Sep 09, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting

>> SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ANY OPPOSITION TO THAT? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF LET ME KNOW BY SAYING, AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE SAY NAY.

I HEAR NONE.

THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

SO LET'S TAKE UP ITEM 5.26.

[26. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Police Department: Consider Ordinance No. 2025-O0111, amending Chapter 8, “Business and Amusements”, by amending Article 8.11, “Burglar and Robbery Alarms”, to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock, Texas.]

I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR POLICE CHIEF.

I SEE HIM THERE AT THE BACK TO GIVE US A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS ITEM BECAUSE THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS WE WANT TO MAKE CLEAR ABOUT IT TO OUR CITIZENS. THANK YOU, CHIEF.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL, MR. MAYOR.

THE ALTERATION OF THE CURRENT DOCUMENT IS TO ADJUST SO THAT CURRENT PERMIT HOLDERS ARE NOT FORCED ON OCTOBER 1ST TO RE PERMIT INCURRING ADDITIONAL FEES SO THEY WON'T HAVE TO

[00:05:04]

RENEW THEIR PERMITS UNTIL THE ACTUAL RENEWAL DATE FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL PERMITS.

THAT'S THE ONLY ALTERATION.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF ABOUT THAT MATTER?

>> MAYOR, COUNSEL, I WOULD NOTE, YOU HAVE THAT AT YOUR PLACE, AND IT'S THE VERY LAST FILLED IN ITEM THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHEF. APPRECIATE IT.

>> YES, SIR.

>> YES, MR. WILSON.

MAYOR, I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 5.26, EFFECTIVE FOR ALL ALARM PERMITS ISSUED OR RENEWED ON OR AFTER OCTOBER 1ST, 2025.

>> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR LET ME NO BY SAYING, AYE.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE SAY NAY? I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[1. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing on the proposed 2025 Assessment Rate for the Valencia Public Improvement District (PID), and consider an ordinance reviewing classifications for the methods of assessing special benefits for the services and improvements of property in the Valencia PID; approving, adopting, and filing with the City Secretary the assessment roll; levying 2025 assessments for the cost of certain services and improvements to be provided in the district during FY 2025-26; fixing charges and liens against the property in the district and against the owners thereof; and providing for the collection of the assessment.]

NOW THE COUNCIL WILL TAKE UP ITS REGULAR AGENDA.

WE'LL BEGIN WITH ITEM 6.1, A PUBLIC HEARING RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR THE VALENCIA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

AS REMINDED OF THE PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON THIS MATTER.

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

THE COUNCIL HAS ALREADY RECEIVED IN THEIR PACKET THE STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD FOR THE VALENCIA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

I'LL NOW CALL ON OUR CITY'S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MISS BRIANA BROWN, TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING. MISS BROWN.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL.

YOU JUST FINISHED APPROVING ALL OF THE SECOND READS ON ASSESSMENT ORDINANCES FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AS A REMINDER, I HAD AN ERROR IN OUR PUBLIC POSTING FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT OUR LAST MEETING, AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU ARE BEING ASKED TO CONSIDER THIS ONE ON ITS OWN TODAY.

SO MY APOLOGIES ABOUT THAT.

THE VALENCIA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, LIKE ALL OF THE OTHER ONES THAT YOU CONSIDERED AT OUR LAST MEETING HAS NOT REQUESTED AN INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THEIR ASSESSMENT RATE, SO WE ARE ASKING YOU TO APPROVE THE EXISTING ASSESSMENT RATE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 26.

THIS IS A MAP OF THE VALENCIA PID.

IN THIS DISTRICT, WE OVERSEE THE PARK THAT'S THE GREEN SPACE IN THE MIDDLE, SURROUNDED BY 87TH STREET AND A SMALL SECTION OF MEDIAN ADJACENT TO IOL.

2024 ASSESSMENT RATE WAS $0.18 PER $100 VALUATION.

WE ARE ASKING FOR THE SAME $0.18 PER $100 VALUATION IN 2025 AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS BROWN? THANK YOU, MISS BROWN. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE NOW WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING THE RECOMMENDED ASSESSMENT RATE FOR THE VALENCIA PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT? I SEE NO ONE COMING FORWARD, SO I'LL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 2:13.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.1 AS RECOMMENDED? WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE.

ANY OPPOSED SAY, NAY.

I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE'LL MOVE ON NOW TO ITEM 6.2 TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE

[2. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Ordinance No. 2025-O0112, 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. The FY 2025-26 Proposed Budget can be found on the home page of the City of Lubbock website, linked here: https://ci.lubbock.tx.us/ Taxpayer Impact Statement: Proposed Budget 2024 2025 Proposed Variance % Variance Total tax rate (per $100 Value) $0.470120 $0.472191 $0.002071 0.44% Median Homestead Value $221,761 $228,031 6,270 2.83% Tax on Median Homestead $1,042.54 $1,076.74 34.20 3.28% No New Revenue (NNR) 2024 2025 NNR Variance % Variance Total tax rate (per $100 value) $0.470120 $0.461938 ($0.008182) -1.74% Average Homestead Value $221,761 $228,031 6,270 2.83% Tax on Median Homestead $1,042.54 $1,053.36 10.82 1.04%]

APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 ON SECOND READING.

I WILL NOW CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER TO GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

FIRST OFF, YOU HAVE AT YOUR SEATS TODAY THE FULL COPY OF EXHIBIT 3.

THREE PAGES. I'M SORRY.

EXHIBIT G. THIS REFLECTS THE CHANGES FROM THE DATE THAT WE FILED THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO WHERE WE STAND TODAY.

ON YOUR SCREEN, I'VE EXTRACTED THE MAJORITY OF THE FIRST PAGE.

THIS REFLECTS THE WORK THAT WAS DONE AT YOUR PRIOR MEETING AND THEN THUS IS THE BUDGET THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY AFTER HAVING PASSED ON FIRST READ.

AT THE TOP, YOU CAN SEE THE DECREASE IN THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE, THE REPLACEMENT WITH THE STREETS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND, WHAT HAD BEEN THE CONTINGENCY FUND.

