[1. Presentation and discussion of the Proposed FY 2024-25 Operating Budget and Capital Program, and discuss all funds of the City, including but not limited to General Fund, Debt Service Fund, Internal Services, Enterprise Funds, Special Revenue Funds, Component Units, Related Entities, Debt and Debt Obligations, Capital Improvement Program, current and proposed American Rescue Plan Act Funds and uses, and related and associated items and use of such funds; and take action to direct the City Manager to make changes to said Budget.]

YEAR 2024-25.

AND I NOW CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER, MR. ATKINSON, TO PRESENT THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25.

MR. ATKINSON.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, IF WE COULD.

THERE WE GO. GET OUR INPUTS TO SWITCH.

WE'LL JUMP RIGHT IN.

COUNCIL, IF IT MEETS YOUR PLEASURE, I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON THE OUTSTANDING ITEMS THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

SO WE'LL JUMP RIGHT HERE AND LET'S GO BACK TO THE SEWER LATERAL PROPOSAL.

SO I'LL WALK RIGHT THROUGH THIS.

THE BASE PROPOSAL TODAY, THE CITY DOES THE WORK UNDER THE NEW PROPOSAL.

THE CITY WOULD DO THE WORK.

TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO FILL TWO UNFILLED CREWS.

THESE ARE CREWS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.

THE TRUCKS AND THE EQUIPMENT.

WE DON'T HAVE THE BODIES, SO I NEED TO FILL THOSE TO DO THAT.

YOU SEE, JUST BELOW HERE WHERE IT SAYS RETAIN POSITIONS.

THERE ARE THREE POSITIONS I PROPOSE TO ELIMINATE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN UNFILLED.

I NEED TO PULL THEM BACK IN AND WE NEED TO GET BUSY AND GET THEM FILLED UP.

THE MATERIAL AND THE CREW TIME COST ARE ESTIMATED AT JUST A LITTLE OVER $1.1 MILLION.

COUNCIL. IF WE DO IT THIS WAY, WE BOTH CAN TAKE CARE OF THOSE SEWER LATERAL LINES.

THE PRIVATE PORTION THAT'S IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND NOT GO BACKWARDS ON THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE WITH THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ON THE REST OF THE SYSTEM.

THAT'S BASED ON GETTING THOSE TWO CREWS FILLED.

WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT SHOULD THERE BE A SHARE THAT GOES ON IN THIS.

SO WE GIVE YOU AN OPTION AGAIN, STILL THE CITY PERFORMING THE WORK, THE OWNER AND IT'S RELEVANT THAT WE USE THE WORD OWNER.

THE OWNER WOULD PAY $1,000 PER REPAIR.

1000. THAT IS AN AVERAGE.

AND IT JUST TAKES CARE TO ME IT TAKES OUT WHO'S ON THE FIVE FOOT SIDE, WHO'S ON THE 15 FOOT SIDE, WHO'S AT THREE FEET OF DEPTH, WHO'S AT SIX FEET OF DEPTH.

JUST SET IT UP AT A $1,000 PER REPAIR.

COLLECTION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

STILL HAVING AVAILABLE A PAYMENT PLAN.

PAYMENT PLAN IS FOR THE OWNER OCCUPIED PROPERTIES, AND YOU COULD PAY OUT OVER 12 MONTHLY BILLS.

YOU COULD PAY IT OUT OVER SIX.

YOU COULD PAY IT AT ONCE, BUT YOU WOULD HAVE THAT STILL HAVE THE $500,000 ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

BUT LET'S USE THOSE MILLION DOLLARS NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK INFRASTRUCTURE FUND.

LET'S USE THOSE DOLLARS TO DO THAT.

COUNCIL IF WE DO THE $1,000 REPAIR BILL BACK, WE DON'T NEED AN ADDITIONAL RATE INCREASE BEYOND WHAT'S ALREADY IN THAT BUDGET.

I DON'T NEED ANYTHING ON VOLUME OR ANYTHING TO THAT EFFECT.

IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO CHARGE THE $1,000, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE THE VOLUME RATES BY A LITTLE OVER 3% TO COVER THE GAP THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO, MAYOR, I'LL STOP AND TAKE QUESTIONS ON THAT INPUT FROM THE COUNCIL.

I'M STILL LEARNING WHAT BUTTONS TO PUSH HERE.

MAYOR PRO TEM MR. ATKINSON HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE $500 ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

WHILE I TOTALLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HAVE AN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, WHAT IS THE CURRENT AMOUNT IN OUR ACCOUNT? I BELIEVE IT'S CLOSE TO 700.

AND OF COURSE, IT GROWS EACH YEAR BY THE AMOUNT OF THE OIL AND GAS REVENUES.

AND SEEING THAT THIS IS FOR NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK WITH THIS, THESE DOLLARS ONLY BE FOR DISTRICTS ONE AND TWO? NO, I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO STRUCTURE AND I'LL TALK ABOUT HOW WE WOULD STRUCTURE IT.

I THINK WE NEED TO STRUCTURE IT ACROSS THE WHOLE CITY.

[00:05:01]

BUT THE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA IN TERMS OF INCOME LEVELS, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY GOT THAT THROUGH.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CONCERNS.

DISTRICT ONE HAS NOT HAD THE FAIR SHARE FOR SEVERAL YEARS ON NILA FUNDS.

AND SO THIS YEAR WE WERE COUNTING ON THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NEEDS IN OUR DISTRICT.

AND SO MY CONCERN IS THAT THIS MUCH AMOUNT I BELIEVE THAT WE DO NEED TO APPLY SOME FUNDS, BUT IF THERE'S ONLY 700 AND OR 700, WHAT DID YOU SAY, 700. ROUGHLY 700.

THAT WILL ONLY LEAVE $200 FOR OTHER NEEDS IN THAT DISTRICT.

SO I FEEL LIKE IF WE CAN FIND A LITTLE BIT HAPPIER MEDIUM, MAYBE 300,000, MAYBE TWO, 250 OF THE 500,000.

THEN I THINK THAT I MEAN, NO DOUBT WE NEED TO HAVE THIS.

WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THE FOLKS IN PLACE AND WHATNOT.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO TAKE OUT VERY NEEDED DOLLARS FOR FROM MYSELF FOR A DISTRICT.

SO LET ME SAY WORDS THAT NO CITY MANAGER WANTS TO SAY WHEN HE PRESENTS A BUDGET.

WE DON'T KNOW THE REAL NUMBER.

THESE ARE ALL ESTIMATES TO CREATE A PROGRAM THAT'S NOT EXISTED.

WE DON'T HAVE A WAY FROM PAST DATA TO KNOW HOW MANY FOLKS WOULD QUALIFY FOR THIS.

500, I THINK, IS LARGE.

THAT'S NEARLY ONE HALF OF THE VALUE OF THE PROGRAM.

SO I THINK IT'S BIG DOLLARS WOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED OUT.

RATHER, IF SOMEBODY QUALIFIED THAT $1,000 WOULD REACH INTO AND TRANSFER OVER JUST GAUGING PAST NUMBERS.

I KNOW THERE WAS A NEED FOR $1 MILLION.

I WISH THERE WAS MORE DATA THAT COULD GIVE US THAT HOUSEHOLD INCOME.

BUT THERE ISN'T SUCH A THING THAT I KNOW OF.

I MEAN, WE CAN GET TOTAL NUMBERS OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT FIT IN CERTAIN INCOME BANDS, BUT TO THEN TRY TO LAYER THAT AGAINST AN AGE OF A HOUSE, WHETHER THE HOME HAS OR HAS NOT HAD THE REPAIRS, I THINK WE'RE HIGH.

I REALLY DO, BUT I DON'T KNOW NOW.

NEXT YEAR WHEN WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, WE'LL HAVE NEARLY A YEAR'S WORTH OF DATA.

COULD WE? MAYBE.

COULD I PROPOSE THAT WE DO 300,000 FOR ASSISTANCE FOR THIS YEAR? AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE A YEAR TO GAUGE, THEN WE CAN WORK WITH THAT NUMBER IN FUTURE YEARS.

SO YES, I THINK WE COULD DO THAT WITH ONE CAVEAT.

WE CAN RESET THIS DOWN TO 300.

AND THEN IF IT APPEARS OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR THAT ALL THOSE DOLLARS WILL BE SPENT, I'LL COME BACK AND WE'LL FIND A PLACE FOR MORE.

THANK YOU. WOULD MR. ATKINSON WOULD. THE ASSISTANCE WOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO THE OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENTS AS WELL.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. AND SO.

OKAY. SO TO BUILD ON THAT, MAYOR, THIS IS ALL BASED ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY, NOT THE OCCUPANCY.

IT WILL ALL BE BASED ON THE OWNERSHIP.

SO YOU'RE CHARGING THE OWNER.

YOU WILL COLLECT FROM THE OWNER.

IF THE OWNER IS THE OCCUPANT, THEY'RE ELIGIBLE TO PAY IT OVER THE 12 MONTHS.

AND IF THEY FURTHER QUALIFY, THEY CAN GET THE MONEY TO PAY THAT BACK.

IF THE OWNER IS NOT THE OCCUPANT, THE OWNER WILL HAVE TO PAY THAT $1,000 IN FULL.

WE WON'T HAVE A WAY TO ATTACH TO A UTILITY ACCOUNT TO ENSURE THAT WE GET PAID.

OKAY, SO YOU DID DETERMINE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A WAY TO ATTACH THAT TO A UTILITY ACCOUNT.

WE WOULD NOT IF THE OWNER AND THE OCCUPANT WERE DIFFERENT.

OKAY. SO THAT I MEAN, THAT COULD BE A DIFFICULT ISSUE FOR SOMEONE WHO'S A TENANT AND IS THE BILL IS BEING PAID IN THEIR NAME. AND THEY'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH THE I DON'T THINK IT WOULD IMPACT THE TENANT.

IT WOULD NOT. IT'S STILL GOING TO BE THE OWNER.

IT WOULD BE THE OWNER. OKAY.

IN. NO, I THINK IT'S EASIER TO SAY IN EVERY CASE, THE CHARGE IS TO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

IN EVERY CASE. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO TO WRAP THAT ONE UP, WE WILL RESET THE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM TO 300.

IDEALLY WE DON'T USE ALL OF IT, BUT IF WE DO I'LL COME BACK AND TELL YOU COUNCIL THE DOLLARS FOR THIS ARE IN YOUR BUDGET.

THEY'RE IN YOUR WASTEWATER BUDGET SO THEY DON'T IMPACT GENERAL FUND OR ANYTHING ELSE.

I WOULD REALLY SUGGEST, THOUGH, THAT WE SET THIS PROGRAM UP IN A SEPARATE ORDINANCE, NOT INSIDE YOUR BUDGET ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO GO FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE.

[00:10:08]

THAT'S ALSO WHERE WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE QUALIFICATIONS, THE FACT THAT IT ATTACHES TO LAND OWNERSHIP, NOT TO TENANCY AND THAT STUFF.

DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT POINT? RIGHT. THAT WE'RE NOT DO YOU HAVE SORT OF A SENSE OF THE CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL AT THIS POINT THAN MR. ATKINSON? I BELIEVE I DO.

WE'LL ROLL THOSE TWO POSITIONS OR THOSE THREE POSITIONS BACK IN.

SET THE FUNDING UP.

YOU'LL HAVE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, AND THEN YOUR SECOND READING WOULD BE ON THE 24TH, AND THE PART OF THIS THAT THE CITY WILL BE TAKING CARE OF OR PAYING FOR IS, WE'VE ALREADY DETERMINED, WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE $1 RAISE WE HAVE IN THE BASE RATE.

YES. AND THEN A SMALL INCREMENT.

NO INCREMENT, NO INCREMENT AT THIS POINT.

OKAY. JUST THE $1 WHICH COVERED MUCH MORE THAN JUST THIS, BUT JUST THE $1.

NO CHANGE TO ANY OF THE VOLUME CHARGES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. JUST WANTED EVERYBODY WHO MIGHT BE LISTENING TO THIS TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY WILL SEE THAT SHOW UP.

IT WILL BE ON THEIR BILL.

$1 INCREASE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MR. JACKSON, CONTINUE.

OKAY. THIS IS ANOTHER INTERNAL MOVE THAT I NEED TO ASK YOUR PERMISSION TO DO, BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE BUDGET.

IF YOU LOOK WHERE IT SAYS ADD TWO POSITIONS TO INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICIANS, THOSE ARE TWO OF THE POSITIONS I HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO REMOVE.

WHILE WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF FINISHING THE BUDGET, WE WERE ABLE TO FILL THOSE POSITIONS AND THOSE ARE IMPORTANT.

SO I WANT TO PUT THOSE TWO BACK AND TRADE YOU TO OTHER OPEN POSITIONS THAT YOU SEE ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE.

THERE'S A SMALL BUDGETARY IMPACT, JUST UNDER $54,000.

IT'S COVERED INSIDE YOUR WASTEWATER INCREASE.

SO ANY THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT.

I CAN MOVE FORWARD.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT OR ANY OBJECTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. TALK ABOUT ANOTHER INTERNAL MOVE THAT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE.

THIS IS INSIDE THE WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROGRAM.

I'LL START AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT CHART.

[INAUDIBLE] IS THE SOUTHEAST WATER RECLAMATION PLANT.

THAT'S OUR LARGE SEWER PLANT.

THERE IS A BIG PUMP STATION THERE THAT TAKES THE TREATED WATER.

THE FINISHED WATER AND MOVES IT OUT IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS.

THAT'S A CURRENT CAPITAL PROJECT.

THEY'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT ON IT NOW THAT WE NEED TO MAKE CHANGES TO MAKE THAT PUMP STATION DO WHAT IT NEEDS TO DO FOR US IN THE FUTURE.

IT'S AN ADDITIONAL $700,000.

WE CAN COVER THAT WITH THOSE TOP THREE PROJECTS.

SO THOSE TOP THREE ARE IN THE NEW PART OF THE BUDGET.

THE OLD ONE IS IN PRIOR BUDGETS, AND WE WOULD REDUCE EACH OF THOSE BY THE NOTED AMOUNTS.

AND THUS YOU END UP WITH NO BUDGETARY CHANGE.

AND THOSE THREE, WHAT ARE TRULY MAINTENANCE ACCOUNTS? THEY STILL HAVE FUNDING FOR US TO GO THROUGH THE YEAR.

ANY COMMENTS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. PROCEED.

OKAY. I STRUGGLED TO WRITE A SLIDE ON THIS ONE AND JUST COULDN'T QUITE GET IT DONE.

SO LET ME WALK US BACK THROUGH THE DISCUSSION ON THE AIRPORT PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE OR PFC DEBT ISSUANCE.

THIS IS FOR A LITTLE OVER $5 MILLION.

IT IS THE LOCAL SIDE OF A LARGE PROJECT FOR WHICH WE GET FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION MONEY.

THE AIRPORT HAS A SIGNIFICANT FUND BALANCE.

RIGHT NOW IT'S ROUGHLY $20 MILLION.

AND WE HAD A VERY GOOD QUESTION ASKED THAT UNFORTUNATELY DOES NOT HAVE A VERY SIMPLE ANSWER.

AND THAT QUESTION IS WHY DO WE NOT USE THE FUND BALANCE? IN SIMPLEST TERMS, THE WAY FAA HANDLES THEIR BIG PROJECTS, WHAT THEY CALL AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND HOW THEY RATE OUR LOCAL MATCH, IF WE TAKE THE 5 MILLION OUT OF THE AIRPORT RESERVE, IT HAS TO BE REPLACED PER THE FAA TO DO THAT.

IT WOULD INCREASE THE LANDING FEES AT THE AIRPORT.

SO THIS WOULD AFFECT EVERYBODY.

THAT'S CALLED A SIGNATORY AIRLINE, IT WOULD AFFECT EVERYBODY OUT THERE THAT'S SUBJECT TO LANDING FEES BY CHANGING FROM $4.19 PER 1000 POUNDS TO $4.51 PER 1,000 POUNDS.

SO IT IS A STIFF INCREASE THAT THE FAA WOULD REQUIRE US TO PLACE ON ALL OF OUR AIRLINE PARTNERS OUT THERE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA TO DO THAT.

SO THE NEXT THING WE LOOKED AT, WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE AIRPORT FUND, THE RESERVE FUND LOAN, THE 5 MILLION OVER

[00:15:08]

WHICH WE CAN DO.

THAT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL.

YOU CAN STRUCTURE IT. YOU CAN STRUCTURE IT AT 0% IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT.

WHEN YOU DO THAT, YOU FALL RIGHT BACK INTO THAT RECAPTURE PROVISION.

PLUS, YOU'VE LOST THE $5 MILLION FOR ANY OF THE FUTURE LONG TERM CAPITAL PROJECTS TO DO.

IT DOESN'T APPEAR OR SOUND EXTREMELY LOGICAL ON ITS FACE.

BUT I DO BELIEVE AFTER WORKING WITH MISS CAMPBELL, THE BEST MOVE WE HAVE IS TO LET THE PFC ISSUE THE 5.4 MILLION AND COVER THAT DEBT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT BY DOING THAT, THAT DOES NOT INCREASE THE CHARGE AGAINST OUR AIRLINES, NOR DOES IT INCREASE WHAT OUR PASSENGERS PAY ON THEIR PFC.

