Oct 28, 2025 Regular City Council Meeting

>> ALL OPPOSE SAME SIGN. THE MOTION CARRIES.

WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A LITTLE ADJUSTMENT ON THE AGENDA ITEM, AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 6.4 TO CONSIDER

[4. Ordinance 1st Reading - Police Department: Consider an ordinance 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.]

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 BUSINESS AND AMUSEMENTS BY AMENDING ARTICLE 811, BURGLAR AND ROBBERY ALARMS. I'M GOING TO CALL ON NEAL BARRON, OUR ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF TO PROVIDE THE BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

THANK YOU, NEIL.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO-TEM.

COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE. THIS AFTERNOON.

WE'VE PREPARED SOME SLIDES FOR YOU WITH SOME INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO THE ALARM ORDINANCE AND ALSO OUR CALLS FOR SERVICE DEALING WITH THE ALARMS IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

[INAUDIBLE] NOW WE'RE READY.

THE PURPOSE OF THE ALARM ORDINANCE.

LET ME START OFF BY CLARIFYING THAT THE ALARM ORDINANCES [OVERLAPPING].

>> WE'RE STILL NOT ON OUR SCREEN.

I CAN RUN IT FROM UP HERE IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

>> SURE. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO MAKE IT GO TO THE SCREEN. MY APOLOGIES.

LET ME START OFF WITH OUR ORDINANCE.

THE PURPOSE OF IT IS TO FREE UP FIRST RESPONDERS TO ANSWER HIGHER PRIORITY CALLS FOR SERVICE IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

THIS ORDINANCE APPLIES ONLY TO THIRD PARTY MONITORED ALARM SYSTEMS. I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THAT RIGHT UP FRONT, THAT THIS ORDINANCE ISN'T TALKING ABOUT YOUR RING DOORBELL CAMERAS, OR ALARM SYSTEMS THAT ARE MONITORED FROM YOUR PHONE AND NOT DESIGNED TO NOTIFY PUBLIC SAFETY, ABOUT AN ALARM THAT'S OCCURRING AT YOUR BUSINESS OR YOUR HOME.

I'LL START OFF ON THE SAME PAGE IN THAT REGARD.

THE ALARM ORDINANCE, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, HAS DESIGNED TO HELP FREE UP PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES TO, RESPOND TO MORE SERIOUS CALLS FOR SERVICE.

BY MAINTAINING A FORMAL STRUCTURE FOR ALARM REGISTRATION, RESPONSE TRACKING AND GRADUATED PENALTIES FOR REPEAT FALSE ALARMS, THE ORDINANCE PROMOTES ACCOUNTABILITY AMONG ALARM SYSTEM USERS.

IT ALSO ENCOURAGES PROPER MAINTENANCE, RESPONSIBLE USE WHILE ENABLING THE CITY TO IDENTIFY CHRONIC FALSE ALARM LOCATIONS AND TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION WHEN NECESSARY.

THE PURPOSE OF THE FEE.

FIRST OF ALL, IT PROMOTES ACCOUNTABILITY AND FAIRNESS.

THE FEE ALLOWS PEOPLE THAT CHOOSE TO GET ALARMS TO PAY FOR THAT EXTRA LEVEL OF SERVICE.

SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE READ IN REGARD TO THIS SAY THAT 10% OF YOUR POPULATION HAVE ALARM SYSTEMS. THAT SMALL PORTION OF THE POPULATION AS THEIR ALARM MONITORING, IS BASICALLY FOR THE POLICE TO RESPOND AS BEING PAID FOR BY OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE POPULATION.

ACCOUNTABILITY ALSO.

IT HELPS US KEEP UP WITH WHO HAS THE ALARM AND WHO WE NEED TO CONTACT IF THE ALARM HAPPENS AT A BUSINESS OR A HOME.

I HAVE SAID BEFORE, IT SUPPORTS PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES, 11.16 OF ALL THE CALLS FOR SERVICE IN 2024 WERE ALARM CALLS.

OF THAT, 1.11% WERE FALSE ALARMS. THESE FALSE ALARMS, THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE CANCELED ALARMS, WHERE SOMEONE ACCIDENTALLY SET OFF THEIR ALARM SYSTEM AND THEN CALLED US AND STOPPED OUR RESPONSE, DOESN'T COUNT THOSE, AND IT DOESN'T COUNT ALARMS THAT WERE SET OFF BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER, HIGH WINDS LIKE TODAY OR HAIL STORMS OR LIGHTNING OR THUNDER.

[00:15:04]

THOSE ARE JUST THE ALARMS THAT WERE LEGITIMATE, MEETING THAT WE'LL SEE IN JUST A FEW MINUTES A POLICE REPORT WAS WRITTEN.

IT ALSO IMPROVES EMERGENCY RESPONSE EFFICIENCY.

OUR OFFICERS DEDICATED OVER 5,000 HOURS, TO RESPONDING TO FALSE ALARMS IN 2024.

WITH A PERMITTED SYSTEM, WE CAN REDUCE THAT TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE DIRECTLY ON FILE, WHO TO CONTACT IN REGARD TO THAT ALARM.

WHEN AN OFFICER ARRIVES AT A LOCATION, OFFICER DOESN'T HAVE TO SIT AROUND AND WAIT FOR DISPATCH TO FIND OUT WHO OWNS OR WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ALARM SYSTEM TO SEND SOMEONE OUT TO OPEN THE DOOR FOR THE OFFICER OR TO HELP THE OFFICER GET THROUGH THE GATE OR WHATNOT.

IT WILL HELP SPEED UP THE OFFICER'S TIME ON THE CALL.

THE LAST BULLET ON THAT SLIDE IS THAT FUNDS DERIVED FROM THIS FEE HELP COVER THE COST OF ADMINISTERING THE FEE OR ADMINISTERING THE ALARM REDUCTION PROGRAM, MANAGING APPEALS, AND ISSUING REMINDERS OR PROCESSING PAYMENTS AND WHATNOT.

THE TOTAL ALARM COUNTS BY YEAR, IT'S EASIER, I THINK TO EXPLAIN THE SLIDE, LOOKING AT IT FROM RIGHT TO LEFT, STARTING WITH THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ALARMS. IN 2019, FOR INSTANCE, WE HAD A TOTAL ALARM COUNT OF OVER 16,000 OF THOSE 16,000,13,000 WERE FAULT.

749 WERE EXEMPT, MEANING THAT THEY WERE CAUSED BY THE WEATHER OR THEY OCCURRED AT A SCHOOL OR A GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, 01,763 WERE CANCELED, MEANING THAT THE ALARM PROVIDER OWNER CALLED AND SAID, HEY, EVERYTHING'S OKAY.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME OUT HERE ANYMORE.

OUR OFFICERS STOPPED THEIR RESPONSE BEFORE THEY ARRIVED ON THE SCENE.

IN THE LAST COLUMN ON THE LEFT, 217, THOSE WERE LEGITIMATE ALARMS, WHERE WHEN OFFICERS ARRIVED, THEY FOUND SOME CRIMINAL ACTIVITY HAD OCCURRED, NECESSITATING A CRIME REPORT TO BE MADE.

ALL THOSE DEFINITIONS ARE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THAT SLIDE.

>> AS YOU KNOW, THE CALLS FOR SERVICE THAT COME INTO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE HOW WE RESPOND, WHICH CALLS WE RESPOND TO FIRST.

ALARMS ARE PRIORITIZED AS PRIORITY 2S.

A PRIORITY 2 CALL, OF COURSE, FALLS UNDER A PRIORITY 1 CALL.

PRIORITY 1 CALL IS WHERE SOMEONE'S LIFE IS BEING THREATENED.

IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AND WE DO DISPATCH THOSE IN LESS THAN A MINUTE.

A PRIORITY 2 CALL IS A CRIME THAT'S IN PROGRESS, AND WE DISPATCH THOSE IN THREE MINUTES.

ALARM CALLS, WHEN IT'S BUSIER, WHEN WE HAVE A BIG INFLUX OF ALARM CALLS LIKE TODAY, THERE'S PROBABLY A LOT OF ALARM CALLS BECAUSE OF THE WIND, WE HAVE TO REDUCE THE PRIORITY LEVEL OF THOSE CALLS SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OF THEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO ALL THOSE AND THE PRIORITY 1 CALLS THAT ARE AHEAD OF THEM.

FOR 2024, THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ALARMS BREAKDOWN, THIS GIVES YOU A GOOD IDEA OF WHERE THE ALARMS ARE OCCURRING, WHERE THE LEGITIMATE ALARMS ARE OCCURRING, WHERE THE CANCELED AND EXEMPT AND FALSE ALARMS ARE OCCURRING.

YOU CAN SEE 90.40% OF LEGITIMATE ALARMS WERE COMMERCIAL, 9.61 OF LEGITIMATE ALARMS OCCURRED AT RESIDENCES.

FOR THE TOTALS, 84.36% OF COMMERCIAL ALARMS WERE FALSE, AND 87.05% OF RESIDENTIAL ALARMS WERE FALSE.

ON THE NEXT SLIDE, WE'LL LOOK AT OUR TOP 10 ALARM LOCATIONS ACROSS THE CITY.

MOST OF THESE WERE COMMERCIAL.

YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN ARE THE TOTALS.

IF YOU'LL LOOK AT THE VERY TOP ROW, 114 TOTAL ALARM CALLS, THAT ONE ADDRESS IN A YEAR, 37 OF WHICH WERE FALSE, 15 WERE EXEMPT DUE TO SOME TYPE OF WEATHER CONDITION, 62 WERE CANCELED AND THAT PARTICULAR ROW HAD ZERO LEGITIMATE ALARMS. FINES AND FEES COLLECTED FOR A YEAR, ALL THESE YEARS LISTED ON THIS SLIDE WERE UNDER THE PRIOR ORDINANCE.

WE'LL SEE IN JUST A MINUTE, YOU HAD TO HAVE THREE FALSE ALARMS BEFORE YOU HAD TO GET A PERMIT UNDER THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE.

THE FEES ARE GENERATED FROM OBTAINING THE PERMIT.

THE FINES WERE GENERATED FROM THE CONTINUED ALARMS AFTER THE PERMIT,

[00:20:03]

WHICH I THINK AFTER YOU GOT YOUR PERMIT, YOU GET FOUR OR FIVE FREE, ALARMS BEFORE YOU WERE CHARGED FOR ANOTHER FALSE ALARM.

WE'LL SEE THAT IN JUST A MINUTE.

OF THOSE YEARS, 2019-2024, WE HAD $38,825 THAT WAS OUTSTANDING THAT WENT UNPAID, BE IT FOR PERMITS OR FINES IN REGARD TO FALSE ALARMS AFTER A PERMIT WAS OBTAINED.

OF THE 15TH LARGEST CITIES IN TEXAS, SOME SOURCES YOU LOOK AT HAVE LUBBOCK LISTED AS 11, SOME OF THEM HAVE LUBBOCK LISTED AT 10, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE A PRETTY SOLID 10 FOR THIS.

OF THE TOP 15 CITIES, THAT'S THE FEE THAT THEY ARE CHARGING FOR THEIR PERMIT AND FOR EACH SUBSEQUENT FALSE ALARM AFTER OBTAINING A PERMIT.

THIS IS ALL BASED ON STATE LAW.

WE'LL GO OVER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE IN JUST A MINUTE THAT OUTLINES THE STRUCTURE FOR THE FEES AND THE PERMITS.

IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, [NOISE] A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE AN ALARM.

IT'S REQUIRED TO BE RENEWED ANNUALLY.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE GIVE CITIES, MUNICIPALITIES THE ABILITY TO ENACT ORDINANCES ALONG THE LINES OF THIS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT.

IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO RENEW ANNUALLY.

THE COST OUTLINED IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE IS UP TO $50 FOR RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS AND UP TO $250 FOR ALL OTHER LOCATIONS.

THE FEES FOR THAT START AT $50 FOR ANYTHING ABOVE FOUR, 75 ABOVE SIX, AND $100 FOR ABOVE EIGHT FALSE ALARMS. NOW, WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR PRIOR ORDINANCE.

THAT ORDINANCE WAS ENACTED IN 2001.

IT WAS AMENDED IN 2003, AND AGAIN IN 2007.

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THOSE AMENDMENTS WERE, BUT I KNOW THEY CHANGED A LITTLE BIT.

LIKE I SAID BEFORE, THE PRIOR ORDINANCE DID NOT REQUIRE A PERMIT UNTIL AFTER YOUR THIRD FALSE BURGLARY ALARM OR THE FIRST FALSE ROBBERY ALARM IN A CALENDAR YEAR.

