Plan Commission - Regular Meeting

It looks like I'm here.

Congratulations.

We need to step up. Congratulations.

Hey, we're live, so. Understood. It's almost 7 PM, and the town council. We can't start until 7. Wait. Yep, we can't start until 7.

No can do.

We'll wait.

We will wait until you said almost.

Well, sorry to cut your conversation short.

Time is now 7 p.m. and the Cicero Town Council staff meeting is called to order. Ms. Gary, would you please call roll?

Joe Cox, Jacob Everett, Dennis Johnson. Present. Eric Hayden. Present. Emily Pearson. Present.

With three members present, we have a quorum. So first up on the agenda is Town Council and under that clothing allowance.

Yeah, so I asked for this to be on. There were some Amazon charges that I had a couple conversations with that stemmed this discussion of clothing. So the Amazon charges were of clothing and wanted to just get consensus from the council. I think our departments, each department gets a clothing allowance, operates a little differently. So I think the original intent was for The safety personnel, like the police officers and the firefighters. But we also have admin that are getting this. And I just wanted to make sure that what we're doing for one, we should do for the other. And what the intention of this really is. So I don't know how long. It popped up when I asked Rhonda about some charges.

I think all of the, even the, obviously the street utility guys get the clothing allowance. I think the only people excluded are the admin. Well, I guess not all admin are excluded, but nobody else, the admin that I am aware of gets the clothing allowance admin. I didn't think that was what it was intended for, but if you want it to be for that.

Yeah. It's been that way 20 years and to change it now. And the other reason for that is I think people come in live and see the admin person sitting there with an insignia on her clothes.

No, you're saying that it's allowed. It's not in there that it's allowed. You said change it.

Oh, no, I don't want to change it.

Change it would mean that they get the – because they don't typically now receive it.

But they should because they have for 20 years. No, not all departments do it. No, not all departments.

That's true. So that's why I wanted to have this discussion because one department is having their admin receives this. The other departments don't. So I don't know. I mean, the original intention was for people going out that had to have a certain dress code. Mm-hmm. I think some departments work magic to get documented or Cicero on pieces of clothing like T-shirts and stuff. So it's a discussion where do we think it should be, because we're not treating everybody equally as well. And I was surprised to see it, honestly.

Well, think the clothing allowance has been, is it not more for the people who are in the front line of things, like the fire or the police department for equipment, where after their initial hire, the $500, for instance, for the fire department? So what that is?

Okay. They're different than theirs, though. Our officers get a check at the beginning of the year, $800 minus whatever taxes come out of it. I know Terry, he manages the money, right?

He turns in claims for me, to me.

We do, too. We manage the insurance. I did my management. So I give it to the officers, and it's their responsibility to buy their own clothes when they need it. So if I come in there and go, Frank, you're sure enough to get a good life insurance, then that's up to them. What about Julie? Not what? Julie, your admin. Julie does not get the allowance, but she wears a shirt that says Citroen Police on there, and we buy the allowance.

Out of your clothing?

Out of our clothing budget. The department pays for all the reserve officers. If they hire new reserves or if daycare is up and out, then the department buys the reserve officers clothing. They don't get the money. They don't get money either. Just the full-time police officers.

Okay. Terry, you don't have an administrative assistant, do you? No. Okay. That's him. Yeah. I mean, Chris, you do. Does she have a clothing allowance?

Yeah, she has the same as the rest of them. As far back as I can see.

20 years.

Even when Cindy was the admin assistant, she got that, too, by her stuff that supported her sister-in-law. I don't know when that started, why it started, but it's been as far back as we can find.

So we're just not treating everybody the same. And I was just surprised. So I wanted to have the discussion because it was a surprise. I was surprised by it.

They wouldn't know with her behind a desk? Yeah. Certainly. Yeah.

Are you referring to the, when you say not everybody gets a stipend yearly or not getting everybody the same amount of money?

Not every, so, I mean this came up because of admin. Some, a portion are getting it and a portion are not. Right? The police handles it out of a separate budget. where an allotment is being done for another department. I'm assuming your department, I mean, how does your admin?

I get $4,000 a year. That takes care of shirts, jackets.

Well, that's for your seasonal people, too, as well.

That's for everybody, including the green staff and T-shirts and stuff like that. So if I need a jacket, I'll be able to sweat that shirt. If Paul needs a new pair of boots, I'll be able to get him a pair of boots because that's... the best gloves and everything we buy out of that. So, none of my people get a style, but in terms of the different money, different portions, a pair of their pants is $50, a pair of shirts for us is $15 to $20.

Yeah, I'm not arguing about the amount, so I think that's it. It's just, and maybe it's working fine.

I don't want to say. What we're doing is fine.

Yeah. You're managing yours, Chief Redmiller?

I am. I think we're doing all right. Our secretary orders like three or four shirts a year. Actually, she's been in an order that says it's less than $100 on Amazon. It takes a good wait. She orders them for another $10 a shirt, and she's happy.