WE ARE REALLY CAUGHT IN A FEDERAL REGULATORY MECHANISM FOR HOW AIRPORT FINANCE IS DONE.

SO. MAYOR PRO TEM MR. ATKINSON, CAN YOU JUST PROMISE ME, REINFORCE TO ME THAT THERE ARE NO LEGAL ISSUES WITH LENDING THE DOLLARS OUT? NO, THERE ARE NO LEGAL ISSUES.

BUT I AM NOT RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO THAT.

I'M NOT RECOMMENDING THAT THE AIRPORT FUND LEND THE PFC FUND.

IT'S THE PFC.

OKAY, JUST GO THROUGH THAT ONE MORE TIME.

I UNDERSTAND, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I AM COMPLETELY IN UNDERSTANDING.

I AM RECOMMENDING THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE BUDGET THE WAY THE AIRPORT SUBMITTED IT, WHICH IS ALLOWING THE PFC FUND TO ISSUE THAT DEBT.

THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WON'T INCREASE THE CHARGES ON OUR AIRLINES AND IT WILL NOT INCREASE THE CHARGE ON OUR PASSENGERS.

OKAY. WE TRUST YOU AND DOCTOR WILSON.

I KNOW THIS WAS YOUR ISSUE. HAS THAT ANSWERED ALL YOUR QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO, YEAH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO EXPLAIN A VERY, VERY COMPLEX ISSUE WITH FEDERAL REGULATION.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY, KELLY, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING IN SOME EXTRA WORK ON THAT AND TRYING TO HELP ALL OF US UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT'S WAY ABOVE OUR HEAD.

SO THANK YOU, MA'AM.

YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. LOST IN THE MAZE OF FEDERAL RULES.

SO YEAH, YOU HAVE NOT MET FEDERAL RULES UNTIL YOU WORK AT AN AIRPORT.

WELL, I'M GLAD SOMEONE ELSE IS THERE TO WORK THEM OUT FOR US.

THAT'S MISS CAMPBELL, AND SHE DOES A GREAT JOB.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

NO OTHER QUESTIONS.

LET'S PROCEED. OKAY.

EXCUSE MY ATTEMPT AT GRAPHICS, BUT I'VE HAD LOTS OF QUESTIONS.

MAYOR AND I HAD A CHANCE TO WORK IT OUT ON HIS WHITEBOARD, AND I THINK MAYBE I CAN GET THERE.

SO JUST LOOK AT THE TOP TWO BOXES AND THE ARROW BETWEEN THE TWO BOXES WITH THE GIANT X IN IT.

I THINK WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS TO WHERE DOLLAR AMOUNTS ARE THE SAME, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE SAME THING.

THEY ARE NOT RELATED TO EACH OTHER.

SO I'LL START ON THE LEFT.

NEW REVENUE. AS LP&L HAS COMPLETED OR NEARLY COMPLETED THEIR UPDATED T COSTS OR TRANSMISSION COST OF SERVICE FILING WITH THE NEW NUMBERS THAT PRODUCES A FRANCHISE FEE EQUIVALENT PILOT EQUIVALENT OF APPROXIMATELY $2.1 MILLION A YEAR.

UNDERSTAND WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT T COSTS REVENUES, THESE ARE THE VERY LARGE POWER LINES THAT WERE BUILT TO GET US CONNECTED TO ERCOT.

THE DOLLARS PAID AGAINST THOSE POWER LINES IS NOT PAID BY OUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER OR OUR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMER IN LUBBOCK.

IT IS PAID BY OTHER ENTITIES THAT ARE USING OUR LINES TO MOVE THEIR ENERGY BACK AND FORTH.

SO THIS REVENUE IS NOT COMING OUT OF LUBBOCK'S CUSTOMER BASE.

IF YOU WISH TO SEE IT THAT WAY, IT IS A NEW REVENUE STREAM THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY PROGRAMED INTO YOUR BUDGET.

THE ORIGINAL TI COST NUMBERS WERE VERY SMALL COMPARED TO WHERE THEY ARE NOW THAT IT'S FULLY BUILT OUT AND IS BEING AMORTIZED COUNCIL, THIS WILL BE THE BASIS OF WHAT YOU'LL SEE HERE A LITTLE BIT ON SEVERAL OTHER PROPOSALS.

SO THE 2.1 WILL BE A NEW GENERAL FUND REVENUE STREAM NOT PAID BY LUBBOCK.

CUSTOMERS PAID BY OTHERS USING THOSE LARGE POWER LINES.

IT'S GOING TO BE A FLAT REVENUE.

IT WILL NOT CHANGE MUCH YEAR OVER YEAR.

SLIDE UP, SLIDE DOWN.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY STATIC.

THE BIG X IS IN THERE BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT THE STREET LIGHT COST AT 2.1 MILLION.

ONLY THE DOLLARS ARE THE SAME.

THERE'S NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO.

SO THERE'S YOUR BIG X.

LET ME MOVE OVER TO THE RIGHT.

SO THE STREET LIGHT EXPENSE THAT WE'VE ALL WORKED THROUGH ON THIS BUDGET IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TOTAL OF 2.1 MILLION.

[00:20:07]

1.3 MILLION OF THAT.

THAT IS THE OPERATIONS COST OF THOSE STREET LIGHTS.

THAT'S CHANGING THE HEADS OUT, THAT'S STANDING THEM BACK UP, THAT'S KEEPING THEM ALL DELIVERING ELECTRICITY, THAT'S MAKING THEM WORK.

THAT AMOUNTS PAID TO LP&L THE ESTIMATED ELECTRIC COST, SO THE LITERAL ELECTRICITY THAT TURNS THEM ON AND OFF IS 800,000. THE TWO OF THOSE ADD UP TO 2.1 NOT RELATED TO THE COST REVENUE, JUST THE SAME DOLLAR.

NOTE THAT OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS, OUR OPERATIONS COST.

THE 1.3 MILLION WILL GO UP BY APPROXIMATELY $435,000 A YEAR.

SO WHEN YOU START NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, IT WON'T BE 1.3.

IT'LL BE 1.3 PLUS THE 435.

OKAY. IS THAT KIND OF SORT OF MAKES SENSE? ALL RIGHT. NOW LET'S GO DOWN TO THE ONE THAT SAYS PRIOR YEAR COSTS.

SO THESE ARE PRIOR COLLECTIONS THAT GO TO THE BOX RIGHT ABOVE IT, BUT THEIR PRIOR YEAR COLLECTIONS AT A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT COST RECOVERY RATE. SO THIS IS A TRANSFER.

THIS IS A PAYMENT THAT LP&L MAKES NOW TO THE GENERAL FUND.

IT COVERS A PORTION OF FISCAL 22.

IT COVERS ALL OF FISCAL 23.

AND IT WILL COVER ALL OF FISCAL 24.

COLLECTIVELY IT'S 2.475 MILLION.

THAT IS ONE TIME MONEY.

ITS PRIOR YEAR MONEY. SO THAT'S A ONE TIME IT IS NOT RECURRING.

COUNCIL STRONG RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT SHOULD GO TO THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE ITS PRIOR YEAR.

LET'S PUT IT THERE.

THAT WILL GET OUR GENERAL FUND EXCESS BALANCE FROM TEN TO JUST A LITTLE OVER 12.

AND IT'S JUST GOING TO MAKE STARTING THE FOLLOWING YEAR THAT MUCH BETTER.

I TOLD YOU ALL DAY 110 MAKES ME NERVOUS.

THIS DOESN'T FIX IT, BUT IT SURE HELPS.

IT REALLY DOES HELP.

SO ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS ON HOW THAT WORKS AND HOW THE 2.1 MILLION.

THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

STREETLIGHTS DON'T COST.

ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE A CONSENSUS THEN? GIVEN MR. ATKINSON'S PREFERENCE FOR WHERE THAT $2.475 MILLION.

AND WHEN WILL THAT MONEY.

WHEN WILL WE GET THAT CHECK? IT WILL BE IN OCTOBER AND OCTOBER.

ALL RIGHT. NO, THE 2.1 COLLECTS OVER TIME.

NO, THE 2.475.

OCTOBER. OCTOBER.

SO HIS PREFERENCE IS THAT.

THAT GOES INTO THE GENERAL FUND TO INCREASE OUR RESERVES.

OUR EXCESS RESERVES.

EXCESS RESERVES. SO DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT? MR. COLLINS, I SEE YOUR LIGHT ON.

YES. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THE MONIES GOING INTO THE RESERVE.

I DO WANT TO POINT OUT ON THIS 1.3 MILLION IN OPERATIONS AS IT ESCALATES.

I WANT TO POINT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE RECOGNIZES THAT THAT THAT COST TODAY IS $2.6 MILLION DOLLARS.

THIS OPERATION'S COST AND LP&L IS ASSUMING THIS APPROXIMATELY 1.3.

MILLION FOR THIS YEAR, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SIR.

AND THEN OUR AGREEMENT IS THAT WE WILL ASSUME MORE AND MORE OF THESE OPERATIONAL COSTS THAT REALLY BELONG INSIDE THE INSIDE THE CITY.

SO, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, AS WE DO THIS THIS YEAR, THAT THIS ESCALATION IS COMING.

IT'S INEVITABLE. IT'S A COST THAT IS AND SHOULD BE BORNE BY THE CITY THAT LP&L IS HELPING US OUT WITH THIS YEAR AND OVER, OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

THEY'RE HELPING US OUT SOMEWHAT WITH THESE, WITH THESE COSTS, BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW TO THE CITIES WITH DEREGULATION.

AND THEY'VE COME TO THE CITY'S BUDGET NEWLY THIS YEAR AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST.

YES, IT WAS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST SURPRISES WE HAD THIS YEAR IN OUR BUDGET, $2.1 MILLION THAT WE HAD NOT BEEN COVERING IN THE PAST.

SO YEAH, WE APPRECIATE THE HELP LP&L IS GIVING US TO GET TO THAT POINT.

BUT YES, WE'LL HAVE TO START COVERING IT IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

THE INCREASE IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, AND WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ANYBODY HAS.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.

MY LAST COMMENT ON THIS, THE WAY THIS WORKS AND THE FACT THAT IT COMES PREDOMINANTLY FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, WE WILL NEED TO ADJUST ONE OF YOUR OTHER PRIOR RESOLUTIONS THAT EXIST.

IT'S BASED. IT'S THE GATEWAY RESOLUTION.

THAT'S HOW WE ASSIGN MONEY TO GATEWAY FROM THE FRANCHISE FEES COLLECTED IN THE CITY, FROM THE CITY.

THIS IS DIFFERENT. I THINK WE NEED TO DRAW THAT LINE AND WE'LL HAVE YOU SET UP TO DO THAT AS WE GO FORWARD.

[00:25:03]

THANK YOU. OKAY.

OKAY. WE'RE ABOUT TO JUMP INTO SOME PROPOSALS THAT WILL HELP US GET TO BALANCING THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS BEFORE WE DO.

AND THAT'S WHY THIS SAYS FY 25-26.

SO COUNCIL, YOU'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO, AND THAT IS WORKING YOUR WAY THROUGH THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 25.

I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON ME JUST REALLY TO STATE THE OBVIOUS.

I KNOW YOU'RE AWARE OF IT, BUT FOR THOSE LISTENING, ALMOST EVERYTHING YOU DO IN A CURRENT BUDGET ALSO HAS AN IMPACT ON A FUTURE BUDGET.

SO ONE, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE STREET LIGHT INCREASE.

SO THE 435,000 THAT YOU'LL PICK UP FOR EACH OF THE NEXT THREE YEARS, IT'LL GO FLAT AFTER THAT.

BUT YOU'VE GOT THREE MORE YEARS OF THAT COMING TO YOU.

WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN, AND WE'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL TO INCREASE STREET MAINTENANCE BY $1 MILLION A YEAR.

AND SO CERTAINLY WILL BE THE GOAL THAT WE DO THAT AGAIN FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR'S BUDGET.

SO YOU'LL SEE THAT WE'LL PICK UP SOME OF THE TAX NOTE PAYMENTS THAT ARE STARTING IN THE CURRENT YEAR, BUT THEY ACTUALLY PAY OUT IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR, ROUGHLY 775,000.

THIS YEAR, WE WERE ABLE TO NOT HAVE THE GENERAL FUND SUBSIDIZE OUR CEMETERY.

EVERY FEW YEARS, WE'RE ABLE TO COLLECT A BIG ENOUGH FUND BALANCE AT THE CEMETERY THAT IT CARRIES ITSELF FOR A YEAR, BUT YOU'LL PICK UP AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE EXPENSES.

THE EXCUSE ME, THE OTHER ONE.

PERSONALLY, I'M EXCITED TO GET INTO OUR MEET AND CONFER PROCESS WITH OUR POLICE AND OUR FIRE ASSOCIATIONS.

AND GOAL IS TO HAVE ALL THOSE DONE AND IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL BY NEXT FEBRUARY.

THAT SETS YOU UP AS WE BEGIN LOOKING TOWARDS THAT FOLLOWING BUDGET.

I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THOSE NUMBERS WILL END UP BEING, BUT WOULD JUST REMIND COUNCIL EVERY 1% IS $1.1 MILLION.

SO JUST THINGS TO KIND OF KEEP IN MIND.

NOW, IN ALL FAIRNESS, NOT ALL OF THESE HAVE TO BE COVERED OUT OF PROPERTY TAX BECAUSE WE HOPE TO HAVE GOOD AND EVEN BETTER SALES TAX YEARS.

YOU'LL HAVE NEW GROWTH, BUT THEY ARE THINGS THAT ULTIMATELY WILL BE AN EXPENSE THAT WE NEED TO PICK UP BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FOLLOWING YEAR'S BUDGET.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL MOVE OVER.

MAYOR, IF YOU WANT ME TO JUST WALK THIS QUICKLY OR YOU TO DO SO.

CERTAINLY. OKAY.

YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THREE PROPOSALS RELATED TO THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

NOW, THE ONE THAT'S ON YOUR SCREEN IS ONE SUBMITTED BY MAYOR MCBRAYER.

THIS HAS BEEN PULLED DOWN QUITE A BIT FROM THE ONE WE SAW TWO WEEKS AGO.

SO CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE MAYOR'S EFFORTS TO DO THOSE ON REVENUE.

YOU WOULD SEE AN INCREASE IN THE USE OF EXCESS RESERVES BY 325,000.

YOU WOULD SEE AN INCREASE.

SO THIS IS PUSHING THE REVENUE BUDGET ON OIL AND GAS BY 25,000.

THERE IS NOT A PROPOSED INCREASE TO CAUSE US TO PUSH THE SALES TAX NUMBER.

YOU SEE THE -2.534 MILLION.

THAT IS THE VALUE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

AND THEN NOW YOU SEE WHERE WE BROUGHT IN THE 2.1 MILLION OUT OF THE TAX REVENUE.

SO THOSE ARE THE REVENUE CHANGES.

MOVE OVER ON THE EXPENSE SIDE.

YOU SEE THE REDUCTION FROM THE FIVE SWORN POLICE OFFICERS, $105,000 DECREASE IN THE TRANSFER TO MARKET LUBBOCK TAKING OUT THE CLAPP POOL REPAIR PROJECT, A $35,000 REDUCTION IN THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET. SO THOSE ARE EXPENSES COMING OUT OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

AND THEN YOU MOVE INTO THE NEW EXPENDITURES.

THE PAY ADJUSTMENT FOR LPD FORENSICS, CRIME AND PROPERTY.

ADDING FOUR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER POSITIONS.

THESE ARE THE CIVILIANS.

THERE'S ALREADY ONE IN THE BUDGET, SO THAT TAKES YOUR TOTAL TO FIVE.

AN ADDITIONAL 1% RAISE TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND I THINK THAT SHOULD SAY THE SWORN POLICE DEPARTMENT.

SO THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL OF 5% FOR YOUR SWORN OFFICERS.

ADDING THE SECOND NEW DIVISION CHIEF, THIS FOR SUPPRESSION, ADDING THE THREE FIREFIGHTER RANKS.

AND THAT'S MY APOLOGIES I LEFT FIRE SUPPRESSION ON THERE.

THAT'S ACTUALLY FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.

AND THEN A SMALL OFFSET COMING OUT OF LUBBOCK FIRE RESCUE'S OVERTIME BUDGET.

AND THAT IS REALLY DIRECTED TOWARDS THE DIVISION CHIEF TOTAL, THE TWO SIDES UP THAT IS BALANCED.

IT'S BALANCED WITH THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

SO YOU SEE THE BOX TO YOUR LEFT.

[00:30:01]

AND THAT'S GOING TO GET US THERE.

MAYOR, WITH THAT, TURN IT OVER TO YOU.

AND I APPRECIATE OUR CITY MANAGERS WORKING WITH ME ON THIS.

HE'S A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE, AND HE'LL OFTENTIMES TELL YOU WHEN HE THINKS YOU'RE MAKING A BAD MOVE THERE, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'VE TRIED TO WORK VERY WELL WITH HIM TO GET US TO A NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHICH IS MY COMMITMENT FOR THIS YEAR.