YOU WEREN'T REQUIRED TO RENEW UNLESS YOU HAD ONE FALSE ALARM DURING THAT CALENDAR YEAR.

THE ANNUAL PERMIT FEE WAS JUST LIKE IT IS UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE $50 OR $25 FOR 65 AND OVER.

THERE'S NO FEE FOR THE FIRST FIVE BURGLARY AND THE FIRST TWO FALSE ROBBERY ALARMS DURING A PERMIT YEAR, $50 FOR SIX OR MORE, AND $100 PER FALSE ROBBERY ALARM.

WE ISSUED 1,687 PERMITS IN 2024, MEANING THAT THOSE LOCATIONS HAD AT LEAST THREE FALSE ALARMS BEFORE WE HAD TO ISSUE A PERMIT TO THEM.

THE CURRENT ORDINANCE WENT INTO EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1ST, AND WE PAUSED THAT ON OCTOBER 16TH, BUT IT REQUIRES TO FOLLOW STATE LAW.

IT REQUIRES A PERMIT BEFORE ACTIVATION OF ALARM SYSTEM, ANNUAL RENEWAL.

THE RENEWAL FEE, LIKE I SAID, $50 OR $25 FOR 65 OR OVER.

THE FEES, AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, $50, $75, $100, A FINE NOT TO EXCEED $500 FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

BETWEEN THE DATES THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS EFFECTIVE, WE RECEIVED 292 PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

SOME OF THEM WERE IN THE MAIL WHEN WE STOPPED WORKING ON THIS, AND SO THEY WERE STILL COMING IN AS OF THE 27TH.

FROM OCTOBER 1ST TO OCTOBER 16TH, A TOTAL OF 332 FALSE ALARMS CALLS WERE RECEIVED BY OUR DISPATCH.

FIFTY-ONE LOCATIONS EXPERIENCED FOUR OR MORE FALSE ALARMS THAT RESULTED IN US SENDING OUT 73 DIFFERENT BILLS TO THOSE LOCATIONS.

>> CHIEF BARRON.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SIDE? I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DISCUSSION, BUT CAN YOU REPEAT THAT LAST PART.

>> SURE.

[00:25:03]

IN THE TWO WEEKS THE CURRENT ALARM ORDINANCE WAS IN EFFECT, WE HAD A TOTAL OF 332 FALSE ALARM CALLS, THAT WE RECEIVED.

THOSE STEMMED FROM 51 LOCATIONS AND OF THOSE, THEY RECEIVED FOUR OR MORE FALSE ALARMS. THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED TO HIT THAT THRESHOLD TO GET YOUR FIRST FINE.

WE SENT OUT 73, ALARMS WERE BILLABLE OUT OF THOSE. DOES THAT CLARIFY?

>> YES. THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S IN THAT SHORT TIME THAT THAT ORDINANCE WAS IN EFFECT.

THIS IS WHY THIS IS IMPORTANT, WHEN YOU BREAK DOWN THE TIME THAT SPENT ON FALSE ALARM CALL RESPONSE, IT'S A BIG DEAL FOR US.

WE SEND TWO OFFICERS TO EACH ALARM CALL BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU WHEN YOU ARRIVE ON THE LOCATION.

IF IT IS A GOOD ALARM, SOMEONE'S BROKEN INTO SOMEONE ELSE'S HOME OR SOMEONE'S PLACE OF BUSINESS.

OFTEN THAT LEADS TO SOME TYPE OF CONFRONTATION WITH THE POLICE, SO WE ALWAYS SEND TWO OFFICERS ON THESE CALLS.

WHEN YOU TAKE THE NUMBER OF FALSE ALARMS AND MULTIPLY THAT BY THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED OFFICERS, YOU GET 19,178 OFFICERS WHO WENT TO DIFFERENT ALARM CALLS ACROSS THE CITY IN 2024.

WE SPENT JUST UNDER 16 MINUTES, AT EACH ONE OF THESE CALLS.

THAT'S THE OFFICER ARRIVING, CHECKING, MAYBE HAVING TO WAIT FOR A REPORTING PARTY OR SOME REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUSINESS OR HOME TO ARRIVE AND LET THE OFFICER IN, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO FORCE ENTRY OR ANYTHING, AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S OKAY INSIDE THE RESIDENCE OR BUSINESS BEFORE THEY LEAVE.

[NOISE] WHEN YOU TOTAL ALL THAT UP, WE SPENT 5,027 HOURS ON FALSE ALARM CALLS.

WHEN YOU MULTIPLY THAT BY THE BASE SALARY OF A STEP A POLICE OFFICER, THAT'S THE AMOUNT THAT WE SPENT IN 2024 ON FALSE ALARM CALLS.

AS WE WORKED THROUGH THIS ORDINANCE, AND LOOKED AT THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND WHATNOT, WE SAW SOME AREAS WHERE WE THOUGHT AS A STAFF, WE COULD MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN, AND YOU'LL SEE THOSE OUTLINED BEFORE YOU ON THIS SLIDE.

THE FIRST ONE WE HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TODAY CLARIFY A DEFINITION OF AN ALARM SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO MONITORED ALARM SYSTEMS. IF YOU HAVE AN ALARM SYSTEM AND IT'S NOT SET UP TO CALL THE POLICE OR YOU REQUEST THE ALARM COMPANY NOT TO CALL THE POLICE, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THIS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THE FEE.

CLARIFYING THAT THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIREMENT, FOR NON-MONITORED ALARMS, CONFIRMING THAT A FALSE ALARM NOTIFICATION DOES NOT INCLUDE ALARMS CAUSED BY VANDALISM, WEATHER EVENTS, OR MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS. WE FELT LIKE THAT WASN'T AS CLEAR AS IT WAS IN THE FIRST ORDINANCE ABOUT WEATHER-RELATED ALARMS, ESPECIALLY, [NOISE] AND THEN CLARIFYING THAT THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR POLICE TO RESPOND TO A BURGLAR ALARM.

WE'LL COME OUT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE KNOWS THAT WE'RE COMING.

WE JUST DON'T WANT TO COME IF IT'S FALSE.

PROVIDING FOR AN EXCLUSION OF THE PERMIT FEE.

THERE'S AN OPT OUT CLAUSE IN THIS NEWER VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT ALLOWS AN ALARM USER TO OPT OUT OF PAYING THE FEE, AND STILL FILL OUT A PERMIT, BUT OPT OUT OF PAYING THE FEE.

THE CHARGE WOULD COME ON THE BACK-END IF A FALSE ALARM OCCURS AT THAT PROPERTY.

I SAID BEFORE, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO HAVE THAT CONTACT INFORMATION, THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A PERMIT SO WE KNOW WHO TO CALL, AND THEY CAN GET OUT THERE QUICKLY AND GET OUR OFFICERS BACK IN SERVICE IF THERE IS AN ALARM AT A BUSINESS.

ANY QUESTIONS OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO GO BACK TO ANY OTHER SLIDES?

>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> CAN YOU GO BACK ONE?

>> YES, SIR.

>> THIS MAY BE AN OBVIOUS QUESTION.

NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR POLICE TO RESPOND TO A BURGLAR ALARM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BURGLAR ALARM AND ON THE NEXT TO THE LAST BULLET?

>> YES, SIR. THE BURGLAR ALARM, THAT'S BASICALLY ANY BURGLAR ALARM THAT WE WOULD RECEIVE.

SOME OF THE CITIES THAT I LISTED IN THE 15 TOP CITIES,

[00:30:01]

THEY REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE A PERMIT BEFORE POLICE WILL RESPOND TO A BURGLAR ALARM AT THAT RESIDENCE OR BUSINESS.

WE WANTED TO CLARIFY IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT WE ARE NOT REQUIRING SOMEONE TO HAVE A PERMIT FOR US TO RESPOND.

>> GOT YOU. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILMAN COLLINS?

>> NEAL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

TELL ME WHAT IS A MONITORED ALARM VERSUS ONE THAT'S UNMONITORED.

WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN?

>> WHEN I'M TALKING ABOUT A MONITORED ALARM SYSTEM, I'M TALKING ABOUT A SYSTEM THAT IS MONITORED BY A THIRD-PARTY VENDOR.

I CAN'T PULL THE NAME OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD OF A VENDOR, BUT IF I PURCHASE AN ALARM SYSTEM FOR MY HOME AND I WORK THROUGH A VENDOR THAT MONITORS THE CAMERAS OR THE WINDOW BREAKS OR THE DOOR BREAKS IN MY HOME AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR NOTIFYING PUBLIC SAFETY AGENCIES WHEN MY ALARM IS TRIGGERED, THAT IS A MONITORED ALARM SYSTEM.

IF I HAVE A SYSTEM AT MY HOUSE THAT ONLY ALERTS ME IF THE GLASS BREAKS OR IF THE DOOR OPENS OR IF THEIR CAMERA ALERT GOES OFF, THEN THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED A MONITORED ALARM BY THIS ORDINANCE.

>> IF I HAVE A MONITORED SYSTEM, AND I'M USING COMPANY X, AND I DON'T KNOW ANY COMPANIES EITHER, BUT I'M USING COMPANY X FOR THIS MONITORING, DO THEY NOT KNOW WHO I AM? THEY'RE GOING TO CALL ME FIRST, RIGHT? COMPANY X, YOUR ALARM WENT OFF, MR. COLLINS.

DO I GET THE FIRST PHONE CALL OR DO YOU GET THE FIRST PHONE CALL?

>> I'M NOT SURE ON HOW THOSE COMPANIES OPERATE.

I WOULD ASSUME YOU COULD PROBABLY SET IT UP EITHER WAY. I'M NOT SURE.

>> I'M JUST ASKING. WOULD IT NOT SEEM MORE REASONABLE TO REQUIRE CONSISTENCY WITHIN THE COMPANIES AND HOW THEY REPORT TO YOU VERSUS ALLOWING THEM TO JUST CALL ME, CALL YOU, CALL THE NEIGHBOR? WHO DO THEY CALL FIRST? IS THERE NOT SOME REGULATION AS TO HOW THOSE COMPANIES OPERATE IN OUR COMMUNITY VERSUS A DIFFERENT METHOD OF CONTROLLING WHEN YOU GET A PHONE CALL, WHEN THE PD GETS A PHONE CALL?

>> YES. THAT WOULD BE A BEST CASE SCENARIO FOR THE ALARM COMPANY TO CALL THE HOMEOWNER OR BUSINESS OWNER FIRST AND LET THEM KNOW THAT ALARM HAS GONE OFF, AND MAYBE THEY GO CHECK IT OR THEY CHECK THEIR CAMERAS THEMSELVES OR WHATNOT.

>> WELL, I GUESS I'M ASKING THE INCONSISTENCY AMONG THE COMPANIES.

IF THEY HANDLE THEMSELVES DIFFERENTLY, SOME WOULD CALL PD FIRST, SOME WOULD CALL THE HOMEOWNER FIRST.

THAT JUST SEEMS A METHOD OF GETTING SOMETHING THAT SAYS, WE'VE GOT A REASONABLE REASON FOR PD TO RESPOND.

>> YES, SIR. I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> VERSUS, I COULDN'T GET AHOLD OF THE HOMEOWNER OR WE JUST SENT SOMEBODY OUT IMMEDIATELY, BUT THERE'S NO REGULATION.

IS THERE ANY STATUTORY REGULATION THAT SAYS, WE CAN TELL HOW A MONITORED ALARM SYSTEM IS GOING TO RESPOND IN OUR COMMUNITY?

>> THE STATUTE DOES ALLOW FOR US TO PUT IN OUR ORDINANCE.

IF WE ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REGULATING BURGLAR ALARMS, IT DOES ALLOW FOR US TO PUT IN THERE A REGULATION THAT A MONITORED ALARM SYSTEM, THE THIRD-PARTY ATTEMPT TO CONTACT THE OCCUPANT AT LEAST TWICE BEFORE THEY WOULD CONTACT LAW ENFORCEMENT.

IT DOES ALLOW FOR THAT IN THE STATUTE.

>> NEXT QUESTION, DEFINE BURGLARY VERSUS ROBBERY.

YOU GAVE OUT TWO DIFFERENT STATISTICS THERE.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THOSE TWO ACTIVITIES?

>> A ROBBERY IS WHEN SOMEONE IS BEING THREATENED TO TAKE THEIR POSSESSIONS AWAY.

