City Council - workshop

Any notice?

We are going to get started on our work session. I want to thank everyone for being here. I think I can speak on behalf of the council. None of us really want to be here to talk about these things. This is due to the recent legislation that has forced us to really start much earlier on the budget. And I think we have to remember, too, that two years ago, based on legislation from two years ago, we had a $17 million cut. So this is compounding each year after that. So the manager's recommendations are gonna be brought forward. And so I think we'll just go ahead and get started on that and we can have more discussion. I'll turn it over to Scott Sanders, our manager.

Thank you, Mayor. Making sure my mic works okay and everyone can hear me. Great. All right. Thank you for joining us this morning. Thank you, public, for joining us. I have with me Assistant City Manager Jen Schulte, soon to be Deputy City Manager, and Nick Scholl, our Finance Director. Okay, yeah, I'm going to get started. So first off, I actually want to start by thanking the community, which I knew would be out here this morning yet again. because they've been with us diligently throughout the whole process. They've provided an enormous amount of input at our meetings such as this and others through email, submitting solutions with our budget exercise online, which was very successful. We had over 2,000 of our residents respond to our online exercise, and I thank them for that. That has been invaluable. Secondly, and quickly, I need to also thank our senior staff, including our finance budget analyst, who have worked very heartily on these exercises and helping us to gather the information and do the analysis. We also have a budget review committee that you're aware of that we've had for years. that continue to review vacancies as positions come open to understand if there are opportunities for different efficiencies and savings through that mechanism over time. They also review organizational changes that are recommended by our department directors and again that is invaluable and it shows up in some of our numbers that I'll be talking about when we gain some savings and efficiencies. I also appreciate the input that I received from our general staff. I've had meetings with the employees at the city. They have remained engaged as well and provided numerous ideas and I know they will continue to do so with efficiencies and savings to our budget. All right, so we started this process as the mayor said early this year to ensure that we had plenty of time to receive input and achieve more transparency than what previous budget cycles look like. Those goals remain today. as today does not mark a conclusion of the budget process, but rather a type of halftime, if you will, with two decision points that have been developed, the first of which is a council vote on September 14th. And that's again why I'm here today, is to present to you what the recommendations are for that decision point at the next council meeting. So we have quite a bit of process yet ahead of us, and that will include additional exercises for the public public meetings to help us essentially resolve what remains of the budget gap for fiscal years 28 and 29. All right, so the format of today's presentation you will recognize as it mirrors the budget savings exercise. I'm going to go department by department and explain service level impacts, any staff reduction numbers that may apply, and then program reductions and revenue increases if they pertain to that department. The staff reductions that are being recommended are business decisions. They're going to be based on the service level adjustments that will be decided upon and not a reflection of the individual performance of our staff. We have great staff and unfortunately, as the mayor said, we're making hard decisions for which we will have to lay off good staff. The staff being laid off will have an option for a severance package and be able to apply for other open positions at the city. All right, so the first slide in topic area is actually the non-departmental that doesn't fall nicely into any particular department. And again, these should be recognizable from the exercise that we put out to the public and the council's well aware of. The first of which is reducing the contributions to the Polk County Life Services Center. This is actually a broader conversation about the pilot effort that the mayor and we all have been putting forth, talking with some major employers, hospital systems, other government entities. where we understand that one of the challenges that Des Moines faces more so than any other community in Iowa is the percentage of our property that is not taxed and paying property taxes at all. That number still remains around 40%. So as part of that pilot conversation, I've had conversations with the county that we would be talking about what we also call the sobering center and the funding that we put into that with a desire to get additional funders to help us with that, especially the hospital systems. We've had great conversations with all the systems, the hospital systems, and can anticipate at the moment that there would be at least $250,000 of savings to our budget of that total $650,000. The other $400,000 is the line item of the floodplain property buyout program that you're familiar with and was also on the exercise. So at this moment the number for the September 14th decision to move board is $650,000 of savings anticipated with every hope that our community partners will step up to assist further in the actual sobering center cost and potentially other pilot opportunities across the organization. i think it's good yeah if you wouldn't mind i think it's a good chance i think we're here at this point where i plan to take your questions at the end of each slide and that way we can get those addressed i have department directors here obviously if i am unable to answer your questions i will either ask the staff i have here with with Jen or Nick or ask the directors for a quick response. But however, if it's a more detailed question that's going to need a little more time, we will prepare those answers and publish those answers on the web next to this presentation so that the whole public would be able to get the full breadth of any answers that are more exhaustive. So with that, Mayor, I'll open up for questions.

I have a question. What are the reduced contributions? Do you have a slide or do you have an amount? How much less are we giving to Polk County Life Services Center? And the flood property buyout program, I think, was $400,000. Correct. And I understand that the buyout program was as properties came available, we were voluntarily buying them out. But what happens if we have a repeat of the event of 2018 where we lost many homes? And how many of these homes... When people purchased those homes, some of them were not in the floodplain. It's because FEMA has changed the floodplain maps that now have put these people in harm's way. So do we have any relief for them?

All great questions, I'm gonna probably answer them backwards if that's okay. Yes, it is a 400,000 of this item. So that would be not putting additional funds into the program. We do have some leftover funds that remain that can handle the conversations that we're currently having with property owners today. You are correct that the floodplain maps have changed and that we have focused our attention on the more severe areas, which is the 100-year floodplain. There is also a 500-year floodplain that geographically is a larger area, and we do not have the resources to go after all of those at this time. However, that is a decision the council can make, as we did in 2018, as you recall. And that was a very quick decision by the council, recognizing the pain that was out in the community. A lot of conversations, right, Linda? So essentially, that decision can be changed in any budget cycle, or frankly, in the middle of a budget cycle if we have an event. that you would direct me and staff to find the funds and put together a plan that would call for potentially additional properties. Understand that literally hundreds of properties have already been purchased. We've made great success. The city put more than $11 million into that effort immediately after the 2018. And so I have every faith we could ramp right back up if necessary. And I think it's an annual decision, frankly, for council with the budget of how much to lean into to that effort.

Thank you.

Did I catch it all for you? Okay. Oh, no. The first question you mentioned, none of the 650 actually deals today with the sobering center. The contributions that we believe we're going to get are more general in terms from some of the hospital systems. I will bring back to you, and I think it's important if I could real quick, that a lot of these items are going to take multiple steps for council to touch again in decision points. This is one of them. The Sovereign Center will take multiple conversations and an amendment to our agreement. We have an agreement with the county if we are able to get there and possibly lower both the county and the city's contributions if we can get additional contributors that today don't pay any property taxes. Does that make sense? Yes. And so that is the effort we have that is ongoing. Again, I have every hope that our partners will step up, do what they know is right, and assist in funding some of these programs that help them on their expense sheet at the hospital systems because we have these and the county have these programs in place. Other questions, Mayor?

Yes. Scott, can you tell us about how many dollars are in reserve from previous years on the property buyout program? Roughly.