IT'S WHERE I HOPE WE WILL END UP AS A COUNCIL.

AND SO THIS IS DESIGNED TO GET US THERE.

OF COURSE, PART OF THIS INVOLVES A TRADE OFF BETWEEN NOT DOING ANY POOL REPAIRS BASED ON THE INABILITY TO GUARANTEE TO ANY DEGREE THAT THAT WILL KEEP THAT POOL OPEN BECAUSE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH THE LEAKAGE ON THE SEAM AND HOW THAT POOL IS CONSTRUCTED.

SO, IT'D BE KIND OF POURING GOOD MONEY AFTER BAD OR BAD MONEY AFTER GOOD.

I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU PUT THAT PHRASE TOGETHER, BUT NOT A WISE USE OF OUR MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT ACTUALLY SOLVE A PROBLEM.

SO, AS A TRADE OFF, WE ARE SAVING THAT MONEY FROM A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT.

AND THEN THAT'S WHY IT GETS MOVED OVER INTO THE REVENUE.

WE'RE INCREASING THE USE OF EXCESS REVENUES BY WHAT WE'VE OFFSET THERE.

THE OTHER THE MANY OF THE THINGS ARE THE SAME ON ALL THESE THREE PROPOSALS.

I THINK THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT I FEEL LIKE WE'VE IF WE'RE GOING TO START TRYING TO BRING THINGS DOWN TO A NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WE START WITH OUR OWN HOUSE FIRST AND WHERE WE SPEND MONEY AS A COUNCIL, AND WE HAVE A BUDGET OF $600,000 AS A CITY COUNCIL FOR ALL OUR STAFF AND EVERYTHING THAT WE DO. SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A 5% DECREASE IN THAT.

MOSTLY OF MOST OF THAT IS DUE TO MY PREFERENCE TO NOT CONTINUE THE SISTER CITY PROGRAM WE HAVE WITH THE CITY IN JAPAN, AT LEAST FOR ONE YEAR.

GO TO AN ALTERNATE WHERE WE DO IT EVERY OTHER YEAR, OR MAYBE DO AWAY WITH ALTOGETHER, BUT NOT DO IT FOR THE NEXT YEAR.

AND THE OTHER 5000 JUST BEING IN SOME EXPENSES THAT WE SAVE IN OTHER AREAS AS A PART OF OUR COUNCIL BUDGET.

EVERYTHING ELSE I THINK IS WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED.

THE ONE THING I THINK ON MINE THAT I DON'T SEE ON ANYBODY ELSE'S IS THE INCREASE FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS, AND I STAND BY THAT.

THAT'S SOMETHING I BELIEVE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

RECENT EVENTS SHOW THE DANGER THAT OUR POLICE OFFICERS ARE IN, IN THEIR DAY-TO-DAY JOBS.

THEY DO AN INCREDIBLE JOB FOR US.

I WANT NOT ONLY TO REWARD THEM FOR THE JOB THAT THEY DO, BUT TO LET THEM KNOW HOW IMPORTANT WE BELIEVE THEIR POSITIONS IN THIS CITY TO BE FOR THE SAFETY.

I BELIEVE THE PAST WEEK HAS EXEMPLIFIED HOW DIFFICULT THE CRIME PROBLEM IS IN OUR CITY OR THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE BEST POLICE FORCE AND THEY ARE ADEQUATELY STAFFED.

THIS DOESN'T GO A LONG WAYS TOWARDS THAT, BUT AT LEAST IS IT IS A STEP IN THAT DIRECTION.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT I STOOD FOR WHEN I RAN FOR MAYOR.

IT WAS ONE OF MY MAIN THREE POINTS, AND I BELIEVE MY ELECTION SHOWS THAT THAT IS WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS US TO STAND FOR.

SO THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF MY BUDGET.

GIVING THIS 1% RAISE TO OUR POLICE OFFICERS, I ALSO WENT FROM THE 3.5% FOR OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY TO 4%.

WE CAME TO THAT AGREEMENT.

SO WE'LL KEEP THE 4% ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL EMPLOYEES, EXCEPT FOR THE POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WILL GET A 5% INCREASE UNDER MY PROPOSAL.

ANY COMMENTS? MAYOR PRO TEM, LET ME ASK YOU.

IT'S LIKE LOOKING AT.

I WAS JUST TELLING DAVID.

EENY MEENY MINEY MO.

THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT BUDGETS HERE, AND THEY ARE ALL VERY GOOD.

BUT WE'LL START WITH THE MAYOR.

THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET.

THIS PROGRAM, ONCE AGAIN, JUNIOR AMBASSADORS, HAS BEEN SUCH A SIGNIFICANT TOOL FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR OUR YOUTH, AND FOSTERING THOSE RELATIONSHIPS WITH ANOTHER COUNTRY.

LET ME REMIND YOU THAT THESE STUDENTS PAY THEIR OWN WAY.

IT ISN'T FUNDED BY THE CITY BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS SOME MISINFORMED OR MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THAT.

THIS HELPS TO COVER THE STAFF THAT ARE GOING.

THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PROGRAM BECAUSE IT HELPS US TO GIVE THE YOUTH SOMETHING TO DO.

AND SINCE WE'RE ALREADY SACRIFICING THE REPAIR OF CLAPP PARK I THINK THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO KEEP.

[00:35:08]

SO I WILL NOT SUPPORT ALL OF YOUR PROPOSAL. AND HERE WE GO.

AGAIN, MY POSITION ON THAT IS IN A YEAR IN WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO A NO NEW REVENUE RATE PEOPLE ARE STILL STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET IN THEIR HOUSEHOLDS. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE CITY AS A WHOLE.

IT BENEFITS A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

IT'S A COST, AS YOU EXPLAINED.

IT'S THE COST OF SENDING OUR CITY STAFF, WHOEVER GOES TO JAPAN, IT'S THE COST OF SENDING THEM OVER THERE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT TO THE CITY, ESPECIALLY NOT IN A DIFFICULT YEAR WHEN WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE CHOICES ABOUT OTHER THINGS.

SO AGAIN, I THINK IT'S A GOOD PLACE FOR US TO BEGIN TO START SAVING SOME MONEY AND START WITH OUR OWN HOUSE FOR THAT.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. AND, MAYOR, TO YOUR POINT, THEN, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SAVING THE HOUSE SOME MONEY, THEN NO NEW REVENUE WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE SUPPORTING.

ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS WITH NO NEW REVENUE IS WE END UP TAKING MONEY.

NOW THAT WE END UP PAYING LATER, IT ENDS UP COSTING US MORE TO THE HOUSE AND THUS TO OUR CITIZENS.

THAT EXPLANATION JUST ISN'T CORRECT, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO IT.

SO I DON'T SUPPORT NO NEW REVENUE.

WELL, THE HOUSE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE HOUSEHOLDS OF THE CITIZENS WHO ARE PAYING OUR TAXES.

THAT'S WHO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT FIRST.

AND LOOKING DOWN THE LINE, THOSE ARE CHOICES WE HAVE TO MAKE AS A COUNCIL.

AND THERE WILL BE IN OUR CITY MANAGER IS ALREADY POINTED OUT DIFFICULT CHOICES WILL HAVE TO MAKE NEXT YEAR.

AND WE NEED TO BE PREPARED.

AND I'M GLAD HE'S POINTED THOSE OUT.

A NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS NOT SOMETHING WE CAN ALWAYS DO, GIVEN THE CHALLENGES, BUT STILL, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SO MANY OF OUR LOWER AND MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS ARE EXPERIENCING, I CANNOT SUPPORT AN INCREASE AND THIS PROPOSAL IS DESIGNED TO GET US TO THAT POINT, AND WE'VE GOT TO START SOMEPLACE.

SO, DR.

WILSON, AS SOME OF THE REST OF THE POINTS THAT I HAVE TO MAKE CAN BE MADE WHEN A COUPLE OF THE OTHER PROPOSALS ARE UP HERE IN A SECOND. BUT TO CHRISTIE'S POINT AND TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, I THINK ALL OF OUR CITIZENS WANT AS LOW OF A TAX RATE AS POSSIBLE, RIGHT? AS LOW AS WE POSSIBLY CAN GET IT TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT WE ALL USE AND UTILIZE AND NEED AND WANT.

SOME OF THE PROGRAMS WE HAVE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT AND MAKE CUTS.

I THINK MY BIGGEST CONCERN AND I HAVE VOTED FOR A NO NEW REVENUE RATE TWO YEARS AGO, WHEN IT WAS ABSOLUTELY THE RIGHT TIME TO DO IT.

IT WAS A GREAT TIME TO GIVE TAX CUTS.

WE SAW A HUGE EXPLOSION POST COVID WITH OUR SALES TAX INCREASE AND OUR ECONOMY INCREASE.

MY WORRY WITH THIS YEAR, AND I'M ALWAYS AS A VERY CONSERVATIVE MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL LOOKING TO KEEP TAXES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

BUT MY BIG CONCERN THIS YEAR, AND I HAVE SAID IT MULTIPLE TIMES UP HERE, IS PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY AND AS A, AS A, AS A CITIZEN AND AS A COUNCIL MEMBER TRYING TO PUSH LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT AND LUBBOCK FIRE RESCUE INTO IS A MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT ON A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.

AND THAT ALLOWS THEM TO NEGOTIATE THEIR SALARIES ON THEIR OWN BEHALF WITHOUT UTILIZING POLITICIANS UP HERE, WHICH I THINK IS A HUGE BENEFIT TO OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS, IS TO NOT HAVE TO RELY ON ALL OF US ARGUING UP HERE TO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE WELL TAKEN CARE OF.

NOW, I THINK YOU HEARD OUR CITY MANAGER SAY A LITTLE WHILE AGO THAT EACH 1% IS $1.1 MILLION.

SO, LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT THIS YEAR, TO GET THEM TO WHERE THEY THINK THEY NEED TO BE IS 21%.

JUST IMAGINE 21 TIMES 1.1 ACROSS OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS.

THAT IS A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

SO AS THEY MOVE FORWARD, HOPEFULLY WITHIN THE NEXT YEAR INTO A MEETING, MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT WITH OUR CITY.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR 21% IN ONE YEAR.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, OUR LPD OFFICERS, ARE LFR STAFF ARE VERY REASONABLE PEOPLE.

I THINK THEY NEED TO GET WHERE THEY'RE GOING.

ABSOLUTELY. AND WE SHOULD ALL SUPPORT THEM AS CITIZENS.

ABSOLUTELY NEED TO GET WHERE THEY'RE GOING.

YOU KNOW, USUALLY THAT LOOKS LIKE AN INCREMENT ACROSS, YOU KNOW, 2 OR 3 YEARS.

NOW IF YOU DO IT 55545, SIX, SEVEN, SEVEN, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER YOU DO IT AS THAT'S A, THAT'S A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

[00:40:05]

SO MY PROBLEM WITH A NO NEW REVENUE RATE THIS YEAR, MAYOR, IS IF WE CUT US SO LOW NEXT YEAR WHEN WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY STEP UP AS CITIZENS TO SUPPORT OUR POLICE OFFICERS, IT'S GOING TO BE A HUGE TAX INCREASE.

SO THE WAY I LOOK AT IT THIS YEAR AS EVEN A GOOD CONSERVATIVE IS KEEP IT AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

BUT WHAT KEEPS US SAFE? SO NEXT YEAR, WHEN WE ALL HAVE TO EXPECT THAT THAT TAX INCREASE FOR FOR OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS IS THAT WE DON'T GO FROM A LITTLE BIT TO HOLY SMOKES, WHAT JUST HAPPENED? OKAY, THAT'S HOW I'M LOOKING AT IT.

EVEN ON FOR MY TAX BILL I DON'T WANT TO JUMP FROM.

OKAY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, I GOT A I GOT A $40 DECREASE THIS YEAR.

WOOHOO! I'M SO EXCITED TO NEXT YEAR! WHOA! NOW IT'S THOUSANDS ABOVE.

BECAUSE IT COULD JUMP.

I MEAN, IT'S YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THOSE ARE JUST MADE UP NUMBERS.

BUT I THINK THE INCREASE THE ORIGINAL TAX RATE WAS, WHAT, 60 BUCKS A HOUSEHOLD, SOMETHING AROUND THERE FOR AN AVERAGE HOMEOWNER THAT OWNS ALMOST A $250,000 HOUSE. SO IF YOU OWN LESS THAN A $250,000 HOME, IT WOULD BE $3,040.

SO THAT, TO ME, IS A REASONABLE INCREASE TO NOT MAKE NEXT YEAR'S HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS, EVEN ON MY HOUSE.

SO AND I THINK MR. COLLINS HAS TALKED ABOUT THIS IN THE PAST.

IS THIS YOYO OF.

YEAH. AS POLITICIANS WE LOOK SO GREAT.

WE GOT YOU A NO NEW REVENUE.

WE SAVED YOU 40 WHOLE DOLLARS THIS YEAR.

I'M SO PROUD. AND IT LOOKS GOOD WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NATIONAL LEVEL POLITICAL PARTIES.

BUT OUR JOB UP HERE IS TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF OUR CITIZENS AND MAKE SURE THINGS STAY BALANCED FOR US.

BECAUSE ONE YEAR YOU ONLY PAY IN $30 AND THE NEXT YEAR, MAYBE $30.

OR DOWN $30.

THAT FEELS OKAY, RIGHT? MOST OF US CAN STOMACH THAT.

BUT WHEN YOU GO FROM YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO DO NO NEW REVENUE TO LOOK GOOD THIS YEAR TO WE'RE GOING TO MAX YOUR TAX RATE OUT NEXT YEAR BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE POLICE WITH MONEY AND FIRE WITH MONEY.

THAT'S A LOT HARDER.

AND THEN WE HEAR PEOPLE, THEN YOU REALLY BURDENED THOSE HOUSEHOLDS, BECAUSE WHAT IF NEXT YEAR'S ECONOMY IS NOT AS GREAT AS THIS YEAR'S, WHICH WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE ALREADY SEEN SOME FLUX. SO THAT'S WHY THIS YEAR, I DON'T THINK IS A REALLY GOOD YEAR TO DO NO NEW REVENUE, BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT BALANCED.

SO NEXT YEAR WHEN WE KNOW, MEET AND CONFER IS COMING BECAUSE IT'S COMING.

AND AS OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS NEGOTIATE WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THEM TO PROTECT US, AT LEAST IT WON'T BE SO HARD ON THE TAXPAYERS NEXT YEAR WHEN WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO GO UP.

SO THAT'S HOW I'M LOOKING AT IT.

EVEN AS A GOOD, GOOD CONSERVATIVE IS, IT'S OKAY TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF FLUX EACH YEAR.

IT CAN'T BE POLITICAL, BUT LET'S TAKE CARE OF OUR OWN, BUT ALSO TAKE CARE OF OUR TAXPAYERS.

SO NEXT YEAR, WHEN IT DOES GO UP, IT'S AN EASIER BURDEN TO BEAR.

SO THAT'S WHY THIS YEAR I DO NOT THINK IS THE RIGHT YEAR TO DO IT.

NO NEW REVENUE RATE. SO FOR THAT REASON I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL.

MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU, DR.

WILSON. THAT IS A GREAT EXPLANATION.

AND YOU KNOW, TO THAT COMMENT THAT YOU MADE MAYOR ABOUT OUR MIDDLE AND LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.

I'M IN THAT CATEGORY.

AND IT IS A TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT.

AND TO ME, I AM ALWAYS ABOUT THE LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME BECAUSE I LIVE IT EVERY DAY.

AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.

THAT BEING SAID, WITH THE EXPLANATION OF DOCTOR WILSON, THAT WE HAVE TO BE VERY CONSCIOUS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO ALL OF OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH I AM A MAJOR PROPONENT OR I'M NOT PROPONENT, A ADVOCATE OF THESE FOLKS, BUT I'M ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT OUR OTHER TAXPAYERS, WHICH ARE EMPLOYEES, CITY EMPLOYEES WHO ALSO HAVE A REGARD THAT WE'RE MAKING GOOD DECISIONS THAT THAT ARE ALSO GOING TO IMPACT THEM.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FULL CIRCLE.

AND SO, AGAIN, I AM WITH DOCTOR WILSON.

AND I DO LOOK FORWARD TO THE MEET AND CONFER, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS GOING TO GET US OUT OF THIS DECISION THAT IS MADE AND THAT WILL ALLOW OUR PUBLIC SAFETY FOLKS TO DO THEIR THING.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE POSITIVE AS WE MOVE FORWARD, ESPECIALLY AT BUDGET TIME.

MR. COLLINS, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

AND FIRST, MR. ATKINSON IN THE EVENT OF MEET AND CONFER, IF THE GROUPS NEGOTIATE A PAY INCREASE, WHICH WE WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY WOULD, THAT MONEY IS NEGOTIATED OUTSIDE OF COUNCIL AND MOVES

[00:45:08]

OVER INTO THE BUDGET.

SO GOOD. GOOD QUESTION.

LET ME JUST VERY, VERY HIGH LEVEL THE WAY MEET AND CONFER WOULD WORK LOR THE WAY IT WORKS ANYWHERE.

