>> I WILL NOW OPEN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF
[1. Executive Session]
[00:00:02]
THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR JANUARY 14TH, 2025.CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 TO CONSULT WITH AND SEEK THE ADVICE OF THE CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL, SECTION 551.072 TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE EXCHANGE LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY, SECTION 551.074 TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS, SECTION 551.087 REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND SECTION 551.089 TO DISCUSS SECURITY DEVICES AND/OR SECURITY AUDITS.
CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECESSING AT 11:01.
CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECONVENING INTO OPEN SESSION FROM OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION, AND IT IS 2:24.
I CAN'T TRUST THIS CLOCK UP HERE.
02:28 IS WHAT I THINK IT IS, PM, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS FIRST.
[1. Invocation]
I'M NOW GOING TO CALL ON EXECUTIVE PASTOR OF LAKERIDGE METHODIST CHURCH, BRIAN BROWNLOW, TO COME FORWARD AND LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION.>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WILL YOU PLEASE BOW WITH ME? HOLY FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOUR THRONE, JUST PRAYING THAT YOU WOULD GIVE GUIDANCE TO THESE MEN AND WOMEN WHO ARE MAKING DECISIONS HERE TODAY.
I THANK YOU FOR THEIR SERVICE.
I THANK YOU FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PUT THEMSELVES OUT THERE TO USE THE GIFTS AND GRACES THAT YOU'VE POURED INTO THEIR LIVES TO BE OF SERVICE TO THIS COMMUNITY AND TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE.
WE PRAY THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THEM IN ALL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIVES.
WE PRAY THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THEM IN THEIR FINANCES, AND THEIR FAMILIES, AND THEIR MARRIAGES, AND EVERY ASPECT OF WHAT THEY DO, AND THAT THEY WOULD SEE YOU.
ALL WE PRAY TODAY THAT WE'D HAVE YOUR WISDOM, THAT WE WOULD BE ABOUT YOUR BUSINESS, THAT WE WOULD DO THINGS THAT WOULD HONOR YOUR KINGDOM AND WOULD BLESS THE PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT CITY.
WE PRAY ALL OF THIS IN THE POWER AND THE CONFIDENCE THAT ALWAYS COMES WHEN WE CALL IN THE NAME OF JESUS.
[2. Pledges of Allegiance]
>> THANK YOU. IT'S GOOD TO HEAR ALL THOSE VOICES TOGETHER.
IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL HERE TODAY.
IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE CITIZENS SHOWING UP FOR THE BUSINESS THAT WE CONDUCT ON BEHALF OF OUR CITY.
[3. Citizen Comments - According to Lubbock City Council Rules, any citizen wishing to appear in-person before a regular meeting of the City Council, regarding any matter posted on the City Council Agenda below, shall complete the sign-up form provided at the meeting, no later than 2:00 p.m. on January 14, 2025. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items.]
WE TAKE THIS TIME FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO NOW SERIOUSLY.IT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO US.
I'M CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER TO TAKE UP CITIZEN COMMENTS, AND ACCORDING TO OUR COUNCIL RULES, ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ANY MATTER THAT'S POSTED ON OUR AGENDA FOR THAT DAY, HAS BEEN ASKED TO COMPLETE A SIGN UP FORM, AND HOPEFULLY, YOU'VE GIVEN US YOUR NAME AND YOUR INFORMATION.
WHEN I CALL YOU FORWARD, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.
A BELL WILL SOUND WHEN YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT TO WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS AND THEN A FINAL BELL AT THE END OF YOUR THREE MINUTE PERIOD.
I ASK YOU TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE HERE TODAY.
IT LOOKS LIKE 38 PEOPLE HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TODAY.
THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SHOWN UP TO SPEAK AND THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SHOWN UP TO BE PRESENT HERE AND TO BE SUPPORTIVE IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER OF THE ACTION THAT WE TAKE TODAY.
I'M GOING TO FIRST CALL ON MR. BILLY PHILLIPS.
I THINK THIS IS. BILLY PHILLIPS, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? MR. PHILLIPS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR, HONORABLE REPRESENTATIVES. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL.
I'VE COME HERE TODAY AS A CITIZEN OF LUBBOCK.
I LIVE AT 5227 KEMPER STREET IN YOUR DISTRICT, MR. COLLINS, AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
FIRST, LET ME COMMEND YOU ON THE STAFF THAT YOU HAVE IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
KATHERINE WELLS HAS DONE A TERRIFIC JOB.
YOU KNOW THAT, ESPECIALLY THROUGH THE COVID PANDEMIC.
SHE'S A GIFTED LEADER, PURSUING AND COMPLETING A DOCTORATE DEGREE IN THE FIELD, WELL RESPECTED AROUND THE STATE, AND SHE'S KNOWN FOR INNOVATION IN MANY WAYS.
[00:05:03]
THIS IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND ASSESSMENT PROCESS IS AN IMPORTANT STEP FOR OUR CITY.IT'S MERELY A GAUGE AGAINST WHICH WE CAN MEASURE OUR PROGRESS.
I SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENTS, HAVING DONE ONE FOR THE CITY SOME 15 YEARS AGO, THE VERY FIRST ONE.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THAT, IN MY FORMER ROLE AS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR RURAL AFFAIRS AT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER IS THAT NONE OF THESE ARE PERFECT.
YOU CAN APPLY THE SCIENCE AND HOPE FOR THE VERY BEST, YOU CAN USE STANDARD PROCESSES.
INDEED, THOSE PROCESSES WERE FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE, GOOD SURVEY, GOOD KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS, CITY MEETINGS WITH INTERESTED PEOPLE, BUT IT COMES DOWN TO THIS, AND YOU KNOW IT BETTER THAN ANYBODY.
YOU REALLY HAVE TO TAKE THE FINDINGS OF THESE THINGS AND THEN GO SEE YOUR CONSTITUENTS ABOUT WHAT THEIR OPINIONS ARE ABOUT THESE VARIOUS MATTERS.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS ONE, IN MY OPINION HAS BEEN DONE WELL.
THE BASIS ON WHICH IT WAS PRESENTED AND THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN SEEM TO FOLLOW EACH OTHER, SO I WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN IT IF I WERE TO COMMENT AS A PROFESSIONAL WHO'S DONE THESE FOR YEARS.
AS REPRESENTATIVES OF ALL OF THESE CONSTITUENTS THAT ARE HERE TODAY, IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROCESS THAT WE ALL OUGHT TO BE ENGAGED IN.
IT IS ACTUALLY A PROCESS WHERE YOU WANT TO ESTABLISH TRENDS AND TRAJECTORIES, AND THIS ONE HAS DONE THAT AND LED TO SOME OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE.
IT'S PRESENTED FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
IT'S JUST A WAY TO START THE CLOCK, SET SOME GAUGES, AND MONITOR THAT OVER TIME.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT STEP FOR OUR CITY, AND I THINK AS YOU PURSUE IT, YOU'LL FIND THAT THERE WILL BE SOME THINGS THAT HAVE WIDE ACCEPTANCE AND OTHER THINGS WHERE THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION, BUT IT'S A GOOD STUDY.
IT'S A GOOD IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO CONSIDER IT SERIOUSLY.
I WANT TO THANK YOU, AGAIN, FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY.
I'M HONORED TO BE A CITIZEN OF LUBBOCK, AND I PLAN TO RETIRE HERE SOON, AND I MAY BE DOWN HERE EVEN MORE OFTEN. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME HERE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MEMBERS.
ROBIN PHILLIPS, 3308 27TH STREET.
I'M HERE TODAY AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER TO AFFIRM MY SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
EVERY CITY HAS GAPS WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC HEALTH, WHETHER IT'S IN ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE, MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT, OR ADDRESSING HEALTH DISPARITIES.
THIS REPORT IS REALLY ABOUT JUST IDENTIFYING THOSE GAPS SO WE CAN TAKE ACTION TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY STRONGER.
IT IS NOT A FUNDING REQUEST, BUT RATHER IT'S A RESOURCE THAT PROVIDES US WITH MORE INFORMATION ON THE NEEDS AND CHALLENGES FACING OUR RESIDENTS, SO WE CAN MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS THAT HELP US WORK COLLECTIVELY TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
OTHER CITIES UTILIZED SIMILAR REPORTS SUCCESSFULLY, LEADING TO HEALTHIER MORE RESILIENT COMMUNITIES.
IN FACT, BASTROP COUNTY RECENTLY COMPLETED A SIMILAR REPORT WITH THE SAME CONTRACTOR USED FOR LUBBOCK.
I URGE YOU TO TAKE THE PROACTIVE STEP TOWARDS ENSURING THE WELL BEING OF ALL OUR RESIDENTS AND ACCEPT THE COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR DEDICATION TO THE CITY.
>> THANK YOU, MS. PHILLIPS. NEXT, CALL ON SARAH MCLARY.
>> YES. THANK YOU. I'M SARAH MCLARY.
YOU NEED AN ADDRESS FIRST? 2125 65TH STREET.
I'M GLAD TO HAVE THE CHANCE TO SPEAK TO YOU ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT.
ACCEPTANCE OF THE REPORT DOES NOT COMMIT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL TO ANY ACTION.
[00:10:05]
IT PROVIDES YOU WITH A BASELINE FOR MAKING POLICY, WHICH AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL.THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE POLICY IS THE DUTY OF THE CITY MANAGER.
WHEN IT COMES TO IMPLEMENTATION, THOUGH, I'D LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THE PART OF THE REPORT THAT PROPOSES MEASURES OF PREVENTATIVE CARE SUCH AS, FOR EXAMPLE, EDUCATION ON THE COSTS OF IMPAIRED DRIVING AND ON THE BENEFITS OF EARLY DIAGNOSIS OF AND THE ADVICE ON THE MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES.
ALSO, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT CAN OFFER IMPROVED COORDINATION OF INFORMATION ON RESOURCES AND SERVICES AVAILABLE THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS, MAKING IT EASIER FOR CITY DWELLERS TO KNOW WHERE TO GO FOR HELP AND TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN CARE.
THESE ARE PREVENTATIVE STRATEGIES.
PREVENTATIVE CARE PUTS THE CITY IN ALLIANCE WITH OUR US REPRESENTATIVE JODEY ARRINGTON, CHAIR OF THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE.
HIS MOST RECENT MAILING CELEBRATED HIS ROLE IN PASSING A BIPARTISAN LEGISLATION FAVORING PREVENTATIVE CARE BECAUSE, HE SAYS, IT CURBS LONG-TERM GROWTH IN HEALTHCARE SPENDING, SAVING TAXPAYERS MONEY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME, IT IMPROVES EVERYONE'S QUALITY OF LIFE.
THE FIRST STEP IN THIS HAPPY OUTCOME IS THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL'S FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
I URGE EACH OF YOU TO VOTE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU, AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU, MS MCLARY. NEXT, I CALL ON JO [INAUDIBLE]
>> MAYOR, ONE OF MY CHIEF COMPLAINTS WHEN I ATTEND A LARGE MEETING IS THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK CANNOT HEAR.
I THINK THESE MICROPHONES NEED TO BE TURNED UP OR SOMETHING. [APPLAUSE]
>> WHO'S IN CONTROL OF TURNING UP THE MICS AROUND HERE? I AGREE WITH YOU.
>> JO, WILL YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND MOVE THAT MIC TOWARDS YOU, PLEASE.
I'LL GET IT AS CLOSE AS I CAN WITHOUT SPITTING ON IT. IS THAT BETTER?
>> I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS BECAUSE I COULDN'T HEAR ON THE SECOND ROW.
>> ARE WE AT MAXIMUM? ARE WE AT 11?
>> IT DOES SOUND LIKE THE BACK SPEAKERS HAVE JUST SHUT DOWN.
YOU CAN CONTINUE OUR AUDIO GOING OUT IS WORKING PERFECTLY.
THE CHANNEL'S WORKING. THE BACK OF THE ROOM IS DEAD.
THEY NEED ABOUT 10 MINUTES FOR IT TO RECYCLE.
>> IF YOU DIDN'T HEAR THAT, IT'S LIKE ABOUT 10 MINUTES FOR THE SPEAKERS TO RECYCLE, APPARENTLY.
HOPEFULLY, IT WILL GET BETTER AS THE MEETING GOES ON, BUT RATHER THAN WAIT THE 10 MINUTES, WE'LL PROCEED AND JO, JUST TALK LOUD.
SO FAR, I'VE ONLY HEARD PEOPLE TALK ABOUT THE HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
ARE WE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE ANIMAL SERVICES?
>> YES, MA'AM. YOU CAN ADDRESS EITHER ONE.
ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA, YOU MAY ADDRESS.
>> I LIVE IN THE HEART OF LUBBOCK NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE HAVE A TERRIBLE PROBLEM WITH LOOSE ANIMALS.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION HAS TRIED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO ON OUR OWN AND WE ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL.
WE DID INVITE PEOPLE FROM ANIMAL SERVICES TO COME AND TALK TO US SO THAT WE WOULD KNOW WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
THEY WERE THE NICEST PEOPLE, AND THEY WORK EXTREMELY HARD.
WHAT THEY NEED ARE MORE PEOPLE AND MORE RESOURCES.
THE PEOPLE THEY HAVE ARE OVERWORKED.
THEY EVEN TAKE MONEY OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS TO BUY RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED ON THE JOB.
A CITY THE SIZE OF LUBBOCK SHOULD HAVE A COMPETENT ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT.
I THINK WE WILL BE IF WE APPROVE WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR.
THAT'S DEFINITELY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
ALSO, KATHERINE WELLS, IS A ROCK STAR IN THE WORLD OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
I CANNOT IMAGINE THAT ANYONE WOULD LOOK AT WHAT SHE HAS PROPOSED AND NOT BE
[00:15:04]
GRATEFUL FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR HEARTS THAT SHE HAS CHOSEN LUBBOCK AND IS GIVING US HER SERVICE, WHICH IS QUITE HONESTLY, NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED.THESE THINGS THAT SHE IS SUGGESTING ARE NOT PIE IN THE SKY.
THESE ARE COMMON SENSE, EVERY DAY, BEST PRACTICES, AND I URGE YOU TO APPROVE THE STATEMENTS THAT SHE HAS GIVEN TO US.
>> THANK YOU, MS. [INAUDIBLE] [APPLAUSE] FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYBODY, FORTUNATELY, IT IS TOTALLY DEAD.
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A 10-MINUTE BREAK AND LET THEM GET IT RECYCLED SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN HEAR.
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT THAT'S THE BEST WAY.
AS SOON AS WE GET IT FIXED, WE'LL BE BACK WITH OUR MEETINGS, SO WE'RE GOING TO ADJOURN BRIEFLY TO TAKE CARE OF THAT.
SPEAK AMONG YOURSELVES, WHATEVER YOU WANT, AND I'LL CALL US BACK INTO SESSION HERE IN A MOMENT.
I'LL CALL US BACK INTO SESSION, AND THANK YOU FOR STICKING AROUND.
THEY WORKED BEFORE THE MEETING, BUT I GUESS GREMLIN GOT INTO THEM.
LET'S CONTINUE WITH OUR CITIZEN COMMENTS, AND NOW I'M GOING TO CALL ON DR. J DROOP PAYNE.
IF YOU COULD RAISE THE PODIUM TOO, THAT'D WOULD BE GREAT. I'M DR. DREW PAYNE.
I AM REPRESENTING THE LUBBOCK COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY TODAY.
SO, MEMBERS OF THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL, ON BEHALF OF THE PHYSICIANS WHO MAKE UP THE LUBBOCK COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY, I WANT TO EXPRESS OUR ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT FOR THE LUBBOCK COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
THIS PLAN REALLY CAPTURES THE HEART OF WHAT IT MEANS TO CARE FOR OUR COMMUNITY, NOT JUST PATIENTS, BUT ALSO NEIGHBORS, FAMILIES, AND FRIENDS.
AS LOCAL PHYSICIANS, WE SEE FIRSTHAND THE CHALLENGES OUR RESIDENTS FACE IN ACCESSING HEALTHCARE, MANAGING CHRONIC CONDITIONS, AND FINDING RESOURCES FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE.
IT'S OFTEN HEARTBREAKING TO WITNESS STRUGGLES OF SOMEONE CAUGHT BETWEEN A LACK OF SERVICES AND A GROWING MEDICAL NEED.
THAT'S WHY THIS PLAN RESONATES WITH US SO DEEPLY.
WE ARE PARTICULARLY INSPIRED BY THE FOCUS ON HEALTH CENTERS IN EXPANDING ACCESS TO LOW-BARRIER CLINICS, WHICH REFLECT A PROACTIVE APPROACH TO REDUCING MATERNAL MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY, AND IMPROVING CHILD HEALTH.
THESE INITIATIVES DON'T JUST PROVIDE CRITICAL CARE THAT WE DESPERATELY NEED.
THEY FOSTER HEALTHIER BEGINNINGS FOR FAMILIES AND ENSURE THAT MOTHERS AND CHILDREN RECEIVE THE SUPPORT THEY NEED TO THRIVE.
THE COMMITMENT TO IMPROVING HEALTH LITERACY, BUILDING WALKABLE COMMUNITIES, AND ADDRESSING CHRONIC CONDITIONS SPEAKS TO THE LONG-TERM VISION THAT MAKES THIS PLAN SO POWERFUL IN GENERAL.
THESE ARE INVESTMENTS NOT ONLY IN HEALTH, BUT ALSO IN THE FUTURE VIBRANCY OF LUBBOCK ITSELF.
AS PHYSICIANS, WE ARE VOTING CITIZENS, AND WE CARE DEEPLY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THIS CITY.
OUR VOICES REPRESENT HUNDREDS OF PATIENTS THAT WE SEE WEEKLY, EACH WITH A UNIQUE STORY AND NEED THAT THIS PLAN DIRECTLY ADDRESSES.
THIS PLAN OFFERS A FRAMEWORK TO IMPROVE THEIR LIVES AND ALSO TO ENSURE A HEALTHIER, STRONGER LUBBOCK.
WE URGE YOU TO ADOPT THIS PLAN WHOLEHEARTEDLY, AND ALSO KNOW THAT LUBBOCK COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY STANDS READY TO ASSIST IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS PLAN THROUGH COLLABORATION AND CLINICAL EXPERTISE.
TOGETHER, WE CAN MAKE THIS VISION OF THIS STRATEGIC PLAN A REALITY.
ONE STEP CLOSER TO THE HEALTHIER, MORE PRODUCTIVE COMMUNITY FOR ALL OF US.
>> THANK YOU, DR. PAYNE. PERFECTLY TIMED.
NEXT, CALL UP JENNY BUSTILLOS.
>> THANK YOU. JENNY BUSTILLOS, DISTRICT 1.
[00:20:02]
I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO KEEP THIS BRIEF, SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY, I WOULD URGE YOU TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.I WOULD ALSO LIKE YOU TO CONTINUE THE SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM.
I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THIS LAST YEAR, I WAS ABLE TO TAKE IN A VERY SMALL FERAL KITTEN.
SHE IS NOW AN ADORABLE LOVING, BUT BECAUSE OF THE SPAY PROGRAM, I WAS ABLE TO KEEP HER, AND THIS ALSO CUTS OFF ALL THE OTHER LITTERS SHE MAY HAVE HAD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I YIELD MY REMAINING TIME.
NOBODY GETS TO YIELD ANYTHING TO ANYBODY. NELLY HOBSON.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AND ALSO THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK WHO ARE HERE.
I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY ONE THING, I DOORDASH FOR A LIVING.
THE ONE THING I HATE MOST IS HAVING DOGS CHASE ME.
THAT'S VERY SCARY, ESPECIALLY AT ONE OR TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING.
WHO AM I GOING TO CALL? WHAT AM I GOING TO DO? WE NEED TO HAVE SOME HELP, HAVING PEOPLE HAVE THEIR FENCES UP SO THAT THEY CAN PROTECT THE PETS THAT THEY LOVE.
I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY HAS EVER IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK COUNTY, ANYWHERE ELSE, GOTTEN A PET THAT THEY DID NOT LIKE, THAT THEY DID NOT LOVE, AND WANT NOT TO HURT ANYONE.
I URGE YOU TO PLEASE CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS GRANT.
>> THANK YOU, MS. HOBSON. NEXT, I'LL CALL UP KEVIN ALLEN.
>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY AND ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
I AM THE FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT OF LONE STAR LUNGS: PULMONARY HYPERTENSION SUPPORT GROUP OF WEST TEXAS.
WHEN ASKED, I SERVE AS FACULTY AT INDUSTRY EDUCATION, SPONSORED BY CHESS, THE INNOVATORS IN CHESS MEDICINE.
I HAVE ALSO HELPED ADDRESS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS FOR THE PULMONARY HYPERTENSION ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTING BILLS SUCH AS THE HELP COPAYS ACT, SAFE STEP ACT, AND THE SOAR ACT.
I'M A PATIENT WITH PULMONARY HYPERTENSION, AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN DEAD A LONG TIME AGO IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE COMMUNITY HEALTH.
LUBBOCK IS THE MEDICAL HUB OF WEST TEXAS, SERVING RESIDENTS WITHIN A 600-MILE RADIUS.
WE ALSO SERVE RESIDENTS IN FLORIDA AND NEW MEXICO THAT COME TO THE HOSPITALS AND TEXAS TECH PHYSICIANS FREQUENTLY.
THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DISPLACEMENT WITH MEDICAL AND HEALTHCARE AND PATIENT ACCESS IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS.
THAT'S HARD TO SEE WHEN YOU SEE HOSPITALS THE SIZE OF UMC, COVENANT, GRACE, AND OTHERS, BUT IT DOES EXIST.
I'VE HAD TO BEEN WALKED THROUGH THE BACK OF CLINICS.
I'VE HAD TO EDUCATE FIRST RESPONDERS, FIREFIGHTERS, AND EMS ON MY MEDICATIONS SO THAT THEY DO NOT ACCIDENTALLY KILL ME WHEN TRYING TO ASSIST ME.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT NOT SUPPORTING THESE HEALTHCARE POLICIES ON THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS THE DIRECT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE PURSUING AS A MEDICAL HUB OF WEST TEXAS.
I THINK IF WE DO NOT PURSUE THESE, WE'RE DENYING PATIENT'S ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE, [NOISE] MEDICINE HEALTH AND MEDICAL.
I THINK AS THE MEDICAL HUB OF WEST TEXAS, WE SHOULD BE PURSUING EQUAL ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE, MEDICAL, AND MEDICINE, NOT ONLY A AFFORDABLE COST, BUT A QUALITY.
I'M SICK WITH MY DISEASE TODAY.
WITHOUT THESE TYPE OF POLICIES, WE ARE FURTHER MARGINALIZING PATIENT ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE AND MEDICINE FOR NOT JUST LUBBOCKITES, BUT THE PEOPLE OF WEST TEXAS THAT COME HERE DIRECTLY AND PUT A LOT OF FUNDING INTO OUR CITY.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS KEVIN ALLEN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS ALICE LOZADA, AND I RESIDE AT 122 AVENUE N, LUBBOCK.
[00:25:03]
I'VE BEEN A LUBBOCKITE ALL MY LIFE, AND I ALSO REPRESENT NORTH LUBBOCK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION.I'M HERE TO ADVOCATE FOR THE CONTINUED SUPPORT OF THE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT AND THE ESSENTIAL SERVICES IT PROVIDES TO OUR COMMUNITY.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OFFERS A WIDE RANGE OF SERVICES, INCLUDING VACCINATIONS, SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTION PREVENTION AND TREATMENT, DIABETES PREVENTION PROGRAMS, MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT, AND INSURANCE RESOURCES FOR THE UNINSURED.
THESE SERVICES PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN ENSURING THE WELL-BEING OF OUR RESIDENTS.
PREVENTATIVE CARE SUCH AS VACCINATIONS, IMMUNIZATIONS, AND DIABETES PREVENTION HELPS TO REDUCE THE LONG-TERM HEALTHCARE COSTS FOR THE COMMUNITY.
BY PREVENTING DISEASES AND MANAGING CHRONIC CONDITIONS, WE CAN AVOID MORE EXPENSIVE TREATMENTS AND HOSPITALIZATIONS IN THE FUTURE.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S EFFORTS IN CONTROLLING THE SPREAD OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, LIKE STIS, ARE CRUCIAL FOR MAINTAINING PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
THESE PROGRAMS HELP TO PROTECT ALL RESIDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT EFFICIENTLY UTILIZES RESOURCES TO PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICES THAT BENEFIT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
THESE SERVICES OFFERED ARE NOT REDUNDANT, BUT COMPLEMENT THE WORK OF OTHER PROVIDERS, AND ALSO FILLING GAPS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE GO UNNOTICED.
INVESTING IN PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS IS NOT AN OVERREACH, BUT A PRUDENT USE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT IS EVIDENT IN THE FORM OF A HEALTHIER POPULATION, REDUCED HEALTHCARE COSTS, AND A STRONGER COMMUNITY OVERALL.
THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENSURES THAT ESSENTIAL HEALTH SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, ESPECIALLY THE UNINSURED AND UNDERINSURED, WITH THE GOAL OF PROVIDING REFERRALS AND RESOURCES TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS ARE INSURED.
WITHOUT THESE PROGRAMS, MANY RESIDENTS WOULD BE LEFT WITHOUT CRITICAL HEALTHCARE SUPPORT, LEADING TO WORSE HEALTH OUTCOMES AND HIGHER COSTS IN THE LONG RUN.
THE COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT ARE NOT CALLS FOR FUNDING, BUT IF APPROVED, THE STUDIES CAN HELP LUBBOCK PUBLIC HEALTH RECEIVE GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT THEIR HEALTHCARE EFFORTS.
A HEALTHY COMMUNITY MEANS A HEALTHY WORKFORCE AND A HEALTHY ECONOMY FOR THE GREAT CITY OF LUBBOCK.
IN CONCLUSION, I URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT REPORT.
THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY DEPEND ON IT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, TIME, AND CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU, MS. LOZADA. I APPRECIATE IT.
[APPLAUSE] I NEXT CALL ON KIM GONZALEZ.
MY NAME IS KIM GONZALEZ, AND I SERVE AS THE SECRETARY AT LUBBOCK COMPACT.
MY ADDRESS IS 6966 26TH STREET.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY REGARDING THE HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
AS YOU CONSIDER THIS VITAL DOCUMENT, I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW KEY POINTS.
FIRST, WE MUST RECOGNIZE THE INVALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES.
THESE DEDICATED INDIVIDUALS FROM PUBLIC HEALTH STAFF TO THOSE CONDUCTING OUTREACH POSSESS A UNIQUE UNDERSTANDING OF OUR COMMUNITY'S NEEDS.
THEIR PERSPECTIVES ARE CRUCIAL AND DESERVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ASSESSMENT.
THESE EMPLOYEES ARE NOT FACELESS BUREAUCRATS, BUT OUR NEIGHBORS, WORKING TIRELESSLY TO IMPROVE LUBBOCK.
PUBLICLY CRITICIZING THESE HARD-WORKING INDIVIDUALS UNDERMINES THE VERY SYSTEMS AND SERVICES THAT WE RELY ON.
OUR CITY STAFF FROM THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND ANIMAL SERVICES DESERVE RESPECT AND APPRECIATION FOR THEIR CHALLENGING WORK.
SURVEYS ARE INDISPENSABLE TOOLS FOR IDENTIFYING TRENDS AND GATHERING COMMUNITY FEEDBACK.
THE SURVEY WAS JUST ONE PIECE OF A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT, WHICH ALSO UTILIZE LISTENING SESSIONS, INTERVIEWS, AND DATA ANALYSIS.
RECOGNIZING THE BARRIERS THAT LOW-INCOME AND MINORITY GROUPS FACE AND PARTICIPATING, PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIALS OFTEN EMPLOY INCENTIVES LIKE GIFT CARDS TO ENCOURAGE BROADER ENGAGEMENT.
IT'S NOT LOST ON MANY CITIZENS THAT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE CRITICAL OF THE NUMBER, AND RANGE OF PARTICIPANTS ACTUALLY RECEIVE FEWER VOTES TO EARN THEIR PLACE ON THE DAIS HERE TODAY.
THIS APPROACH, WHILE PERHAPS IMPERFECT, IS NONETHELESS VALUABLE AND LEGITIMATE.
THE MISSION OF LUBBOCK PUBLIC HEALTH IS TO SAFEGUARD OUR COMMUNITY'S WELL-BEING, AS OUTLINED IN THE CITY BUDGET BOOK, AND ALIGNED WITH THE TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE.