THE $15,000 DECREASE IN THE CITY COUNCIL'S BUDGET, THE 23,806 DECREASE THAT CAME OUT OF THE TRAFFIC AND REMEMBER THAT WAS THAT LATEX PRINTER WE HAD ASKED FOR IN THE NEW YEAR THAT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE END OF THE YEAR, SO WE'VE DONE THAT.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE WAS JUST A VERY TINY AMOUNT

[00:10:01]

LEFT TO BALANCE FROM RESERVE. THAT HAS BEEN DONE.

THE NEXT SECTION WHERE IT CALLS OUT REVENUE AND RATE, THAT IS THE PROPOSAL FOR THE NEW PARK FEES PLUS WHAT IS COMING ON FOR THE NEW ATHLETIC FEES.

LET ME DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE LAST LINE OF THAT SECTION WHERE IT SAYS, INCREASE, TRANSFER TO PARKS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND.

THAT IS THAT ESTIMATED NET NEW REVENUE OVER THOSE ATHLETIC FIELDS AND THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT THEREOF, GO RIGHT DOWN BELOW THAT TO PARKS CAPITAL PROJECT FUND.

NOW YOU SEE THE SWITCH THUS LEAVING THE BASE FEES, WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN, AND THOSE NEW FEES GOING TO THAT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT BEING LOCKED UP FOR THAT USE.

THE LAST SECTION IS HOW WE COME IN AND BALANCE ALL THE REMAINDER OF THAT OUT.

AGAIN, ENDING WITH YOUR LAST LINE, TRANSFER TO GENERAL FUND, 1.7 MILLION.

THAT GOES TO THE SECOND LINE AT THE TOP, TRANSFER FROM IN THE AMOUNT OF THE 1.7 MILLION.

I'LL BE GLAD TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY MANAGER? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU.

THIS IS A RECORD VOTE, BUT WE NEED A MOTION APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 TO 2026.

TO BE CLEAR, THE MOTION TO ADOPT IS THE SECOND READING OF THE BUDGET WE PASSED LAST WEEK SO EVERYBODY WHO'S LISTENING IS THE BUDGET WE PASSED.

NOW WE WILL OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I WILL I GUESS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS OPPORTUNITY THEN.

LIKE MOST ON THIS COUNCIL, MY PRIORITY WHEN I RAN AND WHEN I WAS ELECTED WAS PUBLIC SAFETY.

THAT'S MY HIGHEST PRIORITY, AND I'VE HEARD MANY ON THIS COUNCIL SAY THAT.

I THINK EVERYBODY ON THIS COUNCIL HAS SAID THAT THAT IS THEIR HIGHEST PRIORITY.

I BELIEVE THIS BUDGET SHOWS A COMMITMENT TO THAT, BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR OUR POLICE OFFICERS, OUR FIREMEN AND WOMEN, AND OUR ANIMAL CONTROL PEOPLE.

BUT THE SECOND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE I RAN ON AND WAS ELECTED ON WAS TO KEEP TAXES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE AND SOME OF THIS COUNCIL WERE UNOPPOSED, SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO STATE A POSITION ON TAXES.

BUT I'VE HEARD MANY OF YOU SAY THAT YOU DO WANT TO KEEP TAXES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE.

FRANKLY, I DON'T BELIEVE THE BUDGET THAT'S BEFORE US REFLECTS A SERIOUS EFFORT TO KEEP TAXES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE. WHY DO I SAY THAT? I SAY THAT BECAUSE AFTER MORE THAN 2.5 HOURS OF DELIBERATION BY THIS COUNCIL LAST WEEK, THE ONLY EXPENSE THAT FIVE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL VOTED TO CUT FROM A $316 MILLION BUDGET THAT THE CITY MANAGER PRESENTED TO US WAS A MERE $15,000, WHICH I RECOMMENDED TO BE CUT FROM OUR CITY COUNCIL BUDGET.

LET ME PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE.

SUPPOSE THE FAMILY IN LUBBOCK WITH A HOUSEHOLD INCOME OF $64,000, WHICH IS THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN LUBBOCK SAT AROUND THEIR TABLE TO DISCUSS WHAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO CUT FROM THEIR EXPENSES IN ORDER TO MAKE ENDS MEET AND AFTER 2.5 HOURS OF DISCUSSION AROUND THE TABLE, THEY GOT UP AND AGREED THAT ALL THEY COULD MANAGE TO DO OVER THE NEXT YEAR WAS TO BUY JUST ONE LESS HALF PRICE DRINK AT SONIC FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR.

THAT'S WHAT WE DID LAST WEEK.

I PUT IT IN ANOTHER WAY. I SAY I HAD 20,000 PENNIES OUT HERE, AND WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE SOMETHING.

WHAT OUR VOTE LAST WEEK AMOUNTED TO WAS ONE PENNY OUT OF 20,000.

THAT'S WHY I SAY, I DON'T THINK IT REFLECTS A SERIOUS EFFORT TO KEEP TAXES LOW ON BEHALF OF OUR TAXPAYERS.

I'M THINKING ABOUT THE TAXPAYERS THAT ARE STRUGGLING.

I'M NOT THINKING ABOUT MYSELF.

I'M NOT THINKING ABOUT MOST OF US UP HERE.

I'M THINKING ABOUT TAXPAYERS WHO ARE ON LIMITED INCOMES AND ARE STRUGGLING TO MAKE ENDS MEET AND WHAT HAVE WE DONE? I DON'T THINK WE'VE DONE ENOUGH.

ACTUALLY, WHAT IT REPRESENTS IS 1/200 OF ONE PERCENT OF A CUT TO THAT BUDGET.

NOW ONE PERCENT. NOW 1/10 OF A PERCENT, 1/200 OF ONE PERCENT OF A CUT TO THAT BUDGET.

[00:15:03]

I THINK WE CAN DO BETTER FOR LUBBOCK TAXPAYERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE HAVING TO HAVE SERIOUS CONVERSATIONS AROUND THEIR TABLES ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITHOUT AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO CUT.

I'M GOING TO INVITE US AGAIN TO TRY THIS EXERCISE ONE MORE TIME.

I'M NOT GOING TO PROPOSE THE SAME BUDGET CUTS I PROPOSED LAST WEEK.