Okay. All right. So I must have just missed your Amazon order then, or maybe it was me. I don't know. So, okay. So maybe we just leave it be. Okay. I just wanted to have a discussion because I was surprised. And they all are embroidered then?

Embroidered or have a patch. Suzanne orders something.

They look nice. Okay.

They always look nice.

Okay. Then I'm good. I just wanted to have that discussion. Like I said, it was just a charge on a bill. I wanted to have a further discussion.

Anything else under town council? moving along to planning.

So I went into, this is about the budget, my budget, I went and talked to Rhonda this morning about change I wanted to make. She said she'd already sent it off to you guys to bring it up tonight. So one of my lines, I believe it's dues and subscriptions. I need to bump that up to $3000 this year and I forgot about our membership. The White River Alliance had increased. They tried to increase it this year and I told him. I'm not going to be able to pay except for what I paid last year because this is not a good year to ask for money. And they agreed to it if I agreed to bump it up next year. So I'd like to make that change, please.

To $3,000 or add $3,000? Total $3,000 or add $3,000? Add $3,000. So $3,600? It was $600.

I want to move it to $3,000 for the yearly budget.

$3,000 total?

Yes. Not add $3,000, I guess. For subscriptions? Yes.

So total of $3,000?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

And then the White River Alliance goes to what?

That comes out of that budget line. Okay. Our membership. That's the thing that keeps us in compliance with all the MS4 requirements. But that'll come out of that $3,000? Yes, sir.

Okay.

So there's that. Are we good on that? Yeah. The seal coating thing, I landed on the contractor. We're going to use Ferris. I got him to come down to $4,400. So it's a much better deal. So he's coming over tomorrow to talk to me. So just to let you know that that's happening. It was $4,400 you said? Yes, sir. And it's coming down to what? It was $4,600. He came down to $4,400 for us. OK. I do have some other stuff, but I think Mr. Redknapp was going to start that off. Yeah, that'd be great. All right, that's all I got. Anybody have anything for me?

No.

Thanks.

Thank you. Moving along to fire. Hopefully you have it in paper because Eric's computer is no good.

So the biggest thing is just going through the budget, trying to get it all ready for next year. And Ms. Gary is very helpful today. She kind of explained some stuff to me and got me some information so I could make better numbers and make sure I had better ideas on it. So the biggest thing is just trying to present this. And I think we can show, and the best example is to look at that paper I just gave you, the 2026 budget. Those were the budget. That was the budget for... The first column, 2026 current budget, is what we budgeted for the coming, for 2026 that you guys agreed upon last year.

No, that does not agree with my budget. We've had this conversation.

Okay, good enough. So that's part of the conversation. So we have a, this budget, two, three, four, budget, and you guys decided to do three full-time plus adding one PRN position. And those were the staffing numbers that were with that budget that actually went along with that particular budget number. So that was, you guys were having that conversation from October through probably August, September, October, November time period. I know that this year has put the budget in for the gateway by October.

September 3rd. September 3rd.

So by the time you guys had had this meeting, the numbers for the year were already put in the gateway going into that. But you guys hadn't made this decision yet on what the budget was going to look like for 2026.

That's not right. He told me to add $500,000, and I did that before I submitted my budget to Gateway.

Correct, but that was pre-actually deciding which budget we were going to decide upon. So the budget that was voted upon was my budget plus $500,000. And that budget, when that meeting happened, was after the budget was already put into Gateway.

I don't know.

And that's just the reason. So the budget that I'm operating off this year is this budget right here that you're seeing, the 3.095, because I know the budgets, the three different proposals were 3.095, 3.1-something, and 3.2-something, but that was whether you're hiring six new people, three people with one PRN, or you were just going to do that. So that's a part of the conversation is just figuring out what the actual budget that was approved was for last year.

Frank, it's hard to. Oh, sorry. Is your mic on? Yeah, it's on.

Sorry. Can you hear me? Yeah, we can. So the paper I gave you was the budget that you guys picked to go with for the 2026 year. That's what Chief Overholtzer presented to you. And that's where I started the year with. I do know that we had a meeting at the beginning of the year. My second meeting as fire chief, and I asked the question about, hey, Gateway doesn't match the budget you proposed. had approved, and it was about a $500,000 difference. And in that meeting is when Mr. Cox said, hey, we forgot we were supposed to add $500,000. But there's two different things going on here. I think initially getting ready for the year, I think there was an increase in it that was just a random number, but there was never a decided upon number. So this budget is what was given to me, because I was at those meetings also. This was the budget you guys actually agreed upon to go with. So that needs to be figured out.

What number, Rhonda, what number is in 26? 2666007.

2666007. That's correct. And that's? That's what's in Gateway, and that's when I added 500,000, after adding 500,000 to it. Okay. Okay.

