City Council - Special Meeting

The posture we were in is that Councilman Clonch had moved to consider an amendment. The question was asked whether it was a proper amendment. The chair ruled it was. Is there a challenge to the chair? Okay, no challenge to the chair. Councilman Clonch, any further discussion about your amendment? I do not believe so, sir. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized on the amendment.

Yeah, I'm just going to make it quick that we're talking about cutting this in half because of six months. However, not all of this was directed just for the running of six months. There's other things that are involved, including building repairs. equipment purchasing so cutting this doesn't just cut it to six months it's actually could be potentially cutting it further than that or it's gonna have to try and come from somewhere else in the budget so you can't just look at it that we're gonna cut it in half because half doesn't specifically work their software in there there's a lot of different things that are associated with it that are still gonna have to be purchased councilman Lovato

Thank you, Mayor. Actually, I just want to say I agree with everything that the Councilman from Ward 10 said. I understand what you're trying to do, but these numbers aren't mathing. I do wonder if there is a way, Mayor, to set up a separate fund specifically for the center so that all of this money will be available to Parks and Rec when the time comes.

Well, provided we pass the budget on second reading, the money will be available to Parks and Recreation. It will be set aside specifically for this purpose.

the last thing that I want to say is really just a personal note and members from the senior center are still reaching out to us and whether they approve or oppose the decisions that this council is making we need to choose our words to them carefully because regardless of the side that they are on they are still citizens of our city I'm not sure which council member recently told an elderly lady to just to get over it But that is highly inappropriate, and I do not approve of that kind of message. That's all.

Councilman Streetman?

I strongly support what the councilperson from Ward 12 just said. And also want to remind everyone, and it's right in along with that, that this battle, this back and forth, this closing down, because I know I think something said about it still being open, there's a sign up that says they're temporarily closed. So the seniors are the ones that are suffering through this. I mean, we are where we are. The lease was terminated. They're the ones that are being punished because the process is not moving forward. This money is in the budget to be able to get the senior center back open to get the families back into or the the individuals back into the adult day center, for them to be able to go there. Like I said, they're being punished through this whole process. Decisions have been made. Everything needs to be able to move forward so that Parks and Rec can get in there and get this center back open and get our senior staff citizens back in there, spending time with their friends and not continuing to have to deal with additional stress, drama, everything that's been going on. I'm just ready to get this process moving and done and allow them back to their center because when it's all said and done, It's theirs. It's the seniors for them to be able to go in there regardless of this battle. So I ask that we vote this down and ask that please remember who this center is for. And I'm not necessarily speaking to just the council members here. I'm speaking to everybody involved.

Councilman Clonch, closing remarks about your amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Again, this wasn't malice intent. There's a large group in the middle that is suffering. Absolutely. And it was just an attempt if we're to stalemate with what's happening to remove those funds. I would also say that absolutely everybody needs to be heard, and that is imperative. There is an event, and I won't speak any more about it than that, that I'm excited about that I talked to an individual in this room before this that is in support of the seniors this weekend that I was invited to by the other side because they've realized I am about the truth, not a he said, she said the truth. And there's the seniors, about 80% of them are suffering. because the center's not open and there's no place to go. And that absolutely hurts my heart.

Councilman Smith on this amendment.

I would just like to say that, um, I agree with, um, the other fellow councilman about the seniors are suffering and I've gotten many calls from the seniors that are in many positions over there. And I think that we need to make the right decision. I know the lease has been terminated, and there's a battle still going on. And so we can't talk about it, but we can encourage them to continue to keep the faith because we know that God is still in control no matter what happens. Keep the faith. Never give up because you know it might be something better on the other side. You never know. You don't know what God is up to, so just hold on. Don't give up. Thank you.

Any further comment or question regarding this amendment? All right, we're ready to vote. All members, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Two yes, 11 no, zero abstain.

Amendment fails. Councilman Clonch, any other amendments?

No, Mr. Mayor. I think I've caused enough controversy for one evening.

Councilman Zacharias, amendments? No, sir. All right. We're now ready to take up the Ordinance 98 as amended. Any final comment or question regarding Ordinance 98? Councilman Marquis, you're recognized.

All right, so the statement that I was going to make earlier is just that I just want to say that remember that we have heard a lot about the homeowners and the tax increase, but this isn't just solely about homeowners. The renters also get hit with it when their leases renew, and somebody who has also been left out of this conversation are the businesses as well. commercial Rate is 40% So if somebody not only owns a home in Clarksville But they also operate a business and either they own that area or they lease it. They also get hit with this tax rate twice and That could be hurtful to some of those businesses who are struggling and so that's just a ripple effect that happens overall in this budget, but ultimately I What I wanted to say was that it's not just a question on whether it's a need for more revenue. It's a question on have we been good stewards to the money that we have had? Because you see this memo in front of you, and you see that departments have come under budget, strong cash positions, substantial investments. capital spending that are largely driven by policy choices. So if these things have been true over time, then why are we asking taxpayers that there's no alternative? They have to increase their tax rate. And if these assumptions have changed and it's truly a revenue problem, or is it truly a revenue problem, or is it spending and planning? Because as you see here, departments have come under budget, 5.5 million, but then it goes into that while each individual department comes under budget, the government as a whole is over. And it's coming down to our capital projects. It's coming down to the debt. the debt is catching up to us. And if we required, according to this, to have made significant reductions over months, and I'm talking about the 2025-26 budget that was presented, then what does that say about the original reliability of those assumptions at the time? you know the analysis was performed that concluded that this is the direction that we had to go that the residents are the ones who have to bear the burden because these are questions that we do have to answer to our constituents and they deserve those answers and that's all I have for you guys tonight Thank You councilman Lovato you recognized Thank You mayor and with the cuts that were made Monday and what has happened tonight

Did we move the market all from a dollar to no man? We didn't Monday. I said that I wasn't that this budget couldn't be the final product, but I couldn't vote yes on it. And I stand by that tonight. Um, so I will say I'm not ready to vote yes on this. If we wanted to stand in recess instead of voting again, order to keep it at second reading so we're not completely starting over what would that process look like hang on just one minute because we'd have to give proper notice in the newspaper about another meeting

Mr. Bittner?

We would need a specific date and time, so we would need like a motion to recess to Monday at 4.30, whatever date that is, July the 13th. we would not have to go back into the newspaper because we would be recessing the current meeting as opposed to having a new meeting altogether. So if the council decided to do that, it would be a motion to recess, and you'd have to agree on the date, and then you would make that announcement, motion to recess, to July 13th, 4.30 p.m., and we'd pick back up where we are now.

Okay. Councilman Lovato, you have the floor.

Okay.

Part two to my question, should we vote tonight in a moment and it fail? Can we sit here and argue it out until council members change their mind?

You could do a motion to reconsider. You could put it back on and then the, it would have to be made by a member on the prevailing side.

Okay. That's all I have.

Thank you, Mr. Bittner. Councilman Chandler, you're recognized.

Give me just a second to gather my thoughts.

Okay. Folks, this has been a laborious process, and you've seen and heard from our departments over and over again. The reductions are now cutting to the bone to the point where we're eliminating potential staff and reducing the quality of our workforce by not providing them true tools and training. You know, I'm not going to be here but for another five and a half months. And I recognize you all will have to live with it beyond that, some of you. But our employees deserve a budget. They deserve a budget. Councilman Chandler, you're recognized.

Mr. Bentner, if we go through with what Councilman Ward 12 said, would it still open it up for amendments to the budget?

If you do the recess, you could do, because you would not vote, so you would still, you could come back on your amendments. If you don't do the recess and we vote, and then there is no motion to reconsider, then we would have to start over and we'd have to put a notice in the newspaper and do the agenda again. So we would be, I think, five days out.

So one way or the other, if we vote to go along with a postponement, then amendments could be brought forward on that day.

A recess. We would want to vote to put the meeting in recess until that particular day.

