[00:06:00]
>> WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM 5, THE 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.]
[00:06:06]
WE'RE GOING TO PULL ITEMS 5.1 AND 5.1.1 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.THERE'S BEEN ALSO A REQUEST TO PULL ITEM 5.15 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 5.1 AND 5.15.
IS THERE A MOTION? SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY, NAY? I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[1. Budget Ordinance Amendment 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Budget Ordinance No. 2024-O0149, Amendment 4, amending the FY 2024-25 Budget for municipal purposes respecting the Gateway Capital Project Fund to establish Capital Improvement Project 92895, East 19th Street from Keel Avenue to East Loop 289; providing for filing; and providing for a savings clause.]
AND I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. MR. ATKINSON?>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.
STAFF HAS ASKED THAT THESE TWO SETS OF ITEMS ARE BOTH RELATED BE PULLED.
COUNCIL, THIS IS THE EAST 19TH FROM KEEL TO THE EAST LOOP PROJECT.
AGAIN, IT IS AN IMPACT FEE FUNDED PROJECT TO HAVE THAT ROADWAY REDONE FOR THAT STRETCH IN MULTI LANE CONCRETE.
LAST WEEK, WHEN YOU VOTED ON THIS THE FIRST TIME, WE WERE ASKING TO APPROPRIATE $750,000 FROM THE IMPACT FEE MONEY FROM THAT ZONE.
SINCE THEN, AS WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER THE OTHER PIECES, SO THE CITY'S ONE THIRD OF THE FUNDING, THE COUNTIES INVOLVED, AND LEADERS IS INVOLVED, IT HAS COME TO OUR ATTENTION.
WE NEED TO ASK YOU TO APPROPRIATE $1 MILLION, RATHER THAN THE 750.
WITH EACH OF THE THREE ENTITIES DOING THAT, IT WILL PUSH US OVER THE ESTIMATED AND THE CONTRACTED COST FOR THIS.
WE WILL GET SOMETHING BACK, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE BETWEEN 750 AND THE ONE MILLION.
SUFFICIENT FUNDS EXIST IN THAT IMPACT FEE BUCKET.
YOU'RE GOOD TO DO THAT, AND IT WOULD BE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU DO MAKE THAT AMENDMENT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ATKINSON? I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.1.
I BELIEVE, COUNCILMAN HARRIS, YOU HAVE THAT MOTION?
>> YES. I MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 5.1 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT, THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 92895, THE EAST 19TH STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BE INCREASED TO $1,000,000.
>> YOU'VE HEARD THAT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? THERE IS NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY.
I HEAR NONE, SO THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
NOW WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 5.1.1. MR. ATKINSON.
[1. Resolution - Engineering: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor, or his designee, to execute Contract 18520, an economic development program and development agreement pursuant to Texas Local Government Code Chapter 380 with the Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, for expanding and improving East 19th Street from Keel Avenue to East Loop 289.]
>>THANK YOU, MAYOR. 5.1.1, THIS IS NOW THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE LUBBOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE TO MOVE THAT $1 MILLION YOU'VE JUST APPROVED TO THE EAST 19TH PROJECT.
>> I WANT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.1.1.
>> MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE? AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY? I HEAR NONE, SO THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 5.1.5 THAT WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA,
[15. Resolution - Public Health Services: Consider a resolution accepting the recommended Community Health Improvement Plan and the associated findings of the Community Health Needs Assessment. ]
AND I'M GOING TO CALL ON KATHERINE WELLS, DIRECTOR OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO PROVIDE OUR BRIEFING ON THIS. MS. WELLS.>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
THIS AGENDA ITEM IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN TO SET SOME DIRECTION FOR HOW WE CAN WORK AS A COMMUNITY TO IMPROVE THROUGHOUT LUBBOCK.
[00:10:04]
THIS IS A PROJECT THAT STARTED BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023.WE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH INITIUM HEALTH ON THE 91223 COUNCIL.
THE CONTRACT WAS FUNDED WITH ONE TIME PUBLIC HEALTH FUNDING THAT COULDN'T BE USED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE OR STAFFING AND THE INITIUM HEALTH DID A FOUR PART ASSESSMENT LOOKING AT DATA ANALYSIS OF PUBLIC HEALTH TRENDS IN OUR COMMUNITY, KEY INFORM AND INTERVIEWS OF BOTH LEADERS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON THEIR THOUGHTS ON HOW WE NEED TO MOVE HEALTH FORWARD, COMMUNITY LISTENING SESSIONS, AND THEN A COMMUNITY SURVEY THAT HAD OVER 2000 RESPONSES.
THE GOAL OF THIS COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS REALLY TO ADDRESS LUBBOCK'S TOP PRIORITIES AROUND HEALTH.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE IN OUR COMMUNITY BEFORE.
BOTH OUR HOSPITALS, OUR FQHCS, AND OTHER ENTITIES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ARE REQUIRED TO DO SOME STRATEGIC PLAN OR COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT IN THAT THOSE ENTITIES TEND TO LOOK EXACTLY AT THE CLIENTS THAT COME IN TO THEIR ENTITY FOR SERVICES.
THE GOAL OF THIS PLAN WAS TO LOOK AT A BROADER NEEDS OF LUBBOCK IN GENERAL.
THE FIVE AREAS THAT EMERGED FROM THIS ASSESSMENT INCLUDE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE ON MENTAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE USE AND HOMELESSNESS, ADDRESSING CHRONIC CONDITIONS, STIS AND TEEN PREGNANCY, AND THEN IMPROVED COORDINATION OF INFORMATION SERVICES AND RESOURCES.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM MS. WELLS? I SEE NO. NOW I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.15.
>> I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. IS THERE A DISCUSSION? MR. GARCIA.
>> MS. WELLS, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO OFFER SOME FEEDBACK ON HOW YOUR DEPARTMENT HANDLED THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE REPORT WAS NOT FINALIZED AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE AGENDA.
I ASKED FOR THE FINAL VERSION OF THE REPORT SEVERAL TIMES THURSDAY, FRIDAY, WHEN AGENDA ITEMS ARE DUE, AND STAFF DID NOT PROVIDE US THE COMPLETE OVER 150 PAGES IN YOUR REPORT UNTIL YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
IF AN AGENDA ITEM IS NOT READY FOR THE AGENDA, IT NEEDS TO BE DELAYED.
THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE COUNCIL TO REVIEW YOUR REPORT, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT IS DETAILED, FULL OF INFORMATION AND WOULD REPRESENT A VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.
I'M GOING TO AT THE END OF MY COMMENTS ON THIS PLAN, MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM UNTIL OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL HAVE HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO STUDY IT.
ONCE WE COME BACK AND STUDY THIS REPORT, I'M ULTIMATELY GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE REJECT IT.
PARTIALLY, YOU COULD SAY THAT'S SEMANTICS.
ACCEPTING THIS REPORT IS NOT CREATING A BUDGET OBLIGATION, BUT IT IS A POLICY DECISION.
APPROVAL OF THIS REPORT WOULD INDICATE THAT THESE ARE POLICIES THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT SHOULD PURSUE.
IN FACT, WE NEED TO DISCOURAGE THIS EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT SPENDING AND INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTHCARE.
WE NEED TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK IS THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO RAISE PROPERTY TAXES TO SUPPORT AN EXPANSION OF MUNICIPAL SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
WE ALREADY HAVE INSTITUTIONS IN LUBBOCK COUNTY THAT PROVIDE INDIGENT CARE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE COUNTY HAS A LEGAL MANDATE TO PROVIDE INDIGENT CARE, WHICH IT DELIVERS THROUGH THE UMC.
THE CITY HAS NO SUCH OBLIGATION OR LEGAL MANDATE, AND SO ANY EXPANSION OF THE CITY HEALTHCARE INTO INDIGENT CARE OR OTHER FORMS OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IS REDUNDANT TO EXISTING CAPABILITIES.
THE REPORT INCLUDES, I THINK, A USEFUL HISTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IN 2015 HAD 10 EMPLOYEES.
THROUGH COVID, IT EXPANDED TO 55 EMPLOYEES, AND IT'S CURRENTLY AT THAT NUMBER NOW.
THE SCOPE OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS INCREASED DRAMATICALLY OVER THE LAST DECADE, AND THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY GOALS OF LUBBOCK CITIZENS.
WE DO NOT WANT MORE GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTHCARE.
WE DO NOT WANT MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING IN HEALTHCARE.
BECAUSE THE DATA SHOWS THAT GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTHCARE LEADS TO HIGHER COSTS, WORSE OUTCOMES, AND REDUCED PERSONAL LIBERTY.
WE ALREADY HAVE MASSIVE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING.
IT PASSES THROUGH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT,
[00:15:01]
AND WE CAN'T STOP THE FLOW OF STATE AND FEDERAL DOLLARS, BUT WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANYTHING AT THE CITY LEVEL TO TRY TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN HEALTHCARE.I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON TO SOME CRITIQUES ON THE METHODOLOGY, THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY.
YOU HAVE A FAIRLY SAMPLED BIAS OF THE SAMPLE RESPONDENTS, AND I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT THERE'S A LACK OF VERIFICATION FOR THE SELF-REPORTED DATA IN THERE, FOR EXAMPLE.
IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 47 OF THE REPORT, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS UNDER REPRESENT BLACK AND HISPANIC RESIDENTS, THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS UNDER REPRESENT LOW INCOME RESIDENTS.
WE ALSO SEE THAT 65% OF THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS ARE FEMALE, WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY SKEWS THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY.
BY AGE GROUP, WE HAVE THE AGES 24-60 OVER REPRESENTED COMPARED TO THE GENERAL POPULATION OF THE LUBBOCK.
WE ALSO SEE OVER REPRESENTATION, AND BEFORE I MOVE ON, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW BECAUSE THOSE ARE NOT THE MOST INTENSE USERS OF THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, FOR EXAMPLE.
WE ALSO SEE AN OVERREPRESENTATION OF HEALTH OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS, WHICH IS POSSIBLY BECAUSE THESE FOCUS GROUPS, AS THE REPORT SHOWS, SOLICITED PARTICIPATION IN EVENTS LIKE FOCUS GROUPS THROUGH FOOD AND STARBUCKS GIFT CARDS FOR PARTICIPATION.
WE HAVE BAD DATA GOING INTO THE BEGINNING OF THE STUDY, AND WITH THIS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET A BIASED OUTCOME.
THE FIRST PRIORITY THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE REPORT TALKS ABOUT HOW THE NUMBER 1 PRIORITY SHOULD BE TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE.
>> IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 52 OF THE REPORT, YOU'LL ACTUALLY SEE THAT ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE IS NOT A CONCERN AMONG RESPONDENTS.
OTHER THAN COSTS, THE LARGEST SEGMENT OF RESPONSES INDICATED THAT THERE WERE NO BARRIERS TO CARE.
OF THE OVER 2,000 RESPONDENTS, LESS THAN 5% OF THEM IDENTIFIED ANY POSSIBLE BARRIERS SUCH AS TRAVEL TIME, LANGUAGE BARRIER, ACCESS TO LOCATIONS, OR TRANSPORTATION.
LESS THAN 5% OF RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT THOSE WERE ACTUAL OBSTACLES OR BARRIERS TO CARE THAT THEY'VE EXPERIENCED.
SO THE SURVEY RESPONSE DOESN'T SHOW THAT THERE'S AN OBSTACLE TO CARE.
IN FACT, IN PAGE 24 OF THE REPORT, YOU'LL SEE THAT LUBBOCK HAS A BETTER RATIO OF PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS, NOT JUST THE STATE, BUT THE ENTIRE NATION.
THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS AND THE OBJECTIVE DATA SHOW US THERE'S LITTLE TO NO PROBLEM WITH ACCESS TO CARE, ESPECIALLY, IN COMPARISON TO OTHER COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES.
NOW, THE CONSULTANTS AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT MET WITH THESE KEY INFORMANTS WHO ARE NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE SURVEY, BUT THE RESPONSES OF THE KEY INFORMANTS CERTAINLY CONTRADICT THE SURVEY RESULTS.
APPEARS TO BE USED AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPANDING GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON HEALTH CARE.
IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 28 OF THE REPORT, WE ALSO SEE THE REPORT CITES METRICS TO SUGGEST THAT WE, AS A STATE, HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ACCESS TO CARE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S A STUDY CITED BY THE COMMONWEALTH FUND, WHICH IS A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION HEADQUARTERED IN NEW YORK CITY, AND THIS PRIVATE ORGANIZATION ARGUES THAT TEXAS RANKS IN THE BOTTOM OF ALL STATES FOR HEALTHCARE ACCESS.
