City Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you you Thank you. you Bye.

Can you say a word?

Yes. Let us pray. Gracious and eternal creator for all that you've done for us, for the blessings of today, bless us as we deliberate around this table, bless this city of ours as it continues to grow and bloom. We ask it. We claim it in your name. Amen. Amen. Amen.

Good afternoon. So we've more than set the table. Sorry, Mr. Mayor. We've more than set the table on budget. I think today delving into the general fund, you know, is really the meaty part, the bones of the food at the table. And I think some of the things that TOGETHER, BUT REALLY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, WHICH IS FLAT, AND IN A PIECE ‑‑ I GUESS WE DO NEED TO DO THAT NOW. YOU CAN DO IT AT THE TIME OF GOING INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT IF Y'ALL PREFER TO DO IT NOW,

No. You got to read the motion.

You got to read the motion. We want to add Congaree Riverfront District to item two, discussion of negotiations incident to propose contractual arrangements pursuant to 3470. Add unaccompanied minors Finley Park to item four, receipt of legal advice relating to matters covered by attorney-client privilege. 3470 and at discussion of employment of employee office of neighborhood safety engagement under 3470 So that's a motion is there a second second second clerk, could you read the roll?

SO AS FAR AS TODAY, WE'RE PRESENTING A FLAT BUDGET. THAT'S WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO GET THE BUDGET IN BALANCE. GIVES ME A LOT OF PAUSE BECAUSE THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION AROUND THE BUDGET THIS YEAR, I'VE TALKED ABOUT US BEING AT AN INFLATION POINT AND PREPARING AND LIVING IN THE GAP, AS I CONTINUE TO CALL IT, OF WHERE WE KNOW WE'RE GOING, ALL OF THESE THINGS WE ASPIRE TO BE AND WHAT IT REQUIRES TO GET US THERE. SO PRESENTING A FLAT BUDGET IS A BIT UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE OF WHAT ALL IS ON THE HORIZON, THE GROWTH, THE EXCELLENCE THAT WE EXPECT IN STAFFING, THE NEEDS FOR FACILITIES THAT MANY ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY. What we'll do today is take you through the presentation of the revenues and expenditures with the general fund. We'll also be giving you, just for your edification, you know, that we don't get in the weeds with you all during these budget workshops of every script and verse and line of every single budget, but we do have budget overviews for those departments. I know COUNCILMAN JOHNSON AND I IN PARTICULAR HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE BUDGET, THE STAFFING, THE OVERLY FOR HIM AS A FIRST SEATED COUNCILMEMBER DURING A BUDGET PROCESS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS TELLING HIM OVER THE LAST PROBABLY TWO YEARS WITH THIS PREVIOUSLY SEATED COUNCIL, THE PENCILS WERE SHARPENED AND WE ARE ABOUT AS LEAN, IN MY OPINION, AS WE'VE EVER BEEN. BUT IT WAS GOOD WORK BECAUSE WE'RE ALSO AT 87% STAFFING. WE'RE FULL. I mean, that's a really good number for a city our size and for the amount of service delivery that we have. We're not carrying a lot of vacancies anymore. Those that we are carrying, there's probably, well, there are reasons for that that we could attribute to certain things depending on the department. So with all that said... I think we've got to make sure that as we are setting this table, the people at the table and the seats and the chairs are as they should be. And a comp and class study is something that I think would help us with that. It's not probably a traditional look, but it'll be a look that helps us better define the position. OF THE YEARS, AND TANESE ISN'T HERE, BUT SHARON NELSON IS HERE, OUR DEPUTY IN HR, WE'RE FINDING THAT JUST THROUGH THE COURSE OF ATTRITION AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED AS WE ARE GROWING, SOME OF OUR JOB DESCRIPTIONS ARE OUT OF WHACK. AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CAPACITY FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE SEATS ARE WHERE THEY NEED TO BE AND THEY BEST DESCRIBE WHAT A HIGH PERFORMANCE ORGANIZATION REQUIRES OF ITS PEOPLE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TALK ABOUT AS WELL AS WE ARE ABLE TO BUDGET FOR THAT. handouts as well as we move through the budget presentation. Missy Kaufman, our assistant city manager for strategic programs and initiatives, innovation will come forward and we'll get started.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. Thank you, City Council. We are continuing our budget discussions, as Ms. Wilson has highlighted. And today, we're talking about the general fund. We will first talk a little bit about our budget assumptions and what those things that we assume going into as we prepare the budget. Some of this information we've shared with you when we first started our budget workshops and discussions with you. Our revenues, expenditures, property tax and millage rates, and then budget schedule for the remaining topics and remaining funds that are still to be presented. So again, just reminding our strategic focus areas, working on our completion to the next chapter, a lot of things that we have in progress, priority projects have been completed, things that are coming along the way, continuing to invest in our workforce, as Ms. Wilson just mentioned, with regards to refreshing our job descriptions and some other pertinent things related to classification, growth and readiness and helping our departments make sure that they have the resources and tools that they need to provide the services at the level that you all expect and that our citizens are accustomed to. And of course, working on this together as we do collaborate across the organization and with you all. So starting out with our budget assumptions, Ms. Wilson's mentioned and has already described some of the things that this budget presents. Of course, the budget we have before you, we have held, has been balanced, utilizing the FY25-26, our current year, is the budget that we are proposing moving forward into next year, with a few exceptions. A few things to note with regards to the 25-26 budget, in that the 25-26 budget, we absorbed a net of $10 million in increases that were not in previous years. In part, there was a reduction of one-time revenues that had expired, as well as expanding in new services. So those projects are going forward into this coming year, and so that's another contributing factor. in terms of how we are having to hold this current year budget flat to the current or proposed budget flat to the current year. It does maintain our current service levels of course and keeps those things that we have in continuation. It does continue to use a five million dollars in fund balance that is higher than we normally would use. Our typical use of fund balance is around three million and This is not something we would recommend for a longer period. We do have some recommendations for some millage adjustments related to some of the operating and capital needs that have been shared with you, especially from our public safety departments. And then, of course, any long-term capital in some of these bigger projects and longer-term needs will require issuance of additional debt, but also will take time because we'll have to also build the additional debt capacity within our legal limits. Okay. So moving forward, the proposed general fund budget is $203 million. We'll start out with just a little refresh review of the revenues. These are revised from the last materials that we gave you two weeks ago. We have additional reviews looking at current collections and some additional sharpening of our pencil, if you will. So revenues alone that make up part of the $203 million budget, revenues are $106 69.6 million. That is revenue growth of approximately 3.2 million, 4.6 over the current year, specifically with property tax proportion. The Primary sources of revenues, as we've mentioned, have been property taxes and licenses and permits. Business licenses and permits are projecting an increase of 2.7 million or 5.7 percent. Total transfers is 34.2 million. And the reason for that large of an increase is because the current year we only used $4 million in capital lease proceeds. And that was, of course, that was a suspended year just to be able to do the bare minimums of what we needed for our capital replacement program. That's our vehicles, our heavy equipment for police, truck, police, fire, solid waste, forestry, all the heavy equipment users. And so those are lease proceeds. Those are borrowed funds that we use to replace that capital with. And so we're proposing to go back to our 15 million, which is our normal amount that we can fund within our budget constraints to be able to do as a part of our annual replacement cycle. So that's a net increase of 11 million. Without that increase, without that portion, transfers remain relatively flat. So, that's what makes up a total. So, a total increase in the budget and revenues and expenditures is 19.5 million.

Ms. Mayor, a couple questions, Ms. Kaufman. The fines and forfeitures, does that, capture the increased penalties with our parking rates being increased?

This would not include parking at all. Parking would be a separate fund. So this is just what's collected through the municipal court system through criminal court funds.

Okay. And despite, so quit getting them off. We need their money.

Our court funds are probably, are significantly low over the years.

