Mar 25, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting

>> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THE MOTION APPROVE CARRIES ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

WE WILL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5, THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[5. Consent Agenda - Items considered to be routine are enacted by one motion without separate discussion. If the City Council desires to discuss an item, the item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.]

THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST TO PULL ITEMS 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.24, 5.25, AND 5.39 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.24, 5.25, AND 5.39?

>> I MOVE.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS. CAN I GET A SECOND?

>>SECOND.

>> SECOND BY DR. WILSON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ITEMS 5.5 AND 5.6 TOGETHER.

SINCE THEY ARE RELATED,

[5. Resolution - Risk Management: Consider a resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager to purchase for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, excess workers’ compensation coverage from Midwest Employer’s Casualty Company, for which the total amount shall not exceed $283,195 annually for a two-year term.]

I WILL CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE COUNSEL BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

AND FOLLOWING THAT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. JARED.

>> THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY COUNCIL.

JUST REAL QUICKLY, WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THESE TWO ITEMS. THEY LOOK LIKE THINGS YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE, BUT THEY REPRESENT A CHANGE.

ITEM 5.5 SPECIFICALLY IS THE PURCHASE OF STOP LOSS INSURANCE, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHERE THAT COMES IN IN JUST A BIT.

ITEM 5.6 IS TO SECURE THE SERVICES

[6. Resolution - Risk Management: Consider a resolution authorizing and directing the City Manager to execute Contract No. 18578, and related documents, for Third Party Workers' Compensation Claims Administrator Services, by and between City of Lubbock and TRISTAR Claims Management Services.]

OF WHAT IS CALLED A THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR OR A TPA.

SPECIFICALLY, BOTH OF THESE ITEMS ARE RELATED TO THE CITY'S WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE PROGRAM.

WE HAVE BEEN WATCHING OUR NUMBERS.

WE'VE GOT A THREE YEAR RUNNING ANALYSIS ON ARE WE BETTER OFF FINANCIALLY AS A CITY TO USE FULLY INSURED, SO COVERAGE FROM A THIRD PARTY IN ALL ASPECTS OR TO GO TO WHAT IS CALLED SELF INSURED INSURANCE.

[00:10:02]

WITH THE RENEWAL CYCLE THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY, THE NUMBERS HAVE MOVED AND OPENED UP A BIG ENOUGH GAP SO THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY MOVE TO A SELF INSURED WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE PROGRAM.

THE STOP LOSS INSURANCE IS IN THE AMOUNT OF $750,000.

THAT BECOMES YOUR UPPER LIMIT ON A CLAIM.

WE CARRY IT UP TO THAT.

IF IT KEEPS GOING, THE STOP LOSS INSURANCE AND PICKS UP AND PAYS IT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THAT CLAIMS LIFE.

THE THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED TO PROCESS AND HELP US MANAGE THROUGH ALL THE CLAIMS PROCESSING.

THE CITY WILL BE PLAYING PAYING THE CLAIMS UP UNTIL THEY HIT STOP LOSS IF THEY ACTUALLY DO HIT STOP LOSS, VERY FEW OF THOSE.

WE HAVE AN OFFER IN FRONT OF YOU, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY ON ITEM 5.6.

WE HAVE A TWO YEAR LOCKED CONTRACT TO TRY THIS.

WE ESTIMATE A APPROXIMATELY A $720,000 PER YEAR SAVINGS, TIMES TWO IS 1.45 MILLION.

IT IS THE SAME LEVEL OF COVERAGE.

IT'S THE SAME ELIGIBILITY.

ANY OF OUR FOLKS THAT UNFORTUNATELY NEED WORKERS' COMP.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SEE A DIFFERENCE.

WHAT WE WILL SEE IS IN OUR BUDGETS AS WE GO FORWARD THIS YEAR, THAT SAVINGS THAT WILL CARRY FORWARD TO EACH AND EVERY DEPARTMENT WITHIN THE CITY.

I DO HAVE EXPERTS HERE, IF YOU HAVE HARD QUESTIONS.

