Sep 12, 2023 Regular City Council Meeting

ALL RIGHT. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

[00:00:02]

THE PLAN FOR TODAY IS THAT WE WILL CONVENE IN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS IN OPEN SESSION AND GO IMMEDIATELY TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE ANTICIPATE A BIT OF A LENGTHY DISCUSSION THIS MORNING ON PERSONNEL MATTERS WITH THE CITY STAFF AND THEN WE WILL MOVE TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA PROMPTLY AT 2 P.M.

SO AT THIS TIME, WE WILL HOLD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSULTING WITH THE CITY STAFF REGARDING THE FOLLOWING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION OR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND TO HOLD CONSULTATION WITH THE ATTORNEY UNDER SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE AND PERSONNEL MATTERS UNDER SECTION 551.074 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

SO AT THIS TIME WE WILL MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE ARE IN RECESS FROM OPEN SESSION.

GOOD AFTERNOON. IT IS 2:03 ON SEPTEMBER THE 12TH OF 2023.

WE HAVE BEEN IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SINCE 11 WITH A SHORT LUNCH BREAK AND NOW WE ARE MOVING INTO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

SO WE ARE NOW RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION.

WE WILL FIRST START OFF WITH OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS AND TODAY WE ARE PRIVILEGED AND HONORED TO HAVE JOSH RAGLAND.

[1. Invocation]

HE IS HERE TO LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION.

IF YOU WOULD ALL PLEASE STAND.

AND THEN AFTER JOSH FINISHES WITH THE PRAYER, IF YOU WILL REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGES LED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PATTERSON HARRIS.

JOSH.

THANK YOU ALL. PLEASE BOW WITH ME AND PRAY OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN WE COME BEFORE YOU TODAY AND WE SEEK YOU AND YOUR GUIDANCE UPON US IN OUR DAILY LIVES. WE SEEK YOU AND YOUR GUIDANCE UPON THIS CITY COUNCIL AND LEADERS THROUGHOUT THIS CITY THAT YOU WOULD GUIDE US, THAT YOU WOULD LEAD US WHERE WE NEED TO BE, AND THAT LORD, WE WOULD LISTEN TO YOU.

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR LOVE FOR US.

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR CARE AND YOUR PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT IN OUR LIVES AND IN THE WORK OF THIS CITY, IN OUR COUNTRY, AND IN THIS WORLD.

LORD, MAY WE BE A BEACON OF LIGHT REPRESENTING YOU.

AND WE THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU ARE AND ALL THAT YOU HAVE DONE AND ALL THAT YOU WILL DO.

AND IT'S IN YOUR NAME THAT WE PRAY.

AMEN. THANK YOU.

IF YOU WOULD REMAIN STANDING AND JOIN US AS WE OFFER THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE UNITED STATES AND TEXAS FLAGS.

[2. Pledges of Allegiance]

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG; I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU AGAIN, JOSH, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TODAY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM FOR THE PLEDGES.

WE WILL NOW MOVE TO OUR CITIZEN COMMENTS.

WE HAVE NO CITIZENS COMMENTS TODAY, SO WE WILL NOW MOVE TO MINUTES.

[4. Minutes]

COULD I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE? THANK YOU, MISS MARTINEZ-GARCIA.

THANK YOU, MISS JOY, FOR THE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM 4.1, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT MOTION CARRIES SEVEN ZERO ON 4.1.

WE WILL NOW MOVE TO 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.]

SO WE HAVE A FEW THAT WE'RE GOING TO PULL OUT FOR DISCUSSION AND I WILL TURN THEM OVER TO YOU INDIVIDUALLY.

MR. ATKINSON WE'LL START OFF WITH 5.1.

[1. Budget Ordinance Amendment 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Budget Ordinance No. 2023-O0095, Amendment 32, Amending the FY 2022-23 Budget for municipal purposes respecting the Streets Capital Projects Fund; providing for filing; and providing for a savings clause.]

WE'LL JUMP RIGHT ON TO 5.1.

5.1 IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

SECOND READING.

THIS IS FOR THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WILL RESULT IN HAVING TWO LANES OF CONCRETE ROADWAY CONSTRUCTED ON SOUTH QUAKER. SO THIS IS BETWEEN 146TH AND WOODROW ROAD AND OBVIOUSLY IN DIRECT SUPPORT OF THE NEW LIBERTY HIGH SCHOOL.

THE CHANGE THAT IS IN THIS ONE VERSUS THE PRIOR IS WE ARE NEEDING TO UP THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $165,153 THAT WILL BRING US TO WHERE WE ARE PAYING THE 30% LIMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

AND THUS 70% OF THIS PROJECT IS PAID BY THE PRIVATE PARTIES THAT SURROUND THE PROJECT.

ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. ATKINSON ON 5.1.

MISS JOY. MR. ATKINSON, THIS JUST INDICATES THAT IT'S AN INCREASE IN THE FUNDING WHICH INCLUDES.

[00:05:08]

THE TOTAL. CORRECT.

BUT HAVE WE NOT BUDGETED FOR THAT 30% BECAUSE THIS IS BEING PAID OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND? IT IS. AND I'LL GO INTO GREATER DETAIL WHEN WE BROUGHT THE INITIAL BUDGET AMENDMENT, BECAUSE THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE CITY DOES NOT DO THE CONTRACTING. WE HAVE A MAXIMUM NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT THAT WE WILL CONTRIBUTE.

THAT AMOUNT CAN'T GO OVER 30%.

THE DEVELOPER AND THE PRIVATE PARTIES HAD A BID IN HAND.

THAT BIDDER WALKED OFF OF HIS BID WOULD NOT HONOR THE BID.

THERE IS A NEW BID THAT THEY HAVE IN HAND.

THE TOTAL BID IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 4.25 MILLION ROUNDED UP, AND THEN THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION ALL IN IS 1.275, AND THAT INCLUDES THIS ADDITIONAL $165,000.

AND I GUESS JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT HAPPEN ALL THE TIME IN OUR PROJECTS.

SOMETIMES THEY COME IN EXACTLY.

SOMETIMES THEY'RE OVER.

AND THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FINALIZING THE BUDGET.

THANK YOU, MS. JOY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF MR. ATKINSON ON 5.1? ALL RIGHT. NOW, MOVING TO 5.2, MR.

[2. Budget Ordinance Amendment 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Budget Ordinance No. 2023-O0107, Amendment 34, Amending the FY 2022-23 Budget for municipal purposes respecting the Public Safety Capital Projects Fund; providing for filing; and providing for a savings clause.]

THIS ALSO IS THE SECOND READING OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT COMES TO YOU FROM FINANCE.

BUT COUNCIL RECALLED THIS IS ENTIRELY FOR THE EVENTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF FIRE STATION 20.

SO IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, FIRE STATION 20 WAS ORIGINALLY FUNDED THROUGH A TAX NOTE PROJECT A COUPLE OF SUMMERS AGO.

JUST AS WE'RE SEEING WITH MANY OTHER PROJECTS, WE HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF BIDDERS.

IN THIS CASE WE HAD ONE AND THE BIDS ARE OVER BUDGET.

SO THIS BID IS ALSO OVER BUDGET.

IT'S NOT MORE OVER BUDGET THAN WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN OTHER ITEMS. BUT IT IS OVER.

TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE AND TO KEEP THIS PROJECT ON TRACK AND TO ALLOW YOU IN THE VERY NEXT ITEM TO CONSIDER AWARDING THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.

WE ARE ASKING TO APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION DOLLARS TOTAL INTO THE FIRE STATION 20 PROJECT.

THAT IS FROM THE TAX NOTES AND IT IS COVERED BECAUSE WE HAD TWO FIRE TRUCKS IN YOUR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, THE FY 24 BUDGET FOR A TOTAL OF 4 MILLION.

THOSE WE ARE NOT DOING AND WE'RE INSTEAD PULLING THIS 3 MILLION FORWARD TO FULLY FUND THAT PROJECT.

THE IMMEDIATE NEXT ITEM IS 5.2.1, WHICH IS THE CONTRACT AWARD.

IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT, WE'LL GET CONSTRUCTION KICKED OFF AND GET THAT STATION BUILT.

ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON 5.2.

MAYBE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THERE, MR. ATKINSON. I THINK IN ONE OF THE SLIDES WE SAW AT ONE POINT THOSE FIRE TRUCKS WERE IN THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT IN THE BUDGET.

GOOD CATCH, MAYOR.

YES, COUNCIL WHEN I SHOWED YOU THE 18 SLIDES LAST WEEK AT THE BUDGET HEARING IT SAID THERE WERE STILL TWO FIRE TRUCKS IN IT.

