[00:00:12]
>> I NOW OPEN A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 11, 2025, AND THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RESET SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH
[1. Executive Session]
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, AND SECTION 551.087, REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECESSING AT 1:02 PM.THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECONVENING AN OPEN SESSION AT 2:01 PM TODAY, AND WE'LL TAKE UP OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS, AND I'M GOING TO CALL FORWARD NOW PASTOR SHELLEY SWAN WITH
[1. Invocation]
FAITH CHURCH IN LUBBOCK TO DELEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION, AFTER WHICH, OUR MAYOR PRO TEM WILL LEAD US IN OUR PLEDGES.FATHER, WE COME TO YOU IN THE NAME OF JESUS, AND LORD, I JUST PRAY THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THIS MEETING.
FATHER, I PRAY YOUR BLESSING ON EACH ONE OF THIS CITY OFFICIALS, GOD, THAT THEY WOULD JUST HEAR YOUR VOICE AND FOLLOW YOU, AND THEY WOULD DO WHAT'S BEST FOR OUR CITY.
GOD, I PRAY THAT YOU WOULD BLESS THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AND JUST MAKE US GOD INTO THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'VE CALLED US TO BE GOD.
WE GIVE YOU ALL PRAISE, ALL GLORY IN JESUS NAME, AMEN.
[2. Pledges of Allegiance]
>> NOW YOU'LL JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE [INAUDIBLE] TO TEXAS.
>> NORMALLY, I WOULD AFTER CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER,
[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 February 11, 2025. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ]
I WOULD TAKE UP CITIZEN COMMENTS, BUT WE HAVE NONE TODAY, IS THAT CORRECT?>> WE DO HAVE. ACCORDING TO OUR CITY COUNCIL RULES, ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DO SO ON ANY MATTER, SPEAK TO ANY MATTER THAT'S POSTED ON OUR AGENDA FOR THAT DAY.
WE ASK THAT YOU COMPLETE A SIGN UP SHEET WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, NO LATER THAN 2 O'CLOCK.
WHEN I CALL YOU FORWARD TODAY, IF YOU WILL COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND WHAT ITEM YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO, AND THEN YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK, A WARNING BELL WILL SOUND WHEN YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT AND THEN A FINAL BELL WHEN YOU NEED TO TRY TO WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS.
FIRST TODAY, I'M GOING TO CALL ON MR. RICK RODRIGUEZ TO COME FORWARD, MR. RODRIGUEZ.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR MCBRAYER. GOOD AFTERNOON CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR MCBRAYER.
MY NAME IS RICK RODRIGUEZ, AND I SERVE AS THE CHIEF OPERATIONS OFFICER FOR THE LUBBOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THE ADDRESS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS 1628 19TH STREET.
MY PERSONAL ADDRESS IS 2522 KENT STREET.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS REGARDING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICABLE 300 FOOT MINIMUM DISTANCE PROVISION LISTED IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009-0O0060, WHICH IS ITEM 6.6 AND 6.7 IN YOUR AGENDA TODAY.
THIS WOULD ALLOW ALCOHOL SALES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A LOCATION WHERE LUBBOCK ISD HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ATTEND.
THE REQUEST SITS ON THE SAME LOCATION PHYSICALLY AS OUR BYRON MARTIN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY CENTER, AND THE OTHER REQUEST IS LITERALLY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET ON THE BACK SIDE OF THAT SAME PROPERTY.
THE EXISTING ORDINANCE SERVES AS AN IMPORTANT PURPOSE IN MAINTAINING A SAFE AND RESPONSIBLE ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR YOUTH.
ALLOWING A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE, SETS A CONCERNING PRECEDENT THAT WOULD WEAKEN THE PROTECTIONS DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE UNDERAGE EXPOSURE TO ALCOHOL.
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE AT AN IMPRESSIBLE AGE AND PLACING ALCOHOL CELLS NEAR REGULAR ACTIVITIES COULD INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF UNDERAGE DRINKING,
[00:05:05]
IMPAIRED JUDGMENT, AND OTHER RELATED ISSUES THAT IMPACT NOT ONLY THE STUDENTS, BUT ALSO THE BROADER COMMUNITY.LOCAL ORDINANCE EXIST TO UPHOLD THE WELL BEING OF RESIDENTS, AND I URGE THE COUNCIL TO CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE LONG TERM IMPLICATIONS OF GRANTING THIS VARIANCE.
I KNOW THIS COUNCIL HAS TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND STUDENTS WITH PROGRESS.
I RECOGNIZE THE CHALLENGES THAT THAT TASK PRESENTS.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU PRIORITIZE THE SAFETY AND THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR STUDENTS AND COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
NEXT, I'M GOING TO CALL UP SHAM WAGLE. MR. WAGLE.
>> HELLO, EVERYBODY. GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS SHAM WAGLE.
I LIVE OFF OF NORFOLK AVENUE DOWN SOUTH KELSEY PARK.
I'M A NEW BUSINESS OWNER, SO I JUST MOVED FROM DALLAS TO HERE LAST YEAR, AND I APPLIED FOR THE ALCOHOLIC PERMIT BECAUSE OUR SALES ARE SUFFERING BIG TIME.
I MAY HAVE TO ACTUALLY SHUT DOWN GIVEN YOU HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE STRIPS ACROSS THE STREET SHUTDOWN. I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND.
