[00:00:02]
[1. DECLARATION OF A QUORUM AND CALL MEETING TO ORDER]
IT IS DECEMBER 11, 2025, AND IT'S MY HONOR TO CALL THE WORKSHOP TO ORDER TODAY FOR THE CITY OF GALVES.GLAD TO HAVE EVERYBODY HERE TODAY.
THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS IN THE COMMUNITY AFAR, GLAD TO HAVE YOU WITH US THIS MORNING.
THIS IS OUR CHRISTMAS WORKSHOP.
WE'VE MOVED IT UP FROM WHEN WE NORMALLY MEET BECAUSE OF THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS, SO MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO EVERYBODY OUT THERE.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM HERE, BUT LET'S HAVE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.
>> VERY GOOD. WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE OUR CITY MANAGER WITH US THIS MORNING.
HE'S FEELING A LITTLE UNDER THE WEATHER.
BRIAN WILL NOT BE ATTENDING TODAY, BUT WE HAVE OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER DAN BUCKLEY WITH US THIS MORNING.
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3 A, PLEASE.
[3.A Clarification Of Consent And Regular City Council Agenda Items - This Is An Opportunity For City Council To Ask Questions Of Staff On Consent And Regular Agenda Items (1 Hour)]
>> ITEM 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.
>> AS A CHRISTMAS GIFT, I KNOW THE COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE NO QUESTIONS FOR [LAUGHTER] LET'S GO AHEAD AND BEGIN.
IS IT TOO SOON TO ASK YOU? DAVID?
>> MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE ON COUNSEL.
I ALREADY HAVE MY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, DAVID. WELL, BOB?
>> WELL, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE SCROOGE, BUT I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT APPLY TO BOTH OF THOSE AGENDA ITEMS. M IS THE EXPENDITURE THRESHOLD?
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER.
THE SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT THRESHOLD IS 50% OF THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE ACCORDING TO THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL.
>> THEY BOTH EXCEEDED THAT? YES. THEY EXCEEDED IT.
>> THEY'RE BOTH CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
TO QUALIFY, YOU HAVE TO BE CONTRIBUTING TO A HISTORIC DISTRICT OR A GALVESTON LANDMARK.
>> THEY'RE BOTH AN EXISTING HISTORIC DISTRICT?
>> THAT'S ALL MY QUESTION FOR THAT ONE. THANK YOU.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, KATHERINE.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THAT? I THOUGHT YOU HAD TO BE LANDMARKED TO GET THE TAX CREDIT.
>> IT'S EITHER YOU CAN BE A LANDMARK OUTSIDE OF A DISTRICT OR YOU COULD BE A CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE WITHIN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
>> IS THERE HISTORIC VALUE TO IT? WE KEEP GIVING TAX CREDITS.
IT KEEPS GOING AWAY FROM OUR TAX BASE.
>> WELL, FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL REHABILITATION, THE APPRAISED VALUE IS FROZEN.
IT'S NOT A REDUCTION TO THE CITY.
THEN AFTER THAT, IT GOES TO THE INCREASED VALUE.
>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, SINCE THEY'RE IN A HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD, WE'RE GIVING THEM A TAX BENEFIT, ARE THEY DOING IT IN A HISTORIC FASHION? DO WE HAVE ANY CONTROLS? WHAT ARE THE GUIDELINES?
>> ALL THE WORK HAS TO CONFORM TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR HISTORIC PROPERTIES.
WE REVIEW THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS.
WE ENSURE THAT ALL OF THE RULES ARE GOING TO BE FOLLOWED.
>> THEN DO WE MONITOR IT AS IT OCCURS?
I WENT THROUGH THAT PROGRAM AND THEY STAY ON TOP OF THAT. THANK YOU, KATHERINE.
>> KATHERINE, THIS ALSO FOR YOU.
>> YOU'VE BEEN SUMMONED, PETE.
IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE?
>> MILBURN, PROJECT MANAGER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.
>> THIS IS ABOUT 8D, THE CHANGE OF ZONING TO RO WITH VARCO BUCK OVER THERE. AS I UNDERSTAND.
I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT WHERE WE ARE WITH ALL THESE R0 NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATIONS.
IF I'M CORRECT, THIS A 17 PARCELS TO WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE IS 971 R0 REPRESENTING 12 NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS WOULD BE THE 13TH NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS APPLIED AND RECEIVES THIS ZONING CHANGE
[00:05:02]
OF ABOUT 988 PARCELS THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO R0, IS THAT RIGHT?>> I'D HAVE TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.
>> I'M JUST TRACK WHERE WE ARE, AND WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH ZERO.
IT SEEMS LIKE WE GET THEM LIKE EVERY OTHER MEETING.
>> IT IS AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO CITIZENS, THE NEIGHBORHOODS, AND WE CHOOSE TO SEEK A TON AND CHANGE.
>> THAT'S THE SECOND ONE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THERE THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS.
YOU GOT DOUBLE TEAM ON THIS. [LAUGHTER]
>> GOOD MORNING, COUNSEL, CHARLES KENWORTHY, DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES.
>> I'M GOING TO GO TO THE BUDGET MANAGER FOR THE PRO DEPARTMENT.
>> THIS SIMPLE QUESTION. THE AGENDA ITEM OUTLINES WHAT IS CALLED PHASE 1, WHICH IS LIKE A STRUCTURAL REPAIR, CORRECT? MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS OUR TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET AND HOW MANY PHASES DO WE HAVE AND WHAT IS OUR TIMELINE?
>> RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THREE PHASES. IT COULD BE MORE.
BUT OUR TIMELINE FOR THE STRUCTURAL.
>> A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DAYS FOR THIS ONE.
THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE ROOFING PORTION NEXT IN WORK ON THE BUILDING.
WE'LL DO THAT AS THE BUDGET ALLOWS.
>> WE DON'T HAVE THOSE OTHER SUBSEQUENT PHASES SCHEDULED YET?
>> WE'RE PAYING FOR THAT WITH HOT I GUESS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THIS WHOLE BUILDING.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAD ON THAT ONE.
>> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE BAND SHELL.
YOU GUYS OR IS THAT BARBARA?THANKS.
>> GOOD MORNING. DON'T YOU LIKE CHRISTMAS, BARBARA?
>> NOW, AT LEAST SOME OF US GOT THE MENU.
>> BARBA, THIS IS ABOUT THE PROJECT, THE BAND SHELL.
>> I WAS LOOKING AT THE SCOPE OF WORK SPECIFICATIONS, AND IT SAYS, SUPPLY TWO NEW STEEL DOORS WITH METAL FRAME, JAMS, AND IT'S ALL IN SOUTH WALL.
THAT'S TO REPLACE THE TWO METAL DOORS THAT WERE THERE.
>> I GUESS THAT'S A PRETTY HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT RIGHT THERE.
IT WAS RIGHT THERE IN THE SALT SAND AIR AND ALL THAT STUFF.
ARE THESE NEW DOORS GOING TO BE ANY MORE RESILIENT THAN THE OLD ONES? THAT IS?
>> I'M LOOKING FOR THE WORD GALVANIZED IN THERE OR SOMETHING OF VANDAL RESISTANT.
I'LL MAKE SURE THEY'LL BE GALVANIZED. IT'S NOT A PROBLEM.
BUT, THAT'S A PLACE WHERE WE DO HAVE VISITORS SOMETIMES, UNWANTED VISITORS AND HAPPY.
WE'RE HOPING THIS IS GOING TO DETER FROM THAT.
BUT WE DID APPROVE THE PROJECT LAST MONTH, I BELIEVE, FOR THE ART IN A NEW ART MURAL THERE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL IN, WE BRING IT UP TO CODE, OPEN AT CODE, BUT BRING IT UP TO WHERE IT WILL SUSTAIN THE NEW PROJECT AND LOOK REALLY NICE. WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.
>> I'M JUST LOOKING FOR THE MOST RESILIENT AND SUSTAINABLE PIECE OF DOOR THAT WE CAN GET THERE IN THAT HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT.
>> THAT WOULD BE GALVANIZED AND VANDAL RESISTANT. THAT CONCEPT.
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING'S VANDAL RESISTANT.
WE TRY. WE DO THE BEST WE CAN.
>> HARDWARE, YOU CAN GET SOME OF THESE?
>> THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THIS QUESTION.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAD. I JUST WANT TO.
>> BARBARA, I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> WE'VE BEEN OFF AND ON WORKING ON THAT BAND SHELL, EVER SINCE I GOT ON 2014.
IS THERE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE NEED TO DO TO THAT TO REALLY GET IT UP WHERE IT CAN BE UTILIZED FOR EVENTS OUT THERE.
DOES IT HAVE ELECTRICITY IN THERE?
>> YES, SIR. IT DOES HAVE ELECTRICITY.
>> IS THERE ANY OTHER OUTSTANDING IMPROVEMENTS NOT COVERED IN THIS THAT WE NEED TO DO?
>> I DO NOT BELIEVE SO AT THIS TIME.
IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN ONGOING MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
BUT AS YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT TEAR IT DOWN.
IT WAS DEEMED HISTORICAL, AND IT WAS BUILT IN THE EARLY 50S, MR. ROB DESIGNED IT.
WHEN WE DID DESIGN THE BUILDING, WE DID MEET WITH TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION AND TRIP TO AUSTIN.
[00:10:03]
THAT'S WHY YOU'LL SEE TWO CARVE OUTS IN THE BUILDING WAS TO ENHANCE THE BAND SHELL.>> IT'S A SLANT WALL IN OUR CONFERENCE ROOM AND OVER BY THE GYM.
YOU DON'T NOTICE IT ON THE INSIDE OF THE GYM.
YOU NOTICE IT INSIDE ON THE CONFERENCE ROOM? ADD A UNIQUE LITTLE FLARE TO THE CONFERENCE ROOM.
>> THAT BAND SHELL'S UTILIZED QUITE A BIT?
>> YES, SIR. WE HAVE THE SUMMER BAND CONCERTS THAT IT USES.
WE HAD THE JUNE 10 EVENT THERE, AND WE'VE HAD SOME OTHER PROGRAMS OUT THERE.
WE'VE ALSO DONE EXERCISE CLASSES OUT THERE WHEN IT WAS A BEAUTIFUL DAY AND WE COULD GET THEM OUT OF THE REC CENTER AND PUT THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OUT THERE.
>> WELL, I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE PUTTING A LOT OF EFFORT INTO KEEPING THAT UP OUT THERE.
>> I SHOULDN'T SAY THIS, BUT I REMEMBER THE BATTLE OF THE BANDS IN THE 1960S AT THAT FACILITY.
>> AS A LITTLE GIRL, I DANCED UP THERE.
MARY LOU SAL'S DANCE STUDIO, AND WHEN THEY'D HAD THE SUMMER BAND CONCERTS THERE.
>> THERE WAS A SORORITY YEARS AGO IN THE MID 60S.
IT DID A LITTLE SPLASH DAY FOR LITTLE GIRLS UP THERE.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THINGS UP THERE OVER THE YEARS.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, BARBARA. YES.
WHILE BARBARA IS HERE, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS.
>> YEAH. I JUST GOT ONE MORE RECORD OF THIS.
>> LET'S JUST SAY IT FOR BARBARA, SHE RIGHT.
>> JUST TO SAY GOOD RIDDANCE AND THANK YOU.
I THINK IT'S 11 IJ, CAME UP TO THE DOWNLOADS.
ALWAYS GREAT TO SEE FUNDS THAT WILL MAKE MAJOR IMPROVEMENT. THAT WAS IT?
>> THAT WAS THE FINISHING SUCH ON HER FIELD.
ROCHKIND INSURANCE WANTED TO BE THE DONOR.
THEY DONATED THE FUNDS TO BETTER PARKS FOR GALVESTON, BETTER PARKS FOR GALVESTON FACILITATED IT.
IT'S INSTALLED AND READY TO GO.
>> I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT, SHARON.
THAT THANK YOU TO ALL OF THOSE THAT PARTICIPATED IN THAT.
>> THEY ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO LINDALE PARK FOR A NEW DOG AGILITY AREA, TO REPLACE THE EXISTING THAT'S BEEN PATCHED, AND THEN ALSO SOME IMPROVEMENTS AT THE POOL IN THE PROPS ROOM, WHICH IS SOMETHING MECHANICAL, SO IT'S A REAL BLESSING.
>> THANK YOU, BARBARA BERRY. ONE MORE, 11M, AND THIS IS REFERRING TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE CAN'T BEAT TEXAS, BUT IT'S OKAY.
>> SOME THINGS YOU RECOGNIZE THAT.
>> THEY WERE ONCE AN UNDEFEATED TEAM.
>> TYSON ARNOLD, DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. HOW YOU?
>> THE STAFF REPORT SAYS WAYS FOR A TREATMENT WESTERN DEVELOPMENTS ON PELICAN ISLAND.
I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU COULD DRILL DOWN THAT.
>> THIS IS AN EXISTING PLAN THERE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY ABILITY TO SERVE ANY OF THE BASICALLY WESTERN HALF OF PELICAN ISLAND.
>> THAT'S EVERYTHING THAT'S TAMUG AND EVERYTHING THAT'S THOSE APARTMENTS THAT ARE OUT THERE?
>> RIGHT. WE ONLY HAVE THREE CONNECTIONS OVER THERE RIGHT NOW THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED TEXAS A&M. SO THIS IS.
>> ON THE WESTERN END. CORRECT. THAT NEED SERVICE TO OUR SERVERS FROM US.
>> THEY'RE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH A&M?
>> THEY'RE NOT. THERE'S A GAS STATION APARTMENT COMPLEX IN THERE.
THEIR WASTEWATER GOES TO THIS WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT FOR THEM TO TAKE PART.
I KNEW THERE WERE SOME OTHER PLACES OUT THERE THAT WEREN'T ASSOCIATED WITH TAMUG.
I WONDER IF THAT WAS PART OF THIS OR NOT.
>> THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. THEN OTHERS LIKE HALLIBURTON, I THINK THEY HAVE THEIR OWN TREATMENT PLANT.
>> IS TAMUG'S PLANT SIZED TO ANTICIPATE GROWTH OR THEY MAX THAT?
>> IT IS. BASED ON MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTS, IT WAS SIZED TO TAKE SOME ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.
IT'S PROBABLY SET UP TO EXPAND AS NEEDED.
>> THE REST OF PELICAN ISLAND,
[00:15:02]
WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT OTHER PLANTS?>> WE CAN'T BEAT TEXAS, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOOD AT THAT.
>> GOOD AT HANDLING THE, YOU KNOW WHAT?
>> ACTUALLY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THAT'S ALL FROM ME, THANKS.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. THANK YOU.
>> SEE THE GHOST OF MAYOR'S PAST WOULD APPRECIATE ME NOT HAVING ANYTHING TO ASK.
>> DANG. WELL, THAT LEAVES ME AS THE GRINCH. [LAUGHTER]
>> YOU WORE GREEN. [LAUGHTER].
>> MARIA, I'M GOING TO IGNORE THAT.
[LAUGHTER] THAT WAS JUST ONE ON E1 AND O.
>> I'M BACK. SORRY. [LAUGHTER].
>> DIDN'T DO ME LIKE BARBARA? [LAUGHTER].
>> [LAUGHTER] I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE THAT I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON UNDER TIFFANY WATER.
NOW THAT THEY ARE COMING INTO COMPLIANCE.
DO YOU THINK THAT GOING FORWARD, THAT THERE WILL BE ANY OTHER REGULATIONS THAT MAYBE THEY WANT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO UPHOLD TO FORM THE CITY?
>> ANY OF THOSE ISSUES REALLY WON'T HAVE AN EFFECT ON US.
BUT I DO THINK THEY HAVE LOTS OF ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
>> OKAY. ONE OTHER JUST QUESTION OR COMMENT, DOES THIS AGREEMENT LIMIT ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE WATER SUPPLY?
>> IT DOES. I MEAN, IT'S MAX CAPACITY RIGHT NOW FOR THEM.
IF THEY WANT ANY MORE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REQUEST IT, AND I'LL PROBABLY MAKE THEM DO AN ALTERNATIVE CAPACITY REQUIREMENT REQUEST TO THE STATE, WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THEY PROBABLY DON'T REALLY NEED AS MUCH AS THE STATE REQUIRES THEM TO HAVE.
THEY COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT, AND THEN POTENTIALLY WE COULD INCREASE OUR CONTRACT AFTERWARDS.
BUT THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION THERE.
WE GET OUR WATER AT VIRGINIA POINT, COMES THROUGH OUR METER.
THIS WATER NEVER GOES THROUGH OUR METER.
IT'S PART OF OUR AGREEMENT, OUR CONTRACT WITH GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY.
>> THIS AGREEMENT WOULD TAKE CARE OF EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY WOULD NEED.
>> YEAH. WE'RE SELLING TO THEM.
IT SATISFIES REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM AND FOR US BECAUSE WE WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE CONTRACTS IN PLACE FOR OUR CUSTOMERS, AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE FOR THEIR SUPPLIER.
>> THIS DISTRICT HAS BEEN AROUND FOR DECADES, AND THEY HAVEN'T HAD THIS, SO TCQ JUST FINALLY STARTED ISSUING FINES TO THEM FOR IT.
>> I WAS JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS, HOW IS IT THAT WE'RE SELLING WATER TO SOMEBODY ELSE, AND THE WATER DOESN'T EVEN GET HERE BEFORE IT CLEARED? WHO DOES TIFFANY'S SERVE?
>> THE MEETS AND BOUNDS ARE IN THE PACKET THERE.
THAT WHOLE SYSTEM IS CONSIDERED THE TIFFANY WATER COMPANY SYSTEM.
>> DO THEY SERVE LIKE HITCHCOCK, OR SOMETHING, OR WHAT?
>> I GUESS HITCHCOCK IS THEIR ADDRESS, BUT THEY JUST SERVE THOSE FEW STREETS [OVERLAPPING] THEY DON'T HAVE TANKS. THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF STREETS WITH WATER LINES ON, AND WE HAVE A METER.
IT'S LIKE JAMAICA BEACH, BUT EVEN SMALLER.
>> WOW. HOW IN THE WORLD DID WE EVER GET THAT?
>> WE USED TO OWN THAT LINE OUTRIGHT AND THEN [OVERLAPPING].
>> FROM OUR WELLS. IT CAME DOWN. THEN WHEN IT [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY CAME DOWN, THAT WAS THE FORESIGHT OF PEOPLE 100 YEARS AGO [OVERLAPPING].
>> WAIT BEFORE IT GETS TO THE ISLAND AND STOP OFF AT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD [LAUGHTER].
>> THERE'S SEVERAL CONNECTIONS AROUND THE ENTIRE LOOP THAT MAKES UP THAT SYSTEM.
GULF COAST WATER AUTHORITY PREFERS THAT PEOPLE HAVE TANKS.
THERE'S ABOUT FIVE OFF THE ISLAND THAT ARE SIMILAR TO TIFFANY WATER, THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER ONE OF OUR CUSTOMERS.
>> I SEE. IT'S NOT JUST PEOPLE OF GALVESTON, IT'S A FEW OTHER PLACES ON THE MAIN LINE.
>> THANK YOU [INAUDIBLE] VERY MUCH.
>> THIS IS PROBABLY JUST FOR DAN.
[00:20:03]
WE HAD TALKED A WHILE BACK ABOUT THE [OVERLAPPING].>> YES. IT'S PRETTY JUST AN EASY QUESTION.
DID WE SEE ANY RATE CUTS OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS ON OUR COST FOR THIS SHARE?
>> ACTUALLY, BEVERLY IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE ADDRESSES.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE HEALTH BOARD LOOKED AT, SO 10S OF METERS, YOU CAN TALK ABOUT THAT TOPIC.
>> LAST HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR.
I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID D.
>> YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON STOP-LOSS INSURANCE? I'M SORRY.
>> NO. I WAS JUST LOOKING FOR EFFICIENCIES OF WHAT THE HEALTH PLAN LOOKS AT [INAUDIBLE]
>> THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IN PAST MEETINGS, AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THIS RFP THAT CAME OUT WAS IT LESS? WAS IT MORE? IS IT ABOUT THE SAME?
>> NO. THIS WAS ABOUT 15% MORE THAN WE PAID LAST YEAR FOR STOP-LOSS.
WE ONLY HAD ONE BIDDER, AND IT WAS BLUE CROSS, WHO IS CURRENTLY PROVIDING OUR GROUP HEALTH PLAN INSURANCE.
WHAT WE DO WITH STOP-LOSS IS WE BASICALLY CONSIDER BECAUSE WE'RE SELF-INSURED.
DO WE WANT THE PREMIUMS OR THE DEDUCTIBLES TO BE 200, 225,250, AND WE HAVE A CONSULTANT THAT'S HERE TODAY.
WE JUST WEIGH WHAT ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR INDIVIDUAL, WHICH IS ONCE AN INDIVIDUAL HITS $225,000 IN CLAIMS, THEN WE HAVE STOP-LOSS INSURANCE THAT WILL PAY OVER THAT AMOUNT OVER THE CLAIM.
THEN WE ALSO HAVE AGGREGATE THAT IS 125%.
I THINK IS THE WAY THEY MEASURE THAT RISK.
IT'S OUR SAVIOR BECAUSE OF A SELF-INSURANCE PLAN UPON WHICH [INAUDIBLE] CAN BE COMFORTABLE WHEN KNOWING THAT IF WE GO OVER THAT MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, THEY'RE GOING TO COVER IT.
>> IS THAT ASSESSED WITHIN OUR INDIVIDUAL RISK POOL, OR IS THAT OVERALL INDUSTRY-WIDE?
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS ASSESSED OVERALL INDUSTRY-WIDE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE 15% INCREASE?
>> 15% INCREASE IS WHAT BLUE CROSS CONSIDERED BASED ON OUR CURRENT CLAIMS [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S WITHIN OUR RISK SCORE.
>> THEIR UNDERWRITERS RATE US.
>> VERY GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE, BOB?
>> DAN, IS THIS THE 200,000 WE'VE CONTRACTED FOR THIS SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE IN-HOUSE REPAIRS ROB, I'M SORRY [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU LOOKING AT [INAUDIBLE] FOR ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC WORKS.