THERE'S NOTHING SPECIFIC TO LUBBOCK, BUT WHEN YOU ACTUALLY DIG INTO THE COMMONWEALTH FUNDS REPORT, IT'S REALLY NO SURPRISE.
THEY ARE CRITICAL OF TAXES FOR PROTECTING THE LIVES OF THE UNBORN.
WE ARE RANKED LOWER AS A STATE BECAUSE WE DO NOT SUPPORT ELECTIVE ABORTION.
THE VALUES AND PRIORITIES OF THESE RANKING ORGANIZATIONS IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR COMMUNITY VALUES, AND SO THEIR CONCLUSIONS ARE NOT PERSUASIVE TO ARGUE THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEMIC ISSUE WITH ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE.
THE REPORT ENCOURAGES THAT WE PURSUE OTHER PRIORITIES SUCH AS HEALTH CARE LITERACY, WHICH IS REDUNDANT TO OTHER GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS THAT ALREADY PERFORM THIS.
ANOTHER PRIORITY INCLUDED IN THE REPORT IS INCREASING HEALTH INSURANCE ENROLLMENT.
WE ALREADY HAVE OBAMACARE, THE FEDERAL HEALTHCARE EXCHANGE TO PROVIDE THAT FUNCTION OF SUBSIDIZING THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE ENROLLMENT.
LUBBOCK DOES NOT NEED ITS OWN VERSION OF SUBSIDIZED HEALTH INSURANCE.
THERE ARE ENTIRE INDUSTRIES DEDICATED TO ADVERTISING HEALTH INSURANCE ENROLLMENT, CONTACTING PEOPLE, AND ENROLLING PEOPLE IN AFFORDABLE HEALTHCARE OPTIONS.
PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS CITED IN THE REPORT ALREADY PERFORM THIS WITH PRIVATE DOLLARS THROUGH PRIVATE SUPPORT.
THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS ON PAGE 52 ALSO SHOW THAT HEALTH CARE INSURANCE SUBSIDIES ARE NOT EVEN A PRIORITY.
THE SURVEY ASKED IF THERE WAS UNLIMITED MONEY, WHICH OF THESE WOULD BE A FUNDING PRIORITY? EVEN IN THE SCENARIO WHERE THERE'S UNLIMITED FUNDING, LESS THAN HALF OF THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS SAID THAT
[00:20:02]
SUBSIDIZING HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS SHOULD BE A FUNDING PRIORITY.THE OBJECTIVE DATA, AGAIN, SHOWS US THAT LUBBOCK DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM COMPARED TO THE REST OF THE NATION WITH HEALTH INSURANCE ENROLLMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE BETTER THAN THE RATES OF HEALTH INSURANCE ENROLLMENT THAN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE.
THESE GOALS DO NOT REPRESENT A REAL-WORLD NEED OR DEMAND OF LUBBOCK CITIZENS.
THIS REPRESENTS AMBITIONS OF THE REPORTS AUTHOR TO EXPAND GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE THROUGH THE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
YOU SEE A SIMILAR TREND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER PRIORITIES SUCH AS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.
I'LL OFFER ANOTHER CRITICISM OF THE SURVEY AND ITS INCORPORATION HERE ON THIS PRIORITY BECAUSE THERE'S NO INDICATION IN THE SURVEY DATA THAT MENTAL HEALTH CARE, THERE'S A BARRIER TO IT OR THAT IT'S A PRIORITY TO INCREASE CARE FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS.
WELL, YOU ACTUALLY SEE IS IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 40, THE CONSULTANT SAT DOWN WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THE STAFF RESPONSES PRIORITIZE INCREASED MENTAL HEALTH CARE TREATMENT.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE THE OPINIONS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
PEOPLE WANT SMALLER GOVERNMENT.
THEY WANT LESS INVOLVEMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH CARE AND NOT MORE.
AGAIN, THE OBJECTIVE DATA SHOWS THAT LUBBOCK OUTPERFORMS THE REST OF THE STATE IN OUR RATIO OF MENTAL HEALTH PROVIDERS COMPARED TO OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE.
OTHER SUGGESTIONS ARE INEFFICIENT AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO BE INVOLVED IN, SUCH AS A MASS MEDIA CAMPAIGN AGAINST IMPAIRED DRIVING.
WE ALREADY HAVE GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS THAT DO THIS.
EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOWS THAT DRUNK DRIVING IS BAD.
THE PROBLEM WITH DRUNK DRIVING IS NOT THAT PEOPLE HAVE NOT SEEN A PSA OR HEARD ABOUT IT IN ANY OF THEIR DRIVING CLASSES.
THERE IS VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE IN THE STUDIES I'VE SEEN ANALYZING THE EFFICACY OF THESE MASS MEDIA CAMPAIGNS TO SUGGEST THAT IT'S A USEFUL WAY TO SPEND GOVERNMENT DOLLARS.
OTHER ADVERTISING AND MESSAGING CAMPAIGNS, SUCH AS COMMUNITY SEX EDUCATION THROUGH MASS MARKETING, SOCIAL MARKETING OR EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED THROUGH TOOL, SCHOOLS, TARGETING ADOLESCENTS, IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED IN.
IT'S REDUNDANT TO EXISTING SEX EDUCATION FUNCTIONS.
IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO INSERT ITSELF IN WHAT SHOULD BE PERFORMED WITH PARENTS AND MAKING THEIR DECISIONS ABOUT SEX EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN.
THE REPORT IN THE FINAL VERSION, DANCES AROUND THIS, BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK SHOULD BE THAT THE CITY HAS NO ROLE IN PROVIDING CONTRACEPTION, SO-CALLED EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION OR ABORTION RELATED SERVICES.
THE FINAL CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT CALL FOR A COORDINATION OF INFORMATION AND SERVICES.
IT'S REALLY JUST A WAY TO INSERT THE CITY OF LUBBOCK HEALTH DEPARTMENT INTO OTHER FUNCTIONING PROGRAMS ACROSS THE REGION.
WE SHOULD NOT USE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO IMPLEMENT ANY FORM OF SOCIALIZED GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE.
WE SHOULD NOT USE PUBLIC HEALTH AS AN EXCUSE FOR GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN A WIDE RANGE OF PRIVATE MARKETS AND PERSONAL LIBERTIES.
I THINK IT'S MOST APPROPRIATE THAT WE REJECT THIS REPORT.
WE SEND A MESSAGE, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BECOME THE POLICY OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.
WE WILL NOT RAISE PROPERTY TAXES TO FUND AN EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE.
BUT BECAUSE WE RECEIVED THIS 150 PLUS PAGE SET OF DOCUMENTS ABOUT 24 HOURS AGO, I THINK IT'S MOST APPROPRIATE RIGHT NOW THAT WE POSTPONE THIS UNTIL WE'VE HAD ADEQUATE TIME TO STUDY IT AND READ THROUGH EVERY PAGE OF THIS REPORT.
SO WITH THAT, IF IT'S A TIMELY, I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO AMEND OR POSTPONE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS ITEM.
>> YOU NEED TO DO AND IT IS TIMELY.
YOU CAN DO IT NOW AND TO BE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN.
THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING IS JANUARY 14TH, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING.
I WOULD SUGGEST THAT, BUT YOU CAN DO ANY PARTICULAR DATE THAT THE COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, I MOVE TO POSTPONE THIS AGENDA ITEM TO DATE CERTAIN JANUARY 14TH.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE. WE HAVE A SECOND.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION OF THIS PARTICULAR MOTION? I SEE NO ONE WANTING TO DISCUSS IT.
>> HEY. BY THE WAY, CATHERINE, I NEVER GOT MY GIFT CARD.
I THINK YOU GUYS HANDLED THIS REALLY WELL.
I PARTICIPATED AT TWO LOCATIONS.
ONE OF THEM WAS AT, I CAN'T REMEMBER, THE HUB, I BELIEVE.
YOU HAD AN INDIVIDUAL, ONE OF YOUR EMPLOYEES, I THINK HIS NAME IS JESSE, THAT CAME TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS AND FREQUENTLY SHARED THAT INFORMATION WITH MULTIPLE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS.
THE FOLKS THAT ATTENDED WERE A MAJORITY HISPANIC,
[00:25:02]
AND IT WAS VERY INFORMATIVE. I APPRECIATE THAT.WE DO HAVE ISSUES IN OUR CITY AND WHILE I UNDERSTAND CONCERNS FROM SOME OF OUR COUNSEL, I THINK THERE'S MORE TO THAT TO WHAT WE'RE DOING.
I JUST WANT IT TO BE KNOWN THAT I THINK THAT YOU GUYS HAVE PUT THE EFFORT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.
I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING MR. GLASHEEN IN HIS AMENDMENT.
>> MS. WELLS, WELL, MAYBE YOU CAN TELL ME TODAY, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA OF WHAT YOUR BUDGET CITY DOLLAR COMPONENT WAS IN 2019 COMPARED TO TODAY?
>> IN 2019, I DO NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHAT MY BUDGET WAS.
THIS YEAR, IT WAS AROUND 1.7 MILLION FOR CITY FUNDS.
>> 1.7 BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT 1920.
IT'S GONE UP ABOUT 2% A YEAR OF THE CITY COST.
>> TO PIGGYBACK ON TOP OF THAT, THEN, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN IDEA ABOUT WHAT YOUR OVERALL BUDGET IS IN COMPARISON 1920 UNTIL TODAY? 1920 WOULD BE A GOOD NUMBER, TOO.
>> IT WAS PROBABLY AROUND THREE MILLION OR SO, AND RIGHT NOW, IT'S AROUND 10 MILLION.
THAT DIFFERENCE HAS TO DO WITH OBTAINING ADDITIONAL FEDERAL DOLLARS THAT CAN COME IN AND SUPPORT OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY AROUND HEALTH.
THERE'S SOME DIFFERENT FUNDS THAT ONLY LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT THAT HAVING THAT DESIGNATION IS ELIGIBLE FOR, SO IT'S MAKING SURE WE'RE CAPTURING THOSE.
THEN IT'S ALSO WORKING TOWARDS MAKING SURE WE'RE DOING VERY GOOD REVENUE GENERATION, MAKING SURE THAT THOSE WHO COME IN TO THE CLINIC FOR SERVICES THAT WE ARE BILLING APPROPRIATELY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE RECOUPING AS MUCH MONEY BACK TO THE CITY.
>> I GUESS, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT WITHIN THE LAST 4-5 YEARS, THE CITY TAXPAYER HAS ADDED ABOUT $200,000 TO YOUR BUDGET AND HAVE RECEIVED SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 6-7 MILLION DOLLARS IN ADDITIONAL SERVICES, FAIR STATEMENT?
>> THANK YOU, CATHERINE FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
I SHARE SOME OF MR. GLASHEEN'S CONCERN WITH THE REPORT, FIRST AND FOREMOST, NOT HAVING TIME TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH IT.
WHEN IT IS 129 PAGE PLUS THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO HAD MORE TIME TO READ IT VERSUS JUST OVERNIGHT.
AS A PHYSICIAN, I WANT TO ASK YOU, WHAT ALL CLINICAL SERVICES ARE WE PROVIDING AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?
>> THE CLINICAL SERVICES WE PROVIDE RIGHT NOW ARE MAINLY CHILDHOOD IMMUNIZATIONS FOR CHILDREN THAT DON'T HAVE ACCESS EITHER TO PRIMARY CARE OR DON'T HAVE INSURANCE OR ENROLLED IN MEDICAID OR CHIP.
WE PROVIDE A VERY COMPREHENSIVE STD PROGRAM.
WE HAVE SOME VERY HIGH STD RATES IN THIS COMMUNITY.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT PRIVATE PROVIDERS DON'T TEND TO LIKE TO ADDRESS IN THEIR OWN OFFICES.
THEN WE LAUNCH THE NEW INTERMEDIARY CARE CLINIC THAT WORKS WITH INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE BEING DISCHARGED FROM OUR HOSPITAL WHO DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO PRIMARY CARE.
THAT CLINIC PROVIDES CARE FOR UP TO 90 DAYS, WITH THE GOAL OF BUILDING SELF SUFFICIENCY OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS, PROVIDING IMMEDIATE SUPPORT WITH ENROLLING INTO INSURANCE, HELPING WITH SOME BASIC NEEDS.
AGAIN, WITH THE GOAL OF MOVING THEM INTO A TRADITIONAL PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER.
>> VACCINATIONS, STI TESTING HAVE BEEN AROUND AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR A LONG TIME.
THOSE ARE NOT NEW PROGRAMS. I ALWAYS SAY THE INTERMEDIARY CLINIC BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL NAME FOR IT, BUT THAT CLINIC IS NEW.