THAT IS NOT TRUE. THE TWO FIRE TRUCKS ARE NOT IN IT.

THE BUDGET, THE NUMBERS, THE TOTALS, THE RESULTING TAX RATE AND FUNDING.

ALL OF THAT IS CORRECT AND WAS CORRECT LAST WEEK.

EVERYTHING YOU ACTED UPON WAS CORRECT.

I JUST HAD AN ERROR IN MY PRESENTATION.

AND THANK YOU FOR THE CATCH.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MOVE TO 5.6.

[6. Budget Ordinance Amendment 1st Reading - Finance: Consider Budget Ordinance Amendment 37, Amending the FY 2022-23 Budget for municipal purposes respecting the Parks Capital Project Fund; providing for filing; and providing for a savings clause.]

THIS ONE LOOKS A LITTLE ODD COUNCIL.

WE'RE ASKING YOU TO AMEND THE BUDGET BY CREATING A CIP OR A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PROJECT.

RIGHT NOW THAT PROJECT HAS NO EXPENDITURES AND WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR AN EXPENDITURE.

WHAT WE ARE DOING IS ASKING FOR YOU TO CREATE THAT CIP PROJECT.

WE'RE CALLING IT PARK DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS WHERE WE WILL DEPOSIT ALL OF THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FROM THE LAND TRANSACTION THAT IS BEING DONE FOR FUTURE LOOP 88 DOWN AT 1585 AND MILWAUKEE.

THESE ARE THE FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN TENDERED TO US NOW BECAUSE COUNCIL WE DID A POSSESSION AND USE AGREEMENT A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO.

WE NOW HAVE THOSE DOLLARS.

THERE ARE MORE TO COME.

WE DO NOT HAVE THAT EXACT NUMBER YET.

THEY WILL BE MUCH MORE THAN THIS NUMBER IS.

NO DOLLARS COME OUT OF THIS CIP UNTIL WE PRESENT AND ULTIMATELY COUNCIL APPROVES THE USE OF THOSE DOLLARS.

BY PUTTING THIS IN A CIP RATHER THAN IN THE RESERVES IT ALSO MEANS THESE DOLLARS GO NOWHERE ELSE.

THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE BALANCE OF THE CITY.

THEY WILL STAY HERE UNTIL WE BRING BACK TO YOU THE PROJECT AND THE EXPENSE AND ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.

THE FUNDING IN THIS ONE, THE ONE THE DOLLARS WE HAVE IN HAND ARE A LITTLE OVER $1.1 MILLION DOLLARS.

[00:10:04]

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

THIS IS THE FRONTAGE THAT IT'S NOT DEVELOPED FRONTAGE.

SO DON'T ANYBODY TAKE THAT WE'RE DOING ANYTHING WITH TOM MARTIN COMPLEX.

IT IS THE FRONTAGE THAT IS SOUTH OF THE TOM MARTIN COMPLEX.

IT'S COMPLETELY UNDEVELOPED.

STATE OF TEXAS NEEDS TO ACQUIRE BOTH OF OUR CORNERS IN A PRETTY GOOD SWATH THROUGH THE MIDDLE THERE TO BUILD LOOP 88.

AND SO THESE FUNDS THAT GO INTO THIS PARKS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND CAN BE APPROPRIATED LATER FOR OTHER PROJECTS SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, LAKE SEVEN.

IT COULD BE.

I KNOW ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL TIMES IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRAIL NETWORK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS JOY.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE'RE MOVING TO 5.2.

[20. Resolution - Risk Management: Consider a resolution authorizing the City Manager to purchase, for and on behalf of Lubbock Power and Light, the City’s municipal electric utility, property insurance coverage to include terrorism, with the insurers as yet to be determined, for which the premium shall not exceed a rate of $0.1333 per $100.]

IS THAT RIGHT, MR. ATKINSON? THAT'S CORRECT, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, EACH OF YOU HAS AT YOUR DAIS A REVISED RESOLUTION FOR 5.20.

THIS ITEM IS THE PURCHASE OF THE VARIOUS LINES OF INSURANCE COVERAGE, SPECIFICALLY FOR LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT.

THE CHANGE THAT YOU HAVE BETWEEN WHAT IS IN YOUR PACKET AND WHAT IS ON YOUR DAIS IS THIS.

THE PACKET IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION IS ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO PURCHASE THIS INSURANCE WITH A RATE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED 13.3 $13.33 PER $100 OF PROPERTY BEING INSURED.

THAT IS THE INITIAL QUOTE THAT WE RECEIVED.

THUS WE PUT IT IN YOUR PACKET.

SATURDAY THE CARRIER HAD TO REVISE THEIR QUOTE.

THEY HAD PUT THE QUOTE IN ERRONEOUSLY THEY HAD TAGGED IT TO CITY OPERATION INSTEAD OF ELECTRIC OPERATION.

THE RESULT THEREOF.

COUNCIL WE ARE ASKING FOR A NOT TO EXCEED RATE OF $34.97 PER $100 COVERED. IT WENT UP SUBSTANTIALLY.

MR. ATKINSON, WAS THIS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR ON THEIR PART, OR WAS THIS SIMPLY JUST AN ERROR IN THE ACCOUNTING MECHANISM? WHAT IT WAS THE CARRIER BID ON THE WRONG COVERAGE.

WHAT'S THE FISCAL IMPACT? IT'S ABOUT A 250% INCREASE TO DO THAT.

I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER TO THE TIP OF MY TONGUE RIGHT NOW.

IT IS COVERED THROUGH THE LPNL BUDGET.

ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.

THIS IS ALREADY BUDGETED.

IF WE NEED BLU, WE'VE GOT HIM RIGHT HERE FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HE'LL GIVE YOU AN EXACT NUMBER.

BLU THANKS, MAYOR.

SO THE ESTIMATE ORIGINALLY WAS JUST OVER $700,000.

THE NEW IS ABOUT 1.8.

SO IT'S A $1.1 MILLION DOLLAR IMPACT TO THE ELECTRIC FUND.

ALL RIGHT, CHAD, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO WE HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS ON THIS ONE, ON 5.2? CAN WE LEAVE THIS IN CONSENT AND JUST MAKE AN AGREEMENT FROM COUNCIL THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS RESOLUTION? YES. AS OPPOSED TO.

IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION YOU CAN JUST ACT ON THE ONE THAT'S ON THE DAIS AS PART OF YOUR CONSENT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF BLU OR MR. ATKINSON? OR DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN OBJECTION? IF WE KEEP 5.2, ACKNOWLEDGE THE RESOLUTION WAS 0.3497 PER 100.

ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? ALL RIGHT, MISS JOY, HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE TO ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION AS STATED.

IS THERE A SECOND? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MISS PATTERSON HARRIS ALL IN FAVOR OF ACKNOWLEDGING THIS RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT IN PLACE OF THE 0.1333 PER 100 AND ACCEPT THE RESOLUTION TO 0.3497 PER 100.

PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL, I GUESS ESSENTIALLY MR. WEAVER WILL AMEND 5 2 0 IN THE CONSENT AGENDA TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF COUNCIL.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO 5.21.

[21. Ordinance 1st Reading - Right-of-Way: Consider an ordinance abandoning and closing a portion of alley right-of-way located in Block 101, Original Town of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, dedicated by map, plat and/or dedication deed recorded in Volume 5, Page 384 of the deed records of Lubbock County, Texas; and abandoning and closing three (3) overhead utility easements and three (3) underground utility easements also located in Block 101, Original Town of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas.]

THAT'S IN THE PROCESS OF OWNERSHIP BEING TRANSFERRED REPLATTING ALL HEADING TOWARDS REDEVELOPMENT, REALLY, OF THAT ENTIRE BLOCK OVER THERE.

ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TO ABANDON AND CLOSE PORTIONS OF AN ALLEY ALONG WITH SIX EXISTING UTILITY EASEMENTS AND ALLEY RUNS EAST WEST ON THAT BLOCK.

[00:15:04]

ALL NEW EASEMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE GRANTED WHEN THE PROPERTY IS REPLATTED.

IF NOT, THERE WILL NOT BE A PROVISION FOR UTILITY SERVICE.

SO THEY WILL DO THAT.

THEY THE REQUESTER WILL DO THAT.

THE DOLLARS GENERATED BY THIS, BECAUSE YOU ARE ABANDONING THE EQUIVALENT OF PUBLIC PROPERTY IS $750 TO THE CITY.

I WOULD NOTE A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, THIS IS THE FIRST READ, SO THERE IS A SECOND READ TO FOLLOW.

THIS IS STARTING TO BE A RAPIDLY DEVELOPING PROJECT AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING THAT IT IS.

YOUR DOWNTOWN TIF IS LOOKING AT STUFF.