THIS IS TO BASICALLY GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO RENT THE EQUIPMENT AT ANY TIME THAT OUR TWO EXISTING PIECE OF MACHINERY ARE OUT OF SERVICE.
RIGHT NOW, BOTH OF OUR MILLING MACHINES ARE IN THE SHOP FOR REPAIRS.
IN ORDER TO KEEP THE MILLION AND PAVING CREW MOVING FORWARD AND DOING ONE MILLION OPERATIONS, THEY HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND RENT A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.
OTHERWISE, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING.
THIS IS TO GIVE US THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET LARGE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE USE FOR THAT PROGRAM TO KEEP IT GOING.
>> THIS 200,000 UP FRONT OR JUST AS NEEDED?
>> IT'S JUST A CAP, IS ALL IT IS.
>> GOOD MORNING. 11 S. WHAT DOES CENTER TECHNOLOGIES PROVIDE FOR US?
>> THEY'RE JUST THE AUTHORIZED RESELLER FOR THE SOFTWARE.
>> WHAT SOFTWARE, AND WHAT DOES IT PROVIDE FOR US?
>> VMWARE IS OUR VIRTUAL SOFTWARE.
IT'S WHAT ALLOWS US TO CREATE SERVERS AND STAND SERVERS UP.
THOSE ARE VIRTUAL SERVERS INSTEAD OF PHYSICAL SERVERS.
>> THAT'S WHAT THEY CHARGE JUST FOR THE SUBSCRIPTION?
>> THIS IS BROADCOM'S COST FOR THE SUBSCRIPTION, THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THAT IS EACH YEAR. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS COST HAS GONE UP 85% THIS YEAR.
THIS YEAR IS WHATEVER IT IS, 106, 108.
WE'RE LOOKING AT EXPLORING OTHER SOLUTIONS.
>> DID WE KNOW THIS AHEAD OF TIME?
[00:25:02]
I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR VIRTUAL PROVIDER, IT IS A HUGE ITEM.
>> NOT SOMETHING I CAN FLIP OVERNIGHT.
WE USUALLY BRING THIS TO COUNSEL IN OCTOBER.
WHEN WE WENT TO THE VENDOR AND ASKED FOR THE PROPOSAL, THEY WOULDN'T QUOTE IT.
THEY BEING BROADCOM, WHO OWNS THE SOFTWARE.
THEY ARE THE PROPRIETARY CODE OWNER.
THEY WOULDN'T QUOTE IT, AND WE DIDN'T GET OUR QUOTE UNTIL MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER, AND IT WAS 85% HIGHER.
LAST YEAR, IT WAS 100% HIGHER.
IN THE YEAR BEFORE. IT'S 185% INCREASE OVER TWO YEARS.
WE WILL BE LOOKING AT AND IT WAS NOT PART OF OUR CAPITAL PLAN.
WE WILL BE LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS.
HOPEFULLY, NEXT YEAR WE WILL HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION TO THIS. A YEAR FOR STOCK [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PLAYERS IN THIS MARKET EITHER.
>> YOU SAID IT WAS OUR MAIN SERVER?
WHAT IT ALLOWS US TO DO IS STAND UP NEW SERVERS WITHOUT PHYSICALLY HAVING A PIECE OF HARDWARE.
WE HAVE LIKE SIX HOST IN OUR PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT.
WE HAVE SIX PHYSICAL PIECES OF EQUIPMENT, BUT WE SUPPORT 125 PLUS SERVERS.
IT VIRTUALIZES OUR ENVIRONMENT, IT'S VERY, COMMON.
>> DOES IT USE RESOURCE SHARING LIKE [OVERLAPPING].
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE SHARE SOME OF OURS [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU SHARE YOUR MEMORY; YOU SHARE YOUR CPUS [OVERLAPPING].
>> INTERNALLY, THOUGH, NOT WITH OTHER PEOPLE.
>> BUT IS IT SOMETHING WE COULD TAKE TO A CLOUD-BASED LIKE SO MANY COMPANIES AND CITIES DO NOW?
>> YOU MEAN HAVE SOMEBODY HOST EXTERNALLY OUR SERVERS?
>> I DON'T RECOMMEND WE GO COMPLETELY VIRTUAL.
THERE'S PERFORMANCE METRICS TO GO WITH THAT, BUT COULD YOU? I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, BUT YOU STILL HAVE LICENSING COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT?
>> I'M SURE THERE'S STILL SOME HARDWARE THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN.
VIRTUALIZATION IS THE WAY THE INDUSTRY OPERATES.
>> CLOUD BECOME [OVERLAPPING].
>> HOPE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS THERE A WAY TO DO AN AUDIT ON OUR SERVERS TO SEE ONES THAT MAYBE WE'RE JUST NOT EVEN USING? IS THAT A POSSIBILITY WITH THIS SOFTWARE?
>> WE DO DO NORMAL AUDITS, AND WE DO HAVE SOME VIRTUAL SERVERS THAT ARE DECOMMISSIONED THAT NEED TO BE TOTALLY DESTROYED.
BASICALLY, IT'S A RESOURCE-PULLING AND SHARING.
>> I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS TO BETTER OUR POSITION WHEN WE GO OUT TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING MORE COMPETITIVE THAN 185% INCREASE IN TWO YEARS.
IF WE HAD A CLEANER PRESENTATION OF EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO UTILIZE, IT MIGHT BENEFIT US AND WHAT WE GET PROPOSED.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT HAPPENS.
>> WE REGULARLY DO PERFORMANCE METRICS ON OUR SYSTEM, AND WE ARE LOOKING TWO THINGS TO MENTION HERE, BROADCOM TRIED TO GET US TO SIGN A THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT, AND WE REFUSED.
WE'RE ONE OF THE ONLY ONES THAT REFUSE THAT THREE-YEAR AGREEMENT BECAUSE, A, I INTEND TO FIND ANOTHER MORE REALISTIC SOLUTION THAT THE CITY CAN USE.
TWO, WE DO PLAN TO LOWER OUR CPU USAGE BECAUSE THIS IS BASED ON CORES, BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED THAT MOVING FORWARD, BECAUSE SOME OF OUR STUFF IS GOING TO THE CLOUD.
HONESTLY, IF YOU LOOK AT WORKDAY AND SOME OF THE OTHER SOLUTIONS, FASTER, ACELLA, MOVING TO THE CLOUD, SO OUR NEEDS ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DECREASE OVER TIME, AND THEREFORE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO NEED THAT BECAUSE YOUR LICENSING IS BASED ON YOUR CORE COUNT.
>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AROUND FOR SOME OTHER PROVIDERS OUTSIDE OF BROADCOM.
>> THIS IS PROPRIETARY [OVERLAPPING].
>> WOULD IT BE BENEFICIAL TO US TO FIND SOMEBODY WHO WE COULD GET A LONGER CONTRACT THAN ONE YEAR IN ORDER TO GET SOME CONTROL OVER THE YEAR-TO-YEAR.
>> I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. HERE'S THE DEAL.
EVEN WHEN YOU SIGN A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH BROADCOM, YOUR PRICES ARE STILL SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
>> I MEAN, THIS ONE'S A TOUGH SUBJECT FOR ME BECAUSE IT'S A BATTLE THAT I HAVE FOUGHT FOR THE LAST THREE WEEKS.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER PROVIDERS OUT THERE THAT WOULD LOCK IN A FEE OVER MORE THAN A YEAR?
>> THERE'S ALL KINDS OF CLAUSES.
IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO NEGOTIATE WITH YOU AND WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO SIGN.
BUT SOME OF THEM, IT'S LIKE MICROSOFT.
[00:30:04]
THERE'S NOT REALLY A WHOLE LOT OF NEGOTIATION, AND BROADCOM'S PLAYING THAT GAME RIGHT NOW.>> THEY STOPPED SERVICING VISTA; YOU'RE CHANGING [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S THE GAME THEY'RE PLAYING RIGHT NOW.
LIKE I SAID, THE CITY WAS PLAYING $31,000.02 YEARS AGO FOR THIS SOLUTION.
OR THE SAME AMOUNT OF CORES THAT WE HAVE TODAY.
NOW WE'RE PAYING 106, HUNDRED, WHATEVER [OVERLAPPING] AND WE THREE BID THAT.
>> IF WE ADDED CORES TO THE SERVER, THAT WOULDN'T HELP AT ALL.
>> IF YOU ADD CORES, IT INCREASES YOUR COST.
TO HIS QUESTION, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE WE'RE GOING TO NEED THE COMPUTING POWER THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.
WHEN WE GO THROUGH OUR TRANSITION, AND PART OF WHAT'S BUDGETED FOR THIS UPCOMING YEAR, IS THE REPLACEMENT OF SOME OF OUR PHYSICAL SERVERS IS WHAT WE CALL OUR HOSTS? WE ARE INTENDING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF POSTS THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE GOING ON, AND THE ITEMS ARE MOVING TO THE CLOUD.
>> THERE'S NOT MUCH COMPETITION OUT THERE.
THERE'S SOME OTHER VIRTUALIZATION SOFTWARES OUT THERE.
I WILL TELL YOU VMWARE IS THE PREMIER PROVIDER.
IT'S THE MOST MATURE PRODUCT, IT'S FEATURE-RICH.
HOWEVER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CITY NEEDS MANY OF THOSE FEATURES THAT WE DON'T USE.
WE'RE NOT OF A SIZE AND COMPLEXITY THAT IT BENEFITS US AT THIS POINT.
>> VERY GOOD. ANYTHING ELSE, BOB?
>> I HAVE SOME OTHER ONES [OVERLAPPING].
>> THANK YOU, THOUGH. BOB. ANYTHING ELSE?
>> MARIA HAS NOTIFIED ME SHE DOES HAVE CREDIT.
>> NOW, THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION REMINDED ME OF SOMETHING I DID HAVE, AND IT'S ON 10 A.
>> NOW I CAN PASS RIGHT OVER, AND I'M LIKE, "WAIT A MINUTE.
THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT VIRTUAL SIGNATURES."
>> CSILLA, COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULD.
THEY CAN ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS.
>> CSILLA LUDANYI, FINANCE DIRECTOR.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO USE FACSIMILE SIGNATURES.
CAN YOU GIVE ME MORE EXPLANATION ON THIS?
>> YES. THE WAY THE CODE CURRENTLY READS IS THE FACSIMILE SIGNATURES ARE PERMITTED UNDER $25,000, BUT ABOVE $25,000 TO ENSURE THAT CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE IS ABLE TO REVIEW ANYTHING OVER $25,000.
WE REQUIRED A WET SIGNATURE AS PROOF OF THAT REVIEW.
IN OUR LEGACY SOFTWARE, THAT MEANT ON HARD CHECKS, WE STILL SIGN OVER $25,000, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT ANY LIKE ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS, EFTS, OR WIRES, WE WERE PRINTING OFF A WHOLE PACKET, BRINGING IT DOWN TO CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND SIGNING IT.
IN WORKDAY, THERE IS A REALLY AWESOME AUDIT TRAIL THAT YOU CAN SET UP THE WHOLE BUSINESS PROCESS, AND EVERY PERSON THAT'S REQUIRED TO SEE IT IS CAPTURED IN THAT BUSINESS PROCESS, AND THEN THE AUDIT TRAIL REFLECTS THAT I LOOKED AT IT.
THE DEPARTMENT HAD LOOKED AT IT.
THE CITY MANAGER LOOKED AT IT, AND EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO ALL THE DATA.
THIS WILL ALLOW US TO USE THAT DIGITAL AUDIT TRAIL TO MANAGE THAT OVERSIGHT AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO PRINT OFF ALL THE PAPER AND THEN STORE ALL THE PAPER FOREVER.
THIS IS JUST AN EFFICIENCY, AND IT'S A RESULT OF WORKDAY PROVIDING THAT AUDIT TRAIL, SO WE CAN MANAGE TO THAT $25,000 REQUIREMENT.
>> SINCE WE KNOW WE'VE ALREADY GOTTEN IN TROUBLE IN THE PAST WITH HAVING PEOPLE SIGN OFF THAT IT WAS, WHAT? A $700,000 LOSS.
A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT WITH INSURANCE.
ISN'T THIS TAKING AWAY SOME OF THE SAFEGUARDS?
>> NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK THE AUDIT TRAIL WILL PROVIDE YOU THE SAME INFORMATION WE HAD DURING THAT INVESTIGATION.
THAT AUDIT TRAIL MAKES IT AVAILABLE FOR EVERYONE WHO'S REQUIRED TO SEE IT OVER $25,000, AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE WHEN THEY REVIEWED IT, WHAT DAY THEY REVIEWED IT, AT WHAT TIME THEY REVIEWED IT, WHEN THEY CLICKED THE BUTTON.
WHAT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE MOST IS THERE'S A SEND BACK BUTTON.
DAN REALLY LIKES THE SEND BACK BUTTON.
BUT SO THERE IS A NOTE SECTION AND ANY QUESTION, ANY APPROVER HAS,
[00:35:03]
THAT QUESTION IS DOCUMENTED FOREVER, AND YOU CAN SEND IT BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE CHAIN AND SAY, "HEY, WE NEED MORE DOCUMENTATION.WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS PART." THE AUDIT TRAIL NOW REFLECTS THAT WHOLE DISCUSSION, WHICH MEANS REALLY OUR RECORDS ARE WAY MORE ROBUST IN THE QUESTIONS EVERYBODY ASKED, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE THAT DECISION, AND I HONESTLY THINK IT'S BETTER.
>> QUITE HONESTLY, THE ISSUE THAT CAUSED THAT WAS A POLICY ISSUE AND THE CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE POLICIES, AND ALL OF THOSE HAVE ADDRESSED.
THAT ADDRESSED THAT WEAKNESS THAT CREATED THAT ALL.
>> THIS IS STILL CAPPED AT 25,000?
>> YEAH, NOTHING'S CHANGED OTHER THAN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ELECTRONIC PACKAGE VERSUS A STACK OF PAPER.
>> DOES IT ALSO, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, THE MORE YOU AUTOMATE THINGS, PEOPLE WILL JUST SAY, BOOM, THEY DON'T READ IT.
DOES IT STOP THAT FROM HAPPENING?
>> I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES THE WAY PEOPLE ARE, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, AND CERTAINLY BECAUSE OF THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> OR STUPID THING WE HAVE TO DO FOR THE E MAIL EVERY YEAR, MAKES YOU.
>> IN FACT, MY STAFF WILL VOUCH FOR THE FACT.
THIS WEEK, I SENT OUT AN EMAIL ABOUT THESE ARE EXAMPLES IN TEXAS, A FRAUD THAT'S OCCURRING.
READ IT, FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENING EVERYWHERE, AND WE'RE THE GATEKEEPERS.
PART OF IT IS IS YOU HAVE TO CONNECT PEOPLE [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU TOOK THE TRAINING, DIDN'T YOU?
>> I ALWAYS. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
IN FINANCE, WE ARE HYPER VIGILANT.
I THINK SOMETIMES WE GET A LITTLE TIRED ABOUT IT, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL CONCERNED, CLEARLY BECAUSE WE HAD AN EXPERIENCE, BUT BECAUSE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY.
BUT I REALLY DO FEEL COMFORT IN THE AUDIT TRAIL AND WORKDAY AND IT VERY MUCH DEMONSTRATING WHAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS FROM START TO FINISH, SO.
>> IF THE SYSTEM WERE HACKED, THIS PROVIDES MORE PROTECTION OR LESS?
>> WELL, BAD ACTORS CAN COME FROM ALL DIRECTIONS.
THE SITUATION THAT OCCURRED 2.5 YEARS AGO WAS ACTUALLY A HACK IN THE EMAIL SERVER OF THE VENDOR.
THEY INFILTRATED THE MIDDLE OF A CONVERSATION.
OUR CURRENT FINANCIAL SYSTEM WOULD DO NOTHING TO PROTECT AGAINST THAT.
THAT IS LITERALLY A HUMAN READING AN EMAIL AND TRYING TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT SEEMS RIGHT.
THAT'S HOW THAT SITUATION OCCURRED.
>> THE SYSTEM WOULDN'T PREVENT THAT, BUT THE PROCEDURES THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED SINCE DID WORK.
REGARDING A WORKDAY HACK, THAT WOULD BE A HOPE QUESTION, AND I HOPE I NEVER HAVE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION [LAUGHTER].
>> CAN YOU PICK A MUNDANE EXAMPLE AND PRINT THAT OUT THROUGH WORKDAY OF THAT PROCESS THAT, SO WE CAN LAY OUT.
>> JUST PICK A RANDOM MUNDANE ONE. YEAH.
>> I'LL E-MAIL YOU-ALL WITH A PDF OF IT AND THAT WAY BY TONIGHT WHEN YOU-ALL VOTE, YOU CAN SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
>> AS YOU WERE TALKING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF JANELLE IS GOING TO PICK IT UP.
OR WHEN YOU STATED IT, YOU MEANT TO SAY UNDER 25,000. CORRECT?
>> UNDER 25,000 DOES NOT REQUIRE MY SIGNATURE OR DAN SIGNATURE.
>> IT'S THIS PROCESS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO?
>> YES. THE OVER 25,000 IS WHERE WE'RE SWITCHING FROM A WET SIGNATURE TO A DIGITAL SIGNATURE.
IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A DIGITAL SIGNATURE BELOW 25,000 BECAUSE IT DIDN'T REQUIRE OUR APPROVAL.
>> YOU JUST SAID IT WAS KEPT AT 25.
THIS WILL ALLOW JUST A DIGITAL SIGNATURE FOR ANYTHING FOR 25 UP TO?
>> YES. THE WAY IT'S SET UP IS THE BUSINESS PROCESS DICTATES THAT OVER $25,000, THE FINANCE EXECUTIVE AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE HAS TO SIGN OFF ON THE TRANSACTION, ON ANY TRANSACTION WHERE MONEY IS LEAVING THE CITY.
UNTIL NOW, THE CODE REQUIRED THAT THAT BE DONE BY A WET SIGNATURE.
ALL WE'RE SAYING NOW IS WE'RE DOING THE SAME PROCESS, BUT NOW THAT OVER 25,000 PIECE, IT CAN BE A DIGITAL SIGNATURE AS OPPOSED TO A WET SIGNATURE.
>> I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
>> WE HAVE TO PROVE IT ANYWAY, ANYTHING.
EXACT SAME PROCESS. [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S THE EXACT SAME PROCESS.
IT'S JUST THERE'S A DIGITAL AUDIT TRAIL INSTEAD OF HAVING TO PRINT OFF A PACKET THAT WE SAVE FOREVER THAT WE BOTH SIGN.
>> OVER 15,000 COMES TO COUNSEL.
>> BUT WE STILL HAVE TO APPROVE ANYTHING OVER 15,000 ANYWAY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'VE RELIED ON A DOCUSIGN FOR HOW LONG?
>> I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS THE PDF, AND THEN I THINK I MIGHT PUT MARIE'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE CAN PROVIDE YOU ONE WHERE YOU SEE COMMENTS BACK AND FORTH.
SOMEBODY COMMENTS, SEND IT BACK AND SOMEBODY HAS TO ADDRESS IT.
>> THE INFAMOUS DAN SEND BACK.
[00:40:01]
>> THE INFAMOUS. WE WILL FIND ONE WITH AN INFAMOUS DAN SEND BACK.
>> THIS MODULE WITHIN WORKDAY IS COMMON WITHIN OTHER ERPS, WHETHER IT BE JDE OR SAP [OVERLAPPING].
>> FOR US TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THIS FOR EFFICIENCIES IS A GOOD THING.
>> WE'RE GETTING THE BEST. WE'RE GETTING THE CAPACITY OF THE WORKDAY SYSTEM, PUTTING IT TO WORK FOR ACTUALLY A BETTER PAPER TRAIL OR BETTER TRAIL THAN EVER.
>> APPROVAL LEVELS ARE NOT CHANGING.
APPROVAL LEVELS ARE STILL THE SAME AS THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN.
IT'S JUST THE PROVE UP FOR THAT.
>> REVERSE QUESTION, IF THIS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AS FAR AS THE PROCESS THAT OCCURRED WITH OUR MISTAKE IN THE PAST, IF THIS HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED, WOULD THIS HAVE MATTERED?
>> BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY DIFFERENT TYPE OF FRAUD.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE APPROVAL PROCESS.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? CSILLA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, MARIE.
APPRECIATE THAT. I DID NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AGENDA.
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3B, PLEASE.
>> IT'S A CHRISTMAS [OVERLAPPING].
THAT ELIMINATED AT LEAST 30 MINUTES OF BAD JOKES.
>> YOU JUST DID ONE [LAUGHTER].
>> DONNA, GOOD MORNING TO YOU. COULD YOU READ ITEM 3B?
[3.B. Provide update on Municipal Court prosecutions (Legal - 5 min)]
PROVIDE UPDATE ON MUNICIPAL COURT PROSECUTIONS.
>> GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING, CITY COUNSEL.
I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE MUNICIPAL COURT PROCESS.
I'M HOPEFUL THAT YOU'VE ALL RECEIVED THE MEMO FROM MR. [INAUDIBLE] YESTERDAY.
BASICALLY, IT'S JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I BELIEVE THE MUNICIPAL COURT IS FUNCTIONING QUITE WELL.
FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S STANDPOINT, WE'VE DISCUSSED THE PROCESS.
EACH CASE IS LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY.
OUR DISMISSAL RATE IS COMPARED TO OUR CONVICTION RATE AS YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE DATA SHOWS THAT WE'RE DOING QUITE WELL.
WE ALWAYS TRIED FOR MORE IMPROVEMENT AS WELL.
WE WILL BE DISCUSSING OTHER WAYS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE IS TRAINED UP AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT THE MUNICIPAL COURT CAN FUNCTION EVEN BETTER THAN IT ALREADY HAS.
THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE A CITY COUNCIL.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR DONNA? DONNA, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT.
I JUST THINK THE WHOLE THING THAT DROVE THIS ISSUE.
I THINK WHEN SOMEONE ASKED FOR A RESPONSE, IT'S ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA TO JUST EMAIL THEM BACK.
I WOULD JUST ASK IN THE FUTURE THAT YOU EMAIL SOMEONE.
>> WELL, I WANT TO MAKE THIS COMMENT ON THIS.