But I think where my confusion comes in with this is that we talked about, we made a decision to add three firefighters. And Lance gave us a budget of what it would be if we hired six, if we hired three, or if we went with a civilian medic There were three options on that. So the three is what the council decided to do. And where my confusion comes in is, and I did call Lance about this, and he believes that the budget, He wasn't questioning it at all. He said that the budget with three people were three new firefighters was $3 million something is what he said. So then I went back in and looked at emails from Lance, and I found the one where he proposed that, and it does come out to the $3,095,000. which is what Chris just gave us. So, because I too then went into Gateway and I don't, it's the 2,666,000. Yeah. So I'm, which is 3% over the previous year plus 500,000. Right. In that ballpark. But that doesn't make any sense to go along with the budget that Lance gave us for hiring three new firefighters. So there's a disconnect for me.

For me, there's the 3% and the additional 500,000 was for the additional firefighters.

But that doesn't match what Lance provided to us.

Well, that's numbers I came up with.

Well, Rhonda, I'm not pointing a finger at you. I'm just saying, I called Lance because it doesn't make sense to me.

I don't know where he got the 3 million, but I'm sure- I can- Well, this- Correct.

This is exactly the email that he gave to the council, and that's what Chris is giving to us.

Right, what he's referring to. That's not what I presented to the council. And Joe told me on top of the 3% at 500,000. That was my understanding of the budget last year.

Okay.

Which means we're 500 short.

I know that I asked in January. There was a meeting I came to because Lance made me aware of this and said, hey, that's the one thing that needs to be done. It's because his recollection was this. We put $2,666,000 as the placeholder because we had to turn in his budget because we had to do it because you guys hadn't even voted yet what you guys wanted to do to fix the ISO problem at that point. You guys hadn't even finished that conversation because that conversation didn't get finished until... probably I think the meeting was actually done was like the middle of October so the numbers had to be actually submitted to Gateway before you guys have even decided and I think that's where the part problem happens I think probably what happened was it was said hey let's do three percent and throw 500 million dollars in there and or 500 000 will go from there and then we'll figure out what we have to do because you guys were still trying to figure out which budget and what you were actually going to do as far as staffing the department then you had that vote and you actually decided on this is the one you chose. But at the point, I think there was a conversation you mentioned that the MUN members are already put in the gateway, because it hadn't been long before you guys had even got to the point of making that decision. Because those conversations went on until November, I think, before we actually came to a consensus on how to go forward with this. I think what ended up happening was there was an initial, like, hey, let's do this to get these numbers in there, and then let's figure out what we're going to do. And I think to figure out what's going to do never got actually put. But when Lance went through and did the presentation, this was the option. There were those three options you said, the civilian, six full-time or three full-time. This is the one you guys chose, and this was the budget that went along with it. And I remember the conversation because the big sticking point was, this is going to cost us $3 million. And I just remember that statement being made. That was part of the hard part of swallowing this, fixing the ISO problem. So that's just kind of the information. So I mean, you guys are probably going to need a bigger room to figure this out.

So I'm a little confused what we're asking for. So you're projecting? Your projected revenue for 26, it looks like we're calling it roughly $100,000 over what we had allocated.

Are you talking about that paper I gave you? Yes. So that's a comparison. That's a completely separate kind of topic. That's kind of where we are. But what I'm showing there is... what the difference would be if we had hired six versus hiring three so that's if we hired three more people and actually went to staffing 15 of our 18 positions as opposed to staffing 12 or 18. so that's just a that's a comparison to show what the hiring the three more people does giving us consistency of staffing and the cost difference is a little bit of a savings and that's based off what we're seeing now so what we've actually been able to do which was a change from before we've been able to increase our prn versus overtime we're still not completely staffing we're so for example saturday and sunday we're starting the day with four and three on those two days so we're short so we're scrambling right now to fill those positions and the problem is it's summertime people we have one person on vacation we're starting the day with three uh we have to you know fill three positions with overtime with prn so that's kind of the thing but that's this second paper is just a what we can do to actually make more consistency in the staffing of the firefighters.

So that projected is for six FTE?

That's for six, yes. That was adding the six for that. And that's adding benefits. But these are all last year's numbers. So that's if we had done that, what it would have been like.

So this column is with the three FTE, or this is just with the 500K?

That left column is the budget that Lance presented to you guys that you guys voted on. So that's the paper you have there.

So that has zero new FTEs? Correct.

That's with the three you agreed to hire last year that we hired and filling one extra PRN position today. Going from four positions a day to six positions a day.

So 2026 current budget has zero new FTEs?

Correct. 26 proposed is plus three that's if we had hired six so being able to run the numbers in in hindsight looking back at it we were able to get a better idea of what those numbers would have cost and I think we're showing you could have actually hired six cheaper than trying to fill those positions randomly but it's pretty much it's at least a wash but what it does it gives us consistency of actually staffing those positions on a daily basis then the columns out to the writer just projecting those numbers out what they would have looked like going forward with the different raises for 2027 because whatever you guys decided i was just throwing those in there so you can see what they look like and then the benefits part is that that's not our budget we're going from right so that 2 million 666 000 is not the budget that you're asking for for 27. that's staffing only That's just showing what staffing. The rest of the budget really hasn't changed. We haven't really done much to it. The part of the budget that's changing on any given year is benefits and wages. Yeah. That's where the money is. That's where the change comes. The rest of it, we've been pretty static. I think there's only one thing, one or two things maybe that we changed. Our utilities. Is anybody, just kind of a question, is anybody else seeing their utilities being an up issue? Gas and weather? A lot? Yeah. Okay, I was just curious. I mean, we were seeing that. That's one of the things. This year we're seeing utilities are way up this year compared to last year.

