Sep 02, 2025 Special City Council Meeting

[00:00:03]

>> [MUSIC] GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY.

SORRY FOR A LITTLE BIT LATE START, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE DAYS WHERE A LOT OF STUFF HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE WE COME OUT HERE AND HAVE STUFF TO DISCUSS WITH YOU.

THANK YOU FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US.

THIS IS A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL TODAY TO TALK ABOUT OUR BUDGET,

[1. Public Hearing - Finance: Hold a public hearing on the Proposed FY 2025-26 Operating Budget and Capital Program.]

WE WILL BE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING ON OUR PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PROGRAM.

I FIGURE SOME PEOPLE ARE HERE TODAY FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS?

>> WE DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT SINCE WE HAVE ALL THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA ARE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC HEARINGS, SO A GOOD CHANCE TO TALK IN.

>> [OVERLAPPING] OKAY. VERY GOOD. WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM 1.1.

THIS IS PUBLIC HEARING, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2025-'26 OPERATING BUDGET AND CAPITAL PROGRAM.

IS ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1.1? IF SO, PLEASE COME FORWARD, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> MICHAEL WARD, 5417, 8TH STREET.

>> MIKEL, COULD YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE DOWN A LITTLE BIT? THANK YOU.

>> I GET SHORTER EVERY YEAR. [LAUGHTER]

>> WE ALL DO.

>> THE MIC GETS TALLER.

5417, 8TH STREET.

THERE'S A LOT TO SAY, AND I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT AS SHORT AS POSSIBLE.

TO BEGIN WITH, I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO HOW WELL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CUTTING COST AND TRYING TO HELP KEEP OUR TAXES DOWN, AS WELL AS THE STATE IS STILL IN SESSION, TRYING TO CONFIRM SOME MORE OF IT.

THOSE ARE IMPORTANT THINGS AS WELL.

BUT I KNOW THIS YEAR HAS BEEN DIFFICULT SOMEWHAT, AND MAYBE IT'S A GOOD THING THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE LESS REVENUE AND ARE STARTING TO LOOK AT PRIORITIZING BETTER, MAYBE.

BUT THE NEWS OF LESS PROPERTY VALUES AND THE LESS SALES TAX HAS LED TO SOME, I THINK, GOOD PRIORITIZING AND CONSIDERING WAYS TO CUT EXPENSES A LITTLE BIT, AND I HOPE THAT YOU'LL CONTINUE THOSE.

SOME OF THEM WAS A HIRING FREEZE, WHICH SHOULD PROBABLY CONTINUE.

KEEP REAL CLOSE TABS ON TRAVEL EXPENSES, TRAINING, ALL THESE OTHER THINGS, AND A LOT OF OTHER NON-ESSENTIALS.

IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO CONTINUE SOME OF THOSE AND LOOK AT THINGS THAT ARE JUST NOT CRITICAL.

EVERYBODY HAS THEIR PET PROJECTS, BUT HOPEFULLY WE'LL DO BETTER.

I DIDN'T SEND EVERYBODY TOMMY GONZALEZ'S TRIANGLE FROM 2003.

AT THAT POINT, I ALWAYS GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY LESSON, TOO, BECAUSE IT'S HELPFUL TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON NOW.

THE CITY WAS ON THE BRINK OF BANKRUPTCY DUE TO MISMANAGEMENT OF LP&L AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS.

HE HAD TO RUN THE CITY PRACTICALLY BY HIMSELF.

THEY HAD TO CUT OUT ALL THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS AND PRACTICALLY EVERYBODY, AND IT WAS A HARD TIME.

BUT THAT'S WHEN HE DREW UP THE TRIANGLE THAT I KEEP REFERRING TO, AND REALLY HASN'T CHANGED TREMENDOUSLY OTHER THAN WE DON'T HAVE THE AUDITORIUM COLLOSEUM, WHICH WAS AT THE LEAST NECESSARY THING AT THE TOP.

BUT IT WAS THE CORE SERVICES VERSUS NEEDS AND WANTS.

I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS A GOOD PROCESS, AND PROBABLY YOU ALL HAVE HAD TO GO THROUGH IT, THIS YEAR AS WELL.

BUT WHEN HE WASN'T HIRED THEN, THEY HIRED LOU FOX IN '04.

HE CAME IN, AND THAT WAS WHEN THEY INCREASED THE UTILITY FRANCHISE FEES FROM 3-5% AND STARTED TAXING STORMWATER IN THAT '04-'05 BUDGET.

THESE HIDDEN TAXES NOW HAVE BECOME THE THIRD LARGEST SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR THE GENERAL FUND,

[00:05:06]

THIS YEAR, THEY CONTINUE TO GO UP.

WHAT I CALL THE MAGIC PAGE IS THE FUNDING SOURCE PAGE FOR THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE IT OUTLINES ON THERE THE FRANCHISE FEES, THE PILOT FEES IN LIEU OF FRANCHISE FEES OR THE UTILITY ONES, THE FRANCHISE FEES AND THE PILOT FEES, THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PROPERTY TAXES, AND THEN OTHER TRANSFERS.

ALTOGETHER, IF YOU INCLUDE ABOUT 1.4 MILLION SHARE OF CITIZENS TOWER DEBT, FROM THE UTILITIES, PRIMARILY LP&L, IT'S OVER $44 MILLION, AND NOBODY EVER REALLY TALKS ABOUT IT.

BUT THAT'S NOT AN OPTIONAL THING.

IT'S JUST AS SERIOUS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO CUT COST IN THEIR OWN FAMILY BUDGETS AS ANYTHING ELSE.

THAT'S ANOTHER PIECE OF THIS.

YOU NEED TO KNOW THE BACKGROUND ON WHEN THESE THINGS STARTED.

STORMWATER HAD NEVER BEEN TAXED AND WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE TAXED EVER, BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR THERE.

I HAD A QUESTION, WHICH I WON'T EXPECT AN ANSWER RIGHT NOW.

BUT ON THAT PAGE, UNDER STORMWATER, IT SHOWS A 25% INCREASE IN THE TRANSFERS FROM STORMWATER INTO THE GENERAL FUND, WENT UP FROM 630.28 TO 791.6.

I NOTICED THAT FIRST OFF.

THAT'S ANOTHER LONG STORY I WON'T GET INTO.

BUT ANYWAY, A LOT OF THIS IS IMPORTANT TO REALLY LOOK AT, AND OF COURSE, I WOULD SUGGEST, NOT THAT ANYBODY'S GOING TO DO IT.

BUT THE COST OF LIVING INCREASE, I THOUGHT, WELL, TWO YEARS AGO, WHEN THE HIGHEST ECHELON GOT A LESS PERCENT BECAUSE THE FRONT LINE PEOPLE, IT'S A LOT LESS MONEY PER PERSON, BUT IT'S STILL PRETTY CRITICAL TO THEM.

I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO EXPECT EVERYBODY TO LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, WE'D START WITH PEOPLE AT THE TOP WHO ARE GOOD, BUT THEY'RE MANAGING EVERYBODY ELSE.

I LIKE THAT APPROACH THAT WAS DONE, BUT IT WASN'T DONE AGAIN LAST YEAR.

BUT I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A STEP IN THERE.

I KNOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT 2.5% OR THREE HAS BEEN SUGGESTED FOR EVERYBODY OTHER THAN PUBLIC SAFETY.

THEN ANOTHER THING THAT COULD BE DONE WOULD BE JUST SMALL CUTS TO ALL DEPARTMENTS, AND MAYBE YOU'VE TAKEN SOME OF THOSE STEPS.

BUT I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT AS WELL.

BUT ONE IN PARTICULAR THAT I KNOW DUSTIN BURROWS IS STILL WORKING ON AS WE SPEAK, IS TO CUT OUT THE LOBBYING COST WITH TAXPAYER FUNDING.

PARTICULARLY IN THIS YEAR THAT WE ARE COMING UP ON, WILL NOT HAVE A SESSION IN AUSTIN.

ANY CUTS TO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'VE DONE ABOUT THE JAPAN SISTER CITY PROGRAM.

I HAD ALL THE NUMBERS LAST YEAR, WHAT IT WAS COSTING THEN.

BUT JUST SOME OF THOSE THINGS I THINK ARE IMPORTANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING AS LEAN AS WE CAN AND STILL DELIVER ALL OF THE SERVICES THAT EVERYBODY EXPECTS.

OF COURSE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SEND ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T HAVE THE TRIANGLE.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE ON THERE ARE STILL JUST AS RELEVANT AS THEY WERE 22 YEARS AGO.

BUT THE OTHER THING THAT'S REALLY INVOLVED IN A LOT OF THE CITY SPENDING IS THE AMOUNT OF DEBT WE HAVE.

A LOT OF IT WAS CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION BEFORE YOU ALL GOT HERE, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT FOR THE NEXT MANY YEARS.

THEN THE PUBLIC HAS SUPPORTED STREET BONDS IN '22 AND '24, ADDING UP NOW OUR DEBT IS OVER TWO BILLION DOLLARS.

THE ONE IN 2022, I WAS JUST TALKING TO THE CFO ABOUT SHOWS A DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULED TO MATURITY, AND IT SHOWED THAT THAT 200 MILLION IN 2047 WOULD BE JUST BARELY UNDER 500 MILLION,

[00:10:05]

BUT EVERYTHING WE HAVE TO BORROW MONEY FOR IS GOING TO COST US A LOT AND DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF REVENUE WE HAVE TO SPEND ON OTHER THINGS.

THAT ONE AND THEN WE OF COURSE ADDED THE ONE IN '24 FOR ANOTHER 103 MILLION AND I HAVEN'T SEEN A CHART OUT ON IT.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID NOT GET DOWN HERE BETWEEN COMPUTERS AND LOTS OF THINGS TO SPEAK ON THE IMPACT FEES.

BUT THE ORIGINS OF THAT, OR AT LEAST WITH ME, I HAD BEEN DISCUSSING IT WITH ONE OF THE COUNCIL PEOPLE THEN.

BUT IN EARLY 2018, DURING THE 2040 PLANNING, THE HEAD OF THE COMMITTEE ASKED ABOUT WHEN WE WERE GOING TO GET SOME RELIEF FROM THE STORMWATER DEBT AND HE WAS TOLD THAT THAT WAS PAYING OFF VERY SOON.

WHEN IT CAME TO PUBLIC HEARING ON IT, I GOT UP AND SAID SOMETHING ABOUT IT THAT I HAD THE DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE AT THAT TIME.

IT WAS UNTIL 2038, I THINK NOW IT'S 2044.

BUT ANYWAY, SO AS I SAID, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SEND THE DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULES TO ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SEE IT.

ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT, WELL RESPECTED BUILDERS HERE SAID, SEND IT TO ME.

THIS WAS ABOUT JANUARY AND I DID.

HE CAME BACK A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER.

HE WAS THE HEAD OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SUBCOMMITTEE, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO GO FIGURE OUT WHO IT WAS.

BUT ANYWAY, HE SAID, AND I NEARLY FELL OUT OF MY CHAIR, BUT HE SAID, "AFTER LOOKING AT HOW MUCH MONEY WE OWE AND FOR HOW LONG WE AS DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS HAVE GOT TO BE WILLING TO PUT SOME OF OUR OWN MONEY INTO NEW CONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE," BECAUSE I WENT DOWN THERE TO SPEAK AGAINST CREATING ANOTHER TIF OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT WAS GOING TO PEEL OFF MONEY FOREVER MORE.

THAT'S HOW THEY GOT STARTED, AND THEN IT TOOK SEVERAL YEARS IN A COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT IT.

BUT BEFORE MIKE CANNON LEFT, I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF ALL OF THE COMPLICATED FORMULA THAT WAS BEING USED ON THAT.

MIKE TOLD ME THAT HAD THE IMPACT FEES BEEN IN PLACE WHEN HEB PUT IN THAT THEY WOULD HAVE CONTRIBUTED A MILLION DOLLARS TO THE MAIN STREETS AROUND THEM.

IT'S NOT ALL THE LITTLE COFFEE SHOPS THAT COULD CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING TO THIS.

I HOPE IT'LL GET REVISITED IN THE FUTURE SOMEWHAT.

IT CAN SPEED UP HOW MUCH WE CAN GROW.

OFTEN WE LOSE SIGHT OF THE BIGGER PICTURE WHEN WE'RE CONTINUING TO PUSH FURTHER AND FURTHER ALL DIRECTIONS, BUT PRIMARILY SOUTHWEST AND HOLLOWING OUT THE CENTRAL PART OF THE CITY.

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CONSIDERATION THERE.

I LOOKED AT BOTH OF THESE LAST TWO BOND ELECTIONS AND THE HUGE PACKS THAT WERE FORMED WERE ALL PEOPLE WHO STOOD TO MAKE A LOT OF MONEY OUT OF PASSING THEM.

NOTHING AGAINST THEM. EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN PRIORITIES, BUT THAT WAS NOTICEABLE, AND IT'S VERY HARD FOR ANYBODY TO REALLY FIGHT THOSE.

BUT OUR UTILITY DEBT, FOR INSTANCE, I'M GOING BACK TO THE DEBT THING.

WATER HAS TONS OF DEBT OUT UNTIL 2045.

BASICALLY THE WASTEWATER PART IS OUT UNTIL, MOST OF THESE ARE 2045 WHEN I WOULD BE 102 YEARS OLD.

I'M NOT LIKELY TO STICK AROUND FOR REPRIEVE FROM THAT.

LP&L'S DEBT OF 741 MILLION IS OUT TO 2051.

GATEWAY, WHICH IS ANOTHER CREATIVE WAY, AND I WAS WANTING TO BE SURE THAT IMPACT FEES WERE OVERLAPPING OR DUPLICATING THE GATEWAY PLANS,

[00:15:05]

PART OF IT BY LP&L, BUT MOSTLY BY GAS AND CABLE AND PHONES AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

BUT THE OTHER THING THAT'S TAKING QUITE A BIT AWAY, AND IT'S PART OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I'LL TOUCH ON IN A MINUTE.

BUT WE HAVE 10-YEAR 100% TAX ABATEMENTS, WHICH ARE IN ADDITION TO THE LITA OR MARKET LAVA FUNDINGS, AND LEPRINO WILL BE ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS LESS.

WHEN WE DO ABATEMENTS, THE COUNTY AND HOSPITAL DISTRICT AND EVERYBODY ELSE DO TOO.

THE COUNTY DOESN'T PAY MUCH ATTENTION TO IT, BUT THEY ADOPT EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY DOES.

MONSANTO, WHICH WAS ONE OF THE CRAZY ONES I FOUGHT FOR A LONG TIME, UNTIL ABOUT 2029, THEY HAD 100% ABATEMENTS.

THERE ARE SOME SMALLER ONES, BUT WE DON'T USE THAT A LOT, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO CONSIDER THE LESSENING OF THE TAX BASE, SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO THAT ALLOWS OR INCENTIVES, I GUESS, FOR WHATEVER THEY'RE WANTING TO DO.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANTED TO TOUCH ON A LITTLE BIT, AND I COULD SEND IT IN PROBABLY PRETTY MUCH, BUT OF COURSE, AND I'LL GET INTO MORE ON THE PROPERTY TAX.

BUT THE BUDGET IS A TINY BIT LESS THAN LAST YEAR, THE WHOLE BUDGET COMBINED.

NOT TO BE OVERLY CRITICAL, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS OF JARRETT AND CITY MANAGEMENT AND ALL OF YOU TRYING TO KEEP THINGS A LITTLE UNDER CONTROL ON THIS.

IT DOESN'T GO UNNOTICED.

>> BUT THE OTHER PART THAT I REALLY WANTED TO TOUCH ON WAS THE LEDA AND MARKET LUBBOCK, AND YOU ALL KNOW IT BY HEART ALREADY.

BUT MARKET LUBBOCK REALLY HAS NO STATUTORY FOCUS AT ALL.

IN FACT, THE THREE MILLION OR THREE CENTS APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE BOARD OF CITY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WAS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BRANCH PRIOR TO 1992, WAS VOTED OUT BY 84 PERCENT, AND IT INCLUDED THE APPROPRIATIONS.

I HAD NO REAL STATUS, SO ANYTHING THAT CAN BE SHAVED OFF OF THAT IS HELPFUL.

PARTICULARLY IN REGARD, THEY'RE PRETTY FLAT IN THEIR BUDGET THIS YEAR, BUT THEY'RE STILL CONTRIBUTING, AT LEAST IN THE BUDGET A MILLION DOLLARS.

THAT CERTAINLY DOESN'T NEED TO BE.

THERE'S PURPOSES THAT LEDA CAN DO OR MARKET LUBBOCK CAN DO THIS NOT LEDA, BUT THEY DON'T NEED TO JUST BE A PASS THROUGH TO ADD TO THEIRS BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LEDA BUDGET FOR THIS NEXT YEAR, AND THEY HAVE OF COURSE THE TIF AT THE BUSINESS PART, AND IT'S GENERATING ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS THIS YEAR.

ALTOGETHER, LEDA HAS ALMOST THREE MILLION DOLLARS.

OF COURSE, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BORROW PART OF YOU THAT ARE STILL ON THE COUNCIL.

WELL OVER $30 MILLION TO BE PAID BACK OUT OF THE EIGHT CENTS SALES TAX THAT THEY GIVE.

BUT THE SALES TAX THIS YEAR BEING DOWN SLIGHTLY, IT'S A 9.36 MILLION ALMOST UP TO 10 LAST YEAR.

BUT ALL THESE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE WHEN YOU COMBINE THE MARKET LUBBOCK AND THE LEDA BUDGETS, THEY TOTAL ABOUT $30.8 MILLION CONTRIBUTING TOWARD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THIS NEXT YEAR.

I KNOW THE MANTRA IS IF YOU'RE NOT GROWING, YOU'RE DYING, BUT YOU GOT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT ON EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY BENEFITING.

