A plan to plant palm trees down the middle of a closed-off section of Shoreline Drive in Bayshore Park might soon be scuttled. The decision isn’t final, but several members of the new city council majority expressed a desire to keep the asphalt intact so the road could be reopened in the future — just in case.
Five newly elected members, including the mayor, joined three re-elected members for the first city council meeting of the new term Dec. 13. The meeting lasted 12 hours, including more than an hour of swearing-in ceremonies. It also included a 2½-hour-long executive session. One of the first votes of the council was to change meeting times. The council will now convene at 2 p.m. Tuesdays rather than 11:30 a.m. Public comments will begin at 5:30 p.m. rather than noon. The new times will begin at the next meeting Dec. 20. 

The council focused a large portion of the meeting discussing street repairs and replacement. They approved moving $73,616 from the general fund into the street fund. The money was from a final payment from Nueces County for overbilling of election services in 2014.
The long evening ended with a presentation of Bayshore Park improvements, which includes planting 12 palm trees down the middle of the closed-off portion of Shoreline Drive. City staff was instructed to look into the feasibility of moving those 12 plantings 20 feet to the west so the road could be reopened in the future.
Newly elected at-large member Joe McComb brought up the issue, along with other concerns about park improvements, which are part of a 2008 bond package. 
“I think what they see is not what they anticipated,” McComb said of the public’s conception of the Shoreline Drive realignment that resulted from the 2008 vote. “I have not run into anybody who supported the realignment of Shoreline, and they hate the setup that’s down there now.”
McComb also said he understood that the park is designed to bring in big events, but if those expectations are not met in the next two to three years, the council might want to look at reopening the original Shoreline Drive. 
He then suggested the park be renamed Bayfront Memorial Park to commemorate the demolished Memorial Coliseum and the veterans memorial ceremonies traditionally held at Sherrill Park. 
“I think it started out as Bayfront Park, but the name got changed because of Destination Bayfront,” he said. “So now, it’s gone over to Bayshore Park.” 
A bond issue in 2012 to build Destination Bayfront, which would have included a privately owned amusement park, was voted down by residents who wanted money spent on the city’s deteriorating streets. Several council members voiced support of the new name along with moving the trees.

What didn’t go over with at least one council member was McComb’s approach to the Bayfront item on the agenda. McComb sent an email to Rose as a council member-elect asking her to immediately “hold, halt, cease and desist” work on the park until after the council could meet and discuss it. 
Rose responded that she would put the item on the agenda and instructed staff to put together a presentation for the new council, but that work had to continue.
Newly elected District 1 member Carolyn Vaughn took exception to the request and its wording. 
“I find it offensive that we would send you [Rose] a letter that says ‘cease and desist,’” Vaughn said. “As council members, we don’t have that authority.” 
She added that the email showed disrespect to Rose. 
“It does concern me that we had a councilman-elect sending direction to staff,” Hunter agreed. “We shouldn’t be doing that.”
Newly elected council member Ben Molina, District 2, also agreed.
“Stopping work should not even be a question,” he said. “We need to move forward to see it to completion.” 
McComb answered that he had a right as a resident to ask his questions. He read the email aloud and said he had no intention of disrespecting anyone when he sent it.
The council quickly moved on to the bigger issue of whether to tear up the old Shoreline Drive asphalt. No one seemed to be in support of that. 

“When I first came on the council, I couldn’t go anywhere without being stopped because they did not support closing Shoreline,” said Lucy Rubio, District 3. “When I came on board in 2015, I asked all these same questions.”
She expressed frustration that they are still discussing in 2016 how to implement something voters approved in 2008. She agreed that palm trees down the middle of the abandoned street were a bad idea. 
Other anti-palm tree sentiments came from Greg Smith, District 4. He noted that palm trees are expensive and don’t provide any shade. 
“I propose we move forward as shown [by the presentation] with the exception of moving the eastern-most plantings 20 feet to the west,” Smith said. “That would accommodate people’s needs. Simple.” 
Not so simple, once a motion was made and seconded. While Rose wanted a motion to clarify what the staff was being asked to do, Mayor Dan McQueen said he thought a motion could end up complicating things and costing time and money.

“We need to move forward, not backward,” he said, echoing words from several other council members during the discussion. “Any motions could result in cost. We have all agreed we want to keep the asphalt as an option and that palm trees are a problem.” 
He asked Rose to come back to the council with the implications of the suggestions on the table before a final decision is made. 
With that, the first city council meeting of the class of 2018 adjourned.