IT'S ALL THE SAME.

SO THE ASSOCIATIONS GO THROUGH WHAT'S CALLED A CERTIFICATION ELECTION, WHICH IN EFFECT YOU TAKE ALL OF THE RANK AND FILE AND THEY SAY, YES, YOU, YOU MAY REPRESENT US, YOU'LL HAVE A MANAGEMENT TEAM.

SO THAT WILL BE THE CHIEF, EITHER MYSELF OR SOMEBODY FROM MY OFFICE.

SOME FINANCE TYPE PEOPLE.

AND YOU WORK THROUGH WHAT DO THE ASSOCIATIONS WANT? AND IT'LL BE DIFFERENT FOR EACH OF THE TWO.

WHAT DOES THE CHIEF WHAT DOES MANAGEMENT WANT TO SEE? YOU ULTIMATELY END UP WRITING A CONTRACT.

THE CONTRACT HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND IT IS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.

PREBUDGET. SO I SAID A MOMENT AGO, MY GOAL IS TO HAVE THESE DONE AND IN FRONT OF YOU ALL BY FEBRUARY.

THAT'S REALLY A MONTH BEFORE I DO MY PART OF STARTING IN THE BUDGET.

EVERYBODY'S WORKING ON YEAR ENDS AND SO WE'RE A GOOD FRESH START.

BE A MULTI YEAR AGREEMENT.

EVERYBODY WILL AGREE.

HEY WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS IN YEAR ONE AND THIS IN YEAR TWO AND THIS IN YEAR THREE.

WE'RE GOING TO BRING IT TO YOU ALL WHEN YOU SEE IT.

EACH OF THOSE ITEMS WITHIN THERE HAVE A PRICE TAG ON THEM.

SO YOU WILL KNOW WHEN YOU PUSH THE GAVEL ON THAT AGREEMENT.

WHATEVER THE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER YOU'VE DONE IT, YOU WILL KNOW.

THAT GOES ON TOP OF MY BUDGET PREPARATION AS WE START, IN THIS CASE, THE FISCAL YEAR 26 BUDGET.

AND SO NEXT QUESTION THEN WE ARE REQUIRED OR LIMITED TO 3.5% IN REVENUE INCREASE.

DOES THAT APPLY TO ALL REVENUE SOURCES OR JUST THE PROPERTY TAX.

JUST THE PROPERTY TAX.

BUT WE'VE NOT DONE A 3.5% REVENUE INCREASE.

SO YOU ALSO GET WHAT'S CALLED THE UNUSED INCREMENT.

AND IN REAL SIMPLE MATH, IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO DO A NO NEW REVENUE RATE THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR, WITHOUT GOING TO YOUR VOTERS, YOU COULD GO UP TO THE 7% REVENUE INCREASE.

IF WE INSTEAD DID SOMETHING LESS, THAT NUMBER COMES DOWN.

BUT YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A THREE YEAR CARRYOVER FOR WHAT THEY CALL THAT UNUSED INCREMENT THE AMOUNT LESS THAN 3.5%.

AND SO MY POINT TO THAT IS EVEN WITH 7% OR WHATEVER WE DO, AND I'VE SPOKEN TO YOYOING OUR BUDGET BACK AND FORTH FROM NO NEW REVENUE TO NEAR MAX INCREASE AND WHAT WE WHAT WE HAVE NOW, WHICH I HEAR AND I THINK AND AGREE IS VERY IMPORTANT THIS MEET AND CONFER OPPORTUNITY. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT TO OUR BUDGET MAY BE NEXT YEAR WITH THE RESULTS OF THE MEET AND CONFER.

AND SO I FEAR THAT WE COULD GET TO A POINT WHERE A TAX INCREASE THAT IS IN EXCESS OF THE 3.5 OR MAYBE 5% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECOMES NECESSARY.

TO MEET THAT OBLIGATION THAT WE JUST SIGNED UP FOR AND AGREE WITH THE PROCESS AND AGREE WITH SIGNING UP FOR THE OBLIGATION.

BUT NOW WE'RE REQUIRED TO MEET IT.

AND SO IT MAY NOT BE A 3% TAX INCREASE NEXT YEAR, IT MAY BE A 6% TAX INCREASE.

OR WE FIND OTHER CUTS, ADDITIONAL HARSH CUTS TO THESE PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE ALL FINDING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT.

YOU KNOW, WE WE LOOK HERE AT ANOTHER CUT TO MARKET.

LUBBOCK. KEEP IN MIND THAT THE ORIGINAL BUDGET HAD A HALF MILLION DOLLAR CUT TO THAT PROGRAM ALREADY.

AND NOW WE SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE.

NOT THAT WE CAN'T MANAGE WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT THE POINT IS, IS WE MAY HAVE TO CUT IT AGAIN.

WE'VE TAKEN A LARGE CUT THIS YEAR.

AND BECAUSE OF THIS FUTURE OBLIGATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT THAT ORGANIZATION OR PARKS OR LIBRARIES OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, COULD BE FORCED INTO ANOTHER CUT, IN PART BECAUSE WE SET OUR BUDGET THIS YEAR SO LOW, THE MAX OR SOMEWHERE NEAR THE BOTTOM.

AND THEN WE'RE HANDCUFFED TO WHAT? WE CAN RAISE IT NEXT YEAR.

SO I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT AGAIN, THE YOYO EFFECT AND THE LIMITATIONS PLUS THE UNKNOWN.

AND I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE UNKNOWN.

WHILE I AGREE AGAIN, IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

IT'S THE RIGHT PROCESS FOR OUR CITY MANAGER AND OUR CITY STAFF AND OUR VERY IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF OUR OBLIGATION TO OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

I JUST THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT SETTING A NUMBER TODAY THAT WE CAN'T LIVE UP TO NEXT YEAR, DEPENDING ON

[00:50:07]

WHAT THOSE AGREEMENTS MAY BE.

DID I SAY ANYTHING INCORRECT IN THAT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

SO YOU KNOW, MY PROPOSAL, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A NO NEW REVENUE RATE, RIGHT GIVES ALL THE RAISES THAT MR. ATKINSON PROPOSED IN THE BEGINNING.

IT DOESN'T CUT THE BUDGET OF ANY DEPARTMENT AT ALL FROM HIS BUDGET.

IT'S FUNDING EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO DO, AND IT IS SETTING THE RATE AS LOW AS WE CAN FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR TAXPAYERS.

THIS YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH CHOICES NEXT YEAR, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE TOUGH CHOICES.

I'M NEVER QUITE CONFIDENT OF PEOPLE WHO SAY, WELL, WE'LL MAKE THOSE TOUGH CHOICES LATER ON IF WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THEM NOW.

I THINK WE'RE STILL IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME DIFFICULT CHOICES, EVEN THIS YEAR FOR OUR TAXPAYERS.

AND MY PROPOSAL ALLOWS US TO DO THAT WITHOUT CUTTING ANYONE'S BUDGET, GIVING ALL THE RAISES WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO GIVE, ALSO GIVING ALL THE POSITIONS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY REQUESTED AND GIVING WHAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND WHAT OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE POLICE CHIEF SAID HE NEEDED THERE AND GIVING THEM A RAISE AS WELL.

IT DOES ALL OF THAT.

IF WE TAKE MORE MONEY OUT OF THE TAXPAYERS POCKETS, WHERE IS IT GOING TO GO? WHERE DO YOU WANT IT TO GO, MR. COLLINS? WELL, I THINK THAT WE MADE A COMMITMENT TWO WEEKS AGO TO BUILD A LIBRARY.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE DID CUT A BUDGET.

WE CUT HALF $1 MILLION OUT OF MARKET LUBBOCK, AND WE'VE GOT ANOTHER 105 HERE TO GO.

WE'VE GOT $435,000 COMING IN NEW EXPENSE TO US NEXT YEAR BASED ON OUR NEW STREETLIGHT PROGRAM.

SO I THINK THAT THERE ARE THERE ARE PLACES WHERE WE'VE MADE COMMITMENTS TO SPEND AND WE ARE CUTTING SOME BUDGETS.

I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST SAYING WE NEED TO HAVE TAXES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXES.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT I PAY PROPERTY TAXES ON A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES.

IT'S EXPENSIVE FOR ALL OF US.

I JUST WANT US TO BE FORWARD THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH NEXT YEAR.

AND IT MAY BE EVEN HARSHER CUTS OR MORE CUTS.

ARE WE ABLE TO RECOVER THESE FUNDS BACK TO MARKET? LUBBOCK. I DON'T KNOW HOW ARE WE GOING TO PUT 400? WE'RE GOING TO PUT ANOTHER MILLION DOLLARS BACK IN THE BUDGET IF WE REFUND, REALLOCATE ALL THE FUNDS BACK TO MARKET LUBBOCK AND PAY FOR OUR LIGHT FIXTURES.

AND SO THERE'S A MILLION BUCKS.

THAT'S A BUNCH IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS BUDGET DOES WHEN WE'RE STARTING TO LOOK AT 30,000, 40,000 THESE SMALL ITEMS LIKE WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.

AND SO AGAIN, I'M JUST URGING CAUTION.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS WON'T WORK.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO HANDCUFF OURSELVES TO THAT PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE GOING FORWARD WITH, WITH, WITH THIS BUDGET NUMBER. AND SO I WANT US TO BE MINDFUL THAT, HOW ARE WE GOING TO FUND THIS LIBRARY? WE MADE A COMMITMENT TO IT TWO WEEKS AGO.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO REINSTATE SOME OF THESE DOLLARS BACK TO THESE PROJECTS THAT WE NEED? KEEP IN MIND, MARKET LUBBOCK HAS FUNDED SOCCER FIELDS, MARKET LUBBOCK HAS FUNDED NEW BASEBALL FIELDS.

AND SO THESE GREAT PROGRAMS THAT ARE BENEFITING OUR CITY NO LONGER CAN POSSIBLY BE BUILT.

AND SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THAT WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IN THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF OUR COMMUNITY.

THESE FUNDS I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S LIVING.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DEPARTMENT IN THIS CITY THAT'S LIVING ON THE HIGH HOG.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S HAPPENING TODAY.

AND WE'RE DOING THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, AND NOT TO MENTION OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, WHICH, AGAIN, ARE VERY, VERY CRITICAL.

BUT WE'RE DOING THINGS ALL ACROSS THE CITY FOR ALL CITIZENS.

AND I'VE JUST, THIS YOYO THING IS GOING TO BITE US REALLY, REALLY HARD.

I'M AFRAID IF WE CONTINUE TO DROP DOWN, WE LOSE A YEAR.

COSTS WILL ESCALATE.

IT'S GOING TO COST MORE TO DO LESS NEXT YEAR.

SO THAT'S MY CONCERN.

THANK YOU.

NOW, MR. GLASHEEN, DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS YOUR PROPOSAL OR DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS MINE? I HAVE A COMMENT. OKAY.

I KNOW THAT THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY MR. COLLINS AND DR. WILSON ARE MORE THOUGHTFUL THAN MY SUMMARY OF THEM.

BUT I DON'T LIKE THE SUGGESTION THAT WE SHOULD RAISE TAXES NOW SO THAT WE CAN RAISE TAXES MORE IN THE FUTURE.

IT'S. AND IT'S NOT IT'S A LITTLE BIT REDUCTIVE COMPARED TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT TO ADDRESS THAT NARROW CONCERN OF IT IS THAT I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO

[00:55:02]

REDUCE THE TAX BURDEN ON PEOPLE THIS YEAR, EVEN IF THAT LEADS TO A DIFFERENT DECISION NEXT YEAR.

AND ON RESPONSE TO YOUR COMMENTS ON THE FUNDING OF LUBBOCK, FOR EXAMPLE, AND HOW THEY'VE HELPED WITH SOCCER FIELDS, FOR EXAMPLE.

THAT'S AN EXERCISE IN MOVING MONEY FROM ONE POCKET TO ANOTHER.

THAT'S WE KEEP THAT MONEY IN THE GENERAL REVENUE FUND, AND THE GENERAL FUND WILL HAVE EVEN MORE FLEXIBILITY TO SUPPORT PROGRAMS LIKE THE SOCCER FIELDS, FOR EXAMPLE.

OKAY. MR. ATKINSON YOU WANT TO MOVE ON TO MR. WHICH ONE'S NEXT? NEXT. MR. GASKINS PROPOSAL? WE WENT IN NUMERICAL ORDER, MAYOR.

SO, COUNCILMAN, YOU WANT ME TO LAY IT OUT AND THEN LEAVE IT TO YOU? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT? I'LL GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW.

YOU'LL SEE SOME COMMON ITEMS IN THIS PROPOSAL WITH OTHER PROPOSALS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

ONE THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY MODEST CUT IN THE OVERALL PROPERTY TAX RATE, AND I COULD SUPPORT A MORE AMBITIOUS CUT IN PROPERTY TAXES. BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS THE, YOU KNOW, THE CONCERNS AND PRIORITIES OF WHAT I BELIEVE WILL MEET A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL.

BUT THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE TO SHOW THAT IT'S PRACTICAL, AND IT ALSO MEETS WITH OUR OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS TO BE ABLE TO LOWER TAXES.

ONE THING I'LL SAY ABOUT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THAT'S A NAME THAT DOESN'T DO ITSELF ANY FAVORS IN TERMS OF PROVIDING A USEFUL DESCRIPTION.

THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE ACTUALLY COLLECTS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROPERTY TAXES MORE EACH YEAR, BECAUSE YOU GET CREDIT IN THE TAX AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM ALL THE NEW GROWTH.

SO IF WE KEEP A NO NEW REVENUE RATE THIS YEAR, WE WILL STILL COLLECT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL TAXES.

MOVING ON TO SOME OF THE SPECIFIC CHANGES IN EXPENSES.

BIG PICTURE WITH THE LUBBOCK FIRE DEPARTMENT AND YOU'LL SEE THERE ARE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO THE POSITIONS THERE TO MEET THE MANNING AND OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LUBBOCK FIRE DEPARTMENT.

ALSO SEE SOME ADJUSTMENTS IN CIVILIAN POLICE POSITIONS WHICH WILL IMPROVE THEIR OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY.

I STRONGLY SUPPORT INCREASES IN OFFICER PAY.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT THE LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT BE COMPETITIVELY COMPENSATED SO THAT WE CAN ATTRACT AND RETAIN QUALITY TALENT AND TO ADDRESS THAT GOAL. I SUPPORT THE MEET AND CONFER ARRANGEMENT THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED EARLIER.

I WANT TO SAY, I THINK THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO LOCK IN LONG TERM, PREDICTABLE PAY INCREASES FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO ARE WORKING IN THOSE CRITICAL PUBLIC SAFETY ROLES.

NEXT, I'LL POINT OUT ALSO, MY PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE A REDUCTION IN THE LUBBOCK FIRE AND RESCUE OVERTIME.

I THINK THAT'S A JUST A TYPO FROM PREVIOUS ONES, SO WE'LL NEED TO UPDATE THAT.

AND THE LAST ONE I'LL COMMENT ON HERE IS TO REDUCE TO ELIMINATE OUR LOBBYING CONTRACT. NOW, AS A MATTER OF POLICY, I'M OPPOSED TO TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING.

LOBBYING IS A PRACTICE OF GIVING MONEY TO A LOBBYIST, WHO IN TURN USES THE MONEY TO SUPPORT OTHER POLITICAL CANDIDATES THROUGH DONATIONS OR OTHER TYPES OF SUPPORT TO SOLICIT LEGISLATION THAT FAVORS THE CITY'S AGENDA.

THAT'S GOVERNMENT LOBBYING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF ITS SIT INS CITIZENS VERY OFTEN.

AND YOU ALSO HAVE THE PROBLEM OF TAX DOLLARS BEING USED TO SUPPORT POLITICAL CANDIDATES OR CAUSES THAT TAXPAYERS MAY NOT WANT TO SUPPORT WITH THEIR OWN DOLLARS.

THE OTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE WITH $153,000 IN A LOBBYING CONTRACT THIS YEAR, IS THAT IT'S RETAINING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE THAT WE DON'T REALLY IT'S NOT SOLVING A SPECIFIC PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYBODY WHO'S BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE NEED.

THE LOBBYING CONTRACT FOR THIS YEAR.

AND SO IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING, I'M OPEN TO HEARING IT NOW.

BUT YOU KNOW, WITHOUT SOME SPECIFIC NEED, I'M VERY SKEPTICAL OF TAXPAYER FUNDING FUNDED LOBBYING IN GENERAL.

SO I'LL CLOSE IT OUT TO SAY THAT THIS IS A MODEST REDUCTION IN PROPERTY TAXES.

AND WE COULD EVEN BRING IT UP TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND INCREASE THE TRANSFERS TO MARKET LUBBOCK, FOR EXAMPLE.

MAYOR PRO TEM, THANK YOU.

DAVID. I'D LIKE TO ASK MR. ATKINSON A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE LOBBYING CONTRACT.

[01:00:01]

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO THOSE WATCHING AND THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE EXPLAIN THE NECESSITY OF IT.