THE COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN, OR CHIP,
[00:30:02]
AIMS TO ENHANCE HEALTH OUTCOMES IN LUBBOCK AND IS INTEGRAL TO THIS MISSION.CONTRARY TO ASSERTIONS THAT CHIP IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITY, CHAPTER 121 OF THE TEXAS HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE CLEARLY DEFINES ESSENTIAL LOCAL PUBLIC HEALTH FUNCTIONS, INCLUDING MONITORING HEALTH STATUS, DIAGNOSING HEALTH PROBLEMS, DEVELOPING POLICIES, ENFORCING HEALTH LAWS, LINKING INDIVIDUALS TO SERVICES, AND ENSURING A COMPETENT WORKFORCE, AND EVALUATING HEALTH SERVICES.
THERE'S LITERALLY NO PART OF THE CHIP THAT FALLS BEYOND THIS MANDATE.
POVERTY IS A MULTIFACETED ISSUE, RESULTING FROM SOCIAL CHALLENGES AND SYSTEMIC BARRIERS, SUCH AS LIMITED ACCESS TO QUALITY EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, AND EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.
LUBBOCK FACES SIGNIFICANT HEALTH DISPARITIES THAT NO SINGLE ORGANIZATION CAN RESOLVE ALONE.
THE HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT UNDERSCORES THE NEED FOR ENHANCED COLLABORATION AMONG LOCAL STAKEHOLDERS.
IN CONCLUSION, A FORMER COUNCIL INITIATED THE HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND ITS PROCESSES.
THE BOARD OF HEALTH UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED IT.
THERE ARE NO REQUESTS FOR BUDGET CHANGES OR ACTION ITEMS. THEREFORE, I ENCOURAGE THIS COUNCIL TO ACCEPT THE HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
EMBRACING THIS COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS WILL ENABLE US TO WORK TOGETHER, ADDRESSING THE PRESSING HEALTH NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU, MS. GONZALEZ. [APPLAUSE] NEXT, CALL DR. VICTOR TEST.
>> AUDIEN. THANK YOU ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH ALL TODAY.
I WANT TO THANK THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER FOR THAT VERY ERUDITE AND ELOCUTION OF THE PROBLEMS WE FACE IN HEALTHCARE.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK ON A LITTLE MORE BASIC LEVEL.
I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ASSESSMENT NEEDS AND ADVOCATE FOR IT TO BE APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL.
WE ARE LESS THAN FOUR YEARS FROM THE FIRST CASE OF COVID DEMONIA ADMITTED TO THE MEDICAL INTENSIVE CARE UNIT AT UMC MEDICAL CENTER, THAT WAS MARCH 6TH, 2020.
WE ALL ARE AWARE OF THE PROFOUND IMPACT THAT THAT HAD ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND ON IN LUBBOCK COUNTY.
AS WITH THE SPECTER AND THE BURDEN OF THAT, THE PANDEMIC FADES, WE ARE SOMETIMES LEFT WITH THE IDEA THAT OH, THINGS ARE GOING BACK TO NORMAL, AND IN MANY WAYS, THEY HAVE.
BUT OF COURSE, THE AFTERMATH OF THAT IS THAT WE HAVE SEEN A DRAMATIC SURGE IN OTHER ISSUES, INCLUDING MENTAL HEALTH AND PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUES AS PEOPLE WERE DEVASTATED FINANCIALLY AND THEIR FAMILIES DESTROYED.
THAT BEING SAID, WE ALSO CAN ANTICIPATE IN THE COMING YEARS THAT THERE MAY BE OTHER NEW AND DEVASTATING ILLNESSES ARE HOPEFULLY NOT OF THE SAME IMPACT.
BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THE CONCERNS OVER AVIAN INFLUENZA, MYCOBACTERIUM TUBERCULOSIS AND THE ONSLAUGHT AND INCREASING SURGE OF SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS IN LUBBOCK COUNTY AND LUBBOCK CITY PROPER.
THEREFORE, I THINK IT WOULD BE SHORT SIGHTED IN THE EXTREME TO REJECT THE HEALTH CARE, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT NEEDS AND ASSESSMENT AND BUDGET AND CUT BACK HEALTH DEPARTMENT SERVICES AT A TIME WHEN WE HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE POPULATION WHO ARE DISADVANTAGED, AND WE WOULD TAKE REMOVING THAT SUPPORT FROM THE CITY, AND THE COUNTY WOULD ONLY IMPACT THE MOST DISADVANTAGED PEOPLE, THE GREATEST.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY OF LUBBOCK COUNTY AND CITY OF LUBBOCK PROVIDES A HUGE AMOUNT OF REVENUE TO THE CITY.
WHEN OUR HOSPITAL IS FILLED WITH PEOPLE WITH STAGE DISEASES BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT OBTAIN APPROPRIATE HEALTH CARE THAT ACTUALLY DECREASES THE REVENUE TO THE CITY BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T COME HERE FOR ROUTINE HEALTH CARE OR TO THE HOSPITALS.
I, FOR EXAMPLE, MY CLINIC, I SEE PEOPLE FROM A FAR AWAY AS CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA, ST LOUIS, MISSOURI, SILVER CITY, NEW MEXICO, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, WHO COME HERE SPECIFICALLY FOR HEALTHCARE THAT I CAN PROVIDE.
THAT IS UNUSUAL, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF REVENUE TO THE CITY IN TERMS OF TAX REVENUE, SALES REVENUE, HOTEL, AND ETC. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, DR. TESS. [APPLAUSE] WE USED THE WORD ERUDITE AND ELOCUTION.
I SAW EVERYBODY PERCHING FOR THEIR DICTIONARIES TO SEE WHAT.
[00:35:01]
NEXT, I CALL KEITH O'DAY.>> WOULD YOU SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MIC.
THANK YOU, MR. O'DAY. APPRECIATE IT. YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> BEING CLEANED FOR 995 DAYS, AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.
WHEN I FIRST, I SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE SEASON PROGRAM.
[APPLAUSE] I'M ON SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE STUDENTS PROGRAM.
WHEN I FIRST CAME TO LUBBOCK, I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING.
MY ID, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, BIRTH IS A KID, OR ANY CLOTHES ON MY BACK.
I GOT THE NUMBER FROM A FRIEND OF MINE WHO IS IN RECOVERY AS WELL.
TOLD ME TO CALL THEM, AND I CALLED THEM.
COUPLE OF DAYS LATER, THEY WAS THERE TO GO HELP ME GET MY DRIVING LICENSE, MY SOCIAL, BIRTH CERTIFICATE, CLOTHES, AND FOOD.
THEY'VE BEEN HELPING OUT OF THE COMMITTEES FOR A LONG TIME.
I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU GUYS CAN CONTINUE HELPING THEM AND SUPPORT THEM TO HELP THE COMMUNITY OUT. THAT'S IT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. O'DAY. APPRECIATE IT.
I'LL CALL ON DR. DOUGLAS KLEPPER.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. THANK YOU, MAYOR.
DR. DOUGLAS KLEPPER, OF 3017 22ND STREET, I'VE BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY A LITTLE WHILE.
JUST WANT TO ADDRESS ONE THING CONCERNING SUPPORT FOR THE HEALTH INITIATIVE.
I'VE SEEN IT. THIS WEEKEND, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT I'VE NOT SEEN IN 33 YEARS OF PRACTICE.
I SAW A CASE OF SECONDARY SYPHILIS AND A MOTHER OF 20 YEARS OF AGE, HAVING HER SECOND CHILD.
THE HEALTH NEEDS OF THIS COMMUNITY ARE GREATER AND FULLY SUPPORT OF WHAT IS IN THAT HEALTH ASSESSMENT.
PROBABLY THE BIGGEST ISSUE I WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT IS THAT I KNOW THAT WE DO GIVE A LOT OF MONEY TO UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER AND THAT INSTITUTION.
BUT AS A MEMBER OF THAT INSTITUTION, I ALSO KNOW THAT THAT IS HOSPITAL BASED.
WE NEED MORE COMMUNITY RESOURCES.
I CAN TELL YOU FROM IN MY PRACTICE THAT AS OF LAST WEEK, WE HAD TO HAVE 250 KIDS ON MEDICAID SEEK OTHER RESOURCES BECAUSE IT WAS WITH NOT WITHIN THE PLANS OF MY SYSTEM.
I KNOW THE RELUCTANCE OF GETTING INTO INDIVIDUAL CLINICS THAT WE HAVE BECAUSE WE WANT PRIVATE ENTERPRISE, WE WANT GOOD SOCIAL SYSTEMS, BUT I THINK THE CITIES CITY IS GOING TO HAVE TO PUT SOME SKIN IN THE GAME FOR THESE CLINICS TO BE THERE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
FULL DISCLOSURE, HE IS THE PHYSICIAN FOR BOTH MY CHILDREN AND MY GRANDCHILDREN.
[LAUGHTER] NEXT TO CALL TIFFANY WHITE.
AFTER MS. WHITE WILL BE JUDY TARWATER.
AND THAT. MY NAME IS TIFFANY WHITE.
I LIVE AT 50-410-483, AND I CAME DOWN HERE AS A RECIPIENT OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER.
RECENTLY I HAD BRAIN SURGERY IN JUNE AND RECENTLY MY DOG I WAS IN REHAB.
BECAUSE OF THE ANIMAL SHELTER, COMING TO MY HOUSE AND THEN COMING BACK TO MAKE SURE THAT I TAKE TIME BITS, AND I DID.
I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT THEY, THIS IS WHAT THEY SAID TO ME.
[00:40:02]
THEY SAID, I HOPE YOUR RECOVERY IS GOING WELL.IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING NEW, PLEASE CONTACT LOVE ANIMAL SHELTER.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THEM FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU, MS. WHITE. MS. TARWATER.
AFTER, MS. TARWATER WILL BE BRENT TOLLNER.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR, CITY COUNCILMAN, PERSONS.
MY NAME IS JUDY SKEEN TARWATER, AND I LIVE AT 40-305 94TH STREET.
I'M A NEW MEMBER OF THE LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD.
I HAVE COME HERE THIS AFTERNOON TO DISCUSS MY PERSONAL OPINIONS, NOT SPEAKING FOR THE BOARD.
DUE THE TIME CONSTRAINT, I AM LIMITING MY COMMENTS TO THREE AREAS.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO NUMBER OF DOGS OR CATS AT RESIDENCE.
I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS AMENDMENT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE TOTAL RESCUED COMMUNITY AS WELL AS LAS.
MOST OF THE LOCAL RESCUES ARE FOSTER BASED.
THIS CHANGE COULD PREVENT RESCUE FOSTERS FROM BEING ABLE TO BRING DOGS AND CATS INTO THEIR HOMES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS.
FOSTERS ARE THE LIFELINE FOR LOCAL RESCUE ORGANIZATIONS AND FROM TIME TO TIME FOR LAS, THEY HAVE REQUESTS FOR LOCAL FOSTER ASSISTANCE FOR MEDICAL FOSTERS, AS WELL AS MAMA DOGS AND CATS WHO HAVE LITTERS IN THE SHELTER.
A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO TEMPORARY FOSTERING WOULD BE A DISASTER.
THE ONLY WAY LUBBOCK IS GOING TO GET AHEAD OF THE OUT OF CONTROL ANIMAL BREEDING IS TO DEVELOP AN EXPANDED SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM.
THE CURRENT VOUCHER SYSTEM IS INEFFECTIVE.
WE NEED TO LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ALTERED DOGS IN THE CITY.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO ELIMINATE OR DOWNSIZE THE SPAN NEUTER PROGRAM.
MY HUSBAND AND I ARE RETIRED AND SINCE MAY OF 2022, WE HAVE TRANSPORTED STRAY AND DUMP DOGS TO LOCAL RESCUE FOSTERS, AS WELL AS FROM RESCUE FOSTERS DIRECTLY TO OUT OF STATE RESCUES AND TO COMMERCIAL INTERSTATE TRANSPORTS WHO CARRY THESE ANIMALS TO RESCUES AND DIRECT ADOPTERS IN NORTHERN STATES AND THE EASTERN PROVINCES OF CANADA.
OUR OUT OF STATE TRANSPORTS ARE A WEEKLY ROUTINE FOR LOCAL RESCUES.
ADOPTERS IN THE NORTHERN STATES ARE EAGER TO ADOPT, HOWEVER, DUE TO THE STRICT SPAY AND NEUTER LAWS AND THEIR LOCALES, THERE'S A SHORTAGE OF DOGS AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION.
TO DATE, MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE TRANSPORTED OVER 1,400 DOGS FOR MULTIPLE LOCAL RESCUES.
LAST YEAR ALONE, WE DROVE 537 DOGS AND DROVE 28,000 MILES TO THE ADOPTED STATES WITH SPAY AND NEUTER LAWS.
OVER 1,000 DOGS FROM THE LUBBOCK AREA HAVE BEEN ADOPTED OUT OF STATE THIS YEAR ALONE BECAUSE VOLUNTEERS FROM LOCAL NONPROFIT RESCUES HAVE WORKED TIRELESSLY TO SAVE THEIR LIVES.
LAS SUCCESSFULLY TRANSPORTED SHELTER DOGS OUT OF STATE IN THE PAST.
HOWEVER, THE TRANSPORT PROGRAM WAS INACTIVE FOR A GOOD PART OF 2024.
IF A RETIRED COUPLE CAN TRANSPORT 1,400 DOGS OUT OF STATE IN OUR TAHOE, I CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT THE LUBBOCK ANIMAL SHELTER COULD DO.
IN CLOSING, JUST LAST WEEK, WE DROVE 22 PUPPIES FROM TWO MAMAS TO COLORADO.
WE'RE DRIVING TWO MORE LITTERS TOMORROW TO COLORADO.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. [APPLAUSE]
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR ENTHUSIASM FOR THE SPEAKERS, BUT WE GENERALLY HAVE A RULE HERE.
JUST KEEP THINGS MOVING FORWARD, SO LET'S HOLD THAT DOWN, PLEASE.
MR. DID I SAY YOUR NAME? MR. TOLLNER.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS BRENT TOLLNER.
I'M WITH BEST FRIENDS ANIMAL SOCIETY.
WE'RE A NATIONAL NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WORKS WITH ANIMAL SHELTERS AND SHELTER ANIMALS FOR DOGS AND CATS AROUND THE COUNTRY.
I JUST THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND ADDRESS YOU ALL TODAY.
I'VE HAD THE PLEASURE WORKING WITH STEVEN AND THE STAFF AT LAS FOR ABOUT THE LAST SEVEN YEARS OFF AND ON.
WHAT THEY'VE ACCOMPLISHED OVER AT LAS HAS BEEN REMARKABLE.
BACK IN 2017, THERE WERE 6,000 ANIMALS THAT WERE KILLED AT LAS.
LAST YEAR, THE NUMBER WAS CLOSER TO ABOUT 400.
THAT IS REMARKABLE PROGRESS FOR THAT TEAM AND THAT VERY COMPASSIONATE GROUP.
WHAT LUBBOCK IS FACING IS BEING FACED BY A LOT OF COMMUNITIES AROUND THE COUNTRY WHERE YOU'RE SIMULTANEOUSLY DEALING WITH THE GROWING DEMAND
[00:45:01]
ON WHAT ANIMAL SERVICES IS AND WHAT IS REQUIRED OF THEM.ON ONE HAND, YOU HAVE THE CARING PET OWNING POPULATION WHO LOVES ANIMALS WHO DOESN'T WANT THE SHELTER TO REVERT BACK TO HOW IT WAS IN 2016, 2017.
ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU HAVE TRULY IRRESPONSIBLE OWNERS THAT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH AND THAT WE NEED TO HANDLE BECAUSE STRAY FREE ROAMING DOGS ARE A HEALTH PUBLIC SAFETY RISK FOR THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ADDRESS BOTH, AND IT CAN BE A KNEE JERK REACTION SOMETIMES TO TRY TO GO WITH REALLY PUNITIVE MEASURES FOR THIS.
BUT WHAT WE'VE OFTEN FOUND OUT IS THAT BY WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND THE PROGRAMS THAT WORK WITH THE COMMUNITY CAN HELP CHANGE THE CULTURE OF PET OWNERSHIP OVER TIME.
THESE ARE THINGS LIKE THE FENCING PROGRAM THAT HELP KEEP PETS CONTAINED.
THE SPAY NEUTER PROGRAM, WHICH HELPS IN THE REPRODUCTIVE ACTIVITY OF ANIMALS OVER TIME, AND WORKING WITH THEM TO BUILD COMPLIANCE.
MICROCHIPPING PROGRAMS FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY, VACCINATION PROGRAMS FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY, SO WE CAN CURB THE ROOT CAUSE BEHAVIOR THAT IS LEADING TO AN OVERPOPULATION OF ANIMALS AT THEIR SHELTER.
A LOT OF THE PROGRAMS THAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSED, POTENTIALLY CUTTING FALL UNDER THESE UMBRELLAS OF PROGRAMS THAT WOULD HELP BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY OVER THE LONG TERM.
I THINK WE NEED TO STICK WITH THOSE PROGRAMS. I'VE BEEN REALLY IMPRESSED IN GETTING PREPARED TO COME IN HERE AND MEET WITH MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD, MEMBERS OF THE SHELTER, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, WITH THE COMPASSION AND CARE THAT GOES INTO THE COMMUNITY THAT REALLY CARES DEEPLY ABOUT SOLVING AND ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
INSTEAD OF HAVING A SERIES OF ONE OFF BILLS AND PROPOSALS TO TRY TO ADDRESS MORE THINGS.
I RECOMMEND SLOWING IT DOWN, GETTING ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS TOGETHER TO REALLY PROBLEM SOLVE BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THE SOLUTIONS THAT COME OUT HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, AND THEY ACTUALLY DIVERT RESOURCES AWAY FROM REALLY, TRULY SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEMS. WE'LL HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL SLOW IT DOWN, GET EVERYBODY TO THE TABLE, BABY REGROUP AND COME BACK WITH A COMPREHENSIVE SOLUTION WORKING WITH YOUR STAFF AND YOUR ANIMAL CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD FOR THAT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. TOLLNER. MR. CORBIN.
AFTER MR. CORBIN, SHELLY WALRAVEN.
>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL CORBIN, LONGTIME LUBBOCK RESIDENT.
MY FAMILY INCLUDES FOUR CANINES WHO WERE ALL RESCUES, FORMER FOSTERS.
WE CONTINUE TO FOSTER DOGS THROUGH A COUPLE OF THE LOCAL RESCUE GROUPS AND HAVE FOSTERED DOGS FOR LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES AS WELL.
WE ALL AGREE THAT WE HAVE AN ANIMAL OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM.
LAS AND THE LOCAL RESCUES ARE ALL OVERWHELMED.
LAS AND DIRECTOR STEPHEN GREEN THEY DO A DIFFICULT JOB WITH THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO THEM.
I DO NOT WANT TO SEE LAS RETURN TO THE PRE-STEPHEN GREEN ERA OF BEING A HIGH-KILL SHELTER, AND I'M CONCERNED THAT THIS IS THE DIRECTION THE COUNCIL WILL FORCE LAS TO GO.
I AGREE WITH COUNCIL PERSONS GLASHIN, AND DR. WILSON AND OTHERS IN REGARD TO IRRESPONSIBLE ANIMAL OWNERS AND THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH STRAYS.
THOSE WHO DO NOT COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES SHOULD BE CITED AND PENALIZED, BUT LAS NEEDS MORE OFFICERS.
I FULLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.06.001, RAISING THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE OR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIRED FOR PERSONS WISHING TO MAINTAIN AN ANIMAL DEEMED TO BE DANGEROUS.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4.01.003 REGARDING THE NUMBER OF DOGS AND OR CATS ALLOWED TO BE HARBORED IN A RESIDENCE AND REQUIRING THE MULTI-PET PERMITS FOR SAME.
I JUST FEEL THIS AMENDMENT IS UNNECESSARY IF THE OTHER ANIMAL NUISANCE AND CARE ORDINANCES ARE NOT BEING VIOLATED, AND WOULD NOT BE ENFORCEABLE WITHOUT INVASION OF PRIVACY AND WOULD AFFECT, AS WAS MENTIONED, THOSE OF US WHO FOSTER ANIMALS, ALONG WITH THE ONES THAT WE OWN.
I FULLY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF SECTION 4.01.006 REGARDING PERMITS FOR BREEDING AND WOULD URGE THE COUNCIL TO INCREASE THE PROPOSED FEE $100-500 OR MORE.
I JUST DON'T FEEL $100 FEE WOULD DO MUCH TO DETER THE BACKYARD BREEDERS WHO DO THIS FOR PROFIT.
WE ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FOLKS WHO SIMPLY ALLOW THEIR PETS TO REPRODUCE, THEN DUMP THE YOUNGSTERS THEY ARE UNABLE TO SELL OR GIVE AWAY.
PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT THEIR NEW DOG IS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL ON THE PLANET AND WANT TO BREED IT ONCE, THEN HAVE IT FIXED.
[00:50:03]
I WOULD ENCOURAGE STRICTER ENFORCEMENT OF ALL ANIMAL ORDINANCES, INCLUDING SECTION 4.01.005 REGARDING THE PRIVATE SALES IN PUBLIC PLACES.MOST OF THE DOGS, AS WAS MENTIONED, WE FOSTERED, ARE TRANSPORTED TO OTHER STATES, WHERE LAWS ARE MORE STRICT, AND PEOPLE PAY A LOT OF MONEY TO ADOPT AND TRANSPORT DOGS FROM TEXAS BECAUSE THE PETS UP THERE ARE HARD TO FIND IN THEIR STATES.
I'M OPPOSED TO CUTTING AND MOVING ANY FUNDS USED BY LAS FOR VETTING ANIMALS IN THEIR FACILITY AND ELIMINATE THE FENCE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
WITH THAT, I THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
MISS WALRAVEN, AND AFTER MISS WALRAVEN, BRENDA NORMAN.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I KNOW SEVERAL OF YOU ON THE BOARD, ALTHOUGH I HAVE NOT SEEN YOU IN QUITE SOME TIME.
I WELCOME THIS OPPORTUNITY TO TALK WITH YOU TODAY.
I'M AN ADVOCATE FOR THE VOICE FOR THE PETS CLINIC OF LUBBOCK.
I'M A LONGTIME FOSTER FOR SECOND CHANCE DOG RESCUE, AND I AM A PET LOVER.
LAST WEEK, I E-MAILED ALL OF YOU IN REGARDS TO A PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT KRISTIE ASKED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.
WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? THIS MORNING, I SENT YOU A LIST OF 10 PROBLEMS WE HAD THAT HAS CAUSED THE STRAY DOG POPULATION IN OUR COMMUNITY.
THE STRAY DOG POPULATION COMMUNITY IS NOT AN LAS PROBLEM.
I WANT TO SPEAK TO ONE OF THE POINTS THAT IS VERY NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART, AND ANYONE WHO WILL LISTEN TO ME, I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT IT.
IN 2020, WE STARTED A LOW-COST SPAY-NEUTER CLINIC CALLED PETS CLINIC OF BLUB.
IT IS A LOW-COST SPAY NEUTER CLINIC.
THE REASON SO MANY OF US GOT TOGETHER WAS TO START THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS A SPAY-NEUTER PROBLEM IN THIS TOWN.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE VET CLINICS IN THIS TOWN WHO DO NOT DO ENOUGH SPAY NEUTERS.
I REALIZE SOME PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM OF HEARING THAT, BUT IT IS TRUE.
THEY ARE VERY LIMITED IN THE NUMBER OF SPAY NEUTERS THAT THEY DO FOR THEIR CLIENTELE AND EVEN LESS FOR RESCUE.
THEREFORE, MANY OF US GOT TOGETHER IN 2020 TO GET THIS LOW-COST SPAY-NEUTER CLINIC DONE.
AS OF THIS MONTH, WE WILL DO OUR 20,000 SPAY-NEUTER FOR THIS COMMUNITY.
HAD WE NOT DONE THAT, WE WOULD BE DEALING WITH IF EVERY ONE OF THEM HAD HAD ONE DOG OR CAT, WE'D BE DEALING WITH 20,000 MORE THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
IN THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, WHAT THEY DO IS THEY HAVE IN THEIR CITY BUDGET AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP WITH FREE SPAY-NEUTER CLINICS BASED OFF ZIP CODES AND WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT ZIP CODE, AND WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE.
IF THEY CANNOT HELP, THEN THEY ASK THEM TO GO TO THE LOW-COST SPAY-NEUTER CLINIC.
IN ADDITION, THEY DO AN EVENT CALLED SNIPSA, THAT WAS STARTED IN 2009, AND IT STARTED WITH THEY HAD 100 PETS THAT WERE SPAY AND NEUTERED, AND AS OF THIS LAST NOVEMBER, THEY DID 500.
IT INCLUDES MULTIPLE VETS THERE TO HELP WITH THIS ISSUE.
I ASK THAT WE START CONCENTRATING OUR SPAY NEUTERS.
THE LAST THING I WANT TO SAY VERY QUICKLY IS WHEN IT COMES TO ENFORCING CITY ORDINANCES AND STATE LAW.
THE 2022, THERE WAS A SAFE OUTDOOR DOGS ACT THAT BECAME A STATE LAW.
THIS HELPS AND TAKES OUT DOGS BEING TETHERED.
TO THIS DAY, YOU STILL SEE DOGS BEING TETHERED, BUT IT'S NOT BE ENFORCED.
AND IT'S NOT JUST LAS PROBLEM TO ENFORCE IT.
IT IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE IT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND I HOPE YOU HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY.
>> MISS NORMAN, AND AFTER MISS NORMAN, PHYLLIS GAMBLES.
GLAS SHEN, WILSON AND HARRIS WERE OPPOSED TO THE LAS FENCING PROGRAM AND SO IT WAS DISCONTINUED.
IT PROVIDED GRANTS FOR LOW-INCOME CITIZENS TO REPAIR THEIR FENCES SO THAT THEY COULD KEEP THEIR, THEIR PETS CONTAINED.
HOWEVER, WILSON AND GLAS SHEN SAID THIS PROGRAM REWARDED BAD BEHAVIOR, AND WILSON SAID IT WAS TIME TO GET HARSH WITH LUBBOCK CITIZENS.
91 HOUSEHOLDS HAD BENEFITED FROM THIS PROGRAM IN ONLY THE LAST TWO YEARS, AND 67% OF THOSE WERE IN HARRIS'S DISTRICT.
ALSO, 91 HOUSES HAD PETS WHO WERE NOW BEING
[00:55:01]
CONTAINED IN A STURDY FENCE AND OFF THE STREETS OF LUBBOCK.THE COUNCIL ALSO SHOWED MOST CONCERN FOR OWNERS WHO WANTED TO SURRENDER THEIR OWN PETS TO THE SHELTER.
IN 2017, THERE WERE MORE THAN 2000 OWNER SURRENDERS, WHICH WAS MORE THAN 25% OF THE SHELTER POPULATION.
IN 2024, IT WAS DOWN TO 485 SURRENDERS.
THE ONLY WAY TO RELIEVE THE STRAY DOG POPULATION IS THROUGH LONG-TERM NEUTERING PROGRAMS, BUT THE COUNCIL IS FOCUSING ON SHORT-TERM FIXES.
FREE NEUTERING COUPONS, WHICH AGAIN, WOULD BENEFIT LOW-INCOME FAMILIES HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED.
IF A FAMILY IS WORKING JUST FOR SURVIVAL, NEUTERING A PET WILL NEVER BE THEIR FIRST PRIORITY.
IN 2017, THE SAVE RATE OF LAS ANIMALS WAS A SAD 29%.
BY 2019, THE SAVE RATE WAS UP TO 93%, AND TODAY IT CONTINUES AT 90% IN HIGHER.
IN 2019, LAS WAS HONORED AS DEPARTMENT OF THE YEAR.
IN 2024, GLAS SHEN SAID HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THEIR CURRENT PERFORMANCE.
THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SHELTER HAS NOT CHANGED.
LONG-STAY DOGS CAN BE ADOPTED.
EUTHANIZING HEALTHY DOGS SHOULD NEVER BE AN OPTION.
PLEASE LISTEN TO ANIMAL CONTROL EXPERTS BEFORE YOU GIVE THIS COUNCIL THE LEGACY AS THE MOST OVERREACHING AND UNCARING COUNCIL IN THE HISTORY OF LUBBOCK. THANK YOU.
>> MISS GAMBLES. AFTER MISS GAMBLES, ELIZABETH RANDOLPH.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, PHYLLIS GANT GAMBLES, 7701 AVENUE J LUBBOCK, TEXAS.
REALLY GLAD TO GO BEHIND HER BECAUSE SHE ALREADY COVERED MY STATS.
WE NEED THE FENCING, AND WE NEED THE ANIMAL SHELTER.
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT BEING CHASED BECAUSE I DON'T UBER, BUT I AM GOING TO TALK ABOUT IN OUR DISTRICT TO COMMUNITY, A SINGLE FATHER WORKING EVERY DAY TO FEED HIS FAMILY, WHO HAD DOGS.
EVERY TIME HIS DOGS BROKE THE FENCE, NEIGHBORS WOULD CALL HIM AND HE WOULD COME HOME AND FIX THE FENCE AND PUT HIS DOGS UP.
