[00:00:01] ALL RIGHT. IT'S 12:29. I WILL NOW OPEN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 14TH, 2025. ACTUALLY, I THINK IT WAS 12:30 MAYOR WHEN YOU OPENED THE MEETING. LET ME WAIT A MINUTE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE 12:30 ON THEIR WATCH? IT'S WHATEVER YOUR WATCH GOES BY. SO IF YOU SAY THAT YOUR WATCH IS 12:30, THEN IT'S 12:30. ALL RIGHT. WE CAN DO THIS FOR ANOTHER 42 SECONDS. IT'S THE ONLY THING WE CAN'T DO. WE HAVE TO. WE HAVE TO START IT AT 12:30. YOU CANNOT START EARLY. OKAY? START LATE ACCORDING TO. START EARLY. I NEVER TRUST THIS TIME HERE. I WOULDN'T EITHER. I DO NOT TRUST THIS TIME HERE AT ALL. IT IS NEVER RIGHT. WELL, HERE IT'S 12:30. SEE, THIS SAYS 12:29. SO. IT'S 12:30. I'M WATCHING IT LIKE A HAWK. I'M SORRY. REMEMBER, A WATCHED POT NEVER BOILS. I WOULD HAVE, I WOULD HAVE BELIEVED YOU IF YOU HAD SAID 12:30 [LAUGHS]. WOULDN'T HAVE. I JUST CAN'T. OF COURSE. THE DAY YOU WANTED TO KNOW. BUT IF SOMEBODY GOES BACK AND CHECKS AND LOOKS AND SAY, HEY. TIMESTAMP SAID IT WAS 12:29. HE SAID 12:30. YOU KNOW, A LIAR IN ONE LIAR IN ALL, RIGHT? WHAT'S THAT LATIN PHRASE, DAVID? APPARENTLY. I NEED TO GO BACK UPSTAIRS AND GET MY ROBERT'S RULES. [INAUDIBLE]. COULD BE. COULD BE. NEIL. I'M NOT SURE. 15 SECONDS. DAD GUM. THAT IS THE SLOWEST MINUTE [LAUGHS]. I THINK IT'S FROZEN. ALL RIGHT. I WILL NOW OPEN THE REGULAR SESSION. [1. Executive Session] REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR OCTOBER 14TH, 2025. MY FATHER'S BIRTHDAY. MAY GOD REST HIS SOUL. THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.071 TO CONSULT WITH AND SEEK THE ADVICE OF THE CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL. SECTION 551.072 TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY. SECTION 551.074 TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS. 551.076 TO DISCUSS THE DEPLOYMENT OR IMPLEMENTATION OF SECURITY PERSONNEL OR DEVICES. 551.0761 TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER MATTERS REGARDING THE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, A CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY, AND 551.077 TO DISCUSS AND DELIBERATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MATTERS. THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECESSING AT STILL 12:30, AND WE WILL BE BACK AT 2:00. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL RECONVENE FROM OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND WE JUST ENJOYED SOME WONDERFUL CAKE FROM SWEET CREATIONS OVER ON BROADWAY. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, GO THERE AND GIVE HER SOME OF YOUR BUSINESS. SHE MAKES INCREDIBLE PRODUCT OVER THERE. INCREDIBLE SWEET CREATIONS. MADE MY BIRTHDAY CAKE, SO IT WAS VERY GOOD. IT WAS CHOCOLATE. IT WAS WONDERFUL. SO JUST ALWAYS TRYING TO GIVE PEOPLE BUSINESS HERE IN IN OUR CITY. SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP OUR CEREMONIAL ITEMS. UNFORTUNATELY, THE FATHER PINA, WHO WAS HERE FROM SAINT PATRICK CATHOLIC CHURCH, WAS GOING TO LEAD US IN OUR INVOCATION, [1. Invocation] BUT HE HAD TO LEAVE. SO TODAY I'M JUST GOING TO ASK US ALL TO RISE, AND WE WILL JUST EACH ONE SAY A PRAYER INDIVIDUALLY, AND I WILL CONCLUDE. AND AFTER THAT WE WILL SAY OUR PLEDGES. LORD, GIVE US GRACE, GIVE US WISDOM, GIVE US HUMILITY TO SERVE YOU WITH ALL OUR HEARTS AND ALL OUR SOULS AND ALL OUR MINDS. LORD, HEAR OUR PRAYERS. AMEN. IF YOU'LL JOIN ME IN DOING OUR PLEDGES. [2. Pledges of Allegiance] I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG; I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. ALL RIGHT. I NOW CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER, AND WE'LL TAKE UP CITIZEN COMMENTS. WE HAVE TWO COMMENTS TODAY. ONE IN PERSON, [ Call to Order] [3. Citizen Comments - According to Lubbock City Council Rules, any citizen wishing to appear in-person before a regular meeting of the City Council, regarding any matter posted on the City Council Agenda below, shall complete the sign-up form provided at the meeting, no later than 2:00 p.m. on October 14, 2025. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ] ONE WAS SUBMITTED IN WRITING. SO JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE WHO IS HERE TODAY AND WHO'S ALSO WATCHING ONLINE, ACCORDING TO OUR RULES, ANY CITIZEN WISHING TO APPEAR IN PERSON BEFORE CITY COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING ANY MATTER POSTED ON OUR AGENDA CAN COMPLETE THE SIGN UP FORM PROVIDED AND APPEAR. AND WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, IF YOU'RE HERE IN PERSON, PLEASE REMEMBER TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS. THERE WILL BE A WARNING BELL WHEN YOU HAVE 30S LEFT, AND A FINAL BELL WHEN YOU NEED TO WRAP UP YOUR COMMENTS. [00:05:06] SO OUR FIRST PERSON I'M CALLING FOR TODAY IS JAMES HARRIS. HELLO, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL. BACK ROW IN THE CHAIRS. CITY LEADERSHIP WERE FIRST MADE AWARE OF THESE CRIMES ON AUGUST 8TH OF THIS YEAR. THE CITY IS A TAXING UNIT AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE TO THE MANY TAXING UNITS THAT RECEIVE MORE THAN $50 MILLION PER YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES FROM LCAD. TAXING UNITS COLLECTIVELY CONTROL THE LCAD BOARD, PER TEXAS LAW. THEREFORE, YOU, IN CONCERT WITH OTHER TAXING UNITS, CONTROL EVERYTHING THAT TAKES PLACE AT LCAD. THE GOOD THINGS, THE SLOPPY BUSINESS PRACTICES, THE TAXPAYER ABUSE AND THE CRIMES. THIS IS A DUMPSTER FIRE CREATED FOR YOU BY LCAD TO SOLVE. BUT YOU HAVE OPTIONS. OPTION NUMBER ONE DO NOTHING. MAILING AFTER MAILING, HAND DELIVERY AFTER HAND DELIVERY, PRESENTATION AFTER PRESENTATION. NUMBER TWO, SPEND 30 TO 60S REPLYING TO THE NOTICE EACH OF YOU HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED. ASKING LCAD TO COMMENT ON ONE OF THE LAWS THEY HAVE VIOLATED. 30 TO 60S OF YOUR TIME COULD END THE COVER UP. MONTHS LONG. MANY MONTHS LONG COVER UP. NUMBER THREE PASS A RESOLUTION STATING THAT YOU WANT TO RELINQUISH YOUR STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY OVER LCAD. BEYOND RECEIVING PROPERTY TAX CHECKS FROM THEM, MOST TAXING UNITS APPEAR THROUGH THEIR ACTIONS AND WORDS TO WANT TO GET AWAY FROM THE FETID BRIARPATCH THAT IS LCAD. YOUR RESOLUTION WOULD SIMPLY STATE THE TRUTH AND WILL BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND APPRECIATED IN AUSTIN. THEY KNOW THIS IS A MESS. FIRST OPTION OF DOING NOTHING ISN'T REALLY A WISE CHOICE. AFTER SUFFICIENT TIME AND NOTICE HAVE ELAPSED. YOUR INACTION SIMPLY DECLARES THAT YOU DO NOT CARE. YOU CANNOT BE SEEN AS NOT CARING. MOM AND POP SUFFER GREATLY TO PAY THESE EXTRAVAGANT TAXES AND MOM AND POP EXPECT YOU TO TAKE YOUR STATUTORY MANDATE SERIOUSLY. REGARDING THE THIRD OPTION, RELINQUISHING YOUR STATUTORY RESPONSIBILITY TO VOTE FOR ETHICAL BOARD MEMBERS. CONSIDER HOW YOU WILL ANSWER THIS QUESTION FOR MOM AND POP IN THE FUTURE. YOU ARE WARNED ABOUT THE CRIMINALITY REPEATEDLY, AND YOU STILL VOTED FOR THE SAME OLD GUARD WHO ALLOWED THE ROT IN THE FIRST PLACE. A RESPONSIBLE ANSWER WOULD BE THAT YOU FORMALLY RESOLVE THAT THE CITY OF LUBBOCK NO LONGER WANTS TO ANY RESPONSIBILITY OVER LCAD. PLEASE, TEXAS LEGISLATOR, TAKE IT AWAY. IS THAT MY FINAL? YOU HAVE MY CONTACT INFORMATION. THANK YOU. YOU'RE IN CONTROL OF THIS ROT. DID YOU SUBMIT THAT TO EACH OF US? NO. JUST COMMENTS. SECOND, I HAVE A MRS. NANCY BRIGGS. BRIGGS, WHO HAD WRITTEN COMMENTS. SHE LIVES AT 5109 182ND STREET. AND SHE SAID SHE RECEIVED A LETTER CONCERNING ANNEXATION OF HIGHLAND OAKS. COST BEING ESTIMATED AT $8.484 MILLION. BEEN A RESIDENT OF THIS AREA FOR OVER 20 YEARS, AND BOUGHT IN THE COUNTY BECAUSE I WANTED TO LIVE IN A RURAL AREA. LIVED IN THE COUNTY FOR OVER 50 YEARS IN ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO, TUCSON, ARIZONA AND LUBBOCK. WE HAVE FOUGHT THIS PROCESS THE ENTIRE TIME. IT'S BEEN A POSSIBILITY AND IT DID NO GOOD. I FEEL WE WERE RAMRODDED INTO THIS SITUATION WHETHER WE VOTED IT IN OR NOT. I'M 85 YEARS OLD, RECENTLY WIDOWED, AND NOW LIVE ON ONE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK. I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO AFFORD THE COSTS WE ARE EXPECTED TO COME UP WITH. THIS HOME WAS PLACED IN A REVERSE MORTGAGE BY MY HUSBAND 17 YEARS AGO. I'M TRAPPED HERE AS THE VALUES HAVE PLUMMETED BECAUSE OF THE ANNEXING. I COULD NEVER SELL IT FOR WHAT IT IS OWED, WHAT I OWE ON THIS HOME NOW. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO PLACE TO LIVE IF I MOVED FROM HERE. ANY SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHAT ME AND MANY OTHER RESIDENTS OPTIONS ARE? DOES THIS MEAN WE'RE LEGALLY BOUND TO PAY THESE FEES FOR WATER AND ANNEXING? AND I WILL BE CONTACTING MY ATTORNEY TO SEE WHAT I CAN DO TO REMAIN AS IS. I CANNOT COME TO THE HEARING, SO I WANT MY VOICE AND MY CONCERNS TO BE HEARD BY MAIL. SO I'VE READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD FOR MRS. BRIGGS. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 4.1. [4. Minutes] [00:10:01] THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2ND, 2025 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AND THE SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2025 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 4.1? HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SO ALL I HEAR NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. MOTION TO APPROVE CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE NOW HAVE A CONSENT AGENDA TO TAKE UP. [5. Consent Agenda - Items considered to be routine are enacted by one motion without separate discussion. If the City Council desires to discuss an item, the item is removed from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.] AND THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST TO REMOVE ITEMS 5.2, 5.3 AND 5.30 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS 5.2, 5.3 AND 5.30. IS THERE SUCH A MOTION? HAVE A MOTION. HAVE A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I HEAR NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. SO WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5.2. AND I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER, MR. [2. Budget Ordinance Amendment 1st Reading - Finance: Consider Budget Ordinance Amendment 2, amending FY 2025-26 Budget for municipal purposes, respecting the Impact Fee Streets Zone A Fund and the Streets Capital Project Fund for Capital Improvement Project 92819, Milwaukee Avenue: 4th Street to North City Limits.] ATKINSON, TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ERIC REJINO IS GOING TO WALK US THROUGH THIS. I THINK HE HAS A COUPLE OF SLIDES. MAYOR, COUNCIL, GOOD TO BE WITH YOU. APPRECIATE YOU GIVING ME A FEW MINUTES TO WALK YOU THROUGH. ITEM 5.2 ON THE NORTH MILWAUKEE BUDGET AMENDMENT. JUST KIND OF RECAPPING, WE'VE JUST COMPLETED OUR FOURTH OF 15 BOND PROJECTS. NOW WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF BIDDING THE NEXT FOUR. THIS ONE IS IN PARTICULAR THIS BUDGET AMENDMENTS RELATED TO NORTH MILWAUKEE, NORTH CITY LIMITS FOURTH STREET AND NORTH CITY LIMITS. WE'VE OPENED BIDS AND ACTUALLY HAVE RECEIVED TWO BIDS BACK ONE FROM LONE STAR DIRT AND PAVING AND THE AMOUNT OF 16.3 MILLION. AND AS YOU SEE, WEST TEXAS PAVING WAS THE OTHER BIDDER AT 18.77 MILLION. IN LOOKING AT THE LOW BIDDER AND ALSO THE HIGHEST RANKED PROPOSAL, LONE STAR DIRT AND PAVING IS WHOSE STAFF WILL BE RECOMMENDING AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING. BEFORE WE CAN GET THERE, WE'RE NEEDING TO WORK THROUGH THE BUDGET. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS ACTUALLY RELATED TO IMPACT FEES AND SERVICE AREA A, WHICH WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO STAFF THAT YOU ALLOCATE $1 MILLION FROM IMPACT FEES TOWARDS THIS PROJECT TO HELP MAKE UP THE SHORTFALL. MR. TURPIN, OUR CITY ENGINEER, MR. TAYLOR, OUR ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER OVER CAPITAL PROJECTS, HAVE COME UP WITH A PLAN TO HELP SEE THIS PROJECT THROUGH AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. SO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH THAT. AS FAR AS THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENCUMBERED, EXPENDED, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SPENT TO DATE ON DESIGN ACQUISITION. THEN IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, LOOK AT YOUR AGENDA ITEM, WHICH YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BEFORE YOU AT A LATER TIME. 16.3 MILLION FOR CONSTRUCTION. THAT TAKES YOU TO AN EXPENSE TO DATE WITH THE PROPOSED CONTRACT THAT WILL BE COMING TO YOU OF 19.293 MILLION. WHAT YOU HAVE APPROPRIATED TODAY IN THE BUDGET FOR NORTH MILWAUKEE IS 17 MILLION. SO IT LEAVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A SHORTFALL. SO LET'S WALK THROUGH THAT. SO STARTING AT THAT 19.293 MILLION, WE DO HAVE ANOTHER AMENDMENT COMING RELATED TO HDR, THE CONSULTANT. THIS IS FOR CONSTRUCTION PAY SERVICES THAT WILL COME TO YOU AT A FUTURE MEETING. AND WE ALSO HAVE TO WORK IN STAFF TIME. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT A COST WITHOUT CONTINGENCY OF 19.628 MILLION, WITH YOUR APPROPRIATION DATE BEING 17 MILLION, LEAVING YOU 2.628 MILLION THERE IN RED TO TO WORK THROUGH TODAY. WE'VE COME UP WITH A PLAN IMPACT FEE IN SERVICE AREA A THERE'S A LITTLE OVER A TWO POINT. I'LL PULL IT UP HERE A LITTLE BIT. 2.9 MILLION, I BELIEVE. THERE'S A MILLION THERE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WHICH IS THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY. THAT MILLION WOULD, IN ESSENCE, APPROVED, WOULD AMEND THE BUDGET, MOVE THAT MILLION INTO THIS CAPITAL PROJECT. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING TO UTILIZE FUNDS THAT ARE BUDGETED IN THE STORMWATER FUND FOR ARTERIALS. THERE'S A LOT OF DRAINAGE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. WITH NORTH MILWAUKEE. THERE'S ONE COMING UP THAT WE OPEN BIDS NEXT WEEK ON 34TH STREET. A LOT OF DRAINAGE, PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE TO UTILIZE DRAINAGE DOLLARS FOR THAT. AND THAT'S BEEN PART OF THE PLAN. SO A MILLION FROM THERE. AND THEN FORTUNATELY, WE DID COME UNDER BUDGET IN OUR FIRST COUPLE OF MAJOR PROJECTS, THE 98 STREET ALCOVE TO UPLAND. WE'D ALREADY PULLED 500,000 IN PRIOR FISCAL YEAR TO MOVE TOWARDS THIS PROJECT, KNOWING THAT THE SCOPE WAS GOING TO BE RATHER LARGE. BUT THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 350,000 YOU CAN PULL THERE, AND THEN 146TH STREET, WHICH WE ALL KNOW BECAUSE WE CUT THE RIBBON ON BOTH OF THESE 146 STREET QUAKER TO INDIANA. WE CAN MOVE 1.35 MILLION THERE. AND THAT ACTUALLY TAKES YOUR APPROPRIATION FROM THE 17 MILLION TO 20.7 MILLION, LEAVING YOU A LITTLE BIT OF SURPLUS IN THE AMOUNT OF A LITTLE OVER $1 MILLION. NOT UNCOMMON FOR A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE TO HAVE A CONTINGENCY OR A CHANGE IN THE AMOUNT OF 5 TO 7%. THAT MILLION 71,000 THERE AT THE BOTTOM GIVES YOU ABOUT 6.6%. SO THIS THIS GETS YOU TO WHERE YOU NEED TO GET TO WITH. AGAIN, I WANTED TO WALK THROUGH ALL OF IT. SO YOU HAVE THE BIG PICTURE. BUT TODAY'S ITEM IS TIED TO THE IMPACT FEES. [00:15:02] AND AGAIN THIS IS AN IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREA A IN THAT I MISSPOKE. YOU HAVE NO 2.8 AVAILABLE IN SERVICE AREA A AND THIS WOULD KNOCK THAT BACK DOWN TO 1.8. SO I'M GOING TO BACK UP TO THIS SLIDE AND OPEN IT UP WITH QUESTIONS. OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS. MR. COLLINS. THANK YOU MAYOR. MR. RIJINO, WAS THE MILWAUKEE STREET OR. I KNOW THE MILWAUKEE STREET HAD SOME REDUCED SCOPE. THE ELIMINATION OF A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND MAYBE SOME WORK AT THE INTERSECTION OF MARSHAL. YES, SIR. THAT'S CORRECT. AND IS THERE A BALLPARK OF ABOUT HOW MUCH? HOW MANY DOLLARS WEREN'T INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN HAD OTHER FACTORS REMAINED? THE COST PRIMARILY WOULD BE. SO I'M GOING TO BACK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT. SO THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT WE DID, WHICH IS AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO IN THE HDR CONTRACT TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT. THAT'S INITIALLY THE PROJECT WAS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, THE CITY PORTION WAS GOING TO BE DONE BY THE CITY. THE COUNTY ALSO HAD A BOND PROJECT THAT WAS GOING TO GO NORTH, PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF AND GO NORTH. THEY'VE INDICATED THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. SO WE ACTUALLY DID A LITTLE BIT OF A REDESIGN. WE PULLED THE SIGNAL OUT. WE ACTUALLY DID BUILD ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE INTERSECTION, BUILT FIVE LANES. BUT BECAUSE THERE'S NO CONNECTION TO TIE INTO, WE'RE HAVING TO REDUCE THAT THE USABLE LANES TO THREE. SO THERE WAS REDUCED USABILITY, BUT THE SIGNAL WOULD BE THE BIG COST THERE. AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 250,000 FOR THE SIGNAL. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THIS HAD THAT PROCEEDED ON. OKAY. AND DID YOU PREPARE A SLIDE OF THE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE UPCOMING, THE ONES THAT ARE BIDDING SOON? I DID NOT, BUT I'VE GOT A LIST HERE. WE'VE GOT THE ONE THAT WE'RE BIDDING RIGHT NOW. IT'S ON THE STREET NOW IS 34TH STREET, MILWAUKEE TO UPLAND THAT WE OPENED BIDS ON THAT ONE NEXT WEEK. FOLLOWING THAT ONE WE DO HAVE WE'RE GETTING VERY CLOSE ON BEING ABLE TO LET UPLAND FOR THE 19TH AND THEN OUR RESIDENTIAL ON PAVE. SO WE'VE GOT THREE MORE ON TOP OF THIS ONE FOR THAT WE'RE BIDDING NEXT YEAR AND THREE THE FOLLOWING YEAR. AND SO TWO OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE IN IMPACT ZONE A YES, CORRECT. TWO OF THE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS. AND I'VE GOT A LIST ALL IF YOU LOOK THERE, SIR, THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE OPENING BIDS ON IS ALSO IN SERVICE AREA A, BUT THERE'S A LIST OF, OF TOTAL BOND PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE VARIOUS SERVICE AREAS. AND SO THERE WILL BE APPROXIMATELY $1.8 MILLION IN REMAINING FUNDS IN IMPACT FEES AVAILABLE FOR THESE OTHER TWO AREA PROJECTS. YES, SIR. IS THAT ALL THE AREA PROJECTS THAT ARE UPCOMING? NO. NO, SIR. THERE'S THERE'S OTHERS. YOU'VE GOT A LIST. YOU'VE GOT VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE UPLAND PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING UP THAT WILL BE AT A LATER. I MEAN, THERE'S A FEW THAT ARE BIDDING NEXT YEAR. OKAY. WELL, AND I BRING THIS, YOU KNOW, I BRING THIS TO CONVERSATION. THIS IS WHAT IMPACT FEE MONEY WAS FOR OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE DESIGNATED USES THAT WE COULD THAT WE COULD USE THOSE DOLLARS FOR THE 34TH STREET PROJECT FROM MILWAUKEE TO UPLAND IS IS GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANT. WAS THERE CONTINGENCY ORIGINALLY INCLUDED IN IN THE 22 BOND PACKAGE? THERE WASN'T SEPARATE CONTINGENCY LIKE WE DID IN 24. BUT WAS THERE A PERCENTAGE OF CONTINGENCY MADE AVAILABLE? WE DID WORK IN CONTINGENCY, BUT BASED ON THE CONSTRUCTION PRICES, WE'RE SEEING THE CURRENT AND WE HOPE IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S COMES UNDER THIS. BUT THE CURRENT OPCC FOR 34TH MILWAUKEE TO UPLAND. OPPINION OF PROBABLE COST [LAUGHS]. CONSTRUCTION COST. SORRY, I USE AN ACRONYM HERE, I APOLOGIZE. SO WE'VE GOT 16.5 MILLION BUDGETED FOR THAT. IF WE ASSUME WORST CASE SCENARIO, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW AND THIS ISN'T TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE MILWAUKEE BIDS, THIS IS LOOKING AT KIND OF WHAT WE LOOKED AT LAST MONTH. THESE MAY NEED TO BE RECALCULATED NOW THAT WE HAVE THE MILWAUKEE BIDS. BUT AS OF LAST MONTH, WE WERE AT 18.3 MILLION TOTAL VERSUS 16.5 TAKE OUT ALL CONTINGENCY. WE WERE AT ABOUT 17 MILLION. AND THAT INCLUDES THAT'S ALL INCLUSIVE OF DESIGN, ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION. WERE THERE ANY SCOPE REDUCTIONS IN THE 98TH STREET PROJECT OR THE OTHER PROJECT THAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, ONE OF THOSE FIRST TWO THAT MIGHT INDICATE WHY THERE WAS EXCESS OR GIVE US OTHER REASON FOR THE EXCESS BEYOND JUST THE CONTINGENCY THAT WE PUT IN. NO, SIR. YOU KNOW, THE ACQUISITION IN THIS THIS IS ONE THAT WE TRIED TO PLAN FOR. BUT OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU KNOW, WITH LOOP 88, THE ACQUISITION HAS CHANGED DRASTICALLY. AND I THINK WE'RE PAYING A LITTLE MORE ON THAT SIDE AND MAYBE NEEDED A FEW MORE PARCELS THAN WE EXPECTED. BUT THAT'S I WOULD TIE THE THE ADDITIONAL COST MORE. SO TO INCREASE CONSTRUCTION COST AND THE ACQUISITION THAT'S NEEDED TO OCCUR FOR ALL THE PROJECTS TO HAPPEN, BUT NO REDUCED SCOPE ON ON THOSE THAT YOU JUST REFERENCED. SO THOSE LAST TWO PROJECTS WILL BID OUT. YOU SAID ONE WILL BID NEXT WEEK AND THE OTHER THE OTHER ONES ARE 34 STREETS ALREADY ON THE STREET. [00:20:05] NOW WE OPEN BIDS NEXT WEEK AND THEN UPLAND FOURTH AND 19TH WILL BID NEXT MONTH, AND WE HOPE WE PLAN TO BRING THOSE TO COUNCIL BY THE END OF THE YEAR FOR CONSTRUCTION AWARDS, ALL THREE OF THOSE. SO THE OTHER BIDS' IN NOVEMBER. YES, SIR. YEAH. OKAY. WELL AND I BRING AGAIN BRING THIS ATTENTION BECAUSE IT'S WE MENTIONED THIS THROUGH THE BUDGET CYCLE AND IT REMAINS A CONCERN OF MINE AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I GUESS WE'VE GOT ANOTHER 60 DAYS OR SO AND WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE STANDING. BUT I HAVE GREAT CONCERN GETTING THROUGH THE ENTIRETY OF THIS BOND PACKAGE. ON BUDGET. AND SO I JUST WANT US TO ALL BE VERY AWARE, AS WE'RE WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THIS AND SEEING THIS, HOW THIS COULD IMPACT FUTURE BOND ISSUES AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T GET THROUGH THIS PROCESS IN, IN THE 22 BOND PACKAGE. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INFORMATION, SIR. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. I JUST WANTED TO ADD TO WHAT MR. COLLINS SAID. I CONCUR WITH HIM ON THAT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DEMONSTRATING WHAT MY CONCERN WAS. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WILL BE SHORTFALLS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CONTINUED RISING COSTS. I DO HOPE THAT WE HAVE SOME BETTER MONTHS. BUT AT THIS POINT, I FEEL THAT ALL THE INCREASING COSTS, CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THE SUPPLIES AND WHATNOT, WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE. OUR CITIZENS CAN EXPECT TO SEE STUFF LIKE THIS HAPPEN. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT LARGE OF A BUDGET LEFT IN IMPACT FEES. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORTS AND THANK YOU FOR MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION. YES, MA'AM. MR. RIJINO, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING ON THE 2022 BONDS, DID WE BUILD THE CONTINGENCY INTO EACH PROJECT? BUT NOT THEN AN ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY AT THE END? IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE DID HAVE A CONTINGENCY BUILT IN 2024. WE HAD CONTINGENCIES WITHIN THE PROJECTS AND THEN A FURTHER CONTINGENCY AT THE END. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.2. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5.3. MR. ATKINSON. [3. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution amending Section 2 of Resolution No. 2012-R0281 of the City of Lubbock Purchasing Policy, to grant authority to the City Manager, or his designee, to approve routine contracts of $100,000 or less that are executed on standard City contract forms or in a form approved by the City Attorney.] THANK YOU. MAYOR. ITEM 5.3 IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU TODAY SO THAT THE CITY OF LUBBOCK CAN UPDATE ITS PURCHASING POLICIES IN PROVISION WITH THE RECENTLY APPROVED SENATE BILL 1173 THAT WAS PASSED OR BROUGHT FORWARD BY OUR OWN SENATOR PERRY. SO CURRENTLY TODAY AND TRULY HAS BEEN FOR A VERY LONG TIME, $50,000 IS THE THRESHOLD AT WHICH EITHER THE MANAGER OR THE MANAGER'S DESIGNEE CAN APPROVE A PURCHASE. THERE ARE STILL COMPETITIVE PURCHASES. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A FORMAL SEALED BID, WHICH BRINGS EXTENSIVE TIME AND EXPENSE TO DO THAT. WE ALL KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENED TO THE COST OF GOODS OVER THE YEARS. SENATOR PERRY BROUGHT THIS FORWARD TO ALLOW US TO UPDATE THAT POLICY AND ANY OTHER CITY, REALLY, TRULY, ANY PUBLIC ENTITY TO $100,000 ON THAT. SO WE'VE GONE FROM WHEN I STARTED FOR $50,000. I COULD BUY A POLICE CAR. I CAN'T TODAY, BUT I COULD AT $100,000. COUNCIL, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AS TO WHAT THIS WOULD CAPTURE FROM US, MR. JIMENEZ, OUR CFO, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, I THINK HAS NUMBERS IN BETWEEN. THE TWO OF US WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, MR. GLASHEEN? THANK YOU. I PULLED THIS AGENDA ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. JUST TO TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT. THE $50,000 LIMIT AT THE TIME THAT IT WAS IN PLACE, IF YOU ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, WOULD BE ABOUT $76,000 IN TODAY'S DOLLARS. AND SO THIS IS THIS IS NOT JUST AN INCREASE IN ABSOLUTE DOLLARS. IT'S ALSO AN INCREASE IN THE RELATIVE AMOUNT OF PURCHASING POWER WE ARE DELEGATING WITHOUT ANY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OVERSIGHT FROM THE COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE HAVE A VERY SMOOTH AND EFFICIENT SYSTEM TO APPROVE MOST CONTRACTS AND AMENDMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, BUT THAT STILL GIVES US, AS THE COUNCIL OVERSIGHT ON HOW THE DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT, WHERE THEY'RE GOING, AND WHAT SORT OF TRENDS AND PROJECTS THERE ARE ACROSS THE CITY OPERATIONS. AND SO GIVEN THAT IT TAKES VERY LITTLE EFFORT FOR US TO, TO MAINTAIN OVERSIGHT ON THESE TRANSACTIONS, I THINK IT IS OUR MOST IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITY TO CITIZENS. [00:25:01] SO I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE KEEP THE CURRENT $50,000 LIMIT IN PLACE. IF WE WANTED TO ADJUST IT, I WOULD SUGGEST MORE OF AN INFLATION ADJUSTED NUMBER SOMEWHERE AROUND THE $75,000 RANGE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT AT THE TIME FOR DISCUSSION? I THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE AT ANY TIME. OR DO WE DO WE DO WE HAVE A MOTION YET? THERE'S NO MOTION. THERE'S NO MOTION. SO HE COULD DO IT. IF YOU'RE READY TO CALL FOR MOTIONS, HE COULD JUST MAKE THAT AS THE VERY FIRST MOTION. OKAY. SO LET'S SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE I DO THAT. I'M NOT SEEING ANYBODY. I'LL MOVE TO DISAPPROVE. ITEM 5.3. SO YOUR MOTION IS TO DISAPPROVE IT, NOT TO. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? THAT MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. IS THERE A FURTHER MOTION? I'LL MOVE TO AMEND ITEM 5.3 TO ESTABLISH A LIMIT OF $75,000. IS THERE A SECOND FOR THAT MOTION? I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? MR. COLLINS, JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE ALL EXPENDITURES HAVE TO COME FROM MONIES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY BUDGETED. IS THAT CORRECT? IT IS. SO? SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE CITY MANAGER CAN MAKE AN EXPENSE THAT WE HAVEN'T APPROVED PREVIOUSLY. AND SO YOU KNOW IT. HOW MUCH ENGAGEMENT WE, AS THE COUNCIL, I THINK, ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS. AND SO HOW THOSE DOLLARS ARE EXPENDED IS NOT DISCRETIONARY. IT'S CONFINED WITHIN THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED IN THE BUDGET AND THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN. SO I PERSONALLY DON'T TAKE ISSUE WITH RAISING THE NUMBER FOR THAT REASON. MY COMMENT ON THAT IS THAT AND IT'S A CRITICISM OF MY THAT I'VE EXPRESSED IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, IS THAT WE APPROVED VERY BROAD CATEGORIES OF SPENDING, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR AN ENTIRE DEPARTMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THAT DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY IDEA ON HOW THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT. AND SO YOU CAN SAY THAT OKAY, I APPROVED X NUMBER OF DOLLARS FOR THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO DO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. RIGHT. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA HOW THE MONEY IS ACTUALLY BEING SPENT WHEN IT COMES THROUGH. AND YOU SEE THAT THERE'S A MOWING CONTRACT THAT'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN LAST YEAR, THEN THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY AS AS THE OVERSIGHT FOR HOW TAX DOLLARS ARE BEING SPENT TO ENGAGE WITH MANAGEMENT ON THAT, GET ANSWERS ABOUT IT. AND OFTEN THERE'S A GOOD EXPLANATION FOR HOW THE MONEY IS BEING SPENT. BUT I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF OUR OVERSIGHT THAT WE SHOULDN'T RELAX. ANY ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION. AND I WOULD JUST I APPRECIATE DAVID'S POINT. IT DOESN'T REALLY TAKE US A WHOLE LOT OF TIME TO DO THIS OVERSIGHT. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT OVER DELEGATION, OF OUR OVERSIGHT OF THE $100,000, OF COURSE, IS A LIMITING AN UPPER OR LOWER UPPER LIMIT, I GUESS, ON THE AMOUNT THAT CAN BE DONE, IT DOESN'T REALLY SET IT. SO I THINK THE INFLATIONARY PART OF IT GOING UP TO 75,000, PROBABLY ACHIEVES WHAT WE WANT TO NOT OVERBURDEN US, BUT ALSO CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE EXERCISE THE OVERSIGHT THAT THE PEOPLE ELECT US TO DO. SO. I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF THAT. SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR THE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? AND THIS IS A VOTE ON THE MOTION TO AMEND TO LIMIT TO $75,000 INSTEAD OF $100,000. IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S NOT A MOTION TO AMEND. IT'S JUST MOTION TO APPROVE POLICY. IT'S THE MOTION SETTING IT AT 75. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALWAYS KEEPING ME ON TRACK THERE. OKAY. THE MOTION TO SET THE AMOUNT AT $75,000. THERE'S A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION HERE? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. OKAY, LET'S SEE. I CAN'T LOOK TWO WAYS AT ONE TIME AYE. AYE. ANY OTHER AYES DOWN HERE. OKAY. SO THAT'S FOUR TWO. ARE YOU AN AYE? I HAVEN'T SAID NAY YET. WE HAD FOUR EYES. ALL OPPOSED. SAY NAY. NAY. ALL RIGHT. IT'S 4 TO 3. THAT MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 5.30. AND, BRIANNA, ARE YOU HERE TO GO OVER THIS? OUR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. [30. Resolution - Business Development: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 2 to Contract 16316, with The Brossard Group, Inc., dba TBG Partners, for professional services for design development and construction documents, for a Civic Park in Downtown Lubbock. ] THANK YOU. MAYOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, ITEM 5.30 IS AMENDMENT TWO TO CONTRACT 16316 WITH THE BROSSARD GROUP, TBG PARTNERS, WHO HAS BEEN OUR PRIMARY ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN FIRM THROUGHOUT THE DOWNTOWN PARK CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. [00:30:10] FOLLOWING THE APPROVAL BY THE COUNCIL AT OUR MEETING A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN AMENDED DESIGN FOR THE DOWNTOWN PARK PROJECT. WE WENT BACK TO OUR CONSULTANTS. AND SO WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES IS ALLOWS THEM TO GO BACK TO THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND AMEND THOSE DOCUMENTS BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE REMOVED SOME SIGNIFICANT COMPONENTS OF THE PARK, PRIMARILY BEING THE SPLASH PAD. WE'RE ALSO ADJUSTING SOME OF THE STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS ON THE RESTROOM STRUCTURE AND THE STAGE STRUCTURE TO LOWER THE COST OF THOSE TWO ITEMS, BUT IT DOES REQUIRE US TO GO BACK TO OUR ARCHITECT AND THEN THEM TO GO BACK TO THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS FOR RENOVATION OF THOSE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. YOU WILL ALSO SEE IN YOUR BACKUP THAT WE'VE ESCALATED SOME OR THEY HAVE ESCALATED SOME OF THEIR FEES TO 2026 PRICING. THIS CONTRACT WAS ORIGINALLY EXECUTED IN 2021. WE'VE AMENDED IT TWICE EXTENDING THE CONTRACT, AND THEY'VE NEVER ASKED FOR A PRICE INCREASE. SO THEY ARE ASKING FOR US TO MOVE TO TODAY'S PRICES WITH THIS AMENDMENT. AND THEN WE ALSO ADDED SOME DESIGN COMPONENTS, $10,000 FOR