THEY'RE SOMEWHAT EASY. I WOULD BE GLAD TO TRY TO SPEAK TO THEM.

DO RECOMMEND NOW THAT THIS GAP IS AS BIG AS IT IS THAT WE MOVE TO THE SELF INSURED PROGRAM.

WITH A TWO YEAR HISTORY OR TWO YEAR RUN.

IF IT'S WORKING, WE'LL CONTINUE.

IF IT'S NOT, WE'LL GO BACK TO A FULLY INSURED PROGRAM.

AND THIS SWITCH HAS BEEN MADE A COUPLE OF TIMES IN LUBBOCK HISTORY WITH WORKERS C. I'LL STOP NOW.

>> I NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 5.5 AND 5.6.

>> SO MOVE.

>> SO MOVE. I MEAN, SORRY. NO SO MOVE, BUT HE MOVED COUNCILMAN ROSE.

CAN I GET A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

>>ALL OPPOSE SAME SIGN.

WE WILL NOW TAKE UP ITEMS 5.7,

[7. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Right-of-Way: Consider Ordinance No. 2025-O0030, abandoning and closing portions of alley right-of-way, located in Block 102, Overton Addition to the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, between 14th Street and 15th Street, west of Avenue X in Block 102.]

AND WE'LL CALL ON ERIC RHINO, OUR ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE COUNSEL BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCIL IS GOOD TO BE WITH YOU.

JUST WANTED TO GO OVER ITEM 5.7.

THIS IS A SECOND READ OF AN ALLEY CLOSURE LOCATED OVER AT BETWEEN 14TH AND 15TH STREET WEST OF AVENUE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY TIED TO THE STUDENT HOUSING PROJECT.

IT'S BEING CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS THEY'VE BEEN IN THE PROCESS OF RELOCATING UTILITIES, SPECIFICALLY A SEWER LINE.

THAT SEWER LINE IS NEARING COMPLETION.

WE ACTUALLY DID DO THE FIRST READ OF THE ORDINANCE ABANDONING THE ALLEY CLOSURE BACK FEBRUARY 25TH, AND THE CONTRACTORS NEARING COMPLETION.

THEY'RE NOT QUITE DONE YET.

YOU'VE GOT A REVISED ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU THAT HAS A COUPLE OF CHANGES.

FIRST OF ALL, IT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SEWER RELOCATION IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND NUMBER 2, IT ALSO MAKES THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE ONCE THAT SEWER LINE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY.

IN ESSENCE, WHAT IT DOES, IT ALLOWS US TO PUT OURSELVES IN A BETTER POSITION TO EXPEDITE ISSUING THE PERMIT ONCE THE ALLEY CLOSURE IS DONE.

THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WE'VE MADE THE CHANGE.

WE THINK IT'LL BUY ABOUT A WEEK OR TWO FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT AND ALLOWS US ONCE THAT SEWER LINE IS DONE FOR STAFF TO ACCEPT IT AND MOVE FORWARD WITH ISSUING THE BUILDING PERMIT.

WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS.

>> MAYOR [INAUDIBLE] TO SUBSTITUTE THE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-00030 THAT IS IN OUR CURRENT COUNCIL PACKET WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN PASSED OUT CURRENT.

>> I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEMS AS ADJUSTED.

DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> I MOVE.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS. CAN I GET A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ROSE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THAT? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND WE WILL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5.24,

[24. Resolution - Public Health Services: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to the Department of State Health Services Contract No. HHS001331300015, and all related documents, by and between the City of Lubbock and the State of Texas Department of State Health Services, under the Immunization Local Grant Program, to prevent and control the transmission of vaccine-preventable diseases in children and adults.]

AND I'LL CALL ON KATHERINE WELLS, THE DIRECTOR OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL BRIEFING IN THIS MATTER.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON.

5.24 IS OUR ANNUAL IMMUNIZATION GRANT FROM THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES.

[00:15:05]

THIS GRANT IS IN THE AMOUNT OF 200 AND I THINK IT'S $35,000.

DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. I'LL GET YOU THE EXACT AMOUNT.