WE WILL BE ABLE TO BRING IN THE SECOND READING AS APPROPRIATE AS WELL AS THAT REPLAT TO REESTABLISH ALL OF THE VARIOUS EASEMENTS THAT WE HAVE.

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, MAYOR.

MR. ATKINSON, ON THIS BEING THE FIRST READING, IF WE DON'T SEE SOME MOVEMENT, MAY BE THE RIGHT WORD OR MAYBE A CLOSING ON THIS PROPERTY. IS THERE A TIME FRAME FOR WHEN THIS HAS TO GO BACK BEFORE COUNCIL ON A SECOND READING? IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO COME BACK AS EARLY AS THE 26TH THE NEXT MEETING.

IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO COME BACK ON THE 26TH.

IS THERE? IS IT 60 DAYS, 90 DAYS BEFORE THIS WOULD HAVE TO GO TO A SECOND READING? I'M NOT AWARE THAT THERE IS A TIME LIMIT THERE, MAYOR.

SO NO TIME LIMIT.

SO WOULD THAT GIVE COUNCIL THE OPTION IF WE PASS THIS TODAY, WE COULD SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE PROPERTY BEFORE.

AND I GUESS MY CONCERN IS IF WE DO THIS, WHAT IF ANOTHER WHAT IF IT SELLS TO ANOTHER ENTITY OR ANOTHER ORGANIZATION? AND THEN WE'VE DONE SOMETHING THAT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT DONE AND WE'VE JUST KIND OF SPUN OUR WHEELS FOR NO REASON HERE.

BUT THAT'S A GOOD REASON TO BE STRATEGIC ABOUT BRINGING IT BACK.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. ATKINSON ON 5.21. MISS JOY.

THIS PROPERTY IS TROUBLESOME.

EVERYBODY KNOWS I THINK, WHERE IT IS HERE, DOWNTOWN.

IT IS A TAX CREDIT PROJECT.

AND AT THE TIME THE TAX CREDITS WERE GRANTED, IT BELONGED TO A DIFFERENT ENTITY.

IT HAS NOW BEEN FLIPPED AT LEAST ONCE, MAYBE TWICE, AND IS NOW THEY'RE CONTEMPLATING A SALE TO A DIFFERENT ENTITY.

WITH NO REAL CLOSING DATE.

THE TAX CREDIT DEADLINE OF DECEMBER 31ST OF THIS YEAR HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO DECEMBER 31ST OF 2024 BY THE STATE.

SO I THINK SOME OF US ARE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT GOING IN THERE AND, YOU KNOW, CLOSING OFF THESE.

OR ABANDONING THESE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REAL SURE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN AND WE HAVE GOOD REASON TO FEEL THAT WAY.

I ATTENDED THE TIF BOARD MEETING THIS MORNING AND TIF BOARD WAS WILLING TO DO A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO HELP PAY FOR SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE UTILITY AND UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES NOT TO EXCEED $225,000, WHICH ALSO MAKES ME NERVOUS.

SO I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US NOT TO FINALIZE THIS AND SEE IF, IN FACT, THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE AND THAT THIS TRANSACTION THAT'S PENDING IS GOING TO CLOSE SO THAT WE KNOW WHO THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THROUGH.

SO I'M NERVOUS ABOUT IT.

AND IF WE CAN APPROVE IT ON THIS FIRST READING AND THEN HOLD OFF ON THE SECOND UNTIL WE HAVE SOME TIME, THEN I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY WISE.

MAYOR, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MISS JOY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. ATKINSON ON 5.21. I GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING IS MAYBE THAT'S THE PLAN, THAT WE GO AHEAD AND KEEP THIS IN CONSENT AND MOVE FORWARD.

BUT I THINK THAT WE WOULD YOU KNOW, I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING HAPPEN.

I MEAN, THIS IS AN EYESORE IT NEEDS TO.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT MOVING.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK WE NEED TO SEE SOME MOVEMENT ON THE PROJECT OR AT LEAST MAYBE TAKING CARE OF THE WEEDS AFTER IT RAINS AT THE VERY LEAST.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I GUESS WE'RE MOVING ON TO 5.24.

[24. Resolution - Engineering: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Change Order No. 1 to Contract 16917, by and between the City of Lubbock and Lone Star Dirt and Paving, Ltd., for Erskine Street Reconstruction Projects.]

5.24 IS CHANGE ORDER NUMBER ONE.

THIS IS ON THE ERSKINE ROADWAY PROJECT.

SO THIS IS MILWAUKEE TO FRANKFORD ORIGINALLY APPROVED THE CONTRACT APRIL 11TH OF THIS YEAR.

[00:20:05]

TWO REASONS ONE, RELIABILITY, BUT PROBABLY THE MORE IMMEDIATE ONE IS IT WILL ENSURE THAT AS WE GO THROUGH AND FINISH THE PROJECT, WE DON'T HAVE ANY HOMES THAT END UP OUT OF WATER. SECOND THING THAT IS BEING DONE IN THAT IS A SOME GUARDRAIL CONCRETE RIP RAP TO GO AROUND ONE OF THE LARGE DRAINAGE CHANNELS THAT WILL END UP BEING CONSTRUCTED OVER THERE.

YOUR ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS $8.7 MILLION DOLLARS AND A LITTLE CHANGE ORDER IS $177,486.50. THE TOTAL $8.88 MILLION.

THIS PROJECT HAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS WITHIN TO COVER THE CHANGE ORDER.

MISS JOY. WAS THIS ONE OF THE PROJECTS UNDER THAT WAS VOTED IN THE BOND? THIS IS ONE OF THE PROJECTS IN THE CO.

IN THE CO. THE CO BELIEVE SO.

AND THIS ERSKINE AND THIS WOULD BE IN FRONT OF THE PATROL DIVISION.

IT WILL.

OKAY. IT WILL TIE THE LARGE INTERSECTION THAT'S ALREADY AT FRANKFORD AND THEN BUILD ALL THE WAY BACK TO MILWAUKEE.

THE NORTH SOUTH PARTS OF THE BOTH THE MILWAUKEE PARTS OF THE PROJECT ARE IN THE 2022 ROAD BOND.

SO WE HAVE THE PATROL DIVISION.

AND ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE, WE HAVE A FIRE STATION.

SOUTHSIDE. YES, MA'AM. OKAY.

IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 5.24? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE 5.1 THROUGH 5.48.

THANK YOU, MISS MARTINEZ-GARCIA.

YES.

ALL RIGHT. SO CAN I GET A MOTION? LET ME RESTATE A MOTION TO APPROVE 5.1 THROUGH 5.48.

EXCLUSIVE OF 5.21.

THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ-GARCIA.

THANK YOU, MISS PATTERSON HARRIS.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 5.1 THROUGH 5.48 EXCLUSIVE OF 5.21.

PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES.

SEVEN ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 5.21? THANK YOU, DR. WILSON.

THANK YOU, MR. MASSENGALE. ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ON THE 5.21? MISS PATTERSON HARRIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THIS VOTE UP? BY BUTTON OR IS VERBAL.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 5.21.

PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE, AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? NAY. ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES.

SIX ONE.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW MOVING INTO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

[1. Resolution - Planning: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Municipal Services Agreement with the Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, Inc, for the requested annexation of an area of land generally described as 411 acres north of East 4th Street and east of East Loop 289, into Lubbock's corporate limits.]

I THINK. ERIC OR VICTOR.

VICTOR. ALL RIGHT, SIR, YOU'RE UP.

LET'S GO ON DOWN TO. YEP.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS VICTOR ESCAMILLA.

ITEM 6.1 ON THE AGENDA IS IN CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH THE LUBBOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE.

THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION WAS HEARD BEFORE THE COUNCIL ON THE AUGUST 22ND MEETING AS AGENDA ITEM 7.17.

THIS AMENDMENT WOULD INCREASE THE LIMITS OF THE BOUNDARY, ADDING AN ADDITIONAL APPROXIMATE 305 ACRES TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE EAST WITHIN BLOCK A SECTIONS 4 AND 23, BRINGING THE TOTAL ACREAGE TO APPROXIMATELY 411.

STILL NORTH OF EAST FOURTH STREET AND EAST OF EAST LOOP 289.

WAS THAT A PAUSE OR IS THAT.

I GUESS THAT'S MY SPIEL.

I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, MR. MAYOR, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, I CAN ADD A LITTLE BACKGROUND TO IT.

YES. OKAY.

COUNCIL RECALL AT YOUR PRIOR MEETING, WE STARTED THE ANNEXATION OF A SMALLER PIECE.

THIS SHOULD HAVE GONE WITH THAT PIECE, AND IT JUST DIDN'T LINE UP TO DO THAT.