So, I think starting of this year was 800, 800 K. I don't, we're still finalizing our current number. So the prior audited, we started the prior year with about 800 K. Okay.

So there is some money in reserve. Yes. All right. Thank you.

Just to give an update on the pilot, we do have meetings upcoming this week with some of the other hospitals. We've met with Broadlands. We have also, I've been appointed to the committee that the state has put together. It was one of the condition or one thing that we asked when I sent the letter to the governor. on pilot because I know that, you know, other communities get help through like state universities, and things like that. So we will have ongoing conversations and hopefully, whatever we can discuss with them will help our budgets going forward.

Okay, so now I'll jump into the departments starting out with their city clerk's office. We have a opportunity here with some part-time budget to remove and have some savings. Again, this is just getting started in the conversation. There have been some efficiencies as you might imagine with agenda software, and we have plans for the animal licensing that will take some burdens off of the clerk's office in that regard. We also have some fee increases of about $89,000. Again, I'll pause for questions on this one. Okay. City Manager's Office. So the service level impacts you'll see here, and I apologize, but I think it's important to make sure everyone understands what's on the page, and so some of this I will just be reading off of. We have an awful lot of general work at the City Manager's Office. cross-departmental responsibilities that will simply take a little bit longer, capacity for doing strategic planning, especially with special projects that the council may want to see us do will take some additional time with fewer staff in the city manager's office. There's specialized knowledge that we'll be losing and not being able to replace with the loss of the assistant city manager role in particular, but others as well as government relations. The physical mailings to inform our residents about the city services is no longer going to be mailed out. The city source will be entirely an electronic version. Reducing capacity for the coordination with state and federal levels of government. We'll need some of our partners to take on more of that through contracting work. Reduce capacity for small business support with our economic development areas. The facilities area are being reduced. I know a couple of you just as recently as yesterday were asking about reductions in facilities and this does have two positions removed from the facilities area. We also have reductions in operations and maintenance. Those are the two positions I just mentioned. So what does that total up to? There's an elimination of five positions, one of which was a layoff and four of which were vacant. savings of about $800,000 annually. The program reductions that are also on top of that is the city source I mentioned and contributions to local partners and sponsorships and reduced security at a couple of our facilities that have been operating just fine. So 261,000 of our facilities Program reductions again.

I will pause for questions Scott remind me The city manager's office, I believe, was 11, and you're going down to six. Is that correct, or am I mistaken?

I believe in the past that was correct. Several years ago, we were at 11, and we've, again, as the mayor mentioned, this is not our first need to cut, so we have made multiple cuts in the management area of CMO in particular.

And you're able to still... conduct business in a timely fashion with six instead of 11.

So I think the definition of a timely basis is in question here. It will be delays, but we will obviously work with council to make sure all priorities continue. And I would expect that's going to be the case. We will have to put additional burdens on our department directors as well. Okay. Because we have what I would call a liaison role. But we will expect the departments to be able to handle a little bit of that as well.

Okay.

Okay, we'll move on. All right, so the next department that we have is Community Impact and Relations Department. For those that are not aware, this is previously the Civil and Human Rights Department. The service level impacts recommended here is losing a position that was specialized within the organization and at the manager level, but then also investigations. And it's important to understand that with this recommendation, we would remain, we would have an investigator still on staff and they actually would have the capacity to handle the number of cases and the caseload that we've had in the recent past. So we do have that capacity still in-house with the remaining staff in this proposal. However, any increases in caseload would need to be determined as to whether we would handle them in-house or hand those cases off to the state because they conduct very similar investigations in this regard. There's also an administrative position that is being removed. So there are three positions being removed here for a savings of $426,000. One of the staff members that will remain is focused on outreach. Educational materials, public engagement, that will continue in this area. However, to make all of this work, they will be in this last position will be embedded in the neighborhood services department and the investigator will be embedded in the legal department is how that is envisioned.

I'm sorry, are we done?

Are you done? Anything else? If not, we'll open it up.

How many cases on average are we looking at?

Yeah, mid-20s. And that would be the caseload that's constantly being maintained as some go away and some come home.

And will the person we keep as we move things to the state, will that person be able to help? and advocate at the state for?

Yeah, right. Great point that when there's a determination that the case would be referred to the state, we have an opportunity to assist those individuals with paperwork and process and things of that nature. So they can be available to them in that regard.

Okay. On that point, though, it's up to the individual. The individual that has the case, after a year with the city, they have the option to keep it with the city if they wish to. It doesn't have to move to the state's civil rights department.

Yeah, great clarification. There are two different things going on there. So if we decide to take on future cases, but it takes more than a year to get to a conclusion, it is up to the applicant to decide whether to keep it with the city or to shift it up to the state. That's separate from a decision as we have maybe an influx of cases where right from the start, some of them may be sent to the state.

And then another aspect of this role is also education, community education, landlords or businesses to try and avert having more civil rights cases come in? Do you foresee this position having the capacity to continue to do Education in the community.

So there'll be two positions remaining. One of them will be full time in that regard. And the investigator will still help out in some instances at public educational events as well.

So the position in neighborhood services will, will do some focused education that would hopefully be able to address that prevent. Yeah. Appreciate you. Yeah. That's, that's perfect. And so just, I mean, Just to make sure that it's understood, because I know this is not a fun thing to talk about, and I know it's not for you either, and we've had a lot of conversations about this.

This is something that catches on fire. They want more assistance in investigation. They can engage either us for a cost or the state, for that matter, the state fire marshal, to further those investigations themselves. It would not be something that we would continue to do. the position that is being saved here is in that same area and was focused on a outreach and that's why i have that on there it will not be an elimination of all outreach but rather this time that the investigators are saving by not doing all of the additional fire investigations can be spent to keep some of our outreach up and going but there will be a reduction in that fire outreach area. So again, there is also, when you see two positions, one of those is a firefighter, one of them is a civilian analyst that helps, and that's the specialized knowledge in assisting with administrative-type work and analysis within the department. That's the 260,000 in total. And then separately, you'll recall there was a proposal for hiring more academy, new firefighters that already have certifications on the paramedic side. And what that allows us to do is not to have to engage DMACC every cycle and every academy. If we're able to hire a class that already has that certification, they can go right into firefighter training here with our own academy and save a lot of time and about $165,000 with each cycle of DMACC that we would not need. The revenue changes, there are several, including the ambulance EMS fee, which was already approved, and then HAZMAT and inspection fees will generate the extra time that that department has for not doing fire investigations, will allow them to do more inspections and actually generate some more revenue that's necessary. I'll pause there for questions.

What I see that's missing from this is we know that we need more firefighters. And that was certainly in the questionnaire that you sent out. But we're servicing more calls today than we did several years ago with less number of firefighters. I think that we should really look at adding firefighters and maybe that means we have to cut the budget somewhere else but I believe our services to our citizens are the most critical things we can be doing. Our police, our fire, our parks, people depend on those things. That's what a city is to offer.

I appreciate that.

And I don't see that in here.