THE DESIGN OF OUR DONOR WALL THAT WAS NEVER INCLUDED IN OUR ORIGINAL CONTRACT WITH TBG, AS WE DIDN'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF HOW MANY DONORS THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE, AT WHAT LEVELS WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THEM, AND HOW WE WANTED TO HONOR THEM IN THE PARK. SO NOW THAT WE ARE ESSENTIALLY CLOSE TO DONE FUNDRAISING FOR CONSTRUCTION, WE CAN NOW GO BACK AND DESIGN A WALL BASED ON THE DONORS THAT WE'VE SECURED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE. MR. GLASHEEN. WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS CONTRACT? SO THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WAS PAID FOR IN THAT CONTRACT AMOUNT WAS $971,000, AND THAT WAS PAID FOR THROUGH THE GATEWAY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WITHIN THE CBDTIF, THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ZONE. THEIR GATEWAY FUND IS NOT THE SAME AS YOUR GATEWAY FUND, SO IT WAS BOND PROCEEDS FROM A PREVIOUS PROJECT THAT WE HAD MONEY LEFT OVER, AND SO THEY USED THOSE FUNDS TO PAY FOR THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT. IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, YOU ALL APPROVED A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OF $1.25 MILLION, THAT IS, CASH THAT WAS MOVED FROM THEIR OPERATING BUDGET OVER TO CAPITAL TO FUND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. AND SO THIS AMENDMENT WILL BE COVERED THROUGH THEIR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL BUDGET. WHOSE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT CAPITAL? THE CBDTIF. CBDTIF? YES, SIR. THAT'S THE CENTRAL BUSINESS TAX INCREMENT CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING REINVESTMENT ZONE TOURS. YES OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND SO THIS AMENDMENT THIS WILL BE FOR AN AMOUNT AN ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OF HOW MUCH. 87,000. IS THERE ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY, THE TIF OR THE GROUP THAT'S DOING THE PARK THAT OBLIGATES THE CITY TO SPEND THIS MONEY? THERE IS NOT. THE EXISTING CONTRACT THAT THIS IS AMENDING IS BETWEEN THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND THE CBDTIF APPROVED BY YOU ALL. SO IT'S REALLY BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE ARCHITECT. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THAT CONTRACT, BUT IT IS ADDING SERVICES. THE 2026 PRICING. I THINK IF WE DECIDED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD CONTINUE ON THE WORK THAT THEY'VE ALREADY STARTED. SO THAT WOULD BE OUR ONLY OBLIGATION. THAT'S MY OTHER THOUGHT IS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE SELLING POINTS OF THIS PARK IS THAT IT'S TO BE PRIVATELY FUNDED AND PRIVATELY OPERATED, BUT THE CITY AND ITS RELATED ENTITIES HAVE CONTRIBUTED SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY AND AND VALUABLE LAND SERVICES TO THE PARK. WHY ISN'T THE GROUP THAT'S DEVELOPING THE PARK ABLE TO PAY FOR THIS? I THINK, AND I DO HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM THE DOWNTOWN TIF BOARD, IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM AS WELL. I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I WILL TRY TO AND THEN HE CAN STEP IN IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I THINK THE THOUGHT WAS THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TIF AND THIS PROJECT WAS TO OVERSEE OR PAY FOR THE DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING AND ITS PARKING STRUCTURE AND THEN TO PAY FOR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT DEVELOPMENT. AND SO, BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING CONTRACT THAT THEY HAVE, THEY FELT LIKE THIS IS WHAT IT TAKES TO FULFILL THE EXISTING CONTRACT THAT THEY AGREED TO. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MISS BROWN. [00:35:08] ALL RIGHT. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.30. HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR. LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WELL, NOW PROCEED TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA AND START WITH ITEM 6.1. THE BOARD APPOINTMENTS TO THE AIRPORT, BOARD APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY BOARD, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BOARD, [1. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider appointments to the Airport Board, Appointments Advisory Board, Community Development & Services Board/Urban Renewal Agency Board of Commissioners, Health/Educational Facilities Development Corporation Board, Keep Lubbock Beautiful Advisory Committee, Lubbock Emergency Communication District Board of Managers, Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, Inc. Board of Directors, Lubbock Water Advisory Commission, Market Lubbock, Inc. Board of Directors, Model Codes & Construction Advisory Board, Museum & Art Standing Sub-Committee, Planning & Zoning Commission, and the Veterans Advisory Committee.] URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, THE HEALTH EDUCATION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD, KEEP LUBBOCK BEAUTIFUL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, LUBBOCK EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS, LUBBOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE, INCORPORATED BOARD OF DIRECTORS, LUBBOCK WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION, MARKET LUBBOCK INCORPORATED BOARD OF DIRECTORS. MODEL CODES AND CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY BOARD, MUSEUM AND ART STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND VETERANS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. I'LL CALL ON OUR CITY SECRETARY NOW TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD AND THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. THESE ARE YOUR FOURTH QUARTER BOARDS, WITH A MAJORITY OF THEM HAVING TERMS STARTING AROUND DECEMBER 1ST. THERE ARE A FEW IN HERE THAT WERE RESIGNATIONS, SO THEIR TERMS WILL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY. I'LL RUN THROUGH THE LIST AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE. FOR THE AIRPORT BOARD, WE HAVE KAREN MITCHELL TO REPLACE JAMES ARNOLD. ART CUEVAS TO REPLACE GRADY SHARP. FOR APPOINTMENTS ADVISORY BOARD AND A DISTRICT ONE REPRESENTATIVE POSITION. RAFAEL GUTIERREZ TO REPLACE ALICE LOZADA. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SERVICES BOARD, URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS BOARD IS A CITIZEN AND RURAL PROPERTY OWNER. AMY GEORGE TO REPLACE ROXANA ANCITA. HEALTH EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD. MICHAEL DEAN DEARSING TO REPLACE DAVID LONG. KEEP LUBBOCK BEAUTIFUL ADVISORY COMMITTEE. MELINDA RITCHIE TO REPLACE JANIS HENDERSON AND ALISA PALMER TO REPLACE ALLISON HOFFMAN. COMMON LUBBOCK EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS CHIEF RICHARD STEWART TO REPLACE DEPUTY CHIEF ROBERT KEINAST. FOR THE LUBBOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. REAPPOINTMENT OF SARAH BEVERS AND MELISSA COLLIER AND CHRIS CHAMBERS TO REPLACE BLAKE WOMBLE. FOR THE LUBBOCK WATER ADVISORY COMMISSION, AND A CITIZEN POSITION. DANNY DAVIS TO REPLACE RUSTY SMITH. FOR THE MARKET LUBBOCK, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE REAPPOINTMENT OF SARAH BEVERS AND MELISSA COLLIER AND CHRIS CHAMBERS TO REPLACE BLAKE WOMBLE. FOR MODEL CODES AND CONSTRUCTION ADVISORY BOARD. THE REAPPOINTMENT OF WENDELL BURRIS AND DAVID SMALL IN A CITIZEN POSITION TO REPLACE GORDON WILKERSON, JACOB KLEIN, AND A COMMERCIAL CONTRACTOR POSITION TO REPLACE PARKER HUTCHINS, RYAN FARQUHAR, AND THE MUSEUM AND ART STANDING SUBCOMMITTEE. TINA FUENTES TO REPLACE KERRI SORRELL AND TAYLOR ERNST TO REPLACE DORI BOSNYAK. FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JAMES BELL TO REPLACE TANNER NOBLE. ROBERT KIRK FRANKLIN FOR THE VETERANS ADVISORY COMMITTEE. CASEY DOYLE TO REPLACE ANGELA MOORE AND DENNIS BOYD TO REPLACE JOHN MARTINEZ. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO APPOINT THE INDIVIDUALS AS RECOMMENDED? SECOND, HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION IS CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE UP ITEM 6.2 NOW TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BOARD. [2. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider appointments to the Electric Utility Board.] THANK YOU. MAYOR. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS COME TO YOU FROM THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BOARDS THEMSELVES, AS WELL AS FROM YOUR COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE. IT IS BEING RECOMMENDED TO REAPPOINT MIKE STEVENS, SOLOMON FIELDS, EDWIN DAVIS, AND EDWIN SCHULTZ. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF THESE PEOPLE TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BOARD? HAVE A MOTION A SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY, I HEAR NONE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 6.3. CONSIDER RESOLUTION NOMINATING CANDIDATES TO SERVE AS APPRAISAL DISTRICT DIRECTORS FOR THE LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL [3. Resolution - City Secretary: Consider a resolution to nominate candidates to serve as Appraisal District Directors for the Lubbock Central Appraisal District.] DISTRICT. I'M GOING TO AGAIN CALL ON OUR CITY SECRETARY TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER. THANK YOU. MAYOR. THE TWO INDIVIDUALS UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT TODAY ARE BEING NOMINATED. ALL YOU'RE DOING TODAY IS SUBMITTING NAMES TO BE SUBMITTED FOR A BALLOT. I'LL COME BACK TO YOU AT A LATER TIME FOR YOU ALL TO CAST YOUR DESIGNATED VOTES. [00:40:02] THE TWO DIRECTORS WHO ARE UP FOR REAPPOINTMENT WOULD BE BRADY GOWAN AND GREG JONES. AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. I SEE NONE. ALL RIGHT. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO NOMINATE THESE TWO PERSONS TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT DIRECTORS FOR THE LUBBOCK CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT. IS THERE A MOTION? SO MOVED. HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 6.4, PUBLIC HEARING TO ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN, [4. Public Hearing - Business Development: Hold a public hearing accepting public comments and discussing the proposed acceptance and approval of a Service and Assessment Plan and an Assessment Roll for the Highland Oaks Public Improvement District (PID) and the proposed assessment levy against property within the District; and consider the adoption of an Ordinance accepting and approving a Service and Assessment Plan and an Assessment Roll for the Highland Oaks PID; making a finding of special benefit to the property in the District; levying assessments against property within the District and establishing a lien on such property; providing for the method of assessment and the payment of the assessments in accordance with Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code, as amended; providing penalties and interest on delinquent assessments; providing for severability; and providing an effective date. ] ASSESSMENT ROLE FOR THE HIGHLAND OAKS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT LEVY AGAINST PROPERTY WITHIN THAT DISTRICT. AND TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND AN ASSESSMENT ROLE FOR THE HIGHLAND OAKS PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. AS A REMINDER, THE PURPOSE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS TO HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. 