A BURGLARY WOULD OCCUR IF THERE'S NO ONE AT HOME OR NO ONE IN THE BUSINESS, AND THEY BREAK IN AND TAKE POSSESSIONS OUT OF EITHER ONE OF THOSE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> IN A ROBBERY, WE'RE FACE TO FACE, MORE OR LESS?

>> YES.

>> IT SEEMS THAT YOU POINTED OUT VERY CLEARLY THAT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE SEEING A MUCH HIGHER NUMBER OF ALARMS AND FALSE ALARMS AND ARE A BIGGER ISSUE THAN OUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

>> YES, SIR.

>> I'LL COME UP WITH SOME MORE IN A MINUTE, BUT THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU.

>> CHIEF BARON, I STILL FEEL LIKE THERE'S STILL SOME CONFUSION FROM FOLKS, AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIRD PARTY, THAT MEANS THAT YOU ARE PAYING FOR AN EXTENDED SERVICE.

IF I HAVE A RING AT HOME AND I DON'T HAVE IT CONNECTED TO THE THIRD PARTY, I DON'T HAVE TO PAY THAT FEE.

>> CORRECT.

>> IF I HAVE, LIKE YOU SAID, A PHONE, MONITOR,

[00:35:01]

I BOUGHT A CAMERA OFF OF AMAZON, AND I'M MONITORING MY OWN HOME. I DON'T HAVE TO PAY A FEE.

>> CORRECT.

>> I THINK YOU SAID THIS, IF MY CAR ALARM GOES OFF, I DON'T HAVE TO PAY A FEE.

>> CORRECT. CAR ALARMS ARE NOT INCLUDED.

>> THAT'S ONLY IF YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A MONITORED SERVICE, THEN YOU WOULD PAY IT.

I THINK YOU MENTIONED A STATISTIC OR A NUMBER OF 10% OF HOUSEHOLDS BUSINESSES ACTUALLY HAVE THAT THIRD PARTY SERVICE?

>> YES. THAT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO LUBBOCK.

THAT'S MORE OF A NATIONWIDE FIGURE.

>> I HEARD ONE OF THE CITIZEN COMMENTS THAT MENTIONED THAT A SENIOR CITIZEN MIGHT NOT GET THE SERVICE IF THE FEE, WHICH I THINK WAS MENTIONED TO US IS THAT YOU HAVE A $50 FEE.

YOU HAVE A $25 FEE FOR A SENIOR DISCOUNT, WHICH WOULD COME OUT TO ABOUT $2 A MONTH, AND THAT'S IF ONLY THEY HAD A THIRD PARTY SERVICE.

>> YES, MA'AM. THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. I KNOW DR. WILSON HAS A QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU, NEIL, FOR BEING HERE. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

IS THERE ANY GUESSTIMATE OF HOW MANY MONITORED ALARMS ARE IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK?

>> THAT WOULD BE HARD FOR US TO PUT A FIGURE ON RIGHT NOW.

WE HAD THE SLIDE THAT SHOWED HOW MANY PERMITS THAT WE ISSUED IN 2024.

LIKE I SAID, THAT'S JUST THE NUMBER THAT HAD THREE OR MORE FALSE ALARMS IN 2024.

IT'S REALLY HARD FOR ME TO ESTIMATE HOW MANY MONITORED ALARM SYSTEMS THERE ARE IN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK.

ROUGHLY 10% WOULD BE INDUSTRY GUESS.

>> OVERALL, THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS TO TRY TO BENEFIT LPD AND NOT HAVING TO GO TO FALSE ALARMS. THE ARGUMENT THAT WE HEAR FROM CITIZENS IS, I'VE NEVER HAD A FALSE ALARM, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY A PERMIT FEE? WHICH IS A GOOD AND REASONABLE QUESTION TO ASK.

I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY TOUGH QUESTION, NOT DIRECTED ONLY AT YOU, SO DON'T TAKE IT AS SUCH, BUT HOW IS THE NEW ORDINANCE GOING TO BE MORE BENEFICIAL TO LPD VERSUS THE PRIOR ORDINANCE, WHERE WE WERE ESSENTIALLY JUST PENALIZING PEOPLE WHO WERE HAVING REPEAT FALSE ALARMS? HOW WOULD A NEW PERMIT FEE FROM THE BEGINNING OF JUST SAYING, YES, YOU HAVE TO BE MONITORED, YOU HAVE TO PAY A FEE? HOW IS THAT GOING TO ACTUALLY BE BENEFICIAL TO LPD AND NOT HAVE TO GO TO FALSE ALARMS? BECAUSE, AS YOU'VE SAID, NOTHING IN THESE ORDINANCES PREVENTS YOU GUYS FROM HAVING TO GO IF THERE'S AN ALARM, WHETHER THEY'RE PERMITTED, WHETHER THEY'RE NOT, WHETHER THEY'VE HAD FALSE ALARMS, WHETHER THEY HAVE A GREAT MONITORED SYSTEM.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IS IT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL TO YOU GUYS JUST TO HAVE THE PERMIT FEE.

>> LOOKING AT THIS HOLISTICALLY, I THINK THAT IT WILL BENEFIT US AND THE CITIZENS IN THAT IT FREES OFFICERS UP IN THE LONG RUN TO RESPOND TO PRIORITY ONE CALLS FOR SERVICE.

THAT'S OUR MAIN GOAL IN ALL OF THIS, IS TO PROVIDE A BETTER RESPONSE TO CITIZENS FOR THE HIGH-PRIORITY CALLS FOR LIFE'S IN DANGER.

BUT TO ENABLE THAT, THE PERMIT FEES HELP US TO KEEP TRACK OF WHO HAS AN ALARM AND WHO TO CONTACT ABOUT THAT ALARM.

IT REFRESHES THE ALARM OWNER'S MEMORY AS TO HOW TO OPERATE THE ALARM.

IT LETS THEM KNOW THAT THEY AND THEIR EMPLOYEES, IF IT'S A BUSINESS, NEED TO BE GOOD AT OPERATING THE ALARM AND NOT SETTING OFF, GOING TO PUT A BASKET OF BALLOONS IN A ROOM THAT'S GOING TO SET THE ALARM OFF MULTIPLE TIMES OVER THE WEEKEND.

THINGS LIKE THAT, IT'S A GOOD REFRESHER FOR EVERYONE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS DOES CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR FIRST RESPONDERS, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP YOUR ALARM IN GOOD WORKING ORDER.

ALL THAT LEADS TO A REDUCTION IN FALSE ALARMS, WHICH LEADS TO A BETTER RESPONSE FOR US ON PRIORITY 1 CALLS FOR SERVICE, AND LETS OUR OFFICERS GET THERE FASTER.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.

>> FOLLOWING WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT BETTER RESPONSE, I THINK WHAT IT ALSO DOES IS NOT ONLY A BETTER RESPONSE, BUT YOU'RE ABLE TO FOCUS ON REAL CRIMES HAPPENING.

WHEN YOU'RE TAKING, I THINK THE NUMBER OF TWO OFFICERS PER CALL, ABOUT A 16-MINUTE AVERAGE.

THAT'S ALSO VERY STRIKING.

WE'RE A CITY THAT IS VERY PRO LAW ENFORCEMENT.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR OFFICER TIME IS BEING WELL UTILIZED, BUT NOT ONLY THAT, I THINK FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITIZENS IN GENERAL, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU'RE RESPONDING TO EMERGENCY CALLS THAT COULD BE LIFE OR DEATH.

[00:40:01]

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE.

I KNOW MR. GLASHEEN HAS A QUESTION.

>> QUESTIONS, I'M JUST READY TO SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT.

>> I HAVE A CONCERN TODAY THAT, AS EVERYONE CAN SEE, WE'RE MISSING TWO OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, OUR MAYOR AND COUNCILMAN HARRIS.

I KNOW THAT OUR POLICE CHIEF, SETH, HAS ALSO BEEN OUT OF COMMISSION.

I HAVE SOME CONCERNS THAT WE'RE ACTING ON THIS TODAY.

I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO POSTPONE THIS WHEN WE HAVE ALL OF OUR COUNSEL HERE FOR THE NOVEMBER 11TH MEETING.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT I CAN MAKE A MOTION ON?

>> YES, MAYOR PRO TEM. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE YOUR OWN MOTION IF YOU'D LIKE.

>> THAT BEING SAID, I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO POSTPONE FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF ITEM 6.4 UNTIL THE NOVEMBER 11TH, 2025 MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

>> YOU NEED A SECOND FOR THAT.

>> I CALLED FOR A SECOND.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. NO.

>> DID YOU GET A SECOND?

>> DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> THEN THE MOTION BOWS FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

>> IN THAT CASE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO ON, AND I KNOW THAT MR. GLASHEEN WOULD LIKE TO ALSO MAKE SOME ADDITIONS.

>> THANK YOU. ALONG WITH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, I PLACED THIS ORDINANCE ON THE AGENDA TODAY BECAUSE COUNCIL MADE A MISTAKE IN PASSING THIS ORDINANCE.

WE NEED TO TODAY, ACKNOWLEDGE IT, APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMUNITY AND FIX OUR MISTAKE.

I WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT I TAKE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS, AND I'M SURE THAT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL WILL, BECAUSE AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY OF THIS CITY, ULTIMATELY, IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO UNDERSTAND AND ANALYZE THE ORDINANCES THAT WE PASS OR CHOOSE NOT TO PASS.

BUT I DESCRIBE IT AS A MISTAKE BECAUSE SPEAKING FOR MYSELF, I CAN SAY THAT I DID NOT ACCURATELY UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ORDINANCE OR THE WAY THAT STAFF INTENDED TO IMPLEMENT IT.

I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THAT.

THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO START WITH, BUT I ALSO WANT TO SHARE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT HOW WE GOT INTO THIS POSITION, BECAUSE I THINK WE OWE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT OF THE BACKGROUND OF HOW WE GOT HERE AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO PREVENT PROBLEMS LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

NOW, I GENERALLY BELIEVE IN THE PHILOSOPHY THAT YOU SHOULD PRAISE IN PUBLIC AND CRITICIZE IN PRIVATE.

BUT BECAUSE OF OUR CITY'S OBLIGATION TO OPEN MEETINGS AND OPEN DISCUSSION TO THE PUBLIC, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE CRITICAL DISCUSSIONS IN PUBLIC AS WELL.

I WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT I WAS OUT OF TOWN FOR WORK, THE FIRST READING OF THIS ORDINANCE.

I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THE STAFF BRIEFING ON THIS ORDINANCE FOR THE FIRST TIME IT WAS READ AND PASSED.

I HAVE TO SAY THAT THE BRIEFING WAS INADEQUATE.

IN FACT, IT WAS TO THE POINT THAT THE BRIEFING WAS MISLEADING ABOUT THE CONTENT AND SCOPE AND INTENTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE.

I'M PARAPHRASING A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE BRIEFING OF THE ORDINANCE DESCRIBED IT AS AN IMPLEMENTATION OF ESCALATING PENALTIES FOR MULTIPLE FALSE ALARMS. THE BRIEFING DID NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING ABOUT A PERMIT BEING IMPLIED, ABOUT FEES FOR ORDINARY USERS, OR THESE OUT-OF-POCKET COSTS FOR HOMEOWNERS.

ON THE SECOND READING, THE BRIEFING WAS VERY SIMILAR, TOO.

THE COUNCIL RELIES ON STAFF TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE NOT JUST THE CONTENT OF THE ORDINANCES, BUT ALSO THE POLICY IMPLICATIONS, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS IN EVERY ISSUE THAT'S BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL.

MR. ATKINSON, MR. WADE, WE RELY ON BOTH OF YOU ALL TO HELP MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT COMBINATION OF BRIEFERS TO ACCURATELY DESCRIBE THE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL'S ATTENTION.

I'LL ASK FOR YOUR HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A MORE HOLISTIC PRESENTATION OF THE SCOPE, THE CONTENTS, AND THE STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTING POLICIES GOING FORWARD.

THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT I SEE WITH THE WAY THAT THIS ORDINANCE WAS IMPLEMENTED IS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS FLOWED BACKWARDS.

WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, I LEARNT TODAY THAT THIS ORDINANCE HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR, I THINK, OVER 18 MONTHS.

MR. WADE, HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WITH THE CITY?

>> I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE JUNE OF 2024.

>> BEFORE YOUR TIME, THIS WAS AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS IN THE WORKS?

>> YEAH. THERE WAS AT LEAST SOME TALKING ABOUT IT AND MAYBE PERHAPS AN EARLY DRAFT.

>> AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL,

[00:45:01]

I DIDN'T SEE THIS ORDINANCE IN ANY FORM UNTIL IT WAS ON THE AGENDA FOR ITS FIRST PASSAGE.

I ALWAYS RESPECT PEOPLE WHO CAN IDENTIFY A PROBLEM AND SIMULTANEOUSLY PRESENT A SOLUTION FOR IT. I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE BEST WAYS TO TRY TO FIND PROBLEMS AND FIX IT AS YOU COME AND SAY, HERE'S ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION.

BUT THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED IN FORMULATING ANY SORT OF LEGISLATION, LIKE AN ORDINANCE, ESPECIALLY A POLICY CHANGE LIKE THIS IN THE EARLY STAGES RATHER THAN BEING PRESENTED WITH SOMETHING THAT IS COMPREHENSIVE, COMPLETE AND INSUFFICIENTLY BRIEFED.

FOR EXAMPLE, I THINK IN AREAS WE'VE DONE BETTER AT THIS, IS HAVING A WORK SESSION ON THE ITEM THAT ALLOWS PRESENTATION OF THE DATA THAT WE SAW TODAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, ALLOW FOR COUNCIL COMMENTS, PUBLIC DISCUSSION.

THEN IT ALLOWS THAT DISCUSSION TO PERCOLATE OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS TO HAVE TIME TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THEIR CONSTITUENTS AND COME BACK WITH REVISIONS.

I'D REALLY ENCOURAGE THAT MODEL OF WORK SESSION, PRESENTATION, DELIBERATION, INTO FINAL DRAFTING.

THIS ORDINANCE, I THINK, WAS DONE WITH THE WORK OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS, WHICH I'M VERY SKEPTICAL OF.

THE ROLE OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS WAS NOT EVER DISCUSSED OR DISCLOSED IN ANY PART OF THE BRIEFING, AND IT'S NOT EVEN CLEAR FROM THE ORDINANCE INFORMATION THAT WAS IN THE PACKET THAT THE PLAN WAS FOR THESE PERMITS FEES TO BE PAID TO A THIRD-PARTY COMPANY THAT IS GOING TO PROFIT FROM THE SHARE OF THE FEES AND EXPENSES AND USE THAT AS PART OF THEIR PROFIT FOR SERVICING FALSE ALARM CALLS.

THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT BIT OF INFORMATION THAT'S NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BLACK LETTER OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT WE AS A COUNCIL NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT INTENTION FOR STAFF IMPLEMENTATION.

I'VE GIVEN THAT CRITIQUE, BUT I WANT TO COME BACK AGAIN AND SAY, THIS IS ULTIMATELY THE COUNCIL'S RESPONSIBILITY.

ALL HUMAN BEINGS ARE GOING TO MAKE MISTAKES. MYSELF INCLUDED.

THE ONLY WAY TO RESPOND IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT, APOLOGIZE AND FIX THE MISTAKE.

TODAY, MY SOLUTION THAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE IS THAT WE SIMPLY REPEAL THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS PASSED ON SEPTEMBER 9TH.

TAKE US BACK TO THE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS BEFORE.

THEN THIS WILL GIVE US TIME TO CAREFULLY STUDY THE ISSUES AND GIVE THEM THE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION AND PUBLIC FEEDBACK IF THAT'S NECESSARY.

I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR INTO IT RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK IT'S WORTH MENTIONING THAT I THINK FALSE ALARMS IS A BIT OF A BAD TERM.

GENTLEMEN, MENTIONED, FOR EXAMPLE, IT IS A COMMON CRIMINAL TACTIC TO REPEATEDLY TRIGGER AN ALARM IN ORDER TO DESENSITIZE THE RESPONDENTS AND CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMIT A CRIME.

WHAT WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC INTEREST IN DETERRING IS REPEATED, NEGLIGENT OR UNINTENTIONAL TRIGGERING OF AN ALARM.

I THINK WE NEED TO CAREFULLY STUDY THAT TO IDENTIFY HOW PREVALENT THAT ISSUE REALLY IS, AND WHAT'S THE BEST FIX FOR THAT PARTICULAR SUBCATEGORY.

BUT I THINK IT'S WRONG TO PERMIT AND FEE EVERY USER BECAUSE CITIZENS PAY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE.

THAT IS THE NUMBER 1 THING THAT WE COUNT ON THE GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS.

THE CITY SHOULD ENCOURAGE ALARMS, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY PROVIDE AN IMPORTANT PUBLIC SAFETY FUNCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL AND FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

WE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE FULL COUNCIL HERE, AND WE HAVE MORE TIME TO GET INPUT FROM ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT LEADERSHIP.

BUT TODAY, IN THE MEANTIME, LET'S ACKNOWLEDGE OUR MISTAKE AND FIX IT, GO BACK TO THE WAY THAT IT WAS BEFORE, AND CAREFULLY STUDY THIS ISSUE GOING FORWARD.

WITH THAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

TO REPEAL ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-0111 AS ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 9TH, 2025.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WILSON.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

I'M GETTING AHEAD.

I THINK WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION, AND I THINK ALSO, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD.

>> I JUST THANK MAYOR PRO TEM.

I JUST WANT TO ECHO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER GLASHEEN HAS SAID AND THAT, I THINK GOOD QUALITIES OF GOOD LEADERS IS THAT WE CAN STAND UP HERE AND HAVE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY AND SOME HUMILITY AND OWN IT WHEN WE LET SOMETHING COME THROUGH THAT WE SHOULDN'T HAVE.

I PERSONALLY WANT TO THANK MR. OVERLAND AND MS. SONBERG FOR BEING HERE.

WITH GOOD PASSION IN YOUR VOICE CALLING US OUT ON THAT MISTAKE AND TO THE COUNTLESS CITIZENS THAT REACHED OUT ON NOT ONLY SOCIAL MEDIA,

[00:50:02]

BUT EMAIL, PHONE CALLS.

WE DIDN'T GET IT RIGHT, AND WE ARE HERE TODAY, EVEN WITH ONLY PART OF OUR COUNSEL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO GET IT RIGHT.

I DEFINITELY SUPPORT THE REPEAL THAT COUNCIL MEMBER GLASHEEN HAS BROUGHT FORWARD.

I DO THINK IT'S A PROBLEM FOR LPD FOR NEGLIGENT MONITORED ALARM SYSTEMS THAT ARE CALLING OUR OFFICERS OUT.

WE HAVE AN INCREASING AMOUNT OF CRIME AS LUBBOCK CONTINUES TO GROW, AND THAT'S A PROBLEM THAT WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS.

BUT PUTTING A PENALTY AND A FEE ON PEOPLE THAT HAVE NOT CAUSED OR BEEN A PART OF THAT PROBLEM.

I ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

I DO THINK WE NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT TODAY AND TRY TO OFFER UP AMENDMENTS OR SOLUTIONS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF INVESTIGATION TO FIGURE OUT A RIGHT WAY TO DO IT WITHOUT TAXING PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO.

THAT IS WHY I AM IN SUPPORT OF REPEALING THIS.

WE'LL GO BACK TO WHAT WE WERE DOING, BUT JUST FINDING PEOPLE, WHICH IS WHAT STATE LAW TELLS US THAT WE CAN DO WHILE WE TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT THIS.

WE CAN FIND A BETTER WAY TO HELP OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT DO THE RIGHT THING, BUT ALSO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR CITIZENS.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE AND SPEAKING FOR THAT TODAY.

>> COUNCILMAN ROSE.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM. JUST WANTED TO SPEAK ON SOME OF WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON AND COUNCIL MEMBER GLASHEEN HAVE SAID ON THIS.

TO BREAK IT DOWN, 26 FALSE ALARMS PER DAY, THAT'S A HUGE PROBLEM.

THAT'S A MASSIVE BURDEN ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THEN YOU, MULTIPLY THAT BY TWO, TWO OFFICERS.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT 52 OFFICERS PER DAY.

WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM, AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE WAY WE WERE LED MIGHT BE THE SOLUTION, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, AS A CITY, WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ALARM SYSTEMS.

>> WE JUST DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE THE USE OF ALARM SYSTEMS WITH FALSE ALARMS AND NOT KEEPING UP WITH THEM AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IT DOESN'T SEEM THAT PUTTING A FEE ON CITIZENS TO HAVE AN ALARM SYSTEM MONITORED IS GOING TO DETER THESE FALSE ALARMS, BECAUSE YOU WERE GOING OVER THE NUMBERS, CHIEF, AND IT SEEMS WE'RE COLLECTING QUITE A BIT OF MONEY AS IT IS WITH THE FALSE ALARMS, AND THEY'RE STILL GOING OFF.

WE'RE TALKING 10 PLUS TIMES FALSE ALARMS FOR THESE REPEAT OFFENDERS.

I THINK DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE AND THE SPIRIT OF THIS WAS TO HELP THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, WHEN YOU GUYS COME TO US WITH SOMETHING WE TRUST THAT IT'S IN YOUR BEST INTEREST AND THE CITIZENS BEST INTEREST.

BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THE FEE TO EVERY CITIZEN IS GOING TO GET THIS FIXED.

I ALSO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD REPEAL THIS, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK WITH SOMETHING, GET ALL THE BRAINS TOGETHER, AND LET'S SEE IF WE CAN GET THIS FIGURED OUT TO GET THIS BURDEN OFF, YOU GUYS.

>> COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.

AS ECHOED TO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE, I TOO APOLOGIZE FOR OUR MISTAKE, A LACK OF ATTENTION TO THE DETAIL, POSSIBLY.

ALSO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE CITIZENS THAT REACHED OUT TO US.

I APPRECIATE GETTING THE NOTES.

I APPRECIATE THE TONE OF SOME OF THOSE NOTES MORE THAN OTHERS, BUT NONETHELESS, I APPRECIATE GETTING ALL OF THEM.

BUT THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF AS WE PUT THIS ISSUE TO REST FOR AT LEAST FOR A MOMENT IS, CHIEF BARON, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, AND I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR ALL OF US WHEN I SAY, WHEN YOU WALK OUT THIS DOOR, YOU NEED TO KNOW THAT WE STILL SUPPORT THE EFFORTS, AND WE WANT TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR YOU.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESPONSES AND THE EFFORTS THAT OUR LUBBOCK POLICE DEPARTMENT MAKE ARE UNDERSTOOD, APPRECIATED AND GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE.

I THINK WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE MAYBE IN OUR ZEAL TO SUPPORT THAT EFFORT, HAVE MADE THIS MISTAKE, BUT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE AND COME BACK.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT UNDERSTANDS THAT WE ARE 100% BEHIND YOUR EFFORTS, AND WE ARE 100% COMMITTED TO ENSURING THAT YOU GUYS CAN DO THE VERY BEST JOB FOR THE CITIZENS THAT YOU CAN DO AND SO WHATEVER ELSE COMES OF THIS, I HOPE THAT YOU AND YOUR TEAM TAKE THAT WITH YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO.

>> I ECHO TOO WHAT COUNCILMAN COLLINS SAID TO OUR OFFICERS THAT ARE HERE WHEN WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE ARE IN FULL SUPPORT,

[00:55:01]

BUT SEVERAL OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS DID MAKE VERY GOOD POINTS, AND THAT IS, SOMETIMES WE DON'T GET OUR AGENDA UNTIL THE FRIDAY OR NOW, I THINK IT'S THE WEDNESDAY BEFORE A COUNCIL MEETING SO WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME TO DIGEST AND REALLY LEARN ABOUT EVERYTHING, BUT WE DO OUR VERY BEST.

ALSO KEEPING, I THINK, THIS ORDINANCE, THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE DOES NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION AND I THINK WE ALSO HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE PUBLIC EDUCATION.

I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT IS A PROBLEM.

SOMETHING THAT COUNCILMAN GLASHIN SAID IS THAT HE WASN'T HERE FOR THE FIRST READING AND THAT TO THAT POINT I THINK I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT, BUT THE MAYOR ISN'T HERE, ONE OF OUR COUNCILMEN ISN'T HERE, AND I THINK THAT WE DO NEED TO REVIEW THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THE CITIZENS HAVE EMBARKED ON THIS AND REALLY TALKED IT UP.

IT'S GOOD WHEN OUR CITIZENS ARE ENGAGED AND INVOLVED, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE LISTENING AND WE HEAR YOU.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE DIDN'T LISTEN, I THINK IT'S EVIDENT WITH THAT.

I GUESS WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR THE QUESTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GLASHIN, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN WILSON.