EXPLAIN. YOU KNOW, MR. GLASHEEN SAID THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN HELPFUL TO US.

WILL YOU JUST GIVE US AN OVERVIEW? BE GLAD TO DO THAT AND UNDERSTAND.

OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER, I'VE DONE IT BOTH WAYS, WITHOUT ASSISTANCE AND WITH ASSISTANCE, AND SOME OF THE POINTS THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBER MAKES.

I CAN ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH SOME OF THEM, I CAN'T.

SO WHAT DO WE USE THAT CONTRACT FOR? NUMBER ONE, THIS IS HOW WE ARE ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION IN A TIMELY MANNER OF WHAT IS GOING ON THAT IMPACTS THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO DO THAT? THERE ARE. IT WOULD GENERALLY REQUIRE THE EQUIVALENT OF ADDING STAFF TO DO THAT.

STAFF THAT I DON'T REALLY NEED DURING THE OFF YEAR, BECAUSE EVEN ESPECIALLY IF YOU LOOK THIS TIME, THE INTERIM IS VERY SLOW.

THIS IS REALLY AN INFORMATIONAL SERVICE FOR US.

IT IS ALSO A SCHEDULING SERVICE FOR US, SO I HAVE NOT USED THIS ONCE IN THE EIGHT YEARS NOW TO WHERE I'VE HAD A LOBBYIST GO AND SAY, SPEAK, SPEAK TO THE SPONSOR OF THAT BILL AND TELL THEM WE LOVE THIS.

WE DON'T LIKE IT. WE WOULD LIKE IT, BUT ONLY IF WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT.

INSTEAD, IT ALLOWS A MUCH MORE FOCUSED AND TARGETED USE OF WHAT IS RAPIDLY BECOMING YOUR TIME AS ELECTED OFFICIALS SIX, EIGHT, TEN YEARS AGO.

MOST OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTERACTION, OF COURSE, DIRECT WITH YOUR DELEGATION.

AND WE HAVE A GOOD DELEGATION.

WE HAVE A DELEGATION SITTING IN VERY IMPORTANT SEATS THAT ARE IN VERY BUSY, BUSY POSITIONS.

WE'VE GOT ABOUT AS STRONG A LOCAL DELEGATION AS YOU'RE GOING TO GET, AND I'VE ALWAYS FOUND THEM TO BE HELPFUL.

BUT UNDERSTAND, WHEN YOU START GETTING TO THE WIRE AS LEGISLATION IS MOVING, YOU'RE USED TO NOT BEING ABLE TO EVEN CONVENE WITHOUT A 72 HOUR NOTICE.

WHEN IN FACT MANY LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES TOWARDS THE END OF THE SESSION, THE VERY END WILL HAPPEN WITH 30 MINUTES OR LESS NOTICE.

NOW, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET ON A PRIVATE PLANE AND BE DOWN THERE IN 30 MINUTES, BUT YOU'VE GOT THE ABILITY FOR US TO.

MR. MAYOR, WOULD YOU SEND A NOTE ON THIS BEHALF? WOULD YOU SEND A LETTER ON THIS BEHALF? I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT YOU'LL PROBABLY END UP ONCE PRE-FILING STARTS WITH OVER 8000 BILLS THAT WILL GET FILED THIS SESSION, OF WHICH PROBABLY THREE QUARTERS OR MORE WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON US.

OFTEN CITIES GET ACCUSED WHERE YOU'RE USING THE LOBBY FIRMS TO PROTEST AGAINST TAX REFORM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE THE MOST REGULATED INDUSTRY IN THIS CITY, PERIOD.

THE FAA'S BIG PART OF IT.

BUT WE'RE NOT ONLY REGULATED BY THE STATE.

FOR EVERY DROP OF WATER, EVERY DROP OF WASTEWATER, EVERY DROP OF RUNOFF WATER, WE ALSO PAY TO THE STATE, THE PRIVILEGE FOR BEING REGULATED.

IN FACT, WE GO BACK INTO THE ENTERPRISE BUDGETS AND YOU WILL FIND THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT WE PAY TO OUR REGULATORS SO THAT THEY CAN BE REGULATED.

NOW, DO WE GET A BENEFIT OF IT? I BELIEVE WE DO.

CAN WE DO IT IN THE ABSENCE? NOT NEAR AS WELL, AND PROBABLY NOT FOR LESS DOLLARS.

SO I'LL LEAVE THAT AT THAT AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

MR. DEHEN, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I ASK MY QUESTION? I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR MR. CHENEY, AND THAT HAS TO.

THAT HAS TO DO WITH LOWERING THE TRANSFER TO MARKET LUBBOCK, INC.

EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK THAT IS NECESSARY AND HOW YOU THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE A BENEFIT TO OUR CITY.

I BELIEVE THAT THE VERY BEST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS KEEPING A TAXPAYER'S DOLLAR IN THEIR OWN POCKET.

DAVID, THAT DIDN'T TELL ME ENOUGH, BUT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I MEAN, WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT TO KNOW? I WANT MORE DETAIL BECAUSE I'VE SEEN MARKET LUBBOCK, INC.

WORKING A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR US.

I KNOW, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU GOT TO SPEND A LITTLE MONEY TO MAKE MONEY, AS YOU WELL KNOW.

AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE OUR LOBBYING.

WE HAVE THESE FOLKS DOING WORK AND BRINGING BUSINESS INTO THE CITY.

I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY HAVE A NEED FOR MARKET LUBBOCK, INC., THAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT REDUCE THE SORT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL, LIKE THE PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BROUGHT IN LEPRINO, FOR EXAMPLE, PROGRAMS THAT ARE ADDING NEW JOBS AND NEW DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS A REDUCTION IN THE GRANTS THAT TAKE PROPERTY TAXES FROM HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES AND GIVE IT TO COMPETING BUSINESSES, COMMERCIAL LANDLORDS WHO ARE TRYING TO

[01:05:04]

INCREASE THEIR RATE OF RETURN.

THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT THE VERY BEST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS TO KEEP TAXPAYERS DOLLARS IN THEIR OWN POCKETS.

AND IT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT NOW THAT WE FIND WAYS TO LOWER THE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN ON ON HOMEOWNERS AND SMALL BUSINESSES.

AND WE DON'T USE THE GOVERNMENT TO PICK AND CHOOSE FAVORITES WHO ARE GOING TO RECEIVE A GIFT OF TAX DOLLARS.

BUT THOSE GRANTS ARE GOING MOST OF THEM TO SMALL BUSINESSES.

SO WE DO NEED THEM TO HELP GIVE THEM THAT BOOST THAT THEY CAN COMPETE.

ESPECIALLY WE HAVE SEVERAL IN VERY HARD HIT AREAS LIKE NORTH LUBBOCK EAST LUBBOCK, CENTRAL LUBBOCK, AND THESE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE AGING.

AND THOSE DOLLARS ALREADY.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE FOR.

THEY'RE ALREADY THEY'RE ALREADY GRANTS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED FOR THAT.

SO I THINK THAT WHEN WE ARE HELPING THESE SMALL BUSINESSES AND, YOU KNOW, GENERATING MORE INTEREST INTO DOWNTOWN OR OTHER AREAS, I THINK THAT IS A BIG PLUS.

AND IT'S VERY PRO-GROWTH.

I DISAGREE WITH YOU, AND I THINK WE'RE REACHING THE END OF THE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION ON THIS.

SO, I'LL CLOSE BY SAYING THAT YOU CAN HELP ONE SMALL BUSINESS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE NINE OTHERS WHO ARE PAYING FOR THAT.

AND THAT'S PHILOSOPHICALLY WHERE I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY WRONG TO USE GOVERNMENT AS A TOOL FOR WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION IN THAT WAY.

I DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT WE WILL MOVE ON.

AND MY COMMENT TO YOU, JUST BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID YOU WOULD TARGET THAT REDUCTION TO A SPECIFIC PROGRAM.

IS THAT RIGHT, MR. GLASHEEN? TO THE GRANT PROGRAM, WHEREAS MINE IS NOT TARGETED TO ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR? OKAY. YES.

AND MR. COLLINS.

POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS AND AGAIN, CORRECT ME IF I'M MISTAKEN, MISSPEAK ABOUT THIS.

WE HAVE A NEW GROWTH REVENUE TO THE GENERAL FUND OF $3 MILLION.

AND SO LET'S RECOGNIZE THAT AS BEING 1% OF OUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET IN A 2 TO 3 TO 4% INFLATIONARY ENVIRONMENT. AND SO THIS MILLIONS OF NEW DOLLARS COMING IN AREN'T KEEPING US EVEN IN THIS INFLATIONARY ENVIRONMENT.

SO WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

IT IS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

IT'S $3 MILLION.

THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

BUT IT ISN'T KEEPING US EVEN MARKET LUBBOCK GO BACK AND VISIT THAT AGAIN.

AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT, BUT RECOGNIZING TYPE A AND TYPE B LAW MARKET LUBBOCK MONEY CAN GO OVER INTO LEDA AND MARKET LUBBOCK MONEY IS OFTEN UTILIZED REALIZED FOR THE INCENTIVES THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, THAT WE THAT WE, AGAIN, ALL RECOGNIZE ARE VERY GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

MONSANTO, LEPRINO, ET CETERA.

SO THOSE DOLLARS THAT ARE THERE CAN BE UTILIZED ON THE OTHER SIDE.

IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, LEDA HAS HAD TO BORROW MONEY TO MEET THEIR OBLIGATIONS OR TO INCENTIVIZE NEW BUSINESSES IN LEPRINO IN PARTICULAR, HAD THAT MONEY BEEN LEFT IN MARKET.

LUBBOCK THAT BORROWING MIGHT NOT HAVE HAD TO HAVE OCCURRED.

AGAIN, I MENTIONED THAT SOME THINGS WERE BEING DONE TO THE FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH MARKET LUBBOCK FUNDS.

AND YOU MENTIONED IF THEY WERE LEFT IN THE GENERAL FUND, THAT THOSE THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER MECHANISM.

THAT WOULD BE, IT COULD BE.

BUT WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

WE'RE NOT LEAVING IT IN THE GENERAL FUND.

WE'RE JUST CUTTING IT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

WE'RE REDUCING THAT MONEY THAT IS BEING UTILIZED FOR THESE QUALITY OF LIFE PROGRAMS. IT'S JUST GONE.

SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NOT SAVING IT IN ONE PLACE OR THE OTHER.

IT'S GONE.

SO WE'RE NOT ABLE TO FUND THOSE PROGRAMS IN THE FUTURE THAT WE MIGHT HAVE EXPECTED OR HOPED FOR FROM THE BENEFIT OF MARKET LUBBOCK, INCLUDING THE HOT TAX DOLLARS THAT GO THERE. SO JUST JUST A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS.

THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM, I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THOSE GRANTS ARE CALLED EMPOWERMENT GRANTS.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DO FOR THESE AREAS, IS THEY GIVE US THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE.

THEY GIVE US THE ABILITY TO INVEST, TO HIRE PEOPLE.

WE'RE SMALL, SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS HIRE A LOT OF FOLKS LOCALLY, AND THOSE GRANTS MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

IT CAN MAKE OR BREAK.

AND WE'VE SEEN IT MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.

SO I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT.

AND LET ME ASK YOU, BECAUSE YOU HAVE ON YOURS THE SAME AS.

COUNCILWOMAN WILSON HAS ON HERS.

MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT. $100,000 LIBRARY CONCEPT 100,000.

COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THOSE? THOSE WERE NOT PART OF MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

THOSE WERE ADDED BY MR. ATKINSON AS ADJUSTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE TO THE BUDGET THAT HE PROPOSED AS PART OF THE

[01:10:10]

ADJUSTMENTS MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL'S MOST RECENT DECISION ON THE GO TO LIBRARY.

SO, MR. ATKINSON, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT? CERTAINLY. GLAD TO DO THAT.

ON THE LIBRARY CONCEPT COUNCILMAN STATED IT PERFECTLY.

THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL'S ACTIONS RELATED TO GO TO KEY LIBRARY.

WE'VE JUST ENTERED A THREE YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT.

AND I WILL PARAPHRASE MY WORDS, NOT YOURS, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE A PERMANENT SOLUTION.

WE'VE BEEN IN RENTED FACILITIES FOR TOO LONG, AND IT'S TIME TO GET THAT PERMANENT SOLUTION.

THESE DOLLARS WOULD BE USED FOR YOU TO ENGAGE A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL THAT CAN COME UP WITH WHAT'S THE SHAPE, WHAT'S THE SIZE, WHAT'S IT LOOK LIKE, WHAT IS IT GOING TO COST, AND CAN WE FIT IT WHERE WE THINK WE MAY BE ABLE TO FIT IT? IN OTHER WORDS, LEAVE YOU THE COUNCIL IN A POSITION NOT ONLY TO SHOW THIS TO THE TO THE PUBLIC, BUT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST.

ONCE WE KNOW THAT THE NEXT STEP THEN IS GETTING THE FUNDING.

BUT YOU'RE STARTING WITH ASKING FOR MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

SO THAT WAS THE REASON I REQUESTED AND APPRECIATE THE COUNCILMAN AND THE COUNCILWOMAN.

THEY BOTH PUT THAT IN THEIRS.

THE SECOND TO MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT.

AGAIN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT LUBBOCK HAS DONE BEFORE.

WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT WHATEVER COMES OUT OF THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT, BUT IT'S GOING TO COST.

I WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT.

RIGHT. SO THIS IS FOR ASSISTANCE FROM PEOPLE THAT HAVE DONE IT BEFORE TO HELP US SET THAT UP.

I DON'T THINK YOU'LL NEED IT THE SECOND TIME.

REMEMBER, THESE WILL ALL HAVE A DEFINITIVE LIFESPAN.

BUT FOR US, FOR THE COMMUNITY, FOR OUR TWO ASSOCIATIONS, AND FOR ALL THOSE MEMBERS, I JUST WANT TO KNOW THAT WE GET IT RIGHT.

AND THAT'S MY REQUEST FOR THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. ATKINSON.

WE READY TO MOVE ON TO DOCTOR WILSON'S PROPOSAL? MR. GASKIN AND I JUST WILL ADD THAT I DO I DO RECOMMEND THOSE CHANGES THAT MR. ATKINSON PROPOSED. I THINK THAT THEY'RE REASONABLE TO PUT US ON TRACK TO MAKE AN APPROPRIATE PLAN FOR GAUTIER IN THE LONG TERM, AND ALSO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS RIGHT, IN A WAY THAT'S ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE CITY.

OKAY. DOCTOR WILSON, DO YOU WANT TO PROPOSE OR PRESENT YOURS, OR DO YOU WANT MR. ATKINSON TO DO THAT? MR. ATKINSON, I CAN START AND I'LL GO THROUGH IT RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF COMMONALITY BETWEEN THE OTHER PROPOSALS.

START ON THE LEFT, WHICH IS THE REVENUE SIDE.

BEGIN WITH THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

AGAIN, YOU SEE THE 2.1 MILLION IN THE TAX REVENUE COMING IN AS A NEW REVENUE.

YOU SEE HERE A DECREASE IN TAX REVENUE OF 1.7 MILLION.

REMEMBER, THE VALUE OF NO NEW REVENUE IS ABOUT 2.534.

SO IT'S A BIT LESS MOVE OVER ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET SIDE.

YOU AGAIN SEE THAT SECOND NEW DIVISION CHIEF FOR FIRE.

YOU SEE THE THREE FIREFIGHTER RANKED MEMBERS.

THAT WOULD BE FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE.

AGAIN, THE FOUR NEW CIVILIAN CEOS, THE FORENSICS AT ALL WAGE ADJUSTMENTS COUNCIL ON THIS ONE.

WE HAVE OUR NEW WEBSITE AND INTRANET DESIGN.

THAT WAS THE TOP OF THE LIST OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE CUT BEFORE I BROUGHT IT TO YOU.

YOU WILL END UP DOING THIS.

THE QUESTION IS WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS.

ONE SHORT TERM RENTAL SOFTWARE WAS NUMBER TWO ON THE CUT LIST.

THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED OF US PRIMARILY BY THE SHORT TERM RENTAL PEOPLE.

SO THIS IS YOUR AIRBNB OR VRBO.

THE SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IS NOT USER FRIENDLY EITHER FOR US OR FOR THE PAYEES.

THERE WILL BE SOME INCREASED OFFSET REVENUE, BUT UNTIL I SEE IT, I'M HESITANT TO BOOK AN OFFSETTING REVENUE AGAINST THAT.

AGAIN, YOU SEE, MEET AND CONFER.

YOU SEE GO TO KEY LIBRARY.

YOU SEE THE COST CUTS OR THE NEXT THREE DELETE TWO OF THE FIVE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SWORN POLICE OFFICER POSITIONS.

SO THAT WOULD LEAVE THREE AGAIN LOWERING THE LFR OVERTIME.

AND AGAIN THAT NUMBER, THAT AMOUNT, THE 94,000.

THAT IS WHAT WAS PULLED OUT AS THE ESTIMATE OF THE SAVINGS, BECAUSE YOU'LL HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL DIVISION CHIEFS THAT YOU DID NOT HAVE PREVIOUSLY.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, DELETING THE CLAP POOL REPAIR.

