Feb 24, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting

[00:00:03]

IN THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE LUBBOCK CITY COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 24,

[1. Executive Session]

IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.071. DON'T LEAVE YET, EVERYBODY.

TO CONSULT WITH AND SEEK THE ADVICE OF THE CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL ON 551.072.

TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY, THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOW RECESSING AT 31. THE COUNCIL IS NOW RECONVENING IN OPEN SESSION.

WE'LL TAKE UP A WORK SESSION ITEM WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA FOR TODAY. ITEM 2.2 ON OUR AGENDA HAS BEEN REMOVED

[1. Sales Tax Update]

AND SO NOW I'M GOING TO CALL ON JOE, CFO, ANY SUCH A TITLE, JOE? YES, SIR. CFO, ALL RIGHT, TO GIVE US AN UPDATE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I JUST WANTED TO PRESENT YOU ALL WITH A FEBRUARY SALES TAX UPDATE. IF YOU RECALL, THE FEBRUARY SALES TAX THAT WE GET FROM THE COMPTROLLER IS FROM THE DECEMBER REMITTANCE.

SO ALL THE SALES TAX COLLECTED IN DECEMBER IS GIVEN TO US IN FEBRUARY. LOOK HERE, WE HAD A POSITIVE MONTH, THIS IS A SIX MONTH STRAIGHT, THEY WERE POSITIVE.

YEAR-OVER-YEAR. WE CAME IN ABOUT TEN POINT. EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS WITH OUR ACTUAL BUDGET, WHICH IS ABOUT FORTY FOUR THOUSAND, THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY FIVE DOLLARS OVER OUR PROJECTED BUDGET BUDGET. SO IF YOU GO TO THE BOTTOM DOWN HERE, YOU'LL SEE ON THE COLUMN SECOND TO THE RIGHT, THAT'S OUR ACTUAL VERSUS BUDGET. SO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE CURRENTLY ABOUT 6.4% OVER BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR. AND WE'RE ABOUT 5.6 YEAR OVER YEAR. YOU CAN SEE FOR DECEMBER, LAST YEAR WAS ABOUT 11.4 MILLION. THIS YEAR WE CAME IN ABOUT 10.8.

BUT AGAIN, IF YOU REMEMBER BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2024, THERE WAS AN AUDIT. RECALCULATION ON THAT.

SO THAT WAS ABOUT $1.1 MILLION ADDED ADDITIONALLY TO THE DECEMBER REVENUE. SO IF YOU PULL THAT OUT, WE'RE ABOUT 5.4% HIGHER THAN WE WERE LAST YEAR FOR THE DECEMBER. SO ANOTHER GOOD MONTH, GOOD NEWS. AGAIN, THAT'S A SIX-MONTH STRAIGHT THAT WE ARE YEAR OVER YEAR ON THE POSITIVE SIDE. SO IT'S TRENDING GOOD SO FAR. ALL RIGHT, QUESTIONS FOR MR. JIMENEZ. I GOT ONE, SO JUST EXPLAIN TO ME WHY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE 6.4% ABOVE ACTUAL, ABOVE BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR, SO WHY DOES IT LOOK LIKE WE'RE ONLY GOING TO END UP 1.1%? HOW IS IT THAT? THAT, I KNOW IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED TO ME A HUNDRED TIMES, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE, WOULD YOU? GEE, WE OUGHT TO BE FACTORING IT IN ABOUT 5% OR 6% FOR THE YEAR.

WE'RE EXPECTING EVERYTHING TO FALL OFF. HOW DO YOU DO THAT? YEAH, SO WE DO HAVE A MODEL THAT GOES BACK TO 10 YEARS, SO WE USE THAT FORECAST TO PREDICT THOSE NUMBERS. SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST NOT A YEAR-OVER-YEAR TREND. WE ACTUALLY, SO THE 6.4 IS YOUR ACTUALS TO ACTUALS. THE 1.1 IS GOING TO BE YOUR BUDGET TO THE PRIOR YEAR ACTUALS. SO THAT'S WHAT THE MODELS PROJECT.

AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE... IT'S TAKEN IN, IT'S A VERY CONSERVATIVE MODEL, MAYOR, I WILL SAY THAT. SO WE TRY TO BE CONSERVATIVE, AS CONSERVATIVE AS WE CAN BE WITH THIS. AND AGAIN, SO EVERY MONTH IS DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A GOOD MONTH, A BAD MONTH, BUT THAT'S THE WAY THE MODEL POINTS OUT.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE, AUGUST IS A $660,000 REDUCTION FOR YEAR OVER, YEAR ON THAT, BUT THAT'S JUST THE WAY THE MODELS WORK. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN. THAT'S THE ALGORITHM THAT'S GOT US UP TO THIS POINT IN THAT MODEL. HAS THAT MODEL BEEN PRETTY CORRECT OVER TIME? IT REALLY HAS. IT HAS BEEN. YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR WE DID PREDICT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER IN THE BUDGET, BUT WE DID COME UNDER, AS YOU RECALL, THE $5.1 MILLION LAST YEAR. BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THAT BUDGET AT THE END OF THE YEAR HAS BEEN PRETTY SPOT ON.

OKAY. WHAT I LIKE TO HEAR IS THAT THIS IS A VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE, AND THAT GIVES US SOME SENSE OF SECURITY GOING FORWARD.

THAT WE WILL HIT OUR BUDGETED AMOUNTS AND MAYBE EXCEED THEM A LITTLE BIT THIS YEAR, WHICH IS BETTER NEWS THAN WE HAD LAST YEAR. YES, SIR. SO, MR. GERSHANE. AND THIS MAY BE A QUESTION MORE FOR MR. ATKINSON, BUT IS STAFF RECOMMENDING ANY ADJUSTMENT TO OUR SPENDING POLICIES BASED OFF THIS UPDATED INFORMATION? FOR EXAMPLE, AN ADJUSTMENT TO HIRING OR SPENDING? EXCELLENT QUESTION, AND GLAD TO SPEAK TO THAT. SO, RECALL, AND I'LL TRY TO PICK UP A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS. THE MAYOR MAKES A GOOD POINT. THE MODEL DOES NOT LOOK LOGICAL BECAUSE IT IS NOT A TOTAL DIVIDED BY 12. AND ALL OF THAT FUN STUFF. SO RECALL LAST YEAR WE ENDED. UP ROUGHLY

[00:05:02]

SO THE MODEL DOES A GOOD JOB, AND THEN EVERY TIME YOU HAVE AN ACTUAL NUMBER, IT REPLACES A PROJECTED NUMBER.

AND IT CONTINUES TO LEARN AND TO GROW. SO TO SPEAK TO COUNCILMAN GLASHINE, WHEN WE SAW WHAT WAS COMING LAST YEAR, WE IMPLEMENTED A SERIES OF THINGS, THE LARGEST BEING PROBABLY THE NON-PUBLIC SAFETY HIRING FREEZE. WE DID SOME CAPITAL FREEZES THAT WERE CASH CAPITAL, SO DOLLARS THAT WERE IN HAND, PULLED BACK ON TRAINING AND TRAVEL. OTHER THAN WHAT WAS REQUIRED FOR PEOPLE TO MAINTAIN THEIR LICENSURE AND THEIR CONTINUING EDUCATION CREDITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE NOT RELEASED THE HIRING FREEZE IN TOTO. INSTEAD, WE ARE LOOKING AT THOSE ONE POSITION.

AT A TIME AS THEY COME UP.

SOME ARE BEING RELEASED, SOME ARE NOT. WE ARE CLOSE ENOUGH TO STARTING THE BUDGET.

IN FACT, WE'LL BE DOING BUDGET KICKOFFS IN TWO WEEKS. WE'LL TAKE ALL THOSE OPEN POSITIONS AND SEE, CAN THEY BETTER BE FILLED? CAN THEY BETTER BE REPURPOSED? MAYBE TWO POSITIONS BECOME ONE DIFFERENT ONE? OR DO WE CONTINUE TO NEED THEM GOING FORWARD? I DO WANT TO CONGRATULATE ALL OF OUR STAFF THAT WERE IN THOSE DEPARTMENTS. THEY GOT THEIR WORK DONE. THEY REALLY DID. WE DID NOT HAVE A REDUCTION IN SERVICE. SO WE MAY HAVE MORE EFFICIENT OR BETTER USES OF THOSE BASICALLY FROZEN POSITIONS THAT WE HAVE TODAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO COMMEND EVERYONE WHO'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS EFFORT.

TO MONITOR THE DATA AND TO ADJUST OUR SPENDING ACCORDINGLY AND ENCOURAGE TO CONTINUE THE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO BOTH ESTIMATING THE INCOME AND ADJUSTING OUR SPENDING ACCORDINGLY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY, APPRECIATE IT.

YES, I THINK OUR CITIZENS HAVE NOTED THAT THERE ISN'T A REDUCTION IN THE SERVICES. I GET CONSTANT COMMENTS OUT THERE ON HOW WELL THEY THINK THINGS ARE BEING RUN AT THE CITY. SO IT'S NICE TO KNOW THAT WE CAN DO THAT, EVEN WHEN WE'RE TIGHTENING OUR BELTS IN WAYS THAT WERE UNEXPECTED.

SO THAT'S A TESTAMENT TO OUR GREAT CITY EMPLOYEES HERE. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S ALL WE WILL. I GUESS RECESS AGAIN UNTIL 2 O'CLOCK WHEN WE WILL BEGIN OUR REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THANK

[1. Invocation]

[2. Pledges of Allegiance]

[4. Citizen Comments - According to Lubbock City Council Rules, any citizen wishing to appear in-person before a regular meeting of the City Council, regarding any matter posted on the City Council Agenda below, shall complete the sign-up form provided at the meeting, no later than 2:00 p.m. on February 24, 2026. Citizen Comments provide an opportunity for citizens to make comments and express a position on agenda items. ]

[00:12:23]

BUT JUST BECAUSE THOSE POWERS DO NOT EXIST FOR US, DOESN'T MEAN WE WANT DISCRIMINATORY ZONING PRACTICES AND CONTINUED CONCENTRATION OF INDUSTRIAL ZONING IN NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK, EITHER.

LUBBOCK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALLIANCE NEEDS TO WORK WITH LEADERS AND RESIDENTS OF NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK TO FIND A SOLUTION. THAT WILL NO LONGER BRING OR PLACE FACILITIES THAT ENDANGER, POLLUTE, HARM, OR CAUSE HEALTH RISK TO ITS NEIGHBORS. FAIR AND EQUAL ZONING PROTECTION. FAIR AND EQUAL ZONING PROTECTION IS THE ONLY THING NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK RESIDENTS ARE ASKING FOR. FAIR AND EQUAL ZONING PROTECTION IS THE ONE THING NORTH AND EAST LUBBOCK RESIDENTS FEEL THEY ARE NOT GETTING. FAIR AND EQUAL ZONING PROTECTION. IT'S ALL WE ASK FOR. THANK YOU. AND IF I DO LEAVE EARLY, IT'S BECAUSE I DO HAVE MORE CHILDREN THAT I HAVE TO PICK UP. AGAIN, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MS. CORTEZ. I BELIEVE I'M SAYING THIS RIGHT.

DODIE PHILLIPS? HELLO, I'M DODIE PHILLIPS, IF YOU SAID IT CORRECTLY, VERY GOOD, AND I LIVE AT 5811 WOODROW ROAD. I'M A COUNTY RESIDENT, BUT SEVERAL OF US COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY.

THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO ZONE CASE 3537 AND THE PEOPLE IN DISTRICT 5, THE HIGHLAND OAKS AREA. DOES HEAVY COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BELONG IN SOUTH LUBBOCK? ABSOLUTELY, IT DOES.

DOES IT BELONG JUST FEET AWAY FROM OUR COUNTY LINE, NESTLED AMONG LARGE, TRANQUIL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE EXISTED FOR 20 YEARS, SOME MORE? QUIET, PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE COUNTRY? NO. NO, IT ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT. I'M SURE YOUR OWN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT VOTED 5-1 AGAINST IT. CHANGING TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL SAW THAT AS A MAIN REASON AS WELL. IT ABSOLUTELY JUST DOES NOT BELONG HERE.

ACCORDING TO LUBBOCK'S UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 39.02.006, SECTION D, CONCERNING HEAVY COMMERCIAL

[00:15:02]

THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT ARE ALREADY OCCUPIED OR IN CONSTRUCTION SPACE. WILL THERE BE A RETAINING WALL TO BUFFER LOUD SOUNDS, TO HIDE BOTHERSOME, UNSIGHTLY PILES OF SUPPLIES, STACKS OF WOOD, PALLETS, METAL, TRASH VEHICLES? OR OTHER SUCH OBJECTS? WILL A WALL BE BUILT TO CATCH THE TRASH BLOWN OVER FROM POSSIBLE SUPPLY YARDS? THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE AS CURRENT RESIDENTS ARE HAVING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION NOW THAT THESE PROPERTIES MAY BE JUST FEET AWAY FROM US.

AT THE LAST MEETING, WE WERE TOLD MR. PAYNE WAS PUTTING RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE, BUT NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE OR HOW TO GO ABOUT FINDING THEM. I SPEAK FOR THE RESIDENTS OPPOSED WHEN I SAY WE WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO LIGHTER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, POSSIBLY NICE GARDEN OFFICES OR SMALLER COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT VISUALLY FIT THE AESTHETIC OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND THAT WAS AN IDEA ONE OF YOUR OWN COUNCIL MEMBERS GAVE AT THE FIRST MEETING. WE WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO THAT AT ALL. THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED AS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING IN A RURAL COUNTRYSIDE. AND THAT IS WHAT WE ALL THOUGHT WE WERE BUILDING BY WHEN WE ALL SPENT SEVERAL YEARS OF OUR INCOME INVESTING IN OUR FOREVER HOMES. WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESERVE AS MUCH OF THE RURAL AESTHETIC AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. AND I MEAN THIS WITH THE UTMOST RESPECT, WE FEEL DAVID GLASHINE SHOULD EXCUSE HIMSELF FROM VOTING DUE TO THIS BEING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. BECAUSE HIS FATHER OWNS THE LAND DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THOMAS PAINE'S MAIN CORNER IN QUESTION. THE ZONING CHANGE WILL VERY POSSIBLY AFFECT WHAT HIS FATHER DOES WITH THIS LAND, AND THUS WILL ALSO AFFECT HIS FAMILY'S FINANCIAL OUTCOME IN THE FUTURE. AND HIS VOTE ACTED AS A TIE-BREAKING VOTE IN FAVOR OF CHANGE AT OUR LAST CITY MEETING.

FURTHERMORE, WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS, AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MS. PHILLIPS. THANK YOU.

RODNEY WARREN. I DIDN'T SEE HIM. HE FILLED ONE OUT, BUT I DON'T SEE HIM. CALL ON TERRY HOLMAN. AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M TERRY HOLMAN WITH EAGLE READING ASSOCIATES, SPEAKING ON ITEM 7.8. I JUST WANT TO GO OVER, FIRST OF ALL, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME INDULGING US IN A RATHER LONG DISCUSSION LAST TIME TO DISCUSS THIS ZONE CASE.

I THOUGHT IT WAS DELIBERATED VERY WELL FROM BOTH PERSPECTIVES. ONE THING WAS SAID, COUNCILMAN ROSE, I THINK IT WAS YOU, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, LAST WEEK, ABOUT HONORING WHAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAD VOTED.

AND I WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS NOT... PRECISELY THE SAME CASE THAT THEY VOTED ON.

WE HAVE COME BACK WITH SOME FAIRLY EXTENSIVE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND CERTAINLY REDUCED THE LAND AREA. SO I WOULD HOPE EVERYONE WOULD SORT OF BE SURE AND TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. MS. PHILLIPS JUST MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED SF2 WHEN THEY BUILT THEIR HOMES AND INVESTED. THE PROPERTY WAS NOT ZONED SF2 UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT WAS ANNEXED ONLY VERY RECENTLY.

AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, THAT PROPERTY WAS NEVER PURPOSELY ZONED AS RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S JUST A BYPRODUCT OF ANNEXATION. SO, YES, WE'RE HERE TO TRY TO DO WHAT WE WANT TO DO. THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS, WHILE THE CASE IS FASHIONED AS HEAVY COMMERCIAL, WITH THESE DEED RESTRICTIONS, THAT MR. PAYNE HAS CRAFTED, IT IS ESSENTIALLY N.C. AND AC, BUT JUST ALLOWING ONE USE THAT STUMBLES INTO THE H.C.

DISTRICT. AND THERE ARE ALSO MORE STRINGENT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS THAN WHAT YOUR ZONING CODE ALLOWS. THOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE ON FILE WITH MR. BOB BRANDT OF WESTERN TITLE, AND HE'S BEEN GIVING INSTRUCTIONS TO HAVE THOSE RECORDED UPON A POSITIVE VOTE THIS AFTERNOON. WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HOLMAN. AND I'LL CALL ON MR. WARREN AGAIN, IF HE IS HERE. I DO NOT SEE HIM. ALL RIGHT.

THAT WILL CONCLUDE OUR CITIZEN

[5. Minutes]

THOSE ARE INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 5.1? IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OR AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE MINUTES. AS STATED, PLEASE LET ME KNOW

[00:20:01]

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

SO, IF THE CITY COUNCIL DESIRES TO DISCUSS AN ITEM, THAT ITEM IS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. THERE HAS NOT BEEN A REQUEST TO PULL ANY ITEMS FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO I WILL NOW ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. IS THERE SUCH A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THE CONSENT AGENDA IS PASSED

[1. Resolution - Finance: Consider a resolution accepting the City of Lubbock Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, for Fiscal Year that ended September 30, 2025.]

YES, THIS IS THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT. IF YOU RECALL, YOUR BUDGET IS A FORWARD-LOOKING DOCUMENT AND YOUR AUDIT OR YOUR ACTFA IS TELLING YOU THE STORY OF WHAT HAPPENED DURING THAT FISCAL YEAR. SO BEFORE BUT BEFORE WE BEGIN, I DO WANT TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO MY TEAM, MY ACCOUNTING TEAM. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DON'T MISS NOBODY. BUT I WANTED TO GIVE A BIG THANKS TO BRAD BULLOCK. IF YOU RECALL, WE LOST OUR DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTING. SHE RETIRED IN MAY. SO BRACK HAS TAKEN THAT POSITION IN THAT ROLE. AND HE'S DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB LEADING THIS TEAM IN THE.

IN THE PUTTING TOGETHER THE ACT FOR WITH HIM IS VERONICA VALDEZ, AND SHE'S ALSO A BIG HELP THAT. AMBER MCGAR WASN'T ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY, BUT ALSO WANTED TO RECOGNIZE AMBER AGUILAR AND ALI CORTEZ.

SO THAT'S KIND OF THE CORE OF. THERE'S OTHER PLAYERS IN PUTTING THIS TOGETHER, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE CORE OF THE ACT FOR THEY DO ALL THE LEGWORK.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I GIVE THEM THE CREDIT FOR THEM. ALSO WANT TO THANK.

WE HAVE JENNIFER RIPKA FROM WEAVER. SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE ONES THAT ARE AUDITORS FOR THE ACT FIRST. SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO HER. SHE'S GOING TO GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION ON WEAVER, THEIR UNMODIFIED DECISION. AND THEN WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL COME IN HERE AND GET INTO THE WEEDS OF THE NUMBERS AND BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y' ALL HAVE ON IT. SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO HER.

THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JENNIFER RIPKA. I'M THE PARTNER ON ENGAGEMENT WITH WEAVER.

THIS IS JUST A BREAKDOWN OF OUR TEAM FOR THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. MYSELF AS THE ENGAGEMENT PARTNER. RIGHT UNDERNEATH ME IS BRYANT SANCHEZ. HE'S THE SENIOR MANAGER ON THE ENGAGEMENT. AND THEN WE HAVE CHRISTIAN MORENO. HE IS THE SENIOR IN CHARGE AND HE'S WHO OVERSEES.

THESE ARE ASSOCIATES THAT WORK ON THIS ENGAGEMENT. MARK BORING ACTS AS A HUB PARTNER WITH THE FIRM HERE IN LUBBOCK. AND SO HE COMES THROUGH AND WORKS WITH US DIRECTLY ON A LOT OF THE AREAS THROUGHOUT THE AUDIT.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE SOME SUBJECT MATTER ADVISORS THAT ASSIST FROM AN IT STANDPOINT AS WELL AS A DATA ANALYTICS STANDPOINT. ALL OF OUR ENGAGEMENTS REQUIRE A QUALITY CONTROL PARTNER OUTSIDE OF THE ENGAGEMENT TEAM. ALSO REVIEWED THE FILE, AND SO JACKIE GONZALEZ WORKS IN THAT CAPACITY. AS FAR AS THE AUDIT PROCESS ITSELF, WE PERFORM THE AUDIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS AS WELL AS GENERALLY ACCEPTED GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS.

AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM, YOU KNOW, JUST A MORE GLOBAL VIEW, YOU HAVE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AUDIT TO WHICH IS THE ACT FOR ITSELF. AND THEN ALSO WE DO A SINGLE AUDIT FROM A COMPLIANCE STANDPOINT.

SO ALL OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THAT THE CITY RECEIVES, ALL THE PROGRAMS THAT YOU ALL ARE SERVICING USING, YOU KNOW, STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING THAT GETS AUDITED SEPARATELY FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT ITSELF.

AND SO IT'S A COMPLIANCE TEST.

BUT IT IS. IT DOES ENCOMPASS BOTH PLANNING, COMPLIANCE TESTING, INTERNAL CONTROL TESTING AS WELL AS REPORTING.

AND THEN OUTSIDE OF THAT, WE ALSO DO COMPLIANCE TESTING OVER PUBLIC FUNDS, INVESTMENT ACT AS WELL AS THE PASSENGER FACILITY, FACILITY CHARGES.

THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM OUR PLANNED APPROACH. SO WHEN WE SET FORTH WITH AN AUDIT, WE COME IN WITH OUR PLANNED APPROACH.

THERE WERE NO CHANGES FROM WHAT WE PLANNED. WE DID ISSUE AN UNMODIFIED OPINION.

THAT'S A CLEAN OPINION. IT'S THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ASSURANCE THAT CAN BE PLACED ON A SET OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. AND THEN I'M HAPPY TO REPORT THERE WERE NO AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS AND NO PAST ADJUSTMENTS. SO WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT AN AUDIT, AUDITOR COMES IN, THEY'RE LOOKING TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS.

THERE WERE NONE. SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY ADJUSTMENTS FROM THAT STANDPOINT. IF YOU'RE

[00:25:01]

SO THAT'S WHY WE TYPICALLY GO MUCH LOWER IN TERMS OF OUR SCOPE. THAT THRESHOLD THAT WE'RE TESTING ITEMS AT.

WE DID THAT TEST WORK AND WE HAD NO FINDINGS WITH REGARDS TO THAT. THIS RIGHT HERE IS JUST THE REQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS. I WON'T GO THROUGH IT IN DEPTH. THE MAIN THING TO POINT OUT IS THE CITY DID IMPLEMENT TWO NEW STANDARDS THIS YEAR, GASB 101 AND GASB 102, THAT JUST CLARIFIED STANDARDS THAT WERE ALREADY OUT THERE. COMPENSATED ABSENCES, WHICH IS REALLY VACATION SICK ACCRUALS.

IT JUST.

THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT NEEDED, THE LIABILITY NEEDED TO BE. SO GASB CAME THROUGH AND TRIED TO CLARIFY THAT FOR THE USERS OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND THEN CERTAIN RISK DISCLOSURES.

THERE ARE DISCLOSURES WITH REGARDS TO INVESTMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE CITY'S ACFR.

THERE WEREN'T A LOT OF CHANGES BECAUSE MUNICIPALITIES ALREADY INCLUDE MUCH OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THAT STANDARD. THERE WERE NO UNUSUAL TRANSACTIONS, NO SUSPECTED FRAUD, NO ISSUES OR DISAGREEMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF THE AUDIT. WE DO REQUIRE CERTAIN WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS AT THE END OF THE AUDIT SO THAT WE CAN ISSUE OUR FINAL OPINION LOCATED IN THE ACTFR. SO WE DID RECEIVE THAT FROM THE CITY AND THEN THERE WERE NO CONSULTATIONS WITH OTHER ACCOUNTANTS.

WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU ALL FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR ME BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO JOE FOR THE FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, I SEE NOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, JOE.

OKAY, SO AGAIN AS I MENTIONED, I'M GOING TO HIT SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF WE'LL START WITH GENERAL FUND ON WHAT HAPPENED IN FISCAL YEAR 2024 25. I WANT TO START WITH OUR BUDGETARY PERFORMANCE.

THIS KIND OF TELLS YOU OUR GENERAL FUND, AS YOU CAN SEE OUR REVENUES AND EXPENSES ARE BOTH UP FOR, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2425 AND I'M JUST GOING TO REFER TO IT AS FISCAL YEAR 25.

THAT'S THE ENDING OF THE YEAR. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR EXPENSES ARE UP AND WHAT I REALLY WANTED TO DETAIL HERE IS YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR REVENUES ARE ABOUT $11 MILLION LOWER THAN OUR EXPENSES.

HOWEVER, IF YOU RECALL, WE USED THIS WAS INTENTIONALLY DONE LAST YEAR. WE USED ABOUT $12.5 MILLION OF EXCESS RESERVES THAT WE HAVE ABOVE OUR POLICY LEVEL LEVEL IN GENERAL FUND. SO AGAIN THOSE, THOSE EXCESS RESERVES ARE NOT CALCULATED IN YOUR REVENUE COLUMN. SO IF YOU BACK OUT THAT 12.5 MILLION, WE REALLY CAME IN $1.5 MILLION UNDER BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR. AGAIN THAT'S A, THAT WAS PART OF US SALES TAX COMING IN LOWER THAN PROJECTED. SO WE HELD, WE HAD A HIRING FREEZE.

WE SCALED BACK A LITTLE BIT ON TRAINING AND TRAVEL AND WE PUSH BACK ON A LITTLE BIT OF THE CASH FUNDED CAPITAL PROJECT.

SO ALL IN ALL WE HAD A REALLY GOOD YEAR. EVEN THOUGH SALES TAX CAME IN ABOUT $5 MILLION UNDER WE WERE ABOUT 1.5 MILLION TO THE POSITIVE FOR GENERAL FUND. AND BELOW IS JUST A PER CAPITA ADJUSTMENT.

SO THAT'S KIND OF JUST TELLING YOU PER EVERY CITIZEN THAT WE HAVE WHAT PORTION OF THE GENERAL FUND WOULD FALL ON THEM FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLY. AGAIN, THIS IS UP FOR FROM THE PRIOR YEAR. AND THIS IS ALSO YOU GOT TO REMEMBER WE CASH FUNDED A LOT MORE CAPITAL PROJECTS. WE THREW $1 MILLION EXTRA INTO STREET MAINTENANCE. SO THOSE EXPENSES KIND OF CREEP UP OR GET A LITTLE HIGHER. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND ADJUSTMENT PER CAPITA.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS SLIDE? ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE.

PROCEED NEXT IS YOUR GENERAL FUND REVENUE BY CATEGORY. WE LIKE TO COMPARE YEAR OVER YEAR. SO YOU CAN SEE FOR THIS YEAR OUR SALES TAX WAS ABOUT 100.5 MILLION, WHICH WAS ABOUT A 1.1% INCREASE OVER THE PRIOR YEAR. LAST YEAR WAS 99.2 MILLION. AND THIS YEAR AS WE'VE BEAT IT TO DEATH,

[00:30:02]

SOLID WASTE FEES ARE IN HERE.

REMEMBER, SOLID WASTE IS REPORTED IN THE GENERAL FUND, SO THOSE FEES ARE INCLUDED IN THERE. YOUR FRANCHISE FEES WENT UP AS YOUR UTILITIES, THE REVENUE GOES UP, SO DOES THE FRANCHISE FEE.

REMEMBER IT'S EQUIVALENT ABOUT 5% OF UTILITY BILLS.

PILOT WENT UP ALSO AS WELL.

THAT'S A 1% TRANSFER FROM LEVEL POWER AND LIGHT FOR THEIR TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION UTILITY RATE. SO THE REVENUE THEY COLLECT ON THAT SITE IS TRANSFERRED.

SO AS THEIR CONSUMPTION GOES UP, SO DOES OUR PILOT AS WELL. AS I MENTIONED, TRANSFERS ARE UP FROM 10.3 MILLION TO 8 MILLION.

ONE MILLION OF THAT IS STRICTLY STREET MAINTENANCE. WE WENT FROM 13 MILLION TO 14 MILLION IN THE BUDGET AND THEN OTHER CASH FUNDED CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT WE CASH FUNDED FOR. LAST YEAR INTEREST WAS DOWN A LITTLE BIT. WE GOT ABOUT $6.7 MILLION IN INTEREST LAST YEAR COMPARED TO 4.7 MILLION THIS YEAR.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE GENERAL FUND MONEY, BUT THAT'S THE RATE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN. YOU KNOW, LAST YEAR THE RATES WERE QUITE A BIT HIGHER THAN THEY WERE THIS YEAR. SO WE WERE MAKING MORE MONEY ON THAT.

AGAIN, ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, IT'S ONE OF THOSE A LOT OF THIS IS CASH ON HAND AND BONDS THAT YOU HAVE. SO THE INTEREST GOES DOWN. YOU GOT TO REMEMBER WHEN YOU GO TO ISSUE THE DEBT, THE INTEREST FALLS DOWN THE SAME WAY. SO I'M IN PREFERENCE TO ALWAYS PAYING FOR LOWER INTEREST RATES WHEN YOU'RE ISSUING THE DEBT VERSUS MAKING MONEY ON THE INTEREST ON THE BONDS YOU HAVE SITTING IN YOUR ACCOUNT. FEES AND FORFEITURES OR FORFEITURES THAT INCREASED A LITTLE BIT. THAT WAS MOSTLY DRIVEN BY MUNICIPAL COURT FINES. SO THAT'S THE INCREASE YEAR OVER YEAR ON THAT ONE. AND THEN YOUR MISCELLANEOUS, ALL THE OTHER GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENT REVENUES THAT ARE SMALLER CAME IN ABOUT 6.7 MILLION VERSUS THE 5 MILLION IN THE PRIOR YEAR.

AGAIN, THE CHART DOWN BELOW IS JUST PER YEAR PER CAPITA BASED ON YOUR YOUR POPULATION OF 200 AND APPROXIMATELY 272,000. SO THIS IS HOW MUCH PER PERSON THAT THAT GENERATES. SO THAT'S KIND OF BROKEN DOWN FROM YOUR BUDGETARY NUMBER TO A PER CAPITA NUMBER IN THERE.

JOE, WOULD YOU PLEASE GO BACK TO THE TRANSFERS AND JUST EXPLAIN TRANSFERS AS A CATEGORY.

SO TRANSFERS AS A CATEGORY IS WHAT YOUR GENERAL FUND HAS.

AND SO THE GENERAL FUND HAS A TRANSFER. SO WE HAVE A DIFFERENT CAPITAL PROGRAM. IF YOU REMEMBER, THERE ARE DIFFERENT FUND NUMBERS. SO ANYTIME YOU CASH FUND A CAPITAL PROJECT, IT MOVES FROM YOUR GENERAL FUND, WHICH IS 100, AND GOES TO A 915 CAPITAL PROJECT. SO WE HAVE TO SHOW THAT IN THERE TO SHOW THAT THAT MONEY IS GOING TO A CAPITAL PROGRAM OR A CAPITAL PROJECT. SO THAT'S WHY WE SEPARATE THE TRANSFERS.

BUT IF YOU LOOK IN THE BUDGET BOOK, IT WILL SHOW DIRECTLY. I MEAN, IT WILL DETAIL EACH TRANSFER THAT THE GENERAL FUND MAKES OUT TO FUND YOUR CAPITAL PROJECTS OR YOUR FLEET VEHICLES.

THANK YOU.

NEXT IS YOUR GENERAL FUND EXPENSE BY CATEGORY. AND I THINK THIS IS GOOD TO REALLY SHOW. WE DID HAVE AN INCREASE IN POLICE AND FIRE, AND IF YOU CAN SEE, I'M GOING A LITTLE AHEAD.

BUT IF YOU CAN SEE THE REST OF THE CITY DEPARTMENTS, THEY PRETTY MUCH THINK RELATIVELY FLAT. AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING WE DID IN FISCAL YEAR 2425. WE PULLED BACK THE REINS ON HIRING FREEZE ON EVERYTHING BUT PUBLIC SAFETY. SO PUBLIC SAFETY WENT ON, CARRIED ON BUSINESS AS USUAL. THEY WERE AT STAFF, AT FULL STAFF, AND WE DIDN'T PULL BACK ANY OF THEIR EXPENSES. SO THAT'S THE REASON, YOU'LL SEE POLICE AND FIRE WENT UP A LITTLE BIT HIGHER COMPARED TO THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS. THE REST OF THE GENERAL FUND DEPARTMENTS DID A REALLY GOOD JOB AS MISSING ATKINSON MENTIONED EARLIER, REALLY PULLING BACK AT THE REINS AND MAKING BEST DO OF WHAT THEY HAD. SO THERE WAS SOME POSITIONS THAT WE FROZE, BUT I THINK THEY DID A REALLY GOOD JOB IN GETTING EVERYTHING DONE THAT WE NEEDED TO FOR THE CITY. SO BIG THANKS TO ALL THE CITY DEPARTMENTS AS WELL. YOU KNOW, THAT WAS THE BIG SALES TAX DECLINE THAT WE HAD OR THE LOWER END. SO THAT REALLY HELPED US THIS FISCAL YEAR. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? OKAY, GENERAL FUND KEY METRICS.

SO THIS IS GOOD. SO THIS IS WHAT WE CALL IN THE ACT FOR UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE.

WE KNOW THIS AS YOUR EXCESS RESERVES. SO THIS IS PRETTY MUCH OUR EXCESS RESERVES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THAT GREEN LINE, THAT'S OUR POLICY LEVEL, WHICH WE HAVE TO KEEP. 20% OF OUR EXPENSES IS OUR REQUIRED POLICY LEVEL. SO WHAT I DID IS ON THE GREEN LINE. YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBER RIGHT UNDER THAT.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, FISCAL YEAR 25, ACCORDING TO THE POLICY, WE HAD TO HAVE ABOUT $61.9 MILLION IN OUR POLICY LEVEL.

CURRENTLY WE ENDED THE YEAR

[00:35:01]

AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE USED THE 12.5 MILLION. SO IT WENT DOWN FROM 94 POINT TO 83.5 AS I MENTIONED.

BUT REMEMBER WE GOT ONE, WE WERE UNDER ONE AND A HALF.

SO INSTEAD OF TAKING THAT 12.5 MILLION, THERE'S 11 MILLION DOLLAR VARIANCE ON THAT 94.4 TO 83.5. SO WE DID END THE YEAR IN A POSITIVE NOTE. AND SO AGAIN, OUR AVAILABLE RESERVES, OUR EXCESS RESERVES ARE ABOUT $83.5 MILLION AS OF SEPTEMBER 2025. SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? I THOUGHT IT'D BE GOOD TO PUT THAT POLICY. SO AGAIN, REMEMBER, THAT POLICY IS THE NUMBER THAT'S RESTRICTED. SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO USE THE WHOLE 83.5 MILLION. IT'S JUST ABOVE THAT POLICY LINE, WHICH IS ABOUT 21 MILLION FOR FISCAL YEAR 25 TO USE.

AGAIN, THE ONLY TIME WE USE THIS IS FOR ONE TIME EXPENSES. WE USE THIS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS. WE PURCHASE THE GO LIBRARY WITH FUND BALLOTS. SO THESE ARE ONE TIME EXPENSES AND NOT REOCCURRING EXPENSES THAT WE USE UTILIZE THESE FUNDS. ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THAT WRAPS UP GENERAL FUND. NOW GO TO YOUR MAJOR ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

WE'LL START WITH WATER AND WASTEWATER.

AGAIN, THEY'RE IN A VERY HEALTHY POSITION.

YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR REVENUES CAME IN ABOUT 1 91.1 MILLION VERSUS OUR EXPENSES ABOUT 1 49.1 MILLION. AGAIN, THE 191 IS NOT STRICTLY REVENUES. YOU KNOW, THE, THE CITY GETS.

WHENEVER SOMETHING'S PLATTED WATER LINES, THEY GET TRANSFERRED TO THE CITY. SO WE DO HAVE TO PUT SOME OF THAT CAPITAL ON THE BOOK. SO REMEMBER, THE 191 MILLION ACCORDING TO THE AQUA IS NOT JUST STRAIGHT REVENUES THAT YOU'RE GETTING FOR FEES AND SERVICES. THAT'S CAPITAL ASSETS THAT YOU PUT ON THE BOOKS AS WELL THAT WE GOT TO RECOGNIZE BECAUSE THEY'RE ENTERPRISE FUNDS. THEY DON'T. THEY OPERATE LIKE A BUSINESS, NOT LIKE GENERAL FUNDS. SO WE HAVE TO BOOK THOSE AS ASSETS. SO THAT'S WHY YOU'LL SEE, SEE THAT THE EXPENSES ARE QUITE A BIT LOWER THAN YOUR REVENUES FOR THAT. SO ABOUT 191.1 MILLION FOR FISCAL YEAR 25.

AND OUR EXPENSES CAME IN AT ABOUT 149.1. SAME THING ON THIS CHART BELOW. THAT IS OUR POLICY LEVEL. OUR EXCESS RESERVES IN WATER, WASTEWEWATER. WE REQUIRE 25% OF EXPENSES IN WATER AND WASTEWATER.

THAT'S THE POLICY LEVEL.

GENERAL FUND IS NOT 20%. WATER AND WASTEWATER IS 25%. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'RE IN A HEALTHY POSITION. LAST YEAR WE WERE PRETTY CLOSE ON THE THRESHOLD, ABOUT 26.3%.

BUT THIS YEAR, WITH INCREASED REVENUES AND LOWER EXPENSES, WE'RE BACK UP TO ABOUT 45.4% ABOVE POLICY LEVEL. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? SO WHEN WE HAVE AN EXCESS, YOU EXPLAINED IT A LITTLE BIT.

SO LIKE THIS YEAR WE HAD AN EXCESS OF ALMOST A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN $40 MILLION. 41 MILLION, 42 MILLION. SO THAT MONEY IS SET ASIDE FOR WATER PROJECTS OR WASTEWATER PROJECTS. RIGHT.

BECAUSE WE HAVE TO KIND OF BUILD UP OUR, IF I CAN CALL THEM RESERVES, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM, FOR FUTURE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON. RIGHT.

THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.

SO PEOPLE SAY, WHY ARE YOU COLLECTING MORE MONEY FROM ME? IF THEY LOOK AT THIS AND THINK YOU'RE COLLECTING MORE MONEY THAN YOU NEED.

IT'S A MECHANISM WE USE FOR RATE STABILIZATION. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO INCREASE 10, 15% YEAR OVER YEAR. SO RIGHT NOW THAT WE DON'T, WE HAVE FUTURE PROJECTS COMING ON BOARD. WE'RE STARTING TO BUILD THAT FUND BALANCE OF THAT EXCESS RESERVE. SO WHEN YOU DO GET TO THAT POINT WHERE YOU DO HAVE TO ISSUE THE DEBT FOR THE BIG PROJECTS, YOU DON'T HAVE A RATE SHOCK.

YOU'RE NOT COLLECTING IT ALL IN ONE YEAR. YOU'RE SLOWLY, GRADUALLY INCREASING THOSE RATES. AND SO THAT'S THE REASON. SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S A LITTLE BIT HIGHER EXCESS RESERVES, YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE BUILDING FOR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, A PROJECT COMING ALONG.

AND THESE AREN'T JUST THINGS WE MIGHT THINK ABOUT IN THE FUTURE. WE'RE ALREADY THINKING ABOUT THEM RIGHT NOW, PLANNING FOR THEM.

CORRECT. SO THEY ARE IN YOUR CAPITAL. WE DO HAVE A FIVE YEAR CAPITAL PROGRAM EXTENDED OUT. WE REVIEW THAT ANNUALLY DURING BUDGET, BRING THAT TO Y', ALL, AND YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A FINANCIAL AID MODEL THAT, THAT SAYS, HEY, THESE ARE THE RATES WE NEED TO ESTABLISH TO GET TO PAY FOR THAT DEBT SERVICE ON THEIR PROJECTS.

THANK YOU.

IF I COULD, MAYOR AND JOE, HELP US CLARIFY THAT $42 MILLION DELTA IS NOT ALL CASH. SO, YEAH, IN OTHER WORDS, IF WE FLIP TO A DOLLAR INSTEAD OF A PERCENT PAGE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE A PLUS 40 MILLION ON THE DOLLAR.

OKAY, THESE METRICS ARE YOUR WATER AND WASTEWATER. THESE ARE GOOD METRICS. THESE ARE REALLY WHAT YOUR RATING AGENCIES AND YOUR INVESTORS REALLY RELY ON.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THE TOP ONE IS OUR DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE, WHICH MEANS THAT'S HOW MUCH WE HAVE TO COVER OUR DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS. SO YOU CAN SEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024, IT WAS 1.5, 1.56. AND THIS YEAR

[00:40:04]

IT'S, IT'S SO GOOD IT WON'T SHOW UP. MAYOR, THERE YOU GO. SO, YEAH, JARED MENTIONED IT'S REALLY GOOD NEWS.

SO OUR DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE WENT FROM 1.56 TO 1.65. SO IF YOU SEE THE RED LINE, THAT IS THE DOUBLE A RATING THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY AT. AAA RATING IS THE GREEN LIGHT. AAA RATING IS ONE OF THE HIGHEST RATINGS. SO THEIR METRICS ARE A LITTLE HIGHER. YOUR DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE HAS TO BE A LITTLE HIGHER. YOUR DEBT TO CAPITALIZATION NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOWER. SO WE LIKE TO PLUG THAT IN TO KIND OF LET Y' ALL KNOW WHERE WE'RE AT ON THE AVERAGE OF A AAA RANGE. SO FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, WE'RE SLIGHTLY ABOVE THAT AA RANGE FOR OUR DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE.

THEN YOU COME DEBT TO CAPITALIZATION AGAIN, THAT DECREASED FROM 45.5% TO 36.2%. SO THINGS ARE TRENDING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR WATER, WASTEWATER AGAIN.

SO YOU'LL SEE THE METRIC AT THE BOTTOM, DEBT TO CAPITALIZATION. WE'RE ALMOST AT A AAA RATING ON OUR DEBT TO CAPITAL DEBT TO CAPITALIZATION RATE, SO. SO THAT'S REALLY GOOD NEWS. THAT JUST SHOWS YOU HAVE CAPACITY TO ISSUE MORE DEBT IN THE FUTURE. WE HAVE A LOT OF PROJECTS COMING UP, SO WE'RE REALLY WORKING ON THAT TO GET OUR DEBT TO CAPITALIZATION AND OUR DEBT SERVICE COVERED METRICS IN A GREAT POSITION. AGAIN, THAT'S JUST LIKE YOUR CREDIT RATING, REALLY, THE BETTER CAPACITY YOU HAVE, THE LOWER INTEREST RATES YOU CAN GET MORE INVESTORS HAVE AN APPETITE WHEN YOU HAVE THESE METRICS THAT ARE REALLY GOOD.

