[00:00:03] GOOD MORNING, IT IS 9 A.M. AND IT'S MY HONOR TO CALL THE WORKSHOP TOGETHER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF GALVESTON FOR THURSDAY, APRIL 23RD. THIS IS KIND OF AN AUSPICIOUS OCCASION. I WAS THINKING THE OTHER NIGHT, THIS IS MY LAST WORKSHOP TO CALL. I WAS THINKING THE OTHER NIGHT I'VE ATTENDED MORE THAN 160 OF THESE OVER THE YEARS. EACH ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN QUITE A DELIGHT. OR SO YOU SAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO WELCOME EVERYBODY THAT'S IN THE AUDIENCE THIS MORNING. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, COUNSEL. NICE TO SEE EVERYBODY. DAVID FINKLEY WILL BE A LITTLE LATE THIS MORNING. HE'S GOT AN OBLIGATION THAT WE'LL BRING HIM HERE AROUND 10 A.M. THIS MORNING. VERY GOOD, AND I WANT TO WELCOME EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY THAT IS HERE. THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING THIS TELECAST. BEFORE WE START, I HAVE TO LEAVE PROBABLY AROUND 11.30 FOR MR. FERTITIS. VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN PERRETTA WILL BE LEAVING FOR MR. FERTITIS. VERY GOOD. WE DO HAVE A QUORUM HERE, BUT JANELLE, COULD WE HAVE A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MAYOR BROWN? PRESENT. MAYOR PRO TEM ROB? HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER LEWIS? PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN? PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER PERETTO? HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER ROLLINS? HERE. AND AS THE MAYOR MENTIONED, COUNCIL MEMBER FINKLEY WILL BE HERE AROUND 10. VERY GOOD. [3 CONFLICTS OF INTEREST] DO WE HAVE ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, COUNCIL? I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT, ITEM 4C. I'M NOT SURE IF IT PERTAINS TO PARETO BEACH AT ALL, IF I SHOULD, AND IF IT DOESN'T, I'M KIND OF UNCLEAR ON THE GUIDANCE THERE WITH THAT ITEM. I WOULD, SORRY? WELL, THE COUNCIL KNOWS THE PARAMETERS THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IN. SO IF IT GOES OFF THE RAILS, THEN I WOULD SAY YOU WOULD NEED TO LEAVE. RIGHT NOW YOU CAN TENTATIVELY SAY YOU MAY HAVE A CONFLICT, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT HOW, PARETO'S NOT LISTED AS THAT AGENDA ITEM. SO, COUNCIL JUST KEEPS TO, THEY NEED TO BE REMINISCENT OF THAT. ESPECIALLY SINCE THEIRS WAS ACTUALLY LEGALLY OBTAINED. I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A CONFLICT. WE'LL SEE HOW THE CONVERSATION GOES. YEAH. LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE DISCUSSION WILL BE MORE OF A GENERIC DISCUSSION. PERFECT. IT'S NOT PINPOINTING ANYTHING, I THINK, IN THE PROPERTY THAT YOU'RE ALLUDING TO, SO I THINK IT'LL BE FINE. OKAY. SOUNDS GOOD. ALSO, BEFORE WE START, MARIE, I NEED TO ASK YOU, I HAVE TOLD THAT THERE MAY BE A WITHDRAWAL OF 4L. DO YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW THAT OR NOT? 4L, I ACTUALLY WANNA DEFER IT TO OUR NEXT MEETING. BECAUSE AS I LOOKED INTO THE SITUATION, IT MAY BE MORE OF A MARSHALL ISSUE THAN A PARKING ISSUE. AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH AT OUR LAST MEETING TOO, AND HAD PEOPLE TESTIFY ON THAT. WELL, NOT ABOUT THE MARSHALL SIDE OF THINGS. THAT'S WHY I WANT TO DEFER TO THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO VISIT ON 4L THIS MORNING, JUST FOR EVERYBODY'S KNOWLEDGE ON THAT. SOUNDS GOOD. [4.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) ] ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 4A, PLEASE. YES, ALEX. I'LL JUST READ THE ITEM AND I'LL ASK IT. ITEM 4A, 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. YES, ALEX. SO I HEARD SOME COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE YESTERDAY AT THE DEPARTMENT HEAD MEETING THAT I BELIEVE HAVE BEARING ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, AND I WANT TO GET COUNCIL'S OPINION ON IT AND ASK THE CITY MANAGER A QUESTION. SURE. SO YESTERDAY, THERE WERE SOME ITEMS REFERENCED ON THE AGENDA, WHICH BOB BROWN'S WORKED DILIGENTLY ON, THE PROJECT ROSENBERG AND CONVEYANCE OF THE SCHOOL PROPERTY, REFERRED TO AS A VICTORY LAP. THIS MEETING WAS DOWNPLAYED, AND DEPARTMENT HEADS WERE TOLD TO BE SPECTATORS, THAT NO POLICIES TODAY WILL COME UP AT THE NEXT COUNCIL, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE ARE ALONG FOR THE RIDE AND IT'S REFERRING [00:05:02] TO CITY COUNCIL. IT'S THEIR PART, WE'RE JUST SWINGING IN IT. REFERENCED COUNCILMAN BEAU ROLLINS AS AN EVICTED ORPHAN DIRECTED TO A DEPARTMENT HEAD SOLICITING A RESPONSE. MADE MORE DISPARAGING REMARKS ABOUT THE INTERIM CITY ATTORNEY, UNDERMINED THIS COUNCIL IN THE MEETING AGAIN BY REFERENCING THE ELECTION. CANDIDATES RUNNING AGAINST STAFF VERSUS RUNNING AGAINST THEIR OPPONENTS. THAT STAFF WAS THE ONLY CONSTANT AND THE ONLY THINGS THAT KEEP THINGS MOVING. MY QUESTION TO BRIAN IS, DO YOU THINK IT'S RESPECTFUL TO COUNCIL AND YOUR SALARIED STAFF TO MAKE REMARKS LIKE THIS AND EXPECT THERE NOT TO BE TENSION BETWEEN STAFF AND COUNCIL WHEN WE ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? I THINK, SURE. BRIAN, BEFORE WE START ON THIS. THAT'S NOT AN AGENDA ITEM. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR IT'S ABOUT THE IT'S THE QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE ASKING BETWEEN THE AGENDA ITEMS. SO I'M I GET IT, BUT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE MADE STATEMENTS AMONGST A MEETING AMONG THE LEADERSHIP OF THE CITY. UNLESS THERE'S A SPECIFIC ITEM THAT YOU HAVE A QUESTION TO, THAT'S WHAT THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE AGENDA FOR IS ABOUT IT'S NOT ABOUT A CONVERSATION OR STAFF MEETING SO TO SPEAK AND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE CONFIDENCE WHAT WAS SAID IN OUR STAFF MEETING I WOULD LIKE IT TO FOCUS ON A SPECIFIC ITEM I UNDERSTAND BRIAN YOU CAN RESPOND BUT I'M TELLING YOU RIGHT NOW THAT THAT'S NOT HOW THE AGENDA OR RESPECT LET ME ASK THIS ALEX ARE YOU WOULD YOU LIKE TO PINPOINT YOUR COMMENTS TO A SPECIFIC ITEM ON THE AGENDA? I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE ALL CONSENT ITEMS BECAUSE FROM WHAT I HEARD YESTERDAY, IT SEEMS TO BE, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, A NORM. AND THE COMMENTS ABOUT WE HAVE TO ASK STAFF QUESTIONS. THIS IS EVERY WORKSHOP 4A HAS TO DO WITH THE CONSENT ITEMS. HAS TO DO WITH OUR AGENDA PACKETS. AND FOR STAFF TO BE TOLD TO SPECTATE, THERE'S AN ENGAGEMENT THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE. AND I THINK DISPARAGING COMMENTS TOWARDS COUNCIL PEOPLE CREATE A STAFF VERSUS COUNCIL CONFLICT THAT I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST ADDRESS THAT THERE'S NO CONFLICT BETWEEN STAFF. AND COUNCIL AND THAT WE APPROPRIATELY ADDRESS THIS. ALSO, I'D LIKE TO GET COUNCIL'S GUIDANCE ON HOW WE PROCEED WITH THIS COUNCIL BECAUSE THIS IS OUR LAST SCHEDULED MEETING ON HOW WE PROCEED WITH THIS BECAUSE I DON'T FIND IT APPROPRIATE. I THINK IT'S INSUBORDINATION. IT'S WHOLLY INAPPROPRIATE, THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE YESTERDAY. AND I'M PROFESSIONAL. WELL. LET ME SAY THIS TO MAKE A STATEMENT ON THAT. I UNDERSTAND TO GET INTO A DISCUSSION THIS IS NOT ON OUR AGENDA TO DISCUSS THIS NOW LET ME SAY THIS I'M GOING TO ALLOW BRIAN TO SAY A FEW WORDS AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON AND IF THIS COUNCIL WANTS TO TRY TO PUT ON AN ITEM FOR THE NEXT MEETING WE'RE HOPING WE CAN DO THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT FIRST IF YOU ACTUALLY BREATHE THE ITEM, CLARIFICATION OF CONSENT AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS. WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL TO ASK STAFF ON CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDAS. WELL, THIS WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION HAVING TO DO WITH CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDAS. THEN IT SEEMS TO FIT TOGETHER. BUT I ALSO LIKE TO MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT SPECIFICALLY ON THE ROSENBERG SCHOOL PROPERTY. NO, NO, THAT'S WHAT HE SAID FIRST AND I AM COMMENTING BECAUSE IT IS AN AGENDA ITEM. WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING TO THAT ITEM IN 4B. THAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT ALEX TALKED ABOUT. WE'LL BE GETTING TO THAT ITEM IN 4B COMING UP HERE. NO, BUT IT TIES INTO WHAT HE'S SAYING AND IF YOU WOULD LET ME FINISH. YOU MIGHT UNDERSTAND. LET'S MAKE THAT CLEAR. GO AHEAD. OKAY, SO I CALLED JANELLE RIGHT AFTER THE LAST MEETING AND TOLD HER THAT I WANTED TO PUT THE ROSENBERG SCHOOL PROPERTY ON. [00:10:03] AND SHE ADDED MY NAME TO THIS AGENDA ITEM, AND YOU REMOVED IT FROM THE AGENDA. AGENDA ITEM. THAT IS INCORRECT. NOW WE'RE ON THEN YOU FORGOT TO ADD IT. YES, THAT'S EXACT THAT IS INCORRECT. SO WE'RE GETTING OFF OUR TOPICS HERE AND I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW ANY MORE DISCUSSION THAT'S NOT ON THIS AGENDA FOR THE SAKE OF THE COMMUNITY ON THAT. IF COUNCIL WANTS TO PUT AN ITEM ON HERE, AS YOU MENTIONED, ALEX FOR OUR NEXT WORKSHOP MEETING TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES, I'M VERY OPEN TO CONSIDER THAT. I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE MORE PRESSING THAN THAT, BUT WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION. SO YOU DON'T THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CITIZENS TO HEAR WHAT TRULY HAPPENS AT CITY HALL? I THINK THAT'S KIND OF IF WE HAVE A NIGHT I'M HAPPY TO SHARE WHAT REALLY HAPPENS AT CITY HALL. JUST ONE SECOND, BRIAN. I'M VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S NOT ON OUR AGENDA TO DISCUSS THAT. THIS ITEM 4A IS FOR CLARIFICATION OF THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA, AND THAT'S WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS. BRIAN, I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO SAY A FEW WORDS SINCE ALEX BROUGHT THAT UP. I'M HAPPY TO. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON. THIS HAS BEEN PROBABLY THE ROUGHEST ELECTION ON CITY STAFF SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE FOR 15 YEARS. ARTICLES HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE NEWSPAPER TALKING ABOUT WHOLESALE CHANGES IN CITY STAFF BY CERTAIN CANDIDATES THAT ARE RUNNING. WE'VE HAD A RASH OF RETIREMENTS FROM SOME LONG-TIME EMPLOYEES BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO PUT UP WITH IT ANYMORE. I'M DOING MY BEST TO KEEP WHAT IS AN EXCELLENT TEAM TOGETHER. WE'VE HAD STAFF BULLIED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO KEEP IT TOGETHER. I'M NOT GOING TO, IF WE WANT TO GO INTO DETAIL, I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT IT. WE ARE NOT GOING INTO DETAIL. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS. IN RELATION TO BOB'S THING, I DID SAY YES, BOB'S GOT IT ON HERE. HE'S GONNA TAKE A VICTORY LAP BECAUSE HOW LONG HAVE WE BEEN WORKING ON ROSENBERG PARK HERE? I THINK THAT WAS VERY APPROPRIATE. I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD STATEMENT. MY STATEMENT ABOUT US BEING SPECTATORS IS THAT THIS IS THE LAST MEETING OF THE YEAR. IF YOU'VE BEEN IN ANY OF MY STAFF MEETINGS OR BEEN A PARTICIPANT, WHOEVER SPOKE TO YOU OR SHARED WITH YOU, THAT'S SOMETHING I SAY AT THE LAST MEETING BEFORE EVERY ELECTION BECAUSE THE WHOLE COUNCIL IS UP EVERY SINGLE ELECTION. WE LISTENED AND WE WILL TAKE NOTES AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD. WE'RE NOT GOING TO START ISSUING OR STARTING NEW POLICY INITIATIVES WITH A COUNCIL THAT COULD VERY WELL CHANGE. THAT'S WHY THAT STATEMENT WAS MADE. WE'RE HERE TO SPECTATE TODAY, TO LISTEN, AND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHATEVER THIS COUNCIL DECIDES. I CAN'T TELL YOU. IF YOU'D LIKE TO LIST THE THINGS THAT I HAVEN'T ACCOMPLISHED THAT YOU'VE TOLD ME, THAT'S FINE. I FIND THIS HIGHLY, I THINK FOR THE PUBLIC THAT'S LISTENING, THIS IS THE EXACT REASON I HAD THAT TALK WITH STAFF YESTERDAY. THIS EXACT BEHAVIOR. ALL RIGHT, BRIAN, WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT AT THAT. ALEX, IF YOU'LL GET WITH JANELLE, LET HER KNOW HOW YOU'D LIKE THE WORDING ON THAT NEXT AGENDA SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT, LET'S READ 4A, PLEASE, MA'AM. JANELLE? HAVE WE ALREADY READ THAT? OKAY. VERY GOOD. SHARON, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO CLARIFY ON THE AGENDA HERE? YES, MAYOR. LET'S LOOK AT 12B. 12B. YES, MA'AM. DID YOU SAY 12B? YEAH, UNLESS MY FINGERS TYPED IT WRONG. WELL, WE'VE GOT THAT COMING UP ON 4B. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. SO I WON'T DO THAT. ALL RIGHT. 11C. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. JUST A SIMPLE CLARIFICATION ON, I KNOW THAT BECAUSE THEY WENT IN AND THEY FOUGHT SOME OTHER DAMAGE AND SO IT INCREASED THE COST. BUT WHAT STEPS ARE IN PLACE TO PREVENT FUTURE MOVING SITUATIONS? THE CROZIER, MIKE, COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF? MIKE SHAHAN, I'M THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR. WE TOOK THE SKIN OFF THE OUTSIDE OF THE HANGAR. DOOR AND THEN ALSO THE INSULATION ON THE INSIDE OF THE HANGAR DOOR. SO WHEN THEY WERE GIVING US QUOTES, WE COULDN'T SEE THE ACTUAL FRAME. SO THERE HAD BEEN SOME ROOF LEAKS. WELL, THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE WERE CHANGING THE SHEET [00:15:06] METAL, LEAKING AND STUFF LIKE THAT. SO WE'VE ALREADY REPAIRED THE ROOF LEAK WITH THE NEW SHEET METAL, NEW INSULATION. WE'RE IN GALVESTON. IT WON'T PREVENT IT. IT'LL HOPEFULLY SLOW IT DOWN. ALL RIGHT. JUST IT WAS JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION ON THE COMMUNICATION AND THE PROCESS AND MAYBE FOR FUTURE SINCE WE KNOW THE WEATHER THAT WE HAVE HERE THAT MAYBE WE'RE DIGGING UNDER THE SAME SITUATION FOR HOUSES IF WE'RE REHABBING THANK YOU NOT MAKING ANY ACCUSATIONS JUST GETTING CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I KNOW OUR MAX IS 15 I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT HOW SEEMS LIKE WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH PROTECTING ADJACENT AIRPLANES AND PROPERTY FROM CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING ON AROUND THERE. HOW ARE WE PROTECTING ADJACENT PROPERTY AND AIRPLANES? WELL, FOR LIKE OUR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, WE'VE GOT BARRICADES ALL THE WAY AROUND. THEN CONTRACTORS IS ALSO IN TENDER. LIKE YESTERDAY, THEY WERE PULLING CONCRETE, SO THEY HAD TO BE OUT ON THE MAIN RAMP. SO THEY'VE GOT A VACUUM TRUCK, AND THEY VACUUM IT UP AND CLEAN IT UP AFTERWARDS. SO THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACTOR'S BEEN DOING A BETTER JOB THAN SOME CONTRACTORS IN THE PAST. SO DO YOU CONTEMPLATE ANY EXTRA OR ADDITIONAL COSTS COME UP FOR THAT OR THAT'S COMPLETED, THAT JOB? THE HANG-DYE? NO, IT WAS COMPLETE. THAT WAS THEY FOUND THAT EXTRA CORROSION IN THE FRAME, SO IT WAS BEST TO GO AHEAD AND CUT IT OUT AND REPLACE IT THAN IT WAS TO JUST COVER IT BACK UP. SO THAT PROJECT'S COMPLETED. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. ALRIGHT, 11H. 11H. JUST IN THE GRANT AWARD, ON THE $300,000 GRANT, THE PART FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR SERVICES, IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE $300,000? YES. OKAY, SO THAT IS PART OF THAT. YES, MA'AM. TESSA, COULD YOU LET THEM KNOW WHO YOU WERE THERE PLEASE? TESSA ROBLESKI, DIRECTOR OF DISASTER RECOVERY GRANTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 11K. OKAY. GOOD MORNING, CHIEF. HOW ARE YOU? JUST TO CONFIRM, ALL OF THIS COST IS GOING TO BE THROUGH THE TECH STOCK GRANT. DOES IT INCLUDE OVERTIME? THIS IS FOR THE FERRY. YES, MA'AM. AND SO, WHICH IS AN OVERTIME DETAIL THAT THEY COVER AT THE RATE OF THE OFFICER'S PAY. AND WHAT YOU'LL BE APPROVING TODAY IS ESSENTIALLY THAT THE CONTRACT HAD TO GO BACK. FOR THE HOURLY FEMA RATE FOR THE VEHICLES THAT ARE USED OUT THERE, AND THE WORDING WAS WRONG, AND IT WAS CAUGHT BY MR. BUCKLEY, AND SO IT WENT BACK TO TXDOT. TXDOT IS CORRECTING THAT, AND THEN WE'LL SEND IT FORWARD. SO TXDOT PAYS FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE OFFICER'S OVERTIME RATE AS WELL AS THE FEMA RATE FOR THE VEHICLE. AWESOME. THANK YOU. WHILE HE'S UP HERE, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF KUDOS FROM THE POLICE ASSOCIATION AND THEIR DONATION FOR SEVERAL GALVESTON COMMUNITY POLICE FOUNDATION. YES, AWESOME. I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE. J&L. THEY'VE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB FOR US. YES, I JUST WANT TO SAY KUDOS. THERE IT IS RIGHT THERE. THANK YOU. FOR ENHANCED PROTECTION. YES, MA'AM. LAST ONE THERE, I THINK. I HAD A COMMENT ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE COMMUNITY POLICE FOUNDATION, AND I AM PROUD TO SERVE ON THAT BOARD AS WELL AS BE A FOUNDATION. MEMBER BECAUSE WE HAVE REALLY BEEN ABLE TO STRENGTHEN OUR POLICE FORCE WITH ALL THE ITEMS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET, INCLUDING THE NEW HORSE TRAILER FROM TWO VERY AMAZING PEOPLE THAT DONATED THAT. ALL THE SWAT VESTS, THE SHIELDS, NEW SADDLES FOR OUR HORSES, AND I JUST THANK THE WHOLE TEAM SO MUCH. IT'S FANTASTIC. THEY'RE WONDERFUL PARTNERS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND WE ARE VERY GRATEFUL FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING FOR US. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 11M. [00:20:03] 11M. GOOD MORNING. JUST A QUICK QUESTION. THE SAVINGS IN THAT PROJECT. IS IT GOING TO BE REALLOCATED OR REMADE? YES, IT WILL REVERT BACK TO THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION FROM WHICH THEY WERE PAID FOR OUT OF. AND SO, YEAH, THAT $1.6 MILLION, THE TREATMENT PLAN IS FULLY ONLINE. WE RECONCILED ALL THE QUANTITIES BID VERSUS, YOU KNOW, THE QUANTITIES ACTUALLY USED. AND IT RESULTED IN A SAVINGS OF $1.6 MILLION. I BELIEVE THEY'RE PAID FOR OUT OF THE 2022 CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. SO THAT'S THE FUND THAT WILL RECEIVE A REFUND TO THE TAXPAYERS. AND I REALLY WANT TO GIVE HATS OFF TO ROB WINNIKEE AND THE WHOLE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT TEAM FOR ACTIVELY MANAGING THIS PROJECT AND BRINGING THESE SAVINGS BACK TO OUR CUSTOMERS AND OUR RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES. KUDOS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU UH BRANDON SO HE COULDN'T BE HERE BECAUSE HE'S ON A CRUISE RIGHT NOW HE DOESN'T DESERVE CRUISE TIME AND THAT'S BRANDON COOK UH ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER YEAH I HAVE A QUESTION UM IT'S GREAT TO SEE THESE SAVINGS BUT HOW MANY CHANGE ORDERS WERE THERE BEFORE THIS FOR EXTRA COSTS UM I THINK THIS IS CHANGE ORDER NUMBER THREE SO WHAT WERE THE FIRST I'D HAVE TO GET WITH ROB AND DEFER TO HIM ON THAT. WE CAN GET YOU THAT INFORMATION. I THINK THEY WERE INCREASES. YOU'VE GOT YOUR UPS AND DOWNS ON IT. SO I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT THE TOTAL SAVINGS ACTUALLY WAS COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL BID. IT WAS ALMOST 1.7, 1.678 UNDER WHAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZED UNDER THAT PROJECT. BUT ON WHICH CHANGE ORDER? THAT'S MY QUESTION. I CAN PULL THAT INFORMATION AND GET IT FOR YOU. OKAY, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. WE'LL HAVE IT BY THIS AFTERNOON. OKAY, THANK YOU. YOU'LL SEND THAT TO ALL OF US, COUNSEL. PLEASE LET THEM KNOW. OKAY, THANK YOU. IS THAT SURE? OKAY, THAT'S IT, MA'AM. OH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. ALEX? 11-N. 11-N. GOOD MORNING. IN AS IN NANCY. IN AS IN NANCY. IN NANCY. CHARLES KENWORTHY, DIRECTOR OF FACILITIES. SO ARE WE ON TRACK TO GET DONE BY SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER FOR THIS YEAR FOR AUDITOR'S OFFICE? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT'S THE PROJECTED SCHEDULE. AND IF THINGS PUSH BACK FURTHER, WOULD IT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH? WITH LEASING IT AND CLOSING OFF THE UM THEY MAY HAVE TO DELAY CLOSING OFF THAT AREA DEPENDS ON THE TIMELINE IF IT'S EXTENDED ANOTHER MONTH HE'LL JUST DELAY CLOSING IT OFF FOR ANOTHER MONTH AND WE'LL PAY THE 5 000 OKAY A MONTH AND THEN ONCE ONCE GALENA THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE COMES BACK HERE THEN THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR GRANTS AND HOUSING IS THROUGH FEDERAL DOLLARS OKAY MY MY QUESTION I HAD ON THAT WAS, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT EXTENDING THE LEASE FOR A YEAR WITH AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL FOR A SECOND YEAR RIGHT BUT YOU SAID IT SHOULD BE FINISHED BY THAT'S A GOOD HOUSING DEPARTMENT I MEAN I'M SORRY THAT WAY THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE CAN MOVE TO CITY HALL GOTCHA AND HOUSING WILL REMAIN THERE GOTCHA THAT WAS MY QUESTION THANK YOU AND IF IT PUSHES PAST I GUESS 20 OR JUNE 27 THEN IT'LL IT'LL RENEW YEAH OH, WITH THE ADDITIONAL $5,000, OR IS THIS BEING NO, THE REDUCED AMOUNT, BECAUSE THE AUDITOR'S OFFICE WILL BE HERE. OH, OKAY. SO WE'RE THEN WE'RE SOLELY ON WE'RE BUDGETING FOR THE HIGHER AMOUNT, AND THEN THAT IS CORRECT. IF WE GET IT ON SCHEDULE, THEN THEY MOVE OVER, AND WE PAY THE REDUCED AMOUNT FOR THE NEXT YEAR. RICH, I WANT TO THANK, WHEN'S YOUR LAST STAY WITH US? 8-29. WELL, CONGRATULATIONS, AND GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. YOU'VE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB. WHAT RADIO STATION WILL YOU BE GOING TO? CLASSIC ROCK. ALL RIGHT. IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR NEEDS AND MY GLADNESS. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I'M GOING TO DEFER THAT. I'LL DEFER. OKAY, BOB? 11BB. THE FLEXIBILITY RATE INCREASE ACCEPTANCE. [00:25:05] YOU SAID 11BB? YES. THE INCREASE OF MAXIMUM ACCESS LINE RATE. ACCEPTING THE INCREASED CALCULATED COST CONDITIONS. YES. I'M TREVOR FANNING, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. THOSE ARE FEES THAT PEOPLE PAY US FOR USE OF OUR ACCESS LINES, AND THEY'VE GONE UP FOR INFLATION, BASICALLY. SO WE'RE AGREEING TO THAT. WE RECEIVED NOTICE THAT IT HAPPENED, AND IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING BY A CERTAIN DATE, THE INCREASE IS AUTOMATIC. IN THE PAST, I'VE SEEN THAT PASSED A FORMAL RESOLUTION SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO JUST TO PUT IT TO BED OKAY SO YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE AN OPTION BUT WE COULD FIGHT IT I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD FIGHT IT THIS IS AN INCREASE OF MONEY THAT SOMEONE WOULD PAY US YEAH YOU EITHER TAKE ACTION NOW OR IT AUTOMATICALLY HAPPENS THAT'S CORRECT OKAY THAT'S THAT'S ALL I NEEDED ON THAT ONE UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE HAS QUESTIONS I'VE GOT 11 DD THANK YOU. 11DD, SUSPENDING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE PROPOSAL BY THE GAS SERVICE COMPANY. ANOTHER ONE, I THINK FOR TREVOR. YES, THAT'S ONE. IT TALKS ABOUT SOMETHING CALLED THE GRIP RATE. YES, SIR. KEEP PLAYING WITH THAT. WE'RE IN THE GULF COAST COALITION OF CITIES, THE GCCC, AND THEY ACT AS A HUB FOR US IN LOCAL CITIES WITH GAS RATES AND ELECTRICITY RATES. THESE GRIP RATES I JUST ATTENDED THEIR MEETING. I'M THE SECRETARY. THE GRIP, WE CAN'T FIGHT IT, FIGHT IT. ALL WE CAN DO IS DELAY IT THROUGH THIS ACTION. THERE'S OTHER INCREASES IN WHICH THEY FILE CASES. THEY'VE HAD SOME SUCCESS RECENTLY ON ONE OF THE CASES. WITH THESE GRIP RATE INCREASES, ALL WE CAN DO IS DELAY IT UNTIL IMPLEMENTATION, 45 DAYS. OKAY, 45 DAYS. WE'RE JUST BUYING 45 DAYS OF OUR CURRENT RATE. OF COURSE. AND IT GOES UP. YES, IT DOES. OKAY. AND THERE'S NO STOPPING IT. OKAY. I ANSWERED MY QUESTION. YES. IN PLAIN ENGLISH, THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. VERY GOOD. BO, DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK TO USE CERTAIN PLACES? WELL, I CAN. I FINISHED EATING, SO I THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION ON 8B. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. CAN YOU EXPLAIN OR GIVE THE UPDATES ABOUT WHAT THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL AND ADDING ALCOHOL AND DOING IN VARIOUS. SO THE REQUEST IS THE HOTEL THAT WAS KNOWN AS THE END OF THE WATER PARK. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ITS CURRENT NAME IS. THERE'S A BUILDING THERE WHERE THERE WAS A RESTAURANT. THE NEW OWNERS OR OPERATORS OF THE HOTEL ARE INTERESTED IN OPENING ANOTHER RESTAURANT IN THAT BUILDING. AND THE ISSUE IS THE DISTANCE OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE SCHOOL. SCHOOL TO OFF THE ELEMENTARY. SO THAT THE DISTANCE WHEN YOU'RE DOING ALCOHOL SALES IS MEASURED IN DIFFERENT WAYS. WHEN IT IS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE ALCOHOL SALES AND A SCHOOL, IT'S PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE. BECAUSE THE HOTEL IS ON THE SAME PROPERTY AS THE AIRPORT, IT'S A VERY LARGE PARCEL, DIRECTLY ABUTS THE PARCEL FOR THE SCHOOL. SO THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPERTY LINES IS ZERO FEET BECAUSE THEY ABUT. THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES ARE 553 FEET APART. AND THEN I DID ALSO A MEASUREMENT DOOR-TO-DOOR. WHEN YOU'RE DOING CHURCHES, THE DISTANCE FROM CHURCHES, THE MEASUREMENT IS DOOR-TO-DOOR, SO PEOPLE MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN THAT. IT'S 1,166 FEET. SO THEY ARE FAR APART. IT'S THAT THE PROPERTY LINES ARE BUT, WHICH IS WHY THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED. SO THEN THIS WOULD SET A PRECEDENT ON ANY PROPERTY LINES THAT ABUT. IF WE DO APPROVAL OF THIS, WE COULD END UP SETTING A PRECEDENT ON OTHER PROPERTIES NEAR SCHOOLS OR CHURCHES. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY, BUT I BET SHE'D SAY THAT EVERYTHING'S ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. THAT IS CORRECT. WELL, I'LL GO ON KIDS, BUT I TEND TO NOT THINK. MORE VAPE SHOPS AND KIDS. IT'S NOT A SO, ANYWAY, JUST MY OPINION. OH, AND THEN BOB. HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMMUNICATION WITH GISD AS FAR AS THEM SIGNING OFF OR THEM APPROVING THIS? I'VE NOT GOTTEN ANY COMMUNICATION FROM GISD. [00:30:01] WOULD THEY BE A STEP TO APPROVE FIRST? IT'S NOT REQUIRED. THE CODE GIVES THE APPLICANT THE ABILITY TO ASK CITY COUNCIL FOR THE VARIANCE SO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS NO SAY SO IN THIS IN THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST NO THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT THAT UM THEY MAKE A ANY KIND OF FINDING ON IT SO THEY'RE NOT NOTIFIED THEY'RE NOTIFIED LIKE ANY OTHER PROPERTY OWNER DO THEY HAVE A RESPONSE I'VE NOT RECEIVED A RESPONSE FROM THEM CATHERINE IF I MAY UM THE FOLKS THAT ARE POSSIBLY INVOLVED ARE NOTIFIED AS KATHERINE JUST STATED. ALSO, IF AN ENTITY DID HAVE AN ISSUE, THEY COULD ALWAYS PROTEST IT DIRECTLY TO TABC AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S HAPPENED. SO AGAIN, EACH CASE IS LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY AND COUNCIL HAS GRANTED OR NOT GRANTED A VARIANCE BASED ON THE DIFFERENCES AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS BRINGING TO THE TABLE AS TO WHY A VARIANCE. APPROPRIATE IN THAT SITUATION AND AS CATHERINE ALREADY STATED THERE'S QUITE SOME DISTANCE FROM DOOR-TO-DOOR WHICH MAKES THE AIRPORT PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM NECESSARILY THE CORNER STORE TO THE DAYCARE CENTER AND THOUGH I DID YOUR CONVERSATION THAT DR. NEYMAN AND SAMANTHA ON BOARD WITH OKAY VERY GOOD, BOB. I GUESS WE'D HAVE TO HEAR THAT FROM THEM. I HEARD THE SAME THING THAT NEIGHBORS IN SMECA WERE ON BOARD. THEY SAID IT DIDN'T NEED TO GO TO A VOTE OF GISD BECAUSE IT WAS CONSIDERED. I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN PROBABLY FILL IT IN ON THAT. SO WHAT OTHER PROPERTIES ABUT THE SCHOOL THAT ARE ALSO A ZERO-LOT LINE THAT MAY HAVE SOME CONFLICT? I MEAN, IS MOODY GARDENS? ON THE SAME PROPERTY LINE? RIGHT. MOODY GARDENS IS ON THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, THE AIRPORT'S A VERY LARGE PARCEL. TAKES IN, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE AIRPORT AND OTHER THINGS LIKE MOODY GARDENS AND ALSO THE BUSINESSES ALONG STEWART'S TIN CUP IS ALSO ON AIRPORT PROPERTY. OKAY. SO THEY WOULD HAVE THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCE? IF THEY WERE COMING FOR A NEW TABC LICENSE, THEY'D HAVE THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCE. RENEWING ONE, THEY'RE CONSIDERED GRANDFATHERED. OKAY. AND ONE LAST QUESTION, IS ANY OTHER FORMER OPERATOR HAD A LICENSED CELL BEER AND WINE THERE? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BUT I CAN FIND OUT FOR THE MEETING THIS AFTERNOON. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, BRADY? YES, I DO. 11A. 11A. THANK YOU, CATHERINE. 11A. GOOD MORNING, SHEILA. GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SHEILA, IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY YOURSELF. SHEILA LUDANI, CFO. COULD YOU JUST GIVE ME MORE DETAIL ON WHAT EXACTLY WE'RE DOING HERE? SO THIS IS THE ANNUAL HOUSEKEEPING ITEM TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH THE TAX COLLECTOR ASSESSOR FOR ALL OF THE STATE PROPERTY TAXES. SO OUR TAX BILLS ARE PART OF THE COUNTY TAX BILL AND WE CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR TO ACHIEVE THAT. WE DO THIS REGULARLY. THE DIFFERENCE THIS YEAR IS THERE'S A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE COST BUT HER COSTS OVER AT THE GALVESTON COUNTY TAX OFFICE ARE INCREDIBLY REASONABLE AND SO WE'RE MOVING FROM 21 CENTS PER PARCEL TO 27 FOR PARCEL FOR THAT TAX BILL. AND SO. WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS. IT IS THE BEST GAME IN TOWN TO GET THOSE TAX BILLS OUT TO OUR RESIDENTS. SO DID WE EVER HEAR THE FINAL ONE? THEY CHANGED OUR NUMBER AND HOW IT TIES INTO THIS PARCEL OF PROPERTIES THAT WE'RE PROTESTING. DID WE EVER GET A FINAL NUMBER SINCE YOU HAD LOWERED IT SO MUCH? SO THE PROTESTS ARE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THIS CONTRACT. THIS CONTRACT IS STRICTLY FOR THE BILLING OF WHATEVER TAXES WE APPROVE. COLLECT. WELL, SO IT IS. SO COLLECT. BECAUSE IT'S ARE WE COLLECTING THE ONE THAT YOU PULLED OUT OR AREN'T WE? SO THAT'S ALL WITH THE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT. THAT PROCESS IS WITH THE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT. AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE ARE NOT, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S STILL WITH THE COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND. BUT IT'S UNRELATED TO THIS CONTRACT. OKAY. [00:35:01] ALL RIGHTY. THANK YOU. VERY GOOD, BOB. I JUST HAD A QUESTION. SO THERE'S A $0.06 INCREASE PER PARCEL. CORRECT. AND WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN IN TERMS OF DOLLARS? YOU GOT ANY IDEAS ABOUT YOUR VIEW OF THAT? WELL, IT'S ABOUT ROUGHLY LIKE A FOURTH AGAIN INCREASE, RIGHT? SO IT WAS AT 21 CENTS. SO IT'S GOING TO BE AN INCREASE. DOLLAR-WISE, I HAVEN'T RUN THE NUMBERS TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. HOW MANY PARCELS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? I WANT TO SAY IN THE RANGE OF 40,000. THAT'S A GUESS. I CAN GET YOU ALL THE NUMBERS. AS YOU SAID, DIVIDED GOES UP MORE. THERE YOU GO. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF I KNEW THE MATH AND JUST GET AN IDEA. YEAH, BUT I CAN GET YOU ALL THOSE NUMBERS FOR THE TAX. STILL A DEAL. YEAH. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU ALL WERE HERE. WE USED TO, YEARS AGO, COLLECTED ITS OWN TAXES. THIS WAS A GREAT THING THAT THE COUNTY DID BACK UNDER CHUCK WILSON AS THE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR BEFORE CHERYL EVEN GOT THERE TO COLLECT FOR THE COUNTY TO DO THE COLLECTION RATE ON THE TAXES. IT USED TO BE. EVERY ENTITY HAD THEIR OWN TAX COLLECTION GROUP, GSD, AND THE CITY OF GALVESTON. SO THIS IS SAFE. IT'S STILL A BARGAIN. THERE'S NO WAY THE CITY COULD DO IT FOR THAT PRICE. IT'S STILL A BARGAIN. OKAY, THANKS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SHEILA. YES, MARIE? I GUESS YOU COULD KIND ON TWO, AND IT'S TESA, 11E AND 11H. 11H. I KNOW, BUT I WANT TO KNOW HOW THESE TIE TOGETHER. OH, OKAY. 11E AND 11H. BECAUSE IT'S UNUSUAL TO ME, OR SHEETS USED TO, AT LEAST THE SCHEDULE WOULD GATHER THINGS THAT WERE SIMILAR, AND THAT THESE ARE SEPARATED MADE NO SENSE TO ME. SO I THOUGHT 11E IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE GLO WHEN WE MOVE INTO A NEW GRANT. EVERY TIME WE HAVE TO SUBMIT AND APPROVE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORIES, THAT'S TYPICALLY CITY MANAGER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, FINANCIAL PERSON. AND THEY MAKE US CHANGE THIS UNDER EVERY GRANT CONTRACT. SO IT'S SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING WHO CAN SIGN OUR REIMBURSEMENT, OUR DRAW REQUEST, OR WHO CAN SIGN CONTRACTS ONCE THEY'RE APPROVED. AND THEN 11H IS REFERRING TO THE GRANT ADMINISTRATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT SIGNATORIES BUT THE SPECIFIC PROGRAMS HOW DO WE MONITOR WHERE THEY'RE DONE OR WHAT IT'S DONE? WHERE WHAT IS DONE? THE OUTCOMES OF THE GRANTS LIKE THE RESILIENCY IT'S A RESILIENCY GRANT. NEIGHBORHOODS, HOW IS THAT MONITORED? SO I GUESS WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS IF THERE'S A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, HOW DO WE SEE IF IT'S RESILIENT? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO, A PROPER ANSWER TO IT. THERE'S NO FOLLOW-UP ACTUAL PROGRAM THEY MAKE YOU GET INTO TO SAY YOU'VE GOT TO GO BACK EVERY YEAR AND SAY, YOU KNOW, MITIGATE IT THIS MUCH PROPERTY OR THAT MUCH PROPERTY. WELL, YEAH, BECAUSE I'M HEARING THAT KIND OF COMMENTS FROM A LOT OF CONSTITUENTS. WE SEE A LOT OF GRANTS BUT NO OUTCOMES. SO THAT'S WHY I WAS CURIOUS. SEVERAL OF THESE GRANTS LIKE SOUTH SHORE, 14TH STREET, WE HAVE A NATIONAL OBJECTIVE WE HAVE TO MEET. SO THERE IS MODELING THAT'S DONE PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION THAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE RUN AGAIN AT SOME POINT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, DID WE MEET THE NATIONAL OBJECTIVE OF WHAT OUR GRANT WAS FOR. RIGHT. DEFINITELY. THANK YOU. I LOVE YOUR JOB. MAY I ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION? YES. THIS IS THE 11H THAT IS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? YES. CORRECT. SO WITHIN THAT PLAN, IT WOULD HAVE ACTIVITIES? YES. THAT'S THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S WHAT THIS GRANT IS FOR. IT'S CURRENTLY LOOKING AT, STARTING TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT PLANS IN THE CITY. ALSO, WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING A GRANT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO UPDATE OUR HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH IS REQUIRED EVERY FIVE YEARS. WE'VE ALSO PUT IN PART OF THEIR SCOPE. THAT THEY NEED TO GET WITH THE FOLKS WITH THE COMP PLAN AND BE ON THAT COMMITTEE TO MAKE SURE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT PLANS ARE MERGING TOGETHER AND WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR MITIGATION PROPOSED ACTIONS FOR THE FUTURE, THAT WE'RE IDENTIFYING THOSE ACTIONS THROUGH THE DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE BEING RECOMMENDED IN THOSE PLANS. I HAVE A QUESTION IN PARTICULAR. THE WAY THAT I SEE THE GRANTS DO WE QUALIFY FOR MORE BASED [00:40:03] ON OUR NEED? LIKE, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE 2011 PLAN THAT WE HAVE, THE 2012 PLAN THAT WE HAVE. IF WE HAD BEEN UPDATING IT IN A QUARTERLY, MONTHLY, WHATEVER FASHION WE HAD IT, AND IT WAS STILL KIND OF CURRENT, WOULD WE BE ABLE TO RECEIVE THESE GRANTS? OR IS IT, THAT'S KIND OF THE, IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE DOG CATCHER'S PARADOX. YOU KNOW, YOUR JOB IS TO CATCH DOGS, YOU CATCH ALL THE DOGS. THEN WHAT DO WE DO? SO IF WE ARE ON TOP OF IT, AND AFTER WE COMBINE EVERYTHING IN THIS WHOLE KIND OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IF WE STAY ON TOP OF IT, DOES THAT HURT OUR CHANCES FOR GRANTS IN THE FUTURE? NO. SO IF YOU'RE ASKING, YOU KNOW, COULD WE HAVE GOTTEN MORE MONEY IF WE HAD AN UPDATED PLAN, THAT SPECIFIC PLAN THAT THIS IS BEING THE THE RESILIENCY PROGRAM IS MAXED AT 300,000, SO WE GOT THE MAXIMUM FOR THAT AMOUNT OF PREMIUM. I'M KIND OF ASKING THE OPPOSITE. OKAY. IF WE HAD UPDATED IT, WOULD WE HAVE QUALIFIED FOR LESS, OR WOULD WE HAVE BEEN GRANTED LESS? WELL, I THINK THAT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE COMP PLAN AT THE SAME TIME, THEN EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT WHAT KIND OF MITIGATION WE CAN DO, WHAT KIND OF FUTURE. ORDINANCES WE CAN DO, THAT KIND OF THING. PART OF THE REVISION OF THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN LISTS PAGES AND PAGES OF POTENTIAL MITIGATION ACTIONS. SO WE'VE HAD LIKE THE CAUSEWAY WATER LINE ON THERE FOR THE LAST 15 YEARS. AND PART OF WHERE THAT COMES INTO PLAY IS ANY TYPE OF FEMA GRANT THAT WE'RE GOING AFTER AND NOW IT'S BECOMING- IT HAS TO BE OUTLINED IN A PLAN. IT HAS TO BE ONE OF THOSE ACTIONS IN THAT PLAN. AND SO IF WE DON'T IDENTIFY IT WHEN WE RENEW OUR PLANS. THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS WE CAN'T TIE BACK TO IT IN ONE OF OUR PLANS AND SAY THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PLANNING FOR FOR RESILIENCY OR MITIGATION. SO WE TRY VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE RENEW THESE PLANS, ESPECIALLY THE MITIGATION PLAN EVERY FIVE YEARS, WE'RE GETTING ALL KINDS OF ELEMENTS IN THERE, WHETHER IT'S BEACH NOURISHMENT, DUNE PROTECTION, GENERATORS, HARDENED FACILITIES. ORDINANCE CHANGES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT WAY WHEN THESE DIFFERENT GRANTS COME ALONG, WE CAN SAY, YEP, WE'VE GOT SOMETHING WE CAN TIE TO THAT. WE CAN TIE A PUMP STATION TO THAT OR WE CAN TIE A NEW FACILITY TO THAT. SO IF IT'S NOT IN THAT PLAN, THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM. AND SOMETIMES THERE'S ENOUGH TIME TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND SAY, LOOK, WE NEED TO ADD THIS ITEM INTO OUR MITIGATION PLAN AND WE HAD TO DO THAT FOR SOME OF OUR PUMP STATION GRANTS. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? A LITTLE BIT. IT'S KIND OF LIKE YOU KNOW, IF I HAVE A REALLY ROBUST PLAN, RIGHT, LET'S SAY WE DO A REALLY GOOD JOB WITH THIS ONE, MOVING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, IT'S MORE OF THE OPPORTUNITY, NOT BEYOND THAT, BECAUSE I GET THE GRANT OPPORTUNITIES THAT PRESENT ITSELF FROM IDENTIFYING IT IN THE PLAN, BUT THE PLAN ITSELF, DO WE QUALIFY FOR LESS MONEY IF WE HAVE A REALLY ROBUST PLAN VERSUS SOMETHING FROM NO, I'M NOT SEEING THAT. WHAT I'M SEEING IS WHEN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK TO SEE HOW OLD YOUR PLAN IS, WHAT YOUR NEED IS, THE FINANCIAL PROBLEM. AS LONG AS YOUR PLAN IS APPROVED AND MOVING WITHIN THAT FIVE YEARS, THIS IS ON THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN, THEN YOU'RE ABLE TO TIE TO THAT, AND THAT HELPS US MORE THAN ANYTHING. WITH THE FEMA AND STARTING TO BE WITH THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT FLOOD PROGRAMS THAT THEY'RE COMING ACROSS WITH. GOTCHA. BOB, WHEN WILL WE SEE THIS UPDATING OF THE HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN HERE? I TALKED TO THE GLO THIS WEEK AND THEY'RE PUTTING TOGETHER OUR CONTRACT SO HOPEFULLY IN THE NEXT TWO MONTHS WE'LL HAVE A CONTRACT AND THEN WE HAVE THE CONSULTANT THAT HAS DONE ALL OF OUR PREVIOUS PLANS THAT'S TAGGED TO DO THAT AND THAT WILL IMMEDIATELY PUT THEM ON TOP OF GETTING WITH THE PEOPLE IN THE COMP PLAN AND ALL OF OUR CITY FOLKS AND ALL OF OUR DIFFERENT COORDINATE WITH THE COMP PLAN WORKERS? YES, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. AND AS ALWAYS, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR AMAZING WORK YOU DO. WE DO OUR BEST. WE TRY TO DO OUR BEST. YOU'RE LIKE A SUPERHERO IN YOUR SHIRT. THANK YOU, TESSA, VERY MUCH. YES, MARIE, ANYONE ELSE? YEP, 11-0. 11-L. O AS IN OSCAR. HOPE, HOPE, 11-0. YES, GO RIGHT AHEAD. THIS IS HOPE. SHE IS. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. HOPE. HOPE DEAN, IT. SO THIS IS LOOKING [00:45:02] AT BACKUP DATA CENTER. IT'S LICENSING TO BACKUP OUR DATA CENTERS. OKAY, AND SO THIS IS A VIRTUAL OR A IT'S A PHYSICAL APPLIANCE AND THE LICENSES THAT GO WITH IT WE BACK UP BASED ON TOLL DATA. AND THIS IS LOCATED WHERE? CAN YOU GIVE ME MORE DETAIL? WE HAVE TWO APPLIANCES. WE HAVE ONE THAT'S LOCATED IN OUR DATA CENTER HERE ON THE ISLAND AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT'S LOCATED IN OUR DISASTER RECOVERY CENTER ON THE MAINLAND. SO WE'VE BEEN TAKING A LOT OF THINGS TO CLOUD-BASED SOLUTIONS WITH THE DIFFERENT THINGS WE'VE APPROVED OVER TIME. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT WE'RE STILL KEEPING HARD EQUIPMENT. SO HOW MANY FORMS OF BACKUP DO WE HAVE? SO COHESITY IS OUR PRIMARY BACKUP SOLUTION. IT GETS BACKED UP HERE ON THE ON-PREM, ON THE PRODUCTION SIDE, AND THEN IT GETS REPLICATED OVER TO THE DISASTER RECOVERY SITE. AND THEN WE HAVE A LONG-TERM BLOB STORAGE THAT GOES TO AZURE FOR FIVE YEARS WORTH OF DATA ON OUR CRITICAL APPLICATIONS. SO HOW OFTEN DO WE BACK UP ON A DAILY BASIS? WE BACK UP DAILY. WE BACK UP EVERYTHING DAILY. JUST ONCE A DAY OR IS IT BACKED UP? SO WE DO FULLS AND DIFFERENTIALS THROUGHOUT THE DAY AND ALL OF OUR MAJOR APPLICATIONS ARE BACKED UP DAILY AND DAILY SNAPSHOTS ARE TAKEN. OKAY, SO IT'S DONE ON A CONTINUAL BASIS. THAT'S CORRECT. DAILIES, WEEKLIES, MONTHLIES. OKAY, THAT WAS IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YEP. LEVIN D. T. I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, T AS IN THOMAS. LEVIN T. AND I DON'T REALLY NEED ANYBODY TO COME UP. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO BARBARA AND DOMINIC SASSER FOR THEIR DONATION OF THE KALISAKI MULE, WHICH I KNOW THEY ARE IN NEED OF, AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL $1,000 FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE COSTS. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT AS A BIG THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. MAY I ADD TO THAT THANK YOU FOR 11U AS WELL AND 11V. THOSE WERE IN MY NOTES. THANK YOU FOR THE DONATION FOR THE SEAWOLF PARK KID ACTIVITY AND THE DONATION OF THE RELOCATION OF THE PALM TREE. THAT WOULD BE PARKS, RECREATION, BARBER, AND STAFF ALSO. VERY GOOD. OLD BEANS. ANYTHING ELSE? YEP, 11-8-8. THANK YOU BARBARA. THAT WAS EASY. GOOD MORNING DAVID. GOOD MORNING. HOW ARE YOU TODAY? FINE, HOW ARE YOU? BY THE WAY, THAT WAS A GREAT MEETING THE OTHER DAY. WITH IRON MAN. YES, IT WAS. WITH IRON MAN AND I HAVE GOTTEN EVEN MORE INFORMATION SO AND I THINK WE HAVE ALL PLAYERS ON BOARD SO SO WE ARE DOING ADVANCED PURCHASE OF OR IS THIS IS CAN YOU GIVE ME MORE DETAIL WE TALK ABOUT THE AUTO PARTS YEAH CONTRACT YES MA'AM SO THAT'S A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT FOR THE CITY OF GALVESTON TO GO OUT AND PURCHASE PARTS LOCALLY WE TRY TO GET THAT OUT TO OUR LOCAL VENDORS AS WELL SO THAT IS GOING TO BE A CONTRACT WITH THOSE TWO VENDORS TO SUPPLY AUTO PARTS ANNUALLY FOR A FIVE-YEAR CONTRACT. WELL, IT'S WRITTEN IN HERE. AN INTERESTING WAY, BECAUSE I KNOW WE WANTED TO DO AWAY WITH NOT TO EXCEED. I'VE NEVER SEEN A CONTRACT ESTIMATED TO EXCEED $150,000 ANNUALLY. SO WE'RE SAYING ALREADY WE'RE GOING TO PAY MORE, DOESN'T THAT? OH, MA'AM, WHAT IN THE WORDING, BECAUSE YOU'VE KIND OF KIND OF WANT WORDING CERTAIN WAYS. WHAT WE'RE SAYING BASICALLY IS WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE PAYING $150,000 ANNUAL TO THAT VENDOR. IT SHOULD COME UNDER. BASICALLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IN FACT, THAT PARTICULAR VENDOR LAST YEAR, WE SPENT $109,000 WITH [00:50:01] FARQUEST. WHAT THAT STATEMENT BASICALLY SAYS IS IF IT'S NOT APPROVED, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE IT'LL GO OVER $150,000 BECAUSE WE WILL NOT RECEIVE THE DISCOUNTS THAT THE VENDORS ARE OFFERING US. WELL, PERHAPS THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO WRITE THAT BECAUSE TO A VENDOR, FOR THEM TO SEE ESTIMATED TO EXCEED 150 ANNUALLY IS LIKE, PLEASE CHARGE US MORE. YEAH, AND WE ORDER THE PARTS. THEY DO NOT COME IN AND LOOK AT OUR SHELVES AND THEN STOCK OUR SHELVES. WE ORDER WHAT WE NEED AT THE TIME. THAT'S DONE BY THE PARTS MANAGER WHO'S EXTREMELY THRIFTY, SHALL WE SAY. OKAY. ACTUALLY, A LOT OF GOOD DISCOUNTS COME FROM AMAZON. I'M READY. YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU, DAVID. THAT IS ALL OF MINE. VERY GOOD. HELLO. WHAT'S BEEN COVERED, I JUST WANTED TO ASK ABOUT 11B, WHERE THE PALM TREES WILL BE RELOCATED TO. WILL THESE BE RELOCATED INSIDE THE PARK? OH, THEY'RE STAYING IN THE PARK. YEAH, THEY'RE STAYING IN THE PARK. THEY WERE JUST RELOCATED. TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE BIOSWALE? MAKE ROOM FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS. OKAY. THAT WAS BARBARA SANDERSON, OUR DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. BARBARA'S USED ON THAT. VERY GOOD. COUNCIL, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A CHANGE ON OUR AGENDA SINCE WE HAVE STAFF HERE. I'M GOING TO PULL UP SOME ITEMS HERE THAT MET THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THEIR INPUT FROM STAFF AND THEN LET THEM KNOW. I'M GOING TO PULL UP 4I, J, K, [4.I Discussion of the Bernardo de Galvez Mural (B. Sanderson - 10 min)] AND M. LET'S DO THE 4I PLEASE, JANELLE. 4I, DISCUSSION OF THE BERNARDO DE GALVEZ MURAL. BARBARA, I THINK THIS IS OH, THIS IS ANTOINETTE AND BARBARA. MAYOR, WOULD YOU OH, I'M SORRY, DAVID. DID YOU HAVE SOME NO, NOT AT ALL. I GOT MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. JUST MAKE SURE THAT JANELLE CAUGHT THAT I CAME IN AT YES. THANK YOU. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT 9.36 A.M. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. ANTOINETTE LYNCH, OUR CONQUERSOR COORDINATOR. THE CITY OF MALAGA, SPAIN HAS OFFERED TO SEND US AN ARTIST TO DO A MURAL OF BERNARDO DE GALVEZ IN HONOR OF AMERICA 250 AND HIS CONTRIBUTIONS TO REVOLUTIONARY WAR. THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IT IN A PROMINENT LOCATION FOR TOURISM. THE ONLY COST TO US WOULD BE THE LIST ON PROPERTY AND STORING HIS PAINTS. SO THIS IS WE'VE BEEN MOVING FORWARD WITH IT, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD COUNCIL'S APPROVAL BEFORE THEY BOOKED TRAVEL AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO GET IT DONE BEFORE, OBVIOUSLY, THE 4TH OF JULY. THIS PROJECT STARTED JUST BACKGROUND. I GOT A LETTER FROM THE MAYOR OF MALAGA, SPAIN, OUTLINING THEY WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE THIS ARTISTIC SERVICE TO OUR CITY. IN HONOR OF GALVESTON, THEY WOULD PAY FOR EVERYTHING. THEY WOULD HANDLE ALL THE PAYMENTS. AND I REFERRED THAT ON TO THE CULTURAL ARTS COMMISSION AND THAT'S HOW IT'S MOVED FORWARD. DAVID, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? THERE IS A POWERPOINT. I WILL HOLD MY QUESTION. YOU CAN CRUISE ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO THE LOCATION. THE ARTS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, WE'VE BEEN PUSHING THIS. I THINK WE ALL GOT THE EMAIL TOO. I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO CONTINUE ON. MALAGA, SPAIN IS RIGHT NEXT TO OUR SISTER CITY. IT'S LIKE BASICALLY SAYING, YOU KNOW. MALIKA IS ACTUALLY WHERE BERNARDO DE GALDES IS FROM. I GUESS I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT, WHICH IS WHY THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEND US A PAINTER. THEY'RE VERY BIG ON SENDING THEIR ARTISTS, PARTICULARLY LALONDE, WHO IS THEIR MURAL ARTIST OF CHOICE, BECAUSE THEY'RE PRETTY FAMOUS FOR THEIR ARTS. THEY WOULD SEND HIM, AND IT DEPENDS, THIS IS THE WALL THAT WE'RE OFFERING THEM. IT IS THE EAST SIDE OF THE MCGUIRE TENT. IT'S ABOUT 110 FEET BY 30. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY OBSTRUCTIONS EXCEPT THE ONE TREE THAT YOU SEE, VERSUS THERE'S SOME OTHER WALLS THAT WE LOOKED AT THAT HAD A LOT MORE OBSTRUCTIONS. AND IT WOULD ALSO BE WHERE COUNCIL MANY, MANY MOONS AGO APPROVED A BERNARDO D. GALVEZ SCULPTURE THAT IS STILL, THAT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU SOON FOR RE-APPROVAL. BUT IT WAS APPROVED 14 YEARS AGO. THEY'RE STILL WORKING AT IT, Y'ALL. BUT ANYWAY, IT WOULD BE IN THE SAME LOCATION. SO IT KIND OF MARRIED TWO [00:55:01] DIFFERENT PROJECTS FROM TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ENTITIES TOGETHER AND MADE A LITTLE BIT OF SENSE FOR PLANNING FOR THE PARK. AND THAT'S WHY WE OFFERED THIS ONE. DO WE HAVE A PICTURE OF IT? SO THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK WITH, ONCE WE GIVE THEM THE WALL AND WE'VE APPROVED THIS WALL, THEY WILL MAKE SOME RENDERINGS AND GIVE US OPTIONS. AND BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE RENDERINGS, THAT WILL BE HOW LONG THE ARTIST WILL BE HERE. IF IT'S LARGER, OBVIOUSLY MORE TIME. SO THERE'S ALSO A MURAL ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE'S A MURAL ON THE BANCHEL. YES, ON THE BANCHEL. WE JUST COMPLETED THAT. THAT WAS AN ARTS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PAID MURAL. THAT ARTIST CAME FROM ARGENTINA. HE JUST LEFT, HE'S IN VEGAS DOING A PROJECT NOW. AND THIS ALSO COULD OPEN UP OPPORTUNITIES FOR LIKE AN ARCH TRADE PROGRAM. WE SEND ONE OF OUR ARTISTS OVER THERE, THEY SEND ONE OVER HERE, AND IT COULD BE A GOOD PROGRAM FOR THE FUTURE. AND I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE GET SISTER CITIES INVOLVED WITH IT. CUZ I MEAN, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ADJACENT, IT'S LIKE SAYING BERNARDO DE GALVEZ CAME FROM JAMAICA BEACH VERSUS GALVESTON, IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR. YES, SO THEIR HEAD OF TOURISM IS WHO'S REACHED OUT TO US AND WHO I'VE MET WITH A COUPLE OF TIMES. LOVELY GENTLEMAN. TONY LYLE IS GOING TO GO AND VISIT WITH HIM OVER IN MALAGA. SO IT'S THE BEGINNING OF GREAT THINGS, I THINK. THEY'D LIKE TO COME BACK, HE SAID, EVERY FIVE TO SEVEN YEARS BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF THE DURATION THAT WE GIVE FOR MURALS BEFORE THEY NEED TO BE REDONE OR RETOUCHED. AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IT. THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS THE ARTS COMMISSION, I GUESS, WILL HANDLE THE MAINTENANCE OF IT. AND WHERE IS THAT SCULPTOR GOING TO GO TO HAVE A PLACE FOR THAT? IT'S IN THE CORNER. IT'S IN THE CORNER. YES, THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER. OH, SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PARK. OF MENARD. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. BUT THAT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU BECAUSE IT'S IN 14 YEARS. THERE NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSIONS ON THAT. YES, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT IT'S AN IMPRESSIVE SCULPTURE PIECE. I'VE SEEN IT IN CLAY OR WAX. IT'S VERY SIMILAR. IT'S OF SCALE, LIKE NOT QUITE TO SAM HOUSTON ON THE FREEWAY, BUT IT'S YES, HE DID A MAQUETTE, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY LIFE-SIZE. IT'S HUGE. BEAUTIFUL. COULD YOU SEND AN IMAGE OF THAT? SURE, SURE. HE'S ACTUALLY COMING. HE'S ON THE ADC AGENDA TO BE AT THE NEXT MEETING. JOHN ESPINOSA, LOVELY GENTLEMAN AS WELL. VERY GOOD. THE BEST STATUES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS? YES, BOB. MAKE SURE THERE'S AN OWNERSHIP CONVEYANCE. YEAH. TOUCHE. GOOD POINT. VERY GOOD. JUST AN ANSWER TO THAT, EXCUSE ME. TO CONFIRM, THERE'S NO EXPENSES FROM THE CITY THAT ARE INVOLVED? THERE IS. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A LIFT. A LIFT. THE ARTIST THAT JUST LEFT FROM ARGENTINA, HE BOOKED A LIFT AT MENARD PARK FOR TWO WEEKS. IT WAS $400 A WEEK PLUS $400 FOR DELIVERY AND PICKUP. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $2,000 FROM THE ADC. THAT'S WHAT WE WENT TO THE ADC [4.J Discussion of parking enforcement (H. Morris/G. Lopez - 10 min)] AND REQUESTED MONEY. OKAY, GOOD TO KNOW. ALL HOT TAX. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, ANTOINETTE. APPRECIATE IT. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 4J, PLEASE. ITEM 4J, DISCUSSION OF PARKING ENFORCEMENT. WE HAVE CHIEF MORRIS WITH US. GOOD MORNING, HEATHER. GOOD MORNING. I'M HEATHER MORRIS, THE CITY MARSHAL. I'M SORRY I'M OUT OF BREATH. I RAN ALL THE WAY FROM THE MARSHAL'S OFFICE THERE WHENEVER I HEARD YOU WERE MOVING THE ITEM UP. I WENT TO GET YOU. I MADE IT. SO YOU CAN HAVE THE FULL DAY NOW ONCE YOU FINISH. I APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST REALLY WANT TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES TODAY TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON THE BOOTING AND TOWING PROGRAM SO THAT WE CAN ENFORCE OUR PARKING CITATIONS. I HAVE JANELLE IS PASSING AROUND A DRAFT ORDINANCE OF CHANGES THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY THAT WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON. I WANTED TO GIVE THIS TO ALL OF YOU TODAY SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE TIME TO REVIEW IT, AND WE'LL COME BACK IN THE NEXT MEETING. PUT ON THE AGENDA ITEM IN MAY SO THAT WE CAN REALLY FULLY FLESH OUT. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CHANGES HERE IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT RATHER SOME THINGS THAT MAYBE SOME CORRECTIONS AND SOME THINGS THAT WILL MAKE THE ENFORCEMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING. I REALLY APPRECIATE DONNA AND TREVOR WORKING AND HOPE AND HER TEAM AS WELL. AS WE'VE SPENT TIME IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, SO WE HAVE A LOT OF MORE WORK TO DO, BUT WE ARE ACTIVELY MOVING THE BOOTING AND TOWING PROGRAM FORWARD. WHAT I'D LIKE FOR COUNCIL TO DO IS REVIEW THIS, AND IF YOU HAVE INPUT, PLEASE SEND IT TO BRIAN, AND HE CAN GET THAT TO HEATHER. I WOULD LIKE TO, I MEAN, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION [01:00:02] OF IT, TOO, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A HELLACIOUSLY NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY THAT LIVE DOWNTOWN WHERE WE DO HAVE PARKING STARVED AREAS. AND I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS THIS MORE. ABSOLUTELY. I'LL BE EXCITED THAT YOU WROTE THIS DOWN. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. GO AHEAD. I JUST ANTICIPATE A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION IN MAY AND THEN ULTIMATELY WHATEVER COUNCIL DECIDES WE WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH. BUT I JUST WANTED EVERYBODY, WHAT ALL OF YOU TO KNOW IN COUNCIL IS THAT WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING TOWARDS THIS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL. ALL THE DETAILS AND ALL OF THE SPECIFICS AND EVERYTHING, ULTIMATELY COUNCIL WILL APPROVE AND WE WON'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL. BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE REALLY GOING TO, AND WE KIND OF NEED TO DO THIS CROSS BOARD. BUT COMPARE WHAT THE COSTS ARE IN DOING THIS, THAT WE KNOW THE AMOUNT OF FINES THAT WE DON'T RECRUIT. A LOT OF THEM ARE FROM OUT OF TOWN PEOPLE, AS WELL AS RESIDENTS. BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE A PARKING STARVED AREA. I JUST THINK THAT WE'RE REALLY GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A LOT MORE TIME INTO THIS. ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY. WE'RE NOT GONNA RUSH INTO ANYTHING. AND WE'LL TAKE WHATEVER DIRECTION COUNCIL GIVES. YEAH, THIS IS REALLY AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. SHOULD COUNCIL MOVE FORWARD IN ENFORCEMENT OF THIS OR NOT? BOB, HOW DOES THIS COORDINATE WITH THE AMNESTY PROGRAM? SO ESSENTIALLY, THIS, YOU KNOW, THE AMNESTY PROGRAM WILL BE WHAT IT IS. AND SO PEOPLE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BEHIND ON THEIR, YOU KNOW, PAYING CITATIONS. SO I BELIEVE MAY IS WHENEVER ALL THESE, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE AMNESTY PROGRAM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT SO REALLY I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY IN MAY TO PAY THESE. CITATIONS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING SO THAT IF YOU KNOW AND WHEN COUNCIL FINALLY YOU KNOW APPROVES A BOOTING AND TOWING PLAN THAT I MEAN THIS IS YOUR BEST CHANCE TO LOWER YOUR COST AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO TO CATCH UP ON THOSE CITATIONS SO I'VE HEARD PEOPLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE AMNESTY PROGRAM. THAT'S A 30 DAYS PROGRAM RIGHT? I BELIEVE I BELIEVE THAT'S THE MAY 30 SO IT'S FOR THE MONTH OF MAY. VERY GOOD. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. MORRIS? I DO HAVE ONE MORE BECAUSE I TRULY CAN'T RECALL. WE DID DECIDE THERE WAS AN OPTION WHERE THEY COULD SET UP A PAYMENT PLAN. SO THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD, ABOUT THIS IS THAT FOR PARKING CITATIONS, YOU CAN'T SET UP A PAYMENT PLAN. THAT YOU COULD PAY FOR ONE CITATION IN FULL. YOU COULD PAY FOR ANOTHER CITATION IN FULL. BUT JUST SETTING UP A PAYMENT PLAN THAT THAT WASN'T POSSIBLE, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. BUT THAT WOULD BE MORE OF A QUESTION FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT. THEY HAD A WAY, AND THAT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE MORE CLARITY ON. HOW DOES THE MUNICIPAL COURT? HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT PAYMENT PLAN? SO IN TERMS OF PEOPLE PAYING THEIR CITATIONS? YEAH. SO, YEAH, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO GET INTO SPEAKING BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY NOT IN MY SHOP. OKAY. THAT'S REALLY FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURTS AND HOW THEY STRUCTURE PAYMENTS AND WHAT'S ALLOWED TO BE DONE IN TERMS OF PAYMENTS. MAYBE WE CAN GET A LITTLE MORE ON THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. MORRIS? HEATHER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS. THANKS, HEATHER. APPRECIATE IT. 4K, PLEASE. 4K, RECEIVE AND DISCUSS AN UPDATE IN PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE FOR THE JONES PARK PROJECT. THIS HAS BEEN PUT ON. WE HAVE BARBARA SANDERSON HERE WITH OUR DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION. BARBARA, WHAT'S OUR CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE? I HAD TO MAKE A BET. AND WE HAVE TESSA AND WE HAVE CHRISTINE BRYANT AND WE HAVE MEGAN PIERCE. WE HAVE A WHOLE TEAM ON THIS. YOU'VE GOT THE WHOLE TEAM. WELCOME TO EVERYBODY. OKAY. START, LADIES. TESSA, YOU'VE GOT THE I CAN [01:05:01] HAND OUT THE PREPARED SCHEDULE THAT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO TRY TO PIN OUT HOW WE CAN GET THIS PROJECT MOVING AND WHAT A POTENTIAL TIMELINE COULD BE FOR THIS PROJECT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS AS WE'VE MET TO COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN VISION GALVESTON AND THE CITY OF GALVESTON ON HOW TO WORK THIS PROJECT, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT, AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED. THANK YOU. SO BEST CASE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT APPROVAL TODAY OF THE AGREEMENT. MOVING FORWARD FROM THAT TO TAKE THE DESIGN DRAWINGS WHICH ARE 100 COMPLETED THIS TIME HAVING THEM GO THROUGH OUR CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE AND START BUILDING THE BID PACKAGE AND THEN MOVING THAT FORWARD WITH THE ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION AND PROCUREMENT OFFICE TO GET THE BIDS OUT TO START GETTING AN ACTUAL COST ON WHAT THIS IS GOING TO COST THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PHASES THERE'S A PHASE IA AND A PHASE IB. AND A BASE TOO. SO OUR VISION GALVESTON FOLKS CAN KIND OF GO THROUGH WHAT THAT PROCESS IS. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. CHRISTINE BRYANT, VISION GALVESTON. I'M JOINED HERE BY DR. ANNA WEISS, WHO HAS THE VISION GALVESTON INITIATIVE. AND I'VE ALWAYS SAID, I SAID TO TESSA THE OTHER DAY, THIS PROJECT STARTED ON MY SECOND DAY, AND I WILL HAVE BEEN HERE FIVE YEARS IN JULY, JUST SO YOU KNOW. SO I'M REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE THIS AGREEMENT IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING WE'VE WANTED FOR A VERY LONG TIME. SO GRATEFUL. Y'ALL, THANK YOU FOR PULLING THIS TOGETHER. SO ANA'S GOING TO GO THROUGH. WE HAVE A TIMELINE, KIND OF OUR WORK. AND UNDERSTAND THAT THIS STARTED WITH A 30% DESIGN. IT WAS A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY OF GALVESTON, BETTER PARKS FOR GALVESTON, AND VISION GALVESTON. AND THAT WAS ABOUT A $75,000 30% DESIGN EFFORT. AND IDC PUT IN THAT $25,000. ONCE WE GOT TO 30% DESIGN TO GO TO 100% DESIGN, VISION GALVESTON STEPPED IN TO EXPEDITE. SO WE SPENT ANOTHER $300,000 OF VISION GALVESTON MONEY TO GET THE DESIGN FROM 30% TO 100% WITH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. JUST TO MAKE IT GO FASTER. IT WAS A DIG DEEP. WHEN YOU ARE RUNNING A NON-PROFIT AND YOU'RE USING UNRESTRICTED MONEY, THEY CAN GO TO OTHER THINGS, BUT YOU PUT IT IN THIS PARK. THIS IS WHY IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO US. SO YOU'LL SEE KIND OF OUR KIND OF TIMELINE OF HOW WE DID IT AND WHY IT HAS TAKEN THIS LONG. THE WATER ENGINEERING ALONE WAS THE BIGGEST PIECE OF THE PARK DESIGN BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW, JONES PARK IS PRETTY MUCH JONES RIVER AT ANY GIVEN DAY. WE WANTED TO GO FORWARD, YOU KNOW, AT ONE POINT WE WERE AT 30% DESIGN, THERE WAS A DECISION THAT NEEDED TO BE MADE. DID WE LOOK AT A $1.5 MILLION PUMP? NO. OR DID WE LOOK AT A WATER-BASED, A NATURE-BASED SOLUTION THAT USED BIORETENTION AND BIOFILTRATION TO DO THAT? WE WAITED ABOUT SEVEN MONTHS FOR KIND OF A DECISION TO BE MADE, AND THEN ME, NOT A WATER, I'M GOING TO SAY ME, NOT A WATER ENGINEER SAID, I DON'T THINK WE CAN STOMACH $1.5 MILLION OF A PUMP, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE CITY IS UNDERGOING. YOU GUYS WERE DOING THE MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY AT THAT TIME TOO. SO WE DECIDED TO PURSUE THE BIORETENTION. UNFORTUNATELY, THE NUMBERS WORKED. ONCE THE WATER ENGINEERS GOT INVOLVED, THE NUMBERS WORKED. SO, ANA, DO YOU WANT TO TALK THROUGH THE PHASE 1A, 1B, AND PHASE 2 DESIGN ELEMENTS? YEAH. SO WE HAVE SPLIT THE CONSTRUCTION INTO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PHASES JUST BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROCURE AT THIS POINT. ORIGINALLY THE DESIGNERS HAD SPLIT IT INTO A PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO. PHASE ONE WAS WATER MITIGATION, SOME AMENITIES AND SOME PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND PHASE TWO WAS REALLY JUST PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. OUR GOAL IS TO GET THE FLOODING DEALT WITH FIRST SO THAT THAT PARK CAN OPEN BACK UP AND SO WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET THE FUNDS TO DO THAT. WE'RE STILL A LITTLE BIT SHORT BUT THAT IS OUR PHASE 1A IS GETTING THAT. WATER MITIGATION UNDER THE GROUND, ALL THE STUFF THAT NEEDS TO GO UNDERGROUND BEFORE THE PLAYGROUND CAN GO ON TOP. LET'S GET THAT IN, GET THIS PARK LOOKING, YOU KNOW, WORKABLE AGAIN. AND THEN FROM THERE, PHASE 1B IS ADDING IN THE REST OF THE AMENITIES THAT ARE LEFT FROM THE FIRST PHASE. SO SOME OF THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE SOME BICYCLE RACKS THAT IF WE DON'T PUT THEM ALL OUT YET, IT'S ABOUT JUST KIND OF HOW MUCH FUNDING WE'RE ABLE TO GET AT THAT POINT. DOESN'T 1A ALSO PLAYED BASKETBALL. YES, 1A ALSO INCLUDES WATER MITIGATION. THAT'S WHY IT'S INCLUDED IN 1A, BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HELP. YEAH, AND IT'S ALSO, YOU KNOW, THE BREAKUP OF 1A VERSUS 1B IS ALSO ABOUT THE GRANT FUNDING THAT WE HAVE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE FULFILLING THE COMMITMENTS THAT WE'VE MADE TO OUR FUNDERS. AND THEN WITH PHASE 2, OF COURSE, THAT IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER OUT THAN THIS, AND THAT'S REALLY GOING TO BE THE BIG FUN PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT. BUT I THINK WE CAN GET THE WATER UNDER CONTROL. WE CAN GET THE PARK IN A USABLE SPACE AGAIN. YEAH. AND I MIGHT ALSO ADD KUDOS TO CITY STAFF FOR REMOVING THE EQUIPMENT OUT THERE NOW. AND KUDOS TO OUR GOOD FRIEND, THE TREE MASTER OF JOHN CAMPBELL, THAT HAS RELOCATED THE PALM TREES. IF YOU DRIVE BY JONES PARK RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GETTING CALLS. IT ALREADY LOOKS BETTER. IT'S NOT THERE. IT'S GOING TO ONLY GET BETTER. SO WITH THAT, DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YES. DAVID AND THEN ALEX. SO IT WAS SAID THAT THE ENGINEERING FOR THIS IS 100% COMPLETE? YES. DO YOU MIND TELLING ME WHO THE CIVIL ENGINEER RECORD IS? DO YOU REMEMBER WHO IT WAS? THEY'RE SIGNED ON THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. [01:10:01] WE'LL FIND THAT OUT FOR YOU. S. CURR IS THE ONE. S. CURR ROCKS. IT WAS THE DESIGNER. I'M SORRY. YEAH, BUT THERE'S A SEPARATE ENGINEER. YEAH, BUT THERE'S A SEPARATE ENGINEER. THEY'RE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS. WE STARTED WITH WATER EARTH ORIGINALLY. I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHO WE ENDED WITH, BUT I'LL FIND OUT FOR YOU. IT WAS A DIFFERENT FIRM THAT WE ENDED WITH. THEY ARE SIGNED ON THE ENGINEERING DOCUMENT. MY CONCERN IS THAT, AND YOU SAID IT APPROPRIATELY, YOUR FIRST CONCERN WAS TO ALLEVIATE ANY FLOODING OUT THERE. AND SO YOU SAID IN PHASE ONE, HEY, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE ADDRESSED. BIOSOILS, YOU'RE WORKING AGAINST NATURE, OKAY? AND SO MY CONCERN IS THAT WHATEVER WE'RE PUTTING OUT THERE CAN'T MAKE ANYTHING WORSE. EXACTLY. AND SO I KNOW THAT YOU'RE INTENT, AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD SIGNED AND SEALED A SET OF DRAWINGS FROM AN ENGINEER. AND WE'VE MADE IT VERY CLEAR, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE BUTT HOMES OUT THERE ON WIMCREST. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING ANY ISSUES WITH THOSE HOMES. YEAH, I MEAN, I LOVE ASKURA ROBINSON. I'VE WORKED WITH THEM. BUT THEY WEREN'T THE WATER ENGINEERS. THERE WE GO. OKAY. YEAH. WE PAID A LOT OF MONEY TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW. THANK YOU. ALEX? SO I WAS AT THE BEACH CLEANUP EVENT AT EAST BEACH, AND THERE WAS A TEXAS A&M AGRILIFE AND THEY HAD THE PERMEABLE CONCRETE AND THE PERMEABLE PAVERS, WHICH IS PROBABLY BETTER HERE. ARE YOU ALL USING PERMEABLE PAVERS IN THAT? AND THEN THE QUESTION THAT I DIDN'T GET ANSWERED WAS, WHAT'S THE COST FOR THE PERMEABLE PAVERS COMPARED TO, LIKE, CONCRETE? I'M ASSUMING IT'S PROBABLY HIGHER. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PERMEABLE PAVER ASPECT IS THANK YOU. NOT ALL OF THE SIDEWALK OR ANYTHING. IT'S REALLY JUST THAT BASKETBALL COURT AREA. AS FAR AS THE OVERALL COST, I'M NOT SURE OF THAT, BUT IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT PUTTING PERMEABLE PAVERS IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE PARK. BUT JUST FOR THAT BIG PAD, BIG CONCRETE AREA? THE COST DIFFERENTIAL COMES MAINLY IN THE LABOR OF THE INSTALLATION. I MEAN, THERE'S SOME MATERIAL DIFFERENTIATION, BUT IT'S MORE LABOR INTENSIVE TO DO THE PAVERS, SO THAT'S WHY. CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT? YEAH. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT ESTIMATES ON WHAT IT WOULD COSTS FOR NON-PERMEABLE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS DONE BUT I JUST WOULD APPRECIATE IT. I MEAN AT THE BEGINNING IT WAS DONE. YEAH. I MEAN IT'S REALLY AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING COST-WISE VERSUS WATER MITIGATION 1.5 MILLION DOLLAR PUMP VERSUS A PERMEABLE PAVER THAT CAN USE NATURE IS ALWAYS GOING TO PAY OFF IN THE LONG RUN SO WE'LL GET YOU THE DIFFERENCE. YEAH JUST BECAUSE THAT WAS THE BIGGEST QUESTION I HAD WHAT WAS THE WHAT WAS THE COST OF MATERIAL VERSUS. AND IT'S NOT JUST THE INITIAL COST, IT'S THE MAINTENANCE TOO. YOU'VE GOT A LOT MORE MAINTENANCE ON A PIECE OF A MILLION AND A HALF DOLLAR EQUIPMENT THAN YOU DO ON PAVERS ON THE GROUND. MAINTENANCE ON BIORETENTION AND BIOSPELLS IS VERY, VERY EASY. MARIE? SO WE'RE USING PERMEABLE PAVERS ON A BASKETBALL COURT? HOW MANY TIMES HAS THAT EVER BEEN DONE? IT'S BEEN DONE LOTS OF TIMES. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME CITED EXAMPLES. YOU ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER UNDERNEATH THE BASKETBALL COURT IS ALSO BIORETENTION. SO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT SOAKING IT INTO THE WATER. IT'S ABOUT SLOWING DOWN THE WATER, CONTROLLING IT, PUSHING IT EXACTLY WHERE WE WANT IT TO GO, FILTERING IT OUT, AND THEN PUTTING IT INTO THE INFRASTRUCTURE. MY QUESTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. IT SIMPLY HAD TO DO WITH PLAYING BASKETBALL ON THE PAPERS. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD FAIL IN OUR EFFORT IF WE PUT A BASKETBALL COURT IN IT. RIGHT. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE SOME EXAMPLES OF WHERE THAT'S BEING USED, SINCE I'M VERY USED TO SEEING BOTH PAVERS AND THE FIBER CREED, BUT NEVER ON A BASKETBALL COURT. SO SOMETHING THAT I DO JUST WANT TO SAY IS THAT WHILE WHAT WE'RE DOING IN JONES PARK, I THINK, IS NEW FOR GALVESTON, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANYTHING THAT'S BRAND NEW OR TOTALLY COMPLETELY UNTESTED THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN THERE EVERYTHING THAT A SECURE ROBINSON HAS DONE HAS BEEN OUT THERE IN THE WORLD IT'S ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AND PROVEN TO WORK AND SO WE'RE NOT TESTING ANYTHING BRAND NEW HERE I JUST WANT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE IT'S USED OF COURSE ON THE BASKETBALL COURT FOR THE COMMUNITY'S SAKE I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS WAS A TOPIC THAT MANY COUNCILS AGO DECIDED THAT THEY WANTED TO SELL THAT LAND OF JONES PARK. AND SO WE PUT IT IN OUR CHARTER, WE HAVE TO BRING THAT TO THE PUBLIC. IT WAS DEFEATED. THE PUBLIC SAID RESOUNDINGLY THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT PARK. [01:15:02] AND SO WE HAVE BEEN MOVING FORWARD TO BRING THAT PARK UP TO THE STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD LIKE HERE IN GALVESTON. I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY THAT'S STANDING HERE. YOU'VE BEEN PUTTING A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT INTO THIS. IT WILL COME TO PASS FOR THOSE THAT ARE WATCHING. IT'S GOOD THINGS COME TO THOSE WHO PLAY, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. WELL, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THE WAITING AND THE PLANNING IS NOT DUE TO PEOPLE NOT WORKING ON IT OR BEING INVOLVED. I WANTED TO PUBLICLY THANK DR. ANNA WEISS FOR ALL THAT. SHE HAS BROUGHT IN THE AMOUNT OF GRANTS AND FUNDS AND OF COURSE THANK YOUR TEAM. I'M ANXIOUS TO KNOW, DO Y'ALL SEE ANY OTHER HURDLES OR IS THERE ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, I GUESS I'M ADDING UP THAT THERE'S ABOUT JUST OVER 1.1 MILLION DOLLARS IN PLACE. AS OF JULY 25, IT SAYS SHOVEL READY TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION AND JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO OTHER HURDLES. MONEY, MONEY, MONEY. THAT'S THE HURDLE. WHAT IS THE AMOUNT? ANOTHER MILLION? YES, ABOUT A MILLION. THE BIG THING IS GETTING THE WATER RETENTION TANK IS ABOUT $500,000. THAT IS PROBABLY THE BIG, HARD THING THAT WE NEED TO GET MONEY FOR. TO GET MONEY FOR. IT'S JUST HARD TO FUNDRAISE FOR BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THE GROUND. YOU CAN'T SEE IT. IT'S NOT FUN LIKE A PLAYGROUND. SO GETTING THE MONEY TO GET THAT. AND AT WHAT POINT WOULD WE AS A CITY FEEL COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO INITIATE THAT CONSTRUCTION, ALTHOUGH ALL FUNDING IS NOT IN PLACE, AND THAT'S WHAT I GUESS. SO IT HAS TO BE IN PLACE. THE CITY CAN'T ISSUE A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION IF WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT. THE PUSH RIGHT NOW IS LET'S GET IT ON THE STREET, LET'S CONTINUE TO RAISE MONEY, SEE HOW CLOSE WE CAN GET OR IF WE CAN GET TO THE AMOUNT TO DO PHASE 1A, BID PHASE 1A OUT AS A BASE BID AND 1B OUT AS AN ALTERNATE. THEN THE BIDS COME IN AND WE HAVE AN ACTUAL NUMBER. AND THEN WE HAVE A TIMEFRAME THERE THAT WE EITHER RAISE THE MONEY, COME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL MONEY, OR WE HAVE TO POTENTIALLY GO BACK TO BID AND DO SOME VALUE ENGINEERING. BUT WE AT LEAST WANT TO GET IT MOVING SO THAT WE'RE GOING DOWN THE ROAD TOWARDS THE PROJECT. BARBARA, WHAT ARE FUNDING POSSIBILITIES THAT WE COULD WORK ON AS A CITY TO HELP PARTNER WITH THEM MORE THAN MEGAN'S BEEN WORKING WITH MEGAN PIERCE HERE THAT WORKS FOR ME IN PARKS AND RECREATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH. SHE'S BEEN WORKING HAND-IN-HAND WITH DR. WEISS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH POTENTIAL GRANTS THAT A CITY HAS TO APPLY FOR. BUT LIKE SHE SAID, IT'S HARD TO DO THE SHOW AND TELL WHEN IT GOES UNDER THE GROUND. NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR ABOUT THAT ONE. LET ME ALSO SAY THIS, IF I MIGHT OFFER, IS THIS AGREEMENT THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN PLACE TONIGHT, SHOULD YOU ALL APPROVE IT, REALLY KIND OF FORMALIZES WHO'S DOING WHAT TO RAISE THE CAPITAL NEEDED FOR THE PARK. AND THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN KIND OF WHERE ARE WE GOING. SO I THINK JOAN'S PART FOR THAT AGREEMENT IS VISION GALVESTON IS GOING TO KIND OF TAKE A LEAD. TO DO WHAT WE CAN KIND OF DO REALLY COOL IS WE CAN CONVENE A LOT OF FOLKS AND WE HAVE CONVERSATIONS ALL THE WAY UP IN HOUSTON AND WE CAN APPROACH A LOT OF THINGS. SO WE'VE ALREADY, BUT THIS IS AN ATTEMPT FOR US TO WALK AND CHEW GUM AT THE SAME TIME. WHILE YOU'RE DOING THIS PROCESS, WE CONTINUE TO FUND. SO WE'RE NOT, OUR CONCERN WAS WE HAD TO GET ALL THE MONEY IN BEFORE THE BID WOULD GO OUT, WHICH WOULD JUST DELAY IT FURTHER. SO FORTUNATELY, I'M WORKING WITH THIS AMAZING GROUP OF PEOPLE. WE CAN DO IT. ALSO, WE HAVE, EXCUSE ME. WE HAVE LINDA RUTHERFORD, MR. LUCAS'S DAUGHTER, WHO IS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN FUNDRAISING THROUGH BETTER PARKS. SHE'S GOING TO TAKE IT ON AS A COMMITTEE, AND SHE'S GOING TO TRY TO START RAISING FUNDING ALSO. SO BETTER PARKS IS WORKING WITH US. IT'S A THREE-WAY GO-AHEAD. SO BETWEEN ALL OF US, WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY WHEN THERE WAS STILL A LOT OF MESS OUT IN THE PARK, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARDER. BUT WE'RE GRATEFUL TO THE CITY THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO MOVE THINGS AND START GETTING IT CLEANED UP AND NOW THERE'S A LOT OF RENEWED INTEREST AND EXCITEMENT AND SO HOPEFULLY THAT WILL ALSO HELP WITH THOSE FUNDRAISING EFFORTS MAYOR YOU'RE NOT DONE YET WE NEED TO GET YOU OUT TO THE BIG SALE HEY I'M READY COULD WE INTRODUCE YOU TO THE GREAT FRIEND UH YES SIR I'M JUST I'M YOU KNOW OBVIOUSLY THIS HAS [01:20:01] BEEN FIVE AND A HALF YEARS IN THE MAKING THERE'S YOU KNOW WE'VE PUT A LOT OF EFFORTS IN OTHER PARKS OVER THE YEARS AND NOW THAT THERE'S BEEN ATTENTION, OBVIOUSLY IT'S ATTENTION THAT'S BEEN BEHIND THE SCENES, BUT NOW THAT YOU'VE PUBLICLY SAID, HEY, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS, AND THIS IS THE AREAS OF PROBLEMS WE'VE HAD TO OVERCOME, NOW THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TOGETHER, AND WE NEED TO GET THIS DONE. WE REALLY NEED TO GET THIS STARTED. VERY GOOD. WE HAVE DAVID. DAVID, DO YOU FIND JUST SO I'M CLEAR, WE STILL NEED TO RAISE A MILLION FOR PHASE 1. OKAY. AND WHEN THIS GOES OUT TO THE STREET AND WE GET BIDS BACK, THERE WILL BE A, ALMOST ALL BIDS HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE, I GUESS. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE. AND WHEN WE GET THAT BIDS BACK AND THAT EXPIRATION DATE FOR HOW LONG THAT BID IS GOING TO BE GOOD FOR, THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE OUR DEADLINE FOR RAISING THAT MILLION. I BELIEVE MIKE CARUSO IS HE HERE? I FOUND HIM IN THE HALLWAY. YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE 90 DAYS TO AWARD A BID. AND WE HAD KIND OF THE SAME SITUATION WITH SOUTH SHORE. WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE VENDOR TO HOLD THEIR PRICE. SO I BELIEVE WE HAVE 90 DAYS. OKAY, THAT'S GOOD. IT DEPENDS ON THE COMMODITIES, BUT YEAH, TYPICALLY. I MEAN, OUTSIDE OF THAT, OUTSIDE OF THE NUTS AND BOLTS, I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF HOW, AT THE CITY HERE, WE CAN LEVERAGE OUR RESOURCES, OUR AVAILABLE RESOURCES, OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO GET THINGS DONE THAT THE CITY WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE ABLE TO DO. OH, THERE'S NO DOUBT. MR. GALVESTON WITH THIS PROJECT AND SHIELD PARK ALSO HAVE BEEN A GODSEND TO HELP US WITH THAT. AND WORKING WITH OUR STAFF HAS BEEN SO ON TOP OF THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT AT TIMES, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY ON THIS. YOU'VE GOT TO SELL A LOT OF COOKIES, [4.M Discussion of a heroes parade for the Artemis II Astronauts (Robb/Rawlins/Porretto - 15 min)] GUYS. I'M ALREADY THINKING ABOUT WHAT I'M GOING TO HAVE IN THE BAKE SALES. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? LADIES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. LET'S MOVE TO 4M, PLEASE. 4M, DISCUSSION OF A HEROES PARADE FOR THE ARTEMIS II ASTRONAUTS. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT COUNCILMEMBER ROB HAS PUT ON. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS EVER SINCE THEY'VE HAD THE FINISHED THEIR, ARTEMIS FINISHED THEIR FLIGHT. THERE'S A GROUP IN THE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN WORKING WITH ME TO BRING THIS FORWARD. THEY WANTED, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING TO BRING THIS FORWARD FOR OUR MEETING THIS AFTERNOON TO HAVE A PROCLAMATION AND HAVE THE ASTRONAUT, ESPECIALLY CHRISTINA KOCH, THAT IS THE ASTRONAUT FROM GALVESTON PRESENT FOR THAT. DAVID SMITH, IF THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT. DAVID, COME ON FORWARD. AND MARIE. MY DISCUSSION IS KIND OF SEPARATE. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON A SEPARATE INITIATIVE, HAVING, TYING TOGETHER GISD AND THE FIREMEN ARE ON BOARD ON LOOKING AT DOING A PARADE TIED IN WITH OUR THANK YOU. WHOLE STEM INITIATIVE THAT WE HAVE AT GISD AND TO MORE EMPHASIZE ON HOW ANY CHILD ON THE ISLAND CAN. WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE ASTRONAUT THAT LIVES ON THE ISLAND, AND THEN WE HAVE OUR COLONEL FALSOM. SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE THREE WHO LIVE ON THE ISLAND. SO MY INITIATIVE IS SEPARATE THAN WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AS HAVING HER. AND I AM WORKING WITH COLONEL FOSSUM AND JOHNNY SCHMECKE. SO THAT'S WHAT MY DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT. COUNCIL MEMBER ROB, CAN YOU DETAIL A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT MAYBE THE TIMING OR THE POTENTIAL COST TO THE CITY? BEFORE THE END OF THE, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY COST TO THE CITY. OKAY, SO NO COST TO THE CITY? OKAY. AND WHAT'S THE TIMING OF IT? WHERE HOPEFULLY IT WOULD BE BEFORE THE YEAR END OF THE SCHOOL SO THAT WE WOULD KIND OF HAVE ALL THE CHILDREN INVOLVED. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. DAVID, WOULD YOU GIVE US AN UPDATE OF WHAT YOU'VE BEEN WORKING WITH? I CAN'T TAKE CREDIT. MEGAN PIERCE CONTACTED ME THE WEEKEND THAT ALL THE POSTS STARTED HITTING THE INTERNET, AND SHE HAS REACHED OUT. WE ACTUALLY SPOKE TO SOME ACQUAINTANCES OF THE YOUNG LADY WHO LIVES ON THE ISLAND HERE, AND WE HAVE ALSO REACHED OUT TO NASA SAYING THAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN POSSIBLY BEING THE MARSHAL OF THE FOURTH OF JULY PARADE. WE DISCUSSED IT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THEY WOULD LIKE THAT AND POSSIBLY A PROCLAMATION TO BE BROUGHT UP. THEY HAVE RESPONDED TO OUR EMAIL THAT THEY'LL PASS IT ON TO THEIR TEAM. OBVIOUSLY, THE CREW IS VERY BUSY RIGHT NOW, SO WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR BACK WHETHER IT'S A GO OR NOT. THE BALL'S IN THEIR COURT. VERY GOOD. YES. KEY TO THE CITY, TOO. [01:25:01] WE CAN DO THAT. I THINK THE LAST KEY WE GAVE OUT WAS TO WHO? VANILLA ICE, I THINK. NO, WE'VE GIVEN OUT QUITE A FEW KEYS TO THE CITY. WE'VE DONE SOME, BUT SINCE VANILLA ICE. WE HAD CHANGED LOCKS. FRANK VILLASLEY WAS OUR LAST. OH, THAT'S RIGHT. FRANK WAS THE LAST ONE. YES. NO, ACTUALLY, I THINK BIG PEARSON WAS OUR LAST KEY TO THE CITY, AND BEFORE THAT IT WAS GENE S. BAGNOLA. SO WHEN WE HEAR BACK FROM NASA, THEN WE WILL LET THE COUNCIL MANAGEMENT KNOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, DAVID. YES, BOB? JUST ALONG THOSE LINES, IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, THERE'S A NEW MURAL FEATURING CHRISTINA ON THE OLD MCCRORY'S BUILDING RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE ART MARKET. I TALKED TO THE ARTIST THE OTHER DAY WHO WAS WORKING ON IT. IT'S REALLY COOL. DAVID, WOULD YOU PLEASE KEEP US UPDATED IF YOU WOULD, SIR? THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP ME UPDATED. [4.B Discussion of the conveyance of the Rosenberg School Property to the City (B. Brown/C. Brown - 15 min)] WE'RE GOING TO KEEP YOU UPDATED. SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL, I WOULD LIKE TO, LET'S DO THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF THE ROSENBERG SCHOOL PROPERTY. THEN I'D LIKE TO TAKE A QUICK BREAK TO GIVE US A LITTLE BREAK HERE AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO THE REST OF THE AGENDA. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 4B, PLEASE. ITEM 4B, DISCUSSION OF THE CONVEYANCE OF THE ROSENBERG SCHOOL PROPERTY TO THE CITY. THIS IS ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT. I THINK IT'S 12C, I THINK, OR SO. ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT, BOB, DID YOU WANT TO GIVE US AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE ARE ON THAT, SIR? YEAH, IN OUR PACKET WE HAVE THE RESOLUTION AND THE APPENDIX A KIND OF OUTLINING THE HISTORY ON ALL THIS AND ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE FERC CONVEYANCE WERE SET ON MARCH 27TH HAVE BEEN MET AND WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON THE ACCEPTANCE. OF THAT PROPERTY THIS AFTERNOON, SO I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT, AS YOU HAVE IT, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU A LITTLE UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. THIS ENTIRE SITE, OF COURSE, HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED, AND THE CONTRACTOR, THE DEMO CONTRACTOR IS GONE. WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THAT LITTLE PORTION OF 11TH STREET, WHICH WASN'T CONTEMPLATED ORIGINALLY, BY WORKING WITH THE CITY STAFF AND WORKING WITH THE DEMO CONTRACTOR AND OTHER GENEROUS DONORS. SO WE GOT THAT DONE AND WE'RE GONNA BE REBUILDING THE SIDEWALK AND CURB ON THAT SIDE. AND WE COORDINATED THAT WITH TREVOR AND JOE AND ROB OUT THERE ON THE CITY SIDE. SO WE HAD CITY STAFF OUT THERE INSPECTING THIS AND MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE CONFORMING TO ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR REBUILDING THAT RIGHT AWAY AND THEY'RE ALL GOOD WITH EVERYTHING. SO THE 11TH STREET'S GONE. THAT SITE HAS BEEN SEEDED WITH SOME BERMUDA MIX AND HAS HAD A SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED. AND THE GRASS IS GROWING OUT THERE RIGHT NOW. I DROVE BY ON THE WAY HERE AND THE FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY IS NOW BEING REMOVED AS WELL AS THE STORMWATER PROTECTION DEVICES. SO I THINK WE'RE ALL READY TO GO. THE ONLY THING REMAINING AND IT'S UNDER CONTRACT ALREADY AND I THINK IT'S PERMITTED IS THE REBUILDING OF THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB RIGHT OVER THERE. SO THE STORMWATER PROTECTION WILL REMAIN AT THAT OPENING UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR COMES ON SITE TO REBUILD THAT. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW WITH IT AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THEY'VE EXCEEDED EVERYTHING COUNCIL ASKED THEM TO DO. ANY QUESTIONS MARIE? ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADD SOMETHING INTO OUR RESOLUTION. THE BIGGEST CONCERN THAT ALL THE RESIDENTS HAVE IN THAT AREA THAT IF THERE ISN'T SOMETHING TO PROTECT THIS WELL INTO THE FUTURE THAT THERE MAY BE A COUNCIL THAT COMES IN AND SAYS UH WE CHANGE OUR MIND SO I GUESS THIS WOULD BE THE DAWN ON COULD WE WRITE SOME LANGUAGE LIKE WE DO SAY WITH A PUTT OR WHATNOT THAT THIS WILL BE RESTRICTED TO UH YOU SO THE END RESULT OF THIS WOULD BE A DEED AND TREVOR FANNING IS SITTING AT THE TABLE AND ANSWER ALL THOSE QUESTIONS. TREVOR, IF YOU COULD, BECAUSE THIS, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THIS CONVEYED AS A CITY PARK HERE TO THE CITY AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VOTE OF THE PUBLIC TO CHANGE THAT IN ANY WAY, WOULDN'T IT? WELL, NO. I COULD. YES. PLEASE. IF Y'ALL WILL RECALL WHEN YOU WERE DOING THE CONDITIONS. RECEIVED AND YET ONE OF THOSE IS THAT THERE ISN'T A THAT IS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO END UP IN SOME SORT OF LEGAL BATTLE BETWEEN THE TEXAS STATE LAW SAYS ONCE WE HOLD SOMETHING OUT AS A PARK OR OPEN PUBLIC SPACE THEN IT YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE ELECTORATE IF WE WANT TO SELL THAT OR CHANGE ITS USE AND SO THAT PROTECTS IT ONCE WE CAN WE MAKE THAT VERY BECAUSE I HAVE TO SAY IT LOOKS SO AMAZING AS A PARK, IT'S SUCH A FINE ADDITION TO THAT AREA THAT IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO EVER SEE THAT GO AWAY. SO THERE WOULD BE, JUST MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE TIGHTEST LANGUAGE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF FEAR ABOUT THAT IN THE FUTURE. JOE JAWORSKI AND TREVOR AND I WORKED THIS THING FOR I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG. AND THE MAIN CONDITION WAS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, MARIE. I'VE HEARD THE SAME THING. SO WE MADE SURE THAT WE PUT THE LANGUAGE IN THERE AND EVERYTHING WAS WRITTEN IN THE EXHIBIT AND ALSO IN THE RESOLUTION ITSELF. IDENTIFYING IT AS A CITY PARK, ACCEPTING IT AS A CITY PARK, AND AFTER THAT'S DONE, THAT LANGUAGE THERE, THEN STATUTORILY WHAT TREVOR JUST MENTIONED IS THE ONLY WAY TO CHANGE IT. AND AS I WORK ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEED, I WAS WORKING ON A LOT YESTERDAY. I KNOW WE WEREN'T USING A REVERTER, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE I COULD HAVE A I'M WORKING ON THE LANGUAGE NOW WITH [01:30:01] DONNA, AND THERE MIGHT BE A SHORT REVERTER THAT JUST SAYS, INITIALLY WE SHALL RECEIVE IT AND HOLD IT OUT AS A PUBLIC REPORT. WHATEVER WOULD BE AND THAT WE WILL FOLLOW THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. YEAH. AND SO THAT REVERTER, AND THEN I'D WRITE AN END DATE TO IT SO IT'S VERY SHORT. IT ONLY LASTS SIX MONTHS OR SO AFTER WE RECEIVE IT, SO THAT WE'VE HELD IT OUT AS A PART, NOW WE'RE SUBJECT TO THE TEXAS LAWS AND WE WILL FOLLOW THEM. AND THE CHARTER TOO. YES. WELL, I THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I KNOW THE RESIDENTS DO BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN. AND JUST WORTH MENTIONING PROBABLY THAT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS A CITY PARK STARTING IN 1836 WHEN THE CITY WAS ORIGINALLY PLANTED BY MICHELLE MENARD. AND THEN THE DEED WENT OVER TO THE CITY TO PUT THE SCHOOL ON THERE. NOW WE'RE GOING BACK TO WHERE WE STARTED, GOING BACK TO 1836 AS A PUBLIC PARK. BOB, IF YOU'LL CLARIFY FOR THE COMMUNITY TOO, THERE'S BEEN CONTACT. COMMENTS THAT A DUKE PARK IS GOING TO GO AWAY AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS THAT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ABOUT THE DUKE PARK OR ANYTHING NO NOT AT ALL UH IN FACT ONE OF THE UH REASONS THAT WE'VE REMOVED THAT 11TH STREET AND GOING TO BE REBUILDING THAT RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE THAT WILL ENABLE THIS TO BE ONE COMPLETE PARK ALONG WITH THAT DUKE PARK THIS PARK IT'LL BE JUST ONE ONE PARCEL ONE PARK NOT SEPARATED BY ANY STREET OR ANYTHING VERY GOOD I JUST WANT TO BOB'S WORKED HARD ON THIS, I WANT TO THANK BOB, BUT EVEN BEFORE BOB, I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T MENTION THAT DAVID COLLINS STARTED THIS CONVERSATION MANY YEARS AGO WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEN THIS FIRST SURFACED. SO THE REPRESENTATIVES IN THAT DISTRICT HAVE GIVEN IT A GO. SO WE HAVE A PRODUCT AND IT'S GOOD. AND BOB, THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORT. BOB HAS WORKED MANY, MANY HOURS ON THIS PROJECT FOR THAT. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SUBJECT? VERY GOOD. COUNCIL, I MENTIONED WE COULD TAKE A BREAK. DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK OR CONTINUE ON AT THIS POINT? TAKE A BREAK. LET'S TAKE A BREAK. IT'S 10.32. WE'RE GOING TO RECONVENE AT 10.40 A.M. WE ARE NOW ON A BREAK. IT IS 10.41 A.M. [4.C Update and Discussion of Private Beach Ownership in Galveston (C. Brown/D. Buckley/K. Clark - 20 min)] WE ARE NOW BACK IN SESSION WITH OUR WORKSHOP AGENDA. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 4C IF WE COULD PLEASE, CHANEL. ITEM 4C, UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF PRIVATE BEACH OWNERSHIP IN GALVESTON. I'M GOING TO INVITE KYLE CLARK, OUR DIRECTOR OF OUR COASTAL RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, TO THE TABLE. AND THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED BEFORE AT COUNCIL HERE. SOME OF OUR LAST DISCUSSIONS WITH GLO THAT I WAS INVOLVED WITH INVOLVED THEY WERE GOING TO DO A SURVEY ON OUR BEACHES AND THEN START TO ADDRESS THEIR INPUT, GIVE THEIR INPUT ON PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ISSUES. WE'RE NOT SURE WHEN THAT SURVEY WILL TAKE PLACE AS YET, BUT THERE HAS BEEN SOME OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THAT TIME. IF YOU COULD UPDATE US, PLEASE, SIR. YES, SIR. A FEW WEEKS AGO WHEN WE HAD THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD, THIS KIND OF CAME UP. THERE WAS SOME SIGNAGE THAT WAS PLACED SOUTH OF THE SEAWALL. THERE IS PRIVATE PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE SEAWALL. [01:35:01] AS MAYOR BROWN SAID, THE GLO WAS LOOKING AT KIND OF IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THOSE AREAS. SO THERE WAS SOME SIGNAGE THAT WAS PUT UP SOUTH OF THE SEAWALL STATING THAT YOU KNOW, AN AREA WAS PRIVATE PROPERTY, THE PUBLIC HAD INGRESS AND EGRESS ONTO THE BEACH. AND THAT WAS PASSED UP TO THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE. THEY LOOKED INTO THAT, THEY CONTACTED THE PERSON WHO INSTALLED THE SIGNS AND WANTED TO, GAVE 14 DAYS TO REMOVE THE SIGNS FROM THE PROPERTY. AND THE PERSON RESPONDED AND HAS HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH GLO. THEY SUPPLIED US WITH THE RESPONSE, AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN GLO AND THE GENTLEMAN. AND FROM WHAT I WAS INFORMED EARLIER THIS WEEK, THE GLO STAFF HAD A MEETING WITH COMMISSIONER BUCKINGHAM YESTERDAY TO ADDRESS THAT SIGNAGE. THEY HAVE NOT GOTTEN AN UPDATE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE SEAWALL, AS MAYOR BROWN SAYS, IS AN ONGOING THING. AND AS I KIND OF OUTLINED DURING THE JOINT MEETING WITH THE PARK BOARD, IS WHAT'S UNIQUE WITH THE SOUTH OF THE SEAWALL IS THERE WAS BEACH NOURISHMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WERE DONE BEFORE THE STATE HAD A LAW THAT THERE HAS TO BE A COASTAL BOUNDARY SURVEY IDENTIFYING EXACTLY WHERE THE STATE LAND IS LOCATED. SO, GLO HAS TOLD US THAT THEIR INTERPRETATION IS, IT DIDN'T MATTER WHEN THE BEAST NOURISHMENT OCCURRED, THAT IT WAS STATE SUBMERGED LAND. ONCE THEY DID A BEAST NOURISHMENT, THAT IT WAS STILL CONSIDERED AS STATE PROPERTY. THE LAW THAT WENT INTO EFFECT THAT REQUIRED THE COASTAL BOUNDARY SURVEY TO IDENTIFY THE EXACT LINE WAS IN 2000. SO THAT'S WHEN THE STATE LAW WENT IN. SO THE BEACH NOURISHMENTS THAT WE'RE DOING ON THE WEST END IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE IDENTIFY EXACTLY WHERE THE STATE LAND IS AT. SO WE'RE NOT HAVING ANY OF THOSE CONFLICTS OUT THERE. BUT IN FRONT OF THE SEAWALL, BEING HERE SINCE 1800S, AND THE SEAWALL AND BEACH NOURISHMENT OCCURRING. PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT. THE POSITION, UNLESS BRIAN SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, IS THIS IS WITH GLO, WAITING ON DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE FROM THEM. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT THEM. WE WILL BE OUT THERE MAKING SURE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PARK BOARD MANAGES THE AREA IN FRONT OF THE SEAWALL, IT'S STILL THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT BEACH ACCESS IS. AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SO WE MONITOR THAT WE THE CITY COASTAL RESOURCES DIVISION MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S OCCURRING BUT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IS IS KIND OF IN THE HANDS OF THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE AND WAITING ON DIRECTION FROM THEM VERY GOOD ANY QUESTIONS FROM MR. CLARK BOB I GUESS THERE'S NO WAY OF KNOWING RIGHT NOW WHEN THAT SURVEY WILL BE READY FOR YOU KNOW AND THEN WHEN WE DO GET THAT SURVEY, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO ENABLE US TO DO OR NOT DO? WELL, THE SURVEY WILL ENABLE THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE TO START CONTACTING WHAT WAS CONVEYED TO MAYOR BROWN FROM COMMISSIONER BUCKINGHAM. WE'LL ALLOW THEM TO START CONVEYING WITH THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IN FRONT OF THE SEAWALL, YOU KNOW, AND ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES. BUT THAT WILL BE ON THE GENERAL LAND OFFICE TO CONVEY THAT. THAT'S WHAT COMMISSIONER BUCKINGHAM CONVEYED TO MAYOR BROWN IS THAT THEY WOULD BE THE ONES REACHING OUT TO THE PEOPLE TO ADDRESS ADDRESS THAT IN PRACTICAL TERMS I GUESS UH PARK BOARD CONCESSIONS ARE ONLY ON CITY PROPERTY AND AND SO THAT WOULD THAT WOULD HELP IDENTIFY AND CLARIFY WHERE THAT ACTUALLY IS YEAH YEAH THE THE PARK BOARD LEASES ARE ON SOME OF THE STATE SUBMERGED UH THERE WAS STATE SUBMERGED LAND THAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED UH I SAID 2000 WAS WHEN THE COASTAL BOUNDARY SURVEYS WENT INTO EFFECT. SO WE'VE HAD SOME OTHER BEACH NOURISHMENTS OCCUR IN FRONT OF THE SEAWALL SINCE THEN. SO THEY'VE HAD THAT REQUIREMENT. IT'S JUST SOME OF THOSE AREAS THAT WERE NOURISHED BEFORE 2000. OKAY. AND CAD IS NOT VERY RELIABLE. CAD IS SHOWING OWNERSHIP DOWN THERE, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. YEAH, LIKE WHAT, 40% OR SOMETHING OF THE BEACH. YEAH. DAVID, YOU MENTIONED A SURVEY THAT WE ARE DOING. IS THAT THE SURVEY THAT'S OUT ON THE WEST END? SO WE'RE PERFORMING A SURVEY, AND THEN THE GLO? WELL, THE BEACH NOURISHMENT, YES, WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A COASTAL BOUNDARY SURVEY THAT WE DO ON THE, WE'VE DONE ON THE WEST END FOR THE BEACH [01:40:01] NOURISHMENTS THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE. AND THAT SURVEY IDENTIFIES PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL? NO, SIR. IT JUST IDENTIFIES WHERE THE STATE SUBMERGED LAND IS AT. I SEE. OKAY. SO THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE TYPE OF SURVEY THAT THE GLO WOULD BE DOING IN FRONT OF THE SEAWALL. THEY'RE GOING TO DO A COASTAL BOUNDARY SURVEY BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME BEACH NOURISHMENT OUT THERE. BUT ONCE THEY KIND OF IDENTIFY THAT, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND TALK TO THE LANDOWNERS. BECAUSE, AS I STATED, THE BEACH NOURISHMENT OCCURRED BEFORE 2000 WHERE THERE WAS WATER. THEY SAID THAT ONCE IT'S NURSED, ONCE IT STAYS SUBMERGED LAND, IT ALWAYS STAYS SUBMERGED LAND. SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF COMING TO A HEAD AFTER ABOUT 20-SOMETHING YEARS. JUST TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE A TIME FRAME ON IT. NO. WE'VE TOLD THEM THAT WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT THEM, BUT WE'RE ALLOWING THEM TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS. THANK YOU. JUST TO CLARIFY FOR YOU, DAVID, LIKE THE SURVEYS THAT ARE DONE ON THE WEST END, WHAT YOU'RE FOR A BEACH TO MAINTAIN ITS ENGINEERED BEACH AND THE UNFORTUNATE THING IS THERE WERE A NUMBER OF BEACH NOURISHMENTS THAT WERE DONE IN THE EARLY 2000S THAT WE DID NOT WE DIDN'T INSTITUTE SURVEYS UNTIL 2012 SO THEN WE COULD NEVER FILE FEMA CLAIMS BECAUSE WE WERE NEGLECT IN DOING OUR SURVEY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. VERY GOOD. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ON THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP. THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR FROM THE GLO ON THEIR RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT SITUATION WITH THE SIGNAGE. WE'RE WAITING FOR THEM TO COME DOWN AND DO THEIR BEACH SURVEYS TO THEN GIVE GUIDANCE ON WHERE WE'RE HEADING WITH THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ISSUE. BUT THIS IS, BOTH OF THESE ITEMS ARE COMING FROM THE GLO, NOT FROM THE CITY. AND WE'LL ENSURE THAT BEACH ACCESS IS STILL BEING [4.D Update and Discussion of the Pelican Island Bridge (C Brown/D Buckley - 15 min)] MAINTAINED DOWN THERE. YES, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCILMAN? KYLE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS, KYLE. THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 4D. IS IT DAVID, PLEASE? ITEM 4D, UPDATE AND DISCUSSION OF THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE. COUNCIL, AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH THE THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A LAND BRIDGE THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH RAIL TO PELICAN ISLAND. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE GROUP THAT WAS HEADED UP BY CONGRESSMAN RANDY WEBER. IT WAS DECIDED THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PELICAN ISLAND BRIDGE IN A DUAL PURSUIT WITH PURSUING THE CURRENT PLANS THAT WE HAVE OUTLINED AND THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON, AND ALSO MOVING FORWARD POSSIBLY WITH PURSUING A LAND BRIDGE WITH RAIL ALSO. SINCE THAT TIME, THE PORT OF GALVESTON HAS FILED A MENDED 203 APPLICATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONCEPT OF CLOSING OFF THE CHANNEL THAT WOULD SET THE STAGE FOR POSSIBLY A LAND BRIDGE AND SO FORTH. I JUST GOT A NOTICE, I THINK, DAN, YESTERDAY FROM ROGER REESE THAT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CORPS, AND SO THAT FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SO FORTH IS MOVING FORWARD. DAN, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO YOU. YOU'RE A LITTLE MORE UPDATED ON ALL THIS. COULD I JUST CLARIFY TO WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE 203? THE 203 STUDY IS ACTUALLY NOT A LAND BRIDGE STUDY. IT'S A NAVIGATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT A BRIDGE COULD BE PUT ON TOP OF IT, BOTH LAND AND RAIL. BUT THE STUDY ITSELF IS TO SHOW IF THERE IS COST SAVINGS BY CUTTING DOWN THE SEDIMENT AND SILTING OF THE CHANNEL. SO IT IS NOT A BRIDGE PER SE, IT'S A NAVIGATIONAL STRUCTURE. I HAVE A REPORT THAT A NON-FEDERAL ENTITY COULD BE THE SPONSOR FOR PURSUING THIS CONCEPT WITH THE CORE, THERE WAS TALK ABOUT WHO THAT WOULD BE. THERE WAS TALK ABOUT THE COUNTY DOING IT, THE CITY DOING IT. BUT THE PORT HAS STEPPED FORWARD AND IT'S NOT THERE. THEY HAVE A CURRENTLY I HAVE A APPLICATION APPROVED FOR DREDGING. AND THEY'RE AMENDING THIS APPLICATION TO LOOK AT THE CLOSING THAT CHANNEL. [01:45:05] AND SO IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY FOR A BRIDGE, BUT IT'S FOR CLOSING THAT CHANNEL. AND THAT WOULD SET THE STAGE, AS I MENTIONED, FOR MOVING FORWARD, DEPENDING ON HOW THAT STUDY COMES OUT AND WHAT THE FEASIBILITY AND SO FORTH SHOWS. BUT THEY AREN'T AMENDING THEIR CURRENT DREDGE PROJECT, WHICH IS MOVING FORWARD TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES. BUT THEY'RE HOOKING ON TO THEIR APPLICATION WITH THE DREDGE. THEY'RE NOT AMEND THE DREDGE PROJECT IS MOVING FORWARD. IT'S TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DREDGE PROJECT JUST AS THEY NORMALLY WOULD. DAN, DO YOU WANT TO UPDATE US ON THAT? MAYBE A LITTLE MORE CLARITY IS THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. THE PORT RECEIVED PERMISSION FROM THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, I BELIEVE, TO PROCEED. THEY DON'T HAVE FUNDING. SO THAT'S THE NEXT HURDLE FOR THE PORT. THE PORT HAS TO IDENTIFY A FUNDING SOURCE. TO PROCEED WITH THIS STUDY. SO THAT'S ALL I KNOW ABOUT THAT SIDE OF IT. THE BRIDGE, THE TXDOT IS CONTINUING SOLELY ON THEIR EFFORTS TO GET 100% ENGINEERING DRAWINGS DONE ON THE BRIDGE AND THEN IT IS THEIR INTENT TO SHELF THE PROJECT. THEY WILL NOT WORK, ONCE THEY REACH 100% THEY WILL DO NO ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE PROJECT. SO AS OF SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER THIS YEAR, THEY HAD PLANNED TO ACHIEVE 100%. THEY SAID THEY WILL NOT SPEND ANY ADDITIONAL FUNDING OR RESOURCES ON THE PROJECT. THEY ADVISED US ON A CALL RECENTLY THAT THE CITY SHOULD NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH ACQUIRING ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY OR SPENDING ANY OF THE LOCAL DOLLARS AS THEY SEE THE PROJECT. JEOPARDY AS A CURRENTLY PLANNED WHICH WAS A BRIDGE. MM-HM. THAT I MENTIONED COUNCIL IN THE PAST, THAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF IT. WE HAVE RECEIVED NO UPDATES FROM TXDOT SINCE THAT MEETING, AND THAT CAME FROM THE DISTRICT ENGINEER DIRECTLY. AND SO WE'VE SORT OF STOPPED ON OUR SIDE. BIG HURDLE WE HAVE, THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THAT WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT. BRIAN HAD DISCUSSED AN INITIATIVE OF TRYING TO REACH OUT TO THE COAST GUARD ABOUT CLOSING THE CHANNEL TO TRAFFIC, TO LARGE TRAFFIC, TO PREVENT THE BRIDGE FROM ADDITIONAL LIFTS. BECAUSE TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THE BRIDGE, IF YOU TAKE THE LOAD OFF OF IT, WHICH IS LIFTING AND DROPPING THAT BRIDGE, IT COULD EXTEND THE BRIDGE. BECAUSE UNTIL SOMETHING GETS BUILT, THAT IS THE ONLY ACCESS AND RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT A LOT OF LARGE VESSEL TRAFFIC THAT GOES THROUGH THERE. IT'S MOSTLY RECREATIONAL VESSELS AND EVERYTHING ELSE CAN GO AROUND PELICAN ISLAND. SO THAT'S ONE THING AND I THINK WE PROBABLY NEED GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL ON WHETHER OR NOT Y'ALL WANT BRIAN TO UNDERTAKE THAT INITIATIVE. THE SECOND THING IS WE NEED TO REACH OUT TO OUR PARTNERS, THE PEOPLE THAT PUT UP THE OTHER LOCAL FUNDING. SOME OF THAT FUNDING HAD TRIGGERS ON IT, THAT IF THE AFA ISN'T EXECUTED BY A CERTAIN DATE, THE FUNDING REVERTS. I THINK WE NEED, WE OWE IT TO ALL THEM TO BRING THEM UP TO SPEED OF WHERE WE ARE AND HAVE A COLLECTIVE DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE SHOULD DO GOING FORWARD. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE SITTING ON THAT MONEY. IT'S INVESTED, SO IT'S EARNING INTEREST, YOU KNOW, AND WE NEED TO DISCUSS. IF SOMEBODY DECIDES THEY'RE GOING TO WANT OUT, I THINK THE AGREEMENTS ALL STIPULATE WHAT WOULD DO, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THAT MONEY. THE AGREEMENTS HAD ALL STIPULATED THAT IF THE MONEY GOES, IF THE PROJECT GOES FORWARD, THE INTEREST ROLLS WITH THE PROJECT. SO WHATEVER IS EARNED BY THE CITY HOLDING THAT MONEY WOULD ROLL INTO THE PROJECT. IT'S NOT MUCH INTEREST. IT'S CONSIDERABLE INTEREST. IT'S THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILLION DOLLARS ALREADY. IN INTEREST? YEAH. IT'S CONSIDERABLE. FOR $250 MILLION PER ACREAGE. WELL, YEAH, WE'RE ONLY EARNING MONEY ON $34 MILLION. AND PART OF THAT IS OURS. $9 MILLION. CORRECT. $8 MILLION. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE, AND WE'RE AT SORT OF A CROSSROADS. I THINK WE'RE OBLIGATED TO COMMUNICATE WITH OUR OTHER LOCAL GROUPS, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE CAN GET FROM COUNCIL TO DO SO. AGAIN, WHETHER OR NOT WE THINK THE INITIATIVE THAT BRIAN DISCUSSED IS ONE WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER THING WE'D BE LOOKING FOR COUNSEL TO DO. BUT AT THIS POINT, WE, AT THE DIRECTION OF TXDOT, THEY BASICALLY TOLD US DON'T SPEND THAT MONEY. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. RIGHT. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TXDOT THAT AGREED MOVING TO 100%, BUT ALSO THEY WERE GOING TO SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT. THEY WERE. SO THAT BEGINS THE ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S A TWO-YEAR PROCESS. RIGHT, BUT I MEAN IT BEGINS, [01:50:02] IT'S ALL A PART OF THE PROCESS. IT WOULD BE A NATURAL PART OF THE PROCESS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR INPUT? I'VE GOT SOME THOUGHTS, BUT BOB, GO RIGHT AHEAD. SO YOU EXPRESSED THAT Y'ALL NEED SOME GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL ON TWO THINGS, IS WHAT I HEARD. ONE IS TO, I GUESS, GET BACK WITH ALL OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS. AND START TALKING ABOUT THIS OPTION AND WHAT'S GOING TO GO FORWARD AND GET THE TEMPERATURE. WILL THEY STILL BE IN IF THIS HAPPENS? THAT WOULD JUST BE EXTENDING THE AFA. WELL, LIKE PORT OF HOUSTON HAS THAT STIPULATION IN THEIR AGREEMENT. ALL THE AGREEMENTS ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. REMEMBER THE ONE WITH A&M DEALT WITH REVERSION OF SOME PROPERTY AND SEAWOLF PARKWAY. THE ONE WITH A&M ALSO DEALT WITH, OR A&M AND THE PORT OF HOUSTON DEALT WITH SOME REVERSION ON PROPERTY AND THEY WERE GOING TO BUY SOME PROPERTY AND THEY WERE GOING TO DONATE SOME PROPERTY. THERE'S A LOT OF LITTLE MOVING PIECES TO THIS, BUT I THINK AS GOOD STEWARDS OF THE PROJECT, WE DON'T WANT TO GO OUT ON SOLO WITHOUT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION ON IT, BUT WE THINK WE NEED TO BRING THEM UP TO SPEED, LET THEM KNOW WHERE WE ARE, AND COLLECTIVELY COME WITH THE BEST PROJECT BOARD. I THINK THE PROJECT ISN'T DEAD, RIGHT? THE LAND BRIDGE MAY BE UNFEASIBLE. I CALL IT A LAND BRIDGE. IT'S NOT A LAND BRIDGE. IT'S A LEVEE SYSTEM TO CLOSE OFF THE CHANNEL. HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR THE REST OF THE BAY. SO, I MEAN, IT COULD BE A LONG PROCESS. SOME OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN IT SAY IT'S A VERY SHORT PROCESS. THEY CAN GET IT DONE IN TWO YEARS. WE DON'T KNOW. BUT WE KNOW THAT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THE PROGRESS FORWARD IS REALLY GOING TO BE AT A HALT COME SEPTEMBER. RIGHT. AND SO, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A THING THAT WE HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO PROTECT IT. PROTECT OUR PARTNERS THAT ARE WITH US RIGHT NOW AND TRY TO KEEP THEM WITH US BASED ON CONTINGENCIES FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY AND PRESERVING THAT COLLABORATION. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T, PEOPLE MAKE UP STUFF. AND THAT'S THE PATHWAY TO LOOSEN YOUR PARTNERS. THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CONNECTIVITY TO PELICAN ISLAND. IF IT'S GOING TO BE A BRIDGE, IF IT'S GOING TO BE A LEVEE SYSTEM WITH A ROAD AND RAIL ON TOP OF IT. WE DON'T KNOW, BUT THIS LAST-MINUTE CHANGE IS GOING TO DEFINITELY, THE ONE THING FOR CERTAIN, IT'S GOING TO SLOW THE PROCESS. I THINK OUR PARTNERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AROUND WHAT'S HAPPENING. MOST OF THEM HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THESE MEETINGS. THEY PARTICIPATED OR ATTENDED. OTHER THAN THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WERE EVER AT ANY OF THOSE. WE'RE THE LEADERS ON THIS LOCAL STUFF. YES. SO IT'S OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WE'RE THE ONES HOLDING THEIR MONEY. RIGHT. YEAH, AND I THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEM. ABSOLUTELY. I TOTALLY AGREE. AND FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I SUPPORT DOING THAT. THE OTHER THING I HEARD WAS AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE THE BRIDGE TO ANY MORE MARITIME TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO PRESERVE ITS LIFE, I GUESS. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY REASONABLE AND PRACTICAL THING TO DO TO PRESERVE IT, BUT I THINK, AGAIN, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WE NEED TO ENGAGE WHATEVER STAKEHOLDERS ARE USING THAT AND LET THEM KNOW WHAT THE RISK IS, LET THEM KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I THINK THAT WOULD BE PART OF ANY COAST GUARD PROCESS ANYWAY. YEAH, YEAH. I MEAN, BUT TO ME THAT'S PRUDENT AND IT'S GETTING OUT AHEAD OF A BIGGER PROBLEM. AT 11 A.M. COUNCILMEMBER PERRETTA HAS LEFT THE COUNCIL WORKSHOP. WE HAVE DAVID, MARIE, AND THEN BO. DAVID. TO THE FIRST POINT OF LIMITING ACCESS BY NOT RAISING THE BRIDGE, FIRST OFF THAT IS AN EXTREMELY PRUDENT THING TO DO GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY THIS IS GOING TO GO. THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO TRY TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THAT STRUCTURE. SO YEAH, SO YOU HAVE MY WHOLE HEART AND SUPPORT IN THAT. THE OTHER THING RELATED TO THAT, REMEMBER THIS IS AN ALTERNATE ICW. IT IS NOT THE ICW. AND AS SUCH, IT SHOULD BE EVALUATED THAT WAY. AND I HOPE THAT IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COAST GUARD THAT THAT WOULD BECOME PREVALENT. THE OTHER THING THAT THIS DOES IS THAT IF YOU GO DOWN AND YOU START TO STUDY WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, CLOSE IT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE LIFE OF THE BRIDGE, IS THAT IF IT GOES, IF YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL AT THAT, THEN YOU'VE DEMONSTRATED THAT, YES, YOU DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SHUT OFF LARGE VESSEL TRAFFIC ON THE ALTERNATE OF THE ICW, WHICH ONLY THEN LENDS CREDENCE TO THIS OTHER ALTERNATE PROPOSED SOLUTION. SO I HEARTILY SUPPORT THAT. OR IT ALSO LENDS CREDENCE TO A LOWER BRIDGE. OR TO A LOWER BRIDGE. I'LL GET TO THAT IN JUST A SECOND. SO ON THE FIRST POINT, YEAH, THAT'S FROM AN OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, THAT'S THE RIGHT THING [01:55:07] TO DO. THERE'S A BIG ISSUE BETWEEN THE 203 AND AN EA, RIGHT? THE EA IS STILL IN PROCESS, SORRY, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REGARDING THE BRIDGE, RIGHT? AND SO THAT EA IS PROBABLY, HAS IT BEEN APPROVED? IT'S STILL PENDING. IT'S STILL PENDING. THEY'VE RECEIVED SOME APPROVALS. THEY'RE STILL FISHING WILDLIFE. THEY'RE FAR, FAR DOWN THE ROAD ON THAT GIVEN THE FACT THAT- FOR THE BRIDGE. FOR THE BRIDGE. FOR THE ELEVATED BRIDGE AS CURRENTLY DESIGNED BY TXDOT. I WAS HERE TWO MONTHS AGO WHEN I SAID IF WE GO DOWN THIS ROAD, TXDOT WOULD PULL OUT THEIR FUNDING. SOME QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD DO THAT. THEY DID. ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY'VE SAID IS THEY SAID WE'RE STOPPING THE PROJECT. AND THAT'S NOT TO BE UNEXPECTED, BY THE WAY. WHENEVER YOU BRING UP AN ALTERNATE TO A PROJECT THAT PRESUMES TO POTENTIALLY HAVE VIABILITY, TXDOT WILL TRADITIONALLY, IF THEY'RE NOT ALREADY IN DESIGN, IN CONSTRUCTION, THEY'LL SAY, HEY, YOU GO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU WANT, COME BACK TO US. IT'S NOT THAT THE FUNDING'S GONE. I WANT TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. IT'S JUST THAT THEY'VE SAID WE'RE STOPPING ANYTHING ELSE. MY CONCERN IS THAT IT STOPS THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE TIME FRAME FOR THAT WITH THE BRIDGE, BECAUSE THE ACQUISITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY CAN TAKE QUITE A LONG TIME AS WELL. SO I JUST WANT TO BE AWARE THAT THIS OTHER DISCUSSION THAT IS GOING ON WITH THE LAND BRIDGE OR LOWERING THE BRIDGE OR WHATEVER, THAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DELAY THE PROJECT. ONE OTHER ISSUE, AND DAN DIDN'T MENTION IT, BUT WHEN WE HAD MR. ALLBRITTON ON THE PHONE, I ASKED, I SAID, IS TXDOT GOING TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT IN MAINTAINING THE CURRENT BRIDGE? IN THE PAST, THEY HAVE FUNDED WHAT HAVE BEEN SOME VERY COSTLY REPAIRS. MR. ALLBRITTON INDICATED THAT OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGE FUNDS WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR FUTURE REPAIRS TO THE EXISTING BRIDGE. HE SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT THEY NEVER HAVE BEEN. WE KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OFF-SYSTEM BRIDGE FUNDS OR SOME OTHER TECH STOCK FUNDS. YEAH, BUT MR. ALBRITTON DID INDICATE THAT HE DID NOT FORESEE THEM EXPENDING FUNDS ON THE EXISTING BRIDGE. SO THAT IS ALSO OF A CONCERN. THE GOOD NEWS IS THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT IS HOLDING MONEY FOR DEMOLITION AND WHATNOT, SO HOPEFULLY THEY COULD COVER ANYTHING. BUT THAT ALSO HEIGHTENS THE NEED TO REDUCE OPERATION BECAUSE THE MOST COSTLY PARTS OF THAT BRIDGE ARE THE MECHANISMS. SO THAT ALSO COMES INTO THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL. ONE OTHER POINT THAT I HAD WAS THE AFA AND UNDERSTANDING, AND I'M SURE THAT Y'ALL KNOW THIS BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS OR ARE LOOKING INTO IT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WITH THE DISCUSSION OF THIS ALTERNATE SCOPE OF WORK THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE AFA, IF AT SOME POINT THAT BECOMES VIABLE AND FEASIBLE, THAT WE DON'T LOSE OUR PARTNERS. BUT THEY WOULD STILL BE THERE TO HELP SUPPORT WHATEVER SCOPE WE'RE GOING TO END UP BUILDING TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION. MY UNDERSTANDING, SIMPLISTICALLY, WOULD BE THAT THE TXDOT FUNDING AS IT EXISTS NOW IS BRIDGE FUNDING. THAT WILL GO AWAY. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE ISN'T OTHER TXDOT DOLLARS THAT ARE AVAILABLE. TO SUBSTITUTE OR REPLACE THOSE BUT YOU'D HAVE TO GO TO A DIFFERENT BUCKET WITHIN TEXT IF WE'RE NOT BUILDING A BRIDGE THEN IT'S SOMETHING ELSE MY UNDERSTANDING AND TALKING ABOUT ALL BRITAIN IS THAT UM THIS IS NOT A BRIDGE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING THIS IS A THIS IS SOME TYPE OF LEVY SYSTEM THAT THAT IS FOR DREDGING AND THINGS LIKE THAT ONCE THAT'S BUILT IF THERE HAPPENS TO NEED TO BE A ROAD ON TOP OF THAT TEXT WOULD PROBABLY AVAIL THEMSELVES TO US TO HELP US IN SOME WAY UM EVEN IF IT'S JUST DESIGN HELP. BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE JUST PUTTING A ROAD ON LAND FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES. BUT THE FUNDS THAT ARE ALLOCATED RIGHT NOW ARE STRICTLY ALLOCATED FOR BRIDGE. WELL, THAT'S NOT TOTALLY TRUE. THE $114,050,000 ARE ALLOCATED TOWARDS BRIDGE, NOT ALL OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE OUT THERE. ON YOUR COMMENT. OF IT BEING AN ALTERNATE TO THE INTERCOASTAL UNDER FURTHER DISCUSSIONS AND WITH THE COAST GUARD, IT IS ACTUALLY NOT A DIRECT ALIGNMENT OF THE INTERCOASTAL. SO THEY'RE THERE WAS A STUDY, I THINK, THAT WAS DONE BY A&M BACK IN 2018 THAT THE BRIDGE, THE GENTLEMAN FROM, THE COMMANDER FROM NEW ORLEANS HAD THEM DO A STUDY ON THE VESSELS PASSING UNDERNEATH. AND THEY SAID THAT IT COULD BE CLOSED. NOW, DO WE KNOW THERE WILL BE A LOT OF OPPOSITION FROM RECREATIONAL, FROM COMMERCIAL, [02:00:01] THERE WILL BE ALL KINDS OF ISSUES. BUT ON THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER, WHICH THERE HAVE BEEN TWO MAJOR DISCUSSIONS WITH ALL THE PARTNERS, EXCEPT FOR, AS DAN SAID, I DON'T THINK THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT WAS PRESENT AT EITHER. ALL OF THE PARTIES ARE AWARE WITH THE AFA SITUATION. AND I HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PORT OF HOUSTON AND THEIR LANGUAGE THAT IS IN THERE THAT TALKS ABOUT 2026 IS SOMETHING THEY PUT IN EVERY CONTRACT THEY DO. THEIR MOTIVATION SINCE THEY OWN A MAJOR PART OF PELICAN ISLAND WILL BE TO BE A TEAM PLAYER ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE BRIDGE BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS, LORD FORBID, WE HAVE AN OBSOLETE BRIDGE, WE NEED IT REPLACED. AND THEN THE OTHER PART THAT YOU TOUCHED ON IS THE, SO THE COST OF DEMOLISHING THE BRIDGE HAS SUBSTANTIALLY RISEN. I THINK IT'S UP TO LIKE 30, YEAH, IT'S LIKE 35 MILLION. BUT THE BRIDGE ACTUALLY, THE REASON THAT THE COST ACCELERATED SO FAST CAME TO IF THE CHANNEL WAS GOING TO EXTEND BEYOND THERE. THE CONCERN THAT THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAS IS THERE WAS A DREDGING PROJECT THEY WERE DOING DOWN IN CORPUS WHERE TYPICALLY WHEN YOU'RE REMOVING A BRIDGE, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO REMOVE IT TO TWO FEET BELOW THE MUD LINE. WELL, NOW WHEN IT'S A CHANNEL THAT'S GOING TO EXTEND BEYOND THAT, THEY MAKE YOU GO DEEPER. AND THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING THAT PRICE UP. BUT IF IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE REMOVED BECAUSE THE CHANNEL, THE ACTUAL FEDERAL CHANNEL, ENDS AT THE SULFUR DOCK, THEN THAT KIND OF BECOMES A MOOT POINT BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO REMOVE FROM BELOW. CORRECT. YOU CAN USE THE DEMO MATERIAL. RIGHT. EXACTLY. OKAY. DAVID, LET'S GET BACK TO THE TWO THOUGHTS THAT DAN BROUGHT FORWARD HERE. AND DAVID, I WANT YOU TO FINISH UP YOUR THOUGHTS. WE HAD THE THOUGHT ABOUT GETTING INPUT FROM COUNCIL ON KEEPING THE BRIDGE LOWER THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. AND SECOND OF ALL, MOVING FORWARD WITH NOTIFYING THE PARTICIPANTS AND WORKING OUT AN ARRANGEMENT FOR THEM. GO AHEAD, DAVID. ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? OH, NO. I WANT EVERYBODY TO COVER THOSE OTHER TWO POINTS. OKAY. LET'S, BO, YOU HAD SOME COMMENTS ON THOSE? YEAH, AND READING THE SUMMARY THE THING THAT I TOOK NOTE OF WAS YOU MENTIONED THAT TEXT I SAID THE CORE APPLICATION PROCESS WOULD TAKE 18 TO 24 MONTHS FOLLOWED BY A COAST GUARD REVIEW THAT WOULD TAKE AN ADDITIONAL SIX MONTHS AND THE COAST GUARD WOULDN'T EVEN CONSIDER REVIEW UNTIL THE PROJECT WAS FULLY FUNDED. THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD US. SO POTENTIALLY I MEAN DOES THAT TAKE US TO BACK TO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD BASICALLY. WELL, NO, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DESIGN BRIDGE, RIGHT? YOU DO HAVE A FULLY DESIGNED, YOU HAVE A COMPLETE DESIGN. THEY'VE WORKED TOWARD THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE. THE CORE IS INVOLVED WITH RIGHT-OF-WAY UNDERWATER THAT WE NEED ON THE PELICAN ISLAND SIDE. YOU KNOW, I THINK THOSE ARE MORE PERFUNCTORY-TYPE FUNCTIONS. THEY'RE GOING TO HAPPEN AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES. BUT THE COAST GUARD WAS VERY CLEAR AND TOLD US THEY WOULD NOT EVEN CONSIDER AN APPLICATION UNLESS THE PROJECT WAS FULLY FUNDED. AND I CAN ONLY GO ON WHAT THEY TELL US. YEAH, I'M STILL LOOKING AT THE VALIDITY OF THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT CAME FROM NOT OUR STAFF, BUT COAST GUARD STAFF TO COAST GUARD WHERE I HAVE HEARD THE ADMIRAL SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO I THINK WE NEED MORE CLARIFICATION ON THAT. ALSO DURING THAT MEETING, THEY TOLD US THAT THEY, AND TXDOT TOLD US THEIR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COAST GUARD SAID THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR AN EXTENDED CLOSURE OF THE CHANNEL. THAT THEY WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE CLOSED INCREMENTALLY FOR HOURS OR DAYS WHILE WORK [02:05:01] PROGRESSED, BUT THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO CLOSE THE CHANNEL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE BRIDGE. SO THERE IS CERTAINLY A DISCONNECT BETWEEN POTENTIALLY THE DISTRICT AND THE LOCALS. SO FEDERALLY, ONLY THE COAST GUARD. MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING IT. FEDERALLY ONLY THE COAST GUARD IS ONE OF THE PLAYERS? NO, NO, NO. THERE'S ENVIRONMENTAL. THERE'S FISH AND WILDLIFE, FISH AND GAME ON A FEDERAL LEVEL, PROBABLY ON A STATE LEVEL TOO. THE CORPS. OH, YEAH. SO THERE'S, AND ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN QUEUED UP AND HAS BEEN IN THE PROCESS. I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH ALL THAT. YOU KNOW, THERE'S UTILITY RELOCATES. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE INVOLVED WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BRIDGE AND REMOVAL OF THE OLD BRIDGE. SO IN RESEARCHING THIS, THERE'S A PROGRAM, A FEDERAL PROGRAM THAT CAME OUT IN 2021 THAT'S STILL ACTIVE. AND OF ALL, YOU KNOW, ATTENDING RANDY WEBER'S. PRESENTATION WITH THE ROUND TABLE THAT HE HAD AT COLLEGE OF THE MAINLAND. I HAVEN'T HEARD THIS PROGRAM MENTIONED YET, WHICH IN 2021 THERE WAS A NATIONAL OR FEDERAL BRIDGE REBUILDING PROGRAM THAT WAS ENACTED. AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT I DISCOVERED WITH RESEARCH THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD MENTIONED YET. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE PERTINENT AT LEAST TO LOOK INTO AND AS FAR AS ALL THE CHECK MARKS OF ELIGIBILITY, WE MEET ALL OF THOSE. IS IT DIRECT AWARD TO MUNICIPALITIES OR DOES IT GO THROUGH THE STATE AND THE COG? BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THAT MONEY MAY HAVE ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED TO THE COG. IT WAS $40 BILLION AND IT WAS BOTH STATE AND MUNICIPALITIES. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MIGHT BE WHERE THE FEDERAL, THE DOLLARS THAT ARE COMING THROUGH TXDOT ARE FEDERAL DOLLARS NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAME FROM THIS PROGRAM OR NOT. WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK INTO THAT AND FIND OUT. WHERE THE FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCE IS FOR THIS, BUT THERE'S A LARGE PORTION OF FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THIS PROJECT. DON'T YOU BE ABLE TO TELL US THAT? YEAH, WE CAN GET THAT. AND THE BIKE PATHS AND THE WALKING PATH. AND LAST THING, SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T SEE IN MY DAY, BUT IT WAS, I WAS TALKING TO SOMEBODY FROM THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT, AND THERE WAS ACTUALLY AN ATTACHED RAIL SYSTEM THAT WENT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ATTACHED TO OUR EXISTING BRIDGE. WHAT WAS THE HISTORY OF THAT? WHY WAS THAT STOPPED? WHAT IS IT? THERE'S A LOT OF RUMOR AND SPECULATION ON THAT. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS IS BASED ON HAND-ME-DOWN INFORMATION THAT THE LOCOMOTIVES GOT TO PELICAN ISLAND AND SUNK. I'VE HEARD THAT. REMEMBER, PELICAN ISLAND IS SPOILS. THERE'S A PART OF IT THAT WAS THE CORE THE REST OF IT WAS BUILT UP ON DREDGE WALLS. AND THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS UNFEASIBLE TO SUPPORT THE WEIGHT ONCE IT GOT THERE. AND IT WENT RIGHT, I THINK IT WENT THROUGH WHERE A&M IS NOW, WENT RIGHT ALONG THE WATERFRONT. BUT THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD, AND I'VE HEARD THAT FOR YEARS. ACTUALLY, THE PARCELS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE PORT OF HOUSTON ABOUT ARE THE OLD RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG SEAWOLF PARK. ALL THE OLD RIGHT-OF-WAY, BECAUSE THIS RESEARCH WAS ALREADY DONE BY TXDOT. ALL THE EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAYS. ON PELICAN ISLAND HAVE BEEN ABANDONED AND PRIMARILY ARE UNDER A&M RIGHT NOW. BUT THERE ALSO USED TO BE, AND IF YOU GO AT LEAST THE LAST TIME, OR MAYBE THE SECOND BEFORE LAST TIME, I HAD A GROUP OF ELECTED TOURING THE PORT. THERE USED TO BE A RAILROAD FERRY THAT WENT ACROSS THERE. RAIL BARGES. YEAH. AND THERE WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BEGINNING OF AMENDING THE DESIGN, THE CURRENT DESIGN THAT WAS APPROVED THAT WE WERE ON OUR WAY WITH? WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION EVER OF BEING ABLE TO AMEND THAT DESIGN TO INCORPORATE? THE ISSUE IS THE 72-FOOT CLIMB. YEAH, AS LONG AS NO TRAIN CAN MAKE THAT CLIMB. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THAT GREAT. I THINK FREIGHT CAN GO BEYOND 1.3. RESIDENTIAL CAN GO TO, LIKE, 1.5, TOO, I THINK, DAVID. BUT FREE BECAUSE OF THE WEIGHT IT'S LIKE 1.3 THAT DESIGN BOW WAS STARTED BY THE COUNTY THE CITY DIDN'T HAVE INPUT ON THIS DESIGN OF THE BRIDGE IT STARTED WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONER CLARK AND ALL THE COUNTY'S INPUT ON THAT WORKING WITH TEXT DOT WE TOOK THIS PROJECT OVER WHEN THE COUNTY HAS PULLED THEIR SUPPORT FROM THE AFA STANDPOINT WE INHERITED THAT AND TXDOT CONTINUED ON. AND TXDOT, TO THEIR CREDIT, HAS SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT INVOLVED IN RAIL DESIGN. YEAH. AND ACTUALLY, IT'S BEEN FORTUITOUS THAT THE CURRENT [02:10:02] BRIDGE HAS RAIL ON IT BECAUSE THAT HAS BEEN THE BUFFER FOR EVERY ONE OF THE STRIKES UP UNTIL NOW HAS BEEN BECAUSE THE RAIL SYSTEM ON THE CURRENT BRIDGE IS ACTUALLY, OR AT LEAST ORIGINALLY WAS SEPARATE FROM THE CURRENT BRIDGE. THEY HAVE SINCE SHORED UP THE EXISTING BRIDGE BY BOLTING TO AND BUFFERING THOSE STANCHIONS UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE. BUT I'D BE INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHTS, FIRST OF ALL, ON KEEPING THE BRIDGE DOWN. WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? AND SECOND OF ALL, YOUR THOUGHTS ON MOVING FORWARD WITH OUR PARTICIPANTS FROM THIS POINT FORWARD? I MEAN, THE BIGGEST THING IN REVIEWING THE SUMMARY THAT, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WAS A SUMMARY WITH GLENN ALLBRITTON, IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE HE'S QUOTE UNQUOTE MAN IN THE BOAT, SO I MEAN, I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE. IT KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE ME, TO ME, TODAY THE COMMUNICATION, YOU KNOW, TAGGING THAT TO A POINT TO WHERE IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN RELY ON BECAUSE CONSIDERING WHAT I'VE READ HERE FROM THE SUMMARY, THERE'S NOT MUCH RELIANCE ON ANYTHING. TO ME, IT'S KIND OF A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN THROWN BACK UP IN THE AIR FOR PERPETUAL REVIEW. YOU KNOW, KEEPING THE BRIDGE DOWN. I WOULD SAY THAT, I MEAN, CONSIDERING THAT, WE HAVE TO FIX THAT FIRST TO EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP. IF WE CAN'T KEEP THE BRIDGE DOWN TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF WHAT WE HAVE WHILE WAITING FOR THIS BASICALLY PIE IN THE SKY TO COME TO FRUITION, YOU KNOW. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE DEPENDING A LOT OF GALVESTON A&M AND ALL THE INDUSTRY THAT'S OVER THERE DEPENDING ON US TO TAKE A HARD LINE OF WANTING TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF THAT BRIDGE AND OF COURSE KEEPING BARGES OFF OF IT AS WELL. AND HASN'T IT PRIMARILY BEEN DOWN FOR LIKE THE LAST TIME IT WENT UP? I'VE NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN IT UP. OH, IT GOES UP THERE. I MEAN, I'LL SAY THAT LATELY. NO, I TAKE THAT BACK. I HAVE SEEN IT WHEN I CALL THE JAIL. YOU CAN HEAR THE SIRENS FROM MY HOUSE WHEN IT GOES UP SOMETIMES WITH THE WINDS OUT OF THE NORTH. THE BIGGER ISSUE FOR ME IS THAT NOT ONLY DO WE WANT TO PROLONG THE LIFE OF THE CURRENT BRIDGE, BUT I FEAR THAT THAT BRIDGE IS GOING TO GET LOAD RESTRICTED AGAIN. AND WITH DAVIES GOING OVER THERE, MY LOAD RESTRICTION CONCERN BEYOND ANY COMMERCE ISSUE. IS ME BEING ABLE TO GET A TOWER TRUCK OVER THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILDING SOME MASSIVE STUFF OVER THERE AND THIS YOU KNOW WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICES SO THAT'S THAT'S MY I MEAN AND POTENTIALLY LIKE THAT I ACTUALLY HAD A CONVERSATION WITH GULF COPPER DAVIES AND AND THEIR BIGGEST CONCERN UM IS BASICALLY THE THE COST OF MATERIAL AND THE ABILITY TO EITHER GET IT BY ARCH. BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEY'RE UNSURE OF THE FUTURE, THE FEASIBILITY OF CONTINUOUSLY GETTING IT BY SEMI TRUCK, WHICH THEY CAN ONLY GET SO MUCH AT A TIME. YOU KNOW, THEY CAN GET ALL THEY NEED WITH RAIL. AND WHAT THEY WERE MENTIONING TO US WAS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND QUANTITY OF WHAT THEY BUY, TYPICALLY IT'S GOING TO COME BY FAR. TWICE TO THREE TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE. THE PEOPLE ARE THE BIG ISSUE FOR DAVIES AND THE BRIDGE. THAT'S OUR BIGGEST CONCERN IN LIFE SAFETY STUFF. SO, BRIAN, HAVEN'T YOU BEEN DISCUSSING WITH THE NAVIGATION? I VISITED. WHERE ARE WE? I VISITED WITH THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT. I HAD JUST AN INITIAL CONVERSATION THAT I WAS GOING TO BE BRINGING THIS BACK TO DISCUSS WITH YOU GUYS AGAIN, BUT JUST TO GET THEIR FEEL FOR IT. THEY WERE NOT OPPOSED TO IT. AND ACTUALLY, ONE OF THE SIDE BENEFITS OF LOCKING THE BRIDGE DOWN IS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE NAVIGATION DISTRICT THANK YOU. EITHER TO LOWER THEIR TAX RATE OR TO DIVERT TAX REVENUE THAT THEY'RE SPENDING TO OPERATE, BECAUSE MOST OF THEIR MONEY IS GOING TO OPERATE THE BRIDGE, RIGHT, TO KEEP IT STAFFED AND ALL THOSE THINGS. THEY COULD EITHER BE DIVERTED TO HELP DEFRAY FURTHER COSTS OF THE DEMOLITION OR OTHER. OR NOW, IF THE BRIDGE PROLONGS, IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO HAVE MONEY TO ACTUALLY KEEP THE DAMN THING OPEN. THERE'S MAINTENANCE. YEAH. SO THEY WERE OPEN TO THE THOUGHT. I'VE ONLY VISITED WITH TED. HE WAS GOING TO, I THINK, TALK TO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, AND I HAVE NOT FOLLOWED UP WITH HIM BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WAITING TO TALK TO YOU GUYS. I DIDN'T WANT TO MARCH FORWARD TOO FAR ON THIS BECAUSE IT DOES INVOLVE, AND WE'RE PROBABLY, TO GET THIS ACCOMPLISHED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WORK THROUGH OUR FEDERAL PARTNERS [02:15:01] AND OUR STATE PARTNERS AND ALL THE LOCAL PARTNERS. AND BEFORE YOU START RATTLING ALL THOSE CAGES, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. THAT'S KIND OF WRAPPING UP THIS TOPIC. SHARON, DID YOU HAVE ANY, ON THE TWO TOPICS THAT DAN BROUGHT FORWARD ABOUT KEEPING, TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD KEEPING THE BRIDGE DOWN AND ALSO OUR INVOLVEMENT WITH OUR PARTICIPANTS MOVING FORWARD. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I AGREE. I SAY YES, WE SHOULD CONTACT THOSE PARTICIPANTS, THOSE WHO HAVE ADDED TO THE FUNDING BASKET. AND I THINK IT'S GOOD IN ORDER TO PROLONG THE LIFE TO LIFT IT LESS. SO YEAH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT, I THINK WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN A CONSENSUS, BRIAN AND DAN, IS NUMBER ONE, LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH TRYING TO SEE WHAT CAN BE DONE TO KEEP THAT BRIDGE IN OPERATION AND NOT BEING UP AS MUCH. AND IF WE CAN KEEP THAT DOWN, SO BE IT. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. SECOND OF ALL, IN MY OPINION, I THINK WE NEED TO CALL A MEETING OF OUR PARTICIPANTS. WE NEED TO SIT DOWN. IF I'M GOING OVER WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS AND GIVE THEM AN UPDATE AND KIND OF SEE WHAT THE THOUGHTS ARE AT THAT POINT. AND I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA HANG IN THERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE, MAYBE HANG IN THERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE TO LET A PORTION OF THIS LAND BRIDGE IDEA MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE PORT. BUT I DON'T SEE THEM HANGING IN THERE FOR A LONG TIME WITH THEIR FUNDING ON THAT. DAVID, YOU KNOW THIS OTHER GROUP THAT IS GOING DOWN THIS ROAD OF DOING THE EMBANKMENT, I'M GOING TO STOP CALLING IT A LAND BRIDGE BECAUSE THAT'S NO SUCH THING. WHERE IS THE FUNDING GOING TO COME FROM IN TERMS OF DOING THE DESIGN WORK, DOING ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, THE 203, THE EA, YOU KNOW, AND DOING THE FULL DESIGN? BECAUSE OUR COMMITMENT THROUGH THE AFA WAS FOR THIS OTHER SCOPE OF WORK. SO ARE WE POTENTIALLY EXPOSED IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS TO SUPPORT THIS OTHER EFFORT? NO, WE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. THEY RAISED THAT AS A POSSIBILITY FOR FUNDING. THE MAYOR AND I TOLD THEM THAT THAT FUNDING WAS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BRIDGE. BUT THEY USED THAT AS AN OPTION TO BE USED FOR FUNDING FOR WHAT THE PORT IS WANTING TO DO. AND WHAT THIS OTHER GROUP WAS WANTING TO DO, AND WE TOLD THEM THAT WE DIDN'T SEE THAT AS FEASIBLE. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT SOME OF THE PARTNERS MAY COME BACK AND ASK FOR THEIR MONEY BACK FOR USE IN SOME OTHER PURPOSE OR FOR THE LEVY TYPE PURPOSE, BUT THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED. BUT FOR RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL EXPOSURE ABOVE THE AFA LIMIT? BECAUSE THE UNIQUE THING ABOUT A 203 IS IT COULD EVEN BE DONE AS A PRIVATE PUBLIC. THE NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR COULD BE A PRIVATE ENTITY. IT COULD ALSO SAY, BUT I'M NOT SAYING THEY SAID THIS, BUT LIKE THE PORT OF HOUSTON COULD SAY THEY WOULD ADVANCE THE FUNDING FOR IT. AND IF IT ACTUALLY BECAME AN OVERALL FEDERAL PROJECT. THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE REIMBURSED SIMILAR TO THE WAY THEY DID PROJECT 11. MY ONLY POINT, MAYOR, IS THAT ANY FUTURE EFFORT THAT COMES FORWARD AND THEY CHANGE THE SCOPE OF WORK, THAT WE AS STEWARDS OF OUR CITIZENS' TAX DOLLARS SHOULD MAKE SURE TO LIMIT OUR FINANCIAL INVOLVEMENT TO THE ALREADY COMMITTED AMOUNT IN THE AFA. I WOULD HIGHLY AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD WITH THE GROUP AT LARGE WAS THAT THANK YOU. THE CITY OF GALVESTON WAS STAYING IN ITS LANE FOR THE CURRENT BRIDGE AND TO ALLOW THE OTHER TO TAKE ITS OWN PATH. THAT IS CORRECT. AND THE GOOD THING TO MENTION WITH WHAT YOU SAID IS THE MONEY THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THE BRIDGE CAME FROM THE IDC. RIGHT. SO IT'S LIKE. SORRY, BOB. ONE THOUGHT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION A LITTLE MORE, DAVID. AT THE PORT, IT IS DISCUSSED, AND THIS IS STILL. NOT BEEN NAILED DOWN THAT IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE INITIALLY FOUR TO FIVE MILLION TO MOVE THIS STUDY FORWARD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH WHERE THEY'RE HEADING NOW. THAT MONEY CAN COME FROM DIFFERENT ENTITIES. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME FROM A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY. IT CAN BE A PRIVATE ENTITY ALSO. SO IN THE PORT, POSSIBLY WOULD PARTICIPATE IN SOME OF THE FUNDING ALSO. I WOULD THINK AT THIS POINT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TWO PORTS INVOLVED, YOU WITH THEIR RAILROAD CONTACTS, THAT THEY WOULD START CONTACTING THE RAILROADS BECAUSE THERE IS FUNDING AVAILABLE. OH YEAH, RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT AS WELL. WELL, AND I'LL SAY FINALLY, LAST COMMENT THERE, THERE IS NO DOUBT, NO, NO DOUBT THAT REDUCING THE HEIGHT OF THE BRIDGE TO BEING AT GRADE, WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW, IS LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. AND JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT, WHICH IS WHY TXDOT IS NOT HALTING EVERYTHING, THANK YOU. [02:20:01] IT COULD STILL BE A BRIDGE, BUT JUST A MUCH LOWER BRIDGE. A LOWER BRIDGE. AND YOU WOULDN'T LOSE ALL YOUR DESIGN. YOU WOULDN'T LOSE ALL YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL. YOU'D LOSE A PORTION. THE ONLY THING, YOUR PILINGS WOULD BE SHORTER. CORRECT. AND THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT BECAUSE THERE'S A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT IF YOU DID THAT, I'VE AMENDED EAS BEFORE FOR THINGS LIKE THAT, IT IS A MUCH FASTER PROCESS. TO AMEND AN EA AND TO MAINTAIN THE FLOW THROUGH THAT CHANNEL, THEN IT WOULD BE TO CUT IT OFF. BUT IT WOULD LOSE THE MOTIVATION OF LESSENING THE SILTING. YEAH, I KNOW. IT'S A TRADE-OFF. WHEN IT'S POSSIBILITIES, YOU LOOK AT ALL THE POSSIBILITIES. YOU KNOW, A LOWER BRIDGE ACTUALLY DOESN'T PRECLUDE SOME TYPE OF OTHER LEVEE SYSTEM COMING IN THE FUTURE. A LOWER BRIDGE ACTUALLY MIGHT FACILITATE IT EVEN FURTHER IN THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SOLVED THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM. AND THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S SOME ANTI-SILTATION FUNCTION THAT COMES LATER, THAT COULD BE, IT'S MUCH EASIER FACILITATED AT THAT POINT. THERE'S STILL ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND ALL THAT, BUT THE LOWER BRIDGE DOESN'T PRECLUDE THAT. RIGHT. AND THE EXISTING BRIDGE COULD ACTUALLY BECOME PART OF A LEVEE. IT'S, IF IT FALLS DOWN, IT'S GONNA. EXACTLY. ALL RIGHT, LET'S KIND OF WRAP THIS UP, BOB. DID I HEAR CORRECTLY THAT THIS 203 STUDY IS GOING TO COST $4 TO $5 MILLION? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AT THE BOARD. AND THAT 203 INCLUDES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, RIGHT? THEIR STUDY INCLUDES ENVIRONMENTAL, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. TO WHAT LEVEL, BOB? I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT. BUT THE FUNDING DOESN'T HAVE TO COME ALL FROM THE PORT. IT CAN COME FROM OTHER THEY DON'T CARE. IT'S PRIVATE. THEY'RE WORKING ON GETTING THAT TOGETHER NOW, THOUGH, I GUESS. MY SENSE IS IT'S GOING TO BE A HYBRID OF PORT FUNDING AND OTHER FUNDING THAT WOULD BE NON-GOVERNMENTALLY RELATED. AND THAT STUDY IS 18 MONTHS? WELL, IT DEPENDS. THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE QUOTES ON THAT. THEY'RE TALKING AROUND 18 MONTHS, YES, SIR, BUT THAT'S STILL UNDUE. THEN MY QUESTION IS, ONCE WE HAVE THIS 203 AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOME KIND, I GUESS, IS THAT THE POINT WHERE THIS LEVY IS A GO OR NO-GO AND WE GO BACK TO THE BIG BRIDGE, OR WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT? IT JUST ESTABLISHES ON WHETHER OR NOT IT'S FEASIBLE. IT'S A FEASIBILITY STUDY, AND WHETHER IT'S FEASIBLE. THEN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE FUNDING. THEY'VE GOT TO IDENTIFY FUNDING, AND THEY'VE GOT TO GET APPROPRIATIONS, AND YOU START THAT VICIOUS CYCLE. OKAY, SO AT THAT POINT, WE WOULD BEGIN GOING THROUGH FUNDING BECAUSE IT WOULD BE DEEMED FEASIBLE FROM A NAVIGATIONAL PERSPECTIVE. IF IT'S PART OF THE FEDERAL CHANNEL PROJECT, I MEAN, I THINK MARIE ACTUALLY SAID IT TENDS TO BE A FEDERAL PROJECT. WE DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, IT COULD VERY WELL BE SOMETHING WE DON'T ENVISION. IF THE STUDY IS UNFAVORABLE AND IT SAYS IT WON'T IMPACT GALVESTON BAY AND ALL THE THINGS ARE GOOD, THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER FUNDING. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF A SORT OF LIKE, JUST LIKE THE 204 THAT WE DID ON THE BEACH WILL ALWAYS BE MAINTAINED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE 203 IS THE SAME, BUT YOU COULD HAVE A PRIVATE PARTY. AND TALKING WITH RANDY WEBER ON THIS, HE'S KIND OF WITHHOLDING HIS INPUT ON REQUESTING FEDERAL APPROPRIATION FOR THIS TO LET THIS FEASIBILITY STUDY RUN ITS COURSE. THAT WILL DICTATE THE DIRECTION WE TAKE FROM THERE. AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT'S PURELY FOR THE STRUCTURE, WHATEVER IT IS, A LEVY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. AND THEN THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT WOULD BE PUTTING A ROAD ON TOP OF. [4.E Discussion of the RFP for Stewart Beach (B Brown/C Brown - 15 min)] I GET IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, DAN. KEEP THIS UPDATED. EVERY CHANGING STORY. THANK YOU. ITEM 4E, PLEASE, MA'AM. ITEM 4E, DISCUSSION OF THE RFP FOR STEWART BEACH. VERY GOOD. WHERE ARE WE? WE'VE GOT AMBER COMING FORWARD AND MICHELLE. GOOD MORNING, LADIES. GOOD MORNING. IF YOU COULD INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE CAMERA. MICHELLE HAY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR STEWART BEACH. AMBER GERARD, PROJECT MANAGER OF THE ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT. [02:25:01] OKAY. COULD YOU UPDATE US WHERE WE ARE ON THE RFP, PLEASE? SO THE RFP IS MOVING FORWARD. THE KEY DATE FOR THE RFP IS APRIL 23RD. OH, SORRY. YEAH, TODAY. IT'S OPEN FOR CLARIFICATIONS. IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS, THE WINDOW IS OPEN. SO IT WILL BE CLOSING. THE LAST DAY OF QUESTIONS WILL BE MAY 21ST, AND WE'LL BE RESPONDING BY MAY 28TH. SO THE DEADLINE IS, I'M SORRY, JUNE 18TH IS THE CLOSE OF THE ACTUAL RFP. OKAY, JUNE 18TH. SO THAT PROVIDES EIGHT WEEKS FOR FOLKS TO PUT THEIR PROPOSAL IN. LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS AT THIS POINT, OR THIS IS MORE OF AN UPDATE? IT'S MOVING. IT'S MOVING. SO MAYBE IN MAY. COULD WE GET SOME KIND OF IDEA OF THE MAGNITUDE OF RESPONSE? WHEN IS THE PRE-BID? WE'RE STILL EVALUATING THAT WITH PURCHASING, BUT AS SOON AS I HAVE A DATE. DEPENDING ON THE MAY MEETING DATE, WHICH I THINK WE HAVE IS THE MAY MEETING DATE IS THE 28TH. YEAH, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE EARLY FOR A PRE-BID MEETING, BUT WE'LL SEE. OKAY, I DON'T WANT TO RUSH ANYTHING. THE ONLY WAY YOU REALLY KNOW WHAT KIND OF TAKERS YOU'RE GETTING IS WHEN YOU GET YOUR PRE-BID. RIGHT. BUT WE WILL HAVE QUESTIONS COMING IN BY MAY 21ST. I MEAN, WE MIGHT GET A FEEL, BUT IF YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHO'S, BECAUSE IT'S A MANDATORY PRE-BID, CORRECT? YES. SO WE'LL KNOW. WE'LL KNOW AT LEAST TO THE PLAYERS WHERE THEY TOOK A LOOK. YEAH. ALL RIGHT, WELL, IF THAT PRE-BID HAPPENS BEFORE OUR MEETING, I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT THE RESPONSES ARE. DO THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? YES, BO? WELL, THAT RFP'S ALREADY BEEN ISSUED, RIGHT, IN FULL? TODAY. TODAY IS THE FIRST DAY OF ADVERTISEMENT. THERE'S BEEN A LONG GESTATION PERIOD ON THAT. [4.F Discussion of a Monument Maintenance Ordinance (B Brown/C Brown/Robb - 20 min)] SO THEIR SUBMITTING DEADLINE IS JUNE 18TH? YEP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, LADIES. APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM 4F, PLEASE. ITEM 4F, DISCUSSION OF A MONUMENT MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE. THIS IS A DISCUSSION THAT'S BEEN BACK AND FORTH WITH THE COUNCIL. BOB, YOU'VE GOT A NEW UPDATE ON THIS. I'LL TAKE IT, MAYOR. BOB AND I HAVE TALKED AND MET ON THIS A COUPLE TIMES. WHAT BOB AND I BELIEVED TO BE THE GOOD PLACE TO BE WITH THIS. I'M SORRY, COUNCIL MEMBER PERRETTA'S NOT HERE. IT WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE CULTURAL ARTS GROUP TO COMMISSION SOMEBODY TO, ONE, LET'S GET OUT THERE, SURVEY WHAT WE GOT. LET'S DETERMINE WHO OWNS IT. LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE GOOD LOCATIONS ON ALL OF THEM. AND ACTUALLY TO LOOK AT EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT MAINTENANCE IS ALREADY DEFERRED, WHAT MAINTENANCE NEEDS TO BE DONE. AND THEN ALSO, HOPEFULLY, IF WE GET THE RIGHT VENDOR TO DO THAT. TO ALSO DETERMINE A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR EACH OF THE ONES THAT ARE THERE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SUGGESTED THAT WE DO WITH BOB, TOO, IS THAT WE LOOK AT ARE SOME OF THESE MONUMENTS IN THE BEST SPOT. WE HAVE A BUNCH OF STUFF IN THE CENTER OF BROADWAY, WHICH IS GREAT, EXCEPT YOU'VE GOT TO PRAY FROGGER TO GO LOOK AT IT. THEY GET HIT BY CARS. I MEAN, IF THE TRUE GOAL OF THESE MONUMENTS IS TO SHOW THAT WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THEM AND UNDERSTAND THEM AND APPRECIATE THEM, SITTING NEXT TO 35 MILE AN HOUR TRAFFIC IS NOT THE BEST PLACE. AND SO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS GETTING SOMEBODY AND GETTING CULTURAL ARTS ON BOARD TO FUND THIS GROUP. I CAN'T IMAGINE IT BEING OVERLY EXPENSIVE TO LOOK AT IT. A LOT OF THE MONUMENTS ARE GRANITE TYPE MONUMENTS, SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE. BUT SOME OF THEM HAVE SOME BRONZING AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE MAINTENANCE. AND I'D LIKE FOR SOMEBODY TO TELL US THE APPROPRIATE MAINTENANCE SCHEDULES AND TYPE OF THINGS AS WELL. THAT WAS OUR COLLECTIVE GROUP. BOB, DID I MISS ANYTHING? OH, I JUST WANT TO ADD TO THAT A LITTLE BIT, THAT WE NEED TO ESTABLISH WHO OWNS WHAT AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT. MAYBE WE HAVE AGREEMENTS TO MAINTAIN OTHER MONUMENTS THAT DON'T BELONG TO US. I DON'T KNOW. BUT WE JUST NEED TO ESTABLISH THAT, AND IN PARTICULAR ESTABLISH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TEXAS HEROES MONUMENT AND DO WE WANT TO OWN IT OR NOT SO WE CAN. YEAH, THAT'S JUST PART OF THIS WHOLE THING. IN A LOT OF THESE CASES, WE MAY OR MAY NOT OWN THEM, BUT WE GOT THEM. AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT MAY OWN THEM MAY NOT EXIST ANYMORE, OR SOME OF THEM MAY SAY IT'S A MONUMENT, AND HERE YOU GO, CITY OF [02:30:02] GALVESTON, IT'S IN YOUR RIGHT OF WAY, LIKE THE ONE THE COUNTY OWNS ON BROADWAY. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IF THEY'RE IN OUR RIGHT OF WAYS AND THEY'RE PART OF OUR CULTURE THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO MAINTAIN THEM REGARDLESS, BUT WE NEED THIS. WE NEED SOMEBODY TO DO A DEEP DIVE ON THIS. RIGHT. IT'S NOT JUST OWNERSHIP, IT'S RESPONSIBILITY, I GUESS. WE CAN'T MANAGE EVERY SINGLE MONUMENT IN TOWN, BUT THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO MANAGE THAN OTHERS. YES. HOW MUCH TIME IS THIS GOING TO TAKE TO WORK THROUGH? WELL, I THINK THE FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DO IS GO TO CULTURAL ARTS. THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT, AS TONY, A STEP UP. IT'S ALREADY BEEN TO THE ADC, AND IN FACT, BUT CARUSO'S ALREADY SPOKEN TO THE ARTS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION. REGARDING WHETHER IT WOULD NEED TO BE AN RFP OR AN RFQ. WE LOOKED AT THE FUNDING THAT WE HAVE. THEY APPROVED A CERTAIN AMOUNT THAT WE'LL COME BACK WITH, AND THEY'LL DO FULL APPROVAL, AND WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU BECAUSE THE WAY THE ORDINANCE WAS REWRITTEN, THE PORTION FOR MARKETING AND MAINTENANCE, WHICH THIS WOULD COME FROM, IS ACTUALLY UNDER COUNCIL'S DISCRETION. SO WE'D GET THE APPROVAL FROM ADC AND THEN COME BACK TO YOU. BUT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS ABOUT $100,000. THE FIRM WOULD DO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT IT WOULD ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE IT WOULD PROVE OWNERSHIP, ASSESSMENT, POTENTIAL COST OF ANY MOVEMENT. BUT ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS, BECAUSE THE HOUSTON ENDOWMENT INVITED US TO APPLY, FOR SOME FUNDS THAT WOULD DO, BECAUSE OUR FUNDING WOULD PAY FOR THE CITY-OWNED ASSETS. AND SO THE FUNDING THAT WE REQUESTED FROM THE ENDOWMENT WOULD COVER ADDITIONAL COSTS ON NON-CITY-OWNED ASSETS IN THE PUBLIC. SO WE WOULD GET ALL OF IT DONE AT THE SAME TIME. AND KUDOS TO YOU AND TREY CLICK FOR GETTING THAT DONE. SO WHEN DOES IT COME BACK TO COUNCIL? AND GIS FUNDING AS WELL. SO AS SOON AS CARUSO AND I GET IT WRITTEN. AND WE GO BACK TO THE ARTS DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION WITH THE AMOUNT. THE ENDOWMENT DECIDES THEIR FUNDING WILL BE NOTIFIED IN JULY, SO I'D LIKE TO WAIT UNTIL JULY TO KNOW IF WE HAVE THAT PORTION COVERED FOR THE NON-CITY-OWNED ASSETS BEFORE YOU CAN FIND APPROVAL. OKAY. MARIE? WELL, THAT'S WHY I WAS CURIOUS TO SEE THIS ON OUR AGENDA AGAIN BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE DISCUSSED THIS LAST WORKSHOP AND WE ALL AGREED TO MOVE FORWARD, WHICH IS WHY I WENT TO THE ARTS. AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE HAVING THAT. I THINK IT'S JUST AN UPDATE. WELL, I'LL EXPLAIN THAT. AT THE LAST MEETING I SAID I WAS WORKING ON A PLAN, A REPORT, OR A PLAN OF WHAT THE SCOPE OF WORK MIGHT LOOK LIKE. AND I SENT IT TO BRIAN, AND WE MET TWO OR THREE TIMES AND TALKED ABOUT IT. RIGHT NOW I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TO ANTOINETTE, THIS REPORT THAT I DID, ON MONUMENTS TO HELP YOU KIND OF. BOB DOESN'T. HE CORRESPONDS IN THICK. SO, I WAS JUST TRYING TO ESTABLISH THE, JUST KIND OF CLARIFY ALL THE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE AROUND THIS WITH BRIAN. WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MULTIPLE TIMES, SO IT'S KIND OF JUST LIKE DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN. AND ADDITIONALLY, WE'RE GOING TO GIS LOCATE ALL OF THEM, WHICH WE CAN UPDATE. AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE ENDOWMENT WAS VERY CURIOUS TO DO, BECAUSE FOR TOURISM FACTORS, THEN WE CAN PUT OUT A SECONDARY CALL FOR TOUR OPERATORS TO BUILD TOURS AROUND OUR PUBLIC. RIGHT. DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THERE'S STATE