THIS IS A GRANT THAT WE'VE HAD AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

FOR MANY YEARS IT COVERS THE COST OF STAFFING FOR TWO NURSES, A COMMUNITY OUTREACH WORKER AND THAT COMMUNITY OUTREACH WORKER ACTUALLY PROVIDES THE SUPPORT TO OUR PHYSICIANS OFFICES IN THE COMMUNITY TO ALLOW THEM TO ENROLL IN THE TEXAS FOR VACCINE CHILDREN'S PROGRAM.

THE TWO NURSES ALLOWS US TO PROVIDE IMMUNIZATIONS AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

THIS GRANT ALSO GIVES US ACCESS TO FREE VACCINE FROM THE STATE, AND THAT'S AROUND $300,000 A YEAR.

HAPPY TO TAKE ANY COMMENTS.

IT ALSO HELPS SUPPORT PART OF ONE OF MY NURSE MANAGERS.

>> I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 524.

MOTION BY DR. WILSON. CAN I GET A SECOND?

>>SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? YES. COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> FIRST ISSUE WITH THIS AGENDA ITEM IS THAT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL SCOPE OF WORK IN THE AGENDA MATERIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO US.

THE CONTRACT, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 394, FOR EXAMPLE, 395 OF THE AGENDA, IT REFERENCES STATEMENTS OF WORK, WHICH ARE ATTACHMENTS TO A CONTRACT.

THERE'S A GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK.

THERE'S ALSO A 2025 SCOPE OF WORK AND A 2026 SCOPE OF WORK.

WE DON'T HAVE THE GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK ATTACHED, AND WE DON'T HAVE THE 2025 SCOPE OF WORK ATTACHED.

IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS TODAY, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL SCOPE OF WORK IS ON THE GRANT, BECAUSE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS NOT PROVIDED US WITH THAT INFORMATION.

I THINK IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO GET THE FULL SCOPE OF WORK AND GIVE EVERYBODY ON THE COUNCIL A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT TODAY.

THE ISSUE THAT I HAVE WITH THE 2026 SCOPE OF WORK IS THAT THIS GRANT REQUIRES US TO NOT DENY SERVICES TO RECIPIENTS BECAUSE THEY DO NOT RESIDE WITHIN THE GRANTEES' JURISDICTION, BECAUSE OF INABILITY TO PAY AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE, OR BECAUSE OF DENIAL OF CONSENT TO THE TEXAS IMMUNIZATION REGISTRY.

I'M ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE CITY OF LUBBOCK HEALTH DEPARTMENT BECOMING A REGIONAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE ARE SPENDING CITY RESOURCES IN THE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THAT IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY.

IF WE WANT TO DO A REGIONAL VACCINATION PROGRAM, THEN THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY SOMEBODY OTHER THAN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DELAY APPROVAL OF THIS UNTIL WE'VE HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE FULL SCOPE OF WORK, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER HOW MUCH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK IS GOING TO BE PROVIDING SERVICES TO PEOPLE WHO ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR JURISDICTION.

>> THANK YOU MR. GLASHEEN.

IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THIS IS NOT JUST THE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, IT IS A CITY-COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

THAT IS A VERY SIGNIFICANT PARTNERSHIP.

IT'S PRETTY STANDARD, HISTORICALLY, THE SERVICES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

I DO ENCOURAGE THAT WE SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION.

IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES SIR.

>> THE LANGUAGE OF THE 2026 SCOPE OF WORK DOESN'T JUST LIMIT OUR PARTNERSHIP TO THE COOPERATION WITH THE COUNTY.

I THINK A REALLY RELEVANT POINT TO CONSIDER, FOR EXAMPLE, IS YOU HAVE RESIDENTS OF GAINES COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ARE COMING TO LUBBOCK, THEY'RE SHOPPING AND VISITING OTHER SERVICES, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO THE CITY HEALTH CLINIC AND GET TREATED AT THE CITY.

THAT'S JUST ONE EXAMPLE.