So then, Rhonda, do you have actuals for where we're at so far? Yes.

As a matter of fact, I was just looking at that. Fire wages. You put $1.3 million in at the beginning of the year. They still have almost $700,000. I'm sorry. Start again. I put 1.321667 for fire wages. 1.321. 667.

To date, they've used six. That's just for wages or that's benefits PR?

No, just wages, just wages. And they have used 625,594. They got balance left of 696,000. So there's plenty of. Because I haven't figured that they would need another, to get them through the end of the year, $475,000. So the line's plenty staffed. I think we will have to move some of that to overtime because they're already at negative. $76,000. I put $127,000 in that. We figured that one of them is going to be short, either fill-in or overtime. It's just kind of a... And they're how much over? $76,535. But their fill-in in the beginning of the year, I put $288,393 in that bucket. And they have used... $160,808, they still have $127,585. It looks, we'll move, at the end of the year, we will move it back and forth from wages fill-in to overtime. They'll adjust, yeah. Yes. So I think we're fine. To me, I know the wages are, fill-in looks good, overtime does not, but we'll make that adjustment. If we have to do an additional appropriation at the end, we will, but I don't see we need another how many hundreds of thousand dollars in there.

So I'm aligned with where we are, so now... If you can bring me back up to speed, Chief.

Okay. So part of that is we're currently at about $150,000 of unfilled hours we haven't spent. So that's part of the negative of it. We're actually not filling positions. So we're currently at about that $150,000 mark of hours that we haven't actually filled. We are... So that's a part of it. That's a part of it that's missing, which is actually going to save us money. We will be, I think, this year under budget on that. It's just because we're not staffing. So we will end the year with probably about $300,000. I'm guessing it isn't getting... I'm guessing roughly, let's say between $250,000 to $300,000 maybe-ish, but we've got to kind of figure out how the year goes. If we can learn how to staff, we can figure that out, then that number could decrease and be more like $200,000. So we do have money we're not spending, but it's not that we don't need it for the actual, what the budget should have said, which I understand what you're saying, like we may be all right in that in the long term, but what will end up happening is it's just because we haven't filled positions. So, like I said, we're really struggling on the weekends at this point in time, and that's going to continue for the rest of the year because we're pretty much starting every day at 3 because with one person on vacation of our four, we're trying to fill 72 hours every single day, and it's just such a hard thing to do. with the PRN and the, our guys, you know. PRN is a really good thing for Monday through Friday. We tend to get a lot of the PRN people to come in, which is the best case scenario that they get. But going forward, if we get to the point where we think it's better to, we can show it's better to hire three more people, the one thing that does, and I know I explained this to several of you, is this. The first offer for filling spots is always our PRN people, our cheapest people. So we let them fill all the extra spots first, up to a point and then two weeks out we open it up to where the it becomes available for overtime so we always fill cheapest first so the prn rates of 22 to 28 an hour are always our first rates we choose so whatever we do won't take away from the prn side because they're still going to fill as many hours as they can what we would do is be trading a Roughly, I think, from looking at the numbers, it looks like it's about $42 an hour with benefits, which you can figure a firefighter makes if you take their salary plus the benefits and you buy another hour board. So looking at that, you know, we are getting to that point where the rest being filled with overtime is a little bit more kind of roughly in the same ballpark, so we're kind of trading one for the other. But we're trading the same dollars for consistency, basically, is what we're presenting.

Good. So if we hired three more people, What's the benefit?

The benefit is consistency. I think we can do the same. So the ultimate goal is to fill six positions 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That's the goal. That's what we're trying to accomplish here. That's what we're supposed to be doing for the ISF. Right now we're scrambling a lot to make that happen. The consistency creates an environment where we actually have people there on a regular basis.

And the impact on the budget?

$389,000.

Mind us what that would remove in overtime and part-time. So we don't think it's going to impact the part-time. We think it's going to impact overtime, where the difference comes in.

So you're saying $388,000 to hire three more people? So that would put you to the $3,055,000? Mm-hmm.

Does anybody have any more questions? I don't.

Do you have anything else, Chris? No. I just wanted to present that to you. And I'm available for any questions. I know as you think about it, you have more questions, so feel free to reach out to me.

The overtime also increases stress for the firefighters, doesn't it?

What's that?

I mean, the overtime. I know.