I GOT INVOLVED AT THE BEGINNING ON THIS.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE, AND DONNA IS AWARE OF THIS, THAT WE FOLLOW THE PROPER PROTOCOL AND CHAIN OF COMMAND AND MOVING THESE ITEMS FORWARD.
I THINK THAT IS A MAJOR PART OF THIS TOO.
CHIEF BALLI, THANK YOU FOR BEING INVOLVED WITH MOVING THIS FORWARD.
I THINK YOU CALLED THE MEETING AND MAKING SURE THAT WE GOT THIS ADDRESSED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THANK YOU.
I ENJOY WORK WITH DONNA AND THE ENTIRE LEGAL TEAM.
EVERYTHING WELL, I BELIEVE WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.
IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES, I THINK WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW LEGAL CAN HELP US TRAIN OUR OFFICERS IN PROVIDING TESTIMONY AND PUTTING THE BEST PRODUCT FORWARDS FOR AN EVEN MORE INCREASED CONVICTION.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE GOOD. THANKS.
>> THE POINT OF MY COMMENT WAS, AND I THINK YOU DO GREAT WORK, DONNA, WAS EVEN IF SOMETHING WERE NOT IN THE PROPER CHAIN, YOU CAN STILL JUST SAY, I'LL CONTACT THE CHIEF AND WE'LL GET BACK TO YOU OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE.
>> EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OFF TOPIC, I'M GOING TO BE CLEAR IN THIS STATEMENT.
I'VE ALREADY RESPONDED TO HOW THIS DEPARTMENT, MYSELF RESPONDED TO THE INITIAL COMPLAINT.
I WILL STATE FOR THE RECORD, AND WHEN I WAS HIRED INTO THIS POSITION, I WILL NOT RESPOND UNLESS I HAVE SOME INFORMATION TO RESPOND TO.
I THINK I WAS PRETTY CLEAR IN THE COMMUNICATION TO CITY COUNCIL AS TO THE REASONS HOW THIS GOT TO THIS SITUATION.
I'M THANKFUL THAT THE CHIEF AND I AND THE DEPARTMENT MET TO DISCUSS GOING
[00:45:06]
FORWARD CONSTRUCTIVE METHODS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.>> THANK YOU, DONNA. APPRECIATE IT. YES, BILL.
>> DONNA, TO ME, IT'S JUST ABOUT CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND IT'S NOTHING IN A WAY OF THIS.
I'M NOT, IN ANY WAY, TRYING TO GET YOU OFF COURSE.
I'M JUST SAYING, THERE'S A LOT OF THE CALLS THAT I HAVE TO MAKE THAT I DON'T WANT TO MAKE.
I MIGHT NOT HAVE THE ANSWER, AND THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, BUT I AT LEAST SAY, "HEY, LOOK, I'M LOOKING AT THIS, I'M WORKING ON IT.
I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION." BUT IT'S JUST JUST TO ME, IT ENCOURAGES THE FACT THAT WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF US.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE HAVE THE ANSWERS IMMEDIATELY, AND I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY EXPECTS THAT.
IT'S JUST MORE OF THE RESPONSE JUST TO SAY WE'RE WORKING ON IT, WAS ALL THAT I THOUGHT WAS BEING ASKED FOR.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, DONNA. APPRECIATE IT.
>> NO FURTHER COMMENT ON THAT ISSUE. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
>> VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3C, PLEASE.
[3.C. Discussion of a One Time Contribution from the Pension Reform Fund to the City of Galveston Employees’ Retirement Plan (C Ludanyi/C Brown - 20 min)]
>> ITEM 3C. DISCUSSION OF A ONE TIME CONTRIBUTION FROM THE PENSION REFORM FUND TO THE CITY OF GALVESTON EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN.
>> COUNSEL, THIS IS ITEM 12A ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
FOR ACTION, AND CSILLA, I KNOW YOU HAD TOUCHED BASE WITH ME ON THIS.
IF YOU COULD EXPLAIN THIS AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, CSILLA LUDANYI, FINANCE DIRECTOR.
IN WHAT ARE WE? IN DECEMBER? IN NOVEMBER.
>> STILL. IT'S GOING BY SO FAST.
IN NOVEMBER, THE CIVILIAN PENSION BOARD VOTED TO REQUEST THE MILLION DOLLAR THAT THE CITY IS HOLDING IN THE PENSION REFORM FUND FROM THE CITY.
IT IS CURRENTLY BEING HELD IN A RESERVE ACCOUNT WHERE COUNSEL IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN ALLOCATE THAT.
IN YOUR PACKET, YOU HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE PENSION ADMINISTRATOR REQUESTING THAT AMOUNT.
THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO REQUEST THAT AMOUNT.
I CAN CONFIRM THAT IT IS THERE.
BUT OTHERWISE, THE CITY IS NEUTRAL ON THE REQUEST, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.
>> AT FUNDING, WHAT IS THE SOURCE THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT FUNDING COME FROM?
>> IT IS THE PENSION REFORM FUND.
IT IS IN YOUR SPECIAL REVENUE FUND.
IT WAS MONEY THAT WAS SET ASIDE.
IN 2017, THERE WAS ABOUT $2.9 MILLION OR $2.2 MILLION SET ASIDE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BENEFITING ALL THREE PENSION PLANS AND SUPPORTING THE PENSION PLANS IN STABILIZING AT THE TIME TO SOME EXTENT, BUT ALSO IN ENSURING THAT THE BENEFITS ARE PAID FOR LONG INTO THE FUTURE.
IN 2018, THE PENSION REFORM FUND CONTRIBUTED $1 MILLION TO THE FIRE PENSION FUND.
SINCE 2017, ABOUT $347,000 HAVE BEEN SPENT ON VARIOUS PENSION RELATED ACTIVITIES IN ALL THREE FUNDS.
PAYMENT FOR ACTUARIES AND ATTORNEYS, THAT SORT OF THING, AND THOSE WERE CONTRIBUTIONS TO ALL THREE FUNDS.
CURRENTLY, THE BALANCE, INCLUSIVE OF THE INTEREST EARNED OVER THIS TIME IS AROUND 1.2 MILLION, $1,148,000.
>> THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT I THINK MANAGEMENT WOULD LIKE THE CIVILIAN PENSION TO DO IN THE FUTURE, ONE OF THEM IS THE PRB WOULD PREFER THAT WE HAVE A JOINT FUNDING POLICY, AND CURRENTLY, THE CIVILIAN PENSION DOES NOT HAVE A JOINT FUNDING POLICY, AND SO WE'VE REQUESTED THAT THEY PUT THAT ON THEIR NEXT AGENDA SO THAT MANAGEMENT AND THE PENSION BOARD CAN SIT DOWN AND COME UP WITH THAT JOINT FUNDING POLICY, AND EVERYONE'S IN AGREEMENT ON HOW THAT GOES FORWARD.
I THINK ONE OF THE COMMENTS, AND BRIAN'S NOT HERE, SO I CAN MAYBE SAY THIS ON HIS BEHALF, BUT SHOULD ANYTHING OCCUR IN ALL THREE PENSION PLANS, BUT SPECIFIC TO THIS PLAN BECAUSE AT THIS MOMENT, THERE ISN'T A JOINT FUNDING PLAN TO SPEAK TO THIS.
BUT SHOULD ANYTHING OCCUR, LET'S SAY IN THE MARKET, THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PLAN.
JUST LIKE THE OTHER PLANS, THE CIVILIANS WOULD BE ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE ADDITIONAL TO HELP STABILIZE THAT PLAN.
THE CIVILIANS HAVE NOT HAD AN INCREASE IN THEIR CONTRIBUTION RATE, I DON'T KNOW, IN SEVERAL YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE LAST ONE WAS, BUT IF THERE WERE TO BE AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE PLAN, THAT IS NOT A THING THAT MIGHT NOT HAPPEN.
IF YOU NEEDED TO STABILIZE THE PLAN, THE CIVILIANS MIGHT ALSO NEED TO CONTRIBUTE AS A PART OF THAT STABILIZATION PLAN.
[00:50:02]
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED IN THAT JOINT FUNDING PLAN.THE OTHER ITEM IN THE LETTER IS THE WORD PARITY WAS USED IN THE LETTER.
WE JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S NOT REALLY AN ABILITY TO ACHIEVE PARITY BETWEEN THE THREE PLANS.
THE MEMBERSHIP IS DIFFERENT, THE BENEFITS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, AND THE FUNDING OF THE THREE PLANS ARE VERY DIFFERENT.
WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS CONTRIBUTION WOULD ABSOLUTELY BENEFIT THE PLAN, AND IT WOULD HELP STABILIZE THE PLAN AND ENSURE THE BENEFITS GO INTO THE FUTURE.
BUT IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT ACHIEVE PARITY BETWEEN THE THREE PLANS BECAUSE THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT.
>> THE QUESTION I HAD ON THIS IS THIS WAS ESTABLISHED A LITTLE WHILE BACK, AND WE'RE TAKING FUNDS FROM THAT.
IS THERE A NEED TO ESTABLISH A MINIMUM BALANCE IN THIS AND TO MAKE SURE WE CONTINUE TO DO THAT OR IS IT SOMETHING THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT SYSTEM WIDE, IS IF THERE ARE FUNDS THAT WE'VE GOT THAT WE HAVEN'T ALLOCATED TO A PURPOSE, BUT WE KNOW WHAT THE PURPOSE IS, WE WANT TO GET IT USED TO THAT PURPOSE.
THAT'S ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS.
MAYBE SUSTAINING THIS FUND ISN'T NECESSARY.
MAYBE THE IDEA IS LIQUIDATING IT AND GETTING IT TO THE PLANS AND GETTING IT INVESTED IS PROBABLY THE HIGHEST PURPOSE THAT WE CAN USE THIS MONEY FOR.
WHETHER THE COUNSEL WANTS TO FULLY LIQUIDATE IT OR LEAVE A LITTLE IN THERE, I THINK RIGHT NOW, THAT WOULD LEAVE ABOUT $140,000 IN THERE.
THAT'S UP TO COUNSEL HOW YOU WISH TO DO THAT.
BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THE HIGHEST PURPOSE THAT WE CAN USE THIS MONEY FOR IS TO HELP THE PENSION FUNDS ACTUALLY FUND THEIR BENEFITS AND GROW THEIR SAVINGS FUND.
>> AS WE'VE WORKED WITH VARIOUS PLANS SINCE I GOT HERE, AND SINCE 2017, WE'VE REQUESTED ACTUARIAL STUDIES.
WE'VE TALKED TO THE PLANS ABOUT IMPROVING THE PLAN, CHANGING THE PLAN, MODIFYING THE PLAN, AND THERE'S COSTS INVOLVED IN THAT.
THE 300 SOME THOUSAND THAT CSILLA REFERENCED, THAT'S BEEN USED OVER THE YEARS TO PAY LEGAL FEES, TO PAY FOR ACTUARIAL STUDIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT CHANGES COULD BE MADE TO THE PLANS.
I THINK, AGAIN, COUNSEL'S DISCRETION, AS CSILLA SAID, WE'VE MADE IT TO THE POINT WHERE THE POLICE PLAN IS WELL ON ITS WAY.
IT IS DOING EXCEPTIONALLY WELL.
THE CIVILIAN PLAN IS IN GOOD SHAPE, AND THE FIRE PLAN IS ON ITS PATH.
WHAT OUR OBJECTIVES WERE, EVERYBODY GET INTO THE TEXAS STATE RETIREMENT PLAN, WE'RE NOT THERE.
BUT THE CIVILIAN PLAN IS A HEALTHY PLAN, IT'S WELL FUNDED.
WE'VE CONTINUED TO TRY TO IMPROVE THAT PLAN.
WHEN I SAY, WE, I SPEAK COLLECTIVELY.
THE CITY AND THE TRUSTEES HAVE TRIED TO IMPROVE THAT PLAN.
AT THEIR LAST BOARD MEETING, THEY RAISED THE CAP TO $100,000 FOR RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
I THINK WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE, IT WAS 60, AND IT HAS BEEN INCREASED TWICE.
THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND TIME.
BUT THE PLAN HAS ROUGHLY A 15-YEAR AMORTIZATION, WHICH IN THE REAL WORLD IS A WELL FUNDED PLAN.
I THINK THAT THEY'VE SHOWN GREAT RESTRAINT.
IT'S NOT A PREMIER PLAN BY ANY MEANS.
I WISH IT COULD BE BETTER FOR OUR CIVILIANS, BUT IT HAS GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS A WELL-FUNDED PLAN AND ONE THAT, AT LEAST THE PEOPLE, IS SOMEWHAT ATTRACTIVE IN RECRUITING AND RETENTION.
>> I KNOW DAVID OR BOB HAD A QUESTION, AND MARIE.
>> I THINK THE USE OF THE WORD PARITY, AND I APPRECIATE THE CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
BUT THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE, I THINK WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE THESE FUNDS PERFORM SIMILARLY TO THE LEVEL OF CONTRIBUTION BY THE EMPLOYEE RELATED TO THE OVERALL BENEFITS.
AS YOU SAID, LIKE AN ACTUARIAL STUDY, AND SEE HOW THOSE ARE PERFORMING.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS INVESTMENT INTO THE FIRE, THAT YOU SAID IT'S ON ITS WAY.
>> THIS IS NOT INTO THE FIRE PLAN.
THIS IS INTO THE CIVILIAN PLAN.
>> ALL OF THE CONTRIBUTION RATES FOR ALL THREE PLANS ARE ABOVE THE NORMAL COST.
NORMAL COST IS WHAT YOU JUST REFERENCED, LIKE SAYING WHAT IT COST TO PAY FOR THE BENEFITS.
ALL THREE PLANS ARE PAYING GREATER THAN THE NORMAL COST HENCE THE REDUCTION IN THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
>> WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS FUND THAT WAS CREATED IN 2017 HAS PRETTY MUCH ACHIEVED ITS PURPOSE.
>> WE LIKE IT TO FINISH ACHIEVING ITS PURPOSE, BUT YES.
>> BEFORE I ASKED THAT QUESTION, I WAS THINKING, HOW WOULD THIS FUND BE SUSTAINED?
[00:55:03]
HOW DO WE KEEP MONEY AND TO KEEP GOING.BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS, IT'S ABOUT DONE THIS JOB.
MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO SUSTAIN THIS FUND ANY LONGER.
AFTER THIS CONTRIBUTION, WE'VE GOT 148,000 LEFT IN THAT FUND FOR CIVILIANS.
ONCE THAT 148,000 FUNDS IS REQUESTED AND USED, AND THEN GO.
>> IT CAN BE RECALLED TO THE GENERAL FUND.
YOU COULD BE CLOSE THAT FUND AND JUST BRING THE DOLLARS BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND. YOU COULD DO THAT TOO.
>> THE FUNDS WERE REQUESTED BASED ON SOME NEED TO BRING IT UP TO WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE.
HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN THAT NEED HAS BEEN MET?
IT'S TO KEEP THE PLAN WELL-FUNDED, WHICH IS IN THE 15-YEAR RANGE.
THE CHANGE TO 100,000 INCREASED THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD OR INCREASED THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY, WHICH RESULTED IN AN INCREASE TO THE AMORTIZATION PERIOD, AND THE MILLION DOLLARS WILL OFFSET TO THE GREATEST EXTENT THAT INCREASE, SO KEEP THE PLAN AND THE WELL FUNDED STATUS.
>> MAYBE WE COULD VISIT THIS FUND IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT.
>> THE REMAINING BALANCE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT.
>> BECAUSE THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A NEED FOR THE CITY TO CONTRIBUTE BECAUSE AT TIMES WE'LL REQUEST AN ACTUARIAL STUDY.
YOU DON'T WANT TO PLACE THAT BURDEN ON THE PENSIONERS OR THE EMPLOYEE BUT THOSE COSTS ARE NORMALLY NOMINAL, AND WE CAN ADDRESS THOSE THROUGH THE REGULAR EXPENDITURES ON THE CITY SIDE.
>> HOW MUCH IS LEFT IN THE TOTAL IN ALL THREE FUNDS?
>> THERE WERE NOT THREE SEPARATE FUNDS, [OVERLAPPING] ONLY TWO WOULD BE LEFT. MARIE.
>> SINCE WE'RE GETTING MORE SOUND AND SO FORTH, ARE WE ANYWHERE NEAR BEING ABLE TO SWITCH TO STANDARD PENSION FUNDS?
>> ESSENTIALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FULLY FUND THE BENEFITS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY OFFERING BEFORE YOU COULD MOVE TO TMRS. TMRS IS A VERY EXCELLENT GOAL, AND I THINK WE SHOULD STILL KEEP THAT AS OUR GOAL.
THAT IS THE DIRECTION WE WANT TO MOVE IN.
BUT ESSENTIALLY, IN ORDER TO CLOSE A PLAN AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS LIKE THE CIVILIAN PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP.
TMRS NOW ALLOWS YOU TO MOVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE CITY.
WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE FIRE AND THE POLICE PLANS ARE HELD VERY CLOSELY, AND SO IT MIGHT NOT BE WHAT THEIR GOAL IS, BUT ON THE CIVILIAN PLAN, THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE YOU LOOK AT.
THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO FULLY FUND THOSE BENEFITS TO CLOSE THE PLAN, AND YOU CREATE INDIVIDUAL ANNUITIES BASED ON WHAT THE CURRENT MEMBERSHIP HAS INVESTED AND WHAT THEIR CURRENT BENEFIT IS AS IT STANDS.
YOU CLOSE THAT PLAN AND YOU MOVE THEM TO TMRS AT ZERO, AND THEN THEY'LL HAVE TWO BENEFITS.
YOU WOULD START ACCRUING WITH TMRS AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS ANNUITY THAT WAS CREATED WITH THE VALUE OF YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS AND YOUR BENEFITS AT THE TIME THAT PLAN WAS CLOSED.
UNTIL THE CITY IS ABLE TO FULLY FUND ALL THE BENEFITS IN THE CIVILIAN PLAN, EITHER CASH MONEY OR VIA PENSION OBLIGATION DEBT, WHICH I DON'T THINK WOULD EVER HAPPEN.
WE COULDN'T GET TO THAT POINT.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENTIAL IS AT THIS POINT?
>> IT'S THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY.
>> I DON'T HAVE WITH ME. FIFTEEN YEARS AT THE CURRENT CONTRIBUTION RATE WOULD BRING US TO PAR, MEANING, ASSETS AND LIABILITIES WOULD EQUAL.
NOW, YOU PROBABLY CAN'T CLOSE THE PLAN FOR THAT.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE EXCESS FUNDING BECAUSE WHOEVER YOU BUY THE ANNUITIES FROM, THEY DON'T WANT TO TAKE ANY RISK.
WE NEED TO BE OVER 100% FUNDED.
>> IF THEY ALLOW YOU TO MOVE SMALL GROUPS, ARE WE AT LEAST LOOKING AT HOW WE COULD PUT NEW HIRES INTO THAT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT YOU CANNOT JUST DO NEW HIRES.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO A WHOLE PORTION OF YOUR POPULATION, AND THE ONLY REASON WE CAN SPLIT IT INTO THREE IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE] AS SEPARATE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO MOVE THE WHOLE CIVILIAN POPULATION AT ONE TIME, WHICH MEANS CLOSING THE ENTIRE CIVILIAN PLAN BY FULLY FUNDING IT FIRST.
>> IT WOULD STILL BE OPEN IF WE TRIED TO DO THAT.
>> AM I CORRECT IN US STATING THAT IT HAS TO BE ALL OR NONE.
WE'D HAVE TO MOVE THE FIRE, POLICE AND CIVILIAN?
>> CIVILIAN IS MOST LIKELY BECAUSE IT'S UNDER 15 YEARS, IT'S THE CLOSEST TO BEING FULLY FUNDED.
THE POLICE AND FIRE PLANS ARE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
BUT YEAH, IT'S THE CLOSEST ONE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE TARGET.
BUT YOU'RE 15 YEARS AWAY FROM IT RIGHT NOW.
IF YOU WERE TO GUESSTIMATE HOW MUCH WE'D HAVE TO COME UP WITH [INAUDIBLE]
[01:00:04]
>> I'D SAY, AT MINIMUM 30 MILLION, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS.
>> IT WAS ABOUT 40 MILLION LESS.
>> WE'LL LOOK AT THE LAST ACTUARIAL STUDY TO HAVE AN ANSWER.
WE'LL SEND YOU AN ANSWER BEFORE THE MEETING THIS AFTERNOON.
>> AGAIN, THAT NUMBER IS TO GET YOU TO ZERO, AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GET YOU THERE.
>> BUT IT IS A GOOD GOAL. A VERY GOOD GOAL.
>> IT'S THE GOAL OF THE FUNDING POLICIES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN PLACE IN ALL THREE PLANS IS TO GET FULLY FUNDED.
>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD GET TO THAT GO, THAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD.
THIS IS ITEM 12A ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING.
[3.D. Update and discussion of the Stewart Beach Master Plan and RFP (M. Hay/A. Guerrero – 15 min)]
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3D, PLEASE.>> ITEM 3D: UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF THE STEWART BEACH MASTER PLAN AND RFP.
>> WE HAVE OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AND OUR, WHAT IS YOUR TITLE, AMBER?
>> PROJECT MANAGER [INAUDIBLE]
>> GLAD TO HAVE YOU. MICHELLE, ARE YOU KICKING OFF OR IT'S AMBER?
>> WELL, I'M ON MY LAST STEP HERE.
>> BY THE WAY, WE'LL KEEP YOU HERE AT THE TABLE FOR 3, 2 AS WE GET INTO THAT.
>> YOU ALL SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THE DRAFT RFP.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW AT ALL JUST YET, AND IT WAS A LENGTHY DOCUMENT.
WE ARE WORKING THROUGH IT, AND AMBER, YOU'VE BEEN IN CLOSER CONTACT WITH LEVA, SO WE WANT FINAL UPDATE THERE.
>> A LITTLE UPDATE THAT I'M LETTING YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE PUSHING BACK THE RELEASE OF RFP BECAUSE WE'RE STILL MISSING SOME INFORMATION, AND WHENEVER WE RELEASE IT, WE WANT IT TO BE TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS.
>> CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE LOUDER.
