[00:00:02]
>> IT IS 9:00 AM AND WELCOME EVERYBODY HERE IN THE ROOM.
[1 DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
GLAD TO SEE EVERYBODY THIS MORNING.FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN THE COMMUNITY THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS BROADCAST, GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING.
IT'S A BEAUTIFUL MORNING HERE IN GALVESTON, AND WE HAVE FOUR OF GOOD COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE TODAY.
I'M GOING TO FORMALLY CALL THE MEETING OF THE WORKSHOP FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON TO ORDER FOR THURSDAY, MAY 22ND.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM, BUT LET'S HAVE A ROLL CALL, JANELLE.
JANELLE, IT'S ANOTHER BEAUTIFUL MORNING IN GALVESTON, AND YES, I AM PRESENT.
>> VERY GOOD. WE HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE TODAY.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DISCUSSION ITEMS. BEFORE WE START, I'M GOING TO MAKE SOME CHANGES IN THE ORDER HERE.
IF COUNSEL WOULD SUPPORT THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, ON 3L WITH THE DISCUSSION. LET ME LOOK HERE.
EXCUSE ME, 3N WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THE DRAINAGE AND SO FORTH THAT ROBB HAD WITH THE CONSULTANT.
I THINK THE CONSULTANT IS GOING TO BE HERE THIS MORNING.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT UP A LITTLE BIT.
WE'LL PROBABLY PUT THAT IN COMING IN SOMEWHERE AROUND AT THE END OF 3D.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE 3N FIRST AND THEN 3I COMING IN AFTER 3D.
VERY GOOD. WE HAVE ITEM 3A. PLEASE, JANELLE.
>> ITEM 3A, CLARIFICATION OF CONSENT AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS.
>> VERY GOOD. SHARON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START?
[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)]
ARE YOU FARED TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT?>> NO. LET SOMEONE ELSE GO. [LAUGHTER]
>> SHE SAID SHE WANT SOMEBODY ELSE TO GO.
>> OH, YOU WANT SOMEONE ELSE TO GO, SHARON?
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR IT.
>> VERY GOOD. ALEX, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?
>> MIKE, COME ON UP, HAVE A SEAT AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF, IF YOU WILL, MIKE, PLEASE.
>> MIKE SHAHAN, AIRPORT DIRECTOR.
IT'S TO RENEW THE LEASE, BUT I JUST KIND OF WANT SOME.
>> IT'S NOT A LEASE RENEWAL. YEAH.
>> BASICALLY, THE CURRENT OWNER OF THE HOTEL WOULD LIKE TO ASSIGN THE LEASE TO A NEW PURCHASER.
THE LEASE IS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT IT'S IT'S FOR HOTEL OR OTHER AIRPORT RELATED USE.
AT FIRST, THEY'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO USE IT AS A HOTEL, SO ON THE SURFACE, THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH ASSIGNING THE LEASE AT ALL.
BUT I THINK COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE AWARE THAT THE LONG TERM USE OF THE PROPERTY IS INTENDED TO HOUSE J-1 VISA WORKERS.
AS SUCH, WE BELIEVE THAT AND I THINK WE'VE TALKED TO THE NEW LESSOR, THAT THEY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DO A NEW LEASE AT THAT POINT.
WE WOULD LIKE THAT TO THAT WAY, THAT WOULD CLEAR UP ANY AMBIGUITIES WITH THAT, AND IT WOULD START TO START TO CLOCK OVER AGAIN FOR THEM.
>> RIGHT NOW, THE MOTION WOULD BE APPROVAL OF ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE.
>> WITH ALL THE EXISTING TERMS AND CONDITIONS [INAUDIBLE].
>> THAT'S FOR THE REMAINING 23 OR FOUR YEARS, I THINK THEY'RE LEFT OFF. YES.
>> WHEN YOU SAY THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE USE AND HAVE A NEW LEASE.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT THAT LEASE THEN CARRIES A NEW 40-YEAR TERM OR IT JUST HAS THE REMAINING 20 [OVERLAPPING]?
>> NO. IT WOULD BE A WHOLE NEW LEASE.
THIS LEASE WOULD END AND THERE'D BE A BRAND NEW LEASE WITH NEW TERMS AND NEW MARKET RATES.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE NEW MARKET RATE, BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE LENGTH OF THE LEASE.
IN OTHER WORDS, RIGHT NOW, IT'S A 40-YEAR LEASE.
YOU'VE GOT 23 YEARS LEFT ON IT.
[00:05:02]
>> IF THEY REDO THE LEASE, DO YOU DO A NEW 40-YEAR LEASE OR IS THERE A LIMITATION?
>> RIGHT NOW, IT'S ACTUALLY A 57-YEAR LEASE.
THE FA LOOKS AT ANYTHING OVER 50 YEARS AS A TAKING THAT YOU'RE RELEASING THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THEIR APPROVAL.
OVER THE ASSIGNMENTS AND THE TWO AMENDMENTS, IT SOMEHOW CREPT PAST THAT MARK.
THE BEST THING IS TO GET IF THEY'RE JUST GOING TO ASSIGN THE LEASE USE ITS WAY IT IS OR EVEN CHANGE THE USE AS AN APARTMENT, BASICALLY, AT THE END OF THE LEASE TERM, IT REVERTS TO THE AIRPORT.
THAT'S IN ABOUT 23 YEARS, 24 YEARS.
BUT THEY WANT A NEW LEASE, SO IT WOULD BE PRESUMABLY A 40-YEAR LEASE AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE.
NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOTEL, I THINK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE LEASE, WE HAVE ZERO EQUITY IN THAT HOTEL.
BUT AT THE END OF THE LEASE, AND WE OWN A HOTEL, THAT'S 100%, SO RIGHT NOW, WE OWN ABOUT 60%, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, ABOUT 60% EQUITY INTO THE HOTEL.
IT'S NOT JUST THE GROUND LEASE RATE.
FOR A NEW LEASE, THERE'S MULTIPLE WAYS TO HANDLE HOW YOU TAKE CARE OF THAT EQUITY.
IT WOULD JUST NEED TO BE NEGOTIATED, BUT IT WOULD BE FAIR MARKET VALUE WHATEVER THAT IS.
>> ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL OF ASSIGNMENT OF THE EXISTING TERMS OF THE LEASE.
YOU'RE JUST MAKING US AWARE THAT IT'S THEIR INTENT TO TRY TO TURN THIS INTO A J-1 SUMMER WORKFORCE TRAVEL VISA TYPE?
>> THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD COME TO COUNCIL LATER BECAUSE IT'S CHANGE USE FROM HOTEL TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S A CHANGE OF USE, BUT JUST BECAUSE THE CURRENT LEASE IS NOT EXPLICIT, THAT THAT'S ALLOWED, SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING A NEW LEASE TO ALLOW IT.
I THINK THE USE IS ALLOWED IN OUR LAN DEVELOPMENT.
>> THIS FISCAL IMPACT REPORT, HOW COULD THE FAA, SORRY, NOT FUTURE FARMERS, BUT THE FAA.
HOW COULD THEY TAKE LEGAL ACTION AND HOW AGREES VIOLATES THE GRANT ASSURANCE FIVE?
>> IF RIGHT NOW WE'RE ALREADY PAST THAT 50-YEAR THING.
>> RIGHT. I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD DO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.
BUT SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, WE DECIDED TO KEEP THE LEASE THE WAY IT IS, LEASE TERMS, BUT JUST EXTEND THEM, THAT'S IN CLEAR VIOLATION AND THEY THEY SAID WE ABSOLUTELY CANNOT DO THAT.
>> THAT CAME UP IN DISCUSSIONS AS CAN WE JUST RENEW THE LEASE AND MAKE THE CHANGES AND WE SAID, NO, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE A NEW LEASE BECAUSE WE CAN'T RENEW.
A RENEWAL WOULD BE AN EXTENSION.
>> FIRST AMENDMENT WAS FOR A 40-YEAR LEASE, RIGHT?
>> RIGHT. YEAH. THEY JUST RESET IT TO A NEW 40-YEARS, WHICH CHANGE.
>> IT DOESN'T COUNT FROM THE AMENDMENT, IT COUNTS FROM THE ORIGINAL DATE OF THE [OVERLAPPING]?
>> RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S STILL THE SAME LEASE.
>> WHEN I READ THIS, IT APPEARED TO BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT THE LOCAL INDUSTRY WITH J-1 VISA WORKER HOUSING.
I'M NOT CLEAR YET THE NEED FOR J-1 VISA IS ANECDOTALLY.
I KNOW THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY, IN PARTICULAR, SEASONAL WORKERS, AND THIS LOOK LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO SUPPORT HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY WITH A PLACE FOR SEASONAL WORKERS, AND AS I UNDERSTAND, THE STATE DEPARTMENT APPORTIONS THESE J-1 VISAS ANNUALLY IN AREAS WHERE THERE'S A NEED AND WHERE THERE'S ADEQUATE HOUSING, AND THERE'S ONLY LIMITED NUMBER OF THOSE J-1 VISAS EVERY YEAR.
THEY CONSIDER GALVESTON AS NOT HAVING ADEQUATE HOUSING RIGHT NOW, SO THEY DON'T GIVE US AS MANY J-1 VISAS AS THEY WOULD ORDINARILY, IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT THIS MIGHT BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO HELP PARTICIPATE IN PROVIDING THOSE SEASONAL WORKERS.
THE J-1 VISA HOLDERS CAN'T PAY MARKET RATE.
THAT THAT WAS A PROBLEM WITH I THINK GOING BACK TO THE MARKET RATE REQUIREMENT RATHER THAN THE EXISTING AGREEMENT.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CHOICE IN THAT.
WE HAVE TO BE EQUALLY APPLY THE RIGHTS ACROSS THE AIRPORT.
>> WELL, I GUESS MY POINT IS, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN MAYBE BEGIN TALKING TO THE FAA NEGOTIATOR COLLABORATIVELY AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO THIS?
>> THE PROBLEM IS YOUR AIRPORT IS AN ENTERPRISE FUNDS, SO YOU'RE GOING TO STARVE THE AIRPORT AND THEY GET NO BENEFIT FROM THIS.
OTHERWISE, NOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO START SUBSIDIZING THE AIRPORT OUT OF YOUR TAX MONEY.
>> THEY'VE BEEN OKAY WITH THIS AGREEMENT FOR QUITE A WHILE.
>> WE'VE BEEN HOPING IT WILL CHANGE SOON.
>> WELL, THEY WEREN'T AWARE OF IT.
THEY ARE NOW. WE'VE TALKED TO THEM TRYING TO GIVE CLARIFICATION AND SO FORTH.
[00:10:06]
SINCE IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT PAST, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD DO ANYTHING THAT'S IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF GRANT ASSURANCE NUMBER 5, WHICH IS LEASE TERMS, AND THEN GRANT INSURANCE 24, IT'S A FEE STRUCTURES TO BE A FAIR MARKET VALUE.ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT, THEY COULD COME BACK ON US.
I'M NOT SAYING THEY WOULD, BUT THEY VERY WELL COULD BE.
>> THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THE ENTITIES INVOLVED AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE AIRPORT CAN SUBSIDIZE THAT OPERATION.
>> WELL, AGAIN, I JUST SEE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO SUPPORT INDUSTRY WITH SOME HOUSING FOR NEEDED WORKERS.
IF THERE'S A WAY, IF THERE'S A CREATIVE WAY TO COLLABORATE AND COMMUNICATE WITH [INAUDIBLE]
>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE CITY AS WELL.
>>THE J-1 IS A NUANCED IDEA, BUT IT DOES UNDERCUT OUR OWN WORKFORCE THAT WE HAVE THAT EXISTS ON THE ISLAND.
>> I SEE THOSE AS TWO SEPARATE REALLY THINGS.
>> WE'RE GETTING INTO A DISCUSSION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HERE. MARIE, GO AHEAD.
>> IS THIS A PIECE OF THE AIRPORT THAT ACTUALLY COULD BE SOLD?
IT'S PROBABLY NOT LIKELY BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A REVENUE PRODUCING RIGHT NOW.
THE WHOLE POINT ABOUT THE GRANT INSURANCES THAT THE FIA PUT IN PLACE YEARS AGO IS TO MAKE THE AIRPORT AS SELF-SUFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.
IT DOESN'T COST COMMUNITIES OUT OF THEIR GENERAL FUND, SO THEY'RE NOT SUBSIDIZED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] MY QUESTION. WE JUST SOLD A PARCEL OF AIRPORT THAT THE MONEY IS GOING 100% INTO THE AIRPORT.
THERE'S A 40-FOOT CANAL BETWEEN US AND THAT LOT.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT COULD EVER BE PART OF THE AIRPORT.
THIS IS A PRIME PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THE AIRPORT THAT SUPPORTS AIRPORT OPERATIONS.
AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOLD AT FAIR MARKET VALUE, INCLUDING THE HOTEL, WHATEVER IS ON THERE.
>> YEAH. BUT IT COULD BE SOLD AT A MARKET VALUE.
>> RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY IS TACTIC EXEMPT.
>> I BELIEVE THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE TAXED.
>> THEY SHOULD BE. WE'LL VERIFY THAT.
>> THE ACTUAL FAIR MARKET VALUE?
>> AT THE APPRAISED VALUE. YEAH.
>> AT THE APPRAISED VALUE WHICH IS?
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THEY APPRAISE.
>> IT'S J-1 VISA HOTEL, WHICH ARE SEASONAL WORKERS, AND I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE INDUSTRY IN THEIR USE OF J-1 VISAS BECAUSE THEY MAY NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT WORKERS, BUT PART OF THE REASON THAT THEY DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT WORKERS IS BECAUSE CITIZENS CAN'T AFFORD TO LIVE ON THE ISLAND.
WITH WHAT ALEX WAS SAYING, SO THEY'RE SEATS AND ALSO WHAT HAPPENS TO THE HOTEL WHEN THE J-1 VISA PEOPLE ARE IN HERE? THEY COULD JUST RENT THOSE ROOMS OUT WITH ALL THE BENEFITS THAT THEY HAVE AS MARKET RATE ROOMS?
>> IT WOULD BE NO PROHIBITION ON US.
>> THEY WOULD HAVE TOTAL CONTROL.
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO USE THE HOTEL AS THEY WANTED WHENEVER SEASONAL WORKERS WEREN'T THERE.
>> MIKE, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE.
>> I UNDERSTAND THIS IS FOR A REASSIGNMENT OF THIS LEASE TO THIS NEW GROUP.
ONCE THEY MOVE FROM A HOTEL TYPE ARRANGEMENT AND MOVE OUT OF THAT, THEN THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNSEL FOR A NEW LEASE, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IF THEY KEEP THE SAME LEASE, THE LENGTH OF TERM AND SO FORTH, AND THEY DON'T WANT AN EXTENSION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CHANGE.
>> THEY'RE SIGNING A LEASE AND IT HAS TO REMAIN OPERATING AS A HOTEL OR OTHER AIRPORT RELATED USE.
>> WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF A HOTEL?
>> STAYS OF LESS THAN 30 DAYS.
WITH HOT TAX BEING PAID, OBVIOUSLY.
IF WE ASSIGN THE LEASE AND THEN THEY MOVE OUT OF THAT HOTEL DEFINITION, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A NEW LEASE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THEY WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR LEASE, AND THEN THAT WOULD BE UP TO COUNCIL WHAT ACTION YOU WANT TO TAKE.
>> BUT THEY STILL COULD BE A FOR-PROFIT HOTEL?
[00:15:02]
>> AT THE BENEFIT OF A DECREASED LEASE RATE OF WHICH THE PROPERTY THAT IT'S SITTING ON IS NOT ON THE PROPERTY ROLES, AND THEY BASICALLY COULD DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
THE LEASE RATE THAT'S IN THIS LEASE THAT WE ARE CONSIDERING REASSIGNING TO THEM, WHEN WAS THAT ESTABLISHED, 17 YEARS AGO?
>> THE LEASE RATE THAT I SAID IT WOULD.
>> NO. THE LEASE RATE THAT WE WERE REASSIGNING.
>> BUT IT HAD BEEN 43 YEARS AGO?
>> [OVERLAPPING] WAS THE LAST AMENDMENT.
>> IS IT 91, IS THAT WHAT THAT DATE ON IT?
>> WELL, THAT'S WHEN THEY ADDED TO IT.
BUT THE ORIGINAL LEASE, IT WAS JUST [OVERLAPPING]
>> HOW MUCH OF RATE THAT'S IN THE LEASE THAT WILL POTENTIALLY REASSIGN, THAT WAS ESTABLISHED 17?
THE ORIGINAL LEASE, THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY, THAT'S WHEN THE LEASE RATE WAS ASSIGNED, AND IT'S ADJUSTED 5% EVERY FIVE YEARS.
THEN WHEN THEY ADDED SOME PROPERTY TO IT, THAT WAS SEVEN.
>> IN 2006, THEY ADDED LESS THAN A HALF ACRE.
THE LEASE RATE WAS SET, BUT ITS ADJUSTMENT WAS AT OR TWO AND A HALF PERCENT OR THE CPI, WHICHEVER.
>> I GUESS MY POINT IS THE RATE THAT'S IN THIS REASSIGNMENT IS PRETTY OLD.
DOES THE NEW DEVELOPER UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY MOVE AWAY FROM A HOTEL, HE'S GOT TO COME BACK AND GET A NEW LEASE?
>> WE TALKED ABOUT THAT. DOES HE UNDERSTAND THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THOUGHT WE MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR.
PLEASE, KEEP IN MIND, WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING TO THE ASSIGNEE, WE'RE TALKING TO THE 18, WHATEVER IT IS HOTELS.
I KNOW THEY ARE VERY CLEAR ON THAT.
>> 1859 HOTELS THAT ARE CURRENT LEASE HOLDER GAL-TEX.
>> MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ASSIGN THIS LEASE.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO STAY AS A HOTEL, AND THEN IT MOVES OUT OF THAT.
THEN IT CONTINUES TO OPERATE OUT OF THE PARAMETERS OF THE CURRENT OF THE LEASE THAT WE'RE REASSIGNING TO.
AT THIS OLD RATE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED MANY YEARS AGO, AND THEY JUST CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COVERED ON THAT.
>> HERE'S THE REAL ISSUE ON ALL THIS.
AS LONG AS YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO OPERATE IT AS A HOTEL, YOU CAN'T WITHHOLD THE ASSIGNMENT TERMS OF THE LEASE.
>> I CAN'T PROMISE YOU THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS ASSIGNMENT AND NOT START HOUSING J-1 VISA PEOPLE THERE AND NOT OPERATE IT AS A HOTEL.
THAT'LL BE INCUMBENT UPON MIKE AND HIS GROUP OUT THERE TO TELL US THAT.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK TO YOU GUYS AS TO WHAT ENFORCEMENT ACTION YOU WANT TO TAKE UP TO AND INCLUDING TERMINATION OF THE LEASE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT, ALEX.
>> HOW DOES THE REVENUE SHARE WORK FOR THE AIRPORT? BECAUSE IF LET'S SAY WE MOVE FORWARD, I GUESS IT WOULD BE PART OF THE FISCAL IMPACT.
IS THE REVENUE BASED OFF OF THE LEASE FEE OR IS THE REVENUE BASED OFF OF REVENUE GENERATED BECAUSE IF THE REVENUE IS LESS [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 60% EQUITY?
>> THE REVENUE THAT SUPPORTS THE AIRPORT.
>> SOME OPTIONS, OBVIOUSLY, WOULD BE A NEW GROUND LEASE RATE.
PLUS IT COULD BE POTENTIALLY THE 60% CASH BUYOUT THE EQUITY FROM THE CITY OR FROM THE AIRPORT, OR IT COULD BE A REVENUE SHARE OF CERTAIN PERCENTAGE ANNUALLY THAT WHATEVER THEY COLLECT WHERE YOU GET.
THERE'S PROBABLY MULTIPLE WAYS TO COME UP WITH SOME.
>> SURE, YOUR NOSE IS PART OF YOUR FACE.
I'M JUST SAYING IF WE PROCEEDED, WOULD THE REVENUE SHARE BE LESS OR COULD IT POSSIBLY BE LESS AND THE AIRPORT WOULD HAVE LESS REVENUE SUPPORTING IT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE GRAND LEASE RATE WOULD BE HIGHER.
BUT IF IT'S FOR J-1 VISA HOLDERS AND THEY'RE NOT PAYING MUCH RENT, THE REVENUE SHARE WOULDN'T BE MUCH.
>> BUT WHAT YOU WOULD LOSE IF YOU WOULD LOSE HOT, THAT'S OF ANY CONSEQUENCE [INAUDIBLE]
[00:20:03]
>> I'M GOING TO ASK THREE DIFFERENT QUESTIONS.
GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU SAID, THE FAA SAYS THAT A LEASE MORE THAN 50 YEARS IS CONSIDERED A TAKINGS.
>> BUT AT THIS POINT, WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO IS TO TRANSFER A LEASE.
>> TO ASSIGN A LEASE, WHICH WOULD THEN PUT US IN THAT TAKINGS AREA BECAUSE IT'S A NEW ASSIGNEE.
>> WE'RE ALREADY THERE BY A LITTLE BIT.
I DON'T THINK THEY WERE DOING IT.
>> THE LEASE WOULD PUT US THERE.
>> WE'RE ASSIGNING THE LEASE TO A NEW LEASEHOLDER, AS IS, NOTHING CHANGES.
WE'RE MORE LIKELY OKAY BUT IF WE DO A NEW LEASE, IT HAS TO BE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, IT'S GOT TO BE EQUITABLE TO THE AIRPORT.
>> ONCE WE ASSIGNED THIS LEASE, IF WE ASSIGN THIS LEASE, WHAT ASSURES US THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEW LEASE? BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE A LEASE.
>> THEY DON'T HAVE TO AGREE TO DO A LEASE.
IT COULD PUT US IN JEOPARDY WITH THE FAA AS TAKINGS, WHICH WE'RE ALREADY IN.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT PART IS THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS WE CANNOT RENEW OR EXTEND THIS LEASE.
THE FAA HAS ALREADY SAID, HEY, PREVIOUS [OVERLAPPING]
>> BASICALLY, HAVE WE STEPPED ANY FURTHER?
>> I KNOW. HOW MANY YEARS ARE LEFT ON THIS LEASE?
>> TWENTY-THREE YEARS, FOUR MONTHS.
>> IN 23 YEARS, WE HAVE PROPERTY THAT WILL NOT BE COLLECTING OUR TAX THAT CAN.
>> NO. IT BECOMES AIRPORT PROPERTY.
THEN IT CAN STILL BE OPERATED AS AN AIRPORT UNDER A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.
>> IF WE ASSIGN THE LEASE AND THEY DO NOTHING, THEY CAN OPERATE IT FOR 23 YEARS AND FOUR MONTHS AS A HOTEL AT THE CURRENT RATE.
BUT THE OTHER AIRPORT USE, I SUPPOSE THEY COULD PUT SOME TYPE OF CARGO OR AIRPORT RELATED USE THERE OR SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE AIRPORT.
BUT IF THEY MOVE OUT OF THE HOTEL DEFINITION, THEN THEY'VE GOT TO COME BACK AND GET A NEW LEASE.
>> THEY DO CONSTRUCTION ON THE HOTEL.
THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THAT PROPERTY.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A RHETORICAL ONE, BUT I WAS JUST SITTING HERE THINKING, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU COULD ISOLATE THOSE FOR THE JT, AND THEN ALL THE REST REMAIN AS HOTEL?
>> I DON'T THINK YOU CAN SPLIT THE BABY.
THE USE IS HOTEL OR AIRPORT RELATED USE.
>> TODAY WE'RE DECIDING TO CONTINUE THE HOTEL.
THEN YOU'RE NOT SPLITTING THE BABY, BUT YOU'RE COMING BACK LATER AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT USE AND ASK FOR THAT.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'LL BE EITHER ALL HOTEL OR ALL JT?
>> ALL HOTEL OR AIRPORT RELATED USE OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND CHANGE THE TERMS OF THE LEASE WITH A NEW LEASE.
BECAUSE WE CAN'T ALTER THE EXISTING.
WE CAN'T AMEND OR ALTER THE CURRENT LEASE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN VIOLATION OF FAA STAFF.
>> I KNOW BOB WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WANT TO PUT J-1 WORKERS IN THERE.
>> HUNDRED PERCENT. THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT IT TO YOU GUYS.
OTHERWISE, WE DO THESE ASSIGNMENTS ROUTINELY.
>> BUT IF THEY DO THAT, THEN COMING INTO JULY, THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE HOTEL.
>> THEY'RE RENTING A HOTEL ROOM TO J-1 PEOPLE.
>> AS LONG AS THEY STAY THERE FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS AND PAY THE HOT, WE DON'T POLICE WHO STAYS IN A HOTEL.
>> CORRECT. IF THEY CONTINUE TO PAY HOT FOR THREE MONTHS, BUT THAT'S NOT EVEN THE DEFINITION OF WHAT HOT HAS TRIED [INAUDIBLE]
>> OUR DEFINITION OF HOTEL BY STANDARDS OF ALL EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN IS STAYS OF LESS THAN 30 DAYS.
>> THEY WOULD STAY 30 DAYS AND THEN WHAT? LEAVE?
>> LEAVE, CHANGE ROOMS. I THINK THE BIGGER ISSUE FOR THE OWNER IS I DON'T BELIEVE HE WANTS TO PAY HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX ON THE ROOM RATES.
>> THAT'S WHAT IT SURE SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD WAITING.
>> WE DON'T WANT TO PAY AN INCREASED LAND LEASE.
>> THAT'S TRUE TOO. NOBODY DOES.
>> BUT WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE IF WE SIGNED THE LEASE LIKE IT IS, AND THEN SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD, THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE USE, THE MULTIFAMILY.
>> WHAT'S THE NAME OF THAT? [BACKGROUND]
[00:25:01]
>> THEN THEY KNOW THEIR MARKET RATE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT SOUNDS LIKE, I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION FROM THE POTENTIAL NEW ASSIGNEES, IN TERMS OF THEIR INTENTIONS AND WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO.
>> IF THEY DO A STAY OVER 30 DAYS, THE USE CHANGES BECAUSE IT IS NOT A HOTEL.
I'M ASKING SOMEBODY IN MY OFFICE TO CHECK THAT.
>> THAT'S WHERE CITY LAW READS.
>> THAT'S HOW WE DEFINE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM RENTALS.
>> MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE PUT CONDITIONS ON THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN ALTER THE LEASE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IF YOU HAVE A NEW LEASE, THERE'S NO REASON.
THIS GUY OR GIRL OR WHOMEVER IT IS DOESN'T HAVE TO AGREE TO A NEW LEASE, PERIOD.
THEY GOING TO BE REASSIGNED THIS LEASE THAT HAS 23 YEARS LEFT ON IT.
TECHNICALLY, THEY COULD PUT IN, MAKE IT A WHATEVER THEY WANT.
>> NO, THEY COULD NOT. BASICALLY, WE CANNOT WITHHOLD THE ASSIGNMENT OF THIS LEASE AS LONG AS IT'S FOR THE SAME TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN THE CURRENT.
>> NO, WAIT. RIGHT NOW, THEY WERE REQUESTING THE REASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE, STAYING AS A HOTEL.
THERE WAS ONCE A COUPLE OF SUMMERS AGO THAT I HELPED OUT WITH SOME J-1, AND THE AVERAGE WEEKLY PAYMENT FOR THEM WAS ABOUT 150 A WEEK.
THAT WAS THEIR POINT AS FAR AS THE HIGHEST PART OF THE BUDGET THEY COULD GO.
I JUST LOOKED UP THE END AT THE WATER PARK AND THE AVERAGE NEW PRICE IS 200-$275 A DAY.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF REALLY WHAT SENSE THAT WOULD MAKE FOR US AND WHAT SENSE THAT'S MAKING FOR THEM.
>> WE'RE JUST THE PROPERTY LESSOR.
>> WE ALSO RECEIVE OUR TAX FOR THE ROOMS.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW BOOK THAT HOTEL STAYS.
BUT WE JUST BROUGHT FORTH THE REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE CAN WITHHOLD AS LONG AS THEY'RE JUST REQUESTING IT IS A TRANSFER OF HOTEL OPERATIONS.
BUT IN CONVERSATION, THEY HAVE MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEIR INTENDED USE OF THIS PROPERTY LONG TERM IS TO HOUSE J-1 VISAS, AND I DID NOT WANT YOU GUYS TO JUST DO A BLANKET ASSIGNMENT OF THIS LEASE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE INTENDED LONG TERM USE IS.
NOW, WHETHER THAT MEANS THEY COME BACK TO YOU FOR A NEW LEASE OR WHAT, I DON'T KNOW.
>> WE'VE ALL BEEN MADE AWARE THROUGH ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THAT THE USE IS FOR J-1 VISA HOLDERS.
>> CAN WE DEFER THIS FOR A MONTH AND HAVE THEM COME IN AND PRESENT TO US?
>> I BELIEVE THEY'RE GOING TO BE HERE TONIGHT WHEN YOU VOTE ON IT, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.
AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO BE HERE.
>> STAFF RECOMMENDATION VERY CLEARLY SAYS, "CONCUR WITH ALTERNATE 2 TO NOT APPROVE THE TRANSFER OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT TO IRH GALVESTON, UNTIL A NEW LEASE AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED.
THAT INCLUDES THE APPROVED USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR MULTIFAMILY USE AND SETS A LEASE RATE AT FAIR MARKET VALUE UPON FINAL APPROVAL." [OVERLAPPING]
>> AGAIN, THIS IS THE DILEMMA THAT WE'RE IN, IS THAT WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS UP, THEY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO OPERATE AS A HOTEL FOR A WHILE.
I REALLY CAN'T WITHHOLD THE LEASE.
>> WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR A WHILE.
>> THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO TO J-1 IMMEDIATELY.
>> MY FIRST INITIAL CONVERSATION WITH THEM, BEEN A WHILE BUT THEY WANTED TO DO IT PAT QUICKLY.
THAT'S BEEN A FEW MONTHS BACK. I DON'T REMEMBER.
THAT'S WHERE I WAS COMING FROM.
>> THIS WHOLE THING HAPPENED VERY FAST.
WE GOT NOTIFIED BY 1859 HOTELS WHAT LAST WEEK MAYOR, WHEN ALL THIS CAME UP.
THEY NEEDED IT DONE VERY QUICK BECAUSE THE NEW OPERATOR WANTED THIS DONE BEFORE THE ARRIVAL OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD WANT TO STAY THERE.
>> ORIGINALLY IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE JUNE.
>> JUNE AGENDA, WHICH WAS GOING TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO TRY TO FLESH THIS OUT.
NOW, WE DID MEET WITH THEM THE OTHER DAY, AND THERE WAS LOTS OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE BENEFITS OF THE J-1 VISA HOUSING AND ALL THAT STUFF, WHICH IS FINE AND GREAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
[00:30:04]
WHICH IS THE TERM OF THIS LEASE AND THE FACT THAT IT IS FOR A HOTEL OR AIRPORT RELATED USE.AS LONG AS YOU ARE GOING TO USE IT FOR ONE OF THOSE TWO THINGS, WE CANNOT WITHHOLD THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE LEASE.
>> COUNCIL, WE NEED TO JUST GET CLARIFICATION IF WE WANT TO ARGUE OR NOT ARGUE, BUT DISCUSS THE PROS AND CONS OF THIS? [LAUGHTER] THEN WE DO THAT THIS AFTERNOON IN OUR REGULAR MEETING, BUT LET'S GET [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'LL REACH OUT TO 18 59 HOTELS AND HAVE SOMEBODY HERE AS WELL.
>> BUT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO NOT IMPROVE IT TO THE NEW LEASE.
>> IT WOULD BE MUCH CLEANER KNOWING THAT THIS IS THE ULTIMATE INTENDED USE TO NEGOTIATE A NEW RATE OR TO HAVE A NEW LEASE AT THE MARKET RATE, AND THAT WAY IT'S CLEAN.
>> IT'S CLEANER FOR THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CHANGING OVER IN THE CITY COMING AND RED TAGGING OR WHEREVER.
>> THEN IF THEY WANT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, IT ACTUALLY GIVES THEM UP TO FOUR YEARS UNDER THIS NEW LEASE TO RECOUP THEIR MONEY.
THAT'S THE CLEANEST WAY TO DO IT.
>> NOW, YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN DO A NEW LEASE WITH THEM.
>> WE'VE ALWAYS TOLD YOU YOU COULD DO A NEW LEASE WITH THEM.
YOU JUST CAN'T EXTEND THE CURRENT LEASE OR RENEW IT.
>> IT CAN BE AT THE SAME LEASE RATE AND SO FORTH.
IT HAS TO BE A FAIR MARKET VALUE.
THEY'RE TRYING TO RECOUP OUR EQUITY THAT WE HAVE.
>> ONE MORE QUESTION. IS MASS BENEFIT THE AIRPORT.
I ASSUME THE CURRENT USE BENEFITS THE AIRPORT.
WHAT DID J-1 USE BENEFIT THE AIRPORT WITH THAT?
>> J-1 VISA WORKERS WORKING AT THE AIRPORT.
>> THERE MAY BE SOME AT MOODY GARDENS, MAYBE.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING HOW THAT QUALIFIES FOR THAT.
>> THE IDEA WHEN THEY PUT THE HOTEL THERE WAS BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE WAS REALLY OUT THERE.
ACTUALLY, A LOT OF THE ORIGINAL ROOMS HAD KITCHENETTES AND STUFF IN THEM AND IT WAS FOR THE HELICOPTER FOLKS, AND THE PEOPLE STAYING THERE THAT WERE COMING FLYING IN AND OUT.
THAT WAS THAT WAS WHY THE CITY ORIGINALLY DID THE LEASE GOING BACK YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS BEFORE THE 1859 HOTELS ZONE IT.
>> IT WAS BEFORE '91, THE ORIGINAL BUILDING WAS THERE.
>> A PIECE OF THAT HOTEL HAS ALREADY BURNED DOWN, BUT THERE'S A NEW ADDITION TO IT THAT WAS DONE IN 2006.
>> THEY ARE NOT UNABLE TO SIGN A NEW LEASE WITH MARKET RATE.
>> I THINK THEY WERE TRYING TO DO THIS FOR EXPEDIENCY MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.
>> ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION ON THIS? VERY GOOD. ALEX, ANYMORE?
>> GOOD MORNING. THIS IS FOR TRACKING ENFORCEMENT, TRACKING PLANNING, TRACKING THE STAFF.
>> THIS IS NOT JUST TRACKING FOR THE CITY SIDE.
THIS WOULD ALSO BE TRACKING FOR THE PUBLIC SIDE AS WELL, OR IT'S JUST MOST OF ALL PERMIT ACTIVITY.
IT'LL BE TRACKABLE ONLINE FOR A PERMIT THAT'S BEEN A BIG CONCERN FOR SOME PEOPLE.
>> COULD YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF, IF YOU WOULD.
>> I'M TIM TIETJENS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
CITIZENS CAN REPORT COMPLAINTS.
CONTRACTORS, CITIZENS CAN REQUEST PERMITS AND PAY.
THERE IS THAT FORWARD BASING COMPONENT OF THIS.
THAT IS THE ONE ASPECT OF THIS SOFTWARE SYSTEM THAT NEEDS TO BE MODERNIZED.
I DID PUT THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT ONE OF THE OVERALL CONCERNS THAT THE CITY HAS THE BACK END OF THE SOFTWARE SOLUTION WORKS VERY WELL FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
IT ALLOWS THEM TO CONFIGURE THE SOFTWARE TO MEET THEIR NEEDS RATHER THAN MEET THE NEEDS OF THE SOFTWARE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
IT'S EXTREMELY FLEXIBLE IN THAT PARTICULAR REGARD.
THE BIGGEST DOWNSIDE TO THE SOFTWARE IS THE PUBLIC FACING PORTAL AND ITS BRINGS ABUSE.
THOSE ARE SOME HEAVY DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD.
WE'VE RECEIVED A LOT OF COMPLAINTS WITH THE PUBLIC FACING PORTAL FOR THE SOFTWARE SYSTEM.
THE VENDOR IS WORKING ON THAT, AND THEY DO ANTICIPATE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A BRAND NEW USER EXPERIENCE AVAILABLE BY MID-YEAR NEXT YEAR.
>> CORRECT. THEY'RE GOING TO START DEPLOYING THAT LATER THIS YEAR IN AN INCREMENTAL PHASED PROCESS AND EXPECT ALL OF THEIR CUSTOMERS TO HAVE THAT BY MID-YEAR NEXT YEAR.
[00:35:02]
WE WILL BE ONLINE WITH THE NEW VERSION OF THE SOFTWARE SOMETIME AROUND THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, BUT THAT NEW PORTAL AND THAT NEW USER EXPERIENCE IS NOT GOING TO BE READILY AVAILABLE TO US UNTIL AFTER THAT PERIOD OF TIME.>> I WILL POINT OUT THAT WE ALSO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO PROGRAM OUR PROCESS INTO THE SYSTEM, AND IT DOES REASONABLY WELL.
IT'S NOT THE BEST SYSTEM OUT THERE, I DON'T NECESSARILY BELIEVE, BUT I'VE SEEN WORST BY FAR.
IN MY LAST CITY, THERE WAS A SYSTEM THAT WAS JUST UNBELIEVABLY [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY REASONABLY EFFICIENT AND FOLKS CAN NAVIGATE IT.
IT'S NOT FULLY INTUITIVE, BUT THIS IS A SYSTEM WHERE IF WE JUMP TO SOMETHING ELSE, WE'D HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN TO TAKE ALL OF OUR DATA.
>> IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE.
>> IT'D BE TERRIBLY EXPENSIVE, VERY TIME CONSUMING.
THIS IS PROBABLY THE BEST MEANS OF JUMPING THROUGH THIS AT THIS POINT IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DEPARTMENT'S OPINION.
>> I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN A HUGE COMPLAINT FROM, I GUESS THE PUBLIC FACING SIDE OF THINGS.
IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY WITH EXCELOR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A FRONT ROW EXPERIENCE BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN GETTING SO MANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT IT, I WOULD BE HOPEFUL THAT WE WOULD BE DOING THAT.
IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE PUBLIC TO NAVIGATE THIS SYSTEM, I WOULD APPRECIATE SOME INFORMATION [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT NEEDS TO BE PHONE FRIENDLY TOO TO THOSE CONTRACTORS WHO AREN'T CARRYING LAPTOPS AROUND AND THEY ARE USING THEIR PHONES.
>> LIKE I SAID, THAT'S THE BIGGEST DOWNSIDE TO IT, AND THAT WAS OUR GREATEST APPREHENSION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS SOFTWARE SOLUTION.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE CITY WAS PUT INTO A PLACE WHERE WE HAD TWO OPTIONS AND IT WAS PUT THE PEDAL TO THE METAL BECAUSE THEY NO LONGER WILL SUPPORT ONLINE PREM SOLUTION IN DECEMBER OF 2025, WHICH MEANS YOU ONLY HAVE TWO OPTIONS.
MOVE TO THEIR SAS SOLUTION OR GO FIND ANOTHER SOFTWARE THAT MEETS THE CITY'S NEEDS.
THE BEAUTY OF THIS SOFTWARE IS ITS FLEXIBILITY AND TIM HIT A NAIL ON THE HEAD, IN THAT WE CONFIGURE IT TO MEET OUR BUSINESS NEEDS RATHER THAN TRY AND TAILOR OUR BUSINESS NEEDS TO FIT THIS COOKIE CUTTER APPLICATION THAT HAS NO FLEXIBILITY.
BUT AGAIN, THE BIGGEST DOWNSIDE, YOU'RE 100%, CORRECT, IS DEFINITELY THAT ABSOLUTELY.
>> I THINK WE WENT TO A SELLER IN?
>> IT'S GOT A LOT OF YEARS OF DATA, AND THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER DOWNSIDE WHEN YOU'RE CHANGING SOFTWARE SYSTEMS IS MOVING YOUR DATA BETWEEN SYSTEMS. IT'S HARD, AND IT'S VERY COSTLY.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE CAN'T GET THE KINGS WORKED OUT AND THIS IS DOWN THE ROAD, I REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT, MAYBE WE DO BITE THE BULLET.
MAYBE THE MORE EXPENSIVE OPTION TO MOVE EVERYTHING OVER TO THE OTHER SOFTWARE.
>> IF THE SOFTWARE FAILS TO FUNCTION IN A WAY THAT WE NEED IT, THEN IT'S TIME, WHETHER OR NOT IT COSTS MONEY OR NOT.
>> I THINK IT'S BEEN A LONG ENOUGH CONVERSATION THAT HAS BEEN HAD ABOUT THE CONTRACTOR WORLD, THE CIVILIAN WORLD HAVING AN ISSUE WITH THESE PERMITS.
>> I WILL TELL YOU THAT THAT IS THE REASON WHY THAT CONTRACT'S ONLY FOR THREE YEARS.
TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE ME BRING SOMETHING TO COUNCIL THAT YOU'RE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT IS GOING TO BE GREATER THAN THAT.
MOST EVERYTHING I BRING IS FAR MORE THAN THREE YEARS.
THAT IS THE EXACT REASON WE WENT WITH THREE YEARS IS BECAUSE WE PUT THEM ON NOTICE THAT WE'RE DOING MASS, BUT THEY HAVE TO DELIVER TO US AS WELL.
>> GOT YOU. OH, BOB, I'M SORRY, MARIE WAS FIRST.
>> MY BIGGEST FEAR IN JUST MAKING TO PREPARE AHEAD OF TIME IS IF WE HAVE AN EVENT SUCH AS A HURRICANE, I KNOW THAT MY EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS LIKE THIS THROUGH ONLINE WHEN MOST OF THE TIME, WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO DO THAT.
I JUST HOPE THAT IT'S FRIENDLY ENOUGH THAT IT CAN BE PULLED OFFLINE TO GET THINGS DONE WITH THE HUMAN INSTEAD
[00:40:03]
OF WORRYING ABOUT GOING THROUGH ONLINE BACK AND FORTH.THEY CAN ALWAYS COME IN TO OUR CLERKS PRIOR.
THE ONLINE SYSTEM IS OF COURSES OF CONVENIENCE THAT PEOPLE CAN USE IF THEY ARE SO INCLINED.
BUT I THINK ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND SYSTEM AS A WHOLE, CAN'T BE ANY LESS FUNCTIONAL THAN IT HAS BEEN, AND IT CAN ONLY BE MORE FUNCTIONAL.
WE'RE HOPING THAT WHEN WE LOOK INTO THAT POINT IN SETTING UP THE SYSTEM FOR OUR PROCESSES THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROGRAM IT IN AS WE HAVE BEFORE.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH EVERYONE.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS WE GET IS THAT OUR ONLINE SYSTEMS ARE NOT GOOD AND THAT THEY ARE HARD TO WORK WITH AND SO FORTH.
WE'RE EXTENDING THIS CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS, A SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT, TYING OUR HANDS.
AT THE SAME TIME, ARE WE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR A NEW SYSTEM AND START DATA MIGRATION? BECAUSE IN THREE YEARS, YOU COULD COME BACK AND SAY, WE'RE EXTENDING ANOTHER THREE YEARS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING TO MOVE TO A NEW SYSTEM.
TIM JUST STOOD HERE AND SAID, IT'S NOT A GREAT SYSTEM, BUT IT'S NOT THE WORST SYSTEM.
THERE'S SYSTEMS THAT ARE EVEN MORE HORRENDOUS THAN THIS.
BUT THERE'S SYSTEMS OUT THERE THAT ARE WAY BETTER.
TO ME, IF WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THIS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IT'S THE EASIEST WAY OF PERHAPS MAKING THINGS EASIER, WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON THE NEXT SOLUTION AT THE SAME TIME SO THAT IN TWO YEARS YOU SAY TO US, WE'RE READY TO GO IN TO THE NEW SYSTEM THAT WILL ENHANCE EVERYTHING, THAT WILL BE A BENEFIT TO OUR CITIZENS AND OUR CONTRACTORS AND SO FORTH.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE DATA TRANSFERRED OVER.
NOT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOWN FOR HOW MANY YEARS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING.
I WOULD LIKE SOME ASSURANCE THAT YOU WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO THAT.
>> OUR INTENT, ABSOLUTELY IS TO START LOOKING AT SYSTEMS. IN FACT, WE ALREADY HAVE, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO WRAP ANY OF THAT UP.
>> WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS BAD SYSTEM SINCE 2008.
WE JUST TURNED AND IT'S NOW '25 AND WE'RE ONCE AGAIN EXTENDING.
WE SHOULD BE NOT JUST LOOKING, WE SHOULD BE TAKING ACTION.
>> MAYBE TO MARIE'S POINT, IF EXCELOR KNOWS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT NEW SYSTEMS, IT MAY BE LIGHTS OF FIRE UNDERNEATH THEM TO MAKE THEIR SYSTEM MUCH BETTER.
BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T WORK IN TWO YEARS, LIKE MARIE SAID, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY, WE HAVE THE OPTION, SO CONTINUALLY LOOK FOR THOSE EFFICIENCIES, CONTINUALLY LOOK FOR THOSE BENEFITS.
LOOK FOR THE SYSTEMS, AND LET EXCELOR KNOW, I GUESS THAT COUNCIL WOULD NOT BE SCARED TO MOVE ON TO A NEWER GREATER THING IF THEY DON'T DELIVER.
>> YES. THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT.
THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH ON THAT.
I WAS INCLINED NOT TO GO, BUT GIVING TIME IN THE END OF THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE ON-PREM, WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE.
WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER PROJECTS GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE, IT'S A BUDGETARY ITEM.
>> THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EXPENSIVE MIGRATION.
TO ME, IT'S WORTH THE COST FOR THE PUBLIC.
>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU HAVE INSTANCE YOU GOT TO PAY FOR.
>> I AGREE. YOU'VE GOT TO GET SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE OUT THE DOOR BEFORE WE CAN MOVE ON.
>> JUST LETTING EXCELOR KNOW THAT NOTHING IS PERMANENT.
>> IS THE SOFTWARE INCLUSIVE OF WHO YOU SAY CITIZENS? IS IT COVERING ALL DEPARTMENTS PERSONNEL?
>> THAT'S ALL PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
>> THIS IS PERMITTING, CODE ENFORCEMENT, PLANNING.
