHOICE.
THE REASON FOR THIS IS WE LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE.
HAVING THE PARK BOARD BE THE ONES ISSUING THE PERMIT AND BEING TOLD WHICH PARCELS ARE PRIVATELY OWNED PREVENTS THEM FROM ISSUING A CONFLICTING CONCESSION, SO THEY KNOW STAY AWAY.
I PUT IN THIS AT THE END, TWO ITEMS. IT'S UP TO YOU TO DECIDE.
I RECALL YEARS AGO, THE PARK BOARD WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT PICKING UP TRASH ON A PRIVATE BEACH.
IF YOU WANT TO ASSESS A FEE FOR TRASH COLLECTION, THAT'S YOUR CHOICE.
I'VE SEEN THAT THE PARK BOARD HAS BUILT SOME RAMPS.
SOME OF THOSE RAMPS LOOK PRETTY IFFY TO ME.
BUT I'M GIVING THE OPTION FOR YOU TO IMPOSE A FEE FOR USE OF THEIR RAMPS.
THOSE CAN GO AWAY PRETTY EASILY.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT.
IT WAS MY CONTEMPLATION THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT THIS, MAYBE ASK FOR THE PARK BOARD WHAT THEIR INPUT IS.
IS THE OTHER ONE WHO'S GOING TO BE ADMINISTERING IT.
I WILL TELL YOU THERE A PARK BOARD IS LOOKING FOR A SOLUTION.
THEY CAME TO US THREE WEEKS AGO.
THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH THIS ISSUE.
MY OPINION AND THEIR ATTORNEY AGREED WITH ME THAT THE BEST OUTCOME THEY COULD GET WAS A JUDGMENT ON OWNERSHIP BACKED UP BY A PUBLISHED APPELLATE DECISION.
BUT THE PARK BOARD ISN'T GOING THAT WAY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH THE GLO TO TALK ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
BUT AS TO OUR PRESENT ORDINANCE, I THINK WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS TO CLARIFY THAT ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY,
[05:45:04]
YOU CAN OPERATE THERE AND THE PARK BOARD CAN ISSUE A CONCESSION TO SOME THIRD PARTY TO OPERATE ON YOUR PROPERTY.BUT WE DO THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE A PERMIT, AND THAT ALLOWS THE PARK BOARD TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE THERE UNDER A COLOR OF TITLE, AND SO THEY WON'T INTERFERE WITH YOU.
>> ALSO, THE PURPOSE OF THE PERMIT IS THAT, REGARDLESS OF OWNERSHIP, THERE'S A PUBLIC EASEMENT ACROSS THE ENTIRE BEACH FOR ACCESS.
WE, AS A CITY, ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN COMPLETE ACCESS TO THAT BEACH.
WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY'S BLOCKING THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, AND THAT'S WHY YOU WANT TO ISSUE THE PERMIT.
THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR US, JUST LIKE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO USE THE SIDEWALK, THEY OWN THE SIDEWALK, BUT THEY HAVE TO COME TO US TO GET A PERMIT TO USE THE SIDEWALK TO VEND AND WE GIVE THEM A CERTAIN SET OF RULES TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN STILL GET BY AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. SAME THING HERE.
>> THE PARK BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON THE OPERATION OF THESE BEACHES IN GALVESTON.
MAYBE THEY'RE THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY TO DO IT.
>> BUT IT WAS WE, AS A CITY, THAT GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO LEASE PROPERTY THAT WE DON'T OWN.
>> I WOULD SAY YOU WERE RIGHT, BUT IT WAS AN UNINTENDED RESULT.
THAT'S BEEN IN THE CITY CODE SINCE I DON'T KNOW WHEN.
>> IT HASN'T HAPPENED [INAUDIBLE]
>> LET ME ASK THIS. THE WAY THIS ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, IF IT'S STEWART BEACH, IF IT'S OWNED BY THE STATE, THEN THE PARK BOARD CAN GIVE A VENDOR PERMIT FOR SOMEONE TO BE DOWN ON THAT STATE LAND, SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW.
>> YES. BUT BASICALLY CLARIFIES, THEY CANNOT GIVE A PERMIT TO A THIRD PARTY TO OPERATE ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> CORRECT. BUT IF IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEY STILL ISSUE A PERMIT, BUT THEY GO AND THEY HAVE TO PROVE TO THE PARK BOARD.
>> IN SOME MANNER THAT THEY HAVE A LEASE FOR THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> THEN YOU NEED TO SHOW THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE THERE.
>> THEY EITHER HAVE THE OWNERSHIP OR AT LEAST SIGNED BY THE OWNER.
>> WHAT WAS THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP?
>> G. A DEED, SOME DOCUMENT OF TITLE.
>> TAX BILL THAT THEY PAID THE TAXES ON? THAT'S UP TO DISCUSSION.
STILL HAVE TO USE THAT AS JUDGMENT.
>> CAT IS NOT RELIABLE IN THAT REGARD.
>> WELL, MR. WILLIE, WHO WAS AT THAT MEETING, AND I BELIEVE YOU WERE THERE, HE IS A FORMER CAT ATTORNEY AND SAID, I THINK THE QUOTE WAS AS A FORMER ATTORNEY FOR THE CAT, I CAN TELL YOU THEIR RECORDS ARE NOT VIABLE.
>> DON, LET ME ASK THIS: WHAT GIVES THE CITY THE RIGHT FOR THE PARK BOARD TO PROVIDE PERMITS DOWN HERE? WHAT GIVES US THE RIGHT TO DO THAT?
>> THERE'S A SECTION IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND I DON'T HAVE IT HANDY.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT QUESTION WAS COMING.
I THINK IT'S IN 334 THAT SAID, DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT, I'LL HAVE TO CORRECT YOU, THAT WE CAN ISSUE CONCESSIONS IN PARKS THAT WE OWN.
THE BEACH IS CONSIDERED A PARK, NOT ONLY UNDER THAT STATUTE NAMED AT THE SEAWALL URBAN PARK.
WE CAN PUT BEACHES UNDER THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE PARK BOARD.
>> BUT THAT APPLIES EVEN IF THAT BEACH IS PRIVATELY OWNED?
>> I WOULD SAY THAT IF IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED, IT'S NOT UNDER THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE PARK.
>> WELL, IF IT'S NOT UNDER THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE PARK BOARD, BUT WE'VE GOT THEM GOING TO THE PARK BOARD TO GET A PERMIT?
>> YES. THAT TELLS THE PARK BOARD THAT THIS IS UNDER PRIVATE OWNERSHIP,
[05:50:05]
DON'T ISSUE A PERMIT HERE.PLUS, REQUIRE PERMITS FOR THINGS THAT ARE ABOUT AS A MATTER OF RIGHT ALL THE TIME.
BUT WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME, I KEEP GETTING PEOPLE CALLING ME ABOUT THIS SURFACE LEASE THAT THE GLO HAS GIVEN TO THE PARK BOARD OF THE CITY, WHAT DOES THAT ALLOW US TO DO?
>> IT'S FAKE. I'VE ASKED FOR IT, I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT.
>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ONE THAT EXISTS.
>> PEOPLE CALL ME ALL THE TIME AND TALK ABOUT THAT.
THIS WOULD ALLOW THOSE THAT HAVE PRIVATE LAND DOWN THERE TO STATE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FUNCTION DOWN THERE.
THEY NEED TO GET "A PERMIT" FROM THE PARK BOARD TO DO THAT.
PERSONALLY, IN THE ORDINANCE, DON, TO CHARGE FOR THE USE OF THE RAMPS AND CHARGE FOR THE CLEANING OF THE BEACH, I THINK THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE.
>> THAT'S FINE. CUT IT UP. NO PROBLEM.
>> BUT SO WE STILL NEED INPUT FROM THE PARK BOARD.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S YOUR DECISION. THAT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU GUYS.
>> WE PUT THAT ON THE UPCOMING JOINT PARK BOARD MEETINGS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'VE GOT IT DOWN. YES, SIR.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, AS I UNDERSTAND, THE PARK BOARD HAS STOPPED CONCESSIONS ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN PUBLIC THAT IS CITY, STATE, OR COUNTY LAND RIGHT NOW.
BUT THAT HASN'T REALLY SOLVED THE PROBLEM.
