>> GOOD. 
          [1. Executive Session]
          [00:00:05]
I NOW CALL THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2024 TO ORDER. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 TO CONSULT WITH AND SEEK ADVICE OF THE CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL, AND TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL IS RECESSING AT 12:33 PM. 
          THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECONVENING AN OPEN SESSION AT 2:00 PM. 
          WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS. I WELCOME YOU ALL HERE TODAY. 
          WELCOME YOU WHO ARE SEATED HERE AND THOSE WHO MAY BE WATCHING. 
          I'M NOW GOING TO CALL ON SPENCER MCCOMBS, 
          [1. Invocation]
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LUBBOCK STAKE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST, OF THE LATTER-DAY SAINTS TO COME FORWARD AND LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION. 
          WOULD EVERYBODY PLEASE STAND. 
          >> THANK YOU. OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, WE'RE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE TO GATHER FOR THIS CITY COUNCIL. 
          WE'RE SO VERY GRATEFUL FOR ALL OF THE BLESSINGS THAT THOU HAS POURED OUT UPON US. 
          WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THY MERCY AND THY GRACE. 
          WE ACKNOWLEDGE THY HAND IN ALL THINGS. 
          WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THY SON, JESUS CHRIST, AND FOR HIM SHOWING US THE WAY OF HOW TO LIVE, HOW TO LIVE A LIFE OF PEACE AND JOY, HOW TO STAND FOR TRUTH AND RIGHTEOUSNESS. 
          WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE FREEDOMS AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE ENJOY IN THIS COUNTRY FOR THE FOUNDING FATHERS AND FOR THE CONSTITUTION. 
          WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THIS WONDERFUL CITY OF LUBBOCK AND FOR ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE HERE. 
          WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THIS CITY COUNCIL FOR MAYOR MCBRAYER, AND FOR MAYOR PRO TEM CHRISTIE MARTINEZ GARCIA, FOR GORDON HARRIS AND FOR TIM COLLINS AND BRADEN ROSE AND DR. JENNIFER WILSON, AND FOR DAVID GASH. 
          WE ASK THE TO PLEASE BLESS AND GUIDE AND INSPIRE THEM AND BLESS THEIR FAMILIES. 
          BLESS ALL THOSE HERE IN THE CITY THAT SERVE WITH THEM, THAT THEY WILL BE GUIDED IN THEIR DECISIONS AND THEIR EFFORTS AND THEIR PURSUITS WILL BE FULFILLED ACCORDING TO THY WILL. 
          WE PRAY FOR ALL OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, POLICE OFFICERS, FIREFIGHTERS, AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THE SACRIFICES THEY MAKE IN OUR BEHALF FOR OUR SAFETY AND PEACE AND PLEASE PROTECT THEM IN THE LINE OF DUTY. 
          WE ASK THEE TO BLESS ALL THOSE IN OUR COMMUNITY, ESPECIALLY THE CHILDREN, BLESS THOSE WHO ARE IN POVERTY, THOSE WHO ARE STRUGGLING AND ABUSED AND VICTIMS, THAT THEY WILL BE PROTECTED AND BLESSED AND PROSPERED, THAT THEY WILL FEEL OF THY LOVE AND FEEL THAT THERE IS HOPE IN THEIR LIVES. 
          WE ASK NOW FOR THY SPIRIT TO BE UPON THESE PROCEEDINGS AND UPON EVERY ONE HERE. 
          THESE THINGS WE HUMBLY PRAY FOR IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AMEN. 
          >> NOW I WANT TO ASK OUR MAYOR PRO TEM TO LEAD US, 
          [2. Pledges of Allegiance]
PLEASE REMAIN STANDING IN OUR PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE. 
          >> OF ALLEGIANCE] 
          [3. Citizen Comments - According to Lubbock City Council Rules, any citizen wishing to appear in-person before a regular meeting of the City Council, regarding any matter posted on the City Council Agenda below, shall complete the sign-up form provided at the meeting, no later than 2:00 p.m. on September 10, 2024. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ]
          >> NOW WE WILL TAKE UP OUR CITIZEN COMMENTS AS WE DO BEFORE EVERY ONE OF OUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          ACCORDING TO OUR CITY COUNCIL RULES, ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO APPEAR IN PERSON REGARDING ANY MATTER POSTED ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE DAY CAN COMPLETE A SIGN UP FORM, AND I BELIEVE I HAVE EIGHT PEOPLE THAT DID THAT TODAY. 
          PLEASE REMEMBER WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, THOUGH, TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND REMEMBER THAT YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES THEN TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. 
          I BELIEVE YOU'LL HEAR A FIRST DING OF A BELL ABOUT 30 SECONDS BEFORE YOUR TIME IS UP AND A FINAL DING AT THE THREE MINUTE MARK, AND IF YOU'LL JUST WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS AT THAT TIME, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. 
          FIRST OF ALL, COMING FORWARD IS, I HAVE JIM BAXA. 
          MR. BAXA, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? PLEASE MAKE SURE THE MICROPHONE IS WHERE EVERYBODY CAN HEAR YOU. 
          >> HI. JIM BAXA 5711 NORTH 27. 
          [00:05:03]
COME TO SPEAK TO YOU AGAINST TAX INCREASE. 
          PEOPLE OF LUBBOCK CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY MORE IN TAXES. 
          I KNOW THE MAJORITY OF THIS COUNCIL RAN AS CONSERVATIVES, AND CONSERVATIVES DO NOT INCREASE TAXES. 
          IN FACT, CONSERVATIVES DECREASE TAXES. THAT'S WHAT WE DO. 
          WE'RE OPPOSED TO BIG GOVERNMENT, AND THIS CITY HAS A VERY BIG GOVERNMENT. 
          I'M ASKING ALL OF YOU TO FIND THE CUTS. 
          TWO MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL HAVE MADE LOTS OF MOTIONS ON THINGS THAT YOU CAN CUT. 
          IF YOU DON'T LIKE THOSE PARTICULAR THINGS, FIND YOUR OWN, BUT THERE ARE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THIS BUDGET TO CUT, AND I ASK THAT YOU ALL VOTE NO ON TAX INCREASES. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. BAXA. PLEASE, WE DON'T ALLOW RESPONSES HERE. 
          THIS IS FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS, WHICH MEANS YOU COME FORWARD AND SPEAK, BUT WE DON'T ALLOW CLAPPING. 
          THAT'S NOT A COMMENT. 
          MAYBE YOU THINK IT IS, BUT IT'S NOT A VERBAL COMMENT OR BOOING OR HISSING OR ANY OF THE OTHER THINGS. 
          PLEASE JUST LET'S LISTEN TO EVERYBODY AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. 
          MS. DEAN CLARK. 
          >> DEAN CLARK, 3227 64TH. 
          THANK YOU FOR SERVING. 
          I KNOW IT IS A THANKLESS JOB. 
          YOU'RE NOT RECEIVING A LOT OF MONEY, AND YOU'RE RECEIVING PANTRIES WITH COMMENTS AND DISAGREEMENTS AND SO ON. 
          BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. 
          THE DAY MAY COME WHEN WE MAY NOT HAVE ANYONE SERVED. 
          MY COMMENTS TODAY REALLY GO WITHOUT SAYING THEY ARE UNDERSTOOD AND COMMON TO YOU ALL. 
          FIRST OF ALL, IT IS THAT WE IN LUBBOCK HAVE WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE PLENTIFUL SALARIES, AND WE HIRE OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS WHEN WE HAVE THREE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HERE TO DRAW FROM. 
          THIRDLY, THERE'S LOBBYING GOING ON, AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE NO OVERSIGHT OF THAT THING. 
          BUT IT SEEMS UNNECESSARY TO ME, AND IT MIGHT BE AN AREA THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT TO REDUCE SOME OF THE SPENDING. 
          THAT WILL BE MY THEME IS LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS. 
          WE'RE ASKED TO DO IT. 
          WE WOULD ASK YOU TO DO IT. 
          FINALLY, THERE WILL BE RAISES PROPOSED THIS TIME, AND MANY OF US, AND MANY SALARIED PEOPLE ARE NOT RECEIVING A RAISE, AND THAT IS CERTAINLY AN AREA THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO CUT. 
          I'LL BE GRATEFUL AND THERE WILL BE OTHERS WHO WILL BE GRATEFUL TO YOU IF YOU ARE FRUGAL, IF YOU ARE, AS THE PERSON BEFORE ME SAID, CONSERVATIVE. 
          >> THANK YOU, MS. CLARK. NEXT, MR. DREW LANDRY, IF YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD. 
          >> DREW LANDRY, 1813 78TH STREET. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE TIME TO COMMENT DURING TODAY'S SESSION. 
          I SERVED ON THE SEWER LATERAL LINE AD HOC COMMITTEE. 
          THIS IS FOR 6.3 OF THE AGENDA, DEALING WITH THE BUDGET. 
          THESE 11 MEMBERS WHO WERE ON THAT COMMITTEE SERVED WITH THEIR OWN IDEAS, BUT ENDED WITH HARD FOUGHT COMPROMISE AND UNEASY COMPROMISES, AS I TELL MY STUDENTS, ARE ACTUALLY GOOD. 
          NOW IT'S BEEN REPORTED THROUGH MEDIA OUTLETS, AND IF MY SOURCES IN THE MEDIA ARE WRONG, THEN I BLAME THEM, NOT ME. 
          THAT THE CITY WANTS TO FORCE RATE PAYERS TO PAY $1,000 TO GET THE SEWER LATERAL LINE FIXED. 
          I EVEN SAW ONE ELECTED MEMBER RESPOND TO A SOCIAL MEDIA POST TO SAY, HOW THE LATERAL LINE IS PRIVATELY OWNED BY EACH HOME OWNER AND HIS PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          TAX DOLLARS DON'T USUALLY MAINTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY. 
          THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE PICTURE. 
          WHILE I UNDERSTAND MOST BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE WELL INTENDED, AND WORK IS IGNORED IN A GREAT DEAL OF WAYS, THIS ISSUE WAS DIFFERENT. 
          IT WAS QUITE POSSIBLY THE TOP ISSUE IN THE MAYORAL CAMPAIGN. 
          THIS ISSUE CAUSED SEVERAL ORDINARY CITIZENS TO TELL THEIR STORIES. 
          BUT ONCE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE PRESENTED ITS RECOMMENDATIONS, 
          [00:10:03]
YOU THANKED US, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU REALLY DID ANYTHING WITH IT. 
          IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT IF YOU COULD HAVE ATTENDED. 
          AN AD HOC COMMITTEE HEARING TO LEARN ABOUT THIS ISSUE. 
          ALL OF US DID OUR HOMEWORK ON THIS AND ASKED QUESTIONS, RECEIVED VERY DIFFICULT ANSWERS, HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE PUBLIC, ASKING US TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP WITH THIS ISSUE. 
          HAD YOU ATTENDED, YOU WOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT THE ORANGE BERG THAT IS IN THE OLDER HOMES IS ABOUT TO ACTUALLY BREAK. 
          THOSE RATE PAYERS AND OLDER HOMES IN DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 ARE ABOUT TO GET A ROOT AWAKENING FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED MORE THAN LIKELY NOT AT THEIR OWN FAULT. 
          RATE PAYERS CANNOT BE PROACTIVE IN THIS. 
          NEITHER CAN THE CITY ONLY REACTIVE, AND YET WE THINK THAT PAYING $1,000 ON TOP OF PAYING REGULAR FEES FOR SOMETHING THAT WAS NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN IS A GOOD IDEA. 
          THE PROPOSAL OF PAYING $1,000, WHICH THOSE IN THE AREAS WHERE THIS WILL BE FELT THE MOST. IS THAT MY TIME? 
          >> YES. 
          >> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO WRAP UP HERE. 
          SUGGESTS THAT A REPORT WAS IN VAIN. 
          FROM WHAT WE LEARNED, THERE WERE ROUGHLY 1,100 CALLS TO REPAIR THE SEWER LATERAL LINES IN THE LAST YEAR, AND THE COST THE CITY ABOUT $100 TO REPAIR. 
          THAT COMPUTES TO ROUGHLY $1 MILLION IN TOTAL IN A ROUGHLY $1 BILLION PROPOSED BUDGET. 
          WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITY IS NOW GOING TO BE RETURNED TO RATE PAYERS TO SAVE SOME PEANUTS. 
          I SUGGEST YOU DO TWO THINGS. 
          THAT WILL BE MY LAST THOUGHTS HERE. ONE OF TWO THINGS. 
          EITHER PLEASE RE-READ THE REPORT THAT WE GAVE YOU OR RECONVENE THE AD HOC COMMITTEE AND COME TO A MEETING. 
          ASK US THE QUESTIONS, RE-LEARN THIS ISSUE BECAUSE IT WAS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT. 
          I ASK THAT YOU DO THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. LANDRY. NEXT, CARRIE THOMAS. 
          >> HELLO, EVERYBODY. 
          MY NAME IS CARRIE THOMAS. 
          I LIVE AT 80903 JUNEAU AVENUE. 
          I WANT TO URGE YOU ALL TO RE-EVALUATE COUNCILWOMAN DR. WILSON'S PROPOSED BUDGET. 
          I BELIEVE MAYOR MCBRAYER AND COUNCILWOMAN DAVID GLASHIN, BOTH BROUGHT SOME GOOD BUDGETS. 
          THEY STATED THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AND COLLABORATE WITH THE COUNCIL IN AN EFFORT TO KEEP TAXES LOW. 
          BUT MS. GARCIA, DR. WILSON, MR. ROSE, MR. COLLINS, AND MR. HARRIS REJECTED THAT AND CHOSE INSTEAD TO INCREASE OUR TAXES. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS MR. ROSE WHO SAID IT WAS $1 AND SOME CHANGE EVERY MONTH. 
          IN CASE YOU ALL HAVEN'T NOTICED, GROCERIES ARE AT ALL TIME HIGH, GASOLINE AT AN ALL TIME HIGH, HOME INSURANCE, CAR INSURANCE, ALL TIME HIGH. 
          FOR SOME CONTEXT, THIS LITTLE STORY, I JUST WANT TO SHARE WITH YOU. 
          MY SON IS PLAYING WITH THE LUBBOCK SOCCER ASSOCIATION, AND IT'S NOT A PREMIER LEAGUE OR A CLUB LEAGUE. 
          IT'S JUST A BASIC SOCCER LEAGUE. 
          LAST WEEK, THE COACH LET US KNOW UNIFORMS WOULD BE $55. 
          OUT OF 20 CHILDREN ON THE TEAM, FOUR OF THEM COULDN'T AFFORD IT $55 UNIFORMS, AND FOUR OF THE PARENTS COULDN'T AFFORD THAT. 
          IT REALLY BROKE MY HEART TO SEE THAT. 
          BUT THAT IS WHERE THE STATE OF THE ECONOMY IS RIGHT NOW. JUST KEEP IN MIND. 
          YOU ALL NEED TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF THE TITLES AND THE POSITIONS YOU ARE CURRENTLY HOLDING. 
          KEEP IN MIND TWO MONTHS AGO IN JUNE, 73% OF THE VOTERS VOTED FOR A NEW DIRECTION. 
          ALL I ASK ON BEHALF OF THESE FOUR FAMILIES IS FOR YOU ALL TO BE GOOD STEWARDS. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, MS. THOMAS. DR. JOHN THOMAS. 
          >> THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY, DEAR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          CLOTHING IS HIGH, SO I WEAR MY PAJAMAS. 
          I'M ONE OF THE 73% OF VOTERS THAT VOTED FOR MARTIN MCBRAYER. 
          IN SPITE THE DEEP STATE OF STEVE MASSENLE'S SUPPORT, WE WERE ENDORSED BY THE FIREFIGHTER ASSOCIATION, THE FOUR PASTED MAYORS, THE HOME BUILDERS SEB AND MANY OTHER THAT PROFIT THEMSELVES. 
          WE WANT THAT BATTLE. 
          ONE OTHER THING WAS ABOUT NEW DIRECTION. 
          I'M HERE BECAUSE OF TIM COLLINS AT JODI ENTITY EVENT LAST WEEK, ASKED ME, DR. THOMAS, TELL ME WHERE SHOULD WE CUT? 
          [00:15:02]
DON'T ASK A SURGEON A QUESTION YOU'LL GET AN ANSWER. 
          YOU ASK A PSYCHIATRIST, HE'LL GIVE YOU REASON TO TAKE TWO MORE PILLS. 
          FOR FULL DISCLOSURE, I'M A SURGEON, I'M NOT AN ACCOUNTANT, AND I STAND HERE BECAUSE I'M THE OWNER OF A BUSINESS, ALSO THE FOUNDER OF OPERATION HOPE. 
          I HAVE TO MANAGE RESOURCES AND MANAGE PEOPLE ON TRIPS AROUND THE WORLD. 
          I DO NOT ASK THE CITY OF LUBBOCK TO COVER MY DEFICITS IN MY OFFICE. 
          PLACES TO CUT IS NOT ANY LINEAR ORDER. 
          HEALTH DEPARTMENT, EMPLOYEES HAVE INCREASED THREEFOLD SINCE COVID. 
          WHO'S WATCHING OVER THERE? CITY BUS FUND HAS INCREASED BY 25%. 
          WHAT ROUTES DO Y'ALL TRAVEL ON CITY BUS? I GREW UP IN INDIA. I KNOW CITY BUS. 
          CAPITAL PROJECTS. 
          DOWNTOWN BUILDING, RENOVATION, GRANT. 
          ARE WE IN CUBA, ARE WE IN CAPITAL OF AMERICA? IF SOMEBODY IS INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING SOMETHING, LET THEM SPEND THEIR MONEY. 
          IT SHOULD NOT BE THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. 
          PERCENT INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE PAY WHILE WE'RE CUTTING OUR POCKETBOOKS. 
          WELFARE PROGRAMS FOR HOME REPAIR. 
          ALMOST ANY ITEM COULD BE CUT. 
          DR. WILSON, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS $2.7 MILLION FOR PPE AND $158,000 FOR ASSISTANT CHIEF. 
          IS IT PAYBACK FOR THE FIRE FIREFIGHTER ASSOCIATIONS TO GIVE $120,000 DURING ELECTION? 
          >> MR. THOMAS, PLEASE DON'T DIRECT YOUR COMMENTS DIRECTLY AS IT IS TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          >> THERE'S ANOTHER EXPENSE. I SAW $58,000 FOR JUNIOR AMBASSADOR. 
          ARE WE GOING TO PLAY FOR SELECT BASKETBALL, SELECT BASEBALL, AU. 
          ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT IT'S NOT EASY AT TIMES LIKE THIS. 
          I MAKE CUTS EVERY DAY. 
          PATIENTS MAKE SACRIFICES. 
          PEOPLE MAKE SACRIFICES. 
          DON'T BE DRUNK WITH MY MONEY. 
          IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND YOUR OWN MONEY, HAVE AT IT. 
          WE THE 72% ARE GOING TO BUY EVERY SINGLE VOTE THAT TAKES PLACE, AND WE WILL STAND GUARD FOR THE PEOPLE OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, DR. THOMAS. MICHAEL WARD. 
          >> I WASN'T PLANNING TO COME MICHAEL WARD, OF 54178TH STREET. 
          WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY LOOKS VERY MINISCULE, BUT I DECIDED IT WAS WORTH REPORTING BECAUSE I'D GOTTEN A FEW OPEN RECORDS THINGS SINCE LAST TUESDAY AS WELL. 
          BUT JUST FOR EVERYBODY INFORMATION THAT'S THINKING THAT NO NEW REVENUE REALLY MEANS NO NEW REVENUE. 
          IT'S ONLY AFFECTS THE REAPPRAISAL CREEP THAT WE'RE FACING. 
          IT DOESN'T AFFECT NEW GROWTH, WHICH IS 3.3 MILLION THIS YEAR AT ALL. 
          BUT AFTER MANY HOURS, MORE THAN I'VE EVER SEEN DISCUSSED, THE VARIOUS PROPOSALS TO LOWER THE TAX RATE BY ONE PENNY, $2.5 MILLION. 
          WE'RE DOWN NOW, I THINK TO ABOUT 4/10 OF A PENNY. 
          I THINK AT THIS POINT, RATHER THAN ANALYZING EACH ONE COMPLETELY. 
          THERE'S VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS THAT COULD SHARE OR SHAVE A TINY MONEY OFF OF THEIR BUDGETS. 
          BUT IN PARTICULAR, THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET IS $605,000. 
          OUT OF THAT, THERE'S TRAVEL THAT VARIES FROM 25-45,000. 
          I DID TWO YEARS OF EACH ONE. 