ANY QUESTIONS ON WATER, WASTEWATER? OKAY, ONTO AIRPORT.

AIRPORT'S IN A VERY, VERY HEALTHY FUND AS WELL.

THEY ENDED UP THE YEAR AT ABOUT $32.1 MILLION IN REVENUES AND THEY HAVE ABOUT $25.7 MILLION IN EXPENSES. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE SAME MODEL GOES FOR ALL THESE ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

THEY'RE ABOUT 244% POSITIVE IN EXCESS RESERVES AGAIN. SO KELLY DOES A GREAT JOB OF UTILIZING HER FUNDS OVER THERE. AND REMEMBER THAT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THEIR CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE REALLY HELPED BY GRANT FUNDING. SO THAT REALLY HELPS THEIR FINANCIAL MODEL AGAIN. SO ALL THESE FINANCIAL MODELS, WE DON'T JUST DO THEM YEAR OVER YEAR. WE HAVE A FIVE YEAR MODEL FOR ALL THESE ENTERPRISE FUNDS THAT LET US KNOW FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING IN THE FUTURE. AND AGAIN, SO YOU WANT TO PREPARE FOR BIG PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING UP.

SO SOMETIMES IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THOSE EXCESS RESERVES AREN'T JUST CASH ON HAND THAT WE HAVE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PREPARING FOR IN THE FUTURE. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE AIRPORT STORMWATER? STORMWATER CAME IN ABOUT 36.3 MILLION. OUR EXPENSES WERE ABOUT 17.9 MILLION.

SO.

SO AGAIN, REMEMBER STORMWATER? YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOME BIG PROJECTS IN PRIOR YEARS THAT CAME UP THAT WE REALLY, WE HAD THE RATES, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE A LITTLE HIGHER TO COLLECT FOR THAT. WE DO HAVE SOME BIG PROJECTS COMING IN THE FUTURE AS WELL. SO IT'S KIND OF RATE STABILIZATION. WE HAVE DROPPED THE RATES A LITTLE BIT OVER THE YEARS ON STORMWATER, BUT WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO BUILD SOME FUND BALANCE OR EXCESS RESERVES IN THIS ACCOUNT. AGAIN, THIS ALL CORRELATES TO YOUR FIVE YEAR MODEL WHICH YOU HAVE PLANNED OUT. YOU'RE PREPARING FOR THE FUTURE. JUST YOU DON'T WANT TO INCREASE YOUR RATES, AS I MENTIONED, BY 20%. SO IT'S A MECHANISM FOR RATE STABILIZATION. SO AGAIN, THEY'RE IN A HEALTHY POSITION. THEY'RE ABOUT 163%. SO REALLY, I MEAN, IT WAS A GOOD YEAR FOR ALL OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND GENERAL FUND AS WELL. ANY QUESTIONS ON STORMWATER? I THINK MR. ATKINSON MAY HAVE A COMMENT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, NOT DIRECT TO THE AUDIT, BUT I THINK THIS PAGE OF THE AUDIT REALLY HELPS US KIND OF MAKE THE POINT. SO YOUR STORMWATER FUND WAS CREATED MANY YEARS AGO TO DO SOME EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE, VERY LARGE BUT IMPORTANT PROJECTS BASICALLY TO GET THE IN TOWN PLAYA LAKES TO WHERE THEY WOULD DRAIN, STAY WITHIN A LAKE, NOT FLOOD PEOPLE'S HOMES, AND TO DELIVER THAT WATER INTO THE CANYON LAKE SYSTEM, WHICH IT DOES AT THREE DIFFERENT POINTS.

WHAT THAT MEANS IN TERMS OF THE AUDIT THOUGH IS THE STORMWATER FUND WAS REALLY CREATED TO FUNCTION IN A LOT OF WAYS LIKE GATEWAY DOES. AND THAT IS IT WAS A DEBT SERVICE FUND. SO IF YOU GO BACK TO 2017, OVER 70 CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR THAT CAME INTO YOUR STORMWATER FUND WAS USED FOR DEBT SERVICE. NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. IT WAS FUNCTIONING AS DESIGNED. MOVING FORWARD FROM THAT, AS A LOT OF THAT DEBT SERVICE BEGINS TO ROLL OFF AND SOME OF IT'S TOTALLY OFF AND SOME OF IT'S STILL HANGING OUT THERE, WE'VE ALSO MADE DECISIONS TO REDUCE RATES WHERE WE COULD, BUT TO CONVERT THE USE OF THOSE

[00:45:02]

SO THIS ONE IS LIVING UP TO ITS PLAN. AND JUST KNOW THAT YOUR DOLLARS ARE NOW GOING TOWARDS MAINTENANCE AND THE FUTURE CAPITAL RATHER THAN ENTIRELY TOWARDS DEBT SERVICE.

YEAH, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

BECAUSE I DO GET QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT FREQUENTLY, WHY THAT RATE HASN'T FALLEN LOWER THAN IT HAS AND TO EXPLAIN THAT TO THEM. AND SO COULD WE JUST TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IN THE FUTURE? WE'VE GOT QUITE A FEW MAINTENANCE PROJECTS RUNNING CAMERAS THROUGH THE LINES THAT WE HAVE, REBUILDING INLETS. WE DO HAVE LITERAL STORM SEWER IN LUBBOCK.

NOT AS MUCH OF IT AS SOME CITIES, BUT WE DO. THIS IS PART AND PARCEL OF YOUR STREET SWEEPING EFFORTS TO TRY TO KEEP ALL THAT DEBRIS FROM ENDING UP BACK IN THE PLAYAS OR BACK IN THE CANYON LAKES. AND YOU'RE GONNA STUMP ME ON THE REST OF THEM THERE, BUT I'D BE GLAD TO GET THE INFO ON THE BIG PROJECTS AND GET THEM BACK TO YOU.

WILL ANY OF IT BE USED ON OUR LAKE 7? IS ANY OF IT COMMITTED TO THAT IN ANY WAY? STORMWATER WILL NOT FUND LAKE 7.

OKAY. EVEN THOUGH STORMWATER WILL EMPTY INTO IT AND BE USED BY THE LAKE, BUT IT WILL NOT BE USED AS PART OF THE FUNDING FOR THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. YOU WILL SEE SOME STORMWATER PROJECTS ON YOUR EXISTING LAKES AS WE GO FORWARD, BUT THAT'S THE BE SURE WE'RE GETTING IT IN WITHOUT DAMAGE IN PLACES WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO RECLAIM CAPACITY AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

BUT ON LAKE SEVEN PROPER, NO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

OKAY.

GOOD DEAL.

THAT WRAPS UP OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS. NEXT, WANT TO GO TO.

GOT A COUPLE OF SLIDES ON OUR DEP AND PENSION RESULTS.

HERE'S OUR CITY LEVEL DEBT PROFILE AT SEPTEMBER 2025.

IT'S ABOUT $1.8 BILLION IN DEBT. YOU CAN SEE THE GREAT THING ABOUT IT IS THAT MOST OF IT IS USER FEE SUPPORTED, WHICH MEANS IT'S BACKED UP BY ITS REVENUE. SO THESE ARE YOUR WATER, WASTEWATER LEVEL, POWER AND LIGHT. SO THOSE ARE DEBT ISSUANCE THAT ARE FUNDED BY REVENUES BASED ON YOUR RATES. SO YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY OF THAT IS USER FEE SUPPORTED DEBT. AND THEN YOUR TAX SUPPORTED DEBT IS YOUR GO BONDS AND YOUR CO BONDS.

AND HERE WE DO HAVE SOME OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2022, FISCAL YEAR 2024 GO BONDS THAT WERE APPROVED. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT. AND AGAIN LPNL IS THE ONE WITH THE MOST DEBT ON HERE, THIS TABLE IF YOU RECALL THOUGH ABOUT 350 MILLION OF THAT DEBT IS TCOS REVENUE BACK. SO SO THAT'S DEBT THAT THEY BUILD OUT FOR THE BUILD OUT OF THE TRANSMISSION LINES TO INTERCONNECT INTO ERCOT. SO ABOUT HALF OF THEIR DEPTH ON THIS MODEL IS REALLY BACKED BY TCOS AND NOT BACKED BY THE RATE PAYERS. AND THAT KIND OF DEBT JUST KIND OF BREAKS OUT THE DEPTH ON THAT WATER AND WASTEWATER.

AND SO THE GRAPH TO THE RIGHT KIND OF BREAKS OUT YOUR USER FEE. YOU USE A FEE SUPPORTED DEPTH AS WELL.

IT KIND OF GIVES YOU A PIE CHART RIGHT THERE. LPNO AGAIN THE MAJOR OF THAT THEN YOU GOT WATER AND WASTEWATER COMING IN RIGHT BEHIND THEM. SO ANY QUESTIONS ON THE DEBT PROFILE? I SEE THAT. OKAY.

AND MY LAST SLIDE IS CITY OF LUBBOCK PENSIONS. AGAIN THIS IS THE TMRS PENSION THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR EMPLOYEES AND THE LUBBOCK FIRE. THE LUBBOCK FIRE PENSION HAS THEIR OWN PENSION AS WELL. SO THEY'RE SEPARATE, THEY DON'T GET TMRS, THEY GET THE FIRE PENSION. SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE CHART HERE THAT WE ARE TRENDING IN A VERY GOOD RATE IN AMOUNT. SO THEY'RE HIGHER THAN THE PRIOR YEAR. LAST YEAR WAS ABOUT 74.25 IN YOUR LP FUNDED RATIO, 71.8 IN THE PRIOR YEAR AND ABOUT 74.25 FOR THE THIS YEAR. TMRS WAS FUNDED ABOUT 86.8% LAST YEAR VERSUS 89.88%

[00:50:02]

SO BELOW THAT IS A CHART THAT BREAKS IT DOWN. AGAIN WE USE THE ASSUMED RATE RETURN IN FISCAL 25 WAS 6.75 WHEN AND WE ACTUALLY GOT ABOUT 10.41% IN RATE OF RETURN. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT'S WHAT REALLY DROVE THE INCREASE IN OUR TMRS. FOR THE LOVE OF FIRE PENSION WE BILLED IT WE BUDGET AT 7.5% AND THEIRS CAME IN AT 9.23% FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. SO THAT'S PUT THEM BOTH IN A GOOD POSITION. YOU ALWAYS WANT TO SEE THAT PENSION GO UP YEAR OVER YEAR. SO IT WAS A GOOD YEAR FOR US. AGAIN, THE ENVIRONMENT, A LOT OF THIS IS INVESTED MONIES THAT ARE FOR THE PENSIONS. AND SO WITH THE RATE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN, WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB IN INCREASING THOSE PENSIONS.

ANY QUESTION ON THAT? I SEE NONE.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY SLIDES ON THE FISCAL YEAR 25 ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT. AGAIN, JUST WANT TO THANK MY STAFF AGAIN FOR BRAC AND HIS. HIS TEAM FOR GETTING THROUGH IT THIS YEAR. I DID WANT TO SAY LAST YEAR WE DID RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT FOR EXCELLENCE AND FINANCIAL REPORTING FROM GFOET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. AND AGAIN, WE WILL APPLY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025. SO THAT'S A TESTAMENT TO COUNCIL AS WELL THAT IT'S BEING MANAGED, MANAGING STAFF CORRECTLY, AND BIG THANKS TO MY COUNTY DEPARTMENT AND JENNIFER RIPKA AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT, ANY CLEANUP QUESTIONS FOR JOE WHILE HE'S HERE, MS. MAYOR PRO TEM, AND THE GOOD JOB THAT YOU'VE DONE. JOE, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. ROSE.

JOE, WE APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU.

GREAT JOB ON THIS. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT ON, YOU CAN GET IT TO ME LATER.

BUT DO WE HAVE EXACT NUMBERS ON DEBT SERVICE, THE ACTUAL COST OF IT FOR THE GENERAL FUND LAST YEAR? YES, WE DO. I WILL GET THAT, TOO. I DON'T KNOW IT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT UNLESS. OKAY, YEAH, WE DON'T. BUT WE DID. WE DEFINITELY WILL GET THAT FOR YOU.

OKAY. JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU.

YES, SIR.

IF YOU PROVIDE IT TO EACH ONE OF US.

OKAY, I WILL. WE WILL DO THAT.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, JOE.

APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT, WE'VE HEARD ITEM 7.1 PRESENTATION. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.1? IS THERE A SECOND? I HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE.

THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[2. Public Hearing - Planning (District 1): Consider a request for Zone Case 3552, a request of Hugo Reed and Associates, Inc. for Lubbock Economic Development Alliance, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family (SF-2) to General Industrial District (GI), at 1201 Drew Street, 1102 Keuka Street, 9202 North Avenue P, and 10511, 11601, and 11701 North Ash Avenue, generally located south of Drew Street and east of Avenue P, on 388.3 acres of unplatted land out of Block D, Sections 38 and 39, and Block A, Section 35, and consider an ordinance.]

THAT'S SF2 TO GENERAL INDUSTRIAL GI AT 1201 DREW STREET. I'M NOT GOING TO READ EVERY STREET HERE. IF I READ IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT AGAIN. OKAY. IS THAT ALL RIGHT? I SAY IT AND THEN YOU SAY IT AGAIN. SO I'LL SAY IT ONCE AND YOU CAN MOVE ON.

OKAY.

BUT I WANT TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD. 1102 KEOKA STREET 9202 NORTH AVENUE P&105-11-1601 AND 11701 NORTH ASH AVENUE, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF DREW STREET, EAST OF AVENUE P ON 388.3 ACRES OF UNPLANNED LAND OUT OF BLOCK B, SECTION 38 AND 39, AND BLOCK A, SECTION 35. AS A REMINDER, THIS PUBLIC HEARING'S PURPOSE IS TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PUBLIC. THE COUNCIL MAY ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT NO DISCUSSION ON THE MERITS WILL BE CONDUCTED BY THE COUNCIL DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO I'M NOW GOING TO CALL ON OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR, KRISTEN SAGER TO PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS ZONING CASE SUBJECT TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AS YOU STATED, IT IS ZONE CHANGE FROM SF2 TO GI IN DISTRICT 1. WE SENT OUT 51 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING 10 IN FAVOR, TWO IN OPPOSITION. THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE GENERAL LOCATION OF WHERE THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTIES THAT RESPONDED IN FAVOR AND IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THAT 400 FOOT NOTIFICATION BOUNDARY. HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THESE PROPERTIES ARE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE INTERSTATE, EAST AND WEST. AND THERE IS A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL AND VACANT LAND IN THIS AREA. CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF2.

THIS MAP IS A LITTLE OUTDATED.

IT WAS CREATED PRIOR TO YOUR LAST COUNCIL MEETING WHERE YOU HAD THE FINAL DECISION ON THE ZONE CHANGES WE REQUESTED IN DISTRICT 1 FOR THE ZONING MAP ANALYSIS.

SO SOME OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE

[00:55:01]

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES. AND HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA TAKEN AT THE END OF LAST MONTH.

HERE'S A GRAPHIC FROM THE APPLICANT FROM OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AGAIN SHOWING THAT IT IS DESIGNATED FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES, AS IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF THIS AREA. HERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL GRAPHICS FROM OUR APPLICANT, JUST SHOWING SOME ADDITIONAL SITES IN THE AREA AS WELL AS LAND USES THROUGHOUT THE FUTURE.

LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR INDUSTRIAL LAND USES. THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION. IT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT IS LOCATED ALONG PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS AND NORTH AVENUE P, WHICH IS A MINOR ARTERIAL.

STAFF HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGAR? I SEE NONE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 7.2. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE? GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M TERRY HOLMAN WITH HUGO REED AND ASSOCIATES. I'M REPRESENTING LITA ON THIS ZONE CASE WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THIS AFTERNOON. I'LL GO BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THE SLIDES, GET YOU ORIENTED A LITTLE CLOSER.

THIS IS REALLY THREE SEPARATE PARCELS. THE TWO ON THE NORTH THAT ARE NORTH OF DREW STREET, THE SMALL LITTLE PARCELS.

LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIND MY CURSOR. THAT GUY RIGHT THERE AND THIS GUY RIGHT HERE. AND THEN OF COURSE, THE LARGER PARCEL THERE, DOWN THERE, SOUTH OF DREW STREET. SO ON THE NORTH PARCELS, THOSE TRACTS WERE ANNEXED IN 2016 AND THEN LATER ACQUIRED BY LITA AS THEY WERE TRYING TO ASSEMBLE MORE PROPERTY RELATIVE TO THEIR RAIL PORT DEVELOPMENT.

THE RAIL PORT DEVELOPMENT IS THE AREA, THE GRAY AREA JUST TO THE EAST OF THOSE SMALL PARCELS. THESE ARE THE ONLY PARCELS THAT LITA OWNS THERE BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND THE OLD REASH AVENUE THERE.

AND SO, GIVEN THAT WE HAD A RECENT ZONE CASE, THE ZONE MAP UPDATES TO ZONE THIS LARGER AREA. THAT GUY RIGHT THERE IS INDUSTRIAL.

IT MADE PERFECT SENSE TO NOW GO AHEAD AND TRANSITION THESE LITTLE GAP AREAS OVER TO INDUSTRIAL AS WELL. I BELIEVE THAT'S PRETTY CLEAR CUT. THE OTHER TRACT, WHICH WE HAD QUITE A BIT MORE DISCUSSION AT PLANNING AND ZONING WITH, IS WHAT WE KNOW OF AS THE RYMER TRACT. IT'S ABOUT 375 ACRES. IT WAS ANNEXED IN 2018.

LITA THEN ACQUIRED IT IN 2023.

IT WAS AT THE TIME IT WAS ANNEXED.

LITA DID NOT OWN THE SMALL LITTLE LEAVE OUT RIGHT HERE.

SO WE HAD TO LEAVE THAT OUT OF THE ANNEXATION. AND SUBSEQUENTLY WE HAD TO NOW LEAVE IT OUT OF THE ZONE CASE. I SUSPECT THE DAY MAY COME, WE MAY COME BACK TO CLEAN THAT UP, BUT WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT THIS AFTERNOON. LITA HAS SINCE ACQUIRED HALF OF THAT AND IS IN THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING THE OTHER PIECE.

AND SO WE SEE LONG TERM THAT THAT WILL BE CLEANED UP A LITTLE BIT. THIS PROPERTY DOWN HERE. NONE OF THESE PROPERTIES REALLY WERE EVER PURCHASED PURPOSEFULLY ZONED AS SINGLE FAMILY. THESE ARE ALL JUST SIMPLY A BYPRODUCT OF ANNEXATION. AND AS MS. SAGER POINTED OUT, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I HOPE I'M GOING THE RIGHT DIRECTION. I WENT THE WRONG WAY. SORRY. SO THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OUT OF OUR COMP PLAN. AND IT SHOWS, SHOWS ALL THE MAGENTA COLOR PROPERTY AS BEING, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRIAL. THE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT HERE IS THERE'S SOME GRAY PARCELS, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NEXT TO US. THOSE ARE ONLY A DIFFERENT COLOR ONLY BECAUSE AS OF TODAY, THEY'RE NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS. AND I WANTED TO KIND OF HELP POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE THE LAND USE MAP THAT'S IN THE COMP PLAN I THINK IS A LITTLE BETTER DESCRIPTION OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. I WANTED TO SHOW THIS TO YOU TO ILLUSTRATE THAT REALLY THE COMP PLAN FORESEES ALL OF THIS AREA AS BEING INDUSTRIAL. AND THE COMP PLAN DID NOT NECESSARILY DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT WAS IN THE CITY LIMITS AND WHAT WAS NOT AT THE TIME. I THINK MS. CORTEZ AND CITIZENS COMET STATED IT VERY WELL. THERE'S AN INDUSTRY ALL AROUND. AND FOR THAT REASON, WE BELIEVE THIS IS A GOOD FIT FOR OUR G1 REQUEST.

THE I'M GOING TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, GET YOU A LITTLE BIT BETTER IDEA OF CONTEXT, AND I APOLOGIZE. THIS IS NOT ENTIRELY CLEARLY READABLE, BUT WE ARE BOUNDED BY A. I'M GOING TO TALK NOW FROM NOW ON PRIMARILY ABOUT THE SOUTHERN TRACT. 375

[01:00:02]

OKAY. AND IT'S A SORT OF A, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WALLED IN INDUSTRIAL AREA.

CERTAINLY HAVE THE RAILROAD TRACK, WHICH I'LL SPEAK TO IN A LITTLE BIT, THAT RUNS ALONG OUR EAST BOUNDARY, NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT WE HAVE LUBBOCK RAIL PORT UP OVER HERE IN THE VICINITY, AN INTERSTATE HIGHWAY, AND THEN OF COURSE THE AIRPORT OVER THERE TO THE EAST. ALL OF THESE THINGS KIND OF CONTRIBUTE FOR US TO MAKING THIS A VERY GOOD FIT FOR GENERAL INDUSTRIAL. WHY ARE WE WANTING GENERAL INDUSTRIAL? GENERAL INDUSTRIAL IS THE 1 ZONING DISTRICT IN LUBBOCK WHICH SPEAKS TO RAIL SERVICE IN ITS PURPOSE STATEMENT. AND SO IF WE WERE TO REQUEST IP OR LI, IT REALLY IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RAIL SERVICE. AND SO WHAT LITA HAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO DO WAS TO CAPTURE THIS ACCESS TO THE. THIS RAIL. IT'S MORE THAN A MILE LONG AND IT'S STRAIGHT, WHICH WORKS PERFECTLY FOR INDUSTRIAL LOCATIONS. IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH PROPERTY WIDTH OR IF WE HAD A RAILROAD THAT WAS ON A CURVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THE SPUR OFFSHOOTS OFF OF THAT TRACK, I'M SORRY, BECOME KIND OF DIFFICULT TO CONSTRUCT OR EVEN IMPOSSIBLE.