[00:45:02]
I BELIEVE COASTAL [OVERLAPPING]>> THAT'S ESSENTIALLY IT. IT'S MOST OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAVE ABANDONED HISTORY.
>> THEY'LL BE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS?
>> WE'VE GOT A PRETTY UNIQUE THING HERE WITH OUR HOUSING STOCK IN THE AGES THAT IT RANGES FROM 1850S ALL THE WAY TO CURRENT.
BEING ON A COASTAL TOWN DEALING WITH WINDSTORM AND FLOOD, AS WE DO, AS CITIZENS OF GALVESTON, WAS THERE ANY COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES? I DON'T KNOW REALLY IF CORPUS CHRISTI WOULD FIT IN THAT MOLD IN COMPARISON WITH HOUSING STOCK OR POSSIBLY PORT ARTHUR, MAYBE NEW ORLEANS WOULD BE A GOOD ONE, ALTHOUGH A LOT BIGGER.
WAS THERE ANY COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES OR CITIES IN SEEING WHAT THEY UTILIZE WITH SIMILARITIES AS GALVESTON?
>> I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT LOOKED AT SIMILAR ENTITIES, GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS AND WHAT THEY'RE USING.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT EXCELOR IS USED BY MUCH LARGER ENTITIES THAN US.
THE REASON PEOPLE STAY WITH IT IS BECAUSE IT'S POWERFUL IN THE FACT THAT YOU CAN TELL THAT SOFTWARE WHAT TO DO RATHER THAN THAT SOFTWARE WOULD TELL YOU WHAT TO DO.
THAT'S WHY PEOPLE STAY WITH IT.
IT'S BECAUSE THEY CAN MOLD IT TO THEIR NEEDS RATHER THAN MOLD THEIR NEEDS TO THAT SOFTWARE.
IT WORKS ON THE BACK END, AND IT WORKS VERY WELL.
WE WERE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES IN BUSINESS DECISIONS THAT REQUIRE DIFFERENT WORKFLOWS AND DIFFERENT OUTPUT.
IT'S THE FRONT END, THAT'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM.
>> WELL, EVEN FOR THE FRONT FACING PART OF THIS IS RELATIVELY NEW, EVEN FOR THEM.
WE HAD THIS BACK SIDE OF THE SYSTEM IN PLACE SINCE 2008 THAT'S BEEN WORKING VERY WELL AND ALWAYS HAS.
THE FRONT FACING SYSTEM WHEN WE WENT PUBLIC WITH IT IN 2008.
>> CAN I ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION THERE.
YOU'RE SAYING THE BACK PART OF THE SYSTEM WORKS VERY WELL?
>> THE BACK PART OF THE SYSTEM ISN'T FED BY THE FRONT PART OF THE SYSTEM?
>> WELL, THAT I COULDN'T FIGURE ABOUT IT.
>> BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN EXPERIENCE, IS A GOOD PHONE USER EXPERIENTIAL THAN THAT?
>> THAT'S THE USER FRIENDLINESS.
>> THIS IS A SOFTWARE. IT'S A VERY ROBUST SOFTWARE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT, AND ESPECIALLY WHAT WE HAVE WAS WHEN EVERYBODY WAS ON BLACKBERRY.
THE EXCELOR IS MUCH LIKE EVEN SOME OF THE BIGGER SYSTEMS LIKE OUR RMS SYSTEM AND OTHERS.
TELL OUR FINANCE SYSTEM THAT WE'RE REPLACING WAS A DOS-BASED SYSTEM AT ONE POINT IN TIME FOR OPERATIONS.
THEY'RE MIGRATING QUICKLY, AND OF COURSE, NOW YOU HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACCESS IT ONLINE. THEY'RE PLAYING CATCH UP.
ALL THE BIG GOVERNMENTAL SYSTEMS ARE.
I THINK EXCELOR WILL EVENTUALLY GET CAUGHT UP AND PROBABLY HAVE A GOOD PRODUCT.
IS JUST WHETHER IT MOVES FAST ENOUGH TO SUIT WHAT WE WANT TO DO OR NOT, AND IF WE'RE WILLING TO SPEND UP TO DO THAT.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT. ANYTHING ELSE, ALEX, MARIE? [NOISE]
>> WELL, THIS IS PRINTED, AND IT CAME OUT.
>> BARBARA, IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY.
>> BARBARA SANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PARKS AND RECREATION.
>> KYLE, DID YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD ALSO?
>> KYLE, IF YOU WOULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE.
>> KYLE CLARK, COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGER.
>> THIS HAS TO DO WITH POCKET PARK 3 AND THE SAN LUIS PASS, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START CHARGING FOR PARKING.
MY BIGGEST CONCERN ABOUT THAT IS TWO AREAS THAT WERE FREE BEACH PARKING THAT ARE NOW GOING TO PAY PARKING, THAT THE ULTIMATE END TO THAT IS YOU'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING PEOPLE INTO NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS THE ISLAND.
BECAUSE SEAWALLS CHARGED, SHORT-BASED EACH BEACH CHARGED.
NOW WE'RE CHARGING SAN LUIS PASS, POCKET PARK 3.
[00:50:07]
HOW MUCH FREE PARKING ARE LOCATED IN POCKET PARK 3 AND THE SAN LUIS PASS?>> UNDER THE TAX ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, WE DON'T HAVE TO PROVIDE FREE PARKING AT THE AREAS THAT WE CHARGE THIS BEACH USER FEE AT.
WE JUST HAVE TO PROVIDE FREE PARKING ON THE ISLAND COMPARABLE TO THE AREAS THAT WE'RE CHARGING PARKING TO.
LIKE AT POCKET PARK 3, WE DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE 20 SPACES DESIGNATED AS FREE PARKING.
>> ONCE AGAIN, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING ALL THE BEACH GOERS INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> WE STILL HAVE ACCESS POINT 16, WHICH IS GOING TO BE JUST TO THE EAST OF THE STATE PARK.
THAT'S GOING TO STILL BE DRIVE-ON BEACH, ACCESS POINT 10, HERSHEY BEACH.
>> I'M NOT TALKING DRIVE-ON BEACH, I'M TALKING PARKING, PERIOD.
YOU'RE GOING TO BE FORCING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO TO THE BEACH THAT DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR PARKING INTO ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS THE ISLAND BECAUSE WE ARE NOW ELIMINATING TWO OF THE AREAS.
>> THEY CAN PARK IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW. THAT'S AN OPTION.
>> BUT THEY HAD ANOTHER OPTION, THEY CAN PARK AT POCKET PARK 3, THEY COULD PARK AT SAN LUIS PASS.
NOW THEY CAN'T, SO NOW THEY CAN ONLY PARK IN NEIGHBORHOODS.
IT'S GREAT BECAUSE SOME OF THE ISLAND NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE A PARKING PERMIT SYSTEM THAT PROTECTS IT.
OTHER ONES, THERE ARE NO PROTECTIONS AGAINST PARKING.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN PARKING PERMITS TO PROTECT THEM?
>> SOME OF YOUR IN-TOWN NEIGHBORHOODS HAVE PARKING PERMIT SYSTEMS THAT KEEP BEACH GOERS THAT DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR PARKING FROM PARKING IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY.
>> FOR BEACH PARKING, THE ONLY THING THAT SHOULD BE CHARGED IS WHAT'S IN OUR PLAN, IS EITHER THE PASSES THAT ARE FOR THE SEAWALL OR FOR POCKET PARK 1 OR FOR THE DAILY USE.
THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY OTHER CHARGES FOR ANY TYPE OF PARKING FOR BEACH ACCESS.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULDN'T BE SELLING A PRIVATE PARKING BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN OUR PLANS.
>> I THINK MARIE'S TALKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL PARKING, BUT NONE OF THOSE ARE ON-BEACH NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> ACTUALLY, HISTORICALLY, POCKET PARK 3 DID CHARGE FOR ENTRANCE.
>> HISTORICALLY, IT DID, BUT THEN IT OFFERED SERVICES.
NOW IT DOESN'T OFFER SERVICES.
>> BUT WE'RE OFFERING THE SAME SERVICE WE HAVE A POCKET PARK 1, WHICH IS PORTABLE WASHROOMS AND WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD UP THAT ACCOUNT SO WE CAN OFFER MORE AMENITIES DOWN THERE.
>> BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT NOW.
I WAS TOLD THAT WHEN POCKET PARK 3 STARTED CHARGING FOR PARKING, THERE WOULD BE A LARGE AREA THAT WAS STILL FREE PARKING.
AS I READ THE PACKET LAST NIGHT, THAT ISN'T THE CASE.
SAN LUIS PASS, WE ALREADY KNOW IT'S AN ISSUE THAT ONCE YOU START CHARGING THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THE TIPSY TURTLE IS STILL ON IT.
IS THAT GOING TO BE PAID PARKING OR FREE PARKING?
>> THAT'S FREE. YOU HAVE TWO LARGE PARKING AREAS OF TIPSY TURTLE.
>> TWO LARGE. BASICALLY, WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE MAJORITY OF FREE PARKING THAT'S STILL LEFT ON THE ISLAND.
>> WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE ARE GETTING A HUGE CALL FOR SERVICES OUT THERE, ESPECIALLY AT SAN LUIS PASS, FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABUTTING IT TO LIMIT AND TRY TO CONTROL ACCESS TO THAT BEACH AND TO LIMIT AND PICK UP THE TRASH.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO RECOVER OUR COST OUT THERE AND TO CONTROL THIS.
>> HOW HAVE YOU WORKED IT OUT?
>> A VALID FISHING LICENSE AND EQUIPMENT, THEN WE'RE NOT CHARGING.
>> IT'S IN OUR PLAN. IT'S IN TAC.
LIKE I SAID, THE REQUIREMENT FOR TAC IS WE CAN'T HAVE ALL PARKING ON THE WEST END AS A CHARGE, SO WE HAD TO LEAVE SOME FREE.
[00:55:01]
>> NOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ANYWHERE ON THE WEST END, WE HAD TO PROVIDE FREE PARKING COMPARABLE WHERE WE'RE CHARGING FOR THE BEACH USER FEE.
I'VE ALREADY COORDINATED WITH DLO TO LET THEM KNOW.
THIS IS IN OUR PLAN THAT SAYS WE CAN DO THIS.
WE HAVE A PAGE ON OUR WEB PAGE SHOWING WHERE THESE AREAS ARE THAT WE'RE CHARGING A FEE.
IT HAS TO BE CONSPICUOUSLY SIGNAGE OF.
WE'RE PUTTING SIGNS UP, WE TURN OFF INTO POCKET PARK 3 TELLING HOW MANY WHAT THE CHARGES ARE.
>> WE WERE TOLD THERE WAS GOING TO BE FREE PARKING IN POCKET PARK 3.
AS I TOLD THE CITIZENS, THERE WILL BE FREE HANDICAP PARKING.
>> THERE IS FREE HANDICAP PARKING.
>> I WAS ALSO TOLD BY CITY MANAGEMENT THAT THERE WOULD BE A NUMBER OF SPOTS AT POCKET PARK 3 AND ANY OTHER POCKET PARKS THAT WE WERE CHARGING TO.
YOU'RE GOING TO CREATE A SAFETY HAZARD IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> FIRST OF ALL, LET'S GET TO CLARIFICATION HERE.
WE CAN ARGUE THE PROS AND CONS THIS AFTERNOON WHEN THIS COMES UP FOR A MOTION.
ANY OTHER CLARIFICATION, MARIE, ON THIS?
>> I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE REASON FOR GOING TO CHARGING FOR PARKING THERE.
I THINK I HEARD EARLIER THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE FOR PROVIDING FURTHER AMENITIES.
I ALSO HEARD IT WAS GOING TO BE FOR ENFORCEMENT.
>> BEACH USER FEES, A CERTAIN PERCENT CAN BE USED ADMINISTRATIVELY.
IT CAN BE USED TO PROVIDE AMENITIES, LAW ENFORCEMENT SECURITY.
IT'S VERY SPECIFIC OF WHAT THESE BEACH USER FEES CAN BE USED FOR.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT EVERY AREA THAT CHARGE BEACH USER FEES HAS TO HAVE THIS OR HAS TO HAVE THAT, BUT IT DOES SAY WHAT THE FEES CAN BE USED FOR.
>> RIGHT NOW WE HAVE [INAUDIBLE] STATION DOWN THERE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE.
WE'RE PAYING FOR IT OUT OF POCKET PARK 1.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING AROUND TO.
>> POCKET PARK 1, THERE'S NO FREE PARKING.
IT'S ALL PAID, AND IT'S PACKED EVERY WEEKEND.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING TO IS WHAT WERE THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR DOING IT IN THIS SPECIFIC PLACE THAT YOU NEEDED THE MONEY FOR?
>> FOR A LONG TIME, IT WAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE THE LIGHT COMPANY WAS USING PART OF IT FOR STAGING TO WORK ON 3005.
NOW THAT THAT'S OVER WITH, AND WE WENT BACK AND GRADED THE PARKING LOT AND FIXED PARKING SPACES AND HAVE A ENTRANCE, THAT WAS ALWAYS THE PLAN.
>> WE CAN INCREASE AMENITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I WILL SAY LIKE SINCE WE HAVE RESTRICTED VEHICLES AT SUNNY BEACH AND WE HAVE THE OFF BEACH PARKING AND I'VE BEEN OUT THERE TALKING TO PEOPLE WHO COME DOWN, THEY REALLY ENJOY IT AND THEY'RE LIKE, WE LIKE IT NOW THAT WE CAN COME HERE AND THERE'S NOT JUST VEHICLES EVERYWHERE THAT PARKING LOT HAS BEEN PACKED THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKENDS AND PEOPLE JUST REALLY ENJOY GOING DOWN THERE.
>> IS THERE A PROBLEM ON PARKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS THERE?
>> THERE'S NO CHARGE FOR PARKING.
>> HE ASKED IF THERE'S A PROBLEM IN THE PARKING?
>> NOT YET BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD ISN'T DEVELOPED. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. BEACHSIDE VILLAS. WE STILL HAVE SUNNY BEACH.
>> BUT THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN BERMUDA BEACH.
THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN SPANISH GRANT BEACH.
THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> NO, IT'S HARD BECAUSE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS DIDN'T WANT CARS ON THE BEACH, AND TO DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO ALLOW CARS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DENY THAT ACCESS.
>> NOBODY EVER PARKED CARS ON THE BEACH IN POCKET PARK 3.
>> WE WOULD GET COMPLAINTS FROM THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> WE'VE GOT TWO INDIVIDUALS, WHAT CLARIFICATION, BEAU AND THEN ALEX.
>> BRIAN, WITH WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON THE STATE LEVEL NOW, WAS HOT TAX USED IN THE PAST TO PAY FOR BEACH CLEANUP AND MAINTENANCE OF THAT AREA?
>> NO. JUST ON THE SHORELINE ON THE VERY EDGE OF THE WATER.
>> I'M SAYING THE MONEY THAT WE SPENT TO MAINTAIN THE BEACH POCKET PARK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW, WOULD WE GET REIMBURSED THROUGH HOT TAX ON THAT COST?
>> IT'S BEACH USER FEE, WE GET TO KEEP WHAT WE COLLECT.
>> TWO THINGS. ONE, I THINK THE HISTORICAL ESSENCE OF THE PASS,
[01:00:06]
IT'S DRIVE ON 3.I'VE FISHED OUT THERE MANY TIMES, BUT CAME TO CLASS SANDY, JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT ON THE CAD, IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY.
HAVE WE DONE ANY DELINEATION OF WHAT IS, WHAT ISN'T? I'VE SEEN THE FIRST SALE SIGN UP THERE FOR GOD KNOWS HOW LONG.
>> SAN LUIS PASS, WE'VE RESEARCHED AND IS THE EITHER THE COUNTY OR THE CITY'S PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BRIDGE ON THE PASS ITSELF.
THE OTHER THING IS, FOR FISHERMAN, I THINK THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO, FOR BEACH GOERS, IT'S QUITE A HAZARDOUS SPOT.
WE'D LIKE TO EVENTUALLY GET SOME OTHER SERVICES OUT THERE, MAKE SURE WE INFORM PEOPLE.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINTS WE GET ADJACENT TO THE PASS, WHICH WE GET EXTREMELY FREQUENTLY.
OTHERWISE, WE'RE JUST TAXING THE RESIDENTS IN GALVESTON TO GO PICK UP TOURIST TRASH ON THE BEACH.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO BE CONSIDERATE.
>> THEY'RE DOING IT THEMSELVES ALREADY.
>> THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
>> IT SAYS ON CAD, IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO BE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS SOME PUBLIC ACCESS ASPECT OF IT.
THERE IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY ASPECT OF IT TOO.
I'D LIKE TO GET A LITTLE MORE CLARITY ON THAT DELINEATION BEFORE MOVING FORWARD ON ANYTHING.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT BOB SAID THAT NEITHER OF YOU ANSWERED, SO I'M GOING TO RE-ASK IT, CAN THE BEACH USER FEES BE USED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY?
>> IT SAYS IN THERE SECURITY OR LAW ENFORCEMENT.
>> THIS WOULD HELP WITH THESE BIG WEEKENDS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THEY'RE GOING TO PUT DEDICATED POLICE SERVICE TO POLICE THE ISSUES WHEN PEOPLE START PARKING IN PEOPLE'S DRIVEWAY ON THEIR PROPERTIES THAT HAVE HAPPENED.
>> THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO CALL THE POLICE ANYWAY AT THAT TIME.
AM I NOT CORRECT, CHIEF? IF SOMEBODY'S BLOCKING A DRIVEWAY.
>> I KNOW, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH POLICE NOW TO COVER THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT A FEE IS GOING TO MAKE US BE ABLE TO HIRE MORE POLICEMEN.
WE'RE ALREADY PAYING ONE OF THE TOP SALARIES, AND WE'RE STILL STRUGGLING TO HIRE, AS IS EVERY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENT, BUT WE'LL RESPOND AS BEST AS WE CAN TO THOSE ISSUES AND STAFF UP AS BEST WE CAN.
>> IT CAN BE USED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH MEANS THEN IT COULD BE USED BY THE EXTENSION OF THE MARSHALS EVEN.
>> I'M STILL NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HIRE AS MANY MARSHALS AS Y'ALL THINK WE HAVE OR CAN HAVE.
>> ACTUALLY, MARSHALS PATROL DOWN ON POCKET PARK 1 ON BUSY WEEKENDS TO DOUBLE-CHECK ALONG WITH THE PD BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE PD IS STRAPPED AND THEY DO HAVE MARSHALS ON THE WEEKENDS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] PUBLIC SAFETY.
WHEN YOU CAN'T GET AN AMBULANCE AND YOU CAN'T GET A FIRE TRUCK DOWN THE STREET AND NOW WE'RE MAKING THIS PROBLEM WORSE IS ALL I'M SAYING.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THREE ITEMS IN AN HOUR, SO WE'RE MOVING RIGHT ALONG HERE. THANK YOU, BARBARA.
>> GOOD MORNING, BRANDON. IF YOU'D IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
>> BRANDON COOK, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER.
>> YES. THIS IS REALLY TO ALLOW FOR TELECONFERENCING, AT THE TRAINING ROOM AT THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE AN INSUFFICIENT SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR TELECONFERENCING TEAMS MEETINGS.
[INAUDIBLE] A LOT OF TIMES WE HAVE TO BRING CONSULTANTS DOWN, ABSORB TRAVEL EXPENSES, EVERYTHING ELSE WHERE, IN LIEU OF THAT, WE COULD HAVE APPROPRIATE TELECONFERENCING EQUIPMENT IN THE TRAINING ROOM AND ALLOW THEM TO ZOOM IN, AND CUT THOSE EXPENSES OUT.
RIGHT NOW, WE DO HAVE TELEVISIONS THAT ARE INADEQUATE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY PATIO CAPABILITIES IN THERE.
[01:05:03]
THIS IS WHAT THE SOLUTION IS MEANT TO ADDRESS.>> THIS IS ELIMINATING IN PERSON MEETINGS? I'VE BEEN IN THIS ROOM YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THAT HAS SIMILAR TYPE THING AS THIS.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY, YOU'RE NOT CAPABLE.
I'VE ACTUALLY EVEN SAT IN YOUR MEETING ROOM, AND HEARD REMOTE CONTRACTORS WHEN IT WAS ON DRAINAGE, SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S $60,000 THAT HAS TO BE SPENT.
>> WE'RE IN A HIRING FREEZE, BUT WE'RE SPENDING 59,000 ON A NEW TV SYSTEM.
>> COME FORWARD, HOPE, IF YOU WOULD. HOPE DEAN.
>> WHILE YOU CAN DO VIDEO CONFERENCE MEETINGS, IN THERE, THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE YOU HAVE IS THE SIZE OF THE ROOM, AND THERE'S NO REAL AUDIO COMPONENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
THE CHALLENGE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, SINCE WE PUT ALL OF THAT TECHNOLOGY ORIGINALLY IN THERE, IS THE AUDIO SIDE OF IT, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS FOCUSES ON.
>> YOU CAN COMMUNICATE TWO WAYS.
>> RIGHT NOW WE'RE USING A MICROPHONE FROM A LAPTOP, IS HOW THE MICROPHONE IS SET UP, SO PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE ROOM CANNOT BE HEARD FROM THE TRAINER ON THE OTHER END.
>> YOU CAN'T ADD, MICROPHONE LIKE WE HAVE HERE? WE HAVE TO BUY A WHOLE NEW.
>> THAT'S YOUR MIC RIGHT UP THERE.
>> IT WASN'T WHAT IT USED TO BE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVING MEETINGS WHERE YOU'RE COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC WE ARE, AND IT'S $60,000 WHEN WE'RE ON A HIRING FREEZE.
OUR STREETS AND WHATNOT ARE FALLING APART, BUT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND 60,000 BECAUSE WE CAN'T JUST ADD A SPEAKER SYSTEM.
>> THAT'S WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL.
IT'S THE BACK END EQUIPMENT THAT GOES WITH IT TO SUPPORT AROUND THE ROOM.
I'VE EXPERIENCED THAT, WITH A REMOTE CONTRACTOR ON GOTOMEETING OR ZOOM, WHATEVER IT WAS, AND WE COULD INTERFACE, WE COULD INTERACT.
>> HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE IN THE ROOM WITH YOU? BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRAINING 30 40 GUYS.
>> THIS MEETING, I THINK THERE WERE MAYBE 14, 16, 20.
>> THEY WERE IN THE MEETING THAT BIG OVER THERE.
>> I'M TELLING YOU, I SAT IN A MEETING WITH ALL THE DRAINAGE AND THERE WAS INTERACTIONS FROM A FAR.
>> WASN'T WHERE YOU WERE MEETING OUR STAFF.
I NEED TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT.
>> ACTUALLY, IT WAS A MEETING YOU APPROVED SO I CAN SHOW YOU THE FACTS FOR IT.
>> ANYWAY, THERE WERE BOTH CONTRACTORS REMOTE IN LOCAL NFR.
SPENDING 60,000 WHEN WE'RE ON A HIRING FREEZE, AND WE HAVE SO MANY ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.
>> WE'LL TELL YOU WE WENT TO MULTIPLE VENDORS, AND WE WENT WITH THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE SOLUTION THAT WAS PROPOSED TO US THAT WAS NOT AS PROPRIETARY.
WE DID GO TO ANOTHER VENDOR AND HAVE THEM COME IN AND SPEC OUT A SYSTEM, AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT WAS HIGHER.
>> THE WE NEGOTIATED IT DOWN ABOUT 15% ON THERE.
>> WE'RE SHORT HOW MANY PEOPLE?
>> WE'LL DISCUSS THIS AT THE REGULAR MEETING.
ANY FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON THIS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YOU WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU. DAVID.
>> HOLD ON. I HAVE MY NOTES HERE.
>> SORRY, [INAUDIBLE]. WE SHOULD JUST HAD YOU STAY UP HERE.
>> WHAT DO WE HAVE? 11F ON OUR SWITCHES.
>> I SAW IN THE QUOTE FROM CENTER SERVICES THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PROVIDING INSTALLATION SERVICES UNDER A SEPARATE CONTRACT WITH A BALANCE OF $72,000 AND THE NOTE STATES C, SCOPE OF WORK FOR DETAILS.
SCOPE OF WORK IS NOT ATTACHED, SO MY QUESTION IS THAT, IS THERE ENOUGH FUNDS IN THERE TO COVER THAT INSTALLATION, OR THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE USING A PORTION OF IT, OR ARE THEY'RE USING ALL OF THOSE REMAINING FUNDS?
>> THEY'LL BE USING THE REMAINING FUNDS, AND IT'S STAFF AUG HOURS IS WHAT IT REALLY IS, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
[01:10:04]
WE HAD ALREADY SIGNED AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM, FOR STAFF AUG, LAST BUDGET YEAR.WE'RE STILL CARRYING THAT, AND THAT IS THE REASON WHY YOU DON'T SEE THE SUPPORT.
>> GOT IT. GOOD. AT THE END OF THIS, YOU'RE GOING TO BE DONE WITH THAT DOLLAR VALUE, OR YOU'RE GOING TO FULLY EXPEND THAT STAFF AUG, OR IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> THAT STAFF AUG WILL BE EXPENDED.
THIS IS ALL OF THIS IS PHASE 2, IT'S ALL OF OUR HEAD-END SWITCHES, IT'S OUR EXPENSIVE SWITCHES.
WE DID ABOUT 50 OR 60 OF THESE LAST YEAR IN THE SERVICE DOLLARS IN ORDER TO DO THAT, AND INSTALLATIONS WERE UPWARDS AROUND THE $50,000, $55,000.
>> ANY FUTURE WORK, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ANOTHER STAFF AUG.
>> NO, I THINK I WILL TELL YOU, THE STAFF AUG COMES FROM IN THE SUPPORT THAT WE GET FROM CENTER.
IT SUPPLEMENTS OUR TEAM WHERE WE HAVE POSITIONS THAT ARE STILL VACANT, THAT WE HAVE A HARD TIME BILLING WITH PEOPLE WHO HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE IN DEPTH.
THEN CENTER HAS ALSO BEEN OUR PARTNER WHO HAS PARTNERED WITH US ON ALL OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, SO THEY HAVE A GOOD KNOWLEDGE OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, OUR FACILITIES, AND SO FORTH.
I DO NOT ANTICIPATE, GIVEN WHERE WE'RE AT, THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A NEED TO DO THOSE AUGMENTATION SERVICES AFTER THIS IS CONCLUDED, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. GREAT. THANK YOU.
THIS HAD A FEW CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS.
>> GOOD MORNING, TIM. TIM TIETJENS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
>> LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT, I GUESS, THE FIRST PAGE OF IT, WE HAVE THE DIAGRAM OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S A LITTLE BLUE LINE AROUND WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE PROJECT AREA, BUT THE PLANS, ELSEWHERE IN THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDE, IT LOOKS LIKE, THE ENTIRE SITE.
THAT LITTLE BLUE LINE ON THE FIRST PAGE LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST THE HIGH RISE PART OF THE BUILDING THAT WAS DEMOLISHED, NOT THE OTHER PART. IT'S THE WHOLE PROPERTY?
>> IT'S THE WHOLE PROPERTY, YES, SIR.
IF WE MISTAKENLY SURROUNDED SOMETHING ON A DIFFERENT MAP, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.
IT'S THE WHOLE PROPERTY. THEY'RE GOING TO BE RESTRUCTURING ALL OF IT FOR LONG-TERM PARKING.
>> WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF FROM, FUNCTIONALLY IS THE ISLANDS OF LANDSCAPING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARKING LOT?
>> THERE WON'T BE ANY TREE ISLANDS OR ANY ISLANDS OR LANDSCAPING.
>> BUT THEY'VE OFFERED TO INCREASE THE LANDSCAPE ON THE PERIMETER SO YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE INSIDE THE PARKING LOT.
>> BOTH IN TERMS OF THE WIDTH OF THAT PERIMETER, NOT ONLY ON THE STREET SIDE, BUT ALL FOUR SIDES.
>> IT LOOKED LIKE A REALLY GOOD LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR BEING ABLE TO CONCEAL THE PARKING LOT.
>> WE HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THAT, BOB.
>> THERE ALSO APPEARS, BUT I'M NOT CLEAR ON THIS, TO BE A FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND THE PROPERTY.
>> I BELIEVE IT'S DECORATIVE FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY.
>> ON THAT HAND-DRAWN SKETCH, THAT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WERE SOME LEADERS WITH NOTES SAYING, WROUGHT IRON TYPE FENCE OR SOMETHING.
>> IT'S A DECORATIVE FENCE, I BELIEVE, SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY.
>> THAT WASN'T CLEAR IF IT WAS ALL AROUND THE PROPERTY OR NOT?
>> I WOULD ASSUME THEY ARE GOING TO FENCE PROPERTY.
EVERY CRUISE PARKING LOT WE HAVE IN GALVESTON IS FENCED WITH GATES, SO THEY ARE GOING TO USE NOT A CYCLONE FENCE, THEY'RE GOING TO USE A DECORATIVE FENCE.
>> THE LITTLE BLACK PINK, AND THAT THING.
>> WE HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THAT.
>> I GOT ONE MORE AND THEN I'M DONE.
>> IT SEEMS THAT AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING THERE WERE THREE COMMISSIONERS ABSENT.
>> THAT'S WHY WE FAILED FOR A LACK OF FOUR VOTES.
>> WE HAD FOUR COMMISSIONERS IN THE MEETING AT THE TIME AND THREE VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST, ONE VOTED NOT IN FAVOR, SO THAT ONE.
>> TO BE CLEAR, WE'VE GRANTED THESE SAME THINGS TO THE PORT.
ACTUALLY, THEY'RE EXEMPTED FROM A LOT OF THIS, SO NONE OF THE PORT PARKING LOTS.
>> I GUESS IT'D BE OPEN TO ANYBODY WHO WANTED TO PARK THERE, BUT ANTICIPATING A LOT OF CRUISE DRIVERS PROXIMITY.
>> I BELIEVE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING FOR THE BATTLESHIP AND SOME OF THAT STUFF.
>> TO BE CLEAR, I REMEMBER WHEN THEY CAME TO US, I DON'T KNOW A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHANGE IN ZONING,
[01:15:01]
TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THIS IS A LAND BANK STRATEGY.IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S NOT THE LONG-TERM SOLUTION FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.
GIVEN THE PLANNING THAT'S GOING INTO, OF COURSE, THE PORT'S MASTER PLAN AND OTHERS, THIS IS SOMETHING TO PUT THIS PROPERTY TO USEFUL VALUABLE USE UNTIL WE HAVE A BIGGER PLAN, AND BEING A PARKING LOT IS JUST PRETTY FLEXIBLE.
>> AND INEXPENSIVE RELATIVE TO WHAT IT COULD OTHERWISE BE
>> AND FEELS A NEED AND GENERATES A LITTLE INCOME.
>> WHICH I THINK IS PART OF THE REASON THEY DON'T WANT TO PUT ALL THE DIFFERENT INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE CENTER OF THE PARKING LOT EITHER.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> I WAS THERE AT THE PARKS BOARD MEETING AND IT WAS 3-1.
I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
>> PLANNING COMMISSION, I'M SORRY.
ACTUALLY AS FAR AS THEIR REQUIREMENTS, THEY'RE LITERALLY NEAR DOUBLING WHAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PUT IN FOR THEIR PERIMETER LANDSCAPING.
NEAR DOUBLING WHAT THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED EVEN IF THEY DID PUT INTERNAL LANDSCAPING.
ONE OF THE THOUGHTS THAT CAME IN WITH THE PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND THE DESIGN THAT THEY PUT IN, REALLY, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT WOULD EVEN HAVE SIGHT OF ANY INTERNAL LANDSCAPING WOULD BE PEOPLE THAT PAID FOR THE PARKING AND ENTERED THE SPACE TO PARK THERE ANYWAY.
I FELT THAT, TO ME, THEY WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEY REALLY NEEDED TO DO.
JUST TO CONVEY THAT NOTES FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? BOB, ANYTHING? THANK YOU, TIM.
>> THAT'S ALL? I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WANTED TO PASS.
SHARON, ANYTHING YOU WANT TO BREAK FORWARD.
WE HAVE GONE THROUGH OUR CLARIFICATION ITEMS. I'VE HAD ALL MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED, SO WE'RE MOVING ALONG AT A BREAK NECK SPEED.
[3.B Pelican Island Bridge Update (D Buckley/D Glywasky - 10 min)]
ITEM 3B, PLEASE, MA'AM.>> ITEM 3B, PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE UPDATE.
>> VERY GOOD. THIS IS AN UPDATE.
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD ON TWO FRONTS.
COUNCIL, AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.
WE'RE GETTING OUR PARTICIPANT MOUS PUT TOGETHER, AND THOSE ARE BEING ADDRESSED AS WE SPEAK AT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
DON'S BEEN WORKING VERY DILIGENTLY ON THOSE.
WE'RE ALSO COMING TO TPC FOR THE FUNDING THAT TXDOT NEEDS FOR THE DEFICIT.
THEY HAVE APPOINTED A COMMITTEE.
OUR REPRESENTATIVE MARIE ROBB AT TPC IS SERVING ON THAT COMMITTEE, AND WE SHOULD HAVE A RESULT, AND RECOMMENDATION TO TPC SHORTLY ON THAT. DAN.
>> MAYOR, I KNOW I HAVE 10 MINUTES, AND I WILL DO MY BEST TO RECOUP A LITTLE BIT OF LOST TIME.
THE UPDATE, I THINK YOU JUST DID A DECENT JOB GOING THROUGH.
I GIVE YOU AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE ARE, GALVESTON COUNTY.
AS YOU KNOW, YOU-ALL APPROVED IT ALREADY.
THE COUNTY WAS AWAITING A SIGNED VERSION OF IT FROM THE CITY BEFORE IT WENT ON THEIR AGENDA.
THAT'S WHY IT DIDN'T GET ON THIS AGENDA, IT SHOULD BE ON THEIR NEXT AGENDA.
TEXAS A&M, WE'VE AGREED ON THE, LANGUAGE FOR THE INTER-LOCAL, AND WE'RE WORKING ON LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.
AS YOU KNOW, THE DEAL WITH TEXAS A&M REQUIRED THEM TO PURCHASE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE RIGHT OF FROM US.
THEY WOULD BE DOING THAT IN ADVANCE, OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, AND SO THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO MAINTAIN PELICAN ISLAND PARKWAY THROUGH THE CAMPUS DURING THE INTERVAL PERIOD.
WE'RE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
PORT HOUSTON, THE ATTORNEYS ARE WORKING ON THE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT LANGUAGE.
THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT DEALING WITH THE FUNDING AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS PRETTY WELL-CLOSED, BUT WE'VE GOT TO GET THE LANGUAGE DEALING WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDON.
THAT'S WHAT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND THE TEXAS A&M PROPERTY.
PORT GALVESTON, I THINK I REPORTED TO YOU LAST MONTH THAT WE WERE THERE.
AT SOME POINT, THAT WENT OFF THE TRACKS A LITTLE BIT.
THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT INTEREST.
THE TRUSTEES, WERE VOTED AND WERE REQUIRING THE CITY TO PAY THEM INTEREST IF THE BRIDGE DIDN'T GET BUILT ON THE MONEY THAT WAS GIVEN TO TXDOT, AND OF COURSE, THAT WOULD CREATE A DEBT FOR THE CITY, SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE COULDN'T DO.
I THINK THE MISCOMMUNICATION MAY HAVE TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE, TOLD ALL THE PARTIES IS THAT WHILE THE MONEY IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE CITY, WE'RE GOING TO EARN INTEREST ON IT, THAT INTEREST WILL THEN GO TO THE PROJECT.
THIS GALVESTON IS NOT GOING TO KEEP IT.
IT'S ALL GOING TO GO TOWARD THE PROJECT.
THE FUNDING IS NEVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH, SO ANYTHING THAT CAN GO FORWARD,
[01:20:01]
WE'LL DO THAT, BUT YESTERDAY, I THINK THAT DON AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PORT WERE ABLE TO REACH SOME UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO CREATE A DEBT TO PAY INTEREST TO THE PORT OF GALVESTON, SO WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. HI.>> THEN THAT LEADS US TO THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT.
WE'VE MET AND WE'RE DRAFTING FINAL LANGUAGE.
WE MET WITH THEIR ATTORNEY, AND WE ARE AT THE FINAL STAGES ON THAT AGREEMENT.
WE'RE THERE. WE'RE REALLY CLOSE ON ALL THE AGREEMENTS.
GALTON COUNTIES WILL BE THE FIRST ONE IN, THOUGH, AND THAT WILL BE SHORTLY.
>> VERY GOOD. AS I MENTIONED, TPC IS APPOINTED A COMMITTEE.
MARIE, YOU WANT TO GIVE A REPORT ON THAT.
>> SURE. WE HAVE A WORKING COMMITTEE NOW FOR PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE.
THE GOAL IS TO IDENTIFY THE FUNDING FOR IT.
WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING ON FOLLOWING THE TPC BOARD MEETING ON LAST TUESDAY.
WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING MONEY THAT CAN BE USED FOR THE FUNDING WITH THE GOAL OF HAVING THE FUNDING IN PLACE BY 2029.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS? ALEX.
THE RIGHT AWAY IS ON THE APPROACH IN THE WATER.
>> THE ONLY RIGHT OF WAY WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY WORKING ON IS THAT IN THE WATER.
TXDOT ASKED US TO HOLD OFF ON THAT UNTIL EVERYTHING ELSE WAS DONE.
>> THEN THE APPROACH ARE WE'RE WORKING ON THAT TOO?
>> THE APPROACH IS ALL THE EXISTING RIGHT AWAY UNDER THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT.
>> JUST FOR A FURTHER UPDATE ON THE BRIDGE.
BY TWO POINT TO THIS POINT, AND I HAD THE SHEET IN MY LITTLE THING, AND I TOOK IT OUT THIS MORNING.
I THINK TXDOT HAS BEEN CLOSE TO 7 MILLION.
THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BRIDGE HAS NEVER STOPPED.
THE ENGINEERING HAS CONTINUED.
THE GOAL OF THE PROJECT IS STILL TO LET THE PROJECT IN 2029, BUT THE HOPES ARE THAT IT MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAPPEN IN '28.
IT'S DEFINITELY HOW THE TPC WORKS, AND OR THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY COMMITTEE IS ALL THE FUNDS THAT ARE FEDERAL FUNDING THAT COME IN.
THEY HAD FALLEN INTO AN ISSUE BACK IN '18, WHERE THEY BECAME VERY BEHIND IN THE SPENDING OF THEIR MONEY.
THEY'RE LOOKING AT SPEND MONEY.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF IDENTIFYING PROJECTS THAT WON'T MAKE THE DEADLINE TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF SPENDING MONEY SO THAT THE MONEY WILL NOT BE LOST, AND THIS IS FEDERAL HIGHWAY MONEY.
AT THE SAME TIME, WE ARE ALSO WORKING WITH, OR AT LEAST I AM WORKING THROUGH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, TO GET THE BRIDGE DECLARED AS AN ON-SYSTEM BRIDGE, WHICH WOULD BE A DEFINITE PLUS FOR OUR CITY.
THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE FUNDING OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO FIND THE FUNDING THAT STILL MEANS THE PARTIES, THE PARTNERS WHO HAVE GIVEN MONEY TOWARDS THE BRIDGE, THAT STILL STAYS INTO PLACE.
WE ARE AT A GOOD PLACE RIGHT NOW AND MOVING THE PROJECT FORWARD AND ACHIEVING THE LED BY "29, HOPEFULLY MOVING A LITTLE EARLIER TO '28.
>> THE CITY'S PUTTING $8,000,000 INTO THIS PROJECT, IF IT GOES TO A NON-SYSTEM BRIDGE, WHICH WOULD BE IDEAL FOR EVERYONE, WE STILL PROBABLY WILL HAVE OUR 36.2 [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S NOT A PROBABLY. IT'S A DEFINITE [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO COMMIT TO THIS PROJECT.
IT DOESN'T DETRACT FROM THE AMOUNT OF MONEYS THAT THE LOCAL PARTICIPANTS ARE PUTTING TOGETHER.
DAN, DO YOU HAVE A TIMELINE WANTING TO GET
[01:25:01]
THESE MOUS DONE FINALIZED WITH THE PARTICIPANTS?>> JUNE OR JULY. HERD TO THE ATTORNEYS.
>> THE MAIN IMPORTANT THING IN REFERENCE TO THE AFA IS OUR RESOLUTION THAT WE ALREADY DID BACK IN A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE OUR RESOLUTION IN PLACE IS WHAT WE NEED AT THIS TIME, MOVING THE PROJECT FORWARD, BECAUSE TXDOT CAN SIGN THEIR AFA WITH HDAC TO ALL THE FUNDING IN PLACE.
WHETHER ON SYSTEM OR OFF SYSTEM, WE WILL CONTINUE WITH THIS WORK GROUP, WHICH WE'RE HOPING TO MAKE LESS THAN A SIX-MONTH WORKING GROUP BEING THE ULTIMATE OPTIMIST.
BUT AS WE ALL KNOW, NOTHING IN GOVERNMENT WORKS GOES FAST, AND IT IS MOVING FORWARD.
>> I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE ON-SYSTEM DESIGNATION.
FIRST OF ALL, IF WE STILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH OUR END OF THE MAINTENANCE, WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES TO HAVING AN ON-SYSTEM MAINTENANCE CONSTRUCTION COSTS?
>> COST OVERUNS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> COST OVERRUNS. ONGOING MAINTENANCE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> ONGOING MAINTENANCE [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S MAINLY THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE.
>> WHAT ARE WHAT WOULD QUALIFY US OR WHAT WOULD GET US OVER THAT TO HAVE THEM MAKE THE DECISION THAT IT IS AN ON-SYSTEM. WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING FOR?
CURRENTLY, THE DESIGN OF THE BRIDGE STARTS AT PORT INDUSTRIAL.
PORT INDUSTRIAL TECHNICALLY NEVER TOUCHES THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE CAUSEWAY.
THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE CAUSEWAY STARTS AT POST OFFICE AND PROCEEDS ON 51ST STREET AND RUNS ALL THE WAY DOWN.
THE NAVIGATION GROUP THAY'RE IN A SEARCH OF THE ORIGINAL DEED DEFINING THE PELICAN ISLAND CAUSEWAY.
WHAT ON SYSTEM, OFF SYSTEM HAS TO DO WITH TOUCHING A STATE HIGHWAY.
BECAUSE THE CURRENT DESIGN STARTS AT PORT INDUSTRIAL, IT'S NOT A DESIGNATED STATE HIGHWAY.
275 OR HARPER SIDE DRIVE IS A STATE HIGHWAY.
MY ARGUMENT IS THAT IT SHOULD START FROM 275, WHICH STILL, TECHNICALLY, IT SHOULD CONNECT TO A STATE HIGHWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE, BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ON-SYSTEM BRIDGES THAT TOUCH A STATE HIGHWAY.
BUT DON'T TOUCH A SECOND STATE HIGHWAY.
THAT'S HOW WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THAT.
>> THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR YEARS WITH TXDOT TO TRY TO MOVE IT TO AN ON-SYSTEM BRIDGE.
>> WHO'S GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND?
>> WELL. IT'S NOT THAT IT WOULD TAKE A VOTE OF THE COMMISSIONERS.
WHAT WILL CHANGE THEIR MIND THE GOVERNOR APPOINTS THE COMMISSIONERS.
I MEAN, BECAUSE THE CITY BEING HAVING OVERSIGHT OF SUCH AN EXPENSIVE ISLAND WITH 53,000 PEOPLE, IT'S A BURDEN.
WHAT WILL CHANGE THE MIND? I DON'T KNOW.
IF YOU HAVE ANY GOOD IDEAS, I'LL BE GLAD TO LOOK AT THEM.
>> WELL, I WOULD SAY THIS, WE'RE ALL HOPING THAT THIS WOULD GO TO AN ON-SYSTEM BRIDGE.
BUT TXDOT IS MOVING FORWARD AS IF THIS WILL NOT BE AN ON-SYSTEM BRIDGE.
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. WE'RE NOT [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOP TALKING.
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING.
>> NOTHING CHANGES IN DESIGN OR ANYTHING.
WHETHER SYSTEM-ON-SYSTEM OR OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGE, NOTHING CHANGES RELATED TO THE DESIGN.
>> THANK YOU, DAN. THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE].
>> LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3C, PLEASE, MA'AM.
[3.C Discussion of the Status of the Park Board Hot Tax Audits and the timeliness of the Park Board’s Response (C. Brown/Robb/G. Bulgherini - 20 min)]
>> ITEM 3C. DISCUSSION OF THE STATUS OF THE PARK BOARD HOT TAX AUDITS AND THE TIMELINESS OF THE PARK BOARD'S RESPONSE.
>> VERY GOOD. AS WE KNOW, WE HAD HAD THIS ITEM ON OUR AGENDA AT OUR LAST WORKSHOP.
WE HAD GIVEN DIRECTIONS TO OUR CITY AUDITOR TO SEND COMMUNICATIONS TO THE PARK BOARD TO RECEIVE BACK INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY OUR CITY AUDITOR.
[01:30:02]
GLENN HAS DONE THAT.HE'S GOT A STATUS REPORT FOR US, GLENN.
>> I WISH I COULD TIE ONE RIGHT NOW.
>> WE RECEIVED VOLUMINOUS INFORMATION TUESDAY MORNING, AND WE'RE STILL GOING THROUGH IT AS OF RIGHT NOW.
THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO REPORT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH ANYTHING.
I MEAN, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S ALL WE JUST RECEIVED IT RECENTLY, AND IT'S IN EXCESS OF 1,200 PAGES.
>> GLENN, JUST A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.
FIRST OF ALL, I TAKE IT WITH THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT'S STARTING TO FLOW IN.
THIS IS GOING TO PROBABLY TAKE YOU A LITTLE LONGER YOU THINK TO GET YOUR [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE ESTIMATING THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE US WITH THIS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION TO LOOK AT AND REVIEW AND ANALYZE AND CONFIRM, THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE US AT LEAST TILL THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
NOT COMPLETING ANY OTHER AUDITS.
YOU'D BE CONCENTRATING IN THIS ONLY YOUR ENTIRE DEPARTMENT TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> YES, DAVID. WHAT AUDITS IN YOUR AUDIT PLAN WOULD BE AT RISK OF NOT BEING COMPLETED AS A RESULT OF DOING THIS?