But then if we vote, on the budget tonight, and then it doesn't pass, then we're going to be back at the same process of amendments again. CLARE DUDA. We will be back to square one, first reading. DAVID BURRAGE. Well, that's what I'm talking about. We'll be back at amendments again. I don't want to step on anybody's toes, but the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Folks, I understand. All 13 of us up here are affected by the budget increase. We all live in the city. We're passing it on to ourselves as well. I brought this up before. In 20 years, my property taxes have gone up $284 in 20 years. I know that there are people out here that are on fixed income. I'm on a fixed income. Yes, I count. every dollar every month but our job is to pass a budget for this city we are not doing our job i'll go ahead and step on toe we got people that vote no on the budget and never give a single amendment Just vote no because I don't like it. We have people that have taken the time and effort to look at it and present us with amendments. Some have passed. Some have failed. I think we've done a darn good job of going from $0.31 increase down to $0.10 increase. we need to do our job we need to put this city first the entire city i've said it time and time and time again and yes i'm getting mad time and time time again we are all elected by our wards but on the big hand it's our responsibility to look out for the entire city So I don't urge you, I beg you with every bit of my fiber, let's get this budget passed and quit looking like we don't know what we're doing. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. This goes along a little bit with what the councilperson from Ward 4 just said. We started out at 31. We've gotten it down to 10 cents and big cuts happened early on we had a 7, 8, sent 7 cents and the first first reading and the after that in between the which failed still failed in between the first and the second first reading the mayor came back to the proposed budget that took another 8 cents and the next meeting we had one more sense we have barely moved the mark from since the second first reading we are now on the sixth meeting five first readings one second reading and in the last in these two readings in the first and the second reading we've removed 250 000 and yes there have been amendments that have been proposed that did not make it and that's because it requires a majority vote to be able to get it passed where we're at currently is the will of the council because it's what has been brought forward it's what's been approved it's what's not been approved Before we did anything else, I would have, I mean, like we talked about, we're at bare bones. There are, I mean, some of these departments have taken huge, huge hits. And these are things that aren't going away. We just get to figure out how to pay for them next year. And no one, no one wants to vote in front for a tax increase. I don't want to pay for a tax increase myself. I'm the only one in my household paying my bills. My little dog, she doesn't pay a single bill in there. So it's all me that's taking care of doing it. I know this is not easy, and it is not easy to sit here and vote in favor of a tax increase because we know the effects that it has on people. But just like the costs are going up for everyone else, those same costs are going up for the city. We're all having to pay for more, and so is the city. These are things, we've gone beyond it being once. We have a budget of needs. We need to make sure we have our police force out there taking care of everyone. Everyone in this room was aware that the increases to our police officers and our firefighters was going to cost money. When Chief Burdine was up here, the question was asked of him, are we going to have to pay for this? when the budget comes around and he very quickly said yes yes we are but it's what was needed in order to be able to try and compete and keep our police officers here there are things 11 months out of the year we are hearing from the community we need this we need that we need this we need that and yes the predominant message on social media for the last month is no new taxes No new taxes, no new taxes. I get that. But we also have the other 11 months out of the year where we're hearing from people that are calling us because they need building and codes to come take care of something. I'm still getting phone calls, not just about the budget. I'm still getting phone calls about issues that our citizens have. And in order to be able to serve them, we've got to have the departments have the ability to be able to do that. I would before we even talk about going into a recess or are voting I would love to hear everybody talk if you think there's more cuts you think you can make and get through because again it it requires a majority vote what what are you looking at what are you thinking about and if that's the case why why not have already brought it forward I just I don't see how us continuing to do the definition of insanity is really going to get us anywhere. We are responsible for this budget passing or not passing. I know the statement's been made. It's the mayor's budget. It's not. It's ours. Each and every single one of us are up here and are responsible for whether this budget passes or fails. And we have got to get back to taking care of our citizens. I can tell you too, I don't think any of our employees, and I'm not just referring to the department heads you see sitting in the room, The employees that are watching what's going on and not knowing what's going to happen from us having to make decisions up here. Again if if you're thinking you can make more cuts and we can make a difference more than $250,000 and actually move the needle then let's talk about it put it out on the table right now get a blank piece of paper. From the city clerk, not a blank piece of paper, but a blank amendment and start working on it. But I know I, myself, I have gone through this budget book multiple, multiple, multiple times, not just the paper copy, the copy online. I have spent many, many, many hours reviewing every bit of this. I've brought amendments like every single time, except tonight. Tonight's my first night. Haven't done a single amendment. But we've all been trying. If you want to try something else, please talk about it right now. Let's not leave here without having a decision.

Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. I will say a surefire way to get me on your side is to tell me how insane I'm acting. i applaud what has already been done you all the city the mayor's office you all have put a lot of work in this budget and that is not lost on me um The statement was made about people voting no and not bringing any amendments. I just want to remind you all, amendments are tools. They're not obligations. If we don't agree on the foundation of a budget, it is completely appropriate to vote no on it. And I don't think that we should feel guilty as one council person that we weren't able to rewrite an entire budget for the entire city. You know, I keep hearing over and over again that our most important job is to pass this budget. No, it isn't. We were elected by the people to represent them and hold the government accountable for spending and what they are doing with the budget. And those of us that are voting, no. Well, I won't speak for everyone, but I will speak for myself. voting no is a way to hold people accountable and i'm not going to be strong armed into this um when i can't confidently go to my constituents and say yes this tax increase is exactly what we need and it's not just on social media they're calling they are emailing every day currently i don't know if y'all have tried to call me my voicemail stays full at this point and it is almost every one of them is a constituent concerned about the budget um i think it's great that council members have poured through the budget so have i i can't tell you how many times i've read through the current one and previous ones trying to track the numbers and make it make sense and i went to every single committee meeting it is not lost on me how hard our employees work how dedicated our department heads but if it's not right it's not right and right now it's still not right

Councilman Zacharias, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. So when we're talking about transparency, I think it's important that we understand that transparency has two sides. We need to be transparent about the money or about what we're spending money on, but I think we also need to be transparent about what we're not spending money on. And, you know, I agree with something that my colleague from Ward 5 said earlier. She said it's capital projects. Okay, we're spending a lot of money on capital projects. I'm going to read a list and to our ASL interpreters, I'm so sorry for what I'm about to do. But I'm going to read the list of all of the capital projects that we've put on hold to try to get this number down. These are projects that will not be worked on in the next fiscal year with this current budget. We have an intersection modification and improvement project. Sidewalks in North Clarksville. sidewalks in greenwood peters mill and hazelwood need more road improvement phase one memorial drive extension state routes 48 and 13 sidewalks and crosswalks downtown revitalization lafayette road sidewalk rossview road red river sidewalk exit 8 athletic complex and access hazelwood recreation complex greenway expansion and improvements fire station 1 remodel expansion of fire station 3 for district 1 expansion of station 9 for district 3 City Hall HVAC outlaw field public safety complex and fuel accessibility enhancements Cumberland Riverbank stabilization First Street improvements and an 8th Street clinic those are still capital projects that remain on the book that will appear in next year's budget until this council until somebody on this council is willing to stand up and say, I don't think the city should be in the need more road improvement business. That's what it's going to take. These capital projects are, it's a directive, it's an imperative to the mayor's office to fund these infrastructure projects that we hear about all year long. The only thing we do by postponing this is agree to pay more for it in the future unless We cancel some of these projects. And I don't see anybody, I don't want to tell the people of Clarksville that, you know, sidewalks aren't important. And that's just the capital projects. That's not the cuts to the operational spending that we've already made. This is how people lose faith in their government. When we meet with them for two years and get their input about what they want for the Frosty Morn site, and then we cut it. because we're going to save a penny or we meet with the skating community, three different meetings where they brought their ideas and we took input and they met with the, with the designers and they had their design elements. Sorry, too expensive. We're putting a price on our word to the people of this city and I'm not comfortable with it. Thank you.

Councilman Streetman.

Thank you. I do want to say to the council person for ward 12, I don't think myself or the council person from Ward 4 was calling anybody individually insane. I think the idea being that we are all in this together, it's we are doing this. This is a we. This isn't anybody specifically being insane. It's that we're repeating the same action over and over again. And to the council person for Ward 1 that sat there and listed off everything, it kills me that we don't have, we're not moving anything right now on the Exit 8 athletic complex. I've gotten several calls about that, but there's only so much to even be able to sit up here and try and fight for. But the soccer community has asked for that, knowing that if we could get that ball moving, the soccer ball, so to speak, but get that athletic complex moving, that could drive tournaments here. Tournaments in turn would then stay, you'd have larger tournaments than what we already have here. You then have people staying in, more people staying in the hotel motel, spending money at the restaurants and other businesses, which generates revenue that comes back into our community. that we're then in turn able to use and it not only generates revenue for us it generates revenue for the county or for that well essentially by generating revenue for our school system though but that's not even something that can even try and fight for because the biggest thing that we hear about is roads and we can't even move forward on any one of those I'm not trying to guilt anybody. I'm just trying to ask if there are more things that you think we can cut, bring it up. Talk about it right now. Let's back in the day, they used to stay here to like one, two o'clock in the morning. I'm sorry for the face I just got, but they used to stay here many, many hours trying to get this job done. We've been here three hours. If we need to do more work, then come up with something. I said that in the very first reading that we had. And here we are six meetings later. I just feel like we have got a job to do. We as a whole, we as all 13 of us, have a job to do. I think we need to get it done.

