[00:00:02] >> GOOD AFTERNOON. IT'S JULY 23, AND THE CITY COUNCIL NOW IS CALLED INTO SESSION, AND WE WILL CONVENE IMMEDIATELY AND GO IN RECESS AND GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. [1. Executive Session] WE WILL BE OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ONE O'CLOCK. WE'LL BE BACK HERE AND HOPE TO SEE YOU AGAIN THEN. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR, WOULD YOU MIND TELLING US WHAT SECTIONS WE'RE GOING UNDERNEATH. >> THANK YOU. I'VE ALREADY TOLD MATT HE NEEDS TO JUST JUMP RIGHT IN THERE AND TELL ME ALL THE THINGS I NEED TO DO. YOU PROVIDED IT FOR ME MATT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE HOLDING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSULTING WITH CITY STAFF REGARDING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND TO HOLD CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEYS UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. FOR THE PURCHASE EXCHANGE LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 551.072 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE AND COMMERCIAL OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 551.087 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. WE ARE NOW IN RECESS. GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. WE ARE RECONVENING FROM OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION. SORRY, THAT TOOK US A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN WE ANTICIPATED. BUT WE'RE GLAD TO BE BACK WITH YOU AND GLAD TO HAVE EVERYBODY HERE WITH US THIS AFTERNOON. WE'RE NOW GOING TO RECONVENE INTO A WORK SESSION REGARDING ITEMS FOR PRESENTATION [1. Recognition of Mandela Washington Fellows] AND DISCUSSION ON SUCH ISSUES AS MAY REQUIRE IN DEPTH CONSIDERATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. WE'RE GOING TO HEAR AND DISCUSS PRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE FOLLOWING, AND PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO STAFF AS APPROPRIATE. THE FIRST THING WE GET TO DO IS SOMETHING AS I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT DOING TODAY, AND THAT'S A RECOGNITION OF THE MANDELA WASHINGTON FELLOWS WHO ARE ALL HERE WITH US IN OUR COUNCIL CHAMBERS TODAY. I'M GOING TO STEP DOWN TO THE PODIUM AND I'M GOING TO ADDRESS EVERYBODY. THEN IN A MOMENT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAND OUT HONORARY CITIZENSHIP TO THEM, AND I'LL INVITE ALL THE COUNCIL DOWN FOR THAT TIME WHEN WE PASS THOSE OUT TO EACH OF THE INDIVIDUALS, AS WE CALL THEM FORWARD BY NAME. IT'S MY GREAT PLEASURE TO HAVE, AND IT'S BEEN THE CITY'S GREAT PLEASURE AND HONOR TO HAVE FELLOWS AND TO HAVE THEM HERE WITH US IN OUR CHAMBERS TODAY. MANDELA WASHINGTON FELLOWS ARE A SELECT GROUP OF VERY TALENTED, VERY INTELLIGENT AND BRIGHT YOUNG PROFESSIONALS, EDUCATORS, BUSINESS PEOPLE, AND POLITICAL LEADERS FROM COUNTRIES ACROSS SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA. I THINK 11 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES, IF I HEARD THAT RIGHT. TWENTY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I GOT 11 FROM. SO 20 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL OF THEM. I HEARD SO MANY OF THEM THE OTHER DAY, AND I THINK I PRONOUNCED A FEW OF THEM RIGHT, ACTUALLY. THIS IS A VERY PRESTIGIOUS SIX-WEEK PROGRAM. I GOT TO REALIZE THESE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HERE IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS. THEY'VE MADE THIS HOME FOR SIX WEEKS, AND IT'S SPONSORED BY THE UNITED STATES STATE DEPARTMENT AND BY TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THEM. IT'S PART OF A BROADER PROGRAM CALLED THE YOUNG AFRICAN LEADERS INITIATIVE. THE MANDELA WASHINGTON FELLOWS ARE LEADERS AS I'VE SAID, AND THIS PROGRAM EMPOWERS THESE BRIGHT INDIVIDUALS THROUGH ACADEMIC COURSEWORK. LEADERSHIP TRAINING, MENTORING, AND PROFESSIONAL NETWORKING OPPORTUNITIES. THEY GET TO SHARE IDEAS. THEY CREATED FRIENDSHIPS. I GOT TO SIT AND EAT WITH MANY OF THEM AND TALK WITH THEM AND QUICKLY CREATED A BOND BETWEEN ME AND THEM AS WE SPOKE. THEY GET TO LEARN ABOUT DIFFERENT CULTURES. IT'S ONE WAY TO MAKE LUBBOCK, AFRICA, AND THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE FOR ALL OF US. I'VE TOLD THESE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN, THEY ARE NOT JUST LEADERS IN AFRICA. THEY ARE LEADERS FOR THE WORLD IN THEIR FUTURE. THE MANDELA WASHINGTON FELLOWS SPENT A DAY WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK LAST WEEK, WHEN I GOT A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THEM, SPEAK TO THEM, DESCRIBE FOR THEM HOW OUR GOVERNMENT WORKS HERE IN LUBBOCK. THEY ALSO HEARD FROM OUR CITY MANAGER, OUR DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC HEALTH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PARKS, AND OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT AS WELL. WE HAD THE PLEASURE OF SHOWING THEM OUR EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER AND I HOPE THEY WERE AS IMPRESSED BY THAT AS I WAS WHEN I GOT TO VISIT THE FIRST TIME AND THE NORTHWEST WATER TREATMENT PLAN, WHICH ALSO AMAZED ME WHEN I VISITED. WE TAKE FOR GRANTED WATER, BUT THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO PUTTING THAT WATER IN OUR PIPES. IT WAS A FUN DAY AND WE HOPE THEY ENJOYED IT AND FOUND IT TO BE INSIGHTFUL AND INFORMATIVE. OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM, THIS GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS VISITED MANY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT LUBBOCK. IT WOULD BE NICE IF EVERYBODY IN LUBBOCK HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE AND [00:05:03] EXPERIENCE EVERYTHING THAT THESE YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EXPERIENCE. TODAY, EACH MANDELA WASHINGTON FELLOW WILL RECEIVE AN HONORARY CITIZENSHIP CERTIFICATE, WHICH MAKES THEM HONORARY CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK. JUST A LITTLE COMMENT HERE. I THINK I SPOKE WITH MANY OF THEM WHEN I MET THEM LAST WEEK THAT I'VE RETURNED FROM A TWO-WEEK TRIP TO EGYPT, WHICH IS NOT SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA, BUT IT IS AFRICA. I THINK IT'S FITTING WE HONOR THEM AS CITIZENS BECAUSE THEY'VE SPENT MORE TIME IN LUBBOCK IN THE PAST THREE WEEKS THAN I HAVE AND I'VE SPENT MORE TIME IN AFRICA IN THE LAST THREE WEEKS THAN THEY HAVE. IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO HONOR YOU AS CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK, AND THAT MEANS A LOT TO US. I HOPE IT MEANS A LOT TO YOU AS WELL. WE'RE GRATEFUL THEY'RE HERE, AND YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE FRIENDS HERE IN LUBBOCK. WE HOPE YOU CAN COME BACK AND VISIT US SOMETIME. PERHAPS WE CAN COME AND VISIT YOU SOMETIME AS WELL. I'M GOING TO NOW INTRODUCE MICHAEL JOHNSON. HE'S THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL GRANTS ADMINISTRATION AND PARTNERSHIPS AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, AND HE'S GOING TO HELP US PASS OUT THESE HONORARY CITIZENSHIPS, AND I'D LIKE TO INVITE THE CITY COUNCIL TO COME DOWN HERE AND STAND BEHIND ME AS WE DO THIS. COME ON DOWN, AS THEY SAY. VERY GOOD. YOU'VE PRACTICED THEM BACK TODAY WITH SOME. BEFORE WE START THAT, EVERYBODY COME ON DOWN HERE, MICHAEL, I'D LIKE YOU TO JUST SPEND A LITTLE TIME TALKING ABOUT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS PROGRAM, AND THEN YOU CAN CALL THEM UP TO RECEIVE THEIR CERTIFICATES. >> AS MAYOR POINTED OUT, THIS IS A LEADERSHIP PROGRAM FOR SIX WEEKS. WE HAVE BEEN HONORED TO HOST. THIS IS OUR SIX YEAR HOSTING SINCE 2017. IT IS HUMBLING EVERY YEAR WHEN WE MEET THE FELLOWS AND WE HEAR WHAT THEY'VE DONE AND WHAT THEY'VE ACCOMPLISHED, AND WE JUST THINK TO OURSELVES. WE HAVE TO GET UP EARLIER IN THE MORNING, JUST TO GET MORE THINGS DONE. THEY INSPIRE US. WE EDUCATE THEM, THEY EDUCATE US. IT'S VERY MUCH AN EXCHANGE OF CULTURE, AN EXCHANGE OF IDEAS. THERE'S A LOT GOES INTO IT. OUR ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR ELIZABETH SPINO CAN TELL YOU THAT IT TAKES AN ARMY, NOT JUST A VILLAGE. IT TAKES A FULL ARMY TO GET EVERYTHING DONE, BUT IT IS ABSOLUTELY WORTH IT BECAUSE IT IS INCREDIBLY INSPIRING. WE'RE VERY, VERY LUCKY TO BE A PART OF THIS PROGRAM. [APPLAUSE] ALASAR LIKASA FROM ETHIOPIA. [APPLAUSE] ANSA REEL JAN FROM MADAGASCAR. [APPLAUSE] BARTLEME MOVODE FROM CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC. [APPLAUSE] BONAVENTURA KIBAYA FROM UGANDA. [APPLAUSE] CHIOMA ARUM FROM NIGERIA. [APPLAUSE] ELIZABETH OWINDA FROM KENYA. [APPLAUSE] GREGORY RACOBE FROM BOTSWANA. [APPLAUSE] STEFAN RAFID MANATO FROM MADAGASCAR. [APPLAUSE] IDA MIHIDI FROM THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA. [APPLAUSE] [00:10:13] LENA MUTURI FROM KENYA. [APPLAUSE] MALAIKA ROSO FROM RWANDA. [APPLAUSE] MASADISU TOGATARA FROM BOTSWANA. [APPLAUSE] MICHAEL YUSUF FROM NIGERIA. [APPLAUSE] BANGI SANGALA FROM ZAMBIA. [APPLAUSE] INEZ EVELINDA FROM BURKINA FASO. [APPLAUSE] NATUMA KALIBA FROM ZAMBIA. [APPLAUSE] ADUA MCKIVA FROM SOUTH AFRICA. [APPLAUSE] MISI UYOYODI FROM NIGERIA. [APPLAUSE] PATRICK MINTON FROM LIBERIA. [APPLAUSE] RETADILI NETARIKI FROM LESOTHO. [APPLAUSE] ROBERT CHIWABA FROM MALAWI. [APPLAUSE] CISLY MICATUA FROM [INAUDIBLE] [APPLAUSE] TARAD IDARA FROM SENEGAL. [APPLAUSE] ANICIA IREGA FROM MAURITIUS. [APPLAUSE] JOSEPH TOREI FROM COTE D'IVORE. [APPLAUSE] >> I [00:15:16] JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK LUBBOCK PROBABLY IS ONE OF THE MOST HOSPITABLE CITIES IN THE WORLD, AND THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE OF OUR HOSPITALITY. WE WELCOME THE WORLD HERE TO LUBBOCK, BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING WONDERFUL HERE THAT WE ARE EXCITED TO SHARE AND TO SHOW. I'M SO HAPPY THAT YOU HAVE SEEN I THINK THE BEST OF LUBBOCK, AND I HOPE YOU CAN TAKE SOMETHING BACK WITH YOU FROM YOUR TIME HERE BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE A PASSION AND A DESIRE AND A LOVE TO SERVE YOUR COUNTRY AND YOUR PEOPLE, AND HOPEFULLY SOMETHING YOU'VE LEARNED HERE WILL HELP YOU IN THAT TASK. CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL OF YOU AND WE GIVE YOU [APPLAUSE] COME BACK AND SEE US SOMETIME. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO A JOINT PICTURE NOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO ARRANGE IT. I'M GOING TO STAY HERE. WE'RE GOING TO ARRANGE IT. I'M NOT SURE HOW WE'RE GOING TO ARRANGE IT. THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS. LET'S DO IT IN FRONT OF THE [BACKGROUND] >> [BACKGROUND] AMAZINGLY, I GUESS THEY'RE GOING TO STAY FOR OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING, TOO. TURN BACK THE DIRECTION. WHEN I'M NOT ON OUR AGENDA HERE, BUT I WANT TO TURN IT OVER TO MR. AXON TO MAKE A COUPLE OTHER RECOGNITIONS HERE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL. APPRECIATE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS. THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL YEAR THAT THE CITY OF LUBBOCK IS PARTICIPATING IN THE SOUTH PLAINS TEACHERS EXTERN SHIP PROGRAM. EXTERNS STARTED WITH US YESTERDAY, AND I THINK FROM WHEN WE KEYED UP TILL NOW, [00:20:02] ONE OF THEM HAS DISAPPEARED. MR. REINHART, IF YOU WOULD RAISE YOUR HAND, GREG REINHART, HE IS A TEACHER WITH THE LORENZO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, IS A RESIDENT OF LUBBOCK. HISTORY IS ONE OF HIS PASSIONS, AND AS I'VE LEARNED, ALSO COACHING BASKETBALL, BUT WE HAVE GIVEN HIM, I THINK, A CRASH COURSE SO FAR WITH THE CITY. THEY'VE GOT ONE MORE DAY TO GO. OUR SECOND HAD STEPPED OUT. I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S COMING BACK IN. HER NAME IS SARAH CHOATE, AND SHE IS A TEACHER WITH LUBBOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, TEACHES AT IRONS, TEACHES SOME OF THE ADVANCED COURSES, MARKETING, MEDIA, AND THINGS LIKE THAT. GREG, WELCOME, WE APPRECIATE THE TIME YOU'RE SPENDING WITH US, AND MAYOR WITH THAT. I'M FINISHED. >> THE NEXT ITEM IN OUR WORK SESSION TODAY IS [2. Discuss Sewer Lateral Committee Recommendations and Policies] TO DISCUSS THE SEWER LATERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICIES. AGAIN, I WILL TURN THAT OVER TO YOU, MR. ATKINSON. >> THANK YOU AGAIN, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MR. FRANKLIN IS GOING TO APPROACH THE DIAS AND QUEUE UP A PRESENTATION. REMINDER, THIS IS THE FOLLOW UP DISCUSSION TO THE AD-HOC COMMITTEE'S REPORT THAT YOU RECEIVED ON JULY THE 9TH. COUNSEL, WE'VE GOT A RANGE OF OPTIONS THAT WE'LL GO THROUGH TODAY. THERE'S ACTUALLY VERY FEW SLIDES. WOULD REQUEST YOUR ASSISTANCE. WE NEED TO GET DIRECTION FROM THIS. YOU WILL NOT MAKE A FINAL DECISION TODAY. NOTE THAT FINAL DECISIONS ARE MOST LIKELY TO BE A PART OF YOUR BUDGET, AND WE'LL WORK THAT IN AND TALK ABOUT IT TODAY. FOR THOSE THAT ARE LISTENING OR WATCHING, TODAY DOES NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES. WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING ON HOW THIS WORKS THROUGH THE END OF THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, BUT RATHER WE'RE GETTING YOUR GUIDANCE, YOUR DIRECTION ON WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE GOING FORWARD. WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO WOOD. WE'LL BOUNCE BACK AND FORTH AND GET YOUR THOUGHTS AS WE GO. >> GOOD DEAL. THANK YOU, JARED. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. APPRECIATE BEING HERE AND GIVING A SUMMARY AND BRINGING BACK SOME QUESTIONS AND SOME THINGS THAT YOU GUYS ASKED. I'D ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE OUR CHAIR JEFF RES THAT CHAIRED THE COMMITTEE. APPRECIATE HIS ATTENDANCE HERE AND THEIR HARD WORK AND AS A COMMITTEE AND AS COMMITTEE MEMBER ON THIS TOPIC. FIRST THING I WANT TO PRESENT WITH YOU GUYS IS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME WHAT OTHER CITIES DO, AND WE PRESENTED THIS TO THE COMMITTEE PREVIOUSLY AND I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT IT TO YOU. THIS IS A TOTAL OF ABOUT 16 CITIES THAT WE POLLED. SOME OF THIS POLLING WAS DONE BY US CALLING THEIR DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES OR THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, OR SOMETIMES WHEN WE COULDN'T REACH THEM, WE WOULD GO THROUGH THEIR ORDINANCES AND FIND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT OTHER CITIES DO. GIVE A QUICK SUMMARY IF YOU LOOK DOWN THE FIRST AND SECOND COLUMN, THAT'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THE PORTION OF THE SEWER LATERAL WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. OUT OF THE 16 CITIES, 12 OF THEM PUT THAT RESPONSIBILITY ON THE CITIZENS OR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. HOWEVER, LIKE TO POINT OUT THERE'S NOTES ON THE SIDE AND WE'LL GET YOU COPIES OF THIS SO YOU CAN REVIEW IT AFTERWARDS, GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THESE. SEEING CITY OF SAN ANGELO. HOWEVER, THE ORDINANCE STATES THAT IT'S ON THE PROPERTY, THEIR PRACTICE IS THAT THE CITY PERFORMS THAT WORK. THEY'RE NOT TECHNICALLY FOLLOWING THE ORDINANCE. CITY OF WOLFFORTH WAS PREVIOUSLY ON THE CITY AND IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS, THEY RECENTLY CHANGED OVER TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. SOMETHING UNIQUE THAT THE CITY OF IRVING DOES. I KNOW IT'S BEEN CONFUSING AS FAR AS PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY, WHO OWNS THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. THEY DO SOMETHING A LITTLE UNIQUE THAT THEY GIVE EVERY PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL LINE IN THEIR CITY. THEY GIVE A DEDICATED EASEMENT FOR THAT LINE IN PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THEREFORE, CLARIFYING THE OWNERSHIP AND PROPERTY OWNERSHIP. SOME OF THESE REQUIRE REGISTERED PLUMBERS TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, THEIR CITY. RICHARDSON CURRENTLY HAS AN INTERESTING SITUATION. IT'S AN INTERIM PROJECT THAT THEY'RE DOING, BUT THEY'RE GOING ON FIVE YEARS OF THIS INTERIM PROJECT. IT'S THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY. HOWEVER, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER PAYS FOR A CLEAN OUT AT THE PROPERTY LINE AND THAT LINE IS VERIFIED CLEAN AND CLEAR AT THE TIME THAT THAT'S DONE, THE CITY WILL THEN TAKE OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF THAT LINE IN THE ALLEY. IT'S A UNIQUE STRATEGY THERE. CITY OF ARLINGTON DOES IT AND REQUIRES IT, HOWEVER, THE CITY WILL REPAIR STRUCTURAL ISSUES. WHILE IT'S ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, THEY GO AHEAD AND REPAIR IT IF THE PIPE IS BROKEN OR CRUSHED FROM A STRUCTURAL FAILURE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT BEFORE I MOVE FORWARD? WITH THAT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF POTENTIAL OPTIONS THAT WE CAN DISCUSS AS WE LOOK FOR GUIDANCE FROM COUNCIL. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU RECALL, THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION WAS A $2,500 SUBSIDY FOR EACH SEWER LATERAL REPAIR ON EACH SEWER LATERAL LINE. IT WAS A LOT MORE THAN THAT, BUT SHOULD THAT SUBSIDY BE A RECOMMENDATION BY COUNSEL GOING FORWARD, [00:25:03] WE AVERAGE A LITTLE OVER 1,000 AND 1,110 LATERAL REPAIRS ANNUALLY. THAT COMES TO AN IMPACT TO THE WASTEWATER FUND OF LITTLE UNDER $2.8 MILLION. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S ONGOING COSTS. THERE'S ABOUT $217,000 ANNUALLY THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE TO RUN THAT PROGRAM THROUGH STAFFING AND THROUGH SOFTWARE AND THINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO DO THAT. THERE'S ALSO A START UP ABOUT $210,000 FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT FOR THOSE ADDITIONAL INSPECTORS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT PROGRAM. THERE'S ANOTHER OPTION THAT WE WANT TO PRESENT TO YOU THAT IT'S VERY SIMILAR SAME THING AS THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, BUT A LOWER SUBSIDY, FOR EXAMPLE, AN $1,800 SUBSIDY. THAT'S BASED ON A CURRENT CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE WITH A CONTRACTOR RIGHT NOW DOING SEWER TAPS. THAT'S BASED ON AN ACTUAL CONTRACT PRICE THAT WE HAVE. WITH THAT SAME ANNUAL REPAIR THAT'S JUST UNDER TWO MILLION DOLLAR IMPACT TO THE WASTEWATER FUND AND THE SAME ONGOING COSTS FOR START UP ANNUALLY AND START UP TO MANAGE THAT PROGRAM. A FEW OTHER OPTIONS IS DO THIS WITH CITY CREWS OR CREWS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS. LET'S JUST EXPAND OUR CREWS. THE COST OF ONE CREW TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT TOGETHER IS ABOUT $655,000. THAT INCLUDES AN ANNUAL STAFFING OF $185,000 A YEAR AND A CAPITAL COST OF $470,000 TO PURCHASE THAT EQUIPMENT AND GET GOING. IT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN ONE CREW, THAT ROUNDED UP TO TWO CREWS IS A LITTLE OVER $1.3 MILLION. IF WE DID THAT SAME WORK ON THE CITY STAFF OR CITY SIDE, BUT WE DO IT THROUGH CONTRACT, TAKING THAT SAME $1,800 ESTIMATE FOR THE SEWER LATERALS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR CONTRACT WOULD BE JUST UNDER TWO MILLION DOLLAR HIT TO THE WASTEWATER FUND WITH THE SAME ADDITIONAL ONGOING COSTS BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO MANAGE THOSE SUBCONTRACTORS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. THIRD ONE WOULD BE RETURNING THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER, ESSENTIALLY GOING BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS BEFORE 2006 OR WAY IT WAS EARLIER THIS YEAR. WE WOULDN'T RECOMMEND DOING THAT INSTANTLY. WE WOULD RECOMMEND DOING THAT AND GOING AHEAD AND FUNDING THE CURRENT CIP FOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS OF THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR SO THAT WE CAN FUND THAT THROUGH JANUARY 1ST OF 2025. THAT GIVE US TIME TO GET AN EDUCATION PROGRAM OUT, LET THE PUBLIC KNOW IT'S COMING, AND ALSO WORK ON MAYBE PREPARING AN ASSISTANT PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME AND THEN IMPLEMENTING THAT SOMETIME IN THE SECOND QUARTER OF JANUARY 1 OF 2025. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S OPTIONS OR COULD BE A COMBINATION OF ANY OF THOSE ABOVE OR SOMETHING NEW THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION AND FEEDBACK. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND, LET'S GO TO, THERE WE GO. >> SORRY. CORRECT. THE IMPACT TO THE RATES AND THE WASTEWATER FUND, OBVIOUSLY, WHERE'S THAT REVENUE COME FROM. WE HAVE TO GENERATE THAT REVENUE THROUGH THE RATES AND RIGHT THERE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE CURRENT RATE STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND JUST GIVE YOU AN IDEA AN INCREASE ON THE BASE RATE, OUR RATE, WE HAVE THE BASE RATE, THAT'S YOUR CHARGE OR THE RATE THAT YOU PAY RIGHT NOW AND ON A ONE INCH METER. IT'S BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE WATER METER, IS $20.17 A MONTH, AND THEN YOU PAY BY THE USAGE OF GOING THROUGH YOUR WATER METER. IF WE WERE JUST TO INCREASE THE BASE RATE A DOLLAR, THAT WOULD GENERATE JUST UNDER A MILLION DOLLAR IN REVENUE, OR IF WE INCREASE THE FLOW RATE BY 1%, THAT'S ABOUT $200,000 IN REVENUE GENERATED. IF WE NEED TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL REVENUE, THIS IS HOW WE DO IT, AND OF COURSE, YOU CAN MULTIPLY THAT IN INCREMENTS IF WE NEED TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE THAN WHAT'S SHOWN HERE. NOW WITH THAT, I'LL HIT BACK FOR OPEN DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS IF YOU LIKE. >> MAYOR, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, LET ME ADD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF AN ASSISTANCE FUND. >> YES. >> THANK YOU. THAT CAME UP PRETTY STRONG RECOMMENDATION FROM THE WORK MR. REESE AND HIS COMMITTEE DID. I HAVE HAD SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS ASK ME ABOUT THAT. WE TALKED WERE THERE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS AVAILABLE, IF SO, WHAT WERE THE ELIGIBILITY, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. THE SIMPLE VERSION IN MOST CASES, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOLLARS WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE. HOWEVER, WHAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DOES HAVE, AND THIS ALL COMES THROUGH HUD, THROUGH HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE A SERIES OF QUALIFICATIONS. THEY'RE GENERALLY BASED ON INCOME, AND THEY'RE BASED ON DIFFERENT LEVELS AND WHICH LEVEL YOU CHOOSE, IN LUBBOCK, WE ACTUALLY USE THE 60% LOW TO MODERATE INCOME RATE TO DO THAT. I THINK A STRUCTURE ALREADY EXISTS, IT'S A QUESTION OF FUNDING. IF THERE WERE TO BE $0.50 PUT ON THE BASE RATE THAT WOULD GENERATE APPROXIMATELY $500,000 A YEAR. YOU SET THAT ASIDE AND THAT BECOMES YOUR ASSISTANCE FUND IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO. WHY IS THAT JUST UNDER HALF OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IN NUMBERS? [00:30:03] LIKELY IT'S GOING TO BE ROUGHLY HALF OR LESS OF THOSE THAT WOULD QUALIFY ON AN INCOME BASIS. I'VE BEEN ASKED ABOUT COMMERCIAL OWNER OCCUPIED RENTER OCCUPIED, AND OF COURSE, YOU DON'T TREAT THOSE DIFFERENTLY, BUT NOTE IN AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, YOU ARE BASING THAT ON THE INCOME OF THE OWNER NOT NECESSARILY THE OCCUPANT. YOU WOULD BE BASING THAT ON THE OWNERS. WE DO HAVE, IF IT WERE TO BECOME NECESSARY AND THIS WOULD NOT LAST FOR VERY LONG, BUT IT COULD HELP US. LUBBOCK RECEIVES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF DOLLARS IN OIL ROYALTIES. THESE WERE GRANTED TO THE CITY A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO, SINCE 2018, WE HAVE ACCUMULATED THOSE DOLLARS AND WE PUT THEM IN WHAT'S CALLED THE NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK NEIGHBORHOOD AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUND. THAT IS OUR WAY OF HELPING PEOPLE WHO MEET ALL OF THE HUD QUALIFICATIONS, BUT ONE, AND IT'S NEVER THE SAME ONE THAT THEY DON'T MEET. BUT OF ONE AND STILL HELPING THEM WORK ON THEIR HOMES USING LOCAL DOLLARS RATHER THAN HUD DOLLARS. THAT GENERATES ON AVERAGE ABOUT $300,000 A YEAR. IT VARIES DRAMATICALLY. THERE ARE YEARS IT IS WAY ABOVE THAT, AND THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THE PRICE OF OIL. THERE'S YEARS IT'S BEEN BELOW. THAT FUND HAS ACCUMULATED A BALANCE TODAY OF ABOUT $950,000. I WOULD NOT SUGGEST TAKING ALL OF THAT OR THE RECURRING REVENUE, BUT IF IT WAS NEEDED TO HELP WITH AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE COUNCIL HAS CONTROL OF THOSE DOLLARS AS WELL. I'LL STOP AND WE'LL TURN IT OVER AND ANSWER QUESTIONS, TAKE IDEAS AND KEEP GOING. >> I'LL TAKE COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS. >> MAYOR PRO TEM, MARTINEZ-GARCIA. >> WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT EXPLANATION. I KNOW WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS A FEW TIMES, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE CLEAN OUT PROGRAM THAT I THINK YOU MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE CITIES, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS SAN ANGELO. WAS IT IN SAN ANGELO? >> BRIAN AND COLLINS BOTH HAVE OTHER CLEAN OUT PROGRAM, YES IN RICHARDSON. THAT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE ALLEYS. MAJORITY OF THEIR SEWERS ARE IN THE STREETS. APPLES TO ORANGES A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S STILL THE SAME SCENARIO. THEY HAVE A PROGRAM THAT SHOULD THE HOMEOWNER WANT TO GO IN BECAUSE THE CHALLENGE THAT THEY HAVE, THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS WE CAN'T GET IN THE LINE AND CAMERA THE LINE. WE CAN CAMERA THE SEWER MAIN LATERAL OR THE CITY OWNED SEWER MAIN THAT GOES PARALLEL TO THE ALLEY. BUT GOING UP AND CAMERA IN THAT LINE REALLY CAN'T GET INTO IT. THE ONLY WAY TO GET INTO IT IS THAT THE CLEAN OUT AND THAT CLEANOUT IS USUALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE PLUMBER CAN CLEAN OUT AND GO ALL THE WAY AND LOOK AT IT. ONE OPTION THAT THEY DID IS GOING IN AND IF THE PROPERTY OWNER PAYS TO PUT IN A CLEANOUT AT THE PROPERTY LINE. IN THEIR SITUATION AT THE SIDEWALK AND MOST OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY IN THE SIDEWALK. THAT PROVIDES AN ACCESS POINT FOR THE CITY TO COME IN AND CLEAN THAT LINE, AND THE INTENT IS THAT THEY GO IN AND CLEAN IT WITHOUT HAVING TO TEAR IT OUT AND TAKE CARE OF THAT SITUATION WITH AN EXCAVATION. IF THE HOMEOWNER PAYS FOR A CLEANOUT, THEN THE CITY WOULD TAKE OWNERSHIP FROM THAT POINT GOING FORWARD. ONE CAVEAT IS THAT AT THE TIME OF THAT CLEANOUT, THAT LINE HAS TO BE CLEAR AND IN GOOD SHAPE GOING INTO THE ALLEY. IF IT'S AN ORANGEBURG SITUATION THAT WE HAVE HERE IN LUBBOCK, THAT WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE REPLACED BY THE HOMEOWNER AND IN A CLEANOUT INSTALLED, AND FROM THAT POINT FORWARD, THE CITY OF RICHARDSON WOULD DO THAT. >> WILL YOU REMIND FOR THOSE WATCHING THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE ABOUT THE ORANGEBURG LINES JUST SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW HOW WE HAVE GOTTEN HERE IN. >> SURE THE ORANGEBURG IS A PIPE THAT WAS USED IN THE EARLY '60S AND MAYBE EVEN EARLIER IN THEM BUT FOR CITY OF LOW MAJORITY '60S. IT IS BASICALLY A CARDBOARD PIPE THAT HAD CAR ON IT. IT WAS A PIPE THAT'S LASTED ABOUT 60 YEARS. OF COURSE, YOU CAN IMAGINE IT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THAT PIPE AND IT'S CRUSHED A LOT THAT WE SEE BASICALLY JUST DUE TO THE WEIGHT OF THE SOILS AND THE DEGRADATION OF THAT PIPE ITSELF. THAT PIPE CREATES AN ISSUE AND IT'S JUST OUTLIVED IT'S USEFUL LIFE AND WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF THAT COMING UP AND NEEDING TO BE REPLACED AT THIS TIME. WHEN THOSE FAIL, IT CAUSES SEWER BACKUPS OR CAUSES BLOCKAGES EITHER IN THE SEWER LATERAL LINE AND/OR THE CITY MAIN. >> COMMENTS FROM ANY OTHER COUNCIL PEOPLE? MR. COLLINS. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. LET ME FIRST BY SAYING ONCE AGAIN, THANK YOU TO MR. REESE AND THE TEAM THAT WORKED ON THIS. [00:35:02] I KNOW THEY PUT A LOT OF MAN HOURS INTO DISCOVERY AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH IDEAS FOR US, SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THAT. IF ORANGEBURG WAS USED IN THE 60S AND FOR A PERIOD OF TIME AND DISCONTINUED IN THE EARLY 70S IS MAYBE WHAT I UNDERSTAND. WHAT WAS USED PRIOR TO THAT? >> WE HAVE SOME DUCTILE IRON PIPE THAT WAS USED. MAJORITY IN LUBBOCK IS A VITRIFIED CLAY PIPE. >> HOW IS THAT HOLDING UP RELATIVE TO ITS USEFUL LIFE? >> THE CLAY TILE PIPE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR SYSTEM THAT THE CITY OWNS, WE HAVE A LOT OF THAT IN OUR SYSTEM. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE ORANGEBERG IN OUR SYSTEM BECAUSE IT WAS TYPICALLY A SMALLER DIAMETER. IT'S HOLDING UP VERY WELL. ALTHOUGH WITH ITS AGE, IT'S VERY BRITTLE SO IT'S A PIPE THAT IF WE EVER DO MAINTENANCE ON ON THAT LINE, AND WE TOUCH IT, IT USUALLY FRACTURES TO THE NEXT JOINT. IT IS A BRITTLE, BUT AS LONG AS IT'S IN THE CURRENT CONDITION, IT'S STILL STRUCTURALLY SOUND. >> WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR ABOUT 75 DAYS AND NOW WHAT I FIGURED OUT IS THERE ARE NO EASY QUESTIONS THAT COME IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL. THIS ONE IS, AGAIN, NOT ANOTHER EASY QUESTION AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT I HAVE BATTLED BACK AND FORTH WITHIN MYSELF ABOUT HOW TO BEST HANDLE THIS. I THINK WHAT THE COMMITTEE TOLD US OR I KNOW WHAT THE COMMITTEE TOLD US FIRST LINE IN OUR REPORT IS THAT THAT SEWER LINE BELONGS TO THE HOMEOWNER FROM OUR MAIN TO THEIR CONNECTION AT THE FOOT OF THEIR HOUSE, AT THE FOOTING OF THEIR HOUSE SO THAT PROPERTY THAT PIPE IS THEIR PROPERTY. IT PASSES THROUGH AN EASEMENT IN THE ALLEYWAY THAT WAS GRANTED BY THE DEVELOPER AT THE TIME THAT THE LOTS WERE PLATTED. WE LEARNED THAT THOSE PIPES BELONG TO THE HOMEOWNER, AND YET IN 2006 FOR VARIOUS REASONS, THE CITY TOOK ON REPAIR OF THOSE FROM THE FENCE LINE OUT. I WONDER, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED A LITTLE TIME TO COME TO UNDERSTAND THESE ALTERNATIVES BECAUSE WHAT THE CITY'S DOING TODAY AND WE'RE SPENDING ABOUT A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN REPLACING THOSE PIPES AS NEEDED. THAT HAS TO BE AN ENDING RESOURCE AT SOME POINT, I WOULD THINK, OR AN ENDING DEMAND. WE HAVE 80,000+ RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN OUR CITY AND ONLY A PORTION OF THOSE USED ORANGEBURG PIPE SO AT SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT OF NEED FOR REPAIR. I DON'T KNOW WHEN AND WE CAN'T ESTIMATE HOW MANY THERE ARE AT SOME POINT THAT'S GOING TO GO AWAY, IS THAT FAIR? >> IT'S A FAIR STATEMENT AT SOME POINT, ALL THE ORANGEBURG WILL BE REPLACED, BUT AT SUCH TIME WHEN DOES THE PVC START TO FAIL. IT'S AN ONGOING QUESTION ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT. THE PVC, AS WE KNOW, IS A BETTER MATERIAL IT LASTS LONGER, BUT EACH MATERIAL HAS A LIFESPAN. >> MY QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL AND FOR CITY STAFF TO HELP US DETERMINE IS THE COST THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ADMINISTER ALTERNATIVE IDEAS WORTH THE EXCHANGE OF DOLLARS WHERE WE'RE SPENDING THE DOLLARS FOR THESE CITIZENS TODAY. THAT'S WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO, OUR RATE PAYERS, OUR PROPERTY OWNERS. WE'RE MAKING THESE EXPENDITURES ON THEIR BEHALF TO ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE THE UTILITY THAT THEY NEED THAT WE ALL NEED FOR THEM TO HAVE SO WE'RE MAKING THIS EXPENDITURE AND WHAT WOULD IT COST US IF WE TOOK IT BACK AND OFFERED A GRANT PROGRAM AND HAD A FUNDING MECHANISM WHERE WE'RE HELPING THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD IT, AND WE'RE ALSO COLLECTING MONEY OR MAKING PAYMENTS TO OUTSIDE CONTRACTORS TO DO THE WORK. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN PUT A NUMBER TO THAT TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE. WHAT I'M FEARFUL OF IS THAT WE CREATE ANOTHER LAYER OF BUREAUCRACY TO THE POINT WHERE WE COULD PROBABLY JUST GO AHEAD AND DO THIS OURSELVES INTERNALLY AND DO THAT WITH WHAT WE'RE ALL COMING DOWN TO IS WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH A RATE HIKE TO CONTINUE TO AFFORD IT THAT MAY BE WHAT BROUGHT US TO THE POINT OF HAVING THE CONVERSATION 9-12 MONTHS AGO WITH THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL, IS THAT THERE WERE ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN EASY ANSWER FOR WHAT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE COST MIGHT BE AND WHETHER IT'S WORTH IT. THAT'S MY QUESTION. >> TRY TO SPEAK TO A COUPLE OF THOSE, FLIP FOR ME, IF YOU DON'T MIND. GO BACK ONE, RIGHT THERE. THE LAST LINE UNDER COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, THE ONGOING COST OF 217,000, THAT'S ROUGHLY YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE COST. THE VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT ARE A ONE TIME EXPENSE THAT'LL LAST A PERIOD OF YEARS, BUT THAT'S ROUGHLY WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ADMINISTER AS THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION. [00:40:04] AS FAR AS TO WHY STAFF RECOMMENDED THE CHANGE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT WAS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY NUMEROUS PEOPLE. FOR US, IT WAS A WAY WITHOUT INCREASING CITY COST TO TAKE THE LEVEL OF EFFORT, WHICH IS ROUGHLY TWO OF YOUR SEVEN CREWS, TO TAKE THE LEVEL OF EFFORT THAT WAS BEING USED ON THESE LATERAL LINES AND INSTEAD PUT THAT ONTO SYSTEM MAINTENANCE. IT DIDN'T SAVE MONEY, IT DIDN'T COST MONEY AT THE TIME, BUT IT DID GIVE US THOSE TWO CREWS BACK TO DO THE MAINTENANCE THAT WE NEED TO DO ON OUR SIDE OF THE SYSTEM. >> DR. WILSON. >> YEAH I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN COLLINS. I'VE REALLY STRUGGLED WITH THIS SINCE THIS HAS COME TO LIGHT OVER THE LAST HOWEVER MANY MONTHS. IT IS STILL A VERY HARD PILL FOR ME TO SWALLOW TO SET A FLAT RATE SUBSIDY FOR ANYBODY AND RAISE OUR RATE ON EVERYBODY. I KEEP INTERNALLY GOING BACK TO, WHY SHOULD EVERYBODY HAVE TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT'S PUBLICLY OR THAT'S PRIVATELY OWNED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN. ALMOST SAYS, WHY ARE WE PENALIZING EVERYBODY TO HAVE TO PAY FOR A FEW. I AM DEFINITELY NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING SOME TYPE OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE THAT REALLY STRUGGLE TO PAY FOR REPAIRS BECAUSE ANYTHING WITH PLUMBING IS EXPENSIVE. BUT I HAVE CONCERNS WHEN YOU SET A FLAT RATE SUBSIDY IS THAT BECOMES YOUR NEW FLAT RATE FEE TO COME OUT AND FIX A LINE. THAT IS WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT YOU LOSE A HOT WHEEL DOWN THE TOILET AND IT GETS STUCK RIGHT DOWN THERE AT YOUR TAP, NO MATTER WHAT IT COSTS, WHETHER YOU JUST RUN IT AND YOU CLEAN IT OUT, THERE'S $2,500. THERE'S $1,800 THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR WHEN MAYBE IT WOULDN'T REALLY COST THAT MUCH IN REAL LIFE. THAT'S SOMETHING I HAVE SET. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM WHERE WE SAY MAYBE UP TO A NUMBER UP TO $1000 AND THESE ARE ALL HYPOTHETICALS, OBVIOUSLY. MAYBE THERE'S A WAY THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO MEET SOME TYPE OF INCOME THRESHOLD THAT WE ALLOW THEM TO PAY THIS OUT OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD ON THEIR UTILITY BILL, WHERE THEY ALREADY PAY FOR THINGS, THAT IT'S NOT A UPFRONT THREE OR $4,000 COST THAT WE CAN HELP BREAK THAT DOWN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A POSSIBILITY AND WHAT IT LOOKS ADMINISTRATIVELY TO OFFER A PROGRAM LIKE THAT. BUT TO SET A FLAT RATE SUBSIDY REALLY, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME ACCEPTING THAT WHERE THAT'S A FLAT RATE COST TO THE CITY FOR EVERY PERSON NO MATTER WHAT IT COSTS. DO I HAVE THE ANSWER? NO. THAT'S A LOT OF JUST THINKING OUT LOUD. I'M NOT SURE WHERE TO GO WITH THIS. I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO STRUGGLE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL TO PAY FOR A FEW. >> FAIRNESS TO THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION SPECIFICALLY SAYS SUBSIDY NOT TO EXCEED $2,500. SHOULD A BILL COME IN AT $1000, IT WOULD ONLY REIMBURSE $100. BUT IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED THAT IF THE SUBSIDIES IS UP TO $2,500, WHAT WOULD THE BILL ACTUALLY BE? >> SORRY, JUST WHAT THAT SAYING IS THE BIG THING I BROUGHT BACK OR TOOK AWAY FROM WHAT THE COMMITTEE BROUGHT TO US WAS THAT BECAUSE WE WORK SO OFTEN IN THIS RIGHT OF WAY, WHETHER IT'S SUBCONTRACTS THAT WE WORK WITH, WHETHER IT'S CONTRACTORS THAT ARE RUNNING FIBER OR WHOEVER'S WORKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THAT MAYBE THE CITY SHOULD ASSUME SOME OF THAT RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE WE'RE IN THERE, WE'RE IN THERE WITH TRASH TRUCKS, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE SHOWN OVER AND OVER AGAIN, TRASH TRUCKS ARE NOT CAUSING THE DEGRADATION OF ORANGEBURG. BUT IF THE BILL IS ONLY $1000, AND WHY ARE WE 100% RESPONSIBLE FOR? I AM OKAY WITH SAYING, YES, MAYBE THERE'S SOME SPLIT SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. BUT IF YOU SET THAT SUBSIDY AT A CERTAIN NUMBER, THAT MEANS THEN, THE BILL WAS 800 BUCKS, GREAT, NOW THE CITY EATS THE COST FOR ALL OF THAT, THAT MEANS THE TAXPAYER IS EATING THE COST FOR THEIR NEIGHBOR. THAT'S WHY I LIKE MORE IF YOU MEET AN INCOME, MAYBE NUMBER, MAYBE WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD THAT TO HELP. I SAID, AGAIN, THINKING OUT LOUD BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THAT FLAT RATE BECAUSE IF THAT BILL IS LESS, THEN NOW THE HOMEOWNER, WHICH IT'S THEIR PIPE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING. THANK YOU, MR. SMITH. >> MR. GUSCIN. >> WOOD, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. I. >> FOUND THE CHART OF THE DIFFERENT CITIES TO BE VERY HELPFUL IT'S REMARKABLE TO ME THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S LUBBOCK AND AUSTIN THAT ARE DOING 100% OF THE REPAIRS, BUT YOU'VE GOT AMARILLO, PLAINVIEW, WOLFFORTH, MIDLAND ODESSA, ABILENE, THAT ARE ALL WHERE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER PAYS FOR THE REPAIRS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE BIG THING THAT STANDS OUT TO ME IS THE COST. IN EITHER SCENARIO, IT'S GOING TO BE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WHETHER WE CALL THAT A TAX INCREASE OR NOT, [00:45:01] RAISING THE RATES IS THE EQUIVALENT OF A TAX INCREASE AS ALL CITIZENS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE IMPACT ON THE AVERAGE WATER BILL, FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE RATE IMPACT THAT THESE PROPOSALS WOULD SUPPORT? >> WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT HERE THAT'S PRESENTED AT THE IMPACT, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE MILLION DOLLAR REVENUE NEEDED, IT'S A DOLLAR A MONTH TO THE BASE RATE PER USER. >> THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE AVERAGE BILL IS GOING TO GO UP BY ONE DOLLAR BUT THE RATE THAT THE HOMEOWNER IS PAYING FOR A UNIT OF WATER, FOR EXAMPLE, IS GOING TO GO UP BY A DOLLAR. >> IT'S NOT PER UNIT, YOU GOT THE BASE RATE AND THEN YOU HAVE THE FLOW RATE IN WASTEWATER SO THAT'S PER THOUSAND GALLONS, SO THE MORE YOU USE, THE MORE YOU PAY. IF IT'S ON THE BASE RATE, IT'S JUST A FLAT RATE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EVERY MILLION DOLLAR THAT NEEDS TO BE RAISED, IT'S ONE DOLLAR A MONTH PER UTILITY BILL. >> I JUST MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND. YOU'RE SAYING THAT EVERY WATER BILL IS GOING TO SEE AN INCREASE OF ONE DOLLAR PER MONTH? >> FOR EACH MILLION DOLLAR REVENUE NEEDED. >> IT WOULD BE THE WASTEWATER [OVERLAPPING] BILL. BUT YES, SAME IMPACT. >> IT'S OKAY IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE MATH ON THIS YET, BUT DO YOU HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE AVERAGE HOME OWNER IS GOING TO SEE AS AN INCREASE? >> IT WOULD BE THAT BECAUSE IF IT'S ON THE BASE RATE, THEN THAT'S FOR EVERY SEWER TAP THAT THEY HAVE IT WOULD JUST BE THAT ONE DOLLAR TO GENERATE $1,000,000 ACROSS THE BOARD. WATER IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, SOMETIMES YOU MAY HAVE YOUR POTABLE WATER, YOUR INSIDE, YOU MAY HAVE AN IRRIGATION METER, YOU HAVE TWO METERS IN THAT SITUATION. MOST HOMES FOR LOOKING AT RESIDENTIAL HAVE ONE SEWER LINE, SOME OF THEM HAVE TWO. WE LOOKED AT SOME EXAMPLES WE HAVE TWO, SO IF YOU HAVE TWO SEWER LINES, THAT WOULD BE $2 IMPACT A MONTH TO YOU SO IT'S JUST PER SEWER TAP ONE DOLLAR TO A MILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUE. >> I THINK I GOT IT THE THIRD TIME. >> LET ME JUST JUMP IN HERE REAL QUICK BEFORE I TURN BACK TO YOU, MR. COLLINS. THE FLOW RATE IS THE FLOW OF WASTEWATER, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> HOW DO WE CALCULATE THAT? I GUESS I NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. [OVERLAPPING] WATER COMING INTO MY HOUSE, I DON'T THINK ABOUT THE WASTEWATER GOING OUT. >> BASED ON THE FLOW GOING THROUGH YOUR METER, TYPICALLY THROUGH THE [OVERLAPPING]. CORRECT. WATER USED THROUGH YOUR WATER METER. THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT WE METER GOING INTO YOUR HOUSE. YOU PAY BY THE USAGE, AND WE LOOK AT THAT THROUGH THE WINTER MONTHS. IF IT'S AN IRRIGATION METER, THAT HAS NO SEWER CHARGE ON IT. IF YOU HAVE AN IRRIGATION METER SPECIFICALLY FOR YOUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM AT YOUR HOUSE, THEN THAT VOLUME DOES NOT GET ADDED TO WASTEWATER? >> AN INCREASE IN THE FLOW RATE ON THE AVERAGE HOME, I GUESS WAS MAYBE THE QUESTION THAT MR. GUSCIN WAS TRYING TO GET AT 1% WOULD GENERATE FOR THE CITY, $212,000. >> APPROXIMATELY $ 212,000. YES, SIR. THAT'S A LITTLE ALMOST $0.04 PER THOUSAND GALLONS SO THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE MORE YOU USE, THE MORE YOU WOULD PAY VERSUS THE BASE RATE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD FOR EVERYBODY. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS. >> THANK YOU. AGAIN, THINKING OUT LOUD HERE CAN BE DANGEROUS, AND SO FORGIVE ME IF I'VE WEIGHTED OFF TOO DEEP, BUT WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE WAS THAT THE CITY ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FIRST INCREMENT OF COST. THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS THE CITY ASSUME THE FIRST $2,500 OF COST. WOULD WE CONSIDER MAYBE TO BE MORE FAIR IF THE HOMEOWNER ASSUMED THE FIRST INCREMENT OF COST, MAYBE NOT AT $2,500, MAYBE $500, MAYBE $100, BUT THE HOMEOWNER GETS THE FIRST INCREMENT OF COST AND THE CITY MAKES UP THE BALANCE THERE? THAT WAY, WE ANSWER AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE QUESTION OF THE BENEFICIARY USER OF THAT SYSTEM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR $500 CLEANOUT WHERE THE HOT WHEEL WENT DOWN THE TOILET. BUT IF IT'S A MAJOR CATASTROPHE, THE CITY IS BEARING AND HELPING TO COVER ALL OF THAT THEN YOU CAN BRING BACK INTO ACCOUNT YOUR GRANT PROGRAM, YOUR NEEDS PROGRAM, AND MAYBE TAKE THAT $1,000 AWAY FROM THEM DEPENDING UPON THE REQUIREMENT, THAT $1,000 FEE, DEPENDING ON THEIR ELIGIBILITY. >> THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES WITH THAT. WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL OPTIONS AS WE HAD THE COMMITTEE. THE BIG CHALLENGE WITH THAT SCENARIO, IT'S AN OPTION IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. BUT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE WAS TO REIMBURSE A BILL BECAUSE THE HOMEOWNER IS HIRING [00:50:01] A PLUMBER SO PLUMBER A MAY HAVE DIFFERENT RATES THAN PLUMBER B SO IF WE'RE PAYING IF THE HOMEOWNERS PAYING THE FIRST $500, YOU WENT WITH PLUMBER B, WHICH IS COST MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PLUMBER A, THAT BILL IS LARGER. NOW THE CITY'S ON THE HOOK FOR A LARGER BILL JUST BECAUSE THEY CHOSE A DIFFERENT PLUMBER. >> WELL, I'M STILL OF THE MINDSET THAT MAYBE THAT NEEDS TO STAY IN HOUSE. MAY BE WE NEED TO FUND ADDITIONAL CREWS. THIS WATER MAINTENANCE QUESTION IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I TALKED ABOUT VERY EARLY WAS MAINTAINING INFRASTRUCTURE, ONE OF OUR SISTER CITIES TO THE SOUTH, I THINK HAS WOKEN UP TO A MAJOR MAINTENANCE SHORTFALL IN THEIR WATER SYSTEM AND LOOKING FOR WAYS TO TAKE CARE OF $ 25-50 MILLION WORTH OF NEED. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN HERE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE OF US TO DO THAT. IF WE WERE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CREWS, AND THE RESOURCES TO OBTAIN THEM SO THAT WE COULD DEDICATE OURSELVES WITH CREWS SPECIFIC TO THIS ISSUE, THEN THAT GOES OUT THE WINDOW. IT BECOMES THE BURDEN OF OUR CREWS TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE, AND, MORE SHALLOW, SOME ARE DEEPER, SOME HAVE MORE ISSUES INSIDE OF AN ALLEY. WE'VE ALREADY SEEN FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT THE CITY WOULD BEAR THE COST OF ANY CONCRETE REPAIRS OR ASPHALT REPAIRS THAT ARE IN THE ALLEY SO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS COME INTO PLAY SO IF WE LIFT THAT ON THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES SIDE, THEN THAT HOMEOWNER WOULD PARTICIPATE TO SOME DEGREE IN THEIR RESPONSIBILITY, AND THE CITY WOULD BE THE CATCHER OF THE EXCESS. >> IN THAT SCENARIO, IT WOULD WORK MUCH BETTER. THE CITY WOULD THE ONES DOING THE WORK SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE, THE COMMITTEE WANTED AT A POINT THAT THE HOMEOWNER HAVE AN OPTION OF THEIR PLUMBER, AND IN THAT SCENARIO WOULD JUST BE THE CITY AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FENCE OUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT LAST TEN FOOT. IF IT'S A FULL RESTORATION FROM THE HOUSE TO THE FENCE, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR, AND THEY GET TO CHOOSE THEIR PLUMBER AS THEY WISH. IT'S JUST THIS LAST TEN FEET THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> TO THE FIVE OR THE 10 FEET, DEPEND ON WHICH SIDE OF THE ALLEY, BUT YES, SIR. >> WOOD, STEP IN ON THAT. I THOUGHT, YOU LOOKED LIKE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY THERE. MS. MARTINEZ-GARCIA. >> I THINK THERE'S A FEW THINGS OF CONCERN FOR ME. ONE IS THAT, ORIGINALLY, WE WERE LOOKING AT ABOUT $100 AND NOW WE'VE ALMOST TRIPLED THIS AMOUNT THAT THE CITY WOULD INCUR, THUS THE TAXPAYER WOULD INCUR. I APPRECIATE. I THINK WE HAD AN AMAZING COMMITTEE THEY DID A GREAT JOB, BUT MONEY DOESN'T GROW ON TREES. THAT WAS THE ISSUE BEFORE IS THE COST. THE OTHER THING THAT CONCERNS ME IS, ORIGINALLY, THE CREWS, OUR STAFF WAS SO OVEREXTENDED AND NOW IF WE BRING IT BACK, WE WANT TO OVEREXTEND THEM, AGAIN, THE PUBLIC'S CONCERN WAS THAT THEY ALSO WEREN'T GETTING TO CALL THEIR PLUMBERS. THEY WERE HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE CITY. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE'RE REALLY RESOLVING THIS PROBLEM. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING FOR ME IS THAT, WE'RE NOT REALLY ADDRESSING WHAT THE ACTUAL ISSUE WAS, AND THAT WAS THE CREWS BEING OVEREXTENDED, NOT BEING ABLE TO DO CITY WORK AROUND THE CITY AND THE COST. ULTIMATELY, THE CITIZENS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY IF WE NOW DO THESE PROJECTS AND INCREASE, BECAUSE I HEARD A COUPLE OF COUNCIL PEOPLE SAY, LET'S GET MORE CREWS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS FOR THESE STEPS. WHAT ARE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW DO WE FIX THAT, BECAUSE THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A SOLUTION HERE? >> WELL, THE SAME RECOMMENDATIONS HERE. PRIOR TO 2006, IT WAS ON THE HOMEOWNER, 2006, WE TOOK OVER BECAUSE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE ALLEYS. WE DIDN'T HAVE THE COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS. THERE ARE A LOT OF UTILITIES THAT WERE ELECTRICITY WAS ABOVE NOW NOW NOW IT'S BELOW GROUND, WE HAVE A LOT MORE FIBER OPTICS COMING IN, WE GOT MORE FRANCHISE UTILITIES. THE THINGS THAT WERE GOING ON THE ALLEY, WE TOOK THAT OVER TO DO IT IN HOUSE. NOT SURE THAT THAT WAS A PERMANENT DECISION, BUT IT WOUND UP BEING THAT WAY. THE COST OF $1,000 PER TAP IS WHAT IT COST US IN OUR CAPITAL PROJECT WHEN WE HAD A MILLION DOLLAR CAPITAL PROJECT ROUNDING NUMBERS. THAT COST ACROSS $1,000 A YEAR OR 1,000 TAPS A YEAR, IT WINDS UP BEING $1,000 A TAP. THAT WAS JUST MATERIALS IN LABOR. THAT DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR ANY EQUIPMENT. IT DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR ANY FUEL OR ANY OF THAT OVERHEAD OR ANY OF THAT SITUATION. [00:55:04] THOSE CREWS WERE TYPICALLY PIPELINE MAINTENANCE CREWS. IN ADDITION TO THE A MILLION DOLLAR CAPITAL COSTS, THOSE CREWS WERE DIVERTED FROM REGULAR MAINTENANCE. I THINK YOU'LL SEE HERE THAT, IF WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT WITH CITY CREWS, THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL CREWS SO THAT WE CAN DO THAT, AND HAVE OUR CURRENT STAFF DOING THE MAINTENANCE THAT THEY NEED TO BE DOING, AND NOT BEING DIVERTED FROM THAT MAINTENANCE LIKE THEY HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST DECADE AND A HALF. >> BECAUSE I HEAR THE DESPERATION FROM SOME FOLKS THAT ARE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE WHEN THERE'S SO MUCH FLOODING HAPPENING IN MY BACKYARD AND IN THE ALLEY. IT'S A DESPERATE CALL. BUT THEN, GOING BACK TO WANTING TO USE WITH THE HUD QUALIFICATIONS, THAT IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS FOR EVEN THE POOREST OF THE POOR. IT'S NOT THAT EASY. THEN THE NORTH AND EAST OIL RESERVES, JARED, I THINK WHAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THAT IS THAT, THERE'S SO MANY OTHER NEEDS THAT OUR FOLKS HAVE, AND WE'VE BEEN UTILIZING THOSE FUNDS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS AND NOT ALL OVER. MY DISTRICT HAS NOT RECEIVED THAT, AND I EXPECTED TO START SEEING SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS FOR A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE NEED. I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT TO BE EVEN MORE CREATIVE OF HELPING LOW INCOME FAMILIES, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF FAMILIES THAT NEED THAT HELP. ONE NEVER KNOWS WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT IT IS A PROBLEM. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. WE REALLY HAVE NOT RESOLVED THIS, BECAUSE WE'RE STILL GOING TO NEED MORE CREWS. WE STILL DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THOSE CREWS. WE STILL HAVE THE CREWS THAT NEED TO DO OTHER WORK IN THE CITY. I MEAN, THERE'S THIS ONE THING AFTER THE OTHER, AND I THINK, WE'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE OUR PUBLIC EDUCATION. I THINK THAT'S HOW THIS WHOLE SITUATION STARTED. WE DIDN'T MAKE THE PUBLIC MORE AWARE OF THIS ISSUE. EITHER WAY, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO END UP HAVING TO USE TAXPAYER DOLLARS. THAT CONCERNS ME BECAUSE WE ALREADY ARE PAYING SO MUCH IN SO MANY OTHER AREAS AND THERE'S SO MANY FEES FOR EVERYTHING, AND I THINK THAT REALLY WILL HURT THE AVERAGE FAMILY AND LOW INCOME FAMILIES. THANK YOU WOOD FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. GLASHEEN. >> WOOD, I THINK IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO MAKE A COMPARISON TO WHO PAYS FOR OTHER TYPES OF CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT NOW. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I WANT TO MAKE A CONNECTION TO THE WATER LINE OR IF I WANT TO MAKE AN ELECTRICAL CONNECTION FOR MY HOUSE, WHO PAYS FOR THOSE OTHER TYPES OF UTILITY CONNECTIONS? >> IF YOU'RE A NEW HOMEOWNER, YOU'RE BUILDING A NEW STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT'S A HOMEOWNER OR BUSINESS AND YOU NEED TO SERVICE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES, THAT PROPERTY OWNER PAYS FOR THOSE CONNECTIONS. THEY'LL EITHER PAY CITY OF LUBBOCK, THEY PAY THE CITY OF LUBBOCK TO THE TAP, AND THEN THEY GET THEIR PRIVATE PLUMBER TO INSTALL THAT LINE. THOSE ARE PAID FOR AND CONSTRUCTED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. >> WOULD THAT BE THE SAME FOR WATER? NO WASTE, BUT FOR WATER? >> CORRECT. WATER METER IS A LOT CLOSER TO THE FENCE JUST BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE. THE WATER METER IS ACTUALLY A POINT OF DELIVERY. FROM THE WATER METER TO THE MAIN IS A CITY OWNED LINE, AND THEN FROM THAT METER GOING FORWARD, BUT THERE IS A COUPLE OF FEET THAT'S IN THE ALLEY OF A WATER LINE, AND THAT IS INSTALLED BY AND MAINTAINED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TODAY. >> THANK YOU, SIR. THAT'S MY LAST QUESTION. >> I THINK IT'S MAY BE HELPFUL TO REMIND EVERYBODY OF HOW WE GOT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE OR WHY WE'RE IN THIS PICKLE, I SUPPOSE, BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR MAYOR THAT CAME UP AT ANY DOOR I KNOCKED ON. EVEN IF IT WAS PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEVER BE REALLY AFFECTED BY IT, THEY WERE OUT IN A PART OF LUBBOCK THAT DIDN'T HAVE ORANGEBURG. BUT NEVERTHELESS, THEY LEFT A BAD TASTE IN THEIR MOUTH, MAINLY JUST BECAUSE WE WERE CHANGING THE WAY WE WERE DOING THINGS AND THROWING A COST BACK ON THE HOMEOWNER, AND I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM WAS, WE DIDN'T PREPARE THEM FOR THIS ENOUGH. BUT THE OTHER PART OF IT, AND I THINK THE REASON IT BECAME SUCH A BIG ISSUE IS BECAUSE OF THE NEWS REPORTS AND ALL THAT WE'RE REPORTING SUCH REALLY UNBELIEVABLE COSTS TO DO THIS WORK. OF COURSE, THAT'S WHAT CAUSED, I GUESS, A LOT OF CONCERN BY PEOPLE. WHAT IF I GET HIT BY THAT? I CAN'T AFFORD THAT. THERE'S NO WAY IN MY BUDGET I CAN AFFORD THAT. THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE. I'M GLAD TODAY YOU KIND OF EXPLAINED WHY WE CHANGED THAT BACK IN 2006, BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. WHY IN THE WORLD, DID WE CREATE THIS PROBLEM FOR OURSELVES BY [01:00:02] CHANGING IT BECAUSE OF ALL THE WORK THAT WE WERE DOING IN ALLEYS. IS THAT WHAT I UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY? >> YES. AROUND 2006, WE HAD ISSUES. I MEAN, WE HAVE MORE FRANCHISE UTILITIES COMING ON BOARD. WE HAVE A LOT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS BEING REPLACED. THEY'VE OUTLIVED THEIR LINES. WE HAVE A LOT OF COMMUNICATIONS. A LOT OF FIBEROPTIC COMING IN THE LUBBOCK AT THAT TIME. ALSO, WE STARTED REQUIRING THE ELECTRICAL INSTEAD OF BEING OVERHEAD TO BE BURIED. THERE WAS MORE FRANCHISE UTILITIES THAT WERE UNDERGROUND IN THE ALLEYS. MAJORITY OF THOSE ALLEYS WERE NOT PAID AT THAT TIME, BUT THE LICENSED PLUMBERS THAT WERE GOING IN THERE. WE ALSO DIDN'T HAVE OUR MORE STRINGENT COMPACTION STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. LICENSED PLUMBERS OR WHOEVER WAS GOING OUT IN THE ALLEY, WORKING ON THAT, AND WE WERE GETTING COMPACTION FAILURES. WE WERE SEEING CUT UTILITIES AND JUST WORK THAT DOESN'T REALLY MEET THE PAR THAT WE WANTED TO SEE IN THAT ALLEY. WE WOUND UP TAKING THAT OVER AT THAT TIME. WE CONTINUED TO WORK ON THAT AND TAKING THAT OVER. WE HAD A CAPITAL COST OF ABOUT AROUND $1 MILLION, THAT COVERED OUR MATERIALS AND LABOR AS WE TALKED ABOUT. BUT OVER TIME, THAT TASK GOT LARGER AND LARGER, AND SO MORE OF OUR CREWS THAT SHOULD BE DOING, WE SAW VALVE MAINTENANCE AND WE SAW FIRE HYDRANT MAINTENANCE TAKE THE LARGEST HIT. WE WERE SEEING THOSE FACILITIES, THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE STARTING TO DEGRADE, AND WE WERE HAVING MORE AND MORE OUTAGES IN OUR FIRE HYDRANTS. WE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL FIRE MAINTENANCE CREWS. WE GOT ONE OF THOSE A COUPLE OF YEARS, AND WE'RE GETTING CAUGHT UP ON OUR FIRE HYDRANT REPAIRS. SINCE THEN, WE HAVE OUR RIGHT AWAY MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, AND SO WE HAVE PERMITTING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE PREVIOUSLY FOR WORK IN PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. WE'RE PERMITTING THOSE, WE'RE SEEING THAT WORK, WE'RE INSPECTING THAT WORK. WE HAVE COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS, AND OUR ENGINEERING STANDARDS THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WE DID BACK THEN. AT THIS TIME, WE WERE SEEING DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON OUR SYSTEM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON PRIVATE WORK THAT'S OCCURRING IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO REVERT BACK AND TURN THE MAINTENANCE BACK TO THE HOMEOWNER, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF THE STANDARDS PUT IN PLACE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE PUT IN PLACE EARLIER, SO WE EXPECTED THE WORK THAT WOULD BE TAKING PLACE IN THE ALLEY TO BE MORE CONFORMING TO OUR STANDARDS. >> I THINK THAT'S A VERY HELPFUL EXPLANATION. BUT FROM WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING, WE HAVE TAKEN CARE OF MOST OF THE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS THAT WERE THE REASON WE TOOK THIS ON OURSELVES AS A CITY TO DO THIS. THE COMPACTION STANDARDS. THERE'S MUCH LESS WORK BEING DONE IN THE ALLEYS NOW. I UNDERSTAND. I'M GOING BACK A LITTLE BIT TO WHAT MR. COLLINS WAS TALKING ABOUT. I'M THINKING OF IT AS A HOMEOWNER, IF MY AIR CONDITIONING GOES OUT, THERE'S A COST TO REPLACE THAT CONDENSER. IT CAN BE $1,000. IT CAN BE MORE. THERE'S A CERTAIN COST THAT IS A REASONABLE COST. IT'S JUST A PART OF OWNING A HOME, AND THE FAILURE MAY BE IN YOUR AIR CONDITIONING, IT MAY BE IN YOUR WATER HEATER, IT MAY BE IN YOUR PLUMBING OR IT MAY BE IN YOUR WASTEWATER. I'M THINKING MORE ALONG HIS APPROACH OF WHAT'S A REASONABLE AMOUNT THAT WE REALIZING THOUGH THAT, HEY, WHEN YOU CHANGE SOMETHING ON CITIZENS, THEY DON'T LIKE IT. THEY'VE GOT A RELIANCE ON SOMETHING. ALSO, I HEAR PEOPLE SAY IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF OUR GARBAGE STRUCTURE. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. IT'S A PERCEPTION OF PEOPLE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BALANCE ALL THESE, BUT I WAS LIKING THE IDEA OF WHAT IS A NORMAL COST, AND WE'VE SAID FOR US, IT'S ABOUT $1,000, PUTTING THAT AS A COST ON THE HOMEOWNER AND ANYTHING ABOVE THAT, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING ALSO IS, SOME OF THESE LINES ARE MUCH DEEPER THAN OTHERS. THERE'S NOT A UNIFORM COST TO REPAIRING EACH OF THESE LINES. SOME OF THEM MAY GO DOWN FIVE FEET, SOME MAY GO DOWN 10 FEET, SOME MAY GO DOWN AS DEEP AS 20 FEET. AM I CORRECT THERE? >> WE ADDRESSED THAT IN OUR COMMITTEE AS WELL. SOME OF THE CONCERNS WERE THE ONES THAT GO BELOW 15 FEET, THEY GET EXPENSIVE THAN 12 FEET BECAUSE YOU GET INTO SOARING AND ENTRENCHED SAFETY IN THOSE SCENARIOS. >> NOT A NORMAL COST. >> IT'S NOT A NORMAL COST. OUR ENGINEERING STANDARDS HAS CHANGED. IT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED, AND YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO INSTALL SEWER LINES THAT ARE DEEPER THAN 12 FEET IN THE ALLEY. NEW INFRASTRUCTURE GOING IN, AND THAT WAS A WHILE BACK THAT WE MADE THOSE CHANGES. YOU REALLY JUST DON'T SEE THOSE, AND WE ALSO, DURING THE COMMITTEE, TALKED ABOUT THAT THOSE ARE OUTLIERS, THAT MAYBE WE ADDRESS THOSE INDIVIDUALLY AS OPPOSED TO SETTING AN ENTIRE POLICY FOR A 15 FOOT OR 20 FOOT DEEP SEWER LINE, WHICH IS VERY MINIMAL. PUT IT IN COMPARISON THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE AD HOC COMMITTEE. [01:05:01] WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1% OF OUR SEWER TAP REPLACEMENTS ANNUALLY. OUT OF THOSE, WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER 1% THAT HAVE THOSE DEEP ISSUES. >> OH, THAT'S ALL. >> WHILE IT'S A CONCERN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMITTEE TALKED ABOUT THAT WE MIGHT ADDRESS THOSE INDIVIDUALLY. >> WELL, SO I GUESS I'M TENDING A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARDS HAVING A CAP ON WHAT THE HOME OWNER WOULD PAY OUT, HAVING THEM AT THE FRONT END RATHER THAN THE BACK END. THEN ASSISTANCE, EVEN FOR THOSE WHO COULD NOT AFFORD THE FRONT END COST OF IT, AND THEN US, PICKING UP THE REMAINDER, SHARING THAT COST IN SOME WAY, BUT RECOGNIZING THAT FOR MOST HOMEOWNERS, IT'S JUST A COST OF OWNING A HOME, BUT EVEN FOR SOME IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT COST, AND WE'VE GOT AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. AGAIN, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S GOING TO SATISFY EVERYBODY, BUT THAT TENDED TO BE MORE OF THE WAY I WAS THINKING OF APPROACHING THIS, AND THAT WE WOULD ALWAYS COVER IF THERE WAS PROOF, ALWAYS COVER ANYTHING THAT IT SEEMED LIKE WAS BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THE CITY HAD DONE. I MEAN, THAT WOULD ALWAYS FALL ALL OF IT ON US. IN ALL FAIRNESS, I MEAN, I KNOW THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THE TRASH TRUCKS WERE CAUSING SOME OF THESE, AND THAT WAS SOME OF THE NEW STORIES AND TALK THAT WAS OUT THERE. IN THAT SCENARIO, IF THAT DID OCCUR, THAT'S A DAMAGE VERY SIMILAR TO IF A BORING COMPANY CAME AND BOARD IT. THOSE DAMAGES OF INSURANCE CLAIMS. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. THAT WOULD BE A CLAIM THAT YOU'D HAVE AGAINST THE CITY. I WAS ALSO TALKED ABOUT THAT THE SEWER LINES ARE EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE BECAUSE OF ALL THE UTILITIES ON TOP OF IT, BUT YET THE UTILITIES ON TOP OF IT AREN'T THE ONES BEING CRUSHED BY THE TRASH TRUCKS. THAT WASN'T REALLY THE SITUATION TRASH TRUCKS WERE NOT REALLY CAUSING THESE SEWER LATERAL COLLAPSES. BUT IF THEY WERE AND IT WAS A DAMAGE AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR, THAT'S A CLAIM. THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY A REPAIR THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. >> I GUESS MY ONLY THOUGHT, AND PUTTING MY IDEAS FORWARD IS, MAYBE HAVING A TIME LIMIT ON HOW LONG WE WOULD DO THIS SO THAT PEOPLE AT LEAST HAD UNAWARENESS, AND WE COULD EDUCATE THEM ABOUT THIS? THAT'S MY THOUGHT. ANY COMMENTS FROM ANYONE ELSE. MR. COLLINS. >> THANK YOU. HELP ME WITH DOING MATH IN PUBLIC NOW, WOOD, AND TO RECAP WHAT I THINK I UNDERSTOOD, $1 PER MONTH ON THE BASE RATE GENERATES $1 MILLION? >> CORRECT. JUST A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. >> THIS PROPOSAL THAT I SAW ON THE SCREEN JUST BEFORE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR TWO NEW CREWS DEDICATED SPECIFICALLY TO LATERALS, $1.31 MILLION IS THE TOTAL NEED. $1.31 ADDED TO THE BASE RATE WOULD FULLY FUND TWO NEW SEWER CREWS DEDICATED SPECIFICALLY TO THIS, AND ALLOW YOU TO USE YOUR SEVEN CREWS THAT YOU CURRENTLY NEED ABOUT THE CITY MAINTAINING THE REST OF THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM, $1.31? >> YEAH, THAT ONE COVERS THE CREWS THEMSELVES. KEEP IN MIND THAT THERE'S AN ANNUAL COST AND A CAPITAL COST, SO THAT'S NOT RE OCCURRING EVERY YEAR. WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE CREW, IT'S ONLY 185 EVERY YEAR WITH $470,000 TO GET THAT CAPITAL COST TO GET IT GOING. THERE'S ALSO THE COST FOR THE MATERIALS, AND LOOK AT THIS TWO WAYS. THIS WOULD BE THE COST TO THE SERIAL LATERALS FOR THE CREWS, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE HAD ON THE SIDE FOR THE CAPITAL COSTS FOR THE MATERIALS AND LABOR. >> WELL, WE'RE TAKING THE LABOR OUT OF THIS. [OVERLAPPING] NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUYING 15 FEET OF SIX INCH PLASTIC PIPE. WHICH ISN'T CHEAP. DON'T GET ME WRONG. BUT MY POINT TO THIS IS THAT, EVEN IF WE SET $1.50, AND I THINK THAT THE CITY MANAGER IS LOOKING FOR AT LEAST SOME DIRECTION AT THE MOMENT, BECAUSE HE'S GOING INTO HIS NEXT BUDGET, AND IF THERE'S A WATER RATE OR SEWER RATE INCREASE, THEN WE HAVE TO AUTHORIZE THAT. WE NEED TO DIRECT HIM TO THAT SOONER THAN LATER. BUT $1.50, $18 A YEAR TO THE AVERAGE RATE PAYER TO EVERY RATE PAYER WOULD COVER THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY? >> FAIR ENOUGH, YES, SIR. >> EIGHTEEN DOLLARS A YEAR TAKES CARE OF THIS, AND I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT MAYBE WE CAN PUSH THIS OFF A LITTLE BIT AND DETERMINE OUR BEST COURSE OF ACTION. BUT MR. ATKINSON HAS 45 DAYS TO KNOW WHAT TO DO, FAIR? >> CORRECT. [01:10:03] >> FOURTEEN. >> FOURTEEN DAYS NOT 45 DAYS, 14 DAYS. >> WE HAVE 45 DAYS TO FINISH. I HAVE 14 DAYS TO START. >> IS THAT IN THE SHORT-TERM, THE RIGHT PROCESS FOR US TO GO THROUGH. BECAUSE AGAIN, AND I STAND BY MY EARLIER STATEMENT THAT THE USER SHOULD PARTICIPATE. BUT THIS MIGHT BE THE ANSWER THAT GETS US DOWN THE ROAD UNTIL WE CAN FIGURE OUT A BETTER ANSWER OR SEE THAT THESE NEEDS DIMINISH AS WE WOULD BE HOPEFUL OF AS ORANGEBURG IS ALL REPLACED, AND WE COULD CONTINUE DOING WHAT WE DO. >> THAT WOULD DEFINITELY GET US TO THE BUDGET AND GET US ESSENTIALLY THROUGH THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET TO COME UP AND BRING THIS BACK AND HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS. >> $50 A MONTH? >> $50 A MONTH. >> THANK YOU. >> DR. WILSON. >> ONE THING YOU SAID, MAYOR, WHEN YOU WERE OUT CAMPAIGNING IS THAT YOU KNOCKED ON PEOPLE'S DOORS AND THAT THEY WERE UNHAPPY, WE JUST MADE A CHANGE. I ALSO WONDER, MR. COLLINS, ARE THEY ALSO GOING TO BE HAPPY THAT WE JUST MAKE ANOTHER TAX INCREASE? I HEAR YOU THAT IT'S ONLY $18, WHICH DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A LOT, BUT IT'S A TAX INCREASE. IT REALLY IS. MAYBE IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO BECAUSE IT MAY BE, BUT IT IS A TAX INCREASE THAT WE HAVEN'T ASKED, AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW OUR CITIZENS ARE GOING TO FEEL ABOUT EVERY SINGLE PERSON PAYING FOR THEIR NEIGHBOR'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. I KEEP STRUGGLING WITH THAT. ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS WE ALL CARE ABOUT IS TAXES, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU CALL IT, WE CALL IT A RATE, WE CALL IT A FEE, WE CALL IT WHATEVER. IT'S STILL A TAX. WE ALL STILL PAY FOR IT. THERE'S NOT AN AIR CONDITIONER TAX. THERE'S NOT A WATER HEATER TAX, THERE'S NOT A ROOF TAX. THERE'S NOT A LAWN TAX. I REALLY STRUGGLE ASKING EVERYBODY TO PAY FOR ME TO HAVE THOSE THINGS. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE RIGHT THING IS. I'M LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS ON THIS THING AND NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, WE NEED MORE MONEY. WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? DO WE TAX EVERYBODY? HOW DO WE GET THERE? YOU SAID, YOU'VE GOT THIS, WHETHER IT'S 1.3, NO MATTER WHAT IT IS, YOU SAID YOU COULD GENERATE IF YOU RAISE IT THE $18 PLUS OR MINUS A YEAR, ONLY 900,000 PLUS OR MINUS A LITTLE BIT. WHERE DOES THE REST COME FROM? I SEE 1.3. I SEE ADDITIONAL ONGOING COSTS. DOES THAT MEAN ANOTHER TAX INCREASE? IF THAT'S WHAT WE KEEP? YOU KNOW VERY WELL, I KNOW YOU DO, THE COST OF JUST CONSTRUCTION IN GENERAL, THE COST OF SUPPLIES, EVERYTHING CONTINUES TO GO UP EVERY YEAR WITH INFLATION. DO WE JUST KEEP RAISING EVERYBODY'S RATE EVERY YEAR FOR US TO CONTINUE TO DO THIS? THOSE ARE JUST QUESTIONS I'M ASKING MYSELF. DOESN'T MEAN MAYBE IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. SOMETIMES THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR ONE IS ABSOLUTELY THE NOT RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE OTHER. WE HEAR THAT SITTING UP HERE ON COUNCIL EVERYDAY. WE WE'RE NEVER GOING TO MAKE ANYBODY HAPPY, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO MAKE EVERYBODY HAPPY. THAT'S A BETTER WAY TO SAY THAT. I STRUGGLE WITH WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO COME FROM CONTINUOUSLY. MAYBE IT NEEDS TO BE A SHORT-TERM AS WE CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS TO HELP MR. ATKINSON MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR BECAUSE THAT'S OUR BIG STRUGGLE IS, WHAT DO WE DO IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS? BUT ULTIMATELY, TO CONTINUE TO RAISE PEOPLE'S TAXES JUST TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO OFFER A SERVICE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S PRIVATELY OWNED, I REALLY STRUGGLE WITH. >> COUNCILWOMAN MARTINEZ-GARCIA. >> I AGREE WITH JENNIFER, AND I EVEN WHISPERED TO THE MAYOR THAT SOME MAY SEE THIS AS A TAX INCREASE. IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO TO OUR CITIZENRY? BUT THE CITY CANNOT AFFORD TO DO IT ON ITS OWN. THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. I THINK IF WE ALL REMEMBER THIS LITTLE VIDEO THAT STARTED THIS CONVERSATION ALSO WHEN A DEDICATED CITY EMPLOYEE OR EMPLOYEES WERE IN WATER IN THE ALLEYWAY UP TO THEIR NECKS, TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO PUT THE PRESSURE ON OUR STAFF AS WELL. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT I IMMEDIATELY ALSO ADDRESSED WAS THE FACT THAT WE HAD A LOT OF FIRE HYDRANTS THAT IS THAT HAD BEEN OUT OF COMMISSION, NOT BEEN FIXED. WE COULD NOT SERVICE THEM BECAUSE WE HAD OUR STAFF GOING AND FIXING THIS PROBLEM. IT GOES BACK TO THIS ISSUE THAT WE NEED A SOLUTION, BUT IT CAN'T BE ONLY ON CITY HALL. [01:15:02] IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALL OF US. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FIXING THINGS FOR OUR NEIGHBORS, THEN WE ALL NEED TO BE NEIGHBORLY. IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE US TO DO THAT. JUST AS A CORRECTION, WITH THE SOLID WASTE TRUCKS, NOT A CORRECTION TO YOU, BUT A LOT OF MISINFORMATION WAS OUT THERE. I THINK WITHIN ONE YEAR, THERE WAS ONLY ONE OR TWO ISSUES. WHICH ONE WAS IT? >> I BELIEVE IT WAS TWO. >> TWO ISSUES, IN ONE YEAR AND THEY WERE ADDRESSED AND CORRECTED, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION THAT OUR SOLID WASTE TRUCKS WERE CRUSHING LINES. THESE FOLKS ARE SO CAREFUL. YEAH, WE MAKE MISTAKES, IT HAPPENS, BUT WE'RE READY TO ADDRESS IT. SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE THE PUBLIC DOES NOT REALIZE THAT WE HAVE VERY DEDICATED STAFF THAT ARE OUT THERE IN THE FIELD. THEY'RE NOT JUST WATCHING THE TRUCK AND THEY'RE WATCHING OUT FOR THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS. I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ALSO STRESS IS WHETHER THEY'RE DRIVING A SOLID WASTE TRUCK, WORKING IN STREETS, WATER, WHATEVER. WE HAVE VERY DEDICATED STAFF. I CANNOT REINFORCE THAT ENOUGH, BUT YOU SEE IT. THEY WORK IN WHATEVER CONDITION, WHATEVER IT IS, AND I WISH THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD JUST GIVE THESE FOLKS THE CREDIT THAT THEY DESERVE BECAUSE WE HAVE HARD WORKING STAFF MEMBERS. >> MR. ROSE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE HAVE A FUNDS PROBLEM. THIS IS ALL THIS IS. THIS IS, ARE YOU GOING TO RAISE THE RATES FOR EVERYONE TO PAY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM, OR ARE YOU GOING TO RAISE THE RATES FOR ONE PERSON FOR THEIR PROBLEM? WHETHER THAT PERSON PAYS UPFRONT OR PAYS THROUGH THEIR RATES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE DIFFICULT QUESTION, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M WRESTLING WITH. WHAT I AM LEANING TOWARD IS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL'S BURDEN NEEDS TO BE TAKEN ON BY THEM. NOW, WHETHER WE CAN HAVE AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM OR MAYBE A PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH YOUR RATE THROUGH A LOAN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. BUT WHERE I AM IS I SEE YOU NEED FUNDS FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM, AND YOU CAN ASK EVERYONE ELSE TO PAY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PROBLEM OR YOU CAN ASK THE INDIVIDUAL TO PAY FOR THE PROBLEM. I THINK AT A PRIVATE PROPERTY STANDPOINT, IT'S THE INDIVIDUALS. >> MR. GLASHEEN. >> DR. WILSON, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE LOGIC AND THE EFFECT OF THIS, BUT ONE THING THAT STANDS OUT TO ME IS THAT THE LOGIC OF THE CITY'S INVOLVEMENT IN SEWER LINE REPAIRS IS INCONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICY ON OTHER TYPE OF UTILITY CONNECTIONS. THERE'S NO LOGICAL CONCLUSION TO THE CITY'S INVOLVEMENT IN THESE TYPE PROGRAMS. IF YOU'RE PAYING $20 A MONTH TO FIX YOUR NEIGHBOR'S SEWER LINE, WHY NOT PAY $40 A MONTH AND FIX THEIR WATER LINE TOO, OR $100 A MONTH, YOU CAN FIX YOUR NEIGHBOR'S AC. I THINK THE ONE LESSON WE LEARNED THOUGH FROM THE TRANSITION IS THAT WE NEED TO GIVE FAMILIES MORE TIME TO BUDGET, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A VERY VALID CONCERN THAT PEOPLE WILL HAVE A SUDDEN CHANGE IN THEIR FINANCIAL OUTLOOK, AND THE NEXT TRANSITION, IF WE CHOOSE TO CHANGE THE POLICY, SHOULD INCLUDE ENOUGH TIME THAT FAMILIES CAN ADJUST THEIR ANNUAL BUDGET. >> I'LL JUST WEIGH IN AGAIN ON DR. WILSON'S COMMENT. I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE SHE'S COMING FROM. BUT IT WAS AMAZING TO ME, FOR MOST PEOPLE IT WAS MORE OF AN ISSUE OF MAYBE THE FAIRNESS OR HOW WE ARRIVED OR HOW WE CAME ABOUT MAKING THE DECISION. THIS WAS RAISED BY PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER FACE THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS PRETTY MUCH LIMITED TO DISTRICTS 1, 2, AND 3. OUR OLDER SECTIONS OF THE TOWN. BUT THESE WERE PEOPLE OUT IN DISTRICTS 4, 5, AND 6 SAYING, IT SEEMED WRONG TO THEM. THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT. PART OF WHAT I FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO DEAL WITH HERE IS HOW THE PUBLIC FEELS ABOUT A DECISION WE MAKE AND NOT JUST THE DECISION WE MAKE. THAT'S WHY I FELT LIKE AT LEAST PUTTING THE FIRST PART OF THE BURDEN ON THE HOMEOWNER, GIVING ASSISTANCE TO THOSE WHO COULDN'T. I FORGOT TO MENTION AND MR. ROSE DID MENTION IT, POSSIBLY. I THINK WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT LETTING THEM PAY THAT OUT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THAT COULD BE DONE IN OUR SYSTEM, NOT MORE THAN A YEAR, WOULD HAVE TO BE PAID WITHIN A YEAR. PAY THAT OUT OVER TIME. [01:20:02] BUT THAT PUTS THE FIRST PART OF IT WHERE LEGALLY, IT SHOULD BE ON THE HOMEOWNER. BUT FOR THOSE INSTANCES AND OCCURRENCES WHERE IT REALLY DOES EXCEED THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN WE HEAR THOSE FIGURES LIKE 4,500 AND 13,000 AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WENT INTO THAT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THOSE FIGURES WERE RIGHT, WHETHER THAT INCLUDED EVERYTHING, THE WHOLE LINE TO THE HOUSE. I REALLY DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT WAS THE SHOCKING PART OF IT AND WHAT CONCERNED SO MANY PEOPLE AND FRIGHTENED SO MANY PEOPLE. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ADDRESS WITH IT SOMEHOW. YES, PUT THE BURDEN WHERE IT DOES LEGALLY BELONG AND TAKING THAT OFF THE CITY FOR THE FIRST $1000 OR WHATEVER, COVERING THAT EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSE THAT MAY BE AN OCCASIONAL EXPENSE AND PUT A TIME LIMIT ON IT AS TO HOW LONG WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS. MR. ATKINSON, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAME AWAY FROM THIS WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO COME AWAY FROM IT WITH. I'M GOING TO LET YOU WEIGH IN RIGHT HERE. >> THANK YOU ALL. VERY GOOD DISCUSSION. NO, I DON'T THINK I'VE QUITE GOT DIRECTION, BUT I THINK COUNCILMAN ROSE REALLY SUMMED IT UP THE BEST. THERE IS NO WAY FORWARDS, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH US DOING THE WORK OR IT'S SUBSIDIZING WORK ON BEHALF OF THAT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER WITHOUT COMING UP WITH MORE DOLLARS. YOU GET THOSE DOLLARS THROUGH THESE RATES. YES, IT HAS THE SAME EXACT IMPACT ON A HOMEOWNER AS TAXES. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE WITH THAT. SOMEBODY ELSE STATED IT, IF YOU HAVE 1,100 OF THESE A YEAR, AND YOU HAVE ROUGHLY 82,000 RESIDENTIAL SEWER ACCOUNTS. ANYTHING YOU DO WITH RATES WILL IMPACT ALL 82,000, AND THE PAYOUT WILL BE TO THE ROUGHLY 1,100. LET ME OFFER SOMETHING AND THEN Y'ALL DEBATE A SPECIFIC TOPIC. MAYBE WE CAN MOVE A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. THIS IS A MIX MATCH OF WHERE WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE COMMENTS. SEVERAL HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE RAMP TO EDUCATION AND TIME AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO ADJUST. IF YOU GO BACKWARD ONE MORE FOR ME. >> BOTTOM ONE. >> WHAT IF WE WORK TOWARDS THAT LAST ONE, WE WOULD FUND THIS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. SPEND A LOT OF EFFORT ON AWARENESS. IT SAYS EDUCATION, IT'S AWARENESS. GO AHEAD AND CREATE AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME, AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE A DEFINITIVE END DATE. WITH THAT, I CAN PROCESS INTO A BUDGET PROPOSAL. WE'LL SEE THAT WEEK OF AUGUST THE 5TH. WHAT WOULD YOUR THOUGHTS BE TO THAT? >> DR. WILSON. >> MR. ATKINSON, MY QUESTION WOULD BE, ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT WE FUND THE ADDITIONAL CREW PROCESS? WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT WE FUND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. >> GOOD CLARIFICATION. FUND IT THE WAY IT SITS AT THIS MINUTE. >> JUST THE CURRENT CREW THAT WE HAVE CONTINUED TO DO THROUGH THE END OF YEAR? >> THE CURRENT CREW AND TO SPEAK TO THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE, AND Y'ALL ARE SPEAKING MUSIC TO MY HEART WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT. WHAT WE'RE UNDERSTANDING IS THESE CREWS THAT ARE DOING IT RIGHT NOW AT OUR EXPENSE, WILL ROLL BACK INTO DOING SYSTEM MAINTENANCE AT A DEFINITIVE PERIOD IN TIME. I WILL NEED SOME DOLLARS TO DO THIS. IT WILL NOT BE AS SIGNIFICANT AS THESE OTHER DOLLARS THAT ARE ON THE PAGE. >> MR. GLASHEEN. >> I THINK THAT A TIMED TRANSITION TO HOMEOWNER RESPONSIBILITY IS AN APPROPRIATE SOLUTION FOR US TO CONSIDER IN MORE DETAIL. I THINK THEY'LL NEED TO BE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. BUT IF YOU CAN PRESENT SOME OPTIONS WITH THAT AS WELL, THAT'D BE HELPFUL. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I'VE GOT MINE. >> MR. COLLINS? >> NO. I'M SORRY. I THINK I AM OUT. >> MR. COLLINS. [01:25:04] >> I THINK THAT SOME TIMING OF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A TRANSITION AND WE TELL THE PEOPLE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT WHAT WE CAN'T DO IS PREDICT FOR THEM WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THE ONLY TIME YOU CAN PREDICT THAT YOUR AIR CONDITIONER IS GOING TO GO OUT IS WHEN YOU HAVE COMPANY COMING. THAT'S NEARLY A GIVEN THAT THAT'S THE DAY YOUR AIR CONDITIONER IS NOT GOING TO WORK IS WHEN SOMEONE'S PLANNING TO SPEND TIME WITH YOU. THERE IS A WARNING PERIOD, BUT THAT'S REALLY ALL IT AMOUNTS TO BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT IT REALLY AFFECTS AN INDIVIDUAL AS IT HAPPENS TO THEM IN THEIR HOUSEHOLD. MAYBE WE NEED TO GO BACK, AS THE MAYOR SUGGESTED WITH A FLOOR OR A FIRST AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND WE CAN DO THIS AS WELL. IT'LL BE UP TO A VOTE OF THE COUNCIL, OF COURSE, IN THE SEVEN MEMBERS. BUT I THINK THAT A TIMING IS JUST A WARNING SHOT. IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT OUT THERE, THEN WE'RE JUST WARNING THEM THAT IN 90 DAYS, IT'S GOING TO BE TO THEM. THAT MAY BE THE BEST DIRECTION, BUT I THINK IT DOESN'T PREDICT WHEN THEY MIGHT HAVE TO INCUR AN EXPENSE. >> NO, I THINK I'M GOOD WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR CITY MANAGER BECAUSE I BELIEVE, WHEN WE INITIALLY ADDRESSED THIS, WE DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND IT THAT WELL, AND THE PUBLIC DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT. BUT I THINK THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS. I THINK WE'VE PUT SOME EFFORT, AND I THINK THIS WOULD GIVE US SOME TIME FOR FOLKS TO REALLY DIGEST IT AND UNDERSTAND IT. I THINK THE COMBINATION OF DOING FUND THE CITY CIP FOR THE FIRST THREE MONTHS, CREATE THE EDUCATION PROGRAM, CREATE AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO ASSIST LOW INCOME AND THEN RETURN THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN A FEW MONTHS OR AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. I THINK THAT ALL COMES TOGETHER, GIVES EVERYBODY A CHANCE. I THINK WHAT EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER HAS SAID, PRETTY THIS IS IT. I THINK IT WOULD ALSO GIVE OUR STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DIGEST IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT THERE'S NOT A FINAL ANSWER, BUT IT WOULD DEFINITELY GIVE US SOMETHING THAT WE COULD MEASURE. THEN IF WE HAVE TO REVISIT IT, WE COULD DEFINITELY REVISIT IT IN THE FUTURE. I PERSONALLY AM GOOD WITH THIS. >> DR. WILSON. >> WOOD, JUST REAL QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, HOW MANY HAVE WE DONE IN 2024? DO YOU KNOW? >> I DO NOT HAVE THAT. OF COURSE, THERE WAS A PERIOD OF TIME, THREE MONTHS THAT WE WEREN'T DOING THEM. >> JUST SINCE WE WENT BACK, DO YOU HAVE JUST A ROUGH IDEA? >> I DON'T KNOW. I DO KNOW THE MONTHLY RATE THAT WE WERE DOING IT. SINCE IT WENT TO THE HOMEOWNER, NOW HAS COME BACK, IT'S NOT AT THE LEVEL THAT IT WAS. FOR SOME REASON, WE'RE NOT SEEING AS MANY AS WE USED TO. WE USED TO SEE THREE OR FOUR A DAY, NOW WE'RE SEEING ONE OR TWO A DAY. THOSE NUMBERS VARY, BUT BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT HAS DROPPED. >> SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SOT. I WAS JUST WONDERING. >> I CAN GET THOSE NUMBERS, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT ON TOP OF MY HEAD. >> THANKS, WOOD. >> WELL, IN ORDER FOR MR. ATKINSON TO HAVE SOME DIRECTION, MAYBE WE JUST NEED TO START DOWN HERE WITH YOU, MR. HARRIS, AND JUST EVERYBODY WEIGH IN ON WHAT YOU'RE THINKING SO HE GETS A CONSENSUS OUT OF US. >> MAYOR, I'M IN AGREEMENT PRETTY MUCH WITH EVERYBODY, JUST AS LONG AS THERE IS AN ASSISTANCE LOW INCOME PROGRAM, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO CATCH A LOT OF STATIC FROM. BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE ARE IN THE OLDER HOUSES, AND THEY ARE OLDER PEOPLE, AND THEY ARE NOT WORKING, AND THEY DON'T HAVE A BUNCH OF MONEY TO FIX THEIR PLUMBING. I THINK IF THEY'VE BEEN IN THIS TOWN 70 YEARS AND BEEN PAYING THEIR TAXES, I BELIEVE THEY NEED SOME ASSISTANCE. THAT'S MY OPINION ON IT. >> I THINK THAT WE NEED TO TRANSITION TO PROPERTY OWNER BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN PROPERTY AND REPAIRS, AND PART OF THAT TRANSITION COULD INCLUDE A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE THE CITY NOTIFIES PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT THE UPCOMING CHANGE, AND THEN A TRANSITIONAL PERIOD OF ASSISTANCE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT A LONG TERM OPEN-ENDED SUBSIDY TO REPAIRS IS GOING TO BE FINANCIALLY TENABLE. >> I AGREE WITH BOTH. SO FAR EVERY THING THAT EVERYONE SAID, [01:30:03] THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH SENSE. I DO FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO FIND A SOLUTION, AND I THINK THIS IS DEFINITELY A GREAT START. WE'RE ADDRESSING ALL OF THE KEY ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW. UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, WOOD, THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT. ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO, THIS WOULD SOLVE OUR CONCERNS FROM STAFF LEVEL AS FAR AS DEFERRING MAINTENANCE, BUT IF WE DON'T DEFER MAINTENANCE AND WE DO PUT THIS BACK ON THE CITY, IT IS A COST. WE WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE SOLUTION. >> FOR MY PART, I BELIEVE IN PUTTING MOST OF THE HONORS ON THE HOMEOWNER. I STILL LIKE A HYBRID SOLUTION TO IT WHERE THE HOMEOWNER BEARS THE FIRST COST, AND A HIGHER AMOUNT WOULD BE PAID, IF THAT WERE THE CASE, BY THE CITY, ALONG WITH AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, THE TIME LIMIT ON THE VIABILITY OF THE PROGRAM. OF COURSE, WE NEED TO WORK OUT WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO COVER THAT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT. I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE MADE A COMMENT THAT YES, IT IS, IN FACT, A FORM OF A TAX INCREASE. IT'S A FEE INCREASE, BUT I THINK PEOPLE DON'T MAKE A BIG DISTINCTION BETWEEN TAXES AND FEES. FEES ARE FOR SERVICES, TAXES ARE JUST BROAD. THIS ONE REALLY DOESN'T FIT IN EITHER BUCKET, EXACTLY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH. IT'S INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S IMPORTANT TO EVERYBODY IN THE CITY. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EVERYBODY HAVE A HEALTHY AND GOOD WAY FOR THEIR SEWAGE TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THEIR HOUSE. WE ALL DEPEND ON THAT BEING THE SITUATION. AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE SENSE OF THE PEOPLE, EVEN PEOPLE WHO DO NOT LIKE THEIR TAXES TO BE INCREASED, THERE WAS SOMETHING IN THEIR MIND OR FEELING THAT THIS WAS NOT RIGHT. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO TRANSITION INTO IT. THAT'S WHAT I THINK. THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING DOWN. DR. WILSON. >> MR. ATKINSON, I AGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY RETURN THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OVER, BUT WITH YOUR FUNDING OF YOUR CAPITAL PLAN THROUGH THE NEXT THREE MONTHS, AND THEN WE CAN DO OUR EDUCATION PROGRAM, FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN ASSIST WITH LOW INCOME RESIDENTS, AND POTENTIALLY LOOK AT THIS DIFFERENT IN THE FUTURE. BUT FOR THE NEXT, SINCE OUR BUDGET IS COMING UP, I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GO FOR NOW. >> MR. ROSE. >> I AGREE, WE MOVE ON WITH MR. ATKINSON'S RECOMMENDATION, CREATE AN EDUCATION PROGRAM, CREATE AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME, AND THEN EVENTUALLY AS WE TRANSITION, SLOWLY TO RETURN THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE HOMEOWNER. >> MR. COLLINS. >> THERE WE GO. I'M GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF A HYBRID MODEL THAT WOULD ALLOW THE HOMEOWNER OR REQUIRE THE HOMEOWNER TO PAY THE FIRST PORTION, AND COUPLE THAT WITH SOME INCREASE IN THE BASE RATE OF THE WATER. I THINK THAT THE REASON THAT THE CITY GOT INTO THE BUSINESS OF REPLACING THESE LATERAL LINES REALLY HASN'T CHANGED AND MAYBE HAS GOTTEN MORE COMPLICATED. COMPACTION, THE ADVENT OF ALL OF THESE EXTRA COMMUNICATION LINES, FIBER OPTICS, ETC, I THINK THERE'S STILL GOOD CAUSE FOR US TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT WORK. THERE IS GOOD REASON FOR THE HOMEOWNER TO BE REQUIRED TO BE A PARTICIPANT BECAUSE IT IS THEIR PROPERTY. BUT I WOULD ADVOCATE TO US FINDING SOMETHING THAT'S MORE IN THE MIDDLE THAN JUST CALLING INTO IT. THAT'S MY POSITION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, EVERYONE FOR YOUR INPUT. I THINK MR. ATKINSON, THAT DOES GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A SENSE GOING FORWARD. >> YES, SIR, IT DOES. THANK YOU-ALL. >> THANK YOU. >> WITH LOVE. JUST FOR EVERYBODY AGAIN, WATCHING AND LISTENING, NO CHANGES ARE BEING MADE TODAY. NO DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE TODAY. THE COUNCIL HAS GIVEN US INFORMATION THAT'LL COME BACK AS PART OF THE BUDGET DISCUSSIONS, AND ONLY AFTER THAT WILL SOMETHING CHANGE. PLEASE KNOW, NOTHING CHANGES TODAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S TAKE A SHORT BREAK BEFORE WE COME BACK WITH THE REST OF OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE'LL TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK. WE'LL BE BACK AT 3:10. I WILL CALL THE CITY COUNCIL BACK FROM THE RECESS. [1. Invocation] [01:35:10] WE WILL BEGIN NOW WITH OUR INVOCATION. OUR INVOCATION TODAY IS BROUGHT TO US, OR WILL BE DONE BY THE SENIOR PASTOR OF NEW HOPE CHURCH IN LUBBOCK, PASTOR MICHELLE SCHUBERT. REVEREND SCHUBERT, IF YOU COME FORWARD. IF EVERYBODY WOULD STAND FOR THE INVOCATION. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME, AND THANK EACH OF YOU FOR YOUR INDIVIDUAL YESES, MOST OF WHICH I UNDERSTAND ARE NEW AND RECENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COLLECTIVE YES, TO SERVE OUR BEAUTIFUL CITY AND ITS GREAT PEOPLE. IF YOU WOULD FEEL COMPELLED TO BOW YOUR HEAD WITH ME, WE'LL PRAY. LORD, WE COME BEFORE YOU, OUR ULTIMATE AUTHORITY, AND ASK FOR YOUR PRESENCE AND GUIDANCE TODAY. WOULD YOU ORDER OUR STEPS IN THE DIRECTION OF YOUR KINGDOM, THAT OF RESTORATION, REDEMPTION, UNITY, AND OF PEACE. WE HONOR AND ASK FOR YOUR FAVOR OVER OUR LEADERSHIP THAT YOU HAVE APPOINTED FOR THIS CITY. MAYOR MCBRAYER, MAYOR PRO TEM, MARTINEZ-GARCIA, AND COUNCIL PERSONS, MR. COLLINS, MR. GLASHEEN, MR. HARRIS, MR. ROSE, AND DR. WILSON. BLESS THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY AS WELL, OUR CITY MANAGER, ATTORNEY, AND SECRETARY. WE ARE PEOPLE UNDER YOUR AUTHORITY, AND WOULD WE OPERATE TODAY IN A WAY THAT REVERES YOU AND EXEMPLIFIES OUR WITNESS OF YOUR GOODNESS. WOULD WE BE GUIDED BY WHAT PLEASES AND HONORS YOU? WOULD WE HONOR ONE ANOTHER AS WE GO ABOUT THIS MEETING, AND AS THE CITY COUNCIL MOVES TOWARD RESOLUTION AND PLANNING THIS AFTERNOON? BE WITH OUR CITY'S LEADERS, THOSE REPRESENTING IT, AND THE DECISIONS MADE HERE TODAY THAT WE MIGHT HONOR THIS GREAT AND BEAUTIFUL CITY, ITS PEOPLE, AND ITS FUTURE. WE ASK THAT YOUR WILL BE DONE ON EARTH AND IN LUBBOCK AS IT IS IN HEAVEN. BLESS THIS MEETING AND BLESS THE CITY OF LUBBOCK IN YOUR NAME, AMEN. >> AMEN. I GOT TO SPEAK FOR ALL OF US THAT WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRAYERS FOR US TODAY. [2. Pledges of Allegiance] LET'S HAVE OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG AND THE TEXAS FLAG. MAYOR PRO TEM, WILL YOU LEAD US? >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG; I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. >> PLEASE BE SEATED. >> NOW I WILL CALL TO ORDER THIS REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE'VE POSTED THE AGENDA. LET ME MAKE A FEW COMMENTS BEFORE WE GET TO CITIZEN COMMENTS. [4. Citizen Comments - According to Lubbock City Council Rules, any citizen wishing to appear in-person before a regular meeting of the City Council, regarding any matter posted on the City Council Agenda below, shall complete the sign-up form provided at the meeting, no later than 2:00 p.m. on July 23, 2024. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ] CITIZEN COMMENTS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SPEAK TODAY, WHO WILL COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND ADDRESS US. I WANT ALL CITIZENS TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE ALWAYS FREE TO COME AND ADDRESS THIS COUNCIL ON ANY SUBJECT THAT IS POSTED ON OUR AGENDA. YOU CAN FIND OUR AGENDA POSTED ONLINE, OR YOU CAN COME LOOK OUTSIDE. WE POSTED OUT THERE BY LAW. BUT YOU CAN FIND OUT WHAT WE ARE SPEAKING ON OR DISCUSSING AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING, SO YOU'RE FREE TO COME AND COMMENT ON THAT. I KNOW MANY CITIZENS HAVE SAID, WELL, I CAN'T COME AT THE TIME THAT YOU HAVE SCHEDULED THIS. THERE'S REALLY NO TIME THAT WE COULD SCHEDULE A CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT EVERYBODY CAN BE HERE OR THAT SOMEBODY WOULDN'T BE INCONVENIENCED ABOUT BEING HERE. WE WILL LOOK AT MAYBE TRYING TO CHANGE SOME OF THE TIMES AT WHICH WE MEET, BUT I WANT ALL CITIZENS TO KNOW THEY'RE FREE TO CONTACT THEIR CITY COUNCIL PERSON OR ME AT ANY TIME TO DISCUSS ANY ISSUE, WHETHER IT'S POSTED ON AN AGENDA OR NOT. IF SOMETHING IS OF CONCERN TO YOU, WE WANT YOU TO KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE. YOU MAY CALL THE CITY HALL. THEY WILL PUT YOU THROUGH TO US IF WE ARE HERE. OTHERWISE, SOME OF US HAVE OUR CELL PHONES AVAILABLE TO YOU. YOU CAN CALL US THERE. YOU CAN EMAIL US. THERE ARE MANY WAYS IN WHICH YOU CAN CONTACT US. I'M GOING TO BE REINSTITUTING COFFEES WITH THE MAYOR, AND I'M GOING TO INVITE OUR CITY COUNCIL PEOPLE TO BE WITH ME WHEN I'M IN YOUR DISTRICT. YOU CAN COME AND ADDRESS US THEN. WE ARE HERE TO LISTEN TO YOU. YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME HERE AT THIS MEETING ONLY TO ADDRESS US, YOU CAN COME TO US AT ANY TIME. I WANT THE CITIZENS TO KNOW THAT WE ARE HERE TO LISTEN, AND WE ARE HERE TO RESPOND TO YOU, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, WE DO ANSWER TO YOU. BUT TODAY, WE HAVE CITIZEN COMMENTS, AND ACCORDING TO THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL RULES, ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING OF [01:40:04] THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ANY MATTER POSTED ON THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA, WILL COMPLETE A SIGN UP FORM PROVIDED AT THE MEETING, NO LATER THAN 2 O'CLOCK TODAY. CITIZEN COMMENTS PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO MAKE COMMENTS AND EXPRESS A POSITION ON AGENDA ITEMS. I'M GOING TO CALL YOU FORWARD BY NAME. WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN TELL US WHICH ITEM ON THE AGENDA YOU ARE WISHING TO SPEAK TO. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, AND I BELIEVE YOU WILL HEAR A BELL RING WHEN YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT, AND THEN ANOTHER BELL RING WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP. PLEASE TRY TO CONFINE YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES. BUT OF COURSE, IF YOU DON'T GET EVERYTHING SAID IN YOUR THREE MINUTES, YOU CAN ALWAYS CATCH US AFTERWARDS, OR BEFORE, OR ANY OTHER TIME. FIRST, I'M GOING TO CALL MISS ALMA, I THINK IT'S GOPC. IS IT GOPC OR GOPE? I CAN'T QUITE READ. GOPE, THAT'S AN E. WELL, YOU'RE NUMBER 1. >> I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. [NOISE] MY NAME IS ALMA GOPE. I LIVE AT 2420 30TH STREET. I PROBABLY MISSED SOMETHING THAT YOU TOLD ME TO SAY. >> YOU HAVE MENTIONED YOUR ADDRESS. THAT'S FINE. WOULD YOU PULL THAT MICROPHONE DOWN A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOUR MOUTH? THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU, MISS. GOPE. >> I HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU ALL HAVE SAID AND IT HAS BEEN GREAT. I APPRECIATE IT. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND MOST OF IT, BUT I AM HERE TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS TOO ABOUT WHEN YOU-ALL DO WHATEVER YOU-ALL DO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND BRING IT TO US, DON'T FORGET THAT WE ARE THE OLDER SECTION, EAST LUBBOCK, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION AND BE FAIR. A LOT OF TIMES THINGS GET SAID AND DONE. I AM NEW AT THIS HERE. I'M OLDER, BUT I'VE NEVER PARTICIPATED IN A LOT OF THINGS. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST DECISIONS TO MAKE EVERYTHING GO SKY HIGH FOR THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN EAST LUBBOCK BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL AREA THERE AND THE PIPES PROBABLY GO DEEPER. WHO KNOWS? I DON'T KNOW. BUT IN CASE THEY DO, THEN THAT COULD CREATE ANOTHER FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN EAST LUBBOCK. I'M JUST HERE TO SAY, PLEASE REMEMBER WHEN YOU-ALL ARE DOING WHAT YOU DO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS THAT YOU-ALL THINK ABOUT IT. NO ONE IS TRYING TO GET OUT OF ANYTHING. I UNDERSTAND ABOUT HOMEOWNERS THAT NEED TO HOLD UP THEIR END AND EVERYTHING, BUT JUST REMEMBER THAT A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN EAST LUBBOCK, SOMETIMES IT CREATES EXTRA FOR US. IT SHOULDN'T, BUT IT DOES. I'M JUST HERE TO SAY, WHAT YOU-ALL HAVE SAID ABOUT THE HOMEOWNERS, I DO UNDERSTAND. THEY DO NEED TO BE CLEANED UP. I HAVE HAD TO HAVE THE PLUMBER PEOPLE TO COME OUT SO OFTEN BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PROBLEMS, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THOSE FROM, BUT I STILL HAVE TO PAY MY BILLS. I STILL HAVE TO DO THAT. I'M JUST HERE TO SAY, PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THERE'S A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL STUFF OVER THERE THAT COULD RUN BILLS UP HIGHER. I DON'T KNOW, BUT JUST THINK ABOUT IT. THAT WAS IT. >> THANK YOU, MISS GOPE. NEXT, WE HAVE BARBARA. IS IT LICK? >> IF YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> OKAY. HELLO. MY NAME IS BARBARA LEAK, AND MY ADDRESS IS 7302 74TH. HERE IN LUBBOCK, AND I HAVE SEVERAL PROPERTIES ACTUALLY HERE IN LUBBOCK AND I AGREE THAT WITH ALL, ALL HAVE GREAT COMMENTS AND EVERYTHING ON ALL OF THIS. HOWEVER, AS A HOMEOWNER, WE DO TAKE CARE OF OUR HOME. WE'VE REPLACED AIR CONDITIONERS. BUT I DON'T THINK AN AIR CONDITIONER HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH OUR PLUMBING. BUT OUR AIR CONDITIONERS, OUR PLUMBING, ANYTHING TO UP KEEP OUR HOUSE. WE DO AND OUR YARDS BECAUSE WE LIKE TO BEAUTIFY LUBBOCK. BUT WE HAVE SPENT IN SEVERAL OF OUR HOUSES, $5,000 DOING THE PLUMBING IN ONE HOUSE IN THE BACKYARD, $7,000 JUST RECENTLY DOING PLUMBING IN THE BACKYARD. I SPENT $3,000 JUST DOING ONE LITTLE SECTION [01:45:03] BECAUSE OF A TREE CREATING A HOLE IN THE PLUMBING. IT'S A BIG EXPENSE. WE DO TAKE CARE OF THE PLUMBING IN OUR HOUSE. THEY'RE ALL CLOGGED UP EVERY SO OFTEN, THE PLUMBER COMES OUT AND RUNS IT. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT GOES OUT TO THE CITY LINE BECAUSE SOMETIMES THE CITY LINE HAS BEEN BACKED UP. I'VE HAD ISSUES WHERE THE CABLE COMPANY CAME AND RAN A HOLE THROUGH THE PLUMBING, WHICH BACKED UP INTO OUR HOUSE AND THEN WE'VE HAD AN ISSUE THAT THE PIPES COMPLETELY COLLAPSED AT ONE OF THE HOUSES, AND IT WAS A CITY PIPE AND I HAD TO GO AND PROVE TO THE CITY THAT IT WAS THE CITY AND NOT THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THE YARD, WHICH THEY CAME OUT AND DID THAT AND IT WENT DOWN WAY DOWN THE ALLEY, BUT IT FLOODED EVERY PLACE. I UNDERSTAND THAT IS A BIG EXPENSE. IT'S A BIG EXPENSE FOR US HOMEOWNERS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR HOMES. ALSO OUR TAXES. YOU'RE SAYING THAT AS TAXES BEING INCREASED, OUR APPRAISAL DISTRICT PROPERTY TAXES HAVE INCREASED, AND NOW OUR LAND VALUE TAXES ARE INCREASED. WE'RE HAVING ALL OF THAT. WE'RE ALSO PAYING FOR THE WATER GOING THROUGH ALL THOSE PIPES IN THE ALLEYS, WHICH IS A COMMON AREA AND SO THAT COMMON AREA AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITH THE CITY TAXES AND THE WATER THAT WE'RE PAYING THAT GOES OUT THROUGH THE PIPES. WE'RE PAYING FOR THAT THROUGH LP&L AS WELL. WHERE DOES THAT MONEY GO AND WHAT IS IT GOING TO? IT SHOULD BE ONTO THE CITY TO KEEP OUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND OUR TAXES, KEEPING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE RUNNING THROUGH THE CITY AND THAT'S WHAT A CITY IS FOR. THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS ARE FOR, TO PAY OUR TAXES, AND WE DO. WE PAY A LOT OF TAXES, AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY MORE INCREASES BECAUSE WE'RE INCREASED OUT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO GO AND PAY MORE. IT'S REALLY HARD AND WE HAVE BUSINESSES THAT WE'RE RUNNING. BUT WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM? WHO DO WE GET THAT FROM? IT'S NOT INCREASING FOR US AS WELL. I THINK THAT WE JUST NEED TO ALL LEARN TO LIVE WITHIN THE MEANS OF IT AND KEEP IT GREAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS LEAK. NOW, BRIDGE CS. THIS IS JUST A WRITTEN DOCUMENT. WE'LL PASS IT OUT. DO WE JUST ACCEPT THIS INTO THE RECORD, MR. CITY ATTORNEY, OR DO I HAVE TO READ THIS? >> IS IT I THINK IF ANY COUNCILMAN WOULD LIKE WORK TO BE READ FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU COULD, OTHERWISE, WE CAN ADD IT TO THE MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU'RE WELCOME TO READ IT LOUD AS WELL FOR YOU WANT TO SUMMARIZE IT, YOU COULD DO THAT AS WELL, MAYOR. >> I THINK WHAT I WILL DO IS JUST READ WHAT SHE HAS PUT IN READ OR MARKED OUT AND JUST LET HER SPEAK FOR HERSELF ON WHAT SHE THINKS SHOULD BE CHANGED WITHOUT READING EVERYTHING THAT SHE'S GOT. SHE'S PROPOSED REVISIONS, AND SHE SAYS SHE STRUCK THAT BOTH SHOULD BEAR THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. SHE STRUCK THE OWNER PROPERTY OWNER OWNS A SEWER LATERAL LINE IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY AND SAYS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS NO CONTROL OVER THE USE CONDITION OR ALLEY, PUBLIC WAY RIGHT AWAY WHERE THE LATERAL LINE IS LOCATED. SHE HAS STRUCK FROM A SECTION AND WE WILL PUT THIS IN THE MINUTES. SHE STRUCK A LOT FROM A SPLIT SECTION. I DON'T BELIEVE I COULD ACTUALLY COMMENT ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HER REVISIONS ARE THERE. I THINK THE BEST THING AS I'M LOOKING AT THIS IS JUST TO PUT THIS IN THE RECORD. >> I THINK SO. THESE ARE JUST PROPOSED REVISIONS. >> YEAH. THESE ARE PROPOSED. NOT REALLY THE REPORT. IT'S NOT THE ORDINANCE THAT SHE'S. >> JUST THE REPORT BY THE ADS. >> JUST THE REPORT. LET'S WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION. I'LL HAVE THIS ACCEPTED INTO THE RECORD FOR A PUBLIC COMMENT. NEXT, I WANT TO CALL UP TO THE PODIUM COLBY, NORRIS. MR. NORRIS? AND YOU'RE SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM 7.4, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> HI. MY NAME IS COLBY NORRIS, AND I LIVE AT 16001 COUNTY ROAD 1860 AND I'M THE 2024 TREASURER FOR THE HIGHLAND OAKS HOA. I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF AGENDA ITEM 7.4 TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AND ORDER FOR A SPECIAL CITY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5TH REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF HIGHLAND OAKS. [01:50:03] I'D ASK THAT IF YOU'RE SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE AND ARE IN FAVOR, WILL YOU PLEASE STAND? THANK YOU. WE'RE EXCITED TO BE HERE TODAY. WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE CITY OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS PUTTING TOGETHER A SOLUTION TO THE WATER ISSUES AND HIGHLAND OAKS THROUGH ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. AGAIN, WE APPRECIATE THE TIME AND THE RESOURCES THAT THE CITY IS DEDICATED WHILE WORKING TO FIND A PATH FORWARD. IT'S THIS TIME OF YEAR THAT WE SEE SEASONAL STRESS ON THE AQUIFER DECREASE OUR WELL PRODUCTION RATES. WE RECENTLY CHECKED THE DEPTH TO WATER IN OUR COMMON AREA WELLS, AND THEY WERE DOWN TEN FEET FROM WHERE WE ORIGINALLY DRILLED. THIS WEEKEND, WE STARTED COLLECTING SIGNATURES TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHICH WOULD FUND THE PROJECT. WE'RE PROUD TO SAY THAT IN THREE SHORT DAYS, WE'VE ALREADY COLLECTED SIGNATURES FROM ALMOST 51% OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN 2023, WHEN WE COLLECTED THE PETITIONS FOR ANNEXATION, 83% OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED WERE IN FAVOR. WITH THIS SECOND ROUND OF SIGNATURES FOR THE FORMATION OF THE PID, WE'RE SEEING AS MUCH, IF NOT MORE SUPPORT. WE HOPE THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO SECURE A SUSTAINABLE WATER SOURCE FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD BY VOTING FOR ANNEXATION ON NOVEMBER 5TH AND IT'S FOR THIS REASON, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER THE RESOLUTION AND ORDER THE ELECTION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP. WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH OUR MAYOR, OUR COUNCILMEN, AND WOMEN, CITY MANAGEMENT, AND STAFF. IT'S A GREAT DAY IN LOW, TEXAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MR. NORRIS. NEXT I HAVE BELINDA KAY. >> I HAVE TO ANNOUNCE I FORGOT MY HEARING AIDS. I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I HAVE THINGS WRITTEN UP IF I'M ABLE TO PASS IT OUT. >> YES, MA'AM. IF YOU'LL JUST GIVE IT TO OUR CITY SECRETARY AND SHE'LL HAND THAT OUT TO US. >> MY NAME AND NUMBER. MY NAME IS BELINDA KAY. I LIVE IN THE HIGHLAND OAKS SUBDIVISION. I'M AT 5508 COUNTY ROAD 7540 AND SADLY, TO MY FELLOW NEIGHBORS, I AM OPPOSED TO THIS ANNEXATION AND PID PROPOSAL. WE'VE LIVED IN HIGHLAND OAKS FOR ALMOST 15 YEARS AND WE DO NOT HAVE A WATER ISSUE. WE NEVER HAVE AND THIS PID ANNEXATION REQUEST AND DIFFERENT INFRASTRUCTURE IDEAS HAVE BEEN PUT BEFORE US FOR THE PAST TWO YEARS NOW. WE NEVER HAD WATER ISSUES TWO YEARS AGO, AND I CONTINUE NOT TO HAVE ANY WATER ISSUES TODAY. ALTHOUGH I EMPATHIZE, AND I'M SORRY THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THIS. I DON'T WISH THAT ON ANYBODY. BUT WE ALL KNEW THE RISKS INVOLVED WHEN WE BOUGHT AND BUILT IN HIGHLAND OAKS TO BEGIN WITH. I KNEW THE RISKS 15 YEARS AGO. I WAS WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK, AND IF I WERE TO HAVE A WATER ISSUE, I WAS GOING TO SOLVE MY ISSUE, AND I WASN'T GOING TO ASK THE CITY TO HELP OR ASSIST WITH THAT AND I CERTAINLY WASN'T GOING TO ASK MY FELLOW NEIGHBORS TO FOOT A LARGE PID BILL, CITY TAXES, UTILITY BILLS, TEARING UP THE PROPERTY, WHATEVER IT IS ALL INVOLVED IN THIS. I WOULD NEVER ASK THEM TO DO THAT, WHETHER THEY HAD THE SAME ISSUES AS ME OR NOT. I DON'T FIT THE BILL WITH THE WATER ISSUE. I FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT MY FAMILY'S BURDEN TO BEAR. IT'S NOT MY COST TO BEAR. I'M 64-YEARS-OLD. I'M FINALLY LOOKING AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL TO ENJOY THE REST OF MY YEARS, WHATEVER GOD GRANTS ME TO HAVE TO LIVE IN PEACE. I FEEL LIKE THIS WHOLE PID 20 YEAR, $30,000 PLUS IS DEVASTATING TO MY FAMILY. I'M SURE THAT I JUST WANT TO HAVE A VOICE. I WANT MY VOICE HEARD, AND I'M ON THE OPPOSITION, AND I DO BELIEVE THAT MY FEELINGS ALSO APPLY TO FELLOW NEIGHBORS THAT ALSO DON'T HAVE A WATER ISSUE AND DON'T FEEL IT'S FAIR OR JUST THAT WE SHOULD BE FOOTING THE BILL AS A TOTAL WHEN IT DOESN'T APPLY TO US. THERE WAS NO BENEFIT OR POSITIVES, NOTHING. COMING INTO MY FAMILY WITH THE COST THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO GET WATER TO THE HOMES THAT ARE NEEDED. THERE'S NO DENYING THAT. BUT THERE'S GOT TO BE TO ME OTHER SOLUTIONS THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE EVERYONE IS 100% WHOLE WHEN THERE'S US THAT IT DOESN'T INVOLVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE TO SAY IT ANY CLEARER. BUT I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING ME TO HAVE A VOICE JUST TO HAVE A VOICE AND TO HAVE A NAME AND A FACE TO SOMEONE WHO'S DEVASTATED BY THIS REQUEST. MY NAME NUMBER, ADDRESS, E MAIL, EVERYTHING'S ON THERE. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO GET TOGETHER, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. [01:55:02] >> THANK YOU, MISS KAY. NEXT, GREG, KAY. >> THANKS FOR ALLOWING ME TO HAVE SOME TIME HERE. MY NAME IS GREG KAY. I LIVE AT 50508 COUNTY ROAD 7540 IN THE HIGHLAND OAKS EDITION. I'M SPEAKING ON AGENDA NUMBER 7.4. THAT WAS MY WIFE, SO PROBABLY I'LL REITERATE SOME OF THE THINGS SHE SAID. WE DID WE MOVED INTO HIGHLAND OAKS IN 2009 AND TODAY, ANYBODY YOU TALKED TO WILL BE THE EXACT SAME MESSAGE THAT I GOT 15 YEARS AGO. IF YOU BUY HIGHLAND OAKS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE WATER ISSUES. POSSIBLY. SOME PLACES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS. SOME ARE WORSE. WE'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE IN OUR AREA. WE DO NOT NEED WATER NOR DO WE WANT THE WATER FROM THE CITY. WE CHOSE HIGHLAND OAKS TO BE OUT OF THE CITY. WE WERE HERE AT THE LAST MEETING ON JULY 9, AND MR. NORRIS ACTUALLY WAS SPEAKING TO YOU ALL AND HE TURNED AND ASKED THOSE IN FAVOR TO PLEASE STAND. THAT SHOWS HE'S REPRESENTING THOSE THAT ARE IN FAVOR OF IT. IF HE WOULD HAVE ASKED THOSE NOT IN FAVOR, WE HAD SEVERAL PEOPLE HERE THAT DAY THAT WOULD HAVE JOINED ON THE STAND OF NOT BEING FOR THIS ANNEXATION. I READ AN ARTICLE THAT ALSO CAME OUT TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE IN HIGHLAND OAKS WANTING TO BE ANNEXED IN, AND I THOUGHT THE ONE PART IN THE ARTICLE THAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WAS, IT SAID THAT THOSE IN THE CHAMBERS THAT DAY THAT STOOD WHEN MR. NORRIS ASKED HIM TO STAND, WHO'S IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION? PRESUMABLY, WERE RESIDENTS OF HOLLAND OAKS AND I'M GOING TO LET THAT SINK IN PRESUMABLY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WORD SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WE HAD A DEVELOPER AND I BELIEVE HE'S THE ONE THAT'S POSED A LOT WEST OF HIGHLAND OAKS. THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HEARD OF ANYTHING ABOUT POSSIBLE ANNEXATIONS OR ANYTHING FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, BUT HE CAME OVER AND ASKED SEVERAL OF US IN A MEETING TO JOIN HIM. HE WANTED TO BRING WATER DOWN SOUTH TO THE WOODROW FRANKFORT AREA. MY QUESTION IS, IS WHERE IS HE TODAY? IS HE WILLING TO TAKE SOME OF THIS BURDEN FROM US INDIVIDUALS THAT DO NOT NEED THE WATER BECAUSE HE SURE WAS WANTING US TO JOIN HIM AND IT MAKES ME WONDER, ARE THEY JUST SITTING BACK NOW WAITING TO SEE IF THE RESIDENTS OF HIGHLAND OAKS HAVE TO, HAVE THIS BURDEN UPON OURSELVES AND THIS IS A HUGE EXPENSE TO THE PEOPLE IN HIGHLAND OAKS. THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR JUST THE PID. NOW YOU THROW TAXES ON TOP OF THAT. I'LL BE FORCED TO SELL. I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. I'M ONE INCOME FAMILY. I LOVE IT IN HIGHLAND OAKS. I WANT TO STAY THERE. I JUST APPRECIATE IF YOU THINK ABOUT SOME OF US THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT MOVE THERE TO BE OUT OF THE CITY. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MR. KAY. WELL NOW MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. [5. Minutes] THE MINUTES, THOSE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? THERE BEING NONE, THE MINUTES WILL STAND AS PRESENTED. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> NO. ROBERT RULES OF ORDER AND UNDER CITY CHARTER, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> A CHARTER VOTE. >> WE HAVE TO TAKE A CHARTER VOTE. UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> IT'S ONE OF OUR CHANGES. ONE OF THOSE THINGS YOU LEARNED ABOUT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED? >> SECOND. >> SECOND, MR. ROSE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? NONE. >> WE HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA NOW, AND THESE ITEMS WERE ROUTINE AND ACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION. BUT I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE PULL FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY, AND THAT'S 6.19. [19. Resolution - Civic Centers: Consider a resolution approving the recommendation from the Cultural Arts Grant Review Sub-Committee and the Civic Lubbock, Inc. Board of Directors, for the 2024 Cultural Arts Grant Program, using Hotel Occupancy Tax funds collected at the end of Fiscal Year 2022-23.] WE WILL TAKE THAT UP NOW. I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO MR. GLASHEEN, I BELIEVE YOU PULLED THIS ITEM, IS THAT RIGHT? >> YES, SIR. I DID. THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CIVIC LUBBOCK COMMITTEE, TO AWARD GRANTS TO VARIOUS CULTURAL, [02:00:03] ARTISTIC ACTIVITIES AROUND THE CITY. SOME OF THEM ARE GREAT ENDEAVORS LIKE THE BALLET FOLKLORICO PROGRAM, THE TEXAS TECH THEATER PROGRAM. BUT MY INTENTION WITH PULLING THIS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA IS TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL, FROM BEING A RECIPIENT OF THE GRANT MONEY. IN 2023, THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL RECEIVED ABOUT $30,000 IN FUNDING FROM THE CIVIC LUBBOCK PROGRAM. I HAVEN'T OPERATED THE SLIDE SHOW YET, ROBERT, SO YOU CAN JUST LEAVE IT ON THAT BLANK SLIDE FOR NOW. THANK YOU. THIS MONEY FOR THE GRANT PROGRAM COMES FROM HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, AND IT'S COLLECTED FROM TAXES THAT ARE ADDED ON TOP OF THE COST OF RENTING A HOTEL ROOM, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. IT HAS LIMITED USES UNDER THE LAW, THAT WHAT IT CAN GO FOR, AND SO IN 2023, CIVIC LUBBOCK INCLUDED THE $30,000 FOR THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL. THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL THEN PROMOTES DIFFERENT PROGRAMMING AND ACTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, WE SAW THAT ONE OF THE PROGRAMS THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL PROMOTED WAS PROGRAMS FOR PROMOTING LGBT AGENDA AS PART OF THE PRIDE MONTH. NOW FOR PROGRAMS LIKE QUEERING WEST TEXAS, A CHILD-FRIENDLY LGBT WORKSHOP. IT ALSO INCLUDED DRAG PERFORMANCES, WHICH ARE SUBSIDIZED OR PROMOTED BY TAX DOLLARS. THE INTENTION IS TO OFFER FULL-DRAG PERFORMANCES ON THE ART TRAIL IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE ART DISPLAYS PROMOTED BY THESE TAX DOLLARS ALSO INCLUDED DISPLAYS LIKE QUESTIONS LIKE WHAT BELIEFS SHOULD AN ALLY HOLD TO PROMOTE LGBT TALKING POINTS? I'M CONCERNED THAT THERE'S A BROADER TREND ACROSS THE STATE. FOR EXAMPLE, THE CITY OF FORT WORTH, USING THEIR VISIT FORT WORTH PROGRAM FUNDED SEXUALIZED LGBT EVENTS. WE SAW ARLINGTON LGBT EVENTS FEATURING SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONTACT IN FRONT OF MINORS. WE'VE SEEN IN THE PERMIAN BASIN AS WELL, AND EVEN AT TEXAS TECH, WHICH HAS PROMISED GREATER OVERSIGHT AFTER A DRAG QUEEN SEMINAR FEATURED A PRESENTATION ON QUEERING AGRICULTURE, IN AN ATTEMPT TO PROMOTE LGBT VALUES IN K-12 CLASSROOMS. IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE MATERIALS. IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO TARGET CHILDREN WITH THESE CHILD-FRIENDLY LGBT WORKSHOPS, AND CERTAINLY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR TAX DOLLARS TO BE USED TO PROMOTE IT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM MARTINEZ-GARCIA. >> THIS IS MY DISTRICT, DISTRICT 1 DOWNTOWN. WHEN WE HOLD THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL, WE GET, WHAT? ABOUT 20,000 PEOPLE IN ONE NIGHT, AND A LOT OF THEM ARE YOUNG PEOPLE. A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ATTEND THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL, THAT IS CHOOSE THE DAYS THEY WANT TO GO. I DON'T ALWAYS GO. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME OR I DON'T HAVE THE INTEREST ON SOME NIGHTS. BUT AS THIS CITY GROWS, AND AS THE INTEREST OF THE CITY TO BUILD UP DOWNTOWN, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT OPEN FOR EVERYBODY AND EVERYBODY. ANYBODY, EVERYBODY, I'M STRAIGHT BUT I DON'T HATE. FOR ME, I THINK IT ALLOWS US TO CHOOSE, JUST LIKE WHEN I CHOOSE WHAT TV STATION I WANT TO WATCH, OR WHAT I WANT TO LISTEN TO, OR WHO I WANT TO LISTEN TO. I DON'T THINK THAT ALL OF THE PROGRAMMING IS BASED JUST ON THAT. I'VE SEEN SOME VERY GOOD AND TALENTED PEOPLE. DAVID, I TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T GET TO PICK WHO WE ARE REPRESENTING, WE HAVE TO BE INCLUSIVE OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE NEED TO PUT THAT UNITY IN COMMUNITY. I JUST CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM. I'M A LITTLE BIT SURPRISED. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS IS TAX MONEY THAT COMES FROM HOTEL OCCUPANTS, SO IT'S NOT EVEN PEOPLE OUR CITIZENS THAT ARE BRINGING THIS TAX, [02:05:02] THIS IS COMING FROM FOLKS THAT ARE GETTING HOTEL ROOMS AND WHATNOT, BUT I WANT TO SEE DOWNTOWN GROW, AND YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT THE POTENTIAL IS, COME ON A FRIDAY, ON FIRST FRIDAY. >> I WILL COMMENT ON THIS AS WELL. I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE IS ABOUT WHO IS A CITIZEN OF OUR CITY AND WHO'S ENTITLED TO RESPECT AND DIGNITY. THIS MAY BE HOTEL MONEY, BUT IT'S STILL MONEY WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR. THE ISSUES THAT MR. GLASHEEN HAS RAISED HAVE TO DO WITH CONTENT OF A SEXUALIZED NATURE. THAT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC RIGHT THEN AND THERE. I SEE SOME PEOPLE SHAKING THEIR HEAD IN THE AUDIENCE. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS DRAG QUEEN PERFORMANCES ARE SEXUALIZED. WE HAVE NO BUSINESS SPENDING TAX MONEY PROMOTING THAT TO AN EVENT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, I BELIEVE, FAMILY-FRIENDLY. AGAIN, I LOVE FIRST FRIDAY, I THINK IT'S A GREAT THING. I'VE ENJOYED IT MANY TIMES. I THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THEY CHOSE TO GO IN THIS DIRECTION. THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE TO DO SO. BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT SPENDING MONEY. IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE. YOU START DOWN THAT ROAD AND YOU DON'T KEEP SOMETHING IN A FAMILY-FRIENDLY NATURE, THEN YOU'RE OPENING THE DOOR TO OTHER THINGS. I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHERE MR. GLASHEEN IS COMING FROM. I SUPPORT THE USE OF THIS MONEY TO ENHANCE OUR CULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN LUBBOCK, BUT PEOPLE WHO DO THIS NEED TO UNDERSTAND THEIR COMMUNITY. THEY NEED TO TAKE THE TEMPERATURE OF THE COMMUNITY IN WHICH THEY EXIST. I DON'T THINK THAT GENERALLY LUBBOCK IS IN FAVOR. LUBBOCK IS A RESPECTFUL PLACE OF ALL PEOPLE. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER YOU ARE GAY OR STRAIGHT, IN MY MIND IT IS NOT AT ALL. IT IS NOT A GAY OR STRAIGHT ISSUE. IT IS ABOUT A SEXUALIZED PERFORMANCE IN A VENUE THAT IS MEANT TO BE FAMILY-FRIENDLY. THAT'S WHERE I AGREE WITH MR. GLASHEEN ON THIS. MR. ROSE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK WHAT THIS COMES DOWN TO IS NOT SAYING THAT THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL WILL GO AWAY, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IT JUST TAKES THE PRESSURE OFF THE CITY AND IT TAKES THE PRESSURE OFF THE FIRST FRIDAY ART TRAIL, THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO OPERATE HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO OPERATE WITHOUT HAVING THE BURDEN OF PUBLIC FUNDS UPON THEM ON HOW THEY NEED TO ACT OR HAVE THEIR ART TRAIL. I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR BOTH. >> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> THIS IS DIRECTED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THIS IS A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CULTURAL ARTS GRANT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE IN THE CIVIC LUBBOCK. USING HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUNDS COLLECTED AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-23, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CULTURAL ARTS PROGRAM. AM I CONFUSED? IS THAT NOT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE HAVING A SEPARATE VOTE. I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION SOME CLARIFICATION, PLEASE. >> I THINK RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST ON A DISCUSSION GENERALLY ON ITEM 6.19. I DO THINK THAT MR. GLASHEEN WAS TALKING ABOUT AMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THAT MOTION SUBJECT TO TAKING THAT ONE LINE ITEM OUT. ONCE THAT COMES UP, HE'LL NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO DO SO, THAT'LL HAVE TO BE SECONDED, AND THEN IT'LL HAVE TO BE A VOTE ON THAT MOTION BASED ON REMOVING THAT LINE ITEM OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM. THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN FIRST BEFORE. THEN ONCE YOU DO THAT, REMOVING IT FROM IT AND THEN VOTING ON THE REST OF THE PACKAGE ITSELF. I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY DO THAT, MAYOR PRO TEM. >> THANK YOU. >> IF I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY, WE PULL IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, WOULD IT MOVE OVER TO THE REGULAR AGENDA FOR A VOTE? OR DO WE HAVE TO POST THAT FOR A DIFFERENT MEETING? >> NO, IT'S POSTED FINE. YOU CAN TAKE IT UP AT THIS MEETING. [02:10:02] WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DO IS I WOULD ASK THAT MR. GLASHEEN FIRST REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. YOU TAKE A VOTE ON THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND THEN CONTINUE YOUR DISCUSSION ON 6.19, IS WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DO, MAYOR. >> I WILL FOLLOW THAT ADVICE, MR. WADE. WE NEED A MOTION TO REMOVE IT OR WE NEED HIM TO AGREE TO. >> MOVE TO REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSENTED AGENDA ITEM. >> DID YOU MAKE THAT MOTION? >> I HAD PREVIOUSLY REMOVED THIS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA BEFORE THE MEETING, IF IT'S NECESSARY I'LL MOVE TO REMOVE IT NOW. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? >> SECOND. >> DO WE NEED A RECORDED VOTE ON THIS? >> YES. >> I THINK WE NEED A RECORDED VOTE ON THIS. YOU'LL PUT THAT UP FOR US? >> I'M SORRY? >> JIMMY'S DOING IT. IF YOU'RE VOTING FOR THIS, YOU'RE VOTING YES TO REMOVE IT? >> THE MOTION JUST TO REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> REMOVE IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. IF YOU'LL VOTE NOW. WE STILL HAVE ONE VOTE OUT, I THINK. LET'S SEE. EVERYBODY. THERE WE GO. THAT MOTION PASSES 6-1. REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. [6. Consent Agenda - Items considered to be routine are enacted by one motion without separate discussion. If the City Council desires to discuss an item, the item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.] WE'LL RETURN TO THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. IF YOU'LL LOOK BACK AT YOUR AGENDA, WE ARE LOOKING AT ACTUALLY AT ITEMS 6.1-6.18, AND 6.2, AND 6.20, AND 6.21. TAKING THOSE UP TOGETHER, DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> SO MOVED. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NO? THE VOTE IS 7-0. [1. Public Hearing - Planning (District 3): Consider a request for Zone Case 763-D, a request of Woda Cooper Companies, Inc. for Buslon, Inc., for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) and Medium Density Residential District (MDR) to Medium Density Residential District (MDR), at 5311 Bangor Avenue, located north of 54th Street and east of Bangor Avenue, on approximately 5.9 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 28, and consider an ordinance.] LET'S GO THROUGH OUR REGULAR AGENDA NOW. WE'LL TAKE UP THE ITEMS AS THEY COME AND SAVE THIS FOR THE LAST ITEM. 7.1 IS A PUBLIC HEARING. TURN THAT OVER TO YOU, MR. ATKINSON, OR TO YOU, KRISTEN? YOU, KRISTEN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. ITEM 7.1 AND ZONE CASE 763-D. THE PURPOSE IS A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY, SF-2, AND MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WE SENT OUT 19 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING NO RESPONSES. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF SLIDE, SOUTH OF 50TH. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND IT IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER MULTI-FAMILY TO THE NORTH, EAST, AND WEST. CURRENT ZONING IS SF-2 AND MDR. IT IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER MDR, HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THIS IS AN [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL HIGH-DENSITY LAND USES. HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION IS FOR HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. THIS IS A MINOR DEVIATION BECAUSE IT IS FOR [NOISE] MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. HOWEVER THE REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION AND IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLES. THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUITABLE FOR THE LAND USES WITHIN THIS AREA. THE LOCATION IS ALONG 54TH AND BANGOR, WHICH ARE BOTH DESIGNATED AS LOCAL STREETS. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE. I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.1? IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF? IF YOU WILL COME FORWARD, PLEASE. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. >> I'M PARKER Z [INAUDIBLE] COOPER COMPANIES, 500 SOUTH FRONT STREET, COLUMBUS, OHIO. [02:15:01] I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. WE'RE JUST PROPOSING TO REZONE FROM THE SPLIT ZONE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO BE FULLY ZONED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WE'RE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPER, SO OUR INTERESTS WOULD BE FOR AN AFFORDABLE APARTMENT COMPLEX. APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO IT. IF THERE IS NONE, THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS 7.1 IS NOW CLOSED, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.1? IS THERE A SECOND. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. GUSCIN AND MR. ROSE. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM 7.1, SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. THAT PASSES 7-0. ALL RIGHT. [2. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 2538-MM, a request of K-9 Kennels, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 1607 and 1715 Alcove Avenue, located north of 19th Street and east of Alcove Avenue, on approximately 6.1 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-6, Section 1, and consider an ordinance.] NEXT ITEM, 7.2 AGAIN. >> ITEM 7.2, ZONE CASE 2538 MM. THE REQUEST IS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY SF2 TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL HC. WE SENT OUT 11 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING TWO IN FAVOR. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 19TH STREET EAST OF ALCOVE AVENUE. THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH WERE THE ONES THAT RESPONDED IN FAVOR. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE IS AN EXISTING DOG KENNEL BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY THAT IS LOOKING TO EXPAND, SO THEY NEED THE APPROPRIATE ZONING. CURRENT ZONING IS SF2. THERE IS ADDITIONAL HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH WITH HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH AS WELL AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. >> THIS IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE FUTURE LAND DESIGNATION FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST. HOWEVER, THE REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND ADJACENT TO EXISTING HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE REPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE LOCATION IS ALONG ALCOVE AVENUE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE. I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> OUR PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN FOR ITEM 7.2. IS ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ITEM 7.2? IS ANYONE HERE WILLING TO SPEAK OR WANTING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 7.2? THERE IS NONE SO THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.2? >> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU, DR. WILSON. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND, MR. COLLINS. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED SAY, NAY. PASSES 7-0. ITEM 7.3. [3. Public Hearing - Planning: Hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 43.0694(a) of the Texas Local Government Code, regarding the City of Lubbock's intent to annex an area of land consisting of approximately 374.74 acres of real property commonly known as the Highland Oaks Subdivision, located within an area located south of 146th Street (F.M. 7500), east of Frankford Avenue, north of Woodrow Road (F.M. 7600), and west of Slide Road (F.M. Road 1730) into Lubbock's corporate limits.] >> ITEM 7.3 IS THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE HIGHLAND OAKS SUBDIVISION. IF YOU'LL RECALL, WE HAVE THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING JULY 9. AFTER TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING, IF COUNCIL APPROVES ITEM 7.4, IT WILL GO TO ELECTION, NOVEMBER 5, POST ELECTION, REGARDLESS OF THAT OUTCOME, IT WILL BE UP TO CITY COUNCIL WHETHER OR NOT TO APPROVE THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 146 EAST OF FRANKFORD AND I'D PLEASE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> NOW I WILL ASK IF YOU WANT TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. HAGER. CAN I ASK ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ITEM 7.3, TO PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW? >> MY NAME IS TIM GOBLE. I LIVE AT 5308 COUNTY ROAD, 7550. WE STARTED A WATER COMMITTEE ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO TO LOOK INTO THIS QUESTION, AND I WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT FIRST STARTED WITH THAT TO LOOK AT ANNEXATION WAS BEING THROWN AROUND, BUT TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US BESIDES ANNEXATION TO GET OUR NEIGHBORS SOME WATER AND SOME RELIEF. IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS SINCE WHEN COLBY POINTED THAT OUT. BUT IT TOOK US A LONG TIME AND WE REALLY LOOKED INTO IT. THE ONLY OPTIONS THAT WE REALLY HAD TO US WAS WHEN YOUR WELL ENDED UP NOT PRODUCING ANYMORE, YOU NEEDED TO TRUCK IN WATER. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU NEED TANKS. THE ALREADY INTO A COST FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUR PROPERTY ANYWAY. [02:20:03] THE ALTERNATIVE WAS ANNEXATION, AND ANNEXATION IS GOING TO COST A LOT OF MONEY, BUT EVEN IF WE DRILLED MORE WELLS OUT THERE, THE WELLS WE HAD TO PUSH THE WATER AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ANYWAY, SO WE WERE GOING TO NEED THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT REGARDLESS OF HOW WE LOOKED AT THIS. THROUGH ANNEXATION, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO SECURE A LONG TERM WATER SUPPLY FOR THE CITY, BUT WE'LL ALSO GET THE MONEY BACK FOR THAT COST WITH THE INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES AND THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD BE PAYING FOR IT OURSELVES AND NOT ASKING THE CITY TO PAY FOR IT BECAUSE TAXPAYER MONEY SHOULDN'T BE GOING IN OUR POCKETS WITH AN INCREASE IN VALUE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE PROPOSE TO PUT TOGETHER A PID TO CREATE A PROPER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO GENERATE THE FUNDS, TO PUT IN THE WATER LINES FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, TO DISTRIBUTE THE WATER. THE ONLY WAY FOR THIS TO WORK IS THROUGH ANNEXATION AND THAT WAY THAT THE CITY CAN SELL US THE WATER AND BRING IT INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I GUESS THAT'S IT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ITEM 7.3? >> THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME TALK. I'M RB BROWNHART, RONALD, COLONEL US AIR FORCE RETIRED. I AM A FIGHTER PILOT, AND I AM A WARRIOR. I JOINED THESE PEOPLE BECAUSE I FOUND OUT THAT AFTER I BOUGHT OUR HOUSE EIGHT YEARS AGO NEXT MONTH, WE HAD TEN TO 12 GALLONS OF WATER. FOUR YEARS AGO, OUR PUMP WENT OUT. WE HAD 68 GALLONS OF WATER, I HAVE 5.8 NOW. THERE'S A GOLF COURSE, THINGS CHANGE AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH MY PEOPLE THE SPEAKERS HAVE SAID, I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS 30,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY. I'VE ALREADY SPENT $9,000 ON TANKS. I'VE CHANGED THE WAY I WATER MY YARD. I HAVE A WATER CATCHMENT SYSTEM OFF MY SHOP ROOF, CONSISTING OF IBC TOTES, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE MY WATER PROBLEM. IT'S A GREAT NEIGHBORHOOD THEY'RE GREAT PEOPLE. WE BOUGHT THERE SPECIFICALLY TO BE IN HIGHLAND OAKS TO SPECIFICALLY BE IN THE COUNTY. BUT IF I CAN'T SELL MY HOUSE WHEN MY TIME ON THIS EARTH GETS NEAR THE END, MY WIFE IS CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SELL IT EITHER. I'M PRAGMATIC, I HAVE TO HAVE WATER AND THE ONLY WAY AS WE SAID, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK, SOME OF US RELUCTANTLY TO FIND THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS BECOMING CITIZEN OF THE CITY LUBBOCK AND NOT THE COUNTY OF LUBBOCK IS OUR ONLY CHOICE. WE'LL FIGURE OUT WAYS TO PAY FOR IT. THE PID IS OUR ONLY REAL CHOICE. WE'VE LOOKED AT AN EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT, WE LOOKED INTO BANK LOANS, AND WE'RE REALLY DOWN TO A PID TO GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE, PUT THE WATER IN THAT WILL KEEP THE VALUE OF OUR HOUSES AND MAKE THEM SOMEDAY SELLABLE WHEN WE HAVE TO DO THAT. THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE ANNEXATION? >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. DAVID CONKLIN, 5320 COUNTY ROAD 7540. I TOO HAVE LIVED IN HIGHLAND OAKS FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS SAME STORY. WHEN I STARTED ABOUT 12 GALLONS A MINUTE. NOW I HAVE DRILLED TWO MORE WELLS THAT I HAVE, ABOUT SIX GALLONS WITH THREE WELLS. I DON'T THINK THERE REALLY IS ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE OTHER THAN ANNEXATION, AND REALLY ALL I ASK IS THAT YOU PASS THESE SO THAT WE CAN VOTE, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT TO DO OUT THERE. WHEREVER THE VOTE GOES, I HOPE THAT YOU GUYS WILL FOLLOW. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION? IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANNEXATION? SEEING NONE. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. BUT NOW I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ANNEX AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 374.74 ACRES ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK SOUTH OF 146 STREET, FARM TO MARKET ROAD 7,500 EAST OF FRANKFORT AVENUE, NORTH OF WOODROW ROAD FARM TO MARKET 7,600 AND WEST OF SLIDE ROAD, FARM TO MARKET ROAD 1730 INTO LUBBOCK'S CORPORATE LIMITS. >> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU. DR. WILSON. >> MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE. THERE IS NO VOTE BEING TAKEN TODAY. IT IS ONLY A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS ONLY A PUBLIC HEARING. >> ITEM 7.3, YES. [02:25:02] >> I'M SORRY. MY NOTES HERE SAY 7.3. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'LL MOVE ON TO 7.4. [4. Resolution and Order - City Secretary: Consider a resolution and order for a special city election to be held on November 5, 2024, in accordance with Texas Local Government Code Section 43.0696, regarding the annexation of approximately 374.74 acres of real property commonly known as the Highland Oaks Subdivision, located within an area located south of 146th Street (F.M. 7500), east of Frankford Avenue, north of Woodrow Road (F.M. 7600), and west of Slide Road (F.M. Road 1730).] NOW, THIS IS WHERE WE WILL TAKE THE VOTE. WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AND ORDER FOR A SPECIAL CITY ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 43.0696 REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 374.74 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS HIGHLAND OAKS SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN THE AREAS IN WHICH I JUST PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE? >> SO MOVED. >> THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DR. WILSON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY DISCUSSION? THERE IS NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. >> THIS PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU, EVERYONE FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE TODAY. >> MAYOR. >> THANK YOU. I'M GLAD YOU GUYS ARE PAYING MORE ATTENTION THAN I AM, SO THAT'S GOOD. IF I DON'T HAVE IT WRITTEN DOWN IN FRONT OF ME, EVEN IF I DO, I MAY PASS OVER IT. LET'S CHECK UP THIS ITEM 6.19 NOW. TELL ME HOW WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. >> SO MAYOR, I THINK THE WAY THAT YOU HAD PROPERLY DO IT IS YOU'D HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.19, YOU'D HAVE A SECOND ASK FOR DISCUSSION. AT THAT POINT IN TIME, COUNCIL MEMBER GUSCIN COULD MAKE HIS MOTION TO AMEND THE APPROVAL BY REMOVING THE SECTION THAT HE WANTS TO TAKE. HAVE A VOTE VOTE ON THAT THEN GO BACK TO VOTING ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH IS APPROVING THE AGENDA ITEM. >> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> IT DOES MAKE SENSE. ALWAYS MAKES SENSE. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP ITEM 6.19, WHICH HAS NOW BEEN MOVED TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. THIS IS THE CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CULTURAL ARTS GRANT REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE AND CIVIC LUBBOCK INCORPORATED BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE 2024 CULTURAL ARTS GRANT PROGRAM USING HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUNDS COLLECTED AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR 2022/2023. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THIS RESOLUTION TO PASS THIS RESOLUTION. >> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND, MR. ROSE. NOW. I'M ASKED FOR A DISCUSSION AND DURING THIS DISCUSSION, WE CAN HAVE THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT AS WE HAVE IT AT THE MOMENT? >> MR. MAYOR I MOVE TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION TO REMOVE THE ORGANIZATION, UNDERWOOD CENTER FOR THE ARTS, THE PROJECT, FIRST [INAUDIBLE] TRAIL AND THE ASSOCIATED GRANT AWARD FROM THE RESOLUTION. >> THANK YOU, MR.GUSCIN. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND, MR. ROSE. ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT. PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING, WELL, IS THERE A DISCUSSION? FIRST OF ALL, WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THIS. WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT SOMEWHAT, BUT IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? MR. HARRIS. >> MAYOR, WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING TAKING THE MONIES OR THE FUNDS FROM THE THEMSELVES, RATHER WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED THAT THEY'RE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH. >> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE AMENDMENT MR. GUSCIN HAS MADE IS THAT IT WOULD REMOVE THIS ITEM, THIS GRANT OF $30,000 AND REMOVE THAT FROM THE GRANT. THEY WOULD NOT BE RECEIVING THESE FUNDS FROM THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN HAVE THE EVENT IT'S WHETHER OR NOT THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX MONIES WILL BE USED FOR THAT EVENT SO TO REMOVE THAT, IT'S NOT TOUCHING ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS ON THAT LIST. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WE'LL NOW HAVE A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED BY MR. GUSCIN, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. DO WE NEED TO HAVE A RECORDED VOTE ON THIS ONE? >> YEAH. THIS IS JUST A MOTION ON THE AMENDMENT, THEN YOU'LL END UP TAKING ANOTHER VOTE ON 6.619 AS AMENDED AND WHETHER YOU HAVE A RECORDED VOTE OR NOT REALLY IS FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE COUNCIL ITSELF. IT'S NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO HAVE A RECORDED VOTE. YOU CAN DO IT HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE TO DO IT, MAYOR. >> ALL RIGHT. WE'LL JUST HAVE IT BY VOICE VOTE THEN. BUT I NEED TO PROBABLY LOOK BOTH DIRECTIONS. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT TO THIS RESOLUTION AS PROPOSED BY MR. GUSCIN REMOVING THE [02:30:03] $30,000 ALLOCATED TO THE ARTS FESTIVAL OR THE FRIDAY ARTS FESTIVAL, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL OPPOSED SAY NAY. >> I BELIEVE I HAD TWOS, NAYS, THREES NAYS. TWO NAYS. THE AMENDMENT IS PASSED 5-2. NOW WE GO ON TO THE AMENDED. WE ARE NOW VOTING ON THE AMENDED RESOLUTION WHICH MEANS EVERYTHING BUT THAT AMOUNT. DO I HAVE A MOTION NOW TO PASS THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED. >> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM DO I HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> SECOND, MR. ROSE. ANY DISCUSSION AGAIN? >> LET'S TAKE A RECORDED VOTE ON THIS ONE THEN. IT'S JUST EASIER FOR ME. IF YOU NOW VOTE ON THE RESOLUTION AS AMENDED. THE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSES 7-0. NOW AM I CORRECT, WE HAVE NO OTHER ITEMS TO DEAL WITH TODAY AND I'M NOT GOING TO ASK IF ANYBODY HAS ANY MORE ITEMS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT IS NOT APPROPRIATE, EITHER SO WE NOW STAND ADJOURNED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE TODAY AND YOUR PARTICIPATION. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.