THIS CONTINUED, AND HE LOADED HIS DOGS UP, AND HE TOOK THEM TO OUR ANIMAL SHELTER.
THEY WERE SYMPATHETIC TO WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND THEY MADE HIM AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 2019.
THAT WEDNESDAY, WHILE HE WAS AT WORK, HIS DOGS BROKE THE FENCE, GOT OUT, AND KILLED HIS ELDERLY NEIGHBOR.
THE DOG OWNER WAS RESPONSIBLE. HE WAS ATTENTIVE.
OUR ANIMAL SHELTER OFFERED EVERYTHING THEY COULD.
THEY WERE FULL. THEY MADE THE APPOINTMENT.
THE ANIMAL SHELTER COMPLIED, AND OUR COMMUNITY STILL LOST A 88-YEAR-OLD ELDERLY CITIZEN.
IT SHATTERED NEIGHBORS WHO HAD BEEN FRIENDS OVER 30 YEARS.
WE'VE GOT TO HELP PEOPLE THAT CAN'T AFFORD IT THAT WORK EVERY DAY, NOT IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS, AS SOME HAVE MENTIONED, WE'VE GOT TO HELP THEM FIX THEIR FENCE, AND WE'VE GOT TO DEFINITELY STEP UP AND HELP OUR ANIMAL SHELTER. THANK YOU.
ELIZABETH RANDOLPH AND AFTER MISS RANDOLPH REBECCA JOHNSON.
JUST MAKE SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT COUNCILMAN HARRIS DID NOT VOTE TO TAKE AWAY A FENCING PROGRAM.
IF THAT WAS LEFT AS AN IMPRESSION, WE'VE ACTUALLY NOT VOTED ON THAT AT ALL YET. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK HERE.
I'M ELIZABETH. I'M A RESIDENT.
I AM THE FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF A 5013 C3 NONPROFIT ANIMAL RESCUE HERE IN TOWN.
I WANT TO SAY BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING ELSE.
I HAVE NEVER NOT SUPPORTED LAS.
I WILL NEVER STOP SUPPORTING LAS.
THEY DO SUCH GOOD WORK, AND THE CHANGES THEY'VE MADE ARE HUGE.
[01:00:02]
BUT THEY NEED MORE.ANYTHING WE DO NEEDS TO BE MORE.
I'M HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO CITY ORDINANCES, LIMITING THE NUMBER OF PETS ALLOWED.
I AM HUMBLY URGING THE COUNCIL TO REJECT THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.
IT IS AN ARBITRARY AND AGGRESSIVE OVERREACH INTO THE PRIVACY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT CITIZENS WHO ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.
BECAUSE OF A FEW PEOPLE WHO ARE THE PROBLEM.
ANIMAL CONTROL DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES OR THE MANPOWER, IN MY OPINION TO MANAGE A PROPOSED PERMIT PROCESS.
THEY NEED MORE RESOURCES, NOT MORE JOBS ADDED TO THEIR PLATE.
ALSO, THE CITIZENS RIGHT NOW, WE CANNOT AFFORD HOUSING, UTILITIES, AND FOOD. WE ARE BROKE.
WE CANNOT AFFORD A PERMIT, WE JUST CAN'T.
IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN AFFORD, AND WE NEED THEM TO BE SPENDING THE MONEY NEUTERING THEIR ANIMALS, NOT APPLYING FOR A PERMIT.
NUMBER 4, THERE IS LITERALLY NOWHERE TO PUT THESE PETS THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO DISPLACE FROM RESPONSIBLE AND LOVING HOMES.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PUT THEM.
FINALLY, THERE'S ABOUT 27 NONPROFIT ANIMAL RESCUES IN THIS TOWN AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS.
MOST OF US RELY ON FOSTER HOMES TO SAVE ANIMALS, AND THIS PROPOSAL WILL COMPLETELY DESTROY OUR ABILITY TO DO WORK IN THE COMMUNITY.
WE TAKE ANIMALS OFF THE STREET, ENTIRE LITTERS THAT HAVE BEEN DUMPED AND WE HOUSE THEM IN FOSTER HOMES WHILE WE VET THEM AND THEN GET THEM OUT OF THE CITY.
THAT IS TO REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE ANIMAL SHELTER AND ALSO TO REDUCE THE OVERPOPULATION.
WE CANNOT DO THAT WORK WITHOUT OUR FOSTER HOMES.
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE EVEN ONE FOSTER HOME.
I DON'T THINK THE CITY COUNCIL'S PROPOSAL WAS IN ORDER TO DESTROY ALL THE RESCUES IN TOWN, BUT I THINK THEY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE FACTS, AND OSTENSIBLY, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS PLAN IS GOING TO DO.
IT'S GOING TO SHUT DOWN ALL THE RESCUES.
IN CONCLUSION, THERE'S ABOUT 27 LEGITIMATE ANIMAL RESCUES IN THIS TOWN AND ANY ONE OF US, I BET, WOULD TELL YOU WHAT WE NEED IS SPAY AND NEUTER, BUT ALL OF US WOULD BE WILLING TO HELP YOU BRING US TO THE TABLE AND LET US HELP YOU COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS GOING FORWARD.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND ABILITY TO SPEAK HERE TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, MS. RANDOLPH. MISS JOHNSON, AND AFTER MISS JOHNSON, HUNTER PARISH.
>> HI. MY NAME IS REBECCA JOHNSON.
I'M A DOG TRAINER HERE IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS, SO MY EXPERTISE IS DOG BEHAVIOR.
OUR JOB IS COLLECTING LOTS OF INFORMATION FROM DOG PARENTS, COMING UP WITH SOLUTIONS FOR THEIR PROBLEMS AND SETTING SHORT-TERM GOALS AND LONG-TERM GOALS.
APPROVING FUNDING FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER TO ME FOLLOWS A SIMILAR FORMULA.
WE HAVE INFORMATION GATHERING.
WE'VE BEEN DOING THAT. WE'RE DOING THAT TODAY WITH EXPERTS.
WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST FOR EXPERTS.
I EMAILED CITY COUNCIL, I REPORT THAT DR. SASHA, FORMER PROFESSOR OF TEXAS TECH COMPANION ANIMAL SCIENCES PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL BACK THEN, TALKING ABOUT ANIMAL SHELTERING AND SPAY NEUTER PROGRAMS USING STUDIES IN OTHER CITIES AND EXAMPLES OF THAT.
SUPPORTING SPAY NEUTER [INAUDIBLE] PROGRAMS AND FENCE REPAIR PROGRAMS IS THE GOLD STANDARD OF A CITY THAT WANTS TO HAVE A SOLID PET POPULATION PLAN.
IT IS ALSO FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING CUTTING THESE PROGRAMS FOR SHORT-TERM GOALS OF SAVINGS.
HOWEVER, MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION IS IF WE LOOK AT THE LONG-TERM GOALS, IF WE LOOK AT THE LONG RUN, IT WILL ACTUALLY COST THE CITY MORE.
THE NUMBER OF PUPPIES WILL SKYROCKET, THE CALLS FOR ABANDONED INJURED, STRAY AND AGGRESSIVE DOGS WILL INCREASE.
MORE CITIZENS, THEIR CHILDREN, THEIR PETS, MY NEIGHBORS, WILL CONTINUE TO BE INJURED AS THEY PLAY AND EXERCISE OUTSIDE.
NOT TO MENTION THE COST OF RESPONDING TO MORE AND MORE DECEASED DOGS THAT GET HIT BY CARS WANDERING OUR STREETS.
LET'S CONSIDER OUR LONG TERM GOALS WHEN WE'RE ADDRESSING THESE DECISIONS.
AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN AN OUNCE OF CURE.
YOU'VE HEARD FROM EVERYONE ELSE ABOUT THE HEALTH COUNSEL SURVEY, WHICH I ALSO SUPPORT, BUT IT'S THE SAME THING.
WE NEED TO LOOK AT LONG-TERM INSTEAD OF SAVING A FEW BUCKS NEXT YEAR, WHAT'S THE LONG-TERM? MANY OF MY CLIENTS HAVE DOGS THAT WERE DUMPED IN THEIR YARD OR ADOPTED FROM RESCUES AND SHELTERS.
SOME OF THESE DOGS REALLY STRUGGLE IN HOME LIFE AS ABANDONED LITTERS OF PUPPIES SPEND THEIR FORMATIVE MONTHS ON THE STREET FIGHTING FOR SURVIVAL.
THEY MISS OUT ON THE CRITICAL SOCIALIZATION PERIOD THAT A HEALTHY PUPPY WOULD HAVE IN A HOME.
LET'S INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DOGS THAT THRIVE IN HOMES AND DON'T PRESENT
[01:05:02]
SAFETY RISK TO THEIR NEIGHBORS BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF ABANDONED PUPPIES.I'VE LIVED IN SEVEN CITIES AND FIVE STATES AND NEVER EXPERIENCED SUCH A PROBLEM WITH LOOSE DOGS.
I WALK MY DOGS MOST DAYS OF THE YEAR AND OFTEN ENCOUNTER NEIGHBORS WITH VARIOUS WEAPONS AS A RESULT OF PREVIOUS SCARY ENCOUNTERS WITH DOGS.
MINE'S A SILLY ONE, BUT I CARRY MY KEYS ON A LANTERN, AND IT BECOMES MY NUMB CHUCKS, SO I DO THE SAME THING.
LET'S GATHER INFORMATION AND MAKE SHORT-TERM DECISIONS THAT SUPPORT LONG-TERM GOALS, WHICH INCLUDE FUNDING SPAY NEUTER PROGRAMS AND FENCE REPAIR PROGRAMS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR ATTENTION ON THIS MATTER.
>> THANK YOU, MS. JOHNSON. MR. PARISH, AND AFTER MR. PARISH, TAMMY WARE [INAUDIBLE].
>> MY NAME IS HUNTER PARISH, AND THIS IS MY THERAPY DOG LOUIS.
I GREW UP RIGHT HERE IN LUBBOCK, AND I OWN PART OF A MEDICAL COMPANY WHERE LOUIS AND I DELIVER MEDICAL EQUIPMENT TO THE MOST VULNERABLE IN OUR AREA.
IN MY HOME LIFE, I TAKE CARE OF MANY ANIMALS, ONE MIGHT DEEM DANGEROUS BREEDS.
I CARE IMMENSELY ABOUT THE ANIMALS IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND I HAVE PERSONALLY FOSTERED OVER 50 DOGS IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK AND SURROUNDING AREAS, GIVING THEM LOVE, UNDERSTANDING, FOOD AND SHELTER, WHILE PERSONALLY WORKING TO FIND ALL OF THEM PROPER HOMES.
I AM HERE TODAY TO SAY THAT THE PEOPLE AND THE ANIMALS OF LUBBOCK DESERVE BETTER THAN THIS RIDICULOUS ANIMAL PROPOSAL.
I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE ANIMAL PROPOSITION AS IT WILL INEVITABLY LEAD TO MASS KILLINGS BY ANIMALS THAT ARE JUST DEEMED TOO DANGEROUS DUE TO IGNORANCE OF FOOD ISSUES, BEING SCARED, OR JUST SO HAPPEN TO BE THE WRONG BREED THAT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND.
BREED DOESN'T MAKE BAD DOGS, PEOPLE DO.
INVEST IN YOUR COMMUNITY, AND IT WILL INVEST IN YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. [APPLAUSE].
>> THANK YOU. MS. WARE, AND AFTER MS. WARE, CAMELIA WEISENBURGER.
>> THANK YOU. I'D FIRST LIKE TO SAY I ABSOLUTELY HATE PUBLIC SPEAKING, SO BEAR WITH ME.
MY NAME IS TAMMY WARE, AND I LIVE AT 9102 VICKSBURG AVENUE.
I OWN BRIDGE HOSPICE HERE IN LUBBOCK.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY PEOPLE THAT KNOW ME KNOW THAT I HAVE TWO PASSIONS IN MY LIFE, AND NUMBER 1 IS CARING FOR OUR ELDERLY AND OUR SICK AND WEAK.
THE SECOND PASSION THAT I HAVE IN MY LIFE IS CARING FOR ANIMALS.
I'VE HAD THIS BUSINESS FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS.
TO SAY THAT I HAVE SPARE TIME ON MY HANDS IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE.
BUT IN THE LAST EIGHT YEARS, I HAVE FOSTERED ON MY OWN 100-200 ANIMALS.
ON MY OWN DIME, I DO NOT HAVE A 501C3.
I DO NOT GET DISCOUNTS ON DOG FOOD OR VET BILLS.
IN FACT, MY CURRENT BILL AT LIVE OAK IS $5,000, AND THAT REMINDS ME I NEED TO GO GIVE D. R CLARRY A CHECK BEFORE HE CUTS ME OFF.
I DO THAT BECAUSE I LOVE ANIMALS, BUT I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT LUBBOCK, AND WHO LUBBOCK OR WHAT I SEE IN LUBBOCK.
I GREW UP IN LUBBOCK, AND THEN I MOVED TO CALIFORNIA, HAWAII, IDAHO, AND I CAME BACK TO LUBBOCK.
I GOT MARRIED AND I RAISED MY DAUGHTER HERE, WHO'S NOW IN COLLEGE.
I SWORE I WOULD NEVER MOVE BACK TO LUBBOCK, TEXAS, AND HERE I AM, AND I LOVE IT. WE ARE PROGRESSIVE.
I HAVE HEARD THAT A CITY OR A PLACE IS JUDGED ON HOW THE SOCIETY TREATS ELDERLY, HOW THEY TREAT CHILDREN, AND HOW THEY TREAT ANIMALS.
LUBBOCK WILL BE JUDGED ON HOW WE ARE TREATING THESE ANIMALS.
I HAVE ACTUALLY THREATENED A BOARD MEMBER ONE TIME ABOUT THAT I WAS GOING TO GO AND PICK IT AT A TECH GAME WHENEVER WE HAD A BIG GAME COMING IN AND PEOPLE FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY COMING FOR A BIG GAME AND SHOW WHAT OUR ANIMAL SERVICES IS LIKE.
I WORK WITH STEPHEN A LOT, THEY WORKED SO HARD, BUT WE ARE OVERPOPULATED, AND THE PROBLEM WITH OVERPOPULATION IS NOT TO KILL DOGS THAT ARE DEEMED DANGEROUS.
IF THEY ARE AGGRESSIVE AND THERE ARE SOME DANGEROUS ONES, BUT YOU CANNOT KILL A DOG BECAUSE SOMEONE SAYS THAT THEY'RE DANGEROUS OR IF THEY ACT AGGRESSIVE, MAYBE BECAUSE THEY'RE HUNGRY, MAYBE BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED.
LOOK AT OUR PRISONS. OUR PRISONS ARE FULL OF PEOPLE WHO MAYBE WHENEVER THEY WERE CHILDREN OR SOMETHING, THEY GREW UP SCARED, AND THEY WENT AND ROBBED SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY NEEDED SOME MONEY.
I WANT YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT THESE ANIMALS THE WAY WE SEE THEM TOO, AND I KNOW YOU DO.
I CAN SEE YOUR FACES WITH COMPASSION.
BUT THE ANSWER IS NOT TO BE FOR THE LAS TO HAVE TO KILL ANIMALS THAT ARE CONSIDERED AGGRESSIVE.
IT IS BY KEEPING THESE VOUCHERS IN PLACE.
IT'S BY THE FENCE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE.
IN FACT, AND I'LL MAKE THIS QUICK.
ON STORY, WORKING WITH A RESCUE, A DOG KEPT JUMPING OUT AND RUNNING AWAY.
WE TRIED FOUR DIFFERENT FOSTER HOMES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LYMBO.
[01:10:04]
THIS LADY THAT HAD BEEN FEEDING THE STRAY DOG, THE DOG WOULD KEEP RUNNING BACK TO HER HOUSE.HOW IT FOUND ITS WAY BACK, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE WAY BACK ON THE NORTH SIDE.
I WENT AND PERSONALLY SPENT $3,000 TO BUILD THAT SINGLE MOM FENCE TO KEEP THAT DOG.
PLEASE KEEP THESE THINGS IN PLACE, AND NO TO JUST KILLING BECAUSE A DOG IS CONSIDERED DANGEROUS.
I PERSONALLY RIGHT NOW, I'M FOSTERING A GERMAN SHEPHERD, A PIT BULL AND A ROT WAILER RIGHT NOW.
I HAVE FIVE IN MY PROPERTY I RENT RIGHT NOW.
ANYWAY, I KNOW MY TIME'S UP. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU. MS, WEISENBURGER, AFTER MS. WEISENBURGER, TATUM QUINN.
>> HELLO, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS CAMELIA WEISENBURGER, AND I HAVE BEEN LIVING IN THIS CITY FOR 27 YEARS.
THROUGH OUR SMALL NONPROFIT RESCUE, ANIMAL RESCUE, LA BAEZ ALIVE, WE HAVE RESCUED MANY ANIMALS FROM OUR STREETS, FROM PEOPLE THAT NEEDED HELP, FROM OUR SHELTER AND SHELTERS AROUND.
I PERSONALLY SUPPORT MULTIPLE LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS IN TRYING TO PITCH ANY EFFORT THAT I CAN, IN MAKING A DIFFERENCE IN PROTECTING THE ONES IN NEED, WHETHER PEOPLE OR ANIMALS.
OUR CITY IS FACING AN UNPRECEDENTED SITUATION WITH HEARTBREAKING CASES OF MANY ANIMALS IN THE STREET, SUBJECTED TO A WIDE ARRAY OF DANGERS.
OUR CITIZENS ARE HEARTBROKEN AND ARE CONCERNED.
THIS IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AFFECTING BOTH OUR CITIZENS AS WELL THE PETS AND THE ANIMALS OF OUR CITY.
THESE ANIMALS NEED OUR LOVE AND CARE, AND OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS TO STAY SAFE.
IT CANNOT BE ONE OR THE OTHER.
OTHER CITIES, INCLUDING IN TEXAS, SUCCEED TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM WITHOUT RESORTING TO MASS EUTHANASIA FOR ALL THE ANIMALS IN THE STREET.
THAT WILL NOT MAKE SENSE, IT WILL JUST KEEP US IN A VICIOUS CIRCLE WHILE WE SPEND OUR MONEY.
IF OTHERS CAN SAVE AND REHOME THEIR CITY PETS WHILE KEEPING THEIR STREETS SAFE, WHY CAN WE NOT? OUR CITIZENS, WHETHER RESCUES OR JUST GOOD SAMARITANS, ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO THIS PROBLEM AND INVEST PERSONAL TIME, FUNDS, AND WORK TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, AS YOU HEARD SO MANY CASES HERE.
WE CAN SOLVE THIS AND WE CAN DO RIGHT BY OUR PETS AND ANIMALS.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF OTHER CITIES AND WE HAVE MATERIALS WE CAN PROVIDE YOU THAT CAN HAVE OPEN DOOR SHELTERS AND APPLY GOOD PRACTICE, SUCCESSFUL METHODS TO SAVE THE ANIMALS.
AGAIN, IF IT WORKS IN OTHER PLACES, WHY NOT HERE? HOW ARE YOU DIFFERENT THAN OTHERS? ARE WE LESS SMART OR CARING OR WE LACK EMPATHY? I DON'T THINK SO.
I THINK YOU GOT MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF THE OPPOSITE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT YOU, OUR ELECTED LEADERS, TO ENCOURAGE, SUPPORT, AND PUSH US FORWARD IN OUR EFFORTS TO BETTER OUR CITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF US, THE CITIZENS, AND ITS ANIMALS.
I THANK ALL THE SPEAKERS BEFORE, AND I REITERATE THEIR POINTS.
I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT ON SPAENAUR ON NOT LIMITING THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS TO FOUR, AND ALSO IN THE IMPORTANCE OFFENSE PROGRAM WITHOUT WHICH THE TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES ON THE COMMUNITY WILL BE FELT BY ALL.
I PLEAD WITH YOU TO LISTEN TO ALL THE SOLUTIONS AND PROPOSALS THAT EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY, AND ESPECIALLY THE ONES IN THE RESCUE AND ADVOCACY WORLD PRESENT.
WE ARE ALL JUST TRYING TO DO THIS CITY OF OURS BETTER, AND WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU.
PLEASE LOOK INTO THE FORMULAS THAT OTHER CITIES ARE SUCCESSFULLY APPLYING.
WE ALL REALLY THINK WE CAN DO THIS, AND WE OWE IT TO OUR CITIZENS AND TO OUR COMMUNITY TO THEIR PETS AND ANIMALS.
PLEASE ENCOURAGE SUPPORT AND ENABLE US TO DO THIS TOGETHER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
>> THANK YOU, MR. WEISENBURGER. [APPLAUSE] MS. QUINN, EXCUSE ME TATUM.
>> HI. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE MOMENT TO SPEAK.
I WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMUNITY FENCE MENDING GRANT, AND IN PARTICULAR, THE RECENT STATEMENTS THAT IF ONE CANNOT, WELL, THE RECENT STATEMENTS THAT A PET IS NOT A RIGHT, AND IF ONE CAN'T AFFORD TO FIX ONE'S FENCE, PERHAPS ONE SIMPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE A PET.
IT IS TRUE THAT HAVING A PET IS NOT A RIGHT.
BUT THERE ARE A GREAT MANY THINGS WHICH ARE ARGUABLY NOT A RIGHT, WHICH ARE READILY SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN THE INTEREST OF A HAPPIER, HEALTHIER COMMUNITY, IT COULD BE ARGUED,
[01:15:01]
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAVING A CHILD IS NOT A RIGHT, AND IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD TO PROVIDE CARE FOR YOUR CHILD, YOU SIMPLY SHOULD NOT HAVE YOUR CHILD.BUT, OF COURSE, WE DON'T DO THAT.
WHEN WE HAVE A HAPPY, HEALTHY, LOVING FAMILY THAT FINDS THEMSELVES IN A FINANCIAL SITUATION WHERE THEY CANNOT PROVIDE EVERYTHING THAT THEIR CHILD NEEDS, WE DON'T DECIDE THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THE CHILD AND TAKE THE CHILD AWAY BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE DEEPLY TRAUMATIC FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED WHEN THE FAMILY UNIT IS BROKEN UP.
INSTEAD, WE PROVIDE RESOURCES TO THE FAMILY IN THE HOPE THAT IT CAN CARE FOR ITSELF, TOGETHER WE PROVIDE THINGS LIKE TANI.
WE PROVIDE THINGS LIKE SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAMS. SOME PEOPLE MIGHT FIND IT UNPALATABLE TO COMPARE A PET TO A HUMAN CHILD, THAT'S FAIR.
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT FOR MANY PEOPLE, A PET IS NOT JUST A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY, BUT IT MIGHT EVEN BE THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE FAMILY THAT THEY INTERACT WITH ON A REGULAR BASIS.
WE HAVE COMMUNITIES IN OUR CITY THAT ARE LIKELY TO BE ISOLATED, MANY ELDERLY PEOPLE, MANY DISABLED PEOPLE, MANY PEOPLE STRUGGLING WITH MENTAL ILLNESS MAY RECEIVE EMOTIONAL SUPPORT FROM THEIR PETS THAT PROVIDES THEM WITH A QUALITY OF LIFE, THEY OTHERWISE WOULD NOT HAVE.
IT CAN BE A LIFELINE FOR THEM, AND THESE ARE THE SAME COMMUNITIES THAT ARE LIKELY TO STRUGGLE WITH POVERTY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE LITTLE OLD LADY DOWN THE ROAD, WHOSE KIDS GREW UP AND MOVED AWAY LONG AGO, AND WHOSE BEST FRIEND IS THIS NATAL TOOTH OLD MUTT, DESERVES TO BE TOLD THAT SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE THAT BEST FRIEND BECAUSE SHE CAN'T PAY TO FIX HER FENCE WITH HER SOCIAL SECURITY.
I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE FENCE GRANT.
SORRY, I FORGOTTEN MY TIME. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MR. TATUM. [APPLAUSE] DEBBIE, AND AFTER DEBBIE, GRACIELA QUINTEROS.
I LIVE AT 1005 GROVER AVENUE, AND I'M A LEADER WITH WEST TEXAS ORGANIZING STRATEGY THROUGH WHICH I'VE HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF MEETING WITH MANY OF YOU.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
I'VE CARED FOR A HOMELESS MAN FOR 12 YEARS NOW.
HE HAS AN EIGHTH GRADE EDUCATION, NO INSURANCE, AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO HELP HIM NAVIGATE THE SYSTEM.
UNTIL YOU'VE HAD A RELATIONSHIP WITH A HOMELESS PERSON, IT'S HARD TO APPRECIATE WHAT THEY GO THROUGH TO SURVIVE.
ON BEHALF OF HIM AND OTHERS, I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY ASSISTANCE THAT YOU COULD GIVE THIS PART OF OUR POPULATION.
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT MONEY TO REPAIR FENCES IS NOT A REWARD FOR LAX PET OWNERS, AND NEITHER IS IT MERELY FREE MONEY.
IT'S A WAY TO PROTECT US ALL FROM LOOSE DOGS.
HAVING A DOG SHOULDN'T BE A PRIVILEGE FOR A SELECT FEW AS DOGS ADD SO MUCH TO OUR HEALTH AND LIFE.
I WOULD HOPE WE CARE ENOUGH ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORS MENTAL HEALTH AND OUR COLLECTIVE ANIMALS WELL BEING, THAT WE COULD PROVIDE BOTH FENCING HELP AND ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS, NOT EITHER OR. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MS ZACK. MS. QUINTEROS, AND AFTER HER LUKE STEINMETZ.
>> MY NAME IS GRACIELA FLORIS QUINTEROS, ADDRESS 5,415TH STREET.
I'M A LIFELONG RESIDENT OF LUBBOCK AND A LICENSED SOCIAL WORKER FOR OVER 45 YEARS.
I'VE DONE COMMUNITY SOCIAL WORK.
CURRENTLY, I VOLUNTEER WITH WEST TEXAS ORGANIZING STRATEGY.
I VOLUNTEER AT THE FREE CLINIC AT LUBBOCK IMPACT, AND I DO OTHER COMMUNITY WORK OR COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER WORK, I GUESS.
[01:20:02]
I WILL FOCUS ON ANIMAL SERVICES.I WAS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TOO, BUT I'LL FOCUS ON ANIMAL SERVICES.
SEVERAL OF US WITH WTOS, MET WITH THE PEOPLE AT THE ANIMAL SERVICES SOME MONTHS AGO.
WE WERE INQUIRING ABOUT WHY RESPONSE TIMES WERE NOT WHAT WE FELT THEY SHOULD BE.
MR. GREEN EXPLAINED ABOUT THEIR PRIORITY SYSTEM, AND I WAS REMINDED OF MY DAYS IN CPS WHEN WE OPERATED ON A PRIORITY SYSTEM, MEANING THAT THEY ARE HAVING TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT ARE MORE SERIOUS LIKE AN ANIMAL SHOWING AGGRESSION.
THOSE THEY RESPOND TO QUICKLY AND THE OTHERS CAN WAIT JUST LIKE WHAT WE DID IN CPS.
AND BECAUSE OF THEIR LIMITED RESOURCES, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO RESPOND LIKE WE WOULD WANT THEM TO.
I WAS ALSO VERY IMPRESSED WITH THEIR FENCING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS GENIUS AND THEIR WAIVER PROGRAMS TO ENCOURAGE THE COMMUNITY TO STERILIZE THEIR PETS.
WHEN WE WERE KIDS, WE ALWAYS HAD A DOG.
AND IT WAS ALWAYS A MALE DOG BECAUSE THE MALE DOG DOESN'T REPRODUCE.
IT WAS ALWAYS HARD TO KEEP OUR MUTTS IN THE YARD, ESPECIALLY IF THERE WAS A FEMALE DOG AROUND.
AND WE WOULD TRY TO PATCH UP THE FENCE AS WELL AS BEST WE COULD.
BUT THOSE DOGS, WE ALWAYS HAD ONE AT A TIME, BUT THEY ALWAYS MANAGED TO DIG OUT.
MY FATHER WORKED HARD TO PROVIDE FOR US, BUT HE HAD TO PRIORITIZE TOO, AND HE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO NEUTERING OR SPAYING OR TO PATCH UP THE FENCE.
WE DID THAT. I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE.
NOW I CAN AFFORD IT, BUT BACK THEN, WE DIDN'T. WE COULDN'T.
I DO URGE YOU TO RECONSIDER YOUR VIEWS ABOUT LABELING PEOPLE AS IRRESPONSIBLE WHEN THEY REALLY ARE TRYING THEIR BEST.
MR. STEINMETZ. AFTER MR. STEINMETZ, RAY LOZADA.
>> FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PUTTING THIS ON THE AGENDA.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY REALLY WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH EACH OF YOU, AND I THANK EACH ONE OF YOU FOR BEING WILLING TO LISTEN TO US.