>> OFFHAND. THE ONLY ONE I CAN REQUIRE IS THE COURT AUDIT TO TRAVEL TO THAT.
I THINK IT'S THE PUBLIC WORKS ON THE CREDIT CARD.
NOW, WE'VE DONE MOST OF THE WORK ON THE PUBLIC WORKS, AND THERE WERE NO FINDINGS IN THAT.
WE JUST NEED TO WRITE THE REPORT.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN I'LL BE ABLE TO GET TO IT TO WRITE THE REPORT, BUT THERE WERE NO FINDINGS.
>> QUESTION. BRIAN, ARE THERE AVAILABLE FUNDS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL STAFF TO GLENN'S OFFICE AS A RESULT OF THESE SO THAT HE CAN COMPLETE HIS AMENDED [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU ALWAYS HAVE YOUR RESERVES AVAILABLE TO YOU?
>> WE'RE DOWN TO 106 DAYS. I UNDERSTAND.
>> WITH THE SALE OF THE AIRPORT PROPERTY, I THINK WE POPPED BACK UP TO 110 OR 112.
>> GLENN, FOLLOWING THE FIRST CLOSED MEETING OF THE PARK BOARD, YOU RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE PARK BOARD.
WITH ME. CAN YOU READ THAT LETTER OUT LOUD?
>> I WILL IF I GET A COPY OF IT.
>> I THINK I BROUGHT A COPY WITH ME.
>> IT'S ON MY DESK, CAN YOU GET A COPY OF THAT LETTER, PLEASE?
>> GLENN, DID YOU SEND THAT DIRECTLY TO US, OR DID YOU SEND IT THROUGH JANELLE?
>> I THINK IT CAME DIRECTLY FROM GLENN ON THAT.
>> LET ME SEE IF [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOUR COPY. THAT YOU GOT IT. LOWER THAT [OVERLAPPING].
GLENN, IS THIS THE EMAIL THAT YOU SENT MAYOR?
>> MAYOR, WE HAVE IT. IS THIS THE EMAIL THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? I THEN RESPONDED TO THE CFO'S E MAIL AS STATED BELOW. WHAT DATE WAS THAT?
>> GIVE IT TO HIM TO READ. OR YOU READ IT.
>> I CAN READ IT. IS IT THE ONE TO CARRY?
>> GOOD MORNING KERRY, I HOPE YOU HAD A GOOD WEEKEND.
THE TRUSTEES MET AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON APRIL 29, 2025 TO DISCUSS WITH THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL THE MOST RECENT REQUEST CONTAINED IN HER EMAIL OF APRIL 24TH, 2025.
BASED ON THAT DISCUSSION, STAFF WAS PROVIDED DIRECTION TO RESPOND AS FOLLOWS.
THE PARK BOARD REMAINS FULLY COMMITTED TO COOPERATING WITH THE CITY AUDITOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MARCH,
[01:35:02]
3RD, 2025 ENGAGEMENT LETTER FOR THE EXPANDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT.HOWEVER, RECENT REQUESTS APPEAR TO DEVIATE FROM STANDARD PUBLIC SECTOR AUDIT PRACTICES.
SPECIFICALLY, THE DIRECTIVE TO IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE OVER 2,400 DOCUMENTS WITHOUT ALLOWING FOR INTERNAL REVIEW IS NOT FEASIBLE AND RISKS UNDERMINING THE AUDITS OBJECTIVES.
>> YOU CAN PAUSE RIGHT THERE FOR A MINUTE.
>> THANK YOU. NO, AND I APPRECIATE YOU HAVING THAT HANDLY READY.
IS IT STANDARD AUDIT PRACTICES THAT WHOMEVER IS BEING AUDITED REVIEWS THEIR DOCUMENTS BEFORE THEY'RE HANDED OVER?
>> YOU WANT TO FINISH READING THAT? I'M SORRY.
>> THE PARK BOARD IS ACTIVELY COLLECTING AND REVIEWING MATERIALS AND HAS ALREADY SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS SUCH AS GENERAL LEDGERS THAT DID NOT REQUIRE FURTHER CONTEXT.
AS A STANDARD PRACTICE, ALL REMAINING DOCUMENTS WILL BE SUBMITTED FOLLOWING PROPER REVIEW AND ANNOTATION TO ENSURE ACCURACY AND RELEVANCE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE REQUEST TO INCLUDE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND ALL AUDIT CORRESPONDENCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH AUDIT PROTOCOLS, WHICH CALL FOR DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH FINANCE STAFF TO PROTECT DATA INTEGRITY.
AS OUTLINED IN THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER, COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT OCCURS UPON COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT, NOT DURING ITS ADMINISTRATION.
AS A RESULT, THE TRUSTEES HAVE DIRECTED STAFF TO SEND CORRESPONDENCE TO CITY AUDITOR STAFF ONLY.
THE CITY HAS AUDITED THE PARK BOARD SEVERAL TIMES IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.
THE PARK BOARD IS COMMITTED TO TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND IS WORKING TO FULLY COMPLY WITH THIS AUDIT AS IT IS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PREVIOUS AUDITS.
>> BEFORE THEY SEND THE DOCUMENTS, THEY STATED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO REVIEW THEM AND EDIT THEM, AND ANNOTATE THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE SENDING THEM OVER.
>> I'VE NEVER HAD THAT BEFORE.
WE ASKED FOR INVOICES, WHICH ARE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS, AND WE JUST WANTED TO REVIEW THOSE INVOICES AND TO BEGIN TO PLAN THE AUDIT ON WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO VERIFY THEM AND IF THEY WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH HOT.
BUT I'VE NEVER SEEN IT WHERE WE RECEIVED ANNOTATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE DIDN'T REQUEST IT FROM THE AUDITEE BUT THEY FELT IT NECESSARY TO DO THIS.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE NOW, THOSE ANNOTATIONS IN READING.
>> I'D LIKE TO GET BACK TO THE LEDGER PART.
THE LEDGERS WHICH WERE RELEASED SINCE WE WEREN'T ABLE TO GET ANY OTHER INFORMATION IN THE LEDGERS, THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE $171,000 THAT WAS SPENT OUT OF THE RESTRICTED BEACH MONEY FOR A LOBBYIST.
>> YES. WE IDENTIFIED THEM AS WR BRANDON AND THORNHILL, AND THEY ARE LOBBYISTS, AND THERE WAS AMOUNTS PAID TO THEM.
>> THAT'S THE RESTRICTED BEACH FUNDS THAT ARE OF HOT TAX THAT IS RESTRICTED TO BEACH MAINTENANCE, CLEANING, AND NOURISHMENT.
>> IT CAME OUT OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ALSO.
>> TOURIST DEVELOPMENT, AS DEFINED BY STATE LAW, I THINK IT READS THAT YOU CAN USE A LOBBYIST TO BRING [OVERLAPPING] CONVENTION.
YOU COULD SEND YOUR STAFF TO LOBBY.
>> WE HAVEN'T DONE THE AUDITS YET.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IN READING THE STATE LAW, THAT'S HOW I READ IT, THAT IT CAN BE USED FOR BRINGING CONVENTIONS.
JUST SO OUR CITIZENS AND EVERYONE ARE CLEAR, IN THIS LETTER, BEFORE THEY HAND OVER THE MATERIALS REQUESTED, THEY WANT TO REVIEW THEM AND ANNOTATE THEM.
THEY SENT OVER THE LEDGERS THAT SHOWED INAPPROPRIATE USE OF BEACH MAINTENANCE MONEY, RESTRICTIVE FUNDS, BUT THEY WANTED TO REVIEW THE [OVERLAPPING] INVOICES,
[01:40:07]
AND SO FORTH, AND ANNOTATE.THE INFORMATION THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED, IS THERE ANNOTATIONS ON THAT?
>> WHAT'S THE NATURE OF THE ANNOTATIONS?
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO TRACK DOWN ALL THAT ARE ANNOTATIONS.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENT, THE INVOICE, AND THE ANNOTATION, IT APPEARS THAT ON THE ANNOTATION THEY DREW AN ARROW, AND THEN THERE'S A SQUARE BOX, AND THEN THERE IS SOME REASONING IN THERE.
>> THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION, THOUGH IS STILL THERE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE HAVING TO CHECK OFF AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING IT ALL.
>> HOW LONG YOU SAID IT'S GOING TO TAKE YOU TO DO THESE 1,200 DOCUMENTS THAT YOU JUST GOT?
>> I'M HOPING TO BE FINISHED SEPTEMBER 30TH.
>> NO, SIR. THIS ISN'T EVEN HALF OF THE INFORMATION.
THEY'RE SAYING IT'S 2,400-PLUS DOCUMENTS.
WE RECEIVED AROUND 1,200, SO IT'S NOT EVEN HALF OF WHAT WE REQUESTED.
>> BUT YOUR PLAN IS TO HAVE IT DONE BY THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.
WHAT OTHER RESOURCES WOULD YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO YOUR OTHER TWO AUDITS THAT YOU'RE HAVING TO NOT DO BECAUSE OF THIS ONE?
>> I WOULD SAY ADDITIONAL AUDITORS.
>> WHAT WAS YOUR ANSWER, GLENN?
>> ADDITIONAL AUDITORS. I'M SORRY.
>> WHAT WOULD THAT COST JUST TO GET US THROUGH THIS ANNUAL AUDIT PLAN?
>> ONE EXTRA INTERNAL AUDITOR, I WOULD SAY, AT THIS LEVEL, WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO BE A CPA, SO SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $100,000.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HE NEEDS AN ADDITIONAL AUDITOR.
BY DOING THAT, YOU WOULD DO THE PORTS AUDIT FOR TRAVEL.
>> IF COUNSEL WISHES ME TO DO THAT, YES, SIR.
>> I PERSONALLY FEEL PORTS HANDLE THAT, BUT ANYWAY, SECOND OF ALL, WHAT OTHER AUDITS THAT YOU WOULD NOT?
>> OFFHAND, I CAN REMEMBER THE PUBLIC WORKS CREDIT CARD AUDIT THAT I NEED TO WRITE THE REPORT ON, BUT LIKE I SAID, THERE WERE NO FINDINGS ON THAT.
>> CARRY OFFHAND, CAN YOU SHARE? CAN YOU REMEMBER THE OTHER TWO AUDITS THAT WE NEED TO FULFILL, COUNCIL'S CHARGED US WITH?
>> WE JUST HAVE TO FINISH THE SALES TAX AUDITS. THERE ARE SIX ALREADY.
>> THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT EQUIPMENT FOR OVER 100,000.
>> THOSE WE NEED TO WRITE AS WELL.
>> BACK TO THE TOPIC NOW THAT IS BEFORE US ON THE INVOICES, GLENN.
YOU HAVEN'T RECEIVED THE INVOICES TO DETERMINE HOW THAT MONEY WAS SPENT BY THE LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANTS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. I WANT TO I WANT TO GO FURTHER INTO THIS AND LOOK INTO IT AND GIVE COUNCIL A SPECIFIC ANSWER AS TO WHAT THE [NOISE] [INAUDIBLE] WERE WORKING ON SO THAT COUNCIL CAN MAKE A JUDGMENT.
>> PART OF THAT WOULD BE THE LEGAL APPLICATION OF THOSE TWO SOURCE FUNDS, THE BEACH USER FEE AND THE FUNDING SOURCE, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, OF THE LOBBYIST, WE'D HAVE A LEGAL OPINION ON WHETHER THAT WAS A LEGAL USE OF HOT TAX.
THERE'S ALL DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS.
I WOULD LIKE TO DO THE RESEARCH TO SEE IF THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO OR IF IT'S SPENT ON LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY, THEN IT'S JUST A MOOT POINT, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.
BUT I WOULD NEED TIME TO DO THE RESEARCH.
MY HOPE AS TO THE MAIN OUTCOME OF THIS AUDIT IS TO GIVE COUNCIL A RESOURCE TO DETERMINE IN THE FUTURE, TO HAVE SOME OVERSIGHT AND SOME INTERPRETATION ON WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR HOT.
I THINK THAT WE FOUND THAT IN AN AG OPINION WHEN GOVERNOR ABBOTT WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
[01:45:02]
THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES GOVERNING BODY ASKED THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR HOT MAX.THAT'S WHAT I HOPE IS THE MAJOR OUTCOME OF US ON IT.
>> WE HAVE ALEX AND THEN MARIE. ALEX.
>> AMONG THE OTHER ISSUES, WHICH WAS GOING TO BE ANOTHER ITEM ON THE AGENDA, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THEY ARE REVIEWING AND ANNOTATING ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTATION, WHICH IN MY OPINION, CALLS INTO QUESTION OR MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR YOUR OFFICE TO BE OBJECTIVE AS IT CAN BE WITH RESPECT TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE INVOICES.
>> IN RESPECT TO THAT, IT'S USUALLY THE AUDITOR'S JUDGMENT AFTER THEY'VE RECEIVED THE INFORMATION TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF THEIR AUDITING PROCEDURES TO DETERMINE IF ANY OF THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN TAMPERED WITH OR IF THEY CAN BE USED IN THE AUDIT.
>> NOT THAT FAR YET. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT ALL WE NEED TO COLLECT FROM THE PARK BOARD.
LIKE I SAID, IT IS VOLUMINOUS.
>> YOU'VE RECEIVED LESS THAN HALF, AND IT'S BEEN TWO MONTHS SINCE YOU'VE ASKED FOR THAT INFORMATION.
>> I THINK AS OF TODAY, IT WOULD BE A LITTLE OVER SIX WEEKS.
>> IN THIS EMAIL THAT WE RECEIVED, IT STATES THAT WE ARE RECEIVING ANNOTATED AND REVIEWED DOCUMENTS.
I FIND IT DIFFICULT FOR AT LEAST THIS COUNSEL TO SIT HERE AND SAY WHY ARE WE ALLOWING THAT? THE LAST MEETING, MARIE HAD SAID THAT THE REVIEWING WAS A MOOT POINT.
WE GAVE AN INDICATION THAT YOU'RE NOT TO REVIEW, YOU NEED TO TURN OVER THE INVOICES.
IN COMMUNICATION WITH YOU, I ASKED, CAN WE GET A READ-ONLY ENTRANCE INTO THEIR FINANCIAL SOFTWARE.
YOU HAD THAT PRIVILEGE, I GUESS, OR THAT ACCESS PRIOR, AND NOW YOU DON'T, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YOUR ACCESS TO BE READ-ONLY TWO MONTHS AGO, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD ACCESS TO THOSE INVOICES.
WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE WAITING, GETTING ANNOTATED INVOICES.
ALTERED MAYBE BECAUSE TIME HAS GONE BY.
THEY'VE HAD SPECIAL MEETINGS AND IT'S ALL BEEN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR THING.
THERE'S BEEN DIRECTION GIVEN IN THAT.
THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW, COUNCIL DOESN'T KNOW, AND YOU'RE STILL NOW GETTING THE HALF OF THE INVOICES.
WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE OTHER HALF.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION ABOUT ELECTRONIC ACCESS.
DURING AN AUDIT OF ENTITIES THAT COUNCIL HAS A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR, IS IT COMMON PRACTICE FOR YOU TO BE ALLOWED ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO THOSE FILES FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE AUDIT?
>> WHAT I JUST HEARD FROM COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTO IS THAT YOU HAD ACCESS, AND THEN YOU WERE DENIED ACCESS.
>> OUR BOARD STATED, WE WILL GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION IN THIS MANNER, AND WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM BRYSON THAT THEY WILL DO IT ON THE FOLDER.
WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION IN THAT MANNER, HOWEVER THEY WANT TO GIVE IT TO US.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I THINK WHAT GLENN IS SAYING IS BEFORE THAT HE COULD SELF-ACCESS AND NOW THEY WOULD PREFER TO GIVE IT TO HIM.
>> IF YOU GET AUDITED BY THE IRS OR THE COMPTROLLER AND THEY ASK YOU FOR YOUR INVOICES, FOR YOUR BANK STATEMENTS, DO YOU GET TO TELL THEM [OVERLAPPING] I WANT TO ANNOTATE IT, AND WE'LL GET HALF OF THEM TO YOU BY A CERTAIN DATE AND THEN THE OTHER HALF BY THE OTHER DAY.
>> I WAS AT THE STATE COMPILERS PRIVATE CONTRACTOR, SEVEN YEARS.
>> WHAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT HERE? THEY REQUEST THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENTS, THE INVOICES, AND NOTHING BUT THAT.
THEN THEY WILL COME BACK AND ASK IF THEY HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
>> IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT MAYBE SOME OF THE INVOICES
[01:50:03]
ARE IN FILE BOXES THAT YOU'D HAVE TO GO PHYSICALLY GET, OR IS IT MOSTLY ALL ELECTRONIC?>> I THINK THEY ALREADY HAVE IT ELECTRONICALLY ON PDF FORMAT.
>> FOR A REASONING STANDPOINT, IF THEY NEED TO ANNOTATE FOR REASONING, THE REASONING IN ANY GOOD FINANCIAL INSTITUTION OR PRACTICE, YOU WOULD PUT THE REASONING ON THE FRONT END ABOUT WHAT THE PURCHASE WAS FOR, WHO IT WAS WITH, SO TO SPEAK.
>> WHERE THE FUNDS WERE FROM WOULD ACCOUNT.
YOU WOULD PUT THAT ALL ON THE FRONT END SO THAT IF YOU WERE REVIEWED OR AUDITED, THE AUDITOR ACTUALLY HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEFOREHAND, CORRECT?
>> IS THAT STANDARD FINANCIAL PRACTICE? HAVE YOU SEEN SOME DO IT, SOME NOT DO IT?
>> JUST ABOUT EVERY AUDIT THAT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH OF THIS NATURE OF REVIEWING INVOICES, A SCHEDULE IS MADE OF ALL OF THE INVOICES, AND ALL INVOICES ARE ACCOUNTED FOR.
IN OTHER WORDS, THAT EVERYTHING THAT WAS ASKED FOR IN THE SAMPLE THAT THE AUDITOR HAS RECEIVED.
THEN COLUMNS ARE MADE TO THE SIDE WHERE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE MANNER IN WHICH THE INVOICES WERE PAID IF THEY DO MEET THE COMPLIANCE TEST, AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT COMPLIANCE TESTS.
IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE IS THIS-
>> GLENN, LET'S GO TO THE BOTTOM LINE HERE.
DID THEY TELL YOU WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE REST OF THIS INFORMATION TO YOU?
>> DON, WHAT IS OUR NEXT STEP HERE TO GATHER THIS INFORMATION WITHOUT THE ANNOTATIONS AND MOVE FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE?
>> WELL, THEY ARE YOUR APPOINTEES, AREN'T THEY? IF I COULD HAZARD A SUGGESTION, YOU COULD GIVE CLEAR AND CONCISE DIRECTIONS TO THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, WHAT YOU EXPECT, HOW YOU EXPECT, AND WHEN YOU EXPECT IT TO BE EXECUTED.
YOU CANNOT VOTE ON THIS ITEM TODAY, IS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
BUT IF YOU WISH, YOU COULD CONVENE A SPECIAL MEETING SOMETIME.
>> NEXT WEEK, AND SEND A COMMUNICATION TO THEM, WHICH CLEARLY SETS OUT YOUR EXPECTATIONS WITH A TIMELINE.
STAFF WILL BE HAPPY TO DRAFT SUCH A LETTER FOR YOU.
>> THEY'RE HOSTING A SPECIAL MEETING TODAY IF WE CAN HAVE OUR LIAISON.
>> WITH THAT, WE SHOULD SAY HELLO TO KIMBERLY AND BRYSON, WHO ARE UNDOUBTEDLY LISTENING IN.
>> I THINK THAT THAT'S BEEN VERY SPECIFICALLY LINED OUT.
MAYBE NOT FORMALLY IN A LETTER FROM STAFF, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN MADE VERY AWARE OUR EXPECTATIONS.
>> THEY'RE NOT ABIDING BY THE EXPECTATIONS THAT WE'VE SET AGAIN AND AGAIN.
>> MAKING DECISIONS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION INSTEAD OF PUBLICLY, WHICH THE PUBLIC, THAT'S THEIR INFORMATION AS WELL.
>> WELL, THE AGENDA ITEM UNDER DISCUSSION AT THIS WORKSHOP IS THE STATUS OF GLENN'S AUDIT.
>> GOT YOU. WELL, IT'S DISCUSSION OF AND STATUS REPORT.
>> YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO ANALYZE ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT YOU'VE HAD SO FAR.
>> WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IS THE ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENT, OR SOME ANNOTATION, OR SOME MARK OF SOME KIND?
>> YES, SIR. WE'RE TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT IS AN ANNOTATION? THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT THEY ANNOTATED, THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SQUARE BOXES.
WE'RE ASSUMING THAT'S THE ANNOTATIONS THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT.
>> BUT YOU HAVE THE CLEAR SOURCE DOCUMENT.
I GUESS YOU DON'T KNOW YET IF THOSE ANNOTATIONS ARE USEFUL OR NOT?
>> ONE OTHER THING IS, IT'S TAKING YOU A WHILE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS AND IT TAKES THE PARK BOARD A WHILE ALSO TO DO THIS.
THEY HAVE LIMITED MANPOWER, THEY HAVE JOBS.
>> WHY DOESN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS? THERE'S NO REASON TO GO THROUGH THIS. THIS IS AN AUDIT.
>> THANK YOU. ALL I'M SAYING IS, THEY HAVE LIMITED RESOURCES TO DO WHAT THE COUNCIL IS ASKING THEM TO DO.
[01:55:05]
THEY CAN'T HIRE ANYBODY ELSE.THEY STILL HAVE OTHER WORK THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO.
I KNOW WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SET THEM UP FOR MORE FAILURE BY GIVING DEMANDS TO THEM THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CRIPPLE THEIR EXISTING OPERATION.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO OUR ACTIONS TO THE PARK BOARD.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE EVER HEARD FROM THE PARK BOARD DIRECTLY WHY THEY HAVE TO ANNOTATE THEM? WHAT KIND OF VALUES THAT BRING TO THE AUDIT?
>> WE WOULD IF ALL THEIR MEETINGS WERE DONE IN PRIVATE.
>> WELL, LET'S LET BOB FINISH.
>> ANYBODY HERE HAS EVER BEEN TO A PARK BOARD MEETING, EXCEPT FOR ME, I THINK OR ANYBODY HAS EVER CONTACTED THE PARK BOARD STAFF TO FIND OUT WHAT IS BEHIND THIS NEED TO ANNOTATE? WHAT ARE YOUR RESOURCES THAT YOU CAN PUT TOWARDS SATISFYING THIS AUDIT? WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT YET. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING, IS I DON'T WANT US TO SET THEM UP FOR FAILURE.
>> BOB WE SAT HERE IN THIS TABLE WITH THEM TO DISCUSS THIS AUDIT.
>> LET'S LET BOB FINISH HIS STATEMENT, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT.
>> MY POINT WAS THAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE US AS DICTATORS.
I WANT TO SEE AS WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS TO TRY TO SOLVE PROBLEMS. I DON'T WANT TO SET THEM UP FOR FURTHER FAILURE, BUT I JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT SITUATION THEY'RE IN AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T SET SOMEBODY ELSE UP FOR FURTHER FAILURE. THAT'S ALL.
>> WE HAVE MARIE, BEAU, SHARON, ALEX.
>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BOB, THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THEM HAVING TO HAVE EXTRA STAFF, GLENN JUST TOLD YOU HE HAD READ-ONLY ACCESS TO THE FILES THAT HE NEEDED TO SEE.
IT WOULDN'T HAVE INCREASED THEIR WORKLOAD.
HE COULD HAVE DONE IT WITH HIS STAFF, HIMSELF, GOTTEN THE DOCUMENTS, BUT THEY HAVE DECIDED AFTER PROVIDING THEIR GENERAL LEDGERS THAT SHOWED THEY WERE USING RESTRICTED FUNDS FOR LOBBYISTS, THAT THEY WERE NO LONGER GOING TO GIVE GLENN ACCESS TO THE FILES THAT THEY WANTED TO FIRST REVIEW THEIR INVOICES AS STATED IN A LETTER THAT YOU RECEIVED ELECTRONICALLY AS WELL AS IT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.
TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IT BEING EXTRA WORK ON THEM, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY WORK ON THEM IF THEY HAD JUST FILED FOLLOWED STANDARD AUDIT PRACTICES.
>> WE HAVE BEAU, SHARON, ALEX.
LET'S TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC WITH THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC ON THE RESULTS SO FAR FOR THE PARK BOARD OF RETURNING MATERIALS TO GLENN. GO AHEAD.
>> I'VE MADE STATEMENT AFTER STATEMENT TO SAY, WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
WE'RE ALL IN THIS AS THE SAME COMMUNITY.
IF HABITS WERE FORMED THAT WERE NOT GOOD, LET'S CORRECT THEM.
LET'S GET DONE WITH THIS AUDIT AND MOVE FORWARD SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THINGS BETTER.
I KNOW THAT YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY THAT MULTIPLE TIMES, BOB.
TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAD AN AUDIT THAT WE ACTUALLY SUPPORTED WITH ANOTHER UNIT TO HELP WITH THAT AUDIT, WHO HAD ACCESS THAT JUST SIMPLY WANTS THE INFORMATION SO THAT HE CAN TAKE THAT INFORMATION DOWN, DISSEMINATE IT, AND PRESENT IT TO BOTH OF US.
TO ME, THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE PROCESS.
IN THE MEANTIME, IT'S BECOME SUCH A FIGHT.
IT'S CONSUMED ALL OVER OUR TIME TO WHERE WE CAN'T REALLY WORK ON THE THINGS THAT THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS.
IT'S CONSUMED ALL OF OUR TIME WHEN IT REALLY DIDN'T NEED TO CONSUME ANY OF OUR TIME.
IT WAS A SIMPLE ACCESS THAT WAS GIVEN TO OUR AUDITOR AND HIS STAFF TO TAKE THE INFORMATION, DISSEMINATE THE INFORMATION, AND PRESENT IT BACK TO US.
NOW, THIS IS A FOURTH OR FIFTH TIME TO DISCUSS WHY WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE INFORMATION.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW ANYONE CAN SEE THAT AS WORKING WITH SOMEBODY.
>> REGARDING THE AUDITS, YOU SAID THAT YOU'VE ALREADY COMPLETED THE PUBLIC WORKS CREDIT CARD?
>> IT'S BEEN FOR THE MOST PART.
>> YOU JUST NEED TO WRITE THE REPORT?
[02:00:01]
>> AND THE ONE FOR THE COST OVER $100,000 EQUIPMENT, THAT ONE?
>> THAT ONE, I THINK WE STILL NEED TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF WORK ON IT BEFORE I CAN BEGIN TO WRITE THAT REPORT.
STILL NEEDS TO BE SOME WORK ON IT.
>> MY QUESTION IS, SHOULD HE COMPLETE THINGS AND GO AHEAD AND WRITE THE REPORT OF THE LITTLE ONES AND THEN MOVE ON.
THAT'S MY QUESTION, BUT I'M NOT FINISHED.
THE CITY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED SOME CLEAR DIRECTIONS TO BE WRITTEN.
WITHIN THAT DIRECTION, WOULD YOU ALSO PUT A REQUEST THAT THE READ-ONLY ACCESS OR PERMISSION BE GRANTED AGAIN?
>> I HAVE ANOTHER MEETING ON THIS POSSIBLY NEXT WEEK, SHOP IN AN ACTION, I THINK I CAN DRAFT SOMETHING BASED ON PRIOR CONVERSATIONS.
YOU CAN REVIEW IT, I CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS, AND THEN YOU CAN ACT ON IT IN WORKSHOP AND REGULAR SECTION.
>> THE LAST QUESTION OR COMMENT, I'M NOT AN AUDITOR.
I THINK I'VE SHARED THAT WITH YOU BEFORE.
WHEN YOU START ONE LIKE THAT, DO YOU START WITH THE COLUMN OF RESTRICTED FUNDS OR DID THAT POP OUT? HOW DID THAT PART THAT THEY SPENT? WAS THAT THE FIRST DOCUMENT THEY GAVE YOU OR HOW DID YOU GET TO THE RESTRICTED FUNDS OF THE 100,000 BEING USED FOR LOBBYISTS?
>> WE WE GOT THAT FROM THE GENERAL LEDGER THAT THEY GAVE US.
WE SHOWED WHERE THEY PAID THAT.
IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, THE REASON THAT WE WENT TO THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAD FOUND IN A PRIOR AUDIT, A CHECK THAT HAD BEEN WRITTEN TO SOMEONE'S FAMILY MEMBER. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M EVEN HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING YOU.
>> I'M SORRY. DOES THAT WORK OR NOT?
>> I'M SORRY [LAUGHTER] I HAVE A SLEEP APNEA CONDITION. IT'S HARD TO TALK.
>> I CAN HEAR YOU, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND.
>> THERE WAS A CHECK WRITTEN OUT OF HOT FUNDS TO SOMEONE'S FAMILY MEMBER IN A PRIOR AUDIT THAT WE DISCUSSED.
I WAS FORCED TO ASK COUNCIL TO DO MORE TESTING ON THESE HOT TAX EXPENDITURES.
THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE FIRST PART OF WHAT YOU SAID?
>> WELL, I COULDN'T HEAR THE FIRST PART OF WHAT HE SAID.
>> LET ME REPEAT MY QUESTION BECAUSE I REMEMBER THAT.
MY QUESTION WAS ONCE YOU'VE RECEIVED THESE DOCUMENTS, THE MOST RECENT DOCUMENTS, AND YOU LOOK AT A GENERAL LEDGER, I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY, AND THERE IS A RESTRICTED COLUMN?
>> THE GENERAL LEDGER JUST SHOWS WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE TO AND WHERE THEY WERE CLASSIFIED.
>> IT POPPED OUT TO YOU THAT THE 100,000 WAS PAID TO A LOBBYIST?
>> THERE WERE MANY CHECKS TO LOBBYIST, MONTHLY CHECKS.
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE LITTLE ONES COMPLETED AND FINALIZED AND WRITTEN AND THEN LET THEM ALL GET FOCUSED ON YOUR LARGER PICTURE.
THAT'S LIKE YOUR LITTLE ONES, THE PUBLIC WORKS CREDIT CARD, CLOSE THAT ONE OUT.
>> THE SMALLER AUDIT. I'LL WORK ON THESE ONES.
>> NO, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT THESE ARE SMALLER ONES THAT ARE STILL HANGING.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. WE HAD THIS, I THINK I ASKED COUNCIL TO PERFORM SIX MORE SALES TAX AUDITS.
>> GLENN, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE YOU TO CLOSE OUT THESE SMALL ONES THAT ARE HANGING?
>> ISN'T THAT OFF TOPIC? AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THE PARK BOARD, WHERE'S OUR ATTORNEY?
>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AUDITS, AND HE MENTIONED THOSE AUDITS.
WHAT I'M JUST SAYING IS THAT MAYBE JUST GET RID OF THE LITTLE ONES HANGING AND START WITH YOUR LARGER PROJECT HERE THAT YOU HAVE TO DO.
>> YOU WANT TO TAKE HIM OFF THE PARK BOARD AUDIT?
>> NO. HE FINISHED THE CREDIT CARD.
ALL HE HAS TO DO IS WRITE A SUMMARIZATION.
>> HE JUST SAID PUBLIC WORKS CREDIT CARD.
>> HE'S BEEN ON THE AUDIT PLAN THAT WE APPROVED.
>> BUT THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC ON THE AGENDA.
SHARON IS REQUESTING THAT WE JUST CLOSE OUT THESE OTHER SHORT ONES.
[OVERLAPPING] JUST ONE SECOND. THEN WE NEED TO COME BACK NOW.
SHARON, LET'S COME BACK TO WHERE WE ARE ON THE TOPIC OFFICE HERE.
>> THEN GO AHEAD AND DO THE AUDIT THAT YOU'RE DOING ON THE PARK BOARD AS THEY GIVE YOU INFORMATION OR WHATEVER, AND AS YOU WRITE WHAT WE ARE TO REQUEST.
>> THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVED TUESDAY,
[02:05:01]
JUST SET THAT ASIDE FOR NOW?WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS THAT, I'M HEARING THIS THING [OVERLAPPING] THAT IT STILL SAID AUDIT, AND HE MENTIONED IT.
I'M SAYING THOSE ARE SMALL THINGS, GET THEM OVER WITH.
GET THEM OUT OF THE WAY. CLOSE IT OUT.
>> I THINK THAT'S BEEN COMMUNICATED.
LET'S COME BACK TO THIS TOPIC NOW, THE AUDIT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US HERE.
DON, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING A SPECIAL MEETING?
>> WOULD HAPPEN NEXT WEEK. YOU WOULD DRAFT.
>> I'LL GET WITH CLINT. HELP HIM.
DRAFT ME A LETTER THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND YOU ENDORSE.
YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT DRAFT IN A WORKSHOP.
YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU COULD GO WITH IT AND BRING IT BACK FOR ACTION 15 MINUTES LATER.
>> I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THIS UP.
IF WE FOLLOW THAT LINE OF THOUGHT, THIS WOULD BE SENT TO THE PARK BOARD?
>> TO THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES WHERE THE CITY TO CONVEY FOR COUNCIL TO CLEARLY CONVEY ITS EXPECTATIONS AND GOALS THAT IT WISHES THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO ENSURE OCCURS WITH APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTIONS TO THEIR STAFF.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. PERSONALLY, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY RELAYED TO THEM, BUT SECOND OF ALL, I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST THAT.
WHAT'S OUR ALTERNATIVE, DON, OTHER THAN THAT?
>> TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION OTHER THAN SENDING THE LETTER THROUGH THE SPECIAL MEETING.
>> WAIT FOR THEM TO TAKE THEIR SWEET TIME AND GIVE GLENN WHATEVER IT IS HE'S WAITING FOR.
>> IN REGARDS TO THE PREVIOUS ACCESS THAT WAS REMOVED, THEY'RE CREATING MORE WORK FOR THEMSELVES.
THEY ARE REVIEWING, AND IT'S CLEAR NOW THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THEY'RE REVIEWING AND ANNOTATING EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF INFORMATION, WHICH IS NOT ONLY WASTING THEIR TIME, IT'S WASTING OUR TIME.
GLENN'S OFFICE FOR THE LAST TWO MONTHS, HAS BEEN DOING SOME OF THOSE SALES TAX AUDITS, BUT LARGELY HAVE BEEN WAITING AND TRYING TO VERIFY SOME OF THE STUFF ON THE GENERAL LEDGER, WHICH IS A WASTE OF TAXPAYER FUNDS WHEN HE'S BEEN TASKED TO DO A JOB, AND THEY'RE IN GEAR TO DO THIS, AND IT'S NOT GETTING HANDED OVER.
THERE'S BEEN OTHER CONSEQUENCES SINCE WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS THAT HAVE LARGELY AFFECTED OUR CITY STAFF, LARGELY AFFECTED THE TAXPAYERS, THAT PROBABLY WILL.
I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT WAS DONE AFTER WE HAD ASKED FOR 100% HOT TAX AUDIT.
HOW IS IT FAIR TO OUR STAFF, OUR CITIZENS, THE PUBLIC, FOR AN UNELECTED BOARD AND THEIR STAFF TO NOT TURNOVER INFORMATION WHEN WE'VE ASKED FOR IT, THREE TIMES, FOUR TIMES NOW? WHY STALL? WHY WAIT? THEY'RE NOT DOING IT?
>> ALEX, I UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHTS.
>> I HAVE A FEW MORE THOUGHTS.
WE'VE RUN INTO SOME OF THE THINGS ON THE GENERAL LEDGER, WHICH MARIE AND I HAD THE PLEASURE OF UNDERSTANDING THOSE EXPENDITURES WITH THE TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYIST AND THOSE EFFECTS AND HOW THAT WAS BEING PUT TO WORK.
>> WE WERE ACTUALLY TOLD BY OUR STATE SENATOR THAT IT IS ILLEGAL TO USE RESTRICTIVE FUNDS ON A TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYIST, AND WE KNOW THAT BY THEIR GENERAL LEDGER, THAT HAPPENED.
>> NOT ONLY THAT, THE VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE LAW WITH THAT, UNDER 556, YOU CANNOT LOBBY THE STATE LEGISLATURE WITH STATE FUNDS.
WHAT THAT DOES, JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT AN UNELECTED BOARD DID, PUTS INTO JEOPARDY ALL OF THE CITY'S STATE FUNDS, ALL OF IT.
TO CROSS REFERENCE THE EXPENDITURES, THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION HAS FILING REPORTS THAT THESE LOBBYISTS WERE FILED UNDER AND GIVEN FUNDS BY THE PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND THE US SENATE REQUIRES THEIR FEDERAL LOBBYIST TO HAVE THE SAME THING.
[02:10:02]
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING AND WHAT I THINK LARGELY, WE NOT ONLY HAVE THE DUTY TO DO NOW, IS WE DO A COUNCIL INVESTIGATION INTO ALL OF THE ACTIONS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO INTO IT FURTHER.>> IT'S NOT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING.
IF WE PUT IT IN A SPECIAL MEETING, THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE DO NOW.
>> COUNCIL INVESTIGATION, WHAT IS THAT?
>> ARTICLE 3, SECTION 2-146 OF THE CHARTER?
>> NO. I UNDERSTAND. BUT HOW DO YOU SEE THAT UNFOLDING, ALEX?
>> WE EXERCISE OUR SUBPOENA POWERS, WE UNDERSTAND WHY THESE INVOICES HAVE TO BE ANNOTATED, WE UNDERSTAND WHAT ACTIONS WERE TAKEN REGARDS TO AUSTIN, WE UNDERSTAND WHY THE VIOLATIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT ARE OCCURRING, AND THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I PERSONALLY SEE FORWARD.
>> WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WE'RE TRYING TO FIND.
>> WE'RE TRYING TO FIND. WE DON'T UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING. I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE INVOKE THAT.
>> GLENN, ANY COMMENTS ON THAT?
>> NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS VIOLATIONS OF THE OPEN RECORDS ACT BY THE PARK BOARD, AND YET HERE WE ARE DISCUSSING SOMETHING NOT ON THE AGENDA.
SO THAT DISCUSSION SEEMS INAPPOSITE.
>> IF MR. PORRETTO WISHES TO PUT THAT ON A SPECIAL SESSION FOR A SPECIAL MEETING NEXT WEEK, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
>> IF WE HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING, I THINK, ALEX, WE COULD GET THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL TO WEIGH IN ON AND VOTE ON ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
>> I WOULD THINK YOU COULD DO THIS SPECIAL MEETING IN AN HOUR.
>> WELL, WHATEVER IT TAKES ON THAT.
>> ONE COMMENT BEFORE WE GO THERE.
>> THIS SPECIAL MEETING, I THINK IT MAY BE USEFUL IN ANOTHER SENSE.
IF WE CAN HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE PARK BOARD AT THIS MEETING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS DIRECTLY BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.
IT'S TO NEGOTIATE AND SEE WHAT THE IMPACT OF IT IS, AND I THINK THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAYS BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER REALLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO US ABOUT THIS AND ANSWER QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY ON THIS ONE TOPIC.
WE HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT IT TANGENTLY IN A JOINT MEETING, BUT NOT TO FOCUS ON IT.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO HEAR FROM THEM ABOUT SOME OF THESE THINGS AND GET FIRSTHAND INFORMATION ON REASONS FOR SOME OF THEM OR WHAT THE IMPACT IS.
>> VERY GOOD. COUNCIL, WE DON'T VOTE IN WORKSHOP.
ARE WE THINKING ABOUT A SPECIAL MEETING?
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE CLOSED ON THE 26TH.
>> CAN WE BE HERE THE FOLLOWING WEEK?
>> I'M OUT OF TOWN THE NEXT WEEK.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I'M GOING TO GET WI-FI RECEPTION OR INTERNET RECEPTION WHERE I AM.
>> MAYBE JANELLE COULD GET WITH YOU ALL DURING YOUR LUNCH OR LATER DAY.
>> WE CAN DO, AT LEAST WITH MY SCHEDULE, WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY OF NEXT WEEK.
TUESDAY IS THE WHARVES BOARD MEETING.
>> I THINK IT'S PERTINENT THAT WE'RE ALL TOGETHER.
>> WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
I THINK WE ALL AGREE A SPECIAL MEETING, WE CAN GET THAT TIME TOGETHER.
WE STILL HAVE A LOT ON OUR AGENDA THIS MORNING, AND I SUGGEST WE TAKE A BREAK BEFORE THE NEXT TOPIC.
I WOULD SAY THAT WE NEED TO DO THIS SOONER THAN LATER ON THIS PARTICULAR MEETING.
WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE.
THIS IS A TOPIC THAT I THINK WOULD BE IMPORTANT NOT TO HAVE SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS MISSING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. YES, SIR.
>> I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THE TIME CONSUMPTION OF THIS FOR US AND OUR STAFF AND THE PARKS BOARD SIMPLY COULD HAVE BEEN ALL DONE AWAY WITH WITH SIMPLE ACCESS TO OUR AUDITOR, LET HE AND HIS STAFF HAVE DONE HIS JOB, AND NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE.
[02:15:03]
SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS A POINT.>> JANELLE, WE'LL WORK WITH COUNCIL HERE TO LOOK AT A DAY FOR OUR SPECIAL MEETING AND WE'LL THEN NOTIFY COUNCIL ONCE WE GET ALL THOSE DETAILS PUT TOGETHER.
DON, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE?
>> ANY MORE INPUT ON THIS, COUNCIL? IT'S 11:15 AM.
WE'VE GONE THROUGH THREE ITEMS, I THINK.
>> FOUR ITEMS. 11:15 AM, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK.
WE ARE A LITTLE RUNNING BEHIND.
WE ARE BACK INTO OUR WORKSHOP HERE, IF YOU'RE IN THE COMMUNITY AND WATCHING THIS, GLAD TO HAVE YOU.
COUNCIL, ALSO, JUST FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE LUNCH THERE, SO WE NEED TO STAGGER THINGS.
>> GETTING A LITTLE CARE OUT THERE, ARE YOU?
>> SEE WHERE WE STAND AS WE MOVE FORWARD HERE ON HOW WE WANT TO BREAK FOR LUNCH COMING UP HERE.
WE SHOULD JUST DO THE REST OF THIS AS EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3D, PLEASE, JANELLE.
[3.D Discussion on the violations of the Open Meetings Act and Public Information Act by the Galveston Park Board of Trustees (Porretto/C. Brown - 15 min)]
>> ITEM 3D, DISCUSSION OF THE VIOLATIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT BY THE GALVESTON PARK BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
>> I GUESS WE TOUCHED ON SOME OF THAT.
THE TWO PREVIOUS SPECIAL MEETINGS THAT WERE HELD.
THE FIRST ONE WAS PROVIDED TO US IN THE EMAIL FROM BRYSON ON MAY 5TH, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THE STAFF WAS PROVIDED DIRECTION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH MAYBE LEGAL CAN WEIGH IN, WHICH I BELIEVE IS JUST A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT WHERE A FINAL DECISION HAS TO BE MADE PUBLICLY.
THE SECOND ONE WAS WHEN THEY CAME OUT OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT THE SECOND SPECIAL MEETING, THE MOST RECENT ONE.
ESSENTIALLY, THERE'S A STANDARD AND AG OPINION THAT'S CALLED STRAW VOTE WHERE YOU ESSENTIALLY TALLY VOTES BEFORE YOU COME OUT OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, MAKE A MOTION, WHICH IN SOME REGARDS, THERE'S SOME PLAY THERE, I GUESS, LEGALLY SAYING, STANDING WISE, BUT THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE WAS TO DIRECT LEGAL COUNSEL TO DO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT THE EMPLOYMENTS CONTRACTS DISCUSSED.
THERE WAS NO PUBLICLY FACING ACTION THAT COULD IDENTIFY TO THE PUBLIC WHAT THAT WAS.
THOSE ARE THE TWO OFF OF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THAT I IMMEDIATELY HAD CONCERN WITH, AND I WANTED TO SEE IF LEGAL HAD ANY OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.
>> I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT BEFORE WE GET LEGAL'S OPINION.
I WENT THROUGH LAST NIGHT AND LISTENED TO ALL THE PARK BOARD MEETINGS FOR THE LAST NUMBER OF MONTHS AND SO FORTH.
SEEMS LIKE THE ONLY ONE THAT IS IN PLAY HERE WAS MAY 12TH.
THAT WAS THE ONLY PARK BOARD MEETING.
HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THAT, EITHER ONE OF OUR LEGAL?
>> I WAS FOCUSING ON THE APRIL 30TH.
I HAVE NOT LISTENED TO THE ONE IN MAY.
>> I READ ABOUT IT IN THE PAPER.
>> ALEX HAD POSED A QUESTION. GO RIGHT AHEAD TO VOTE.
>> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT?
ONE WAS THE E MAIL WE RECEIVED FROM THE APRIL 29TH EXECUTIVE SESSION ON MAY 5TH, ABOUT STAFF WAS GIVEN DIRECTION TO SEND AN EMAIL ABOUT ANNOTATING AND REVIEWING THE DOCUMENTS, AND THE MOST RECENT ONE, MAY 12TH, I BELIEVE, WHERE THE MOTION WAS STATED TO DIRECT LEGAL TO DO AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH IS NOT CLEAR? THERE'S NO PUBLIC ACTION.
THE FINAL ACTION IS SOMETHING THAT ONLY THE TRUSTEES IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WOULD KNOW, NOT THE PUBLIC.
IF MY INTERPRETATION IS INCORRECT, PLEASE ENLIGHTEN ME, BUT THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE TO MAKE A FINAL DECISION TO SAY WHAT YOU DID?
[02:20:09]
>> YES. I'M XOCHITL VANDIVER-GASKIN WITH CITY LEGAL.
THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT IS PRETTY CLEAR, VERY SPECIFIC.
IT MAY BE THE ONLY THING THAT'S ACTUALLY VERY BLACK AND WHITE, WHICH IS IN REGARDS TO ACTIONS TAKEN AFTER AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THAT'S GOING TO BE FOUND IN THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.102, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS, A FINAL ACTION DECISION OR VOTE ON A MATTER DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING MAY ONLY BE MADE IN AN OPEN MEETING.
THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT.
>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT AGAIN. I'M SORRY.
>> IT SAYS A FINAL ACTION, DECISION, OR VOTE ON A MATTER, DELIBERATED IN A CLOSED MEETING MAY ONLY BE MADE IN AN OPEN MEETING THAT IS HELD IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
THAT'S IN SECTION 551.102 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
>> NO, THEY VOTED ON THE ACTION THAT I THINK COUNCILMAN PORRETTO IS BRINGING UP HERE.
THEY VOTED ON THAT. BUT I THINK WHAT HIS POINT IS, IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC EXACTLY WHAT THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> WHAT THE FINAL FINAL DECISION OR FINAL ACTION WAS.
>> OR WHAT THEY WERE VOTING ON.
>> WHEN THEY CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING, YOU WERE WATCHING.
>> SORRY. THEY SAID TO DIRECT LEGAL TO PROCEED WITH WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF THE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS DISCUSSED.
>> THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME OUT AND THEY VOTED ON THAT.
>> THEY VOTED. THAT WAS THE MOTION MADE IN PUBLIC
>> THE ACTUAL ACTION THAT THEY TOOK WAS NOT IN PUBLIC.
WHATEVER ACTION THAT THEY VOTED ON?
>> THEY CAME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> THEY CAME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> THE FACT AND THE AG OPINION THAT MENTIONED STRAW VOTES IS YOU STILL HAVE TO SAY WHAT THE ACTION IS.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE POSTING REQUIREMENTS WITH LEGAL AND OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT SEEMS TO BELIEVE THAT THE, RIGHTFULLY SO, THAT THE POSTING IS ACTION ITEMS COME COMING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH THEY COVERED IN THEIR ORIGINAL POSTING OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THE PROBLEM THAT WE FIND OURSELVES IN IS WHEN THEY CAME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THEY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO DO, DIRECT LEGAL TO DO WAS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
EVERYONE SAID, YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. LET'S VOTE ON THAT.
>> LET'S JUST USE ICE CREAM, FOR EXAMPLE.
IF WE HAD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT FLAVOR ICE CREAM WE GET, YOU HAVE CHOCOLATE CHIP, VANILLA, OR CHOCOLATE.
DON CAN SAY, YOU GOT A, B OR C. WHEN WE COME OUT, SOMEONE MAKES THE MOTION FOR CHOCOLATE AND THEN SOMEONE SECONDS IT, AND THEN WE ALL VOTE FOR CHOCOLATE.
BUT THAT WAS CLEAR WAS WHAT THE ACTION WAS.
IT WAS A STRAW VOTE COMING OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU LISTEN TO THE TAPE ON MAY 12TH.
>> THE ISSUE WITH THE TAPE ON MAY 12TH IS THAT THEY ONLY HAVE THE BEGINNING PART OF THE MEETING.
[OVERLAPPING] THEY DON'T HAVE THE END OF THE MEETING FOR THE VIDEO ABOUT THE TWO VOTES THAT WERE MADE.
>> I LISTENED TO THEM LAST NIGHT.
>> YEAH. THEY'RE CLEAR. ALL OF THEM, IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT THEIR MOTIONS ARE COMING OUT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE COMPLAINT THAT MR. PORRETTO IS MAKING IS THAT ALTHOUGH THEY MADE A MOTION IN OPEN SESSION, THAT MOTION DOES NOT DETAIL WHAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE DECIDING.
>> THAT'S THE POINT THAT HE'S MAKING.
>> MY COLLEAGUES WHO ALSO PRACTICES IN THIS AREA, HAS CHARACTERIZED THAT ACTION AS BEING EGREGIOUS.
AS TO THE APRIL EMAIL SENT TO GLENN BY BRYSON ABOUT A DECISION HAVING BEEN MADE AND DIRECTIONS GIVEN TO STAFF DURING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I DO NOT KNOW IF HE WILL DO ANYTHING WITH IT.
>> DOESN'T THAT FALL INTO ETHICS
[02:25:01]
BY GUESSING THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD GO TO THE STATE LEVEL?>> I THOUGHT OPEN MEETINGS FALLS UNDER THE ETHICS COMMISSION.
>> THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION OVERSEES A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, CAMPAIGN FINANCE, LOBBYISTS.
BUT THIS SUBCHAPTER OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE IS NOT ONE THAT THEY OVERSEE.
>> IS IT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, THEN?
>> NO. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, IN CRIMINAL CONTEXT, MAY BE ASKED BY THE LOCAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY OR CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO ASSIST, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TO PROSECUTE ANY CRIMINAL ACTION REGARDING THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> IN CRIMINAL CASES, IT WOULD BE THE LOCAL CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY, MR. ROADY.
>> YOU'VE PASSED THAT ON TO THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE?
>> IN THIS GOING BACK TO THE MAY 5TH LETTER, THAT REFERS TO THE MEETING THAT WAS DONE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THEN THIS LETTER SAYS THAT DIRECTION, WHICH IS A DECISION, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON DIRECTION WAS DONE IN THE MEETING.
WHEN THEY CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING, WHICH I DID LISTEN TO THE VIDEO, THEY SAID THERE WERE NO DECISIONS MADE ON THE ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED.
>> BUT THEN WE RECEIVE A LETTER, OUR AUDIT DEPARTMENT RECEIVES A LETTER SAYING WE WERE DIRECTED BY THE TRUSTEES TO DO THE FOLLOWING.
ISN'T THAT A BREACH OF OPEN RECORDS?
>> OPEN MEETINGS. IT COULD BE INTERPRETED AS A DELIBERATION THAT TOOK PLACE WITHOUT A VOTE ON IT IN PUBLIC THAT THEN RESULTED IN SOME ACTION.
>> AS DEFINED BY THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, BUT LOOKING FURTHER THAN THAT INTO THE REMEDIES THAT THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT PROVIDES, AND [INAUDIBLE] CAN JUMP IN AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT REMEDIES WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO US.
IS IT A VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEANINGS ACT? I THINK IT CAN BE ARGUED THAT IT WAS.
WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES TO THAT VIOLATION? I DON'T SEE A WAY TO REMEDY THAT SPECIFIC ACT.
>> THAT'S MY QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM 12C ON OUR AGENDA.
I WAS ASKING CONSTANTLY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT'S OUR ACTION?
>> CRIMINALLY, DON SAID THAT'S UP TO THE DA.
THAT'S THE CRIMINAL DA'S PREROGATIVE.
CIVILLY, THERE ARE CIVIL REMEDIES.
THERE'S INJUNCTION, THERE'S MANDAMUS, AND PLEASE STOP ME IF I'M JUST RAMBLING, BUT A MANDAMUS DIRECTS THE BODY TO DO SOMETHING.
OF COURSE, AN INJUNCTION STOPS THEM FROM DOING SOMETHING.
IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE DEALING WITH THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE, I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT A DISTRICT COURT WOULD ORDER THE BODY TO DO?
>> YEAH. HOW ARE WE STOPPING IT, OR HOW ARE WE FORCING THEM TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, WOULD BE MY CONCERN JUST LOOKING FORWARD.
IS IT A VIOLATION? WHAT ARE THE REMEDIES?
>> IN A PRIVATE MEETING, TAKING A VOTE TO DIRECT STAFF TO NOT TURN OVER DOCUMENTS IN AN AUDIT UNTIL THEY'VE REVIEWED THEM AND CHANGED THEM OR ANECDOTED THEM, AND THAT'S NOT AGAINST THE LAW.
>> IT COULD BE, BUT THAT'S THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S PREROGATIVE.
THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER IT, AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE DISCRETION OR NOT TO PURSUE IT.
[02:30:04]
>> MY SENSE IS, IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, THEY DID NOT VOTE.
>> IT SAYS WAS PROVIDED DIRECTION TO RESPOND.
>> MY SUSPICION IS THEY DID NOT VOTE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> LET'S JUST SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, I INDIVIDUALLY, SAY, BRIAN, I WANT YOU TO DO THIS IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER TRUSTEES OR THE OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SITTING AT THE TABLE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO ALL EITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION.
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO COME OUT OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE WOULD HAVE TO VOTE IN THE PUBLIC THAT WE WERE GIVING BRIAN DIRECTION.
>> IT'S THE WAY I WOULD SEE THAT, MAYOR.
>> IN OUR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WE HAVE GIVEN DIRECTION TO OUR STAFF, AND NOT COME OUT AS AN OPEN SESSION AND VOTED ON THAT.
>> YOU'VE GIVEN GENERAL DIRECTION TO TAKE A DIRECTION AND TO COME BACK AND REPORT THE RESULTS SO THOSE RESULTS COULD BE ADOPTED IN OPEN SESSION.
>> WHEN WE CAME OUT OF THE EXECUTIVE.
>> NO. WE NEVER VOTED ON THAT DIRECTION.
>> NO. I'M SAYING IT IS COMMON POLICY OR A COMMON ACTION TO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, HAVE A DISCUSSION, COME OUT IN OPEN SESSION AND BOTH ON WHAT WAS DISCUSSED DURING EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
>> CORRECT, BUT WE HAVE GIVEN DIRECTION TO OUR ATTORNEY.
>> BUT THOSE ARE NOT FINAL DECISIONS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE HAVE GIVEN DIRECTION TO OUR ATTORNEY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND NOT VOTED ON THAT WHEN WE'VE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> BUT THIS RESULTED IN A FINAL DECISION.
WE HAVE NEVER NOT ADVISED THE PUBLIC.
I CAN TELL YOU WHO I'M GETTING QUESTIONS FROM.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE APPOINTED TO MULTIPLE BOARDS.
IN ORDER TO SIT ON ANY BOARD OR COMMITTEE OF THE CITY, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS TO DO OPEN MEETINGS TRAININGS.
PEOPLE DOING THE OPEN MEETINGS TRAINING ARE CALLING ME AND SAYING, CAN THE PARK BOARD BREAK THE LAW? I JUST WENT THROUGH THIS TWICE BECAUSE I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW, BUT I'M REQUIRED AS A CITIZENS TO GO THROUGH OPEN MEETINGS TRAINING.
>> THEY GO THROUGH THE TRAINING AS WELL.
>> BUT I'M TELLING YOU WHERE I'M GETTING MY QUESTIONS FROM.
HOW DO I ANSWER MY CITIZENS, THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW, BUT YOU DO?
>> IN THESE MEETINGS, JUST LOOKING FOR A LITTLE CLARITY TO CRAIG'S POINT, IS WHAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DIRECTION OR WHATEVER THE HOLD UP IS.
I'M READING THIS LETTER, I GUESS THIS IS CONCERNING APRIL 29TH MEETING.
IT SAYS, BASED ON THAT DISCUSSION, STAFF WAS PROVIDED DIRECTION TO RESPOND AS FOLLOWS.
PARK BOARD REMAINS FULLY COMMITTED TO COOPERATING WITH THE CITY AUDITOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH MARCH 3RD, 2025, ENGAGEMENT LETTER, WITH EXPANDED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AUDIT.
THAT WAS WHAT THE DIRECTION WAS.
I GUESS, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN WHEN WE PROVIDE DIRECTION IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION AND GET SOME CLARITY AROUND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DIRECTION AND VOTING.
>> WHAT'S THE NEXT LINE THAT BRYSON WROTE?
>> IT SAYS, HOWEVER RECENT REQUESTS APPEAR AND IT GOES ON, BUT THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE TO ME THAT THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE DIRECTION WAS.
HE'S STATING HIS OPINION ON WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES.
>> I THINK THAT IS A MATTER FOR COUNCIL TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE.
>> MY OTHER QUESTION IS, THE PARK BOARD ATTORNEY WAS AT THESE MEETINGS, I GUESS, AND HE SHOULD OF ANYBODY, OF COURSE, BE UP ON OPEN MEETINGS.
WHAT'S HIS OPINION ON ALL THIS?
>> I WOULD BE LOATHED TO RELY ON HIS ADVICE IN ADVISING YOU
>> PART OF THE REASON WHY THIS IS CARVED OUT IN THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT IS BECAUSE OF ATTORNEY CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S A HE OR SHE, COULD BE OBLIGATED TO TELL US WHAT THEIR REASONING OR DECISION WAS SPECIFICALLY IN A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT I THINK THERE IS ROOM TO INTERPRET A DIRECTION,
[02:35:07]
YOU WILL RESPOND THIS WAY AS A FINAL ACTION OR A DECISION MADE AFTER DELIBERATION.CERTAINLY LIKE ANYTHING IN THE LAW, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WHICH EVERYBODY HATES, IT DEPENDS. IT'S VERY FACT-SPECIFIC.
>> I'M JUST GUESSING, IN OUR EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, WE ALWAYS HAVE DON, AND IN THE PARK BOARD EXECUTIVE SESSIONS, I ALWAYS HAVE THEIR ATTORNEY.
JUST LIKE DON DOES, HE ALWAYS GOES THROUGH, CLARIFYING WHAT YOU CAN SAY AND CAN'T SAY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THOSE MEETINGS WAS FINE WITH HIM, WE WERE TAKING HIS DIRECTION, THE PARK BOARD ON WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM HIM ABOUT ANY FEEDBACK ON THIS ISSUE.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF ANYBODY HAS.
>> IT'S ON THE PARK BOARDS AGENDA 3.
>> WERE YOU AT THIS MEETING, BOB?
HE'S REFERRING TO THE APRIL 30TH?
>> 30TH? NO. I WASN'T THERE ON THAT ONE, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING.
>> I WAS ONE OF THESE MEETINGS. I WASN'T THERE.
>> ANYWAY, I WAS JUST WONDERING IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO ME ANYWAY TO GET AS MANY OPINIONS, ESPECIALLY FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, AS YOU CAN TO UNDERSTAND AN ISSUE.
TO ME, IT'S THIS ISSUE OF HOW YOU GIVE DIRECTION IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND DIRECT STAFF IN AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WHAT QUALIFIES OR WHAT DETERMINES WHAT YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON AND NOT VOTE ON? I'M JUST NOT CLEAR ON THAT.
>> IF IT'S A FINAL DETERMINATION, WE HAVE TO COME OUT AND DO IT IN OPEN SESSION.
>> THE DIRECTION THAT THE PARK BOARD REMAINS FULLY COMMITTED TO COOPERATING WITH THE CITY AUDITOR, IS THAT A FINAL DIRECTION?
>> HOWEVER, THE RECENT REQUESTS APPEAL TO DEVIATE FROM PUBLIC STANDARD AUDIT PRACTICES, SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATE PRODUCING OF OVER 2,400 DOCUMENTS WITHOUT ALLOWING THE INTERNAL REVIEW, IS NOT FEASIBLE.
THERE WAS A DECISION TO MAKE THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW ALL THEIR DOCUMENTS AND ANNOTATE THEM BEFORE IT WAS SENT OVER, SO THAT WAS A DECISION THAT WAS MADE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. AN EXTRA COPY.
>> THE PARAGRAPH IS THE STAND-ALONE FOR THE DIRECTION AT ONE.
>> WE'RE GETTING INTO THE WEEDS ON THIS THING.
THIS DECISION IS WE HAVE AN ACTION ITEM 12C.
IF COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO BRING SOMETHING UP WHEN THAT COMES TO THAT POINT, YOU CAN DO THAT AT THAT POINT.
>> IN DISCUSSION OF THE VIOLATIONS OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND BECAUSE THIS IS ON OUR AGENDA, HAS THERE EVER BEEN DISCUSSION, DON? BOB ARE YOU A VOTING MEMBER OF THE PARKS BOARD?
>> HAS THERE EVER BEEN DISCUSSION OF REPRESENTATION OF BASICALLY BOTH PARTIES WHEN YOU'RE VOTING ON AN AGENDA ITEM THAT DIRECTLY INVOLVES A VOTE AS A PARKS BOARD MEMBER OF ABSTAINING OR RECUSING YOURSELF OF THAT VOTE.
>> I HAVE ADVISED AS I HAVE ADVISED PREVIOUS REPRESENTATIVES OF COUNCIL ON THE PARK BOARD THAT WHEN THERE IS AN ITEM OF DIRECT CONFLICT BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND THE PARK BOARD, THEY SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES.
I HAVE PARTICIPATE IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> I'M ASKING SIMPLY BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW, HISTORICALLY, HAS THAT BEEN AN ISSUE OR BEEN A DISCUSSION IN THE PAST?
>> NO. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A LOVE FEST UP UNTIL RECENTLY.
>> I GO TO DON WHENEVER I GOT ANY QUESTION AT ALL.
>> IT'S NOT JUST WHERE WE STAND TODAY.
IT'S SIMPLY A QUESTION OF KNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVEN'T KNOWN DIRECTLY, AND NOW I HAVE THAT ANSWER.
>> COUNCIL, I THINK WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO BRING A POINT UP.
[3.N Discussion of Consultant’s Findings as they Relate to Drainage Regulations (R. Weinicke - 20 min)]
[02:40:03]
NOW, AS I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 3N.>> ITEM 3N, DISCUSSION OF CONSULTANTS FINDINGS AS THEY RELATE TO DRAINAGE REGULATIONS.
>> THIS IS A TOPIC THAT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD EARLIER IN ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, AND COUNCIL HAD ASKED FOR A REPORT BACK AFTER YOU VISITED WITH OUR CONSULTANT, ROBB, TO GIVE INPUT TO COUNCIL.
IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF, AND IF YOU WANT TO BRING YOUR CONSULTANTS UP
>> GOOD MORNING. ROBERT WINIECKE, DIRECTOR OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENGINEERING.
YOU'RE AT THIS MEETING, EVEN THOUGH YOUR AGENDA ITEM WAS FULL, BOB.
>> I'M GOING TO PASS AROUND A LITTLE BIT OF A SHORT MEMO. IT'S DOUBLE-SIDED.
THERE'S SOME INFORMATION THAT I COMPILED BEFORE MATT GAVE ME, A LITTLE BIT OF A RECOMMENDATION.
>> COULD YOU GIVE ONE TO JANELLE SO SHE CAN PUT IN THE FILE?
I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE RUNNING BEHIND TODAY.
BACK IN MARCH, YOU ASKED US TO GO AHEAD AND REACH OUT TO OUR CONSULTANT, SEE WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES IN OUR REGION LOOK LIKE WITH DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE DRAINAGE IS BECOMING AN ISSUE.
WE GO AHEAD AND BUILDING SYSTEMS TO MITIGATE THAT.
I REACHED OUT TO MATT AND HIS TEAM TO TRY AND HELP US GET A COMPARISON.
IF YOU JUMP AHEAD INTO TABLE 1 BEFORE I DO THAT, I'LL SAY, FROM THE INITIAL LOOK AT IT, MATT AND THE TEAM HAVE INDICATED THAT OUR CRITERIA CURRENTLY, AS IT STANDS, IS SOME OF THE MOST CONSERVATIVE IN THE REGION.
THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO LOOK AT THIS.
TABLE 1, BASICALLY, SHOWS YOU 17 COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING GALVESTON, SO 16 OTHERS, THAT WE COMPARED TO GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT THE DESIGN STORM TO SEE WHO USES A 25-YEAR DESIGN STORM, WHO USES MORE OR LESS.
BASICALLY, WE FOUND THAT BESIDES THE CITY OF GALVESTON, THERE ARE FOUR OTHER COMMUNITIES USING A 25-YEAR STORM, AND THEN THERE ARE OTHERS THAT USE A LESSER DESIGN STORM, AND THERE'S A FEW THAT USE A HIGHER DESIGN STORM.
BASICALLY, IT JUST MEANS MORE RAIN, IS WHAT WE'RE ACCOUNTING FOR.
HOWEVER, WHAT WE LOOKED AT IS CITIES IN TEXAS AS WELL AS MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, FLORIDA, AND THEN FURTHER UP THE EASTERN SEA COAST TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
THE BIG THING TO NOTICE AND WHY YOU SEE THIS FOURTH AND FIFTH COLUMNS THERE IS THE RAINFALL RATES ARE NOT THE SAME DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU'RE AT.
IT'S VERY FOCUSED ON THE REGION THAT YOU'RE IN.
YOU CAN SEE THAT 25-YEAR, 24-HOUR STORM RANGES ON THE ISLAND FROM TWELVE-AND-A-HALF TO 13 INCHES OF RAIN? IF YOU GO AHEAD AND YOU GO TO CORPUS CHRISTI OR EVEN ARANSAS PASS, THAT STARTS TO DROP OFF.
YOU LOOK AT IT TEN-AND-A-HALF TO ELEVEN-AND-A-HALF INCHES OF RAIN.
THEN IF WE REALLY WANT TO BRANCH AWAY TO SAY, HILTON HEAD, SOUTH CAROLINA, NOW YOU'RE DOWN TO NINE INCHES FOR THAT SAME STORM.
SO YOU SEE THAT IT'S NOT EQUAL.
>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 25-YEAR AVERAGE?
>> OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS UNUSUAL FACTOR IN THERE, WHICH WAS CALLED HARVEY, WHICH SCREWED THE NUMBERS BECAUSE THAT WAS A ONCE AT 100 YEARS.
DID YOU DO ANY ADJUSTING FOR THAT?
>> THE COLUMNS WITH THE ATLAS 14 RAINFALL RANGE THAT'S BASED ON RESEARCH DONE BY THE NOAA THAT WAS TO BE PUBLISHED RIGHT BEFORE HURRICANE HARVEY, AND THEY ACTUALLY HELD OFF PUBLISHING THAT TO INCLUDE DATA FROM HURRICANE HARVEY.
THAT INCLUDES THAT RAIN EVENT IN THERE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT DIDN'T SKEW IT AS MUCH AS PEOPLE WOULD HAVE EXPECTED BECAUSE IT WAS SUCH AN EXTREME EVENT.
IT DIDN'T IMPACT THE MORE FREQUENT EVENTS AS MUCH.
>> I'LL CONTINUE ON. ONE OTHER THING THAT THIS TABLE REPRESENTS, WHICH IS THE VERY FAR COLUMN ON THE RIGHT, IS JUST A GENERAL COMPARISON OF AVERAGE GROUND ELEVATION FOR THESE COMMUNITIES.
ARE THEY LOW CLOSE TO SEA LEVEL, OR ARE THEY HIGH? BECAUSE THAT HAS A BIG IMPACT ON WHAT OUR DRAINAGE SYSTEM CAN HANDLE US AS TRYING TO DRAIN OUT.
OF THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED COMMUNITIES, THERE WAS ONE OTHER THAT FELL WITHIN OUR ELEVATION THAT WAS KEY WEST, FLORIDA.
BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHERS THAT WE LOOKED AT, OCEAN CITY, NEW JERSEY, AS WELL AS BLEXI, MISSISSIPPI, AND SANTA BO AND FLORIDA THERE.
THERE WASN'T A GOOD CONSENSUS LOOKING ACROSS THE NATION AND OUR, REGION AND EVEN TRAVELING OUT TO SAY,
[02:45:03]
EVERYBODY USES A 25-YEAR OR TWO-YEAR [INAUDIBLE].DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS FAIR TO INCLUDE THESE OTHER COMMUNITIES FROM OUT OF THE STATE.
IF WE SHIFT OVER TO THE NEXT PAGE, WHICH SHOULD BE PAGE 3, AND THERE'S TABLE 2 ON THERE, BASICALLY TRIED TO FOCUS THE DETENTION STANDARD COMPARISON ON COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS.
YOU'VE SEEN IN TABLE 2 HERE IS BASICALLY A COMPILATION OF GALVESTON PLUS THE COUNTY?
>> PLUS GALVESTON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICTS, AS WELL AS HOUSTON, HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, BAYTOWN, TO THE PORT, FREEPORT, AND THEN ORANGE COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT.
ALL THESE COMMUNITIES, SITTING INSIDE GALVESTON FOR THE MOMENT, HAVE EITHER A DETENTION RATE THAT'S LESS THAN THE CITY HAS SPECIFIED TODAY OR IN SOME CASES EQUIVALENT TO WITH A VARYING SCALE AND THE EQUIVALENT BEING THEIR TOP LEVEL OF A 1.0, OR DEPENDING ON HOW THE DRAINAGE IS BEING DONE, IT COULD ACTUALLY EXCEED THAT WITH REGARDS TO GALVESTON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER 2 THERE.
IT SAYS IT VARIES FROM 0.5-1.2.
I'VE GOT SOME DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS FOR PUMP SYSTEMS VERSUS GRAVITY SYSTEMS. I DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HERE FROM THE STANDPOINT.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FOCUS ON GRAVITY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT TABLE 1 TO TABLE 2, I GET VARIANCES ON TABLE 2, THERE ARE NO ISLANDS.
ON TABLE 1, THERE ARE ISLANDS.
ON TABLE 2, THERE ARE NO ISLANDS.
>> WHAT ARE THE ISLANDS DOING? BECAUSE AN ISLAND IS DIFFERENT FROM BAYTOWN, HOUSTON, FREEPORT, ORANGE COUNTY.
>> IF WE WANT TO TAKE KEY WEST, FOR INSTANCE, AGAIN, I DISMISSED THAT BECAUSE IT'S IN FLORIDA, AND THE RAINFALL RATES ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WE SEE HERE IN TEXAS.
BUT THEY ARE BASED ON A 25-YEAR DESIGN STORM.
IS WHAT THEIR DETENTION IS BASED ON OR THEIR DESIGNS ARE BASED OF?
>> WHERE OCEAN CITY, NEW JERSEY
>> WELL, LET'S SEE WHAT MATT HAS.
>> I'M FAMILIAR WITH KEY WEST, BUT I'VE BEEN TO OCEAN CITY MANY MORE TIME.
>> LET'S SEE IF MATT HAS THAT INFORMATION FOR US IF NOT, WE MIGHT NOT GET THAT FOR YOU.
>> WE HAVE TO GO PULL THE REST OF THE RESEARCH.
WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT IN THE FINAL MEMO.
>> WE'LL GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU GUYS?
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE CRITICAL TO LOOK AT, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE KNOW THE BARRIERS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED TO US ON DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THAT IS.
>> WE'LL WORK ON GET THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT LATER TODAY.
BUT THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, SO BECAUSE THERE'S THIS VARIANCE OF THIS DETENTION RATE, AND WE'RE MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN EVEN THE FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICTS, HOUSTON OR HARRIS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, OR EVEN GALVESTON COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT, THEIR CAPS ARE AROUND 0.75 ACRE FEET PER ACRE.
>> THAT WOULD BE IMPERVIOUS, TYPICALLY.
>> TYPICALLY IMPERVIOUS WHOLE LOT. IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.
>> WHAT I DID AT THE BOTTOM OF THE MEMO BELOW TABLE 2, IS I PUT TOGETHER A GENERALIZED RECOMMENDATION REALLY AS A STARTING POINT TO SEE HOW OR WHERE YOU GUYS REALLY WOULD LIKE TO END UP WITH THIS, BUT THIS IS JUST THE PLOT TO GET THINGS MOVING HOPEFULLY IN A DIRECTION THAT BECOMES MORE FRIENDLY FOR DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALSO STILL MAINTAINS A HIGHER LEVEL OF FLOOD PROTECTION FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY ITSELF.
>> HOW DOES OUR CURRENT RESTRICTION, THE ONE-TO-ONE, IS THAT NOT WITH IMPERVIOUS SERVICE OR?
>> IT IS BASED ON THE OVERALL LOTS [OVERLAPPING].
MOST OTHER CITIES WILL LIMIT IT JUST TO IMPERVIOUS COVER.
WHICH, AS HE STATED HERE, IF WE ADOPT THIS, IT'S AN IMMEDIATE REDUCTION OF OVER AT LEAST 25%.
I MEAN, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO BE ANALYZING WHAT'S CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS.
>> THEN COULD WE GET THAT INFORMATION ON THE ISLANDS,
[02:50:02]
AND BOTH ALL AREAS.>> I GUESS THE THREE THAT WE CITED.
>> BECAUSE IS THIS A VOTING ACTION TODAY?
ACTUALLY,, WE COULD ADD THAT TO THE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDAS AND [INAUDIBLE].
>> IF HE GIVES ENOUGH OF TIME TO GET THE INFORMATION. YES, BILL.
>> HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE YOU TO GET THAT TIME?
>> I SHOULD HAVE ALREADY ON HAND.
>> THANK YOU FOR JUMPING ON THIS SO FAST.
I MEAN, THIS IS A HUGE DEAL FOR ALAN, ESPECIALLY IF WE CAN MOVE THROUGH THIS AND GET THIS PUBLICIZED.
AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR JUMPING ON THIS AND GETTING ASSISTANCE INFORMATION.
JUST KNOWING THE DIFFERENT BUSINESS OWNERS THAT REACHED OUT WITH CONCERN, KNOWING THAT WE'VE BEEN PROACTIVE ON THIS, IS A BIG DEAL. THANK YOU.
ALSO, AND I THINK JUST TO ADD ON TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB IS SAYING, IS IT BY GETTING SOME OF THE COMPARISONS, NOT THAT IT WOULD COUNTERACT WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING, BECAUSE, AGAIN, YOU'VE GIVEN US SOLUTIONS THAT SHOW THAT WE CAN MAKE THIS BETTER RIGHT AWAY.
BUT JUST TO SUPPORT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER [INAUDIBLE] IS SAYING, I THINK THAT GETTING THAT COMPARISON WITH ISLANDS THAT ARE ALSO DEALING WITH MEAN HIGH TIDE LEVELS, LOW TIDE LEVELS, AND GETTING THAT COMPARISON, IT'LL GIVE US KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION THAT WE CAN, COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES?
>> YES. I MEAN, COUNCIL MEMBER, ROBB, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD ASK BECAUSE THE DURATION THAT WATER SITS ON AN ISLAND IS GOING TO BE A LOT WORSE.
YEAH, IT'S GOING TO BE A QUICKER TIME TO OUTFALL.
BUT WE DO HAVE HIGHER CONCENTRATIONS, AS WAS POINTED OUT IN THE PREVIOUS TABLE.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD FIRST STEP.
HONESTLY, I AGREE IT OUGHT TO BE PUT ON A SPECIAL MEETING.
I THINK ONCE YOU GET THAT OTHER DATA, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO TWEAK A LITTLE BIT, PARTICULARLY RELATED TO YOUR RUNOFF RATES.
BECAUSE YOU'LL BE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK NOW AT TIME CONCENTRATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT MAYBE JUST A LITTLE TWEAKING.
>> NO, AND I AGREE. I THINK THE FIRST THOUGHT HERE WAS THIS IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST CRACK OF TRYING TO BASICALLY WRITE THE SHIP, REALIZE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT COME UP AS WE GO THROUGH THAT WE MIGHT HAVE TO TWEAK AS WELL.
THIS WAS GETTING ALMOST AN IMMEDIATE RELIEF OF TRYING TO HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT TO ACTUALLY SPUR DEVELOPMENT MORE SO THAN CONTINUE TO HINDER IT LIKE WE'VE BEEN SEEING.
>> THESE OTHER CITIES IN THE TABLE 1 HERE THAT ARE SIMILAR TO [INAUDIBLE] IMPERVIOUS ONLY OR OVERALL.
>> I BELIEVE MOST OF THEM HAVE AN IMPERVIOUS CALCULATION.
MATT, IT'S TYPICALLY IMPERVIOUS.
>> HAVE TO DRIVE BLOCKING OF THE DOORS, DRIVE STORE. I'M LOOKING AT UP RIGHT.
>> I'M TRYING TO FIND MONROE COUNTY TWO.
THEY HAVE 10,000 NFIP POLICIES.
WHAT AN OUTLIER ARE YOU USING THAT OVERALL LOT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> AND SO NONE OF THE DESIGN STORM CRITERIA WOULD CHANGE IN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, SO CHANGING FROM OVERALL DAY PER?
>> CORRECT. YES, DAVE. IF I COULD RUN THROUGH THE RECOMMENDATION REAL QUICK.
SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE AT THIS POINT IS WE LOOK AT KEEPING THE DESIGN STORM IS THE SAME AS IT IS RIGHT NOW, 25-YEAR 24-HOUR STORM.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS IS A LOT OF TIMES OUR OUTFALLS ARE INUNDATED WITH TIDAL WATER.
IF WE START REDUCING THE SIZE OF THAT, NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE WATER SITTING IN THE ROADWAY AND BACKING UP.
SO HAVING SOME FLOAT SYSTEM, TO BE ABLE TO ABSORB THAT.
THE BIG CHANGE COMES WITH REDUCING THE 1 FT OR ONE ACRE FOOT PER ACRE.
DOWN TO 2.75 ACRE FEET PER ACRE, BUT TO TAKE IT THE VIEWPOINT OF INSTEAD OF BEING THE ENTIRE LOT DOING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ONLINE.
>> I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHAT THESE METRICS COULD LOOK LIKE AFTER WE HAVE OUR HOME STATIONS ONLINE.
WOULD THERE BE ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN ANY OF THESE CALCULATIONS OR?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NO. IF WE KEEP THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGNED IN THE 25-YEAR STORM, THEN GETS MORE WATER TO THE PUMP STATION FASTER.
SO WE DON'T START PUMPS, AND WE'RE ABLE TO GET THAT WATER EVACUATED.
>> BUT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT I THINK THAT THESE WERE CALCULATIONS ON ALL OF THESE WERE GRAVITY, THERE'S NONE OF THIS.
NONE OF THIS ANALYSIS IS DONE WITH PUMPS.
>> CORRECT. YES. IT'S NOT WITH PUMP RAY.
>> EVEN WITH THE PUMPS DEVS, GETTING THE PUMPS IS ALL GOING TO BE GRAVITY-FED.
[02:55:02]
YOU STILL HAVE A PUMP. IT'S STILL GOING TO BE GRAVITY-FED TO THE PUMPS.IT'S NOT A SUCK ON THE END OF THE PUMP, SO IT'S GOING TO
>> ROBB, THANK YOU. I THINK YOU HEAR FROM COUNSEL.
WE MAY HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING ON THIS COMING WEDNESDAY.
IF WE COULD GET THE DATA THAT HAS BEEN REQUESTED FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, GET THIS PUT IN A FORM WHERE WE COULD VOTE ON THAT.
>> WE'LL GET THROUGH LEGAL TO PUT IT THROUGH.
>> ALL RIGHT. THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU, ROBB.
CERTAIN. FOR THE PUBLIC'S NOTICE HERE AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM THREE I,
[3.I Discussion of Updated Development Policies/Incentives and Expanded 380/TIRZ Agreement Structures ( M Hay - 40 min )]
AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BREAK FOR LUNCH.SO LET'S READ THREE I, PLEASE, MA'AM.
>> ITEM THREE I. DISCUSSION OF DATED DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND INCENTIVES FOR AN EXPANDED 380 TURZ AGREEMENT STRUCTURES.
12:06, SO I CAN SAY AFTERNOON.
>> NOT ANGRY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ROBB TO DISCUSS THAT DRAINAGE PIECE BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S GOING TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT OF THE DIRECTION THAT THIS CONVERSATION WOULD HAVE HAD FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SENSE.
I TRY TO CONDENSE FROM MY LARGER HANDOUTS PREVIOUSLY.
WRITE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS AND A FRAMEWORK OF POLICY ON KEEP THE WHOLE HOPING, [OVERLAPPING] SORRY. HOPING.
>> MICHELLE TO US. [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT'S SIMILAR THE RECORD? YES. SIDES ELECTRONICALLY.
YOU'LL SEE SIMILAR BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE ALREADY HAVE SOME POLICIES IN PLACE FOR THE TOOS DISTRICTS.
WE HAVE A TAX ABATEMENT POLICY ALREADY.
WE HAVE OUR TYPE B, WHICH IS THE IDC SALES TAX AGREEMENTS.
AND WE HAVE FORM OF A CHAPTER 380 AGREEMENT FOR OUR HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
SO THOSE ARE ALL PROGRAMS THAT I THINK WE CAN CONTINUE.
A COUPLE OF THEM WE MAY NEED TO TWEAK JUST TO ALIGN MORE WITH OUR CURRENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES.
BUT THE 380 PROGRAM AND A MORE TRADITIONAL STANCE IS WHAT I REALLY WANT TO TRY TO GIVE YOU RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AND SEE IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD THERE.
THAT WILL HELP US, AS WE DO TALK TO DEVELOPERS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN DOING SOME BIGGER PROJECTS HERE IN GALVESTON.
THE CURRENT V EIGHT PROGRAM DOESN'T QUITE GIVE US ALL THE FRAMEWORK THAT WE COULD USE.
SO THAT BEING SAID, THE C EIGHT PROGRAM ITSELF, WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S LIMITING OUR FLEXIBILITY.
AND PIGGYBACKING OFF OF BEYOND THE TRADITIONAL ONE, OF COURSE, WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING.
SO I THINK FOR THAT, WE'LL PROBABLY PUT ON THE BACK BURNER UNTIL WE CAN, YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT THIS NEW RECOMMENDATION FOR ROBB, AND THEN IF WE STILL FEEL LIKE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, THEN WE BRING THAT FORWARD AS AN ADDITIONAL PROGRAM.
BUT HAVING JUST THE TRADITIONAL 380 PROGRAM, I THINK IS IMPORTANT.
AND THEN IF YOU WANTED TO BREAK OFF AND DO ANY ADDITIONAL PROGRAMS FROM THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> COULD YOU DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE 380 PROGRAMS AND HOW WE FOCUS PRIMARILY ON HISTORIC BUILDINGS?
>> THE CURRENT ONE. THAT WAS OUR WAY OF SORT OF BABY-STEPPING INTO THIS TYPE OF PROGRAM.
BACK WHEN, I GUESS IN 2016, WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED, THERE WERE SEVERAL BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN THAT IT WAS PRETTY COST PROHIBITED TO FIX ALL THE CAST IRON FACADES AND REALLY BRING THOSE BACK UP TO THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IT.
>> SPECIFICALLY, FOLLOWING IIC.
>> YES. WELL, SO WE KNEW OF THE 380 PROGRAM, AND THAT WAS A WAY WE COULD BABY STEP AND TRY IT OUT AND SEE HOW THAT WENT.
>> AND WHAT WERE THE ACTUAL INCENTIVES?
>> SO, IN HERE ON THE HANDOUT, I DO HAVE IT OUTLINED ON.
[03:00:01]
I ASK YES, PAGE TWO, ACTUALLY, WHERE IT SAYS CURRENT PROGRAM.THERE WAS A REIMBURSEMENT OF UP TO 75% OF THE FINAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OR REHABILITATION FOR THE PROGRAM, AND IT WAS UP TO 20 YEARS.
I THINK THERE WAS A MAYBE A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT IT WAS CAPPED AT.
AND THEN, DEPENDING ON HOW EXTENSIVE THAT REHABILITATION AND RECONSTRUCTION WAS, IT BACKED OFF TO 50% AND 25%.
NOW, THAT BEING SAID, WE HAD 380 AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAD APPROVED FOR SOME PROJECTS, AND TO DATE, NONE OF THEM HAVE REALLY GOTTEN FULFILLED.
>> HOW WERE THEY FUNDED, THE 380 AGREEMENTS?
>> ONE OF THEM WAS FUNDED WITH A REDUCTION OR REIMBURSEMENT OF A PROPERTY TAX.
THE OTHER TWO HAD A COMPONENT OF BOTH PROPERTY AND ONE OF THE THEY HAD A SALES TAX AS WELL.
BUT AGAIN, NONE OF THEM FULFILLED THEIR REQUIREMENTS TO ACTUALLY HAVE A [INAUDIBLE].
THEY'VE ALL LAPSED BECAUSE THERE WAS A TIME LIMITATION IN THERE.
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW?
>> IT'S STILL THE SAME PRIMARY AREA.
>> IT IS. IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL WANT TO MODIFY, THIS WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO DO AS WELL.
>> THAT'S IN YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON PAGE 3, SO CONTINUE THE CURRENT 380 AGREEMENT PROGRAM AND UPDATE IT WITH BROADEN ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR MULTIPLE SCENARIOS INCLUDING POTENTIALLY A GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.
AS WE SAY BROADEN ORDINANCE, YOU COULD ALSO BROADEN IT GEOGRAPHICALLY.
>> BUT I DON'T KNOW I KNOW IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE [NOISE] SPECIFIC HISTORIC BUILDING RENOVATION PROGRAM.
THAT'S ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA EXTENDING.
NOT MY RECOMMENDATION, BUT CERTAINLY CAN BE ENTERTAINED, OBVIOUSLY IF THEY'RE HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
RIGHT NOW, IT'S LIMITED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA BETWEEN 19TH AND 27TH STREET TO BROADWAY [OVERLAPPING].
>> IS THERE A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT?
>> I SEE, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT IF YOU OPENED UP TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS, WE'VE GOT HOW MANY THAT ARE OLDER THAN 130 YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WE'D HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT HOW WE DEFINE THAT.
>> I KNOW WE HAVE A RESIDENTIAL PROGRAM THAT GIVES YOU LIFE QUITE A BIT.
I THINK THAT'S OF THE TAX CODE.
>> THAT'S WHAT DRIVES THE NUMBER OF LANDMARKS YOU GUYS SEE.
>> THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH. IS 380 AGREEMENTS THIS PARTICULAR, I GUESS THIS IS GOING TO PERTAIN MAINLY TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT?
>> GOOD. THANK YOU. JUST TO EMPHASIZE.
>> MICHELLE, ON THE 380 AGREEMENTS, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO VOTE ON TODAY, OF COURSE, DO WE NEED ACTION AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON THIS?
>> WHAT I FORESEE IS IF YOU'RE ON BOARD WITH THE CRITERIA THAT I HAVE LISTED FOR THE GENERAL PROGRAM AND WHAT TYPES OF INCENTIVES.
I HAVE A TABLE DOWN HERE ON PAGE 4 THAT GIVES SOME SUGGESTIONS BASED UPON WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AND SOME OF THE AVERAGE INVESTMENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN SOME OF OUR PROJECTS HERE.
IF THIS LOOKS GOOD, WHAT WE'VE ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE FOR THE OTHER PROGRAMS. I'D NEED TO WORK WITH LEGAL AND FINANCE AND STUFF TO FLESH SOME OF THOSE PARTICULARS OUT AND THEN BRING BACK.
>> THAT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
>> WE'LL GET WITH LEGAL AND FINANCE AND SEE WHAT'S ALL ON THEIR PLATE AND HOW QUICKLY WE CAN TURN SOMETHING AROUND.
>> YOU'RE ASKING FOR POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS OF 380 SCENARIOS?
>> MORE OF A TRADITIONAL PROGRAM BASED UPON THE CRITERIA HERE.
LOOKING AT PROJECTS AS THEY COME IN AND THIS IS MORE LIKE GUIDELINES, KNOWING THAT IF WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT COMES IN AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR INCENTIVES, THEN I'VE GOT A TOOL I CAN USE THAT SAYS, OKAY, HERE'S WHERE YOU FALL.
YES, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL LIKE THE COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT.
I FEEL GOOD ABOUT AFTER IT'S BEING VETTED THAT WE CAN BRING IT FORWARD AND MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
[03:05:01]
>> ARE WE ALSO LOOKING AT THOSE AS WELL AS 380S?
>> I THOUGHT IF THE CRITERIA IS SIMILAR, IF THIS IS ALL CRITERIA THAT YOU FEEL IS BENEFICIAL FOR INCLUDING TRS AS WELL.
THEN WE CAN TWEAK THE THE POLICY THERE TO ALIGN.
I MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE BIT CRITERIA THAT MAYBE WE DON'T UTILIZE ANY MORE, SO I CAN RED LINE SOME STUFF AND BRING THAT BACK.
>> LOOKING AT INCENTIVE TOOLS AND THEN AS WELL AS THE DESCRIPTIONS AFTER THAT.
NOT ONLY FOR MYSELF, BUT JUST GENERAL POPULATION, WHERE'S A GOOD PLACE TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE AND TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW? AS FAR AS THEIR WEBSITE, OR IS THERE ANYTHING THAT'S DESCRIPTION AS FAR AS IT GIVES AN IDEA?
>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT WE DEFINITELY HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PAGE THAT GIVES THE SOME GENERIC INFORMATION ON.
>> MAYBE A RECOMMENDATION TO CREATE A TAB OR [OVERLAPPING].
BECAUSE TO ME, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS HIGHLY PROMOTABLE AND ESPECIALLY IN CORRELATION WITH WHAT WE'RE SOON TO DO, IT LOOKS LIKE WITH ADOPTING SOME OF THESE.
I THINK IT'D BE VERY BENEFICIAL NOT ONLY TO PUBLICIZE THIS, BUT SIMPLY TO GET THIS OUT THERE SO THAT THE WORLD CAN KNOW WHAT INCENTIVES THEY HAVE HERE IN GALVESTON WITH KNOWLEDGE.
>> MICHELLE, I'VE NOTICED EXCUSE ME, DAVID.
>> THANK YOU. I'VE NOTICED ON THE NEXT STEP, STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT WITH DEVELOPERS AND SO FORTH.
DO WE NEED TO DO THAT BEFORE COUNCIL FORMALIZE THE 380 AGREEMENT CHANGE HERE?
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE SOME OF THESE CONVERSATIONS WHILE WE'RE WORKING THROUGH A FRAMEWORK OF IT.
A LOT OF THIS WE'RE HEARING FROM SOME OF THE MAJOR FOLKS ANYWAY, SO I THINK IT'LL BE MORE OF AN EDUCATIONAL COMPONENT.
A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT AND GET A LITTLE FEEDBACK ON IS IN REVIEWING THIS AND LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF INCENTIVES, REIMBURSEMENT OF SALES TAX, PROPERTY TAX, AND BUSINESS PERSONAL TAX, ALL THOSE THINGS.
I DID FIND IN ONE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY OFFERED.
OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE SOME DEVELOPERS THAT COULD COME IN FOR LOOKING WOULD PRODUCE BOTH SALES AND PROPERTY TAX.
WE COULD LOOK AT THAT, BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT MAY ONLY GENERATE THE PROPERTY TAX AND NOT SALES TAX.
THERE WERE SOME COMMUNITIES THAT WERE ACTUALLY DOING A CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TYPE OF SALES TAX REBATE.
I LOOK THAT FIRST UNSURE, BUT THEN IT MADE ME REALIZE THAT THAT WOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO SHOP MORE LOCAL.
GIVE THEM THAT INCENTIVE TO BUY THEIR MATERIALS HERE LOCALLY INSTEAD OF BRINGING THEM ELSEWHERE.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO LOOK AT AND CONSIDER.
