8.A. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending The Code Of The City Of Galveston, As Amended, The 2015 Galveston Land Development Regulations, “Article 13: Permits And Procedures”, To Establish Fees For Galveston Landmark Designation And Replacement Galveston Landmark Plaques; Planning Case Number 25ZA-001; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (C. Gorman)

[8.A. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending The Code Of The City Of Galveston, As Amended, The 2015 Galveston Land Development Regulations, “Article 13: Permits And Procedures”, To Establish Fees For Galveston Landmark Designation And Replacement Galveston Landmark Plaques; Planning Case Number 25ZA-001; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject. (C. Gorman)]

ITEM 8 A. ITEM 8 A CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, AS AMENDED, THE 2015 GALVESTON LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, ARTICLE 13 PERMITS AND PROCEDURES TO ESTABLISH FEES FOR GALVESTON LANDMARK DESIGNATION AND REPLACEMENT GALVESTON LANDMARK PLAQUES PLANNING CASE NUMBER 25ZA THROUGH 001, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT.

VERY GOOD. WE HAVE MISS GORMAN FROM DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, CATHERINE.

GOOD AFTERNOON. WE ARE PROPOSING A NEW FEE FOR GALVESTON LANDMARK APPLICATIONS IN ORDER TO FUND REPLACEMENT PLAQUES.

WE'VE HAD THE SAME SET OF PLAQUES SINCE 1999.

WE FINALLY RUN OUT, SO WE NEED TO BUY SOME MORE.

WE'RE GOING TO GET A HIGHER QUALITY PLAQUE. THE PLAQUES PREVIOUSLY HAD BEEN MADE OUT OF RESIN.

THESE WILL BE METAL. WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT BECAUSE THE PLAQUES ARE BEING UPGRADED, THAT SOME FOLKS MIGHT WANT TO BUY A PLAQUE.

SO WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING A FEE FOR A REPLACEMENT PLAQUE.

SO IF YOU'RE ALREADY A LANDMARK, YOU WANT TO UPGRADE TO THE NEW METAL PLAQUE, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO BUY ONE OF THOSE.

SO LANDMARK COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF ARE ALL RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. VERY GOOD.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS GORMAN? YES, BOB. JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND.

I THINK THERE'S YOUR PROPOSED FEE IS $100 FOR A NEW PLAQUE, BUT IT'S ALSO $100 FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A LANDMARK.

RIGHT. BECAUSE THE PLAQUE COMES ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION.

SO THERE'LL BE AN APPLICATION FEE OF $100 AND YOU'LL GET THE PLAQUE WITH THAT.

OKAY. IT'S NOT 100 PLUS 100. NO, NO IT'S NOT.

IT'S IT'S $100 FOR A NEW APPLICATION. IF YOU WANT TO UPGRADE YOUR PLAQUE, THAT'S $100.

OKAY, THANKS. THAT CLEARS IT UP FOR ME, MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE.

WELL, WE HAVE TO HAVE PUBLIC HEARING. SORRY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MISS GORMAN? IT IS 5:43 P.M.. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8 A.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? HEARING NO RESPONSE. IT'S 5:43 P.M.. GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR COUNCILWOMAN ROBB.

I MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND. VERY GOOD. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN LEWIS.

ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. WE GOT IT.

WE GOT IT. OH, WE GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

IT IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ITEM 8B, PLEASE. ITEM 8B, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON,

[8.B. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Designating The Property Located At 2114 Avenue O, As A “Galveston Landmark”, Property Is Legally Described As M.B. Menard Survey, Lot 11, Southwest Block 43, Galveston Outlots, In The City And County Of Galveston, Texas; Requesting The Historic Preservation Officer Record The Property's Landmark Designation In The Official Public Records Of Real Property In Galveston County, The Tax Records Of The City Of Galveston And The Central Appraisal District, And The Official Zoning Maps Of The City Of Galveston, Texas; Designating The Site As A Historically Or Archeological Significant Site In Need Of Tax Relief To Encourage Its Preservation; Planning Case Number 25P-002; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Sub]

TEXAS. DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2114 AVENUE AS A GALVESTON LANDMARK.

PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS MB MENARD SURVEY.

LOT 11, SOUTHWEST BLOCK 43, GALVESTON OUT LOTS IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, REQUESTING THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER RECORD THE PROPERTIES LANDMARK DESIGNATION IN THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF REAL PROPERTY IN GALVESTON COUNTY, THE TAX RECORDS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON AND THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, AND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, DESIGNATING THE SITE AS A HISTORICALLY OR ARCHEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANT SITE IN NEED OF TAX RELIEF TO ENCOURAGE ITS PRESERVATION.

PLANNING CASE NUMBER 25 P-002. MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

VERY GOOD, MISS GORMAN. THANK YOU. THIS IS THE LEOPOLD AND ERNESTINE JANTKE TEA HOUSE.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1884. THERE WAS AN ADDITION IN 1890 THAT INCREASED THE NUMBER OF ROOMS FROM TO FIVE.

THE HOUSE UNDERWENT A COMPLETE REMODEL IN 1926 THAT RESULTED IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION AND COLONIAL REVIVAL

[00:45:11]

DESIGN. THE HOUSE HAS BEEN IN ITS CURRENT APPEARANCE FOR 99 YEARS.

LANDMARK COMMISSION, PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. VERY GOOD.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS GORMAN? IT IS 5:45 P.M..

I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8 B. ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE? HEARING NO RESPONSE. IT'S 5:45 P.M.. I'M CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 8B.

I BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR ACTION. YES, I'D MAKE A MOTION.

I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BROWN, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN LEWIS, TO APPROVE A GALVESTON LANDMARK FOR 2114 AVENUE O AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. VERY GOOD. ANY DISCUSSION? OH. WHY ISN'T IT TRYING? OH, THERE WE GO. JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

IT RECORDED. YOU CAN VOTE. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTE.

THAT IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. THANK YOU. ITEM 9, PLEASE.

[9. PUBLIC COMMENT]

NELLIE. ITEM 9. PUBLIC COMMENT A AGENDA ITEMS B NON-AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS THE TIME FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. AS YOU KNOW THIS IS THREE MINUTES.

EITHER FORTUNATELY OR UNFORTUNATELY, THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENTS.

BECAUSE OF THE JOINT, BECAUSE OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT HERE IN THE STATE.

BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE FILL OUT A FORM IN THE BACK.

AND WE'RE GOING TO START WITH VAN PHIPPS. VAN.

HI, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU. VAN PHIPPS, 2625 BALL STREET.

AND I JUST WANTED TO RAISE SOME CONCERNS OVER UNLEASHED DOGS ON THE BEACH AND IN THE PARKS AND WHETHER THE CITY AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY LOOKS AT OUR ORDINANCES AND ENFORCED ORDINANCE, OR IF IT'S JUST A MERE SUGGESTION TO PEOPLE TO LEASH THEIR DOGS.

AND THIS COMES UP BECAUSE I EITHER WALK OR RIDE THE RIDE MY BIKE ON THE BEACH EVERY DAY FROM ABOUT 27TH STREET TO FAR EAST BEACH.

AND LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS I'VE HAD TWO DIFFERENT OCCASIONS WHEN A DOG'S CHASED ME.

ONE WAS FRIEND, ONE WAS PROBABLY FRIENDLY, THE OTHER ONE DEFINITELY WAS NOT.

VARIOUS PILES OF POOP SEEING DOGS IN THE DUNES, DIGGING.

MAYBE, YOU KNOW, BIRD EGGS. I DON'T KNOW, I JUST I SEE PEOPLE ON SATURDAY AND SUNDAY MORNINGS, ESPECIALLY ON EAST BEACH. BIG DOGS USUALLY NEVER ON LEASHES.

I FEEL LIKE IF THERE WAS A MORE CONCERTED EFFORT, MAYBE.

I KNOW THE PARKS BOARD CAN'T WRITE TICKETS OR, YOU KNOW, ENFORCE THIS, BUT MAYBE.

AND MAYBE I NEED TO TALK TO THE PARKS BOARD, BUT MAYBE THEY COULD, YOU KNOW, STOP PEOPLE AND SAY, HEY, YOU SHOULD REALLY HAVE YOUR DOG ON A LEASH. YOU KNOW, THE PARKS BOARD, PEOPLE DRIVE THE BEACHES IN THEIR FANCY TRUCKS ALL DAY LONG, AND I DON'T REALLY THAT'S SOMETHING THEY COULD DO.

YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A FREE THING THEY CAN DO.

IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT I DON'T SEE THEM ACTUALLY STOP ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE ONE DAY AND ASK THEM TO DEAL WITH A SLINGSHOT THAT WAS DRIVING UP AND DOWN THE BEACH.

AND HE SAID, YEAH, I COULD CALL THE POLICE, BUT I'M NOT. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO DOWN THERE.

BUT ANYWAY, I THINK IT'S UP TO $500, YOU KNOW, FINE PER OCCURRENCE.

I NEVER SEE ANYBODY ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO PUT THEIR DOG ON A LEASH.

I NEVER SEE TICKETS BEING WRITTEN UP. I WOULD ENCOURAGE ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PULL RECORDS AND SEE WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A TICKET WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN FOR AN UNLEASHED DOG? I BET IT'S MAYBE NEVER, OR IT HASN'T BEEN VERY OFTEN IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO.

IF THE CITY WANTED TO MAKE SOME MONEY, GO TO EAST BEACH ON THE WEEKEND.

WRITE 10 TO 20 TICKETS, TEN GRAND. YOU KNOW THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

AND I LOVE DOGS, I LOVE ANIMALS I PROBABLY LIKE IN GENERAL.

I LIKE ANIMALS BETTER THAN PEOPLE. ACTUALLY, IF I HAD TO BE HONEST, THEY GENERALLY BEHAVE BETTER.

[LAUGHTER] BUT LET'S SEE. ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION MAYBE WOULD JUST BE TO THINK ABOUT HAVING A DOG BEACH.

YOU KNOW, A LOT OF BEACH TOWNS HAVE A DESIGNATED DOG BEACH WHERE THEY CAN RUN AND, YOU KNOW, DO WHAT THEY WANT OFF THEIR LEASH, BUT IT'S JUST IN A CERTAIN SPOT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THE SATURDAY A WEEK OR SO AGO, I'VE GOT 15 SECONDS.

I STEP OFF THE BOARDWALK DOWN AT ONE OF THE BEACH ACCESSES.