SO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA RIGHT NOW RELATED TO THIS.

THE FIRST IS TO GO AHEAD AND WE'RE CALLING IT AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE WANT TO TIE ALL THESE PROPERTIES BACK TOGETHER, AMEND THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WHAT WE DID AT THE PRIOR MEETING.

SECOND, ASK YOU TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER THE FIRST READ OF THE ORDINANCE FOR THE ANNEXATION.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED SEVERAL TIMES.

[00:25:03]

WHAT WE DID THE LAST TIME DIDN'T GET ALL OF IT.

THIS BRINGS IT ALL TOGETHER.

AND IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER BOTH OF THESE ITEMS TODAY, IT PUTS EVERYTHING BACK ON THE SAME PATHWAY.

SO YOU'LL FINISH THEM TOGETHER.

ALL RIGHT. I GUESS THAT'S GOOD NEWS FOR NOW.

LET'S START WITH I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, CHAD, IF 6.1, CAN WE TAKE THESE TOGETHER OR JUST DO WE NEED TO TAKE THE RESOLUTION AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? YES, MAYOR, TAKE THE RESOLUTION AND THEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.1.

SO MOVED. THANK YOU, MR. MASSENGALE.

THANK YOU, MISS MARTINEZ-GARCIA.

ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION AND QUESTIONS ON 6.1.

MISS JOY. WHAT DO YOU MEAN THAT THIS DIDN'T LINE UP? CAN YOU GET A LITTLE MORE SPECIFIC? YOU SAID THE TWO PIECES.

FOR SOME REASON THIS DIDN'T LINE UP? OUR INTERNAL SCHEDULING WORKING WITH LEDA DID NOT GET THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY IN FRONT OF YOU AT YOUR LAST MEETING.

THE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED.

THERE'S NO ISSUES WITH HOW THEY ABUT OR ADJOIN OR ANY OF THAT.

WE DIDN'T GET OUR SCHEDULES LINED UP CORRECTLY.

THIS WILL FIX THAT.

OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I NOTICED ON THESE IS HOW THE TRACKS.

I'M LOOKING AT THE ENTRANCES.

THE ACCESS FROM EAST FM 40.

WAS THERE SOME REASON WHY THE ENTRANCE TO R4399 HAS A LITTLE. AND HERE.

KIND OF THAT TALE IN THE SOUTH WEST CORNER.

THAT IS THE BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY.

FM 40 IS BASICALLY EAST 4TH STREET.

SO YOU WOULD HAVE [INAUDIBLE] DOWN TO THE SOUTH.

THESE WOULD LIE ON THE NORTH.

BUT THERE ARE TWO CONNECTIONS TO THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH, AND THEN THERE'S A MUCH LARGER CONNECTION ON THE NORTH.

SO ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

IN OTHER WORDS, THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY SHAPED THIS WAY.

THAT IS CORRECT.

AND THERE WAS A REASON FOR THAT.

THEY SOLD OFF THE FRONTAGE.

NO, THE FRONTAGE WAS NOT PART OF THIS 40399.

THE FRONTAGE ON 4TH STREET WAS NOT PART OF THE PROPERTY TO START WITH.

WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT WAS ACQUIRED BY LEDA, BY LUBBOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE.

PLUS IT CAME WITH OR MAYBE IT'S A SEPARATE LEGAL TRACT, BUT IT HAS THAT TAIL THAT'S RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT AS WELL.

ALSO, NOTE EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH OF THAT PROPERTY IS ALREADY IN THE CITY LIMITS.

SO YOU'RE CONNECTING BACK THROUGH THERE.

AND SO ON THE OTHER TWO TRACKS, ONE BEING R52519.

THAT'S A SEPARATE PIECE OF PROPERTY AS WELL.

IT IS. IT'S A SEPARATE TRACT STILL OWNED BY LEDA, BUT A SEPARATE TRACT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK. AND JUST BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF OBSCURED IN YOUR MAP THAT THAT EAST WEST BOUNDARY ON THE NORTH THAT'S ERSKINE THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. MS. PATTERSON HARRIS. WOULD YOU REMIND ME THE PLANS FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY? YES, MA'AM. THIS IS THE PROPERTY COLLECTIVELY, AT LEAST THE LARGE TRACT, THE 40399 THAT GOES TO PLANT AS, SO PLANT AG SYSTEMS. THIS IS THAT LARGE CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S BASICALLY VERY HIGH TECH GREENHOUSES THAT ARE COMING THROUGH.

THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND ANNOUNCED.

THIS IS NECESSARY FOR LEDA STAY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO THE COMPANY.

IS THERE AND THIS MAY BE TOO EARLY.

IS THERE A PLAN TO SOMEHOW I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WAY TO FIX IT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC WHEN YOU HAVE SOME CERTAIN AREAS PROTRUDING AND OTHERS NOT HOW THEY WOULD USE THAT? OTHER THAN ACCESS, I'M NOT SURE.

I'M PROBABLY NOT THE ONE TO ANSWER THAT TAIL PIECE.

THAT'S BECAUSE OF THAT OLD RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY THAT USED TO BE THROUGH THERE.

THAT'S WHY IT COMES OUT AT THAT ANGLE.

[00:30:01]

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF MR. ATKINSON ON 6.1.

MR. MCBRAYER. JARRETT IS IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY, DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S GOING TO BE AN AREA INSIDE OF THIS PROPERTY THAT'S SORT OF ISOLATED AND OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS? IS THAT RIGHT? THIS PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF IT.

THE THE PIECE THAT WOULD BE THE NORTHWEST OR WHERE THE RED IS THAT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THIS.

BUT ALL OF THE OTHER PARTS THAT LEDA OWNS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE ANNEXATION.

RIGHT. BUT THE WAY WE'RE ANNEXING THIS IN IT LEAVES AN ISOLATED SECTION THERE.

IS IT NOT? IT'S OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, RIGHT? CORRECT. ADJACENT TO.

BUT OUTSIDE OF.

AND DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT ISOLATION OCCURRING IN THE FUTURE? I DO NOT.

THE ACCESS TO THAT TRACT IS ALREADY OFF OF ERSKINE RATHER THAN OFF 4TH.

SO I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 6.1.

ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.1, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION ON 6.1 CARRIES SEVEN ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW MOVING TO 6.2.

[2. Public Hearing - Planning: Hold a public hearing and consider an ordinance for a request for annexation, from the Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, Inc., to annex an area of approximately 411 acres, adjacent to the eastern city limits of the City of Lubbock, north of East 4th Street and east of East Loop 289, into Lubbock's corporate limits.]

IF YOU'VE NOT BEEN A PART OF A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE WE WILL PROBABLY GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE AND LET ME GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEM 6.2, IF YOU'D PLEASE APPROACH THE DAIS, IF YOU'D STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN YOU CAN SPEAK.

WE'LL START WITH THOSE THAT ARE SPEAKING AGAINST THE ANNEXATION AND THEN WE'LL MOVE TO THOSE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION.

THANK YOU. YOU SEE THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU AT THIS TIME? I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN REGARD TO THE ANNEXATION OF AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 411 ACRES ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, NORTH OF EAST 4TH STREET AND EAST OF LOOP 289.

IF ANYONE HERE IS WISHING TO SPEAK AGAINST THE ANNEXATION, YOU MAY APPROACH NOW.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.2.

MOVE TO APPROVE. THANK YOU, MR. MASSENGALE. THANK YOU, DR.

WILSON. OR IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON 6.2? MS. PATTERSON HARRIS.

THANK YOU, WHERE DID STAFF GO? OH, COULD YOU COME UP FOR US, PLEASE? I COULDN'T SEE. SOMEONE KEEPS MY CHAIR LOW.

[LAUGHTER] AND I KNOW THE AREA TO THE WEST OF THIS PROPERTY IS COUNTY PROPERTY.

AND DID WE NOT HEAR FROM ANY OF THE CITIZENS WHO RESIDE AROUND THIS PARTICULAR AREA, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE.

NO, MA'AM. AND I WAS TRYING TO GET TO THE POINT THAT WOULD INDICATE IF SOMEONE WILL HELP ME.

IT'S A LONG PIECE.

[INAUDIBLE]. HOW MANY WERE NOTIFIED? IF I MIGHT, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, MR. ATKINSON. A LITTLE BIT.

YOU DON'T SEND OUT NOTICES ON AN ANNEXATION IN THE SAME MANNER THAT YOU DO FOR A ZONE CHANGE.

SO THERE ARE NOT DIRECT MAIL NOTICES FOR THIS.

OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS WEIRD.