Okay. And despite us only capturing 17% of every dollar for property taxes, property taxes is still our number one revenue driver? That's right.

It is really the primary revenue stream that cities, municipalities have across the state.

Thank you.

So moving on to expenditure drivers, debt service, we have an increase in debt service this year, the additions of the most recent IPRB, as well as just the regular debt service schedules that are reflected this year. Of course, with the moving from $4 million in capital lease proceeds to $15 million in capital proceeds, we, of course, have to reflect that increase in that payment. We only... budget, though, a portion of that for the first year because of the time of issuance and the fact that we pay interest earnings at the first year.

And that's from 4 to 15?

4 million to 15, correct. Mm-hmm. Those are borrowed funds, but the debt service, the payment. Okay. Those are borrowed funds, but the debt service. I'm just going to ask that question. Yes. So those are borrowed funds, but then the payment for those borrowed funds is what is reflected here as a part of the capital lease payment. Of course, we want to continue our police and fire step program that has been very successful in the sense of helping to recruit and retain our employees along with our performance-based merit program. And because that we are proposing a budget that is flat from the current year, of course, we had to reduce department requests by nearly $10 million in order to make this budget balance. We have included $1.5 million in a reserve to be able to help accommodate any requests that are above and beyond what departments are able to support.

You also reserve $1.2 million for 911, so we need to talk about that as well. We will, yes. If I recall our conversation, that's not all year one anyway, correct?

That is more reflective of the operating costs, and so that number is still fluid.

Yeah, and that will really come down to with what we do, correct?

Yes. Mayor, I have a follow-up. Yes, ma'am. With respect to the departmental requests, Requests were cut, but department budgets themselves were not cut.

The requests that they, right, the requests were cut, but the budgets, the department's budgets are in line to what they have in the current. And we also have reflected an increase in our detention, the detention center per diem that we pay to the jail of about $600,000. That is in part We have seen a big escalation in the number of inmate days that stay, so that has been a big impact on us, along with an increase in the per diem that the county has indicated. That in diem is going to 110.

And did we get an explanation for those costs?

So the same explanation that has been is the sense of the cost of operating the jail.

So they presented us a budget and showed us why the increase is on the city? We do not have that information yet.

Do we know if they increased the daily rate for the other municipalities in the county? All are proposed.

And the factor of the 600,000 is as much a factor of the fact of what we're seeing in regards to inmates per day. The jail population has been increasing. Actually, it should be the jail population. It's the number of days somebody is in jail has increased.

But did the $600,000 increase? It increased? Yes, sir. From what to what?

We were budgeting, we were originally budgeting 700,000, I believe, and we have bumped it to 1.4. We were budgeting 800 in the current year. We bumped it to 1.4. Last year, we paid 955.

And last year, that was with the per diem had not kicked in.

Correct. And those are city inmates?

Those are inmates arrested, yes, yes, those are.

Can we point to why the average daily stay or why it's longer? Bond reform.

Do they charge us a day even if, let's say, somebody got arrested early in the morning and they're out by 2, do we still get a day?

Yes. On city offenses. It seems to be longer stays, too. It is longer stays with bond reform.

Mm-hmm. Longer stays are because we're not processing and trying and pleading cases. And people don't want them to get by until they got sent to jail. Yeah. It's a mixture.

You know, the solicitor only calls cases that they can easily win.

Okay. Any other questions?

I did have a question about, and this may have been the question that the mayor asked about budget reserve of $1.5 million for this year. Correct. What was it last year? Is it the same as last year?

$207,000. But normally, yes, about $200,000.

No, no.

I mean, it's still. I mean, that's part of why we were able to use $5 million in the next year budget as a surplus is because things like that have not been.

Maybe touch upon right now. I know it'll come up later about when we're talking about advertisement, but also the request from the county for the fire millage and the race in it.

Yes, ma'am. Thank you. That's correct. So I don't know if it was already shared with council, but Richland County, it was shared during the fire advisory committee that the county would wish to take the fire service fee from $2 to $5. There's various rates in there, but the primary rate is from $2 to $5, and they have shared with us that request on the ordinance. The fire service ordinance, of course, is adopted and passed by city council. Those charges are then applied to water and sewer bills. So that will be part of the public hearing notice that goes out tomorrow as well.

Is that portion just for... Richland County or is it broken down with Irmo, Lexington?

To all the, well, for Irmo and Richland and then a portion, small portion of Lexington that's in our fire district.

So the request just comes from Richland County to increase proportionate to all of them? Yes. Gotcha. Thank you.

Since, of course, that's the vast majority of the customers, or the service base. I mean, it's not all of IRMO's fire service.

Okay.

So, as pointed out, the various increases in the departments, what we haven't still included, already mentioned with regards to those items that are reflected as increases in the next year budget. for that make up the $203 million, with, of course, the largest portion of that increase being associated with the capital lease proceeds. So $11 million of the $19 million is borrowed funds. Okay. Any other questions about the proposed budget? Okay. Of course, public safety, putting out that public safety make up the majority of our budget. our budget and also noting that property taxes alone don't cover the public safety departments.

And the graph that you have, public safety, that just includes police, fire, 911, emergency communication, emergency management, municipal court? Correct.

I'm sorry.

All the departments that are not listed there. So, I see, like, for example, you have community development services. Right. That would be economic development, community development?

Correct. So, general government. No, general is community development and homeless services. Economic development is not reflected here. That's in a different fund.

Okay.

So, general government includes HR, administration, IT, human resources, legal.

Public other support services.

Well, like back of the house, I would describe it. Most of our internal services, back of the house departments.

Okay. So, of course, priorities that we have set for funding based on prior conversations subject to funding is continuation discussions of the expanded litter control. These are items that are not included in this proposed budget, but, of course, are priorities for funding availability. General capital projects, so the general capital projects for the general fund include those things that would be our parks, our city facilities, roads and sidewalks for the roads that are city roads, of course. Police and fire stations, anything that's responsibility of the general fund.

But isn't half of this year's budget will be supplemented for roads from our roads plan that is approved in the penny? It starts kicking in on 27, which is six months from now.

Right. So those things are there, but then we also still have some other smaller road rebuild things, but then also two sidewalks. So those requests that come through.

Our road build plan includes all of our roads. All of our roads, yeah.

So that, again, a new municipal court facility, the animal services facility that's been discussed. Probably what also is not listed there, but our fleet facility expansion and the ability to be able to improve our fleet facility.

Well, I think as we talk about animal services, I think the one thing we have to decide is can we continue with the arrangement that we have?

Mm-hmm.

Number one, number one is the majority of the animals that come through there aren't within the city limits. And is that cost need to be adjusted? Secondly, about 1,800 animals a year were supposed to be picked up by the Palmetto Lifeline and is not happening, getting those fosters out. So those are additional costs. And we need to understand how that's going to work. moving forward. They're not following through on the obligation they committed to, which is another problem, which is increased cost to us. Third thing, I really, from a standpoint of a design, I don't know how we can talk about design and construction of a new facility if we don't know are we going to continue in the relationship. There's a lot of pressure from community activists and other folks for us to get to a no-kill. We can't be a no-kill as long as we have the influx of animals that we have. It's impossible. So I think part of the discussion needs to be, as we're looking long-term, do we want to continue in the relationship that we have? Number two, is there an opportunity for us to locate in a pre-existing building and do... design and rebuild in there versus ground up construction. And meaning that at this point, you know, when you look at what we did with wastewater on Beltline and how that helped in that corridor, is there a corridor in the city that there's an opportunity for us to do something similar that would allow us also to have a as well because I do think if you look at other cities who have moved it more into a retail situation they see an uptick in fostering help and then adoptions have increased because it's a much more retail atmosphere I don't know how to describe it any other way so I do think we got a lot of things to talk about as we move that but we need to flush some of this out Because we don't need to spend a lot of money on design and construction documents if we don't know what we're doing yet.

How does the county play into this, Mayor?

