[00:00:02]
>> I NOW OPEN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR JUNE 24TH, 2025.
[1. Executive Session]
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 TO CONSULT WITH AND SEEK THE ADVICE OF OUR CITY LEGAL COUNSEL AND SECTION 551.074 TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS THE CITY COUNCIL IS RECESSING AT, WELL, ACCORDING TO MY WATCH, 12:05, ACCORDING TO THIS 11:58.I'M GOING TO SAY 12:05, IT IS.
CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECONVENING AN OPEN SESSION.
I'LL TAKE A WORK SESSION FOR AN UPDATE ON IMPACT FEES
[1. Impact Fees Update]
AND AN UPDATE ON SALES TAX AS IT RELATES TO OUR BUDGET.NOW I'LL CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER, MR. JARRETT ATKINSON, TO LEAD THIS DISCUSSION.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL.
WELCOME. THIS WILL BE KIND OF THE PRESENTATION OF HOW WE GOT TO IMPACT FEES, THE RECENT ACTIONS, THE RE-STUDY, AND ULTIMATELY YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS.
TO GET US THROUGH ALL THAT, MR. JOHN TURPIN'S GOING TO KICK IT OFF, AND WE'VE GOT SOME OTHER FOLKS THAT WILL ASSIST. JOHN.
>> THANK YOU, JARRETT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR, COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
BEFORE I GET STARTED, I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT OUR CIAC CHAIR IS HERE, CHRIS BERRY, AND I WANTED TO INTRODUCE BRANDON FORSYTHE WHO WILL BE ASSISTING ME.
HE'S OUR CONSULTANT THAT LED US THROUGH THIS STUDY.
JUST TO GET STARTED PRESENTATION OUTLINE, I'LL BE GOING THROUGH MUCH OF WHAT YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY HEARD IN PREVIOUS COUNCILS, SO IMPACT FEE BASICS.
I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OUR COLLECTIONS AND UTILIZATIONS AS OF MAY 31ST, SO WE HAVE THAT UP TO DATE.
IMPACT FEE COMPONENTS, WHICH WILL BE THE REPORT THAT YOU ALL HAVE RECEIVED, AND REALLY BRANDON FORSYTHE WILL COME UP AND TALK IN DEPTH ABOUT IT.
THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE A COMPARISON VERSUS OTHER CITIES OF OUR CIAC RECOMMENDATION TO YOU ALL, AND THEN SCHEDULE FOR UPCOMING DATES, CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.
WHAT ARE THEY? THEY ARE ONE-TIME FEES FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'RE A MECHANISM FOR US TO RECOVER PROPORTIONATE TO THE TRAFFIC THAT HAS BEEN PUT OUT BY NEW DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'RE COVERED BY CHAPTER 395 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
THEN FINALLY, IN TEXAS, YOU CAN COLLECT WATER, WASTEWATER, ROADWAY, AND DRAINAGE IMPACT FEES, OTHER STATES ALLOW OTHER THINGS.
ROADWAYS, WHY IMPACT FEES? THERE'S A PAST HISTORY HERE.
HOW DO WE GET HERE? IMPACT FEES REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE GENERAL FUND.
PLAN LUBBOCK 2040, HAD A DEVELOPER SUBCOMMITTEE THAT ACTUALLY LOOKED AT MANY OPTIONS AND CAME UP WITH IMPACT FEES AS THEIR RECOMMENDED OPTION.
THEN FINALLY, WE NEED A SYSTEM THAT FUNDS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, IS FAIR FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, PREDICTABLE AND PROPORTIONAL TO THE IMPACT.
HERE'S A LOOK AT OUR IMPACT FEE COLLECTION USES.
AS I SAID, AS OF MAY 31ST, 2025, WE HAVE COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY 14 MILLION ACROSS THE CITY.
WE HAVE UTILIZED A LITTLE OVER FIVE MILLION, AND WE HAVE ABOUT CLOSE TO NINE MILLION LEFT IN FUNDING THOSE PROJECTS.
NOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, UPLAND AVENUE, WE HAD AN OVERAGE ON THAT PROJECT.
WE WERE ABLE TO PUSH THAT PROJECT FORWARD WITHOUT AFFECTING OUR GENERAL FUND BY UTILIZING IMPACT FEES, CROSSED INTO AREAS A AND F SO THAT WE UTILIZE THEM FROM THERE, AND THEN EAST 19TH STREET, WE USED A MILLION DOLLARS IN IMPACT FEES, AND THEN FINALLY QUAKER AVENUE $1.274 MILLION UTILIZED TOWARDS QUAKER AVENUE FROM 146 TO WOODROW ROAD.
IMPACT FEES HAVE BEEN LEVERAGED TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY FIVE TIMES THE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION VERSUS THE FEES UTILIZED.
IMPACT FEE CREDITS CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO ACTUALLY TRY TO CONVINCE THE DEVELOPERS TO WORK WITH US TO ACTUALLY BUILD THE ROADS.
IMPACT FEES CAN BE LEVERAGED TO CREATE NOT ONLY DEVELOPERS AGREEMENTS, BUT PAY FOR COST OVERAGES ON ANY OF OUR CAPACITY PROJECTS, AND FINALLY, IT CAN BE UTILIZED TOWARDS DEBT SERVICE.
WE'VE DONE THE FIRST TWO, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE DONE ANY FOR DEBT SERVICE YET, BUT WE'VE DEFINITELY DONE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENTS AS WELL AS COST OVERAGES FOR ARTERIAL PROJECTS.
THEN FINALLY, SOME POTENTIAL FUTURE UPCOMING PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS MAYBE GOING TO HAPPEN ARE AVENUE P, 146 TO THE LUBBOCK COUNTY LINE, AND THEN 114TH STREET UPLAND TO ALCOVE AVENUE.
[00:05:04]
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO BRANDON FORSYTHE.WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER ALL THE ELEMENTS OF THE REPORT TO ULTIMATELY GET TO OUR MAX FEE CALCULATIONS.
THIS FIRST SLIDE HERE, WE HAVE OUR SERVICE AREAS.
THESE WERE MAINTAINED FROM THE PREVIOUS BOUNDARIES AND WE HAVE INCORPORATED THE ANNEXATIONS BETWEEN THE LAST GO AND THIS LATEST UPDATE.
I THINK IT'S ABOUT 10 ANNEXATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE MAINTAINING ROUGHLY THE SAME SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES.
FOR THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, WE UTILIZE BASE PARCEL DATA AND PLAN LUBBOCK 2040 INFORMATION.
WE DID AN AERIAL OVERVIEW TO GET ANY UPDATES THAT HAVE HAPPENED SINCE THEN AND COORDINATION WITH STAFF AS WELL.
WE BREAK OUR LAND USE CATEGORIES OUT INTO FIVE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES DUE TO THE DIFFERENT TRIP MAKING CHARACTERISTICS ON ROADS.
RESIDENTIAL, WE HAVE SINGLE AND MULTI-FAMILY.
FROM THE EMPLOYMENT SIDE, WE HAVE BASIC, SERVICE, AND RETAIL.
BASIC ARE YOUR LOWER TRAFFIC GENERATORS, SO THINK INDUSTRIAL OR PARKS, AND THIS IS LOWER AS IN A MAGNITUDE OF TRAFFIC ITSELF, NOT TRUCKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, SERVICE IS MODERATE TRIP GENERATION, OFFICE LAND USES, AND THEN RETAIL IS YOUR HIGHEST TRIP GENERATION, OUR TYPICAL BIG BOX OR RETAIL PLAZAS.
FOR OUR LAND USE ASSUMPTION METHODOLOGY, WE TAKE THE UNDEVELOPED LAND, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT OUR 10-YEAR GROWTH.
THAT'S WHAT 395 REQUIRES US TO LOOK AT AS A 10-YEAR PLANNING WINDOW FOR THESE STUDIES.
WE DETERMINED THE HOLDING CAPACITY OF EACH OF THE SERVICE AREAS.
WE USE CITY PLAT DATA IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THEN CATEGORIZE THESE INTO OUR FIVE CATEGORIES AND ANTICIPATED UNITS WERE DEVELOPED ON THAT WAY.
WE EVALUATED SEVERAL GROWTH SCENARIOS.
THEY ALIGN WITH PLAN LUBBOCK 2040, THEY RANGE FROM 2-2.5%.
LOT OF COORDINATION WITH CITY STAFF AND ALSO CIAC, WHERE WE CALCULATED A RESIDENTIAL GROWTH WITHIN THE CITY OF 2.2% BASED ON BACK AND FORTH AND US GETTING COMFORTABLE WITH THESE GROWTH RATES.
THE PREVIOUS STUDY USED A GROWTH RATE OF 2.5%.
WE FELT THAT THAT WAS A LITTLE AGGRESSIVE BASED ON THE DATA WE HAVE NOW, SO 2.2% WAS MORE REPRESENTATIVE OF DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.
THEN BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL PERCENTAGE GROWTH OVER THE 10-YEAR WINDOW, WE COMPARED THAT TO THE HOLDING CAPACITY FROM RESIDENTIAL AND WE APPLIED THAT TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL CATEGORIES.
IT'S A PRETTY BUSY MAP HERE, BUT THIS IS ALL OF YOUR SERVICE AREAS AND THE BREAKOUTS OF THE GROWTH WITHIN EACH.
WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, BASIC SERVICE AND RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SERVICE AREA A, SERVICE AREA E, AND SERVICE AREA F FOR OUR HIGHEST GROWTH SERVICE AREAS THAT WE EVALUATED.
WE TAKE THOSE UNITS AND WE CONVERT THEM INTO VEHICLE MILES OF DEMAND OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
WE TAKE THEIR UNITS AND YOU MULTIPLY IT BY WHAT'S CALLED A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND FACTOR.
ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, OUR UNIT IS A DWELLING UNIT.
FOR SERVICE AREA A FOR INSTANCE, YOU TAKE 6,711 UNITS ON THE SINGLE-FAMILY SIDE, THEY HAVE 2.82 VEHICLE MILES PER DWELLING UNIT.
YOU MULTIPLY THOSE TOGETHER TO GET YOUR SINGLE-FAMILY DEMAND AND VEHICLE MILES IN SERVICE AREA A OVER 10 YEARS.
WE DO THAT FOR ALL OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY, AND ON A NON-RESIDENTIAL SIDE, YOU DIVIDE ALL THESE SQUARE FOOTAGES BY 1,000 FEET AND THEN MULTIPLY THAT TRANSPORTATION DEMAND FACTOR TO GET TO YOUR VEHICLE MILES OF DEMAND.
ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS OUR DENOMINATOR IN EACH OF THESE SERVICE AREAS FOR OUR MAX FEE CALCULATION.
AGAIN, LOOKING AT A 10-YEAR PLANNING WINDOW.
I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE RCP NOW, ROADWAY CAPACITY PLAN.
WE HAVE EACH SERVICE AREA SHOWN HERE, BUT I'M GOING TO FOCUS IT ON A AND GET INTO DETAILS FIRST.
WHAT'S SHOWN HERE, WE UTILIZE A UNIVERSE OF PROJECTS APPROACH.
ANYTHING ARTERIAL OR ABOVE ON YOUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT IS NOT BUILT OUT TO THE ULTIMATE CAPACITY, WE FLAG AS A PROJECT.
YOU HAVE RED LINES, WHICH ARE YOUR WIDENING PROJECT, SOMETHING NOT BUILT OUT TO THE ULTIMATE CAPACITY, YOU NEED TO WIDEN THAT ROADWAY.
THE DOTTED RED LINES WILL BE A NEW PROJECT.
IT'S A GREEN FIELD TODAY, BRAND NEW ROAD.
WE ALSO HAVE PURPLE LINEWORK, WHICH IS ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTIAL WIDENING.
IF IT'S PLANNED WELL, YOU CAN ULTIMATELY INCLUDE A MEDIAN PROJECT OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES WHERE MAYBE YOU BUILD HALF THE SECTION, IT'S A FOUR LANE DIVIDED, TWO LANES ON THE EAST SIDE, TWO LANES ON THE WEST SIDE, AND THEN FINALLY, WE HAVE OUR COMPLETED PROJECTS THAT THE CITY HAS FUNDED, AND THOSE ARE SHOWN IN THE GREEN LINEWORKS HERE.
WE ALSO HAVE INTERSECTION PROJECTS, THOSE ARE SHOWN IN THE PURPLE DOTS.
WHAT WILL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH OF THESE SLIDES IS YOUR TOTAL ROADWAY CAPACITY COSTS.
EVERY SINGLE PROJECT COSTED OUT WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA, BROKEN OUT BY ROADWAYS AND INTERSECTIONS.
YOUR 10-YEAR RECOVERABLE COST, THIS IS REALLY DRIVEN BY YOUR LAND USE ASSUMPTION, SO WE TRIM THIS BACK FOR WHAT'S RECOVERABLE.
THEN OUR COST WITH FINANCING, AND THEN ULTIMATELY PER CHAPTER 395, WE DO A 50% CREDIT CALCULATION TO GET DOWN TO TRULY WHAT IS RECOVERABLE.
THAT BOTTOM LINE IS OUR NUMERATOR IN THE MAX FEE CALCULATION.
THIS IS AGAIN, SERVICE AREA A IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST GROWTH SERVICE AREAS, ONE OF THE HIGHEST COST SERVICE AREAS AS WELL.
[00:10:01]
SIMILAR IN SERVICE AREA B, ALL THOSE COSTS ASSOCIATED, THE NUMERATOR OF THE MAX FEE HERE AT $11 MILLION.ALL OF THESE WILL BE IN A TABLE 2 COMING UP.
IN SERVICE AREA C, OR ABOUT $21 MILLION OF MAX FEE CALCULATION, D, WE'RE ABOUT 22, E, PRETTY LARGE, AGAIN, ANOTHER LARGE SERVICE AREA, WE'RE AT 91, F IS ABOUT $57 MILLION, AND OUR LOWER COST SERVICE AREAS, WHICH WILL ULTIMATELY BE RECOMMENDED IS NO FEE ZONES, G, $1.3 MILLION OF THE RECOVERABLE COST, AND THEN H, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY PROJECTS ACTUALLY ON THE RCP.
