Lubbock City Council members’ $25-a-month salary could become part of a broad charter debate Tuesday, while a separate closed-door discussion will address City Manager Jarrett Atkinson — whose job Councilman David Bruegel says is secure.
Bruegel would consider a pay increase only if current council members would not receive it.
Reader poll: Lubbock City Council pay
Council members currently receive a base salary of $25 per month ($300 per year), separate from cellphone and vehicle allowances and any benefits. This voluntary reader poll is not a scientific survey.
Bruegel also discussed a proposed development lawsuit settlement, safeguards for future data centers and unanswered questions about convention center costs. But he identified charter review as the largest issue.
“That’ll be the big fish,” he said.
What council members are paid — and what could change
The city’s current council information page confirms a base salary of $25 per month for council members and $75 per month for the mayor. That is $300 and $900 a year, respectively. The compensation provision appears in Article IX, Section 14 of the city charter.
Those salary figures do not represent the full value of allowances or benefits. Bruegel said members also receive money toward cellphone and vehicle expenses.
“I don’t intend to raise the council pay,” Bruegel said.
“I’m not concerned about that myself because I think, uh, it works well with my lifestyle just to do it as a part-time volunteer job.”
But he acknowledged the argument that compensation could make office accessible to people who cannot afford to serve without meaningful pay.
“Personally, if it were up to me, I would not need that salary increase,” he said.
Bruegel said any increase should apply to a future council.
“Members that are on the council today would not obtain that pay increase.”
Petitions, utility oversight also in the charter discussion
The discussion could reach beyond compensation to the rules residents use to put issues before the city and the operation of its electrical utility, Bruegel said.
“I think how the initiative and referendum process works may be discussed, just since we’ve started to see that used more,” he said.
Asked whether he meant recent petitions involving Flock cameras and other issues, Bruegel agreed and said the electrical utility could also be examined.
“Basically, I think this will be an opportunity where everything in the charter will be subject for discussion because a lot of it’s, even some of it just language wise is quite antiquated.”
The posted agenda schedules charter review and possible amendments for a work session at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday in rooms CT 201-A and CT 201-B on the second floor of Citizens Tower. It does not list a specific council-pay proposal.
Atkinson review: Bruegel says city manager’s job is secure
Before the public-session business, the council is scheduled to meet privately about the city manager. The agenda identifies personnel matters involving appointment, employment, evaluation or reassignment.
Bruegel said he believes the discussion reflects Atkinson’s request for additional feedback on his employment evaluation.
“I’m quite pleased with the city manager’s work as are, I believe, just about every member of the council, though I won’t speak for them,” Bruegel said.
He said he appreciated Atkinson’s initiative in seeking feedback.
“I think it’s important for the public to know that it, from my perspective, his job is quite secure and he’s done a very capable job of leading our city.”
Bruegel was speaking for himself; the council has not announced a decision.
Red Canyon settlement: restoring value lost with impact fees
Bruegel described the proposed Red Canyon Development settlement as an effort to reimburse developers for part of their South Quaker paving costs after the elimination of impact fees erased the value of credits they expected to receive.
“Since impact fees no longer exist, the cost of their credits went to zero,” he said.
He said he expects the council to help developers recover a portion of their costs. He did not provide a settlement amount in the interview.
“We, we want people to feel like they can work with the city in good faith,” he said.
“We don’t want to have a reputation of having pulled the rug out from underneath the people we do business with.”
Data centers: water commitments and environmental concerns
Bruegel said he wants the city to retain authority to limit water commitments and address potential environmental consequences if another data center developer approaches Lubbock.
“Just making sure we’ve got the authority to mitigate some of the risks of data centers,” he said.
“I also want to make sure we’ve got the ability to regulate potential environmental adverse consequences.”
Tuesday’s item concerns adding data-center resource and infrastructure impacts to the city’s legislative package for discussions with its delegation. It is not an agenda item adopting a new local data-center ordinance.
Convention center: costs and a possible vote remain unsettled
Bruegel said council members are still discussing how to fund the convention center and whether to build it in phases. He could not provide the architectural spending total during the interview.
“I’ll have to get you the architectural cost,” he said.
Asked about a possible public vote, he said May would be the earliest opportunity, without committing to that timetable.
“Now, I don’t know that it will happen then, but that’s the soonest available.”
He said a decision Tuesday was uncertain.
“I think it’ll be debated. I don’t know that a conclusion will be reached though.”
Reese grant and public-safety cameras
Other agenda items include a defense grant application with Texas Tech for the Reese National Security Complex, police body-worn and in-car camera systems, and Fire Marshal’s Office body cameras.
Bruegel said he was still researching the Reese proposal and would follow up.
“Most of the items I’m pretty well looped in on that one is one of the ones I’ve got more questions than answers.”
The meeting convenes at 3 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 3, at Citizens Tower, 1314 Avenue K, and immediately recesses into executive session. Open-session business follows. Read the complete agenda here.