HOW MANY PATIENTS HAVE BEEN SEEN AND HAVE ACCESSED THAT CLINIC?
>> THAT CLINIC LAUNCHED IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR.
WE HAD SOME HICCUPS WITH THAT CLINIC BECAUSE WE HAD ACTUALLY MOVED THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT INTO CERNER,
[00:30:01]
THE SAME EMR AS UMC.THAT SYSTEM WENT DOWN, SO IT REALLY DISRUPTED THE BEGINNING OF THE CLINIC.
WE'VE SUCCESSFULLY SERVED 30 INDIVIDUALS IN THAT CLINIC.
THEY'VE ALL MOVED ON TO OTHER HEALTH CARE SOURCES.
WE'VE HAD SOME REALLY GREAT POSITIVE STORIES.
WE WERE ABLE TO TREAT SOMEBODY FOR HEPATITIS C, A MAN THAT HAD GONE AROUND TO THREE DIFFERENT PROVIDERS TRYING TO GET HEPATITIS C TREATMENT.
BUT THERE WAS A $3,000 DEDUCTIBLE FOR HIM TO ACCESS THOSE MEDICATIONS.
COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS WORK WITH HIM, FOUND A RESOURCE FOR THAT $3,000, AND WE'VE ACTUALLY TREATED HIM AND HE HAS NOW HEPATITIS C NEGATIVE.
WE'VE WORKED WITH PEOPLE WITH SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS THAT ARE NOW WORKING AND REUNITED WITH THEIR FAMILIES.
IT'S REALLY A STOP GAP TO PICK UP PLACES WHERE OUR MEDICAL COMMUNITY HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO FILL IN, AND IT'S A PLACE THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY PROFITABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL PROVIDERS, BUT WE'RE ABLE TO PULL DOWN SOME FUNDING BECAUSE WE ARE A LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO FILL THAT GAP.
>> WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO EXTENSIVELY GO THROUGH ALL THE NUMBERS, I AGREE WITH MR. GLASHEEN ON MANY POINTS.
ONE OF THOSE MOST IMPORTANTLY IS THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE ALREADY TAXED TO RMA 35 MILLION DOLLARS FOR INDIGENT CARE TO GO TO OUR COUNTY HOSPITAL.
WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IS REDUNDANT LEVEL OF CARE.
I DON'T THINK UMC IS DOING SOME OF THAT.
I THINK THE VACCINE PROGRAM, TRACKING AND TREATMENT AND HAVING THE STI CLINIC ARE HUGE BENEFITS.
I ACTUALLY DO SEE THE POTENTIAL GOOD BENEFIT FOR A TEMPORARY INTERMEDIARY CLINIC.
MY CONCERNS JUST IN TRYING TO GET THROUGH PART OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY QUICKLY WAS WORDS SUCH AS INCREASING, EXPANDING COMPREHENSIVE CARE, ADDRESSING CHRONIC HEALTH CONDITIONS.
TO ME, AS A PHYSICIAN, THOSE ARE NOT THINGS THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY PRIMARY PHYSICIANS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY.
WHAT I DON'T WANT TO SEE IS USING THIS REPORT TO SET BUDGET PRIORITIES TO THINK THAT WE ARE GOING TO EXPAND CARE OUT OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
SOME OF THE PROGRAMS YOU OFFER ARE AMAZING, AND I THINK THEY ARE GREAT FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
I THINK COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN WILL AGREE WITH SOME OF THOSE.
I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE SAYING NOBODY WANTS A PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE WE WANT TO GO.
I KNOW THAT HAS ALMOST HAPPENED IN THE CITY BEFORE.
BUT WHAT I DO WANT TO BE CAREFUL OF IS SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE YOUR PRIMARY CARE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.
WE'RE GOING TO START BRINGING EVERYBODY IN AND WE'RE GOING TO TREAT DIABETES AND WE'RE GOING TO TREAT OTHER THINGS THAT ARE MEANT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF PHYSICIANS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY.
AS MR. GLASHEEN WAS TALKING ABOUT SCANNING FROM PAGE TO PAGE, ONE THING THAT WE WENT RIGHT TO WAS FUNDING PRIORITIES IN THIS REPORT, AND WHETHER THAT WAS FUNDING PRIORITIES FROM THE PEOPLE THAT PARTICIPATED OR FUNDING PRIORITIES AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN THEY WANT AN INCREASED ACCESS TO HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS LIKE GROCERY STORES AND EXERCISE AVAILABILITY.
>> THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE REALM OF CITY GOVERNMENT.
PERIOD, I MEAN WHY THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS IN THIS REPORT IS BEYOND ME.
A LOT OF THESE POINTS IN HERE ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF THE REALM OF CITY COUNCIL, AND WHAT MUNICIPALITY IS MEANT TO DO IN PROVIDING THOSE CORE SERVICES.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHEN WE PUT REPORTS OUT LIKE THIS BECAUSE I CAN'T INCREASE ACCESS TO HEALTH INSURANCE.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO.
THEN THERE WAS THESE OTHER TWO THAT WAS BUILD MORE SYSTEMS AND PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE WITH CRISIS TO KEEP THEM OUT OF THE JAIL.
I THINK WE'VE DONE THAT WITH BUILDING OUR HOPE CENTER.
ESPECIALLY WITH PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH CARE RELATED CRISES, WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THEM GOING TO OUR ER, WHICH WAS THE NEXT POINT ON HERE.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I HAVEN'T ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK THROUGH THIS REPORT.
I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL FOR OVERSTEPPING AND WHERE THAT LINE IS DRAWN BETWEEN WHAT A PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE.
WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S PART IN HEALTHCARE LOCALLY BECAUSE I THINK THOSE LINES ARE GOING TO GET BLURRED VERY QUICKLY.
>> MAY I ADD A COMMENT TO THAT? JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT FRAMING THIS REPORT? THIS ISN'T WHAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO.
THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS A COMMUNITY.
THIS IS ABOUT ONE OF THE LAST RECOMMENDATIONS IS AROUND REALLY CREATING A WORKING COLLABORATIVE SO THAT WE GET ALL OF OUR PROVIDERS ON THE SAME PAGE MOVING IN THE SAME DIRECTION TO IMPROVE HEALTH FOR EVERYBODY IN THE LUBBOCK COMMUNITY.
[00:35:03]
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD BE PUTTING GROCERY STORES IN COMMUNITIES, BUT WHAT CAN WE DO TO INCREASE ACCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY TO FOOD? IS THAT WORKING WITH A CHURCH THAT WANTS TO CREATE A FOOD PANTRY? IS THAT PARTNERING WITH UNITED THAT MIGHT WANT TO PUT A SMALL STORE SOMEWHERE? IT'S REALLY ABOUT COMMUNITY HEALTH, OVERALL HEALTH, AND ONE OF THE ROLES I SEE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH IS HELPING TO BE PART OF THAT LEADERSHIP TEAM AND HOW TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY MOVE FORWARD.THESE AREN'T THINGS THAT I'M ASKING FOR US TO FUND? THESE ARE THINGS THAT I'M SAYING WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW DO WE SOLVE THIS AS THE COMMUNITY OF LUBBOCK? WE SPEND LOTS OF MONEY IN OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
IS THERE A WAY TO MOVE SOME OF THAT FUNDING AROUND SO THAT WE HAVE BETTER HEALTH OUTCOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY?
>> I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE GLOBAL AIM OF OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
WHAT I THINK MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF THE REPORT IS THAT SOME OF WHAT THE REPORT SAYS DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THAT.
SOME OF WHAT I THINK MR. GLASHEEN TOUCHED ON WAS YOUR IN, YOUR LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATED.
IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT 2000 PEOPLE REPRESENT 320,000 THAT LIVE IN THE COUNTY.
I AGREE THAT SOME OF THE DATA LOOKS SKEWED JUST FROM WHAT I'M LOOKING AT CURRENTLY.
I WANT MORE TIME TO LOOK THROUGH IT AND MAKE SURE THAT I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT'S SAYING.
BUT WHEN A REPORT COMES OUT AND SAYS THINGS LIKE FUNDING PRIORITIES.
THAT TO ME SAYS THAT IT'S TRYING TO TELL SOMEBODY, YOU NEED TO GO SPEND MORE MONEY IN THIS AREA, WHETHER THAT'S FROM YOU OR IT'S FROM THIS GROUP THAT DID THE REPORT, I THINK THAT IS THE CONCERNING THING ABOUT PUTTING OUT A PUBLIC REPORT THAT SAYS, THIS IS OUR FUNDING PRIORITIES BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT OUR FUNDING PRIORITIES AT THE MOMENT.
SUPPORTING THE GLOBAL AIM OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS, THAT THINGS IN THIS REPORT MAY NOT BE.
I THINK THAT WAS MY OVERALL POINT.
>> MS. WELLS, WHAT ALL PARTNERS WERE INVOLVED IN THE SURVEY? AS FAR AS LIKE, DO WE HAVE HOSPITALS HEALTH.
>> HOSPITALS, CLINICS, OUR FQHCS, COMMUNITY MEMBERS, OUR BOARD OF HEALTH, THAT'S APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS? WE REALLY DID A LOT OF ADVERTISING AT THE BEGINNING TO REALLY BRING EVERYBODY TOGETHER.
WHEN WE DID A KICKOFF, WE DID THAT IN THIS ROOM, AND THIS ROOM WAS PACKED WITH ALL OF THE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATORS, SCHOOL, SUPERINTENDENTS, JUST EVERYBODY THAT'S BEEN INTERESTED IN HOW DO WE IMPROVE THE HEALTH OF LUBBOCK COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE 17% OF OUR COMMUNITY IS UNINSURED.
THAT MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE SERVICES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AT OUR HOSPITALS.
THEY CAN GO TO THE ER AND GET CARE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE SPECIALISTS, ALL THE EXTRA CARE THAT'S AVAILABLE HERE.
WE CAN DO MORE TO SUPPORT THOSE PEOPLE.
>> I THINK THIS REPORT, WHAT IT'S TRYING TO DO ALSO IS GET US ALL ON THE SAME PAGE SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT SOME OF OUR ROADBLOCKS HAVE BEEN.
YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR FUNDING, ARE YOU?
>> NO. THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE MEADOWS REPORT FOR MENTAL HEALTH.
THAT'S WHAT LAUNCHED THINGS SUCH AS THE HOPE CENTER.
WE BROUGHT TOGETHER, WE DID A NEEDS ASSESSMENT ON MENTAL HEALTH.
COMMUNITY PARTNERS CREATED THE WEST TEXAS MENTAL HEALTH COALITION.
WITH THAT, WE'VE DONE THINGS LIKE THE HOPE CENTER.
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO INCREASE ACCESS TO CHILD HEALTH SERVICES THROUGH TEXAS TECH, BECAUSE IT'S THE COMMUNITY COALITION THAT IS GIVING THAT SUPPORT TO TECH TO BE THAT LEAD IN THAT AREA.
IT IS HAVING CONVERSATIONS ABOUT, I DO THIS REALLY WELL.
YOUR ORGANIZATION DOES THIS REALLY WELL, BUT WE COULD BLEND AND WORK TOGETHER TO DO THIS OTHER THING THAT'S NOT COVERED IN OUR COMMUNITY.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM THIS REPORT IS TRYING TO BUILD THAT COALITION IN THIS COMMUNITY.
>> I THINK YOU KNOW SOMEBODY SAID, THAT WE DON'T ALL WANT THIS, BUT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THAT COMMENT GOES FOR EVERY CITIZEN.
I THINK LIKE EVEN WHAT DR. WILSON SAID ABOUT THE SURVEY, ALTHOUGH IT WAS A SMALLER GROUP OF PEOPLE.
THAT IT DOESN'T REFLECT. IT'S JUST LIKE VOTING.
SOMETIMES WHEN YOU VOTE, WE WOULD LOVE FOR EVERY VOTER TO COME OUT, BUT THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS.
[00:40:01]
ONLY CERTAIN NUMBERS WILL COME OUT, BUT THEY STILL MAKE THE DECISION.THIS WAS PUT ALL OVER THE PLACE.
I SAW IT IN DIFFERENT AREAS LIKE I SAID, GOT TO HEAR ABOUT IT THOROUGHLY AND SEVERAL OF THE ITEMS, THE PRESS RELEASES AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MEETING.
IT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS BENEFICIAL TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SAID WHEN YOU ALL WERE DOING THIS REPORT, THAT IT GAVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND.