HOPE THIS WON'T BE THE LAST TIME.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
MY NAME IS LUKE STEINMETZ, 180678TH STREET.
I'M THE POLICY ADVISOR FOR LUBBOCK CITIZENS FOR CHANGE, CURRENTLY REPRESENTING 1,216 LUBBOCK VOTERS AND GROWING.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY ON THIS ISSUE THAT IS CRITICAL TO OUR COMMUNITY SAFETY AND THE NEED TO MODIFY OUR ANIMAL ORDINANCES.
I WANT TO START BY SAYING WE DO NOT HAVE A DOG PROBLEM.
WE HAVE A PEOPLE PROBLEM HERE IN LUBBOCK.
LAST YEAR, I REPORTED ON A TRAGIC DOG ATTACK CONNECTED TO A BACKYARD BREEDER.
THESE BUSINESSES REPRESENT A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO PUBLIC SAFETY BY INTENTIONALLY BREEDING AGGRESSIVE AND DANGEROUS VERSIONS OF DOGS.
THEIR MARKETING STRATEGIES HIGHLIGHT THE BITE FORCE AND TOUGHNESS OF THE DOGS, FEATURING IMAGES OF DOGS, ATTACKING OBJECTS AND HANGING FROM THEIR TEETH FROM ROPES.
THESE DOGS ARE MARKETED UNDER NAMES LIKE BEAST AND MONSTER TO SELL THEM FOR $5,000 OR MORE, PERPETUATING A CYCLE OF DANGEROUS BREEDING PRACTICES.
THEY ARE MAKING IT CLEAR THESE ARE FIGHTING DOGS THAT ARE TRAINED TO KILL.
ONE EXAMPLE IS THE CASE OF ANNA TACON WHO WAS NEARLY KILLED IN HER LIVING ROOM BY FIVE BLOODTHIRSTY DOGS BRED SPECIFICALLY FOR SUCH AN ACTION BY HER NEIGHBOR.
THESE SAME BREEDERS HAVE SINCE MOVED INTO ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD, PLACING A NEW SET OF CITIZENS UNKNOWINGLY AT RISK.
EVEN WORSE, THESE BREEDERS HAVE FACED ZERO PUNISHMENT FOR THEIR ACTIONS, AND SHE HAS RECEIVED ZERO COMPENSATION AFTER HER LIFE HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY ALTERED BY THIS ATTACK.
THIS SITUATION SHOULD BE COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE IN A CITY LIKE OURS.
I'VE WRITTEN TO ALL OF YOU MULTIPLE TIMES WITH RESEARCH SOLUTIONS TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES.
TODAY, I WOULD LIKE TO SUMMARIZE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
START BY REQUIRING REGISTRATION AND INSPECTION FOR DOG BREEDERS TO REDUCE THE PREVALENCE OF DOGS CREATED FOR FIGHTING.
THESE PEOPLE ARE RUNNING HIGHLY PROFITABLE BUSINESSES, SO THE REGULATION COSTS SHOULD NOT BE INCURRED BY THE CITY.
THEY SHOULD BE PASSED ON TO THE BREEDER DIRECTLY.
[01:25:03]
LUBBOCK SHOULD ALSO ADOPT A MORE COMPREHENSIVE CRITERIA FOR WHAT ACTUALLY CONSTITUTES A DANGEROUS DOG BEYOND THE CURRENT DEFINITION.I HAVE PROVIDED WELL RESEARCHED DEFINITION TO EACH OF YOU, AS WELL AS EVERYONE AT LAS FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
LUBBOCK SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY RAISE THE AMOUNT OF LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUIRED TO KEEP A DANGEROUS DOG IN OUR CITY SO THAT VICTIMS HAVE SOME FINANCIAL RECOURSE FOR THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY THESE DOGS.
FURTHERMORE, LAS SHOULD ESCALATE PENALTIES FOR IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS WITH REPEATED DEFENSES TO STOP THESE DANGEROUS ACTIONS.
ONCE DESIGNATED AS A DANGEROUS DOG OWNER, LAS SHOULD REQUIRE SECURE ENCLOSURES, INCLUDING SIX FOOT FENCES, SECURE TOPS AND BOTTOMS TO PREVENT ESCAPES AND ATTACKS.
LUBBOCK SHOULD ESTABLISH A DANGEROUS DOG REGISTRY TO MONITOR DANGEROUS DOGS AND PROVIDE NOTIFICATIONS TO CURRENT AND PROSPECTIVE NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE POSSIBLE RISK WHEN THESE OWNERS RELOCATE.
ADDITIONALLY, LAS SHOULD IMPOSE SIGNIFICANT FINES ON OWNERS WHO FAIL TO INFORM THE CITY OF THEIR RELOCATION.
THESE CHANGES ARE NOT ONLY ABOUT PUNISHMENT FOR BAD PEOPLE, THEY ARE ABOUT PREVENTING THIS UNKNOWN DANGER IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
THESE CHANGES WILL KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SAFE AND HELP TO ENSURE NO ONE ELSE MUST ENDURE A LIFE ALTERNATING ATTACK.
I CANNOT SAY THIS LOUD ENOUGH.
WE DO NOT HAVE A DOG PROBLEM HERE IN LUBBOCK.
WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM HEAD ON TO SOLVE IT.
I REPEAT, WE DO NOT HAVE A DOG PROBLEM.
WE HAVE A PEOPLE PROBLEM, AND WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IT IN THAT WAY.
NOW, MOVING ON TO THE OVERPOPULATION OF THE KIND AND LOVING STRAY AND ABANDON DOGS ON OUR STREETS.
IT SHOULD GO WITHOUT SAYING, IN MY OPINION, OWNING PETS IS EXPENSIVE AND OWNERSHIP IS NOT A RIGHT. IT IS A PRIVILEGE.
LUBBOCK SHOULD REQUIRE CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD PROPER CARE FOR THEIR PETS.
THAT IS WHY OUR CITY SHOULD ADOPT A MANDATORY NEUTER REQUIREMENT FOR ALL MALE DOG OWNERS THAT ARE NOT REGISTERED BREEDERS THAT ENFORCE THOSE NEUTER REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE OVERPOPULATION OF STRAY AND ABANDONED DOGS ON THE STREETS.
THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I'VE RAISED THESE SOLUTIONS, BUT I HOPE TODAY IS AN IMPORTANT MILESTONE WHERE YOU MOVE FROM TALKING TO INCREMENTAL ACTION.
THIS IS A COMPLEX TOPIC FOR SURE, AND THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE END OF OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT IT.
ONLY THE BEGINNING OF THE COUNCIL'S ACTION TO MOVE IN THE CORRECT DIRECTION.
OUR CITIZENS DESERVE A COUNCIL WHO CARES ABOUT THEIR SAFETY AND IS WILLING TO LISTEN AND RESPOND TO THEIR CONCERNS IN A VERY TRANSPARENT WAY.
WITH THAT SAID, I REQUEST THAT YOU VOTE TO IMPLEMENT MEANINGFUL CHANGES THAT PROTECT ALL RESIDENTS OF LUBBOCK TODAY.
I THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO GO OVER MY TIME, AND I THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THIS ON THE AGENDA. I REALLY DO.
>> THANK YOU, MR. STEINMETZ. MR. LOZADA.
>> GREETINGS, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS FOR A WHILE.
BUT THE LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES, ONE OF THE CITY'S PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY DEPARTMENTS, LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES PROVIDES QUALITY FIELD OPERATIONS AT AN ADOPTION CENTER THAT PROVIDES A TEMPORARY HOME FOR CATS AND DOGS UNTIL THEY FIND SUITABLE AND PERMANENT HOMES.
IN THE HOOD, WE USED TO CALL THEM DOG CATCHERS.
BUT THEY ARE SO MUCH MORE THAN DOG CATCHERS.
THEY ARE THE CARETAKERS OF SO MANY UNWANTED ANIMALS THAT RUN IN THE STREETS.
NOW, HOW MANY THAT CAN HEAR ME RIGHT NOW, AT ONE TIME HAD A PET? RAISE YOUR HAND OR HAVE WANTED TO HAVE A PET.
HOW MANY MEMBERS OR HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE SAW THE MOVIE OLD YELLER? RAISE YOUR HAND.
HOW MANY OF YOU CRIED WHEN OLD YELLER DIED? THESE ANIMALS, THEY MAY BE UNWANTED, BUT THEY CAN LOVE YOU.
THESE ANIMALS LOVE YOU, AND THEY'RE JUST SOME PEOPLE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO RETURN THAT LOVE TO THESE ANIMALS.
THEY DON'T TAKE CARE OF THEM, THEY DON'T FEED THEM.
THEY DON'T TAKE THEM TO THE VET.
MORE OR LESS THEY DON'T PROVIDE A GOOD HOME FOR THEM.
NOW, WHEN I SAID TO DOG CATCHERS THEY DO SO MUCH MORE THAN DOG CATCHING.
THEY PROVIDE AN ADOPTION CENTER.
THEY PROVIDE FOR A FOSTER SERVICE.
NOW, THEY ALSO GO AND PICK UP DECEASED ANIMALS FROM THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, WHICH IS SAD.
THEY GO OUT AND CHECK EXCESSIVE BARKING.
THEY LOOK AFTER NON AGGRESSIVE DOGS AT LARGE.
[01:30:05]
THEY TEND TO WILD LIFE IN NEIGHBORHOODS.THEY FIND ANIMALS THAT NEED TO BE SCANNED.
THEY HAVE THE UNFORTUNATE PROBLEM OF SOMETIMES HAVING TO CLEAN UP EXCESSIVE FECES IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY LOOK AFTER TETHERING VIOLATIONS.
THEY LOOK AFTER LANDLORD SURRENDERS, AND THEY LOOK AFTER ROAD SLIDE SALES.
NOW, YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT YOU GOT TO BE PATIENT WITH THESE OFFICERS.
THERE'S USUALLY THREE OFFICERS AND ANY TIME TO SERVE THE 260,000 CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK.
WHEN YOU SEE THEM, THANK THEM.
THEY WORK HARD TO PROTECT THE CITY AND SEE CASES THAT ARE HEARTBREAKING.
THEY NEED THE SUPPORT OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
THEY NEED MORE SUPPORT, ESPECIALLY FROM THE COMMUNITY.
MR. SCHENKELS, AND AFTER MR. SCHENKELS, MELISSA KEY.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. JOSHUA SCHENKELS.
I LIVE IN THE 2,600 BLOCK OF 47TH STREET.
I'M ONE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTORS OF LUBBOCK COMPACT.
LET ME START BY WISHING EVERYBODY A HAPPY NEW YEAR AND THANKING YOU ALL FOR YOUR SERVICE TO OUR CITY.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE PUBLIC WHO SPOKE SO BEAUTIFULLY AND MOVINGLY ON THESE TWO ISSUES THAT THEY STOLE EVERY SINGLE THING THAT I WAS GOING TO COME UP HERE AND SAY TO Y'ALL.
I'M PICKING OUT A FEW OTHER ARGUMENTS THAT I DON'T THINK HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED YET.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM 613614.
FIRST, COUNSEL I GUESS I'D LIKE TO START BY SAYING THAT WE DON'T BUILD SYSTEMS. THINK OF THE TRAFFIC SYSTEM.
WE DON'T BUILD ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SYSTEM BASED ON THE PEOPLE THAT WILL CAUSE INFRACTIONS.
WE BUILD A SYSTEM ENTIRELY FOR EVERYBODY WHO IS COMPLIANT, AND THAT'S MOST PEOPLE.
IN FACT, I'VE HEARD SO MANY CITY STAFF GET UP HERE AND SAY THAT ABOUT SO MANY DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF HOW THE CITY RUNS.
I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED AT ALL IF IT'S IN FACT, SOMETHING THAT JARRETT SAYS ALL THE TIME IS THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE IN THE BUSINESS OF BRINGING PEOPLE AROUND TO COMPLIANCE, NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PUNISHING THEM, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS A THING THAT CAN OCCASIONALLY COME UP AND HAPPEN AS HAS BEEN EXPRESSED AS A NECESSITY.
BUT THE CITY SHOULD REALLY BE IN THE BUSINESS OF BRINGING ABOUT COMPLIANCE.
THAT MEANS THAT ALL THESE UPSTREAM THINGS WITH REGARD TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER, LIKE THE SPAN NEUTER VOUCHER PROGRAM, LIKE THE FENCE REPAIR, ARE THINGS THAT ARE VITAL NECESSITIES TO GET US TO THE GOAL WHERE WE WANT TO BE BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE COMPLIANT PEOPLE IN YOUR CITY WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE, THEY DON'T WANT TO GET EATEN UP BY DOGS, EITHER.
LIKE THE DOGS ARE ON THE STREET RIGHT NOW.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO RIGHT NOW? THE ENFORCEMENT MEASURES ARE WELCOME, BUT IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW THEY'RE EVEN ENFORCED.
SOME RANDOM DOG THAT LOOKS LIKE 10 OTHER DOGS UNREGISTERED RUNNING DOWN THE STREET.
WHO ARE YOU GOING TO PUT AN ENFORCEMENT COMPONENT AGAINST IN THAT SITUATION.
FURTHER, COUNSEL I JUST WANT TO GO AT THIS GAME THAT IS LIKE, WE'RE DOING THIS IN THE NAME OF SAVING MONEY.
THAT'S ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY SEVERAL CITIZENS.
BUT IT'S A RIDICULOUS PROPOSITION BECAUSE THERE ARE WAYS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL COULD BE SAVING MONEY.
THESE ARE FRACTIONS OF PENNIES.
THERE'S NOT A SINGLE PERSON THAT DOESN'T WANT LESS TAXES, BUT IT'S SO WRONG HEADED TO JUST END THE THOUGHT PROCESS THERE.
THEY WANT THE MONEY THAT THEY SPEND ON GOVERNMENT TO BE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTUAL.
THAT'S THE THING THAT'S BEHIND BOTH THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT ISSUE AND THE ANIMAL SERVICE ISSUE IS THAT WE HAVE CITY STAFF, THAT IS INCREDIBLE.
THE PUBLIC HAS COME OUT AND DEFENDED THEM ADMIRABLY AGAINST ATTACK AND ALIGNMENT.
I THINK WE CAN'T JUST END WITH, WE WANT TO SAVE MONEY.
WE WANT TO SAVE MONEY IN THE LONG TERM, WITH GOOD POLICY, AND WE WANT TO HAVE A FACTUAL GOVERNMENT THAT USES THAT MONEY WELL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, COUNSEL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. SCHENKELS. MS. KEY.
AFTER MS. KEY, WILL BE SHERRY PATTERSON.
[01:35:10]
>> HI. THANK YOU, CITY COUNCIL.
I VOLUNTEER FOR VARIOUS RESCUES IN TOWN AND HAVE FOR MANY YEARS, AND I ALSO SERVE ON THE LIS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
AS LUBBOCK GROWS, OUR CITY LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO INCREASE FUNDING TO ASSIST IN A HEALTHY AND CONTROLLED ANIMAL POPULATION, WHICH GOES HAND IN HAND WITH A HEALTHY HUMAN POPULATION.
FREE SPAY AND NEUTER VOUCHERS ARE ESSENTIAL IN HELPING CONTROL THE ANIMAL POPULATION.
CAT AND DOG OVER-POPULATION STRAINS ARE ALREADY OUTDATED AND UNDERSIZED ANIMAL SHELTER AND RESOURCES.
THE MAJORITY OF THE VOUCHERS THAT ARE RECEIVED BY THE LUBBOCK RESIDENTS ARE UTILIZED AND APPRECIATED.
THIS EFFORT IMPROVES THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ANIMALS, BUT ALSO SAVE TAXPAYERS MONEY THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE SPENT ON ANIMAL CONTROL AND SHELTER OPERATIONS.
LUBBOCK IS KNOWN AROUND THE COUNTRY FOR OUR LACK OF EFFORTS THAT GO TO OUR ANIMAL POPULATION, AND STEVEN AND THE SHELTER STAFF HAVE DONE THEIR BEST SINCE HE HAS BECOME DIRECTOR TO CHANGE THAT IMAGE.
THEY ARE LIMITED BY UNDERFUNDING AND A HISTORIC LACK OF INTEREST OR INVOLVEMENT FROM THE CITY'S LEADERSHIP.
IT IS ALSO ILLOGICAL TO ASSUME THAT OUR NONPROFITS, AND RESCUES HAVE THE PEOPLE OR THEY RESCUE THEIR RESOURCES TO FIX THIS OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM.
DEPENDING ON VOLUNTEERS WHO ARE USING THEIR OWN MONEY TO FIX AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY, ESPECIALLY ONE OF OUR SIZE IS NOT A LONG-TERM ANSWER.
LUBBOCK SHOULD BE DOING A PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF OUR SHELTER AND ITS NEEDS, THAT ALSO INCLUDES THE NONPROFITS AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN TODAY AS WE LOOK TO A FUTURE OF GROWTH AND POPULATION AND SIZE AND NOT FOCUSING ON CUTTING ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
>> MS. PATTERSON. AFTER MS. PATTERSON, RACHEL HODGE.
>> HI. MY NAME IS SHERRY PATTERSON DEBRIS.
I DON'T DO PUBLIC SPEAKING VERY WELL, AND A LOT OF THINGS I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT TODAY, OTHER PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT IT UP.
BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY ON A PERSONAL LEVEL THAT 15 YEARS AGO, I WORKED AS A VOLUNTEER FOR THE HUMANE SOCIETY, AND I TOOK IN OVER 200 DOGS WITHIN TWO YEARS, AND AT THAT TIME, OUR PUPPIES AND DOGS WERE QUICKLY ADOPTED.
BY THE NEXT WEEK, I HAD A WHOLE NEW BUNCH OF PETS AT MY HOUSE.
BY THE TIME THE TWO YEARS WAS UP, I WAS GETTING BURNT OUT.
MY HOUSE WAS GETTING DESTROYED, MY BACKYARD WAS DESTROYED, AND I TOO WAS HAVING THE REPAIR FENCE OR FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A DOG, NOT TO JUMP OVER A SIX FOOT FENCE AT TIMES.
BUT AT THAT TIME, WE NOTICED THAT DOGS WERE STARTING TO NOT BECOME AS THEY DIDN'T GET ADOPTED AS QUICKLY, AND PART OF IT WAS BECAUSE PEOPLE WERE NOT GETTING THEIR DOGS FIXED, EVEN THOUGH WE GAVE THEM THE VOUCHERS.
THEN THE HUMANE SOCIETY CHANGED ITS RULES THAT THE DOGS HAD TO BE FIXED FIRST, WHICH MEANS THOSE LITTLE PUPPIES ARE NOW BIG PUPPIES AND THEY DID NOT GO AS QUICKLY.
THAT SLOWED MY HOUSE DOWN AND OTHER PEOPLE'S HOUSE.
I EVENTUALLY GOT OUT OF IT BECAUSE I GOT BURNED OUT.
LAST YEAR, ONE OF MY DOGS WAS LET OUT BY A ROOFER, AND I BELIEVE MY DOG WAS STOLEN BECAUSE THE BREED THAT HE WAS.
BUT I STILL WENT AND TOOK MY DOG TO THE PETS CLINIC BECAUSE AT THE TIME, I COULD NOT AFFORD THE NUTRIENT BATH THAT THEY CHARGE AT OTHER VETS. I WENT THERE.
THEY DID A REALLY GOOD JOB, AND THEN SINCE THEN, I HAD ADOPTED OTHER RESCUED DOGS, AND I CONTINUED TO TAKE MY DOGS TO THE PETS CLINIC.
I'M ONLY ONE PERSON, BUT I SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THESE DOGS, AND I FEEL SORRY FOR THEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT THEIR FAULT.
THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO SURVIVE ON THEIR OWN.
THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE, MY PHONE'S BEEN GOING OFF BECAUSE I'M STILL LOOKING FOR MY DOG, PROBABLY WILL NOT EVER GET BACK.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE'S OTHER DOGS ARE BEING REPORTED, THEY'RE MISSING, OR YOU SEE THEIR BONES AND THEY'RE STRUGGLING OUT THERE.
I KNOW IT'S A MONEY ISSUE, BUT BACK 15 YEARS AGO, IF WE HAD FIXED THE PROBLEM THEN, WE WOULD NOT BE IN THE SITUATION WE ARE TODAY.
THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF THEY NEED TO BE GETTING FIXED,
[01:40:01]
AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, AND I WILL HELP IF I KNEW HOW, BUT I THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN ORDINANCE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT BREED THEY ARE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONLY THE DANGERS OR THE PIT BULLS ARE LOST.
IT'S NOW THE CUTE LITTLE ADORABLE ONES WHO ARE OUT THERE STRUGGLING TO LIVE ON THEIR OWN.
THAT'S ALL I ASK IS THAT WE FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, I THINK IT'LL BE WORSE.
I DON'T WANT IT TO BE LIKE WALMART YOU WALK DOWN THE STREETS AND THERE'S DOGS ALL OVER THE PLACE, AND I FEAR THAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.
BUT I DON'T MIND HELPING, AND I'M NOT PART OF A AGENCY, BUT I DON'T MIND HELPING WHERE I CAN FOR THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MS. PATTERSON. [APPLAUSE] RACHEL HODGE, AND AFTER RACHEL WILL BE PAUL BULLET.
SEE HER COMING FORWARD, THEN PAUL.
AFTER PAUL, WE'LL HAVE ADAM HERNANDEZ.
I THINK THAT THE COUNCIL CAN SEE BY THE OUT OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE COME FORWARD ON THIS, THAT THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC.
I CAN'T BOAST THAT I AM A FOSTER, I HAVE CATS.
BUT OVER THE YEARS, MY WIFE AND I HAVE RESCUED AND SPENT TIME AND MONEY TRYING TO RELOCATE THESE DOGS.
BUT MY STORY IS ABOUT A NEIGHBOR THREE MONTHS AGO THAT HIS DOG ESCAPED AND WAS KILLED QUICKLY BY STRAY DOGS, AND A RECENT WALK IN THE TECH CAMPUS.
I CAME UPON A FRIEND WHO HAD HIS DOG AND ALSO A CANE.
I ASKED HIM IF HE WAS HAVING TROUBLE WALKING, AND HE PICKED THE CANE UP AND SHOWED ME THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY A STUN GUN.
THEN HE SAID THAT IN HIS NEIGHBORHOOD OF TECH TERRACE, WHILE WALKING, A MAN WITH TWO DOGS WAS ATTACKED, HIS TWO DOGS WERE KILLED, AND THE MAN WAS HOSPITALIZED.
THIS IS NOT TO MENTION A FATALITY IN MCKENZIE PARK TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO.
I THINK THAT WHEN CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK FEAR WALKING ON THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD STREETS, NOT BECAUSE OF HOOD AND GANGS, BUT BECAUSE OF STRAY DOGS, IT IS A NO BRAINER THAT DEFUNDING IS A ABSOLUTE DISASTER OF A PLAN AND THAT ALL FUNDS SHOULD BE KEPT IN PLACE AND INCREASED TO SECURE THE SECURITY OF OUR FAMILIES, YOUNG CHILDREN WHO ARE OUT ON THE STREETS, OLDER PEOPLE, AND THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK DESERVE TO HAVE A SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD TO ENJOY HERE IN OUR CITY OF LUBBOCK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. BULLET. ADAM HERNANDEZ, AND AFTER MR. HERNANDEZ, ELAINE GOODLOE.
>> HEY. GOOD AFTERNOON OR EVENING, WHATEVER IT IS AT THIS POINT.
MAYOR AND COUNSEL, ADAM HERNANDEZ 6966 26TH STREET.
I AM COMMUNICATIONS CHAIR OF LUBBOCK COMPACT.
I WANT TO ADDRESS BOTH OF THE ISSUES, THE CHIP AND THE ANIMAL CONTROL ISSUE.
I'LL GET THE CHIP IN CHNA PART OUT OF THE WAY REAL QUICK.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I HEARD WHEN THIS WAS LAST BROUGHT UP TO COUNCIL, WAS THAT THERE WAS NO VALIDITY TO THE STATEMENT, THE CONCLUSION REACHED THAT PEOPLE WANTED MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES.
WELL, MR. GUSCIN, I PRAY THAT YOU NEVER HAVE A CHILD THAT HAS A SUICIDE ATTEMPT.
ONE OF THOSE WAS SUCCESSFUL IN 2018, AND THEN MY YOUNGEST DAUGHTER HAD TWO ATTEMPTS BECAUSE OF THAT TRAUMATIC EVENT.
IF YOU ARE IN THAT UNLUCKY CLUB, AS I AM, THEN YOU QUICKLY REALIZE WHERE THE GAPS ARE IN OUR MENTAL HEALTH ACCESS.
TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF AND THE THOUSANDS OF OTHERS I'VE TALKED TO THAT DEAL WITH MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND THE LACK OF ACCESS, TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT THAT'S NOT A THING IN LUBBOCK IS NOT ONLY INSULTING, BUT IT'S OUTRIGHT FALSE.
IT'S JUST WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CITY COUNCIL, WHAT COMES UP MORE OFTEN THAN NOT AS BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF PUBLIC MONEY.
THE MONEY FOR THIS REPORT WAS ALREADY SPENT.
WHAT SENSE DOES IT MAKE TO NOT ACCEPT IT? THAT'S NOT FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE.
THAT'S NOT BEING GOOD STEWARDS OF TAXPAYERS MONEY, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT BECAUSE OF YOUR PARTISANSHIP OR WHATEVER ELSE.
NOW I'LL MOVE ON TO THE DOG ISSUE.
[01:45:02]
I'VE TALKED TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS BECAUSE WHILE I'M GLAD THAT SEVERAL OF YOU ARE NOW COMING TO THE PARTY OF ANIMAL CONTROL, WELCOME.THERE'S BEEN THOSE OF US WORKING ON THIS FOR YEARS.
OVER THOSE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, I'VE TALKED TO HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WITH STORIES LIKE YOU'VE HEARD.
DOGS KILLED, PEOPLE INJURED, A MAN KILLED BY DOGS.
THAT'S NOT EVEN INCLUDING THE ISSUES WITH CATS.
IN TYPICAL FACTION, I DON'T LIKE TO JUST COME UP HERE AND TRY TO BE RATE ANYBODY.
I'D LIKE TO OFFER SOME SOLUTIONS, SOME THINGS FOR YOU ALL TO CONSIDER THAT COULD DRAW OFF OF THE FEEDBACK THAT I'VE GOTTEN FROM THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS.
YOU WANT TO HAVE THE MOST IMPACT AND SAVE THE MOST MONEY, MAKE SURE MORE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THAT FENCE PROGRAM. DON'T TAKE IT AWAY.
GET MORE FENCES FIXED BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW IT EXISTS.
YOU WANT TO SPEND VERY LITTLE OR NO MONEY AND HAVE BIGGER IMPACT, EXPAND THAT VOUCHER PROGRAM.
MAKE SURE THAT MORE VETS ARE PARTICIPATING.
MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE PARTNERING WITH GREAT ORGANIZATIONS LIKE PETS OR KAT'S ALLEY CATS, OR THE RESCUES.
START THERE FIRST, AND YOU'LL HAVE THE GREATEST IMPACT WITH LITTLE OR NO MONEY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [APPLAUSE]
>> MS. GOODLOE, AND AFTER MS. GOODLOE, OUR LAST SPEAKER IS GRIFFIN KIMBLE.
>> HI. GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR.
AS SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE SAID, A LOT OF REALLY GOOD POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE TODAY.
I'M ALSO HAVING TO EDIT MY COMMENTS, WHICH I DON'T MIND BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE EXPERTS IN THE ROOM ARE PROFOUNDLY APPRECIATED AND NEEDED.
AS YOU ALL KNOW AS PROFESSIONALS IN YOUR FIELDS, YOU'VE LEARNED FROM EDUCATION AND FROM EXPERTS.
YOU'VE GONE TO LAW SCHOOL, YOU'VE GONE TO MEDICAL SCHOOL.
YOU'VE GONE TO BUSINESS SCHOOL, WHATEVER THAT IS, LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW BEST IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT YOU CAN DO FOR THE CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK.
NOW, ADMITTEDLY, I WAS NOT ENGAGED IN CITY ISSUES AT ALL BECAUSE I BELIEVED AS MANY PEOPLE IN THE CITY DO, THAT THIS IS A LAID BACK CITY.
WHEN YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY, IT'S GOING TO GET TAKEN CARE OF BY EMS, POLICE, HOSPITAL, WHATEVER, FIRE.
PEOPLE WANT TO BE SEEN AND LISTENED TO, THEY WANT TO BE APPRECIATED, AND THEY DON'T WANT TO BE CONDESCENDED TO.
AS A PERSON WHO COULD ADMIT THAT I DID NOT PLAY MY ROLE, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE WHO ARE IN A SIMILAR POSITION BECAUSE I BELIEVED THAT IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE PEOPLE IN POWER.