>> ALL OPPOSE SAME SIGN? MOTION CARRIES.

NOW WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

WE'LL NOW TAKE ITEM 5 OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

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

THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST TO REMOVE ITEMS 5.5, 5.17, 5.18, 5.23, 5.24, AND 5.31 FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT IS.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OF 5.5, 5.17, 5.18, 5.23, 5.24, AND 5.31. IS THERE A MOTION?

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ROSE.

>> ALL OPPOSE, SAME SIGN? MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5.5,

[5. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution expressing intent to finance expenditures to be incurred in the General Fund, Internal Service Fund, Lubbock Power & Light, and Water/Wastewater Fund, for various capital projects and equipment approved by the City Council in the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Operating Budget and Capital Program, and to reimburse the City from the proceeds of obligations that will be issued after the expenditure of funds to pay costs of such projects and equipment.]

AND I'M GOING TO CALL ON CITY MANAGER JARED ATKINSON TO PROVIDE THE BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, MS. BROCK IS GOING TO WALK US THROUGH A VERY SHORT PRESENTATION.

WE'LL STOP ON THE LAST SLIDE.

I'LL ADD SOME COMMENTS, AND OF COURSE, TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL.

I HOPE YOU ALL ARE DOING WELL TODAY.

THIS RESOLUTION, BASICALLY, ONE OF THE THINGS, IT'S NOT COMMON KNOWLEDGE ABOUT REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTIONS AND SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT IT.

BASICALLY, IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION IS A FORMAL DECLARATION OF THE CITY STATING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO REIMBURSE THEMSELVES FROM BONDS ONCE WE'VE ISSUED OR FROM FUTURE DEBT OR BOND PROCEEDS.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE DO THIS IN ADVANCE OF ISSUING THE DEBT.

THIS ALLOWS THE CAPITAL PROJECTS TO BEGIN SO WE CAN GO AHEAD AND START CONSTRUCTION ON PROJECTS AND WE CAN HOLD ISSUING THE DEBT UNTIL THE OPTIMAL TIME IN THE MARKET FOR US TO DO SO.

THIS ALLOWS US TO GO AHEAD AND NOT DELAY OUR PROJECTS FROM THAT POINT.

THIS IS JUST A MORE LEGAL AS VERSION OF WHAT I JUST TOLD YOU.

BASICALLY, SECTION 1 JUST SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO REASONABLY EXPECT TO REIMBURSE OURSELVES.

SECTION 2 TALKS ABOUT THE MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT, WHICH FOR THIS REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION IS 173 MILLION, ALL THE PROJECTS THAT ARE LISTED IN EXHIBIT A, AND THEY WERE APPROVED IN THE ADOPTED BUDGET. CAN I KEEP GOING?

>> NO. CLICK ONE MORE, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL, I'LL RUN THROUGH THIS SLIDE JUST REAL QUICK AND THEN, EITHER, MS. BROCK OR I CAN TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

EXHIBIT A, THIS DOES COME OUT OF YOUR MOST RECENTLY APPROVED BUDGET.

I'LL QUICKLY GO OVER THE PROJECTS UNDER THE GENERAL FUND SECTION.

UPLAND 82ND TO 98TH STREET.

THAT IS THAT NEXT SEGMENT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO AS WE TIE INTO PROJECTS ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH.

WORTH NOTE THAT THE 12.5 MILLION, THAT IS NOT THE TOTAL OF THE PROJECT THERE ARE SOME SMALL MPO FUNDS THAT ARE ON TOP OF THAT.

WE HAD MOVED THEM AROUND TO GET THE BIGGER PIECE DONE.

WHAT'S LEFT GOES ON HERE,

[01:00:02]

AND THEN THE CO CARRIES YOU THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THAT SEGMENT, WHICH TIES TO A BOND PROJECT ON THE OTHER END OF IT.

THE REMAINING LIST THERE WHERE IT SAYS 22B, THOSE ARE YOUR VOTER APPROVED ROAD BOND PROJECTS SCHEDULED FOR THIS NEW FISCAL YEAR OUT OF THE 2022 BOND.

SAME WITH THE ONES THAT SAY 24B.

ALSO, VOTER APPROVED 2024 ROAD BOND SCHEDULED TO COME OUT IN THIS YEAR.

WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS OUT OF THAT SEGMENT RIGHT THERE, 42.3 MILLION, THAT IS YOUR NEXT SET OF BOTH ROAD BONDS THAT WILL BE DONE IN THIS NEW FISCAL YEAR.

COMING DOWN TO WHERE IT SAYS INTERNAL TRANSFER, ONE OF OUR FAVORITE BUDGET WORDS.

THIS IS WHERE THE DOLLARS COME FROM, AND THEN GO TO SO VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS, FISCAL YEAR 25/26 TAX NOTE IN THE AMOUNT OF 8.8.

COUNCIL REMINDER, THIS IS HOW WE FINANCE OUR LARGE FIRE TRUCKS, AND SOME OF THE HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.

TAX NOTES BY LAW ARE LIMITED TO A SEVEN YEAR MATURITY AND WE DO NOT USE THIS ON ANY MACHINERY THAT DOES NOT HAVE GREATER THAN THAT SEVEN YEAR LIFE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE PAID OFF.

WE ARE STILL USING IT BEFORE EVERYTHING COMES TO AN END.

THE PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO SYSTEM UPGRADES.

THIS IS WHAT WE LOOKED AT THIS SUMMER.

WE DID THE FIRST PIECE OF THAT.

THIS CARRIES YOU THROUGH THE NEXT.

BETWEEN THE TWO TAX NOTES, JUST UNDER 15 MILLION.

WATER AND WASTE WATER.

THAT'S YOUR SECOND PHASE OF THE WEST LUBBOCK WATER SYSTEM EXPANSION.

WE SPENT RPA DOLLARS UP FRONT.

WE'VE HAD ONE YEAR OF A REVENUE BOND, AND NOW YOU'RE DOING THE SECOND TO GET THAT PROJECT.

THE REMAINING LIST OF THE LUBBOCK POWER AND LIGHT PROJECTS, THOSE, OF COURSE, ARE IN THEIR BUDGET.

I DO THINK MR. HALL IS HERE, IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

IN TOTAL, 157.6.

NOTE ON CHERYL'S PRIOR SLIDE.

THAT'S HOW YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR COST OF ISSUANCE AND SO FORTH IN THERE.

IT'LL COME IN UNDER THE 173 GENERALLY, BUT THE HARD COST IS THAT 157.5.

WITH THAT, CHERYL AND I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> COUNCILMAN GLASHIN.

>> WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF EXPENSES THAT THE CITY INTENDS TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FOR FROM THE BOND ISSUANCE?

>> ON THE BOND ISSUANCES FROM THE TWO ROAD BONDS?

>> YOU CAN GIVE US AN OVERVIEW ON EACH OF THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

>> FOR ANY OF THE CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, YOUR UPFRONT EXPENSES, WE TRY TO GET OUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, OR ENGINEERING HIRED AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN SO WE'RE MAKING TIME ON THAT END OF IT.

WE HAVE ALSO LEARNED IN TRYING TO KEEP THESE TWO ROAD BOND PROJECTS ON EACH OF THEIR RESPECTIVE FIVE YEAR SCHEDULES TO PULL DOWN DOLLARS TO ALLOW US TO KEEP THE RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION GOING SO EVEN THOUGH A PROJECT, YOU CAN JUST PICK ONE, THE UPLAND PROJECT 19TH TO 34.

THOSE DOLLARS WON'T FUND CONSTRUCTION.

THEY WILL FUND THE ENGINEERING, THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND THE RIGHT OF WAY, EVEN THOUGH THE CONSTRUCTION IS A YEAR OUT FROM THAT.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO COMPRESS EVERY TIMELINE WE CAN AND WE START ON OCTOBER 1ST.

>> IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.5?

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GLASHIN SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN WILSON.

WE'RE NOW GOING TO TAKE UP ITEM 5.17.

>> MOTION CARRIES.

[17. Resolution - Engineering: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Professional Services Agreement Contract No. 19236, and related documents, by and between the City of Lubbock and Parkhill, for professional services for the design of 34th Street from Upland Avenue to Alcove Avenue, to be utilized for the 2024 Street Bond Project.]

[18. Resolution - Engineering: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Professional Services Agreement Contract 19186, and all related documents, by and between the City of Lubbock and Consor Engineers, LLC, for the design of 146th Street from Slide Road to Quaker Avenue, to be utilized for the 2024 Street Bond Project.]

AGAIN, I'LL CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER, JARED ATKINSON.

>> THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM, IF IT'S ALL RIGHT, MAYBE COULD WE DO 5.17, 5.18 TOGETHER AND THEN TAKE QUESTIONS?

>> PLEASE, LET'S DO THAT.

>> THANK YOU. MR. JOHN TURPIN, YOUR CITY ENGINEER IS GOING TO COME UP AND START THAT, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE QUESTIONS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCIL.

AGENDA ITEM 5.17 AND 5.18, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THESE ARE OUR LAST TWO CONSULTING CONTRACTS WE HAVE FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR DESIGN.

AGENDA ITEM 5.17 IS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONTRACT WITH PARK HILL FOR $983,017 AND 420 DAYS FOR THE DESIGN OF 34TH STREET FROM UPLAND AVENUE TO ALCOVE AVENUE ON THE 2024 BOND.

THIS WILL BE FOR THREE LANES AT AN ULTIMATE PROFILE AND ULTIMATE PAVEMENT SECTION.

AGENDA ITEM 5.18 IS A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONTRACT WITH CONSOR ENGINEERS FOR $945,548

[01:05:05]

WITH 15 MONTHS FOR DESIGN OF 146 FROM QUAKER AVENUE TO SLIDE ROAD FOR THREE LANES AT THE ULTIMATE PROFILE AND THE ULTIMATE PAVEMENT SECTION.

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AND I'VE GOT EXHIBITS OF BOTH.

>> COUNCILMAN GLASHIN.

>> THANK YOU. THESE ARE BOTH CLOSE TO ONE MILLION DOLLAR CONTRACTS.

WHAT COMPETITIVE BIDDING, IF ANY, IS THERE IN THIS SELECTION PROCESS?

>> WHEN IT COMES TO ENGINEERING, WE CANNOT DO IT IS ILLEGAL TO DO IT BY STATE LAW.

WE HAVE TO DO IT BY QUALIFICATIONS BASED.

WE PUT A NEW RFQ OUT FOR THE 2024 BOND, WHERE WE TRIED TO SEEK OUT MORE ENGINEERS TO DIVERSIFY SELECTION AND WE SELECTED THE BEST THAT WE HAD FROM THE 2022 BOND AGAIN AND RE UTILIZED THEM BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THEY WERE GIVING US GREAT CUSTOMER SERVICE WHICH IN TURN GIVES GREAT CUSTOMER SERVICE TO OUR CITIZENS, AS WELL AS THEY TRIED TO KEEP DOWN OUR COSTS.

REALLY, PARK HILL DID THE ORIGINAL 146, AND WE HAD A GREAT TURNOUT FROM THAT, AND THEY PROVIDED REALLY GOOD SERVICE TO US ON THAT PROJECT.

THEN CONSOR IS A NEW ENGINEER THAT WE CHOSE TO PROCEED FORWARD WITH AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT WITH OUR NEW ENGINEER, WE DID A LOT OF NEGOTIATION.

IT TOOK US SOME TIME.

THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A MOVING TARGET BECAUSE WE HAD A CHANGE ORDER THAT OCCURRED ON 146 WHERE WE BUILT A PORTION OF THAT PHASE AND SO WE ACTUALLY STARTED AT CLOSE TO 1.5 MILLION WITH CONSOR AND BROUGHT THEM DOWN TO WHERE YOU'RE SEEING THE 945,000 TODAY.

>> YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT STATE LAW PROHIBITS THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PRICE OF THE CONTRACT AS ONE OF THE ITEMS?

>> THE WAY IT WORKS IS WE CAN'T CONSIDER IT UPFRONT, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY NEGOTIATE AND IF THEY WILL NOT REACH A PRICE THAT IS AMENABLE TO US, THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ENGINEER, WHICH WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.

>> TELL ME ABOUT WHY, IN YOUR OPINION, THESE ARE COMPETITIVE COSTS FOR THESE ENGAGEMENTS.

>> I WOULD SAY IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL, SO PARK HILL, THERE'S SOME DEFINITE INTRICACY TO THIS PROJECT, IT HAS A RAILROAD THAT RUNS RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT AND SO THERE'S A LOT OF TIME THAT IT TAKES THERE.