I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS YOU JUST WANT DAVID, MR. GLASHEEN, YOU JUST WANT TO POSTPONE IT BECAUSE YOU WANT TO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
>> THE CURRENT MOTION IS TO POSTPONE IT TWO DAYS AGO
>> BUT THEN YOU MADE THE COMMENTS OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT NOT HAVING OR PROVIDING ANY TYPE OF SERVICES AND CUTTING BACK SERVICES, DID I MISUNDERSTAND YOU?
>> I THINK YOU DID. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WE SHOULD REJECT THIS REPORT BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO ADOPT THIS AS FUNDING PRIORITIES OR AS A SCOPE A MISSION FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
>> WELL, I GUESS FOR MY $0.02 WORTH, I LIKE MANY PEOPLE HERE TODAY HAVE SAID IT'S PROBABLY NOT A GOOD IDEA TO TRY TO ASSESS THE VALUE OF A PRESENTATION ON INADEQUATE NOTICE.
I LIKE EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE MORE TIME TO LOOK AT IT AND MAKE SURE THAT IN MY OWN MIND, IT'S NOT SETTING A STAGE FOR A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE COMMITMENT OF THE CITY TO HEALTH SERVICES.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T INVOLVE OR SET THE STAGE FOR A LOT OF MISSION CREEP BECAUSE WITH MISSION CREEP, ALWAYS COMES BUDGET CREEP, AND OUR CITY HAS CERTAIN PRIORITIES.
PUBLIC HEALTH IS IMPORTANT, BUT WE HAVE TO RANK ALL OF OUR PRIORITIES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE BUDGET FOR ALL OF OUR PRIORITIES.
NEXT YEAR IS GOING TO BE A TOUGH BUDGET YEAR.
I JUST WANT TO HAVE TIME TO GO THROUGH IT MYSELF AND ASSURE MYSELF THAT IT'S NOT REALLY TRYING TO LAY THE BASIS FOR A POLICY DECISIONS THAT THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO MAKE.
IF IT'S JUST A NEEDS ASSESSMENT OF THE COMMUNITY, THAT'S ONE THING, BUT IF IT'S TRYING TO SET A PRIORITY FOR FUNDING, THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
I'M LIKE MR. GLASHEEN IN FAVOR OF AT LEAST POSTPONING IT TO A DATE CERTAIN.
>> ONE MORE THING THAT THEREIN IS A LOT OF THE FUNDING THAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS NOT RECEIVED, BUT OBTAINED BECAUSE YOU GUYS WORKED SO HARD TO SEEK OUT THESE GRANTS.
BECAUSE OF STUDIES LIKE THIS THAT HELP US TO IDENTIFY NEEDS.
IN THE PAST FEW YEARS SINCE COVID, HOW MUCH MORE MONEY HAVE YOU GAINED FROM GRANTS BECAUSE OF STUDIES LIKE THIS?
>> I PROBABLY BROUGHT IN ADDITIONAL $7 MILLION A YEAR, RIGHT NOW, FROM WHEN I STARTED.
THEN I NEED A LITTLE WIGGLE ROOM ON THAT ONE, BUT I CAN CALCULATE THAT.
>> WHICH IS SIGNIFICANT TO GO FROM THREE ADDING SEVEN MILLION.
YOU HAVE ONE OF YOUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS HERE, DR. COOK, WHO HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN SO MANY REGARDS.
I THINK HE REPRESENTS THE HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER.
>> YES. I ALSO HAVE PAUL RONI FROM LUBBOCK ISD IS ALSO HERE, AND SHE'S A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF HEALTH.
I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT JUST DUMBFOUNDED ONE MORE TIME BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR FUNDING SUPPORT, WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS ADDRESSING SOME OF THE INTERESTS OF THE PUBLIC.
BUT I GUESS WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE.
>> I'LL JUST SECOND. JUST ONE FURTHER QUESTION JUST TO SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID, MAYOR PRO TEM.
IS THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, IS IT CRITICAL TO ANY OF YOUR AVAILABILITY TO GET YOUR GRANT FUNDING? WAS IT DONE WITH A VIEW TOWARDS GETTING THE GRANT FUNDING THAT YOU RELY ON?
>> IT WILL HELP US WITH GRANT FUNDING FOR NEXT YEAR IF APPROVED.
[00:45:01]
>> BUT WAS IT A REQUIREMENT FOR ANY OF IT?
>> NO. THIS IS REALLY LOOKING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE ON HEALTH AND LUBBOCK AND MOVING THAT FORWARD.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS HERE BECAUSE THERE'S THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
THEY HAVE THIS MISLABELED. THE COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS THE ONE THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO WORK WITH OUR COMMUNITY TO WORK ON THOSE FIVE PRIORITIES.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER. DR. WILSON.
>> ONE MORE QUESTION, MS. WELLS, SO YOU TALKED ABOUT MOVING THE NEEDLE.
REMIND COUNSEL, WITH THIS REPORT BEING IN MIND, HOW DO YOU WANT TO MOVE THE NEEDLE? WHAT METRICS ARE YOU LOOKING TO INCREASE YOUR ADDRESS THAT YOU'RE NOT CURRENTLY ADDRESSING WITH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT?
>> WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MOVING THE NEEDLE, TELL ME WHAT THAT MEANS.
LOOKING AT HOW TO HAVE A GREATER PROPORTION OF OUR COMMUNITY HAVE THEM HAVE ACCESS TO INSURANCE THROUGH MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE ENROLLING AND THINGS THEY QUALIFY FOR.
>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT? I UNDERSTAND THE GLOBAL AIM, BUT LIKE BOOTS ON THE GROUND, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT BY MOVING THE NEEDLE?
>> SOME OF THAT IS WORK THAT WE'RE ALREADY DOING IN THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY? IT'S ALSO BUILDING UP CAPACITY IN SOME OF OUR COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS SO THAT THEY BETTER UNDERSTAND HOW THE INSURANCE WORKS, AND HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE TO THAT INFORMATION SO THAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY WORK WITH SOMEBODY TO GET THEM ENROLLED.
WE'VE HAD MANY CHILDREN DISENROLLED FROM MEDICAID OVER THE LAST SIX MONTHS.
HOW DO WE GET THOSE FAMILIES RE ENROLLED? WE HAD 12 BABIES BORN WITH CONGENITAL SYPHILIS THIS LAST YEAR.
HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT OUR PROVIDERS ARE APPROPRIATELY SCREENING AND TREATING THOSE WOMEN SO THAT THESE BABIES AREN'T DYING? HOW DO WE WORKED WITH OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO REDUCE SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER AMONG OUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S TREATMENT AVAILABLE IN THE COMMUNITY? THAT'S NOT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S ROLE, BUT THAT'S WORKING WITH OUR PARTNERS, HELPING THEM GET GRANTS, HELPING THEM FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE FILL THESE LITTLE GAPS THAT AREN'T NATURALLY FILLED BY HOW THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS SET UP RIGHT NOW.
>> I THINK YOU NEED TO BE CAREFUL SAYING THAT'S NOT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S ROLE? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WE'RE BLURRING THE LINES A LITTLE BIT.
I THINK THAT'S SOME OF MY CONCERN BECAUSE THINGS THAT ARE BEING SAID, LIKE, I FULLY NO, NOT ASSUME, BUT KNOW THAT BOARD CERTIFIED OBGYN PHYSICIANS AND PEDIATRIC PHYSICIANS KNOW HOW TO SCREEN AND TREAT FOR CONGENITAL SYPHILIS.
NOW, I CAN'T OBVIOUSLY, WE ARE NOT THE ONES TRACKING REPORTABLE DISEASES, AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WHAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT DOES.
THAT'S WHAT WE RELY ON YOU GUYS TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL BLURRING SOME OF THOSE LINES ON MAKING SURE PROVIDERS KNOW.
>> MAKING SURE THAT THE INFORMATION IS OUT THERE BECAUSE WE HAD 12 WOMEN THAT GOT MISSED OPPORTUNITIES.
THEY DIDN'T GET A MEDICATION THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN FOR A REPORTABLE CONDITION.
HOW DO WE WORK TO BUILD THAT CAPACITY SO THAT EVERYBODY'S SCREENING, AND EVERYBODY'S THINKING ABOUT THAT SO WE DON'T LOSE THOSE 12 BABIES.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM. WE'RE READY FOR THE VOTE.
THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN, WHICH WOULD BE OUR NEXT SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY THE 14TH FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS RESOLUTION 5.15.
WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAD A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> THAT MOTION PASSES 5-1. THANK YOU.
>> NOW, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP OUR REGULAR AGENDA, AND WE'LL START WITH ITEM 6.1.
[1. Budget Ordinance Amendment 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Budget Ordinance No. 2024-O0152, Amendment 6, amending the FY 2024-25 Capital Program to create and appropriate the 2024 Street Bond Capital Projects approved by the voters.]
[1. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution expressing intent to finance expenditures to be incurred in the General Fund for various capital projects approved by the City Council in the Fiscal Year 2024-25 Operating Budget and Capital Program, and to reimburse the City from the proceeds of obligations that will be issued after the expenditure of funds to pay costs of such projects.]
I'M GOING TO CALL OUR CITY MANAGER.MR. ATKINSON TO PROVIDE US WITH BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ITEM 6.1 AND 6.11 IS DIRECTLY RELATED.
IF I COULD MAYOR ASK YOU TO SWITCH THE INPUT ON THE MONITOR, I THINK, THE CITY MANAGER BUTTON. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU.
SO, COUNSEL, QUICK REMINDER, THIS IS THE SECOND READING OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT ESTABLISHES THE ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL ROAD PROJECTS FOR THE 2024 ROAD BOND.
QUICK REMINDER, YOU SEE THOSE ON THE SCREEN.
THE FY NUMBERS, FISCAL YEAR 25 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 29.
[00:50:05]
THOSE ARE THE EXPENDITURE YEARS.WE ARE ASKING YOUR APPROVAL ON SECOND READ OF THAT BUDGET AMENDMENT.
THEN ON 6.1.1, THE IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING ITEM.
THAT IS WHAT WE, TYPICALLY, CALL YOUR REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION.
THAT AUTHORIZES STAFF TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN WITH THESE FISCAL YEAR 25 PROJECTS.
THEN WHEN WE DO THE DRAWDOWN AGAINST THIS BOND, WE ARE ABLE TO PAY OURSELVES BACK FOR EXPENDITURES DIRECTLY AND SOLELY RELATED TO THOSE LISTED PROJECTS.
TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR, MR. ATKINSON? I SEE NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.1?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY N? I HEAR NONE.
PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. MR. ATKINSON, I GUESS 6.11, IF WE NEED ANY FURTHER INDICATION FROM YOU, I THINK YOU'VE TOLD US EVERYTHING WE NEED TO KNOW.
>> I BELIEVE SO, BUT WOULD TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> I SEE NONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.1.1? MOTION A SECOND MADE.
ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY, NAY? A HEAR NONE, THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[2. Finance - Resolution: Consider a resolution ratifying three American Rescue Plan Act (ACT) Memorandums of Understanding between the City Manager and Various City Departments, for the City to comply with the ACT which requires that all American Rescue Plan Act funding be committed by December 31, 2024.]
I'LL CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER AGAIN TO PROVIDE BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ITEM 6.2, AND THIS IS NOT A TECHNICAL TERM, BUT I WILL CALL IT A BELT AND SUSPENDERS ITEM RELATED TO YOUR ARPA FUNDS.
AT LAST WEEK'S MEETING, YOU DID THE FIRST READ OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT ON ARPA.
YOU DID THE SECOND READ AS A PORTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THIS ITEM SPECIFICALLY, AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD ME MENTION THIS MAYBE BEFORE, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY RULES BACK IN JULY, THEY RESTRUCTURED WHAT IT MEANT TO HAVE DOLLARS COMMITTED OR UNDER CONTRACT.
YOU'VE ALLOCATED THESE DOLLARS WITH THOSE TWO READS OF THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.
I'M NOW ASKING YOU TO RATIFY THE MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY DEPARTMENTS, AND I WILL READ YOU THE THREE OF THOSE THAT THERE ARE.
THE FIRST IS BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND THE HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS WHAT WILL HOLD OUR $300,000 FOR THE FIELD AND OFFICE SUMMER INTERNSHIP PROGRAM,45,000 TO CONTINUE OUR CDL APPRENTICE PROGRAM AND 250,000 FOR OUR EDUCATION REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM FOR OUR CITY EMPLOYEES.
THOSE ITEMS COLLECTIVELY ARE 595,000, THAT MATCHES YOUR BUDGET AMENDMENT.
THE SECOND OF THE THREE MEMORANDUMS IS BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS THE 82,403 FOR THE RESTROOM AT MAX SEASON CLP, AND THIS IS OUR ADA COMPLIANCE.