ESPECIALLY WITH THE OUTBREAK OF MEASLES FOR EXAMPLE, IN GAINES COUNTY, WE DON'T NEED TO EXPOSE LUBBOCK RESIDENTS TO MEASLES BY GIVING THE PEOPLE AN INCENTIVE TO COME HERE.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE TAKING ON THE COST AND THE EFFORT OF TAKING CARE OF PEOPLE ACROSS THE REGION.

EVEN IF WE DO COOPERATE WITH THE COUNTY, WE DON'T NEED TO EXTEND OUR COOPERATION OR THE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE ANY BROADER THAN THAT.

>> WHILE I COULD PROVIDE A REBUTTAL, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK MS. WELLS, IF SHE WILL RESPOND TO COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN'S COMMENT ON THE GAINES COUNTY AND HOW WE HAVE BEST-SERVED FOLKS AROUND IN OUR AREA.

>> THE CONTACT LANGUAGE IN THE 2026 IS STANDARD LANGUAGE FROM THE STATE.

ANYBODY FOR A LOT OF OUR CONTRACTS,

[00:20:03]

IF THEY SHOW UP AT OUR DOOR, REQUESTING SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THE STATE THROUGH CONTRACT, THEN WE ARE REQUIRED TO SEE THEM.

WHEN I LOOK AT THINGS LIKE COMMUNICABLE DISEASES, THEY DON'T KNOW BOUNDARIES, AND WE HAVE PEOPLE TRAVELING IN AND OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY WITH DIFFERENT TYPES OF DISEASES, ESPECIALLY WITH MEASLES RIGHT NOW, AND IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE OFFER THAT VACCINE TO EVERYBODY THAT COMES INTO THIS COUNTY.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES, COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

>> JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, MS. WELLS.

YOU'RE LIMITED IN YOUR CAPACITY TO ADMINISTER THESE VACCINATIONS BY THE LIMIT OF THE GRANT, IS THAT CORRECT? DO YOU ADD OTHER CITY DOLLARS TO BE ABLE TO ADMINISTER VACCINATIONS?

>> THERE IS SOME CITY DOLLARS THAT GO INTO FUNDING NURSES AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

I DON'T NECESSARILY DESIGNATE WHICH NURSE DOES SPECIFICALLY VACCINE VERSUS ANOTHER SERVICE.

I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT COME OUTSIDE OF LUBBOCK TO RECEIVE VACCINATION SERVICES, BUT MY GUESS WOULD BE IT WAS LESS THAN 5% OF THE PEOPLE WE SERVE.

>> YOU MULTITASK YOUR NURSES.

>> IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US. THEY DON'T DO JUST ONE TASK AND SIT AND WAIT FOR THE NEXT PATIENT TO COME THROUGH.

>> NO.

>> YOU GET ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM THE STATE TO HELP KEEP NURSES IN PLACE TO DO WHATEVER SERVICE PROVISION THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE THAT DAY?

>> CORRECT.

>> WE'RE SEEING STATE MONEY SUPPLEMENT OUR LOCAL NURSES, IS WHAT I'M-

>> THIS IS THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE.

>> YES. I GUESS THAT WEST TEXAS HAS BECOME MAYBE THE EPICENTER OF MEASLES, UNFORTUNATELY AT THIS POINT IN TIME, AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO HELP SLOW THIS DOWN TO TAMPER THE SPREAD OF THIS DISEASE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO ENCOURAGE, WHETHER THEY LIVED HERE OR LIVED OUTSIDE THE AREA AT THIS TIME.

>> MY SENSE OF THAT. THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? YES SIR.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MOTION TO APPROVE THIS IS PENDING, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST APPROVING IT AT THIS TIME UNTIL AND THEN WITH THE DENIAL OF THE CURRENT MOTION, THEN WE'LL POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON APRIL 8 TO ALLOW YOU TO SEE THE FULL SCOPE OF WORK AND THE FULL TERMS OF THE GRANT, BECAUSE THAT INFORMATION IS NOT IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET, YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW AND READ WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE REQUIRED OF THE CITY UNDER THIS CONTRACT.

>> COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN, IS THAT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION TO POSTPONE?

>> IS IT TIME TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE?

>> WELL, I THINK UNLESS THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING TO BE HAD ON THE CURRENT MOTION IF THE MOTION WHETHER IT'S APPROVED IF IT'S APPROVED, THEN WE'RE DONE WITH THE AGENDA ITEMS. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO IT.

>> WELL, THEN AT THAT I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL DATE CERTAIN APRIL 8 AGENDA ITEM 5.24.

>> COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN HAS MADE A MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION?

>> IT WOULD DIE FOR LACK OF A SECOND. YOU GO BACK.

>> WE GO BACK AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.24.

I'M SORRY, WE ALREADY DID THAT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THIS AGENDA ITEM?

>> AYE. ALL THOSE AGAINST.

>> NAY.

>> THAT IS FIVE AGAINST ONE.

MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5.25,

[25. Resolution - Public Health Services: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Professional Services Agreement, and all related documents, by and between the City of Lubbock Health and Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, to provide certain infectious disease healthcare services to the City of Lubbock Health Department Intermediary Care Clinic.]

AND AGAIN, KATHERINE WELLS, THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH DEPARTMENT, TO PROVIDE THE COUNCIL BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> THE CONTRACT THAT I'M BRINGING TO YOU IS WITH THE TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL MEDICINE.

THIS IS FOR SERVICES PROVIDED AT OUR INTERMEDIARY CARE CLINIC.

THE INTERMEDIARY CARE CLINIC CONTRACT FOR PHYSICIAN SERVICES IS WITH FAMILY MEDICINE.

I HAVE A PHYSICIAN THAT'S IN INFECTIOUS DISEASE THAT IS ALSO WILLING TO SUPPORT US IN THE CLINIC.

BUT BECAUSE HE'S NOT IN FAMILY MEDICINE, HE DOESN'T FALL UNDER THAT CONTRACT, SO WE NEED TO DO A SEPARATE CONTRACT WITH INTERNAL MEDICINE.

THEN THIS IS PRESENTING THAT CONTRACT SO THAT HE IS ABLE TO FILL IN FOR SOME OF THE HOURS AT THE INTERMEDIARY CARE CLINIC.

[00:25:04]

>> I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.25.

MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS. CAN I GET A SECOND?

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ROSAL.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? DAVID, COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN.

>> THANK YOU. LOOKING AT THIS AGENDA ITEM, THE SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THIS POSITION WOULD BE AN ARPA GRANT.

THESE ARE THE AMERICAN RELIEF PROGRAM DOLLARS.

I'LL SAY, FIRST OF ALL, AS A BUDGET POLICY, IT'S IMPRUDENT TO USE A ONE-TIME GRANT OF DOLLARS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT IS GOING TO BE AN ONGOING OBLIGATION TO FUND THIS POSITION.

IT'S A MISMATCH OF THE TYPE OF DOLLARS TO WHAT WE HAVE IN A RECURRING OBLIGATION TO PAY A STAFF POSITION.

WHEN THESE ARPA DOLLARS ARE USED UP, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? IS THIS GOING TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE GENERAL FUND OR ANOTHER SOURCE? I THINK WE NEED TO FIND A MORE APPROPRIATE MATCH FOR ONE-TIME DOLLARS TO BE USED ON ONE-TIME EXPENSES.

I'M ALSO OPPOSED TO EXPANDING THE STAFF AND THE SERVICES AT OUR CITY'S CLINIC.

WE ALREADY HAVE IN THE COMMUNITY THE BENEFIT OF THE PHYSICIANS WHO ARE AT TEXAS TECH HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER.

IF PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY NEED TO SEE THIS DOCTOR, THEY CAN GO SEE THE DOCTOR AT TEXAS TECH HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER.

WE'RE NOT BENEFITING THE COMMUNITY BY BRINGING IN SOME SKILL OR SERVICE THAT'S UNAVAILABLE CURRENTLY.