Councilman Clark, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I will respectfully disagree with the councilperson from Ward 1 in the sense of... accountability. I think that's those that have voted no. Those that have presented ideas, recommendations, we're doing what our constituents want. Um, there's been a lot of talk about communication and accountability and transparency, and I'm so tired of hearing those words. It's, it is so much greater than that. And the personal strife that we've all experienced in capacities of the phone calls and emails and wanting to explain stuff to constituents in a palatable manner that we understand or that I understand back to the constituents and that is lacking. So, you know, I served in the military and there was a time where we didn't get paid because they couldn't pass a budget. And it was scary. And that affected myself, soldiers, leaders, families. So when we say there's 13 of us that are responsible for this, it is significantly greater than that. We have department heads that we all have a piece of this pie. We all own a little bit of this. It's not just us 13. Because we started at $1.31 and somehow, magically, six meetings, we're now down to $1.02. I find that interesting, and I like a lot of phrases, but if everything is important and everything is catastrophic to your organization or your department, then nothing is important. There's priorities that need to be made and established and understood, and there are cuts that have to be made, period. We all experience that in our daily life. It's not lost on me that I also suffer as well as the citizens and the constituents of this community. But I think collectively those that have voted no are saying that this is enough. The buck stops here. Square peg, round hole. It ain't going to work. It is not going to work. I also applaud the city council member from Ward 10 saying let's figure it out. I'm all about it. But that means that we're going to have to make compromises. We're going to have to have hard conversations. Is the sidewalk as valuable as not shutting down? I'm not even going to say the word X, Y, or Z. Well, we have to decide that. So the onus is on us, but it's also on department heads and saying this is truly important because I've heard of a lot of department heads come up here and say it's, it's catastrophic. It's catastrophic. I've also spent time with other department heads that have said, Hey Eric, cut this and or give it to this other person because they need it more and god bless them for that because they are willing to eat less so that we can pass a budget as far as what i want individually this isn't fun all of us in here are missing time with our family we're missing vacations we're missing all kinds of things but it is that important I also will not be strong-armed, and I also will be a no at this current rate. There's more work that needs to be done. And until we're willing to have the hardest of hard conversations, I will continue to hit that red X. It is about the rate, but it's also about the way that it's all been communicated and the palatability of understanding these dollars and where they go. That's truly what it's about. When I came to the city, I went and met every department head, and one of my first meetings, I knew that there was going to be a tax increase, and I know nobody wants a tax increase, and I said, I need to understand now how to inform my constituents what this looks like because we are growing expeditiously, and we cannot keep up. But the constituents have had enough. They've had enough. They've had enough. So I have. DAVID BURRAGE.

Councilman Brown.

Thank you, Mayor. So I've brought up, I've been talking about with HR and finance about an amendment that I was looking at. And I know it may not be very popular, especially with employees. about the city's absorbing the insurance increased costs for the employees. A lot of businesses pass that cost on to the employees. I know other government agencies pass part of that on to employees. So my problem is that we've already approved these other budgets ahead of time that that would not be affected by that, such as the, you know, transient gas and water, you know. And so I don't know if we could bring those back afterwards, and I don't know if we'd want to. I don't even know if it'd pass. But if I could get a blank... Amendment form, I'll fill some out. So before I get into it, I guess I need to get get it. Unless you already have a printed. It'd be the same. And I know some of us up here have a number we want to get to that we would feel a little more comfortable voting at a certain tax rate. So it can't hurt to try and save another penny for our constituents, but everybody's cost is going up. And of course, I know the city's cost is going up too. So I understand that there needs to be some tax increase. It's just a matter of us individually deciding what we feel comfortable with explaining to the constituents.

There you go. Councilman Brown, this is yours, correct? Yes, sir. Okay, hang on. When everybody gets it, I'll come to you. For a motion and an explanation.

So my motion will be splitting the insurance increase cost 50-50 with the employees for this year instead of the city absorbing 100% of the increase cost. Second.

Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of this amendment. Um, anything else you want to explain?

Councilman Brown, you know, a lot of the times, you know, our health insurance costs go up, you know, every year the city is planning to absorb that, you know, this year for the employees, which I understand. And I appreciate that. But when most of our constituents are costs are going up for their insurance, um, then we're looking, trying to save pennies, and this would be, you know, just a little bit over a penny itself. And that's just passing half the insurance increase cost on to the employees that are under the general fund.

Okay. Councilman Chandler, on this amendment. Thank you, Mayor.

Are you saying... split 10% health insurance. So are you saying the employee pays 5% more and the city pays the other 5%? CHRIS RODGERS. Councilman Brown.

JAMES BROWN. So the increase in the insurance costs going up would be split 50% by the employee and 50% by the city.

maybe I think we need to get an explanation yes of the premium increase the dollar value just so we know the specifics okay doing the ticky-tacky math right now the employee only premium currently is 144 dollars a month

with this increase it would go up to 235 a month so here's where it gets tricky um splitting yes to your question splitting the 10 increase in half would be a five percent increase for the employees in the city general side and it would be a five percent increase for city general departments mind you transit and gas and water has already passed their budget. Both are absorbing the 10% increase. So keep in mind, you're going to have two people working side by side paying difference in health rates for the same benefit to, um, we are required to give our employees at least the 60 day notice for premium changes. With that we're already nine months for nine days into the new fiscal year that we have not adopted a budget on So we have to then extend that out to October 1st at this point so we would be splitting this premium increase across I'm not good at math. What is that nine months instead of 12? So the last time I ran these numbers it was looking at a 60 day and so implementing it two months into the fiscal year and it looks to be a $91 increase for each active employee. But we're going to have to push it back another month, so it's going to go up even more if that makes sense. I don't have the numbers on hand because this was talked about a couple weeks ago.

So what you're saying is minimum city employees would pay $91 a month more?

Correct. That would increase their premium. I have a percentage on here. A 63% increase to the employee premium, employee-only premium. That's not the others.

Okay. No, never mind. Never mind. I'm done.

Councilman Streetman on the amendment.

Yes, question. You said that was 91. Is that, and I just want to clarify, was that per month or per paycheck? And I realize it's higher than that now because it would be nine months versus ten months. Per month. So it's per month that that would go up. And, of course, this would take effect October 1st.

It would have to take effect October 1st. We have to legally give them 60 day notice.

So would they be able to opt out then?

Correct. It would be a special open enrollment. We have to notice that this is what your premium is going to go to.

decide to drop us or not then they would have to get on to a different plan somewhere else and their um and of course their pay raises don't go into effect of the two percent pay raise doesn't go into effect until january 9th three percent january 9th i'm so sorry three you're right i apologize um three percent goes into effect on january 9th and i'm asking this on the spot so i apologize i don't know if you'll be able to answer this question Um, because it is 3%, we have some, uh, some people, is this going to, is it going to wipe out the 3%?

Their health premium increase will be over what the percentage, uh, what the 3% percentage increase would be for our average employee, the average employee, lowest paid, excuse me, lowest paid employee. I ran the numbers. I think it was like $5 over. back when it was $91. Like I said, it's going to be more now.

Okay. So they'd be making less from October to December and then still, even with the rate through December, then even with the raise, some will still be bringing home less than they are today.

Correct.

And you, you did say, like I said, the others had already passed their budgets. So there's a set they're good for gas and water and everybody.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Lobato.

Thank you, Mayor. It's a $91 increase. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding the numbers. It's a $91 increase for the employee only, right?

That is our employee only plan.

What about for the family plan?

Let me pull it up. It's $91 per plan, but spreading that out, it would be, so currently our employee plus spouse plan is $268 a month. That would go up to $359. That's a 34% premium increase. Now, this is just talking about $91. Keep in mind, it's going to be more because one month less.

What about employee, spouse, and kids?

The entire family, the current monthly premium is $358. It would go up to 449, which is a 25% increase. We also have another plan on here that's employee plus children, those without spouses. It's currently $247. It would go up to 338, which is a 37% increase. And what kind of increase did they face last year for the health insurance? Great question. 5% increase in FY25, 5% increase in FY26. In FY24, we had to make some difficult decisions, and we increased the premiums 85.7%. And that was in 2024? FY24.

That's all I have. Thank you.

Councilman Clonch, is this for Ms. Luntz or just about the amendment?

No, it is. It is. And I'm not trying to put anybody's paychecks business out there, but the predominant city employees make, it's the workers. What is that, $25 an hour to $40 an hour or $50,000 a year? What is the mean average salary of the working class city folks?

I don't know that I have that number handy. Do you finance when we calculate the GWI? No, I don't have that number off the top of my head. I'm sorry.

No, no, no. You're on the spot and I understand that. And we had talked about this a little bit previously. Um, how many people make over six figures in the city? It's not a lot. Department heads, maybe senior staff. How many employees are in the city?

If you're considering part-time, around 1,600. That includes gas and water as well.

Okay. So, I mean, if you took 10%, I'll go 20%. 320 are making over six figures, and that leaves 1,200 and some change in that bracket, ranging from probably $18 an hour, $36,000 a year, to maybe $60,000, that low range. I mean, is that somewhat fair? I mean, I've looked at some salaries. Yeah, sure. So that family... That young man, that young woman with a significant other and a child is an increase of, you said from last year to this year, it was a 5% increase. I know you said the family one was 20% increase.