HUGE STEAMING PILE OF POO RIGHT THERE. AND I DID CALL OUT THE OWNER.

I SAID, I THINK THAT'S YOURS, YOU KNOW. AND I THINK THEY GOT EMBARRASSED AND LEFT, WHICH I'M FINE WITH THAT.

BUT ANYWAY, SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU KNOW, ONCE A MAYOR, ALWAYS A MAYOR.

[00:50:04]

MAYOR JOE JAWORSKI. MAYOR. HELLO. HELLO, MAYOR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THANKS FOR MOVING THE AGENDA ITEM UP.

YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL THE FOLKS HERE IN SUPPORT OF PROJECT ROSENBERG VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT.

AND IN FACT, WOULD THE SUPPORTERS OF PROJECT ROSENBERG PLEASE STAND? OR IF YOU'RE STANDING, RAISE YOUR HAND. AND WHAT WE'LL DO IS PROMISE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SPEAKERS.

IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. I WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOME UPDATES.

BRIAN BECAUSE I KNOW IT MATTERS TO YOU. AND, DON, WE'VE BEEN TALKING.

AND THE COUNCIL, I THINK, IS DOING A GREAT JOB.

SO I WANTED YOU TO KNOW SOME OF OUR PLEDGE NUMBERS AND MONEY IN THE BANK NUMBERS THAT SURELY WOULD GIVE YOU CONFIDENCE THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT OVER THE BRIDGE. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE 1.52 MILLION IN PLEDGES, OF WHICH 1.3 MILLION ARE IN THE BANK AT MOODY NATIONAL BANK OR IN A GO FUND ME CREDIT CARD ACCOUNT THAT WE CAN ACCESS ANY DAY WE WANT. WE'RE JUST LETTING IT SIT THERE AND WE'LL GET IT WHEN WE NEED IT.

THAT IS 87% OF OUR PLEDGES IN HAND. THE PLEDGE NUMBER REPRESENTS 69% OF THE WAY TO 2.2 MILLION. NOW, WE KNOW WE'VE GOT APRIL, MAY AND JUNE TO DO IT.

OUR GOAL IS TO DO IT BEFORE THEN. WE DON'T WANT TO BE THAT GROUP, YOU KNOW, TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE DEADLINE ASKING PEOPLE TO HELP FINISH THE JOB.

WE ALSO JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF THE POPULAR SUPPORT WE'VE RECEIVED 94 CHECKS OR WIRES.

WE HAVE 46 LEFT TO COLLECT. WE HAVE HAD 51 CREDIT CARD PAYMENTS, AND THAT'S BEFORE WE'VE GONE PUBLIC WITH THE QR CODE THAT'S JUST WORD OF MOUTH.

WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS OUR DONORS WILL HAVE YARD SIGNS STARTING THIS WEEKEND IN THEIR YARD.

WE'VE DONE A MAIL OUT OF ABOUT 800 TO 1000 LETTERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

AND WE'RE GOING TO START A BLOCK WALKING CAMPAIGN.

WE HAVE AN IN-KIND DONOR FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY LEVEL ONE AND FOR DEMOLITION AND REMOVAL.

DON, I READ YOUR CITY ATTORNEY MEMO. AND WANTED TO JUST MAKE THREE COMMENTS.

I KNOW IT WAS LARGELY DISCUSSED TODAY, SO I HOPEFULLY, I'M NOT BEING REDUNDANT.

IT'S ALL FINE WITH ME, EXCEPT FOR LIKE, THREE COMMENTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE.

I HOPE THAT THERE'S AN AGREEMENT THAT THE PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL IS NOT NECESSARY, UNLESS AN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ENGINEER SAYS THAT IT IS NECESSARY.

WE'RE DEFINITELY DOING A LEVEL ONE. AND SO I HOPE THAT THERE'S AGREEMENT THAT WE DON'T DO A LEVEL TWO UNLESS THE LEVEL ONE RECOMMENDS IT.

SECONDLY, ON THE DEMOLITION, PLEASE DON'T REQUIRE SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO BE PUT INTO THE ACCOUNT BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE AN IN-KIND ITEM DONATED BY ONE OF OUR GENEROUS DONORS. AND FINALLY, THE FINAL ITEM, DON, I HOPE CITY COUNCIL CHOOSING NOT TO ACCEPT THE DONATION AT ANY TIME.

I HOPE THE ACCEPTANCE WON'T BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOE. [APPLAUSE] MICHAEL HUGHES. MICHAEL. I'LL BE BRIEF. I'M JUST HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT ROSENBERG PARK AND HOPE THE CITY CAN ACCEPT THIS ATTEMPT TO RAISE 2.2 MILLION ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AS A GIFT TO THE CITY. AND SOMETHING THAT WILL BENEFIT THE ENTIRE EAST END OF GALVESTON FOR DECADES TO COME AFTER I'M LONG GONE.

BUT IT'S I'M SURPRISED AND THRILLED THAT THEY'VE ALREADY RAISED 1.6 MILLION AND COMMITMENTS AND EVIDENTLY OVER A MILLION AND A QUARTER IN CASH.

SO WE'RE A LONG WAY THERE. BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

YOU'RE WELCOME. MICHAEL, NICE TO SEE YOU. [APPLAUSE] ADAM MUSICK.

ADAM. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS ADAM MUSICK. I'M THE OWNER OF CHARLIE'S BEACH SERVICE. I WATCHED THE ENTIRE MEETING TODAY, SO I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE TIRED, AND I DON'T WANT TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE. BUT I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE UMBRELLA WARS THAT ARE GOING ON DOWN AT THE BEACH.

I SPOKE AT THE PARKS BOARD MEETING ON TUESDAY AND ASKED, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW.

AND NO ONE WANTS TO NAME HIM BUT FRANK MACIO, HOW HE'S TAKING OVER ALL THESE LEASES ON THE BEACH, AND NO ONE SEEMS TO WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

ALL THIS STARTED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO. I WAS ACTUALLY IN A MEETING WITH THE PARKS BOARD, AND I'M ALMOST POSITIVE THEY HIRED MILLS SHIRLEY TO DO A

[00:55:03]

STUDY AND FIND OUT WHO OWNS EVERY TRACK ON THE BEACH.

I'M ALMOST POSITIVE THEY DID IT. THAT WAS CALLED FOR, AND I'M ALMOST 100% SURE THEY DID IT.

SO IT'S OUT THERE. I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT FRANK MACIO, A PAST MAYORAL CANDIDATE AND A PAST COUNCILMAN, IS TAKING OVER THE LEASES FROM FAMILY BUSINESSES.

NO ONE WANTS TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THE PARKS BOARD SAYS YOU GUYS NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

Y'ALL SAY THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

AND HERE WE ARE. NOBODY'S DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

IT'S JUST A BUNCH OF TALK, TALK, TALK, TALK. THIS IS MY LIVELIHOOD.

THIS IS HOW I MAKE MY LIVING. I PAID THE PARKS BOARD ABOUT 7 OR $8000 JUST TO HAVE THE RIGHTS TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I'VE BEEN THERE 15 YEARS NOW, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN HE CAN COME OVER AND TAKE OVER MY BUSINESS.

I'M OUT $7,000. I'M OUT $15,000. I SPENT THIS YEAR ALONE ON BRAND NEW EQUIPMENT, NOWHERE TO GO.

I SEND MY EMPLOYEES HOME. IT'S NOT FAIR. MAYOR, I CALLED YOU ABOUT THIS A MONTH AGO.

I TALKED TO YOU ON THE PHONE. I APPRECIATE YOU CALLING ME BACK.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT. YOU TOLD ME YOU WERE GOING TO GET SOME LEGAL COUNSEL AND CALL ME BACK AGAIN.

YES, SIR. STILL WAITING FOR THAT CALL. I'M STILL WAITING FOR THAT CALL.

AS A VENDOR, I PAY SALES TAX TO THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER ON A MONTHLY BASIS, AND I REPORT THAT TO THE PARKS BOARD EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

I HAVE A $2 MILLION INSURANCE POLICY THAT PROTECTS MYSELF, BUT IT PROTECTS THE PARKS BOARD AS WELL AS THE CITY OF GALVESTON AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED ON THAT POLICY. MY WIFE, MY KIDS AND ALL MY EMPLOYEES ARE CERTIFIED TOURIST AMBASSADORS.

SO WE'RE RUNNING A GOOD FAMILY BUSINESS OUT THERE.

WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING. I HAVE A SIGNED LEASE THAT GIVES ME PERMISSION AND AUTHORITY TO BE ON THAT BEACH.

WHY AM I HELD TO ONE STANDARD AND ANOTHER INDIVIDUAL IS HELD TO NO STANDARDS? I'M ON A TRACK OF BEACH THAT I CONSIDER TO BE STATE OWNED.

I'VE TALKED TO THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT MAPPING DEPARTMENT.

I'VE SPOKE WITH THE GLO MAPPING DEPARTMENT. THEY'VE CONFIRMED THIS AS WELL.

SO I'M ON A STATE OWNED PIECE OF LAND. WHAT IS MR. MACIO SHOWING ANYBODY THAT SHOWS THAT HE CAN COME ON AND TAKE OVER MY BUSINESS? THIS IS A BUSINESS I NURTURED FOR 15 YEARS IN THE SAME LOCATION.

I HAVE CUSTOMERS THAT CALL ME ON THE PHONE, SAY, HEY, ADAM, I'M COMING TO THE BEACH.

RESERVE ME AN UMBRELLA AND CHAIR. I BUILT THAT BUSINESS FOR 15 YEARS.

NOW HE'S COMING ON AND TAKING ALL MY CUSTOMERS.

MR. MUSICK, THANK YOU SIR. YOUR TIME, UNFORTUNATELY, IS UP.

PLEASE DO SOMETHING. [APPLAUSE] THANK YOU. FRANK MACIO.

MR. FRANK MACIO, 1201 MARINE. I'M THE FRANK MACIO THAT YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT.

SEE, Y'ALL GOT A GOOD PICTURE OF ME. YOU GUYS OVER HERE, NOW, I USED TO REPRESENT YOU GUYS ON DISTRICT COUNCIL ON DISTRICT THREE AT CITY COUNCIL .

GOT A BUNCH OF STREET LIGHTS FOR Y'ALL. I'M HERE TO ADDRESS COUNCIL TODAY, BECAUSE YOU GUYS WERE FED A LINE OF ABSOLUTE NONSENSE FROM YOUR CITY ATTORNEY. MONTHS AGO A YEAR AGO NOW, I RAISED THE ISSUE OF THE SURFACE LEASE THAT THE PARK BOARD HAS WITH STATE OF TEXAS. THAT SURFACE LEASE CONVEYS SUBMERGED LAND.