>> PROBABLY THEY GET A LOCAL SALES TAX EXEMPTION ON CONSTRUCTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] NOT 100%, SO WE'D STILL GET SOMETHING, BUT I DID SEE THAT IN QUITE A FEW OTHER COMMUNITIES.
SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY HAD, EITHER REQUIREMENTS, OR THEY WOULD JUST LOOK MORE FAVORABLY AT YOUR APPLICATION IF YOU WERE HIRING LOCAL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS, AND THEN THERE WERE SOME THAT WERE EVEN STIPULATING HIRING RESIDENTS.
BUT THAT STARTS TO GET A LITTLE BIT HARDER TO TRACK, BUT JUST IN HINDSIGHT.
>> WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A 380 AGREEMENT WAS USED FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACCORDING TO THIS?
>> IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN 2018, I BELIEVE 2017, 2018.
>> HOW ARE THESE PROGRAMS, HOW ARE THEY GETTING OUT THERE? ANY OF THESE INCENTIVES, HOW ARE THEY GETTING DISSEMINATED TO PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THEM?
>> THERE'S NOT A REAL PROACTIVE PUSH RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, SOME OF THEM ON OUR IDC FUNDED GRANTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE DO THAT.
[03:10:01]
BUT WHEN A PROJECT COMES IN, ESPECIALLY IF I'M TALKING WITH A PROSPECT AND SUCH, WE LOOK AT EACH PROJECT AND THEN WE CAN DETERMINE, WELL, I'VE BEEN A LITTLE HESITANT BECAUSE WE REALLY HAVEN'T HAD ANY REAL GOOD GUIDELINES.WE HAVEN'T HAD MANY SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WITH EACH ONE. COULD YOU ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT OUT THERE INCENTIVIZING SOMEBODY TO COMPETE AGAINST A BUSINESS THAT'S BEEN A LOYAL BUSINESS HERE TO GALVESTON AND THINGS LIKE THAT?
>> IF I COULD ADD IN, I'VE SAT IN DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS WHERE THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN TOLD WE HAVE 380S AVAILABLE FOR THIS AND THIS, SOME OF THEM EXPRESS INTEREST.
>> I LIKE BOB'S IDEA ABOUT HAVING ON A WEBSITE OR SOMEWHERE, SOME PUBLIC FACING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PAGE WHERE IT'S EASY TO FIND AND AND HAVE ALL THIS INFORMATION ON IT.
>> WE HAVE ONE ABOUT SAYS THIS IS VASE, THESE ARE THE THINGS, DEVELOPMENT.
>> CONCENTRATION LIKE THAT WILL DO YOU WONDERS.
>> I'VE WORKED WITH MICHELLE OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS REVIEWING WHAT SHE'S BEEN BRINGING FORWARD.
SHE'S GOT A COUPLE OF IMPORTANT NOTES THAT I THINK YOU'LL WANT TO READ IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS. ONE IS PROTECTING YOUR RETAIL BUSINESSES.
BUT YET STILL ALLOWING A BUSINESS TO APPLY AND BE ELIGIBLE FOR CERTAIN INCENTIVES.
BUT RECOGNIZING JUST LIKE WHAT BRIAN SAID, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE PROTECTING YOUR LOCAL BUSINESSES.
THE OTHER ONE IS THAT A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES WHEN YOU GO THROUGH AN INCENTIVES APPLICATION PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS STAFF INTENSIVE.
IT TAKES TIME TO GO THROUGH THAT EFFORT, TO GO THROUGH AND NEGOTIATING HOW EXACTLY THEIR DEVELOPMENT PRODUCT FITS INTO THESE 380 AGREEMENTS.
THERE'S A NOTE THERE THAT I'D ENCOURAGE ALL TO LOOK AT, AS WELL.
THEN LASTLY, ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 4, THESE REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN LAID OUT.
THIS IS A GOOD START, I THINK, IN TERMS OF BROADENING UP THE AVAILABILITY OF 380 AGREEMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY.
BUT ONE THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, AND WE DELIBERATED BACK AND FORTH ON WAS A WAGE CATEGORY.
BECAUSE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE OBVIOUSLY ARE TRYING TO DO IS TO DRIVE PEOPLE TO LIVE HERE ON THE ISLAND.
LIVE HERE, WORK HERE, PLAY HERE.
BUT I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY SAY, YOU HAVE TO CREATE THOSE JOBS ON THE ISLAND.
BECAUSE IN THE END, WE FELT IT AS A LITTLE RESTRICTIVE.
I THINK THE FIRST PASS WAS, LET'S EXPLORE WHAT THE RESPONSE IS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY RELATED TO OPENING THIS UP A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN SEE, LATER ON DOWN THE LINE, HOW IT MIGHT PERFORM. THANK YOU.
>> VERY GOOD. I WOULD RECOMMEND COUNCIL, LET'S REVIEW THIS.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE SEEN THIS.
IF WE COULD GET THAT FEEDBACK TO MICHELLE, AND THEN MICHELLE, WE NEED TO GET THIS PUT TOGETHER AS SOON AS WE CAN AND GET IT TO COUNCIL FORMALIZE IT WITH A VOTE ON THIS.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF TOOLS THAT I'D THINK EVENTUALLY, ONE MORE OF A PRIORITY IN HELPING US GET THESE, WHICH IS AN ECONOMIC IMPACT, A APPLICATION WHERE WE CAN PLUG IN ALL OF THE DATA, THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT, THE NUMBER OF JOBS, EVEN SO FAR AS TO THE STRAIN IT MIGHT HAVE ON THE CITY AND THE WATER USAGE AND WHAT HAVE YOU, SO THAT WE CAN REALLY PROVIDE THE DOLLARS AND CENTS AND WHAT THE RETURN INVESTMENT WOULD BE FOR BOTH THE CITY.
IT'S GOING TO BE A WIN-WIN [NOISE] FOR THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER.
THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO REALLY HAVE THE INFORMATION.
SHALL WE GET THESE DOCUMENTS SENT TO US?
>> I WILL SEND IT ELECTRONICALLY, YES. I SURE WILL.
>> MICHELLE, ALSO, ON PAGE 1, YOU LIST THE INCENTIVE TOOLS.
>> YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THE FREEZING OF THE PROPERTY TAXES FOR THE REFURBISHMENT OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE THROUGH THE LANDMARK COMMISSION HAS BECOME HUGELY POPULAR.
>> IT IS. IT FREEZES THOSE TAXES, I THINK FOR 10 YEARS.
BUT WE'VE BEEN HAVING A LOT OF STRUCTURES TURNING OVER BECAUSE OF THAT.
>> DOES THAT APPLY TO THE COMMERCIAL?
>> [OVERLAPPING] RESIDENTIAL. I THINK, THE POINT THAT WE'RE BRINGING UP IS THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION GETS OUT BOTH TO THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL TYPE.
UNDERSTANDING THAT, WE'VE GOT A COMPREHENSIVE PACKAGE THAT JUST DOESN'T ADDRESS ONE PROPERTY TYPE.
[03:15:04]
>> IS THERE A NUMBER ON HOW MUCH WE'RE LOSING IN PROPERTY TAX VALUE WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROGRAM?
WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WHEN WE PUT IT INTO PLACE AND EVERYBODY THOUGHT IT WOULDN'T BE THAT POPULAR IT'S TURNED IN TO BECOME VERY POPULAR.
>> CAN WE GET A [INAUDIBLE] ON THAT?
>> SURE. SHEILA IS ALREADY WORKING ON IT.
I'VE ALREADY I SENT THAT EARLY ON WITH SHEILA TO START FIGURING WHAT WE'VE GOT.
>> IS THAT A FIVE OR 10 YEAR FREEZE UP?
>> THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT IS TRYING TO MEASURE WHAT BENEFIT HAS COME OUT OF THAT.
LIKE HOW MANY HOUSES WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REHABED OR NOT? BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>>I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DETERMINE THAT, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THEM THAT ARE UTILIZING THAT.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND IF THERE ARE OTHER COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE AFTER READING IT FURTHER, WE'LL JUST KEEP WORKING.
>> THANK YOU, MICHELLE VERY MUCH.
[3.G Discussion of the Consultant’s Comprehensive Plan Scope of Work as it Relates to Public Engagement (B Brown/C Brown - 15 min)]
>> COUNCIL, I'VE JUST BEEN NOTIFIED.
WE HAVE A CONSULTANT HERE THAT NEEDS TO LEAVE.
I WOULD LIKE TO BRING THAT ITEM FORWARD.
LET'S GET THAT OUT OF THE WAY BEFORE WE BREAK FOR LUNCH, IF WE COULD, PLEASE. READ ITEM 3.G.
>> ITEM 3.G. DISCUSSION OF THE CONSULTANT'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SCOPE OF WORK AS IT RELATES TO PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
>> MR. TIM, HOW ARE YOU THIS AFTERNOON?
>> TIM TIETJENS, DIRECTOR OF SERVICES.
THIS IS AN ITEM THAT I'VE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCILMAN BROWN ABOUT IN REGARDS TO WHERE WE ARE WITH COMPREHENSIVE.
>> YOU WANT YOUR CONSULTANT TO COME UP?
>> YES. I CERTAINLY CAN BRING HIM UP RIGHT NOW, IF YOU'D LIKE.
>> VERY WELL, HOW ARE YOU ALL?
>> AS YOU ALL PROBABLY REMEMBER, WE'VE AWARDED THE CONTRACT TO [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE KICKOFF MEETING WOULD BEGIN BASICALLY AFTER WE'VE BEEN FUNDED FROM THE GLO, WHICH HASN'T YET HAPPENED.
BUT ANYHOW, THE DISCUSSION THAT BOB'S BROUGHT UP TO ME IS IN THE CONTEXT OF ADDITIONAL ENGAGEMENT, WHAT ROUTE WE WOULD GO DOWN OR WHERE POTENTIALLY THAT NEED FOR ADDITIONAL ENGAGEMENT MIGHT BE.
WANTING TO GET ALL YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT, IF ANY.
WE'VE GOT A GOOD BIT OF ENGAGEMENT IN THE COMP PLAN.
I WILL HAND OUT FOR YOU WHAT WAS IN THE RFP PACKAGE HERE IN TERMS OF ENGAGEMENT.
THIS IS WHAT THE ACTUAL ENGAGEMENT DOCUMENT RFP AWARD CONTRACT SAYS, I'M SORRY, KEEP BRINGING AT LEAST ONE AT A TIME.
>> BUT THEY'RE GOING AROUND OKAY.
>> SHOULD BE JUST ONE. IT'S DOUBLE SIDED.
BUT THIS IS THE CONTEXT OF WHAT'S IN THE CURRENT CONTRACT FOR ENGAGEMENT.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THIS, IF YOU FEEL THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO, THEN I GUESS WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS HOW AND WHERE THAT MIGHT BEST OCCUR.
>> IT DOES. ABSOLUTELY. WE WE'VE GOT A $300,000 GRANT APPLICATION AND JUST SLIGHTLY UNDER 300,000.
BY PROCUREMENT RULES, ONCE IT'S AWARDED, YOU CAN ONLY GO UP TO 25% BEYOND THAT.
A MAXIMUM OF AROUND 73 OR SO THOUSAND 74,000.
>> IN ADDITION, IN THE BUDGET, THERE IS A LINE ITEM FOR $250,000 FOR A BUDGET FOR A COMP PLAN UPDATE.
I KNOW THAT'S BEING UTILIZED FOR OTHER THINGS AS WELL.
>> IT'S ALSO TO HELP COVER SOME OF THE STAFFING COSTS ON OUR SIDE AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS. DON'T COUNT ON ALL OF IT.
>> WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS WITH COUNCIL, AND I THOUGHT WE WERE ALREADY ADVISED BY THE CONSULTANT THAT KEEPING TO THESE NUMBERS WAS THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT WAY.
I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AGAIN.
>> I CAN ELIMINATE THAT, I THINK.
WELL, I'M I'M BASING THIS ON MY LAST EXPERIENCE WITH THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IN 2011 STARTED 2008, AND THE RESULTS OF THAT WAS A VERY GOOD PLAN, I THOUGHT.
[03:20:02]
ONE OF THE KEY THINGS THAT WE DID IN THAT PLAN WAS WE HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE FOR EACH OF THE 10 ELEMENTS IN THE COMP PLAN TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS IN DEPTH ON EACH ONE OF THOSE ELEMENTS AND THEN REPORT UP TO A STEERING COMMITTEE.THAT WORKED REALLY WELL. I KNOW I WAS A CHAIR OF ONE OF THOSE COMMITTEES, BUT THE OTHER THING WAS THAT IN 2011, WE HAD LIKE 37 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS IN 2009, WE HAD LIKE 29 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.
THOSE STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS HAD VERY GOOD REPRESENTATION, NOT ONLY OF THE CRITICAL KEY INSTITUTIONS ON THE ISLAND THAT INFLUENCE OUR GROSS DEVELOPMENT AND QUALITY ON THE ISLAND, BUT IT ALSO HAD ORDINARY RESIDENTS, PEOPLE WHO WEREN'T REALLY AFFILIATED WITH ANYTHING BECAUSE THIS DOCUMENT IS INTENDED TO REFLECT THE ASPIRATIONS AND THE GOALS FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.
THEY'RE CRITICAL TO HAVE SOME.
THESE CRITICAL INSTITUTIONS ALSO HAVE A HUGE INFLUENCE.
GETTING THAT RIGHT COMBINATION I THINK WAS CRITICAL IN THE LAST PLAN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT LAST PLAN WE HAD A LOT MORE MONEY.
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS ONE OF THE MOST EXPENSIVE PARTS OF AN EXERCISE LIKE THIS.
WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS GET A SOME DETAILED CLARITY ON WHAT THAT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT LOOK LIKE.
THEN SEE IF WE COULD INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS FOR EACH ELEMENT.
MAYBE MEETING WITH CRITICAL CITY COMMITTEES LIKE THE GALVESTON HOUSING FINANCE CORPS OF WHARVES BOARD PARK BOARD, ISLAND TRANSIT, MAYBE BETTER PARKS SOME OF SOME OF OUR STANDING CITY COMMITTEES TO GET INPUT.
JUST INCREASE THE NUMBER OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS TO BE A LITTLE MORE INCLUSIVE.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE HAVE 37 COMMITTEE MEMBERS LIKE THE LAST TIME, BUT SOME SOMETHING A LITTLE IN BETWEEN WHAT WE HAVE NOW AND THAT.
JUST LET'S SEE HOW MUCH MONEY MORE WOULD THAT TAKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ASAKURA DO THAT.
THEN WE CAN GO OUT AND FIND MORE MONEY TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN BECAUSE THIS DOCUMENT IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT THAT THE CITY HAS BECAUSE ALL OF OUR OTHER LDRS AND REGULATIONS FLOW FROM THIS, AND THAT'S WHAT AFFECTS QUALITY OF LIFE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT FOR 5-15 YEARS.
IT'S GOING TO BE HERE A LONG TIME.
THAT WAS WHERE THIS CAME FROM.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO COST THE TAXPAYERS MORE MONEY IN REGARDS TO THIS.
I'M THANKFUL FOR THE JEWELERS GRANT.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SOME SET ASIDE.
I THINK IF ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO GET MORE INPUT, IT HAS TO BE COMMUNITY DRIVEN.
I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND MORE TAXPAYERS DOLLARS THAN WE NEED TO WITH SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS A GOOD PLAN THAT WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED.
>> I WOULDN'T SPEND MORE TAXPAYER DOLLARS EITHER.
>> WELL, YOU SAID WE GOT TO IDENTIFY FINDING MORE MONEY.
>> WE GOT MONEY WE MAY NOT HAVE THE FULL 250, BUT WE GOT IT.
>> THERE IS MONEY. I WOULDN'T SUGGEST SPENDING MORE TAXPAYER MONEY.
>> WE HAVE SO MUCH THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR IN JUST REGULAR COUNCIL AGENDAS.
>> I'M WITH YOU. I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TAXPAYER MONEY EITHER.
THERE'S OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR THIS.
>> LET ME ASK THIS PROCEDURALLY, IF WE MOVE FORWARD AND BOB WANTED TO BRING TO COUNCIL A EXPANSION OF THIS, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, TIM?
>> YES, SIR. THE CONTRACTS ALREADY BEEN AWARDED.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT CONTRACT, WHICH WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH YOU GUYS, AS WELL. YES. MARIE.
>> AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.
WE DISCUSSED THIS MORE THAN MONTHS.
WE ALL I THINK IT WAS I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VOTE WAS, BUT IT WAS CLOSE TO UNANIMOUS OR UNANIMOUS.
THAT'S HOW WE DECIDED TO PROCEED.
>> I'M ALL ABOUT HAVING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT.
I AM NOT ABOUT ACCEPTING OUTSIDE GRANTS TO BRING IN OUTSIDE INFLUENCE.
I THINK WE HIRED CONSULTANT THAT IS WELL KNOWN IN THIS FIELD, I THINK WE ALL APPOINTED VERY CREDIBLE PEOPLE AS WE WERE ASKED TO DO, AND I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY VOTE.
>> WELL, THIS WHOLE THING IS BEING FUNDED BY A GRANT, MARIE FROM THE GLO AND ANY MONEY.
>> NO, AND WE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND VOTED ON IT IS MY POINT.
[03:25:01]
>> ANY OTHER MONEY THAT WOULD BE GRANTED DOES NOT COME WITH ANY INFLUENCE.
IT JUST COMES STRAIGHT TO ASAKURA TO DO THEIR JOB.
>> LET'S GET SOME MORE INPUT FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS.
>> I ALSO THINK THERE WAS A MAJOR DIFFERENTIAL IN THE LAST PLAN BECAUSE IT WAS FOLLOWING.
>> SORRY, THAT'S THE WRONG WORD.
BUT A LOT OF CLEANUP [OVERLAPPING]. NO PUN INTENDED.
THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT THING THAT THE LAST COMP PLAN DID WAS IT SPURRED THE DEVELOPMENT OF REZONING AND YOUR LDRS, WHICH IS VERY CRITICAL.
THIS ONE I AGREE THAT IT IS A LESSER SCOPE. IT IS A REFINEMENT.
HOWEVER, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COUNCILMEMBER BROWN HAS BROUGHT UP RELATED TO OUR OTHER PARTNERS THAT HELP RUN THE CITY, NAMELY THE WHARVES BOARD AND THE PARKS BOARD ARE KEY PLAYERS TO THIS.
THAT CURRENTLY, THEY ARE NOT LISTED AS ANY SORT.
>> ONE OF MY APPOINTMENTS IS THE HEAD OF HOTEL MOTEL AT [INAUDIBLE] LOUNGE [OVERLAPPING] ASSOCIATION.
>> I UNDERSTAND. HOWEVER, IF WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE TIME AND ENERGY AND RESPECTFULLY, BRIAN, THAT MONEY HAS BEEN IN THE BUDGET FOR PAST 2-3 YEARS, AND SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF A COMPLAIN UPDATE.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT TO ALEX'S POINT.
IT'S NOT SPENDING MORE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
IT IS SPENDING MONEY THAT HAS BEEN BUDGETED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE.
>> MY COMMENT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HIRE STAFF TO DO THIS, AND THAT'S WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM.
>> I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU DEDICATE THE STAFF IN ORDER TO HELP DEVELOP AND EXECUTE THE COMP PLAN.
>> I'D ENCOURAGE COUNCILMEMBER BROWN TO COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS IN TERMS OF EXPANDING IT TO THE LIMITS, NOT THE LIMIT, BUT UP TO THE LIMIT WITHIN THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROPER AMOUNT OF INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE.
WE NEED TO HAVE COMMUNITY INPUT.
I'M GOING TO POSE THIS QUESTION, TIM TO YOU AND TO YOU, SIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
THE WAY THIS IS OUTLINED HERE, DO YOU FEEL THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH ADEQUATE INPUT FROM THE COMMUNITY TO MOVE THIS FORWARD IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE?
>> SURE. I CAN TAKE THAT ONE BASED ON SOME EXPERIENCE HERE.
WHAT WAS OUTLINED IN THE GLS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS GRANT PROGRAM WAS THE THREE ROUNDS OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
YOUR THREE COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS, YOUR THREE STAKEHOLDER STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS, THAT ESSENTIALLY ARE YOUR SOUNDING BOARD.
THEY HELP REFINE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COME OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.
WE DID ALSO INCLUDE YOUR STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS WITH A NUMBER WITH YOU ALL, WITH KEY STAFF AS WELL AND ATTENDANCE ON A COMMUNITY EVENT TO HELP ALSO WORK ON SOME OF THE OUTREACH, REACH PEOPLE THAT WANT TO ATTEND A MEETING OTHERWISE.
I THINK AS FAR AS THE PROCESS FLOW GOES.
YOU CAN DO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THAT FIRST MEETING IS USUALLY YOUR VISIONING, WHERE DO WE NEED TO FOCUS AS A PROJECT TEAM? WHAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST PLAN? WHERE DOES OUR TEAM NEED TO FOCUS? THAT'S WHERE WE GET THE DIRECTION FROM YOU ALL IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT WHAT ARE THE KEY AREAS, WE NEED TO CLEAN UP AND REALLY UPDATE BECAUSE THIS IS A REFINEMENT TO YOUR PREVIOUS PLAN, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED.
A SECOND WORK POINT IN THIS PROCESS IS REALLY MORE ABOUT, MAYBE WE BRING OUT SOME DRAFT IDEAS.
SAY A FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS A KEY DELIVERABLE FROM THIS, WHERE DO WE GROW? WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? THAT MIDDLE MEETING IS USUALLY A POINT OF CONTINUED EDUCATION, REFINEMENT.
THE THIRD MEETING IS USUALLY MORE FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTATION.
YOU'VE GOT YOUR THREE KEY TOUCH POINTS HERE TO BRING THE COMMUNITY ALONG THROUGH THE PROCESS.
I THINK WHERE SOMETIMES EXTRA ENGAGEMENT CAN BE HELPFUL AND WHERE IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO HAVE YOU LEADERSHIP.
IS WITH THE OUTREACH PROCESS, MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S ALL ARE WORKING IN YOUR DISTRICTS, ENCOURAGING RESIDENTS TO ATTEND.
THINK ABOUT WHERE CAN WE PLUG IN AND WHERE CAN WE USE THE COMMUNICATIONS CHANNELS THE CITY HAS TO HELP REACH OUT TO NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS, NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS, FAITH BASED ORGANIZATIONS, AND SO ON.
I CAN HELP TO DISTRIBUTE THIS INFORMATION TO THEIR MEMBERSHIP.
THE OUTREACH IS REALLY IMPORTANT.
THAT'S WHERE I THINK THE POLITICAL LEADERSHIP IS SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE ALL ARE THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS OF GALVESTON AND Y'ALL DO THAT BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE CAN, ESPECIALLY OUTSIDE CONSULTANT TEAM.
I THINK THERE IS ALSO AN ELEMENT TOO WHERE WORKING WITH STAFF TO HELP SUPPORT THEM.
OUR TEAM CAN BE HELPING TO WORK CLOSELY WITH CITY STAFF AND OTHERS TO HELP SHARE OUT INFORMATION.
AGAIN, YOU ALL WORK HERE EVERY DAY.
YOU ALL HAVE THE RELATIONSHIPS.
AGAIN, WHAT IS THE KEY MESSAGING THAT WE CAN SHARE OUT HERE? AS FAR AS SOME OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS ALL MENTIONED, SUCH AS THE WHARVES BOARD PARKS BOARD.
IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN HERE, BUT TYPICALLY DURING THE ENVISIONS STAGE WHERE WE'RE REALLY DEVELOPING TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS, THERE'S ALWAYS THAT NEED FOR COORDINATION WITH STAFF AND WITH YOUR PARTNER AGENCIES THAT ARE REALLY KEY IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERS.
[03:30:04]
SO WHILE WE DO CALL OUT, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN MEETINGS, THEY'LL TAKE PLACE IN THE BEGIN OF THE PROCESS SOME KEY STAFF MEMBERS, SUCH AS THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, PARKS AND RECREATION, TRANSPORTATION.WE'LL DO THIS AT THE OUTSET. THAT'S REALLY MORE HELP SCOPE, BUT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A GOOD BIT OF A FOLLOW UP COORDINATION WITH YOUR STAFF AND TECHNICAL PARTNERS AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS.
SO I THINK AS FAR AS SUBCOMMITTEE, MEETINGS, FOCUS GROUPS, WHERE THAT IS ADDITIONAL KIND OF TECHNICAL DISCUSSION WITH OUTSIDE FOLKS OUTSIDE THE CITY, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, WHERE THAT IS NEEDED.
THAT IS THAT DOES ADD SOME MORE COORDINATION AND EXPENSE FOR THE PROJECT, JUST BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME TO ORGANIZE THOSE TYPE OF WORKSHOPS, REPAIR MATERIALS FOR THEM AND MAKE SURE IT'S ALSO A YOU KNOW, ITS COORDINATED EFFECTIVELY WITH THE OTHER TOUCH POINTS IN THE PROCESS, BUT YEAH, I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTANDING THAT I TRY TO TRY TO STICK TO WHAT SCOPE, BEING COGNIZANT ABOUT RESOURCE ALLOCATIONS.
WE CAN DEFINITELY THINK MORE ABOUT HOW WE WORK MORE CLOSELY WITH YOU AND WITH STOTOP GET THE WORD OUT AND ENGAGE RESIDENTS.
MAKE SURE THEY ARE AT THESE THREE WORKSHOPS AT THESE MEETINGS AND USING THE ONLINE ENGAGEMENT INPUT THAT WILL ALSO BE WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
>> TIM, YOUR THOUGHTS, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH? WE SHORT CHANGING OURSELVES, GO OUT WITH THIS.
>> I'M A PLANNER, SO BY NATURE, I LIKE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT.
BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF IT IN HERE THAT DOES WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IN THIS PLAN.
THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE COORDINATING WITH MARISSA AND GETTING THINGS OUT, WE WILL BE HAVING A PRESENCE ON THE WEBSITE AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WOULD BE PEOPLE COULD IMMEDIATELY CHECK IN AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS, THOSE THINGS.
I THINK THE FUTURE LAND USE ASSESSMENT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE SOME REAL NEED TO ENGAGE WITH SOME FOLKS BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE LITERALLY DEFINING THE FUTURE LAND USE INTENTION OF THE CITY.
WHEN THAT WAS QUOTE DONE IN THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, I KNOW THERE WERE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MEETINGS ON THAT.
THAT PORTION PERHAPS COULD USE SOME BEEFING UP.
BUT, AS ANDREW SAID, I THINK A LOT OF THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT AREN'T SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT HERE WILL BE PART OF A PART OF THIS IN THE COMMUNITY WIDE REPRESENTATIONS ANYHOW.
I'M NOT REALLY SEEING NECESSARILY A WHOLE LOT OF NEED FOR THAT.
>> BUT IT'S REALLY YOUR CALL, IF YOU ALL THINK THAT I THINK TO MORE SPECIFIC TO THE MAYOR'S QUESTION IS, IS HOW THIS PROPOSAL, HOW DOES IT COMPARE TO WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH OTHER CITIES IN TERMS OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT? THAT'S THE QUESTION I THINK THE MAYOR IS TRYING TO DRIVE AT.
>> YEAH. I THINK THAT VARIES AND VARIES DEPENDING ON YOU 'ALL INVOLVEMENT, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO OUTREACH BECAUSE I THINK THAT Y'ALL ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT, AMBASSADORS OF THE PROCESS, THIS IS THE CITY'S PLAN AT THE END OF THE DAY.
THIS IS Y'S PLAN TO IMPLEMENT OVER THE COMING YEARS.
IN OTHER COMMUNITIES, WE'VE HAD SOME PARTNERSHIPS WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS WHERE WE WORK WITH THEM TO HELP DO OUTREACH.
WE'VE DONE COMMIT AMBASSADORS,.
WE WORK WITH A COUPLE OF RESIDENTS THAT ARE BASICALLY PAID CITIZEN PLANNERS AND HELP DO ADDITIONAL OUTREACH TOO THAT'S BEEN AN EFFECTIVE TOOL.
YOU SORT OF THE POP UP TYPE EVENTS.
WE FIGHT ONE OF THOSE IN THERE.
I KNOW THAT DURING OUR PREVIOUS PARTICIPATION IN THE VISION GALVESTON PLANNING PROCESS, SOME OF OUR TEAM MEMBERS WERE THERE FOR DICKENS ON THE STRAND.
SO WE WERE THERE THAT DAY TALKING TO FOLKS.
I THINK THOSE TYPES OF OTHER EVENTS CAN ALSO BE REALLY EFFECTIVE.
THE CAN ALSO BE DONE BY STAFF OR OTHERS, THOUGH.
BUT IT'S ABOUT HAVING THE COVERAGE IN THE COMMUNITY.
>> I DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME BEING HERE.
ARE WE BEING BILLED FOR THIS OR IS THIS PART OF OUR SERVICES OR JUST YOU'RE HERE FOR OUR SAKE?
>> I'M NOT BILLING FOR THIS MEETING, I THINK THIS TYPE OF DISCUSSION IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE DID AT THE BEGINNING, BECAUSE I THINK WHEN WE DON'T I'VE DONE OTHER PROJECTS WHERE I HAVE NOT HAD THE ENGAGEMENT OR THE INVOLVEMENT, NECESSARILY UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS FROM THE COUNCIL, AND MAKES THE REST OF THE LOT PROCESS A LOT HARDER AND A LOT LESS EFFECTIVE. I APPRECIATE THIS.
>> A LOT OF THE EMPHASIS IS ON US TO MOBILIZE OUR COMMUNITIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT I HEAR.
IF WE DO OUR JOB ON THE OUTREACH, THIS WILL MAKE THIS WHOLE PROCESS OF WHAT'S OUTLINED HERE, I THINK, FAR MORE COMPREHENSIVELY.
>> BUT BOB, LET'S SAY THIS, IF YOU HAVE A PLAN THAT YOU WANT TO BRING FORWARD, I THINK DAVID IS FEELING THAT WAY ALSO.
>> I'D BE WELCOME TO HEAR WHAT AN ADDITIONAL OUTREACH SCOPE LOOKS LIKE,
[03:35:02]
AND I ALSO HEARD THAT.BOB, DID YOU SAY YOU'VE IDENTIFIED A GROUP THAT WANTS TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO ENHANCE THAT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING JUST TO THE FUNDS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE BUDGETED.
>> NO. THERE IS A POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCE FOR THIS.
>> I'D BE HAPPY TO AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT TO SEE WHAT ELSE COULD BE DONE IF YOU ASK CALAR ROBINS.
ANYWAY, I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW, OF COURSE, IT WOULD BE A GOOD PLAN.
I HAVE EVERY CONFIDENCE IN AKERS' ABILITIES.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT WE CAN DO BETTER, AND AS WE'VE HEARD HERE TWO OR THREE TIMES, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT IS THE CRUX OF THIS WHOLE THING.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT, GIVEN THE FACT THAT LAST TIME WE DID THIS WAS 2011, THE NEXT TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO SIT DOWN AND GO THROUGH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS PROBABLY, I CAN'T DO THE MATH, IN 2035, 2038.
LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF CHANGES HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST 13 YEARS ON THE ISLAND AND TO TAKE THE TIME TO SPIN THE ENERGY, AND IF WE HAVE A PARTNER THAT'S WILLING TO THROW IN SOME MONEY TO HELP DO MORE, THEN I THINK WE ABSOLUTELY OUGHT TO HEAR IT.
>> OBVIOUSLY, THE MAYOR IS HUNGRY TODAY.
ONE LAST COMMENT IS THE ONUS DOES FALL ON US AS COUNCIL PEOPLE TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED WITH OUR CITIZENS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE'S SCHEDULES, BUT I KNOW, JUST IN THIS MONTH, I HAVE ATTENDED SIX ANNUAL MEETINGS, A WHOLE GROUP OF PPOA MEETINGS.
I'M ALWAYS, AND I THINK WE ALL DO THAT, AND I THINK VERY MUCH THE OWNER'S FALLS ON US.
>> SURE. BUT I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS IN SUPPORT OF YOUR POSITION OF NOT EVEN TAKING A LOOK AT THIS.
>> NO, I WOULDN'T TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
>> BECAUSE THE POINT HERE IS THAT THERE'S NO HARM IN TAKING A LOOK AT THE PROPOSAL.
>> WELL, WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE? IF THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL TAXPAYER DOLLARS THAT ARE BEING SPENT ON IT, AND I DON'T HAVE TO TOUCH THE MONEY THAT BRIAN TELLS ME I CAN'T GO TOUCH BECAUSE HE NEEDS IT FOR STAFF, THEN THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE TO IT.
>> NO. I WOULD RECOMMEND, IF YOU MET COUNSEL'S THOUGHTS HERE, I WOULD RECOMMEND DAVID GET WITH BOB, GET WITH STAFF, AND GET TOGETHER, DETERMINE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
HOW MUCH WOULD THIS ADD TO IT? WHAT THE COSTS WOULD BE? IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR THAT, BRING THAT BACK TO COUNSEL.
WE'VE GOT SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THAT.
>> THE ONLY DOWNSIDE IS DELAY.
>> WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DELAY. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE STILL AHEAD OF THE CURVE.
>> WE HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT THAT.
>> I SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT A QUESTION.
>> NOT AT THIS POINT, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
WE'RE STILL EARLY ENOUGH THAT IT WON'T.
>> FIRST TASK IS GATHERING DATA, I THINK I GUESS, RIGHT?
>> DAVID AND BOB, ARE YOU CLEAR ON BOARD?
>> I WILL ADD THAT ANDREW WAS VERY MAGNANIMOUS TO COME DOWN HERE FREE OF CHARGE TODAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'LL BE HAPPENING MUCH IN THE FUTURE [LAUGHTER] SO BEAR THAT IN MIND.
>> SAVE SOME TIME AND MONEY LATER ON.
>> ANDREW, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME.
THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE TODAY.
AS YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A LOT GOING ON IN OUR SCHEDULE TOO.
>> IT HELPS ME UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXTS. I APPRECIATE IT.
COUNSEL, HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO TAKE FOR LUNCH?
>> I WANT TO GET THE DATE TOO.
>> THIRTY MINUTES, EASIER TO READ.
LET'S RECONVENE AT 12:20, 01:20, IF WE COULD, 1:20.
>> JANELLE, ARE WE ARE BREAKING FOR LUNCH.
>> IT IS 1:25 RUNNING A LITTLE BEHIND SCHEDULE, BUT WE'RE BACK OPEN AFTER OUR LUNCH BREAK FOR OUR WORKSHOP FOR MAY 22ND.
[3.J Discussion of the Possible Development of a City of Galveston Marine Safety Department (C. Brown - 30)]
WE ARE MOVING TO ITEM 3J.[03:40:03]
>> ITEM 3J'S, QUESTION OF THE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF A CITY OF GALVESTON MARINE SAFETY DEPARTMENT.
>> THIS IS AN ITEM. I'M GOING TO LET OUR CITY MANAGER INTRODUCE.
>> I WANTED TO JUST LET YOU GUYS KNOW BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE RUNNING DOWN PASS WITHOUT YOU GUYS KNOWING.
WHAT'S FACILITATING A LOT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS WE ARE USING SOME FUNDS FROM SOME SALE OF PROPERTIES FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, OTHER AREAS TO BUILD A NEW HOLDING FACILITY FOR THE BOATS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO BETTER MANAGE OUR ASSETS AND CONSOLIDATE THOSE ASSETS FOR BETTER USE.
RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A LOT OF VOLUNTEER TIME GOING INTO MAINTAINING ALL THESE BOATS AND EVERYTHING, AND SO I'VE BEEN MEETING WITH CHIEF BALLY AND TALK TO HIM ABOUT IT, AS WELL AS CHIEF FARELA A LITTLE BIT.
IT COULD ALWAYS CHANGE AS WE GO DOWN THE LINE IN TERMS OF WHAT'S PART OF THIS, BUT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING TOWARDS A BETTER ORGANIZED MARINE RESPONSE HERE IN GALVESTON, BEING THAT WE'RE SURROUNDED BY WATER AND THESE UNITS ARE GETTING CALLED MORE AND MORE AND MORE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE A CONCERTED, ORGANIZED EFFORT.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE GALVESTON MARINE RESPONSE GROUP, WHICH IS A LOOSELY ORGANIZED MUTUAL AID TYPE AGREEMENT.
THIS WOULD TAKE IT TO THAT NEXT STEP AND A BETTER MANAGEMENT OF OUR ASSETS AND A BETTER ORGANIZATION OF IT.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO TAKE ANYTHING AWAY FROM ANY DEPARTMENTS.
THIS IS THE DIVE TEAM IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE MARINE SAFETY UNIT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, STILL THE MARINE SAFETY UNIT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SEES AIRBOATS, BUT HOW THESE THINGS ARE ORGANIZED AND HOW THEY'RE MANAGED, AND REALLY, IT'S MORE ABOUT THE ASSETS AT THIS POINT THAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT.
I'VE ALREADY TALKED TO TONY ROGERS ABOUT IT, SO HE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON AND EVERYTHING SO THERE'S NO SCARY RUMORS GOING AROUND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BUT, ULTIMATELY, THIS COULD ALSO RESULT IN FURTHER DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW WE HANDLE SECURITY AND POLICING ON THE BEACH, WHICH IS ALSO OF CONCERN TO A LOT OF PEOPLE.
IT TAKES A LOT OUT OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT OUT THERE ON THE BEACH, SO BETTER ORGANIZING THIS AND HOW WE'RE HANDLING THAT, AND ENFORCING CERTAIN ORDINANCES ON THE BEACH.
YOU GIVE THIS WEEKEND A GO WITH THE WEATHER THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HAVING, AND YOUR POLICE OFFICERS ARE HAVING TO DECIDE WHETHER TO ENFORCE THE GUY WITH THE CORONAL BOTTLE VERSUS HANDLING A MAJOR ACCIDENT OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A GOOD, HARD LOOK AT EVERYTHING AND WHAT RESOURCES ARE OUT THERE IN THIS WHOLE REALM AND BRING BACK A PLAN TO YOU GUYS, HOPEFULLY, DURING THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU GUYS A HEADS UP THAT I'M WORKING ON IT.
>> DOES THAT MEAN YOU'RE GOING TO BE POLICING THE WATER FOR UNREGISTERED SAILBOATS?
>> WELL, I DON'T CONTROL THE SEA, BUT THAT COULD, BUT THAT IS JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THERE WAS NO COORDINATED MANAGEMENT ON THAT.
>> BRIAN IS LOOKING AT THIS THE OTHER DAY.
IF WE HAVE A CONCERN HERE IN GALVESTON, THERE ARE SEVEN DIFFERENT MARINE SAFETY UNITS THAT RESPOND.
> OH, MY GOD, YES, AND WHO IS IN CHARGE, AND WHEN IT GOES.
THEN THE OTHER THING IS, IS KEEP IN MIND, WHAT REALLY WORRIES ME MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE I'M MORE ASSET DRIVEN, IS THAT WE RUN OUT, WE DO THESE THINGS, AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT DEPLOYS, AND THEY GO.
THEN SOME POLICE OFFICER, EITHER IN HIS SPARE TIME OR ON HIS SHIFT, INSTEAD OF DOING POLICE HAS TO GO CLEAN THE BOAT, FLUSH THE BOAT, PUT THE BOAT BACK, I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH HAVING THEIR ASSETS READY TO GO FOR THEM TO RESPOND INSTEAD OF HAVING TO DEAL WITH ALL THESE OTHER THINGS, AND ALSO HAVING THE RIGHT ASSET RESPOND.
BECAUSE DEPENDING ON WHERE THIS GOES DOWN, THERE'S DIFFERENT TYPES OF WHETHER IT'S A JET SKI OR A SAFE BOAT THAT HAS TO GO, SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING TO GO ON AROUND THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> TOUCHED ON ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, WAS SEEMS LIKE PART OF THE BEACH PATROL INCLUDED IN SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
OF COURSE, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF THAT THAT'S IN FLUX RIGHT NOW, BUT ABSOLUTELY, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
>> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FACILITY THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO HANDLE ALL THESE ASSETS, FROM ALL THESE SEVEN DIFFERENT.
>> VERY WELL COULD. WE'RE NOT BUILDING OFFICES OR ANYTHING ELSE.
THIS IS JUST BASICALLY A GLORIFIED STORM-RATED POLE BARN, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE AT THE CITY GARAGE, WHERE ALSO WE CAN SHARE THE MECHANICS TO WORK ON THE BOATS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
RIGHT NOW, THIS STUFF IS SITTING OUTSIDE, BAKING IN THE SUN.
THE FIRE BOATS ARE DEPLOYED, AND THEY'RE OUT OF THE FIRE STATIONS, AND ARE THEY IN THE RIGHT SPOTS.
IT'S A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT GOES ON WITH THIS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, MY GOAL IS TO HAVE A MUCH BETTER ORGANIZED SITUATION AND BETTER DEFINED WHO'S DOING WHAT.
>> TO NOT ONLY MANAGE THE ASSETS, A FACILITY, BUT ALSO PROGRAMMATICALLY TO GET ALL THESE SEVEN UNITS.
[03:45:02]
>> AND ALSO COORDINATE THINGS LIKE GRANT WRITING FOR THESE THINGS.
RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, I'M WORKING WITH PD.
IT'S JUST ANECDOTAL ON THE CATALYTIC CONVERTER GRANT FOR NEXT YEAR, WHICH HAS HELPED US BY THE FLOCK CAMERAS AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS.
POOR TIM BUCK IS RUNNING ALL RIGHT WITH ME. YOU CAN BE IN YOUR OFFICE TOMORROW.
I HAVE TO RUN BY, BECAUSE AS GOOD AS TIM'S BEEN AT IT, THAT'S NOT HIS FULL-TIME JOB [LAUGHTER].
I'M TRYING TO WORK THIS OUT TO WHERE WE CAN, AND AS I SHARE WITH THE CHIEF EVERY TIME I MEET WITH HIM, MY GOAL IS TO LET HIS POLICE OFFICERS DO POLICE WORK.
I DON'T REALLY THINK IT'S RIGHT TO HAVE A POLICE OFFICER FLUSHING A BOAT MOTOR AFTER WE DEPLOYED.
I'D RATHER HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE DOING THAT SO THAT POLICE OFFICER CAN GO BACK AND DO THEIR JOB.
>> CURRENTLY IN MY DISTRICT, A LOT OF MARINE ISSUES TO MAKE IT BE, SO WE'LL ACTUALLY HAVE OUR OWN PEOPLE RESPONDING.
I KNOW WE WORK CLOSELY AND WE HAVE AN MOU.
>> NO, IT VERY WELL COULD, AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF CANALS IN GALVESTON THAT NEED TO BE POLICED.
WE'VE GOT A LOT OF BEACHFRONT THAT'S NOT BEING POLICED AT ALL, INCLUDING SAN LUIS PASS, WHICH WE TOUCHED ON WITH THE CHARGING AND THINGS OUT THERE EARLIER.
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD TIME THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT RESOURCES DO WE HAVE ACROSS EVERY DIVISION? ARE THEY BEING DEPLOYED CORRECTLY, AND ARE WE COORDINATING THOSE EFFORTS? I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> THE OTHER PART OF MY QUESTION, BECAUSE ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WAS INVOLVED IN THAT, A LOT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE MARINE SAFETY ARE RETIRED.
>> ARE WE STILL GOING TO USE THEM AS A RESOURCE?
>> I DON'T ENVISION STOPPING ANY OF THE RESOURCES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
I'M MORE LOOKING AT HOW WE BETTER COORDINATE THEM, AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT.
>> TINA KILLED THEM WHEN THEY LOST THAT FACILITY ON '50S.
>> THEY'RE STILL THERE. WE'VE NEVER MOVED THEM OUT OF IT.
IT'S NOT A TERRIBLE FACILITY, NOTHING FITS IN IT.
THIS IS ALONG THOSE LINES, BUT YOU HAVE TREMENDOUS BEACH PUBLIC SAFETY AND WATER PUBLIC SAFETY ASSETS ALL OVER, BUT OF IT'S OVER THERE, SOME OF IT'S OVER HERE.
WELL, IT'S LOOSELY COORDINATED.
I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO TAKE AWAY FROM THIS THAT, OH, MY GOD, THEY'RE RUNNING AROUND LIKE CRAZY.
THAT'S NOT THE CASE, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT IT, DO A BETTER JOB.
RIGHT NOW, IF YOU WANT TO USE BEACH PATROL AS AN EXAMPLE, THEY'RE A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY TASKED WITH A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS, AND SHOULD THEY BE MORE FOCUSED ON JUST LIFEGUARDING? THEY RUN A FIRST-CLASS LIFE GUARD PROGRAM.
SHOULD WE BE STAYING ON TOP OF THAT AND FOCUSING OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS SOMEWHERE ELSE, EITHER WITH PD OR WITH THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE OR WITH SOMEBODY ELSE, OR JOINTLY BETWEEN ALL OF THEM, BECAUSE BETWEEN ALL THESE ENTITIES, THE ONE THING THEY FOR CERTAIN HAVE IN COMMON IS STAFFING SHORTAGES? THERE'S NOT AN ABUNDANCE OF ANYBODY WANTING TO DO PUBLIC SAFETY WORK RIGHT NOW.
WHEN THOSE THINGS HAPPEN, THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE TO REALLY LOOK HARD AT YOUR ORGANIZATION AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE DOING THINGS AS BEST YOU CAN, BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME GREAT OPPORTUNITY FORTHCOMING WHERE WE CAN REALLY LOOK AT THESE THINGS.
>> NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING IT FROM UNDER THE POLICE CHIEF.
>> NO. WHAT THE MARINE SAFETY STUFF THAT'S UNDER THE POLICE IS GOING TO STAY UNDER THE POLICE.
[OVERLAPPING] WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT BETTER COORDINATION OF THE ASSETS AND BETTER RESPONSE.
NO. WE'RE NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY FROM ANY DEPARTMENT.
WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY EMPLOYEES AWAY FROM ANY DEPARTMENT OR ANY RESPONSIBILITIES AT THIS POINT.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT CONSOLIDATING EFFORTS IN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WAY.
>> AS YOU MENTIONED, BRIAN, IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO A POLICE PRESENCE ON THE BEACH.