BECAUSE OF THE MISMATCH BETWEEN THE TYPE OF DOLLARS AND THEIR ONGOING OBLIGATION THAT WOULD CREATE, AS WELL AS THE EXPANSION OF THE SCOPE, IT'S APPROPRIATE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

>> THANK YOU. THE WAY I READ THIS CONTRACT, THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL SERVICE PROVIDED TO OUR CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT FROM HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER FOR INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL AND TREATMENTS.

THIS IS A WORK ORDER CONTRACT OR A JOB ORDER CONTRACT THAT LASTS FOR ONLY A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR.

>> CORRECT.

>> IT HAS A LIMITATION.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR YOU TO ADD TO YOUR STAFF, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO.

>> NO. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING IS HIRING SOMEONE TO ASSIST US DURING AGAIN, A VERY DIFFICULT TIME IN TERMS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES WITHIN OUR REGION, AND HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER HAS THE APPROPRIATE STAFF AND RESOURCES TO STEP IN AND THEY'VE OFFERED TO DO THIS ALONGSIDE A CONTRACT FOR OTHER SERVICES THAT THEY ALREADY PROVIDE TO US?

>> THANK YOU, MS. WELLS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AND QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU.

>> DR. WILSON.

THE DOC THAT'S COMING IN, THAT'S AN INFECTIOUS DISEASE DOCTOR, IS HE GOING TO BE SERVING IN THAT CAPACITY, OR IS HE SERVING AS A GENERAL PRACTITIONER IN THE INTERMEDIARY CLINIC?

>> HE'S DOING BOTH. WE HAVE SEEN INDIVIDUALS COME INTO THE INTERMEDIARY CARE CLINIC WHO NEED SOME INFECTIOUS DISEASE SPECIALIST.

HE WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT, BUT HE WILL ALSO HELP WITH FILLING IN WHEN OUR RESIDENT OR ANOTHER PHYSICIAN IS NOT AVAILABLE.

>> SERVING ALSO AS A GENERAL PRACTITIONER.

>> YES, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO BILL FOR HIS SERVICES.

>> DOES THIS CONTRACT ALLOW YOU TO TRANSITION THE INTERMEDIARY CLINIC INTO A FULL-TIME WHERE THEY STAY? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST A TRANSITION CLINIC, CORRECT? WHERE THEY'RE THERE 90 DAYS ROUGHLY, TRYING TO GET INTO A PCP.

>> I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT POINT A LITTLE BIT TO COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN'S POINT OF WE'RE PROVIDING A SERVICE THAT TECH PROVIDES.

WELL, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.

AS A PHYSICIAN, SOMETIMES IT TAKES SIX MONTHS OR LONGER TO GET IN WITH PCPS AROUND HERE BECAUSE WE'RE SO SHORT-STAFFED.

THIS CLINIC IS USED AS A STOPGAP TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS.

INFECTIOUS DISEASES ARE TREATED.

PATIENTS MAINTAIN WHATEVER MEDICATIONS WERE STARTED IN A HOSPITAL AND THEN TRANSITIONING THEM INTO A PCP CLINIC CORRECT?

>> THE CONTRACTS NOT ASKING TO MAKE THAT NOW IN A FULL-TIME CLINIC WHERE THEY CAN GO FOREVER.

IT'S STILL TRANSITIONING THEM TO A HOME.

>> YES, IT'S STILL TRANSITIONING AND IT'S FILLING IN FOR HOURS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY HAD BUDGETED.

>> PERFECT. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMAN ROSE.

>> THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

JERRY, THE ARPA DOLLARS HAVE TO BE ALREADY ALLOCATED, IS THAT CORRECT? IF THIS ISN'T PASSED, WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE DOLLARS?

>> THIS IS A DIFFERENT SET OF

[00:30:03]

DOLLARS THAN WHAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

THE ARPA ENDED UP, THERE'S ARPA FOR PUBLIC HEALTH, THERE'S ARPA AT THE AIRPORT, THERE WAS ARPA AT TRANSIT OR CITY BUS.

THIS IS NOT THE PROJECT-BASED MONEY THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WITH THAT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> AYE. ALL OPPOSE SAME SIGN?