Correct. And I think we all can acknowledge that our fire department provides excellence about aspirationally we need to do better yet. And so we have put in place plans to add future fire stations, replace existing ones, and we have plans for then apparatus. We would need to add apparatus and we would need to add firefighters. but we need as a group to figure out when and how to do that. So we are applying for grants, we are looking at funding sources that hopefully will be available to us in two or three years, things of that nature that can then help fund those and so we'll remain competitive but it goes in that category of year to year we've got to decide is now the time that we can be aspirational to try and add those type of resources at the cost of something else or do we do we have to pause yet another year i i don't think this is the time to pause

That's just you know, I don't know how the others feel but I really think that we should be looking at Making sure that our budget includes additional firefighters I mean I hear you say we're gonna depend on grants and things like that, but those aren't guarantees Correct and I think we have an obligation to keep our firefighters safe as well as our residents and And one way to accomplish that is to have additional firefighters.

Yes, and a lot of other activities, even the design of the fire stations themselves for the safety of the firefighters.

Done a great job there.

Yeah, the fire department staff have done a fabulous job, including the frontline workers with suggestions on how to improve those situations.

I think in order to get a handle on that, what is the capacity and how much would it cost? And then the determination would be, where do you make, if you add here, where does the other come out? But when we don't know, we need to get the number and determine.

We know what it's going to cost to hire additional firefighters.

We need to get the number of how many do we, we don't have it today. I'm just saying, I think we need to see that in the perspective of a total budget.

I think you're right, Council Member Westergaard. I just think the question is, what are we, what are you prepared to give up to make those increases? And I think that's a conversation that we can have and weigh, and it's going to be every bit as hard as the conversations we're having right now.

We should have those conversations.

And I'm fine with that. I don't know how that ends up. But, I mean, I agree that I think we're understaffed right now for the city. But I don't know what I'm prepared to stop doing because I think that we provide a lot of essential services throughout the city and throughout our city government right now. And we're pulling back a lot of those right now at great cost to folks that lives. And that's something we have to take really seriously as we move forward.

Mayor, Scott, you said we were taking away one full-time firefighter? Correct. So now we're going to change our authorized strength and lower it?

Correct, but they were not assigned to stations. That firefighter was in the marshal's office.

So there was another category under that department, which— Engine 8 and Engine 9 were never a pilot program, so I'm not sure why it was ever listed like that. Is Engine 8 and Engine 9 going to stay in service with this package?

Correct. There would not be changes to how that is being handled. But I need to clarify that the council wanted that added mid-year, and so we did... utilize overtime and continue to utilize overtime to staff engines eight and nine that has not been budgeted. And so we utilize our fund balance essentially each year. And the first savings that we receive in other areas of the city's budget, we use for firefighter overtime to keep those apparatus in service.

So to Linda's point and others up here, why do we continue to pay overtime instead of hiring more people. Because eventually, we are going to have to build another fire station. I mean, I believe the new chief, and if we've all taken a tour with him, he's kind of validated what has been said for the last 10 years of, we're short. And unfortunately, the other chief didn't validate that. But I believe... I believe that point has been made and very clear. We are shorthanded on the south side. The stations are in the wrong place. We need an additional station. We need 15 additional firefighters to man that station. Or slightly more. Or slightly more. So we do need to have that conversation of how that is going to be funded. Whether we go out and bond for it, I need to see recommendations of how, whether we go apply for it. I know we had very good success with the Safer Grant. So I believe we should go that route to start with, especially if we're going to hire 15 or 18 more firefighters that, you know, FEMA has that Safer Grant. Still, don't they or no?

Do they still have that program? It still shows up every now and then in cycles.

And that pays for everyone for three years? Is that correct?

No, unfortunately, it's not that lucrative.

It was, wasn't it?

Many, many years ago, correct.

When we applied for it the first time? It paid for them for at least 24, 36 months.

Yeah, there have been cycles that have been like that, yes. Not most recently, as I understand it. Now, here's the crux. So you have several questions there. Yeah.

I tend to do rapid fire. That's fine. I apologize.

No, that's quite all right. But I really need to hone in on the fact that The first decision, there's multiple decisions when it comes to the fire resources, is can we now fix the fact that all of that overtime is being spent and we need to make room in our budget and make additional cuts? That was why it was on the exercises. Now the time to address that problem and fit it into our budget by making another about $1.5 million a year in cuts in this process that we're in right now. Or do we continue to utilize whatever savings we get and through the fund balance that's what we've done the last two almost three years now and so that's the first decision and if the decision of the council is scott go find another million and a half of cuts and bring that back to you we will do that Then the second decision, which you make is a great point, if we've got that money to spend, let's do it right and actually hire firefighters and not just keep spending the overtime. And so once that first decision is made by council to find another million and a half rough numbers of budget elsewhere, then we can start the process of hiring.

Hang on one second. Let's go back to that point. So you're telling me you need a million and a half Plus all the overtime we're paying to hire additional firefighters. It's either or. Okay.

It's either or. So it's either spending, and it's actually a little bit more on the overtime. So you're exactly right that we could forego the overtime costs and save just a little bit of money by actually hiring firefighters. That seems like a no-brainer. it does accept it's not in the budget none of it's in the budget today so every year we're having to utilize the fund balance to keep this going that's why i say this is a temporary solution that we've continued it's never been made permanent by any council to to actually take on those costs annually

But part of that part of that issue was that the former director in chief of that department puts this label by engine eight and engine nine of a pilot. It was never a pilot. There was a spot in that station for that. We needed those units.

Well, so those units are there for second unit responses, right?

Take it to the apartment that's all burned up on the south side that everyone had to go out and additional firefighters from Pleasant Hill and other communities had to be there. It's not like we don't need it.

Well, it is helpful. That is true. But understand that— It's more than helpful.

It's needy. But go ahead.

But understand it's the third apparatus in that station. And so when we are able to add new stations in new locations, that will get moved. And there will only be two apparatus in most of the stations. There might be one or two exceptions.

Completely fine with that if we have another station in the coverage. That's where we're headed. What it's supposed to be. But right now we don't have that coverage.

What is the, can I ask, the grant that we just applied for?

Yes, for Station 8 down by the airport.

And what would that entail? Just so people understand. What is that grant asking for?

So that would actually help us with constructing the next fire station on the south side. And I believe that's a replacement of the... Yeah, that's not an additional fire station.

No, but at least it replaces a better condition and better placement.

But ultimately, we need an additional fire station to handle the response times and the growth and the... Yes. Where we're at on this. Yes, that is true.

Okay. And we're looking at the CIP. So the first step is when can we get the capital funds to build the new stations and the apparatus that would be necessary? And we're looking at that now. five, six year horizon of when can we get that done with help from grants, because there'll be other grants too. And then when we have that secured as a plan, we can also plan then on the staffing and the firefighters that are necessary in advance. And that way we can go after grants because you're exactly right. Why not go after those safer grants to have some federal funds help pay for at least whatever portion that it would pay for until we have to pay for it all ourselves?