25% increase for family coverage. If it was just an employee and their children, it would be 37% increase. Thank you.

Councilman Chandler, for Ms. Luntz, or just in general? Okay. Thank you, Ms. Luntz.

You're recognized. You know, I heard here, and like I said, all these sessions start like cobwebs in the mine. You know, I thought I heard one time say that property tax increase would be about average about $12 a month for our citizens. uh so twelve dollars a month ten months you know 120 140 dollars maybe and but yet we're going to sit here and talk about adding a thousand and ninety two dollars to our city employee that's what's going to cost us a year just for the employee uh we're giving them a three percent raise which uh They're back fighting in Iran again, and I noticed on my way in, gas jumped back 50 cents a gallon more. So that 3%, we just gave back to the gas stations and the grocery stores. And we're asking our city employees to give up almost $1,100 a year so we can save a citizen $140. You go back to, and I've said it for a year, because I was a loyal employee to this city for 34 years, and we have some of the best employees in the world that work for us. And if we make them pay this so we can save somebody $140 a year or so, you know, that doesn't say a whole lot for us. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. I understand what the sponsor's trying to do here, exactly what I suggested. Let's look at things and see what we can do. And the fact that he didn't bring it forward tells me he's doing exactly that. He's just trying to see what everybody's willing to look at. To answer essentially your question, this equates to a penny of savings, a little over a penny of savings. So I have a spreadsheet that I'd made here. For someone that owns a $255,000 house, this penny will save them that's going to cost presumably a $101. I did the math. I took the $91, multiplied it times 10, divided it back by 9 to get that increase, that $100 that each plan, $101 that each plan will cost more for our employees. But on a $255,000 house, that equates to $6.38 for the year more on their taxes. On a $300,000 home, the penny costs $7.50 for the year, not the month, the year. For someone with a $350,000 house, a penny is an annual increase of $8.75. For someone with a $400,000 house, a penny is an increase of $10.00. $450,000 house, a penny is an increase of $11.25. Half a million dollar house, it's an increase of $12.50 on the year. And if you have a $600,000 house, it's an increase of $15 per year. So that's the number that we're saving with the $101 a month more that the employees would be paying. And again, I understand what you're doing. So, I mean, no disrespect. But I just wanted, since you brought it up, pull this up. And I didn't go beyond $600,000. I felt like that was sufficient numbers to be able to put out there for everyone to equate what that penny looks like, not just for this, but for anything else that we're looking at.

Councilman Shekinah, you're recognized.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. And again, thanks to the sponsor for bringing this forward. But as we all know, it's a challenge to try to bring this budget down more. But I'm like, more, too. It can be done. We can bring it down. I wouldn't support this, but I would support re-looking at some of the other proposed amendments that we brought in earlier. and maybe lower some of those amounts and have some discussions about that. Thank you.

Okay, any more discussion about this amendment? Councilman Smith on the amendment.

I'm going to say this. We've been penny, penny, penny trying to get this budget down. I brought forth an amendment. to go ahead and decrease the budget by $4 million in one walk. We pin it, pin it, pin it all day long. Wasting my time to tell you the truth. We've been here since four 30 and we own a pin, another pin, another pin getting nowhere. As I said, let's make a big, cut. Let's decrease it by four meetings, putting the tax rate at 95 95 cent, three cent increase. That's a whopping $4 million and we sitting here painting, painting, painting and ain't got nowhere and people come saying, let's go to line item. Let the department heads make the decision as to where they want to make the cut. We're still sitting here another how many more hours? Ain't got nowhere. We still fussing and can't decide what we're going to do. I'm disappointed with the budget. First of all, what six don't have nothing in this budget that's going to help them. No sidewalks that was taken out. Couldn't put no sidewalks over in Red River.

capital project I'm still talking everybody that's sure with one of order no she is allowed to ask for a point of order your question your point of order let's stay with the amendment councilman Smith say what they have to say anyone on the amendment especially Ward 4 so I'm gonna say what I got to say

And let me say this, I'm disappointed with this amendment cause there is nothing in here for ward six. You took the, the multi-purpose centers. We're supposed to make frosted morning, uh, a multi-purpose center. You took the money out of that to make it a senior citizen housing area in a public place that is polluted. Then we took away the money for sidewalks that was supposed to be over there. Then we done took all the money out of Wausau. Wausau does not benefit. You took the senior citizen building. So, I mean, this doesn't make sense. Let's take this whopping $4,732,000 out of the budget, and let's bring this tax rate down to .95 cents. So I can easily get a line item. All I got to do is call the department head and tell me, tell me what can you cut. That's what most of y'all done. You ain't looked at no budget. You don't call the department head. Tell me after somebody said it. Tell me what can you cut. That's what you did. I could do that too, but let them be who they are. We, we, we, we, we, we, uh, hired them to be department heads. We don't need to micromanage department heads. They can make decisions. We cutting these pennies ain't getting nowhere. Wasting my time. Thank you, Mary.

All right. Any, any more comment or question regarding this amendment? All right. We're voting on the Brown Amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

One yes, 12 no, 0 abstain.

The amendment fails. All right. Yeah, it was close. All right. Any other comment or question? Let me address something here. heard that we initially proposed a $0.31 tax increase to $1.23 and then magically was the word used, I think, that got down to $1.02. Ain't no magic to it. It's hard work. And these folks are having to do it out. Ain't no magic to it. So all you're doing is the old Oil filter commercial, you say, pay me now, pay me later. You're going to pay later because when the air conditioning goes out at City Hall, there won't be any money to fix it. Won't be any money to fix it. So there ain't no magic to it. It's hard work and sacrifice that they've already made. And you can smile and laugh all you want. But that's where we are. We're working hard to provide for this city, a growing city, what they need. And we're not doing the citizens justice of providing what they need, not necessarily what they want, and they're not begging for what they need either. All right. Any more comment or question regarding ordinance 98? Are we going to recess or we're going to just vote? All right. Okay. We're on ordinance 98 as amended. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

Five yes, eight no, zero abstain.

Ordinance 98 fails. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Motion to reconsider.

Motion made to reconsider our actions on Ordinance 98. Properly seconded. Any discussion about reconsidering our actions on Ordinance 98. Object. She objects, so we're going to put it on the board. We're voting to reconsider our actions. As soon as the clerk gets it on the board, we're voting to reconsider our actions on Ordinance 98. All right. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clark, please take the vote.

Eleven yes, two no, zero abstain.

Okay. We're reconsidering our action on Ordinance 98. Councilman Lovato?

Mayor, I actually have all of the failed amendments with me. Can we take a 15-minute recess so that I can compile them?

Any objection to a recess? We have objections, so we're going to put it on the board. The motion is for a 15-minute recess until 8, we'll say 8, 10. So we're voting to take a 15-minute recess until 8.10 p.m. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

Ten yes, three no, zero abstain.

All right, that motion passes. We're in recess until 8.10. To get us started, I've got an amendment waiting on the clerk to make copies but I'll make a motion for this amendment do I hear a second properly seconded this This amendment is to reduce street department operating by $476,000. If you add the reduction already made the other night of $200,000, it gets us to a penny, so it would reduce the property tax rate to $1.01. And so in anticipation of questions, Mr. Smith, if you don't mind coming up and I know we've talked about this, and I didn't want to do this, but well-worn cliche. We're trying to move the needle here, so Mr. Smith, help us understand.

Sure. So our original ask was forecasting an entire year of paving, and of course there's a period of time where the asphalt pans close, so we can't do any paving in the winter months, those coldest winter months. But four point eight million dollars was the the forecast for those that's of course been cut Originally two to three and if we reduce it this little this more It's just gonna be those fewer months that we're gonna be able to pave will actually Will be you're gonna get complaints about the condition of some of the roads So, you know like we got this year with need more they're gonna complain about the health of the roads We'll have to patch instead of pave Roads, they'll look very hatched very piecemeal there'll be a lot more seams in the road and again it kicks the can down the road i've said it the past two years when we reduce paving but i understand it is a it's a tidy sum and roads cost a lot of money so it is an area where you know we can move the needle sir councilman brown you recognized

Mr. Smith, so the general fund and street, but $476,000, are you saying that would all come out of paving or could that be split between other lines maybe that...

You know what would have to be, you know, as department heads, we we do what we don't operate like in a vacuum. We do have money to move. And in this past year circumstance, when we had the ice storm, we certainly didn't forecast that over time or that expense in salt. So we had to pull money from somewhere. So to cover you know what we spent we pulled that from from some of our asphalt so those guys were able to do that kind of work so it was the official as I told. Councilman Peters that parks and rec had some work that needed to be done because we have the money to buy hot mix in those circumstances so. The preponderance there would be probably some concrete money some rock money that would have to be used but.

It could be spread out throughout the budget, not just out of one line if needed. Yeah, it could.

We have cut a fair bit, but yes, it could.