Well, we contract with them, I believe. I don't know if we've gone up, what the rates are. I mean, I think all of that we need to understand. I know the majority of the animals do come from the county, which is, like the jail, we got costs, right? So we need to talk about it.

Just a quick note. If the real estate, the brick and mortar is a slow grind to find financing, what's the near term for increases in shelter staff? Is there anything that that would significantly help us towards the no-kill status, just the overall operation? Maybe an easier landing pad. I don't know. $2 million just to design it, if there's some near-term solutions that we can maybe look at.

So there are. The Public Works and Animal Services had proposed in their budget request some additional staffing related to enrichment-type activities that help during the adoption period and that would help obviously promote some of the adoptability of the dogs and being able to promote some of those things. But, of course, they're not reflected here.

So you look at the return on investment, I guess. a long ways with the adoptions and really getting where the advocates really want us to get.

They have a pretty strong volunteer program that is obviously out. My employees is out a lot and then other folks are out a lot doing, taking doggy day outs and doing different things to get the pets out in the community that are up for adoption.

I'm not convinced about the $30 million number either to do a build out, particularly if these discussions continue where we're making a separation from the county or however it may be. Um, the footprint would, I would imagine it would change significantly, but even if it, even if we don't separate, I'm not convinced about the $30 million number. So I'm looking at Robert. Um, so we need to do a little more homework on that, but either way, and we'll get to this, it would be a part of, um, I mean, one of the facilities is going to talk about an IPRB for facilities and at which point in which year would we deal with this. So it gives us a little more time to have these discussions if that's the direction y'all are saying to figure out do we stay the same with the relationship or not.

I'm curious if there's an existing building, a warehouse, for a lot cheaper.

Gregory talks a lot to Tucker about the successes that maybe not just with animal services. We've talked about it with some of the other facilities needs we have. When you look at a vacant big box location, because the parking is good, it gives you that retail front. And maybe if it's in the right corridor, but for animal services, maybe it could be something that really gives a more friendly atmosphere and if it's up fit the right way. And I do think the cost sometimes is better to do that.

Most of the animals are coming from the county, right? Is that correct, Missy? Two-thirds. How much? Two-thirds. Almost two-thirds, 60-some-odd percent. I guess my concern is primarily what's the buy-in for the county? We're looking at what we can do for the city. What about the county? How much of a buy-in? How much of that can we collaborate with the city to forge a kind of new experience as it relates to dogs and animals?

We can get that information. So do we charge a fee? We do. We do. We charge. They do pay us.

No per diem, though.

No per diem.

Per day.

Per night.

That is the best per day.

And that's with three quarters of the dollars coming in from the county.

What's the rate? It's not 110. Huh? It's not 110.

What's the rate?

We need to know what the rate versus the cost is. I mean, clearly that's the analysis that they ran on the jail. We haven't seen it, but I'm assuming that's what they've done is that we've got to increase. We're passing it on to the customer. Everything is going up. If 67% of it, our cost should be going down, not up. That's the problem.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, go ahead.

So great questions, great discussion. I think the, so Richland County also does not participate in the adoption program. So they bring the animals and we hold them for, when the mandatory hold is up, they're not paying any more. So we absorb all the costs for the adoption of those animals, whether or not they're.

We absorb the cost for the kill?

Yes, sir. Who put that agreement together? So, long-standing agreement, but after they go past their mandatory hold time to adopt those animals and implement the no-kill, we're absorbing the adoption cost, that additional hold time. No-kill. No-kill, yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

You just said something. The way the contract's structured and they have not had interest in participating in the adoption program.

We renegotiate that contract?

I think we've got one more year on the contract.

But is the no-kill program a volunteer program that we as a city believe in?

It is. It is. I mean, it's not mandatory.

With us, like when they brought those hundreds of pit bulls in there and they all had to be, and that's where we caught a lot of flack from the community, we absorbed all that cost. They didn't.

After we hold them for three days, Robert? Five or 14. Okay, right, yeah.

So, I mean, the math doesn't make sense. We're absorbing costs for animals that aren't ours. So either we make a contract that makes sense. Well, yeah, I mean, that makes a big difference in what you can build, what comes in. you know if we choose no kill then we need to get them to be on board with the no kill and there's a cost associated if it's not then we those animals that are are unfortunately disposed of then there's a cost for that too i mean we should be absorbing it on both sides and doesn't that impact our no kill numbers right so no question the volume yeah yes sir we'd be in no kill shelter if we didn't take animals from the county and and And that was what some of the activists said, well, you know, maybe y'all shouldn't be doing a contract with them and y'all could be a no-kill shelter.

So that's some of the history.

Yeah, but we're paying up-to-date rates. We pay for three hots and a cot every day. I mean, that's on us to... They're paying for three, five, or 14 days, and then I'm not absorbing. Every cost associated with the jail, we're absorbing. We're paying that. That's why our rate's going up 60% or whatever it is. Which is fine. I mean, the cost of the cost, but let's put them on the table. It's just got to be, you know, we can't be absorbing, constantly absorbing on the other side.

Mayor, you mentioned the Palmetto contract. We get reports every month on how many, and go back and forth with Richland County, give them reports on how many animals Palmetto has pulled They're close to the contractual. Since the 1800s, if I remember. Nowhere close to that number.

And that's a contract based on the funding that they received. So I guess we need to have probably a real conversation with them as to why they're not doing that.

And the contract is between Palmetto and Richland County, and we have encouraged Richland County to have that conversation on multiple occasions. So absolutely doing that. You mentioned, several mentioned the facility and the nature of the facility. The initial planning study that we did looked at converting a big box store. That has some complications because of the waste issues that you have with a shelter versus building it that way from scratch. Not to say that can't be reevaluated.

Jack Hammer goes a long way, Clint.

Yes. And I'm a sewer guy, so I understand some of these things. Just don't charge us enough. Any other, I mean, we'll try to get some of these answers as well. I think it's a good discussion.

I think with everything going on and everybody understanding where, I mean, every city's having conversations right now. I mean, other cities are talking about franchise fees and other things because, you know, their understanding services are being used by different organizations and different folks, much like I believe that, you know, we should be looking at public safety needs to somehow come in on a penny sales tax or something to take all this because how many times can we keep taxing the same people? The other question becomes in a discussion here in the future is we're still the land of a lot of nonprofits and non-taxpaying entities. Should there be a service fee directed at them? That's 34% of the property here that's active, right? So what does that look like? I mean, we still have churches who have blocks and blocks of land that aren't payable, but we're paying for all the upkeep, essentially. We're paying for the trash pickup. We're paying for, you know, code enforcement. We're paying for fire protection, et cetera.

I think we should send that to the Economic Development Committee to do a study. Sounds good. I mean, I'm just saying, I think we've got to look at a way to build up a little more equity across the board. But it's time to look at it because there's stuff going on. So there's so much activity going on. You have to look at stuff today that you might not have looked at five years ago. So I think we have to look at these kinds of situations. graph. This is an opportunity to look at the reality of our future and the present.

A couple weeks ago, I think it might have been our first budget discussion, we were talking about FIRE and I don't know, it was an education meeting, we were talking about USC and the fee that they pay towards FIRE. They don't pay it. IN LIGHT OF THAT, THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY DID PAY. I WOULD BE CURIOUS IN THAT CONVERSATION, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW IF THERE ARE, IF THERE IS SOME REVENUE THAT WE ARE GETTING If it's not property taxes, if it's not some of the other fees that a private sector entity or a citizen would pay, I'd love to know what those are. And I'd love to have that be a part of the conversation. If they're not, then I think we've got to really look at it.