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BUSY OF A TABLE, BUT ALL OF THOSE COSTS THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT ARE SHOWN FOR EACH OF THE SERVICE AREAS HERE.
REALLY, AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE TAKING IS OUR TOTAL RECOVERABLE COST OF THE RCP WITH FINANCING AND CREDIT APPLIED.
IT'S THE SECOND TWO BOTTOM ONE OF THE BLUE LINE WORK HERE, AND THEN YOU DIVIDE IT BY YOUR SERVICE UNITS TO GET YOUR MAXIMUM FEE.
IN THAT BLUE ROW, WE HAVE OUR MAXIMUM FEE PER SERVICE UNIT IN SERVICE AREA A THROUGH H. BELOW THAT, WE MULTIPLY THAT BY A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND FACTOR, GET A COST PER SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT.
AGAIN, THE BIGGER PICTURE HERE, THE MAX FEE IS IDENTIFIED BY THE RECOVERABLE COST DIVIDED BY YOUR LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS IN VEHICLE MILES.
THE CALCULATION, IT'S A DOLLAR PER VEHICLE MILE IS ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE CALCULATING.
THIS IS A COMPARISON SHOWING THE CURRENT TO THE PROPOSED, JUST FOCUSING ON SINGLE-FAMILY ALONE.
ALL THE WAY ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE HERE, YOU'RE SEEING THE PROPOSED INCREASE PER SINGLE-FAMILY PERMIT.
IT RANGES FROM ANYWHERE FROM $300 TO JUST OVER $1,300 WITHIN THE SERVICE AREAS.
RIGHT NOW, THE APPROACH THAT CURRENTLY IS HAPPENING IS WE'RE ADOPTING 25% OF WHAT'S ULTIMATELY CALCULATED.
YOU'RE ALREADY REDUCING YOUR RECOVERABLE COST BY 50% PER CHAPTER 395 AND THEN CIAC AND COUNCIL ENDED UP ADOPTING 50% OF THAT COST, SO 25% OF YOUR ULTIMATE COST.
THAT WILL BE THE SAME CIAC RECOMMENDATION THAT WE UTILIZE FOR THE STUDY.
MUNICIPAL COMPARISONS THAT WE WANT TO HIT HOME.
YOU GUYS ARE JUST PROVIDING FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES AND CHARGING THOSE TO DEVELOPMENTS.
OTHER CITIES CAN REQUIRE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, ULTIMATELY MITIGATION THROUGH THAT, LOOKING AT PRO RATA SHARE, SOME SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, POTENTIALLY TOO FOR TURN LANES AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.
THERE'S OTHER THINGS FOR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WHERE THERE'S BLOCK LENGTH REQUIREMENTS, CONNECTIVITY, BORDER STREET POLICIES AND ADJACENCY SOMETIMES DEPENDING ON THOROUGHFARE PLANS AND THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED THERE.
THEN FINALLY, ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY IS UTILIZED IN OTHER CITIES AS WELL.
THESE ARE THE COMPARISON CHARTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO OVER.
ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE, YOU HAVE STRICTLY A ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CALCULATION, AND I THINK IT'S ROUGHLY 10 OR SO COMPARISON CITIES WE EVALUATED.
ALL OF THOSE ARE SHOWN IN THE LIGHT BLUE.
THE DARK BLUE IS CURRENTLY WHAT'S BEING ADOPTED BY LUBBOCK TODAY.
THE CIAC RECOMMENDATION IS SHOWN IN THE HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW, AND THEN THE MAXIMUM FEE THAT WE CALCULATED IS SHOWN IN THE GREEN.
KEEP IN MIND, THIS IS FOR SERVICE AREA F, ALL THESE CALCULATIONS ARE FOR SERVICE AREA F, AND THAT'S OUR HIGHEST FEE ZONE THAT ULTIMATELY WE CALCULATED.
AGAIN, CIACS RECOMMENDATION IS HALF OF WHAT WE CALCULATED AS THE MAX FEE.
ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE FOR ALL OF THESE COMPARISON SLIDES, WE HAVE THE ROADWAY WATER AND WASTEWATER ELEMENTS.
OTHER CITIES ARE ULTIMATELY ADOPTING ALL THREE OF THESE RATES, AND YOU'RE SEEING THE IMPACT WHERE LUBBOCK ISN'T ULTIMATELY CHARGING WATER AND WASTEWATER, WE JUST HAVE ROADWAY.
PER SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, WILL THAT BE AT ABOUT $3,149 IN SERVICE AREA F WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM CIAC.
FOR A 200 APARTMENT UNIT COMPLEX, AGAIN, OUR $2,233 PER VEHICLE MILE IN SERVICE AREA F, HALF OF THAT WOULD BE 1,165.
OR 1,116, SORRY, 01,160 AND 50, AND THEN YOU MULTIPLY THAT BY TRANSPORTATION DEMAND FACTOR AGAIN, 1.17.
BECAUSE WE'RE ACCOUNTING FOR MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, WE MULTIPLY BY THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON THE LAST SIDE, SO YOU ULTIMATELY MULTIPLY BY 200 HERE TO GET TO YOUR CALCULATION OF THE MAXIMUM FEE, AND THAT WOULD BE 522,000 ROUGHLY.
CIAC RECOMMENDATION OF 50% OF THAT IS 261,000 FOR THE SAME USE TODAY WOULD BE ABOUT 158,000.
ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, AGAIN, WATER WASTEWATER IS INCLUDED FOR THE OTHER CITIES.
THE COFFEE SHOP LAND USE WE WANT TO SHOW.
REALLY WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE PASS-BY IMPACTS.
ADJACENT TO AMARILLO, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, SORRY, THIS IS PRETTY SMALL, BUT WE HAVE A NO INDOOR SEATING OPTION FOR THE COFFEE LAND USES.
[00:15:05]
YOU CAN SEE HOW LOW THOSE ARE.WE'RE AT ABOUT $614 IF WE USE CIAC'S RECOMMENDATION OF A 50% RATE.
THE REASON IS IS BECAUSE THESE COFFEE SHOPS WITH NO INDOOR SEATING, THERE'S A PHENOMENA OF PASS-BY.
THESE ARE FOLKS GOING FROM WORK TO HOME, FROM HOME TO WORK.
IT'S 98 OR SO PERCENT ROUGHLY.
THOSE TRIPS ARE PASSED BY BASED ON ITE DATA THAT WE HAVE.
ANY RETAIL USE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 98%, BUT DEPENDING ON THE USE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PASS-BY PHENOMENA FROM A RETAIL PERSPECTIVE THAT ULTIMATELY IS BEING REMOVED FROM THESE CALCULATIONS, THAT'S WHY THAT FEE IS SO LOW THERE.
NOW, WHEN WE COMPARE THAT TO A ONE DRIVE-THROUGH COFFEE SHOP THAT'S ABOUT 2,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE SEEING THE CALCULATED MAXIMUM FEE IS ABOUT 96,000 FROM MAX PERSPECTIVE, AND AGAIN, CIAC RECOMMENDATION OF 50%, WOULD IT BE ABOUT 48,000 FOR THAT? CURRENTLY, WHAT'S BEING CHARGED FOR THAT SAME LAND USE IS ABOUT 28,000.
>> NOW, WE DID THIS FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING.
OFFICE BUILDINGS, WE DO NOT HAVE THE PASS BY PHENOMENA, NO REDUCTIONS HERE.
BUT AGAIN, YOU TAKE YOUR MAXIMUM FEE, $2,233 PER VEHICLE MILE, DIVIDE THAT BY 2 TO GET OUR YELLOW.
MULTIPLY THAT BY 6.48, AND THEN OUR UNIT HERE IS FIVE.
YOU TAKE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU DIVIDE BY 100.
WE END UP GETTING A MAXIMUM FEE FOR A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING OF JUST OVER $72,000.
THE 50% RECOMMENDATION WERE ABOUT $6,000.
TODAY, WHAT WOULD BE CHARGE IS ABOUT $10,000? 15,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL.
THIS DOES GET REDUCED FOR PASS BY.
WE HAVE $2,233 DIVIDED BY 2, AGAIN, FOR THE RECOMMENDATION.
OUR TDF IS 11.86, SO 11,12 IS VEHICLE MILES OF DEMAND PER THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF THE SHOPPING CENTER USE.
AND THEN YOU MULTIPLY THAT BY 15 FOR YOUR ULTIMATE ULTIMATE UNIT.
THAT WOULD BE JUST UNDER $400,000 FOR A 15,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL USE.
YOU'RE AT ABOUT JUST UNDER $200,000, 198.
CURRENTLY TODAY, IT'S ABOUT $67,000.
FINALLY, OUR FINAL EXAMPLE IS AN INDUSTRIAL USE, 20,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU END UP GETTING A MAXIMUM FEE OF $174,000.
THE CIAC RECOMMENDATION IS ABOUT 87,000 AND THEN CURRENTLY TODAY IS JUST UNDER 45,000.
THE BIGGER PICTURE HERE AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH WITH THESE INCREASES IN IMPACT FEES IS WE'VE SEEN CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS THROUGH JUST INFLATION ALONE RAISE 60-80%.
TRYING TO COVER THAT GAP ULTIMATELY THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO BE INCURRING.
I'M GOING TO PASS IT BACK TO JOHN.
>> THANKS BRANDON. THE CIAC RECOMMENDATION, AS HAS BEEN STATED, HAS BEEN TO FOLLOW WHAT PREVIOUS COUNSEL HAD SET AT 50%, SO 50% OF THE MAX FEE THAT WE'VE JUST LOOKED AT.
SERVICE AREAS A G AND H WOULD BE SET AT NO COST ZONE FOR IMPACTS, JUST LIKE THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL.
THEN CIAC MADE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON POLICIES.
THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US IMPLEMENT A MORE FORMAL ON-BOARDING POLICY FOR THE CIAC BECAUSE THIS IS A COMMITTEE THAT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, JUST LOOKING AT THIS FIRST BRUSH AT THIS REPORT, IT'S COMPLICATED.
WE NEED TO DO SOME MORE EDUCATION WITH OUR CIAC MEMBERS WHEN WE BRING THEM ON SO THAT THEY AREN'T STRUGGLING TO KEEP UP RIGHT WHEN WE FIRST BRING THEM ON.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEN FINALLY, THEY HAD RECOMMENDED FOR COUNCIL TO USE IMPACT FEES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TOWARDS OUR BOND ROW PROJECTS.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL.
FINALLY, WE'LL LOOK AT THE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE. WHAT'S UPCOMING? JULY 8TH. WE'RE LOOKING AT A PUBLIC HEARING TO ACTUALLY LOOK FOR COUNCIL TO ACTUALLY CONSIDER ADOPTING OUR REPORT FOR THE LUA OR THE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, AND THE ROADWAY CAPACITY PLAN IS AN ACTION ITEM.
THEY'LL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT DATE, AND THEN JULY 22ND WOULD BE A SECOND PUBLIC HEARING FOR POTENTIALLY ADOPTING ANY CHANGE TO THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES, SHOULD ALL WANT TO CHANGE THE CURRENT FEE.
THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST READING AND THEN FINALLY, AUGUST 12TH WOULD BE OUR SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCE.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNSEL? I'VE GOT, MR. HARRIS, START WITH YOU.
>> I WAS JUST WONDERING IF COUNCILWOMAN PATTERSON,
[00:20:03]
LIKE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ON THIS MATTER.I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF US I WASN'T HERE WHEN WE STARTED THIS PROCESS.
IT'S QUITE A RAMP UP FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WENT THROUGH IN 15 OR 20 SLIDES.
BUT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I HAD.
NUMBER 1, IS, IS THE METHODOLOGY FIXED WHEN WE LOOK AT A COFFEE SHOP, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAS THE SAME FEE COST STRUCTURE BASED UPON AS A 05,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, THAT'S FIXED.
>> BECAUSE I THINK IT'S WAY MORE BURDENSOME, IF I WANTED TO BE IN A COFFEE SHOP BUSINESS, THAN IT WOULD BE FOR ME TO BUILD AN OFFICE COMPLEX.
THEREFORE, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT WHAT BUSINESSES TRY TO ENGAGE IN BUSINESS HERE IN LAB?
>> I GUESS I'M I'M NOT COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION, COUNSEL MARK COLLINS.
I GUESS SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT IT'S MORE BURDENSOME FOR THE COFFEE SHOP THAN THAT.
>> WELL, THE NUMBER WAS ABOUT THE SAME.
THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING A COFFEE SHOP VERSUS THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH BUILDING AN OFFICE BUILDING WAS ABOUT THE SAME COST FROM AN IMPACT PIECE STANDING.
>> IT'S ALL PURELY BASED ON THE TRAFFIC IMPACT OF THE COFFEE SHOP.
FOR INSTANCE, THE COFFEE SHOP IN THOSE SEATING HAD A VERY HIGH PASS BY RATE, SO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT THERE WAS VERY LOW AND SO THE FEE WAS LOW.
BUT IF THEY HAVE INDOOR SEATING, IT'S ASSUMED THAT THERE WILL BE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THE PROPONENTS THAT VISIT THAT BUSINESS THAT ARE ACTUALLY INTENDING THAT AS THEIR STOP.
DEFINITELY FOR AN OFFICE COMPLEX, THEY'RE ALL GOING THERE TO SPEND THEIR DAY THERE AT WORK, MOST LIKELY.
THERE'S NO PASS BY, AND I THINK THAT IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE.