SIGNAGE. USING HOT TECH, BUT WE NEED TO BE BUILDING SOME MARKETING AROUND IT. SO IN JULY, WE WOULD SEE AN RFP, I GUESS. YES, IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN BY THEN. WE COULD PROBABLY BRING IT TO WORKSHOP BEFORE. OKAY, MAYBE WORKSHOP IN JUNE? SO THAT WE COULD GO AND YEAH, OKAY. SO MAYBE A WORKSHOP IN JUNE ON THIS TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS AND RFP POSSIBLY. AND THEN HOW LONG WILL THIS STUDY TAKE AND ALL THIS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS? THAT'S GOING TO BE PART OF I MEAN, WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE IT OPEN, THE RFP, FOR X AMOUNT OF TIME AND THEN FOR THEM TO DO IT. AND WE ASSUME. AND CARUSO AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT IT, THAT THEY WILL SUB OUT THE GETTING THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND OWNERSHIP. OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME PEOPLE ASSESSING THE MONUMENT. PROBABLY GOING TO BE FALL OR EARLY WINTER. I MEAN WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GIVE IT, I'D SAY A YEAR, HONESTLY, TO GET ALL THE ASSESSMENTS DONE. WE CAN LAY IT OUT SO THAT WE'RE GETTING THE EASIER STUFF FASTER. AND SOME MAY PERHAPS TO THE TOP AS PRIORITIES IMMEDIATELY. WE WON'T DO THAT. A HUNDRED PERCENT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT, IF THEY FIND SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY THAT'S, HEY, WE'VE GOT A REAL PROBLEM HERE, WE'LL JUMP ON THAT IN ADVANCE. WE'LL FIGURE THAT OUT. CORRECT. AND YOU'RE ALREADY DOING THE WORK ON THE HEROES MIND. HEROES MIND. SO YOU COULD PROBABLY LOOK AT ADDING AN ASSESSMENT ON THAT THAT WE FOLD IN. BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF DOING THAT WITH THE KEMPNER FOUNTAIN AS WELL, BECAUSE THE KEMPNER FUND IS OBVIOUSLY OFFERED TO GET THAT UP TO SNF. AND WE HAVE TO DO A FEW THINGS ON THAT, AND THEY WANT TO GET IT GOING. SO WE'RE GOING TO START THAT BEFORE THIS ASSESSMENT COMES THROUGH, TOO. AND WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT ON IT SO IT FOLDS INTO THE MAINTENANCE PLAN AS WELL. SO LET ME MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING. THIS ASSESSMENT IS EVERYTHING BUT THE TEXAS HEROES MONUMENT? NO, IT INCLUDES IT, BUT BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY DOING THE WORK, WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR THAT TO BE FOLDED IN WHERE WE'RE NOT LOSING TIME. SO WE'RE DOING THE WORK [02:35:01] BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT? IS THAT RIGHT? WE'RE DOING THE WORK BECAUSE WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AT THIS VERY POINT. BUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR THIS FIRM TO DO IS TO TELL US PROSPECTIVELY EXACTLY WHAT MAINTENANCE SCHEDULES NEED TO BE FILLED. FIRST THING WE'RE GOING TO DO IS TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHO OWNS IT. BUT THEN THE SECOND THING WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO HOPEFULLY HAVE THEM DESIGN A PROSPECTUS AS TO MAINTENANCE INTERVALS. WE'RE DOING IT EVERY 10 YEARS. BASED ON A VENDOR, SHOULD THERE BE SOMETHING BEING DONE AT FIVE YEARS, SEVEN YEARS, 12 YEARS, 15 YEARS, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND, OF COURSE, THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE TEXAS HEROES MONUMENT, CARS ARE GOING TO HIT IT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, TOO. RIGHT, AND IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE CHEAPER, LIKE, IF WE, MONUMENTS OUT OF GRANITE, IF WE'RE BRINGING IN A COMPANY TO CLEAN THE GRANITE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM DO ALL OF OUR MONUMENTS THAT HAVE GRANITE. YOU KNOW, IT'LL BE EASIER AND CHEAPER. AND IT'LL WORK FOR, SO CATHERINE GORMAN KNOWS I'M ALWAYS THINKING ABOUT HER. PART OF IT IS BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN SUCH AN ACTIVE PERSON, PART OF THIS MIGHT EVEN BE SOME WORK IN THE CEMETERIES AS WELL, OUR SITTING-ON CEMETERY, BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME VERY DELICATE MONUMENTS IN OUR CEMETERIES THAT THIS MAY ALSO BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY WHILE WE HAVE SOMEBODY ON CONTRACT ONCE WE GET THERE. THIS DONE SO HIGHLY SCULPTURAL. YES, BETTER WORD. YEAH, BUT THE TEXAS HEROES MONUMENT THE CURRENT RFP THAT'S OUT IS FOR A RESTORATION. SO THAT'S MOVING ON WE'RE NOT UPHOLDING THAT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT MOVED FORWARD SAME AS KEMPNER FOUNTAIN WORK. IT'S MOVING FORWARD AUTONOMOUSLY, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ALSO FOLD INTO THE PROJECT WE WANT TO BE PART OF THE OVERALL PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO DO ONE OFFS. ALL RIGHT ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ON THIS? [4.G Discussion of exploring easing the burden on downtown residents, and residents as a whole, with downtown parking (Robb/Rawlins/Porretto - 15 min)] THANK YOU, ANGIE. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, WE JOKED, BUT BOB DID A VERY THOROUGH JOB. SO THANK YOU, BOB. 4G, PLEASE. 4G, DISCUSSION OF EXPLORING EASING THE BURDEN OF DOWNTOWN RESIDENTS AND RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE WITH DOWNTOWN PARKING. COUNCILWOMAN ROBB. I ACTUALLY WANT TO DEFER THIS, AND I WANT TO ROLL IT INTO WHAT WE DISCUSSED WITH HEATHER AS FAR AS THE BOOTING, BECAUSE IT ALL TIES TOGETHER, AND IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO TALK ABOUT THEM SEPARATELY. WE'RE DEFERRING THE ITEM 4G. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO 4H, PLEASE. 4H, DISCUSSION OF INCREASING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE. [4.H Discussion of increasing the minimum lot size in the urban neighborhood zone (Robb/Rawlins/Porretto - 15 min)] MARIE? YES. WELL, THIS IS LIKE THE UMPTEENTH. TIME THAT I HAVE PUT IT ON THE WORKSHOP AGENDA. SO I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO HAVE DISCUSSION AND ACTION FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO WHEN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE WAS DONE IN URBAN NEIGHBORHOODS TO TAKE IT DOWN TO 2,500. WHICH IS NOW RESULTING IN THESE HIDEOUS, RECTANGLE BUILDINGS THAT LOOK LIKE TRAIN CARS OR WHAT ARE THEY CALLED? CONTAINERS. CONTAINERS, THANK YOU. CONTAINER CARTS THAT IT WAS SAID THAT WHEN THIS WAS DONE, IT WAS TO MAKE FOR COST EFFECTIVE HOUSING. BUT IT'S ACTUALLY DOING JUST THE OPPOSITE BECAUSE MOST OF THOSE UNITS ARE MADE INTO APARTMENTS THAT ARE QUITE SMALL, 700 TO 900 SQUARE FEET. THERE ARE EIGHT OR NINE TO A RECTANGLE. THEY ARE GETTING IMPROVED WITH NO SETBACKS AND LIKE THERE'S ONE OF THE UNITS THAT WHEN YOU OPEN THE BACK DOOR TO IT, IT ACTUALLY BLOCKS THE ALLEYWAY. THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO FOLLOW, WHICH I'M NOT EVEN SURE, MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME, BO, HOW THEY'RE GETTING THROUGH PLANNING WITHOUT ANY PARKING PLAN. AND THE THING THAT I FIND MOST CONCERNING THAT IN DOING SOME RESEARCH ON ALL THE MANY THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT THAT ARE ACTUALLY HURTING THE FABRIC OF OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY ARE RIGHT NOW ALL UP FOR SALE ON LOOPNET. SO I WOULD LIKE TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE NEXT AGENDA TO INCREASE THAT MINIMUM LOT SIZE TO 03,000. FROM 2,500 BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE WAY THAT STATE LAW IS WRITTEN, YOU COULD THEN TAKE A LOT, SAY A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT THAT HAPPENS TO BE AN URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, AND TECHNICALLY MAKE IT INTO FOUR UNITS OR MULTIPLE LIKE THESE, RECTANGLE, THREE LEVEL. BOXES THAT ARE GOING IN AND I THEY'RE JUST RUINING OUR [02:40:01] NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY'RE NOT SERVING A GOOD PURPOSE I'D LIKE TO FIRST OF ALL CALL CATHERINE FORWARD CATHERINE COULD YOU COME UP PLEASE I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OH TERESA YOU'RE HERE TOO AREN'T YOU TERESA COME ON UP I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT I KNOW BO HAS A COMMENT. THIS IS ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE, LADIES? KEVIN GORMAN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. TERESA EVANS. DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. THANK YOU, TERESA. THIS IS A TOPIC THAT'S BEING WORKSHOPPED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AS WE SPEAK, IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. AND WHERE ARE YOU ON THAT TOPIC? I KNOW IT'S ON YOUR AGENDA TUESDAY. IT ALREADY HAPPENED. ALL RIGHT, THEY HAD A KICKOFF WORKSHOP ON TUESDAY AT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TO START TO EXPLORE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ZONING DISTRICT AND THE LOT SIZE CONCERNS THAT THE COUNCIL HAD BROUGHT UP. SO WE DID AN INTRODUCTORY WORKSHOP WITH THEM ON TUESDAY TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING DISTRICT AS A WHOLE. THEY ASKED FOR SOME MORE FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT WE'LL BE BRINGING TO THEM AT THEIR NEXT WORKSHOP. PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS RUN THROUGH THE WORKSHOP AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THEM TO COUNCIL. BO? SOME OF THIS ACTUALLY OVERLAPS AT THE STATE LEVEL WITH NOT ONLY MINIMUM LOT SIZE, BUT ACTUALLY REQUIREMENTS OF WIDTH AND DEPTH, WHICH IS SOMETHING I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT INCORPORATING AS A REQUIREMENT. BUT I THINK THE THING IS THAT A LOT OF THIS WILL HOPEFULLY GET COVERED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING TO INITIATE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE WERE WAITING FOR GLO FUNDING, AND NOW THAT'S IN PLACE. BUT I THINK THAT A LOT OF THAT CAN BE COVERED THERE. BUT THERE'S ACTUALLY A STATE BILL THAT I THINK IT CAME UP IN AUSTIN THAT KIND OF CAN HELP US LINE THAT OUT. AND I THINK A LOT OF THE SITUATION THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH, MARIE, BESIDES JUST BEING THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, A LOT OF IT CAN BE COVERED WITH, AGAIN, LOT DEPTH AND LOT WIDTH. MARIE FORLEO- YEAH, WHICH ISN'T HAPPENING NOW. I DON'T WANT TO WAIT TILL THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS FINISHED BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A COUPLE YEARS. WE COULD DO SOMETHING WITH THE LDR, GIVE THAT PROTECTION BACK TO OUR NEIGHBORS. AND A LOT OF WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, NOT JUST OVER TIME, HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL SITUATIONS, ESPECIALLY LIKE ALLEY ENTRANCES WHERE A LOT OF THESE ARE. YOU KNOW, NOT REALLY BEING ABLE TO SERVICE BY FIRE TRUCKS OR AMBULANCE OR EVEN THE RESIDENTS CARS BEING ABLE TO HAVE THE TURNING RADIUS TO TURN INTO THEIR OWN GARAGE. RIGHT. SO. WELL, I STILL THINK THAT WE NEED TO LET THIS RUN THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GET THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS. YEAH, BUT WE'RE JUST SAYING WE DON'T WANNA WAIT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'M FINE WITH THAT, BUT I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THE PLACE THESE. THESE DECISIONS HAVE RAMIFICATIONS THAT ARE MORE EXTENSIVE THAN WE CAN WE THINK OF SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE. THIS IS PRIMARILY AN ISSUE I THINK I ASKED THERESA IN THE IN THE URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ZONING DISTRICTS AND THOSE EXIST PRIMARILY IN TOWN. DAVID AND THEN BOB. MAYOR YOU TOOK AWAY MY THUNDER BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE REQUEST TO CHANGE TO INCREASE THE LOT SIZE DOES HAVE OTHER IMPLICATIONS THAT RELATES TO OUR LDRS. AND WE REALLY SHOULD ALLOW OUR PLANNING COMMISSION AND OUR PLANNING STAFF TO TAKE A LOOK AT HOW BETTER TO HELP ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT COUNCILMEMBER ROB BROUGHT UP. BECAUSE AS WE WELL KNOW, IT'S TIME TO UPDATE EVERYTHING, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING QUICKLY IT'S PROBABLY NOT JUST INCREASING YOUR LOT SIZE, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY SOME OTHER CHANGES TO THE LDRS THAT NEED TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD AT THE SAME TIME IN ORDER TO ENSURE A DIFFERENT QUALITY PRODUCT THAN WHAT COUNCILMAN [02:45:01] RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY GOT SOME LOTS PLATTED, AND IF YOU RENDER THESE LOTS UNBUILDABLE, THERE'S LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS TO THAT. YOU HAVE SOME T&DS THAT THIS MIGHT AFFECT AS WELL, SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE OF THAT. CLOSING COMMENT, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE ESTIMATED TIME FRAME IS FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION TO COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL? JUST HAD THEIR FIRST WORKSHOP ON THE TOPIC, SO THEY WILL CONTINUE THAT CONVERSATION. WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT IT ONLINE, BUT MAYBE SOMETIME THIS SUMMER. OKAY. YEAH, I THINK YOU HAVE. I THINK IT'S SOONER THAN LATER BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING UP SO FAST. AND PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY FASTER NOW THAT YOU BROUGHT IT. PEOPLE ARE DISTRESSED. AND THE ISSUES THAT ARE GOING TO COME FROM EVEN THE ONES THAT ARE SO TIGHT TOGETHER, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO REPAIRS. THANK YOU. LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE ALL FOR SALE ON THE RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, THIS HAS A BEARING ON THE HISTORICAL OVERLAYS ON THESE STRUCTURES, TOO, AND THE SETBACKS THAT THE HISTORICALS ARE. THEY'RE NOT FOLLOWING THE HISTORICAL. GO AHEAD, BOB. THE SMALL LOT SIZE HAS WORKED FOR MAKING PLACES MORE AFFORDABLE ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY, NOT JUST HERE. AND HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE KIND OF A MIX, I GUESS, OF LOT SIZES IN THE U.N., BUT JUST A LOT OF THEM ARE PRETTY SMALL. AND THAT ALLOWS PLACES TO BE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE, I THINK. IT ENCOURAGES INFILL DEVELOPMENT, MORE DIVERSE KIND OF HOUSING TYPES, LOWER PRICE PRESSURES. I THINK IT WORKS. I THINK IT WORKS NOW. IT'S NOT A SILVER BULLET. NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE SILVER BULLETS. YOU HAVE TO COMBINE THEM WITH OTHER RESOURCES TO MAKE THESE THINGS WORK AND WORK PORTABLE. AND IF THE ISSUE IS THESE FUNNY TALL BOXES, I'M NOT SURE THAT INCREASING THE LOT SIZE BY 500 SQUARE FEET IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING. I THINK THAT'S A DIFFERENT PROBLEM. IT'S NOT THE LOT SIZE THAT'S CAUSING IT. I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT OUR LDRS IN TERMS OF WHAT THOSE SETBACKS SHOULD BE. WE NEED TO HAVE SETBACKS IN THERE. WHAT THE HEIGHT SHOULD BE. AND I KNOW WE CAN'T REALLY MORE DESIGN STANDARDS. MORE AND BETTER DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THAT KIND OF THING, NOT LOT SIZES. BECAUSE IF WE START INCREASING LOT SIZES, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DECREASE AFFORDABILITY. FOR INSTANCE, LA MORGAN IS IN THE UN RIGHT NOW, AND THEY'RE ABOUT TO DO A HOUSING PROJECT THERE. IF THEY HAD TO USE LARGER LOT SIZES, IT MAY NOT EVEN BE FEASIBLE. AND ALSO WOULD KIND OF GO AGAINST THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. AND SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND I'M ALL FOR LETTING PLANNING COMMISSION WORK THROUGH THIS. I THINK THEY NEED TO DO THAT AND PROVIDE A RECOMMENDATION. BECAUSE, LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. THERE'S NOT JUST ONE THING THAT'S GOING TO IT'S A GOOD DIRECTION THAT WE'RE HEADING IN, BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. THERE IS A LOT OF MOVING PARTS, BUT ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO STATE, IT MAY HAVE WORKED THAT WAY IN CINCINNATI, IT MAY HAVE WORKED THAT WAY IN AUSTIN, BUT IT IS NOT. PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE IN GALVESTON THUS FAR ON WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT. AND I HAVE DONE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH ON THAT. I QUESTION IT WITH OUR WINDSTORM STRUCTURE AND FLOOD STRUCTURE IF WE'LL EVER HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING HERE. WE JUST THINK IT WOULD BE IF IT WEREN'T THAT. IF ALL OF OUR LOTS WERE 5,000 SQUARE FEET, WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE. I WOULDN'T. YEAH, BUT I THINK THE CONSENSUS IS LET'S LET IT RUN THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE SOONER THAN LATER. AND COME BACK WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG DECISION. THIS HAS A LOT OF MOVING PARTS AS MENTIONED HERE. YOU JUST CAN'T SHOTGUN THIS AND SAY WE WANT TO GO TO 3,000 SQUARE FEET. SHOTGUN HOUSES. YES. I COME BACK AND I AGREE WITH IT. DESIGN BECAUSE WE WE'VE HAD HOUSES LIKE THAT AND THEY WERE CALLED SHOTGUN HOUSES BUT THESE JUST I JUST QUESTIONED THE HEIGHT YEAH IT'S ALMOST LIKE THEY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GET A VERY CHEAP INSURANCE I GUESS WITH FLOODING BUT THE HEIGHT AND IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE IT CONDUCIVE I'M I'M NOT UH SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE LOT SIZES BUT THE DESIGN I THINK IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AND I I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD APPROACH THAT. AND NUMBER TWO. I'D LIKE FOR YOU ALL THE EXPERTS TO GO THROUGH AND FINISH AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHEN THAT NEXT PLANNING MEETING IS. HOLD ON BRIAN. WE'LL LET YOU ALL KNOW. OKAY, FOR SURE. ALONG WHAT SHARON'S SAYING, I HOPE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LOOKS AT, BECAUSE WE HAVE, WE HAVE ALL THESE NOW DIVERSE FLOOD REGULATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRING ALL THESE DIFFERENT ELEVATIONS, WHICH BRING A NEW STRUCTURE OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ONE ONLY NEEDS TO DRIVE THROUGH GULF VILLAGE AND LOOK AT THE TWO OR THREE HOUSES THAT [02:50:01] WERE BUILT AFTER. HURRICANE IKE, THEY DON'T FIT IN A BUNCH OF SLAB ON GRADE RANCH HOUSES. ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE THESE SEMI-HIGH-RAISED HOUSES. SO TO ME, HOPEFULLY WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CAN DO, IN ADDITION TO THE CHANGES TO THE LDRS, WILL HELP COME UP WITH SOME DIFFERENTIATION TACTICS. SO MAYBE IF YOU HAVE A WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD OF SLAB ON GRADE HOUSES AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD ONE, MAYBE YOU DON'T BUILD IT FOUR FEET UP. MAYBE YOU BUILD IT A FULL EIGHT OR NINE FEET UP SO YOU CAN GET A CAR UNDERNEATH IT AND TURN IT INTO A MORE TRADITIONAL HIGH-RAISED HOUSE. SO IT BETTER FITS THE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THIS IS A PROBLEM WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE HERE ON THE ISLAND WITH INFILL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE FLOOD REGULATIONS KEEP CHANGING. CORRECT. AND WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE'S HOUSES TO FLOOD, SO WE WANT TO FOLLOW THESE FLOOD PROGRAMS, BUT IT REALLY STINKS TO BE THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THAT WHEN THAT HAPPENS. SO THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR. VERY MUCH SO. YES, ONE LAST QUESTION FOR CATHERINE. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE HAVE ANY GUIDELINES FOR CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF AESTHETICS IS IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS. IN NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. IN NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION DISTRICTS. THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE WE HAVE. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT OTHER ABILITY WE HAVE TO REGULATE THAT OUTSIDE OF THOSE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION TALKED ABOUT WAS DESIGN STANDARDS. EXPLORING THAT YEAH OKAY GREAT VERY GOOD THANK YOU VERY MUCH ANY QUESTIONS LADIES THAT YOU HAD BECAUSE I THINK YOU KIND OF GET THE FEEL OF THE COUNCIL OF THIS THERE'S A LOT OF MATERIAL COVERED IN THE WORKSHOP THAT WAS VIDEOED SO IT'S AVAILABLE ONLINE IF YOU WANT TO SEE THAT DISCUSSION KATHERINE GAVE AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION THANK YOU VERY MUCH ALL RIGHT COUNCIL TWO THINGS I WANT TO MAKE COULD COMMENT. HAS BEEN STREAMING INTO US, OUR WISH IS THEIR COMMAND. STAFF HAS BEEN SENDING IN TO US, CHECK YOUR E-MAILS BEFORE THE MEETING TONIGHT. A LOT OF THE INFORMATION YOU'VE BEEN REQUESTING, STAFF HAS BEEN STREAMING IN TO US VIA E-MAILS HERE. SO, CHECK YOUR E-MAILS. IT IS NOON, AND ON APRIL 23RD, WE HAVE MOVING IN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY AND EXECUTIVE SESSION [5 EXECUTIVE SESSION] WILL BE CONDUCTED TO DISCUSS AND RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE CONCERNING PENDING LITIGATION AND OR A SETTLEMENT OFFER OR ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER RELATED. OPIOID LITIGATION CASE NUMBER ONE, SEMICOLON 17-MD-2804, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION. IT IS 12.01 P.M. WE ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.