It's like basically we are filling 24 hours, 48 hours every day at our starting point. And then when we start figuring out vacation time, military time, sick time, anything like that adds up. Then we start, I've got another spreadsheet. I think I sent it to you guys, but I'll send it out again so you can look at it. But it kind of breaks down the breakdown. We probably run at a 60-40 split of overtime versus PR. And right now that's kind of the breakdown hours-wise. But if we do 60% overtime, that's 60% at a double break, basically. The goal here is to cut that overtime down, keep the PRN up, and create a consistent environment where we actually have people that are here. So if we have one person on vacation, which is every day right now, and somebody calls in sick, we're starting the day with two people in the most sick position. And that just becomes hard to manage over time.

Thank you very much, Bruce.

Thank you. Thanks.

So then you've accounted for the sick time and... Sick vacation military.

Those are our big...

But in this new, if you were to hire three more, that 388K accounts for covering those additional shifts.

I added that into the total of what I call our negative film.

All right. When I get my computer back, I need to look at it closer.

Thank you. Thanks. Moving along to police, Jeff.

About a month ago, I received a complaint about weeds, tall grass and such out at Tamarack around one of their ponds. I think it's just further south. I think number four pond is what they refer to it as. So I went out there and looked at it. I think Frank went out there the same day, took some pictures, and I don't know weed from native weeds and all this, that and the other. So I sent him an ordinance notification telling me that he had to cut it to Tamarack. And I don't know, a week later, two weeks later, I get a phone call from a representative that's on their landscaping committee. He was not real happy with me and pretty much told me he wasn't cutting anything because those were like native weeds and they did a free erosion control and it's a two-year program they're trying to get going on that fourth pond. He even made the comment that the town of Cicero screwed it over and this is their fault and that's why they're having to deal with this. But anyway, they got an erosion issue and Frank knows a hell of a lot more about it than I do, specifically on I think the backside of the pond. Or they said, well, they want to grow all these native weeds, native grasses, aquatic grasses, or plants, and this, that, and the other. I went to the guy who complained, Bruce Freeman, and told him what was going on, and he seemed to be happy with that. They were trying to do something with the erosion control, and he didn't tolerate it. Also, when I met with the landscape committee representative, he said it's a two-year program. They're just getting started. And he actually sent me an email the other day. He said they're wanting to buy the seed to get it up and going, like right now. And so he was asking for a decision from me to allow him to do it, and I told him I'd have to run it in front of the council first to see if that was going to be an option or not.

So what's the, I mean, why on the back side of that is it eroding more than anywhere else on any other phone?

That's, no, it's not eroding on the southeast side. There's no erosion at all on that side. I think that the erosion claim is actually secondary. What he wants to do is create a, a wildlife or a native flower habitat. And that's supposed to mitigate the erosion on the west side. But all the erosion is on the west side and it is significant.

Where those homes are, the Tamarack homes are on the west side, correct? Correct. So why did they not plant the flowers there?

I think they did. Well, they didn't plant any of these flowers yet. So far, what it looks to me is that it's been allowed to just grow wild. I went out there, took some pictures. I got a little plant identifier thing on my phone. Some of these plants were native species. A bunch of them were not. However, they were actually invasive species. And then we got a proposal today that has not been implemented as far as I know, that they want to completely eradicate every plant around that lake using chemicals, and then they start fresh with the native species planting. And like Chief said, it's a two-year program that requires maintenance They go out there several times during the course of this. They add some. They pull the weeds of the ones that are not. And eventually, the wildflowers are supposed to be able to maintain on their own and choke everything else out. So that's what's been proposed. As far as I know, that has not been implemented yet, though.

I tried to drive out there and look at it, but I couldn't see through the houses. I can see a little bit of it.

I do have some pictures. I don't know if they help very much. The end game is that they want to do this native wildflower habitat from an MS4, which is drainage and all that sort of thing. It's a good idea. It is supposed to hold the banks of that stuff together. I'm not opposed to it. I did ask around a little bit so far. I've had a response from Hamlin County Soil and Water Conservation. They were aware of the HOA's request to do this. However, that no action had been taken yet. I did also reach out to the Hamlin County Surveyors Office, which I think is important here because they have a regulated drain that runs into that pond and then out. into the, it finalizes into Morse Reservoir. So they typically have a real interest in dealing with the maintenance and upkeep of regulated drains. So I reached out, have not got a response yet from them, but I'd be surprised if they don't have at least some interest in this, so we're waiting on that. From a department standpoint, I'm not opposed to the wildlife, or the wildflower, thing at all if it's done as proposed in the proposal that I sent Mr. Johnson this morning. Just go on record as saying that. I think it's a good thing.

I guess I'm still stuck on why is it growing if it's not planted yet? Why are they not maintaining it now if it's not planted?

Well, that's the original complaint. As far as I know, and what I believe is that they've just allowed it to become overgrown. And then when the complaint started, they made their intentions or desires known at that point.

So I think the initial reach out is still acceptable. I mean, I thought that they spelled it. Maybe I didn't read it closely. It was my understanding that they had already planted this.

I do not believe that's the case. No, sir.