OF COURSE, THE AUDIENCE ARE HAVING A HARD TIME HEARING.
>> WE'RE PUSHING IT BACK TO AFTER THE HOLIDAYS.
IT'S JUST, I GUESS, THREE WEEKS.
>> ACTUALLY CHANGE YOUR TIMELINE.
I NOTICED IN YOUR RFP THAT YOU WERE GOING TO POTENTIALLY BRING THAT TO COUNCIL IN MARCH.
>> YES. IT'S GOING TO BE PUSHED BACK.
>> YES. WHICH MAKES A LITTLE SENSE BECAUSE IF WE RELEASE IT JUST BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT EVERYONE OUT THERE IS GOING TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT AND HAVING TIME TO WORK ON IT, WE LOSE SOME TIME THERE, BUT THERE'S STILL JUST A LITTLE MORE DETAIL THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN THERE TO MAKE IT PROBABLY THE BEST. AND IT CAN BE.
>> YOU'RE REQUESTING ANY INPUT ON THE RFP, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> WELL, I'M WORKING WITH LEGAL AND WITH MICHELLE TO JUST GET ALL THAT..
BUT IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, JUST LET ME KNOW.
>> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? YES, BOB.
>> I HAD A FEW GENERAL COMMENTS AND SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENT ITSELF.
HOW WILL THIS RFP BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE WIDEST POSSIBLE AUDIENCE? HOW DO WE INCREASE OUR CHANCES OF GETTING A GOOD RESPONSE? HOW IS THIS GOING TO BE DISSEMINATED?
>> IT'S TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT LEVA IS GOING TO BE APPROACHING A FEW DEVELOPERS, AS WELL, MICHELLE IS GOING TO GIVE THEM A FEW MORE.
>> WE HAVE A LIST THAT WE'VE COME UP WITH.
IT'LL BE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE LIKE TRADITIONALLY, AND THEN LEVA WILL TAKE IT AND THEY'LL PUSH IT OUT VIA THEIR VARIOUS METHODS, WHETHER IT'S ON THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS.
THEY'VE GOT SOME DATABASE THAT THEY'LL BE SENDING OUT FOR DEVELOPERS AND SUCH.
THEY'RE GOING TO PUSH IT OUT TO GET THE BIGGEST BANG.
>> OUR INTENT IS GET THE BROADEST DISTRIBUTION THAT WE CAN.
>> IT COULD BE WORLDWIDE. IF WE HAD SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED, WE JUST CONTACT YOU.
>> YES, IF YOU CAN SEND TO ME.
>> I'M COMPILING OUR LOCAL LIST OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
YEAH, IF YOU CAN SEND ME THAT INFO, WE'LL MAKE SURE [INAUDIBLE]
>> THAT ANSWERS THAT QUESTION FOR ME.
I'M GLAD WE'RE GETTING OUR MONEY'S WORTH OUT OF LEVA FOR THIS THING.
BY THE WAY, I REVIEWED LEVA'S STATEMENT ABOUT LESSONS LEARNED FROM 2021 DEVELOPMENT RFP, AND WENT DOWN ALL OF THOSE LESSONS AND THIS NEW RFP HITS ALL OF THEM.
THEY'RE DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB, IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME.
OTHER QUESTION IS THE LETTER FROM LANDRY'S TO THE PARK BOARD ON JANUARY 12, 2022, TALKS ABOUT A NON COMPETE CLAUSE WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY IN REFERENCE TO THAT IN RFP IN TERMS OF BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO ON THAT SITE.
>> BUT IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF OUR LINKS.
THE RFP IS STILL MISSING THE GRAPHICS AND SOME LINKS.
[01:05:04]
>> THERE'S A LOT OF IT. IF YOU SAW THE RED TEXT IN HERE, THERE'S A LOT OF PLACEHOLDER TEXT WHERE WE ARE MISSING SOME OF THAT INFORMATION AND WE'RE GETTING THAT FROM [INAUDIBLE].
THAT'S PART OF THE DEAL IS WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE ALL THOSE.
>> THE RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THE SITE?
>> THE LETTER DOESN'T REALLY PRECLUDE A HOTEL.
IT JUST SAYS, YOU CAN'T HAVE A HOTEL THAT COMPETES WITH CONVENTION CENTER, IF YOU DO HAVE A HOTEL.
I GUESS A HOTEL IS STILL POSSIBLE.
IS THAT RIGHT, OR IS THAT PRECLUDED FROM SOME OTHER?
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S ALLOWED, BUT WE'D HAVE TO GO GET THE SPECIFIC AGREEMENT.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU HAVE THE AGREEMENT WITH LANDRY'S, YOUR OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH LANDRY'S FOR THE CONVENTION CENTER AND THEN YOU HAVE THE BOND DOCUMENTS, AND SO IT'S MORE OF A COMPLEX LEGAL PATH ON WHAT IS ALLOWED AND ISN'T ALLOWED.
YOU WANT TO CERTAINLY AVOID LITIGATION.
>> THAT'S COMING. IT'S JUST NOT THERE ANYWAY.
I WANT TO JUST GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT A LITTLE BIT, JUST SOME SPECIFIC THINGS.
ON PAGE 11, UNDER EMPLOYMENT BASE AND MAJOR INSTITUTIONS, YOU HAVE LISTED THERE SOME OF THE MAJOR ECONOMIC DRIVERS LIKE UTMB AND TEXAS A&M, AND YOU LIST IN THEIR AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY HERE ANYMORE.
>> OKAY. I WILL LET LAVACE KNOW ABOUT THAT.
>> THAT MAY HAVE BEEN GRIBBED OFF A SOMETHING ELSE.
>> I THINK IT WAS GOING. I HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT I'M GOING TO ADD IN THERE AS WELL BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THE THREE HIGHER INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND SUCH, WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH AND PULL A LITTLE BIT MORE AND MAKE A LITTLE MORE ROBUST.
>> THEY SHOULD TECHNICALLY CHANGE THE LEGAL AIM OF THE FIRM, THEY BOUGHT AMERICAN NATIONAL.
BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE OPERATING.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE OPERATING OR IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE GOING ON. [OVERLAPPING].
>> MOST CERTAINLY LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE IT.
>> ONE COMMENT ON PAGE 13, I THINK, IS JUST GOOD.
I REALLY LIKE THIS AND HERE IT SAYS, "THE PROJECT STRENGTHENS PUBLIC AMENITIES, IMPROVES ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, AND COMPLIMENTS EXISTING BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT GULF, ESPECIALLY THOSE ON SEAWALL AND BROADWAY." IT SAYS, CONCEPTS MUST SUPPORT NEARBY BUSINESSES RATHER THAN COMPETE WITH THEM.
I THINK THAT'S A REALLY GOOD THING TO HAVE IN THERE.
>> I DON'T HAVE PAGE NUMBERS THERE.
[OVERLAPPING] 4.4, THAT'D BE HELPFUL.
>> I AM SURE YOU WILL SEND THOSE TO US AFTER THE MEETING.
>> BOB SEND THOSE TO THE LADIES AND COPY DAN.
>> YEAH. PUT THOSE IN WRITING, IF YOU COULD, PLEASE.
>> I WILL. DO YOU HAVE A DEADLINE BY WHICH YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE RFP?
>> WELL, IF YOU CAN DO IT BEFORE CHRISTMAS.
>> YEAH. SUMMARIZE AGAIN, THE TIMELINE ON RFP.
>> WE'RE GOING TO BRING BACK JANUARY FOR COUNSEL'S REVIEW.
>> YOU ARE JANUARY ISSUED. I GOT YOU.
AFTER THAT. OKAY. WE'LL SEE IT AGAIN IN JANUARY.
>> YES. AND THEN YEAH, THAT SUBMITTAL DEADLINE FOR THE RP WAS FEBRUARY 12, SO THAT'LL GET PUSHED BACK PROBABLY A FEW WEEKS.
>> OKAY. ANOTHER COMMENT I HAD ON 6.2 IS JUST A TYPO, AND I'LL JUST SEND THAT TO YOU.
>> AND THEN ON PAGE 24, AND 20.
SO I UNDERSTAND FROM THIS THAT WE'RE NOT COMMITTING ANY KIND OF INCENTIVES AT THIS POINT.
ALL WE'RE DOING IS LISTING AVAILABLE INCENTIVES.
>> INCENTIVE GIVEN A BROAD DESCRIPTION OF THEM.
SO THAT THOSE INCENTIVES WOULD BE PART OF THE NEGOTIATION WITH THE SUCCESSFUL RESPONSES.
>> UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT THAT PROJECT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SAY WHAT [INAUDIBLE]
>> EXACTLY. WE TALK ABOUT IN ONE OF THOSE PARKING AND ACCESS REVENUES.
AND YOU GO YOU'RE PRETTY CLEAR ABOUT THE PARKING THAT'S THERE AND WHAT WE AND ALL OF THAT IS GUIDED BY THE ACCESS PLAN, IS THAT RIGHT? SO I THINK THAT WAS GOOD FOR YOU EXPLAINED WHAT THAT IS, AND IT SAID ANY PARKING ABOVE THAT WOULD BE NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER, AND THE CITY.
BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IN THERE TO CLARIFY THE SOURCE OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS FOR ANY RESPONDENT LOOKING AT THAT.
CITY DIDN'T JUST MAKE THOSE UP.
>> WE'RE GOING TO WHAT LINKS TO OUR BEACH ACCESS PLAN AND THE BEACH USER FEES AND ALL OF THAT, SO THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT INFORMATION.
>> THAT IS SECTION 7.3 INCENTIVE TO.
>> AND THEN THE NEXT ONE WAS ON 32, ABOUT THE TIMELINE.
[01:10:04]
LOOKING AT THE TIMELINE, THAT'S SESSION 10 SCHEDULES IN MILESTONE, 10.1.YOU HAD TO OPEN CLARIFICATION WINDOW ON DECEMBER 16.
LAST DAY FOR QUESTIONS ON DECEMBER ON JANUARY 8.
FOR PEOPLE TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND DO THEIR RESEARCH. WE'RE PUSHING A MONTH.
>> WE'RE PUSHING SO WE'RE GOING TO SEND A REVISED.
WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A REVISED TIME.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY ACTUALLY BETWEEN THE ISSUE LANDING AND THE LAST DAY FOR QUESTIONS FOR SUCH A COMPLEX PROJECT DOCUMENT.
AWFUL LOT OF RESEARCH OF HOMEWORK, AND DOCUMENTATION PREPARATION, ALL THAT TO DO.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME I'VE DONE A LOT OF THESE.
IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR RESPONDENT [INAUDIBLE]
>> IT'S AROUND THREE WEEKS, DO YOU WANT TO EXTEND IT TO FOUR?
>> YEAH.THREE WEEKS IS NOT ENOUGH FOR SOMETHING.
>> YEAH. FOUR OR FIVE YOU MIGHT JUST CHECK WITH LABOS ON THAT, BUT I'VE DONE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE BACK WHEN I WAS BEFORE I RETIRED.
AND THERE'S NOT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH TIME.
A LOT OF THE DEVELOPERS ARE REALLY BUSY DOING A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, AND THIS IS VERY COMPLEX.
AND YOU GUY HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE AND MEANINGFUL RESPONSE.
>> MARIE, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT? I FORGET.
>> I'M DOING TWO THINGS AT ONCE.
BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE KEEPING THE LIFEGUARDS ON THE BEACH, SO THAT IS IN THERE?
>> IT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS DEVELOPER.
>> IT'S NOT COMING TO THAT IS NEXT TOPIC.
>> BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIMELINE.
DID YOU WANT TO PURSUE THAT, SIR?
>> I THINK YOU'LL SAID FEBRUARY 12, RIGHT?
>> THAT WAS INITIALLY, AND SO IT'LL GET PUSHED BACK AS WE PUSH BACK THE ADVERTISING DATE.
>> AND NOW INSTEAD OF GIVING THEM THREE WEEKS, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM FIVE WEEKS SO EVERYTHING'S GOING TO GET PUSHED BACK.
>> SO THE RFP, IF YOU GO THROUGH IT'S KIND OF [INAUDIBLE] IT'S FAIRLY TO KNOW, BOB.
IT'S NOT [INAUDIBLE] THERE'S GOING TO BE PLENTY OF TIME FOR AMENDMENTS.
IT'S MORE OF A GENERALIZED BACKGROUND OF THE COMPANY, AND PROJECT CONCEPTS, AND IT'S NOT THE WBL BUILDING THAT WE'RE GETTING, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE PUSHING IT BACK.
>> JUST BECAUSE OF [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR YEAR.
>> DID YOU HAVE OTHER ADVERTISEMENT DATE?
>> WELL, THERE'S JUST SOME HOLES WE HAVE IN HERE.
L IF YOU SEE ALL THE RED TEXT, WE'VE GOT TO DROP SOME OF THIS INFORMATION IN FROM THE MASTER PLAN AND STUFF AND REVIEW ALL THAT AND IT'S [INAUDIBLE] I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
WHAT ABOUT THE FACT OF THE PALETTE WE'RE STARTING WITH AS FAR AS AGAIN, MY CONCERN IN SEVERAL MEETINGS PAST HAS BEEN LOOKING WHAT THEY'RE STARTING WITH AS FAR AS THESE DEVELOPERS.
AND I THINK THAT'S A BIG PART OF SELLING THE CONCEPT TO THE BEST DEVELOPMENT GROUP.
>> AND THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE GRAPHICS.
WE'RE GOING TO GIVE THEM LIKE AN EXAMPLE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT'S SET ON STONE.
SO IN THAT ON THAT EXAMPLE, IT WILL SHOW WHAT WE WANT AS A CD, BUT THEY COULD DO WHATEVER.
>> YEAH, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE SITUATION WE HAVE WITH DRAINAGE, AND WHAT WE'VE GOT AS FAR AS THE SITE TO START WITH.
>> YES. THAT'S PART OF THE GRAPHICS AS WELL.
>> THEY'LL INCLUDE SITE SURVEYS AND ONE THING THAT YOU CAN VISIT SUING AREA AND HOW THE DRAINAGE.
>> ONE THING YOU CAN VISIT AT THE PLANNING OUR LAST PLANNING COMMISSION, WE APPROVED ALMOST THIS EXACT SAME SITUATION ON THE SPEECH OF THE EXACT PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING HERE.
IT'S BEEN APPROVED A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED THERE TO RE-ESTABLISH THE DUNES WHERE THEY WERE ORIGINALLY.
AND IF YOU ALL COULD LOOK AT THAT AND LOOK AT THE AT WHAT WAS APPROVED, YOU CAN GET ALL THAT INFORMATION FROM KYLE, BUT THAT WAS AT THE LAST PLANNING COMMISSION.
[01:15:03]
PRETTY CLOSE TO THE SAME TIMELINE AS FAR AS WHEN THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED.AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PROJECT, IT WOULD GIVE US QUITE A BIT OF ANSWERS OF WHAT WE'VE GOT GOING ON AT THIS SITE.
>> AND WHERE WAS I WAS THE SAME DRAINAGE ISSUES.
>> AND THAT WAS ON STORE BEACH?
AND SO AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A MOVE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IF WE ARE EXPECTING THE BEST DEVELOPER TO COME IN, THEN WE ALSO NEED TO FULFILL OUR RESPONSIBILITIES OF GIVING THEM A SITE THAT IS NOT A MESS TO START WITH.
IT WAS APPROVED THIS PAST WEEK.
>> AND YOU SAID EAST BEACH, RIGHT? OKAY.
>> THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM THREE, PLEASE.
[3.E. Update and Discussion of Beach Patrol at Stewart Beach (A. Guerrero - 15 min)]
>> ITEM THREE E. UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF BEACH PATROL AT STORE BEACH.
AND WE STILL HAVE OUR SAME STAFF MEMBERS AT THE TABLE, I BELIEVE.
>> NO. I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THAT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE LEAVING THE LIFEGUARDS ON THE BEACH AND THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN A RAISED FASHION.
AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT SOLUTION.
>> YES. ACTUALLY, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH VINCENT AND AUSTIN FROM PARK BOARD.
AND WE'VE BEEN KIND OF INTERACTING, AND CREATING A FLOOR PLAN THAT WILL REFLECT WHAT THEY NEED FOR THEIR NEEDS.
AND AS OF RIGHT NOW, I HAVE THIS IF YOU GUYS WANT TO JUST TAKE A LOOK. AND THIS IS [INAUDIBLE]
>> THE PROGRAM YOU'RE WORKING FROM IS ROUGHLY 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
>> YEAH, 65 MORE, OR LESS, 6450.
>> IT WAS THAT BASED ON THAT LETTER FROM THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> YEAH. WE ACTUALLY MET WITH MARIE, AND WE JUST TALKED TO WHAT IS THE WHAT IS IT THE BEACH PATROL NEEDS AND WHAT THEIR FUNCTIONALITY IS GOING TO BE.
AND IT REALLY GOT DOWN TO YOU NEED SOMETHING MORE OF A IT'S NOT A BIG COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
IT'S MORE OF A JUST A STRUCTURE, A HOUSE, SIZE STRUCTURE, 06,000 SQUARE FEET AND WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE ON THE BEACH AND HOW IT NEEDS TO MEET THEIR OPERATING NEEDS.
AND WE STARTED WITH THIS DESIGN.
SO IT'S A MUCH SMALLER IN THE SCALE PROJECT THAN WHAT WAS INITIALLY DISCUSSED.
>> ELEVATED. THIS IS THE ELEVATED FLOOR WE'RE LOOKING AT.
THIS IS THE CONDITIONED SPACE.
CORRECT. SO THERE'LL BE SOME SPACE UNDERNEATH STORE.
>> YEAH. THEY WANT TO GET A STORE? YES.
>> IS THIS THE TOTAL STRUCTURE FOR BEACH PATROL HOUSING, EVERYTHING?
>> YES. AND THAT'S ME WORKING WITH THEM AS WELL.
>> WELL, WHERE IS IT LOCATED? WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IT?
>> YOU KNOW WHERE THE [INAUDIBLE]
>> I'D LOVE TO HAVE A RIGHT MY HOUSE.
>> WHERE THE GOAT CARTS WERE BEFORE?
>> SO WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT AREA.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FURTHER EAST.
I THOUGHT IT IS GOING TO BE FURTHER EAST.
>> WELL, THERE WERE THE GOAT CARTS THAT PASS THE RV PARK.
>> BACK THERE. WHERE THEIR FREE PARKING IS NOW.
>> I'M GOING TO STILL MAKE THIS STATEMENT.
>> KNOW THERE'S A NEED FOR HAVING BEACH PATROL ON THE BEACH, HAVING ALL THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES AND EVERYTHING.
I'M STILL CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WHY IT'S ON THE BEACH, BUT BETTER MINDS, AND I HAVE SAT DOWN AND WORKED ON IT, SO I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE ON THAT.
>> THE SCALE OF THIS PROJECT IS FRACTION OF WHAT IT ONCE WAS.
AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PROBABLY AFFORDABLE, MANAGEABLE, MAINTAINABLE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. OKAY.
WHAT'S OUR NEXT STEPS? GIVE ME A FUTURE WHERE WE'RE HEADING WITH GETTING THIS FINISHED, AND THE FUNDING FOR THIS.
>> LET'S TO FINALIZE THE CONCEPTION LAYOUT AFTER WE DO THAT, AND WE WILL BE MOVING TO GETTING SOMEONE TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS IF IT FITS NOT ME.
AND THEN FROM THERE, WE WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO CONSIL TO GET APPROVED.
>> OKAY. YES. AND WE'RE LOOKING AT POSSIBLE HOT TAX FUNDING ON THIS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. CORRECT.
>> SO AS YOU PROCEED THROUGH THIS [INAUDIBLE]
>> EXCUSE ME, I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS STATEMENT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILIZATION OF HOT TAX FUNDS THAT ARE ON DEPOSIT AT THE CITY HERE.
[01:20:01]
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE ONE SOURCE.
>> PATROL FUNDING FROM THE STATE OR SO ON.
>> THE LAST MEETING, I WAS EMPHASIZED MULTIPLE TIMES BY BRIAN THAT THE HOT TAX AT THE CITY WAS GOING TO BE USED AT STORE BEACH.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE AN IDEAL SOURCE.
>> I THINK IT'S AN IDEAL FUNDING SOURCE FOR THIS ON THIS.
AND CUTTING THE COST WAY DOWN, MY GOODNESS, THAT OTHER STRUCTURE WAS TAJ MAHAL, R.
>> IT'S NOT CHEAP TO BUILD ON THE BEACH, BUT.
>> THE SCALE OF THIS IS MUCH SMALLER.
>> AND WITH THE STORM AND EVERYTHING, I GUESS THEY'LL GET TO IT WITH YOU SEEING THAT, IF SOMETHING'S BUILT TO THE RIGHT STANDARDS, THAT THERE IS SOME LEVEL OF SURVIVABILITY.
NOW, WHAT THAT MAY BE, I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S GOING TO GIVE YOU A GUARANTEE, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THE BEACH, YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT TO SUSTAIN CERTAIN ELEMENTS, AND CONDITIONS, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LOOK FOR ON THIS.
>> AND YOU COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT IT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY TOP BUILT A HOUSE.
THAT IS AT BEACH TOWN, THAT ACTUALLY IS RECORDED IN THE FMA STANDARDS AFTER WHEN TEAM OF SCIENTISTS CAME OUT.
SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO LOOK AT THAT.
WHICH IS USING CONCRETE PILINGS VERSUS WOOD, AND SO FORTH.
>> BOB, I'M SORRY, WE INTERRUPT. YES.
WELL, TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION RIGHT THERE, WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT A REOCCURRENCE OF THE LAST FACILITY THAT WAS BUILT DOWN THERE ON STORE BEACH WAS A DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND IT BECOMING A PROBLEM TOWARDS THE END OF ITS LIFE.
WHEN I WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING TO THE MOST SUSTAINABLE STANDARD POSSIBLE, AND THEN MAINTAIN IT.
>> I THINK THAT'S THE KEY. THE STORE BEACH PAVILION COULD BE THERE TODAY.
IT WAS REPAIRABLE, AND HAD IT BEEN MAINTAINED, IT LAST A LOT LONGER THAN IT HAS.
>> YEAH. SO YOU CAN DO ALL YOU CAN ON THAT.