[00:20:04]

IT DRIVES COST UP SOMETIMES THAT PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD.

BUT FROM AN ECONOMIC STANDPOINT, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO REALIZE YOU CANNOT FIND A SOCIETY ANYWHERE THAT IS TAXED OR SPENT ITSELF INTO PROSPERITY.

YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT.

IT'S A TRADE OFF ALWAYS ON PEOPLE WHO MAYBE NOT NEED IT ALL AND AS MUCH AS PEOPLE WHO WILL BENEFIT A LOT FROM IT.

THOSE ARE JUST SOME SUGGESTIONS.

HOPEFULLY, YOU'LL HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION.

I HAD HOPED THERE'D BE A PRESENTATION WHERE WE WERE ON THINGS BEFORE I GOT UP TO SPEAK, BUT I'VE LOOKED AT IT QUITE A BIT IN THE LAST FEW DAYS SINCE THE BUDGET WAS FINALLY POSTED.

BY THE WAY, THE CITY'S TRANSPARENCY IS MAGNIFICENT COMPARED TO THE COUNTY WHO DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A BUDGET TO LOOK AT.

IT'S VERY HARD TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID ADOPT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

ANYWAY, THERE'S LOTS OF PLUSES, BUT KEEP ON TRYING TO KEEP COST IN MIND, AND YOU'LL FIND THAT IF YOU LEAVE MORE MONEY IN PEOPLE'S POCKETS, YOU'LL HAVE MORE REVENUE THAN YOU HAVE ANY IDEA THAT YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE, SO I'LL SPEAK ALSO ON THE TAX RATE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MISS. WARD. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO COME FORWARD TO SPEAK NOW? I'LL CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 1.1 AT 2:36.

NOW WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PROPOSAL TO ADOPT A TAX RATE OF

[2. Public Hearing - Finance: Hold a public hearing on a proposal to adopt a tax rate of $0.479365 cents per $100 valuation, which is effectively a 3.77% increase in the tax rate (percentage the proposed tax rate exceeds the no-new-revenue tax rate).]

I WILL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 1.1.

LET ME JUST SAY AT THIS POINT, CITY MANAGER, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION YOU MIGHT MAKE SINCE MISS.

WARD MENTIONED THAT AND SHE'S GOING TO WANT TO TALK AGAIN.

MAYBE YOU CAN PUT IT UP HERE AND THAT MIGHT HELP EVERYBODY SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> THE ANSWER IS YES.

>> I KNEW YOU DID.

>> MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE, WILL RUN THROUGH BRIEFLY SOME OF THE SLIDES ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE.

FOR THOSE THAT HAVE LOOKED EITHER ONLINE OR MAYBE FOLLOWING ALONG FROM PRIOR PRESENTATIONS, THIS ALL COMES OUT OF THE WORK THAT WAS DONE DURING YOUR BUDGET WORKSHOP, THE FIRST WEEK OF AUGUST.

REASON BEING, THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS FILED IN JULY AS REQUIRED.

UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THE END OF TODAY'S ACTIVITIES, EVERYTHING IS BASED ON THAT PROPOSED BUDGET.

WITH THAT, I'LL JUMP RIGHT IN.

COUNSEL, YOU'LL BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS.

WE HAVE TRUED THE NUMBERS UP BASED ON THAT ADDITIONAL LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT DATA.

THIS IS THE SLIDE THAT YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE, SO 479365, AS THE MAYOR DISCUSSED, THAT IS THE PROPOSED TAX RATE.

IN FACT, YOU COULD SAY THAT IS THE MAXIMUM NOT TO EXCEED TAX RATE THAT IS ON THE TABLE.

THAT IS MADE OF TWO COMPONENTS, THE FIRST BEING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OR HOW WE ACTUALLY DELIVER THE GENERAL FUND SERVICES.

THE SECOND BEING THE INTEREST AND SINKING, WHICH IS INSIDE YOUR TAX RATE.

IT IS A SEPARATE BUCKET OF MONEY UNIQUELY TO SERVE AS TAX BACKED DEBT.

WOULD DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE SECOND LINE THERE, THE ONE THAT SAYS INTEREST IN SINKING.

IF YOU LOOK AT FROM FY 25, THAT'S THE CURRENT BUDGET, TO '26, THE PROPOSED, THE ONE WE'RE WORKING ON TODAY, YOU WILL SEE THAT INTEREST AND SINKING HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN BY ONE-HALF PENNY.

THAT HALF PENNY IS MOVED INTO MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS.

NOW, TWO THINGS THAT GO WITH THAT.

PROBABLY FIRST AND FOREMOST,

[00:25:02]

DOES NOT CHANGE THEIR BILL FOR THAT HALF CENT.

BUT LEGALLY, THAT IS PART OF YOUR TAX INCREASE.

IT'S NOT ON TOP OF.

IT'S JUST A PORTION THEREOF, AND THAT'S FROM STATE STATUTORY LANGUAGE ON HOW INTEREST IN SINKING WORKS.

WE HAVE SOME COMMENTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE ABOUT SALES TAX.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT QUITE A BIT OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.

WE BUDGETED THE CURRENT YEAR AT 105.6 MILLION.

REMEMBER, WE EXPECT TO COME IN AT JUST A LITTLE OVER 100.

WE'RE UNDER BUDGET ON THE PROJECTED SALES TAX.

WHERE WE REALLY LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO END UP IS NOT LESS SALES TAX THAN THE YEAR BEFORE.

IT'S GOING TO BE VERY MUCH THE SAME.

WE'RE NOT LESS THAN THE PRIOR YEAR, WE'RE LESS THAN BUDGET.

WE DID PULL THAT DOWN BY 2.5 PERCENT AS WE WORKED ON YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET, SO 103 IS THE NUMBER THAT'S IN YOUR PROPOSED BUDGET.

JUST REAL QUICK, AND, OF COURSE, THESE ARE ALL ONE-YEAR-OLD BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL THE NEW TAX RATES ARE.

LUBBOCK IS IN THE LIGHTER COLOR THERE.

YOU CAN SEE HOW YOU STACK UP TO VARIOUS DIFFERENT CITIES.

HERE IS WHAT YOUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS TAX LEVY BRINGS YOU PER PERSON OR PER CAPITA.

YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT ACROSS THE PAGE, AGAIN, LUBBOCK AND THE LIGHTER BLUE FOR THAT ONE.

HERE IS THE FUND STATUTORILY REQUIRED LANGUAGE THAT WE LOOK AT ON THE TAX RATE.

NOW, REMEMBER, COUNSEL, EVERYTHING GETS A LITTLE FUZZY BETWEEN MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION, INS TOTAL.

BUT THIS IS HOW IT WORKS OUT.

YOU CAN SEE, AGAIN, MIDDLE OF THE PAGE IN BOLD, PROPOSED RATE IS 47.9365 PENNIES.

THE BIGGER NUMBER ABOVE IT, THAT IS THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE.

VOTER APPROVAL IS +3.5 PERCENT PLUS YOUR UNUSED INCREMENT.

THAT COMES IN AT 49.7. THAT'S NOT WHERE YOU ARE.

WE'RE AT 47.9.

YOU SEE THE TWO VALUATION NUMBERS.

YOU ALSO SEE THE CHANGE IN THE OVER 65 EXEMPTION LEVY.

THAT'S ANOTHER NUMBER THAT SOMETIMES MAKES TALKING ABOUT TAX RATES A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

COUNSEL, NOTHING THAT YOU DO ON RAISING OR INCREASING ANY PORTION OF A TAX RATE IMPACTS THOSE WHO ARE IN THAT OVER 65 EXEMPTION.

IN FACT, THE OVER 65 EXEMPTIONS, A CALCULATED NUMBER COMES TO YOU ONCE A YEAR FROM LCAT, AND THAT NUMBER IS WHAT IT IS.

IT IS NOT INFLUENCED BY ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU MAY DO.

YOU CAN SEE PRIOR YEAR, THE OVER 65 LEVY CONTRIBUTED 13.4 MILLION.

NEW YEAR PROPOSED BUDGET, 12.6.

IT'S ODD THAT THIS ONE WENT DOWN.

THAT'S UNUSUAL, BUT IT DID.

SO 12.6 IS THE VALUE OF THAT LEVY OR THAT FREEZE.

HOW DOES THE DOLLARS BREAK DOWN? THIS ONE ALSO GETS CONFUSING BECAUSE IT DIVIDES BETWEEN EXISTING AND NEW.

IF YOU WOULD ALLOW ME, I'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

RIGHT HERE, YOU SEE THE CHANGE FIRST AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

WHEN WE DID THE BUDGET THIS TIME LAST YEAR, THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS IN LUBBOCK HAD A TAXABLE VALUE OF $222,332.

FOR THE NEW BUDGET, THAT VALUE IS 224,602.

IT'S A 1.07 PERCENT CHANGE.

WE'VE HAD MANY YEARS IN A ROW NOW WHERE THE AVERAGE HOME VALUES WENT UP PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAW IN THIS YEAR.

SHORT VERSION OF ALL OF THIS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT A $31.45 PER YEAR CHANGE FOR THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME BASED ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE.

COUNSEL, AS WE DO EVERY YEAR, WE TRY TO AGGREGATE AND REPORT ALL OF YOUR DEBT INFORMATION ON A YEAR OVER YEAR BASIS.

YOU'VE GOT IT ON THIS ONE.

IF YOU WOULD GO OVER TO THE COLUMN THAT STARTS WITH FISCAL YEAR 2025 TAX SUPPORTED AT THE TOP, YOU HAVE THE TAX SUPPORTED DEBTS, AND WHAT YOU SEE IS IT ROSE 372-405 MILLION.

THAT CHANGE IS 32.9 MILLION.

THAT IS YOUR STREET BONDS.

THOSE ARE YOUR VOTER APPROVED BONDS COMING IN.

AT THE BOTTOM PART OF THAT SAME CHART.

SAME THING, YOU CARRY ON DOWN HERE.

YOUR TOTAL FEE SUPPORTED DEBT,

[00:30:01]

THAT'S A BIG NUMBER. YEAR OVER YEAR, THAT WENT DOWN BY 25.8 MILLION.

AT THIS FREEZE FRAME POINT IN TIME, THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK? IT'S 1.849 BILLION.

THE YEAR OVER YEAR CHANGE WAS A SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR INCREASE.

AGAIN, THAT WAS 33 NEARLY ON THE TOP, OFFSET BY 25.9 REDUCTION ON THE BOTTOM.

PERHAPS THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER WAY TO LOOK AT IT.

THE BAR CHART IS WHERE THAT DEBT BELONGS.

YOU'VE GOT LP&L TO THE FAR LEFT, JUST UNDER 700 MILLION THERE.

REMEMBER, THERE'S A PORTION OF THEIR DEBT THAT IS SERVICED BY WHAT THEY CALL T COSTS OR TRANSMISSION COST OF SERVICE, NOT PAID BY LUBBOCK RESIDENTS.

NEXT TO THAT IS WATER AND WASTEWATER.

LARGEST PART OF THAT IS WE'RE IN THE PROCESS.

WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO THE END OF PAYING DOWN LAKE ALAN HENRY AND THE TREATMENTS AND THE PUMPS AND THE PIPES THAT GET THAT WATER TO US.

THAT DID GO UP SLIGHTLY YEAR OVER YEAR, AND THAT'S MAINLY YOUR WEST LUBBOCK WATER EXPANSION, AND THE PURCHASE OF A LARGE PIECE OF THE LAND NEEDED FOR LAKE 7.

GENERAL FUND IS IN THE LIGHTER COLOR AGAIN THERE, AT 403, AND THEN IT CARRIES DOWN.

STORMWATER WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.

WE'LL CALL THAT ONE OUT.

IT IS DOWN TO 88 POINT MILLION.

COUNSEL, YEAR OVER YEAR, YOUR STORMWATER EXPENSE LINE ITEM OR THE OPERATING EXPENSE IS DOWN BY 4.7 MILLION.

WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN STORMWATER, WHEN IT WAS CREATED, IT WAS A LOT LIKE GATEWAY.

IT WAS A DEBT SERVICE FUND.

IN FACT, WE HAD YEARS THAT WELL OVER EIGHT OUT OF EVERY $10 WAS DEBT SERVICE.

WE'RE ABLE TO SWITCH THAT AND ROLL IT DOWN NOW, AND IT'S BECOMING LARGELY A CASH FUNDED MAINTENANCE OPERATION.

THAT'S WHERE STORMWATER STANDS, AND THEN YOU SEE THE REST OF THEM AS THEY TRICKLE DOWN ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE.

MAYOR, WITH THAT, THOSE ARE MY SLIDES ON YOUR TAX RATE PROPOSAL, AND TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT FROM THE COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

NOW I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF $0.479365 PER $100 VALUATION, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 3.77% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE.

I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.

ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THAT, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> I'M STILL MICHAEL WARD.

>> HELLO AGAIN.

>> I'M STILL HERE. DON'T KNOW HOW LONG I'LL BE.

ANYWAY, I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT WE FIND ENOUGH CUTS IN ORDER TO GO TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHICH IS 46.19 THAT'S HARD TO TELL.

1.9 MILLION IS FROM NEW PROPERTY OF THE OVERALL.

HE DID WONDERFUL, SO A LOT OF THINGS I WAS GOING TO SAY I DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY OR NEED TO SAY.

HE COULD DO IT MUCH BETTER AND MORE ACCURATELY.

BUT THE THING THAT IS INTERESTING, AGAIN, AND THIS IS ALL CALCULATED BY THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT EVERY YEAR ON LINE 40B IN CASE ANYBODY DOESN'T WANT TO BELIEVE ME.

THEY CALCULATED EVERY YEAR BECAUSE IN TWO DIFFERENT SALES TAX ELECTIONS, WE BOUGHT DOWN PROPERTY TAX BY $0.38 TRADE OFF OF SALES TAX, LEAVING LEDA THE EIGHTH.

IT WAS ONCE IN JANUARY OF 95, AND THE SECOND TWO EIGHTHS WAS IN 2003, AND THAT WAS WHEN WE CREATED LEDA WITH THE OTHER EIGHTH.

BUT THE TRADE OFF THERE AND IT'S UNIQUE.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE TRADED SALES TAX FOR PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION, BUT NOT WITH THAT HALF CENT SALES TAX IT WAS CREATED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

OF COURSE, MY CONTENTION AND WHY I FOUGHT HARD TO CAPTURE AS MUCH OF IT FOR PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION OVER WHATEVER THE 11 YEARS WERE IN THERE THROUGH SIX SALES TAX ELECTIONS WAS THAT THE BEST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS BASICALLY TO LEAVE PEOPLE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS AND LET THEM INVEST AND SPEND AS THEY SEE FIT AND CREATE THE GROWTH THAT WE NEED.

I KNOW THE MAYOR THINKS THAT IT'S TOO STRONG A TERM,

[00:35:01]

I'M GLAD WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY MORE THAN THAT TO PUT INTO IT BECAUSE IT DOES DRAIN THINGS.

WE GET TO THE POINT OF BUYING PROPERTY AND GIVING IT AWAY AND THEN PAYING FOR ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

BUT ALL TOGETHER, THIS YEAR, OF COURSE, IT'S DOWN SLIGHTLY BECAUSE THE SALES TAX WAS DOWN, BUT THAT $0.38 SALES TAX TRADE IS STILL $11.52 MORE THAT IS OFF OF OUR PROPERTY TAX.

WHEN YOU SEE A LINEUP OF ALL OF THE OTHER COMPARABLE CITIES, YOU GOT TO FACTOR THAT IN.

PEOPLE DIDN'T JUST LOSE THEIR MINDS IN 1995 AND 2003 IN CUT TAXES.

WE BOUGHT IT DOWN AND SALES TAX, THIS YEAR GENERATES TONS MORE THAN PROPERTY TAX, ABOUT 8.3 MILLION DOLLAR MORE FROM SALES TAX, EVEN WITH THE DOWN GRADING OF THE PROJECTIONS, I GUESS.

USUALLY SALES TAX COMES IN HIGHER THAN IS PLANNED IN THE BUDGET.

IT'S A CAUTIONARY TALE THERE.

BUT I WOULD JUST URGE YOU TO FIND THE CUTS IN VARIOUS PLACES.

SO IT'S NOT PAINFUL, BUT EVERY BUDGET CAN GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS CALLED DOZE, BUT THE GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND THERE'S A COMMITTEE LIKE THAT AT THE STATE LEVEL.

WE NEED TO BRING IT DOWN TO OUR LEVEL AND JUST BE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING WE CAN TO KEEP COSTS DOWN, AND YOU'LL BE SURPRISED AT HOW MUCH MORE REVENUE YOU'LL ACTUALLY HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MS. WARD. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON ITEM 1.2.

SOON, SO I'LL CLOSE THE HEARING ON THIS ITEM AT 2:52. ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE A RECESS, AND WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF WORK TO DO, AND WE WILL COME BACK AFTER OUR RECESS.

I'M NOT SURE HOW LONG THAT WILL TAKE, THOUGH.

WE'RE BACK FOR A LENGTHY RECESS.

THANK YOU FOR EVERYBODY FOR STICKING AROUND, WAITING WITH BATED BREATH, I'M SURE.

BUDGET SEASONS ARE ALWAYS COMPLICATED, AND THIS YEAR, PROBABLY MORE THAN EVER BECAUSE OF ADJUSTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO OUR TAX BASE AND EVERYTHING AFTER WE THOUGHT WE HAD A BUDGET PRESENTED.

IT'S BEEN DIFFICULT GETTING THE NUMBERS THAT WE ALL NEED TO WORK WITH, BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT THOSE NUMBERS NOW. WE'LL MOVE ON.

FIRST, I NEED TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT THIS IS JUST A FIRST READING TODAY.