I'M NOT AS ARTICULATE AS MR. RODRIGUEZ IS, BUT MY SIDE OF STORY IS THAT THERE ARE A FEW OTHER LOCATIONS, JUST A FEW STEPS AWAY, WHICH ARE ALLOWED TO SELL THE ALCOHOL AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADVERTISE ANYTHING.
IT'S JUST GOING TO BE SERVING THE COMMUNITY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT KEEP ASKING FOR BEER AND OTHER DRINKS, AND WE COULDN'T PROVIDE IT.
WE'RE LOSING BUSINESS AS WELL.
I WOULD UNDERSTAND WHATEVER YOU DECIDE, WOULD BE FINE.
>> PLEASE TELL US THE NAME OF YOUR BUSINESS.
>> NEXT, I WILL CALL UP MR. SANJAY PAREK.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. MY NAME IS SANJAY KUMAR PAREK AND I'VE BEEN OWNING THAT BUSINESS SINCE 2002.
THE SAME THING, LIKE HE SAID, AFTER THE COVID, THE DAILY SALE IS LIKE, HOT FOOD IS VERY BAD.
I THINK CYNTHIA GARCIA, HAS BEEN VISITING OVER THERE A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE ON THAT ADVERTISING THING, AND WE ARE SUFFERING SO MUCH ON THE BUSINESS WISE ALSO.
LOCAL CUSTOMER IS ASKING ABOUT IT, IF WE CAN SELL IT, THAT'S FINE, BUT WHATEVER THE COMMITTEE DECIDE, WE ARE MOST WELCOME TO TAKE THAT DECISION. THANK YOU, SIR.
>> THANK YOU. THERE ARE NO OTHER PEOPLE ASKING TO MAKE CITIZEN COMMENTS.
[4. Minutes]
WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR AGENDA TO ITEM NUMBER 4, OUR MINUTES.WE'LL TAKE UP AGENDA 4.1, THE MINUTES FROM OUR JANUARY 14TH, 2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4.1?
>> ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY ALTERATIONS? I HEAR NONE. ALL IN FAVOR OF LEVIN SAY AYE. AYE.
HEARING NONE, THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5, OUR CONSENT AGENDA.
[5. Consent Agenda - Items considered to be routine are enacted by one motion without separate discussion. If the City Council desires to discuss an item, the item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.]
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE APPLICANT FOR ITEM 5.20 HAS WITHDRAWN THE APPLICATION, SO THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT BE TAKING ACTION ON 5.20 AT THIS TIME, SINCE THERE HASN'T BEEN A REQUEST TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA BY ANY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 5.20 AS PRESENTED. IS THERE A MOTION?>> IS THERE A SECOND. THANK YOU, MR. ROSE.
ALL IN FAVOR. LET IT BE ON BY SAYING AYE.
I HEAR NONE. THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
WE'LL TAKE UP OUR REGULAR AGENDA NOW,
[1. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider appointments to the Community Development & Services Board/Urban Renewal Agency Board of Commissioners.]
AND WE'LL START WITH ITEM 6.1 TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES BOARD AND THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR CITY SECRETARY TO PROVIDE OUR BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. YES, SIR.
WE HAVE ONE BOARD IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY.
TWO POSITIONS TO REPLACE DR. CHARITY EMBLEY AND RACHEL FORBES.
THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BRENDA HAWKINS FOR DR.
CHARITY EMBLEY AND MILTON LEE TO REPLACE RACHEL FORBES.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[00:10:02]
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IF THERE AREN'T, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENTS AS PRESENTED BY OUR CITY SECRETARY.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> AYE. ANY PERSON SAY NAY? I HEAR NONE, SO THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 6.2.
[2. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution authorizing publication of Notice of Intent to issue City of Lubbock, Texas General Obligation Bonds, not to exceed $54,000,000, for the following 2022 Street Bond Projects: Upland Avenue: 4th Street to 19th Street, 114th Street from Frankford Avenue to Slide Road, 114th Street from Indiana Avenue to University Avenue, and Residential Unpaved Roadways East of I-27, and the following 2024 Street Bond Projects: Broadway from Avenue Q to Avenue E, University Avenue from 50th Street to Loop 289, Avenue P from 130th Street to 146th Street, 146th Street from University Avenue to Avenue P, and 146th Street from Slide Road to Quaker Avenue.]
I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE OUR BRIEFING ON THIS, MR. ATKINSON.>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.
THIS ITEM WILL BE THE NEXT SERIES OF DRAWDOWN ON THE 2022 STREET BOND, AND THE FIRST ON THE 2024.
MR. JOE JEMENEZ, WILL KICK IT OFF, AND WE HAVE MATT BOWLES FROM RBC HERE TO HELP US AS WELL. JOE, PLEASE.
>> WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
TODAY BEFORE YOU, BRING YOU A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE 2025 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS.
WE HAVE TODAY WITH US, MR. MATT BOWLES, WHO WILL GIVE US AN OVERVIEW OF THE MARKET AND OUR FINANCE PLAN FOR THESE GO BONDS.
AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THESE WERE PART OF THE 2022, 2024 VOTER APPROVED GO BONDS.
ALL THE PROJECTS THAT ARE LISTED TODAY ARE PART OF THAT PROGRAM AND VOTER APPROVED.
WITH THAT, I'LL PASS IT ON TO MR. BOWLES, BUT I'LL BE HERE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDED.
>> THANK YOU, JOE, MR. BOWLES.
>> THANK YOU MAYOR, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
THANK YOU, MR. JEMENEZ, MR. ATKINSON.
IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL TODAY.
I'M GOING TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOUR NEW CFO, MR. JEMENEZ SUGGESTED I WOULD DO, AND THAT'S TALK ABOUT THE MARKET A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN ABOUT THE SALE THAT WILL COMMENCE TO SELL A PORTION OF THE 2022 AND YEAR 2024 BOND ELECTION PROCEEDS.
THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO BRIEFLY DO HERE IS RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY DAY IS A NEW DAY IN THE MARKET.
RIGHT NOW OUR FED CHAIRMAN IS TESTIFYING IN FRONT OF CONGRESS, AND SO THE MARKET IS FAIRLY STABLE, BUT DEPENDING ON WHAT HE MIGHT SAY, IT COULD AFFECT THE OUTCOME OF HOW THINGS ARE TOMORROW AND FROM THERE ON.
ALL THAT TO SAY THAT THE MUNICIPAL MARKET THAT YOU ALL OPERATE IN AND THAT I OPERATE IN HAS BEEN RELATIVELY STABLE, AND IT'S MARKED BY STABILITY BECAUSE OF THE HIGH GRADE NATURE OF THE MARKET AND THE DESIRE FOR TAX FREE MUNI BONDS.
I'M ENTIRELY CONFIDENT FROM THIS POINT FORWARD THAT WE'LL HAVE A MARKET THAT'S AGREEABLE WITH US IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH FED POLICY.
ON THIS PARTICULAR PAGE THAT WE'RE FOCUSED ON IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER.
I TALK ABOUT THIS DATA EVERY TIME I'M IN FRONT OF YOU, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT.
THIS IS A GRAPH OF MUNICIPAL MARKET DATA.
IT'S WHAT I LOOK AT EVERY DATA TO SEE WHERE THE MARKET IS 1-30 YEARS ACROSS A CONTINUUM, AND THERE'S THREE LINES ON THIS GRAPH.
ONE IS THE 15 YEAR AVERAGE, WHICH IS THE LOWEST OF THE THREE LINES, AND THEN THE OTHER TWO IS A MARK IN POINT AS OF LAST WEEK AND THEN A YEAR PRIOR TO THAT.
YES, WE ARE ABOVE THE 15 YEAR AVERAGE.
I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU ALTHOUGH THAT THAT IS ENTIRELY SKEWED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAD A PANDEMIC AND RATES WENT TO LEVELS THAT ARE JUST UNFORESEEN AND PROBABLY WON'T BE SEEN YET AGAIN, HOPEFULLY IN MY CAREER.
BUT THE AVERAGE IS SOMEWHAT SKEWED.
WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT VERY ATTRACTIVE RATES OF INTEREST IN TERMS OF BORROWING, AND WE'RE NOT DISSUADING OUR CLIENTELE FROM NOT ACCESSING THE MARKETS IF THEY HAVE CAPITAL MARKETS NEEDS AT THIS POINT.
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SPECIFICS IN A LITTLE BIT AND WHAT THAT MEANS TO YOUR TRANSACTION, BUT WE'RE REAL HAPPY ABOUT WHERE THE MARKET SITS TODAY.
>> WOULD YOU I'M GOING TO SOP YOU ONE, IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT FORMER SLIDE.
JUST FROM PEOPLE LOOKING AT THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, WHAT DOES CURRENT MMD CURVE IN CONTEXT? WHAT DOES MMD STAND FOR? SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.
IT'S AN INDEX PUBLISHED BY A COMPANY CALLED MUNICIPAL MARKET DATA THAT IS WIDELY ACCEPTED AND USED FOR PRICING ALL MUNICIPAL BONDS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SECTOR OR CREDIT QUALITY THAT THEY HAVE.
THE NEXT GRAPH I'LL GO TO IS ANOTHER ONE THAT'S PUBLISHED.
THIS ONE COMES FROM OUR DAILY NEWSPAPER, THE BOND BUYER.
IT'S MADE UP OF 20 MUNICIPAL BONDS OF VARIOUS CREDIT QUALITIES, BUT IT'S A BASKET OF BONDS THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WILL REFER TO WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT BROADER SWATHS OF TIME.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1961, AND THIS IS ABOUT CONTEXTUALLY, WHERE DO WE SIT TODAY OVER A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME SO THAT PEOPLE CAN LOCK IN ON PERHAPS HOW GOOD THINGS ARE OR NOT.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE INDEX RATE TAKEN THIS LAST WEEK WAS 4.06 SINCE 1961,
[00:15:05]
RATES HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN 4.06.AGAIN, THE MARKET IS STILL LEANING YOUR WAY AND IN YOUR FAVOR, AND IT'S STILL A VERY GOOD TIME TO BE IN THE MARKET.
I'D JUST LIKE TO POINT THAT OUT IN TERMS OF HISTORY AND CONTEXT.
THIS NEXT PAGE, WE DIVE RIGHT INTO THE SUMMARY PLAN OF FINANCE.
MR. JEMENEZ TEED THIS UP PERFECTLY.
THE CITY IS CONTEMPLATING SELLING OBLIGATIONS THAT COME FROM YOUR 2022 BOND ELECTION AND YOUR 2024 BOND ELECTION.
IN TOTAL FROM THE '22 ELECTION IS 29.6 MILLION FROM THE '24 ELECTION, IT'S 19.4 MILLION.
THE SPECIFICS OF EACH OF THOSE NUMBERS IS BROKEN DOWN IN THE CHART BELOW.