I THINK IF WE LOOK AT THIS COFFEE SHOP, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAS NO SEATING, THEN WE'RE ASSUMING THAT'S A DESTINATION, AND THEIR ONLY BUSINESS IS GOING TO BE DRIVING SPECIFICALLY TO THAT DESTINATION, WHEREAS, MAYBE THEY HAVE MORE, MAYBE THEY HAVE LESS, BUT I GUESS MY REAL QUESTION IS, IS THAT IS A PREDETERMINED FACTOR THAT YOU DON'T VARY FROM?
>> WE UTILIZE THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS TRIP GENERATION INFORMATION, SO YOU TAKE YOUR TRIP RATE DURING A PM PEAK HOUR.
THEN ULTIMATELY, THE RETAIL USES HAVE DIFFERENT PASS BY RATES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
OFFICE DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING.
THE 98% FOR THE NO INDOOR SEATING IS MUCH HIGHER THAN I BELIEVE IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 70 OR SO PERCENT FOR A TYPICAL COFFEE SHOP ULTIMATELY.
WE TAKE THE TYPICAL COFFEE SHOP HAS A DIFFERENT PM PEAK HOUR RATE THAN THE INDOOR COFFEE SHOP.
ALL THESE LAND USES IN THAT REPORT, IT'S CALLED THE LOVE MET, THE USE VEHICLE EQUIVALENCY TABLE.
WE HAVE PROBABLY, I'M GOING TO SAY 70 OR SO LAND USES ULTIMATELY THAT WE'RE CALCULATING THAT TRANSPORTATION DEMAND FACTOR.
ALL OF YOUR LAND USES ARE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT TRANSPORTATION OF MANUFACTOR.
WHEN IT'S A RESIDENTIAL USE, YOU TAKE YOUR NUMBER OF UNITS TIMES YOUR TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTOR TIMES YOUR NUMBER OF UNITS, DWELLING UNITS.
WHEN IT'S A RETAIL USE OR OFFICE OR SERVICE, INDUSTRIAL, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, SAME TRANSPORTATION OF MANUFACTOR TIMES YOUR CALCULATED FEE, TIMES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DIVIDED BY 1,000.
IT'S ALL BASED OFF OF THE ACTUAL RATE PASS BY INFORMATION AND THINGS OF THAT SORT FOR THEN USE ULTIMATELY.
>> I GUESS, REALLY THE CRUX OF THE QUESTION IS THERE'S A TABLE YOU FOLLOW AND YOU DON'T VARY FROM THE TABLE.
>> IT'S PROVIDED BY THE STATE OR BY OTHER.
>> YES. IT'S THE TABLE, AGAIN, YOUR RATE MIGHT PASS BY, GET TO A ORIGIN DESTINATION FACTOR.
YOU DON'T WANT TO CHARGE FOR THE IN AND OUT.
IT'S 50% FOR THAT AND SO YOU ULTIMATELY GET A TRANSPORTATION DEMAND FACTOR FOR ALL OF THESE LAND USES IN THAT TABLE ITSELF.
>> SORRY, NOT TO GET TOO MUCH ON THE WEEDS, BUT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PROPONENT TO SUBMIT A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF THEIR BUSINESS.
IF THEY HAVE GOOD DATA, THEY CAN PROVIDE THAT TO US IF THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT OUR DATA IS APPROPRIATE.
>> LET ME JUST JUMP IN REAL QUICK BEFORE WE GO TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION TO FOLLOW UP.
I YOUR QUESTION. WHERE DOES THE DATA COME FROM?
>> THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS.
THEY HAVE A TRIP GENERATION MANUAL.
THEY DO NATIONWIDE STUDIES FOR ALL OF THESE LAND USES THAT WE INCLUDE IN THAT LOVE MEET.
>> ANY CITY IN TEXAS THAT DOES USES THAT SAME FROM.
>> ALL TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS WOULD USE THAT FOR THE PASS.
>> YES. THAT'S ONE. THANK YOU.
I THINK ON SLIDE NUMBER 10, WE SHOWED 6,711 DWELLING UNITS IN OUR AREA A AS THAT'S CORRECT.
IS THAT 6,711, ARE THOSE THE EXISTING HOMES TODAY OR IS THAT.
>> THAT'S FOR THE TEN YEAR PLANING WIND.
>> THAT'S FOR THE TEN YEAR PLAN. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE
[00:25:01]
THE TEN YEAR NUMBER AND USE IT TO CALCULATE THE COSTS ASSOCIATED FOR TODAY?>> YES. WE TAKE OUR CALCULATION OF THE RECOVERABLE COST IN EACH OF THESE SERVICE AREAS AND YOU DIVIDE IT BY THE VEHICLE MILES OF DEMAND WITHIN EACH OF THE SERVICE AREAS OVER A TEN YEAR PLANNING WINDOW.
AGAIN, THAT 10-YEAR WINDOW IS CHAPTER 395 REQUIREMENT.
WE'RE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT THE 10-YEAR PLANNING WINDOW.
>> YOU HAVE TO PROJECT THAT AND WE'RE USING THIS 2.2% GROWTH FACTOR TO GET THERE.
CORRECT. ASSUMINGLY, WE'VE GOT, 04,000 HOUSES TODAY, 2.2/10 YEARS. WE'RE GOING TO GET TO 67.
>> WE LOOK MORE CITY WIDE AND THEN BACKED INTO IT, BUT THAT IS CORRECT, YES.
>> THESE WILL BE RUDIMENTARY QUESTIONS, BUT CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE COFFEE SHOP SLIDE? JUST JUST SO I UNDERSTAND.
ON THE LEFT, JUST STRICTLY ROADWAY IMPACT FEE.
THE BLUE IS WHAT? IF I WAS GOING TO BUILD A 2000 FOOT SQUARE FOOT COFFEE SHOP IN, WHAT DISTRICT IS THIS IN OR SECTION? SORRY, F. IF I WAS GOING TO BUILD A COFFEE SHOP IN F TODAY, THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD THE 28,000, CORRECT?
>> THEN THE YELLOW IS WHAT CIAC IS RECOMMENDING?
>> THEN THE GREEN WOULD BE THE STATE MAXIMUM?
>> CORRECT. IF I HEARD YOU RIGHT, NONE OF THESE ARE CALCULATED THE SAME.
>> THE RATE IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHAT'S NEEDED FOR ROADWAYS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> YOU DO HAVE SOME USES, TOO, SO IT CAN BE OFF DRIVE THROUGH LANES.
OTHER USES THAT AREN'T TYPICAL FOR 100 SQUARE FEET, WE CAN CHANGE THAT UNIT ULTIMATELY PER WHATEVER ITE RECOMMENDS THERE.
LOOKING AT THAT SAME SLIDE, THE CURRENT 28,441 AND THE YELLOW FOR THE RECOMMENDED.
THEY'RE BOTH AT THE 50% I MEAN, AT THE 25%, 50% OF THE ALLOWABLE RATE, WHICH IS 25%.
WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT AND THE FUTURE IS BECAUSE OF NO CHANGE IN THE METHODOLOGY OR THIS DATA THAT YOU USE.
THAT'S STAYED CONSISTENT, THEY HAVEN'T REWRITTEN IT TO.
NO, NO CHANGE THERE. WE MAY HAVE A COUPLE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.
OUR LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS MIGHT HAVE SHIFTED A LITTLE BIT BASED ON PLAT DATA AND THINGS OF THAT SORT THAT WE HAVE NOW VERSUS WHAT WE HAD BACK IN THE 2022 STUDY.
>> JUST AS SUCCINCTLY AS POSSIBLE, WHAT ACCOUNTS, EVEN THOUGH THE RATE IS STAYING THE SAME, WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE ALMOST WELL, NOT DOUBLE, BUT 40% INCREASE OR WHATEVER IT WOULD BE?
>> MAYOR, MINUS THE ANNEXATIONS AS HE JUST POINTED OUT, IT'S GOING TO BE PRIMARILY INFLATION OF COSTS ON THE PROJECTS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I INFLATION OF COSTS.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. MARTINEZ.
>> ONE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE WAY THAT THE IMPACT FEES WORK, WHEN ARE THE IMPACT FEES PAID?
>> THEY ARE ASSESSED AT THE TIME OF PLAT, THEY ARE COLLECTED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT.
ABOUT THE TIME WHEN THE TENANT, THE OWNER WOULD BE ACTUALLY TAKING AND AND OCCUPYING THE BUILDING? AS BEFORE THEY CAN ACTUALLY BUILD THEIR BUILDING.
WHEN THEY ACTUALLY GET APPROVED TO GET THEIR BUILDING PERMIT, THEY HAVE TO PAY IT AT THAT POINT.
>> ONE THING THAT STANDS OUT TO ME IS THE DIFFERENCE AND IMPACT BETWEEN KIND OF THE COST CONTRIBUTION TO THE END USERS AT THESE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.
I UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND IT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE INCREASING THE COST OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME FROM ANYWHERE FROM HALF A PERCENT TO 1.5% OF PROBABLY, THE FINAL PURCHASE PRICE.
ON A 60-75,000 SQUARE FOOT GROCERY STORE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT COST WOULD BE PROBABLY SOMEWHERE FROM 800,000 TO MILLION OR MORE, AND THAT COULD BE A, OR MAYBE BALLPARK 10% INCREASE IN THEIR CONSTRUCTION COST.
THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE LOOKING AT THIS.
>> JUST THE RISK AND THE NEGATIVE IMPACT, IT'S CONFUSING TO USE THE WORD IMPACT, THE NEGATIVE EFFECT OF IMPACT FEES ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE THE LONG TERM BENEFIT TO THE CITY, IT COMES FROM THE GROWTH ITSELF, BUT THEN THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL FUND OVER TIME FROM PROPERTY TAX AND THE SALES TAX IS GOING TO BE, I THINK, SO MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT WE COLLECT ON THE FRONT END.
THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE LOOKING AT IT FROM THIS.
THE OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE THESE RECOMMENDED FEES WOULD PUT US IN COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES ACROSS THE STATE.
[00:30:05]
OUR MAX FEE WOULD BE PUTTING US AT THE TOP OF THE CHARTS ACROSS THE COMPARISONS THAT WE HAVE AND EVEN THE 50% COLLECTION RATE, WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE PRETTY AGGRESSIVE IN COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT LUBBOCK IS A COMPETITIVE, DESIRABLE PLACE FOR PEOPLE TO COME AND LIVE, BUY A HOME, START A BUSINESS, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.>> ON DAVID'S POINT, LIKE A LET'S SAY A STANDARD MARKET STREET UNITED MARKET STREET HERE.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD THAT YOU WOULD KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE UNDER CURRENT AND RECOMMENDED?
>> LIKE A STANDARD SIZE UNITED GROCERY STORE HERE, WHAT WOULD THAT FEE BE?
>> HONESTLY, I DON'T. I THINK IT'D BE CLOSER TO SOMEWHERE IN THE RETAIL 15,000 OR SO SQUARE FEET, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MUCH HIGHER SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE GROCER ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD, UNFORTUNATELY.
>> WE CAN COME BACK WITH THAT INFORMATION THOUGH FOR OUR NEXT READING.
>> THANK YOU AGAIN, MAYOR. I THINK YOU SAID THIS, AND I'M REITERATING IT TO FOR MY OWN CLARITY.
THE ASSESSMENT IS DONE AT THE TIME OF PLATTING.
WHEN A PLAT IS FILED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY, IT'S DETERMINED WHAT THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION IS GOING TO PAY.
>> YES, SIR. BUT THERE'S NO COLLECTION AT THAT POINT? THAT IS CORRECT. YES, SIR.
IT LETS THE DEVELOPER KNOW WHAT THE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE WOULD BE AND THEN IT'S NOT ACTUALLY COLLECTED UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY GET THE BUILDING PERMIT.
>> IF IT'S DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PLATTING, IT DOESN'T CHANGE, IF IT'S FIVE YEARS LATER, SEVEN YEARS LATER, SEVEN DAYS LATER, THE DETERMINATION IS SET, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES. IT'S BASED ON PLATE WILL HOLD. YES.
>> THAT DOESN'T. IF SOMEONE HAS A PLAT TODAY AND THEY HAD A DETERMINATION AND WE MAKE THESE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED OR WHATEVER, THEN THEIR PLAT NUMBER REMAINS THE SAME.
>> AS TIED TO THAT TIME FRAME, THOSE WERE AS.
THAT ORIGINAL ORIGINAL TIME FRAME.
IF I'VE GOT A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 250 LOTS IN IT, IT'S BEEN ASSESSED AS THAT BUILDING PROCESS GOES THROUGH, IMPACT FEE DOESN'T CHANGE.
>> THE MAXIMUM IMPACT FEE CANNOT CHANGE.
THAT'S WHEN YOU GET IT ASSESSED, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE IMPACT TOWARDS THE PLAN.
>> IF THE COUNCIL DETERMINES WHATEVER COLLECTION RATE THEY'RE GOING TO UTILIZE, BUT THE MAX IS STILL THERE.
UNLESS WE CHANGE FROM OUR COLLECTION RATE PERCENTAGE, IT DOESN'T CHANGE.
WOULD IT EVEN CHANGE, CAN WE EVEN CHANGE THE COLLECTION RATE PERCENTAGE IN REVERSE TO THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY DETERMINED?
>> THEY'RE TIED UP AT THE PLAT.
>> ANYTHING THAT'S PLATTED TODAY IS DONE.
>> THEN IT GET REASSESSED AT THAT POINT.
>> THERE'S ONE POINT. SECOND POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE HERE IN REGARD TO THAT THEN IS TYPICALLY WHEN A DEVELOPER DOES A PLAT AND STARTS TO PUT A PROJECT TOGETHER, HE'S PUTTING THAT PROJECT TOGETHER FOR A USER, WHETHER IT BE A HOMEOWNER OR A TENANT, WELL, AND MAYBE NOT EVEN TENANT, OWNER OCCUPIED.
MAYBE WHY I'M GOING TO DO A CUSTOM BUILD OFFICE BUILDING FOR A NEW OWNER.
ESSENTIALLY THE PAYER OF THAT FEE IS THE USER.