IF YOU GO TO THE BOX ON THE LEFT AT THE BOTTOM, THE PROPOSED TAX RATE THAT DRIVES THE 310.3 MILLION WAS 47.74.

THIS WOULD PRODUCE A TAX RATE OF 47.01.

SO AGAIN, IT'S ROUGHLY HALFWAY IN BETWEEN WHERE NO NEW REVENUE AND YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET WERE.

[01:15:05]

AND WITH THAT COUNCILWOMAN, I'LL LEAVE IT TO YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. ATKINSON.

SO YOU KNOW MY PROPOSAL, AND IT'S MUCH EASIER TO TALK ABOUT WHEN IT'S UP HERE WAS WHAT I HAD ASKED FOR WHEN I SET WITH MR. ATKINSON WAS FIND ME GOOD NUMBERS THAT SUPPORTS OUR PUBLIC SERVANTS, BUT ALSO FIND ME A WAY TO HAVE OUR TAX RATE AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO HELP US SAVE AS MUCH MONEY AS WE CAN, BUT TO KEEP US SAFE FOR NEXT YEAR.

SO THERE'S NOT THAT YOYO EFFECT.

ONE OTHER THING.

I HAD MADE A PROPOSAL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO THAT HIM AND I HAD A REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT WAS THE LAPD OFFICERS.

SO I THINK A LOT OF THE PROPOSALS, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS TO ADD FIVE NEW LAPD PATROL OFFICERS AND A LOT OF THAT TALKING TO CHIEF HERMAN AND TO JUST SOME OF THE STAFF WAS TO GET RID OF THOSE TEMPORARILY THIS YEAR AND ADD THE SO OFFICERS ADD THE FORENSICS ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH WE ALL OF THOSE WERE REALLY GOOD ADDITIONS AS WELL. BUT MR. ATKINSON AND I LOOKED AT GROWTH OF OUR CITY OVERALL.

SO I THINK LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT'S GOAL AND THE CHIEF'S GOAL.

AND PLEASE DON'T LET ME SPEAK OVER YOUR GOAL IF THIS IS INCORRECT, IS TO GET US TO WHERE WE HAVE TWO OFFICERS FOR EVERY THOUSAND PEOPLE.

AND SO THAT IS OUR CHIEF'S GOAL RIGHT NOW.

HE'S BEEN IN HERE AND I'VE BEEN TOUGH ON HIM IN THE PAST TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT HE'S GOT GOOD GOALS FOR US AND FOR OUR CITY AND FOR OUR CITIZENS.

AND THAT'S HIS GOAL. AND I WANT TO SUPPORT THAT GOAL.

AND SO MY PREVIOUS PROPOSAL HAD CUT ALL FIVE TO GIVE THEM THE SOS TO GIVE THEM EVERYTHING.

BUT I ACTUALLY WANT TO GIVE THREE BACK BECAUSE LOOKING AT IT, IF WE JUST AVERAGE AND MR. ATKINSON GAVE ME THESE NUMBERS AS WE DISCUSSED AT A 1.8% GROWTH FOR OUR CITY ANNUALLY.

WELL, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GET WHERE WE'RE AT.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT ABOUT 1.7 OFFICERS FOR 1000 PEOPLE.

SO WE WANT TO GET TO TWO.

SO IF WE'RE GROWING AND WE'RE CUTTING OFFICER POSITIONS, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET THERE AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO REACH THAT RATE OF WHAT WE NEED TO BE AT.

AND SO EVEN JUST AT 1.8% GROWTH FOR OUR CITIZENS, THAT WOULD BE TEN OFFICERS PER YEAR.

AND SO THIS EVEN DOESN'T GET US THERE, BUT IT KEEPS US GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR LPD SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THE CITY IS SAFE.

SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE ADDITIONS I ADDED BACK.

SO IT'S STILL LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED, BUT I THINK IT SPREADS.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE FOR LPD FOR WITH THE CSO POSITIONS, WITH THE FORENSICS ADJUSTMENTS, AND TO GIVE US SOME ADDITIONAL PATROL OFFICERS AS WELL.

IT GIVES FIRE WHAT THEY NEED FOR THEIR POSITIONS THAT THEY HAD ASKED FOR.

I AGREE, I THINK WE NEED TO YOU KNOW, WE MADE A PROMISE THAT WE ARE GOING TO PULL OUT OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT FOR GO TO KEY IN THREE YEARS.

WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO RENT AND JUST SINK TAXPAYER MONEY INTO RENT.

WE NEED TO MOVE THAT TO A CITY OWNED FACILITY THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN, AND THAT WE'RE NOT JUST DUMPING EMPTY DOLLARS INTO THE TRASH CAN.

AND SO BUT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A PLAN TO DO THAT.

WHAT I DON'T LIKE TO SEE, AND WHAT I'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN SITTING ON THIS COUNCIL IS, WELL, PREVIOUS COUNCILS DIDN'T MAINTAIN STUFF.

PREVIOUS COUNCILS DIDN'T MAKE A PLAN.

PREVIOUS COUNCILS KICKED THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD.

I DON'T WANT TO BE THAT PREVIOUS COUNCIL.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A GOOD PLAN MOVING FORWARD OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS, SO WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAVE THE MONEY AND ACTUALLY HAVE A PLAN BEFORE WE REACH THAT THREE YEAR END OF THAT LEASE.

SO THAT'S WHY I ALSO LIKE GO TO KEY LIBRARY CONCEPT MONEY IN THERE.

SO WE'LL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE, THE EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WE NEED, AND WE CAN START SAVING.

AND THEN I AGREE WITH I THINK ALL OF US ARE IN THAT CONSENSUS THAT POOL NEEDS TO NOT DROP THAT $325,000 INTO SOMETHING WE DON'T KNOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK. AND WE CAN START MOVING FORWARD LOOKING AT OTHER QUALITY OF LIFE FUNDING IN THE FUTURE.

OKAY. MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU. MAYOR.

TWO OF THE TOP REQUESTS THAT I ALWAYS HAVE PEOPLE COMMENT ABOUT OUR STREETS.

THEY WANT TO SEE MORE STREET REPAIR, MAINTENANCE.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THAT THEY WANT TO SEE MORE OFFICERS ON THE STREETS.

SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T REALLY HAD A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THE CHIEF, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SAFE TO DO BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE KEEP CUTTING, AND I APPRECIATE THAT DOCTOR WILSON HAS ENCOURAGED THAT WE FEW BACK, SO THAT'S GOOD.

BUT I JUST.

DO WE NEED TO CUT ANY OF THOSE OR THE OTHER TWO? DO WE NEED TO DELETE THEM? DOCTOR WILSON, CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT? AND THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

[01:20:05]

YEAH. SO I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'D ASK THE CHIEF BACK WHEN HE WAS UP HERE, ONE, ONE, ONE MEETING BEFORE WAS, YOU KNOW, IS VACANCY RATE LPD HAS A LOWER VACANCY RATE THAN SOME DEPARTMENTS IN THE STATE, BUT WE STILL DO HAVE A VACANCY RATE.

AND SO I THINK THIS WAS A HAPPY KIND OF COMPROMISE OF LET'S GET SOME POSITIONS THERE.

SO HE'S WORKING VERY HARD ON A LATERAL TRANSFER PROGRAM WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO RECRUIT LATERAL OFFICERS FROM COMING FROM OTHER PLACES TO COME IN.

WHAT WE DID AND WHAT I DIDN'T WANT TO DO, WAS OFFER SO MANY THAT WE CAN'T FILL THEM.

AND THEN THERE JUST SIT VACANT.

AND SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE TO KIND OF PUT US IN THE MIDDLE TO WHERE WE CAN REALLY ENCOURAGE THAT LATERAL TRANSFER PROGRAM TO BRING IN NEW OFFICERS AND HAVE THOSE POSITIONS AVAILABLE TO DO THAT, BUT NOT GET US TO THE POINT WHERE WE JUST HAVE VACANCIES SITTING THERE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE DID THE THREE OUT OF THE FIVE.

AND THEN JARED, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE WEBSITE AND INTRANET DESIGN JUST BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE BIT IFFY ON THAT? I KNOW THAT WE NEED IT.

WE DEFINITELY NEED IT.

BUT CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE OF HOW TIME SENSITIVE IT IS? WELL, I'M NOT THE BEST TO GIVE ALL THE EXAMPLES, SO I WILL GIVE A FEW.

WE CAN GET THE PROS UP HERE IF THAT WOULD HELP.

THE WEBSITE THAT WE HAVE TODAY IS A SHELL WEBSITE.

WE HAVE LIMITED ABILITIES TO CONTROL IT.

OUR PARTNER IS GOOD TO HELP US, BUT THE ARCHITECTURE MAYBE IS THE BEST WORD OVER WHICH THAT WEBSITE IS BUILT IS CAPPED OUT.

LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, WE ONLY HAVE 41 DEPARTMENTAL SLOTS ON THE WEBSITE.

THE ARCHITECTURE WILL NOT SUPPORT MORE IF 51 DEPARTMENTS.

SO WE'VE MADE SOME COMBINATIONS.

WE HAVE ADDED NUMEROUS FEATURES THAT CONNECT BACK TO CITY COMPUTERS.

SO SOME OF Y'ALL HAVE LOOKED UP FOR EXAMPLE CODE ENFORCEMENT.

YOU CAN GET INTO THE MAPS AND YOU CAN SEE RIGHT DOWN TO A SINGLE ADDRESS WHAT'S GOING ON WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY.

YOU CAN SEE IT BY DISTRICT.

YOU CAN SEE IT CITY AS A WHOLE.

WE HAVE THE CUSTOMER SELF-SERVICE, THE CS SYSTEM WHERE YOU CAN GO IN AND SEE PERMITS AND PERMIT ACTIVITY.

AND THAT'S CERTAINLY FOR OWNERS AND BUILDERS.

BUT PEOPLE IN NEIGHBORHOODS THEY CAN'T ACCESS DEEP DATA, BUT THEY CAN ACCESS SAYS THAT ALL OF THAT'S THE PUBLIC FACING SIDE.

THE INTERNAL SIDE.

THE INTRANET WAS NEVER UPDATED WHEN WE DID DO THE NEW WEBSITE.

SO, I WELCOME ANYBODY TO COME TO MY OFFICE AND WE'LL LET YOU LOOK AT THAT.

BUT THAT'S WHERE ALL THE EMPLOYEES, NOW THAT WE HAVE A AUTOMATED TIMEKEEPING SYSTEM AND AUTOMATED PAYROLL, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCESS STUFF AS SIMPLE AS WHAT IS MY VACATION LEAVE BALANCE.

THAT'S WHERE ALL OF THE HUMAN RESOURCE FORMS GO.

WITH OUR NEW HR DIRECTOR, WE ARE BUILDING A MUCH BETTER, A MUCH MORE VALID LIBRARY THAT YOU CAN GO IN AND LOOK AT VIDEOS FOR BENEFITS, EXPLANATION FOR SUPERVISOR TRAINING FOR ALL OF THAT.

THE INTRANET IS REALLY THE WORST OF THE TWO, BUT WE'VE OUTGROWN THE PUBLIC FACING ONE AS WELL.

ON THE SHORT TERM RENTAL SOFTWARE IS THAT UNDER THE IT DEPARTMENT, IT'S THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, AND THE ONE WE HAVE TODAY IS ALSO A THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE.

THAT'S WHERE THE OWNER OF A SHORT TERM RENTAL GOES IN AND REGISTERS THEIR PROPERTY.

THAT IS WHERE AS RENTALS OCCUR AND ARE POPULATED, THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX IS ASSESSED SO THAT THEY'RE TREATED THE SAME AS ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, ROOM FOR RENT OR ROOM FOR HIRE.

THE ONE WE HAVE WAS REALLY ONE OF THE FEW THAT WAS AVAILABLE WHEN WE PUT IT IN.

WHEN I TALKED TO AIRBNB, VRBO PEOPLE, IT IS THEIR NUMBER ONE COMPLAINT.

THIS, THIS SYSTEM THAT WE WOULD USE FOR THIS ALSO HAS THE ABILITY, I'LL CALL IT A QUALITY CHECK, WHERE IT CAN RUN THE LIST OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE REGISTERED WITH IT, VERSUS THE LIST OF PROPERTIES INSIDE OUR CITY LIMITS THAT ARE ACTUALLY OUT ON THE SITES LISTED FOR SALE.

BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THE BIG SHORT TERM RENTAL SITES TO WHERE YOU WOULD GO TO RENT A ROOM.

NOT ALL OF THOSE ARE VERY FRIENDLY WITH LETTING US KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITHIN OUR OWN CITY AND NOT UPDATING IT KIND OF LEAVES SOME DOLLARS ON THE TABLE TOO, RIGHT? WE SUSPECT THAT THERE ARE DOLLARS ON THE TABLE.

AND IF THAT'S HAPPENING, THAT'S ONE BUSINESS BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE OTHER BUSINESSES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

AND I GUESS THE ONE THING I WOULD COMMENT ON THIS PROPOSAL, AND JUST TO YOUR COMMENTS, DOCTOR WILSON, THE FOUR SSOS IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WERE INTENDED TO RELEASE PATROL OFFICERS WHO ARE CURRENTLY KIND OF FILLING THOSE ROLES TO BE BACK ON THE STREETS.

SO IN SOME WAYS THAT DOES TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF WORKS TOWARDS GETTING US MORE PATROL OFFICERS OUT ON THE STREET.

[01:25:09]

AND SO THAT WAS HOW THIS WAS DESIGNED, WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO HAVE NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS SERVING IN THOSE ROLES OF SUPPORT ROLES SO THAT WE RELEASE THE PATROL OFFICERS TO BE BACK ON PATROL.

BUT I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THERE, TOO, WITH ACTUALLY GETTING AN ADDITIONAL INCREASE TO POLICE OFFICERS.

BECAUSE THAT'S OUR CHIEF WOULD LIKE US TO HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE OFFICERS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE VERY WE'VE GOT TO GET THROUGH THE MEET AND CONFER FIRST.

SO. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

WELL, MR. COLLINS, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL.

THIS IS A PROPOSAL THAT WE DON'T SEE ADDITIONAL CUTS TO PROGRAMS WHICH I CAN BE SUPPORTIVE OF.

AGAIN, WE, OUR CITY MANAGER, PUT TOGETHER A BUDGET 20 PLUS YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN DOING THAT.

AND I THINK WE WOULD ALL DESCRIBE THAT AS A VERY TIGHT BUDGET.

WE FOUND AN ADDITIONAL $2.1 MILLION THAT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET.

AND THIS TEXAS FUND AND THIS PROPOSAL RETURNS 1.73 MILLION OF THAT FOUND MONEY BACK TO THE TAXPAYERS.

SO, AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT COMPROMISE BUDGET, A WAY THAT WE CAN DO SOME IMPROVEMENTS AND GOOD THINGS FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS AND YET NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL CUTS TO PROGRAMS THAT ARE ALSO IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO I THINK THIS IS A COMPROMISE THAT I COULD SUPPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. ATKINSON, I'M GETTING MY RULE BOOK FOR MR. WADE AND I APPRECIATE IT.

SO, COUNCIL, YOUR NEXT STEP IS GOING TO BE SEPTEMBER THE 3RD.

THE NEXT TUESDAY.

ITS SPECIAL CALLED COUNCIL MEETING.

100% OF THAT MEETING IS BASED ON YOUR BUDGET AND YOUR TAX RATE.

THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR PUBLIC HEARING.

SINCE ANY AND ALL OF THE PROPOSALS ARE UNDER THE 3.5% REVENUE INCREASE, YOU'LL HAVE THE ONE HEARING, YOU'LL HAVE THE BUDGET VOTE, YOU'LL HAVE THE VOTE ON THE TAX RATE TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET.

IT'S STILL NOT THE FINAL.

THE FINAL WILL BE ON THE 10TH.

RIGHT NOW, THE BUDGET THAT IS COMING FORWARD ON THE THIRD, IN THE ABSENCE OF GUIDANCE TODAY IS THE BUDGET THAT I PRESENTED ON THE FIFTH.

SO IT IS THE ONE WITH THE 47.7402 TAX RATE.

I WOULD ASK IF ANYBODY IS WILLING AFTER TODAY'S DISCUSSIONS, ARE THERE ANY DIRECTIONS TO ME TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT? OF COURSE, THE OTHER OPTION I GUESS, IS YOU PRESENT IT AND WE AMEND IT AT THE MEETING.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

WHICH WE CAN DO.

AND AGAIN, THE ONLY CAUTIONARY NOTE TO THAT IF WE START HAVING SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES ON THE DAIS, I MAY BE ASKING FOR PAUSE TO BE SURE WE GET EVERYTHING SQUARED BACK OUT.

I JUST BASED ON THE DISCUSSION TODAY, IN THE ABSENCE OF ONE OF OUR MEMBERS, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO GIVE YOU MUCH FURTHER DIRECTION TODAY.

SO I THINK IT'S A MATTER OF, I DON'T KNOW, SEEING WHAT WE CAN WORK OUT IN THE WEEK AHEAD.