Do we have the bonding capacity to put it out for referendum to build the fire stations like when they built all the fire stations in the 70s that all looked the same? They went out and bonded for all of those under a referendum. That's why the fire stations are there, and we need to replace a lot of those. Station 10 is a temporary fire station. You know that as well as I do. Everyone knows it.

Yes. The answer is yes. Legally, we have the capacity, and we would need to provide to you what the tax impact would be because it would be a debt service levy if it was general obligation bonds.

That's another discussion. Well, I think we need to have that discussion with our community and with, you know, with I mean, that's a that's a decision that if you put it out for referendum, then the voters get to decide how their taxes are spent. And if public safety is is that important to them and fire service is that important to them, then, you know what, let's let's let's have them vote on it. And I've said that for years. Like, if we need to do this, let's not keep kicking the can down the road. Because I don't believe in five and six years, I believe we're going to be in the same position that we're in right now. I don't believe it's going to get any better.

Mayor, we have utilized the workshops to gain additional information and give direction to staff. May we add the fire department specifically to a workshop? I think so.

I think we'd also like to have on how much overtime, because if we're consistently paying overtime, then it does not make sense not to hire people. If we're doing it year after year, and I get it, but if we're spending the same amount, let's get full-time

Mayor, if I could, we'll add, well, it was already going to be part of the discussion for the capital workshops that we'll have, but we'll focus in on that in a more lengthy timeframe so that you know more what the 10-year horizon might look like when it comes to the fire stations and apparatus, if that's helpful.

But, Scott, will you also hold council? And your statement was if we need to make a budget cut somewhere else, we could go back and look at that. Yeah. And let's see how many council members say, yes, let's add some firefighters.

But you're also going to have to come up with where do you want to cut.

Well, we can have that discussion.

And I think that's appropriate for the January, the second decision point for council to solve the remaining gap is with the ideas that remain, anything new that comes to the surface. In January, this council will know better than any recent history about what all your options may be from an operating savings and efficiencies. So you'll be able to better balance that balance you know, actually these other ideas we could implement as cuts to get you what you may want in, in the fire department. So I think that's appropriate for the January conversation.

One, uh, one follow-up question. I'm looking at the, the budget exercise and under the fire department, uh, the, the engine eight and nine is listed under there. Uh, So one and a half million, that is the cost. I think I'm answering my own question as I'm asking this question, but that's the cost of pulling it out of, no longer doing it in overtime, but doing it with staffing. And you're saying right now we're doing that through our fund balance.

Yes, but a slightly higher amount than that even.

We're just drawing on expenses.

things that we're not spending money on that budgeted for and not spending money on that's exactly correct okay appreciate it thank you my turn yes um yes scott i would like to know regardless of what fund it comes out of um overtime costs and what it would uh we would say by having additional authorized force

In this instance, with the number of firefighters, is it $200,000 or $300,000? $1.8 million in overtime? Just under $2 million of overtime. Instead, we could spend about $1.5 million on the staffing, so at least $300,000, I would say, maybe $400,000.

That would be great to learn. Also, the staff that we have at CISP, The fire staff, and I guess this will relate to the police department also. So all those expenses are on us? They are, yes. So is there any opportunity? Those are valued services, but is there any opportunity that someone could help pay for that?

There's always an opportunity for someone.

I mean, I don't know if there are.

If there's ideas on how or who to go, we're at your service.

Yeah, I mean, I don't want to. I'm not. Please don't. please, please understand, I'm not suggesting note those services be cut. But right.

The shared needs to be shared by Yeah, greater Des Moines community.

Yes. So I think there are there two firefighters there for most of the day until eight, we're down to 118 to 10.

Is it eight to 11?

So, and so that would also as long as we're talking about, since there's a, at least 1 police officer there.

Correct and those are rotating through wrote not at all times, but are rotating through.

Okay. And those are on us.

Yeah, those are on us with the agreement we have with CIS. I would tell you from a high level, this is another example where as a community, not as a city government, but as a community, we need stronger nonprofit organizations to be able to step up. And that means a lot. There's organizational issues within that. There's fundraising issues within that. But we are having to fill the gap of nonprofits not having the capacity to do that type of work.

It isn't also in other communities.

It is.

We are the only homeless shelter in the greater Des Moines metro area and there's only two other communities to contribute. So I think that we need to have a greater conversation with the greater Des Moines communities that use our service or use our

Yes. And we need HSA to be able to mature quickly because ideally that would be a responsibility of the HSA as the region. That is the Housing Solutions Alliance. And essentially then we would be contributing to HSA as well as other jurisdictions. and private funders and corporations, all of that would be funneled and essentially controlled by a nonprofit that's... Right.

The mayor's choice of a verb, use, is very kind. I think in the community, dump is also probably more accurate, so...

So you said one thing in Chief Lund. So the one person that's at CIS, that's part of our authorized strength, correct?

Yes. So now we've lost two that are on the street, firefighters. That was a shifting of responsibilities, not...

I think they were called so often to CIS.

Right, but they're not... My point is, is that person is not in a station. That person is not doing the regular duties at Station 1. They're assigned somewhere else. So now we've actually lost another authorized firefighter. They're doing another service.

Mayor, Council, Jonathan, Fire Chief. So right now, the person that we have at CIS... 90% of the time is on overtime. So we're trying to do that without detracting from daily staffing, but it still is an impact. It's overtime hours, it's a budget impact, and it's an impact to people working more hours than they're normally scheduled to work.

And how about Haley and John?

That's a separate program. Our mobile integrated health care is doing home visits and houseless encampment visits. Those are full-time equivalent positions that we've dedicated to that services, those services. So they're not in the station.

They're doing Haley and John. Correct. That's the position I thought we were talking about, but now there's another. Correct.

We're also staffing the shelter from about 7 a.m. to 8 or 9 p.m. every day.

And Haley and John, I would never question the job they're doing. I've worked with them. They do an amazing job. I would never want to cut that. My point is you're taking away, and not you. I mean, you're doing a great service and you're doing a great job, but we're taking away from the fire department. but not only now we're losing one authorized person, but the other two aren't in the stations. They're doing mobile integrated healthcare.

Correct. Yeah. About three years ago we started doing the mobile integrated health in earnest. That's correct.

I kind of think that's a shift that we're seeing, that the city is taking on social obligations and necessary, but it's not something that was in our core business years ago. So we are taking on extra responsibility in different areas.

So I think we may have actually had resources three years ago to get that done.

We added one full-time equivalent to staff the mobile integrated health care.

So there you go. It's not a net loss.

And it also, in the long run, it's better for the people, but it's also somewhat cost-saving because they're not calling 911.

There's absolutely benefit to these programs.

A couple questions. Just a follow-up on that. You just said that the shelter, 90% overtime pay. Is that a position where... we could just hire a paramedic or does it need to be a full firefighter position?