Well, and I think this brings up exactly what other communities are looking at and doing, which is, and this is, you know, they're putting a vacancy tax out there for people who are just sitting on property and not developing it and using it created into a tax base. And as we all know, we have a large amount of lots, and most of those have been empty for decades. So maybe that's something we need to think about too, is vacancy stacks where you're pushing people to start either developing it, selling it, doing something so that... 2,100 empty lots across the city would generate some funding, some non-taxpaying entities paying into what I would call the service side of the property tax, meaning public safety and other, which is the bulk, helping offset that. You know, I think we've got to start looking at these different. We can't just go, well, you know, I think we should raise the mills because that just hits the same people who've been paying. It also hurts growth, in my opinion. Sorry.

When was the last time you raised our millage?

2009.

The value of our mill has gone up. You've got to remember that.

And respectfully, I do, I mean, I'm not pushing back on anything you are saying because we can definitely take hard looks again. But we wouldn't bring you the options about millage without having done our homework on all the other things multiple times over the years. So we have. opinions from Bernie Maybank. We have opinions from the AG. We have run the gamut on what are the options out there. There's a few. I think the insurance issue with FIRE, which in the grand scheme of things, I don't think that's a huge, you know, cause for recovery. But I'll let Missy kind of run down the list because we knew this would come up. So we're going to have to, you know, we'll do it again, but I can't promise we're going to get the answer, which is very interesting because yesterday we were at this chamber event, and it's amazing that even, you know, people in the room yesterday, that this whole conversation right here is totally getting lost because at the end of that exercise, which was really great with the futurists they had, the people in the room are prioritizing the things they should, like infrastructure, HAPPENED IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS TO MAKE SURE THAT'S SUCCESSFUL, AND THE THINGS THEY'RE SAYING LIKE WORKFORCE HOUSING, OKAY, ABSOLUTELY, YES, YES, YES, BUT THE ROOT CAUSES OF HOW TO PAY FOR THOSE THINGS, THAT DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE LIST. I MEAN, IT'S JUST NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE LIMITATIONS THAT ARE BEING PLACED ON GOVERNMENT, CITY AND COUNTY. COUNTY HAS A FEW MORE OPTIONS MAYBE, BUT THE REALITY IS IT'S NOT THAT EASY TO SIT HERE

things are getting paid for. A lot of it's being paid for by visitors and a thousand different fees and other that. I mean, I think we just got to look at it. My only hesitation is that it's the same people paying the same amount all the time. And the reality is there's Yes, we know things are coming off the tax roll, so we need to understand that too. What's the 10-year student housing thing starting to creep off? How much more is that asking? What does that look like? The third part to that is if we have these lots and other things, what does that look like? Because I do think pushing a vacancy lot to get people, I mean, right now, if somebody's only paying $300 or $400 on a residential, what's their incentive to do anything with it, right? But there's a cost associated with that. That's increased crime, that's dumping, and all of that, which we are paying for. You know, I think we also, I mean, it's time for us to really look at everything. Our solid waste team does a hell of a job, but they pick up everything and anything for everybody. At what point do we say, wait a minute, we're not taking your whole living room, right? These landlords that are allowed to evict and put it out, they should be paying for that pickup. We should not be paying for that. That is a business. They are making income. That is a cost of business. That isn't a homeowner who's doing a resident. We try to give the homeowners a blip because they take the bulk and then obviously our business community the same way. You look at the small business guys. We can't keep adding stuff to them.

I just want to follow up on Mr. Johnson's comment with USC. They do pay stormwater. They don't contribute to, but I have no idea what those numbers are. Are we talking similar numbers or are they negligible? I'm the kind of person that I would need to know, does that even even out?

Well, stormwater only goes to the stormwater fund, so it doesn't help us anywhere else. To me, it's irrelevant conversation.

Well, and that too. But again, but you see what I'm saying? If we're saying that there are exchanges that we consider We need to know what the dollar amounts are for those.

You're asking the cost to serve at the university from a buyer perspective. Yeah.

And just to be clear, so for me, it wasn't just the university. I was using them as a large entity that doesn't pay. Well, I still use that. But what are all the other similar situated large nonprofits all the way down the scale. And what's the opportunity for us to get something, some type of fee or something that helps us to be able to...

It's balancing the value-added services that we provide versus the needs of these different organizations. I think that's the... One of us is going to make that committee. It's got to be that balance.

It is a balance. It's a balance. Everything's a balance. And I'm...

TALKING ABOUT STUFF. BUT THE ANSWER IS, AS THINGS DEVELOP IN THE CITY, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT THINGS. THERE'S A TIME AND A PLACE TO LOOK AT STUFF. THIS IS A MATERIAL MOMENT IN THE CITY'S GROWTH. AND WE HAVE And you have to accept the challenge, the responsibility, the opportunity that you have when you have it.

Even to push it legally then. So, again, I hear you loud and clear. We've asked that question a few times.

Yes, we've done, obviously, as mentioned, several different legal evaluations, even going so far as to taking to our delegation a request to consider the ability to seek some relief from state law regarding ability for cities to charge revenues to non-tax entities for cost services.

We have short-term financial solutions and long-term financial solutions that would take a Vacancy tax, every, you know, what you're talking about.

We can do our own. There's nothing prohibiting us in state law from doing it.

But those properties are taxed now and they pay the tax.

You can charge a vacancy fee.

And we have a vacancy property registry. as well, some of those items. So it's just a matter of whether those coincide. But correct, Council Member Brennan, in the sense of some of these topics are certainly longer conversations. The one thing that we did come out of like some of these discussions in recent years and sort of a summary of some of what those look like was after we had those conversations about a possible fee, if you will, for nonprofit entities which caused a lot of concern from certain areas, but it was deemed not legal. But what we did do was the business license approach. So we were able to go after those four taxed entities that say lease space from a non-taxed entity. We did collect, I think, assume about $2 million in revenue over that period of time. That was from 2020 to now.

There's some sort of fire fee on water bills, right?

That's the fire fee that we just mentioned for Murchison County. That fee goes, but we also have a fire millage that the county collects on our behalf. So we're sort of, as far as fire services... I don't know that I can answer that question.

Because the way things are exempt is very loose. I mean, you can fill out a form, and sometimes if the form's there or not, I mean, there's not a checks and balances in this system. And we all know a property in town that's been bought by nonprofits, used for a while, and then now has become an income driver. And, you know, I can't say that the income goes to the mission. Sure. I don't believe that's what the Constitution was written around.

So that was part of the conversations that we've had as well in the sense of those properties that are probably taxed. Now, I know that, you know, obviously when you move and somebody's not the primary residence, it changes from the 4% to 6%, but some of those other factors. Of course, that would be an approach we would have to take with the county and have additional discussions. To my knowledge, non-tax entities are not part of the assessment.

I think it's something we should talk to. It benefits the county just as much. Have we gone in and audited these non-taxpaying properties, and are they still in the status? I mean, money is money, right? I mean, if it's owed to us, we should be collecting it. Bottom line is I think we all agree. I mean, our funding needs, and we're limited with what we have, but are there other opportunities, and do we need to push the envelope a little bit? We might have to.

In some cases, we certainly have, but there are a few things, some of the things that have been mentioned a little bit that are still an option, but not on the city's behalf solely, such as the capital tax. which would be another one-cent tax that would have to be approached by the county as well.

I wish we could have got it in the statehouse this year where cities could have done it because it would be nice to have control over our own penny. Correct.

So that's at least a three-year process for something like that and a minimum to take place because it wouldn't go on a referendum and

ON THE VARIOUS TAX PROPERTIES AND TAX EXEMPT PROPERTIES BACK, WHAT WAS THAT, 2018, 2019? Since that time, the county has a new tax assessment system. They're also a different tax assessor. It'll be worth having the discussion. We'll bring back to EDI as requested, taking a look at all of our current tax exempt properties. The list will be somewhat similar to what we had a few years ago, but we can take a look at that. I have noticed in their new tax system or in their updated system, I believe they have values out there for a lot of the properties. So we could actually make some estimates of what it would actually look like. But also we can talk with the county assessor on what they're doing currently looking at tax exempt properties as far as from an audit purpose just looking back at it whether you know everyone that I don't know what they do for everyone that maybe applies for homestead or is getting tax exempt or anything else so it'll be good for us to understand what they're doing but then also part of that some of those tax exempt properties don't necessarily run directly through the county assessor it runs through department of revenue so I think y'all had discussions or some of us did about four years ago with DOR, so it might be worth just having a new discussion.