AND CERTAINLY THAT'S COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD.

AND MR. ROSE HAS GOT A GREAT REASON NOT TO BE HERE TODAY.

BUT SO WE CANNOT WORK THIS OUT, YOU KNOW, AMONGST OURSELVES.

WE'VE GOT TO WORK IT OUT. IF WE'RE GOING TO WORK IT OUT TODAY HERE, WE'RE GOING TO WORK IT OUT THE THIRD.

WE'RE GOING TO WORK IT OUT THE 10TH.

THOSE WILL ALL BE PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS FOR EVERYBODY TO BENEFIT FROM.

SO JUST LET EVERYBODY KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING IN A BACK ROOM AND FLIPPING A COIN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO WE'VE GOT TO WORK THIS OUT IN FRONT OF YOU.

SO THANK YOU.

SO YOU'LL SEE THE 47.7402.

AND I THINK MAYBE THE NEXT THING WOULD BE FOR ME TO HAVE THESE THREE PROPOSALS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR YOU ON TUESDAY.

AND IF ANY OF THE THREE OF YOU WHO SPONSORED THESE WANT ANY ADJUSTMENTS AND COUNCILMAN, I HEARD YOURS.

SO WE'LL CATCH UP ON THAT ONE.

ALL RIGHT.

IF WE WANT TO ADD SOMETHING, CAN WE SEND SOMETHING TO YOU? JUST ASKING.

SO THE NATURE OF A PROPOSAL.

A COMPLETE PROPOSAL? YES. IF WE WANTED TO ADD ANOTHER PROPOSAL.

COME SEE ME AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN, PLEASE.

THANK YOU.

JUST KEEPING YOU ON YOUR TOES.

ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER COMMENTS.

[01:30:01]

THEN WE WILL. THIS WILL CLOSE OUR WORK SESSION.

LET'S TAKE A BRIEF FIVE MINUTE BREAK, AND WE WILL BE BACK ON AT 330 FOR OUR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE'RE BACK IN SESSION IN OUR REGULAR SESSION AND WE'LL CONTINUE THAT.

AND FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO CALL ON REVEREND JEFF FISHER OF GRACE LUBBOCK UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO COME FORWARD AND LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION.

[1. Invocation]

SHALL WE ALL STAND, PLEASE? GENERALLY, WHEN I PRAY IN LUBBOCK, I SAY, KEEP YOUR HEAD UP AND YOUR EYES OPEN, BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY BLESSINGS AND WE DON'T WANT TO MISS A SINGLE ONE.

BUT WON'T YOU JOIN ME IN THE WAY THAT YOU'RE COMFORTABLE IN PRAYING? HOLY GOD, WE GIVE THANKS FOR THIS BEAUTIFUL DAY AND FOR THE BLESSING OF COMMUNITY.

WE GIVE THANKS FOR THOSE OFFICIALS AND THOSE ADMINISTRATORS AND THE CITIZENS OF THIS COMMUNITY WHO HAVE STEPPED FORWARD AND ANSWERED THE CALL TO LEAD THIS COMMUNITY. MAY OUR EYES AND OUR HEARTS AND OUR EARS BE OPEN AS WE LISTEN TO THE WILL THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE US.

MAY WE BENEFIT FROM THE DEBATE AND THE CHALLENGES THAT YOU SET FOR US, BUT ALWAYS KEEPING THE MAIN THING, THE MAIN THING AS WE MOVE IN THE DIRECTION THAT YOU WOULD HAVE US GO.

BLESS THIS CITY, BLESS THESE PEOPLE AND BLESS OUR TIME HERE.

TODAY WE ASK THIS IN THE NAME OF JESUS.

AMEN. AMEN.

WOULD YOU JOIN US AS MAYOR PRO TEM LEADS US IN THE PLEDGES TO THE UNITED STATES FLAG AND THE TEXAS FLAG.

[2. Pledges of Allegiance]

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.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE I'M CORRECT THAT WE HAVE NO CITIZEN COMMENTS TODAY.

IS THAT CORRECT? NOBODY SIGNED UP FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS.

OKAY, THIS MAY BE A RARITY, SO ENJOY THE MOMENT, EVERYBODY.

ENJOY THE MOMENT.

I THINK WE WORE THEM ALL OUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO OR A WEEK AGO.

SO NOW LET'S GO FORWARD TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

[5. Minutes]

OUR MINUTES FROM JULY 23RD REGULAR MEETING, THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 25TH SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.1 SECOND? ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION, ANY CHANGES, ANYTHING TO NOTE? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. NONE.

MOTION APPROVES. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

OKAY. NOW LET'S MOVE ON TO OUR 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.]

I BELIEVE, MR. ATKINSON, THERE WERE NO PULLS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT.

SO IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? AND FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WATCHING, WE HAVE A LIST OF THINGS WE COVER.

AND IF NO ONE WANTS TO PULL IT TO DISCUSS IT, WE CAN PASS IT ALL WITHOUT DISCUSSION, JUST ON A VOTE TOGETHER.

SO SOME PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CONSENT AGENDA AND OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

SO IS THERE A MOTION? DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA? IS THERE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE, SO THE MOTION APPROVES.

LET'S MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA, THEN.

WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 7.1, AND I'LL CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.

[1. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider and take action on the appointment of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission.]

MR. MAYOR. I'LL ACTUALLY GIVE THAT.

ACTUALLY, YES. I THOUGHT, WHY AM I CALLING ON HIM? THANK YOU. THAT'S OKAY.

MR. SECRETARY, THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA.

7.1 AND 7.2.

THERE ARE TWO BOARDS LUBBOCK WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION AND VETERANS ADVISORY COMMISSION COMMITTEE THAT, WHEN THEY WERE CREATED, GAVE YOU ALL THE AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE THEIR CHAIR. AND FOR THE LUBBOCK WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION, THEIR VICE CHAIR.

WE HAVE GOT WITH STAFF AND THEY ARE RECOMMENDING TED CLEVELAND AS CHAIR AND JAY HOUSE AS VICE CHAIR FOR THE LUBBOCK WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION.

AND BENNIE GUERRERO, WHO IS YOUR CURRENT CHAIR OF THE VETERANS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, HAS COMMITTED TO SERVE THAT ROLE AGAIN FOR ANOTHER YEAR.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE APPOINTING THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR TO THE LUBBOCK WATER AND WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION.

I'LL MOVE. IS THERE A SECOND?

[01:35:01]

SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? BE KNOWN BY SAYING NAY.

THERE IS NONE. THE MOTION IS APPROVED ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE UP ITEM 7.2.

[2. Board Appointment - City Secretary: Consider and take action on the appointment of the Chairperson for the Veterans Advisory Committee.]

AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THAT? OR IF YOU, YOU KNOW, MENTION THAT FIRST.

OKAY. TAKE THAT UP, MISS PAZ.

BENI GUERRERO IS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF.

AND HE HAS ALSO AGREED TO CONTINUE SERVING IN THAT ROLE.

WE MOVE TO APPROVE ANY GUERRERO AS THE CHAIRPERSON FOR THE VETERANS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON MR. GUERRERO? ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR OF MR. GUERRERO, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED BY SAYING NAY? SO THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE ITEMS 3.7.3 THROUGH 7.7.

[3. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 1067-G, a request of Helmos Interests LTD, for a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) Specific Use for a smoke shop, at 6909, 6911, 6913, 6917, 6923, 6925, 6931, and 6951 Indiana Avenue, located east of Indiana Avenue and north of 70th Street, Liberty Village Addition, Lots 1 - 55 of Tract A, and consider an ordinance.]

WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE COUNCIL WILL NOW CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING, THE ZONING CASES THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED IN THEIR PACKET.

THE STAFF REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AND AS A REMINDER, THE PURPOSE OF THE MEETING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO I'M NOW GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEMS 7.3 THROUGH 7.7, MISS SAGER.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ITEM 7.3 IS ZONED CASE 1067 G.

THE REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIFIC USE FOR A SMOKE SHOP ON PROPERTY ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN.

WE SENT OUT 47 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR, FOUR IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF INDIANA AVENUE, NORTH OF SOUTH LOOP 289.

HERE IS A MAP SHOWING THE RESPONSES WE RECEIVED IN FAVOR AND IN OPPOSITION.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL STRIP CENTER ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE ARE ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES ALONG INDIANA AVENUE WITH RESIDENTIAL FURTHER EAST AND FURTHER WEST.

CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

IT IS SURROUNDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH AND EAST, WITH AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH, AND SF-2 AND MDR AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST.

HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOR THE SMOKE SHOP TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE TENANT SPACE AT 6913 INDIANA AVENUE.

THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND IT IS APPROPRIATE ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

THE SPECIFIC USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 70TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET, AND EAST OF INDIANA AVENUE, WHICH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 1, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SPECIFIC USE IS LIMITED TO ONE SMOKE SHOP ON THE PARCEL TO BE LOCATED AT 6913, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. COLLINS, I SEE YOU FIRST.

SO IF WE APPROVE THIS TODAY, ARE WE APPROVING FOR THE SINGLE LOCATION AT 6913? YES, IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MR. GLASHEEN. EVERYBODY HAD THE SAME QUESTION I HAD.

MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU. MAYOR.

I THINK WE'RE ALL KIND OF ON THE SAME THING, BUT THIS IS SPECIFIC USE.

AND DID WE MAKE A PROBLEM WHERE THERE WASN'T ONE? I DON'T KNOW, PRIOR TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, A SMOKE SHOP WAS A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHT IN THE C-2 LOCAL RETAIL DISTRICT, ALL THE WAY UP TO YOUR M-2 HEAVY MANUFACTURING DISTRICT.

THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE MADE IT SPECIFIC USE ONLY IN THREE DISTRICTS, SO EVERY SINGLE REQUEST WILL HAVE TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. YOU WANT TO MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE THEN?

[4. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3303-D, a request of Steen Realty Group of Keller Williams for SE4NS Properties, LLC, for a zone change from Industrial Park District (IP) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 11919 and 11923 Frankford Avenue, located east of Frankford Avenue and south of 119th Street, Stonewood Industrial Park Addition, Tracts B-1 and B-2, and consider an ordinance.]

ITEM SEVEN FOR ZONE CASE 33 03D.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE A PROPERTY FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL AC.

WE SENT OUT 56 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF FRANKFORD.

NORTH OF 122ND.

[01:40:01]

HERE'S THE MAP SHOWING THE ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR WE DID RECEIVE AND AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS HOUSING TO THE EAST AND SOME ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES ALONG FRANKFORD.

CURRENT ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL PARK.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL INDUSTRIAL PARK TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST.

LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY TO THE WEST AND A MIX OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND SOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND A LITTLE BIT OF LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO THE SOUTH.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

HERE'S A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THEIR PROPOSAL FOR THE PROPERTY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO AC IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ALONG FRANKFORD AVENUE ARE ALREADY BEING DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, MAKING THE LOCATION APPROPRIATE FOR THE AC ZONING.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ALONG AN ARTERIAL AND APPROPRIATE ADJACENT TO NEARBY LAND.

USES. IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

FRANKFORD AVENUE IS DESIGNATED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO 7.57.

[5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3506, a request of Brian and Chad Carter, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 5834 and 5836 146th Street, west of Frankford Avenue and north of 146th Street, on approximately 4.978 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 9, and consider an ordinance.]

FIVE IS ZONE CAYCE 35 06A REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF TWO TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL HC.

WE SENT OUT SEVEN NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING NO RESPONSES.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF FRANKFORT AVENUE, NORTH OF 146TH STREET.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS SOME DEVELOPMENT ALONG FRANKFORT AVENUE THAT IS COMMERCIAL.

CURRENT ZONING IS SF TWO, SURROUNDED BY SF TWO AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN THE PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST ARE ACTUALLY OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USES.

HERE'S A VIEW OF THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST, BUT GIVEN THE LOCATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG FRANKFORT AVENUE, THE REQUEST IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION.

IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND IS LOCATED NORTH OF 146TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL, AND WEST OF FRANKFORD, WHICH IS A MINOR ARTERIAL. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

AND I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THERE ARE NONE. MOVE ON TO 7.6.

[6. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3507, a request of Mountain Top Engineering for CTJ Diamond Investments, LLC, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 7108 82nd Street, located north of 82nd Street and east of Upland Avenue, on 1.01 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 30, and consider an ordinance.]

7.6. ZONE CAYCE 3507.

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF TWO TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL AC.

WE SENT OUT 17 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ZERO IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 82ND STREET, EAST OF UPLAND AVENUE.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE RESPONSE WE DID RECEIVE IN OPPOSITION.

AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS BUILT PRIOR TO ANNEXATION.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG 82ND STREET WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH.

CURRENT ZONING IS SF-2.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL AUTO, URBAN, COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL, AND OFFICE ZONING ALONG 82ND.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR THE AC ZONING.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, AS IT IS ALREADY DEVELOPED COMMERCIALLY.

THE LOCATION IS ALONG 82ND STREET, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. 7.777 IS ZONED CASE 3505.

[7. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 3505, a request of Seventeen Services, LLC for Scarlet River, LLC, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 2909 and 2911 North Frankford Avenue, located west of North Frankford Avenue and north of Ursuline Street, on 5.023 acres of unplatted land out of Block JS, Section 12, and consider an ordinance.]

THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF-2 TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL HC.

WE SENT OUT 13 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING TWO IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF NORTH FRANKFORD AVENUE AND NORTH OF URSULINE.

HERE IS THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE RESPONSES WE RECEIVED IN FAVOR.

[01:45:03]

AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE IS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG FRANKFORD AVENUE, WITH SOME PROPERTIES STILL REMAINING IN THE COUNTY.

CURRENT ZONING IS SF TWO.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONING TO THE SOUTH.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION IS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.

THIS IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE AREA AND THE FLOOD ZONE TO THE SOUTHWEST.

HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THIS IS DIRECTLY TO THE EAST.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY.

AND HERE'S A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING HIS PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.

WHILE THE REQUEST FOR HCC ZONING IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION ALONG A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND ADJACENT TO OTHER COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

THE REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IT IS ALONG NORTH FRANKFORD AVENUE, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NOW I'M GOING TO ASK IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THESE ITEMS. SEVEN, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, 6 OR 7.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.

PLEASE COME FORWARD AND TELL US YOUR NAME.

GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER.

I'M TOMMY HARMS WITH MOUNTAIN TOP ENGINEERING.

I WORK AT 604 COUNTY ROAD 7200 AND RESIDE AT 905 COUNTY ROAD 7310 AND WOOLWORTH.

I'M HERE ON ITEM 7.6.

ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER.

THE OWNER IS CURRENTLY TRYING TO SELL THIS PROPERTY TO ONE OF MY OTHER CLIENTS, AND THEY ARE WANTING TO PLANT THIS PROPERTY AND PERFORM SOME RENOVATIONS SINCE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN VACANT FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS.

SO THEY ARE WANTING TO COME IN HERE WHEN THIS UNDER THE UDC.

WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS IT WAS REZONED FROM TRANSITIONAL TO SF TWO.

SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET IT BACK TO AC SO IT CAN BE UTILIZED AS COMMERCIAL.

ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 7.6.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THE OTHER ITEMS? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND WHICH ITEM ON THE AGENDA YOU'RE SPEAKING TO.

HI, MY NAME IS ABDULLA ALISHAYEV.

I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF ITEM 7.3.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS SMOKE SHOP IS THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY RELOCATING FROM ONE AREA TO ANOTHER.

AND I CURRENTLY HAVE FOUR EMPLOYEES ON MY PAYROLL THAT I HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET UNTIL THE NEW LOCATION OPENS, SO I'M REALLY JUST TRYING TO GET IT OPEN AS POSSIBLE.

I DON'T WANT TO LET ANYBODY GO.

THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE.

OKAY. DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO IT, OR ARE YOU JUST HERE? OKAY. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. HARRISON? MR. HARRIS. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

I JUST HAVE A COMMENT.

THANK YOU FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOPE YOU GET IT SITUATED WITH YOUR EMPLOYEES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO 7.3? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OTHER ITEM? 7.3 THROUGH 7.7.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THE ITEMS? ALL RIGHT. SO AS A CONSOLIDATED MOTION ENTERTAIN A CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS 7.3 THROUGH 7.7.

IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.

ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. THERE IS NONE.

IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

WITHOUT ANY OBJECTION.

THE COUNCIL WILL NOW CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT RATES FOR BELL FARMS.

[8. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the Bell Farms Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Bell Farms PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment. ]

[9. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the Northwest Passage Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Northwest Passage PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying the 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessments. ]

[10. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the Upland Crossing Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Upland Crossing PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

[11. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the Upland Crossing 2 Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Upland Crossing 2 PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

[12. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the Upland Crossing 3 Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Upland Crossing 3 PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

[13. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the North Overton Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the North Overton PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

[14. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the Quincy Park Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Quincy Park PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

[15. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the Valencia Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Valencia PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

[16. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the North Point Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the North Point PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

[17. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2024 Assessment Rate for the Willow Bend Villas Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Willow Bend Villas PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2024 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2024-25; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

[01:50:02]

NORTHWEST PASSAGE.