SO WHEN DON TELLS EVERYBODY ON COUNCIL THAT HE'S NEVER SEEN IT, WHEN THE PARK BOARD TELLS EVERYBODY ON COUNCIL THAT Y'ALL AIN'T NEVER SEEN IT, YOU GUYS ARE LYING TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON. PERIOD.

I'VE PROVIDED EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU A COPY OF THAT SURFACE LEASE AND ALL THE PROBLEMS WITH IT.

I PROVIDED IT TO DON ALL THE DEPARTMENT HEADS.

DOCTOR BROWN AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET IT DONE. AND YOU GUYS ARE GOING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THE PORRETTO CASE.

YOU GUYS ARE GOING THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF STATE LAW, AND YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO TAKE PROPERTY AND I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT.

I WILL NOT TOLERATE IT. THIS CITY STOLE THOSE BEACHES OUT THERE FOR 30 YEARS.

AND I'M SITTING HERE LISTENING TO THE PARK BOARD AND THE CITY TALK ABOUT REFUNDING THESE VENDORS MONEY.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS OUT THERE THAT GOT SCREWED FOR 30 YEARS BECAUSE THE PARK BOARD WANTS TO STEAL PROPERTY? BECAUSE WE GOT OUR ORDINANCES ALL SCREWED UP.

IT'S TIME. IT'S TIME WE BRING THIS ISSUE TO A HEAD WITH THE PARK BOARD AND ADDRESS THE SURFACE LEASE THAT CONVEYS SUBMERGED LAND THAT

[01:00:01]

IS UNDERWATER LAND. KEEP TRYING TO STEAL MY PROPERTY, AND I'M GOING TO KEEP ACTING LIKE A BARBARIAN.

YOU WANT TO TREAT ME LIKE A SECOND CLASS CITIZEN? I'M GOING TO KEEP ACTING LIKE A BARBARIAN. THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY.

DON DON'T LIE TO ANYBODY ANYMORE, MAN. JODI WALLACE.

JODI. 3812 AVENUE ELM PAY FOR SHADE. HE'S TALKING ABOUT THAT HE'S GOT THIS INSURANCE AND THIS AND THAT. WHAT HE DOESN'T HAVE, HE HAS INSURANCE FOR THE CITY. HE HAS INSURANCE FOR HIMSELF, BUT HE HAS NO INSURANCE FOR THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER THAT HE'S SET UP ON THEIR PROPERTY.

THEY'RE WIDE OPEN. THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WANT US TO BE OUT THERE TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY.

BUT THEN THE PARK BOARD , MY COMPETITION CONTACTS MY LESSORS AND THREATENS THEM WITH LEGAL ACTION IF THEY ADMIT THAT THEY'VE LEASED TO US.

SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY I WATCHED THE WHOLE WORKSHOP TODAY.

NOBODY TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT WHY IS THE PARK BOARD SET UP ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND WHY DOES THE PARK BOARD NEVER HAVE TO PROVE WHY THEY CAN BE OUT THERE? WE'VE ASKED FOR IT OVER AND OVER. WE'VE EMAILED THEM.

DOCTOR BROWN KNOWS A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE AWARE. WE TRIED TO HANDLE THIS THE RIGHT WAY LONG BEFORE THE SEASON STARTED.

WE HAVE OUR LEASES. WE HAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE.

THE PARK BOARD CANNOT PROVIDE ANY INFORMATION THAT SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE ANY RIGHT TO HAVE TO BE SET UP AND LEASING OUT PRIVATE PROPERTY TO THESE VENDORS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THEY HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO LEASE ANYTHING OUT THERE ACCORDING TO THE LEASE THEY HAVE WITH THE GLO THAT I HAVE THAT SOMEHOW NOBODY ELSE HAS.

WE GOT IT THROUGH FREEDOM OF INFORMATION. THESE GUYS ARE MY COMPETITION.

THEY GO OUT THERE AND THEY TRY TO SHUT ME DOWN. THEY SENT ME A CEASE AND DESIST LETTER FROM THEIR LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND I'M OPERATING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY OVER. THEY ENCOURAGE THESE GUYS TO COME OUT THERE AND CHALLENGE ME AND TO SET UP AND CREATE CONFRONTATION.

SO I HAVE TO SHOW THE LEASE. WE SHOW THE LEASE.

WE'VE SHOWN THE LEASES. WE STILL HERE. WHY, WHAT WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO TO NOW CONTINUE TO PROVE THAT WE HAVE THIS LEASE AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT CONTACTING THE PEOPLE THAT I'M LEASING FROM IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT, WHEN THEY KNOW YOU'VE ALREADY TAKEN THEM TO COURT TWO YEARS AGO, THEY DON'T WANT TO ADMIT IT. AND THEN THEY TELL THE PARK BOARD OFFICIALS THEMSELVES, WE DON'T WANT ANYBODY ON THE PROPERTY.

HOW ABOUT THAT? WHAT DO THEY DO? THEY SAY, SEE, THEY DON'T WANT YOU ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY CONTINUE TO SET UP ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE ADDRESSED. I'D LIKE TO I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHY HOT TAX MONEY IS USED SPECIFICALLY FOR MY COMPETITORS, BUT NOT FOR ME. HOW IS THAT LEGAL? HOW CAN HOT TAX MONEY BE SPENT TO PROMOTE MY COMPETITOR, BUT NOT ME AS A PRIVATE BUSINESS THAT'S PAYING TAXES? YOU KNOW, THE PARK BOARD HAS SHUT ME DOWN WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

YOU KNOW, THEY CAME OUT, THEY VIOLATED MY RIGHTS. I SET OUT TWO AND A HALF MONTHS OF THE SUMMER TWO YEARS AGO, BECAUSE THEY CHALLENGED MY LEASE AT 45TH STREET.

THAT'S COMPLETELY LEGAL. THEN THEY SENT LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO THE LADY'S HOUSE TO INTIMIDATE HER TO BACK OUT OF THE LEASE.

THE PARK BOARD IS MY COMPETITION. AND THIS IS NOT FAIR.

AND EVERYBODY SITTING UP HERE DEFENDING. WHY, WHAT WWE NEED TO DO TO PROVE THAT WE CAN BE OUT THERE WHEN NOBODY'S CHALLENGING.

NOBODY'S CALLED AND SAID, HEY, WHY ARE THESE GUYS ON OUR PROPERTY? NOT AT ALL. BUT BUT YOU GO AND YOU TRY TO FIND THEM AND YOU TRY TO INTIMIDATE THEM TO TO BACK OUT OF MY CONTRACTS.

THE PARK BOARD SHOULD HAVE NEVER LEASED PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THEY SHOULDN'T BE ON ANYTHING BUT STATE OR CITY PROPERTY.

AND THE TRUTH IS, THEIR GLO CONTRACT DOESN'T EVEN GIVE THEM THAT RIGHT FROM 10TH STREET TO 61ST.

THEY HAVE NO ABILITY, NO AUTHORITY TO LEASE OR HAVE A CONCESSIONAIRE PROGRAM.

JODI. THANK YOU. THANK YOU JODI. THANK YOU ALL.

[APPLAUSE] ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT? NELLIE LET'S MOVE TO 12B PLEASE.

[12.B. Consider for acceptance the conditions recommended by staff related to the proposed conveyance to the City by GISD of the property commonly known as Rosenberg school; directing staff to initiate negotiations with GISD related to those conditions; and directing staff to report its progress to Council at its meeting in May, 2025. (Legal)]

MA'AM. ITEM 12 B CONSIDER FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CONVEYANCE TO THE CITY BY GISD OF THE PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS ROSENBERG SCHOOL.

DIRECTING STAFF TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS WITH GISD RELATED TO THOSE CONDITIONS, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO REPORT ITS PROGRESS TO COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING IN MAY 2025.

THIS ITEM WE HAVE DISCUSSED MANY TIMES HERE AT COUNCIL AND WE'VE HAD SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS DISCUSS IT TODAY.

EVEN FURTHER, I'M GOING TO OPEN THIS UP FOR A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM SO WE CAN OPEN THE DISCUSSION.

MOVE TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND. WELL, LET'S SEE.

STATE YOUR MOTION, BOB. OH. MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 12 B.

WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE OUTLINED THERE.

WELL I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION, BUT I WANT TO APPROVE IT.

MAKE THE MOTION SO WE CAN OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSS. THAT'S FINE.

BUT YOUR YOUR MOTION IS INCLUDING THE CONDITIONS 13 THAT ARE OUTLINED AT THIS POINT.

[01:05:07]

IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ITEM 12 B WITH THE 13 CONDITIONS.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND COUNCILMAN FINKLEA.

ALL RIGHT. I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION. I GOT A COMMENT.

JUST A FEW QUESTIONS. DO YOU WANT TO DO THESE ONE BY ONE OR GO? YOU KNOW WHAT? WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO. THIS WAS MY THINKING ON IT COUNCIL SEEMS TO ME.

ITEM 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 I DON'T THINK ARE IN.

I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL ON THOSE ITEMS. OKAY, WELL I'LL JUST I'LL JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE READY.

YES. ITEM TWO, IT SAYS GISD MUST PERFORM A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY.

WHAT FIRST OF ALL, GISD PROBABLY IS NOT GOING TO BE PERFORMING THIS, BUT PROJECT ROSENBERG.

SO I WOULD SAY THAT GISD MUST ENSURE THAT A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY IS DONE.

IF IT'S DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHASE ONE STUDY.

THAT WAS MY FIRST COMMENT. THE SECOND IS ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT WHERE IT SAYS IT TALKS ABOUT THE CITY PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD, PERFORM A STUDY AND SHALL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER .

OUGHT TO SET A DEADLINE FOR THAT STUDY. AND AT THE END OF THIS END OF THIS DOCUMENT, IT SAYS IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATING WITH GISD AND REPORT BACK TO THE COUNCIL ON THE PROGRESS AT THE MAY 25TH MEETING.

IF WE COULD PUT A DEADLINE ON THAT STUDY TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT AT THE MAY 2 5 MAY MEETING, THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, A GOOD THING. AND THEN ON NUMBER 13 SAYS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY CHOOSE TO NOT ACCEPT THE DONATION AT ANY TIME UP TO THE ACTUAL CONVEYANCE HAS BEEN EXECUTED.