YOU SEE THAT, WE'LL ALSO MATCH THE BUDGET AMENDMENT.
THE FINAL IS BETWEEN THE CITY MANAGER AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS COMMITTING THE $4,038,836 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND FOR LAKE 7.
WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.
>> THE BELTS AND SUSPENDERS, OR IS THIS THE BELT OR IS THIS A SUSPENDER PART OF IT, MR. ATKINSON?
>> THESE WOULD BE THE SUSPENDERS PART I THINK.
I'M TRYING TO GO BACK AND REMEMBER SOME OF THE HIERARCHY TO THAT.
THE BELT WOULD BE THAT I'VE ALREADY SIGNED THESE MEMORANDUMS BETWEEN MYSELF AND THESE DEPARTMENTS.
I'M ASKING FOR THE SUSPENDERS NOW FROM THE COUNCIL, JUST IN CASE SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO CHANGE THE RULES AGAIN.
>> WELL, APPRECIATE YOU LOOKING OUT FOR ALL THOSE LITTLE LOOPHOLES AND PITFALLS AND ALL THAT STUFF, AND NOTHING CONTRACTING WITH YOURSELF OR WHATEVER.
[OVERLAPPING] MAKE SURE YOU FOLLOWED ALL THE RULES, BUT THAT'S THE MAZE YOU GET INTO WHEN YOU DEAL WITH THE NATURE OF THIS FUNDING.
ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR MR. ATKINSON? I SEE NONE, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.2.
SECOND. MR. COLLINS. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY? I HEAR NONE, THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
FINALLY, WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 6.3, AND AGAIN,
[3. Resolution - City Council: Consider a resolution approving the 2025-26 Legislative Agenda for the 89th Texas Legislative Session and the 119th United States Congress, for the purpose of defining the position of the City of Lubbock on State and Federal Legislative issues.]
I'M GOING TO CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM, OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA.>> THANK YOU. IF I COULD ASK ONE MORE TIME TO SWITCH THE INPUTS.
[00:55:01]
COUNSEL, YOU E MAILED THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FRIDAY.YOU HAVE A PRINTED COPY OF THE DRAFT AT YOUR PLACE.
I HAVE THE SAME UP ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU.
IF IT WOULD MEET THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE, I'LL RUN THROUGH THIS AND IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS, ADD SUBTRACT, MULTIPLIER DIVIDE, PLEASE BRING THOSE UP.
AND GOAL HERE IS TO END UP WITH SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL AGREES TO AND COULD CONSIDER PASSING TODAY.
I'LL JUMP RIGHT IN, WE'VE GOT YOUR STANDARD STATEMENT OF INTENT.
NOTE THAT YOUR THREE BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR YOUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, YOU'LL WORK TO PASS PRIORITY LEGISLATION.
YOU'LL MONITOR PROPOSED LEGISLATION AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO ENSURE THE CITY IS ABLE TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CHARTER OF THE LAW AND TO PROVIDE LOCAL SERVICES THAT YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE.
THIRD BULLET ON THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES, YOU'LL WORK WITH PEER CITIES TO SUPPORT LEGISLATIVE ITEMS THAT ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES ABOVE AND TO OPPOSE OR CONTAINED WITHIN AND OPPOSE THOSE THAT ARE NOT.
THE FINAL PARAGRAPH ON THIS PAGE IS PRETTY IMPORTANT.
IT DOES NOT COME INTO PLAY AT EVERY LEGISLATIVE SESSION, BUT IT DOES OCCASIONALLY.
THE COUNCIL RECOGNIZES THE SPEED WITH WHICH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS MOVES.
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS MOVES VERY SLOWLY IN JANUARY WHEN THEY CONVENE, AND AS YOU START RUNNING TOWARDS THE END OF THE SESSION, IT MOVES AT WARP SPEED.
THUS, IN ORDER TO RESPOND IN A TIMELY MANNER TO AN ISSUE THAT WOULD FALL OUTSIDE OF THE APPROVED PRINCIPLES THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH HERE A LITTLE BIT.
THE MAYOR WOULD BE AUTHORIZED TO CONSULT WITH TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DIRECT LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY OFFICES.
AGAIN, DOES NOT HAPPEN EVERY SESSION, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN OCCASIONALLY.
WHEN WE SAY IT MOVES AT WARP SPEED TOWARDS THE END, THERE ARE TIMES THAT BILLS ARE RECOMMITTED AND BROUGHT BACK OUT WITH THREE HOURS NOTICE.
COUNCIL, ANY COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS ON THIS FIRST PAGE? MR. GLASHEEN.
>> I HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS ON THIS THAT I'LL OFFER LATER, BUT JUST ON MY FIRST READING, I'M VERY HESITANT TO APPROVE ALLOWING LESS THAN A QUORUM OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO DELIBERATE IN PRIVATE AND SET LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES.
I THINK IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEMOCRATIC MANDATE OF THE COUNCIL AND ALSO WITH THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY AS REQUIRED IN THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW.
>> MR. ATKINSON, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT AS WHY IT IS THE THREE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF FOUR?
>> A PORTION OF IT'S EXACTLY AS THE COUNCIL MEMBER HAS CALLED.
IF YOU CHOOSE TO NOT HAVE THIS, THAT WOULD BE OKAY, IT WOULD MEAN IF SOMETHING AROSE WHEN WE GET TOWARDS THE END OF A SESSION, YOU'LL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE INPUT ON THAT.
I COULD ASK MR. WADE IF HE HAS ANY COMMENTS AS WELL.
>> MR. WADE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IF WE HAD FOUR PEOPLE, WE WOULD HAVE TO POST IT AS AN AGENDA ITEM AND CALL A MEETING TO DISCUSS IT AND HANDLE IT THAT WAY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YEAH. I THINK WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE FLEXIBILITY FOR ON A SPUR OF MOMENT NOTICE, BE ABLE TO SIT THERE AND DISCUSS THINGS WITH OUR LEGISLATORS.
IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BE BINDING THE CITY TO ANYTHING AS FAR AS AN AGREEMENT GOES, BUT WOULD SIMPLY BE ASKING THEM, THIS IS WHERE WE WOULD ASK FOR YOU TO SIT THERE AND PURSUE FROM A LEGISLATION STANDPOINT.
TRUE THAT IF WE HAD MORE THAN THE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WITH THE MAYOR THAT WOULD CREATE A QUORUM, WHICH WE WOULD HAVE TO POST.
THERE'S NOT AN EXCEPTION IN THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT, SO WE HAVE TO GIVE THE 72 HOURS NOTICE BEFORE WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO MEET AND CONSULT WITH ONE ANOTHER.
BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT THAT IN THIS AS FAR AS THE DIRECTIVE GOES, IS COMPLETELY UP TO THIS COUNCIL.
AND IT'S JUST MEANT FOR A CONVENIENCE AND AN UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE COUNCIL THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU COULD SIT THERE AND ACTUALLY TALK TO OUR LEGISLATORS ABOUT CITY BUSINESS.
AGAIN, IT COULDN'T TECHNICALLY BE BINDING THE CITY COUNCIL TO ANYTHING.
BUT IT'S PURELY A POLICY DECISION ON THE PART ALSO.
>> IT'S IN MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S REALLY DESIGNED TO MEET THAT SITUATION WHERE THE 72 HOURS WOULD REALLY MAKE THE WHOLE DISCUSSION MOOT ALMOST.
>> THINGS HAPPEN AT THE LEGISLATURE THAT ARE ALMOST SPONTANEOUS.
>> THEY MOVE VERY SLOWLY UNTIL THEY DON'T.
[01:00:01]
>> UNTIL THE VERY END, IT SEEMS. UNTIL UNTIL THEY HAVE A DEADLINE TO WHICH EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PASSED.
BUT YES, IT CERTAINLY CAN BE THAT WAY.
>> THAT DOESN'T REALLY SHIFT MY PERSPECTIVE ON IT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF MAKING IT OUR POLICY THAT WE'RE GOING TO DELIBERATELY CIRCUMVENT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CHARTER AND STATE LAW IN ORDER TO MOVE QUICKLY ON SOMETHING.
IF WE CAN'T DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, WE SHOULDN'T DO IT AT ALL.
WE JUST NEED TO ACCEPT WITH THAT FACT THAT AS A DELIBERATIVE BODY, WE ARE GOING TO MOVE SLOWER THAN THE LEGISLATURE.
IF WE CAN'T DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, LET'S NOT DO IT.
>> DON'T BE SURPRISED, BUT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCIL MEMBER GLASHEEN, AND HAVING BEEN THAT COUNCIL MEMBER THAT HAS BEEN LEFT OUT OF THINGS AND KNOWLEDGE IS POWER.
I DON'T ALWAYS AGREE WHEN CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS ARE INCLUDED AND ALL OTHERS ARE NOT.
WE'VE SEEN RESISTANCE IN OTHER AREAS.
I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? MR. COLLINS.
>> MARY, IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE PUT TOGETHER ABOUT TWO PAGES OF THINGS THAT ARE PRIORITIES FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK AND FOR THIS BODY.
I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE THAT THESE THINGS BE ACTED UPON IF THEY ARE CONTRADICTORY TO THESE TWO PAGES OF PRIORITIES THAT WE ARE SET TO TO OUTLINE TODAY.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, I THINK THEN OTHERWISE, WHY WOULD WE NEED THE REPRESENTATIVES THAT WE VOTED TO HIRE LAST WEEK? IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACT UPON THE INFORMATION THAT THEY PROVIDE TO US? THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ALL TO CONSIDER.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'VE CALLED ON EVERYBODY.
SOMETIMES I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THIS ISSUE? YES.
>> YES, SIR. I'LL MARK THIS ONE WITH A QUESTION MARK.
LET'S WORK THROUGH THE REST OF IT AND COME BACK BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT, WE'LL LEAVE IT, IF WE'RE GOING TO PULL IT, PULL IT, AND THEN WE'LL END UP WITH A FINAL DOCUMENT.
>> IN OTHER WORDS, WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT.
YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH IT AND I THINK THAT'S OR. MR. GLASHEEN.
>> BECAUSE THE WAY THIS DOCUMENT IS DRAFTED, I THINK THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO OFFER THIS COMMENT, BUT I'M GENERALLY OPPOSED TO TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S RIGHT FOR THE CITY TO TAKE TAX DOLLARS FROM CITIZENS TO LOBBY.
LOBBYING IS JUST A EUPHEMISM FOR GIVING MONEY TO POLITICIANS AND OTHER DISTRICTS.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO ME AS WE GO THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT THAT WE'RE NOT ALLOWING CITY TO USE TAX DOLLARS TO WORK AGAINST THE POLITICAL INTERESTS OF OUR CITIZENS AND TAXPAYERS.
I ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO USE TAX DOLLARS TO INTERFERE WITH THE WORK OF OUR ELECTED LEADERS AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL.
AS WE GO INTO SOME OF THESE PRIORITIES, THERE ARE SOME GOOD PRIORITIES THAT I WOULD SUPPORT AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN, LIKE INCREASED FUNDING FOR TEXAS TECH.
BUT THESE FUNDING PRIORITIES ARE ALSO GOING TO CALL FOR MORE SPENDING ON SPECIAL INTEREST PROJECTS, AND THAT'S GOING TO LEAD TO HIGHER TAXES, OR THE VAGUENESS OF SOME OF THESE WE CAN ADDRESS AS WE COME ON, BUT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ADVOCATING FOR LOWER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC.
IF WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THIS PAGE, I WOULD SIMPLY AMEND OUR LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES TO LIMIT IT TO WHAT I THINK IS REALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO BE INVOLVED IN, WHICH IS OUR SPECIFIC ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND COMPLETION OF THE LAKE 7 PROJECT.
WE COULD AMEND THIS SIMPLY TO SAY THAT THE CITY WILL MONITOR PROPOSED LEGISLATION, LIMIT OUR ADVOCACY TO THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS AND APPROVAL OF FEDERAL APPROVAL OF LAKE SEVEN.
>> MR. ECKERSON, WOULD YOU MIND MOVING FORWARD TO THE REST OF IT, THEN SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE HOW MR. GLASHEEN IS LIMITING THOSE PRIORITIES?
>> COUNSEL, ON THE TOP OF THE PAGE, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS SUGGESTING THE CITY WOULD INITIATE.
THESE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AND REVIEWED WITH OUR DELEGATION.
