>> CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECONVENING AN OPEN SESSION AT [2. Ceremonial Items] [00:00:03] 2:08 PM AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS. SO I'M NOW GOING TO CALL ON DEACON JOSE RUBIO WITH OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE, CATHOLIC CHURCH. YOU WOULD PLEASE COME FORWARD, AND WE'LL ALL STAND FOR OUR INVOCATION. >> HEAVENLY FATHER, CREATOR OF A HALYIGHT, GRANT THE SAME LIGHT TO OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SO THEY CAN PROCLAIM YOUR GOODNESS, AND BY THEIR WORDS AND DEEDS, GIVE YOU HONOR IN SERVING THIS BEAUTIFUL CITY IN COUNTY OF LUBBOCK. LORD JESUS, HEAR US IN TIMES OF TROUBLE, AND PROTECT US BY THE POWER OF YOUR LOVE, BLESS OUR CIVIC LEADERS, AND GIVE THEM WISDOM IN THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE TO PROTECT AND IMPROVE THE LIVES OF ALL CITIZENS, THE NEEDY, THE YOUTH, AND THE ELDER POPULATION. INSPIRE THE CITY COUNCIL TO DISCERN WHAT TO SAY, HOW TO SAY IT, AND WHEN TO SAY IT. WHAT TO DO, WHEN TO DO IT AND HOW TO DO IT. MAY THE WORDS FROM MOTHER TERESA OF CALCUTTA ILLUMINATE THE PLANNING AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THE FRUIT OF SILENCE IS PRAYER. THE FRUIT OF PRAYER IS FAITH. THE FRUIT OF FAITH IS LOVE. THE FRUITS OF LOVE IS SERVICE. THE FRUIT OF SERVICE IS PEACE. WE EXIST IN THE NAME OF JESUS. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS PRAYER IN SPANISH, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WAS TEACHING AT TEXAS TECH IN WILLIAM BAPTIST UNIVERSITY. [SPANISH] >> NOW WILL YOU JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO OUR COUNTRY, UNITED STATES FLAG AND TO TEXAS. >> >> NOW CALLING THIS MEETING TO ORDER. AND WE'LL TAKE UP CITIZEN COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. [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 24, 2024. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ] ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ANY MATTER THAT'S BEEN POSTED ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE DAY. SHE'LL COMPLETE A SIGN UP, NO LATER THAN 2:00 PM. ON SEPTEMBER 24TH. WE HAVE ONE PERSON TODAY AND WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, IF YOU WOULD AGAIN, PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME INTO THE MICROPHONE, SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, AND LET US KNOW YOUR ADDRESS. WE HAVE TIM GOBLE TODAY. MR. GOBLE. >> HELLO. MY NAME IS TIM GOBLE. I LIVE AT 5308 COUNTY ROAD 7550. I'M THE SECRETARY OF THE HOA BOARD FOR HIGHLAND OAKS AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ITEM NUMBER 6.7, THE CREATION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR HIGHLAND OAKS. THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS A VEHICLE THAT WILL BE USED TO RAISE THE FUNDS REQUIRED TO PUT IN THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN HIGHLAND OAKS SUBDIVISION AND GET CITY WATER TO ALL OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE OUT THERE. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE PID RESTRICTS THE PAYMENT, SO WE'LL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEBT THAT COMES FROM THIS WATER PROJECT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO EXTEND SOME THANKS TO THE CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM, JARED, [00:05:04] ERIC, AND BRIANA, FOR ALL THEIR HELP AND GUIDANCE AND A LOT OF PATIENCE. WALKING THROUGH ALL THIS. WE'RE NOT A DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. WE'RE JUST A GROUP OF RESIDENTS, AND THEY'VE DONE A REALLY GREAT JOB HELPING US NAVIGATE ALL NOT JUST CITY, BUT COUNTY AND STATE LAWS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN ALL OF THIS. WITH THAT, I'M WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT QUESTION THE COUNCIL MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME. >> I SEE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. GOBLE. NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM 4.1, [4. Minutes] THE MINUTES FROM OUR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 27 AND A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 3RD. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4.1? IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY CORRECTIONS TO THOSE MINUTES? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT ON BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. IT'S PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP OUR CONSENT AGENDA, [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.] AND NO ONE IS REQUESTED TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY. IS THERE A MOTION? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION NOW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. MR. COLLINS. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND. >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU, DR. WILSON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE LET IT BE SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? IT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE MOVE TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. [1. Resolution - City Secretary: Consider a resolution to nominate board members to serve as Appraisal District Directors for the Lubbock Central Appraisal District.] WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 6.1. I'M NOW GOING TO CALL ON THE CITY SECRETARY TO PROVIDE US WITH A BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS. LAST YEAR, THEY RESTRUCTURED THE LEGISLATURE TO RESTRUCTURE THEIR BOARD AND HAVE ADDED SOME ADDITIONAL POSITIONS OF THREE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND A COUNTY SEAT, WHICH RONNIE KEISTER HOLDS. THIS IS ASKING FOR YOU ALL TO NOMINATE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR REAPPOINTMENT. JUST TO NAME THOSE INDIVIDUALS, SONNY GARZA, GREG JONES, BOBBY MCQUEEN, BRADY GOWEN, AND NOY REYNOLDS, ARE ELIGIBLE. SHOULD YOU ALL CHOOSE TO NOMINATE THEM AND THEY ARE ELECTED, THEY WILL DRAW STRAWS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE HOW THEIR SEATS GET STAGGERED. CURRENTLY, THEY SERVE TWO YEAR TERMS, AND THEY ROLL OFF AT THE SAME TIME. THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE ON FOUR YEAR TERMS AND BE STAGGERED. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS DR. WILSON. >> COURTNEY, THERE WERE NO OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES WHO WOULD HAVE LIKED TO BEEN NOMINATED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, MA'AM. THAT'S CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO NOMINATE THE FOLLOWING LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEMBERS FOR REAPPOINTMENT, SONNY GARZA, GREG JONES, BOBBY MCQUEEN, BRADY GOWEN, AND NOY REYNOLDS. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND, MR. ROSE. ALL IN FAVOR. PLEASE LET IT ON BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? THERE ARE NONE. IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP ITEM 6.2, [2. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution amending the Gateway Street Projects Fund to define the scope of revenues from franchise fees to be included in the Fund.] AND I'M GOING TO CALL A CITY STAFF TO PROVIDE US A BRIEFING ON ITEM 6.2. CITY MANAGER, MR. ATKINSON. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL. WE'LL RUN THROUGH THIS ONE PRETTY QUICKLY. THIS IS AN ITEM THAT IS PART AND PARCEL OF YOUR NOW RECENTLY ADOPTED 2024/2025 BUDGET. SPECIFICALLY, THIS DEFINES AND CLARIFIES THAT THOSE TRANSMISSION COST OF SERVICE GENERATED FRANCHISE FEES GO TO YOUR GENERAL FUND RATHER THAN TO THE GATEWAY FUND. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.2. THANK YOU, DR. WILSON. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY, NAY. THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. THE APPLICANT FOR THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA 6.3 IS WITHDRAWING THEIR APPLICATION, [3. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 1531-B, a request of Judith Struggs for a Historic Preservation Overlay District (HPO) to designate a property with a Local Historic Designation, on property zoned Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) per Sections 39.02.009 and 2.03.662, at 2002 Cedar Avenue, located south of East 20th Street and west of Cedar Avenue, T.E. Wheelock’s Second Addition, Block 15, Lots 11 and 12, and consider an ordinance.] SO WE WON'T BE TAKING ANY ACTION ON THAT ITEM TODAY. WITHOUT OBJECTION, NOW, THE COUNCIL WILL CONDUCT [4. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 2161-M, a request of HFA for Lubbock Commercial Buildings, for a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 2731 82nd Street, located south of 82nd Street and east of Elgin Avenue, on approximately 1.25 acres of unplatted land out of Block E-2, Section 13, and consider an ordinance.] A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE REMAINING ZONING CASES. THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED IN THEIR PACKET, THE STAFF REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. [00:10:01] AS A REMINDER, THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PART. NOW I'M GOING TO CALL ON STAFF TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY ON EACH AGENDA ITEM, SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. MR. ATKINSON, CHRISTEN. THANK YOU MS. SAGER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. ITEM 6.4 IS ZONE CASE 2161-M. THE APPLICANT IS HFA FOR LUBBOCK COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, AND THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL. WE SENT OUT 87 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING TWO IN OPPOSITION. THE TWO IN OPPOSITION WERE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY VALUES. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 82ND STREET WEST OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE IN DISTRICT 4. HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE TWO RESPONSES WE RECEIVED IN OPPOSITION. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY VACANT. IT IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER BUSINESSES ALONG 82ND STREET WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH. CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. THERE IS ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONING ALONG 82ND STREET. THE FEATURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. HERE'S A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE PROPOSED LAYOUT FOR THEIR FACILITY. 82ND STREET IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SITE PLAN, SO THERE IS A LARGE AREA BETWEEN THE END OF THEIR PARKING AND THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH. HERE ARE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS OF THEIR BUILDING, IT IS FOR AN OIL CHANGE FACILITY. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE IN ITS LOCATION. THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS LONG 82ND STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL. STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE. I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? PROCEED. >> ITEM 6.5 IS ZONE CASE 3267-A. [5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3267-A, a request of Spindlebock Properties, LLC for a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 3202, 3204, 3206, 3208, 3210, and 3212 118th Street and 3215, and 3217 116th Street, located between 116th Street and 118th Street and east of Indiana Avenue, Triple C Business Park Addition, Tracts A through H, and consider an ordinance.] THE APPLICANT IS SPINDLE BOCK PROPERTIES, LLC WITH A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL. WE SENT OUT 25 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING THREE IN FAVOR. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 114TH STREET EAST OF INDIANA AVENUE IN DISTRICT 4. HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTIES IN FAVOR. AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE CURRENT SUBJECT PROPERTY IS VACANT AND THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA WITH ADDITIONAL VACANT LAND. CURRENT ZONING. IT IS MOSTLY SURROUNDED BY HEAVY COMMERCIAL. THERE IS SOME SINGLE FAMILY SF2 THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY TRANSITIONED FROM WHEN THOSE PROPERTIES WERE ANNEXED WITH SOME ADDITIONAL AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL ALONG INDIANA AVENUE. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THESE ARE GRAPHICS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT JUST SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOTS. IN A SURVEY. THE FUTURE LAND USE SITE DESIGNATION FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONING. THE ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION. IT IS BETWEEN 116TH AND 118TH STREET, WHICH ARE DESIGNATED AS LOCAL STREETS WITH INDIANA AVENUE TO THE WEST, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST AND THE PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNANIMOUS VOTE AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> MR. ROSE. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING ON? >> I BELIEVE THEY WANT TO ALLOW FOR OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE USES ON THESE EIGHT LOTS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU MS. SAGER. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEMS, 6.4 AND 6.5. IS ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO EITHER OF THESE ZONE CASES? IF YOU WISH TO, PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR OPPOSITION. ANYONE IN OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK IN FAVOR OF EITHER OF THESE ITEMS? ANYONE IN FAVOR. I SEE NO ONE. [00:15:03] I'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 2:23 PM. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.4 AND 6.5? THANK YOU, MR. ROSE. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. TO PASS 7-0. NOW WE MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 6.6, [6. Ordinance 1st Reading - Wastewater Utility: Consider an ordinance amending the City of Lubbock Code of Ordinances, Chapter 22, "UTILITIES", to provide for establishing new definitions, delineating sewer line repair and maintenance responsibilities, amending the regulation for City-participation for large mains, and repealing certain inapplicable provisions. ] AND THIS IS TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO SEWER LINE REPAIRS ON FIRST READING, AND I'M GOING TO NOW CALL ON WOOD FRANKLIN TO PROVIDE THE STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM. MR. FRANKLIN. >> LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT HERE. I'M SORRY. >> IT'S THE PDF. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL AND MAYOR. MY PLEASURE TO GO AHEAD AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU ON OUR FIRST READ REGARDING OUR PUBLIC SEWER LATERAL ORDINANCE. AS YOU RECALL, THAT DURING DISCUSSIONS, AND YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SEWER LATERAL. WE HAD LOTS OF DISCUSSIONS ON WHAT TO DO WITH THE SEWER LATERAL ORDINANCE AND THE PRIVATE SEWER LATERALS WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY. AFTER INPUT FROM CITY COUNCIL DURING THE BUDGET HEARINGS, WE BRING BEFORE YOU THIS ORDINANCE. THIS IS FIRST READ, IT WILL REQUIRE TWO READS PRIOR TO BECOMING EFFECT AND I WANT TO OUTLINE WHAT'S INVOLVED AND WHAT'S INSIDE THIS ORDINANCE. BASED ON THE INPUT FROM COUNCIL GAVE DURING THE BUDGET, WE HAVE IN HERE THAT THE CITY CREWS WILL CONTINUE TO PERFORM THIS WORK, AND WE'RE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT THE WORK THAT'S IN THE ALLEYS OR THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY IN THE BACK YARD, THAT'S STILL THE HOMEOWNER. WE CURRENTLY HAVE TWO UNFILLED POSITIONS OR UNFILLED CREW MEMBERS, SO THOSE ARE VACANT POSITIONS THAT TOTAL UP TO ABOUT TWO CREWS IN OUR PIPELINE MAINTENANCE. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO FILL THOSE CREWS IN A FIELD THAT THOSE CREWS WILL BE IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS TASK AT HAND. WE ALSO HAD IN THE BUDGET ORIGINAL PROPOSAL TO ELIMINATE THREE POSITIONS. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND THE BUDGET BROUGHT THOSE POSITIONS BACK AND RETAIN THOSE POSITIONS. THOSE WERE CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE FOREMAN AND TWO CONSTRUCTION MAINTENANCE WORKERS, AND THOSE WILL BE RETAINED TO HELP US WITH THE WORKLOAD ASSOCIATED WITH THIS IN OUR DAILY TASKS OF PIPELINE MAINTENANCE. THE ANNUAL MATERIAL AND COST IN CREW TIMES. WE HAVE A CAPITAL PROJECT THAT'S ABOUT $1.1 MILLION THAT WAS IN THIS BUDGET. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE WITH THAT, SO THAT WILL CONTINUE TO FUND, LIKE WE HAVE IN THE PAST, THE MATERIALS AND TIME ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. IN ORDER TO RECOVER SOME OF THOSE COSTS, IT'S PROPOSED IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT THE OWNER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WILL BE CHARGED A $1,000 FEE PER SEWER LATERAL REPAIRS. I'M GOING TO COLLECT THOSE AGAIN FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. IF THERE'S A TENANT THERE AND THE UTILITIES BILLS IN THAT TENANT, AGAIN, IT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PAYMENT OF $1,000. IF THAT PROPERTY OWNER HAS A UTILITY BILL WITH CITY OF LUBBOCK UTILITIES, THERE IS AN OPTION FOR A PAYMENT PLAN OVER THE 12 MONTH PERIOD TO GO AHEAD AND PAY $1,000 OUT OVER 12 MONTHLY AND PAYMENTS. IN ADDITION TO ALL THAT, WE HAVE ABOUT A $300,000 ASSISTANT PROGRAM THAT'S CREATED AT A NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK FUND, AND THAT'S GOING TO GO TO HELP FUND AN ASSISTANT PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE ISSUES WITH $1,000 COST. ALSO IN HERE IS AUTHORIZES STAFF TO ESTABLISH THAT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AND ALSO ANY RELATED POLICIES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN IMAGINE WITH THIS, THERE'S A LOT OF POLICIES, A LOT OF CHANGES IN OUR OPERATIONS THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TAKE PLACE, AND STAFF IS ALREADY WORKING ON THAT WITH COORDINATION WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK WATER UTILITIES AND ALSO WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK UTILITY BILLING SERVICES. WITH THAT, I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> MR. COLLINS. >> WHEN WILL THIS POLICY GO INTO EFFECT? >> IF THIS CURRENT READ FIRST READ AT THIS PASSES, THEN WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL, AND THEN THERE'S SOME POSTING THAT HAS TO TAKE PLACE, SO WILL BE OCTOBER 28, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A MONDAY, WOULD BE THE EARLIEST THAT IT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> GREAT JOB WOOD FRANKLIN. THE ONE THING ON THE $300 ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, I JUST WANT TO REAFFIRM THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEARLY WHEN YOU STATED IT, IT'S FOR THOSE THAT QUALIFY FOR. >> CORRECT. THERE WILL BE A QUALIFICATION PROCESS THAT WE WILL WORK WITH CD ON THAT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND [00:20:01] SO THOSE PEOPLE THAT APPLY FOR THAT WILL HAVE TO OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO QUALIFY FOR IT AND THEN WORK WITH THAT GROUP AND THAT OUT. >> JUST TO REINFORCE TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE OTHER $1,000 CAN BE PAID OUT WITHIN A YEAR, IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. IF YOU ARE THE PROPERTY OWNER AND YOU HAVE A UTILITY BILL IN YOUR NAME, THAT MEANS WE'VE GOT SOMETHING SET UP THROUGH LUBBOCK UTILITIES. THOSE TWO CRITERIA ARE MET AND YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND PAY $1,000 OUT OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD OR EVEN SHORTER IF YOU WANT TO DO IT THREE MONTHS. WE'RE WORKING WITH LUBBOCK UTILITIES TO SET THAT UP AND GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF. PART OF THE POLICIES THAT WE STILL HAVE TO WORK OUT, BUT THAT'S ESTABLISHED IN THIS ORDINANCE THAT THEY CAN PAY OVER 12 MONTH PERIOD. YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. GLASHEEN. >> WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT THE ACTUAL COST OF REPAIRING ONE OF THESE SEWER LATERAL LINES. TELL ME ABOUT HOW YOU ARRIVED AT $1,000 FIGURE? >> WELL, OUR CAPITAL COSTS IN THAT CAPITAL PROJECT THAT WE HAVE IS WHAT FUNDS OUR LABORS AND MATERIAL AND THAT'S ABOUT $1 MILLION AND WE DO ABOUT 1,000 A YEAR. I'M ROUNDING NUMBERS OFF, WE DID ABOUT ON AVERAGE LAST THREE OR FOUR YEARS, $1,100 OR 1,100 SEWER TAPS AND THEN $1.1 MILLION, SO A SIMPLE DIVISION COMES OUT TO $1,000. OBVIOUSLY, OUR COSTS ARE MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING WORK ON FIRE HYDRANTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THERE ARE OTHER INTANGIBLE COSTS, BUT THE PHYSICAL COSTS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK FOR THOSE ARE ON AVERAGE ABOUT $1,000. [OVERLAPPING] >> AS I UNDERSTAND THE ORDINANCE WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. THERE'S NO BUILT IN ESCALATION OR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE $1,000 NUMBER OVER TIME IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE AN ESCALATION BUILT IN HERE. OF COURSE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REVISIT EVERY BUDGET CYCLE AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADJUST, THEN WE WOULD BRING THAT FORWARD AT THAT TIME. BUT YOU'RE CORRECT. THERE'S NO AUTOMATIC ADJUSTMENT AT THIS TIME IN THE ORDINANCE. >> THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> MR. HARRIS. >> YES. I NOTICED WHEN YOU WERE SPEAKING, YOU SAID NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK EXCUSE ME. IT'S CITYWIDE, CORRECT? >> THE SOURCE IS OUT OF THE NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK INFRASTRUCTURE FUND, BUT IT IS CITYWIDE FOR THE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. IS EVERYBODY'S NOT IN NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK, AND THEY QUALIFY, THEN THEY WOULD QUALIFY FOR THAT ASSISTANCE. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON. THIS HAS BEEN A VERY DIFFICULT ISSUE FOR US TO DEAL WITH AS A COUNCIL AND IT MAY BE ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE NOBODY'S TOTALLY HAPPY WITH THE RESULT AND MAYBE THAT MEANS IT'S THE BEST RESULT WE COULD GET UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THERE WAS A LOT OF DISAGREEMENT ON THE FORMER COUNCIL AND THIS COUNCIL AS TO HOW TO HANDLE IT. BUT HOPEFULLY THIS PROGRAM WILL WORK FOR PEOPLE AND ALLOW THEM TO PAY IT OUT IF THEY ARE ACTUALLY THE OCCUPIER OF THE HOME AND PAYING THE BILL. AS WELL AND THAT'S INTEREST FREE TOO FOR A YEAR. >> CORRECT. TYPICAL YOU SEE IN THE ALLEY, BUT IT CAN BE IN A STREET, ESPECIALLY WITH THESE NEW ALLEY SUBDIVISIONS COMING ON. >> IT AVOIDS THE SITUATION WHERE SOMEONE ACTUALLY MIGHT HAVE A LONGER LATERAL OR A DEEPER LATERAL, WHERE THAT COST COULD VARY QUITE A GREAT DEAL. THAT'S WHERE THE CITY WILL ACTUALLY PICK UP THAT DIFFERENCE. HOPEFULLY THIS WORKS FOR PEOPLE. HOPEFULLY, THEY UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVE DONE IT THIS WAY, AND WE'LL SEE HOW IT WORKS GOING FORWARD, BUT I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK ON IT AND THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM. >> MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION. THANK YOU AGAIN, WOOD AND STAFF, BUT I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE COMMITTEE. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> THAT WORKED, TO TRY TO BRING SOME LIGHT FOR ALL OF US. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU BECAUSE I THINK THE CHAIR IS ACTUALLY SITTING IN HERE, AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR YOUR GUIDANCE, SO WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL. >> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT, THEY DID WORK MANY HOURS ON THIS. SOUNDS LIKE A SIMPLE TOPIC. YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THIS MORE THAN ONCE, AND SOUNDS LIKE A SIMPLE TOPIC, BUT IT'S NOT AND SO I APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS AS WELL. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. FRANKLIN. I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.6. IS THERE A SECOND. MR. COLLINS? ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. [BACKGROUND] MR. GLASHEEN. [00:25:04] >> I THINK THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS VERY MUCH A COMPROMISE, AND MAYOR AS HE SAID, SOMETIMES A COMPROMISE CAN BE A GOOD THING, BUT MY CONCERN WITH THIS ORDINANCE IS THAT WE'RE MEETING SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE THAT DOESN'T REALLY COMPLETELY ADDRESS ANY PRINCIPLED CONCERN ABOUT THE ISSUE. IF WE'RE MAKING A DECISION PURELY ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT THE SEWER LATERAL LINE IS PRIVATE PROPERTY, THEN IT SHOULD BE REPAIRED BY PRIVATE DOLLARS. IT BELONGS TO THE HOMEOWNER. THERE'S NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT, EVEN IF IT'S IN THE ALLEYWAY AND EVERY OTHER CITY IN TEXAS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE AUSTIN AND MAYBE FORT WORTH, CITIZENS PAY FOR THE REPAIRS THEIR OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY. WE DO THE SAME THING WITH WATER LINES AND OTHER CONNECTIONS TO CITY UTILITIES HERE IN LUBBOCK. NOW THE OTHER PRINCIPLE THAT WE COULD CONSIDER IS THE FACT THAT OVERWHELMINGLY, THE CITIZENS THAT I SPEAK TO WANT THE CITY TO CONTINUE PAYING FOR THE REPAIR. IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION THAT WE'RE GOING TO SUBSIDIZE THE REPAIRS TO MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY, THEN THE MORE PRINCIPAL DECISION WOULD BE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. BUT MY CONCERN WITH THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT THIS $1,000 COST IS NOT A PERFECT FIT FOR THE REAL COST TO THE CITY AS IT IS TODAY. $1,000 COST IS GOING TO GET EVEN WORSE OVER TIME, UNLESS WE GO BACK AND ADJUST IT CONTINUOUSLY. IT'S GOING TO DISCOURAGE PRIVATE INDUSTRY FROM BEING ABLE TO BUILD THE CAPABILITY TO PERFORM THIS WORK AND WITHOUT A PRIVATE MARKET OF PLUMBERS WHO CAN PERFORM THIS WORK, HOMEOWNERS ARE LEFT AT THE MERCY OF GOVERNMENT WORK CREW TO COME AND FIX THEIR OWN HOME. IT'S A LIMITATION ON PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THAT SENSE. WE'RE PAYING FOR THIS PROGRAM WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. YOU CAN SAY IT'S A WASTEWATER FEE, BUT SAY ANY DOLLAR LEAVING YOUR POCKET AND GOING TO THE GOVERNMENT IS A TAX IN MY BOOK. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A COST THAT SHOULD BE CARRIED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, NOT SUBSIDIZED OR GIVEN INTEREST FREE CREDIT BY THE CITY. BUT THIS IS A COMPROMISE. IT RAISES TAXES, IT EXPANDS THE SCOPE OF GOVERNMENT, IT LIMITS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND I'M OPPOSED TO IT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET A CLARIFICATION HERE. IS THERE AVAILABILITY FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES TO COME IN AND DO THIS WORK STILL? AS THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN, DOES IT RESTRICT A PRIVATE COMPANY FROM COMING IN AND DOING THAT WORK? >> NO, IT DOESN'T. PRIVATE COMPANY CAN GO IN AND DO THE WORK THEMSELVES. AS IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, IT ALLOWS A PRIVATE COMPANY TO COME IN AND DO THE WORK. NOW, THEY HAVE TO BE WHAT WE DEFINE AS A REGISTERED UTILITY CONTRACTOR, WHICH IS A LICENSED PLUMBER, SOMEBODY WITH A LICENSE THAT CAN WORK ACTUALLY ON THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM. >> [OVERLAPPING]THAT'S ONE BIG DIFFERENCE OF WHAT IT IS TODAY. RIGHT NOW, IT'S THE CITY ONLY, SO THE HOMEOWNER DOES NOT HAVE THE OPTION TO REPAIR THEIR OWN LINE. UNDER HERE, YOU CAN CHOOSE THE CITY AND THE CITY WILL DO A $1,000 REIMBURSEMENT THAT'S IN THERE. BUT AS A HOMEOWNER, IF YOU WANT TO HIRE A PLUMBER TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DO IT BECAUSE WE DID HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE AD HOC COMMITTEE THAT THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE MAYBE THE SEWER LINE IS NOT DAMAGED, BUT THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GET IT REPLACED RIGHT NOW. THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, SO THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT AT THEIR EXPENSE AS A PROPERTY OWNER. THAT'S NOT EXISTING TODAY THAT'S IN THIS NEW ORDINANCE. >> ALSO, IF IT'S A LANDLORD WHO OWNS THE HOUSE, AND HE'S RENTING IT OUT TO SOMEONE, THE LANDLORD HAS TO PAY $1,000, AND THAT'S NOT STRETCHED OUT OVER 12 MONTHS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> IT ALLOWS IF THEY CAN'T PAY, IT DOES WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. >> YES. >> IT'S DEFINED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE ABILITY TO SIT THERE AND DO A PAYMENT PLAN OVER 12 MONTHS AND IT CAN BE IN THE FORM OF A PAYMENT AGREEMENT AND PART OF THAT AGREEMENT IS WHAT'S GOING TO OUT BE ESTABLISHED AFTER THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED. THE FORM OF THE ACTUAL AGREEMENT ITSELF WILL BE ESTABLISHED, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'LL ENTER INTO OVER THAT TIME PERIOD IF THEY WANT TO PAY THAT OUT OVER 12 MONTHS. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MAYOR? >> I THINK SO, IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A PROPERTY OWNER AND THE BILL IS IN THE NAME OF A TENANT. >> IT ENVISIONS A SEPARATE AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IF YOU WANT TO PAY OUT OVER TIME. >> THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? MR. GLASHEEN AGAIN. >> BUT AS I RECALL FROM THE SEWER COMMITTEE'S DISCUSSION, NO PRIVATE PLUMBER CAN COMPLETE THIS COST FOR $1,000. IT'S GOING TO BE MULTIPLE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN AN ORDINARY JOB, IT COULD BE EVEN MORE THAN THAT. [00:30:02] IT'S A SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDY THAT'S DIMINISHING THE MARKET'S ABILITY TO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY. >> MR. COLLINS. >> MR. WADE, CLARIFY AGAIN, IF A PROPERTY OWNER HAS A TENANT IN PLACE, THE TENANT IS THE RATE PAYER, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER STILL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINANCE OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR. I THOUGHT THAT WAS JUST A PROPERTY OWNER WHO ARE THE SAME. >> NO, IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO PAY OVER THE 12 MONTHS. IT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SEWER LINE AND NOT THE TENANT, BECAUSE YOU COULD ENVISION HAVING ONE PROPERTY AND HAVING MULTIPLE TENANTS OVER THAT ONE 12 MONTH PERIOD, SO THE AGREEMENT HAS TO BE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AS FAR AS REPAIRING THE ACTUAL SEWER LATERAL BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONE WHO ACTUALLY OWNS THE SEWER LATERAL. >> WHAT'S THE MECHANISM BY WHICH YOU WOULD BILL THE PROPERTY OWNER OVER TIME VERSUS A PROPERTY OWNER SLASH RATE PAYER WHO WOULD BE THE SAME? >> THAT WOULD BE THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXECUTE ONCE THEY CALL US UP. IF THEY WANT THEY CALL US UP, THEY'RE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHARGING. IF THEY WANT TO PAY OUT OVER TIME, THAT'LL BE AN OPTION, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH US IN ORDER TO DO THAT. >> THAT SEEMS CUMBERSOME, BUT APPROPRIATE. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM 6.6, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING NAY. >> NAY. >> THAT MOTION PASSES, 6-1. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 6.7 TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION, [7. Resolution - Business Development: Consider a resolution making findings that the Highland Oaks Public Improvement District (PID) meets the requirements of Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code; accepting the Highland Oaks PID petition, which covers a portion of an area in Lubbock County, Texas, generally bounded by 146th Street to the north, Slide Road to the east, Woodrow Road to the south, and Frankford Avenue to the west; and calling for a public hearing to receive public comment on the formation of a public improvement district in the area depicted and described. ] ACCEPTING A PETITION REGARDING THE CREATION OF THE HIGHLAND OAKS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. NOW I'M GOING TO CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ISSUE. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCIL, WE'LL JUMP RIGHT INTO THIS. WE DID HEAR FROM A REPRESENTATIVE OF HIGHLAND OAKS DURING YOUR PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS IS THE FIRST STEP IN THE POTENTIAL CREATION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THAT DOES COVER WHAT IS KNOWN AS HIGHLAND OAKS. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THE TOTAL AREA OF LAND THAT IS COVERED IS APPROXIMATELY 375 ACRES. YOU SEE THE DESCRIPTION THERE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PID IS A BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN OTHERS. IT IS DESIGNED SOLELY TO FUND A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO DESIGN, PROCURE, AND CONSTRUCT THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT. COUNCIL, THIS IS RELATED TO THE PENDING ANNEXATION REQUEST FROM HIGHLAND OAKS. THAT ANNEXATION REQUEST REQUIRES AN ELECTION OF THE VOTERS THAT OWN THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE 375 ACRES, AND SUCH ELECTION WILL BE ON NOVEMBER 5, 2024, SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE. AGAIN, ONLY THOSE WHO ARE THE RESIDENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND ARE REGISTERED VOTERS IN HIGHLAND OAKS WILL VOTE FOR THIS. THE PID JUST PUT SIMPLY, THIS IS HOW THOSE RESIDENTS WOULD FUND THE COST OF BRINGING CITY OF LUBBOCK WATER TO THEIR HOMES IF THE ANNEXATION IS SUCCESSFUL. THAT CREATES A TWO-STEP DANCE THAT WE'LL ASK THE COUNCIL TO DO. SHOULD YOU ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE PETITION TODAY, YOU ARE ALSO THEN CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE HELD AT YOUR MEETING ON OCTOBER THE 22ND. NO FURTHER ACTION THEN UNTIL AFTER THE ANNEXATION ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 5TH. THEN REMEMBER, IT'S ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER THAT YOU'LL ACTUALLY CANVASS THE VOTE. IF THAT IS A POSITIVE VOTE, THEN YOU WILL COME BACK AND FINISH THE CREATION OF THE DISTRICT, AND THEY WILL BE OFF TO GETTING THEIR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE. I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ATKINSON? THIS JUST ACTUALLY MAKES FINDINGS. WE'RE MAKING FINDINGS. >> CORRECT. >> WE ARE CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT A FUTURE DATE. >> OCTOBER 22ND. >> SEVERAL OTHER STEPS TO TAKE PLACE AFTER THAT. >> YES, SIR. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.7. >> SO MOVED. >> MR. COLLINS? MR. ROSE. A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU, DR. WILSON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NO. I HEAR NONE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, 7-0. [00:35:03] NOW WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 6.8 TO PROVE A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PETITION [8. Resolution - Business Development: Consider a resolution accepting a petition to create a tax increment reinvestment zone pursuant to Texas Tax Code Sec.311.005(a)(4) to be called Tax Increment Financing District No. 4, located in the North Park Development area, approximately described as the area east of Frankford Avenue, south of Erskine Street, north of West Loop 289 and west of N. Winston Avenue and set a public hearing regarding same. ] TO CREATE THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE LOCATED AT NORTH PARK DEVELOPMENT AREA AND CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. AGAIN, I'LL CALL ON MR. ATKINSON TO PROVIDE A STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ISSUE, OR MR. WADE. >> MR. GLASHEEN, I BELIEVE, NEEDS TO RECUSE FROM THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM. >> THANK YOU, MR. WADE. NOW, MR. ATKINSON. >> THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO THIS. JUST REAL QUICK FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE WATCHING OR LISTENING. WHAT IS A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ZONE OR A TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE? A TIF OR A TIRZ. THEY'RE THE SAME THING. THERE IS NO DISTINCTION OR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM. COUNCIL, THIS IS A SPECIAL DISTRICT THAT'S AUTHORIZED BY THE TEXAS TAX CODE, CHAPTER 311. IT IS A TOOL THAT ALLOWS TAX DOLLARS COLLECTED ON THE GROWTH OF PROPERTY VALUE TO BE USED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THAT PIECE OF GEOGRAPHY. IN A TIF OR IN A TIRZ, THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT PAY MORE TAX OR A HIGHER TAX, BUT RATHER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE TAX ASSESSMENT IS THE DAY IT IS CREATED VERSUS WHAT IT GROWS TO IN THE FUTURE. THAT GAP OR THAT INCREMENT IS THEN AVAILABLE TO COME BACK TO THAT ZONE FOR CERTAIN PUBLIC PURPOSES. THERE ARE SOME BASE CRITERIA FOR CREATING A TIF, AND THERE'S TWO WAYS TO DO SO. THE BASE CRITERIA IS THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OR THE REDEVELOPMENT AS APPROPRIATE IN THAT PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHY WOULD NOT OCCUR SOLELY THROUGH PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN THE REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE. THE TWO WAYS TO CREATE THIS ARE EITHER CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, SO THAT IS A CITY INITIATED TIF, OR THEY CAN BE CREATED BY A PETITION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL. IN THIS CASE, THIS IS A PETITION. THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU APPROVE THIS. HERE IS THE AREA. I APOLOGIZE, THE OUTLINE BOUNDARY IS A LITTLE BIT LIGHT COLORED. IT'S MAINLY THOSE LARGER OPEN TRACKS. ROUGHLY 333 ACRES, ERSKINE ON THE NORTH, NORTH WINSTON ON THE EAST, THE LOOP TO THE SOUTH, AND FRANKFORD AVENUE TO THE WEST. COUNCIL, IF YOU APPROVE OF THIS TODAY, YOU ARE CALLING A CREATION PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING FOR YOUR OCTOBER 8TH MEETING, FOLLOWED BY THE SECOND READING ON OCTOBER THE 22ND, ALSO A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT IN THE FINANCE PLAN. THE PROJECT IN FINANCE PLAN DEFINES WHAT ARE THOSE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS TO WHICH THAT PIECE OF THE INCREMENTAL TAX WILL BE SPENT. AGAIN, YOU WILL SEE THIS IN MUCH GREATER DETAIL ON THE 22ND. BUT IN THE CASE OF THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST, IT IS PREDOMINANTLY FOR DRAINAGE, BEAUTIFICATION, AND A SMALL PARK AREA THAT WOULD BE PLACED WITHIN THIS BOUNDARY. CURIOSITY PREVAILS. WHAT OTHER SUCH TIFS EXIST IN THE CITY? YOU HAVE THE NORTH OVERTON TIF. I DO BELIEVE THAT WAS A PETITIONED TIF. YOU HAVE YOUR CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TIF, OR THE DOWNTOWN TIF, CITY CREATED. THEN YOU HAVE THE LUBBOCK BUSINESS PARK, ALSO A CITY CREATED TIF. COUNCIL, WITH THAT, AGAIN, YOUR ACTION TODAY WOULD BE TO ACCEPT THIS PETITION, CALL THE CREATION PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE OCTOBER 8TH COUNCIL MEETING AND THE RELATED POTENTIAL FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE. I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.8. >> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> MR. COLLINS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. IT PASSES, SIX, ZERO, WITH MR. GLASHEEN RECUSED. HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR MICROPHONES. [00:40:15] YEAR 2024/'25. I WILL NOW CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE'RE GOOD, ROBERT? >> YES, SIR. >> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND JUMP RIGHT IN. COUNCIL, MOST OF THESE SLIDES WILL LOOK FAMILIAR. WE'RE GOING TO WALK THROUGH THEM 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 & LIGHT WHAT WE CALL THE TCOS, 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, SIX 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. BLOW 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 FUND. 