          OF COURSE, THE STAFF AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GO TO JAPAN. 
          IT WAS 58,000 AND ANOTHER 15 WHEN THEY COME HERE. 
          LOBBYING IS YEAR ROUND, AND IT'S 138,000 JUST FOR THE TEXAS PART OF IT, MORE FOR FEDERAL AS WELL. 
          THEY'RE NOT EVEN IN SESSION MOST OF THE TIME. 
          BUT RATHER THAN ITEMIZING ALL OF THESE INDIVIDUAL THINGS, AND OF COURSE, MARKET LUBBOCK HAS 8.4 MILLION, BUT THEY'RE EXPECTED TO TAKE PROPERTY TAX OF $1,000,000 TO TRANSFER OVER INTO LEDA. 
          WHO IS FUNDING TO SPEND $19,000,000, MAKING $27.5 MILLION THIS NEXT YEAR. 
          WE JUST NEED TO TAKE AMOUNTS OFF OF SOME OF THESE AND THEN LET THAT BE DETERMINED WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT TO KEEP FROM HITTING ON ANYBODY'S PROJECTS AND SO FORTH THAT THEY'RE PROTECTIVE OF. 
          [00:20:04]
IT'S AN ECONOMIC FACT ALWAYS, THAT THE BEST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WE CAN HAVE IS TO LEAVE MORE MONEY IN THE INDIVIDUAL'S PACK POCKETS, AND IT ALWAYS RESULTS IN MORE REVENUE TO GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN GOVERNMENT HANGING ONTO IT AND PREDICTING WHAT'S COMING NEXT. 
          BUT JUST TAKE A LITTLE BIT OFF OF A FEW PLACES AND THAT 4/10 OF ASCENT I THINK CAN BE ACHIEVED VERY EASILY. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, MS. WARD. NEXT, BOYD GOODLOE. 
          >> BOYD GOODLOE, 380164TH DRIVE. 
          CASE MY EMAILS HAVEN'T BEEN SEEN OR UNDERSTOOD, I'M HERE TO ADD A VOICE TO THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK AND VOTERS WHO MADE IT, I BELIEVE, EXTREMELY CLEAR IN THEIR MANDATE VOTE ELECTING MAYOR MCBRAYER WITH I THOUGHT 72, BUT SOMEBODY SAID 73, SO WHICHEVER, 72, 73% OF VOTE IS A MANDATE. 
          TELLING COUNCIL THAT THE CITY OF LUBBOCK CITIZENS HAVE HAD ENOUGH. 
          THE MESSAGE IS RESOUNDINGLY CLEAR. 
          NO NEW TAXES. 
          IT WAS A REFERENDUM ON RAISING TAXES ON JUNE 15TH. 
          THE MAYOR PROPOSED A BUDGET THAT DIDN'T REQUIRE A TAX INCREASE, AND INEXPLICABLY, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON TODAY. 
          FOUR OF YOU ARE ABOUT TO CAST YOUR FIRST OFFICIAL VOTE, RAISING TAXES. 
          IF YOU FAIL TO VOTE AGAINST A TAX INCREASE, THEN YOU'RE IGNORING THE CLEAR MANDATE OF THE VOTERS OF LUBBOCK. 
          SADLY, VOTING TO RAISE TAXES, AND TAKE AND SPEND OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. 
          I'VE ASKED WITHOUT RESPONSE FOR A TALLY OF THE SAVINGS ON STAFF AND REDUCTION OF MANAGEMENT DUTIES FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK NOT OPERATING ANY POOLS AND WHERE THOSE SAVINGS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THE BUDGET. 
          WITH PROPERTY APPRAISAL VALUES THAT IS ALL TIME HIGH, THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADOPT A BUDGET WITH THE REVENUES AVAILABLE WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. 
          TODAY IS THE DAY TO CLEARLY HEAR THE VOTER REFERENDUM AND VOTE NO NEW TAXES FOR THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK. 
          THANK YOU AND I AVOIDED THE GOAL. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. GOODLOE. 
          NEXT, FROSTY POSTON. 
          >> I'M FROSTY POSTON, AND I'M A SENIOR CITIZEN LIVING ON A LOW FIXED INCOME. 
          I CANNOT AFFORD TO PAY HIGHER TAXES WITHOUT GOING INTO DEBT MYSELF. 
          I'M SORRY THAT OTHER FOLKS HAVE TO DO THIS, BUT I'M ALMOST 80-YEARS-OLD. 
          FOLKS, I'VE PAID TAXES ALL OF MY LIFE. 
          I THINK IT'S ABOUT TIME. 
          I QUIT PAYING TAXES FOR OTHER PEOPLES. 
          I AM ALL FOR THE CHILDREN. 
          I AM ALL FOR THE PUBLIC SERVANTS. 
          I'M ALL FOR YES. 
          I SUPPORT THEM TOTALLY. 
          BUT I CAN'T KEEP THROWING MONEY AT THEM. 
          I'VE GIVEN ALL MY MONEY TO MY FAMILY AND MY CHILDREN. 
          NOW, WHY AM I BEING ASKED TO DO IT FOR EVERYONE ELSE? PLEASE NO NEW TAXES. 
          >> THANK YOU, MS. POSTON. THAT CONCLUDES OUR CITIZEN COMMENTS FOR TODAY. 
          WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE UP. THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR ATTENDING, EVEN THOSE WHO DIDN'T MAKE COMMENTS. 
          WE ALWAYS APPRECIATE HAVING PEOPLE HERE AT OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. 
          WE'LL NOW TAKE UP AGENDA, ITEM 4.1, 
          [4. Minutes]
THE MINUTES FROM THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF AUGUST 5TH, 6TH AND 7TH AND THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 13TH, SO YOU ALL CAN SEE HOW BUSY WE'VE BEEN. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4.1? IS THERE A SECOND? MR. COLLINS, IS THAT A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MINUTES? ANY CORRECTIONS? ANYBODY SEES? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. PLEASE SAY AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? IT'S UNANIMOUS. 
          [00:25:05]
WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM 5, 
          [5. 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.]
THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR TODAY. 
          COUNCILMAN GLASHIN HAS REQUESTED THAT ITEMS 5.20 AND 5.21 BE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 5.2 AND 5.21? IS THERE A SECOND? THANK YOU. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? ALL IN FAVOR CONSENT AGENDA, EXCLUDING ITEMS 5.20 AND 5.21, PLEASE LET IT ON BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED SAY, NAY? THERE ARE NONE, SO IT PASSES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. 
          NOW WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 5.20, 
          [20.  Resolution - Business Development: Consider a resolution authorizing a Downtown Grant Program (Facade) expenditure of Market Lubbock, Inc., to be provided to the YWCA of Lubbock, located at 1500 14th Street, pursuant to Article IV, Section 5, of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Market Lubbock Development Corporation. ]
AND I'M GOING TO CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. 
          I'LL GIVE A VERY QUICK OVERVIEW. 
          MS. BROWN IS WITH US TODAY, IF WE WOULD LIKE A MORE DETAILED PRESENTATION. 
          BOTH ARE FOR THE SAME LOCATION. 
          THIS IS THE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE YWCA OF LUBBOCK AT 1514TH STREET, SO ACTUALLY JUST WEST OF THIS BUILDING. TWO GRANTS. 
          THE FIRST IS FOR THE FACADE GRANT, AND THE AMOUNT OF $93,600. 
          THAT IS THE TOTAL PROJECT, 25,000 OF THAT WOULD BE REIMBURSED BY THIS GRANT, AND THIS GRANT, OF COURSE, IS THROUGH MARKET LUBBOCK INC. 
          THE SECOND PROJECT ON THE SAME BUILDING IS WHAT IS CALLED THE PERMITTABLE GRANT. 
          THIS IS LARGELY INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE AMOUNT OF 5.401 MILLION, AND THAT GRANT IS CAPPED AT $100,000 OF REIMBURSEMENT AGAINST THAT PROJECT. 
          MR. MAYOR I'LL TURN IT TO YOU OR TO COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          >> MR. GUSCIN, WOULD YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS ON THIS? 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MANY TIMES I'VE SPOKEN OUT AGAINST THESE TYPES OF SPECIAL INTEREST GRANT PROGRAMS, AND A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE BENEFIT FROM THESE UNFAIR SPECIAL INTEREST GRANT PROGRAMS. THE MAJORITY OF US ARE PAYING THE COST FOR THESE PROGRAMS THROUGH INCREASED PROPERTY TAXES. 
          HOMEOWNERS, SMALL BUSINESSES AND LOWER INCOME FAMILIES ARE MOST AFFECTED BY THE TYPES OF TAX INCREASES THAT ARE REQUIRED TO FUND THESE SPECIAL INTEREST GRANTS. 
          THE YWCA HAS MORE ASSETS AND REVENUE THAN MANY OF THE LARGEST BUSINESSES IN LUBBOCK. 
          IF THEY WANT TO RENOVATE A BUILDING, THEY CAN OPEN UP THEIR OWN WALLET. 
          BUT KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF THE WALLET OF LUBBOCK HOMEOWNERS AND LUBBOCK BUSINESSES. 
          LATER TODAY, THE COUNCIL IS LIKELY GOING TO VOTE TO INCREASE YOUR PROPERTY TAXES. 
          IN PART, TO CONTINUE SPENDING ON THESE TYPES OF SPECIAL INTEREST GRANTS, BUT VOTERS ARE HUNGRY FOR A CHANGE. 
          IT'S TIME TO LOWER TAXES. 
          IT'S TIME TO PUT FAMILIES AND SMALL BUSINESSES ABOVE SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS AND GOVERNMENT FAVORITES. 
          I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST 5.20 AND 5.21. 
          >> THE WAY WE WILL TAKE THIS UP IS WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE GRANT, THAT'S 5.20. 
          IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 5.20? IS THERE A SECOND TO APPROVE? SECOND WAS MR. COLLINS. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE COUNCIL ON THIS MATTER? MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          >> JUST ONE CORRECTION. 
          I BELIEVE THAT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IN RESEARCHING THIS AT THE YWCA ACTUALLY DID OPEN UP THEIR WALLET SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          JUST FOR THE RECORD, WHEN WE GIVE GRANTS, WE'RE NOT GIVING THE FULL AMOUNT OF WHAT A PROJECT CALLS. 
          IT IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE. 
          THEY DO PROVIDE THEIR PART. 
          THAT'S WHAT THE GRANTS. CAN YOU CORRECT ME ON THAT, RIANA? 
          >> YOU'RE CORRECT. 
          >> THE MAXIMUM REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNTS FOR THE PROJECTS ON THE FACADE SIDE IS 50%. 
          YOU MAX OUT THAT GRANT AT $25,000, SO FOR $50,000 PROJECT OR ABOVE, A RECIPIENT CAN RECEIVE A REIMBURSEMENT OF $25,000. 
          ON THE PERMITTABLE GRANT PROGRAM, IT IS A 10% REIMBURSEMENT UP TO $100,000. 
          IT TAKES A $1,000,000 PROJECT TO FULLY MAXIMIZE THAT GRANT. 
          IN THIS CASE, THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU ON THE PERMITTABLE SIZE IS JUST OVER $5,000,000. 
          [00:30:06]
I CAN GET THE CORRECT NUMBER, IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT. 
          THEN THEY ALSO HAVE DONE OVER $1,000,000 OF DEMOLITION THAT THEY DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE GRANT. 
          OVERALL, IT'S ABOUT A $7,000,000 PROJECT. 
          >> JUST FOR THE RECORD TO THE PUBLIC WATCHING OR IN THE AUDIENCE CAN UNDERSTAND, OF THAT AMOUNT, HOW MUCH OF GRANT WOULD WE BE PROVIDING? 
          >> IT'S $125,000 TOTAL. 
          >> OUT OF A $7,000,000 PROJECT. 
          >> YES, MA'AM. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> MR. BOSCH. 
          >> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU BROWN, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT THAT IF THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE, THEN THEY MAKE SENSE WITHOUT SOME TAXPAYER HANDOUT. 
          THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THESE GRANTS ARE MAKING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PROJECTS. 
          THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT EVEN WORSE POLICY IS THAT WE ARE JUST GIVING A HANDOUT TO SOMEONE WHO HAS NO ECONOMIC. 
          THERE IS NO A RETURN ON THIS TYPE OF PROJECT IN COMPARISON TO OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLES OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LIKE THE LEPRINO FOOD FACTORY OR THE MONSANTO PLANT, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          >> I GUESS I'LL JUST WEIGH IN HERE TOO. 
          I'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THIS PROGRAM FOR A WHILE, GOING BACK TO SOME PREVIOUS GRANTS WE MADE TO A CHURCH FOR STAIN GLASS WINDOWS. 
          I MAYBE IT DON'T GO QUITE AS FAR AS COUNCILMAN GLASHIN GOES ABOUT HIS DISFAVORING OF THE WHOLE PROGRAM. 
          BUT WHAT I DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IS GRANTING TAXPAYER MONEY TO AN ENTITY THAT DOES NOT PAY TAXES. 
          THAT'S WHERE I HAVE TENDED TO DRAW A LINE. 
          I KNOW PEOPLE SAY, WELL, THAT CUTS OUT SOMEONE LIKE THE YWCA OR A CHURCH. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          BUT THE POINT I THINK OF BEING ABLE TO USE TAXPAYER MONEY IN GOOD CONSCIENCE FOR ME IS THAT IT GOES TO AN ENTITY THAT BECAUSE OF THIS USE OF THE MONEY, WILL BECOME A BETTER TAX PAYING PART OF OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEIR BUSINESS WILL INCREASE, SO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY INCREASES, AND IT INCREASES THEIR BUSINESS. 
          THERE'S A RETURN TO THE CITY ON THAT INVESTMENT APART FROM JUST SENDING MONEY TO SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO MAKE THEIR FACILITY EXTERIOR OR INTERIOR A BETTER FACILITY. 
          THAT'S WHERE I AM. 
          I COULD BE CONVINCED TO GO WHERE YOU ARE, DAVID. 
          I'M NOT QUITE THERE YET. 
          BUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE, I TEND TO HAVE MY OWN REASON TO AND THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE YWCA. 
          THEY DO GREAT WORK HERE. 
          BUT I JUST HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM WITH USING TAXPAYER MONEY TO ENHANCE THE PROPERTY OF A NON TAX PAYING ENTITY. MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          >> GOOD POINTS FROM BOTH OF YOU. 
          BUT LET ME CORRECT YOU AGAIN. 
          ALTHOUGH THE YWCA IS A NON PROFIT, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT THEY SERVE DON'T PAY FOR THE SERVICES. 
          IN MY VIEW, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A HAND UP AND NOT A HAND OUT BECAUSE WE ARE GOAL AS COUNCIL AS CITIZENS OF THE CITY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE EMPOWERING ALL OF OUR CITIZENS SO THAT THEY ARE ON THE RIGHT PATH. 
          I GET IT. THEY DO HAVE QUITE A BIT OF MONEY, BUT THEY'RE ALSO INVESTING IT INTO THE DOWNTOWN AREA. 
          I THINK IT WAS A TUNE OF SIX MILLION, AND I'M NOT GOING TO DO JARRETT MATH, BUT SIX MILLION, WHAT $800,000. 
          IT'S A PRETTY GOOD CHUNK OF CHANGE THAT THEY'RE INVESTING INTO DOWNTOWN. 
          THAT TO ME DEMONSTRATES THAT THEY ALSO WANT TO DO A HANDOUT FOR OUR DOWNTOWN AND FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU BOTH ARE SAYING. 
          I GET THAT, BUT I GUESS FOR ME, I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE FROM BOTH SIDES, SO NEEDLESS TO SAY, I THINK THAT WE ALREADY MAKE A MOTION, MAYOR. 
          >> DOCTOR WILSON. 
          >> MAYOR, I THINK I SIT SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF WHERE YOU'RE AT. 
          I THINK THE FACADE GRANT PROGRAM IS A GOOD PROGRAM. 
          [00:35:04]
I THINK WHEN USED CORRECTLY, I AGREE WITH THE STAT GLASS WINDOW COMMENT, THAT WAS NOT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS PROGRAM IS MEANT TO DO. 
          WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I LIKE THE FACADE PART OF IT. 
          I THINK THAT HELPS REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS A GOOD ECONOMIC STIMULUS FOR DOWNTOWN THAT WE WANT TO GROW LUBBOCK AND THAT GROWTH AND PROVIDES NEW REVENUE TO KEEP TAXES LOW. 
          I THINK I STRUGGLE MORE WITH THE PERMISABLE GRANT ON THIS ONE, AND ON ANY BUSINESS, NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE YWCA AND THAT THEY DON'T PAY TAXES, BUT THE FACADE, I CAN SEE, THAT IS WHAT OUR CITIZENS SEE. 
          THAT'S WHAT BUSINESSES SEE WHEN THEY COME DOWNTOWN THAT HELPS THEM WANT TO BRING BUSINESS, BUT I STRUGGLE MORE WITH GIVING PEOPLE MONEY TO RENOVATE THE INSIDE OF A BUILDING. 
          RECENTLY, I WAS UPSET TO FIND OUT THAT WE USE CITY TAX DOLLARS TO RENOVATE THE INSIDE OF THE GOTA KEY LIBRARY, WHICH IS NOT CITY OWNED, WHICH I HAVE A TREMENDOUS PROBLEM WITH. 
          TO ME, I DON'T LIKE GIVING PEOPLE MONEY TO RENOVATE AND INSIDE OF A BUILDING. 
          IF THEY WANT TO RENOVATE IT, THAT'S GREAT. 
          I LOVE THE FACADE GRANT PROGRAM. 
          I THINK IT HAS BROUGHT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC STIMULUS DOWNTOWN, AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE VERY OLD. 
          BUT I THINK THAT I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO SEPARATE THESE TWO ITEMS OUT AND NOT HAVE A MOTION JUST FOR ONE. 
          >> MR. WADE? 
          >> I THINK IT IS JUST A MOTION RIGHT NOW, 5.20. 
          THAT IS JUST THE FACADE AND THE FEDERAL GRANTS 5.21. 
          >> PERFECT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THEY WERE SEPARATE. THANK YOU. 
          >> SOME OF THE COMMENTS ARE COVERING BOTH GROUNDS, BUT THE VOTE WILL BE JUST ON THE FACADE GRANT FIRST, AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO THE INSIDE OR THE PERMITABLE GRANT. 
          BIANNA, COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THE FACADE WHAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO DO? ARE YOU AWARE OF WHAT THEY'RE INTENDING TO DO WITH THE FACADE GRANT AND THE INTERIOR GRANT, AS WELL. 
          WE MIGHT AS WELL GET THE DISCUSSION OUT HERE. 
          >> YEAH, I GUESS AND I CAN SHOW YOU RENDERING. 
          >> JUST A SECOND. IS IT OKAY IF WE DISCUSS OR DO I NEED TO LIMIT IT TO THE ONE ITEM, MR. WADE? 
          >> I WOULD ALWAYS LOVE FOR IT IF YOU JUST LIMITED TO THE ONE ITEM THAT'S ACTUALLY IN MOTION THAT'S. 
          >> THANK YOU. APRECI MAYOR. 
          BUT IF YOU CONNECT THE TWO, IT IS OKAY TO HAVE A DISCUSSION CONSIDERING BOTH OF THEM. 
          >> LET'S JUST DISCUSS THE FACADE WHILE WE'RE HERE. 
          >> I DO NOT HAVE AN IMAGE OF THE FACADE. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MAJORITY OF THE FACADE GRANT REQUEST IS FOR PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS. 
          BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE YWCA IS HERE WITH US THIS AFTERNOON. 
          IF YOU ALL HAVE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE PROJECT, SHE CAN ALSO EXPLAIN. 
          AND THEN I CAN GIVE YOU MORE DETAIL ON THE PERMIABLE PROJECT WHEN WE GET TO THAT ITEM. 
          >> ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, I GET WE USED FACADE GRANTS FOR PARKING IS THIS FOR RESURFACING A PARKING LOT, OR IS THIS FOR ADDING VEGETATION OR TREES OR WHAT. 
          >> WHAT I HAVE DOES NOT SPECIFY LANDSCAPING. 
          I'M GOING TO DEFER TO GLENDA ON THAT, BUT YES, WE HAVE DONE PARKING LOT REPAIRS AS PART OF THIS PROGRAM IN THE PAST. 
          >> IF YOU DON'T MIND, IS SHE HERE? YES. CAN YOU COME FORWARD AND MAYBE HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR ON THE FACADE PART AND WITH THE PARKING LOT? IF IT'S JUST RESURFACING OR SOMETHING ELSE. 