THE FIRST WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS TO PROTECT
[01:05:01]
MUNICIPAL CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND CYBERSECURITY SYSTEM INFORMATION FROM DISCLOSURE WHEN SUCH WOULD JEOPARDIZE THOSE ESSENTIAL SERVICES.THE SECOND APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS TO REMOVE FROM THE TEXAS PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSIONS RATE JURISDICTION, MATTERS CONCERNING A WHOLESALE WATER OR WASTEWATER CONTRACT ENTERED INTO AND STRICTLY BETWEEN MUNICIPALITIES AND ALLOW DISPUTES CONCERNING THOSE CONTRACTS TO BE RESOLVED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT OR BY A COURT OF COMPETENT JURISDICTION.
TODAY, I'LL GIVE YOU JUST A LITTLE QUICK BACKGROUND.
TODAY, WHEN YOU ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AND ANOTHER CITY, YOU'VE DONE TWO RECENTLY, WOOLFORTH, AND SHALLOW WATER.
IF THERE BECOMES AT ANY POINT DURING THE TERM OF THAT CONTRACT A DISPUTE INVOLVING THE AGREED UPON RATE, THE RATE THAT TWO GOVERNING BODIES, TWO GROUPS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE AGREED TO.
THE WAY THE STATUTES OR ACTUALLY THE REGULATIONS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN TODAY, THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION IS INTERJECTED IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO BODIES.
WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT THEY NOT.
NO THAT THE TWO BODIES CAN'T HAVE A DISPUTE, BUT THAT THAT DISPUTE NOT GO THROUGH THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE TWO ITEMS, WHICH ARE REALLY MAJOR CONCERNS OF OURS.
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO THE REMAINING ITEMS.
>> UNDER YOUR GENERAL SUPPORT CATEGORY, THE FIRST IS REALLY A PRETTY BROAD CATCH ALL, AND THAT'S EFFORTS THAT ARISE THAT SUPPORT THE CONTINUED GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF LOBO.
THE SECOND, EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE STATE'S WATER CHALLENGES AND RELATED FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES.
OUR OWN SENATOR PERRY HAS RECENTLY PASSED DOLLARS THROUGH A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT THAT REALLY SUPPORT THE ABILITY OF CITIES TO WORK ON WATER.
I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE STATE TO CONSIDER DOING MORE.
IF SO, WE SHOULD SUPPORT THAT.
EFFORTS TO FUND THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERSTATE 27 FROM ITS CURRENT LIMITS TO INTERSTATE HIGHWAY STANDARDS.
LONG TERM FUNDING FOR THE REMAINING DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF LOOP 88.
COUNCIL, THOSE THAT SERVE ON THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION.
NO, BUT THE OTHERS MAY NOT HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE.
>> THERE ARE A LARGE AMOUNT OF THE DOLLARS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR LOCAL PROJECTS, WHAT WE CALL CATEGORY 7 FUNDING, THAT HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO HELP LOOP 88.
HELP LOOP 88 REDUCES SOME OF YOUR INNER CITY TYPE ROADS.
BUT EVEN FOR THAT TO CONTINUE, IT'S NOT ENOUGH ON ITS OWN TO GET LOOP 88 FINISHED.
LOOP 88 WILL BE A MANY YEAR PROJECT.
THE NEXT IS TO ALLOW CITIES THE OPTIONS OF USING EITHER AN OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER OR A WEBSITE FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LEGAL NOTICES.
EFFORTS TO REQUIRE THE COMPTROLLER TO AUTOMATICALLY PROVIDE CITY-SPECIFIC LOCAL SALES TAX INFORMATION ONLY TO THAT PARTICULAR CITY, US, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS UNDER THE TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT.
THE FLOW OF SALES TAX DOLLARS, A LOCAL VENDOR, A RETAILER, THEY SUBMIT ALL OF THE DOLLARS TO THE STATE.
THE CONTROLLER TAKES THOSE, THEY CALCULATE THE PORTION THAT COMES BACK LOCALLY AND THEN WE GET THAT DEPOSIT.
WHAT WE DON'T GET IS INFORMATION WHEN WE'VE HAD A MAJOR ADJUSTMENT PUT IN PLACE BY THE COMPTROLLER, OR REALLY A WAY TO WATCH AND SEE, WHAT SECTORS ARE STARTING TO WEIGH OR TO BENEFIT ON THE SALES TAX? THAT'S THAT PAGE, SO MAYOR, WE'LL STOP AND GET YOUR INPUT HERE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON WHAT APPEARS ON THIS PAGE? MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE.
CHANGES TO THE SALES TAX REFUND AND REALLOCATION PROCESS THAT CONVERTS THE CONTROLLER'S MINISTERIAL PROCESS INTO A FORMALIZED ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
THIS IS NOT CHANGING THE AMOUNTS THAT ANYBODY PAYS.
THIS IS AGAIN, THE PROCESS BY WHICH OUR LOCAL SALES TAX ENDS UP BEING ADJUSTED AFTER IT'S HAPPENED.
SECOND ONE, EFFORTS TO REQUIRE MARKET PLACE PROVIDERS OR FACILITATORS OF SHORT TERM RENTALS TO REMIT THE LOCAL PORTION OF THE HOT TAX DIRECT TO THE APPROPRIATE MUNICIPALITY.
YOUR LOCAL HOTELS HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT YOUR MARKET PLACE PROVIDERS, THINK THE BIG ONLINE SERVICE PROVIDERS, THEY DO NOT.
[01:10:03]
YOU'VE REALLY CREATED TWO DIFFERENT PLAYING FIELDS BASED ON WHETHER YOU'RE A SHORT TERM RENTAL OR YOU'RE A MORE TRADITIONAL HOTEL OR MOTEL.CHANGES TO CHAPTER 143, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE THAT WOULD ENHANCE POLICE AND FIRE CHIEFS' AUTHORITY IN PERSONNEL MATTERS.
INCLUSION OF THE LARGE FIRE DEPARTMENTS IN MATTERS BEFORE THE TEXAS COMMISSION OF FIRE PROTECTION, TCFP.
THAT IS THE BOARD THAT ESTABLISHES MANY OF THE STANDARDS AND THE RULES BY WHICH ALL THE DEPARTMENTS OPERATE AND THAT'S GOOD.
THAT DRIVES A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT COST AT TIMES, AND THE WAY THAT BOARD IS CURRENTLY STRUCTURED, THE LARGER FIRE DEPARTMENTS REALLY DON'T HAVE A VOICE IN IT.
NEXT, DISCUSSION OF FUNDING FOR TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY, THE TEXAS TECH VETERINARY SCHOOL, AND THE TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTE.
FULL FUNDING FOR THE TEXAS RECREATION AND PARKS ACCOUNT LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM.
THE SALES TAX THAT'S COLLECTED ON SPORTING GOODS IS TO BE RETURNED TO TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE TO ESTABLISH A LOCAL GRANT PROGRAM.
CITY HAS BEEN THE BENEFICIARY OF THAT IN YEARS PAST.
WE HAVE ELIGIBILITY UNDER THAT PROGRAM AGAIN AND NOT EVERY LEGISLATIVE SESSION DOES THE FULL AMOUNT OF THAT PARTICULAR SALES TAX GO BACK INTO THAT GRANT PROGRAM.
I THINK THE CITY SHOULD SUPPORT CONTINUED STATE FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT.
AGAIN, LED BY SENATOR PERRY IN THE LAST SESSION, THE STATE MADE A HUGE EFFORT TO THAT AND WE ARE RECEIVING SOME GREAT BENEFITS TO THE LUBBOCK COMMUNITY.
I THINK THE STATE SHOULD CONTINUE THAT EFFORT, AND IF THEY DO, WE SHOULD SUPPORT.
THE NEXT ONE, DESIGNATION OF A PORTION OF SOUTH LOOP 88 FROM APPROXIMATELY HIGHWAY 87 TO HIGHWAY 62 WAS FIRST RESPONDER MEMORIAL HIGHWAY.
COUNCIL, THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS FOLLOWING THE HORRIBLE ACCIDENT WE HAD THAT ULTIMATELY COST US THE LIVES OF THREE OF OUR RESPONDERS.
I DO KNOW THAT THIS IS A MATTER THAT ONE OR BOTH OF OUR LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS ARE WORKING DIRECTLY TO INITIATE.
I THINK IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT, WE WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER SUPPORTING IT.
THEN THE LAST BULLET ON THIS PAGE, LEGISLATION ENHANCING LOCAL AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS STRAY AND LOOSE ANIMAL ISSUES.
WE KNOW THAT REPRESENTATIVE TEPPER IS WORKING ON THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME WOULD BE.
WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT AND HELP IT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ITEMS ON PAGE NUMBER 3? LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PAGE.
>> THREE BULLETS ON THE CITY WOULD OPPOSE, LEGISLATION TO DIMINISH OR RESTRICT AN ELECTED COUNCIL'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE NECESSARY AND REQUIRED SERVICES TO THE RESIDENTS IN THE COMMUNITY.
INCREASED PASS-THROUGH OR REGULATORY FEES ON CITIES THAT WE COLLECT FOR OR ON BEHALF OF THE STATE.
WHAT'S COMMONLY CALLED UNFUNDED MANDATES, BUT THE IMPOSITION OF MANDATES THAT DO NOT PROVIDE FOR COMMENSURATE LEVEL OF COMPENSATION.
>> SEE NONE. MOVE TO THE FINAL PAGE THEN.
>> THIS WOULD BE YOUR FEDERAL LEVEL.
SUPPORT ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY SYSTEMS. BACK TO I27, THE TEXAS PORTION OF THE PORTS TO PLAINS CORRIDOR, NORTH AND SOUTH OF LUBBOCK.
CONTINUED FUNDING FOR YOUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND YOUR HOME PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.
NUMBER 4, EFFORTS THROUGH WHAT WE CALL AAAE, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF AIRPORT EXECUTIVES, TO ENSURE THAT THE EPA, THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, PROVIDES AIRPORTS AND MUNICIPAL FIRE DEPARTMENTS WITH PROTECTION FROM CERCLA.
AND I CANNOT CALL OUT WHAT CERCLA MEANS.
IT IS YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS.
YOUR CERCLA LIABILITY, IF IT CAN BE SHOWN, THAT THE AIRPORT'S USE OF AFFF, AQUEOUS FIRE FIGHTING FOAM, COMPLIED WITH FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND THAT THE USE WAS DISCONTINUED WHEN THE HAZARDS WERE IDENTIFIED OR THAT WE WERE PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE.
THIS IS RELATED TO PFAS OR WHAT SOME NOW WANT TO CALL THE FOREVER CHEMICALS.
WE ARE REQUIRED TO USE AN AFFF PRODUCT THAT CONTAINS PFAS CHEMICALS.
WE HAVE TO OR WE CANNOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL AIRPORT.
BUT PFAS IS BECOMING AN ISSUE.
WE KNOW THAT. WE WOULD PREFER TO QUIT USING IT.
WE USE IT NOWHERE OTHER THAN AT THE AIRPORT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE YET.
WE DON'T WANT THE CITY TO GET CAUGHT LATER IN
[01:15:03]
A CATCH 22 THAT WE DID WHAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO DO BY FEDERAL REGULATION, BUT IT CREATED FOR YOU AN ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITY.THEN FINALLY, A CATCH-ALL AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, EFFORTS TO SUPPORT COMMUNITIES IN THEIR GROWTH DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. ATKINSON. ANY QUESTIONS DIRECTED TO MR. ATKINSON OVER ANY PARTICULAR ITEM THAT WE'VE COVERED? MR. COLLINS.
>> SIR, ON OUR FINAL PAGE IN OUR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE SOMETHING REGARDING THE CONTINUED EFFORTS FOR LAKE 7 AND THE FINAL APPROVAL? I BELIEVE THAT'S A 404.
I GET MY ALPHABET SOUP MIXED UP, SIR, BUT WE'RE NOW AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IN TERMS OF THE APPROVAL OF THE DAM, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT, AND WE COULD DRAFT.
CITY WOULD SUPPORT SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF EFFORTS TO PROVIDE APPROVAL FOR LUBBOCK LAKE 7 THROUGH THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING PROCESS.
>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
>> MR. ATKINSON OR MR. WADE, WOULD WE NEED TO MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION OR HOW WOULD WE ADD AN ITEM TO THIS LEGISLATIVE AGENDA?
>> WELL, THERE PROBABLY ARE A COUPLE OF WAYS THAT WE CAN DO THIS.
WE CAN EITHER DO IT ON AN ITEM-BY-ITEM BASIS OR WE CAN DO A COMPREHENSIVE.
WE'RE KEEPING MITCH AND I AND JARED, AND I'M SURE OUR CITY SECRETARY IS TOO TRYING TO KEEP A LIST OF THINGS THAT WE MAY WANT OR REMOVE.