ALSO, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND YOUR ORDINANCE, DON, IS THAT THE PARK BOARD ISSUES PERMITS TO ANYBODY WITH A CONCESSION DOWN THERE, WHETHER IT'S PRIVATE OR PUBLIC LAND, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> WELL, IF YOU WANT TO OPERATE A CONCESSION ON PUBLIC LAND, THE PARK BOARD BIDS OUT THOSE CONCESSION OPPORTUNITIES.
IF YOU OWN THE PROPERTY, YOU JUST GO, SHOW THEM YOUR OWNERSHIP, AND YOU GET YOUR PERMIT IN A WAY TO GO.
>> PERMIT BY RIGHT. FILL OUT THE FORM AND YOU GET A PERMIT.
PAY THE FEE, WHATEVER THE FEE IS.
>> DON, LET ME ASK THIS: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IN THE ORDINANCE HERE, BUT IT WON'T ADDRESS WHAT'S STILL GOING DOWN THERE ON THE BEACH, THAT IS THAT THERE IS LAND DOWN THERE THAT SOMEBODY IS CLAIMING IS PRIVATE, AND THE PARK BOARD FEELS THAT IT'S NOT, AND SO THEY HAVE TWO VENDORS DOWN THERE ON THE SAME LAND, CLARIFY THIS FOR ME, IF ANY WAY, WHATSOEVER, HOW ARE WE INVOLVED WITH THAT?
>> THAT CONFLICT RESOLUTION IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS ORDINANCE.
I WAS JUST LOOKING TO RESOLVE AN IDENTIFIED PROBLEM RELATING TO THE PARK BOARD ISSUING PERMITS FOR PEOPLE TO OPERATE ON PRIVATE LAND.
IN TERMS OF CONFLICTS BETWEEN TWO COMPETING VENDORS, ULTIMATELY, SOMEBODY IS GOING TO HAVE TO LITIGATE THIS.
I TOLD THAT TO THE PARK BOARD.
TO ME, I THINK THERE MIGHT BE A STATE AGENCY INVOLVED IN HERE, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EITHER THE PARK BOARD OR THE GLO.
I UNDERSTAND THE PARK BOARD AND THE GLO WERE IN TALKS.
I'M HOPING THEY WORK TOGETHER TO RESOLVE THIS.
>> I WOULD THINK AT THAT POINT, MAYOR, IN MY SIMPLE TERMS, THAT JUST WOULD BECOME A CIVIL MATTER BETWEEN THE PARK BOARD AND WHOEVER'S ON THAT PROPERTY.
THAT WOULD GET WORKED OUT CIVILLY.
AT THAT POINT, THE CITY WOULD NOT BE INVOLVED.
I'M SURE WE WOULD BE SUBPOENAED FOR ANY DOCUMENTATION THAT REQUIRED THEM TO HAVE A PERMIT.
IF THEY DON'T HAVE A PERMIT FROM US, THEN WE'RE NOT INVOLVED AT ALL.
IF THEY DO HAVE A PERMIT FROM US, THAT MEANS THEY SUBSTANTIATED OWNERSHIP, AND THEN COMES PART OF THE ISSUE FOR THE PARK BOARD TO WORK OUT WITH THEM AS WELL.
>> DON, YOU SAID YOU THOUGHT THE PARK BOARD WAS THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY TO ADMINISTER IT.
THAT GOES TO MY QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THIS WOULD BE ENFORCED.
I ASSUME THAT, FIRST OF ALL, YOU'VE GOT TO GET A PERMIT, BASICALLY REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU ARE, BUT SECONDLY, IF YOU DON'T GET A PERMIT, I GUESS YOU GET A CITATION.
>> I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD CITE THE PERSON ON THE BEACH AND THE PROPERTY OWNER,
[05:55:01]
BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY'S OPERATING ON THAT BEACH AND THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT IN AGREEMENT THAT THEY SHOULD BE THERE, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE NOTICED AND FIND AS WELL, AND THAT TOO WOULD PRECIPITATE CIVIL ACTION ON THEIR PART.>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT MAKES YOU SAY THAT THE PARK BOARD IS THE ONE TO BE GIVING OUT ASIDE FROM THE RIGHT THAT THE CITY GAVE THEM?
>> THEY HAVE SOME AGREEMENTS WITH THE GLO WHERE THE GLO HAS GIVEN THEM LEASES.
I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO READ THOSE.
>> WHAT LEASES ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
>> THIS IS THE SURFACE LEASE THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THERE'S MORE THAN ONE LEASE AND I HAVEN'T SEEN EITHER.
IN TERMS OF ASSIGNMENT OF THE BEACHES TO THE PARK BOARD, THAT WAS BEGINNING, THE EARLIEST ORDINANCE UNDER THAT SECTION IS 1978.
>> IS THAT WHERE YOU SAY IN SECTION D THAT ANY PERSON WHO WISHES TO RENT OR SELL AN ITEM OF EACH AREA TO WHICH THEY CLAIM OR PROVIDE A PRIVATE OWNERSHIP [INAUDIBLE] BY LEASE THAT IS OTHERWISE DESIGNATED TO BE UNDER THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE PARK BOARD [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT'S THE SECTIONS IN HERE.
>> THAT SECTION THAT WAS JUST BEING ASKED ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] THAT DESIGNATION COME FROM.
>> AS OF TOMORROW, IT WILL BE TWO WEEKS, OVER THE LAST TWO WEEKS, Y'ALL CAN IMAGINE HOW MANY CALLS AND COMMUNICATIONS WE'VE HAD FROM PEOPLE THAT BASICALLY DID EVERYTHING PERFECTLY.
THEY WENT, ALMOST AS THIS DRAFT BLINDS OUT.
THEY WENT TO THE PARKS BOARD, THEY APPLIED, THEY PAID THEIR MONEY UPFRONT.
THEY DID EVERYTHING THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO AS BASICALLY WHAT IS IN PLACE OBLIGATES THEM TO DO.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PARKS BOARD HAS A VERY SPECIFIC DELINEATION THAT WAS PAID FOR, I'M NOT SURE OF THE YEAR, UNDER THE DIRECTION OF KELLY DE SHAUN, THAT BASICALLY, A SURVEY COMPANY IDENTIFIED ALL OF THE PLACES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, AS FAR AS STATE-OWNED, PRIVATELY OWNED, AND THE TRUST, WHATEVER THEY MIGHT BE.
BUT FOR OUR PURPOSE, EITHER STATE-OWNED OR NOT STATE-OWNED, THOSE TWO THINGS.
>> I MIGHT POINT OUT IF I DON'T, I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT, BUT IF, IN FACT, THEY HAVE IT, THEY HAVE THE MOST INFORMATION TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.
>> WELL, I'M RIGHT IN LINE WITH YOU.
AGAIN, THIS IS JUST MY UNDERSTANDING.
I'M NOT SURE, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED MANY YEARS AGO WHEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION THAT WENT ON TO BECOME LEGAL WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS VERSUS WHAT WENT ON WITH THE PARKS BOARD AND THUS THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
TO ME, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY OBVIOUS THAT THE VERY FIRST THING WE NEEDED TO DO WAS IDENTIFY NOT THROUGH CAD, NOT THROUGH HEARSAY, BUT THROUGH ACTUAL SURVEYOR THAT IDENTIFIED THOSE PROPERTIES.
TO ME, IT WOULD BE PRETTY SIMPLE TO SAY, OKAY, HERE'S A LIST AND IDENTIFIERS OF PROPERTY THAT WE CAN LEASE OUT AND THEN HERE'S A LIST AND IDENTIFIERS THAT ARE PRIVATELY OWNED AND WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LEASE OUT.
SPEAKING WITH THOSE NINE DIFFERENT PARTIES, ALL NINE OF THEM ARE CURRENT VENDORS OR VENDORS WHO HAVE BEEN DISPLACED BECAUSE OF THAT ISSUE OVER THE LAST FEW WEEKS.
THREE OF THEM HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS. THEY HAVE BEEN LEASING FROM PRIVATE OWNERS FOR DECADES AND NO ISSUES.
THE OTHER SEVEN HAVE THEIR LEASES THROUGH THE PARKS BOARD AS THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO, THEY PAY THEIR MONEY, THREE OF WHICH ARE NOW NO LONGER ABLE TO OPERATE BECAUSE OF NO ONE REALLY STEPPING UP TO MAKE A DECISION.