So I think there's options of different ways of doing this, but one of the advantages of having Des Moines fire personnel in there is they know our system. They can tell dispatch directly, do we need an ambulance, do we need an ambulance and an engine, and they have familiarity with the people that are coming in. So it's very seamless right now. Any outside entity tends to create some challenges there. What about retirees?

sorry well or a paramedic only position within the department too so that that person had the continuity but but maybe it's not we don't have anyway we can figure that out later i wanted to actually talk since this is on on the the current piece a revenue change piece um and maybe look at ways to get some additional dollars to help solve some of the things that we've been talking about. When I went on my tour with the chief a few weeks back, one of the things that we do is we provide service at a bunch of events where I think, We, in theory, do that at cost, but I think it's the cost of staff, and there's no administrative cost component to that. And our staff don't just show up, just them. You know, they're showing up with apparatus. We've invested a lot in them in terms of training and all of the things they need to do to be effective at those events. and that piece of the cost is not being captured in what we are charging. I don't know that that's gonna be a ton of dollars, but that's dollars that we can put back into addressing some of these issues that we're talking about, because that's ultimately for us to solve this, we need to find dollars. And I would be supportive, and I'll raise this again when we talk police, of figuring out an administrative charge that goes along with the current event charge so that we can get some more dollars that more appropriately reflects the investment that we make in our people and in our department and that we're providing. Because it's... It's everything that goes into making our department a strong department. And that's the training, that's the equipment, and that should be recovered as well.

So I appreciate that. And obviously in our one-on-one, you had brought that up with me. So I started in motion an analysis of that very opportunity. It's going to take us some time to put that together to bring back to you, but we can do that well in advance of the January decision point. Understand that... there's the payee, the one, or excuse me, the event itself that is going to need to take on that cost and so we'll need to provide to you who we believe would would take on those additional costs with the different event permits that go on across our city that need the police and fire so it'll be a full scale full understanding of how can we generate some more revenues and then who's actually paying that and does that make us uncompetitive so to speak with events themselves or suffering in those event

right um i didn't know until i went on the tour with the chief that our fire department staffs 260 special events each year i mean that sounds about right that's a lot yes it is i mean that that's what makes great des moines a great um place to be but For police and fire, that's significant.

And staff that have to handle those.

Someone's got to organize the off-duty police officers and firefighters. So anyway.

mayor i also learned on our tour and thank you chief lund for doing that that the majority of our firefighters have medical backgrounds as well and that's not common and that's a kudos to our department i'd like to refocus on the budget and go to the next item thank you well thank you all right so human resources

The impact we have here is a single position that will decrease the capacity, obviously, with all things that our HR provides through recruitments, hirings, and promotional processes. That's one position that was vacant and a savings of about $109,000. Okay. IT department service level impacts, there are quite a few positions in this one. Obviously, the workflow with IT software and technology generally will slow down. There is some public safety data analysis and reporting dashboard that will need to extend slightly, reduce capacity to support other IT projects across the city. and then less focus on newer enterprise solutions for the organization. This will take the edge off of where we try to lean into newer technologies, unfortunately. The elimination is five positions, four of which are actually layoffs, and one is a vacant position for a saving of $800,000. These are some pretty large numbers for this department. The program reduction, again, is focused a lot on the software changes. There's opportunity for removing overlapping software functionality that would give us about $400,000 of savings in that regard. Any questions?

If not, move on.

THE LIBRARY, THERE ARE SOME CHANGES GIVEN MOST RECENT CONVERSATIONS.

AFTER OUR MEETING ON MONDAY, CONVERSATION YESTERDAY, I ASKED IF WE COULD, I KNOW THAT THE BOARD CAME FORWARD AND SAID THEY COULD LIVE WITH 750 AND I ASKED IF WE COULD FIND SAVINGS ELSEWHERE SO WE COULD MEET THAT. AS WE KNOW, THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE BOARD IS FOR THEM TO DECIDE WHAT THEY DO WITH THAT. And so that's something I asked if we could bring up and bring up with this group if people are in agreement with that.

Just one question about the library, and I know we don't make the decision, but we're looking for park and rec resident and non-resident. Have they ever looked at an additional or a fee of any sort for non-residents to use our libraries?

I can ask the director of that.

I'm not aware. I think they work in or they enter between all the communities they have. Thank you, Melissa. Our residents get the current it's in.

Good morning. Yes, Melissa McCollum, director of Des Moines Public Library. And we do have a collaborative relationship with all of the libraries in Iowa. And so there is funding that is provided by the state for allowing checkouts for other library systems. And so there is not currently a charge for non-residents or residents within Iowa. You are able to go to West Des Moines or to Urbandale use their facilities and their collections and attend programs. So there is a collaborative relationship in that.

Do you have the data that shows that any non-resident in Des Moines, I mean, is it, do you have that data that shows how many people use the library from not a Des Moines resident?

Yes, all public libraries report their stats to the state. And so all of that information is available publicly. And we do provide, we both provide services to other library systems, but our residents also use other library systems. So there is a balance there, but I can follow up with that statistics if you would like. Yeah, can you send us that link?

I'd like to see that.

Absolutely.

Thanks.

Yep.

Yeah, there is a lot of crossings between communities. CROSSOVER AND SO THEN THE QUESTION HAS COME UP ABOUT AGAIN HOW DO WE COLLECTIVELY ALL WORK TOGETHER IN A GREATER WAY MAYBE FOR COST SAVINGS SO THAT'S SOMETHING I'M SURE YOU'RE WORKING ON TOO.

MAYOR I WOULD JUST LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT TO ME THIS IS A UNIQUE WAY OF HANDLING A BUDGET ISSUE BY THE LIBRARY SAYING WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE NEED TO REDUCE

costs but allow us we who know best how to do it so i like that approach thank you for offering that yeah and to add to that councilman that they will have the decisions of exactly how uh to to make the cuts the council's responsibility is to give them a budget to work with and so this would be a reduction at this point in time with this first package of 750 000 um

So there's two things that library advocates brought up on Monday. One was saying, listen, $750,000, and I appreciate that Mayor and CM Manager have been responsive to that request. I think the second one was... taking a branch closure off the table for not just these next two fiscal years, but the two following. And if we're going to have hard conversations about increases and other things that are going to either add to what we have to cut in future years or constrain what we're able to do, I think that we also need to put something like We're not going to, we will commit not to closing a branch for those next several years on the table because I think that's, I think that the trick on this and what makes it hard is, you know, you're going to reduce staff, you're going to reduce hours, you're going to have folks getting less service out of our library system, but the libraries are still there. The branches are not going away. And that's incredibly valuable to the community. I hear that from folks all the time. I don't want to see a branch close, but I guess I want to have that conversation with my colleagues, just like we're having, just surfacing other things that will make our job harder. And I get that. And I want to have these conversations and figure out what we're willing and capable of doing in the future.

And given the input you've provided me, when the mayor discussed this with me, I figured that this would be supported based on the conversations that I've had with you. So continue those, and it can be a conversation for the next budget presentation if that's where you want to go as a group.