That's a very loose system.

Yes, well, your word is not mine. That's why 1801 didn't pay property tax. So it'll be worth having a discussion, a renewed discussion with them on how they audit the tax-exempt properties that come through them each year.

Mr. Mayor? Yes. I mean, it sounds like we do need to take some action. If we're going to consider a millage hike, I think we really need to take some action. direct action on any other revenue drivers we can make, whether that's fees on nonprofits, looking at what the universities are paying. I think everything needs to be on the table. Then we can always take it off.

So some of that we do have Attorney General opinions on, Bernie Maybank opinions.

And Attorney General's opinions. Those aren't binding. I'm sorry. I'm so sorry. The way you hopped on that, that was very quick.

I'm so sorry that I laughed so quickly. I wasn't ready.

So we certainly are open to any, because we obviously, staff, we certainly appreciate Columbia is home to a lot of nonprofits and a lot of non-tax entities. That is without a doubt. The statistic we've given you is that about 30% of the market value of our properties are non-taxed. The largest chunk of those that we found when we did our assessment in 2019 are homestead exemptions. And so proportionally, again, that comes down to that's a time matter. Many of the items that we've brought before you are more immediate, not that they are without merit for evaluation and consideration. Because obviously we've been having these conversations and have taken to heart the request from city council, have done quite a bit of research and evaluations. And of course, not all of our evaluations has been on revenue streams, but has also been on how we've evaluated our budget costs and what we've done. We implemented, we were... I was invited to do some zero-based budgeting many years ago. We did that. We have narrowed our budget down to where we are spending our budget now versus leaving a lot back on the table. Some of that also came from revenues coming in. As you've seen from some of the information we've given you, our revenues are coming in fairly tight to what we projected. as well as expenses, which means that that gap between surpluses is getting narrower and narrower. budget information? Yes. That's what we've proposed.

And that's a flat budget concept, right? Correct. All right.

Thank you. We also have obviously taken advantage of it with regards to some of the tourist costs. We do include in the general fund budget a $4 million allocation from hospitality tax and $1 million from tourism development fee. So there is a portion of this budget that is tourism-based. I think we're still going. We need to pause. Of course, just a reminder, we live within Act 388, the gift that keeps on giving, with regards to how much we're capped with regards to the growth that we actually see in our property taxes. And making a point, too, it's not that we don't see growth in our property tax base. It is, I mean, 4.6% is not unsubstantial in regards to property tax collections. It's just that it's not keeping up with the level of cost that we have incurred. Just another example or demonstration with regards to the property tax bill. The city's portion of the property tax bill is less than 17% of the total millage.

What's projected if we increased the millage?

It'd be still about the same.

It would be the same. We don't get any more. We get less in Richland, too. More like 15%. Correct.

And the reason I ask that is that there, I mean, you can count the number of property owners in the city, and you see a millage increase. Correct. Related to property.

Yes, sir.

And if it's going to stay, it's going to stay at 17%.

Well, the total value, the total millage that a property owner pays, only 17% of that is the city's. Even with a millage adjustment, we would still be within that 17%.

We just haven't been taking advantage of increasing the millage that the citizens pay.

Correct. Because every time we do three-year assessment, we roll back our taxes to lower.

We're getting it on the value of the mill without having to double. I mean, and that's part of what we try to do is an advantage for people because we're already at a... a non-competitive tax rate in the state.

And, of course, the portion, you know, the revenue number that we're quoting you as projection from our property tax is also inclusive of both property taxes that are paid as well as lost credit. So that's what makes up that total $77 million. So, you know, a portion of that is the local option sales tax. So it's also paid by non-tax entities, if you will.

That makes sense. Okay. I think I have a Jeff question. Do you have your calculator on you? Okay. All right. So looking at page seven, where the mill increases, what would, let's say a homeowner, $250,000. Right there. Oh, it's right there. Look at that. It's not in the packet. It's on the packet? Yes.

It was in a previous... It was in some previous material, maybe.

Okay, so, good work, Jeff. Good job.

Good job, Jeff.

That's the question, everyone. That's the question. Thank you, Jeff.

Yeah, so, to the mayor's point, the value of a mill is $790. I do recall it's been 690. Trying to think of how long it took to get to 790. We had a big, the last reassessment, we had a fairly, I did not include that assessment chart that we gave you last time, but looking at our last assessment value, it went to 711. And so, it was an 80% jump in assessment. It was significant.

That's not right.

I don't remember 80. What was 80%? Assess values themselves.

On average, since the last time, an increase. There was a couple neighborhoods who said their values had gone down, but if you go look at the value, they actually went up by 56% over the last five years.

Oh, here it is. Yeah. Assessments went from 711 to 791 million. That was fairly large. Before that, it was 677. But that was in the reassessment. So property taxes were rolled back.

Let me add one thing since you all Talk about local option sales tax. I want people to understand the impact of that. So this year's budget, his past year was 72 million. Of that $72 million of the city's property tax, almost 30 million of that is covered by the local option sales tax. So that means our citizens, our business owners aren't paying the full 72 million. That means they're only paying about 42 million of that. And the sales tax as collected pays the other roughly $30 million. And this year will be roughly the same amount as well.

Thanks for making my point. Okay.

I think that is a very important point to understand because in other communities.

You've got to be clear. The residents, the other folks are paying that fee. The 6% are paying. We're not getting the credit for the 6%.

No, they are. No, every property gets a credit. Every 6% property. At the same rate. Yes, it is. It's the exact same rate.

The factor is applied to any property tax bill, not even vehicles and real property, regardless if it's a resident, a non-resident, a commercial.

We calculate the factor every year and have to send it in to the county auditor. And it is applied. So it is applied to the market value of the property, not the assessed value of the property. So a $100,000 property is going to get the exact same sales tax credit, whether it is a 6% property or a 4% property. The difference is a 6% property still is paying higher property taxes because they're not getting the other credits and they have a higher assessment. But they're still getting the same amount of sales tax. So is a percent of what is paid on the exact same property? Yes, the 6% property owner is paying. They're not getting the same percent as much, but they're getting the exact same credit they would for the fair market value of the property.

But they're not getting the same credit value. is the homeowner. Because the assessed value of a $500,000 home and a $500,000 piece of property and the tax rate that goes with it with the relief that comes from those credits is not equal. It's about an $8,000 difference.

It is, but that's on the property tax side. But the credit that's calculated... But the credit will still be the same. It'll be $500 for either. It's just that one has a higher starting tax bill.

So the examples that are provided are based on a 4% or 6% assessment. Of course, that doesn't reflect, there are some other factors there as well. I would point out, too, that each mill, some of the revenue streams that we have talked about and we've mentioned, the revenue options from those are... much, I would say vary, but are much less generating revenue than a property tax mill. Any questions about this information? Jeff, you may want to talk about this one too, but just I know it's been discussed in the past about this is just as we've talked about how our growth in revenues, this is probably more of a demonstration of the impact of our 17%, but just kind of pointing out that as First so this is an example of the estimated property tax grade from an incentive project if you look at the the as properties roll off the different tax years as they roll off and they start to become on our tax rolls and then you can see the value of of what those new projects also contribute. So looking at 27, 2027, we're talking about, and these are assumed in estimates, a million dollars, of which the largest portion of those would be from those three taxes. And of course, the other part of that is that this represents, I can't remember if this represents this, what we would get are just the 17%, Jeff. This is what we get. This is what we get. So those are significant, those are based on some fairly significant investment potentials. We would need however many of those just to be able to generate what we're talking about in regards to a mill.