[06:00:02]
THIS PROPOSAL IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL CAN BE MASSAGED EITHER WAY AND COME TO A GOOD POINT.BUT UNTIL THERE IS A VERY FORMAL PROCESS OF WHAT'S IDENTIFIED OF PRIVATE AND STATE, THIS REALLY DOES NO GOOD UNTIL THAT POINT.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE EFFECTIVE.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW IT CAN BE ENFORCED OR BESIDES GIVING CITATIONS AND PUSHING IT THROUGH THAT WAY.
I THINK THAT'S GOING TO ALSO BE ANOTHER BIG LEGAL MESS EVENTUALLY.
>> AGAIN, I THINK IT'S ELEMENTARY TO KNOW THAT THE VERY FIRST THING WE NEED TO IDENTIFY AND TRY TO REPLACE OR GIVE THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN DISPLACED THE ABILITY TO RE-ESTABLISH, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 25 YEARS.
I THINK THAT'S THE BIGGEST PART OF THAT.
THERE HAS TO BE A COORDINATION WITH THE PARKS BOARD, IF WE'RE GOING TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO KNOW WHO'S GOING TO ENFORCE IT.
WE DEFINITELY NEED TO IDENTIFY WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO LEASE, AND I THINK THAT IT'S FRUITLESS UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT.
>> BUT MORE SO, THEY NEED TO PRODUCE THEIR RIGHT FOR LAND THAT THAT LAND LEASES THAT THEY HAVE.
>> HOW DO YOU EVEN DO IT AN ORDINANCE IF YOU'VE NEVER SEEN THEIR LAND LEASES?
>> WELL, THAT'S PART OF SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S CRAZY IS THAT NO ONE CAN POINT BLANK PUT PAPERS DOWN IN FRONT OF ME AND SAY, HERE'S A MAP FROM DELLANERA TO 75TH STREET.
THIS IS THE WAY SOUTH OF THE SEAWALL, WE SHOW DIVISION UP TO THE MEAN TIDELINE.
>> YOU HAVE THAT. HERE WE PROVIDED IT TO THAT MEETING THAT DAY, REMEMBER THE PARK BOARD ASKED FOR IT AND OUR GIS PEOPLE DID IT.
>> WHICH IS BASED ON CAD. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY A LAND SURVEYOR TO GO OUT THERE AND DO ALL THAT.
>> THAT'S THE THING, I THINK IT'S STAY.
>> THE PARK BOARD ALREADY HAS THAT.
>> OH, I HAVE NO IDEA THEY HAVEN'T PROVIDED.
>> I'M SAYING IT WOULD BE CRAZY IF THEY WOULD HAVE HAD OVERSIGHT OF THESE LEASES FOR ALL THESE YEARS JUST BASICALLY LEASING OUT PROPERTY.
THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S PRIVATE AND WHAT STATE? I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD HAVE DONE THAT.
>> I'M OF THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FORMER LAW FIRM OF THE PARK BOARD DID THAT WORK, BUT WHERE THAT PRODUCT RESIDES, I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE.
>> I WOULD THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD FREELY WANT TO GIVE UP.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE KEY TO STARTING THIS PROCESS OFF TO BE ABLE TO BACK ALL PARTIES INVOLVED.
>> WELL, THIS IS THIS IS WHY IT NEEDS TO BE ON THE JOINT MEETING.
WE NEED TO GET PARK BOARD'S INPUT ON WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> WHAT DO WE DO IN THE MEANTIME?
>> I'LL TELL YOU, IT'S A PROBLEM DOWN THERE AND I'VE BEEN AS ALL OF US HAVE, WE'VE BEEN BOMBARDED WITH STORIES ON BOTH SIDES ON THIS THING, AND BROWN KNOWS AND I MIGHT BROUGHT THIS TO THEIR ATTENTION BACK IN JANUARY AND EVEN BEFORE THEN ABOUT THIS PROBLEM.
I DON'T KNOW THE SOLUTION, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT.
SOMEBODY'S GOT TO COME IN AND STATE, THIS IS STATE LAND, THIS IS PRIVATE LAND.
ONCE THAT'S DONE, THEN IT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL FOUNDATION OF THIS WHOLE QUESTION.
>> THE CRAZIEST THING TO SIMPLIFY IT FOR ME IS I LITERALLY WENT JUST A STRAIGHT LINE CHART, THE LAST TWO WEEKS, STARTING AT DELLANERA, AND LITERALLY DOING RESEARCH VERBALLY, LIKE, LITERALLY FOLLOWING UP ON EACH PERSON GOING BACK ALL THE WAY TO THE DIRECTOR OF GULF COAST PROPERTIES TO GET THE HISTORY OF IT, TO GET THE INSIDE OF IT AND TO IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHAT AREAS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH.
THERE'S SOME AREAS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH , THAT RELATIONSHIP'S ESTABLISHED.
NOBODY'S MESSING WITH ANYBODY.
THE PRIVATE OWNER HAS A LEASE WITH THE BUSINESS OWNER.
IT'S ESTABLISHED, IT'S GOOD TO GO.
BUT THEN, THERE'S ABOUT A 20 BLOCK AREA THAT IT'S WILD WEST DOWN THERE.
>> WELL, I'VE TALKED TO BOTH THE VENDORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS, PRIVATE OWNERS AND PART BOARD VENDORS.
THERE SEEMS TO BE FROM 10TH TO 61ST.
[06:05:04]
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT WEST OF 61ST.THERE'S 51 BLOCKS THERE OR SOMETHING.
THERE SEEMS TO BE A SMALL NUMBER OF BLOCKS THAT ARE BEING CONTESTED. THIS IS NOT.
>> I'LL TELL YOU THE BLOCKS, 10TH THROUGH 31ST IS A BLOCK THAT MY IDENTIFIER SAYS IN QUESTION.
TENTH THROUGH 31ST, IN QUESTION.
38TH THROUGH 54TH IN QUESTION.
THE REST 59TH THROUGH 63RD, IS THERE'S THREE AREAS THAT ARE IN THE QUESTION.
>> YOUR IDENTIFIER, WHAT IS THAT, BOTH?
>> EITHER TALKING TO THE INDIVIDUALS THAT USED TO BE THERE WITH A FORMAL LEASE IN PLACE WITH THE PARKS BOARD.
OR THE ACTUAL DIRECTOR OF GULF COAST PROPERTIES THAT HELPED ME IDENTIFY OTHERS THAT SHE HAD LEASES WITH AND WHO SHE DID NOT HAVE LEASES WITH.
>> WELL, THAT MAY BE TRUE, BUT PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THERE SEEMS TO BE JUST A FEW NUMBER OF BLOCKS THAT ARE CAUSING ALL THE TURMOIL.
>> YEAH. I JUST NAMED HIM. TENTH THROUGH 29TH.
>> I'M BEING TOLD THAT THERE'S LESS THAN THAT THAT ARE ACTUALLY PRACTICALLY HAVING A PROBLEM.
>> BUT WHO ARE YOU BEING TOLD THAT LIKE?
>> HE'S TELLING YOU HE TALKED TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAD LEASES SO.
>>> WELL, INTO COMPOUND THIS ISSUE, WE'VE BEEN NOTIFIED OF A LAW FIRM REPRESENTING ONE OF THESE GROUPS.
I THINK WE GOT THERE AT THE TIME. THAT'S IT.
DUD, WHERE DO WE GO WITH THIS? I THINK COUNCILMAN RAWLINS IS EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MOVE FORWARD IN IDENTIFYING THOSE PARCELS OF LAND.
>> I'M GOING TO RELY ON THE BEACH EXPERTS AT THE PARK BOARD TO DO THAT.
I'VE RECOMMENDED YOU DO THAT TOO.
>> YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE IN THAT MEETING ABOUT THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO, I GUESS, AND THERE WAS THE PARK BOARD ATTORNEY WHO WAS THERE AND ALL PEOPLE WERE THERE AND IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT.