So I think if we break this down into a couple different avenues, the initial notice is reasonable in my opinion because it's overgrown. If they had communicated those natural wildflowers are not there now, why haven't they been maintaining this? Are the rest of the ponds being maintained or is it just this one?

Just this one. The HOA said it was about money. They didn't have the money to mow over there. Do you have that document? I have, yeah. Yes, sir, I do.

I don't know if I have it.

I may. I'm going to have to dig for that.

That never came out of the discussion that I had with the river, and they put it on asking a committee at which cost. It was strictly a road, but they reminded me when I dealt with it.

I'll need to verify that. I do know I have a verbal for that for sure, but I'll need to see if I've got that written down anywhere.

So to me, the original notice stands. I mean, if they don't have anything special there, and then I think that council needs to decide if we want to change our ordinances to let special wildflowers grow. It sounds like maybe, maybe we're not getting the entire picture. sounds like potentially so we've had a complaint of somebody that lives on the back side of the pond and i haven't like i said i haven't been out there i've tried to look through what i could look through it looked like it was overgrown but i thought maybe that was the special plants but that was from afar so i will try to get out there this week before tuesday and look as well But to me, if their native species isn't out there, then the notice stands. They need to mow it, come back into compliance, and then secondly, we'll discuss the ordinance if it's worth adjusting, if we believe it's the right thing to do to adjust to them. You guys agree with that? I agree.

I agree.

I can notify him now or tomorrow that he has to go to the standing of the council until they get their program up and going.

Well, we need to make a decision if we're going to allow that program first. But yeah, that program's not in play now is what it sounds like. If that's different, let's talk about it. But that program's not in play now. There's no reason they shouldn't be maintaining their funds.

I'll clarify with you. That was the last one that I got, that they've got to oversee and they're right before they're getting the deadline. And he also told me that the program was started, so I'll have to get a clarification on that.

Okay.

But I'll let that go. If it's not started, then he needs to get his weeks.

And if it is started, the council still is not approving that. We have to make a decision collectively if we want to change that ordinance or not. And is it us, have you talked to Aaron? Is it the council that changes that ordinance, or is it the Planning Commission?

Well, that's town ordinance, so that wouldn't be, that's not zoning ordinance. So I don't believe that would be the Planning Commission. Would you mind finding, you're 100% certain it's a? That's town ordinance, yes, sir. That's why Mr. Redd now asked that. Okay. Okay.

We might just, I don't know if you had any discussions with Mr. Culp or not, but we might have a quick discussion.

He's aware. He responded to an email. He said that it is not currently town ordinance. It is town ordinance to maintain. Yeah, I did resign. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anything else from you, Jeff? No, sir. Okay, moving along to water. Place one.

Thank you.

Good. Good to hear that.

Yeah.

Moving along to clerk, Ms. Gary.

Do you mind starting with the CCMG page? instead of that second but um just want to kind of give you guys an idea where we are financially with the town with all our funds everything except the general we'll go over the general when we do the budget but um we have a ton of grants 2024 ccmg 2025 26 and 27 coming up so 2024 i think i have one more payment that says pending at the bottom But that project was $2.135 million. As you see, I drained just about every fund to make that happen. MBH, MBH Restricted, Local Roads and Streets, GeoBond, CCI, CCD, Stormwater, and TIF funds. And that didn't even include engineering. So engineering was 190. That's the last payment due on that. We'll have that closed up. 2025 CCMG we've paid. We just closed it out. It's all paid off. We use local roads and street, MBH and CCD to pay that project off. That was for Catherine Flanagan and Morris Landing Drive. 2026, we're just about done with that too. It's East Jackson Street with Howard Companies. We owe them $70,000, almost $71,000. We also owe another 17, stuff that's not covered by the grant, and engineering fees of 9,500. And the next payment on the council meeting Tuesday, those ones that say pending, those payments are included in the Tuesday council meeting. 2027 CCMG West Jackson phase two. Grant cover will cover 100 million dollars that and the. 742,000. We'll get that from the Geo Bond if I think we briefly discussed that. But once you see how much money we have, you'll see that I don't really have much money anywhere else so. But we'll take the engineering fees from local roads and streets, just because it got it in there. The LCWF is $1.2 million. That's a $1.2 million match as well. And we'll take that all from the GO bond. And the last thing I have on there is the stormwater project, the Morris Landing Drive underdrain project. That entire thing was funded by the stormwater utility. So kudos to them for that. So if you turn the page, I now have the balances of all those funds. I can go through them where you can just see there. There's not a whole lot of money left after this. Actually, the 2026, because the 2027 GO bond is the only thing that's in there is that West Jackson and the LWCF. So CCD. And this accounts for most of this year, the funds I've received as well as the money spent from the budget. So those are the balances remaining to the end of this year is what I will anticipate. I'll have a couple of more payments from the Southeast TIF and the CCD fund, but that's about it. So just to kind of give you guys an idea where we stand financially with all of our different funds. And if you want to know what can be spent, Using those funds, just let me know. I have a spreadsheet. Because, you know, CCD and CCI, you can use just about anything. Local roads and streets, same thing. You can do streets, sidewalks. MBH restrict is the only one that you can only use for streets. You can't do lights, sidewalks, fences. Everything else is pretty self-explanatory.