THERE WILL BE A SECOND READING NEXT TUESDAY HERE AT 2:00 AT THAT TIME.

HOPEFULLY, WE WILL HAVE ADOPTED A BUDGET AND A TAX RATE AT THAT TIME.

WHAT WE VOTE ON TODAY IS STILL SUBJECT TO CHANGE AT OUR SECOND READING, BUT WE WILL SEE HOW FAR WE CAN GET TODAY IN TRYING TO PUT TOGETHER A BUDGET AT THIS TIME.

WE ARE NOW GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM 1.3,

[3. Ordinance 1st Reading - Finance: Consider an ordinance approving and adopting a budget for Fiscal Year 2025-26; approving summary of estimated and forecasted revenues, appropriations, and use of available reserves for all funds of the City; providing for necessary transfers of funds between accounts and departments, if required; authorizing reduction of spending by the City Manager if necessary; re-appropriation of balances which support authorized obligations or encumbrances; providing for filing of the Adopted Budget; establishing civil service classifications and positions; appropriating funds for the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Operating Budget and Capital Program of the City of Lubbock; providing for continuation of appropriations for projects in the Capital Program; approving all permit, license, fees, and charges for service recommended to be adjusted; approving the pay plan and positions; approving personnel; amending subsections (a) and (b) of Section 4.02.041 of the Code of Ordinances by revising Animal Service fees as contained therein; amending of Section 8.06.034 and 8.06.035 of the Code of Ordinances by revising City Secretary fees as contained therein; amending section 10.08.033 of the Code of Ordinances by revising Fire fees as contained therein; amending subsection (c) section 22.03.095 of the Code of Ordinances by revising the Water fees as contained therein; amending subsection (b) of section 22.06.051 of the Code of Ordinances by revising Solid Waste Landfill Service fees as contained therein; amending subsection (a) of section 22.06.185 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock by revising the Solid Waste Collections Service fees as contained therein; providing for the reconciliation of the transfer of funds from the General Fund to Enterprise Funds; accepting the budgets for Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, Market Lubbock, Inc., Civic Lubbock, Inc., and Vintage Township Public Facilities Corporation; finding that proper notice of the meeting provided by law and ratifying such; providing a penalty; providing for publication; and providing for a savings clause.]

YES, SIR. MR. WHITE.

>> NO, I THINK YOU COVERED IT.

IT WAS JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FINAL VOTE ON THE TAX RATE IS GOING TO BE A WEEK FROM TODAY, AND I THINK THAT YOU COVERED THAT.

OKAY. WITH YOUR ANNOUNCEMENT.

>> TODAY'S VOTE IS NOT A FINAL VOTE.

NEXT WEEK'S VOTE WILL BE A FINAL VOTE, ASSUMING WE GET TO A VOTE TODAY.

>> WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH MY PRESENTATION PRETTY QUICK.

EVERYBODY HAS SEEN AND HEARD THESE, SO I'M JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT A FEW SECTIONS AND GET US BACK TO THE DISCUSSION.

JUST REAL QUICK REMINDER, COUNSEL, YOUR NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, THE ONE YOU HAVE TO WORK AGAINST IS 0.345378.

IT'S 0.345 PENNIES.

AT THAT RATE,

[00:40:01]

REMEMBER THAT NUMBER WAS 83, THE 83 NOW IS GONE.

WE PUSH IT OUT, WE USE THIS ONE.

THEREFORE, ANYTHING THAT IS DONE TODAY AND NEXT TUESDAY OR WHENEVER WE GET TO IT THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THAT WAS A TAX INCREASE.

THAT'S THE ONE THAT CARRIES YOU BACK.

THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S THE 1.89 MILLION LESS THAN YOU STARTED WITH.

I'VE HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ASKED ABOUT OUR INCREMENT, THE UNUSED INCREMENT.

THOSE ARE GENERATED IN THOSE YEARS WHEN THE COUNCIL EXERCISES, THINGS ARE GOOD.

SALES TAX IS GOOD, BUDGETS ARE GOOD.

YOU DON'T USE THE 3.5, YOU GET TO KEEP NOT THE PENNIES, BUT THE EQUIVALENT DOLLARS.

THE WAY THAT WORKS TODAY, THE UNUSED INCREMENT THAT YOU HAVE GENERATED IS BASICALLY 6.3 MILLION.

WE ARE COVERING IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, THAT CHANGE IN THE NO NEW REVENUE WITH A PORTION OF THAT INCREMENT.

WE COVER IT WITH DOLLARS, NOT WITH RATES, LEAVING YOU AN INCREMENT, IF THAT IS ULTIMATELY WHAT'S ADOPTED, 4.3 MILLION.

THAT INCREMENT STAYS IN THE BANK, AND IT'S ON A THREE YEAR ROLL.

IF YOU GENERATE MORE, ONE YEAR COMES ON, THE OLD YEAR FALLS OFF.

IF YOU USE SOME OF IT, IT COMES OFF OF THE OLDEST YEAR, AND IT CARRIES FORWARD LIKE THAT.

THAT IS YOUR INCREMENT.

TAKING ALL OF THIS DOWN AND GOING RIGHT BACK TO THE BASICS.

IN YOUR CURRENT YEAR, THE YEAR WE SIT IN, YOUR TAX RATES 470120.

THE AVERAGE HOME WHEN THAT WAS ESTABLISHED WAS 222,330 FOR A BILL OF $145.22.

THAT WAS THIS. GOING FORWARD, SO THE WORK YOU WILL DO TODAY.

NO NEW REVENUE RATE WAS ON THE PRIOR PAGE.

IT'S HERE AGAIN. THE AVERAGE HOME IS NOT 222,330, BUT RATHER 224,602.

IF THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS ADOPTED, THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME WILL PAY $107, WHICH IS A DECREASE OF $7.70.

THESE ARE ANNUAL NUMBERS.

COMPARED TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET, THAT'S AN 8.1 MILLION DOLLAR REDUCTION.

1.9 OF WHICH IS THAT CHANGE THAT HAPPENED IN AUGUST.

THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE WITHOUT INCREMENT IS 47.1053, AGAIN, THE SAME VALUE FOR THE HOME.

THAT WOULD BE $157.99 OR AN INCREASE OVER A YEAR OF $12.77 CALCULATED LOSS VERSUS PROPOSED BUDGET, 1.987.

YOU SEE WHERE THAT GOES BACK ORIGINAL? THE PROPOSED TAX RATE, WHAT THE COUNCIL SET AS YOUR MAXIMUM, YOU'RE NOT TO EXCEED, WHICH IS WHAT WE USED TO BUILD THE BUDGET IS 479365.

THAT'S AN INCREASE OF $31.45, BUT IT'S NOT A CHANGE IN THE REVENUE VERSUS THE BUDGET.

THE REASON THAT LOOKS SO MUCH BIGGER THAN THE OTHER ONE IS YOU HAVE TO ADD NEGATIVE 772 TO 1277.

THEY'RE NOT REALLY AS FAR APART AS THEY LOOK, BUT THAT'S THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS MR. WADE'S TERRITORY.

I THINK I'M GOING TO SAY THIS RIGHT.

HE'S GOING TO CORRECT ME IF I DO NOT.

COUNSEL, YOU'LL HAVE TWO ITEMS IF YOU GET TO THEM TODAY.

ONE IS THE FIRST READING OF THE BUDGET.

TO ADOPT A BUDGET, YOUR MOTION, YOUR SECOND, THE SAME AS YOU'RE ALWAYS USED TO DOING.

SAME WITH AMENDING A MOTION IF YOU ULTIMATELY DID THAT.

THEN WHEN YOU VOTE ON YOUR BUDGET, THAT REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY, MEANING FOUR OUT OF SEVEN.

THE TAX RATE PROCESS IS DIFFERENT.

YOU WILL ALWAYS HAVE TO CONSIDER AND VOTE ON A BUDGET FIRST, AND THEN YOU VOTE ON A TAX RATE THAT SUPPORTS THE BUDGET.

FOR YOUR TAX RATE ADOPTION, MOTION, SECOND, THE WAY YOU ALWAYS DO IT.

AMENDMENTS TO A MOTION? SAME THING.

BUT TO ACTUALLY VOTE ON THE MOTION, IF YOU ARE ANY NUMBER ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE, REQUIRES FIVE OUT OF THE SEVEN.

THAT'S YOUR SUPER MAJORITY FOR THIS ONE.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT?

[00:45:03]

NO NEED TO GO INTO THIS.

WE HANDED IT OUT. YOU'VE SEEN IT NUMEROUS TIMES.

THIS IS YOUR ALL IN FUNDING SUMMARY.

THIS IS BASED ON THE PROPOSED BUDGET, TOTAL FUNDED SIDE OF THE BUDGET, 953,898,000.

THAT'S ROUGHLY 27.3 MILLION LESS THAN THE YEAR BEFORE.

ON THE EXPENSE SIDE, YOU SEE HOW THESE NUMBERS CARRY OUT THE SAME.

AGAIN, COUNSEL, THOSE ARE PRINTED AND AT YOUR TABLES, IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

I'LL MOVE INTO WHAT WE DISCUSSED LAST TUESDAY, WHICH WERE THOSE STAFF REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE BUDGET.

THE FIRST, THIS IS ALREADY WRITTEN INTO EXHIBIT G THAT IS ATTACHED IN YOUR PACKET.

IT'S THE BUDGET ORDINANCE.

THE FIRST, REMEMBER, THE LATEX PRINTER THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR NEW JUST DID NOT MAKE IT? WE'VE GOT IT COVERED.

LET'S JUST TAKE THAT MONEY OUT OF THE BUDGET.

THE CAT TAIL REMOVAL MACHINE.

110,000. I ASKED FOR THAT TO COME OUT OF THAT BOND CONTINGENCY FUND THAT WE ESTABLISHED.

RECALL THAT THAT BOND CONTINGENCY FUND, THE MONEY THAT IS IN THERE? IS INTEREST EARNING THAT WE'VE MOVED OVER TO THAT.

ALREADY IN EXHIBIT G. COUNSEL, WE HAD DISCUSSION ON A PROPOSAL FROM COUNCILMEMBERS COLLINS AND ROSE.

THIS WAS INCREASING CERTAIN ATHLETIC FEES LAST WEEK, AND THEN TAKING THE INCREASED PART OR ROUGHLY 40% AND PUTTING IT OVER INTO A CAPITAL PROJECT TO HELP MAINTAIN, TO REPLENISH, TO RECOVER THESE PARTICULAR FIELDS.

WE'VE SET ASIDE SOME OTHER MONEY OUT OF HOT IN THE BUDGET.

THIS ADDS TO THAT AND REALLY SUPPORTS ALL OF YOUR ATHLETIC FIELDS.

THE BASIC OF THIS PROPOSAL, THE BASE FEE, THE FEE YOU HAVE TODAY, THAT EQUIVALENT DOLLAR CONTINUES TO GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND GOES BACK TO BE USED BY PARKS.

THE INCREASED DOLLARS WOULD GO INTO A CAPITAL PROGRAM.

WE HAVE WRITTEN BOTH OF THOSE ALREADY INTO EXHIBIT G. WE HAVE CLARIFIED THAT THAT CIP IS TO BE FUNDED BY THIS 40%, AND THEN PUT THE BOX AROUND ITS USE.

WE HAD SOME GUIDANCE FROM THE DS.

WE DON'T QUITE HAVE IT FINISHED.

THE OUTPUT OF IT BUT THAT WOULD BE AT A LATER TIME, EITHER ON SECOND READ OR THEREAFTER TO LOOK AT A RESOLUTION TALKING ABOUT YOUR BASE PARK FEES THAT ARE GENERATED.

BIGGER UNIVERSE THAN THIS.

THIS PROPOSED CHANGE DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR OPERATIONAL BUDGETS.

SINCE THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE GOES INTO THAT DEDICATED FUND AND THE BASE REVENUE STAYS WHERE IT IS TODAY.

THIS DOES NOT AFFECT OPERATIONS OR FUNDING FOR OPERATIONS.

>> WE HAD A REQUEST FROM THE DIS LAST WEEK TO BRING BACK A PROPOSAL TO TAKE THE NON CIVIL SERVICE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT UPWARDS FROM THE 2.5, 2.5 IN YOUR BUDGET TODAY.

BUT TO TAKE IT UP BY ANOTHER ONE HALF PERCENT TO EQUAL THREE, THAT COST IS 279 THAN AND $90. THAT WAS A REQUEST.

THAT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED.

IT'S NOT IN EXHIBIT G. IF YOU WANT TO PICK THIS ONE UP, IT NEEDS TO BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

THEN THE THIRD ONE, AND I APOLOGIZE.

WE PUT THIS TOGETHER ABOUT NOON TODAY.

IT'S NOW OUT OF DATE.

THE MAYOR HAS A HANDOUT THAT COVERS THAT ONE.

WITH THAT MAYOR, THAT'S MY PRESENTATION.

I'LL TAKE QUESTIONS OR BE AVAILABLE TO ASSIST.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ATKINSON? I SEE NOTHING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO NOW WE GET DOWN TO THE NITTY GRITTY.

THIS IS A RECORD VOTE.

WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN. I'M GOING TO ASK IF THERE IS A MOTION TO ACCEPT OR ADOPT AND APPROVE THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 2026, AND THIS WILL BE THE BUDGET THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS PUT FORWARD TO US.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

[00:50:03]

>>THANK YOU, MAYOR. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I FEEL LIKE FROM A COUNCIL PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS FROM A VERY HIGH LEVEL.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE OR THE TIME OR THE EXPERIENCE TO BE AS DEEP INTO THE BUDGET AS OUR STAFF AND AS CITY MANAGER DOES.

I WANT TO POINT OUT SOMETHING THAT I THINK OCCURRED LAST YEAR THAT I FOUND VERY INTERESTING WHEN IT HIT ME AT LEAST.

IF YOU RECALL LAST YEAR, WE RECEIVED KIND OF AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE NOTIFICATION THAT LP&L HAD DISCOVERED APPROXIMATELY 2.4 MILLION DOLLAR OF FUNDS THAT WERE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY.

IF YOU'LL RECALL, AND LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

THESE WERE PILOT FEES COLLECTED ON LP&L'S TRANSMISSION COST.

LP&L DISCOVERED THIS.

THEY BROUGHT IT TO US AND SAID, WE OWE YOU THIS MONEY.

THAT 2.4 MILLION DOLLARS WAS BROUGHT OVER INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR OUR UTILIZATION.

THE GREAT CREDIT OF THIS COUNCIL, BECAUSE WE ALL HAD A HAND IN DOING THIS, ESSENTIALLY, THAT WAS THE LAST YEAR'S TAX CUT.

WE CUT TAXES BY A LITTLE OVER TWO MILLION DOLLARS AND RETURN THAT MONEY TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE BUDGET THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TODAY, EVEN IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE LESS INCOME FROM SALES TAX, WE'VE TAKEN SOME LESS INCOME AND CERTAINLY WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE INCREMENT, BUT WE'VE TAKEN LESS INCOME FROM PROPERTY TAX.

WE HAVEN'T SEEN HUGE GAINS IN PROPERTY TAX.

WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US IS BASICALLY A TWO MILLION DOLLARS INCREASE IN OUR BUDGET.

I THINK WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT LAST YEAR, WE FOUND MONEY IN THE SOFA CUSHION.

THIS YEAR IS NOT IN THE CUSHION.

WE DIG AROUND, AND IT'S NOT THERE.

I WANT US TO BE CLEAR TO OURSELVES WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.

THAT IS THAT LAST YEAR, WE HAD A UNEXPECTED WINDFALL.

WE GAVE IT BACK TO OUR CONSTITUENTS.

THIS YEAR, THAT WINDFALL DIDN'T OCCUR.

WE'RE REALLY KEEPING A VERY FLAT BUDGET OR AT LEAST A FLAT ASK OF OUR CONSTITUENTS IN WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IN TERMS OF PROPERTY TAX.

THAT TWO MILLION DOLLARS COMES BACK.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE RECOGNIZE THAT.

MAYBE I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT THINKS I PROMISE YOU, I'M THE ONLY ONE THAT THINKS THE WAY I THINK.

BUT THE INTERESTING PART OF THAT IS HOW WE ACHIEVED A TAX CUT LAST YEAR.

WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO THIS YEAR OR AT LEAST WHAT THE CITY MANAGER IS ASKING TO DO THIS YEAR, AND PROMISE I BELIEVE FULLY THAT HE HAS DUG AROUND IN THE COUCH CUSHIONS AS MUCH AS HE CAN AND HOPING TO FIND AN EXTRA FEW DOLLARS TO PUT BACK, AND IT JUST ISN'T THERE THIS YEAR.

I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT AND BRING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION.

>> MR. SHIN.

> FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR STAFF WHO WORKED ON THIS BUDGET FROM OUR MANAGEMENT TO DEPARTMENT HEADS, AND ALL OF THE OTHER SUPPORTING STAFF.

I KNOW THAT YOU ALL PUT IN LONG HOURS ON THIS, AND IT IS A VERY THOUGHTFUL RESULT THAT YOU'VE DELIVERED TO US.

I ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING THE MEETING HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT OUR DELIBERATIONS.

WE APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE ON THIS.

I THINK LAST YEAR IS ACTUALLY A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE MY CRITICISM OF THE BUDGET PROCESS, BUT FROM A LITTLE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE LAST YEAR THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS A TAX INCREASE, AND THEN WE HAD THIS WINDFALL AMOUNT FROM LP&L.

THE AMOUNT OF TRANSFER WAS SUFFICIENT THAT WE COULD HAVE NOT INCREASED TAXES ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

BUT INSTEAD, THE COUNCIL INCREASED ITS SPENDING OVER THE INITIAL PROPOSED BUDGET AND ENDED UP INCREASING TAXES.