WE WERE THERE FOR AN HOUR AND REALLY DIDN'T HAVE ANY REAL PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS, EXCEPT EVERYBODY AGREED THAT THE ONE PROBLEM THAT WOULD FIX ALL OF THIS IS IF WE HAD ACCURATE OWNERSHIP INFORMATION AND THE SCOPE OF ACTUALLY DOING TITLE SEARCHES AND SURVEYS FOR THE ENTIRE BEACH IS JUST CAN'T GET YOUR HEAD AROUND THAT.
BUT WHAT WE DID TALK ABOUT WAS MAYBE STARTING WITH ONE OF THESE PROBLEM AREAS LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND DOING THAT TITLE SEARCH AND ESTABLISHING LEGALLY WHAT WHAT THE PROPERTY LINES ARE.
THEN YOUR ORDINANCE HERE BECOMES ENFORCEABLE BECAUSE WE HAVE A DOCUMENT, AND JUST AS A TEST AREA, TO SEE HOW THIS WORKS.
>> BUT HOW DO WE PAY FOR THAT BUFF? BECAUSE WE GET ZERO BENEFIT FROM ANY OF THIS AND YOU WANT TO SPEND CITY TAX DOLLARS TO GO OUT THERE AND CLEAN UP A MESS THAT WAS CREATED BY ANOTHER AGENCY.
[OVERLAPPING] MAYBE THE PARK BOARD I DON'T KNOW.
>> YEAH. NO. I THINK THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE TOLD THEM WHEN WE MET WITH THEM. HERE'S THE THING.
I BELIEVE IN SOME OF THESE CASES, EVEN IF YOU HAD A SURVEY DONE, THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE A DISPUTE OWNERSHIP.
>> THIS SURVEY IS NOT GOING TO SO A TITLE SEARCH I SAID.
>> SAME THING. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME THING.
IN MY MIND, IF THE PARK BOARD IS REALLY WANTING TO DO THESE CONCESSIONS AND THEY BELIEVE SO SOLIDLY, AS DON AND I TOLD THEM THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET THIS DONE IS TO LITIGATE IT.
>> THROUGH A JUDGMENT. YEAH. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GET THERE.
>> IF YOU LITIGATE THAT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE GOO NEEDS TO BE A PARTY TO THAT.
>> THEY ARE AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY.
>> BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE HERE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING, BUT WE HAVE AN ISSUE THAT IF STATE FUNDS AREN'T USED TO NOURISH OR BUILD A BEACH BACK WHERE THERE WASN'T A BEACH, THEN THAT IS NOW STATE PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S A DOCTRINE OF AVION.
>> THE GLO NEEDS TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
>> THAT IS WHY THE PARK BOARD'S LITIGATION WAS THROWN OUT AGAINST RIGHT BECAUSE GLO WAS NOT THERE.
>> RIGHT. IN MY CONVERSATIONS BRIEFLY WITH THE GOO, I DIDN'T GET THE FEELING THEY WANT TO WAIT INTO THIS ISSUE.
>> THAT LEAVES SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T KNOW, ABOUT THAT.
>> WELL, WHAT WAS ROBERT BOOTS POSITION WITH THE PARKS BOARD?
>> WELL, ROBERT BOOTS, IS THE MANAGING ATTORNEY WITH MILT SHIRLEY, WHO HAD THE CONTRACT TO DO THE LEGAL WORK FOR THE PARK BOARD.
>> I WOULD INQUIRE WITH HIM IF THAT SURVEY EXISTS.
[06:10:03]
>> CAN WE ASK THE PARK BOARD FIRST?
>> THERE'S ONE THERE, AND IF THEY WANT TO GIVE IT UP, THAT'S UP TO THEM, IF THEY FEEL THAT THAT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA, THEN THEY CAN SAY NO.
>> SURVEY OF THE ENTIRE BEACH OR SURVEY OF WHAT?
>> SURVEY OF WHO OWNS PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE SEAWALL FROM DELLANERA TO I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR WEST.
>> I HAVE SEEN SOMETHING FROM THE PARK BOARD ALONG THOSE LINES.
I WAS TOLD IT CAME FROM THE GLO.
BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO QUESTIONING THAT, I'M NOT SURE THE GLO WANTS TO BE INVOLVED WITH THAT.
>> WELL, WHEN YOU FILE YOUR LAWSUIT, YOU NAME THEM AS A INDISPENSABLE PARTY, AND YOU SERVE THEM.
>> [LAUGHTER] WE'LL HAVE IT ON A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD COMPANY.
>> WELL, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION FROM THE PARK BOARD IF THESE SURVEYS EXIST.
BUT BOB'S RIGHT, IF THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING, LET'S SEE IT.
>> I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY WOULD NOT THINK IT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA TO IDENTIFY WHAT'S THERE SINCE THE BIG LAWSUIT THAT WENT THROUGH AND HAS BASICALLY BEEN RULED ON IS OVER AND CONSIDERING WHAT'S GOING ON CURRENTLY WITH PEOPLE THAT I'VE KNOWN A LOT OF THEM ALL MY LIFE THAT HAVE HAD BUSINESS THERE FOR 25 YEARS, I THINK IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT TO SHAKE THIS OUT AND PROTECT THEM AND GET IT HANDLED.
>> OR WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH BAD BEACH BATTLES.
>> LET'S SEE, BOB, WOULD YOU GET WITH THEM?
>> WITH DON, I'D WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION IF THE PARK BOARD HAS THAT.
LET'S DISTRIBUTE THAT TO ALL OF COUNCIL, IF YOU'LL WORK DON, ONCE WE UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE CAN GET SOMETHING.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE INQUIRY ABOUT?
>> WE'LL HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA COMING UP HERE FOR THE PARK BOARD.
[3.J. Discussion Of Golf Cart Inspections ( Robb/C Brown - 15 Min )]
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?>> I'M GOING TO DEFER 3J TO THE NEXT WORKSHOP.
>> BLESS YOUR HEART. [LAUGHTER]. NOW, THERE'S SOME SENSE ON THIS, COUNCIL.
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3K, PLEASE.
[3.K. Discussion Of An Alternate Meeting Date And Associated Agenda Items For The City Council/Park Board Joint Meeting That Was Scheduled For March 19th ( C Brown/ Porretto - 20 min )]
DISCUSSION OF AN ALTERNATE MEETING DATE AND ASSOCIATED AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL PARK BOARD JOINT MEETING THAT WAS SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 19.
>> WE'VE HAD COUNCILMAN PORRETTO, HAS NOW JOINED US.
HE DECLARED A CONFLICT ON OUR ITEM ON 3H, BUT HE IS BACK AND WE'RE ON ITEM 3K.
I'VE MADE A LIST OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE WANT ON THE JOINT MEETING, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED PART BOARD ITEMS. WE HAVE I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM FOUR OR FIVE, THAT I'VE MADE A NOTE HERE THAT WE'LL HAVE ON THE JOINT MEETING COMING UP.
I WOULD SAY THAT I'M GOING TO PROPOSE APRIL 17TH TO POSSIBLY CONSIDER FOR OUR JOINT MEETING.
>> I'M NOT AVAILABLE ON THE 17TH.
I'M DOING A PROCEDURE THAT I CAN'T ZOOM IN FROM.
>> YOU'LL MAKE BRIAN AND I UNHAPPY IF YOU DO IT ON THE 22ND.
>> I'M NOT SURE ON THE 17TH EITHER.
>> IT'S ALSO HIS BIRTHDAY, AND APRIL 21 IS AGGIE MUSTER DAY.
I'LL BE FLYING IN FROM AMSTERDAM WHERE I'M GOING TO SEE THE TULIPS, AND NO ONE IS STOPPING ME.
>> SHE SAYS THE TULIPS IN AMSTERDAM, BUT ANYWAY.
[06:15:01]
>> WAIT. THAT'S TPC BOARD, RIGHT?
>> THEY'LL BE PROBABLY ON THE 15TH.
>> FIFTEENTH IN THE MORNING WOULD WORK.
I GET THERE 15TH IN THE AFTERNOON.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE WEEK BEFORE? THE 7TH THROUGH THE 11TH?
>> THE 11TH, I'M LEAVING FOR HOLLAND ON [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T RECOMMEND FRIDAY MEETING.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO BE HERE ON THE SEVENTH.
>> I COULD DO THE EIGHTH AFTER 9:00.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING I GOT ON THE EIGHTH.
>> WE'LL BE THROUGH IN AN HOUR OR SO, BOB.