Where did we pull the ambulance money? That was, what, $200 million?

Did we do CCD?

No. And that was roughly $200,000? It was $200,000.

Yes. So the reason I brought that up is, I mean, this is, because that gets paid back.

Oh, sure. Yeah, that's why I think we took it from CCD. We couldn't pay back a geo bond. So I think that's why I believe it. 181 came from your ambulance fund, and we did CCD for the other, I do believe. Okay. Clear as mud. Budget. I sent you guys all these. It's been a while ago, and I resent it again. I did not send the... any changes anybody made because I didn't want to print them all and go through, since I'll have to do it all again when we finalize it. But I just really would like to get an idea of where you guys stand, what kind of raise you guys are thinking. So on these papers, on the first one I put the impact of a 3% raise, and then page two is a 5% raise, as well as a 7% pay increase for the employees. Column to the left, is with my budget and the column to the right is with three additional firefighters. And that's the same on each page. And the bottom line are the balance left after those budgets are applied. So if you want to go through them page by page, I'm prepared to do that.

What's our projected revenue for 2017?

Do you have an extra copy? No, that's what I said.

I got the email.

I'm looking at it. Shoot, I am so sorry. I wish I had brought that with me. It's okay. No, the revenue, I had it. I think it's right at 5 million. Right at 5 million. I have it on my computer. I do too. It's right at 5 million. um dlgf state board of accounts recommended to just do a four percent because i usually do a six percent increase in my funds uh for lit property tax but they recommended only a four percent so i did that with that in mind maybe my revenue is like oh i never mind my revenue i have is 4.836 for 2027. 4.836 yes sir

And it's 7% with three firefighters. We're at 6.3. Yes. I don't see any numbers that match. I said I don't see any numbers for 27 that come close to matching. The 4.8, no, the 4.8.

It's on my, it's right here.

No, I know. I'm just saying the 4.836 is a million dollars less than the lowest. Yes. 27. Yes. Is what I was getting at.

Yes, gotcha, yes.

1.1 million deficit.

Yes. So with the 3% pay increase,

with the additional, however that being said I can take away unless you guys are planning to do a new project coordinator I can take

some money off of that. About, well, $79,000 for a project coordinator. So I can decrease that budget by that much, but I don't know what your plans are to replace that project coordinator position.

I know what it's like not to have a project coordinator in place. The rest of the council does not, so let them run with it and then decide.

You're leaving anyway, right?

Really? Is that your attitude? No, no.

I've lived it.

I know.

He's been there.

You've lived it. Damn it's special.

So, but I take away that. Makes it a little better. Not a ton, but a 5.8 instead of, and I'm getting 4.8. And that's a rough estimate. They don't know for sure the total impact. But we also have to consider that gas tax that the governor has put a freeze on. That's going to affect my local roads and streets and my MVH distributions as well. So we won't have as much money. And I say that, but we did get a payment from the state to make up for those lost funds. At least I have this time.

I mean, it's another what, right? It's a question mark. It is. What was our 2026? What's our projected 2026 right now? 4.6. And we're on track?

Yes.

To be that or to exceed it or-

We're closer to 4.7, maybe even 4.8 actually. Okay. We had, I think, $500,000 in the supplemental lit. That was nice, a little bonus. Maybe it was $400,000.

So even the bonuses were still a million short?

Mm-hmm.

And it's too early still to see if we're projected to return any funds this year?

Not really. We typically turn back about $250,000 every year. Don't go crazy now that I've said that.

Well, usually that's benefits, I think, most of it.

It is. Usually it is for insurance purposes. And I did get a quote from, not a quote, AIM sent their increase for next year and said, I always budget 10% increase in health because it's been as far as much as nine, so I didn't want to be caught short. But for next year, it's 3.3%. it is very good last year was they it went down 0.5 percent first time that's ever happened but this year the increase is for 2027 is that 3.3 that's what i sent you so that's going to save us a little quite a bit on insurance too for seven percent so got some extra savings but that usually comes out at the end that's the money that's given back but But I should have money, lots of money, like I said, this year, because I did the 10% for 2026, and it went down. So the increase didn't even happen. So I'll have money. I'm uncomfortable saying I'll give back $250,000. That was typical, $200,000 to $300,000, I think. It is.

Thank you, Rhonda.

Do you have any questions? Do you want to go through anything? Still need some where you guys are heading. No raise. Raise. Three, four, five, six. I don't recommend.

I think the rest of the council needs to be here to have that discussion.

I think so. I will have to have it in Gateway by September 3rd. So we've got a meeting we can. Is there...

Maybe we need to talk about a public meeting on another date where we can all get together.

Okay. You mean to do a special session? Yeah.