Great. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any more comment or question regarding this amendment? Thank you, Mr. Smith. All right. I passed it around. No, we just passed them out. Everybody got one now? Okay. All right. Seeing no further question or comment, are you ready to vote? Madam Clerk put us on the board. We are voting on this amendment to reduce street operating by $476,000, and that would also reduce the property tax rate proposed rate to $1.01. It's a good number. for the 101st. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

13 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain.

Okay, that amendment is adopted. Alright, other amendments? Coming to you, Councilman Lovato.

These are amendments from other council members. I don't know if you want to give them the opportunity to maybe present their own, so I don't y'all want to listen to me talk through all this it's going to be a long night well they don't want to listen to me talk either so have you distributed uh yeah okay so the uh first one and i will just say that i am whether i agree with them or not there are amendments that have come forward so just offering them up for reconsider reconsideration that's what I'm doing so you've got copies that'll circulate okay so the first one is hang on just a minute once we get it then you can then you can tell us

Councilman Lobato, you're recognized or are you yielding to the original sponsor?

I would love to yield to the original sponsor.

I think that would be Councilman Brown, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. Ward of 12. But this was just the splitting of the health insurance increase premium 50-50 with the employees. I know their COLA doesn't go into effect until January, so I know this will be difficult because So the 3% COLA only taking effect in January is pretty much like a 1.5%, really. Yes, sir. So that was my motion.

Second.

Properly seconded. Any discussion about this amendment? Councilman Smith, you're recognized on this amendment.

Yes, thank you. Would this save a penny or half a penny? What did it say?

It would reduce it by a penny.

A penny? Another penny.

Okay. So we're down to a dollar.

Okay. All right.

Councilman Peters, you're recognized.

I don't know. I just don't agree with this. We're asking employees to take on more with less. I mean, is it worth a penny for us to do this to employees? I have to think not. So I'm going to be a no on this. Thank you.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

just a reminder that this one penny is going to cost our employees likely a hundred and one dollars a month a month to save your your taxpayers your residential taxpayers six to fifteen dollars a year and that's going all the way up to a six hundred thousand dollar house so your average uh at the 319 000 this is saving them eight dollars for the whole year and costing employees 101 who by the way also live a lot of them also live in the city councilman chandler you recognized thank you may i renew my objections up from earlier just it's it's not fair to the city employee to have to bear this weight councilman smith you recognized thank you

Someone just say there's not fair to the employees. They have the bird is weight. I bear this weight. What about the citizens when we raise the taxes? It's not fair for them to have to burn the weight. So we need to think about the citizens as well as we think about the employees. We always want, and I'm for my employees now. You know, I'm good for both. But why do we want to, we'll stand up for the employees, but we won't stand up for the citizens. It's not fair for them, but it's fair for the citizens to bear the burden. Every time we need a tax increase, we always want to put the burden on the citizens. Why is it so good to just, hey, let's let them citizens pay for it. Y'all don't care whether it's fair or not for them. Thank you, Mayor.

Councilman Brown, I have a call for a question.

Second.

The question's been called and seconded. Any objection to ceasing discussion on this amendment? I don't hear any, so we're going to vote on this amendment. We're voting on the Brown amendment. Every member, please cast your vote.

every member voted any member wish to change their vote madam clerk please take the vote two yes eleven no zero abstain amendment fails um councilman lovato all right um the next one coming around is uh one that was proposed by councilman streetman so when everybody gets this around i would love to yield to her okay

When he gets there, I'll recognize you and we'll take it from there. Everybody got a copy? Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. This was a proposed first reading or second first reading. It was originally proposed to, thank you, for a total of Twenty six thousand dollars which was a six thousand dollar reduction to training five thousand dollar reduction to professional services and fifteen thousand dollars to reduce legal services for a total of. $26,000 and looking quickly over our list of budget changes from where we started to where we are legal is one department that I do not see where we have made any cuts whatsoever and so I make a motion for approval motion made improperly seconded for this amendment any discussion any discussion about this amendment

All right. Are you ready to vote? We're voting on the Streetman Amendment. As soon as the clerk can get us on the board, we'll be voting on this amendment. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Seven yes, six no, zero abstain.

Amendment is adopted. Councilman Lovato, who's next?

All right. So this one, again, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just repeating things. I don't support all of these. But this one is Mason Rudolph removing the capital project. And this one was brought forward by Councilman from Ward 5 that I would like to yield to.

All right. I would assume that just because it comes to you, you don't have to present it, but it's strictly up to you.

Let me turn it up.

Has everybody got a copy? Councilman Marquis, you're recognized on this amendment.

Yeah, so my original thought process was eliminating the capital project in order for us to... not continue to take on debt as I said the debt is killing us out here every year you know we have more higher payments to pay and by again by reducing the capital project the idea was that eventually we could get some type of partnership or something else in the future which is also why I left the original funds in the account so that way it could operate but while we were in a

transition mode is what I would hope could happen so that way eventually this this work can be done just not on debt yeah thank you a motion sorry yes I had to make a motion okay all right Councilman Streetman on this amendment thank you my opinion has not changed from before on this one and that um Parks and I mean Mason Rudolph is something that we have had citizens of our community asking for begging for for years for this project not to just be on the capital projects list but to be funded they want mason rudolph back open granted i know there's like we've said earlier tonight there's been discussions but there is no firm proposal there is no contract in hand and if nothing comes about of it then it's another year or more before anything happens with mason rudolph um These are taxpayers, too, that have been wanting this. I've supported Mason Rudolph since the entire eight years I've been on here. In previous times, things trying to be cut from it, closed down, anything. But this is what our community wants, and as I pointed out previously and was pointed out by a potential discussion amendment, that all of our parks and rec... Facilities cost money to be able to do and to be able to maintain the cost that we're spending on recreation centers on pools on Greenways on everything else. These are all leading to What's in the budget for our parks and recreation? It's not just one and it's not just the golf courses that are leading this these costs that we have there I would ask that y'all again continue to vote this amendment down and so that we can finally get mason rudolph back open and get our youth and our senior citizens out there able to play on that course and i know people are excited and ready for that to happen and if we don't fund it then it's net it's it's going to be yet another year and i don't want to see it turn into something else i want it to be mason rudolph golf course councilman zacharias on this amendment thank you mayor um so i've heard a couple comments about

debt and about we how we need to be aware of our debt and we absolutely do but i think we might be coming at this from the position of somebody who is thinking that city finances run the same way household finances run um and that's just not the case uh need more road phase one and two combined i happen to know in 2020 were estimated to cost 81 million dollars If we were not going to do that road project with debt, that would mean we would have to take in $81 million more than we need to run the city. I don't even think we can do that legally. I'd be furious if my local government was collecting an extra $81 million in cash to do a project. There are $460 million worth of capital projects on the list. Moving stuff out of debt only makes it impossible to fund a lot of these projects. And I think if we apply that rationale to the situation, we cannot tax our citizens $468 million more than we need to run the city so we can do the capital projects. It would be unethical, and honestly, it would be impossible. So if we are not going to address our infrastructure with debt, which is the tool that's been provided to us, that's the other thing. As a council, we have limited tools that we can use to address the needs of the city. If we're not going to raise revenue through through the tools that have been made available to us, then maybe somebody needs to start suggesting to the people of Clarksville what infrastructure projects we are no longer interested in pursuing.

Thank you. Councilman Marquis, you're recognized on your amendment.

just again to clarify that this is the capital project not the actual general fund cash difference here and I'm not I understand that there are certain projects that cost way too much to do with cash on hand that's not what I'm saying it was mentioned last week also that we are pretty much at the I guess, capacity of what we can responsibly borrow to pay back. So we just have to either bring that down so we can keep on with our other projects or find some way to balance this out. It's the idea here. Thank you.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you. I do want to clarify, like she said, this is a capital project. So the cut that you would be, this actually has to the budget is 66 425 dollars because this is spreading uh 1.365 million into a capital project and spread out i think it'd be great if we could just pay it versus doing that but that requires the funding it would take two pennies to be able to do it and just do it outright and not finance it and pay interest over it um But the concern with the debt is not having the tax rate to support it. And that's where we're running into the issue is that we're not giving the tax rate to be able to pay and to keep adding on. So that's where that's coming from. But this is, I mean, in there and budgeted in there to be able to pay for it. Like I said, you're talking about a reduction of $66,425 for a project that has been begged for for years now.

Any further comment or question regarding this amendment? Seeing none, hearing none, are you ready to vote? Every member, please cast your vote. Madam Clerk, take the vote.

3 yes, 10 no, 0 abstain.

Amendment fails. Councilman Lovato, what next?

All right. And I do apologize. I do not remember who... brought this one forward. It is a reduction in the transit funding of $433,801. Apparently it was the councilman from Ward 10, and if she wishes, I'll yield to her.