YOU ALREADY VOTED AGAINST THOSE.

NOT AN APPETITE FOR THAT BUT I WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND MAKE AN EFFORT AT FINDING SOME OTHER WAY WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TRIM THIS BUDGET FOR THE SAKE OF THE TAXPAYERS OF LOVE.

>> I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE MAKE THIS EFFORT BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE OWE IT TO THE TAXPAYERS.

WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M GOING TO PROPOSE A MOTION TO AMEND THE BUDGET.

I DON'T INTEND MY BUDGET MOTION TO AFFECT THE SALARY INCREASE WE'RE GIVING TO OUR EMPLOYEES AT ALL. I'M LEAVING THAT ALONE.

I BELIEVE THEY'RE WORTH IT.

THEY DO A GOOD JOB FOR US.

BUT BEFORE I OFFER MY AMENDMENT, I WANT TO GIVE ANYONE ELSE HERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL CUT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO ACCEPT IN THIS BUDGET.

I WILL ENTERTAIN THAT BEFORE I MAKE MY MOTION.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO IS WILLING TO OFFER UP ANY CUTS TO THIS BUDGET? MR. GARCIA.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS, AND IN PARTICULAR, I THINK THAT A SERIOUS EFFORT IS WHAT'S CALLED FOR THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH TO BALANCING THE BUDGET WITHOUT A TAX INCREASE THAT WE OWE IT TO THE TAXPAYERS TO MAKE THAT ADDITIONAL EFFORT.

AND SO I SUPPORT YOUR COMMENTS, AND I'M ALSO WILLING TO SUPPORT THE DISCUSSION OF ANY REDUCTION IN SPENDING THAT THE COUNCIL IS WILLING TO DISCUSS.

>> ALL RIGHT. MR. WILSON.

>> MAYOR, WHEN YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND, DO YOU HAVE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR MIND THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT?

>> I DO. I WAS JUST GIVING ANYONE ELSE AN OPPORTUNITY THOUGH.

>> OKAY.

>> SUGGESTION.

>> [OVERLAPPING] WAIT ON.

>> ALL RIGHT, WITHOUT ANY SUGGESTION HERE IS WHAT I PROPOSED TO OFFER.

I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION ITSELF.

FIRST OF ALL, THERE WOULD BE A REVENUE ITEM INCREASE OF $300,000 FROM THE INS BUDGET, MOVING IT FROM THE I&S BUDGET OVER INTO THE M&O BUDGET.

NOW THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN HALF OF WHAT I PROPOSED LAST WEEK, WHICH WAS $625,000.

THERE WASN'T THE APPETITE ON THIS COUNCIL FOR THAT BIG OF A CUT.

SO HALF OF THAT, A LITTLE LESS THAN HALF OF THAT WOULD BE $300,000.

EXPENSE ITEM DECREASE OF $100,000 TO MARKET LUBBOCK, WHICH WAS PROPOSED LAST WEEK BY DR. WILSON, BUT IT GOT WITHDRAWN.

BUT I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE ADDITIONAL CUT IN THIS BUDGET.

AN EXPENSE ITEM DECREASE OF $556,000 FROM THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGETS, WHICH IS PUBLIC SAFETY IS POLICE, FIRE, ANIMAL CONTROL, AS I HAVE DEFINED IT.

THAT'S A 2% DECREASE IN THE NON-PERSONNEL EXPENSES IN THOSE BUDGET, NOT TOUCHING THE PERSONNEL EXPENSES, ONLY THE NON-PERSONNEL EXPENSES IN THOSE BUDGET, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN 2/10 OF A DECREASE IN THE OVERALL BUDGET.

AGAIN, THAT'S HALF OF WHAT I PROPOSED LAST WEEK.

THEN AN EXPENSE ITEM DECREASE OF $15,000 FROM THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET TO ELIMINATE THE $30,000 FOR THE JAPAN AMBASSADORS PROGRAM AND TO REPLACE IT WITH $15,000 OR LEAVING $15,000 THERE FOR A LOCALLY OPERATED JUNIOR LEADERSHIP PROGRAM, SIMILAR TO THE LUBBOCK 101 WE OFFER FOR ADULTS HERE.

A LOT WAS SAID LAST WEEK ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE HERE IN LUBBOCK TO LEARN LEADERSHIP.

WELL, I THINK THOSE OPPORTUNITIES CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR THEM RIGHT HERE IN LUBBOCK TO A LOT OF KIDS WHO CAN'T AFFORD TO GO TO JAPAN.

BUT THEY CAN STAY HERE AND THEY CAN LEARN LEADERSHIP RIGHT HERE IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS.

SO I OFFER $15,000 CUT, BUT TO LEAVE 15,000 IN THERE TO OPERATE A JUNIOR LEADERSHIP PROGRAM HERE, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO LUBBOCK 101, WHICH OPERATED ON $16,000 LAST YEAR, AND I THINK AFFECTED, I THINK WE HAD 26 PEOPLE ADULTS ENROLLED IN THAT.

IT'S A GREAT PROGRAM.

I OFFER THAT AS AN ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE I BELIEVE PEOPLE ON THIS COUNCIL SAID THEY'RE INTERESTED IN LEADERSHIP, BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO GO TO JAPAN TO DO THAT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING AS A CITY COUNCIL.

[00:20:03]

ALTOGETHER, THESE CHANGES AMOUNT TO $971,000, WHICH WILL CUT THE TAX INCREASE THAT WAS VOTED ON LAST WEEK BY HALF, APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF.

THIS IS MY MOTION. I'LL STATE IT HERE.

I MOVE TO AMEND THE BUDGET TO MOVE $300,000 FROM THE INS BUDGET TO THE M&O BUDGET TO DECREASE BY $100,000 THE MONEY EXPENSE ITEM FROM MARKET LUBBOCK.

TO DECREASE BY $556,000 THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGETS, NOT AFFECTING PERSONNEL IN THOSE BUDGETS, AND $15,000 ADDITIONAL DECREASE OTHER THAN THE $15,000 WE VOTED FOR LAST WEEK IN THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET TO REPLACE THE JUNIOR AMBASSADOR PROGRAM WITH A LOCALLY OPERATED LEADERSHIP PROGRAM FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE.