SO AT THIS LOCATION, IT JUST SETS UP SO NICELY TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SPOT SPURS ONTO THE PROPERTY FOR INDUSTRIAL USES. THE RAIL IS A DRIVER FOR US ON THIS.

ALSO I DID MENTION THIS AT PLANNING AND ZONING. IT'S KIND OF A SECONDARY POINT TO ZONING. BUT DRAINAGE ON THIS PROPERTY DRAINS PRIMARILY FROM THE NORTHEAST DOWN TO THE SOUTHWEST OR TO DIRECTLY TO THE WEST. AND SO THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT WE'LL GO THE WRONG DIRECTION HERE.

SORRY. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY WOULD DIRECT DRAINAGE AWAY FROM DREW STREET AND THE AREA THAT IS AT LEAST DEVELOPED AT THIS POINT. ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS GENERAL INDUSTRIAL ZONING.

THAT DOES NOT GIVE US THE RIGHT TO JUST GO BUILD ANYTHING WE WANT TO. WE STILL HAVE LIMITATIONS. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU WHAT WE CANNOT DO WITH THIS ZONE CASE WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS AFTERNOON.

THESE ARE ITEMS THAT REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE. A WHOLE OTHER LAYER OF ZONING IN GI THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR TODAY. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU IT HELPS INSULATE THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES A LITTLE BIT. WE CANNOT BUILD A CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION. WE CANNOT BUILD A SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS. WE CANNOT BUILD A MOTORCYCLE RACETRACK.

WE CANNOT BUILD AN OUTDOOR SHOOTING RANGE, BATCH PLANT, A PERMANENT BATCH PLANT, JUNKYARD, SALVAGE YARD. WE CAN'T DO RESOURCE EXTRACTION, A STOCKYARD, A LANDFILL, POWER GENERATION BILLBOARD, OR A HELIPAD. SO EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE MOST INTENSE BASE ZONING DISTRICT AVAILABLE TO US, THERE'S STILL A LAYER OF THINGS THAT WE'RE STILL PROHIBITED FROM DOING. AND I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU. WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT PLANNING AND ZONING ABOUT THIS. I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT THEY DID VOTE UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR. IT WAS A GOOD, LONG, DELIBERATE DISCUSSION. THERE WAS OPPOSITION, AND I THINK THEIR POINTS WERE HEARD.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS REALLY THE BEST FIT FOR GENERAL INDUSTRIAL.

ANYTIME THAT YOU'RE DEVELOPING IN SORT OF AN OUTLYING AREA, WE'RE ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO RUN INTO MAYBE AREAS IN THE COUNTY WHERE THERE MAY BE A FEW OLD HOUSES OR OLD HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE. I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY.

RIGHT.

IT'S ALMOST UNAVOIDABLE. AND SO WE FEEL LIKE, GIVEN THE SURROUNDINGS, THIS IS JUST STILL THE BEST USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. WE BELIEVE IT'S JUST THE PLACE FOR IT.

THE COMP PLAN SUPPORTS IT. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. HOLTMAN? I DON'T SEE ANY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

OH, WAIT. OKAY. DR.

WILSON.

OH, YES, MA'AM.

TERRY, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS PROPOSED BUSINESSES THAT ARE READY TO COME TO ANY OF THESE SITES YET? THE PURPOSE OF THIS ZONE CASE IS TO GET IT, I WOULD SAY, TEED UP SO THAT THAT GIVES LITA THE ABILITY TO MARKET IT APPROPRIATELY TO THE. TO THE TYPES OF USERS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE ON THE PROPERTY. AND MR. OSBORNE IS HERE, BY THE WAY, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, I SEE NONE. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONING CASE. ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONING CASE, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.

MY NAME IS WILLIAM WHITWORTH,

[01:05:01]

ACTUALLY TWICE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. BOTH TIMES WAS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF YOU THAT SIT THERE TODAY.

SOME OF THE CITY STAFF WAS THE SAME, BUT ONLY A COUPLE OF THEM. THE FIRST TIME WAS WHEN WE LIVED ON 91ST LANE, JUST OFF QUINCY. THE CITY OF LUBBOCK WAS DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO ALLOW ITS CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO RAISE CHICKENS IN THEIR BACKYARD, WHICH WE WERE AT THE TIME. AND THE OTHER TIME WAS AFTER WE PURCHASED OUR CURRENT HOME OUT ON 1294, AND THE CITY OF LUBBOCK ANNEXED THE VAST MAJORITY THERE IN NORTH OF TOWN AROUND US.

IN BOTH THOSE INSTANCES, THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS LISTENED TO THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS THAT WERE BEING AFFECTED BY THE DECISION, WHETHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.

AND BOTH OF THOSE TIMES, THE CITY AND THE CITIZENS CAME TO FAIR AND AGREEABLE COMPROMISES WHERE THE CITY WAS ABLE TO GET WHAT THEY NEEDED AND THE CITIZENS, INCLUDING MY FAMILY, WERE ABLE TO GET WHAT THEY NEEDED. BOTH OF THOSE SITUATIONS STARTED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME HAVING ALREADY MADE UP THEIR MINDS ABOUT WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AND WHAT THE OUTCOME SHOULD BE. BUT THEY LISTENED AND THEY CHANGED THEIR STANCE.

AT LEAST ENOUGH OF THE COMPROMISES TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO ALL THOSE INVOLVED. SO THAT'S ALL I'M AT. WHAT I'M ASKING FOR YOU TODAY, JUST PUT ASIDE YOUR PREDETERMINED DECISIONS, TRULY LISTEN TO WHAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TO SAY. LISTEN TO HOW WE SEE THE WAY YOUR DECISIONS TODAY WILL IMPACT OUR LIVES, OUR CHILDREN'S LIVES, AND THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. THERE ARE ALWAYS COMPROMISES TO BE MADE WHERE EVERYONE CAN WALK AWAY FEELING RESPECTED, FEELING HEARD, AND FEELING VALUED. PLEASE JUST LISTEN AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE HUMAN ASPECT OF YOUR DECISIONS. IT'S NOT ALWAYS AS EASY AS LOOKING AT A MAP AND A DOCUMENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO REAL SKIN IN THE GAME. SO, ON PAPER, THIS SEEMS LIKE A PRETTY SIMPLE DECISION FOR YOU. YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO GO AHEAD WITH REZONING THE CASE 3552 TO INDUSTRIAL.

BUT IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS NOT ACCURATE. IT WAS A SKEWED VERSION OF REALITY. THE PICTURES THAT WERE TAKEN TO SHOW THEM THE AREA ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE RHIMER SITE PLOT, WE'RE TAKING AS FAR AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS POSSIBLE. I PUT TOGETHER SOME PICTURES, BUT I COULDN'T GET THEM LABELED RIGHT, SO I DECIDED NOT TO HAND THEM TO Y' ALL BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE CONFUSION. THEY WERE TAKEN AS FAR EAST ON THAT.

ON THAT. THAT STRETCH OF THE RHIMER SITE ON 1294 AS YOU CAN GET. ALL OF OUR. ALL OF OUR HOMES ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THAT STRETCH. OURS TAKES UP ABOUT 500 LINEAR FEET OF THAT SPOT. ON 1294, THEY WERE ACTUALLY. SORRY. SO THEY WERE TAKEN IN FRONT OF THE.

MR. REIMER'S OTHER PIECE OF LAND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHERE HE BOARDS HORSES AND A FEW CATTLE AT A TIME THAT WE'VE COME TO FIND OUT HE'S ALREADY APPROACHED LITA AND STARTED DISCUSSION ON PURCHASING THAT PIECE OF THAT SECTION OF HIS PROPERTY AS WELL. THEY WEREN'T SHOWN A SINGLE ONE OF THE HOUSES ALONG 1294 THAT SAID ADJACENT TO THE PROS INDUSTRIAL SITE, OF WHICH, AS MR. HOLMAN POINTED OUT, THE BEST LOCATION FOR THAT SITE IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. SO THERE'S FOUR HOUSES THAT ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. SO IN THE PRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, MR. HOLMAN DESCRIBED IT, THE AREA AS HAVING SOMETHING THAT APPEARS LIKE IT USED TO BE A HOUSE, ONE BUSINESS, THE RV SHOP, AND SOME OTHER BUILDINGS THAT APPEAR LIKE THEY COULD BE OCCUPIED.

THESE ARE OUR HOMES, MINE, MY NEIGHBORS, THE BREEDLOVES AND THE TEALS. THE FOURTH PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH IS ON THE SAME PLOT OF LAND AS THE RYMER SITE, WHICH THE HOMELAND REFERENCED THAT THEY WERE IN THE PROCESS OF ACQUIRING. THAT PROCESS STARTED THE MORNING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING IN ORDER TO SHORE UP THE PROPERTY LINES.

ANOTHER ISSUE IS THAT WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO Y' ALL FROM THAT HEARING WAS A SEVERELY TRUNCATED AND MISSTATED VERSION OF OUR COMMENTS AND STATEMENTS.

CITY STAFF PRESENTED A MAP OF THE CASE SHOWING THOSE IN FAVOR AND THOSE OPPOSED. IT SHOWED 10 IN FAVOR AND ONLY ONE IN OPPOSITION. THE MAP TODAY WAS UPDATED SHOWING OURS ON THERE AS WELL.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY GOT TO SEE. OUR POSITION WASN'T INCLUDED, EVEN THOUGH WE DID HAVE IT SUBMITTED, ACCORDING TO THE NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT. THE CITY STAFF MEMBER FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS CONSISTENT TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT I HEAR IN A LOT OF THE ZONE CASES.

BUT I'M HARD PRESSED TO SEE HOW REZONING IT INTO INDUSTRIAL AND THE FUTURE

[01:10:03]

THE OTHER POINT IS THOSE 10 IN FAVOR WERE ALL FROM ONE OWNER, AND THAT WAS ALITA. WE BOUGHT OUR HOME IN 2015, THREE YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS EVEN ADOPTED. ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. SO OUR LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S WHAT I REFER TO IT AS, IT'S ONLY A FEW HOUSES, WAS ALIVE AND WELL AND FULLY OCCUPIED, CONTRARY TO MR. HOLMAN'S COMMENTS, LONG BEFORE THE PLAN CAME TO BE.

WERE WE ACCOUNTED FOR BACK THEN? NO. WAS THERE ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO THE ACTUAL PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THE AREA THAT GOT IDENTIFIED AS BEING NEEDED OR BEST SUITED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE? WE WEREN'T.

IS ANY THOUGHT GIVEN TO US NOW? WE'LL FIND OUT AND THAT'LL BE DETERMINED IN A LITTLE WHILE WHEN YOU'LL ACTUALLY. WHEN YOU'LL VOTE ON THIS ZONE CASE. UP UNTIL THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, WE WERE ACTUALLY CLUELESS THAT OUR PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED AS EVENTUALLY BEING ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK TO BE ZONED AS INDUSTRIAL. CAN I USE THE SLIDES? CAN I GO BACK TO THAT ONE? SO AS PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING WAS THE FIRST TIME WE SAW THIS PARTICULAR MAP. AND MR. HOLMAN EVEN STATED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING TO THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION THAT THIS, THIS STRIP RIGHT HERE WOULD EVEN BECOME INDUSTRIAL. WELL, THAT'S WHERE OUR HOMES SIT. SO THESE ARE HOMES, NOT VACANT BUILDINGS, NOT EMPTY FARMLAND? WELL, THERE ARE SOME VACANT BUILDINGS. I'LL BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T ADMIT THAT THE TWO. TWO PROPERTIES DOWN THERE IS A PROPERTY THAT HAS SOME VACANT BUILDINGS. THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ANOTHER POINT FOR THE COUNTY TO HANDLE AT THIS POINT. IT'S OUR HOME WHERE WE'VE RAISED OUR CHILDREN. WE'VE TAUGHT THEM TO CARE FOR LIVESTOCK AND TAUGHT THEM TO REBUILD A HOUSE THAT WAS IN, THAT WAS NEGLECTED INTO A SPRAWLING HOME THAT'S GIVEN EACH OF THEM, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM OF OUR SIX CHILDREN THE SPACE THEY NEEDED TO CALL THEIR OWN.

THREE OF THEM HAVE FLOWN THE COOP.

MY TWO OLDEST BOYS HAVE USED WHAT THEY LEARNED AT THAT HOUSE TO WORK ON IMPROVING AND MAINTAINING THEIR OWN HOMES. AND ONE OF THEM HAS ACTUALLY USED SEVERAL OF THOSE SKILLS THAT HE LEARNED IN TECH'S ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM, BUILDING SCALE MODELS AND THE COOL LITTLE THINGS THAT THEY DO THERE. SO WE HAVE THREE LEFT AT HOME TO CONTINUE TO TEACH THOSE SAME LESSONS, INCLUDING THE ONE THEY'RE LEARNING RIGHT NOW IS HOW TO HANDLE CONFLICT. WHEN YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE BUILDING FOR A LIFETIME OF MEMORIES, WHAT YOU THOUGHT WAS YOU WERE BUILDING FOR A LIFETIME OF MEMORIES IS THREATENED BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE HAS MORE MONEY AND THEREFORE MORE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS ALL AROUND YOU. THIS ISN'T AN INSTANCE OF JUST ONE INDUSTRIAL MANUFACTURING BUSINESS BEING PLACED NEXT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE OUTSKIRTS OF TOWN, AWAY FROM ALL THE PRISTINE LANDSCAPING AND APPARENTLY OCCUPIED HOUSES. THIS IS AN INSTANCE OF A SMALL GROUP OF HOUSES, OUR VERSION OF A NEIGHBORHOOD BEING COMPLETELY ENCASED BY AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. MR. HOLMAN JUST STATED JUST MOMENTS AGO THAT THEY'RE LITERALLY BRINGING INDUSTRY ALL AROUND. THAT IS LITERAL IN THIS CASE.

AT THE ZONING MEETING AND IN OUR MEETING WITH LITA, WE WERE TOLD THAT THIS IS JUST AN UNFORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCE.

BUT THIS IS A FAR CRY FROM UNFORTUNATE. THIS IS A DEVASTATING SITUATION THAT WAS CAREFULLY ORCHESTRATED BY LITA UTILIZING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS THEIR JUSTIFICATION. THE FUNNY THING IS THAT I'VE HEARD TWO SIDES OF THIS.

ON ONE SIDE I'VE BEEN TOLD, WELL, IT'S IN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN TO BE INDUSTRIAL, SO IT JUST MAKES SENSE. BUT I'VE ALSO BEEN TOLD IT'S JUST A PLAN, AND SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN.

BUT WHEN I LOOK AROUND AT THE PROPERTIES THAT LITA HAS BOUGHT AND GIVEN TO INDUSTRIAL COMPANIES AROUND OUR HOME, THE PLAN IS BEING FOLLOWED ALMOST TO A T.

SO WHY WOULD WE EXPECT ANYTHING LESS? WHEN WE MOVED INTO OUR HOME, WE HAD NOTHING BUT COTTON FIELDS IN FRONT OF US AND COTTON FIELDS BEHIND US. WE HAD CLEAR NIGHT SKIES ABOVE US. NOW WE HAVE THE BARE CROP SCIENCES BUILDING LIGHTING UP THE SKY TO OUR NORTH. AND IF LITA GETS THEIR WAY TODAY, WE'LL HAVE A YET UNKNOWN INDUSTRIAL PLANT TO THE SOUTH, BLOCKING OUR VIEW OF THE LUBBOCK SKYLINE. WE NOW HAVE THE PLASTIC PLANT AND THE PEANUT PLANT ACROSS THE INTERSTATE FROM US. WE CAN'T REALLY EXACTLY SEE THEM FROM OUR YARD. WE KNOW IT'S THERE AND WE DRIVE BY IT EVERY TIME WE GO TO PICK OUR KIDS UP FROM SCHOOL OR HEAD INTO THE CITY TO GO SHOPPING OR GO OUT TO EAT. THE REASON I MENTION THIS IS BECAUSE WHILE THE CITY MIGHT NOT GET OUR PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS, THEY GET NEARLY ALL OF OUR SALES TAX DOLLARS, WHICH, COINCIDENTALLY, IS WHAT HELPS TO FUND THE PURCHASES OF THE LAND ALL AROUND US. IF THE PLAN CONTINUES TO BE FOLLOWED, MORE INDUSTRIAL CORPORATIONS WILL BE PLACED TO THE WEST OF US AS WELL. AS

[01:15:03]

APPROVING THIS CASE WILL BRING THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT WITHIN 50FT OF OUR FRONT YARD. AND IF LITA HAD BEEN ABLE TO PURCHASE THE FIELD TO THE SOUTH OF US FROM FLATCO FARMS WHEN LITA APPROACHED THEM ABOUT IT, IT WOULD BE WITHIN 40FT OF OUR BACKYARD. WE'VE BEEN TOLD REPEATEDLY THERE'S NO PLAN FOR THE PLOT OF LAND KNOWN AS THE REIMER FARM. IT WAS AFFIRMED TODAY WITH DR. WILSON'S QUESTION.

THERE'S NO BUSINESS OR CORPORATION SEEKING TO PLACE THEIR WAREHOUSE OR MANUFACTURING PLANT OR ANYTHING ON THIS SPOT. THE ONLY INTEREST IN THIS IS LITA MAKING SURE THAT IT IS ONLY ZONED FOR WHAT THEY DEEM WORTHY OF OCCUPYING THIS PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT'S ONLY ZONE NOW IS SINGLE FAMILY BY DEFAULT BECAUSE THE CITY ADOPTED THE UNIFIED ZONING CODE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT TERM.

THAT'S JUST LIKE. I'LL TRY TO FIND THE NAME. BUT IT MAKES YOU WONDER WHY THE STATE REQUIRED EVERYTHING THAT WAS NEWLY ANNEXED OR ANNEXED AS TRANSITIONAL TO BECOME ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING. MY OPINION IS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO TRY TO PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES THAT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS ARE A VITAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY. WHILE WE WERE EXISTING BEFORE THE PLAN WAS WRITTEN, COMPREHENSIVE ALSO STATES THAT ZONING MUST BE FOR THE PROTECTION.

FOR PROTECTION OF HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. SO WHICH PUBLIC IS IT REFERRING TO? IS IT ONLY THE ONES INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS? ARE THOSE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE WORTHY OF HAVING SAFETY? ARE THEY THE ONLY ONES WORTHY OF HAVING THEIR HEALTH PROTECTED? AND WHAT HEALTH ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? JUST PHYSICAL OR THE MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH AS WELL? ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT'S MISSING FROM THIS CONVERSATION SO FAR IS THE SEVERE IMPACT THAT THIS DECISION, THE DECISION TO REZONE THIS TO AN INDUSTRIAL AND THEN BUILDING ANY NUMBER OF INDUSTRIAL TYPE FACILITIES ACROSS THE STREET FROM ALREADY VULNERABLE CHILDREN WILL HAVE THOSE THREE KIDS WE STILL HAVE AT HOME BEHIND ME TODAY ARE THREE OF OUR FOUR. THEY WERE BORN INTO OUR FAMILY OUT OF LOVE THROUGH THE GIFT OF ADOPTION.

THEY CAME INTO OUR HOME THROUGH THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM OF THE SOUTH PLAINS. MY WIFE AND I HAVE WORKED AND ADVOCATED FOR OUR CHILDREN SINCE THE DAY THEY CAME INTO OUR LIVES AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO IN EVERY WAY POSSIBLE. WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO STOP LITA FROM USING THE 383.42 ACRES THAT THEY PURCHASED FROM MR. REIMER FOR OVER $9 MILLION.

WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO STOP THEIR 50 MILLION DOLLAR WATER TOWER PROJECT. ITS ONLY PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE WATER TO ALL THAT VACANT FARMLAND THAT THEY'VE PURCHASED. MR. HOLMAN HIMSELF STATED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING THAT THEY HADN'T REZONED THESE PROPERTIES. SO THOSE LITTLE TWO THAT WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE, WE, BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A PLAN FOR IT. BUT FROM WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, THERE'S STILL NO PLAN. SO THERE'S STILL NO POINT IN REZONING. WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR YALLS HELP IN HOLDING THEM OFF UNTIL THEY HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE ASKING FOR A WAY OUT BEFORE BECOMING THE CENTERPIECE FOR THEIR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

WE REACHED OUT TO LITA AFTER THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, AFTER HEARING FROM MR. HOLMAN THAT THE FUTURE OF OUR HOME IS TO BE INDUSTRIAL ANYWAYS, TO TRY AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND A SOLUTION, A COMPROMISE. I'M NOT ONE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT SOMETHING AND NOT OFFER SOME TYPE OF SOLUTION. IT'S THE WAY I'VE ALWAYS BEEN. IT WAS TRUE. IT'S TRUE TO ME IN MY PERSONAL LIFE, MY WORK LIFE, AND EVEN DURING MY TIME IN THE NAVY. THE CITY STAFF THAT WAS PRESENT FOR THE ANNEXATION SHOULD REMEMBER THAT I CAME TO MEETING AFTER MEETING WITH MAP AFTER MAP OF OTHER PLANS FOR THE ANNEXATION. THEY DIDN'T TAKE ANY OF THE MAPS I PROVIDED. BUT THERE WAS STILL A COMPROMISE THAT WAS HAPPENING.

BUT WE LEFT THE MEETING WITH LITA. WE LEFT THAT MEETING WITH LITA BEING TOLD THAT WE SIMPLY WEREN'T VALUABLE TO THEM. OR AT LEAST NOT YET.