EVEN WHEN WE'VE FOUND MORE MONEY, THAT WASN'T THE PROBLEM.

THE PROBLEM WAS OUR FINANCIAL DISCIPLINE AND OUR WILLINGNESS TO PRIORITIZE CERTAIN AREAS OF SPENDING OVER OTHERS.

I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS REDUCTIONS IN SPENDING IN ANY CATEGORY.

[00:55:06]

FOR EXAMPLE, THE TRANSFERS TO LEDA AND MARKET LUBBOCK, WHERE WE'RE TRANSFERRING AN ADDITIONAL MILLION DOLLAR TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS $10 MILLION CASH ON HAND AND NO PARTICULAR PLANS FOR HOW THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND THEIR MONEY.

I THINK WE CAN LOOK AT AREAS WHERE THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET IS INCREASING TO DECREASE FEDERAL DOLLARS, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH CITY BUS OR THE PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

WE HAVE GRANT PROGRAMS SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH ARE SIMPLY TRANSFERS OF PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS TO PREFERRED RECIPIENTS AND THE WINNERS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS TO SET UP OVER THEIR PEERS.

FINALLY, WE LOOK AT OUR OWN HOUSE, WITH THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET, WITH THE OVERHEAD THERE AND THE PROGRAMMING COSTS THAT WE HAVE.

I'M WILLING TO DISCUSS REDUCTIONS OF SPENDING IN ANY CATEGORY.

I THINK IT'S VERY REALISTIC TO REACH THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE OUR SPENDING EVERY SINGLE YEAR THAT WE HAVE A BUDGET WORKSHOP, WE SAY, PUBLIC SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE OUR TOP PRIORITIES.

THEN WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ACTUALLY REDUCING SPENDING OR ALLOCATING DOLLARS, EVERYTHING BECOMES A PRIORITY.

WHEN EVERYTHING IS A PRIORITY, NOTHING IS A PRIORITY.

WE'RE NOT RESPECTING THE BURDEN THAT WE PUT ON HOMEOWNERS, ON BUSINESSES, ON OTHER TAXPAYERS WHEN WE DO NOT EXERCISE THE SAME FISCAL DISCIPLINE THAT HOMES FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES ARE EXERCISING AS A CONSEQUENCE OF OUR ACTIONS HERE.

I PLEASE CALL ON YOU TO CONSIDER ANY REDUCTION.

I'M HAPPY TO SECOND ANY REDUCTION IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

>> YES, I WANT TO SECOND A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT DAVID SAID AS FAR AS IN REFERENCE TO WHAT TIM SAID, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY CUT TAXES LAST YEAR.

TIM, WE ACTUALLY RAISED THEM, NOT MUCH, BUT WE DID RAISE THEM LAST YEAR.

BUDGET.

WE MAY HAVE BEEN LOOKING IN THE CUSHIONS LAST YEAR TO FIND MONEY.

BUT MANY OF OUR TAXPAYERS WERE LOOKING IN THEIR CUSHIONS AS WELL TO TRY TO FIND THE MONEY TO MAKE THEIR BUDGETS.

THEY EXPECT US TO DO THE SAME HARD WORK THAT THEY DO AND NOT JUST IGNORE THE IMPACT OF THE DECISIONS WE MAKE ON THEIR HOUSEHOLD BUDGETS BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN CAREFUL ENOUGH ABOUT HOW WE DEAL WITH OURS.

THE SALES TAX FIGURES THAT HAVE BEEN COMING IN FOR THE PAST FIVE MONTHS, HAVE SHOWN, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY THESE NUMBERS ARE DOWN AS FAR AS THEY ARE, IT DOES SEEM TO INDICATE THAT THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER OUT THERE IS STILL STRUGGLING WITH THEIR HOUSEHOLD BUDGET.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHY THOSE FIGURES ARE OFF, AND THEY'VE NEVER BEEN OFF THAT MUCH BEFORE, BUT WE CAN'T IGNORE THAT FACT WHEN WE GO ABOUT SETTING A BUDGET, EVEN THOUGH WE FEEL LIKE OUR NEEDS ARE VERY IMPORTANT, AND THEY ARE.

BUT WE HAVE TO BALANCE THAT AGAINST OUR TAXPAYERS.

THAT'S WHO WE REPRESENT UP HERE.

WE DON'T REPRESENT THE CITY MANAGER OR THE STAFF, WE REPRESENT THE CITIZENS, THE VOTERS, THE TAXPAYERS OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF MY CONCERNS.

I'M WILLING TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUDGET THAT HAS BEEN SECONDED HERE.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE PASSED OUT TO YOU HERE.

IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE SHEET THAT I'VE GIVEN TO YOU, I'M PROPOSING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO THE BUDGET THAT OUR CITY MANAGER HAS PUT FORWARD.

AND MY GOAL IN DOING THIS IS TO TRY TO GET TO A POINT WHERE THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, OF THE AVERAGE HOME, ON AVERAGE, WE HAVE TO ALWAYS TALK ABOUT AVERAGES.

WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC PEOPLE, BUT ON AVERAGE, WE'LL NOT PAY APPRECIABLE ANY MORE THIS YEAR THIS NEXT YEAR THAN THEY PAID THIS YEAR.

NOW, THE WAY THE FORMULAS ARE SET OUT IN STATUTE, WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY CALL THAT A TAX INCREASE, EVEN THOUGH IT WILL NOT BE ADDITIONAL MONEY.

GO FIGURE, FIGURE OUT WHY THAT IS.

BUT BY THE RECALCULATIONS THAT WE GOT EARLIER OR EARLY LAST MONTH, WE ACTUALLY LOST ABOUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS.

[01:00:01]

EVEN THOUGH WHEN THIS IS ALL PUBLISHED, IT'LL SAY IT IS A TAX INCREASE. MY GOAL.

I'M TRYING TO IGNORE THAT LANGUAGE.

THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE WOULD ACTUALLY MEAN WE WOULD TAKE IN TWO MILLION DOLLARS LESS REVENUE THIS YEAR NEXT YEAR THAN WE TOOK IN THIS YEAR.

I DON'T CONSIDER THAT TO BE REALLY A NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

THAT'S TWO MILLION DOLLARS LESS IN REVENUE.

THOUGH LEGALLY THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

MY GOAL IS TO TRY TO PUT TOGETHER A BUDGET THAT DOES NOT IMPOSE UPON THE AVERAGE HOME OWNER A MORE BURDENSOME TAX LEVY THIS YEAR, THAT'S NEXT YEAR, THEN THEY PAID THIS YEAR.

I'VE GOT SEVERAL CUTS HERE AND RUNNING THROUGH THE BEST I CAN FIGURE, THIS WOULD INVOLVE ABOUT AN 11 CENT A MONTH INCREASE IN THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER'S TAXES.

IT'S ABOUT AS CLOSE AS I CAN COME.

WHAT I'VE PUT BEFORE YOU, AND THE AMOUNT I'M TRYING TO COVER HERE IS ALMOST 3.6 MILLION DOLLAR.

WE HAVE A TWO MILLION DOLLARS DISCRETIONARY FUND IN THE MANAGER'S BUDGET, THAT COMES FROM THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD BETTER INTEREST INCOME THIS YEAR, AND THAT HE WAS GOING TO PUT TWO MILLION DOLLARS IN HIS BUDGET AS A BUFFER OR A DISCRETIONARY FUND FOR STREET BONDS ON THE 22 BONDS.

I WANT TO MOVE 1.7 MILLION DOLLAR OF THAT INTO OUR BUDGET, LEAVING HIM $300,000 THERE.

HE HAD A COUPLE OF THINGS HE WANTED TO USE SOME OF THAT MONEY FOR.

I THINK HE'S MENTIONED THEM A PARTICULAR PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD HELP US CLEAR OUR LAKES OF THE CATTAILS.

I WANT TO LEAVE HIM ENOUGH MONEY IN THERE THAT HE CAN DO SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

THEN HE'S PROPOSED ABOUT A 1.2 MILLION DOLLAR IN HIS BUDGET THAT WOULD COME OUT OF A ONE HALF CENT MOVE FROM THE INTEREST AND SINKING FUNDS TO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS BUDGET.

I'M PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL QUARTER PERCENT, WHICH WOULD BE THREE QUARTERS PERCENT MOVE FROM INS TO M&O OR INTEREST IN SINKING TO MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS OF $600,000.

THEN I'M PROPOSING DECREASING OUR CITY COUNCIL BUDGET BY $45,000.

THAT'S THE BUDGET WE UP HERE ARE ALL RESPONSIBLE FOR.

THEN REDUCING THE NON CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES FROM THE 2.5% THAT HE HAS DOWN TO TWO AND A QUARTER PERCENT, WHICH IS $140,000.

ALTOGETHER, AND THEN THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT THEN THAT I WOULD ASK THE CITY MANAGER TO FIND, WHICH IS 1.2 MILLION DOLLAR OUT OF NON-PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGETS.

HE CAN'T GO TO THE POLICE, CAN'T GO TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR THE ANIMAL CONTROL.

BUT TO FIND THAT IN OTHER BUDGETS, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE WEEDS AND TRY TO TELL HIM WHERE TO GO FIND THAT, BUT HE WOULD BE CHARGED WITH GOING TO FIND THE ADDITIONAL 1.112726 CUTS IN OTHER BUDGETS TO GET US DOWN TO A BUDGET THAT I BELIEVE WILL ONLY RAISE PEOPLE'S TAXES $0.11 A MONTH.

I HOPE THEY CAN COVER THAT ONE.

THAT IS MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT HERE.

I MAKE THAT AS A MOTION TO AMEND THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. THIS IS NOW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. MR. COLLINS.

>> THANK YOU. I THINK WORDS ARE IMPORTANT, AND I DON'T RECALL THE MAYOR, I MEAN, THE CITY MANAGER OFFERING UP $2,000,000 TO BE PUT INTO A DISCRETIONARY FUND TO USE AT HIS WILL.

THAT $2,000,000 WAS TO BE SET ASIDE FOR A CONTINGENCY FUND FOR OUR STREET BOND PROJECTS FOR 2022.

LAST WEEK, GIVEN THAT AND THE FACT THAT I ACTUALLY PROPOSED TO USE SOME OF THOSE FUNDS TO FUND FURTHER PAY INCREASES FOR OUR STAFF.

I ASKED MR. TURPIN TO COME UP WITH AN IDEA OF WHERE WE WERE ON THE 2022 BOND PROJECT.

HE GAVE ME THAT INFORMATION ON FRIDAY.

WE VISITED ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT THIS MORNING.

BUT WE ARE THREE PROJECTS INTO THE BIDDING PROCESS, AND WITH 12 OR 13 PROJECTS TO GO.

THE PROJECTION IS THAT WE ARE POSSIBLY $7,000,000 SHORT IN THE REVENUES OR AT LEAST IN THE BUDGETS THAT WE WOULD HAVE FOR THOSE PROJECTS.

[01:05:05]

I'M HAPPY TO SHARE IT WITH THE REST OF YOU.

BUT WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE SOME IMPACT FEE MONIES TO HELP OFFSET THAT, THOUGH THAT DOESN'T EXIST AND WON'T CONTINUE TO GROW GOING FORWARD.

BUT I HAVE SOME GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT US BEING THAT SHORT IN OUR ROAD BOND PROJECTS.

THE LAST THING I WANT TO DO IS SIT UP HERE AND SAY, WE CAN'T DELIVER A ROAD PROJECT THAT WE PROMISED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET ENOUGH CONTINGENCY MONEY SET OR HAVE FUNDS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE TO COMPLETE THOSE PROJECTS.

I DON'T THINK 1.7 IS DISCRETIONARY, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN AS MUCH OF THAT AS POSSIBLE IN A DEDICATED FUND TO HELP COMPLETE THOSE ROAD BOND PROJECTS, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROBABLY ADD TO IT OVER TIME. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. DR. WILSON.

>> LOOKING AT YOUR NUMBERS, MAYOR, I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE MONEY THAT WE WERE POTENTIALLY GOING TO PUT INTO THE CONTINGENCY FOR THE ROAD BOND.

I THINK THIS YEAR IS PROBABLY NOT THE RIGHT YEAR TO CREATE A CONTINGENCY FUND.

I THINK WE CAN START LOOKING OTHER PLACES IN THE FUTURE BUDGET YEARS TO TRY TO GET MORE MONEY INTO THAT. I AGREE WITH THAT.

NOW, I'M NOT SO SURE I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 600,000 MORE OUT OF INTEREST IN SINKING.

MR. ATKINSON, WHAT DO WE USE OUR INTEREST IN SINKING MONIES FOR?

>> THE TAX REVENUE FOR THE INTEREST AND SINKING FUND IS WHAT COVERS YOUR TAX BACKED DEBT.

>> WE TALK ABOUT DEBT.

I'M NOT SURE I'M A FAN OF TAKE JUST USING THAT NOW AS OUR ADDITIONAL SLUSH FUND.

I THINK WE DID THIS LAST YEAR WHERE WE LIKE, WELL, WE PROJECT THAT SALES TAX WILL BE MORE.

WE'VE HAD A REALLY GREAT YEAR WITH INTEREST THIS YEAR, WHICH HAS ALSO KILLED US IN OTHER ASPECTS OF OUR ECONOMY, BUT THAT'S AT A FEDERAL LEVEL.

THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT HERE.

BUT I WOULD HATE TO START PULLING ADDITIONAL MONEY OUT OF A FUND THAT WE USED TO PAY DEBT WITH, ESPECIALLY OUR TAX DEBT.

THAT COMES OUT OF TAXPAYERS POCKETS.

WE'VE TRANSITIONED TO A LOT OF FEE BACK DEBT, WHICH I THINK IS PROBABLY MOVING FORWARD MORE OF A RELIABLE WAY OF OF PAYING BACK DEBT.

BUT SO I'M NOT REALLY A BIG FAN OF PULLING MORE OUT OF THAT.

I KNOW YOU FELT FAIRLY COMFORTABLE WITH A CERTAIN NUMBER COMING OUT OF THAT JUST WITH THE INCREASED FED RATES.

I AM OKAY WITH THE 1.7.

MAYBE WE CAN FIND SOME WAYS TO USE THAT TO BUY DOWN THE TAX RATE A LITTLE BIT.

MAYOR, WHAT DID YOU PROPOSE THAT WE PULL OUT OF THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET?

>> MY PROPOSAL ON THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET WOULD MOST LIKELY, IT'S JUST A SET AMOUNT.

GOING THROUGH THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAD THIS YEAR VERSUS LAST YEAR, AND I LOOKED AT WHAT WE'D ACTUALLY SPENT UP THROUGH AUGUST.

WE WERE NOT GOING TO COME UP.

WE WERE ABOUT $15,000 UNDER WHAT WE HAD SPENT ON MEALS AND SEATS THAT WE BUY AT DIFFERENT EVENTS AROUND THE CITY, DISCRETIONARY EXPENDITURES OF THE COUNCIL.

THAT AMOUNTED TO ABOUT $15,000 OF IT.

THE OTHER $30,000 IS $30,000 THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET FOR THE TRIP TO JAPAN, WHICH LAST YEAR, I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF MAINTAINING THAT.

I'M STILL NOT IN FAVOR OF MAINTAINING THAT AS PART OF OUR CITY'S BUDGET.

IT IS TOTALLY NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I THINK WE'RE TRYING TO DO ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ONLY RAISE TAXES FOR THINGS THAT ARE ESSENTIAL.

I DON'T CONSIDER THIS TO BE ESSENTIAL OR EVEN CONSISTENT WITH OUR MANDATE AS A CITY COUNCIL.

>> I TEND TO DISAGREE WITH YOU. SOMEBODY BEING A PEDIATRIC PHYSICIAN, I THINK PROMOTING LEADERSHIP IN YOUTH IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE PROMOTING MORE OF.

WE ARE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO SIT IN THESE SEATS, AND WE'VE GOT A NEXT GENERATION OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP AND PROMOTING THEM AS GOOD LEADERS, TEACHING THEM ABOUT CIVICS AND BEING INVESTED IN THEIR CITY AND THEIR COMMUNITY.

I ACTUALLY THINK IS A PRETTY GOOD WAY TO SPEND $30,000.

NOW, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE 15.

I COULD GET ON BOARD WITH THAT.

WE CAN REDUCE FOOD.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO FEED PEOPLE ALL THE TIME AND MANY SEATS AT GALAS, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS PART OF OUR JOB AS BEING A PART OF THE PUBLIC AND BEING AT THOSE EVENTS AND SHOWING HOW WE SUPPORT OUR LOCAL CHARITIES.

I'M OKAY WITH THE 15, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE YOUTH IN LUBBOCK.

I JUST THINK PROMOTING AND GROWING LEADERSHIP OUT OF OUR KIDS IS SOMETHING THAT WE ALL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE'RE GROWING THAT NEXT GENERATION OF LEADERS.

I THINK WE'RE GETTING BIT PICKY ON SALARIES, THE $140,000.

[01:10:04]

THEN, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS YOU JUST TELL SOMEBODY TO GO FIND $1.1 MILLION OF CUTS WHEN YOU SAT HERE AND JUST SAID, THE CITY MANAGER HAS DONE EVERYTHING, INCLUDING US DOING EVERYTHING TO DIG THROUGH THE COUCH CUSHIONS, AND YOU JUST SAID THERE'S NO MORE TO DIG.

I HAVE A HARD TIME FIGURING OUT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO CUT ANOTHER $1.1 MILLION WHEN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT HAS BROUGHT BACK A REDUCED OR FLAT BUDGET ALREADY FOR THIS YEAR.

THEN A FEW THAT WE SAW SOME INCREASES LIKE IN PARKS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MOW THE GRASS AND THE PARKS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, AND WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THOSE.

I ENCOURAGE PEOPLE WHEN THEY INCLUDING YOU, MAYOR, WHEN YOU BRING SOMETHING FORWARD, YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, WE'RE GOING TO GO FIND IT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING SINCE JANUARY.

ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE BEEN WORKING REALLY HARD TO FIND IT.

THEY WERE TASKED BY THE CITY MANAGER TO BRING FLAT OR REDUCED BUDGETS, AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF THAT KNOWING WHAT A TERRIBLE YEAR THIS HAS BEEN ECONOMICALLY FOR THE CITY.

I JUST I HATE BLANKET STATEMENTS OF GO FIND US $1.1 MILLION.

IF WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT, WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY DONE THAT.

WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE CAN AGREE ON, I'M GOING TO DISAGREE WITH SOME SO I CAN'T SUPPORT THE BUDGET WITH HOW YOU OR YOUR AMENDMENT.

>> LET ME JUST MAKE A COMMENT. I BELIEVE THAT GOING INTO THE CUSHIONS WAS MR. COLLINS COMMENT, NOT MINE.

BUT I THINK WE CAN DO LEADERSHIP WITH OUR STUDENTS WITHOUT SENDING THEM TO JAPAN.

THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT TO THAT. MR. GUSCIN.

>> IS THERE A POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE CITY'S CREDIT RATING IF WE REDUCE THE INS COLLECTION?

>> EXCELLENT QUESTION. THANK YOU.

ONE YEAR TO ONE YEAR, I DO THINK THAT THAT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN? I DO NOT THINK IT WILL HURT THE CREDIT RATING FOR ONE YEAR.

MY CONCERN, AND I CAN'T ANSWER THIS UNTIL I HAVE TIME TO PUT IT IN THE MODEL IS THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO INCREASE THE INS RATE BY THIS AMOUNT NEXT YEAR TO PUT IT BACK.

>> BECAUSE THIS IS AN AMOUNT THAT'S COLLECTED THAT SHOULD MATCH OUR DEBT SERVICE NEEDS, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. IT MATCHES THE DEBT SERVICE, AND IT HAS A YEAR TO YEAR CARRYOVER, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BASICALLY A FUND BALANCE INSIDE OF THAT.

THE HALF CENT THAT I PROPOSED IN THE ORIGINAL BUDGET, WE RAN THAT THROUGH A MODEL TO BE SURE THAT IF I TOLD YOU YOU COULD DO IT THIS YEAR, I DIDN'T COME BACK NEXT AUGUST AND SAY, GIVE IT BACK, PLEASE.

THIS MAY WORK, IT MAY NOT.

I I DON'T KNOW, BUT WITH THE HALF PENNY, WITHIN THE FIVE YEAR RUN OF THE MODEL, THE ONLY PLACE WE SAW INS COMING BACK UP AGAIN WAS AS YOU ISSUED YOUR BIG NEXT SETS OF NUMBERS.

IT WASN'T TO COVER WHAT I'VE ALREADY GOT.

IT WAS ONLY TO COVER NEW.

I WOULD WANT TO BE SURE THAT THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR POEM.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHEN YOU MANAGE A BUDGET AT A HOUSE, LIKE MOST OF US DO, ESPECIALLY WOMEN, WE KNOW HOW TO YES, THE GUYS GO LOOK IN THE COUCH.

I GUARANTEE, MY MONEY NEVER FALLS IN THE COUCH.

>> BUT THE RECLINER.

>> NOT EVEN THE RECLINER. I DON'T HAVE TIME FOR THAT.

I WILL GO TO THE WASHER AND THE DRYER AND FIND WHATEVER.

I THINK THAT OUR STAFF HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TO FIND ANY OPPORTUNITIES FOR CUTS.

THEY'VE IDENTIFIED OVERAGES.

THEY'VE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TO HELP US TO SUSTAIN SERVICES AND PROGRAMS. WHILE I MAY NOT HAVE A PHD, A JD, OR AN MD, I DO HAVE A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN OUR COMMUNITY.

OUR FAMILIES ARE STRUGGLING, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN SMART ENOUGH TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS HERE AND THERE.

SADLY, THAT IMPACTS RESTAURANTS, RETAIL, WHATNOT.

THE ISSUE FOR ME IS THAT, RIGHT NOW, WHEN WE'RE SEEING CUTS AND OUR STAFF HAS HAD TO MAKE CUTS OF THEIR OWN.

I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO DO NOT EVEN A A 0.25 CUT.

WE NEED TO KEEP IT AT 2.5.

I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

ONE, BECAUSE WE NEED TO CONTINUE AND SUSTAIN MORALE.

THESE FOLKS ARE WORKING SO HARD AND NOT THE EASIEST CONDITIONS.

WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING TO SUSTAIN THAT.

NOW, AS FAR AND I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT.

[01:15:02]

WE'RE NOT AS POPULAR MAYBE NOW AS WE USED TO BE, BUT ALSO BECAUSE, IN LAST YEAR'S PROPOSED CUT, WE BECAME VERY CONSCIOUS OF THINGS.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE USED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE LUNCH AND GET SOME REALLY GOOD WORK AND DIALOGUE HAPPENING WITH STAFF.

BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE CUTS, THAT'S NOT HAPPENING LIKE IT USED TO BE.

WE HAVE TO MAKE EXTRA EFFORTS TO GO MAKE MEET WITH STAFF SEPARATE BECAUSE WE MADE SO MANY CUTS.

EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THAT LITTLE $15,000 EXTRA, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT'S GOOD CUT TO MAKE.

WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH THE PUBLIC AND TRY TO REBUILD THOSE RELATIONSHIPS.

NOW, AS FAR AS THE JUNIOR AMBASSADOR PROGRAM, AND EVEN MICHAEL AND I HAD THIS CONVERSATION, I CORRECTED HER ON A FEW THINGS BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY.

THOSE YOUTH THAT WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO LEADERSHIP.

PART OF THAT LEADERSHIP IS LEARNING HOW TO RAISE THE FUNDS SO THAT THEY CAN FUND THEMSELVES TO GO TO JAPAN.

WE'RE NOT GIVING THEM ANY MONEY.

THEY'RE NOT JUST TAKING MONEY.

THAT'S PART OF GOOD LEADERSHIP BUILDING IS THAT WE ARE GIVING THEM A CHANCE TO RAISE THE MONEY.

SOME KIDS ARE BETTER OR WELL OFF OVER OTHERS, BUT REGARDLESS OF THE FACT, THIS IS SUCH A GOOD PROGRAM.

IT IS A FACT THAT CHILDREN WHO GO THROUGH OR TRAVEL ABROAD TO DO SUCH TYPES OF SISTER CITY PROGRAMS END UP BECOMING VERY VIABLE CITIZENS IN THE FUTURE.

ONCE AGAIN, WE'RE NIT PICKING, NICKEL AND DAMON OR TRYING TO FIND THE MOST VULNERABLE PROGRAMS AND EMPLOYEES AND THINGS THAT YOU DON'T THINK ARE IMPORTANT, BUT THEY ARE IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF FOLKS.

IN FACT, THIS COMING YEAR, WE WILL BE CELEBRATING, WHAT IS IT NOW WITH JAPAN? JARRETT, YOU PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN I, THE 30 FOR YOU.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT MILESTONE.

TO JUST WANT TO JUST BREAK THAT, WHEN THEY COME HERE, WE DO A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF HOSTING, BUT WHEN YOU GO THERE, THEY GO ABOVE AND BEYOND BECAUSE THEY SEE THE VALUE OF THAT RELATIONSHIP.

BASED ON JUST THOSE TWO THINGS, EMPLOYEES, MY PRIORITY, AS ALWAYS.

I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSAL BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT JUST I I KNOW THE PEOPLE.

I'M COMMITTED TO MY COMMUNITY.

I'M COMMITTED TO OUR STAFF.

I MAKE THE EFFORT TO GO TO MEETINGS, TO GO AND VISIT WITH THEM, AND ASK THEM WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE.

I SEE IT BECAUSE I'M THERE.

I HAVE GONE PERSONALLY ABOVE AND BEYOND TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SUSTAIN CERTAIN PROGRAMS JUST SO THAT THE CITY LOOKS GOOD CASE ON POINT FOURTH ON BROADWAY, ALMOST GOT DISSOLVED, BUT I WENT ABOVE AND BEYOND MYSELF TO HELP STAFF TO MAKE THAT A CONSISTENT PROGRAM THAT THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS.

WE HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF NEEDS IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I KNOW MICHAEL GAVE US HER PYRAMID THAT BELONGED TO TOMMY, AND THERE'S CORE, THERE'S NEEDS, THERE'S WANTS.

IT TAKES A LITTLE COMBINATION OF EVERYTHING.

IN A YEAR WHERE WE'RE ALREADY SEEING SO MANY CUTS, I AM NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS PROPOSAL.

>> MR. ROSE. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

I'M JUST GOING TO GO DOWN THE LIST HERE, I GUESS.

THE DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE BROUGHT IN LAST YEAR IS 3,597,000.

IS THAT RIGHT, JARRETT? WHAT THE MAYOR HAS HERE? 3,000,597.26?

>> YES, BECAUSE THIS PUTS THE 1.9 BACK.

>> ONE POINT NINE.

>> LET'S LEAVE YOU AT THE BASE OF 8383.

>> NOT THE TECHNICAL NO NEW REVENUE.

>> BUT CORRECT.

>> THE ACTUAL NO NEW REVENUE, WHICH IS CONFUSING FOR ALL OF US.

[LAUGHTER]

>> IF WE CAN ADOPT CONSISTENT LANGUAGE ON THAT, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT IS DIFFICULT.

>> SURE.

>> LAST YEAR'S NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WAS SET AT A CERTAIN POINT.

THIS YEAR, IT'S DROPPED.

THEY REVISED IT EARLIER LAST MONTH, AND SO WE'RE GOING TO CALL THAT THE REVISED NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

ALTHOUGH TECHNICALLY, IT IS THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

[01:20:02]

>> YOU'RE GOING WITH REVISED AS IN?

>> YES, VERSUS A RATE THAT WOULD BRING IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY THIS YEAR AS LAST YEAR FROM EXISTING.

IN OTHER WORDS, WOULD NOT PRODUCE ANY NEW REVENUE TO THE BUDGET.

>> OUR DIFFERENCE IN THE REVISED IS 3,597,726.

>> THE MOVE FROM DISCRETIONARY IN I'M AFRAID THAT WE MIGHT COME BACK AND KICK OURSELVES FOR THIS, BUT IT IS A YEAR WHERE I MEAN, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT SALES TAX DOWN, THAT MEANS PEOPLE ARE FEELING IT.

THEY'RE SPENDING LESS MONEY. THEY'RE PULLING BACK.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT THEIR HOUSEHOLD BUDGET AND JUST SPENDING LESS IN GENERAL.

I THINK THIS IS NOT THE YEAR TO PUT THAT BACK.

I THINK WE CAN TAKE A LOOK.

WE'VE CUT A LITTLE BIT OUT BECAUSE IT WAS 2 MILLION AND WE'RE GOING TO CUT A LITTLE BIT OUT SO JARRETT CAN BUY SOME CATTAIL REMOVER AND THINGS THAT HE NEEDS.

NOTHING THAT'S OVER THE TOP OR UNNECESSARY.

THEN THE MOVE ADDITIONAL FROM INS TO MNO.

I MEAN, AND I'M JUST RUNNING THROUGH THESE, JUST TRYING TO BE HONEST WITH EVERYONE.

WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH THIS BUDGET. IT'S BEEN A TOUGH YEAR.

STAFF, YOU REALLY HAVE DONE A GREAT JOB, BRINGING IN FLAT BUDGETS, LOWER BUDGETS.

I APPRECIATE EVERY ONE OF YOU GUYS.

I'M STANDING UP HERE ARGUING FOR ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE AND BONDS TO TAKE ON DEBT AND GRABBING ANOTHER 600 FROM IT JUST IT KILLS ME.

BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO PAY FOR THESE ROADS.

I MEAN, THERE'S NO [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT IT.

I MEAN, LUBBOCKS HAVE ROADS, AND THE ONLY WAY WE'RE PAYING FOR THEM IS YOU'VE GOT TO FINANCE THESE THINGS.

WHICH IS, WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO BUILD ROADS.

JUST GRABBING IN ANOTHER 600,000, REMOVING IT FROM INS TO M&O.

I JUST I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT RIGHT NOW, ESPECIALLY ME SITTING UP HERE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ARGUING FOR CONTINUING OUR ROAD BONDS.

THEN WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO TALKING ABOUT 15,140,000.

I MEAN, IT GETS TO WHERE THOSE ARE CENTS ON THE DOLLAR.

IN STAFF, THIS IS NOTHING PERSONAL THAT WE'RE ARGUING OVER THIS.

LIKE I SAID, I THINK YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB.

I TREAT EVERYONE IN THIS BUILDING WITH ABSOLUTE RESPECT. I LOVE EVERY ONE OF YOU.

YOU COULD COME TALK TO ME AT ANY TIME.

I MEAN, I THINK THIS BUILDING DOES A FANTASTIC JOB OF HIRING GOOD PEOPLE THAT RESPECT THE JOB AND THEY RESPECT THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY.

I DO APPRECIATE YOU GUYS.

ON THAT EITHER WAY.

IF WE WANT TO FIGHT OVER 140 ON THAT, I CAN SUPPORT THE REDUCTION TO A TWO AND A QUARTER.

THEN AT THAT POINT, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR.

I CANNOT SUPPORT WHERE WE GO FIND 1.2.

I THINK STAFF HAS TRIED TO FIND 1.2.

I THINK IF STAFF DIDN'T, I THINK WE'D BE SITTING CLOSER TO 4.1.

THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON THIS. AS A COUNSEL, WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT AND COME TOGETHER AND SEE WHERE WE CAN MOVE THIS, BUT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH PULLING THE DISCRETIONARY OUT AND HAVING A TAX RAISE TO 1.8.

>> MR. COLLINS.

>> A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS AND GO BACK AND ADDRESS THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT PUTTING MONEY INTO ROAD BOND CONTINGENCY.

AGAIN, MR. TURPIN AND MR. RHINO COULD ANSWER.

HOW MANY OF THESE PROJECTS ARE EXPECTED TO BID WITHIN THE NEXT 24 MONTHS? YOU CAN SHOUT IT FROM BACK THERE [LAUGHTER].

>> I NEED TO BE FOR THE PUBLIC.

>> THAT AGAIN. WE'VE GOT THREE GOING OUT BEFORE THE END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR.

[01:25:02]

I MEAN, WE'RE BASICALLY BIDDING OUT 13 DIFFERENT PROJECTS OVER THE NEXT 24 MONTHS.

>> THANK YOU. WHEN IS A TIME TO DO THIS AFTER IT'S TOO LATE? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? IF WE'RE GOING TO BID THREE PROJECTS BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR AND 13 WITHIN THE 24 MONTH PERIOD.

WHEN IS THE RIGHT TIME TO SET ASIDE SOME MONEY TO ENSURE THAT WE GET TO OR HOPEFULLY GET TO COMPLETE THESE PROJECTS? AT SOME POINT, IF WE DON'T DO THIS NOW, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT A SHORTFALL AND SAY, OOPS, AND WE COULD HAVE DONE IT.

WE COULD HAVE DONE THAT THIS YEAR TO HELP ENSURE THAT THESE PROJECTS GET COMPLETED, IT MAY WELL BE THAT WE FIND THAT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS COME IN UNDER BUDGET, AND THEN THAT MONEY CAN GO BACK.

BUT TO NOT PUT IT IN FRONT OF US I THINK IS IRRESPONSIBLE.

I'M GOING TO STICK BY MY GUNS ON THE NEED OR AT LEAST MY PERSONAL OPINION, THE NEED OF SETTING THESE DOLLARS ASIDE TO ENSURE THAT WE FINISH THESE ROAD BOND PROJECTS.

THEN WE GO AND ADDRESS CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES.

I FULLY SUPPORT THE THINGS THAT WE DO FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.

I THINK IT'S SO VERY CRITICAL THAT WE DO THESE THINGS AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'VE SEEN ARE GREAT, AND I APPRECIATE THE CHIEFS THAT ARE SITTING IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM AND THEIR STAFFS AND THEIR TEAMS AND THE WORK THAT THEY DO ON BEHALF OF THIS COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU TO YOU GUYS FOR THAT.

BUT THE REST OF THIS STAFF, WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WHO THESE FOLKS ARE AND WHAT THEY DO.

THAT'S WHY I'VE PROPOSED 3%.

WE THINK ABOUT THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

LET'S THINK ABOUT IT.

YOU SAY, OH, THE CITY OF LUBBOCK HAS A TARGET ON ITS BACK.

WE DON'T HAVE A TARGET ON OUR BACK AND IT, WE'VE GOT THAT LITTLE RED DOT THAT YOU SEE ON TELEVISION.

THOSE PEOPLE ARE TAKING DIRECT SHOTS AT OUR IT DEPARTMENTS RIGHT NOW.

THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE NEXT SHOT THAT THEY CAN TAKE.

DO WE WANT TO REDUCE THOSE FOLKS? DO WE WANT TO REPLACE THOSE FOLKS? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO US BY HAVING A REDUCTION IN SALARY TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE NOT KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION? I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT WE KEEP THOSE FOLKS IN PLACE AND THAT WE REWARD THEM ACCORDINGLY.

WE'VE GOT ACROSS THE BOARD.

AGAIN, ALL OF THE FOLKS WHO ARE INVOLVED IN OUR UTILITY SERVICES, LINEMAN, THE FOLKS WHO ARE WITH WATER AND WASTEWATER, WHO ARE STANDING IN DITCHES, FIXING LEAKS FOR US, WHETHER IT'S WINTERTIME, WHETHER IT'S DARK, WHETHER IT'S LIGHT, NO MATTER WHAT.