>> NOT NECESSARILY THE DEVELOPER.
HE'S NOT ASKED TO COLLECT THAT PLATTING, AND SO WHEN HE GETS A PERMIT, AND HE'S SOLD THIS PROJECT, SOLD THAT HOUSE, THEN IT'S BUILT INTO HIS COST, AND IT'S THE USER THAT'S ESSENTIALLY PAYING FOR THAT.
>> YES, SIR. THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE THAT THEY WOULD DO AS [INAUDIBLE]
>> OWNER OCCUPIED IS GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
BUILD TO LEASE MIGHT LOOK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
BUT OTHERWISE, TYPICALLY, A BUILDER IS GOING TO COLLECT THAT FEE FROM THE OWNER USER IN THE BUILD.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAD, TILL I CAN THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE.
>> ARE YOU COMPARING LUBBOCK TO OTHER CITIES? WE HAVE THESE OTHER CITIES ON HERE.
DO THEY ALL COLLECT AT THE SAME RATE WE COLLECT THAT?
>> NO. IT'LL VARY CITY TO CITY.
>> ARE THERE ANY CITIES OUT THERE THAT COLLECT THAT THE FULL 50%?
>> I'M ASSUMING FROM THIS, AMARILLO DOES NOT COLLECT ANY OF THE AVAILABLE FEES AT ALL.
>> THEY DON'T HAVE ROADWAY AND PAY FEES.
[00:35:01]
DO YOU KNOW WHAT MIDLAND DOES?>> I THINK IT'S SOMEWHERE AROUND 50%, BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
WHAT WE HAVE HERE, YOUR GREEN IS YOUR MAX.
>> THAT'S IF WE COLLECTED THE FULL 50%.
>> ALL OF THESE FOR THE LIGHT BLUE ARE WHAT THEY ARE COLLECTING.
>> THE GREEN FOR US IS IF WE COLLECTED ALL AVAILABLE FEES AT THE FULL 50% RATE WHICH WE'RE NOT LIKELY TO DO, EVER.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE CHART.
>> WHEREAS NEW BRAUNFELS IS LIKELY TO BE DOING THAT FULL 100%.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING THEM BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THEN OTHER CITIES AGAIN HAVE WATER, WASTEWATER AS WELL TO COMBINE WITH ALL OF THIS.
>> AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT THE TWO CHARTS HERE, SO THE ONE ON THE RIGHT, THE YELLOW THERE, IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT.
BUT IT SAYS ROADWAY IMPACT FEE PLUS WATER PLUS WASTEWATER.
THAT'S STILL JUST ASSUMING WE'RE STILL GOING TO ONLY COLLECT THE ONE RATE, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK THAT'S NOT THE GREATEST EXAMPLE THERE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
I WOULD BE SOMEWHERE MORE IN THIS RANGE FOR HOW WE'RE COMPARING THESE ULTIMATELY.
>> JUST THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL SAY IS MY PET PEEVE IS WHEN YOU DO THESE THINGS AND YOU USE A ACRONYM, USE ABBREVIATIONS, THE FIRST TIME YOU USE IT, SAY WHAT IT IS [LAUGHTER] BEFORE YOU USE IT AGAIN, PLEASE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WHEN I AM NO LONGER MAYOR, I HOPE I LEAVE THAT LEGACY BEHIND ME.
THAT'S ONE OF MY LEGACIES I HOPE I LEAVE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> NOW I'LL CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER, MR. ATKINSON,
[2. Sales Tax and Budget Update]
TO TALK ABOUT SALES TAX AND BUDGET UPDATES.>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH THE INPUTS HERE REAL QUICKLY.
EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE THIS UP ON THE SCREEN.
I'M GOING TO ATTEMPT TO MAKE THIS THE NON ACRONYM PRESENTATION, SO PLEASE HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE, MAYOR. WE'LL WORK ON THIS.
COUNCIL, THIS IS A FOLLOW UP TO THE PRESENTATION WE HAD A LITTLE WHILE AGO.
AS YOU'LL RECALL, WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS THE TREND ON OUR SALES TAX COLLECTIONS, AND WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO TO BALANCE THIS CURRENT YEAR'S BUDGET.
AS YOU KNOW, WE GET A SALES TAX REPORT FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS.
IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE THE FIRST WEDNESDAY OF THE FIRST FULL WEEK OF EACH MONTH, BUT THEN IT IS ACTUALLY TWO MONTHS BEHIND.
WE'VE HAD TWO MORE OF THOSE SINCE WE HAD THAT PRESENTATION.
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE IN THIS REPORT, AND THEN AT THE END, I'M GOING TO GO A LITTLE BIT INTO WHAT I SEE THIS DOING AS WE START INTO THE NEXT YEAR.
FULL CAVEAT. IT IS ALL SUBJECT TO CHANGE, AND THE NEXT SALES TAX REPORT THAT WE WILL GET IS JULY 9TH.
IT'S ONE DAY AFTER OUR FIRST COUNCIL MEETING.
WITH THAT, LET'S LOOK AT NUMBERS, THE CHANGE IN THIS VERSUS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW IT AS WE FILLED IN ANOTHER MONTH ON THERE.
SALES TAX BUDGET, AND REMEMBER, SALES TAX GOES EXCLUSIVELY TO THE GENERAL FUND.
SALES TAX IS THE LARGEST FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE GENERAL FUND.
WE BUDGETED SALES TAX COLLECTIONS IN THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR TO BE $105.6 MILLION.
THAT'S THE NUMBER JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE CENTER DOWN AT THE BOTTOM.
IF YOU MOVE TO THE RIGHT, YOU WILL SEE WHAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY COLLECTED, SO THAT'S THE COLUMN WITH THE BLACK NUMBERS THAT DOESN'T EXTEND ALL THE WAY DOWN, AND THEN THE COLUMN NEXT TO IT IS HOW OUR MODEL STARTS TO FORECAST FROM WHAT WE'RE SEEING.
BLUE NUMBER ON THE BOTTOM LINE, THAT IS THE PREDICTED SALES TAX COLLECTION THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THIS YEAR.
ON A BUDGET OF 105.6, WE HAVE A FORECAST OF 100.8 MILLION, 100 MILLION 800,000.
IT'S A SHORTFALL OF ABOUT $4.8 MILLION, OR IF YOU LOOK AT IT IN PERCENTAGE POINTS, IT'S A -4.6% COLLECTION.
TO ILLUSTRATE THE SCALE, AND I KNOW THE COUNCIL IS WELL AWARE OF THIS, BUT FOR FOLKS THAT ARE LISTENING.
SALES TAX IS THE LARGEST SOURCE, BUDGETED AT 105.6.
YOUR SECOND LARGEST SOURCE IS PROPERTY TAX, AND IT'S THE MNO, OR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION PORTION.
[00:40:03]
THAT BUDGET IS 89.3 FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.PROPERTY TAX SOMETIMES CAN BE ANALOGIZED TO THE WAY THAT, SAY, A WATER RATE WORKS, WHERE YOU HAVE A BASE RATE, AND YOU HAVE A CONSUMPTIVE RATE.
YOUR BASE RATE IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS SET TO BE, AND THAT'S WHAT IT'LL BE.
THAT'S HOW OUR PROPERTY TAX WORKS.
SALES TAX IS EXACTLY CONSUMPTION, SO IT MOVES AROUND.
IT'S JUST BEEN EXTENDED OUT TO ACCUMULATE THE LATEST DATA.
STATE-WIDE, IT'S STILL A LITTLE BIT WEIRD.
WE HAVE TWO MUNICIPALITIES IN THE TOP 20, AND THE WAY THE STATE DOES THE TOP 20 AS IT RELATES TO ITS SALES TAX COLLECTIONS, NOT TOP 20 POPULATION, WE HAVE TWO CITIES WITH DOUBLE DIGIT YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASES.
THE BULK OF US ARE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THAT ZERO TO 2 OR 3% COMPARED TO PRIOR YEAR.
THERE'S TWO ON THAT REPORT THAT ARE ACTUALLY UNDER THE ZERO LINES, SO THEY HAVE COLLECTED LESS THAN THEY COLLECTED IN THE PRIOR YEAR.
BUT JUST PUT THIS UP HERE TO ILLUSTRATE IT'S STILL NOT ACTING IN A TYPICAL FASHION.
WHAT DO WE REALLY KNOW ABOUT THIS? AGAIN, CURRENT YEAR'S BUDGET WAS A 6.6% INCREASE OVER THE PRIOR YEARS ACTUAL.
AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE FIRST SEVEN MONTHS, OUR COLLECTIONS ARE UNDER, AGAIN, 4.5%.
WE LOOK LIKE WE'RE GOING TO END UP AT ABOUT 4.6 OR 4.8 MILLION BELOW.
THE STATE ALWAYS REPORTS ON WHAT THEIR COLLECTIONS LOOK LIKE, AND REMEMBER, WE PAY 8.25%, 6.25% OF THAT IS WHAT'S KEPT BY THE STATE.
UPWARD TREND FOR THE STATE MOTOR FUEL TAXES.
THE CITY DOES NOT GET MOTOR FUEL TAXES.
MOTOR VEHICLE RENTAL TAXES ARE UP FOR THE STATE.
NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION UP QUITE SIGNIFICANTLY, AND THAT'S NOT A SOURCE THAT COMES BACK TO ANY OF THE MUNICIPALITIES.
OIL PRODUCTION THOUGH IS DOWN BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE.
SCALES ARE DIFFERENT, BUT PERCENTAGE-WISE, IT'S AN OFFSET. THEN HOT TAX.
WE DO GET, OF COURSE, HOT TAX.
IF I LOOK AT THE LODGING REPORTS THAT WE GET, WE'RE 1-2% DOWN YEAR-OVER-YEAR IN ALL THE LODGING TAX.
WHILE THINGS ARE NOT LOGICAL IN HOW THEY'RE CURVING OUT, OR HOW THEY'RE SHOWING UP ON THE GRAPHS, THEY'RE AT LEAST BEING CONSISTENT.
OUR INITIAL RESPONSE TO THIS WAS TO FREEZE ALL OPEN POSITIONS, EXCLUDING PUBLIC SAFETY AND ASSOCIATED SAVINGS. WE DID THAT.
I'VE MADE VERY FEW EXCEPTIONS, AND THOSE HAVE BEEN FOR CRITICAL JOBS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO FILL.
WE SHOWED YOU A NUMBER WHEN WE WERE HERE PRIOR ON THE ESTIMATED HEALTH INSURANCE SAVINGS.
THE NUMBER I GAVE YOU WAS A LITTLE BIT UNDERSTATED, SO WE BROUGHT THAT BACK UP.
WE TALKED THEN ABOUT NOT NEEDING TO SPEND THE ELECTION COST MONEY.
WE BUDGET AN ELECTION EXPENSE EACH YEAR, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, IF COUNCIL DOESN'T CALL AN ELECTION IN THAT FISCAL YEAR, WE DON'T NEED THE DOLLARS, SO THAT'S COMING BACK.
THAT ONE WOULD HAVE COME BACK REGARDLESS.
WHAT I'M CALLING THE STEP 2 RESPONSES, AND THESE ARE REALLY SAVINGS.
THESE ARE DOLLARS WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO SPEND.
SOME OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD BETTER PRICING FOR THIS YEAR. WE REALLY HAVE.
TRAINING AND TRAVEL WILL BE FROZEN, OTHER THAN THOSE THINGS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL.
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE TO HAVE CERTAIN HOURS, FOR CERTAIN LICENSES, AND SO FORTH, AND THAT WILL GO ON.
BUT BEYOND THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE PULLED DOWN VERY TIGHT.
WE HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST, IT'S NOT ON THIS PAGE, OF DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT AND MATERIALS, THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO HOLD BACK ON PURCHASING.
I'VE PROVIDED A LIST THERE OF SOME VARIOUS CASH FUNDED CIPS, OR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
A COMMENT AS IT RELATES TO THE CAPITAL PROJECTS.
IF WE HAVE A FAVORABLE REVERSAL, IF THINGS GO BACK UP, WE WILL, ONE AT A TIME, START RESTORING THOSE CAPITAL PROJECTS.
THEY'VE PASSED MUSTER THROUGH A BUDGET, THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL.
THEY'RE NEEDED PROJECTS, BUT THEY CAN BE DEFERRED, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT DOING HERE, AND YOU CAN SEE THE LIST THAT GOES DOWN WITH THOSE.
BUT MY COMMITMENT TO Y'ALL IS THOSE DOLLARS WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR SEPARATE,
[00:45:02]
AND IF THINGS PUSH US BACK UP ABOVE THE LINE, WE WILL RESTORE THESE PROJECTS.IF NOT, THEN THEY'LL HAVE TO START FIGHTING IN THE BUDGET PROCESS EACH YEAR, JUST AS ALL OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS DO, AND WE'LL TRY TO PUT THEM BACK IN THERE.
I'M GOING TO FLIP OVER AND SHOW WHAT I THINK THIS DOES FOR THE NEXT YEAR TOO, BUT I'M GOING TO STOP ON THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS, SEE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
REMEMBER, ALL GENERAL FUND ONLY, FOR WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> MR. ATKINSON, GOING BACK TO YOUR SLIDE, I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER IT'S AT PAGE 2. THIS ONE RIGHT HERE.
YES. THE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE MAY, JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, WHERE DID YOU GET THOSE ASSUMPTIONS FROM? WHAT FACTOR DID YOU USE TO REDUCE FROM YOUR BUDGET TO GET TO THOSE? I COULD DO THE MATH I GUESS, BUT [NOISE] IS THERE A STANDARD? LIKE LAST MONTH, WE WERE ONLY OFF UNDER 1%.
IF WE CONTINUED THAT FORWARD, JUST 1%, WOULD THAT NUMBER BE DIFFERENT?
>> YEAH, IF THE MODEL WAS A FLAT LINE MODEL, YES EXACTLY, IT WOULD DO THAT.
WE KNOW HISTORICALLY THAT THIS MODEL RUNS BACKWARDS FOR MANY YEARS, AND WE DREW IT UP AT THE END OF EACH YEAR.
THERE ARE INHERENTLY MONTHS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THAT YOUR SALES TAX COLLECTION IS GREATER, SO THE MODEL WEIGHTS THAT ONE HEAVIER THAN IT DOES TO WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE A SHORT MONTH.
NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, GOOD SALES TAX MONTHS, PRETTY HISTORICAL.
BECAUSE OF ONLINE, IT SEEMS LIKE THE BIG CHRISTMAS BUMP IS STARTING TO SHIFT INTO NOVEMBER IN MANY YEARS, BUT IT WORKS LIKE THAT.
WE HAVE IT JUST WEIGHTED ON THE HISTORICAL AVERAGES OF HOW OUR TOTAL SALES TAX GETS COLLECTED.
>> THOSE FIGURES, LET'S TAKE MAY, EIGHT MILLION 134,946.
YOU TOOK THAT NUMBER OUT OF THE TOTAL YOU ANTICIPATED GETTING, AND WEIGHTED IT ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU TRADITIONALLY GET, OR HISTORICALLY GET, IN THE MONTH OF MAY, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> ON THE FORECAST SIDE OF IT. YES, SIR.
>> WHAT FACTOR DID YOU USE, AND WHAT CRITERIA DID YOU USE TO REDUCE THAT TO THE SEVEN MILLION 978,900 THAT'S A FORECAST AMOUNT.
HOW DID YOU ARRIVE AT THAT FOR YOUR FORECAST AMOUNT?
>> I DON'T HAVE THE WEIGHT THAT'S IN THE MODEL.
IT'S A WEIGHTED AVERAGE PER EACH MONTH OF EACH YEAR COMPARED TO THE TOTAL.
>> WHAT MY QUESTION WAS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THIS, IF THE FOLLOWING MONTHS ONLY UNDER-PERFORMED OUR BUDGETED FORECAST OF EIGHT MILLION, 10 MILLION, EIGHT MILLION, EIGHT MILLION, 10 MILLION BY 1% AS MAY DID, WHERE WOULD WE END UP? THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
WOULD WE BE FIVE MILLION DOWN, OR WOULD WE BE THREE MILLION DOWN?
>> YOU WOULD BE LESS THAN FIVE.
>> I'M JUST HOPING MAY IS MORE OF AN INDICATOR OF WHAT THE REST OF THE YEAR IS GOING TO BE LIKE THAN SOME OF THOSE OTHER MONTHS, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>> WE ARE AS WELL. PLEASE UNDERSTAND, WE'VE HAD DOUBLE DIGIT DOWN MONTHS THAT CARRY OUT THROUGH THIS TRACK RECORD.
YOU GO BACK AND YOU LOOK TO THE FIRST ONE, RECEIVED THE OCTOBER, WHICH IS COLLECTED IN DECEMBER, BUT YOU LOOK AT THE OCTOBER ONE.
AT 0.7%, THAT DOESN'T REALLY GET US TO MOVING.
BUT WHEN THE MONTH BEHIND IT, WHICH WOULD GENERALLY BE WHEN SALES TAX TRUES UP, YOU MAY HAVE HAD SOMEBODY THAT WOULD SLOW PAY FOR A MONTH.
CERTAIN RETAILERS PAY ON QUARTERS.
THAT'S WHERE YOU GET INTO THAT WEIGHTED AVERAGE OVER HISTORY.
BUT WE WENT FROM A MONTH AT THE START OF THE YEAR THAT DIDN'T REALLY CAUSE A LOT OF ATTENTION, TO ONE THAT WAS ALMOST DOUBLE DIGIT DOWN.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE NOVEMBER MONEY.
WE CAN GET IT TO WHERE YOU CAN SEE WHAT ALL IS BEHIND THIS.
WE ALSO RUN FORECASTS ON DIFFERENT LEVELS, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT.
>> CAN IT GET BETTER THAN THIS? YES, IT CAN.
>> BUT THIS IS A TREND THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND FROM SOMETHING I READ THE OTHER DAY, IT'S A TREND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE UNITED STATES, AS I'VE SEEN IT.
>> IT IS, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL LOW HANGING FRUITS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.
IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE, I THINK YOU WILL SEE THESE THINGS CHANGE AND CHANGE RAPIDLY.
THE GOOD THING OF SALES TAX IS IT RESPONDS QUICKLY IN THE UPWARD DIRECTION.
[00:50:04]
THE BAD THING IS IT WILL DO THE SAME GOING ON THE DOWNWARD DIRECTION.>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YOU CAN PROCEED IF YOU GOT MORE.
>> JUST NOT GOING TO GET INTO A LOT OF DETAIL FOR NEXT YEAR, BUT I DO WANT TO START TO SET THE STAGE ON THAT USING THE SHEET WE JUST LEFT, SHEET 2.
ALL THOSE FORECASTS AT THE MOMENT, THE NUMBER THAT WE'LL START NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET AT IS 103.5 MILLION.
REMEMBER, WE'RE 105.6 THIS YEAR, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE SH OR PREDICTED TO BE SH.
WE'VE ADJUSTED FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
YOU SEE THOSE PERCENTAGE CHANGES IN UNDERNEATH IT.
THE LAST ONE IS THE OPERATIVE ONE.
IF THIS YEAR HOLDS THE WAY WE LOOK RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO PREDICT SALES TAX WOULD ONLY INCREASE BY ABOUT 2.7% FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.
I'M STARTING WITH A LITTLE BIT WHOLE RIGHT THERE.
PROPERTY VALUES FOR THE BUDGET PURPOSES ARE WHAT WE CALL PRELIMINARY VALUES, AND WE GET THOSE EARLY IN THE SPRING EACH YEAR.
LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT GOES THROUGH ITS PROCESS OF HEARING APPEALS, MAKING DIFFERENT ADJUDICATIONS AND FINDINGS, TRUING UP, HAVE A LOT OF WORK THAT THEY DO, AND THEN WE GET WHAT'S CALLED A CERTIFIED VALUE, AND THAT IS GENERALLY PROVIDED TO US ON THE LAST FRIDAY OF JULY.
WE HAVE TO BUILD A BUDGET ON A PRELIMINARY, THEN WE GET IN A BIG HURRY TO ADJUST TO MATCH WHAT WE GET AS OUR CERTIFIED VALUES.
THE VALUATION CHANGE THAT YOU SEE YEAR OVER YEAR ON WHAT IS CALLED EXISTING PROPERTY.
MY HOUSE LAST YEAR WAS $100,000, BY STATE LAW IT CAN ONLY BE CHANGED BY 10%.
IF THEY MAX ME OUT, IT'S 110 FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
THAT CHANGE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE IMPACT ON OUR BUDGETS BECAUSE AS WE DO TAX RATES, WE ZERO THAT BACK OUT.
THAT'S THE TRUE DEFINITION OF A NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE.
I LOVE TO SEE THE VALUATION OF LUBBOCK GROW BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE INVESTED AND THEY'RE SEEING THE VALUE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS IN THEIR REAL PROPERTY.
IT DOESN'T DRIVE HOW WE DO THE BUDGETS.
NO NEW REVENUE IS GETTING THE SAME DOLLAR FROM THE SAME PROPERTY LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR, BASIC.
PLUS YOU GET THE VALUE OF WHAT IS CALLED NEW PROPERTY.
THAT'S THE FINAL LINE ON HERE, NEW PROPERTY.
NEW PROPERTY IS PROPERTY THAT CAME ONTO THE TAX ROLL, SO IT WAS A VACANT LOT AT DECEMBER LAST YEAR, AND BY WHATEVER FEBRUARY, MARCH, IT WAS A HOME.
IT WAS OCCUPIED. THE VALUE INCREASED.
THAT'S CONSIDERED NEW PROPERTY.
IT DIDN'T PAY TAX ON ITS IMPROVED VALUE FOR THAT ONE YEAR.
NEW PROPERTY, AND I CAN'T SAY THAT IT HAS NO IMPACT ON THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE BECAUSE THERE'S A BUNCH OF EXEMPTIONS AND THINGS BEHIND THE CALCULATION.
BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING, IF YOU LOOK AT A NO NEW REVENUE NUMBER LAST YEAR TO THIS YEAR, YOU'LL SEE THAT THE NEW ONE IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER.
THAT LITTLE BIT BIGGER IS STRICTLY THE VALUE OF THE NEW PROPERTY.
RIGHT NOW, MY PRELIMINARY NEW PROPERTY VALUES ARE LOWER THAN EXPECTED.
IN FACT, THEY'RE LOWER THAN THE LAST MANY YEARS.
OUR BEST ESTIMATE RIGHT NOW IS NEW PROPERTY WHEN WE ZERO ALL THE RATES BACK DOWN IS REALLY GOING TO COME IN AT ABOUT MAYBE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 2.4 AND 2.8 MILLION.
YOUR DECREASE IN SALES TAX AND YOUR NEW PROPERTY VALUES ARE GOING TO END UP BEING PRETTY CLOSE TO EACH OTHER YEAR YEAR.
WHAT WILL WE DO FROM HERE FORWARDS? FIRST, EVERYTHING THAT WAS ON THE SLIDES PRECEDING THIS ONE, WE WILL PUT IN PLACE. WE'LL DO THAT.
WE'LL PULL DOWN EXPENSE TO MATCH WHERE WE END UP WITH REVENUE.
AS WE START THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, AND AGAIN, GENERAL FUND ONLY.
AS WE START THAT BUDGET, WE'RE GOING TO START THAT BUDGET LITERALLY JUST AS FLAT AS IT CAN BE.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS I CANNOT CONTROL, AND THOSE ARE GENERALLY WHERE YOU HAVE A SUPPLY OR A CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT THAT HAS A YEAR OVER YEAR ESCALATOR.
I CAN'T ZERO THAT STUFF OUT, BUT I CAN ZERO ALMOST ALL THE REST OF IT.
THEN AS WE LOOK AT WHAT OUR OTHER REVENUES, OTHER SOURCES, AND OTHER DEMANDS ARE, WE'LL START IN ON THE BUDGET.
[00:55:01]
LET ME TALK JUST REAL BRIEFLY ABOUT OTHER SOURCES.COUNCIL, THIS IS IN THE MANAGEMENT REPORT THAT WE SEND ALL EVERY MONTH, SO YOU'RE ABLE TO DIG IN THERE AND SEE THESE SAME THINGS.
WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, ALL IN, MY REVENUES OTHER THAN SALES TAX, HAD A PRETTY GOOD POSITIVE TREND, JUST A FEW PERCENTAGE POINTS, BUT COLLECTIVELY, IT'S PRETTY GOOD.
SOME OF THOSE HAVE STARTED TO FLATTEN BACK OUT.
I'VE GOT SOME THAT ARE JUST UNDER THE LINE, SOME THAT ARE JUST ABOVE THE LINE.
IF I TAKE EVERYTHING ON THE OTHER SOURCES OUT EXCEPT FOR TAKE INTEREST OUT AND JUST GO BACK TO THE REGULAR SOURCES, WE'RE STILL GOING TO COME IN AT OR JUST SLIGHTLY OVER THE BUDGET FOR THOSE.
WHERE WE'RE SEEING A GOOD INCREASE IS IN OUR INTEREST INCOME.
IN THE GENERAL FUND, THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY BE IN THE $3 MILLION RANGE BY THE TIME WE GET TO THE END OF THE YEAR.
NOW SOME OF THAT DEPENDS ON WHEN BIG PAYMENTS HIT AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
BUT THAT'S ACTUALLY OUTPERFORMING.
SOME OF THAT MONEY NEEDS TO GO INTO THE DEBT SERVICE FUNDS AND IT'LL GET TRANSFERRED AT THE END OF THE YEAR.
BUT I THINK STILL WE'RE GOING TO BE ABOVE THE LINE FOR EVERYTHING OTHER THAN SALES TAX.
BUT UNTIL I KEEP GETTING MORE REPORTS THAT MAKE A TREND MUCH MORE SOLID AND LOGICAL, WE NEED TO MAKE THE SAVINGS THAT I PUT UP ON THE CHARTS FOR YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. ATKINSON.
>> THANK YOU. WISH IT HAVE BEEN BETTER NEWS.
>> I THINK THIS IS A SOBER REFLECTION WHAT YOU GOT UP HERE RIGHT AT THE MOMENT.
WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE NOW GOING INTO OUR REGULAR SESSION OR TAKE UP OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS. IS MINISTER TOM RASCH HERE? YEAH. LET'S TAKE A QUICK BREAK.
WE'LL BE BACK HERE IN 10 MINUTES.
[BACKGROUND] COUNCIL IS NOW RECONVENING, AND WE WILL TAKE UP OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS FIRST.
[1. Invocation]
I'M GOING TO CALL ON MINISTER TOM RASCH, WITH CHURCH OF THE BLESSED INTERNATIONAL, TO LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION, FOLLOWED BY OUR MAYOR PRO TEM, WHO WILL LEAD US IN OUR PLEDGES TO THE UNITED STATES AND THE TEXAS FLAGS.WILL YOU PLEASE STAND FOR THIS?
>> LET US PRAY. WELL, FATHER, WE ARE SO GRATEFUL TODAY WHILE THAT WE ARE EVEN BE ABLE TO GET UP, AND WE KNOW THAT IT SAYS IN THE BIBLE THAT JESUS CHRIST, ALL THINGS WERE CREATED BY HIM FOR HIM, AND HE HOLDS ALL THINGS TOGETHER.
THANK YOU, LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR HOLDING US TOGETHER AND GIVING US ONE MORE DAY TO SERVE YOU.
THEY HAVE MADE THE CHOICE TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY AND SERVE ONE ANOTHER.
LORD, I PRAY THAT YOU GIVE THEM WISDOM IN ALL THAT THEY DO.