And as a reminder, we're going to unfortunately have these conversations with every budget cycle.

Yeah, again, the challenges remain even after these two budget cycles with the 2% cap. Neighborhood services. So there are the final programming for mosquito treatment that would be removed. That was the standing water aspect. We have not fogged for a couple years. The timeline for coordinating and completing payments to contractors across that organization. We rely quite a bit on contractors in this department. Eliminating the neighborhood association development programming. We've had some staff that have helped our neighborhood associations mature, if you will, with their own processes and paperwork and filings and things of that. And so I feel like we're in a pretty good place where compliance is occurring. So that will be eliminated, reduce internal homelessness coordination. That's the position that was vacated a few months back. And so we have five total positions impacted here with two layoffs and three vacant positions, a savings of just under 500,000. On the program side, I've already mentioned the mosquito treatment, but also the elimination of the odor monitoring contract that was on the survey as well and the exercise that was out there. Savings just under three hundred thousand in that programming reductions revenue options include the zoning fees property improvement fees neighborhood inspection division fees essentially everything is being looked at and Every opportunity to garner about two hundred and twenty four thousand of additional revenues in this department Take questions

Excuse me, the private property graffiti contract. Is that being also eliminated?

It is not. And I appreciate that you brought that up. So that is a situation where we're able to dig into that deeper after we had presented that as an option and realized that we spent quite a bit of that. those funds on public property, not only our own, but school district, county and state properties as well, figuring out that that is occurring everywhere. The amount that is actually graffiti on private property, we estimated at about $30,000 annually. So, and we can all think of examples of where it needed to get removed and the private property owners were not responsible for it and needed help in getting it removed. So that will not be something that we will talk about as an elimination option moving forward.

On the fees, I brought this one up when we met too, but the vacant property registry fee is something I'm very, very interested in. And I know we can only charge what we think it's going to cost to provide. Administrative. Yep. But I think it's worth thinking about what, first of all, seeing that fee as a disincentive to holding on to a home that will just deteriorate and that we want to get back on the market so that we can... you know, generate revenue and have more vibrancy in our community. But then also, you know, if we did increase that fee, what could we do along those lines to maybe rethink how we're doing that work? So I want to get these houses, you know, inhabited and moving. I think we all do. And I think there's... I think that's only... It's a pretty minimal fee per year right now. And I think there's room... I'd love to see some thought on that one between now and January when we come back and do this again.

We can absolutely provide that separate analysis and finish that up. I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Find out exactly what we can do to be more aggressive on it.

Yeah, because I want to be more aggressive. I want to charge more, and I want to give people more of an incentive to let go of some of these properties and get them inhabited. But then we've got to figure out what we would do to be able to justify that at the same time.

Okay.

All right, parks and rec. So service level impacts include reduction in park and cemetery maintenance frequency. This would include mowing, landscaping, the facility upkeep, the litter and trash control, and cemetery services. reduction in the natural resource education program that was on the survey as well, and removing the police agreement for police to be present within some of our parks through the summer hours. The staff reductions that are involved are five total full-time positions, three of which are layoffs, and two are vacant positions, saving about $526,000. The program reductions, as I mentioned, the police patrols would be removed. There is a vacant position with the education side of it, and then we would also reduce some community event programming to save along the edges. and so that's about 350 000 savings the revenue opportunities are a focal point here for this department not only the fees that are reviewed every year and they do a great job of of updating those through the permits the shelters all of the things that we offer through our parks that have a fee associated with them but also the sale of underutilized and undeveloped park properties which is now expanded beyond just park properties but all city properties with additional opportunities to generate taxable valuation that would then increase our tax base and revenues in the future. Also creating a non-resident versus resident fee structure where applicable and estimated additional revenue of about 910,000, most of which is coming out of the sale of property. I'll pause there for questions.

I have questions. Of the five full-time positions, three layoffs and two backup positions, what were those employees' jobs like?

So the job descriptions were the park and cemetery maintenance workers, three of those. And really the listing above is the responsibilities that they could have been shifting their workload between.

And the reason I ask that is it comes back to those services that we have an obligation to provide to our residents. And that would be our park systems, just like our police and our fire. I know in the last, since Monday, I've received four emails and one I sent on to you, I think last night where residents are saying our parks are Need maintenance they look they don't look good. We've got homeless people living in these parks They've taken over some of the open shelters I have an email from our police Neighborhood officer he said you know I've asked him to move but you know they're not moving is now the time that we really want to eliminate the maintenance in our parks and we have, how many millions of dollars do we get from our volunteers who spend time cleaning up the parks? We've already, I mean, we already provide, our volunteers provide free services to our parks by volunteering. How can we ask them to do more? And I'm just not sure, I'm not comfortable with eliminating staff in our parks department.

So as you might imagine, we do have a rather robust budget for our parks department, and we lean into that.

But that's needed.

It's an award-winning department, right? However... in order to identify potential cuts within that department, it's likely to need to touch on the actual parks themselves. You'll notice there is some programming cuts here as well, but those are the two things that our parks work so hard at, right? And so if not these type of cuts, there's not a lot of great options left for the Parks Department to participate in this exercise. So again, there are dozens upon dozens of staff within this department that are doing that kind of work with maintenance of our parks. So we feel that this is the most responsible cut that allows them to participate in that.

I don't know if other council members are getting those emails that I am from the parks in my ward, but our parks, it just, I really find it bothersome that we're reducing our services in our parks when I mean, we don't know the numbers of how many people, but we know our trails are heavily used because we do monitor those. We know those, but I mean, any park in the city, you can drive around and you see that our parks are being used. And now we're already reducing the number of playgrounds that we can repair. And as they get old and age out, we're having to remove them. What what are we offering our our residents?

That's so again world-class parks at the moment and so A big portion of the park and rec discussion is going to need to be around the capital side of it as well. And so that's yet to come because this is maintenance of the assets that we have today, right? They're going around to make sure things are clean and that there aren't safety issues with the equipment, things of that nature. So there is quite a bit of conversation yet to come about all the different asset classes that we have within the parks department, whether that's the park equipment that you mentioned that we're only replacing one a year. That will not get it done from a maintenance or a capital standpoint. So we have very hard decisions in Parks and Rec yet ahead of us with the capital aspect of it, the cost of replacing these assets. And so we'll present options to you within those conversations. But again, this is a focus area for the department. This was something submitted by department directors, in this case with Ben as well.

And I see we have two vacant positions. Have we been given a list of how many vacant positions there are in all of our other departments that we could possibly not continue to fill? I mean, do we have open spots that we're still hiring for?

Yeah, and that's why we have very rigid process with our budget review committee that I mentioned earlier and have for several years that every vacancy is scrutinized before it's allowed to be backfilled. And that's a constant process. They meet almost monthly as we have vacancies occur to determine if they need to be filled.

Any other questions?

I've got a couple.

Sure. Two questions. On the reduced community event programming, so we have the large video screen and I won't get the name right on the van that's equipped to do games and tables.

