Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Decisions Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Marque council actions: midyear budget amendments, grants and equipment purchases approved; volunteer background checks tabled
Summary
At its April meeting the council approved midyear budget amendments, accepted several grants, authorized a drone purchase using a state grant, postponed a TWDB ordinance hearing, and tabled a volunteer background-check policy for further work.
Get email alerts on the Council Decisions Votes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The La Marque City Council took multiple formal actions during its April meeting. Highlights below summarize motions, brief debate and outcomes recorded in the public transcript.
What the council approved
- Ordinance O-2025-0011 (Agenda item 8.1) — Midyear budget amendments for fiscal year 2025: The council approved a package of midyear budget amendments discussed previously at a financial retreat. The amendments included adding a stormwater equipment operator position and other staffing and line-item changes the council debated. Motion carried by voice vote; no roll-call tallies were recorded in the transcript.
- Resolution R-2025-0020 (Agenda item 8.2) — Acceptance of a fiscal-year 2025 Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority (SB224) catalytic-converter grant: The council authorized acceptance of the grant. Motion carried.
- Resolution R-2025-0021 (Agenda item 8.3) — Recognizing World Migratory Bird Day (May 10, 2025): Adopted by motion.
- Resolution R-2025-0022 (Agenda item 8.4) — Approving a no-match AAA road safety grant application: The council authorized submission of a no-match application focused on roadway/pedestrian safety interventions.
- Resolution R-2025-0023 (Agenda item 8.5) — Authorizing the city manager (and finance director) to submit no-match grant applications not to exceed $25,000: The council passed a resolution allowing quicker submission of small, no-match grants subject to city-manager/finance oversight and subsequent council notification.
- Item 8.6 — Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) Clean Water State Revolving Fund item: Council authorized a short postponement of the ordinance and public hearing related to evidence-of-obligation language so the city could ensure compliance with notice requirements.
- Item 8.7 — Purchase of one law-enforcement drone under the SB224 grant in the amount of $29,458.40: The council authorized a drone purchase paid 100% by the SB224 fiscal-year 2024 grant to support 3-D mapping of outdoor scenes, thermal searches in missing-persons calls and a longer-term drone program that could include rooftop docking and automated dispatching. Motion carried.
- Item 8.8 — Cancel the regular City Council meeting scheduled for May 26, 2025 (observance of the holiday): Approved by motion.
What the council tabled or declined
- Item 7.1 — Volunteer background checks for boards, commissions and volunteers: The city clerk presented sample policies and recommended a draft; the council voted to table the item for more research and a drafted policy to be returned at a later meeting. Motion to table carried.
- Item 8.9 — District A request: a proposal to direct staff to request out-of-state certified records and a judicial ruling on an elected member's prior conviction history. A motion to authorize a private resident to obtain certified documents from Washington and Oregon was proposed but failed on a recorded 2—3 vote.
Why it matters: The midyear budget amendments reallocate staff and add capacity for stormwater and code/licensing administration; grant approvals secure state funding for catalytic-converter prevention and public-safety equipment; the drone purchase commits grant dollars to evidence and search capabilities; and tabling the volunteer-background-check policy indicates staff will return with proposed language for council consideration.
Ending: For each accepted grant or procurement staff were directed to return with completed documentation; the clerk and city attorney were asked to confirm whether any official conviction records are already on file regarding an eligibility question raised during public comment.