I KNOW THAT THE DEVIL COMES TO STEAL KILL AND DESTROY.
BUT I ASK, OH LORD, THAT AS YOU ARE THE PROVIDER OF LIFE, THAT YOU WILL GIVE US ALL A UNITY OF PEACE, AND PATIENCE, AND KINDNESS, AND GOODNESS, AND GENTLENESS, AND FAITHFULNESS AND SELF CONTROL THAT IS LISTED AS THE FRUITS OF THE SPIRIT.
I ASK NOW, LORD, ALSO, THAT AS THESE GUYS AND GIRLS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, COME TOGETHER, THAT THEY WILL REALIZE THAT THE BIGGEST THING THAT IS NEEDED IS HUMILITY.
HUMBLENESS TO SERVE ONE ANOTHER.
CONSIDERING EACH ONE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN YOURSELF.
YEAH, I'M GLAD HE'S PART OF THE TEAM, TOO.
I ASK LORD AS THESE PEOPLE COME TOGETHER THAT THEY'LL LEAVE WITH A SMILE ON THEIR FACE TODAY IN JESUS NAME, AMEN.
>> IF YOU'LL NOW ALL JOIN US AND AS WE RECITE OUR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[2. Pledges of Allegiance]
[01:00:07]
ALLEGIANCE].>> BEFORE WE BEGIN OUR CITIZEN COMMENT, TIME, I WANT TO TAKE JUST A MOMENT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE TO RECOGNIZE A FEW PEOPLE HERE TODAY.
THIS WILL BE THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING WE HAVE BEFORE OUR CITY CELEBRATES ALONG WITH OUR NATION, OUR FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY, SUCH A MOMENTOUS EVENT IN THE LIFE OF OUR COUNTRY.
I JUST RETURNED FROM FRANCE FOR THE COMMEMORATION OF D DAY AND NORMAN D. IT WAS JUST AMAZING TO BE A PART OF THAT CELEBRATION.
NOW 81 YEARS LATER, THOSE PEOPLE IN THOSE CITIES ARE STILL SO GRATEFUL TO THE AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO HELPED LIBERATE THEM.
THEY STILL CELEBRATED AS IF THAT WAS YESTERDAY.
THEY ARE PROUD OF WHAT OUR NATION HAS DONE.
I THINK WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF THINGS IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY THAT MAKE US PROUD.
AS WE CELEBRATE AS A CITY, THIS WONDERFUL THINGS WE ALWAYS HAVE WITH A PARADE, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THREE PARTICULAR PEOPLE TODAY WHO HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENS.
AS MANY OF YOU KNOW, DON COLDWELL PASSED AWAY LAST YEAR AND HIS GROUP CARRIED THIS PARADE AND THE CEREMONY AND FESTIVAL FORWARD FOR MANY YEARS.
WITHOUT HIM, WE WERE WONDERING IF WE WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PULL THAT OFF, BUT BECAUSE OF THE HARD WORK OF THESE PEOPLE, WE ARE, SO I WANT TO RECOGNIZE, FIRST OF ALL, OUR MAYOR PRO TEM, CHRISTY MARTINEZ GARCIA, IN HER GROUP, LO SERMANO S FAMILIA, FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THE PARADE.
SHE'S DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB OF MAKING SURE EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE PARTICIPATING IN THAT.
OUR OWN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, BROOKE WITCHER.
BROOKE, WOULD YOU STAND? WHERE ARE YOU? I KNOW YOU'RE HERE SOMEWHERE. STAND UP, BROOKE.
BROOKE HAS JUST WORKED SO HARD ON THIS.
IT'S JUST BEEN AMAZING TO SEE EVERYTHING THAT SHE'S DONE TO PULL THIS TOGETHER.
THEN, CIVIC LUBBOCK, LISA THOMPSON, I THINK I SAW YOU HERE.
YES, STAND UP. THANK YOU, LISA.
THESE THREE PEOPLE HAVE WORKED SO HARD TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS CELEBRATION AND THIS FESTIVAL IS GOING TO COME OUT.
I WANT TO GIVE A REAL ROUND OF APPLAUSE AND APPRECIATION FOR THEM.
[4. 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 June 24, 2025. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ]
TO TAKE UP CITIZEN COMMENTS, ACCORDING TO THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL RULES.ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING ANY MATTER POSTED ON OUR AGENDA SHALL COMPLETE A SIGN UP FORM PROVIDED FOR THE MEETING, NO LATER THAN 2:00 PM ON THE DATE OF THE MEETING.
PLEASE REMEMBER AS YOU COME FORWARD TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.
PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT ITEM YOU ARE SPEAKING TO.
I WILL CALL OUT THAT ITEM AS YOU PUT IT ON YOUR SHEET FILLED IT OUT.
WARNING BELL WILL SOUND WHEN YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS LEFT TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS.
I'M NOW GOING TO CALL AND WELCOME HER TODAY, OUR FORMER COUNCIL PERSON, SHILA PATTERSON HARRIS, FORWARD.
SHE WANTS TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM 2.2.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEYS, CITY SECRETARY, ALL OF YOU GUYS.
SORRY, I M GOT CAUGHT WITH THAT.
KIND OF NERVOUS BEING ON THIS SIDE OF THE MIKE, BUT WE'LL MAKE IT HAPPEN.
I AM HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 2.2.
I THINK THE SPECIFIC TERM WAS THE SALES TAX AND BUDGET DATE.
THE ITEM THAT I AM SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING IS A NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNING PROGRAM AND PROJECTS.
I AM VERY CONCERNED BECAUSE SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THOSE FUNDS WERE PLACED THERE AND AS A PART OF THE 2040 PLAN SO THAT NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN PORTIONS OF THE CITY COULD HAVE PLANS CREATED AND COME UP WITH PROJECTS TO MAKE THINGS A LITTLE BIT MORE, THINK OF THE RIGHT WORD? NEIGHBORHOOD ISH. WE'LL GO WITH THAT ONE.
THERE'S BEEN SO MANY CITIZENS WHO HAVE BEEN EXCITED, SO MANY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WHO HAVE BEEN EXCITED TO UTILIZE THAT PROGRAM, AND I ALSO ADD THAT I AM THE NEW CHAPMAN HILL NEIGHBORHOOD CHAIRPERSON.
I AM SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF GIVEN BECAUSE WE HAVE SUBMITTED SEVERAL PROJECTS TO BE COMPLETED, AND THEY WERE NOT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH ONE STAFF MEMBER WHO'S ACTUALLY DOING WHAT WE HIRED SIX INDIVIDUALS TO DO PRIOR TO WITH THE CONSULTANTS.
BUT IT STILL DOESN'T TAKE AWAY THE NEED AND THE REQUESTS THAT WERE BEING SUBMITTED BY THE VARIOUS NEIGHBORHOODS AND WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
[01:05:04]
NOW, WE'RE AT THIS JUNCTURE WHERE THE PLAN IS TO THE REQUEST IS BEING MADE TO FREEZE THOSE FUNDS SO THAT THESE CITIZENS AGAIN, WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THEIR PROJECTS COME TO FRUITION.I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
BECAUSE AS AGAIN, STATED, THESE ARE FUNDS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED SEVERAL YEARS AGO, AND IT IS NOT THE NEIGHBORHOODS PROBLEM OR THEY DIDN'T CREATE THE PROBLEM OF NOT HAVING THE FUNDS SPEND IT.
I WOULD ASK AND I WOULD SEEK THE SUPPORT OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITIZENS THERE IN THE NORTHERN AND EASTERN PORTIONS OF THE CITY DESERVE THE EXACT THING THAT THEY WERE ADVISED THAT THEY WOULD RECEIVE, THAT WILL BE ACCESS TO THE FUNDING TO MAKE NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS OR CREATE PROJECTS AND HAVE THEM COME TO FRISION TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AGAIN, I'LL ASK YOU THAT EACH OF YOU LIVED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THIS CITY, AND JUST IMAGINE IF IT WAS YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHO WAS SITTING WAITING FOR SOME GREAT THINGS TO HAPPEN, AND THEN THE RUG GETS PULLED FROM UNDERNEATH THEM.
I ASK THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND PLEASE SUPPORT THE IDEA OF NOT HAVING THOSE PROJECTS TAKEN AWAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MISS [INAUDIBLE] HARRIS.
[APPLAUSE] I WILL NOTE THAT THE HEATER THAT USED TO BE DOWN AT YOUR END HAS MOVED CLOSER TO ME, BUT IT'S STILL DR. WILSON, I THINK HAS TAKEN IT OVER NOW.
IT HAS NOT MOVED ALL THE WAY TO MY PART OF THE DAS.
>> I HAVE TWO MORE INDIVIDUALS IN SUPPORT OF WHAT I JUST SAID [LAUGHTER]
>> NEXT, I'M GOING TO CALL UP JOSH SHANKLES, AND HE'S REQUESTED TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM 2.1, MR. SHANKLES.
MY NAME IS JOSHUA SHANKLES, AND I'M PROUD TO BE SUPER GAY AT 2,600 BLOCK OF 47TH STREET HERE IN LUBBOCK.
I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT IMPACT FEES, MY FAVORITE TOPIC, AND ONE THAT I'M SOMEBODY IN TOWN WHO HAPPENS TO ACTUALLY KNOW HOW THIS WORKS.
I WANT TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT THE REASON WHY IMPACT FEES CAME INTO EXISTENCE IS BECAUSE THE ONLY BUSINESS IN LUBBOCK THAT COSTS THE CITY MONEY UP FRONT IS DEVELOPMENT.
EVERY OTHER BUSINESS ENDEAVOR THAT IS UNDERTAKEN IN THE CITY GENERATES MONEY FOR THE CITY UPFRONT.
BUT DEVELOPMENT COSTS THE CITY MONEY UPFRONT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BUILD ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE CITY'S EXISTENCE, THE DEVELOPERS WERE ABLE TO EXTERNALIZE THEIR COST OF DOING BUSINESS TO THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AND WE ABSORBED THAT UNTIL WE IMPLEMENTED IMPACT FEES.
NOW, I WANT TO ADDRESS A FEW OF COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID GARCIA'S COMMENTS DURING WORK SESSION, BECAUSE YOU'RE SO INSCRUTABLE, COUNCILMEMBER.
DURING THE BUDGET, YOU'RE LIKE, "I LIKE SALES TAX, BECAUSE PEOPLE SHOULD PAY FOR WHAT THEY USE.
THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO DO THIS." THEN IMPACT FEES COME UP, WHERE PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR WHAT THEY GENERATE FOR THE COSTS THAT THEY GENERATE, AND SUDDENLY IT'S LIKE, "NO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A GOOD WAY FOR US TO CALCULATE HOW WE BRING IN REVENUE." I ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THIS NOTION THAT GROWTH PAYS FOR GROWTH.
THIS GROWTH THAT'S GOING TO MAGICALLY COME IS GOING TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING.
THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THE IMPACT FEES IN THE FIRST PLACE.
WE DIDN'T JUST THINK OF IT OUT OF THIN AIR.
THE IMPACT FEES WERE CAME UP WITH BECAUSE THIS NOTION THAT WE WERE GOING TO GROW OUR WAY THROUGH DEVELOPMENT OUT OF THE COST TO BUILD ROADS AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND POLICE STATIONS AND SCHOOLHOUSES, AND FIRE TRUCKS.
NO, IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
THE IMPACT FEES HAVE TO BE THERE.
THEN HERE COMES THIS BUDGET CRISIS BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAD TO HAVE THEIR PERFORMATIVE, NO NEW REVENUE RATE.
THEN SUDDENLY SALES TAX FALLS OFF AND IT'S LIKE, "OH, UH OH.
NOW WE HAVE A BUDGET SITUATION WE GOT TO WORK OUT." WHEN YOU COULD HAVE JUST LET IT CRUISE.
NO, BUT WE HAD TO HAVE NO NEW REVENUE.
ALL PERFORMATIVE, CUT DOWN ON THE LIBRARIES, SO WE COULD GET NO NEW REVENUE.
NOW HERE COMES WE'RE NOT RECEIVING THE MONEY FROM THE SALES TAX ALL OF A SUDDEN. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? WE'RE GOING TO DROP IMPACT FEES, LIKE THE MAYOR SUGGESTED DURING HIS CAMPAIGN WHEN WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT MR. MAYOR.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO BUILD THOSE ROADS? I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT AS FAR AS INCREASING THE COST OF A GROCERY STORE, OR A HOUSE, OR WHATEVER, NO, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO INCREASE.
THEY COULD BUILD IT IN A PLACE WITH NO IMPACT FEES, LIKE SERVICE AREAS IN THE INTERIOR OF TOWN.
IF THEY WANT TO BUILD IT ON THE EXTERIOR OF TOWN IN WHAT USED TO BE A COTTON FIELD,
[01:10:04]
THEN PAY THE IMPACT FEES.YOU WANT TO PAY NO IMPACT FEES, YOU WANT TO INCREASE THE COST OF A HOME, NONE, COME INTO THE MIDDLE OF TOWN, BUILD A HOME.
THERE'S PLENTY OF EMPTY SPACE IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL. [APPLAUSE]
>> THAT'S ALL THAT WE HAD SIGN UP FOR COMMENTS TODAY. WE'LL MOVE ON.
[5. Minutes]
I'LL TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 5.1, THE MINUTES FOR OUR MAY 22, 2025 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING, THE MAY 27, 2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AND THE MAY 27, 2025 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING.IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.1?
ANY CHANGES OR AMENDMENTS TO THAT OR EDITS TO IT? ALL IN FAVOR? LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
WELL, NOW TAKE UP ITEM 6, THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[6. 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'S BEEN A REQUEST TO PULL ITEM 6.7, AND ITEM 6.15, THERE WILL BE A REAL ON.I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION NOW TO IMPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM 6.7 AND 6.15.
[BACKGROUND] THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT HERE IS 6.15.
>> MR. MAYOR, 6.7 IS CORRECT ON THE POLL?