Park and play?

Is that right, Park and Play? So does that mean those are not going to be used going forward?

Those will still be available. Here comes Ben. Thank you, Ben.

Those are pretty popular programs and the community donated to make those screens and van available. So, okay, Ben.

Mayor Bozen, members of the Des Moines City Council, Ben Page, Parks and Recreation Director. So when it comes to the special events, the ones that we're looking at right now would be the Mayor's Annual Ride and our Star Party. We do have jobs that aren't on this list that are currently being held throughout the budget process until we get to the end. Currently, one of those is the Park and Play program. So that person moved on to a different opportunity. So that program is shelved until we get through the budget process.

shelved for now.

Okay, yeah, till we get to the budget process.

So as long as you're there, Ben, so I had an interesting question about the non resident resident fee, I get the two layers of But so, like, in the community gardens, I have a friend that gardens at the Franklin garden, and he's aware that he has apparently there's a waiting list. But there's also, I guess, if you've had a space there before and you live in Ankeny, are we gonna boot the suburban people out of the gardens or out of the summer camps and do priority for residents? That would also include the marina too. There are boaters that don't live in Des Moines

but there's uh people in des moines on the waiting list what does that change that whole structure it certainly will as long as it goes through the process so as you know our fee and rule process is pretty robust we have subcommittees of the park board then we have the park board and then we come to you as a city council so i always uh gladly say it takes about six months to change a rule or a fee but that's good it's really pri it's a really public process and a lot of involvement We haven't had this level of challenge, so we have never had a resident, non-resident fee. Therefore, we've never even had a list issue with a resident being on a program versus a non-resident being in a program. We will go through all that. We will propose. We're actually actively working on that right now. and that will be some hard decisions like if we have somebody at the marina or anybody else in a waiting list uh we'll make sure that that will probably focus on des moines residents first and then if this body of group here decides to approve that fee how it gets applied across all of our services so so big work ahead regardless if they're at a long time marina uh slip or uh

A space in a community garden, we're going to give priority to the Des Moines residents.

That will be our staff recommendation that will eventually end up here on your table.

Interesting. All right. Thank you.

So, Scott, just a couple questions as we go through this. We're not eliminating the flower beds in downtown parks. That was on this list, too.

No, not in this package, no.

We're not closing two of the five public pools at this time? Not in this time. The youth fee for the community centers, we're not touching that. That has not been selected. And implementing paid parking for Grayslake. Correct, it is not. Can we never talk about that again? I mean, can we just not ever put that on paper?

If I get individual advice from the council in that regard, then I will not speak.

If it's a consensus, then it can.

Okay. Thanks. Although it does not have to be an all or nothing, but we would not have to talk about that.

It depends how bad things keep going here.

Yeah, well, okay.

Okay. That's fine. Any other comments on the parking rec? If not, let's keep moving.

All right, police department. So this is our last department. So service level impact is in the NBSD area that was on the survey of reducing the police problem-solving opportunities that they have as they have relationships directly with the neighborhoods. The reduction being recommended is three officers. These are not layoffs, but rather they would be reassigned, and then the authorized strength in the next academy would be reduced by three for a savings of about $566,000. Revenue changes, Chief and I have been working with the State Fair and have had great conversations with them. Been able to increase the revenue and should be able to continue those discussions. The parking fine is for the street side parking that would go from $20 to 25. If this is approved, we'll bring that back to you. And then the revenue would have estimated be about $300,000. I'll take question.

I have questions. I'm not supportive of authorized strength reduced by three. And I'm also not real supportive of the community policing being reduced. I think that the community officers that are out there, they oftentimes solve the issues before they get too heated or become very dangerous. and they're out there doing that work every day. I believe that community policing, I remember when Chief Wingert became chief, he was a large advocate of community policing, and that's when I really saw the shift in our community policing, and it's been very successful. So to move these officers, but then to see that we have authorized strength by three. You and I both know that there's a report out there that we are way understaffed in our police. And when I go to neighborhood meetings, what I hear is where the police, you know, we need, we need to have more police officers. Can we please take a look somewhere else? And then we need to also talk about increasing the strength of our police. I can't, I mean, I just can't support this.

I think the study, I think the study said that we were 80 police officers. Um, yeah, the recommendation was less. Yes. So I, to, to, to Linda's point, I'm not sure just like the same as the fire, the police reducing the authorized strength. I'm, I struggle with that. Um, the community, tell me how the neighborhood-based services is going to work now. If we move three of them back to patrol, are those areas going to be handled by the ones that are still there? Yeah.

It would need to be larger areas or the chief would have the opportunity to shift responsibilities elsewhere understanding that again we're at the half time so uh we kind of need to know we absolutely need to know what the full impact on the police department is going to be before any programming major adjustments would be made so he would we would need to temporarily get through the next three months with shifting responsibilities thank you

Council of us. Sure. Are the drone technology still part of the discussion to expand?

So separately, yes.

I mean, that will make a difference for police and fire. So that's still being discussed, too. Yes. to launch a drone program, so to speak.

Yes, and there's a lot of process that would be in front of that, right? And so the first step is to understand what the technology can do for us. And I believe there are additional demonstrations that are scheduled over the next month. to help not only us understand the functionality but our business partners, potential funders. You may recall back when we got our body camera system up and running, we actually got quite a bit of additional funding from others to help us start that program. We're hopeful that there might be that type of opportunity with the drone system as well. But as I mentioned, there's a lot of process ahead of us yet because we need to be very transparent about what that technology can do and what we will limit it to being used for.

As we wrap this up, Scott, it would be helpful to the community to... explain why public works another large department is not part of this discussion so yeah and thank you uh it's a timing right councilman do you have something on this please yes

So this is back to the same comment I made on we have a significant amount of overtime that our police department participates in. And again, the way that that is currently structured is we pay the overtime wage, but our officers show up with their their patrol car, they show up in uniform with their weapon, with their body camera, with all the training that we've invested them in. There's no administrative portion of that that is currently captured. We have a little better data on that, although I think incomplete. I mean, just with special events, if we added 10%, If we recovered 10% of the cost or had a 10% addition, that would be 170, 180,000 just on the special event hours. I think we probably have close to the equivalent of in private overtime hours, although I don't know the exact number, because we don't have good data on that apparently. But we could be talking, and if we were willing to, if the appropriate number was closer to 15 or 20%, all of a sudden we could be talking about a number that gets to half a million, 600,000 that could, if we added that just on the police overtime, that could help on some of these staffing and other issues that we're talking about.

Are you talking again about the special events?

Yes, that is part of the analysis.

Yeah, so there's special events, plus there are different, on the police side, there's private, where there are a number of private entities that hire out police over time. The price chopper that has an officer there Those are private dollars but that there's a significant number of hours there.

That that we're covering that back I I don't be part of the narrow bike ride that's one reason I believe been we talked about eliminating it because of the hours that takes.

And it is the police activities Lee going away.

That is not part of the selection and this package.