THAT'S NAIVE OF ME AND I OWN THAT.
LET ME SPEAK TO ANIMAL CONTROL BRIEFLY AND HEALTH SERVICES.
ANIMAL CONTROL, THEY NEED MORE ASSISTANCE.
I AM NOT A CARPENTER, I AM NOT A BUILDER, BUT I'M A VOLUNTEER THAT GOES OUT AND BUILDS WHEELCHAIR RAMPS EVERY SUMMER.
I'M HAPPY TO LEARN AND HELP PEOPLE PUT UP THOSE FENCES.
WHEN THAT GRANT PROGRAM IS IN PLACE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT DOESN'T EVEN COME FROM CITY FUNDS, SO I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY WE WOULD EVEN PUNISH PEOPLE WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT.
IF THAT'S A MISTAKE, I'M SURE SOMEONE WILL CORRECT ME.
BUT HAVING FENCES AND HAVING VOUCHER PROGRAMS AS A POOR COLLEGE STUDENT, I WANTED A CAT.
I WANTED A DOG, TOO, BUT CATS ARE EASIER.
IT'S EXPENSIVE TO GET A CAT OR DOG SPADE AND NEUTER, YOU ALL KNOW THAT.
I'M SAYING WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE HAS SAID.
REGARDING THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WHEN I CAME TO LUBBOCK 30 YEARS AGO TO GO TO TEXAS TECH, ONE OF THE JOKES WAS, HEY, HAVE ALL HEARD ABOUT RAIDER RASH? [BACKGROUND] THAT'S EMBARRASSING.
THAT IS HUMILIATING AND EMBARRASSING TO SAY, YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES WITH THE HIGH PREGNANCY RATES.
YOU GUYS ARE THE ONES WITH THE HIGH STI RATES, AND RAIDER RASH IS A JOKE.
THAT IS SO EMBARRASSING, AND JUST THE IDEA THAT WE WOULDN'T ADDRESS THAT IS OUTRAGEOUS.
WE DESERVE AS CITIZENS, TO BE HELPED, AND WHEN YOU SEE A FIRE FROM CITY LEADERSHIP, WHEN YOU SEE A FIRE OR AN EMERGENCY, GENERALLY, YOU'RE GOING TO RUN TOWARDS IT.
YOU SEE A PERSON IN NEED, YOU'RE GOING TO RUN TOWARDS IT, AND I IMPLORE YOU FOR MY CHRISTIAN FAITH,
[01:50:03]
AND THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT DON'T SHARE THE SAME FAITH, BUT THEY SHARE THE SAME BELIEFS THAT WE HELP EACH OTHER AND THAT WE DO FOR EACH OTHER TO RAISE EVERYBODY'S WELL BEING.I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. YOU'LL HAVE A GREAT AFTERNOON.
>> THANK YOU, MS. GOODLOE. [APPLAUSE] GRIFFIN KIMBLE.
>> HELLO, COUNCIL. I'M A MEMBER OF DISTRICT 4.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK OUT ON BOTH TOPICS, BUT I HAVE TO KEEP IT BRIEF BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M HERE TO AFFIRM MY SUPPORT OF THE CHIP AS WELL AS THE LAS, AND SPECIFICALLY THE SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM AND ITS EXPANSION.
I'VE READ THE ASSESSMENT, AND I WISH I COULD SAY I WAS SURPRISED BY THE FINDINGS, BUT I'M NOT.
THE LARGEST BARRIER TO HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS BY FAR WAS COST IN THAT REPORT.
CONTINUED INVESTMENT IN PUBLIC HEALTH AND PREVENTATIVE HEALTHCARE IS NOT SIMPLY A SUGGESTION, BUT IT IS A DESPERATE NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY.
IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST, NOT ONLY OF THE UNINSURED, THE UNDER-INSURED, BUT ALSO PRIVATE PAY INSURANCE HOLDERS TO ACCEPT THIS ASSESSMENT AND TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND THESE PROGRAMS TO BETTER SERVE OUR COMMUNITY.
TO DISMISS THIS ASSESSMENT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE.
I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER AND FURTHER THE SUGGESTIONS OF KATHERINE WELLS.
IN REGARDS TO LAS, AS A RESIDENT, I DON'T HAVE TO SEEK OUT FERAL ANIMALS TO AID OR REHOME.
I DO NOT HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF A 501(C)(3) OR NONPROFIT.
I HAVE ANIMALS SHOW UP ON MY DOORSTEP IN DISTRICT 4 WEEKLY, THAT I HAVE TO THEN FIGURE OUT WHAT I'M GOING TO DO WITH THEM BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN KILLING ANIMALS.
YOUR COMMUNITY NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT.
PLEASE DO NOT IGNORE OUR REQUESTS AND OUR PLEAS.
I'LL END IT THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> THANK YOU, MS. [INAUDIBLE].
THAT CONCLUDES OUR TIME FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS.
THANK YOU ALL FOR SHOWING UP, TAKING THE TIME TO PRESENT YOUR COMMENTS TODAY.
AGAIN, FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO VOLUNTEER, TAKE CARE OF ANIMALS, I THINK ALL OF US UP HERE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR EFFORTS.
WE'RE DOING WHAT WE CAN, AND OUR JOB IS TO DO WHAT THE CITY DOES, BUT YOU ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT WE DO.
I'VE HEARD SOME WONDERFUL STORIES AND TESTIMONY TODAY.
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND BE RIGHT BACK.
HEY, IT LOOKS LIKE OUR TIME IS RIGHT NOW. LOOK AT THAT.
WE'RE BACK FROM OUR RECESS AT 4:50.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THOSE WHO CARED TO STAY.
WE'LL NOW TAKE UP OUR AGENDA ITEM 4.1,
[4. Minutes]
THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 3, 2024, REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4.1?
>> ANY DISCUSSION OR CHANGES? IF THERE ARE NONE, THEN ALL IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 3, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE?
>> ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY? I HEAR NONE.
THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE UP ITEMS THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE,
[5. Consent Agenda - Items considered to be routine are enacted by one motion without separate discussion. If the City Council desires to discuss an item, the item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.]
AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA.IF THE CITY COUNCIL DESIRES TO DISCUSS AN ITEM, THAT ITEM IS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
ONE ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM OUR CONSENT AGENDA, THAT ITEM IS 5.25.
WE WILL TAKE THAT UP SEPARATELY WITHOUT OBJECTION.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION NOW TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 5.25, IS THERE A MOTION?
>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOW BY SAYING AYE?
>> MOTION IS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.
[25. Resolution - Aviation: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Contract 18464, with O'Keeffe Shahmoradi Strategies, for Federal Lobbying Services - Department of Aviation at Lubbock Preston Smith International Airport.]
NOW LET'S TICK UP THE ITEM THAT WAS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, 5.25.I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER, MR. ATKINSON TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL, IF I MIGHT, I'VE ASKED MS. KELLY CAMPBELL, OUR AIRPORT DIRECTOR TO COME FORWARD AND GIVE YOU JUST A QUICK BACKGROUND ON THIS ITEM.
THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME TO REQUEST THESE PARTICULAR SERVICES.
WE'LL HAVE MISS CAMPBELL DO THAT, AND THEN SHE AND I WILL TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS.
AS JARRETT MENTIONED, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE REQUESTED FUNDING AND SUPPORT FOR A FEDERAL LOBBYIST.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, THE AIRPORT IS A SELF-SUFFICIENT ENTERPRISE FUND, AND ALL OF OUR FUNDING STAYS AT THE AIRPORT, SUPPORTS OUR OPERATIONS.
WE DON'T TAKE ANY GENERAL TAX REVENUE FOR OUR OPERATIONS.
HOWEVER, MOST OF OUR CAPITAL PROGRAM IS SUPPORTED THROUGH FEDERAL FUNDING.
[01:55:01]
AND THROUGH THAT AND OTHER MEASURES, MUCH OF THE WORK THAT WE DO AT THE AIRPORT IS REGULATED BY FEDERAL ENTITIES, TSA, AND THE FAA.IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE A VOICE ON CAPITOL HILL.
MAKE SURE THAT OUR LEGISLATION KNOWS WHAT OUR NEEDS ARE.
WE FIGHT FOR GOOD LEGISLATION, WE FIGHT DEFENSE AGAINST LEGISLATION.
WE'VE DONE MOST OF THAT OVER THE YEARS JUST WITH THOSE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.
HOWEVER, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE'VE SEEN THE RETURN OF CONGRESSIONALLY-DIRECTED FUNDING, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS AN EARMARK.
THAT'S A MUCH MORE POPULAR TERM FOR AN EARMARK.
AND IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR, THERE WAS AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THE SUPPLEMENTAL AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THERE WAS A $532 MILLION AVAILABLE FOR THAT, 482 MILLION WENT TO EARMARKS, MEANING THAT FUNDING WENT OUT TO SOME AIRPORT AT THE REQUEST OF A LEGISLATOR.
AS I WENT THROUGH THAT LIST, ONE AIRPORT IN PARTICULAR, SMALL AIRPORT IN OKLAHOMA GOT $36 MILLION.
AS WE LOOKED AT THAT, FOLLOWING FIVE YEARS TO FUND A TERMINAL BUILDING REMODEL, FOUR FEDERAL GRANTS AND ONLY $18 MILLION, WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS A GAME WE NEEDED TO GET INTO.
WE STARTED DOING SOME RESEARCH.
THERE WAS ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT OF EARMARKS LATER IN THE YEAR.
WE WORKED WITH OUR DELEGATION, WE MADE IT THROUGH TO THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE TO BE STYMIED BY FAA HEADQUARTERS, AND SOME MISCOMMUNICATION.
WITHOUT A VOICE IN DC, WITHOUT SOMEONE THERE TO HEAD THAT OFF WITHOUT THE CORRECT RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEES AND THESE FEDERAL ENTITIES, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE FACING AN UPHILL BATTLE.
WE HAVE A NEW CONGRESS, WE HAVE A NEW ADMINISTRATION.
WE DON'T KNOW IF EARMARKS WILL STAY.
BUT WE DO KNOW THAT THE PROGRAMS OF THE FAA HAVE BEEN REAUTHORIZED.
WE KNOW THERE'S AN INCREASE FOR THE AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM IN THERE.
THERE'S $350 MILLION FOR THE TRANSITION FROM AFT TO F3 FOAM.
WE KNOW THERE'S A REQUEST FROM TSA TO RESTORE FUNDING THAT WAS CUT THROUGH TSA.
JUST BECAUSE IT WAS REAUTHORIZED IN THE PROGRAMS OF THE FAA, IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'LL BE APPROPRIATED.
WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL HELP AND SUPPORT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR VOICES ARE HEARD.
IF THEY'RE NOT, IT WILL ULTIMATELY GO TO THE AIRPORTS THAT HAVE GOT FEDERAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENTS, GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, AND FEDERAL LOBBYISTS.
THAT'S REALLY THE CATALYST WAS THE RETURN OF EARMARKS, BUT THERE'S A LOT TO BENEFIT FROM HAVING SOMEONE HELP US WITH OUR VOICE.
>> COUNCIL, IF I COULD ADD JUST A BRIEF MOMENT TO THAT.
KELLY'S GIVEN A GREAT OUTLINE OF WHAT'S OUT THERE.
THE AFFF, WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FROM HERE IS REALLY, WE USE THE WORD PFAS.
THAT'S COMING, AND WE KNOW IT, AND HOW THAT COMES DOWN WILL HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT.
THAT'S ONE OF MANY THINGS, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG HOT TOPICS THAT'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW BETWEEN THE EPA AND SEVERAL OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES.
THE CONTRACT THAT MS. CAMPBELL AND HER TEAM HAVE NEGOTIATED IS A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT WITH FOUR ONE-YEAR EXTENSIONS.
WE WOULD REQUEST PERMISSION TO TRY THIS.
IF IT IS NOT PRODUCTIVE FOR US, THEN CERTAINLY WE DON'T HAVE TO PICK IT BACK UP, BUT WE TURN IT OVER NOW FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS? MR. GLASHEEN.
>> WHAT IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT?
>> WHAT IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THE CONTRACT?
>> AM I CORRECT THAT THE SOURCE OF THAT MONEY THEN COMES FROM THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, IT'S NOT COMING OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND AT ALL.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE, DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MR. GLASHEEN.
>> I PULLED THIS ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDAS.
I'M OPPOSED TO IT AND SPECIFICALLY, BUT ALSO TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING IN GENERAL.
THE TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING IS NOT A VERY TRANSPARENT PROCESS.
IT'S SUSCEPTIBLE TO ABUSE BECAUSE TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING TAKES MONEY FROM CITIZENS AND GIVES IT TO LOBBYISTS.
THEN THE LOBBYIST GOES AND GIVES THAT MONEY TO POLITICIANS FROM OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY THAT OUR CITIZENS HERE IN LUBBOCK WOULD NEVER SUPPORT OR VOTE FOR.
THESE POLITICIANS ARE GOING TO ACTIVELY WORK AGAINST THE INTERESTS AND DESIRES OF
[02:00:02]
OUR CITIZENS AFTER THEY'VE GOTTEN OUR EARMARK.NOW, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE HAVE EXCELLENT ELECTED REPRESENTATION.
OUR CONGRESSMAN JODEY ARRINGTON IS THE CHAIR OF THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE, FOR EXAMPLE, AND IF OUR AIRPORT NEEDS SOMETHING FROM THE FEDERAL BUDGET, I THINK THAT THE CHAIR OF THE BUDGET COMMITTEE COULD HELP US WITH THE BUDGET.
WE ALSO HAVE YOUR PARTICIPATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN OTHER PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, LIKE MS. CAMPBELL IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF OUR AIRPORT, IS A LEADER IN THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION AIRPORT EXECUTIVES, WHICH IS ALSO RETAINS THE SAME LOBBYING FIRM TO LOBBY IN WASHINGTON, DC.
I THINK THAT IT'S GREAT TO ENCOURAGE OUR STAFF TO BE LEADERS IN THE PROFESSION RATHER THAN HIRING THE SAME LOBBYIST TWICE IN EFFECT.
I'M ALSO SKEPTICAL OF THE VALUE OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SPENDING $100,000 ON A DC LOBBYIST.
WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT IN THAT AND JUST BEYOND THE ETHICAL OBJECTIONS THAT I HAVE TO TAXPAYER FUNDED LOBBYING IN GENERAL.
>> THANK YOU, MR. GLASHEEN. MAYOR PRO TEM.
AS SOMEONE THAT WORKED IN WASHINGTON, DC AND DID SOME LOBBYING, LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT THERE'S FOLKS THERE THAT HAVE DONE WORK, THEY KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS, WHETHER WE WANT TO BELIEVE THAT OUR CONGRESSMAN IS AVAILABLE TO US AND IS LOOKING OUT, HE'S GOT A LOT ON HIS PLATE.
YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE THERE THAT KNOW THE SYSTEM, KNOW HOW THINGS WORK.
FOR US TO HAVE SOMEONE LIKE THAT, MAKING A SMALL INVESTMENT WITH THE POTENTIAL OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO BE A COMPETITIVE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THEN WE NEED TO BE MAKING THAT INVESTMENT AND MAKING THINGS HAPPEN.
I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS TO US, AND I WILL SUPPORT THIS.
>> IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND.
>> ANY OPPOSED, PLEASE SAY NAY? THE MOTION PASSES, I BELIEVE, 6-1.
IS THAT WHAT I HEARD CORRECTLY?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE'LL TAKE UP OUR REGULAR AGENDA,
[1. Public Hearing - Planning: Hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 43.0697(c)(3) of the Texas Local Government Code, regarding the City of Lubbock's intent to annex an area of land consisting of approximately 374.74 acres of real property commonly known as the Highland Oaks Subdivision, located within an area located south of 146th Street (F.M. 7500), east of Frankford Avenue, north of Woodrow Road (F.M. 7600), and west of Slide Road (F.M. Road 1730), into Lubbock's corporate limits, and consider an ordinance.]
AND WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM 6.1, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONDUCT A HEARING REGARDING THE CITY OF LUBBOCK'S INTENT TO ANNEX AN AREA OF LAND CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 374.74 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY, COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE HIGHLAND OAKS SUBDIVISION LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA LOCATED SOUTH OF 146TH STREET OR FARM TO MARKET ROAD 7,500 EAST OF FRANKFORD AVENUE, NORTH OF WOODROW ROAD ALSO KNOWN AS FARM TO MARKET ROAD 7,600 AND WEST OF SLIDE ROAD, KNOWN ALSO AS FARM TO MARKET ROAD 1730 INTO OUR LUBBOCK CITY CORPORATE LIMITS.AS A REMINDER THE PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I'M NOW GOING TO CALL ON MS. KRISTEN SAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY ON THIS AGENDA ITEM SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
THIS ITEM IS YOUR FOURTH AND FINAL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ANNEXATION OF THE HIGHLAND OAKS SUBDIVISION.
AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING, COUNCIL WILL HAVE ITS FIRST VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY.
IF THE VOTE IS TO APPROVE, THEN YOU'LL HAVE YOUR SECOND VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY ON JANUARY 28TH, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I'VE SEEN NONE.
THIS ITEM HAS BEEN PRETTY WELL VETTED UP UNTIL NOW.
I'M NOW GOING TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.1.
SOMEONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR.
>> HI, MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, STAFF.
MY NAME IS COLBY NORRIS, I LIVE AT 16001 COUNTY ROAD 1860.
THIS HAS BEEN A PROCESS IN THE MAKING FOR THREE YEARS.
WE CAME TO CITY STAFF, AND WE ASKED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THIS THING ON A BALLOT AND LET THE NEIGHBORHOOD USE THEIR VOICE TO TELL YOU WHAT WE NEED AND YOU ALL GAVE US THAT CHANCE ON NOVEMBER 5TH, AND WE CAME BACK WITH A SUPER-MAJORITY 70% IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION IN ORDER TO GET
[02:05:02]
A SUSTAINABLE WATER SOURCE OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.WE'LL LEAVE IT SHORT AND SIMPLE, BUT WE APPRECIATE IT, AND PLEASE TAKE THE VOTE INTO CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU, MR. NORRIS. ANYONE HERE ELSE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE HERE SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? I SEE NONE.
I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:03 PM.
NOW I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.1.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BY AYE?
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NO? I HEAR NONE.
>> WITHOUT OBJECTION, OUR CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW CONDUCT
[2. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 828-A, a request of Brady & Hamilton, LLP for Jarvis Metals Recycling, Inc., for a zone change from General Industrial District (GI) and Light Industrial District (LI), to General Industrial District (GI) with a Specific Use for a Junkyard, Salvage Yard, and Wrecking Yard, at 7825 Olive Avenue, and 4125 and 4127 East Slaton Road, located north of East Slaton Road and east of Olive Avenue, Loop Industrial Addition, Lots 1-A, 1-B, and 1-C, and consider an ordinance.]
A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING ON OUR ZONING CASES TODAY.THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED THEIR PACKET FROM THE STAFF AND THE REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS JUST TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
NOW I WANT TO CALL ON MS. SAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF EACH AGENDA ITEM 6.2-6.10.
>> THANK YOU. ITEM 6.2 IS ZONE CASE 828-A.
THE APPLICANT IS BRADY & HAMILTON, LLP FOR JARVIS METALS RECYCLING.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC USE FOR A JUNK YARD, SALVAGE YARD, AND WRECKING YARD.
WE SENT OUT 25 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR.
THEIR MAIN CONCERNS WERE AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC, POLLUTION, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE PROPERTY WHO DID RESPOND IN OPPOSITION.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE ARE OTHER COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES IN THE AREA, AND IT IS BORDERED ON TWO SIDES BY PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
CURRENT ZONING IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL GENERAL INDUSTRIAL TO THE WEST AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO THE SOUTH.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES, AND HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
HERE'S A SITE MAP PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THEIR PROPOSED EXPANSION ON THE PROPERTY, AND SOME ADDITIONAL AERIALS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE AND SPECIFIC USE ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE LOCATION IS ALONG OLIVE AVENUE AND SOUTHEAST DRIVE, WHICH ARE DESIGNATED AS A MINOR ARTERIALS, AND EAST SLATON ROAD, WHICH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. HARRIS?
>> YES. IT'S JUST BECAUSE THEY RAN OUT OF ROOM, AND THEY NEED MORE PROPERTY, IS THAT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT?
>> THEY'RE LOOKING TO EXPAND FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE SELF-SERVICE, SIMILAR TO WHAT WRENCH-A-PART DOES.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, OR QUESTIONS FROM MS. SAGER? CONTINUE.
[3. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 2882-B, a request of David Mobley for SLDEV, LLC, for a zone change from Heavy Commercial District (HC) to Heavy Commercial District (HC) Specific Use for a smoke shop, at 7611 82nd Street, located south of 82nd Street Street and west of Xenia Avenue, Cambridge Commercial Park Addition, Tract A-2, and consider an ordinance.]
>> ZONE CASE 2882-B, DAVID MOBLEY FOR SLDEV, LLC, REQUESTS TO REZONE FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC USE FOR A SMOKE SHOP.
WE SENT OUT 23 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR FOR AN OPPOSITION.
THE FOREIGN OPPOSITION WE'RE MAINLY CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE OTHER SMOKE SHOPS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF THIS AREA.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 82ND, EAST OF ALCOVE.
HERE ARE THE RESPONSES WE RECEIVED.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE ARE OTHER BUSINESSES ALONG 82ND WITH RESIDENTIAL FURTHER SOUTH.
CURRENT ZONING IS HEAVY COMMERCIAL, WITH LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE SOUTH.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THERE IS AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.
THE SMOKE SHOP WOULD GO INTO ONE OF THE TENANT SUITES.
HERE IS THE MAP SHOWING THAT THE SMOKE SHOP DOES MEET ALL OF THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE UDC.
THE SPECIFIC USE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION.
IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND LOCATED ON 82ND STREET, WHICH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE VOTE OF SEVEN TO ONE, AND I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER? SEEING NONE. CONTINUE, PLEASE.
[4. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3512, a request of Parkhill for Jan Humphries Campbell, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), generally located at the southwest corner of 130th Street and Milwaukee Avenue, on approximately 34.78 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 12, and consider an ordinance.]
>> ZONE CASE 3512, PARKHILL FOR JAN HUMPHRIES CAMPBELL,
[02:10:01]
REQUEST TO REZONE FROM SF-2 SINGLE-FAMILY TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL.WE RECEIVED 19 IN OPPOSITION, 11 OF WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE 400 FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY.
HOWEVER, ALL 19 RESPONSES WERE FROM PROPERTIES LOCATED OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LOOP 88, WEST OF MILWAUKEE AVENUE.
HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONES WITHIN THE 400 FOOT BOUNDARY.
AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
TO THE EAST AND SOUTH, PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL USES ALONG MILWAUKEE AND FURTHER WEST TOWARDS UPLAND.
CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY SF-2.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL HEAVY COMMERCIAL ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE FUTURE LOOP 88.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY, AND SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THIS IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT JUST SHOWING THE BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USES.
WHILE THE REQUEST IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THAT DESIGNATION, IT IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION ALONG A FREEWAY.
THE ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
IT IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 130TH AND MILWAUKEE, 130TH LOOP 88 IS A FREEWAY, AND MILWAUKEE IS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ZERO WITH ONE RECUSAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION, THAT A TYPE C BUFFER YARD IS REQUIRED ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HAVE YOU PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> IS THERE ANYBODY HERE FROM, I THINK IT WAS PARKHILL?
>> ONE, I THINK THE BUFFER YARD IS VERY PROACTIVE AND IT'S APPRECIATED, AND DID WE EVER FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PROJECT IS GOING TO BE THAT IS GOING TO BE PLACED THERE?
>> I'LL DEFER TO THE APPLICANT.
I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC PROJECT IN MIND.
>> HE IS. DO YOU WANT HIM TO COME NOW?
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, YOU DO SIT ON OUR PLANNING ZONE AND BOARD, BUT YOU DID RECUSE YOURSELF.
WHAT IS THE PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO BE?
>> THERE'S NO SPECIFIC THING THAT IS GOING RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE JUST GETTING READY BASICALLY WHEN THE LOOP COME IN, JUST GETTING THIS REZONED, SO IT WILL BE FRONTAGE FOR THE LOOP LIKE KRISTEN SAID.
>> WE'RE MATCHING WHAT'S ON OUR WEST SIDE AND THE NORTH OF THAT.
>> LIKE I SAID, I THINK THE BUFFER YARD IS VERY PROACTIVE.
>> THIS MAY BE A QUESTION MORE FOR KRISTEN ACTUALLY.
>> KRISTEN, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT IS A TYPE C BUFFER YARD, PLEASE?
>> TYPE C IS A BUFFER YARD THAT IS 15 FEET IN WIDTH AND REQUIRES CANOPY AND ORNAMENTAL TREES.
>> THAT'S FOR THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY?
>> WHICH WOULD BE ALONG MILWAUKEE?
>> MILWAUKEE THERE IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR ARTERIAL, CORRECT?
>> WHY DO WE NEED TO PUT A BUFFER YARD BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THE MAJOR ARTERIAL?
>> TYPICALLY, BUFFER YARDS ARE REQUIRED BASED ON ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE IS A STREET SEPARATING THE DISTRICTS.
IN THIS CASE, THE BUFFER YARD WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
HOWEVER, DURING THE DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT SINCE THOSE ARE RESIDENTS, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, THEY WANTED TO REQUIRE THE BUFFER YARD.
>> MY QUESTION, KRISTEN, GOES ALONG THOSE LINES AS WELL.
IF WE MOVE NORTH OF MILWAUKEE, ARE THERE TYPE C BUFFER YARDS ALL THE WAY UP MILWAUKEE WHEN THERE'S RESIDENTIAL BORDERING UP ALONG MILWAUKEE? MY POINT IS IF THE ROAD WAS ALREADY THERE, IF IT GOES THROUGH AFTER THE LOOP COMES THROUGH, WOULD THAT BUFFER YARD BE REQUIRED AND DOES IT NEED TO BE THERE?
>> IT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED WHEN A PROPERTY'S ONLY FRONTAGE IS MILWAUKEE.
WE'LL NEVER REQUIRE A BUFFER YARD ALONG THE FRONT.
BUT IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO FRONT ONTO LOOP 88, ASSUMING THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION WANTED TO REQUIRE IT.
TO YOUR POINT, IF THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AND HAVE A CORNER LOT THAT DID FRONT ONTO MILWAUKEE, IT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED AT THAT TIME.
>> IF MILWAUKEE WAS THERE AND BUILT OUT, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE IS THERE, THEY WOULDN'T NEED THAT BUFFER YARD THERE.
>> NOT AS IT IS TODAY, SINCE THAT PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, THE ADJACENT.
[02:15:01]
>> NO. I'M JUST SAYING BETWEEN A MAJOR ROAD AND THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WOULD THEY NEED A TYPE C BUFFER YARD? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING ON THAT EAST SIDE.
WOULD THEY NEED A TYPE C IF MILWAUKEE WAS ALREADY BUILT, IF THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL LOT TRYING TO GET THAT ZONING?
>> IF IT WERE A SIDE LOT LINE, YES.
IF THERE WAS RESIDENTIAL ZONING ACROSS FROM MILWAUKEE, AND ITS [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN YOU WOULD NEED A TYPE C BUFFER RIGHT THERE?
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. THANK YOU.
>> I'M CHECKING MY UNDERSTANDING ON THIS.
UNDER THE UDC, AS IT IS TODAY, THE BUFFER YARD WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROPERTY?
>> WHAT IS THE AUTHORITY OR THE MECHANISM TO IMPOSE THIS ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT BEYOND WHAT THE UDC CALLS FOR AS PART OF THE ZONE CHANGE?
>> COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO ADD ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT THEY FEEL ARE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATE AT ANY GIVEN LOCATION.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I DERAILED YOU BEFORE WE GOT TO THAT POINT, BUT THE STAFF MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE BUFFER YARD?
>> WE DID NOT. THE BUFFER YARD CAME UP DURING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
>> AGAIN, FOR CLARIFICATION, IF THE RESIDENCES WERE IN THE CITY LIMIT, THE BUFFER YARD WOULD BE REQUIRED, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE POTENTIAL IS AT SOME POINT THEY MAY COME WITHIN THE CITY LIMIT. WHO KNOWS?
>> IF THEY WANT TO DO WHAT HELEN DYKES DID. SURE. [LAUGHTER]
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S MOVE ON.
[5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3514, a request of AMD Engineering, LLC, for Paracako, LLC, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 12004 Frankford Avenue, located west of Frankford Avenue and south of 119th Street, on approximately 1.72 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 20, and consider an ordinance.]
THE APPLICANT IS AMD ENGINEERING.
THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY SF-2 TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF FRANKFORD, NORTH OF 122ND STREET.