Okay. We'll get it passed around, then I'll come to you for explanation. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized on the amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. Like I said, I'm almost positive this was me. I don't recall anybody else bringing anything that reduced transit. This was on here for $433,801. This was a mixture of other stuff where I was trying to put things together. I believe it was with the road projects and everything we had involved in there. But first, let me make a motion for approval. Second.

Much has been made and probably seconded, you recognize.

And I'm going to go ahead and take it a step further here. And reason being, before I even do that, this $433,801, if you remember, I was also the one that brought forward the amendment that restored the funding that had been taken out. mayor made several cuts i brought everything back that had been cut to get it down from 103 to 101 if i remember correctly i know that it got it down to 101 but i brought it every bit of it back so that we all had a vote in it to be able to make the decision is this where we wanted these cuts to be made some things uh stayed cut some things came back and the 860 it passed to come back in at 7 to 6 of 6 people voted against it different times tried different amounts and no one's been willing to take any of it back out, I mean I'm honestly surprised that you have 6 that voted against bringing it back and not have anything to cut. So I'm not even just going to stay with the 4.33801 we've already cut $26,000 I make an amendment and if you could just do it on the piece of paper and Mark out the $433,801 to $650,000, which would get us another penny because we've already cut 26. So I make a motion for approval for the amendment.

Motion been made to amend the amendment.

This thank you mayor. And again, this is not near as much, this isn't as much as the 860,000 that was originally taken out. There is their amended budget for 26 was $4.1 million. It is, I'm not looking at it right now. I'm trying to go off memory here. I believe it's $5.9 million this year. considerable increase that we have in there i know that um it was talked about there would have to be positions that would be you know that people would have to be let go but there is a large amount of turnover that occurs in our um in our transit department and i believe a good amount could be taken care of through attrition If we needed to wait on doing the planning because money was in the budget for planning this year and wasn't used. So I don't, I mean, can we guarantee that it's going to be used this year? There's a lot of different things. If you look through it all, like I looked through it all, I think there's ways that costs cuts could be made and everybody has taken cuts. Building and codes has taken over a million in cuts. parks and rec has taken over a million in cuts i t has taken maybe close to a million in cuts i apologize that i can't remember i don't have my notes where i calculated it all there's been monster cuts that have made streets has now had over i think 2 million cut or close to 2 million that has been cut so I'm asking that you support that if we're trying to sit here and make cuts, this gets us to another penny. We're already down to 101. This gets us down to a dollar. I just ask for your support on this.

Councilman Clautch on the amendment to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Buses are, we're at buses or golf courses. That's where we're at. North Clarksville, there's a bus stop in front of my house. I will not be supporting this amendment.

Councilman Smith, you recognized on the amendment to the amendment.

Okay. On this amendment, I just want to know what funds this is coming out of to decrease. What funds? I mean, what funds? General funds? Capital projects? What is this?

Operating. It's coming out of operating. I said that general funds.

That's the operating funds. Is that correct? That's correct. Coming out of operating. That's right. That's general funds, honey.

I'm quite aware. Thank you.

Councilman Lovato, you recognized.

um thank you mayor i just want to make sure that my numbers are correct because i understand that the original amount was over 800 000 we've amended it to 650 000 but transit has already been cut 350 000. i just want to make sure that this amendment is reflecting I'm so my brain is fried. Do you understand what I'm asking?

I do. I apologize because I kicked myself as soon as I hit the button. I snapped it myself because the 350,000 was cut from capital. This is in regard to operating. Okay. I apologize for my misstatement a moment ago. So I understand that question.

Capital outlay specifically. Okay. Any other questions or comments regarding the amendment to the amendment? OK, we're voting on the amendment to increase the reduction from 433,801 to 650,000. So every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

Six yes, seven no, zero abstain.

Amendment to the amendment fails. We're back on the amendment as proposed, $433,801. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized on your amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. Okay, then what you're looking at is half of what we brought back in. That seven votes brought back in, six votes were against. We're trying to make some cuts here. I'd still then say it's in 433,801 and appreciate your support.

Okay, any more comment or question regarding this amendment? As proposed, seeing none, hearing none, are you ready to vote? All members, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

Six yes, seven no, zero abstain.

So it's a theme here. Amendment fails. Councilman Lovato, where are we?

All right. We're almost done. But before I present the next one, I will need another blank one. I'm so sorry I got confused. A little mixed up. But this one is a street department move. Thank you, ma'am. If I remember correctly, this was presented by the councilman from Ward 5. If she wishes, I will yield to her. But it reduces the street department and just restores it to capital for the sidewalks and the drainage mitigation.

Let's get it passed around, then I'll recognize the member from Ward 5. Councilman Marquis, you're recognized on this amendment, if you choose to move forward.

I believe the way I had originally made this was that I wanted, because I understood it as it being bonds, as it was explained before, apparently it's cash. So originally my amendment was to delay moving it until we had bond council approval and line items on how these funds would be used. The way this is written is it's keeping it in capital projects, so I'm not sure what... I guess what this would do right now. Again, when this was discussed, it was mentioned that this is cash that's currently... Yep.

Historically, we have put these two items in capital projects, which means that we would borrow money, and they were much larger amounts. Yes. But because we are trying to limit What we issued debt for, we moved these amounts into the operating, which is out of our cash. So there would be reductions for those two items in the operating fund, operating budget of street department.

All right. So then we're decreasing street department by $800,000. That's right. I'll make a motion.

Second.

Motion been made and properly seconded. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Yeah, I just want to point out that this is currently sitting in capital right now. So while it looks like we're reducing the street department budget, that money is still there in earmark for these things. We're just moving it from capital. Am I explaining that correctly? No, I'm not. Never mind. Can the finance people... You want to rewind the tape? Yeah, I didn't say any of that. Okay.

If you don't mind, Ms. Wilcox, come and explain.

Those projects were in capital. But we decided to remove them in this budget proposal. And the streets department budget, their operating budget in the general fund has been appropriately increased for $800,000. Removing this $800,000 would actually drop streets operating budget as it's presented in your ordinance.

By another $800,000?

Mm-hmm.

But this also says, and keep it in capital projects. So what did I misunderstand?

Well, we could put it back in capital projects, but I would not. approve moving forward on them to use capacity in the band to pay for these. So it would move it back to capital but they would just be pushed out to future years.

And just to clarify similar to a point that I made about Nemore Road the interest on this project would vary year to year.

Depending on how we bonded it when we got around to paying for it. Currently the Bond anticipation note that we are doing right now is a higher risk bond issuance. It's a drawdown, and it has a variable rate. In a year or two, three to five, whenever we decide to bond for these expenditures, we may do a traditional bond issuance, and most of the time those are fixed rates. So it depends on which vehicle of borrowing money we use.

Okay. that her explanation makes more sense than mine did.

Okay, thank you. Councilman Brown, you're recognized on the amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. So, looking at the drainage mitigation, I know there's been discussions with Gas and Water about them taking over the drainage part of the you know to deal with the flooding so if this is in the street department operating budget and then they we get it worked out to where gas and water is going to take over this then that money would still be in in the street department's operating budget instead of being in a capital where we could say well we're not going to need to borrow that money now because gas and water is going to take over it so if we end up moving you know and getting that drainage part with gas and water then we wouldn't necessarily need to borrow this money for the capital project if it wasn't done before then it is likely fiscal year 28 before a stormwater utility proposal is brought to the council for approval as part of the budget process for next year for fiscal 28 so

We've still got some drainage issues to address.

Okay.

The time frame on that was where I was wondering about. I was following you, but we're not close. I wish we were. Councilman Marquis, you're recognized.

I guess I have a quick question for Ms. Wilcox.

Without objection, Ms. Wilcox.

When you were mentioning the bond anticipation, why is this one in particular a higher risk?

Bond anticipation notes are always higher risk debt. They are more of a short term issuance in that you can only keep them for two years. So at the end of two years, we will have to turn it into a regular bond. And because it's shorter term, banks want a better interest rate.

Would it not be, I guess, a lesser risk to just have a regular bond issuance then?

If we did a regular bond issuance, we would have to draw it down the whole amount, 42.5, and we'd have a much higher interest right now, payments right now. Also, by having a bond anticipation note, we did not have to go through the credit rating process again.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

The risk is not that we're a risky investment. It's just the instrument that we're using to fund this. It's kind of like a home equity line of credit.

I don't have anything else. I was not prepared for this.

Councilman Zacharias, you're recognized. Thank you, Mayor. As we're being asked to consider an amendment that would reduce funds for drainage mitigation, I just have to ask, how much money did the city spend buying houses from flood victims this year because our drainage mitigation was insufficient?

I'm going to take a swag guess, million and a half. All right. Thank you. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to make an amendment to my amendment and I would like to remove the drainage mitigation part of this amendment so that it stays in the street operating budget and only the $300,000 for the sidewalk gets moved back into the capital projects.