I'VE BEEN GOING UP AND DOWN ON THIS THING AND I COULDN'T FIND ANYBODY.

EVEN WITH THAT BEING SAID, AND IF WE DON'T PROVIDE THE NOTICES, HAS THERE BEEN ANY CONTACT WITH THE CITIZENS? I DON'T BELIEVE THE DEPARTMENT.

HAS ANYBODY CALLED TO SAY, HEY, I NOTICED THAT THIS IS GOING ON.

I'M PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT HAVE YOU, WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHY WE'VE NOT HEARD ANY OF THAT.

AND THE REASON I SAY THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS BEING CONCERNED AND ALERTED AS THINGS BEGIN TO HAPPEN IN THIS AREA AND TO THE SOUTH. SO AND I DEFINITELY WANT US TO HEAR FROM THEM IF THEY'RE MAKING CONTACT WITH US OR TRYING TO MAKE CONTACT WITH US.

OKAY. I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY CONTACT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE ANNEXATION.

I MYSELF HAVEN'T HEARD ANY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON 6.2?

[00:35:06]

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.2.

PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. 6.2 CARRIES SEVEN ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE NOW MOVING TO 6.3.

[3. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Ordinance No. 2023-O0108, approving and adopting a budget for Fiscal Year 2023-24; approving summary of estimated and forecasted revenues, appropriations, and use of excess reserves for all funds of the city; providing for necessary transfers of funds between accounts and departments, if required; authorizing reduction of spending by City Manager if necessary; re-appropriation of balances which support authorized obligations or encumbrances; providing for filing of Adopted Budget; establishing civil service classifications and positions; appropriating funds for the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Operating Budget and Capital Program of the City of Lubbock; approving all permit, license, fees, and charges for service recommended to be adjusted; approving the pay plan and positions; approving personnel; amending section 4.02.041 of the Code of Ordinances amending animal service fees as contained therein; amending section 22.03.084 of the Code of Ordinances amending the water base charge as contained therein; amending section 22.03.085 of the Code of Ordinances amending the water volume rate as contained therein; amending section 22.03.095 of the Code of Ordinances by revising the water utility reconnect and disconnect fees as contained therein; amending section 22.04.133(A) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock by revising the significant industrial user permit fee as contained therein; amending section 22.04.174 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock by adding a weekend dumping fee as contained therein; amending section 22.06.051 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock by revising the solid waste landfill service fees as contained therein; amending section 22.06.185(A) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock by revising the solid waste collections service fees as contained therein; providing for the reconciliation of the transfer of funds from the General Fund to Enterprise Funds; accepting the budgets for Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, Market Lubbock, Inc., Civic Lubbock, Inc., and Vintage Township Public Facilities Corporation; finding that proper notice of meeting provided by law and ratifying such; providing a penalty; providing for publication; and providing for a savings clause.]

I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, MR. ATKINSON. THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

THIS IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE SECOND AND FINAL READING OF THE BUDGET AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY A RATIFICATION, SUBSEQUENTLY A VOTE ON THE TAX RATE.

COUNCIL WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE MISTAKE I HAD ON SLIDE SIX IN THE PRIOR PRESENTATION WITH THE TWO FIRE TRUCKS, THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO WHAT YOU'VE SEEN.

AND AGAIN, THE BUDGET ITSELF AND EVERYTHING RELATED WAS CORRECT LAST WEEK IS CORRECT THIS WEEK.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. ATKINSON.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE.

NO. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION AND SOME QUESTIONS POSSIBLY.

BUT LET'S START OFF.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.3? THANK YOU, DR. WILSON.

THANK YOU, MISS MARTINEZ-GARCIA.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS OR STATEMENTS? MISS JOY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. AT THE LAST MEETING, WE HEARD FROM CITIZENS ON THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE BUDGET ITSELF AND THE TAX RATE.

AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE LISTENED TO WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.

BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT IF THERE IS MISSING INFORMATION OR MISLEADING INFORMATION, THAT THAT BE ADDRESSED AS WELL.

AND I ALSO THINK THAT CITIZENS NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE CITY IS IMPACTED BY DECISIONS THAT ARE PRETTY MUCH BEYOND OUR CONTROL.

THAT WAS ONE REASON WE PULLED SOME OF THE ITEMS OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA BECAUSE $3 MILLION DOLLARS HERE OFFSET BY TWO FIRE TRUCKS, WHICH NOW WILL HAVE TO BE DONE LATER, AN INCREASE IN FUNDING FOR A ROAD PROJECT OR TWO.

THOSE THINGS HAPPEN.

AND I'VE BEEN WATCHING AS CITIZENS RESPONDED TO WERE THEY IN FAVOR OF THE TAX RATE OPPOSED TO THE TAX RATE, AND DID THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? AND I TRIED TO PAY ATTENTION TO ALL OF THEM, AND I PAID ATTENTION TO THOSE FROM MY DISTRICT.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE COMMENT, AND THAT WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT THIS COUNCIL WAS MANAGING FUNDS THE WAY THEY SHOULD.

DIDN'T TELL ME WHAT WE WEREN'T DOING.

JUST A GENERAL STATEMENT.

BUT THESE EXPENSES THAT THE CITIZENS ARE HAVING.

I UNDERSTAND.

I GO TO THE GROCERY STORE.

I BUY GAS.

I KNOW EVERYTHING IS MORE EXPENSIVE.

LAST YEAR WE DID A NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

AND SO THIS YEAR WE'RE A WHOLE LOT TIGHTER.

BUT YOU CAN'T STOP THE CITY FROM DOING ITS JOB.

AND THIS COUNCIL, THAT'S OUR JOB.

WE ARE POLICY MAKERS.

WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THOSE SERVICES FOR CITIZENS AND THAT INCLUDES PUBLIC SAFETY.

WE NEED 15 FIREFIGHTERS FOR FIRE STATION 20.

A LOT OF WHAT WE DO, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE.

AND I AM NOT GOING TO CUT FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS EVER.

WE NEED THEM BADLY.

WE NEED MORE.

AND THEY'RE TOO IMPORTANT.

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE 4% COLA COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT.

AND I STILL AM HAVING SOME TROUBLE WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE LOWER PAID EMPLOYEES WHO REALLY AND TRULY A 4% DOESN'T AMOUNT TO MUCH.

AND PROBABLY BY THE TIME YOU TAKE TAXES AND INCREASE IN THE INSURANCE, WHICH WE INCREASED A LITTLE BIT THIS YEAR, ABOUT 2%, NOT A LOT.

IT'S STILL DIFFICULT.

BUT WHAT THAT LEADS ME TO IS AS A COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE

[00:40:08]

I FOUND OUT TODAY BY ASKING WHAT THE LEAST SALARY THAT WE PAY IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AND THAT NUMBER IS $22,000, I BELIEVE, SOMEWHERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND WHEN YOU BREAK THAT DOWN INTO MONTHLY, THAT'S NOT MUCH.

AND SO IT APPEARS TO ME THAT NOT FOR FIRE AND POLICE, BECAUSE THEY'VE DONE THEIR STUDIES SEPARATE.

BUT FOR THE NON CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES, WE NEED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE COMPENSATION PLAN THAT WE HAVE HERE. AND MANY OF YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THIS, BUT THEY'RE KIND OF IN BANDS.

BUT WHAT'S HAPPENED IS WE GAVE IN PRIOR YEARS A PERCENTAGE, BUT WE DID IT LESS FOR THE HIGHER EMPLOYEES AND MORE FOR THE LOWER.

BUT WE'VE COMPRESSED OURSELVES NOW IN THAT COMPENSATION PLAN.

AND SO WE'VE GOT TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT $22,000 IS ABOUT $10.50, SOMETHING LIKE THAT AN HOUR.

SO IN ALL FAIRNESS TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT MAKE $30,000 OR MORE AND THEY'RE UNDER THAT, IT'S TOUGH.

AND I THINK IT ALSO POINTS TO THE FACT THAT WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM HIRING SOME STAFF BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE MORE BY WORKING AT ONE OF THE BIG BOX STORES.

THEY CAN MAKE A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN THEY CAN HERE.

SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE 4% COLA THAT WE'RE DOING THIS YEAR.

BUT I THINK IN ORDER ALL FAIRNESS, LOOK AT THE COMPENSATION STUDY SO WE CAN DO A BETTER JOB WITH THOSE PEOPLE WHO DON'T NECESSARILY SIT IN AN OFFICE, BUT THEY'RE OUT ON ON THE STREETS DAY AND NIGHT, MUCH LIKE POLICE AND FIRE DIGGING HOLES, FREEZING AND BURNING UP. SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT LUBBOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE AND THERE WERE SOME CRITICISM OF IT.