So that's sort of the comparison that we're making. But in that, what you've got there is what's, you're saying existing and potential new projects? Right.

There are some new projects that we've passed in the last few

Those would just be the early years.

Most of those won't start paying their first property tax for probably two to three years out.

So they should be in year 2030.

Yeah, we'll update these as they start going through. Because the important part will be the first year that they pay it, they'll be paying most of those around 50%, but then 10 years later is when they double. So that's the...

And also, too, this is part of what is contributing to the fact that property taxes are projected at a 5% increase.

I'd be curious to know what could be generated from the empty properties. I think that's a really good one. Either in a vacancy or if it turned either commercial or residential, what the potential is sitting there. I mean, 2,100 lots is a significant amount. I'm going to repeat it a thousand times because I just think we've got to do something at that level to encourage that growth.

Moving on, with regards to some millage adjustments, just discussions around what would be included in the budget. what we're proposing, of course, it's still subject to conversation, what we propose or what we'd fund out of a millage adjustment. So five mills, which is what has been suggested, starting out at, would generate about $3.7 million. We'd be able to add in some of the expanded litter control discussions, some of the lease and fire capital needs that have been expressed, as well as looking at the assessments for the adjusted... amount that was requested for the animal shelter drawings and that assessment, of course that would be subject to the conversations you all have had today. Um, But those are just some of the minimum things that we'd be able to cover or include with that additional revenue. And, of course, going from there upwards to 7 mils would be all of those same investments along with looking at some capital additions. Our capital lease program only covers those things that are really replacement. There are, of course, some capital needs that we have that are not replacements. They are actual some of the additions.

Those capital additions come out of... general fund requests that we see day in and day out on agendas? Yes.

Some of the, for instance, like still moving towards our one police officer, one car, some of that type of equipment that we're not able to incorporate in the budget.

That's fire, CPD, and public works?

Yes. Primarily, yes. There are some requests, I think, in some of our parks divisions with some additional heavy equipment, like mowing equipment and things like that for grounds maintenance. Of course, moving from there, we have had, obviously, and you'll see in some of the materials that you'll get later on with the department's request, some of the things that we're not including with regards to some of the technology upgrades. That includes either some expanded technology upgrades programs or some new utilization, as well as this is where we would start to contemplate additional debt for some of the capital projects.

What is that IPRB total?

The IPRB, so it would vary based on which of the mills, and of course it's also still subject to our ability to borrow that debt within our legal limits, but it's upwards of $100 million.

Based at the 10 mills?

We would have to look at the 17 mils probably to get within the 100. I think what was the estimated debt on 100 mil?

I have to say there's a lot of factors that go into that, but we'll estimate that around 7 million a year.

Yes. And, of course, we have to build up the borrowing capacity to get to some of those levels over time. But then some of that would also be able to address some capital with cash as opposed to borrow, perhaps. That's one of the main areas where our budget is deficient. Capital.

I guess we mentioned it, but the other... I GUESS CRITICAL POINT ABOUT THIS YEAR IS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE ROLLED OFF THAT WE'RE NOW HAVING TO ABSORB, IF WE ABSORB, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE ARPA DOLLARS, THIS WILL BE THE FIRST BUDGET YEAR WITHOUT. SECOND. THIS WILL BE THE SECOND.

YEAH, THAT WAS WHAT, 25, 26, THE NET $10 MILLION ADJUSTMENTS WERE. BUT WE ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE USED A LOT MORE OF FUND BALANCE. IT'S NOT REALLY SUSTAINABLE. WE HAVE... RESERVES. YES, RESERVES.

SAFETY AND ENGAGEMENT WHILE THOSE ARBOR DOLLARS ARE GONE AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE BUDGET HAS ALLOCATED REALLY HALF THE YEAR FOR THEM. IS THERE A PLAN? BECAUSE I KNOW TOP PUBLIC SAFETY IS A TOP PRIORITY AND I VIEW VIOLENCE PREVENTION ENGAGEMENT RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE

So the reason why it's part-time, partial this year is because those funds expire in December. So that office is still funding with ARPA through December. And then after that, it's picked up in the general fund. All right. And then moving on from there, just kind of in closing, of course, we're, you know, holding department's budgets to current year levels, knowing that we are, you know, holding the line there. Of course, we are anticipating direction from city council. I would ask or go ahead and move forward just to sort of keep us also with regards to where we are schedule-wise. We have to advertise this budget tomorrow. So, today is your last meeting before we advertise. How we distribute within those advertised amounts are possibly still some discussions. I'd also point out that next week you have another budget workshop. That one is going to be inclusive of those funds we have not gotten to yet, and that would be water, sewer, stormwater, parking, but also bringing back special revenues, and those would be the items that we've talked about with you before with regards to the committee. We also do plan for the two accommodations tax groups to present. That would be Lake Murray Tourism and the Convention Center. So they will also be coming back next week.

Missy, I know there's always a question because the council, of course, when we can, in the years that we can, likes to do some type of community promotions. So do you want to talk about that a little bit?

This budget does include $100,000 for community community promotion or community council-directed activities that often come to you. They're not designated for anything specific at this point. We will bring to you a list of requests that we've received so far. These would be requests that would not qualify for our special revenues of accommodations tax or hospitality, but we would We know that city council is often asked and considered certain requests. I know the commercial revolving and retention program, that is something that has been of interest to city council. This budget does not contemplate additional funds for that program. So these funds could be used for something like that. $100,000 is not a lot, but it's not nothing. Okay.

And I think it has to also be administered, you know, $100,000 is, you know, you have to have a NOFA and maybe say put it out there. It's $5,000 awards or $10,000 if that's the direction that you all want to go because it would have to stretch.

We'd have to stretch unless we wanted to do some additional adjustments. We also have accommodations tax funding, the 5% funding that y'all have used, and that's similar to Compassion, that pass it as well. So that would add to it. So that would bring it up to about $200,000.

A couple thoughts. Number one, obviously we have to advertise our budget number. That budget number can't go up, but it can go down, and we can switch things with internally, so we still have a lot of discussions. Our long-term needs are not today's needs. They're really about we need to be planning over the next year to come up with a real plan because we don't know exactly what all those numbers are. I mean, there's still a lot of work. We've got estimates and we've got priorities. And I think we've got to really dig down into that. And we've got to take a hard look at two, at our city functions. What are the critical functions that we have? And are some of the functions still relevant today than they were before? And I think everybody has that same outlook. Long-term, looking at our assets, as we know that we're going to be disposing of this and that, what are those costs associated with that? And what are the costs for the new combined? Now we're going to have staff for the most part, in a building and we have police department emergency services in a building, what does that look like when we get rid of six buildings that we don't have to take care of and others? How does that play into this conversation? Do we need, you know, as we're trying to turn these empty lots and these assets that we have, well, what else is still out there? You know, is it time for us to look at how do we set up development corps to be on their own? You know, they've got assets and stuff that we're still funding. That's $1.5 million annually. I think we've got to look at everything under the sun before we just automatically say we're going to raise. Look, we know we're going to need revenue in the future. How that's generated, I think we've got to look at it. Nothing's off the table. I think that needs to be clear. Everything is on the table. But what makes the most sense...

To your point, though, I think there's a difference between the budget on basic services and then capital needs. So we've got to be able to take these and separate them and then, like you said, plan for the long-term needs of the city. but also balance the, to Ed's point, we've got to balance, you know, the cost versus the needs versus the priorities versus, you know, so $10 million, sorry to say this, $10 million for public safety is different than $10 million for animal control. We have to be able to think about these things and the level of priorities and look at what we're going to do over the next decade. And I think if we... Jeff and I have already discussed that today, putting together some type of revenue projections for the next 10 years, and then look at what will be the cost projections for the next 10 years, and there should be some inflection point where your costs will start revenue at some point. And then at that point, we can look at the cost-benefit analysis and ability to borrow for capital and fund capital improvements.