THAT'S ALL IN THE SPECIFICATIONS IN THE DESIGN, BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS THING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND FOR US TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THIS AT CRITICAL STAGES MILESTONES.
AND THAT FIRST ONE TO ME WOULD BE AFTER WE GET SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND PRICING.
THE FIRST THE FIRST ROUND OF PRICING WAS SCHEMATIC DESIGN.
IF WE COULD HAVE A LOOK AT THAT WHEN YOU GET THERE, AND TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WE'RE ON THE SCHEDULE, AND EVERYTHING'S LOOKING OKAY.
AND WE ALL HAVE AN IDEA OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THIS PROJECT, AND A LITTLE AND A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.
BEFORE WE SO WE HAVE A CHANCE TO WEIGH IN BEFORE WE GO ON TO THE NEXT STAGE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT STAGE.
VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS?
>> THANK YOU, LADIES. APPRECIATE IT.
THANK YOU. ITEM 3F, PLEASE, MA'AM.
[3.F. Discussion of a Cost of Living Adjustment for Civilian Employees and related Budget Amendments for the 2025-2026 Budget. (C. Brown - 20 min)]
>> ITEM 3F. DISCUSSION OF A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2025/2026 BUDGET.
>> COUNSEL, I PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA, BUT I THINK I HOPE I MAY BE WRONG, BUT I THINK I CAN SPEAK TO ALL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I THINK ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS SUBJECT IN WANTING TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD WITH A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT ON THIS.
AT THE TABLE WILL BE OUR CFO, CHILA LE DANI ON THIS DISCUSSION.
BEFORE WE GET IN TO THE DISCUSSION, CHILA, LET ME MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ABOUT THIS.
WE DID NOT INCLUDE THIS IN OUR BUDGET WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED.
THERE WERE TWO AREAS THAT I THINK COUNSEL WE DISCUSSED AT LENGTH WAS A COLA FOR THE CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND MAINTAINING AND COMING BACK TO 120 DAYS OF FUND BALANCE IN OUR RESERVE FUND OR GENERAL FUND.
THIS IS ADDRESSING ONE OF THESE ISSUES HERE AT THIS POINT.
THERE ARE SOME CONS IN DOING THIS, AND WE MAY DISCUSS THOSE THIS MORNING.
I WOULD SAY THIS THAT THE FIREFIGHTERS AND THE POLICE MOVED FORWARD, I THINK, ADMIRABLY AND RIGHTLY SO IN MAINTAINING A SALARY STRUCTURE DURING THEIR BARGAINING SESSIONS TO MAKE SURE THEY HAD A PROPER SALARY STRUCTURE.
THE CIVILIANS THERE DO NOT HAVE A UNION, AND REALLY, COUNCIL IS THEIR ADVOCATE TO MAINTAIN A SALARY STRUCTURE THAT IS COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET AND KEEPING UP WITH THE COST OF LIVING.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY GOOD STEP TO MOVE FORWARD.
I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS HERE, CHILA.
[01:25:03]
FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO LET COUNCIL KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE, WHERE THE FUNDING WILL COME FROM.SECOND OF ALL, WHAT AMOUNT OF FUNDING WOULD NEED TO BE REALIZED FROM THIS FUNDING SOURCE TO ADDRESS THIS.
MY THIRD QUESTION IS, THIS MAY BE MORE OF A LEGAL QUESTION.
I ASSUME I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT WE CAN'T MAKE THIS RETROACTIVE BACK TO OCTOBER 1ST.
IT HAS TO MOVE FORWARD FROM JANUARY 1ST FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.
I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THOSE THREE ISSUES FOR COUNCIL BEFORE WE OPEN DISCUSSION. CHILA.
>> AS WE'RE AWARE, WE'RE STILL IN THE FIRST QUARTER OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WHICH MEANS OUR REVENUE TRENDS ARE VERY PRELIMINARY FOR THE YEAR.
WE GOT OUR FIRST MONTH OF SALES TAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 26.
WE WE JUST NOTIFIED YESTERDAY, AND I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THAT IT ALIGNS WITH WHAT WE'VE PROJECTED.
IT IS JUST SLIGHTLY OVER WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR FOR THIS MONTH, AND IT'S ABOUT 3.9% HIGHER THAN WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO ACHIEVE THE BUDGET.
>> ACHIEVED THE BUDGET WITH THE COLA [OVERLAPPING].
>> COULD YOU GIVE US SALES TAX PRONOUN? I KNOW WE GOT IT AT THE FINANCE MEETING, AND I FORGOT MINE.
>> THIS IS THE NEW ONE WE JUST [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, COULD WE GET THAT COPIED RIGHT NOW? GET IT ON THE TABLE HERE IF WE COULD, PLEASE.
[LAUGHTER] FIRST PAGE BACK? YESTERDAY, I READ A QUOTE FROM ALBERT EINSTEIN THAT SAYS, DON'T MEMORIZE ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN LOOK UP.
I'M TRYING NOT TO MEMORIZE ANYTHING. IT'S TRUE. [LAUGHTER]
>> KEEP IN MIND. THE SALES TAX NUMBER FOR THAT WE RECEIVED IN DECEMBER.
GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE THREE QUESTIONS.
MARIE'S ASKING FOR A BREAK RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT PRINT OFF, AND WE HAVE A WELL RESTROOM BREAK.
>> COULD ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT DON'T DO.
>> I CAN GET STARTED AND WE CAN COME BACK TO THE SALES TAX.
IT WAS IN THE RANGE THAT WE NEEDED IT TO BE FOR THE FIRST MONTH THAT CAME IN.
WE HOPEFULLY HAVE GOOD PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION YEAR, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE WON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS TILL JANUARY.
THERE ARE A COUPLE AREAS WHERE WE ARE HOPING TO MAKE ADDITIONAL PROGRESS THAT WE DIDN'T PROJECT.
FOR EXAMPLE, LONG-TERM PARKING IS AN AREA WHERE WE'VE RECENTLY BEEN NOTIFIED OF SOME LOTS THAT HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY BEEN REGISTERED.
WE WILL HOPEFULLY BE GAINING BOTH SALES TAX AND LONG TERM PARKING FEES FROM THAT.
THERE ARE A COUPLE AREAS THAT WE FEEL LIKE THERE IS NEW REVENUE THAT WE WERE UNAWARE OF THAT MAY ALSO HELP FUND THIS.
BUT FOR SURE, WE ARE AT A VERY PRELIMINARY POINT COMPARED TO WHEN THE BUDGET WAS ADOPTED OR WAS AMENDED IN JUST OCTOBER LESS THAN EIGHT WEEKS AGO.
>> HOW MUCH ARE WE LOOKING AT PROJECTING IF WE INCLUDE ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN THE COLA ADJUSTMENT?
>> I DON'T RECALL. IS IT LISTED THE AMOUNT OF THE COLA ADJUSTMENT?
>> A 2% INCREASE TOTAL TO THE CITYWIDE IS 899,580.
THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT INCLUDING POLICE AND FIRE.
THE IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND AT 2% WOULD BE $384,220.
>> IF IT'S A 2% ACROSS THE BOARD, IT'S 899,000?
>> FOR THE WHOLE CITY, LIKE THAT'S ENTERPRISE FUNDS, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS.
BUT JUST THE GENERAL FUND IMPACT WOULD BE 384,000 OF THAT 899.
>> FOR THE FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY, CORRECT?
>> 899,580 IS THE CITY WIDE IMPACT OF THAT TOTAL 899,000 384,220 WOULD NEED TO COME FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
>> WHAT'S THE NUMBER WE WERE GIVEN PREVIOUSLY, BUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT COLA FOR NON-MANAGEMENT.
>> THE AMOUNT MINUS THE DEPARTMENT HEAD SLASH APPOINTEE CATEGORY.
[01:30:01]
AT THE 2%, CITYWIDE IS 764,872.>> THAT IS 2% CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES MINUS THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND APPOINTEES.
THE GENERAL FUND IMPACT IN THAT CATEGORY IS 290,569.
>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS A PORTION OF THIS WOULD COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND AND A PORTION WOULD COME OUT OF THE SPECIAL SERVICES FUNDS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> WHERE THE EMPLOYEES ARE BILLING.
>> WHEREVER THE EMPLOYEES ARE BEING PAID IS WHERE THEIR INCREASE WOULD ALSO BE ADDED TO THE BUDGET.
IF YOU'RE BEING PAID OUT OF THE WATER FUND, YOUR INCREASE IS GOING TO BE PAID BY THE WATER FUND.
THAT'S WHY I CAN GIVE YOU A TOTAL CITYWIDE NUMBER.
I CAN GIVE IT TO YOU BY THE TYPE OF FUND IT IS, OR I CAN GIVE IT TO YOU JUST GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE MOST CONSTRAINTS AS FAR AS REVENUE ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT THE PROJECTED REVENUE IS.
I PURSUE THIS WEEK ABOUT THE THOUGHTS ABOUT MAKING THIS RETROACTIVE TO OCTOBER 1ST.
I WAS TOLD THAT THAT IS ILLEGAL, NOT WE CANNOT DO THAT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. WE CANNOT DO A RETROACTIVE FOR ANYTHING ANY PAY PERIODS THAT CAME BEFORE THIS.
SHOULD COUNCIL DECIDE TO DO THE INCREASE OR DO SOME COLA, IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE A DATE IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT'S WHAT THAT ADJUSTMENT WOULD PAY FOR THIS.
>> COULD I GUESS THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THAT YOU COULD INCREASE THAT PERCENTAGE TO MATCH WHAT THOSE THREE MONTHS WOULD HAVE COVERED?
>> YES, BUT THAT GOES ON FOREVER.
EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE UP FOR THAT MISSING QUARTER, ACTUALLY THAT INCREASE IS FOREVER.
IT'S NOT JUST FOR THAT QUARTER?
>> THAT REQUIREMENT IS BY TURNER, BY LAW? WHAT IS IT REQUIRES THAT WE CAN'T GO RETRO PAY?
>> THE RETRO PAY IS SOMETHING WE DON'T DO BY CITY POLICY.
>> MAYBE I'M NOT MAKING. MAYBE THE MATH ISN'T I'M NOT MATHING, RIGHT, BUT SO WE HAVE TO APPROVE A COLA IN WHATEVER PERCENTAGE THAT WE WISH?
>> THERE'S A VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT FOR THE IMPACT FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES.
WHEN WE WERE ORIGINALLY LOOKING AT THIS WITH OUR BUDGET, THERE WAS A VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
COULD YOU NOT TAKE THAT VALUE THEN AND THEN JUST SAY, OKAY, IF THIS WAS 2% OVER 12 MONTHS, NOW IT'S GOING TO BE 2.2% OR WHATEVER OVER THIS 9 MONTH PERIOD.
>> BUT BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A COLA ADJUSTMENT TO THE SALARY, WHATEVER THAT SALARY INCREASE YOU ASSIGN IS? THAT SALARY DOESN'T GO DOWN AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A TOTAL AMOUNT FOR THE YEAR, THAT THE INCREASE AMOUNT GOES INTO PERPETUITY.
>> BUT THAT'S THE SAME FOR THE 2%.
>> BUT YOU DO UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M ASKING.
>> DID I MAKE IT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY.
>> THE WAY I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, DAVID, THAT IS TRUE.
>> I UNDERSTAND. BUT RIGHT NOW WHAT'S ON THE TABLE IS 2% FORWARD.
>> WE COULD DO SOMETHING ON 2.5.
CHILA, BEFORE WE OPEN UP FOR FURTHER QUESTIONS, COULD YOU GO THROUGH THIS SHEET PAN? MARIE WANTS TO TAKE A BREAK, COUNSEL?
I DON'T WANT TO MISS THE DISCUSSION.
>> NO, I UNDERSTAND. LET'S LET CHILA EXPLAIN THIS SHEET HERE, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A BREAK FOR FIVE MINUTES AND THEN COME BACK. GO AHEAD.
>> THIS IS OCTOBER SALES TAX, WHICH WE RECEIVE IN DECEMBER.
THESE WERE THE SALES THAT OCCURRED IN GALVESTON IN OCTOBER.
IT'S THE FIRST MONTH ATTRIBUTED TO THE FISCAL YEAR.
YOU'LL SEE THAT IT WAS $2,342,000, $42,139.
THAT'S THE TOTAL AMOUNT INCLUSIVE OF BOTH THE GENERAL FUND AND THE IDC.
[01:35:05]
THIS IS ABOUT A 0.42% INCREASE OVER LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME, WHICH WAS RIGHT JUST 10,000 SHY OF THAT.THE GENERAL FUND SHARE OF THAT IS 1, 756, 006.05.
IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, YOU WILL SEE HOW THIS SPLITS OUT ACCORDING TO THE BUDGET FOR BOTH THE GENERAL FUND AND THE IDC.
YOU'LL SEE THAT THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 25 AND THE GENERAL FUND FOR OCTOBER WOULD HAVE BEEN AROUND 1,691,000.
WE CAME IN ABOUT $65,000 AHEAD OF THAT, WHICH IS ABOUT 3.9% HIGHER.
IDC IT'S RELATIONAL OBVIOUSLY, IT'S JUST A QUARTER OF IT, BUT IT'S 564,000 AND WE CAME IN AT 585.
ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A TREND, BUT IT'S ALSO WHERE IT SITS RIGHT NOW, I LIKE THE WAY WE'RE STARTING OFF.
>> I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS NOT A TREND.
THIS IS JUST WHERE WE ARE AT THIS POINT.
IT COULD GO UP OR DOWN AS WE MOVE FORWARD. YES, DONNA.
>> MAYOR, YOU'RE GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE RETROACTIVE, AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT MAY ALSO BE CITY POLICY, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY TEXAS LAW.
PART OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION SAYS YOU CANNOT COMPENSATE FOLKS FOR WORK ALREADY DONE.
>> THANK YOU, DONNA. APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.
IT'S 10:45, WE'LL RECONVENE HERE AND WE'LL CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION.
LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK OR NINE MINUTE BREAK.
IT IS 10:45 A.M. WE HAVE TAKEN OUR MORNING BREAK AND WE ARE BACK IN SESSION.
WE ARE DISCUSSING ITEM 3F, WHICH IS COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES AND RELATED BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE 2025/2026 BUDGET.
WE HAVE OUR CFO CHILA DANI WITH US.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO?
>> A REQUEST WAS MADE THAT I COME UP WITH A CALCULATION THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE SAME AMOUNT OF COLA OVER THE REMAINING THREE QUARTERS OF THE YEAR AS IF IT WOULD HAD BEEN FOR THE WHOLE YEAR.
I CAN PROVIDE THAT TO COUNCIL TODAY.
HOWEVER, IN THE PROCESS WE REALIZE THAT THERE'S NO ACTION ITEM ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING TO HANDLE COLA.
I CAN PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THAT PERCENT WOULD BE.
ALSO, WE'LL HAVE THIS ON OUR AGENDA IN JANUARY BECAUSE WE'LL NEED TO AMEND THE BUDGET IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
>> WE DID THAT AS DISCUSSION AND ACTION AS WELL.
COULD YOU ALSO PROVIDE AN BREAKOUT WHAT THE AMOUNT WOULD BE IF WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE APPOINTEES AND MANAGERS, AND WE DID A 3% COLA FOR THE OTHER EMPLOYEES.
>> YOU WANT MANAGERS, DEPARTMENT HEADS? CAN YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC SO WE CAN PEOPLE?
>> WELL, BECAUSE I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO BE AWARE PERCENT INCREASES THAT MANAGEMENT LOOKS LIKE A MIN AWAY.
I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THIS, BUT I HAD MY HUSBAND GO IN AND PUT PERCENTAGES.
LET'S JUST TAKE BRYANT SINCE HE'S NOT HERE.
IT'S GOOD TO TALK ABOUT THE PERSON WHO ISN'T HERE.
OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, HE'S HAD A 194% INCREASE IN SALARY.
WITH A LOT OF YEARS WHEN HE SAID HE WASN'T TAKING THE COLA, HE DID TAKE THE COLA.
THEN IN 2021, HE HAD COLA, I THINK 2022, PLUS $50,000 INCREASE.
I WOULD JUST LIKE TO LOOK AT IT BOTH WAYS, SINCE WE'RE IN JUST THE NUMBERS YOU GAVE US, IF WE DID JUST THE EMPLOYEES, NOT THE PEOPLE ON THIS LIST.
BUT IF WE COULD AFFORD TO GIVE THE OTHER PEOPLE A 3% AND STILL NOT HAVE THAT MUCH OF A NEGATIVE EFFECT, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE.
[01:40:02]
>> JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND, SO IT'S EVERYBODY THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE SPREADSHEET.
>> THAT WE WOULD WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> THERE IS THERE IS THIS HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED WITH DON LEAVING AND DON.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR I JUST I UNDERSTAND YOUR MODEL.
>> AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE REASON I'M REQUESTING THIS INFORMATION AND YOU LOOK AT WHAT OUR GENERAL EMPLOYEES HAVE HAD AS INCREASES, EVEN IF IT'S A 3% IS THAT THE ONE WITH PERCENTAGE ON? SOME OF THESE DON'T THEY DON'T HAVE PERCENTAGE ON.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT. ONE PERCENTAGE.
>> DO YOU HAVE SOME FOR THIS FOR, HERE?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO USE THIS SPECIFIC LIST FOR THAT CALCULATION.
>> BUT FOR THE NUMBERS I QUOTED, I JUST TOOK A STRAIGHT LINE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND ABOVE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ALIGNS WITH THIS LIST OR NOT.
AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU WANT ME TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> ASK YOUR LIST IS AND COMPARE IT TO WHAT THE LIST I REQUEST.
>> YOU WANT US TO EXCLUDE ALL APPOINTEES AND I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK HERE, IT'S MOSTLY DEPARTMENT HEADS.
>> PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD MULTIPLE INCREASES BECAUSE THEY BECAME A DIRECTOR OR A DEPUTY.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE NUMBERS ARE.
>> I WILL LET YOU KNOW WHAT OUR LIST THAT WE USED IS.
I THINK WE KNOW WHAT YOU WANT.
>> AND THEIR NUMBERS ARE GOING TO BE HIGHER.
>> CIVILIANS THAT WHEN YOU SEE COLAS ANY COLA RECEIVED HERE, EVERY CIVILIAN IN THE CITY GOT IT.
THERE WAS ALSO PAY INCREASES IN HERE THAT ARE PART OF THE COMPENSATION STUDY, AND EVERY CIVILIAN WAS PART OF THE COMPENSATION STUDY, TOO.
>> BUT THAT'S THAT'S RECORDED IN HERE, THAT WE CASE THAT THE PERSON GOT AN INCREASE.
THAT THAT'S REPRESENTED IN THIS YES. YEAH. YEAH.
>> IT WAS EITHER PART OF A COMPENSATION STUDY OR A QUOTA, CORRECT.
>> DO THAT APPLY TO NON DEPARTMENT HEADS.
>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY APPLIED EVERYBODY IN THE CITY.
>> THERE ARE PLENTY OF POSITIONS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THIS THAT ALSO RECEIVED MARKET ADJUSTMENTS.
>> THEY WENT THROUGH THE SIMILAR PROCESS THAT THE ADMINIS I'M GOING TO USE THE TERM ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF.
I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE MY THOUGHTS ON THIS WHAT COUNSEL CAN VOTE COURSE WE WANT TO DO IT, TO EXCLUDE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN QUOTA ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION, I THINK IS A IS SOMEWHAT OF AN INSULT TO THEM.
MANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND BEEN PROMOTED BECAUSE OF THEIR TIME THAT THEY SPEND AND THEIR COMMITMENT AND THEIR PROFESSIONALISM AND THE WAY THAT THEY HAVE POSITIVELY IMPACTED THEIR DEPARTMENT.
NOW TO SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT PART OF THAT INCREASE I THINK IS A CONCERN TO ME.
THAT WOULD EXCLUDE PEOPLE LIKE JANELLE, I EXCLUDE OTHER PEOPLE IN THIS LIST THAT WORK HARD, AND THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THIS LIST HERE GRANTED THEIR SALARY IS HIGHER.
BUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THEY SPEND, MANY OF THEM ARE WORKING SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.
SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT ON THAT.
>> I'M JUST ASKING FOR WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE INFORMATION.
IF WE COULD GIVE LOWER SALARY PEOPLE, A LARGER COLA THAT WOULD I MEAN, WHEN I WAS ON COUNCIL LAST, WE HAD SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS, AND I MEAN, WE DID IT TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN A COLA.
WE DID SOMETHING THAT WAS UNUSUAL.
BUT WE GAVE EMPLOYEES WHO MADE LESS THAN 30,000.
WE ACTUALLY GAVE THEM A ONE TIME BONUS.
WERE YOU HERE THEN? OR WAS IT BEFORE YOU?
>> I DON'T REMEMBER ANY BONUSES [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DID THAT. BECAUSE THEN IT DIDN'T AFFECT THE PENSION, AND IT DIDN'T AND WE HAD THE FUNDS TO DO IT.
BUT I'M JUST SAYING, I'M JUST ASKING SO WE CAN LOOK AT ALL SIDES TO THE MIDDLE.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. LET'S OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION, SHARON.
>> I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE WHAT MARIE IS TALKING ABOUT, WHAT HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY DURING COUNSEL, WHAT.
IS THERE A WAY TO GET THAT INFORMATION?
>> CAN WE GET THAT INFORMATION.
>> IS EITHER 12 OR 13, JANELLE, I KNOW YOU WERE HERE, RIGHT?
[01:45:01]
>> JANELLE, CAN WE MAKE SURE WE GET THAT TO COUNSEL, PLEASE, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT.
I WANT TO EXCLUDE THE SENIOR STAFF.
SEE HOW MUCH THAT SAVES, AND THEN THE NUMBER FOR EVERYBODY ELSE.
>> THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO DO THIS THAT YOU'VE ANALYZED HERE THAT WE HAVE?
>> YES. I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE BACKING INTO A NUMBER.
I HAVEN'T DEFINITIVELY SAID THAT YOU HAVE THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY TO DO THIS WITH.