[LAUGHTER] APRIL EIGHTH. SHARON?
>> SHARON'S GOING TO BE IN SPAIN, I THINK.
> SIXTEENTH. WE HADN'T TRIED THAT ONE YET.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST, SECOND, OR THIRD.
>> LET ME THROW THIS IDEA OUT.
WHAT IF WE DID IT ON THE 24TH? EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE HERE FOR CITY COUNCIL.
>> I THINK WE FIGURED OUT THAT DOES NOT WORK.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO BE HERE ON THE 24TH.
>> YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE ON THE 24TH?
>> I CAN'T BE HERE ON THE 24TH, NO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING.
>> YEAH, 24TH IF WE [INAUDIBLE] THAT WON'T WORK.
>> ISN'T THAT OUR REGULAR MEETING?
>> YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME OF THIS RESOLVED BEFORE YOUR NEXT MEETING, WOULDN'T YOU?
>> IT'S A THING WHEN I WENT TO CATHOLIC SCHOOL IT'S STICKS IN THE HEAD.
>> I'M OUT THAT WHOLE WEEK FROM THE 20TH.
>> CODE NAME FOR VACATION. [LAUGHTER]
>> I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO NEXT WEEK.
WHAT'S WRONG WITH NEXT WEEK? THEY WERE THE ONES THAT CANCELED.
THEY CERTAINLY HAD TIME TO LOOK AT THE ITEMS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] FRIDAY THE FOURTH.
>> ARE NOT GOOD. HOW ABOUT THE THIRD?
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE MORNING.
>> I WAS SCHEDULED TO BE OUT ON THE THIRD, BUT DAN CAN COVER. DON'T LET ME BE THE ONE [OVERLAPPING].
>> ARE YOU HAVING A PROCEDURE? [LAUGHTER]
>> NO. [LAUGHTER] IF I HAVE TO, I WILL.
>> SHARON, YOU'RE OUT THE WHOLE WEEK OF THE SEVENTH THROUGH THE 11TH?
>> [OVERLAPPING] WHAT ABOUT THE THIRD?
>> YOU HAVE TO POST THE AGENDA ON MONDAY.
IT WAS FRIDAY AND THEN MONDAY.
>> BUT THEY'RE ALREADY AWARE OF THE ITEMS THEY HAD THAT THEY CAN [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT PRESUPPOSES THAT PARK BOARDS CAN BE AVAILABLE.
>> I DID PULL THE PART WHERE THE PARK DIVE IN, BUT SHARON PULLED THE PARK BOARD BECAUSE THEY TOLD THEM THIS IS COMING.
THEY SAID THEY COULD ALL MEET ON THE 14TH.
MARIE IS NOT HERE ON THE 14TH.
>> I AM, AND I'VE GIVEN MY DATES TO JANELLE WELL IN ADVANCE.
>> SIXTEENTH IS FINE. I CAN'T DO 17TH.
>> I CAN'T. I'M PRESENTING FROM 11:00 AM.
>> WHAT TIME IS YOUR SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT?
>> 11:00 TO 1:00. WHAT ABOUT THE 15TH AGAIN?
>> [BACKGROUND] I AM NOT AS GOOD AS YOU-ALL.
I WON'T MEET ALL THE WAY TILL 5:00 THAT DAY.
>> LET'S SAY THE 16TH. DID SOMEBODY SAY THAT?
[06:20:02]
>> I HAVE A SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT FROM 11:00 TO 1:00.
>> WE COULD START AT 8:00 ON THE 16TH.
>> OR YOU COULD DO IT FROM 2:00.
>> YOU WANT TO DO IT IN THE AFTERNOON?
>> SIXTEENTH AT 1:30, EVERYBODY?
>> WHAT WAS THAT ON? [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S BEEN THE ONLY ONE ON ALL OF THEM.
>> BECAUSE I HAVE A LATE FLIGHT IN.
>> IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION? I THOUGHT WE ALL LANDED ON THAT, AND IT WORKED.
>> WE HAD TO HAVE A POST HERE, AND AGENDA, AND GET THE PARK BOARD. WE COULD TRY IT.
>> IF THE 16TH WORKS, I THINK THAT'S A BETTER SOLUTION THAN TRYING TO RUSH THINGS.
>> SIXTEENTH, SHARON, YOU WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> SHE'S GOING TO BE ZOOMING IN ON A PLANE.
>> I DID THAT ONCE. IT REALLY PISSES THE PLANE OFF.
>> THANK YOU, AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUT THE 16TH?
>> I'M NOT PUTTING IT ON MY CALENDAR UNTIL YOU CONFIRM IT BECAUSE I'M NOT WASTING THE ELECTRONS.
>> BOB, WOULD YOU GET WITH THE PARK BOARD, CONFIRM THAT, AND IF THAT MEETS THEIR APPROVAL, COULD YOU LET US ALL KNOW? LET ME KNOW FOR SURE.
>> MY PHONE AUTOMATICALLY SAID 1:30 TO 3:30, SO I CONFIRM THAT.
>> CRAIG, WOULD YOU MIND SENDING ME THE LIST OF TOPICS THAT WE SAID WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT?
>> I'LL SEND THAT OUT TO ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> I WANT TO AGREE ON THOSE TOPICS NOW SO NOBODY'S SURPRISED AT THE PARK BOARD AND THAT CAUSES ANOTHER ISSUE.
>> I'LL TRY TO GET THOSE OUT TO YOU, COUNCIL, MAYBE TOMORROW ON THE LIST.
THEN THAT WAY, IF YOU HAVE ITEMS YOU WANT TO PUT ON THERE, YOU CAN SEND THOSE IN.
WE'LL SEE ABOUT COORDINATING ALL THAT THEN.
JANELLE, WE HAVE 16TH, BUT BOB, IF YOU'LL LET US KNOW QUICKLY BECAUSE I KNOW OUR SCHEDULES WILL FILL UP.
WE'RE GOING TO 3M, AS IN MARY.
[3.M. Discuss Parking Tickets by mail and associated data to be presented by city staff (Porretto/Rawlins)]
>> 3M, DISCUSS PARKING TICKETS BY MAIL.
>> NO, I DEFERRED [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF YOU-ALL ARE READY, GO AHEAD.
>> HAVE YOU READ THAT, JANELLE?
>> 3M, DISCUSS PARKING TICKETS BY MAIL, AND ASSOCIATED DATA TO BE PRESENTED BY CITY STAFF.
>> I HAVE TO SAY I'M HAPPY THAT I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT'S NOT GOING TO GET TO GO HOME TODAY.
>> THAT'S WHY I SAID NOBODY'S GOING TO GET TO GO HOME, AND FOR SOME REASON THAT MAKES ME HAPPY.
>> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT ON SOME OF THE COLLECTION DATA BASED ON MOVING IT FROM [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DID FROM JULY OF LAST YEAR, THAT'S WHEN WE FIRST STARTED GOING FULL FLEDGED WITH IT.
FROM THAT TIME, THEY HAD 163,000 ROUGHLY THAT PAID FOR THE PARKING AND NO ISSUES.
WE ISSUED ROUGHLY 12,800 CITATIONS DURING THAT TIME FROM THEN TO NOW, AND OUT OF THOSE 4,000, ABOUT 500 OF THEM PAID, SO 34% PAYMENT RATE.
YOU'VE GOT A PRETTY GOOD PAYMENT RATE FOR THE ONES THAT ARE BEING MAILED.
THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE YOUR RED ZONES OR HANDICAPS.
THAT'S JUST STRICTLY THE SEAWALL PARKING ONLY.
[OVERLAPPING] NO. JUST SEAWALL ONLY.
BECAUSE WE ONLY DID APPROVAL WAS FOR SEAWALL TO TEST ON, ORIGINALLY.
THAT'S ALL WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH.
>> THEN BASED ON THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WHAT WAS THAT PERCENTAGE YET?
>> IT'S ACTUALLY GONE UP A LITTLE BIT.
>> CORRECT. THIS IS A BETTER SYSTEM.
IT'S GIVING PEOPLE A LOT LONGER TIME TO PAY THEIR CITATION.
>> IT ALSO KEEPS US FROM STOPPING UP TRAFFIC.
[06:25:03]
>> WHAT'S THE PERCENT? I'M SORRY, I WAS WRITING.