WE TALKED ABOUT THIS THIS MORNING, AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST PUT A MODIFICATION ON THAT THAT SAYS THAT WOULD SAY SAID CITY ACCEPTANCE OF PROPERTY WILL NOT BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD.

ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN PORRETTO. SO IN LISTENING TO MAYOR JAWORSKI, I UNDERSTAND YOU KNOW, PHASE TWO COMES AFTER PHASE ONE, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A PRUDENT THING.

AND WITH COUNCILMAN RAWLINS INPUT, I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, ANY PHASE OF ENVIRONMENTAL.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HOPE COUNCIL WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT.

WHICH MEANS I MEAN, WE'RE STILL ASKING FOR A PROPERTY THAT IS CLEAN AND CLEAR OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

AND I THINK EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT. NUMBER 13, INSTEAD OF PUTTING ANY LANGUAGE IN IT, I THINK WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO TURN IT DOWN AT ANY TIME, EVEN IF IT IS, YOU KNOW, AN UNREASONABLY WITHHELD OR WHATEVER LANGUAGE I WOULD PROPOSE TO JUST STRIKE THAT PERIOD BECAUSE WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE GETTING INTO.

AND IF THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THEIR MARKS, IT WOULD BE CHICKEN, YOU KNOW, EXPLETIVE.

IF WE DID TURN OUR BACK ON THEM IF I MEAN, WE KIND OF SIGNED UP FOR IT, BUT YOU KNOW, IN KIND OF I UNDERSTAND IT'S AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY TALK ABOUT THE DEMOLITION IN HERE BESIDES THE PHASE ONE.

PHASE TWO OF THE PROPERTY. I WOULD, I MEAN, A LETTER FOR IN-KIND.

I THINK THAT THAT COULD BE ADDED TO IT AND THEN UPDATE AND NEGOTIATION OR.

I WOULDN'T SAY NEGOTIATION, BUT UPDATE OF THE PROCESS OF REMEDIATION OR REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING AND ANY ENVIRONMENTAL.

I THINK WITH GISD, SINCE IT IS GOING TO BE IN-KIND AND GISD IS GOING TO BE HANDLING IT, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN ANYTHING LESS THAN BEING UPDATED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONDITIONS ARE MET, AND STAY OUT OF IT UNTIL IT IS CONVEYED.

WITH THE ASPECT TO COUNCILMAN BROWN'S COMMENT ABOUT THE THE STUDY WITH THE PARKS I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN OUR POSSESSION YET IS AM I DON IS THAT I MEAN, I THINK ONCE IT BECOMES CONVEYED, THEN WE CAN DO A STUDY.

I DON'T THINK PUTTING A TIMELINE ON IT PRIOR TO.

[01:10:09]

WE HAVE I THINK WE'RE GOING INTO PHASE SIX OF OUR PARK FUNDING CYCLE.

WE'RE GOING INTO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND I, WE HAVE SHIELDS AND JONES PARK THAT WE HAVE TO WE HAVE THOSE AS A PRIORITY.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT Y'ALL ARE LOW PRIORITY, BUT WE HAVE THINGS IN THE PIPELINE ALREADY AND THERE'S A PROCESS TO DO IT.

AND I THINK GIVING A FAIR, REASONABLE REQUEST TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER PHASE WHEN WE GO INTO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT I WOULD PREFER BEFORE WE JUST GO AND CRAM DOWN A STUDY TO SEE WHAT WE NEED OF THE PARK BEFORE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONVEY THE PARK TO THE CITY. I DON'T WANT TO DO A STUDY, AND NOT TO SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT MAKING THEIR MARKS, BUT IF THE CONDITIONS AREN'T MET. AND THEN WE JUST DID A STUDY OFF OF A PIPE DREAM.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF MY I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAUGHT ALL THAT? SO I DID. COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTO. YEAH. SO I WANT TO ADDRESS THE ITEM.

THE PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENT I WORKED WITH COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, AS WELL AS COUNCIL MEMBER RAWLINS ON SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE FOR THAT.

AND AS MAYOR JAWORSKI STATED WE UNDERSTAND THAT HE IS IN THE PROCESS OF DOING A PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL, BUT THERE WERE SOME SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT WE FELT WE NEEDED TO HAVE AS PART OF THE BUILDING INVESTIGATION.

SO LET ME READ THOSE TO YOU. GISD MUST PERFORM A PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE SITE AND STRUCTURE.

THE BUILDING INSPECTION SCOPE OF THE ASSESSMENT SHALL INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING INVESTIGATIONS A CHECK FOR ASBESTOS CONTAINING MATERIALS ACMS B, ASSESS PRESENCE OF LEAD BASED PAINT AND THEN C, IDENTIFY POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS PCBS IN OLDER FLUORESCENT LIGHT BALLASTS AND TRANSFORMERS.

I HAVE A QUESTION RELATED TO THE INCLUSION OF THE GISD MUST PERFORM A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL.

BRIAN, YOU WHEN WE VISITED EARLIER ABOUT THAT, YOU SAID THAT YOU'VE NEVER SEEN ANY INVESTIGATION OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT WHERE THE SOIL WASN'T CONTAMINATED AND REQUIRED A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL.

I CAN GO TWO WAYS ON THIS ONE WE CAN DEMAND THAT A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL BE PERFORMED ON THE SITE GROUNDS, AS WELL AS ANY ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, OR SIMPLY JUST LEAVE THAT AS MAYOR JAWORSKI SAID THAT YEAH, A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL IS ONLY REQUIRED IF IDENTIFIED ITEMS ARE BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL.

AS LONG AS WE KNOW THAT THE PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL WAS DONE BENEATH THE BUILDING, AND NOT JUST WHILE THE BUILDING IS STILL THERE, IT'S THE SURFACE THAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT, NOT THE BUILDING. YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE BUILDING GO AWAY. WE KNOW THAT, AND YOU'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH WHATEVER'S IN THE BUILDING.

WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S LEFT IN THE GROUND AFTER THE BUILDING.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, THOUGH, GISD IS NOT REQUIRING THE ENVIRONMENTAL THAT IS THE CITY.

YOU KEEP SAYING GISD MUST. NOT REQUIRING IT SAYS GISD MUST PERFORM OR HAVE PERFORMED.

YEAH. REMEMBER, OUR AGREEMENT IS. OUR AGREEMENT IS WITH MR. NABORS. SO WE JUST BEFORE WE'LL ACCEPT IT FROM MR. NABORS IT HAS TO BE CLEAN. NOW, HOW MATT COMES ABOUT GETTING IT DONE, THAT'S UP TO HIM.

HE'S PRETTY CRAFTY GUY. [LAUGHTER] SO BUT NO, OUR AGREEMENTS WITH GISD.

SO THAT'S WHY HE, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER INVOLVED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL. MAYBE. WELL, BUT OUR AGREEMENT CAN'T BE BETWEEN US AND PROJECT ROSENBERG.

IT CAN ONLY BE BETWEEN US AND THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE CONVEYING THE LAND.

CAN WE HAVE THE SUPERINTENDENT COME UP AND TELL US WHAT THEIR INVOLVEMENT IS.

SURE. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL .

AND THANK YOU FOR DOING ALL THIS WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING.

SO. YES. BOTH OF YOU ARE CORRECT. GISD IS ENSURING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ARE BEING DONE, BUT IT IS PROJECT ROSENBERG THAT IS CONTRACTING WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY.

THEY MADE SURE THAT IT WAS SOMEBODY THAT WAS ON OUR APPROVED LIST. IT WAS SOMEBODY THAT WE'VE USED BEFORE FOR OTHER PROJECTS IN GALVESTON, SOMEBODY THAT HAD GALVESTON EXPERIENCE.

SO WE APPROVED WHO THEY HIRED. BUT THEY ARE HIRING AND PAYING FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY.

SO PROJECT ROSENBERG IS HAVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY DONE, AND THEN THEY WILL SHARE THOSE RESULTS WITH US. SO WE ARE NOT DOING IT OURSELVES. PROJECT ROSENBERG IS DOING IT AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, AS A CONDITION OF ULTIMATELY CONVEYING THE PROPERTY TO YOU.

DOCTOR NABORS, IF I CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FROM GISD MUST PERFORM TO GISD MUST PROVIDE WOULD THAT BE [INAUDIBLE] T HERE WE GO.

THANK YOU. AND THEN THAT. THAT WOULD BE AFTER DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING.

[01:15:02]

CORRECT. OR IS THAT SO? WE'RE WE'RE PERFORMING A PHASE ONE NOW, IMMEDIATELY.

SO AS BRIAN SAID, WE WE KNOW THAT THE BUILDING WAS BUILT.

WE KNOW IT HAS ASBESTOS. WE HAVE AN ASBESTOS REPORT. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW WHAT PARTS OF THE BUILDING HAVE ASBESTOS, BUT ALL THAT WILL BE REMEDIATED AT DEMOLITION. SO THERE ARE COMPONENTS OF THE BUILDING ITSELF THAT WE KNOW ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE DEMOLISHED AND REMEDIATED.

AND THEN AT THAT POINT YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO BACK WITH SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, VERY EASY.

BUT I THINK WE WOULD PREFER THAT ONCE THE BUILDING IS REMOVED, THAT THE PHASE ONE INCLUDE THE SITE PAD AS WELL AS THE SURROUNDING AREA.

SO WE COULD CONTACT WITH. I DOUBT IT'LL CHANGE THE QUOTE MUCH AT ALL.

YEAH, THAT SOUNDS REASONABLE. IS THAT OKAY? YEAH, THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE FITTING TO WHAT I HEARD BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE HAVE TWO PARKS THAT HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND IT GETS EXPENSIVE VERY QUICKLY.

SO. OKAY. SO LET ME KIND OF REPHRASE THIS. COUNCIL MEMBER RAWLINS.

HEARING FROM DR. NABORS THAT AN ASBESTOS REPORT IS ALREADY PRESENT, WOULD YOU ALLOW ME TO LIMIT MY LANGUAGE AND TAKE OUT THOSE THREE ITEMS THAT I SPECIFIED? THE ACB'S LEAD PAINT AND ACMS? YEAH, I GUESS I'M JUST STILL KIND OF CONFUSED ON THE SCHEDULING.

YOU KNOW, OUR MAIN CONCERN TO PROTECT THE CITY IS ONCE THE BUILDING'S GONE, I'M NOT REALLY.