Well, I also think we don't have to be, we always talk about funding ourselves. There's a reason why cities and states and other folks are doing P3s. We need to run the trap on everything. Right. And that may be a legislative issue here. We need to talk about that and what the workarounds and so forth. But, I mean, there's a reason why people are not building. There's a reason why Austin has a new city hall that they saved 22% on, right? Because they didn't have to run through their own procurement processes and everything else, and they leased back. There's a reason why the state's getting rid of their buildings and going into, because of the cost of maintenance. We just, this is our time. But I think developing a plan that can be executed over the next three, five, seven, and ten years will give us an outlook. How do we address the $175 estimated million for fire? And how long does it take? Yeah, well, because it's not just going to be the buildings we've got to think about. Look, scheduling is changing, and the need for, as we're growing more firemen, more police officers, more cameras, more that, we've got to build more. build that in.

That's a really good point there, talking about, you know, I mean, the question is, do you really want to own a firehouse or do you want someone else to build one and lease it from them? You know, those are questions that I think we've got to ask ourselves.

Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. We've looked at some of the buildings before and it didn't make sense, but other places it has. And I think, you know, we're at that crossroads and I think we've got to look at everything, but we also, you know, God, if they just paid $1,000 a year in property tax, that's $2.1 million we're cutting the number, right? But you've got to think, how many of those are commercial that we'd be paying a lot more that we'd be netting, right? I don't know.

So a lot of our needs, of course, are long-term, but we do have, obviously, some immediate needs. What are the immediate needs or not? Bond? Things that we would cover with bond proceeds? or other borrowed funds that continue to, of course, impact our ability to fund. Most of our increases in the budget go to these buyer folks. Of course, during the year, as our budget does increase and grow, that's obviously a large portion of that budget is going towards public safety.

Which goes back to, you know, long-term is a public safety capital penny, something that we in the county should have a conversation about. I wish we had the ability to do our own. I'm hoping maybe they can amend something down the road and allow us. I mean, I do think, you know, but look, you go through other cities and other places, they're using creative ways to take advantage of all the folks. We swell every day by 90,000. We have non-permanent residents here that are a big portion. We have the same 144,000 people. We only have 46,000 properties that pay taxes, right? Roughly. Is that right? Or is it a little less than that? I don't recall off the top of my head. Somewhere in there, you know. My point is that, you know, A lot of the wear and tear, just like we talked about police, I mean fire, just getting the cost back for the usage and the wear and tear when we go to these accidents. If EMS is doing it, I know Lexington County is moving forward in January with a similar. We need to mimic what they're doing. It's not a revenue thing, but it will help reduce costs. At least we get paid back for those materials. And looking at the number, 48% calls. Yeah. It's a significant number. I don't think it's as small as we think it is.

Yes, sir. I do think we also, over the course of this next year, you know, look at our list of legislative priorities. You mentioned P3. I know there's been a conversation in the legislature the last two years around the restrictiveness that we have right now that prevents cities from being able to really leverage that as a tool. So I think that has to be something that's a part of our conversation. other areas where, you know, we talked about, you know, the fee structure, right? You know, if there's restrictive state law that prevents us from being able to capture revenue from non-taxpaying entities and properties, you know, certainly I think that has to be a part of that conversation. But over the course of ASSOCIATION, SOUTHLAND ASSOCIATION COUNTIES. I THINK WE HAVE TO DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT.

NEW SPEAKER WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE SCHEDULES THAT TOMORROW WE'RE ADVERTISING. MAYOR, WERE YOU RAISING A POINT ABOUT OUR ADVERTISEMENT

The number's the number, right?

I mean... Well, the number's the number without any type of millage increase. So what we're hearing, I mean, from this discussion, I guess, is to move forward with advertising that way. The other option would be to advertise it with something because you can always dial it back between now and a first or second reading in the budget. If you don't advertise it with it in, we lose the opportunity. These things about, you know, cost recovery and... GROWTH MODELING, I MEAN, WE ARE ALL IN ON THAT. WE ARE ALL WE'VE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED AS WE SAID MULTIPLE TIMES TODAY THAT WE'VE BEEN IN ON DOING THE WORK TO FIND OUT WHAT WE CAN PUSH THE LIMIT ON. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'LL GET WITH LEGAL TO SOUNDS LIKE PUSH IT FURTHER IF THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. AS FAR AS LEGISLATIVE ACTION GOES, WE WILL WORK ON THAT NEXT YEAR. We're in the gap right now today.

And so we're going to... Do we advertise without a millage increase? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I cut you off. No, sir.

I'm listening.

Do we advertise without a millage increase?

That's the question.

I think with the millage increase, it's so... We would have to talk to constituents. I mean, maybe that's something next year. Ideally, there's needs, but I wouldn't feel comfortable ADVERTISING OUR BUDGET WITH A MILLAGE DECREASE BEFORE WE'VE HAD ANY PUBLIC SESSIONS ABOUT IT. BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE TO GO TALK TO OUR CONSTITUENTS, LET THEM KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE IT ON THE TABLE. I DON'T THINK WE COULD RAISE IT LIKE SIX MONTHS FROM NOW. SO IF IT'S NOT TODAY, I GUESS IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE NEXT YEAR BEFORE WE CAN HAVE A SESSION.

IF WE COULD DO THAT, THAT WOULD PUT It's a property tax. Simple as that.

Also, it gives you the opportunity to really define where you would direct those dollars if they happen. Yes, sir. Versus, you know, they could go, I mean, at this point, they could go anywhere. And to be honest with you, I would, the concept of my mind of a property increase tax, while we're touting all the good things in Columbia would be a super big negative. It doesn't mean that at some point they won't be, they won't be, they might not be warranted, so I'm not even, have to look at everything. Also agreeing with Reverend McDowell where we've got to look at balance. Yes, sir. And I think we're all saying the same thing. We've got to be able to really take a more than a one-year look at where we are in Columbia. That's true. So I would agree.

Ms. Herbert.

Thank you, Mayor. No, I just wanted to add, too, from my perspective, if we are talking about increasing the millage, I need to be able to say specifically, these are all the things we've tried, and we've tried everything, or we've cut here, or we've done, but I have to, I'm always trying to build a case. I need to present a case for why we need it, and I don't think I could present a case to folks based on the information we have. That would probably be my bigger thing.

So I think the case is definitely worth continuing to try to build based off new and novel things. And I get a little cautionary when we talk about what other cities are doing. I mean, I'm all about that, but I have to know if it's apples and apples and how are we, you know, what are those things that we can really dig deep on? As I've already asked Jeff, I mean, he's not saying it, but the digging deep, is happening. And there's been a lot of answers back that that's not going to work here or that is going to garner us the same costs for doing it and the cost-benefit analysis. But we're going to keep on working at it.

100%.

We will keep working at it. I think what I would also suggest is that as we're working at it and as... SOME OF OUR STAKEHOLDERS, WHICH IS, LIKE I JUST SAID, IT WAS SO EVIDENT TO ME YESTERDAY THAT PEOPLE ALSO DON'T GET IT. SO THERE IS SOME EDUCATION THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH SOME VERY SMART PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY WHO ARE GOING TO BE HAVING EXPECTATIONS ABOUT THE MIDLANDS AS THESE BIG TICKET ITEMS ARE COMING ONLINE. SO THE CONCERN IS AS WE WAIT TO NEXT YEAR AND THEN WAIT TO NEXT YEAR AND NEXT YEAR, THOSE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING RIGHT NOW WHERE I'M HEARING THIS EXPECTATION OF WHAT ENVIRONMENT THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO BE CREATING, THE ROOT CAUSE OF HOW YOU GET THERE TO CREATE THE ENVIRONMENT, PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. SO MAYBE THERE IS THE NEED FOR MODELING AND EDUCATION AND GROWTH AND ADDITIONAL LEGAL because that's, I mean, I'm not saying we won't get there with what y'all are saying, but the things we've tried, unless something about the state law is going to change significantly between now and next year, it's not going to happen. And...