>> THAT NUMBER WILL GO UP AS THE COLLECTION GROUP GETS INVOLVED, AND TIME GOES ON, SO THE 34% IS NOT A STATIC NUMBER.
THOSE SAME 34%, THAT NUMBER WILL GO UP.
>> WHEN YOU GUYS ARE GOING DOWN THE SEAWALL AND IT'S SOMEBODY WHO HASN'T PAID THEIR BILL, DOES YOUR SYSTEM SAY THIS IS A CAR WHO HASN'T PAID THEIR TICKET?
>> IT ALERTS, AND WHAT WE DO IS WE TAKE QUESTION AT THE END OF THE DAY, SO ALL THE LICENSE PLATES WILL SHOW UP IN OUR SYSTEM, AND WE HAVE TO APPROVE EACH INDIVIDUAL LICENSE PLATE.
THAT WAY, WE'RE DOUBLE VERIFYING IT.
THE SYSTEM IS VERIFYING IT, THAT THEY DIDN'T PAY, AND WE'RE VERIFYING THEY DIDN'T PAY.
>> HOW ARE WE DEALING WITH REPEAT OFFENDERS? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
>> WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT POINT YET. WE'RE STILL [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT IF IT TRIGGERS THE SAME LICENSE PLATE THAT IT HASN'T PAID, THEN THEIR FINE SHOULD BE HIGHER.
>> I DON'T THINK THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS GOING TO TRIGGER IF A FINE HASN'T BEEN PAID OR NOT.
IT'S JUST IF THEY'RE CURRENTLY PAID TO BE PARKING ON THE SEAWALL.
>> EVERY MUNICIPAL COURT WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST THE FINES.
>> WOULD YOUR DATA BE ABLE TO SHOW HOW MANY GALVESTON RESIDENTS VERSUS HOW MANY OUT OF STATE?
THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADD LATER FOR SOFTWARE PROGRAMMING.
NOW IT JUST SHOWS PLATE, AND STATE, AND THAT'S IT, PAID OR NOT.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD GET THE WORD OUT, BUT THERE'S SO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE UNAWARE THAT THEY CAN PAY $45 AND BE ON THE SEAWALL ANYTIME THEY WANT.
WE DO IT ON ALL OUR CARS, AND THIS WAY IF YOU'RE GOING TO A RESTAURANT PARKING LOT, AND IT'S FULL, YOU JUST PARK ON THE SEAWALL.
WHAT CAN WE DO TO GET THAT WORD OUT BETTER?
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY PUSH IT OUT THROUGH OUR SOCIAL MEDIA AND STUFF, AND WE ACTUALLY ADVERTISE IT IN THE POCKET PARKS AND ALL THOSE STUFF. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I KNOW. BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO A POCKET PARK.
>> IT'S THE BEST DEAL IN TOWN.
>> I KNOW [INAUDIBLE] A LOT OF PEOPLE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ANNUAL PASS TO PARK UP ON THE SEAWALL.
THEY JUST PUSH FOR AN ANNUAL PASS THIS HAPPENS [INAUDIBLE] .
>> I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT IT'S WORKING.
>> I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT VERY FEW OF THE TICKETS ARE LOCALS.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT WHEN THE GLO CAME BACK IN AND MADE US READJUST PARKING AND PUT THE FREE PARKING ON THE SEAWALL, WE DID OUR BEST TO PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE SEAWALL BUSINESSES SO THAT WAY THERE'S A DOUBLE BENEFIT OF IT TOO.
LIKE WHEN I GO TO NICK'S, THERE'S FREE PARKING UP HERE.
>> THERE'S NO WAY OF KNOWING YOUR PERCENTAGE OF COLLECTIONS OF SEAWALL COMPARED TO DOWNTOWN PARKING VIOLATIONS.
>> I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GATHER THE DATA THAT'S BACKING THIS REPORT. I'M NOT FOR SURE.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY YES OR NO.
I COULD TALK TO THEM TO SEE IF THEY HAVE AVAILABILITY TO DO THAT.
>> I JUST THINK THERE'S PROBABLY MORE LOCALS PARKING DOWNTOWN.
>> THERE'S PROBABLY MORE DELINQUENCY IN THAT TOO.
>> YOU'RE NOT PUTTING A TICKET ON THE WINDOWS ANYMORE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> NOT FOR SEAWALL. DOWNTOWN WE ARE.
>> DOWNTOWN YOU ARE. GOOD TO KNOW.
>> YOU STILL GET THE GALVESTON [INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WILL TELL YOU SOMETHING I DID NOTICE YESTERDAY WHILE WE'RE ON THE SUBJECT OF PARKING.
IF YOU GET OUT LIKE AROUND 28TH, 29TH STREET, AND THAT LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THERE WHERE THERE'S NOT A LOT OF HOMES, THE CRUISE PARKERS HAVE FIGURED IT OUT.
>> THEY HAVE FIGURED IT OUT NOW.
I WOULDN'T LEAVE MY CAR THERE JUST FOR FLOODING REASONS OR OTHER THINGS.
BUT YOU ROLL THE DICE, BUT YOU'RE GETTING FREE PARKING THERE IF YOU DO IT, SO THAT MAY BE SOMETHING YOU GUYS WANT TO LOOK AT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PARK.
>> THEY DO IT ALL THROUGH. I REMEMBER THERE WERE SOME POSTS ONLINE THAT A LADY WAS COMPLAINING THAT HER SUITCASE GOT STOLEN, OR SOMETHING, AND SHE WAS ILLEGALLY PARKED IN THE NEIGHBOR WHERE SHE WAS IN.
>> WE HAD ONE OF THOSE WHEN THE BUILDING FELL ON IT.
REMEMBER THE OLD FIRE STATION? HE HAD FELL ON ON A CRUISE CAR.
BUT I NOTICED THAT YESTERDAY AS I WAS CRUISING AROUND THAT AREA AND SAID OH-OH.
>> I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD START.
IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO SEE CONTINUED EVOLUTION OF THE SYSTEM TO ADDRESS MAYOR BROWN AND COUNCILOR ROB'S CONCERNS ABOUT REPEAT OFFENDERS AND/OR, IF YOU CAN DELINEATE BY GEOLOCATION AS WELL AS [OVERLAPPING] OUT OF CITY VERSUS LOCAL. THOSE THREE.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE IF YOU-ALL WANTED TO UP THE FINES FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS, AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU MIGHT BE HEADED.
>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. IT'S WHATEVER YOU-ALL WANT TO DO.
>> YOU MIGHT BE HEADED. [LAUGHTER] WORKING OUR WAY TOWARD IT. SORRY.
[06:30:04]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU GUYS.
[3.O. Discussion of Quarterly Hot Report Requirements Via The HOT Contract (Porretto/Rawlins)]
>> 3O. DISCUSSION OF QUARTERLY HOT REPORT REQUIREMENTS VIA THE HOT CONTRACT.
>> THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I TALKED TO MANAGEMENT ABOUT AND WE GOT AN EMAIL.
THIS IS ABOUT THE QUARTERLY HOT REPORT.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE COULD PROBABLY DISCUSS WITH THE PARK BOARD AS WELL, BUT CITY STAFF INFORMED ME THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GETTING THE REPORT THAT WOULD BE AS DETAILED THAT WOULD BE IN THE HOT CONTRACT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE EVERYBODY AWARE OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE AND GETTING A BETTER REPORT OF HOT TAX EXPENDITURES FROM THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE HOT CONTRACT.
>> VERY GOOD. ARE THEY UP TO SPEED AND UP TO DATE?
>> VERY GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE ON THAT 3P?
[3.P. Discuss known issues of Stewart Beach Lagoon project and future plans of filling of lagoon or presentation of solutions to mitigate drainage issues presented by our City Engineer (Rawlins/Robb)]
>> 3P COUNCILMAN PORRETTO HAS DECLARED A CONFLICT OUT ON 3P AS IN PAUL.
>> I KNEW YOU WAS CONFLICTED. [LAUGHTER]
>> 3P DISCUSS KNOWN ISSUES OF STEWART BEACH LAGOON PROJECT AND FUTURE PLANS OF FILLING OF LAGOON OR PRESENTATION OF SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE DRAINAGE ISSUES PRESENTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
>> SO BASICALLY, I'M SURE EVERYONE IS AWARE.