THAT IS MY MOTION. CAN I GET A SECOND?

>> OKAY. WHO IS THAT? MR. HARRIS.

HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. I'LL OPEN THAT FOR DISCUSSION NOW.

>> MR. MAYOR, COULD I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION?

>> YES, SIR.

>> ON THE $300,000 REVENUE INCREASE FROM I&S, IS THAT SHIFTING ANOTHER PORTION OF THE TAX RATE, OR IS THAT COMING OUT OF THE I&S RESERVE?

>> THAT IS COMING OUT OF THE I&S AND SHIFTING OVER.

>> COMING OUT OF THE TAX RATE?

>> YES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, MR. WILSON.

>> JARED, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US THIS I&S RATE, THE 300,000, HOW WE GOT THAT MONEY?

>> CERTAINLY, YOUR TAX RATES TWO DIFFERENT PIECES.

WE TALK ABOUT IT IN TOTAL.

IT'S TWO DIFFERENT PIECES.

AT THE MOMENT, THE INTEREST AND SINKING, THE I&S TAX RATE IS THE 10.75.

THAT GENERATES AN AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS PLEDGED TO THE DEBT SERVICE FOR YOUR TAX BACKED DEBT.

PRIMARILY THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR STREET BONDS AS IT CARRIES FORWARD, THERE'S A FEW OTHERS IN THERE, BUT PRIMARILY THE STREET BONDS.

YOU HAVE TO PAY THE DEBT AND YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN A RESERVE OFF OF IT, AND SO THAT IS THE SOURCE THAT PIECE OF THE TAX LEVY, THE USES, DEBT SERVICE AND RESERVES AGAINST IT.

>> SO THIS IS, IT'S TAX MONEY?

>> YES.

>> MOVING THIS IS ALSO LEGALLY A TAX INCREASE, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

IT'S NOT AN EXTRA DOLLAR OUT OF POCKET, BUT IT IS LEGALLY A TAX INCREASE.

>> OKAY. MAYOR, WHEN YOU SAY WE DON'T HAVE THE APPETITE TO CUT ON STUFF, THIS IS ACTUALLY CUTTING AN EXPENSE.

THIS IS JUST MOVING TAX MONEY AROUND, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY.

>> EVERYTHING ELSE IS AN EXPENSE ITEM, BUT THIS ONE IS NOT.

THIS IS A REVENUE ITEM.

>> RIGHT. THAT'S A REVENUE MOVE.

I DON'T THINK SAYING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE APPETITE TO CUT THINGS WHEN 300,000 IS NOT A CUT.

WE'RE JUST MOVING TAX MONEY TO OTHER PLACES.

WE'RE JUST MOVING TAX MONEY THAT.

>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY THAT IF WE DIDN'T MOVE THAT, THEN IT WOULD INCREASE THEIR TAXES EVEN MORE, WHAT THEY PAY.

SURE. YOU TALK TAX RATE OR YOU TALK WHAT PEOPLE PAY, AND SO THIS IS A WAY TO DRIVE DOWN WHAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO WRITE THAT CHECK FOR? YES.

>> IN MY OPINION, THAT'S NOT A CUT TO EXPENSES.

WE SIT UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT ALL THESE CUTS THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO MAKE, BUT THAT'S NOT A CUT.

THEN WE'RE SITTING AT 671,000 INSTEAD OF, IN MY BOOK, NOT 971,000, JUST TO CLARIFY.

>> YES, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS FOR CITY MANAGER.

FIRST OF ALL, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, WE KNOW THAT THAT INCLUDES POLICE, FIRE, ANIMAL SERVICES.

DOES THAT NOT INCLUDE HEALTH, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AS WELL? JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M BEING NAIVE.

>> THE CLASSIFICATION INCLUDES PUBLIC HEALTH.

>> YET EVERY TIME YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, MAYOR, YOU KEEP FORGETTING THAT PUBLIC HEALTH, SO DON'T FORGET THAT, JUST FOR THE FUTURE.

>> I THINK I'VE BEEN CLEAR ABOUT WHAT I INCLUDE IN PUBLIC SAFETY.

>> WELL, YOU HAVEN'T MENTIONED THEM.

>> I HAVE MENTIONED THEM LAST WEEK.

>> NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE MARKET LUBBOCK.

THEY'RE EVIDENTLY WORKING VERY HARD FOR US IN THE COMMUNITY.

[00:25:02]

WE DON'T ALWAYS GET TO SEE BECAUSE SOMETIMES WE HAVE SENSITIVE ITEMS TO DEAL WITH, BUT THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT.

THEIR WORK IS IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY.

THE OTHER THING THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT, NON-PERSONNEL DOING ANOTHER CUT TO DEPARTMENTS, THESE FOLKS ARE DOING SO MUCH WORK WITH VERY LITTLE.

IT'S GREAT WHEN WE HAVE TO DO FUND RAISING, BUT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO FUND RAISING FOR EVERY NEED THAT EXISTS IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT SO MANY DEPARTMENTS HAVE HAD TO DO THAT.

THEN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DOING AWAY WITH THE JUNIOR AMBASSADOR PROGRAM, BECAUSE I AM SO ACTIVE IN THE COMMUNITY AND KNOW THE PROGRAMS THAT EXIST IN THE COMMUNITY.

I KNOW THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL DIFFERENT LEADERSHIP PROGRAMS FOR THE YOUTH, INCLUDING UNITED WAYS YOUTH LEADERSHIP PROGRAM, THE YWCA COMMUNITY YOUTH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, THE VOLUNTEER CENTERS YOUTH LEADERSHIP PROGRAM.

WHY ARE WE GOING TO CREATE SOMETHING NEW? THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY.

LET ME REMIND YOU ONE MORE TIME WHEN WE TALK ABOUT JUNIOR AMBASSADORS, THESE KIDS RAISE THEIR OWN MONEY.

IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY, BUT THEY PAY THEIR OWN WAY.

THE OTHER PART IS, WHICH IS 20 TO $25,000.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 43 CAME FROM LAST TIME.

BUT THESE DOLLARS HELP WITH OTHER THINGS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE TRIP.