I MEAN, I KNOW THE THE PHASE ONE IS GENERALLY VISUAL ASSESSMENT.

BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO BASICALLY TEST OR DO A PHASE ONE, YOU KNOW, IN THE AREA THAT THE BUILDING IS SITTING ON.

SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? SO THOSE TWO PHASE ONES, I GUESS I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THAT'S BEING DONE NOW.

SO THERE ARE WELL THEY HAD TO DO PHASE ONE ON THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A MITIGATION PLAN PRIOR TO DEMOLITION.

WHAT BRIAN HAS SAID IS THAT POST DEMOLITION THAT THEY NEED TO PERFORM PHASE ONE A ON THE IN THE AREA WHERE THE BUILDING PAD WAS REMOVED, AND THE PHASE ONE A IS JUST A VISUAL INSPECTION IS NOT A SOIL SAMPLING AND TESTING.

HOW ABOUT WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO THIS? I GUESS CHANGE? IT WOULD BE GISD MUST PERFORM A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO, ENVIRONMENTAL, IF NECESSARY.

ONLY ON THE PHASE TWO UPON DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING.

YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE FOR THE ENTIRE PARCEL AREA.

I MEAN, IF I'M NOT, I'M NOT PART OF PROJECT ROSENBERG, BUT IF I WAS PART OF PROJECT ROSENBERG, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU LIMIT YOUR PHASE ONE STUDY TO THE BUILDING AT THIS POINT AND ASK THEM TO COMPLETE THE PHASE ONE UPON REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING, ONCE THE CONTRACTORS EVACUATED THE PROPERTY. THERE YOU GO.

I THINK THAT'LL SOLVE 99% OF THE PROBLEM. WHAT HE SAID.

YEAH. AND MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS WHAT'S UNDER THAT BUILDING.

AND THE FACT THAT GALVESTON APPARENTLY HAD A FETISH WITH KEROSENE TANKS AT SOME POINT.

AND I HAVE FOUND THEM EVERY SINGLE TIME I'VE SUNK A SHOVEL IN GALVESTON.

SO JUST IN THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU COULD AVOID A PHASE TWO, LIKE.

WELL, YOU DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? YEAH. YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU PERFORM PHASE ONE.

YEAH. SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO. ONE IS BEING DONE WITH THE BUILDING STANDING.

YOU'D HAVE TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING AND THEN DO A PHASE TWO TO FIND OUT WHAT'S THERE.

NO, YOU COULD DO ANOTHER PHASE ONE ON AFTER THEY REMOVE THE BUILDING PAD.

I WOULD DO.

COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO KIND OF LOGISTICALLY GET THIS BACK TOGETHER IF WE COULD.[LAUGHTER] YEAH, I WAS TRYING TO GET THERE. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, I WANT TO PUT ASIDE THOSE 13 ITEMS HERE THAT OF THE 13 WHICH THOSE ITEMS THAT COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE A CONCERN WITH BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT COUNCILMAN BROWN GAVE OUT HERE. ITEM ONE SCHOOL MUST BE DEMOLISHED PRIOR TO ANY CONVEYANCE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM. TWO, WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND VISIT THAT SO THAT WE GET AN AMENDMENT FOR THAT.

THREE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR PROBLEM.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. ITEM FOUR. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR PROBLEM THERE.

ITEM FIVE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR PROBLEM THERE.

ITEM SIX. IS THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT FOR? NOPE. ALL RIGHT. ITEM SEVEN. THERE WAS I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH ITEM SEVEN. NO. OKAY. ITEM EIGHT. THERE WAS A CONCERN THERE.

DO WE WANT TO AMEND IT IN SOME WAY? LET ME JUST REITERATE WHAT MY CONCERN WAS, WAS, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN WAITING TILL THE LAST MINUTE TO DO THIS, IF IT'S A CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE, IF WE HAVE IF WE IF THE PROJECT IS FUNDED AND READY TO

[01:20:07]

GO, LET'S JUST SAY THEORETICALLY IN TWO MONTHS.

WELL, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO WAIT ON THIS, THIS STUDY BECAUSE IT'S A CONDITION OR LET'S SAY IF IT WE HAVE THE PROJECT HAS ALL THE MONEY IN JUNE, THEN WE'D STILL HAVE TO THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE TO WAIT FOR THIS TO BE DONE.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF THERE'S A REALLY GOOD REASON WE CAN'T DO THIS STUDY RIGHT NOW AND JUST GET IT OUT OF THE WAY.

LET'S COME BACK TO THAT. NOT TO DELAY. NOT TO DELAY THE TRANSFER OR THE CONVEYANCE ONCE ALL THE CONDITIONS ARE MET.

GOOD POINT. I'D LIKE LET'S COME BACK TO THAT BOB, I WANT TO GET THESE OUT OF THE WAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A CONCERN, AND WE'LL COME BACK. ITEM NINE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE.

IS THERE COUNCIL? NOPE. ITEM TEN. I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE.

ITEM 11. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROBLEMS THERE.

ITEM 12. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY CONCERNS THERE.

AND ITEM 13 SEEMS TO BE THAT WE MAY NEED AN AMENDMENT.

SO ALL RIGHT WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO ITEM TWO.

WE'VE GOT ALL THE ITEMS AGREED UPON BUT 2, 8, AND 13.

ITEM TWO GISD MUST PERFORM A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL AND FORWARD TO THE CITY.

CITY WILL REVIEW AND DETERMINE IF THE RESULTS PREVENT ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY.

I THINK WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT. YES, MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO ITEM TWO TO READ AS FOLLOWS.

GISD MUST PROVIDE A PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE SITE AND STRUCTURE.

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE SHALL BE PERFORMED AFTER THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING.

MUST PROVIDE A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND THEN THE REMAINING LANGUAGE OF THAT IS AND FORWARD IT TO THE CITY.

CITY WILL REVIEW AND DETERMINE IF THE RESULTS PREVENT ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY.

SO WE HAVE A PROPOSAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THAT.

THAT MEETS YOUR APPROVAL,. BOB. YEAH THAT'S FINE. OKAY.

AND WHO WAS THE SECOND YOU WERE? DAVID? I WAS THE ORIGINAL SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE THAT. AND SO THAT IS AN AMENDMENT COUNCIL WILL BE CONSIDERING WHEN WE VOTE.

LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 8. THIS IS THE ONE PERFORMING THE STUDY.

LET'S COME TOGETHER WITH AN AMENDMENT ON THAT.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT EITHER TO STRIKE COMPLETELY OR MAKE IT TO WHERE IT'S BASICALLY JUST CITY STAFF COST PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE FOR? I MEAN, I MEAN, COME ON, THIS IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PARK THAT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE YET, SO WE CAN'T AFFORD THE PARKS WE HAVE. YEAH. SO I MEAN, IT'S UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY I SEE IT, JUST BASED ON, AGAIN, THE FINANCES, IT'S GOING TO BE A GRASS LOT FOR QUITE SOME TIME UNTIL WE CAN PUT IT INTO THE PIPELINE AND DO A STUDY. I THINK THAT WAS THE MAIN IDEA WHEN THESE ITEMS CAME UP FROM COUNCIL, IS THAT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO EXPECTATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET OUT THERE AND START DEVELOPING THAT PARK. IT'S GOING TO BE. AND I'VE SHARED THIS WITH JOE BEFORE.

IT'S GOING TO BE GRASS FOR A LONG TIME. YEAH, QUITE A BIT.

WELL, I MEAN IF THEY'RE OVER THEIR AMOUNT TOO THAT'S MONEY FROM BETTER PARKS THAT WE COULD USE FOR THAT PARK.

BUT AGAIN LET'S TAKE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT IT NEEDS TO GO THROUGH.

SO IF THAT MEANS STRIKING THAT COMPLETELY OR ALTERING THE LANGUAGE, I'M GOING TO DEFER TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO THAT.

BUT THAT'S MY AMENDMENT. MY ONLY CONCERN, LIKE I SAID, WAS, IF THIS IS THE CONDITION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE IN HERE.

I DON'T MIND I DON'T MIND STRIKING IT. BUT IF IT IS GOING TO BE A CONDITION, LET'S JUST AT LEAST PUT A TIMELINE ON IT.

SO IT'S PART OF IT BECOMES PART OF THE PROCESS OF THE CONVEYANCE.

I THINK WE'LL ULTIMATELY DETERMINE A USE FOR THAT PARK, AND IT'LL BE DONE THROUGH OUR NORMAL CHANNELS.

AND I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT IT NECESSARILY HAS TO BE IN THE AGREEMENT.

SO STRIKING IT'S FINE. STRIKING IT FINE. THE WHOLE THING.

YEAH. SO WE DON'T. ITEM EIGHT. YES, MA'AM. DURING THE MONTH OF APRIL HE AND I AGREE.

[LAUGHTER] OKAY. ON THAT [INAUDIBLE]. WE'VE HAD AN AMENDMENT, A PROPOSAL TO STRIKE ITEM EIGHT.

DOES THAT MEET YOUR APPROVAL? IT DOES. DAVID FINKLEA.

YES. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH 8. LET'S GO TO 13, PLEASE.

CITY COUNCIL MAY CHOOSE TO NOT ACCEPT THE DONATION AT ANY TIME UP TO THE ACTUAL CONVEYANCE HAS BEEN EXECUTED.

PERSONALLY, I THINK WE NEED TO STRIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S.

I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT? ABSOLUTELY. COUNCILMAN FINKLEA. YES. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE NOW. I'M GOING TO GO BACK THROUGH THIS.

THIS IS IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS TOGETHER. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO I WANT TO GO THROUGH I'M GOING TO READ.

[01:25:01]

AND WHEN WE COME TO THE AMENDED ITEMS I WANT THOSE TO RESTATE YOUR AMENDMENTS FOR THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS. ONE SCHOOL MUST BE DEMOLISHED PRIOR TO ANY CONVEYANCE THAT'S IN THE MOTION.

NUMBER TWO. NUMBER TWO, GISD MUST PROVIDE A PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ON THE SITE AND STRUCTURE.

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE SHALL BE PERFORMED AFTER THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING.

GISD MUST PROVIDE A PHASE TWO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ANY ITEMS IDENTIFIED IN THE PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AND FORWARD IT TO THE CITY. CITY WILL REVIEW AND DETERMINE IF THE RESULTS PREVENT ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM THREE THERE WILL BE NO REVISIONARY GENERIC INTEREST TO GISD.