I WON'T GO THROUGH EACH INDIVIDUAL LINE, BUT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS TIME TO TALK TO MR. JEMENEZ OR MR. ATKINSON ABOUT IT, I'M GLAD TO STOP.
BUT THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT WILL BE FINANCED FROM EACH OF THOSE PARTICULAR ELECTIONS.
>> WITH THAT, WE DEVELOP A SUMMARY OF ASSUMPTIONS SO THAT WE CAN DRIVE PROJECTED RESULTS, WHICH I'M GOING TO GET TO IN JUST A LITTLE BIT.
BUT THE OBLIGATIONS WILL OBVIOUSLY BE ISSUED AS GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX BONDS BY THE CITY.
THEY WILL BE ISSUED OVER A 20-YEAR PAYBACK PERIOD WITH A STANDARD TENURE OPTION TO REDEEM THEM, WHICH YOU ALL HAVE AVAILED YOURSELVES OF IN THE PAST THROUGH REFINANCING SERIES OF BONDS.
WE HAVE USED CURRENT MARKET RATES AS OF FEBRUARY THE 4TH.
WE'VE ADDED A LITTLE BIT OF CUSHION, 45 BASIS POINTS, THAT'S 0.45%, SO THAT WE HAVE SOME RUN ROOM BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME YOU SELL THE OBLIGATIONS.
I DON'T EXPECT THAT YOU WILL USE NEAR ALL OF THAT 45 BASIS POINTS.
IN FACT, IT COULD BE LESS THAN THAT BY A WIDE MARGIN.
THE OBLIGATIONS WILL BE RATED BY BOTH FITCH AND S&P, AND WE EXPECT YOUR SUPER HIGH GRADE RATINGS OF AA+ TO BE AFFIRMED BY EACH OF THOSE AGENCIES.
WE DO HAVE CALLS SET UP WITH BOTH OF THEM, AND SO WHEN I DO COME BACK TO SEE YOU IN MARCH, I'LL BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT THE CALLS AND THE OUTCOME AND PRESENT SOME INFORMATION ON YOUR RATINGS.
THE DELIVERY DATE IS EXPECTED TO BE ON OR ABOUT THE 30TH OF APRIL.
TODAY, AS MR. JEMENEZ SAID, YOU WERE MERELY JUST PUBLISHING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE THESE OBLIGATIONS.
PRELIMINARILY, THESE ARE THE METRICS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CENTER PORTION OF THE PAGE AROUND THE ISSUANCE OF THESE BONDS.
I'M JUST GOING TO GO TO THE ONE STATISTIC THAT I ALWAYS GO TO, BUT I'M HAPPY TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THEM IN THE SHADED LINE, ALL-IN TRUE INTEREST COST, ALL-IN TIC.
WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY NUMBER OF 4.35%.
REMEMBERING THAT THAT HAS 45 BASIS POINTS OF ADDITIONAL CUSHION IN THERE, SO THE REAL RATE WOULD BE 3.9% HAD WE CAPTURED THAT FINANCING TODAY.
I FULLY EXPECT THIS FINANCING TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE LOWER THAN 4% RANGE.
WE'LL SEE BY HOW MUCH, AND WE'LL SEE IF I'M RIGHT.
THEN FINALLY, JUST WITH RESPECT TO TIME, TODAY IS THE DAY YOU WOULD ADOPT THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE THESE OBLIGATIONS.
I WILL BE BACK, LET'S SEE, ON MARCH THE 25TH, AT WHICH TIME WE WILL PRESENT TO YOU A PARAMETERS ORDER THAT WILL ESTABLISH CERTAIN PARAMETERS THAT NEED TO BE MET BEFORE THE OBLIGATIONS CAN BE ISSUED, AND THEN WE'LL CONDUCT A SALE ON OR ABOUT THE 2ND OF APRIL, AND THEN CLOSE, AS I SAID EARLIER, ON APRIL 30TH.
WITH THAT, MR. MAYOR, MY REMARKS ARE COMPLETED, BUT I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. MR. BALD. APPRECIATE THAT.
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO YOUR FINGERNAIL? [LAUGHTER]
>> I WANT TO TELL YOU. [LAUGHTER]
>> WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU NEIGHBOR?
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT, MR. WALLACE.
>> DOING SOMETHING I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN DOING.
>> JUST TO RECAP FOR EVERYBODY WHO'S WATCHING.
THIS IS SOME OF THE LATTER PART OF OUR BOND ISSUANCE AND ROAD BUILDING FROM THE 2022 AND BEGINNING OF OUR ROAD BUILDING ON A 2024 BOND ELECTION THAT THE VOTERS APPROVED.
THESE ARE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS THAT ARE BASED ON VOTER-APPROVED CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS.
WE'RE COMPLETING ONE SERIES OF BONDING AND BEGINNING ANOTHER ONE.
MOVING RIGHT AHEAD WITH OUR PROJECT HERE, AND THE CONDITIONS LOOK FAIRLY FAVORABLE AT THIS POINT.
I APPRECIATE ANY QUESTIONS ANYONE HAS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[00:20:03]
>> WELL, I'M GOING TO NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.2, THE PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF INTENT ON THESE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. DO I HAVE A MOTION?