I THINK WE WERE WORKING ON THAT 2% ASSUMPTION THAT COUNSEL ORIGINALLY STARTED WITH AND WHETHER WE THINK THERE'S THE ABILITY TO FUND THAT IF WE NEED TO FUND THAT.
>> CAN I JUST A POINT OF COMMENT AS ALL DISCUSSION STARTS, IS WE HAVE VACANCIES NOW.
WE HAVE PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HIRE.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT OUR PAY IS ALREADY LAGGING SINCE THE LAST COMPENSATION STUDY WE HAD.
WE TRIED TO HIRE A CITY ENGINEER, NOT A CHANCE, TO HIRE ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER, OUR NUMBERS ARE JUST TOO LOW.
WE HAVEN'T HAD A RECENT COMPENSATION STUDY.
OUR COMPENSATION SCALE WHEN YOU GUYS APPROVE A COLA OR SCALE INCREASES BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE.
OVER TIME, IF IT IF WE GIVE A 2% COOL, OUR SCALE MOVES 2%.
WHETHER THAT KEEPS UP WITH MARKET OR NOT IS A DIFFERENT THING.
IF YOU REMEMBER THE ONE YEAR WHERE THE POLICE GOT A VERY, VERY LARGE INCREASE BECAUSE OF THE COST OF LIVING, OUR STAFF GOT 3%.
THEN THE NEXT YEAR OR YEAR AFTER WHEN YOU ALL DID 5%.
WHETHER THAT CAUGHT IT UP, WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU REALLY HAVE THE NEXT COMPENSATION STATE.
BUT JUST KEEP IN MIND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE STILL HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE COMPETITIVE.
WE HAVE PAY RANGES, AND SO WE CAN BE COMPETITIVE WITHIN THOSE PAY RANGES WHEN WE BRING SOMEBODY ELSE NEW IN, BUT WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RANGES STAY COMPETITIVE.
>> DIDN'T WE DO THE MARKET STUDY IN 2022.
>> WE DID A MARKET STUDY AND IT'S CHANGED SINCE '22.
>> I'M SORRY. I JUST HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION AND LISTENING TO MARIE'S COMMENTS.
I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT BRIAN SAID HE WOULD NOT ACCEPT A COLA. CORRECT?
>> YEAH. I HAVEN'T GONE BACK AND DONE THE RESEARCH, BUT I KNOW THERE'S BEEN POINTS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE SAID, WELL, I'M NOT TAKING.
>> THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION IN THE PAST ABOUT THAT.
COUNSEL TOOK AN ACTION THAT SAID THAT THEIR APPOINTEES WILL GET WHATEVER CIVILIANS GET.
I THINK BRIAN SAID, I DON'T WANT ANYTHING.
I'M SPEAKING FOR HIM HE'S NOT HERE.
BUT COUNSEL TOOK AN ACTION THAT SAID ALL APPOINTEES ARE TO GET WHAT THE CIVILIANS GET.
>> BECAUSE MY NEXT QUESTION. DO YOU REFUSE A CAN LEGALLY AT ALL?
>> THERE WAS AND JANELLE, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO RESEARCH THIS.
I WAS TOLD BACK IN MAYOR YARBOROUGH TERM.
THERE WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT SAID THAT THE APPOINTEES WOULD GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF ANY COLA THAT WAS GIVEN FOR THE EMPLOYEES.
I WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS AN ORDINANCE OR SOMETHING.
COULD YOU CHECK ON THAT, PLEASE, MA'AM?
>> WELL, IF THAT IS AN ORDINANCE, THEN HOW WOULD THAT AFFECT?
>> I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE A POLICY, BUT I DON'T.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO KNOW ABOUT THAT POLICY WHEN SOMEBODY TOLD ME THEY DIDN'T WANT TO RAISE.
>> VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTION? WE'LL HAVE THIS ON OUR AGENDA FOR JANUARY MEETING, AND WE'LL HAVE THE DATA THAT AS COUNSEL HAS REQUESTED SO WE CAN MAKE OUR DECISIONS AND MOVE FORWARD.
>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WOULD NOT SUPPORT.
I'M JUST SAYING I WANT TO LOOK AT ALL NUMBERS.
>> THAT'S ONE EASY THING WE CAN GET YOUR NUMBERS. NUMBERS ANYWAY YOU WANT.
>> I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION THOUGH, AND IT'S RELEVANT TO THIS.
TYPICALLY, DON'T YOU LEW SALES TAX, AREN'T YOU CONSERVATIVE AND YOU JUST DO A 1% INCREASE YEAR OVER YEAR?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S HOW WE BUDGETED THIS YEAR FOR SALES TAX.
>> WE PRETTY MUCH ALWAYS, I THINK, EVEN IN BORO, WE WEREN'T THAT WE WEREN'T UNDER.
WE USUALLY ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCESS IN SALES TAX, THEN WHAT'S IN BUDGET.
TWO YEARS AGO, WE CAME IN BELOW BUDGETED FOR.
>> I THINK YOU HANDED US SOME THING THAT HAD MULTI-YEARS.
>> THIS HAS MULTI-YEARS FOR ACTUAL COLLECTIONS.
IT DOES NOT SHOW THE MULTI YEAR AGAINST THE BUDGET FOR THE YEAR.
BUT I CAN'T GET THAT INFORMATION.
[01:50:01]
>> IT'S IT'S DOING THIS AT THIS TIME, I REALLY NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THE BUDGET TIME IS WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT ANYWAY, ALL RIGHT.
LET'S MOVE FORWARD IF NOT ANY OTHER QUICK.
THANK YOU, JANELLE. APPRECIATE IT.
[3.G. Discussion of the Use of Reserve Funds Associated with the Arts and Historic Preservation Board (A. Lynch/C. Brown/ Porretto - 20 min)]
LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3G, PLEASE.>> ITEM 3G. DISCUSSION OF THE USE OF RESERVE FUNDS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD.
>> VERY GOOD. THIS IS A TOPIC THAT CAME UP AT OUR LAST MEETING.
COME FORWARD, ANTOINETTE, AND BARBARA.
THIS IS A TOPIC THAT CAME FORWARD.
AT THE ARTS AND HISTORIC, WE HAD A CHANGE IN OUR MAKEUP.
IN THE PROCESS AND HAVE APPOINTED NEW MEMBERS TO THE ARTS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL, THAT I THINK IS THE NAME OF IT.
BUT WE DO HAVE A RESERVE FUND THAT'S BEEN BUILT UP IN THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD FUNDS.
WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY ON HOW THAT'S HANDLED.
BARBARA AND ANTOINETTE, COULD YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE PUBLICLY?
>> ANGELA LYNCH, I'M THE ART AND CULTURE COORDINATOR HERE AT THE SCHOOL.
>> BARBARA SANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH.
>> WE'RE SAYING THAT WE HAVE A RESERVE BALANCE OF 3.1, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT MONEY THIS IS HOT MONEY, AND THIS IS MONEY THAT DOES NOT HAVE CURRENTLY A ORDINANCE OR POLICY DICTATING HOW THIS IS UTILIZED?
>> THIS MONEY WAS NOT ENVISIONED WHEN THE ORDINANCES WERE WRITTEN.
IT WAS IMAGINED FOR THE ARTS AND IT WAS GIVEN TO THE ARTS.
IT WAS IT'S PART OF THE ARTS PENNY.
BUT IT WAS THERE WAS NEVER AN INSTRUMENT THAT WAS CODIFIED THAT YOU COULD REACH THAT MONEY.
IT WAS NEVER ABLE TO BE SPENT BY THE ARTS.
>> LET'S OPEN IT UP TO DISCUSSION.
I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH OUR EXPERTNESS AT THE COUNSEL LEVEL, ALEX PARETO.
ALEX YOU'RE LEASON AND DAVID FINKY WITH CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE MAJORITY OF THESE FUNDS CAME IN WHEN COUNSEL IN THEIR INFINITE WISDOM DECIDED TO START COLLECTING THE HOT TAX THROUGH THE AIRBNB AND VRBO PLATFORMS, AND THAT BASICALLY DOUBLED WHAT WE RECEIVED.
MAYBE I DON'T THINK A I THINK FOR A POLICY OR I DON'T THINK WE NEED AN ORDINANCE TO DISCUSS HOW THIS MONEY IS SPENT SINCE IT'S ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED FOR THE FOR ARTS PURPOSES, I THINK IT'S MORE OF A WHAT COUNSEL AT THE POLICY LEVEL WOULD LIKE TO APPROPRIATE IT FOR, HOW THAT GET PUT INTO RESOLUTION, WHATEVER.
I MEAN, WE COULD DO AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SOME GUIDELINES, ESPECIALLY WITH THE RESERVE CUSHION.
THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT STAFF PUT TOGETHER THOUGHTS, BUT LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT OF THE ARTS.
WE HAVE THIS INTERESTING ONE TIME EXPENDITURE, ONE TIME POOL OF FUNDS THAT IF WE KEEP, THE RECOMMENDED CUSHION OR SOMETHING WHERE WE CAN HAVE A SAME THING WITH THE RESERVE FUND THAT WE HAVE WITH THE 14 MILLION THAT WE USED FOR THE FIFA EXPENDITURE IF THERE'S OTHER EXPENDITURES THAT WE COULD AND I THINK IT'S OUTLINED VERY WELL IN THIS IN THIS FORMAT.
I PERSONALLY LIKE THE LET'S SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO DEVELOP IT.
I THINK THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT BOARD COULD CHEW ON, GIVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO.
I JUST MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE TOO PREMATURE TO, TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THESE ARE SOME GOOD SUGGESTIONS AND IDEAS, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE ALL DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AND I HATE TO KEEP PUNTING IT DOWN THE ROAD, BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN DEVELOP THE ARTS IN GALVESTON.
>> AS COUNCIL MEMBER PARETO SAID, HE AND I HAD BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS AND ANTOINETTE AND HER TEAM, BARBARA'S TEAM COME BACK WITH THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
I AM ONE FOR LESS ORDINANCES AND BETTER POLICY CONTROL.
THE 1.5 MILLION, I THINK IS REASONABLE.
YOU DO NEED TO HANDLE FLUCTUATIONS.
THE OTHER THING THAT WAS IMPORTANT AS ALEX COUNCIL. THANK YOU.
AS ALEX AND I DISCUSSED WAS THE NEED FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE.
[01:55:03]
THAT THOSE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THESE INSTALLATIONS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THE MORE THAT WE INSTALL, THE MORE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN, AND THERE NEEDS TO BE AN APPROPRIATE SCHEDULE AS IDENTIFIED IN HERE.I AGREE WITH ALEX THAT, I THINK ONE OF THE DIRECTION THAT WE MIGHT GIVE TO THE COUNCIL IS THAT TAKE A LOOK AT THIS.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS INHERENTLY MISSING OR THAT YOU BELIEVE NEEDS ADDITIONAL CONTEMPLATION.
>> PLEASE WHAT I WOULD SAY WE LET STAFF KNOW, BECAUSE THIS DOES NEED TO GO BACK TO THE ADC AND BE FLUSHED OUT, AND LET THEM TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THIS.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT HERE IS THAT BESIDES THE ARTS, THIS ALSO HAS TO DO WITH CULTURAL ARTS, HAVING TO DO WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF OUR AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORIC HERITAGE DISTRICT.
IS THAT THE HERITAGE DISTRICT AND THE ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTATION AND DATA COLLECTION THAT WAS DONE AS A PART OF THAT.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT THING TO HAVE THE COMMITTEE TAKE A HARD LOOK AT IN TERMS OF HOW THAT IS ADVOCATED AND PRESENTED TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL.
>> I WOULD SUPPORT I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THE ARTS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION LOOK AT THIS AND GIVE THEIR INPUT.
THEY THAT'S THE GROUP THAT'S GOING TO BE MANAGING THIS AND HAVE SOME KNOWLEDGE AND BACKGROUND INTO THE PAST MANAGEMENT WITH THE STAFF WITH BARBARA AND INTRANETS INPUT.
I WOULD JUST PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THIS MONEY OR A PORTION OF THIS MONEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR FUNDING THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ARTS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD HAS DONE IN THE PAST, WHICH WAS ONLY FOR MARKETING AND PROMOTION OF EVENTS, AND ALSO THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION DID FOR PUBLIC ART.
I THINK THAT THERE IS A ROW HERE FOR THE UTILIZATION THIS MONEY TO BE FOR OTHER REQUEST TO THE ADC.
WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, I'M JUST GOING TO USE THE JUNETEENTH MUSEUM AS AN EXAMPLE.
IT COULD BE THAT THERE WOULD BE A REQUEST FOR SOME OF THE FUNDING OF THIS MONEY FOR THE JUNETEENTH MUSEUM OR THAT WHATEVER THAT TURNS OUT TO BE.
I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AVAILABILITY SO THAT THIS MONEY SO THE ADC CAN CONSIDER PROJECTS ABOVE AND BEYOND THOSE THAT I'VE JUST MENTIONED ON THIS.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL FEELING, BOB.
>> YOU'RE SUGGESTING WOULD AMOUNT TO A CONTINGENCY RESERVE.
THAT WOULD BE UNBUDGETED UNSPECIFIED AND BE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S UNANTICIPATED TO COME OUT.
>> THAT'S MY THOUGHT BECAUSE I JUST HAVE A FEELING THERE WILL THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE HOT CRITERIA.
BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE PROJECTS MY SENSE IS COMING IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL BE ABOVE AND BEYOND PROMOTION OF AN EVENT OR PUBLIC ART, AND THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME LATITUDE FOR THE UTILIZATION OF SOME OF THESE FUNDS FOR THOSE PROJECTS.
>> LOOKING AT THIS, THE AMOUNT OF TIME I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.
EVERYTHING HERE LOOKS LIKE IT'S A VERY USEFUL, VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT UTILIZATION OF THE MONEY WE HAVE AND IN PARTS OF THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE REALLY NEEDED.
IN PARTICULAR, I THINK THE MAINTENANCE IS REALLY NEEDED.
MY QUESTION ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE IS, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW A SCOPE OF THE MAINTENANCE YET BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AN EVENT? NO. WE DON'T HAVE AN EVENT.
WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER SHOULD SHOULD BE.
>> ANOTHER THING THAT CAME UP IS PREP WORK.
SITE PLANNING FOR THE SITE PLANNING PREP WORK, LIGHTING, ELECTRICAL FOR THESE SCULPTURES OR THE SCULPTURE GARDEN IN KEPNER, WE HAD TO ADJUST THE WAY OUR WATERING SYSTEM.
IN ORDER TO FACILITATE WE DON'T WANT TO EAT INTO THEIR PROJECT.
WE WOULD RATHER HAVE A LINE ITEM FOR THE MAINTENANCE GUYS TO GO OUT TO PREPARE THINGS.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION IS, WE'RE GOING TO DO AN INVENTORY, AND WHAT REALLY QUALIFIES FOR THAT INVENTORY IN TERMS OF CITY ART, FOR INSTANCE, DOES THE SEAWALL ART WORK COUNT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT REALLY WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> THE COUNTY OWNS THE SEAWALL.
THAT'S ALL SEAWALL INSTALLATION.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, I HAD ALL OF MY TEXT IS THAT EVERY PIECE OF ART IN THE PUBLIC HEMISPHERE WOULD BE INVENTORY IN GALVESTON.
IT WOULD SAY WHO THE OWNERSHIP IS, THE ORIGINAL PROJECT PARTNERS, THE ORIGINAL FUNDING SOURCES, THE MATERIALS, ALL OF THAT, SO THAT ALL OF THAT IS DOCUMENTED.
[02:00:01]
NUMBER ONE, FOR GRANT WRITING IN THE FUTURE, SO THAT WE'RE USING THIS INVENTORY TO SEEK OTHER FUNDS TO TAKE CARE OF THIS.WE'RE NOT GOING TO HOPEFULLY CONSTANTLY GO BACK TO THESE FUNDS.
I MEAN, WE'LL HAVE THEM THERE, BUT WE'D LIKE THEM TO BE A MONEY MATCH WHERE WE'RE LEVERAGING THIS FOR THE STATE TO HELP US AND FOR NATIONAL AND SOME OF THESE PHILANTHROPY, MAYBE.
>> THAT INVENTORY WOULD ALSO IDENTIFY WHAT THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE.
>> YES. THE CITY, THE COUNTY TECH.
I MEAN, THERE'S HUGE QUESTIONS OF OWNERSHIP ON SOME OF THESE OLDER PIECES.
>> WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT THE MEMORIAL [INAUDIBLE] WHO OWNS THAT.
>> NONE OF THAT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED.
>> I REMEMBER THAT. YOU'RE ALLOWING 110,000 FOR THAT INVENTORY AND CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT?
>> WELL, AND THIS IS JUST A VERY GENERAL WHERE I LOOKED AT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAD DONE SIMILAR.
I THINK OURS WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT OF A BIGGER ASK, AND I WOULD LIKE TO PARTNER MAYBE WITH THE COUNTY OR SOME ADDITIONAL ORGANIZATION THAT WILL HAVE OWNERSHIP IN SOME OF THESE PIECES FOR.
>> THEY HELP YOU DO THAT. OTHER QUESTION IS, YOU SPECIFIED 5.3 YEARS.
FOR THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY WE HAVE RIGHT NOW TO ACCOMPLISH EVERYTHING ON YOUR BULLETS HERE.
>> IF YOU DID THE EXACT AMOUNTS LISTED IN THAT ANNUAL SPEND EVERY YEAR, IF YOU LEAVE THAT CUSHION AND YOU'RE JUST TAPPING THE OTHER PORTION OF THE FUNDING, THEN YOU'VE GOT A LITTLE OVER FIVE YEARS.
I JUST DID THAT TO ILLUSTRATE THE COST TO COUNSEL THAT THESE THINGS, I MEAN, AND THIS IS SHORT TERM, WE CAN EAT THROUGH THAT MONEY IN A VERY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME IF WE'RE NOT LEVERAGING IT.
>> MISS CUSHIONS YOU GOT HERE IS EXCLUSIVE OF ALL THESE OTHER BULLETED ITEMIZED THINGS.
IT'S ALL THESE ITEMIZED THINGS PLUS THE CUSHION WILL GET YOU 5.3 YEARS? YES. THAT CUSHION COULD BE CONSIDERED WHAT THE MAYOR IS CALLING OR I'M CALLING A CONTINGENCY RESERVE FOR THINGS THAT COME UP.
>> I ANTICIPATE THAT SEVERAL OF THESE, STRATEGIC PLANNING ITEMS, THE MAINTENANCE, THE EMERGENCY PLAN.
ALL THESE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF A CUSHION, FOR THEIR EXACT ASS.
I THINK IT'S PERTINENT THAT WE HOLD ONTO IT AND THEN SEE WHAT ALL OF THESE PLANS COME TO US WITH WITH THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
>> THIS IS A REALLY GOOD APPROACH.
I THINK WE'RE PREMATURE PROBABLY ON THESE BUDGET NUMBERS.
>> ABSOLUTELY. [OVERLAPPING] I JUST DID IT FOR AN ILLUSTRATION.
>> BUT IT'S VERY USEFUL, I THINK, BECAUSE ALL THESE THINGS LOOK LIKE A RECIPE FOR A VERY SUSTAINABLE PLAN,.
>> I KNOW I INVENTED THIS TO YOU BEFORE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME PUBLIC ARTWORKS OTHER THAN JUST IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
LIKE THE SPOT THAT JUST CALLS OUT TO ME IS THE DEAD OR DYING PALM TREES ON WHERE THREE SEAWALL MEETS.
>> THAT IS A PARTNERSHIP WITH TECH SOCK, I GOT PRETTY SURE.
AS SOON AS THEY PULL THEIR PERMIT FOR THE 61ST STREET, THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF.
>> AS SOON AS WE INSTALL THEM IT'S GOING TO FREEZE AGAIN.
>> WELL, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO INSTALL.
>> NO, WE HAVE ANOTHER PLAN A PAVING PLAN WOULD GREAT TO SEE A PIECE OF ART THERE AND A MAJOR THE HOT TAX COMES FROM THERE.
>> THAT'S ANOTHER PLACE WHERE I THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOME LIGHTING BECAUSE IT'S VERY DARK IN THAT AREA.
>> I THINK IT MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THE DEAD OR DYING TREES.
>> I KNOW THE TREES ARE GOING AWAY.
THEY'RE GOING TO EITHER IF THEY'RE VIABLE, THEY'RE MOVING TO THE SOCCER COMPLEX, IF THEY'RE NOT TEXTILE, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THEM, BUT YOU HAVE TO PULL ONE PERMIT AND AIR CONTROL OF THE PERMIT.
BUT ANOTHER THING WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IS WE HAVE A MAJOR HURRICANE.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE STATUTES OR ART PROJECTS ARE EVEN COVERED UNDER ANY TYPE OF INSURANCE TO SPEAK.
>> MOST OF THEM ARE SUBSTANTIAL NOT.
>> SOME OF THEM ARE HAVING ISSUES RIGHT NOW.
I MEAN, EVERY TUESDAY WHEN I GO TO THE BFW, I GET APPROACH IS LIKE, WHO'S GOING TO HELP US WITH THESE MONUMENTS BECAUSE THEY ARE CURRENTLY.
SOME OF THAT IS GOING TO THE EROSION DURING A STORM COULD POTENTIALLY. BREAK OFF.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN ON THE BROADWAY THAT THAT HAVE BEEN HIT BY VEHICLES, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THAT'S A COMMON BAD INTERSECTION.
>> WHEN IS YOUR MEETING WITH ADC SCHEDULED? DID YOU ARE WORKING THROUGH THAT NOW?
>> YES. WE WE REACHED OUT TO ADC, BUT THE MONTH OF DECEMBER WAS A LITTLE ROUGH TO GET EVERYBODY THERE AND JANELLE AND I AGREE THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL OF THE NEW MEMBERS AT THE FIRST MEETING, SO IT'S LOOKING LIKE JANUARY.
>> YOU'LL BE GETTING THIS ON THE AGENDA TO GET INPUT ON THIS FIND BACK TO COUNSEL THEN?
[02:05:04]
GOOD. VERY GOOD.I'LL MAKE SURE THE LIAS ONTO THAT.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 3H.
[Items 3.H. - 3.J.]
>> DISCUSSION OF PARKING ORDINANCES AND RELATED CHANGES AS THEY APPLY TO INCREMENTS OF TIME.