          >> WELL, THE FACADE RIGHT NOW IS PRETTY UNATTRACTIVE, AND CERTAINLY IS THE HOME FOR MANY OF OUR HOMELESS AND IT HAS IT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETELY THERE'S A PLAYGROUND THERE, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE COMPLETELY TAKEN OUT AND THEN ADJUSTED FOR PARKING, AND JUST FOR GENERAL ATTRACTION. 
          RIGHT NOW, ALL OF THE SURFACES, THE SIDEWALK SURFACES ARE UNEVEN. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF LIABILITY IN TERMS OF SOMEONE TRIPPING AND THAT SORT OF THING SO THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE FACADE. 
          THE PRIMARY PROJECT WAS REALLY DESIGNED BECAUSE WE HAVE SO LITTLE EVENT SPACE IN LUBBOCK. 
          ANYONE, ANY BUSINESS, ANY ORGANIZATION THAT'S TRYING TO BUILD AN EVENT FOR FOUR OR 500 PEOPLE STRUGGLE. 
          SO FOR US, IT WAS REALLY MORE OF A CONTRIBUTION IN TERMS OF, IT WOULD BE A GENERATION OF SALES TAX AND BUSINESS INCOME FOR LOTS OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF CONVENTION SPACE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          SO THAT'S REALLY THE WHOLE GUIDELINE OF IT. 
          RIGHT NOW THE BUILDING IS UNOCCUPIED AND SO IT BECOMES A SOURCE OF ATTRACTION TO MORE NEFARIOUS ACTIVITIES THAT GO ON DOWNTOWN. 
          FOR US, IT'S REALLY AN INVESTMENT IN TRYING TO RECOUP THAT HISTORIC BUILDING INTO SOMETHING THAT'S BEAUTIFUL AND USEFUL TO THE CITY AS A WHOLE. 
          >> IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST MAYBE TAKE THE FRONT SEAT THERE OR THE FRONT ROW, 
          [00:40:03]
IF WE HAVE TO ASK YOU A FEW MORE QUESTIONS WHEN WE GET BACK AROUND TO THE INTERIOR. 
          I GUESS ONE OF MY COMMENTS, THOUGH WAS TO MAYOR POTEMS COMMENTS, BUT THIS MONEY DOES NOT REALLY GO FOR THEIR SERVICES, IT GOES FOR PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FACILITY ITSELF. 
          THEIR SERVICES ARE PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, AS THEY PROVIDE THEM, BUT THIS IS AN INTERIOR, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE HERE, REDESIGN RENOVATION OF IT. 
          I REALIZE THEY'RE SPENDING MOST OF THEIR MONEY ON IT, BUT THE PART THAT DOES COME FROM THE TAXPAYERS OR THE PART WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR, SO IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION MAYOR POTE? 
          >> RIGHT. IT DOES NOT GO DIRECTLY TO THEIR SERVICES, BUT IT GOES TO THE HELPING THIS ORGANIZATION TO BE ABLE TO RAISE FUNDS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SERVICES. 
          IT ISN'T IN DIRECT BENEFIT TO NOT JUST THEIR FOLKS, BUT ALSO FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORING AREA BECAUSE THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH PARKING IN DOWNTOWN LUBBOCK AND WE'VE ALL SEEN IT. 
          I'M NOT MAKING EXCUSES FOR ANYBODY. 
          WE JUST WE CAN'T KEEP NICKEL AND DAM EVERY LITTLE THING, I MEAN, I GET IT. 
          WE HAVE A NO, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE TO. THAT'S WHY WE WERE VOTED IN. 
          BUT I'M NOT JUST FOCUSED ON ONE PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY. 
          WE HAVE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO THE ENTIRE CITY AND IT IS A CHECKS AND BALANCES AND I CALL FOR THE VOTE. 
          >> IS THERE ANYONE OPPOSED TO THE CALL FOR THE VOTE? I SEE NONE. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON 5.20, AND THIS, AGAIN, IS JUST THE FACADE PART OF THIS PROGRAM, AND WE'LL HAVE A SEPARATE VOTE ON THE SECOND ONE. 
          ALL IN FAVOR. I GUESS, CAN WE DO THIS? CAN YOU BRING IT UP? I ALWAYS HAVE A HARD TIME LOOKING BOTH DIRECTIONS AND SEEING WHAT THE VOTE IS. 
          IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF THE FACADE GRANT, VOTE, YES, IF YOU'RE AGAINST IT, VOTE, NO. 
          THE FACADE GRANT PASSES 522. 
          NOW, WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 5.21 AND IS THERE ANY FURTHER BRIEFING ON THIS? 
          [21.  Resolution - Business Development: Consider a resolution authorizing a Downtown Grant Program (Permittable) expenditure of Market Lubbock, Inc., to be provided to YWCA of Lubbock, located at 1500 14th Street, pursuant to Article IV, Section 5, of the Amended and Restated Bylaws of the Market Lubbock Development Corporation. ]
MR. CITY MANAGER? NO, SIR. 
          I THINK SO TOO. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.21? DO I HAVE A SECOND? IS THAT YOU, MR. ROSE? MR. ROSE. 
          NOW WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION ON 5.21. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON IT? MR. ROSE. 
          >> I JUST I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          IF YOU WANT TO STEP UP BACK TO THE PODIUM? YES, MA'AM. WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THE INTERIOR RENOVATIONS THAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING? 
          >> WELL, WE HAVE COMPLETELY DEMOLISHED THE INSIDE OTHER THAN THE SANCTUARY, THAT WE KEPT THAT AS IT IS. 
          PRIMARILY FOR THE HISTORIC AND THE HISTORIC VALUE OF IT AND SO ALL OF THE LOWER LEVEL HAS BEEN MADE OPEN SO THAT IT COULD SERVE AS CONVENTION OR MEETING SPACE. 
          WAS THERE ANYTHING DONE? DID YOU SPEND MONEY ON PLUMBING OR PLANNING ON SPENDING MONEY ON PLUMBING? 
          >> ALL OF THAT HAS TO BE DONE BECAUSE WELL, THE REASON WE WENT THROUGH THE DEMOLITION WAS BECAUSE IT'S AN OLD BUILDING, AND SO WHEN THEY DID THE ARCHITECTURE, THERE WAS NO CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY MIGHT RUN INTO. 
          IN ORDER TO GIVE US A DECENT BID, THEY SAID, WE NEED TO TAKE IT DOWN TO THE STUDS AND SEE WHAT'S THERE. 
          BECAUSE THE BUILDING WAS BUILT IN THREE DIFFERENT PHASES. 
          ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN DONE, AND IT'S READY. 
          IT'S READY FOR CONSTRUCTION. 
          NOW, TO BE FAIR, YOU KNOW, THAT IS A LOT OF MONEY TO TAKE UNDER, SO ASKING SO WE'RE OUT RESEARCHING FOR WAYS TO RAISE ALL OF THOSE FUNDS IN ORDER TO GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED, ND HOW DO YOU GUYS RAISE THOSE FUNDS? LOTS OF WAYS, THROUGH GRANT APPLICATIONS, THROUGH FOUNDATIONS, THROUGH OUR OWN EFFORTS. 
          YOU KNOW, B THIS IS LIKE WHAT YOU WOULD CALL A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE, AS MISS MARTINEZ SAID, WE WE HAVE SOCIAL ENTERPRISE ACTIVITIES THAT HELP US THEN TURN AROUND AND SUPPORT THE FAMILIES WHO NEED ASSISTANCE WITH CHILDCARE OR CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS. THANK YOU. 
          [00:45:08]
          >> MR. COLLINS, DID YOU? 
          >> YES. THANK YOU. A COUPLE OF THINGS TO POINT OUT ABOUT THESE PERMISABLE GRANTS. 
          AND THAT'S THE PHRASING THAT MARKET LUBBOCK HAS USED FOR THOSE, BUT THESE ARE PROJECTS REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT, AND OFTENTIMES THAT IS GOING TO BE THE PROCESS BY WHICH THESE BUILDINGS ARE REPURPOSED. 
          IN DOWNTOWN IN PARTICULAR, YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT IN THIS CASE, WAS A CHURCH, AND NOW IT'S BEING REPURPOSED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. 
          OTHER BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN REPURPOSED INTO OFFICE SPACES OR ET CETERA A DOWNTOWN REQUIRE A PERMIT AND SO THAT'S WHERE THIS PHRASING COMES FROM. 
          AT $5,000,000, THIS PERMIT ACTIVATED ALL CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, ALL ADA REQUIREMENTS. 
          THIS BUILDING IS GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP TO MODERN STANDARDS, WHERE IN FACT, IT WAS BUILT IN THE 40S OR 50S, AND I DON'T KNOW WHEN EXACTLY, BUT IT WAS AN OLD BUILDING AND THIS HAPPENS FREQUENTLY IN DOWNTOWN AS THOSE BUILDINGS ARE REPURPOSED, THEY'RE A TO BE BROUGHT UP TO MODERN STANDARDS. 
          THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THAT. 
          THE SECOND COMPONENT TO THIS THAT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT WITH A $5,000,000 CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, WE WOULD BE IN ALL LIKELIHOOD HAVING ALL LOCAL CONTRACTORS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT. 
          YOU'VE GOT LOCAL SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED, THEIR LABOR FORCES ARE INVOLVED, AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A GREAT DEAL OF LOCAL WORKERS HAVING THEIR NEXT PROJECT MADE AVAILABLE TO THEM. 
          MAYBE NOT ALL, BUT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER AT THIS LEVEL. 
          THESE PROJECTS LIKE LA PRINO, THEY BRING A LOT OF OUT OF TOWN CONTRACTORS IN, BUT LOCALLY, YOU'LL SEE MUCH MORE PEOPLE WORKING THERE THAT LIVE AND RESIDE IN LUBBOCK. 
          >> MR. ROSE. 
          >> BACK TO OUR JUST THE GRANT PROGRAM IN GENERAL FOR DOWNTOWN. 
          I SPOKE TO A LISTING AGENT FOR A BUILDING DOWNTOWN, ACTUALLY, THIS WEEK THAT THEY HAD SOMEONE MAKE AN OFFER ON A BUILDING DOWN HERE, AND THE DEAL ENDED UP FALLING THROUGH BECAUSE JUST TO GET YOU KNOW, THEY KNEW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE FACADE GRANT, AND THEY KNEW ABOUT THE PERMIABLE GRANT FOR INTERIOR, BUT JUST TO GET THE BUILDING UP, THE WATER HASN'T BEEN TURNED ON IN TEN YEARS. 
          THE ELECTRICITY HADN'T BEEN TURNED ON IN TEN YEARS. 
          JUST TO GET THE BUILDING UP TO CODE, WHERE IT'S SAFE, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERED SAFE TO GO IN WAS ABOUT $400,000. 
          THIS IS THE THING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGHT AGAINST IT'S CHEAPER TO JUST GO OUT HERE AND BUILD THE SAME THING. 
          YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO WE HAVE TO GIVE REASONS FOR FOR PEOPLE TO ACCESS AND USE THESE PROPERTIES DOWN HERE. 
          OTHERWISE, THEY'RE AS GOOD AS JUST TEAR THEM DOWN. 
          AND WE CAN WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO BUILD A DOWNTOWN THAT WAY. 
          I'VE MADE MY STANCE ON THIS SEVERAL TIMES. 
          I THINK IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM, $100,000 OUT OF A SIX $7,000,000 PROJECT IS THAT'S A HUGE INVESTMENT IN OUR DOWNTOWN. 
          BUT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE INVESTING IN DOWNTOWN. 
          WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO, OTHERWISE, WE WON'T HAVE ONE. 
          >> MR. GUSCIN. 
          >> YOU KNOW, I DISAGREE THAT IT REQUIRES GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO HAVE A DOWNTOWN, AND IT'S BAD POLICY TO TAKE PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS TO SUPPORT ECONOMICALLY INEFFICIENT OR UNVIABLE PROJECTS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A GRANT PROGRAM TO BUILD BUILDINGS IN PLY A LAKES JUST SO THAT WE HAVE BUILDINGS IN PA LAKES. 
          IT'S INEFFICIENT, IT'S A WASTE OF MONEY. 
          SAME WITH TRYING TO RENOVATE RUN DOWN BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN VACANT FOR LIFETIMES. 
          THE MARKET CAN FIND EFFICIENT SOLUTIONS TO THESE. 
          DOWNTOWN HAS ADVANTAGES, WITH ITS LOCATION, WITH ITS ESTABLISHED INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT IT REQUIRES THE RIGHT USER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ECONOMICALLY VIABLE PLAN TO USE THE SPACE. 
          WE DO NOT NEED TO USE TAX DOLLARS TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO PURSUE INEFFICIENT THINGS THAT THE MARKET DOES NOT WANT. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          >> BRIANA, COULD YOU COME BACK UP, PLEASE? HOW DO WE RAISE THE DOLLARS? IS IT ALL JUST DRIVEN BY I MEAN, HOW DO WE RAISE THE FUNDS THAT ARE USED FOR THE GRANT PROGRAMS? WE JUST REMIND US ALL. 
          >> THIS IS FUNDED THROUGH MARKET LUBBOCK INC. 
          [00:50:02]
THEY SET ASIDE, AND THEY'RE, OF COURSE, NOT HERE TODAY. 
          I WANT TO SAY IT'S $1,000,000 A YEAR BETWEEN THE DOWNTOWN GRANT PROGRAM AND THE COMMERCIAL REVITALIZATION GRANT PROGRAM? THEY MAY EACH BE $1,000,000. 
          I'M NOT FOR SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S PART OF THEIR ANNUAL BUDGET. 
          >> I'LL ADD TO THAT. 
          IT'S SLIGHTLY JUST A SMALL NUMBER OVER $1,000,000. 
          COUNSEL, THE ORIGINATION OF THOSE FUNDS. 
          THAT IS PART OF THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE THAT'S BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION THAT YOU TRANSFER TO MARKET LUBBOCK, THE MILLION DOLLAR COVERS THE DOWNTOWN PROGRAM, THE 34TH CORRIDOR, THE EAST LUBBOCK CORRIDOR, AND THE NORTH UNIVERSITY CORRIDOR. 
          SO IT'S ONE BUCKET FOR THE FOUR LOCATIONS. 
          >> WHICH I WOULD CONSIDER AGING NEIGHBORHOODS IN DISTRICTS ONE, DISTRICTS TWO, SOME OF DISTRICT THREE. 
          YOU CAN SIT DOWN. AT THIS POINT, DON'T GO FAR. DON'T GO FAR. 
          BUT DAVID, YOU MENTIONED THAT WE DON'T NEED TO INVEST IN DOWNTOWN. 
          WE NEED TO JUST LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS. 
          WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY? I'M SORRY. WE REMIND ME. 
          >> MR. G. 
          >> MR. GLASHEEN, COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN? 
          >> NO, I SAID THAT WE DO NOT NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO USE TAX DOLLARS TO HAVE A DOWNTOWN. 
          WE WILL HAVE A VIBRANT DOWNTOWN SPACE BECAUSE OF THE MARKET INCENTIVES PRIVATE DEVELOPERS WHO WILL FIND EFFICIENT USES AND REUSES FOR THOSE SPACES. 
          YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WHERE YOU HAVE NOBODY WHO'S UP HERE IS IN THE SPECIALIZED FIELD OF REAL ESTATE, REDEVELOPMENT AND REUSE. 
          WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT THE ALLOCATION OF CAPITAL TO PROJECTS, NOT BASED ON THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A FANCIFUL IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GIVE MONEY TO YWCA, BECAUSE WE LIKE YWCA OR BECAUSE WE LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING A NEW PARKING LOT FOR THE TATTOO PARLOR THAT'S DOWNTOWN. 
          THESE ARE NOT GOOD POLICY BASED DECISIONS. 
          THESE ARE ECONOMICALLY INEFFICIENT, BAD POLICY DECISIONS. 
          >> WELL, THE GOVERNMENT JUST EVERYBODY KNOWS, PAYS FOR ROADS, PAYS FOR WATER LINES, PAYS FOR SEWER LINES. 
          THEY PAY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, WHICH IS ALL TAX DOLLARS, IS IT NOT? THESE SMALL INCENTIVES TO INVEST IN THE DOWNTOWN. 
          I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS, BUT WHENEVER THERE'S AN EMPTY HOUSE, IT'S BEEN ABANDONED AND WEEDS ARE SUPER HIGH, AND THEY JUST HAVEN'T BEEN MANAGED AND MAINTAIN BECAUSE NOBODY CAN AFFORD TO EITHER DO THAT. 
          LOOK, I COULD GIVE SO MANY EXAMPLES. 
          ONE THAT ALWAYS COMES TO MIND IS WHEN I'M DRIVING DOWN 19TH STREET ON THE CORNER OF 19TH AND SLIDE, AND I SEE THIS EMPTY PROPERTY AND I'M THINKING, WOW, WHAT AN EYESORE. 
          IT CONTINUES TO BE AN EYESORE. 
          WELL, WE HAVE A LOT OF EYESORES IN DOWNTOWN LUBBOCK. 
          IT'S A SMALL INCENTIVE. 
          I THINK THAT THESE FOLKS ARE PREPARED TO MAKE A BIG COMMITMENT, AND THEY'RE USING DOLLARS THAT THEY HAVE WORKED EXTRA HARD AS A NON-PROFIT. 
          THAT MONEY IS JUST NOT CHANNELED TO THEM. 
          THEY DON'T GET TAX DOLLARS. 
          THEY HAVE TO GENERATE THE FUNDS. 
          THEY DON'T GET TAX DOLLARS? WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE HOPE SO. 
          I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT, BUT WE ARE SO AT LEAST I AM. 
          I CAN ONLY TALK FOR THIS. 
          YES, BECAUSE AT SOME POINT OR ANOTHER, WE CANNOT KEEP SAYING NO TO EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT COMES OUR WAY. 
          WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA, AND I AM PRO GROWTH. 
          >> IF YOU DON'T MIND STEPPING FORWARD AGAIN. 
          THIS PROGRAM IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THIS GRANT, THOUGH. 
          THIS PROGRAM WITHOUT THIS GRANT, THIS PROGRAM WILL GO FORWARD. 
          I AM I NOT CORRECT ABOUT THAT? 
          >> WELL, THE WAY ANY PROJECT GOES FORWARD IN A NON-PROFIT IS, YOU HAVE TO GO FIND ALL THE FUNDS. 
          THIS WAS A GRANT PROGRAM THAT WAS AVAILABLE, SO CERTAINLY IT WOULD BE NEGLIGENT ON OUR PART NOT TO APPLY FOR IT, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT IS AN INVESTMENT IN DOWNTOWN. 
          IT HELPS US. IT MAKES IT EASIER TO IMPLEMENT IT MORE QUICKLY. 
          I CAN'T SAY WHETHER IT WILL OR IT WON'T BECAUSE WE'LL JUST KEEP FINDING MIRACLES HAPPEN. 
          WE JUST KEEP LOOKING FOR DOLLARS UNTIL WE FIND ENOUGH AND EVERY INVESTMENT THAT WE MAKE HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN IN OUR COMMUNITY. 
          IF YOU HAPPEN TO VOTE NO, THEN YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          WE'LL KEEP LOOKING BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN IT. 
          >> PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I'M NOT CRITICIZING YOU AT ALL FOR APPLYING FOR IT. 
          [00:55:04]
YOU'RE PERFECTLY FREE UNDER THE RULES AND EVERYTHING TO APPLY FOR IT. 
          I HAVE NO CRITICISM. I'M SURE DOING THAT. 
          WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DISCUSS A POLICY ISSUE THAT IS REALLY NOT JUST YOU. 
          IT IS A WIDER AND A BROADER POLICY ISSUE. 
          I HOPE YOU DON'T TAKE IT AS WE HAVE ANY DISTRUST OR ANIMUS OR ANYTHING FOR THE YWCA. 
          I THINK WE ALL APPRECIATE WHAT YOU DO HERE. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I APPRECIATE BECAUSE I'M FEELING A LITTLE. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          I HATE IT WHEN IT BECOMES LIKE FOCUSED JUST ON YOU. 
          IT'S NOT. THERE'S POLICY AND PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES, I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT HERE. 
          HOPEFULLY. THANK YOU, MR. ROSE. 
          YOU DONE? ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. 
          ALL RIGHT. WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE NOW. 
          ALL IN LET'S DO THIS AGAIN. 
          LET'S BRING UP. IF YOU'RE VOTING TO APPROVE THE PERMIT TABLE GRANT TO THE YWCA, PLEASE VOTE YES. OTHERWISE, VOTE NO. 
          THAT PASSES 423. ALL RIGHT. 