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, AND THOSE DOLLARS ARE BEING TRANSFERRED TO THE EXISTING EFFLUENT PUMP STATION PROJECT. IT'S A NET ZERO CHANGE. 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 $1,000 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 NIL ON THAT. >> WHAT IS IT CALLED? >> NIL. 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. 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 GODEKE 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. [00:45:03] 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 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 THE LAKE 6 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 TO NOT NOW DO MATH IN PUBLIC. THIS WAS ALL DONE 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 FOR EVERYBODY. >> 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. >> OR 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 RATE IS 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 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'RE ALL NUMBERS YOU'VE SEEN IN YOUR BUDGET. THERE ARE NO CHANGES. YOU JUST HAVE TO ADOPT IT SEPARATELY. >> ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? TO BE CLEAR, LAST YEAR, THOUGH, WE DID INCREASE OUR TAX RATE BY 3.7%. IS THAT CORRECT? OR OUR REVENUE. [00:50:03] >> REVENUE. >> REVENUE BY 3.7%. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO DO THE MATH ON HOW MUCH IT EQUATES TO PERCENTAGE, BUT THE REVENUE INCREASE LAST YEAR IN OUR BUDGET, 3.7%. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> WE HAD THAT LAST YEAR. THANK YOU. PLEASE CONTINUE. >> WE DO HAVE ONE 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 TCOS 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. GO AWAY. 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, SO THIS WOULD BE PD AT FOUR-AND-A-HALF. 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. >> OPEN FOR QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT. MAYOR PRO TEM. >> THIS PROPOSAL IS NEW. I DON'T SEE A PRINTED COPY. DID WE GET THOSE? 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 PAGE IN MY COPY OF IT. IT'S NOT IN THE OTHERS? >> NO. >> I DON'T THINK I SAW IT IN MINE. >> I'D LIKE TO GET IT. >> MR. MAYOR, APPARENTLY, MY COPY IS ENTIRELY COPIES OF THIS PAGE. GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT. >> WE'LL TAKE A SHORT BREAK SO EVERYBODY GETS THAT COPY TO DISCUSS. EVERYBODY'S GOT THEIR COPY NOW. DR. WILSON. >> 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 IN THIS ONE IS THE INCREASE OR THE DECREASE OF THE TRANSFER TO MARKET LUBBOCK FROM 100,000-150,000. THEN THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL $25,000 ADDED TO OIL AND GAS REVENUE. [00:55:02] 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. THEN THE SALES TAX NUMBER IS DIFFERENT. I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW DIFFERENT IT IS FROM MY LAST PROPOSAL. DID I MENTION THE MEET AND CONFER? THAT DROPPED DOWN TO 75,000. I THINK SINCE WE'RE HIRING A FIRE CHIEF WHO'S BEEN THROUGH THAT PROCESS BEFORE, THAT'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 A ECONOMY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL HAPPEN, THAT YOU'RE JUST GUESSING THAT WE WILL HAVE MORE REVENUE NEXT YEAR. THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THIS, IS THAT WE'RE USING RESERVES WHICH WE SAVE FOR EVERY YEAR TO CONTINUE ADDING ON STREET MAINTENANCE. WE'RE DIPPING INTO A SAVINGS ACCOUNT FOR RECURRING LEVEL EXPENSES OVER AND OVER. I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE. 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. THIS PROPOSED AMOUNT, THE 35,000, WHAT IS IT THAT IT ACTUALLY FUNDS? >> WELL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IT'S UNSPECIFIED. FROM THIS BODY, PART OF THE DISCUSSION HAS BEEN THE DOLLARS FOR THE JUNIOR AMBASSADOR PROGRAM. 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. >> ACTUALLY, JUNIOR AMBASSADORS, ISN'T THAT $25,000 THAT'S ACTUALLY FUNDED? IT WAS 25,000. IT WASN'T 30. ARE YOU SURE? >> PRETTY SURE. MS. BROCK WILL CHECK. >> THANK YOU. THEN THE 5,000 WOULD COVER, YOU SAID TRAVEL? >> YOUR 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 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 AMBASSADORS, $58,000. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? >> I DON'T KNOW. I CAN ONLY ASSUME THAT'S GOING BACK A SERIES OF YEARS, AND SOME YEARS IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN OTHERS. >> 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. 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? [01:00:02] >> NO. >> 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, 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. >> I'M 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. BAX IS ALSO HERE. >> IT IS NOT AUTOMATIC. THEY HAVE TO TAKE AN ACTION. >> JUST FOR EVERYBODY, ANYBODY WATCHING OR SITTING 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 HOME 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 LOCAL STATE. >> THE 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 CANNOT OUTRUN 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%, 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 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 $5 MILLION 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. 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 [01:05:03] 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 MISS ROCK TO GO BACK AND LOOK, WHEN I WENT BACK FIVE YEARS, I BELIEVE IN 2021, WE HAD I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE NUMBERS DOWN WITH ME, BUT SOMETHING LIKE 7 MILLION OR 9 MILLION. THEN WE WENT TO 11 MILLION. THEN WE WENT TO 7 MILLION, THEN 6 MILLION. I THINK THIS YEAR WE'RE PROJECTED IT AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO COME IN YET, BUT I THINK YOUR PROJECTION WAS ABOUT 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS 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 2.5 MILLION DOLLARS 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 12.5 MILLION. IF WE BRING IN 2.5 MILLION MORE, AND WE TAKE 275,000 OUT OF IT TO COVER THIS BUDGET, WE'LL STILL HAVE MORE THAN $2 MILLION 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 IN THIS BUDGET. 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, 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, 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 DONE. IT 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. [01:10:05] >> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> MAYOR, 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? >> YEAH, I'M JUST SAYING TO COMPARE IT AGAINST THE OTHER ONE. >> MAYOR 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. >> IT IS 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 TO BREAK SO THAT I CAN REVIEW IT. >> I HAVE NO OBJECTION. THAT'S FINE. WE'LL TAKE A 10-MINUTE RECESS. >> YEAH. >> 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 PROCEDURAL MAYOR. WE'LL SEE, SEE IF I REMEMBER WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY. >> YOU'LL RESERVE YOUR COMMENTS. I BELIEVE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE FROM YOU, MR. ATKINSON. IS THERE? 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 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. 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. I 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? >> YOU KNOW, 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 THAT 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. 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. 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, [01:15:02] 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 DIAS, 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 CAN CORRECT ME THAT THERE'S A MOTION AND SECOND FOR THE BUDGET AS ADOPTED? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW. A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR THE BUDGET THAT YOU'LL 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 PROCEDURALLY CORRECT, THEN I WOULD. >> 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? >> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? >> YES BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND SO THERE CAN BE DISCUSSION, YES. >> I NOTICED ON HERE MAYOR 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'RE ASKING A QUESTION? >> I'M ASKING YOU A QUESTION, SORRY. I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET TO. I THINK THAT'S MY DILEMMA. I WANT TO GIVE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK THE MEET AND CONFER FOR ME IS, 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 FORWARD. IT'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 AND 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, WHICH YOU CAN DO? >> I THINK DAVID WANTS TO SPEAK. [01:20:03] >> 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 COULD DISCUSS REDUCING TODAY? >> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO OFFER AS AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION? >> I'M WILLING TO CONSIDER ANYTHING. 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 AND THE FIRE MARSHAL POSITIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU 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. 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 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'S 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 MUNICIPAL SERVICES THAT THE PUBLIC EXPECTS 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 ENDLESSLY LEASED 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, [01:25:01] 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. 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 WHICH IS VERY RESPONSIBLE AND 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. I HAVE THE MAYOR'S EXPENDITURES HERE FOR HIS PROPOSAL AS 310,546. WHAT IS DR. WILSON'S? >> DR. 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. 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 IN 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 $2.45 MILLION WE'RE GETTING FROM LP&L THAT THEY FOUND AND IF THE ESTIMATES OF TAX REVENUE STAY WHERE THEY ARE, BY THE EXCESS IN 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. TO MR. GLASHEEN'S CREDIT, HE'S REALLY LOOKED HARD TO TRY TO FIND WAYS TO CUT. 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, [01:30:02] 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 AND 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, IN 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. >> THIS IS DIRECTED TO MR. ATKINSON. >> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> THIS IS DIRECTED TO MR. ATKINSON. IF WE WENT WITH NO NEW REVENUE, WHAT 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. IT'S ONE TIME MONIES. YES, THEY REACCUMULATE. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT 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. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR FOR THE PROPOSAL, WHICH IS CALLED THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL, THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE PROPOSAL MADE BY MR. GLASHEEN THAT I SECONDED. THAT IS THE CURRENT MOTION ON THE FLOOR. 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 THE PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU, THE MAYOR'S PROPOSAL, THAT IS A 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 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? >> SORRY, THAT ME. >> I'LL PASS TO MR. GLASHEEN AND COME BACK TO YOU. >> COUNCIL MEMBER GLASHEEN? >> YES. >> COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS? >> NO. >> MAYOR PRO TEM? >> NO. >> I VOTE YES. >> THAT IS A VOTE OF 5-2. >> NOW WE HAVE A BUDGET. >> OR 2-5. >> NO. >> WE'VE APPROVED A BUDGET. >> NO. >> THAT'S RIGHT. I'M SORRY. >> ALL THIS WAS WAS A MOTION TO AMEND. YOU STILL HAVE THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. >> THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THERE. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THE AMENDED MOTION IS THERE. WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING MORE ON IT. WE JUST CAN VOTE ON IT. [01:35:02] >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> UNLESS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. LET'S, AGAIN, HAVE A VOTE ON THE SECOND READING OF THE BUDGET 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, MRS. 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 GLASHEEN? >> NO. >> COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS? >> YES. >> 5-2. >> WELL, ME. >> MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE. >> THANK YOU. DON'T SKIP ME, PLEASE. NOW. 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. THIS IS JUST RATIFYING ESSENTIALLY THE VOTE THAT YOU JUST TOOK. THIS IS AGENDA ITEM, I BELIEVE, 6.4. >> MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.4, WHICH WILL RATIFY THE CURRENT BUDGET FOR 2024/2025. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> MR. ROSE? 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 GLASHEEN? >> NO. >> COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS? >> YES. >> MAYOR? >> NO. >> 5-2. >> NOW WE GO ON TO 6.5. THIS IS A SECOND READING. WELL, 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 SUPER MAJORITY. 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, SUPER MAJORITY, TO PASS A TAX RATE TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET. I 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 SUPER MAJORITY TO RAISE YOUR TAXES. AGAIN, WE WILL TAKE A POLL STARTING WITH MR. COLLINS. >> COUNCIL MEMBER COLLINS? >> YES. >> COUNCIL MEMBER ROSE? >> YES. >> COUNCIL MEMBER DR. WILSON? >> YES. >> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> JUST GIVE ME A MOMENT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER GLASHEEN? >> 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 SUPER MAJORITY VOTE TO SUPPORT A BUDGET. [01:40:05] WE'LL HAVE TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION NOW ON THE BUDGET AND VOTE TO EITHER AMEND THE BUDGET TO MATCH. WHAT IS THE FIRST THING? >> FIRST THING YOU NEED TO DO IS A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE BUDGET, MOTION 6.3. >> I WILL NOW CONSIDER A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE ON APPROVING THE BUDGET. >> MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM 6.3. >> WE'LL 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. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER AGENDA ITEM 6.3. DID 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. >> 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 SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, I GUESS, THE VOTE ON THE TAX RATE, IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT AS WELL. 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? >> YOU ONLY HAVE LIMITED TIME TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE A BUDGET, RIGHT? >> 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 THE AGENDA AND FINISH THE AGENDA, AND THEN AT THAT TIME, MOVE TO RECONSIDER. BUT YOU HAVEN'T EXHAUSTED YOUR AGENDA YET, SO 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 SINCE 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. >> WITHOUT OBJECTION, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 6.6. 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 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 FROM MR. ATKINSON ON THIS? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 6.5. SORRY, 6.6. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND? [01:45:02] >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? >> NAY. >> IS THAT 6-1, IS THAT CORRECT? THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 6.7 THEN. >> MAYOR NICKINSON? >> YES. >> MAYOR, WITH YOUR PERMISSION, WE'LL CALL LUBBOCK POWER & LIGHT TO PRESENT THEIR TARIFF FOR THE UPCOMING YEAR. >> THE MOMENT THEY'VE BEEN WAITING FOR. >> I BELIEVE IT WILL BE MR. HARVEY HALL. >> A HARVEY HALL SHOW. >> IN MERE MOMENTS, MR. HALL IS GOING TO BRING YOU GOOD NEWS AS ALL OUR 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, OUR CURRENT REVENUE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS COMING YEAR IS GOING TO BE 142.8 MILLION, ABOUT A FOUR MILLION DOLLAR DROP. THAT EQUATES TO A RATE DECREASE ON OUR DELIVERY RATES. >> WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT, PLEASE? >> ALL OF THAT OR JUST? >> 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 FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. SO WE'RE PROPOSING THIS AFTERNOON A RATE DECREASE FOR OUR CUSTOMERS. >> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR AGAIN. THANK YOU. HOW'S 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 FOUR MILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT IS THEN ALLOCATED AMONG OUR CUSTOMERS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE CALL COST CAUSATION. 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 10 KW, THAT WOULD BE A 2% RATE INCREASE. FOR OUR SECONDARY GREATER THAN 10 KW, 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. THEN WE HAVE OUR STREET LIGHTING RATES AS WELL. >> 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, 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 ONLY FOR OUR ELECTRIC RATE CUSTOMERS, WE HAVE A DELIVERY RATE. THAT DELIVERY RATE IS ALL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. 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 DELIVERY RATES TO DELIVER THE ELECTRICITY TO THE CUSTOMER. >> THANKS. [01:50:05] >> 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? WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW WAS, FOR OUR RATES, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO OTHER TRANSMISSION? TDU STANDS FOR TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION OF UTILITY, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE HAVE BECOME IN OUR NEW RETAIL ENVIRONMENT. 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. THAT WAS OUR LAGGING TRANSMISSION RATE. 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. THAT WAS DETERMINED TO NOT, ACCORDING TO SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC POWER, WE DID NOT OWE THAT. THAT IS A SAVINGS OF THREE MILLION DOLLARS. THEN OUR DEBT SERVICE, WHEN WE BASICALLY AGREED TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE PARTIAL REQUIREMENTS AGREEMENT WITH SPS, WE WOULD ORIGINALLY HAVE TO PAY 77.5 MILLION. THE ENDING BALANCE FOR THAT WAS 65.7 MILLION. WE BORROWED SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT. THAT WAS AN ADDITIONAL MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR FOR DEBT SERVICE. THAT'S THE BASIS OF THE FOUR MILLION DOLLARS. THAT HAS USHERED US ALONG. 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 SEEING HERE IS REALLY THE COOPERATORS WITH LP&L, INCLUDING OUR TRANSMISSION CHARGE, WITH ONCOR, 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 WANT 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 OUR 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 10 K. IF I GO ON WITH THAT COMPARISON AND I LOOK AT OUR SECONDARY GREATER THAN 10 KW, 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 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 MILLION A YEAR CREDIT FOR A FIVE YEAR PERIOD FOR A TOTAL OF $110 MILLION THAT STARTED IN JANUARY [INAUDIBLE] TO NOVEMBER OF 2026. ONCE THAT PERIOD ENDS, THAT MEANS WE HAVE ACCESS TO $22 MILLION MORE IN REVENUE AT THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY 27, 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. THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADED. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT PIECE ON OUR COMPARATORS 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 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, COUNCILMAN HARRIS. [01:55:04] TCOS REVENUES, WE HAVE, AS PART OF OUR MOVE INTO ERCOT, WE BUILT OVER $300 MILLION IN TRANSMISSION ASSETS OUTSIDE THE CITY TO CONNECT INTO ERCOT, AND THAT'S UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ERCOT, AND 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, AND 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 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 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 THEIR 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 COSTS, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE HARMLESS $22 MILLION? >> ALL THAT, YES. THAT PART THAT DOES GO ON THEIR BILL AND CAUSE THAT. >> THAT COMPONENT PIECE IS BURIED INTO OUR DELIVERY RATES. >> THERE IS AN END TO IT? >> ACTUALLY, IT'S A CREDIT. WE HAVE ABOUT $43 MILLION 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 MILLION 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 TCOS REVENUE MONEY THEN COMES INTO COVERING OUR COSTS, WHICH ALLOWS US TO COVER COSTS, IT ALSO WILL ALLOW US TO PROVIDE RATE BENEFIT TO OUR CUSTOMERS. >> THAT RATE BENEFIT WILL COME AT THE END OF SIX YEARS FROM THAT, WHEN THAT DROPS OFF? >> 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. >> I THINK THAT'S REALLY ALL I'VE GOT. I'LL JUST STOP THERE. I HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A MOVE TO APPROVE THOSE RATES. >> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOU CAN SIT DOWN AND WE'LL JUST HAVE A MOTION HERE AND A SECOND AND A DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION ON 6.7, RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELIVERY SYSTEM ELECTRIC RATE TARIFF SCHEDULE FOR LUBBOCK POWER & LIGHT, CITY OF LUBBOCK'S MUNICIPAL OWNED ELECTRIC UTILITY APPLICABLE TO ALL RATE CLASSES, EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1ST, 2024? >> SO MOVE. >> I'M NOT SURE, WHO? BRAYDEN. [LAUGHTER] MAYOR PRO TEM, AND THEN BRAYDEN IS THE SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED SAY, NAY. HEARING NONE, PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. NOW WE ARE BACK TO 6.3. MR. WADE, I SEE THAT YOU WISH TO WEIGH IN HERE. >> WELL, I KNOW THAT DR. 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. [02:00:01] >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S BEEN ACTUALLY A MOTION OR SECOND ON THAT ONE. >> 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, DR. WILSON? >> MAYOR, SINCE WE'VE HAD A FEW MINUTES TO TAKE A BREATH AND HERE ARE 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, DR. 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, AND THEN IF THAT PASSES, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR MOTION TO SET THE TAX RATE. >> APPRECIATE IT, THANKS. >> THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER JUST NEEDS A MAJORITY VOTE, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I MOVE JUST TO RECONSIDER ITEM 6.5. >> WE NEED A SECOND. >> MR. COLLINS DID. >> MR. COLLINS. THANK YOU. I KNOW THAT OUR SECRETARY'S HAVING TO GET ALL THIS DOWN. SHE SWEARS SHE CAN WATCH EVERYBODY. ON THIS MOTION TO RECONSIDER, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO HAVE IT AS A ROLL CALL VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER COLLINS. >> YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER ROSE. >> YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER DR. WILSON. >> YES. >> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER GLASHEEN. >> YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS. >> YES. >> MAYOR. >> YES. >> SEVEN TO ZERO. >> NOW, MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE AT 0.47. >> I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU MIND TURNING ON YOUR MICROPHONE FOR THAT? >> AM I NOT LOUD ENOUGH? [LAUGHTER] I CAN SCREAM IF YOU WANT ME TO. 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. >> SECOND. >> MOTION AND A SECOND MADE. BUT 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. >> COUNCILMEMBER COLLINS. >> YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER ROSE. >> YES. >> COUNCILMEMBER DR. WILSON. >> YES. >> MAYOR PRO TEM. COUNCILMEMBER GLASHEEN. >> NO. >> COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS. >> YES. >> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> YES. >> MAYOR. >> NO. >> FIVE TO TWO, 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.