You've heard the motion and the second for the amendment to the amendment which is to keep in the amendment, 300,000, and to remove the 500,000 for the drainage mitigation. So it, okay. Any questions about the amendment to the amendment? All right. So we're now voting on the amendment to the amendment. Or will be. All right. Every member cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

11 yes, 1 no, 0 abstain.

The amendment to the amendment passes. We're now on the amendment as amended, which is to reduce street operating by 300,000. Is that where I'm headed? Okay. Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. we're putting this on debt and taking it out of the budget, we're still going to have to pay for it. It's just going to cost us more because we're paying that plus the interest on it. So it's not as though we're not saving the money. We're just asking everyone to pay for it later as part of the big bond. And when you stretch that over a long period of time because it's going to be mixed in with all the rest of the stuff, um you're greatly increasing what it's going to cost you're going to be spending probably i don't know maybe 150 200 000 additional in interest over the span versus leaving it where it's at and going ahead and paying for it to get it uh taken care of that's that's my thought on that um We're going to spend $14,500 on interest this year for $300,000 drawn down off the ban.

Councilman Brown, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. So looking at it another way is this $300,000 for these sidewalks, these sidewalks are going to be used by people for 20 years. And putting all that debt on somebody that lives here right now that may move away next year and somebody else move in, you know, it's spreading the cost out for many years to where people that will be using it down the road are still helping to support it also. So, you know, it is a little bit of interest also. You just have to weigh that option there of spreading it out to

citizens throughout that time instead of just right now thank you councilman lovato you recognized um i i just wanted to say i know i brought this forward but i caveated i don't agree with all of these and this is one that i don't actually agree with um because we do need to be more mindful about the debt that we're taking on so that's all right any more comment or question regarding the amendment as amended

Seeing none, hearing none, are you ready to vote? All members, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

Two yes, 11 no, 0 abstain.

Amendment fails. Councilman Lovato?

Okay, I have one more, and I have to apologize to Ms. Canfield because this one fell through the cracks, and I just need copies.

I'm going to ask the mayor protein to take over for a moment.

He has no power over us.

Yeah.

Listen, man. Can we turn this off?

all right uh uh to the councilwoman from ward 12 on your amendment i can't take you serious right now i'm sorry um i make a motion uh for approval on this amendment we have a motion and a proper second any comment on this amendment

This is revisiting what the amendment that I brought forward with some changes based on amendments that have already passed or failed. It is decreasing the HR budget by $101,826, and that is only removing one new full-time employee. And this is the amount that came from Parks and Rec. So they will still maintain the amount needed for the payroll, et cetera, for the one for the police department. And then it is also decreasing the street department's budget by 300,000 to defer those sidewalks another year.

We've heard the explanation from the sponsor. Are there any other comments on this budget amendment?

Councilman Peters. Yeah, on this amendment, I would support this.

I mean, and I'll say... Can we take a moment of silence while people get in their right chairs?

All right, where were we?

To me speaking. You're recognized. Go for it.

I just want to say that given the HR to the police department, I think that's a good thing. They got special situations, special circumstances over there. They don't need their information put out like to a general HR department, so I will support this in that sense.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized. Oh, I'm sorry. You sure can.

Um, this is not restoring funding to the police department. This is just rude.

Yeah. Um, yeah, I'm not in favor of this. Talked about this, you know, just a little while ago in regard to this is removing a position that's already there because all that's occurring is the HR person that's involved with parks and rec, which has a huge amount of responsibilities and a lot of employees. they have to deal with with new hires we have part-time they've got people that are working with youth that's just moving them over to work in hr and better streamline it and doing away with this position means doing away with the hr person that's associated with serving our parks and recreation department and we've already talked about um not wanting to take away hundred thousand dollars for the sidewalk so i'm i'm not in favor of this because this is cutting that position away and again hr is the back it's one of the backbones of our entire city um taking this away is going to hurt them overall and especially hurt our parks which we've already taken a lot away from them as it is so this is this is eliminating a failed position is that what we're doing okay

All right. Any other comment or question regarding this amendment? Seeing none, hearing none, are you ready to vote? All members, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, please take the vote.

Five yes, eight no, zero abstain.

Amendment fails. Councilman Lovato? that's all you got anybody else got an amendment councilman Chandler you're recognized on your amendment if you'll distribute it and then I'll come to you for explanation and emotion

councilman Chandler you're recognized on your amendment all right mayor thank you this is a proposal to remove the extra sales tax that we give to the school system every year in the amount of three million three hundred and eighty thousand dollars this will reduce our tax rate by five cents

And with that, I make a motion. Motion been made and properly seconded in favor of this amendment. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized on the amendment.

Thank you, Mayor. I don't necessarily disagree with this amendment. However, I have legal questions that I don't think that we have the capacity for tonight. This has come in front of finance several times, and it keeps getting deferred, so I would rather see this run a different course so that we can have all the facts about the legalities of doing this. That's all I have.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

She hit her button faster than I did. I was going to make the same statement that this has been postponed in finance and there has been questions asked just to ensure how it needed to be handled. So I'm in full agreement with Ward 12 on this.

Councilman Chandler, on your amendment?

Well, okay, I'm sitting here hearing for six meetings. Let's reduce, let's reduce, let's reduce. This brings our tax rate down to $0.96, is exactly what it does. And I hear across the hall, OK, well, it's been brought up time again, time again, time again. Instead of bringing it up time again, time again, it's time for us to take action. We are asking the citizens of Clarksville that already pay $2.10 tax rate for their children to go to school. Because inside the city, other than the Sheriff's Department running the jail, we get no service out of that $2.10. this was a deal that was struck back in the 60s 77 77 okay in 1977 that was a whole different ball game and if you want to reduce the tax rate to keep your city citizens from paying more than they that that that that's double taxation you're taking money that rightfully belongs to the city that's been collected in the city in the city's name that we turn over to the school system and they've already paid. We're double taxing them. So five cent reduction brings us to 96 cents. That's a four cent increase. And that's all I've heard for the last six meetings, we need to reduce it. We need to reduce it. This is one act, one thing that will clear it out.

Thank you, Mayor. Councilman Smith, you're recognized.

May I have a question for Ms. Will Cox, please?

Sure. What's the question?

Ms. Will Cox. is what we give to the, uh, Montgomery County school system. Is this state regulated? This part is not.

This part was voluntary when we originally put it in at 1977.

Okay. So how much do we give the state? And this is for, for the citizens to care here too. How much do we give to the, uh, the school system, uh, yearly? What, what, what is our taxation?

I don't have that number right here in front of me.

I can tell you what it is. $75 million. Counting this three, 3.3.

That's including the 3.3. $75 million.

Yes, ma'am.

We do that every year.

Well, by law, we are required to give half of our sales tax collected within the city limits to the school system. We don't begrudge that at all. This is just a deal that was cut in 1977, and it would get us out of that deal, and we would keep the estimated $3.3 million per year.

I like the idea of the five-cent cut. That's a smart move. But I'm afraid to take the money out of the school system, but I know we were giving. I don't mind giving them the $3.5 million or somewhere like that. I believe in finance and schools, and I believe education is very good for our students and for anybody. As I always say, education is power. Can we vote on this? Would this be against the law? Is this okay for us to vote on?

It's an amendment. We can vote on it.

We can vote on it, and it's not going to bother us with the state. All right. Thank you.

Councilman Streetman, you're recognized.

Thank you. Mayor, I'm not sure if this would be for you or Ms. Wilcox, but again, talking about... First, let me say, I 100% understand where the sponsor is coming from on this. And you're absolutely right. City residents are paying twice, without a doubt. However, as was said in the Finance Committee both times when this was brought forward, it was still being looked at to see if we could actually do this or not. And the most recent finance committee meeting, um, the question was even asked from committee member and council person for ward 12. And how exactly was this brought about? Was it brought about by referendum? Does it have to come back off by referendum? And there are questions that still need to be asked. So here's where my question is. Say we vote for this tonight and we reduce the tax rate by 5 cents. to take this 3.38 out, and then we find out, wait, we can't do it, then what happens? So that's my question, either you or Ms. Wilcox, whichever one wants to take that one.

We want to flip a coin. Okay. Ms. Wilcox?

If we reduce the tax rate and then we find out we do not,

get this money we will have to make adjustments down in departments budgets to the tune of three point three eight million dollars yes okay thank you councilman peters you're recognized look i know this is a touchy subject when we talk about education but we got to remember like the like the councilman said that brought this forth we're being double taxed on this not only are we double taxed on this The county decides for us how we're going to spend our money, i.e. sidewalks. They expand the system out, now we've got to pay for sidewalks. I mean, I don't see a problem with us reducing this. I've got five vehicles. I've got two motorcycles and three cars. I've got to register every one of those. Where does that tax go? know it is not not for the schools so not only am i being taxed for county money that i don't get no benefit from i'm being taxed on the other side every time i register a car so i'm for this i'm all for this so that's all i got to say councilman brown thank you mayor i would like to propose an amendment to this to the the 3.3 million at one time is a big hit and i understand

you know, we're giving a part of the sales tax revenue. We're not giving a part of the property tax, but that sales tax revenue that we do give them could help with this with our property tax. So instead of it being a hit all at one time, I would like to see it step down over a couple of years to give them time to make adjustments that they need on the county side. So my amendment would be to reduce it by a million, 352,000, which is two pennies. Okay.