IT'S A SMALL BAG OF PEANUTS IN COMPARISON TO WHAT WE GET IN RETURN.

WE'VE HAD A VERY LONG STANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH A SISTER CITY IN MUSASHINO CITY, JAPAN.

A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR KIDS TO BUILD SKILLS THAT GO BEYOND THE CITY LIMITS.

WHY DO WE WANT TO KEEP LIMITING KIDS TO JUST WHAT HAPPENS HERE? I THINK THAT'S SMALL TOWN THINKING.

WE NEED TO THINK BIG FOR OUR KIDS AND GIVE THEM WORLDLY OPPORTUNITIES THAT WILL BENEFIT OUR CITY IN DIRECTLY IN THE FUTURE.

I WILL NOT SUPPORT YOUR PROPOSAL. THANK YOU.

>> ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR YOU?

>> NO, MY PRIORITY IS, I THINK WE DID REALLY WELL LAST TIME AND MAKING SOME CUTS, BUT BEING AWARE OF THE NEEDS OF OUR DEPARTMENTS, OF OUR EMPLOYEES OF THE WANTS OF OUR YOUNG PEOPLE.

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THEM, AND YOU CAN'T COME UP HERE AND START TALKING ON THEIR BEHALF WHEN YOU'RE CLUELESS TO WHAT EVEN EXISTS FOR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK, THE LUBBOCK 101 IS AN EXCELLENT PROGRAM.

WE ONLY PICK SO MANY PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE.

WE ONLY GET TO DO IT ONE TIME A YEAR.

BUT IT'S A BIG COMMITMENT, AND I GET IT.

YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT FOR KIDS.

WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING THAT THROUGH TWO OTHER PROGRAMS WHERE WE ARE ALLOWING KIDS FROM 17-22 TO COME AND DO PROGRAMS WITH OUR DEPARTMENTS, AND NOW WE EVEN HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROGRAM THAT WE DO.

WE'RE GIVING THE KIDS AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND EXPERIENCE THAT FIRSTHAND.

THEY DO GET LESSONS, AND THEY DO GET FED, AND THEY DO GET A STIPEND, AND THEY EVEN GET A UNIFORM.

I THINK WE'RE ACHIEVING THAT, AND WHY WOULD WE DUPLICATE SERVICES? I THINK THAT'S UNNECESSARY.

I SAY WE STICK TO WHAT WE HAVE AND MOVE FORWARD.

>> I WILL ASSURE YOU I'M NOT CLUELESS AS TO WHAT WE DO FOR OUR YOUNG PEOPLE IN THIS COMMUNITY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? ANYONE ELSE WISH TO OFFER ANY COMMENTS ON WHAT I HAVE OFFERED UP AS AN AMENDMENT? I'M GOING TO DO THIS. OKAY. MR. WILSON AGAIN, I'M SORRY.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I'M NOT WILLING TO DIE ON THE JUNIOR AMBASSADORS PROGRAM HERE FOR 15,000 OR FRANKLY, EVEN THE MARKET LUBBOCK AT 100,000.

BUT WHEN WE'RE SMOKING MIRRORS ON THE 300,000 FROM THE I&S.

THAT'S TAX MONEY THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO END UP PAYING REGARDLESS, AND THEN SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, I'M NOT WILLING TO DIE ON A HILL FOR THE JAPAN OR THE MARKET LUBBOCK.

THE 556, WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY'S COMING FROM.

I WOULD LIKE MAYBE SOME SUGGESTIONS ON WHERE WE'RE GETTING THAT FROM.

>> I'LL ANSWER YOUR SECOND QUESTION FIRST AND THEN GO BACK TO YOUR FIRST ISSUE ON THE 300,000.

I STATED LAST WEEK,

[00:30:02]

DEPARTMENTS THAT AREN'T POLICE, FIRE, OR ANIMAL CONTROL, HAVE A BUDGET.

IF YOU TAKE THE PERSONNEL COSTS AND SALARIES AND BENEFITS OUT OF THOSE BUDGETS, WHAT IS LEFT IS ABOUT $27 MILLION.

I'M PROPOSING A 2% CUT IN THAT $27 MILLION.

DOESN'T AFFECT SALARIES FOR THE PERSONNEL DOESN'T AFFECT THE BENEFITS.

IT ONLY AFFECTS THOSE OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD APPEAR IN THE BUDGET FOR THOSE, AND I LEAVE IT TO OUR CITY MANAGER TO FIND THOSE BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE BEST KNOWS WHERE TO FIND THOSE. IT'S NOT.

FOR ME, I'LL LEAVE THAT HERE TO GO AND FIND THOSE.

WE DEAL, I THINK, AS MR. COLLINS ALWAYS SAYS AT THE 30,000 FOOT LEVEL FOR THE MOST PART, EXCEPT WHEN I SEE SOMETHING VERY SPECIFIC IN HERE THAT I DON'T THINK HAS A PRIORITY AT ALL IN OUR BUDGET.

THAT'S WHERE THAT IS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT, I WOULD CONSIDER IT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE 300,000 IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD WISH TO DO.

>> YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT AS A MOTION?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> DR. WILSON.

>> WELL, THAT WAS A LOVELY SPEECH, MAYOR.

I APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.

MR. ATKINSON, $971,000 DECREASE IN THE BUDGET.

WHAT WOULD BE THE CHANGE ON THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER'S TAX BILL FOR LUBBOCK'S PART OF THAT? JUST GUESTIMATE. I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF MATH TO ASK REAL QUICK, BUT JUST A GUESSTIMATE.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN DO THAT ONE OFF TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> BECAUSE I THINK THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS AN INCREASE OF 12, 15?

>> THE BUDGET YOU STARTED ON TODAY WAS $15.33 A YEAR.

>> SO WE CAN SIT UP HERE AND TALK ABOUT PEANUTS AND COKES AND CENTS, BUT ANOTHER DECREASE IN THE 971 IS GOING TO REDUCE IT A HAPPY MEAL AT MCDONALD'S.

THAT IS NOT TAXING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES.

I AGREE, AS A CONSERVATIVE, WE WANT TO ALWAYS KEEP OUR TAX RATE AS LOW AS WE POSSIBLY CAN AND PROVIDE GOOD SERVICE.