THAT WAS IN OUR CONTROL.

BUT I DO AGREE THAT WE'RE WILLING TO DO THE EXTRA HARD HOMEWORK FOR SURE. WHILE WE'RE DOING IT, WHEN THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED OF US OR ENHANCING BEAUTIFICATION EFFORTS OR COMMUNITY PROJECTS, WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO BE THE BUFFER TO SAY WHY WE CAN'T DO THAT THIS YEAR.

I think that's the key. It's also, like, this year. So what I'm saying is, you know, this year. So we have to be able to say, you know, well, not this year. And we have to be able to say that. We have to be able to say not this year. I mean, I've got to be frank.

I mean, we could make some changes this year that bring in some more dollars. I'm not sure we've accounted on potential revenue coming in either. Maybe it's only one-time revenue. that helps carry us through this period, right? And then it gives a little bit more leeway to do some things that we may or may not do. I mean, we're talking about a 5 mil or a 17 mil spread. So what is that really? I mean, I don't feel like I really know what the needs are for each one of those categories really based on. So could we look at that? What are those? Are there some critical items? Then maybe we need to make some decisions about some of the services that we're providing or are there things that we don't think are essential anymore that are cost savings, right? Look, I mean, we can decide. I mean, this is where our job is, right? So if there's a critical path in that number that we need an additional $2 million for, then I think we need to have that discussion and understand that, you know, we may have to change something. I mean, long-term, let's be realistic. Long-term, we don't want to be in the homelessness business, right? I mean, at some point, we've seen an increase because we needed to deal with that.

Yeah.

And we're dealing with it. But long term, I hope it's not, you know, a $3 million, $4 million, $5 million venture or investment from the city. It's less. I mean, so we also got to think about all of that.

So let me also suggest or talk about what the schedule is like for this. Of course, we would need to advertise now because our budget starts July 1st. That doesn't mean the millage would adjust July 1st. Millage would not go out until Jeff sends over that millage rate to the county later this fall. So some of the items that you're talking about, that material, so it's like we would, so if there was a consideration for millage now, that material, that information is provided, then it comes down to before we actually send that millage to the county.

When is the deadline for the millage?

Typically, we send the letter off, and two of y'all usually sign it. So we send that off at the latest, the first week of September. We finish the calculations usually end of August.

And it wouldn't go in effect until the November billing, correct?

Yeah, well, October, November, yes.

You start appearing on bills in January.

From an education standpoint and a conversation standpoint, we could amend the budgets. and do a millage increase if that was the only route that we saw three months from now?

Any of it would require an amendment because we would either need to advertise. The one thing we would advertise now would be the millage rate, and that's what we would be advertising. That requires a public hearing notice. An amendment is just an ordinance change. So then it would be a matter of amending the ordinance to reflect the new millage and then the revenue that would be associated with that and the associated expenses. Okay.

If we're going to take, let's say, the next year to look at other options for revenue drivers and we're not going to repeat transferring, you know, $5 million, $10 million from surplus like we did the prior year, could it be an option to go ahead and do additional $5 million transfer in now? Let's take a longer look at things if we're not going to do it next year and we did it the prior year.

If you're asking if we could do an additional $5 million from fund balance, no, we could not. That's not available.

Okay, so we're at the floor.

We're at the floor. We did a fairly significant allocation fund balance three years ago, so it's four years ago. All right. And we've also narrowed our gap between budget and that.

I think now and between then, I mean, we still have options, right, if we deem them necessary. I do think that understanding a little deeper and the public understanding is important, but also think that, you know, some things that we may have treaded on and were afraid to do, and like you said, an opinion is an opinion. It's not a law, right? Also, running some traps on, we have a vacancy thing in place. Can we just up that fee structure around that? It's something to look at. It's important that if we go back to the public, then we need to be able to have the answer.

ABOUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, I REALLY THINK THAT THERE'S A PLACE FOR THIS INCREASED ANALYSIS THROUGH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT PLACE THAT EVERYBODY WOULD LIKE TO DO IT, THAT'S FINE. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THAT'S THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THIS TO LAND.

NEW SPEAKERS? NEW SPEAKERS?

NEW SPEAKERS? NEW SPEAKERS? NEW SPEAKERS? NEW SPEAKERS? NEW SPEAKERS? NEW SPEAKERS? looking at costs under all of the committee and whether or not if there are fees associated with any of our services even you know whether it's public safety or is cd i think is worth us looking at all of them and then we'll send them over to economic development but i do think that if we're going to ask staff to do anything we do need to provide a specific THESE ARE THE THINGS WE WANT TO LOOK INTO. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE THROWING OUT A LOT OF IDEAS, BUT MAYBE LIKE THESE FIVE THINGS.

BUT ALSO, AND I LOVE THAT, AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TEND TO LOOK AT BUDGETING AND and we tend to try to at least talk about the difference between the two. And there's multiple ways to decide what's discretionary and what's non-discretionary. So I think we should take a look at the cost structure and try to at least look at the difference between those two concepts and look at our current budget over the next three months and maybe look at the distinguishing between the two and coming up with a non-discretionary number and a discretionary number at the same time.

And we do try to look at that as well, of course. Our discretionary numbers are, for the general funds specifically, are minimal because the majority of our budget is personnel and debt.

Now, I'm just going to throw this out here. I was looking for any OBOs Just to tell my staff that we were not an essential, I mean, we weren't an essential function to the city. So that meant we had to show that we were, yeah, we had to show, because the city couldn't really operate without us. But we had to prove that we're doing so much and contributing so much that we're worth keeping. value add yeah the value add so that's why you know every three months i was up there but um but it's practical you know that was how i got folks i made the distinction today discussing it so the person that we have in the factory making the sign uh we make money on that person

So the person managing the guy watching, the person managing the person who's making the sign does not make money. So it's really, you know, there's ways to, and there's a million ways to decide discretionary versus non-discretionary, even when it comes down to people. So, and the good news is if you do something, you have it, no matter what the breakout,

We have three millage rates, Jeff. Is that right? Three different millage rates?

We have one.

I'm not sure. AREAS, CORRECT? YES. WE'RE IN DISTRICT 1CC, 2CC, AND 6CC, WHICH ARE THE THREE DIFFERENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS. WITHIN THOSE, EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS THEIR OWN OPERATING AND BOND MILLAGE RATE. SO THOSE ARE DIFFERENT. And then the other two. And then the county is typically the same rate within all three districts as are we.

There are some small millage agency rates that are not applied to city residents that are applied to non-city residents on the schedule. Mostly, I think, related to law enforcement and some other...

Thank you all so much. We appreciate your insight. It really is a hard conversation, but I know that your intentions are for us to get to the... right place with the right information, so we'll keep at it.

Some very good conversations as well, and some great insights, and pointing out that next week is also a pretty full agenda as well.

Thank you, Ms. Moore. Mayor, I would like to make a...

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we move into executive session to discuss negotiations incident to propose contractual arrangements pursuant to 3470 CRC 911 communications agreement and Hungary riverfront district. RECEIPT OF LEGAL ADVICE RELATING TO A PENDING THREATENED OR POTENTIAL CLAIM PURSUANT TO 3470 LAKE WENDAMURE DAM BALLPARK, LLC, VERSUS THE CITY OF COLUMBIA. RECEIPT OF LEGAL ADVICE RELATING TO MATTERS COVERED BY ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE, FOREST ACRES FRANCHISE FEE. Washington Square leases, Green Street Bridge, and unaccompanied minors at Finley Park. And lastly, discussion on the compensation of an employee regarding municipal court and the Office of Neighborhood Safety and Engagement. Second.

And kudos to our mayor pro tem. We'll press motion in a second.

I'm getting better every time.

you