Wait, okay, I didn't understand the answer. Oh, no, it is not.

It's not part of the cuts.

It would remain. Not at this time, okay.

Correct.

Any other questions on the police department?

OK. So overall, what does this mean? If anyone's been tracking this as our conversation has gone along, we're looking at 5 and 1 half million of staff reductions, 2.88 million of programming reductions. That adjustment is reflecting the 190,000 less of cuts to the library programming. And then the savings due to revenue changes at $3.1 million and change. So the total budget savings with this package would be $11.5 million for your approval on September 14th. And I will take follow-up questions.

I have a follow-up question. We've talked about police and we've talked about fire and we've said, well, we're going to have more discussions in January. Why are we not having those discussions now? I mean, if we approve what's in front of us, that includes our police and fire. If we vote to approve this, haven't we just eliminated those? And how are we going to do it differently in January? Or are we hoping, hey, we'll just forget about it by January? Or I...

No. No.

So... Can we take the police and fire out of this until we have further discussions?

Well... where the majority of the council wants to go, we'll go. Understand that this was designed to get some savings in this package and then continue the conversations through the final amount that's needed, the $17 million in the January package. So there's still a lot of process, a lot of analysis that will come back to you but we feel like we've touched upon nearly all the departments and have spread the pain, if you will, and the impacts across the entire organization.

I think that's the important thing is we still have more to go. So this is a starting point. We can reevaluate. We'll get more numbers to the points that have been brought up. And then we can make shifts at that time if we need to. It's this is only the beginning. It will be ongoing. And like we said, we've started this. How many months earlier? Yeah. It's significant on what we're doing based on the cuts we had two years ago. And I think that this is a starting point and we can get more information by September 14th and the decisions can be made and where the consensus is. Again, I do not, you know, we had a bill passed that's supposed to cut property taxes. I call it a service cut.

My taxes went up.

The amount of service cuts that people are going to feel are not going to see the benefit of a property tax reduction service cuts. So hopefully, not that we can change legislation, but there is a serious effort that our residents need to be letting their legislators know they are the ones that pass this. They are the ones that created this. And we have tried to, like we said, we know we need more police. We need more fire. We need more library services. We need more of it. We're trying to provide the best services, better parks. I mean, we have a great park system. How do we maintain it? We have old infrastructure. We need to continually repair it. And we need to continue to redevelop this city. And when you keep going backwards looking at how you cut, you can't always move forward. And that's the sad part, is you're always looking behind instead of looking forward on how we could be more efficient. And so we need to look at every avenue, get creative as we can, and ask our residents to come up with ways, I think, on the exercise. I think people, I don't know how many people told me, I did that exercise and it wasn't easy. This is not easy. I want to thank our staff. This has not been easy. It's not easy when people are getting laid off. It is not easy when you know work needs to be done in a faster manner. So I want to thank you for your dedication and your efforts to mitigate these cuts as best we can and for the council taking the time and really looking into every area that we can. So with that, we will come back. We'll be coming back on September 14th any questions any more information you need direct it to the city manager and we will it's an ongoing discussion it doesn't end today it just keeps going so as we move forward what input we can get uh is greatly appreciated and i think it would i think it would be helpful there there is a couple departments in here that uh are not listed with any cuts

And we can talk about that and see where some of those are under our direct supervision as a council. And as a council, the seven of us need to address a couple of those departments, and I'm not sure how we go about that. I don't know how we really can't go through you. We will have that discussion. Whether it's the personnel committee or we, the seven of us, have to make a decision on two other departments that we control and direct those leaders of what we're looking for them.

We'll have that discussion. Okay.

Mayor, I have a couple of comments. First of all, I'd like to thank staff as well and for starting this process far earlier than we did the last time. This has been very helpful. I would like to acknowledge the people in the audience who have been very faithful in coming and offering their suggestions and ideas It just always amazes me at neighborhood meetings and whatnot how our residents have some really good ideas and those people who are watching. And my last request, Laura, is for you to get together with technology. I'm just watching people. be virtually writing as they're getting information. And if we could, if we can find a way to have a QR code on slides that we project so that people in the audience and people online can zoom in on that QR code and download the slides. So that just saves people time. And I think it's a courteous thing to do. Thank you.

I just, uh, definitely want to echo the Mayor and Councilman Simonson said, I think you've, you've worked incredibly hard to get us to this point, you and your staff, Scott, and I'm appreciative of all your efforts to get there. And I think this was, I think you did a good job in in laying this all out this morning for us. And I think giving to us giving to us very clear options and and And we've got three weeks to talk to the community and get ready for the 14th. After the 14th, there isn't, there's, so you said halftime a few times today. And I think for the folks in this room and, you know, the folks who aren't council members, you know, what is, what happens next? What are kind of the benchmarks in terms of, okay, hey, around this month, you should start to hear this and then it should be wrapped up by this. Can you just kind of walk us through what that looks like so that the folks who have been plugged into this point can know what to expect after September?

Yeah, and we'll put a timeline out. online as well so people can reference that. But essentially, we're going to repeat a lot of the same process that we did in the first cycle. We're going to recreate the exercise so that that'll come out online probably about five to six weeks. Actually, no, it was closer to the month of November towards the end of October. So we'll get that timeline out there for everyone to see. There will be another public meeting probably at the library to allow for one on one conversations as well. We will have in parallel a separate process for getting public input on capital needs and priorities. So there'll be two opportunities with online exercises to get more public input. And then that leads up to another conversation like this where I will present at the very beginning of the calendar year in January with decisions in January on the remaining portions of the gap that we're able to fill. In the midst of that, we are constantly looking at our assumptions for what the gap size is. And so we'll be coming back to you with any revisions that we have in the total $17 million. which is a two-year, reminding everyone that the fiscal year 28 is a $12 million gap, and then the following year, fiscal year 29, is an additional $5 million on top of that under today's gap analysis. And so those numbers may just tweak a little bit over the next two months as we get that gap analysis updated and current.

And then the next budget cycle would be 30 and you anticipate another 5 million after that?

Yes. I think it's important to understand that 2% limitation is ongoing. And given the cost of operating a local government at closer to 4%, we are dealing with a year after year gap that is around $4 to $5 million annually ongoing. And so we've got to continue to be creative and stay ahead of any drastic changes that have to be at the last minute. We want to stay ahead of those.

That's terrible. Can we just, you meet with other city managers, what are you hearing from them?

So we are early, right?

Right. I know that we're much earlier than others. I think some communities don't even know the total impact yet.

Correct. And so I would tell you that over the next two months, you'll start to hear about what other communities are having to do. Where we were back in May and June had an identified gap and have started addressing that. They're about three months behind us now. in doing their own review. And frankly, that is when a lot of the regional partnering and taking responsibilities more regionally, that's when those conversations will mature and they'll know better what their own gaps are to then come back and talk about all these regional agreements that we have and maybe the funding needs to change in those as well.

Okay, thank you. With that, I would say that we are adjourned. And thank everyone for being here and more discussion to have.