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. I'M GOING TO NOW CALL ON OUR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, MISS BROWN, AGAIN TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY ON THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. MAYOR. COUNCIL. AS STATED, ITEM 6.4 WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE RECENTLY CREATED HIGHLAND OAKS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. YOU WILL CONSIDER AS ASSUMING WE TAKE ACTION ON THIS TODAY, YOU WILL CONSIDER THE SECOND AND FINAL READING OF THIS ORDINANCE AT YOUR OCTOBER 28TH COUNCIL MEETING, AND THAT WILL BE THE FINAL STEP RELATED TO CREATION FOR THE HIGHLAND OAKS PIT. AS A REMINDER, THIS IS THE BOUNDARY OF HIGHLAND OAKS PIT. AND THEN I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION HERE FOR YOU RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT. SO THE FIRST YEAR OF THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE 2025. HOWEVER, BECAUSE WE ARE SO LATE IN THE YEAR, WE WILL NOT ACTUALLY COLLECT ANYTHING IN 2025 UNLESS A HOMEOWNER CHOOSES TO PREPAY. ONCE THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN LEVIED, OUR PROPOSED ASSESSMENT RATE, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU ALL HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST. TYPICALLY OUR MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS PITS HAVE A SET ASSESSMENT THAT'S ASSESSED ON EACH HOME BASED ON THEIR PROPERTY VALUE. AND HIGHLAND OAKS, THERE IS A SET ASSESSMENT PER UNIT, WHICH IS A LOT. AND SO IT'S EQUAL ACROSS THE ENTIRE DISTRICT. SO EVERY HOMEOWNER WILL PAY AN ESTIMATED $33,270.59. THE REASON THAT THAT IS AN ESTIMATE IS IT DOES INCLUDE BOND ISSUANCE COSTS, WHICH WE WILL NOT HAVE EXACT NUMBERS ON THAT UNTIL WE ISSUE BONDS EARLY NEXT YEAR. THAT IS ALSO BASED ON AN OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR THE COST OF THE WATER CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. WE DO ACTUALLY HOPE THAT OUR OPCC IS HIGH AND CAN POSSIBLY ADJUST THIS NUMBER DOWN FOR HOMEOWNERS. BUT BY STATE STATUTE, ONCE WE LEVY THE ASSESSMENT, WE CANNOT INCREASE THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT. SO THIS GIVES US A KIND OF SAFE ESTIMATE FOR HOMEOWNERS TO PLAN FOR AND THE ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS. AND AGAIN, THIS IS FOR THE EXTENSION OF WATER UTILITIES THROUGHOUT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS ESTIMATED TO BE $8.48 MILLION. AND WE ESTIMATE THAT BASED ON THESE ASSESSMENTS, WE WILL GENERATE JUST OVER $4 MILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. WE'RE REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE TO GIVE YOU A FIVE YEAR SNAPSHOT OF AN ESTIMATED BUDGET. OBVIOUSLY, WE WILL CONTINUE TO COLLECT OVER THE 20 YEAR LIFE OF THE BOND. FOR YOUR PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD YOU HAVE OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DISCUSS AND PASS ON ANY OF THOSE OBJECTIONS BEFORE YOU CAN CONSIDER THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. BROWN? MR. COLLINS? CLEAR. WE WERE GOING TO COLLECT APPROXIMATELY $33,000 PER UNIT, AND THAT'S OVER THE COURSE OF TEN YEARS. SO $3,300 PER YEAR. IS THE ASSESSMENT 20 YEAR BOND MORE THAN LIKELY. SO THEY WILL PAY THAT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PAY THAT OUT OVER THE 20 YEAR PERIOD, NOT TEN. SO CORRECT. BUT WITH INTEREST ACCRUING I'M ASSUMING ON THE NOTE FOR THE FOR THE WORK SO THEY CAN PAY IT UP FRONT OR THEY CAN YES, YOU CAN PAY ANY PORTION OF YOUR ASSESSMENT AT ANY TIME SINCE IT IS THAT SET RATE. WE WILL WORK WITH THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY THAT WILL ACTUALLY WORK DIRECTLY WITH HOMEOWNERS AS THEY MAKE THOSE PREPAYMENTS. SO THAT LET'S SAY WE HAD AN INSTANCE THAT SOMEBODY CAME IN ON NOVEMBER 1ST AND WROTE US A $33,000 CHECK, AND THEN THE PROJECT CAME IN LOWER THAN MUNICH AB, OUR PARTNER FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS WOULD ISSUE THEM A REFUND ONCE WE HAD THE [00:45:03] CORRECT CONSTRUCTION AMOUNT. SO THIS AMOUNT DOES IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE, BUT CAN BE YOU COULD MAKE IT IN FIVE PAYMENTS OVER FIVE YEARS, OR IF SOMEBODY NEEDS THE FULL 20 YEARS TO PAY IT OFF, THEN THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY AS WELL. SO YEAH. SO TO THE POINT OF THE LETTER WRITER THAT THE MAYOR READ WITH THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY WOULD SEE AN INCREASE OF APPROXIMATELY THEN $1,600, $1,650 IN THEIR FIRST YEAR. IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT, YES. YEAH. OKAY. THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS ASKING. YES. AND YOU DO GET TO IF PROPERTY OWNERS ARE IN A POSITION TO PAY THEIR ASSESSMENT OFF EARLY, THEN THEY DO SAVE ON THE MANAGEMENT FEES AND SOME OF THAT INTEREST COST BASED ON THE BOND. SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAVE SOME MONEY IF YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PAY OFF EARLY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. MAYOR PRO TEM. AGAIN WITH THIS LETTER WRITER, IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD REACH OUT TO THAT INDIVIDUAL AND JUST KIND OF LET HER KNOW, BECAUSE I THINK MAYBE SHE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT SHE DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY ALL THAT IN ONE LUMP SUM UP FRONT, BUT RATHER OVER A COURSE OF 20 YEARS, AND THAT IT WOULD JUST BE A SMALL INCREASE. YES, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO. AND WE DO ANTICIPATE ONCE THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN LEVIED, WE WILL WORK WITH MUNICAP AND THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. YOU'VE GOT REPRESENTATION FROM THEM HERE TODAY TO SEND A MAILER TO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS, JUST TO KIND OF EXPLAIN AND EASIER TO UNDERSTAND THAN WHAT WE TEND TO USE HERE, WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED AND WHAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE AS FAR AS PAYMENT. BUT I CAN REACH OUT TO THIS INDIVIDUAL AS WELL. YES. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MISS BROWN? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEM 6.4. IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. ANYONE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF IT. YES, MA'AM. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. SHANNON HANSEN 5502 158TH STREET. IT'S HARD TO NOT SAY COUNTY ROAD. I'M WITH THE WATER COMMITTEE, SO I'M JUST HERE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. AND IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM OUR COMMITTEE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER COMMITTEE OR FOR HER? I THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS? ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO IT? I SEE NONE, SO I WILL CLOSE THE. CHECK THE TIME HERE. I WILL CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:31. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.4? I HAVE A MOTION. HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 6.4 TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE APPLICABLE 300FT MINIMUM DISTANCE PROVISION OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK [5. Resolution - Planning: Consider a resolution approving and granting a variance from the applicable 300-feet minimum distance provision of the City of Lubbock Ordinance No. 2009-O0060, at 6620 Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 700, for an alcoholic beverage permit for Shanghai & Tokyo Cafe.] ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009-O00060 AT 6620 MILWAUKEE AVENUE, SUITE 700 FOR AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT FOR SHANGHAI AND TOKYO CAFE. AND MISS SAGER IS HERE TO BRIEF US ON THIS MATTER. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AS YOU STATED, ITEM 6.5 IS A VARIANCE REQUEST AT THE PROPERTY AT 6620 MILWAUKEE AVENUE, SUITE 700. THE RESTAURANT IN QUESTION IS REQUESTING A TABC PERMIT FOR WINE AND BEER RETAILERS ON PREMISE. THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN RED. THERE IS A DAYCARE TO THE SOUTH ABOUT 125FT AWAY. MEASURED PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE. THE SCHOOL TO THE WEST IS ABOUT 310FT AWAY, SO IT DOES MEET THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. SO HERE'S AN AERIAL JUST TO GIVE YOU A BETTER VIEW. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED IN PURPLE. THE GREEN SUITE 100 IS ANOTHER RESTAURANT THAT WAS APPROVED FOR A WINE AND BEER RETAILERS RETAIL DEALERS PERMIT BACK IN 2016. AND THEN THE RESTAURANT IN QUESTION IS LOOKING TO LOCATE AT SUITE 700. AND THEN THE DAYCARE OUTLINED IN YELLOW. AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE THANK YOU, MISS SAGER. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.5? A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? MR.. GLASHEEN. [00:50:01] WE'VE WE'VE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF THESE AND THE COUNCIL HAS MADE SOME INCONSISTENT DECISIONS ACROSS THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CATEGORIES WHERE WE'VE ALLOWED ALCOHOL VARIANCES TO TAKE PLACE. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE IN TERMS OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, THAT IS IS THERE SOMETHING UNIQUE OR SPECIAL ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THAT QUALIFIES IT TO BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE? AND IF WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING THE RULES SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THESE VARIANCE REQUESTS, THEN THAT COULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, BECAUSE I THINK MANY PEOPLE WOULD LOOK AT THIS SITUATION AND SAY, YOU KNOW, OVER 200FT AWAY FROM A DAYCARE, IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A PLACE THAT WILL SERVE BEER AT LUNCH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT I, I DON'T, AS A ROUTINE MATTER, LIKE FOR THE COUNCIL TO BE GRANTING VARIANCES JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS COME AND ASKED AND IT'S CREATED INCONSISTENT DECISIONS EVEN IN OUR SHORT TIME HERE. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO DISAPPROVE ALCOHOL VARIANCES. AND IF WE NEED TO REEVALUATE THE LARGER ORDINANCE, THEN WE DO SO DELIBERATELY. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? MISS MAYOR PRO TEM, [INAUDIBLE] IS DEFINITELY RIGHT, THERE HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENCIES, BUT I THINK MY QUESTION IS MORE FOR THIS DAYCARE AND IF I COULD HAVE. KRISTEN, WHERE ARE YOU? THERE YOU ARE. DID THIS DAYCARE COME AFTER? AND WE. I KNOW TIKKA SHACK WAS ALREADY THERE. WERE THEY BUILT LATER? YES. THIS DAYCARE WAS BUILT IN 2023. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. OKAY. MR. COLLINS DID THE THE LAST ONE THAT WE WE VISITED THE DAYCARE HAD ACTUALLY WRITTEN A LETTER OF CONSENT, IF YOU WILL. DID WE RECEIVE ANY COMMUNICATION FROM THIS GROUP AT ALL? WE DID NOT RECEIVE A RESPONSE. OKAY. THEY WERE NOTIFIED. WELL, AND I CAN CAN CAN CONCUR WITH MR. GLASHEEN. I FEEL LIKE I DON'T REALLY TAKE ANY EXCEPTION TO THIS, BUT I DO THINK THAT WE NEED TO REEXAMINE THE RULES AND, AND MAKE A DETERMINATION TO TAKE THIS PIECE OUT OF THE, OUT OF THE PROCESS. BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THESE, THEN THEN WE'RE REALLY NOT GIVING A VARIANCE. WE'RE JUST SAYING THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW. AND SO IT MIGHT BE WORTH STAFF TIME TO, TO LOOK INTO BRINGING A NEW PROPOSAL TO THE TABLE SO THAT WE CAN DETERMINE YOU KNOW, AND I THINK THERE'S A, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN, IN ALCOHOL BY THE DRINK AS OPPOSED TO A PACKAGE STORE AS OPPOSED TO A DAYCARE WHICH IS RUNNING, YOU KNOW, 7 TO 5 OR 7 TO 6 VERSUS AN EVENING RESTAURANT. I JUST THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE INVOLVED IN THIS THAN JUST A CERTAIN NUMBER OF LINEAR FOOTAGE FROM DOOR TO DOOR. SO YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT WANT TO COME BACK WITH THAT AT SOME POINT. AND, AND LET US GET SOME CLARITY THERE. DOCTOR WILSON. I AGREE WITH WHAT MR. COLLINS SAID 100%. WE DEFINITELY NEED TO BRING IT BACK. WE NEED TO SEPARATE THESE OUT SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE TO VOTE ON THESE. WHAT? I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF DISAPPROVING THIS AND PUNISHING A BUSINESS WHO'S TRYING TO BUILD IN A COMMERCIAL AREA WHERE A DAYCARE CHOSE TO THEN BUILD. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THEY DON'T. THEY DIDN'T. I CAN'T GUESS IF THEY WOULD BE OPPOSED. THEY DID NOT RESPOND. BUT I MEAN, THIS IS A HIGHLY COMMERCIALIZED AREA WITH MANY RESTAURANTS THAT SERVE ALCOHOL. BUT I DO AGREE THAT WE NEED TO RELOOK AT THESE SO WE DON'T HAVE TO BE INCONSISTENT. SO I WILL BE IN FAVOR OF THIS BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO PUNISH A SMALL BUSINESS FOR THE FACT THEY'RE TRYING TO OPEN A RESTAURANT ON MILWAUKEE. THAT'S. MY QUESTION IS, THE MR. WADE FOR YOU, IS THIS 300 FOOT THAT'S JUST IN OUR ORDINANCE? IT'S NOT ANY SORT OF A REQUIREMENT AT THE STATE LEVEL OR ANYTHING. THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAVE SET RIGHT? NO, IT'S ACTUALLY 300FT IS ACTUALLY A STATE. IT IS A STATE RULE. AND THEY THEY ALLOW YOU IN STATE LAW. THEY ALLOW YOU TO DO A VARIANCE. THEY ALLOW A GOVERNING BODY TO DO A VARIANCE. SO THE POINT IS THIS IS MORE OR LESS A IT IS A POSITION THE STATE HAS TAKEN. BUT GIVING US THE ABILITY TO VARY BASED ON ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, AND NOT JUST A HARD, FAST RULE. THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO THAT'S WHY I SAY WE DO, I THINK, NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL FACTORS. I HATE THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP DEALING WITH THIS. I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT IF WE CAN'T CHANGE IT, IT IS WHAT IT IS. MR.. MR.. WADE, IS THE STATE ESTABLISHED THE DISTANCES FOR THESE OTHER LAND USES, LIKE THE DAYCARE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR IS THAT A LOCAL? SO IT'S MY RECOLLECTION THAT IT DOES INCLUDE DAYCARE WITHIN THE STATE LAW AS FAR AS THE DISTANCES FROM WHETHER IT'S AN EDUCATIONAL FACILITY, A DAYCARE FACILITY, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC SCHOOL. THAT'S ALL WITHIN STATE LAW. THEY'VE PRETTY MUCH PREEMPTED US. US BEING MUNICIPALITIES FROM REGULATING ALCOHOL AT ALL, EXCEPT FOR THESE VERY LIMITED CASES. NOW, WE COULD HAVE AN ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE, FOR SCHOOLS WHERE WE COULD INCREASE THE DISTANCE. BUT WE'VE KEPT IT AT THE 300FT, AND THEN IT GIVES US THE ABILITY, BASED ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES, [00:55:06] TO CREATE VARIANCES IF THE FACTS JUSTIFY IT. IT DOES. DOES THE CITY ORDINANCE HAVE ANYTHING THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE STATE LAW IN TERMS OF GEOGRAPHIC LIMITATIONS ON USES? NOT FOR ALCOHOL BECAUSE WE CAN'T. WELL, THANK YOU, SIR. YOU KNOW, THAT CHANGES MY PERSPECTIVE ON IT. IF THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CONTROL CAN CONTROL, THEN I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE, AND I'D SUPPORT IT. THIS IS THIS IS THE TYPE OF SITUATION THEN THAT I THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT, SO ALL IN FAVOR LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY, I HEAR NONE. THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. AND NOW WE'VE GOT AN INTERESTING ITEM ON OUR AGENDA HERE. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM 6.6 TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING, AMENDING SEVERAL PROVISIONS TO CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AS IT RELATES TO [6. Ordinance 1st Reading - City Council: Consider an ordinance amending Chapter 4 "Animals" of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock, Texas, by modifying §4.01.001 “Definitions”, § 4.01.003, “Number of dogs and Cats at Residences; Multi-pet Permit”; adding § 4.01.006 Permit for Breeders of Dogs or Cats; §4.02.005, “Impoundment and Redemption”; Renaming Article 4.06 from “Dangerous Animals” to “Dangerous Animals and Dangerous Dogs; placing §§ 4.06.001 to 4.06.003 in the created “Division 1 Dangerous Animals” of Article 4.06; adding “Division 2 Dangerous Dogs” to Article 4.06; providing a penalty clause; providing a savings clause; and providing for publication.] ANIMALS, AND ADDING A DIVISION ENTITLED DIVISION TO DANGEROUS DOGS TO ARTICLE 4.06. THESE ARE ALL THINGS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR A LONG TIME HERE. SO I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR MAYOR PRO TEM. WELL, OKAY. WHO IS. I THINK I AM. ARE YOU PRESENT? YES. OKAY. YOU'RE ANSWERING QUESTIONS. WE'LL BE HAPPY. OKAY, I WILL I'LL ADDRESS MAYOR PRO TEM FIRST TO PROVIDE A BRIEFING ON THIS. AND THEN MR. GREEN IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. PARDON ME. I WAS JUST SAYING THAT WE ARE TAG TEAMING BECAUSE IT IS IMPACTING ALL THE CITIES. SO LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES ORDINANCE CHANGE WILL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN DANGEROUS ANIMAL AND DANGEROUS DOG. I KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT BEFORE, BUT CURRENTLY CITY ORDINANCE DOES NOT CLEARLY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A DANGEROUS ANIMAL AND A DANGEROUS DOG. AND THE GOAL IS TO ESTABLISH CLEAR AND CONSISTENT CRITERIA, THAT IS, THAT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN A DANGEROUS ANIMAL AND A DANGEROUS DOG. THE DEFINITION AND CRITERIA FOR DANGEROUS DOG IN THIS ORDINANCE WILL BE ALIGNED WITH TEXAS STATE LAW. THE DANGEROUS DOG HEARINGS ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED TO DECLARE A DOG DANGEROUS, AND SO TIME TO GET INTO COMPLIANCE WOULD BE INCREASED FROM 15 DAYS TO 30 DAYS, AND AN APPEAL CAN BE FILED WITHIN 15 DAYS. IF NEITHER OCCUR, THEN THE OWNER MUST TURN THE DOG INTO LUBBOCK. ANIMAL SERVICES AND LIABILITY INSURANCE WOULD BE INCREASED FROM 250,000 TO $1 MILLION. I KNOW THAT DOCTOR WILSON HAS PROMOTED THAT IN THE PAST, AND IF A DANGEROUS DOG ATTACKS AFTER BEING DECLARED DANGEROUS, THE OWNER MAY BE FINED UP TO $500 AND MUNICIPAL COURT MAY ORDER THE HUMANE EUTHANASIA OF SAID DANGEROUS DOG. SO RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE CURRENTLY EIGHT DANGEROUS DOGS IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, AND I'M SURE THERE'S MORE. THEY'RE JUST NOT ALL REPORTED. THE DOG AND CATS IN A RESIDENCE. AND THIS HAS BEEN A TOPIC THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. BUT CURRENTLY THE ORDINANCE IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSEHOLD MAY HAVE UP TO FOUR DOGS AND OR FOUR CATS WITH ONE LITTER UNDER 16 WEEKS OF AGE FOR EACH SPECIES. THE PROPOSED CHANGE. THIS ORDINANCE WILL LIMIT HOUSEHOLDS TO A TOTAL OF FOUR DOGS AND CATS COMBINED. ANYONE WITH MORE THAN FOUR DOGS OR CATS IN THEIR HOME MUST OBTAIN A PET PERMIT. A HOME INSPECTION BY LAS IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THE ANIMALS HAVE A HEALTHY LIVING ENVIRONMENT. KEY WORDS HEALTHY LIVING ENVIRONMENT. PRIOR TO PERMIT APPROVAL AND TO QUALIFY FOR A PERMIT, THE OWNER MUST NOT HAVE HAD ANY ANIMAL RELATED OFFENSES WHEN WITHIN THE PAST YEAR. EACH PERMIT IS VALID FOR TWO YEARS AND MUST BE RENEWED BY MARCH 31ST. THERE ARE CURRENTLY SIX ACTIVE MONTHLY PET PERMITS IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, WHICH IS INTERESTING. THE BREEDER'S PERMITS. LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES DOES NOT CURRENTLY OFFER BREEDER PERMITS. UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE, A BREEDER PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY ANIMALS THAT ARE KEPT INTACT WITH THE INTENTION OF BREEDING AND A LIVING QUARTERS INSPECTION BY LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO PERMIT APPROVAL. TO ENSURE THE ANIMALS ARE KEPT IN A HEALTHY LIVING ENVIRONMENT, EACH PERMIT IS ONLY VALID FOR ONE YEAR AND THESE THERE RIGHT NOW ARE CURRENTLY NO STATE APPROVED BREEDERS REGISTERED WITHIN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. AND OF COURSE, THE IMPOUNDMENT FEES. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT TIME AND TIME AGAIN. [01:00:04] AND RIGHT NOW THE RECLAIM FEES ARE $105, WHICH INCLUDES $5 FOR A MICROCHIP FEE, $15 FOR A CITY LICENSE FEE, $15 FOR RABIES, A RABIES VACCINE THAT IS $70 FOR AN IMPOUNDMENT FEE. IF AN ANIMAL IS IMPOUNDED TWO TIMES IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD, STERILIZATION IS MANDATORY. NOW THE PROPOSED CHANGES THIS IMPOUNDMENT FEES WILL BE WAIVED IF AN ANIMAL GETS STERILIZED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECLAIM. NOW PROOF OF STERILIZATION MUST BE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND, AND LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICE HAS A CONTRACT OF VETERINARIAN WHO IS AMAZING THAT THAT DOES THESE SURGERIES ON TUESDAYS AND THURSDAYS. AND I DON'T MEAN LIKE 1 OR 2 SURGERIES. SHE'S DOING THEM EVERY 15 MINUTES. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE REFER THEM TO OUR DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL SERVICES, MR. STEVEN GREEN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. WHO DETERMINES THAT A DOG IS A DANGEROUS DOG. CURRENTLY, WE HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING, AND I'M THE HEARING OFFICER. THERE'S STATE STIPULATIONS THAT CONSTITUTE WHAT A DANGEROUS DOG CAN BE. THE STATE DOES REGULATE A LOT OF WHAT WE CAN DO WITH ANIMALS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE PERSONAL PROPERTY UNDER OUR STATE CONSTITUTION. RIGHT? YES, SIR. SO SOME OF THE THINGS WOULD BE ANIMAL HAS TO BE OFF ITS PROPERTY UNRESTRAINED, UNPROVOKED AND CAUSED BODILY INJURY. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR THEM JUST TO MENACE. THEY HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE CAUSED AN INJURY. THERE'S ACTUALLY A PROVISION THAT SAYS IF THEY HAVE THE PROPENSITY TO BITE, YOU CAN DECLARE THEM DANGEROUS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES THEY'LL RUN UP TO YOU AND SCARE THE YOU KNOW WHAT OUT OF YOU. I UNDERSTAND. ALL RIGHT. AND IS THERE ANY PROVISION IN THERE FOR GRANDFATHERING PEOPLE WHO ALREADY HAVE THE FOUR DOGS AND FOUR CATS WHERE THEY DON'T HAVE TO DISPOSE OF AN ANIMAL? NO, SIR. THAT WOULD BE ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHO HAS MORE THAN THAT RIGHT NOW. IT WOULD BE COMPLAINT DRIVEN, THOUGH, IF WE HAD TO CALL IT A LOCATION. THEY HAVE MORE THAN THAT. WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH THEM TO EITHER GET A PERMIT OR TO GET RID OF SOME OF THEIR ANIMALS. BUT IF THEY COULD PROVE THEY HAD THE ANIMAL FOR BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WENT INTO PLACE, THEY'D STILL HAVE TO GET RID OF AN ANIMAL. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. AND WITH MR. WADE. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S MY ONLY PROBLEM, IS JUST THE GRANDFATHERING PART OF IT FOR PEOPLE WHO YOU'RE CHANGING A LAW ON THEM AND, YOU KNOW, AND THEY'VE GOT A PET THAT THEY'VE HAD FOR FOREVER, YOU KNOW. YEAH. AND WE AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS. AND SO WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS AND I'LL DEFER TO THE MANAGEMENT TEAM ON HOW TO ENFORCE. BUT WHAT NORMALLY HAPPENS ON ANY TYPE OF ORDINANCE IS LIKE THIS IS THERE'S AN EDUCATION PERIOD. THERE'S A GRACE PERIOD TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. AND SO WHETHER OR NOT ANY TICKETS ARE ISSUED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, YOU KNOW, WILL BE UP TO TO MANAGEMENT. AND OF COURSE, IN THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE HAD THESE ANIMALS FOR A LONG TIME. BUT THERE IS IT'S AN IMMEDIATE IT'S AN IMMEDIATELY EFFECTIVE ORDINANCE ONCE IT'S PASSED AND PUBLISHED APPROPRIATELY. YEAH, I'D HAVE TO. I'D HATE TO HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN MY ANIMALS. YOU KNOW, WHICH ONE STAYS AND WHICH ONE GOES. WELL, AND AS YOU DO HAVE A MULTI PET PERMIT PROVISION YOU CAN DO THE. YEAH. WELL BUT IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN FOUR. YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE PET PERMIT. YOU CAN STILL HAVE I THINK WE ARE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF. SO WITHOUT GETTING A PERMIT YOU CAN HAVE AS MANY ANIMALS AS YOU WANT. IF YOU HAVE A PERMIT THAT THERE IS NOT. THERE IS NO LIMIT WITHIN WITHIN THE DEAL, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION. INSPECTION AND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT ETC.. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION THEN. MAYOR PRO TEM. NO. DOCTOR WILSON. DOCTOR WILSON I SEE DOWN HERE. YEAH. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SLIDE ON THE PERMITS? SORRY, I KNOW WE JUST GOT OFF OF IT. FIRST OFF, MR. QUESTION COST FOR MULTI PET PERMIT AND MULTI PET PERMIT AND A COST FOR THE BREEDING PERMIT. DO WE HAVE A COST LAID OUT LIKE WHAT WE'RE WHAT ARE WE GOING TO CHARGE PEOPLE I DON'T KNOW THAT I THINK $100, BUT I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE ON THAT. THE MULTIPLE PERMITS $40. SO MULTI PERMIT IS 40 CURRENTLY. I'M SORRY, I'M NOT SURE I HAVE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, BUT WHAT IS WHAT IS THE WHAT ARE WE GOING TO CHARGE PEOPLE. WHAT IS THE WHAT IS THE PERMIT COST. YEAH I BELIEVE IT IS $100 BUT I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT. I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO MY ANIMAL EXPERTS BILL. SO THAT'S MY $100 IS CORRECT. YES, SIR. 100 FOR BOTH IS WHAT? [01:05:03] WE'RE OKAY? NO, MA'AM. 100 FOR THE BREEDERS PERMIT. A MULTI PET PERMIT WOULD BE 40. SO 40 FOR MULTI PET, 100 FOR A BREEDER. THAT'S OKAY. AND SO I THINK MY NEXT QUESTION IS WITH THESE HOME INSPECTIONS WITH THE LANGUAGE OF IT BEING REQUIRED. SO I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN WITH THAT JUST ON STAFFING. YOU KNOW I MEAN IF WE GET IF WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, 5000 PEOPLE THAT SAY, OKAY, GREAT, WE'LL COME INTO COMPLIANCE, WE NEED A PERMIT. WE HAVE FIVE. HOW ARE HOW ARE WE GOING TO MANAGE THAT? I THINK MAYBE WE NEED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE ON THAT IT'S REQUIRED, OR THAT IT CAN BE LIKE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GO IN AND ACTUALLY DO IT IF WE NEED TO. BUT NOT ALL 5000 MAY NEED TO HAVE A REQUIRED INSPECTION, BECAUSE I DO WORRY ABOUT YOU GUYS ARE LIMITED IN STAFFING ALREADY TRYING TO PUT THAT KIND OF BURDEN ON LUBBOCK ANIMAL SERVICES TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE TO ALL BE REQUIRED. BUT I DO THINK IT'S A GREAT TOOL. THAT WAY IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY WHO IS, YOU KNOW, GOT MULTIPLE ANIMALS THAT IS REQUESTING THAT MULTI PET PERMIT THAT WE KNOW THAT HAS BEEN A PROBLEM OR THAT WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH, OR COMPLAINTS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE, THAT WE CAN THEN USE THAT AS A TOOL TO SAY, NOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN INSPECTION, BUT REQUIRING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM TO HAVE WHO'S GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO HAVE AN INSPECTION, I THINK IS UNREALISTIC IN A CITY THIS SIZE. SO WE MAY NEED TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE ON THAT. JUST A TOUCH. AND MY OTHER CONCERN IS JUST THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THAT. IF IT IS REQUIRED, $40 IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO COVER THE COST OF OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO STAFF UP AND DO THOSE INSPECTIONS. SO THAT'S MAYBE ANOTHER LITTLE PART OF IT THAT IS AN ISSUE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. CHRISTIAN? THIS IS REALLY JUST FOR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. I'VE PAID PARTICULAR ATTENTION TO THE STRAY AND LOOSE DOG ISSUES FOR A LONG TIME, AND IT'S ONE OF MY MY TOP PRIORITIES. I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF THE PROVISIONS IN THIS PROPOSED ORDINANCE ARE GOING TO MEANINGFULLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS THAT WE HAVE ON THE STREET. IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY SAFER. BUT WHAT IT DOES REPRESENT IS A IS AN OFFENSIVE OVERREACH OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY INTO PEOPLE'S INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND, AND THE PRIVACY OF THEIR HOMES TO WHETHER OR NOT YOUR GOVERNMENT NANNY WILL LET YOU HAVE ONE MORE PET. JUST LOOKING AT THE DANGEROUS DOGS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE ALL THESE ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS ABOUT DANGEROUS DOGS. BUT THE REAL PROBLEM, EVEN AS YOU NOTED, MAYOR PRO TEM, IS THAT THERE ARE EIGHT LISTED IN THE CITY. I THINK YOUR COMMENT, I WROTE IT DOWN BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS ACCURATE. THEY'RE JUST NOT ALL REPORTED. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE FLAWS THAT I'M GOING TO POINT OUT IN THE ORDINANCE TIES BACK TO THE ULTIMATE ISSUE, WHICH IS MANPOWER AND ENFORCEMENT OF STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS. IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MANPOWER TO ANSWER THE PHONES WHEN PEOPLE ARE MAKING CALLS TO ANIMAL SERVICES, WE DON'T HAVE THE MANPOWER IN THE DISPATCH LOGISTICS TO GET OFFICERS OUT TO THE SCENE QUICKLY, TO RESPOND TO STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS. THAT'S THE BIGGER ISSUE THAN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ONLY DESIGNATED EIGHT DANGEROUS DOGS. WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE MANPOWER TO GO AND DO INSURANCE LIABILITY CHECKS AND AND THE OTHER DANGEROUS DOG CHECKUPS THAT ARE REQUIRED. THE AMOUNT OF INSURANCE IS IS PRETTY ARBITRARY AS WELL. RIGHT NOW YOU'LL STRUGGLE. AND I'LL TELL YOU, I'M IN MY LAW PRACTICE. I DO INJURY AND DEATH CASES. I'VE HANDLED DOG BITE CASES AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT MOST INSURANCE POLICIES SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDE DANGEROUS DOGS. HOMEOWNERS. PET OWNERS ARE NOT SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO GO THROUGH AND READ A 50 PAGE CONTRACT AND THE LEGAL DEFINITIONS, AND FIGURE OUT WHETHER OR NOT THEIR COVERAGE IS GOING TO APPLY TO THE DOG THAT THEY HAVE. AND THAT'S NOT A CRITICISM. IT TAKES A LAW DEGREE TO FIGURE THAT OUT. PEOPLE GENUINELY THINK THAT THEY HAVE COVERAGE FOR FOR SOMETHING LIKE A DOG AND FIND OUT THAT THEY DON'T. WHEN THERE IS A DOG BITE, ONE OF THE REASONS IS JUST TO COMPARE IT TO AUTO INSURANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THAT THE STATE OF TEXAS REQUIRES INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT ISSUE AUTO POLICIES TO USE STANDARDIZED LANGUAGE AND CONSISTENT TERMS. SO IF YOU GO AND BUY AN INSURANCE POLICY FROM ONE INSURANCE COMPANY OR ANOTHER, IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME DEFINITIONS AND THE SAME TERMS AND THE SAME SORT OF COVERAGE ALL THE WAY ACROSS. THERE'S NO SUCH REGULATION ON DANGEROUS DOG INSURANCE COVERAGE. AND SO EVEN IF SOMEBODY PROVIDES PROOF OF COVERAGE TO AN ANIMAL SERVICES OFFICER WHO IS DOING AN INSPECTION. THERE'S REALLY NO ONE OUTSIDE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE THAT COULD TELL WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS EFFECTIVE COVERAGE THAT'S GOING TO APPLY TO A POTENTIAL DOG BITE. AND LET'S JUST BRING IT BACK TO MANPOWER AND ENFORCEMENT. YOU KNOW, SIMILAR ISSUES. THIS IS NOT REALLY A PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING. THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE HAVING IS NOT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DOG BITES THAT ARE INCURRING $250,000 IN MEDICAL