IT'S UNDECIDED WHO HANDLES WHAT DOWN THERE ON THE BEACH.
>> I TELL YOU, THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW ME KNOW HOW I AM ABOUT CARS.
MY SUNDAY EVENING RELAXATION IS USUALLY OVER AT THE CAR WASH, AND IT'S USUALLY ME AND ABOUT EIGHT OF OUR POLICE OFFICERS ON THAT SHIFT SHAKING THE SAND OFF OF THEM OUT OF THEIR CARS AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND THOSE ARE EXPENSIVE ASSETS TOO.
WE REALLY GOING TO WANT TO LOOK AT AND SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING AND HOW WE'RE DEPLOYING THEM AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
I FEEL BAD FOR THOSE GUYS DOING THAT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO DO IT RIGHT, MAKE SURE THEY GOT THE RIGHT TOOLS AND EVERYTHING.
>> WE HAVE BOB, THEN ALEX, AND THEN DAVID.
>> ANY DISCUSSION WITH COORDINATION WITH GALVESTON COUNTY?
>> ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE ALREADY HAD JUST VERY PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SHERIFF ABOUT SHARING THOSE RESOURCES AS WELL.
>> WE'RE ALREADY SHARING OR GOING TO BE SHARING CALL CENTER, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S ALL GOING TO BE MOVED UNDER SHERIFF PHONES' RESPONSIBILITY?
[03:50:02]
>> WE'RE TALKING, YES, CONSOLIDATED DISPATCH IS DEFINITELY ON THE TABLE.
THAT'S SOMETHING I'VE DISCUSSED NOW WITH THREE OR FOUR SHERIFFS.
HOPEFULLY, JIMMY IS THE ONE THAT GETS IT DONE.
>> HAS THERE BEEN SOME INTEREST IN SHERIFF PHONES?
>> YEAH. WE FIRST TALKED TO JIMMY ABOUT THIS POOR GUY'S DRINKING WATER THROUGH A FIRE HOSE, JUST GETTING IN OFFICE, BUT HE HAD INTEREST IN IT.
MAKE SENSE, WE'RE IN THE SAME ROOM, AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO THE SAME RMS.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THAT WOULD HELP US HAVE MORE RESPONSE.
>> AGAIN, THEY HAVE A PRETTY ROBUST MARINE SAFETY UNIT AS WELL, AS YOU POINT OUT.
AGAIN, THIS IS MORE ABOUT COORDINATION AND ASSETS, AND WE LEARNED THAT EVEN FROM JEEP WEEK IN TAPPING THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES THAT HAD DIFFERENT RESOURCES AND WORKING TOGETHER, IT WORKS AND HAVING THESE COLLABORATED EFFORTS REALLY WORKS WELL, AND IT SPREADS THE COST AND THE SAVINGS ACROSS ALL THESE OTHER AREAS.
WE HAVE A LOT TO TALK ABOUT. WE ARE NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO HAVING ANYTHING RESEMBLING A PLAN, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE OF THE WAY RUMORS RUN AROUND GALVESTON, THERE WERE ALREADY RUMORS CIRCULATING ABOUT ALL THIS STUFF THAT YOU ALL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I'M WORKING ON AND WHERE IT'S COMING FROM, AND IF YOU HEAR ANYTHING OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, GIVE ME A CALL.
>> ONE OF THE THOUGHTS I HAVE IS WE ALSO DO EMS, AND I THINK WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE EITHER WE HAVE TO MOVE EMS TO IN HOUSE OR WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT CONTRACT.
>> WE'RE EVALUATING EVERY YEAR, AND AS THE PRICE GOES UP, THERE'S GOING TO BE A TIPPING POINT WHERE IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE FOR US TO DO THAT.
>> BUT WITH THE INCREASING OF THE SHARED SERVICES, IF WE CAN DO THAT, MAYBE AT SOME POINT, IT BECOMES MORE COST-EFFECTIVE TO YOU TO DO THAT.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. BECAUSE IF YOU START CONSOLIDATING OTHER EFFORTS AND THAT WORKS, AND YOU HAVE SOME SAVINGS THERE THAT MAY TIP IT, SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSIONS THERE TO BE HEARD AND A LOT OF ANALYSIS TO BE DONE.
>> GO AHEAD. WHEN WAS THERE THE TRANSITION FROM GALVESTON COUNTY SHERIFF OVERSEEING ART BEACH PATROL TO CITY OF GALVESTON PARKS BOARD OVERSEEING ART BEACH PATROL?
>> WELL, IT WAS UNDER THE PARK BOARD EVEN WHEN THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DID IT.
THEY JUST CONTRACTED WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.
NOW, WHEN THEY ACTUALLY TOOK IT IN HOUSEBOAT, I DO NOT KNOW.
>> WELL, I GUESS THAT'S RIGHT WHEN VICK RETIRED.
>> WELL, WHEN VICK RETIRED THE FIRST TIME, VICK CAME BACK. [LAUGHTER]
>> IT WAS AFTER CHIEF LEONARD TOOK OFFICE.
>> IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DURING MY LITTLE HIATUS WHEN I WENT TO UTMB.
>> I DID LEADERSHIP GALVESTON IN '97, AND I THINK ALL THAT WAS GOING ON THEN.
>> IT WAS '97 OR '98. IT WAS ABOUT THAT TIME.
>> BRIAN, FIRST OFF, I HEAR VERY CLEARLY THAT THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY FOR OUR MARINE RESPONSES, WHICH GOES AROUND THE ENTIRE ISLAND, NOT JUST OUR BEACH SIDE.
I THINK YOU HEAR VERY CLEARLY, YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF SUPPORT FOR IT.
MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE A LOT OF TIME AND ANALYSIS, DO YOU HAVE A TIME FRAME BY WHICH YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND REPORT BACK TO US ABOUT WHAT THE STRUCTURE OR PROCESSES THAT YOU'RE HAVING TO CHANGE?
>> OPTIMISTICALLY, OF COURSE, THERE'S A LOT OF HURRY UP AND WAIT GOING ON RIGHT NOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND OTHER THINGS, BUT I WOULD HOPE TO HAVE SOME EARLY LOOK AT IT DURING YOUR BUDGET DISCUSSIONS SO WE CAN ACTUALLY DO SOME FINANCIAL PLANNING FOR IT AND WHETHER WE'RE 100% READY TO GO BY THEN OR NOT.
THIS MAY VERY WELL BE SOMETHING THAT'S DONE IN PHASES BECAUSE AS ALEX BROUGHT UP, IT'S GOING TO BE A CONSTANT EVOLUTION ANALYSIS AS WE GO FORWARD.
ALSO, WE WANT TO BE PREPARED IF OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS, IF SOMETHING CHANGES, WE CAN MOVE QUICKLY ON IT.
>> CREATE FUNDING OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
>> I THINK THIS IS A STEP FORWARD, NOT ONLY FROM WHAT YOU MENTIONED IN THE EFFICIENCY AND INCREASE OF PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT IT IS A SPRING BOARD TO LOOK AT OTHER AREAS TO HOW WE CAN COMBINE OUR SERVICES WITH THE COUNTY IN OTHER ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS THE PARK BOARD AND THE BOARD.
>> MUCH OF IT'S SEASONAL, SOME OF IT'S NOT, SOME OF IT'S YEAR-ROUND.
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF ANALYSIS AND CALL VOLUME ANALYSIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO GO THROUGH THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH BOTH CHIEFS ON AND LOOKING AT IT JUST TO SEE WHAT RESOURCES DO WE HAVE? WHAT RESOURCES WE MOST LIKELY ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FILL FUTURE POSITIONS WITH? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO AND WHO WANTS TO DO WHAT AND WHEN?
>> AND HOW? MORE THAT'S RIGHT, BUT I THINK IT'S TIME THAT WE HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS, BUT JUST BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S GOING ON IN THE WORLD TODAY AT THIS MEETING,
[03:55:03]
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I WAS VERY CLEAR AND UPFRONT WHAT I WAS WORKING ON SO THE RUMOR MILL DOESN'T TAKE OVER.>> THANK YOU, BRIAN. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? THANK YOU. WE'LL WAIT TO HEAR FROM YOU, BRIAN, AS WE MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.
>> LET'S GO TO 3H, PLEASE, MA'AM.
[3.H Discussion of Stewart Beach Parks Master Plan/Developer Proposal and Public Input Structure (D. Anderson - 30 min)]
>> 3H, DISCUSSION OF STEWART BEACH PARKS MASTER PLAN DEVELOPER PROPOSAL, AND PUBLIC INPUT STRUCTURE.
>> DUDLEY, YOU'VE BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING.
>> HE VESTED WHILE HE WAS HERE.
>> I'M DUDLEY ANDERSON. I'M THE CITY'S ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT MANAGER.
TODAY WE'VE GOT AMBER GUERRERO.
I'D LIKE HER TO COME UP. SHE'S WORKING ON THIS ALSO. AMBER IS-
>> HAVE A SEAT. WHAT IS YOUR NAME AGAIN, I'M SORRY?
>> SHE WORKS UP WITH DUDLEY IN HIS SHOP.
>> INTERN ARCHITECT IN THE LICENSING PROCESS RIGHT NOW OR LICENSE.
>> WHEN SHE GETS A LICENSE, SHE CAN HAVE ALL 64 CRAYONS AT HER DISPOSAL.
>> ARE WE READY. I PROMISED THEN THREE MINUTES.
WE'VE ALREADY USED TWO. WE'RE PROCEEDING ALONG THE METHOD THAT COUNCIL APPROVED LAST APRIL.
THE WAY WE'RE PROCEEDING RIGHT NOW, WE'RE WORKING WITH BRW ON MASTER PLANNING SCOPE WORK AND FEES.
THEY'RE WORKING WITH TWO OTHER SUBCONTRACTORS.
ONE OF THEM WOULD BE ROGERS, AND A THIRD ONE IS THE STICKING POINT.
THAT'S THE REAL ESTATE PROSPECTUS, AND THEY'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF DIFFICULTY FINDING THE RIGHT FIT FOR THAT EFFORT.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT WE GO AHEAD AND GET BRW STARTED SO WE CAN GET THE MASTER PLAN UNDERWAY WHILE THEY'RE STILL LOOKING FOR THE SECOND PHASE OF THEIR WORK, WHICH WILL BE THE PROSPECTUS SO THAT WE WOULD AMEND THE CONTRACT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, BUT THAT WAY WE CAN, HOPEFULLY, GET YOU A CONTRACT TO APPROVE IN JUNE, AND THEN THEY GET STARTED.
THEN AFTER THAT, WE OPTIMISTICALLY SAID 12 MONTHS FOR GETTING THIS CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
>> IT'S GETTING TO THE CONSTRUCTION, THERE WE GO.
>> PLANNING PHASE IS 12 MONTHS.
>> THAT COULD MEAN CD DRAWINGS, I THINK.
>> THAT'S THE INITIAL DESIGN APPROVALS, BID PROCESS, THE WHOLE BIT. THAT'S OUR INTENTION.
RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'RE DOING IN-HOUSE, THE LAST THING WE'VE DONE IS REVIEW ALL OF THE STUFF FROM VISION GALVESTON.
THEY HAD A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THEY'VE PUT FORWARD IN THEIR LAST EFFORT THAT PERTAIN TO PARKS AND GREEN SPACES.
EIGHT OUT OF THE 78 ITEMS THEY HAVE ON THERE.
WE'RE GOING TO INCORPORATE THOSE INTO THE THINGS THAT THIS COUNCIL [OVERLAPPING].
>> COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER?
>> PROBABLY NOT. CAN YOU HEAR BETTER NOW?
WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDING THOSE EIGHT TO THE LIST THAT [INAUDIBLE] GIVEN US, AND THEN WE WILL ADD IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WHEN WE GET TO IT SO THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A PRETTY BROAD RANGE OF THINGS THAT PEOPLE IN THE CITY ACTUALLY WANT TO SEE STEWART BEACH PARK BECOME.
>> WE WERE TRYING DESPERATELY NOT TO REINVENT THE WHEEL.
IT'S GOING TO NEED TO LAST A LONG TIME.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH COASTAL RESOURCES, I THINK KYLE'S HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM, FOR THE POSSIBILITIES THAT ARE OUT AT STEWART BEACH PARK.
WE'VE HEARD OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME LOTS OF THINGS ABOUT HOW THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK ON THE BEACH.
WORKING WITH KYLE, WE FIND OUT HOW THEY ACTUALLY SHOULD BE WORKING ON THE BEACH, AND THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME THING.
WE'RE GETTING THAT STRAIGHTENED OUT, THINGS THAT WE CAN DO AND THINGS THAT WE CAN'T DO.
TURNS OUT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO, SO WE WANT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
WE'VE BEGUN CONVERSATIONS WITH MICHAEL SHANNON.
HE WAS HERE THIS MORNING ABOUT THE SEAWALL EASEMENT AND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO COORDINATE WITH THAT.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE FOUR RAMPS DOWN ONTO STEWART BEACH.
YOU PROBABLY ONLY KNOW ABOUT THREE OF THEM AND MAYBE ONLY USE TWO OF THEM,
[04:00:02]
BUT WE NEED TO COORDINATE ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND HOW FAR WE HAVE TO BE FROM THE SEAWALL IF WE HAVE TO BE FAR FROM THE SEAWALL.THAT SORT OF THING IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT. [INAUDIBLE]
>> IS THAT WHERE IT'S FORTY-SEVEN-AND-A-HALF FEET OR IS THAT 50 FEET?
>> THAT'S 50 FEET, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PIECE OF THE SEAWALL IS 50 FOOT FROM THIS.
>> THEY'RE STILL TRYING TO PICTURE THE FOUR.
>> SOME OF IT'S FORTY-SEVEN-AND-A-HALF.
>> IF YOU GET DOWN CLOSER TO THE PORRETTO BEACH, THERE'S TWO RAMPS THAT GO DOWN LIKE THIS THAT YOU'RE MISSING.
>> THERE'S 1, 2, THEN YOU HAVE THE MAIN ONE, THEN YOU HAVE THE ONE ON HOLIDAY, AND YOU HAVE THE ONE ON FERRY ROAD.
THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER ONE ON THE BACK SIDE.
>> WHICH IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF [INAUDIBLE]
>> IF WE GET ALL THOSE THINGS WORKED OUT, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET GOOD BEACH ACCESS, BUT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ADDING A RAMP OR ANYTHING.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO BRING A AMENDED DOCUMENT TO US IN JUNE, YOU THINK?
>> THE CONTRACT WILL JUST BE WRITTEN IN PHASES.
WE'LL STAY WITH THE SAME GROUP.
WE WANT TO GET SOMETHING GOING.
WE WANT TO GET SOMETHING MOVE.
WHAT WE KNOW WE CAN DO OR WHAT WE KNOW THEY'RE CAPABLE OF DOING, THEN WHEN THAT EXTRA PIECE FALLS IN PLACE, WE CAN ADD THAT ON.
>> MAYOR, IN JUNE AS WELL, DUDLEY WILL BE BRINGING TO YOU, UNRELATED TO THIS, BUT DISCUSSIONS OF FIRE STATION 2.
Y'ALL NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ON THE WORKSHOP, PLEASE.
>> WHEN ARE WE EXPECTED TO GO OUT TO THE MARKET?
>> FOR THE DEVELOPER, THAT SHOULD BE SOMETIME CLOSER TO THE END OF THIS YEAR, SIX MONTHS, SEVEN MONTHS FROM NOW.
>> TO CLARIFY, BRW IS A LEAD ON THIS FOR YOU, AND ROGERS IS A CONSULTANT.
BRD IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MASTER PLAN FIRST PHASE CONTRACT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] FOR THE PRIME DESIGN. THE REASON THAT THEY ARE HAS TO DO WITH PROCUREMENT MORE THAN ANYTHING?
>> THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE BEACH, THEY KNOW WHAT WE WANT.
ROGERS HAS SUCCESSFULLY DONE ONE, BUT IT HAS TO BE UPDATED.
WE ASSUME THAT IT WOULD BE MUCH FASTER FOR THEM TO COLLABORATE, UPDATE THE ONE THAT EXISTS, AND ROGERS HAS THAT BACKGROUND.
>> THEY HAD ALREADY DONE QUITE A BIT OF WORK OUT THERE US ALREADY ON THE BEACH PATROL HEADQUARTERS, SO WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RE BUY ANYTHING.
>> THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. THAT LEADS ME TO MY OTHER QUESTION.
LAST TIME I SPOKE WITH YOU ABOUT IT, YOU WERE ALSO GOING FORWARD WITH A PROGRAM FOR THE BEACH PATROL FACILITY AND TRYING TO DIVIDE IT INTO A LAND SIDE COMPONENT, A BEACH SIDE COMPONENT.
>> THOSE THINGS ARE STILL UNDER DISCUSSION.
WE'VE IDENTIFIED A POSSIBILITY FOR SOME ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE, BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEGREGATE BEACH NECESSITY AND NON BEACH.
>> BRW, THAT'S PART OF THEIR TASK NOW.
>> YES. THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN.
>> THAT'S PART OF THEIR PLAN. WE DISCUSSED THAT WHEN I MET WITH THEM THE OTHER DAY.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DUDLEY? DUDLEY, GO FORTH AND PROSPER.
>> THANK YOU, DUDLEY. GREAT TO HAVE YOU.
>> I'M SORRY, I TOOK MORE THAN THREE MINUTES.
>> WE ASKED YOU QUESTIONS. WE'D HAVE BEEN DONE TWO HOURS AGO, DUDLEY.
>> JANELLE, ITEM 3L, PLEASE, MA'AM.
[3.L Discussion of Private Beach Ownership and Beach Vendor Agreements (D. Glywasky/T. Tietjens - 20 min)]
>> ITEM 3L, DISCUSSION OF PRIVATE BEACH OWNERSHIP AND BEACH VENDOR AGREEMENTS.
>> YES. CONFLICT ME OUT, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER PORRETTO HAD DECLARED A CONFLICT AND IS LEAVING THE WORKSHOP TABLE. VERY GOOD.
>> MAYOR, I HAVE A CONFLICT. I'VE BEEN TO THE BEACH BEFORE.
>> YOU'RE NOT LEAVING. YOUR CONFLICT HAS BEEN REFUSED. VERY GOOD.
DON, I KNOW YOU HAVE A ORDINANCE THAT YOU HAD BROUGHT FORWARD CONCERNING THIS AND SOME CHANGES BRINGING THINGS TOGETHER.
WOULD YOU WANT TO START OUT BY DISCUSSING THAT?
>> I HAD BROUGHT THIS FORWARD TO YOU WAS THREE MONTHS AGO, AND AT THE TIME, SUGGESTED THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE PARK BOARD ON IT.
IT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE PARK BOARD JOINT MEETING.
IT WAS PASSED AT THEIR REQUEST, BUT I WAS ASKED TO BRING IT FORWARD NOW.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE FROM WHAT I HAVE PROPOSED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WAS, AT THE TIME,
[04:05:03]
I HAD SUGGESTED THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IMPOSING SOME FEES FOR THE USE OF RAMPS AND TRASH PICKUP.THAT SUGGESTION WAS POPULAR WITH NO ONE, SO IT HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT.
IT CONTEMPLATES THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY ON THE BEACH WOULD NOT HAVE TO GET A CONCESSION AGREEMENT FROM THE PARK BOARD, BUT RATHER WOULD SIMPLY HAVE TO SHOW SOME PROOF OF OWNERSHIP.
WE DO NOT WANT TO DEPRIVE ANYBODY OF MAKING USE OF THEIR PROPERTY.
HOWEVER, AS YOU'VE ALL HEARD, THERE'S SOME DEGREE OF CHAOS ON THE BEACH, AND WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE THE PRIVATE OWNERS ARE OPERATING.
ALL THIS DOES IS ASK THEM TO COME IN, GO TO THE PARK BOARD, TELL THEM WHAT PROPERTY THEY'RE CLAIMING IS THEIR OWN, SHOW SOME INDICIA OF OWNERSHIP, AND MOVE ON AHEAD.
NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S THE PARK BOARD THAT GRANTS CONCESSIONS ON THE BEACH.
THAT'S THE WAY IT IS DONE NOW.
IF THAT CHANGES IN THE FUTURE, WE'LL HAVE TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE, BUT BASICALLY, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT LATER ON IF WE HAVE TO.
THIS IS JUST AN UPDATE OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO.
>> SHOW INDICES OF OWNERSHIP, YOU SAID.
I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT QUALIFY AS A AS A INDICATION OF OWNERSHIP THAT COULD BE, I GUESS, STANDARDIZED OR ENFORCED OR BELIEVED OR WHATEVER.
>> WHAT IF THERE'S TWO LEASES ON THE SAME PROPERTY?
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO. IF THEY'RE CLAIMING PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE DESIGNATED TAX PAYING PROPERTY OWNER ON THE LEASE. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.
>> IF YOU HAVE TAX RECEIPTS, BUT LET'S SAY, FOR INSTANCE, CAD SHOWS YOU DON'T OWN THAT, WHAT IF THERE ARE CONFLICTING INDICES?
>> YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU OWN IT.
IF THERE'S A CONFLICT, THAT WOULD UNDERMINE YOUR CLAIM.
>> IF SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH SOMETHING THAT SAYS THEY OWN IT AND CAD SAYS THEY DON'T, IS THAT A CONFLICT?
>> CAD WILL NEVER MAKE A STATEMENT ON OWNERSHIP.
>> YOU CAN PRINT OUT YOUR TAX RECEIPT DIRECTLY FROM THE TAX OFFICE.
>> BUT CAD IS NOT RELIABLE. NO.
>> I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS.
IS THIS IS THIS A ORDINANCE THAT IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, O R IS THIS A PROCESS IMPROVEMENT?
>> THIS IS A CHANGE TO THE CITY CODE.
>> CHANGE TO THE CITY CODE. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE PARK BOARD OR.
>> NO. I'VE SUGGESTED YOU TALK TO THEM.
IT WAS ON THE JOINT MEETING AGENDA.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. FOR WHATEVER REASON.
>> WHAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION MOVING FORWARD?
>> I WOULD NOT HAVE SUBMITTED THIS FOR CONSIDERATION IF I DID NOT RECOMMEND IT.
>> WE'LL SEE THIS ON THE NEXT APPOINTMENT.
>> IS THIS ON [INAUDIBLE] OR JUST WORKSHOP?
>> I THINK IT'S JUST WORKSHOP.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE HAVE MEETINGS EVERY 72 HOURS. [LAUGHTER].
>> WE'RE ON A SPECIAL MEETING.
I KNOW BEAU WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE BASIS OF THIS.
THE LAND LEASE THAT WE HAVE THAT THE GLO GRANTS TO THE CITY OR SO, THAT JUST COVERS LAND THAT IS BASICALLY SUBMERGED LAND,
[04:10:05]
AS THE WET BEACHES, RIGHT?>> THE CITY IS NO LEASE WITH THE GLO.
THAT ONLY GIVES THEM THE RIGHT TO LEASE THAT LAND, THE WET BEACH, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
IT'S LIKE ME LEASING YOU A TABLE TO SELL LEMONADE FOR LEMONADE DAY AT 100 FEET OUT IN THE WATER.
>> BUT THE LEASE THAT THE PARK BOARDS WORKING UNDER TO PROVIDE THESE VENDOR AGREEMENTS, THAT'S THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE LEASE, THE PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY OVER.
>> I HAVE READ THAT LEASE AND I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT BEACH WAS SUBMERGED AT THE TIME THAT LEASE WAS EXECUTED.
DID THEY EXECUTE THAT LEASE SO THE PARK BOARD COULD ADD SAND ONTO THAT SUBMERGED BEACH? IF SAND WAS ADDED TO THE SUBMERGED BEACH, THEN THAT PREVIOUSLY SUBMERGED BEACH BECOMES STATE PROPERTY.
>> I THINK THAT'S DEBATABLE ALSO.
IF YOU WANT TO DEBATE IT, WE GOT TO GO TALK TO A DISTRICT JUDGE.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT IS A STRAIGHT BLACK LETTER LAW APPLICATION OF WHAT THE LAW OF ACCRETION IS.
LAND WAS PREVIOUSLY UNDERWATER, AND IT IS FILLED BY A SUDDEN EVENT, IT REMAINS STATE PROPERTY.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THE PARK BOARD PUT SAND ON A BEACH THAT WAS SUBMERGED UNDER THAT PIECE.
HOWEVER, I DO KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING OWNERSHIP ON PIECES OF BEACH AND PROBABLY AREN'T COVERED BY THIS.
ULTIMATELY, THE TEST OF OWNERSHIP WOULD HAVE TO BE CONTESTED BETWEEN THAT PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PUTATIVE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS THE STATE.
THE STATE DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE AN INTEREST OR APPETITE IN LOOKING INTO THAT.
HERE WE ARE TRYING TO MANAGE A PROBLEM AS BEST WE CAN.
>> I UNDERSTAND. I ASKED THE GLO STRAIGHTFORWARD IF THE RENEWERSHIP BEACH, LET'S TAKE THE BAY'S BEACH.
IS THAT NOW STATE LAND? THEIR RESPONSE TO ME IS, WE DON'T KNOW. WE'RE RESEARCHING THAT.
>> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
I WANT TO FOLLOW ANOTHER LINE OF THOUGHT TOO.
THIS PROPERTY DOWN THERE IS ZONE COMMERCIAL OR WHATEVER THE ZONING IS.
CAN THOSE INDIVIDUALS OPERATE BASED UPON BEING PRIVATE LAND AND THEY PROVE THAT IT'S PRIVATE LAND, ISN'T IT UNDER THE ZONING AND PERMITTED USES OF OUR LDRS THAT REALLY GOVERN THAT?
>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO PERFORM AN ACTIVITY AND OBTAIN ANY NECESSARY PERMITS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF I OWNED A PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THE BEACH, I COULD NOT OPERATE A GUNPOWDER FACTORY THERE SIMPLY BY THE VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT I OWN IT.
THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH OUR NORMAL ORDINANCES, PERMITS, APPLICATIONS, WHATEVER WE HAVE.
>> IF THEY WANT TO RUN A FOOD TRUCK DOWN THERE, PRETTY EASY, GET A FOOD TRUCK PERMIT.
>> WELL, AS WE DISCUSSED, THERE ARE SOME ENTITIES DOWN THERE NOW THAT WILL START SELLING ALCOHOL ON THIS BEACH.
>> TABC MAY WANT TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT THAT.
>> THAT'S TRUE. THEY GOT TO WORK THROUGH THAT THE TABC, BUT IT'S PRIVATE LAND, SO IT SEEMS LIKE THEIR RESPONSE, IF THEY WANT TO SELL ALCOHOL IS BETWEEN THEM AND THE TABC.
>> I WOULD ALSO HAVE TO CHECK TO SEE IF WE BAN ALCOHOL ON THE BEACH.
>> I THINK YOU DO. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT.
YOU'VE DONE IT ON CERTAIN STREETS DOWNTOWN AS YOU'RE WELL AWARE.
>> THERE'S NO PERMIT THAT CAN BE ISSUED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS THROUGH TABC
[04:15:03]
THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO FIRST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, THE CHIEF OF POLICE, FIRE MARSHAL, AND THE COUNTY.YOU CAN'T EVEN ACQUIRE THAT PERMIT UNLESS ALL FOUR OF THOSE ENTITIES SIGN OFF AND APPROVE IT.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT THEIR RESPONSE, IF THEY HAVE A PIECE OF PRIVATE LAND DOWN THERE, AND IT'S PROVEN TO BE PRIVATE ON THE BEACH, THEN THE THEIR COMMUNICATION IS BETWEEN THESE AUTHORITIES TO GET A LICENSE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU OWN YOUR HOME, BUT YOU CAN'T OPERATE A LIQUOR SALES OPERATION.
>> NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BRIAN.
>> SAYS THE CAYOTES [LAUGHTER].
>> BUT THEY HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THE NORMAL CHANNELS AS BEAU MENTIONED.
BUT THE CITY, BEING PRIVATE LAND, CAN THE CITY COME IN AND SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T SELL ALCOHOL?
>> WE DO THAT FOR PARKS RIGHT NOW.
THEY DON'T SIGN OFF ON A PERMIT.
>> BUT WE DO IT ON WHEREVER BLOCKS A POST OFFICE SALES.
>> YEAH, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL HAS PASSED AN ORDINANCE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE, THAT BANNED ALCOHOL ON THE BEACH, DIDN'T YOU?
>> WELL, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT BANNED ALCOHOL ON THE INTERCITY BEACHES.
I THINK ALCOHOL IS BANNED UNTIL 61ST STREET.
I THINK THERE ARE SOME BEACHES WHERE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO CONSUME ALCOHOL.
>> WE LOOKED AT THAT. I REMEMBER THAT NOW.
I DON'T REMEMBER IF WE EXTENDED IT ALL THE WAY TO 90.
>> AS A MATTER OF FACT, I THINK IT WAS ELIZABETH, YOU WERE ON COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE].
>> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER NOW.
>> NO. I AGREE. WE TALKED ABOUT IT, THOUGH.
>> I MAY BE MAKING THIS TOO SIMPLE, BUT I LOOK AT THE PRIVATE LAND, IF THAT'S PROVEN TO BE PRIVATE LAND, IT'S UNDER THE SAME GUIDELINES AS A LOT THAT'S IN THE SAN JACINTO DISTRICT OR SOMETHING.
IT HAS ZONING, IT HAS ALL OF THE PERMITTED USES, WHAT YOU CAN DO.
THAT LOT RESPONDS THE SAME WAY, IT SEEMS TO ME.
VERY GOOD. NOW, IS SETTING UP BEACH UMBRELLAS PERMITTED ON A COMMERCIAL LOT?
>> I DON'T RECALL ANYTHING IN THE LDRS THAT REQUIRES A PERMIT FOR SUCH AN ACTIVITY.
[BACKGROUND] NOW, WE'RE TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT TO DO THIS.
>> NO. ALL WE'RE DOING IS ASKING THEM TO REGISTER THAT THEY'RE OPERATING SO THAT WE CAN COORDINATE THESE WITH OTHER CONCESSIONAIRES.
REMEMBER YOU WERE ALL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE THREAT OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE BECAUSE OF CONFLICTING CLAIMS.
>> NO. GO AHEAD. I'M LOOKING SOMETHING UP.
>> THIS IS TO REMEDY THAT POSSIBILITY.
>> ON THE BEACH FROM 61ST STREET EAST, DIDN'T THE CITY GIVE THE RIGHT TO THE PARK BOARD THAT DIDN'T COME FROM THE STATE TO BE ABLE TO DO LEASES?
>> NO. WE PUT THEM UNDER THE MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OF THE PARK BOARD IN HOPES THAT THEY WOULD PUT LIFEGUARDS ON THERE.
BUT THEY HAVE A LEASE WITH THE GLO.
>> I'M TALKING 61ST STREET EAST.
>> EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD SAY 6TH STREET WEST, BUT MARIE ALWAYS STARTS ON THE WEST END AND WORKS HER WAY IN. [LAUGHTER]
>> IT'S LIKE WHEN I GO HOME, I SAY, I'M GOING BACK EAST.
BEAU, CAN YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION?
>> NOW YOU THROUGH ME BECAUSE I WAS THINKING 61ST STREET.
>> WELL, ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONTENTION AREAS IS 61ST STREET TO I GUESS, 57TH STREET, WHERE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE BIGGEST BATTLE OF THE BEACHES.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS ELSEWHERE.
>> YEAH. THERE'S SOME OTHERS THAT ARE HOT TOPICS.
>> THERE ARE MANY, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THEM.
HOW DOES THAT WORK ON [OVERLAPPING] EAST OF 61ST?
>> PERSON CLAIMING PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS REGISTER THAT THEY'RE
[04:20:03]
OPERATING A BUSINESS ON THEIR PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY WITH THE PARK BOARD.I THINK WE ISSUE A PERMIT, SO THEY HAVE SOME PROOF THAT WE'VE TOLD THEM, BUT I SEE NO OTHER CHANGE IN PRINCIPLE HERE. [INAUDIBLE].
>> RECEIVED A TEXT FROM FRANK MACES.
>> I'M GOING TO JUST PASS THEM ON.
DID YOU READ THE SERVICE LEASES AND HOW ABOUT CHAPTER 63 OF THE RESOURCE CODE? CHAPTER 63 OF THE RESOURCE CODE DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH DUNES.
I GUESS WHAT HE IS TRYING TO CONVEY IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PASS ANY LAW OR ORDINANCES OVER THAT.
UPON REVIEWING CHAPTER 63, IT HAS WHAT'S PROHIBITED, WHAT'S NOT AND OUTLINES SEVERAL THINGS AS FAR AS WHO CAN OVERSEE IT AND WHO HAS, I GUESS, JURISDICTION OVER IT, TALKS ABOUT PRIVATE AND PUBLIC.
COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND LOOK AT CHAPTER 63 AND SEE IF THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>> IF IT'S IN THE DUNES, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN SET UP A CONCESSION IN THE DUNES. THAT'S A PROTECTED AREA.
>> CHAPTER 63, IT'S SUBTITLED BEACHES AND DUNES.
BUT THE BODY OF CHAPTER 63 MAINLY DISCUSSES DUNES.
NOT THAT I HAVE CREATED ANY NEGOTIATION OR DEBATE.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT.
JUST TO REVIEW IT FOR US, DAN, JUST TO CHECK.
>> I'M NOT SEEING IT MYSELF, BUT I'LL CHECK.
>> I DIDN'T READ IT FAST ENOUGH, BUT IT'S A LOT, BUT JUST CHECK ON IT.
>> CHAPTER 63, THE NATIONAL RESOURCES CODE?
>> BOB, I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON CRAIG'S SIMPLE PERSPECTIVE, I THINK.
BUT THE THING THAT SEEMS TO STILL BE A PROBLEM IS THE DISPOSITION OF SUBMERGED PROPERTY.
IF THE BEACH WAS RENOURISHED, IT WAS ONCE SUBMERGED, THE STATE OWNS IT, IS WHAT I'VE HEARD.
BUT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING, OTHERWISE.
WELL, IS IT OUR PROBLEM TO ENFORCE A STATE LAW LIKE THAT? SHOULD WE JUST LET THEM DO WHATEVER THEY WANT ON THAT BEACH AND IF THE STATE HAS A PROBLEM, THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT?
>> TO QUOTE BRIAN MAXWELL. GOD HELP YOU.
>> PLEASE DON'T PUT IN CORNY JOKES.
>> I DON'T WANT ALL THE JOKES.
>> TITLE TO THE BEACH IS NOT OUR PROBLEM.
IT'S THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER WHO CLAIMS HE OWNS THE PROPERTY.
WE WERE PRESENTED CONCERNS BY COUNCIL OF CONCERNS OF SAFETY FROM CONFLICTING CLAIMS, AND THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS.
THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DONE IN A COURT.
>> FOR THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP, THAT'S IN YOUR ORDINANCE, THERE, IF SOMEBODY WAS TO BRING FORWARD A PROOF OR TAX RECEIPT FOR INSTANCE, THAT IS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAD ONCE BEEN SUBMERGED, BUT IS NO LONGER SUBMERGED, THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
>> THAT ULTIMATELY WOULD BE HANDLED BY A DISTRICT COURT.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ORDINANCES, IT WOULD BE OKAY.
>> THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> MY BIGGEST CONCERN ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AGREEMENTS AND PAID FOR AGREEMENTS AND HAD BASICALLY PARTNERSHIPS AND HAVING A SHARE OF THEIR NET WITH THE PARKS BOARD, WHICH ARE IN LIMBO.
I AM ONLY SPEAKING ON PROPERTY THAT HAS BEEN DELINEATED AS STATE OWNED PROPERTY,
[04:25:05]
NOT PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY.MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS GETTING SUPPORT TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN OVERRUN, RAN OFF, PARKS BOARD HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT AND WE HAVE CONSTITUENTS THERE THAT HAVE HAD 9-15 YEARS OF INVESTMENT IN THESE BEACHES THAT IT'S A FREE FOR ALL DOWN THERE.
IT'S NOT REALLY THE PRIVATE OWNED BEACHES THAT I THINK, AGAIN, THAT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.
THAT'S BUSINESS THAT WE'VE WE'VE KIND OF BEEN TOLD THAT'S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, AND MY MAIN CONCERN ARE THESE BEACHES AND HOW TO ENFORCE SINCE THE PARKS BOARD IS NOT ENFORCING IT, HOW WE CAN ENFORCE THE STATE OWNED BEACHES THAT HAVE LEGITIMATE LEASES WITH THE PARKS BOARD THAT ARE NO LONGER TO OPERATE THEIR BUSINESS BECAUSE OF BEING PUSHED OUT, BEING BULLIED AND NO ONE DOWN THERE TO RIGHT OR WRONG.
THIS TO ME DEALS MORE WITH PRIVATE OWNED BEACHES.
>> I RECALL THE PARK BOARD ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH STATE TITLE TO PROPERTY WEST OF 61ST STREET WITHOUT THE GLO BEING PRESENT AS A PARTY AND BEING THROWN OUT OF COURT BECAUSE THERE WAS A NECESSARY PARTY WAS MISSING.
THEREAFTER, THEIR FIRM WAS FIRED.
>> THAT WAS JUST ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO.
>> THAT WAS A CASE AGAINST TED O'ROUKE WHO WAS CLAIMING A PIECE OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP.
WELL, BRIAN CAN GIVE YOU THE WHOLE FAMILY HISTORY ON IT. I DON'T KNOW.
THE POINT BEING, ONLY THE STATE CAN CURE THAT OWNERSHIP ISSUE.
NOW, WHETHER THE PARK BOARD HAS LET THESE PEOPLE DOWN, MAYBE THAT'S FOR THE PARK BOARD TO MAKE GOOD.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT'S JUST REALLY HARD FOR ME TO SWALLOW THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CITIZENS OF GALVESTON, AND THEY PUT THEIR TRUST AND MONEY ON THE LINE WITH THE PARKS BOARD THAT IS ALSO A GALVESTON ENTITY, NOT AN ELECTED ENTITY THAT IS NOT STEPPING UP, AND WE KEEP PASSING THE BUCK AND WE KEEP SHUFFLING THIS AROUND.
EVEN IF IT'S THE DIRTY DEED OF SAYING THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO, MEANING LIKE US AT THE COUNCIL LEVEL OR AT THE CITY LEVEL, THEN THAT'S WHAT I HATE TO COMMUNICATE, BUT RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ANSWER TO TELL THEM.
>> DON'T BE SHY, YOU CAN JOIN IN.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S NOT MUCH WE CAN DO.
THE PARK BOARD ENTERED INTO THESE CONTRACTS, I DON'T THINK WE CAN CANCEL THEM, ENFORCE THEM, OR ANYTHING WITH IT.
PROBABLY HAVE ABOUT AS MUCH LUCK AS YOU HAD GETTING YOUR INFORMATION IN YOUR AUDIT.
>> WELL, THE ISSUE DOWN THERE ON THE BEACH, IS THOSE PARCELS OF LAND THAT HAS NOBODY CONTEST THAT IS STATE OWNED OR CITY OWNED, THAT'S FINE.
THERE'S SOME PARCELS THAT ARE PRIVATE, NOBODY CONTESTS.
THE PROBLEM IS WHERE YOU GET THESE ISSUES LIKE BEAU SAYS, THAT THE PARK BOARD HAS RESEARCHED THIS, I THINK, AND SAID THIS IS STATE OR CITY OWNED, AND THERE'S INDIVIDUALS SAYING NO, IT'S PRIVATELY OWNED.
NOW, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IN YOUR ORDINANCE IS TO HAVE PROOF [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF WE CREATE A MECHANISM, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CLAIMING IT, STAKES THEIR CLAIM.
NOW, SURELY WE ARE NOT ADVOCATING THAT THE CITY SHOULD SPEND CITY DOLLARS TO PERFECT THE TITLE OF THE STATE IN A PARCEL OF PROPERTY, I'M HOPING.
>> I WOULD GO ON A LIMB HERE AND SAY THAT I THINK THE PARK BOARD WOULD APPRECIATE SOME CLARITY LIKE THIS IN TERMS OF OPERATING.
[04:30:01]
THEY'RE THE ONES WHO CREATED THE LEASE.>> WELL, THEY CREATED THEM WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THESE WERE THE LANDS THAT WERE STATE AND CITY OWNED.
>> RIGHT, BUT THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN PROVIDE AS FAR AS CLARITY.
>> WELL, THE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP THING IN THE ORDINANCE IS BEING PROPOSED, I THINK, IT DOES CLEAR UP A LOT, FOR ME ANYWAY.
>> WE ACQUIRE PROOF OF OWNERSHIP, WE DETERMINE THAT IT'S STATE PROPERTY WHICH IS [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO THE STATE PROPERTY DOESN'T COME INTO IT.
>> WHO'S ESTABLISHING PROOF OF OWNERSHIP?
>> AT THIS POINT, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE PARK BOARD.
>> BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DOING THE CONCESSIONS ON THE BEACH.
>> THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED, BOB FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT'S HOW THESE LEASES HAVE BEEN CREATED, SIGNED, AND THE CHECKS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AND GOING INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE PARKS BOARD, INCLUDING A NET PAYMENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR SALES IS.
THEY ARE CREATING THESE LEASES BASED OFF THE FACT THAT THEY ASSUME THAT IT'S STATE PROPERTY, SO THEY HAVE THAT DELINEATION.
BUT YET THEY'RE NOT ENFORCING THE LEASE THAT THEY'VE BEEN MAKING MONEY OFF OF.
INSTEAD, NOW OUT HERE SITS ON OUR TABLE OF WHAT WE CAN DO TO PROTECT OUR CITIZENS THAT A LEASE IS AS GOOD AS THE PAPER IT WAS WRITTEN ON.
>> WELL, THEY SHOULD ONLY BE INVOLVED IN LEASES THAT AREN'T PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> THAT'S THE LEASE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
>> THEY STILL ARE NOT ENFORCING WHAT'S GOING ON DOWN THERE.
>> PEOPLE ARE MAKING THEIR LIVELIHOOD, PEOPLE HAVE INVESTED MONEY.
THEY HAVE DONE IT FOR 20 SOMETHING YEARS.
>> DONE IT THE RIGHT WAY, LEGITIMATELY.
>> THEY HAVE A LEASE, THEY'RE PAYING A SHARE OF REVENUE TO THE PARK BOARD, AND OTHER PEOPLE ARE TAKING OVER THEIR SPOT.
>> I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THE PARK BOARD WANTS TO BE ON ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY, OR HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, BOB.
THE PROPERTY THAT I'M SPEAKING OF, IN FACT, THERE'S A FEW OF THEM.
THE PROPERTY THAT I'M SPEAKING OF IS THERE IS NOT A CONFLICT, THERE'S NO ISSUE GOING BACK AND FORTH OF WHETHER THIS IS PRIVATE OR STATE OWNED.
THIS IS WILD WEST TAKEOVER, AND IT'S JUST AS MUCH AS MINE AS IT IS YOURS.
>> BUT THE ENTITY TAKING THAT OVER, BEAU, ISN'T IT CLAIMING IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY?
>> ARE YOU SAYING THE PARKS BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY TO KICK ME OFF?
>> THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT BEING DONE, AND PEOPLE ARE STILL PAYING MONEY, AND HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS, AND THEY'RE LOSING THEIR LIVELIHOOD.
>> THE PARK BOARD IS STILL ISSUING A PERMIT, BUT JUST NOT A LEASE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> NONE OF MY DISCUSSION HAS BEEN ABOUT THE PARKS BOARD ISSUING A LEASE, HAVING A LEASE SIGNED OR DEPOSITING MONEY.
NONE OF MY DISCUSSION OR CONCERN IS ABOUT THE BEACHES THAT ARE ESTABLISHED AS PRIVATELY OWNED.
THEY ARE CONCERNING THE BEACHES THAT HAVE BEEN DELINEATED, THAT ARE SHOWN AS STATE OWNED PROPERTY.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE PARKS BOARD HAS THIS DELINEATION AS WELL.
NOW THAT I KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EVER BEEN PUT OUT THERE.
>> I'VE HEARD ABOUT IT, I'VE HEARD PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN IT, IT'S THERE, BOB, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
IT'S STATE BEACH THAT THE PARKS BOARD HAS BEEN PROFITING MONEY FROM, AND THE OWNER HAS BEEN KICKED OFF BY SOMEBODY ELSE THAT SAYS, IT'S JUST AS MUCH MINE AS YOURS.
KNOWING IT'S NOT PRIVATE, KNOWING HE DOESN'T HAVE A LEASE, AND SAYS, PARKS BOARD CAN'T GET ME BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT AN ENFORCEABLE ENTITY TO TELL ME TO LEAVE.
>> THE PARK BOARD IS NOT GIVING THESE PEOPLE THEIR MONEY BACK,
[04:35:02]
AND THEY'RE NOT DEFENDING THEM IN THE FACT THAT THEY PAID THEIR MONEY, THEY PAID A REVENUE SHARE AND SO FORTH.>> RIGHT. DON, SINCE THE ISSUES ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH THE ENFORCEMENT HERE, SHOULD THIS BE BETTER IN THE CITY'S HANDS RATHER THAN MOVING IT TO THE PARK BOARD?
>> THAT IS A MANAGEMENT DECISION THAT I WOULD REFER TO THE MANAGER ON.
>> AMMUNITION OF PERMITS, YOU MEAN?
>> YEAH. THESE ARE CONTESTED AND THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE IN THINGS.
I MAY BE WRONG, I DON'T THINK THE PARK BOARD WANTS TO GET INTO ALL OF THIS.
>> PARK BOARD IS ALREADY INTO IT MAYOR, [OVERLAPPING] I DON'T THINK THE CITY WANTS TO ABSORB THEIR LIABILITY AT THIS.
>> NO, THEY'RE INTO IT BECAUSE WE PASSED ON THAT ABILITY FOR THEM TO ISSUE THOSE LEASES, AND IF WE [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, I UNDERSTAND [OVERLAPPING].
IF WE MOVE THAT BACK TO THE CITY, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS ORDINANCE, EVEN THOUGH I THINK [OVERLAPPING],
>> IF WE TOOK IT BACK TO THE CITY, ULTIMATELY, WE'RE ASKING THAT THE CITY BEAR THE COST OF ESTABLISHING TITLE AND JOINING THE GLO AS A PARTY AND LITIGATING POTENTIALLY EVERY SQUARE INCH [OVERLAPPING].