AND I KNOW THAT THE CITY MANAGER IN THIS BUDGET HAS MADE SOME CHANGES IN HOW THEY WILL BE ALLOCATED MONIES FROM THE TAXES THEY RECEIVE AND LEDA AND MARKET LUBBOCK.

I THINK THAT'S A START.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD QUIT THERE.

I THINK WE COULD CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT.

OUR CITY OF LUBBOCK EMPLOYEES SPEND A LOT OF TIME ASSISTING LEDA WITH ITS PROJECTS. I GET THE CALLS TO COME UP WITH THE ANSWERS AND THE SOLUTIONS, BUT THERE'S NO QUID PRO QUO COMING BACK TO THEM.

SO I WANT US TO CONTINUE TO MONITOR LEDA.

THEY DO GET TAX ABATEMENTS ON THEIR PROJECTS.

THE LAND THAT'S BEING ANNEXED IS GOING TO BE GIVEN TO THE COMPANY THAT'S GOING TO BE UTILIZING THAT LAND.

AND WATER IS ALWAYS A CONCERN.

BUT WE HAVE THUS FAR BEEN ABLE TO RELY ON THE CITY MANAGER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T TAKE ANY PROJECTS THAT ARE GOING TO ENDANGER THE CITY OF LUBBOCK'S CITIZENS HAVING WATER.

AND WE NEED TO CONTINUE THAT.

THERE WAS A MENTION OF STORMWATER BECAUSE THAT'S A REDUCTION THAT'S IN THIS.

BUT THERE WERE SOME STATEMENTS MADE THAT DIDN'T EXACTLY MATCH UP WITH WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

YES. IN ABOUT 2014, KAREN GIBSON AND I SERVED ON A STORMWATER COMMITTEE ALONG WITH PROPERTY OWNERS, APARTMENT OWNERS, BUSINESS OWNERS. AND WHAT WE FOUND OUT WAS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF LUBBOCK WAS CARRYING THE COMMERCIAL THEY WERE PAYING WAY MORE ON THE STORMWATER ISSUE THAN THE BUSINESSES.

AND SO WE LOOKED AT THAT AND YES, WE DID COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN AND THAT WAS IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.

[00:45:01]

WE ASSESS IT ON A IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE WATER LANDS AND RUNS OFF INTO THE STREET.

I DON'T REGRET THAT DECISION.

SOMEONE SAID, WELL, YOU ASSESSED IT AGAINST CHURCHES.

CHURCHES DON'T PAY INCOME TAX.

THEY DON'T PAY PROPERTY TAX.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT? I HAVEN'T HEARD A COMPLAINT IN YEARS ABOUT THAT.

WE DID INITIALLY AND WE HEARD IT FROM BUSINESSES.

BUT WHAT WE TRIED TO DO WAS MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE EQUITABLE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL OWNERS AND THE BUSINESS PROPERTIES.

CONSULTANTS WERE MENTIONED AGAIN, I KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED A CONSULTANT FOR EVERYTHING.

AND I THINK WE HAVE TO BE JUDICIOUS ABOUT HOW WE HIRE CONSULTANTS.

AND THEN THERE WAS THE HEALTH INSURANCE DISCUSSION.

THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE EMPLOYEES IS ABOUT 30 MILLION, GIVE OR TAKE ANNUALLY.

AND IT'S A GOOD PLAN AND OUR EMPLOYEES DESERVE THAT.

BUT AT SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK.

YOU KNOW. LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO BETTER.

IT'S JUST A LOT OF MONEY.

AND SO WHEN PEOPLE QUESTION THE BUDGET, THEY NEED TO LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WHAT'S BEING PROVIDED? WHAT'S BEING PAID.

IF YOU CAN FIND ANYTHING FRIVOLOUS IN THIS BUDGET, LET ME KNOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO CONTINUE ON THE PATH WE'VE GONE DOWN, AND THAT IS REDUCING DEBT.

AND AT THE SAME TIME CASH FUNDING AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

AND WE HAVE TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THAT.

WHEN I CAME ON COUNCIL, WE HAD A PROGRAM CALLED.

CALLED LEASING.

WHAT WAS IT CALLED? MASTER LEASE.

AND EVERYBODY THOUGHT I WAS CRAZY.

BUT IT TURNED OUT WAS IT WAS LIKE USING YOUR CREDIT CARD TO BUY THINGS AND IT GOT UP TO 40 MILLION.

BETTER THAN THAT, IT GOT UP TO A REALLY BIG NUMBER.

IT MADE NO SENSE. WHAT? SO EVER SINCE MR. ATKINS HAS BEEN HERE, WE'VE GOTTEN THAT TAKEN CARE OF, PAID DOWN.

WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.

WE HAVE CASH FUNDED AND WE'VE BEEN VERY JUDICIOUS ABOUT THAT.

SO ALL I CAN SAY IS FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOB, THAT WE'RE JUST NOT BEING CONSERVATIVE AND TIGHT.

YES, WE ARE.

ONE MAN GOT UP AT THE LAST HEARING AND SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBERS ON THE DEBT IS DIFFERENT AT THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.

DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY TIMES THAT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO THAT PERSON AND TO THE ENTIRE CITY W HAT THE DIFFERENCE IS? LET'S DO IT ONE MORE TIME.

MR. ATKINSON, WILL YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR DEBT NUMBERS AND THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY? MR. ATKINSON.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THAT QUESTION HAS COME UP SEVERAL TIMES.

THE TEXAS COMPTROLLER, AS PART OF THEIR WEBSITE, TALKS ABOUT GENERAL OBLIGATION, PUBLIC DEBT GENERAL OBLIGATION MEANS WHETHER IT IS PAID BY THE GENERAL FUND OR NOT, IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN OBLIGATION OF THE GENERAL FUND.

IT'S KIND OF THE EXAMPLE.

IT'S A COSIGNER.

PRIOR TO ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO, THE CITY OF LUBBOCK AND MANY OTHER CITIES AS WELL, WE WEREN'T TOTALLY OUT ON OUR OWN, ISSUED ALMOST EVERY FORM OF DEBT AS A GENERAL OBLIGATION BACKED DEBT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS NOT PAID BY PROPERTY TAX, BY SALES TAX, BY ANY OF THOSE OTHER DEALS.

WHY THEY DID IT TO GET A LOWER INTEREST RATE.

THAT'S WHAT THEY DID. IF YOU GO LOOK AT THE COMPTROLLER'S WEBSITE, YOU WILL SEE A VERY LARGE NUMBER THAT'S CONSIDERED GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT.

LEGALLY, THAT'S 100% CORRECT.

THE FACT IS NEARLY 80% OF THAT DEBT IS CALLED SELF-SUPPORTING.

SO THE BIGGEST PIECE OF IT IS LAKE ALAN HENRY, AND IT'S THE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS THAT GO WITH LAKE ALAN HENRY AND IT'S THE PIPES.

AND IT'S THINGS THAT WERE DONE IN THE SEWER SYSTEM WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE GENERAL FUND.

[00:50:03]

IT'S JUST NOT HOW IT'S ACTUALLY PAID.

COUNCIL, YOU'LL RECALL AND HAVE SEEN RECENTLY EVEN WE MADE A CHANGE STARTING IN 2017 TO WHERE WE WENT AND GOT OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER FUND ENTERPRISE FUND.

WE GOT IT ITS OWN CREDIT RATING.

IT STANDS ON ITS OWN.

THEIR DEBT'S STILL PAID THE SAME WAY.

IT'S PAID THROUGH RATES JUST LIKE LAKE ALAN HENRY AND ALL THOSE OTHER THINGS ARE PAID.

BUT BECAUSE IT ISSUES AS A REVENUE DEBT, IT DOES NOT SHOW UP AS THE GENERAL FUND IS COSIGNING.

THE GENERAL FUND IS NOT OBLIGATED FOR IT.

SO IF EVERYBODY IS INTERESTED IN DEBT WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU.

REALLY, THERE'S TWO WAYS TO LOOK AT IT.

NUMBER ONE IS TOTAL, TOTAL LOOK AT ALL OF THE OUTSTANDING DEBT OF THE CITY THAT NUMBER IS CORRECT.

YOU WON'T SEE THAT ON THE COMPTROLLER'S WEBSITE BECAUSE THEY DON'T ALSO ADD IN THE REVENUE, THE TRUE REVENUE DEBTS.

SO THAT'S IMPORTANT AND THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER.

THE SECOND LOOK AT WHAT'S PAYING FOR WHAT AND IT'S ROUGHLY 80 OVER 20.

THAT IS 80% TOWARDS PAID WITH A REVENUE DEBT, 20% COMES OUT OF YOUR GENERAL FUND.