>> THAT WILL BE SEPARATE CONSIDERATION.
I THINK THE SHEET THAT WAS PUT AT YOUR PLACE IS IN ERROR.
I BELIEVE IT SAYS 6.27, AND THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
>> THAT'S NOT CORRECT. THERE WAS ONE THAT SAYS 6.27, BUT THAT IS INCORRECT.
>> 6.7 IS THE POLL AND 6.15 IS THE RECUSE ALLE?
>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE TWO ITEMS, 6.7 AND 6.15.
I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY ERROR THERE OR MISUNDERSTANDING.
>> I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION.
ALL IN FAVOR LET ME KNOW WHAT SAYING, AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED, SAY, NO? HEAR NONE.
THAT MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
[7. Resolution - Right-of-Way: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Street Use License, and related documents, by and between the City of Lubbock and CBC Centre Suites, LLC, on Glenna Goodacre Boulevard from just east of University Avenue to Avenue X, Mac Davis Lane from just east of University Avenue to Avenue X, and Avenue X between Mac Davis Lane and Glenna Goodacre Boulevard, for the purpose of mounting streetlight banners.]
AND I'M GOING TO CALL OUR CITY ENGINEER, MR. JOHN TURPIN TO COME FORWARD AND PROVIDE A BRIEFING FOR US ON THIS ITEM.>> MR. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE FIRST ATTEMPT AND MR. TURPIN IS AVAILABLE IF WE NEED THE M. ITEM 6.7 IS A STREET USE LICENSE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK AND CBC CENTRE SUITES.
THIS ACTUALLY IMPACTS THREE DIFFERENT STREETS, GLENNA GOODACRE, MAC DAVIS, AND AVENUE X, AND THIS IS FOR A 20-YEAR STREET USE LICENSE AGREEMENT.
THERE WAS ACTUALLY A PRIOR AGREEMENT WITH A DIFFERENT ENTITY FOR STREET BANNERS IN THIS AREA TO ADVERTISE THE STUDENT HOUSING IN THE AREA, AND THE NEW ENTITY HAS COME FORWARD AND WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH A SIMILAR ARRANGEMENT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW FOR BANNERS ON STREET LIGHTS.
I WILL SAY THIS IS RATHER OUTLIER UNUSUAL TYPE OF STREET USE LICENSE AGREEMENT.
TYPICALLY, WE SEE THIS FOR THINGS LIKE STREET USE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR [INAUDIBLE] IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR SEATING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR A RESTAURANT, AN IRRIGATION LIE TO RUN UNDERNEATH THE ROADWAY.
THIS ONE IS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE. NOT VERY MANY OF THESE, ACTUALLY, THE ONLY ONE THAT WE'RE AWARE OF THAT'S SIMILAR TO THIS ONE.
BUT THIS ONE ACTUALLY AGAIN, IS A MINIMUM OF $500 FEE.
THESE ARE NORMALLY CALCULATED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE USE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THEN WE TAKE AND ADJUST IT WITH THE LCAT VALUE.
WE TRY TO ADJUST THAT KEEP UP WITH INFLATION AND DOING THAT.
BUT THE MINIMUM FEE IF IT DOESN'T EXCEED $500 IS $500.
AGAIN, THIS ONE WITH IT BEING BASICALLY BANNERS ON STREETLIGHTS, IT FELL TO THE MINIMUM OF $500 FOR A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD.
AGAIN, THAT'S A 20-YEAR AGREEMENT, SO A TOTAL OF $2,000 OVER THAT 20 YEAR PERIOD, AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. I PULLED THIS ITEM TO TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER STREET USE AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVE AND I'VE GOT A FEW FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU FOR THE BRIEFING ON IT, THOUGH.
THE FEE OF $500, WELL, FIRST, THAT'S A DEFAULT MINIMUM FEE?
>> DEFAULT MINIMUM FIVE YEARS AGO, IT WAS A RIDE AT 250.
IT WAS ADJUSTED FIVE YEARS AGO TO THE $500 WITH THE IDEA TO ATTEMPT TO COVER STAFF TIME APPLICATION COST TO PROCESS ONE.
NOT LETTING IT DROP BELOW THAT $500.
>> IS THE $500 FEE A ONE-TIME FEE OR IS THAT GOING TO BE PAID EVERY YEAR? IT'S PAID EVERY FIVE YEARS.
DO YOU THINK THAT GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME INVOLVED IN A REQUEST LIKE THIS, THAT THAT FEE IS APPROPRIATE?
[01:15:02]
>> I THINK IT IS. IT'S ONE THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO LOOK AT SOON IN THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO.
BUT IN THINKING ABOUT STAFF TIME, THE PROCESS, IT LINES UP WITH SOME OF OUR OTHER APPLICATION FEES AND PLANNING.
WE STILL FEEL THE $500 IS APPROPRIATE.
>> THE STREET USE AGREEMENT IS GOING TO WANT TO ALLOW THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO PLACE SIGNS ON STREETLIGHTS, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE AGREEMENT THAT COVERS WHAT IS OR NOT ALLOWED FOR THE CONTENT OF THE SIGNS?
>> IS THERE ANYTHING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT WOULD STOP THEM FROM ADVERTISING FOR AN UNRELATED BUSINESS ON THE SIGN?
>> COULD ANYBODY IN THE CITY APPLY FOR A STREET USE AGREEMENT LIKE THIS? FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A BUSINESS ON 34TH THAT WANTS TO PUT A SIGN ON THE STREETLIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR BUSINESS, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME APPLICATION PROCESS?
>> WHO'S GOING TO ACTUALLY INSTALL THE SIGNS WHEN THEY NEED TO BE CHANGED OUT?
>> IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ENTITY.
IN THIS CASE, CBC WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> IT'S NOT MUCH OF A QUESTION.
AND JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, THOSE BANNERS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO PRODUCE.
YOU'RE NOT SEEING THEM ALL THE TIME OR CHANGING.
THEY PROBABLY GO UP AND THEY ARE THERE FOR ABOUT A YEAR OR TWO.
IT'S NOT HAPPENING ALL THE TIME.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S AN EASY JOB.
BUT I THINK IT GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF PRIDE TO THE AREA.
LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S A VERY UNIQUE AREA AND SO IT BRINGS IN FOLKS AND IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE A PROJECT, ATHLETICS, JUST SOME PRIDE IN THE BUSINESSES.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD THING, BUT WE PROBABLY DO NEED TO IN THE FUTURE, PROBABLY LOOK AT MAYBE INCREASING THE AMOUNT.
BUT RIGHT NOW, I DON'T THINK IT IS A PROBLEM.
>> A LOT OF PEOPLE CURRENTLY USE OUR STREET POLES AND EVERYTHING FOR ADVERTISING, BUT WITHOUT PAYING THAT FEE, JUST POSTING A SIGN ON THEM.
MY QUESTION ON THIS IS, LUBBOCK IS AN INCREDIBLY WINDY CITY.
YOU PUT THESE BANNERS UP, I SEE THEM, AND THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL FOR A WHILE, AND THEN THEY START TO COME APART, THEY FALL APART, THEY'RE FLAPPING IN THE BREEZE.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN OUR CODE OR ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES THEM TO MAINTAIN THEM IN AN ATTRACTIVE MANNER SO THAT THEY DON'T BECOME JUST AN UGLY ATTACHMENT TO A STREETLIGHT?
>> I CERTAINLY THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSING THE AGREEMENT THAT'S BEFORE YOU.
YOU, AS THE COUNCIL, ACTUALLY HAVE THE ABILITY AT ANY TIME TO PULL OUT OF THE AGREEMENT WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE.
IF THERE WAS EVER AN ISSUE, YOU WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE THAT AS LEVERAGE TO TO REQUIRE THEY REMAIN IN GOOD CONDITION.
THERE'S ALSO LIABILITY IN THERE WHERE IF THEY WERE TO DAMAGE A LIGHT POLE THAT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING IT BACK UP TO BANNER.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I SEE NOT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. SIGNAGE IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR COMMUNITY STANDARDS ABOUT SIGNAGE, AND I THINK THIS SPEAKS TO THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT.
IS IT APPROPRIATE THAT WE ADDRESS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO THIS AGREEMENT ABOUT MAINTENANCE, ABOUT LIABILITY NOT ONLY FOR THE STREET POLE, BUT FOR THE FLAG THAT MIGHT HAPPEN TO FLY OFF AND LAND IN THE WRONG SPOT, WHATEVER.
YOU KNOW, WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO POSTPONE THIS LOOK MORE DEEPLY INTO THE ISSUE BEFORE WE SIGN A FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT.
I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION BOTH FOR YOU AND FOR THE REST OF THE COUNCIL.
I GUESS TO ANSWER MY QUESTION, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE THIS MOTION DATE SPECIFIC AND THE NEXT ONE IS.
>> THE NEXT MEETING IS JULY 8TH.
I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE FOURTH IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT.
MAYBE PUSH IT BACK TO 22ND OR AUGUST 8TH.
>> MR. WADE, I THINK YOU HAD A COMMENT?
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SIT THERE AND GET BOTH LIABILITY INSURANCE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE RIGHT NOW WITHIN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT.
THEY ALSO INDEMNIFY US AND HOLD US HARMLESS FOR ANY DAMAGES THAT ARE CAUSED BY THEIR SIGN.
NOW, YOU'RE WELCOME TO SIT THERE AND POSTPONE IT TO JULY 8TH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO DO SO.
>> THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED.
[01:20:02]
I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT AGAIN, HOW EVERYTHING COULD PROLIFERATE, BUT I GUESS WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT AFTER THIS.IT'S FINE WITH ME TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION.
>> OUR CURRENT LICENSE AGREEMENT WE WOULD ENTER INTO, I ASSUME IT'S ONE YOU'VE USED BEFORE.
>> IT DOES HAVE ALL THESE COMPONENTS, THESE TERMS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT HERE.
IT DOES HAVE A BASIS IN THEIR CAUSE OR FOR WHICH WE COULD GET OUT OF THE LICENSING AGREEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK TO MR. GARCIA'S POINT, IF WE MAKE THIS WITH A PARTICULAR ORGANIZATION TO DO THAT, IT WOULD BE GOOD IF IT WAS LIMITED JUST TO THAT ORGANIZATION'S ADVERTISING, AND IT COULDN'T BE USED BY SOMEBODY ELSE, SO WE KNOW WHO WE'RE DEALING WITH AND WHAT THEY'RE ADVERTISING.
I KNOW WE CAN'T CONTROL THE CONTENT ONCE WE OPEN IT UP, BUT I DON'T I ASSUME WE CAN'T.
>> THERE MIGHT BE SOME THINGS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO AS FAR AS THE CONTENT.
IT'S NOT TRANSFERABLE, SO THEY CAN'T TRANSFER IT TO ANOTHER BUSINESS OR ANYONE ELSE WITHOUT OUR CONSENT.
WE CERTAINLY COULD LOOK AT THAT AS A POSSIBILITY, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE STREET USE LICENSE?
>> ARE THEY REQUIRED TO GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE BANNER WILL LOOK LIKE?
>> THEY ARE NOT IN THE CURRENT AGREEMENT, IT JUST SPECIFIES STREET LIGHT BANNERS ARE ALL OUT.
>> THAT MIGHT BE A NICE THING TO HAVE AN ATTACHMENT, SO AT LEAST YOU KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
I KNOW WE CAN'T USUALLY DO MUCH ABOUT THE CONTENT, BUT WE KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT UP IN ADVANCE.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
ONE, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE PERMITTING SOMEBODY TO USE OUR PROPERTY.
THE OTHER ONE IS JUST TALKING ABOUT REGULATING SIGNS FROM A REGULATORY STANDPOINT.
THOSE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
>> WE'LL HAVE A SESSION SOMETIME ON HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MAYOR PRO TEM.
>> LET ME ALSO POINT OUT THAT THOSE STREET BANNERS ALSO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK OURSELVES, WE DO FOURTH ON BROADWAY.
WE'VE DONE THE CHRISTMAS PARADE.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
WILL WE ALSO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND TO DO THAT TYPE OF STUFF BECAUSE WHAT WE DO, AND BROOKE IS HERE AND CAN PROBABLY RESPOND TO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE ACCURATELY.
BUT WE HAVE SPONSORS FOR THOSE BANNERS.
WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT WHO GETS TO PUT THEIR NAME AS A SPONSOR.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS I THINK THAT NEED TO BE REALLY LOOKED AT BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION TO JUST START DROPPING THESE OR INCREASING FEES BECAUSE WE OURSELVES ARE ONE OF THE ADVERTISERS, IF YOU WILL.
>> I THINK I'VE GOTTEN A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THE GAME.
I THINK WE DO HAVE A MOTION HERE.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? DID YOU PULL IT?
>> I PULLED IT. [INAUDIBLE] THAT. [LAUGHTER]
>> WE DO HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS HERE.
I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN SUCH A MOTION IF THERE IS ONE, MR. COLLINS?
>> LET'S COME BACK. I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME TIME TO STUDY THIS, ALLOW STAFF TO LOOK INTO IT.
I WOULD MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE THIS DECISION DATE SPECIFIC TO JULY 22ND.
IS THAT THE CORRECT MEETING DATE?
>> THAT'S THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY.
>> LET'S WAIT UNTIL THE FOURTH AND JULY 22ND.
>> I KNOW I OPENED THIS CAN OF WORMS, SO IT'S KIND OF MY FAULT, BUT I'M OKAY WITH THE STREET USE LICENSE AS IT'S WRITTEN.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO VOTE ON IT TODAY AND APPROVE IT TODAY.
I I THINK THAT THE COSTS ARE APPROPRIATE.
IT'S COVERING THE CITY'S TIME AND WE HAVE KIND OF THE BACKUP OPTION OF BEING ABLE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE STREET USE AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE.