          I'M GOING TO TAKE JUST A FIVE- MINUTE-BREAK HERE. 
          WE'LL BE BACK IN FIVE MINUTES. 
          OKAY, NOW WE'RE BACK FROM OUR RECESS AND NOW WE WILL TAKE UP OUR REGULAR AGENDA AND 
          [1.  Resolution - City Manager: Consider and take action to ratify and confirm the appointment of Richard M. Stewart as Fire Chief for the City of Lubbock.]
START WITH ITEM 6.1, AND EXCUSE ME. 
          I'M GOING TO CALL ON A CITY MANAGER NOW TO PROVIDE STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM. 
          >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. 
          ITEM 6.1, A LITTLE UNIQUE. 
          IN FACT, THIS ONLY HAPPENS WITH TWO POSITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. 
          TODAY IS EXCLUSIVELY GOING TO BE ABOUT MY RECOMMENDATION FOR OUR FUTURE FIRE CHIEF. 
          THAT WILL BE RICHARD STEWART, RICHARD M. STEWART, GENTLEMAN IS SITTING FRONT AND CENTER FOR YOU THERE TODAY. 
          THE REASON WE DO THIS IN THIS MANNER, POLICE AND FIRE ARE BOTH UNDER TEXAS CIVIL SERVICE, WHAT'S COMMONLY CALLED CHAPTER 143. 
          IN CHAPTER 143, THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, THERE'S A STATEMENT THAT REQUIRES THE APPOINTMENT OF THE HEAD, WHICH WOULD BE THE CHIEF OF A CIVIL SERVICE DEPARTMENT IS TO THE APPOINTMENT IS TO BE MADE BY THE MUNICIPALITIES CHIEF EXECUTIVE, AND IT MUST BE CONFIRMED BY THE MUNICIPALITIES GOVERNING BODY, WHICH, OF COURSE, IS YOU. 
          COUNCIL, WE'VE BEEN THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS. 
          I'M GOING TO DEVIATE JUST SLIGHTLY. 
          I WANT TO GIVE SOME PRAISE AND SOME APPRECIATION TO NUMEROUS FOLKS. 
          COUNCIL, THIS WAS AN ENTIRELY IN HOUSE RECRUITMENT. 
          MISS ELIZABETH LAURA, WHO IS OUR RELATIVELY NEW HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR, SHE AND HER TEAM JUMPED IN, AND THEY DID A PHENOMENAL JOB ON OUR BEHALF. 
          WE BROUGHT IN QUALIFIED APPLICANTS FROM THREE STATES AS A RESULT OF THIS PROCESS. 
          WE IDENTIFIED FIVE FINALISTS, AND, OF COURSE, THOSE WERE ALL HERE IN LUBBOCK. 
          THOSE FIVE FINALISTS, WHETHER THEY EXPLICITLY CAUGHT ONTO IT AT THE MOMENT OR FIGURED IT OUT LATER. 
          IN A ROUGHLY 12-HOUR PERIOD WENT THROUGH SIX DIFFERENT INTERVIEWS, ONLY TWO OF WHICH WERE WHAT YOU WOULD THINK OF AS A FORMAL SIT DOWN INTERVIEW. 
          SOME OF THEM HAVE LEFT, BUT THERE ARE PROBABLY 20 OR MORE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM TODAY WHO ASSISTED AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          THEY PROVIDED TOURS. 
          THEY PROVIDED SIT DOWN INTERVIEWS. 
          THEY PARTICIPATED IN THE MEET AND GREETS. 
          THEY WERE CHAPERONED THROUGH SEVERAL PRETTY DELIBERATELY DETERMINED ACTIONS AND ACTIVITIES THROUGH THE COURSE OF THE DAY. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO ASK THEM TO STAND UP, BUT TO ALL THOSE THAT ARE IN THE AUDIENCE, AND TO THOSE THAT ARE NOT HERE AT THE MOMENT. 
          THE PEOPLE ON OUR LOCAL TEAM, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE WHAT ALL DID. 
          THAT BRINGS US TO CHIEF STEWART. 
          CHIEF STEWART, AT THE END OF THE DAY, AND AGAIN, THERE WERE FIVE FINALISTS, AND ANY OF THOSE FIVE INDIVIDUALS EMINENTLY QUALIFIED TO BE THE CHIEF. 
          SELECTED CHIEF STEWART, BECAUSE HE ROSE EVEN ABOVE THAT. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS I LOOK FOR, I WANT TO KNOW THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO BE HERE. 
          NOT THAT THEY NECESSARILY WANT A JOB OR THE NEXT JOB. 
          THEY WANT THIS JOB IN PARTICULAR. 
          CHIEF STEWART DID A PHENOMENAL JOB OF THAT. 
          I WANTED SOMEBODY WHO PASSED ALL OF THOSE SIX INTERVIEWS. 
          [01:00:03]
I WILL SAY LITERALLY 99% COMMONALITY IN THE FEEDBACK FROM ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS, AND THAT INCLUDES WHAT WE GOT BACK FROM OUR PUBLIC MEET AND GREET. 
          CHIEF STEWART HAS SPENT HIS CAREER WITH THE IRVING FIRE DEPARTMENT. 
          IRVING, OF COURSE, IS PART OF THE DALLAS FORT WORTH METROPLEX, BUT IT IS A SURPRISINGLY SIMILAR DEPARTMENT TO LUBBOCK, IN SCOPE, IN SIZE, IN WHAT SERVICES THEY OFFER, IN WHAT THEY DO TODAY WITH THEIR PERSONNEL AND TO SERVE THEIR CITIZENS, AND SOME OF THE STEPS THAT WE ARE SOON TO TAKE CHIEF STEWART HAS ALREADY DONE. 
          NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT, BUT COUNCIL, IT IS MY STRONG RECOMMENDATION AND IT IS MY RESPECTFUL REQUEST THAT YOU RATIFY AND CONFIRM THE APPOINTMENT OF CHIEF RICHARD STEWART TO LEAD LUBBOCK FIRE RESCUE AS ITS NEXT FIRE CHIEF. 
          COUNCIL, SHOULD YOU TAKE THAT ACTION TODAY? CHIEF STEWART WOULD START ON OCTOBER THE 7TH, AND ONE OF HIS FIRST EVENTS WILL, OF COURSE, BE THE FORMAL SWEARING IN CEREMONY AT WHICH ALL OF YOU WILL ALSO BE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE. 
          WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. 
          >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ARE ALL WELCOME. 
          >> DUART, I JUST HAVE TO SAY HE WAS SO NICE AND NOT ONLY WAS HE CONNECTING WITH ME, BUT HE WENT AROUND THE ROOM. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE THAT TO ME DEMONSTRATED THAT YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO MEET WITH OUR FIREFIGHTERS AND REALLY KAREN GET TO KNOW THEM. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT. WELCOME TO LUBBOCK. 
          I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHAT YOU DO. 
          >> I WANT TO COMMEND OUR CITY MANAGER FOR THE FINE JOB HE'S DONE NOW TWO TIMES, GETTING US OUR POLICE CHIEF AND NOW GETTING US OUR FIRE CHIEF. 
          I'M GLAD WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT INHOUSE. 
          WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED. 
          WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT HERE. 
          I'M SO GRATEFUL THAT IT WAS I GUESS ALMOST A UNANIMOUS DECISION OF EVERYBODY THAT LOOKED AT THIS. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THAT HAPPENS. 
          IT MAY HAVE HAPPENED WITH CHIEF HERMAN TOO PRETTY OR CLOSE ANYWAY. 
          I DON'T WANT HIM TO GET A BIGGER HEAD THAN HE'S ALREADY GOT BACK THERE, BUT IT'S SO IMPORTANT THIS POSITION. 
          I THINK PEOPLE TALK ABOUT OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THOSE PEOPLE BEING A BROTHERHOOD OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY SAY NOW, WHEN THEY'RE WOMEN, FIREFIGHTERS. 
          YOU STILL CALL IT A BROTHERHOOD. 
          I DON'T KNOW, BUT A LOT OF IT'S ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS AND HOW WELL YOU RELATE TO THEM. 
          I THINK THERE WAS NO QUESTION THAT YOU RELATED NOT ONLY WELL WITH THOSE OF US WHO SIT UP HERE IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT WITH THE MEN AND WOMEN YOU WILL BE DIRECTING. 
          I'M CERTAINLY PLEASED WITH THE PROCESS, HOW IT PLAYED OUT AND THE RESULTS THIS TIME. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO APPOINT MR. STEWART AS OUR NEXT FIRE CHIEF? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING, AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED, SAY, NAY? WELCOME ABOARD. [APPLAUSE] 
          >> THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL, MR. ATKINSON. 
          I STAND HERE TODAY HUMBLED, HONORED, AND BLESSED. 
          I'M SO EXCITED TO BE HERE. 
          I MET YOUR HUSBAND AT THE MEET AND GREET ACTUALLY COMING IN AND OUT OF THE RESTROOM, WHICH WAS FUNNY AS I'LL GET OUT. 
          BUT I AM JUST SUPER EXCITED TO BE HERE. 
          I DO WANT TO BE HERE. 
          I DO WANT TO BE ENGAGED IN THE COMMUNITY. 
          I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE PHENOMENAL TEAM THAT THE CITY OF LUBBOCK HAS WITH THE EXCEPTIONAL MEN AND WOMEN OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. 
          AS I PEEL THAT ONION BACK, THAT FIRE DEPARTMENT JUST GROWS AND GROWS. 
          IT'S PHENOMENAL. 
          I LOOK FORWARD TO SERVING WITH THEM BEGINNING OF OCTOBER 7TH. 
          I JUST CAN'T WAIT TO START. 
          THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. 
          >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE MAYBE ONE OF THE TOP FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN ALL THE COUNTRY, AND YOUR JOB IS TO KEEP THEM THERE. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. 
          [2.  Ordinance 1st Reading - Planning: Consider and take action on the City of Lubbock Planning and Zoning Commission's final report of September 5, 2024, to the Lubbock City Council on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code (Ordinance No. 2023-O0054) recommended for adoption, limited to the following: 	Table 39.03.023-2 (related to Base Public and Nonresidential Districts Sign Standards) 	Section 39.02.004.a.7, Section 39.02.004.b.7, Section 39.02.004.c.7, Section 39.02.004.d.7, Section 39.02.004.e.7 (related to Signs in Residential Districts for Non-Residential Uses) 	Section 39.03.023.b.8 (related to Monument Signs)]
NOW WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 6.2. 
          I'M GOING TO CALL ON CITY STAFF TO PROVIDE THE STAFF BRIEFING. 
          KRISTIN, YOU'RE GOING TO PROVIDE US WITH A STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM. 
          >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. 
          [01:05:01]
AS YOU WILL RECALL AT YOUR AUGUST 13TH MEETING, YOU CONSIDERED AMENDMENTS TO OUR UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THERE WERE FIVE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU POSTPONED TO TODAY WITH THE REQUIREMENT THAT THEY BE PRESENTED AGAIN TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR SEPTEMBER MEETING. 
          THOSE FIVE AMENDMENTS WERE ITEM NUMBER 4 RELATED TO CANOPY SIGNS IN YOUR BASE PUBLIC AND NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDED AMENDMENT WAS TO CHANGE THE LIMITATION OF ONE SIGN PER CANOPY TO NO MAXIMUM. 
          ITEM NUMBER 5, SAME SECTION OF THE CODE, THE CANOPY SIGNS IN THESE DISTRICTS. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO ALLOW ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAYS. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN SOME RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THESE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PASSED OUT TO YOU PRIOR AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING. 
          THESE CAME FROM COUNCILMAN COLLINS, AND THESE CHANGES WERE PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 5TH MEETING. 
          IN RELATION TO ITEMS NUMBER 4 AND 5, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO KEEP THE CURRENT DEFINITION AND PROVISIONS FOR CANOPY SIGN AND AWNING OR CANOPY THAT IS IN YOUR UDC TODAY. 
          THIS IS DUE TO THE DEFINITION OF AWNING AND CANOPY, SPECIFICALLY STATING THAT IT IS ATTACHED TO A WALL OF THE BUILDING. 
          THEN REMOVING THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS AND REPLACING THEM WITH THE FOLLOWING. 
          ADDING A NEW DEFINITION FOR A FREESTANDING CANOPY, AND THEN ADDING THAT AS A SIGN TYPE TO YOUR UDC THAT WOULD ALLOW TWO SIGNS PER CANOPY FACE AND ALLOW THE ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAYS. 
          ITEM NUMBER 19, WAS AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO SIGNS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR NON RESIDENTIAL USES. 
          WE HAVE A FEW NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT ARE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT SUCH AS THE CHURCH, OFFICE, MEDICAL OFFICE, DAY CARE FACILITY. 
          THIS WOULD ALLOW THOSE BUSINESSES TO FOLLOW THE COMMERCIAL SIGN CODE. 
          THERE ARE NO CHANGES RECOMMENDED TO THIS AMENDMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 33 IS IN RELATION TO MONUMENT SIGNS. 
          THIS IS WHEN YOU HAVE A PROPERTY THAT HAS A MINIMUM OF 400 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON ONE STREET. 
          THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO SPLIT THE AMOUNT OF SIGNAGE THEY ARE ALLOWED INTO TWO MONUMENT OR POLE SIGNS. 
          THIS AMENDMENT JUST CLARIFIES THEY ARE LIMITED TO TWO AND ALLOWED TO DO THAT CHANGE. 
          THERE ARE NO RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THIS AMENDMENT. 
          ITEM NUMBER 47 IS RELATED TO MURALS IN YOUR BASE PUBLIC AND NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. 
          THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CHANGE THE LIMITATION FROM 50% IN YOUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS AND 750 SQUARE FEET IN YOUR NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO NO MAXIMUM. 
          IT WOULD ALLOW 100% OF A WALL TO BE PAINTED WITH A MURAL. 
          THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ONLY APPLY TO YOUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS. 
          THERE WOULD BE NO AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE CURRENT LIMITATION OF 750 SQUARE FEET IN YOUR NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND IN YOUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS, YOU WOULD BE ALLOWED NO MAXIMUM ONLY WHEN LOCATED ON THE SIDE OR REAR FACING WALL. 
          IF SOMEONE WANTED TO DO MURAL ON THE FRONT FACE OF THE BUILDING, THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE 50%. 
          AT THEIR MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS WITH THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT WAS PRESENTED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. 
          NOW I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          >> MR. COLLINS. 
          >> MAYOR, I'D FIRST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO OUR CITY STAFF, MISS SEGER, AND THEN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR RE-EXAMINING THESE AND THE GOOD WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE IN LOOKING AT ADJUSTING THE ORDINANCES. 
          I THINK THAT THE CONCLUSIONS THAT WE REACHED, ALONG WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM, ALL SERVE THE NEEDS OF OUR CITY AND ALLOW US TO ENSURE THAT SIGNAGE DOESN'T GET OUT OF CONTROL AND THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE AN ATTRACTIVE CITY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT, AND IN LIGHT OF THAT, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS AS PRESENTED. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS. THANK YOU, MR. GLASHEEN. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THESE WERE YOUR ISSUES, MR. COLLINS, AND I BELIEVE THEY GOT ADDRESSED. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER. 
          ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM NUMBER 6.2, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. 
          ANY OPPOSED SAY NO. I HEAR NONE IS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. 
          WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 6.3 TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING, 
          [3.  Ordinance 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Ordinance No. 2024-O0128, approving and adopting a budget for Fiscal Year 2024-25; approving summary of estimated and forecasted revenues, appropriations, and use of excess reserves for all funds of the city; providing for necessary transfers of funds between accounts and departments, if required; authorizing reduction of spending by City Manager if necessary; re-appropriation of balances which support authorized obligations or encumbrances; providing for filing of Adopted Budget; establishing civil service classifications and positions; appropriating funds for the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget and Capital Program of the City of Lubbock; providing for continuation of appropriations for projects in capital program; approving all permit, license, fees, and charges for service recommended to be adjusted; approving the pay plan and positions; approving personnel; amending subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d) of section 4.02.041 of the Code of Ordinances by revising animal service fees as contained therein; amending subsection (a) of section 22.04.041 of the Code of Ordinances by revising the wastewater base charge as contained therein; amending subsection (a) of section 22.04.133 of the Code of Ordinances by revising the sewage disposal permit fee as contained therein; amending subsections (h), (i), (j), and (k) of section 22.04.174 of the Code of Ordinances by revising the septic load fees as contained therein; amending subsections (b) and (c) of section 22.06.051 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock by revising the solid waste landfill service fees as contained therein; amending subsection (a) of section 22.06.185 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock by revising the solid waste collections service fees as contained therein; providing for the reconciliation of the transfer of funds from the General Fund to Enterprise Funds; accepting the budgets for Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, Market Lubbock, Inc., Civic Lubbock, Inc., and Vintage Township Public Facilities Corporation;  finding that proper notice of meeting provided by law and ratifying such; providing for publication; and providing for a savings clause.]
ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25, 
          [01:10:03]
AND I WILL NOW CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM. 
          >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE ARE GOOD, ROBERT. 
          >> YES, SIR. 
          >> WELL, GO AHEAD AND JUMP RIGHT IN. 
          COUNCIL, MOST OF THESE SLIDES WILL LOOK FAMILIAR, WE'RE GOING TO WALK THROUGH THE M AGAIN SOMEWHAT QUICKLY. 
          RECALL THAT PRIOR TO YOUR VOTE AT THE LAST MEETING, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF CLEANUP CHANGES THAT WERE PRESENTED. 
          COUNCIL, WE SHOW THOSE AGAIN. 
          JUST QUICKLY, YOU'VE GOT THE INTERFUND LOAN FOR THE MEADOWBROOK GOLF FUND. 
          YOU HAVE THE TRANSFER FROM LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT, WHAT WE CALL THE T COST, TRANSMISSION COST OF SERVICE REVENUE THAT IS REVENUE COMING IN, 2.1 MILLION. 
          INSIDE THE LP&L FUND, A DECREASE IN THEIR BOOK REVENUE OF JUST UNDER 1.2 MILLION, 6 MILLION USE OUT OF EXCESS RESERVES, 250,000 FOR INCREASED OPERATING EXPENSE, AND 4.575 FOR INCREASING FUND LEVEL EXPENSES. 
          MEADOWBROOK GOLF FUND, HERE'S THE OFFSET FOR WHAT YOU SEE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, A $600 ADD TO REVENUE FOR THE CHARITY CARE ACCOUNT IN HEALTH. 
          GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. 
          FLOW THAT UP A LITTLE, TRY TO MAKE THAT EASIER. 
          AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, THIS IS YOUR SEWER LATERAL PROGRAM. 
          CARRY THAT DOWN. 
          THE ONE DIFFERENCE IS THE TWO INDUSTRIAL ELECTRICIAN POSITIONS. 
          REMEMBER, THESE ARE THE ONES ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO COME OUT OF THE BUDGET. 
          THEY GOT FILLED, SO WE'RE TRADING OTHERS FOR THAT. 
          THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS. 
          THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR WASTEWATER. 
          THIS IS FOR OUR EFFLUENT PUMP STATION. 
          WHAT WE'VE GOT IN HERE IS THE OFFSET REDUCTIONS OF 250,000, 275,000, 175,000, THOSE ARE CAPITAL MAINTENANCE ACCOUNTS. 
          THOSE DOLLARS ARE BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE EXISTING EFFLUENT PUMP STATION PROJECT. 
          IT'S A NET ZERO CHANGE. 
          [LAUGHTER] AT THE VERY BOTTOM, YOU SEE THE $300,000 FROM THE NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK NEIGHBORHOOD AND INFRASTRUCTURE FUND. 
          THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY THE DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO QUALIFYING APPLICANTS FOR LOW INCOME ASSISTANCE FOR THE $100 CHARGE ON THE SEWER LATERAL REPAIRS. 
          THEN THEIR OFFSET USE OF EXCESS RESERVES, THAT IS NOT GENERAL FUND RESERVE, THAT IS ALL WHAT WE CALL NLF ON THAT. 
          THE CHANGES ON THIS PAGE ARE THE CHANGES THAT WERE ULTIMATELY ADOPTED IN THE VOTE TO APPROVE THE BUDGET THE LAST TIME. 
          WE'LL RUN DOWN THOSE. 
          DECREASE THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE INCREASE. 
          THE BUDGET THAT I ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WAS AT $2.54 MILLION THAT WAS OVER THE NO NEW REVENUE. 
          WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS REDUCING THAT BY 1.7 MILLION, ADDING THAT SECOND DIVISION CHIEF FOR FIRE, THE THREE FIREFIGHTER RANK POSITIONS, BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FIRE MARSHAL OFFICE, ADDING FOUR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICER POSITIONS TO LPD, THAT'S A TOTAL OF FIVE ALREADY HAD ONE IN THE BUDGET. 
          PAY ADJUSTMENT IN FORENSICS CRIME PROPERTY, AND THIS IS ALL NON-CIVIL SERVICE INSIDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          THE $105,000 FOR BOTH THE PUBLIC AND THE INTERNAL WEBSITE. 
          THE 49,856, THIS IS FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL SOFTWARE. 
          ADDING $100,000 IN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR ASSISTANCE TO HELP US WORK THROUGH THIS FIRST EVER MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENT, THAT WOULD BE TIMES TWO, ONLY $100,000, BUT TWO MEET AND CONFER AGREEMENTS. 
          $100,000 FOR THE LIBRARY CONCEPT. 
          COUNCIL, THIS IS TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE PLEDGES THAT WERE MADE WHEN THE GOTAKI LIBRARY LEASE WAS RENEWED JUST FOR THE THREE YEARS. 
          THIS GETS YOU THE CONCEPTS, THE LOCATIONS, THE BUDGET, AND THE ABILITY TO COME UP WITH A PLAN. 
          THIS IS DECREASING TWO POLICE OFFICER. 
          THESE ARE SWORN POSITIONS, DECREASES TWO, REMEMBER, WE PROPOSED FIVE. 
          THIS KEEPS THREE. 
          JUST A LITTLE DEVIATION, IF I COULD, WE HAVE OUR MOST RECENT WHAT WE CALL POSITION CONTROL REPORTS. 
          IT'S HOW WE TRACK OUR STAFF UTILIZATION. 
          THE LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT SWORN POSITIONS NOW HAVE A TOTAL OF NINE VACANCIES OUT OF 451. 
          THEY ARE DOWN TO A 2% SWORN VACANCY. 
          WE DO HAVE AN OVERTIME REDUCTION. 
          THIS IS OUT OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BUDGET. 
          THIS IS REALLY THE OFFSET FOR HAVING THE ADDITION OF THE DIVISION CHIEF. 
          THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAVE REMOVING OR DECREASING 
          [01:15:03]
THE TRANSFER FOR THE CLAPP POOL REPAIR PROJECT. 
          IF IT'S NOT ON THIS PAGE, IT WAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE PROPOSED BUDGET. 
          WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION LAST TIME ABOUT, LIKE THE LAKE SIX INLETS. 
          THAT'S STILL IN THE BUDGET. 
          IT WAS NOT REMOVED BY THIS PROPOSAL. 
          THAT'S WHAT'S IN YOUR PACKET. 
          THAT IS WHAT WAS APPROVED AT YOUR LAST MEETING. 
          LET ME GO TO THE NEXT SINCE I'VE LEARNED MY LESSON ABOUT DOING MATH IN PUBLIC. 
          WE'RE GOING NOT DOING [INAUDIBLE] BY SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING. 
          THEY'RE UNNAMED, AND THEY'RE SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW BEHIND THE COMPUTER. 
          ON THE LEFT SIDE, THE BLUE BAR, THAT IS THE IMPACT ON $100,000 HOME OF THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE. 
          WE'VE TALKED ALL THROUGH THIS, THE RATES GET CONFUSING WHAT MATTERS IS WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GETTING OR TAKING FOR THE TAXES ON THE FAR RIGHT. 
          THAT IS WHAT WAS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. 
          THE BAR IN THE MIDDLE IS THE BUDGET APPROVED ON YOUR LAST READING, AND IT SHOWS PER $100,000, WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS RATE WOULD BE? LET'S GO TO THE NEXT. 
          THIS BRINGS IN BOTH YOUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS AND YOUR DEBT RATE. 
          NOTE THAT FOR ALL THREE OF THESE BARS, THE DEBT RATE IS THE SAME. 
          IT DOES NOT CHANGE. 
          IT'S NOT PART OF THE NO NEW REVENUE CALCULATION. 
          REMEMBER THAT THE INCREASE IN THE DEBT RATE IS ENTIRELY DUE TO US PULLING DOWN THE DOLLARS FROM THE 2022 VOTER APPROVED ROAD BOND. 
          UNDERNEATH. NOW YOU SEE THE TOTAL IMPACT OF YOUR M&O, ON YOUR AVERAGE HOME, ON THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE ON THE LEFT, THE PROPOSED BUDGET ON THE RIGHT, THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WAS ADOPTED. 
          >> PLEASE EXPLAIN AGAIN, IF YOU WOULD, WHAT M&O MEANS? 
          >> M&O IS MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS. 
          M&O IS HOW WE FUND THE OPERATIONS OF THE GENERAL FUND. 
          THIS IS WHAT PAYS FOR PARKS, FOR POLICE, FOR FIRE, FOR STREET MAINTENANCE, FOR TRAFFIC, FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS. 
          THAT'S WHAT PART OF THE PROPERTY TAX FUNDS, THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS PART OF OUR BUDGET. 
          CORRECT? THEN THE OTHER PART, THE DEBT PART IS FUNDED. 
          EXPLAIN AGAIN HOW THAT IS FUNDED? 
          >> IT ALSO IS FUNDED THROUGH PROPERTY TAX. 
          THESE TWO ADDED TOGETHER CREATE THE ACTUAL PROPERTY TAX RATE. 
          ONLY THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION PORTION OF THE TAX IS WHAT GOES INTO THE DISCUSSION AND THE CALCULATION WHEN WE TALK ABOUT NO NEW REVENUE OR TAX INCREASE OR WHATEVER. 
          >> THE OTHER IS A FIXED AMOUNT, JUST ALREADY SET INTO THE BUDGET, AND WE WORK WITH THE REST OF IT. 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT. THAT FIXED AMOUNT IS DETERMINED BY WHAT YOUR OBLIGATION IS FOR THAT YEAR. 
          IT VARIES YEAR BY YEAR. 
          >> FOR THINGS WE'VE ALREADY VOTED FOR? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> ALL THE CITIZENS WHO VOTED FOR? 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT. BOTH OF THOSE ARE TRUE. 
          >> THANK YOU. CONTINUE, PLEASE. 
          >> HERE'S THE COMPARISON OF THE 2023 TAX RATE VERSUS WHERE THE 2024 TAX RATE STANDS NOW. 
          AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE I BRING UP THAT DISCUSSION. 
          THE RATES NOT NECESSARILY THE RELEVANT PART, IT'S THE REVENUE PRODUCED BY THE RATE. 
          THE DEBT RATE IS UP, JUST UNDER THREE TENTHS OF ONE PENNY. 
          IT'S 2.6% IN REVENUE, BUT IT'S JUST UNDER THREE TENTHS OF A PENNY. 
          THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS RATE IS ACTUALLY DECREASING JUST UNDER 1.3 PENNIES. 
          STILL A TAX INCREASE. 
          THIS IS HOW WE OFFSET THE VALUATIONS, WHAT'S OFTEN CALLED APPRAISAL CREEPS, HOW WE OFFSET IT. QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? COLLECTIVELY, THOSE SLIDES, PREVIOUS SLIDES, IT'S WHERE YOUR BUDGET STANDS TODAY. 
          I HAVE ONE MORE TO SHOW, WHICH I COULD HOLD OFF ON MAYOR. 
          IT'S YOUR HOT TAX ALLOCATION, THAT'S ACTUALLY A LATER ITEM TODAY, BUT THEY ARE ALL NUMBERS YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR BUDGET. 
          THERE ARE NO CHANGES. YOU JUST HAVE TO ADOPT IT SEPARATELY. 
          >> ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? IF I'M CERTAIN TO BE CLEAR, LAST YEAR, THOUGH, WE DID INCREASE OUR PROPERTY TAX RATE BY 3.17%, IS THAT CORRECT? OR OUR REVENUE. 
          >> REVENUE. 
          >> REVENUE BY 3.17%. I'M NOT SURE. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO THE MATH ON HOW MUCH PERCENTAGE, BUT THE REVENUE INCREASED LAST YEAR IN OUR BUDGET, 3.17%, IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> CORRECT. 
          >> WE HAD THAT LAST YEAR. THANK YOU. PLEASE CONTINUE. 
          [01:20:06]
          >> WE DO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL, EXCUSE ME. 
          ON ADDITIONAL PROPOSAL. 
          THIS IS FOR DISCUSSION AS IT RELATES TO THE BUDGET. 
          THIS IS FOR ITEM 6.3, AGAIN, SUBMITTED BY MAYOR MCBRAYER. 
          LET ME GO TO THE FAR RIGHT, I'M SORRY. 
          THIS PROPOSAL DOES BRING YOU DOWN TO THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE. 
          THE 47.74 ON THERE, THAT IS NOT YOUR CURRENT PROPOSAL. 
          THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN MY PROPOSED BUDGET. 
          YOUR CURRENT PROPOSAL IS 47,0120. 
          WE'RE JUST TRYING TO KEEP THEM ALL COMPARED TO THE SAME THING. 
          YOU SEE THE CHANGE ON HERE, ON THE LEFT, YOU HAVE YOUR REVENUES AT THE TOP. 
          THIS DOES INCREASE THE SALES TAX REVENUE BUDGET, 275,000. 
          USE OF EXCESS RESERVES BY 350, OIL AND GAS REVENUE BY 50. 
          YOU SEE THE REDUCTION, THE 2.534 MILLION. 
          THAT'S THE AMOUNT THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS OVER NO NEW REVENUE. 
          THEN YOU SEE BRINGING IN THE 2.1 IN THAT T COST REVENUE THAT WE HAD ON ONE OF THE EARLIER SLIDES. 
          CHANGES TO EXPENDITURES. 
          THIS WOULD REMOVE THREE OF THE FIVE ADDITIONAL LPD OFFICERS, SO THIS WOULD LEAVE YOU WITH TWO. 
          IT DECREASES THE TRANSFER TO MARKET LUBBOCK INC. THAT'S THE MLI, BY 150,000 PULLS OUT THE CLAPP POOL REPAIR PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF 325,000, BRINGS IN A $35,000 REDUCTION TO THE COUNCIL'S BUDGET, AND THAT'S THE OPERATING BUDGET. 
          SAME REDUCTION THAT WE'VE SEEN PRIOR FOR REDUCING THE LFR OVERTIME. 
          THE LIBRARY CONCEPT IN THIS PROPOSAL IS 75. 
          THE MEET AND CONFER ASSISTANCE IS 75. 
          STILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBERS FOR THE NEW WEBSITE AND THE INTERNAL WEBSITE. 
          SAME NUMBER FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL SOFTWARE. 
          SAME FOR THE LPD PAY ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CIVILIANS. 
          ADDS FOUR LPD, PSO POSITIONS, CIVILIANS. 
          THIS BRINGS IN THE HALF PERCENT PD RAISE. 
          THIS WOULD BE PD AT 4.5, AND THIS IS SWORN PD, I BELIEVE MAYOR, CORRECT? IT'S ALL CIVIL SERVICE BRINGS IN THE SECOND DIVISION CHIEF AT LUBBOCK FIRE RESCUE AND THE THREE FIREFIGHTER RANKS THAT WOULD GO TO THE FIRE MARSHAL'S OFFICE. 
          YOU SEE YOUR TOTALS AT THE BOTTOM. 
          THIS IS A BALANCED PROPOSAL, AND IT DOES COME IN AT NO NEW REVENUE. 
          WITH THAT MAYOR, I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS OR STOP. 
          >> I WILL WAIT FOR QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT. 
          >> PROPOSAL. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          >> THIS PROPOSAL IS NEW. 
          I DON'T SEE IT'S PRINTED COPY. 
          DID WE GET THOSE OR IS THERE A POSSIBILITY TO TAKE A BREAK, I'D LIKE TO JUST LOOK AT IT REAL QUICK? 
          >> DO WE HAVE A PRINTED COPY WE CAN GIVE TO EVERYBODY? 
          >> IT'S THE LAST THE PAGE AND MY COPY OF IT. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> IT'S NOT IN THE OTHERS? 
          >> NO. 
          >> I DON'T THINK I SAW IT IN MIND. 
          >> I'D LIKE TO GET IT. 
          >> MR. MAYOR, APPARENTLY, MY COPY IS ENTIRELY COPIES OF THIS PAGE. GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT. 
          [LAUGHTER] WE'LL TAKE A SHORT BREAK SO EVERYBODY GET THAT COPY TO DISCUSS [BACKGROUND]. 
          >> NOT ASK ME IN PUBLIC. 
          EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR COPY NOW, AND DR. WILSON. 
          [01:25:05]
          >> MAYOR, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT FROM THE PRIOR PROPOSAL THAT YOU PROPOSED LAST WEEK, THE ONLY TRUE DIFFERENCE THAT I SEE IS THE AMOUNT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET, IS THAT CORRECT FOR THE JUNIOR AMBASSADOR PROGRAM THAT YOU ADDED THAT BACK IN, OR IS THIS THE EXACT SAME PROPOSAL YOU PROPOSED LAST WEEK? 
          >> THE CHANGES FROM MY PROPOSAL LAST WEEK, THE $35,000 CITY COUNCIL BUDGET REDUCTION WAS IN THAT ONE. 
          WHAT IS NEW AND THIS ONE IS THE DECREASE OF THE TRANSFER TO ML MARKET LUBBOCK FROM 100,000-150,000. 
          THEN THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL $25,000 ADDED TO OIL AND GAS REVENUE. 
          IT WAS 25, NOW IT'S 50. 
          THE INCREASE TO THE USE OF EXCESS RESERVES, I THINK WENT UP 25 AS WELL, FROM 325-350, AND THEN THE SALES TAX NUMBER IS DIFFERENT. 
          I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW DIFFERENT IT IS FROM MY LAST PROPOSAL. 
          DID I MENTION THE MEET & CONFER, THAT DROPPED DOWN TO 75,000. 
          I THINK SINCE WE'RE HIRING OUR CHIEF WHO'S BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS BEFORE, IT'S GOING TO MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT EASIER. 
          MAYBE NOT NEEDING QUITE AS MUCH OUTSIDE INPUT ON THAT, BUT I STILL THINK WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY NEED IT. 
          BUT THOSE ARE WHERE THE MAIN CHANGES ARE. 
          >> I THINK MY CONCERN STILL STANDS THAT MOST OF YOUR OFFSET OF COSTS ARE COMING FROM EXCESS RESERVES AND FROM A PROJECTION ON SALES TAX WITH ECONOMY. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN, THAT YOU'RE JUST GUESSING THAT WE WILL HAVE MORE REVENUE NEXT YEAR. 
          MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT WE'RE USING RESERVES, WHICH WE SAVE FOR EVERY YEAR TO CONTINUE ADDING ON STREET MAINTENANCE, AND SO WE'RE DIPPING INTO A SAVINGS ACCOUNT FOR RECURRING LEVEL EXPENSES OVER AND OVER, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE, SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          >> MR. ATKINSON, WILL YOU BREAK DOWN THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET? I'D LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THAT BUDGET IN THIS PROPOSED AMOUNT, THE 35,000. 
          WHAT IS IT THAT IT ACTUALLY FUNDS? 
          >> WELL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. 
          IT'S UNSPECIFIED. 
          THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN FROM THIS BODY. 
          PART OF THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN THE DOLLARS FOR THE JUNIOR AMBASSADOR PROGRAM, AND THEN THERE WOULD BE A SMALL ROUGHLY A $5,000 THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED, I WOULD FIND OTHER ACCOUNTS TO PULL THAT FROM. 
          OTHER ACCOUNTS SUCH AS TRAINING AND TRAVEL, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          >> THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET AND ACTUALLY, JUNIOR AMBASSADORS, ISN'T THAT $25,000 THAT ACTUALLY FUNDED. 
          IT WAS 25,000. IT WASN'T 30. 
          >> BUDGET. 
          >> ARE YOU SURE? 
          >> PRETTY SURE. MS. BROCK WILL CHECK. 
          >> THANK YOU. THEN THE 5,000 WOULD COVER YOU SAID TRAVEL? 
          >> TRAINING AND TRAVEL ACCOUNT IS AN EXAMPLE OF A PLACE YOU COULD GET ALL OR PART OF THAT. 
          AGAIN, AT THE MOMENT, IT'S UNSPECIFIED. 
          THIS IS A NEW PROPOSAL. 
          >> IT IS UNSPECIFIED. 
          WE HAVE A $600,000 BUDGET FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN A 5% CUT TO THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET. 
          IT CAN COME FROM ANY SOURCE. 
          THE TRIP TO JAPAN, THE JUNIOR AMBASSADOR PROGRAM IS 30,000 OF THAT, WHICH I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, NOT ABSOLUTELY, BUT THAT'S WHERE I WOULD GO LOOKING. 
          THE 5,000, WE UNDERWRITE A LOT OF TABLES AT EVENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          THERE'S MEALS THAT WE SERVE. 
          I THINK WE CAN FIND THE 5,000 ELSEWHERE. 
          WE CAN FIND THE 35,000 ELSEWHERE. 
          IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ALL COME FROM ANY ONE PROGRAM. 
          BUT I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO START WITH OUR HOUSE AND WHAT WE SPEND FOR OURSELVES FIRST. 
          >> WELL, PART OF THE HOUSE IS THAT WE FEED FOLKS IS FOR PRODUCTIVITY. 
          JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, JARRETT. 
          I JUST NEED TO HAVE THESE BECAUSE I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY JUNIOR AMBASSADOR IS $58,000. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? 
          >> I DON'T KNOW. 
          I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT THAT'S GOING BACK A SERIES OF YEARS, AND SOME YEARS IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OTHERS. 
          >> THEN THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS, 
          [01:30:01]
SORRY, I'M TRYING TO DISSECT THIS AND TAKE IT IN SINCE WE GOT IT SO LATE. 
          WE'VE HEARD COMMENTS ABOUT, I THINK THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS 80-YEARS-OLD OR GOING TO BE 80-YEARS-OLD, BUT LOOKS 55, JUST SAYING, AND SHE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT TAXES. 
          I JUST WANT TO BE IN LINE AND CORRECT IN EVERYTHING IN MY DECISION. 
          JARRETT, WITH SENIORS, ISN'T THERE A FREEZE IN PLACE? CAN YOU TELL ME MORE ABOUT THAT? THERE'S NOT A FREEZE IN PLACE FOR- 
          >> THERE IS A SENIOR TAX FREEZE IN LUBBOCK. 
          IT APPLIES TO OWNERSHIP, SO TO A HOMESTEAD. 
          THE NUMBERS WILL MOVE VERY SLIGHTLY, BUT THE SIMPLEST VERSION FOR CITY TAXES WHEN THEY FILE FOR THAT, AND THEY HAVE BECOME ELIGIBLE, AND BECOME 65, THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THEY PAY ON TAXES TO THE CITY. 
          THIS DOESN'T IMPACT SCHOOL OR COUNTY OR OTHER, BUT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THEY PAY TO CITY FREEZES AND DOES NOT CHANGE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT LCAD, EVERY TIME A PROPERTY IS REAPPRAISED, THAT WILL SHOW UP. 
          PROPERTY VALUE WILL MOVE AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO. 
          BUT THE DOLLARS PAID FOR THAT ELIGIBLE PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK ARE FROZEN AT WHATEVER THAT NUMBER WAS IN THAT YEAR. 
          >> NOT READY YET. I'M SORRY. 
          >> DR. WILSON. 
          >> REALLY QUICKLY, MR. ATKINSON, BECAUSE I SEE A COUPLE OF CONFUSED LOOKS OUT IN THE AUDIENCE. 
          DO THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR THAT THROUGH LCAD? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MR. BECK IS ALSO HERE. I SEE HIM SHAKE HIS HEAD. 
          >> IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC. THEY HAVE TO TAKE AN ACTION. 
          >> JUST FOR EVERYBODY, ANYBODY WATCHING OR SIT IN THE AUDIENCE, IF YOU ARE OVER 65, YOU CAN APPLY TO FREEZE YOUR TAXES IF YOU OWN THE HOME. 
          IF YOU ARE THE HOMESTEAD OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, YOU CAN APPLY OVER 65, AND THAT WILL BE A BENEFIT TO EVERYBODY. 
          >> THAT'S UNAFFECTED BY WHATEVER TAX RATE WE ADOPT, IS THAT CORRECT, MR. ATKINSON? 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT. 
          IF A PARTICULAR HOMES BILL THE YEAR THEY QUALIFIED AND FILED FOR THAT FREEZE, IF THE BILL TO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK WAS $450, THAT IS THE BILL FROM THE CITY OF LUBBOCK FROM THAT POINT FORWARD. 