COUNCIL THE SINGLE NOW LARGEST PORTION OF YOUR GENERAL FUND DEBT IS THE 2022 STREET BOND VOTER APPROVED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. ATKINSON. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER? MR. MCBRAYER? THANK YOU, MAYOR.

LET ME BEGIN BY JUST SAYING HOW MUCH I DO RESPECT THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL PEOPLE I WORK WITH AND THE CITY STAFF I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO WORK WITH THIS PAST YEAR.

THEY'RE GREAT AND WONDERFUL PEOPLE.

IN LIGHT OF THAT, I THINK I OWE IT TO THEM AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK AND MY CONSTITUENTS IN DISTRICT THREE TO STATE CLEARLY ON THE RECORD WHY I CAN'T SUPPORT THE PROPOSED CITY BUDGET OR THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 48.0164 CENTS PER 100.

IT'S NOT THAT I THINK I'M RIGHT AND EVERYBODY ELSE IS WRONG OR THAT I HAVE PRINCIPLES AND THEY DON'T.

FAR FROM IT. THIS COUNCIL OPERATES AS A DEMOCRACY AND AS A DEMOCRACY, IT MEANS THAT THERE'S PRACTICALLY ALWAYS MORE THAN ONE GOOD JUSTIFIABLE COURSE OF ACTION THAT YOU CAN TAKE.

EVERY BUDGET DECISION THAT IS MADE HAS TO COME AFTER WEIGHING SPECIFIC PRIORITIES, SPENDING PRIORITIES AGAINST FUNDING RESOURCES.

AND THAT HAS TO BE DONE IN LIGHT OF THE ECONOMIC REALITIES ON THE GROUND.

AND THAT'S JUST BASIC GOOD GOVERNANCE.

AND I TRUST THAT EVERYBODY UP HERE DOES THAT.

IN FACT, I KNOW EVERYBODY UP HERE DOES THAT.

THEY'VE ENGAGED IN THEIR OWN PROCESS OF WEIGHING THOSE CONCERNS.

AS FOR ME, MY PROCESS OPERATES ON A FEW BASIC PRINCIPLES.

FIRST, CITY GOVERNMENT, WHICH INCLUDES ME AND INCLUDES ALL OF US, WORKS FOR THE CITIZENS AND THE TAXPAYERS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

THIS IS NOT AN US VERSUS THEM SITUATION.

SECOND, THE CITY BUDGET DOESN'T EXIST IN A VACUUM.

IT HAS TO BE GROUNDED IN THE ECONOMIC REALITIES THAT FACE THE CITIZENS AND THE TAXPAYERS, WHICH MEANS BUDGETS REFLECT BOTH THE GOOD TIMES AND THE TOUGH TIMES THAT OUR CITY'S HOUSEHOLDS FACE.

WHATEVER THE CASE MIGHT BE.

SO WHEN ECONOMIC TIMES ARE GOOD, WHEN THE RATE OF INFLATION IS LOW AND PEOPLE'S WAGES KEEP UP WITH IT, WELL, THAT'S WHEN BUDGETS AND TAX RATES CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT REALITY.

AND WE CAN BUDGET FOR SIGNIFICANT INCREASES IN INVESTMENT, IN MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, IN PRIORITY AREAS AND RESERVES, AND EVEN TO INCREASE WHAT WE SPEND ON SOME NON PRIORITY DEPARTMENTAL BUDGETS.

BUT WHEN TIMES ARE TOUGH, THE CITY'S POLICYMAKERS AND AGAIN, THAT'S ALL OF US UP HERE, SHOULD DIRECT OUR CITY MANAGEMENT TO MAKE DECISIONS TO CONTROL AND EVEN CUT A BUDGET IN ORDER TO EASE THE TAX BURDEN PLACED ON OUR CITIZENS.

MAYBE GOOD ECONOMIC TIMES WILL RETURN SOON, I CERTAINLY HOPE SO.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE REALITY THAT MOST LUBBOCK HOUSEHOLDS OR THE AVERAGE LUBBOCK HOUSEHOLD FACES.

THEY DIDN'T FACE IT LAST YEAR AND THEY DON'T FACE IT THIS YEAR.

TIMES ARE TOUGH. MAYBE AGAIN, NOT SO MUCH FOR THOSE OF US UP HERE WHO SIT ON THIS DAIS BECAUSE MOST OF US CAN MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS WITHOUT TOO GREAT OF AN EFFECT ON OUR STANDARD OF LIVING.

BUT TIMES ARE TOUGH FOR MANY.

SOME, I THINK IN SOME WAYS IT'S THE WORST I'VE KNOWN SINCE THE LATE 1970S.

AND I'M THINKING PARTICULARLY OF THE HOUSEHOLDS IN MY OWN DISTRICT, WHICH I THINK TRULY DOES REPRESENT A CROSS-SECTION OF THIS CITY.

INFLATION HAS TAKEN A MUCH GREATER BITE OUT OF THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND BUDGET OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS THAN HOUSEHOLD INCOMES HAVE GONE UP, PUTTING THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD IN THE HOLE BY MORE THAN $4,000 PER YEAR.

[00:55:04]

WE CAN TRY TO JUSTIFY THAT INCREASE BY SAYING THE CITY'S COSTS HAVE GONE UP JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE'S.

AND THAT'S TRUE.

BUT TO MY MIND, THAT JUSTIFICATION IGNORES THE VERY PRINCIPLES I TRY TO FOLLOW.

LAST YEAR, THE FOUR OF US WHO WERE NEWLY ELECTED TO THIS COUNCIL READ THE ECONOMIC TIMES AND TOOK WHAT I THOUGHT AT THE TIME WAS THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION.

WE ADOPTED THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE.

I THINK THAT STEP HELPED TO RESTORE SOME CONFIDENCE I THINK VOTERS HAD LOST IN THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE VOTERS REWARDED US WITH AN OVERWHELMING VOTE OF CONFIDENCE IN THE STREET BOND ELECTION.

BUT IN MY OPINION, THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED ALL THAT MUCH FOR THE BETTER.

THE RATE OF INFLATION MAY BE COMING DOWN, BUT THAT'S FROM AN ABNORMALLY HIGH RATE THAT IT HAS SOARED TO, TO LEVELS UNSEEN IN A VERY LONG TIME. SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT IN THIS BUDGET.

AND I DON'T, I AGREE THERE'S NOT FRIVOLOUS EXPENSES IN THIS BUDGET.

I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I STILL FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE IN THIS BUDGET AND I STARTED TO BRING THOSE BOOKS DOWN HERE, BUT I DIDN'T.

THE TWO HUGE VOLUMES WE'VE GOT, YOU CAN'T FIND A REDUCTION OF 1.14% IN THE GENERAL FUND EXPENSES TO GET US DOWN TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

SO LET ME BE CLEAR.

I AM NOT ONE WHO WOULD NEVER VOTE TO RAISE TAXES.

I THINK I MADE THAT CLEAR A MINUTE AGO WHEN I STATED MY GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

BUT I'VE NEVER HAD A SINGLE ONE OF MY CONSTITUENTS COME UP TO ME AND SAY THEY HOPED I RAISED THEIR TAXES.

SO WHEN WE RAISE PEOPLE'S TAXES, MOST PEOPLE WOULD JUST ABSORB THAT INCREASE IN THEIR TAXES AS BEST THEY CAN BY MAKING HARD CHOICES TO THEIR HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CHOICE.

THE CHOICE THEY DID HAVE WAS TO ELECT US TO REPRESENT THEM, AND IT BECOMES OUR CHOICE THEN AS TO HOW WE WILL DO THAT JOB AND WHAT PRINCIPLES WILL GUIDE US.

IN TOUGH INFLATIONARY TIMES THE CHOICES COME DOWN TO CUTTING BUDGETS OR RAISING TAXES.

I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT I'VE NOT PUSHED HARD ENOUGH ON CITY STAFF TO FIND THOSE CUTS.

I ADMIT THAT. BUT THERE CERTAINLY WASN'T ANY APPETITE UP HERE ON THIS DAIS LAST WEEK FOR ANY ATTEMPT TO PUT ANY CAPS ON ANY SALARY INCREASES.

SO ABSENT ANY OBVIOUS SUPPORT FOR A NO NEW REVENUE RATE THIS YEAR, IT'D BE POINTLESS FOR ME TO MOVE TO AMEND THE BUDGET.

EACH OF US HAS TO JUSTIFY THEIR DECISION BASED ON THEIR OWN GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

BUT FOLLOWING MY PRINCIPLES, I CANNOT JUSTIFY A VOTE FOR THIS BUDGET AND THE 48.0164 CENTS PROPERTY TAX RATE.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. MCBRAYER. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON 6.3? MR. MCBRAYER SO I'M ASSUMING BY YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENT YOU DIDN'T HAVE AN AMENDMENT LAST WEEK.