ITEM 4. THERE WILL BE NO RESTRICTION ON WHAT PARK EQUIPMENT OR FACILITIES THE CITY MAY PLACE ON THE PROPERTY.

ITEM FIVE. NO FUNDS FROM THE CITY OF GALVESTON, IDC OR OTHERWISE, SHALL BE EXPENDED IN THE CONVEYANCE.

OTHER THAN STAFF'S TIME IN NEGOTIATING AND EXECUTING THE CONVEYANCE.

ALL CLOSING COSTS WILL BE PAID BY AN ENTITY OTHER THAN THE CITY.

ITEM SIX. ESCROW OF $420,000 DEPOSITED FOR BETTER PARKS ON OR BEFORE MARCH 27, 2025.

GISD AND BETTER PARKS ARE TO CONFIRM THE MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

ITEM SEVEN. ALL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR THE SUCCESSFUL PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY DEPOSITED BY JULY 1, 2025, INCLUDING THE PURCHASE PRICE, BUT ALSO ANY AND ALL DEMOLITION AND REMEDIATION IN ORDER TO MAKE THE SITE READY AS A GREENFIELD.

CITY, STAFF AND GISD STAFF DETERMINED THOSE COSTS AND COMMUNICATE THEM TO PROJECT ROSENBERG AND BETTER PARKS.

ITEM EIGHT WE ARE EXCLUDING ITEM EIGHT FROM THIS.

ITEM EIGHT AND STRICKEN. STRICKEN. ITEM NINE.

NO NAMING RIGHTS SHALL BE ATTACHED TO THE CONVEYANCE.

ANY NAMING REQUEST SHALL FOLLOW THE STANDARD CITY APPLICATION PROCESS.

ITEM TEN. CITY STAFF AND GISD WILL ASSEMBLE A TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE DEMOLITION AND MAKING THE SITE READY FOR CONVEYANCE FOR ARRIVAL BY COUNCIL. ITEM 11 NO FUNDS FROM THE CITY OF GALVESTON, IDC OR OTHERWISE SHE'LL BE EXPENDED IN THE CONVEYANCE OTHER THAN STAFF AND LEGAL TIME IN NEGOTIATING AND EXECUTING THE CONVEYANCE. ITEM 12 THE GISD BOARD OF TRUSTEES SHALL APPROVE ALL REQUIRED CONDITIONS OF THE CONVEYANCE AS SPECIFIED BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON.

ITEM 13 IS STRICKEN S O WE ONLY HAVE UP TO 12.

YES, SIR. ONE THING THAT'S NOT DEFINED THAT CAUSES ME CONCERN IS A PHASE 1 IS JUST A IT'S A GENERIC IT'S A GENERIC STATEMENT.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO GET WORD FROM THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE SURE THAT HE FEELS COMFORTABLE THAT THERE'S NOT A SOILS REPORT AS PART OF THAT PHASE ONE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WELL, THE PHASE ONE, IF THEY'RE DOING IT PROPERLY, SHOULD HAVE SOME SOILS REPORT WITH IT, I WOULD HOPE.

WELL SO. IF THE CONCERN IS BEYOND VISUAL, BUT IF IT'S NOT.

BUT I'M, I DON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF THEIR PHASE ONE.

NOT EVERY PHASE ONE IS THE SAME. SO ARE YOU ARE YOU DOING ANY CORING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS PART OF THE PHASE ONE? I'M READY. YES, SIR. NO, PHASE ONE DOES NOT DO CORING.

THAT'S A PHASE TWO. AND WHILE I'M UP HERE JUST AS A POINT OF INFORMATION NUMBER SEVEN.

THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN REQUIRES THE DEMOLITION COSTS TO BE DEPOSITED.

AND AS I'VE SAID, WE HAVE AN IN-KIND DONOR WHO'S NOT GOING TO PUT IT IN THIS ACCOUNT.

IT'S JUST GOING TO PAY THE DEMOLITION COMPANY DIRECTLY.

AND THAT, OF COURSE, INCLUDES REMEDIATION. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S INTENDED TO BE THAT WAY.

I MEAN, THEY COULD GIVE IT BACK TO THEM.

WELL, AGAIN, WE KNOW WHAT 2.2 MILLION IS, AND THAT'S OUR GOAL.

BUT THE DEMOLITION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE COLLECTING OR RAISING MONEY FROM.

WE HAVE THE DONOR WHO'S IN-KIND. WELL, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

THE MOTION IS, THOUGH, JOE, THAT THAT WILL ALL FUNDS REQUIRE FOR SUCCESSFUL PURCHASE BE DEPOSITED BY JULY 1ST, INCLUDING THE PURCHASE PRICE AND DEMOLITION.

IT SAYS PROPERTY DEPOSITED BY JULY 1, 2025, INCLUDING THE PURCHASE PRICE.

I ASSUME THAT IS THE CASE. YES, SIR. WELL, MR. BRIAN, OUR DONOR, CERTAINLY HAS THE FUNDS TO DEMOLISH THE BUILDING.

SO I JUST WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, HE DOESN'T NEED TO TRANSFER IT TO AN ACCOUNT AND THEN WE PAY.

HE'S JUST GOING TO PAY THE CONTRACTOR. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT AN AMENDMENT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE, I MEAN, ALL FUNDS, FUNDS COULD EITHER BE CASH IN BANK OR IN-KIND.

[01:30:06]

YEAH. EXACTLY. CORRECT. THAT'S THE WAY. I MEAN, WHY.

[INAUDIBLE] WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT? THAT'S RIGHT.

YEAH. OKAY. YES. AS LONG AS IT'S IN-KIND. YES, SIR.

NO AMENDMENT. ALL RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS GOOD. SO I'M NOT GOING TO READ THIS AGAIN.

BUT WE KNOW WHERE WE STAND ON THIS. WE'VE HAD AMENDMENTS TO ITEM TWO, EIGHT AND 13.

WE ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. I DON'T THINK WE'RE DONE WITH BOTH.

THERE HAS TO BE A SOILS REPORT AFTER THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING.

THERE HAS TO BE ALL RIGHT. I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. IT 'S SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED TO PUT INTO THE AMENDMENT THAT WE PUT IN THERE FOR TWO. CAN YOU SAY I'LL HAVE TO AMEND MY. NO. CORRECT.

MAYOR. GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE AND I'LL WORK ON THE LANGUAGE ON THAT. HOLD ON, HOLD ON. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT CLEAR WHY WE AREN'T DEPENDING ON THE SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO THIS WITH. AND THE PROCESS THAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS WITH DISCOVERY OF ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS, THAT IS, DO THE PHASE ONE AND DO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE PHASE ONE.

AND I'M SURE IF PHASE ONE DOESN'T INCLUDE A CORING THEN IT'S GOING TO SAY DO A CORING.

SO THEN WHY WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO IT BEING IN THERE ON THAT, INSTEAD OF JUST NAMING IT AND SAY WE MUST PROVIDE SOIL SAMPLES, PROBABLY PUT IT IN THERE, BOB. OKAY. WOULDN'T IT AUTOMATICALLY BE THERE IN A PHASE ONE? JOE. JOE. JUST ONE SECOND. TRY NOT TO GET OUT AHEAD OF THE WORK OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPANY.

BASICALLY, WE'RE GOING TO DO TWO LEVEL ONES NOW.

OKAY. BECAUSE THE WORK'S ALREADY BEEN DONE FOR THE LEVEL ONE, AND I'VE ALREADY PAID FOR IT. OKAY.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO ANOTHER ONE, WHICH I THINK MAKES SENSE. I UNDERSTAND WHY BRIAN WANTS THAT.

AFTER DEMOLITION, IF THE LEVEL ONE AFTER DEMOLITION DOES NOT REQUIRE, WITH RESPECT, A LEVEL TWO, WHY WOULD YOU MAKE THAT A BURDEN UPON US? WELL, I DON'T THINK THE QUESTION IS REQUIRING A LEVEL TWO.

IT'S HAVING THE SECOND PHASE ONE REQUIRE CORING.

THAT IS NOT WHAT A LEVEL ONE DOES WELL, WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD HAVE A LEVEL TWO BECAUSE CORING IS NECESSARY.

I DON'T KNOW.

PHASE TWO. I SIMPLY JUST WANT TO KNOW THE DIRT THAT YOU CAN'T SEE 2 OR 3FT BELOW IT.

ONCE THE BUILDING'S MOVED IS SAMPLED SO THAT IT IS TESTED LIKE SAMPLED, TESTED.

AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO. IT'S SO SIMPLE. WELL, AND WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS HAVE.

YOUR EXPERTISE IS A LITTLE BETTER THAN MINE ON CONSTRUCTION MATTERS.

THAT MUCH I COMPLETELY GRANT YOU. BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO ON THESE COSTS, I WOULD RATHER RELY ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE.

THE FIRM THAT WE HAVE HIRED IS WELL ADVISED IN GALVESTON.

AND SO I WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE SOMEONE ON A LEVEL ONE SURVEY SAYING WHETHER WE NEED TO DO CORING OR NOT, BECAUSE THAT'S VERY EXPENSIVE. WELL, IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT YOU NEED TO DO IT. IT SAYS IF YOU NEED TO DO IT, EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. YEAH, EXACTLY. YOU DON'T JUST DO CORING AS A GENERAL PROPOSITION. THEY HAVE TO SAY EXACTLY WHERE.

SO, SO WITH PERMISSION AND WITH RESPECT, I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE SOMETHING IF A LEVEL ONE REQUIRES IT, WHICH WE WILL DO A SECOND ONE AFTER DEMOLITION.

I THINK THAT COVERS EVERYBODY. WE WANT THIS PARK TO BE AS CLEAN AS A WHISTLE TOO.

I BEG TO DIFFER ON THE CORING WHEN YOU ALREADY KNOW THERE IS ASBESTOS AND YOU ALREADY KNOW THERE IS LEAD PAINT.

UNDENIABLY, WHEN THE BUILDING IS KNOCKED DOWN, THINGS ARE GOING TO BE AIRBORNE AND THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE THROUGH THE SOIL.

WE ALREADY HAVE THIS ISSUE AT TWO PARKS. AND THERE ISN'T ANY WAY YOU CAN GET AROUND.

SO THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, IS THAT YOU HAVE TO RELY UPON THE EXPERTISE OF THE CONSULTANTS THAT YOU HIRE IN ORDER TO TELL YOU WHERE, HOW DEEP AND WHAT TYPE OF TESTING YOU'RE GOING TO DO.