          IT ONLY CHANGES IF THEY CHANGE PROPERTIES. 
          IT'LL REFREEZE, BUT IT CAN CHANGE WHEN THEY CHANGE PROPERTIES. 
          >> THAT'S AN ACTION THAT OUR STATE HAS TAKEN TO PROTECT OUR OLDER CITIZENS, OVER 65 OUR RETIRED CITIZENS, OFTENTIMES, FROM THE EFFECTS OF A TAX INCREASE OR A PROPERTY APPRAISAL INCREASE OR THE COMBINATION OF BOTH TO KEEP THEIR TAXES FROM GOING UP. 
          >> IT WAS ACTUALLY A LOCAL OPTION. 
          >> IT IS A LOCAL OPTION. IT'S A STATE PROVIDED A LOCAL OPTION. 
          >> STATE PROVIDED IT, AND IT WAS A LOCAL OPTION. 
          >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CITIES THAT DIDN'T CHOOSE IT, BUT MAYBE THERE ARE, BUT OUR CITY DID CHOOSE TO DO THAT. 
          OUR OLDER CITIZENS, AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW HAPPY I WAS WHEN I GOT THAT BREAK THE FIRST TIME, HOW MUCH THAT MEANT TO ME. 
          THAT'S NOT WHO I'M THINKING ABOUT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT AFFECTED BY THIS DISCUSSION WE HAVE TODAY. 
          WHO I'M THINKING ABOUT ARE FOLKS LIKE MY OWN KIDS, BOTH OF WHOM ARE TEACHERS, RAISING TWO KIDS, AND HOW THEY'RE AFFECTED BY THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE HERE TODAY. 
          I RAN ON A THREE POINTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS, I WON'T RAISE YOUR TAXES THIS YEAR, SAW NO REASON TO DO SO, I STILL SEE NO REASON TO DO SO THIS YEAR. 
          WE RAISED THEM 3.16%, 1.7% LAST YEAR. 
          I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY THEN. 
          BUT WE HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF THAT THIS YEAR. 
          WE'RE FREEZING AT THAT LEVEL. 
          I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE. 
          LET ME ADDRESS THE CONCERNS ABOUT LOOKING AT SALES TAX REVENUE AND EXCESS RESERVES. 
          I SHARE OUR CITY MANAGER'S CONCERN. 
          HE WANTS TO KEEP OUR EXCESS REVENUES, AND I TRY TO TALK ABOUT THIS AS CLEARLY FOR EVERYBODY LISTENING. 
          THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT WE HAVE TO KEEP IN OUR RESERVES TO SATISFY OUR BOND RATING AND INSURANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          THAT'S ABOUT 25%. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. ATKINSON? 
          >> I BELIEVE IT'S 20 ON GENERAL FUND. 
          >> 20%. WHAT MR. ATKINSON ATTEMPTS TO DO 
          [01:35:03]
AND TO HIS CREDIT IS TO KEEP A RESERVE ABOVE THAT, AND THAT IS MONEY THAT WE USE TO HANDLE DIFFERENT PROJECTS, AND WE'VE USED THAT MONEY FOR OUR STREET PROJECTS AND THINGS LIKE THIS FROM YEAR TO YEAR. 
          HE WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE ABOUT $15 MILLION AND WE'RE AT ABOUT $10 MILLION AT THE MOMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> WE WOULD BE, YES. 
          >> WE WOULD BE AT ABOUT $10 MILLION. 
          THAT'S A FIVE MILLION DOLLAR GAP WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE UP THERE SO THAT HE HAS THE EXCESS RESERVES. 
          HE BELIEVES HE NEEDS TO HANDLE A LOT OF THE PROJECTS THAT BENEFIT ALL OUR CITIZENS. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT'S GOOD POLICY MAKING. 
          THAT'S GOOD DECISION MAKING ON HIS PART. 
          I THINK WE ALL APPROVE OF WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO THERE. 
          TWO YEARS AGO, WHEN WE HAD A NEW COUNCIL AND WE VOTED FOR A NO NEW REVENUE RATE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A LONG TIME, I DON'T BELIEVE WE MADE CUTS LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY. 
          WE WENT TO MR. ATKINSON, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE DID, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. ATKINSON, BUT WE USED EXCESS RESERVES AND SALES TAX REVENUE TO GET TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE. IS THAT CORRECT? 
          >> I BELIEVE SO. WE PREDOMINANTLY PUSHED SALES TAX. 
          THAT WAS COMING OUT OF THE EXTRA MONEY THAT WAS IN THE ECONOMY THROUGH THE COVID RELIEF. 
          WE WERE HAVING DOUBLE DIGIT INCREASES. 
          >> I ASKED MS. BROCK TO GO BACK AND LOOK. 
          I WENT BACK FIVE YEARS, AND I BELIEVE IN 2021, WE HAD, I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE NUMBERS DOWN WITH ME, BUT SOMETHING LIKE SEVEN MILLION OR NINE MILLION. 
          THEN WE WENT TO 11 MILLION. 
          THEN WE WENT TO SEVEN MILLION, THEN SIX MILLION. 
          I THINK THIS YEAR, WE'RE PROJECTED IT AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO COME IN YET, BUT I THINK YEAR PROJECTION WAS ABOUT TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION DOLLAR OVER WHAT YOU BUDGETED FOR. 
          WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO DO HERE IN THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T ALWAYS GO REACHING INTO THOSE BUCKETS. 
          I BELIEVE IN FILLING THOSE BUCKETS DURING GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES. 
          BUT WHEN TIMES ARE NOT THAT GOOD FOR YOUR CITIZENS, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION DOLLAR MORE IN SALES TAX REVENUE AS EXCESS THAT MR. ATKINSON THEN USES TO FILL HIS BUCKET OF EXCESS RESERVES FROM, I THINK USING 10% OF THAT TO RELIEVE THE PROPERTY TAX BURDEN ON OUR CITIZENS IS TOTALLY REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. 
          WE ALREADY HAVE FOUND OUT WE'RE GOING TO GET 2.4 MILLION MORE FROM LP&L THIS YEAR TO HELP FILL THAT BUCKET FROM 10 MILLION BACK UP TO 12-AND-A-HALF MILLION. 
          IF WE BRING IN TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLION MORE AND WE TAKE 275,000 OUT OF IT TO COVER THIS BUDGET, WE'LL STILL HAVE MORE THAN TWO MILLION DOLLARS TO FILL THAT BUCKET UP AGAIN TO GET IT BACK UP TO OVER $14 MILLION. 
          IF WE DON'T SPEND EVERYTHING IN OUR BUDGET THIS YEAR, WHICH WE DON'T ALWAYS DO, THAT MONEY GOES INTO THAT BUCKET AS WELL. 
          I BELIEVE EVEN WITH THIS BUDGET, WE WILL GET WHERE MR. ATKINSON FEELS LIKE WE NEED TO BE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, AND I SEE NO REASON TO PUT AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN OF ANY AMOUNT ON OUR TAXPAYERS, WHO, TO ME, SPOKE VERY CLEARLY, THEY DID NOT WANT THEIR TAXES RAISED. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO DO THAT. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY NEED TO DO THAT. 
          I HAVE ADOPTED IN THIS ALMOST EVERYTHING EVERYBODY ELSE HAS ASKED FOR AND PUT INTO THIS BUDGET. 
          I HAVE MADE MANY CHANGES TO GET TO THIS POINT. 
          THIS IS FAR DIFFERENT FROM THE FIRST BUDGET I PUT OUT THERE. 
          NO CUTS IN SALARIES FOR OUR EMPLOYEES. 
          GONE FROM 1% FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS DOWN TO HALF PERCENT. 
          I HAVE GIVEN AND I HAVE GIVEN. 
          BUT WHAT I CANNOT GIVE UP ON IS MY COMMITMENT TO THE TAXPAYERS NOT TO RAISE THEIR TAXES WHEN IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DO SO THIS YEAR. 
          I AM NOT MAKING A PROMISE WE CAN KEEP THAT NEXT YEAR. 
          WE'VE GOT TOUGH DECISIONS TO MAKE NEXT YEAR. 
          SOME PEOPLE FEEL LIKE I'M ALWAYS GOING TO BE IN THAT PLACE. 
          I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BE THERE NEXT YEAR. 
          I'M JUST HAVING TO TELL PEOPLE ALREADY, WE'VE GOT TOUGH CHOICES TO MAKE NEXT YEAR BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING MEET AND CONFER WITH OUR POLICE OFFICERS, BUT I THINK WE ALL BELIEVE THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM, RATHER THAN US TALK ABOUT IT EVERY YEAR AND BAT IT BACK AND FORTH UP HERE ON THE DAYS. 
          I THINK WE ALL FEEL THAT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME TOUGH CHOICES TO MAKE NEXT YEAR. 
          BUT I BELIEVE OUR TAXPAYERS EXPECT TO SEE DISCIPLINE FROM US THIS YEAR WHEN WE CAN DO SO. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAN EXPECT US TO EXERCISE DISCIPLINE NEXT YEAR WHEN WE REALLY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO IF WE DON'T DO IT THIS YEAR, 
          [01:40:06]
WHEN WE CAN DO THAT. 
          THAT'S WHY THIS IS THE PROPOSAL I'M PUTTING FORWARD. 
          I BELIEVE IT ANSWERS ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE. 
          I CAN'T BE PERFECT. 
          I CAN'T MEET WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS. 
          BUT THIS IS WHAT I'M PROPOSING, AND OF COURSE, WE MAY HAVE A DISCUSSION. 
          WE MAY HAVE AMENDMENTS EVEN TO THIS OR TO DR. WILSON'S OR THE PROPOSAL. 
          I DON'T MEAN TO CALL IT THAT. 
          IT IS THE PROPOSAL WE VOTED ON OR FIVE OF THEM VOTED ON LAST WEEK. 
          WE'LL TAKE THAT UP, BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE MY POSITION AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE TO THE CITIZENS AND TO THIS COUNCIL. 
          WE CAN DO THIS THIS YEAR, AND I BELIEVE WE SHOULD DO THAT THIS YEAR. MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          >> MAY OR NO DOUBT, YOU REALLY HAVE MADE A LOT OF EFFORTS, BUT RIGHT NOW, IT'S SO MUCH INFORMATION, A LOT OF CHANGES. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR ANOTHER 15 MINUTE BREAK. 
          I'D LIKE TO LOOK AT THIS IN PART BECAUSE IT IS A BIG DECISION AND I WANT TO DO MY BEST TO BE RESPONSIBLE IN THAT DECISION. 
          >> DO WE HAVE A COPY OF THE PROPOSAL SIMILAR TO THIS THAT EVERYBODY CAN HAVE TO LOOK AT? WE DON'T HAVE IT EXACTLY IN THAT SAME FORMAT IN HERE, DO WE? 
          >> I'M SORRY, MAYOR. THIS PROPOSAL IS IN EVERYBODY'S HANDS. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PRIOR? 
          >> NO, THIS IS THE PRIOR. 
          >> I'M JUST SAYING TO COMPARE IT AGAINST THE OTHER ONE. 
          >> MAYOR, IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT I CAN PUT LAST MEETINGS UP ON THE SCREEN. 
          IS THAT WHAT YOU'D LIKE? 
          >> WHAT YOU'VE GOT ON YOUR SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS MY LAST PROPOSAL. 
          >> THAT'S TODAY'S. 
          >> THIS IS TODAY'S. BUT WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO SEE IS MY LAST ONE, THE ONE BEFORE TODAY? 
          >> I WANT TO LOOK AT THIS AND I WANT A BREAK SO THAT I CAN REVIEW IT. 
          >> I HAVE NO OBJECTION. THAT'S FINE. 
          WE'LL TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS. THANK YOU. 
          >> WE'RE BACK FROM OUR RECESS. 
          HOPE EVERYBODY'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK OVER THESE PROPOSALS. 
          BUT I NOTICED BEFORE WE WENT TO BREAK, DR. WILSON, YOU HAD YOUR LIGHT ON. DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? 
          >> I THINK THAT WAS JUST FAVOR. [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> YOU'LL RESERVE YOUR COMMENTS. 
          [NOISE] I BELIEVE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM YOU, MR. ATKINSON. 
          IS THERE? I THINK YOU IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER FROM YOU? 
          >> THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER. 
          I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS IF POSSIBLE, OTHER THAN THAT, NO, SIR. I'M DONE. 
          >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT OF MR. ATKINSON OR ME ABOUT MY BUDGET OR ABOUT THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT ACTUALLY WE VOTED ON LAST WEEK. 
          ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? MR. WADE, YOU WILL STAND BY [LAUGHTER] TO MAKE SURE WE DO THIS ALL PROPERLY, BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THE STRANGE ASPECTS OF OUR STATE LAW THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO VOTE ON A BUDGET TWICE. 
          WE VOTE TO APPROVE ONE, AND THEN WE VOTE TO RATIFY ONE. 
          NOT SURE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO WORDS ARE. 
          THEY SEEM LIKE THE SAME THING TO ME, BUT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES US TO TAKE BOTH VOTES. 
          THEN WE WILL VOTE ON A TAX RATE SO THERE ARE THREE VOTES THAT WE WILL BE HAVING NOW, AND SO WE'LL BRING UP PROPOSALS. 
          WE'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION, HAVE A VOTE, AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ONE. 
          HAVE A DISCUSSION, HAVE A VOTE. MR. COLLINS, I SEE. 
          YOU WANT TO CALL ON YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ITEM 6.3, SIR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED IN OUR SECOND READING. THANK YOU. 
          >> MOTION MADE BY MR. COLLINS, SECOND BY DR. WILSON. 
          ANY DISCUSSION, MR. GLASHEEN? 
          >> LAST TIME I VOTED AGAINST THE BUDGET, BECAUSE IT IS A TAX INCREASE, AND I REALLY BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE SPENDING. 
          I'D LIKE FOR US TO RECONSIDER MAYOR MCBRAYER'S AMENDED PROPOSAL. 
          I THINK THERE ARE SOME REAL MERITS TO THIS PROPOSAL, AND I'LL BE THE FIRST TO SAY THAT I'D PREFER TO SEE A PROPOSAL THAT CUTS SPENDING RATHER THAN INCREASING THE PROJECTED REVENUE. 
          BUT THE BEST PART OF THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL IS THAT, IT AVOIDS A TAX INCREASE. 
          [01:45:01]
I THINK THAT THERE'S ROOM TO CUT SPENDING THAT DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE CITY MANAGERS FIRST PROPOSED BUDGET FOR PRIORITIES SUCH AS MONEY FOR WEBSITE REDESIGNS, NEW WEBSITES, CIVILIAN PAY INCREASES, ADDED CIVILIAN POSITIONS. 
          WE'RE CLOSE ENOUGH THAT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO BRIDGE THIS GAP SO IF THERE IS AN AREA THAT WE CAN FIND COMMON GROUND, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR ALMOST ANY PROPOSAL THAT THE FIVE WHO VOTED FOR THE BUDGET THE FIRST TIME WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          >> NO DOUBT THAT WE ALL HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, AND I APPRECIATE THAT THE MAYOR HAS OFFERED TO HAVE SOME MORE WIGGLE ROOM. 
          THANK YOU FOR THAT, MAYOR. 
          I KNOW THAT IT IS TOUGH. 
          I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE DOING. 
          I HAD TO TAKE A LITTLE BREAK BECAUSE, I HAD TO GO TOSS A COIN JUST KIDDING Y'ALL. 
          IT'S A SERIOUS SUBJECT, BUT IT IS ALSO VERY STRESSFUL BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FOLKS ON THE DIES, IT'S ABOUT THE CITIZENS, AND IT IS VERY DIVIDED. 
          IT IS A VERY DIVIDED DISCUSSION WITH A LOT OF AS I'VE LISTENED TODAY, I DID HEAR SOME MISINFORMATION. 
          I HAD TO CONFIRM TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT SOME FOLKS SAID WAS ACCURATE OR INACCURATE AND JUST WEIGH OUT SOME THINGS AND I THINK I'M READY TO VOTE, MAYOR. 
          >> MR. GLASHEEN, WERE YOU MAKING A MOTION OR WERE YOU, TO AMEND OR WERE YOU JUST. 
          >> I BELIEVE THAT THE MOTION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE, MR. WADE, IF YOU CORRECT ME THAT THERE'S A MOTION SECOND FOR THE BUDGET AS ADOPTED? 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW. THAT'S CORRECT. 
          A MOTION AND SECOND FOR THE BUDGET THAT YOU ALL APPROVED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. 
          >> IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR ME TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THAT AT THIS POINT? 
          >> THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO YOU, COUNCILMAN. 
          >> WELL, IF IT'S PROCEDURAL CORRECT, THEN [OVERLAPPING]. 
          >> YOU CAN YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO AMEND THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO INCORPORATE THE CHANGES IN MAYOR MCBRAYER'S MOST RECENT PRESENTATION. 
          >> IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? I WILL SECOND THAT. ARE THERE ANY FURTHER MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR? 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] CAN I ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION? 
          >> YES. WE GOT WE'VE GOT A MOTION IN THE SECOND SO THERE CAN BE DISCUSSION, YES. 
          >> I NOTICED ON HERE, MARY THAT YOU HAVE TO ADD A 5% TO PD RAISE. 
          TOTAL 4.5%. 
          WITH THE MEET AND CONFER, DO YOU THINK THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO DO THAT? I JUST WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED ON THE MEET AND CONFER. 
          >> YOU ASK QUESTIONS. [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS I THINK THAT'S MY DILEMMA. 
          I WANT TO GIVE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK THE MEET AND CONFER FOR ME IS THAT NOT SOMETHING YOU THINK WE WILL ACHIEVE? I DON'T KNOW. WHAT DO YOU THINK? 
          >> I'LL JUST GIVE YOU MY THOUGHTS ON THAT. 
          OF COURSE, MY ORIGINAL PROPOSAL WAS A 1% RAISE. 
          I'VE SINCE DROPPED THAT DOWN TO HALF A PERCENT RAISE AND ALSO, ADDING TWO ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS. 
          I THINK THE PROPOSAL THAT CAME FROM US LAST WEEK HAD THREE ADDITIONAL POLICE OFFICERS AND NO INCREASE. 
          AS FOR THE MEET AND CONFER, I DO BELIEVE THAT THAT WILL SOLVE A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES, A LOT OF THOSE PROBLEMS. I DO LOOK I'LL CREATE OTHER ONES FOR US AS WELL. 
          IT'LL CREATE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES FOR US THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. 
          I DO THINK IT IS A FAIR WAY OF DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF PAY FOR POLICE AND FIREMEN BECAUSE, THEY GET TO PUT ALL THEIR ISSUES ON THE TABLE THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEM. 
          [01:50:01]
IT'S A BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN CITY MANAGEMENT AND THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, IN THIS CASE, THEIR ASSOCIATIONS TO ARRIVE AT AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY THEN PRESENT TO US TO APPROVE. 
          TO YOUR POINT, YES, I DO BELIEVE THAT A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE HOPEFULLY WILL BE ADDRESSED WITH THE MEET AND CONFER NEXT YEAR. 
          DO YOU WISH TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT OR TO THE AMENDMENT THEM, WHICH YOU CAN DO? 
          >> I THINK DAVID WANTS TO SPEAK. 
          >> MR. GLASHEEN. 
          >> I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD STARTING PLACE TO DISCUSS SOME CHANGES AND REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING. 
          ONE OF THE COMMON CONCERNS THAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT, THE SPENDING IN THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL IS SUPPORTED BY INCREASED REVENUE PROJECTIONS. 
          IS THERE A CATEGORY OF SPENDING THAT WE COULD REDUCE AND OFFSET THE INCREASED REVENUE ACCORDINGLY THAT WOULD GET ANY SUPPORT FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL, LIKE THE WEBSITES, THE SOFTWARE, CIVILIAN INCREASES? OR OTHER CATEGORIES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THIS BUDGET. 
          IS THERE ANY PORTION OF THE CITY'S SPENDING THAT WE COULD DISCUSS REDUCING TODAY? 
          >> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO OFFER AS AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION? 
          >> I'M WILLING TO CONSIDER ANYTHING, AND, I THINK I'VE MADE THE MOST PROPOSALS AT THIS POINT. 
          I HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY TRACTION, SO I WANT TO OPEN IT UP TO SEE IF THERE'S SOMETHING I'M MISSING, BUT IT'S JUST A MATH EXERCISE THAT WE NEED TO IF YOU WANT TO OFFSET THE INCREASED REVENUE THAT'S ABOUT $675,000. 