>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY? I HEAR NONE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
NOW, WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM ANYONE HERE,
[3. Public Hearing - Planning (District 1): Consider a request for Zone Case 3515, a request of Lubbock Habitat for Humanity, for a zone change from Medium Density Residential District (MDR) to Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2), at 1719, 1721, 1723, and 1725 21st Street, located south of 21st Street and east of Avenue S, McCrummen’s Second Addition, Block 9, Lots 10, 11, 12, and 13, and consider an ordinance.]
THE COUNCIL WILL CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING CASES WE HAVE BEFORE US TODAY.WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED IN OUR PACKETS OF STAFF REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
AS REMINDED, THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND 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 WAS GOING TO CALL ON KRISTEN SAGER, BUT I'M NOT CALLING ON KRISTEN SAGER, BUT WOULD YOU PLEASE PROVIDE US A BRIEF SUMMARY OF EACH AGENDA ITEM FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING TODAY.
>> HELLO. I'M GREG HERNANDEZ WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS LUBBOCK HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO LOW-DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
SEVENTY-THREE LETTERS WERE SENT OUT AND WE RECEIVED THREE BACK IN FAVOR AND ZERO BACK IN OPPOSITION.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF AVENUE Q AND SOUTH OF 21ST STREET.
HERE'S A NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE THREE IN FAVOR.
HERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
TO THE NORTH IS A SELF-STORAGE UNIT, AND HOUSES TO THE WEST, SOUTH, AND EAST.
THE CURRENT LAND USE MAP SHOWS THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST, SOUTH, AND EAST ZONE MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND TO THE NORTH IS HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY, AS WELL AS VIEWS TO THE NORTH, WEST, AND EAST.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
THE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THIS DESIGNATION AND WOULD BE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERING THE EXISTING ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES.
THEREFORE, THIS REQUEST IS IN COMPLETE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLE.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE LOCATION IS ALONG 21ST STREET AND AVENUE S, WHICH ARE DESIGNATED AS LOCAL STREETS BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN 2018.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 8-0-0.
I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. HARRIS.
>> ISN'T THERE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY THERE NOW AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING HOUSING THERE?
[4. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 1635-B, a request of Mr. T’s Auto Sales, LLC, for a zone change from Medium Density Residential District (MDR) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 4412 Avenue Q, located north of 45th Street and west of Avenue Q, Syfrett Addition, Block 5, Lot 2A, and consider an ordinance.]
THE APPLICANT IS MR. T AUTO SALES, LLC, REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.FORTY-SEVEN LETTERS WERE SENT OUT AND RECEIVED ONE BACK IN FAVOR AND TWO IN OPPOSITION.
HERE'S A NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE ONE IN FAVOR AND TWO IN OPPOSITION.
REASON LISTED WAS NOT WANTING BIGGER COMMERCIAL ON THE PROPERTY.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
TO THE WEST AND NORTH ARE DUPLEXES AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, TO THE SOUTH IS A CHURCH, AND TO THE EAST IS MR. T'S AUTO SALES PROPERTY.
THE CURRENT LAND USE MAP SHOWS THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, WEST, AND SOUTH ZONE MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND TO THE EAST ZONE HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL USES.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY, AS WELL AS VIEWS TO THE WEST, EAST, AND SOUTH.
HERE ARE PICTURES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, SHOWING THE SHED ON THE PROPERTY. ADDITIONAL PICTURES.
HERE'S A PICTURE SHOWING THE LOT AND HERE'S THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIGNATION AND IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION, BEING ADJACENT TO EXISTING HC ZONING.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE APPROPRIATE AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
[00:25:02]
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET, AND WEST OF AVENUE Q, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN 2018.STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 8-0-0.
I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE.
[5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 2538-OO, a request of Mountain Top Engineering for Yolanda Vargas, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 2210 Research Boulevard, located south of 19th Street and west of Research Boulevard, on approximately 4.11 acres of unplatted land out of Block D-6, Section 5, and consider an ordinance.]
THE APPLICANT IS MOUNTAIN TOP ENGINEERING FOR YOLANDA VARGAS, REQUESTING A REZONE FROM LOW-DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.TWENTY-TWO LETTERS WERE SENT OUT AND WE RECEIVED ZERO BACK IN FAVOR AND ZERO BACK IN OPPOSITION.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WEST OF RESEARCH BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF 19TH STREET.
HERE'S THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.
TO THE NORTH IS DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL WAREHOUSING, TO THE EAST IS DEVELOPED WITH MANUFACTURED HOME PARK, TO THE SOUTH IS WESTERN RAILWAY, AND TO THE WEST IS THE CITY LIMITS.
THE CURRENT ZONING MAP SHOWS THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH ZONE LOW-DENSITY, SINGLE-FAMILY DISTRICT, AND TO THE NORTH ZONE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR MIXED USES.
HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY, AS WELL AS VIEWS TO THE EAST, NORTH, AND SOUTH.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE PROPERTY REQUESTING THE ZONE CHANGE.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
WHILE THIS REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THIS DESIGNATION, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ALONG THE WESTERN RAILWAY.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE APPROPRIATE AT THE PROPOSED LOCATION.
THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 19TH STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL, AND WEST OF RESEARCH BOULEVARD, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A FUTURE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN 2018.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 8-0-0.
I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE, I THINK. THANK YOU.
I'LL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.3-6.5.
IF ANYONE'S WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THESE ZONE CASES, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOUR OPPOSITION.
IS ANYONE HERE ON ANY OF 634 OR FIVE? ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? I SEE NONE, SO I'LL NOW CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 2:28 PM.
NOW, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.3-6.5?
ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
HEAR NONE, SO IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[6. Resolution - Planning: Consider a resolution approving and granting a variance from the applicable 300-feet minimum distance provision of the City of Lubbock Ordinance No. 2009-O0060, at 1550 34th Street, for an alcoholic beverage permit for Lucky Mart 1.]
I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.>> THIS IS A RESOLUTION FOR AN ALCOHOL VARIANCE.
THE APPLICANT IS LUCKY MART 1.
THE PURPOSE, TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICABLE 300-FOOT MINIMUM DISTANCE PROVISION OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK ORDINANCE, 2009-O0060.
THE LOCATION IS 1550 34TH STREET.
THE TABC PERMIT REQUEST IS A WINE AND BEER RETAILERS OFF-PREMISE PERMIT.
THEN WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE.
THIS IS A RESOLUTION FOR AN ALCOHOL VARIANCE.
THE APPLICANT IS UN2 MART NUMBER 5.
TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE APPLICABLE 300-FOOT MINIMUM DISTANCE PROVISION OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK ORDINANCE, 2009-O0060.
THE LOCATION IS AT 3311 AVENUE Q.
THE TABC PERMIT REQUEST IS A WINE AND BEER RETAILERS OFF-PREMISE PERMIT.
I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> WE TOOK TWO. WE SHOULD ONLY TAKE UP ONE.
WE'LL JUST BE DISCUSSING 6.6 AT THIS POINT.
>> I THINK THAT'S ALL RIGHT. YOU'VE ALREADY PRESENTED IT.
I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.6.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? DO YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THE QUESTION TIME? DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
[00:30:01]
>> I THINK WE'RE WAITING FOR A MOTION.
>> LET'S GET A SECOND. I WAS JUST WAITING FOR A SECOND. MR. GLASHEEN.
>> I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS VARIANCE.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY UNIQUE OR COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT SHOULD MAKE AN EXCEPTION TO ALLOW ALCOHOL SALES, NOT JUST ADJACENT TO SCHOOL PROPERTY, BUT IN THE CASE OF THE ONE ON 34TH AND Q, ACTUALLY, THE PAD SITE ON THE BYRON MARTIN ATC CENTER.
IF YOU GRANT THIS VARIANCE, YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY JUSTIFICATION TO NOT GRANT ANY OTHER VARIANCE TO THE ORDINANCE, AND IT WOULD BE BETTER TO REPEAL THE ORDINANCE THAN TO GIVE ONE-OFF EXCEPTIONS LIKE THIS.
I DON'T HAVE MUCH SYMPATHY FOR THE POSITION OF THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE REQUESTING THE VARIANCE.
ONE OF THE BUSINESSES, ESTABLISHED IN 2002 AT THAT LOCATION, WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SELL ALCOHOL AT THE TIME.
WE WERE STILL A DRY CITY AND HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED TO SELL ALCOHOL SINCE THEN.
THE SECOND BUSINESS PURCHASED AFTER 2020, THE PURCHASER KNEW EXACTLY WHAT THE ORDINANCE WAS OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE ORDINANCE WAS AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE.
THE LOGIC OF THIS ORDINANCE IS TO KEEP STUDENTS AWAY FROM ALCOHOL, BUT I ALSO THINK EQUALLY IMPORTANT IS TO KEEP ALCOHOL AWAY FROM STUDENTS.
I'M SAYING THAT A LITTLE BIT THE OTHER WAY, BUT WHAT I MEAN IS THAT YOU REDUCE THE THREAT OF DRUNK DRIVERS BEING NEAR SCHOOLS IF YOU REMOVE THE ALCOHOL SALES FROM PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS.
BECAUSE THESE TWO LOCATIONS ARE NOT UNIQUE, THERE'S NO UNIQUE OR COMPELLING REASON TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, WE SHOULD PUT THE SAFETY OF OUR STUDENTS AND CONSISTENCY OF THE ORDINANCE ABOVE THIS APPLICATION.
WE SHOULD REJECT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
>> THANK YOU, MR. GLASHEEN. MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN.
I TOO FEEL THAT WE HAVE THESE RULES FOR REASON, AND WHILE I'M EMPATHETIC TO THE BUSINESS, AND I UNDERSTAND WE'VE ALL DEALT WITH SOME SITUATIONS POST-COVID.
IT IS JUST RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF A CAMPUS.
THE PROXIMITY IS JUST TOO CLOSE FOR ME, ONLY 30 FEET.
FOR THAT REASON, I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF 6.6 AND WILL NOT BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF IT.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM 6.6, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
I HEAR NONE. ALL WHO OPPOSE, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING, NAY.
>> I THINK IT FAILS UNANIMOUSLY.
[7. Resolution - Planning: Consider a resolution approving and granting a variance from the applicable 300-feet minimum distance provision of the City of Lubbock Ordinance No. 2009-O0060, at 3311 Avenue Q, for an alcoholic beverage permit for UN2 Mart #5.]
DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN?>> IT'S COMPLETELY UP TO THE COUNCIL.
>> IF YOU WANT TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE MOTION AND VOTE YOU CERTAINLY CAN.
>> IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH EVERYONE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 6.7?
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM?
>> JUST SO IT'S CLEAR, IT'S A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE.
IF YOU ARE VOTING THIS TIME, YOU'RE VOTING TO DISAPPROVE ITEM 6.7.
ALL IN FAVOR OF DISAPPROVAL OF ITEM 6.7, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE.