>> SIR, JUST TO BE A LITTLE MORE EXPEDITIOUS.
I THINK HI AND JR ALL RELATED.
GOOD. IF IT WOULD PLEASE THE MAYOR, WOULD YOU MIND GOING TO 3J FIRST JUST TO GET MY THOUGHTS ON THAT BECAUSE IT WILL SAGUAY INTO WE JUST READ ALL THREE AND THEN WE'LL DO 3J DISCUSSION.
>> DISCUSSION OF ENHANCED COLLECTION OF PARKING FINES, 3J.
DISCUSSION OF A SPRING CLEANING PARKING TICKET AMNESTY PROGRAM STARTING APRIL 1 THROUGH APRIL 30.
>> WE'VE ALL BEEN DISCUSSING PARKING.
THIS WAS PART OF THE STR COMMITTEE THING TOO, AND I REALLY THINK WE ALL WANT TO TAKE PARKING SERIOUSLY.
I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE MAYOR AND MARIE WERE SUCH PARKING HOCKS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THAT.
IF WE'RE GOING TO MY OPINION, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON ENHANCED COLLECTIONS, IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE, THE PARKING ORDINANCES AND OVER TIME OR I'M NOT I DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT ANYTHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE EATING ANY MORE COSTS WITH THE PARKING FEES, AND I THINK WE ALL WANT TO BE A LITTLE MORE HAWKISH ON PARKING.
I THINK RESIDENTS ARE A LITTLE IRRITATED WITH NOT BEING HAWKSHAW PARKING, SHOULD APPLY TO EVERYBODY.
I THINK THIS GIVES A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE WITH OUTSTANDING TICKETS TO PAY THEM.
WELL, WE'VE DONE THIS IN THE PAST.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO GET PICK COUNSEL'S BRAIN ON, BUT I THINK EVERYONE WOULD SUPPORT SOMETHING LIKE THAT.BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN ORDINANCE OR [INAUDIBLE]
>> I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN DO 34.
LIKE EMBASSY LIKE ANY SMALL FINE.
>> A QUESTION. DOES DOES THIS PROPOSAL, IS IT FOR ANY AND ALL? IS IT FOR A SPECIFIC TIME PERIOD? IS IT FOR A SPECIFIC ARE SPECIFIC VIOLATIONS EXCLUDED, FOR EXAMPLE, ARE WE GOING TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN PEOPLE THAT ARE SIMPLY NOT PAYING FOR PARKING IN A LEGAL PAID PARKING SPACE OR THEY GET A FINE IN A FIRE LANE.
TELL ME ABOUT WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE?
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE ANY PARKING.
I MEAN, TO THE CONVERS YEAH, UNPAID.
I THINK TO THE CONVERSATION. BEEN ITCHING AT US.
HOW DO WE BUMP OUR NUMBERS UP FOR COLLECTIONS JUST WRIT LARGE? IF PEOPLE HAVE THAT THAT TICKET AND IF I DUCE I HAD MY WAY.
I WOULD SAY MOVING ON FROM THAT PERIOD, YOU GET FIVE TICKETS, BOOT, BARNACLE, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
IF WE'RE GOING TO BE HARSH, THEN I THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THE PREVIOUS FINES AND START MOVING FORWARD.
>> IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE JUST ABSOLVING THEM FROM THOSE FINES.
YOU'RE JUST YOU'RE ABSOLVING THEM FROM ANY ABILITIES AND INTEREST.
THEY'RE STILL OBLIGATED TO PAY THEIR FINE. I GOT IT.
>> I MEAN, WE HAVE RIGHT NOW A 20% COLLECTION.
>> I SEE THAT AND BOTH OF THESE TWO CHEWED ME OUT.
I THINK YOU REMEMBER THAT. THEY BOTH CHEWED ME OUT.
>> WELL, I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF IT.
>> I SHOULD IF WE'RE GOING TO BE HAWKS, WE SHOULD WIPE EVERYTHING AND THESE TWO PIPED UP.
>> LET ME FIRST OF FALL INTROD WE HAVE A STAFF NAME.
>> LADS LOPEZ CITY, SORRY, MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK.
>> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. I GOT MY QUESTION.
>> MAYOR. I HATE TO INTERRUPT, BUT I THINK THE MUNICIPAL COURT CLERK NEEDS TO PROBABLY TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WE TALKED ABOUT, WE HAD THIS PROGRAM IN THE PAST, AND WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ON WHAT TYPE OF PROGRAM THAT WAS AND SHE CAN DISCUSS IT IN ORDER FOR THIS CONVERSATION TO GO FORWARD.
>> THAT'D BE GREAT. MISS LOPEZC.
THE LAST TIME WE HAD AN AMNESTY PROGRAM ON PARKING CITATIONS WAS IN MAY OF 2006, AND THAT WAS PRIOR TO THE PARKING BEING DECRIMINALIZED AND MOVING INTO THE CIVIL CITATION.
AT THE TIME, THE AMNESTY WAS IF YOU PAID YOUR BASE FINE,
[02:10:01]
WHICH BACK THEN WAS $17, WE WAIVED THE LATE FEE OF $10.THERE WAS NO COLLECTION FIRM INVOLVED AT THE TIME AND NO COLLECTION FEES.
WITH THE COLLECTION FIRM THAT WE CONTRACT WITH RIGHT NOW, WE CANNOT WAIVE COLLECTION FEES.
ANYTIME THE CITY COLLECTS, WE HAVE TO PAY THEM THEIR 30%.
>> IF WE HAD AN AMNESTY PROGRAM, THEY'D HAVE TO PAY THE THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BASE FINE AND 30% OF THAT, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO WAIVE A LATE FEE, WHICH WOULD NOT BE MUCH OF AN INCENTIVE.
>> WE WILL SEE COLLECTION FIRM? WE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THEM YET TO SEE IF THEY WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THAT CHAIN.
>> THEY CAN. WE'VE DONE IT SINCE 2006.
>> IT'S BEEN FOR CLASS C CITATIONS, YES, MA'AM.
>> I THINK WE HAVE DONE FOR PART I THINK WE HAVE DID WE DO THE CLASS? THE LAST CLASS C MAY HAVE BEEN IN 2022.
>> ON A STANDARD PARKING FEE DOWNTOWN, THAT 30% IS COLLECTION FEE?
>> A STANDARD PARKING IT WOULD BE A $30 FINE.
THEN OUR LATE FEE IS 25% OF THAT.
THEN ONCE IT GOES INTO COLLECTION STATUS, WHICH IS AFTER BEING IN A LATE STATUS FOR 60 DAYS, THEN IT'S AN ADDITIONAL 30%.
>> ALL OF THESE WOULD HAVE THE 30% REALLY ATTACHED TO IT.
>> COULDN'T WE HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH LINEBARGER? BECAUSE THE PERCENTAGE OF COLLECTION IS SO LOW.
IF WE COULD HAVE A BUMP, MAYBE IF 0% OF ANY COLLECTIONS IS ZERO.
BUT MAYBE EVEN IF WE COLLECTED, LET'S SAY, I KNOW THE LAST ONE HOUSTON DID, THEY HAD A HUGE RESULTS IN IT.
IF WE HAD HUGE RESULTS, MAYBE WE COULD GET THEM TO AGREE TO A LESSER PERCENTAGE AND PAY IT OUT WHAT WE COLLECTED, WHICH AGAIN, 0% OF ANYTHING IS STILL ZERO.
IF WE WERE ABLE TO GET 50%, WE COULD PAY THEM, WHICH WOULD INCENTIVIZE THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE 55 PARKING TICKETS.
BUT IT WOULD INCENTIVIZE THEM TO BE ABLE TO CLEAR THAT UP, IT WOULD BE MONEY THAT WE WEREN'T GETTING.
>> MONEY THEY WEREN'T GETTING EITHER TOO.
>> WE CAN REACH OUT TO LINEBARGER AND COME BACK TO YOU GUYS IN JANUARY AND TELL YOU WHAT WE WERE ABLE TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT AND NEGOTIATE WITH THEM.
>> JANELLE, LET'S PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING.
COULD YOU DAN GET WITH MISS LOPEZ AND ALSO GET WITH LINEBARGER AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO CLEAR?
>> FOR A PERCENTAGE BASED AMNESTY WOULD BE BETTER THAN JUST WAIVING ONLY FEE.
IF SOMEONE HAD 50 OUTSTANDING TICKETS AND WE SAY WE DISMISS 25 OF THEM IF YOU PAY THE OTHER 25, LINEBARGER WOULD STILL TO COLLECT THEIR 30% ON THE 50% THAT WE'RE COLLECTING, AND WE WOULD DISMISS THE OTHER 25 CITATIONS.
>> I'M SURE WE MAY EVEN BE ABLE TO GET THEM DOWN.
>> THE LINEBARGER IS ALL OVER THE STATE.
NOW, A LOT OF OTHER CITIES DO THIS, SO WE'LL FIND OUT HOW THEY DO IT.
>> COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, ASK THEM FOR WHAT THEIR BEST PRACTICES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MC PROGRAMS. THEN TWO TO COUNCIL MEMBER ROB, ABSOLUTELY.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT A MONEY GRAB.
THIS IS ABOUT CHANGING THE PARKING CULTURE FOR PEOPLE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS.
YOUR COMMENT WAS ABSOLUTELY ON TARGET THAT LOOK, WE'LL PAY LINEBARGER A PORTION OF WHATEVER WE COLLECT.
WE'RE TRYING WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE BETTER ENFORCEMENT, LESS VIOLATIONS AND PEOPLE DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
>> TO ADD TO IT, IF LINEBARGER EVEN HAS PRACTICE IN SOME OTHER AREAS THEY COULD EVEN REACH OUT TO SOME PEOPLE WITH OUTSTANDING FINES TOO AND SAY, HEY GALVESTON CITY COUNCIL IS DOING THIS WITH THE COMMUNITY COURT.
YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, AND I'M SURE ON CASE BY CASE BASIS, YOU CAN NEGOTIATE IT, HOW COMMUNITY COURT WE SEE FIT, BUT I THINK IT'S AGAIN, CHANGING THAT CULTURE.
[02:15:02]
HOW WE MOVE FORWARD, BUT GIVING PEOPLE A BREAK, NOT GETTING RID OF EVERYTHING, GUYS. I LISTENED.>> YES. THIS IS FOR ALL TICKETS.
EVERY TICKET OUT THERE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT PARKING CITATIONS.
>> YES. IT WOULD COUNT TO THE ONES YOU HAVE TOO, BOB.
>> A WHOLE LOT OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE TOURISTS.
A LOT OF PARKING TICKETS WILL BE TOURISTS.
I WAS JUST WONDERING IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN OUR COLLECTION FOR TOURISTS AS FOR LOCALS? I DON'T KNOW.
>> MOST OF WHAT'S OUTSTANDING IS ONE CITATION PER LICENSE PLATE? A NUMBER OF FOLKS THAT HAVE THREE OR MORE CITATIONS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR IMMOBILIZATION OR TOWING UNDER THE BOOTING ORDINANCE IS ABOUT 7% OF WHAT'S OUTSTANDING IN A ONE YEAR PERIOD.
THE OTHERS THAT ONLY HAVE ONE CITATION PER PLATE ARE MORE THAN LIKELY VISITORS FROM THIS STATE.
>> INTERESTING. THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
WELL, LET'S GET THAT INFORMATION TO US.
>> LET'S MOVE INTO THE TOPIC OF THE INCREMENTS OF TIME.
WE HAVE TREY CLICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE DOWNTOWN PARTNERSHIP.
>> PARKING SHIP. PARTNERSHIP. TREY, COME IN AND HAVE A SEAT IF YOU WOULD, AND LET'S DISCUSS THIS, MARIE.
>> WELL, I THINK PEOPLE GET DETERRED AND I KNOW IT TICKS ME OFF WHEN I KNOW I AM GOING IN FOR LUNCH MEETING, WHICH IS TYPICALLY AN HOUR AND A HALF AND I HAVE TO PAY TWO HOURS.
WHAT I'M SUGGESTING AS THEY DO IN OTHER CITIES, IT'S MINIMUM AS AN HOUR, BUT YOU HAVE 30 MINUTE INTERVALS AFTER THAT, SO THAT YOU CAN BE IN FOR TWO AND HALF HOURS AND YOU BUY THAT.
WOULD IT EAT INTO INCOME? I'D SAY A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE JUST PAY FOR AN HOUR, THEY GET A TICKET, AND THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT PAYING THAT.
PEOPLE WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO PAY AN HOUR AND A HALF.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR REVENUE.
I THINK IT WOULD GET MORE PEOPLE SHOPPING DOWNTOWN BECAUSE THE GREATEST THING WAS WHEN YOU COULD MOVE YOUR CAR FROM ONE STREET TO ANOTHER AND STILL BE UNDER THE SAME CODE.
THEN THAT'S LIKE, YES, SPECIAL 110 DEGREE DAY.
I'M GOING TO STOP ATENAS AND THEN RUN OVER TO KIMMY'S AND WHATNOT, BECAUSE YOU CAN HOP AROUND.
BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR TOURS, BUT ALSO BETTER FOR OUR CITIZENS, ESPECIALLY BETTER FOR OUR CITIZENS.
>> I GUESS MAYBE YOU CAN HELP US EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THAT PARKING REVENUE ACTUALLY PAYS FOR AND DOES DOWNTOWN?
>> I'D LIKE TO GIVE I DON'T KNOW A LITTLE HISTORY OF THAT WHOLE PROGRAM WAS OVER THE YEARS, ONE OF THE LARGEST COMPLAINTS THAT WE WERE GETTING ON A DAILY ON AN HOURLY BASIS WAS HOW DIRTY THE STRAND WAS, THE TRASH CANS, THE STREETS, THE CURBS, THE TRASH IN THE GUTTERS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
IT WAS ACTUALLY COUNCILMAN DAVID COLLINS AND I.
WE DID RESEARCH AND LOOKED AROUND AND SAID, WHO HAS A GOOD PLAN? WELL, SAN ANTONIO DID.
DAVID AND I WENT TO SAN ANTONIO FOR TWO DAYS AND MET WITH THE PEOPLE THAT RUN THAT PLAN UP THERE.
IT'S A HUGE, BUT, OF COURSE, IT'S A LOT.
>> GOOD TO HEAR FROM THE FLY ON THE WALL VIEW TO THAT NIGHT IN SAN ANTONIO.
>> IT WAS INTERESTING BECAUSE THE GROUP THAT THEY SEE, I'M JEALOUS.
THEY HAVE A MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.
THAT'S YOU KNOW, AND SO THEY HAVE ACCESS TO A LOT MORE MONEY THAN WE DID.
WHEN WE CAME BACK, WE PUT TOGETHER, WE SAT DOWN WITH BRIAN, THE STAFF AND WE SAID, THIS WORKS REALLY WELL IN SAN ANTONIO.
WE PUT TOGETHER THE PLAN AND THEY WAS LIKE, WONDERFUL PLAN. WHO'S PAYING FOR IT?
>> THAT'S WHEN WE FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT REVENUE FROM THE PARKING.
>> WHICH WE RAISED THOSE REGS BECAUSE WHAT THAT THEN ACCOMPLISHED BY DOING THAT, WAS THAT WE HAVE A GROUP.
>> WE HAVE A TEAM OF I THINK IT'S FIVE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN.
[02:20:02]
SO THE CAMERA AND THE MICROPHONE PICK YOU UP?>> YES, SIR. ONE CREW LEADER, FOUR EMPLOYEES.
THEY EVEN WORK HALF A DAY ON THANKSGIVING.
DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE'S A HOLIDAY.
THE ONLY DAY THEY GET OFF IS CHRISTMAS DAY.
>> WE EMPTY THE TRASH TWICE A DAY ON THE WEEKENDS.
THERE IS NO MORE TRASH AND WE ACTUALLY PUT.
THIS IS HAS COST MONEY, BUT THE OUTCOME HAS BEEN SO GOOD.
BACK IN THE DAY, REMEMBER, THE BIG PROBLEM WAS THE STUFF THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THE TRASH CANS AND GET ON THE STREET WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS FOR 20 YEARS.
ALL OF THAT ISSUE IS GONE BECAUSE WE HAVE REVENUES THAT PAY TO MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS.
MY CONCERN WHEN I FIRST HEARD OF THIS IS FIRST, YOU GET 15 MINUTES FREE.
FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO JUMP IN AND GET A CUP OF COFFEE OR WHATEVER.
IT'S ABOUT MORE THAN 15 MINUTES.
>> YOU DON'T GET 15 MINUTES FREE AFTER YOUR HOUR AT THE RESTAURANT, AND IF YOU FORGET TO PAY [OVERLAPPING] WHICH WE'RE ONLY FIRST 15, 27%.
>> YOU GAVE PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO BUY A HALF HOUR AFTER THE FIRST HOUR.
I THINK WE MIGHT ACTUALLY SEE MORE REVENUES, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE A PARKING IN.
>> I WOULD HOPE SO, MARIE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD [OVERLAPPING].
>> ONE THING WE DO KNOW IS WE'RE ONLY COLLECTING 27% OF TICKETS.
>> AGAIN, WHAT MY CONCERN IS THE QUALITY OF DOWNTOWN AND THE CLEANLINESS AND THE CONTINUATION OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND PUT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO TO MAKE SURE HAPPEN.
I DON'T I'M NOT HERE SIT DOWN AND GO.
THE 30 MINUTES, THAT'S NOT MY CONCERN.
MY CONCERN IS TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WILL AFFECT FUTURE REVENUES THAT HAVE SOLVED ONE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES THAT I'VE DEALT WITH IN DOWNTOWN FOR 20 YEARS.
>> COULD ACTUALLY GIVE YOU MORE MONEY.
>> I GOT NO PROBLEMS WITH THAT.
>> DO WE HAVE HOW MANY TRANSACTIONS OCCURRED OVER THE LAST YEAR WITH PAY BY PHONE?
>> HEATHER COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULDN'T, IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE?
>> HEATHER MORSE, THE GALVESTON CITY MARSHAL.
I'VE GOT A LOT OF NUMBERS AROUND ON MY HEAD AND IN TERMS OF THE PARKING IN IT DOWNTOWN AND UTMB COMBINED.
BRANDON, ARE WE AT 19,000 FOR THAT FOR THE TIME PERIOD, SINCE WE GOT AN INCREASE IN THE FEES?
BUT THE NUMBER OF TICKETS ITSELF.
[OVERLAPPING] THE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS THEMSELVES.
>> BRENAN, IF YOU COULD COME HERE FOR A SECOND, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M INTERPRETING THIS CORRECTLY.
>> WHEN HE'S COMING UP, DAN, TREY, IS ALL OF THE SERVICES WE'RE PROVIDING FOR DOWNTOWN NOW? ARE THEY COVERED 100% BY THE PARKING FEES?
>> THE SPECIAL SERVICES DOWNTOWN, THEY PAY FOR PARKING.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY EXCESS FUNDS LEFT OVER?
>> I DON'T THINK SO. EVERYBODY'S SHAKING THEIR HEAD.
>> YOU DON'T KNOW, IT ALSO PAYS DOESN'T IT.
>> FOR ESCAPING [OVERLAPPING].
>> I JUST DON'T KNOW I'M SORRY, BUT BECAUSE OF THIS, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GROW THIS PROGRAM.
I KNOW THIS IS ONE OF MY PASSIONS.
[OVERLAPPING] BE ABLE TO NOW WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CONNECTION CORRIDORS, AND I WAS LIKE, CAN'T WE PLANT PLANTS? CAN WE DO GREEN STUFF, AND THEY'RE LIKE, WELL, NO, THEY DIE? WELL, NOW WE HAVE A TEAM OF PEOPLE THAT WATER THE PLANTS.
THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN GOING ON AND BUILDING ON ITSELF, AND I JUST AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT ANY LESS REVENUES TO IT.
>> IT MAY ACTUALLY BRING YOU MORE.
BECAUSE OUR PERCENTAGE OF COLLECTION IS SO LOW.
>> YES, RATHER GO RIGHT AHEAD.
>> NOW, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE DOWNTOWN PARKING.
THE DOWNTOWN PARKING, NOT THE UTMB.
FOR USING THE PAY BY PHONE APP, WE HAD 287,911 TRANSACTIONS.
>> WHAT'S PARK THAT WE PAY AND WE PAY HOW MUCH FEE?
>> IT WAS 20 CENTS FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
IT BECAME 30 CENTS ON AUGUST THE SEVENTH OF THIS YEAR.
THAT NUMBER THAT I GAVE YOU IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOW NUMBER BECAUSE I'M ONLY INCLUDING THE PAY BY PHONE AT PARKING.
JANUARY 1ST OF 2024 TO DECEMBER 31ST OF 2024.
[02:25:03]
>> ROUGHLY 40 OR $50,000 THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR THAT FEE.
>> I CAN TELL YOU THAT FROM THE TIME THAT THE FEE UP, LIKE THE 30 CENTS AUGUST 7TH THROUGH THE NOVEMBER 30TH.
WE PAID 26,400 AND SOME ODD DOLLAR IN TRANSACTION FEES.
>> I'M OKAY WITH MOVING TO THE TO THE 30 MINUTES AN HOUR.
I GUESS IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL.
BUT MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THE FACT THAT WE'RE EATING A SERVICE FEE COST, AND I DON'T WANT TO EAT THAT ANYMORE.
I'D LIKE TO PASS IT ON TO THE CONSUMER SO THAT WE CAN BRING IN MORE REVENUE AND NOT PAY THE TRANSACTION FEE.
>> THE MINIMUM NOW HEATHER DOWNTOWN, YOU HAVE TO BUY HOUR INCREMENTS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT IS A 1 HOUR AND MINIMUM.
>> WHAT IS THE YOU'RE PROJECTING 30 MINUTES?
>> I'M JUST SAYING TO BE ABLE TO MINIMUM HOUR 30 MINUTE.
MINIMUM OF AN HOUR, BUT YOU CAN BUY AN HOUR AND A HALF.
>> IF YOU BUY AND I WOULD SAY THIS IS IF YOU BUY AN HOUR AND A HALF UP FRONT THAT'S ONE THING.