IT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER OF GETTING CLOSE TO SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BEING OUR PREMIER LOCATION FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON WITH A HOPEFUL MASTER DEVELOPER THAT CAN COME IN AND LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY AND WANT TO SPEND THEIR MONEY.
BUT ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES WE HAVE IS THE LAGOON THAT WAS PUT IN THAT I THINK WAS VERY ILL DESIGNED AND IS CAUSING LOTS OF PROBLEMS WITH DRAINAGE, NOT ONLY FOR THE ADJACENT BEACHES, BUT ALSO FOR THE GRAND RESERVE DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, THE PARKS BOARD HAS NOT MADE ANY MOVEMENT OR HAS ADDRESSED IT IN ANY WAY TO STATE HOW THEY WERE GOING TO REPAIR, REFIX, OR ADDRESS THE SITUATION.
I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT AT WHAT POINT IN TIME IS THE CITY SINCE IT'S A PLACE THAT REAL SOON TO DEVELOP, WHEN ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE?
>> WELL, I CAN SAY ONE THING THAT I KNOW THE PARK BOARD IS DOING.
THEY'RE DOING MAINTENANCE ON IT.
I KNOW THAT, BUT ANOTHER THING THAT THAT THEY'VE DONE IS THEY HIRED A THIRD PARTY ENGINEER, NOT THE DESIGN ENGINEER, BUT SOMEBODY ELSE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT ALL OF THIS, SEE HOW IT'S WORKING AND PROVIDE SOME THIRD OPINION OF HOW AN ENGINEER THINKS IT'S WORKING.
THE PLAN IS NOT READY YET, BUT WHEN IT IS, I THINK IT WILL.
>> TERRACON. DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT.
I THINK THAT'S I'M JUST GOING TOP OF MY HEAD.
WATER DRAINS FROM HIGH TO LOW AND WHEN YOU PUT A BIG BERM AND A LAGOON IN BETWEEN, IT'S NOT GOING TO DRAIN.
THEN YOU'VE GOT THE WATER THAT'S COMING UP FROM HIGH TIDES.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS CREATED SOME HUGE PROBLEMS. I'M NOT SURE WHY WE HAVE TO ENGINEER AND STUDY IT TO DEATH AGAIN.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY THAT IT DOESN'T WORK.
I JUST DON'T KNOW AT WHAT POINT IN TIME IT'S GOING TO BECOME SOMETHING THAT IS MITIGATED INSTEAD OF JUST LOOKED AT?
>> HOW MUCH ARE THEY PAYING TO HAVE IT REVIEWED? WE KNOW THEY SPENT OVER A MILLION TO DO IT.
FUNDAMENTAL, IN MY OPINION, DRAINAGE IN SAYING.
RIGHT THERE IS QUESTIONABLE THAT WE ALL LEARN WHEN WE'RE LIKE FOUR YEARS-OLD WHEN YOU'RE DIGGING YOUR FIRST HOLES ON THE BEACH AND WATER COMES UP.
BUT HOW MUCH IS THE REVIEW WHAT DID YOU ALL BUDGET?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT YOU KNOW TRYING TO PARK ON THE SAND IS NOT THE BEST IDEA IN AN AREA LIKE THAT ANYWAY.
[06:35:02]
AS WE THINK ABOUT PARKING LOTS, WE THINK IN TERMS OF ASPHALT OR CONCRETE AND THEY ALL DRAIN AND EVERYTHING'S FINE.BUT SAND KEEPS MOVING AROUND AND THE WATER TABLE IS RIGHT THERE.
IT'S HARD TO DO ANYTHING TO MAKE A PARKING LOT IN THE SAND THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE SOME PROBLEMS. REALLY, THE PROJECT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHEN IT WAS DONE, I WASN'T AROUND, BUT WHEN IT WAS DONE, IT WAS SEEN AS A TEMPORARY SOLUTION.
THE PERMANENT SOLUTION, I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE IS WOULD THIS MASTER DEVELOPER, ACTUALLY, INSTEAD OF UTILIZING THAT PROPERTY FOR PARKING, WE SHOULD DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY FOR AMENITIES FOR TOURISTS AND LOCALS, AND THEN DEVELOP A PARKING GARAGE.
THAT'S RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE SEA WALL.
WE HAVE A LOT OF BEACH PARKING ON THE SAND.
DON'T WE, BRIAN? ON THE WEST THEN AND WE DON'T HAVE THE ISSUES THAT ARE CREATED BY THAT DRAINAGE DITCH.
>> GIVE ME A LITTLE HISTORY ON THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROJECT.
>> A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY OF THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT.
>> I'D LIKE DON TO COME BACK IN FOR SAY ANYTHING BECAUSE WE DO HAVE LITIGATION AROUND THIS.
I DON'T WANT TO SAY ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO-
>> I'LL GIVE MY PERSONAL HISTORY.
I WAS RAISED JUST BEHIND THAT AREA.
IT HAS NEVER HAD DRAINAGE PROBLEMS LIKE THAT.
THERE HAS BEEN PARKING ON THAT BEACH SINCE I LITERALLY CAN'T REMEMBER, WHICH IS SINCE I WAS BORN.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A FOCAL POINT OF VISITORS TO GALVESTON.
I'VE GOT PICTURES OF MY GRANDFATHER STANDING AT THE ORIGINAL PAVILION IN THE 1950S WITH ZERO PROBLEM AND MULTIPLE PARKING ON THAT BEACH.
AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE MASTER DEVELOPED THAT WE'RE HOPEFUL.
BUT AS FAR AS, GIVEN THE EXCUSE THAT IT'S NOT A GOOD PLACE TO PARK, I I JUST [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S A POND. IT'S A PROBLEM.
>> NOT AT THE PONDING ISSUES BECAUSE I LOST MY HOUSE IN IKE AND I THOUGHT I DIDN'T WANT TO DO THE BEACH HOUSE BEING A SINGLE WOMAN WITH TWO OLD DOGS.
AT LEAST IN PALISADES PALMS. THERE WAS A LOT OF SCRAPING AND SAND TAKING FROM THAT BEACH.
I HAVE PHOTOS OF IT AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THE ISSUE.
>> THE PARK BOARD REMOVED SAND AND FROM THAT AREA FOR NOURISHMENT OF THE BEACHES.
I SEEING PICTURES [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK IT WAS REMOVED FROM REF, TOO, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING DRAINAGE PROBLEMS DOWN THERE.
>> YOU'RE TRYING TO KEEP A BEACH AS A PARKING AREA AND TO DO THAT, COUNCIL MEMBER ROB KNOWS HOW QUICK EVEN BERMUDA BEACH DRIVE SANDS UP, MUCH LESS THE BEACH ITSELF.
IT CONTINUES TO FLUFF UP, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S TRY SO THEY'RE CONSTANTLY BLADING IT AND DOING ALL THAT.
YOU'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN A BEACH AS A PARKING LOT, AND THAT'S JUST NEVER GOING TO WORK.
THAT PLUS THE REMOVAL OF SAND HAS PRECIPITATED SOME OF THE DRAINAGE.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS TOLD AND I'VE SEEN SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TRIGGERED THAT PROJECT WAS THAT THE NEW MCDONALD'S UP THERE HAS A DRAIN PIPE ON THAT RAMP.
IT COMES DOWN AND WAS DRAINING AND JUST CUTTING THE PARKING LOT IN HALF BIG SWALE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] ARNOLD'S WAS THERE, BUT THE SCRAPING OF IT IS WHAT CAUSED THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT SWALE AND SOME PHOTOGRAPHS.
IT GOES RIGHT FROM THE RAMP, IT GOES INTO THE STEWART BEACH AND THEN GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT.
IT'S ALL COMING FROM RIGHT UP THERE.
BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT INFLUENCE THAT SAND, LOCATION, AND MOTION AND WATER AND ALL THAT.
>> I'VE TALKED TO MANY PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS ON THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION AND FIRST OF ALL, I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, PUTTING PARKING OUT THERE ON THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE MASTER DEVELOPING FOR STEWART BEACH PARK.
PUTTING PARK IT OUT ON THE SAND IS RIDICULOUS TO ME.
WE NEED TO MOVE THAT ALL THE PARKING INTO SOME OTHER.
>> I JUST LOOK AT THIS PICTURE IT HAS.