THE MOTION FAILS OR IS DISAPPROVED UNANIMOUSLY.
A MOTION IS APPROVED TO VARIANCE FAILS.
DOUBLE NEGATIVE IS ALWAYS GET ME IN TROUBLE.
[8. Resolution - Planning: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Municipal Services Agreement, with Thomas L. Cooke and Deidra DeAnn Williams Martin, for the requested annexation of an area of land generally described as 407.28 acres north of East Bluefield Street and east of North Guava Avenue, into Lubbock's corporate limits, along with the adjacent right-of-way.]
AND THIS TIME, MS. SAGER.>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING GREG TO PRESENT TO YOU.
HE IS OUR NEW PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER AS OF THE 24TH OF THIS MONTH.
THIS LAST ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA IS A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR A PETITION ANNEXATION REQUEST AT NORTH GUAVA AND EAST BLUEFIELD.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 407 ACRES ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.
IF APPROVED, WE WILL BRING AN ORDINANCE TO COUNCIL AT A LATER DATE TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY, AND I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MS. SAGER.
[00:35:04]
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.8.>> MOTION AND SECOND MADE. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
I BELIEVE THAT EXHAUSTED ALL OUR ITEMS OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY.
THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED AND PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR MICROPHONES.
>> 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'S ACCEPTED.
WITH A WORK SESSION, SO 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.
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, AND 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 AND 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 4-1 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. AYE.
>> THAT PASSES 6-1. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
[APPLAUSE] NOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP 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 HEATERS AND BLANKETS.
MAYOR, COUNCIL, ITEM 6.13 IS STYLED AS A BUDGET AMENDMENT.
THIS IS BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU BY COUNCILMEMBER GLASHEEN 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 1 FIELD LEVEL OR ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
IT'S A BUDGET NEUTRAL AMENDMENT,
[00:40:01]
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 GLASHEEN.
>> THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO START BY POINTING OUT THAT THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT AFFECT THE SPA AND NEUTER PROGRAM.
MANY PEOPLE HAVE DISCUSSED THE SPA AND NEUTER PROGRAM.
THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT AFFECTED BY IT.
THE SPA 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.
IT 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 PARKS.
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, 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, AND 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.
ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE 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. GLASHEEN. DO WE NEED ANY MOTION?
>> WELL, LET'S GET A MOTION, AND THEN LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION.
>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM.
>> MAYBE I CAN ASK SOME HELP FROM OUR DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY.
[00:45:04]
IS THERE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR?>> THERE IS NO MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
>> WELL, I JUST MADE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE.
>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE MAYOR PRO TEM BEFORE YOUR MOTION WAS MENTIONED THAT WE NEED [OVERLAPPING]
>> DO WE NEED TO TAKE UP A MOTION BEFORE WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE?
>> NO. YOU CAN TAKE UP WHATEVER MOTION YOU WANT TO 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.
>> DO WE 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.
>> I THINK FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, THAT CERTAINLY CAN COME UP AND PUT THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
I THINK FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, THE MOTION WOULD BE POSTPONED WAS JUST POST FOR 90 DAYS.
>> IT'S JUST 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. GLASHEEN.
>> 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 TILL?
>> YOU'RE IN THE DISCUSSION PART, SO JUST THE MAYOR JUST NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE YOU.
>> YES, AND WE HAVE MR. ROSE UP.
>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION IN TERMS OF DELAYING OFFICER TO GET OUT.
DO WE HAVE AN OPEN SPOT RIGHT NOW?
>> BUT WE DO HAVE A CURRENT OPENING IN THE FIELD.
>> ADDING ONE WOULD HAVE TWO OPEN.
>> TWO CURRENT, AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, YOU WOULD HAVE THREE TOTAL IF YOU ADD ONE.
>> WELL, I'VE GOT YOU UP HERE, SO I'M CALLING ON YOU.
>> OKAY. WELL, I'LL BE MORE THAN GLAD TO.
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, WE HAVE TWO OTHER OFFICERS.
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. GLASHEEN, 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, AND 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.
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 A 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.
[00:50:03]
>> MR. GLASHEEN 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, 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 TILL THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE?
>> YES, MA'AM. I THINK THAT'S THE 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 VACANTS 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.
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 IS, 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 IS UNDER SOME LARGER RECALL.
I GUESS I 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 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 CERTAINLY GET THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE PROVIDING ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE AND SOCIALISM, I THINK WE GET OFF ON RAIL THERE AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO GO THERE,
[00:55:02]
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 HAD BAD PEOPLE PROBLEM.
WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO DO THINGS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T DO FOR WHATEVER REASON, BE IT AN ECONOMIC IMPACT 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 LABOR, THEY DON'T RECEIVE A NEW FENCE.
THEY RECEIVE BOARDS AND NAILS.
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.
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.
THAT'LL BE A CONVERSATION AT THAT TIME.
BUT WE HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE.
THERE'S SOME CONSENSUS FROM STAFF THAT IT WORKS AND 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.
BUT I WOULD QUESTION WHETHER MS. MARTINEZ GARCIA WOULD WITHDRAW HER MOTION AT THE MOMENT AND ALLOW US TO VOTE ON THIS ITEM AS IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.
>> MY MOTION SO THAT WE CAN VOTE ON THIS ISSUE TODAY.
>> SHE'S WITHDRAWN HER MOTION.
I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION AS IT'S PRESENTED, BUT LET ME MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION.
THIS IS TO ADD A ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, NOT A FIELD.