>> NAY.

>> IT'S FIVE IN FAVOR AND ONE AGAINST.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES ON A FIVE-TO-ONE VOTE.

WE NOW MOVE ON TO...

THANK YOU, KATHERINE WELLS, I ALMOST SAY DOCTOR.

>> TOMORROW I WILL BE A DOCTOR.

>> ALMOST.

>> TOMORROW.

>> DID SHE SAY TOMORROW?

WE WILL NOW TAKE UP THE REGULAR AGENDA AND COUNSEL WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> CONGRATULATIONS.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> DID I MISS ONE? SORRY ABOUT THAT. THERE IT IS.

WE WILL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5.39,

[39. Resolution - City Manager: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, Amendment No. 2 to American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding Agreement No. 16514, to alter the payout agreement for the previously approved funding. ]

AND I'LL CALL BILL HOWERTON, OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE COUNSEL BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, IF I MIGHT INTERRUPT, I THINK THIS COULD POSSIBLY BE AN ITEM TO WHERE WE WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO DATE CERTAIN.

>> YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED.

CAN I GET A MOTION TO POSTPONE?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM. THIS ITEM HAS A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE ASKED OF STAFF.

THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM MB3 LLC COULD NOT BE WITH US TODAY.

AND SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM DATE SPECIFIC UNTIL OUR MEETING APRIL 20.

>> THERE'S BEEN A MOTION TO POSTPONE. CAN I GET A SECOND?

>> I THINK WE MEANT APRIL.

>> 22ND.

>> SORRY. APRIL 22ND.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE ON A SUNDAY. I WOULD PREFER NOT AS.

>> WE CAN BE HERE BY.

>> WE'LL GO TO 22ND. MY APOLOGIES.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN COLLINS, AND WE HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN HARRIS.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? NO. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

>> ALL OPPOSE, SAME SIGN.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES ON A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

AND WE NOW DO MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA,

[1. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 1112-G, a request of Presto Hail Lifters for Lon Miller, for a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Auto-Urban Commercial (AC), at 2110 and 2112 50th Street, located north of 50th Street and west of Avenue U, Felix Addition, Lot 10 and the west 37.5 feet of Lot 9, and consider an ordinance.]

AND THE COUNCIL WILL CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ZONING CASE FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.1.

THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED IN THEIR PACKET THE STAFF REPORT FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

AS A REMINDER, THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I NOW CALL ON KRISTIN SAGER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY ON AGENDA ITEM 6.1, THAT IS, AND I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.1.

PLEASE GO AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR COMMENTS. KRISTIN. [LAUGHTER]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. ITEM 6.1 IS ZONE CASE 1112G LOCATED IN DISTRICT 2.

THE REQUEST IS FROM PRESTO HILL LIFTERS FOR LAWN MILLER TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.

WE SENT OUT 46 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING NO RESPONSE.

THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 50TH, WEST OF AVENUE U.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE ARE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES UP AND DOWN 50TH STREET WITH RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH.

THE CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

THERE IS ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL, HEAVY COMMERCIAL ALONG 50TH, WITH HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, MEDIUM-DENSITY, AND LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.

HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THERE IS AN EXISTING AUTO HAIL REPAIR BUSINESS IN THIS LOCATION.

THEY ARE LOOKING TO EXPAND, WHICH IS WHY THEY NEED THE ZONE CHANGE.

THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, SO THE REQUEST FOR AC ZONING IS IN CONFORMANCE.

IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IT WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS ALONG 50TH STREET AND WEST OF AVENUE U.

50TH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL, AND AVENUE U IS A COLLECTOR.

STAFF HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

IF>> THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS,

[00:35:03]

I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.1, AND THOSE SPEAKING, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THESE ZONE CASES? IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? AND I WILL POINT OUT THAT WE DID HAVE TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS BY THE INDIVIDUALS.

IF THERE ARE NO OTHERS, I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 2:35.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.1?

>> SO MOVE.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN WILSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN ROSE.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.