WE CAN ALL SIT UP HERE AND GRANDSTAND ALL DAY LONG ABOUT HOW WE SUPPORT POLICE AND FIRE, WHICH WE KNOW WE ALL DO.

BUT THOSE ARE NOT THE EMAILS THAT I GET THAT ARE COMPLAINTS.

I GET COMPLAINTS THAT WE HAVE POTHOLES.

I GET COMPLAINTS THAT SIDEWALKS ARE BUCKLING.

I GET COMPLAINTS THAT STREETS ARE ROUGH.

WE CAN CLASSIFIES THOSE ENTITIES AS PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT OUR IT DEPARTMENT SUPPORTS POLICE FIRE AND ANIMAL SERVICES, OUR ROADS DEPARTMENTS, OUR WATER CREWS OUT THERE WORKING ON FIRE HYDRANTS.

ANY TYPE WHERE ALL OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS ARE INTEGRATED CUTS THE SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY THAT ARE TWO BIG ENTITIES THAT WE ALL LIKE TO TALK ABOUT, WHICH IS POLICE AND FIRE PROVIDE.

MOST DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE CITY ARE ALL INTEGRATED AND WORK TOGETHER, AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT.

THE IT BUDGETS, WHICH WERE THE INCREASES THAT THE CITY MANAGER TALKED ABOUT ALL DURING OUR BUDGET WORKSHOP.

A LOT OF THAT IS PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED.

ALL OF THAT IS NEW RADIO SYSTEMS, NEW CAD SYSTEMS, HOW EVERYTHING THEY INTEGRATE.

THE NEW COMPUTER SYSTEMS THAT OUR POLICE PUT IN.

ALL OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR RELATES BACK TO IT.

BUT YET WE NEVER SAY IT IS PART OF PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT THEY ARE.

WE START CUTTING THESE BUDGETS, NICKELING AND DIMING THE BUDGETS.

I DON'T GET EMAILS, VERY RARELY, EVER COMPLAINING THAT.

FIRES NOT DOING THEIR JOB, POLICE IS NOT DOING THEIR JOB, ANIMAL SERVICES, MAYBE.

BUT NOT USUALLY OUR PUBLIC SAFETY ENTITIES.

IT IS ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS, AND WE START NICKELING AND DIMING, CUTTING ALL OF THEIR BUDGETS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE PRESENTED ALMOST ALL OF THEM, A FLAT BUDGET, WHERE THE BUDGET THAT IS NOW PROPOSED IS REALLY JUST INFLATIONARY INCREASE FOR THEM TO CONTINUE TO DO THEIR JOBS, WHICH WE KNOW WE GET COMPLAINTS ABOUT EVERY DAY.

NOT THAT THEY'RE DOING A BAD JOB, BUT THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH OF THEM, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY.

BUT WE ARE TRYING TO BE RESPONSIBLE, AND SO THAT'S WHY I HAVEN'T PROPOSED ANY INCREASES IN BUDGETS PER SE.

IT'S JUST TO CONTINUE DOING BUSINESS AS USUAL.

THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT THE PREMISE OF KEEPING TAXES LOW FOR LUBBOCK CITIZENS 100%, BUT I CANNOT SUPPORT SOME OF THE AMENDMENT THAT YOU HAVE BROUGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE AVERAGE TAXPAYER'S HOUSEHOLD INCOME WHERE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO BE THERE WITH $6, $7 IN A YEAR, NOT A MONTH.

SEVEN DOLLARS A YEAR FOR THEM TO STILL HAVE THEIR POTHOLES FIXED, TO STILL HAVE PEOPLE RESPOND WHEN WATER LINES BREAK,

[00:35:01]

TO HAVE IT SUPPORT, POLICE AND FIRE.

THAT IS WHY I PROPOSED A GOOD COMPROMISED BUDGET LAST TIME, AND THAT'S THE BUDGET THAT I THINK WE SHOULD STICK WITH.

>> YOU'RE NOT EVEN INTERESTED IN $100,000 YOU OFFERED UP LAST WEEK ON MARKET LUBBOCK?

>> YES, I COULD TAKE $100,000 OFF OF MARKET LUBBOCK BUT I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT UP HERE.

PASSING A BUDGET TAKES FIVE VOTES, AND I DON'T WANT TO SIT UP HERE AND ARGUE OVER $100,000 FOR THE NEXT FIVE HOURS.

I THINK IT WOULD BE FINE TO TAKE IT FROM MARKET LUBBOCK, I SAID THAT LAST TIME, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN GET TO FIVE.

I'M TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING THAT WE ALL AGREE ON, AND EVEN IF WE DON'T ALL AGREE, BUT AT LEAST THAT WE CAN GET PASSED FOR THE CITIZENS BECAUSE WE OWE THEM THAT, THAT'S PART OF OUR JOB.

I AM TRYING TO NOT BE SO STUBBORN IN MY WAYS THAT I CAN'T COME UP WITH A GOOD COMPROMISE.

>> MR. COLLINS.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO SIT HERE AND ALLOW YOU TO CATEGORIZE THE REST OF US IN SUCH A WAY THAT SAYS, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN WHAT HAPPENS IN FOLKS HOMES WITH THEIR BUDGETS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S VERY FAIR TO THE REST OF US AT ALL.

FRANKLY, I THINK WE ALL LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT WE SEE IN THESE BUDGETS.

WE DEPEND UPON A VERY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL, IN MR. ATKINSON AND THE REST OF HIS TEAMS TO PUT TOGETHER A BUDGET FOR US, AND HE PRESENTED THAT BUDGET.

I REMIND YOU THAT LAST WEEK WE REMOVED $1.7 MILLION FROM THE BUDGET PROPOSED.

WE REMOVED THAT FROM A STREET MAINTENANCE CONTINGENCY FUND.

JUST THIS PAST WEEK WE TOOK BIDS ON A PROJECT ON MILWAUKEE AVENUE FROM FOURTH STREET GOING NORTH TO THE CITY LIMITS.

IN A REDUCED SCOPE, THAT PROJECT WAS $2.5 MILLION OVER BUDGET.