WE SENT OUT 25 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING FOUR IN FAVOR.
HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THOSE FOUR IN FAVOR.
AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWS THERE IS OTHER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA WITH SOME RESIDENTIAL FURTHER EAST.
CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-FAMILY SF-2.
THERE IS HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH, AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND INDUSTRIAL PARK TO THE EAST.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, HEAVY COMMERCIAL IS APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION, GIVEN ITS FRONTAGE ONTO FRANKFORD AND THE OTHER ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS.
THE ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION.
THE UDC WILL REQUIRE A TYPE C BUFFER YARD ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES DUE TO THE ADJACENT SF-2 ZONING.
THE ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND FRANKFORD AVENUE IS A MINOR ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I SEE NONE, SO MOVE RIGHT ALONG.
[6. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 2538-NN, a request of Olga Agundiz, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) Specific Use for a Manufactured Home Subdivision, at 8605 #2 6th Street, located east of Inler Avenue and south of 6th Street, on approximately 0.692 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-6, Section 2, and consider an ordinance.]
THE APPLICANT IS OLGA AGUNDIZ, TO REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE-FAMILY SF-2 TO SF-2 SPECIFIC USE FOR A MANUFACTURED HOME SUBDIVISION.
WE SENT OUT 34 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING THREE IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF INLER, SOUTH OF FOURTH.
HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE THREE IN OPPOSITION.
AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE ARE OTHER RESIDENCES ON THIS BLOCK WITH A CHURCH ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.
CURRENT ZONING IS SINGLE-FAMILY SF-2.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS A BRAND NEW MANUFACTURED HOME.
THESE ARE PHOTOS ON SIXTH STREET, EIGHTH STREET, INLER AVENUE, AND PHOTOS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, AGAIN, OF THE MANUFACTURED HOME AND OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION.
THE SPECIFIC USE DOES NOT CHANGE OR REMOVE ANY USES ALLOWED IN THE SF-2 DISTRICT, THAT ADDS MANUFACTURED HOMES AS AN ADDITIONAL USE.
THE PROPOSED USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ON SIXTH STREET, WHICH IS A LOCAL STREET, EAST OF INLER AVENUE, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[7. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 2627-J, a request of David Mobley for Julie McMahan, for a zone change from Heavy Commercial District (HC) to Heavy Commercial District (HC) Specific Use for a smoke shop, at 6319 19th Street, located south of 19th Street and east of La Salle Avenue, West End Place Annex Addition, Block 2, Lots 5 and 6, and consider an ordinance.]
[02:20:02]
THE APPLICANT IS DAVID MOBLEY FOR JULIE MCMAHAN.THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL SPECIFIC USE FOR A SMOKE SHOP.
WE SENT OUT 38 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING TWO IN FAVOR FOR IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF MILWAUKEE, SOUTH OF 19TH.
HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND IN OPPOSITION.
AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE ARE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES ALONG 19TH STREET, WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH.
CURRENT ZONING IS HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
THERE'S OTHER HEAVY COMMERCIAL, AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ALONG 19TH WITH SF-2 AND MDR TO THE SOUTH.
HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
AGAIN, THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
HERE'S THE MAP SHOWING THAT THE SMOKE SHOP MEETS ALL THE REQUIRED SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FROM THE UDC.
THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE APPROPRIATE AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION.
IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE SPECIFIC USE LOCATION IS ALONG 19TH STREET, WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF SEVEN TO ONE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I SEE NONE, SO MOVE ON, PLEASE.
[8. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 3509, a request of AMD Engineering, LLC for Lonnie and Vickie Slape, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) and Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 3002 North Frankford Avenue, located east of North Frankford Avenue and north of Ursuline Street, on 14.80 acres of unplatted land out of Block JS, Section 11, and consider an ordinance.]
THE APPLICANT IS AMD ENGINEERING, REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SF-2 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL.WE SENT OUT 12 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR.
THIS PROPERTY IS EAST OF NORTH FRANKFORD AVENUE, SOUTH OF KENT STREET.
HERE IS THE MAP SHOWING THE ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR.
AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE IS A MIX OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT UP AND DOWN FRANKFORD AVENUE AND SOME PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF FRANKFORD AVENUE.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST, BUT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL ARE APPROPRIATE IN THIS LOCATION ALONG FRANKFORD AVENUE.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
NORTH FRANKFORD AVENUE IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> DO YOU KNOW IF THE OWNER HAS ANY SPECIFIC PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY AT THE MOMENT? NOT THAT I KNOW OF. I WILL DEFER TO HIM FOR THIS MEETING.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WILL STEVENS WITH AMD ENGINEERING.
>> NOW, THE OWNER DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, JUST TO GIVE JUST TO GIVE A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PAST FEW MONTHS ON THIS ZONE CASE.
WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY FOR HEAVY COMMERCIAL IN OCTOBER, AND WE RECEIVED OPPOSITION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER TO OUR EAST AND NORTH.
WE MET WITH HIM AND WORKED TO HAVE THE HEAVY COMMERCIAL UP CLOSER TO FRANKFORD AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FURTHER INTO THE SECTION.
BUT AS FAR TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLANS AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
>> I SEE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS,6.9.
[9. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 3255-B, a request of West Texas Engineering, LLC for G4 Assets, LLC, for a zone change from Light Industrial District (LI) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 7602 34th Street, located north of 34th Street and west of Winfield Avenue, on approximately 3.57 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 42, and consider an ordinance.]
THE APPLICANT IS WEST TEXAS ENGINEERING, LLC, REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL.
WE SENT OUT 89 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THE ONE IN OPPOSITION WAS CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC, POLLUTION, NOISE.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 34TH EAST OF YUMA AVENUE.
HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE'S RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH AND EAST AND A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS TO THE WEST.
CURRENT ZONING IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO THE WEST WITH SF-2 AND MDR TO THE EAST.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE OUTLINE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
[02:25:01]
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR AC ZONING.THE ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
THE LOCATION IS LONG 34TH STREET, WHICH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I REQUEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[10. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 3513, a request of Tyson Rowin and Dan Williams for Quatro Locos, LLC, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 5909 4th Street, located west of Fulton Avenue and south of 4th Street, Isham Tubbs Estate Addition, the North Part of Tract 4, and consider an ordinance.]
THE APPLICANT IS TYSON ROWAN AND DAN WILLIAMS, REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM SF-2 TO AC.
WE SENT OUT 72 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING 16 IN FAVOR, THREE IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF FOURTH WEST OF FRANKFORD.
THE THREE IN OPPOSITION WERE CONCERNED THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WOULD BE BUILT AT THIS LOCATION.
HERE'S A RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THOSE IN FAVOR AND OPPOSED.
IN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE'S RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND WEST.
THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY BORDERED ON EITHER SIDE BY A CHURCH AND THEN COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH.
CURRENT ZONING IS SF-2, BORDERED ON EITHER SIDE BY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH AUTO-URBAN COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
THIS IS A SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, JUST SHOWING THEY INTEND TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY CLOSEST TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KEEPING THE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES ON FOURTH STREET.
THIS IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT JUST SHOWING THE ZONING IN THE AREA AND THE WATER AND SEWER LINES IN THE AREA AS WELL.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AC REQUEST.
THE ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA IS LOCATED ALONG 4TH STREET, WHICH IS A MINOR ARTERIAL.
STAFF IS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU MS. SAGER.
>> I'M GOING TO NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEMS 6.4.
IS THERE ANY PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON 6.23 OR FIVE THROUGH 10 AT THIS POINT? ANYBODY IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO IT? I'M GOING TO NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:26 P.M. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.2 AND 2.3 AND 6.56 6.10? IS THERE A SECOND?
>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING THOSE ITEMS? MR. COLLINS.
>> IF I COULD, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO OFFER MY THANKS TO OUR STAFF, PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO ITEM 6.06, MR. RHENO, MS. SAGER, AND MR. WALLACE HAS TACKLED A SOMEWHAT UNUSUAL AND DIFFICULT CASE AND HAS BROUGHT THIS BEFORE THE COUNCIL TODAY.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO MISS GONADEZ.
SHE IS THE PERSON OF INTEREST IN THIS CASE.
SHE'S PURCHASED A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND HAS RECEIVED A CRASH COURSE IN CITY GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND ZONING AND ALL THINGS THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN, AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PERSEVERANCE, FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND ALSO CONGRATULATE YOU ON WHAT LIKELY IS TO BECOME YOUR NEW HOME AND SAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND EFFORTS IN GETTING THIS.
THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB IN DIRECTING HER THROUGH THIS PROCESS. THANKS TO ALL.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION ON A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING AGENDA ITEM 6.2, 6.3 AND 6.5 THROUGH 6.10.
LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
I HEAR NONE, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.4? DO I HAVE A SECOND?
[02:30:03]
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. MR. GARCIA.
>> THIS IS THE ITEM THAT IS RECOMMENDED WITH THE APPROVAL OF A BUFFER YARD ON THE EAST SIDE NEXT TO MILWAUKEE.
FIRST, I'LL SAY I DON'T PUT A LOT OF STOCK IN THE RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION TO THE ZONE CHANGE FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY.
THAT IF YOU CHOOSE TO NOT BE PART OF THE CITY, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO GET THE SAME BENEFITS AS OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS WOULD UNDER THE UDC, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THAT'S JUST PART OF THE BARGAIN.
IT IS A VERY REASONABLE USE OF LAND ON WHAT EVERYONE HAS KNOWN IS GOING TO BE A MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET SINCE WE LAID OUT THE GRID PATTERN DECADES AGO.
I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT TACKING ON REQUIREMENTS TO THE PROPERTY AS PART OF THE ZONE CHANGE.
I DON'T WANT TO REVISE THE UDC ON THE FLY OR ADD REQUIREMENTS ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
I THINK WE NEED TO TREAT ALL OF THE APPLICANTS IN AN EQUAL AND PREDICTABLE FASHION.
THE UDC IS A VERY THOUGHTFUL DOCUMENT THAT PRESCRIBED, APPROPRIATE BUFFERS IN THIS SITUATION, AND IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE JUST FROM A COMMON SENSE PERSPECTIVE TO ADD A BUFFER NEXT TO A MAJOR ARTERIAL STREET AND ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
NOBODY'S BENEFITING FROM THAT BUFFER.
IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FROM A LAND USE POINT OF VIEW.
I RECOMMEND THAT WE AND SO I'LL MAKE MY MOTION NOW.
I MOVE TO AMEND ITEM 6.4 BY STRIKING THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE FROM PAGE 2 OF THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ZONE CHANGE, AND THAT LANGUAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.
ON THAT A TYPE C BUFFER YARD IS REQUIRED ALONG THE EAST PROPERTY LINE.
>> BEFORE I TAKE UP MOTION OR A SECOND ON THAT AMENDMENT, PERHAPS WE DIDN'T HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON 6.4.
>> YOU ASKED ABOUT, IF ANYONE WANTED TO SPEAK ON 6.2, 6.3 OR 6.5 THROUGH 65.
>> I'M GLAD PEOPLE ARE LISTENING TO WHAT I SAID.
I CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION BACK UP NOW.
FOR ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF OR OPPOSED TO 6.4, ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF IT?
>> TAR RED ONE, PARKHILL, 4222 85TH STREET.
I JUST WANT TO SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON IT.
WE ARE JUST GETTING READY BASICALLY FOR THE LOOP COMING IN.
ON THE EAST SIDE IS GOING TO BE MILWAUKEE, ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE HAVE COMMERCIAL ON THE NORTH AT THAT, THERE'S HEAVY COMMERCIAL AS WELL.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
>> WE BYPASSED YOUR CHANCE TO COME UP HERE.
QUICK QUESTION ON THE APPLICANT THAT Y'ALL ARE REPRESENTING.
WHAT ARE THEIR THOUGHTS ABOUT THE BUFFER YARD WHEN IT WOULDN'T BE REQUIRED OTHERWISE BY THE UDC?
>> THEY DIDN'T MIND IT SO MUCH JUST TO HELP OUT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACROSS FROM MILWAUKEE.
BUT LIKE KRISTEN SAID, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT REALLY TO HAVE IT.
LIKE LACHINE SAID, IT DOESN'T MAKE MUCH SENSE TO HAVE IT ON MILWAUKEE, BUT IT'S UP TO YOU ALL IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT OUT OR NOT.
>> I THINK THIS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FROM PLANNING AND ZONING TO ADD THE BUFFER.
DO YOU OPPOSE IT? DO YOU THINK IT'S PERSONALLY? DO YOU THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO IMPACT THAT AREA IN A NEGATIVE WAY?
>> IT'S GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT ODD JUST BECAUSE EVERYWHERE ELSE, IN MILWAUKEE DOESN'T HAVE IT.
LIKE MR. GARCIA SAID, WHEN YOU'RE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMIT, LIKE, ALMOST YOU CAN'T REAP THE BENEFITS OF BOTH WHEN IT MAKES SENSE.
BUT EITHER WAY, IT'S A 15 FOOT BUFFER, SO WE'RE OKAY WITH HELPING THOSE CITIZENS ACROSS FROM MILWAUKEE.
BUT IF I DON'T WANT TO SET THE PRECEDENCE, I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU NO.
>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE CITIZENS ACROSS FROM MILWAUKEE ARE NOT CITIZENS OF LUBBOCK?
>> IS IT BY PLACING THAT BUFFER THAT BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONCERN FROM SOME FOLKS THERE AND THEY DIDN'T MIND THE BUFFER.
[02:35:02]
I WASN'T AT THE MEETING.WHAT DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THAT? I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CITIZENS WERE ENCOURAGING THAT BUFFER AS WELL.
>> I WAS SITTING INSIDE, SO I DIDN'T HEAR ALL OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE CITIZENS.
I BET THERE'S SOME HERE THAT WILL POSSIBLY TALK ABOUT IT AS WELL, SO.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO DO WHAT OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS HAVE ASKED FOR AND WHAT THE CITIZENS HAVE ASKED FOR.
THAT'S WHY I WAS SUPPORTING IT, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A POSITIVE THING. I GET IT.
IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH OTHERS, BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE CITIZENS COMBINED WITH THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD WERE THE ONES THAT FELT LIKE IT WAS A GOOD THING TO DO.
>> IT'LL DEFINITELY HELP A LITTLE BIT THE CITIZENS ACROSS, AND WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT, HONESTLY, JUST TO HELP THEM OUT A LITTLE BIT.
BUT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT. NO.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NO ONE IN OPPOSITION TO SPEAK.
WELL, NOW I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6.4.
I BELIEVE WE CAN TAKE UP NOW THE AMENDMENT.
YOU MADE YOUR MOTION TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE BUFFER ZONE.
YOU AMENDED IT'S A MOTION TO AMEND 6.4 TO REMOVE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
>> I WOULD SAY RIGHT NOW THAT COUNSEL M MACHINE, I WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT BEFORE SO THERE HAS BEEN A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A MOTION AND A SECOND, AND THEN YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE STRIKING THAT ONE PROVISION, CORRECT.
ALL WE NEED IS A SECOND FOR HIS MOTION TO CONTINUE THE DEBATE ON THAT.
>> I'LL HAVE A DISCUSSION ON HIS MOTION.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MR. COLLINS.
>> TO BE CLEAR, ARE WE VOTING FOR AN AMENDMENT?
>> NO FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE THEN.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION 6.4 AS AMENDED TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT.
>> MOTION TO AMEND. JUST TO AMEND.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE PROPER TITLE. MOTION TO AMEND.
THAT'S RIGHT. LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSE SAY NAY? THE VOTE IS 5-2, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S IT, THOUGH. NOW GO BACK TO THE MOTION.
>> NOW YOU GO BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION.
BACK TO THE MAIN MOTION AGAIN.
>> NOW YOU CAN MOVE TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED NOW, SO MOVE.
>> SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET ME ON BY SAYING AYE.
[11. Ordinance 1st Reading - Building Safety: Consider an ordinance amending Article 28.14 of the City of Lubbock Code of Ordinances, with a revision to the adopted appendices regarding the International Residential Code.]
WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 6.11, AND I'M GOING TO CALL THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.>> THANK YOU AGAIN. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MR. ROBBIE WALLACE AND HIS TEAM AVAILABLE TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THIS ITEM.
THIS IS REALLY A CLEANUP TO THE RECENT ADOPTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE. BUT ROBBIE, IF YOU WOULD?
>> IS YOUR MICROPHONE ON? I THINK IT'S OFF.
IT WENT OFF. OR YOU SPEAKING VERY SOFTLY? I'M NOT SURE WHICH.
>> THERE WE GO. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS.
MISS JARRETT MENTIONED, THIS IS JUST AN ORDINANCE REVISION TO OUR BUILDING REGS THAT ESSENTIALLY, THIS WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THAT WE CAUGHT.
WHAT WAS ADOPTED DID NOT MATCH THE MODEL CODES AND CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY BOARD'S ORIGINAL INTENT OR RECOMMENDATION.
ALL THIS REVISION DOES IS FIX THAT.
I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT HISTORICALLY, THIS MATCHES WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH EVERY SINGLE CODE ADOPTION, AND WE'RE JUST CLEANING THIS UP AND FIXING THAT.
WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC ONES.
THANK YOU. I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.11. SECOND?
[02:40:06]
>> ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? HERE NOT, IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[12. Resolution - Public Health Services: Consider a resolution accepting the recommended Community Health Improvement Plan and the associated findings of the Community Health Needs Assessment. ]
NOW, I'M CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER AGAIN TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. COUNSEL. THIS ITEM IS COMING BACK TO YOU FROM THE PRIOR TABLE TO DATE CERTAIN, SO YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, THE COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
JUST TWO MORE ITEMS OF BACKGROUND TO THAT.
THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED IN RESPONSE TO A COUNCIL APPROVED CONTRACT FROM SEPTEMBER 12TH OF 2023, AND IT DOES COME TO YOU RECOMMENDED FROM YOUR BOARD OF HEALTH WITH THEIR ACTION ON OCTOBER 18TH OF 2024.
STAFFS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.12.
>> I MOVE FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT AS PRESENTED AND FURTHER, THAT THE COUNCIL SCHEDULE A WORK SESSION, NOT LATER THAN MARCH 25TH, 2025, TO REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE COUNCIL'S PRIORITIES AND POLICIES RELATING TO PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION?
>> SECOND, MR. COLLINS. I'LL OPEN THAT FOR DISCUSSION.
>> I'VE DISCUSSED MY CRITICISMS OF BOTH THE METHODOLOGY AND THE OUTCOME PREVIOUSLY, AND I'M NOT GOING TO BELABOR THOSE POINTS, BUT I WANT TO EMPHASIZE BEFORE OUR VOTE TODAY THAT STAFF IS GOING TO INVARIABLY USE OUR ACTION ON THIS ITEM TO PLAN, BUDGET AND EFFORT PRIORITIES.
ULTIMATELY, THE CITY DOES NOT NEED TO BUILD ANY REDUNDANT GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE CAPABILITIES.
WE HAVE EXCELLENT INSTITUTIONS LIKE UMC, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE TO PROVIDE INDIGENT CARE.
IT WOULD COST THE CITY OF LUBBOCK TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO TRY TO GO AND REPLICATE THOSE FUNCTIONS JUST TO COMPETE WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES.
WE NEED TO REJECT THE CHIP AND ALLOW STAFF TO FOCUS ON THE CURRENT SCOPE OF SERVICES THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WANT TO HOLD THIS UP.
SOME OF YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THIS LITTLE VIAL THAT WAS USED TO SERVE OUR PUBLIC DURING COVID.
DURING THAT TIME, I LOST SEVEN FAMILY MEMBERS.
WHY DID I LOSE SEVEN FAMILY MEMBERS? BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE.
DURING THAT TIME, I GOT TO SEE PUBLIC HEALTH PUT IN GREAT LEADERSHIP, COMMITMENT.
LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT I'M PART OF THE MEDIA.
I WAS ONE OF THE CITY'S MAJOR AND SORRY, KATHERINE, BECAUSE SHE CAN VERIFY THIS, BUT I WAS A MAJOR CRITIC OF THE HEALTH SERVICES THAT WERE NOT BEING PLACED, BUT KATHERINE AND HER TEAM PROVED ALL OF US WRONG.
THEY CAME IN AT A TIME, THEY ACTED IMMEDIATELY, AND THEY SAVED A LOT OF LIVES.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WASN'T THINGS IN PLACE FOR FAMILIES THAT WERE MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES AT THE TIME, AND IT WAS A LITTLE TOO LATE, UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A VACCINE AT THAT TIME.
BUT BECAUSE OF KATHERINE, HER TEAM, ALL OF THE PHYSICIANS IN THE COMMUNITY, WE CAME TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY.
IT GAVE US A PLAN AND IT HAS, TO ME, BEEN A WAVE OF HOW WE DO THINGS NOW.
FOR THAT, I'M GRATEFUL TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
I'M GRATEFUL TO KATHERINE WELLS, AND I HOPE THAT PEOPLE WILL TAKE THE TIME TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND IT'S THE BEGINNING OF OTHER THINGS.
WHAT WAS IT THAT YOU DIDN'T WANT AGAIN? YOU DON'T WANT TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT? WHAT DID YOU SAY? IF YOU DON'T MIND ME ASKING.
[02:45:07]
>> MR. [INAUDIBLE] IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO THAT?
>> I'M WAITING FOR MY MICROPHONE TO TURN ON.
>> MY OPPOSITION IS BOTH TO THE METHODOLOGY AND TO THE OUTCOME AND TO AN EXPANDED SCOPE OF FUNCTION TO INCLUDE ALL OF THE PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES LISTED IN THE CHIP.
>> WELL, I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THAT OUR HOSPITALS CAN DO.
THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THAT FOLKS THAT DON'T HAVE THE MEANS TO USE SOME OF THE SERVICES CAN DO, AND SO THIS HELPS US TO CREATE A PLAN, FILL IN THE GAPS, AND BRING US TO THE NEXT LEVEL BECAUSE THIS, I THINK, IS JUST THE BEGINNING FOR PUBLIC HEALTH.
LET ME JUST SAY THAT THE OTHER PART THAT HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS DONE IS THEY HAVE BROUGHT LIGHT TO US ON A NATIONAL SCALE, AND THEY HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY'RE AS COMMITTED AS MOST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DO GOOD FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
I'M JUST, ONCE AGAIN, DISAPPOINTED THAT WE'RE MAKING SOMETHING SO SIMPLE, DIFFICULT.
BUT THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY FOR NOW.
>> YES. FIRST OFF, I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE LEFT, BUT THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY WHO CAME OUT TODAY AND SPOKE THEIR OPINIONS ON THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND THE CHIP PLAN.
PERSONALLY, MY ISSUES WITH IT LAST TIME WAS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T RECEIVE IT IN TIME TO BE ABLE TO READ THROUGH THE ENTIRE NEEDS ASSESSMENT, SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN.
I WANTED A CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO READ THROUGH IT.
AFTER HAVING A CHANCE TO REALLY LOOK THROUGH IT, IT'S NOT PUBLIC HEALTH THAT I HAVE A CONCERN WITH.
I WORKED AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
THAT WAS MY FIRST JOB OUT OF COLLEGE.
I WORKED FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
IT ABSOLUTELY HAS AN AMAZING ROLE WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE SHE'S AT, BUT I WAS LOOKING FOR HER. THERE YOU ARE.
NOBODY UP HERE WANTS TO TELL YOU THAT YOU DON'T DO A GREAT JOB, AND YOUR STAFF DOESN'T DO A GREAT JOB.
MY CONCERN WITH NEEDS ASSESSMENTS IN GENERAL HAS NOTHING TO DO REALLY WITH PUBLIC HEALTH.
IT HAS TO DO WITH THE WAY A NEEDS ASSESSMENT LOOKS, IS THE SAME THING, THE SAME ISSUE I HAVE WITH A PARK'S MASTER PLAN OR ANY TYPE OF MASTER PLANS THAT MAKE SOMETHING HAVE ALL OF THESE SOMETIMES UNATTAINABLE GOALS FOR JUST THE CITY.
NOW, I KNOW WITH THIS NEEDS ASSESSMENT, THIS WAS MEANT FOR ALL OF THE COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS, LIKE THE HOSPITAL SYSTEMS, PROVIDERS, ALL OF OUR NON-PROFITS, EVERYBODY AS A COMMUNITY TO TRY TO MAKE HEALTH BETTER.
SOMETIMES WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE DO THESE LARGE ASSESSMENTS, MASTER PLANS, WHATEVER DEPARTMENT YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS WHAT I GET.
I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY ELSE UP HERE.
WHAT I GET IS A CITIZEN AFTER WE APPROVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS GOING, WELL, HOW COME YOU DIDN'T DO ALL THIS.
HOW COME YOU DIDN'T ACHIEVE ALL OF THESE GOALS? JUST, FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY DISTRICT, THERE'S MCCALLISTER PARK, AND I'M NOT GOING TO PICK ON BROOK AND PARKS AND COLBY, BUT WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL MASTER PLAN FOR MCCALLISTER PARK.
IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO COST ABOUT $300,000,000.
THAT'S THE ENTIRE YEAR'S BUDGET.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN UNLESS WE FIND MONEY GROWING ON TREES.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
WHEN THOSE GO OUT AND BECOME PUBLIC, I GET PHONE CALLS GOING, WELL, HOW COME YOU HAVEN'T BUILT THAT $150,000,000 REC CENTER.
WELL, WHEN WE PUT OUT LARGE NEEDS ASSESSMENT MASTER PLAN, SOMETIMES IT CONFUSES OUR CITIZENS THINKING, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING WE ARE GOING TO DO.
THAT IS WHY I HAVE ISSUES WITH IT.
IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF WHAT THE NEEDS ARE, THE NEEDS ARE THERE.
I AGREE WITH THAT. WE HAVE PROBLEMS IN PUBLIC HEALTH.
WE HAVE PROBLEMS IN ALL AREAS OF THE CITY.
I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT WHEN WE PUT THIS OUT THERE, YES, THERE ARE NEEDS.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT AS A MUNICIPALITY AND WHAT WE PUT PROPERTY TAXES INTO AND SALES TAX INTO THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIX EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THAT IS IN THIS.
WE TAKE A LOT OF HEAT FOR THAT.
THAT IS WHY I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THESE.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT KATHERINE AND HER TEAM AND THE HEALTH ADVISORY BOARD DID.
IT IS JUST THAT HERE DOWN A YEAR FROM NOW WHEN I GET AN EMAIL THAT SAYS, HOW COME YOU DIDN'T FIX ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE, AND I GO, WELL, THAT'S NOT REALLY EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN DO.
THAT'S WHY I HAVE ISSUES WITH THESE.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT OUR COMMUNITY NEEDS FROM THE HEALTHCARE PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU.
>> YES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. KATHERINE.
[02:50:02]
>> THESE PLANS AND THESE NEEDS THAT YOU SET UP THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CITY NEEDS AND THAT WE NEED TO GO FORWARD WITH IT.
DOES IT COST THE TAXPAYERS ANYTHING?
>> NO. THIS IS THE PIE IN THE SKY.
THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE WORKING ON AS A COMMUNITY AS A LONG-TERM GOAL.
THIS IS PART OF LOOKING AT HAVING A HEALTH DEPARTMENT THAT'S LOOKING AT ALL OF THE DIFFERENT ISSUES IN THE AREA.
IT'S ABOUT HOLDING US ACCOUNTABLE.
IT'S ABOUT GIVING UPDATES ON WHAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED OR WHAT HAS HAPPENED TOWARDS THESE GOALS.
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE FIRST THING THEY SAY, IF YOU WANT SOME IMPROVEMENT, YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING.
THEIR TAXES ARE GOING TO INCREASE, AND THAT'S NOT TRUE.
>> I'M NOT ASKING FOR FINANCIAL INCREASE.
>> I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO REALIZE THAT BECAUSE EVERYBODY DON'T REALIZE THAT WHEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR THINGS, BUT THANK YOU.
>> I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT WE SAY THAT WE ARE REACHING FOR UNATTAINABLE GOALS WHEN FIRST, WE WERE COMING OUT OF COVID, AND YOU WERE STILL ABLE TO WORK WITH THE PUBLIC AND CREATE, WHICH I PERSONALLY ATTENDED SOME OF THOSE WORKSHOPS BECAUSE I'M COMMITTED TO MY COMMUNITY.
THEN SPEAKING OF WALKING THE WALK, WHAT'S YOUR BUDGET, KATHERINE?
>> THE CITY PORTION OF THE BUDGET'S $1.8 MILLION IS WHAT WAS APPROVED THIS FISCAL YEAR.
>> GRANT FUNDING RANGES SOMEWHERE BETWEEN SEVEN OR NINE MILLION.
THE GRANT FUNDING ROTATES, AND IT'S ON DIFFERENT FISCAL YEARS, SO IT'S VERY HARD FOR ME TO GIVE YOU A VERY SPECIFIC NUMBER.