HAS ANYONE EVER TOLD YOU THAT YOU WEREN'T VALUABLE? OR THAT YOU WEREN'T VALUED AND WHAT YOU FORGED YOUR LITERAL BLOOD, SWEAT AND TEARS INTO FOR 11 YEARS ISN'T VALUABLE? IT HURTS ALMOST AS MUCH AS HEARING THE PLANNING AND ZONING THAT NO ONE WOULD WANT TO LIVE OUT THERE AND NO DEVELOPER WOULD EVER BUILD OUT THERE. MAKING IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT IF WE WANTED TO TRY AND SELL OUR HOUSE TO GET OUT OF THEIR WAY, THERE'D BE NO ONE THAT WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BUYING.

ESPECIALLY NOT GIVEN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT'S BEEN FORCED ONTO THE AREA.

BUT WE ALSO, IN GOOD FAITH, COULD, COULDN'T SELL THIS PROPERTY TO ANOTHER FAMILY WITHOUT FULLY DISCLOSING WHAT WE KNOW THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR IT. WE'RE ASKING FOR YOUR HELP TO GIVE US MORE TIME

[01:20:01]

THE THOROUGHFARE SECTION ALSO DESIGNATES 1294 AS THE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL. AND AFTER READING THE PLAN AND LISTENING COMMENTS FROM OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND PLANNING MEETINGS, IT'S CLEAR THAT THE FUTURE OF 1294 IS TO EVENTUALLY BE A FIVE LANE ROADWAY WHICH WOULD PUT THE ROAD AT OUR FRONT PORCH, LITERALLY OUTSIDE OUR DOORWAY AND OUR CHILDREN'S BEDROOM WINDOWS. WE'RE HONESTLY JUST TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE WAY TO ALLOW LITA AND THE CITY OF LUBBOCK TO FULFILL THEIR PLAN AND TO DO SO WITH AS LITTLE INTERRUPTION AS POSSIBLE. IT SEEMS FROM LITA'S PAST ACTIONS, VALUE ONLY COMES AT THE LAST MINUTE, AS IT DID BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. WE NEED YOUR HELP. WE NEED YOU TO SAY NO TO THIS REQUEST RIGHT NOW. NOT FOREVER, JUST FOR RIGHT NOW, SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO TRY AND WORK WITH LITA TO FIND THAT COMPROMISE THAT I KNOW IS THERE. WE GOT. WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH MR. GLASHEEN OVER THE PHONE ABOUT THIS. WE REACHED OUT TO ALL YOU CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WE GOT TO SPEAK WITH A COUPLE AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT Y' ALL TOOK. AND HE ASKED ME A QUESTION THAT STUCK OUT AND WHAT WOULD PREVENT US FROM CONTINUING TO WORK WITH LITA TO FIND A COMPROMISE IF THIS ON AIR REQUEST IS APPROVED TODAY? AND I DIDN'T HAVE A GREAT ANSWER AT THE TIME. HE CAUGHT ME A LITTLE OFF GUARD.

BUT MY FIRST RESPONSE IS THIS.

WHAT PREVENTS LITA FROM MARKETING THIS PLOT OF LAND BEFORE THE REZONING HAPPENS? IF THAT'S THEIR JUSTIFICATION, WHAT KEEPS THEM FROM CONTINUING TO MARKET IT WITH THE ZONING IN THE FUTURE? SECOND, IF THIS GETS APPROVED TODAY, WHAT MOTIVATION DOES LITA HAVE TO FIND A COMPROMISE ANYTIME SOON? THEY PURCHASED THIS LAND THREE YEARS AGO AND ARE JUST NOW REQUESTING TO REZONE IT.

SO IF THIS ZONING CHANGE GETS APPROVED, HOW LONG DO WE WAIT? HOW MUCH MORE DO WE INVEST IN A PROPERTY AND A LIFE THAT IS MARKED ON THE MAP FOR EXTINCTION? DO WE WAIT UNTIL OUR HOME IS COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL PLANTS AND OUR PROPERTY VALUES ARE DRIVEN AS LOW AS POSSIBLE BY THE PURCHASING ACTIONS OF LITA? NONE OF THE PURCHASES OF THE LAND OR HOMES AROUND US HAVE BEEN PROCESSED THROUGH THE MLS.

SO THE HOMES AND LAND IN OUR AREA THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO USE AS COMPS TO HELP VALUE OUR PROPERTY IN THAT INSTANCE CAN'T BE USED.

LIKE I SAID, I DON'T LIKE NOT HAVING SOLUTIONS. AND RIGHT NOW I ONLY SEE THREE.

ONE, YOU GIVE LEADER WHAT THEY WANT AND THEY LET US JUST SIT AND LIVE OUR LIVES SURROUNDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

TWO, YOU GIVE LEADER WHAT THEY WANT AND HOPE THAT WE EVENTUALLY FIND SOME VALUE IN THEIR EYES. OR THREE, YOU VOTE NO TO THE ZONING REQUEST FOR NOW AND HELP US AND LITA FIND A COMPROMISE. I'M ASKING YOU TO VOTE NOW. VOTE NO FOR NOW. LET THEM COME BACK WHEN THEY HAVE AN ACTUAL PLAN IN PLACE FOR THE LAND, FOR THE FAMILIES AND FOR THE FUTURE OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. DID YOU WISH. MR. GOSHEEN, DID YOU WISH TO HAVE A QUESTION TO MR. YES.

THE SPEAKER, IF I MAY? YES, IF YOU COME BACK UP.

YEAH. MR. CHRISTINE HAS A QUESTION FOR YOU.

THANK YOU, SIR. I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU AND YOUR WIFE ON THE PHONE.

COR. AND, AND Y' ALL EXPLAINED TO ME WHY YOU WANTED US TO, TO VOTE AGAINST THE ZONE CHANGE, RIGHT? YES, SIR.

AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YOU, YOU'RE ASKING US TO VOTE AGAINST THE ZONE CHANGE BECAUSE YOU NEED MORE TIME TO SELL YOUR HOUSE TO LITA TO FIND SOME KIND OF COMPROMISE.

I THINK YOU TOLD ME THAT IF WE DENIED THE ZONE CHANGE, YOU'D HOPE THAT THAT WOULD PUT MORE PRESSURE ON LITA TO BUY YOUR HOUSE.

IT'D GIVE THEM MORE, MORE SKIN IN THE GAME. YES.

AND YOU'VE ASKED LITA TO BUY YOUR HOUSE FOR A MILLION DOLLARS, IS THAT RIGHT? NO.

HAVE YOU EVER OFFERED A MILLION DOLLARS FOR YOUR HOUSE TO LITA? NO. OKAY.

BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT LITA DOESN'T HAVE ANY INTENTION TO USE YOUR, YOUR PROPERTY FOR ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, CORRECT? THANK YOU.

MR. HARRIS, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR HIM? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE PUT ON THAT PROPERTY SINCE THAT YOU ALL GOT MAKING ALL THESE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT WAREHOUSES AND HELIPADS AND ALL THAT.

WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE? SO I, I, I NEVER MADE ACCUSATIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING THE HELIPAD.

THAT WAS A LIST OF STUFF THAT MR. HOLMAN CAME UP WITH.

RIGHT. THAT THEY COULDN'T DO.

RIGHT. I, WE NEVER MENTIONED WHAT. SO THE ONLY THING I GO BY IS WHAT'S ON THE INDUSTRIAL IN THE AREA RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE? I, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PARTICULAR. I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THE MID CENTERED. I DON'T WANT TO BE THE CENTERPIECE OF AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT IS WHAT I DON'T WANT. LAST TIME YOU WAS HERE, YOU HAD,

[01:25:01]

RIGHT BUT WHAT I.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE PUT ON THAT PROPERTY LIGHT COMMERCIAL? YOU ALREADY SAID YOU DIDN'T WANT HEAVY COMMERCIAL.

I UNDERSTAND, MAN. AND I'VE ALREADY BEEN TOLD THIS. THIS WILL WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.

BUT I'D LOVE TO SEE A NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.

BUT I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT NO DEVELOPER WILL PUT A NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT TO RAILROAD TRACKS.

BUT YET THERE'S A BRAND NEW ONE IN WOLFERTH. OKAY, OKAY. A STORE. A STORE WOULD WORK.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I. WHEN I ASKED THE LAST TIME WHEN YOU WAS HERE, I WAS LIKE, FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE, YOU'RE BRINGING NEW HOMES IN THERE. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT STORES IN YOUR COMMUNITY. OH, I'D LOVE A STORE. I'D LOVE SOME RESTAURANTS. WE GOT NOTHING OUT THERE. WE HAVE WENDY'S AT THE. AT THE ROAD RANGER. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT. AND YOU KNOW, I'M OVER DISTRICT 2, AND WE'VE BEEN NEGLECTED FOR YEARS, FOR CENTURIES, FOR DECADES OF TRYING TO GET BUSINESSES.

SO AT LEAST LITA IS COMING TO YOU TRYING TO DO SOMETHING. THEY'RE NOT EVEN COMING TO DISTRICT 2 TO TRY TO DO NOTHING.

SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO WONDER. IF YOU WANT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL STORES AND THINGS FOR YOUR COMMUNITY, I'M GOOD WITH THAT. HONESTLY, I HADN'T RESEARCHED WHAT. WHAT EXACT COMPANIES OR TYPING COMPANIES CAN GO IN UNDER THE INDUSTRIAL OR THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. I HADN'T PUT THAT MUCH RESEARCH INTO THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF IT. SO, YEAH, I MEAN, AT THE MOMENT, MY ANSWER IS I'D LOVE A NEIGHBORHOOD. I'D LOVE STORES, RESTAURANTS, THAT TYPE OF STUFF. JUST NOTHING MAJOR.

YEAH, JUST NOTHING LIKE WHAT I SEE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INTERSTATE OR IN MY BACKYARD. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. BASHIM, THANK YOU.

YEAH, I WENT BACK TO MY NOTES, SO IT LOOKS LIKE I WAS A LITTLE BIT OFF.

JONATHAN KLEIN, HE'S YOUR REALTOR, CORRECT? YES, SIR.

OKAY. AND SO IT WASN'T A MILLION DOLLARS THAT HE ASKED FOR, LITA, BUT HE DID OFFER IT FOR $950,000, RIGHT? YES, SIR. WE. WE ASKED HIM TO.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE TO START, AND SO WE ASKED HIM TO HELP US OUT. AND THAT'S THE.

THE NUMBER THAT HE SUGGESTED BASED ON WHAT HE KNOWS OF THE OTHER SALES, I GUESS, IN THE AREA OR THE SAME SITUATION.

OKAY, THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS.

JUST TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT QUESTION, THAT I HADN'T HEARD THIS, YOU WERE ASKING 950,000 FOR YOUR HOME. HOW MANY ACRES IS THIS PROPERTY? IT IS 4.67.

4.67 ACRES. I DON'T DO MATH IN PUBLIC, BUT THAT'S $200,000 AN ACRE. I WONDER WHAT LEVA PAID FOR THE REIMER PROPERTY.

ABOUT 20,000, I BELIEVE. THE ANSWER, FARMLAND.

YES, SIR.

DO YOU HAVE AN APPRAISAL FOR YOUR PROPERTY? WE HAD NOT GOT ONE YET. THE BROKER FOR LITA CONTACTED MY WIFE ON A DAY THAT SHE HAD ABOUT SIX APPOINTMENTS AND WAS THE ONLY DAY THAT HE HAD OFFERED TO COME OUT AND TRY AND APPRAISE IT.

OKAY, WELL, THAT'S ALL FOR NOW. THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, I SEE THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS ANYONE ELSE HERE TODAY WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 7.2? MY NAME IS IN WHITWORTH. I LIVE AT CITY 602 FM 1294.

AT THE ZONING MEETING, I SAW THE MAP. IT WAS COLORED IN PURPLE. WHEN I LOOKED AT THAT MAP, IT TELLS ME THAT MY HOUSE WON'T BE THERE IN THE FUTURE. AND I GET REALLY UPSET ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S A HOUSE YOU WOULD ENJOY AND LOVE.

YOU WOULD LOVE PLAYING FOOTBALL IN THE FRONT YARD, BASKETBALL IN THE BAT. I WOULD NOT WANT TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT. IF IT WERE TO BE BUILT ACROSS THE STREET, IT WOULD MAKE ME ANXIOUS BECAUSE IT WOULD MEAN MORE CARS AND MORE TRUCKS BACKING IN AND BACKING AND PULLING UP.

IF MY HOUSE WERE TO BE TAKEN. I WOULD RATHER IT BE DONE NOW THAN IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT WOULD GIVE ME MY HIGH SCHOOL YEARS TO MAKE MEMORIES IN A HOME.

[01:30:02]

THANK YOU.

CAN I ASK YOU HOW OLD YOU ARE, SON? I'M 15.

15 YEARS OLD. OKAY, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ITEM 7.2? MY NAME IS ALVIN WHITWORTH AND I LIVE AT 602 FM 1294. I HAVE BEEN IN OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY TO HELP WITH ANXIETY AND SELF REGULATION. I FEEL OVERWHELMED AND UNCERTAIN AT SCHOOL, HOME AND WITH EVERYDAY TASKS.

WITH MY OT, WE DISCOVERED I'M UNABLE TO BREATHE FULLY. WHEN I NEED TO CALM DOWN. I AM UNABLE TO TAKE MORE THAN SEVEN BREATHS THROUGH MY NOSE BEFORE IT BECOMES TOO DIFFICULT.

MY BODY IS EXTREMELY TIGHT, MAKING THESE TASKS DIFFICULT.

DURING TIMES WHEN I FEEL ANXIOUS, MY HEART RACES. I HAVE DIFFICULTY BREATHING AND THINKING. INSTEAD, I ACT OUT WITH WORDS AND ACTIONS. I HAVE WORKED WITH MY OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST ON STRATEGIES TO MANAGE MY CHALLENGES. I HAVE WORKED ON BREATHING TECHNIQUES, BODY AWARENESSES AND WAYS TO STAY CALM WHEN THINGS FEEL STRESSFUL. MY OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST WANTS YOU TO KNOW ONE THING THAT HELPS WITH SELF REGULATION IS STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY.

WHEN OUR SURROUNDINGS ARE SAFE IN CONSENT, IT IS EASIER TO REGULATE EMOTIONS AND PEOPLE LIKE ME HAVE DECREASED.

MOMENTS OF ANXIETY, SUDDEN CHANGES AND UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT, ALONG WITH INCREASED SOUNDS AND NOISE, MAKE IT HARDER FOR ME TO MANAGE MY ANXIETY. THE DECISION TO REZONE MAY SEEM LIKE A SIMPLE DECISION, BUT FOR A TEENAGER LIKE ME, I'M STILL LEARNING TO MANAGE MY NERVOUS SYSTEM.

ENVIRONMENT MEANS A LOT. MY OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST SAYS THE SPACE AROUND US AFFECTS HOW WE FEEL, HOW WE FOCUS, AND HOW MUCH WE ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN DAILY LIFE.

PLEASE CAREFULLY CONSIDER HOW THESE CHANGES WILL IMPACT MINE AND MY SIBLINGS MENTAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. PLEASE DO NOT REZONE CASE 3552.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? MY NAME IS ZAYLIE WHITWORTH AND I LIVE AT 602 FM 1294. I'M 14 AND I'M THE YOUNGEST OF 6 KIDS.

I WAS ADOPTED AT THE AGE OF 2.

THE REASON MY PARENTS BOUGHT THIS HOUSE WAS BECAUSE MY SISTER AND I WERE BEING ADOPTED AND THIS HOUSE GAVE EACH OF US OUR OWN ROOM. TODAY I WANT TO VOICE MY OPINION ON THE LAND ACROSS THE STREET.

I DO NOT WANT THE LAND ACROSS THE STREET TO BECOME INDUSTRIAL BECAUSE I LIKE STANDING ON TOP OF MY BED AT NIGHT AND LOOKING OUT TO SEE THE CITY LIGHTS. THE REASON I LIKE LOOKING OUT IS BECAUSE THE FARM ACROSS THE STREET BRINGS ME A SENSE OF CALM. IT ALSO HELPS ME THINK OF MY OTHER TWO SISTERS. MY OTHER SISTERS WERE ADOPTED BY A DIFFERENT FAMILY AND EVEN THOUGH WE STAY IN TOUCH, IT STILL IS REALLY HARD FOR ME EMOTIONALLY. IF THERE WERE A BUILDING THERE THAT WOULD PREVENT ME FROM THE CALM THAT I FEEL WHEN LOOKING OUT AT THE NIGHT SKY. HOWEVER, I HAVE BEEN TOLD THIS WILL BECOME INDUSTRIAL AND I WAS AT THE OTHER MEETING AND SAW THE MAP.

I HEARD A GENTLEMAN SAY THIS WHOLE AREA WILL BECOME INDUSTRIAL. WHILE I DO NOT PREFER TO MOVE, I KNOW THAT BY LOOKING AT THAT MAP IT SEEMS THAT THAT IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN AT SOME POINT. THIS MAKES ME FEEL ANXIOUS ABOUT NOT KNOWING WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. IF I IF I HAVE TO MOVE, I WANT TO DO SO NOW AND NOT WHEN A BUILDING IS IS BEING BUILT. MY FAVORITE THING TO DO IS READ AND I LIKE TO SIT OUTSIDE AND BE ABLE TO READ MY BOOKS. I JUST FINISHED THE HARRY POTTER SERIES. IF THERE IF THERE WAS A BUSINESS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET THAT MADE NOISE, IT WOULD MAKE MY LOVE OF READING OUTSIDE REALLY DIFFICULT.

MY PARENTS TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD BEEN TRYING TO COME TO A SOLUTION WITH THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET, BUT THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT. MS. KAYLEE SAYS THAT FOR KIDS LIKE ME, STABILITY AND PRE PREDICTABILITY ARE NECESSARY FOR HELPING WITH MY ANXIETY, SLEEP DISTURBANCE AND HELPING ME FEEL SAFE. I WANT A HOME THAT FEELS SAFE. PLEASE DO NOT REZONE CASE 3552. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY OPINION.

WE'RE GOING TO.

BEFORE WE JUMP FORWARD, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BRIEF BREAK HERE ABOUT 10 MINUTES AND WE WILL RESUME IN ABOUT 10 MINUTES.

OKAY? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE BACK.

WE'RE BACK FROM RECESS. IS THIS WORKING? OKAY. IT DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT FOR SOME REASON, DOESN'T SAY. CAN Y' ALL HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING OUT THERE? NO, IT'S NOT NOW. OKAY. I MEAN, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR WHAT I'M SAYING, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO. IS THAT

[01:35:04]

LET'S CONTINUE WHERE WE WERE.

AND ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, ITEM 7.2, PLEASE STEP FORWARD.

GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS KYLA WHITWORTH AND I ALSO RESIDE AT 602 FM 1294. I AM HERE TO RESPECTFULLY OPPOSE THE REQUEST TO REZONE 3, 3552.

JUST TO REITERATE THAT OUR PROPERTY IS IN THAT LITTLE STRIP OF LAND THAT SHOWS WE WILL BE ACQUIRED AT SOME POINT. WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS THAT WE NOT BE THERE OR THE ACQUISITION ALREADY OCCUR SO THAT WE CAN RELOCATE OUR FAMILY. OUR PROPERTY LINE IS IN. OUR PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH THE REIMER FARM LOCATION. IN FACT, OUR FRONT YARD IS LESS THAN 50FT FROM THE RIMER FARM. 500FT OF OUR PROPERTY LINE RUNS PARALLEL TO THE THOUSAND FEET OF PROPERTY LINE KNOWN AS THE RYMER FARM. ON 1294, NO MATTER WHERE A PLANT IS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY OR WHERE A DRIVEWAY IS PLACED, IT WILL BE IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY. THE FRONT OF OUR HOUSE LOOKS DIRECTLY AT THE PROPERTY, ONLY DIVIDED RIGHT NOW BY A TWO LANE FARM TO MARKET ROAD. I SPOKE AT THE ZONING HEARING AND OPPOSED THE DECISION DECISION TO REZONE. I DO BELIEVE THAT A FEW OF MY STATEMENTS MAY HAVE COME IN A PLACE OF IGNORANCE ON MY PART. I DO NOT THINK THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO REZONE THIS LAND TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN INDUSTRIAL GIVEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HOWEVER, LIKE MY HUSBAND STATED, UP UNTIL THE ZONING MEETING, WE HAD NEVER BEEN GIVEN ANY KIND OF NOTICE THAT THIS LAND WHERE OUR HOUSE SITS WILL BE INDUSTRIAL. MR. HOLMAN STATED CLEARLY IN THE ZONING MEETING THAT EVEN THIS STRETCH OF LAND WILL. THE HOMES WILL NO LONGER BE THERE, THAT WILL BE INDUSTRIAL. AND SPEAKING WITH MR. OSBORNE, HE HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME.

LIKE MY HUSBAND SAID, FOUR OF OUR CHILDREN WERE GIVEN TO US BY THE GIFT OF ADOPTION. ALL FOUR OF THESE CHILDREN HAVE HAD SOME FORM OF NEGLECT AND TRAUMA IMPOSED ON THEM IN WHICH THEY HAD NO SAY. IT FEELS AS THOUGH THIS SITUATION PUTS THEM IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE NO SAY. IT HAS BECOME GENERAL KNOWLEDGE THAT LITA HAS ACQUIRED ALL OF THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD. IT WAS STATED IN A MEETING WITH MR. OSBORNE, LITA IS INTERESTED IN OUR PROPERTY, BUT IT IS NOT NEEDED AT THIS TIME AND THEREFORE IT IS LESS VALUABLE. THE LAND ACROSS THE STREET WAS NEEDED TO SHORE UP PROPERTY LINES AND RUN A 15 MILLION DOLLAR WATER SYSTEM. EVEN THIS MAP SHOWS THAT OUR LAND WILL BE NEEDED TO SHORE UP THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. SEEING THE MAP AND KNOWING THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE OUR HOME WILL BE USED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE, I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS NOT BEING ACQUIRED PRIOR TO BRINGING INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

EVEN IF OUR LAND IS NOT NEEDED AT THIS TIME, IT DOES NOT NEGATE THE DEVASTATING SETBACKS IT WILL HAVE. MY CHILDREN WILL HAVE TO ENDURE. WHY DO MY CHILDREN'S FEELINGS AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH NOT HAVE VALUE? MR. REIMER ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD IS ALREADY IN TALKS WITH LITA TO ACQUIRE THEIR ADDITIONAL PIECE OF LAND. AND THEY AND LITA HAS APPROACHED FLATLAND CO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD ABOUT ACQUISITION. BUT YET, FOR SOME REASON WE ARE NOT THE SAME. EVEN THOUGH WE SHARE THAT STRETCH OF LAND. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND THOSE TWO PROPERTIES IS MR. OSBORNE GETS TO SET WHO IS WORTH ACQUIRING.

LEAD US FAILING TO TAKE INTO THE CONSIDERATION THE HUMAN IMPACT THIS BUSINESS DECISION HAS WITH. WE WOULD LIKE TO COME TO A COMPROMISE IN WHICH LITA CAN REZONE, BUT WE DO NOT WANT TO BE AFFECTED BY OUR REQUEST. WE HAVE MET WITH LITA. WE EXPLAINED HOW THIS AFFECTS OUR CHILDREN AND WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. IN SPEAKING WITH MR. GLASHEEN, HE ASKED US WHAT WOULD PREVENT US AND LITA COME TO AN AGREEMENT AFTER THE LAND HAS BEEN REZONED. MR. OSBORNE HAS FAILED TO COME TO A FAIR AGREEMENT FOR OUR PROPERTY IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. SO WHAT WOULD MAKE HIM DO SO? IF THE REZONING IS FOUND IN HIS FAVOR TODAY BY LITA'S ACTIONS, THEY ARE LESS WILLING TO GIVE FAIR AND EQUITABLE PRICING UNTIL THE LAST MOMENT THEY NEED A PROPERTY. FOR INSTANCE, THE REIMER FARM WAS ACQUIRED BY LITA THREE YEARS AGO FOR A PRECIOUS PRICE OF $9 MILLION. HOWEVER, OUR NEIGHBORS WHO SHARE THAT SAME PARCEL OF LAND WERE NOT OFFERED A FAIR SETTLEMENT UNTIL THREE THREE WEEKS AGO.

RIGHT BEFORE THE ZONING, PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, LITA WAS ABLE TO JUSTIFY THEIR PURCHASE OF THE REIMER FARM AT MORE THAN EIGHT TIMES HIGHER THAN THAT OF MARKET PRICE. LITA IS THE ONE IMPLEMENTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO THEY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA. WE DON'T SIMPLY LIVE IN THIS AREA. WE ARE BEING ENCASED WITH INDUSTRIES.

INDUSTRIES FROM LITERALLY EVERY SIDE.

LIKE MY HUSBAND SAID, DUE TO THE NATURE OF THESE SALES, THESE PURCHASES NEVER MAKE IT TO THE MLS SYSTEM, AND THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED OUR COMPS. EVEN IF WE WANTED TO SELL OUR PROPERTY TO ANOTHER OWNER, WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO DO SO.

[01:40:01]

HOWEVER, IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE THE OPPOSITE. OUR VALUE WILL CONTINUE TO DECREASE IF INDUSTRIAL ZONING WERE TO HAPPEN. WHY CAN WE JUSTIFY $9 MILLION TO TO PURCHASE FARMLAND, BUT WE CANNOT COME TO AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE STABILITY AND PREDICTABILITY TO VULNERABLE CHILDREN? AND FOR THE RECORD, I'M NOT ASKING FOR EIGHT TIMES HIGHER THAN MARKET VALUE. I'M ONLY ASKING FOR WHAT IS FAIR AND COMPARABLE TO WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS JUST RECEIVED EARLIER THIS MONTH.

ADJUSTING FOR THE SIZE OF PROPERTY. I KNOW THAT THE AMOUNT THAT WAS THROWN OUT SEEMS REALLY, REALLY RIDICULOUS GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE WE HAVE. HOWEVER, GIVEN WHAT WAS LITA GAVE FOR THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, IT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE. I DON'T HONESTLY HAVE THAT NUMBER BECAUSE OUT OF RESPECT FOR OUR NEIGHBOR, WE DID NOT ASK. WE DO KNOW THAT. I. I WILL MAKE AN ASSUMPTION HERE, AND YOU CAN CLARIFY WITH MR. OSBORNE IF I AM WRONG. AND IF I AM WRONG, I APOLOGIZE. THAT PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED FOR ALMOST HALF A MILLION DOLLARS.

IT IS OVER 2 ACRES SMALLER THAN OUR PLACE, AND THE HOUSE IS LESS THAN HALF THE SIZE. AND IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SHOP FOR MY BUSINESS THERE. OUR BACKYARD IS NOW THE BAYER CROP SCIENCE PLANT. ACCORDING TO THE MAP, OUR ENTIRE HOME WILL BE ENCOMPASSED WITH INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES, LEAVING OUR FAMILY TO DEAL WITH THE WRATH OF WHAT HAS BEEN DEEMED.

UNFORTUNATE SITUATION. THE ONLY UNFORTUNATE SITUATION IS THAT FAMILIES ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO HAVE VALUE UNTIL LITA DECIDES THAT THEY HAVE VALUE.

WHY CAN LITA NOT SHORE UP THE ENTIRE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ALL AT ONCE SO THAT NO FAMILIES ARE LEFT AND BUSINESSES CAN BE MARKETED TO THIS AREA? WHY CAN LITA NOT REMEDY THE SITUATION IN WHICH THEY ARE IMPOSING? ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS CHECKS AND BALANCES FOR LITA AND FOR MR. OSBORNE.

DURING THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, MR. HOLMAN PRESENTED A MAP THAT SHOWED THE 10 IN FAVOR AND ONE OPPOSED. AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THE 10 IN FAVOR WERE ALL PROPERTIES OWNED BY LITA. LITA USES ITS BUYING POWER AND OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND. TO CREATE A BIAS.

IN FACT, OUR OPPOSITION NEVER MADE IT TO THE MAP. AND THEN LITA PURCHASED THE OTHER OPPOSITION.

THE MORNING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING IN JANUARY, LITA ANNOUNCED PLANS TO BEGIN MARKETING THE RIMER FARM TO POTENTIAL BUSINESS. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN A MEETING WITH MR. OSBORNE THAT 1.5 MIL, OR NO, SORRY, $1 MILLION IS TO BE SPENT ON INSTALLING AN ON AND OFF SWITCH FOR RAIL CARTS ON THIS STRETCH OF LAND THAT IS ON THE RYMER FARM. THIS WOULD CREATE ADDITIONAL NOISE OF TRAIN CARS HOOKING AND UNHOOKING. IN KAYLEE'S NEWBOLD LETTER, WHICH IS A TBRI SPECIALIST, WHICH I EMAILED TO YOU PREVIOUSLY, SHE STATED HOW ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS SUCH AS NOISE CAN CREATE SETBACKS TO MY CHILDREN WHO HAVE WORKED FOR OVER A DECADE TO HEAL. NOT JUST SETBACKS, AS OUR OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST MENTIONED, THE ABILITY TO REGULATE AND EVEN PARTICIPATE IN DAILY LIFE.

IN ADDITION, CONSTRUCTION WOULD BRING VEHICLES WITH FLASHING LIGHTS. WHILE THOSE MAY BE CONSTRUCTION AND ROAD MAINTENANCE VEHICLES WITH CHILDREN IN A BACKGROUND OF TRAUMA, FLASHING LIGHTS OF ANY KIND CAN TRIGGER ANXIETY AND UNEASINESS DUE TO THEIR OVERALL HEALTH.

IN PAGE 181 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT STATES TO DISALLOW THE EXPANSION OF OR NEW DEVELOPMENT OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL SITES ADJACENT TO, DOWNWIND OR DOWNSTREAM FROM EXISTING AND PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. MY HOME IS ADJACENT TO AND DOWNWIND OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, AND THAT IS THE PART WE ARE TRYING TO REMEDY. REZONING WHILE WE STILL LIVE HERE WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DIMINISH OUR QUALITY OF LIFE, OUR SAFETY, AND OUR PROPERTY VALUE.

ANOTHER STATEMENT THAT WAS NOT TRANSFERRED OVER FROM THE ZONING MEETING WAS UPON APPROVAL, IT STATED THAT THE LAND MAKES SENSE TO REZONE, BUT A SURE HOPE LEADER WILL GET OUT THERE AND TAKE CARE OF THOSE FAMILIES. IT SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE TASK WHEN THOSE FAMILIES ARE WILLING TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT. IT IS UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT HOMEOWNERS TO ABSORB THE FINANCIAL AND PERSONAL CONSEQUENCES OF A REZONING DECISION. WHILE WE STILL LIVE THERE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO MARKET OUR HOME EFFECTIVELY, LEAVING US TRAPPED.

MEANWHILE, WILL AND I WILL NOT ONLY ENDURE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN, BUT THE EMOTIONAL BURDEN OUR CHILDREN WILL BE PUTTING IN. OUR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN PRESENT FOR EVERY ANNEXATION, ZONING, AND NOW CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT AFFECTS OUR HOME. OUR CHILDREN FEEL THE UNCERTAINTY.

ALREADY OUR CHILDREN HAVE SEEN THE MAP WITH OUR HOME COLORED IN PURPLE. I HAVE A STATEMENT, ONE OF OUR CHILDREN'S BAND DIRECTORS, THAT MENTIONS WE'VE ALREADY HAD A REGRESSION IN BEHAVIOR. I PREFER NOT TO READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY BECAUSE I DO NOT CHOOSE

[01:45:02]

WE HAD BEHAVIORAL ISSUES IN THE FALL, BUT BY CONCERT SEASON, WE HAD SEEN MASSIVE IMPROVEMENTS. EVERY DAY SINCE THE ZONING HEARING. I'M SORRY. MY CHILDREN ASK ABOUT THE REZONING AND WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IT HAS CREATED ANXIETY IN ALL OF THEM. THIS PARTICULAR CHILD WORKS SO HARD TO CREATE SELF CONTROL, SO THESE BEHAVIORS DO NOT AFFECT FRIENDSHIPS OR LEARNING.

HOWEVER, LAST TUESDAY, THIS CHILD HAD A REGRESSION IN BEHAVIOR. MY CHILD LISTENED TO THE PRINCIPAL'S OFFICE FOR IMPULSIVE BEHAVIORS. THESE BEHAVIORS WE SEE WHEN ANXIETY CREEPS IN. MR. OSBORNE DID NOT ANSWER THAT PHONE CALL WHEN IT CAME FROM THE SCHOOL. I DID. I HANDLE IT BEHAVIORALLY AND I HANDLE IT EMOTIONALLY. WHEN MY CHILDREN FEEL UNCERTAINTY, WHEN I SAY MY CHILDREN WILL BE AFFECTED, MY CHILDREN ARE AFFECTED. WHEN OUR SON WAS PLACED WITH US AT 10 MONTHS OLD, HE WAS DIAGNOSED AS FAILURE TO THRIVE. WE WERE TOLD HE WOULD NEVER WALK, HE WOULD NEVER TALK. WE WERE TOLD HIS BRAIN HAD STOPPED GROWING. AND WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET. WILL AND I COMMITTED TO THAT. WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET. THROUGH YEARS OF THERAPY AND DEDICATION FROM WILL AND I. HE STOOD BEFORE YOU TODAY TO ASK YOU NOT TO MAKE HIM LIVE WITH AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET. MY DAUGHTERS, WHO STRUGGLE TO ADVOCATE FOR THEMSELVES DUE TO ANXIETY, STOOD BEFORE YOU TODAY EXPRESSING WHAT THE EFFECTS OF REZONING WOULD HAVE ON THEM. I HAVE ADVOCATED FOR MY CHILDREN SINCE THE MOMENT THEY WERE CARRIED THROUGH OUR DOOR. I HAVE TAUGHT MY CHILDREN THEY HAVE WORTH. I AM ASKING THAT AS THE CITY COUNCIL, YOU ADVOCATE FOR THEM AS WELL. I AM ASKING THAT YOU NOT UNDO THE DECADES WORTH OF WORK THAT MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE PUT INTO HEALING THESE CHILDREN. I AM NOT ASKING FOR A NO. I AM ASKING FOR A NOT YET. I AM ASKING THAT YOU HOLD LEVA'S FEET TO THE FIRE, TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAMILY'S LAND THEY ARE EVENTUALLY TO PLANNED, PLANNING TO ACQUIRE. WE'RE NOT ASKING THE LITA NEVER GET TO USE THE LAND IN THE WAY THEY DESIRE. IF THE REZONING WERE TO HAPPEN BEFORE COMING TO AN AGREEMENT, LITA HAS NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO LISTEN TO THAT ZONING COMMITTEE. I'M ASKING, AS A MOM, ESPECIALLY A MOM OF CHILDREN WHO HAVE TRAUMATIC HISTORIES, WOULD YOU VOTE IN FAVOR IF THESE WERE YOUR CHILDREN THAT ARE AFFECTED THE WAY MINE ARE AFFECTED? WHAT SEEMS LIKE A SIMPLE REZONING REQUEST ON BEHALF OF LITA IS NOT SIMPLE WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE EFFECTS IT WILL HAVE. I'M ASKING THAT YOU PUT FAMILY FIRST, THEN LITO. BY TAKING CARE OF FAMILY, MY CHILDREN CAN CONTINUE TO MAKE PROGRESS. BUSINESSES CAN THEN COME IN AND THE LIC ECONOMY CAN GROW WITHOUT DIVISION AND HURT.

I'M NOT ASKING THIS BECAUSE I BELIEVE WE ARE IMMUNE TO WHAT'S GOING ON ACROSS THE STREET OR ENTITLED JUST BECAUSE WE DO NOT WISH TO LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN INDUSTRIAL PLANT, BUT BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OUR HOME WILL NO LONGER BE THERE IF OUR HOME IS SET TO BE INDUSTRIAL. I'M ASKING THAT YOU SAVE MY CHILDREN FROM THE UNFORTUNATE SITUATION THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS CREATED.

PLEASE HOLD OFF ON REZONING CASE 3552 UNTIL A FAIR AGREEMENT CAN BE REACHED.

I DO BELIEVE IT CAN BE SWIFT AND EFFICIENT. I WANT TO SEE THIS CITY GROW, BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE. EXPENSE OF HURTING MY CHILDREN. I AM ASKING YOU TO SHOW THEM THEIR VOICES MATTER. I AM ASKING THAT MY CHILDREN BE CONSIDERED AS VALUABLE TO THIS CITY AS THAT PARCEL OF LAND IS VALUABLE TO LITA.

THE NEXT DECISION YOU MAKE HAS A LIFELONG IMPACT ON THE SOULS SITTING IN THIS AUDIENCE TODAY. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS HAS TO BE A LITA OR A WHITWORTH ISSUE. I BELIEVE THERE IS A WINNING SOLUTION FOR ALL OF US WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE HUMAN IMPACT THIS DECISION HAS.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ALL RIGHT. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 3:53PM. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.2? IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. I SEE NO ONE WISHING TO DISCUSS THE MATTER FURTHER. I WOULD JUST. WE APPRECIATE EACH ONE OF YOU COMING FORWARD TODAY.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND

[01:50:02]

THAT'S WHO ELECTED ME AND THAT'S WHO I ANSWER TO.

ULTIMATELY, THAT HAS NOT OFTEN PUT ME. SOMETIMES IT PUTS ME IN A DIFFICULT POSITION. IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T CONCERN MYSELF WITH PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE IN THE CITY, BUT I HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PEOPLE WHO ELECTED ME AND THE PEOPLE WHO EXPECT ME TO REPRESENT THEIR INTERESTS, THEIR TAXPAYERS AND THE CITIZENS. IT'S PARENTS JOBS TO LOOK OUT FOR THEIR CHILDREN. AND I COMMEND YOU FOR DOING THAT. I KNOW THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO, AND SO THAT'S WHY IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT. I'M A FATHER. I HAVE KIDS. I HAVE GRANDKIDS, TOO. BUT THERE'S HARDLY A DECISION WE WILL MAKE UP HERE THAT ESPECIALLY IN ZONING, AND I'VE BEEN IN MANY OF THEM, THAT WON'T AFFECT SOMEBODY NEGATIVELY.

I'VE HAD DIFFICULT VOTES OF MY OWN, USUALLY INVOLVING RESIDENTS IN THE CITY AND OTHER RESIDENTS IN THE CITY. SO I KNOW HOW THAT IS. AND I KNOW PEOPLE UP HERE MAY DISAGREE ON HOW THEY WEIGH AND BALANCE THE DIFFERENT ISSUES BEFORE THEM. THAT DOESN'T MEAN ONE OF US IS RIGHT AND ONE OF US IS WRONG. WE JUST HAVE TO ANSWER TO OUR CONSCIENCE AND WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. SO WITH THAT, IF NO ONE ELSE HAS ANY DISCUSSION, I WILL CALL FOR A VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING AGENDA ITEM 7.22, PLEASE LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. SO THAT MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0.

[3. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 3541, a request of the City of Lubbock, for a zone change in City Council District 2, from Neighborhood Commercial District (NC) to Office District (OF), at 10 Briercroft Office Park, Lots 9, 10, 10-A, and the north 6.61 feet of Lot 12, Briercroft Office Park Addition, and consider an ordinance.]

THE COUNCIL WILL NOW TAKE UP ZONING CASE 3541 WHICH ENCOMPASSES AGENDA ITEM 7.3 AND 7.4. WE WILL TAKE UP EACH AGENDA ITEM RELATING TO THIS ZONING CASE SEPARATELY.

FIRST, THE COUNCIL WILL TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 7.3 OF ZONING CASE 3541, WHICH IS REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO OFFICE DISTRICT AT NUMBER 10, BRIARCROFT OFFICE PARK, LOTS 9, 10 AND 10A AND THE NORTH 6.61FT OF LOT 12, BRYCROFT OFFICE PARK. AND MS. SAGER, WILL YOU PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THIS ZONING CASE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING? THANK YOU, MAYOR. ITEM 7.4 IS THE DISTRICT 2 ZONE CHANGE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR ZONING MAP ANALYSIS.

ITEM 7.3, BEFORE YOU HEAR, IS THE ONE PROPERTY FROM THE RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDED CHANGES WHERE WE RECEIVED PROPERTY OWNER OPPOSITION AND THUS A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE IS REQUIRED. THE REQUESTED ZONE CHANGE ON THIS PROPERTY IS FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL TO OFFICE.

FOR THE ENTIRE CASE WE SENT 959 NOTIFICATIONS, RECEIVED A TOTAL OF SIX IN FAVOR, ONE IN OPPOSITION.

IN RELATION TO THIS PROPERTY WE ARE DISCUSSING HERE TODAY.

THAT'S AN OVERALL AERIAL MAP.

YOU'LL SEE IT AGAIN ON ITEM 7.4. THE PROPERTY BEING DISCUSSED FOR ITEM 7.3 IS NUMBER 10, BRIARCROFT OFFICE PARK OUTLINED ON THE AERIAL MAP HERE, LOCATED SOUTH OF 57TH EAST OF AVENUE P. THE CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE BRIARCROFT OFFICE PARK PARK THERE ON AVENUE Q THAT HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THE REST ARE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. WE ARE ASKING TO CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OF THIS PROPERTY AT NUMBER 10 BRIARCROFT TO OFFICE. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATES THIS AREA FOR OFFICE LAND USES.

HERE'S ANOTHER VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE ZONING FOR THE ENTIRE OFFICE PARK.

THE CURRENT USE ON THE PROPERTY IS OFFICE STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY UNANIMOUS VOTE. HOWEVER, AGAIN BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS IN OPPOSITION, A SUPER MAJORITY OF 6 OUT OF 7 VOTES IS REQUIRED TO REZONE THE SINGLE PROPERTY.

AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, FIRST MY QUESTION IS WHAT WOULD, WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL

[01:55:01]

OKAY. OKAY. MR. GLUSHIN, THE EXISTING USE FITS UNDER OFFICE, CORRECT? YES.

WHY? DO YOU KNOW WHY? THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OPPOSED TO THE ZONE CHANGE AND HE IS HERE TODAY. BUT I BELIEVE IT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT ADDITIONAL USES ALLOWED IN THE CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MS. SAGER? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM 7.3. AND IS ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS ZONE CASE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. I SEE NONE. IS ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MOTT MCLENDON. I LIVE AT 16TH AND SALEM AND WORK AT 1500 BROADWAY. OUR COMPANY OWNS NUMBER 10 BRIARCROFT AND I OBJECTED WHEN I RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF THE AREA WIDE REZONING.

MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S A DIFFERENT.

AM I GOING THE RIGHT WAY? I'M GOING THE WRONG WAY.

I WILL MESS THIS UP.

DON'T PLAY WITH THE EQUIPMENT.

YEAH, DON'T TOUCH THIS. OKAY, PERFECT. I WILL NOT TOUCH ANYTHING ELSE. SO WE ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY WITH NC ZONE. I DIDN'T ASK FOR NZ ZONING, DIDN'T KNOW HOW IT GOT THERE.

BUT THE ABILITY TO MARKET THAT PROPERTY WITH SOME OF THOSE ADDITIONAL USES, PRIMARILY RETAIL AND FOOD AND BEVERAGE I THINK IS A DIFFERENTIATOR. YOU'LL NOTICE FROM THE MAP THAT WE DO NOT COMMUNICATE DIRECTLY OR ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEARBY. WE FACE TOWARDS THE THOROUGHFARE AND WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT BE FORCIBLY UP ZONED TO OFFICE. TO YOUR QUESTION, THE CURRENT USE, THE MOST RECENT USE OF THIS PRO PROPERTY IS OFFICE WHICH IS A PERMITTED BY RIGHT USE IN BOTH NC AND IN OF. AND SO JUST FIND OVER TIME THAT YOU KNOW, A LITTLE DIFFERENCE IN FLEXIBILITY ALLOWS FOR BETTER MARKETING OF THE PROPERTY OVERALL. I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY DON'T YET HAVE A PLAN TO ACQUIRE OTHER PROPERTY OVER THERE, BUT MIGHT BE ABLE TO ENTICE SOMEONE LOOKING TOWARDS THAT PROPERTY IN THE PROPERTIES TO, TO THE NORTH AND EAST, TOWARDS SOMETHING LIKE A RESTAURANT ROW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WITH ENOUGH SCREENING BACK TOWARDS THE USES TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE WEST THAT THAT MIGHT WORK.

I MEAN AVENUE Q IS A THOROUGHFARE. JUST REALLY LOOKING BASICALLY COMING HERE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT THE ZONING THAT I WANT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY'S TRYING TO DO. OVERALL, I THINK THE USE OF THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IN IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE USES THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY. BUT I DO LIKE THE FLEXIBILITY AND PREFER TO MAINTAIN THE FLEXIBILITY THAT I BOUGHT WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. AND SO WE'D ASK FOR YOU NOT TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THIS ONE PROPERTY ALONE.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU'VE GOT ANY.

ANY QUESTIONS. MR. COLLINS.

MS. SAGER, THE. THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THIS TRIANGLE ARE CURRENTLY ZONED OFFICE OR WHAT.

WHAT ZONING IS THERE NOW? HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND NUMBER 24 IS ALSO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

THE REST OF THESE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. BUT, BUT THIS HAS BEEN, THIS HAS BEEN AN OFFICE PARK FOR DECADES.

50 YEARS.

RIGHT? I THINK, I THINK WE, BUT WE JUST KIND OF CONFERRED.

I THINK IT BECAME HDR AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE CHANGES OF WHAT WE USED TO HAVE ONE OF THE APARTMENT COMMERCIAL ZONES THAT WENT TO HDR IN THE UDC TRANSITION. SO IT'S HDR, BUT WASN'T DESIGNATED HDR FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME THAT IT EXISTED.

IT WAS ONE OF THOSE EDGE CASE APARTMENT ZOOM ZONINGS UNDER THE OLD CODE THAT GOT TURNED INTO HDR AT TRANSITION. AND SO THE YELLOW PROPERTIES ON THE MAP, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, SF1 OR SF2.

SF2.

IS IT UNCOMMON TO HAVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ADJACENT TO SF1 OR SF2? IT'S NOT USUALLY THE COMMERCIAL WOULD BACK UP TO THE RESIDENTIAL. YOU DO HAVE A STREET THAT SEPARATES THE TWO.

AVENUE P IS A, NOT AN ARTERIAL OF COURSE, BUT A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.

YEAH, THREE LANE IN THIS AREA. IT SHOULD BE A COLLECTOR.

YEAH, IT'S TECHNICALLY A. IT'S A VERY ODD AREA BECAUSE

[02:00:01]

BUT I THINK AVENUE P IS ON THE OVERALL PLAN DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR OF MORE INTENSE USE THAN A STREET USE. WELL, CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE, THE DESIRE TO MAKE A CHANGE FROM HDR. I'M JUST WONDERING MYSELF, I'M WONDERING IF WE HAVEN'T TAKEN A STEP OR TWO TOO FAR WITH BEING RESTRICTED TO OFFICES ONLY, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE PURPOSES OF THOSE BUILDING MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE AS WE TRY TO SEE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH ALONG AVENUE Q AND THIS SECTOR, WE'VE GOT GOOD PROTECTION FROM THESE SF1 AND SF2 PROPERTIES WITH AVENUE P. AND SO I'M KIND OF JUST WONDERING WHY WE WENT, YOU KNOW, SO MANY STEPS UP TO OFFICE. ONLY THERE IN AN OFFICE, ONLY ZONING.

AND MR. WALLACE PROVIDED TO ME THE OTHER DAY A LIST OF THINGS THAT COULD GO INTO SOME OF THESE DIFFERENT SEGMENTS.

BUT OFFICE IS STRICTLY THAT ONLY OFFICE. NO TYPE OF DRIVE UP, DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESS, NO TYPE OF RETAIL, NO TYPE OF RESTAURANT OR COFFEE SHOP OR ANYTHING OF THAT SORT WOULD GO IN THAT SPACE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MAYOR PROUTIN.

A CHURCH.

IF A CHURCH IS IN THIS AREA AND THEY PROVIDE FOOD TO PEOPLE IN NEED, IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT THEM? NO. CHURCHES ARE ALLOWED WITHIN EVERY SINGLE DISTRICT.

AND THAT IS AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE CHURCH, INCIDENTAL TO USE TO THE CHURCH.

DR. WILSON.

MS. SAGER, WAS THERE ANY REASON SINCE WE HAD SOME NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IN HERE THAT WE DIDN'T DESIGNATE THE WHOLE TRIANGLE AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. WITH IT THAT OF CHICKEN CHANGED AND BEEN MADE SO MANY NON CONFORMING THAT WAY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS OUTLINED BY MAJOR ROADS ON ALL SIDE, WOULDN'T THAT HAVE ALLOWED FOR MORE OPPORTUNITY VERSUS KIND OF DOWN ZONING THEM? WELL, I THINK THE REASON OUR CONSULTANT RECOMMENDED OFFICE IS BECAUSE IT IS AN OFFICE PARK. IT IS FILLED WITH OFFICES. AND I THINK THAT WAS JUST FOR CONTINUITY SAKE, THE RECOMMENDATION.

MISS SAGER, CAN YOU. NUMBER 24. SO THAT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED TO OFFICE.

IT IS INTENDED TO BE CHANGED TO OFFICE. YOU'LL SEE THAT ON ITEM 7.4.

OKAY, THAT'S THE NEXT ONE. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT HAVE REQUESTED TO BE.

TO NOT HAVE THE OFFICE ZONE, IS THAT RIGHT? NO, NO.

NUMBER 24 DID NOT RESPOND.

RESPOND. SO THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE ZONE CHANGE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT, VERY GOOD.

JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. COLLINS, DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF THE OCCUPANCY OF THESE OFFICES THAT ARE IN THE PARK RELATIVE? I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC BUSINESS.

MR. MCLENDON, DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA? I COULD TELL YOU THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY UNOCCUPIED. I CANNOT GIVE YOU A SURVEY OF THE REST THE OF.

BUT IT IS. IT HAS BEEN. IT'S A CHALLENGE. I MEAN, IT IS.

IN MY VIEW THAT'S PART OF.

PART OF WHY I'M HERE IS SOME DIFFERENTIATION THERE. EVEN IN A LIGHTER ZONE CATEGORY THAT WOULD ALLOW ME TO MARKET TOWARDS SORT OF THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS, I THINK IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A CHALLENGE OVER THERE. I BELIEVE SPAG HAS MOVED OUT. NOT SURE IF THE BOY SCOUTS ARE STILL THERE, BUT I MEAN, IT IS. THERE WERE INTENSIVE USES FOR MANY YEARS. THOSE YEARS ARE IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE. AND I GUESS I CAN ANSWER MY OWN QUESTION. IN LOOKING AT THE AERIAL, I SEE CARS PARKED AROUND TWO OF THE 20 OR SO BUILDINGS THERE. SO THAT MAY ANSWER MY QUESTION. NOT MANY IS A. IS A FAIR ANSWER. WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE NEXT OPPORTUNITY OVER THERE.

THANK YOU, MR. ROSE.

KRISTEN, ARE THERE ANY OF THESE OTHER OFFICE BUILDINGS? ARE WE CHANGING ANY OF THEM IN 7.4? THAT THERE'S.

YES. THIS ENTIRE OFFICE PARK IS RECOMMENDED TO REZONE TO OFFICE.

OKAY, GOTCHA.

SO WHAT ARE.

WHAT ARE THEY ZONED AT CURRENTLY? SO THE GREEN IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU.

MAYOR PRO TEM? I DON'T KNOW WHO ASKED WHAT KIND OF BUSINESSES ARE THERE, BUT THERE ARE NONPROFITS, RADIO STATIONS. OF COURSE, SPAG WAS THERE AND NOW IS NOT THERE.

YOU HAVE SOME OFFICE BUSINESSES

[02:05:03]

SO IT IS MOSTLY OFFICES.

I MEAN, I HAVEN'T SEEN A RESTAURANT UNLESS MONT SPRING AND RESTAURANT, BUT THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT'S THERE.

ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:09. PLEASE NOTE THAT BECAUSE THE PERCENTAGE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONING CHANGE OR REQUIRE AN AFFIRMATION AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS TO APPROVE THE CHANGE. SO IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.3, MR. RASHIN? MR. MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.3.

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.3.

IS THAT.

I. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE.

WHAT YOU'RE INTENDING, COUNCILMAN GASHIN, BUT REALLY THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS TO MOTION IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND THEN VOTE. IF YOU WANT TO VOTE AGAINST IT, VOTE AGAINST IT. ALL RIGHT, WELL THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.3.

CORRECT. ALL RIGHT, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I HAVE A SHORT COMMENT ON THIS. IN OUR LAST SET OF ZONE CHANGES, WE DID VOTE TO CHANGE A PROPERTY OVER THE OWNER'S OBJECTION AND THAT WAS AN INDUSTRIAL USE. IF WE BROUGHT A NON CONFORMING ZONE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT USE. AND ALTHOUGH THE. THE OWNER HAD SUBMITTED A WRITTEN OBJECTION, THE OWNER DIDN'T COME AND ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THERE. I THINK THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE OWNER WHO HAS ARTICULATED AN OBJECTION TO THE ZONE CHANGE AND HAS EXPLAINED THE VISION FOR THEIR CURRENT USE. AND ALSO THE CURRENT USE IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE SETTING. SO I BELIEVE THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE TO VOTE AGAINST THIS ZONE CHANGE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. AND I WILL JUST SAY I APPRECIATE MR. COLLINS COMMENT ABOUT THE UP ZONING QUITE A BIT. IT'S ONE THING I THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION TOO WHEN WE MAKE THESE KIND OF WHOLESALE CHANGES. SO IF THERE'S NO FURTHER. OH, MR. COLLINS, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT. OR MAYBE WE SHOULD ADDRESS IT WHEN WE GET INTO THE NEXT PIECE. ARE WE GOING TO. NEVER MIND. I'LL BRING IT UP IN A MINUTE. THANK YOU.

HE SAYS.

ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE'RE ALL GETTING A LITTLE BIT PUNCH DRUNK UP HERE.

SO RIGHT AT THE MOMENT, BUT.

SO NO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS MATTER. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ITEM 7.3, LET IT BE KNOWN BY SAYING AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAY NAY. NAY. AND I BELIEVE THAT IS A SIX, ONE TO SIX VOTE, WHICH MEANS.

OKAY, OKAY. TWO TO FIVE. LET ME GET THE SHIRT. YOU ARE AN I AND YOU ARE NOT ANYWHERE THAT ANYONE ELSE AND I HERE. OKAY, SO IT'S A TWO TO FIVE. OKAY, SO THAT AGENDA ITEM FAILS.

[4. Public Hearing - Planning (District 2): Consider a request for Zone Case 3541, a request of City of Lubbock, for zone changes in City Council District 2, from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2), Medium Density Residential District (MDR), High Density Residential District (HDR), Neighborhood Commercial District (NC), Heavy Commercial District (HC), Light Industrial District (LI), and General Industrial District (GI) to Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2), Office District (OF), Neighborhood Commercial District (NC), Auto-Urban Commercial District (AC), and Light Industrial District (LI), at 102 Linden Avenue, Lots 11, 12, 16, and 17, Block 11 and Lot 5, Block 13, and part of Block 15, Morning View Addition, 3520 Idalou Road, 1.78 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 3, 3518 Idalou Road, 0.376 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 3, 3516 Idalou Road, 4 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 3, 3514 Idalou Road, 0.98 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 3, 3512 Idalou Road, Lot 1, R Z Abell Addition, 3510 Idalou Road, 9.1 acres of unplatted land out of Block A, Section 3, 1734 East 34th Street, Lot 1, Block 1, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 1904 East 35th Street, Lot 2, Block 1, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3401, 3403, 3405, 3407, and 3417 Railroad Avenue, Lots 11-15, Block 1, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3502, 3504, 3506, 3508, 3510, 3512, 3514, and 3516 Teak Avenue, Lots 3-10, Block 1, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3501, 3505, 3507, 3509, 3511, 3513, 3515, 3517, and 3519 Teak Avenue, Lots 1-10, Block 2, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3502, 3504, 3506, 3508, 3510, 3512, 3514, and 3516 Ute Avenue, Lots 11-18, Block 2, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3501, 3503, 3505, 3507, 3509, 3511, and 3513 Ute Avenue, Lots 1-7, Block 3, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3502, 3504, 3506, 3508, 3510, and 3512 Vanda Avenue, Lots 8-13, Block 3, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3501, 3503, 3505, 3507, and 3509 Vanda Avenue, Lots 1-5, Block 4, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3502, 3504, 3506, and 3508 Walnut Avenue, Lots 6-9, Block 4, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3601 Railroad Avenue, Lots 1, Block 5, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3602, 3604, 3606, 3608, and 3610 Ute Avenue, Lots 2-7, Block 5, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3601, 3603, 3605, 3607, 3609, 3611, 3613, and 3615 Ute Avenue, Lots 1-8, Block 6, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3602, 3604, 3606, 3608, 3610, 3612, 3614, and 3616 Vanda Avenue, Lots 9-16, Block 6, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3601, 3603, 3605, 3607, 3609, 3613, 3615, and 3617 Vanda Avenue, Lots 1-8, Block 7, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3602, 3604, 3606, 3608, 3612, and 3614, Walnut Avenue, Lots 11-16, Block 7 Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 2211 East 37th Street and 3616 and 3618 Walnut Avenue, Lots 9-10, Block 7, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3501, 3503, 3601, 3603, 3605, 3607, 3609, 3611, 3613, and 3615 Walnut Avenue, Lots 1-11, Block 8 Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3604, 3606, 3608, 3610, 3612, 3614, 3616, and 3618 Yucca Avenue, Lots 12-19, Block 8, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 2408 East 35th Street and 3602 Yucca Avenue, Lots 20-A and 20-B, Block 8, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3601, 3603, 3605, 3607, 3609, 3611, 3613, and 3615 Yucca Avenue, Lots 1-8, Block 9, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 2615 East 35th Street and 3604, 3606, 3608, 3612, and 3614 Zenith Avenue, Lots 9-15, Block 9, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3601, 3603, 3605, 3607, 3609, and 3611 Zenith Avenue, Lots 1-6, Block 10, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3602, 3604, 3606, 3608, and 3610 Aspen Avenue, Lots 7-11, Block 10, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 2701, 2703, 2705, 2707, and 2709 East 37th Street, Lots 16-10, Block 11, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 2702, 2704, 2706, 2708, 2710, and 2712 East 35th Street, Lots 1-5, Block 11, and the east 67.4 feet of Block 11, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3601, 3603, 3605, and 3607 Beech Avenue, Lots 1-5, Block 12, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3602, 3604, 3606, 3608, and 3610 Cherry Avenue, Lots 6-10, Block 12, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3601, 3603, 3605, 3607, 3609, and 3611 Cherry Avenue, Lots 1-6, Block 13, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3602, 3604, 3606, 3608, 3610, 3612, and 3614 David Avenue, Lots 7-13, Block 13, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3601, 3603, 3605, 3607, 3609, 3611, and 3613 David Avenue, Lots 1-9, Block 14, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3602, 3604, 3606, 3608, 3610, 3612, 3614, 3616, 3618, and 3620 Elder Avenue, Lots 10-20, Block 14, Phyllis Wheatley Addition, 3301 East 34th Street, 87.2 acres of unplatted land out of Block B, Section 2, 3401 East 33rd Street, 4.46 acres of unplatted land out of Block B, Section 2, 2607 East Loop 289, 9.29 acres of unplatted land out of Block B, Section 2, 3300 East 34th Street, 4.67 acres of unplatted land out of Block B, Section 2, 3205 East 35th Street, Rear, 1.45 acres of unplatted land out of Block B, Section 3, 2522 Canyon Lake Drive, 23.4 acres of unplatted land out of Block B, Section 3, 2701 East Loop 289, 52.95 acres of unplatted land out of Block B, Section 2, 916 East 50th Street, approximately 3,400 square feet of Lot 19, James Addition, 5011 King Avenue, Lot 21, James Addition, 5006 Magnolia Avenue, Lots 22 – 24, James Addition, 5216 and 5220 Oak Avenue, the south 108.33 feet of the north 250 feet of Lot 60 and the south 50 feet of Lot 60, James Addition, 1502 East 54th Street, Lot 68, James Addition, 1512 and 1512 East 54th Street E, Lot 67, James Addition, 1510 and 1514 East 54th Street W, Lot 66, James Addition, 5402 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Lot 65, James Addition, 5416 and 5416 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard Rear, 1.26 acres of unplatted land out of Block E, Section 1, 5404 Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, Lot 1, Minnie Addition, 5607 Magnolia Avenue, the north 110 feet of the south 200 feet of Lot 92, James Addition, 912 East 56th Street, Lot 98, James Addition, 5610 King Avenue, Lot 97, James Addition, 5611 King Avenue, Lots 101 – 108 railroad right-of-way, James Addition, 901, 905, 909, and 915 East 58th Street, Lots 101 – 104, James Addition, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33 Briercroft Office Park, Lots 1-8, 12, less the north 6.61 feet, 14-20, 22-27, 29-33 Briercroft Office Park Addition, 5701 Avenue P, part of Blocks 17-20, C N Hodges Resub Addition, 2412 and 2424 50th Street, Tract A, South College Addition, 5009 University Avenue, Tract B, Doctors & Dentists Addition, 2402 552nd Street, Lot 2, Agee-Pharr Addition, 2325 52nd Street, Lot 2-A-1, Freeway Addition, 5301 University Avenue, Lot 1 and the 10’ by 127’ closed alley adjacent to Osteopathy Lot 1, Osteopathy Addition, 5010 and 5010 A University Avenue, Lot 1, Tract C Caprock Addition, and 2404 82nd Street, Tract H, Oak Park Addition, and consider an ordinance.]

WE'LL NOW TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 7.4, THE REMAINDER OF ZONING CASE 3541, WHICH ENCOMPASSES A REQUEST FOR NUMEROUS ZONING CHANGES. A COUPLE OF PAGES WORTH OF THEM BEING PROPOSED BY STAFF, EXCEPT FOR THE PROPERTY WHICH WE JUST DISCUSSED IN 7.3. ALL RIGHT.

AND MS. SAGER, IF YOU'LL COME FORWARD AGAIN AND PLEASE DON'T TALK IN DETAIL ABOUT EACH ONE OF THESE. JUST A 30,000 FOOT OVERVIEW. OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AS I STATED, THESE ARE ZONE CHANGES RECOMMENDED IN DISTRICT 2. WE SENT OUT 959 NOTIFICATIONS.

COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED SIX IN FAVOR, TWO ADDITIONAL IN OPPOSITION. ASIDE FROM THE ONE WE JUST, JUST DISCUSSED. THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE COMPLETED THE ZONING MAP ANALYSIS LAST YEAR AND WE'RE WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THE DISTRICTS. YOU DID COMPLETE DISTRICT 1 EARLIER THIS MONTH. SO HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN DISTRICT 2. WE HAVE ABOUT FIVE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS THAT WE'LL GO OVER. THE FIRST IS IS

[02:10:01]

AND THERE IS A PARTIALLY DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH. SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING IT BE DOWN ZONE TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL THAT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR RETAIL RESTAURANT JUST LIKE WE WERE DISCUSSING.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES DESIGNATE THESE PROPERTIES FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES. NEXT IS AN AREA LOCATED EAST OF EAST LOOP 289. I'M SORRY. WEST OF EAST LOOP 289, EAST OF MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

BOULEVARD NEAR EAST 34TH STREET, YOU HAVE SEVERAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PLATTED AS RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT HAVE INDUSTRIAL ZONING AND THEN A LARGE AREA OF PARKLAND THAT IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL. SO WE ARE ASKING TO DOWN ZONE THOSE TO LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SFT. FUTURE LAND USE PLANNING DESIGNATES THOSE AREAS FOR MIXED USE AND THEN PUBLIC SEMI PUBLIC LAND USES FOR THE PARKLAND. NEXT IS AN AREA EAST 50TH AND MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BOULEVARD.

THIS IS JAMES SUBDIVISION.

IT'S A LITTLE UNIQUE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE INTERIOR WITH SOME INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL USES AROUND THE EDGES. AS YOU SEE HERE CURRENT ZONING. YOU HAVE SOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SF2 NEAR 50TH WITH SOME INDUSTRIAL ZONING ALONG THE EAST AND SOUTH OF THE SUBDIVISION. THERE IS A MIX OF USES. I HIGHLIGHTED THE ONES WE ARE ASKING FOR REZONINGS ON. SO THE PROPERTIES NEAR EAST 50TH THAT WE'RE ASKING TO TAKE TO INDUSTRIAL ARE ALREADY PART OF AN INDUSTRIALLY DEVELOPED PROPERTY OR HAVE A TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER. THE AREAS ARE ASKING TO TAKE DOWN TO LOAD IN CITY SINGLE FAMILY EITHER HAVE RESIDENCES OR A VACANT LAND. THERE IS ONE SMALL PIECE THAT IS ZONED HIDE IN CITY RESIDENTIAL NEAR INDUSTRIAL THAT WE'RE ASKING TO REZONE TO INDUSTRIAL FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE IT HAS THE RESIDENTIAL IN THE MIDDLE WITH THE INDUSTRIAL SURROUNDING IT.

BRIARCROFT OFFICE PARK ON AVENUE Q. AGAIN, THE MAJORITY OF THOSE LOTS ARE HIDDEN CITY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL WITH LOT NUMBER 24 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. AND THEN YOU HAVE A FEW LOTS AT EAST 50TH AND UNIVERSITY THAT HAVE HEIGHT AND CITY RESIDENTIAL OR LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF2 ZONING.

AGAIN, YOU HAVE OFFICES AT BRIARCROFT OFFICE PARK AND THEN AT THE INTERSECTION OF 50TH AND UNIVERSITY YOU HAVE A BANK, OFFICES, PERSONAL SERVICE USES, A PARKING LOT AND A REHABILITATION CENTER. SO WE'RE ASKING THOSE TO BE ZONED AUTO OR COMMERCIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THE OFFICE PARK FOR OFFICE LAND USES AND THE INTERSECTION AT 50TH AND UNIVERSITY FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES OR PUBLIC, SEMI PUBLIC.

THIS AREA IS AT UNIVERSITY IN 82ND. YOU HAVE ONE PIECE OF AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL, ONE PIECE OF HEAVY COMMERCIAL. WE'RE ASKING TO DOWN ZONE EACH OF THOSE BY ONE DISTRICT TAKING OWNERS AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SO THAT IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REMAINDER OF ITS PROPERTY WHICH CURRENTLY HAS ALLIANCE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION. AND THEN THE PIECE THAT IS CURRENTLY HEAVY COMMERCIAL TAKING TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL WHICH WILL MATCH THE REMAINDER OF ITS PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES BOTH OF THESE PROPERTIES FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES. THIS IS A PIECE ON EAST SLAYTON HIGHWAY EAST OF THE ASH AVENUE. IT'S VACANT. IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY ZONED INDUSTRIAL.

PART OF OUR CONSULTANTS DIRECTIVE WAS TO LOOK FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY THAT WAS VACANT AND ZONED INDUSTRIAL. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE IT IS SURROUNDED BY INDUSTRIAL ZONING. THERE IS NO REASON TO REZONE IT. SO WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A CHANGE ON THIS PIECE. BUT IT WAS PART OF THE ANALYSIS. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ACTUALLY HAS COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA WITH INDUSTRIAL TO THE NORTH.

SO WE DID RECEIVE ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR FROM NUMBER 14, BRIER CROFT OFFICE PARK, CURRENTLY ZONED HDR. WE'RE RECOMMENDING OFFICE. WE RECEIVED RESPONSES IN FAVOR FROM 1303 EAST 52ND, 1310, 1312 AND 1314 EAST 50TH. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO REZONE THOSE PROPERTIES.

ONE IN FAVOR FROM 5401 AVENUE Q SOUTH DRIVE. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO RENT THAT PROPERTY. WHEN IN OPPOSITION, 5015 UNIVERSITY. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY. WE ARE ASKING TO REZONE THE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY EAST AND THE SINGLE FAMILY SF2 PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH. ONE OPPOSED AT 5213 MAGNOLIA AVENUE. WE ARE NOT ASKING TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY. WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL IN THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE. AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL NOW OPEN THE

[02:15:01]

STILL LIVE AND WORK WHERE I TOLD YOU EARLIER. I JUST WANTED TO SAY YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IN THE PACKET THAT I TURNED IN A RESPONSE TO THE ZONE CASE AS A WHOLE.

AND I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE STAFF FOR BEING RESPONSIVE TO THAT. I AM AFRAID THAT BECAUSE I OBJECTED ON THE OTHER, I SHOW UP AS OBJECTING TO THE ZONE CASES AND HOLD AND WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT I DON'T. I HAD SOME FEEDBACK. STAFF TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT CONSIDERATION AND I DON'T WANT TO BE SEEN AS A MARK AGAINST THEIR THEIR WORK ON THIS CASE WHEN I MAINLY HAD AN ISSUE ON THE OTHER.

THAT'S ALL I HAD.

ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR? ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION? ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? I SEE NONE. SO I'LL CLOSE THIS. A PUBLIC HEARING AT 4:20. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 7.4? HAVE A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND MOTION? WE HAVE A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION, MR. COLLINS? MS. SAGER, GIVEN THAT AS I UNDERSTAND IT, NUMBER 24 AND BRIARKOFF REMAINS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND WE SEE THAT WE'VE JUMPED A COUPLE OF CATEGORIES TO GO TO OFFICE AND THE OFFICE SPACES ARE MOSTLY UNOCCUPIED, DO WE THINK THERE'S ANY VALUE, AND I'M ASKING FROM FEEDBACK FROM THE COUNCIL AND FROM YOU, DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANY VALUE IN MAYBE USING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FOR THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY? YOU COULD STILL HAVE AN OFFICE THERE. YOU'RE STILL GRANDFATHERED IF YOU OFFICE IN THAT SPACE.

BUT GIVES MORE FLEXIBILITY IN A REDEVELOPMENT ATMOSPHERE.

IF IT WERE TO, WERE EVER TO COME TO THAT PROPERTY, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU COULD DO THAT TODAY.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS ACTUALLY ONE STEP ABOVE OFFICE ZONING. THE LAND USE MATRIX HASN'T FLIPPED, BUT THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT CODE CLEARLY STATES WHAT IS CONSIDERED A DOWN ZONING. IT LISTS THE THE DISTRICTS IN ORDER AND SO GIVEN THAT IT WAS NOT ADVERTISED IN THAT MANNER, I WOULD HAVE TO ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY IF THAT IS SOMETHING.

WELL, I'M NOT ASKING TO DO IT TODAY. I'M JUST ASKING SOME INPUT BEFORE WE CHANGE IT. IS IT GOING TO BE HARDER FOR AN OWNER TO GO TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL FROM OFFICE OR VICE VERSA? I'M NOT IN OPPOSITION TO A CHANGE AND I'M NOT ASKING FOR A RESIDENTIAL CHANGE. I'M JUST ASKING FOR FLEXIBILITY FROM, FOR THOSE LANDOWNERS.

I DO NOT THINK IT'S MORE DIFFICULT. IN FACT, I THINK IT HELPS THEM BECAUSE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO FROM HIDEN CITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, YOU'RE JUMPING OVER THE OFFICE ASPECT.

I'VE SEEN MANY CASES WHERE SOMEONE HAD OFFICE ZONING AND JUST WENT ONE MORE ABOVE IT TO GET THAT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. SO I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD HINDER THEM.

OKAY, WELL, I'M LOOKING AT MY CHART AND THE RANKING ON MY CHART HERE. SO THIS IS THE HARDEST THING WE DO. JUST SAYING THANK YOU, MR. GARCIA.

I'LL JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR YOU AND EVERYBODY'S WORK ON THIS. IT'S A BIG PROJECT AND AN ONGOING PROJECT. I HAD KIND OF A SIMILAR THOUGHT TO YOU, COUNCILMAN COLLINS, THAT CONSIDERING THE LONG TERM USE OF THIS AREA, AND I THINK THAT IT COULD POSSIBLY BENEFIT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, I THINK THAT'S VERY APPROPRIATE USE FOR THAT AREA. AND SO I WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO MOVING ANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IF ANY OF THE LANDOWNERS ASKED FOR IT. I JUST THINK WITH THE NOTIFICATION THAT IT'S ZONED FOR OFFICE, PROBABLY JUST ON THE BASIS OF PREDICTABILITY WE DO AT OFFICE TODAY, BUT WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE OTHER APPROPRIATE USES THERE, ESPECIALLY AS THE PROPERTY EVOLVES IN ITS USE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

IS THERE A MOTION? WELL, YOU ALREADY HAD THE MOTION.

RIGHT. OKAY. I SHOULD CHECK THOSE WHEN I DO THAT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, LET ME KNOW BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAY NAY. I HEAR NONE. THAT PASSES. SEVEN. ZERO. ALL RIGHT.

[5. Public Hearing - Planning (District 4): Consider a request for Zone Case 3325-B, a request of AMD Engineering, LLC, for CRKR I LTD, for a zone change from High Density Residential District (HDR) to Office District (OF), at 4906, 4836, and 4830 114th Street, located north of 114th Street and east of Slide Road, Epic Business Park Addition, Tracts C, D, and E, and consider an ordinance.]

[6. Public Hearing - Planning (District 5): Consider a request for Zone Case 3551, a request of Whiskey & Water, LLC, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Neighborhood Commercial District (NC), at 3702 Upland Avenue, located west of Upland Avenue and south of 34th Street, on 0.761 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 39, and consider an ordinance.]

[7. Public Hearing - Planning (District 6): Consider a request for Zone Case 2305-I, a request of Collier Construction Company, for Greatbones Investments, LLC, for a zone change from High Density Residential District (HDR) to Neighborhood Commercial District (NC), at 301 Utica Avenue, located east of Utica Avenue and north of 4th Street, Whisperwood Office Park Addition, Lot 3-A, and consider an ordinance.]

WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE'LL CONDUCT A CONSOLIDATED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THESE ZONING CASES. MS. HAGER, WILL YOU PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY ON THOSE ZONING CASES? SUBJECT TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[02:20:02]

PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 114TH, EAST OF SLIDE.

HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE 1 IN FAVOR, 1 IN OPPOSITION. AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT IS CURRENTLY VACANT. THERE ARE RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH WITH COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST. CURRENT ZONING IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. IT IS SURROUNDED BY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST WITH LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF2 TO THE SOUTH. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR MIXED USE. HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA.

THIS IS A GRAPHIC PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, JUST SHOWING THE THREE PLATTED LOTS. THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE ZONE CHANGE ON FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR MIXED USE.

ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS NOT FULLY CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERING THE EXISTING NEARBY DISTRICTS AND THAT IT IS ON 114TH STREET.

THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGES IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. 114TH IS DESIGNATED AS A MINOR ARTERIAL.

STAFF HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNANIMOUS VOTE AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. SAGER? ALL RIGHT.

ITEM 76, ZONE CASE 3551 IN DISTRICT FIVE. THE APPLICANT IS WHISKEY AND WATER LLC.

REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF2 TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. WE SENT OUT 72 NOTIFICATIONS.

RECEIVING ONE IN FAVOR, ZERO IN OPPOSITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED SOUTH OF 34TH, WEST OF UPLAND. HERE'S THE RESPONSE MAP SHOWING THE ONE IN FAVOR.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE IS AN EXISTING BUSINESS TO THE SOUTH, VACANT LAND TO THE NORTH AND A DEVELOPING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST.

CURRENT ZONING IS LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF2. IT IS BORDERED BY AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO THE WEST. AND EAST AND LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY SF2 TO THE NORTH. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS STRIP ALONG UPLAND AVENUE FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES THAT IS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES. THE PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS DESIGNATION AND IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IT WILL BE LOCATED ALONG A PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL AND ADJACENT TO AUTO URBAN COMMERCIAL ZONING. UPLAND AVENUE AND 34TH ARE BOTH DESIGNATED AS PRINCIPAL ARTERIALS. STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH THE UNION AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NO. ALL RIGHT, PROCEED.

ITEM 77, ZONE CASE 2305 I LOCATED IN DISTRICT 6. THE APPLICANT IS CALL YOUR CONSTRUCTION. THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE FROM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. WE SENT OUT 82 NOTIFICATIONS RECEIVING FOUR IN FAVOR TO AN OPPOSITION. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF 4TH, EAST OF SLIDE. HERE'S THE RESPONSE SHOWING THE RESPONSES IN FAVOR AND IN OPPOSITION.

HERE'S AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE IS AN EXISTING ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON'S OFFICE ON THE PROPERTY. THEY ARE LOOKING TO DO AN ADDITION WHICH IS WHY THEY NEED THE ZONE CHANGE. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LIMITS THE SIZE A MEDICAL FACILITY CAN BE ON THE PROPERTY. PROPERTY TO 15,000 SQUARE FT. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS ALREADY OVER 16,000 SQUARE FT. LOOKING TO DO AN ADDITION OF ABOUT 4 TO 5,000 SQUARE FEET. IT IS NOT RESTRICTED BY SIZE. IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, YOU HAVE RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH AND WEST, ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH FRONTING FORTH AND ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL TO THE EAST. CURRENT ZONING IS HEIGHT AND CITY RESIDENTIAL.

THERE'S MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, LOW DENSITY SF2 AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY FEATURE. LNG'S PLAN DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY LAND USES. PHOTOS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IS FOR HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

HOWEVER, GIVEN THE EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE AND THE PROXIMITY TO 4TH STREET, THE PROPOSAL IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND APPROPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION.

IT DOES FRONT UTICA AVENUE WHICH IS CONSIDERED A LOCAL STREET. HOWEVER, FOURTH WOULD BE AN ARTERIAL. STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST AND THE PLAN AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED

[02:25:01]

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

I'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AGENDA ITEMS 7, 5, 6 AND 7. ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THESE ZONING CASES.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL MAYOR. MY NAME IS WILL STEVENS WITH AMD ENGINEERING AT 6515 68TH STREET. I'M HERE SPEAKING ON AGENDA ITEM 7.5 OR REZONE TO OFFICE FROM HDR. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.

ANY QUESTIONS? I SEE NONE.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THESE ITEMS? ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ANY OF THESE ITEMS? I SEE NONE. SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 4. 30.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 7.5, 7.6 AND SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION. A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? I SEE NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR? LET IT BE KNOWN

[8. Ordinance 2nd Reading - Planning (District 5): Consider Ordinance No. 2026-O0019, for Zone Case 3537, a request of Hugo Reed and Associates, Inc. for Starlight Development, LLC, for a zone change from Low Density Single-Family District (SF-2) to Heavy Commercial District (HC), at 14612 Frankford Avenue, located west of Frankford Avenue, south of 146th Street, and north of Woodrow Road, on 35.5 acres of unplatted land out of Block AK, Section 10.]

OKAY. WE'LL NOW TAKE UP AGENDA ITEM 7.8 TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE FOR ZONE CASE 3537 FOR ZONE CHANGE FROM LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT, SF2 TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 14612 FRANKFORT AVE.

LOCATED WEST OF FRANKFORT AVENUE, SOUTH OF 146TH STREET, NORTH OF WOODBRO ROAD ON 35.5 ACRES OF UNPLANTED LAND OUT OF BLOCK A K SECTION 10. SO THIS IS A SECOND READING ON THIS ORDINANCE. AND SO WITHOUT OBJECTION WE'LL FOREIGN FOREGO A BRIEFING AND I'M GOING TO ALSO WITHOUT OBJECTION FROM THE COUNCIL BECAUSE I CALLED ON MR. WARREN EARLIER DURING OUR PUBLIC COMMENT. HE STEPPED OUT FOR A LITTLE BIT, WAS NOT HERE. SO WITHOUT OBJECTION I WILL ALLOW HIM TO MAKE HIS CITIZENS COMMENTS.

EXCUSE ME. SUBJECT TO THE THREE MINUTE LIMITATION.

NOW IS THERE ANY OBJECTION? I HEAR NO, MR. WARREN.

WELL, THANK YOU. MY NAME IS RODNEY WARREN. I THINK I'VE TOLD YOU BEFORE, I LIVE AT 16211 PRIVATE ROAD, LUBBOCK TEXAS, PRIVATE ROAD 1740. AND I'M IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ZONE CHANGE FOR SEVERAL REASONS. LAST MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO, I WAS KIND OF COMPLACENT AND I THINK OUR WHOLE GROUP WAS BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN TOLD IT'S KIND OF RARE FOR PNZ TO BE OVERTURNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

AT THE PNZ MEETING WE HAD HALF OF THIS AUDITORIUM FILLED UP WITH OPPONENTS TO THE ZONE CHANGE.

AT THIS LAST ONE WE HAD A THIRD OF THE AUDITORIUM.

AT THAT TIME WE LEARNED THAT MR. PAYNE HAD MODIFIED HIS HIS REQUEST SOMEWHAT. HE TONED IT DOWN. I THINK IT WAS STARTING AT LIKE 50 ACRES. SO HE PULLED OFF FROM THE WEST SIDE AND HE PROPOSED TO HOA FOR THAT 35 ACRE TRACT SO THAT HE KIND OF CONTROLLED WHAT WAS GOING IN THERE. STILL STRUCK BY THE FACT WE'RE GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO HEAVY COMMERCIAL. THAT'S I'VE BEEN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ZONE CHART THERE. THAT SEEMS LIKE A BIG JUMP TO ME.

THESE LAST THREE THAT YOU JUST LOOKED AT, WE WERE GOING FROM HIGH DENSITY TO NEIGHBORHOOD, COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE. THOSE SEEMS LIKE KIND OF SMALL STEPS. AND SO I'M WONDERING WHY WE HAVE TO DO THIS BIG ONE. AT THE PRIOR MEETING, IT STARTED OUT, I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY GOOD BECAUSE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT ROAD SAFETY, TRAFFIC SAFETY, AND OUR BIG CONCERN OUT THERE WAS WOODROW ROADS.

NOT EVEN TWO LANES, REALLY.

IT'S NOT STRAPPED, NO SHOULDERS, DANGEROUS ROADS. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT PROBABLY TOO MUCH, BUT I THOUGHT WE WERE OFF TO A GOOD START. MR. GLASHEEN BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT IN THE STATISTICS ABOUT ACCIDENTS IN LUBBOCK, MAYBE SOME THINGS HAD GOT PUSHED OVER INTO FAILURE TO CONTROL SPEED. THAT PERHAPS THAT WAS JUST THE BEST THING THAT SUITED. MAYBE IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT GOES WELL.

I WOULD SAY GENERALLY THAT REPORTS ARE PUT TOGETHER WITH THE END IN MIND AND TO TRY TO CONVERT PEOPLE TO THEIR WHERE THINKING. SO I WAS HEARTENED BY THAT. WE'RE

[02:30:02]

AND IT WAS VACANT DIRT. YOU KNOW, IT'S 35 ACRES HAD BEEN FARMLAND, BUT MOSTLY TUMBLEWEEDS NOW. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT SHOWED A GOOD REPRESENTATION. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAND EVERYBODY SOME PICTURES THAT I PREPARED. I WAS GOING TO DO IT ELECTRONICALLY. DID I MISS ANYONE? I'M SORRY.

THE TROUBLE THAT OTHER PEOPLE HAVE WITH THIS LITTLE MACHINE UP HERE. I DIDN'T WANT TO TRY TO GO THROUGH ELECTRONICALLY SHOWING THAT. THAT FIRST PICTURE RIGHT THERE IS FROM THE EAST END OF THE PROPERTY. WE'RE IN A KIND OF A PLAY AREA, BUT WE'RE LOOKING EAST. AND THAT. THAT IS HIGHLAND OAKS, THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.

MR. WARREN, I'M GONNA HAVE TO HOLD YOU TO YOUR THREE MINUTES THOUGH.

YOU KNOW, I GAVE YOU AN EXCEPTION TO COME UP TO MAKE THE CITIZEN COMMENTS, BUT CITIZEN COMMENTS ARE 3 MINUTES. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ANY ANYMORE.

I THINK I PASSED MY THREE MINUTES.

YOU DID? YEAH. THAT WAS THAT SECOND BELL THAT. THAT RANG.

SO I. I DON'T WANT TO. I'VE ALREADY KIND OF STEPPED ASIDE THE GENERAL RULES TO LET YOU SPEAK AGAIN. I DON'T WANT TO ABUSE THAT RULE FURTHER.

WE'VE GOT YOUR PICTURES AND WE'LL TAKE A SECOND TO LOOK AT THEM. OKAY. I THINK WE CAN LOOK AT THEM AND SEE WHAT'S ON THEM.

IF I CAN SAY ONE LAST THING.

ONE LAST THING. SURE.

SEVERAL YEARS AGO WE HAD A PNZ MEETING AT THE OTHER CITY AUDITORIUM.

AND MR. PAYNE STOOD UP AND OPPOSED. OR OPPOSED OUR PROPOSAL. AND IT WASN'T MINE.

IT WAS SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPOSAL. HE WAS JUST USING MY LAND. HE WAS WANTING TO PUT.

MY FRIEND WAS WANTING TO PUT SOME BILLBOARDS UP. AND I KNOW HOW SIGNS ARE IN LUBBOCK, AND YOU ALL KNOW THAT STORY, TOO. IT GOES BACK TO THE 70S, SO IT DIDN'T WORK, BUT MR. PAYNE STOOD UP AND OBJECTED TO IT. HE SAID OUR COMMUNITY VALUES NEED TO RULE HERE AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOULDN'T BE OVERRODE BY COMMERCIAL INTEREST. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HE'S WANTING TO DO HERE. COMMERCIAL INTEREST TAKES PRECEDENT OVER THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE DEVELOPED HOMES OUT THERE FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WARREN. ALL RIGHT, SINCE THIS IS THE SECOND READING OF THIS ORDINANCE, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE FOREGONE THE STAFF BRIEFING, AND ALL I NEED NOW IS A MOTION.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7.7? 7.8. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY, WE. ARE YOU THE SECOND? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE? MY SCREEN WENT DARK AGAIN. ALL RIGHT, NO FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SO ALL. DO WE NEED TO DO THIS AS A. CAN WE.

OKAY. IT WAS A CLOSE VOTE LAST TIME, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE.

SO ALL IN FAVOR OF. PLEASE MARK IT BY YES AND NO. I WON'T. ALL RIGHT, THAT MOTION PASSES.

4-3. ALL RIGHT. HAVING EXHAUSTED ALL ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA, THIS MEETING IS NOW ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.