Okay. I just wonder if we don't need that at this time.

I'd like for the council to have some input and give me some direction because I need to get this done.

Well, I mean, we're a million dollars deficit. That's not acceptable.

Nope.

Wow. And he said it was due September when?

September 3rd.

Wow.

And I do have, I have most of it entered, but I won't hit accept.

Well, I think we need a special meeting to. Where all the councils together, but we haven't been together.

I'll send an email, see when everybody's available and I'll advertise it.

Thank you Rhonda. You're welcome. Well, moving along, well, we don't have a project coordinator. I will remove that from the agenda until we replace that. So we'll move along to parks. Mr. Hunter.

First off, we did apply for the LWCF grant. That's done, it's turned in, and we're just waiting to hear back from the state. Don't think we'll hear anything until December or maybe even the first of the year. We did get news that only 20 different agencies applied for funding. We were expecting for that number to be two to three times that. So I think we can take that as good news, but we'll just have to wait and see. But it's done and it's been turned in. I sent you folks an email, but I don't think you've had a chance to read it, but it's the transfer of property agreement on the library property. If you want to talk about that, we can, or if you want to wait and talk, maybe when we have a full council, that's fine.

I think we're going to wait and talk about that, too. Okay. So when the rest of the council...

And then the only other thing would be in line with the budget. Rhonda and I have talked about this quite considerable over the last couple of years, and Dennis and I have talked about it. But from what I was just told before the meeting started, we've got to cut a significant amount of money, probably all the way back to 2023 numbers. We're looking at even if I leave my numbers totally unchanged and I absorb any pay raises this year within my budget, I'm looking at $110,000 to $120,000 cut. So I think we need to figure out how we can do that and what that looks like. And if there's an opportunity for me to speak in your special meeting for just a few minutes, I would like that. And if not, then it's the way it is.

It is as we presented it to our I've already had, when I did my preliminary meeting with my DLGF rep, and the number we came up with, his budget was around $900,000. He's $206,000 short. I asked him what happens if I submit the budget anyway. He said, we will take it out. You don't have a choice. We're going to take that money. We're going to decrease his budget by $206,000. I said, okay, we'll work on it then.

So what were those numbers again? $200,000. So you're submitting $900,000?

Well, his budget, the first one was $825,000, and then we talked and he increased it to $896,000. So he went through – I can then also send you this paper. It's Form 4B and Gateway. And how he does it, he assumes everybody uses their entire budget. So he takes the June 30th balance minus the additional revenues, adds the additional revenues that we estimated that we haven't got yet, takes away the rest of the budget that has not been used, and that's his number – And then we add the estimated revenue for 27 plus budget. It's negative $206,000. So we have to work on that. Or they'll cut it if we don't, is what I was told on the phone today.

Well, in addition to that also, I cut $80,000 in mid-year last year. So even if I stick with 2026 numbers, I still have to cut nearly $120,000. So that's why... I truly want to see if we can sit down and come up with a plan to fix it.

We have to. And the big driver of that is his fuel costs, fuel revenue. during COVID it exploded and we then started expecting that kind of revenue and we were short about $200,000 a year in revenue for the last since COVID. So just not hitting the numbers. So he said you can either, the town can dedicate more property taxes to them or decrease your spending. Those are the only two options. Or find another way to create some more revenue.

And I think we're going to need two.

That's all I have.

Thank you, Jim.

I know one time Mr. Lutz talked to you about like a cost analysis of your gas prices.

He never did that. And we're staying traditionally 15 to 20 cents a gallon less than a marina. the south with higher with premium fuel yes but overall gas sales are down in the last couple of years this year didn't help with the increase over february marks the war started and the gas cases shot up and i also wasn't able to get a contract this year the gasoline equipment people due to a change of employment within their company and things like that but right now i think we're down about fifty thousand dollars this year in sales but the month of may was terrible for boating and june wasn't a whole lot better so we're starting to see maybe where we might catch up a little bit but we're still going to be way behind i have a feeling you won't make after any of this weekend I hope so.

I don't think you will. No. But I have to hope.

You've got to hope. With Dan stepping down, we have a vacancy on the plan commission. The position that Dan is stepping down from is a town council appointment, not a president appointment. Um, so I have two people that have expressed an interest. I've talked with both of them. Uh, one is a town of Cicero resident. One is a Jackson township resident, which the council can appoint somebody not in town limits. Uh, if they so choose, uh, what I want to ask is, um, is two enough. Do you want to meet a hunt for some more? or maybe you have some of your own ideas, informational purposes, I suppose. But that's where we're at.

Are you comfortable with the two candidates, or do you think we need more?

Well, I think they're both excellent candidates, and I would be more than happy with either one.

Do you want to give the names out to the council members?

Yes, sir, I'd be happy to. In an email, that work?

Yeah, it works. Yeah.

Okay. That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

And if you have contact numbers as well. Okay. Thank you.

Is there anybody else that needs to discuss anything? If not, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved.

I second.

All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? We are adjourned.