THEN WITH THE CONSOR PART, THERE'S TEXT DOTS INVOLVED ON IT, AND THEY'RE ACTIVELY WORKING ON THE SLIDE ROW PORTION SO THERE'S GOING TO BE QUITE A BIT OF ENGAGEMENT FROM THEM.

IF YOU LOOK AT OUR OVERALL JUST COSTS, WE HAVE ACTUALLY BROUGHT DOWN THOSE CONTRACTS FROM, I WOULD SAY, PRIOR YEARS EVEN.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM, IF I MAY.

JOHN, A BIG PART OF HOW YOU'RE ABLE TO BENCHMARK THAT IS A PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST FOR HEARING SERVICES.

YOU CAN COMPARE THESE THEN TO PRIOR PROJECTS THAT WE'VE HAD?

>> ABSOLUTELY. THAT IS A GUIDANCE.

SOME GUIDANCE SAYS 10% OF TOTAL COST.

I TRY NOT TO LOOK AT THAT.

I TRY TO LOOK AT AT A PER EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT, HOW EASY IS THIS PROJECT TO PERFORM? ARE WE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF UTILITIES TO MOVE.

IT'S INTRICATE FROM A STANDPOINT OF WE HAVE TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND DEALING WITH AND SO WHEN WE GET INTO THIS, WE KNOW ABOUT WHERE WE SHOULD BE.

THAT'S WHY WE DID WORK SO HARD WITH CONSOR TO GET THEIR PRICE DOWN BECAUSE WE DID NOT BELIEVE WHAT THEY INITIALLY STARTED WITH WAS A FAIR COST TO OUR CITIZENS.

>> WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 5.17 AND 5.18?

>> YES, SIR.

>> MOTION BY DR. WILSON AND SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ROSE.

>> ALL OPPOSE, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES.

WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5.23.

[23. Resolution - Public Health Services: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an Agreement, and all related documents, by and between the City of Lubbock, Cardea, and the Texas Department of State Health Services, outlining procedures of collaboration, related to the Texas Infertility Prevention Project.]

[24. Resolution - Public Health Services: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Subaward Agreement UTAUS-SUB00001984, and all related documents, by and between the City of Lubbock and the University of Texas at Austin, under the Health and Human Services Commission's Innovative Healing Centered Projects Youth Expansion Grant Program.]

AGAIN, I'LL CALL ON OUR CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. I'LL MAKE THE SAME REQUEST.

MAYBE WE DO 23 AND 24 TOGETHER OR AT LEAST THE PRESENTATION IS SET UP THAT WAY.

WE WILL ASK DR. WELLS TO COME FORWARD AND PROVIDE THAT.

>> [BACKGROUND] [INAUDIBLE] GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL.

I'M HERE TO PRESENT ON ITEM 5.23 AND 5.24,

[01:10:05]

TWO SEPARATE ITEMS FOR LUBBOCK PUBLIC HEALTH.

ITEM 5.23 IS PROCEDURES OF COLLABORATION FOR THE TEXAS INFERTILITY PREVENTION PROJECT.

THIS IS A PROJECT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT'S BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST 25 YEARS WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES, AND ANOTHER SIGNER OF THE CONTRACT IS CARDEA, WHICH IS A CONTRACTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES THAT OPERATES THE PROGRAM.

THE GOAL OF THE PROGRAM IS TO REDUCE THE BURDEN OF BOTH CHLAMYDIA AND GONORRHEA IN OUR COMMUNITY.

THE PROGRAM ALLOCATES A NUMBER OF TESTS TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT PER YEAR.

THAT ALLOCATION RANGES FROM ABOUT 1,500 TO 3,000 TESTS ANNUALLY.

LAST YEAR FOR STATE FISCAL YEAR, 2025, WE WERE ABLE TO SERVE 1,355 PEOPLE THROUGH THAT PROGRAM.

WE WERE ABLE TO DIAGNOSE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GONORRHEA AND CHLAMYDIA, 11% OF ALL FEMALES TESTED, 14% OF MALES TESTED POSITIVE THROUGH THIS PROGRAM, WITH GONORRHEA IT WAS 5%, AND 8%.

THERE WAS NO DIRECT COST TO THE CITY.

THIS IS AN IN KIND CONTRACT, OR MOU, AND WHAT'S PROVIDED TO US IS ALL OF THE SUPPLIES.

SO THE TEST TUBES, PIPETTES, THE LAB PROCESSING COSTS, THE SHIPPING OF THOSE LABORATORY SPECIMENS TO A TREATMENT OR TO A LAB, AND THEN ALSO THE TREATMENT MEDICATION, SO WE CAN GIVE THE MEDICATIONS TO OUR COMMUNITY.

IF WE HAVE TO GO OUT FOR RETAIL TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE, OR IF PEOPLE HAD TO GO OUT, IT WOULD COST THE LUBBOCK COMMUNITY BETWEEN $150-350,000 ANNUALLY.

I'M SORRY, THERE'S AN EXTRA ZERO ON THAT SLIDE.

THAT COST DOESN'T INCLUDE THE PREVENTATIVE SAVINGS TO THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FROM THE COMPLICATIONS OF GONORRHEA AND CHLAMYDIA, WHICH INCLUDES INFERTILITY, STILL BIRTH OR BIRTH COMPLICATIONS, INCLUDING NEWBORN BLINDNESS.

THE SECOND CONTRACT IS 5.24, AND THIS IS OUR INNOVATIVE HEALING CENTERED PROJECT.

THIS IS A PROJECT THAT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT STARTED ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AND AUSTIN.

IT'S A SUBCONTRACT UNDER THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

ORIGINALLY, THERE WERE 14 CONTRACTORS AND BECAUSE OF OUR SUCCESS WITH THE INITIAL PROJECT, WE WERE ONE OF FOUR ENTITIES THAT WAS SELECTED TO CONTINUE THIS WORK.

IT IS CALLED AN EXPANSION, BUT IT'S REALLY A CONTINUATION OF SOME OF THE WORK WE WERE DOING PREVIOUSLY.

THE TARGET POPULATION FOR THIS CONTRACT IS YOUTH AND FAMILIES INVOLVED IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

THE PROGRAM FOCUS IS TO DELIVER EVIDENCE BASED PREVENTION CURRICULUM IN SCHOOLS, AND IN COMMUNITY SETTINGS.

THE GOAL IS TO BUILD RESILIENCE, PROMOTE HEALTHY DECISION MAKING, AND STRENGTHEN POSITIVE COPING SKILLS.

THE PROGRAM ALSO SUPPLIES SUPPORT SERVICES, SCREENING FOR PARTICIPANTS FOR ADDITIONAL NEEDS, AND DOING LINKAGE INTO OTHER COMMUNITY SERVICES, AND PROVIDING ONGOING CASE MANAGEMENT AND SERVICE LINKAGE.

THE CONTRACT OR THE GRANT WILL COVER THE COST OF TWO FULL TIME FTES, AND WE ANTICIPATE TO REACH AT LEAST 600 STUDENTS THROUGH THIS.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, DR. WELLS, AND COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN.

>> THANK YOU. DR. WELLS, WHEN YOU SAY YOUTH AND FAMILY INVOLVED IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, IS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION?

>> IT COULD BE, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT KIDS THAT MIGHT HAVE AN OFFENSE AT SCHOOL FOR VAPING OR MARIJUANA USE, SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT THEM TO GO INTO SOME INTERVENTION PROGRAM.

THE IDEA IS TO OFFER THIS CURRICULUM THROUGH SOME OF OUR ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS WITHIN LUBBOCK COUNTY, AND THEN ALSO HAVE SOME COMMUNITY BASED CLASSES OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY.

>> THAT WASN'T CLEAR TO ME FROM THE AGENDA MATERIALS OR THE INFORMATION ON UT'S WEBSITE ABOUT THE PROGRAM IS WHERE ARE THE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS THAT YOU'RE GETTING ACCESS TO THESE CHILDREN?

>> WE'RE STILL WORKING ON THAT.

I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE ANY PROMISES TO OUR INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS UNTIL WE ACTUALLY HAD THE GRANT SIGNED.

[01:15:03]

WE WERE TALKING TO ALL OF THE LUBBOCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, SOME OF OUR ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE SPACE AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO OFFER CLASSES IN THE EVENING.

>> WHEN YOU'VE DONE THIS PROGRAM IN PREVIOUS YEARS, WAS THAT IN COORDINATION WITH LISD?

>> THERE WAS A PIVOT IN THIS PROGRAM.

THE PREVIOUS ONE WAS MUCH MORE FOCUSED ON YOUNG ADULTS.

WE WERE OFFERING ANGER MANAGEMENT.

WE WERE OFFERING SOME FAMILY COUNSELING PROGRAMS, AND THOSE WERE ALL DONE AT THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE TRUE FOCUS HAS BEEN ON YOUTH OR 100% OF THE FOCUS OF THE GRANT'S BEEN ON YOUTH.

>> OUTSIDE OF LISDS, ALTERNATIVE SCHOOLS, AND THE LUBBOCK HEALTH DEPARTMENT ITSELF, WHERE ELSE DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE CHILDREN WHO ARE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM?

>> WE'LL BE REACHING OUT TO COOPER, FRIENDSHIP, ROOSEVELT, ALL OF THE DIFFERENT INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTY.

>> WHAT IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROGRAMMING FOR SUBSTANCE USE PREVENTION?

>> THE EXACT CURRICULUM THAT'S BEING USED IS STILL BEING NEGOTIATED WITH THE STATE.

THE STATE WANTS TO USE THE SAME CURRICULUM AT ALL FOUR PARTNER CITIES.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> WITH THAT, IS THERE A MOTION, OR ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION FOR DR. WELLS? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 5.23 AND 5.24?

>> MOVED.

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

>> SECOND BY DR. WILSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE.

>> COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.

>> THANK YOU. DR. WELLS, YOU MAY BE SEATED.

>> THANK YOU, DR. WELLS.

>> ON 5.23, I FEEL STRONGLY THAT IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO BE INVOLVED IN ANY FORM OF HEALTH CARE, AND WHETHER OR NOT IT USES PASS THROUGH FUNDING, IT'S INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE CITY TO BE INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF DIAGNOSING, TREATING, AND GIVING FREE MEDICATION TO PEOPLE WITH SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES, SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS.

THIS IS NOT A POLICY OR A PROGRAM THAT THE CITY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN, OR THAT WE WANT TO BE INVOLVED WITH IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I KNOW IT DOESN'T COST THE CITY A DOLLAR DIRECTLY, BUT I THINK WE HAVE VERY FEW DETAILS ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE PROGRAM, HOW THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE USED, WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED, AND DEEP RESERVATIONS ABOUT GIVING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN THE COMMUNITY FOR A PROGRAM THAT WE DON'T EVEN KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE AT THIS POINT.

I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE AGAINST 5.23 AND TABLE 5.24 UNTIL THERE'S MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE PROGRAMMING PRESENTED.

>> WITH THAT, I THINK WE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND.

WE'LL NOW TAKE UP ITEM 5.31.

>> ALL OPPOSE SAME SIGN.

>> NAY.

>> MOTION CARRIES 4-1.

[31. Resolution - Human Resources, Benefits: Consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute Interlocal Corporation Agreement/Contract 19199, and all related documents, by and between the City of Lubbock and the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, on behalf of the School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, for the Employee Assistance Program.]

AGAIN, I'LL CALL OUR CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE THE BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

>> THANK YOU, AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MS. ELIZABETH LARA COME UP AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT ITEM 5.31, THE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT IS OFFERED THROUGH THE CITY.

[BACKGROUND]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNCIL.

I AM HERE TO PRESENT ON AGENDA ITEM 5.31, WHICH IS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK AND TTUHSC COUNSELING CENTER FOR OUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR, WE WENT THROUGH AN RFP FOR ALL OF OUR HEALTH SERVICES, INCLUDING OUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER RANKED HIGHEST OUT OF THE SIX LISTED ON THIS SCREEN.

SOME ADDITIONAL FACTORS THAT ATTRIBUTED OUR DECISION IN ELECTING THE HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER FOR OUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM,

[01:20:04]

WAS THEY ARE OUR CURRENT PROVIDER.

WE CURRENTLY DO HAVE APPROXIMATELY 689 EMPLOYEES AND DEPENDENTS WHO USE THOSE SERVICES.