BUT IF YOU BUY AN HOUR AND THEN YOU EXTEND A 30 MINUTE, THAT'S ANOTHER TRANSACTION FEE.
>> ACTUALLY WE'RE PAYING MORE TRANSACTION FEES BY THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS BECAUSE I'M NOT UNIQUE.
IF I'M GOING TO LUNCH, I'M BUYING AN HOUR.
THEN I'M DOING A SECOND TRANSACTION FEE TO PAY FOR THAT OTHER HOUR, EVEN THOUGH I ONLY NEED 20 MINUTES, SO I'M NOW COSTING YOU MORE WHERE IF THERE WAS AN HOUR AND A HALF, I WOULD BUY AN HOUR AND A HALF VERSUS NOW, I BUY AN HOUR, AND THEN THERE'S A SECOND TRANSACTION.
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE.
ONE, ONLINE, YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO SELECT AN HOUR AND A HALF.
>> BECAUSE OF THE WAY [OVERLAPPING] WE HAVE IT'S SET UP.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT CHANGING.
>> I KNOW, I I TOTALLY GET IT, AND I'M ON BOARD WITH IT.
I DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE COST OF IMPLEMENTATION OR WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO WITH PAY BY PHONE.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO DO THAT. BUT WE'LL GET TO THAT.
FIRST OFF, TREY, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING FOR YOU IF WE'RE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THE 30 MINUTE INCREMENTS.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT HOW YOU ESTABLISHED OR THE CURRENT RATE THAT WE HAVE NOW DOWNTOWN, THE TWO I JUST CLOSED IT.
>> DAVID, BEFORE YOU GET ROLLING, LAST MEETING, WE TALKED EVERY TRANSACTION OUT OF THE CITY'S END.
IT USED TO BE 20 CENTS AS OF AUGUST 7.
AS OF AUGUST 7, WE ARE NOW LOSING 10 CENTS PER TRANSACTION THAT WE [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE IT WENT UP 225-245, AND SO WHAT YOUR PROPOSAL IS IS TO HAVE THAT TRANSACTION COST COVERED BY THE CONSUMER.
>> BY DOING AN HOUR AND A HALF.
>> IT DOESN'T MATTER ABOUT THE HOUR AND A HALF AT THIS [OVERLAPPING].
>> EXCEPT FOR WHERE IT DOES MATTER IS BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE WILL DO AN HOUR, AND THEN BY AN INCREMENT, IT'S COSTING US A DOUBLE FEE.
WHEREAS WE HAD THAT ABILITY IN YOUR SECOND HOUR.
YOU JUST BUY AN HOUR AND A HALF, WE'RE MAKING MORE MONEY.
>> NO. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A DROP DOWN THAT SAYS AN HOUR AND A HALF, WHATEVER, SO THAT THE ADDITIONAL LENGTH OF TIME WOULD BE COVERED IN THAT SAME PROCESS FEE.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO THROW BECAUSE THINK ABOUT IT.
WHAT THEY WERE SAYING THAT WE SOMEHOW CRAMMED 225,000 PROCESSES FEE PROCESSING INTO 602 AVAILABLE PARKING SPACES.
THE PARKING ISSUE IS ALWAYS THE PARKING ISSUE, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE IN THOSE SPACES IF WE GO AND UP AND UP BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO OPTION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I STILL GET IT.
I'D LIKE TO ASK THE PARKING PEOPLE ABOUT THIS.
WE HAVE HEATHER MORRIS HERE WHO ENFORCES, AND WE HAVE MR. BRACEWELL, IS THAT CORRECT, SIR?
>> I'M THE PARKING ENFORCEMENT SUPERVISOR.
>> WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT? WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS WE DON'T WANT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE, AND DO YOU THINK THAT WE COULD INCREASE IF WE HAD AFTER A MINIMUM OF AN HOUR, YOU COULD BUY 30 MINUTE?
>> NO. YOU COULD BUY AN HOUR AND A HALF.
THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO, AND IT WOULD BE LESS THAN A TRANSACTION FEE.
>> YOUR MINIMUM WOULD BE AN HOUR AND A HALF?
>> NO. WHEN I GO TO LUNCH I BUY AN HOUR, AND THEN I'M PAYING A SECOND TRANSACTION FEE
[02:30:02]
BECAUSE I'M BUYING ANOTHER HOUR BECAUSE IT RAN OVER AN HOUR.>> I WOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING IS INSTEAD OF JUST BUYING AN HOUR I WOULD BUY AN HOUR AND A HALF, I WOULD ONLY BE ONE TRANSACTION FEE, AND WE WOULD MAKE MORE MONEY.
>> THERE'S TWO ASKS FOR ASKING PAY BY PLAN.
FIRST ASK TO GIVE THREE OPTIONS FOR YOUR INITIAL PURCHASE HOUR AND A HALF OR TWO HOURS.
THEN THE SECOND ASK IS THAT CHANGE THE AVAILABLE INCREMENT? TO ADD A 30 MINUTE INCREMENT OR JUST PURCHASE ADDITIONAL 30 MINUTE INCREMENTS, SO IT'S EITHER 30 MINUTES OR YOU CAN PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL HOUR UP TO YOUR MAX.
>> THE MOST I WILL THINK ABOUT IS 30 MINUTES.
>> THAT WOULD BE VERY EASY FOR PAY BY PLAN TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
THAT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO MAKE.
THE COST WOULD BE VERY MINIMAL.
I THINK WE WERE LOOKING AT $350, SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
>> NO. I KNOW IT'S ON THE OTHER CITY, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A CHANGE, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE COST.
>> CORRECT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A POINT TO THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADD ON AFTER YOU'VE INITIALLY SAID, HEY, I WANT AN HOUR AND A HALF, AND I PAY FOR THE HOUR AND A HALF, THAT IF I LATER ADD ON 30 MINUTES.
THAT AGAIN, THAT'S A TRANSACT SEPARATE TRANSACTION.
BUT I'M ONLY GETTING IF I PAY FOR AN HOUR, I'M THERE FOR LONGER, AND I GET PAY FOR THE EXTRA 30 MINUTES, I'M STILL ACHIEVING FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT OF SAYING, WE'RE NOT EATING THAT 30 CENT COST, AND YOU'RE CAPTURING THAT THAT WOULD BE LOST OTHERWISE.
>> WE HAVE TO SET THE RATE FOR A HALF HOUR INCREMENT?
>> THE MINIMUM HOUR, HALF HOUR INCREMENTS.
>> WHEN COUNSEL FIRST ADOPTED THIS POLICY, IT WAS SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL, NOT LIKE CATS, BUT SOMEWHAT CONTROVERSIAL, AND THE $0.25, 225, THE $0.25 WAS THE TRANSACTION FEE.
>> COUNSEL WANTED TO GET $2 AND THEN MADE IT 225 TO COVER THE TRANSACTION FEE.
>> SURE. THAT TRANSACTION FEE ON A HALF AN HOUR IS STILL $0.30.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME EXACT AMOUNT, SO YOU INCREMENTALLY MAYBE $1 FOR A HALF HOUR PLUS THE TRANSACTION WOULD BE SPENT.
>> LESS MONEY ON A HALF HOUR BECAUSE OF THE 30 CENT COST.
>> NO, YOU'RE CHARGING THE COST.
>> THREE PERCENT, $0.03 IS INCLUDED. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE 225.
>> YOU'RE MAKING IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO GO DOWNTOWN, WHICH WOULD THEN INCREASE.
>> THE MORE OPTIONS THE BETTER.
YOU JUST HAVE TO PRICE IT ACCORDINGLY.
>> I DISAGREE THAT IT IS CONVENIENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT ALSO, BUT MY BOTTOM LINE IS SIMILAR TO TRY IS, DON'T WANT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY COMING TO DOWNTOWN FOR MAINTENANCE.
>> AS OF AUGUST 7TH, WE'RE ALREADY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY COMING IN BY $0.10 FROM TRANSACTION.
>> PLUS NOT ONLY THAT MOST PEOPLE DO AN HOUR, GET A TICKET AND THEY'RE NOT PAYING IT.
>> THINK THERE'S ANY WAY OF KNOWING WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO GET MORE OR LESS MONEY UNLESS WE TRY IT THERE'S NO WAY.
>> THEN WOULD WE START OFF WITH 30 MINUTES?
>> NOBODY, SO YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME I HAVE TO BUY AN HOUR OR AN HOUR AND A HALF.
>> BUT I'M GOING IN THE STORE FOR 30 MINUTES.
>> I CAN ONLY DO 30 MINUTES. I KNOW.
BUT IF YOU MAKE THE CHANGE, IF I FEEL I NEED ONLY 30 MINUTES, I CANNOT JUST BUY 30 MINUTES.
>> I CAN ONLY DO THE ADDITION IS IF I GO OVER AN HOUR AND DO IT IN 30 MINUTES.
>> LET'S SAY YOU'RE GOING TO BUY THREE STORES, AND YOU KNOW YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO BE 30 MINUTES.
NOW, YOU'D HAVE TO BUY TWO HOURS, SO IT MIGHT DETER YOU, OR YOU'RE DOING A SECOND TRANSACTION, WHICH IS CHARGING ANOTHER TRANSACTION FEE.
SINCE IT'S ALL OF ONE ZONE, YOU COULD GO TO PARK THREE TIMES THREE DIFFERENT STORES AND ON A HOUR AND A HALF OR AN HOUR OR WHATEVER YOU WANT.
I JUST THINK IT MAKES DOWNTOWN MORE USER FRIENDLY.
WE KNOW WE DON'T HAVE COLLECTIONS.
WE'RE NOT COLLECTING THE PARKING TICKETS, AND MOST PARKING TICKETS, WOULD BE IF THERE'S A WAY TO TELL THIS, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING HOW MANY PARKING TICKETS ARE FOR OVER AN HOUR.
>> YES. ONE MORE THING, MAYBE TALKED TO THE POINT WE OUGHT TO INCREASE OUR PARKING FEES BY $0.10 IN ORDER BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, WE'RE GOING TO DIMINISH THE AMOUNT COMING TO DOWNTOWN OFF THE BAT.
>> IT OUGHT TO BE IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THE SAME MODEL, WE FOLLOWED INITIALLY, IT'S WHAT WE WANTED TO COLLECT $2 AN HOUR PLUS THE COST OF THE FEE, AND THAT WOULD BE THE ONE HOUR RATE.
THEN YOU'D HAVE IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HALF HOUR RATE,
[02:35:02]
IT WOULD BE HALF OF THE ONE HOUR RATE PLUS THE FEE.>> PLUS THE FEE. THAT'S THE WAY IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
>> THE FEE IS GOING TO BE SAY $0.40, NO MATTER WHAT, WHETHER YOU PARK AN HOUR OR 30 MINUTES, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THE 30 MINUTE OR THE HOUR RATE PLUS $0.40.
>> YES. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING FROM COUNCIL.
>> YES. IN ORDER TO KEEP OURSELF LEVEL WITH THE AMOUNT OF MONEY COMING TO DOWNTOWN?
>> $0.30 TRANSACTION FEE CURRENTLY, THAT'S UNDER A CONTRACT THAT'S GOING TO EXPIRE IN JULY, SO WE'LL BE GOING AFTER THE FIRST OF THE YEAR TENNESSEE RFP TO SEE WHAT'S THE BEST RATE THAT WE CAN GET? THAT NUMBER MAY CHANGE BECAUSE THE $0.20 THAT WE WERE PAYING WAS UNDER A FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT, AND SO THAT HAD BEEN GOING ON FOR FIVE YEARS.
WE DID A ONE YEAR EXTENSION, WHICH GOT US THE BEST RATE AT $0.30.
WE WON'T KNOW TILL WE GO OUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE BEST RATE [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE'VE ALL TALKED IN THIS ALL TIES IT IN.
WE'VE ALL TALKED ABOUT AFFORDABILITY FOR, ESPECIALLY OUR SERVICE INDUSTRY THAT BASICALLY ALLOWS OUR DOWNTOWN TO DO WHAT IT DOES.
WE'RE VERY DEPENDENT ON THEM WHETHER IT'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR THE FACT THAT MANY TIMES FOR THEM TO WORK A SHIFT AT ANY OF THE LOCATIONS DOWNTOWN, WHETHER IT'S RESTAURANT, RETAIL, OR BARS.
A LOT OF TIMES THEY GET ONE TICKET, IT EQUALS WHAT THEY MADE THAT DAY.
AS BETWEEN THE THREE OF THE HAS THERE EVER BEEN ANY DISCUSSION, HAS THAT EVER BEEN A CONSIDERATION FOR THAT SERVICE INDUSTRY OR ANYBODY THAT WORKS THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO HAVE SOME MODIFICATION.
>> I'LL JUMP IN HERE RIGHT NOW, AND I'LL TELL YOU, AGAIN, I HATE TO KEEP BRINGING UP THIS NUMBER, BUT 600 PARKING SPACES IS WHAT WE HAVE.
WHEN NO ONE LIVED DOWNTOWN, WHOLE DIFFERENT WORLD WE DIDN'T HAVE RESIDENTS.
NOW AS BUSINESSES WE HAVE OTHER EMPLOYEES, WE EITHER HAVE TO DECIDE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING FOR SHOPPING COMMERCE OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES AND RESIDENTS.
I HATE TO BE LIKE THAT, BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU SAYING.
>> NO. I UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, HAVING A BUSINESS FOR SIX YEARS DOWNTOWN, AND TICKETS THAT I'VE RECEIVED IT'S AN ISSUE.
BUT I SEE BOTH SIDES BECAUSE I HAVE SEVERAL FRIENDS THAT ALSO OWN BUSINESS AND SHOPS DOWNTOWN THAT RELY ON THAT TURNAROUND AND THAT TURNOVER.
>> THERE ARE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN THAT SUBSIDIZE THEIR EMPLOYEES WITH PARKING.
THERE ARE OTHER WAY IT'S JUST LISTEN, WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM IS, WE BUILD UP, WE NEED TO PARK IN GARAGE ON ALL OF THOSE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THAT.
IN THE MEANTIME, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS TRY TO BALANCE, AND IT IS TOUGH BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S PEOPLE I TALK TO PEOPLE ALL THE TIME THAT WORK DOWNTOWN.
THEY'RE LIKE, I CAN'T PARK AND IF I PARK, I MANAGE FOR A FAMILY.
I MANAGE PARKING LOTS DOWNTOWN IT'S COMMERCIAL RATES, CONTRACT WAS MONTHLY ARE WONDERFUL.
BUT THEY'RE EXPENSIVE. THEY'RE NOT FOR THE LINE WORKER, THEY'RE NOT FOR THE WAITER, THEY'RE NOT FOR THAT, AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT ANSWER IS.
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT FOR YEARS, BECAUSE I'D LOVE TO HAVE THE PARKING FOR PEOPLE.
BUT I TELL YOU WHAT, IF I DON'T HAVE PARKING FOR PEOPLE TO GO IN AND BUY A SHIRT AT SOME STORE, THEN THE EMPLOYEES DON'T MATTER.
>> NO, I KNOW. IT'S A TOUGH ONE.
>> THERE ARE SOME CITIES THOUGH THAT IN THEIR SHOULDER SEASON, SO LIKE SAY JANUARY, WE KNOW IT'S DEAD.
WHAT THEY DO IS THEY WAVE LOCAL, AND IT'S, I THINK, DONE BY YOUR LICENSE PLATE TO GET MORE PEOPLE TO GO DOWNTOWN.
>> WE SPEND EVERY DIME THAT WE BRING IN NOW, SO YOU'D HAVE TO SUBSIDIZE THE SERVICES PROVIDING DOWNTOWN.
I'M JUST SAYING WHAT OTHER CITIES DO.
>> THINK ABOUT EXEMPTING LOCAL.
>> BUT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT EXEMPTING.
I'M JUST SAYING THIS IS SOMETHING THEY DO LIKE A SHOULDER MONTH, ONE MONTH OUT OF THE YEAR, AND IT'S TO GET MORE PEOPLE INTO RESTAURANTS AND STORES AND OFF TIMES AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DO IT.
I'M JUST SUGGESTING IT COULD BE SOMETHING NICE FOR OUR CITIZENS, AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE RESIDENT IF I HAD A KID AT THE SAN MOIS,
[02:40:01]
LIKE IF YOU COULD JUST HELP ME WITH THIS, HE WORKS THE NIGHT SHIFT.HE HAS TO GET UP AT 8:00 A.M TO PAY HIS PARKING TICKET.
NOT A TICKET IS PARKING METER, WHICH HE DOES AND HE'S LIKE, IF YOU COULD JUST THERE WAS SOME WAY THAT I DIDN'T HAVE TO WAKE UP IN MY SLEEP TIME TO PAY IT.
>> THE TOPIC IS TO DISCUSS INCREMENT STAND.
YOU KNOW WHAT COUNSEL'S THOUGHTS ARE ON THIS.
COULD YOU WORK WITH GETTING ORDINANCE TOGETHER OR THE AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE TO ACCOMMODATE, AND WE'LL BRING IT TO COUNSEL.
COULD YOU HAVE THAT DONE BY JANUARY?
>> THE SAME WITH MAYBE WE COULD GET TOGETHER WITH LINEBERGER ON THIS.
>> I'LL HAVE THAT DOWN ALREADY HAS THAT DOWN.
>> BOB SENT ME A MESSAGE BASICALLY SAYING THAT SAN ANTONIO JUST DID IT OR EL PASO JUST JUST DID IT WITH LINE MARKER, SO WE KNOW IT'S THEY'VE GOT A MODEL FOR IT. WE'LL GET WITH THEM.
>> THERE'S REALLY NO WAY THAT I CAN THINK OF THE MODEL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY WE DO IT NOW AND THE DIFFERENCE WE'RE PROJECTING TO DO THIS IN TERMS OF THE FEES THAT WE WOULD COLLECT FOR DOWNTOWN.
I JUST DON'T SEE HOW WE COULD DO IT. IS THERE ANY WAY?
>> THERE WOULD BE BECAUSE YOU COULD TELL HOW MANY PARKING TICKETS ARE GIVEN AFTER AN HOUR DOWNTOWN.
>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TIME TO DO A PARKING STUDY BETWEEN NOW AND JANUARY.
>> NO, WE DON'T. BUT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS TRULY A COMPREHENSIVE.
>> BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF PEOPLE WHO PARK, AND YOU CAN'T IT'S DIFFICULT TO REJECT BEHAVIOR IN ANY STUDY OF ANY KIND.
THE BEHAVIOR OF A GALVESTONIAN IS THEY PARK DOWN THERE, THEY WAIT ABOUT 20, 25 MINUTES OR THEY SIT BY WINDOW SO THEY CAN SEE IF THE PARKING FORCE HAS COME BY.
THEN THEY PAY, AND THEN IF IT GOES OVER AN HOUR, THEY GO, I'LL RISK IT.
THAT'S THE GALVESTONIANS I'M ONE OF THEM.
>> IN TEXAS, IF YOU CAN'T FIND A PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF THE STORE YOU WANT TO SHOP AT IN HERE, THEN THERE'S NO PARKING ANYWHERE.
ARE YOU OKAY WITH THIS APPROACH? IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'RE HEADING TOWARDS, AS I WOULD CALL IT A PILOT, JUST ONLY BECAUSE WE NEED TO SEE WHAT THE RESULTS ARE.
>> I'M OKAY. AGAIN, MY ONLY ISSUE WITH THIS SITTING RIGHT HERE IS THAT DON'T MESS WITH THE REVENUES AND MESS WITH THE CLEANING PROGRAM THAT IS SO SUCCESSFUL DOWNTOWN.
>> I THINK YOU'LL END UP WITH MORE.
>> BUT SO SURE, YOU'LL WANT TO DO WHATEVER THAT IS, JUST MAKE SURE YOU BACKSTOP DOWNTOWN FEES THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO LOSE ANY SERVICES.
>> HERE YOU GO THAT OTHER TO BE A CHALLENGE.
>> BY THE TIME WE GOT THIS AND IMPLEMENTED AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, BUT THAT CONTRACT WILL BE UP, I GUESS FOR RENEGOTIATION, AND WE'LL KNOW MORE ABOUT THEIR FEES I GUESS.
>> IT STARTED ON JULY MAYBE AUGUST THE SEVENTH, I THINK.
>> BUT WE COULD IMPLEMENT THE 30 MINUTES BEFORE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY PLAN.
>> WE WOULD KNOW THE RESULT OF THAT BY THEN IN JANUARY, WE'LL HAVE THAT BACK TO VOTE ON.
HAVE WE TOUCHED ON WHAT YOU WANTED TO MENTION AT THAT ITEM OR IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE?
>> I THINK IT'LL FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE WANT TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION.
>> SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.
WE HAVE GONE THROUGH 3H ITEM J. I WANT TO MENTION BEFORE WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE WILL HAVE SOME CARE LAWS AT CITY HALL TONIGHT AFTERNOON.
>> I LIKE CAROLOS MUCH BETTER.
>> THAT'S YOU HAVE THEM AT CITY HALL SINGING SOME CHRISTMAS TUNES.
THEY'LL BE IN THE FOURIER AT AROUND 440, AND THEN THEY'LL BE AT CITY COUNCIL TO ENTERTAIN US WITH A FEW SONGS FOR THE CHRISTMAS TIME.
>> THOSE OF YOU WHO AREN'T IN CHRISTMAS COLORS LIKE SHARON AND I, COULD YOU PLEASE WEAR SOME CHRISTMAS GARB? WE USED TO TAKE COUNSEL CHRISTMAS TREE.
>> I FOUND MY SANITY THIS MORNING.
>> WE WENT OUT BY THE TREE. SNIP AND GO.
>> IT IS 11:52 A.M. EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEM SECTION 551.071.
[4. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071.CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE PERTAINING CONCERNING PENDING LITIGATION AND/OR SETTLEMENT OFFER, OR ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO
[02:45:03]
THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER RELATED TO THE 4A1, THE SOUTH SHORE PUMP STATION.WE ARE NOW IN MOVING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> COUNSEL, WE ARE PODCASTING.
IT IS 12:02 P.M. WE ARE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION ON DECEMBER 11, AND WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR WORKSHOP AGENDA.
WE WILL SEE EVERYBODY BACK AT 5:00 P.M. FOR THE CAROLARS COME OVER A EARLIER.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.