>> IT'S AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, THAT IS YOUR FIELD LEVEL ENFORCEMENT PERSON.
>> COULD BE USES INTAKE OR OUT DRIVING THE TRUCK AROUND, EITHER ONE, RIGHT?
>> IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY PUTTING THEM IN ONE PARTICULAR LOCATION, BUT IT IS AN ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE AS A FIELD WE CALL A FIELD OFFICER, ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
>> MR. COLLINS, YOU'RE STILL UP?
>> TO BE CLEAR, MR. WADE, WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW IS CONSIDERING A MOTION TO ELIMINATE THE FENCE PROGRAM AND ADD AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
>> TECHNICALLY, THERE'S NOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM HAS WITHDRAWN IT.
>> THERE'S NO MOTION THERE BE A GOOD TIME TO GET A MOTION ON THE FLOOR SO WE CAN CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION.
>> I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE OR NOT TALKED ABOUT.
>> I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT AGENDA ITEM 6.13.
>> IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
THANK YOU. GET 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] WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT,
[01:00:01]
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 ON ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER.
>> I SEE NO OTHER REQUESTS FOR DISCUSSION HERE.
ALL IN FAVOR OF ITEM 6.13 TO, I GUESS, AMEND OUR BUDGET TO WHERE WE REMOVE THE FENCE PROGRAM AND ADD ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER, OR A FIELD OFFICER, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT FAILED FIVE TO TWO.
I'M TRYING TO COUNT NUMBERS HERE.
LET'S NOW TAKE UP ITEM SIX POINT. YES, MA'AM.
>> THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM 6.4.
I WANT TO MOVE TO APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM 6.14 BY AMENDING ARTICLE 4.01.006 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.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> 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 COMPLAIN, NEVER WOULD WE WANT TO DO ANY DAMAGE.
I KNOW THE MAYOR, I THINK, AND EVEN CMG, THANK TO ALL OF OUR, ESPECIALLY OUR RESCUE PEOPLE FOR BEING HERE, FOSTERS FOR BEING HERE, TALKING ABOUT LOVE ANIMAL SERVICES.
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 CAN 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 IT.
>> JUST MAKE SURE WE DONE ALL THAT CORRECTLY.
>> IT WOULD JUST BE THE BREEDING PERMIT AND THE LIABILITY.
THOSE TWO ITEMS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, MAYOR PRO TEM?
THIS IS JUST TO AMEND AND PULL THAT ONE ITEM.
WE'RE NOT ACTUALLY VOTING ON THIS PARTICULAR AGENDA ITEM.
WE'RE JUST PULLING THAT ONE ITEM.
>> NO, ACTUALLY, THE MOTION BEFORE YOU IS TO VOTE ON THE ITEM.
HER MOTION IS 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,
[01:05:07]
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.
I DON'T KNOW. 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 WANT TO SAY FOR DR. WILSON, THANK YOU FOR OFFERING TO STRIKE THAT.
THE THINKING BEHIND 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 AND 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 AND THE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WOULD NOT DO THAT.
I APPRECIATE DR. WILSON MEETING US IN THE MIDDLE THERE.
I'VE SPOKEN TO A LOT OF PEOPLE.
FOR THE BREEDERS, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE 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?" 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 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 US, HEY, FIX THIS FOR US.
[01:10:02]
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.
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.
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.
BECAUSE I THINK 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 AND TELL US HOW TO DO THAT.
I DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING AT THE END OF THE DAY IN THAT PROCESS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE SOLILOQUY.
>> YEAH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME.
>> GOES HERE FOR ANOTHER 30 MINUTES.
>> JUST A THOUGHT ON MR. COLLINS' 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 A 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 AND 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.
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.
THOUGH 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 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. GLASHEEN. DR. WILSON.
>> JUST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THAT AND FOR MR. COLLINS' REMARK,
[01:15:03]
I AGREE 100% THAT THIS ISN'T A A FINAL; A 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 WITH 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 WANT TO THANK KRISTY BECAUSE KRISTY 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.
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.
BECAUSE 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.
THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT'S SMALL THAT WE CAN START MAKING SOME CHANGES.
IT IS NOT A MASSIVE CHANGE AND 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.
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?
>> WHETHER IT FAILS OR NOT, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I DID.
THIS IS WHAT THEY TOLD ME THEY NEEDED SO THAT'S WHY I PUT IT UP HERE.
IF IT FAILS, I'M OKAY WITH THAT BECAUSE 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.
STEVEN 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.
PLEASE HELP US SO WE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM.
>> WELL, 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 THAT 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'S OVER.
[01:20:05]
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 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 IN A PERIOD OF TIME FOR THAT.
DON'T BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF YOUR MOTION AT ALL.
THAT'S 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.
IF YOU WANTED TO DO SOMETHING MORE FORMAL, TWO OF 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 AN ACTUAL MOVE TO APPROVE BUT FOR.
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 BREEDERS PERMIT.
SECTION 4 IS LIABILITY INSURANCE.
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, 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; IT'S A MULTI-PART ISSUE.
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?
>> IT WOULD BE HELPFUL BECAUSE WE DO HAVE LIMITATIONS THAT WE WORK WITH BECAUSE TEXAS CONSIDERS ANIMALS TO BE PROPERTY AND SO WE TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY.
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.
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, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> THERE'S THREE OF US ON THIS.
>> 4-3. 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, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.
THANK YOU ALL FOR WHO STUCK WITH US TO THE VERY END.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.