BILLS AND $1 MILLION IN MEDICAL BILLS. THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING IS STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS ON THE STREET THAT ARE PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM WALKING DOWN THE STREET, GOING TO THE PARK, PLAYING WITH THEIR KIDS OUTSIDE. [01:10:01] THESE ARE THESE ARE SOLUTIONS TO THINGS THAT ARE NOT THE CORE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE FACING. AND. I MENTIONED THAT THIS IS KIND OF JUST A VERY OFFENSIVE OVERREACH OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY, BECAUSE TO ALLOW YOU HAVE TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR INTO YOUR HOME TO CHECK ON THE ANIMAL IN ITS SPACE. AND I'VE READ THE ORDINANCE. THERE'S NOT ANY SORT OF HARD AND FAST GUIDELINES ON WHAT'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERED, HOW MUCH SPACE IS REQUIRED IF THE DOG NEEDS OUTSIDE SPACE. IT'S VERY VAGUE LANGUAGE. IT'S GOING TO BE LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF A FAIRLY UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE. AND SO IT'S GOING TO CREATE IT HAS HIGH POTENTIAL FOR INCONSISTENT OUTCOMES. IF WE EVEN HAVE THE MANPOWER TO GO AND DO THESE HOME INSPECTIONS, THE DIFFERENT THE PROBLEM IS NOT, FOR EXAMPLE, TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PETS. THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE NUMBER OF PETS AND THE PEOPLE WHO CARE ENOUGH ABOUT FOLLOWING THE RULES AND TAKING CARE OF THEIR PETS TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT INSPECTOR INTO THEIR HOUSE EVERY OTHER YEAR SO THAT THEY CAN KEEP THEIR FIVE CHERISHED ANIMALS. THOSE ARE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LETTING THEIR DOGS RUN, STRAY DOWN THE STREET AND ROAM UNACCOUNTED FOR IN THE IN THE PARK. WE HAVE SIX ACTIVE PERMITS RIGHT NOW FOR MULTI MULTIPLE PETS. THAT'S A LAW THAT'S ON THE BOOKS AND IT'S COMPLETELY UNENFORCED. YOU CAN GO TO ANY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE DOZENS OF HOMES THAT HAVE FOUR OR MORE ANIMALS RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF INVENTING NEW LAWS. IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT GETTING OFFICERS INTO THE FIELD TO TAKE CARE OF THESE ISSUES. AND SAME THING WITH THE BREEDERS. THE PERMIT, THE BREEDERS PERMIT, PORTIONS OF THIS ARE GOING TO BE COMPLETELY UNENFORCEABLE. THE ORDINANCE READS THAT THAT THE IT'S A OFFENSE TO ALLOW A DOG OR AN ANIMAL TO REMAIN INTACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BREEDING. YOU CAN HAVE ANY OTHER PURPOSE THAT YOU WANT TO TO KEEP YOUR ANIMAL INTACT, AND YOU'RE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE. AND THERE'S NO NO ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR POLICE OFFICER WHO CAN PEER INTO YOUR MIND AND DETERMINE YOUR INTENT FOR IT. IT'S AN OFFENSE TO LET AN ANIMAL BREED. OKAY, WELL, UNLESS WE CATCH THEM IN THE ACT OR WE START, WE GET MAURY POVICH DOWN HERE TO FIGURE OUT WHO THE DAD OR THE DOG IS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMPLETELY UNENFORCEABLE LAW. THE PROBLEM, OF COURSE, IS NOT THAT THE LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO ARE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE TIME AND EFFORT OF GETTING ANOTHER GOVERNMENT INSPECTION INTO THEIR HOME BY ARBITRARY CRITERIA. THOSE ARE NOT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING IRRESPONSIBLE BREEDERS. IT IS THE HUNDREDS OF OTHER BREEDERS IN THE CITY WHO HAVE NOT CURRENTLY APPLIED FOR, FOR ANY SORT OF PERMIT OR OVERSIGHT THAT ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES WHO ARE CONTINUING TO BREAK THIS LAW. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE A REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF STRAIGHT AND LOOSE DOGS UNLESS WE FOCUS ON THE CORE ISSUE, WHICH IS FIELD ENFORCEMENT OPERATIONS. THE MAYOR MENTIONED AN EXCELLENT ISSUE WITH THIS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS IS THE GRANDFATHERING ISSUE, AND THAT WITHOUT ANY SORT OF PROVISIONS IN PLACE TO ALLOW PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS WITH WITH MORE THAN FOUR PETS, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PICK WHICH OF THEIR PETS TO GIVE UP IN THE FACE OF THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH IS UNFAIR. AND IT'S IT'S PUNISHING PEOPLE WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERS WHO ARE NOT CAUSING THIS PROBLEM. BUT THE FLIP SIDE IS IF YOU PUT IN A GRANDFATHERING PROVISION, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE 20 YEARS OF ESSENTIALLY UNENFORCEABILITY BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY, OH NO, THAT'S THE DOG THAT I HAD 20 YEARS AGO WHEN THE ORDINANCE PASSED AND HE WAS A PUPPY. SO IT'S IT'S AN UNWORKABLE SOLUTION EITHER WAY, WHICH I SAY IS, IS A REASON THAT WE NEED TO SCRAP THIS, THIS LIMITATION ENTIRELY. SO THE STERILIZATION STERILIZATION TO TO GET YOUR DOG OUT, IF IT'S GOTTEN OUT TWICE IS, IS A REAL IMPOSITION ON A PERSON'S PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND IT'S ONE OF THE LOOSE. IT'S STILL IT'S A LOOSE FIT FOR FOR THE PROBLEM OF STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS TO GIVE IT. THE VERY BEST ARGUMENT IS THAT DOGS THAT ARE INTACT MAY BE IN HEAT OR WANT TO BREED, AND SO THEY TRY TO GET OUT OF THEIR YARD TO, TO, TO FIND A MATE. WELL, THERE ARE JUST AS MANY SPAYED AND NEUTERED PETS THAT ARE ON THE STREETS GETTING PICKED UP ON A REGULAR BASIS. THE STERILIZATION IS NOT IS NOT A TIGHT FIT TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE OF GETTING STRAY AND LOOSE DOGS OFF THE STREETS. SO I'M I'M AGAINST ALL ALL OF THESE PROVISIONS IN HERE. I HOPE THAT THIS HAS RAISED SOME, SOME SERIOUS ISSUES THAT WE CAN ADDRESS NOW THESE CONCERNS WITH STAFF AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND ON IT. BUT I THINK THAT THIS IS AS A SLEW OF PROPOSALS WOULD AT THE VERY LEAST NEED MORE TIME. AND I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE A REMINDER FOR US THAT WE'VE GOT TO FOCUS ON INCREASING THE RESOURCES AND THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR ITS FIELD OPERATIONS. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO WE HAVE ANOTHER MATTER WE NEED TO TAKE UP. AND WE'RE KIND OF ON A TIME FRAME ON IT. SO I THINK THERE'S TWO WAYS WE CAN HANDLE IT. WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ORDINANCE OR ANY ACTION ON THIS ORDINANCE TO A DATE CERTAIN GIVE US ALL TIME TO REVIEW IT, OR WE CAN JUST RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DEAL WITH WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THERE, AND THEN COME BACK AND CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. YOU CAN YOU CAN RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE OTHER MATTER AND JUST SUSPEND YOUR DISCUSSION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM AND THEN [01:15:04] BRING IT BACK UP AS SOON AS WE'RE DONE WITH EXECUTIVE SESSION. OR IF SOMEONE MADE A MOTION RIGHT NOW TO POSTPONE THIS TO A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT AT ANY TIME. OKAY. IS THERE A MOTION? MR. COLLINS. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE THIS STATE SPECIFIC UNTIL OCTOBER 28TH TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE I HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION. AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YES. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THERE ARE SOME THERE IS A NEED TO MAYBE REVIEW SOME OF THIS, BUT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO BE DOING SOMETHING. THIS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE THAT SINCE THE MAYOR AND DOCTOR WILSON AND I HAVE BEEN IN OFFICE, IT'S BEEN CONSTANT. AND NOW YOU GUYS HAVE INHERITED THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING. THIS, THESE A LOT OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS CAME FROM OUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND STAFF. AND WE'VE GOT TO BEGIN THE PROCESS. MAYBE THERE ARE SOME THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A NEED TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE'VE GOT TO START SOMEWHERE. WE'VE GOT A BIG PROBLEM WITH LOOSE, LOOSE AND STRAY DOGS AND THE ATTACKS CONTINUE. SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT I WILL CALL FOR THE MOTION. I STILL HAVE MR. HARRIS AND MR. ROSE, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THE MOTION TO POSTPONE. OKAY, MR. CHAIR, MR. ROSE. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. I'M JUST NOT PREPARED TO VOTE ON THE I DON'T WE DON'T WE HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT THE RAMIFICATIONS. I THINK THERE'S SOME OVERREACH ON THIS. SO I AM TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF TAKING A LOOK AT IT AT A LATER DATE. ALL RIGHT THEN ALL IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING ANY ACTION ON THIS UNTIL OCTOBER 28TH? I'LL LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY, I HEAR NONE. IT'S DONE. WE ARE NOW GOING TO RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND WE WILL COME BACK OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING A REPORT FROM A AN ASSESSMENT ON THE DOWNTOWN WHEN WE COME OUT. IT'S MY INTENTION THEN, TO AUTHORIZE THE LUBBOCK EXPERIENCE INCORPORATED, WHO WE HIRED TO DO THAT ASSESSMENT, TO RELEASE THAT ASSESSMENT TO THE PUBLIC SO THAT THEY CAN SEE THAT ASSESSMENT. BUT OUR DISCUSSION OF IT AS A COUNCIL, BECAUSE IT INVOLVES MATTERS UNDER 551.071 LEGAL MATTERS 551.072 PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY AND 551.087 DISCUSSING AND DELIBERATE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MATTERS WILL BE HELD IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE ARE NOW IN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 401. ARE YOU READY TO. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE RECONVENING FROM OUR IN OPEN SESSION. FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 519. AND I'M GOING TO REOPEN THE SESSION. WE HAVE A MOTION. MR.. MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO POSTPONE AGENDA ITEM 6.6 TO A DATE CERTAIN NOVEMBER 4TH. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF ITEM 6.6 TO NOVEMBER THE 4TH. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT SECOND, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. CAN WE NOT DO THAT? NO NO NO NO NO. YOU'RE GOOD. WE GOT FOUR PEOPLE. FIVE PEOPLE HERE. OKAY, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. OKAY. THAT'S POSTPONED TILL NOVEMBER 4TH. AND ALSO WE WILL BE RELEASING THE ASSESSMENT FACILITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR LUBBOCK, TEXAS THAT WE DISCUSSED. WE'RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE LUBBOCK EXPERIENCE TO RELEASE THAT TO THE PUBLIC. HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL THE ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.