THE NATURAL VEGETATION LINES HERE, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT JUMPS BACK TO THERE AT THAT BEACH.
THE ONLY REASON IT JUMPS BACK THERE IS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN GROOMING THIS AS PARKING FOR SO LONG.
OTHERWISE IF YOU COME DOWN HERE, IF YOU GO DOWN WELL, HE'S NOT IN HERE, BUT IF YOU LOOKED AT EVEN DOWN COLORADO BEACH, IT'S GRASSING ALL THE WAY BACK UP.
ANYWHERE THEY'RE NOT PARKING IT'S GRASSY BACK UP.
YOU'RE FIGHTING NATURE THERE A LITTLE BIT BY KEEPING THAT PARKING LOT.
[06:40:05]
>> I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT KEEPING A PARKING LOT.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN SAND FROM THERE, AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BUILT A BARN IN A MODE THERE.
>> BUT WHAT'S BEING DONE, BOB, TO ADDRESS WHAT COUNCILMAN RAWLINS IS BRINGING UP YOUR-.
>> I'M NOT REALLY CLEAR ON EVERYTHING THEY'RE DOING, BUT I KNOW LIKE BRIAN SAID, THEY'RE OUT THERE ALMOST ALL THE TIME WITH TRYING TO TRYING TO GET THE WATER OUT OF OUT OF THE MOATS AND TRYING TO PUT THE SAND.
THE WATER GET SATURATED IN THOSE MOATS, AND THEN THEY TRY TO GET THE SAND OUT OF THERE AND YOU SAID PUT THEM BACK ON THE SURFACE.
>> TERRACON IS LOOKING AT THIS?
>> DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. I'M NOT 100% SURE.
BUT YES, THERE IS AN ENGINEER LOOKING AT THAT RIGHT NOW. I AGREE IT'S A PROBLEM.
>> IT'S A MAJOR PROBLEM, AND THE QUICKER WE CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THE BETTER.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT JUST CAN'T BE FILLED IN.
>> THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHY DO I FILLED IN? WHY ARE WE DOING STUDIES AND ENGINEERING? PUT THE BEACH BACK LIKE IT WAS.
>> I CAN WAIT FOR THE MASTER BUILT.
I CAN SAY ONE REASON SAME THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU JUST PUT IT IN, YOU'D GET THAT SWALE RIGHT BACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT FROM THAT DRAIN PIPE THAT COMES DOWN THAT RAMP.
>> BOB, THERE IS NO WAY THAT THAT MCDONALD'S DRAIN PIPE.
THERE USED TO BE THE HUT CLUB, THERE USED TO BE THE GRASS MENAGERIE, THERE USED TO BE [OVERLAPPING] PLACES DOWN THERE.
AND BOB, IF YOU KNOW THAT, THEN YOU WOULD KNOW THAT THAT DRAINAGE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT GOING TO CAUSE WHAT ISSUES WE HAVE OUT THERE THAT'S DRAINING ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE GRAND RESERVE THAT'S CREATING, YOU KNOW, THE WATER IS ACTUALLY NOT ABLE TO EVEN SURFACE DRAIN ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THE WATER PRESSURE COMING UP FROM THE MOAT.
>> GRAND PRESERVE. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS AFFECTING THAT?
>> I WALKED OUT THERE THIS ENTIRE THING IS NOW SATURATED.
>> BOB, WE CAN'T SEE THAT NOR CAN THE PUBLIC SEE THAT. BUT NO PROBLEM.
>> A SIMPLE QUESTION. THERE'S SAND THERE. IT'S SIMPLE.
WE HAVE A HUGE POSSIBILITY OF A MASTER DEVELOPER COMING IN AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY FOR NOW, WE CAN'T JUST FILL IN THE ILL DESIGNED MOAT WITH THE BERM THAT'S THERE AND MOVE ON.
>> WELL, I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE THE PARK BOARD EXPLAIN TO US WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE.
>> WOULD YOU WANT THAT ON THE JOINT SESSION?
>> I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M SAYING THAT.
>> BUT YOU KNOW, THEY'RE MUCH BETTER PREPARED TO ADDRESS THIS THAN I AM.
>> THERE IS LITIGATION PENDING ON THIS ISSUE, AND THE CITY AND THE PARK BOARD ARE ADVERSE.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T WORK TOGETHER AND FIX A PROBLEM.
>> BUT I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU AND I HAVE TO THE OTHER PARTY.
BUT I'VE ADVISED MR. BROWN THAT HE CANNOT ATTEND EXECUTIVE SESSIONS TO TALK ABOUT THIS LITIGATION BECAUSE HE'S CONFLICTED.
FIRST. HE CAN'T GO TO THEIR MEETINGS.
HE CAN ATTEND THEIR PUBLIC MEETINGS. THAT'S FINE.
BUT I KNOW BRIAN HAS COMMUNICATED.
CITY CONCERNS TO THE PARK BOARD WITH I DON'T THINK WE'VE REALLY EVER HAD A RESPONSE.
>> HOW WAS BOB CLIP CONFLICTED? HE'S GOT THAT PROCEDURE.
>> LITIGATION AND THE CITY AND THE PARK BOARD [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE'S LITIGATION OVER THE LAGOON NOW.
>> THAT'S ANY MORE TOPICS ON THIS.
>> ANY MORE TOPICS ON THIS TOPIC?
>> ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC?
>> I'M KNEW THAT WE ALL JOG AROUND THE MEETING AROUND THE BUILDING FOR 10 MINUTES TO GET OUR CIRCULATION [OVERLAPPING] NO, IN THE BUILDING. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE [OVERLAPPING].
[3.Q. Discuss history and timeline of beach vendor/concessionaire agreements conveyed to the Parks Board to provide lease management oversight and City of Galveston's position on reimbursement to concessionaires for leases that can't be honored (Rawlins/Robb)]
>> 3Q. DISCUSS HISTORY AND TIMELINE OF BEACH VENDOR CONCESSIONAIRE AGREEMENTS CONVEYED TO THE PARKS BOARD TO PROVIDE LEASE MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT IN CITY OF GALVESTON'S POSITION ON REIMBURSEMENT TO CONCESSIONAIRES FOR LEASES THAT CAN'T BE HONORED.
>> BEAU, I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED IT, HAVEN'T WE? [BACKGROUND]
>> WE HAVE COVERED THIS TO THE POINT OF AGREEING THAT WE
[06:45:03]
WILL DISCUSS THIS WITH THE JOINT MEETING ON 16 APRIL.>> I DO WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME THAT WE LOOK OUT FOR SOME OF THESE LOCAL BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN DISPLACED.
>> THE PARK BOARD HAS OFFERED FULL REFUNDS FOR ANYBODY THAT HAS BEEN DISPLACED LIKE THAT.
>> BUT IT'S STILL SOMEBODY'S LIVELIHOOD.
>> THAT AND THAT THEY'VE ALREADY MAMA CAN DO THEIR [OVERLAPPING]
I WANT TO BACK UP COUNCILMAN RAWLINS SAYING THIS IS HEARTBREAKING ON SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE BEING CAUGHT UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS.
>> ONE OF THOSE WAS AT THE PARK BOARD EARLIER THIS WEEK AND DID A VERY, VERY GOOD PRESENTATION ON WHAT HOW IT'S IMPACTED HIS BUSINESS.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL OF OUR AGENDA ITEMS. YES, TIM.
>> YES, MAYOR. I THINK YOU WOULD ASKED IF THERE WAS A QUESTION POSED EARLIER ABOUT THAT MANUFACTURING HOME ORDINANCE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU ALL HAVEN'T SEEN THAT YET.
[LAUGHTER] BUT WE DO NOT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS IN THAT SAME CATEGORY AS MOBILE HOMES.
THERE'S A HURRICANE RESPONSE PLAN THAT BACKS OUT AT CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AT CERTAIN POINTS OF.
THEY HAVE TO AGREE TO GET THE TRAILER OUT IF THERE'S IF THERE'S TIME TO GET AN APPROACHING STORM.
>> THOSE ARE MORE MOBILE THAN A MOBILE HOME OWNER.
>> BECAUSE OF THE MANY MOBILES THAT YOU SEE.
WE HAVE HAD SEVEN HOUR, 50 MINUTE WORKSHOP. WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.