IT'S BASED ON WHAT THE DIFFERENT GOALS ARE AND HOW MUCH MONEY WE PULL DOWN, BUT WE EXPECT IT.
THE FULL BUDGET SHOULD BE SOMEWHERE AROUND $9.5 MILLION FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.
>> DOES THAT SOUND LIKE YOU'VE REACHED AN UNATTAINABLE GOAL? I THINK YOU'VE SURPASSED WHAT ANY CITY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE.
ALSO, DID YOU JUST NOT BUILD A HEALTH DEPARTMENT LAST YEAR?
>> YES, WE JUST OPENED A NEW BUILDING.
>> NOT ONLY DID YOU JUST OPEN A NEW BUILDING, BUT YOU ALSO CREATED A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY.
DOES THAT SOUND LIKE UNATTAINABLE? I DON'T THINK SO.
THAT TO ME DEMONSTRATES THAT YOU'RE DOING YOUR JOB.
YOU'RE ADDRESSING ISSUES NOT ONLY IN THE CITY, BUT IN THESE PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE COUNTY.
LOOK AT THE FOLKS FROM THE MEDICAL FIELD THAT CAME HERE TODAY TO [INAUDIBLE] WHAT OUR PUBLIC HEALTH DOES, BUT KATHERINE WELLS AND THE REST OF OUR STAFF.
THAT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE AN UNATTAINABLE GOAL.
IF ANYTHING, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE WHAT THIS SURVEY IS TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WHEN WE WORK TOGETHER, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE TO OBTAIN THESE GOALS.
I COMMEND YOU, AND I URGE OUR COUNCIL THAT SOMETIMES OUR TITLES MAKE US FEEL ENTITLED.
THIS IS A TIME WHERE I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU PUT YOUR PARTISANSHIP ASIDE AND FOCUS ON THE NEEDS OF PUBLIC HEALTH IN OUR COMMUNITY.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS.
AS I UNDERSTOOD, I BELIEVE IN '23, COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONTRACT FOR THIS STUDY THAT WAS DONE?
>> CORRECT. I BELIEVE IT WAS OCTOBER OF 2023.
>> PRIOR TO THAT, THE COUNCIL HAD ASKED YOU TO OBTAIN THIS TYPE OF STUDY.
>> IT HAD BEEN A DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD OF HEALTH LOOKING AT WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING, WHAT THAT ROADMAP SHOULD BE OF HOW WE SHOULD BE IMPROVING HEALTH IN THE COMMUNITY.
>> I THINK MY INFORMATION IS CORRECT THAT THIS IS ONE PIECE OF A PROCESS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO BECOME AN ACCREDITED ORGANIZATION.
>> CORRECT. ONE OF THE LONG-TERM GOALS OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS FOR US TO BECOME NATIONALLY ACCREDITED, MEANING THAT I MEET ALL OF THE DIFFERENT QUALITY MEASURES THAT ARE PUT ON BY THE NATIONAL BOARD.
HAVING HEALTH DEPARTMENT CREATED,
[02:55:03]
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT, AND COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS THE BASIS FOR THAT START OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS.>> TO BECOME ACCREDITED OFFERS WHAT BENEFITS TO YOU AND OUR COMMUNITY IN TERMS OF YOUR SERVICE?
>> IT'S GREATER TRANSPARENCY, BUT IT'S ALSO THE ABILITY TO HAVE A HIGHER POINT AVERAGE.
WHEN YOU GO OFF OF GRANTS, THEY GIVE YOU POINTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE GRANTS.
HAVING BEING AN ACCREDITED HEALTH DEPARTMENT HELPS YOU BE A BETTER CANDIDATE FOR SOME OF THOSE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES.
>> CAN I PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH AND SAY THAT IT WILL HELP YOU RAISE MORE MONEY TO ASSIST THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY?
IT WILL HELP YOU RAISE MORE MONEY TO ASSIST THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
>> MR. COLLINS, COULD YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND SAY IT AGAIN BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I HEARD [INAUDIBLE]
>> [LAUGHTER] I WANT TO SAY ONE MORE TIME, AND THANK YOU, MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA, BUT THESE ARE CRITICAL NEEDS, IN MY OPINION, THAT OCCUR IN OUR COMMUNITY OUTSIDE OF MAYBE SOME OF OUR EXPERIENCE.
I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE RECOGNIZE WORK THAT'S DONE, THAT'S MAYBE NOT DONE WITHIN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, AND THE NEEDS THAT ARE THERE THAT I DON'T SEE.
I'LL DRIVE TO MY HOUSE THIS EVENING, AND I WON'T SEE A NEED, BUT IT'S ON THE ROAD BESIDE ME, AND I JUST DIDN'T SEE IT.
I WANT TO COMMEND THE ORGANIZATION.
I WANT TO, AGAIN, REITERATE, COUNCIL HAS ASKED FOR THIS IN THE PAST.
OUR CITIZENS ADVISORY BOARD HAS ASKED YOU TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, AND SO WE'VE FUNDED THIS STUDY, AN IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND I'M ABOUT GOAL SETTING, LOFTY GOALS.
WHETHER WE REACH THEM ALL OR NOT IS IMMATERIAL TO THE JOURNEY.
WHEN WE JOURNEY TOWARDS LOFTY GOALS, THEN WE ARE IN CONSTANT IMPROVEMENT, OR AT LEAST THAT'S MY OPINION.
MY GOAL FOR EVERY CITY ORGANIZATION, STAFF MEMBER IS TO JOURNEY TOWARDS IMPROVEMENT.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I HOPE THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH.
AS WE LOOK AT AN IMPROVEMENT PLAN, CAN WE TWEAK IT NEXT YEAR? I DON'T KNOW THE AUTHOR OF THAT.
I KNOW YOU HAD A HAND IN IT, BUT COULD WE TWEAK IT. SHOULD WE TWEAK IT? ABSOLUTELY. BUT WE NEED GUIDE RAILS FOR YOU AND YOUR ORGANIZATION TO FOLLOW.
WE NEED LOFTY GOALS FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO IMPROVE, AND SO I'M GOING TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THIS PROGRAM.
POSSIBLY THERE ARE FLAWS, POSSIBLY THERE ARE CHALLENGES, POSSIBLY I'M GOING TO GET A PHONE CALL AND I'M GOING TO GET AN EMAIL SAYING, WHY DIDN'T YOU OBLITERATE CANCER IN LUBBOCK TEXAS.
WELL, I'M SORRY, AND I'LL APOLOGIZE IN THAT PHONE CALL, AND WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT.
BUT FOR YOU TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH IN OUR COMMUNITY, I BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND SO I WILL VOTE FOR YOU AND SUPPORT YOU AS YOU GO FORWARD WITH THIS.
>> KATHERINE. THREE OF US, I THINK WE'RE ON THE COUNCIL WHEN WE VOTED BACK IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023 TO REQUEST THIS NEEDS ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE.
NOW THEY'RE BRINGING IT FORWARD, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT OUR ACCEPTANCE OF IT PUTS ANY OBLIGATIONS ON US.
THAT IS UP TO US TO DETERMINE WHAT OBLIGATIONS THE CITY WISHES TO UNDERTAKE WITH REGARD TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
BUT WHEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE ARE TASKED WITH PRODUCING A DOCUMENT, AND THEY DO THEIR DUTY AND PRODUCE A DOCUMENT, I BELIEVE WE OUGHT TO ACCEPT THAT DOCUMENT AND USE IT IN WHATEVER WAY WE BELIEVE IT'S USEFUL TO US IN MAKING DECISIONS.
WE MAKE THE ULTIMATE DECISIONS.
THAT'S WHY I AGREE WITH THE WAY THE MOTION HAS BEEN PRESENTED THAT WE FOLLOW THIS UP IF IT IS APPROVED, IF IT'S ACCEPTED, NOT APPROVED, ACCEPTED.
WE CAN FOCUS AS A COUNCIL ON THOSE POLICY DECISIONS AND I THINK A LOT OF US UP HERE DO HAVE CONCERN WHEN YOU SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS ABOUT SCOPE CREEP OR MISSION CREEP.
I BELIEVE MANY OF US WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND ALL OUR DEPARTMENTS ARE FOCUSED ON THE THINGS THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT TO BE DONE, MOST VITAL TO BE DONE, AND MOST WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE AS THE CITY GOVERNMENT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN THE REALM OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
[03:00:03]
WE CANNOT AND ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO EVERYTHING.THIS IS A COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND A COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
IT'S NOT THE CITY GOVERNMENTS, IS NOT THE WHOLE SUM TOTAL OF THIS, IT IS A COMMUNITY EFFORT.
BUT I DO SHARE THE CONCERN OF MANY ON OUR COUNCIL THAT THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING THAT WE ARE THE ONES WHO MAKE THE POLICY DECISIONS, BUT WE DO THAT BASED ON INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVE.
THESE PEOPLE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE EFFORT TO DO WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO.
I BELIEVE WE NEED TO ACCEPT IT AND USE IT IN A WAY THAT IS VALUABLE.
I DO BELIEVE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES IMPROVE OUR ABILITY TO MULTIPLY THE MONEY WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, BEYOND JUST THE MONEY THAT COMES OUT OF OUR BUDGET, A 41 BENEFIT, AND GRANT MONEY IS TO THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF OUR CITIZENS.
I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO ACCEPT IT AND THEN FOLLOW THAT UP WITH A WORK SESSION, AND LET'S FOCUS ON THE ASSESSMENT AND THE PLAN AND DECIDE WHAT WE AS A CITY COUNCIL WANT TO DO WITH THAT.
ANYONE ELSE? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM 6.12, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED COMMUNITY HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND ASSOCIATED FINDINGS OF THE COMMUNITY HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT.
LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING, AYE?
>> THAT PASSES 6:1. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE] NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP.
[13. Budget Ordinance Amendment 1st Reading - Finance: Consider Budget Ordinance Amendment 11, amending the FY 2024-25 Budget for municipal purposes respecting the General Fund in connection with the Animal Control Cost Center; providing for filing; and providing for a savings clause.]
ITEM 6.13. AGAIN, I'M GLAD YOU'RE STILL HERE. MR. ATKINSON.HERE IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES, I'M GOING TO START AN AUCTION FOR PORTABLE SPACE PETERS AND BLANKETS.
Y'ALL STAY WITH ME. GET YOUR WALLETS READY.
MAYOR, COUNCIL, ITEM 6.13 IS STYLED AS A BUDGET AMENDMENT.
THIS IS BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU BY COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA AND COUNCILMEMBER DR. WILSON.
THIS WOULD TAKE $70,764 FROM WHAT IS CALLED THE PROFESSIONAL SPECIAL SERVICES ACCOUNT INSIDE OF LUBBOCK ANIMAL CONTROLS BUDGET AND MOVE IT TO FUND ONE FIELD LEVEL OR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
IT'S A BUDGET NEUTRAL AMENDMENT, AND THIS IS AN ITEM THAT IS WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND, AND AS PART OF YOUR BASE BUDGET, IT IS A CONTINUOUSLY FUNDED ITEM.
WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILMEMBER GARCIA. MR. GARCIA?
>> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO START BY POINTING OUT THAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM.
MANY PEOPLE HAVE DISCUSSED THE SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM.
THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT AFFECTED BY IT.
THE SPAY AND NEUTER PROGRAM IS NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY.
WHAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES DO IS REALLOCATE LOCAL PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS, AND OTHER GENERAL REVENUE DOLLARS IN THE BUDGET TO ALLOW ANIMAL SERVICES TO HIRE AN ADDITIONAL FULL TIME FIELD SERVICE OFFICER.
THIS IS NOT A REDUCTION IN FUNDING.
TAKES THE MONEY FROM THE FENCE MATERIAL PURCHASE GRANT PROGRAM IN ORDER TO FUND THIS POSITION.
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION TO ASK OURSELVES WHEN WE'RE ALLOCATING DOLLARS TO ANIMAL SERVICES IS, WHAT'S THE CITY'S GOAL? IS OUR GOAL WITH THE ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO HELP LANDLORDS WITH THEIR MAINTENANCE EXPENSES? IS OUR GOAL TO HELP MAKE PET OWNERSHIP MORE AFFORDABLE? OR IS THE PURPOSE, THE MISSION OF THE ANIMAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS ON THE STREET? THE CITY'S NUMBER 1 JOB IS PUBLIC SAFETY, AND THE STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY.
NOT JUST ONE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, PREVENT PEOPLE FROM BEING ABLE TO WALK ON THE STREET OR ENJOY PUBLIC SPACES LIKE PARK.
OUR CITY POLICY MUST BE VERY SQUARELY AIMED AT REDUCING THE NUMBER OF STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS.
NOW, THE FENCING MATERIAL GRANT PROGRAM PROVIDES AN INCENTIVE THAT'S CONTRARY TO OUR GOAL OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LOOSE DOGS.
THE PROGRAM USES OUR LOCAL PROPERTY TAX AND SALES TAX DOLLARS TO PURCHASE MATERIALS AND GIVES IT TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALLOWED THEIR DOG TO GET LOOSE.
IT'S A FINANCIAL BENEFIT THAT MAY NOT EVEN GO TO THE PET OWNER BECAUSE IT COULD GO, FOR EXAMPLE, TO AN ABSENTEE LANDLORD,
[03:05:02]
WHO'S NEGLECTED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE.IF THE CITY WILL PAY TO REPAIR YOUR FENCE WHEN IT'S BROKEN, WHY WOULD ANYONE MAINTAIN THEIR FENCE? IT'S A MISUSE OF OUR LOCAL DOLLARS.
ONE COMMENTER MENTIONED THAT CITIZENS WANT TAX DOLLARS TO BE SPENT EFFECTIVELY, AND WE WANT TO GET GOOD VALUE FOR THE MONEY. I AGREE WITH THAT.
LET'S LOOK AT THE VALUE THAT WE GET FROM THE FENCE PROGRAM, 91 HOUSES OVER TWO YEARS.
A FULL TIME FIELD OFFICER COULD TAKE THAT MANY LOOSE ANIMALS OFF THE STREET IN ABOUT A MONTH.
JUST LOOKING AT THE VALUE OF YOUR DOLLAR SPENT, THE FENCE PROGRAM IS NOT AN EFFICIENT USE AND CERTAINLY NOT AS EFFICIENT AS A FULL TIME FIELD OFFICER.
NOW OUR FIELD OFFICERS ARE GOING TO HELP BY ENFORCING OUR EXISTING LAWS.
IT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIRECT IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY BY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS, AND IT HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING BUDGET NEUTRAL.
I'M GOING TO ADDRESS JUST IN CLOSING SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO PAY FOR FENCES AND SUBSIDIZE PET OWNERSHIP.
THERE'S AN AUTHOR FREDERIC BASTIAT WHO IN THE YEAR 1850 WROTE ABOUT VERY SIMILAR ARGUMENTS.
HE WROTE THAT, "SOCIALISM CONFUSES THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY.
AS A RESULT OF THIS, EVERY TIME WE OBJECT TO A THING BEING DONE BY GOVERNMENT, THE SOCIALISTS CONCLUDE THAT WE OBJECT TO ITS BEING DONE AT ALL.
IT IS IF THE SOCIALISTS WERE TO ACCUSE US OF NOT WANTING PEOPLE TO EAT BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT THE STATE TO RAISE GRAIN." NOW 175 YEARS LATER, WE'RE HEARING SOCIALISTS MAKE THE SAME ARGUMENTS.
WHEN WE OBJECT TO THE GOVERNMENT BUYING FENCING MATERIAL, SOCIALISTS ACCUSE US OF NOT WANTING PEOPLE TO HAVE PETS.
IF YOU WANT TO DONATE YOUR MONEY TO PEOPLE, THEN GIVE IT TO A CHARITY.
BUT THE CITY'S JOB IS PUBLIC SAFETY, AND WE HAVE TO GET THE BEST VALUE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY THAT WE CAN, WHICH IS TO PRIORITIZE FIELD OPERATIONS, HAVE MORE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ACTIVELY ENFORCING OUR CITY ORDINANCES.
NOT ONLY SHOULD WE END THE FENCING PROGRAM AS BAD POLICY.
THE MONEY AVAILABLE FROM THAT PROGRAM ALLOWS US TO FUND THE FULL TIME OFFICER AND HELP OUR COMMUNITY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. GARCIA. WE NEED A MOTION.
>> WELL, LET'S GET A MOTION, AND THEN LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION, IS THAT?
>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM.
>> YOU SECOND. HOLD ON ONE MOMENT.
>> MAYBE I CAN ASK SOME HELP FROM OUR DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY.
IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR?
>> THERE IS NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
>> WELL, I JUST MADE A MOTION TO POSTPONE.
>> [BACKGROUND] I WANTED TO MAKE SURE MAYOR PRO TEM BEFORE YOUR MOTION WAS MENTIONED THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> DO WE NEED TO TAKE UP A MOTION BEFORE WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE?
>> NO. YOU CAN TAKE UP WHATEVER MOTION THAT YOU GIVE THE FLOOR TO MAYOR.
>> DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS TIME, MAYOR PRO TEM?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM FOR 90 DAYS AND TO EITHER WE HAVE A MEETING WITH THE BOARD FOR THE ANIMAL SERVICES OR CREATE A COMMITTEE.
>> TO HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS FOR 90 DAYS AND TO FORM A COMMITTEE?
>> TO WORK WITH SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS THAT ARE ALREADY DEALING WITH THE ISSUES, AND IF THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, I MEAN.
>> THAT CERTAINLY CAN COME UP AND PUT THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
I THINK FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, THE MOTION WILL BE JUST BE POSTPONED FOR 90 DAYS.
>> IS JUST TO BE POSTPONED, AND THAT CAN BE TAKEN. THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO POSTPONE THIS FOR 90 DAYS.
IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?
>> ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? MR. GARCIA.
>> POSTPONING THIS IS JUST GOING TO DELAY GETTING A FIELD OFFICER OUT, AND WE CAN DO THE COMMITTEE WITHOUT PAUSING THIS AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET.
>> SHOULD I RESPOND NOW OR SHOULD I WAIT UNTIL.
>> IF YOU'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PART, SO JUST THE MAYOR JUST NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE YOU?
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION IN TERMS OF DELAYING A OFFICER TO GET OUT.
DO WE HAVE AN OPEN SPOT RIGHT NOW?
[03:10:04]
>> WE DO HAVE A CURRENT OPENING IN THE FIELD.
>> ADDING ONE WOULD HAVE TWO OPEN.
>> TWO CURRENT. YES. IF THAT'S THE CASE, YOU WOULD HAVE THREE TOTAL, IF YOU ADD ONE.
>> NOW, I'VE GOT YOU UP HERE, SO I'M CALLING ON YOU.
>> WELL, I'LL BE MORE THAN GLAD TO [INAUDIBLE] HERE'S THE THING. CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? DAVID, WHEN YOU DECIDED THAT WE NEEDED A FIELD OFFICER, WHICH WE KNOW WE DO, BUT WE HAVE TWO OPENINGS RIGHT NOW.
I THINK ONE OF THEM IS ON LIGHT DUTY.
THE OTHER ONE IS ON WORKMAN'S COMP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WHO DID YOU CONSULT FOR THAT? HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT WE NEEDED ANOTHER FIELD OFFICER?
>> MR. GARCIA, DO YOU WISH TO RESPOND TO THAT?
>> THANK YOU. I HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THE LEADERSHIP IN THE ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, CITY MANAGEMENT, AND OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS TO DISCUSS THE BIGGEST OBSTACLES TO IMPROVING THE METRICS THAT ARE REALLY GOING TO MAKE A TANGIBLE IMPACT ON IMPROVING PEOPLE'S LIVES.
THAT'S REDUCING THE NUMBER OF STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS.
WE'VE SEEN A CORRELATION IN THE DATA THAT OVER TIME AS THE NUMBER OF CAPTURES HAS GONE DOWN, THE NUMBER OF BITES HAS GONE UP, AND SO LUBBOCK IS A GROWING COMMUNITY? A SHORTNESS OF STAFF WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND BY MANAGEMENT IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST OBSTACLES.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT, MANAGEMENT'S RECOMMENDATION, THE DATA THAT SUPPORTS AND INDICATES THAT WE NEED MORE FIELD ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS, THOSE ALL SHOW THAT THAT'S GOT TO BE THE TOP PRIORITY FOR FUNDING.
>> DID YOU ASK OUR DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR WHAT HE THOUGHT WE NEEDED?
>> STEVEN, DO YOU MIND COMING UP TO THE PODIUM?
>> STEVEN, WHAT DO WE NEED FOR ANIMAL SERVICES RIGHT NOW? I KNOW WE ALREADY HAVE POSITIONS OPEN.
WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT WE NEED IN YOUR DEPARTMENT?
>> I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO PROVIDE THE BEST PUBLIC SAFETY THAT WE CAN, WHETHER THAT'S THROUGH THE FENCING PROGRAM, WHERE WE'RE KEEPING ANIMALS AT HOME AND BEHIND FENCES OR WHETHER THAT'S ADDING OFFICERS.
WE JUST NEED TO GET THAT PUBLIC SAFETY UP TO WHERE PEOPLE FEEL SAFE.
WE NEED TO REALIZE, TOO, THAT A LOT OF THE BITES THAT HAPPENED, THE MAJORITY HAPPENED FROM OWNED ANIMALS, AND WE'VE BEEN DOCUMENTING THAT SINCE THE FIRST OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.
>> MR. GARCIA WANTS ANOTHER FIELD OFFICER.
DO YOU THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE POSITION TO ADD WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE OPENINGS, OR IS THERE ANOTHER AREA THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP FIELD OFFICERS AND HELP ANIMAL SERVICES TO RESPOND TO CALLS MORE EFFICIENTLY?
>> I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER POSITION ADDED, THERE'S SOME THAT YOU COULD UTILIZE THAT WOULD HELP MAYBE INTAKE SO THE OFFICERS COULD GET BACK OUT ON THE BEAT FASTER.
>> AN INTAKE OFFICER, BUT NOT A FIELD OFFICER, AN INTAKE OFFICER TO HELP FIELD OFFICERS TO BE ABLE TO PERFORM THEIR JOB MORE EFFICIENTLY AND GET BACK OUT THERE AND BRING MORE PETS OR ANIMALS TO THE SHELTER.
>> YES, MA'AM. WHEN AN OFFICER COMES IN, THEY HAVE TO DO A FULL INTAKE, THEY HAVE TO MICROCHIP, VACCINATE, DEWORM, AND TREAT FOR FLEAS AND TICKS.
IF YOU HAD AN OFFICER THAT COULD DO THAT FOR THEM, THEY COULD GET BACK OUT TO THEIR RUN CALLS.
>> THEN THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO ASK YOU, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH VEHICLES FOR FIELD OFFICERS? RIGHT NOW, IS THERE ENOUGH VEHICLES TO SUPPORT FIELD OFFICERS?
>> YES, MA'AM. WE HAVE NINE VEHICLES CURRENTLY, AND SO WE DO HAVE IF WE ADDED ANOTHER OFFICER, THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHARE THAT VEHICLE.
IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HELP YOU ON EVERY SHIFT.
>> WHAT YOU'VE TOLD ME IS THAT WE NEED SOMEONE, NOT A FIELD OFFICER, BUT AN INTAKE OFFICER OR AN INTAKE INDIVIDUAL.
DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT FOR YOU? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE?
>> YES, MA'AM. I THINK THAT'S A POSITION THAT COULD WAIT.
IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET FIELD OFFICERS, ESPECIALLY TO GET THEM TRAINED AND TO STAY.
WE HAVE A VERY HIGH TURNOVER RATE.
EVERY ANIMAL SERVICES IN THE NATION DOES.
WE DO HAVE TWO VACANCIES RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE HAVING PEOPLE APPLY FOR.
>> DIDN'T YOU JUST HIRE SOMEBODY AND WITHIN A WEEK THEY WERE GONE?
>> THEN THE OTHER PORTION IS THAT YOU'VE GOT THIS FENCE PROGRAM THAT WAS ACTUALLY INITIATED BY THE PEOPLE THAT THEY HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND?
[03:15:06]
THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ENCOURAGED US TO CREATE THIS PROGRAM, AND HAS IT BEEN EFFECTIVE?>> IT HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE, YES, MA'AM.
>> HOW DO YOU FEEL THAT WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN EFFECTIVE THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO WORK WITH AND REPLACE IT WITH SOMEONE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A VEHICLE ENOUGH.
HOW IS THIS REALLY GOING TO HELP US?
>> MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD MAYBE ADD JUST A LITTLE.
NOW, GRANTED, THESE TWO NEW VEHICLES WERE ORDERED OVER THREE YEARS AGO, BUT WE DO HAVE TWO NEW VEHICLES THAT WILL BE ON THE GROUND IDEALLY WITHIN 90 DAYS.
ONE OF THEM IS HERE AND IT'S BROKEN.
IT'S BRAND NEW. IT'S BACK AT ITS DEALERSHIP.
THE OTHER ONE'S UNDER SOME LARGER RECALL.
I GUESS D OFFER THAT REALLY IT'S THE POLICY QUESTION, AND THE POLICY QUESTION IS TO THE COUNSEL.
ARE THESE DOLLARS BEST USED FOR THE EXISTING FENCE PROGRAM OR RATHER TO TAKE THE SAME DOLLARS FOR AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER? THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT GO IN, AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO PUT MR. GREEN UNDER THE GUN FOR THIS.
IF YOU REALLY GET TO IT, AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER ALSO IS INTAKE OFFICER, THEY'RE MUCH MORE INTERCHANGEABLE.
BUT AGAIN, WOULD JUST SUGGEST IT'S THE POLICY QUESTION, WHICH IS THE PURVIEW OF THIS BODY.
THE DOLLARS TO BE USED AS THEIR PROGRAM TODAY, WHICH IS THE FENCE PROGRAM, OR FOR THE EXACT SAME COST, IT'S TOTALLY NEUTRAL.
>> I THINK THAT, WHAT I'VE HEARD AND WHAT I'VE LEARNED IN THESE CONVERSATIONS, PARTICULARLY IN REGARDING THE FENCE PROGRAM, AND AS IT APPLIES TO ANOTHER FIELD OFFICER.
WE'LL LOOK AT FIELD OFFICERS OR WE SHOULD LOOK AT FIELD OFFICERS DURING THE NEXT BUDGETING PROCESS.
WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS TWO OPENINGS, AND ADDING A THIRD OPENING OR THE BUDGET FOR A THIRD OPENING DOES NOT NECESSARILY HELP BOOTS ON THE GROUND TODAY.
I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID HERE TONIGHT THAT IMPROVED FENCING HELPS BOOTS ON THE GROUND TODAY IN TERMS OF CAPTURE.
I DON'T AND I CERTAINLY GET THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE AND, SOCIALISM, I THINK WE GET OFF, WE GET OFF ON RAIL THERE, AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GO THERE, BUT I DO THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
IT WAS SAID EARLIER TODAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A DOG PROBLEM.
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO DO THINGS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T DO FOR WHATEVER REASON, BE IT AN ECONOMIC ISSUE THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH, OR MAYBE IT'S JUST IN THEIR NATURE TO NOT BE GOOD PET OWNERS.
BUT THOSE PEOPLE WHO COME AND APPLY FOR THE FENCE GRANT PROGRAM RECEIVE BOARDS.
THEY DON'T RECEIVE INSTALLATION.
THEY DON'T RECEIVE A NEW FENCE.
THEY RECEIVE BOARDS AND NAILS, AND THEY GO OUT AND PUT UP THE BOARDS AND NAILS AND BUILD FENCES TO CONTAIN THEIR DOGS.
THEY'RE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR US.
THE SIDE EFFECT IS THAT IT'S EASIER FOR CAPTURE.
IN AN ALLEYWAY WITH A CONTROL OFFICER ON BOTH ENDS OF THE ALLEY, IF I UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS, BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE A CONTAINED SPACE.
THERE'S A BENEFIT TO THAT IN CAPTURING ANIMALS, AND SO IT WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE THAT WE LOOK AT THE BUDGETARY NEEDS OF ANOTHER FIELD OFFICER DURING THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE, AND WE ALLOW THIS PROGRAM TO CONTINUE FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS.
WE MAY, AS A BOARD, DETERMINE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, AND THAT'LL BE A CONVERSATION AT THAT TIME.
BUT WE HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE.
THERE'S SOME CONSENSUS FROM STAFF THAT IT WORKS.
WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD THREE PEOPLE TODAY.
WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME ADDING TWO WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME KEEPING THE ONES WE ADD.
I THINK THERE'S AN OVERARCHING THING.
MY REQUEST WOULD BE THAT WE NOT POSTPONE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
THAT WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE, MAKE A DECISION ON THE FENCE PROGRAM AND THE ADDED STAFF MEMBERS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND MOVE ON.