YET WE DON'T THINK WE SEE A NEED TO SET ASIDE MONEY TO COMPLETE THAT.

WE MADE A PROMISE TO THE COMMUNITY IN 2022 THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO A ROAD BOND PROJECT, AND WE WERE GOING TO SEE TO IT THAT THEY WERE ALL COMPLETED.

I THINK THIS JEOPARDIZES THAT.

I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE REMOVAL OF THE 1.7 MILLION.

I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE CHARGED TO BE NOT ONLY RESPONSIBLE TO THE TAXPAYERS, BUT RESPONSIBLE TO THE FORWARD GROWTH OF THIS COMMUNITY AND MOVING OUR CITY FORWARD IN A GOOD WAY FOR ALL OF THOSE TAXPAYERS.

WE TALKED ABOUT IMPACT FEES A MONTH AGO, AND THAT THAT WAS CRITICAL TO REMOVE THOSE FEES, THOUGH I LOST IN THAT VOTE AS WELL, BUT IT WAS CRITICAL TO REMOVE THOSE FEES FOR GROWTH.

YET WE'RE JEOPARDIZING OUR ROADWAY PROJECTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY DETERMINED WERE CRITICAL FOR GROWTH.

I JUST FEEL THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE TALK ABOUT TAX RATES, THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE BIG PICTURE OF A RESPONSIBLE BUDGETING.

TRULY, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE FOLKS WHO HAVE A HARD TIME ON A DAILY BASIS, AND AS YOU'VE MENTIONED, IT MIGHT NOT BE ONE OF US WHO LIVE IN THAT SPACE.

BUT WE RECOGNIZE THAT.

WE ARE CONSTANTLY AWARE OF THAT.

BUT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THEM WITH GOOD SERVICE AND THE GROWTH PATTERN THAT WE SEE IN FRONT OF US.

AS WE TALK ABOUT THESE ADDITIONAL CUTS, LET'S REMEMBER WE TOOK $1.7 MILLION OUT OF THE BUDGET LAST WEEK, NOT 15,000.

1.7015. THOSE DOLLARS WENT AWAY, AND 5:2 AGREED WITH THAT, AND SO THOSE DOLLARS ARE GONE.

BUT LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE THAT NUMBER IN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND LET'S MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE LONG-TERM.

I UNDERSTAND THE PROMISES MADE, AND YOU MENTION OF SOME OF US WHO RAN UNOPPOSED.

WE DIDN'T HAVE TO MAKE A PROMISE.

WE DIDN'T HAVE TO MAKE SPEECHES THAT SAID WE WOULD DO THIS OR DO THAT.

BUT MY PROMISE WHEN I STOOD UP, WHETHER I KNEW I WAS GOING TO BE OPPOSED OR NOT, WAS THAT I WOULD LOOK OUT FOR THE FUTURE OF THIS COMMUNITY, MY CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN.

I THINK AS WE CONTINUE TO PRESS DOWN ON THIS BUDGET, WE ARE JEOPARDIZING THAT FUTURE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS. JUST A REMINDER THAT 1.7 MILLION WAS NOT AN EXPENSE REDUCTION.

IT WAS A REVENUE MOVE.

>> IF I MAY.

>> SURE.

>> IT WAS A REVENUE MOVE.

IT RESULTED IN A LOWER TAX RATE.

IT WAS AN EXPENSE REDUCTION, BUT IT RESULTED IN A LOWER TAX RATE.

THAT'S HOW WE GOT A LOWER TAX RATE FROM THAT REMOVAL OF $1.7 MILLION.

[00:40:06]

>> BUT IT WAS NOT AN EXPENSE REDUCTION, MR. COLLINS.

THE ONLY EXPENSE REDUCTION WE MADE LAST WEEK WAS $15,000 OUT OF A $316 MILLION BUDGET.

THAT'S THE ONLY EXPENSE REDUCTION WE MADE.

>> WELL, IT'S A BUDGET DECREASE THAT RESULTED IN A LOWER TAX RATE AND EXPENSES.

WE'RE NOT SPENDING $1.7 MILLION ON A ROAD PROJECT THAT MAY NEED IT FOR COMPLETION.

I WOULD SAY THAT IT MIGHT NOT BE AN EXPENSE REDUCTION TODAY, BUT YOU BETTER FIND IT SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE I'M AFRAID YOU'RE GOING TO NEED IT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'M GOING TO REMOVE, BASED ON MR. ROSE'S COMMENTS, I WANT TO REMOVE FROM MY MOTION THE $300,000 MOVE FROM THE INS BUDGET.

MY MOTION NOW WILL BE $100,000 DECREASE TO MARKET LUBBOCK, $15,000 DECREASE TO THE CITY COUNCIL BUDGET, AND $556,000 FROM NON-PUBLIC SAFETY BUDGETS, NON-PERSONNEL EXPENSES IN THOSE BUDGETS.

ALTOGETHER, THAT WOULD BE A $671,000 DECREASE IN EXPENSES IN THE BUDGET.

SO THAT IS MY MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> YOU'RE AMENDING YOUR OWN?

>> YES.

>> THE PERSON WHO SECONDED ORIGINALLY WITH YOUR OWN NEEDS TO CONSENT TO THAT AS WELL.

THAT'D BE MR. HARRIS.

>> MR. HARRIS. [OVERLAPPING] MY MOTION.

>> YOU SECONDED THE MAYOR'S ORIGINAL?

>> [OVERLAPPING] YOU AGREE TO MY CHANGE TO MY MOTION. YOU'RE GOING TO BACK OFF ON IT?

>> THEN YOU'LL JUST NEED A NEW SECOND.

>> I NEED A NEW SECOND THEN. IS THERE A SECOND?

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THIS IS GOING TO BE A RECORDED VOTE.

>> MR. ROSE IS A SECOND.

I'M GOING TO ASK EACH COUNCIL PERSON TO VOTE.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS WITH THE MACHINE.

I'M GOING TO CALL ON EACH COUNCIL PERSON TO VOTE.

I WILL VOTE YES, AND I'M GOING TO CALL ON YOU BY ORDER OF COUNCIL DISTRICTS. DISTRICT 1?

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> YES ON MY MOTION.