THERE WAS ALSO A REDUCTION IN COST TO THE CITY OF 8.6%, AND OVER THE PAST FOUR FISCAL YEARS WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN USAGE OF 33%.

THE BEST AND FINAL OFFER RATE WAS A GUARANTEE $2.07 PER EMPLOYEE PER MONTH FOR TWO YEARS, SO THAT WAS INCORRECT IN THE AGENDA INFORMATION THAT WAS PRESENTED.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE QUESTIONS.

>> COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN.

>> WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED MONTHLY COST OF THIS PROGRAM?

>> COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN, I BELIEVE THAT IS CLOSE TO $5,800.

>> 5,800?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S $2.07 PER EMPLOYEE PER MONTH.

LET ME GIVE YOU THE EXACT NUMBER.

I ACTUALLY HAVE THAT FOR YOU.

THE EXACT COST PER MONTH IS ACTUALLY $5,125.32, AND THAT'S $2.07 FOR 2,476 EMPLOYEES.

>> WHAT WAS THE AMOUNT QUOTED IN THE AGENDA BACKUP? I DON'T HAVE THAT PAGE WITH ME.

>> ONE MOMENT AND I'LL PULL THAT.

>> WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NUMBER QUOTED IN THE AGENDA MATERIALS AND THE NUMBER THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING TODAY?

>> 61,500.

>> THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, SIR.

THAT'S SOME MONTHLY VERSUS ANNUALLY.

THE 61,503 IS THE ANNUAL AMOUNT.

INITIALLY, WHEN THE HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER PRESENTED THEIR DOCUMENTS, THEY CAME BACK TO US WITH $2.12, SO WE WERE ABLE TO GET THEM TO GO DOWN TO $2.07, WHICH IS A SLIGHT REDUCTION, BUT STILL A REDUCTION.

>> WHAT TYPES OF SERVICES ARE PROVIDED UNDER THIS CONTRACT?

>> THE MAJORITY ARE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, SO COUNSELING FOR EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS, AND ALSO SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

>> THANK YOU. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY. I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

>> SURE.

>> WHEN DID THE CITY START PROVIDING THIS PROGRAM ON TOP OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE THAT IT PROVIDES?

>> WE'VE HAD AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM AVAILABLE SINCE AT LEAST WHEN I CAME BACK, WHICH WAS 2016.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE EMPLOYEE HEALTH COVERAGE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING OR SUBSTANCE ABUSE SERVICES?

>> OUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROVIDER IS THE CARVE OUT FROM THE HEALTH PLAN TO PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES.

IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN ROLLED IN WITH YOUR GENERAL LIKE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD.

WE DON'T PAY A COMPONENT TO THEM TO BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD FOR THAT, RATHER WE HAVE AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.

>> THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT, AND NO DOUBT WE WANT TO PROVIDE TO OUR MOST SIGNIFICANT ASSET, OUR EMPLOYEES, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

YOU WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.31?

>> MOVED.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN GLASHEEN. CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCILMAN ROSE.

WE WILL NOW GO TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA.

>> ALL OPPOSE SAME SIGN.

MOTION CARRIES.

THE COUNCIL NOW TAKE UP ITS REGULAR AGENDA.

[1. Board Appointments - City Secretary: Consider appointments to the Electric Utility Board.]

ITEM 6.1, TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BOARD.

I'M GOING TO CALL ON OUR CITY SECRETARY, MS. COURTNEY PAZ, TO PROVIDE THE BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BOARD.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.

THE ELECTRIC UTILITY BOARD MET LAST WEEK AND ARE RECOMMENDING THOMAS PARKER TO REPLACE DAN WILSON, WHOSE TERM WOULD BEGIN ON NOVEMBER 1, IF APPOINTED TODAY.

I'LL BE PLEASED TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION?

>> MOTION MOVED.

>> MOTION BY DR. WILSON.

CAN I GET A SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

THE COUNCIL WILL NOW TAKE UP AN AGENDA ITEM 6.2,

>> ALL OPPOSE SAME SIGN.

[01:25:01]

[2. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 2993-B, a request of Mountain Top Engineering for The Worship Center, for a zone change from Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC) and Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), at 7205 82nd Street, located east of Upland Avenue and south of 82nd Street, Westwood Addition, Tract D-2-A, and consider an ordinance.]

A CONSOLIDATED PUBLIC HEARING FOR ZONE CASE 2993-B.

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

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

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

I NOW CALL ON THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE KRISTEN SAGER.

IF YOU'LL GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF TO THE PUBLIC AND ALSO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE ZONING SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> HELLO, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL.

I'M GREG HERNANDEZ, THE PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER.

THIS IS ZONE CASE 2993-B.

THE APPLICANT IS MOUNTAINTOP ENGINEERING FOR THE WORSHIP CENTER, REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

26 LETTERS WERE SENT OUT.

WE RECEIVED TWO BACK IN OPPOSITION.

SOME OF THE REASONS LISTED WERE THE NOISE, ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, AND THEN ADDITIONAL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING OF 82ND STREET.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 82ND AND EAST OF UPLAND AVENUE.

HERE'S A NOTIFICATION MAP SHOWING THE TWO IN OPPOSITION.

>> HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY.

TO THE NORTH, YOU HAVE A CHURCH TO THE EAST AND WEST OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, AND THEN TO THE SOUTH IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.

HERE IS THE CURRENT ZONING MAP, TO THE WEST IS AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL, TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, OR LOW DENSITY, SINGLE FAMILY, AND THEN TO THE EAST IS OFFICE DISTRICT.

THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL USES.

HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY, AS WELL AS VIEWS TO THE EAST NORTH AND WEST.

THIS SLIDE WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWING PARKING IN THE AREA THAT THEY'RE USING.

ALSO, IT'S SHOWING A SITE PLAN OF THE PROPOSED PARKING THAT THEY INTEND TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY AND A PROPOSED CROSSWALK ALONG 82ND STREET.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USE.

THE REQUEST TO CONFORMS TO THIS DESIGNATION AND WOULD BE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERING THE EXISTING ADJACENT ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USES.

THEREFORE, THIS REQUEST IS IN COMPLETE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRINCIPLES.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

THE LOCATION IS ALONG 82ND STREET, WHICH IS A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL, AND 83RD STREET, WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS A LOCAL STREET BY THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN 2018.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BY A VOTE OF 700, AND I CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. HERNANDEZ.

IF NOT I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 6.2.

IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONING CASE? THAT'S NOT A FORMER EMPLOYEE JUST KIDDING.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM AND CITY COUNCIL.

I'M TOMMY HARMES WITH MOUNT TOP ENGINEERING HERE ON BEHALF OF THE WORSHIP CENTER.

WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE IS TO CHANGE A PROPERTY THAT IS READY PARTIALLY AC TO FOLEY AC, THAT PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED AND IS INTENDED TO BE USED AS A PARKING LOT.

AS SHOWN, THERE IS A CROSSWALK, BUT I'VE ALSO BEEN COORDINATING WITH OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING UP A FULL STREET SIGNAL.

IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE A CROSS WALK WHERE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO SHOVEL PEOPLE ACROSS IT.

IT'S GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO BE FULL CITY OF LUBBOCK STANDARDS, AND THE CITY OF LUBBOCK WILL ACTUALLY TAKE OVER MAINTENANCE OF THE BEACON.

THAT'S ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY.

I GUESS, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS> COUNCILMAN GLASHIN?

>> YOU MENTIONED, SIR THAT THE INTENTIONS FOR THE CITY TO TAKE OVER LONG TERM MAINTENANCE OF THIS BEACON AND SO THIS MAY BE DIRECTED MORE TO STAFF AS WELL.

THAT'S NOT PART OF THE ZONE CHANGE THAT WE'RE APPROVING AT THIS POINT, CORRECT? WHAT IS THE MECHANISM THAT WOULD APPROVE THIS LIGHT BEING PUT INTO PLACE AND THEN MAINTAINED BY THE CITY INDEFINITELY?

>> YES. FIRST, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, COUNCILMAN GLASHIN, THIS IS JUST A ZONING CHANGE. THAT'S ALL IT DOES.

YOU APPROVING THE ZONING CHANGE HERE TO

[01:30:01]

THE PARTICULAR CHANGE ZONING DOESN'T ACTUALLY APPROVE THE CROSSWALK, THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IF THEY WERE TO SIT THERE AND GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS OF GETTING A CROSSWALK APPROVED FOR THAT STREET, GOING THROUGH OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THEN IF IT'S GOING TO BE TURNED OVER TO THE CITY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DEDICATE IT TO THE CITY, AND WE WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY ACCEPT IT.

[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S THE GOVERNING BODY WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO ACCEPT IT.

>> I WANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION NOW BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE A CROSSWALK THAT REALLY ONLY BENEFITS THAT PARTICULAR CHURCH TO ACCESS ITS PARKING LOT AND HAVE A CONVENIENT CROSSING TO GET TO ITS PROPERTY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82ND.

I CAN'T SPEAK FOR OTHERS, BUT I HAVE SOME REAL RESERVATIONS ABOUT ACCEPTING EQUIPMENT UNDER THOSE TERMS AND IF THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION IN THE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST, THAT'S FINE.

I THINK THAT THE ZONE CHANGE AS PRESENTED IS APPROPRIATE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT, BUT LOOKING AT THE LONG TERM USE OF IT, I WOULD CAUTION YOU AGAINST RELYING ON THE CITY ACCEPTING THE COST OF MAINTAINING SOMETHING FOR THE EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT OF THE CHURCH.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY-

>> I WOULD JUST ADD THAT AT PROBABLY THE APPROPRIATE TIME FROM WHENEVER YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY'D HAVE TO REMOVE IT.

IT WAS NO LONGER BEING USED BY THE CHURCH.

AT THEIR EXPENSE OR SOMETHING WOULD BE AT THE TIME THAT WE ACTUALLY ACCEPT OR DON'T ACCEPT THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL.

BUT THIS ZONE CHANGE, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A PART OF THIS ACTUAL ZONE CHANGE.

>> GO AHEAD.

WHAT PERMISSION IS NECESSARY FOR SOMEONE TO BUILD A STRUCTURE LIKE THAT IN THE CITY'S RIGHT AWAY?

>> NORMALLY IN RIGHT AWAY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET SOME TYPE OF ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT OR SOME TYPE OF LICENSE AGREEMENT AND SO IT WOULD BE IN THAT TYPE OF AGREEMENT.

ALL OUR STANDARD FORMS FOR WHEN YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WHERE YOU'RE IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY, STANDARD LANGUAGE IS THAT IF WE GRANT IT, THEN YOU HAVE TO REMOVE THAT PARTICULAR STRUCTURE, WHETHER IT'S A FENCE, WHETHER IT'S WHATEVER IT IS, IF IT'S NO LONGER BEING USED, OR IF WE NEED TO USE OUR RIGHT OF WAY, THEN WE CAN REQUIRE YOU TO REMOVE IT.

THAT'S WHEN IT WILL BE PUT IN THERE.

>> THAT WILL COME TO COUNCIL ACTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE RIGHT WAY ENCROACHMENT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. I DON'T GUESS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY AND I THINK WE'VE ENCOUNTERED THIS BEFORE.

>> COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

THE ZONE CASE IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON THE BUILDING OF THE CROSSWALK, AND IT CANNOT BE.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> PUT IN THE LANGUAGE?

>> NO. IT'S NOT THE APPROPRIATE PLACE FOR THAT.

WHILE IT'S OKAY TO ASK FOR THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION, THE ZONE CHANGE IS REALLY JUST CHANGING WHETHER THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WILL RUN WITH THE PROPERTY, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT'S STILL USE AS A CHURCH, A PARKING LOT, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IS THAT THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> I THINK ONE OF THE LETTER WRITERS HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT EGRESS AND INGRESS OFF OF 83RD STREET, AND I'D GUESS THAT, AGAIN, IS SOMETHING WE CAN'T REGULATE THROUGH THE ZONE CHANGE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I THINK THAT WOULD MORE LIKELY COME THROUGH SOME TYPE OF PLANTING PROCESS OR SOME TYPE OF BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS WHEN THEY WANT TO SIT THERE AND DO THAT.

>>> I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE AHEAD OF OURSELVES BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING CASE, AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE CHURCH TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR ITSELF.

>> COUNCILMAN ROSE?

IF THEY WANTED TO SHUTTLE WITHOUT THE CROSSWALK ITSELF, YOU COULD SHUTTLE PEOPLE ACROSS IN A CAR.