          THAT COULD BE DONE BY STRIKING THE WEBSITE, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL SOFTWARE, THE FORENSIC PAY, THE PD RAISE. 
          THE FIRE MARSHAL POSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A LEFTOVER MONEY TO INCREASE IN OTHER AREAS IF YOU WANTED TO SPEND MORE ON MEET AND CONFER OR ON THE LIBRARY PROCESS, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          THERE ARE 10,000 DIFFERENT WAYS THAT WE CAN REDUCE THIS SPENDING, AND I'M WILLING TO CONSIDER 9,999 OF THEM JUST MAKING UP NUMBERS. 
          IF WE CAN GET ANY FEEDBACK FROM ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, I THINK IT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, THIS IS A VOTE THAT TAKES FIVE TO INCREASE THE TAXES, SO ANY ONE PERSON CAN WITHDRAW THEIR SUPPORT FROM THE PROPOSAL THAT INCREASES TAXES AND WOULD BE ON THE SIDE OF THE TAXPAYERS TODAY. 
          >> MR. ROSE. 
          >> WHAT I NOTICED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE OFFERED GET RID OF THE WEBSITE, GET RID OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL SOFTWARE, GET RID OF THE LIBRARY CONCEPT TO GET THERE. 
          ONE THING I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I DIDN'T DO WAS, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD. 
          ALL OF THESE THINGS WILL BE HERE NEXT YEAR. 
          IF YOU CUT THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL SOFTWARE, IT'S GOING TO BE THERE NEXT YEAR. 
          IT STILL WILL BE INOPERABLE. 
          YOUR WEBSITE, AND INTERNET WILL STILL BE THERE NEXT YEAR AND NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. 
          I'VE STRUGGLED WITH THIS VOTE. 
          I ACTUALLY HAD A CONSTITUENT REACH OUT TO ME AND QUOTE MY CAMPAIGN PAGE THAT "PROMOTING FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY AND PROTECTING LUBBOCK CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES TO SEE THAT TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT RESPONSIBLY ACROSS LUBBOCK AND DISTRICT 4." I DID NOT CHOOSE TO PUT THAT ON MY WEBSITE AND ANNOUNCE THAT TO THE PUBLIC JUST FOR POLITICAL POINTS. 
          I MAINTAIN THAT THAT STATEMENT IS STILL MY GOAL AND VISION FOR THIS CITY. 
          BEING FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE DOESN'T ACTUALLY HAVE A SET DEFINITION. 
          YOU CAN DEFINE FISCALLY AND RESPONSIBLE, BUT THEY DON'T DEFINE TOGETHER. 
          BUT IT MEANS TO ME, SPENDING TAX MONEY WISELY AND CARE FOR THE TAXPAYER. 
          THAT DUTY FALLS IN THIS COUNCIL TO DIRECT SPENDING ON PROJECTS THAT MAKE SENSE ON 
          [01:55:04]
MUNICIPAL SERVICES THAT THE PUBLIC EXPECTS ON PUBLIC SERVICES, ON PUBLIC SAFETY BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE FUNDS FOR POLICE AND FIRE ON WELL MAINTAINED STREETS, ROADS, AND MANY OTHER NECESSARY OBLIGATIONS OF THE CITY. 
          WE CAN GO BACK TO THE TIME WHERE WE AND LASTLY LEASED OUR EQUIPMENT, OUR COMPUTERS. 
          AT TIMES, ACTUALLY WE WERE LEASING RAINCOATS, ALL IN THE NAME SO WE COULD GET A PAT ON THE BACK AND CALL OURSELVES A CONSERVATIVE, WHILE WE END UP COSTING THE TAXPAYERS AND THE CITY EVEN MORE IN THE LONG RUN. 
          DOES LEASING OUR EQUIPMENT, FINANCING OUR ROAD MAINTENANCE, OR SPENDING MONEY FROM A SAVINGS ACCOUNT SOUND LIKE IT'S FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE TO YOU? IT SOUNDS LIKE THE OPPOSITE TO ME, BUT THAT IS THE EXACT POSITION THAT THE CITY'S BEEN IN BEFORE, AND WE CAN GO BACK IF WE DECIDE TO GO THAT WAY. 
          LAST MONTH, LP&L LET THE COUNCIL KNOW THAT T-COST FUNDS WOULD BEGIN BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY IN APPROXIMATELY 2.1 MILLION. 
          THIS COUNCIL DID NOT SIT UP HERE AND NEFARIOUSLY RUB OUR HANDS TOGETHER AND IN ANTICIPATION OF WHAT UNNECESSARY PROJECT WE WOULD SPIN THAT ON. 
          NO, IN FACT, BOTH PROPOSALS, DR. WILSON'S, AND THE MAYORS, TO THEIR CREDIT, OPTED TO BUY THE TAX RATE DOWN FROM THE CURRENT TAX RATE AND FROM THE PROPOSED TAX RATE [INAUDIBLE] VERY REASONABLE. 
          I'M NOT HERE TO BANKRUPT THE CITY, BUT I'M NOT HERE TO BANKRUPT THE TAXPAYER EITHER. 
          I'M HERE TO MAKE RESPONSIBLE AND REASONABLE DECISIONS, AND THIS TAX RATE IS VERY RESPONSIBLE AND VERY REASONABLE, AND IT IS VERY CLOSE TO A NO NEW REVENUE. 
          MY MAIN CONCERN IS THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS I HAVE THE MAYOR'S EXPENDITURES HERE FOR HIS PROPOSAL IS $310,546. 
          WHAT IS DR. WILSON? 
          >> DOCTOR WILSON'S PROPOSAL IS 310,673,593. 
          >> IF MY MATH IS CORRECT, WHICH I'M DOING CITY MANAGER MATH UP HERE, $127,218 IS THE DIFFERENCE IN OUR $310 MILLION GENERAL FUND BUDGET? WHERE YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SPENDING THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAXPAYER MONEY, WHERE WE ARE FINDING THIS IN THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL TO GET TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS GUESSING ON AN INCREASE IN SALES TAX, AND PULLING THE REST OUT OF RESERVES. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AND THEN PULL IT OUT OF RESERVES AND THEN PAT MYSELF ON THE BACK AND CALL MYSELF A CONSERVATIVE. 
          I CANNOT SUPPORT THE SPENDING OF THE EXCESS RESERVES. 
          >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, MY PROPOSAL LEAVES THE BUCKET OF MONEY AND RESERVES ABOUT THE SAME. 
          IT'S A NET ZERO. 
          IT'S NOT REALLY PULLING IT OUT OF RESERVES. 
          WE WERE GOING TO PULL IT OUT FOR THE POOL. 
          WE PUT THAT BACK IN THERE. 
          BY TAKING IT OUT HERE TO HELP BALANCE THE BUDGET SO THAT IT WORKS FOR OUR CITIZENS, IT STILL LEAVES IT AT THE SAME POINT. 
          IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN OUR ORIGINAL BUDGET THAT CAME TO US PROPOSAL FROM MR. ATKINSON. 
          I THINK THERE'S A $25,000 DIFFERENCE NOW IN THAT. 
          THE BUCKET IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. 
          AS I TRIED TO POINT OUT, THAT BUCKET WILL BE REFILLED DURING THIS NEXT YEAR BY THE 2.4 OR $5 MILLION WE'RE GETTING FROM LP&L THAT THEY FOUND. 
          IF THE ESTIMATES OF TAX REVENUE STAY WHERE THEY ARE, BY THE EXCESS AND, SALES TAX REVENUES, WHICH ARE ALSO TAXES OUR CITIZENS PAY. 
          THAT'S WHY I SAY, I THINK IT'S REASONABLE WHEN OUR TAXPAYERS ARE TRYING TO DIP INTO THEIR SAVINGS, OR PUTTING STUFF ON THEIR CREDIT CARD TO ACTUALLY MAKE ENDS MEET IN THEIR FAMILIES AND FOR THEIR BUDGETS THAT WE DO THE SAME. 
          WE HAVE NOT REALLY, TO MR. GLASHEEN'S CREDIT, HE'S REALLY LOOKED HARD TO TRY TO FIND WAYS TO CUT, 
          [02:00:01]
BUT WE HAVE NOT HAD AN APPETITE. 
          THIS COUNCIL HAS NOT HAD AN APPETITE FOR YEARS TO CUT MUCH OF ANYTHING WHEN OUR CITIZENS ARE CUTTING DAY AFTER DAY. 
          >> THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, AS OUR CITY MANAGER POINTS OUT, IT'S NOT A MAGIC NUMBER, IT'S A NUMBER THAT'S ESTABLISHED ONCE YOU KNOW HOW MUCH YOUR PROPERTY TAX VALUES ARE. 
          BUT IT IS A FACTOR THAT EXERCISE DISCIPLINE OVER US. 
          AT LEAST TO TRY TO GET TO THAT POINT. 
          IT'S NOT A MAGIC NUMBER. 
          WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENCES OF 100,000, $130,000. 
          THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, WE HAVEN'T WORKED VERY HARD TO TRY TO GET ANYWHERE BELOW THAT AT ALL, BUT AT LEAST IT'S A DISCIPLINE ON US TO GET THERE SO THAT OUR TAXPAYERS KNOW AT LEAST THIS YEAR, WE DID NOT RAISE YOUR TAXES. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO GO ON RECORD AS RAISING THE TAXES OF THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS. 
          I BELIEVE THAT'S NOT JUST CONSERVATIVE, BUT IT'S RESPONSIBLE IN THE CURRENT CLIMATE. 
          MAYBE ALL OF US UP HERE CAN WRITE THAT CHECK, CAN PAY THAT BILL. 
          BUT I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO CANNOT, AND I CANNOT MINIMIZE WHAT WE ARE DOING HERE BECAUSE OF THAT. 
          I DON'T KNOW, AND I HOPE THAT I DIDN'T HEAR FROM YOUR COMMENTS, MR. ROSE, THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING POLITICAL WITH ME, JUST PURELY POLITICAL. 
          I'VE BEEN ACCUSED OF THAT BEFORE. 
          IT'S A PROMISE I MADE, AND IT'S A PROMISE I INTEND TO KEEP ALL OF OUR DECISIONS UP HERE, OUR POLICY DECISIONS, AND THAT SINCE THEY ARE ALL POLITICAL. 
          WHAT IS YOUR PHILOSOPHY? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO? WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU, WHO'S IMPORTANT TO YOU? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE]. 
          >> MEMBER TEM. 
          >> THIS IS DIRECTOR TEM, MR. ATKINSON. 
          IF WE WENT WITH NO NEW REVENUE, WHAT KIND OF DEFICIT DO YOU THINK WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT? 
          >> I THINK THE DISCUSSION OF THE DEFICIT IS A LITTLE BIT SEPARATE. 
          THE CONCEPT OF THE DEFICIT IS TAKING THE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS OUT OF THE RESERVE. 
          IS ONE TIME MONIES. 
          YES, THEY REACCUMULATE. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. TAKING THOSE DOLLARS OUT, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS BACKING AN ONGOING EXPENSE WITH ONE TIME DOLLARS. 
          I'M SORRY, IT SOUNDS LIKE I'M WALKING A CIRCLE, I'M NOT. 
          IT'S NOT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, IT'S WHERE YOU'RE GETTING THE MONEY TO COVER YOUR EXPENSE. 
          IF YOU'RE GETTING THOSE MONIES OUT OF ADDITIONAL RESERVES, THOSE ARE ONE TIME DOLLARS. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR THE PROPOSAL WHICH IS CALLED THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL, THE NO NEW REVENUE PROPOSAL MADE BY MR. GUSCIN THAT I SECONDED. 
          THAT IS THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO AMEND THE, FOR SOME PEOPLE IT'S DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN DO THAT. 
          THIS VOTE IS TO AMEND THE BUDGET WE PASSED ON FIRST READING A WEEK AGO. 
          EVERYBODY THAT'S WATCHING THIS AND TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING UP HERE AND WATCHING THE SAUSAGE GET MADE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND IN THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU, THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL THAT IS THE NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET THAT MATCHES THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE THAT WOULD NOT RAISE TAXES. 
          I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS. 
          MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE ASK POLL THE COUNCIL, STARTING WITH MR. COLLINS ON THEIR VOTE, PLEASE. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS? 
          >> NO. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE? 
          >> NO. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER DR. WILSON? 
          >> NO. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          [02:05:04]
          >> I'LL PASS TO MR. GUSCIN AND COME BACK TO YOU. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER GUSCIN. 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. MAYOR PRO TEM? 
          >> NO. 
          >> I VOTE. YES. 
          >> THAT IS A VOTE OF FIVE TO TWO. 
          >> NOW WE HAVE A BUDGET. 
          >> TWO TO FIVE. 
          >> NO. 
          >> WE'VE APPROVED A BUDGET. 
          >> NO. 
          >> NO? OH, THAT'S RIGHT. I'M SORRY. YES. 
          >> ALL THIS WAS, WAS A MOTION TO AMEND, YOU STILL HAVE THE MOTION BEFORE. 
          [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S RIGHT. 
          >> AMEND THE MOTION THERE WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING MORE ON IT. 
          WE JUST CAN VOTE ON IT. 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> LET'S CONTINUE FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT. 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> DO YOU NEED FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. LET'S AGAIN, HAVE A VOTE ON THE BUDGET. 
          THE SECOND READING OF THE BUDGET THAT WE VOTED ON OR THAT WAS VOTED ON LAST WEEK. 
          THIS IS AGAIN, JUST ON THE BUDGET, NOT ON THE TAX RATE, AND IT'S TO APPROVE THE BUDGET. 
          WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER VOTE TO RATIFY IT IN A MINUTE. 
          AGAIN, MR. SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE POLL THE COUNCIL? 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER DR. WILSON? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER GUSCIN? 
          >> NO. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS? 
          >> NO. 
          >> FIVE TO TWO. 
          >> WELL, ME. 
          >> MAYOR. APOLOGIZE. 
          >> THANK YOU. DON'T SKIP ME. PLEASE. NOW, 
          [4.  Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution ratifying the adoption of the FY 2024-25 Budget that will require raising more revenue from property taxes than in the previous year.]
I THINK THIS NEXT VOTE'S MUCH EASIER. 
          THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL ABOUT THIS VOTE OTHER THAN IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW THAT WE RATIFY IT. 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT IF YOU APPROVE A BUDGET WHERE THERE'S AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION, THEN YOU MUST ALSO RATIFY THE BUDGET THAT YOU JUST APPROVED. 
          SO THIS IS JUST RATIFYING ESSENTIALLY THE VOTE THAT YOU JUST TOOK. 
          >> OKAY. 
          >> THIS IS AGENDA ITEM, I BELIEVE, 6.4. 
          >> [INAUDIBLE] AGENDA ITEM 6.4 WHICH WILL RATIFY THE CURRENT BUDGET FOR 2024, 2025. 
          >> IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> I SECOND. 
          >> MR. ROSE. 
          >> YES. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? LET'S DO THIS AGAIN SAME WAY. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER DR, WILSON? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER GUSCIN. 
          >> NO. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MAYOR? 
          >> NO. 
          >> FIVE TO TWO. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. NOW WE GO ON TO 6.5. 
          [5.  Ordinance 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Ordinance No. 2024-O0129, setting the tax rate and levying a tax upon all property subject to taxation within the City of Lubbock for 2024; apportioning said levy among the various funds and items for which revenue must be raised; fixing the times in which said taxes shall be paid and assessing penalty and interest for nonpayment of such taxes within the time provided.]
THIS IS A SECOND READING. LET ME JUST ASK OUR CITY MANAGER TO BRIEF US ON THIS. 
          >> ITEM 6.5, THIS IS THE SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE TAX RATE. 
          IT'S THE TAX RATE TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AND ALSO RATIFIED. 
          THIS DOES INCREASE TAXES. 
          THIS IS ALSO THE ONE THAT REQUIRES THE SPECIFIC STATUTORY LANGUAGE AS IT REGARDS TO THE MOTION. 
          >> I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.470120, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 0.72% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BUDGET THAT THIS COUNCIL HAS PASSED. 
          >> IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> ANY DISCUSSION? JUST TO BE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT'S WATCHING THIS, NOW WE ARE VOTING ON A TAX RATE THAT WILL BRING IN THE REVENUE TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET THAT WAS JUST PASSED 5-2. 
          UNDER THE LAW, THIS HAS TO PASS BY A SUPERMAJORITY. 
          THERE WOULD BE FIVE VOTES REQUIRED TO PASS ANY TAX RATE THAT INCREASES THE TAXES ON THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK. 
          A VOTE OF 4-3, EVEN THOUGH IT IS A MAJORITY VOTE WILL NOT SUCCEED. 
          THERE NEEDS TO BE FIVE VOTES, SUPERMAJORITY TO PASS A TAX RATE TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET. 
          JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO BE CLEAR BECAUSE IT'S VERY CONFUSING, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN BY THE STATE IN ORDER TO PROTECT AGAINST ARBITRARY RAISES OF TAXES, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE COUNCIL IS A SUPERMAJORITY TO RAISE YOUR TAXES. 
          [02:10:01]
AGAIN, WE WILL PICK A POLL. 
          STARTING WITH MR. COLLINS. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS. 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER DR. WILSON? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCIL MEMBER GUSCIN? 
          >> NO.. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM? 
          >> NO. 
          >> MAYOR? 
          >> NO. 
          >> THAT MOTION FAILS 4-3. 
          >> NOW WE'RE AT THAT POINT, THAT NOBODY REALLY LIKES BEING AT. 
          BUT WE DON'T HAVE A TAX RATE SUPERMAJORITY VOTE TO SUPPORT A BUDGET. 
          WE'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION NOW ON THE BUDGET. 
          >> FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DO IS TO A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE BUDGET ADD IT TO 6.3. 
          >> MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE BUDGET. 
          I WILL NOW CONSIDER A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE ON APPROVING THE BUDGET. 
          >> THIS IS MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM 6.3. 
          >> 6.3, WE WILL GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN, WOULD WE? 
          >> YEAH. 
          >> I DON'T THINK WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE, THIS IS A NEW TERRITORY. 
          A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM 6.3. 
          >> AGENDA ITEM 6.3. THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> I HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM 6.3. 
          WHAT DO WE GET THEM? I DIDN'T HEAR THE MOTION. WHO MOVED? 
          >> I BELIEVE THE MOTION NEEDS TO BE FROM SOMEONE WHO VOTED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE [OVERLAPPING] 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> ONE OF THE FIVE PEOPLE WHO VOTED, HAS TO MOVE TO RECONSIDER. 
          >> THAT'S RIGHT. 
          >> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM I GUESS, ONE OF YOU ALL OR ONE OF YOU TWO? 
          >> SINCE THE VOTE WAS 4-3 WITH THE THREE VOTING AGAINST THE TAX RATE TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET THAT WAS APPROVED 5-2, THEN IN ORDER TO APPROVE A TAX RATE TO SUPPORT A BUDGET, THEN EITHER YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AMEND THE BUDGET BECAUSE NOW THAT THAT MOTION HAS FAILED, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BUDGET AND EITHER CHANGE THE BUDGET OR YOU GO BACK AND SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, I GUESS TO VOTE ON THE TAX RATE IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT AS WELL. 
          BUT IN ORDER TO RECONSIDER IF GOING BACK TO THE BUDGET, THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER MUST COME FROM SOMEONE WHO MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET THE FIRST TIME AROUND. 
          THE SECOND CAN BE FROM ANYBODY, BUT THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE BUDGET NEEDS TO BE APPROVED, NEEDS TO BE MADE BY SOMEONE WHO MOVED TO APPROVE THE BUDGET THE FIRST TIME AROUND. 
          DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, MAYOR PRO TEM? 
          >> IT DOES. 
          >> IF WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION MADE TO RECONSIDER, WE JUST SIT HERE, THE REST OF THE EVENING OR ADJOURN, IS THAT CORRECT OR WHAT WOULD WE DO? 
          >> I MEAN, YOU ONLY HAVE LIMITED TIME TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE A BUDGET. 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> YOU CAN EITHER TABLE, YOU CAN RECESS, WE WAIT FOR ANOTHER MOTION ON THE TABLE. 
          YOU CAN FINISH THE REST OF YOUR AGENDA. 
          YOU CAN MOVE TO MOVE ON ON THE AGENDA AND FINISH THE AGENDA, AND THEN AT THAT TIME, MOVE TO RECONSIDER. 
          BUT YOU HAVEN'T EXHAUSTED YOUR AGENDA YET. 
          >> NO WE HAVEN'T. 
          >> YOU STILL HAVE AN ACTIVE MEETING GOING ON. 