>> THAT'S A NO. DISTRICT COUNCIL 2, MR. HARRIS.

>> DISTRICT COUNCIL 3, MR. GLASHEEN.

>> DISTRICT COUNCIL 4, MR. ROSE.

>> DISTRICT COUNCIL 5, DR. WILSON?

>> DISTRICT COUNCIL 6, MR. COLLINS.

>> THAT MOTION FAILS 4:3. IS THAT RIGHT? NOW WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

WE ALREADY HAVE THE FIRST, WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND HAVE ANOTHER.

>> NO, YOU ALREADY HAVE A FIRST AND SECOND ON THAT MOTION.

>> WE ALREADY HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND ON THAT ONE.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN. WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN.

ALL ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION, I WILL VOTE NAY ON THAT.

DISTRICT COUNCIL 1, MR. HARRIS.

EXCUSE ME, MAYOR PRO TEM, I'M SORRY.

>> JUST DO IT [INAUDIBLE]

>> I'LL DO IT THE WAY I WANT TO.

DR. WILSON, PLEASE.

>> WILL YOU RESTATE THE MOTION?

>> THE MOTION IS THE ORIGINAL BUDGET NOW.

THE BUDGET THAT WE PASSED LAST WEEK.

>> NAY AND I SAY YES.

NOW WE HAVE TO TAKE UP 6.3,

[3. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution ratifying the adoption of the FY 2025-26 Budget that will require raising more revenue from property taxes than in the previous year.]

WHICH IS CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE ADOPTION OF FISCAL YEAR 2025-'26 BUDGET THAT WILL REQUIRE RAISING MORE REVENUE FROM PROPERTY TAXES THAN IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

I WILL CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER NOW TO GIVE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS ITEM. IS THERE A BRIEF SUMMARY?

>> WE CAN BE VERY BRIEF.

>> BE VERY BRIEF.

>> ITEM 6.3 IS A STATE LAW REQUIREMENT.

THIS IS NOT A LOCAL REQUIREMENT.

IT IS A STATE LAW REQUIREMENT FOR YOU TO RATIFY THE VOTE THAT YOU JUST TOOK.

THE VOTE THAT JUST PASSED 5:02, WHICH WAS THE BUDGET THAT WAS ESTABLISHED A WEEK AGO,

[00:45:01]

YOU'RE NOW BEING ASKED TO RATIFY YOUR VOTE ON THAT BUDGET.

WE'RE DOING THE SAME THING ALL OVER AGAIN.

>> THIS IS TO FULFILL OUR STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.3?

>> SO MOVED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN.

WELL, THIS HAS TO BE A RECORDED VOTE.

DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A RECORDED VOTE.

ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE?

I THINK THAT PASSES 5:2. IS THAT RIGHT? I'LL TAKE UP ITEM 6.4,

>> ANY OPPOSE SAY NAY.

[4. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Finance: Consider Ordinance No. 2025-O0113, 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.]

TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING SETTING THE TAX RATE AND LEVYING A TAX UPON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION WITH THE CITY OF LUBBOCK FOR 2025.

I WILL CALL ON THE CITY MANAGER AGAIN TO GIVE A STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I BELIEVE EACH OF YOU HAVE AT YOUR PLACE A COPY OF THE TAX RATE MOTION.

THIS IS THE MOTION THAT WAS ULTIMATELY APPROVED LAST WEEK.

THIS IS THE MOTION THAT SUPPORTS THE BUDGET YOU'VE NOW JUST VOTED UPON IN 6.2 AND 6.3.

>> THAT BEING THE CASE, THE INTEREST AND SINKING FUND TAX RATE WOULD BE 0.107586, AND YOUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, 0.364605.

COLLECTIVELY, YOU ADD THE TWO TOGETHER.

COLLECTIVELY, THAT'S A 2.22% INCREASE IN YOUR TAX RATE.

IT IS A TOTAL TAX RATE OF 47.2191, AND THE INCREASE TO THE AVERAGE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME WOULD BE $15.33 PER YEAR.

>> AS A REMINDER, A MOTION SETTING A TAX RATE THAT EXCEEDS A NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE MUST BE A RECORD VOTE.

AT LEAST 60% OF THE COUNCIL, WHICH IS FIVE VOTES ON THIS COUNCIL, 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? DR. WILSON, YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE?

>> 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 OPERATIONS, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 2.2% INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE.

>> I SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.

SINCE THIS HAS TO BE A RECORDED VOTE, WOULD YOU PUT THAT UP FOR US, MS. BAYERS? THAT MOTION PASSES 5-2.

WE WILL NOW TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 6.5 TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING

[5. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution amending the allocation of the Hotel Occupancy Tax Revenues for FY 2025-26 and distributing receipts, net of collection expenses, as authorized in Subsection 18.03.001(b)(2) of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock.]

THE ALLOCATION OF THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX REVENUES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 AND 26, AND I'LL CALL AGAIN ON THE CITY MANAGER TO BANK A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS ITEM.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL SWITCH PRESENTATION INPUTS.

MAYOR AND COUNSEL, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SEPARATE VOTE THAT DICTATES THE ALLOCATION OF YOUR HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX RECEIPTS.

YOU SEE THAT ON THE SCREEN? THESE ARE ALL ALSO WITHIN THE BUDGET THAT'S NOW THE ADOPTED BUDGET.

THERE'S NOT BEEN A CHANGE RELATED TO YOUR HOT TAX.

YOU HAVE A TOTAL REVENUE GOING OUT OF 10.081 MILLION.

THAT IS APPROXIMATELY $381,880 MORE THAN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND THERE WAS $25,000 WORTH OF INTEREST CREDITED TO THAT, THAT YOU CAN PUT OUT.

YOU TAKE THE ONES ON THE RIGHT AND RUN THAT DOWN THE SCREEN.

AGAIN, THESE ARE THE ALLOCATIONS REVIEWED DURING YOUR BUDGET WORKSHOPS, AND IT TOTALS BACK TO THE $10.081 MILLION.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ATKINSON ABOUT THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX ALLOCATION? I SEE NONE. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.5?

>> MOVE.

>> I SECOND.

>> HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE?