Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - Regular - 9/26/2002CITY OF LUBBOCK REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 7:30 A. M. The City Council of the City of Lubbock, Texas met in regular session on the 26th day of September, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, first floor, City Hall, 1625 13th Street, Lubbock, Texas at 7:30 A. M. 7:34 A.M. CITY COUNCIL CONVENED City Council Chambers, 1625 13th Street, Lubbock, Texas Present: Mayor Marc McDougal, Mayor :Pro Tem Victor Hernandez, Council Member Gary O. Boren; Council Member Alex "Ty" Cooke, Council Member Tom Martin, Council Member Frank W. Morrison, Council Member T.J. Patterson Absent: No one was absent. CITIZEN COMMENTS Citizens expressing comments to the Council were as follows: ( 1.) Presentation by Norma Cunningham of Marriage and Family Therapy Associates regarding the publication of information about sexual offenders. Ms. Cunningham, who is a licensed counselor and Registered Sex Offender Counselor, talked about the families and friends of the sexual offenders. She read a letter to Council dated September 4, 2002. She stated they are at a high rate of physical assault by peers simply because a family member with whom they live has committed a sex offense. These family members, including children, are not on parole, but they experience consequences as if they were. These children have been ostracized in their neighborhoods and at school. This also happens to the adult family members. These people have also suffered economic and housing hardships due to the loss of jobs and/or being asked to move when the legal status of the offender living in their home is made public. Ms. Cunningham agreed that the community needs to be informed about those who are at risk for committing a sex offense. She also agreed the community needs to be safe for all people, including the families of sex offenders. In her view and experience, decisions regarding the public promotion of sex offenders need to be made with the support system of the offender in mind as well. The support system of the offender contributes much to helping the offender rehabilitate himself/herself as well. If the community contributes to the weakening of the support system of the offender, it weakens itself from being as safe as it could be. Isolation is a key factor leading to sex offending behavior. She asked that the discussion of the proposed ordinance be done with judicious wisdom while looking at the whole picture and considering the needs of the whole community. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mayor McDougal stated the Council would hold an executive session in accordance with the V.T.C.A. Government Code, Section 551 to discuss personnel matters (City Manager); to deliberate, vote and take final action on electric rates of Lubbock Power and Light (Electric Utilities); pending or contemplated litigation (Fire Department; Human Resources; Lubbock Power and Light; Water Utilities); personnel matters regarding duties, responsibilities, and/or appointments (Boards and Commissions); and to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property (Facilities Management; Planning Department; Water Utilities). 7:43 A. M. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION City Council/City Manager's Conference Room All council members were present. Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 202 (2.) Hold an executive session in accordance with V.T.C.A. Government Code, Section 551.074(a)(1), to discuss personnel matters (City Manager). (3.) Hold an executive session in accordance with V.T.C.A. Government Code, Section 551.086, on the following competitive matters (Electric Utilities): to deliberate, vote and take final action on electric rates of Lubbock Power and Light; (4.) Hold an executive session in accordance with V.T.C.A. Government Code, Section 551.071(1)(A), to discuss pending or contemplated litigation (Fire Department; Human Resources; Lubbock Power and Light; Water Utilities). (5.) Hold an executive session in accordance with V.T.C.A. Government Code, Section 551.074(a)(1), to discuss personnel matters regarding duties, responsibilities, and/or appointments to: Building Board of Appeals Citizens Advisory Committee & Sub -committees (6.) Hold an executive session in accordance with V.T.C.A. Government Code, Section 551.072, to deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease, or value of real property (Facilities Management; Planning Department; Water Utilities). 9:49 A. M. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION CONVENED Committee Room 103 All council members were present. The first item to be considered was Item 8. (7.) Discuss a request by a property owner and the City of Wolfforth for the City of Lubbock to abandon Lubbock's extra territorial jurisdiction of a half section of land, and allow the City of Wolfforth to annex such property. Craig Farmer, Director of Planning/Transportation; Randy Henson, Senior Planner (20 minutes) This item was considered following Item 8. During the past year, the owner and developer of a square mile between 661h and 82nd Streets from Alcove to FM 179 have discussed the potential for annexation of that property by the City of Wolfforth (the square mile north of the new school complex developed by Frenship ISD). A recent article in the Avalanche Journal outlined the proposed development by Mike Freyburger in conjunction with the landowner, H.A. Sessions. The proposed subdivision would follow the development style of Llano Estates located to the north at 501h and FM 179. The work session topic had to do with an existing contract between Lubbock and Wolfforth regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Within that contract, the City of Wolfforth has the south one-half of the square mile as ETJ and the City of Lubbock has the north one-half. The request was for the City of Lubbock to abandon the north one-half section as ETJ because of a state law prohibiting one city from annexing into the ETJ of another city. The sequence of events created by state law was a little confusing, but the critical beginning of that sequence for Wolfforth would be agreement of the City Council to abandon the north one-half of the section. Recent discussion had resulted in a number of options for the City Council to consider related to "giving away" a portion of the ETJ: 202 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 203 1. Consider favorably the request to abandon the one-half mile by one -mile wide area of ETJ with no conditions. This would enable Wolfforth to annex the area. 2. Consider what Wolfforth would bring to the table as a "trade" for abandonment of the requested area. Giving up claim to the future ad valorem tax base may not be desirable. 3. Discuss the possibility of annexation by Lubbock of the north half of the section, with Wolfforth annexing the south half. Through intergovernmental agreements on service the future citizens would experience a seamless subdivision within the jurisdiction of two adjacent cities. 4. Leave the project in Lubbock's ETJ for a number of years, to allow the developer to negotiate directly with Wolfforth for utilities. Ultimately, the City of Lubbock will annex the property. This would allow the developer to contract with Wolfforth and control the negotiations. Lubbock will still have to approve any agreements. a. Deny the request based on the theory of not abandoning the right of plat review and future annexation. The current city limit of Lubbock would meet at the corner of 82°d and Alcove. As noted, the south half of the section is already within the Wolfforth ETJ, so that annexing the north half by Lubbock would be nearly a mile from the existing city limits that follows the north line of the Brownfield Highway. Wolfforth is in the process of working with Water Utilities to contract for transport of water purchased from Slaton. Staff saw options 2 or 3 as the most viable. Craig Farmer, Director of Planning/Transportation and Randy Henson, Senior Planner spoke for staff. Council requested a work session presentation from Dave Buckberry, Planner for the City of Lubbock and LISD Superintendent Jack Clemmons for the October 10, 2002 meeting. The next item to be considered was Item 9. ( 8.) Presentation by Texas Tech Student Government Association regarding their efforts on campus and in the community. (10 minutes) This item was the first item considered. Soon after being elected Mayor, Marc McDougal met with members of the Texas Tech University Student Government Association and invited them to make a presentation to the City Council once the fall semester began. Among the interests of the Student Government Association and Texas Tech University is the "Students First Program," which strives to make both the Tech campus and Lubbock community more student friendly for those attending the university. The Student Government Association presentation was made by Kelli Stumbo, President; Jeremy Brown Internal Vice -President; Leigh Mauer, External Vice -President; and Isaac Albarado, Intergovernmental Relations Chair. The presentation covered the nature of each officer's duties and efforts as part of the Student Government Association. They also presented information about any initiatives that involve both the campus and the community. This presentation was for informational purposes only. There was no need for the Council to take specific action. Next item to be considered was Item 7. 203 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 204 ( 9.) Presentation regarding the "Change Program" for individuals recently released from the criminal justice system. Royce Jiminez (10 minutes) This item was considered following Item 7. Council Member T. J. Patterson recently met with Mr. Jiminez, and the Council Member thought it would be beneficial for Council and the community to hear about this program and this aspect of Lubbock society. Mr. Patterson asked that Mr. Jiminez be placed on this City Council work session to give a brief presentation regarding his work in prison ministry. Mr. Jiminez is with the Light of the World Christian Center and he indicated that he has purchased land in an effort to open a facility that will operate his "Change Program" an initiative that works with those recently released from prison. At this point, Mr. Jiminez is working with 17 people who have been recently released from prison, and he indicates that there is a growing list of approximately 250 inmates that want to parole to him. This presentation was for informational purposes only. There was no need for the Council to take specific action. (10.) Presentation on Millennium Advisory Committee's final report and recommendations for a project to commemorate one hundred years of Lubbock's history and heritage. Cathy Porter, Committee Chair (15 minutes) In December 1999, the City Council appointed the Millennium Advisory Committee (MAC), comprised of seventeen citizens from diverse backgrounds. The committee was charged with recommending at least one project and funding source to commemorate the past 100 years of art, architecture, heritage and history of Lubbock and the Llano Estacado. In addition, the MAC was charged with recommending ways that the Mackenzie Amphitheater can become a "world class, multi -dimensional facility that meets the needs of numerous user groups and celebrates the new millennium by reflecting the art, architecture, heritage, and history of Lubbock and the Llano Estacado." Over the course of the past two years, the MAC met numerous times to review concepts for a project to recommend and they selected a "Crossroads in Time" theme for the project to commemorate the past. The initial concepts for the proposed "Crossroads in Time" project were variations on a clock. The MAC identified twelve themes to be represented by the hours on the face of the clock. In February 2001, the City of Lubbock issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design services of the "Crossroads in Time" project. In 2001, the City Council approved $290,000 for this project. The amount includes professional services for design. In December 2001, the City entered into a design contract with Parkhill, Smith and Cooper for the design of the Millennium "Crossroads in Time" project. The MAC met on February 6, 2002 to tour five sites as part of the site selection process for the design phase. The MAC overwhelmingly selected the County Precinct site on East Broadway, adjacent to the proposed Mackenzie Amphitheater, for the "Crossroads in Time" project site. This property, which is owned by the South Plains Fair Association, is leased to the City of Lubbock through 2037. At the April 25, 2002 City Council work session, David Langston, Vice Chair of the Millennium Advisory Committee, provided an interim report on the Committee's progress toward meeting its goals. Included in that report was the Committee's support for the Mackenzie Amphitheater. Since that time, the design team has involved three MAC members, Andy Wilkinson, Don Caldwell and Danny Espinoza, in the design for the 204 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 205 project. The resulting recommendation from the design team was a sculpture garden that will combine the twelve themes into five areas linked by a natural surface trail. Modest lighting for the project is estimated to cost the Parks and Recreation Department approximately $2,000 per year. Last month, the Millennium Advisory Committee approved the design. Civic Lubbock, Inc., the Parks and Recreation Board and the Cultural Arts Commission have also endorsed the conceptual design for the sculpture garden. The professional services contract for the artwork will be presented to the City Council in October. Upon Council approval, the project will take twelve months to complete. Cathy Porter, Chair of the Millennium Advisory Committee, presented the Committee's final report. Andy Wilkinson, one of the MAC members, also gave comments on this matter. 11:20 A. M. WORK SESSION RECESSED 11:35 A. M. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED City Council Chambers Present: Mayor Marc McDougal, Mayor Pro Tern Victor Hernandez, Council Member Gary O. Boren, Councilt Member Alex "Ty" Cooke, Council Member Tom Martin, Council Member Frank W. Morrison, Council Member T. J. Patterson; Bob Cass, City Manager; Anita Burgess, City Attorney; and Rebecca Garza, City Secretary Absent: No one was absent. Mayor McDougal called the meeting to order at 11:35 A. M. (11.) Dr. Cleve Haley, Pastor of Oakwood Baptist Church gave the invocation. (12.) Pledge of Allegiance was given in unison to the United States Flag and the Texas Flag by those in the City Council Chambers. CITIZENS APPEARANCES (13.) Murray Hensley, President of Civic Lubbock, Inc., appeared to present the 2002-2003 Civic Lubbock, Inc. budget for information and comment. The agreement between the City of Lubbock and Civic Lubbock, Inc. provides that Civic Lubbock, Inc. prepare and present to the City Council a budget for the upcoming year. This budget was not presented for City Council approval, but rather for information and comment. Per written agreement, Civic Lubbock, Inc. pays a commission to the City on their gross concession sales. The percentages are as follows: 5% on food and soft drink sales, 20% on alcoholic beverage sales and 30% on beer sales from ice hockey games. Key components of the 2002-2003 Budget are as follows: • Estimated commissions that will be paid to the City are $135,081. The commission reflects a 5% commission on food and soft drink sales, 20% commission on alcohol sales and 30% commission on beer sales from hockey events. • Civic Lubbock, Inc.'s net revenues from the concession operation are anticipated to be $107,296. • This budget also included the transfer of the Select -a -Seat operation back to Civic Lubbock, Inc. Estimated net revenues are $93,779 and are projected based on anticipated events at all venues for which Select -a -Seat provides services, including the United Spirit Arena and Canyon Amphitheater, as well as others. 205 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 206 • General expenditures for the corporation, which included accounting, insurance and other general expenses, are estimated at $50,902. • Depreciation expense is budgeted at a total of $22,332. • Net revenue from all Civic Lubbock, Inc. operations will go towards their chartered purpose and included funding for the local grant program and special events, sponsorship of the Good Kids Program and Recreational Skating programs, as well as hosting the Walk of Fame and Terrace Inductions. The amount budgeted for these activities is estimated to be $175,269. • Civic Lubbock, Inc. will be a sponsor of recreational skating programs at the Coliseum this upcoming year, which includes tournaments. As per the written agreement between the City and Civic Lubbock, Inc., Civic Lubbock, Inc. will utilize the 2002- 2003 Select -a -Seat profits towards this program. • Civic Lubbock, Inc. continues to co-sponsor the Broadway Series, which is going into its seventh season. The Series has continued to provide quality Broadway touring productions. The shows being presented this year include four (4) performances of "Greater Tuna", "Blast Presents: Shockwave", "South Pacific" and "Music Man". Estimated revenue from the Broadway Series is $15,000. • Civic Lubbock, Inc. has allocated $9,490 to be used to underwrite twelve various local events that will be held in the Civic Center or Auditorium -Coliseum. Some of the events include Symphony in the Schools, Lubbock Ballet "Nutcracker", the Viva Aztlan Celebration, and the Prairie Winds Chorus Annual Concert. In addition, $12,000 has been budgeted to underwrite Special Events. • In 2000-2001, Civic Lubbock, Inc. developed the "Good Kids" program with the area schools and other groups, whereby Civic Lubbock, Inc. provided tickets to the hockey games for good students. The schools used these tickets for reward programs. Civic Lubbock, Inc. will continue this program for the 2002-2003 hockey season. The cost of this program will be $50,000. Civic Lubbock, Inc. fulfills its chartered purpose by returning all profits to the community through the promotion or co -promotion of educational, cultural, and entertainment programs and activities in the Civic Center, Auditorium -Coliseum and Civic Center District. They have also made significant investments in public art and in 2001-2002 purchased and installed colorful banners in the Civic Center District. In addition, Civic Lubbock, Inc. contributes to reducing the cost of operations of the Civic Center and Auditorium -Coliseum through the commissions paid to the City. The 2002-2003 Budget for Civic Lubbock, Inc. was presented to City Council for their information and comment. Murray Hensley also introduced Gertie Jeter, Financial Officer and Chevo Morales, Vice President of Civic Lubbock, Inc. CONSENT AGENDA (Items Nos. 14-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-31) Motion was made by Council Member Patterson, seconded by Council Member Martin to approve Items 14-16, 18-20, 22-24, 26-31 on consent agenda as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (14.) ORDINANCE #2001-00089—Abandoning and closing a portion of Avenue E located adjacent to Lot 1 Cameron Addition and Lot 1 McKee Addition to the City of Lubbock (2110 Avenue E) (second and final reading). 206 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 207 ORDINANCE NO. 2001-00089 AN ORDINANCE ABANDONING AND CLOSING TWO PORTIONS OF AVENUE E LOCATED IN SECTION 7, BLOCK B, ADJACENT TO LOT 1, CAMERON ADDITION, AND LOT 1, MCKEE ADDITION, TO THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, LUBBOCK COUNTY, TEXAS, AND MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO MARK THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY TO REFLECT SAID ABANDONMENT AND CLOSING; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. This ordinance was read for the first time at the November 15, 2001 City Council meeting which closes an 18,335 square foot portion of Avenue E north of 22°d Street, east of and adjacent to I-27. The legal description for this closure has been revised for second reading by Hugo Reed to show this portion of Avenue E being closed in two pieces instead of one, the west one-half containing 6,969 square feet and the east one-half containing 10,725 square feet for a total of 17,694. Right -of -Way Department recommended approval of the second reading of this ordinance. (15.) ORDINANCE #2002-00099—Amending Article XIII of Chapter 2 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock, Texas, with regard to the composition and membership of the Lubbock Libraries Board, by increasing the number of members; providing a savings clause; and providing for publication (second and final reading). ORDINANCE NO.2002-00099 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XIII OF CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, WITH REGARD TO THE COMPOSITION AND MEMBERSHIP OF THE LUBBOCK LIBRARIES BOARD, BY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE; AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. In May 2002, the Lubbock Libraries Board prepared a strategic plan that ties to the strategic plans of the Library and the Friends of the Library. In the strategic goal to improve the effectiveness of Board communication, the Board developed the strategy to explore expansion of the Board membership. At the August 19, 2002 meeting of the Board, the expansion of the Board to nine members instead of the present seven members was discussed. Consensus of the Libraries Board was that expansion would improve the ability of the Board to reach quorum, conduct ongoing business more efficiently, and increase representation in the community. This amendment allows for each City Council member to appoint a member to the board, and the Mayor to appoint two members. The ninth member of the board shall be each newly elected president of the Friends of the Lubbock Public Library. The Board adopted the following recommendation to City Council: The Library Advisory Board recommended that the Lubbock City Council consider a Resolution and Ordinance Revision to expand the Board's membership to nine members. The Board instructed the Director to ask Legal staff to draft a revised Council Ordinance No. 9228 and to place the revision on the earliest practical agenda of City Council. Legal staff prepared the draft -revised ordinance. Staff recommended revision of the ordinance and that Council consider as amended September 17, 2002. 207 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 208 (16.) Resolution No. 2002-RO379 authorizing the Mayor to execute an Amendment of Contract of Sale with Loyette M. Hafey for a tract of land in Section 3, Block A, Lubbock County, Texas for a City Park (4012 Idalou Road). RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO379 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock an Amendment of Contract of Sale between the City of Lubbock, Buyer, and Loyette M. Hafey, Seller, and any other related documents. The Amendment of Contract of Sale provides for corrections to the original Contract of Sale, passed by City Council on July 11, 2002 as Resolution No. 2002-R0266, as rendered necessary by title review. Said Amendment of Contract of Sale is attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Ed Bucy Ed Bucy Right -of -Way Agent APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Richard K. Casner Richard K. Casner Natural Resources Attorney Said Amendment of Contract of Sale is filed with resolution No. 2002-R0379. On July 11, 2002 the City Council approved a contract of sale with Loyette M. Hafey to purchase property on the south side of Idalou Road along the west side of Olive Avenue for a City park. This amendment to the contract of sale amends the legal description to the contract and to the warranty deed. Originally the acreage was described in one large tract and is being corrected to describe the property in two tracts of land. Right -of -Way Department recommended approval of this resolution. (17.) Resolution No. 2002-RO395 establishing a Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) with the purpose of assisting the City Council in studying the capital improvement needs of the City of Lubbock for the period of 2003-2008. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO395 WHEREAS, City Councils have received valuable contributions from Citizen Advisory Committees in the past in studying capital improvement programs for the City of Lubbock; and WHEREAS, the services of a Citizen Advisory Committee continue to be a valid method of determining needed capital improvements for the City's vitality; and W21 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 209 WHEREAS, it is beneficial for a Citizen Advisory Committee to make recommendations to the City Council for capital improvement needs for a 5-year period, including methods of financing the projects; NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: SECTION 1. THAT a Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) is hereby created to be composed of thirty-five (35) members appointed by the Mayor and City Council. The membership of the Citizen Advisory Committee shall be organized as follows. The Citizen Advisory Committee shall be divided into a minimum of three (3), up to five (5) subcommittees to study the capital improvements indicated below: 1) Transportation: Streets, Transit, Airport, Traffic Signals and Street Lighting. 2) Community and Municipal Facilities: Parks and Recreation, Library, Civic Center and Municipal Buildings. 3) Public Health and Safety: Fire, Police, Health, Animal shelter and Solid Waste, if needed. 4) Utilities: Electric, Water and Sewer, if needed. 5) Finance. The Mayor and City Council shall appoint the overall chairman and the subcommittee chairmen from among the members appointed to each subcommittee. SECTION 2. THAT an Executive Committee of the Citizen Advisory Committee is hereby established, to be composed of the chairman of the Citizen Advisory committee and the chairman of each subcommittee. The Executive Committee shall review reports from the subcommittees and make a report to the City Council in such form and depth as to clearly identify recommended capital improvement projects needed for a five year period, including recommended financing, to assist the City Council in the study of proposed capital improvement programs for the City of Lubbock. The Executive Committee shall also consider and recommend appropriate methods to properly inform the public of needed capital improvements that may result in bond issues for financing the projects. SECTION 3. The Citizen Advisory Committee, or any of its subcommittees, may from time to time invite interested citizens and elected or appointed officials of the City of Lubbock to participate in discussion concerning the Committee or subcommittee's work. SECTION 4. The Citizen Advisory Committee shall be activated for the period of time required to complete the study and make the recommendations requested by the City Council. SECTION 5. Appointments as Chairman and members of the Committee shall be for the duration of the activation of the Citizen Advisory Committee. SECTION 6. The Citizen Advisory Committee shall abide by the calendar as established by the City Council and by the CIP Rules and Procedures as established by the City Manager's Office. SECTION 7. The City Manager shall appoint a member of his staff to act as secretary of the Citizen Advisory Committee, other staff to act as liaison(s) for the subcommittees, and shall provide assistance to the Committee as needed to help them carry out their duties in a timely manner. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary 209 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 210 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Tommy Gonzalez Tommy Gonzalez, Assistant City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Donald G. Vandiver Donald G. Vandiver, First Assistant City Attorney This item was moved to Regular Agenda and was considered following Item 50. The Citizens Advisory Committee is typically divided into these subcommittees: 1. Transportation 2. Community & Municipal Facilities 3. Public Health & Safety 4. Finance The high -priority projects, which require G.O. bond financing, will be considered by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the City Council in advance of any funding allocation. Each member of the CAC will then be assigned to a subcommittee. Usually, the chairman of each subcommittee is appointed by the Mayor, and will serve on the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee will accept and review the reports of the subcommittees. They in turn will develop a priority list of capital improvements projects and financing available for the project. This report will then be presented to the City Council for review. Council was provided with a listing of the previous subcommittees that were in place during the 1999 bond election. There were three subcommittees and the steering or executive committee. City staff was available to answer any additional questions council had regarding the committee selection process. The committee's charge will be to evaluate priorities for the community and making a final recommendation to the Lubbock City Council. Staff recommended approval of this resolution. Motion was made by Council Member Hernandez, seconded by Council Member Boren to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO395 with no slotted positions and 35 members. Motion carried: 5 Yeas, 0 Nays. Council Members Cooke and Martin had left the dais. The next item to be considered was Item 43. (18.) Resolution No. 2002-RO380 authorizing the Mayor to execute a grant agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration and the City of Lubbock for safety, capacity and security improvements at the Lubbock International Airport. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO380 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Grant Agreement between the City of Lubbock and the Federal Aviation Administration funding the construction of High Speed Taxiway V, blast wall parking facility and acquisition of fingerprint scanning equipment, and all related documents. Said Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. 210 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 211 Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza -- Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Mark Earle Mark Earle, Aviation Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ John M. Knight John M. Knight, Assistant City Manager A copy of the Agreement is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R380. Lubbock International Airport is eligible to receive annual entitlement funds from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). Funds under this program are restricted to safety, capacity and security improvements at the nation's airports. This year, Lubbock International's entitlement grant is $3,476,590; however, $1,779,199 of these funds has been reserved for a cargo apron expansion project approved by Council under a multi -year grant last year. The remaining funds in this year's grant will be used for phase I of the construction of a high-speed taxiway and the purchase of fingerprint scanning equipment. The City Council has already approved capital budgets for these projects. In addition to the entitlement grant, Lubbock International Airport has been offered $1,308,046 in discretionary funding for the first phase of the construction of a blast wall/parking facility. The feasibility of this project is currently being studied. Due to federal funding deadlines, this grant must be accepted by September 30, 2002. If the City determines through the study that this project is not feasible, the discretionary grant funds can be released to the FAA. The FAA is aware that the blast wall/parking facility project is still being studied, and is prepared to redistribute the funds if the City chooses not to go forward. This agenda item involves the acceptance of the federal grants for these projects. The total cost of the projects is estimated to be $3,401,519. The total amount of AIP commitment on these projects is $3,005,048. The remaining $396,471 will be funded through the FAA's Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) program. i The Airport Board and staff recommended approval of this resolution. (19.) Resolution No. 2002-RO381 authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement between the City of Lubbock and the Transportation Security Administration for reimbursement of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) at the security checkpoint. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO381 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Memorandum Agreement between 211 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 212 the Government of the united State of America and Lubbock International Airport of the City of Lubbock, for funding costs associated with new, additional, or revised security requirements imposed on Lubbock International Airport in fulfilling Security Directive SD 1542-01-07, and all related documents. Said Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Mark Earle Mark Earle, Aviation Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Linda L. Chamales Linda L. Chamales, Supervising Attorney Office Practice Section A copy of the Agreement is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R381. In response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on our nation, Congress passed the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. The new law established the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and set deadlines for the implementation of a number of new security measures at air carrier airports. One such mandate requires the TSA to place federal law enforcement officers at every screening checkpoint in the system. To meet Congress's deadline, the TSA is requiring airports to provide local law enforcement officers to staff the federal positions until such time as a permanent federal force can be put into place. The TSA will reimburse airports for the cost of providing the local law enforcement officers. This agenda item involves approval of an agreement between the TSA and the City of Lubbock that will authorize the reimbursement. The agreement was attached for your review. Under the agreement, the TSA will reimburse the City for the actual cost of providing one law enforcement officer during all hours that the screening checkpoint is open. The rate of reimbursement was established through a process outlined in TSA guidelines, and includes a provision for the payment of overtime as required. The effective date of the agreement is May 10, 2002 and runs through December 1, 2003. The TSA's maximum commitment under the agreement is $292,352. The Airport Board and recommended approval of this resolution. (20.) Resolution No. 2002-R0382 authorizing the Mayor to execute a change order with Utility Contractors of America for changes in the scope of the original Annexation Sanitary Sewer Improvements contract in the amount of $80,805.44 (1101h Street between Quaker and Utica Avenues). 212 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 213 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-RO382 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, by and between the City of Lubbock and Utility Contractor's of America, a Change Order No. Three for ITB #048-01/VK, and related documents. Said Change Order is attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Chester Carthel Chester Carthel Chief Engineer -Public Works APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney A copy of the Change Order is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0382. This is Change Order No. 3 for the Annexation Sanitary Sewer Improvements. This change order is necessary to accommodate a change in the alignment of a portion of Phase 2. The realignment is due to the developer redesigning the subdivision layout, which affected the route of II0`h Street. Additional work included, but is not limited to, is an additional 920 feet of 24-inch pipe, a change in the trench compaction requirements, elimination of one manhole, and an increase in pipe cost. The original contract amount was $4,136,593.35. The total of the three change orders is $86,668.44 or 2.1 percent. Funding is from the Sewer Capital Projects Fund. Staff recommended approval of this resolution. (21.) Resolution No. 2002-R authorizing the Mayor to execute a change order with ACT Pipe & Supply for an additional 3,000 feet of 12-inch pipe in the amount of $10,590 (half section line between Inler Avenue [FM 1791 and Quitsna Avenue to the east side of Reese Village) to serve a portion of Reese Village and other areas east. This item was deleted. (22.) Resolution No. 2002-RO383 to authorize the Mayor of the City of Lubbock to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock an Interlocal Agreement with the Texas Department of Public Safety Region V, allowing them the use of 800 MHz radios owned by the City of Lubbock. 213 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 214 RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO383 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock an Interlocal Agreement and any associated documents between the City of Lubbock and the Texas Department of Public Safety to permit DPS access to the City of Lubbock's 800 MHZ radio communications system, a copy of which Agreement is attached hereto and which shall be spread upon the minutes of this Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part hereof as if fully copied herein in detail. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Ken Olson Ken Olson, Emergency Services Coordinator APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Donald G. Vandiver Donald G. Vandiver, First Assistant City Attorney A total of twenty-two radios will be loaned to the Texas Department of Public Safety Region V (DPS). These radios include a base station, mobile radios for use in vehicles, portables to be placed in helicopter and fixed wing aircraft, and portable radios for the Region Commander and the DDC Chairman. These radios will supplement their own radio system and allow the City of Lubbock to call on the DPS for assistance with any public safety issues that may arise. Examples of times when it can be used are disasters, car chases that involve leaving the city limits, and mass casualty incidents. The ability to stay in constant communication with DPS will allow the City of Lubbock to provide better public safety for our citizens. The use of these radios will be in coordination with the Emergency Management Coordinator, Chief of Police, and Fire Chief of the City of Lubbock. The attached Interlocal Agreement illustrates the Texas Department of Public Safety Region V's desire to assist the City of Lubbock when needed. Staff recommended approval of this resolution. (23.) Resolution No. 2002-RO384 authorizing the Mayor to approve an application for a State administered, federally financed Speed Step Program, with emphasis on speed compliance, targeting reduction in speed related crashes, with reduction in death and serious bodily injury. 214 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 215 RESOLUTION NO.2002-R0384 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a $50,000 Grant Agreement for the Speed Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, and any associated documents, by and between the City of Lubbock and the Texas Department of Transportation. Said Grant Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Claude Jones Claude Jones, Chief of Police APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Harold Willard Harold Willard, Asst. City Attorney A copy of the Grant Agreement is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0384. This is a grant program utilizing off duty personnel working overtime to enforce non-compliance of designated speed limits within targeted areas of the City. This enforcement program will be conducted during fiscal year 2002/03. Awards for this grant have been set beginning October 1, 2002 upon approval of the Lubbock City Council. This is a 50150 grant in the amount of $100,000 to be administered during the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003. The Police Department recommended approval of this resolution. (24.) Resolution No. 2002-RO385 authorizing the Mayor to approve an application for a State administered, federally financed Driving While Intoxicated Step Program, with emphasis on alcohol and drug impaired drivers, targeting reduction in alcohol and drug related crashes, with reduction in death and serious bodily injury. RESOLUTION NO. 2002-RO385 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a $50,000 Grant Agreement for the Driving While Intoxicated Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, and any associated documents, by and between the City of Lubbock and the Texas Department of Transportation. Said Grant Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be :included in the minutes of the Council. 215 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 216 Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Claude Jones Claude Jones, Chief of Police APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Harold Willard Harold Willard, Asst. City Attorney A copy of the Grant Agreement is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0385. This is a grant program utilizing off duty personnel working overtime to detect and arrest alcohol and drug impaired drivers within targeted areas of the City. This enforcement program will be conducted during fiscal year 2002/03. Awards for this grant have been set beginning October 1, 2002 upon approval of the Lubbock City Council. This is a 50150 grant in the amount of $100,000 to be administered during the period October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003. The Police Department recommended approval of this resolution. (25.) Resolution No. 2002-RO392 authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement related to the capture and/or relocation of prairie dogs from the Lubbock Land Application Site. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO392 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the City Manager of the City of Lubbock, BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute, from time to time, on behalf of the City of Lubbock an Agreement related to the capture and/or relocation of prairie dogs from the Lubbock Land Application Site in the form of the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The form Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the Council. The City Council of the City of Lubbock further resolves that the City Manager may delegate said authority to any person or persons as the City Manager deems advisable. The authority of the City Manager, and/or the delegee of the City Manager, shall expire two (2) years after the date of passage by the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary 216 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 217 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Terry Ellerbrook Terry Ellerbrook Director of Public Works /s/ Dan Dennison Dan Dennison Environmental Compliance Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Richard K. Casner Richard K. Casner Natural Resources Attorney A copy of the Agreement is filed as Exhibit "A" with Resolution No. 2002-R0392. This item was moved to Regular Agenda and was considered following Item 31. On June 3, 2002 the City of Lubbock received a Notice of Violation (NOV) for the Comprehensive Compliance Investigation at the Lubbock Land Application Site conducted April 1-4, 2002. This notice required that the City submit a compliance plan that outlines planned actions to control the prairie dog population on the Lubbock Land Application Site. The primary objectives of the compliance plan that was submitted on August 20, 2002 are to (1) comply with all requirements of the TNRCC Notice of Violation dated June 3, 2002; (2) avoid future violations related to prairie dogs; (3) achieve a balance between the need to control prairie dogs and the desire to conserve prairie dogs as a natural resource; and (4) protect burrowing owl species during all prairie dog control activities. Proposed control methods included a dual approach of utilizing mass animal relocation supplemented by chemical and/or concussive control. This agreement will serve to minimize "take" of prairie dogs by focusing on relocating prairie dogs from developed farmland back to their native prairie ecosystem. This agreement will allow controlled access onto the site, ensure a valid receptor site for relocated prairie dogs, ensure humane relocation in compliance with all laws, and indemnify the City against claims, liabilities, damages and expenses. Richard Burdine, Assistant City Manager, presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this resolution. Motion was made by Council Member Patterson, seconded by Council Member Morrison to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO392 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (25A.) Resolution No. 2002-RO393 authorizing the Mayor to execute a partial settlement in Cause No. 2001-513945, the City of Lubbock, Texas and the West Texas Municipal Power Agency vs. Stewart & Stevenson Energy Products, Inc. aka S&S Energy Products, Inc., a Division of GE Packaged Power, Inc., and Energas, a Division of Atmos Energy. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO393 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a settlement agreement with Stewart & Stevenson Energy Products, Inc. aka S&S Energy Products, Inc., a Division of GE Packaged Power, Inc., in Cause No. 2001-513945, The City of Lubbock, Texas and The West Texas Municipal Power Agency vs. Stewart & Stevenson Energy Products, Inc. aka 217 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 218 S&S Energy Products, Inc., a Division of GE Packaged Power, Inc., and Energas, a Division of Atmos Energy, attached hereto, which shall be spread upon the minutes of the Council and as spread upon the minutes of this Council shall constitute and be a part of this Resolution as if fully copied herein in detail. Passed by the City Council this 27th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Paul Thompson Paul Thompson, Director of Electric Utilities APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Matthew L. Wade Matthew L. Wade Assistant City Attorney A copy of the Settlement Agreement is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0393. This item was moved to Regular Agenda and was considered following Item 25. This item was discussed with Council in executive session. Should Council choose to act on it, they may then direct staff to release information as they deem appropriate. Paul Thompson, Director of Electric Utilities, presented staff comments. Motion was made by Council Member Martin, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO393 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. Next item to be considered was Item 32. (26.) Resolution No. 2002-R0386/BID #089-02/RS—for Regis Corridor Outdoor Lighting Fixtures (Parks and Recreation). RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO386 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Purchase Order for Regis corridor outdoor lighting fixtures, by and between the City of Lubbock and Southwestern Electric Supply of Lubbock, Texas, and related documents. Said Purchase Order is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. 218 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 219 Passed by the City Council this 27th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Victor Kilman Victor Kilman, Purchasing Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney A copy of the Purchase Order is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0386. This bid will provide for the purchase of 200 outdoor lighting fixtures for the Regis Corridor Enhancement Program. The light fixtures will be located in the tree bosque and will provide a lighting effect for a grid of 20 to 25 trees developing a beautified "Parkway" along the Regis Corridor and Martin Luther King Jr., Boulevard. The low bid is $65,282 from Southwestern Electric Supply of Lubbock, Texas and is within the System Capital Outlay -Regis Corridor Enhancement Program budget amount. (27.) Resolution No. 2002-R0387/RFP #118-02/BM—for Water Facilities - Security Vulnerability Assessment (Water Production and Treatment). RESOLUTION NO. 2002-RO387 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Contract for water facilities — security vulnerability assessment, by and between the City of Lubbock and Turner, Collie & Braden, Inc. of Houston, Texas and related documents. Said Contract is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 27th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Victor Kilman Victor Kilman, Purchasing Manager 219 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 220 APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney A copy of the Purchase Order is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0387. This contract includes a security vulnerability assessment of the City of Lubbock drinking water system, revision of the current emergency operations plan, and the design of security enhancements resulting from the vulnerability assessment. The vulnerability assessment is required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and will identify and provide solutions for security needs in the City of Lubbock's drinking water system. Eight consulting and engineering firms submitted proposals. A six -member evaluation committee evaluated proposals using the following criteria: 1) Qualifications and experience of personnel assigned to the project (30%), 2) Company's experience, qualifications, and history (20%), 3) Methodology, management approach, and techniques (40%), and 4) Responsiveness to the RFP (10%). The eight companies were numerically ranked as follows: Turner Collie & Braden, Inc. Jane's Consultancy Telemus Solutions Framatome ANP Black & Veatch Montgomery Watson Harza EAI Corp. ARC 3 Ranked #1 with 566 total points Ranked #2 with 558 total points Ranked #3 with 549 total points Ranked #4 with 548 total points Ranked #5 with 531 total points Ranked #6 with 462 total points Ranked #7 with 435 total points Ranked #8 with 432 total points The top four firms were invited to give oral presentations. Jane's Consultancy of Alexandria, VA declined, which eliminated them from competition. The oral presentation ranking is as follows: 1) Turner Collie & Braden, Inc. (72 points), 2) Telemus Solutions (64 points), and 3) Framatome ANP (57 points). The evaluation committee unanimously recommended contract award to Turner, Collie & and Braden, Inc., of Houston, Texas. A contract has been negotiated with them in the amount of $146,000 for the Vulnerability Assessment (phase one) and $6,000 for Vulnerability Assessment Training of Lubbock Water Utilities Staff (phase IA). Phase two (review and revision of emergency operations plan), and phase three (design and implementation of security enhancements) will be authorized by separate supplemental amendments to this agreement. The contract amount is $152,000 and is within the Water Facilities Security Improvements budget. (28.) Resolution No. 2002-110388/13I1) #146-02/RS—for Municipal Lease - Purchase Finance for 125 Horsepower Motor Grader (Fleet Services). RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO388 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Contract for municipal lease/purchase financing for 125 horsepower motor grader, by and between the City of Lubbock and Suntrust Leasing Corporation of Towson, Maryland, and related documents. Said Contract is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. 220 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 221 Passed by the City Council this 27th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Victor Kilman Victor Kilman, Purchasing Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney A copy of the Contract is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0388. This bid is for financing a five-year municipal lease/purchase of one 125 horsepower motor grader. The financed amount for the motor grader is $115,904. The bid for the motor grader was awarded at the July 11, 2002 Council meeting to Associated Supply Company, Inc. of Lubbock, Texas. The grader will be used by the Solid Waste Department at the City of Lubbock Landfill. The low bid is from SunTrust Leasing Corporation of Towson, Maryland with total interest payments of $6,928.04. The annual payment in advance amount is $24,566.41 and is within the Capital Outlay -Heavy Moveable Equipment budget. (29.) Resolution No. 2002-R0389/13II1 #181-02/RS—for Fire Station #10 Roof Renovations (Facilities Management). RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO389 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Contract for Lubbock Fire Station #10 roof renovations, by and between the City of Lubbock and Hamilton Roofing Company of Lubbock, Texas, and related documents. Said Contract is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 27th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary 221 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 222 APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Victor Kilman Victor Kilman, Purchasing Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney A copy of the Contract is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0389. This project will replace the existing roofing system at Fire Station #10, located at 4810 MLK Blvd. The existing roofing system has numerous leaks and has outlived its useful life. The low bid is $36,899 from Hamilton Roofing Company of Lubbock, Texas and is within the Building Capital Outlay -Fire Station Roof Renovations budget amount. (30.) Resolution No. 2002-R0390/BID #185-02/DC—for Creosote Wood Poles —Annual Pricing (LP&L Engineering). RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO390 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Letter of Award for creosote wood poles, by and between the City of Lubbock and Koppers Industries, Inc. of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and related documents. Said Letter of Award is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 27th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Victor Kilman Victor Kilman, Purchasing Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney A copy of the Letter of Award is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0390. Wood poles are the structures that support our overhead lines and equipment. They are of different lengths and classes, from 30 feet Class 5 to 100 feet Class 1. These poles are creosote treated, manufactured and framed according to LP&L Specification #DE-0003-4-060789. Poles will be charged to various accounts in both operating and capital project 222 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 223 budgets. The majority of the poles will be charged to the FY2002/2003 Overhead Distribution Capital Projects. Seven vendors submitted bids, on the per item basis; four bidders are low on several items. Koppers Industries is low on 10 items (308 poles), Colfax is low on 2 items (140 poles), Thomasson Lumber is low on 2 items (110 poles), and Utiliserve, with the 3% discount, is low on 7 items (7 poles). Since delivery of these poles will be on per need basis spread throughout a year, the staggered deliveries of these poles, as it will be coming from 4 different sources, may not satisfy a full -truck load from each supplier. This may cause additional delivery costs on our part. With the total cost basis, staff will be dealing with only one supplier and staff will be able to mix the sizes on our order to satisfy full -truck loads and be saved from paying additional freight charges. Therefore staff recommended the purchase of these poles, from Koppers Industries, the lowest bidder for all the items, for a total price of $120,676.25. (31.) Resolution No. 2002-R0391/RFQ #200-02/BN'I—for Fire Truck Purchase (Fire Suppression). RESOLUTION NO. 2005-RO391 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Purchase Order for a fire truck, per RFQ #200-02/13M by and between the City of Lubbock and Houston Galveston Area Council of Houston, Texas, and related documents. Said Purchase Order is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 27th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Victor Kilman Victor Kilman, Purchasing Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney A copy of the Purchase Order is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0391. This purchase is for the replacement of two 1,250-Gallons-Per-Minute Pumper Trucks through the Houston -Galveston Area Council, Interlocal Cooperative Purchasing agreement, Bid # FP00-08. Emergency One, Inc. of Ocala, Florida, manufactures the trucks and Daco Fire Equipment, Inc., of Lubbock, Texas is the dealer. One truck is scheduled to go to Station 223 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 224 #14 and the second truck is projected for Station #8. However, due to the size of the new trucks, this one may go to station #12 and a smaller truck moved from station #12 to station #8. Total cost of this purchase is $604,536, through an interlocal cooperative purchasing agreement with the Houston -Galveston Area Council, which includes cost of the two trucks at $301,268 each and the H-GAC administration fee of $2,000. This is within the Pumper Replacement 2001-2002 Capitol Account budget. Staff recommended award of each bid to the bidder as indicated on the tab sheets and award of each contract as shown on the resolutions and that the Mayor be authorized to execute all documents necessary for each transaction. The next item considered was Item 25. ORDINANCES FOR PASSAGE Second Reading (32.) ORDINANCE #2002-00095—Approving and adopting a budget for Fiscal Year 2002-03 and approving final revisions to the Fiscal Year 2001-02 budget for the City of Lubbock (second and final reading). ORDINANCE NO. 2002-00095 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-03 PROVIDING FOR NECESSARY TRANSFERS OF FUNDS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS AND DEPARTMENTS, IF REQUIRED; APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR THE 2002-03 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK; APPROVING FINAL REVISIONS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2001-02 BUDGET; ESTABLISHING CIVIL SERVICE CLASSIFICATIONS AND POSITIONS; AND PROVIDING FOR A SAVINGS CLAUSE. This item was considered following Item 25A. The City of Lubbock Charter requires two readings on ordinances. This is the second reading of the ordinance adopting the budget for the City of Lubbock for Fiscal Year 2002-03 and the final revisions to the 2001-02 budget. The budget ordinance must be considered first, followed by the ordinance on the tax rate. At the first reading of the budget, Council approved a package that required staff to cut $94,000 between first and second reading. After identification of a clerical error of $54,552 the reduction needed to be $34,052. This error was in the last minute adjustment of the fee category (Occupational Permit) identified by Council Member Martin to increase. Council Member Martin's recommended reductions are as follows: 1. Eliminate membership dues for U.S. Conference of Mayors $ 7,000 2. Reduce anticipated legislative travel in General Multipurpose budget $ 7,000 3. Reduce City Council travel $10,000 4. Reduce various General Fund office supply accounts (require City departments to order on line rather than eliminate Print Shop supply of office supplies with 15% markup) $10,052 Total 34 052 City Manager Bob Cass stated he was fully prepared to implement the budget as approved by the Council, although he must respectfully again express his concern as to the advisability of using reserves to fund an ongoing operational expense. 224 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 225 Noting the concerns expressed above, staff recommended approval of this ordinance. Motion was made by Council Member Martin, seconded by Council Member Boren to pass on second and final reading Ordinance No. 2002- 00095 as amended below. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. Because of the volume of discussion included on this item, we included transcript of all discussion leading up to the final motion. Council Member Martin made the above motion as follows: "I passed out a copy of the motion. It has a couple of parts. First deals with the budget itself and the second deals with the budget ordinance. The first is our current. After the last council meeting, we had a figure of about $97,000 that we asked the City Manager to find cuts for. As of today's meeting, I think that figure after they corrected my math which I guess I made a mistake, but it was to our advantage, leaves about $34,052 that has to be come up with to make the budget balance. Mr. Cass recommended at our meeting last week when we passed on this item for a full council to be here to freeze a soon -to -be vacant position of the Public Information Office, which would save $37,000. The first part is that we use that freezing of the vacant PIO position which would more than offset the $34,052. The second part of the budget part is we had talked about or approved a 4% merit pool threshold in the first reading of $25,000, meaning that employees who make less than $25,000 would be in a 4% merit raise pool. Originally what my intention was, was to look at technical -clerical and trades -labor employees since they tend to be our lowest paid employees. Since that time we have gotten some figures about if we raise that threshold to $30,000 it would require an additional $66,624 in cuts. I am proposing that we use the difference in the savings of the PIO job freeze of $2,948. Also in Mr. Cass' agenda memo last week, he proposed saving $25,500 by on-line supply ordering and also in the first reading, we adopted two new Codes Inspectors and two new Librarians all starting the first of October. Since the fiscal year starts next Tuesday, there is no way to get them on board by then and realistically it will take a couple of months to advertise and hire. So if we hired them effective January I", we could save $30,000 on the Codes Inspectors and $16,250 on the Librarians for a total savings on these items of $74,698, which would actually result in a general fund surplus for this year of $8,074. The second part of my motion deals with the budget ordinance itself. The budget ordinance as it exists is pretty much, in my opinion, an open ended document. And I am making several changes or proposing several changes and the first one is in the first WHEREAS statement in the preamble. It talks about that Council determined such proposed budget be appropriate and correct. Well, actually, it is not the proposed budget, it is the budget as proposed and then amended on first reading on August 29 and if we amend it on second reading today and I inserted that language in that fourth WHEREAS statement. The next one would be in Section I of the main body of the ordinance. It is basically adding the same language that the budget proposed by the City Manager for the fiscal year October 1, 2002 through September 20, 2003, as amended on first reading and then on second reading is hereby and adopted and made a part of the ordinance for all purposes. Section 2 will be amended and again adding the same language that the figures prepared and submitted by the City Manager as amended on August 291h and today are hereby approved. Section 3, I am proposing be amended. If you read the current language in the ordinance and let me find my ordinance here, if you read the current language in the original and I want to read what the current language is, 225 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 226 says that any necessary transfer of funds between accounts, departments or programs by the City Manager for City purposes or as a result of unusual or unforeseen conditions during the administration of the 2002-03 fiscal year budget are hereby authorized and approved. I submit that I think it would be a better business course, rather than preapproving any budget transfers, that we change it to this language: That any necessary transfer of funds between accounts, departments or programs recommended by the City Manager for City purposes or as a result of unusual or unforeseen conditions during the administration shall be presented to the City Council for approval by resolution before such funds can be transferred between accounts, departments or programs or spent for any purpose, other than a state of emergency declared by the Mayor under state law. That last line deals with the possibility of a tornado or some natural disaster and under the Disaster Declaration, once the Mayor declares it then for emergency spending it could be done. Section 5 would be amended to read: That the several amounts, as set forth in the proposed budget as amended on August 29`h and as amended today are hereby appropriated to the objects and purposes named, subject to modification (it had notification in the original ordinance, I think it should be modification) in accordance with Section 3 hereto if necessary. Section 7 would be amended to say: That a copy of the adopted budget (the ordinance says proposed budget) but - the adopted budget shall be filed with the appropriate officials as required by law. A new Section 9 shall be inserted and read: That the City Manager shall receive prior approval from the City Council by resolution for all raises in salary, allowances or compensation in any form for all city employees commonly referred to as "SBA's (Set by Administration)" as those positions existed on August 29, 2002. And then finally, the previous Section 9 would be renumbered to read Section 10. Attached to this is a listing of the executive level salaries of the City indicating the names and positions of those people who would under the new Section 9 be required to have Council approval. And I so move. Morrison: I will take this in reverse order on the proposed amendments to the wording. Mr. Martin, you and I agreed in a previous conversation that things being sprung on us isn't a good thing. I haven't had a chance to look at this, review it, understand it. And that's the way this whole budget process has gone. We just kind of scooted right through all of the discussion and the debate and I thought that most of the Council wanted to do that and so I didn't raise any questions when I would have liked to have heard from some of the department heads about where their priorities were. But I think it is poor management to come in at the last minute with major changes that none of the rest of the Council have had an opportunity to review. I voted for the first reading of the budget because I wanted to keep the process on-line. But I have had some serious reservations and I will get to those as we get into other discussion of the budget about the way we are funding this budget. I'm more than just concerned that we are changing our direction without having had appropriate time to deliberate the proposed changes. And whether it be the wording or the use of the figures, I would at least like to have an opportunity -- I appreciate and support your right to make amendments and alter amendments and make changes, but I think we should all have a chance to evaluate those - Cooke: And digest them Morrison: --and digest them, that's exactly right. 226 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 227 Martin: I would have no objection to having a special meeting Monday and give you a chance to digest all of this. Boren: Or we could have the City Manager give his input. We are just talking about a change in the ordinance to give the - to empower the City Council to be responsible for these things. Mr. Cass, if you would like to respond to them. We are talking about a paragraph. I don't think it's going to take a space engineer to figure this out. Hernandez: Well, before he responds and I would like to hear his response, too. I just needed to ask Councilman Martin a question because he was part of city government for so many years. On your - let me make sure it's the right one - on your new Section 9, where basically the change would require the City Manager to submit to the Council for prior approval for all raises in salary, allowances or compensation for all City employees referred to in your appendix here. I would just like to know from your perspective as a former city employee if that is not, or could not be viewed as a bit of micromanagement on our part. I mean, I see the need for being informed and I think if we pass the budget, we are being held accountable. But I am also a little concerned that we are starting to micromanage this organization in terms of what the City Manager can do or can not do with his Assistant City Managers and some of his department heads and I would just like your insight on that. Martin: Certainly. First of all, you mentioned I was a city employee. I was and when I came to work in 1970 for this city, I was an SBA. The salaries at that time had to be approved by the City Council. As a matter of fact during most of the `70s, they had to be approved by the City Council and I'm not sure what year that custom changed. So first of all we have a history of doing that and somewhere along the lines, I'm guessing in the `80s that changed. Bob may remember when it was. Cass: I would imagine in the `70s. Martin: But at that point all of these SBA positions were required to be approved by Council. Number two, it's not uncommon in other cities that the same procedure goes on. Number three, all of the salaries of any department head, the years that I was a Police Chief, I promise you everybody in the city knew what my salary was to the penny. It was all public record; it was published. Any time any department head gets handled, gets hired, the first thing the press wants to know is what was the salary you hired them at. So it's not secret information. What I'm concerned about is in the area - in the era that we live I think there is a need for corporate governance. And that's what we as city council members are elected and that is to be a board that oversees the operation of the city. And I don't want to sit here because we have a lot of items on our agenda, but we all are familiar with the things going on in the corporate world in this day and time. And a lot of it is because a lot of the oversight was pushed away or delegated and the people on boards of directors of public corporations did not exercise their oversight responsibilities. We all are familiar with an incident that happened this last year, where some members of senior staff were - received some hefty raises in an era when the actual policy was that everything was to be frozen. And if we want to go back and revisit that issue again, we can do that. But that's why I say that it is just good public policy for this council for upper level management to exercise some corporate oversight, if you will, to make sure those things don't go on. On the issue about micromanagement, I understand that's always the charge that's made when we are talking about exercising oversight. And there obviously has to be a delicate balance. The point being is this. The way that budget ordinance, which incidentally is the 227 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 228 same as this budget year's ordinance and my guess is the same as last year's, the year before, the year before is written. And I would just like to ask a question here to confirm that. It basically says once we adopt the budget and the clock strikes midnight on the morning of October 1", a city manager (and I'm leaving personalities out of this) can basically change anything around. Other than civil service employees that by state law have to be created by ordinance, Mr. Cass could create budget positions, he could delete people, he could transfer everybody's budget to one department if he wanted to. I'm not saying Mr. Cass would do those things. I'm just saying that the way this thing reads that we have preapproved anything the city manager does during that year. I don't think that's good corporate governance and I fully believe that if Mr. Cass had some reorganization, wanted to get new positions, wanted to delete positions, wanted to consolidate money, wanted to eliminate programs, this council would back him up a hundred percent. Cass: Let me add in, I emphatically agree with Mr. Martin. I have no problem with his recommendation. I was unaware of it until today. But let me say, I welcome additional council involvement in this. Councilman Martin and I have known each other a number of years. That authority is mine. I will assure you I don't believe it's ever been exercised in terms of shifting the budget around, but I don't think it's an appropriate thing to have it there in one person's hands. I really don't. I don't think it's been abused in the past, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be in the future. And as far as the discussions on compensation levels, I would welcome council input on that. So I want it to be clear about it to the council. Council, this is the first time I have been aware of this. Councilman Martin and I have not discussed it. I emphatically agree with him though in terms of his assessment of good public policy. Patterson: The only concern I got, I hadn't seen it myself until today. That really surprised, kind of shocks me sometimes when something happen quick I have to look up under the wings and see what's there. Got no problem, but we need to discuss - I wish you had come this past week and told me what was going on. Hernandez: Well, and I'm not, you know, I'll probably vote in favor of this. I just want to make sure because this is a shift and I just want to make sure I understand because I am hearing Bob saying he is emphatically in favor of this. But I hear you saying that because well if I were in your shoes, I'd probably say that too in this climate, as you put it. Cass: Well, I'm not talking - let me clarify - I'm not talking in the council climate, I'm talking about the current corporate American climate. I think there is increased, should be, and there is now an increased demand on corporate directors and frankly, I think that is changing the standard for councils in this state and this country as well and I think that's entirely appropriate. Hernandez: And I think it's important that you did make that distinction. Cass: Correct. Hernandez: But secondly, I also wanted to make sure that when I was elected my responsibility was to set policy; not to run the City of Lubbock. If I've got a problem with the way you are running this city or how you are compensating your ACMs or your department heads, then I've got a problem with you. Cass: I would agree with that. Hernandez: This seems to be going a little deeper than that. 228 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 229 Cass: I think - my assessment of it again - I'm doing this by the seat of the pants and Tom, jump in and help me. My assessment of this though not having a chance to evaluate it - this would help us avoid many problems. We would sit down before things got to be a problem. We would discuss them. We would come to conclusions. This is not my company. This is your company. Hernandez: Well, again, all I'm trying to do is make sure I understand, because this same sort of thinking can go all the way down. All the way down, to where if somebody wants to go out: and buy a box of legal pads, they are going to have to come to council. And what I am saying, is where do you draw the line. I am a policy maker. I am not here to run this organization and so I am just wanting to make sure that if we are going to take this additional step, I think additional steps need to be taken elsewhere as well. I'm not too sure that's my charge. Martin: Mr. Hernandez, I agree with you. We are policy makers and I don't want to micromanage this city. But if you look at corporate America, it is the custom in practice for corporate supervision that boards of directors of corporations do not just set the salary of the CEO and everybody else is set by the CEO. The board of directors or compensation committee of the board recommends it to the board and that's who adopts it for all of the corporate officers. We have a city where we name our directors, managing directors of blank, and we have assistant city managers for blank. We have a chief legal officer called the city attorney. We have a chief record -keeping officer called the city secretary. We have a chief financial officer called the city treasurer; we'll let that one go for now, but at any rate, you know, we have those things established. Our charter starts out saying that we are a municipal corporation and if we are going to have the confidence in the citizens of this community that we are doing our job in corporate governance, we need to make sure that the ordinances we pass and this ordinance right here is the most important ordinance we do every year. Because this appropriates, I don't know how many hundreds of millions when you throw in all of our operations. It is an enormous sum of money and I think the public expects us to do this. I just think this is good public policy. And I'm not interested in micromanaging, Mayor Pro Tem. Hernandez: Right. And let me ask you one - let me make this last point because I think Councilman Martin's point is well taken that this body is ultimately responsible and this body needs to be fully informed. And I do not disagree with that whatsoever and I think there have been instances in the past where we have not been fully informed. And as a result, there have been problems. He alluded - he specifically stated one. But to me there is a difference between us being fully informed and being held accountable and us taking this additional step and saying "Bob Cass, if you want to do something, you come to us and we have to approve it beforehand". I don't think that's a proper role for us to play. I think the role is "Bob Cass, you did something or you've done something over the last few years we don't like. I think we need a new city manager". I think that's the proper role we ought to play. And I think maybe there is a fine line between those two roles. So I guess I'm falling at this time with Councilman Patterson and Councilman Morrison in that this has been thrown at us. I need some time to think about it because I've just got some logic issues with it and trying to think it out, think it through. Cooke: What are we looking on the timetable if we don't do this today? Cass: You've got to have a budget in place by the end of the month, by Tuesday. Patterson: We can meet Monday. Let's meet Monday 229 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 230 Cooke: Yeah, if we need to. I promised myself after voting for the budget and really realizing too late that we were taking every drop of money we had in reserve for emergency repairs, etc. and spending it on an ongoing expense that keeps going and that reserve is gone, that I wasn't going to do that again. I got another one here and I'm not going to do it. Martin: Mr. Mayor, could you refresh my memory some. I think Councilman Cooke is talking about the five hundred and some thousand dollars that we would use that is in the balance in that general facilities capital account. Is that right, Mr. Cooke? Cooke: Yeah. Martin: Refresh my memory, Mayor. I seem to remember a meeting that you and I and Mr. Boren and Mr. Cass had several weeks ago before first reading of the budget and I brought up the issue that that account in the CAFR last year, the annual financial report, showed a 6.8 million dollar balance and when we were meeting Mr. Cass told us that no, that was money that was all designated for capital outlay stuff. Each year in the budget, money is transferred out of the general fund into that account and that money is there to do stuff and said basically it was all obligated and so forth. And then he called Ms. Hodges, CPA, our Managing Director of Finance, up and she went and checked and came back and said no, there's $28,000 in that account that's unobligated. And then about a few days before the budget on first reading, we got a memo saying "Oh, no, there's five hundred and some thousand dollars that's - once we checked the books and everything - that's not available. It's left over from other projects and so forth. In addition, there's $278,000 or so left from a settlement from an asbestos abatement lawsuit that could be used for future deals. My point is we dealt with a budget that until we asked questions and got somebody to check and Mr. Cass' staff did and found out that we had over a half million dollars that was sitting there that on the books didn't show to be there because projects hadn't been closed out or whatever had happened there, we actually had more money. And that money was put in there originally in individual yearly budgets to buy cars, and desks and computers or whatever else in the general fund. And if that money is left over, that's exactly what it's going to be used for in this budget. And whether we transfer, use that money this year and save on the general fund expenditures or whether we say well no, we're going to leave that in there and use it for next year's deal, the point is it's money that's put in there on a year-to-year basis and it's built up to the point that nobody knew how much we had in there. And I think it's good public policy since that's what we will be using it for in this budget is to pay for the $1.6 million plus that was in there for general fund capital. We just don't have to transfer the five hundred and some thousand, because that money is sitting there. Do you remember that, Mayor? Cass: I would again agree with the numbers, Mr. Martin; I would disagree with the characterization that we did not know where that money was. I recall some numbers being misread. Nevertheless, you are correct that that money is available now. You are correct that that money was set aside for capital purposes. Martin: You're right and that's exactly what I said and Ms. Hodges came back and told us after she went and checked, there was $28,000 that was undesignated in that account. Is Ms. Hodges here? McDougal: I think Tom's point is, that it's not reserve dollars. Cass: No, well it is not, if you mean reserved for a specific project, no, it is not. It is a reserve to be used however the Council wishes. 230 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 231 McDougal: How much in this budget are we moving from general fund to capital, to that account? Cass: Tom, Mr. Martin, I believe that's five hundred and forty some odd thousand? Martin: Right. And then there's another a little over a million one that because originally it was a million six plus that you were transferring from general fund to that account and by not transferring the five hundred and some thousand, it's a little over a million one that actually does get transferred. Morrison: Mr. Martin, if I could interrupt, this is exactly the conversation we should have been having a month ago or two months ago. Martin: I agree, Mr. Morrison, but if you will recall we had budget sessions and I remember when we had budget sessions everybody wanted to get up and leave and said, okay, whatever- whatever Mr. Cass has is fine with me. And that's my point, is that we need, we do need to discuss these things and we need to start doing it earlier in the year and we need to discuss it and not everybody jump up and say, oh, well, gee, it's five o'clock, it's time to go. Let's set enough time to actually have these discussions. McDougal: Well, now, hang on, hang on just a second. Tom, we have three days set aside for budget hearings. Martin: That's right. McDougal: And if I remember correctly, at the end of a question that you asked. I think you are the one that said I am ready to go home. Martin: That's because everybody else had already said we are going home. That's the only reason. Morrison: Everybody had not said we are going home. McDougal: All I remember is asking, does anybody have any other questions and there were none. Boren: It doesn't make any difference. We can solve it today. We can stay here twenty hours. To me, I am amazed at you guys. I am totally amazed, that as a governing body you want to hide your eyes from being responsible for the salaries of the management team and give someone a check and say do what you want to do and I — fine. I trust Mr. Cass, but I may not trust the next one. I don't know what's going to happen. We have learned that, and I'm just saying it is a normal business management tool to have this. It doesn't take a space engineer to read this. We can have - Mr. Cass, you can give us the bad side. We can have the — get the City attorneys up here and just say this is what we, you don't like about it. That fair. Let's delay it a few hours. But my goodness, this is basic accounting government. Morrison: Mr. Boren, I'm not objecting to these words. What I'm objecting to about these words is that I didn't get them until we started a discussion about them. Boren: Let's take it — let's take right now one little paragraph at a time, four sentences, and let's go over it. And I don't think it's a brainer — a no- brainer to deal with this thing. Morrison: Mayor, I don't mind one bit doing that. I would like to have done it a month ago. But we've got folks here who have other issues on the agenda and if we are going to approach the budget in this manner, I would rather them be here at their own discretion, rather than waiting for their item to come up whenever we get through with the budget negotiations. McDougal: So are you asking that we - Hernandez: Table this. McDougal: - table this. Take up items 36 through - 231 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 232 Patterson: You have a motion and second on the floor. McDougal: I understand. I'm just trying to clarify what the question is: 36 through 54, and then come, or through 56 and then come back to items 32 through 35? Morrison: That's exactly what I'm asking. Martin: I have a point of order. What is the - we have a motion on the floor, Ms. Burgess. So you can't do a motion to table while there is a motion on the floor, I don't believe. They can amend the motion or they can turn it down. They cannot approve the budget. Burgess: Motion to — Let me look at my order of precedence here. The lay on the table is going to take precedence over the main motion — Martin: It does? Burgess: Yes, sir, it does. Lay on the table would take precedence, but now if it's laid on the table it needs to be picked up during this council meeting. So you will have to come back to it. McDougal: Yes, yeah, that's what I said. Morrison: Mayor, I move we lay the motion on the budget on the table. Patterson: Second. McDougal: Discussion? No discussion. All in favor of the motion. Motion carries 5- 2. (Council Members Boren and Martin voted Nay.) The next item to be considered was Item 36. This item (#32) was reconsidered following Item 56. McDougal: We will now reconsider or take back up Ordinance 2002-00095 approving and adopting a budget for fiscal year 2002-03 and approving final revisions to the fiscal year 2001-02 budget for the City of Lubbock. Second and final reading. Martin: Mayor, I think motion and second is on the floor, but Ms. Burgess has informed me that there is a couple of technical things that she would have to make to that to make it a legal motion. Burgess: If I may add those at this time. Mayor and Council, there is a provision in Council Member Martin's motion and that's found in Section 3 on page 2 of the document that he passed out. It's the last phrase on Section 3 down at the bottom of the page and it's our opinion that the words past the word "purpose" on the next to the last line, if you will strike those, that is strike the language "other than a state of emergency declared by the MAYOR under state law", we can address the underlying statutory provision that we are seeing as being a problem. It is our opinion, that state law will preempt and that the governing body is required in these circumstances, emergency circumstances, to be the entity making these decisions. So we would propose that you strike that language and I think that will fix that problem. Also in Section 3, it's the sixth line down, the word resolution is written into the motion. Because of this proposed change and the arrangement, we believe that the item would need to be passed by ordinance instead of by resolution. And so it is our opinion that would need to be struck and the word "ordinance" written into this motion. Martin: With those, I don't know what the procedure is, Mayor, that's the advice of the City Attorney to make that motion legal. I accept those things. Boren: He made the motion and I seconded it, so do we just need to, he needs to make the motion with those changes and I second those changes? Burgess: Mr. Cass has mentioned that he would like to see those titles clarified. Cass: I don't have a copy of the document in front of me. Mr. Martin, we discussed this before lunch. The terminology SBA's, if we could change 232 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 233 that to basically mean Managing Directors, the Chiefs of Fire and Police, the Assistant Managers and the Deputy City Manager. Martin: So it would read "in any form for Managing Directors, Assistant City Managers, Deputy City Managers and the Chiefs of Police and Fire Chief. Cass: We typically refer to them as chiefs rather than managing directors, but they function at that level. Boren: Why would you want that versus SBA's. Cass: That's just not terminology — that may be in the budget, but actually that's not the terminology we use anymore. It's the same positions, we are just clarifying it. Martin: That does clarify that. McDougal: So since Mr. Cass can't make a motion, are you making it? Martin: I accept that as an amendment to my motion. Boren: And I second it. Mr. Cass — McDougal: Any discussion on the amendment? Morrison: Yes. I have got two questions. One, this list, this is just a sample list and I don't see Mark Earle's name on here. Cass: He's not a managing director. He's called the Director of Aviation. Morrison: Okay. The other issue I've got — could we separate out the wording changes that you are making from the number changes you are making? Martin: Sure. You mean split it into two motions? Morrison: That's correct. I think we're going to deal with the numbers in a minute. Martin: You're asking if I will, if I will accept a friendly amendment to vote first on the wording changes on the budget ordinance and then we will come back and have another motion on the numbers in the budget? Morrison: Correct: Martin. Okay. Because I just wanted to make sure we are not, I'm not getting ahead of myself here. Because once we vote on the budget ordinance, we have adopted the budget. Morrison: No, I would suggest that your change be — that you are amending the wording of these sections of the budget ordinance and not changing the budget ordinance. Though you could go ahead and do that if you wanted to, itself. That this amendment, or this motion that you are making is only affecting the wording phrasing of the budget ordinance and not on the budget ordinance itself. Martin: I defer to the City Attorney to tell us whether that is a legal motion. McDougal: I think what Councilman Morrison is saying is, he would support the language, but he won't support — Martin: Sure, I understand that. I appreciate that. I am just saying if we have a - split it into two motions and we vote on the language first and we adopt it, we have in effect adopted the budget on second reading. Morrison: No, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that these changes wouldn't be any different than changing a line item. Cooke: He's asking Anita if we can do that, though. Burgess: I love it when you all confuse me like this. All right. You have passed it on one reading already. And then these are amendments to the first reading that Councilman Martin has posed. Now what you are wanting to do is split Councilman Martin's in half. So you are wanting to change the reading of the ordinance itself without passing the numbers associated with it? 233 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 234 Morrison: That's correct, as an amendment. Just as this will be an amendment and just as this will be amendment -- Boren: Amendment one would be the language. Amendment two would be the budget numbers, I guess. Morrison: And then here in a little bit, there's going to be a question on the ordinance itself. Cass: I have a question, Mr. Martin. I'm still digesting this here — I'm just wanting to make sure whatever the Council's will is on Section 5, the amendment there. I'm sorry I missed this before lunch. "amended on second reading on whatever date are hereby appropriated to the objects named, subject to modification in accordance with Section 3 hereto if necessary." Is that - are you basically saying you want Council to have line item control? What are you saying there? Martin: Well, no, I'm saying that we pass a budget that has an appropriation by object is what we pass. Now, without the language of what we adopted on first and second reading, that language is as it's set out in the ordinance that's in our book is what you proposed two months ago. And so anything we've done since then makes no difference unless we put in the language about what we've adopted on the first reading and the second reading. And then there was one word that was messed up, I believe. It had instead of modification, it had notification; it was a misprint. Cass: Here's what I'm getting at. Let me just pick the police department. I will have, I believe I have five basic code areas. I have got the personnel items and I will have salaries, I will have overtime, I will have fifteen accounts under that one. Then I will have a series of supply accounts, a series of equipment accounts, and so forth and so on. I'm trying to make sure I understand what your interpretation is. Normally we would have the authority to actually as you say it "vast authority". Are you wanting to limit the authority to say within a departmental level budget, to say that if I am over a little on overtime and under a little on supplies that it all comes out on the bottom line of the department budget? What are we talking about? Martin: In other words, I understand the need for budget flexibility within a department. And what we actually have, I mean none of us, the truth of the matter is, none of us at this dais, the seven of us, have seen the detailed budget deals that you all do that — We have all seen a budget summary that's about this that says x amount of dollars for police, x amount of dollars for fire, x amount of dollars for human resources, x amount of dollars for general government, x amount of dollars for nondepartmental. That's what I'm referring to that we've seen. Cass: So to that level you are saying — Martin: We don't spend the time to go below those summaries — Cass: Okay, I got ya. Martin: --and if we wanted to spend a lot of time on budget, I'm ready to take all summer to go through every line item if that's what everybody wants to do. But I don't think that's what everybody wants to do. Cass: I'm just wanting to make sure that we don't violate the Council. What I am hearing you say just one more time is that I've go the police department broke let's say into a patrol function. So to the level of the patrol function, we've got flexibility within that dollar amount. Martin: Your summaries have police department, period. That's what you gave us. Cass: That's fine. Whatever we've given you — I'm not trying to get into an argument with you. I am just trying to clarify I don't want to exceed the authority you are intending. Martin: It's by department, not by section, not by cost centers, by department, 234 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 235 Cass: By department. I understand that and that's fine. Martin: That's what my intent was. Because I know you've got to have flexibility within the department. Cass: I have no problem with that. I just wanted to make sure we understood. Cooke: My first question was going to be has legal had a chance to scrub this and I assume from your corrections that you gave Tom before we started back in, legal has scrubbed these. Burgess: Mr. Vandiver and I have consulted and I think we are comfortable. Cooke: So did we ever get an answer on whether we could do the language without doing the budget numbers? Burgess: This is — I guess I'm comfortable enough as long as you get the whole passed if you want to do it in two jumps. Now, at this point in time there is a motion and a second on deck. I assume that this is made as a motion to amend to split this and I don't know, you've got a motion and second — McDougal: Not let me ask this question. Can I — he may not do this, but can I ask Councilman Martin to withdraw his motion and then restate it: one on the expenditure side and then once that is voted up or down, then we vote one on the language. Would that be more appropriate? Martin: That would, I think be more appropriate because I think when you adopt the language, you have just adopted the budget. McDougal: I agree with you. Morrison: Okay — that's McDougal: Do you want to withdraw your motion? Martin: I withdraw my motion so that we can — McDougal: Will you withdraw the second, Councilman Boren? Boren: Yes. In a spirit of peace -- McDougal: Do you want to restate your motion? Martin: I move the numbers that I talked about before on amending the budget, not the budget ordinance. McDougal: So, we have a motion on second reading to amend the first reading budget by the numbers you show here on page one, under 4 recommendation: Raise the 4 percent merit pool threshold to $30,000, requiring an additional $66,624 in cuts or new revenue. Martin: Well, it's 1-4, Mayor. The first part deals with what was left over from first reading. The second part is some new stuff. McDougal: On page one. Becky, do you have a copy of that so you have the motion correct? Becky: I will get one from Tom. McDougal: So we have a motion Boren: Second. McDougal; --and a second. Now, discussion. Morrison: Discussion. I'm real uncomfortable with this process because — and even information we got this morning — I have a memo dated September 12'h from Mr. Cass that discusses the $529,694 that came out of general facilities and system improvements and capital projects fund. And the discussion we have this morning indicated that we are not sure that number is accurate? Martin: No, we know it's accurate. Cass: It's accurate. 235 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 236 Morrison: The question or the issue I have with this budget — the budget includes that $529,000. Martin: Correct: Morrison: Where is that money coming from next year? Martin: Well, that money every year, Mr. Morrison, think of a No. 3 washtub over here. Okay. And every year we got to fill that No. 3 washtub to go buy police cars, your lap top computers or whatever we are going to buy in capital, with capital outlay. And when the budget is all put together, each department, each section, each cost center, all the way through the budget — like some one -person office over here may have a hundred dollar chair and another office over here may have a $50,000 vehicle or whatever it is. And all of that then is gathered up, and there is a line item in the general fund budget on page 18 of that purple summary we got that shows transfer from general fund to this account. This account is that No. 3 washtub so that when you are doing purchase orders it all goes against one account number and not 4,000 different account numbers. So it transfers it over there, puts it into this fund and Mr. Kilman takes bids and issues purchases orders and we approve the bids and all that. That account when we first started looking at it was — the answer was all that money was spoken for from the current fiscal year budget and previous deals that haven't been closed out yet. By the time we were over, we found there was five hundred and some thousand, whatever the figure is, that we talked about last time left in that budget. It wasn't set aside as a reserve, it was money that once we got the books cleaned up found out we had left over because stuff we bought this year or in previous years came in under bid and so forth. Is that right, Bob? Cass: Yes, sir, that's an accumulation of budget under run over a number of years. Not necessarily the — Martin: So we can either, you know, we could leave it there and spend it sometime in the future or we can use it this year for the purpose it was intended, to buy capital outlay. And instead of having to gather up a million six out of the general fund budget and dump it into this No. 3. washtub, we only have to do a million one. And it allows us to do the things we adopted on first reading, like get the weeds out of the street, like two more librarians so we can staff up the libraries to open them in the evening, a second new Code Enforcement Officer and all the things we approved on first reading. If you wanta, if you wanta, if you are going to try to make a motion and you get four votes to not spend that money, we are going to go back and we are going to cut out raises and we are going to cut out the weed killer, we are going to cut out the librarians, we are going to cut out all those things that we've added. Or you can leave them in and we can reopen the budget and go back through the whole thing. Whatever you want to do is fine with me. Morrison: Well, that's what we are fixing to find out. What we want to do. Martin: And one other thing while I am at it. The reason that I brought this up today is because I've been hearing all week that there was four members of the council that had four votes to roll the budget back to what Mr. Cass proposed in the first place. And if that's the game, I'm certainly not going to call anybody and say "hey, I understand y'all are fixing to roll back everything we passed the last time, but here's my plan." Because nobody bothered calling me and saying `hey, Tom, I just wanted to let you know just out of courtesy that we got votes and we are going to roll it back to the way Mr. Cass originally proposed it and do away with the police and fire raises and all this other stuff." Boren: No one called me either. McDougal: I wasn't called either. Patterson: No one called me. You been dreaming, Tom? Martin: That's where we are. Now you know as much as I do. 236 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 237 Morrison: I haven't talked to anybody on this council since the last council meeting. So I don't know what you are talking about. Patterson: Let's get on with the business. Let's get on with the business. Morrison: T. J., we are going to. It's going to take some time. In your discussion of where the $529,000 is going, you are talking about salaries? Martin: No! Morrison: Well, that's what a librarian is. Martin: No, it's just that's that much less we transfer over to another account. It will still be there along with $1.1 million that we are sending the general fund to buy equipment with this next year. The $1.6 worth of equipment is still in the budget. That was originally proposed by Mr. Cass. The only thing we cut out was a $47,000 suburban for Human Resources. We did that on first reading. Morrison: So instead of taking this money out of the fund, we are transferring it to the fund? Martin: Yeah. It's like you got $20 in your pocket and you need $50 to buy something. You can go to the ATM and you can take out $30 and add it to the $20 you got in your pocket and go buy it or you can take out $50 from the ATM and go buy it and still have $20 in your pocket. And the next thing you need, you can either spend it or you can go back to the ATM. It all washes in the end. Boren: Frank, it's government accounting. Cass: I would agree with Mr. Martin on that. The only point I would add is that is a revenue, if you will agree with me on this, Mr. Martin, that is a revenue that will not necessarily be present as we start next year's budget? Cooke: Right. Martin: But we may not buy as much equipment — Cass: True, true, true Martin: --because you told us this year that we are catching up, double -up catchup on cars, we might not be buying as many. Cass: That's right. That would be where we cut next year's, in the capital cost. Boren: Or you may not hire as many people as you intend. Cass: True. There's all sorts of flexibility but I just simply wanted council to be aware that would not be revenue but the revenue may turn around on sales tax. Cooke: --keeps going up and sales tax stays good. That's what we're betting on, you know. Boren: And y'all can keep raising taxes every year like you normally do. Y'all been voting that way and it's been staying that way. Hopefully it will stop. Morrison: I have another concern that — Cooke: If it does, we are really going to be hurt over the $500,000 reserve. Boren: No, we're not. Morrison: --we have passed this budget, we have taken action and we have already talked about micromanaging. We have taken action to supplement the police and fire budgets beyond what those department heads asked for and I have a concern that 1) we are spending more money than we need to be in those areas; and 2) that we are telling our department heads how we want them to spend their money. Boren: Be specific, Mr. Morrison. 237 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 238 Morrison: The respiratory equipment — I mean the air breathing apparatus replacements that we have replaced. The Chief did not see it necessary to replace those this year. Martin: That's not what he said in the budget sessions. Morrison: He said they do need to be replaced and they could be replaced now. He didn't say they need to be. If he said they needed to be, I am sure they would have been a priority over something else. Martin: I understand, but let me tell you — McDougal: It's my understanding that they were in the budget and then they were pulled out of the budget. Correct, Mr. Cass. Cass: Well, we all have a different recollection, here's what I recall. McDougal: Hang On. Here's the Chief. Cass: There's the Chief, let's see -- McDougal: Chief can refresh our memory on what he said. Martin: You know we've got to make sure we're talking about the same meeting at the same time. Because the original meeting was they were not in the budget, they were unfunded — unfunded requests and my question was do we need to replace this equipment? And then I gave you my speech about I remember the three firemen that we lost at the old Underwood's Bar-B-Q Cafeteria at 711 341h Street twenty something years ago. Because this City didn't spend the money to keep those respirators, those air packs that those guys carry going into those — that building. And if you want to cut that out Mr. Morrison, make the motion and let's cut it out. Morrison: I want to hear what Chief Halley has to say. Hailey: We turned those in. We had four capital projects. If I remember correctly, No. 1 was a truck replacement; No. 2 was our field training projects; No. 3 was either the air packs or bunker gear and No. 4 was either the air packs or the bunker gear. The air packs and bunker gear were the last two priority items on the capital project. Going through the budget process, Mr. Cass and his staff recommended approval for replacing the ladder trucks, and then a partial amount of the funds for the fire training project and then rolling the additional funds or the additional expense into the next fiscal year. Did not recommend the air packs and the bunker gear. Going through the budget presentation, in answer to your question, Councilman Martin, you know you said if we need those is that a safety issue? Certainly a one -word answer from me is if we need those and we don't have them, yes, it is a safety issue. Martin: And then we make judgments to appropriate public money for public purposes and I suggested that my judgment is we never ever scrimp on safety equipment. And that's why I moved to it back in there and this Council did. Now, if we want to cut it out, somebody make the motion to cut that money out of there, and let's vote on it. Morrison: Chief, Chief, do they have an expiration date like the fire extinguisher does? The bunker gear itself really doesn't have an expiration date. It certainly has a normal life expectancy which is anywhere from five, to six, to seven years, depending on usage. And that we had started in the current fiscal year's budget was with our bunker gear rather than rocking along and having to replace that entire inventory list, on an annual basis do a certain portion of it so that in that six to seven years' time, we turn over that whole inventory. That way we are building in an annual cost to maintain that entire fleet. The same thing with our air packs with the exception that the cylinders on there do have a DOT service life. We have to hydrostatically test those ever so often and then ever so many years, that bottle has reached the end of its 238 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 239 service life. Again, starting in the current fiscal year, what we had done is build in buying a certain number of those units every year, so in that given period of time we replaced that fleet and we don't build up and have to do it all at one time. Morrison: What is the age - the bunker gear? What is the age of your oldest bunker equipment? Hailey: Well, of course, I am trying to remember. I guess it was in '95, '96, that fiscal year. We replaced all our bunker gear at that time. So with the exception with what we have replaced in this current year, you know, it was six years old. We've got some now that's going to be six years old and some about a year old. Depending on where an individual is assigned, you know, that gear may last six years; it may last nine years. We inspect that twice a year to make sure the structural integrity and the protection factor is still there. When the Texas Commission on Fire Protection comes in, they inspect us every other year, that's one of the big things they look at. We do a self -inspection, so if it's bad we want to find it first, No. 1 for that fire fighter's safety, and No. 2 to correct it before the Commission comes in. So, we have an ongoing inspection process that makes sure that we've got good gear, that our fire fighters are not in jeopardy. The same thing with our air pack. We've got an internal air pack maintenance program. Again the Commission comes in. They look at those records. They make sure. They will pull a unit out of service, get the guys at the air pack station to do a flow test on it to make sure it functions properly. Martin: Did you recommend a 3% across the board raise for your people in that original budget? Halley: My recommendation, again going back to my salary, was for whatever this Council and the City Management approved because I asked for an additional 4% on top of that. Martin: So you asked for seven, talking basically. Hailey: Yes, sir, based on if Council and City Management recommended three. Martin: The point is, Mr. Morrison, that 3% that was originally presented to us was Mr. Cass' recommendation, which is what we pay him the big bucks for to make those recommendations. We chose to think that needed to go 5% for police and fire. So that wasn't, it wasn't Chief Hailey's recommendation of 3%. He actually recommended seven for fire, Mr. Cass recommended three, we made the motion and second for five and that's what the Council adopted. You want to cut that, make the motion. Morrison: I understand what you're saying. But Chief Hailey is not responsible for the budget and he's not responsible for the tax rate. Martin: You're right. We are. Boren: He's responsible for his people and getting the safety equipment and the salaries so we can maintain the kind of city we have today. Morrison: And if the breathing apparatus is at risk, it needs to be a priority one, not a Priority four. And that's where my question comes is if it's a priority four, a priority four on my list doesn't get looked at for months. Martin: What priority did you give it? Hailey: Again in the four capital projects, the air packs and bunker gear, and I don't remember — one of them was three, one of them was four. Again, what we had started this current fiscal year was filling in and buying a certain number of sets to maintain that annual inventory. It wasn't that we felt like at this given point in time, we are going to have to replace the whole fleet. It was filling in a normal cost factor rather than a lump sum every 6-7 years. Boren: You was trying to be prudent so you could spread it over many years. Halley: Exactly. 239 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 240 Boren: Instead of trying to do it in a lump sum, which is good planning. Martin: But what got included was zero and I asked the question, do we need these items? Hailey: And my answer was yes. Again, I don't want to get behind on that normal replacement of that inventory. Martin: You know, it's all money and it's all expenditures and if somebody wants to cut it, they need to make the motion to cut it out of the budget and let's get on with it. Boren: Get going. Morrison: Mayor, I move an amendment to Councilman Martin's motion. I discussed Market Lubbock and my concerns about the battle we are having about the budget and all the other areas and Market Lubbock came to us with a 26% increase in their budget and I had concerns about us spending fifteen minutes hearing from Market Lubbock and not scrutinizing their budget or a 26% increase certainly. And what I would recommend is or what my motion is to amend Councilman Martin's motion that we hold Market Lubbock at their current funding level of 1.946 million dollars and the $510,000 difference between what their requested increase is and the $1.946 million go back into the reserve fund for capital projects. Martin: You are amending my - this deal here. Morrison: Well, I understood that this was the budget. Hernandez: Making a motion to amend. Martin: Well, this is the second, you are amending this? McDougal: He is amending the motion. Cooke: You are amending his amendment because this is his suggestion for amending the budget. Morrison: Well, given our discussion earlier, I understood that we had that big discussion a while ago because part of whatever Mr. Martin was recommending was `the budget'. Patterson: We had an original budget in reading one; this is amendment here and you - Cooke: The only thing we're taking action on now is the language. Martin: Right, that's it. McDougal: No, we have not taken any action on anything. He withdrew his motion on that. He made another motion on this. Patterson: To amend the budget with this motion here. McDougal: His motion was to approve the budget on second reading subject to this amendment. Martin: You are amending my motion, right. Okay, I'm with you. That's fine. Morrison: Mayor, Tom's motion was to approve the budget subject to these amendments. McDougal: That's correct. Martin: Right. The budget being the numbers; the budget ordinance was a separate deal that we are waiting for later. McDougal: Correct. Morrison: Right. And so if I want to adjust the numbers, I've got to amend -. Martin: It's an amendment to this motion. McDougal: That's correct. Patterson: And amend the amendment, because there was a motion. McDougal: All right, we have a motion to amend. Is there a second? 240 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 241 Hernandez: Second. McDougal: A motion to amend and a second to reduce Market Lubbock funding. Is there discussion other than what I want to say. Hernandez: Let me make this point. Because I know this Council as a whole and it's been tested throughout the years and I suspect the new Council Members are no different. There is a commitment to economical development and therefore, directly or indirectly a commitment to Market Lubbock Inc. The reason I am seconding, providing the second for the motion Councilman Morrison made is because I do have some concerns about Market Lubbock Inc. Specifically, I am concerned that David Sharp's salary is out of sync with probably the market place and definitely in relation to the City Manager's salary. Just makes no sense to me that David Sharp is earning more than our City Manager who oversees a much bigger budget, who oversees a huge staff compared to Market Lubbock Inc. I would also say that I do have grave concerns that Market Lubbock Inc. does not have any written policies concerning the use of City funds outside the corporate city limits of Lubbock. And I really do believe that the only way that we have to be able to exert influence, or one of the ways I should say to exert influence over Market Lubbock Inc., is through the budget as well as the appointment process. The appointment process has already been done. It has already happened so right now the only way we can exert influence is through the budget. And I think we need to send them a message, that their expenses are out of whack. That their salaries are probably out of whack and I would like to see at the very least some written policies concerning the use of City funds outside the corporate city limits. And the reason I say that is because every company that comes to Market Lubbock Inc. to try to do business within the City of Lubbock has to fit certain criteria that they've established, a certain matrix that they've established. They made it very clear to me that those same rules weren't going to apply with companies that other cities were going to try to get into their area. And I'm like why not, we are holding companies to a much higher standard when they want to do business here and yet we are willing to cut a check for $250,000 to a company that hasn't even gone through that exercise. It doesn't make sense to me. Does not make sense to me. So, for those reasons, I seconded the motion. McDougal: Well, I'm not going to support the motion to cut funding at Market Lubbock; and we do have board appointments coming up for Market Lubbock next month. Those board members to my knowledge serve at the will of the Council and at the next Council meeting, we could replace every board member if that is what Council so chooses to do. I'm not inclined to do that. I think Market Lubbock is doing an outstanding job. I think they create, they continue to create jobs. We've heard from Kenny earlier on a business retention of a local business here and you know, I thought that this Council was continuing to look for ways to find more funding for Market Lubbock, not cut funding for Market Lubbock. And I certainly will not support the amendment. Cooke: I won't support it either. But I have also, just for what it's worth, been assured that they are going to come up with a policy for that. McDougal: Any other discussion? Call for the question on the amendment. All in favor. Motion failed: 2 Yeas, 5 Nays. (Mayor McDougal, and Council Members Cooke, Boren, Martin and Patterson voted Nay.) McDougal: Okay, back to the original motion. Any other discussion on the original motion? Boren: I would say it's — we need to support this motion because once again on the recommendation we are giving the employees that make $30,000 and below an additional 1% raise, instead of those that just make $25,000 and below. 241 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 242 So we have raised the bar to do that and I would use that as a good thing to do to raise that bar up to help those employees $30,000 and below. Cooke: I think it would be great if we could do it for everybody. Boren: I do, too. Morrison: I have a concern about — go ahead Cooke: But I've also got the compression thing that we are doing with the mid range folks. We are just pushing that bar a little further with that and the way we are funding it, propose to fund it, is delaying hires. And again it's one of those situations: it's fine, it fits this year, but those hires are there next year. They are not delayed and it's pushing the problems back down the road and for that reason, I won't be supporting the amendment, but would be in support of passing, what we passed on first reading. McDougal: Any other discussion. Boren: Would you repeat that? You're not supporting the amendment, but supporting what? Patterson: The original motion — McDougal: He will support the original motion, but would not support this amendment. Martin: You support what we passed on first reading, but not this. We've got to do something with this because we're $34,000 out of balance. Cooke: Well, I thought we would instruct the City Manager to — Martin: We did and he gave us a suggestion and you know the suggestion that's in there Boren: He reduced your travel, Mr. Cooke. He reduced office supplies and he reduced the U. S. Conference for Mr. McDougal being the Mayor. McDougal: Now, I had requested that be removed. Cooke: Which is fine. Martin: Mr. Mayor, what is the motion on the floor? McDougal: The motion on the floor is your original motion to pass the budget subject to these changes. Martin: These changes, but we are talking about just budget and not the budget ordinance? McDougal: That's correct. Martin: I'm ready to call the question. McDougal: Question's been called. All in favor of calling the question. (no one opposed) Calling for the question on item No. 32. (Motion carried: Carried: 4 Yeas, 3 Nays. Mayor McDougal and Council Members Morrison and Cooke voted Nay.) Okay, item No. 33. See, now we need to go back. Martin: We've got to do the language. We've got to adopt the budget ordinance. Now, I move adoption of the budget ordinance subject to the amendment that I presented today as corrected by Ms. Burgess. McDougal: And by Mr. Cass. Martin: And by Mr. Cass. Right. Boren: Second. McDougal: Motion and a second. Any further discussion on that. Motion carries: 7-0. (Motion was made by Council Member Martin, seconded by Council Member Patterson to adopt the budget ordinance subject to the amendment 242 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 243 presented today as corrected by Ms. Burgess and by Mr. Cass. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays.) (33.) ORDINANCE #2002-00096—Setting the tax rate and levying a tax upon all property subject to taxation within the City of Lubbock, Texas for the year 2002 (second and final reading). ORDINANCE NO. 2002-00096 AN ORDINANCE SETTING THE TAX RATE AND LEVYING A TAX UPON ALL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, FOR THE YEAR 2002; APPORTIONING SAID LEVY AMONG THE VARIOUS FUNDS AND ITEMS FOR WHICH REVENUE MUST BE RAISED; FIXING THE TIMES IN WHICH SAID TAXES SHALL BE PAID AND ASSESSING PENALTY AND INTEREST FOR NONPAYMENT OF SUCH TAXES WITHIN THE TIME PROVIDED. Motion was made by Council Member Patterson, seconded by Council Member Morrison to pass on second and final reading Ordinance No. 2002-00096 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 5 Yeas, 2 Nays. Council Members Boren and Martin voted Nay. (34.) ORDINANCE #2002-00097—Amending Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock, Texas with regard to rates charged for water services (second and final reading). ORDINANCE NO.2002-00097 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 28-52 AND 28-53 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK BY REVISING WATER RATES AS CONTAINED THEREIN: PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Motion was made by Council Member Martin, seconded by Council - Member Patterson to pass on second and final reading Ordinance No. 2002-00097 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (35.) ORDINANCE #2002-00098—Amending Chapter 28 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Lubbock, Texas with regard to rates charged for sewer services (second and final reading). ORDINANCE NO. 2002-00098 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, TEXAS, BY AMENDING SECTIONS 28-86, SUBSECTIONS 28-86(a) AND 28-86(b) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK BY REVISING SEWER RATES AS CONTAINED THEREIN: PROVIDING A SAVING CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Motion was made by Council Member Patterson, seconded by Council Member Morrison to pass on second and final reading Ordinance No. 2002-00098 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. Council adjourned following this item. 12:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS Zoning (36.) Ordinance No. 2002-0 - ZONE CASE NO. 2945 (south of Erskine Street and east of North Dover Avenue): Hold a public hearing to consider request of Hugo Reed and Associates, Inc. (for Erdon Corporation) for zoning change from R-1 to R-2 Specific Use for 20-foot front setbacks for duplexes and reduced setbacks at cul-de- sacs on an unplatted 19-acre tract of land out of Section 1, Block J-S. This item was considered following Item 32. This item was continued to a later meeting. 243 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 244 Mayor McDougal opened the public hearing at 12:25 p. in. Bernie Gradel of Hugo Reed and Associates, Inc. spoke for Erdon Corporation in favor of the zoning change. Van Wilson, developer, also spoke in favor. Don Cummings, a resident of Horizon West, represented the 211 residents who had signed a petition opposing the change. Others speaking in opposition were Joyce and Steve Tomlinson and Michelle Lange. Mayor McDougal closed the hearing at 12:56 p. in. The original request would rezone an area south of Erskine and east of Dover as duplex zoning with a condition for a 20-foot front setback on regular lots, five feet of front setback on cul-de-sac lots, and five feet of side setback on corner lots. During the meeting, the proponent amended the request to R-1 Specific Use for town homes on the lots facing Dover south of the proposed Emory Street. Since the meeting, the proponent indicates he will further amend the request for the lots facing Dover south of Emory to standard single family (R-1) with a 20-foot front setback. Adjacent land use: North — vacant, zoned residential South — zoned for a church East — vacant, zoned residential West — duplex units from Erskine to Emory, single family residential to the south. As noted, subsequent to the meeting, the proponent has agreed to amend the request to allow for standard single family be presented to Council is noted above. The Commission instructed that a meeting be held among the interested parties. All the discussed changes will require amendment of the proposed conditions of the ordinance. A number of the residents west of Dover expressed concern about duplex zoning. After learning of the amended proposal, several continued to express concern about the proposed size of the units (equating to value) and the fact that the town homes may be built with two units and have the appearance of a duplex. The staff indicated that although the units may be built in two unit pairs, the homes are on separate lots and are eligible for sale, which is not the case for half of a duplex. (These are the lots that will be left R-1.) The residents expressed fear that the units would be rented to students, as are many of the homes in the adjacent subdivision. The staff refreshed their understanding that the proposed zoning will have the prohibition of more than two unrelated persons, and if they are having trouble in their neighborhood, they may submit a complaint to the Business and Neighborhood Services Department. The Planning Commission instructed the proponent to meet with the neighbors prior to the Council hearing and find out if an agreement can be reached for a minimum square footage of the town homes. With current construction costs, a minimum square footage and a 75% brick or masonry requirement would assure a valuation at least equal to the current values of the homes east of Dover. Most of the original homes are at least fifteen years old, S65475,000 in value and around 1,500 square feet of living area. The newer units in the 300 block of North Dover are smaller with LCAD values in the S65475,000 range and 1,200-1,300 living area square footage. The request, as amended, is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Single family faces single family and the R-2 is on the next street to the east. The project should have little effect on the thoroughfare system. 244 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 245 The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. That there is a minimum square footage of the town homes. 2. That a twenty -foot front setback for both the R-1 and R-2 non -cul- de-sac lots and a five-foot minimum setback (excluding any garage portion of the structure) for lots facing a cul-de-sac. 3. A five-foot side setback shall be permitted for corner lots with a condition that the fence setback also meets the five-foot dimension. Randy Henson, Senior Planner, presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this ordinance. Motion was made by Council Member Cooke, seconded by Council Member Morrison to continue this item to a later meeting. Motion carried: 6 Yeas, 1 Nay. Council Member Martin voted Nay. (37.) Ordinance No. 2002-00100 - ZONE CASE NO. 2946 (south of 1061h Street and west of Indiana Avenue): Hold a public hearing to consider request of the City of Lubbock for a zoning change from T to R-1 Specific Use for residential estates on Lots 1-235, Lakeview Heights Addition. ORDINANCE NO.2002-00100 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2946; A ZONING CHANGE FROM T TO R-1 SPECIFIC USE ZONING FOR RESIDENTIAL ESTATES ON LOTS 1-235, LAKEVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION, LUBBOCK, TEXAS; SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor McDougal opened the public hearing at 1:00 p. m. No one appeared in opposition. Mayor McDougal closed the hearing at 1:02 p. m. The staff committed to rezoning several subdivisions in the area annexed in 1999 to allow the keeping of livestock that is permitted in the deed restrictions of the area. For Lakeview Heights, the deed restrictions allow horses only, no cows, goats or sheep. Normally the four farm animals are included in residential estates. The district "Residential Estates" was created to allow ownership of farm animals on larger lots in subdivisions that desire that amenity. A home must be located on the parcel; the owner is not allowed to warehouse animals on the lot without being there to care for them. Several residents appeared in opposition to zoning the entire subdivision to allow what is permitted in the deed restrictions. The argument appeared to be a reaction to one homeowner who has not taken care of their property. Their suggestion was to leave the lots that had stock in January of 1999 to remain nonconforming and that individual owners could request zone cases for RE if they desired. Although they bought property in the county when all the residents had the ability to have horses, they did not want the zoning to "blanket' allow the use in the subdivision. Several owners appeared in support of the proposal based on the fact that the lots are allowed horses in the deed restrictions and they would like for zoning to be parallel. The number of animals is based on square footage of the lot: • 20,000 square feet (just less than one-half acre) two animal units maximum. • One additional animal unit is allowed for each additional 10,000 square feet of lot up to a maximum of four animals. 245 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 246 The staff recommended approval of the Residential Estates zoning with a condition that will match the animals (horses only) allowed in the deed restrictions: That it be limited to horses only. No cows, sheep, goats or other livestock. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition. Randy Henson, Senior Planner, presented staff comments. Motion was made by Council Member Morrison, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass on first reading Ordinance No. 2002-00100 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (38.) Ordinance No. 2002-00101 - ZONE CASE NO. 2947 (3608 23rd Street): Hold a public hearing to consider request of Tommy J. Swann (for Reynolds, Kirk, & Dunn, LLC) for a zoning change from R-1 to AM on Lot 15, Block 1, Eubanks Fort Addition. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-00101 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2947; A ZONING CHANGE FROM R-1 TO AM ZONING ON LOT 15, BLOCK 1, EUBANKS FORT ADDITION, LUBBOCK, TEXAS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor McDougal opened the public hearing at 1:00 p.m. No one appeared in opposition. Mayor McDougal closed the hearing at 1:02 p. m. The parcel is within the policy medical district between 19`h and 23rd Streets. Adjacent land uses include residential that has not converted to medical uses and medical related uses. This particular lot will be used for parking in conjunction with a medical building recently built. The proposal meets both Comprehensive Land Use Plan policies and zoning policies. The proposal should have no effect on the overall thoroughfare system. Randy Henson, Senior Planner, presented staff comments. Planning Commission and staff recommended approval of this ordinance. Motion was made by Council Member Morrison, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass on first reading Ordinance No. 2002-00101 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (39.) Ordinance No. 2002-00102 - ZONE CASE NO. 2948 (south of 1141h Street and east of Slide Road): Hold a public hearing to consider request of Larry L. Franklin (for Christ Lutheran Church) for a zoning change from T to A-2 limited to a church and church -related uses on an unplatted 20-acre tract out of Section 23, Block E-2. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-00102 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2948; A ZONING CHANGE FROM T TO A-2 LIMITED TO CHURCH -RELATED USES ZONING ON AN UNPLATTED 20-ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF SECTION 23, BLOCK E-2, LUBBOCK, TEXAS; SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor McDougal opened the public hearing at 1:00 p. in. No one appeared in opposition. Mayor McDougal closed the hearing at 1:02 p. in. The proposal would provide for a church tract south of 114th adjacent to the half section line. 246 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 247 Adjacent land uses are substantially vacant in all directions. The proposal is consistent with both the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoning policy. The Plan encourages the location of church tracts adjacent to thoroughfares and on the perimeter of neighborhoods. This parcel meets both criteria. The parcel is 933 feet deep, only the north approximately 600 feet is within the city limits. The project should have no appreciable effect on the thoroughfare system. The Planning Commission recommended the request with a condition: That the property be limited to church and church related uses. Randy Henson, Senior Planner, presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this ordinance. Motion was made by Council Member Morrison, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass on first reading Ordinance No. 2002-00102 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (40.) Ordinance No. 2002-0103 -ZONE CASE NO. 2115-F (2409, 2411, and 2413 871h Street): Hold a public hearing to consider request of Sam Reyes (for Sam Reyes Construction Company) for a zoning change from C-2A to R-2 for duplexes on Lot 234, 235 and east 20 feet of lot 233, Bicentennial Estates Addition. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-00103 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2115-F; A ZONING CHANGE FROM C-2A TO R-2 ZONING ON LOT 234, 235 AND EAST 20 FEET OF LOT 233, BICENTENNIAL ESTATES ADDITION, LUBBOCK, TEXAS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor McDougal opened the public hearing at 1:00 p. in. No one appeared in opposition. Mayor McDougal closed the hearing at 1:02 p. in. This request follows a zone case from last month requesting a change from C-2A to R-2 for duplex construction. Adjacent land uses: North — commercial South — residential East residential (zoned duplex) West — zoned C2A The request is not consistent with the current Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but the Plan does not illustrate the current commercial zoning on the property. As in the last case, approval would warrant a minor change for the Comprehensive Plan with the motion. The strip of commercial along 871h Street has not proved viable. The owner of the duplex will have to deal with the fact that the new duplex units will buffer the residential on the south from the commercial across the street. A parcel zoned C-2A will remain at the corner of 871h and University. The project will not affect the thoroughfare system. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request including a minor change to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Randy Henson, Senior Planner, presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this ordinance. 247 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 248 Motion was made by Council Member Morrison, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass on first reading Ordinance No. 2002-00103 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (41.) Ordinance No. 2002-00104 - ZONE CASE NO. 2876-A (south of 106tn Street and east of Slide Road): Hold a public hearing to consider request of Ken Flagg (for Richard Webb) for a zoning change from T and R-1 Specific Use to R-1 Specific Use for garden homes and/or town homes on an unplatted 10.2-acre tract of land out of Section 16, Block E-2. ORDINANCE NO.2002-00104 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2876-A; A ZONING CHANGE FROM T AND R-1 SPECIFIC USE TO R-1 SPECIFIC USE ZONINGFOR GARDEN HOMES ON AN UNPLATTED 10.2 ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF SECTION 16, BLOCK E-2, LUBBOCK, TEXAS; SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor McDougal opened the public hearing at 1:00 p. in. No one appeared in opposition. Mayor McDougal closed the hearing at 1:02 p. in. The proposal would allow for construction of either garden homes (freestanding units) or town homes (row housing with the units on individual lots). Adjacent land uses: North — residential and the Church on the Rock South —zoned residential, owned by Bacon Heights Baptist Church East — residential West an older residence facing Slide Road The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoning policies. Either the garden home or town home is a style of single family residential. The project will have little effect on the thoroughfare system. The Planning Commission recommended the request with the following conditions: 1. That the garden home and town home style of construction shall be allowed, with one of the choices on all the lots in each of the proposed block faces on each street. 2. That setback for homes on lots adjacent to a cul-de-sac may have a minimum of a five-foot front setback for any non -garage portion of the structure. 3. That side setback adjacent to a street on corner lots may be five feet with the exception of any intrusion into the vision triangle at street intersections. 4. That the side setback for fences on the street side of corner lots shall be five feet to match the building setback. Randy Henson, Senior Planner, presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this ordinance. Motion was made by Council Member Morrison, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass on first reading Ordinance No. 2002-00104 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. NM Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 249 (42.) Ordinance No. 2002-00105 - ZONE CASE NO. 2719-B (north of 82°d Street and east of University Avenue): Hold a public hearing to consider request of Greenstreet Construction (for Sheridan's Lubbock, Inc.) for a zoning change from C-2 to C-4 Specific Use for a drive -up restaurant and all unconditionally permitted C-2 uses on an unplatted 0.82-acre tract of land out of Section 4, Block E. ORDINANCE NO.2002-00105 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 7084 AND THE OFFICIAL MAP OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK MAKING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES: ZONE CASE NO. 2719-13; A ZONING CHANGE FROM C-2 TO C-4 SPECIFIC USE ZONING FOR A DRIVE UP RESTAURANT ON AN UNPLATTED 0.82-ACRE TRACT OF LAND OUT OF SECTION 4, BLOCK E, LUBBOCK, TEXAS; SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS; PROVIDING A PENALTY; PROVIDING A SAVINGS CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor McDougal opened the public hearing at 1:00 p. m. No one appeared in opposition. Mayor McDougal closed the hearing at 1:02 p. m. The request would accommodate a drive in restaurant that specializes in custard sales in a drive through and walk up window sales. Since the operation has less than 50% of the floor area of the building dedicated to seating, the definition of drive in restaurant is triggered and the business must have C-4 zoning. Adjacent land use is commercial in all directions. The project, limited to one C-4 use, is reasonably within the guidelines of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and zoning policies. While the request was originally filed as a Specific Use permit, the Planning Commission responded to a staff request to amend the request to C-4 limited to a drive through restaurant and all permitted C-2 uses. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following condition: That the use of the parcel shall be C-4 limited to a drive through restaurant and all permitted C-2 uses. Randy Henson, Senior Planner, presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this ordinance. Motion was made by Council Member Morrison, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass on first reading Ordinance No. 2002-00105 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. The next item to be considered was Item 50. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Human Resources (43.) Resolution No. 2002-RO396 authorizing the Mayor to execute purchase of Airport/Non-owned Aircraft Liability Coverage from ACE USA Insurance Company. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO396 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to purchase for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, airport/non-owned aircraft liability coverage, by and between the City of Lubbock and ACE USA, and related documents. 249 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 250 Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September,2004. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Leisa Hutcheson Leisa Hutcheson, Risk Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ John Knight John Knight, Assistant City Attorney This item was considered following Item 17. Note: Items 43-47 all relate to the broker agreement approved by Council. Additional information will be provided to Council when final negotiations on item 46 are concluded. At that time staff will be prepared to answer any questions regarding the arrangement with the broker. The Human Resources Department requests that Council consider a resolution to purchase insurance coverage from ACE USA for a coverage period of 10/01 /02 through 10/01 /03. The City of Lubbock purchases liability insurance on a separate coverage form for operations at Lubbock International Airport. Current year's total cost is $61,164 for $100,000,000 in coverage with no deductible. This cost includes a commission to the prior agent. The current carrier is ACE USA. The City of Lubbock's Broker of Record, Bob Bookhammer with Palmer and Cay, approached four markets to obtain quotes. All markets are "A" rated by Best Rating systems. The markets approached and their quotes are as follows: Airport Current Proposed Comments: Liability Year Rate: Rate: ACE USA $57,704 $59,195.35 $0 deductible/$50M Coverage (Incumbent) Limits with $50M excess coverage limits AIG N/A $70,014 $5,000 per occ. 10,000 agg. ded.; Aviation War Risks available for $15,753 w/50M limit Old Republic N/A $69,548 $0 deductible/$100M Coverage Limits Associated N/A Declined Could Not Compete Aviation 250 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 251 Non -Owned Aircraft ACE USA (Incumbent) $3,460 $9,336 AIG N/A $Included Above Old Republic N/A $Included Could Not Compete Above Associated Aviation N/A Declined The use of Palmer and Cay as the City's Broker of Record has resulted in the savings of $10,452.50 due to the policy premium being net of commissions. Staff recommended purchasing insurance from ACE USA for a total policy premium of $68,506.50 for their Airport/Non-Owned Aircraft Liability Coverage. Motion was made by Council Member Boren, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO396 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (44.) Resolution No. 2002-RO397 authorizing the Mayor to execute purchase of Boiler and Machinery Insurance Coverage from CNA Insurance Company. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO397 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to purchase for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, boiler and machinery insurance coverage, by and between the City of Lubbock and CNA Ins Company, and related documents. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2004. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Mary House Mary House, Director of Human Resources APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas _ Contract Manager/Attorney The Human Resources Department requests that Council consider a resolution to purchase insurance coverage from CNA Insurance Company to continue to provide insurance coverage for the City's Boiler and Machinery coverage. The City of Lubbock purchases boiler and machinery insurance on a separate coverage form. Current year's total cost is $617,262 (policy period from 7/15/01 through 10/1 /02) for $50,000,000 in coverage with 251 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 252 varying deductibles. This cost includes a commission to the prior agent. The current carrier is CNA Insurance Company. While the premium is approximately $47,000 less, Council should note that deductibles were increased. The City of Lubbock's Broker of Record, Bob Bookhammer with Palmer and Cay, only approached the current carrier. In 1999, Hartford Steam Boiler non -renewed the City's coverage due to number of losses suffered by LP&L. At that time, an extensive search of the market revealed that CNA was the only market interested in extending coverage. CNA was willing to write the policy with strict loss control guidelines. Human — Resources would like to commend the staff of LP&L for their diligence in continuing to work with CNA to increase their confidence and meet the loss control needs. In the future, a better loss history will enable us to attract other carriers. Boiler & Carrier Current Proposed Rate Comments: Machinery Rate CNA $617,262 $570,621 Required Increased (Incumbent) (14 'h months Deductibles (see exhibits.) coverage) (1 year GE 197749, 53,650 KW coverage) Steam Turbine — Limited to Explosion Coverage Only. The use of Palmer and Cay as the City's Broker of Record has resulted in the savings of $56,666.00 due to the policy premium being net of commissions. Staff recommended purchasing insurance coverage from CNA Insurance Company for a total policy premium of $570,621 for Boiler and Machinery Coverage. Motion was made by Council Member Boren, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO397 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (45.) Resolution No. 2002-RO398 authorizing the Mayor to execute purchase of Excess Liability Coverage from St. Paul Insurance Company. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO398 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to purchase for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, excess liability coverage, by and between the City of Lubbock and St. Paul Insurance Company, and related documents. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2004. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Mary House Mary House, Director of Human Resources -P&M Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 253 APPROVED AS TO FORM_ /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney The Human Resources Department requests that Council consider a resolution to purchase insurance coverage from St Paul Insurance Company to continue to provide excess liability insurance coverage for the City Of Lubbock. The City of Lubbock purchases excess liability insurance for all operations other than airport. Current year's total cost is $283,648 for $10,000,000 in coverage with a $250,000 self -insured retention (deductible) per claim. This cost includes a commission to the prior agent. The current carrier is St Paul Insurance Company. The City of Lubbock's Broker of Record, Bob Bookhammer with Palmer and Cay, approached three markets to obtain quotes. All markets are "A" rated by Best Rating systems. The markets approached and their quotes are as follows: Excess Liability Current Year Proposed Rate: Comments: Rate: 1. St. Paul $250,000 SIR (Incumbent) $283,648 $383,483 @ IOMM Option to Limit rebuy up to $10,000,000. $379,433 @ 5MM 2 AIG Limit 3. Clarendon N/A $250,000 SIR $1,111,500 @ 5MM Losses N/A Limit Declined The use of Palmer and Cay as the City's Broker of Record has resulted in the savings of $42,609 due to the policy premium being net of commissions. Staff recommended purchasing insurance coverage from St Paul Insurance Company for a total policy premium of $383,483 for $10,000,000 in limits for their Excess Liability Coverage. Motion was made by Council Member Boren, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO398 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (46.) Resolution No. 2002-RO399 authorizing the Mayor to execute purchase of Property Insurance Coverage from Coregis Insurance Company. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO399 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to purchase for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, property insurance coverage, by and between the City of Lubbock and Coregis Insurance Company, and related documents. 253 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 254 Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2004. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Mary House Mary House, Director of Human Resources APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney The Human Resources Department requests that Council consider a resolution to purchase insurance coverage from Coregis Insurance Company to continue to provide insurance coverage for the City of Lubbock. On July 11, 2002, staff recommended and council voted to hire Palmer and Cay as their insurance broker for all lines of insurance, other than health and benefits. The annual fee for the broker is $75,000 and all policies purchased, by law, are to be net of commission. Palmer and Cay has marketed the City's insurance policies to various companies and staff is now making the following recommendations: Policy Type 01-02 FY 02-03 Insurance Co. 02-03 Cost % Of Net of Cost Recommendation Increase/ Commission Decrease Savings Airport/Non- $61,164.06 ACE USA $68,531.35 12% $10, 552.50 Owned Aircraft Liability Boiler and $617,262.00 C N A $570,621.00 -8% $56,666.00 Machinery Property Insurance $273,589.00 Coregis $650,000.00 138% $65,000 (Fire and EC) Excess $283,648.00 St Paul Insurance $383,483.00 35% $42.609.00 Liability Workers' $1,564,229.00 Texas Municipal $1,859,893.00 19% None Compensation League We are currently recommending that all insurance items be approved. Coregis is a renewal of the third year of an existing contract. Upon obtaining better pricing we would then look at canceling this contract and staff would come back to council to enter into a new agreement. Additionally, the following policies are within the City Manager's $25,000 purchasing amount and will not be presented to council: 254 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 255 Policy Type 0 1 -02 FY 02-03 Insurance Co. 02-03 Cost % Of Net of Cost Recommendation Increase/ Commission Decrease Savings Airport Public S7,443.00 Texas Municipal $7,815.00 5% None Officials* League Commercial Crime* $1,862.00 Renews in December Fuel Tanks* $2,500.00 Renews in December Inland Marine* $19,486.00 Kemper Insurance $9,937.00 -49% S 1 A91.00 (Incl: Buddy Holly, Fine Arts, Sound Equip , LCN) Notary Bonds* $71 Each C N A $46 Each -35% $1,075.00 "Net of Commission" savings, including the anticipated amount on Property, is $177,293.50. After the broker fee of $75,000.00, there is a net cost avoidance of $102,293.50. In addition, there is a positive effect on the proposed '02-'03 budget in the amount of $66,491.10 to the General Fund and $199,907.11 to all other funds for a total of $276,398.21. This is a 4.3% decrease on the anticipated $6,488,000.00 Risk Premium revenues, projected in the proposed '02-'03 budget. Motion was made by Council Member Boren, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO399 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (47.) Resolution No. 2002-RO400 authorizing the Mayor to execute purchase of Workers' Compensation Coverage from Texas Municipal League. RESOLUTION NO.2005-RO400 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to purchase for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, workers' compensation coverage, by and between the City of Lubbock and Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool, and related documents. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2004. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Mary House Mary House, Director of Human Resources APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ William de Haas William de Haas Contract Manager/Attorney The Human Resources Department requests that Council consider a resolution to purchase insurance coverage from Texas Municipal League to continue to provide guaranteed cost coverage for workers' compensation losses. 255 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 256 The City of Lubbock purchases workers' compensation coverage for all city operations, including volunteer coverage. Current year's total cost is $1,564,229 for guaranteed first dollar coverage with no deductible. Because this is a municipal risk pool, there is no commission on the current policy. The City of Lubbock's Broker of Record, Bob Bookhammer with Palmer and Cay, approached three markets to obtain quotes. Because of the cost of a guaranteed cost program, the city looked at an excess workers' compensation program to assess the cost of returning to a self -insured program as staff had done prior to purchasing Is' dollar coverage from TML. This is not viable at this time. All markets (except TML which is not rated) are "A" rated by Best Rating systems. The markets approached and their quotes are as follows: Workers Compensation Texas Municipal League (Incumbent) $1,564,229 $1,859,893 Guaranteed Cost Program — l' dollar coverage Excess Workers Compensation 1. TML N/A $489,550 C 250,000 No Aggregate Cap Retention $464,256 C 300,000 No Aggregate Cap Retention No Aggregate Cap $453,840 C 350,000 Retention No Aggregate Cap $444,913 C 400,000 Retention No Aggregate Cap $425,571 C 500,000 Account too large Retention Declined Account too large 2. Midwest Declined Employers N/A 3. Safety National N/A There are no commissions' savings on municipal pool coverages. The staff is recommending staying with our current guaranteed cost program with TML. There is no savings on commissions at a premium of $1,859.893. Motion was made by Council Member Boren, seconded by Council Member Patterson to pass Resolution No. 2002-R0400 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. COMMUNITY SERVICES Communitv Development (48.) Resolution No. 2002-R0401 authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a amendment to the Community Development Funding Contract and all related documents between the City of Lubbock and Lubbock Housing Finance Corporation. 256 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 257 RESOLUTION NO. 2002-RO401 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Community Development Funding Contract, by and between the City of Lubbock and Lubbock Housing Finance Corporation from the Community Development Block Grant for assisting low -moderate income to purchase a home, and all related documents. Said Contract is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Nancy Haney Nancy Haney Community Development Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Amy Sims Amy Sims, Assistant City Attorney Items 48 and 49 were viewed as companion items. Essentially, the Community Development staff recommended that $10,000 be taken out of the down payment closing costs program of the Lubbock Housing Finance Corporation (item 48). The CD staff indicated that the $65,000 allocation originally approved has not yet been tapped, so the $10,000 reduction should not be a significant issue. The staff then recommended that the $10,000 be granted to the High Plains Community Capital (item 49). This group, formed by the Lubbock Housing Finance Corporation (the same group from which the money is being shifted in item 48) will then be able to use those funds to provide an economic development micro -loan. This transaction will enable the newly formed High Plains Community Capital group to access approximately $1 million in loan money from a number of local banks. That money will be used to make economic development and affordable housing loans to qualifying individuals. Grantee: Lubbock Housing Finance Corp. Program: Down Payment Closing Cost Fundin Source: 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant Use of Funds: This program provides assistance to low —moderate income to purchase a home. Amount: $Reduced by $10,000 to a total of $65,000. Match: same Return of Investment: Remains same as original agreement Terms: October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2003. (Extended one year.) 257 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 258 Comments: Funding for this contract was approved by City Council at the June 26, 2001 City Council meeting. The contract amendment is available for review in the City Secretary's Office. Community Development recommended approval of this resolution. Motion was made by Council Member Patterson, seconded by Council Member Hernandez to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO401 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (49.) Resolution No. 2002-RO402 authorizing and directing the Mayor to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock a Community Development Funding Contract and all related documents between the City of Lubbock and High Plains Community Capital, LLC. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO402 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a Community Development Funding Contract, by and between the City of Lubbock and High Plains Capital, LLC. from the Community Development Block Grant, taken from LHFC Down Payment Closing Cost Program, for the making of loans to micro -businesses to assist low to moderate -income persons, and or create additional jobs, and all related documents. Said Contract is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Nancy Haney Nancy Haney Community Development Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Amy Sims Amy Sims, Assistant City Attorney Grantee: High Plains Community Capital, LLC. A newly formed group from Lubbock Housing Finance Corp. Program: Economic Development Micro -loan. Funding Source: 2001-2002 Community Development Block Grant, (taken from LHFC Down Payment Closing Cost program). Use of Funds: This program will make loans to micro -businesses to assist low to moderate -income persons, and or to create additional jobs. Amount: $10,000. Match: 25% Return of Investment: Will have option of reinvesting to another loan, or returning 25% to the City as specified in the contract. Terms: September 26, 2002 through September 30, 2003. f► :a Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 259 Comments: This agreement will facilitate the application of the High Plains Community Capital, LLC to become a Community Development Funding Institution. This will bring private sector funds as well as the possibility of other federal funds to the economic development of Lubbock. The contract is available for review in the City Secretary's Office. The creation of a Community Development Funding Institution will assist in the further economic growth of our City. The CDFI brings both private and public sector funds to invest into the City's growth. Community Development recommended approval of this resolution. Motion was made by Council Member Patterson, seconded by Council Member Boren to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO402 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. The next item to be considered was Item 51. Parks and Recreation (50.) Resolution No. 2002-RO394 authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Friends of Legacy Play Village for the construction, operation and maintenance of the Legacy Play Village. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO394 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock, a License Agreement, between the City of Lubbock and The Friends of Legacy Play Village, Community Playground Corporation, for the purpose of constructing, maintaining and operating the Legacy Play Village and any associated documents. Said License Agreement is attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Randy Truesdell Randy Truesdell Parks and Recreation Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Amy Sims Amy Sims, Assistant City Attorney This item was considered following Item 42. On September 27, 2001 the City Council approved a resolution supporting the Junior League of Lubbock's plan to develop the Community Built Playground at McAlister Park. The Junior League committed to gathering the resources to build the project and the long-term care and maintenance of the Community Built Playground (Legacy Play Village). 259 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 260 A not for profit corporation called the Friends of Legacy Play Village, Community Playground Corporation, has been established and will be responsible for coordinating the construction, operation and maintenance of the playground. The attached agreement between the City of Lubbock and the Friends of the Legacy Play Village (Friends) defines the responsibility of each organization. Key elements of the proposed agreement include the following: • The term of the agreement is for twenty years. • The City must approve all construction plans. • The playground will be open to the public with no charge for admission. • The Friends will be responsible for providing and furnishing all utilities. • The Friends will provide volunteers for construction, staffing and maintenance. • The playground will be added to the City's insurance policy, the Friends will reimburse the City for any additional costs. • The Friends will be responsible for maintenance and repairs. • The Friends will establish a fund for long-term care and maintenance of the playground. The Friends will contribute $50,000 annually to the fund. Potential Benefits to the City Of Lubbock: • A playground with an estimated value of almost $2,000,000 will be constructed at McAlister Park. • The playground will provide recreational activities and opportunities to the residents of Lubbock. • The playground will provide a regional attraction to Lubbock and encourage tourism to the City. While staff supports the overall concept, staff pointed out that the current approach falls short of establishing, up front, an endowment to fully fund O&M costs. If Council is comfortable with the alternate plan proposed by the League, staff can support the proposal. Motion was made by Council Member Martin, seconded by Council Member Boren to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO394 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. 1:05 P. M. CITY COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION City Council/City Manager's Conference Room 2:10 P.M. CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING RECONVENED City Council Chambers The next item to be considered was Item 17. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Aviation (51.) Resolution No. 2002-RO403 authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the management agreement between APCOA/ Standard Parking and the City of Lubbock. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO403 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock an Amendment to Parking Management Agreement with APCOA/Standard Parking, Inc. extending the agreement for a•t Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 261 operation of the parking facilities at Lubbock International Airport to October 31, 2002. Said Amendment is attached hereto and incorporated in this resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the City Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Mark Earle Mark Earle, Director of Aviation APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Linda L. Chamales Linda L. Chamales, Supervising Attorney Office Practice Section This item was considered following Item 49. The City of Lubbock is currently under contract with APCOA/Standard parking for the management and operation of the parking facilities at Lubbock International Airport. The agreement has a term of 30 days, expiring on September 30, 2002. The City entered into the 30-day agreement to allow time for an external audit to verify APCOA's financial position. Staff has been advised by the external auditor that an additional 30 days will be required to complete the audit. As such, this agenda item involves the approval of an amendment to the management agreement for one additional month, extending the term to October 31, 2002. The existing agreement and proposed amendment are attached for your review. The Airport Board and staff recommended approval of this resolution. Motion was made by Council Member Martin, seconded by Council Member Hernandez to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO403 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. Business Development (52.) Resolution No. 2002-RO404 authorizing the creation of an economic development program to obtain a Veteran's Home under the State Veteran's Home Program and authorizing the City Manager or his representative to submit a proposal and any other associated documents to the Veterans Land Board. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO404 WHEREAS, the Veteran's Land Board of the State of Texas has requested proposals with regard to locating and establishing up to two (2) Veteran's Homes under the State Veteran's Home Program; and WHEREAS, THE City Council of the City of Lubbock deems it be to in the best interest of the citizens to submit a proposal for location of a Veteran's Home in Lubbock; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the citizens of the City of Lubbock to establish an economic development program pursuant to Chapter 261 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 262 380, Local Government Code with regard to obtaining a veteran's Home for Lubbock, which would promote local economic development and stimulate business and commercial activity in the municipality; NOW, THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: SECTION 1. THAT the City Manager or his representative is hereby authorized and directed to submit a proposal and any associated documents to the Veteran's Land Board of the State of Texas with regard to establishment of a Veteran's Home in Lubbock. SECTION 2. THAT there is hereby created an economic development program of the City of Lubbock to obtain for the City of Lubbock a Veteran's Home under the State Veteran's Home Program Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Richard Burdine Richard Burdine, Assistant City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Donald G. Vandiver Donald G. Vandiver, First Assistant City Attorney The State Veteran's Home Program is a partnership between the United States Department of Veterans' Affairs (USDVA) and the States to construct nursing home facilities approved by the USDVA to provide for veterans. The USDVA has committed funding for the construction of up to two additional Veterans Homes for the State of Texas. The Veterans Land Board has requested proposals from interested communities and entities across the State of Texas to donate suitable land for a Veterans' Home. The City of Lubbock would like to submit a proposal for the location of one of these Veterans' Homes in Lubbock. The site that has been proposed for submission is 12 acres at the southeast corner of Aspen Avenue and East 19tn Street. It is part of a larger parcel owned by the City of Lubbock (Water Utilities). The project will add a 75,000 square foot, 150-bed Veterans Home to Lubbock to benefit area veterans. At capacity, the facility will add approximately one full-time equivalent job per resident. This project would enhance our local medical industry and have a positive economic impact on the City of Lubbock. If staff is successful, approximately $55,000 in water and sewer extension costs will be borne by the City (estimate attached). This extension would also open ability for area development. Richard Burdine, Assistant City Manager and Randy Henson, Senior Planner, presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this resolution. 262 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 263 Motion was made by Council Member Patterson, seconded by Council Member Hernandez to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO404 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 6 Yeas, 0 Nays. Council Member Hernandez had left the dais. (53.) Resolution No. 2002-RO405 giving Notice of Intent to consider the designation of a Reinvestment Zone for Frito Lay. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO405 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lubbock hereby declares its intent to consider the designation of a Reinvestment Zone within the City of Lubbock, which Reinvestment Zone is more fully described in the "Notice of Intent" attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part hereof for all purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lubbock is authorized to establish a Reinvestment Zone by authority of Chapter 312 of the Tax Code; and WHEREAS, the Tax Code requires a Notice of Intent to be sent to the governing body of each tax unit that levies real property taxes on the property described in Exhibit A (except school districts, which may not participate in Chapter 312 tax abatements) not less than seven (7) days before a hearing on creation of a Reinvestment Zone; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Lubbock does hereby authorize a public hearing to be conducted upon the establishment of said Reinvestment Zone be conducted at 11:15 A. M. on October 10, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of the City of Lubbock at 1625 131h Street, Lubbock, Texas, after proper notice is given in accordance with Chapter 312, Tax Code; NOW THEREFORE: BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: SECTION 1. THAT the City Council hereby orders that a public hearing be conducted at 11:15 A. M. on October 10, 2002, at the City Council Chambers of the City of Lubbock at 1625 13th Street, Lubbock, Texas, pertaining to the proposal of the City Council to establish a Reinvestment Zone as indicated on the Notice of Intent attached hereto as Exhibit A. SECTION 2. THAT the Notice of Intent attached hereto as Exhibit A be delivered by the City Manager or his designee to the governing body of all taxing units levying real property taxes on the property described in said Exhibit A not less than seven (7) days prior to the date of the public hearing. SECTION 2. THAT the City Manager, or his designee, cause publication of notice of the public hearing on this proposed designation of a Reinvestment Zone not less than seven days prior to the date of the hearing in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Lubbock. Passed by the City Council on this 26th day of September, 2002. /S/ MARC MCD DUGAL MARC McDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Richard Burdine Richard Burdine, Assistant City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Donald G. Vandiver Donald G. Vandiver, First Assistant City Attorney 263 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 264 A copy of Exhibit A is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0405. The City of Lubbock has been approached by Frito Lay to assist them in solving some issues that are hindering the Lubbock Plant's competitiveness. The Lubbock Frito Lay plant is 40 years old and will need some upgrades in order to be competitive with other plants inside the Frito Lay system. Frito Lay has asked for assistance from the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County and Market Lubbock, Inc. in order to resolve these issues. Frito Lay employs approximately 307 people in Lubbock with a $9.7 million annual payroll. The average annual salary at the Lubbock Frito Lay plant is approximately $32,000. Frito Lay plans to invest approximately $6.5 million in upgrading the plant over the next couple of years. Part of this investment is for a pretreatment system, at a cost of $2.5 million. The new pretreatment system would reduce TSS by 90% and BOD by 55%, which would reduce the surcharges that Frito Lay pays by 2/3. In order to make this large investment in a small plant in their system, Frito Lay has to have a certain return on investment for the upgrades to be approved by PepsiCo. One of the ways that has been proposed to assist Frito Lay is the creation s located. This of a reinvestment zone where plant of Lubbock to co ider la tax abatement for uld allow the City and County the new improvements. Frito Lay is already building onto their warehouse at the present time and this improvement would not be included in an abatement considered by the City and County. A reinvestment zone will be necessary since the area where Frito one due to the veryy is located was lowunemploymenomitted from the South Enterprise Z rate of the tract. The first step in the process of creating a reinvestment zone is to hold a public hearing to discuss the issue. The law requires that the City of Lubbock give seven days notice of the public hearing to other taxing jurisdictions. This resolution, if approved, will be forwarded to other taxing jurisdictions as notice of the intent to hold a public hearing. The project will add $6.5 million to the tax base and will assist the Lubbock Frito Lay plant in being more competitive. Market Lubbock, Inc. has recommended that the City of Lubbock goes forward with the process of creating a reinvestment zone for Frito Lay beginning with a public hearing. Kenny McKay, Market Lubbock, Inc. spoke in favor of this issue. Cheryl Brock, Business Research Specialist, presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this resolution. Motion was made by Council seconded s recommended by Member Boren to pass Resolution No. 2002-R0405a staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. PUBLIC SAFETY Fire (53A.) Resolution No. 2002-RO406 authorizing the Mayor to execute an amendment to the Interlocal Contract between the City of Lubbock and the Lubbock Reese Redevelopment Authority to provide for fire protection services to Reese Center. RESOLUTION NO.2002-RO406 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to execute for and on behalf of the City of Lubbock an Amendment of Interlocal Contract for Provision of Fire Protection Services between the City of Lubbock and Lubbock Reese RM Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 265 Redevelopment Authority, and any other related documents. Said Amendment is attached hereto and incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein and shall be included in the minutes of the Council. Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /s/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC MCDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: /s/ Steve Hailey Steve Hailey, Fire Chief APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ Richard Casner Richard K. Casner Natural Resources Attorney A copy of the Amendment is filed with Resolution No. 2002-R0406. The current Interlocal Contract between the City and Lubbock Reese Redevelopment Authority for fire protection services, contains a payment clause. The Air Force Base Conversion Agency has now requested additional language to clarify the amount to be paid to the City and what percentage that amount equates to, in relationship to the total cost to provide those services. This amendment will satisfy that request. Fire Chief Steve Halley presented staff comments. Staff recommended approval of this resolution. Motion was made by Council Member Patterson, seconded by Council Member Morrison to pass Resolution No. 2002-RO406 as recommended by staff. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. MISCELLANEOUS Other (54.) Resolution No. 2002-RO407 placing of certain information regarding convicted sexual predators/offenders and convicted rapists on Lubbock Cable Channel 6 and take appropriate action. RESOLUTION NO.2005-RO407 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LUBBOCK: THAT the Mayor of the City of Lubbock BE and is hereby authorized and directed to cause the placing of certain information regarding convicted sexual predators/offenders and convicted rapists on Lubbock Cable Channel 6; directing that an educational component be added to what is broadcast on Channel 6; directing that the information broadcast include the same information on the offender as has been on the police department's website and directing the City seek the Attorney General's opinion before placing this information on Channel 6. 265 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 266 Passed by the City Council this 26th day of September, 2002. /s/ MARC MCDOUGAL MARC McDOUGAL, MAYOR ATTEST: /s/ Rebecca Garza Rebecca Garza, City Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: /s/ John Knight John Knight Assistant City Attorney This item was placed on the previous agenda at the request of Council member Boren. Council Member Boren spoke concerning the placement of certain information regarding convicted sexual predators/offenders and convicted rapists on Lubbock Cable Channel 6 and take appropriate action. Council Member Morrison asked about the levels of risk in releasing information concerning this matter. He questioned if they could differentiate between the risk levels and post only those certain high levels of risk or if you post any of these, do you have to post all of them? City Attorney Anita Burgess explained the risk levels (1-4) and informed Council that a case was decided on September 20 by the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas concerning the sex regulation statute. In that opinion, the Court considered whether or not the statute is a violation of the U.S. Constitution or the Texas Constitution as a result of expos facto consideration i.e. punishment after the fact. City Attorney Anita Burgess also stated her opinion as being that information regarding the risk level was already in the public domain as the result of the newspaper articles. There is an inconsistency in the statute where it must be posted through the newspaper but its not to be posted on the website. Council Member Boren suggested that while placing the information on Channel 6, the City should provide the educational component to teach parents to deal with stranger/danger. Council Member Hernandez suggested the prudent thing to do would be to hold off until the issue is decided by the Supreme Court. In the event the Court determines someone's due process was violated, we would be subject to lawsuits. Motion was made by Council Member Boren, seconded by Council Member Martin, to add the educational component to what is broadcast on Channel 6, include the same information on the offender as has been on the police department's website, and to seek the attorney general's opinion before placing this on Channel 6. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. Motion was made by Council Member Boren, seconded by Council Member Martin to pass Resolution No. 2002-R0407. Motion carried: 4 Yeas, 3 Nays. Council Members Cooke, Hernandez and Morrison voted Nay. BOARD APPOINTMENTS (55.) Consider one appointment to the North & East Lubbock Development Commission 266 Regular City Council Meeting September 26, 2002 Page 267 Motion was made by Council Member Hernandez, seconded by Council Member Morrison to appoint Frank Castenada to the North & East Development Commission. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. (56.) Consider one appointment to the Permit & License Appeal Board. Motion was made by Council Member Hernandez, seconded by Council Member Morrison to reappoint David Freriks to the Permit & License Appeal Board. Motion carried: 7 Yeas, 0 Nays. The next item to be reconsidered was Item 32. 3:50 P.M. COUNCIL ADJOURNED There being no further business to come before Council, Council Member Patterson adjourned the meeting. Read and approved thi"-,5,�Z day of� Z// // MARC M , DOUGAL, MAYOR i i ATTEST: Rebecca Garza, City Secretary 267