SO UNLESS YOU'RE PREPARED TO TELL ME HOW MANY LOCATIONS YOU WANT THEM TO CORE, HOW DEEP YOU WANT THEM TO GO, AND WHAT TESTS YOU WANT THEM TO RUN, WE ARE NOT THE EXPERTS THAT CAN DO THAT.

THAT'S UP TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS THAT ARE PERFORMING THE PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.

AND LET ME JUST POINT OUT, JUST TO MAKE IT FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER ABOUT THIS.

SINCE 1839, THERE'S BEEN NOTHING ON THAT SITE BUT A PARK OR A SCHOOL.

AND I UNDERSTAND BRIAN HAS NEVER DUG A HOLE HERE WITHOUT FINDING SOMETHING.

I WOULD BET THE SCHOOL HAD KEROSENE TANKS. YEAH.

SO ANYWAY. BUT THE OLD. THE OLD SCHOOL WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE.

THE OLD SCHOOL WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT'S NOT. IT WASN'T BUILT THERE.

AND THEN WHEN IT WASN'T A PARK, IT WAS THE CURRENT SCHOOL THAT'S THERE. THE OLD SCHOOL WAS OVER ON BRIAN OVER THERE.

BRIAN, WHICH CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. YOU MENTIONED THAT SOMETIMES IN PHASE ONE THEY DO A CORE SAMPLE.

[01:35:02]

THEY HAVE. I MEAN, BUT WE WERE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING VERY SPECIFIC WHEN WE DID THAT.

WE'RE NOT. I AGREE WITH THAT. TAKE ON IT TOO.

YOU HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM A SCOPE. YOU JUST DON'T TELL THEM TO GO DIG AND DO RUN A BATTERY OF TESTS.

I'M SURE PROJECT ROSENBERG'S GOING TO BE HAPPY TO SHARE THE SCOPE OF THAT OF THE PHASE ONE WITH YOU, BRIAN, AND TRY TO GIVE YOU A LEVEL OF COMFORT OF THAT.

THIS MAY BE A CRAZY QUESTION IF WE JUST DO THE PHASE ONE PRIOR THAT THEY'RE DOING NOW AND THEN AFTER THE BUILDING IS DEMOLISHED. HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THERE'S ANYTHING IN THAT GROUND? CORE SAMPLES. CORE SAMPLES. THAT'S WHAT I'M A PHASE ONE.

BUT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS THEY'RE GOING TO RESEARCH THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY, DETERMINE WHAT WAS THERE, AND IF THERE'S ANY CHANCE THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE CONTAMINATION. I MEAN, THEY'RE THESE GUYS DO THIS QUITE A BIT AND WE HAVE TO MEET CITY STANDARDS FOR THIS.

AND IF THE CITY STANDARDS, YOU KNOW REQUIRE INTERPRET THE PHASE ONE AFTER THE DEMOLITION, THE PHASE ONE ON THE GROUND WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE GET MORE INFORMATION BASED ON THE PHASE ONE ANALYSIS OF THE GROUND, THEN WE CAN DO THAT.

AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD PROBABLY BE IN THEIR PHASE TWO.

I AS A BUILDER, I HAVE TO PROVIDE CORE SAMPLES BEFORE EVEN PUTTING ANYTHING ON THE GROUND.

LIKE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS. THIS IS EVEN A QUESTION.

WELL, IT'S A QUESTION TO ME BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING OUT AHEAD OF THE SCIENCE AND THE PROCESS OF EXPLAIN THE SCIENCE OF WHAT I'M THE SCIENCE OF WHAT I'M REQUIRED TO DO AS A BUILDER, TO PROVIDE CORE SAMPLES, TO MAKE SURE THAT SUBSURFACE I'M NOT DEALING WITH SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

BECAUSE YOU'RE BUILDING ON IT. HERE WE ARE NOT BUILDING ON IT YET.

YET OKAY. YET. SO WHEN YOU DECIDE TO BUILD ON IT, GO AND DO THE CORE SAMPLES.

THEN IT'S OUR PROBLEM. SO WE ALREADY KNOW THERE IS ASBESTOS IN THE BUILDING.

SO JUST SAYING WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS WE DON'T CARE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHECK THE CORE SAMPLES.

THERE'S IF IT WAS 63, THEN THERE'S LEAD PAINT.

THAT'S INCORRECT. I DID NOT SAY I DID NOT CARE.

WHY WOULD YOU BE SO OPPOSED TO ADDING CORE SAMPLES? TELL ME, HOW MANY, HOW DEEP AND WHAT TESTING YOU WANT TO DO.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THESE GUYS ARE GOING TO NEED.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS LET'S GET THE PHASE ONES IN.

LET'S SEE WHAT THEY SAY. COUNCIL ALWAYS HAS THE OPTION.

I THINK THE YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL HAS THE OPTION TO ADD THE PHASE TWO BEFORE ACCEPTANCE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO REFUSE IT.

YOU'VE LEFT THAT IN THERE. ALEX MADE THAT UP.

SO IF THE PHASE ONE RAISES ANY CONCERNS OR IF ANYBODY STILL HAS CONCERNS AT THAT POINT, I THINK WE CAN BRING IT UP THEN.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU BEAU? I'M JUST I'M IN NO LIKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS ACCEPTED.

AND MOVING FORWARD, WE ARE BRINGING THIS IN AND AND TAKING OVER WHAT WILL BE A PARK.

I'M JUST SIMPLY TRYING TO PROTECT THE CITY AND THE RISK THAT WE'RE TAKING WITHOUT HAVING THOSE REPORTS.

I AM NO WAY NEEDED ANY CONFLICT. I'M NOT NOT SUPPORTING THIS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. I SIMPLY FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT.

IT'S IMPORTANT ENOUGH THAT I CAN'T BUILD ON A SITE WITHOUT PROVIDING IT REGARDLESS.

SO AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ASK A LOT OF PEOPLE TO DO.

I'M AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO NOT SUPPORT IT. IT'S SOMETHING I FEEL THE CITY.

SO WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. SO AS BRIAN DESCRIBED, WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PHASE ONE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, BOTH FROM THE BUILDING AS WELL AS AFTER DEMOLITION.

SEE WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AS A RESULT OF THAT.

WE CAN EVALUATE IT AT THAT TIME. AND IF WE SO DECIDE THAT ADDITIONAL IN WE DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS, WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL SCOPE IF IT'S NOT, IF IT'S NOT ADEQUATE TO SATISFY YOU GUYS AT THAT TIME, WE CAN DO IT THEN BEFORE WE ACCEPT.

BLESS YOU. YOU KNOW, LET ME SAY THIS. I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE MOTION AS IT IS.

I DO FEEL, THOUGH, THAT WITH WHAT BEAU SAYS, AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THAT PHASE ONE AND POSSIBLY CONSIDER HAVING A PHASE TWO AT THAT POINT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

I STILL HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE SOIL AND SO FORTH THERE.

WELL, AND MR. DVORSKY SAID THAT THE PHASE ONE IS ALREADY COMPLETED.

WHY HAVEN'T THEY? NO, IT'S NOT COMPLETED. OH, YEAH.

IT'S UNDERWAY. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

WE'VE HAD AMENDED ITEMS. WE'VE REMOVED 8 AND 13.

WE'VE AMENDED TWO. WE DO UNDERSTAND, AND I THINK ROSENBERG DOES.

IF THE PHASE ONE COMES BACK, COUNCIL MAY REQUEST A PHASE TWO ON THIS, DEPENDING ON THE REPORT ON PHASE ONE ON THAT.

[01:40:06]

ANY OTHER CONCERNS COUNCIL. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? LET'S CAST YOUR VOTES PLEASE. THAT IS UNANIMOUSLY BEEN APPROVED.

VERY GOOD. I WANT TO SAY. [APPLAUSE] DOCTOR, DID YOU EVER MEET BRUCE BODSON AT A&M? GALVESTON, DID YOU EVER MEET BRUCE BODSON? DOCTOR BRUCE BODSON? I DON'T IS THIS ON. [LAUGHTER] THIS IS ABOUT THIS. I TOOK A FEW MASTER CLASSES WHEN I WAS GETTING MY MASTER'S IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE.

AND INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, TRUST THE SCIENTIST, YOU KNOW, HE KIND OF RAN THROUGH SOME THINGS WHEN THESE THINGS DO HAPPEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SERIES OF LOGIC TO NOT ONLY BEHIND IT, BUT, YOU KNOW, MOST LIKELY, WELL, MOST LIKELY THE ENGINEER OR THE FIRM'S WATCHING THIS MEETING AND OR THEY'LL BE AWARE AND THEY'LL PROBABLY RECOMMEND A PHASE TWO.

BUT PHASE ONE ONCE IT'S COMPLETE, IF THERE IS LEAD PAINT, IF THERE IS, THERE'S A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT IT WILL BE IN THE GROUND AT SOME POINT.

SO THE PROCESS THEREFORE WOULD PROBABLY LEAD TO A PHASE TWO, ESPECIALLY AFTER REMOVING THE BUILDING.

SO I UNDERSTAND THOSE CONCERNS TOO. AND YEAH BUILDERS ARE REQUIRED TO DO THAT.

AND I DO SEE THE NEED FOR THAT TO BE DONE. BUT AGAIN I DON'T THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT FOR ME IS GOING TO HANG UP ANYTHING. IF WE DO HAVE A PHASE TWO AND IT CAN BE REMEDIATED BEFORE THAT.

SO AGAIN GUYS KEEP KEEP MOVING FORWARD, KEEP DOING YOUR THING AND GISD GETS THEIR MONEY.

AND HEY. AND LET ME SAY THIS TO PROJECT ROSENBERG THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

YOU DO KNOW THERE IS A RULE HERE. IF WE MOVE YOUR ITEM UP, YOU HAVE TO STAY TO THE END OF THE MEETING.

[LAUGHTER] THANKS FOR BEING HERE. APPRECIATE IT.

OH, LORD. BRIAN, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING CLOSURE.

YEAH.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO ITEM 10A NELLIE. WHEN WE GET L ET'S WAIT JUST ONE

[10.A. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City of Galveston, Texas, Amending Chapter 10, “Building Code” Of The Code Of The City of Galveston, 1982, As Amended”, Article VIII, “City of Galveston Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, Section 10-81(b)(4) (c), To Clarify Elevation Requirements Of Manufactured Homes In Certain Areas; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject And Providing For An Effective Date.]