IF THERE WAS SOMETHING WILDLY INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT THE WAY THAT THEY WERE USING THE BANNER SIGNS, WE COULD JUST COME BACK AND PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND WITHDRAW FROM THE AGREEMENT.
IT'S MY FAULT FOR STARTING THIS DISCUSSION, BUT I'M OKAY WITH APPROVING IT TODAY.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF ITEM 6.7 UNTIL JULY 22ND.
PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> CAN YOU BRING UP THE VOTE SO I KNOW HOW WE VOTED HERE?
[01:25:05]
LET'S VOTE AGAIN. YES, TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO POSTPONE AND NO TO NOT.IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WE DO HAVE THE MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT ONE, SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON 6.7? DO WE HAVE A MOTION IN THIS? WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM DR. WILSON.
ALL IN FAVOR? WE'LL USE THE VOTING AGAIN THIS TIME.
ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THAT PASSES.
[15. Resolution - Engineering: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to Professional Services Agreement Contract 17087, with HDR, Inc., for the reconstruction of Milwaukee Avenue from 4th Street to the north city limits of the City of Lubbock, to be utilized for the 2022 Street Bond Project.]
PLEASE NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COUNCILMAN COLLINS IS RECUSING FROM PARTICIPATING IN THIS ITEM.I'LL WAIT FOR HIM TO LEAVE. WELL, I'M CALLING ON CITY ENGINEER JOHN TURPIN, OR ERIC, IS IT GOING TO BE YOU AGAIN ON THIS ONE?
>> MR. MAYOR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL START ON IT.
IF WE GET REALLY HARD QUESTIONS WE'LL GET THE EXTRAS TO COME.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL, ITEM 6.15, THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO AN EXISTING ENGINEERING CONTRACT.
THIS IS FOR MILWAUKEE AVENUE FOURTH TO THE NORTH CITY LIMITS.
THE AMENDMENT IS BECAUSE WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS DESIGNED, AND SOMETHING ABOUT THE NORTH LIMIT OF IT, JUST NORTH OF THE SCHOOL.
WHEN THE PROJECT WAS DESIGNED, THE COUNTY WAS INTENDING UNDER THEIR BOND, TO PICK UP AND CONTINUE MOVING WITH EXPANDING MILWAUKEE.
THE COUNTY IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT SO WE'VE GOT TO FIX JUST THE TAIL END OF OUR PIECE OF THE ROAD DESIGN, SO IT'S NOT MULTIPLE LANES SLAMMING INTO TWO, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> I GUESS, FIRST, WE NEED TO TAKE UP A MOTION.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION.
DR. WILSON, THE MOTION. SECOND?
ANY DISCUSSION? I CAN'T SEE ON MY SCREEN HERE. CAN YOU BRING UP? NO DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR OF 6.15, PLEASE LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
I HEAR NONE. MS. [INAUDIBLE], WOULD YOU GO GET MR. COLLINS? BRING HIM BACK IN.
WELCOME BACK, MR. COLLINS. MR. [INAUDIBLE]?
>> THE COUNCIL WILL NOW TAKE UP REGULAR AGENDA AND START WITH ITEM 7.1,
[1. Public Hearing - Planning (District 1): Consider a request for Zone Case 1943-E, a request of AMD Engineering, LLC for Mantle Finance Group, LLC, for a zone change from Heavy Commercial District (HC) to Medium Density Residential District (MDR), at 1101 N Memphis, located south of North Loop 289 and west of Memphis Avenue, on 15.81 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 18, and consider an ordinance.]
ZONE CASE 1943 E, AND ITEM 17.2, ZONE CASE 1825-A.WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE COUNCIL WILL CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE ZONING CASES.
DO I HEAR ANY OBJECTION? HEARING NONE.
THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED IN THEIR PACKET THE STAFF REPORTS FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF 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 ALSO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PART.
I NOW CALL ON OUR DIRECTOR OF PLANNING KRISTEN SAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY ON EACH ZONING CASE SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
ITEM 7.1 IS ZONE CASE 1943 E IN DISTRICT 1.
THE APPLICANT IS AMD ENGINEERING, LLC, REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
WE SENT OUT 10 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF NORTH LOOP 289 AND WEST OF MEMPHIS AVENUE.
HERE'S THE ONE RESPONSE WE DID RECEIVE IN FAVOR.
HERE IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
[01:30:01]
IT IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND THERE ARE EXISTING MULTI FAMILY TO THE SOUTH, EAST, AND NORTHWEST.CURRENT ZONING IS HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
THERE IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH AND EAST, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST AS WELL WITH ADDITIONAL HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTHWEST.
FUTURE LAND USE PLANS DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY LAND USES.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION FOR RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUEST FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND IS APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION.
THE ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND EXISTING USES.
IS LOCATED SOUTH OF NORTH LOOP 289, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A FREEWAY AND WEST OF MEMPHIS AVENUE, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET IN THIS AREA BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MS. SAGER.
I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 7.1 AND 7.2.
IS ANYONE HERE TODAY? THAT'S RIGHT. WE GOT TO DO BOTH OF THEM.
>> NO, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO.
>> 7.2 IS ZONE CASE 1825 A IN DISTRICT 2.
[2. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 1825-A, a request of Keller Williams Commercial for Pinkie’s Inc., for a zone change from Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) and Heavy Commercial District (HC) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 2312 82nd Street, located east of University Avenue and north of 82nd Street, Oak Park Addition, Tract J, and consider an ordinance.]
THE APPLICANT IS KELLER WILLIAMS COMMERCIAL FOR PINKIES INCORPORATED.REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL.
WE SENT OUT 77 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 82ND, EAST OF UNIVERSITY AVENUE.
HERE ARE THE TWO RESPONSES, ONE IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.
HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THERE IS EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH WEST AND SOUTHEAST, WITH NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTHEAST.
CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL.
THERE IS ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL, AND HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ALL ALONG UNIVERSITY AND 82ND, WITH LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY SF2, AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTHEAST.
FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.
HERE'S A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, SHOWING WHAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COULD LOOK LIKE.
THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES.
THIS REQUEST CONFORMS TO THIS DESIGNATION AND WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
82ND STREET IS DESIGNATED AS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE, AND I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. COLLINS.
>> I NOTICED THAT THIS REQUEST IS BEING MADE ON BEHALF OF PINKIES?
>> THEY'RE THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNER.
>> WE DON'T HAVE NECESSARILY ANY INTENTION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE THE OCCUPANT?
>> NO. BASED ON THE GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, I WOULD ASSUME IT WILL BE BOLTON OIL CHANGE.
>> BUT THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION ON THAT PART.
WOULD IT REQUIRE ANY ADDITIONAL PERMITTING IF IF IT WERE UTILIZED FOR THEIR NORMAL LINE OF BUSINESS?
>> A PACKAGE STORE WOULD BE A PERMITTED USE IN THIS DISTRICT.
>> LEAVE IT ON THAT PARTICULAR.
IS A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FOR THIS PARTICULAR?
>> YES. THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
>> HEY, JEREMY. WE DO KNOW THAT IT IS A BOLTON'S? CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT FOR US?
>> YES, MA'AM. THE INTENDED USE IS THE BOLTON'S, AND ALSO THIS PROPERTY IS HEAVILY DEED RESTRICTED, AND LIQUOR STORES ARE NOT ALLOWED THERE.
>> I'VE SEEN THE OTHER BOLTONS COMING UP ON INDIANA, IT'S LOOKING GREAT, SO I CAN ONLY IMAGINE.
>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU, MS. SAGER.
I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. TRY ONE MORE TIME.
[01:35:01]
ON AGENDA ITEM 7.1, 7.2, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF EITHER OR BOTH OF THESE ZONING CASES?>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS WILL STEPHENS.
I'M WITH AMD ENGINEERING AT 6515 68TH STREET.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE MYSELF AVAILABLE ON ITEM 7.1, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR WILL?
>> JEREMY STEEN, 10210 QUAKER AVENUE.
I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONTEXTS I CAN PROVIDE FOR THIS.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. STEEN?
>> THANK YOU. IS ANYONE HERE TODAY WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO EITHER THESE ITEMS OR BOTH? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION.
I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 2:50.
IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.1 AND 7.2?
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE.
>> ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE, THE MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.
THE COUNCIL WILL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 7.3, AND AGAIN,
[3. 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 3135 34th Street, for an alcoholic beverage permit for Pub 55.]
I WILL CALL ON MS. SAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.>> THANK YOU. ITEM 7.3 IS A RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3135 34TH STREET.
PUB 55 WOULD LIKE TO OPEN A RESTAURANT IN THIS LOCATION WITH A TAVC LICENSE FOR MIXED BEVERAGE.
THEY ARE WITHIN THE 300-FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT FROM MS. O'S DAYCARE.
THEY DID RECEIVE A LETTER SIGNED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MS. O'S, SYLVIA HERNANDEZ, WHICH I CAN PROVIDE TO YOU.
THE LETTER STATES THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST.
AS A REMINDER, THIS REQUEST IS NOT ONLY FOR MIXED BEVERAGE, BUT MIXED BEVERAGE LATE HOURS.
IT WAS DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL AT YOUR JUNE 10TH MEETING.
HOWEVER, THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER APPROVED VARIANCES ON THIS PROPERTY.
AT THIS LOCATION, 3135 34TH, IN 2019, WOODY'S BRICK OVEN PIZZA AND GRILL RECEIVED A VARIANCE TO HAVE A BG LICENSE.
NEXT DOOR AT 3131 34TH, VIZO'S AFRICAN BAR AND RESTAURANT IN 2022 RECEIVED A VARIANCE FOR A MIXED BEVERAGE LICENSE.
AT 3121 34TH, IN 2022, FROST BREWHOUSE RECEIVED A VARIANCE FOR A BG AND BP LICENSE.
WITH THAT, I'LL BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. COLLINS.
>> MS. SAGER, IF YOU WOULD GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES.
THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IS WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE DAYCARE, BUT IT'S ALSO WITHIN 300 FEET OF YOUNG LIFE'S CHURCH FACILITY?
>> THIS MAP IS A LITTLE MISLEADING BECAUSE THE SEPARATION FROM SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES ARE MEASURED PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE.
THE SEPARATION FROM CHURCHES AND HOSPITALS IS DOOR TO DOOR WHILE TRAVELING ALONG A LEGAL PEDESTRIAN PATH.
IN THAT INSTANCE, THEY MEET THE 300 FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE CHURCH.
>> THEY'RE NOT WITHIN THE 300 FEET?
>> CORRECT. BECAUSE IT'S NOT MEASURED BASED ON PROPERTY LINE AS THE MAP SHOWS, IT'S DOOR TO DOOR.
>> BUT IF IT WERE PROPERTY LINE, THEN THEY WOULD BE WELL WITHIN THAT 300 FEET OF THIS CHURCH?
>> IF POSSIBLE, I'D LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT SOME QUESTIONS, PLEASE.
>> ZACH [INAUDIBLE], 3208 33RD STREET.
I'M THE APPLICANT FOR 7.13 OR 7.3.
FIRST QUESTION IS THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS IS A LITTLE MISLEADING? I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A BAR, BUT IT IS GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT?
>> IT'S A SPORTS GRILL AND LOUNGE, SO IT'S A BAR AND A RESTAURANT, YES.
>> MY LAST QUESTION TO YOU AT THE LAST MEETING, I ASKED YOU IF MS. O, IF YOU HAD SPOKEN WITH HER?
>> I'VE SPOKEN TO HER MULTIPLE TIMES NOW, YES. SHE'S ALL FOR IT.
SHE WANTS SHE WANTS ALL THE BUSINESSES IN THE AREA.
THAT LETTER WAS FROM HER AND HER DIRECTOR.
SHE'S NOT IN TOWN, SO SHE TOLD ME TO GO UP THERE AND HAVE THE DIRECTOR SIGNED IT, SO WHAT'S SIGNED THERE IS THE DIRECTOR.
[01:40:03]
I TALKED TO THE STAFF TOO, AND THEY'RE REALLY ALL FOR IT, TOO.THEY SAID THEY LOVE THE WOODYS THERE AND THEY JUST WANT SOME MORE FOOD IN THE AREA.
>> WHAT ARE YOUR BUSINESS HOURS GOING TO BE? BECAUSE I KNOW I THINK I HEARD SOME EXTENDED HOURS.
>> JUST 11:00-2:00. PROBABLY EARLIER THAN 2:00 IF IT'S SLOW LIKE DURING SUMMERTIME.
I WORK AT CAPITOL AND WE HAVE A LIQUOR LICENSE TAIL TO, BUT 12:00 IS ABOUT WHENEVER WE CLOSE, BUT 2:00 IS WHENEVER WE WOULD SAY. YEAH.
>> 11:00 AM TO 2:00 PM OR 11:00 PM TO 2:00 AM?
>> YOUR HOURS ARE FROM 11:00 PM TO 2:00 AM?
>> SORRY. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT.
>> NO, I WAS LISTENING. SORRY.
>> VERY GOOD. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT US TO KNOW? THE FLOOR IS YOURS IF YOU WANT TO.
BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS.
>> THE ONLY THING I'M JUST CONFUSED, THERE'S A LIQUOR STORE THAT JUST OPENED ACROSS THE STREET, AND THEN THERE'S A BAR RIGHT THERE TOO THAT I FEEL LIKE ARE ALMOST EVEN CLOSER.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEIR DISTANCE AND EVERYTHING, I DIDN'T GO AND MEASURE.
RIGHT NEXT TO US IS VIZO'S, AND THEY'RE ALSO CLOSER.
THOSE ARE JUST THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAVE, IS WHY, MORE SO.
>> THOSE ARE GOOD POINTS. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.
>> YES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT TOO.
I'M GLAD AND PROUD THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ATTEMPT TO BRING THIS BUSINESS TO THAT LOCATION.
ANYTHING TO MAKE THIS CITY BETTER, I'M FOR IT.
>> I'LL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.3.
>> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.
ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOW BY SAYING AYE.
HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.