DEPENDS ON SOMETHING LIKE THAT, PERHAPS YOU CAN GO THROUGH WHEN COUNCILMAN COLLINS MAKES A SUGGESTION LIKE THAT.
SAY IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION JUST GENERALLY, WITHOUT TAKING A VOTE FROM ANYONE ELSE IN THE COUNCIL FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, THEN WE CAN KEEP THAT LIST AND THEN [OVERLAPPING].
>> GET A SENSE OF WHAT IS WANTED.
[OVERLAPPING] WE WILL HAVE ONE MOTION THAT WRAPS UP WHAT EVERYBODY WANTS.
>> WELL, IF YOU HAVE A LIST OF THINGS MAYBE THAT IS REALLY NOT THAT CONTENTIOUS, IF YOU WILL, THEN WE CAN KEEP A LIST FOR THOSE THINGS, AND THEN THE OTHER ONES, WE CAN DO ONE BY ONE.
>> I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE KEEPING THAT LIST.
>> I'VE GOT MULTIPLE PEOPLE OUT HERE THEY'RE GOING TO CORRECT THEY'RE GOING TO CORRECT MY WORK AT THE END.
>> THIS IS THE SEASON FOR MAKING LISTS. YOU'LL DO THAT.
ANYBODY ELSE OTHER THAN WHAT MR. COLLINS AND I THINK THAT WAS WELL TAKEN, MR. COLLINS.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER ITEMS? LET'S TAKE THIS IN THE POSITION OF ANY ITEMS THEY FEEL LIKE NEED TO BE ADDED TO OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AT THIS POINT.
ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY COMING UP ON MY COMPUTER.
THEN, OF COURSE, MR. GLASHEEN, I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE HAD SEVERAL ITEMS YOU WANTED REMOVED.
I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE BEST WAY TO TAKE THAT IS ITEM BY ITEM BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WE'D HAVE A CONSENSUS ON EVERY ITEM.
>> I THINK THAT IF WE'RE DOING REMOVAL OF ITEMS, WE ARE PROBABLY OUGHT TO DO A VOTE ON ITEM BY ITEM.
>> WELL, LET'S CLEAR THIS ITEM OUT IF WE CAN.
FIRST OF ALL, WITH A MOTION TO AMEND, TO ADD.
CAN WE DO THAT? WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS POINT?
>> MOTION TO ADD THAT TO THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION EFFORTS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE FINE.
>> MR. COLLINS, YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION?
>> I WOULD, SIR. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ADD LANGUAGE TO OUR FEDERAL AGENDA THAT INCLUDES ASSISTANCE AND CONTINUED HELP WITH OUR EFFORTS OF LAKE 7, AND PARTICULARLY WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND PERMITS FOR THE DAM.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
>> YES, PLEASE. [OVERLAPPING].
>> CITY WILL SUPPORT EFFORTS TO ACHIEVE REGULATORY APPROVAL OF LAKE 7 THROUGH THE UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMITTING PROCESS.
>> IS THAT YOUR MOTION, MR. COLLINS?
>> I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, SIR, BUT IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE THAT ONE, THAT'S FINE WITH ME. [OVERLAPPING]
>> NOW EVERYBODY KNOWS ANY DISCUSSION OF THAT ITEM PROPOSED BY MR. COLLINS? I SEE NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF ADDING MR. COLLINS'S AMENDMENT OR AMENDING
[01:20:04]
THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA TO ADD MR. COLLINS'S ITEM.PLEASE LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? I HEAR NONE. THANK YOU.
NOW, MR. GLASHEEN, IT'S I THINK BEST TO TAKE UP INDIVIDUALLY YOUR PARTICULAR CONCERNS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MY CONCERNS ARE REALLY I THINK TOO EXTENSIVE TO BE EFFICIENTLY ADDRESSED IN THAT MANNER.
I'LL DEFER TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, IF THERE ARE ANY AGENDA ITEMS THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER REMOVING, THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE PRODUCTIVE TO DISCUSS THAT RIGHT NOW.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SECOND THE DISCUSSION ON REMOVING ALMOST ANY OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS. BUT OTHERWISE, I'LL NOT MAKE A MOTION RIGHT NOW.
>> IN INTEREST OF EFFICIENCY, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER COUNCIL PERSON WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE AN ITEM, PLEASE DO SO NOW.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT DOESN'T SHOW UP ONLINE.
I TRIED. THERE WE GO. MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> I KNOW THAT COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN BROUGHT UP OR ADDRESSED ON PAGE 1 THE NUMBER OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.
CAN WE DISCUSS THAT A LITTLE BIT?
>> YOU'D NEED TO MAKE A MOTION, I THINK, ON THAT.
DO YOU WANT A MOTION JUST TO STRIKE IT?
>> NO. I DON'T WANT TO REGRESS OUR PROGRESS OF THIS WHOLE THING BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE I'M GOOD WITH, BUT I DO QUESTION THAT WE WOULD LIMIT OURSELVES TO A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I GET IT. EVERYTHING MOVES IN A FAST SPEED AND I UNDERSTAND HAVING TO POST IT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE AWARE.
HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT? WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO ADDRESS SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>> WELL, I GUESS MY THOUGHT AT THE MOMENT, IS IF YOU MAKE A MOTION WE GET A SECOND, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.
THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH DISCUSSING IT AT THIS POINT, IS THERE?
>> IT'S PURELY ON HOW THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO IT.
NORMALLY, PROPER PROCEDURE WOULD BE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND DISCUSSION, BUT YOU CAN HAVE GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE [OVERLAPPING]
>> TEASE IT UP FOR A DISCUSSION, MAYOR PRO TEM, IF YOU WISH TO DO THAT.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT.
>> I PERHAPS, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, MAYOR, IF I COULD ADD SOMETHING, I THINK LOGICALLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN DURING LEGISLATION IS YOUR LEGISLATORS MAY ACTUALLY FROM OUR AREA, MAY ACTUALLY REACH OUT TO US AND THEY'RE GOING TO ASK FOR SOME TYPE OF INPUT BACK FROM US.
I THINK THIS PARTICULAR SECTION THAT YOU HAVE IN THERE WAS DESIGNED THAT INSTEAD OF IT JUST BEING THE MAYOR BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CALL IF THEY WANTED AN ELECTED PERSON.
THE MAYOR DOES ACT AS THE FIGUREHEAD REPRESENTATIVE OF THE GOVERNING BODY, CAN'T COMMIT OR BIND THE CITY TO DO ANYTHING.
THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION RIGHT HERE, BEFORE HE ACTUALLY RESPONDED BACK, WOULD REQUIRE HIM TO TALK TO A COUPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY.
GOING MORE THAN THAT, THEN WE RUN INTO AN OPEN MEETINGS ACT ISSUE.
YOU COULD DO ANYTHING FROM MOVING TO AMEND THIS TO SAY THAT UNLESS IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CALL FOR A COUNCIL MEETING AND THE MAYOR MAY RESPOND TO THE LEGISLATORS.
OTHERWISE, HE WOULD CALL A COUNCIL MEETING FOR US TO DISCUSS AFTER PROPERLY POSTING.
I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN SIT THERE AND COME UP WITH ARTFUL LANGUAGE.
IF MITCH WANTS TO CHIME IN AND GIVE US ARTFUL LANGUAGE.
[01:25:02]
I CERTAINLY WOULD ASK FOR HIS ASSISTANCE, BUT HE'S BEING QUIET OVER HERE NEXT TO ME.>> LET ME JUST ASK YOU THIS QUESTION, MR. WADE, DOES THIS NECESSARILY NEED TO BE INCLUDED ON OUR LEGISLATIVE AGENDA? I'M SEEING MR. ATKINSON NOD HIS HEAD.
>> YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THAT'S YOURS, SO YOU COULD STRIKE IT.
>> NO, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT IT WOULD NORMALLY BE A PART OF THIS LEGISLATIVE AGENDA, AND YOU BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IF YOU WISH TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING IN THIS FASHION, I STRONGLY SUGGEST THE LANGUAGE BE ON THE AGENDA.
>> BECAUSE ULTIMATELY WHAT IT'S NOT A WHOLE LOT DIFFERENT THAN THE COUNCIL AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO DO X, Y, Z.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE DOING THROUGH THIS.
>> WELL, YOU'VE DEALT WITH THE SITUATION BEFORE.
THE CITY HAS DEALT WITH THAT SITUATION BEFORE, NONE OF US HAVE.
>> MR. WADE, WITH A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT OPENS THE FLOOR FOR DISCUSSION OF ALL ITEMS THAT WE HAVE SET FORTH ON THE AGENDA.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. SO FAR, YOU ALL HAVE ONLY VOTED ON ONE THING, WHICH IS TO ADD SOMETHING TO IT.
IF YOU DO A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, THAT WOULD OPEN UP THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT THEN TO FULL DISCUSSION FOR ANYTHING YOU'LL WANT TO DO IN THE DOCUMENT. THAT'S CORRECT.
>> GIVEN THAT, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AS PRESENTED AND AMENDED.
VERY GOOD. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT?
>> MOTION IN A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.
PLEASE LET IT KNOW. EXCUSE ME NOW YOUR DISCUSSION.
I PROBABLY WAS TRYING TO DO THIS.
NOW YOUR DISCUSSION. MR. GLASHEEN.
>> BEFORE ADOPTING THIS, I'LL MAKE AN ADDITIONAL MOTION REGARDING THIS PARAGRAPH ON CONSULTATION.
BECAUSE REALLY THE GOAL OF THIS CONSULTATION IS TO BE ABLE TO LEND THE AUTHORITY AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT TO INFLUENCE OUR LEGISLATURES.
BUT YOU'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT WITH LESS THAN QUORUM WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PROPER LEGAL PROCESS.
I THINK IT'S WRONG TO MAKE A POLICY THAT WE ARE GOING TO SIDESTEP THE CITY CHARTER AND STATE LAW JUST BECAUSE IT'S INCONVENIENT.
WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO STRIKE THE FINAL PARAGRAPH ON PAGE 1 DISCUSSING THE CONSULTATION.
>> NOW WE HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND THIS MOTION TO STRIKE THAT FULL PARAGRAPH.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OF THE REMAINDER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ITEMS. DR. WILSON.
>> MR. GLASHEEN, I HAVE A QUESTION.
IN THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, HOW OFTEN DID THIS HAPPEN TO WHERE THE MAYOR AND TWO COUNCIL PEOPLE HAD TO MAKE SOME TYPE OF EXECUTIVE DECISION WITH OUR STATE LEGISLATORS DURING SESSION?
>> IT DID NOT HAPPEN DURING THE LAST SESSION.
THE 2023 SESSION, IT DID NOT HAPPEN.
IN '19, THERE WERE SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAME UP, BUT AGAIN, IT'S ONLY AT THE VERY END AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WASN'T CONTEMPLATED.
>> I THINK MY QUESTION TO THAT, IF YOU'D TOLD ME, WELL, THIS HAPPENED 72 TIMES, I GOT 72 PHONE CALLS WITHIN THREE DAYS.
OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T CALL 72 MEETINGS.
I MEAN, THAT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE.
BUT IF IT'S NOT HAPPENING OR IF IT'S JUST ONE ITEM THAT MIGHT COME UP, I DO AGREE.
ONE OF THE THINGS IN GOVERNMENT THAT EVERYBODY HAS CONCERNED ABOUT IS LACK OF TRANSPARENCY.
WHEN CONVERSATIONS ARE HAPPENING BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, ALTHOUGH OUR STATE LEGISLATORS ARE NOT BOUND BY THAT, WE ARE.
I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH MR. GLASHEEN THAT IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE DISCUSSED FOR THE SAKE OF TRANSPARENCY.
THAT'S WHY I WAS I WAS GENUINELY CURIOUS BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THIS HAPPENING AT ALL.
IF IT'S NOT HAPPENING OR IF IT MAYBE AS ONE THING, I ACTUALLY AGREE WE PROBABLY SHOULD JUST CALL A MEETING AND DISCUSS IT.
>> MIGHT OFFER A COUNTERPOINT JUST A LITTLE BIT AND COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE FEW TIMES THAT IT HAS HAPPENED HERE.
SOMEBODY ASKED EARLIER, I THINK, MAYBE THE MAYOR PRO TEM, WELL, HOW DOES THE REST OF THE COUNCIL KNOW? AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WE HAD A LEGISLATIVE REPORT AND THE MAYOR AT THAT TIME,
[01:30:04]
OR SOMETIMES MYSELF WOULD SAY, THIS IS WHAT POPPED UP.THIS WAS THE POSITION THAT WAS THEN RELAYED BACK INTO THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
>> THE CONCERN I HAVE WITH THAT IS THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT POLITICAL OPINIONS FROM PEOPLE ON THIS COUNCIL.