State your amendment to this amendment one more time.

Amendment would be to change the $3.3 million to reduce it to $1,352,000. That would be two pennies reduction on the tax rate.

Okay. The motion has been made and properly seconded. Anything else before I go into questions? Councilman Brown? That's all. Thank you. Councilman Lovato, you're recognized on the amendment to the amendment.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I just want to speak for just a second, not necessarily about this amendment and what it means and the numbers, but the process in which we are doing this. This has been proposed at the Finance Committee meeting. It has been given to the public twice now, and it has been deferred twice. We have told the public we are not going to vote on this until, I think it's deferred until August at this time. Yes. I don't like this because this is all of a sudden we have not had an opportunity to get input from our constituents and they deserve a say on how they're spending their tax dollars. I may not agree with them, but we need to listen to them. So I do believe that we are removing their ability to have input in. I cannot think of a more modern day situation of taxation without representation than this right here and what we're trying to do with this amendment. That's all I have.

Councilman Claunch on the amendment to the amendment.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I concur with Councilman Rupp from Ward 12. I believe there's some legality issues with this as well. And I think that we consistently talk about communication and transparency. CMCSS needs to have a seat at the table while this discussion is happening. I had a conversation with a member that I do agree with, council member from Ward 9. It should be a tiered system. However, and I'm going to use your word, we need to have an out of abundance of caution with taking money that we potentially can't legally take based on ratification that was made in 1977. CHRIS RODGERS.

I did share with the county mayor in March that the council, we would be likely considering this. Um, and then she shared with the school system and the County mayor that we would be moving forward. Of course, y'all have to vote on it. So it's not like this is a surprise.

Councilman Chandler, you recognize, uh, well, like I said, you know, I'm looking out for, uh, the citizens of Clark for double taxed, uh, kind of, Funny that my fellow council from Ward 12 talked about this coming up in August, the way these budget hearings are going, we'll probably be there at the same time. I'm sorry, but take my neighborhood. There's probably not, there's probably 70 houses in my neighborhood. maybe maybe four have school children it's an older neighborhood most everybody i'd say 95 percent's retired uh and i know what when i first put this out especially my neighbor across the street and he said do what and he's why why are we doing this uh And I told him, I said, well, that's just an agreement that went through. And when I told him the $70-something million that we have to give him by state law, I thought he was going to faint. You know, again, we've argued for six nights now about reducing the tax rate. I think that Councilman Brown's amendment sure we'll do it slow don't have a problem with that but again i'm just trying to get our budget passed and get it down and to where it belongs for our citizens thank you mayor councilman brown you recognized thank you mayor and and that's what i'm trying to look at is to you know help them with absorbing this over time you know we talk about our citizens paying the extra where

residents in the city. So this comes off the sales tax collections. So it's not just the citizens of the city that are paying the sales tax. We have people come and visit us all the time that are paying sales tax that don't live in the city. But this part would help the residents of the city with reducing that tax rate on residents. residents that live inside the city so you know we're collecting that tax revenue giving them half and we have half and that comes from people who live outside the city also you know they don't have as many opportunities you know businesses outside the city they all come into town and spend money also and that sells tax revenue so that's why i'm thinking you know if we can Do this over a little bit of time that gives them a little more time to absorb the hit.

Thank you. Any more comment or question about the amendment to the amendment? Councilman Smith, you're recognized on the amendment to the amendment.

Like Ms. Wilson said, this is voluntary money that we were giving to the school system. We are giving them plenty of money. I think it's a lot of money that we already have to give them. We pay sale taxes, offer our foods, whatever we buy, items, car taxes. So we give them some, well, almost half of it, over half of that money. And so... It's not that we don't want to support the school system. I'm totally for supporting the school system. But I think this is voluntary money. And I think we really need to just go ahead and cut the $0.05, reduce the tax $0.05. I mean, we're giving them a lot of money. It's not that we're not trying to help the school system. We just want to be fair about it. If we can cut these taxes, I believe the people or the citizens would rather see their property taxes cut than to keep on giving money voluntarily that we don't have to give. So I think we need to, hey, take this reduced tax rate, five cents. It's not like we're not trying to help them. We're giving them all that we got and all that we have to give. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you. Any more comment or question regarding the amendment to the amendment? Again, the amendment is to reduce the voluntary part of the sales tax to 135200. Is that right? Okay. Which would then have an effective on the tax rate of two cents. Are you ready to vote on the amendment to the amendment? Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted any member wish to change their vote madam Clark take the vote Amendment to the amendment is adopted.

We're now on the amendment as amended Councilman Zacharias you recognized Thank You mayor when we when we first set off on this journey last month I said that I thought that 31 cents was probably too much all at once and And we made cuts that they should come from the top, not the most vulnerable in our community. And somehow we've landed on kids. I cannot wait to vote no on this amendment. Thank you.

Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Call for the question.

Question being called for. Do I hear a second? Properly second. And any objection to ceasing discussion on the amendment as amended? Seeing none, hearing none. So we're voting on the amendment as amended. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wants to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

Seven yes, six no, zero abstain.

That amendment is adopted. All right. Any further amendments? So we're now at, where are we? 99 cents on the property tax rate. Any comment or question regarding Ordinance 98 as adopted? Amended with a property tax rate of 99 cents Saying none hearing none. Are you ready to vote now remind you that we can't reconsider a second time Our actions so if we fails we'll have to go to a go to and set a new day councilman Lovato you recognized I'll I'll be honest.

I was prepared to vote. Yes until this most recent amendment passed I this this amendment is not right this process that we just did it's not right we we're cutting our schools with without proper input from the public i in i agree with it but i don't agree with this process that we just did and i cannot vote for this budget i'm sorry councilman streetman you recognized

I would ask everybody to think about what was just said by the council person for 12 and what was said by the mayor before that this fails where we're done and we don't get another opportunity so and we have to start back over from first reading I still go back on the it was postponed twice in finance because we didn't know if it was legal. I appreciate that it was cut down to a smaller amount. so that if we find out we can't do this just by us voting, then at least it's not gonna be as much of a hit, but it's still gonna be money that's gotta be found in there somewhere. So think about it, whether or not this is actually going to pass tonight. And if it's not, and you were on the prevailing side of the last one, ask for a motion to reconsider so that we're not going through this failing yet again.

Mr. Bittner? I've been corrected by our city attorney. move to reconsider if there were substantial amendments to the ordinance, which there have been substantial amendments. So we would be able to reconsider our actions. Councilman Chandler, you're recognized. All right, man. I'm going to go on people's word.

Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on you. Well, whatever. Burma twice, shame on me. Excuse me.

It's a long night. I understood what you meant. Go ahead.

I would like to – I was on the prevailing side. I would like to reconsider my last motion about the school system reduction.

Motion been made and properly seconded to reconsider our action on the amendment for the additional sales tax. Any objection to reconsidering our motion on the additional sales tax? Okay. So we're going to reconsider that, um, and bring that back to us. Councilman Chandler, you're recognized. Okay.

You know, 99 cents or a dollar one, take your pick. Uh, but that's all I got to say. I tried to do right. And if I did wrong, I'm sorry. But my gut feeling is that I did the right thing.

Don't apologize.

What?

I said don't apologize. You're good.

That's it, Mayor.

Councilman Lovato, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mayor. To the councilman from Ward 4, I just want to reiterate, and I do not necessarily disagree with this, but I have to stick to my principles, and my principles tell me that this method is wrong. It's not that I disagree with the amendment. It's not that I disagree that we should remove this extra funding from the school, but it has to be done the right way. So I appreciate you reconsidering this, and I hope everyone votes no on it.

Okay. Any other comment or question? We are voting again on the Chandler Amendment as amended, which is to reduce the voluntary portion of the sales tax we're giving up. So as soon as the clerk gets us on the board, we'll be voting on that amendment as amended. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

One yes, 11 no, one abstain.

All right, that amendment fails. We're now on Ordinance 98 as amended. So we're at $1.001. Any further comment or question regarding this ordinance? All right, we are now voting on Ordinance 98, second reading as amended. Every member, please cast your vote. Every member voted. Any member wish to change their vote? Madam Clerk, take the vote.

Seven yes, six no, zero abstain.

The ordinance prevails. Seven to six. Thank you, Lord. All right. We are now ready for public comment. We allow people, three people, five minutes each. Any member of the public wish to address the council? Purpose for which this special session of this Clarksville City Council having been accomplished. I will entertain a motion to adjourn without objection. We're adjourned