AS WE ADDRESS THE NEXT ITEM, MAYBE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO SEE, SOME BOTTOM UP LEADERSHIP FROM STAFF IN HELPING US TO SET POLICY GOING FORWARD.
[03:20:02]
MISS MARTINEZ GARCIA WOULD WITHDRAW HER MOTION AT THE MOMENT AND ALLOW US TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM AS IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.>> I WITHDRAW MY MOTION SO THAT WE CAN VOTE ON THIS ISSUE TOO.
>> SHE'S WITHDRAWN HER MOTION.
I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AS THEY'RE PRESENTED, BUT LET ME MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION.
THIS IS TO ADD A ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, NOT A FIELD.
I MEAN, THERE'S SOME TERMINOLOGY.
>> IT'S AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
>> [OVERLAPPING] INTAKE OR OUT DRIVING THE TRUCK AROUND, EITHER ONE, RIGHT?
>> SO IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY PUTTING THEM IN ONE PARTICULAR LOCATION, BUT IT IS AN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE AS A FIELD.
WE CALL THEM A FIELD OFFICER, ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. MR. COLLINS?
>> YOU STILL OUT? TO BE CLEAR, MR. WADE, WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS CONSIDERING A MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE FENCE PROGRAM AND ADD AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICE.
>> TECHNICALLY, THERE'S NOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM HAS WITHDRAWN HIS MOTION.
THERE'D BE A GOOD TIME TO GET A MOTION ON THE FLOOR SO WE CAN CONTINUE OUR SUBJECT.
>> I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE, OR NOT TALKED ABOUT.
>> I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT AGENDA ITEM 6.13.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
NOW. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.
KEEP US ON TRACK HERE. MR. COLLINS.
>> BACK TO MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT.
MY SENSE OF THIS IS THAT WE ALLOW THE ONGOING PROCESSES, THE ONGOING PROGRAM TO REMAIN IN PLACE THROUGH THIS BUDGET CYCLE.
WE EXAMINE THIS IN THE COMING MONTHS AS WE GO INTO OUR NEXT BUDGET, DETERMINING AMONGST OURSELVES WHETHER WE THINK THIS POLICY IS APPROPRIATE, WHETHER WE THINK IT'S EFFECTIVE, AND ALSO CONSIDER WHETHER WE NEED TO ADD PERSONNEL AND BUDGET TO THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE TO HELP IMPROVE AND INCREASE OUR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES IN THE FIELD.
I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO NOT APPROVE THIS MOTION AT THIS TIME.
>> I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
IS THIS VOTE FOR OR AGAINST THE FENCE?
>> [OVERLAPPING] FIGURE OUT. IS IT FOR OR AGAINST THE FENCE?
>> MR. HARRIS, THE MOTION IS FOR THE AMENDMENT.
IF THIS PASSES, THE FENCE PROGRAM STOPS AND THOSE DOLLARS ARE USED FOR A FIELD AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
>> I SEE NO OTHER REQUESTS FOR DISCUSSION HERE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF ITEM 6.13 TO, I GUESS, AMEND OUR BUDGET TO WHERE WE REMOVE THE FENCE PROGRAM AND ADD A ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER OR FIELD OFFICER, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING.
>> NAY. I BELIEVE THAT PASSED FIVE TO TWO.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. FAILED FIVE TO TWO.
I'M COUNTING NUMBERS, TRYING TO COUNT NOSES HERE.
LET'S NOW TAKE UP ITEM SIX POINT.
[14. Ordinance 1st Reading - Lubbock Animal Services: Consider an Ordinance amending Chapter 4 "Animals" of the City of Lubbock Code of Ordinances Article 4.01.006 , "Number of Dogs or Cats at Residences; Multipet Permit". Adding Article 4.01.06 requiring a breeding permit for breeding of dogs or cats; modifying Article 4.01.06 Pertaining to the Amount of Liability Insurance Required to keep a Dangerous Dog; Providing a Penalty Clause; Providing a Savings Clause; and Providing for Publication. ]
YES, MA'AM. ON TO YOU.>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM 6.4.
I'M WANT TO MOVE TO APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM 6.14 BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4 0.01 0.006 BY ADOPTING THE BREEDING PERMIT FOR BREEDING DOGS OR CATS AND INCREASING THE LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR DANGEROUS DOGS AS PRESENTED, BUT STRIKING THE PROVISION RELATING TO THE NUMBER OF DOGS OR CATS AT RESIDENCES.
>> NOW, I'LL OPEN THIS FOR DISCUSSION. DR. WILSON.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THIS UP AFTER SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH LAS LEADERSHIP, CITY LEADERSHIP, HEARING COMPLAINTS FROM CITIZENS.
NEVER WOULD WE WANT TO DO ANY DAMAGE.
[03:25:03]
I KNOW THE MAYOR, I THINK, AND EVEN CMG, THANK ALL OF OUR, ESPECIALLY OUR RESCUE PEOPLE FOR BEING HERE, FOSTERS FOR BEING HERE, TALKING ABOUT LOVED ANIMAL SERVICES, SO NEVER WOULD I WANT TO HINDER ANYBODY'S ABILITY TO HELP IN THIS PROCESS.WE ALL WANT TO ADDRESS THE STRAY DOG PROBLEM AND THE INCREASED ANIMAL POPULATION PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE AND HELPING GREAT ANIMALS GET ADOPTED INTO GREAT HOMES.
THAT'S WHY. I WANT TO PULL THAT PART OUT.
LAS LEADERSHIP HAS ADAMANTLY BEEN FOR THE BREEDING PERMITS TO TRY TO HELP REDUCE THE BACKYARD BREEDING AND THE INCREASING LIABILITY INSURANCE FOR DANGEROUS DOGS.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, IF POSSIBLE.
THEN I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE ANYBODY, AND I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE THAT IF YOU'RE PART OF THE FOSTERING PROGRAMS, THE NON PROFITS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO ME.
I'VE ALREADY EMAILED A FEW OF YOU GUYS TODAY.
I THINK IT'S TOO RUSH TO ADDRESS THAT, SO I DON'T WANT TO ADDRESS THAT TONIGHT, BUT THAT WAY I CAN GET INPUT FROM YOU GUYS AND BRING SOMETHING THAT IS WORTHWHILE, AND WE GET THE RIGHT LANGUAGE IN THIS REGARDING WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT WHERE IT'S TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN.
IT'S A HINDRANCE ON EVERYBODY, WHERE IT'S A PROBLEM WITHIN THE CITY, BUT NOT WE'RE RESTRICTING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO OWN PETS AND LOVE THEIR PETS.
I WANT TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT, AND I THINK PULLING THAT OUT IS THE BEST THING TO DO FOR TODAY, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AND DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.
DOES THAT NEED TO BE A MOTION TO AMEND AT ALL?
>> NO. SHE MADE THE ORIGINAL MOTION, AND SHE JUST IS WITHDRAWING PART OF.
>> THAT IS PART OF HER. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE DONE ALL THAT CORRECTLY.
>> IT WOULD JUST BE THE BREEDING PERMIT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] AND THE LIABILITY.
>> THOSE TWO ITEMS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, MAYOR PRO TEM?
>> CLARIFICATION. THIS IS JUST TO AMEND AND PULL THAT ONE ITEM.
WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY VOTING ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM.
>> NO, ACTUALLY, THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO VOTE ON THE ITEM.
HER MOTION IS TO IF APPROVED, YOU WOULD HAVE A BREEDERS PERMIT AMENDMENT TO THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE, AND YOU WOULD HAVE AN INCREASE IN LIABILITY INSURANCE IN THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE.
BUT THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS THAT YOU HAVE IN A RESIDENCE WOULD REMAIN AS IT IS TODAY.
NOTHING WOULD CHANGE IN THAT PART.
>> I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF FOLKS, AND ONCE AGAIN, MY QUESTION IS, I KNOW THAT YOU MET WITH LAS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE HAVE THOUGHT THIS OUT, ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE RUSHING.
I HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT I HAVE PULLED BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS PROPERLY WORDED THAT THE RIGHT PEOPLE ARE BEING ASKED THAT I'M GIVING EVERYTHING FULL CONSIDERATION.
WHILE I GET ABOUT DANGEROUS DOGS, WHICH I KNOW THERE'S EIGHT IDENTIFIED, AND THEY ALL BELONG TO SOMEONE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE.
IF IT WERE UP TO ME, RATHER THAN HAVE THESE DANGEROUS DOGS IN THE CITY, I WOULD MAKE THEM MOVE OUT OF THE CITY LIMITS SO THAT IT DOESN'T HINDER US.
THE OTHER PART IS THAT WITH THESE DANGEROUS DOGS, WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING, AND I DON'T KNOW, BILL OR TAYLOR OR STEVEN.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE DANGEROUS DOGS, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE ALSO HAD A PROBLEM WHERE PEOPLE HAVE WHEN THEY'RE BEING ADDRESSED ABOUT THEIR DOGS, THEY HIDE THEM.
THEY PRETTY MUCH HAVE DISMISSED THAT.
I THINK MY FEAR ABOUT THAT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO POSE THIS FEE ON SOME FOLKS, AND THEN WE'RE REALLY GOING TO NOW PUT MORE DANGEROUS DOGS INTO THE SYSTEM, SO I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.
I KNOW THAT WE DO HAVE A BREEDING ISSUE, BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS VERY RUSHED.
IT'S EVIDENT THAT WE HAVEN'T DONE ALL OF OUR HOMEWORK AND THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS TODAY, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF INPUT, AND I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO VISIT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS PROJECT OR THIS AGENDA, I'M SORRY.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO SAY, FOR DR. WILSON, THANK YOU FOR OFFERING TO STRIKE THAT FOR THE THINKING BEHIND,
[03:30:04]
WHERE WE'RE GRASPING AT STRAWS AT SOME OF THIS STUFF LIKE THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS SUGGESTING, WE ARE TRYING TO PASS THINGS THAT ADDRESS THE SITUATION, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.MY WORRY FOR THAT WAS THAT THERE IS GOOD PEOPLE IN THIS TOWN WHO HAVE EIGHT ANIMALS IN THE HOUSE THAT TAKE CARE OF THEM.
THERE'S PEOPLE THAT HAVE EIGHT ANIMALS THAT DO NOT TAKE CARE OF THEM.
I THINK JUST ADDING THAT LAYER OF RED TAPE, YOU WOULD HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THEIR EIGHT ANIMALS GOING DOWN GETTING A MULTI PET PERMIT AND JUMPING THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT HOOPS, LIKE A GOOD PERSON AND A GOOD CITIZEN DOES.
THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WOULD NOT DO THAT.
I APPRECIATE DR. WILSON MEETING US IN THE MIDDLE THERE.
I'VE SPOKE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE.
I HAVEN'T HEARD FOR THE BREEDERS.
WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME LEVEL THAT WE CAN SOME LEVEL OF CONTROL FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BREEDING AND SELLING DOGS INTO OUR COMMUNITY, WHETHER THEY DON'T END UP THERE OR NOT, BUT WE HAVE TO SAY THAT SOME DO END UP IN THE LUBBOCK SHELTER, AND SOME DO END UP ON THE STREET AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THEN THE LIABILITY INSURANCE IS SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH.
I KNOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HIDE THESE THINGS, BUT EVEN IF YOU WENT BACK AND SAID, THEY CAN'T BE ALLOWED IN THE CITY AT ALL, WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO HIDE THEM AGAIN.
I THINK THIS AT LEAST GIVES A PAPER TRAIL THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AND SAY, HEY, DO YOU HAVE THIS? CAUSE WE KNOW YOU HAVE THIS DOG, AND IT GIVES US A PAPER TRAIL TO SAY, DO YOU HAVE THIS INSURANCE COVERAGE?
AS WE LOOK AT THESE TWO PARTICULAR ITEMS, I PERSONALLY HAVE NO ISSUE WITH WHAT'S BEING ASKED TO BE ENACTED, BUT I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT FRANKLY, I'M NOT CERTAIN IT GOES FAR ENOUGH IN MOVING US FORWARD IN HELPING OUR ISSUES.
I THINK OUR STAFF AT LAS, OUR STAFF HERE AT CITY HALL, RECOGNIZE THE KIND OF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE.
THEY RECOGNIZE THAT WE GET PHONE CALLS AND WE GET COMPLAINTS, AND WE'RE THE ONES WHO ARE NOW TRYING TO SAY, HEY, TAKE CARE OF THIS FOR AS, HEY, FIX THIS FOR US.
BUT I THINK THAT FOR ME AND AT LEAST IN MY MANAGEMENT STYLE, IF YOU WILL, IN MY BUSINESS.
I'M A LOT ABOUT BOTTOM-UP LEADERSHIP.
WHAT I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE WOULD ASK OF THE CITY MANAGER IS THAT WE TAKE SOME TIME TO LOOK AT THESE ITEMS AND MULTIPLE OTHER ITEMS. HOW DO WE MAKE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ENTIRE PROCESS? I THINK IN 2017, WE HAD A TERRIBLE SITUATION WHERE WE EUTHANIZED ON A VERY SHORT TERM AND WE EUTHANIZED A GREAT DEAL OF ANIMALS.
MAYBE THE PENDULUM HAS SWUNG TOO FAR.
MAYBE IT HASN'T, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT FRANKLY, I'M CAPABLE OF ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH MY EXPERIENCE.
I'D LIKE FOR US TO GO BACK TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE AND DO THIS EVERY DAY TO TELL US IF WE NEED TO SWING THE PENDULUM BACK THE OTHER WAY A LITTLE BIT, OR A LOT.
AND I THINK THAT INFORMATION BUBBLES UP THROUGH THE FOLKS WHO ARE DOING THIS EVERY DAY, THROUGH OUR CITY MANAGER, AND COMES BACK TO US.
WHETHER WE ADOPT THESE TWO ITEMS TODAY OR WE POSTPONE THIS IN ITS ENTIRETY, I WOULD ASK THAT WE GET THAT INFORMATION TO COME BACK.
LET'S REVISIT THE ENTIRETY OF OUR ORDINANCE, OR AT LEAST THE ITEMS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS, DANGEROUS DOGS, HOW WE CONTROL BREEDERS, WE MAY NEED A PERMIT FOR FOSTERS, THAT PERMIT DOESN'T NEED TO COST A PENNY TO THOSE FOLKS, BUT IT ALLOWS US TO POSSIBLY KNOW WHO THEY ARE AND GIVE US AN IDEA OF THE HELP THAT'S BEING OFFERED IN OUR COMMUNITY.
MAYBE WE CAN HELP THEM AS THEY HELP US.
MAYBE WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT SITUATION A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
ALL OF THESE THINGS, I GUESS I'M COMING TO YOU AND SAYING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD GET SOME HELP FROM OUR STAFF COMING UP TO US AS WE TRY TO RESET POLICY,
[03:35:03]
BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ULTIMATELY TRYING TO DO IS RESET POLICIES THAT WILL HELP ELIMINATE DANGEROUS DOGS IN OUR COMMUNITY.I WOULD LIKE FOR THOSE FOLKS TO COME BACK AND TELL US HOW TO DO THAT.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING [LAUGHTER] AT THE END OF THE DAY IN THAT PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE SOLILOQUY.
>> YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> [OVERLAPPING] HERE FOR ANOTHER 30 MINUTES.
>> JUST A THOUGHT ON MR. COLLINS'S COMMENTS.
I THINK ULTIMATELY THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE TO TAKE LEADERSHIP ON THESE ITEMS BECAUSE WITHOUT A HAND AT THE HELM, WE'VE ARRIVED IN THIS CURRENT SITUATION.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE DELIBERATE ACTION TO CHANGE OUR POLICY AND MOVE US IN THE DIRECTION THAT WE WANT.
I THINK THAT WE ALL HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING THAT STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS ON THE STREET IS THE PROBLEM THAT WE WANT TO SOLVE AND THAT IT AFFECTS EVERY PART OF THE COMMUNITY.
WE HAVE I THINK MOST DIFFERENCES IN POLICY AND VIEWS ON THE EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT POLICIES.
BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS ULTIMATELY THE COUNCIL THAT IS PROVIDING LEADERSHIP ON THESE ITEMS. MOVING DIRECTLY TO THE MOTION ON THIS ORDINANCE.
I SPONSORED IT FOR THE AGENDA, BUT I CAN'T SUPPORT THE MOTION IN ITS CURRENT FORM.
I HAVE A CONCERN THAT WE'RE NOT ADEQUATELY ENFORCING EXISTING LAWS, AND THAT'S THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM.
WE'RE NOT EFFECTIVELY CONDUCTING FIELD OPERATIONS, GETTING ANIMALS OFF THE STREET, AND ENFORCING EXISTING CODE ON FENCE STANDARDS OR EXISTING INSURANCE.
I'M NOT AWARE OF THE DATA, IF ANY, THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW WHAT WE'RE DOING TO ENFORCE CURRENT INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE STAFFED OR EQUIPPED TO ENFORCE A NEW BREEDING LAW.
SO I'M CONCERNED THAT IT WOULD IMPOSE A BURDEN ON LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS, BUT BE IGNORED BY THE VERY PEOPLE WHO ARE CREATING THIS PROBLEM.
I'M HESITANT TO RESTRICT INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IN RESPONSE TO A PROBLEM.
ESPECIALLY BEFORE WE HAVE SOME DATA TO SHOW THAT IT'S A CLOSE CONNECTION.
MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE FOCUS ON IMPROVING OUR FIELD OPERATIONS, ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING LAW FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN COME BACK AND REVISIT THESE SUGGESTIONS.
MAYBE IF WE HAVE SIX MONTHS OF IMPROVED FIELD OPERATIONS WITH A HIGHER STAFFING LEVELS, THEN WE WOULD HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO SHOW WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S STILL A GAP IN OUR POLICY.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHRISTY, DR. WILSON.
>> JUST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT AND FOR MR. COLLINS' REMARK, I AGREE 100% THAT THIS ISN'T A FINAL, SOLUTION TO EVERYTHING.
I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK WE HAVE A HUGE, DANGEROUS DOG ISSUE.
I THINK IT'S A SMALL NUMBER OF DOGS.
THE LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUEST WAS A VERY SPECIFIC REQUEST THAT CAME FROM LAS LEADERSHIP.
THAT ADDRESSES ONE SMALL PART.
I ACTUALLY THINK THE LARGE PART THAT WE HAVE IS A STRAY DOG ISSUE.
I THEN AGREE COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN, THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED MORE FIELD OPERATIONS TO DEAL WITH THAT AND CHANGES WITHIN OUR SHELTER.
BUT THE BREEDING PERMIT REQUEST AND THE LIABILITY INSURANCE REQUESTS ARE NOT GOING TO FIX ALL OF IT.
THESE ARE JUST SMALL LITTLE TOOLS THAT WE CAN USE TO START MAKING SMALL CHANGES.
THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE BIG CHANGES.
THESE WERE SPECIFIC REQUESTS ASKED FOR BY LEADERSHIP IN MEETINGS WHEN WE'RE ASKING THEM, HOW CAN WE HELP YOU? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE GET FROM OUR CITIZENS IS MAKE CHANGE. THAT'S WHAT WE GET.
A LOT OF US UP HERE DON'T KNOW HOW TO FIX THIS.
THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING ISSUE FOR MANY YEARS.
I KNOW, AND I WANT TO THANK CHRISTY BECAUSE CHRISTY HAS BEEN TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS FOR THREE YEARS.
WE'RE THREE YEARS IN, AND WE HAVE NOT FIXED HARDLY ANYTHING BECAUSE THIS ISSUE IS SO COMPLICATED.
THERE ARE SO MANY VARYING OPINIONS, AND THE ONE THING THAT MAKES THIS ISSUE VERY COMPLICATED IS EMOTION, AND WE ALL LOVE OUR ANIMALS, AND IT'S SO HARD TO HAVE TO MAKE CHANGES WHEN IT REGARDS ANIMALS, AND WE KNOW THAT.
I THINK ALL OF US UP HERE KNOW THAT.
THAT'S WHY I THINK I WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH JUST A COUPLE; THESE ARE SMALL CHANGES.
THIS ISN'T SOME MASSIVE OVERHAUL.
I AGREE WITH MR. COLLINS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS FROM THE GROUND UP AND SEE WHAT OTHER CHANGES THAT WE CAN MAKE TO MAKE CHANGE.
I HATE SITTING ON THIS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN SITTING ON THIS AND SITTING ON THIS AND SITTING ON THIS, AND THEN PEOPLE ARE ASKING US, WHY AREN'T YOU DOING ANYTHING? WELL, THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THIS.
IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S SMALL, THAT WE CAN START MAKING SOME CHANGES? IT IS NOT A MASSIVE CHANGE.
[03:40:01]
I DO THINK WE ALL AS A COUNCIL, AND AS A GROUP AS A COMMUNITY, WE ALL NEED TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS TOGETHER WITH OUR WONDERFUL LEADERSHIP AT LAS AND TRY TO FIND WAYS TO MAKE THIS BETTER BECAUSE WE DO NEED TO MAKE IT BETTER, STILL.>> COUNCILWOMAN WILSON, CAN I ASK THAT ON THAT NOTE THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PULL THIS ITEM POSTPONE IT SO THAT WE CAN CONSULT WITH THE LEADERSHIP OF THE LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES AS WELL AS OUR ANIMAL SERVICES BOARD? I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S STILL SEVERAL ISSUES.
WE'VE HAD 27 DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS THAT ARE CONCERNED, AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE IS A SOLUTION, BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALL OF US TO WORK COLLECTIVELY SO THAT WE CAN REALLY ADDRESS THE ISSUES AND DO ONE ITEM AT A TIME.
I FEEL LIKE WE'RE ONCE AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE LEADERSHIP.
WELL, LET THEM LEAD, AND LET US FOLLOW THAT LEAD AND ACTUALLY SUPPORT WHAT IT IS THAT THEY NEED AND NOT WHAT WE THINK THEY NEED.
WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO DO THAT?
>> I THINK LET'S JUST WHETHER IT FAILS OR NOT I THINK WE JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I DID.
THIS IS WHAT THEY TOLD ME THEY NEEDED.
IF IT FAILS, I'M ACTUALLY I'M OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE WE CAN COME BACK.
I CAN COME BACK AND SIT WITH STEVEN AND TAYLOR AND ALL THE GREAT PEOPLE.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO JUST VOTE THE WAY THEY VOTE AND DO THAT, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS.
BUT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY TOLD ME THEY WANTED.
THIS WAS NOT WHAT I ASSUMED THEY NEEDED.
I WOULD HOPEFULLY NEVER DO THAT AND IF I DID, I DEFINITELY WOULD PULL IT.
BUT LET'S VOTE, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK.
STEVE AND TAYLOR, WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS UP HERE TONIGHT, ALL OF OUR CITIZENS, OUR RESCUES.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS.
WE ARE OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS ALWAYS.
SO PLEASE HELP US SO WE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM.
>> BUT WHAT WE HAVE IS A CHANGE TO OUR ORDINANCES, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO THIS, BUT CAN WE TIE INTO THIS VOTE SOME DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER TO START THAT PROCESS BY WHICH WE EXAMINE OUR ORDINANCE PROGRAM AND COME BACK TO THAT PRIOR TO THE BUDGET CYCLE OR MAKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT DATE SPECIFIC.
I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THE TWO CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE.
I JUST DON'T THINK THEY GO FAR ENOUGH AND WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION.
I DON'T WANT TO FAIL THIS NECESSARILY BECAUSE ONCE WE FAIL IT, OUR MEETING IS OVER.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. WE CAN'T FROM THERE, THEN AS A BODY, DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO INITIATE THIS PROCESS. TELL ME HOW THAT WORKS.
>> IF I COULD, SINCE WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS NOT AT THIS POINT, ESTABLISHING A FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA IT AND EVERYTHING.
I HAVE THE DIRECTION. I UNDERSTAND.
WE ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THAT ORDINANCE QUITE FREQUENTLY.
PROBABLY WOULD REQUEST ENOUGH TIME AT LEAST TO GET TO THE BUDGET BECAUSE WE DO EXPECT THE LEGISLATURE TO GIVE US A LITTLE MORE LATITUDE THAN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY.
SAME THING WITH THE QUESTION ABOUT DATA AND A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT.
DON'T BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF YOUR MOTION AT ALL.
THAT'S THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL, AND WE WILL GO TO WORK ON THAT.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT IT WOULD BE PROPER FOR THIS PARTICULAR MOTION.
YOU'LL NEED TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE IN MOTION.
AS YOU SAID, YOUR CITY MANAGER DEFINITELY HAS AN IDEA OF WHAT THE DIRECTIVE IS.
IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING MORE FORMAL, TWO, Y'ALL COULD PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA NEXT TIME TO FORMALLY SET UP SOMETHING WITH THE CITY MANAGER IF YOU WANTED SOMETHING MORE FORMAL THAN JUST WHAT YOUR CITY MANAGER SUGGESTED.
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE VOTING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT STRIKING NUMBER 1.
>> IT'S NOT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
IT IS THE ACTUAL MOVE TO APPROVE BUT FOUR.
THEN IN YOUR BACKUP, YOU HAVE SECTION NUMBERS.
SECTION 1 OF YOUR BACKUP OF THE ORDINANCE AFFIRMS THE RECITALS.
SECTION 2 IS THE ONE THAT IS ACTUALLY REGARDING THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS PER RESIDENCE.
SECTION 3 IS THE BREEDER'S PERMIT.
SECTION 4 IS LIABILITY INSURANCE.
SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE SECTION 3 AND SECTION 4 ONLY.
WELL, SECTION 1, SECTION 3 AND SECTION 4.
IT'S A VERY INTERESTING DISCUSSION.
I HOPE THAT AT LEAST WHAT OUR CITIZENS TAKE FROM THIS IS, WE'RE NOT IGNORING THE PROBLEM.
WE'RE NOT 100% SURE HOW TO DEAL WITH IT,
[03:45:02]
BUT WE KNOW IT'S SOMETHING OUR CITIZENS EXPECT US TO TRY TO ADDRESS.I THINK ALL OF US AGREE OR UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT ANY ONE THING.
THE STOOL SITS ON A LOT OF DIFFERENT LEGS.
ALL OF THEM ARE IMPORTANT IN SOME WAY TO GET CONTROL OF A PROBLEM. IT'S BEEN INTERESTING.
SEVERAL PEOPLE MENTIONED THIS TODAY DURING CITIZEN COMMENTS.
WE SHIP A LOT OF DOGS TO OTHER STATES WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM.
IT MAKES ME WONDER, THE QUESTION IS.
>> BECAUSE OF MANDATORY SPAY AND NEUTER AT THE STATE LEVEL.
>> THERE ARE WAYS TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM.
THE STATE DOES NOT ALLOW US THOSE TOOLS AT THE MOMENT.
BECAUSE IN TEXAS, WE HAVE DIFFERENT LAWS ABOUT OUR ANIMALS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> CORRECT. WHY DON'T WE INCLUDE THAT IN THE INFORMATION WHEN WE BRING IT BACK TO YOU ALL? YOU CAN SEE THAT.
>> THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE WE DO HAVE LIMITATIONS THAT WE WORK WITH BECAUSE TEXAS CONSIDERS ANIMALS TO BE REAL NOT REAL PROPERTY PROPERTY.
WE HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THOSE ANIMALS.
THE CITIZENS DO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE LIMITED IN WHAT WE CAN DO.
ON THE OTHER HAND, WE ARE TRYING DESPERATELY TO FIND A SOLUTION TO A SITUATION THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE CITIZENS AGREE IS A PROBLEM.
I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO LET THE PERFECT SOLUTION BE THE ENEMY OF A GOOD SOLUTION.
AS WE TRY TO FIND SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN DO, ALWAYS UNDERSTANDING THERE ARE MORE THINGS WE PROBABLY NEED TO LOOK AT AND ADDRESS, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS ISSUE, BUT I THINK THE CITIZENS EXPECT US TO DO SOMETHING AND NOT JUST LET THIS SITUATION CONTINUE TO FESTER.
SO HOPEFULLY, MY BELIEF TODAY IS WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING.
IT MAY NOT BE PERFECT, AND IT MAY NOT BE EVERYTHING, BUT THIS IS AT LEAST A PIECE OF WHAT WE MIGHT NEED TO DO TO HELP ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM.
IF I SEE NO OTHER DISCUSSION, LET'S HAVE A VOTE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF ITEM 6.14 AS IT'S BEEN-
>> PROPOSED. NOT AMENDED, PROPOSED.
PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> IT WAS THREE OF US ON THIS SIDE.
>> FOUR TO THREE, IS THAT RIGHT? I CAN'T LOOK TWO WAYS AT ONCE.
WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON THIS AS WE GO FORWARD, HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.
THANK YOU ALL FOR WHO STUCK WITH US TO THE VERY END.
[NOISE] [MUSIC]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.