>> I DO THINK YOU HAVE TO WEIGH EVERYBODY'S OPINION AND IF YOU ONLY DESIGNATE THREE PEOPLE, WHOEVER THAT MIGHT BE, YOU SWAY THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I DO THINK YOU SHOULD GIVE EVERYBODY PROBABLY THE OPPORTUNITY, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S RARE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, NO MATTER WHAT ULTIMATELY IS DECIDED, BUT I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER GLASHEEN AND MARTINEZ GARCIA THAT THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED VERSUS DECIDED BY THREE.
>> I'LL MAKE ONE LITTLE ATTEMPT THAT AND IT IS MORE IN THE FORM OF AN EXPLANATION.
YOU CAN'T HOLD A MEETING WITHOUT 72 HOURS PRIOR NOTICE.
THERE'S NOT A PROVISION BECAUSE THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION GOT IN A HURRY.
THIS WOULD ONLY TRIGGER IF YOU CHOOSE TO LEAVE IT IN, AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO TAKE IT OUT.
BUT THIS WOULD ONLY TRIGGER IF SOMETHING AROSE, AND IT DOESN'T SPECIFY THIS, SO MAYBE WE COULD ADD IT THAT DID NOT ALLOW FOR THE 72-HOUR NOTICE TO HOLD A PROPERLY POSTED MEETING.
I DON'T WANT IT TO COME ACROSS THAT THIS IS INTENDED TO BE ANY AND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS.
IT WOULD ONLY BE IN THOSE SITUATIONS TO WHERE YOU DID NOT HAVE 72 HOURS.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS APART FROM THAT, OR WITHOUT THAT, YOU FOREGO THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONSULT WITH YOUR LEGISLATORS ON THAT EMERGENCY ITEM.
YOU JUST WOULDN'T HAVE ANY INPUT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REASON IT'S IN HERE, THEY WANT OUR INPUT SINCE THEY REPRESENT US.
IF WE HAVE FOUR PEOPLE OR MORE, WE CANNOT DO IT WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE POSTING NOTICES AND SETTING AN AGENDA, 72 HOURS NOTICE.
AT SOME POINT, THAT MAY MAKE ANY INPUT WE HAVE ON THE ITEM MOOT AT THAT POINT. MAYOR PRO TEM.
JUDGE, YOU KNOW HOW BIG I AM ABOUT UPHOLDING NON PARTISANSHIP WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING CITY GOVERNMENT.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT HAS MADE ME SO APPREHENSIVE THAT ONLY THREE PEOPLE WOULD DETERMINE AND IF THEY ALL AGREE ON CERTAIN PARTIES OR PARTISANSHIP, THEN IT DOESN'T MAKE IT FAIR FOR EVERYONE.
BUT ON THAT NOTE, I'M GLAD TO KNOW THAT IT HAS NOT HAPPENED VERY OFTEN, SO THAT IS A LITTLE BIT COMFORTING.
THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS, I GUESS, WOULD WE GET A REPORT DURING AN EXECUTIVE SESSION OR HOW WOULD THAT BE HANDLED?
>> NO, I WOULD SUGGEST IF THIS HAPPENS, YOUR REPORT WOULD BE AN OPEN SESSION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING.
>> GIVEN THE COMPLEXITY AND QUESTIONS THAT ARE ARISING ABOUT THIS, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE TODAY TO NAME THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE GOING TO SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE? I FEEL LIKE WE HANDCUFF OURSELVES IF WE DON'T ALLOW FOR FAST ACTION IN LIGHT OF OUR AGENDA.
I DON'T THINK ANYTHING'S GOING TO COME TO THAT BOARD OR THAT GROUP IF IT ISN'T CONTRARY TO THE AGENDA THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT HERE.
WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE APPROVED THIS AGENDA, AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE APPROVED THE DIRECTION WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR LEGISLATORS FOLLOW, THE IDEAS THAT WE WANT THEM TO CONTINUE TO PROMOTE.
UNLESS IT IS CONTRARY TO THAT AGENDA, IT'S NOT GOING TO COME BACK TO US ANYWAY.
I'M IN FAVOR OF LEAVING THIS ALONE, BUT I'M ALSO PERFECTLY WILLING TO SET THE BOARD THAT'S GOING TO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE MAYOR AND THE CITY STAFF HERE TODAY.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I CAN ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
IT CERTAINLY IT COULD BE DONE.
>> ABSOLUTELY COULD YOU COULD ABSOLUTELY NAME THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL THAT HAVE TO
[01:35:03]
BE NOTIFIED BY THE MAYOR WHEN HE GETS CONTACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE ON THIS ISSUE, YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF MOTION AND PUT THAT IN THERE.>> YOU PROBABLY NEED AN ALTERNATIVE OR AN ALTERNATE IN CASE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR CONTACT.
>> WELL, SO A COUPLE OF THINGS.
I WOULD SUGGEST NOT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE REASON THAT YOU THAT THEN STARTS GOING DOWN A LINE OF ALL YOUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND THAT DEFINITELY, KEEP IN MIND THAT NO MATTER WHAT, ALL THIS IS DOING IS ALLOWING YOU TO RESPOND AND SAY, LOOK, THIS IS HOW LUBBOCK MIGHT BE.
WE CAN'T CIRCUMVENT THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT IN THE SENSE OF CREATING A BINDING ACT ON THE PART OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.
IF IT'S GOING TO BE BINDING [OVERLAPPING].
>> YES. THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN, THIS IS CONSULTANT.
>> IT HAS TO COME TO A MEETING. THIS IS JUST MERELY RESPONDING BACK, SAYING, HEY, THERE'S A BILL ON THE FLOOR, AND I WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT I TALKED TO LUBBOCK, AND LUBBOCK SAYS, THIS WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT IN THERE, BUT IT IS NICE FOR OUR LEGISLATORS TO BE ABLE TO SAY THAT HEY, YES, I DID.
BUT ABSOLUTELY, I TALKED TO THE MAYOR OF LUBBOCK AND THE MAYOR SAYS THIS, AND THEN IT'S LIMITED TO THE MAYOR.
WHICH IS IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THERE AT ALL, AND THEY WANTED THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION, WHICH RARELY HAPPENS.
BUT IF THEY WANTED THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION AND THEY NEEDED IT ON THE FLOOR OF THE LEGISLATION, THEN IT CAN BE LIMITED TO JUST SIMPLY SAY, JUST MAKE SURE YOU LIMIT IT TO ME, BUT THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK THINKS THIS WILL BE A PROBLEM FOR LUBBOCK OR THIS WILL BE GREAT FOR LUBBOCK.
THIS REALLY IS JUST SAYING, HEY, BEFORE THAT EVEN HAPPENS, I WOULD TALK TO TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS AS WELL.
>> IT'S REALLY DESIGNED TO ASSIST OUR LEGISLATORS TO HAVE SOME INPUT ON SOMETHING.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE ONES VOTING ON AND DECIDING, NOT US.
THEY'RE THE ONES VOTING AND DECIDING IT, BUT THEY WANT OUR INPUT ON IT.
>> THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE LIMITED BY THIS.
>> THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY YEARN.
>> THEY'RE GOING TO E CALL YOU INDIVIDUALLY OR THEY'RE GOING TO CALL YOU ANYWAY?
>> THEY CAN CALL YOU ALL INDIVIDUALLY.
THEY COULD CALL EACH ONE OF YOU.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN COLLINS, YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD SIT THERE AND SAY, THE MAYOR, THE MAYOR PRO TEM, AND COUNCIL MEMBER FROM DISTRICT, WHATEVER, OR WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO, YOU CAN DO THAT.
YOU CAN STRIKE IT. IT'S NOT GOING TO END UP CHANGING PROBABLY WHAT'S REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN AT THE END OF THE DAY.
REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU AGREE ON, NOTHING WILL BE OFFICIALLY BINDING OR LEGALLY BINDING ON THE CITY OF LUBBOCK WITHOUT COMING BACK THROUGH A MEETING THAT'S POSTED WITH AN AGENDA ITEM.
>> THAT BEING SAID, I WOULD PERSONALLY RECOMMEND THE TWO SENIOR COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHICH WOULD BE MYSELF AND DR. WILSON TO BE THOSE FOLKS AND MAYBE I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE A BALANCE.
>> YOU'RE MAKING THAT FORM OF A MOTION?
>> TO AMEND THE LANGUAGE TO WHERE IT SAYS, CONSULT WITH THE TWO SENIOR COUNCIL MEMBERS?
>> I WOULD SAY MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBER.
>> YES, YOU SAY MAYOR PRO TEM, THE COUNCIL MEMBER FROM DISTRICT 5, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST FOR THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. IT'LL BE OVER IN MAY [LAUGHTER].
>> WE HOPE. WE'RE ALL GOING TO PROBABLY STILL BE HERE IN MAY.
WE DON'T NEED TO BE PASSING LANGUAGE THAT GOES OUT FURTHER THAN MAYOR.
>> THAT WOULD BE YOUR AMENDMENT?
>> THE MAYOR WILL CONSULT WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND THE COUNCIL PERSON FROM DISTRICT 5, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO ASSUME IS DR. WILSON. LET'S SEE.
>> I'M NOT GOING ANYWHERE, SO WE CAN NAME YOU IN IT.
THAT'S THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION TO AMEND? OH, MR. GLASHEEN.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY CRITICISM OF THE SELECTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS.
Y'ALL ARE BOTH VERY CAPABLE REPRESENTATIVES OF YOUR DISTRICT, BUT MY OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION IS STILL THAT YOU'RE DELIBERATELY CIRCUMVENTING THE CITY CHARTER AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF OPEN PUBLIC DELIBERATIONS IN ORDER TO GIVE THE WEIGHT, THE CREDIBILITY, THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK TO SUPPORT SOME LEGISLATION.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND IT'S SETTING THIS LEGISLATIVE AGENDA RIGHT NOW BY SAYING THAT THESE ARE OUR PRIORITIES AND SO YOU'RE ALLOWING LESS THAN
[01:40:03]
A QUORUM OF THE COUNCIL TO TAKE THE SAME DELIBERATIVE ACTION AND SETTING A LEGISLATIVE AGENDA THAT WE ARE DOING NOW TODAY IN PUBLIC WITH THE FULL QUORUM OF THE CITY COUNCIL.THE SELECTION OF THE INDIVIDUALS IS NOT THE PROBLEM, BUT WE CAN'T MAKE A POLICY TO DELIBERATELY VIOLATE THE LAW JUST BECAUSE IT'S CONVENIENT.
>> I WILL JUST RESPOND TO THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF THE LAW.
IT'S COUNCILS TAKING A VOTE ON ANYTHING.
IT'S CONSULTING WITH OUR LEGISLATORS. THAT'S HOW I VIEW IT.
I REALIZE YOU VIEW IT DIFFERENTLY THAN I DO, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE I'M VOTING ON OR WE'LL BE VOTING ON ANYTHING THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE OPEN RECORDS OR OPEN MEETINGS.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO AMEND THIS TO ADD SPECIFICALLY, THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND DR. WILSON TO THOSE TWO PEOPLE THAT I WILL CONSULT WITH.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE, AYE.
ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. THAT PASSES 5:02:1.
ARE THERE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS? IS THAT APPROPRIATE, MR. WADE? NOW I HAVE TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY FURTHER AMENDMENTS? THANK YOU.
ARE THERE FURTHER AMENDMENTS TO THIS DOCUMENT? I'M NOT SURE I'M SEEING IF ANYBODY.
I DON'T SEE ANY NAMES COMING UP.
IS THERE A NEED TO TAKE ANY FURTHER VOTE OR DOES THAT CONCLUDE ALL THE VOTING WE NEED TO TAKE ON IT?
>> THE UNDERLYING MOTION IS STILL NEEDS TO BE VOTED ON BECAUSE THAT WAS JUST A MOTION TO AMEND IT.
>> ONE IS ADDING, AND THEN ONE IS CHANGING THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT PARAGRAPH.
THAT'S TWO AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
>> EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON NOW.
IS OUR FINAL VOTE? I NEED A MOTION. NO FURTHER MOTIONS?
>> I HAVE A MOTION. VERY GOOD.
NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. LET'S TAKE THE VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE, AYE, ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY.
NAY. IT PASSES 5:1. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'VE EXHAUSTED ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, SO THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED [MUSIC].
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.