UPLAND CROSSING.

UPLAND CROSSING TWO, UPLAND CROSSING THREE, NORTH OVERTON, QUINCY PARK, VALENCIA, NORTH POINT AND WILLOWBEND.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.

COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED IN THEIR PACKET THE STAFF REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

AS A REMINDER, THE PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 7.8 THROUGH 7.17.

AND MISS BROWN, YOU WANT ME TO GO FIRST OR DO YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC FIRST? NO. LET'S HEAR FROM YOU FIRST.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR, COUNCIL, NICE TO BE WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON.

BEFORE I START GOING THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT YOU ALL ARE CONSIDERING TODAY.

SO WE LOOK AT THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR ALL OF OUR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS AROUND THIS TIME ONCE A YEAR.

AND THIS IS WHERE YOU SET THE RATE THAT WILL BE ISSUED ONTO THE PROPERTY TAX STATEMENTS FOR HOMEOWNERS THAT LIVE INSIDE THESE DISTRICTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

I WILL JUST NOTE WITH ONE EXCEPTION.

TODAY WE ARE RECOMMENDING THE SAME ASSESSMENT RATES THIS YEAR AS WE DID LAST YEAR.

WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO LOWER OR RECOMMEND THAT YOU LOWER THE ASSESSMENT ONE PENNY FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR.

AND I'LL EXPLAIN THAT WHEN WE GET TO THAT DISTRICT.

BUT JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE, WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY INCREASE IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT RATES ACROSS THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

I HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS SINCE THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE GONE OUT.

AND SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

IN THE EVENT THAT A PIT ASSESSMENT PAYMENT INCREASES, THAT'S DUE TO AN INCREASE IN THE HOME'S PROPERTY VALUE, NOT AN INCREASE IN THE ASSESSMENT RATE.

AND AS YOU ALL HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE, AND I WILL REITERATE, THE CITY OF LUBBOCK DOES NOT SET THE PROPERTY VALUE FOR THE HOMES INSIDE OF OUR CITY.

THAT IS DONE BY THE CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

SO JUST WANTED TO KIND OF CLARIFY BETWEEN THOSE TWO THINGS.

WE ARE SETTING THE ASSESSMENT RATE, BUT WE DO NOT DETERMINE THE PROPERTY VALUE OF THE HOMES INSIDE THESE AREAS.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT BEFORE I MOVE FORWARD? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY.

I WILL GO THROUGH THIS AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.

I KNOW WE'VE GOT SOME NEW MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON INDIVIDUAL PIDS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO STOP ME.

THE FIRST WILL BE THE BELL FARMS. FOR EACH OF THESE DISTRICTS.

I'LL SHOW YOU A MAP OF THE AREA, SO YOU HAVE A GENERAL IDEA OF THE SIZE OF EACH DISTRICT, AND THEN THEIR LOCATION AND COUNCIL DISTRICT THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THE SECOND SLIDE, I WILL SHOW YOU THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT RATE FOR 2024.

AND BELL FARMS, OUR ASSESSMENT RATE RIGHT NOW.

AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING GOING FORWARD IS $0.12 PER $100 VALUATION.

SO THE EASIEST WAY TO THINK ABOUT THAT, IF YOU'RE LOOKING ABOUT THE IMPACT OR LOOKING AT THE IMPACT TO AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, IS FOR A HOME THAT IS VALUED AT $100,000, THAT HOMEOWNER WOULD PAY $120 ON THEIR PROPERTY TAX BILL.

AND ANOTHER KIND OF NOTE OF CLARIFICATION THIS IS NOT A SEPARATE BILL.

YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE SOMETHING FROM THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

THIS IS COLLECTED WITH YOUR PROPERTY TAXES ON YOUR BILL FROM LCAD.

THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD SEE THAT LINE ITEM FOR THE $120.

THE MAJORITY OF OUR PITS THROUGHOUT THE CITY ARE WHAT WE CALL MAINTENANCE PITS.

SO THE DEVELOPERS, IN MOST CASES WILL PUT IN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ABOVE AND BEYOND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

SO IN A LOT OF THESE CASES, IT'S EXTRA PARK SPACE, GREEN SPACE, SIGNAGE, LIGHTING, WALKING TRACKS, THAT KIND OF THING.

AND THE PIT IS ESTABLISHED TO MAINTAIN THOSE THINGS IN PERPETUITY.

AND SO IN THE CASE OF BELL FARMS, WE HAVE FIVE PARKS RIGHT NOW THAT WE MAINTAIN AND WE HAVE SOME ENTRYWAY SIGNAGE, SOME LIGHTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

QUESTIONS ON BELL FARMS. OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO NORTHWEST PASSAGE.

THIS PIT IS IN THE NORTH PART OF THE CITY ON NORTH SLIDE.

AND THIS IS ONE OF OUR NEWEST PITS.

I'VE GOT A MAP OF IT FOR YOU HERE.

THE ASSESSMENT RATE CURRENTLY IN NORTHWEST PASSAGE IS $0.15 PER $100 VALUATION.

THE PROPOSED RATE IS ALSO $0.15 PER $100 VALUATION.

AND THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS AREA PRIMARILY FUNDS SOME DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE DOING AS A PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M GOING TO KEEP GOING UNLESS SOMEBODY STOPS ME.

OKAY. THE NEXT ONE IS UPLAND CROSSING PIT.

THIS IS AT UPLAND AND 34TH STREET.

THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT RATE FOR UPLAND CROSSING IS $0.15 PER $100 VALUATION.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING $0.15 PER $100 VALUATION.

AND WE MAINTAIN OR WILL MAINTAIN TWO PARKS IN THIS AREA.

UPLAND CROSSING TWO IS JUST SOUTH OF THE ORIGINAL UPLAND CROSSING.

CURRENT ASSESSMENT RATE IS $0.12 PER $100 VALUATION.

[01:55:04]

PROPOSED IS ALSO $0.12.

THIS AND UPLAND CROSSING THREE, WHICH WE'LL SEE NEXT, ARE PRIMARILY ESTABLISHED TO TAKE CARE OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS SIMILAR TO NORTHWEST PASSAGE.

UPLAND CROSSING THREE IS TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE OTHER TWO.

UPLAND CROSSING DISTRICTS.

THEIR CURRENT RATE IS $0.18 PER $100 VALUATION.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT ONE'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BECAUSE THE DISTRICT ITSELF IS SMALLER.

IT DOESN'T HAVE AS MANY HOMES AS THE OTHER TWO DISTRICTS TO GENERATE THAT ASSESSMENT REVENUE.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE HIGHER ASSESSMENT RATES THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY, CURRENT AT $0.18 PER POSE AT $0.18.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS TO FUND MAINTENANCE OF DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

THE NEXT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS NORTH OVERTON.

A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT MAP HERE.

THIS IS OUR LARGEST PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BY FAR AND IS PRETTY MUCH COMPLETELY BUILT OUT.

CURRENT ASSESSMENT RATE IN NORTH OVERTON IS $0.18 PER $100 VALUATION.

WE ARE PROPOSING THAT IT STAY AT $0.18 PER $100 VALUATION.

AND THIS PID FUNDS THE MAINTENANCE FOR ALL OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY THROUGHOUT THE NORTH OVERTON DISTRICT.

SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT GLENNA GOODACRE AS KIND OF OUR POSTER CHILD, ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING, BENCHES, TRASH CANS, ALL OF THAT.

THE PID TAKES CARE OF ALL OF THAT, AS WELL AS THE MAINTENANCE OF THE NEWLY RENOVATED ROY FIR PIONEER PARK.

QUINCY PARK IS OUR NEXT DISTRICT.

THIS IS AT QUINCY AND 98TH STREET, ROUGHLY RIGHT.

THIS IS THE ONE PID THAT WE ARE PROPOSING A REDUCTION IN THE ASSESSMENT RATE.

THIS YEAR THEY'RE AT $0.15 PER $100 VALUATION.

WE ARE PROPOSING $0.14 IN THE NEXT YEAR.

AND THAT IS REALLY BECAUSE THIS PARK IS WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER COMPLETE, THEY'VE MADE THE MAJORITY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE AREA THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. AND SO WE'VE REALLY MOVED INTO THE MAINTENANCE PHASE OF LIFE.

AND SO WE HAVE ENOUGH CASH IN OUR CASH RESERVES THAT WE WE CAN OFFER A REDUCTION, A REDUCTION IN THE RATE TO THE HOMEOWNERS.

AND WE WILL THAT IS THE GOAL OF THESE PIDS AS THEY GO THROUGHOUT THEIR LIFE CYCLE, THAT WE ARE ABLE TO LOWER THOSE AS ACTS APPROPRIATE? VALENCIA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS AT IOLA AND 87TH STREET, CURRENTLY AT $0.18 PER $100 VALUATION.

PROPOSED TO STAY AT $0.18 PER $100 VALUATION, AND WE MAINTAIN AN ENTRYWAY, MEDIAN AND A PARK IN THIS DISTRICT, NORTH POINT PID. THIS IS ALSO IN NORTH LUBBOCK, JUST SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE PID THAT YOU LOOKED AT EARLIER.

CURRENT RATE IS $0.14 PER $100 VALUATION PROPOSED AT $0.14 PER $100 VALUATION, AND WE MAINTAIN A LARGE MEDIAN ALONG NORTH SLIDE ROAD AND THEN A WALKING TRACK IN THIS AREA.

WILLOWBEND VILLAS, I BELIEVE, IS OUR LAST PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THIS IS AT 19TH STREET ON FAR WEST 19TH STREET, ALMOST ON THE WAY TO REESE TECHNOLOGY CENTER.

CURRENT RATE IS $0.15 PER $100 VALUATION.

PROPOSED TO STAY AT $0.15, AND WE WILL EVENTUALLY MAINTAIN TWO POCKET PARKS AND A DRAINAGE BASIN IN THIS DISTRICT.

THAT'S AS FAST AS I CAN GO.

ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE HERE? MR. COLLINS, QUICKLY.

SO ARE THE ASSESSMENTS AGAINST ALL THE PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT.

COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, VACANT LAND? YES, SIR.

AND SO IF WE IN AN AREA THAT'S NOT BUILT OUT, THE DEVELOPER WILL PAY THE ASSESSMENT ON THAT UNDEVELOPED LAND UNTIL THE HOME SELLS.

SO EVEN IF A HOME IS NOT SOLD, THE DEVELOPER CARRIES THAT COST UNTIL IT GOES TO A HOMEOWNER.

AND THEN NORTH OVERTON AND NORTH POINT ARE THE ONLY TWO CURRENTLY THAT HAVE ANY COMMERCIAL.

BUT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES PAY THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL.

VACANT LAND AS WELL.

UNDEVELOPED LAND SUCH AS? YES. YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THESE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ITEMS? IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THESE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ITEMS? I SEE NONE. SO, I'LL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS? AGENDA ITEMS 7.8 THROUGH 7.17.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. DID YOU HEAR THAT? YES. DID YOU GET THE MOTION AND A SECOND?

[02:00:01]

ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING NAY.

HEARING NONE. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO ITEM 7.18.

[18. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Planning: A. Consider Ordinance No. 2024-O0110, and take action on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023-O0054) recommended for adoption, limited to the following: Section 39.02.018.c.1.A (related to Residential Uses in the SF-2, MDR, and HDR Districts) Table 39.02.004.c-2 (related to SF-2 Lot Density and Dimensions) Table 39.02.004.d-2 (related to MDR Lot Density and Dimensions) Table 39.03.023-2 (related to Base Public and Nonresidential Districts Sign Standards) Section 39.07.041 and the Final Plat Submission Checklist (related to Final Plat Document Requirements and Applicant Responsibilities) Section 39.07.040 and the Preliminary Plat Submission Checklist (related to Preliminary Plat Document Requirements and Applicant Responsibilities) Section 39.10.002 (related to Definitions) Section 39.02.016, Table 39.02.004.c-1, Table 39.02.004.d-1, Table 39.02.004.d-3, Table 39.02.004.e-1, Table 39.02.004.e-3, Table 39.03.009-1 (related to the Land Use Matrix) Section 39.07.041.j (related to Final Plat Recording) Section 39.07.041.k.3 (related to Final Plat and Preliminary Plat Renewal and Expiration) Section 39.07.040.b (related to Preliminary Plat Purpose) Table 39.02.004.e-2 (related to HDR Lot Density and Dimensions) Table 39.02.016-1 (related to Outdoor Storage in the Industrial Park District (IP)) Section 39.02.020.d.7.C (related to Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Accessory Uses and Structures) Section 39.02.020.c (related to Residential Accessory Uses and Structures) Section 39.07.044.b (related to Waiver of Improvements) Section 39.07.045.b (related to Delay of Improvements) Section 39.02.018.e (related to Limited Use Standards) Table 39.03.002-1 (related to Building and Site Design Applicability) Table 39.02.004.c-3 (related to SF-2 Off-Street Parking and Loading Schedule) Table 39.04.005-3 (related to Minimum Driveway Throat Length) Section 39.04.021.b (related to Recording of Plat and Dedication of Improvements) Table 39.03.016-1 (related to District Bufferyard Standards) Section 39.02.020.b.6 (related to Nonresidential and Mixed-Use Fences) Section 39.04.012 (related to Public Water Systems) Section 39.04.013 (related to Public Wastewater Systems) Section 39.02.023.b.3 (related to Specific Allowances for Height Requirements) Table 39.02.022-1 (related to setback measurements) Section 39.02.023.d.3 (related to Contextual Rear Setbacks) Section 39.02.004.a.4.A, Section 39.02.004.b.4.A, Section 39.02.004.c.4.A, Section 39.02.004.d.4.A, and Section 39.02.004.e.4.A (related to Lot Density and Dimensions) Table 39.02.006.b-2 (related to Office (OF) Lot Intensity and Dimensions) Section 39.07.004.f (related to Plat Filing)]

WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE THAT UP AND APPROVE ORDINANCE 2.024.

DASH THIS IS OH I THINK THAT IS A O0110 ON OUR THIS IS OUR SECOND READING ON THAT ORDINANCE.

AND IF YOU RECALL WE PULLED A FEW ITEMS FROM IT LAST TIME DEALING WITH SIGNAGE.

AND SO I'M GOING TO CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER TO BRIEF US ON THIS ITEM.

MR. ATKINSON. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. COUNCIL. MISS SAGER'S GOING TO BACK ME UP IF I GET OUT OF LINE.

THIS IS THE LIST THAT YOU SAW THE LAST TIME, SUBJECT TO A FEW CHANGES ONE.

THERE ARE A FOLLOW ON GROUP OF AMENDMENTS TO WHERE THE SIGNAGE, THE MURALS, ET CETERA WAS PULLED OUT.

THEY ARE NOT IN HERE. THOSE WILL COME BACK TO YOU.

AND THEN THIS ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT THAT WAS REMOVED, AND CHRISTIAN I FEEL LIKE I'M MISSING ONE.

THE AMENDMENT TO ALLOW POOLS ON GARDEN HOMES TO BE REDUCED TO FIVE FEET WAS DENIED.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER YOU WANT TO SAY? MISS SAGER, DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? I THINK WE HAD A LONG DISCUSSION ON THIS LAST TIME, SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE'RE AT HERE.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.18.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? THERE IS NONE. THEN ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING NAY.

I HEAR NONE. THE MOTION IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.

ALL RIGHT. WE'VE EXHAUSTED ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, AND THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.

AND I WANT TO REMIND ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR MICROPHONES.

THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING, EVERYBODY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

12:30 p.m. - The City Council convenes in City Council Chambers and immediately recesses into Executive Session.

1. Executive Session

2. Hear and discuss presentations regarding the following and provide guidance to staff as appropriate.

3. Ceremonial Items

1. Invocation

2. Pledges of Allegiance

5. Minutes

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.

7. Regular Agenda

1. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider and take action on the appointment of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission.

2. Board Appointment - City Secretary: Consider and take action on the appointment of the Chairperson for the Veterans Advisory Committee.

Aug 27, 2024 Regular City Council Meeting

12:30 p.m. - The City Council convenes in City Council Chambers and immediately recesses into Executive Session.

1. Executive Session

2. Hear and discuss presentations regarding the following and provide guidance to staff as appropriate.

3. Ceremonial Items

1. Invocation

2. Pledges of Allegiance

5. Minutes

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.

7. Regular Agenda

1. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider and take action on the appointment of the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson for the Lubbock Water Advisory Commission.

2. Board Appointment - City Secretary: Consider and take action on the appointment of the Chairperson for the Veterans Advisory Committee.

12:30 p.m. - The City Council convenes in City Council Chambers and immediately recesses into Executive Session.

2. Hear and discuss presentations regarding the following and provide guidance to staff as appropriate.

3. Ceremonial Items

7. Regular Agenda

Aug 27, 2024 Regular City Council Meeting

12:30 p.m. - The City Council convenes in City Council Chambers and immediately recesses into Executive Session.

2. Hear and discuss presentations regarding the following and provide guidance to staff as appropriate.

3. Ceremonial Items

7. Regular Agenda

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item