>> MAYOR, I'M GOING TO BRING YOU BACK TO [OVERLAPPING].
YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, AND THAT'S WHY THE PARK BOARD DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH IT.
>> BUT MAYOR, [OVERLAPPING] WE WERE IN THE SAME ROOM TOGETHER AT THE AIRPORT AFTER BURL, WHEN YOU ASKED DAWN BUCKINGHAM HER OPINION AND SHE TOLD YOU?
>> SHE SAID, "WE ARE NOT GETTING INVOLVED."
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT, AND IF WE PASS THIS ON TO THE PARK BOARD, AND THERE ARE AREAS THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'RE NOT PASSING IT ON, IT'S ALREADY THEIR ISSUE.
>> IN THE ORDINANCE, WE MOVED THE PERMITTING OVER TO THEM.
>> IF WE DO THAT, I'M JUST SAYING IF THIS IS BEING CONTESTED, THE PARK BOARD DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED WITH THAT FOR THE SAME REASON YOU SAY THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED.
>> THEY'RE THE ONES THAT GOT INVOLVED IN IT.
>> BUT ARE WE SOLVING THIS PROBLEM? ARE WE SOLVING ANY CONCERN ON THESE PARCELS OF LAND THAT ARE BEING CONTESTED? I DON'T THINK SO.
>> YES. WHAT WE'RE SOLVING IS THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT SCHEME SAYS, IF YOU WANT TO RUN A CONCESSION DOWN THERE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT.
WHAT WE'RE CHANGING IS, IF YOU WANT TO RUN A CONCESSION AND YOU OWN THE PROPERTY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET A PERMIT.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS SHOW US THIS IS YOUR PROPERTY.
>> REGISTER YOUR BUSINESS OR ANYTHING?
>> WELL THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ACTION ITEM COMING UP IN THE NEXT MEETING, IS THAT RIGHT, DON?
>> WELL, THANKS FOR SEEING IT THAT WAY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL?
>> IF I MAY JUST SAY, I THINK IF WE HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATION FOR HOW THE PARK BOARD SHOULD RUN ALL THIS AND HOW THIS ORDINANCE IS GOING TO WORK AND ALL THAT, WE JUST NEED TO TELL THEM.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS WE NEED TO ASK THE ATTORNEY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR ACTION ITEM, DON, COMING UP NEXT MEETING.
[3.E Discussion of Park Board Appointments (C. Brown - 15 min)]
>> [LAUGHTER] ITEM 3E, DISCUSSION OF PARK BOARD APPOINTMENTS.
>> COUNCIL, I PUT THIS ON HERE.
WE HAVE THE PARK BOARD APPOINTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE IN JUNE.
ACCORDING TO ALL OF OUR GUIDELINES AND POLICIES, I WANTED TO THROW OUT TO COUNCIL.
IF WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE, WE WILL PROBABLY SEND OUT THAT NOTICE ON CALLING FOR APPLICATIONS TOMORROW, AND THEN WE NEED TO SCHEDULE AN INTERVIEW TIME DEPENDING ON HOW MANY CANDIDATES WE HAVE.
ONE POSITION HAS ALREADY NOTIFIED ME THERE'S A REAPPOINTMENT, THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE REAPPOINTED.
SO WE HAVE ONE OPEN POSITION AT THIS POINT, AND POTENTIALLY THREE REAPPOINTMENTS.
I'M THINKING OF JUNE 12TH, AS AN INTERVIEW DATE IF WE HAVE A LOT OF APPLICATIONS ON THAT.
>> IT'S JUST A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME FOR GETTING IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC.
>> I WOULD DO LATER THAN JUNE 12TH.
>> WELL, WE MOVE TO THE 19TH AND THAT'S A LOT OF ACTIVITIES GOING ON JUNE 19TH.
[04:40:05]
>> HOW PRINCIPLED WOULD IT BE TO CHANGE A CHARTER TO ASSIGN ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER TO THE PARKS BOARD?
>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU CAN APPOINT ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THE PARK BOARD IF YOU WANTED TO.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD BE ON THE PORT AND THE PARK BOARD AT THE SAME TIME.
>> I GET THAT, BUT IF THERE WAS A COUNCIL MEMBER THAT WANTED TO SERVE ALONGSIDE BOB ON THE PARKS BOARD, COULD WE APPOINT WITHIN THE COUNCIL?
>> I SEE NO IMPEDIMENT TO DOING THAT.
>> IF WE SEND OUT APPLICATION NOTICES, THEN WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE OUT FOR A TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO TURN THEIR APPLICATIONS IN.
IF WE DON'T GET A LOT OF APPLICATIONS, PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO DO THOSE INTERVIEWS ON THE MORNING OF OUR JUNE 26TH MEETING.
BUT IF WE GET A LOT OF APPLICANTS COMING IN, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO SET UP A SPECIAL INTERVIEW TIME FOR THOSE.
>> YOU NEED TO LOOK AT YOUR SCHEDULES.
I WAS THINKING JUNE 12TH, IT GIVES ABOUT THREE WEEKS FOR APPLICATIONS TO COME IN, AND WE WOULD INTERVIEW TENTATIVELY ON JUNE 12TH IF WE GET A LOT OF APPLICANTS.
>> LISTEN, DO WE HAVE TO DECIDE? WE'RE HAVING ANOTHER MEETING.
CAN'T WE DECIDE AT THAT MEETING?
>> WELL, IT PUTS IT OFF ON NOTIFYING.
>> NO, SHE COULD STILL START ADVERTISING.
>> WELL, YEAH, SHE COULD STILL START ADVERTISING.
>> THEN WE COULD DECIDE AT OUR SPECIAL MEETING WHETHER [OVERLAPPING] DO INTERVIEW.
>> IN THE PRESS RELEASE, WE NEED TO PUT THE DATE OF THE INTERVIEW [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH. WE HAVE TO HAVE THE INTERVIEW DATE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> AND THE DATE OF THE APPOINTMENT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YOU KNOW JUNE 12, THAT'S MY MOTHER'S BIRTHDAY.
>> [BACKGROUND] INVITE HER IN.
>> ACTUALLY SHE IS CUTE. SHE'D LIKE TO BE ON THE PARK BOARD.
>> I WILL ATTEND VIA ZOOM AS I CAN.
>> WHY WOULDN'T WE DO IT ON THE 16TH?
>> I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT.
JANELLE NEEDS TO SEND SOMETHING OUT.
WE GOT TO GIVE HER SOME DATES ON THIS.
>> HOW ABOUT THE 16TH, EVERYONE ELSE?
>> I WILL ATTEND VIA ZOOM AS I CAN.
>> 12TH WOULD BE ABOUT A THREE WEEK TIME FOR RECEIVING APPLICATIONS, 16TH WOULD BE A LITTLE FEW MORE DAYS.
>> COUNCIL IS ON THE 26TH, DOES THAT GIVE US ENOUGH?
>> INTERVIEWS AND THEN ACTION?
>> WE'VE DONE THEM THE SAME DAY.
>> IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM ON THE 23RD.
>> 23RD I THINK MAKES MORE SENSE.
>> IS THE 12TH NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN DO MARIE?
>> WITH THE 16TH IS NOT AVAILABLE, ARE SURE?
>> THAT'S FINE. IS 23RD, EVERYBODY WANT TO DO AT THE 23RD.
INTERVIEWS IF WE NEED TIME FOR INTERVIEWS.
>> WE NEED TO TELL MARISSA TO SEND THAT OUT.
I THINK SHE'S ALREADY PREPARED IT.
>> SHE HAS. WE'LL JUST CHANGE THE DATES.
WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THE APPLICATIONS IN, JANELLE.
LET'S BRING THEM ALL IN BY THE 19TH.
THEN YOU COULD DISTRIBUTE THOSE.
THEN WE COULD DO OUR INTERVIEWS ON THE 23RD, PLEASE, MA'AM. WE'LL GET THAT OUT.
>> CAN WE ALSO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE VOTING PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS? I REALLY WANT TO FORGO THIS WHOLE RATING RANKING NONSENSE THAT WE HAD LAST TIME AROUND, AND JUST DO A STRAIGHT UP CALLED VOTE ON INDIVIDUALS.
>> SOUND GOOD TO ME. WE CAN DO THAT.
I SERVED UNDER THAT METHOD FOR ABOUT THREE YEARS.
IT'S WHOEVER USED THEIR HAND UP FIRST [LAUGHTER] GET'S NOMINATED.
>> WELL, I THINK WE ESTABLISHED THE GUIDELINES WHEN WE DID WHARF SPORT.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT CHANGED MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE YEARS.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT I KNOW I APPLIED FOR PARK BOARD AFTER I WAS OFF COUNCIL AND THE ZERO SYSTEM WAS USED.
I THINK WE ESTABLISHED AFTER THAT, THAT ONE WE'RE USING LOW,
[04:45:02]
HOW DID WE DO WHARF SPORT?>> LAST TIME WE DID IT LIKE GOLF SCORES, COUNCILMEMBER FINKLEA?
>> THE LOWEST SCORE IS THE BEST.
>> WHATEVER COUNCIL WANTS TO DO [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'VE HAD A PROCESS BY WHICH NO [OVERLAPPING]
>> I HATE THAT VOTING THING TOO
>> I DO TOO, AND THAT'S WHY I JUST ADD A SIMPLE CALLED VOTE TRAIL UP.
>> WHOEVER GETS THEIR HAND UP FIRST WOULD BE THE FIRST NOMINEE, WHOEVER GETS THEIR HAND UP SECOND, WE'D BE THE SECOND.
>> SHARON STRUGGLES WITH THE BUTTON, AND I'M JUST HERE TO YES [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT WORKED VERY WELL WITHOUT IT.
>> IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, YOU CAN DO IT.
>> I THINK WE HAD NO RANKINGS FOR HOW OLD IS THIS CITY? THEN IT CHANGED IN 2014-'15.
>> NO, IT WASN'T WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL. IF.
>> IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY, WE CAN.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU IT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEMS, BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY, WE'LL DO IT.
>> I'M ON AMENABLE TO GOING THE WHARF SPORT.
I ADMIT THAT THAT WAS A LOT EASIER.
>> WHAT IS OUR DECISION? YOU WANT TO GO WITH JUST WHOEVER GETS THEIR HANDS UP?
>> NO. WE'LL DO THE WHOLE WHARF SPORT APPROACH.
>> WHEN I GOLF, I USUALLY GET, LIKE I'M IN THE '90S, BUT THEN THEY MAKE ME PLAY THOSE LAST NINE HOLES.
>> YOU'VE GOT TO RANK ALL THE CANDIDATES THOUGH.
>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO BECAUSE WE'RE USING LOW SCORE.
>> I'M JUST SAYING. THAT SOUNDS GOOD.
[3.F Update and Discussion of the Terms, Conditions and Zoning Details of the Conveyance of the Rosenberg Property (B Brown/C Brown - 15 min)]
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3F, PLEASE.>> ITEM 3F. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND ZONING DETAILS OF THE CONVEYANCE OF THE ROSENBERG PROPERTY.
>> BOB, THIS WAS PUT ON, YOU HAD QUESTIONS.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO READ FROM SOME, TRY TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'RE HAVING HERE.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TWICE APPROVED SUPPORTING A GREEN SPACE PARK AT ROSENBERG SCHOOL SITE.
ONCE IN A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT AND ANOTHER APPROVING TERMS AND CONDITIONS, AN MOU, OF CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE CITY.
IN ADDITION, GISD HAS APPROVED REZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO MATCH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO BECOME A GREEN SPACE PARK.
THIS PROJECT CLEARLY HAS THE SUPPORT OF GISD AND CITY COUNCIL.
AT THE 32725 CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHERE TERMS AND CONDITIONS WERE APPROVED, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO COME BACK TO THE MAY CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO UPGRADE PROGRESS BETWEEN GISD AND THE CITY ON NEGOTIATING THE TERMS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY.
THE CITY ATTORNEY SENT A MEMO TO COUNCIL ON APRIL 30TH, INDICATING THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF A MUNICIPAL PARK IN THE LDRS FOR ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS, AND THAT MUNICIPAL PARKS, SUCH AS ADOUE PARK, WERE NON-CONFORMING USES.
ALL LDR REFERENCES TO PARKS AND OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS ARE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, NOT EXISTING, AND THAT YOU CAN REFERENCE LDR SECTION 6.307 PARKS OPEN SPACE AND CIVIC SPACES PURPOSE, AND I QUOTE, "ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS AND INCENTIVES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE PARKS, OPEN SPACE, AND CIVIC SPACES.
CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROPOSED MUNICIPAL PARK AT ROSENBERG SITE IS NOT A PERMITTED USE IN THE LDR.
AFTER MEETINGS AND PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH TIM TIETJENS, CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR DON GLAYWASKY, MAYOR BROWN, JOE JAWORSKI, ON HOW TO ADDRESS THE ZONING ISSUE, IN THE MOST PRACTICAL APPROACH EMERGED.
NO DEFINITION OR PERMITTED USE OF MUNICIPAL PARKS IN ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS IS CLEARLY AN OVERSIGHT IN THE LDRS.
THE MOST EXPEDIENT WAY TO ADDRESS THIS OVERSIGHT IS A SIMPLE TEXT AMENDMENT OR ADDITION OF MUNICIPAL PARKS AS A PERMITTED USE IN R3 AND AS THE ZONING CATEGORY OF THE ROSENBERG SITE.
THIS PROCESS REQUIRES REVIEW BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL, WHICH COULD TAKE UP TO THREE MONTHS.
HOWEVER, THIS ZONING ISSUE SHOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON FULFILLING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS BETWEEN GISD AND THE CITY TO MEET THE JULY ON DEADLINE.
THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL MADE NO MENTION OF ZONING.
THE ZONING CATEGORY IS NOT A CONDITION OF CONVEYANCE OF THE PROPERTY." AT THIS POINT, I'D JUST LIKE TO BRING EVERYBODY UP TO SPEED
[04:50:03]
ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S BEEN RAISED TOWARDS THE 2.2 MILLION JULY 1 DEADLINE.THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE $2,150,000 BY TOMORROW, SO THEY'LL HAVE ABOUT 50,000 TO GO BY JULY 1.
THE LDRS DO NOT MENTION MUNICIPAL PARKS.
THE 2011 CITY OF GALVESTON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE CITY OF GALVESTON PARKS RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN.
BOTH INCLUDE MULTIPLE REFERENCES FOR SUPPORTING PUBLIC MUNICIPAL PARKS ACROSS THE ISLAND.
THESE DOCUMENTS ARE MEANT TO GUIDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE LDRS AS SHOWN IN SECTION 1.103, PURPOSE A AND B.
"THESE REGULATIONS PROVIDE GUIDANCE AND STANDARDS FOR THE ORDERLY RE-DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, AND ASSOCIATED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AND AMENITIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF GALVESTON 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN." IN ADDITION, SECTION 1.106A SPECIFIES THAT THE LDRS, "TERMS SHALL BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED TO GIVE FULL EFFECT TO THE PURPOSE AND GOALS OF THESE REGULATIONS AND THE CITY OF GALVESTON 2011 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN." ALL OF THIS IS TO SAY THAT OUR CITY GUIDING DOCUMENTS SUPPORT OPEN SPACE AND THE LACK OF A MUNICIPAL PARKS USE CATEGORY IS AN OVERSIGHT.
IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE'S AT LEAST 2, 04, 6, 18, 12, MAYBE 11 DIFFERENT CITATIONS THAT I CAN RECITE, IF YOU'D LIKE, AS TO WHERE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUPPORTS OPEN SPACE AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND AMENITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS, ACQUISITION AND EXPANSION OF PARKS.
THE CITY OF GALVESTON PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN, SECTION SUPPORTING NEW PARK BENCHMARKS.
NEW PARK NEED, ACQUISITION, PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, AND PARTNERSHIPS HAVE ABOUT 10 CITATIONS FOR THAT.
THE WHOLE POINT IS, I THINK, THE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE MASTER PARKS PLAN SUPPORT A PARK THERE.
THERE IS NO CATEGORY FOR THAT PARK IN THE PERMITTED ZONING USES.
WE JUST NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF GETTING THAT ZONING CATEGORY CORRECT.
TIM AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, AND I DON'T THINK IT IMPACTS THE DEADLINE OF THE JULY 1ST TO MAKE THIS CONVEYANCE HAPPEN.
I ASKED DON THE OTHER DAY, ARE WE CERTAIN THAT WE'RE ON TRACK HOW ARE THE NEGOTIATING GOING BETWEEN GISD AND THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
TREVOR IS ON IT." SO FAR AS I KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S THE CASE.
>> IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT JULY 1 DEADLINE OR THE JULY DEADLINE IS FOR THE CITIZENS GROUP TO DEMONSTRATE TO GISD THAT THEY HAVE THE MONEY, BUT THERE'S NO DEADLINE ON US.
OUR DEADLINE IS NOT TIME FIXED.
IT'S TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH GISD.
>> WHICH WILL INCLUDE THE DEMOLITION OF THE SCHOOL, WHICH I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT FACTORS INTO GISD'S FISCAL PLAN, BUT THAT'S NOT MY ISSUE.
>> HOW ARE THE NEGOTIATION GOING? ANY PROGRESS ON THE ROAD?
WE HAVE A DRAFT OF AN MOU THAT'S GONE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN ME AND THEIR ATTORNEY, AND MR. JAWORSKI HAS GIVEN HIS INPUT.
SOME OF THE POINTS THAT POSSIBLY WE COULD USE SOME DIRECTION ON, ROBB, LOOKED AT THEIR PHASE 1 THAT THEY PROVIDED AND IDENTIFIED SOME THINGS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
THOSE WERE A LEAD-BASED PAINT ASSESSMENT AND A TITLE SEARCH.
APPARENTLY, THEIR PHASE 1 DIDN'T INCLUDE A TITLE SEARCH, AND ALSO ASBESTOS SURVEY.
I WROTE THOSE INTO THE AGREEMENT.
MR. JAWORSKI DOESN'T LIKE THOSE BIG IN THERE, BUT THOSE WERE THINGS THAT WAS IDENTIFIED BY CITY STAFF, AND SO I PUT THEM THERE.
>> GISD PROVIDED A RECORD, I GUESS THEY DID SURVEYS, THEY DO SURVEYS ON A REGULAR BASIS AND PROVIDED THAT RECORD, I THINK. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT?
>> PARK CITY ENGINEER RECOMMENDED THE LEAD STUDY AND TREVOR HAS A COPY OF A STUDY DONE BY, WAS IT BAYLOR?
>> ABOUT THE EXTENSIVE LEAD CONTAMINATION THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF GALVESTON?
>> THAT'S NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY.
>> YOU MADE THE COMMENT LAST TIME YOU WANTED TO SEE THE SCIENCE, SO THERE IT IS.
>> ANOTHER LANGUAGE POINT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON IS AT Y'ALL LAST MEETING, THE ONE BEFORE THAT,
[04:55:01]
Y'ALL DECIDED THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE A PHASE 1 AND NOT A PHASE 2, BUT THAT YOU COULD REVISIT IF YOU DETERMINED THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO A PHASE 2 OR IF YOU WANTED THE CORE SAMPLINGS.I DIDN'T TIE THOSE LANGUAGES TOGETHER, WHEREAS MY VERSION SAYS, YOU'LL DO A PHASE 1, AND IF THE CITY DECIDES THEY WANT TO DO A PHASE 2, THEY CAN DO ONE.
MR. JAWORSKI FEELS THAT THEY SHOULD BE TIED TOGETHER WHERE IT SAYS, IF THERE'S ANYTHING IDENTIFIED IN THE PHASE 1 THAT MAKES YOU WANT TO DO A PHASE 2, YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST DO ONE BECAUSE YOU FEEL IT'S NECESSARY.
>> OF COURSE, MR. JAWORSKI IS NOT A PARTY TO THESE NEGOTIATIONS.
>> WHERE ARE WE ON THE PHASE 2? WHERE ARE WE ON THE POTENTIAL FOR THE PHASE 2?
>> THE CITY IS GOING TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO GET A PHASE 2, IF IN ITS DISCRETION, IT NEEDS ONE.
>> WHEN WILL THAT BE DETERMINED?
>> I THINK ONCE THE BUILDINGS DOWN, AND WE GET ALL THE RESULTS OF EVERYTHING ELSE THAT TREVOR'S ALREADY ASKED FOR.
>> WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT, ANOTHER MONTH?
>> HOW LONG IS GOING TO TAKE THEM TO TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING, MAYOR?
>> NO. BUT I MEAN, THAT'S STARTING SOON, IS THAT RIGHT, BOB, THE DEMOLITION?
>> WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEIR DEMOLITION SCHEDULE IS?
>> IT'S ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AGREEMENT THAT BEFORE ACCEPTANCE, IT HAS TO BE DEMOED.
THERE HAS TO BE THE POST-DEMO PHASE 1, THOSE THINGS.
IT'S NOT A HARD DATE FOR WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE DEMOED OR ANYTHING.
>> THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT, THE SCHEDULE.
>> BUT DIDN'T WE TALK ABOUT A PHASE 1 AFTER THE BUILDING HAS GONE ON THE SITE ITSELF, IF I RECALL?
>> IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ITEMS THAT ROBB BROUGHT UP, YES.
>> BOB, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER IS INVOLVED HERE WITH THE ZONING AND THAT ISSUE DOES NOT HOLD UP THE MOVEMENT FORWARD WITH THE AGREEMENT?
>> YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THAT DONE.
WE GET THAT FIXED. SOMEHOW AND THAT DOESN'T HAVE REALLY ANYTHING TO DO THE CONVEYANCE.
>> I THINK HAS TO DO WITH WHAT THE PROPERTY IS USED FOR.
>> THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO FIX IT.
JUST DON'T HAVE A DESIGNATION FOR CITY PARK.
>> WHAT IF THERE'S PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC THAT IT CAN'T BE THAT WE JUST DIRECT SOMEBODY TO FIX IT.
THE PUBLIC HAS TO HAVE A CHANCE TO IT.
>> YOU HAVE TO CHANGE YOUR ZONING REGULATION TO ALLOW THIS USE BY A CHANGE TO THE LDR.
>> OR REZONED THE PART OF THIS PROPERTY.
>> JUST WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT WAS THAT IT SEEMED REALLY ODD THAT WE HAVE NO USE OF A CITY PARK OR MUNICIPAL PARK, ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN ANY LDR, IN ANY EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S ALL IN LANGUAGE ABOUT NEW NEIGHBORHOODS.
THAT MEANS EVERY PARK IN THE CITY PRACTICALLY IS A NON-CONFORMING USE, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
>> I WILL SHARE MY OBSERVATION THAT THERE ARE MANY CURIOUS THINGS IN THE LDRS THAT HAVE POPPED UP SINCE THEIR ADOPTION.
>> THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO FIX IT.
>> BUT IT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW.
I DON'T OBJECT TO THE FACT THAT IT NEEDS TO GET FIXED.
IT JUST THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT GET DENIED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE OF MAYBE SOMETHING AIN'T RIGHT, BUT IT'S WHAT'S ON PAPER.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I SEE AS A HURDLE TO GET OVER.
>> TIM IS HERE. HE CAN HELP ME WITH THIS, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF DENIALS ESPECIALLY THAT I'VE SEEN THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ARE DENIED BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT IT'S RIGHT OR WRONG, IT'S JUST THAT'S WHAT'S WRITTEN AT THE MOMENT IN OUR RULES AND ORDINANCES.
>> WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE TODAY.
>> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] AGAIN, I'M NOT DENYING IT NEEDS TO GET FIXED.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'VE BEEN A PART OF BEING DENIED BECAUSE IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE THAT TO ME AN IDIOTIC RULE HAPPENS TO BE SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU GOT TO GO BACK TO THE DON.
>> DON, IN YOUR CONCLUSION YOU WROTE, "THE REMEDY TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO BE USED AS A PART WOULD BE TO REFER THE MATTER BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THE LDR TO PROVIDE FOR THE INCLUSION OF A MUNICIPAL PARK EITHER AS A PERMITTED,
[05:00:04]
LIMITED, OR SPECIAL USE CATEGORY.IT DETERMINES WHICH ZONING DISTRICTS IN WHICH THAT USE WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE.
>> HERE WE ARE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS JUST SAYING.
>> THAT'S WHAT BOB REITERATED.
>> OR WE CAN SEND THE MARSHALS OUT TO BRIAN'S OFFICE AND WRITE HIM TICKETS FOR BEING NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR LDRS.
THAT'S ALWAYS A PLAN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING SO YOU CAN RED TAG.
>> IF THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING, THEY'RE ACCEPTABLE.
>> WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE ACTION IN WORKSHOP.
CAN THIS BE A STAFF DERIV? NEVER MIND. INTO ACTION IN WORKSHOP.
>> I'D BE LOOKING FOR SOME DIRECTION.
>> SO IT'S A DIRECTION WHERE WE FIX IT.
>> THAT'S THE DIRECTION ABOUT THE- [OVERLAPPING]
>> IS THAT A STAFF LEVEL DIRECTION THAT WE CAN DO IN WORKSHOP?
>> NO ONE HAS BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS.
>> DON HAS ALREADY BROUGHT THAT FORWARD.
>> I THINK THE QUESTION IS, THIS IS NOT AN ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE.
THEY SAID THERE'S A PROCESS FOR NON-ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES.
>> IT DOES REQUIRE THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE AND THEN TO YOU GUYS TO REVIEW IT.
>> SEVERAL TIMES IN PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF BRINGS FORWARD RECOMMENDED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE LDRS.
DOES THIS FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS? [OVERLAPPING] THERE WE GO.
>> I DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL JUNE TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA TO HAVE COUNCIL VOTE RECOMMEND TO PUT IT ON PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> NOW, WE CAN TAKE IT DIRECTLY IF WE WANT.T
>> WHO WOULD BE THE APPLICANT TO ASK FOR THAT CORRECTION STAFF?
>> MOST TEXT AMENDMENTS COME FROM-
>> WE CERTAINLY CAN CHARGE A FEE.
>> I'VE GOT A FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBER GETTING DELIRIOUS.
>> NO. I DON'T MIND IT, I'M JUST LAUGHING ABOUT IT.
>> YOU'VE GOT A RECOMMENDATION BUD.
>> WE DO. THEY'RE MOVING AHEAD.
I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT OUR THOUGHTS ARE TIM-
>> -SO YOU'RE MOVING AHEAD WITH-
>> WE'LL PUT IT ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA AND GET IT STARTED IN THE PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU. CAN WE KEEP APPRISED OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN GISD AND THE CITY ON ALL OF THIS? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE FOR TREVOR TO KEEP COUNCIL UPDATED VIA EMAIL RATHER THAN KEEP PUTTING THESE ON AGENDAS.
>> I KNOW WE'VE STRUGGLED TO FILL UP AN AGENDA AROUND HERE, BUT I NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT-
>> CAN YOU JUST BRING ME BACK TO THE POINT? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO VOTE ON? WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE ACTION?
>> PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO GET SOMETHING FROM STAFF.
>> STAFF IS GOING TO MAKE AN APPLICATION.
>> PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO GET A STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE THE LDRS TO ALLOW FOR A MUNICIPAL PARK.
THEN THAT'S GOING TO GO TO PLANNING.
HOPEFULLY THEY APPROVE IT AND THEN IT'LL COME TO CITY COUNCIL.
EVEN IF THEY DENY, IT STILL COMES TO CITY COUNCIL.
>> THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL THE PARKS. RIGHT, DON?
>> WELL, BECAUSE NONE OF THESE PARKS HAD EVER- [OVERLAPPING]
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT ZONES YOU APPLY IT TO.
>> YOU CAN APPLY IT TO ALL ZONES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK WHERE WE HAVE THE PROBLEM IS THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION.
THE COMMERCIAL SITE WE DO HAVE A COMMERCIAL CATEGORY FOR IT BUT IT'S NOT A RESIDENTIAL CATEGORY.
>> I UNDERSTAND. YOU WOULD BE APPLYING THAT TO ALL THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING?
>> SO I CAN MAKE A PARK OUT OF MY BACK YARD?
>> DEDICATED TO THE CITY. [LAUGHTER]
>> THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO MOW.
>> THANK YOU, TIM. APPRECIATE IT.
[3.K Discussion of Short term Rentals: (C. Brown/B. Brown/ D. Glywasky - 45 min)]
LET'S GO TO ITEM 3K PLEASE, MA'AM.>> ITEM 3K, DISCUSSION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
ONE, SHORT TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE STATUS REPORT AND FISCAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
TWO, USE OF REGISTRATION FEE REVENUE.
THREE, RENTAL PLATFORM CONTRACTS.
FOUR, NEW ORDINANCE CONCERNING PERMITTING AND ENFORCEMENT.
>> ON NUMBER 1 BOB, IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE PASSED, YOU WERE TO COME BACK AT THIS MONTH AT THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE AND GIVE A STATUS REPORT AND ANY PHYSICAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
NOT ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY EXPLORE ANY PHYSICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS MAY.
THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME.
BUT WE FIRST START OFF THE FIRST MEETING HERDING CAT I GUESS,
[05:05:02]
TRYING TO FEEL EACH OTHER OUT.EVERYBODY HAD THEIR PET THINGS THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT.
IN THE SECOND MEETING, WE HEARD FROM BRYCE AND FRAZER WITH THE CFO OF THE PARK BOARD ON THIS WHOLE SDR SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT PACKAGE; ITS CAPABILITIES, WHAT IT DOES, WHERE THAT DATA GOES, HOW IT'S USED, HOW IT'S DISSEMINATED, HOW IT'S PUT OUT THERE.
THAT WAS A VERY GOOD EXERCISE.
WHERE WE WANT TO GO NOW IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT DON'S ORDINANCE AND USE THAT AS A BASE DOCUMENT TO BEGIN CRAFTING OUR WORK AROUND.
JUST OVERALL FROM A VERY HIGH LEVEL, TIM ATTENDS OUR MEETINGS AND I THINK I'M GOING TO QUOTE HIM ON THIS.
HE SAID, "FROM HIGH LEVEL, THERE'S FOUR STEPS TO THIS COMMITTEE PROCESS.
THE FIRST IS ANALYSIS AND THEN RECOMMENDATIONS IN PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, AND THEN FINALLY RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ANY ORDINANCES OR LDR CHANGES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT." BUT THE COMMITTEE HAS REALLY EXPRESSED A STRONG DESIRE TO FOCUS ON ENFORCEMENT WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING.
THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER MOVING PARTS TO THIS, BUT ENFORCEMENT ROSE TO THE TOP.
WE KNOW THAT USING DATA COLLECTED AT REGISTRATION IS GOING TO GIVE US SUPPORT TO TRACKING AND TARGETING OF BAD ACTORS AND ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THIS PROVIDES A LEGAL SUPPORT FOR DOING SO.
WHAT DO WE NEED TO TRACK? DOES EXISTING SOFTWARE ALLOW US TO DO THAT? WHAT KIND OF ORDINANCE LANGUAGE MAY BE NEEDED? IS IT ENFORCEABLE? WHAT RESOURCES, STAFF, BUDGET IS NEEDED TO ENFORCE? WHAT'S THE SCOPE OF ENFORCEMENT WORK? THE STAFFING SOFTWARE.
THEN OTHER ISSUES MAY ARISE AND PROBABLY WILL BESIDES ENFORCEMENT.
LIKE THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE A REALLY INTUITIVE AND ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC FACING INTERFACE SO PEOPLE CAN SEE ALL THIS DATA, GET THIS DATA EASILY ON THE INTERNET OR CITY'S WEBSITE, AND USE IT AND, REPORT IT AND SO ON.
ANYWAY, WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO; WHAT THE STR COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE COUNCIL GIVE US A FEW MONTHS TO DO THIS WORK AND THEN COME BACK TO COUNCIL.
THAT IS, DO THIS WORK ON DON'S ORDINANCE.
IT'S REALLY A VERY GOOD DOCUMENT START, A GOOD BASELINE.
THEN COME BACK TO CITY COUNCIL WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
BOB, THIS THOUGHT WAS BROUGHT TO ME YESTERDAY OR DAY BEFORE BY A VERY WISE INDIVIDUAL WHO DEALS WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
[LAUGHTER] IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE NEED TO GET COUNCIL TO GIVE DIRECTION ON WHAT AREAS THAT WE WANT TO ADDRESS WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND LET THIS COMMITTEE DELVE INTO THESE AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS AND GET BACK RECOMMENDATION SOONER THAN LATER ON THAT.
I KNOW EACH ONE OF US HAVE OUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.
MINE PERSONALLY IS THE PARKING AND THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES ON THAT.
BUT COUNCIL, IF YOU HAVE PARTICULAR ISSUES, LET'S GET THOSE TO THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE AND LET THEM GET INTO THAT.
>> I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SEND IT TO THE COMMITTEE.
BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE A MINIMUM OF THREE MONTHS, A MAXIMUM OF FIVE COMPLETE WITH THE STR COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON AN ORDINANCE THAT WE CAN PASS.
ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT ARISE FROM THAT THAT'S TO BE FOUND, BUT I THINK THEY SHOULD TAKE THAT FRAMEWORK AND WE SHOULD SEND THAT WITH A FIVE MONTH MAXIMUM TO BACK THAT COMMITTEE INTO A CORNER TO HAMMER OUT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE ORDINANCE.
WHEN I ATTENDED THE THREE MEETINGS, BASICALLY THE BIGGEST CONCERN WAS ENFORCEMENT.
I SPOKE WITH BRIAN ABOUT GETTING OUTSTANDING ENFORCEMENT ISSUES WITH THE STR REGISTRATION FEES TO USE THAT.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO TO ALLEVIATE THE CONCERNS THAT WE'RE NOT DOING THE ENFORCEMENT.
I KNOW THE PLAN WAS TO HAVE EVERYTHING IN OVER IN OCTOBER FUND-WISE.
WE ALREADY HAVE THE STR FEES SO WE SHOULD START USING THAT AND GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS BEFORE ALL OF THOSE FUNCTIONS ARE TRANSFERRED OVER TO THE CITY.
THOSE ARE THE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS I WOULD SEND OVER TO THE COUNTY.
>> HAVING 51% OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS,
[05:10:01]
I HAVE MAJOR ISSUES ALREADY HAPPENING NOW AND THAT ARE JUST GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE WORSE AS THEY GO ON AND ONE BEING PARKING.THERE IS A PARKING PLAN THAT EXISTS NOW AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT PLAN NOW EXTEND TO THE ENTIRE CITY.
>> IT'S AN ACTION ITEM ALREADY?
>> RIGHT. I THINK THE THINGS THAT DON HAS IN HIS ORDINANCE ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE AFFECTING MY DISTRICT MOST.
I'VE ATTENDED ONE OR TWO OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL MEETING AND WE'VE HAD OWNERS FROM MY DISTRICT AS WELL AS PEOPLE.
I HAVE RECEIVED SO MANY EMAILS ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE.
I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE FOR THIS SUMMER NIGHTTIME AND WEEKEND MARSHALS THAT THE FEE CAN BE USED.
BUT THERE'S SOME LOW HANGING FRUIT THAT ALREADY EXIST IN PARTS OF THE CITY, JUST NOT IN MY DISTRICT THAT I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NOW.
>> WE HAVE BEFORE US ITEM 10A.
IT HAS DON'S ORDINANCE AND INCLUDES PARKING IN THERE.
HE BROUGHT THAT UP FROM OTHER AREAS OF THE LDR AND PUT IN THIS.
I WOULD SAY THERE'S A POSSIBILITY WE COULD PULL THAT PARKING SECTION OUT AND VOTE ON THAT TODAY IF WE WANTED TO.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT? WE NEED TO HAVE THE MARSHAL.
>> JUST ONE SECOND. THAT PARKING THAT'S IN THERE, IT APPLIES ALL OVER THE ISLAND.
>> WELL, IT DOESN'T APPLY TO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.
>> NOBODY'S DOING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE IS NO PARKING PLAN FOR SHORT-TERM RENOVS ON THE WEST. PERIOD.
>> THERE IS. IT'S THE SAME ONE THAT APPLIES FOR THE EAST END.
>> NO. IT STOPS AT 103RD STREET.
>> THAT'S THE FIRST I'VE HEARD IT STOPPED AT 103RD BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT THAT FORWARD IN 2015.
>> IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE EAST END TOO BECAUSE EAST END YOU HAVE PARKING PERMITS IN CERTAIN AREAS.
>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT AND NOW WE'RE FORCING ALL THE BEACH PARKING.
THE HOA SENT OVER A PICTURE FROM LAST WEEKEND OR THE WEEKEND BEFORE LAST, A THREE-BEDROOM HOUSE THAT HAD SIX CARS PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT AND 12 CARS ON THE STREET.
>> I SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT THAT PARTY.
>> WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR DON?
>> I THOUGHT I HEARD SOMEBODY WHISPERING.
IT WAS YOU. I THOUGHT DONNA HAD STUCK UP AND WAS TRYING TO TELL ME SOMETHING.
>> THEY WERE THERE ALL WEEKEND.
>> THERE WAS A HOUSE THAT GOT EVICTED THIS PAST WEEKEND THAT HAD 200 PEOPLE AT IT.
>> YES. THIS WAS PEOPLE THERE FOR THE WHOLE WEEKEND.
THEY WERE SLEEPING AT THAT HOUSE BECAUSE THERE IS NON-PARKING ORDINANCE THAT APPLIES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE ISSUE I HAD IS THAT I GOT TO HIRE MARSHALS.
I'M NOT GOING TO PROMISE YOU I CAN GET THEM ALL HIRED BY THEN, BUT THE REAL ISSUE IS WE'RE NOT CONTROLLING THE CALL CENTER YET.
I MEAN, ME GETTING THE CALLS TO RESPOND TO IS GOING TO BE PEOPLE HAVE TO CALL.
>> WELL, I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER EXAMPLE.
[OVERLAPPING] CAN I FINISH? DON, I HAVE THE FLOOR.
CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE HOUSE THAT'S A RENTAL THAT SITS ON THE BEACH THAT PEOPLE WERE PARKED ACROSS THE BEACH BLOCKING PUBLIC BEACH ACCESS AND ON THE BEACH?
>> THE MARSHAL WENT OUT THERE AND CORRECTED IT.
>> THE DAY AFTER, BUT EVERYBODY HAD TO LIVE WITH THAT FOR THE WHOLE NIGHT AND INTO THE DAY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MARSHAL AFTER 5:00 AND THEY ALL MOVED IN AFTER 5:00.
>> THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION THERE BECAUSE PD WENT OUT AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION.
[05:15:03]
THEY WEREN'T UP TO SPEED ON THE ORDINANCE.>> I CAN GO THROUGH AND CITE A NUMBER.
I HAVE ONE IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THAT IS, I THINK A THREE-BEDROOM HOUSE, LIKE AN A-FRAME SHAPE, THAT WILL HAVE 20 CARS FOR THE ENTIRE WEEKEND.
THERE IS NO RULES OR REGULATIONS THAT PROHIBIT THAT.
EAST OF 103RD STREET, PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO SUBMIT A PARKING PLAN.
THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE HOW MANY CARS IN THEIR DRIVEWAY?
>> THEY CAN PARK TWO ON THE STREET.
YOU COULD BRING 17 BUSES IN ANY FOREIGN NEIGHBORHOODS.
>> THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT ON THE EAST AND ALSO ON THIS PARKING.
>> I KNOW, BUT WE DON'T EVEN HAVE A RULE.
>> LET ME READ IT TO YOU. HOLD ON. I GOT IT RIGHT HERE.
THIS IS SECTION 2.360 SHORT TERM RENTAL RESIDENTIAL DWELLING PARKING AREA DOES NOT SPECIFY GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, AND IT STATES PARKING AREA.
PARKING IS LIMITED TO ONE SPACE PER GUEST ROOM, TWO ON STREET SPACES MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS THE TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING.
>> I'M THE ONE THAT PUT THAT IN THERE.
>> WHEN I WAS TALKING WITH DON THE OTHER DAY ON THAT IT WAS 103RD STREET.
>> WELL, NOBODY IS ENFORCING IT, NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT. IT'S THE BEST KEPT SECRET.
>> THAT'S ON THE EAST END AS WELL AS THE WEST END.
>> WE'RE GOING TO MAKE OUR PEOPLE LIVE THROUGH THE SUMMER WITH ALL THIS INSANITY?
>> NOW, WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THAT THAT ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE AMENDED TO WHERE THE CARS HAVE TO BE, IF YOU'RE STAYING IN A SHORT TERM RENTAL, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO IDENTIFY THE CAR.
OTHERWISE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MARSHALS KNOCKING ON EVERYBODY'S DOORS AT NIGHT ASKING WHO'S CARS IS, CARS THAT.
>> THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND WE HAVE PASSES.
>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT ON LEAFLET.
>> THE STR PERSON PUTS THAT PLAQUE IN THE WINDSHIELD OF THE CAR.
>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT ON THE WEST END.
WE ARE NOW NOT ONLY FORCING ALL THE BEACH PARKING INTO ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS, WE ALSO HAVE THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PARKING ISSUE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.
>> THE PARKING ISSUES IS A CONCERN, AND IT'S JUST AS MUCH ON THE EAST END AS IT IS THE WEST END FOR SHORT TERM RENTALS.
>> WELL, EXCEPT FOR YOUR PARKING PERMITS.
>> WE HAVE NO PARKING PERMITS.
>> EXCEPT FOR THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE PROBLEM IS THE ENFORCEMENT.
IF YOU SAY IF YOU HAVE A FOUR BEDROOM HOME AND YOU CAN GET TWO ON THE STREET, YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO OFF STREET PARKING ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE.
WHEN THE MARSHALS ROLL UP THERE, THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT CARS GO WITH WHAT BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL ON THE STREET.
>> BECAUSE WE'VE GOTTEN COMPLAINTS BEFORE, AND IT WAS AN ACTUAL HOME OWNER AND THEIR FAMILY WAS THERE AND THEY ALL CAME IN SEPARATE CARS.
>> ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THE SAME RULE ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS? THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED GETTING STICKY.
I TOTALLY AGREE IT'S A PROBLEM.
>> IT'S THEIR PARKING PREMISE.
>> THE REMEDY IS TO HAVE A PARKING STICKER FOR EVERY RESIDENT IN THE ISLAND.
>> WE USED TO DO THAT, ACTUALLY.
>> WELL, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THE ORDINANCE, BUT I'M TELLING YOU, ENFORCEMENT IS DIFFICULT.
THEN IF YOU GOT PEOPLE IN A SHORT TERM RENTAL AND THEIR MOTHER AND FATHER COME OVER TO VISIT, NOW THERE ARE AN EXTRA CAR OUT THERE.
>> YOU CAN ALSO GET A LITTLE PIECE OF COLOR PAPER THAT SAYS GUEST PARKING IN THE EAST END.
>> WE WOULD DO THAT ON OTHER PLACES.
>> IT SOUNDS GOOD ON PAPER, BUT IT'S A NIGHTMARE TO ENFORCE. YES, SIR.
>> TO ME, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, SHORT TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE SHOULD PUT TOGETHER.
THAT'S WHEN WE GET THE CALL CENTER AND EVERYTHING TRANSFERRED OVER.
I WANT BRIAN TO GIVE US A COMMITMENT BECAUSE I GAVE MY COMMITMENT TO THE STR COMMITTEE AND SOME OF THE FOLKS ON THERE.
WE NEED TO HAVE ENFORCEMENT ON NIGHTS, WEEKENDS FOR THIS SUMMER, AND I DON'T CARE HOW IT HAPPENS.
IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN THIS SUMMER.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN HIRE PEOPLE THAT FAST, ALEX.
[05:20:03]
>> THEN CHANGE THE SCHEDULING OR FIGURE IT OUT.
BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A GIGANTIC COMPLAINT.
I'M TIRED, AND IF THIS IS A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT.
>> WHERE ARE THESE COMPLAINTS GOING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING THEM.
I'M ASKING THE CHIEF TO GIVE ME THESE.
>> LET ME TELL YOU IS. WE'LL PUT IT OUT THERE.
WE'LL GET THE MARSHAL HOTLINE OR THE PUBLIC WORKS HOTLINE.
IF THE PARK BOARD IS NOT GOING TO GIVE THAT HOTLINE OVER TOMORROW, WHICH THEY PROBABLY WON'T, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE OUR MARSHAL LINE.
THE SHORT TERM RENTAL FOLKS ARE A VERY INFORMED, A VERY ACTIVE POPULACE.
I HAVEN'T SEEN MORE PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT WITH THIS ROOM PACKED IN ANY COMMITTEE THAN THE SHORT TERM RENTAL GUYS.
IF WE CAN DISTRIBUTE THAT OUT, HAVE THE MARSHALS DO IT.
I WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
>> WELL, IF YOU NEED TO FLEX HOURS AND DO IT, IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN.
> MARSHALS THAT ARE IN TOWN NOW.
>> YOU ALL ACT LIKE WE GOT DOZENS OF THESE GUYS.
THREE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.
>> NOW OUR ENTIRE MARSHAL DEPARTMENT IS DOWN TO THREE PEOPLE?
>> FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, YES.
>> TAKE THEM OFF HARASSING OLD LADIES IN THEIR YARDS.
>> THAT'S BULLSHIT. I'M SORRY.
>> EXCUSE ME, MAYOR, MAY I SAY SOMETHING?
>> [NOISE] WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT, BUT I DON'T THINK IT CAN BE ENFORCED UNTIL CERTAIN THINGS ARE IN PLACE.
A HOTLINE, IT HAS TO BE IN PLACE BECAUSE A MARSHAL CAN'T ENFORCE IF THERE'S NO COMMUNICATION OF WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE.
>> MAY I SHARE SOMETHING? CALL THE HOTLINE.
HOTLINE WILL TELL YOU, THEY'LL NOTIFY THE CITY DEPARTMENT.
>> SHE'S TALKING ABOUT MOVING THE HOTLINE OVER HERE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] BUT WE HAVE THAT NON EMERGENCY POLICE NUMBER.
>> THEN NUMBER 2, THE OWNER OF THE SHOP TERM RENTAL, [NOISE] THERE MIGHT HAVE BE ANOTHER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM TO GIVE THAT PARKING PLAQUE TO THEIR PERSON WHO IS RENTING AND AS BEST, HOW MANY GUESTS ARE YOU HAVING? ARE YOU THE MAIN AND THEN THE EXTRA TWO? OR I'M ONLY GIVING YOU FIVE.