AS I SAID, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE POINTLESS.

SO NO. SO YOUR OBJECTION? YOU OBJECT. YOU'RE OBJECTING TO THE BUDGET, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A PROPOSED AMENDMENT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.3, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 1.

ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW MOVE TO 6.4.

[4. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution ratifying the adoption of the FY 2023-24 Budget that raises more tax revenue than was generated the previous year.]

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE 6.4? THANK YOU, MR. MASSENGALE. THANK YOU.

DR. WILSON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 6.4? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.4, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 1.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL NOW MOVE TO 6.5.

[5. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Ordinance No. 2023-O0109, setting the tax rate and levying a tax upon all property subject to taxation within the City of Lubbock for 2023; apportioning said levy among the various funds and items for which revenue must be raised; fixing the times in which said taxes shall be paid and assessing penalty and interest for nonpayment of such taxes within the time provided.]

AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME SPECIAL LANGUAGE THAT MUST BE READ PER MR. WEAVER. SO IS THERE A MOTION, MR. MASSENGALE? YES, MAYOR.

I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.48064, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 3.17% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. MASSENGALE.

I HAVE THAT AS A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

THANK YOU, MISS MARTINEZ-GARCIA.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 6.5? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.5, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? NAY. MOTION CARRIES 6.1.

ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'RE MOVING TO 6.6.

THESE AND 6.7.

[6. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution amending the allocation of the Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenues for FY 2023-24 and distributing receipts, net of collection expenses, as authorized in Subsection 18.03.001(b)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock.]

6.6. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, MR. ATKINSON.

[01:00:08]

ON 6.5? YES SIR.

ALL RIGHT. SO DO WE NEED TO GO BACK ELECTRONICALLY ON SIX FIVE? CAN YOU PULL THAT UP, JIMMY? IS THAT NEW? SO LAST YEAR.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, WE'LL GO BACK.

WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

WE ALREADY HAVE A VOTE. BUT IF WE COULD GO AHEAD AND HAVE EVERYONE ENTER IN THEIR VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE SAME AS 6 TO 1 THAT IS RECORDED ELECTRONICALLY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, JIMMY. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE MOVING BACK INTO 6.6.

WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION.

AND A SECOND ON THE.

OR YOU CAN READ INTO THE RECORD WHAT THE VOTE WAS.

I CAN READ ONTO THE RECORD ON 6.3 THAT DR.

WILSON, MISS MARTINEZ-GARCIA, MR. MASSENGALE, MYSELF, MAYOR TRAY PAYNE, MISS JOY AND MISS PATTERSON HARRIS VOTED YAY AND ABSTAINING OR AS A NEGATIVE VOTE WAS MR. MCBRAYER ON 6.3.

WHAT ABOUT 6.4? DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT ONE JUST TO BE SAFE? 6.4 WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND, SAME AS BEFORE.

DR. WILSON, MISS MARTINEZ-GARCIA, MR. MASSENGALE AND MYSELF, MISS JOY AND MISS PATTERSON HARRIS WERE YEAS AND MR. MCBRAYER WAS A NAY.

THAT CLEAN HOUSE? ALL RIGHT.

SHOP IS CLEAN. WE CAN NOW MOVE TO 6.6.

YES SIR. ALL RIGHT, MR. ATKINSON. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

ITEM 6.6.

THIS NOW CLOSES THE LOOP ON SOME OF THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD SPECIFICALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX.

SO REMEMBER, AS WE'VE HAD OUR PRIOR DISCUSSIONS HISTORICALLY, THE COUNCIL ALLOCATES THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX ON A PERCENTAGE BASIS, ALWAYS RESULTING THEN IN SOME FORM OF A TRUE UP AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR.

WE HAVE PROPOSED AND INCLUDED IN YOUR BUDGET.

AND NOW FOR YOU TO FORMALIZE SHOULD YOU SO CHOOSE TO RATHER ALLOCATE THOSE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES BY DOLLAR, BASICALLY ALLOCATE BY BUDGET AND EXPENSE BUDGET THE SAME WAY THAT WE DO WITH ALL OF YOUR OTHER CITY FUNDS.

THIS IS NOT REMOVING DOLLARS OR GIVING ANY OF OUR RECIPIENTS LESS.

WHAT IT DOES IS IT STOPS THAT TRUE UP PROCESS.

THERE WILL STILL BE A TRUE UP, JUST AS THERE IS ON OUR RESERVE FUND AND SALES TAX AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

SO AT THE END OF THE YEAR, HOT TAX THAT WAS RECEIVED IN EXCESS OF THE DOLLARS YOU ALLOCATED GOES INTO A HOT TAX RESERVE.

IT IS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR USE FIRST AT THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL AND SECOND ONLY FOR THOSE ELIGIBLE CATEGORIES OF EXPENDITURE FOR HOT DOLLARS IN STATE LAW.

ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. ATKINSON ON 6.6.

MISS JOY.

ON THE TRANSFER TO THE CIVIC CENTER CIP.

IS THAT? THE CAPITAL PROJECT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE CIVIC CENTER.

IS THAT WHAT THAT IS? YES.

AND THEN IT SAYS THE BALL FIELDS.

I THINK YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE BASEBALL FIELDS OR SOFTBALL? THAT IS FOR MAINTENANCE ON THE TWO TOURNAMENT FIELDS.

SO THAT WILL BE BERL HUFFMAN AND TOM MARTIN.

OKAY. WANTED TO BE SURE WHICH FIELDS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ON THAT ONE.

AND THE BUDDY AND MARIA ELENA HOLLY PLAZA DEBT, $89,000.

DOES THAT PAY THAT OFF? I THINK IT HAS TWO YEARS LEFT.

DOES IT? OKAY.

IT MAY BE OFF BY A YEAR EITHER DIRECTION.

IT'S ALMOST DONE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

THE NORTH OVERTON DEBT IS ALMOST DONE AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 6.6? YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND ADDRESS 6.7 MR.

[7. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the Grant Management Agreement between the City of Lubbock and Market Lubbock, Inc., dated January 25, 1996, as adopted by Resolution No. 5089.]

ALSO A TOPIC WE'VE DISCUSSED BOTH TODAY AND IN PRIOR MEETINGS.

THIS IS AMENDING WHAT WE CALL THE GRANT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.

SO THIS IS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THE CITY TRANSFERS DOLLARS TO MARKET LUBBOCK INC.

. HISTORICALLY, THOSE TRANSFERS HAVE BEEN BASED ON A SO MANY PENNIES OF YOUR TAX RATE.

[01:05:02]

THAT'S NOT A STATE RECOGNIZED CATEGORY.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS CREATED LOCALLY.

DID WORK WITH MARKET LUBBOCK THIS YEAR.

WE'VE TALKED WITH COUNCIL ABOUT IT TO INSTEAD, JUST AS WE'VE ASKED YOU TO DO WITH THE HOT TAX, TO DO THE SAME WITH THE TRANSFER TO MARKET LUBBOCK SO YOU WOULD BE THEN TRANSFERRING A FINITE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THEN THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT ADJUSTS EACH YEAR BASED ON APPROVED EXPENSE BUDGETS CONSIDERED BY THIS COUNCIL.

WHAT IT DOES NOT DO IS PRODUCE A REVENUE THAT CONTINUES TO CHANGE OVER TIME.

YOU DON'T BUDGET ANY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENT OR CITY OPERATION IN THAT MANNER.

WE CAREFULLY COMB AND FINALLY PRESENT EXPENSE THE APPROPRIATE REVENUE TO EQUAL.

THIS ONE KIND OF WORKED IN THE OPPOSITE, AND WE'RE ASKING IF YOU WISH TO PUT IT BACK ON THE SAME PLANE AS THE REST OF YOUR CITY BUDGETS.

THANK YOU, MR. ATKINSON. ANY QUESTIONS ON 6.7? ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'VE GOT TIME FOR DISCUSSION IF ANYONE COMES UP WITH ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

MR. ATKINSON, LET'S START WITH 6.6.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? THANK YOU, MR. MCBRAYER.

THANK YOU, MISS JOY. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.6? PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES ON 6.6.

7 0. ALL RIGHT.

6.7. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED. THANK YOU, MISS JOY.

THANK YOU, MISS MARTINEZ-GARCIA FOR THE SECOND, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 6.7? ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF 6.7, PLEASE SAY AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. 6.7 CARRIES SEVEN ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, IT IS 3:08 IN THE AFTERNOON AND CITY COUNCIL IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.