I THINK WE NEED TO FOCUS ON THE ZONE CASE ITSELF, AND THEN WHEN OR IF THE CROSSWALK AND THE LIGHT COMES UP, THEN WE CAN GO OVER THAT THEN.

>> ALL I WAS GOING TO ADD, VERY GOOD POINT, COUNCILMAN ROSE AND THAT'S AN ADEQUATE POINT.

REMEMBER WE'RE STILL ON THE PUBLIC HEARING PART OF THIS.

>> YES DR. WILSON?

>> ISN'T THERE A PERIMETER FENCE THAT'S ON THAT BACK SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY BETWEEN THE PROPERTY AND 83RD STREET ALREADY?

>> YES, MA'AM. THAT IS CORRECT COUNCILWOMAN.

THERE IS A SIX FOOT RICK FENCE THAT IS INTENDED TO STAY IN PLACE.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S A SOLID MASONRY FENCE, NOT EVEN JUST THE WOOD FENCE. THANK YOU.

>> WHICH I BELIEVE ALSO ADDRESSES THE NOISE CONCERN FROM ONE OF THE LETTER WRITERS.

>> ALSO, TO ADD AT THE PLAN ZONING COMMISSION, WE DID HAVE A POLICE OFFICER THAT WAS RETIRED.

HE ACTUALLY TOOK HIS DISARMEOR, AND WENT OUT THERE AND DID READINGS DURING SERVICES AND THERE WAS NOTHING AND THAT WAS BEING PICKED UP AND WHEN THIS PARKING LOT WAS BEING DETECTED SO TOOK AWAY FROM THE RELEVANCE OF THE COMPLAINT IN OUR EYES.

[01:35:03]

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT, IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? SORRY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

YOU WANTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF?

>> YES MA'AM.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL. MY NAME IS JOHN CAMPBELL.

I LIVE AT 9105 JO AVENUE.

I SERVE ON THE BOARD OF THE WORSHIP CENTER AND SO I'M HERE TO ASK YOU GUYS TO HELP US WITH THE SITUATION THAT WE'VE GOT.

IF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN IN THE AREA, I KNOW I'VE TALKED TO A COUPLE OF YOU GUYS INDIVIDUALLY, AND WE'VE GOT A MAJOR SITUATION THAT'S OUT THERE THAT'S JUST A LIABILITY WAITING TO HAPPEN, AND THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN DENY IT.

WE HAVE A GREAT PROBLEM.

WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE COME TO CHURCH.

WE ALSO HAVE A PROBLEM BUT WE HAVE A SAFETY.

AS A BOARD MEMBER, WE'VE GOT TO PROTECT JUST LIKE IT'S YOUR JOB TO PROTECT AS WELL.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROPOSE IS WE HAVE TO HAVE THE TRAFFIC STOP.

CAN SOMEONE PUT UP THE PLAN BEFORE THAT SHOWS THE PARKING LOT LAYOUT? BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

RIGHT NOW, OUR BEST ESTIMATION IS WE HAVE ABOUT 140 PARKING SPACES THAT WE HAVE ACCESS TO BY WRITTEN PERMISSION AND EVERYTHING INVOLVED.

GREAT NEIGHBORS THAT ARE HELPING US OUT AT THIS TIME.

BUT THE REASON WE PURCHASED THIS WAS BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PEDESTRIANS BEING SPREAD OUT ALONG A WHOLE, 300 YARD AREA THERE AND I'VE WATCHED AND YOU CAN DO THE EXACT SAME THING.

YOU CAN WATCH PEOPLE WALK ACROSS THE STREET HERE, AND NO ONE GOES TO THAT CROSSWALK.

EVERYONE'S GOING TO TAKE THE PATH OF SHORTEST RESISTANCE. IT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS.

WHEN WE DID THE ZONING, I BROUGHT THAT UP AND I SAID, I WATCHED 27 PEOPLE ACROSS 26 WENT STRAIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THEY DIDN'T GO TO THE PARKING SPOT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT GOING HERE.

WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS FOR SAFETY REASONS IS FUNNEL EVERYONE DOWN TO THIS PARKING LOT, WHICH HAS 200, AND I BELIEVE 17 SPOTS WHICH ARE OVERSIZED PARKING SPOTS SO WE'VE EVEN ACCOMMODATED FOR MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE.

AGAIN, WE HAVE 140 AVAILABLE.

I DON'T THINK WE'RE USING 100 YET BUT THE POINT OF IT IS THAT WE'RE BUILDING MORE THAN WHAT WE NEED.

BUT WE'RE ALSO WANTING TO PUT SOME THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO PUT SHRUBS UP FRONT AND WE SAID, CAN WE PUT SOME A TWO LAYER FENCE THERE, SEE THROUGH FENCE WITH MAYBE PIPE RAILING, JUST A SUGGESTION? BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY TO FUNNEL TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN CROSS.

WE HAVE POLICE OFFICERS THAT ARE THERE BUT IT DOESN'T STOP PEOPLE.

WE HAVE FAMILIES THAT ARE LITERALLY GRABBING THEIR KIDS AND RUNNING ACROSS THE STREET. WE'RE PLAYING FROGGER.

IT'S NOT IF IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, IT'S WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

I'M ASKING YOU GUYS TO PARTNER WITH US.

WE NEED BOTH OF THESE THINGS TAKEN CARE OF.

WE NEED THE APPROVAL OF THE CROSSWALK.

IF WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT, THEN THAT'S JUST WHAT IT IS.

BUT AT THE EXPENSE OF SOMEONE GETTING RUN OVER AND IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, GUYS, EVERY OFFICER THAT WE'VE HAD OUT THERE HAS SAID, THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT'S NOT AN IF.

WE HAVE CLOSED, WE HAVE ACCIDENTS OUT THERE ALL THE TIME.

THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE TWO OFFICERS THAT STAND THERE AND MARK VEHICLES BEING PAID, I GET BUT THEY'RE WAVING THEIR HANDS AND TELLING PEOPLE TO STOP.

THERE'S NOTHING AT A DISTANCE THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE FROM A HEIGHT THAT GIVES YOU ANY WARNING THAT THIS TRAFFIC IS SLOWING DOWN.

IT LITERALLY IS PEOPLE ARE GOING GOING AND THEN THEY'RE JUST COMING TO A SCREECH AND HAT.

MEANWHILE, YOU'VE GOT PARENTS THAT ARE FOGGERING KIDS THROUGH LIKE THE FAIRGROUND.

YOU SEE THE MADNESS WHEN YOU'RE OUT AT THE FAIRGROUND, IT'S JUST WHAT IT IS AND IT'S A GREAT PROBLEM FOR US TO HAVE, BUT IT'S ALSO A GREAT PROBLEM THAT WE AS A COMMUNITY NEED TO SOLVE AND WE HAVE THE ACCESS.

WE'RE PAYING FOR THE CROSSWALK, THAT IT'S NO EXPENSE TO YOU GUYS.

WE'RE PUTTING IN EVERYTHING AT THE CORNER LOT.

IF YOU SEE HOW WE DID THE CORNER IT LOOKS GREAT.

IT'S ALWAYS WELL TAKEN CARE OF.

WE'RE HERE TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, AND WE ARE HERE TO STAY IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE, AND LORD WILLING, IT'S ONLY GOING TO KEEP GETTING MORE.

WE DON'T THINK IT'S A PROBLEM, WE JUST SEE IT AS A PROBLEM AS WE HAVE A SAFETY CONCERN.

WE'RE ASKING YOU GUYS TO PARTNER WITH US AND SOLVE THIS BECAUSE THE CUSTOMER OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS A COMPLAINT, WE DID SEND AN OFFERS OUT THERE, AND WE EVEN SAID, HEY, WE TOOK A NOISE THING.

WE WALKED NOT MORE THAN 50-70 FEET AND THERE WAS NO NOISE EVEN REGISTERING, JUST TRAFFIC THAT WAS DRIVING BY.

AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE OTHER PERSON THAT FILED IT DOESN'T HEAR WHAT HE HEARS.

BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE OFFICER SAID THAT THAT DOESN'T QUALIFY AS A NOISE COMPLAINT AND IF IT DOES, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO CALL INTO THE CITY AND CALL A NOISE COMPLAINT AND THEN THAT OFFICER CAN MAKE THE JUDGMENT.

BUT WE'RE HERE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE CARE OF OUR CITIZENS AND OUR CONGREGATION AND SO I'M HOPING THAT YOU GUYS WILL PULL BACK ON THE IDEA THAT WE DON'T GET BOTH OF THESE THINGS BECAUSE IT'S VERY NECESSARY RIGHT NOW JUST SO YOU KNOW, MR. GLASHIN, WE HAVE SHUTTLES RUNNING FROM BOTH PLACES.

WE HAVE PROBABLY 20 VOLUNTEERS TRYING TO HUSTLE EVERYBODY TO THE OFFICERS.

BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT STOPS THAT.

WE DO RUN SHUTTLES RIGHT NOW, BUT PEOPLE ARE STILL GOING ACROSS.

THE WAY WE SEE IT IS IF WE CAN CONDENSE THIS DOWN, FENCE THE AREA OFF WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT LESS AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO CROSS, THEN WE CAN SHUTTLE THEM TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN LITERALLY WALK THEM ACROSS, AND OUR RECOMMENDATION IN THE ZONING WAS THAT THE OFFICERS THAT WE DO HAVE,

[01:40:02]

WE WOULD MAINTAIN THEM AND WE WOULD ACTUALLY ISSUE CROSS WALKING CITATIONS BECAUSE WE NEED THAT TO BE IMPORTANT.

IT'S GOT TO BE BEHIND US.

WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME PUNISHMENT FOR PEOPLE NOT FOLLOWING WHAT WE'VE SAT IN PLACE.

WE'RE GOING TO GREAT EXPENSE TO PROTECT PEOPLE AND WE'RE ASKING YOU GUYS TO HELP US WITH THAT, BUT WE DO NEED BOTH.

I KNOW THIS MAY NOT BE THE TIME OF THE PLACE, BUT I'M ASKING TO HAVE THAT RESOLUTION WHERE IF WE GET ONE, WE GET BOTH BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE IF THERE'S ANY WAY POSSIBLE.

I'LL LEAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> WE DO HAVE A CONTAINMENT AREA.

WE ASK, WE ARE BUILDING A CONTAINMENT AREA.

YOU SEE THE PARKING SPOTS LIKE WHERE THE YELLOW LINE IS.

WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO BUILD LIKE A CONTAINMENT AREA, IF YOU WILL, SO THAT WHILE PEOPLE ARE WAITING ON THE THREE OR FIVE MINUTE, IT IS DELAY.

WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE STANDING UP ON THE CROSSWALK.

WE HAVE AN AREA THAT'S SET BACK OFF THE STREET SO WE DON'T HAVE PEDESTRIANS JUST WAITING AT THE CURB LINE.

WE'RE PUTTING EXTRA MEASURES IN PLACE TO BUILD A BULL PIN, IF YOU WILL, ON BOTH SIDES TO HOLD THAT CONGREGATION WHILE WE WAIT ON THE THREE MINUTE TRAFFIC STOP TO TAKE PLACE.

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER FOLKS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS? IF NOT, IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? WE WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT TIME IT IS, 3:40.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 6.2?

>> MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN WILSON.

SECOND BY COUNCILMAN COLLINS.

>> ALL OPPOSE SAME SIGN? MOTION CARRIES.

WE WILL NOW TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 6.3 TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE

[3. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Business Development: Consider Ordinance No. 2025-O0126, 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. ]

ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND AN ASSESSMENT ROLE FOR THE HIGHLAND OAKS PID.

I WILL CALL ON BRIANA BROWN, DIRECTOR OF BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE THE BRIEFING ON THIS MATTER.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

>> OF COURSE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR PRO TEM, COUNSEL.

THIS IS THE FINAL STEP IN THE APPROVAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE FOR THE HIGHLAND OAKS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

THIS WILL SET AND LEVY THE ASSESSMENT RATE FOR THOSE HOMEOWNERS AND ALSO FINALIZE THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR THEIR FUTURE WATER PROJECT.

WE WILL BE BRINGING YOU SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS AS WE HELP FACILITATE COLLECTION OF THOSE ASSESSMENTS, AND THEN THE BEGINNING OF THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORK FOR THEIR WATER PROJECT.

BUT YOUR ACTION TODAY FINALIZES THAT ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE AND LEVIES THE FINAL ASSESSMENT.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6.3?