IF FIVE DON'T WORK, THEN I'M SORRY.
BUT I DON'T THINK THE BACK AND FORTH IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAVE THE THINGS IN PLACE THAT WILL HELP TO CONTROL THE MARSHALS.
I KNOW IT'S FRUSTRATING FOR EVERYBODY AND EVERYBODY WANTS.
BUT I DON'T CARE YOU CAN SCREAM ALL DAY.
NOTHING GOOD IS GOING TO HAPPEN UNTIL SOMETHING IS IN PLACE TO CONTROL IT.
THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THAT.
I HOPE THIS IS BEING RECORDED, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN GO BACK AND LISTEN TO IT, PARTICULARLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS HERE.
THE ENFORCEMENT IS PRETTY BROAD, BUT WE DID HEAR SOME SPECIFICS HERE RELATED TO PARKING IN PARTICULAR, AND THEN THE SCHEDULING PIECE.
I WANTED TO BRING UP A COUPLE OF OTHER ENFORCEMENT ISSUES THAT I THINK ARE GOING TO BE IMPERATIVE TO ADDRESS IN THE ORDINANCE.
DON, THEY MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN HERE, BUT I THINK LICENSE COMPLIANCE BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT ARE OUT THERE OPERATING WITHOUT A LICENSE.
HOW DO WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BRINGING THESE FOLKS INTO COMPLIANCE?
>> HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? CONTINUE.
>> CAN I ANSWER THAT, DAVID? WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY BRYSON FRAZIER BECAUSE OF THE SOFTWARE THAT THEY HAVE.
THEY'VE BEEN TOLD BY AIRBNB THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST 1,000 PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT COMPLIANT.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB.
THE NEXT ONE FISCALLY IS ALSO COMPLIANCE WITH HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX PAYMENTS, WHICH WE DO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOING AUDITS. THAT'S A SECOND ONE.
THE OTHER ONE IS THESE THINGS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ROBB BROUGHT UP, WHICH IS EVENTS AND PARTY VIOLATIONS, WHICH I THINK, YOU'VE GOT LARGE OCCUPANCY AND LARGE PARKING ISSUES.
THE OTHER ONE THAT I'D REALLY LIKE SOME CLARITY ON IN TERMS OF HOLDING PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LLCS THAT OWN THE PROPERTY AND THAT ARE HAVING PROPERTY MANAGERS ACT AS THEIR AGENT VERSUS INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS.
DON, WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS, WE TIED IT BACK TO THE OWNER ITSELF, BUT I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE ENFORCEMENT ABOUT THE OPERATION AND BEHAVIOR AND COMPLIANCE OF PROPERTY MANAGERS AND BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES AS WELL.
THEN THE LAST PIECE IS PLATFORM OBLIGATIONS.
[05:25:01]
I KNOW THAT YOU SIT AROUND SOME INFORMATION.>> WHAT I REALLY NEED THE SHORT TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE TO DO IS TO CREATE ENFORCEABLE RULES.
>> AS A CITY, WE ARE VERY GOOD WITH COMING UP WITH ALL KINDS OF CRAZINESS THAT IS ALMOST TOTALLY UNENFORCEABLE BY ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ANYWHERE.
[OVERLAPPING] IT'S LIKE THE THREE FEET OFF THE BICYCLE.
I GOT TO YOU ALL CREATE STUFF TO MAKE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM FEEL BETTER, AND WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT AND THEN IT JUST MAKES THE CITY LOOK BAD.
>> WE GOT TO WORK THESE THINGS ALL THE WAY THROUGH FROM NOT ONLY JUST ENFORCEMENT, BUT HOW YOU ENFORCE IT, HOW YOU PAY FOR THAT ENFORCEMENT AND ENABLE THE CITY TO ACTUALLY DO IT.
WE HAVE A WAY TO PAY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT.
MAY I SHARE A THOUGHT? WE THINK WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE WITH SHORT TERM RENTALS, BUT PERHAPS WE DO NOT.
PERHAPS AN EASY WAY TO GET THE INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING HERE.
LET'S JUST SEND OUT A SURVEY WITH THE WATER BILL.
WHAT PROBLEMS DO YOU HAVE WITH STRS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? WE MIGHT FIND SOMETHING OUT IF WE ASK THE PUBLIC.
>> IF YOU GO STRAIGHT TO THE GALVESTON PARKS BOARD WEBSITE, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY TELL PEOPLE TO DO.
IF YOU'RE HAVING AN ISSUE WITH PARKING, NOISE, TRASH, OR OTHER CODE OR ORDINANCE VIOLATION WITH AN STR, YOU CAN CALL OUR 247 HOTLINE AT 409-247-8160, OR YOU CAN FILE A REPORT ONLINE USING OUR MOBILE FRIENDLY COMPLIANT FORM.
IF YOU'RE EXPERIENCING EMERGENCY, PLEASE CALL 911.
THE HOTLINE WILL RECORD THE DETAILS OF THE COMPLAINT AND CALL THE LOCAL PROPERTY CONTACT TO NOTIFY THEM OF THE ISSUE.
IF THE VIOLATIONS, EXAMPLE, TRASH, THE COMPLAINT IS FORWARDED TO THE CITY MARSHAL'S OFFICE.
IF THE COMPLAINT RECEIVED REQUIRES AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE, EXAMPLE, NOISE OR PARKING, THE CALLER IS ENCOURAGED TO CALL THE GALVESTON POLICE DEPARTMENT'S NON EMERGENCY NUMBER AT 409-765-3702.
>> HAVING CALLED THAT LINE WHILE WATCHING SOME SHORT TERM RENTAL OCCUPANTS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF A LITTLE KID IN THE STREET, I WAS TOLD, WE'LL SEND THIS TO THE RIGHT CITY DEPARTMENT WHEN IT'S OPEN ON MONDAY.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS LIKE, THIS IS GOING DIRECTLY TO GPD BASICALLY, BECAUSE ANYBODY THAT WANTS A RESPONSE IS NOT GOING TO CALL THE HOTLINE.
THEY'RE GOING TO CALL GPD. I DON'T KNOW.
I GUESS WE'RE HAVING THIS DEBATE OVER THIS HOTLINE AND OVER ENFORCEMENT.
THIS IS ALMOST DEAD AS SIMILAR TO THE CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE BEACH.
>> [INAUDIBLE] SHOULD NOT BE A REALM OF THE STR COMMITTEE.
ENFORCEMENT IS A CITY MANAGEMENT ISSUE, AND IT'S UP TO US TO DO THAT.
>> HOWEVER, [NOISE] WE DO NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE BEHIND THE VIOLATIONS SO THAT IF WE NEED TO AMP UP THE REGULATIONS, WE ARE BASING THOSE REGULATIONS BASED ON FACTUALLY ACCURATE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE SO AS TO SUPPORT A REGULATION AND SHOW IT AS FACT BASED AND NOT ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.
>> DO WE NOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S A RATIO EMBEDDED RULE? IF IT'S A TWO BEDROOM ONE BATH HOUSE, THEY'RE ALLOWED ONE CAR?
>> NO. THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK BECAUSE WE DON'T DO INSPECTIONS LIKE OTHER CITIES DO.
>> YES. WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT THAT.
>> PARKING REGULATIONS ARE, I THINK, MR. FINKLEA JUST RECORDED IT.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE THE READ ANY OF IT.
>> ONE CAR FOR EACH BEDROOM AND TWO ON STREET.
>> ONE SPACE PER GUEST ROOM AND TWO ON STREET, BUT SPACES MAY BE COUNTED TOWARDS TOTAL.
>> BUT AGAIN, WHEN YOU'VE GOT SOMEONE OUT ON THE WEST END, THAT THERE'S NO DELINEATED EITHER PARKING SPACE, IT'S BASICALLY A YARD, IT'S AN UNFENCED PROPERTY, IT'S A CUL-DE-SAC, THAT'S NOT REALLY A CUL-DE-SAC, IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE A DEAD END.
THAT FITS REALLY PERFECTLY IN A BOX HERE ON THE EAST END WHEN EVERYTHING'S DONE IN QUADRANTS, AND IT'S 160-YEARS-OLD, BUT THERE ON THE WEST END, I SEE THE AGGRAVATION AND THE FRUSTRATION.
>> WHEN I WROTE REWROTE THIS ORDINANCE,
[05:30:03]
WHAT I HAD IN MIND WERE THE COMMUNITIES OUT THERE WITH CROWDED STREETS BECAUSE OF THE BEACH USES AND LIMITED DRIVEWAYS.THAT'S WHY I WROTE IN, YOU CAN'T PARK ON THE LAWN.
>> IF IT'S YOUR COMMENT THAT GOT THAT INTO THE DRAFT.
>> THE PARKING ORDINANCE, WHEN IT WAS PUT IN, IT APPLIES TO ALL UNITS, BUT IT REALLY ONLY HAS A PRACTICAL IMPACT ON THOSE THAT ARE THREE BEDROOMS OR MORE, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE A TWO-BEDROOM OR A ONE-BEDROOM, YOU CAN JUST PARK ON THE STREET.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO IT.
>> SOME PARTIES WE HAD IN HIGH SCHOOL, WE PUT ABOUT 60 OF THE CARS OUTSIDE IN A TWO-BEDROOM HOUSE.
>> THE PROBLEM IS, IN MY OPINION, THE WAY TO HANDLE THAT IS THE OCCUPANCY LIMITS, BUT I THINK AUSTIN TRIED THAT AND GOT SHOT WE TOLD.
>> COULD YOU MAKE IT CONTINGENT ON SQUARE FOOT TO THE HOUSE, FOR INSTANCE, JUST TO GET CLOSER.
FOR EVERY 2,000 SQUARE FOOT YOU GOT 10 PARKING.
>> THAT'S THE ISLE. JAMAICA BEACH HAS DONE THAT.
>> BOB, LET ME ASK THIS, HOW OFTEN DO YOU MEET YOUR SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE?
>> WE'RE MEETING ONCE A MONTH RIGHT NOW.
>> WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOMETHING FOR PARKING HERE.
>> YES. MAY I SPEAK BECAUSE I'VE TRIED NOW?
>> YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN, SO GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU. I WISH EVERYONE WAS CLAIRE RICE BERG.
I WISH EVERYONE WAS UNDER GARM BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE NO ISSUES, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IT ISN'T.
SAND 'N SEA DOES AN AMAZING JOB.
THERE ARE OTHER PROPERTY MANAGERS THAT DO AN AMAZING JOB, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF PLAYERS OUT THERE, AND BEING THAT WE HOLD 51% OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AS DEFINED BY BRYSON FRAZIER, WE SEE MORE ISSUES.
I WOULD LIKE US TO MOVE ON THE PARKING THING AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN AND SOMETHING HAVING TO DO WITH TRASH AS WELL, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT MY CITIZENS TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE SUMMER WITHOUT ANY LAW.
>> I AGREE. CLAIRE, COULD YOU COME FORWARD, PLEASE.
>> YOU'RE THE VICE CHAIRPERSON.
>> IS THERE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO PUT YOUR FINGER IN THAT BIG DIKE LEAK?
>> IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CONTRACT OUT WITH AGENCIES THAT ARE ADJACENT?
PD IS SHORT. EVERYBODY'S SHORT.
I'M LOSING. I'M BLEEDING EVERYTHING NOW.
THAT'S THE HARD PART WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, IS GETTING ENOUGH GUYS TO DO THIS.
I'LL GET WITH DOUG AND ANYTHING I CAN'T PLUG WITH A MARSHAL, WE'LL PLUG WITH A PD OFFICER UNTIL I CAN GET HIM HIRED ON THAT ACCESS TO THE FUNDS, WHICH IS HISTORICALLY, COUNCIL HAS NOT ALLOWED ME TO SPEND THOSE FUNDS.
>> THERE IS A WAY WE CAN DO IT AND WE COULD DO IT.
>> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY HOT TAX CAN'T PAY FOR THAT.
>> WE'RE ALL OKAY WITH YOU ACCESSING THOSE FUNDS, TOO.
>> THOSE ARE UNRESTRICTED FUNDS.
>> CLAIRE HAD RECOMMENDED THAT IN GARM, THEY REQUIRE THE OWNER AND CONTACT INFORMATION TO BE READILY AVAILABLE SO THAT ANY RESIDENT COULD LOOK IT UP.
I TOOK THAT AND PUT IT INTO THIS ORDINANCE SO THAT WE WILL HAVE, ON OUR WEBSITE, THE ADDRESS OF THE STR AND THE CONTACT PERSON BECAUSE SHE SAID THAT SOLVES A LOT OF PROBLEMS.
>> ACTUALLY, LET ME JUST SAY ON WHAT DON IS SAYING.
I GOT THAT IDEA FROM SAN ANTONIO.
SAN ANTONIO DID THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME ISSUES THAT BRIAN'S TALKING ABOUT.
THEY HAVE A DEARTH OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, SO THEY PUT MORE ON THE HOMEOWNERS.
THEY SAID, IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, YOU CAN LOOK UP YOUR NEIGHBOR AND YOU CAN CALL THEM.
I WILL SAY, IN ALL FAIRNESS, STROKE HAS BEEN AGAINST THAT IN THE PAST, BUT IT'S LIKE WITH SAND 'N SEA, WE HAVE THE ADDRESSES ON OUR WEBSITE OF EVERY HOUSE THAT WE RENT.
[05:35:01]
PEOPLE CAN LOOK IT UP AND THEN THEY KNOW TO CALL US, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO, I THINK, WE NEED TO LOOK TO THE HOMEOWNER TO HELP US, OR THE PROPERTY MANAGER, WHOEVER HAS THIS STR, IN TAKING CARE OF THEIR PROPERTY.MY QUESTION IS, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE.
I'D LIKE TO PUT THIS ON A FAST TRACK FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THIS COMMITTEE COULD MEET AND BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS?
>> [OVERLAPPING] FOR MEMORIAL DAY? I'M KIDDING.
>> BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS HERE TO COUNCIL.
>> FOR SURE, I THINK THEY CAN.
I THINK THEY CAN KICK AROUND A LOT OF IDEAS AND BRING BACK SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
THERE'S A LOT MORE THAN JUST NOT PARKING IN THE STREET.
EAST END HAS NO DRIVEWAYS IN SO MANY IN THE AREAS.
WEST END, OUR HOUSES HAVE DRIVEWAYS AND WE ONLY ALLOW THEM TO PARK IN THE DRIVEWAYS, SO YOU EASILY HAVE FOUR CARS.
THEN THERE'S THE OTHER PART THAT BRIAN BRINGS UP, AND I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH HIM ON THIS, AND THAT IS HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET THE MESSAGE OUT TO PEOPLE? THAT THIS IS WHAT IS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF GALVESTON.
>> THE ISSUE BECOMES IF THE CAR IS LEGALLY PARKED, THAT'S THE ISSUE.
BECAUSE I WAS JUST ASKING DON, ONE OF THE WAYS I CAN FILL A PLUG IS PARKING CAN BE ENFORCED BY CIVILIANS IF IT'S TRULY A PARKING ISSUE.
WE ENFORCED WITH CIVILIANS DOWNTOWN.
THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE MARSHAL'S PARKING GROUP.
>> IT GIVES THEM A TICKET, BUT IT DOESN'T GET RID OF THE CLOG IN THAT.
>> BUT THE TICKET PART, EVEN A TICKET, I REMEMBER ONE PARTICULAR IN ONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS, PEOPLE HAD FLOODED A STREET AND THERE IT WAS 25 CARS, AND THE MARSHAL CAME OUT AND TICKETED EVERY CAR, AND AMAZINGLY, ALL THE CARS DISAPPEARED.
>> WE CAN DO THAT. MY ONLY CONCERN IS, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO COVER THE BASIS HERE, IF A HOUSE HAS 10 PEOPLE STAYING THERE IN EIGHT CARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND THE CARS ARE ALL LEGALLY PARKED, IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT THE CARS ARE LEGALLY PARKED.
>> SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIX THAT, DON.
>> IF YOU HAVE A LICENSING APPARATUS THAT WHEN YOU COME IN AND PICK UP YOUR LICENSE FOR YOUR STR, THAT BECOMES PART OF A PACKET THAT YOU RECEIVE, THAT YOU UNDERSTAND BY PAYING AND RECEIVING THAT LICENSE THAT YOU ARE TO DO THESE THINGS.
THE ONLY THING I'M A PROPONENT OF MAKING AN STR OPERATOR DO IS POSTING ON A DOOR, SOME PLACE CONSPICUOUS, THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AND A SUMMED UP MARE FOR THE LAYMAN TO COME IN AND READ AND SAY, THESE ARE THE RULES.
MAYBE PUT GOLF CARTS IN THERE TO JUST TO BE SURE WHEN THEY'RE DOING IT.
>>THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE WOULD HELP FIGURE OUT IN THIS COMMITTEE FROM INDIVIDUALS WHO RENT, PROPERTY MANAGE, ETC, BUT THE OTHER PART IS, ALEX, IN OUR COMPANY AND MANY OF THE OTHER COMPANIES, WE START EDUCATING BEFORE THEY COME.
YOU'VE RENTED THIS HOUSE, HERE ARE THE RULES.
YOU GET FOUR HOUSES IN PIRATES BEACH.
THERE'S FOUR PARKING SPACES UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE, THAT SORT OF THING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LET 10 CARS COME AND THEN THEY READ IT ON THE WALL.
>> IT IS A PROCESS, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN THE COMMITTEE, GIVE US TIME TO HASH THIS OUT.
>> BUT WE CAN'T GO THROUGH ANOTHER SUMMER.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THIS IS MY QUESTION.
>> MARIE, IT STILL GOES BACK TO WHAT BRIAN SAYS, IS WE CAN THINK OF EVERYTHING WE WANT TO THINK OF, BUT IN THE END, WHAT DO WE HAVE FOR ENFORCEMENT? WHAT ARE THE TEETH WE'RE GOING TO PUT INTO IT? TRUST ME, I'M SYMPATHETIC BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SO MANY PEOPLE COME TO GARM, THEY WANT US TO COVER THE ENTIRE ISLAND.
IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. IT'S NEVER BEEN POSSIBLE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] PEOPLE HAVE THAT THOUGHT, GARM COVER THEM ALL.
>> WHEN CAN YOU BRING THIS BACK TO COUNCIL ON THE PARKING?
>> WE NEED TO FAST-TRACK THIS.
>> WE CAN MEET MORE THAN ONCE A MONTH.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING IN PLACE BEFORE JULY.
>> WE HAVE A JUNE 26TH MEETING.
CAN YOU BRING SOMETHING BACK IN JUNE 26TH?
>> BUT, MARIE, YOU GOT TO REMEMBER, REALISTICALLY, IT WON'T BE IN PLACE.
IF WE BRING SOMETHING BACK, YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO HASH THROUGH IT.
THEN YOU GOT TO GO THROUGH, DON'S GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S POSSIBLE.
BRIAN DOES. I'M JUST BEING REALISTIC HERE.
THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO TAKE TIME.
>> THEN WE GOT THINK OF PLAN B IN THE INTERIM.
>> IF YOU TELL US THAT'S OUR DEADLINE,
[05:40:02]
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE IT, AND I WILL I'LL DO WHAT I CAN. I THINK BOB WILL.>> LET THEM GET AT LEAST TWO MEETINGS THEN TO DO THIS.
>> ALL I ASK IS THAT THE RULES BE REALISTICALLY ABLE TO BE ENFORCED.
THEY CAN'T JUST BE PIE-IN-THE-SKY STUFF BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO END UP LOSING THE ABILITY TO REGULATE SHORT-TERM RENTALS AT ALL IF THIS CONTINUES LIKE THIS.
I CAN'T GO OUT THERE AND IF THERE'S 15 CARS AND THEY'RE ALL LEGALLY PARKED.
SOMEBODY'S GOING TO SAY THEY'RE ALL PART OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
>> THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW THAT.
>> THE OTHER THING IS, IS IT TAKES AN OFFICER GOING TO FIND ALL THOSE OWNERS.
IT TAKES THEM OFF THE STREETS.
>> BUT THAT'S WITH THE MARSHAL. WE CAN GET SURVEILLANCE TO DO SOME OF THIS.
>> CURRENTLY, DO YOU ALL HAVE AN OPERATOR'S AGREEMENT THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO SIGN WITH THOSE RULES STATED?
>> YES. WE HAVE NOT A MANAGEMENT, THAT'S WITH OUR HOMEOWNER, A GUEST AGREEMENT WITH OUR GUEST.
PART OF IT IS SOMETHING THAT GARM DEVELOPED, AND IT'S CALLED THE GUEST RULES OF CONDUCT.
IT INCLUDES PARKING, AND INCLUDES YOU HAVE TO LEAVE IF THERE'S AN EVACUATION, ALL KINDS OF STUFF IS IN THERE.
>> OWNERS? THEY'RE JUST HOMEOWNERS WHO OWN THEIR HOUSES.
>> BUT SOMETIMES IS MUCH OF A PROBLEM.
>> I'M SAYING OWNERS THAT HAVE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH YOU TO MANAGE THEIR SHORT-TERM RENTAL.
>> THERE'S NO REALLY AGREEMENT WITH THEM BEING THAT THEY'RE THE ONES ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE?
>> WE DO SIGN AN AGREEMENT AND WE HAVE IT, BUT THE AGREEMENT IS THAT WE MANAGE THE RENTALS WITH THE GUESTS, AND SO WE CONTROL THAT HAPPENS THERE.
WHAT I MEANT WAS IS THAT A HOMEOWNER COMES DOWN AND DECIDES TO HAVE A PARTY AND THEY HAPPEN TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM MARIE, YOU CAN'T STOP THAT. THAT'S WHAT I MEANT.
MY QUESTION IS MORE ABOUT A LOT OF TIME IT HAS TO DO WITH EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION.
A LOT OF, ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE FIRST TIMERS, THE ONES THAT ARE JUST GETTING INTO THIS AS THEIR INITIAL INVESTMENT IN SHORT-TERM THAT DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS AND WHAT RESPONSIBILITIES THEY'RE COMING INTO.
I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO ASK IS THERE AN INITIAL, BASICALLY, AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING, THAT SAYS THESE ARE THE RULES THE CITY OF GALVESTON IS TRYING TO GO BY?
>> WE LET OUR HOMEOWNERS KNOW, ABSOLUTELY.
>> I KNOW THAT YOU LET THE GUESTS KNOW.
>> BUT REMEMBER, 190 HOUSES OUT OF 4,800.
I LOVE THAT MARIE USES US AN EXAMPLE, WE WOULD LIKE TO USE BEST PRACTICES WITH EVERYBODY, AND I KNOW THAT MYSELF, LIZ, AND OTHER PEOPLE IN THE COMMITTEE BRING BEST PRACTICES TO THE TABLE.
WE JUST NEED TO GATHER AROUND, FIRST, PARKING, AND THEN WHATEVER GOES NEXT.
>> CLAIRE, JUNE 26TH, HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COUNCIL.
BOB, FROM THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL COMMITTEE, WITH YOUR FOCUS ON PARKING.
IF YOU COULD BRING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO US.
WE GOT TO BE ABLE TO ENFORCE THEM.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE GOT TO DO IT CORRECTLY, THOUGH.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE A CITY MARSHAL RIGHT NOW.
>> BAN 24-HOUR PARKING IN THE WEST END, WITH NO PARKING ON THE STREETS FROM THE HOURS OF 2:00 AM TO 6:00 AM, UNLESS YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT ON YOUR CAR.
>> CAN I BE THE BEARER OF BAD NEWS? THOSE STREETS THAT ARE TIED TO BEACH ACCESS, WE CANNOT RESTRICT ACCESS DURING CERTAIN HOURS TO THE BEACH, SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE AVAILABLE.
IF YOU HAPPEN TO LIVE ON ONE OF THESE BEACH ACCESS STREETS, THIS IS WHERE IT GETS REALLY CONVOLUTED.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THERE ARE COMMUNITIES THAT DO THAT NOW.
>> NO, BUT EVEN IN OTHER BEACH LOCATIONS THAT DO THAT NOW.
>> WE HAD AN INCIDENT OUT THERE. BECAUSE I WENT OUT THERE.
WE WALKED, TRYING TO FIND WHOSE CARS THEY WERE, AND HALF OF THEM WEREN'T EVEN ASSOCIATED WITH THE CARS.
THEY WERE ON THE BEACH AND THEY WERE SOMEPLACE ELSE.
IT'S HARD. IF YOU DID THAT, THAT WOULD SOLVE YOUR PROBLEM.
>> WHO WOULD COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT? THE GLO?
THE FIRST PERSON THAT SAYS, I'M GOING TO FISH AND YOU KEPT ME FROM PARKING.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU HOW IT GOES.
WE TRIED TO KEEP PEOPLE OFF THE BEACH FROM 2:00 A.M TO 6:00 A.M MARIE REMEMBERS THAT, AND WE GOT SHOT DOWN. NOTHING GOOD HAPPENS.
>> THIS IS CHOKING ME UP HERE.
>> IF I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, WE WANT TO ALLOW THE STR COMMITTEES A LITTLE MORE TIME,
[05:45:03]
ONE MONTH, TWO MONTHS, COME BACK.>> DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE ITEM THAT IS ON OUR AGENDA TODAY FOR CONSIDERATION NEEDS TO BE DEFERRED, REMOVED?
>> I WOULD SAY REFER IT TO THE STR COMMIT.
>> NO. IT'S GOT TO BE DEFERRED.
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT'LL JUST BE DEFERRED.
>> IF IT'S DEFERRED, IT CAN STILL COME BACK IN A DIFFERENT FORM.
>> WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE [INAUDIBLE]
I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ON YOUR SCHEDULE, DON, BUT WE WANT YOU AT THOSE MEETINGS.
GOOD, BRIAN, YOU'D BE GREAT, TIM, OF COURSE.
WE'RE GOING TO NEED HELP TO BRING BACK REALISTIC SUGGESTIONS.
>> SOMETHING THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE ENFORCED.
>> LIKE I SAID, DON AND I WILL BE THERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CITY MARSHAL RIGHT NOW, SO THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE.
>> GOOD JOB. [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU, CLAIRE.
JUNE 26TH, WE'LL SEE HER SMILING FACE.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE REST? DO YOU WANT TO GIVE US A TIME FRAME FOR THE REST?
>> THREE, MINIMUM. FIVE, MAXIMUM. DOES THAT WORK?
>> DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY?
>> YOU HAVE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A YEAR.
>> [OVERLAPPING] NO, WE'VE ALREADY SEPARATED THE PARK.
>> I WOULD SAY TWO, THE REST COULD BE EASY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] LET'S NOT FORGET THAT WE STILL WANT THE INPUT OF COUNCIL ON EVERYTHING IN THIS ORDINANCE, NOT JUST THE PARKING.
>> ARE WE GOING TO SEND THIS TO TIM?
>> [OVERLAPPING] I LIKE YOUR SHIRT, THOUGH, WHERE DID YOU GET IT?
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN SEND TO TIM?
>> COUNCIL SENDS THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE ORDINANCE TO TIM SO THE COMMITTEE CAN GET THEM.
>> WE CAN DO THAT WITH THE MEMBERS HERE.
>> I JUST WANT TO GIVE COUNCIL A PLACE TO SEND THEIR COMMENTS.
>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD. VERY GOOD.
BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS, BRIAN, HOW MUCH MONEY ARE WE RAISING ON REGISTRATION FEES?
>> I THINK WE'VE GOT A LITTLE OVER A MILLION DOLLARS IN THERE.
>> THAT THAT GOES INTO A PARTICULAR [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THIS, I'VE GOT ENOUGH TO START IT.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE'LL HAVE TO ADJUST THE FEES.
>> THERE IS A WAY THAT WE COULD IMMEDIATELY, BRIAN.
>> I'M LISTENING. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I GOT THE NOTES RIGHT.
>> THERE IS A WAY THAT WE COULD HAVE MORE ENFORCEMENT, AND I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR YOU FOR TWO YEARS.
ALREADY YOU'VE SAID YOU'RE MOVING IT WITH THE MARINE SAFETY.
A LOT OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE THE ISSUE USE SHERIFFS FOR SECURITY ON WEEKENDS OR GPD ON BIG WEEKENDS.
I KNOW THE SHERIFF IS RECEPTIVE, I KNOW THE POLICE CHIEF IS RECEPTIVE.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE NEW MAYOR OF JAMAICA BEACH, BUT THE OLD MAYOR AND THE POLICE CHIEF WERE RECEPTIVE IN JAMAICA BEACH.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE MOUS FOR THEM TO BACK US UP.
BUT WE DO NOT HAVE CURRENT MOU.
IF A NEIGHBORHOOD HIRE SHERIFFS FOR A WEEKEND, AND IT'S A CITY ORDINANCE, THEY STILL HAVE TO CALL GPD OR A CITY LAW.
>> YOU LOOKED AT THAT, DON, ABOUT LAW AND SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, THE SHERIFF CAN'T ENFORCE A CITY ORDINANCE.
>> WE ACTUALLY NEVER LOOKED AT IT.
THE ARGUMENT WAS, WHO WOULD PAY THE COST? WELL, WE NOW HAVE A GROUP THAT HAS PUT TOGETHER FUNDS THAT COULD PAY THE COST OF TRAINING, CROSS-TRAINING THAT COULD PAY THE COST OF AN OFFICER IF HE HAD TO GO TO COURT.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO INCREASE THE MANPOWER ON THE WHOLE ISLAND.
>> THIS IS ENFORCEMENT, AND THIS HAS THE DEWAR SHORT-TERM RENTAL ENFORCEMENT.
IF YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW OR ME TO CITE HOW IT COVERS THIS ITEM, I HAD A JAMAICA BEACH POLICEMAN WHO LIVED IN ISLA DEL SOL THAT HAD A BAD PLAYER LIVING NEXT TO HIM, HE COULDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE
[05:50:01]
AN MOU ON FOLLOWING UP ON OUR ORDINANCES.HE'D HAVE TO CALL A GPD TO DO IT.
THERE IS A WAY TO DO IT WITHOUT COSTING, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WITH Y'ALL THIS WEEK ABOUT HOW WE COULD DO IT, BECAUSE IT'S AT NO COST TO OUR CITIZENS.
>> COUNCIL, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? LET'S MOVE TO 3M, PLEASE, MIA.
[3.M Discussion of the Enforcement of the City of Galveston’s Litter Ordinance (Porretto/C Brown - 15 min)]
>> ITEM 3M. DISCUSSION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY OF GALVESTON'S LITTER ORDINANCE.
>> MORE ENFORCEMENT. WE HEAR A LOT AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS MARINE DIVISION AND MOVING EVERYTHING TO THE MARINE DIVISION.
IF I HAD A DOLLAR FOR EVERY TIME A RESIDENT COMPLAINED ABOUT TRASH ON THE BEACH, I COULD PROBABLY FUND THE PROGRAM WITH IT.
I'M TIRED OF THE REPUTATION FOR GALVESTON.
WE HAVE DIRTY BEACHES, JUST THE THINGS WE ATTRACT.
I REALLY WANT TO PUT A HUGE EMPHASIS ON IT.
IF I HAVE TO BE THE BAD GUY, IF WE HAVE TO CALL ON A PARETO TICKETS FOR PEOPLE LITTERING ON THE BEACH, THEN SO BE IT.
I UNDERSTAND GETTING A TICKET WRITTEN TO A PARTICULAR PERSON FOR LITTERING IS DIFFICULT. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> I DON'T CARE. WE NEED TO START DOING IT.
IF THAT MEANS REACHING OUT TO OUR NEWS PARTNERS, IF THAT MEANS REACHING OUT TO, HEY, GALVESTON IS GOING TO START CHANGING THE WAY WE DO THINGS, WE'RE GOING TO START TICKETING FOR LITTERING.
IF WE CAN PUT UP SOME GUYS AND SOME ATVS, SOME UTVS, I THINK WE CAN DO A LOT TO COVER A LOT OF GROUND.
I THINK THE RESIDENTS WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON ENFORCING ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS THAT WE GET WITH TOURISTS EVERY FOURTH OF JULY WEEKEND.
EVERY MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND, WHICH IS COMING UP, WE SEE THE PICTURES.
THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WHY WE HAVE AN ABUNDANCE OF IT.
NOW, THE MARKETING ASPECT OF IS SOMETHING THAT I'VE PUT A LOT IN TOO BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE A CATCHY PHRASE FOR A PROGRAM.
THE THING I'M THINKING OF IS CALLED ONLY FOOTPRINTS.
THE ONLY THING YOU SHOULD LEAVE IN THE SAND IN GALVESTON IS FOOTPRINTS.
>> TAKE YOUR TRASH WITH YOU, ONLY FOOTPRINTS.
I THINK IF WE DO IN A WAY THAT WORKS, MAYBE IT TAKES SOME TIME TO PUT TOGETHER.
>> I THINK WE ALREADY HAVE THAT OUT THERE.
>> IN THE CAN, NOT THE SAND, BUT IT DOES NOT ALWAYS GO IN THE CAN.
MAYBE WE NEED TO PUT THAT ONE IN THE CAN.
>> THE BIG PROBLEM ON FOURTH OF JULY, MEMORIAL DAY, IS THE CANS ARE OVERFLOWING ABOUT 1:00 PM.
>> IT'S NOT THE GUYS WHO ARE PICKING UP THE TRASH THAT ARE A PROBLEM, THEY DO A GOOD JOB OF IT.
THEY WORK HARD. ST. AUGUSTINE, I WALKED WITH MY WIFE FOR FOUR MILES ON THE BEACH, WE FOUND ONE CIGARETTE BUT THEY HAD ONE TRASH CAN PER BEACH ENTRANCE.
>> ON MANY A BEACH AROUND OUR COUNTRY, THERE IS ONLY ONE TRASH CAN AT THE ENTRANCE THROUGH THE EXIT BECAUSE IT'S TRASH ON, TRASH OFF.
>> THEY PACK IT IN, PACK IT OUT.
WHEN YOU HAVE DRINKS, WHEN YOU HAVE ALL THIS SODA.
MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT NOT ALLOWING THAT AND SAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CAN OR A YETI MUG OR SOMETHING.
WHAT IS IT REUSABLE? WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT THOSE ON OUR BEACHES BECAUSE IT IS A BIG PROBLEM.
WE LIVE AN HOUR FROM 8-9 MILLION PEOPLE WHO GENERALLY DAY TRIP DOWN HERE.
I THINK WE NEED TO START BEING SERIOUS ABOUT IT.
IF I HAVE TO BE THE BAD GUY, LET ME BE THE BAD GUY, I REALLY DON'T CARE.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S ABOUT BEING THE BAD GUY, I THINK IT'S ABOUT HAVING ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DO THAT.
>> WHEN WE GET THAT, WE NEED TO FOCUS ON HOW WE DO THAT.
I'M A LITTER FREAK, AND IF YOU WALK WITH ME, I'M ALWAYS PICKING UP TRASH.
BUT I WOULD SAY THIS, THE RESEARCH HAS SHOWN THE BEST WAY TO KEEP THINGS CLEAN IS TO MAKE SURE IT STAYS PRISTINE.
PEOPLE DON'T LITTER WHEN IT'S ALREADY CLEAN.
[05:55:01]
>> FROM OTHER BEACH VENDORS TOO, INCLUDING MYSELF, WHEN I GO TO TELL THAT GUY, HEY, THERE'S NO GLASS ON THE BEACH, IT RANGES FROM AN FU, A MIDDLE FINGER, TO SCOFFS AND LAUGHS AND SAYS, CALL THE COPS ON ME, BUDDY.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY TEETH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ACTUALLY ENFORCE IT, THEN WE'RE STUCK IN THE MUD.
>> COME SEE ME, I GOT AN IDEA.
BUT I WILL SAY THIS, AND I'M NOT KNOCKING THE GUYS THAT CLEAN THE TRASH, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
THIS GOES BACK TO THE PREVIOUS PARKS BOARD DIRECTOR.
>> I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO THINK I'M DOING THAT, THEY DO A GOOD JOB.
>> NO. THEY PROBABLY NEED TO FIGURE IT.
THEIR PROBLEM IS, ONCE THE BEACHES GET CROWDED, THEY DON'T WANT TO RUN THEIR TRUCKS DOWN THE BEACH.
BUT DOWNTOWN, IF YOU WATCH OUR DOWNTOWN GUYS THIS WEEKEND, THEY'RE GOING TO PULL TRASH 2, 03, 4 TIMES A DAY, DOWNTOWN.
ART WALK, THEY'RE PULLING IT TWO OR THREE TIMES JUST DURING AN ART WALK.
DURING THE DAY WHEN THOSE CANS FILL UP, ESPECIALLY RIGHT AFTER LUNCH, AND NOBODY PICKS IT UP, THAT'S WHERE THE TRASH COMES.
PEOPLE WILL DO THEIR BEST FOR A WHILE.
THEY'LL START BUILDING THEIR LITTLE TRASH PYRAMID AROUND THE CANS, BUT THEN IT BLOWS ALL OVER THE PLACE.
A BIG PIECE OF THAT IS THE FACT THAT ON BUSY WEEKENDS, ESPECIALLY, WE NEED TO SERVICE THOSE CANS MORE THAN ONCE A DAY.
HOW YOU DO THAT WITH GETTING PEOPLE ON THE BEACH WITH KIDS AND CARS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THAT'S THE CHALLENGE THAT WE'D HAVE TO WORK WITH.
>> ONLY FOOTPRINTS. THE ONLY THING YOU SHOULD LEAVE IN GALVESTON IS FOOTPRINT.
>> ENTIRE PRINTS FROM THE ATV ENFORCING IT.
>> HAVE WE EVER TRIED ANYTHING BASICALLY LIKE WHAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S OKAY. BRIAN, I THINK YOU HEAR VERY CLEARLY THAT THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A MARINE ISSUE.
THAT I THINK AS YOU WORK TOWARDS WHATEVER PROCESSES AND RE-RESTRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.
MAKE SURE TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY.
>> WHEN YOU COME BACK TO US IN BUDGET TIME, WE CAN IDENTIFY IT VERY CLEARLY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT ACTIONS WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING AS A COUNSEL AND WHAT FUNDS WE'RE GOING TO BE COMMITTING IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
>> NO, I THINK THERE'S A PLAN.
>> IT'S NOT JUST THE BEACH, IT'S ALSO THE SEAWALL.
>> IT'S THE ENTIRE CITY. GO AHEAD.
>> SORRY. IF YOU HAVE A SEA WALL, LET'S SAY, ON THE BEACH DETAIL, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GET FROM, LET'S CALL IT 25TH STREET TO 45TH STREET, FOURTH OF JULY, DO YOU THINK THAT RESPONSE TIME IS GOING TO BE QUICKER ON THE SEA WALL OR IT'S GOING TO BE QUICKER ON THE BEACH FRONT?
>> IT'LL BE QUICKER ON THE BEACH FRONT.
>> THERE IS A DOUBLE COMPONENT TO THAT.
>> PLUS THE WAY THE WINDS BLOW AROUND HERE, MOST OF THAT TRASH, A LOT OF IT BLOWS UP ON THE SEAWALL AND GETS CAUGHT IN ALL THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'VE SEEN PEOPLE RIGHT OUT OF THEIR CARS.
>> A HUNDRED PERCENT THROUGH THAT.
>> THROW BAGS, GLASSES, WHATNOT.
I'LL PULL UP TO THEM AND YELL TO THEM.
I'M PROBABLY GOING TO GET SHOT ONE DAY.
>> THAT'S WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO ME A FEW TIMES.
I WORKED ON THE BEACH MY WHOLE HIGH SCHOOL.
I'LL TELL YOU, THEY'LL DUMP IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU AND FLIP YOU OFF AND TELL YOU TO GO.
>> BO, YOU'VE BEEN TRYING TO TALK.
>> HAVE WE EVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE, SAY, WHAT NEW BRAUNFELS DOES?
>> THAT, AND THEY'RE BASICALLY LIKE CRAWFISH BAGS.
THEY'RE THE VINYL BAGS THAT WOULDN'T BLOW INTO THE WATER, SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE ISSUES LIKE PLASTIC BAGS WE GET FROM THE GROCERY STORE.
THEN THEY HAVE BASICALLY POSTS WITH HOOKS SO THAT THOSE TRASH CANS DO OVERFILL.
THEY'RE EXTREMELY CHEAP, AND THEY BASICALLY HANG THEM ON THE HOOKS.
>> THE MOST SUCCESS NEW BRAUNFELS HAD WAS WITH THE REUSABLE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
>> I HAD ACTUALLY MET WITH MARTY MILES ABOUT THAT.
THERE WAS A GROUP THAT WAS GETTING FEDERAL FUNDING THAT WAS GOING TO BRING THIS REUSABLE CONTAINER THING TO THE BEACH.
UNFORTUNATELY, I BELIEVE THAT WAS ONE OF THE CUTS THAT WAS MADE, AND WHEN I VISITED WITH MARTY LAST WEEK, HE SAYS IT DIED.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TYPE OF SUBSIDY TO DO IT.
YOU USE THEM AND YOU COULD DROP THEM IN A CONTAINER AND YOU GET YOUR DEPOSIT BACK, AND IT WAS PRETTY COOL.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THOSE CRAWFISH BAGS.
PEOPLE WOULD USE THEM WHILE THEY WERE IN THE TUBES, THEY'D USE THEM ON THE SIDE OF THE RIVER.
>> I THINK THE PARK BOARD ACTUALLY IS DOING THAT OR DID THAT, BO IN BAG, I THOUGHT.
>> THERE'S A FEW PLACES WHERE THEY HAVE TRASH BAGS THAT ARE RIGHT THERE.
>> BUT THEN YOU CAN'T PUT PLASTIC OUT THERE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THESE ARE DRAW STRING BAGS.
>> IT GOT TO SAD WHERE IN THE STATE WE ARE WITH THE PARK BOARD, BUT THERE WOULD BE A BETTER.
IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT THIS, I THINK A BIG COMPONENT OF IT, WE SOLVED THIS PROBLEM FROM DOWNTOWN TO A LARGE DEGREE WITH JUST THREE GUYS.
[06:00:05]
THEY'RE HAVING TO PICK UP TRASH, BUT THE MAYOR IS EXACTLY RIGHT.IT HAS STOPPED PEOPLE FROM LEAVING THEIR CANS AND DOING SOMETHING.
OUR GUYS WILL TELL ME, EXCUSE ME.
MOST PEOPLE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING UNLESS THEY'RE DROPPING SOMETHING.
>> LET'S READ ITEM 3O, PLEASE.
[3.O Discussion of joint meetings between City Council and Planning Commission (Porretto/Rawlins - 10 min)]
>> DISCUSSION OF JOINT MEETINGS BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION.
>> WHATEVER IT IS, BO, I AGREE.
>> [LAUGHTER] I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT'S ON THAT.
>> WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, AND SOME OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND I HAVE TALKED TO BO ABOUT IT.
>> I THINK MAYBE A PRELIMINARY WORKSHOP.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE QUARTERLY.
IT'S HAPPENING AND IT HASN'T BEEN ADDRESSED.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT SOME STAFF SAYS, WE NEED TO MEET WITH THEM TO GO THROUGH THIS PUT PROCESS.
WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE MASTER PLAN, THE COMP PLAN, WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THESE DEFICIENCIES.
LDRS, THESE BOXES THAT ARE BEING BUILT THAT WE'VE ALL PROBABLY GOT COMPLAINTS ABOUT, BUT THEY'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENT.
IT'S THE MAXIMUM REQUIREMENT THAT THEY CAN HAVE.
>> ANOTHER ONE WE TALKED ABOUT, WE'VE HAD WORKSHOPS AMONGST US WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND IT'S MORE OF THINGS THAT I'M ABLE TO ADD OR PROVIDE WHENEVER WE HAVE DIFFERENT DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO THOSE.
THEY DEPEND ON ME TO CONVEY TO US AS A COUNSEL.
THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE, JUST THE SAME AS US CONVEYING DOWN TO THEM THROUGH ME.
BUT I THINK EVEN IF WE HAD TWO A YEAR OR THREE A YEAR, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT.
IT IS SIMPLY TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS THAT WE ARE CONSISTENTLY HAVING TO REVISIT, LIKE THE SUP AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE ALLEY DRIVEWAYS, CERTAIN THINGS, THEY COME UP MORE THAN ONCE.
>> THEY NEED TO GET OUR INPUT FROM WHAT THEY CAN APPROVE OR DENY OR ALTER TO FIT THE NEED OR THE OPINION, GENERALLY WHAT COUNCILS WOULD BE TRYING TO CONVEY TO THEM, SEND US YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE DON'T WANT TO JUST CHOP UP WHAT YOU DO.
>> THEY'RE NOT VERY EXTENSIVE, I CAN SHARE THE MINUTES OF THE LAST WORKSHOP.
IT WILL TO ME, BE SUFFICIENT AS TO KNOW MAYBE SOME THINGS WE CAN START THINKING ABOUT TO HELP THEM.
>> WHEN I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE HAD THE SAME ISSUE.
>> MARIE, GO, SHE'S BEEN WAITING.
>> I KNOW I'VE DISCUSSED THIS MULTIPLE TIMES WITH RUSTY WALLA, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT HE FEELS REALLY STRONGLY ABOUT.
THREE TIMES, EVEN FOUR TIMES, WHATEVER.
I KNOW THE MAYOR SHAKING HIS HEAD.
I KNOW WE DON'T WANT MORE MEETINGS BUT I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT.
I THINK THIS IS ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO ON FOREVER.
BECAUSE IT'S JUST STARTING, MAYBE IT IS THREE, BUT IN THE FUTURE COULD GO TO TWO, OR WHATEVER A YEAR.
BUT I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF SENSE IN IT, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT WHEN I WAS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WE NOTICED A DISCONNECT ON WHAT A PUD WAS AND HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE USED BETWEEN THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL.
WE WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING THAT VERY THING.
JUST TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT HOW WE USE SOME OF THESE MUTUAL TOOLS THAT WE BOTH USE, BECAUSE WE BOTH SEE THERE'S A LOT OF THE SAME CASES, AND WE NEED TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT OUR CRITERIA IS AND ALL THAT.
>> MAYOR, AS A FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I'D LIKE TO OPEN MINE AS WELL.
I TOTALLY SUPPORT THIS IDEA.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.