          >> CAN I MOVE ON TO THAT WITHOUT A MOTION TO TABLE IT BECAUSE IT WILL BE WITHIN THIS MEETING THAT WE COME BACK TO RECONSIDER? 
          >> I THINK THAT YOU HAVE NOT HAD A MOTION TO RECONSIDER YET, I THINK YOU CAN ASK WITHOUT OBJECTION, YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 6.6. 
          >> OKAY. WITHOUT OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO, TEM 6.6. 
          [6.  Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution amending the allocation of the Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenues for FY 2024-25 and distributing receipts, net of collection expenses, as authorized in Subsection 18.03.001(b)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock.]
WE'LL GET THOSE ITEMS OFF OUR TABLE. MR. ATKINSON. 
          >> THANK YOU, MAYOR IF I COULD ASK YOU TO SWITCH THE INPUTS, WE'LL MAKE THIS ONE BRIEF. 
          GIVE ME A MOMENT. 
          IT SHOULD START COMING UP NOW. 
          THERE WE GO. COUNCIL, THIS ITEM, AS WE NOTED EARLIER, THIS IS THE SEPARATE ACTION TO APPROVE 
          [02:15:03]
THE DISTRIBUTION OF YOUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX FUNDS. 
          ALL OF THESE NUMBERS ON THIS TABLE ARE THE NUMBERS WITHIN THE BUDGET THAT YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY LOOKED AT NUMEROUS TIMES. 
          ALSO THE SUBJECT OF THE PRIOR VOTE. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE SUBJECT OF DEBATE AT THE MOMENT. 
          THIS ITEM FORMALIZES THIS, THIS MATCHES YOUR BUDGET, AND YOUR HOT TAX DISTRIBUTION IS GOOD TO GO. 
          >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ATKINSON ON THIS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 6.6. IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> SECOND. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? IS THAT 6-1, IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 6.7 THEN. 
          [7.  Resolution - Lubbock Power and Light: Consider a resolution adopting the Delivery System Electric Rate/Tariff Schedule (Tariff) of Lubbock Power & Light (LP&L), the City of Lubbock's municipally owned electric utility, applicable to all rate classes, effective November 1, 2024.]
MR. WILKINSON? YES. 
          >> MAYOR WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WILL CALL LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT TO PRESENT THEIR TARIFF FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR. 
          >> THE MOMENT THEY'VE BEEN WAITING FOR. 
          >> I BELIEVE IT WILL BE MR. HARVEY HALL. 
          >> HARVEY HALL SHOW. 
          >> IN MERE MOMENTS, MR. HALL IS GOING TO BRING YOU GOOD NEWS, AS ALL OUR ELECTRIC RATE PAYERS. 
          >> WHEN WE ENTERED INTO RETAIL COMPETITION FOR THE WILL OF THE CITY COUNCIL, WE'RE NOW FIVE MONTHS INTO THAT PROCESS. 
          WE'VE LOOKED AT OUR REQUIRED REVENUE. 
          OUR REQUIRED REVENUE IS WHAT WE NEED TO RECOVER AS A UTILITY TO COVER THE COSTS OF SERVING OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          LAST YEAR, WHEN WE HAD OUR RATE DESIGN THAT WAS 146.8 MILLION, REVENUE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS COMING YEAR IS GOING TO BE 142.8 MILLION, ABOUT A $4,000,000 DROP. 
          THAT EQUATES TO A RATE DECREASE ON OUR DELIVERY RATES. 
          >> WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? 
          >> ALL OF THAT OR JUST WHAT PART OF THAT LAST SENTENCE RIGHT THERE. 
          >> OUR REVENUE REQUIREMENT, THE AMOUNT THAT WE NEED TO RECOVER FROM SERVING OUR CUSTOMERS FOR OUR DELIVERY RATES HAS DECREASED BY $4,000,000. 
          WE'RE PROPOSING THIS AFTERNOON A RATE DECREASE FOR OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          >> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR AGAIN. 
          THANK YOU. HOW WAS THE GOOD NEWS IN THERE. 
          >> THESE ARE THE RATES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. 
          WHENEVER WE DO THIS PROCESS, WE PERFORM WHAT'S CALLED A COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT DETERMINES HOW MUCH REVENUE DO WE NEED TO COVER FOR OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          AND HOW MUCH AT OUR CURRENT RATES DOES THAT COVER. 
          OUR CURRENT RATES RIGHT NOW ARE DESIGNED TO COVER 146.8 MILLION. 
          OUR CURRENT REVENUE REQUIREMENT IS GOING TO BE 142.8. 
          THAT $4,000,000 DEFICIT IS THEN ALLOCATED AMONG OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          AND THIS IS WHAT WE CALL COST CAUSATION. 
          SO WHICH CUSTOMERS CAUSE WHAT COSTS, AND THAT'S THE BASIS FOR ALLOCATING IT. 
          AS WE LOOKED THROUGH OUR COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS, WE HAD DETERMINED THAT FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, THAT WOULD EQUATE TO ABOUT A 2% RATE DECREASE. 
          FOR OUR SECONDARY LESS THAN 10KW, THAT WOULD BE A 2% RATE INCREASE. 
          FOR OUR SECONDARY GREATER THAN 10KW, THAT WOULD BE A 2.5% RATE DECREASE. 
          FOR OUR PRIMARY CUSTOMERS, THAT WOULD BE A 2.5% RATE DECREASE. 
          WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE ANY CUSTOMERS IN OUR PRIMARY SUBSTATION AND TRANSMISSION CLASSES AT THIS POINT, AND THEN WE HAVE STREET LIGHTING RATES AS WELL. 
          AND I'M GOING TO STOP THERE AND JUST OPEN THAT UP FOR ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT OR ANY QUESTIONS, I SHOULD SAY. 
          >> MR. HARRIS? 
          >> YES, SIR. I'M NEW TO THIS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU BREAK IT ALL DOWN, BUT THE CITIZENS THAT I TALKED TO, THEY'RE HAVING A LOT OF COMPLAINTS PERTAINING TO LP&L CHARGING THEM FOR THE CHARGE, 
          [02:20:04]
AND THEN PLUS THEIR NEW UTILITY COMPANY CHARGING THEM A SURCHARGE. 
          WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO THAT, OR ARE WE WORKING ON THAT? 
          >> OUR CHARGE TO OUR ELECTRIC RATE PAYERS. 
          SO THIS IS ONLY FOR OUR ELECTRIC RATE CUSTOMERS. 
          WE HAVE A DELIVERY RATE. 
          THAT DELIVERY RATE IS ALL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. 
          SO THERE'S ONLY ONE RATE WE CHARGE OUR ELECTRIC RATE PAYERS, AND THAT IS THIS RATE. 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THERE'S NO OTHER RATE OTHER THAN THIS. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE FOR OUR RATES. 
          OUR DELIVERY RATES TO DELIVER THE RATES TO ELECTRICITY TO THE CUSTOMER. 
          THIS ISN'T THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. 
          I GOT A COUPLE MORE THINGS TO DELIVER, BUT I JUST WANT TO STOP AT THE DELIVERY RATE. 
          >> PROCEED RIGHT ALONG. 
          >> PROCEED. ALL RIGHT. 
          TDU STANDS FOR TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION OF UTILITY, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE HAVE BECOME IN OUR NEW RETAIL ENVIRONMENT. 
          SO OUR STRATEGIC FINANCIAL PLAN WAS KNOWING THAT WE WERE CARRYING INTO THIS WHAT TYPICAL UTILITIES WOULD CARRY INTO WHEN THEY MAKE THIS TYPE OF TRANSITION. 
          THERE'S A LOT OF TRANSITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. 
          FOR US, THERE WERE TWO PRIMARY DRIVERS TO THAT. 
          THEY WERE CAUSING US TO BE SOMEWHAT HIGHER ON THE RATES THAN OTHER UTILITIES. 
          THERE'S A ONE YEAR LEG IN OUR TRANSMISSION RATES FOR UTILITY THAT WE HAD BEEN WORKING WITH IN A CONTRACT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR, WHICH WOULD MEAN THE FIRST THREE MONTHS OF THE FISCAL YEAR. 
          ACCORDING TO SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC POWER, WE DID NOT OWE THAT. 
          THAT IS A SAVINGS OF $3,000,000. 
          THEN OUR DEBT SERVICE WHEN WE BASICALLY AGREED TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE PARTIAL REQUIREMENTS AGREEMENT WITH SOUTHWEST SPS, WE WOULD ORIGINALLY HAVE TO PAY 77.5 MILLION. 
          THE ENDING BALANCE FOR THAT WAS 65.7 MILLION, SO WE BORROWED SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT. 
          THAT WAS AN ADDITIONAL MILLION DOLLAR A YEAR FOR DEBT SERVICE. 
          THAT'S THE BASIS OF THE $4,000,000. 
          WE THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD OCCUR NEXT YEAR. 
          WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE IT WOULD BE THIS YEAR, BUT SINCE IT BECAME THIS YEAR, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PASS THAT DECREASE ON IMMEDIATELY TO OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          WHAT YOU'RE SAYING HERE IS REALLY THE COMPARATORS WITH LP&L, INCLUDING OUR TRANSMISSION CHARGE, WITH ENCORE AEP, CENTERPOINT AND TEXAS NEW MEXICO POWER, WHICH ARE OTHER ENTITIES IN THE STATE THAT OFFER THE SAME SERVICE THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY OFFERING. 
          I WANTED TO BREAK IT DOWN. WITH THIS RATE DECREASE, LP&L WOULD BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN TEXAS NEW MEXICO POWER, AND THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF ACTUALLY $1.18. 
          THERE'S GOING TO BE A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE THERE. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT FOR A SECONDARY, IT ACTUALLY PUTS US TO WHERE WE'VE BEEN HOPING TO GET TO THAT WE THOUGHT OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD AND ACTUALLY WITH THIS WE'LL ACTUALLY BE THERE ALREADY, AND THAT WOULD BE AT THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK FOR OUR SECONDARY. 
          I REFER TO THEM AS SMALL COMMERCIAL, BUT IT'S WHAT WE CALL SECONDARY LESS THAN 10K. 
          IF I GO ON WITH THAT COMPARISON AND I LOOK AT OUR SECONDARY GREATER THAN 10KW, THAT WOULD PUT US AGAIN AT THE MIDDLE OF THE PACK NOW. 
          ALSO FOR OUR PRIMARY OR WHAT I WOULD CALL OUR LARGE INDUSTRIAL CUSTOMERS, THAT WOULD PUT US JUST BELOW THE HIGHEST ONE, WHICH IN THIS CASE, WOULD BE AEP. 
          WE ANTICIPATE THAT OUR COST DECREASES WILL CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS. 
          THE PRIMARY IMPETUS BEHIND THAT IS FOR OUR TRANSMISSION COST OF SERVICE THAT YOU'VE HEARD THAT TERM USED QUITE A BIT THIS MORNING BECAUSE THERE'S A DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE CITY, WITH THAT AS PART OF OUR MOVE INTO OUR AGREEMENT WITH ERCOT AND MOVEMENT INTO RETAIL COMPETITION. 
          WE HAD TO OFFER A $22,000,000 YEAR CREDIT FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FOR A TOTAL OF $110,000,000 THAT STARTED IN JANUARY 2022, WILL END BY DECEMBER OF 2026. 
          ONCE THAT PERIOD ENDS, THAT MEANS WE HAVE ACCESS TO $22,000,000 MORE IN REVENUE AT THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY 27, 
          [02:25:06]
AND THAT'S ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT WE CAN USE TO DECREASE RATES IN THE FUTURE. 
          WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. 
          AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADED. 
          ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PIECE ON OUR COMPARATIVES WITH OTHER UTILITIES? 
          >> MR. HARRIS. 
          >> YES. THE QUESTION THAT I GUESS I'M TRYING TO GET IT FIGURED OUT HERE IS, WHO APPROVED TRANSMISSION CHARGES TO THE TO THE CITIZENS AND TRANSMISSION CHARGES FROM THE NEW COMPANY THAT THEY PICKED OUT? BECAUSE THAT'S A DOUBLE CHARGE. 
          WHO APPROVED OF THAT? 
          >> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER, COUNCILMAN HARRIS. 
          SO TCOS REVENUES, AS PART OF OUR MOVE INTO ERCOT, WE BUILT OVER $300,000,000 IN TRANSMISSION ASSETS OUTSIDE THE CITY TO CONNECT INTO ERCOT. 
          THAT'S UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ERCOT. 
          THE RATES ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT YOU CAN CHARGE FOR THAT IS GOVERNED BY THE TEXAS PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. 
          AS WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE. 
          MATTER OF FACT, WE'RE JUST CONCLUDING THAT PROCESS. 
          CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOT FAVORABLE NEWS TO THE UTILITY THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GET A FAVORABLE OUTCOME WITH THAT AND A GOOD RETURN ON THAT. 
          THAT'S THE COST THAT MONEY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE CHARGE TO OTHER UTILITIES WHO WHEEL OR MOVE THEIR ELECTRICITY ACROSS OUR SYSTEM. 
          REALLY EFFECTIVELY, IT'S A TOLL CHARGE TO OTHER UTILITIES WHO TRANSMIT THEIR POWER ACROSS OUR LINES OR LUBBOCK POWER LINES, AND THAT MONEY COMES TO OUR RATE PAYERS. 
          THIS IS OUTSIDE MONEY FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY OF LUBBOCK THAT COMES INTO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. 
          TO CONNECT THAT TO THE RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDERS, ANYTIME THEY'RE OUT THERE BUYING POWER, THEY HAVE TO PAY THAT COST TO SOMEBODY ELSE. 
          THEY'RE CROSSING MULTIPLE LINES FROM WHEREVER THAT GENERATION SOURCE IS, AND THAT'S ALL GOVERNED BY ERCOT. 
          >> THEY'RE PASSING THAT CHARGE ON TO THE CONSUMERS. 
          >> WHATEVER THAT CHARGE IS THAT'S BUILT INTO THEIR RATE, CORRECT? 
          >> THANK YOU. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE SECOND BILL THAT PEOPLE GET, THEY'VE GOT THEIR UTILITY, THE COST OF THE SERVICE THAT'S PROVIDED TO THEM AND THEN THIS ADDED ON COST. 
          THAT'S GOING TO RUN FOR ANOTHER ABOUT FIVE YEARS, IS THAT CORRECT? AN ADD ON. 
          >> WHEN YOU SAY ADD ON AND COST. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE WHOLE HARMLESS 22 YEAR OLD ADOPTION. 
          >> ALL THAT. YES. 
          >> THAT PART THAT DOES GO ON THEIR BILL AND CAUSE THEM. 
          >> THAT COMPONENT PIECE IS BURIED INTO OUR DELIVERY RATES. 
          >> IT WILL COME DOWN OVER. 
          >> ACTUALLY IT'S A CREDIT. 
          WE HAVE ABOUT $43,000,000 A YEAR THAT COMES IN ON OUR TRANSMISSION COST OF SERVICE REVENUE. 
          WE HAVE TO GIVE BACK TO THEM OR GIVE IN THE FORM OF A CREDIT, $22,000,000 A YEAR, WHICH JUST MEANS LESS MONEY TO COVER THAT. 
          THE DELTA IS MADE UP IN OUR DELIVERY RATES. 
          THAT CREDIT ENDS DECEMBER 2026. ENDS COMPLETELY. 
          IT'S JUST A HARD STOP, AND THEN IT ENDS. 
          THAT MEANS ALL OF THAT T COST REVENUE MONEY THEN COMES INTO COVERING OUR COSTS, WHICH ALLOWS US TO COVER COSTS AND ALSO WILL ALLOW US TO PROVIDE RATE BENEFIT TO OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          >> THAT RATE BENEFIT WILL COME AT THE END OF SIX YEARS FROM THAT. 
          >> WELL, ACTUALLY AT THE END OF A LITTLE OVER TWO YEARS. 
          >> TWO YEARS FROM NOW. 
          >> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. 
          MY MATH IS BAD, TOO. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. 
          >> THEN I THINK THAT'S REALLY ALL I'VE GOT. 
          ANY I'LL JUST STOP THERE. 
          BEFORE YOU IS A MOVE TO APPROVE THOSE RATES. 
          >> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE CAN SIT DOWN AND WE'LL JUST HAVE A MOTION HERE AND A SECOND AND A DISCUSSION. 
          SO IS THERE A MOTION ON 6.7, RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELIVERY SYSTEM ELECTRIC RATE TARIFF SCHEDULE FOR LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT, CITY OF LUBBOCK MUNICIPAL OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY APPLICABLE TO ALL RATE CLASSES, EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 2024? I'M NOT SURE WHO. BRADEN. MAYOR PRO TEM, 
          [02:30:01]
AND THEN BRADEN IS THE SECOND. 
          ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. 
          >> AYE. 
          >> ANY OPPOSED SAY, NAY? HEAR NONE. 
          PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. 
          NOW WE ARE BACK TO 6.3. 
          MR. WADE, I SEE THAT YOU DO YOU WISH TO WEIGH IN HERE. 
          >> WELL, I KNOW THAT DOCTOR WILSON ALSO BUT ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY IS AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MAY BE APPROPRIATE THAT YOU CAN RECONSIDER EITHER 6.3 OR 6.5, BUT WHICHEVER ONE IT IS, WHOEVER VOTED FOR THOSE PARTICULAR MOTIONS WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT MOTION TO RECONSIDER. 
          >> WE'RE RECONSIDERING 6.3 AT THIS TIME. 
          >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN ACTUALLY A MOTION OR A SECOND ON THAT ONE. 
          >> NO, THAT'S RIGHT. THERE HAS NOT BEEN. 
          BUT WE'RE OPEN FOR RECONSIDERATION OF IT NOW. 
          SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION, BUT IT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE FIVE THAT VOTED FOR IT ORIGINALLY, WHICH WOULD BE ONE OF THESE THREE OR MAYOR PRO TEM OR MR. HARRIS. AM I RIGHT? 
          >> IT DEPENDS ON WHICH ONE. 
          >> I THINK IT WAS THE SAME VOTE ON BOTH. 
          DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THEN, DOCTOR WILSON? 
          >> MAYOR, SINCE WE'VE HAD A FEW MINUTES TO TAKE A BREATH AND HEAR SOME OTHER AGENDA ITEMS, I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER 6.5, AND I STILL MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.470120, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 0.72% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE, AND THIS RATE WOULD SUPPORT THE BUDGET THAT FIVE OUT OF THE SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE VOTED ON. 
          >> I APPRECIATE YOUR MOTION, DOCTOR WILSON, AND I DON'T WANT TO OVERLY COMPLICATE THINGS. 
          I THINK THE FIRST THING THAT WE WOULD DO IS TO APPROVE YOUR MOTION TO RECONSIDER. 
          THEN IF THAT PASSES, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR MOTION TO SET THE TAX RATE. 
          >> THANKS. 
          >> THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER JUST NEEDS A MAJORITY VOTE. 
          >> THAT'S CORRECT. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. 
          >> I MOVE TO RECONSIDER ITEM 6. 
          >> WE NEED A SECOND. MR. COLLINS. 
          THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT OUR SECRETARY IS HAVING TO GET ALL THIS DOWN. 
          SO SHE SWEARS SHE CAN WATCH EVERYBODY. 
          ON THIS MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO HAVE IT AS A ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          >> COUNCIL-MEMBER COLLINS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE? 
          >> YES,. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER DR. WILSON? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MAYOR PRO TEM? 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER GUSCIN. 
          >> YES. 
          >> COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS? 
          >> YES. 
          >> MAYOR? 
          >> YES. 
          >> 7-0. NOW, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF TAX RATE AT 0.470120. 
          >> I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU MIND TURNING ON YOUR MICROPHONE FOR THAT? 
          >> I'M I NOT LOUD ENOUGH? I CAN SCREAM, IF YOU WANT ME TO. 
          ALL RIGHT. SORRY. NOW THAT I'M LIVE. 
          I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.470120, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 0.72% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE, AND THIS WOULD SUPPORT THE BUDGET THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED. 
          >> MOTION A SECOND MADE. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT, BUT IS THERE ANY? I SEE NONE. LET'S TAKE THE VOTE AGAIN, ROLL CALL VOTE. 
          >> COUNCIL-MEMBER COLLINS. COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER DR. WILSON, MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER GUSCIN. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS MAYOR PRO TEM. 
          MAYOR. 5-2 THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          >> NOTHING NOW. 
          >> YOU'VE EXHAUSTED ALL THE ITEMS ON YOUR AGENDA AT THIS POINT IN TIME, MAYOR. 
          >> THEN THERE ARE NO OTHER ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA. 
          THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.