THOSE FOLKS ARE CRITICAL TO OUR PUBLIC SAFETY, HAVING A SAFE WATER SUPPLY, HAVING SAFE POWER SUPPLY.

THOSE THINGS ARE CRITICAL TO US.

THAT GOES ACROSS THE BOARD WITH EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY PURCHASING.

THOSE FOLKS ARE CRITICAL TO HOW THIS COMMUNITY WORKS.

IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT THE PAY, IT'S ABOUT THE COST TO REPLACE.

IT'S EXPENSIVE TO REPLACE THESE FOLKS.

IF I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE THREE FOLKS SHORT IN OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT.

TWO FOLKS SHORT IN OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT. WE'RE SHORT.

THE COST TO REPLACE THOSE PEOPLE IS LOSS OF PRODUCTIVITY, LOSS OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO GET DONE WHILE WE'RE WORKING ON THAT.

I JUST WANT TO, MY ARGUMENT MAY FALL ON DEAF EARS WITH THE COUNSEL, AND THAT'S OKAY.

I'M NOT SAYING IT JUST FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE, BUT I THINK PERSONALLY, I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP OUR FOLKS IN PLACE AND TO KEEP THEM IN GOOD STEAD WITH THEIR WAGES IN COMPARISON TO THE COST OF LIVING.

I'LL MAKE THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL POINTS. THANK YOU.

>> MR. ROSE.

>> JARRETT, I MEAN, ERIC, ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.

HAVE WE HAD ANY WHAT BONDS HAVE WE COMPLETED OUT OF THE 22 BOND SO FAR? AND OF THOSE, WHAT HAS COME IN OVER BUDGET? I MEAN, JUST SO WE KNOW.

>> YEAH. WE HAVE COMPLETED ACTUALLY FOUR PROJECTS.

YOU'VE GOT THE 234TH STREET BACK OF CURVE PROJECTS.

CAME IN WITHIN BUDGET.

98TH UPLAND TO AL COVE IS NOW COMPLETE, ALSO CAME WITHIN BUDGET, AND 34TH, I'M SORRY, 146 QUICKER TO INDIANA IS THE OTHER ONE THAT WILL BE CUTTING THE RIBBONS ON LATER IN THE WEEK.

SO FAR, THE FOUR PROJECTS WE HAVE BID HAVE COME IN WITHIN BUDGET.

AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE THREE COMING UP MILWAUKEE, FOUR STREET TO MILWAUKEE CITY LIMITS IS OUT TO BID.

YOU'VE GOT A 34TH STREET, AND ONE OF THE UPLAND PROJECTS COME OUT TO BID LATER THIS YEAR.

THOSE WILL BE A LITTLE BIGGER PROJECTS, SO WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE BETTER FEEL AT THE END OF THE YEAR.

>> DID YOU SAY THEY'RE COMING IN UNDER BUDGET OR ARE THEY?

[01:30:01]

>> FOUR WITHIN BUDGET. YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. TIM, I CAN'T 100% GET YOUR POINT ON THIS. I JUST.

>> DON'T GO ANYWHERE.

>> YES. DON'T LEAVE. THE MAYOR'S GOT A QUESTION.

I JUST IT MIGHT NOT BE THE YEAR.

I THINK WITH INFLATION COOLING, I JUST THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME IN RIGHT ON THIS.

LIKE I SAID, WE MAY THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE JUST DEAL WITH AT THE TIME.

>> HOW WE GO TO DEAL WITH IT AT THE TIME?

>> THE SAME WAY WE DEAL WITH A SALES TAX SHORTFALL.

I MEAN, IT'S.

>> ALL RIGHT. ERIC, COULD YOU REMIND ME FOR CALLING ANYBODY ELSE WITHIN OUR BUDGETS.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A CUSHION BUILT INTO OUR 2024 BUDGET IN EACH PROJECT, AND THEN WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL CUSHION BUILT ON TOP OF THAT ONE OF AN ADDITIONAL $3,000,000.

DID WE DO THAT WITH THE 2022 BUDGET? I KNOW WE DIDN'T HAVE IT OVER THE TOP, BUT DID WE BUILD IN A CUSHION WITHIN EACH OF THE BUDGETS?

>> WE DID BUILD IN A A LITTLE DIFFERENT METHOD THAT WE USED FOR THE 2022, BUT WE ACTUALLY STARTED OFF AS A BASE PRICE FOR THE 2022 WITH THE MOST EXPENSIVE MIEL AT THAT TIME, WHICH WAS INDIANA, I'M SORRY, 114TH, INDIANA TO QUAKER.

THAT WAS ABOUT THAT TIME ABOUT A 33% CONTINGENCY.

WE'VE SEEN INFLATION EAT UP A PORTION OF THAT.

THE OTHER THING THAT HAS BEEN AND MR. TURPIN CAN TALK MORE DETAIL ABOUT THIS, BUT RELOCATION COSTS OF UTILITIES HAS BEEN MORE EXPENSIVE THAN PLANNED FOR.

RIGHT NOW, LOOKING AT A WORST CASE, BEST CASE SCENARIO, WORKING IN THE CONTINGENCY THAT OUR ENGINEERS HAVE WORKED IN.

YOU'D BE AT ABOUT AN 8.2 MILLION SHORTFALL.

IF NONE OF THAT CONTINGENCY WE NEEDED, YOU'D BE AT ABOUT A 3.2 MILLION DOLLAR SURPLUS.

I SUSPECT THE REAL NUMBER AS YOU BID OUT THE NEXT 12 PROJECTS NOT 13 CORRECTION.

I WAS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN THAT.

AS FAR AS PROJECTS, THE BUDGET, I'LL GIVE YOU A FEW EXAMPLES, 98, UPLAND ALCOVE.

BUDGET WAS 12 MILLION.

WE'RE GOING TO COME IN AT 11.627, 146 STREET, QUAKER, INDIANA.

BUDGET WAS 12 MILLION, WE'LL COME IN ABOUT 10.4.

OF COURSE, THOSE FUNDS CAN BE ROLLED INTO FUTURE PROJECTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT COME IN WITHIN BUDGET.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR.

>> MAYOR BRO TIM.

>> PROBABLY WASN'T A GOOD TIME TO CUT IMPACT FEES, I GUESS, BUT I THINK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE REDUCING NON CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES, AND I JUST I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT MANY OF YOU ALSO SEE THAT IT'S NECESSARY, AND I KNOW THAT ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS TALKED ABOUT RAISING IT AND STAFF, YOU KNOW THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE YOUR BACK.

BUT THIS IS THAT ONE YEAR THAT WE HAVE SO MANY SHORTFALLS.

IT'S NOT THAT I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE A 3%.

IT'S JUST THAT IT'S NOT A GOOD YEAR.

IN A FAMILY, SOMETIMES WE JUST HAVE TO TIGHTEN OUR LITTLE BELTS AND IT'S NO FUN.

BUT IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE GIVE YOU WHAT YOU DESERVE.

YOU DO DESERVE MORE.

BUT THIS YEAR, I THINK THE 2.5 IS PROBABLY THE BEST ROUTE TO GO.

I THINK IT'S ALL OF OUR STAFF DESERVES THAT.

BUT GOING BACK TO MOVING SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS, I THINK WE REALLY ARE IN A TIGHT WE'RE DEALING WITH SOME SERIOUS STUFF.

THAT'S WHY, I DON'T THINK ANYONE ANTICIPATED SOME OF THE UTILITIES COSTING MORE TO RE ALLOCATE OR ANY OF THAT.

BUT I JUST REALLY HOPE THAT WE DON'T MAKE ANY MORE CUTS BECAUSE WE WILL EVENTUALLY SEE THOSE OUTCOMES NEGATIVELY.

I THINK WHAT JARRETT AND THE STAFF HAVE PROPOSED, I THINK IS A VERY GOOD BUDGET.

AGAIN, THIS PROPOSAL, I SEE SOME OF THE STUFF THAT COULD BE WORKED ON, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S NECESSARY.

I JUST WANTED TO LET THE STAFF KNOW MAINLY THAT WE SUPPORT YOU, BUT IT IS A VERY TOUGH YEAR, AS YOU ALL KNOW.

I HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND MY PERSONAL DECISION WILL BE 2.5, AND I THINK IT'S IN LINE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY OUR CITY MANAGER.

I HOPE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE IT'S ONE OF THOSE YEARS WHERE WE REALLY NEED TO BE CONSCIOUS, BUT WITHOUT REDUCING ANYMORE.

[01:35:05]

>> DOCTOR WILSON.

>> MR. ATKINSON, REMIND ME TRANSFER TO MARKET LUBBOCK.

HOW MUCH PULL BACK THIS YEAR AND THE PROPOSED.

>> SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR REDUCTION.

IF YOU GIVE ME A MINUTE, I'LL LOOK IT BACK UP. I THINK IT WAS 400.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE 370 SOMETHING 390 SOMETHING.

I MEAN, IF I WAS LOOKING FOR ANOTHER CUTS, I WOULD PROPOSE TO INCREASE THAT TO POTENTIALLY A HALF 1 MILLION AND MOVE THAT UP TO 500,000 IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE TO CUT AND PULL BACK AND BUY DOWN OUR RATE A LITTLE BIT.

>> WE CAN GET THAT IF WE CAN GET THAT EXACT NUMBER, THAT WOULD GIVE HER UP.

>> I'M NOT. I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT I'M NOT FOR THAT EVERY YEAR BECAUSE 100% SUPPORT OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS HERE IN LUBBOCK.

BUT, IF WE'RE TIGHTENING AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR TO NICKEL AND DIME EVERYTHING, THEN I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.

I THINK PULLING BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM THAT WOULD GIVE US A LITTLE BIT BACK, AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS RE EVALUATE THAT NEXT BUDGET CYCLE.

>> DO YOU HAVE THAT NUMBER, JARRETT? DO YOU HAVE IT, TIM? TIM, WHAT IS IT? WE'LL CHECK YOUR MATH HERE REAL QUICK.

>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE TO ADD ANYTHING IN PUBLIC HERE TODAY, MAYOR.

THIS IS 399,752 IS THE REDUCTION TO MARKET LUBBOCK, AND MAYBE INDIFFERENCE TO WHAT DR. WILSON SAID.

THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE'VE SEEN A CUT IN MARKET LUBBOCK'S REVENUE.

JUST POINT THAT OUT.

>> WELL, I THINK MY ARGUMENT WITH THAT IS IT'S NOT REDUCED ANY TYPE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.

WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PROJECT THAT HAS NOT DECIDED TO COME HERE BECAUSE WE REDUCED THEIR AMOUNT BY, 100,000 HERE, 100,000 THERE.

BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY TO REDUCE THEIR BUDGET TO A FLAT RATE, I THINK WE HAVE TO ASK JOHN AND HIS TEAM TO DO THE SAME THING.

LIKE I SAID, I THINK WE REEVALUATE THAT NUMBER EVERY SINGLE YEAR IN EVERY BUDGET CYCLE.

I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S A POTENTIAL PLACE THAT THEY SHOULD CUT, AS WELL.

LIKE I SAID, NOT ANYTHING AGAINST MR. OSBORNE AND HIS TEAM OVER THERE AT LEDA AND MARKET LUBBOCK.

I JUST THINK THAT IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR CUTS, THAT'S A PLACE THAT I THINK WE COULD PULL A LITTLE BIT MORE FROM, AND THEN RE-EVALUATE THAT AGAIN NEXT YEAR.

>> WELL THIS IS CUMULATIVE $900,000 OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS.

LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS IS NOT A JUST ONE TIME ONLY THING FOR MARKET LUBBOCK.

THOSE REDUCTIONS HAVE OCCURRED YEAR OVER YEAR AND CONTINUE TO OCCUR.

OBVIOUSLY, THEY CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.

LET'S KEEP IN MIND WHAT THE PREMISE OF MARKET LUBBOCK WAS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION FROM THE CITY TO THEM, AND THAT MONEY WAS TO BE USED FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE CONTINUED TO CUT FROM 2009 UNTIL TODAY.

LEADER NOW TO MISS WARD'S POINT HAS $29 MILLION WORTH OF DEBT, DEBT THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE HAD TO INCUR, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THESE CONTINUING CUTS TO THEIR REVENUE STREAM.

IF WE LOOK AT THE BENEFIT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THE GROWTH THAT OCCURS, AND THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS.

IF YOU ASKED ME TODAY, I WOULD TELL YOU.

IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, I WOULDN'T DO IT.

BUT THE LEGISLATURE SET THESE RULES AND SAID, YOU'RE IN THE GAME.

JUST LIKE TEXAS TAKE FOOTBALL, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THE GAME, I'M GOING TO BE IN IT TO WIN.

I THINK THOSE FOLKS OVER THERE DO TOO, AND I THINK THEY DO A BETTER JOB OF WINNING WITH LESS.

THEY DON'T GET NIL MONEY TO SPEND.

I THINK THAT THOSE FOLKS AT MARKET LUBBOCK AND LEDA DO A GREAT JOB WITH WHAT THEY'RE GIVEN.

THEY HAVE ABSORBED THESE REDUCTIONS.

NO, WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THE PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE UPCOMING.

SOME HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED.

YES, THEY'RE GOING TO GET SOME TIF MONEY, BUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO GO WITH THAT TIF MONEY THAT'S IN THE BUSINESS PARK.

IT'S GOING TO BUILD A NEW ROAD TO ACCOMMODATE THE LATEST AMAZON PROJECT THAT'S COMING TO LUBBOCK.

THAT'S WHAT THAT TIF MONEY IS GOING TO BE USED FOR, JUST AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR.

I THINK WE CAN MAKE THOSE CUTS, BUT WE'VE GOT TO BE HONEST ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING.

WE'RE MAKING REDUCTIONS BECAUSE IT'S EASY.

THAT CONCERNS ME THAT WE'RE MAKING REDUCTIONS BECAUSE IT'S EASY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> JUST REAL QUICK, MR. ATKINSON, DID YOU AGREE WITH HIS NUMBER 399,752? IS THAT WHAT YOU GOT? THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. I'M THE ONE THAT GOT IN TROUBLE FOR DOING MATH IN PUBLIC LAST YEAR.

>> NONE OF US LIKE TO DO THAT.

DR. WILSON, THAT GIVE YOU A BASIC ABOUT 100,000 AND CHANGE. MAYOR PATEEM.

>> I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. COLLINS,

[01:40:01]

LEPRINO IS AN AMAZING EXAMPLE OF THAT WORK, AND LOOK AT ALL THE BENEFITS THAT OUR CITY IS EXPERIENCING AS A RESULT.

BUT IF WE KEEP CUTTING AND CUTTING, I KNOW WE EVEN HAD SOME FOLKS TO GO IN AND MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ON WORDING AND EVERYTHING ON ANYBODY WANTING TO BUILD GRANTS.

I'M JUST NOT SURE WHERE MOST OF YOU SAY THAT YOU PRO GROWTH AND PRO BUSINESS, BUT THEN YOU WANT TO CUT FROM SOMEONE THAT IS WORKING TO IDENTIFY AND THEY HAVE.

THEY BRING OUT A LOT OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE SEEN ARE SO SIGNIFICANT TO THE COMMUNITY.

WE CANNOT AFFORD TO CONTINUE TO MAKE CUTS THAT ARE GOING TO HURT THEM AND EVENTUALLY OUR CITY.

GOING BACK TO IMPACT FEES, WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THESE FEES THAT SMALL BUSINESSES HAD TO PAY.

IT'S HOW WE KEEP OUR CITY FUNCTIONING AND RUNNING.

NOBODY EVER WANTS TO PAY MORE, BUT IT DOES IMPACT, AND SO THEN WE END UP WITH LESS.

I REALLY THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL ON THIS ROAD THAT WE'RE EVEN THINKING ABOUT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCTION TO LEDA.

LET'S BE REALLY CAREFUL BECAUSE I GUARANTEE YOU THAT WE'RE GOING TO END UP PAYING LATER.

PLEASE THINK VERY CAREFULLY ON THAT.

I KNOW DAVID WANTS TO INTERRUPT ME AND TALK, BUT I'LL LET HIM.

>> MR. GUSCIN.

>> HE KNOWS THAT ONE.

>> I SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DONE BY PRIVATE BUSINESSES.

I SUPPORT PRIVATE BUSINESSES CHOOSING WHERE THEY WANT TO INVEST THEIR MONEY AND MAKING A DECISION ABOUT HOW TO ALLOCATE THEIR RESOURCES, AND THEN ALLOWING PRIVATE BUSINESSES TO COMPETE WITH PRIVATE DOLLARS TO DELIVER THE BEST RESULTS TO CONSUMERS.

WHAT I DON'T SUPPORT IS STATE SPONSORED "ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT." CENTRALLY PLANNED ECONOMICS WAS THE DOWNFALL OF THE SOVIET UNION.

JUST BECAUSE WE DO IT ON A SMALL SCALE HERE DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY BETTER OR MORE EFFICIENT.

WE'RE NOT ANY SMARTER ABOUT IT, AND NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE ECONOMIC DECISIONS AS EFFICIENTLY, AS QUICKLY OR REALISTICALLY AS PRIVATE CITIZENS WHO ARE PUTTING THEIR OWN DOLLARS ON THE LINE.

WHEN WE SAY THAT WE SUPPORT GROWTH AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WE WANT IT DONE BY PRIVATE PARTIES.

THE OTHER REASON THAT IT'S REASONABLE TO REDUCE THE LEDA MARKET LUBBOCK BUDGET.

IT'S NOT JUST THAT IT'S EASY MONEY.

THERE'S NOT ANOTHER DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY THAT'S SITTING ON $10 MILLION OF EXCESS RESERVES WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC GAME PLAN ON HOW THEY'RE GOING TO USE THEIR MONEY.