SECOND.

SPEAKERS] ITEM 10 A CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS. AMENDING CHAPTER 10 BUILDING CODE OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, 1982, AS AMENDED.

ARTICLE EIGHT CITY OF GALVESTON FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE, SECTION 10-81 TO CLARIFY ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS OF MANUFACTURED HOMES IN CERTAIN AREAS, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. VERY GOOD.

TIM. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT.

THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD AMEND CHAPTER 10 OF THE FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 10-81, B 4 AND C TO CLARIFY ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURED HOMES.

THIS BASICALLY, WE ALREADY HAVE A PROVISION THAT REQUIRES MANUFACTURED HOMES TO BE ELEVATED 48IN ABOVE GRADE.

THIS ALLOWS FOR BASICALLY A SECONDARY STANDARD TO BE PUT IN THERE THAT IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION PLUS OUR 18 INCH FREEBOARD, THEN THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED AS WELL.

OR THE HIGHER OF THE TWO. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE EXISTING MOBILE HOMES, RVS, OR CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS.

ALRIGHTY. GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TIETJENS? COUNCIL? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 10A. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL.

OH, SORRY, I HIT IT. I'LL SECOND YOU. YOU HAVE A MOTION? BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN LEWIS.

YOUR SECOND. THERE WE GO. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

WOULD YOU PRESS ABSTAIN THERE, PLEASE. VERY GOOD THAT IT PASSED.

[01:45:01]

OF ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTO IS NOT PRESENT TO VOTE. HE'S AN ABSTENTION.

LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 10 B, PLEASE. ITEM 10 B, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON,

[10.B. Consider For Approval An Ordinance Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Amending The Code Of The City Of Galveston, As Amended, Chapter 10, “Building Code”, To Amend Regulations Regarding Timeframe For Completion Of Construction Permits; To Provide Clarification Of Large-Scale Construction And Special Projects; To Provide For Applicable Fees; To Renumber And Rearrange The Chapter As Applicable; Making Various Findings And Provisions Related To The Subject; Providing For An Effective Date. (R. Toland)]

TEXAS. AMENDING THE CODE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, AS AMENDED CHAPTER 10 BUILDING CODE TO AMEND REGULATIONS REGARDING TIME FRAME FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION OF LARGE SCALE CONSTRUCTION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS.

TO PROVIDE FOR APPLICABLE FEES. TO RENUMBER AND REARRANGE THE CHAPTER AS APPLICABLE.

MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

VERY GOOD. WE DISCUSSED THIS AT OUR MEETING. TIM.

YES, SIR. WE DID. THIS IS AGAIN A CHAPTER 10 BUILDING CODE AMENDMENT OR REVISION.

REGARDING THE TIME FRAME FOR PERMITS. AND IT ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY FOR THOSE PERMIT EXTENSIONS.

RIGHT NOW, WE ALLOW FOR A 24 MONTH PERMIT WITH A SIX MONTH EXTENSION.

AND THIS WOULD MOVE THAT TO BASICALLY A 30 MONTHS AND THEN GRANTED A 12 MONTH EXTENSION. THAT'S WHAT THE BUILDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN DO RIGHT NOW.

IF IF THOSE TIME FRAMES ARE EXCEEDED, THIS BASICALLY SORT OF REMOVES THAT REQUIREMENT FOR THE BBA AND MOVES THE EXTENSIONS TO A LONGER TIME FRAME. AND THAT IS 36 MONTHS ON LARGE SCALE PROJECTS WITH AN AUTHORIZATION OF 12 ADDITIONAL MONTHS. AND THOSE LARGE SCALE PROJECTS ARE DEFINED AS WELL IN THIS ORDINANCE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. TIETJENS? I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND. A MOTION APPROVES COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTO.

SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN ROBB. IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

THAT IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ITEM 10 NELLIE READ 10 C AND D TOGETHER, PLEASE.

REAL QUICKLY. I'M SORRY. YES, SIR. IF I MIGHT JUST ADD ON DONNA WAS A TREMENDOUS HELP TO JOE AND I IN GETTING THIS DONE, BOTH VETTING THE ORDINANCE AND PREPARING IT. SO I JUST I FAILED TO CALL HER OUT EARLIER.

HERE HERE FOR DONNA. AND I APOLOGIZE, DONNA. AND I LIKE, I LIKE I LIKE SEEING WHEN STAFF BRINGS SOMETHING TO US THAT HELPS THE SITUATION AROUND BUILDING PLANNING. AND THAT WAS REALLY THAT WAS REALLY COOL TO SEE.

AND DONNA, WE DON'T HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION FOR YOU, BUT.

[LAUGHTER] THAT'S OKAY. YES, SIR. I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO THAT THE LAST VOTE THAT MR. TIETJENS DID CONFIRM, THAT IT DID NOT INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION TRAILERS.

THAT IS CORRECT. JUST TO PUT THAT OUT THERE PUBLICLY.

CORRECT. VERY GOOD READ 10 C AND D TOGETHER, PLEASE.

[Items 10.C. & 10.D.]

ITEM 10 C, CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE CITY'S VACANT LAND LOCATED IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, DESCRIBED AS TRACT A, A 2.08 ACRE LOT LOCATED IN THE TRIMBLE AND LINDSEY SURVEY LOTS 334, 335 AND TRACT B, A 3.47 ACRE LOT LOCATED IN THE TRIMBLE AND LINDSEY SURVEY.

LOTS 333, 334, 335 AND 336. LOCATED BETWEEN TRAVEL AIR AND PILOT LANE, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF ABST 121 THRU 80 LOTS TRIMBLE AND LINDSEY. SECTION ONE IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE TRANSACTION. MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDED FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

ITEM 10 D CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE CITY'S VACANT LAND LOCATED IN THE CITY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS. DESCRIBED AS TRACT C A 26.3 ACRE TRACT OF VACANT LAND SITUATED IN SECTION ONE.

LOTS 333 334, 320, 319, 318, 317, AND 304 OF THE TREMBLE AND LINDSEY SURVEY, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AIRWAY LANE AND TRAVEL AIR ROAD, AND LEGALLY DESCRIBES 26.3 ACRE TRACT OF VACANT LAND SITUATED IN SECTION ONE LOTS 333, 334, 320, 3 19, 318, 317 AND 304 OF THE TREMBLE AND LINDSEY SURVEY IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF GALVESTON, TEXAS, GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE TRANSACTION, MAKING VARIOUS FINDINGS AND PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE SUBJECT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

NELLIE. TREVOR. I'LL BE BRIEF I KNOW Y'ALL BEEN HERE A WHILE.

THESE ARE THE TWO TRACKS BY THE AIRPORT. THEY DID A AUCTION ON IT ON BOTH.

THIS WILL GIVE BRIAN WHAT HE NEEDS TO PROCEED ON AWARDING THOSE, AND ALSO GIVES HIM THE ABILITY TO MOVE TO THE SECOND BIDDER, IF THAT'S NECESSARY. ALL RIGHTY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

TREVOR, I'M GOING TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION COUNCIL FOR C AND D.

[01:50:05]

IS THAT CORRECT, SIR? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 10 C AND 10 D.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. COUNCILMAN RAWLINS, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN LEWIS.

PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THAT. THAT IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 11. ANDY, TELL GUS WE KNOW HE WOULD RATHER BE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ON LA MARQUE THAN WITH US TONIGHT.

WE TELL HIM WE TAKE THAT PERSONALLY. YES. NELLIE.

[11. CONSENT ITEMS]

ITEM 11. CONSENT ITEMS. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHALL BE CONSIDERED FOR ACTION AS A WHOLE, UNLESS ONE OR MORE COUNCIL MEMBERS OBJECTS, THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

ITEMS 11 A THROUGH 11 F ARE ON THE SCREEN. VERY GOOD.

ARE THERE ANY ITEMS COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO PULL OUT INDIVIDUALLY? PUTTING THEIR LIFE ON THE I KNOW I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

I'VE IN A THROUGH 11 FF IS SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN PORRETTO.

VERY GOOD. PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES ON THAT. THAT IS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

ITEM 12 A, PLEASE. ITEM 12 A CONSIDER FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON,

[12.A. Consider For Approval A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Galveston, Texas, Approving An Advanced Funding Agreement (AFA) Regarding The Pelican Island Bridge Project With The Texas Department Of Transportation (TxDOT) And Authorizing The City Manager, To Execute The Agreement Upon Actual Receipt Of Sufficient Funds And Upon Final Approval By The City Attorney; Directing The City Secretary To Send A Certified Copy Of This Resolution To The Texas Department Of Transportation; Providing For Findings Of Fact And For An Effective Date. (C. Brown/Robb)]

TEXAS, APPROVING AN ADVANCE FUNDING AGREEMENT REGARDING THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE PROJECT WITH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT UPON ACTUAL RECEIPT OF SUFFICIENT FUNDS, AND UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO SEND A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I MOVED TO APPROVE APPROVAL. I'LL SECOND. MAYOR.

30. YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU DON. VERY GOOD. I MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

WE HAD A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN RAWLINS. VERY GOOD.

I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT REAL, REAL QUICKLY.

THIS IS A MOMENTOUS OCCASION. NUMEROUS INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR YEARS TO MAKE THIS A REALITY.

STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER KEN CLARK AND EVOLVING TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE TODAY APPROVING IN ADVANCE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT THAT WILL MAKE THE CITY OF GALVESTON THE LOCAL SPONSOR.

THE PROJECT HAS FOLLOWED A CIRCUITOUS PATH AS IT MOVED FORWARD FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT.

THIS PROTRACTED JOURNEY HAS SHOWN US NUMEROUS THINGS AND HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL IN ALLOWING US TO COME TO THE DECISION WE ARE TODAY.

TXDOT NUMBER ONE, WE LEARN TXDOT IS SO COMMITTED TO THIS PROJECT, THEY HAVE NEVER STOPPED MOVING FORWARD WITH IT.

AND NUMBER TWO, DURING THIS PROCESS, CITY OF GALVESTON HAD THE TIME TO CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE TERMS AS THE LOCAL SPONSOR THAT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON AND CHANGES THAT WILL PROTECT THE CITY FINANCIALLY AS THE MAYOR.

I AM PROUD THAT THE CITY MAINTAINED THEIR FOCUS ON MOVING THIS FORWARD AND NOW TAKING THIS STATUTE TO BE THE LOCAL RESPONSIBLE PARTY.