EVEN IF YOU HAVE SOME TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY TO COME IN, LEDA IS SITTING ON A MOUNTAIN OF CASH THAT NOBODY ELSE IS, AND THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ISSUE BONDS BASED OFF OF THEIR REVENUE.

IF THERE'S A GREAT PROJECT THAT NEEDS MORE SUPPORT THAN THAT, THEN WE CAN BRING IT TO THE CITY, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT THEN.

WE'VE GOT TO GIVE THEM THE SAME TREATMENT THAT WE ARE GIVING EVERY OTHER DEPARTMENT.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.

GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT I THINK MR. ROSE SAID A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, THE MONEY WE ARE MOVING FROM INS TO MN MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, YOU PROPOSED A HALF CENT, WHICH WAS ABOUT 1.2 MILLION DOLLAR, IS THAT CORRECT? WE HAD THAT AVAILABLE OR YOU FELT COMFORTABLE ABOUT MOVING THAT HALF CENT.

EXPLAIN WHY YOU FELT COMFORTABLE MOVING THAT HALF CENT.

WHY DID WE HAVE THAT MONEY TO MOVE, AND WHY DID YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING IT?

>> BECAUSE THE INTEREST EARNINGS WERE ABOVE THE PROJECTED RATES.

>> WE WERE BRINGING IN INTEREST REVENUE ABOVE THE RATES, AND HOW MUCH THIS LAST YEAR?

>> I COULDN'T CALL THAT.

I'LL ASK JOE TO START LOOKING IT UP.

IT'S TWO FACTORS. ONE OF THEM IS TIMING.

WHEN DO YOU PULL DOWN? REMEMBER, EACH OF THOSE BONDS PULLS DOWN IN FIVE SEPARATE YEARS.

WHEN DO YOU PULL DOWN THAT CASH AND SET IT INTO THE INTEREST BEARING ACCOUNT? WHAT'S THE RATE YOU EARN.

THE RATE, AND THIS AFFECTED AND WE'VE USED INTEREST IN SEVERAL PLACES IN THE BUDGET BECAUSE RATE STAYED HIGHER LONGER THAN WE'RE PREDICTED.

I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON SAID IT WELL.

IT'S HELPED US ON ONE SIDE.

IT'S GOT US ON ANOTHER.

BUT THAT WAS DOLLARS THEN THAT IF I LEAVE THEM IN THAT RESERVE ACCOUNT,

[01:45:04]

>> AGAIN, JUST TO MAKE CLEAR TO EVERYBODY.

EVEN THOUGH WE CAN USE THAT MONEY, MOVE IT OVER TO M&O, MAINTENANCE AND I'M GOING TO QUIT USING.

I'M NOT GOING TO USE SHORTHAND FOR ANYTHING EITHER.

MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION, IT STILL WOULD INVOLVE WE HAVE TO CALL IT A TAX INCREASE.

>> YOU ARE CORRECT, MAYOR.

YOU'RE NOT TAKING ONE MORE DOLLAR OUT OF SOMEONE'S POCKET, BUT YOU HAVE LEGALLY.

>> [OVERLAPPING] BUT LEGALLY WE CALL IT A TAX INCREASE, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD NOT TAKE ANOTHER DOLLAR OUT OF YOUR POCKET FOR THAT 1.2 MILLION DOLLAR.

LET ME SAY THIS ABOUT SALARIES.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT AS WE GO FORWARD INTO THIS YEAR, THAT OUR PROJECTIONS FOR SALES TAX REVENUE WILL RETURN TO WHAT WE WOULD CALL MORE THE NORM AROUND HERE.

LIKE I SAID, THE PAST FOUR, FIVE, SIX MONTHS.

I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW LONG THAT'S BEEN.

THEY'VE BEEN BELOW OUR PROJECTIONS AND OFF FROM THE NORM.

NOT JUST OUR CITY, BUT ALL OVER THE STATE, I THINK ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, PEOPLE HAVE EXPERIENCED THE SAME PROBLEM, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER HAD A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR IT TO DATE.

I'VE NOT HEARD ANY ECONOMISTS EXPLAIN IT TO DATE.

IT'S JUST SOMETHING WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT I'VE GOT MY OWN REASONS OR MY OWN THOUGHTS ABOUT WHAT IT IS, BUT I'M NO ECONOMIST.

I'M HOPEFUL THAT THINGS WILL RETURN TO NORMAL OVER THE NEXT THREE, FOUR MONTHS, AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND REVISIT THIS BUDGET AND AMEND THIS BUDGET.

IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE ARE GOING TO BE IN A BETTER POSITION BECAUSE OF SALES TAX, EVEN THOUGH WE CANNOT AMEND THE PROPERTY TAX PART, WE CAN AMEND THE BUDGET BASED ON BETTER SALES TAX INCOME, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT AGAINST GOING BACK.

I THINK THE 2.5% IS PERFECTLY FINE UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

THREE WOULD BE PERFECTLY FINE UNDER REALLY GOOD CIRCUMSTANCES WITH ME, TWO.

I JUST WANT TO WAIT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

THEN JUST TO COMMENT ABOUT ASKING OUR CITY MANAGER TO LOOK FOR $1.1 MILLION.

I'VE CALCULATED THAT AS ABOUT A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN A 4% ADJUSTMENT IN THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGETS, NOT INCLUDING PAYROLL.

I TOOK PAYROLL OUT OF THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY, LOOKED AT THAT NUMBER, AND THAT NUMBER WAS, I THINK, ABOUT 27 MILLION AND SOMETHING.

THIS IS A 4% REDUCTION IN THAT.

IT'S NOT 4% OUT OF THEIR TOTAL BUDGET.

IT'S 4% OUT OF THE NON-PAYROLL PART OF THEIR BUDGETS.

NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT HE HAS TO DO THIS EQUALLY ACROSS EVERY DEPARTMENT.

BUT IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO GO IN THERE AND NECESSARILY MICROMANAGE EVERYTHING.

THAT'S WHY WE PAY HIM THE BIG BUCKS TO GO DO THAT.

WE'RE JUST ASKING HIM TO GO FIND THOSE IN HIS DISCRETION.

HE THINKS THE BEST PLACE TO FIND THEM WOULD BE RATHER THAN US SAY WHERE HE NEEDS TO FIND THEM OTHER THAN THE THINGS THAT I'VE PROPOSED RIGHT HERE AS THE PLACES WHERE I WOULD LIKE US TO FIND THIS MONEY.

I'M LEAVING THAT TO HIS DISCRETION.

IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO GO IN THERE AND FIND EVERY DOLLAR THAT WE NEED TO.

IF WE DID, WE WOULD NEVER GET OFF THIS DAYS I GUARANTEE YOU.

THAT'S WHY I'VE LEFT THAT NUMBER IN THERE FOR HIM TO FIND IN HIS DISCRETION.

IT'S A 4% DECREASE IN THE NON-PERSONNEL PORTIONS OF THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGETS.

JUST TO EXPLAIN THAT. MAYOR PATEEM.

>> GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES FOR THE PUBLIC.

MAKE THEM AWARE OF WHAT WOULD BE A NON-PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET OR JARRETT.

GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES.

>> WELL, NON-PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGET WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT'S NOT POLICE, FIRE OR ANIMAL CONTROL.

>> CAN I GET THAT? BE SPECIFIC.

>> WELL, THAT'S ANYTHING THAT'S NOT.

>> NO. BE SPECIFIC. NAME SOME DEPARTMENT.

>> IT'S PARKS. IT'S HELL.

PARKS. IT'S CODES.

IT'S EVERY DEPARTMENT.

I DON'T THINK I NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN EVERY DEPARTMENT OTHER THAN POLICE, FIRE, AND ANIMAL CONTROL.

THAT'S AS SPECIFIC AS I NEED TO GET.

>> WELL, LET ME BE SPECIFIC AND TELL YOU THAT PARKS IS VERY UTILIZED.

THEY'RE SO UTILIZED.

I DROVE BY ONE OF THE SPLASH PADS THE OTHER DAY, AND I COULD NOT BELIEVE HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE STILL THERE.

PROBABLY MORE SO, I THINK PEOPLE WENT TO SWIMMING POOLS.

HEALTH, WE'VE DEALT WITH MEASLES OUTBREAK.

[01:50:04]

OUR HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS WORKED SO HARD TO OBTAIN DOLLARS THAT JUST DON'T SHOW UP.

I DON'T THINK THEY CAN AFFORD CUTS RIGHT NOW.

IT'S A CRITICAL TIME, I THINK FOR HEALTH.

OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

I JUST CANNOT SEE ANY MORE CUTS.

WE HAVE DEPARTMENTS WORKING WITH AS FEW EMPLOYEES AS THEY CAN AND THAT'S VERY HARD.

THERE'S A LOT OF PRESSURE ON THAT.

THEN YOU WANT TO TAKE AWAY SOME OF THESE IMPORTANT NEEDS, BUT THEN YOU ALSO WANT TO DECREASE TO 2.25% OF AN INCREASE FOR THEM.

HOW IS THAT FAIR? YOU'RE DOUBLE DIPPING INTO SOME OF THESE DEPARTMENTS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S RESPONSIBLE RIGHT NOW.

I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

I KNOW WE ALL HAVE TO MAKE CUTS, BUT IF WE KEEP MAKING THESE TYPE OF CUTS, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO END UP LOSING EMPLOYEES, AND YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE SOME VERY NEEDED SERVICES IN DISTRICTS LIKE DISTRICT 1 THAT, IF YOU WANT TO CUT SOME OF THESE ROAD BOND THINGS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HURT ME BECAUSE I DON'T HARDLY GET ANY IN DISTRICT 1, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HURT OTHER AREAS THAT ARE GROWING, THAT, AS FRANKLY, I WOULD BE SURPRISED WHY ANYBODY WOULD WANT TO CUT BOND DOLLARS FROM THEIR OWN DISTRICTS, BUT WHATEVER, IT'S NOT GOING TO HURT DISTRICT 1 BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET IT VERY MUCH.

MY ISSUE THOUGH IS, I THINK WHAT JARRETT HAS PROPOSED.

SURE, WE CAN MAKE A FEW LITTLE TWEAKS, BUT WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE IT WILL COST US LATER.

I DON'T APPROVE OF WHAT YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED YOUR PROPOSAL.

I GET WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO, BUT IT'S NOT A GOOD YEAR FOR IT.

WE'VE ALREADY SEEN WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE COUNTY, AND I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD LEARN FROM THAT.

>> APPARENTLY, IT'S NEVER A GOOD YEAR TO DO THAT.

ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.

YOU HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF YOU.

THIS WOULD BE A RECORDED VOTE, CORRECT?

>> THIS IS A MOTION TO AMEND THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

>> A MOTION?

>> YEAH. SO IT'S JUST A STRAIGHT VOTE.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO A RECORDED. THIS IS [OVERLAPPING].

>> SO I'LL READ THROUGH MY NUMBERS AGAIN, JUST SO EVERYBODY'S SURE.

MY BUDGET WOULD PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING ALTERATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET, AND EACH OF THESE IS A CUT.

WE'RE MOVING MONEY FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.

1.7 MILLION DOLLAR MOVED FROM THE DISCRETIONARY $2,000,000 FUND THAT HE HAS IN HIS BUDGET OVER INTO THE GENERAL FUND, AN ADDITIONAL 600,000 FROM INS ON TOP OF THE 1.2 MILLION DOLLAR HE HAS IN HIS BUDGET, INTO MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, DECREASING THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET BY 45,000 AND DECREASING NON-CIVIL SERVICE SALARIES BY 140,000, AND THEN A 3.98% CUT IN NON-PUBLIC SAFETY, NON-PERSONNEL BUDGETS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,112,726 TO BE DETERMINED AT HIS DISCRETION.

SO THAT IS MY AMENDMENT, AND THOSE ARE THE NUMBERS.

BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE A RECORDED VOTE ON THIS.

WE CAN'T HAVE A RECORDED VOTE.

BULL, TELL ME WHEN YOU'RE READY FOR THAT.

THAT MOTION FAILS 5-2.

NOW WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL.

WE HAVE THE MOTION AND THE SECOND ON THAT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. YOU DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE ORIGINAL [OVERLAPPING].

>> ARE THERE ANY AMENDMENTS TO BE OFFERED TO THAT BUDGET BY ANY ON THE COUNCIL? DR. WILSON.

>> SO I THINK I WOULD MOVE TO AMEND WITH SOME OF THE NUMBERS WERE DISCUSSED, AND SO ON.

MOVE THE 1.7 BACK TO BUY DOWN THE RATE FROM INS TO MNO.

THEN I WOULD BE OKAY WITH DECREASING CITY COUNCIL BUDGET BY

[01:55:02]

>> MR. MAYOR, WE'LL NEED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE TIME TO RUN.

>> YES. SO BE SURE I STATE THIS CORRECTLY.

MOVE THE 1.7 THAT'S IN THE CONTINGENCY CIP.

MOVE THAT TO GENERAL FUND REVENUE.

YES, THE ADDITIONAL QUARTER POINT? LEAVE INS ALONE.

>> LEAVE INS ALONE.

>> 15,000 OUT OF COUNCIL.

SO THAT'S [OVERLAPPING].

>> YEAH.

>> THEN 100,000 ADDITION.

>> THEN 100 BACK FROM MARKET LUBBOCK.

I KEPT IT EVEN AND YOU COULD DO 100,248.

IF YOU WANTED IT PERFECT TO 500, BUT I MEAN, JUST 100,000 THAT WOULD BRING US, YOU CAN ROUND IT OUT IF YOU WANT TO. I MIGHT HAVE.

>> LET'S JUST SAY 100,000. IT'S EASIER THAT WAY.

>> I WAS LIKE 100,000 MIGHT BE EASIER TO WORK WITH.

WHATEVER ROUND NUMBER MAKES YOU-ALL HAPPY.

>> SO THAT IS 1.815.

>> YES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> IT WOULD BE THE 1.7 THAT THE MAYORS GOT ON HERE, THAT WE WOULD MOVE FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND AND THEN MOVE THAT INTO THE GENERAL REVENUE, OR THE GENERAL BUDGET OR GENERAL FUND TO HELP BUY DOWN THAT RATE A LITTLE BIT.

THEN TAKING OUT THE 15,000 AT A CITY COUNCIL, WHICH WOULD JUST BE OUR EXTRA FUNDS FOR FOOD AND GALA TABLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO PUBLIC EVENTS, AND THEN PULLING BACK AN ADDITIONAL 100,000 FROM MARKET LUBBOCK TO MOVE IT CLOSER TO 500,000 INSTEAD OF THE 399,752.

IT'S A TOTAL OF ABOUT 1.8.

SO 1,815,000.

>> DO WE NEED ANY FURTHER CALCULATIONS ON THAT? EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND?

>> MAYOR, IF THE AMENDMENT WERE TO PASS, I'M GOING TO NEED A BREAK, AND WE'LL CALCULATE THE RATE PART OF THAT IMPACT.

>> YES, I KNOW WE CAN'T DO THE RATE.

THIS IS JUST AN AMENDMENT TO DOLLARS [OVERLAPPING] BUDGET.

NOW WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION. WE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

NOW IS THERE DISCUSSION AND ON THIS, MAYOR

>> YES. I'M GOOD WITH THE FIRST AND PULLING OUT THE 15 FROM THE COUNCIL BUDGET, BUT NOT 100,000 FROM LITA.

CAN WE ADJUST THAT?

>> WELL, YOU'D HAVE TO DO AS AN AMENDMENT TO HER.

>> YEAH, THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT.

>> WELL, I'D LIKE TO AMEND HER AMENDMENT AND JUST LEAVE LITA'S PORTION ALONE.

>> THERE'S TWO WAYS TO DO THAT.

SHE CAN EITHER ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND THE SECOND CONCUR OR YOU'D BE A MOTION TO AMEND THE AMENDMENT, AND YOU WOULD NEED A SECOND.

THEN WE WOULD DISCUSS THAT AT THAT POINT IN TIME.

>> DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT?

>> DO YOU ACCEPT THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, DR. WILSON?

>> I THINK FOR THE SAKE OF COMPROMISE, I COULD BE WILLING TO PULL THAT OFF.

IT WOULDN'T HURT MY FEELINGS WHEN WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON IT.

I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO CUT EVERYWHERE.

I THINK LITA AND MARKET LUBBOCK SHOULD HAVE TO DO THE SAME AS ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS.

I STILL STAND BY. I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I COULD CONSIDER IT EITHER WAY.

I THINK PROBABLY WE SHOULD VOTE ON IT ORIGINALLY, AND THEN WE COULD RE-LOOK AT A DIFFERENT AMENDMENT.

BUT I'M NOT TOTALLY AGAINST THAT.

>> BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER.

>> NO, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I THINK LET'S VOTE ON IT THE WAY IT IS.

THEN WE CAN OFFER UP AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT AFTER THAT DOESN'T PASS.

>> YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT IT AS A FRIENDLY.

>>I WANT TO JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.

BUT SAYING IT'S NOT OUT OF THE QUESTION.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING.

>> I'M TRYING TO GET TO A GOOD COMPROMISE WHERE EVERYBODY CAN BE HAPPY, SO WE DON'T SIT UP HERE ALL NIGHT AND NICKEL AND DIME.

JUST LOOKING FOR PLACES TO SAVE MONEY.

>> IN THIS PARTICULAR, AND COUNCILMAN COLLINS AND I CAN PROBABLY SPEAK BEST TO LITA BECAUSE WE GO TO THE MEETING.

>> WE NEED A SECOND, FIRST OF ALL.

YOU'VE PUT YOUR MOTION OUT THERE TO ACCEPT THE 1.7 AND THE 15.

WE NEED A SECOND. BUT NOT THE 100.

[02:00:03]

>> GORDON JUST SECONDED IT.

>> THANK YOU, MR. HARRIS. NOW WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S AMENDMENT.

>> MR. MAYOR, FOR MY RECORD KEEPING, THE MOTION TO AMEND IS TO REMOVE THE $100,000 ADDITIONAL CUT TO MARKET LUBBOCK?

>> YES. THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. IS THAT HOW YOU UNDERSTAND IT? THAT'S WHAT YOU INTEND. JUST TO BE CLEAR.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ANY DISCUSSION, MR. COLLINS?

>> WELL, MR. ATKINSON, ONE POINT THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CORRECTED.

WE AS A COUNSEL DON'T HAVE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO LITA'S BUDGET, ONLY MARKET LUBBOCK.

ANY CHANGE IS HAPPENING TO MARKET LUBBOCK, NOT TO LITA.

WE TALKED ABOUT SOME ACROSS THE BOARD CUTS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE MAYOR HAD POINTED OUT EARLIER WAS A 4% CUT.

LET'S RECOGNIZE THAT THIS CUT TO MARKET LUBBOCK IS 15%.

I DIDN'T HAVE MY CALCULATOR.

I'VE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT NUMBER OUT.

BUT THIS IS WELL OVER 15%.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE TALK ABOUT THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 4% AS A REDUCTION.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 15% REDUCTION TO THAT OPERATION.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MAYOR PRO TEM'S AMENDED MOTION? WE'VE STILL GOT THIS UP? CAN YOU BRING IT UP FOR A VOTE THEN? ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS AMENDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM VOTE YES.

THOSE OPPOSED TO IT VOTE NO.

WE HAVE A VOTE OF 5-2 IN FAVOR OF THAT AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION.

SO THAT PASSES.

THAT IS AN AMENDED BUDGET.

>> IT'S NOT AN AMENDED BUDGET.

IT'S AN AMENDED MOTION. WHAT'S BEFORE [OVERLAPPING].

>> AMENDED MOTION. NOW WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION AS AMENDED AND VOTE ON IT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. OR STILL HAVE DISCUSSION.

NOW WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS DR.

WILSON'S MOTION EXCEPT YOU REMOVE MARKET LUBBOCK REDUCTION.

IT'S JUST NOW 1,715,000 INSTEAD OF 1,815,000.

>> DISCUSSION ON THAT NOW.

WE'RE GOOD TO HAVE A DISCUSSION NOW ON THAT.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT, MR. COLLINS?

>> SINCE WE'RE IN THE AMENDMENT MODE NOW, LET'S CARRY ON WITH THIS JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE.

I STILL AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT OUR ROAD BOND CONTINGENCY DOLLARS.

I'M GOING TO MOVE TO AMEND DR. WILSON'S MOTION TO LEAVE $1,000,000 IN THAT CONTINGENCY, WHICH WILL ACTUALLY CREATE HER MOTION IF PASSED AS A REDUCTION OF $715,000.

>> THAT'S YOUR MOTION.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION?

>> REPEAT THE REQUEST.

>> TO REPEAT THE REQUEST, AMEND DR. WILSON'S MOTION TO REDUCE ONLY $700,000 FROM OUR CONTINGENCY MONEY, WHICH LEAVES A MILLION IN THAT WELL, ACTUALLY, IT WOULD LEAVE 1,000,003 IN THAT $2,000,000 CONTINGENCY FUND THAT MR. ATKINSON HAD PUT TOGETHER.

HER REDUCTION WOULD THEN BECOME $715,000.

>> TO BE CLEAR, THE TOTAL REDUCTION TO THE BUDGET AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY MANAGER WOULD BE A $715,000 REDUCTION.

THAT'S THE MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? THAT MOTION FAILS FOR A LACK OF SECOND.

WHERE ARE WE BACK TO, MR. RAID?

>> YOU'RE BACK TO DR. WILSON'S 1,715,000.

>> YES. YES. GOOD. YES. VERY GOOD.

EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE ARE.

NOW, I JUST WANT TO MAKE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE ARE.

[02:05:01]

THIS IS FOR THE BUDGET AS AMENDED BY DR. WILSON'S AMENDED MOTION.

>> THIS IS JUST THE AMENDMENT.

>> JUST THE AMENDMENT. THIS ISN'T THE ACTUAL BUDGET VOTE.

THIS IS JUST AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

AS DR. WILSON PRESENTED IT AND AS AMENDED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> WE HAVE A VOTE OF 5-2 ON THAT MOTION.

NOW WE GO TO A VOTE ON THE [OVERLAPPING].

>> WELL, YOU'RE BACK TO YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT'S NOW BEEN AMENDED [OVERLAPPING], WHICH IS REDUCING IT TO TOTAL AMOUNT BY 1,715,000 IN THOSE TWO PLACES.

>> I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT.

IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION NOW ON THAT? I'LL JUST SAY THAT I THINK THAT IS NOT A RESPONSIBLE BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR.

I DON'T THINK IT TREATS OUR TAXPAYERS WHO ARE UNDER DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE KIND OF ATTENTION AND RESPECT THAT WE OWE THEM.

IRN TO TRY TO KEEP TAXES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS DOES THAT.

I CANNOT SUPPORT IT.

IT LEAVES, AND BY MY CALCULATIONS, ABOUT A 1.8 MILLION DOLLAR INCREASE IN TAXES.

TAXES WILL GO UP THIS YEAR.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE YEAR FOR US TO BE DOING THAT.

I THINK WE OWE IT TO OUR TAXPAYERS AND OUR CITIZENS TO BE AS RESPONSIBLE WITH THEIR MONEY AS THEY HAVE TO BE WITH THEIR MONEY.

I CANNOT SUPPORT IT. I ESPECIALLY CAN'T SUPPORT PUTTING THINGS INTO A BUDGET THAT DON'T BELONG THERE.

>> MAYOR GLASHEEN.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE.

AGAIN, I KEEP BRINGING IT BACK TO IMPACT FEES BECAUSE I THINK ALL OF OUR CITIZENS NOW WILL HAVE TO PAY.

THAT WAS A TAX INCREASE AND INDIRECT, WHETHER WE WANT TO BELIEVE IT OR NOT, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE FOR US NOT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

FOR ME, I COULD NOT MAKE AN ADDITIONAL CUT.

OUR EMPLOYEES ARE VALUABLE, AND THEY'RE THE MOST IMPACTFUL PART OF WHAT WE DO.

WE CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THEM.

NOT ONE DEPARTMENT OR THE OTHER THEY COEXIST.

FOR ME, THE CITIZENS HAVE A CERTAIN EXPECTATION OF CITY HALL, AND CITY HALL IS NOT A BUILDING.

IT IS THE PEOPLE THAT FUNCTION IN THE BUILDING.

FOR ME, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT EVEN IF IT'S JUST 0.25%, THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT CUT.

THEY ARE ALSO DEALING WITH ISSUES AND BURDENS THAT BECAUSE OF THIS ECONOMY.

WE CANNOT BE IRRESPONSIBLE AND NOT TAKE CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES.

>> MR. COLLINS.

>> YOU'RE THINKING.

>> YOU'RE THINKING? I HOPE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL DOING UP HERE.

>> IT MAY BE A FIRST FOR ME.

SOMETHING THAT WE COULD CONSIDER THEN.

I BELIEVE THAT WHAT WE WERE SHOWN EARLIER, THAT A HALF PERCENT INCREASE IN OUR PAYROLL WAS $279,000.

IN THE CHANGE THAT WAS MADE AT 1.7, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED, THAT LEFT $190,000 OF AND I DON'T WANT TO USE THE WORD DISCRETIONARY, BUT IT LEFT $190,000 IN THAT ROAD BOND CONTINGENCY ACCOUNT.

[02:10:02]

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE CHANGE THAT NUMBER TO PUT 90 ADDITIONAL $1,000 BACK TO ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO OFFER A 3% PAY INCREASE.

>> YOU'RE DOING MATH IN PUBLIC AGAIN.

>> HERE WE GO.

>> WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER WANTS A MOMENT TO DO SOME FIGURING DOWN THERE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTION.

THE CONTINGENCY FUND THAT HAS TWO MILLION DOLLARS AND IT'S BEEN REDUCED NOW BY ONE POINT OR.

>> BY 1.7, SLIGHTLY IS 300.

>> YES. BUT 110 OF THAT WAS ALLOCATED PREVIOUSLY IN BUDGET FOR CAT TAIL REMOVAL.

THAT LEAVES US WITH 190.

>> YOU WANT TO LEAVE 190 IN THAT?

>> RIGHT. WHAT I'M ASKING OR WHAT I'M MOVING IS THAT WE CHANGE THE REDUCTION FROM 1.7-1.61 THAT PROVIDES 90,000 ADDITIONAL DOLLARS BE COUPLED WITH THE EXISTING 190.

>> MAYBE I'M CONFUSED. I THOUGHT I'D GO THE OTHER WAY.

>> I'D GO THE OTHER WAY.

>> YOU WOULD INCREASE THE PULL OUT OF THE CONTINGENCY FROM 1.7-1.89. NO?

>> NO.

>> THAT'S A REDUCTION. WE'VE ALREADY REDUCED IT BY 1.7.

IF WE CHANGE THE REDUCTION FROM 1.7-1.61, THAT PROVIDES 90,000 ADDITIONAL DOLLAR TO COVER THAT HALF PERCENT PAY INCREASE.

>> I THINK WHERE THE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S NOT REALLY, THIS MONEY ME ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR OUR BUDGET.

THIS IS ADDITIONAL REVENUE.

IF YOU CUT IT, WE'VE LOST THE REVENUE. CITY MANAGER.

>> LET ME TAKE A CRACK.

CONTINGENCY CIP WAS SET UP WITH TWO MILLION.

WE'VE TAKEN NOW 1.7 MILLION OUT OF THAT, AND IT IS BEING MOVED BASICALLY INTO GENERAL FUND REVENUE.

THAT SITS THERE, THAT'S GOOD.

THAT LEAVES 190,000 THERE.

I'VE GOT 110 THAT WE MOVED OVER TO THE CAT TAIL MACHINE,1.7 THAT WENT IN FOR GENERAL FUND REVENUE.

THERE'S NOW 190,000 THERE, THAT MAKES SENSE.

IS THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO TAKE THAT 190 AND ADD 90 TO IT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE 1.7.

>> TO 1.61.

>> THE FOCUS IS TO FUND THE HALF PERCENT TO TAKE NON CIVIL SERVICE TO THREE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BUT FOR THE PURPOSE, WHEN WE SEE THE 1.7 IT DIDN'T MOVE INTO GENERAL FUND.

MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOTION, THAT 1.7 CAME OUT OF THE BUDGET.

>> NO.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> IT BECAME A REVENUE.

>> PROBABLY BECAUSE THE WAY I PRESENTED IT A NEGATIVE I'M JUST TRYING TO GET DOWN THAT NUMBER, BUT THE FIRST TWO ARE REVENUE SOURCES, THE LAST THREE WOULD BE EXPENSE REDUCTIONS.

>> IT GOES TO BUY DOWN THE RATE.

I'M ASKING US TO ADJUST THAT BY $90,000 SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE A 3% PAY INCREASE TO OUR STAFF.

THAT'S MY MOTION. THAT WAS A MOTION.

>> WELL, MY QUESTION IS, WOULD THAT PROVIDE THE 3% THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO? THAT'S WHAT THE CITY MANAGERS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HERE.

>> I BELIEVE WHAT YOU PRESENTED WAS 279 IN YOUR EARLIER PRESENTATION?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> COUNCILMAN, LET ME READ THIS OUT.

YOU WOULD PROPOSE TO AMEND WHERE YOU STAND TODAY BY REDUCING THE TRANSFER TO THE GENERAL FUND FROM 1.7 MILLION.

DO YOU WANT THESE NUMBERS EXACT? 2.6 CALL IT 1.611.

STILL THE 110,000 INTO THE FLEET FUND TO BUY THE CAT TAIL MACHINE, LEAVING $279,000 TO FUND THE ADDITIONAL ONE HALF PERCENT PAY INCREASE.

>> CORRECT. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

>> [OVERLAPPING] IT WILL ZERO THAT OUT, BUT EVERYTHING OTHER THAN THAT CHANGE IN THE 90,000 STAYS THE SAME.

>> IT'S JUST BRACKETING OUT OR DIVIDING THAT NUMBER UP, USING A PORTION OF THE [INAUDIBLE].

>> THE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE IS TAKING THE CURRENT MOTION OF 1.7

[02:15:02]

TAKING THE REMAINDER TO FUND THE HALF PERCENT INCREASE.

>> ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE MOVING THE TWO MILLION TO THE GENERAL FUND?

>> NO.

>> YES, YOU'RE JUST MOVING SOME OF IT IS REVENUE, AND SOME OF IT IS EXPENSE.

WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE $1.7 MILLION BUY DOWN? WELL CHANGE TO A 1.61 MILLION BUY DOWN?

>> IT DOESN'T MOVE 110,000 FOR THE CAT TAIL MACHINE.

THAT STILL STAYS IN THAT BUCKET.

EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND THE $1.7 MILLION.

HE'S WANTING TO MOVE THAT DOWN TO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PUT IN TO MAKE THE HALF PERCENT, THE 280,000 OR 279, WHATEVER IT IS AND CHANGE.

THAT'S YOUR MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? THAT MOTION FAILS FOR A SECOND.

>> MAYOR, YOU ARE BACK TO THE BUDGET AS AMENDED BY THE $1.715 MILLION IN THE PREVIOUS AMENDMENT?

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHERE WE ARE NOW AND WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON NOW.

>> FOR DR. WILSON, THAT'S 1.7 MILLION THAT IS A BUY DOWN OF THE TAX RATE AND A $15,000 EXPENSE CUT.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? I WILL BRING THIS UP, AND WE'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE ON THAT.

WE HAVE A BUDGET.

NOW BEFORE WE MOVE ON, YOU'VE GOT TO GO CALCULATE A TAX RATE.

>> THAT IS CORRECT, MAYOR.

THIS WILL NOW CHANGE THE NUMBERS WE PRESENT TO YOU IN THE NEXT ITEM, SO IF WE COULD HAVE A WE WILL [OVERLAPPING].

>> A RECESS NOW.

GOOD SEE EVERYBODY STILL HERE HANGING AROUND FOR THE EXCITING PART OF THIS MEETING.

WE HAVE NOW ADOPTED A BUDGET.

NOW WE WILL CONSIDER OR TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 1.4 TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE

[4. Ordinance 1st Reading - Finance: Consider an ordinance setting the tax rate and levying a tax upon all property subject to taxation with the City of Lubbock for 2025; apportioning said levy among the various funds and items for which revenue must be raised; fixing the times in which said taxes shall be paid and assessing penalty and interest for nonpayment of such taxes within the time provided.]

I WILL NOW CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER TO GIVE US A BRIEFING OF WHERE WE STAND WITH THIS.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. COUNCIL, BASED ON THE PASSAGE OF THE BUDGET ON FIRST READ, UNDERSTANDING, WE WILL STILL HAVE A SECOND.

WE HAVE CALCULATED THE NUMBERS, AND I WILL READ THEM OFF TO YOU AS WELL AS THE IMPACT OF SUCH.

THE INS RATE, THE INTEREST AND SINKING FUND RATE IS THE 0.107586.

THAT IS NO CHANGE FROM YOUR PROPOSED.

FOR THE GENERAL FUNDS, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, IT IS 0.364605.

THAT IS A REDUCTION FROM THE PROPOSED.

COLLECTIVELY, THE TOTAL TAX RATE WOULD BE 0.472191.

THAT IS A 2.2% INCREASE IN THE TOTAL TAX RATE.

0.4 2191, THAT IS A 2.2% INCREASE IN THE TOTAL TAX RATE.

THE PROPOSED WAS 3.77.

YOU'VE ACHIEVED A GOOD REDUCTION THERE.

GOING BACK TO THE CALCULATIONS ON THE IMPACT ON THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME UNDER THIS PROPOSAL WOULD PAY TO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK $1,060.55.

THAT IS A $15.33 ANNUAL CHANGE,

[02:20:05]

NONE OF THIS WILL GO INTO YOUR MOTION, THE FINAL BIT OF THE INFORMATION.

THE USE OF YOUR INCREMENT IS 0.0 018.

THAT WAS 0.008.

IF YOU'LL REMEMBER BACK TO THE EARLIER PRESENTATION TODAY.

A GOOD MOVE DOWNWARD ACROSS ALL THOSE CATEGORIES.

WITH THAT, I'LL EITHER BE QUIET OR TAKE QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ATKINSON ON HIS PRESENTATION FOR CLARIFICATION? SEE NONE.

NOW I WILL ENTERTAIN A TAX RATE MOTION.

AS A REMINDER, A MOTION SETTING A TAX RATE THAT EXCEEDS THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE MUST BE A RECORD VOTE.

AT LEAST 60% OF THE COUNCIL, IN THIS CASE, THAT'S FIVE VOTES MUST VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION.

IS THERE A MOTION SETTING THE TAX RATE AND LEVYING A TAX UPON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK FOR 2025 BASED ON THESE FIGURES THAT MR. ATKINSON JUST PROVIDED TO US. HAVE A MOTION?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> I'M GOING TO READ IT OUT.

>> WE HAVE TO HAVE A READ MOTION.

I BELIEVE IT'S DR. WILSON.

>> I'M HAPPY TO READ IT. I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.107586 FOR THE CITY'S INTEREST AND SINKING FUND AND 0.364605 FOR THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND FOR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 2.2% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS TAX RATE? THIS IS A RECORDED VOTE.

IF YOU WILL BRING THAT UP, THAT TAX RATE MOTION PASSES 5-2.

WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER READING NEXT WEEK, NEXT TUESDAY AT2:00 O'CLOCK, AND SO EVERYBODY COME BACK.

HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.